Most MDs are practitioners of medicine and not themselves medical researchers. They use the fruits of scientific research to inform what is taught in medical schools, but other than diagnostic specialists very few working doctors treat their patients' conditions as a hypotheses.
Chiropractors go to about as much school as MDs and DOs and more than many PTs. If there's a scientific weakness to what they teach, then medical doctors and osteopaths should be doing research to help correct that flaw. They could then properly judge the work and not just the verifiability of the claims.
Don't forget that the mainstream medical physicians in the Western tradition started out with very little proof for their work, and actually for thousands of years did as much harm as good. They weren't a field born scientifically sound. Introducing science into the field is what made the difference. Someone should do that with chiropractic.
If enough anecdotal evidence adds up, you don't dismiss it as anecdotal. You form a series of hypotheses and test them. That's science. Discounting something as unproven is fine when it's unproven. Saying it's necessarily bad because it's unproven has as little merit as saying it's necessarily good without proof.
Well, maybe this will surprise you, but I was lashed with a leather belt by my parents as a child and with a wooden paddle at a public school as a child and it did no permanent harm and caused no scarring. Now, if you're talking about bare-backed lashing with a leather whip or something, that's bad. I'm afraid when you talk of Saudi Arabia the latter is exactly what you mean, and I can't support that.
A death penalty for homosexuality is pretty extreme, too, even if one for some backward judgmental reason thinks it's a terrible thing and should be judged by humans.
One must remember this is where much of the Christian world was just a few hundred years ago, though. It wasn't exactly the stone age when Ferdinand and Isabella's renewed Inquisition united most of Spain and funded Columbus's trips to the Caribbean. Salem had its witch trials in the late 17th century (1692), with a score or so hangings and one man pressed to death. The English in the 1400s burned a 19-year-old French woman at the stake for being a woman and capable in battle.
John Scopes was on trial for a thought crime in the 20th century in the US. Up until 2005, the death penalty in the United States could apply to those under the age of 18. Although that death penalty wasn't assigned for victimless sin-crimes, that's still pretty abhorrent in my eyes.
Human rights and freedom of religion are an important thing to work on around the entire world. Whether it's a Muslim, Christian, Jew, Buddhist (Vietnam is one of the leading nations in executions), Hindu (caste system, remember that?), agnostic, atheist, or whatever person involved, and whatever the prevailing belief, we need to work on human rights.
I didn't get a diagnosis from the chiropractor. I got a diagnosis from an MD (an orthopedist in one case) who sent me to a chiropractor. The MD asked which school of chiropractic he went to and which state he was licensed in before he'd let me settle on which chiropractor to go to.
Some of them actually study things like kinesiology and tell you never to have anyone adjust your spine without x-rays telling them what is actually wrong. Some of them actually claim only to be able to help with the spine being out of place and the muscle, nerve, and disk problems that can directly cause. They want you to see a medical GP regularly and come to them if you need the type of therapy they can offer. I've had this type of chiropractor, and will only see this type.
Others believe in reflexology and all sorts of hokum. These are dangerous. I've heard of people like this actually advising against seeing an MD. That's even more dangerous.
So yeah, it's a troubled field. So is mainstream Western medicine in some ways, too, though. Some MDs will give you pain pills and never send you to physical therapist, chiropractor, orthopedist, or even a radiologist to find out what's actually wrong with your back, neck, or hip. Sometimes it takes six months to get an appointment if you decide to change GPs. Sometimes you end up in a hospital for a week in traction twice a day because they didn't want to do traction outpatient (although there are outpatient traction programs some places). Sometimes the MDs, DOs, and PTs cost four or five times as much and take two or three times as long to break down and give you the same relief -- sometimes the same way -- as a good chiropractor.
Would I go to a chiropractor for foot pain, the flu, a rash, or anything other than joint and muscle pain in the back, neck, hips, and maybe thighs or upper arms? No. Am I careful to find one who believes his niche of treatment is small and in conjunction with an MD or DO? Yes. Has this worked for me? Yes.
I'd invite more scientific investigation of the field. If I had to make my own hypothesis for a study, it's that within the very narrow issues of the muscle spasms, out-of-place joints, and stretched or compressed nerves and the pain and mobility problems those can directly cause, careful chiropractors who don't violently pull the body out of shape to adjust it are just as effective and safe as a manipulative DO or a physical therapist. I'd also hypothesize that any other issue a chiropractor might claim to treat is far better handled elsewhere even if they have some small record of success with it.
