if they're suicidal then the SSRI might provide the motivation to kill themselves
There's definitely a placebo effect, simply from going to see someone and have them listen to you and appear to care about your illness. It's often impossible to discuss with anyone else other than a GP. I always feel better after having done that before I take the medication. However that does not stop the suicide ideation - the thought that pops into your head every 5 minutes. Taking the SSRI reduces it.
What makes you think they aren't used on people who're clinically depressed? I've taken them for years, on and off. I am currently on my second week of taking them (again). And just try to get any other kind of treatment in the UK. REBT, CBT, Mindsight? Goodness me. It would either be a great personal expense or an 18 month waiting list (in the UK I mean).
Are you actually calling committing industrial espionage against allies protecting them?
All intelligence services have been doing that since forever. I'm really not sure why that surprises you. With respect to the Constitution, the security services are necessarily somewhat outside of the law. They have to be in order to function.
I'm not aware of any amendments to the US Constitution that override the 1st
You can sign away your first amendment rights, especially if you work for the security services. How would they operate otherwise?
my freedom has been threatened more by the right
Fascinating. It isn't the Right running around campus shutting down free speech with violent protests. It's the regressive left.
I call it a left-wing rag because it is a left-wing rag; part of the regressive left.
their fascist heroes
Continue to make the word "fascist" completely meaningless so when a real fascist comes along you'll have nothing to call him.
when you are more likely to die falling out of bed than by terrorism
Did it ever occur to you, oh pea brained little oik, that the reason terrorist acts are relatively rare is because the security services are busy 24/7 trying to prevent attacks? Good grief.
Half of all of them are glad to throw out freedoms in exchange for (empty) promises of security
You realise those same security services protected your country and the entire Western world during the Cold War, don't you? Personally I happen to think they went too far but the fact of the matter is we've had signals intelligence since World War I and its saved our bacon many times since then. The only thing that's changed is the source of the signals. I would be very circumspect at applauding a traitor willing to spill the country's secrets to the media like that. I'm sure both he and the Guardian journalists involved thought they were in a Bourne film. Shame their left-wing rag is losing £90m a year.
For godssake, what am I missing here? I grew up during the Cold War. Not only were journalists regularly bugged and burgled, they were often spies themselves.
Please, everybody born after 1989 learn a little history in college. Drop your feminist dance therapy major.
The engine is still running whilst you're waiting. My own personal experience of sitting waiting in traffic has over the years taught me the following: "there's always some cunt who wants to turn right" (left if you drive on the wrong side of the road, i.e. USA). It would often be quicker to turn left, go around the roundabout and drive straight past the junction you were sitting at in the first place, before you'd have been able to turn there.
I'm serious by the way. I use that saying at least once a day.
That's not really the reason. I mean from my own personal point of view a better reason to be against it is because big corporate interests want control of seed, including patents on growing these crops, even going so far as to make sure they're infertile so the farmer always has to buy seed from them.
Yes, precisely. The game here, and it was a game, was to come in with "hottest year ever since the formation of the planet", to hit the headlines before the Paris conference. This is so utterly transparent I'm quite surprised nobody has spotted it. Otherwise the temperature difference between 2016 and 1998 is miniscule - in fact well within the margin of error across the range being studied.
Sure, Schmidt includes the "adjusted" graph, moving the pea under the thimble as usual. Even worse is NOAA's shitty software, but that's another story you definitely won't be interested in reading about.
I sometimes enjoy the sidebar of shame and I do like the Rugby sports pages. Other than that no, in general I can't stomach it. But really that's irrelevant to this debate. My point is only that if Wiki are going to start blackballing publications for unreliability, they'd better make sure they're applying the same standard across the board. It's completely obvious they're not in this case as if they were they'd have done the same to a number of other publications.
Slashdot Mirror
Use the same solution to this I have: Stop using Facebook.
I was just thinking this. What kind of first class arsehole would even think up such a thing? I would like to know who that individual is.
