To me the more specific complaint is that the sets contain far too few generic and common pieces. At the present time, to get a large number of standard blocks (1 bys, 2 bys) of any common colors, you more or less have to buy them from yard sales, through Bricklink, or go to a Lego store where you can buy buckets of specific pieces. You can buy them from lego directly too.
My guess is a microphone to capture the sound of the engine.
Really? That's what you had to contribute?
That's a fair point.
Look, you sound reasonable, and I certainly hope your grandmother kicks the crap out of her cancer, but honestly your point of view is so laced with hubris that its hard not to get frustrated with you. You MUST realize that your perception is dripping with cognitive bias and fueled with hope (if only I eat perfectly I'll be healthy). Its called "hasty generalization"--the drawing of conclusions based on limited personal experience. And once you've made that leap, you also filter any and all information based on whether it fits the new worldview you've created, because to conclude otherwise would destroy your predictable, comfortable bubble.
The human body is one of the most complex systems on the planet. To believe that a single input/behavior has that much control over the subsequent outcomes is just ludicrous, and all well-founded science supports that.
Does eating extremely well provide positive benefits? Duh, of course, but the definitive statements you are making are sadly just a feeling and not a reality.
I really feel like you are making generalizations based on very limited information, possibly biased by your worldview. I have three boys. My wife is a stay-at-home-mom. I changed employers a few years ago specifically to reduce my hours. Both of us are involved parents. My oldest was diagnosed with ADHD, but neither of my other two. I think it highly unlikely that your 99% number is even close to accurate. First, because it is far too simple an explanation for a very complex condition. Second, it is a common cognitive bias to attribute things we don't understand and make us uncomfortable to bad behavior of others to make ourselves feel better.
While I am also using personal experience, what I can tell you is that because my oldest was diagnosed, we've gotten in touch with and exposed to many other families that deal with ADD/ADHD. I have not personally seen any evidence of what you describe, even for the parents/families that appear to fit your perspective.
Altered States?
Yes, the Delphi method is nearly always effective at reducing error. Good thought.
He's still at fault. He did something that put the ship at risk, mechanical failure or no. Like I tell my kids, whether you intended for the window to get broken or not, batting towards the house just makes breaking the window a possibility. He made the CF a possibility. Had the steering failed in open waterway, they would have been able to recover or deal with the issue.
Very informative, thanks!
One thing to keep in mind too is that with scoring systems that use subjective measures there may be no statistical difference (given the margin of error) between any of the final scores.
Just because one got a 21 and one got a sixteen does not mean that the 21 is definitively better. In general, I think the scores themselves are meaningless, except perhaps as a general ranking mechanism.
Nothing, but the point of a "social contract" is to allow both sides to demonstrate trustworthy behavior and receive trust in return. This won't work if the ability for trust on either side is broken.
Not really, you would have to be completely encased in conductive metal for it to qualify. Parts of a car can block the signal and the car does insulate you from external electric shock (assuming you aren't touching a conductive part of the car), but it isn't an effective faraday cage because of the non-homogeneous shape and materials. The point is that if you have created an effective faraday cage, it by definition must be effective in both directions.
One of my favorite episodes. "Well, of course everything looks bad when you remember it!"
I would simply say that "Words do not define someone's character, their actions do. Your use of that word when there are many, many others available tells me far more about your character than you can ever claim."
Thank you for making my point--there are so many factors at play that for one to act as though they somehow know precisely the effect of a particular foodstuff and cooking method is ludicrous. You cook how you wish and I will do the same, but we can both do without the uninformed lecturing.
Well, considering that Mediterraneans, particularly those whose culture includes a high amount of olive oil consumption have a lower incidence of cancer and heart issues, and given that all Mediterranean cooking (via schools, etc.) that I've experienced uses a wide variety of heats and methods, I'd say you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
But each of us has to approach our lives in the manner that makes us comfortable with our choices, so go ahead and cook and eat as you wish--just don't try to act the professor and impart your dubious knowledge on the rest of us, thanks.
But each of us has to approach our lives in the manner that makes us comfortable with our choices, so go ahead and cook and eat as you wish--just don't try to act the professor and impart your dubious knowledge on the rest of us, thanks.
There is no such legal "thing" as "life rights". It does exist, along with publicity rights, as a made-up thing that people try to use in court when they believe they deserve something not actually granted them under any existing laws, for example, copyright.
I thought that recent research was beginning to conclude that even Sesame Street was bad. Here is a recent excerpt (I couldn't find the one that mentions SS):
USATODAY - Kids & TV
Updated 04/05/2004 12:29 AMShort attention span linked to TVBy Marilyn Elias, USA TODAY
The more television infants and toddlers watch, the more likely they are to have trouble paying attention and concentrating during their early school years, a study reports Monday.
