It's not like they were marketing a great product until the Redmond boys decided to put the squeeze on them...Netscape Navigator was part of their plan to push their REAL product: their web server. They were trying to be just as monopolistic as MS, they just weren't very good at it. Had they gone with the whole "free to use, pay to make" business plan like Adobe and Macromedia and been successful, people'd now be bitching about evil monopolistic practices of Netscape.
and showed signs of being able to become a complete operating system.
Just because at the time a bunch of pundits decided to make it easy to hit their deadlines by churning out lame articles about the "War for the Desktop" and "Web Browser as OS" doesn't mean that Netscape was a "platform" in 1995.
microsoft started bundling IE with their operating system, free.
most people use what is offered them, not what is best.
Free being the operative word. However, if a free product sucks enough people will often get something else. If they don't know enough to realize it then too bad for them. "Good enough" and free are a powerful combination. I even say this as someone who's been paying for Opera since 3.60.
and to call IE better (at any point except version 6 (which was just bad)) is a lot of a stretch.
How so? I paid for Netscape 3 because IE sucked (feature wise)...then came IE 4.0, at which time Netscape dropped the ball.
Someone should tell him that the PS2 uses a whole PS1 main cpu just to handle its IO (ok...this also conveniently provides backward compatibility for most PS1 games...but I digress...).
Then again why bother telling him? Anyone with a clue knew this, and the rest of the specs, about a year before the PS2 came out.
Cisco and NetApp don't have monopolies; their competitors should be able to out-compete them on this point.
Why is it in their competitors best interest to do so? The current situation benefits all hardware manufacturers. If they were to stomp Cisco and NetApp out of existence by proclaiming "buy us and you won't have to relicense" they'd wind up with the same problems trying to get customers to buy their new line. Just because they made a bunch of sales in the short term by getting new customers doesn't mean that they'll be viable in the long term when they need to sell their new and improved widget. That's the real issue here: continued sales and growth. The non-transferable license not only makes perfect sense towards these ends, but may be essential to achieving them. Even if they did try to use this issue to overtake Cisco and NetApp it would most likely just be in the short term; until they'd have enough clout to announce a "change in licensing practices to better serve of valued customers".
The above may sound like a justification of this "business practice". It isn't. I think this issue and ones like it are symptomatic of how our economic and legal systems are out of whack with regard to the sale of "intangible" things like software.
***That is the ugliest, hardest thing to read through, especially when there are hundreds or even thousands of lines like that. Why can't people put the open and close brackets on seperate lines to keep clean looking code?***
I used to say the same thing myself. I also said on many occasions "I think I see what those K&R brace style people are getting at, bet they still suck."...then I got converted. I think it was after reading 'Code Complete'. I don't think the book actually went so far as a hard sell on the style, it advocated a standard approach across a code base above all, but it did make two points I found compelling: the declaration/condition/loop is really the beginning of the construct, not the opening brace, while the closing brace is always the end. And, that it's easier (visually) for constructs to appear as blocks. A good example is a function with a lot of parameters placed on separate lines:
"vertical" style:
void Ack ( int p1, int p2, int p3, int p4 ) { //code //code //code }
K&R style:
void Ack ( int p1, int p2, int p3, int p4 ) {
//code //code //code }
The "vertical" style leaves a '{' dangling in a big blob of whitespace by itself. It's not a huge deal but after 5-10kloc I find the "block" (that runs vertically from the 'v' in 'void' to the '}' to be better looking and easier to "scan".
