Just because you are a CEO of a publicly traded company doesn't mean that your shareholders have to know every detail of your life.
You would have a point if they hadn't specified what his medical condition was, or why he took a leave of absence. But they did, and what they said was a lie.
Even if he technically did have a hormone imbalance, we aren't five years old, and that isn't telling the truth.
btw: I have a friend that used to smoke pot every single day. He is now in a psychiatric hospital with a severe psychosis and paranoia.
And he had no mental health issues before smoking marijuana, right? Doubtful.
I know many people who smoke pot every day, and almost all of them are fine. I know many people who drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes every day and almost all of them are fine. I know many people who take antidepressants or drink coffee or pound energy drinks every day, and almost all of them are fine.
The point isn't whether or not something has bad side effects, nearly all drugs have bad side effects. The point is whether or not those side effects are dangerous enough to warrant a society-wide ban on a drug, where the violation of that ban results in a person spending a very long time in jail. By the standards present in our society (judging by all the stuff that is legal), marijuana is not a dangerous drug.
*Maybe* we should be arguing whether or not it should be available solely via a doctor's prescription, but the idea of it being a schedule 1 drug is fucking absurd.
First of all, you need to get your terminology straightened out. The terms democracy and republic describe different aspects of government and are not mutually exclusive. The United States is both.
But using your definitions, you seem to be arguing that we have moved from a government with *more* tolerance for minority opinion to a government with *less* tolerance for minority opinion. This is laughably false.
Maybe you would like to rephrase your argument and give specific examples of what you are talking about. You seem to rambling on with the same "things aren't as good as they used to be" rhetoric that reactionaries have spouted for all of recorded history. How are we less republican or democratic now compared to ten, fifty, or a hundred years ago?
The colonies had not been around long enough to have as firm a tradition of aristocracy as in England so most of the American aristocrats were new to their wealth, having earned it themselves rather than inheriting rank and position from father and he from his father before him.
You're wrong about this. The aristocracy in the colonies was not nearly as rigidly defined as in England, but nearly all of the Founding Fathers were born into the wealthy elite. The only ones I can think of who weren't were Thomas Paine, Alexander Hamilton, and Benjamin Franklin (not sure about many of the minor founders). And Thomas Paine was English, he didn't move to the colonies until he was in his late 30's. They were also from the wealthiest and oldest parts of the colonies: Virginia, Boston, New York, Philadelphia.
The only common thread among the Founding Fathers background (other than the obvious white male landowner bit) was education. They were all well-read and learned men, and at that time it was very difficult to be a scholar without being born wealthy.
Your telling me your family doesn't have an album, no wedding pictures, baby pictures ?
Can't speak for him, but my family has maybe three or four photo albums. We used to have album upon album of my grandparents' pictures, but it was all consolidated to one and most of it was trashed. Same thing with all of our family's wedding pictures, "growing up" pictures and whatnot.
As soon as my parents are dead those will probably be thrown out, at most they'll last another generation. At that point you won't even know the people in the photographs, so why keep them around? It's certainly interesting, but most people don't have the space to pack around thousands of photos of dead people they've never met.
Part of the rationale behind Social Security is that people are too stupid to voluntarily put away their money.
The number of bankruptcies and foreclosures that took place over the past year should be sufficient to confirm this.
The other part of the rationale is that government is *not* stupid and will save/invest that money wisely. That doesn't really hold up to scrutiny either.
Republicans off in 'teh free market' la-la land and Democrats too fearful of the 'Insurance' company lobbying/campaign contribution dollars to propose any real long term solution
You give the Democrats too much credit. The only reason we don't have universal health care is because *both* parties are deep in the pockets of insurance companies. Democrats are willing to whine about the need for health care reform, but when the cards are on the table their "reforms" seem to overwhelmingly benefit private insurance companies, just as Republicans give lip service to "free markets" and government non-intervention but never actually seem to write laws that follow that ideology.
germans tend to be technical, detail oriented and saavy and there is no way I can believe the population would WANT this.
Hmm...do I still have to be careful not to Godwin this topic? Whether or not they want it or not is irrelevant as long as they do not hold their government accountable for shit like this, which is pretty unlikely given the German peoples' past support for censorship. And let's just say that the Germans don't exactly have a long, proud history of standing up to overzealous government, regardless of how "detail oriented" they are.
Canadian's don't carry cash. Period. At least not Canadians under 30. This is one area in which the US and Canada are vastly different... cash is now hardly used for any transactions in Canada anymore, at all.
