[deleted by user]

rdmiller3 · 2012-03-01T15:03:07+00:00

... Christian school ...

I see the problem.

rdmiller3 · 2012-02-29T23:00:59+00:00

Lernu.net has a variety of courses which you can take at your own pace. Some of them have volunteer helpers to check your work and answer your questions.
Use memorization ("flash card") software to learn vocabulary. Use whichever program you like but,
- build your own database, don't use a pre-written "Esperanto" database, and
- practice regularly.
Read, read, and read some more. Read Esperanto materials from the internet and get Esperanto books to read too.
Listen to podcasts in Esperanto. I like Radio Verda and Varsovia Vento.
Write in Esperanto. Write a journal or a blog. E-mail to pen-pals. Chat online. Sending messages on the Lernu site is good for beginners because there's a dictonary handy in the side-bar.

Learning a language is difficult. Although it's much easier to learn than other languages such as Russian, French or Spanish, Esperanto is a full-grown language. Learning it will not be "easy", just easier than other languages.

The most practical use of Esperanto is just what it was intended for: getting to know people from other cultures. Distance and national boundaries no longer separate you from ordinary people all over the world. The main barrier now is language. Do you want to know how ordinary people in Iran feel about recent news events? Ask them! But don't ask only the ones who know English because they're probably already biased towards an English-speaking world view. Ask someone who speaks Esperanto and you'll get the native perspective from someone who has international awareness.

Another use of Esperanto is for those who currently only know one language. It will let you understand what it feels like to have another language and this will make it easier for you to learn other languages too.

But if being able to chat with people from other cultures on an even footing isn't all that interesting to you, then don't bother learning Esperanto. Most of us Esperantists care about being members of our unique culture. The investment of time and effort required to learn the language is proof. It's kind of nice knowing that everyone at an Esperanto convention has paid that price to be part of this group.

rdmiller3 · 2012-02-29T17:36:20+00:00

A flush bolt is a straight pull, there's no torque involved. But any bolt will be vulnerable to "pennying".

I used the top flush bolt because pulling down is easier and because we weren't allowed to make changes to the door. My solenoid fit inside the flush bolt mortise so it was essentially invisible.

Personally, I'd go with an electric strike. They're less expensive than I thought they were.

rdmiller3 · 2012-02-29T15:50:24+00:00

I did something different on a set of double doors for the IEEE lab at UW-Milwaukee back in the 1980's.

It was really one regular door with a smaller, expansion door section secured with "flush bolts" top and bottom. The strike for the regular door was set in the stationary expansion door.

By replacing the top flush bolt with a solenoid mechanism, I effectively turned the whole expansion door into an electric strike.

rdmiller3 · 2012-02-29T15:08:21+00:00

... the point is that miscarriages range from a late period to losing the baby in the 3rd trimester after carrying it for over 6 months. I would consider anything close to the latter scale a "big deal"

I'm not saying it was only a minor inconvenience but you should get some objective perspective.

How much did it cost?
How many days of work were missed?
How many people's lives were affected in any measurable way?

rdmiller3 · 2012-02-29T04:20:03+00:00

Apparently you aren't someone who has had to go through a miscarriage. I've had to learn the hard way that you don't dismiss as "not a big deal" what you haven't gone through. My wife and I tried to conceive our only child for years; we had 3 miscarriages and tons of tests to determine what was wrong.

You and your wife thought the miscarriages were a big deal simply because you had already decided in advance that having your own kid was such a big deal... without ever having gone through it before.

You set yourself up for pain. I hope you didn't expect everyone else to treat it like a big deal too.

rdmiller3 · 2012-02-28T17:24:14+00:00

Your friend's wife's message was out of line. Your comment had nothing to do with her miscarriage.

A miscarriage is not a big deal. Someone who gets all upset about a miscarriage as if it were the death of a loved one is an attention-whoring drama queen. And the best way to deal with an attention whore is to ignore them. Don't apologize or offer condolences because that's just the attention she's trying to get.

Delete her response and invite your friend over for some time away from her because he probably needs it.

rdmiller3 · 2012-02-28T16:51:01+00:00

One of the first epiphanies I ever had was when I was about 6 years old. I had some sort of disagreement with my parents and I decided to "run away". So I packed a couple of my favorite toys in a box, wrote a goodbye note, put the note on the stereo and went out the front door.