That's the reason that I changed styles, but I agree (with 'Code Complete' and others) that consistency and clean formatting all around is more important.
don't think there is any conspiracy keeping us from "handling" the truth. Why, you ask? Clinton couldn't keep things mum about getting blow jobs on the floor of the oval office. Nixon couldn't keep things mum about having broken into his political opponents' headquarters. Reagan couldn't keep things mum about having sold weapons to the Iranians to fund a terrorist army in Central America. Bush is having a problem keeping a lid on using forged documentation as a pretext for war (and WHO, pray tell, would forge such a thing anyway?) THESE are secrets that people would certainly have given anything to keep. And still they got out.
the manhattan project
the Tuskeegee "experiments"
the Gulf of Tonkin incident
These all remained secret until either secrecy was no longer necessary or decades later. Besides, if the government was able to keep a secret you wouldn't know about it because it would still be secret. You have no way of knowing that the examples you mention are the epitome of secrets. Sure the powerful folks they relate to didn't want the info to get out, but that in no way proves that nothing else exists that could be of greater importance.
Anyway, I'm getting ahead of myself, the above wasn't my point -- but I had to debunk the tinfoil hat wearers in this crowd at least a little...
Ah yes, one of the magical incantations of the "sceptical" crowd. Why bother to make any points at all if you're just going to use this tripe?
As for the gestures, have you seen the TouchStream? Granted it isn't a new take on UIs, but until that happens it's a pretty damn cool way to interact with existing UIs.
It'd be nice to see dividends once again be the main way most people expect to make money with stocks. Especially tech stocks. Focusing on the worth and stability of a company is a good thing. IMO, building money over time through dividends is more practical (read: safer) for small time investors than speculation.
I recall one direct, and one indirect reference to Eco, in _El Club Dumas_.
I must've forgot one. I was thinking of the one at the meeting of the club (I think it was a meeting...).
I haven't read "Baudolino"...I'll try Eco again and pick up a copy.
I am not sure I understand what you mean by Eco using semiotics as a schtick.
That characterization is a result of my being a bit jaded after FP and TNOTR for the reasons I alluded to. I read FP first and was a bit disappointed at the end. Although I did, and do, feel that wanting a more "expected" ending misses the point. I could accept that for FP. But after feeling the same at the end of TNOTR, I'm starting to wonder if the stories aren't deliberately crafted in such a way that they make a case for the importance of semiotics. Specifically, in it's application to determining when one is reading too much in to something. It's a fascinating idea, and area of study, but I don't know that it makes all that interesting plot of a plot device. That aside, I quite enjoy the other aspects of his writing.
"Free market" also means free from private interference.
I don't recall a whole ton of new phone companies popping up to free customers of having to rent their phones Ma Bell.
How about price fixing?
If too much power acumulates in a single commercial entity or a small number of commerical entities the "free" market can be influenced. In those situations I don't think it's reasonable to conclude that an entrepreneur is going to suddenly show up and restore balance.
Are those servers utilizing a gui subsystem? How about some form object/component framework (e.g. CORBA, COM)? Are they some tier in an n-tier scenerio?
Or are we talking about an NNTP, SMTP, <some other fairly simple protocol>? Or perhaps a server dedicated to a single app/purpose that exclusively runs custom code for that purpose?
Years of uptime on a server class OS isn't that interesting if the server is doing something fairly simple.
Perosnally, I'm starting to think that Eco used his semiotics background as a kind of schtick. He's a great storyteller and his attention to detail is amazing, but the conclusions to both "The Name of the Rose" and "Focault's Pendulum" fell flat for me. I don't want to wreck the endings for people who haven't read them by being too specific, but do you know what I'm getting at?
Arturo Perez-Riverte ("The Club Dumas", made into the movie "The Ninth Gate") is kind of similar; arguably not the same caliber as Eco, but I think more enjoyable overall. I get the impression that he is a fan of Eco's; he gives a subtle nod to him in "The Club Dumas".
Actually the amount of people on welfare is very tiny and with "workfare" they certainly aren't sitting around watching jerry springer. Do you think people on welfare are living high on the hog or something?
You were on to something up to this point...
Basically welfare bashing is just a stealth cover for racism.
...and then we got this canard.
