The "conclusions" of "abnormal behavior" were made from observations that kids would rather be at home playing instead of sitting in a class AND from the fact that young humans will seek sexual satisfaction but avoid rejection.

That sounds like something a ROBOT might find strange.
Not a human being. Particularly not one who actually went through puberty at some point in their life.

In short... like most psychology studies out there, this too is most probably bullshit.

"Is giving rides to
others somehow requires a different skill set than
driving yourself?"

None at all.
That's why I always argue that school busses should be replaced with kids just hitchiking to school and back.

Same goes for all other cases wher one needs to be driven somewhere safely and on time.
Any random stranger with a car will do.

Try using that logic to reason out the cases of those who "want to be martyrs" armed with pressure cookers full of ball bearings and explosives.

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/10...

Even the "arguments" from the pulpit, both before and after, are the same.
It's almost as if they are coming from the same Abrahamic sources and same cognitive delusions.

How 'bout Vietnamese?
Russians? They simply HAVE to be commies.
They all came from commie countries at the time and as such they all must still be commies.
Oh... wait...

They left those countries cause they didn't like conditions there and clearly "being commie among other commies" wasn't their topmost priority.

Or it could be that you're talking out of your ass cause your head is overflowing with shit?
Don't you worry, there's a solution for that too.
Note how that link is about as relevant as yours? Actually... Maybe a bit more as you could put that on your head...

BTW... did you know that when you link vague, unrelated and loaded statements typed into google - that proves nothing?
But it still makes you look like a dick?! No? Well... don't thank me yet. There's more.
Like when you do that double quoting thing, it means that you are informed of and support the point of the asshole above doing the same linking to vague, unrelated and loaded statements and the rest of his dickery.
Which results in most of those results "supporting his theory" being from racist blogs?

So, you're not only full of shit - you're a racist dick by association. Good on ya!

As for Netherlands... Well... for one, your underlying premise is bullshit.
BTW, that's synonymous with "bald faced lying", FYI. So is quoting it, when you clearly show that you COULD check the factuality of those claims but... well... you know...

Anyway, that whole "Netherlands gun violence is high by European standards" thing - that's bullshit.
If we compare gun homicides they are actually rather median and mode for western and northern Europe.
Also, quite negligible and non issue. One guy could rack up twice those numbers in an afternoon.
You wouldn't call that symptomatic now, would you?

Anyway... on to stupid things as Reagan might say.
Sweden - annual firearm homicides total - 2010: 18; Rate of Gun Homicide per 100,000 People - 2010: 0.19,
Norway: 2; 0.04,
Finland: 14; 0.26,
Denmark: 11; 0.20,
Netherlands: 33; 0.20,
Belgium: 36; 0.33,
France: 127; 0.20,
Germany: 51; 0.06,
UK: 33; 0.05.

Feel free to compare later data too, where there is any across all the countries for the given year.
And where there are no outliers like that thing in Norway in 2011, where a lone crazed religious crusader might fudge the statistics of the entire country.

So... Now that we have those 33 deaths by "shooting"...
Onus probandi dictates that you prove your bullshit claims that you've taken up to defend, that:

- ALL those deaths are caused by Moroccan immigrants, i.e. "Them Moroccan gangbangers" as you like to call them,
- further, once you prove that ALL those murders are committed by Moroccan immigrants, that ALL those murderers were also Muslims.
BTW, it's spelled with an I... just so you know... Boy you sure are learning shit today.

Meanwhile, back in reality, back in 2009. there were 341528 people of Moroccan origin in Netherlands.
Meaning that, even if you do dig up those facts, at best you get to say you're not... how you put it... bald face liar.

But your racial and religious prejudice will still shine like a beacon of rectalism.
Cause even if you do manage to scrounge up the data supporting your position, and ALL those murders really WERE committed by Moroccan Muslims - that's still 0.0096% of Moroccan population in Netherlands.

Or do you also argue that EVERYONE in USA is a child molester?
After all... 2012 numbers of reported cases of child sexual abuse in USA come out to 0.019% of the entire population of USA.
And last I checked... that's like twice as many as you and your buddy need to generalize inflammatory statements and attach labels across wast populations.
Son.

Wowsers!

You've both missed the point of his friend's "issue" with "why a woman would want a truck".
You actually managed to hit the nail of his friend's logic right on the head but failed to connect the dots.

Why would a woman want a truck?
Women don't need to "carry big heavy things" - that's what they have men for. With their trucks.

That's EXACTLY right.
Because women have men to do such chores for them OR they have "no such need" and thus do not "own any such vehicle".

It's the part of that whole door-opening, heavy-things-lifting, unscrewing jars, walking on the side of the side-walk facing the street etc. etc. etc. life-long training for men - instigated by the Ladies of 19th century aristocracy whose ideal in life was to marry-up or mistress-up as high as possible while keeping the lower-statured competition down with expensive fashion and ridiculous rules such as which fork to use with which food.
Times and (some) fashions slowly changed but silly rules became culture, good behavior and common sense.
In past generations' defense, how could they have known about trucks and similar marvels of the modern age?

