You have it backwards. The Church is in the position of the psychics. They have not put forward any evidence that Yahweh exists. Not in 2,000 years. So what does that mean we should do with the claims of the existence of Yahweh?
The same guy could also spin a pencil WITH HIS MIND. When I saw the whole thing I thought that this guy has the most pathetic telekinectic powers ever.
"The static from the peanuts, you see, the peanuts are creating static electricity, and that's keeping the pages down." LOL, he also had the most pathetic excuses.
Randi came up with a new chemistry protocol where...
Funny, RationalWiki doesn't mention any of this. Do you have a link that doesn't go to a kook site, and preferably describes the process without making the writer come across as illiterate?
Standard protocol’s says water has memory
So if you assume water as memory then you can prove water as memory. This doesn't sound circular at all.
So my beef with Randi is that he butted in to a science lab experiment...
Randi didn't butt in. The editor of Nature asked him to participate. He also didn't act unilaterally, he was part of a four man team, one of whom expressed disappointment that they didn't find anything.
They deliberately attract those "in it for the money" by huge cash reward (while biasing the audience to those impressed by money),
Randi has stated that if someone does win the money, they can designate a charity to recieve it instead. He explicitly made this offer to Sylvia Browne when she backed out of the challenge, after saying she would accept it, by saying that she's not in it for the money (despite all evidence to the contrary).
seem to filter to select a high number of high profile fraudsters
How does he know the fakes from the "real" psychics before he tests them? He only makes an explicit offer to high profile people like Sylvia Brown and John Edward, but anyone is free to contact him if they think they can prove their claims.
choose their own tests rather than involving independent third parties.
The exact nature of each test is proposed ahead of time to each claimant. The test doesn't go forward until there is complete agreement on both sides. This is to prevent an exposed psychic from saying things like "these lights were interfering". If the lights are going to interfere with your gift then you have the chance to have them switched out with lights that won't.
They set up a double blind test. Not only does the douser not know where the water is, neither does the observer. This is to prevent the douser from picking up any subconciously displayed non-verbal cues from the observer.
As billybob said, if the dousers' claims are true then a 15' airgap will not prevent them from finding the water.
Your false equivocation fails. The example would be valid if the person you were testing said they could set a piece of paper sealing on fire in a vacuum with a match. Of course, if you were to test such a claim you would find that it doesn't hold up.
Only to an extent. Incorrect usage is never correct. No matter how many times TV journalists say "begs the question" instead of "raises the question", they're still wrong.
Don't forget the cost of getting licensed. I just researched one data point in the DC area, they have an all inclusive "get licensed" plan that costs $6,900 for 1 year of training, with discounts on their hourly and monthly rates if you don't finish in the allotted time.
That's exactly the kind of stuff you put in your honey pot. Once LE goes through all the trouble trying to access it and nothing but 5GB of LOLCats, they'll figure you're pretty boring.
Aran
Eva
Evi
Iris
Omega
Risi
Skyvi
Speaktoit Assistant
Vlingo
Not to mention that Apple didn't develop Siri, they merely bought it out just before the Blackberry app was released and canceled on non-iOS development. So, in a sense, Apple didn't give us Siri, they took it away.
Yes, but the drug company can't say that a certain doctor isn't allowed to prescribe a drug. They can choose not to market a doctor, but that doctor can still prescribe it. The doctor prescibes, the pharmacist sells. And insurance companies don't have pharmacy networks: they cover drugs, and a drug is either on its covered list or it's not.
Indeed, this assumption may already be included in their stated list price. "We know that if 100% of the people who need it could afford it, we would have to charge x to recoup costs and make our desired profit margin. Since we'll be subsidizing y% of users, we will need to actually charge z% of x (where z is greater that 100)."
This is why Congress passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in 2010. This law "[p]rohibits individual and group health plans from placing lifetime limits on the dollar value of coverage, rescinding coverage except in cases of fraud, and from denying children coverage based on pre-existing medical conditions or from including pre-existing condition exclusions for children. Restricts annual limits on the dollar value of coverage (and eliminates annual limits in 2014)[.]" It also "[c]reates a temporary program to provide health coverage to individuals with pre-existing medical conditions who have been uninsured for at least six months." The guaranteed availability of insurance provision will be implemented in 2014.
You should check to make sure that your insurer is not imposing an annual limit lower than what is allowed. As of 2014 they won't be allowed to have one at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone who reads /. for more than a day knows to never trust TFS.
Skeptics have not said the earth is flat. And the people who do (did?) say the earth is flat don't use the shape of maps as evidence.
You have it backwards. The Church is in the position of the psychics. They have not put forward any evidence that Yahweh exists. Not in 2,000 years. So what does that mean we should do with the claims of the existence of Yahweh?