A strong argument exists regarding the disparity between classes; not races. I am not, right now anyway, advocating this position. However, class disparity is a viable point of contention, race disparity has been, despite any merit it may have, been cheapened into banality.
Hehe...I liked showing that 6598 char monstrosity to people when they asked about email address validation...
It's too bad it wans't included in the 2nd addition, if only for the amusement value.
Re:Yes, let's frighten people, not inform them.
on
Working with ADHD?
·
· Score: 1
Notes:
The NEJM site does indeed has free registration but, as of this morning, claims that the entire text is only available to subscribers.
I will address some of the beginning comments first, then question 2, and then question 1.
So, does ECT work or not? If you are worried about rhetoric, I suggest you give evidence to backup your statements since you seem to be lacking in that area.
So far, I have made no statements as to the effectiveness of ECT. I am suspect of ECT's proponents. (further addressed below)
You don't seem to have any argument other than ECT should not be used because the pioneers of psychotherapy were actually trying to find ways to help severely mentally ill patients through desperate measures? I am telling you the facts. ECT is the MOST effective treatment for serious depression. You can go and refute every article I present but try finding one that disagrees with my statement, the statements from the psychiatrists referenced in the Atlantic article, and the NEJM article.
The studies that favorably show ECT's effectiveness have an interesting thing in common. They typically had one or more of the following people involved: Sackeim, Abrams, Fink, Weiner, Swartz, and Krystal.
Abrams and Swartz co-founded Somatics, one of only two companies that manufacture and sell ECT devices.
Fink, who wrote one of the few books on ECT is a consultant to Somatics and appears in their training videos.
Sackeim, Weiner, and Krystal all have consulted for either or both Somatics and MECTA (the only other manufacturer of ECT machines), and had equipment donated to their studies by Somatics and/or MECTA. Weiner received grants from one or both of the companies.
Who is an independent source of information on ECT?...[let me also address a related point from Q1:]...You seems to have found yourself in a contradiction. You choose not to believe the psychiatrists because they use and advocate ECT. At the same time you would presumably believe psychiatrists that do not use ECT? If they do not use ECT wouldn't the natural presumption be that they are already biased against it? Whose testimony on this topic would you believe?
I don't believe I quoted any psychiatrists in my earlier responses, just sections of Daniel Smith's commentary. But, I admit that it amounts to the same thing. I'll clarify and narrow my position on practioners of psychiatry. Not all current psychiatrists practice their profession in the manner their predecessors did. I also don't think that ECT is a litmus test for a "trustworthy" psychiatrist. Especially considering updated techniques such as use of muscle relaxants and anesthesia during the procedure. Also, the guidelines for ensuring patient consent for using the treatment seem positive. These positive changes could only come about with the acknowledgment of past abuses and a commitment to not allowing such things to happen again. In light of this, all studies involving past abused techniques and the indviduals conducting the studies should be held to a higher standard. As shown above it seems that the main proponents of ECT have a vested
Imagine somebody with ADHD on the project mentioned--was it yesterday? A few days ago?--that was going to require 12-hour days, 7 days a week until it got done
Memorizing lines, rehearsing dance steps.
'grading papers'
Requires things like 'paperwork' and 'observation'.
researching would have to be involved, to know the issue you're working with. And a great deal of patience.
These are all important aspects of the jobs I mentioned but by no means the single most critical ones. Especially if you consider doing the jobs more than just adequately.
Psychiatry *was* developed and practiced by researchers, yes. But most of the problems you seem to have with it could very well be applied to medicine in general. (Leeches, anybody?)
If the shoes fits... On a side note about the leeches, I've read that they now play a critical role in the recovery process for things like re-attaching some body parts. The anti-coagulant/anesthetic they produce while feeding keeps small blood vessels open that would atherwise clog.
But maybe you're in favor of just going to a homeopath. Hope that works out for you.
I don't know how jazzed I am about the idea of taking a substance that produces the same symptoms I'm trying to get rid of as a cure. Interesting concept though...
