Give a hundred old ladies guns, and another hundred old ladies pepper spray, and have rapists go after all of them (ethics review board might have an issue with the experimental design). I wouldn't be surprised in the pepper spray ladies did better.
"Your wrong," as it is customary to say here. Police trainers always tell their students that even a mortally wounded attacker may have enough strength left to cross the few yards separating him and the shooter and to kill the shooter with his bare hands (or a knife, or a gun.) This has happened before, more than once. Why? Because that attacker has nothing to lose, and he certainly has a solid revenge motive.
Glad you agree with me... If someone shoots me they just announced they're trying to kill me, I have a basic instinct to fight for my life. That's why a gun isn't that great for stopping an attack. You have to kill the person or it doesn't really work. Pepper spray just says I want the fight to end.
There is another expression: "Don't attack an old man. If he is not strong enough to fight you, he will kill you." There is not much that the state can threaten a 80 y/o man with. Besides, every jury will be on his side, and against some 19 y/o attacker(s) who wanted his cell phone or his c/c.
Most likely he'll just do nothing (which is why old people tend to be victims).
I'm a guy but I have a lot of trouble thinking of a scenario where I'd actually shoot someone who hadn't already taken the first shot, ie at best my gun would be a bluff.
You wouldn't shoot a guy who broke into your house, tied up your wife and is now doing the same to your two teenage daughters?
Depending on his size I might first grab a bat or other object and start pummelling him. There's probably scenarios like that where I would fire a gun to protect others, but the cost of that availability is high enough that I don't think it justifies firearms.
a few of the bolder ones will realize she isn't willing to shoot, and they'll probably be right. With pepper spray fewer will run, but almost all of those who continue will end up with a face full of pepper spray.
Most of those "bold" ones will quickly become dead ones, and the homicide will be written off as justified. With pepper spray many of the attackers will end up with a face full of it... but the victim will be raped and then probably killed. At very least, the victim will be pepper-sprayed by the attacker to teach her to not do that ever again.
Did you just ignore the WWII link? I really think you've vastly overestimating the willingness of most people to use lethal force. As for pepper spray, do you realize how friggin intense that pain is? Frankly I think a successful dose of pepper spray is a more reliable stopper than a gunshot. A gunshot can hurt a lot, can debilitate and even kill, but as you mentioned "even a mortally wounded attacker may have enough strength left to cross the few yards separating him and the shooter and to kill the shooter with his bare hands". Pepper spray simply inflicts pain, very intense pain, to the eyes no less. You can't just ignore that, you're going to fall down go fetal and the victim will run away.
Besides, if there's enough guns around that the victim has a gun then wouldn't the perpetrator have one too? The perpetrator is the one who started the confrontation, they're going to be a lot more ready to draw, shoot, and kill than the victim. That's the problem with all of these scenarios you created, you're always assuming the good guy is the only one armed, in that case sure they're more safe. But we can't arm only good guys, the bad guys are going to want guns too.
Are you really telling me you wouldn't get a bit offended if Google autocompleted pedophile onto your name?
I am offended by lots of things I read and hear everyday. That does not justify censorship. There is no "right to not be offended."
I was originally talking slander, the person who replied to me said they wouldn't be offended (which I found unlikely), but the original complaint was and still is about slander.
If someone googles your name and they see 'pedophile' come up, they're going to get a strong negative impression of you (especially if it's a somewhat unique name). If your livelihood or reputation is strongly tied to what people see when they look for you online that can have pretty drastic consequences and I'd say that's potentially slanderous.
The fix, telling Google, 'pedophile' and 'fraud' are both really ugly terms and I don't want them suggested with my name since I'm neither, sets a potentially pad precedent but it's particularly damaging to Google.
"In fact, drivers with BACs between 0.01 and 0.03 were involved in more fatal accidents than drivers with BACs between 0.08 and 0.10"
this is plausible because there are more drivers with lower BAC. On the other hand, it's undoubtedly more likely that a driver registering between 0.08 and 0.10 will get into an accident. similarly, far more accidents are caused by people driving the speed limit than are caused by people driving 200 MPH. it's a deliberately deceptive statistic.
