>> ^brycewi19:

Gotta ask, but can it be concluded that Iceland's actions with the banks and debt forgiveness is a direct correlation to their increase in GDP? Or are there other factors that this video is not including?


What other factors?

Iceland's biggest exports are aluminum and fish, which accounts for the majority of their GDP. Not exactly two dynamic growth powerhouses traditionally.

Some sifter's like to take shots at TYT (some not undeserved) but rarely back up the rhetoric with facts. All evidence points to the pulling the banks in to line and relieving the populace of massive debt burdens (freeing up cash to keep, for example, small businesses running employing people etc) as the major cause of a return to growth after the initial contraction.

You want to see a sort of pre-emptive version of this policy, look at Australia. We have a highly regulated and controlled banking environment and the government provided stimulus during the GFC. Our banks are not allowed to expose themselves to nearly the same level of risk that US or other banks are in deregulated markets. Now, in 2012, banks are taking record profits and the country didn't suffer nearly as badly as most of the rest of the developed world...

Funny thing about this urge to have few/no rules or punishment for banks and their executives, if you broke in to a store, robbed it and burned it to the ground, a republican would probably call for your head and more police to enforce that it doesn't happen again. So what happens when people do the same thing to the economy of a nation? They get rewarded with more money? Doesn't make sense to me.

OK, so it looks like this is just a teaser for for a whole series of studies focusing on female characters and the use of cliche roles of women in gaming.

She is correct, games are becoming a more major part of our society and play a leading roll in pop culture. Does it need to be studied to this extent? Maybe, but for feminist purposes, no.

It's a fine line between watchdog and wanting to filter out basic human nature.
The reason these games are successful is partially because of the fantasy aspect. Take away the basic sex appeal and you take away the stimulus for it's appeal.

Lets face it, as humans we crave few things. We crave food, possessions for survival and lets face it, sex (or forms thereof.)

In games, there is usually a health meter and some way of measuring success. This builds on the basic functionality of the game. Then it needs a level of sexy to appeal to our base desires.

Now this isn't exclusive, I'm sure there are games out there which excuses at least one of these in any given formula but when it comes down to it, we crave what we crave and games facilitate that need.

I often think of Diablo and it's appeal to our needs of hunting and gathering instincts. And we are rewarded for the gathering as we advance throughout the game. And along the way we get to fantasize ourselves into one of the powerful characters which all satisfy the requirements of having exaggerated features, one way or another. (even the necro, which has an air of arrogance and demands respect, if not bulging muscles)

I'll round off my comments, though I think I could talk on about this for some time.
We need to cliches in our games. They hold the appeal for us and keep us wanting more.

flies react to light stimulus and will change their wing/flight patterns while stationary (glued to a stick) when exposed to similar conditions. i think the spider got something out of this

"Effect" can be a verb: To make or bring about; to implement.
"Affect" can be a noun: (psychology) A subjective feeling experienced in response to a thought or other stimulus; mood, emotion, especially as demonstrated in external physical signs.

Even the image you referenced says, "Most of the time...">> ^JiggaJonson:

@messenger
Incorrect, you can not "effect" anything. Again, it's a noun. Many nouns can function as verbs, 'I feel love," with love as a noun vs "I love you," with love as a verb, but in this instance there is a spelling distinction that denotes the different forms of the word.
Through the use of a be-verb, you can use the forms of the word in the way you suggest with a little rewording. It would have to say "Except when you have an effect on an affect," to be correct. The use of the to-have verb creates a situation where the words that follow will function as nouns.
See also: http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/misspelling/effect.png

>> ^bobknight33:

How about Jobs, Jobs jobs Jobs and less debt


In a recession, the two are mutually exclusive. Go read up on your Keynes.

Congress refuses to enact a real stimulus package because of the huge deficit--one that they created--and offers no suggestions other than tax cuts, which do little to stimulate demand and increase the deficit. Back in 2000, we should've been increasing marginal rates rather than cutting them. If that'd been done, we'd have lots of breathing room for real stimulus. Know-nothing simplistic people like you are the problem, and have nothing to do with the solution.