Genres aren't that rigid though, and most "fusion" or artists with a unique sound are grouped based on the scene they're associated with rather than actual musical similarities. The difference between trip hop and "regular" instrumental hip hop is pretty miniscule. I've always believed that if the Bristol/UK trip hop scene had happened in the US it would've been much more accepted from the community. I don't know much about Bristol, but I can't imagine that there's a lot of cultural exchange between there and New York, Philly, LA, etc. But maybe not, mainstream hip hop culture has rarely been accepting of anything coming in with heavy influences from electronic or rock music.
Well there's no accounting for taste, I suppose. As someone that cares deeply about the craft of storytelling, the first 30-40 minutes of Wall-E (no idea how long it actually is) is absolute genius, and I'm not one to throw that word around lightly. If you go back and rewatch it, pay careful attention to how simple Wall-E's range of expression is (and he wasn't programmed with a personality, he developed it after hundreds of years of loneliness and boredom). To be able to tell a story in which the main characters basically don't speak or have human expressions is incredible. To be able to tell a moving, heartfelt story while doing that is amazing. They did those things, which on their own would have made Wall-E a very good film. Then you take into account that the story at its core contains a terrifyingly bleak and dreary critique of our society, but still manages to be optimistic and upbeat the world. Oh, and the film looks AMAZING. First-rate animation by Pixar, as always.
What's wrong with being an average, ordinary person? Assholes like you have lowered that average to below what were the developmentally disabled students when I was in school.
Mmmm.....hyperbole much? I'm glad you seem to think I have control over the education system in the US, and that somehow I represent some abstract concept of everything wrong with modern education. Not only that, but you completely changed the conversation. Your entire post is about college students and we were *very specifically* talking about primary and secondary schools.
But let's return to the conversation that was happening outside your head. I wasn't defending the culture of "no judgement," social progression, NCLB or anything of the sort. I was simply critiquing the parent poster for trying to say that children should be shamed into trying harder, and the idea that you should be unhappy if you are not in the top whatever percentage of your class. That is a terrible idea, and completely removed from anything resembling proper child psychology and education. That is *not* how you motivate children, and anybody with even a cursory understanding of the subject knows that.
Just to let you know, I'm not a college instructor, but I've done plenty of grading in a variety of subjects, and I've got to say, your teaching method doesn't work.
So, just to clarify, you graded some papers and are now an expert on teaching, even though you admit that you are not a teacher? Here I thought that required training and practice, but apparently all you have to do is TA a freshmen level writing class for a semester and you move straight from novice to expert.
Why do intelligent people think they are an expert on everything, even when they admit upfront that they have no experience with the subject? I certainly understand having some half-baked ideas and uncertain opinions on something, but coming out with such forceful language, calling me an asshole, when you so obviously have no idea what the fuck you are talking about? You need to learn a few lessons about humility and the limits of your own knowledge (reading comprehension, logic, and rhetoric as well, but I digress). Throwing around insults and writing like spittle is flying out of the corner of you mouth in no way improves the (poor) quality of your argument.
do the human race a favor and stop trying to be a teacher.
Truer words were never spoken. Fuck off, you ignorant cunt.
"For some reason, you seem to think that our schools should teach average students to feel terrible about themselves because they are average, as if that would somehow motivate them to learn more."
Never said that
Actually, you did:
People who do mediocre work should feel mediocre about it. Feeling bad about it forces them to do something about it.
And another one:
Also, no, they are not innately special. No one is. You are nothing but part of the faceless masses that will be completely forgotten within one generation of your death, this is the definition of not being special. Just because you like yourself, doesn't change this. If you feel good about this, there is something wrong. You only become special when you DO something that the vast majority of anonymous strangers in the world can't do.(emphasis mine of course)
What is wrong with being an average, ordinary person? Do you really think it's a good education plan to tell 90% (or 99.99999% by the tone of your second statement) that they are completely worthless and can only become happy if they accomplish some great deed worthy of history books? What have you done that's so great? Why do you feel this elitism when you will be just as faceless and unnoticed as pretty much every other person in the history of humanity?
I think Disney realizes that they were digging themselves into a big hole with their own crummy animated movies leading up to the time when they bought Pixar.
Digging themselves into a big hole filled with billions of dollars, maybe. Disney didn't buy Pixar because they were in trouble, they bought Pixar because they are a consistent, profitable studio that combined with the marketing and distribution power of Disney could make an obscenely large amount of money, which is exactly what they've done.
Emperor's New Groove and Lilo & Stitch, while not masterpieces like some Disney features, were very good movies. But it was in the early to mid 90's that Disney realized it could make far more money by pumping out crappy direct-to-video sequels than on creating new, expensive features. The first example was Aladdin 2, but there are now too many to name.
