shirgall

In the first video he addresses a couple of metaphors, but I have counterexamples that spring to mind right away. Relational databases (especially with the capability to rollback and forward from a point in time) don't fit his lump data metaphor, as they include business rules and other contexts. Version control systems also have the "small lump" and "time series" aspects modeled rather well. His point about user interfaces is well taken, of course, but the problem with interfaces is that radical changes are not acceptable to people who don't want to take the time to learn another metaphor. But, for example, video games and dashboards are two interfaces with radically different metaphors that are quite different than the window/file/application model. I like his sideways thinking, of course, it helps build perspective. I love the quote, "Everyone thinks they can design great interfaces and almost no one can." So true.

You could try humor... Seriously, though, you have to figure out how willing she is to examine and change and decide how much of it you can tolerate.

"What is it about the narrative of nuclear bombs that makes you want to continue to believe it?" https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/pioneering-nuclear-science-discovery-nuclear-fission The decades of experimental results, the widespread use of radioactivity for other purposes, the fact that so many scientists seem pretty sure that fission happens, the fact that we spent trillions (literally) of dollars on researching it, the fact that nuclear power plants produce power, the fact I had to deal with alpha particles in chip design and use ECC memory critical systems... along with all the other things I've already mentioned in this thread. I'm sure I'm part of the conspiracy because I have not one but two science degrees. I'm thinking that I'm done with this discussion.

There's a secret project to rename it to "WWILSON". Have no fear. There are worse presidents than FDR, but not many.

I'm having difficulty following your replies. Can you make sure they appear outside the material you are quoting instead of inside which makes it appear to attribute what you are saying as what *I* am saying? I'm also having difficulty giving your claim credibility because it would require decades of somehow-kept-secret collusion between countries that are supposedly in conflict, including thousands of scientists and engineers that just don't have any good reason to carry a lie to their deathbed.

http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/archived/whokilled.htm

Let's get all of these countries, ostensibly in conflict with one another, to perpetuate the hoax: http://www.ctbto.org/nuclear-testing/history-of-nuclear-testing/nuclear-testing-1945-today/

When feminism means correctly identifying and stopping abuse, I'm all for it. When feminism means demanding reparations for imagined abuse, it has jumped the shark.

This build-up is missing another component: assets. A person's assets include knowledge, skills, attitude, possessions, and time. The essence of capitalism is trading assets for gain. Property rights are an abstraction of the idea that a person owns his assets and that they should not be expropriated lightly, and that a person is justified in working to prevent expropriation and is justified in taking back what has been wrongfully taken.

People should take vaccines on their merits, but to be effective a very large portion of the population needs to take them. People should quit smoking on the merits, but to effectively reduce cigarette use it had to be shown to be detrimental to third parties (and it was an extremely tenuous connection). People should avoid sugar addiction on the merits, but almost every food company "sweetens" their stuff because addiction sells (whether this is knowingly or not is another question). I think the frustration of people not being swayed on the merits is what led to mandatory vaccines, smoking bans, and Bloomberg's soda ban. This is similar to parents "giving up" and using punishment and rewards to modify child behavior.

Sure, lots of things effect climate. What's not clear is if it has a negative effect. There's evidence that CO2 had higher concentrations in the past and that it does not correlate with temperature. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/04/dr-vincent-gray-on-historical-carbon-dioxide-levels/ Meanwhile we are planning to starve the plants of our world and not provide them adequate nutrition. Luckily carbon dioxide is not the only driver of climate changes, otherwise this particular aspect of the argument would make the whole debate murky. In the meantime, I look forward to a model with moderate predictive power.

