I'll find out in mid January, lol - it's en route on the Ever Acme, with a transfer at Rotterdam.
That said, I have no reason to think that it won't be. Yasin isn't a well known brand, but a lot of other brands (for example Hatchbox) often use white-label Yasin as their own. And everything I've seen about their op looks quite professional.
Slashdot's mod system is not perfect, but it is better than most. They can spout whatever nonsense they want, you don't have to see any of their posts, or even know they posted something. It's like you can personally shadow ban them, and see less things that upset you.
It's amazing that after all these years other sites haven't cottoned on. Maybe precisely because it *is* better and harder to gamify.
True, dat. Drama lovers maybe? The Reddit model completely sucks. mods there have their little fiefdoms, utter one "wrong" word and you are gone or berated. Or stray from the topic a little, as normal people having normal conversations do, and you get hammered.
In here, yes, we are at the mercy of the mods as far as levels, I've posted factual things and ended up at -1 troll. But who gives a rats ass? Nothing has been deleted or blocked. Slashdot has a system that works, doesn't discard unpopular posts, yet allows people to avoid those posts if they like.
Some have tried to call this censorship. It is far from it.
this can equally well be used in authoritarian countries (Russia, US, China, etc) to track or disable the vehicles of dissidents or keep protesters from following ICE vermin.
The OnStar system in my previous vehicle still reported to OnStar (or someone) even though it did not HAVE OnStar installed or activated. I was out west where the nearest cell tower was over 60 miles away and was using an SDR and traced it to the trunk on the drivers side. I was looking for some SCADA signals in the 800-950 Mhz range and said "What the actual hell is THAT!?" when I saw it was always near, and always fairly strong. I assume it was beaconing for a cell tower since it was a repeated signlal with about the same waveform.
the way house alarm is wired
"Value Priced" installed alarms do that. I installed and maintained alarms in the 70's. I used two types of systems, for low security, a resistor at the bitter end of the zone. That way a open or short would set off the zone. The other was a oscillating R/C or C/L circuit that was tuned to a unique frequency for that alarm on that zone. Lately, the zones (wired or wireless) use TLS.
As to reporting, most were metallic pair from TelCo (kinda expensive) with line security (variable oscillating), or used dial up every few minutes. A special "OverWatch" mode for dial up was available for an extra charge that stayed connected but that was designed by the company and not something off the shelf. These days, it's done with Internet via cable/phone or wireless. A drop in comms == "Trouble" which is treated as an alarm condition.
Another precaution was a code to repeat in case of alarm. Said code said one style, everything is OK. Said in another style it ment the subscriber was being held hostage. Much fun calling for a SWAT response and very, very expensive when the subscriber got it wrong.
I recall reading that if you have a meeting with more than seven people, you are probably having an ineffective meeting. I am regularly forced to attend meetings with 20-30 people. It's always the same 3-4 people who speak, everyone else remains silent.
In my experience, with only rare exceptions, the limit should be three. More than three, and you are likely involving people working on multiple projects who don't really need to know what the people on other projects are doing beyond what an email every few months would provide.
Those rare exceptions are situations where you have a meeting of managers in an org or similar with each other, where everybody is working towards the same goals, and they're planning towards those goals.
Or the way I usually describe it is that the usefulness of a meeting with n participants is one over the square of n minus 2 for all values of n greater than 2.
Yes, licensed physicians make mistakes, lots of them. And educated patients and their families *should* second-guess and question what their doctors say. But that doesn't make you qualified to determine that your son's psychiatrist "rubber-stamped" the teacher's hunch.
It appears you are not proficient at paying attention - My son had no psychiatrist, Notnone of these boys did. In the event that I ever said there was a psychiatrist involved, cite it. the teachers Mande the announcement, and then medical doctors obeyed and wrote out teh prescription. Perhaps your idea of a perfect step filled world is not as accurate as you think it is. Now one psychiatrist was involved in this. SO if you think I'm being obtuse, there might have been a tad more veracity in your idea that I was adverse to psychiatrists or some right wing weirdo.
Further, as someone who has been an educator, I have observed that parents are often the *least* aware of their own children's behaviors and problems in school.