So explain to me why, if the Cars tent was the only option available, that is not related to the Cars branding? $5 billion in revenue isn't misleading, that's the only number Disney cares about.
First of all, you can't ignore foreign box office totals. These days, foreign gross can be 60-70% of a movie's total take, especially for animated movies.
Second, DVD sales dummy! DVD sales for Pixar movies are always relatively higher than other types of movies, because they're intended to be enjoyed by children. A family with a bunch of kids might not plop down $50-60 bucks to take the brood to the theater, but they'll spend $18 bucks on a kid's DVD to get the little bastards to shut up for 90 minutes.
Pixar is not in trouble, in fact they're one of the most consistently profitable studios in history. Dreamworks is somewhat in trouble, but not because of Shrek 3. Seriously? That movie will probably bring in over $1 billion in its lifetime, if it hasn't already.
You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.
All but the most barren deserts on this planet usually have a replenishing water supply somewhere. A pump, a cistern, and some plastic bottles is much easier to maintain (not to mention more comfortable) than a still suit will ever be.
Primary and secondary educations exists to make kids LEARN, not to make them feel good about themselves. When it comes to schooling, I actually don't care how they feel about it, as long as they leave being able to read at a 12th grade level, and know at least some math.
If only it were that simple. Yes, schools should exist primarily to pass on knowledge, but obviously there is more to it than that. Schools are also around to give children confidence, physical fitness, social skills, discipline, etc. If a seventh grade kid is bad at math, it might be for 1,000 reasons, and usually *never* that they are just too stupid to do the work.
People who do mediocre work should feel mediocre about it. Feeling bad about it forces them to do something about it...
As for self-esteem... its a load of new-age crap. Self respect, like all other forms of respect, must be earned. Being proud of yourself for nothing but existing is rather stupid, it motivates nothing but egotism and some idiotic sense of entitlement. Being proud of yourself for doing something, that gives incentive to continue to achieve.
You have obviously never tried to teach a smart child who lacks confidence in their ability because they've never been encouraged. Apparently, you have never known anyone who has withdrawn from school and social life because they were having trouble at home. You seem to have no understanding about how developmental psychology or education actually work. For some reason, you seem to think that our schools should teach average students to feel terrible about themselves because they are average, as if that would somehow motivate them to learn more.
These are children! They barely understand anything! What kind of person tells a twelve year old kid, "Well, Jimmy, the reason you feel bad is because you just aren't as successful as Mary and Tommy over there. You see, Mary and Tommy are good at math. I bet if you tried as hard as Mary and Tommy, you would feel a whole lot better. Maybe if you got better grades, daddy would respect you more, and wouldn't have gotten drunk and beat the shit out of you." You, sir, are a fucking asshole.
The US calls all their sports the 'world series' and shit. They only involve the US!!! HOW IS THAT THE WORLD???
The US invented baseball. At the time the World Series started (1903) it was the championship between the only two leagues in the world that mattered. In 1903, Latin America had only been playing baseball for 20 years. Japan had been playing for a similar amount of time, but didn't even have a professional league. Even now, foreign leagues are dramatically inferior (think European football compared to the MLS). All the best baseball players in the world who aren't Cuban (and a lot who are) play in MLB. The World Series can rightfully be called that.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh God, they have them in New Zealand too.
If the first sentence didn't explain it enough, perhaps you could RTFA.
There have also been reports of "disappearances" of many people, although of course those claims haven't been verified.
You're stretching the race metaphor beyond comprehension. Even if you accept LOTR as an allegory, the "brown people" would have been Germans.
And Iranians are mostly pretty white. In fact, the word Iran is a cognate of Aryan, literally meaning "land of the Aryans".
You would have a point if they hadn't specified what his medical condition was, or why he took a leave of absence. But they did, and what they said was a lie.
Even if he technically did have a hormone imbalance, we aren't five years old, and that isn't telling the truth.
And he had no mental health issues before smoking marijuana, right? Doubtful.
I know many people who smoke pot every day, and almost all of them are fine. I know many people who drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes every day and almost all of them are fine. I know many people who take antidepressants or drink coffee or pound energy drinks every day, and almost all of them are fine.
The point isn't whether or not something has bad side effects, nearly all drugs have bad side effects. The point is whether or not those side effects are dangerous enough to warrant a society-wide ban on a drug, where the violation of that ban results in a person spending a very long time in jail. By the standards present in our society (judging by all the stuff that is legal), marijuana is not a dangerous drug.
