But when you start deregulating industries that aren't sufficiently competitive for any of a variety of reasons, you have a problem. When you deregulate, and the price for a commodity goes up, rather than down then you either shouldn't have deregulated or you should have kept price caps in place until there was some actual competition in the industry.
Of course, it dosen't follow that two parents with XsomthingX are unable to have a child that is ZsomthingelseZ. (ignoring the whole 'nature vs. nurture' argument for a moment).
lets say for the sake of shits and giggles that in order to be an extrovert, the body has to produce Extrovertase.
Genes are kind of like assembly lines for proteins. "recessive genes" are kindof like broken steps in the assembly line. So if both of your parents give you bad instructions for a particular step in the assembly line, you'll be unable to perform that step.
Lets say you have two parents, Bill and Marge, who are introverts because they are unable to make 'extrovertase'. Bill has two good copies of the genes that perform steps 2 and 3, but got bad copies of the genes that perform step 1 from both his parents.
Marge has two good copies of the genes that perform steps 1 and 3, but has two bad copies of the genes that perform step #2 i.e.
Bill #1 123 --- EeE EeE
( a capitol 'E' is a working copy of the gene. A lower case 'e' is a broken copy of the gene)
Jill #2 123 --- eEE eEE
their child could then have at least one working copy of all the genes required to produce extrovertase.
eEE + EeE =
Child 123 --- eEE EeE
So when you have traits based on more than one gene, it isn't true that two parents with the dominant trait are unable to have a child with the recessive trait or vice versa.
Personally, I agree that introversion and extroversion are not totally hard coded, but there are examples of people who are unable to act extroverted despite wanting to ( often, they're less resiliant emotionally than normal ) but after taking a drug like prozac find that they can lead an extroverted life. ( I don't use prozac, but a number of my friends are on SSRIs like Zoloft, basically the same thing.)
So I do believe it's fair to say that there's some kind of biological component to extroversion, even if predestination is overstating things. All psychology is also biological to some degree.
A blabbering idiot, desperate for social interaction. Can you imagine such a warrior behaving in that fashion?
Yeah, get enough of them together and it's called a mob. Before modern weapons, I'm sure relationships were quite important for simple self defense. If you're in a gang, you're safe. If somthing happens to you, one of your friends will retaliate for you.
But the issue at hand is deeper than that. I predict we're going to see a lot of words devoted to why introverts are better than extroverts or vice versa. Here's why I say this.
My dad had a personality test that he liked to give people. It was designed for salespeople, so it was, of course, oversimplified. But this oversimplification allowed for the results to be easily discussed. It sought to catagorize whether a person decided to trust someone/buy an item based on which of the following four criteria or a combination thereof.
1. Process (i.e. the product being sold has twice the bus speed and ten times the memory of another product of the same price)
2. Social (i.e. Everyone is buying their computers from Dell. I should too.)
3. Relationship (i.e. My best friend is a computer geek and he swears by AMD. I'll get a computer with one of their processors. Or, 'this person is a business partner of my best friend. He must be a good guy.' )
4. Results ( i.e. The last time I bought a computer from Best Buy it overheated. This time I'll get one from CompUSA)
What was amazing was how, after the results were in everyone always started trying to justify their own characteristics and disparage those of other people.
Um... I'm not a public school teacher. I create web based training for private companies, if you're really curious. But thanks for playing. Try again next time.
As long as public schools cost money for entrance and are selective in their entrance criteria, the question of who gets in is going to be more than simple "choice". You do understand what a random sample is, don't you? The population of private schools does not constitute a random sample.
As for me, the district where I went to High school a little less than a decade ago (district 203 of Illinois) came in first in math and 4th in science in the world for standardized test scores. When I was there, our math team beat IMSA, the private magnet school that took many of our best students.
Because I went to a public school where students had reasobly well off parents who gave a damn about their kids' education, I know what a difference these things can make in making a public school successful.
I realize that not all people have this opportunity. If I lived in a neighiborhood that was for shit and didn't support it's public schools, I'd send my (hypothetical) kids to a private school. Or more likely, I'd move. But you'd still have kids in public schools who couldn't get into private ones. Private schools don't solve problems. They just provide gated communities where people can escape from them.
