A marriage counselor could certainly have a Ph. D. but not have a medical degree. This falls under the umbrella of psychotherapist (or further subcategorized as a clinical psychologist). It also falls into your definition of anyone "who feels like calling themselves that." Boy, will those doctors have egg on their face once they realize they've earned a meaningless title!
Certainly, but crackpot therapists like psychoanalysts, regression therapists, multiple personality therapists etc. also call themselves pshychotherapists.
Where I studied, psychiatrists only came from med school, not from the psychology department. There are similarities between the two, but the aim is different: treating patients vs. studying behavior. Maybe the definitions are different where you grew up?
And then you get studies of the usefulness of psychotropic drugs and wonder whose black hole they pulled that out of...
Indeed. Normally I would never cite an article in a McNews magazine like Time or Newsweek, but I found this explanation of the state of antidepressant drug efficacy to be one of the best I've run across so far - hundreds of billions of dollars all depending on some really, really bad math. Its like the collateralized debt securities of the drug & psychiatric industries:
Has there been a similar study comparing various kinds of psychotherapy to a placebo? For example comparing the effects of a priest, a witch doctor and a psychotherapist?
You're mixing up psychiatrists, psychologists and psychotherapists. A psychiatrist went to med school, got a doctors degree and specialized in problems with the brain. A psychologist went to university to learn the study of behavior of people. This involves a lot of statistics and many of them probably do consider it something they didn't go to college for, but it's a study that is supposed to follow the scientific method and prepare students for doing research, not therapy.
A psychotherapist is anyone who feels like calling themselves that. As a preparation they may have studied psychology at university, or they may have spent 20 years meditating in the Himalayas, or followed a short course at a religious group such as an institute of multiple personality disorder therapists or scientology.
I think jokes about the UK rain are often based on a comparison of a London winter with a mediterranean summer.
Some facts from wikipedia.
Annual precipitation from high to low:
Amsterdam: 30.69 inches (never go there, most depressing climate in the world, a year with 30 sunny days is considered exceptionally sunny) Paris: 25.28 Jerusalem: 23.20 London: 22.91 Marseilles: 22.83
If Apple succeeds in bloodying HTC's nose, *then* they'll start going after the bigger boys like Google.
That's the point. Get a judgement against HTC, hit Motorola, then Google, using the judgement as leverage.
I also halfway wonder if some of this is at the behest of AT&T.
Why so indirect? HTC is a major producer of android phones. The Nexus One is an HTC phone with a Google logo added. This isn't going after the small fry first before going after google, that would be a stupid waste of time and money. A suit against HTC is going after google.
When google announced it was going to enter the smart phone business, screams of rage coming from 1 infinite loop were heard around the world. Google was supposed to be competing with evil microsoft, not with cool, hip and stylish Apple, it's just not fair.
Dude, go to your preferences -> Discussions -> Viewing and check the box 'Do Not Display Scores' It's a revelation. The forum suddenly is about the posts again, not about playing the moderation system for the highest score.
The rootkitted library was not a part of the update, just one of the libraries it was using. You should demand that your rootkit vendor stick to published APIs to avoid this in the future.
An OS update shouldn't break third party applications such as rootkits. Many people's livelihoods depend on these rootkits. Did you guys at MS even consider how difficult it is to retroactively patch infected torrents once they're out on the net?
The summary says that it's not merely age discrimination, then goes on to say that they hire younger workers because they are cheaper, without bothering to account for experience.
I think the whole point is that what counts is experience in a certain technology that will be used in a project, say.NET. The 45 and the 25 year old programmer will both have a maximum of maybe 7 years of experience in it. The 20 years of Delphi and dBase experience the 45 year old programmer has in addition is about as relevant to the project as his 25 years of experience in driving a motor cycle, but it does double the hourly wage he's asking.
The removal of the steroids from his system down to normal the next day is too much for me to swallow. The lab has to be impervious to error, or all tests are thrown out.
He might be, in the case of a failed doping test, the athlete is pretty much presumed guilty, while mistakes can be made.
Passing a drug test is not evidence that someone didn't use doping though. There are numerous ways in which athletes have cheated on tests. Taking masking substances for example, or even going as far as having their bladder filled with someone else's pee.
It's pretty much clear that his urine sample contained synthetic testosterone, it was tested in different labs, including an American one. I think (not sure) Landis' lawyer is arguing that it wasn't his urine.