Social anxiety, however, is not somehow less real because of it. Perhaps, like the Victorians, we should just allow people to become invalids when they develop such problems, instead of medication. Who really needs to hold down a job, anyway?
That's a bit of a stretch. Holding down a job isn't the situation I, nor the ad, was refering to.
That does not mean that everybody with the diagnosis is either misdiagnosed or 'faking it', nor does it mean that the medications aren't plenty safe and effective for their purposes.
Agreed, it also doesn't mean that ADHD isn't over-diagnosed, nor that the medications aren't without their risks.
Re:Yes, let's frighten people, not inform them.
on
Working with ADHD?
·
· Score: 1
The three groups were 1) Scientologists, 2) A group whose website is inconsistent with itself for the brain damage theory, and whose director was submitted to ECT because her brother "tricked" her when she "had become a pain in the ass to him." Yeah right. 3) A psychiatrist who doesn't believe in anything but talk therapy (and hugging according to Harold Sackeim)
You're rhetoric is as bad as Daniel Smith's. His characterizations were more suited to an editorial than an "informative article". Now back to the point:
[All ellipses in the quotations are added by me.]
The stigma attached to ECT is in some ways a holdover from less scrupulous days of psychiatry.
ectroconvulsive therapy emerged during a bleak period for psychiatry. In the first third of the twentieth century not much could be done for the mentally ill...for patients with more-systemic afflictions, such as schizophrenia and manic-depressive illness. These patients were merely warehoused in vast state asylums, where conditions were appalling. Patients were abused, shackled, even surgically sterilized...psychiatrists could do no more than hope that their patients would recover spontaneously from their illnesses...some psychiatrists began experimenting with radical treatments: insulin coma, transorbital lobotomy, malarial fever.
As I originally mentioned, this entire field was pioneered in a most unsavory manner. I'm not really inclined to give a lot of creedence to the opinions of people who have embraced it.
But no one really understood why inducing seizures made patients better. Even today there are only educated guesses. Some subscribe to the neuroendocrine hypothesis, which states that seizures cause a shift in the body's hormonal system. Others subscribe to what has been called the anticonvulsant view, which holds that, paradoxically, the whole purpose of causing a seizure is to tap into the brain's ability to stop that seizure naturally.
The theory has remained fixed: shock a patient with enough electricity so that he'll have a seizure, and he'll probably get better. It's a blunt idea, medically speaking...it is tough to warm up to something so primitively straightforwardâ"even if for some reason it seems to work.
Some side effects do remain. Memory loss is the most prevalent and is the primary reason that ECT is not used more often. Patients may have gaps in their memory affecting several months preceding treatment, and may also have trouble "laying down" new memories for a couple of weeks following treatment. In a small number of patients these problems can persist for a much longer period of time.
Also as I mentioned before, the underlying principal is unknown. The speculations are conflicting. The "science" of this field is less than compelling.
You can apply both of the previous comments to:
If you don't think this article makes my point... what do you think my point was? And I quote from my original post:
I'll just point out that ECT happens to be the MOST effective treatment for severe depression.
In case it turns out your ability to connect the above arguments matches your ability to be civil (A bullshit know-it-all comment like yours deserves a wicked response...Since you probably can't read The Atlantic (words might be too many syllables)...Tell me what the articles says if you read it...It's fun being right), I'll lay it out for you:
The only support for your statement comes from an article that provides no evidence other than the opinions of members of the profession that is being criticized. It also clearly points out the reasons for that criticism. Lastly, the article's tacit endorsement of ECT is called into question by the sensational and patronizing manner in which it portrays ECT's detractors.
Re:Yes, let's frighten people, not inform them.
on
Working with ADHD?
·
· Score: 1
Put up or shut up?
Are you serious? Did you even read the article? Or did you spend more time trying to come up with:
Since you probably can't read The Atlantic (words might be too many syllables), but can surely use google,...