Government has a ton of ways to pay the interest on bonds. Nothing stops the government from borrowing more money to pay of your bond as others have pointed out, but the government's collateral for paying back bonds is the ability to take money from people by force. When Obama says "pay our bills" this is what he means. The collateral of a US bond is your blood and treasure. Inflation is an increase in the money supply due to what amounts to printing new notes. (A note is like a bond, but it can always be redeemed for its face value--modern reserve notes are payable in... reserve notes instead of gold and silver before 1972.) Inflation is what amounts to a wealth tax. It makes all money worth less by increasing its supply. The really wealthy are not damaged by this because they are the ones that typically get the lion's share of the new money that is printed. The rich get richer. The poor are unaffected. The middle class is shafted, again. Treat the purchase of government bonds as an investment. It has some risk, and the interest you earn is intended to offset that risk. Government bonds are considered really low risk and are considered the best hedge against inflation.

The communication where this becomes most critical is negotiation. To build win-win transactions, all sides must know, consider, and incorporate the interests of the participants to produce agreements with the greatest benefit for all parties. However, there is a very strong impetus to conceal that BATNA (the Best Alternative To No Agreement) which is the course of action a party has identified as the "walk away from the table" option. In the "Getting to Yes" model--called "Principled Negotiation"--does not require disclosure, but greatly emphasizes a conversations that identify underlying motivations and interests, jointly develop solutions that addresses those motivations and interests, and lead to agreements that both sides are confident that will faithfully execute and benefit from. People who feel a great need to conceal their interests have been exposed to a lot of "win-lose" negotiations. They have likely been dominated by parents, family, friends, strangers, etc. They have been "taken advantage of" by others who "play the game" better than they do. These are people who likely do know understand or develop their own strengths and instead built a position and will defend that fixed position to the death. As for the "testing" aspect of an encounter... I understand the extremely strong desire to gauge the quality of someone's character so you can decide to move on, but in the early stages of a relationship that testing should be about what attracts them to you and you to them. Maybe then on to how they treat people, how they process facts, how they process feelings, the health of their existing relationships, etc.. If you are walking through a laundry list of stock questions, you haven't really applied "active listening".

"In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defence, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself." -- Lysander Spooner

If you are expecting me to be an apologist for libertarian politics, you picked the wrong target. I did do stuff 15 years ago. I was even a membership director of a state party. I got 15% of the vote in a Portland suburb. But I came to realize it was a waste of time and money. The problem with specifics is that every single tax measure the libertarians opposed was opposed by others, and there was no consistency in the defeat of measure. There was no formula. There was no spread of libertarianism as a result. It was a pyrrhic victory most of the time anyway. But don't come down on me as a paladin of using the existing political system to dismantle the existing political system, please. My heart's not in it.

In general, the campaign apparatus is usually most successful in defeating some individual tax measures in states where such measures go on the general ballot. There have also been some efforts related to term limits that have worked over the years as well. Mild stuff, I grant you, but it's something.

Since the assertion that 2% inflation is ideal. Ideal for countries that want to diminish the value of their long-term debt, at least.

Indeed, that's probably why it doesn't stick very well. It's poorly defined, has multiple causes, and really boils down to "lack of motivation because one feels like a freakin' slave".

At least the definition of "Disorder" still requires you not to be able to function, to be incapable of meeting your personal needs without assistance, or at least a danger to yourself or others. People have kicked around ODD for a while, and it really hasn't stuck. In general, they only try to apply ODD to children, and not adults.

http://benswann.com/deaths-of-gray-state-director-and-family-under-investigation/ Deaths Of “Gray State” Director And Family Under Investigation

http://www.collegehumor.com/post/7009222/what-the-world-looks-like-with-social-anxiety This one's a cartoon, folks, so you'll have to go to the link to see it.

Unless it interferes with normal living, it's not a disorder. And it should be "CDO" so the letters are in alphabetical order.

Give this one a try: You can also look up Jan Helfeld's channel where he questions political figures in a similar manner: https://www.youtube.com/user/janhelfeld/videos Hrm, that wasn't the video I remembered... I will look a little deeper later.

A straightforward premise, track your mood when you are talking to other people to judge if you can stand the emotional toll of those in your surroundings. http://www.engadget.com/2015/01/20/peoplekeeper-app-launch/ But, of course, what happens when people share the information and we start looking at how groups feel about certain people? The mind boggles.