IIRC he had also beaten the French favorite and the French have never taken much to foreigners who do that, especially Americans.
In that same tour, the French favorite was also beaten by two Spaniards, a German, an Australian and a Russian, a pattern similar to that of the past 25 years or so.
False positives, laboratory fuckups and actual cheating are all much more likely than a French conspiracy against Landis on the basis of him being an American.
In exchange for getting paid to ride *very* nice bikes, you have to pee in a cup. I'd take that trade. It's not an invasion of privacy.
They also have to let the doping authorities know their whereabouts at any time in the year prior to the competition, and accept that inspectors might call at their door and make them pee in a cup at any time. Yellow jersey wearer Michael Rasmussen was ejected from the 2007 tour for having failed to do this.
I wouldn't make that trade, even if I had been good enough to go pro when I was younger. Then again, maybe it takes a willing-to-do-anything-it-takes-including-cheating kind of mentality to be a professional athlete?
And that doesn't speak slightly of anti-Americanism?
Hmm, let me clarify what I mean with anti-americanism. How likely are you to get heckled in Europe for being from the US? Depending on the social circles you live/work in: anything ranging from rarely to day in, day out.
How likely are you to get heckled in the US for being French? Also anything ranging from rarely to every day depending on your social circles, but most people will have no opinion about France whatsoever. It's pretty rare for people to have no opinion about a global superpower, that's a fact.
Now how likely are you here in Europe to have people refuse service, close a door in your face, reject a job application, try to frame you for crimes just for being American? With my (dual American/European) family, we've never experienced anything like that. How likely are you to have to fear for your life for being American? It's unheard of. This is not east africa or the middle east.
The idea that there is a conspiracy of bribery and falsifying lab tests in order to frame athletes just for being American just sounds like paranoia to people actually living here. And even if there was such a conspiracy, it would have to be combined with a conspiracy against Spanish, Luxemburgish, British, German, Italian and Czech cyclists to hand the victory to a French rider.
why would I believe that? Both Armstrong and Ulrich are/were doped, only Armstrong didn't get caught properly, Ulrich is still banned from cycling from the german federation fyi
I'm sure he would still have been the greatest if doping had never been invented...
My point is that they've all been suspected or accused of doping, including French cyclists, not just Armstrong and Landis.
Doping enforcement was a lot more lenient in the 70's and early 80's. Eddie Merckx was actually caught several times, for example, but it didn't hurt his career.
Today it is unbelievably draconian. Never failing a drug test is not considered proof of innocence in the public eye. The Festina team was banned in 1998 purely based on circumstantial evidence. None of the riders tested positive, despite the irrefutable proof that they had been taking it.
But you're right that the sort of evidence used to ban riders from cycling usually wouldn't stand up in court if it was handled by the law. Landis isn't the first who persists in not admitting guilt, if you remember Virenque...
There is a small problem with the French regarding the Tour: They're not thrustworthy in their judgement. If Floyd Landis had been named Richard Virenque the tests would probably have mysteriously disappeared. I'm not saying that he didn't cheat, but the French are very often using double standards regarding cycling... I guess it has something to do with Armstrong winning the tour 7 times in a row which their own heroes Anquetil and Hinault never could...
You mean like Richard Virenque who was ejected from the Tour in 1998 by French officials in the Festina scandal and who became a virtual pariah in his home country for his continued refusal to admit his guilt?
You don't read about non-Americans being accused of doping because you don't read about cyclists who aren't Lance Armstrong. All successful professional cyclists of the last 3 or 4 decades have been accused / suspected of doping.
just to let you know, Lance Armstrong is notoriously doped. Everybody with a bit of common sense won't dispute that.
Possibly, but i hope you don't believe it was doping that made the difference between Lance Armstrong and Jan Ulrich.
The whining about Anti Americanism is getting tiresome though. Ever since doping was first banned in the late '60's, ALL of the most exceptional cyclists have always been accused or suspected of using doping in the media, not just the American ones! Some were caught sometimes, like the great Eddie Merckx, and some, like Armstrong and Indurain have never been caught.
Dozens of French contenders have been disqualified and banned from the Tour over the years! You just don't read about them in the American media, because hey, who gives a fuck about Virenque (who?). Cycling is not a popular spectator sport in the US, people only read about Lance Armstrong because of the guy, not because of cycling.