How many "gender differences affect the experiences" papers can we find that have been rejected because all the authors are male?

And would we even hear about those on account of such "research" being highly corrected for political correctness?

I mean...
I know a guy with a masters in "gender studies" whose ideas about women boil down to "they get ahead by giving head" (exact words were "by sleeping ahead").
At this very moment his Facebook page has the following joke: Domestic violence is when your wife won't give you any and won't let you have any from others.
He is also rather successful in art and culture work, popular with women, once had a suspended sentence for breaking the other guy's limb and has been known to publish on his Facebook page "funny" songs about his real life friends "playing with children".

You mean nobody's pushing for more women in science, thus trying to correct for gender bias science-wide instead of doing it on paper-by-paper basis? Really?
Hmm... Must be because women are actually NOT underrepresented in hard sciences and there is nothing to correct for.

Hmm... Something seems fishy about that line of reasoning... can't quite put my finger on it though.

"Blind" evaluation:
Scientist A has a racial bias and his paper shows it.
Scientist A's paper doesn't get published due to the bias shown, he is informed of it, so he either "corrects" the paper and submits it again under another title OR he pays close attention that it does not SHOW in the future.

He doesn't exclude the bias. He can't. It's inherent to his view of the world.
He just "corrects" for it using politically correct terms and similar tools.
Say... writing "impoverished urban youths tend to be criminally inclined" instead of "blacks are thieves".

BUT... as bias is now not obvious, and reviewer doesn't know that it is a paper from a racially biased scientist - paper gets published, along with all future papers by said scientist, raising his credibility as a scientist.
Who can now even quote his earlier work and further build on his racial theories, or allow others to quote his "research" and build their own racial theories based on it.

And the best part is - now he knows that he should HIDE his bias in order to move forward.

Non-blinded evaluation:
Scientist A has a racial bias and his paper shows it.
Scientist A's paper doesn't get published due to the bias shown, he is informed of it, so he either "corrects" the paper and submits it again under another title OR he pays close attention that it does not SHOW in the future.

He doesn't exclude the bias. He can't. It's inherent to his view of the world.
He just "corrects" for it using politically correct terms and similar tools.
Say... writing "impoverished urban youths tend to be criminally inclined" instead of "blacks are thieves".

BUT... as he is now known for racial bias, his papers get additionally scrutinized regarding such bias.
And hopefully, they get rejected on that account.

And since we can associate people with other people and places, his colleagues and his university ALSO get additional scrutiny on account of being closely related to a known racist.

Some of my favorite people ever are 20th-centurists! Plus I was born in that century!

No.
There IS a chance of forming an informed opinion that anything posted under that banner is usually mostly crap.

Chances for unbiased, non-sensationalistic, click-bait, flame-war-inciting troll-posts from Gaw*retch*ker Media ARE very close to zero though.

âoeThe word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can change this for me.â

Some Einstein guy said that about a year before he died, back in 1954.
http://www.lettersofnote.com/2...

I am guessing here but I fear two things are limiting this picker to what it is now.

1 - the cost of the thing makes it worth ONLY IF you have a guy doing the sorting while it picks, thus eliminating off-site sorting jobs.

2 - It needs daylight to tell ripe (red) strawberries from unripe (green) ones, leaving the unripe ones for later picking.

1 is an issue of scale and upfront costs, so money fixes that BUT at the cost of favoring large monopolies.
2 is a technical issue. Which may be easily solvable - but with the next generation of he picker.

Like you said. A handful of changes may be needed.

Sure... but I was just illustrating the main direction the whole thing is going in.
It is a very skippable step in the process. Just like landline phones in Africa.

Or like the way schools no longer teach calligraphy and penmanship and kids skip all of that 1970s and 1980s and 1990s and early 2000s computer stuff and rush straight into NOW.
Stuff changes, people adapt to new stuff or adapt new stuff to themselves.

Ergo, former pickers are now packers. Do they dream a dream of a life of a packer for their children?
I doubt that.
They are probably not sending their kids to "packer schools" no more than they are sending them to work in the fields like THEY were forced to back in the '50s and '60s.

HFCS 55 - one used in sodas, is 55 parts fructose, 42 parts glucose.
Sucrose - plain sugar, is 50 parts fructose and 50 parts glucose.

Our brains only measure the glucose intake, cause that is the sugar we start burning the moment it hits the bloodstream. We even absorb it directly through the oral cavity - hence oral glucose gel for diabetics.
When we hit optimal glucose the brain tells the body it had enough.

So, if optimal glucose is (some) 100 parts, that means that using sucrose, one would take in 100 parts of fructose and 100 parts of glucose.
To get to the same level of glucose satiety (those same 100 parts) with HFCS 55, one would take in 131 parts of fructose for every 100 parts of glucose.

Then all that fructose, as Al Green puts it, gets taken to the liver.