*Maybe* we should be arguing whether or not it should be available solely via a doctor's prescription, but the idea of it being a schedule 1 drug is fucking absurd.
First of all, you need to get your terminology straightened out. The terms democracy and republic describe different aspects of government and are not mutually exclusive. The United States is both.
But using your definitions, you seem to be arguing that we have moved from a government with *more* tolerance for minority opinion to a government with *less* tolerance for minority opinion. This is laughably false.
Maybe you would like to rephrase your argument and give specific examples of what you are talking about. You seem to rambling on with the same "things aren't as good as they used to be" rhetoric that reactionaries have spouted for all of recorded history. How are we less republican or democratic now compared to ten, fifty, or a hundred years ago?
You're wrong about this. The aristocracy in the colonies was not nearly as rigidly defined as in England, but nearly all of the Founding Fathers were born into the wealthy elite. The only ones I can think of who weren't were Thomas Paine, Alexander Hamilton, and Benjamin Franklin (not sure about many of the minor founders). And Thomas Paine was English, he didn't move to the colonies until he was in his late 30's. They were also from the wealthiest and oldest parts of the colonies: Virginia, Boston, New York, Philadelphia.
The only common thread among the Founding Fathers background (other than the obvious white male landowner bit) was education. They were all well-read and learned men, and at that time it was very difficult to be a scholar without being born wealthy.
Can't speak for him, but my family has maybe three or four photo albums. We used to have album upon album of my grandparents' pictures, but it was all consolidated to one and most of it was trashed. Same thing with all of our family's wedding pictures, "growing up" pictures and whatnot.
As soon as my parents are dead those will probably be thrown out, at most they'll last another generation. At that point you won't even know the people in the photographs, so why keep them around? It's certainly interesting, but most people don't have the space to pack around thousands of photos of dead people they've never met.
And how do you propose you "avoid" the bad dictator? If he's a dictator, he's probably not going to abdicate under any circumstances.
The strength of democracy isn't that it brings about more good leaders, it's that you can easily remove the bad leaders while maintaining stability.
The other part of the rationale is that government is *not* stupid and will save/invest that money wisely. That doesn't really hold up to scrutiny either.
You give the Democrats too much credit. The only reason we don't have universal health care is because *both* parties are deep in the pockets of insurance companies. Democrats are willing to whine about the need for health care reform, but when the cards are on the table their "reforms" seem to overwhelmingly benefit private insurance companies, just as Republicans give lip service to "free markets" and government non-intervention but never actually seem to write laws that follow that ideology.
Hmm...do I still have to be careful not to Godwin this topic? Whether or not they want it or not is irrelevant as long as they do not hold their government accountable for shit like this, which is pretty unlikely given the German peoples' past support for censorship. And let's just say that the Germans don't exactly have a long, proud history of standing up to overzealous government, regardless of how "detail oriented" they are.
How do they pay for drugs?
Genres aren't that rigid though, and most "fusion" or artists with a unique sound are grouped based on the scene they're associated with rather than actual musical similarities. The difference between trip hop and "regular" instrumental hip hop is pretty miniscule. I've always believed that if the Bristol/UK trip hop scene had happened in the US it would've been much more accepted from the community. I don't know much about Bristol, but I can't imagine that there's a lot of cultural exchange between there and New York, Philly, LA, etc. But maybe not, mainstream hip hop culture has rarely been accepting of anything coming in with heavy influences from electronic or rock music.
Well there's no accounting for taste, I suppose. As someone that cares deeply about the craft of storytelling, the first 30-40 minutes of Wall-E (no idea how long it actually is) is absolute genius, and I'm not one to throw that word around lightly. If you go back and rewatch it, pay careful attention to how simple Wall-E's range of expression is (and he wasn't programmed with a personality, he developed it after hundreds of years of loneliness and boredom). To be able to tell a story in which the main characters basically don't speak or have human expressions is incredible. To be able to tell a moving, heartfelt story while doing that is amazing. They did those things, which on their own would have made Wall-E a very good film. Then you take into account that the story at its core contains a terrifyingly bleak and dreary critique of our society, but still manages to be optimistic and upbeat the world. Oh, and the film looks AMAZING. First-rate animation by Pixar, as always.
Mmmm.....hyperbole much? I'm glad you seem to think I have control over the education system in the US, and that somehow I represent some abstract concept of everything wrong with modern education. Not only that, but you completely changed the conversation. Your entire post is about college students and we were *very specifically* talking about primary and secondary schools.