Come on, noone is suggesting he did it himself. According to the press, he was accused after his lawyer presented documents in his case that he did not obtain through official channels. It seems more likely to me (as a complete outsider) that they bribed someone who had access.
The usual accusations of anti Americanism are getting very tiresome. Every year, several riders are kicked out of the race and stripped of any stage victories after failing a doping test. Landis failed a doping test. This was just the first time it happened to the #1 after the finish at the champs elysees. Noone gets to appeal this decision in court. Every rider who performs exceptionally has always been suspected or accused of doping in the media, not just Armstrong. It's just that American sports fans aren't interested in cycling, just in Lance Armstrong.
Previous tour winners Pantani, Ulrich, Riis, Indurain etc were all accused in the media of taking dope - some of them were caught - all the way back to the days of Anquetil who sort of openly used doping before it was banned. I don't remember American 3 time tour winner Greg LeMond being accused of doping, but I'm sure he was.
The Floyd Landis case is considered particularily insulting, because the winner failing a drug test smeared the reputation of the tour even further. He never apologised and now 2 years later he still hasn't accepted guilt and is still appealing that decision. With his 2 year ban expired, he was planning to compete in this year's race. It looks like some people in France really wish he didn't.
Now the question whether this treatment professional cyclists get is fair is another matter. The doping tests are a huge invasion of privacy, and upon failing a test the athlete is presumed guilty and expelled immediately, facing long time bans with very little legal recourse. False positives and sabotage cannot be ruled out, and if doping cases were judged in a court of law, few athletes would be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. It just doesn't normally get this far. After a failed dope test, they usually go 'Ok, I'm guilty. I'm so sorry, I'll never do it again, I'm totally anti-doping from now on'
Slashdot Mirror
A marriage counselor could certainly have a Ph. D. but not have a medical degree. This falls under the umbrella of psychotherapist (or further subcategorized as a clinical psychologist). It also falls into your definition of anyone "who feels like calling themselves that." Boy, will those doctors have egg on their face once they realize they've earned a meaningless title!
Certainly, but crackpot therapists like psychoanalysts, regression therapists, multiple personality therapists etc. also call themselves pshychotherapists.
Where I studied, psychiatrists only came from med school, not from the psychology department. There are similarities between the two, but the aim is different: treating patients vs. studying behavior. Maybe the definitions are different where you grew up?
And then you get studies of the usefulness of psychotropic drugs and wonder whose black hole they pulled that out of...
Indeed. Normally I would never cite an article in a McNews magazine like Time or Newsweek, but I found this explanation of the state of antidepressant drug efficacy to be one of the best I've run across so far - hundreds of billions of dollars all depending on some really, really bad math. Its like the collateralized debt securities of the drug & psychiatric industries:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/232781
Has there been a similar study comparing various kinds of psychotherapy to a placebo? For example comparing the effects of a priest, a witch doctor and a psychotherapist?
You're mixing up psychiatrists, psychologists and psychotherapists.
A psychiatrist went to med school, got a doctors degree and specialized in problems with the brain. A psychologist went to university to learn the study of behavior of people. This involves a lot of statistics and many of them probably do consider it something they didn't go to college for, but it's a study that is supposed to follow the scientific method and prepare students for doing research, not therapy.
A psychotherapist is anyone who feels like calling themselves that. As a preparation they may have studied psychology at university, or they may have spent 20 years meditating in the Himalayas, or followed a short course at a religious group such as an institute of multiple personality disorder therapists or scientology.
I keep seeing this argument, and it's absolutely ludicrous. Guess who France's number one trading partner was before 1941?
What is the significance of this year, 1941? The war in Europe started in 1939, and France had been defeated by late spring 1940.
Wait, what was the depressing part again?
The part where a year with only 335 completely overcast days is hailed as exceptionally sunny
I think jokes about the UK rain are often based on a comparison of a London winter with a mediterranean summer.
Some facts from wikipedia.
Annual precipitation from high to low:
Amsterdam: 30.69 inches (never go there, most depressing climate in the world, a year with 30 sunny days is considered exceptionally sunny)
Paris: 25.28
Jerusalem: 23.20
London: 22.91
Marseilles: 22.83
The climate isn't all that bad :)
No one, and that includes YOU, wanted to invest in my bass fishing game, based on the Unreal engine
If Apple succeeds in bloodying HTC's nose, *then* they'll start going after the bigger boys like Google.
That's the point. Get a judgement against HTC, hit Motorola, then Google, using the judgement as leverage.