Actually reading the whole article makes it apparent that you either googled for something that you thought made your point and quoted it out of context, or are just bullshitting. Then again I suppose it's possible that all those polysyllabic words mislead you.
Slashdot Mirror
whoah. wish i knew your dealer.
He's the one with the third eye squeegee.
in 1995, netscape COST MONEY,
It's not like they were marketing a great product until the Redmond boys decided to put the squeeze on them...Netscape Navigator was part of their plan to push their REAL product: their web server. They were trying to be just as monopolistic as MS, they just weren't very good at it. Had they gone with the whole "free to use, pay to make" business plan like Adobe and Macromedia and been successful, people'd now be bitching about evil monopolistic practices of Netscape.
and showed signs of being able to become a complete operating system.
Just because at the time a bunch of pundits decided to make it easy to hit their deadlines by churning out lame articles about the "War for the Desktop" and "Web Browser as OS" doesn't mean that Netscape was a "platform" in 1995.
microsoft started bundling IE with their operating system, free. most people use what is offered them, not what is best.
Free being the operative word. However, if a free product sucks enough people will often get something else. If they don't know enough to realize it then too bad for them. "Good enough" and free are a powerful combination. I even say this as someone who's been paying for Opera since 3.60.
and to call IE better (at any point except version 6 (which was just bad)) is a lot of a stretch.
How so? I paid for Netscape 3 because IE sucked (feature wise)...then came IE 4.0, at which time Netscape dropped the ball.
Someone should tell him that the PS2 uses a whole PS1 main cpu just to handle its IO (ok...this also conveniently provides backward compatibility for most PS1 games...but I digress...).
Then again why bother telling him? Anyone with a clue knew this, and the rest of the specs, about a year before the PS2 came out.
"I respect a man who knows how to spell a word more than one way."
Cisco and NetApp don't have monopolies; their competitors should be able to out-compete them on this point.
Why is it in their competitors best interest to do so? The current situation benefits all hardware manufacturers. If they were to stomp Cisco and NetApp out of existence by proclaiming "buy us and you won't have to relicense" they'd wind up with the same problems trying to get customers to buy their new line. Just because they made a bunch of sales in the short term by getting new customers doesn't mean that they'll be viable in the long term when they need to sell their new and improved widget. That's the real issue here: continued sales and growth. The non-transferable license not only makes perfect sense towards these ends, but may be essential to achieving them. Even if they did try to use this issue to overtake Cisco and NetApp it would most likely just be in the short term; until they'd have enough clout to announce a "change in licensing practices to better serve of valued customers".
The above may sound like a justification of this "business practice". It isn't. I think this issue and ones like it are symptomatic of how our economic and legal systems are out of whack with regard to the sale of "intangible" things like software.
***That is the ugliest, hardest thing to read through, especially when there are hundreds or even thousands of lines like that.
//code
//code
//code
//code
//code
//code
Why can't people put the open and close brackets on seperate lines to keep clean looking code?***
I used to say the same thing myself. I also said on many occasions "I think I see what those K&R brace style people are getting at, bet they still suck."...then I got converted. I think it was after reading 'Code Complete'. I don't think the book actually went so far as a hard sell on the style, it advocated a standard approach across a code base above all, but it did make two points I found compelling: the declaration/condition/loop is really the beginning of the construct, not the opening brace, while the closing brace is always the end. And, that it's easier (visually) for constructs to appear as blocks. A good example is a function with a lot of parameters placed on separate lines:
"vertical" style:
void Ack ( int p1,
int p2,
int p3,
int p4 )
{
}
K&R style:
void Ack ( int p1,
int p2,
int p3,
int p4 ) {
}
The "vertical" style leaves a '{' dangling in a big blob of whitespace by itself. It's not a huge deal but after 5-10kloc I find the "block" (that runs vertically from the 'v' in 'void' to the '}' to be better looking and easier to "scan".