I treat chiropractors as a very particular specialist. They are back and neck care specialists, and only those who realize that themselves will I go to. I can get in and out from the chiropractor faster and have relief faster for very specific issues.
Osteopaths were once thought of very much like chiropractors are today. You might also remember that your dentist, if you see the common DDS, is not an MD or DO, although there is a medical dentistry degree called the DMD. A DDS or DMD can be qualified in certain surgeries, too, but a good one who isn't very confident with surgery or who is busy with more standard dental care will not be afraid to refer you to a maxiofacial surgeon for dental surgery. An optometrist is not an MD or DO, but an opthamologist is. A physical therapist is not an MD or DO, although they can get a PhD. Most clinical therapists are MS in psychology or MS in counseling and not doctors specializing in psychiatry.
If you really want to talk about a field with difficulty proving its methods scientifically with a lot of quackery in the history of the field, ho about those therapists and analysts? Why is it that people jump on chiropractors all the time but not on psychologists?
This. This is what I've been saying on Slashdot for years.
Do the IDers really claim scientific proof for the Christian God? Or do they claim that that's their belief and it wouldn't hurt for people to know that in the context of where it contradicts science? I'm sure there are wackos who think they have scientific evidence, but I'm talking about the way they actually want it presented after all their political and social calculations.
Personally, I think there's a great deal of good scientific evidence for evolution. I think it's mostly sound work, although there will be a couple of cranks in any field of course (see the guys saying the LHC will destroy the universe and such). In fact, if there's an unprovable God who put the creation of life into motion, I think it's pretty apparent evolution was a tool of choice.
Now, I've heard Christians say that the evidence of evolution was put there as a test of faith by God because they believe the exact genealogy given in the Bible, but if that's the case then how kind of a God to provide enough data for us to discover all this useful and testable theory about genes that actually works. At the same time, how awful to have a "compassionate" God who would intentionally deceive his own children. Now I've also heard the evidence was put there by the devil, but why would he also make it useful?
Maybe it's best to just leave the science to the scientists and the theology to the theologians. Which is exactly what I've been saying on here for years. The scientists, unfortunately, seem to be more vociferously anti-religion than the religionists are anti-science, and very few of either seem to have the idea to keep them separate.
Right. And how big a militia is it exactly if you let them haul off all the other possible members to concentration camps? Defending your neighbors is in your own self interest.
The point is, I can't assume someone tampering with my car is the FBI. Therefore I can't assume what they are doing is harmless (physically, although tracking someone without a warrant is very harmful I think). I can't assume that they'd care about collateral damage, and they may even be wanting collateral damage.
I'm not claiming science supports anything of the kind. I'm saying you can't prove a negative. Occam's Razor says you should accept the simplest possible explanation for science. It doesn't say nor could it say and still be correct reasoning that if there was really something outside of your frame of reference that it couldn't also have some unseen effect.
When people make scientific claims that are false, you can prove them false with science. When people make claims that aren't testable by science, you can neither confirm nor disprove their claims. With no testability, there is no experiment, no data, and no chance at a scientific explanation other than, "Hm. Maybe. Now let me get back to things I can test."
Science can't be used to prove what the IDers believe, or the Christian creationists, or the Jews, the Muslims, the Hindus, the Zoroastrians, the Buddhists, those neopagan Wiccans and Wittans and wanna-be Druids. What they believe isn't scientifically testable. Since it's not testable, though, you can't disprove it either.
Ever heard of falsifiability? If you could disprove it, it means there'd have to be a way if the data was different to prove it, too. You have no data. It's just not relevant to the scientific method if it can't be tested.
It's not science, it's not part of science, it's not in the purview of science, and it's totally irrelevant to science. Scientists who try to disprove supernatural religions with science are committing the very same errors of thought as religious people trying to prove one of them with science.
So stop being an asshat and telling me what I want. What I want is for religious idiots wanting scientific proof they can't get to stop bothering you, and people like you to stop bothering them.
If you really wanted to be helpful to both groups, the scientists and the believers, you could turn them away saying that what they want to discuss is orthogonal to science and you really can't help them. Remind them that according to their own beliefs their faith is rewarded for being faith without proof, anyway, and to please let you and other scientists get back to actual science.