Although there has been other research on how many hours of TV very young kids watch, this is the first study on how early viewing might affect attention span. (Related story: Experts weigh in) Young children often are mesmerized by the TV screen, says study leader Dimitri Christakis, a pediatrician at Children's Hospital and Regional Medical Center in Seattle. The possible link between watching TV and attention problems is of great concern because so many infants and toddlers are frequent viewers, he says.
The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends no TV for children younger than 2 and no more than two hours of high-quality programming for older kids. Many children watch much more TV.
Christakis used a government database to see how much TV 1- to 3-year-old children watched, as reported by their mothers, and then related that to their scores on a behavior checklist showing attention problems at age 7. His report on about 1,300 kids is in Pediatrics.
Frequent TV viewers in early childhood were most likely to score in the highest 10% for concentration problems, impulsiveness and restlessness. Scoring within that 10% doesn't mean a child has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), but many would have it, and the others could face major learning problems, Christakis says.
Every added hour of watching TV increased a child's odds of having attention problems by about 10%. Kids watching about three hours a day were 30% more likely to have attention trouble than those viewing no TV. The researchers accounted for many factors beside television that might predict problems concentrating, but the TV-attention link remained.
In the first few years, human brains undergo "huge and very swift development," says Elizabeth Sowell, a UCLA neuropsychologist. Animal studies show that stimulating environments can change young brains. The rapid-fire stimulation of TV might do the same.
The change isn't necessarily bad, Los Angeles media psychologist Stuart Fischoff says. As media exposure grows, "these kids could be expressing 'the new brain.' They could be an advance guard that suggests we may need new ways of teaching children exposed to a lot of media stimulation."
But some experts are concerned. "This should be a wake-up call that we need to take a closer look at how early media use affects children," says Vicky Rideout of the Kaiser Family Foundation. "We know hardly anything about it."
USATODAY - Kids & TV
Updated 04/05/2004 12:29 AMShort attention span linked to TVBy Marilyn Elias, USA TODAY
The more television infants and toddlers watch, the more likely they are to have trouble paying attention and concentrating during their early school years, a study reports Monday.
Although there has been other research on how many hours of TV very young kids watch, this is the first study on how early viewing might affect attention span. (Related story: Experts weigh in) Young children often are mesmerized by the TV screen, says study leader Dimitri Christakis, a pediatrician at Children's Hospital and Regional Medical Center in Seattle. The possible link between watching TV and attention problems is of great concern because so many infants and toddlers are frequent viewers, he says.
The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends no TV for children younger than 2 and no more than two hours of high-quality programming for older kids. Many children watch much more TV.
Christakis used a government database to see how much TV 1- to 3-year-old children watched, as reported by their mothers, and then related that to their scores on a behavior checklist showing attention problems at age 7. His report on about 1,300 kids is in Pediatrics.
Frequent TV viewers in early childhood were most likely to score in the highest 10% for concentration problems, impulsiveness and restlessness. Scoring within that 10% doesn't mean a child has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), but many would have it, and the others could face major learning problems, Christakis says.
Every added hour of watching TV increased a child's odds of having attention problems by about 10%. Kids watching about three hours a day were 30% more likely to have attention trouble than those viewing no TV. The researchers accounted for many factors beside television that might predict problems concentrating, but the TV-attention link remained.
In the first few years, human brains undergo "huge and very swift development," says Elizabeth Sowell, a UCLA neuropsychologist. Animal studies show that stimulating environments can change young brains. The rapid-fire stimulation of TV might do the same.
The change isn't necessarily bad, Los Angeles media psychologist Stuart Fischoff says. As media exposure grows, "these kids could be expressing 'the new brain.' They could be an advance guard that suggests we may need new ways of teaching children exposed to a lot of media stimulation."
But some experts are concerned. "This should be a wake-up call that we need to take a closer look at how early media use affects children," says Vicky Rideout of the Kaiser Family Foundation. "We know hardly anything about it."
Yes, you're probably right if you make strong judgments of others based on opposing views. In this case, I'm not sure it is the fact that they have opposing views that would be the problem, but the fact that they will be judged harshly for those views.
I've found that it is possible to respect strongly opposing views if they are founded in a consistent ethical framework. Abortion is an excellent example--there is no universal definition of when life starts, nor is there a universal rule for determining whose rights win out when there is conflict (mother, father, baby). That leaves an enormous grey area for all of us to navigate based on our own assumptions, principles, and ethical groundings.
But if what you're really referring to is an opinion like, "X is wrong, so there!" then I don't blame you.
I've found that it is possible to respect strongly opposing views if they are founded in a consistent ethical framework. Abortion is an excellent example--there is no universal definition of when life starts, nor is there a universal rule for determining whose rights win out when there is conflict (mother, father, baby). That leaves an enormous grey area for all of us to navigate based on our own assumptions, principles, and ethical groundings.
But if what you're really referring to is an opinion like, "X is wrong, so there!" then I don't blame you.