They could also be saying they found data that indicated it was more dangerous to drive while between [0.01, 0.03] than [0.08, 0.10] (ie maybe the drunker people were more careful, or driving slower, etc), or the accidents of the less drunk people were more likely to be fatal than accidents of the drunk people, or some other interpretation.
In my experience a shocking statistic just kinda dropped in without proper explanation or context often turns out to be BS in a way you didn't expect.
I never claimed it wasn't an algorithm (though I don't know if it's actually that simple) but that doesn't change the fact that people googling that name aren't going to get a pretty ugly suggestion about you.
Are you really telling me you wouldn't get a bit offended if Google autocompleted pedophile onto your name?
Link? It's plausible but sentences such as "In fact, drivers with BACs between 0.01 and 0.03 were involved in more fatal accidents than drivers with BACs between 0.08 and 0.10" and "Alcohol-related traffic fatalities increased, following a 20-year decline. Critics of the 0.08 standard predicted this would happen" both set off my BS meter.
You mean the same episode where it showed being tired or distracted by cell phones or anything else were actually significantly more impairing than the alcohol? I don't think we should get rid of drunk driving laws by any stretch of the imagination. However, there are already plenty of distracted/reckless driver laws that exist. I just don't see the a need to create specific laws for every single possible way someone can increase their danger while driving.
I agree cell phones or even conversations are a problem but there's a big difference in that I can hang up when I encounter a potentially dangerous situation, I don't have that option if I'm drunk.
Law is a balance between punishing the tool or cause (drunk driving, having firearms, child pornography) and the result (automobile accidents, shooting people, abusing children)
Alcohol is one of the things we single out because it does cause so many accidents, you can start adding the other causes you talk about, but soon you're making almost everything illegal. When that happens the cops simply ignore most of the infractions and just implement the rules when they want to arrest you for another reason but can't.
That Freedom of speech in Germany is dead. Mental note...
Slander is excepted from free speech in a lot of places. Say your name is "Bob Somelastname" and when you type "Bob Somelastname" into google it autosuggests 'pedophile', are you saying you should have no recourse and that should stay up forever? The court isn't saying google is liable for damages, they're just saying they have to remove the particular suggestions when notified.
Of course Google can't investigate every complaint that comes in, so what this could mean is the German Google won't have slanderous autosuggests for anyone (at least not anyone smart enough to complain) which will reduce its effectiveness but also remove a ton of false positives.
Yeah, his answer seemed to be "we can't do human AI with our digital computers, maybe the problem is the tool and we need different computers". That seems premature to me since we understand higher level consciousness and the brain so poorly, the problem isn't so much the tool as the fact we're not even really sure what the problem is.
"These groups claim tax-exempt status under section 501 (c) (4) of the federal tax code, which is for social welfare groups. Unlike other charitable groups, these organizations are allowed to participate in political activities but their primary activity must be social welfare. [...]As part of the review, staffers look for signs that groups are participating in political activity. If so, IRS agents take a closer look to make sure that politics isn't the group's primary activity."
From that description all the tea party groups, along with the liberal counterparts like moveon.org, shouldn't be tax-exempt because unless I misunderstand them their primary purpose is pretty damn political. Of course you can't enforce the law against only one set of groups but I wonder if the workers aren't being penalized because they were the only ones actually doing their jobs.
Now the Marshall work is controversial, but I think it's clear that our society understands that killing is really bad and unacceptable, and that's a very good thing. You'd need to put all those grannies through a Full Metal Jacket style bootcamp to break down their psychological aversion to killing.
We live in a generally peaceful society where there are very few people mentally prepared to kill another person, that's not a bug it's a feature.
Give a hundred old ladies guns, and another hundred old ladies pepper spray, and have rapists go after all of them (ethics review board might have an issue with the experimental design). I wouldn't be surprised in the pepper spray ladies did better.