The same guy could also spin a pencil WITH HIS MIND. When I saw the whole thing I thought that this guy has the most pathetic telekinectic powers ever.
"The static from the peanuts, you see, the peanuts are creating static electricity, and that's keeping the pages down." LOL, he also had the most pathetic excuses.
Randi came up with a new chemistry protocol where...
Funny, RationalWiki doesn't mention any of this. Do you have a link that doesn't go to a kook site, and preferably describes the process without making the writer come across as illiterate?
Standard protocol’s says water has memory
So if you assume water as memory then you can prove water as memory. This doesn't sound circular at all.
So my beef with Randi is that he butted in to a science lab experiment...
Randi didn't butt in. The editor of Nature asked him to participate. He also didn't act unilaterally, he was part of a four man team, one of whom expressed disappointment that they didn't find anything.
They deliberately attract those "in it for the money" by huge cash reward (while biasing the audience to those impressed by money),
Randi has stated that if someone does win the money, they can designate a charity to recieve it instead. He explicitly made this offer to Sylvia Browne when she backed out of the challenge, after saying she would accept it, by saying that she's not in it for the money (despite all evidence to the contrary).
seem to filter to select a high number of high profile fraudsters
How does he know the fakes from the "real" psychics before he tests them? He only makes an explicit offer to high profile people like Sylvia Brown and John Edward, but anyone is free to contact him if they think they can prove their claims.
choose their own tests rather than involving independent third parties.
The exact nature of each test is proposed ahead of time to each claimant. The test doesn't go forward until there is complete agreement on both sides. This is to prevent an exposed psychic from saying things like "these lights were interfering". If the lights are going to interfere with your gift then you have the chance to have them switched out with lights that won't.
They set up a double blind test. Not only does the douser not know where the water is, neither does the observer. This is to prevent the douser from picking up any subconciously displayed non-verbal cues from the observer.
As billybob said, if the dousers' claims are true then a 15' airgap will not prevent them from finding the water.
Your false equivocation fails. The example would be valid if the person you were testing said they could set a piece of paper sealing on fire in a vacuum with a match. Of course, if you were to test such a claim you would find that it doesn't hold up.
Only to an extent. Incorrect usage is never correct. No matter how many times TV journalists say "begs the question" instead of "raises the question", they're still wrong.
Don't forget the cost of getting licensed. I just researched one data point in the DC area, they have an all inclusive "get licensed" plan that costs $6,900 for 1 year of training, with discounts on their hourly and monthly rates if you don't finish in the allotted time.
I've never heard of Ben and Teller. Are they a tribute act?
Such as corn and oil subsidies.
At least
They could... not... use cloud storage.
FOR SCIENCE!
That's exactly the kind of stuff you put in your honey pot. Once LE goes through all the trouble trying to access it and nothing but 5GB of LOLCats, they'll figure you're pretty boring.
the last time I flew out of Providence, RI. And they felt me up afterwards anyway.
It was my understanding that we were excreted by a mutant space goat.
Siri
Aran
Eva
Evi
Iris
Omega
Risi
Skyvi
Speaktoit Assistant
Vlingo
Not to mention that Apple didn't develop Siri, they merely bought it out just before the Blackberry app was released and canceled on non-iOS development. So, in a sense, Apple didn't give us Siri, they took it away.
Thank you for showing that it's not just the rounded corners part of the Apple patent that's frivolous, but the entire thing in whole and in part.
But long term, they're hurting the patent industry.
So everybody wins!
Yes, but the drug company can't say that a certain doctor isn't allowed to prescribe a drug. They can choose not to market a doctor, but that doctor can still prescribe it. The doctor prescibes, the pharmacist sells. And insurance companies don't have pharmacy networks: they cover drugs, and a drug is either on its covered list or it's not.
Indeed, this assumption may already be included in their stated list price. "We know that if 100% of the people who need it could afford it, we would have to charge x to recoup costs and make our desired profit margin. Since we'll be subsidizing y% of users, we will need to actually charge z% of x (where z is greater that 100)."
The good news: the mistake was made by the summary author and does not appear in TFA.
This is why Congress passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in 2010. This law "[p]rohibits individual and group health plans from placing lifetime limits on the dollar value of coverage, rescinding coverage except in cases of fraud, and from denying children coverage based on pre-existing medical conditions or from including pre-existing condition exclusions for children. Restricts annual limits on the dollar value of coverage (and eliminates annual limits in 2014)[.]" It also "[c]reates a temporary program to provide health coverage to individuals with pre-existing medical conditions who have been uninsured for at least six months." The guaranteed availability of insurance provision will be implemented in 2014.
You should check to make sure that your insurer is not imposing an annual limit lower than what is allowed. As of 2014 they won't be allowed to have one at all.
Check it out.