But let's return to the conversation that was happening outside your head. I wasn't defending the culture of "no judgement," social progression, NCLB or anything of the sort. I was simply critiquing the parent poster for trying to say that children should be shamed into trying harder, and the idea that you should be unhappy if you are not in the top whatever percentage of your class. That is a terrible idea, and completely removed from anything resembling proper child psychology and education. That is *not* how you motivate children, and anybody with even a cursory understanding of the subject knows that.
So, just to clarify, you graded some papers and are now an expert on teaching, even though you admit that you are not a teacher? Here I thought that required training and practice, but apparently all you have to do is TA a freshmen level writing class for a semester and you move straight from novice to expert.
Why do intelligent people think they are an expert on everything, even when they admit upfront that they have no experience with the subject? I certainly understand having some half-baked ideas and uncertain opinions on something, but coming out with such forceful language, calling me an asshole, when you so obviously have no idea what the fuck you are talking about? You need to learn a few lessons about humility and the limits of your own knowledge (reading comprehension, logic, and rhetoric as well, but I digress). Throwing around insults and writing like spittle is flying out of the corner of you mouth in no way improves the (poor) quality of your argument.
Truer words were never spoken. Fuck off, you ignorant cunt.
Actually, you did:
And another one:
What is wrong with being an average, ordinary person? Do you really think it's a good education plan to tell 90% (or 99.99999% by the tone of your second statement) that they are completely worthless and can only become happy if they accomplish some great deed worthy of history books? What have you done that's so great? Why do you feel this elitism when you will be just as faceless and unnoticed as pretty much every other person in the history of humanity?
Digging themselves into a big hole filled with billions of dollars, maybe. Disney didn't buy Pixar because they were in trouble, they bought Pixar because they are a consistent, profitable studio that combined with the marketing and distribution power of Disney could make an obscenely large amount of money, which is exactly what they've done.
Emperor's New Groove and Lilo & Stitch, while not masterpieces like some Disney features, were very good movies. But it was in the early to mid 90's that Disney realized it could make far more money by pumping out crappy direct-to-video sequels than on creating new, expensive features. The first example was Aladdin 2, but there are now too many to name.
So explain to me why, if the Cars tent was the only option available, that is not related to the Cars branding? $5 billion in revenue isn't misleading, that's the only number Disney cares about.
First of all, you can't ignore foreign box office totals. These days, foreign gross can be 60-70% of a movie's total take, especially for animated movies.
Second, DVD sales dummy! DVD sales for Pixar movies are always relatively higher than other types of movies, because they're intended to be enjoyed by children. A family with a bunch of kids might not plop down $50-60 bucks to take the brood to the theater, but they'll spend $18 bucks on a kid's DVD to get the little bastards to shut up for 90 minutes.
Pixar is not in trouble, in fact they're one of the most consistently profitable studios in history. Dreamworks is somewhat in trouble, but not because of Shrek 3. Seriously? That movie will probably bring in over $1 billion in its lifetime, if it hasn't already.
You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.
All but the most barren deserts on this planet usually have a replenishing water supply somewhere. A pump, a cistern, and some plastic bottles is much easier to maintain (not to mention more comfortable) than a still suit will ever be.
If only it were that simple. Yes, schools should exist primarily to pass on knowledge, but obviously there is more to it than that. Schools are also around to give children confidence, physical fitness, social skills, discipline, etc. If a seventh grade kid is bad at math, it might be for 1,000 reasons, and usually *never* that they are just too stupid to do the work.
You have obviously never tried to teach a smart child who lacks confidence in their ability because they've never been encouraged. Apparently, you have never known anyone who has withdrawn from school and social life because they were having trouble at home. You seem to have no understanding about how developmental psychology or education actually work. For some reason, you seem to think that our schools should teach average students to feel terrible about themselves because they are average, as if that would somehow motivate them to learn more.
These are children! They barely understand anything! What kind of person tells a twelve year old kid, "Well, Jimmy, the reason you feel bad is because you just aren't as successful as Mary and Tommy over there. You see, Mary and Tommy are good at math. I bet if you tried as hard as Mary and Tommy, you would feel a whole lot better. Maybe if you got better grades, daddy would respect you more, and wouldn't have gotten drunk and beat the shit out of you." You, sir, are a fucking asshole.
The US invented baseball. At the time the World Series started (1903) it was the championship between the only two leagues in the world that mattered. In 1903, Latin America had only been playing baseball for 20 years. Japan had been playing for a similar amount of time, but didn't even have a professional league. Even now, foreign leagues are dramatically inferior (think European football compared to the MLS). All the best baseball players in the world who aren't Cuban (and a lot who are) play in MLB. The World Series can rightfully be called that.