You appear to be making a very prejudiced and quiet bigoted statement. And aer you a doctor in Parentchild relationships? Using your metric, unless you have that doctorate I must summarily reject your conclusion Just being a teacher is not enough, you are not qualif9ied - you only have an opinion that is not accurate - Your rules Tony Issac, not mine. Come back when you have the doctorate in psychiatry, otherwise you are not qualified. Your opinion means nothing - I follow your metrics.
It seems fashionable these days for parents to insist that their sweet little angel couldn't *possibly* be a mean brute to their classmates.
I agree - however once again you make a bigoted post claiming that I am in that subset of parents. I was a coach of youth ice hockey, and I ran into parents who acted as you describe. But no one was rougher on my son than me. I set strong boundaries, enforced them, I had no part on the trendy parenting. He never had a discipline issue in school.
Doctors make mistakes, but they don't just rubber-stamp teachers.
Perhaps I've seen that they do. So which one of is a liar, Tony Issac? You who say that Doctors never rubber stamp anything, or me, who has experience both in school and family matters, and say they sometimes do. I suppose as a teacher, you find my personal experience so repulsive so wrong, that you need to claim I am dissembling. So be it, and may none of your loved ones never have to go through what I have. May all of your teachers, psychiatrists and medical doctors be as perfect as you assume. Any further insults? I must say, your attitude is not dissimilar to many of my son's teachers.
Obviously added by a programmer who'd been around for a while.
Negligent homicide and involuntary manslaughter suffer the same problem- no mens rea for the person accused of the crime.
Depends on what the person was doing at the time. If the person who didn't pull the trigger was holding up a liquor store and the police shot the wrong person, there's at least arguably mens rea, which is how we get things like the felony murder rule. Extending that to involuntary manslaughter when the person didn't actually pull the trigger but directly created a situation where the police did seems like not that much of a stretch to me.
No, grade school teachers are generally not qualified, and as a result, they are unable to provide a diagnosis. But a teacher, seeing many students, might recognize the symptoms and refer a student to a psychiatrist, which sounds like what happened here.
YOU are not qualified to determine that the doctor's diagnosis was a rubber stamp.
Are you trained in psychiatry? Do you have a license to practice medicine? If the answer is no, then you are not qualified to determine whether your son has ADHD, or to determine that the doctor's diagnosis is incorrect.
I am "trained" in Electromagnetics. DC to daylight. Fully qualified. It is most interesting you believe that I am unqualified to make any judgement, other than in my field.
I work in an academic environment where I give counsel to doctors in many fields. They seem to have less disdain for it that you do. Although I've run into a few, like the Doctor of Engineering that tried to have me fired because I called him by his first name. Or the one I insulted by correcting an egregious mistake on his part to one of his students. It would have destroyed the student's work his grade, and cost possibly millions. Neither got far. Insecure people with degrees.
Smart people listen to what others have to say. I do. I've asked for and taken advice from the person cleaning the office, or more often from electricians. I gauge if the advice or statement has merit, and accept or deny it based on the merit, not the person's education level. I don't have a doctorates in anything, yet I'm considered a resource among many who do. As expensive as my burn rate was, I was in high demand for different groups, many of which had little to do with my field. For crying out loud, I was a process chemist for a year. So far from my field it was ridiculous. But I did well, filling in and learning until they hired a new chemist. I got the work because I had developed a unique photo exposure and processing method for metallurgy, I supposed.
Now on to these medical experts. I've had 3 relatives killed by doctors. Bad professional Medical Doctor prescription work damn near killed my wife. My mother in law had a TIA, was in the hospital in the ER. She said they had given her a diuretic and she was peeing a lot.
Wife and I were talking to the ER doctor, a nice lady, who told us they were concerned about MIL's strange low potassium levels. I noted that they had given her a diuretic was urinating a lot, which probably caused the low potassium. The ER doctor went wide eyed and blushed. "Oh - yes, that's what caused the low potassium. Thank you!" Stopped the Diuretic, and the potassium levels returned to normal fairly quickly. I am presumably not allowed to note that - except I will, and I am. One does not need a Doctorate to know that potassium levels can get unbalanced when taking a strong diuretic.