Nah, not really offended. Just disagree. Seeya!
>> ^RhesusMonk:

Well, we're not going to get anywhere. Clearly I've offended your well-honed psychological sensibilities by challenging your post that stated severe electroshock therapy is the ONLY treatment in some situations, written in the context of a news story where no justification whatsoever was given.
My brush painted as broadly as the words: "when aversive conditioning is used in the developmental setting, it is as a last resort and the aversive stimulus is sparing and lenient;" words with which you seem to agree. The side-effects to be avoided were mentioned in both our posts, and I should have used the word "or" where I used "and." What a semantic boner!
I don't know what your background is (?), but aversive punishment may be a way of referring to a practice in some fields, but in the context of ASDs and behavioral analysis, I have never heard the term used. Also, when autistics injure themselves, they do so when exhibiting self-stimulaing behaviors. I have been highly discouraged from using the term self-injuriious, as it is an outcome-based term that draws the focus away from the behavior's motivators.
As to the ad hom, if you took offense to my statement on the lack of creativity or my reference to Nurse Ratched, be assured I was referring to all those who upvoted your comment as well. Electroshock therapy is arcane and unimaginative in the educational context.

>> ^berticus:
>> ^RhesusMonk:
... "self-injurious" behavior (which is actually called self-stimulating behavior). ...
This is simply not true.

Well, we're not going to get anywhere. Clearly I've offended your well-honed psychological sensibilities by challenging your post that stated severe electroshock therapy is the ONLY treatment in some situations, written in the context of a news story where no justification whatsoever was given.

My brush painted as broadly as the words: "when aversive conditioning is used in the developmental setting, it is as a last resort and the aversive stimulus is sparing and lenient;" words with which you seem to agree. The side-effects to be avoided were mentioned in both our posts, and I should have used the word "or" where I used "and." What a semantic boner!

I don't know what your background is (?), but aversive punishment may be a way of referring to a practice in some fields, but in the context of ASDs and behavioral analysis, I have never heard the term used. Also, when autistics injure themselves, they do so when exhibiting self-stimulaing behaviors. I have been highly discouraged from using the term self-injuriious, as it is an outcome-based term that draws the focus away from the behavior's motivators.

As to the ad hom, if you took offense to my statement on the lack of creativity or my reference to Nurse Ratched, be assured I was referring to all those who upvoted your comment as well. Electroshock therapy is arcane and unimaginative in the educational context.



>> ^berticus:

>> ^RhesusMonk:
... "self-injurious" behavior (which is actually called self-stimulating behavior). ...
This is simply not true.

I don't know what your background is (?), but my colleagues and I have no trouble understanding what "aversive punishment" means. No incoherence, no confusion. It's one part of behaviourist principles that are taught in undergraduate psychology. It is often referred to as positive punishment.

Would you care to cite the relevant evidence that shows the effects are vanishingly small? Because punishment, from everything I have learned, is an excellent means of behaviour control -- it just has many drawbacks, which is why reinforcement is the preferred alternative. The problem is that there are severe cases where nothing else works. What then do you do?

Reductions in social skills, communication skills, and cognitive ability are all possible outcomes. However, every one of those will depend on the punisher used, its properties, the behaviour in question, and a large variety of other factors. Your brush paints thickly.

I'm not sure what to make of your last paragraph. It reeks of ad-hom.

