DamnGirl
-
Posts
43 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by DamnGirl
-
-
LOL!! You went to study medicine because you have a need for immediate gratification?!
Medicine is one of the most demanding fields that offer the least immediate gratification when you're a student!
How did you go through the 7 (it is 7, right?) years of education, of studying the names of all the bones, muscles, diseases etc'?
Just want to add one more thing, to what bobsponge said: I'm also an artist. But I don't do it primarily for the money, I do it percisely for the "spirit of it" as you called it. I am making money off of it, but that is not what I have in mind when I paint.
I never said that I needed immediate gratification but only that I enjoy it.
Having said that, I can imagine how that probably seems when you consider the ridiculous path I took.
When it comes to choosing what to pursue in medicine, I factored that part of my personality into the mix. I had to imagine what I would prefer doing if I was up all night. I knew that I would do best on my feet and using my hands.
-
I disagree. While I think the fact that these companies are working in collusion with the Chinese government is immoral, I would not expect Microsoft to willingly give up market share for the sake of morals. Now before you get all upset let me explain. Microsoft has the moral obligation to expand its influence into other countries in as much as it enriches the share holders. If censoring the internet for a communist country is immoral then it is the obligation of our government to condemn such acts and make them illegal. A company should behave in a moral manner but in this case there is not “support” from the government. Were Google or Yahoo or Microsoft to decide to deny China’s request a competitor would swoop in to take over the market. My point is that your judgment should fall harshly on the US Government for allowing private companies to work in collusion with the Communist Chinese in the first place.
So you would favor government restrictions on private companies when it feels that the countries the companies deal with are behaving in an unsavory manner? This sounds more appealing to you than allowing the companies to police themselves (and expecting that they will)?
I'm not sure that I understand your assertion that Microsoft has a moral obligation to expand its influence "in as much as it enriches the share holders." In my opinion, the fact that a company's actions are based on the interests of share holders does not afford some morality to those actions.
-
When I was applying to medical school, I knew that I would face the question, "Why do you want to be a doctor?" Most of the other people I knew didn't venture beyond, "Because I want to help people".
I refused to offer that up as my reason because it was untrue. My motivation for becoming a physican was purely selfish. I found the human body, its normal physiology, and all of its pathology fascinating. I loved learning how to evaluate problems, putting clues together, coming up with (ideally) the correct diagnosis, and taking care of the problem (if possible). My interest in going into a surgical specialty was also selfish. I loved watching my hands produce measurable, immediate results without ill-effects. That likely stems from the part of me that enjoys immediate gratification.
Had I become a physician solely for the good of others, I never would have made it through medical school. In those moments when people claim to have a right to your skills, skills acquired through more work than they likely will ever do in their lifetimes, you had better have more to fall back on than wanting to serve them to get you through. If the work itself does not have intrinsic value for you, you're done.
-
Harshly...
I think there is a grave difference between doing business in China where China is forced to allow some sort of semblance of rights, and being complicit in the government's violation of rights.
Agreed except for there being nothing harsh about your statement.
-
Well, the rest of the country wouldn't be responsible for rebuilding areas destroyed by "the big one".
-
Instead of spewing propaganda, I wish Exxon would reimburse the government for the $92 million that it cost to clean up after the Valdez oil spill.
-
It was fun thinking back, trying to remember what I watched way back when. I have enjoyed looking at everyone else's entries. As for House, I used to love it, but the medicine became far to inaccurate and/or unrealistic that I think I'm done at least for now. I may go back and try again. Well, here's my list if anyone is interested:
X-Files - I miss Mulder & Scully.
CSI - I'm completely addicted to this show.
Iron Chef - Yes. Excellent choice.
Family Guy - I never liked the Simpsons, so I was doubtful that I would enjoy this one. I was so wrong. Favorite on the show? Brian with Stewie a close second.
Criminal Minds - Mandy Patinkin plays a really interesting character.
Six Feet Under - Also miss this one a lot.
Dirty Jobs - The host is hysterical. He has a stronger stomach than I.
Growing up:
Dallas - I loved it. I have to admit it. Big crush on Bobby Ewing.
