![]() |
![]() |
#2356 | |
To shreds, you say?
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: in the house and on the street-how many, many feet we meet!
Posts: 18,449
|
Hell yes. It's obvious that the job of a parent isn't over at 18. There is no 'child safety cap' for teenage activities other than vigilant and involved parents. I've read that the human brain isn't fully developed in the decision making areas until about the age of 25. I'd be willing to bet that 20,000 years ago (and earlier, obviously) lackadaisical parenting led to the culling of the herd with those types of parenting approaches. Now we have a whole new set of concerns to take the place of cougars, dire wolves, and other dangerous beasties.
It is sad. Quote:
__________________
The internet is a hateful stew of vomit you can never take completely seriously. - Her Fobs |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2357 |
polaroid of perfection
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: West Yorkshire
Posts: 24,185
|
In many places around the world, the parental tie isn't actually cut until the parent dies.
It's still common for men to live with their parents after marriage even in this country if they are second generation immigrants. It makes financial sense, especially if they work in a family business. Free childcare, shared bills, communal cooking and the parents are looked after in old age. Certainly my Grandparents still lived in Nanny Doyle's house after marriage, it was only WWII that got in the way. My Nanny always said it was a mixed blessing. Auntie Alice lived with her parents until they died, as was expected of a spinster. The War changed many expectations as councils built new houses in new places and suddendly families weren't on the next landing or down the hall. And freedom and privacy, once tasted, are hard to take back.
__________________
Life's hard you know, so strike a pose on a Cadillac |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2358 | |||||
Read? I only know how to write.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,933
|
Quote:
Quote:
Guns don't kill people .... Watching the Republicans - Runaway Train Creative Gun Control Proposal Quote:
This discussion continues farther in science and law. Does someone whose prefrontal cortex never fully developed or clearly shows signs of damage (and therefore subject to emotional outbursts)- is it really Constitutional to apply the death penalty to such a person? Since an adult without or with a minimal prefrontal cortex is an adult who is still a child. Therefore entertains their emotions rather than think logically. And finally: Quote:
|
|||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2359 |
™
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,717
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2360 |
still says videotape
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 26,813
|
That is very likely. I spend my days with a lot of children who have poor impulse control. It can usually be learned, but less likely if a child's life is chaotic. Don't let the frontal lobe argument be a cop-out for poor parenting. Teens will do dumb stuff but they can usually be parented to a point that keeps them from becoming a societal nuisance.
__________________
If you would only recognize that life is hard, things would be so much easier for you. - Louis D. Brandeis |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2361 | |
Read? I only know how to write.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,933
|
Quote:
Ironically, ScienceNow (on PBS) is replaying reports on how animal and child brains operate. How, for example, a child (who later has lower SAT scores) could not control an impulse to take one piece of candy. Decision was easy. Eat one candy now. Or get many candies in a few minutes. Only children who later demonstrated better formed intelligence were able to wait. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2362 |
polaroid of perfection
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: West Yorkshire
Posts: 24,185
|
Meh. Part of that is conditioning too.
If I was told NOT to eat something, I would never have eaten it, no way. Because I would have been terrified of the repercussions. If I was told I COULD eat it, but it would be better if I waited, I would have eaten it. Because grown-ups lie.
__________________
Life's hard you know, so strike a pose on a Cadillac |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2363 |
Read? I only know how to write.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,933
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2364 |
™
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,717
|
Maybe this isn't so weird, but it is remarkable. China is planning to build a canal through Nicaragua. And Nicaragua just approved it. $40 Billion.
China is flexing its muscle. Building a bigger better canal than the Panama canal and controlling it for the next 50 years. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2365 |
Read? I only know how to write.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,933
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2366 |
™
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,717
|
Articles say there have been at least 3 attempts in the past to build a canal through Nicaragua, and none succeeded. Apparently the fractured political climate in Nicaragua is not conducive to getting big projects done. That's why I made sure to say they were "planning" a canal. We will see.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2367 |
Person who doesn't update the user title
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Bottom lands of the Missoula floods
Posts: 6,402
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2368 |
™
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,717
|
Panama is so skinny, it seemed like Nicaragua would be much more difficult to cut through, but spending a couple minutes in Google Earth shows it actually wouldn't be so bad.
You'd want to cut a canal to Lake Nicaragaua. It's 12 miles from the Pacific to Lake Nicaragua, and you have to use locks to get up over a 1,200 foot mountain range and back down again to the lake. I'd guess about 50 locks total there. The lake is something like 100 feet elevation, and is about 30 miles from the Atlantic. But there is this nice wide meandering river that could be dredged. With a couple locks put in around rapids where it drops the 100 feet to the sea, it's really pretty doable. It is nowhere near as bad a location as I first suspected. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2369 | |
™
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,717
|
So there was the news yesterday that the supreme court ruled in Myriad Genetics that you can't patent genes that are naturally occurring. That pleases me, but it means that other genetically engineered genes can still be patented if they are new and man-made, so it's not a huge game changer.
The weird news part of it is that Justice Scalia agreed with the ruling in most ways, but wouldn't agree with some of the nitty gritty molecular biology because it conflicted with his personal (presumably religious) beliefs. Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2370 |
Person who doesn't update the user title
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Bottom lands of the Missoula floods
Posts: 6,402
|
The part about "naturally occurring" human genes vs synthesised DNA" is going to lead to legal confusion.
To the layman, it may seem clear-cut, but when you get into DNA vs cDNA, retro-viruses, "normal" vs "mutation" and/or "birth defect" and, animal genes vs human genes, etc. it gets very murky very quickly. In reality, this is probably more of a political than a legal (constitutionality) decision. It satisfies those of us who object to someone patenting "my genes", and yet saves the companies who have invested in creating lab tests. And since it is a 9-0 decision, it's going to stand for a long time. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 22 (0 members and 22 guests) | |
|
|