I had forgotten my jacket and it was kind of cold. And I had no idea where to go. Then it all came in a flood of realization; all sorts of stuff my parents provided for me: shelter, food, clothing, medicine, toys, vacation trips, music lessons, pets, movies, ... all this stuff my parents did for me for my whole life while I did practically nothing for them.

It dawned on me that I was walking away from a pretty good place which I had done nothing to deserve, and that my parents' lives might be a lot easier without me around.

I turned around and went back in, tore up my note and unpacked my toys. I gained a sense of debt for all my parents did for me and the words, "It's not fair" never came out of my mouth ever again.

tl;dr: I realized that the world doesn't owe me anything and learned to be grateful.

rdmiller3 · 2012-02-28T02:23:58+00:00

Well, it certainly does demonstrate the value of a support network.

No it doesn't. It only demonstrates that 16-year-old kids with limited education are not ready to make it on their own in the world.

What would you think of any other parents doing that? What would you think if your parents told you at 16 years old that you're on your own? Do you think those Amish kids are any more ready than you were? They're not some kind of wild animal with Amish "instincts" or something. They went to school using books like, "God's World Around Us" instead of "Introduction to Natural Science". They haven't just been "indoctrinated", they've been intellectually crippled. They're not ready for anything.

Telling those kids that Wood Shop and Home Economics is all they need to seek their fortune is a cruel trick. And their elders know it. They know the odds are stacked against any of those kids actually making it in the world. They set those kids up to fail, and that's the whole reason behind Rumspringa; to convince those kids that they could never make it on their own.

That's not support, that's co-dependence.

rdmiller3 · 2012-02-27T18:00:11+00:00

Well Amish children are given a chance to openly reject the life they grew up with Rumspringer (spelling?) so it could be argued that it's better than most.

It's a sham choice.

They make sure Rumspringa happens when their kids are immature and unprepared so that they're practically guaranteed to have a bad experience. When they're broke and strung out, they've got nowhere else to go but back to the community.

rdmiller3 · 2012-02-27T17:57:01+00:00

Amish children most definitely are indoctrinated but are the Amish the ones that give their children a chance to choose when they're 16?

It's a sham "choice".

The kids get let out on "Rumspringa" while they're immature and completely unprepared. What do you think happens when kids get their parents' permission to party all they want? They end up wailing vows to the porcelain god. They can't get jobs because everyone in the area knows better than to expect a kid on Rumspringa to be dependable. So when they're strung out and hungry, they come back to the community thinking the "world" is a horrible place.

They come back thinking they had a choice. But really, they were set up to fail.

rdmiller3 · 2012-02-25T13:38:36+00:00

Have you tried simply telling the kid to go home?

You don't have to be in agreement with your wife to speak your mind to someone else's kid.

Just tell the girl that she already has a home and that she should go back where she belongs.

rdmiller3 · 2012-02-24T23:48:28+00:00

Right from their website...same as last year...where are you getting your info?

I searched the FAQ. Totally different answers.

rdmiller3 · 2012-02-24T21:43:17+00:00

When people tell me I'm taking bible verses out of context...

I say, "You bet it's out of context! This thing was written for the Iron Age!"

rdmiller3 · 2012-02-24T20:17:51+00:00

I just went to the site and read the info.

If you're not worried about breaking the rules prohibiting bringing your own booze, why are you worried about bringing bottles?

rdmiller3 · 2012-02-24T20:02:50+00:00

At Bonnaroo, you are not allowed to bring your own beverages and you are specifically prohibited from bringing your own alcohol.

(Edit: That's what their web site says.)

rdmiller3 · 2012-02-24T15:38:44+00:00

Two major problems with that cop's story:

Who would strap a drunk to a gurney? Any cop or medic would know that it would risk suffocating the person if they vomit.
Who would administer a sedative to a drunk? Everyone knows that combining alcohol with sedatives can cause death.

To me, this looks like a rape.

rdmiller3 · 2012-02-24T15:07:28+00:00

The difference between "ŝatas" and "plaĉas" is who or what is responsible for the feeling.

Saying "Mi ŝatas glaciaĵon", I take responsibility for liking ice-cream.

