Maybe her perception is subjective. But I'd imagine her to be in a position where she can corelate these cause and effects more easily as you are.

Consider that, even if her clients find her via word of mouth and hence her specialism might skew towards this one demography causing an influx, noone would make such a claim without seeing probable cause.

I imagine many of her patients will mention a lot of the social interaction on "the internet" and "mobile". Which generates the belief this is a large factor and the way her patients relate to it or shift blame.

In the past you'd have the same problems (bullying, self-image issues, displacement, projected expectations, ...) the "always on world" with "instant gratification" with constant new hypes to "belong to or not". The intensity has become higher, the barriere has lowered. So I also think children should not be exposed without supervision and also think it's not a good thing to bring up children with a sense of instant gratification at the press of a button of a flick at a screen. While the "real world" becomes replaced for flickering pixels. And identity sticks only for a single selfie and measured by the amassed likes or views.. Which often borders self-prostitution. In a way which hasn't been possible before other as being manipulated or naïvely seduced into mainstream exploitation. Where there were supervising committées guarding the "boundary of decency or exploitation". Or there were at least people stepping up for others (which - in our immer more individualized society and "personal reinterpretations", people dare not to do out of fear being out of tune or out of sync with the value-systems of others).

So, "full of shit" ? Think not.

Maybe misguided causality ? Perhaps.

That reminds me to the "know it all" and "you are not my real father" kindof kid of my ex.

He sat frustrated and angry, throwing his laptop in the sofa. I inquired "what is wrong?" while his mother signed me I should let it go.

"THE STUPID THING WONT START UP!!!!", he proclaimed. And powered up again while grunting in frustration.

"When was the last time you...", and before I finished my sentence, he saw a commandprompt and jacked out the battery to "force a reboot". Which, I gathered, he was doing for quite a while and quite a few times.

So, I asked why he resolved to removing the battery- to which he proclaimed "windows did a funny update thing and it took too long. But he couldn't skip it to play his game so he yanked out the battery and now it wont boot up". While he janks angrily the battery out another time.

When I explained you shouldn't stop a write process to avoid corruption (oh no criticism! YOUR NOT MY REAL DAD!) and proposed to help and fix the problem - to which his mother added "He can fix it" - he ran off with the laptop saying "he'll fix it himself" while popping the battery another time and running to his room.

I suspect this laptop still sits somewhere unused while he's gotten "one that isn't broken" from his grandfather.

They do say that someone tends to have another personality in another language. As they find other ways to express themselves; I cannot convey or express myself in the same way in every language I speak. (English, French, Dutch, some German and only understanding of Spanish.)

The language does reflect worldview in my vision though: compare Cuban Spanish with Spanish Spanish. Or Mexican Spanish...
They are different. Not only in "character" or intonation, or colour of words but also in concepts and slang.

So to me a language is a representation of the culture but also of the local way of thinking.

Take UK English and US English for "roundabout". The first you could imagine people going "round around", while in the US you just describe it in appearance: "traffic circle". Which gives another sense of perception. "oh, people are are going around it" compared to "there is a circle."

It depends on the country though. French have a sense of global importance as the English or the Spanish. They reason "I can be understood at the largest parts of the world and don't NEED another language." and downvalue "languages which will dissapear anyhow" (literally out of the mouth of a French speaking Belgian.). I suspect this is rooted in the settlers past and colonies.

As a result, foreign media is dubbed and foreign words are translated. (Germans tend to do the same but are in my experience more linguistical open - that's why you have much "French rap music" but not really "German rap music". Come to think of it, there isn't much German music without them dressing up silly and getting drunk together.).

There is a shift in the younger generation, which is open for "English media and influences", but French natives are generally poor with English. In meetings there is often the agreement to "communicate in English" but it soon shifts to French as it's too slow and cumbersome or not everyone understands English well enough. While other nationalities have less problem understanding French. In meetings with Indians, Germans, Dutch, Luxembourg English is no problem. With soutern countries (Italy, Spain, Portugal, ...) English is.. "a sort of reinterpretation"

The acceptance of foreign media seems an indicator for English languistic skill as children get "emersion" at a very young age while they get used reading subtitles. And at a later age find information online with a lower barrier to grasp these concepts. Also technical fields often have a closer relationship to English terminology which give a higher comprehension level.

IBM isn't anymore. I know this from inside source from different fronts: IBM buys companies, then squeezes the lemon. Then dumps it.

For years, IBM has taken over departments of companies tired of "managing IT", rehired the people who were fired on worse terms. while they are declined training or any other investment. "Take it or leave it".

They have one huge battery of dusty old consultants, who have been unmarkettable. IBM itself isn't anything progressive from themselves anymore. Dusty, clunky legacy pile of shit software.

The launch window is small because ISS has to be essentially lined up in orbit in a tight tolerance (called the phase angle) to rendezvous this quickly. Usually the Soyuz plays "catch up" over 2 days by flying lower (and faster) than ISS. You can control the closing rate between the vehicles by altering the altitude difference between them, which allows you to make up differences in the orbits between the vehicles. Those differences are usually just fallouts of other things, like having uncertainty in launch dates, getting the altitude just right for other vehicles (there is about a rendezvous a month at ISS), etc. It's not because Soyuz is slow, it's because spreading the rendezvous over 2 days gives you some targeting flexibility.

You have less margin to work with when you are trying to get there in 4 orbits instead of 34 orbits. Hitting that target with both ISS and Soyuz is hard but it's more about ground targeting than performance of the launch vehicle. The launch vehicle didn't give any extra oomph to get there faster, the ground essentially had the vehicle phasing in a tight tolerance at launch. They also sped up some of the tracking that was being done and turning that around into updated burns for the next orbit instead of coasting to a set of burns the next day, which was a bunch of work for the ground in a short period of time.

The Russians that devised this actually published it - it's an interesting read if you have access to the journal or want to spend $32:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576510001633

I can only imagine how many tens of billions that will cost.

Just get a google datacenter up there and have them pay rent to NASA.

Soon you'll have Microsoft trying to follow, while a privatized space-launcher shoots up new techies and supercomputers.

Economical crisis averted, jobcreation as long we whip our globally our creditcards and click adwords.