Assuming the best case where the woman has warning and has time to draw the problem with a gun is it's lethal, I'm a guy but I have a lot of trouble thinking of a scenario where I'd actually shoot someone who hadn't already taken the first shot, ie at best my gun would be a bluff. And while most women don't have the same physical combat options I do I suspect they'd have the same reluctance to take a life.
So if the women has time to draw a gun most rapists might run, but a few of the bolder ones will realize she isn't willing to shoot, and they'll probably be right. With pepper spray fewer will run, but almost all of those who continue will end up with a face full of pepper spray.
" gun ownership among criminals in the uk is pretty low."
Pretty low isn't low enough if you're forced to deal with one of the armed ones. Why is it acceptable for the victim to have to die in that scenario?
Why is it acceptable for the victim to have to die if they don't like guns and are attacked by one of the much more common armed criminals in your society?
I don't like the idea of being less safe just so you can maybe neutralize the criminal's advantage.
So, you are conflating his view that homosexual marriage is wrong, and him actively promoting that view with him being a bigot? To many homosexual marriage is wrong, the institution of marriage is about raising children in a stable home, so therefore it makes no sense for homosexuals to marry. Does this make me a bigot for understanding what marriage was created for?
Yes.
Homosexuals can either adopt or birth children (through surrogacy) and raise children in a stable home, and studies show the children in that home do no worse then children in a traditional household (actually marginally better, but that's probably just an artifact of the current state of society). And if you're going to make procreation a requirement than many traditional couples also fail that standard, either by choice or medical reason, and I'm sure you'd never deprive them of marriage.
Frankly after considering the issue if you still believe same sex marriage is wrong then I believe you're a bigot, just like you would have been if you opposed interracial marriage in the 60's, and like you I don't think those people in the 60's were bad people. They, like you, are a product of their times and upbringing and were raised with bigoted views, in time most of them changed their minds, and I suspect you will eventually do the same,.
Well the comparison fails on a couple counts since a) the argument is about financially supporting the author and all the people you mentioned are long dead, and b) they were products of their time and were fine by that standard, OSC on the other hand is a bigot by the standard of this time.
That being said I'm not a big fan of boycotting something because of someone's views. There's nothing bigoted I remember about Ender's Game, but knowing Card's views does change how I perceive Ender's Game and how much I enjoy it, for that fact I might decide it's not worthwhile to see the movie. But I'm not going to go as far to say that any support of the film is an attack on civil rights, particularly when the hypothetical beneficiary organization, NOM, is on the side of a culture war that has pretty much lost.
Well maintainers have to make some decisions, though from the bug report it sounds like there was enough of a response that they've changed it back.
I'm undecided, I feel weird when I can see my passwords and I'd definitely have a problem if there isn't a button to re-hide it (there's times when you'll have to do an install when untrusted parties are around), but the common use-case does indicate to me that people would be better served with the password visible than hidden.
AMD's main drivers are proprietary, but they have open specs making it much easier for the community to write open source drivers, and they also assist the community in making those drivers.
NVIDIA neither opens their specs or assists in the development of the open source drivers.
That the open source AMD drivers would trounce the open source NVIDIA drivers is about as surprising as the Daily Mail finding something causes cancer.
I'm gonna guess that the people who would use grocery delivery are not people who are going to walk, bike, or even take transit.
They're probably elderly or physically challenged, or they prioritize convenience and wouldn't take the time for the more efficient forms of transportation.
Yeah, I'm 95% sure it's just the guy's buddy or agent trying to get some interest. If he's trying to attract fans a 'promo video' is a dumb way to do it, just find a video or yourself doing your funniest poem ever and post that, don't tell me you're funny and assume I'll believe you, just show it.
From the abstract Methods: "Belief in God, treatment credibility/expectancy, emotion regulation and congregational support were assessed prior to treatment."... Results: "Perceived treatment credibility/expectancy, but not emotional regulation or community support, mediated relationships between belief in God and reductions in depression. No variables mediated relationships to other outcomes. Religious affiliation was also associated with treatment credibility/expectancy but not treatment outcomes."
