No contest. If it works in Wine, it's far nicer to use under Wine. VMs are a lot more compatible, because they run the entire OS, but it doesn't integrate as nicely as Wine does. When you run a program with Wine, you're running a native program just using winelib instead of win32.
That's not a problem with people being unable to code well. That's a problem with people leaking sensitive data. Dumb mistake, but hardly a reason to forbid people from coding.
Go watch some live music! This is how real musicians make a living, by coming to your town and showing you a good time. Take advantage of it.
And when you do, bring some ear plugs. Some $12 earplugs from etymotic research can change your life. They attenuate the sound, without muffling it. I go to concerts about twice a month if there's anything good, and honestly they sound better with the ear plugs. If the music's so loud it's beyond the linear range of your ears, it's no fun anyway.
It's mostly Substance P, a peptide neurotransmitter. Capsaicin works mainly through substance P receptors, histamine, bradykinin, and prostaglandins have their own receptors.
We cannot clone a person in an instant to let the two outcomes unfold, both with and without treatment.
Very true!
If an alternative treatment corrects a problem before it becomes measurable with current instruments there will be nothing for science to measure -- so no scientific proof available.
You can say the same for conventional medicine. Diet and exercise can fix problems before they happen, and yet this is amenable to statistical analysis. Why then do you claim alternative medicine is not amenable to statistical analysis?
Statistics can't be used when we can't measure the initial condition either.
Sure it can be. Take a random population. Randomly assign them to two groups, one that gets alternative treatment and one that gets a sham treatment. No diagnosis is necessary.
At the end of a sufficiently large time period are there significantly more people alive in the alternative treatment group? If so, you've just demonstrated the efficacy of an alternative treatment.
Not only does this method not require measuring what goes on in a person's head, it doesn't even require measuring what goes on in the clinicians exam room.
The only forms of proof available are through personal observation with personal perceptions.
Which, as science has shown us, is no proof at all.
This has been more than enough proof for many historic cultures, e.g. Chinese, Tibetan, Indian, etc
Thankfully, we've learned a lot since then. Why should we go back to the dark ages before empiricism?
Wow, so confident that alternative medicine doesn't work. So how do you explain all the intelligent people using it?
Fads.
until a scientist can get in your head with you and see your perceptions, science will never move forward into this domain.
Why do you think it's necessary for a scientist to "get into your head"? If you're making a claim that X treatment has an effect on outcome, all you have to do is measure the outcome.
If all you're claiming is that alternative medicine can change your perception of the disease process, then I don't think you'll find many who would object to that. If you claim that alternative medicine can change the outcome of the disease process, that can be studied in scientific terms.
Really expand your mind by being willing to admit that some of your cherished beliefs may actually be crap and may have no more validity than the beliefs of others whom you characterize as foolish
Which cherished belief do you refer to? The belief that chiropracty is bunk? Or the belief that the scientific method is the only way to determine objective reality?
The first one is easy to admit. Chiropracty may in fact not be crap. Go get some data and let's talk.
The second one is a lot harder. How else do you propose that one determine between truth and falsehood besides testing?
Just because science has not discovered something does not mean it doesn't exist.
If science has tested something, and the test fails to show any effect, then yes, it does mean it doesn't exist. Or at least, it means the probability of existance is under some threshhold determined by the statistical power of the test.
As for arrogance, what would you call believing in something that science has tested and failed to find any evidence for? Do you people really think that you are smarter or more thoughtful than the professionals whose job it is to empirically demonstrate what is real and what is not? If so, where's your data?
There are things about the human body and mind that science does not understand yet. We agree on that much. But rejecting empiricism, the ONLY method that has EVER proven to be effective at determining what is real and what is not, isn't going to get us anywhere.
This attitude ignores everything we know about the capacity for humans for self deception. Your eyes lie. If you don't have well controlled data, you don't really know anything at all.
If shark cartiledge was shown to be effective "many times", then how come the best clinical research we have on glucosamine/chondroitin still inconclusive?
Researchers found that:
Participants taking the positive control, celecoxib, experienced statistically significant pain relief versus placeboâ"about 70 percent of those taking celecoxib had a 20 percent or greater reduction in pain versus about 60 percent for placebo.
