I didn't read the article but I'm going to guess no. I suspect its alright for external use due to the fact that keratinized skin cells already are dead, just filled with keratin.
Scientists have always been egotistical, with their own pet theories and human idiosyncrasies. The saving grace of science has never been the scientists, but the method in which science is conducted. Peer review, vigorous debate, and cat-fights. What we believe scientists should be and what scientists are are two very different things. The problem here is the outside influences. You and me.
I gotta tell you, the supermarket chain I frequent, Giant Eagle, is quite comfortable with presenting their weekly sale information in an electronic format, along with a variety of other services.
You continue to be an obtuse asshole. You declare the first guy has no understanding science, and then declare that I was somehow saying evidence didn't exist. I EXPLICITLY stated I was not familiar with the issue. I also stated, while I feel there is enough reason to be comfortable in a biological cause in Asberger's, there is no well agreed upon exact cause yet.
The point of the matter is, your potshot at that guy about science is as off base as your complete mischaracterization of my argument to that potshot. You're being willfully disingenuous to have an argument over the Internet.
I'm not just skeptical on self diagnosis myself. I'm also skeptical on GP diagnosis. Those assholes over-diagnose all kinds of shit. If its a full fledged clinical psychologist though, cool.
Please don't compare natural sciences with social sciences so freely. There are certainly biological indicators supporting the Autism diagnosis, particularly the old studies of monozygotic twins raised apart. I haven't heard any extremely strong neurophysiological evidence about it, however. This guy's paper seems to sum that up as well: http://www.mattababy.org/~belmonte/Publications/Papers/98_Garreau/ . I think this guy has real concerns as a layman about the underlying causes of Asbergers. I think he is quite incorrect in that. But it has nothing to do with him completely dismissing science, and making that argument is disingenuous. That is not to say that I have any real insight into the issue either, of course. All I am saying, is quit running your mouth off.
Theres plenty to hate about facebook. The unscrupulous app developers, the slow gnawing nature of giving up some privacy for some functionality, the insane nature of having rapid access to others completely vapid thoughts, disagreements with the direction the company wants to go toward(as seen by their user agreement moves), or just hating the population in general and not wanting to be anywhere near them.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't read the article but I'm going to guess no. I suspect its alright for external use due to the fact that keratinized skin cells already are dead, just filled with keratin.
Are you sure you would notice if Archie Bunker would stop living, however?
I noticed I've had a bunch of assholes running into my CAPTCHA wall for my PHPBB board.
Scientists have always been egotistical, with their own pet theories and human idiosyncrasies. The saving grace of science has never been the scientists, but the method in which science is conducted. Peer review, vigorous debate, and cat-fights. What we believe scientists should be and what scientists are are two very different things. The problem here is the outside influences. You and me.
He was complaining about sensationalism. My point is, there will be plenty more of it.
I must be one hell of a liberal, because I actually do get most of my news from NPR, BBC World Service, NYT, and slashdot.
I gotta tell you, the supermarket chain I frequent, Giant Eagle, is quite comfortable with presenting their weekly sale information in an electronic format, along with a variety of other services.
Encryption only hides it from your ISP noticing what you're doing. If you're hosting shit on Gnutella, your ass is going to get canned.
I have yet to see a valid connection between economic policy and civil freedoms.
Some mod got pissed about seeing the same thing over and over and decided to try and retaliate.
His goal is to piggyback on search indexing.
Yeah instead you'll get bloggers interpretation of news stories on the front page. Haha.
You continue to be an obtuse asshole. You declare the first guy has no understanding science, and then declare that I was somehow saying evidence didn't exist. I EXPLICITLY stated I was not familiar with the issue. I also stated, while I feel there is enough reason to be comfortable in a biological cause in Asberger's, there is no well agreed upon exact cause yet.
The point of the matter is, your potshot at that guy about science is as off base as your complete mischaracterization of my argument to that potshot. You're being willfully disingenuous to have an argument over the Internet.
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1458542&cid=30240876
As you can see, El Reg tells it that extradition from the US is quite common.
Well played, 8Ball.
If you're in the goddamn CIA you're serious about everything. I'd hate to see how those assholes react to goatse.
"His anus stretching looks unpleasant."
Sounds like the extradition treaties need some work.
I often wonder how in the hell some of us can get high karma.
I'm not just skeptical on self diagnosis myself. I'm also skeptical on GP diagnosis. Those assholes over-diagnose all kinds of shit. If its a full fledged clinical psychologist though, cool.
Please don't compare natural sciences with social sciences so freely. There are certainly biological indicators supporting the Autism diagnosis, particularly the old studies of monozygotic twins raised apart. I haven't heard any extremely strong neurophysiological evidence about it, however. This guy's paper seems to sum that up as well: http://www.mattababy.org/~belmonte/Publications/Papers/98_Garreau/ . I think this guy has real concerns as a layman about the underlying causes of Asbergers. I think he is quite incorrect in that. But it has nothing to do with him completely dismissing science, and making that argument is disingenuous. That is not to say that I have any real insight into the issue either, of course. All I am saying, is quit running your mouth off.
Our government is behaving like a bunch of vengeful, steroid-addled, UFC-watching goons.
Don't bring W&W into this.
Theres plenty to hate about facebook. The unscrupulous app developers, the slow gnawing nature of giving up some privacy for some functionality, the insane nature of having rapid access to others completely vapid thoughts, disagreements with the direction the company wants to go toward(as seen by their user agreement moves), or just hating the population in general and not wanting to be anywhere near them.
Your assumption is TOTALLY moronic. Creating an emotional argument has ALWAYS been the most effective tactic in trolling.
His entire post was based on a satire article. The fact that so many people took it seriously makes me happy I'm better than those elitists! Wait...
I hope because of that his post is satire.