Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
njtosd
Participant[quote=Blogstar]The French find any find personal dietary prohibition as bad manners…it truly is offensive and also self-belittling to dote on these things publicly. They are healthier than us.
[/quote]
In some ways, yes. They also consume 50% more alcohol, on average, than Americans. But they smoke 20% fewer cigarettes, on average (according to the data I could find). I think what is healthy is probably very specific to the individual. And you are right – I think people take a “Holier than thou” attitude when it comes to food restrictions. I think diet/health has become the new religion, with all the good and bad motivations.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]Carmel Valley house prices just went up 10% as this news spreads to China.
Genius from Canyon Crest:
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-intel-science-talent-search-winner-eric-chen-20140312,0,1059267.storyIn all seriousness, I think that Asians being more politically involved in a good thing… More diversity in the established political parties that are beholden to the base.[/quote]
So far that kids has won $250,000 in prizes. Amazing. Maybe he’ll be able to buy his own house if he keeps this up :).
March 16, 2014 at 8:53 AM in reply to: OT: Should I request mediation or try to get a restraining order… #771912ParticipantJust FYI for everyone here talking about recording things: California is a two party consent state. If you take a recording to the police that was done secretly, you could be seen as admitting to a crime. http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/california-recording-law. It might be worth the risk, but be aware –
Participant[quote=moneymaker]Kev, not sure if this is good advice, but I can totally see Charlie Sheen’s character doing it this way. Let her catch you with someone else, then she will think the breakup is her idea. Just make sure she doesn’t have a conceal/carry permit first, or own a gun for that matter.[/quote]
So sad – people citing a fictional character portrayed by Charlie Sheen (bipolar at least) for examples of useful behavior. Generally speaking I think I have a pretty good attitude toward men – but some of you guys are pathetic. To quote Lucy Ricardo and many other fictional characters – “What are you, a man or a mouse?”
ParticipantBased on personal experience, I have never changed my mind about someone after knowing them for two or three years. I barely change my mind after the first hour. My attitude is fish or cut bait. Most happily married men I have known have been crazy about their wives from early in the relationship. If you don’t feel that way, that’s a concern. You should always be striving to find the person who will help you to have a great life (and vice versa). Don’t waste your time – as the old saying goes – it’s later than you think.
Participant[quote=flyer] …..
I asked my wife to read this thread, and she said that, in her opinion, but not to be construed as advice, you’d probably be doing your “significant other” a favor to break up with her–but don’t be surprised if she finds someone better.[/quote]
Snicker. +1
ParticipantWait. Are you telling me you’re afraid that she’s going to yell at you or cry? (I assume you’re a guy.) Maybe she will – that’s understandable. Since you are posting on this board and people are talking marriage I assume that you are an adult. If you fear violence, this is a different matter.
I think you are being selfish and are afraid of feeling bad. Actually, showing those things would probably be helpful. Women are kind of turned off by selfish and fearful, so it probably will make the break up easier on her.
This is not personal – but my guess is that in a month or two she will be over this. Yes, facing people is uncomfortable, but it is how we behave at difficult times that defines us. Plus, she deserves the chance to find someone with whom she can enjoy a relationship where feelings are mutual.
ParticipantWhy are you asking this question? I think you’re looking for people who don’t know you to back you up, which is silly. But in case that’s not true, here’s how you do it:
You arrange to meet the person privately and explain your feelings honestly and compassionately. And then you live with the consequences of your decision without being petty or weak.
It seems to me that someone who knows how to date someone for 2-3 years should know how to express their feelings to that person. If not, maybe the problem is more complicated than you think.
ParticipantYou might also try to figure out the zoning laws relating to the area. You can search zoning here:
http://www.sandiego.gov/development-services/zoning/index.shtmlDecember 23, 2013 at 4:37 PM in reply to: OT: How one School District got rid of the Greedy Teachers Union #769356Participant[quote=AN][quote=CA renter]Parents do have real choice, paramount. You are free to educate your children in any way you choose. You can even make them wear purple bunny suits and have them recite Pink Floyd songs over and over again if you’d like. You can teach them about God, Allah, the Master of the Universe, or Nothing, if you’d like. But you can’t do it on the taxpayer’s dime.[/quote]oh really… so, can I take the $ the government would spend on my kids in public school and use it to pay for part of the tuition at La Jolla Country Day/Bishops/etc? Or how about using that money to send my kids to the many other private schools that doesn’t have any religious affiliation?[/quote]
Why would you get all the money the government would spend on your kids? You have contributed only a portion of that money. The few thousand dollars that you contributed wouldn’t get you very far – maybe 10% of a LJCD educution. The other contributors should have as much a right as you to send their money where they see fit.
December 22, 2013 at 7:21 PM in reply to: OT: How one School District got rid of the Greedy Teachers Union #769348ParticipantWould you suggest, paramount, that people who don’t have children would not have to pay taxes to support schools? And if they do, why don’t they get a choice about where the money gets spent?
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=spdrun]Plenty of scientists work at pure science out of curiosity or for the betterment of humanity.[/quote]
Absolutely.
If I had to choose between two doctors, and one was in it purely for the money while the other was in it because of a love for science and a strong desire to help humankind, I would choose the second doctor every single time.[/quote]
I don’t think anything is “pure.” I’ve known a lot of scientists/doctors/etc. I can think of only one that was in it mostly for the betterment of society – plus he thought it was fun, which is also a selfish motivation. I also don’t think anyone is purely in it for the money or purely in it for the love of science. People are mosaics – everyone has mixed emotions (or at least normal ones do). If I had to choose between two doctors I would choose based on skill and training. I can get niceness from my family and friends. I want someone who will fix whatever might be wrong with me.
Participant[quote=jeff303][quote=njtosd]
The NIH is supposed to pursue therapeutics that are needed but not commercially justifiable. I wouldn’t say capitalism is the problem – its the failure of government agencies to do what they are supposed to do.[/quote]The NIH’s stated mission is here, in case anyone is curious: http://www.nih.gov/about/mission.htm
I find the notion that they haven’t “cured cancer” yet as evidence of their “failure” to be laughable if not outrageous. Even the idea of a “cure for cancer” is a naive fantasy, perhaps as best expressed by this comic: http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1162
There are armies of highly intelligent and motivated individuals working on it, and moreover, there is a crystal clear profit motive. So no, I don’t think we can chalk this one up to failure on the part of the NIH, but rather as evidence of the complexity of the universe and the difficulty of the problem at hand.[/quote]
The point that I was responding to was the contention that unpatentable therapeutics exist and are not pursued by industry. I probably didn’t express myself well. What I intended to say was that if we assume that such things exist, then it is the responsibility of the NIH to pursue those therapies, not private industry. I do believe that is the case, and in fact, the NIH has its Office of Rare Diseases because it recognizes its responsibility to fill the gaps left by private industry.
It also supports investigation using unpatentable compounds: http://www.nih.gov/news/health/nov2011/ott-28.htm
I am well aware of the complexities of the science. I disagree with the notion that the public has no guardian for its health care other than private industry.
Participant[quote=CA renter]Yes, it would make them a bad person. Yes, I agree that this is being done with respect to treatments that cannot be patented (have seen it with my own eyes). Viva capitalism.[/quote]
The NIH is supposed to pursue therapeutics that are needed but not commercially justifiable. I wouldn’t say capitalism is the problem – its the failure of government agencies to do what they are supposed to do.
-
AuthorPosts
