As an Australian woman, I agree, any policy that reduces assault is a good thing. However, apart from the fact that I don't know any women who do or would routinely carry weapons (it's just not an Aussie thing), and the fact that even in the US, only 0.64% of violent crime victims defended defended themselves with firearms (after adjustment for Police self defence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...), when looking at sex crimes you also need to consider the societal changes - eg : women are more likely to report assaults now than they were in the early-mid 90s; there has been a widening of the definition of sexual assault, etc, (http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/tandi_pdf/tandi359.pdf https://www.alrc.gov.au/public...)
This suggests that guns have minimal impact on the rate of sexual assault - as I said in my initial comment, if guns were a major factor in preventing sexual assault, there should have been a sharp increase after 1996 (also, if it takes firearms to act as a primary deterrent to assault, there is something very, very wrong with society)
The facts show, unequivocally, that gun bans and strict gun laws are correlated with an increase in violent crimes, and a large increase in sexual assault and rape. That's just a fact- when politicians remove womens' ability protect themselves, many more women get raped. (I can provide a link to full statistics from official government sources , and further explanation, upon request) .
Really? Because this would suggest differently :
http://www.aic.gov.au/statisti... The gun buyback went into place it 1996 - if removal of guns increased crime as you say, you'd expect quite the upward trend. Oddly enough, looks pretty stable to me...
I'll admit, my situation was a little weird, and we did try other options before going the drug route (CBT, relaxation techniques, exercise, etc). I was also lucky in that my parents were very invested and involved, and took the time to work with me to try and fix it without pharmaceutical intervention. If they'd been more time-poor, or less involved (as a lot of parents these days seem to be), it's possible that drugs would have been the first choice, rather than the last.
I also think it depends on the country and medical system you're part of - before my doctor would agree to prescribe anything I had to go to a psychiatrist for evaluation. Australia is also pretty well regulated, so we don't get "talk to your doctor" type advertising, which may have an impact
How do you know that you would not have had the same repsonse if not a better one if you were given a placebo??
Oddly enough, my mother did try placebos at one point (she was a nurse, so was in to that sort of stuff). She would give me what I later found out was a small amount of milk with vanilla essence in it, and tell me it was "medicine". It worked to calm the panic somewhat, but not prevent it from occurring (and oddly enough, I'd rather it just didn't occur full-stop).
However once I hit puberty pretty much everything went out of the window (thanks hormones!). Even now I have noticed that I'm more likely to have problems during certain points in the hormone cycle.
Add to that that I've been on three different versions (paroxetine, sertraline and venlafaxine), and had very different experiences from each. If I was only experiencing the placebo effect, I'd expect to have a similar outcome from each, but that wasn't the case (Paroxetine was good, but lost efficacy. Sertraline was awesome for the OCD (stopped it dead), middling on the anxiety, and made me an emotional mess. Venlafaxine is good for the anxiety, but only passable for the OCD).
I was put on Paxil (Aropax in Australia) at 16. It was literally life-changing. Previously I had random panic attacks, with no specific trigger - sometimes up to 4 a day. Leaving the house to go anywhere but school without triggering an attack was impossible, and even school could be hit-and-miss. Add OCD to the mix, and lets just say, it wasn't exactly a lot of fun.
Two weeks after beginning paroxetine, I went to a friends house for a sleep over for the first time in just under a decade. I remember leaving my house without any feelings of anxiety or dread, and remarking to my Mum that "this is how normal people must feel!".
Yes, I'll agree that in some cases these drugs are prescribed too quickly, and too easily, and they aren't side-effect free (hellooo ridiculously easy bruising!). But for the rest of us, they're worth their weight in gold (ie: the only way you'll take them off me is from my cold, dead, anxiety-sweat drenched hands).
Perhaps a longitudinal study would help - pick a group of kids (both genders), ask every year or so 'what do you want to be when you grow up? Why'. Or even just a list of possible careers, and ask them to say why they would / wouldn't do it.
It would take a few years to get a result, but at least you'd get a clearer answer.
Astroid: "An astroid is a particular mathematical curve: a hypocycloid with four cusps. Astroids are also superellipses: all astroids are scaled versions of the curve specified by the equation".
How, pray tell, are we going to mine one of those? Would it really kill the editors to run things through a spell checker? Would it, really?
As someone with even only a passing interest in genealogy, I have the exact opposite reaction - I would find this fascinating, especially if it included things like medical records etc.
The possibility of "conversing " with dead ancestors is also interesting. My maternal grandfather died before I was born, but by my Mother's description and stories of him I would love the opportunity to chat.
As the poster below mentioned, Australia currently has one of the strongest economies in the world (in part due to having a lot of expensive dirt, and not letting our banks get away with US-style shenanigans).
Meanwhile the 'Voldemort Tax' you mention isn't to stop complaints about the Carbon Tax, but rather to stop business jacking up prices unfairly, and then falsely blaming it on the Carbon Tax. If their prices do need to increase due to the tax, then they are allowed to state this: http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/1039037
I mean, Elephants are f***ing awesome and all, big, giant things that knock over trees when they get mad, but goats are well proven to eat grass and other things (like briers) that most animals won't touch. They handle dry, arid climates well, and provide other useful things like, Milk, Cheese, Meat, and Pelts. If you pick angora goats you get fancy wool from them as well.
Considering how small their population is (~10M IIRC), that must not be very much oil.
Almost 23M (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Australia), and apparently we use 946,300 barrels per day (http://www.indexmundi.com/map/?v=91) making us the 19th highest user in the world.
