Rather than resorting to ad hominem, how about you counter some of my arguments? If I'm wrong, that's the only way I'll learn. And if I'm not, you'll learn something by trying to refute me.
Stephen Hawking has shown himself to be capable of weighing evidence and making good conclusions in at least one field. A politician on the other hand has only shown himself to be good at shmoozing.
their tests for success and advancement are radically different than those in the political space
This is exactly why they are supremely qualified to work on policy. Scientists and politicans have different tests for success because only scientists are concerned about truth and effectiveness. Politicians are concerned about getting reelected and doing favors for their cronies. It is actually politicians who are hoplessly unqualified to work on policy.
Science should have a greater voice on policy at all levels. Laws are intended to accomplish goals. They should be tested regularly to see if they accomplish those goals, and repealed if they do not. Evidence based legislation is a good idea for the same reasons evidence based medicine is.
Pharmacological treatment of severe depression is effective. If we lump such treatment into "psychiatry", your conclusion is patently false.
Note how I said "almost entirely". SSRI's work for the severely depressed. That's a small fraction of the population though, so that's not very profitable.
You have presented no evidence documenting the efficacy of psychiatry in general (without regard to specific treatment modalities), hence your conclusion is unsupported. Furthermore
Why would the efficacy of psychiatry in general be more than the weighted sum of the efficacies of the specific treatments they use? SSRIs are by far the major treatment for depression, the fact that they don't work should tell you something about the rest of their treatments.
Furthermore, I'll hazard to guess that there are treatments used by psychiatrists for their moderately depressed patients which are effective, and for which long-standing clinical research results exist.
Not really. They offer you medication, which is known to be ineffective, first. If they had something better, they would offer it first, unless they're trying to milk you for cash. If you refuse, they give you the hard sell on the drugs. If you still refuse, they refer you to a therapist who is nothing but a glorified bullshit artist. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, currently the best supported method, regularly fails to outperform placebo therapy for depression. It does have some benefit for anxiety disorders though.
In light of all of this, it's hard to see how psychiatry for depression is anything but a scam. We know they're being dishonest, because they continue to prescribe ineffective medicine to desperate people. We know they don't really care about the welfare of their patients, because that ineffective medication has significant side effects. Why would you trust anything coming from a psychiatrist in light of these facts?
talking about how modern medical science is wrong about anti-depressants and the like
A broken clock is right twice a day, and crazy ass Tom Cruise is right about this too. A 2008 meta analysis of all studies, published and unpublished, on SSRI antidepressants found that the effects are clinically insignificant in the great majority of patients. Only those ranked as very severely depressed experience any significant benefit over placebo.
It's been 6 years since that study, and none have overturned its conclusions. Yet SSRIs are prescribed to the moderately depressed every day. I've asked psychiatrists how they can justify this in light of the data, they've responded with their own confirmation biases. I don't see any way to interpret this but to conclude that psychiatry for depression is almost entirely a scam.
1. hahahahahahhahahahahah. Ok in all seriousness that is not only laughable but often actually simply illegal. The modern control world will often mandate some form of external data transfer live directly from the control system
Easy enough. Dump it over a serial port which is never read from.
and this is before taking into account satellite operated systems and other potentially unmanned sites.
Again, easy enough. Network the unmanned control system to the manned control center, but leave the manned control center disconnected from any other networks.
the Atlantic seems to want to get rid of the line altogether.
An ad that looks just like reporting is in reality just shitty reporting. If the Atlantic wants to publish shitty reporting, their readers will move elsewhere. Problem solved.
It's a question of "how harmful is pot in comparison to other legal activities". Other people could provide similar anecdotes about the affects of alcohol, gambling, or online games - yet possession of any of those isn't illegal.
Gambling? Online games? Try football. Football is directly associated with concussions which are directly associated with brain damage. By comparison, cannabis is far safer. Football should be outlawed.
I never understood why this was a conflict for programmers. If the white space isn't syntactic, can't your editor just rearrange the code the way you want it? Just run it through a pretty printer before you work on it.
My statement was hyperbole, and I stand by it as hyperbole. Gluten is a low quality protein. And chasing a slice of starch with a vitamin (essentially what fortified bread is) doesn't make it nutritious. White bread is junk food.