I don't see why his beliefs would be an embarrassment at all. A little cognitive dissonance doesn't discount his science unless it distorts his method and findings.
If it's BS then prove that it's BS. (Hint: you can't disprove anything based on lack of evidence. You can only say it's not likely and is unsupported.)
I really hate how so many people are anti-supernatural, anti-deity, anti-religious, and ridicule anyone who has any inkling there might be some purpose to life, yet they blindly claim that because there is no proof that there is disproof.
You really should understand the logic of proof before calling yourself a scientist. Just because you can see no reason to believe in something and there's no objective evidence for it does not give you the right to tell people they are idiots. Objectivism vs. subjectivism is a decision all to itself, for one thing.
Just because you practice science doesn't mean you have to believe in it blindly. There's more to the world of thought than one method.
Use science for what it's good for, and let the religious who aren't bothering you live their lives. Use science to make the ones who are bothering you stop bothering you.;-)... And no, believing something different from what you do and talking about it in public doesn't count as "bothering" you. Trying to force it on you is.
And if both did exist, I-50 would likely pass mostly through portions of the country that take their late news at 10 or 12, based on where I-44 and I-64 run. Although I guess it could run all the way from Bakersfield, CA to Richmond, VA someday.:-)
Gee, it's pretty clear to me that when an MD or a DO puts someone in traction for neck or back issues or sciatica, they are manipulating the spine. It's pretty clear to me that anti-inflammatory pills and muscle relaxants stopping spasms in the muscles of the neck, back, chest, groin, and buttocks work the same when an MD, DO, or chiropractor recommends them.
My MDs, DOs, and my chiropractors all recommended either pilates or yoga for helping keep the back in shape. They all told me that ice is good, massage is good unless there's a particular injury, and that a temporary heel lift could help with sciatica.
Both my MD at the time and my chiropractor at the time wanted to wait the exact same amount of time for me to have any adjustments or massage therapy for my neck after a car accident, and both recommended the same treatments for it once the inflammation in the joints had settled down except for one part: the MD wanted me on ibuprofen for the inflammation and Valium for the muscle spasms in the meantime, while the chiropractor wanted me on the ibuprofen for inflammation and some mineral supplements which are widely regarded as useful for helping with muscle spasms.
Now, I'm not saying all chiropractors are great people and that there's no quackery in the field. It's been my experience, though, that a reputable chiropractor will tell you up front when you can be helped and when you should go to an MD or DO instead.
Actually, gold has more inherent worth than lead. Gold's not as likely to poison you. It's an excellent conductor. It doesn't oxidize and corrode to the same extent as other metals (lead doesn't either). Gold is highly reflective. It is more attractive to look at according to most people. It's (like lead) very malleable and ductile. It is even denser than lead, meaning that it would be preferable for shielding material if it was more affordable.
If energy were free, it's still not likely everyone would be owner of equipment that could perform this task. Gold may then be only marginally higher in price than lead, but its greater desirability would still account for some premium.
It's a diminutive case. A Chihuahua is no Bull Mastiff, but they're both dogs. The point here is that vector processors and coprocessors of all shapes and sizes can and have been used for this sort of thing. Some of them are much more useful at it than others, but even a diminutive case can be instructive.
So your nine-year-old has a say in what to read, watch, say, and do. Fine. I'll just give your nine-year-old a subscription to Playgirl, a DVD of Saw IV, a copy of Mein Kampf: the Animated Special, and a 110-decibel Barney the Dinosaur sing-along game that refuses to turn off. Let's see how long that say lasts under your rules.
You don't always have to fire a firearm for it to be effective protection. The answer is to call 911, point the rifle at them, and yell, "You are under aim. Put your hands up, palms forward. Slowly back away from the vehicle. The police are on their way."
If they make any sudden movements while you have them at gunpoint, then you can probably assume they are armed and mean you immediate harm at that point.
They haven't. The Castle Doctrine means you can confront people on your property and possibly use deadly force. If they have a right to be on your property (a warrant or probable cause to believe there is imminent harm they can prevent), then they'll identify themselves as law enforcement.
If they do not identify themselves as law enforcement, or if they do but continue illegal activity against you using their badge as an excuse, then you have every right to consider them hostile and defend yourself.