St. Elsewhere - Awesome show.
Charlie's Angels - I wanted to be one.
CHiPs - Big crush on Ponch.
Six Million Dollar Man - Big crush on Lee Majors. (I had a few crushes as you can tell.)
Wonder Woman - Wanted to be her, too.
The Dukes of Hazzard - Yep. You guessed it. Big crush on Bo.
-
Why should any business be expected to help the competition?
Frankly, I think Microsoft should tell the EU to stuff it. I realize that's not terribly good for business, but the company would survive ultimately. I also suspect EU might change its position (perhaps wishful thinking). Let's not establish an irritating precident.
-
Some schools give numerical grades (83, 99, 72) and some schools give letter grades (A, B, C) on their transcripts. If I recall correctly, New York has all letter grades because they are standardized that way.
But, an 85 at one school can be different than an 85 at another school. For example...
If your school's grade scale is: A (90-100), B (80-89), C (70-79), D (65-69) then an 85 would be a B and would be counted as such. What about the school that has the following grade scale: A (93-100), B (86-92), C (78-85), D (70-77)? If you recieved an 85 in a class you would probably get a C+ which is certainly lower than a B.
So it's the admissions officers job to get the grade scales and then acquire the actual letter grade. Typically a school will send the scales with the transcript so it's easier for the officer to make the distinction.
As much of a pain as it must be, I'm impressed that you all go to such efforts to standardize (as much as possible) the grading between applicants. I would imagine that students from schools using the A=93-100, etc. scale would be quite reassured to know that.
-
Sex = Genital penitration.
Sexual Activity = Erogenous zone stimulation by another.
About the most clear cut definition I can think of - although the former sort of leaves out the poor lesbians.
That's kinda how I thought of it, too.
-
So, MatthewJ, what did she end up doing that night?
-
If performing the act affects you negatively(doing it during a concert symphony), then it is immoral.
No. It's masochism.
-
I guess I'm curious if anyone really would be "re-interested" in a person who managed to change some undesirable aspect of his/herself or if the old feelings of undesirability are too difficult to overcome, at which point love becomes either somewhat forced, or just unlikely.
I hate make it sound like a lost cause, but I'm not sure that this would work. Someone improving an aspect of him/herself to win my love is not a reflection of a sincere interest in changing, and the person may look less attractive in the end. It's a different story when someone recognizes a flaw and consciously works to improve him/herself. That can be very attractive.
-
By Nicholas Provenzo, cross-posted from The Rule of Reason
1.) There is no charge of a cover-up, like there was in My Lai during the Vietnam War. The top Marine commanders seem resolute in finding out exactly what took place in Haditha, determine if it was a crime, and prosecute those responsible.
I am just curious to know why the military paid compensation to the victims' families but concluded in their final report that the deaths as the result of an IED. The military pays compensation only when it is responsible. This raised some questions in my mind as to whether there was a larger cover-up.
If the soldiers are guilty, then they were wrong to do what they did. What bothers me so much about the military's handling of this is the fact that it thinks that ethics training is the answer to keeping this from happening again. Ethics training? Who is the teacher? Just what is it that they are teaching?
Why isn't anyone asking whether this reflects the psychological effects of serving in a war where you can't tell friend from foe (much like in Vietnam) and are constantly at risk of death everywhere you go and from everyone you see. Even the corpses of animals in the road must be avoided as they may be booby-trapped. Children are being used as suicide bombers. How can any of us even imagine what living in such conditions must be like? Again, I'm not saying that what they (allegedly) did was OK, but, instead of ethics training, perhaps the military should be screening soldiers for mental illness and getting them out of there.
Oh, wait. Then we might not have anyone left to continue this mess of a war.
-
I have a bold idea: why not simply recognize that people must be responsible for their own choices, including what medicines they are to take?
Because the lawyers wouldn't have anyone to sue anymore.
While I cannot support any pharmaceutical company who deliberately withholds information that would suggest a medication is unduly harmful, I also do not expect it to have the power to predict the future. It bothers me to no end that, when some adverse reaction is detected years after the medication has been on the market after being submitted through all of the legitimate processes in place, people can still sue the drug maker. This is the very reason why interest in developing new vaccines is nil. Look at all of the hysteria over MMR vaccines and autism. Why not just make another Viagra or Lipitor? It's a slam dunk, and you'll make a fortune.