No thank you. I felt it was more annoying than UAC iwth Vista as it get blocking everything on every site which drove me mad! Just my preference but I can not browse the web like that.
Most sites work fine without javascript. 90% of the sites that don't work with just one or two scripts enabled. And most people visit the same sites over and over, so it's only a short time that whitelisting is any sort of burden to the user.
For those sites that are too complex to get working with NoScript, I say fuck em. There's no legitimate reason to require a dozen scripts from a dozen domains to view a web page. None whatsoever. Those sites should rightfully wither and die from attrition.
Besides noscript does not have an equilivent functional port to Chrome.
Which is an excellent reason not to use chrome. NoScript is a make or break feature for any browser as far as I'm concerned. If you can't give me fine grained control over the scripts I'm running, I won't run your browser. Period.
As in Magic the Gathering? The card game with 12,000+ individual cards? In my honest opinion, it's the greatest game ever made. It's incredibly complex, and yet still understandable.
Yes, it's very understandable that you're being used as a cash cow. What I don't understand is why anyone would play a game where the rules are continually adjusted to whatever makes a private company the most profit.
White bread tastes about as good as white sugar does. Nutritionally indistinguishable too. Flavor comes from more complex molecules than simple sugars and starches.
Slashdot Mirror
Rather than resorting to ad hominem, how about you counter some of my arguments? If I'm wrong, that's the only way I'll learn. And if I'm not, you'll learn something by trying to refute me.
Stephen Hawking has shown himself to be capable of weighing evidence and making good conclusions in at least one field. A politician on the other hand has only shown himself to be good at shmoozing.
their tests for success and advancement are radically different than those in the political space
This is exactly why they are supremely qualified to work on policy. Scientists and politicans have different tests for success because only scientists are concerned about truth and effectiveness. Politicians are concerned about getting reelected and doing favors for their cronies. It is actually politicians who are hoplessly unqualified to work on policy.
Science should have a greater voice on policy at all levels. Laws are intended to accomplish goals. They should be tested regularly to see if they accomplish those goals, and repealed if they do not. Evidence based legislation is a good idea for the same reasons evidence based medicine is.
Pharmacological treatment of severe depression is effective. If we lump such treatment into "psychiatry", your conclusion is patently false.
Note how I said "almost entirely". SSRI's work for the severely depressed. That's a small fraction of the population though, so that's not very profitable.
You have presented no evidence documenting the efficacy of psychiatry in general (without regard to specific treatment modalities), hence your conclusion is unsupported. Furthermore
Why would the efficacy of psychiatry in general be more than the weighted sum of the efficacies of the specific treatments they use? SSRIs are by far the major treatment for depression, the fact that they don't work should tell you something about the rest of their treatments.
Furthermore, I'll hazard to guess that there are treatments used by psychiatrists for their moderately depressed patients which are effective, and for which long-standing clinical research results exist.
Not really. They offer you medication, which is known to be ineffective, first. If they had something better, they would offer it first, unless they're trying to milk you for cash. If you refuse, they give you the hard sell on the drugs. If you still refuse, they refer you to a therapist who is nothing but a glorified bullshit artist. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, currently the best supported method, regularly fails to outperform placebo therapy for depression. It does have some benefit for anxiety disorders though.
In light of all of this, it's hard to see how psychiatry for depression is anything but a scam. We know they're being dishonest, because they continue to prescribe ineffective medicine to desperate people. We know they don't really care about the welfare of their patients, because that ineffective medication has significant side effects. Why would you trust anything coming from a psychiatrist in light of these facts?
talking about how modern medical science is wrong about anti-depressants and the like
A broken clock is right twice a day, and crazy ass Tom Cruise is right about this too. A 2008 meta analysis of all studies, published and unpublished, on SSRI antidepressants found that the effects are clinically insignificant in the great majority of patients. Only those ranked as very severely depressed experience any significant benefit over placebo.
It's been 6 years since that study, and none have overturned its conclusions. Yet SSRIs are prescribed to the moderately depressed every day. I've asked psychiatrists how they can justify this in light of the data, they've responded with their own confirmation biases. I don't see any way to interpret this but to conclude that psychiatry for depression is almost entirely a scam.