You actually have a right, even, to shoot and kill a police officer if he shoots at you first other than in defense of himself or another. If you're getting beaten half to death for speeding like Rodney King, you have a right to resist that arrest and even to fight back with equal or deadly force to protect yourself. Did you really not realize that? It would be a difficult thing to prove in court, but you do have that right.
Just because some whack job on a bench that is regularly overturned says something is okay doesn't mean it'll stand in other districts. People have rights the cops, FBI, Congress, or even the 9th Circuit cannot take away.
The right to keep some unidentified guy dressed in black from coming onto my property and messing with my vehicle is one of those rights, and I'll defend the Ninth Amendment along with the rest of the Bill of Rights until statist pricks who believe rights come from San Francisco are actually take my life or I otherwise die. Notice I didn't say "guns", because even if you try to take those, it comes down to life. Either I can die defending my arms or I can fight with things you'd never be able to ban. This country will not be beholden to someone's power dream of subjugating the people while I'm alive.
The nuclear family is an organization, and the parents are in charge. If you really think a nine-year-old should be making the rules for the 40-something, then you're just too daft to ever raise children.
You can't shoot first and ask questions later, but I damn sure would be armed when asking the questions. If someone's going to tamper with my vehicle, I must assume he's armed while doing so. He'd be answering the questions after 911 was dialed and while I was holding him for the police.
I didn't mention officers of the law, and for good reason. They are normal people in regards to my property until they get a warrant. So I have a right to expect privacy from them, too, per my inalienable right endowed me by my Creator, and codified in the Constitution. It's called the law of the land for a reason.
And no, privacy within your vehicle isn't private when they put a tracking device on the outside. You're exactly wrong that they are separate issues. You see, the inside of my car goes where the outside of my car goes. They're sort of attached to one another. If they are tracking the outside of the car, they are tracking the inside of the car. This is something they are not allowed to do without a warrant or reasonable belief that it is probable I am about to commit a crime the surveillance will help prevent.
You probably think I'm going to go off about the Fourth Amendment and unreasonable searches and seizures of my effects (the vehicle) without a warrant.
Well, would you believe the First Amendment guarantees me the right to peaceably assemble, which is infringed by you tracking with whom I'm assembling and where?
How about that a search of a vehicle is a search of the person driving it?
How about that this device is not a witness and I can't confront it under the Sixth Amendment? If they are gathering this data without further evidence of who is actually driving the car, then there's no way to confirm the owner actually went to a particular place with the device when it moved. For crying out loud, most red-light cameras get struck down for this. There is no witness to GPS data that the person in the car is the person supposedly being tracked. It's not the same at all as a professional tail.
I'm pretty sure I could make a Ninth Amendment argument that you can't tamper with my horse. You see, the founders didn't have cars. They left all sorts of unenumerated rights.
Under the Fifth Amendment, I have a right not to be deprived of property nor liberty without due process. Is placing me under the same tracking as someone under house arrest or a habitual sex offender liberty? Is hooking up mysterious components to my vehicle consistent with my right to property?
If any of these rights are violated, that needs to be done with due process. Otherwise, it's just a criminal tampering with my car. I can even assume it's malicious tampering and that they are in fact criminals unless they identify themselves when confronted doing the tampering.
How about weakening tie rods, putting ricin on the steering wheel, reprogramming the injection system to cut out completely at highway speeds, cutting the exhaust and piping it into the passenger cabin, or replacing the coil (on a car that has one, obviously) with one that has a small crack in it (and thereby it cuts out when the coil gets warm, killing the engine in traffic).
None of these are fool-proof to kill someone, but they can all be done pretty quickly once you pop the hood or get good access under the car and can cause one hell of a bad day for the driver.
Which interpretation of Sharia law do you mean? The major Sunni, the Shia, the wahabbists? Surely you're not afraid of the Sufi? Not all Muslims even believe in Sharia. It's not in the Koran. It's dogma separate from the book that is the basis of the religion.
A disturbing number do believe in radically violent dogma that has been passed down, and I agree that both you and I are well apart from that. However, how do you know mapkinase is one of those Muslims who want to kill all non-book people and subjugate Jews and Christians?
No warrant or subpoena is needed if they voluntarily hand over the data upon request. It's their database, after all. The US doesn't have the protections of personal information that European countries do.
