So, is it OK to invite every major news network to an event except FoxNews? Is it OK to give "scoops" to every network but FoxNews?
So, is it OK to invite every major news network to an event except MSNBC? Is it OK to give "scoops" to every network but MSNBC?
I'd say yes. Yes, it is. And this actually happened, unlike that Fox News thing. Hopefully you were ranting about the Bush administration back when these things actually occurred in real life.
Of course, that doesn't apply if you criticize HIS government or try to hold it accountable. Ask Fox News.
Because the government censored it! They occupied Glenn Beck using military force! They detained O'Reilly! Wait, what?
By the way, people say Fox News is not a news station because their news shows are mostly selective reporting, mischaracterizations, and opinions. Not because Fox News is not part of the press. HTH.
And finally, saying that something is not a news station is part of freedom of speech. Basically, you're saying that Fox News should be allowed to say whatever they want (with which I agree), but that the people who criticise them are doing something wrong (which is absurd). You can have either or the other, but not both.
They killed somebody, they were convicted, they served their time. If you think people should never be allowed to enter society again after killing somebody (which is an entirely acceptable point of view), change the laws.
Since when is it your job to tell Germany how to apply its laws? Your moral disagreement is irrelevant to the discussion. They were tried under German law, served their time in Germany, and are now allowed to continue their lives. If you think that is wrong, move to Germany and change the laws, but don't advocate just ignoring the laws.
I used to hand in my homework as a HyperCard stack. I know that sounds like one of these "We had to walk to the school through snow uphill both ways", but it's actually true.
The title is broken. Exercise actually does lead to weight loss, as the linked article explains. Ben Goldacre has looked at claims that exercise does not lead to weight loss and has found that they are mostly bogus, using selective data to make a point that probably isn't there. He writes:
"The Cochrane Library is a non-profit collaboration of academics who produce unbiased, systematic reviews of the medical literature, and they have a systematic review of all the 43 trials that have been done on exercise for weight loss. This produces clear evidence that exercise is beneficial, albeit more modestly than you’d hope."
There are way too many parents involved in this discussion. I guess my general opinion is that comments should not call for other comments to be moderated, but that they should in turn not be moderated for merely calling for other comments to be moderated if they otherwise contain useful content. Peace!
My point was that my parent's parent should not be modded down.
My parent stated:
Please down mod the parent
And I pointed out that this was wrong. So I'm not entirely sure why you're replying to me, telling me that censorship is wrong. That's what I was saying. It wasn't my intention to defend the original post's call to downmodding.
Now, a lot of people here are ALSO falling for the mystique of the sceptic. Just because you don't have an immediate explanation for something, doesn't automatically make the 'capability' false.
That's a slightly confusing sentence. I'm not sure what "the mystique of the sceptic" is, but clearly, I'm not saying that the capability is false, and neither is anyone else I've seen here. What I'm saying is that evidence shows that it's not the rod which imbues its wielder with the capability.
I believe it is possible that there may be clues that our bodies pick up, but we ignore with our often distracted conscious minds.
I've seen witching work, and it is definitely not random chance.
I don't really know how to reply to that. I'm not claiming what you're seeing is random chance. You yourself should notice that you don't offer any objective evidence that the person who is dowsing doesn't subconsciously use environmental cues. What you're describing can absolutely and entirely be explained without having to rely on the efficacy of dowsing per se. Furthermore, every single study shows that dowsing does not work when the environmental cues are removed.
If you can look at the evidence and still come to the conclusion that every single study is wrong because of something you've seen whose explanation you discount for subjective reasons, there's really not much I can tell you.
But there are no readouts from instrumentation here
I don't know why the person you want downmodded did not link to them (presumably he assumed that people were capable of using the Google), but there are plenty of studies about this.
This isn't even a forum for science.
Everything is science. Do you think the laws of nature stop working if you proclaim that something isn't "a forum for science"?
No he stated his opinion of the current state of the facts.
It's not an opinion. I would encourage you to look up some studies. I can find studies showing that dowsing does exactly as well as random chance going back more than half a century (Ongley, 1948, "New Zealand Diviners").
I never claimed the result wasn't real in this particular case. The problem is that a misattribution of why the result was achieved causes all kinds of problems.
And let's not forget religious freedom, a secular state, and secular schools.
This is not to say that Saddam was a nice guy, or that Iraq was a great place. Nobody claims this; using it as an argument is a false dichotomy. Iraq was a crappy place. It's just that today, it is even crappier.
Don't ask me how it works - those witching sticks are just dead wooden sticks in my hands. But, I've seen it work, so I have to believe in it.
No, you don't. As Feynman said, “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.”