Slashdot Mirror
This suggests that guns have minimal impact on the rate of sexual assault - as I said in my initial comment, if guns were a major factor in preventing sexual assault, there should have been a sharp increase after 1996 (also, if it takes firearms to act as a primary deterrent to assault, there is something very, very wrong with society)
Really? Because this would suggest differently : http://www.aic.gov.au/statisti... The gun buyback went into place it 1996 - if removal of guns increased crime as you say, you'd expect quite the upward trend. Oddly enough, looks pretty stable to me...
Well, considering I'm female, it would be one way of relieving stress...
I'll admit, my situation was a little weird, and we did try other options before going the drug route (CBT, relaxation techniques, exercise, etc). I was also lucky in that my parents were very invested and involved, and took the time to work with me to try and fix it without pharmaceutical intervention. If they'd been more time-poor, or less involved (as a lot of parents these days seem to be), it's possible that drugs would have been the first choice, rather than the last.
I also think it depends on the country and medical system you're part of - before my doctor would agree to prescribe anything I had to go to a psychiatrist for evaluation. Australia is also pretty well regulated, so we don't get "talk to your doctor" type advertising, which may have an impact
How do you know that you would not have had the same repsonse if not a better one if you were given a placebo??
Oddly enough, my mother did try placebos at one point (she was a nurse, so was in to that sort of stuff). She would give me what I later found out was a small amount of milk with vanilla essence in it, and tell me it was "medicine". It worked to calm the panic somewhat, but not prevent it from occurring (and oddly enough, I'd rather it just didn't occur full-stop).
However once I hit puberty pretty much everything went out of the window (thanks hormones!). Even now I have noticed that I'm more likely to have problems during certain points in the hormone cycle.
Add to that that I've been on three different versions (paroxetine, sertraline and venlafaxine), and had very different experiences from each. If I was only experiencing the placebo effect, I'd expect to have a similar outcome from each, but that wasn't the case (Paroxetine was good, but lost efficacy. Sertraline was awesome for the OCD (stopped it dead), middling on the anxiety, and made me an emotional mess. Venlafaxine is good for the anxiety, but only passable for the OCD).
I was put on Paxil (Aropax in Australia) at 16. It was literally life-changing. Previously I had random panic attacks, with no specific trigger - sometimes up to 4 a day. Leaving the house to go anywhere but school without triggering an attack was impossible, and even school could be hit-and-miss. Add OCD to the mix, and lets just say, it wasn't exactly a lot of fun.
Two weeks after beginning paroxetine, I went to a friends house for a sleep over for the first time in just under a decade. I remember leaving my house without any feelings of anxiety or dread, and remarking to my Mum that "this is how normal people must feel!".
Yes, I'll agree that in some cases these drugs are prescribed too quickly, and too easily, and they aren't side-effect free (hellooo ridiculously easy bruising!). But for the rest of us, they're worth their weight in gold (ie: the only way you'll take them off me is from my cold, dead, anxiety-sweat drenched hands).
Good luck using a portrait monitor to look at spreadsheets - it'd drive you mad by the end of the day.
I take it the algorithm looks something like this:
If EMPLOYEE WEBSURFING equals EMPLOYMENT WEBSITE then output "Employee is thinking of leaving" else output "All good, nothing to see here"?
That was one of the more interesting articles I've read on women in CS in a long while - someone mod it informative!
Perhaps a longitudinal study would help - pick a group of kids (both genders), ask every year or so 'what do you want to be when you grow up? Why'. Or even just a list of possible careers, and ask them to say why they would / wouldn't do it.
It would take a few years to get a result, but at least you'd get a clearer answer.
Has anyone, you know, *asked* women why they don't go into CS?
Once again, everyone forgets WA (then again, we are perfect...)
Shhh, stop using logic! By spell checker, I meant "brain". Would it hurt the editors to use their brains?
How, pray tell, are we going to mine one of those? Would it really kill the editors to run things through a spell checker? Would it, really?
I have no mod points, but bravo sir, bravo :)
F7 is your friend editors! Are you even reading what you post any more?
As someone with even only a passing interest in genealogy, I have the exact opposite reaction - I would find this fascinating, especially if it included things like medical records etc. The possibility of "conversing " with dead ancestors is also interesting. My maternal grandfather died before I was born, but by my Mother's description and stories of him I would love the opportunity to chat.
Would it, really?
Very interesting, and definitely worth a watch if you have a spare 15 mins.
As the poster below mentioned, Australia currently has one of the strongest economies in the world (in part due to having a lot of expensive dirt, and not letting our banks get away with US-style shenanigans).
Meanwhile the 'Voldemort Tax' you mention isn't to stop complaints about the Carbon Tax, but rather to stop business jacking up prices unfairly, and then falsely blaming it on the Carbon Tax. If their prices do need to increase due to the tax, then they are allowed to state this: http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/1039037
Done: Australia (to name one, there are plenty of others)
Just posting to undo a bad mod
iOS crashes more than Android (for those who don't feel like trawling through the (not brilliantly formatted) article.
I mean, Elephants are f***ing awesome and all, big, giant things that knock over trees when they get mad, but goats are well proven to eat grass and other things (like briers) that most animals won't touch. They handle dry, arid climates well, and provide other useful things like, Milk, Cheese, Meat, and Pelts. If you pick angora goats you get fancy wool from them as well.
Been there, done that they went feral : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_goats_in_Australia. Though some farmers to make a fair living off mustering the ferals and then selling them for pelts and meat.
Considering how small their population is (~10M IIRC), that must not be very much oil.
Almost 23M (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Australia), and apparently we use 946,300 barrels per day (http://www.indexmundi.com/map/?v=91) making us the 19th highest user in the world.