I also halfway wonder if some of this is at the behest of AT&T.
Why so indirect? HTC is a major producer of android phones. The Nexus One is an HTC phone with a Google logo added. This isn't going after the small fry first before going after google, that would be a stupid waste of time and money. A suit against HTC is going after google.
When google announced it was going to enter the smart phone business, screams of rage coming from 1 infinite loop were heard around the world. Google was supposed to be competing with evil microsoft, not with cool, hip and stylish Apple, it's just not fair.
Dude, go to your preferences -> Discussions -> Viewing and check the box 'Do Not Display Scores'
It's a revelation. The forum suddenly is about the posts again, not about playing the moderation system for the highest score.
The rootkitted library was not a part of the update, just one of the libraries it was using. You should demand that your rootkit vendor stick to published APIs to avoid this in the future.
An OS update shouldn't break third party applications such as rootkits. Many people's livelihoods depend on these rootkits. Did you guys at MS even consider how difficult it is to retroactively patch infected torrents once they're out on the net?
"Anonymous" stood for: anyone who posts on 4chan without logging in. It's not a group any more than "Anonymous Coward" is.
The summary says that it's not merely age discrimination, then goes on to say that they hire younger workers because they are cheaper, without bothering to account for experience.
I think the whole point is that what counts is experience in a certain technology that will be used in a project, say .NET. The 45 and the 25 year old programmer will both have a maximum of maybe 7 years of experience in it. The 20 years of Delphi and dBase experience the 45 year old programmer has in addition is about as relevant to the project as his 25 years of experience in driving a motor cycle, but it does double the hourly wage he's asking.
The greatest of his time I mean. Armstrong would have to win the Giro and the Vuelta as well to surpass Merckx
The removal of the steroids from his system down to normal the next day is too much for me to swallow. The lab has to be impervious to error, or all tests are thrown out.
He might be, in the case of a failed doping test, the athlete is pretty much presumed guilty, while mistakes can be made.
Passing a drug test is not evidence that someone didn't use doping though. There are numerous ways in which athletes have cheated on tests. Taking masking substances for example, or even going as far as having their bladder filled with someone else's pee.
It's pretty much clear that his urine sample contained synthetic testosterone, it was tested in different labs, including an American one. I think (not sure) Landis' lawyer is arguing that it wasn't his urine.
IIRC he had also beaten the French favorite and the French have never taken much to foreigners who do that, especially Americans.
In that same tour, the French favorite was also beaten by two Spaniards, a German, an Australian and a Russian, a pattern similar to that of the past 25 years or so.
False positives, laboratory fuckups and actual cheating are all much more likely than a French conspiracy against Landis on the basis of him being an American.
In exchange for getting paid to ride *very* nice bikes, you have to pee in a cup. I'd take that trade. It's not an invasion of privacy.
They also have to let the doping authorities know their whereabouts at any time in the year prior to the competition, and accept that inspectors might call at their door and make them pee in a cup at any time. Yellow jersey wearer Michael Rasmussen was ejected from the 2007 tour for having failed to do this.
I wouldn't make that trade, even if I had been good enough to go pro when I was younger. Then again, maybe it takes a willing-to-do-anything-it-takes-including-cheating kind of mentality to be a professional athlete?
And that doesn't speak slightly of anti-Americanism?
Hmm, let me clarify what I mean with anti-americanism. How likely are you to get heckled in Europe for being from the US? Depending on the social circles you live/work in: anything ranging from rarely to day in, day out.
How likely are you to get heckled in the US for being French? Also anything ranging from rarely to every day depending on your social circles, but most people will have no opinion about France whatsoever. It's pretty rare for people to have no opinion about a global superpower, that's a fact.
Now how likely are you here in Europe to have people refuse service, close a door in your face, reject a job application, try to frame you for crimes just for being American? With my (dual American/European) family, we've never experienced anything like that. How likely are you to have to fear for your life for being American? It's unheard of. This is not east africa or the middle east.
The idea that there is a conspiracy of bribery and falsifying lab tests in order to frame athletes just for being American just sounds like paranoia to people actually living here. And even if there was such a conspiracy, it would have to be combined with a conspiracy against Spanish, Luxemburgish, British, German, Italian and Czech cyclists to hand the victory to a French rider.