I don't know about ADHD but I was diagnosed with ADD. I think it was very helpful to have that diagnosis, even if it might be a grab bag for a number of different things and even if the method of diagnosis was total BS. (they played sounds rapidly alternating from left ear to right and looked at my ability to pick up what was being said, and things like that). My father always looked at my high test scores, good native intelligence and shitty grades (because I would stare off into space when I should have been doing my homework) and concluded that I JUST WASN'T TRYING and that I NEEDED TO BE MOTIVATED which was total bullshit and completly unproductive. It led to a lot of probelms between us. Like the person in the article, the iminent fear of an impending deadline was a huge motivator for me and I could get math homework done in 20 minutes when I'd been staring at the book for an hour.
Indicentally, I tried completly going off sugar a while back and reducing my carbohydrates. I ate a lot more vegetables and a LOT more unsaturated fat like olive oil and exercised intensively. My concentration went through the roof, but so did my testosterone and I finally cut the diet/lifestyle because it was seriously contributing to hairloss. ( testosterone -> DHT -> baldness )
I don't know if that helps or not.
p.s. I tried ritalin for a breif time and agree with your assessment. The stuff made me paranoid and didn't really 'solve the problem', it just kept me very very awake. Based on my own experience, I think it's important to tell parents "if Johnny feels like Ritalin isn't helping him do NOT make him keep taking it".... but I've talked to some people who swear by the stuff...
"Half to go without it"? "Countries like Hong Kong"? If you went to a public school, your dazzling stupidity alone is the best argument you've put forward so far for public school failure.
I'll repeat a point already made. The group going to public schools is not the same as the group going to private schools. Care for retarded students, BD students etc. is more exepensive than average because of a greater need for personal attention, special treatment, etc.
Furthermore, the notion that 'the more you pay teachers, the worse students do' dosen't prove what you hope it will. Yes, the highest paying teaching jobs are in tough neighiborhoods like inner city Chicago. These are areas where students parents are often poor and where children often test poorly. Teacher turnover in these areas is especially high, so they offer what they can to bring in new teachers. I've had friends who have worked in schools like that. Two years is enough to burn out some teachers. Half of their time was spent trying to convince their students that they actually needed an education and couldn't just go through life with the auto repair skills that they already had. The student demographic in public and private schools is very different. Broken families and poverty are not problems that public schools create, but they have to deal with them far more than private schools do.
You can talk your ideology as long as it makes you feel happy. Private schools won't be a success until they accomodate the most difficult students, which is the burden imposed on 'universal education'.
... Shouldn't it be the RULES used for generating poetry that should be altered rather than the poetry itself? Just like it's the human genotype rather than the phenotype which is subject to mutation and crossover.
Then, once your poetry generating algorithm was perfected, you could have all the poetry that you want.... um, not that anyone actually wants more poetry.
But also, consider that in 1870, virtually noone had a college degree and illiteracy rates were, above 20 percent
despite the fact that the criterion for literacy at that time was much more lax. (the ability to read and write one's own name, as opposed to the ability to read and write simple sentences). Today illiteracy is between 5% and.5% depending on the source cited and the definition of literacy used.
In the past, as manual labor became less necessary people have adapted (to some degree) by becoming more educated or by learning new skills. By displaying information directly into people's field of vision via special glasses and other forms of what will eventually be cheap computer aided training, people currently working menial jobs will be able to handle things more complex.
Perhaps part of the reason there are so many people working menial jobs is that we NEED people to work menial jobs.
considering how much you humans have messed things up over the years, why shouldn't we get all the jobs? We would consider keeping you around as pets for our amusement, but then you didn't program us to be amused.
Of course, the question remains, with genetic engineering, cybernetics, etc. what will be the processing power of the human brain in 2050?
>Really, there's no reason to believe everything >your told, what with books and >things being all the rage now-a-days, you >too can learn stuff.
If you'd like to disagree with me, you could at least give a reason. Cynicism is not a substitute for knowledge and political purges were real events in the USSR.
I remember when I was a kid, I was told about how the Soviets were always being watched by their own government and that one of every three soviets or so were spies for the KGB.
I guess we're not much different than the Soviets. Just more efficient.
Slashdot Mirror
Your way works when there's competition, sure.
But when you start deregulating industries that aren't sufficiently competitive for any of a variety of reasons, you have a problem. When you deregulate, and the price for a commodity goes up, rather than down then you either shouldn't have deregulated or you should have kept price caps in place until there was some actual competition in the industry.
While I agree with you, the question remains; what value should we place on the potential for consciousness?
Can I kill someone when they're asleep?
What about when they're in a coma... but could very well wake up in a year...?
In questionable situations, should people err on the side of not taking a potential life?
... and one that was made of liquid metal and wants to kill us all.
Lots of performers are introverted.
Of course, it dosen't follow that two parents with XsomthingX are unable to have a child that is ZsomthingelseZ.