1. hahahahahahhahahahahah. Ok in all seriousness that is not only laughable but often actually simply illegal. The modern control world will often mandate some form of external data transfer live directly from the control system
Easy enough. Dump it over a serial port which is never read from.
and this is before taking into account satellite operated systems and other potentially unmanned sites.
Again, easy enough. Network the unmanned control system to the manned control center, but leave the manned control center disconnected from any other networks.
the Atlantic seems to want to get rid of the line altogether.
An ad that looks just like reporting is in reality just shitty reporting. If the Atlantic wants to publish shitty reporting, their readers will move elsewhere. Problem solved.
Thanks, I enjoyed reading that and understand better now.
It's a question of "how harmful is pot in comparison to other legal activities". Other people could provide similar anecdotes about the affects of alcohol, gambling, or online games - yet possession of any of those isn't illegal.
Gambling? Online games? Try football. Football is directly associated with concussions which are directly associated with brain damage. By comparison, cannabis is far safer. Football should be outlawed.
This royally fucks up your version control history.
That sounds like a problem with version control software.
I never understood why this was a conflict for programmers. If the white space isn't syntactic, can't your editor just rearrange the code the way you want it? Just run it through a pretty printer before you work on it.
My statement was hyperbole, and I stand by it as hyperbole. Gluten is a low quality protein. And chasing a slice of starch with a vitamin (essentially what fortified bread is) doesn't make it nutritious. White bread is junk food.
I would certainly like to see an openness dedicated to satellite communications, but again who is it for and what would it be used for?
Openness is for everyone.
Because nothing is perfect we should never try to be better than we are? Really?
It's ironic the biggest criminals in this case... Were the people making the case.
That's not ironic, that's to be expected. The US government is one of the largest criminal organizations in the world.
A slice of white bread contains approximately 1.9g of protein
Yeah, gluten. Proline, serine, glutamine, and not much else. I'm no celiac, but I like a few essential amino acids with my protein.
along with Calcium (7% DV), Thiamin (14% DV), Riboflavin (9% DV), Folate (12% DV), Iron (9% DV), Manganese (11% DV), and Selenium (11% DV).
Yeah, you know why? Because they fortify it with vitamins. The only reason they have to fortify it is because they threw all the good stuff away.
No thank you. I felt it was more annoying than UAC iwth Vista as it get blocking everything on every site which drove me mad! Just my preference but I can not browse the web like that.
Most sites work fine without javascript. 90% of the sites that don't work with just one or two scripts enabled. And most people visit the same sites over and over, so it's only a short time that whitelisting is any sort of burden to the user.
For those sites that are too complex to get working with NoScript, I say fuck em. There's no legitimate reason to require a dozen scripts from a dozen domains to view a web page. None whatsoever. Those sites should rightfully wither and die from attrition.
Besides noscript does not have an equilivent functional port to Chrome.
Which is an excellent reason not to use chrome. NoScript is a make or break feature for any browser as far as I'm concerned. If you can't give me fine grained control over the scripts I'm running, I won't run your browser. Period.
No, I didn't realize that. Where do I get free cards? Are those free cards as good as the cards that people play for?
As in Magic the Gathering? The card game with 12,000+ individual cards? In my honest opinion, it's the greatest game ever made. It's incredibly complex, and yet still understandable.
Yes, it's very understandable that you're being used as a cash cow. What I don't understand is why anyone would play a game where the rules are continually adjusted to whatever makes a private company the most profit.
That's what NoScript is for. Doesn't just stop Java, but javascript, flash, etc.
That is an outdated security fallacy before ads had flash and java in them.
Why are you running java in ads? Don't do that, and the problem goes away. You wouldn't run .exe files from an ad would you?
White bread tastes about as good as white sugar does. Nutritionally indistinguishable too. Flavor comes from more complex molecules than simple sugars and starches.
You should contact Stockholm. You just disproved the law of conservation of energy. Either that, or your math is wrong. But how likely is that?
An intelligent diet and exercise are the cheapest and best solution to America's weight problem.
That would require intelligent Americans. Now you begin to see the depth of this problem.