We use the scientific process precisely because we can't just trust ourselves. A few weeks ago, I climbed on a mountain, sat in the grass, and watched the clouds. Suddenly, the clouds started to move backwards and forwards. It's a miracle! I've seen it with my own eyes! Well, no. It's an optical illusion that some people get when staring into a bright light for too long.
Likewise, since all experiments have shown that dowsing rods work exactly as well as random chance, the most likely explanation for your father in law's ability is that he's able to subconsciously deduce where pipes go and where they are broken based on the effects these things have on the environment. That also explains why it doesn't work for you.
In fact, there is an indirect placebo effect with animals. The humans who deal with animals influence them. Having said that, seeing cows undergoing surgery where acupuncture is used as a pain blocker is not useful evidence for the efficacy of acupuncture, or even for the existence of a placebo effect, since there's no control group.
I don't quite understand your point. We already know that acupuncture works. We also know why it works: it works 100% through the placebo effect. This newly discovered mechanism may or may not apply to acupuncture, but it doesn't really matter; we already know that acupuncture has no specific activity for the condition that is being treated. This new discovery does not change this simple fact, and thus does not require us to re-analize acupuncture.
The results would be exactly the same as earlier tests.
It is very likely a fact. Former employees of publishers like Atlus have publicly pointed to this policy as the reason for not being able to bring certain games to the US market. Sony has never confirmed this, of course.
Note that there were periods when Sony did allow 2D games - nobody claims there were no 2D games for the PS1 or PS2. Also note that many of the games in your list are, in fact, 3D.
But then the PSP does 2D sprites better to with more details in both the environments and characters. No-one force people to use higher res or 3D capabilities just because it's there.
Actually, Sony does (or did), as others have pointed out. And there's also the market to consider. On a platform like the PSP, most people will buy 3D games ahead of 2D games, which makes it harder for developers to go with 2D graphics. The games currently available mirror that. I think a majority of DS games have 2D sprite-based graphics, while a huge majority of PSP games are 3D.
take New super mario bros for instance, looks great on the DS but would you argue it (the new one) looks worse on the Wii?
I don't really know, I've only seen YouTube videos of the Wii game. But my point wasn't really that 2D games on the DS look better than on the Wii. My point was that there's a huge number of 2D games on the DS, and very few (if any) on other consoles.
Slashdot Mirror
What makes you so sure that this comparison is racially charged?
Most reasonably intelligent people would make that connection.
Why is all criticism (whatever the form) of Obama branded as racism?
It's not.
Can't we even disrespect our president without being branded as racists?
Of course you can.
A function that is not exposed in a form users can understand might as well not exist at all.
So, is it OK to invite every major news network to an event except MSNBC? Is it OK to give "scoops" to every network but MSNBC?
I'd say yes. Yes, it is. And this actually happened, unlike that Fox News thing. Hopefully you were ranting about the Bush administration back when these things actually occurred in real life.
Unlike the Bush government with MSNBC, Obama's White House never blocked Fox News from anything.
Because the government censored it! They occupied Glenn Beck using military force! They detained O'Reilly! Wait, what?
By the way, people say Fox News is not a news station because their news shows are mostly selective reporting, mischaracterizations, and opinions. Not because Fox News is not part of the press. HTH.
And finally, saying that something is not a news station is part of freedom of speech. Basically, you're saying that Fox News should be allowed to say whatever they want (with which I agree), but that the people who criticise them are doing something wrong (which is absurd). You can have either or the other, but not both.
Teachers are paid to develop this material.
They killed somebody, they were convicted, they served their time. If you think people should never be allowed to enter society again after killing somebody (which is an entirely acceptable point of view), change the laws.
Since when is it your job to tell Germany how to apply its laws? Your moral disagreement is irrelevant to the discussion. They were tried under German law, served their time in Germany, and are now allowed to continue their lives. If you think that is wrong, move to Germany and change the laws, but don't advocate just ignoring the laws.
Based on what definitions of "most" and "likely"?
I used to hand in my homework as a HyperCard stack. I know that sounds like one of these "We had to walk to the school through snow uphill both ways", but it's actually true.
The title is broken. Exercise actually does lead to weight loss, as the linked article explains. Ben Goldacre has looked at claims that exercise does not lead to weight loss and has found that they are mostly bogus, using selective data to make a point that probably isn't there. He writes:
There are way too many parents involved in this discussion. I guess my general opinion is that comments should not call for other comments to be moderated, but that they should in turn not be moderated for merely calling for other comments to be moderated if they otherwise contain useful content. Peace!
My point was that my parent's parent should not be modded down.
My parent stated:
Please down mod the parent
And I pointed out that this was wrong. So I'm not entirely sure why you're replying to me, telling me that censorship is wrong. That's what I was saying. It wasn't my intention to defend the original post's call to downmodding.