The only place where the degree makes a person "correct" is a courtroom, and everyone has their doctors with different opinions. Which one is correct?t. People who are not doctors are on the Jury, casting judgement. You see my friend, that doctorate (in any field) does not make a person an ubermenchen. The only people who have issues with my judgements and opinions are people who are insecure. the idea that I am someone whois versed in many fields, and sorry, I've been around long enough to know that they are not infallible, and have seen their qualified "professional" mistakes often enough that if they don't want to hear my thoughts - they won't be my doctor. They are not in any way superior. And the smart ones listen. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm right. But determining I am wrong because of my background - that's wrong.
I don't know which one you are. But I'm confident that every single psychiatrist that diagnoses a child, is more qualified than you.
Do you believe that grade school teachers are qualified? I was very clear about grade school teachers diagnosing entire population of male students as suffering from ADHD. Interestingly all males, no females.
The parents took them to a doctor and he or she rubber stamped the diagnosis. What are your bona fides to say that you are qualified to dismiss my experience. I'm diagnosing nothing except that my son did not have ADHD, when the administrators threatened me with liability because my son was a big strong lad - that didn't seem like an indication, and I told them so Pissed them off royally . Did some of his male classmates have ADHD? Considering the number, a good chance. All of them? Nope.
What is your solution to this however, a person who needs extra time or to bring mommy along because they have anxiety - how are they going to be accommodated when they graduate and look for a job?
There is a simple (and difficult) solution, but it destroys the illusion that having a college degree is a simple way to determine if someone will be a good employee.
If the degree is meant to show that someone has the knowledge to do the job, it isn't great because they don't teach enough on the job related skills in college. If the degree is meant to show that someone has the critical thinking skills to do the job, it isn't great because those skills aren't focused on much in most colleges. If the degree is meant to show they can work and think quickly under pressure, it isn't great because schools will often accommodate for students who struggle in those areas. If the degree is meant to show they can work hard and follow through with a fairly challenging four year task, it is pretty good at that. If the degree is meant to show they have enough foundational knowledge to learn to do the job, it is pretty good at that. If the degree is meant to show they came from an upper middle class socioeconomic background (so they fit in with the corporate culture), or at least had middle class families that worked hard to give their children the benefits of an upper middle class upbringing, it is pretty good at that too.
If you want someone to do a job that is high stress and requires quick thinking, you better assess for that competency yourself instead of assuming a college degree is enough of a hiring filter. But most jobs don't (or shouldn't) require those skills.
I am in corporate strategy, and while I can think on my feet well enough to handle meetings with executives, I do my best thinking after a few hours (or weeks) of contemplation and research. No one should want someone to help advise on critical business decisions just because they are better at coming up with a decent answer in 5 minutes. Different jobs require different skills.
I don't disagree with what you wrote - but it doesn't answer the question I posed. Adult children didn't bring their parents along to job interviews or work in the past. I'm referring to say, before 20 years ago. In the academic environment I was in - I still am, but not much academic work around students - in the early 2000's, during orientation, we ended up separating the parents from their children, to tell the parents that they needed to allow their children to grow up. We had some"humorous" examples of student's calling their parents to have a professor or instructor fired because they were "mean to them". And no, we were not going to fire our professors unless they did something criminal. And told to not go to their children's job interviews, or overly interfere.
And it was semi successful. You could tell which parents ignored the advice. We had some millenials who had a stress tolerance of zero.
One of our hires was a guy who freaked out every time I spoke to him. "Good morning" delivered as chirpy as I could, was enough to trigger a minor panic attack. I had to assign one of the women to give him his work, and I avoided him until he washed out.
He was an extreme example, but except for two women who were some of the best employees I ever worked with, these kids were simply not ready to adult. So it was about bit less than 10 percent success rate in my department. And before that people didn't stress out of the job.
I have no doubt that some children have been misdiagnosed. But the claim of over-diagnosis is generally made by parents who are skeptical of psychiatry in general, believing it to be a bunch of mumbo jumbo. These parents are not well educated in the seriousness of the condition, and are not qualified to judge who is properly diagnosed and who is not.
Which am I Tony? Unless you are an expert with bona fides in Psychiatry and psychiatric drugs, You aren't qualified to have an opinion either.
Nothing will dispel enthusiasm like a small admission fee. -- Kim Hubbard