So I read that as believing in god helps, but the more they believed in both god and the treatment the better they got (sounds like a particularly faithful subgroup).
I would have attributed the religious advantage to partially being a byproduct of religious people having better community support, but this seems to partially contradict that.
I don't really see why the networks would do this. They're probably better at judging the shows themselves than trying decipher the online opinion. And they may not like the idea of the public seeing an early version before they've had a chance to tinker. For Amazon it's probably a good idea for the PR value and they don't have the same show picking experience.
One thing I could see on the other hand is a show releasing its own pilot online. Say they're having trouble getting picked up or they want to drive up their price. Release the pilot on the Internet, build some momentum, and come to the table with a ready made fanbase.
From what I understand the bacteria themselves aren't attacking the cancer.
The bacteria are being covered with radiation, most of the bacteria are quickly killed by the immune system and expelled from the body. But since the tumour suppresses immune activity the bacteria in the tumour last quite a bit longer and keep irradiating the tumour. So basically the bacteria are being used to deliver the radiation directly to the tumour.
So it sounds like there's no real way of getting around the radiation or radiating your kidneys to some extent. But if you have pancreatic cancer long term prospects probably aren't your primary concern:(
The other issue is that the other researchers in the article sounded a bit skeptical. It could be this is another example of a medical breakthrough in the headlines that doesn't pan out.
Slashdot Mirror
Give a hundred old ladies guns, and another hundred old ladies pepper spray, and have rapists go after all of them (ethics review board might have an issue with the experimental design). I wouldn't be surprised in the pepper spray ladies did better.
"Your wrong," as it is customary to say here. Police trainers always tell their students that even a mortally wounded attacker may have enough strength left to cross the few yards separating him and the shooter and to kill the shooter with his bare hands (or a knife, or a gun.) This has happened before, more than once. Why? Because that attacker has nothing to lose, and he certainly has a solid revenge motive.
Glad you agree with me...
If someone shoots me they just announced they're trying to kill me, I have a basic instinct to fight for my life. That's why a gun isn't that great for stopping an attack. You have to kill the person or it doesn't really work. Pepper spray just says I want the fight to end.
There is another expression: "Don't attack an old man. If he is not strong enough to fight you, he will kill you." There is not much that the state can threaten a 80 y/o man with. Besides, every jury will be on his side, and against some 19 y/o attacker(s) who wanted his cell phone or his c/c.
Most likely he'll just do nothing (which is why old people tend to be victims).
I'm a guy but I have a lot of trouble thinking of a scenario where I'd actually shoot someone who hadn't already taken the first shot, ie at best my gun would be a bluff.
You wouldn't shoot a guy who broke into your house, tied up your wife and is now doing the same to your two teenage daughters?
Depending on his size I might first grab a bat or other object and start pummelling him. There's probably scenarios like that where I would fire a gun to protect others, but the cost of that availability is high enough that I don't think it justifies firearms.
a few of the bolder ones will realize she isn't willing to shoot, and they'll probably be right. With pepper spray fewer will run, but almost all of those who continue will end up with a face full of pepper spray.
Most of those "bold" ones will quickly become dead ones, and the homicide will be written off as justified. With pepper spray many of the attackers will end up with a face full of it ... but the victim will be raped and then probably killed. At very least, the victim will be pepper-sprayed by the attacker to teach her to not do that ever again.
Did you just ignore the WWII link? I really think you've vastly overestimating the willingness of most people to use lethal force. As for pepper spray, do you realize how friggin intense that pain is? Frankly I think a successful dose of pepper spray is a more reliable stopper than a gunshot. A gunshot can hurt a lot, can debilitate and even kill, but as you mentioned "even a mortally wounded attacker may have enough strength left to cross the few yards separating him and the shooter and to kill the shooter with his bare hands". Pepper spray simply inflicts pain, very intense pain, to the eyes no less. You can't just ignore that, you're going to fall down go fetal and the victim will run away.