Slashdot Mirror
Most MDs are practitioners of medicine and not themselves medical researchers. They use the fruits of scientific research to inform what is taught in medical schools, but other than diagnostic specialists very few working doctors treat their patients' conditions as a hypotheses.
Chiropractors go to about as much school as MDs and DOs and more than many PTs. If there's a scientific weakness to what they teach, then medical doctors and osteopaths should be doing research to help correct that flaw. They could then properly judge the work and not just the verifiability of the claims.
Don't forget that the mainstream medical physicians in the Western tradition started out with very little proof for their work, and actually for thousands of years did as much harm as good. They weren't a field born scientifically sound. Introducing science into the field is what made the difference. Someone should do that with chiropractic.
If enough anecdotal evidence adds up, you don't dismiss it as anecdotal. You form a series of hypotheses and test them. That's science. Discounting something as unproven is fine when it's unproven. Saying it's necessarily bad because it's unproven has as little merit as saying it's necessarily good without proof.
Well, maybe this will surprise you, but I was lashed with a leather belt by my parents as a child and with a wooden paddle at a public school as a child and it did no permanent harm and caused no scarring. Now, if you're talking about bare-backed lashing with a leather whip or something, that's bad. I'm afraid when you talk of Saudi Arabia the latter is exactly what you mean, and I can't support that.
A death penalty for homosexuality is pretty extreme, too, even if one for some backward judgmental reason thinks it's a terrible thing and should be judged by humans.
One must remember this is where much of the Christian world was just a few hundred years ago, though. It wasn't exactly the stone age when Ferdinand and Isabella's renewed Inquisition united most of Spain and funded Columbus's trips to the Caribbean. Salem had its witch trials in the late 17th century (1692), with a score or so hangings and one man pressed to death. The English in the 1400s burned a 19-year-old French woman at the stake for being a woman and capable in battle.
John Scopes was on trial for a thought crime in the 20th century in the US. Up until 2005, the death penalty in the United States could apply to those under the age of 18. Although that death penalty wasn't assigned for victimless sin-crimes, that's still pretty abhorrent in my eyes.
Human rights and freedom of religion are an important thing to work on around the entire world. Whether it's a Muslim, Christian, Jew, Buddhist (Vietnam is one of the leading nations in executions), Hindu (caste system, remember that?), agnostic, atheist, or whatever person involved, and whatever the prevailing belief, we need to work on human rights.
Yeah, like Pascal. ;-)
I didn't get a diagnosis from the chiropractor. I got a diagnosis from an MD (an orthopedist in one case) who sent me to a chiropractor. The MD asked which school of chiropractic he went to and which state he was licensed in before he'd let me settle on which chiropractor to go to.
Some of them actually study things like kinesiology and tell you never to have anyone adjust your spine without x-rays telling them what is actually wrong. Some of them actually claim only to be able to help with the spine being out of place and the muscle, nerve, and disk problems that can directly cause. They want you to see a medical GP regularly and come to them if you need the type of therapy they can offer. I've had this type of chiropractor, and will only see this type.
Others believe in reflexology and all sorts of hokum. These are dangerous. I've heard of people like this actually advising against seeing an MD. That's even more dangerous.
So yeah, it's a troubled field. So is mainstream Western medicine in some ways, too, though. Some MDs will give you pain pills and never send you to physical therapist, chiropractor, orthopedist, or even a radiologist to find out what's actually wrong with your back, neck, or hip. Sometimes it takes six months to get an appointment if you decide to change GPs. Sometimes you end up in a hospital for a week in traction twice a day because they didn't want to do traction outpatient (although there are outpatient traction programs some places). Sometimes the MDs, DOs, and PTs cost four or five times as much and take two or three times as long to break down and give you the same relief -- sometimes the same way -- as a good chiropractor.
Would I go to a chiropractor for foot pain, the flu, a rash, or anything other than joint and muscle pain in the back, neck, hips, and maybe thighs or upper arms? No. Am I careful to find one who believes his niche of treatment is small and in conjunction with an MD or DO? Yes. Has this worked for me? Yes.
I'd invite more scientific investigation of the field. If I had to make my own hypothesis for a study, it's that within the very narrow issues of the muscle spasms, out-of-place joints, and stretched or compressed nerves and the pain and mobility problems those can directly cause, careful chiropractors who don't violently pull the body out of shape to adjust it are just as effective and safe as a manipulative DO or a physical therapist. I'd also hypothesize that any other issue a chiropractor might claim to treat is far better handled elsewhere even if they have some small record of success with it.