>> ^RhesusMonk:

"Aversive punishment" is not a coherent term in the realm of emotional/behavioral psychology. What's more, the practice to which this term seems to refer has vanishingly small effect on "self-injurious" behavior (which is actually called self-stimulating behavior). What effects it may have are significantly offset by the reduction in social and communications skills, and a decrease in cognitive ability. These reasons are why, when aversive conditioning is used in the developmental setting, it is as a last resort and the aversive stimulus is sparing and lenient. In this case, the video and other evidence around the boy's condition and behavior are sparse, and any judgment whether this was the correct course of action based on the information we have is laughable. Great measures require great evidence in their justification.
In any event, cooling people off their outrage at authority who inflict barbaric emotional and physical pain in an effort to encourage compliance for its own sake with quasi-psychology based claims is sophomoric at best. There may be some intellectual satisfaction with the idea that some minds are so beyond reason that they only respond to pain of this kind, but that idea only smacks true when the thinker lacks the creativity necessary to actually manage these kinds of malfunctions. Seems Nurse Ratched would pass muster with at least some of our Sifters.

>> ^berticus:
The sad, cold truth of things is that there are some severely autistic children who engage in the most horrific self-injurious behaviour, and aversive punishment is the ONLY treatment (in conjunction with a broader treatment plan, naturally) that works. And yes, it DOES work.
I'm not talking about kids with minor problems. I mean the ones who will do things like smash their own face into the ground over and over until they lose so much blood they pass out. The ones who will, left to themselves, die.
Positive punishment is horrible. But, it's either that, or let these kids maim or kill themselves (or possibly others) through their behaviour.
(I make no comment regarding this specific incident, I just want you to know the issue is far more complicated than this mind-bite would have you believe.)

"Aversive punishment" is not a coherent term in the realm of emotional/behavioral psychology. What's more, the practice to which this term seems to refer has vanishingly small effect on "self-injurious" behavior (which is actually called self-stimulating behavior). What effects it may have are significantly offset by the reduction in social and communications skills, and a decrease in cognitive ability. These reasons are why, when aversive conditioning is used in the developmental setting, it is as a last resort and the aversive stimulus is sparing and lenient. In this case, the video and other evidence around the boy's condition and behavior are sparse, and any judgment whether this was the correct course of action based on the information we have is laughable. Great measures require great evidence in their justification.

In any event, cooling people off their outrage at authority who inflict barbaric emotional and physical pain in an effort to encourage compliance for its own sake with quasi-psychology based claims is sophomoric at best. There may be some intellectual satisfaction with the idea that some minds are so beyond reason that they only respond to pain of this kind, but that idea only smacks true when the thinker lacks the creativity necessary to actually manage these kinds of malfunctions. Seems Nurse Ratched would pass muster with at least some of our Sifters.


>> ^berticus:

The sad, cold truth of things is that there are some severely autistic children who engage in the most horrific self-injurious behaviour, and aversive punishment is the ONLY treatment (in conjunction with a broader treatment plan, naturally) that works. And yes, it DOES work.
I'm not talking about kids with minor problems. I mean the ones who will do things like smash their own face into the ground over and over until they lose so much blood they pass out. The ones who will, left to themselves, die.
Positive punishment is horrible. But, it's either that, or let these kids maim or kill themselves (or possibly others) through their behaviour.
(I make no comment regarding this specific incident, I just want you to know the issue is far more complicated than this mind-bite would have you believe.)

I'll just respond to these in bulk, since it's quite a pile of manure.

The following state things happened that never happened:

>> ^lantern53:

First President to violate the War Powers Act.
First President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of companies to his union supporters.
First President to by-pass Congress and implement the Dream Act through executive fiat.
First President to order a secret amnesty program that stopped the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S., including those with criminal convictions.
First President to demand a company hand-over $20 billion to one of his political appointees.
First President to terminate America's ability to put a man in space.
First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly spoke-out on the reasons for their rate increases.
First President to tell a major manufacturing company in which state it is allowed to locate a factory.
First President to fire an inspector general of Ameri-Corps for catching one of his friends in a corruption case.
First President to appoint 45 czars to replace elected officials in his office.
First President to hide his medical, educational and travel records.
First President to go on multiple global 'apology tours'.