Besides, if there's enough guns around that the victim has a gun then wouldn't the perpetrator have one too? The perpetrator is the one who started the confrontation, they're going to be a lot more ready to draw, shoot, and kill than the victim. That's the problem with all of these scenarios you created, you're always assuming the good guy is the only one armed, in that case sure they're more safe. But we can't arm only good guys, the bad guys are going to want guns too.
Are you really telling me you wouldn't get a bit offended if Google autocompleted pedophile onto your name?
I am offended by lots of things I read and hear everyday. That does not justify censorship. There is no "right to not be offended."
I was originally talking slander, the person who replied to me said they wouldn't be offended (which I found unlikely), but the original complaint was and still is about slander.
If someone googles your name and they see 'pedophile' come up, they're going to get a strong negative impression of you (especially if it's a somewhat unique name). If your livelihood or reputation is strongly tied to what people see when they look for you online that can have pretty drastic consequences and I'd say that's potentially slanderous.
The fix, telling Google, 'pedophile' and 'fraud' are both really ugly terms and I don't want them suggested with my name since I'm neither, sets a potentially pad precedent but it's particularly damaging to Google.
"In fact, drivers with BACs between 0.01 and 0.03 were involved in more fatal accidents than drivers with BACs between 0.08 and 0.10"
this is plausible because there are more drivers with lower BAC. On the other hand, it's undoubtedly more likely that a driver registering between 0.08 and 0.10 will get into an accident. similarly, far more accidents are caused by people driving the speed limit than are caused by people driving 200 MPH. it's a deliberately deceptive statistic.
They could also be saying they found data that indicated it was more dangerous to drive while between [0.01, 0.03] than [0.08, 0.10] (ie maybe the drunker people were more careful, or driving slower, etc), or the accidents of the less drunk people were more likely to be fatal than accidents of the drunk people, or some other interpretation.
In my experience a shocking statistic just kinda dropped in without proper explanation or context often turns out to be BS in a way you didn't expect.
Work for the RIAA?
My rule of thumb is if I feel a buzz I'm too drunk to drive.
I never claimed it wasn't an algorithm (though I don't know if it's actually that simple) but that doesn't change the fact that people googling that name aren't going to get a pretty ugly suggestion about you.
Are you really telling me you wouldn't get a bit offended if Google autocompleted pedophile onto your name?
Link? It's plausible but sentences such as "In fact, drivers with BACs between 0.01 and 0.03 were involved in more fatal accidents than drivers with BACs between 0.08 and 0.10" and "Alcohol-related traffic fatalities increased, following a 20-year decline. Critics of the 0.08 standard predicted this would happen" both set off my BS meter.
You mean the same episode where it showed being tired or distracted by cell phones or anything else were actually significantly more impairing than the alcohol?
I don't think we should get rid of drunk driving laws by any stretch of the imagination. However, there are already plenty of distracted/reckless driver laws that exist. I just don't see the a need to create specific laws for every single possible way someone can increase their danger while driving.
I agree cell phones or even conversations are a problem but there's a big difference in that I can hang up when I encounter a potentially dangerous situation, I don't have that option if I'm drunk.
Law is a balance between punishing the tool or cause (drunk driving, having firearms, child pornography) and the result (automobile accidents, shooting people, abusing children)
Alcohol is one of the things we single out because it does cause so many accidents, you can start adding the other causes you talk about, but soon you're making almost everything illegal. When that happens the cops simply ignore most of the infractions and just implement the rules when they want to arrest you for another reason but can't.
That Freedom of speech in Germany is dead. Mental note...
Slander is excepted from free speech in a lot of places. Say your name is "Bob Somelastname" and when you type "Bob Somelastname" into google it autosuggests 'pedophile', are you saying you should have no recourse and that should stay up forever? The court isn't saying google is liable for damages, they're just saying they have to remove the particular suggestions when notified.