I treat chiropractors as a very particular specialist. They are back and neck care specialists, and only those who realize that themselves will I go to. I can get in and out from the chiropractor faster and have relief faster for very specific issues.
Osteopaths were once thought of very much like chiropractors are today. You might also remember that your dentist, if you see the common DDS, is not an MD or DO, although there is a medical dentistry degree called the DMD. A DDS or DMD can be qualified in certain surgeries, too, but a good one who isn't very confident with surgery or who is busy with more standard dental care will not be afraid to refer you to a maxiofacial surgeon for dental surgery. An optometrist is not an MD or DO, but an opthamologist is. A physical therapist is not an MD or DO, although they can get a PhD. Most clinical therapists are MS in psychology or MS in counseling and not doctors specializing in psychiatry.
If you really want to talk about a field with difficulty proving its methods scientifically with a lot of quackery in the history of the field, ho about those therapists and analysts? Why is it that people jump on chiropractors all the time but not on psychologists?
This. This is what I've been saying on Slashdot for years.
Do the IDers really claim scientific proof for the Christian God? Or do they claim that that's their belief and it wouldn't hurt for people to know that in the context of where it contradicts science? I'm sure there are wackos who think they have scientific evidence, but I'm talking about the way they actually want it presented after all their political and social calculations.
Personally, I think there's a great deal of good scientific evidence for evolution. I think it's mostly sound work, although there will be a couple of cranks in any field of course (see the guys saying the LHC will destroy the universe and such). In fact, if there's an unprovable God who put the creation of life into motion, I think it's pretty apparent evolution was a tool of choice.
Now, I've heard Christians say that the evidence of evolution was put there as a test of faith by God because they believe the exact genealogy given in the Bible, but if that's the case then how kind of a God to provide enough data for us to discover all this useful and testable theory about genes that actually works. At the same time, how awful to have a "compassionate" God who would intentionally deceive his own children. Now I've also heard the evidence was put there by the devil, but why would he also make it useful?
Maybe it's best to just leave the science to the scientists and the theology to the theologians. Which is exactly what I've been saying on here for years. The scientists, unfortunately, seem to be more vociferously anti-religion than the religionists are anti-science, and very few of either seem to have the idea to keep them separate.
Right. And how big a militia is it exactly if you let them haul off all the other possible members to concentration camps? Defending your neighbors is in your own self interest.
The point is, I can't assume someone tampering with my car is the FBI. Therefore I can't assume what they are doing is harmless (physically, although tracking someone without a warrant is very harmful I think). I can't assume that they'd care about collateral damage, and they may even be wanting collateral damage.
I'm not claiming science supports anything of the kind. I'm saying you can't prove a negative. Occam's Razor says you should accept the simplest possible explanation for science. It doesn't say nor could it say and still be correct reasoning that if there was really something outside of your frame of reference that it couldn't also have some unseen effect.
When people make scientific claims that are false, you can prove them false with science. When people make claims that aren't testable by science, you can neither confirm nor disprove their claims. With no testability, there is no experiment, no data, and no chance at a scientific explanation other than, "Hm. Maybe. Now let me get back to things I can test."
Science can't be used to prove what the IDers believe, or the Christian creationists, or the Jews, the Muslims, the Hindus, the Zoroastrians, the Buddhists, those neopagan Wiccans and Wittans and wanna-be Druids. What they believe isn't scientifically testable. Since it's not testable, though, you can't disprove it either.
Ever heard of falsifiability? If you could disprove it, it means there'd have to be a way if the data was different to prove it, too. You have no data. It's just not relevant to the scientific method if it can't be tested.
It's not science, it's not part of science, it's not in the purview of science, and it's totally irrelevant to science. Scientists who try to disprove supernatural religions with science are committing the very same errors of thought as religious people trying to prove one of them with science.
So stop being an asshat and telling me what I want. What I want is for religious idiots wanting scientific proof they can't get to stop bothering you, and people like you to stop bothering them.
If you really wanted to be helpful to both groups, the scientists and the believers, you could turn them away saying that what they want to discuss is orthogonal to science and you really can't help them. Remind them that according to their own beliefs their faith is rewarded for being faith without proof, anyway, and to please let you and other scientists get back to actual science.