That's the reason that I changed styles, but I agree (with 'Code Complete' and others) that consistency and clean formatting all around is more important.
- the manhattan project
- the Tuskeegee "experiments"
- the Gulf of Tonkin incident
These all remained secret until either secrecy was no longer necessary or decades later. Besides, if the government was able to keep a secret you wouldn't know about it because it would still be secret. You have no way of knowing that the examples you mention are the epitome of secrets. Sure the powerful folks they relate to didn't want the info to get out, but that in no way proves that nothing else exists that could be of greater importance.Anyway, I'm getting ahead of myself, the above wasn't my point -- but I had to debunk the tinfoil hat wearers in this crowd at least a little...
Ah yes, one of the magical incantations of the "sceptical" crowd. Why bother to make any points at all if you're just going to use this tripe?
While some innocents got caught in the process, I say the police handled the matter correctly.
Arnaud-Amalric, is it really you?
As for the gestures, have you seen the TouchStream? Granted it isn't a new take on UIs, but until that happens it's a pretty damn cool way to interact with existing UIs.
TouchStream
It'd be nice to see dividends once again be the main way most people expect to make money with stocks. Especially tech stocks. Focusing on the worth and stability of a company is a good thing. IMO, building money over time through dividends is more practical (read: safer) for small time investors than speculation.
I recall one direct, and one indirect reference to Eco, in _El Club Dumas_.
I must've forgot one. I was thinking of the one at the meeting of the club (I think it was a meeting...).
I haven't read "Baudolino"...I'll try Eco again and pick up a copy.
I am not sure I understand what you mean by Eco using semiotics as a schtick.
That characterization is a result of my being a bit jaded after FP and TNOTR for the reasons I alluded to. I read FP first and was a bit disappointed at the end. Although I did, and do, feel that wanting a more "expected" ending misses the point. I could accept that for FP. But after feeling the same at the end of TNOTR, I'm starting to wonder if the stories aren't deliberately crafted in such a way that they make a case for the importance of semiotics. Specifically, in it's application to determining when one is reading too much in to something. It's a fascinating idea, and area of study, but I don't know that it makes all that interesting plot of a plot device. That aside, I quite enjoy the other aspects of his writing.
"Free market" also means free from private interference.
I don't recall a whole ton of new phone companies popping up to free customers of having to rent their phones Ma Bell.
How about price fixing?
If too much power acumulates in a single commercial entity or a small number of commerical entities the "free" market can be influenced. In those situations I don't think it's reasonable to conclude that an entrepreneur is going to suddenly show up and restore balance.
Are those servers utilizing a gui subsystem? How about some form object/component framework (e.g. CORBA, COM)? Are they some tier in an n-tier scenerio?
Or are we talking about an NNTP, SMTP, <some other fairly simple protocol>? Or perhaps a server dedicated to a single app/purpose that exclusively runs custom code for that purpose?
Years of uptime on a server class OS isn't that interesting if the server is doing something fairly simple.
Perosnally, I'm starting to think that Eco used his semiotics background as a kind of schtick. He's a great storyteller and his attention to detail is amazing, but the conclusions to both "The Name of the Rose" and "Focault's Pendulum" fell flat for me. I don't want to wreck the endings for people who haven't read them by being too specific, but do you know what I'm getting at?
Arturo Perez-Riverte ("The Club Dumas", made into the movie "The Ninth Gate") is kind of similar; arguably not the same caliber as Eco, but I think more enjoyable overall. I get the impression that he is a fan of Eco's; he gives a subtle nod to him in "The Club Dumas".
Is he refering to the internet's leading role in the creation and distribution of games or pr0n?
I'm afraid those words in that order are property of 20th Century Fox...sir.
What state do you live in?
What does your position entail?
Actually the amount of people on welfare is very tiny and with "workfare" they certainly aren't sitting around watching jerry springer. Do you think people on welfare are living high on the hog or something?