Not sure if you're replying to me, but my point was, in fact, that he should *not* be modded down.
Now, a lot of people here are ALSO falling for the mystique of the sceptic. Just because you don't have an immediate explanation for something, doesn't automatically make the 'capability' false.
That's a slightly confusing sentence. I'm not sure what "the mystique of the sceptic" is, but clearly, I'm not saying that the capability is false, and neither is anyone else I've seen here. What I'm saying is that evidence shows that it's not the rod which imbues its wielder with the capability.
I believe it is possible that there may be clues that our bodies pick up, but we ignore with our often distracted conscious minds.
I think nobody would dispute that.
I've seen witching work, and it is definitely not random chance.
I don't really know how to reply to that. I'm not claiming what you're seeing is random chance. You yourself should notice that you don't offer any objective evidence that the person who is dowsing doesn't subconsciously use environmental cues. What you're describing can absolutely and entirely be explained without having to rely on the efficacy of dowsing per se. Furthermore, every single study shows that dowsing does not work when the environmental cues are removed.
If you can look at the evidence and still come to the conclusion that every single study is wrong because of something you've seen whose explanation you discount for subjective reasons, there's really not much I can tell you.
But there are no readouts from instrumentation here
I don't know why the person you want downmodded did not link to them (presumably he assumed that people were capable of using the Google), but there are plenty of studies about this.
This isn't even a forum for science.
Everything is science. Do you think the laws of nature stop working if you proclaim that something isn't "a forum for science"?
No he stated his opinion of the current state of the facts.
It's not an opinion. I would encourage you to look up some studies. I can find studies showing that dowsing does exactly as well as random chance going back more than half a century (Ongley, 1948, "New Zealand Diviners").
I never claimed the result wasn't real in this particular case. The problem is that a misattribution of why the result was achieved causes all kinds of problems.
And let's not forget religious freedom, a secular state, and secular schools.
This is not to say that Saddam was a nice guy, or that Iraq was a great place. Nobody claims this; using it as an argument is a false dichotomy. Iraq was a crappy place. It's just that today, it is even crappier.
Don't ask me how it works - those witching sticks are just dead wooden sticks in my hands. But, I've seen it work, so I have to believe in it.
No, you don't. As Feynman said, “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.”
We use the scientific process precisely because we can't just trust ourselves. A few weeks ago, I climbed on a mountain, sat in the grass, and watched the clouds. Suddenly, the clouds started to move backwards and forwards. It's a miracle! I've seen it with my own eyes! Well, no. It's an optical illusion that some people get when staring into a bright light for too long.
Likewise, since all experiments have shown that dowsing rods work exactly as well as random chance, the most likely explanation for your father in law's ability is that he's able to subconsciously deduce where pipes go and where they are broken based on the effects these things have on the environment. That also explains why it doesn't work for you.
There are no viewpoints here. Either you have facts, or you have nothing. And a few anecdotes don't count as facts.
Your parent pointed out facts. You want people to mod him down because you don't seem to like these facts. The problem is you, not the moderators.
In fact, there is an indirect placebo effect with animals. The humans who deal with animals influence them. Having said that, seeing cows undergoing surgery where acupuncture is used as a pain blocker is not useful evidence for the efficacy of acupuncture, or even for the existence of a placebo effect, since there's no control group.
I don't quite understand your point. We already know that acupuncture works. We also know why it works: it works 100% through the placebo effect. This newly discovered mechanism may or may not apply to acupuncture, but it doesn't really matter; we already know that acupuncture has no specific activity for the condition that is being treated. This new discovery does not change this simple fact, and thus does not require us to re-analize acupuncture.
The results would be exactly the same as earlier tests.
It is very likely a fact. Former employees of publishers like Atlus have publicly pointed to this policy as the reason for not being able to bring certain games to the US market. Sony has never confirmed this, of course.
Note that there were periods when Sony did allow 2D games - nobody claims there were no 2D games for the PS1 or PS2. Also note that many of the games in your list are, in fact, 3D.
But then the PSP does 2D sprites better to with more details in both the environments and characters. No-one force people to use higher res or 3D capabilities just because it's there.
Actually, Sony does (or did), as others have pointed out. And there's also the market to consider. On a platform like the PSP, most people will buy 3D games ahead of 2D games, which makes it harder for developers to go with 2D graphics. The games currently available mirror that. I think a majority of DS games have 2D sprite-based graphics, while a huge majority of PSP games are 3D.
take New super mario bros for instance, looks great on the DS but would you argue it (the new one) looks worse on the Wii?
I don't really know, I've only seen YouTube videos of the Wii game. But my point wasn't really that 2D games on the DS look better than on the Wii. My point was that there's a huge number of 2D games on the DS, and very few (if any) on other consoles.