Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
njtosd
Participant[quote=spdrun]njtosd – we’re not talking about numerical scores but about percentile. If nearly everyone gets prep courses, it shouldn’t make a difference to their % rank.
This being said, I know plenty of people who scored in the 1400s and 1500s in the 90s without prep classes.[/quote]
Hadn’t registered that scaredy was talking about percentiles. Is that true?
In terms of the 90s, there was some tinkering in 95 that resulted in an earlier score of 500 math going up to a 520 and an earlier score of 500 verbal going up to 580. And yes, spdrun, I’m sure everyone on this board knows their share of smart people. You probably did well on the “earthy language” portion of the exam.
Participant[quote=Panderso]It’s definitely interesting to hear everyone’s opinions. I think we’re going to try to buy. Inventory is tight right now but we have time on our side so we can wait for the right place at an okay price. I did notice a bunch of price drops at the end of summer last year so fingers crossed the same thing happens this year.
[/quote]
We closed on our current home in September a number of years ago. We made our offer after they dropped the price (as you mentioned) but the problem was that the price was too high in the summer to attract buyers. So we did get a deal, but it wasn’t as big a drop as it looked to be. Unlike our usual modus operandi, which is to buy a house with hideous paint and weird cosmetic issues, this house actually needed little to no work. So we got that as a bonus. You will make money looking past paint and odd decorating choices. The faux Tuscan country houses are hot commodities for some reason – it always puzzles me.
Making a smart choice on a house will make up for a lot of volatility in home price. As an accountant you will probably do a better job of seeing past the superficial issues.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]sat scores avg at cal poly were same percentile as ivy league school i attended 30 y. ago.
crazy, man[/quote]
Yes – but you and I walked into the SAT with no preparation courses (at least I did) or college admissions coaches or anything else. The test was sort of a side issue – not a panic inducing life event. Had everyone practiced 100 times back then and gone to all kinds of prep courses, we would have done better.
This college admissions thing is such a racket. . . but it’s a game you have no choice but to play. Tail wagging the dog – again.
ParticipantBG – my great grandfather was a miner in Scotland. He was “recruited” by a mining company in the Upper peninsula of Michigan because they had a hard time finding people who would work in the freezing crappy climate (which happened to match the climate where he was born). Later, the copper mining industry moved to AZ so my moms parents moved to Detroit, where the automotive industry was booming. No need to explain why I moved to Chicago to practice law (Detroit was dying even back then). And when my husband was looking for a job in his industry, he (then I) moved to CA. And when the company closed we moved to NJ for a while. No one promises you the job you want where you are or the house you want at the price you want. Stop looking for someone to protect you from competition and just compete.
Participant[quote=Panderso]Really? My understanding was that daycare/preschool is $10k to $15k a year, is that about right? I’m early on in the research process.[/quote]
That seems about right – for one child. If you have two – there’s no bulk discount. It’s like paying college tuition. FWIW – I have known many women (MDs, lawyers, etc.) who were sure they’d be ok with leaving their child at daycare or with a nanny, only to find that it was a completely different decision once the child(ren) came along. Some were OK, but some weren’t (in a big way). It’s a deep dark secret, especially among those who put a lot of time and $ into preparing for their careers. Babies mess with your brain – even if you’re sure they won’t.
When buying a house, if you and your husband can leave yourselves some room to work that issue out (i.e. have a budget that leaves the possibility for one of you take some time off) you will avoid the feeling of having your back against the wall and you will both be happier. If, when the time comes, you find that you have a child care solution that works well for you, you’ll be able to put some extra cash away for college – which comes at you much faster than you will ever imagine.
Best wishes.
Participant[quote=Rich Toscano][quote=njtosd]
I think it probably works as well as other dichotomies, such as extrovert/introvert feeling/thinking or the other Myers Briggs categories. [/quote]I don’t agree with that because, taking introvert vs extrovert for example, it’s just a linear spectrum between two extremes regarding one issue.
“Conservative” vs. “liberal” means a million different things, depending on what issue you are talking about… that’s why it’s useless to argue based on “teams” as seems to be peoples’ general tendency. Each issue should be debated on its own merits, not what two (just two, for a million issues!!) teams think about it.
I think the Scientific American article is cool and the thing about innate tendencies sure seems plausible. But I do not agree that “liberal” vs “conservative” is anything like a single topic, linear spectrum such as “introvert” vs. “extrovert.”[/quote]
I see your point – I think perhaps what people are getting at is “the people who more often than not vote for the Democratic candidate” vs. “the people who more often than not vote for the Republican candidate”. I come from very Irish roots – relatives had a tendency toward knee jerk allegiance to a particular party (can you guess?) and that was often in conflict with many opinions that I saw bandied around. In the end there is a “chicken or pasta” sort of decision to make and most people choose one or the other even though they would rather have guac and chips (or whatever).