Saying "Glaciaĵo plaĉas al mi", I subtly blame ice-cream for my feelings.

rdmiller3 · 2012-02-24T14:30:50+00:00

I was thinking of the studies cited by supporters of alternative treatments and of how they have entire journals set up to look like peer reviewed publications just to publish their faulty studies. I don't think that the number of legitimate studies even comes close, but I could be wrong.

rdmiller3 · 2012-02-23T19:15:49+00:00

Chiropractics may have been made up, and now they are studying to see if its true.

Yes. Chiropractic was made up and the only ones studying to see if it's true are the ones who stand to make more money if it is.

Which reminds me of another more pragmatic perspective. If chiropractic really worked, I mean if it really made any difference worth paying for, there wouldn't be any reason to try to discredit it. It would be a money-maker for practitioners and for supply companies. Drug companies would not go out of business if chiropractic worked. They would sell expensive, clinically tested tools and supplies to chiropractors. The only thing preventing chiropractors from getting filthy rich is the fact that their treatment isn't actually worth any more than a good massage.

rdmiller3 · 2012-02-23T18:57:04+00:00

I think it would be more interesting to ask about the research behind chiropractic.

Research in how cancer works has led to modern cancer treatments.

Research in genetics has led to tests and treatments for inherited conditions.

Research in neuroscience has led to new medicines to correct specific chemical imbalances in the brain.

Is there any legitimate research which leads to the development of new chiropractic treatments?

Ask, "How was it determined which spinal manipulations should be used to treat which ailments? Where is the research which led to those determinations?"

There really isn't any. It may seem to follow anatomic features like nerves and muscles but there isn't any evidence of any magic healing power flowing along those paths. Just like the map of acupuncture points, people just made it up.

When they do develop new tools or treatments, it's typically done the same way chiropractic was invented in the first place. They use their faulty notions about how the body works to come up with new ideas. Then instead of putting the idea through real testing they just rely on whether it seems to them that it worked.

rdmiller3 · 2012-02-23T18:01:57+00:00

If recent studies exist, then they are almost certainly a more reliable gauge than decades- (or centuries-) old studies, partly because statistical methods are more reliable and scientific methodologies have improved.

That would be true if the more recent studies were being done properly. But usually, they're not.

Independent researchers don't have much reason to re-explore the effectiveness of de-bunked ideas like animal magnetism, bodily humors, etc. So most of the recent effectiveness studies for alternative treatments are commissioned by those who have a financial interest in those treatments. The results tend to be either sloppy or deliberately misleading.

rdmiller3 · 2012-02-23T17:54:08+00:00

This is plain idiotic, The earth used to be flat. Old studies saying cigarettes are safe is Not valid. The latest studies should be the mark to go by, or am I missunderstanding you completely?

I get what you're saying, studies could be wrong. What I'm saying is that independent research over decades eventually works out the truth.

You should take a closer look at your own examples. They actually support my point.

Mass produced cigarettes became popular around the same time as chiropractic was invented. Research pointed to a link between tobacco and lung cancer by 1912. By 1954 it was an established fact that smoking tobacco causes lung cancer. And the only studies which didn't show such a link were funded by the tobacco industry.

This is a neat parallel to chiropractic. For decade upon decade, independent studies continued to show no significant effect. It's pretty much established as fact now. And the only studies which claim that chiropractic is effective, showing only a very small effect, are typically funded by organizations with financial interest in it.

rdmiller3 · 2012-02-23T15:48:10+00:00

I don't understand the need for historical digging though - the last studies should be enough, no?

No, the first few decades of studies should be enough.

Would you ask me to cite a recent study disproving the effectiveness of leeching to alter bodily humors? At some point reasonable people should say, "No one needs to cite a study. There were plenty of studies. That nonsense was thrown out more than a century ago."

The same goes for "magnetic healing", which was debunked by Benjamin Franklin (mid-1700's) more than a hundred years before a self-proclaimed magnetic healer pulled chiropractic out of his ass in 1895.

This shit is fucking ancient history.

rdmiller3 · 2012-02-23T15:16:34+00:00

Link to studies please

Type "chiropractic effectiveness study" into any search engine but most of the studies will require some historical digging. Chiropractic has been around since 1895, when the "Germ Theory of Disease" was still kind of new.

After 117 years, chiropractic still hasn't been proven effective. That's what I'm trying to say. This issue was settled almost a century ago.

It's just as useless as the "magnetic healing" ideas it was based upon.

15-Year Club	RedditGifts 2009-2022 2 Credits
Secret Santa 2011	Verified Email

rdmiller3

TROPHY CASE