Doctors are becoming better educated on the subject. But the rise in diagnoses far exceeds the combination of all these effects.
This statement has no empirical foundation. It's thrown around by folks who think that autism is the next Plague, but it doesn't *mean* anything. There's no autism baseline with naturally set and known rates of what the diagnosis rate should be.
Autism is neither a fad disease nor is "mild retardation". Please study a topic before spouting on it.
I wouldn't be so sure of that. Look up Autism Spectrum Disorder (which in the popular mind *is* Autism) and you'll see that, in fact, a lot of "mild retardation" is, indeed, included in ASD.
And it's a fad disease because it's the current go-to diagnosis if someone's precious little child isn't excelling and developing at exactly the same rate as they think he/she should be.
Are there actual autistic children? Sure, of course there are.
I direct you to the various articles in the last 2 years of Skeptic Magazine and The Skeptical Inquirer for further information.
Thimerosal has been used since the late 1920's as a preservative for vaccines. Even simplistic uses of correlation should make it apparent to any reasonable human that any new symptomatology can't possibly be attributed to it. Autism Spectrum Disorder is more prevalent because it's diagnosed more often due to the fact that many things that previous to the late 1990's weren't "autism" now are (and it's a "fad disease" for soccer moms that can't bear to hear that their kids are mildly retarded).
This is the part that I can't figure out why people don't grasp. I mean, we *eliminated* Smallpox and Polio in the US by this very same method, so it obviously works. The methods and science are well understood. Do people who think there's no upside to immunization really not think it through far enough, or are they just amazingly stupid?
As far as everything I've read that has any sort of referenced research in it, the "cause" is that many mild-retardation diagnoses have been moved into "Autism Spectrum Disorder" (which is oh-so-helpfully shortened to "Autism" for the general public and PSAs), and by healthcare professionals paying more attention to the symptoms ASD. Back when I was a kid, we called Aspergers kids "geeks", "nerds", and "dorks". Now they've got a form of Autism. Same with retarded/developmentally-delayed/WHATEVER kids who aren't "quite right", in ADDITION to the kids who have profoundly autistic behaviors.
Skeptic magazine and The Skeptical Inquirer have both, to my knowledge, run very good features on this.
I also gotta wonder if the attraction of women to musicians (even without the trappings of material success) is a throwback to some sort of birdsong reaction.
Actually, anything that shows to a female that a male is in control of considerable resources is selected for by natural selection (and certainly is selected for by human females). More resources == much higher chance that offspring will survive (in higher mammals, at least). In humans, this can happen via extravagant displays of prosperity, such as giving jewelry "as a surprise", unlike a house which requires considerable planning, since its price is so high relative to most humans' incomes/wealth levels. By surprising someone with jewelry, the implication is that the resources controlled by the male are so plentiful that he didn't need to worry about consulting her and confirming her acceptance of the gift before spending some of said resources.
Obviously, I don't think most of these implications are necessarily realized at a conscious level by either of the participants.
Yeah, and if they were smart, they'd retool their business model to be a "networking" service for different parts of the music industry. I understand that's what they often *say* they do now, but if they actually did that (and had the good of *all* their customers -- artists, producers, promoters -- in mind when creating and marketing their services) they just might be able to save themselves.
But they won't do that, they're too greedy, and it'll be the end of them (likely sooner than we think).
Interestingly enough, if you listen for it, there's a *lot* of pop music lately in 3/4 "waltz" time. "I'm With You" (the Avril Lavinge(?) song) is essentially a waltz. There's others I hear on a regular basis, but I can't name their titles off the top of my head.
As for "why not I IV V".... there's a *reason* it sticks around, cuz using it you can write some damn nice music. Music doesn't need to be "zomg innovative!" to be good.
Well, you're already "paying" for radio that was free by having to listen to their ads. This just replaces that by having you pay $.50 a day for a service.
I'd be willing to pay another couple bucks a month for Sirius. I haven't listened to a local radio station in over a year, aside from when I have a rental car.
We should compensate artists, but there is a problem with that: when the artist starts getting big, somebody has to step in and help, and they have to get paid.
So you pay your manager and your booking agent. Where do you need the record company in the chain?
You've correctly discerned that, increasingly, the "big labels" (aka "record companies") are irrelevant when it comes to recording. They still have their place, but if you want to get a good quality recording, it's no longer strictly necessary to use them as a hub for production.
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't kismet support the (brain stumbling before lunch) injection method whereby WEP cracking only takes about 5 minutes?
I don't think its unreasonable to expect that someone actually read the article in question before commenting on it.
(yes yes, welcome to /., etc)
The moral of the story is actually the time-honored "don't count your chickens before they hatch".
So how is that, then, any different than every other fiat currency in existence?
Sure makes you wonder, doesn't it.
Ah, Troy. We miss thee.