Well, on some things some of the time I am. Thanks for noticing.
I don't see why his beliefs would be an embarrassment at all. A little cognitive dissonance doesn't discount his science unless it distorts his method and findings.
If it's BS then prove that it's BS. (Hint: you can't disprove anything based on lack of evidence. You can only say it's not likely and is unsupported.)
I really hate how so many people are anti-supernatural, anti-deity, anti-religious, and ridicule anyone who has any inkling there might be some purpose to life, yet they blindly claim that because there is no proof that there is disproof.
You really should understand the logic of proof before calling yourself a scientist. Just because you can see no reason to believe in something and there's no objective evidence for it does not give you the right to tell people they are idiots. Objectivism vs. subjectivism is a decision all to itself, for one thing.
Just because you practice science doesn't mean you have to believe in it blindly. There's more to the world of thought than one method.
Use science for what it's good for, and let the religious who aren't bothering you live their lives. Use science to make the ones who are bothering you stop bothering you. ;-) ... And no, believing something different from what you do and talking about it in public doesn't count as "bothering" you. Trying to force it on you is.
And if both did exist, I-50 would likely pass mostly through portions of the country that take their late news at 10 or 12, based on where I-44 and I-64 run. Although I guess it could run all the way from Bakersfield, CA to Richmond, VA someday. :-)
Gee, it's pretty clear to me that when an MD or a DO puts someone in traction for neck or back issues or sciatica, they are manipulating the spine. It's pretty clear to me that anti-inflammatory pills and muscle relaxants stopping spasms in the muscles of the neck, back, chest, groin, and buttocks work the same when an MD, DO, or chiropractor recommends them.
My MDs, DOs, and my chiropractors all recommended either pilates or yoga for helping keep the back in shape. They all told me that ice is good, massage is good unless there's a particular injury, and that a temporary heel lift could help with sciatica.
Both my MD at the time and my chiropractor at the time wanted to wait the exact same amount of time for me to have any adjustments or massage therapy for my neck after a car accident, and both recommended the same treatments for it once the inflammation in the joints had settled down except for one part: the MD wanted me on ibuprofen for the inflammation and Valium for the muscle spasms in the meantime, while the chiropractor wanted me on the ibuprofen for inflammation and some mineral supplements which are widely regarded as useful for helping with muscle spasms.
Now, I'm not saying all chiropractors are great people and that there's no quackery in the field. It's been my experience, though, that a reputable chiropractor will tell you up front when you can be helped and when you should go to an MD or DO instead.
Actually, gold has more inherent worth than lead. Gold's not as likely to poison you. It's an excellent conductor. It doesn't oxidize and corrode to the same extent as other metals (lead doesn't either). Gold is highly reflective. It is more attractive to look at according to most people. It's (like lead) very malleable and ductile. It is even denser than lead, meaning that it would be preferable for shielding material if it was more affordable.
If energy were free, it's still not likely everyone would be owner of equipment that could perform this task. Gold may then be only marginally higher in price than lead, but its greater desirability would still account for some premium.
Okay, what someone can physically do illegally is a little different than what someone can do legally. I thought that point was implicit.
It's a diminutive case. A Chihuahua is no Bull Mastiff, but they're both dogs. The point here is that vector processors and coprocessors of all shapes and sizes can and have been used for this sort of thing. Some of them are much more useful at it than others, but even a diminutive case can be instructive.
So your nine-year-old has a say in what to read, watch, say, and do. Fine. I'll just give your nine-year-old a subscription to Playgirl, a DVD of Saw IV, a copy of Mein Kampf: the Animated Special, and a 110-decibel Barney the Dinosaur sing-along game that refuses to turn off. Let's see how long that say lasts under your rules.
You don't always have to fire a firearm for it to be effective protection. The answer is to call 911, point the rifle at them, and yell, "You are under aim. Put your hands up, palms forward. Slowly back away from the vehicle. The police are on their way."
If they make any sudden movements while you have them at gunpoint, then you can probably assume they are armed and mean you immediate harm at that point.
They haven't. The Castle Doctrine means you can confront people on your property and possibly use deadly force. If they have a right to be on your property (a warrant or probable cause to believe there is imminent harm they can prevent), then they'll identify themselves as law enforcement.
If they do not identify themselves as law enforcement, or if they do but continue illegal activity against you using their badge as an excuse, then you have every right to consider them hostile and defend yourself.