I'm an avid cyclist too (though not a very good one)
There's nothing like that feeling of going over 30 mph purely by your own power or scaling that hill 2 minutes faster than last week...
why would I believe that? Both Armstrong and Ulrich are/were doped, only Armstrong didn't get caught properly, Ulrich is still banned from cycling from the german federation fyi
I'm sure he would still have been the greatest if doping had never been invented...
My point is that they've all been suspected or accused of doping, including French cyclists, not just Armstrong and Landis.
Doping enforcement was a lot more lenient in the 70's and early 80's. Eddie Merckx was actually caught several times, for example, but it didn't hurt his career.
Today it is unbelievably draconian. Never failing a drug test is not considered proof of innocence in the public eye. The Festina team was banned in 1998 purely based on circumstantial evidence. None of the riders tested positive, despite the irrefutable proof that they had been taking it.
But you're right that the sort of evidence used to ban riders from cycling usually wouldn't stand up in court if it was handled by the law. Landis isn't the first who persists in not admitting guilt, if you remember Virenque...
There is a small problem with the French regarding the Tour: They're not thrustworthy in their judgement. If Floyd Landis had been named Richard Virenque the tests would probably have mysteriously disappeared. I'm not saying that he didn't cheat, but the French are very often using double standards regarding cycling...
I guess it has something to do with Armstrong winning the tour 7 times in a row which their own heroes Anquetil and Hinault never could...
You mean like Richard Virenque who was ejected from the Tour in 1998 by French officials in the Festina scandal and who became a virtual pariah in his home country for his continued refusal to admit his guilt?
You don't read about non-Americans being accused of doping because you don't read about cyclists who aren't Lance Armstrong. All successful professional cyclists of the last 3 or 4 decades have been accused / suspected of doping.
Really, I can't understand public can still have an interest in Tour de France with all these dope scandals.
How can people still be interested in pop music or movies with all these drug scandals?
just to let you know, Lance Armstrong is notoriously doped. Everybody with a bit of common sense won't dispute that.
Possibly, but i hope you don't believe it was doping that made the difference between Lance Armstrong and Jan Ulrich.
The whining about Anti Americanism is getting tiresome though. Ever since doping was first banned in the late '60's, ALL of the most exceptional cyclists have always been accused or suspected of using doping in the media, not just the American ones! Some were caught sometimes, like the great Eddie Merckx, and some, like Armstrong and Indurain have never been caught.
Dozens of French contenders have been disqualified and banned from the Tour over the years! You just don't read about them in the American media, because hey, who gives a fuck about Virenque (who?). Cycling is not a popular spectator sport in the US, people only read about Lance Armstrong because of the guy, not because of cycling.
Come on, noone is suggesting he did it himself. According to the press, he was accused after his lawyer presented documents in his case that he did not obtain through official channels. It seems more likely to me (as a complete outsider) that they bribed someone who had access.
The usual accusations of anti Americanism are getting very tiresome. Every year, several riders are kicked out of the race and stripped of any stage victories after failing a doping test. Landis failed a doping test. This was just the first time it happened to the #1 after the finish at the champs elysees. Noone gets to appeal this decision in court. Every rider who performs exceptionally has always been suspected or accused of doping in the media, not just Armstrong. It's just that American sports fans aren't interested in cycling, just in Lance Armstrong.
Previous tour winners Pantani, Ulrich, Riis, Indurain etc were all accused in the media of taking dope - some of them were caught - all the way back to the days of Anquetil who sort of openly used doping before it was banned. I don't remember American 3 time tour winner Greg LeMond being accused of doping, but I'm sure he was.
The Floyd Landis case is considered particularily insulting, because the winner failing a drug test smeared the reputation of the tour even further. He never apologised and now 2 years later he still hasn't accepted guilt and is still appealing that decision. With his 2 year ban expired, he was planning to compete in this year's race. It looks like some people in France really wish he didn't.
Now the question whether this treatment professional cyclists get is fair is another matter. The doping tests are a huge invasion of privacy, and upon failing a test the athlete is presumed guilty and expelled immediately, facing long time bans with very little legal recourse. False positives and sabotage cannot be ruled out, and if doping cases were judged in a court of law, few athletes would be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. It just doesn't normally get this far. After a failed dope test, they usually go 'Ok, I'm guilty. I'm so sorry, I'll never do it again, I'm totally anti-doping from now on'
And Lincoln went to war with South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia etc when they seceded.
But because you were personally involved, you don't need to see both sides of a conflict. In fact, you shouldn't, as that would be betrayal.