-
If one is going to get stupid drunk the least one can do to protect oneself from doing something one would later regret is to do it while NOT in public. Unless she intends to cheat on her husband, you might advise her to at the very least stay home for this "activity."
Or to bring a condom.
-
I'm watching "Charlotte Gray" right now and all I can see is Dagny. Especially when she is on the train at the start of the movie.
Cate Blanchett=>
http://www.imdb.com/gallery/ss/0245046/Ss/...ath_key=0245046
I actually thought of Cate Blanchett myself, and that picture goes a long way to convincing me that she could play Dagny.
Good call!
-
How about Chris Noth for Rearden?
Not bad. He definitely has that strong elegance, but I think that Liam still has my vote.
-
Too funny!
My contribution: Brokeback Top Gun
I think that you may recognize some of the music.
-
All I have to say is, "Wow."
I thought that it was done really well.
Made me sad, though. I'm a bit sentimental like that.
-
Despite the objections of friends in business, I have often regarded today's shareholder practices as rather parasitic. They invest their money and expect to be number one on the priority list of the company. Of course, the companies treat them this way, too. I feel like, if you're going to invest in a company, it should be because you value its products or services, believe in its business practices, and see a future in it not because you expect it to do everything possible to make you a buck despite what it means to its employees. You shouldn't expect to have a claim on that company. You made an educated decision, and you took your chances. I look at it as, here's my money, I think that you run a good business with good business practices, so have at it. If I was wrong, so be it. I screwed up. Instead, we have companies that do anything to please their shareholders even when it leads to the demise of the company and the loss of the retirement savings of its employees who can little afford to have that happen. Maybe I'm just business ignorant, but that's pathetic.
As for what happened to these jokers, I agree with D.Odden.
-
33yo doc. Married. No kids. Two cats.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/17/unmarried.ap/index.html
Why are so many people in this country so obsessed with marriage? Specifically with other people's marriages?
-Q
I wonder the same. I suspect that it, in part, has to do with the fact that it's always easier to meddle in other people's affairs than deal with your own. It is amazing to me that so many people out there are convinced that they "got it right" and that the rest of us should follow suit. What arrogance to presume that you know what is good for the rest of us and what a shame that they may be having an impact! I am insulted that so many of their organizations have names like this:
American Family Association
Family Forever
The Moral Majority
People for the American Way
Concerned Women for America
Who ARE they to take these names that, again, reinforcing some notion that they are the authorities on all things related to the family, that their ideas somehow represent the American way, and that these women are more concerned than I am or have concerns that remotely represent mine (seeing as how I'm an American woman). Again, the arrogance is so frustrating!
I think that it is truly a disgrace that people who claim to value family and the sanctity of life would be in more support of a dysfunctional, married, heterosexual couple raising equally dysfunctional children that they had only because they weren't responsible enough to use birth control (oh, wait, that's forbidden) than a stable, loving, homosexual couple who goes through endless hoops to have a child. In which situation are the needs of the child met more? These are the same people who decry abortion but support the death penalty. I guess the sanctity of life only goes so far.
When I read stories like this with the anti-commune law, I am just disgusted that our government officials underhandedly legislate their version of morality. Then I read about the founder of Domino's Pizza wanting to start his own Catholic-values-based town.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationw...62.story?page=1
My first (and primary) response was one of disdain, but then I thought to myself, if all of the idiotic, right-wing Christians moved down there (wishful thinking), good riddance.
-
Poor algae... Why does no one consider their feelings here?
Hey, man. It's an Objectivism forum!
Sloganize Yourself!
in Recreation and The Good Life
Posted
"Gotta Lotta Erica"
"Gives a Meal Erica-Appeal"
"But I'd Rather Have a Bowl of Erica"
"Four out of Five Dentists Recommend Erica."
"You'll Never Put A Better Bit Of Erica On Your Knife."
"This Is The Age Of The Erica."