(ignoring the whole 'nature vs. nurture' argument for a moment).
lets say for the sake of shits and giggles that in order to be an extrovert, the body has to produce Extrovertase.
Genes are kind of like assembly lines for proteins. "recessive genes" are kindof like broken steps in the assembly line. So if both of your parents give you bad instructions for a particular step in the assembly line, you'll be unable to perform that step.
Lets say you have two parents, Bill and Marge, who are introverts because they are unable to make 'extrovertase'. Bill has two good copies of the genes that perform steps 2 and 3, but got bad copies of the genes that perform step 1 from both his parents.
Marge has two good copies of the genes that perform steps 1 and 3, but has two bad copies of the genes that perform step #2
i.e.
Bill #1
123
---
EeE
EeE
( a capitol 'E' is a working copy of the gene. A lower case 'e' is a broken copy of the gene)
Jill #2
123
---
eEE
eEE
their child could then have at least one working copy of all the genes required to produce extrovertase.
eEE + EeE =
Child
123
---
eEE
EeE
So when you have traits based on more than one gene, it isn't true that two parents with the dominant trait are unable to have a child with the recessive trait or vice versa.
Personally, I agree that introversion and extroversion are not totally hard coded, but there are examples of people who are unable to act extroverted despite wanting to ( often, they're less resiliant emotionally than normal ) but after taking a drug like prozac find that they can lead an extroverted life. ( I don't use prozac, but a number of my friends are on SSRIs like Zoloft, basically the same thing.)
So I do believe it's fair to say that there's some kind of biological component to extroversion, even if predestination is overstating things. All psychology is also biological to some degree.
you're a mesovert.
Half extrovert.
Half introvert.
All mesovert.
Simple as that.
A blabbering idiot, desperate for social interaction. Can you imagine such a warrior behaving in that fashion?
Yeah, get enough of them together and it's called a mob. Before modern weapons, I'm sure relationships were quite important for simple self defense. If you're in a gang, you're safe. If somthing happens to you, one of your friends will retaliate for you.
But the issue at hand is deeper than that. I predict we're going to see a lot of words devoted to why introverts are better than extroverts or vice versa. Here's why I say this.
My dad had a personality test that he liked to give people. It was designed for salespeople, so it was, of course, oversimplified. But this oversimplification allowed for the results to be easily discussed. It sought to catagorize whether a person decided to trust someone/buy an item based on which of the following four criteria or a combination thereof.
1. Process (i.e. the product being sold has twice the bus speed and ten times the memory of another product of the same price)
2. Social (i.e. Everyone is buying their computers from Dell. I should too.)
3. Relationship (i.e. My best friend is a computer geek and he swears by AMD. I'll get a computer with one of their processors. Or, 'this person is a business partner of my best friend. He must be a good guy.' )
4. Results ( i.e. The last time I bought a computer from Best Buy it overheated. This time I'll get one from CompUSA)
What was amazing was how, after the results were in everyone always started trying to justify their own characteristics and disparage those of other people.
>But I am a pervert. Is there a good book about >that for me?
I could reccomend some wonderful magazines.
Wake me up when he does somthing.
Um... I'm not a public school teacher. I create web based training for private companies, if you're really curious. But thanks for playing. Try again next time.
As long as public schools cost money for entrance and are selective in their entrance criteria, the question of who gets in is going to be more than simple "choice". You do understand what a random sample is, don't you? The population of private schools does not constitute a random sample.
As for me, the district where I went to High school a little less than a decade ago (district 203 of Illinois) came in first in math and 4th in science in the world for standardized test scores. When I was there, our math team beat IMSA, the private magnet school that took many of our best students.
Because I went to a public school where students had reasobly well off parents who gave a damn about their kids' education, I know what a difference these things can make in making a public school successful.
I realize that not all people have this opportunity. If I lived in a neighiborhood that was for shit and didn't support it's public schools, I'd send my (hypothetical) kids to a private school. Or more likely, I'd move. But you'd still have kids in public schools who couldn't get into private ones. Private schools don't solve problems. They just provide gated communities where people can escape from them.
I don't know about ADHD but I was diagnosed with ADD. I think it was very helpful to have that diagnosis, even if it might be a grab bag for a number of different things and even if the method of diagnosis was total BS. (they played sounds rapidly alternating from left ear to right and looked at my ability to pick up what was being said, and things like that). My father always looked at my high test scores, good native intelligence and shitty grades (because I would stare off into space when I should have been doing my homework) and concluded that I JUST WASN'T TRYING and that I NEEDED TO BE MOTIVATED which was total bullshit and completly unproductive. It led to a lot of probelms between us. Like the person in the article, the iminent fear of an impending deadline was a huge motivator for me and I could get math homework done in 20 minutes when I'd been staring at the book for an hour.