It would be more fun if we had the variety of political parties that other countries have – and I think there is room for a party that supports those who try to balance economic practicality with support for social issues. I used to think it would be difficult for such a group to get donations – but Bernie did a great job getting smallish donations from a large number of individuals. . . So, maybe.
July 29, 2016 at 3:32 PM in reply to: OT – roadside drug testing, one more reason why police reform is needed! #800090ParticipantMy question is, what would change if there were no field tests? Would she have been arrested anyway? In other words – would it be better if all the people who appeared to have suspicious substances had to wait in jail until the lab test came back? False positives (especially when there is no way to control humidity, temperature or atmospheric contaminants) are a problem with any QA chemistry test. I don’t know the law on this, but perhaps this was an effort to try to cut down on some of the unnecessary arrests?
In fact, in Chicago, it appears field testing is resulting in fewer arrests than without: http://www.chicagoappleseed.org/field-testing-in-drug-arrests/
This doesn’t address your issue of whether traces should be criminalized, etc. etc.
Finally, even where Ms. Albritton was concerned, some progress does appear to have been made:
“In the county where Albritton was arrested, this change has been made.
Last year, Devon Anderson, the current Harris County district attorney, prohibited plea deals in drug-possession cases before the lab has issued a report.”I was actually happy to see the Board of the Chicago Appleseed organization – accomplished lawyers from well respected firms standing up for civic rights. Nice to know there are people who are paying attention.
Participant[quote=harvey]You’re both wrong.
Any argument based on the notion that everyone fits nicely into thought groups like ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’ – and that membership in these groups is mutually exclusive – is just lame.[/quote]
I think it probably works as well as other dichotomies, such as extrovert/introvert feeling/thinking or the other Myers Briggs categories. Yes, we are all as different as snowflakes but generalities seem to be accepted by those who study these issues. I thought this one was interesting: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/calling-truce-political-wars/
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic][quote=njtosd][quote=FlyerInHi]Nytosd, I don’t have scaredy’ talent of saying things with few words. Plus typing on smartphone is not very convenient.
I’m trying to say that conservatives like claim that that blacks are rightfully targeted because of the way they act. Conservatives are now so openly disfunctionally trashy that they are hardly recognizable as conservatives. Right there, there’s no equivalence with the democrats.
“We” are intelligent people. For example, in international relations, the Russians and Chinese like to say they are equivalent to the USA. Not at all. Any attempt at moral equivalence should be laughed off and ridiculed.
Compare the platforms The ideas are not even remotely morally equivalent. Examples are gay marriage and abortion which are settled issues. Republicans espouse retrograde positions of returning back in time.
As far as Jesus, religious people are rigid and start with the premise that God exists; and that everyone else must consider that God does exist. Right there, conservatives act entitled to an asymmetric advantage. The center and reasonable position should be “there is no God until he shows up” The extreme position in fact is the conviction in God.[/quote]
Again, odd and disjointed.
As far as intelligence goes, you’re just getting back to the “liberals are all things good and conservatives are all things bad.” I’ve known many whip smart conservatives and liberals. There were two guys that I used to work with who were on opposite ends of the political spectrum (but were friends – can you believe it??) and both made impressive arguments for their sides.
Do you know that Depeche Mode was a band from the 1980s? I wasn’t referring to Jesus in the traditional sense of the the word. Christians do not each have a personal Jesus – He’s a shared resource. It sounds like maybe you need to read up a bit.
I’m giving up on this one because you seem to have floated off into a particularly bizarre direction. Enjoy yourself.
PS – Dysfunctionally trashy sound like they aren’t very good at being trashy. Is that what you meant? 😉 And what are these people recognizable as?[/quote]
i really love the depeche mode song. i can immediately here the catchy lick in my gead. but i started wondering, theologically, what are the implications of this song. this christianity today analysis of depeche mode resonated with me.
I have been trying to get my son to learn to play it on the guitar. My kids used to give me a hard time about my taste in music (especially Motown) but they are beginning to see the light. But I digress . . .
Sadly, it doesn’t seem that there was wasn’t much theology involved. The song was inspired by a book called “Elvis and Me”:
The song was inspired by the book Elvis and Me by Priscilla Presley. According to songwriter Martin Gore:
It’s a song about being a Jesus for somebody else, someone to give you hope and care. It’s about how Elvis Presley was her man and her mentor and how often that happens in love relationships; how everybody’s heart is like a god in some way, and that’s not a very balanced view of someone, is it?
In terms of the secular invading the sacred – I have to say that I have never understood the idea of a “personal relationship with Jesus” and never heard it discussed until the 1990s (I think). It seemed to show up around the time of the rise of “born again” Christians (now that I think of it, where did they go?) – but maybe there’s no relationship. It sounds vaguely wrong to me from a lot of perspectives – but particularly because it sounds kind of grabby, which I would think contradicts basic Christian values.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]Nytosd, I don’t have scaredy’ talent of saying things with few words. Plus typing on smartphone is not very convenient.