...and then we got this canard.
You were on to something up to this point...
Basically welfare bashing is just a stealth cover for racism.
A strong argument exists regarding the disparity between classes; not races. I am not, right now anyway, advocating this position. However, class disparity is a viable point of contention, race disparity has been, despite any merit it may have, been cheapened into banality.
You're absolutely right. To date, voting in elections has proven to be the single most effective means of bringing about change.
Hehe...I liked showing that 6598 char monstrosity to people when they asked about email address validation...
It's too bad it wans't included in the 2nd addition, if only for the amusement value.
So, does ECT work or not? If you are worried about rhetoric, I suggest you give evidence to backup your statements since you seem to be lacking in that area.
So far, I have made no statements as to the effectiveness of ECT. I am suspect of ECT's proponents. (further addressed below)
You don't seem to have any argument other than ECT should not be used because the pioneers of psychotherapy were actually trying to find ways to help severely mentally ill patients through desperate measures? I am telling you the facts. ECT is the MOST effective treatment for serious depression. You can go and refute every article I present but try finding one that disagrees with my statement, the statements from the psychiatrists referenced in the Atlantic article, and the NEJM article.
The studies that favorably show ECT's effectiveness have an interesting thing in common. They typically had one or more of the following people involved: Sackeim, Abrams, Fink, Weiner, Swartz, and Krystal. Abrams and Swartz co-founded Somatics, one of only two companies that manufacture and sell ECT devices. Fink, who wrote one of the few books on ECT is a consultant to Somatics and appears in their training videos. Sackeim, Weiner, and Krystal all have consulted for either or both Somatics and MECTA (the only other manufacturer of ECT machines), and had equipment donated to their studies by Somatics and/or MECTA. Weiner received grants from one or both of the companies.
Selected references for the above:
This leads to my answer to question 2.
Who is an independent source of information on ECT?...[let me also address a related point from Q1:]...You seems to have found yourself in a contradiction. You choose not to believe the psychiatrists because they use and advocate ECT. At the same time you would presumably believe psychiatrists that do not use ECT? If they do not use ECT wouldn't the natural presumption be that they are already biased against it? Whose testimony on this topic would you believe?
I don't believe I quoted any psychiatrists in my earlier responses, just sections of Daniel Smith's commentary. But, I admit that it amounts to the same thing. I'll clarify and narrow my position on practioners of psychiatry. Not all current psychiatrists practice their profession in the manner their predecessors did. I also don't think that ECT is a litmus test for a "trustworthy" psychiatrist. Especially considering updated techniques such as use of muscle relaxants and anesthesia during the procedure. Also, the guidelines for ensuring patient consent for using the treatment seem positive. These positive changes could only come about with the acknowledgment of past abuses and a commitment to not allowing such things to happen again. In light of this, all studies involving past abused techniques and the indviduals conducting the studies should be held to a higher standard. As shown above it seems that the main proponents of ECT have a vested
- Also requires an ability to focus
- Imagine somebody with ADHD on the project mentioned--was it yesterday? A few days ago?--that was going to require 12-hour days, 7 days a week until it got done
- Memorizing lines, rehearsing dance steps.
- 'grading papers'
- Requires things like 'paperwork' and 'observation'.
- researching would have to be involved, to know the issue you're working with. And a great deal of patience.
These are all important aspects of the jobs I mentioned but by no means the single most critical ones. Especially if you consider doing the jobs more than just adequately.Psychiatry *was* developed and practiced by researchers, yes. But most of the problems you seem to have with it could very well be applied to medicine in general. (Leeches, anybody?)
If the shoes fits... On a side note about the leeches, I've read that they now play a critical role in the recovery process for things like re-attaching some body parts. The anti-coagulant/anesthetic they produce while feeding keeps small blood vessels open that would atherwise clog.
But maybe you're in favor of just going to a homeopath. Hope that works out for you.