The following he wasn't the first to do, or wouldn't have been if it weren't also part of the block above:

>> ^lantern53:

First President to violate the War Powers Act.
First President to be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
First President to defy a Federal Judge's court order to cease implementing the Health Care Reform Law a duly passed Act of Congress.
First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party.
First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it.
First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect.
First President to withdraw an existing coal permit that had been properly issued years ago.
First President to hide his medical, educational and travel records.
First President to go on 17 lavish vacations, including date nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends paid for by the taxpayer.
First President to have 22 personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife.
First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000 a year at taxpayer expense.
First President to take a 17 day vacation.


Many of these he not only wasn't the first to do, they were things Bush did when he was in office. Some, like "arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it" and "require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party" happened back when the founding fathers were still alive.

Let's see, what's left?

>> ^lantern53:

First President to spend a trillion dollars on 'shovel-ready' jobs when there was no such thing as 'shovel-ready' jobs.


There's a lot wrong with this one. First, it wasn't a trillion dollars. Second, "the President" didn't spend it. Third, "shovel-ready" was a term to describe projects that could begin work sooner rather than later, and amazingly enough, those existed. Fourth, this wasn't a "first" -- the New Deal was bigger when you adjust for inflation. Fifth, it was a big help to our sagging economy, and we should've done a second round of it.

But I do agree, the President deserves credit for getting the stimulus passed. So does the President -- the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (aka the stimulus) is featured prominently in the video above.

>> ^lantern53:

First President to preside over a cut to the credit-rating of the United States.


That's because Republicans in Congress came within seconds of forcing the US to default on its debt.

>> ^lantern53:

First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being present.


No argument from me on this one. Is this supposed to be a bad thing?

>> ^lantern53:

First President to repeat the Holy Quran tells us the early morning call of the Azan (Islamic call to worship) is the most beautiful sound on earth.


I suspect if we check the record really carefully we can find Bush (Jr. or Sr.) saying something similar, but in any case is this supposed to be a bad thing?

President Obama's record is one he should be proud of. I was hoping he'd be able to do more, but honestly I underestimated the totally craven hostile bullshit that having a black Democrat in the White House brought out of the Confederacy. Excuse me, I mean the "Republican party."

Statist!!1! >> ^chingalera:

"Do you think there should be any limits on how much property a person can own?"
No, but there should be criteria in place for just how much property assholes,cunts,and douchebags may own.

Yeah, I get that. usually the left is calling for more than "some" regulation.

As the scamulus proved, collusion between government and banks is also possible.

Also, "merriment". Good word.


>> ^Bradaphraser:

I think the point dystopianfuturetoday is making is that when regulation is reduced, there is ALWAYS collusion. Adam Smith understood this. "Two men of the same trade cannot meet, even for merriment and diversion, without the conversation ending in a conspiracy against the public."

The general idea is that SOME regulation is necessary to ENSURE that supply and demand are driving prices, and not guilds and cartels.

Fucking shit. Thank you, Phraser!

@quantumushroom, this is why.

>> ^Bradaphraser:

I think the point dystopianfuturetoday is making is that when regulation is reduced, there is ALWAYS collusion. Adam Smith understood this. "Two men of the same trade cannot meet, even for merriment and diversion, without the conversation ending in a conspiracy against the public."

The general idea is that SOME regulation is necessary to ENSURE that supply and demand are driving prices, and not guilds and cartels.

The Stimulus didnt work because it wasnt enough money, because too much money was already stolen, not to mention the fact that the money isnt real! (dwight shrute must support ron paul)

The thieves were rewarded. The game is too rigged.

No political party. Just ass rape of society.

Understand why it hurts now..

@dystopianfuturetoday I really got to you, didn't I?

Yes, please intimidate me with your links and quoting, didn't work for the post above though, your links are totally bogus. This should be fun!

Let me start this off with an embarassing video of dystopianfuturetoday: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0

Btw, I was talking about TheFreak. To me, he assumes authority over the truth for the experts that say the stimulus was a success. So I can't possibly disagree with them if I'm not being "willfully ignorant".