I’m trying to say that conservatives like claim that that blacks are rightfully targeted because of the way they act. Conservatives are now so openly disfunctionally trashy that they are hardly recognizable as conservatives. Right there, there’s no equivalence with the democrats.
“We” are intelligent people. For example, in international relations, the Russians and Chinese like to say they are equivalent to the USA. Not at all. Any attempt at moral equivalence should be laughed off and ridiculed.
Compare the platforms The ideas are not even remotely morally equivalent. Examples are gay marriage and abortion which are settled issues. Republicans espouse retrograde positions of returning back in time.
As far as Jesus, religious people are rigid and start with the premise that God exists; and that everyone else must consider that God does exist. Right there, conservatives act entitled to an asymmetric advantage. The center and reasonable position should be “there is no God until he shows up” The extreme position in fact is the conviction in God.[/quote]
Again, odd and disjointed.
As far as intelligence goes, you’re just getting back to the “liberals are all things good and conservatives are all things bad.” I’ve known many whip smart conservatives and liberals. There were two guys that I used to work with who were on opposite ends of the political spectrum (but were friends – can you believe it??) and both made impressive arguments for their sides.
Do you know that Depeche Mode was a band from the 1980s? I wasn’t referring to Jesus in the traditional sense of the the word. Christians do not each have a personal Jesus – He’s a shared resource. It sounds like maybe you need to read up a bit.
I’m giving up on this one because you seem to have floated off into a particularly bizarre direction. Enjoy yourself.
PS – Dysfunctionally trashy sound like they aren’t very good at being trashy. Is that what you meant? 😉 And what are these people recognizable as?
ParticipantGet a real estate attorney. The seller should, too. It’s not that expensive and ideally provides an outside perspective that should help avoid conflict.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]There’s a problem when one claims both sides are equally bad without having anything good to say about one’s own side, It’s perfectly fair to not speak of one’s dirty laundry and portray respectability. In fact that’s what well behaved conservative families do. Unless, you’re ill-bred, you don’t let your shit hang out for all to see and laugh at. if you do, don’t get offended when people judge.
We can’t possibly allow statements like “both side are equal jerks” because that enables one side side to dial up the degree of jerkiness and still be judged the same as before. That’s a device authoritarians like Putin use to justify their actions and any good negotiator would never agree.
ZK makes an important point about the mainstream media. it is the center, that’s why it’s called mainstream. Calling the MSM liberal is just a ruse to defend extreme right wing positions.[/quote]
Your first paragraph is too disjointed and odd to answer.
1). I wish I had a side. That would mean there was a candidate who I trusted.
2). Who are “we” (as in “we can’t possibly”)?
3). I never said anything about the media except that it’s full of propaganda from both sides.
4). I think I’m probably somewhat envious of those posters who are sure they know they have the answers. I remember seeing Kurt Vonnegut speak – he said life was like Hamlet – this happens, that happens and in the end you’re not sure whether any of it was good or bad. It’s not satisfying but I’m sorry the two current candidates are two forms of crap. Most people here have found there “own personal Jesus” to quote Depeche Mode. I haven’t.Participant[quote=zk][quote=njtosd]
I believe that both sides have massive noise machines designed to encourage the “manipulatees” to make political donations. [/quote]
The vast majority of Americans don’t make political donations at all. So, if such apparatus exist, they’re not working.
The right-wing noise machine creates an echo chamber large and loud enough that one who subscribes to it can get the impression that the whole world agrees with his views. Any such apparatus on the left is dwarfed by that on the right. Unless you’ve been duped into thinking that the mainstream media is liberally biased. That ruse, as I’ve said on this forum before, is one of the most brilliant strokes of propaganda in the history of American propaganda.[/quote]
If you have read anything I’ve written in these threads, you will realize that I have significant problems with both parties. Your conviction that your viewpoint is unassailable suggests that someone’s been duped, but I don’t think it’s me :).
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]Njtosd, I assume the genetics work the same in communist countries where being communist is considered conservative.
Genes are not conservartve or liberal. It’s believe people’s inate inclinations are to be fearing of change, or embracing of change.
People who are tolerant of police abuse see it as a necessary law and order measure. They rationalize it as not evil because the abuse is directed as those they consider evil. They see all the video recordings of police abuse as upsetting the status quo and therefore a danger to their place in society.
Those same people are ok with torturing suspected terrorists or profiling Muslims. They are ok with prohibiting gay marriage or even banning gays altogether as if it would work. Resistant to change and authoritarian in protecting the status quo.
There is no moral equivalence between conservatism (resistant to change) and liberalism (embracing of change). Sure, conversatives are free to advocate pragmatism, but they are not morally upright, and becoming less and less so.[/quote]
No point in talking to you. You are happily smug that you are good because you say you are and others are bad because you say they are. Enjoy your viewpoint.
-
AuthorPosts