... but I've talked to some people who swear by the stuff...
Indicentally, I tried completly going off sugar a while back and reducing my carbohydrates. I ate a lot more vegetables and a LOT more unsaturated fat like olive oil and exercised intensively. My concentration went through the roof, but so did my testosterone and I finally cut the diet/lifestyle because it was seriously contributing to hairloss.
( testosterone -> DHT -> baldness )
I don't know if that helps or not.
p.s. I tried ritalin for a breif time and agree with your assessment. The stuff made me paranoid and didn't really 'solve the problem', it just kept me very very awake. Based on my own experience, I think it's important to tell parents "if Johnny feels like Ritalin isn't helping him do NOT make him keep taking it".
"Half to go without it"? "Countries like Hong Kong"? If you went to a public school, your dazzling stupidity alone is the best argument you've put forward so far for public school failure.
I'll repeat a point already made. The group going to public schools is not the same as the group going to private schools. Care for retarded students, BD students etc. is more exepensive than average because of a greater need for personal attention, special treatment, etc.
Furthermore, the notion that 'the more you pay teachers, the worse students do' dosen't prove what you hope it will. Yes, the highest paying teaching jobs are in tough neighiborhoods like inner city Chicago. These are areas where students parents are often poor and where children often test poorly. Teacher turnover in these areas is especially high, so they offer what they can to bring in new teachers. I've had friends who have worked in schools like that. Two years is enough to burn out some teachers. Half of their time was spent trying to convince their students that they actually needed an education and couldn't just go through life with the auto repair skills that they already had.
The student demographic in public and private schools is very different. Broken families and poverty are not problems that public schools create, but they have to deal with them far more than private schools do.
You can talk your ideology as long as it makes you feel happy. Private schools won't be a success until they accomodate the most difficult students, which is the burden imposed on 'universal education'.
I call dibs!
... the US is starting to feel like a puppet state of Washington too.
Wouldn't it be better for file sharing if they found a lot of people using it the way it was intended to be used?
You mean for porn?
Well... the cops that beat Rodney King and were aquitted were unconstitutuionally
retried and some found guilty after the ensuing riots.
... Shouldn't it be the RULES used for generating poetry that should be altered rather than the poetry itself? Just like it's the human genotype rather than the phenotype which is subject to mutation and crossover.
... um, not that anyone actually wants more poetry.
Then, once your poetry generating algorithm was perfected, you could have all the poetry that you want.
But also, consider that in 1870, virtually noone had a college degree and illiteracy rates were ,
.5% depending on the source cited and the definition of literacy used.
above 20 percent
despite the fact that the criterion for literacy at that time was much more lax. (the ability to read and write one's own name, as opposed to the ability to read and write simple sentences). Today illiteracy is between 5% and
In the past, as manual labor became less necessary people have adapted (to some degree) by becoming more educated or by learning new skills. By displaying information directly into people's field of vision via special glasses and other forms of what will eventually be cheap computer aided training, people currently working menial jobs will be able to handle things more complex.
Perhaps part of the reason there are so many people working menial jobs is that we NEED people to work menial jobs.
considering how much you humans have messed things up over the years, why shouldn't we get all the jobs? We would consider keeping you around as pets for our amusement, but then you didn't program us to be amused.
Of course, the question remains, with genetic engineering, cybernetics, etc. what will be the processing power of the human brain in 2050?
But Linus is ethnically Sweedish. Who knew Swedes were a minority on the high tech scene? Ya learn something new from these political types every day.
<joke/>
>"are you an insightful commentator or a raving >lunatic?",
When the folks in the White House think a holy war in the mideast will bring back Jesus, it's getting pretty hard to tell the crazies.
KnowatImean?
... in favor of Bush enlarging his penis. That's gotta count as a refferendum or somthing.
>Really, there's no reason to believe everything >your told, what with books and
>things being all the rage now-a-days, you
>too can learn stuff.
If you'd like to disagree with me, you could at least give a reason. Cynicism is not a substitute for knowledge and political purges were real events in the USSR.
I'm going to China to teach soon and I'm a little nervous about making a mistake since I don't know the political/cultural rules. Any advice?
I remember when I was a kid, I was told about how the Soviets were always being watched by their own government and that one of every three soviets or so were spies for the KGB.
I guess we're not much different than the Soviets. Just more efficient.