Overall, there were no significant differences between the other treatments tested and placebo.
For a subset of participants with moderate-to-severe pain, glucosamine combined with chondroitin sulfate provided statistically significant pain relief compared with placeboâ"about 79 percent had a 20 percent or greater reduction in pain versus about 54 percent for placebo. According to the researchers, because of the small size of this subgroup these findings should be considered preliminary and need to be confirmed in further studies.
For participants in the mild pain subset, glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate together or alone did not provide statistically significant pain relief.
And here's the result of a 2010 metaanalysis of the literature:
For none of the estimates did the 95% credible intervals cross the boundary of the minimal clinically important difference. Industry independent trials showed smaller effects than commercially funded trials (P=0.02 for interaction). The differences in changes in minimal width of joint space were all minute, with 95% credible intervals overlapping zero. Conclusions Compared with placebo, glucosamine, chondroitin, and their combination do not reduce joint pain or have an impact on narrowing of joint space. Health authorities and health insurers should not cover the costs of these preparations, and new prescriptions to patients who have not received treatment should be discouraged.
So, does it make sense now why nobody paid attention to the research showing that shark cartilidge was efficacious? That research was almost certainly flawed, because serious research institutions have been unable to reproduce any effect. You have been duped.
Working as well as placebo is better known as "no statistically significant effect". This applies to both scientific and pseudoscientific treatments. If your treatment isn't performing better than your sham treatment, you haven't demonstrated anything at all.
That story is just natural selection in action. It's only tragic when natural selection is averted. e.g., if the texter survives and procreates, or the texter takes the life of a non-texter.
I know in alcohol related crashes, the drunk is less likely to die than their victims are. What's the statistics on texting crashes?
Re:That's why I like the basic Kindle
on
The eBook Backlash
·
· Score: 1
I don't understand this at all. Many people spend a large portion of their day reading the web on a CRT or LCD. But somehow when it comes to reading a book on a CRT or LCD, all of a sudden "eye strain" is a problem.
How long do you have to read a book on a CRT before you get eye strain? I was reading PDFs for research on my CRT for over 12 hours yesterday and never felt a bit of eye strain.
If anything, a CRT is better for eye strain. You can adjust the brightness/contrast/gamma however you want it. With paper you have to adjust the external lighting if you have problems.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you for the remarkably informative post.
No contest. If it works in Wine, it's far nicer to use under Wine. VMs are a lot more compatible, because they run the entire OS, but it doesn't integrate as nicely as Wine does. When you run a program with Wine, you're running a native program just using winelib instead of win32.
You can't automatically log into a website and click a link with a very small shell script?
That's not a problem with people being unable to code well. That's a problem with people leaking sensitive data. Dumb mistake, but hardly a reason to forbid people from coding.
No silly, that's the revolving door!
How do you deal with permissions in a collaborative terminal environment? Does everything just get the permissions of the user running the terminal?
There are analog DVDs?
I've seen no evidence that the FBI or their masters knows or cares the tiniest bit about ethics either.
Go watch some live music! This is how real musicians make a living, by coming to your town and showing you a good time. Take advantage of it.
And when you do, bring some ear plugs. Some $12 earplugs from etymotic research can change your life. They attenuate the sound, without muffling it. I go to concerts about twice a month if there's anything good, and honestly they sound better with the ear plugs. If the music's so loud it's beyond the linear range of your ears, it's no fun anyway.
Someone who knows the difference between legality and ethics is far more trustworthy than someone who doesn't.
It's mostly Substance P, a peptide neurotransmitter. Capsaicin works mainly through substance P receptors, histamine, bradykinin, and prostaglandins have their own receptors.
We cannot clone a person in an instant to let the two outcomes unfold, both with and without treatment.
Very true!
If an alternative treatment corrects a problem before it becomes measurable with current instruments there will be nothing for science to measure -- so no scientific proof available.
You can say the same for conventional medicine. Diet and exercise can fix problems before they happen, and yet this is amenable to statistical analysis. Why then do you claim alternative medicine is not amenable to statistical analysis?
Statistics can't be used when we can't measure the initial condition either.