This statement has no empirical foundation. It's thrown around by folks who think that autism is the next Plague, but it doesn't *mean* anything. There's no autism baseline with naturally set and known rates of what the diagnosis rate should be.
Autism is neither a fad disease nor is "mild retardation". Please study a topic before spouting on it.I wouldn't be so sure of that. Look up Autism Spectrum Disorder (which in the popular mind *is* Autism) and you'll see that, in fact, a lot of "mild retardation" is, indeed, included in ASD.
And it's a fad disease because it's the current go-to diagnosis if someone's precious little child isn't excelling and developing at exactly the same rate as they think he/she should be.
Are there actual autistic children? Sure, of course there are.
I direct you to the various articles in the last 2 years of Skeptic Magazine and The Skeptical Inquirer for further information.
From what I've been able to gather, that's *exactly* that is happening.
This is why your "less risk" isn't less risky at all.
Thimerosal has been used since the late 1920's as a preservative for vaccines. Even simplistic uses of correlation should make it apparent to any reasonable human that any new symptomatology can't possibly be attributed to it. Autism Spectrum Disorder is more prevalent because it's diagnosed more often due to the fact that many things that previous to the late 1990's weren't "autism" now are (and it's a "fad disease" for soccer moms that can't bear to hear that their kids are mildly retarded).
This is the part that I can't figure out why people don't grasp. I mean, we *eliminated* Smallpox and Polio in the US by this very same method, so it obviously works. The methods and science are well understood. Do people who think there's no upside to immunization really not think it through far enough, or are they just amazingly stupid?
So far it's a toss-up, if you ask me.
As far as everything I've read that has any sort of referenced research in it, the "cause" is that many mild-retardation diagnoses have been moved into "Autism Spectrum Disorder" (which is oh-so-helpfully shortened to "Autism" for the general public and PSAs), and by healthcare professionals paying more attention to the symptoms ASD. Back when I was a kid, we called Aspergers kids "geeks", "nerds", and "dorks". Now they've got a form of Autism. Same with retarded/developmentally-delayed/WHATEVER kids who aren't "quite right", in ADDITION to the kids who have profoundly autistic behaviors.
Skeptic magazine and The Skeptical Inquirer have both, to my knowledge, run very good features on this.
Why would you post that here instead of at the original site?
Oh, I get it, cuz you want us to know how clever you are.
You buy your cable modem? Why?
I also gotta wonder if the attraction of women to musicians (even without the trappings of material success) is a throwback to some sort of birdsong reaction.
We had those cool model sets that you could "make" molecules with and learned all about various types of molecular structures.
Course, this was a private college prep school, but still!
Actually, anything that shows to a female that a male is in control of considerable resources is selected for by natural selection (and certainly is selected for by human females). More resources == much higher chance that offspring will survive (in higher mammals, at least). In humans, this can happen via extravagant displays of prosperity, such as giving jewelry "as a surprise", unlike a house which requires considerable planning, since its price is so high relative to most humans' incomes/wealth levels. By surprising someone with jewelry, the implication is that the resources controlled by the male are so plentiful that he didn't need to worry about consulting her and confirming her acceptance of the gift before spending some of said resources.
Obviously, I don't think most of these implications are necessarily realized at a conscious level by either of the participants.
Yeah, and if they were smart, they'd retool their business model to be a "networking" service for different parts of the music industry. I understand that's what they often *say* they do now, but if they actually did that (and had the good of *all* their customers -- artists, producers, promoters -- in mind when creating and marketing their services) they just might be able to save themselves.
But they won't do that, they're too greedy, and it'll be the end of them (likely sooner than we think).
Interestingly enough, if you listen for it, there's a *lot* of pop music lately in 3/4 "waltz" time. "I'm With You" (the Avril Lavinge(?) song) is essentially a waltz. There's others I hear on a regular basis, but I can't name their titles off the top of my head.
As for "why not I IV V".... there's a *reason* it sticks around, cuz using it you can write some damn nice music. Music doesn't need to be "zomg innovative!" to be good.
Well, you're already "paying" for radio that was free by having to listen to their ads. This just replaces that by having you pay $.50 a day for a service.
As for the hacking, no idea.
I'd be willing to pay another couple bucks a month for Sirius. I haven't listened to a local radio station in over a year, aside from when I have a rental car.
So you pay your manager and your booking agent. Where do you need the record company in the chain?
You've correctly discerned that, increasingly, the "big labels" (aka "record companies") are irrelevant when it comes to recording. They still have their place, but if you want to get a good quality recording, it's no longer strictly necessary to use them as a hub for production.Sirius has a good "indie" station (Left of Center) that plays stuff I rarely hear anywhere else (and some stuff that I do).
The number of chords in a song does not in any real way correlate to the quality of the song, I hope you realize.
I want to live with her in a little Icelandic snow village with the rest of her fairy folk kind, does that count?