You actually have a right, even, to shoot and kill a police officer if he shoots at you first other than in defense of himself or another. If you're getting beaten half to death for speeding like Rodney King, you have a right to resist that arrest and even to fight back with equal or deadly force to protect yourself. Did you really not realize that? It would be a difficult thing to prove in court, but you do have that right.
Just because some whack job on a bench that is regularly overturned says something is okay doesn't mean it'll stand in other districts. People have rights the cops, FBI, Congress, or even the 9th Circuit cannot take away.
The right to keep some unidentified guy dressed in black from coming onto my property and messing with my vehicle is one of those rights, and I'll defend the Ninth Amendment along with the rest of the Bill of Rights until statist pricks who believe rights come from San Francisco are actually take my life or I otherwise die. Notice I didn't say "guns", because even if you try to take those, it comes down to life. Either I can die defending my arms or I can fight with things you'd never be able to ban. This country will not be beholden to someone's power dream of subjugating the people while I'm alive.
The nuclear family is an organization, and the parents are in charge. If you really think a nine-year-old should be making the rules for the 40-something, then you're just too daft to ever raise children.
You can't shoot first and ask questions later, but I damn sure would be armed when asking the questions. If someone's going to tamper with my vehicle, I must assume he's armed while doing so. He'd be answering the questions after 911 was dialed and while I was holding him for the police.
I didn't mention officers of the law, and for good reason. They are normal people in regards to my property until they get a warrant. So I have a right to expect privacy from them, too, per my inalienable right endowed me by my Creator, and codified in the Constitution. It's called the law of the land for a reason.
And no, privacy within your vehicle isn't private when they put a tracking device on the outside. You're exactly wrong that they are separate issues. You see, the inside of my car goes where the outside of my car goes. They're sort of attached to one another. If they are tracking the outside of the car, they are tracking the inside of the car. This is something they are not allowed to do without a warrant or reasonable belief that it is probable I am about to commit a crime the surveillance will help prevent.
You probably think I'm going to go off about the Fourth Amendment and unreasonable searches and seizures of my effects (the vehicle) without a warrant.
Well, would you believe the First Amendment guarantees me the right to peaceably assemble, which is infringed by you tracking with whom I'm assembling and where?
How about that a search of a vehicle is a search of the person driving it?
How about that this device is not a witness and I can't confront it under the Sixth Amendment? If they are gathering this data without further evidence of who is actually driving the car, then there's no way to confirm the owner actually went to a particular place with the device when it moved. For crying out loud, most red-light cameras get struck down for this. There is no witness to GPS data that the person in the car is the person supposedly being tracked. It's not the same at all as a professional tail.
I'm pretty sure I could make a Ninth Amendment argument that you can't tamper with my horse. You see, the founders didn't have cars. They left all sorts of unenumerated rights.
Under the Fifth Amendment, I have a right not to be deprived of property nor liberty without due process. Is placing me under the same tracking as someone under house arrest or a habitual sex offender liberty? Is hooking up mysterious components to my vehicle consistent with my right to property?
If any of these rights are violated, that needs to be done with due process. Otherwise, it's just a criminal tampering with my car. I can even assume it's malicious tampering and that they are in fact criminals unless they identify themselves when confronted doing the tampering.
How about weakening tie rods, putting ricin on the steering wheel, reprogramming the injection system to cut out completely at highway speeds, cutting the exhaust and piping it into the passenger cabin, or replacing the coil (on a car that has one, obviously) with one that has a small crack in it (and thereby it cuts out when the coil gets warm, killing the engine in traffic).
None of these are fool-proof to kill someone, but they can all be done pretty quickly once you pop the hood or get good access under the car and can cause one hell of a bad day for the driver.
Which interpretation of Sharia law do you mean? The major Sunni, the Shia, the wahabbists? Surely you're not afraid of the Sufi? Not all Muslims even believe in Sharia. It's not in the Koran. It's dogma separate from the book that is the basis of the religion.
A disturbing number do believe in radically violent dogma that has been passed down, and I agree that both you and I are well apart from that. However, how do you know mapkinase is one of those Muslims who want to kill all non-book people and subjugate Jews and Christians?
No warrant or subpoena is needed if they voluntarily hand over the data upon request. It's their database, after all. The US doesn't have the protections of personal information that European countries do.