Sure it can be. Take a random population. Randomly assign them to two groups, one that gets alternative treatment and one that gets a sham treatment. No diagnosis is necessary.
At the end of a sufficiently large time period are there significantly more people alive in the alternative treatment group? If so, you've just demonstrated the efficacy of an alternative treatment.
Not only does this method not require measuring what goes on in a person's head, it doesn't even require measuring what goes on in the clinicians exam room.
The only forms of proof available are through personal observation with personal perceptions.
Which, as science has shown us, is no proof at all.
This has been more than enough proof for many historic cultures, e.g. Chinese, Tibetan, Indian, etc
Thankfully, we've learned a lot since then. Why should we go back to the dark ages before empiricism?
Wow, so confident that alternative medicine doesn't work. So how do you explain all the intelligent people using it?
Fads.
until a scientist can get in your head with you and see your perceptions, science will never move forward into this domain.
Why do you think it's necessary for a scientist to "get into your head"? If you're making a claim that X treatment has an effect on outcome, all you have to do is measure the outcome.
If all you're claiming is that alternative medicine can change your perception of the disease process, then I don't think you'll find many who would object to that. If you claim that alternative medicine can change the outcome of the disease process, that can be studied in scientific terms.
Really expand your mind by being willing to admit that some of your cherished beliefs may actually be crap and may have no more validity than the beliefs of others whom you characterize as foolish
Which cherished belief do you refer to? The belief that chiropracty is bunk? Or the belief that the scientific method is the only way to determine objective reality?
The first one is easy to admit. Chiropracty may in fact not be crap. Go get some data and let's talk.
The second one is a lot harder. How else do you propose that one determine between truth and falsehood besides testing?
Not everything that's unknown is worthy of study. There are so many things that we don't know that we can't possibly study all of them.
Just because science has not discovered something does not mean it doesn't exist.
If science has tested something, and the test fails to show any effect, then yes, it does mean it doesn't exist. Or at least, it means the probability of existance is under some threshhold determined by the statistical power of the test.
As for arrogance, what would you call believing in something that science has tested and failed to find any evidence for? Do you people really think that you are smarter or more thoughtful than the professionals whose job it is to empirically demonstrate what is real and what is not? If so, where's your data?
There are things about the human body and mind that science does not understand yet. We agree on that much. But rejecting empiricism, the ONLY method that has EVER proven to be effective at determining what is real and what is not, isn't going to get us anywhere.
Exactly. That's why cave men were so long lived after all.
I have personally felt its effect firsthand.
This attitude ignores everything we know about the capacity for humans for self deception. Your eyes lie. If you don't have well controlled data, you don't really know anything at all.
Sorry, here's a link to the meta-analysis I quoted.
If shark cartiledge was shown to be effective "many times", then how come the best clinical research we have on glucosamine/chondroitin still inconclusive?
And here's the result of a 2010 metaanalysis of the literature:
So, does it make sense now why nobody paid attention to the research showing that shark cartilidge was efficacious? That research was almost certainly flawed, because serious research institutions have been unable to reproduce any effect.
You have been duped.
Working as well as placebo is better known as "no statistically significant effect". This applies to both scientific and pseudoscientific treatments. If your treatment isn't performing better than your sham treatment, you haven't demonstrated anything at all.
While driving, a non-risky environment can change into a risky environment in a much shorter time than it takes to read a text.
That story is just natural selection in action. It's only tragic when natural selection is averted. e.g., if the texter survives and procreates, or the texter takes the life of a non-texter.
I know in alcohol related crashes, the drunk is less likely to die than their victims are. What's the statistics on texting crashes?
I don't understand this at all. Many people spend a large portion of their day reading the web on a CRT or LCD. But somehow when it comes to reading a book on a CRT or LCD, all of a sudden "eye strain" is a problem.
How long do you have to read a book on a CRT before you get eye strain? I was reading PDFs for research on my CRT for over 12 hours yesterday and never felt a bit of eye strain.
If anything, a CRT is better for eye strain. You can adjust the brightness/contrast/gamma however you want it. With paper you have to adjust the external lighting if you have problems.
If I cared, I'd look for it on USENET or one of the darknets. Anyone connecting to a tracker that hosts this archive is begging for a lawsuit.