Well, you could argue that any bank doing that would just eventually fail due to their policy of underestimating risks. The problem is that the bank gets to take down everyone around them as well. Why are banks so huge and powerful?
Perhaps if banks were treated like normal businesses it wouldn't be such a big deal when they fail. Then again there is a 200 year history of special treatment (bank holidays, etc) so it would be a shock to the system to do that now.
This is a pretty good anaylsis. All these people saying "its the banks", "it's the governments", "its human greed" are not contributing anything worthwhile. Thanks.
It is becoming more and more obvious who is on which side of the bitcoin "debate". This thread honestly isn't even worth reading, everyone who knows what they are talking about is spending all their time explaining the most basic info to idiots. Admittedly there are a few lazy, but intelligent sounding posters mixed in, but this is mostly just troll FUD. 95% of normal people either think it is interesting or just don't care.
I dunno. I just did a quick literature search and saw nothing about paleo-diets causing death in diabetics. This guy has been posting FUD about it throughout this thread.
I highly doubt he properly analyzed the literature. You can cherry pick literature to say whatever you want. Doesn't make him wrong, but doesn't mean his theory has been tested either.
Hmm, ok. Now try to think of ways to weasel that definition to mean whatever you want. Protest is a good one too.
Well. The first problem with your definition is the WBC could still protest "body not present" (not sure what the real word for this is) funerals. So we would need to fix it to account for that.
One guys book isn't going to prove anything. At most there is a logical sounding narrative in there. I am not saying he is wrong, but you shouldn't act like the guy created some book of truth.
If you haven't noticed, doctor's don't really have a good way of dealing with most cancers either. I would personally choose to go to MDs because they're methods have a greater basis in evidence, but they are not perfect. Other's might believe taking medicine is a sin or something like that. I think that is dumb, but so be it... so is overmedication.
This part doesn't matter. If lying is going on, that is the problem. Really, lying isn't even necessarily the problem either, it is being wrong. "Qualified" people lie and make mistakes as well.
Perhaps you need someone to stamp qualified on a piece of paper in order to trust health advice (not saying this is stupid, it is a decent heuristic). What would be wrong with trusting membership in a trade union rather than the government?
I asked a similar question elsewhere, but why should he need a license?
If anything the license makes him more dangerous if he is a quack. He just needs to pass some test that is most likely BS and pay the government money, now he seems like a legit expert to people.
Yep, a joke. No one thinks there is value in basic research. There is no one willing to contribute to large scale projects unless forced by government to do so.
Well, that's a strawman. But really, the US science budget is pretty miniscule.
100 million people giving an average of $1500 a year would cover it. Obviously it wouldn't be normally distributed.
How much would you voluntarily give? If not donating, what would convince you to invest?
Slashdot Mirror
No, I am asking if it is the FDA's responsibility to investigate fraud.
Well, you could argue that any bank doing that would just eventually fail due to their policy of underestimating risks. The problem is that the bank gets to take down everyone around them as well. Why are banks so huge and powerful?
Perhaps if banks were treated like normal businesses it wouldn't be such a big deal when they fail. Then again there is a 200 year history of special treatment (bank holidays, etc) so it would be a shock to the system to do that now.
Is it that complicated? I thought the models just gave the traders an excuse to underestimate kurtosis risk.
This is a pretty good anaylsis. All these people saying "its the banks", "it's the governments", "its human greed" are not contributing anything worthwhile. Thanks.
It is becoming more and more obvious who is on which side of the bitcoin "debate". This thread honestly isn't even worth reading, everyone who knows what they are talking about is spending all their time explaining the most basic info to idiots. Admittedly there are a few lazy, but intelligent sounding posters mixed in, but this is mostly just troll FUD. 95% of normal people either think it is interesting or just don't care.
I dunno. I just did a quick literature search and saw nothing about paleo-diets causing death in diabetics. This guy has been posting FUD about it throughout this thread.
Are you referring to this study?:
http://www.macmillan.org.uk/Documents/AboutUs/Newsroom/LivingAfterCancerMedianCancerSurvivalTimes.pdf
Oh. I thought you were referring to "people in the street".
Most people who "believe in" AGW are the same...
I highly doubt he properly analyzed the literature. You can cherry pick literature to say whatever you want. Doesn't make him wrong, but doesn't mean his theory has been tested either.
Please cite the study on which you are basing your fear that paleo diets may be deadly to diabetics.
Where does he advocate going ketotic?
1) What city built a roadway using some random guy's plans? Perhaps politicians should be licensed to make decisions.
2 )The person getting a manicure can avoid the infection problem by being aware of, and demanding common sanitary practices.
Really, these aren't real problems.
Why would it be his fault that someone listened to him?
Hmm, ok. Now try to think of ways to weasel that definition to mean whatever you want. Protest is a good one too.
Well. The first problem with your definition is the WBC could still protest "body not present" (not sure what the real word for this is) funerals. So we would need to fix it to account for that.
One guys book isn't going to prove anything. At most there is a logical sounding narrative in there. I am not saying he is wrong, but you shouldn't act like the guy created some book of truth.
How will you define funeral?
If you haven't noticed, doctor's don't really have a good way of dealing with most cancers either. I would personally choose to go to MDs because they're methods have a greater basis in evidence, but they are not perfect. Other's might believe taking medicine is a sin or something like that. I think that is dumb, but so be it... so is overmedication.
Are you qualified to assess this?
Then he should be arrested/sued for defrauding people. I didn't see anything about that in the story.
unqualified
This part doesn't matter. If lying is going on, that is the problem. Really, lying isn't even necessarily the problem either, it is being wrong. "Qualified" people lie and make mistakes as well.
Perhaps you need someone to stamp qualified on a piece of paper in order to trust health advice (not saying this is stupid, it is a decent heuristic). What would be wrong with trusting membership in a trade union rather than the government?
I asked a similar question elsewhere, but why should he need a license?
If anything the license makes him more dangerous if he is a quack. He just needs to pass some test that is most likely BS and pay the government money, now he seems like a legit expert to people.
Well thanks for taking the time to think about it. I'm not sure what that means though.
Why?
Yep, a joke. No one thinks there is value in basic research. There is no one willing to contribute to large scale projects unless forced by government to do so.
Well, that's a strawman. But really, the US science budget is pretty miniscule.
100 million people giving an average of $1500 a year would cover it. Obviously it wouldn't be normally distributed.
How much would you voluntarily give? If not donating, what would convince you to invest?
So should we compare a single rich guy with all the worlds governments? Perhaps not.