I don't know how jazzed I am about the idea of taking a substance that produces the same symptoms I'm trying to get rid of as a cure. Interesting concept though...
Social anxiety, however, is not somehow less real because of it. Perhaps, like the Victorians, we should just allow people to become invalids when they develop such problems, instead of medication. Who really needs to hold down a job, anyway?
That's a bit of a stretch. Holding down a job isn't the situation I, nor the ad, was refering to.
That does not mean that everybody with the diagnosis is either misdiagnosed or 'faking it', nor does it mean that the medications aren't plenty safe and effective for their purposes.
Agreed, it also doesn't mean that ADHD isn't over-diagnosed, nor that the medications aren't without their risks.
You're rhetoric is as bad as Daniel Smith's. His characterizations were more suited to an editorial than an "informative article". Now back to the point:
[All ellipses in the quotations are added by me.]
- The stigma attached to ECT is in some ways a holdover from less scrupulous days of psychiatry.
- ectroconvulsive therapy emerged during a bleak period for psychiatry. In the first third of the twentieth century not much could be done for the mentally ill...for patients with more-systemic afflictions, such as schizophrenia and manic-depressive illness. These patients were merely warehoused in vast state asylums, where conditions were appalling. Patients were abused, shackled, even surgically sterilized...psychiatrists could do no more than hope that their patients would recover spontaneously from their illnesses...some psychiatrists began experimenting with radical treatments: insulin coma, transorbital lobotomy, malarial fever.
As I originally mentioned, this entire field was pioneered in a most unsavory manner. I'm not really inclined to give a lot of creedence to the opinions of people who have embraced it.-
But no one really understood why inducing seizures made patients better. Even today there are only educated guesses. Some subscribe to the neuroendocrine hypothesis, which states that seizures cause a shift in the body's hormonal system. Others subscribe to what has been called the anticonvulsant view, which holds that, paradoxically, the whole purpose of causing a seizure is to tap into the brain's ability to stop that seizure naturally.
-
The theory has remained fixed: shock a patient with enough electricity so that he'll have a seizure, and he'll probably get better. It's a blunt idea, medically speaking...it is tough to warm up to something so primitively straightforwardâ"even if for some reason it seems to work.
- Some side effects do remain. Memory loss is the most prevalent and is the primary reason that ECT is not used more often. Patients may have gaps in their memory affecting several months preceding treatment, and may also have trouble "laying down" new memories for a couple of weeks following treatment. In a small number of patients these problems can persist for a much longer period of time.
Also as I mentioned before, the underlying principal is unknown. The speculations are conflicting. The "science" of this field is less than compelling.You can apply both of the previous comments to:
If you don't think this article makes my point... what do you think my point was? And I quote from my original post: I'll just point out that ECT happens to be the MOST effective treatment for severe depression.
In case it turns out your ability to connect the above arguments matches your ability to be civil (A bullshit know-it-all comment like yours deserves a wicked response...Since you probably can't read The Atlantic (words might be too many syllables)...Tell me what the articles says if you read it...It's fun being right), I'll lay it out for you:
The only support for your statement comes from an article that provides no evidence other than the opinions of members of the profession that is being criticized. It also clearly points out the reasons for that criticism. Lastly, the article's tacit endorsement of ECT is called into question by the sensational and patronizing manner in which it portrays ECT's detractors.
Put up or shut up?
Are you serious? Did you even read the article? Or did you spend more time trying to come up with:
Since you probably can't read The Atlantic (words might be too many syllables), but can surely use google,...
Actually reading the whole article makes it apparent that you either googled for something that you thought made your point and quoted it out of context, or are just bullshitting. Then again I suppose it's possible that all those polysyllabic words mislead you.
Do I think they can separate the rdbms logic from a service that listens on a port and routes requests to instances...yes.
I know this is /. but you want to back up that assertion? Or maybe just throw in another bullshit know-it-all comment passed off as a wicked response.