There's definitely a placebo effect, simply from going to see someone and have them listen to you and appear to care about your illness. It's often impossible to discuss with anyone else other than a GP. I always feel better after having done that before I take the medication. However that does not stop the suicide ideation - the thought that pops into your head every 5 minutes. Taking the SSRI reduces it.
What makes you think they aren't used on people who're clinically depressed? I've taken them for years, on and off. I am currently on my second week of taking them (again). And just try to get any other kind of treatment in the UK. REBT, CBT, Mindsight? Goodness me. It would either be a great personal expense or an 18 month waiting list (in the UK I mean).
What it means is climate change is normal and we adapt to it.
It's not a problem. It's natural variability.
Why do you call it a "problem"? Do you think natural variability is well understood in this area? It isn't.
I want to see them do it only because it's the most idiotic scheme I've ever heard of.
The scam is calling it "climate change". Climate variability is normal. What we're seeing today is not outside of it either.
All that tells you is that their models are wrong.
This is quite the most hilariously stupid sentence I've read on slashdot all week. And that's up against some pretty stiff competition.
All intelligence services have been doing that since forever. I'm really not sure why that surprises you. With respect to the Constitution, the security services are necessarily somewhat outside of the law. They have to be in order to function.
You can sign away your first amendment rights, especially if you work for the security services. How would they operate otherwise?
Fascinating. It isn't the Right running around campus shutting down free speech with violent protests. It's the regressive left.
I call it a left-wing rag because it is a left-wing rag; part of the regressive left.
Continue to make the word "fascist" completely meaningless so when a real fascist comes along you'll have nothing to call him.
Did it ever occur to you, oh pea brained little oik, that the reason terrorist acts are relatively rare is because the security services are busy 24/7 trying to prevent attacks? Good grief.
You realise those same security services protected your country and the entire Western world during the Cold War, don't you? Personally I happen to think they went too far but the fact of the matter is we've had signals intelligence since World War I and its saved our bacon many times since then. The only thing that's changed is the source of the signals. I would be very circumspect at applauding a traitor willing to spill the country's secrets to the media like that. I'm sure both he and the Guardian journalists involved thought they were in a Bourne film. Shame their left-wing rag is losing £90m a year.
For godssake, what am I missing here? I grew up during the Cold War. Not only were journalists regularly bugged and burgled, they were often spies themselves.
Please, everybody born after 1989 learn a little history in college. Drop your feminist dance therapy major.
The engine is still running whilst you're waiting. My own personal experience of sitting waiting in traffic has over the years taught me the following: "there's always some cunt who wants to turn right" (left if you drive on the wrong side of the road, i.e. USA). It would often be quicker to turn left, go around the roundabout and drive straight past the junction you were sitting at in the first place, before you'd have been able to turn there.
I'm serious by the way. I use that saying at least once a day.
Germany is currently building coal-fired power plants. This is mostly due to its nuclear phase-out.
I somehow have the impression you don't get out much.
That's not really the reason. I mean from my own personal point of view a better reason to be against it is because big corporate interests want control of seed, including patents on growing these crops, even going so far as to make sure they're infertile so the farmer always has to buy seed from them.
Yes, precisely. The game here, and it was a game, was to come in with "hottest year ever since the formation of the planet", to hit the headlines before the Paris conference. This is so utterly transparent I'm quite surprised nobody has spotted it. Otherwise the temperature difference between 2016 and 1998 is miniscule - in fact well within the margin of error across the range being studied.
The more reliable data set was "adjusted" to fit the less reliable data set, not the other way around. Why do you think they did that?
Sure, Schmidt includes the "adjusted" graph, moving the pea under the thimble as usual. Even worse is NOAA's shitty software, but that's another story you definitely won't be interested in reading about.
Also covered by The Huffington Post.
When are you going to start with that then?
I sometimes enjoy the sidebar of shame and I do like the Rugby sports pages. Other than that no, in general I can't stomach it. But really that's irrelevant to this debate. My point is only that if Wiki are going to start blackballing publications for unreliability, they'd better make sure they're applying the same standard across the board. It's completely obvious they're not in this case as if they were they'd have done the same to a number of other publications.