Of course Google can't investigate every complaint that comes in, so what this could mean is the German Google won't have slanderous autosuggests for anyone (at least not anyone smart enough to complain) which will reduce its effectiveness but also remove a ton of false positives.
Yeah, his answer seemed to be "we can't do human AI with our digital computers, maybe the problem is the tool and we need different computers". That seems premature to me since we understand higher level consciousness and the brain so poorly, the problem isn't so much the tool as the fact we're not even really sure what the problem is.
"These groups claim tax-exempt status under section 501 (c) (4) of the federal tax code, which is for social welfare groups. Unlike other charitable groups, these organizations are allowed to participate in political activities but their primary activity must be social welfare.
[...]As part of the review, staffers look for signs that groups are participating in political activity. If so, IRS agents take a closer look to make sure that politics isn't the group's primary activity."
From that description all the tea party groups, along with the liberal counterparts like moveon.org, shouldn't be tax-exempt because unless I misunderstand them their primary purpose is pretty damn political. Of course you can't enforce the law against only one set of groups but I wonder if the workers aren't being penalized because they were the only ones actually doing their jobs.
It's not that easy:
Marshall claimed that of the World War II U.S. troops in actual combat, 75% never fired their personal weapons at the enemy for the purpose of killing, even though they were engaged in combat and under direct threat.
Now the Marshall work is controversial, but I think it's clear that our society understands that killing is really bad and unacceptable, and that's a very good thing. You'd need to put all those grannies through a Full Metal Jacket style bootcamp to break down their psychological aversion to killing.
We live in a generally peaceful society where there are very few people mentally prepared to kill another person, that's not a bug it's a feature.
Give a hundred old ladies guns, and another hundred old ladies pepper spray, and have rapists go after all of them (ethics review board might have an issue with the experimental design). I wouldn't be surprised in the pepper spray ladies did better.
Assuming the best case where the woman has warning and has time to draw the problem with a gun is it's lethal, I'm a guy but I have a lot of trouble thinking of a scenario where I'd actually shoot someone who hadn't already taken the first shot, ie at best my gun would be a bluff. And while most women don't have the same physical combat options I do I suspect they'd have the same reluctance to take a life.
So if the women has time to draw a gun most rapists might run, but a few of the bolder ones will realize she isn't willing to shoot, and they'll probably be right. With pepper spray fewer will run, but almost all of those who continue will end up with a face full of pepper spray.
" gun ownership among criminals in the uk is pretty low."
Pretty low isn't low enough if you're forced to deal with one of the armed ones. Why is it acceptable for the victim to have to die in that scenario?
Why is it acceptable for the victim to have to die if they don't like guns and are attacked by one of the much more common armed criminals in your society?
I don't like the idea of being less safe just so you can maybe neutralize the criminal's advantage.
So, you are conflating his view that homosexual marriage is wrong, and him actively promoting that view with him being a bigot? To many homosexual marriage is wrong, the institution of marriage is about raising children in a stable home, so therefore it makes no sense for homosexuals to marry. Does this make me a bigot for understanding what marriage was created for?
Yes.
Homosexuals can either adopt or birth children (through surrogacy) and raise children in a stable home, and studies show the children in that home do no worse then children in a traditional household (actually marginally better, but that's probably just an artifact of the current state of society). And if you're going to make procreation a requirement than many traditional couples also fail that standard, either by choice or medical reason, and I'm sure you'd never deprive them of marriage.
Frankly after considering the issue if you still believe same sex marriage is wrong then I believe you're a bigot, just like you would have been if you opposed interracial marriage in the 60's, and like you I don't think those people in the 60's were bad people. They, like you, are a product of their times and upbringing and were raised with bigoted views, in time most of them changed their minds, and I suspect you will eventually do the same,.
I don't believe in loose ends or extended warranties.
Well the comparison fails on a couple counts since a) the argument is about financially supporting the author and all the people you mentioned are long dead, and b) they were products of their time and were fine by that standard, OSC on the other hand is a bigot by the standard of this time.
That being said I'm not a big fan of boycotting something because of someone's views. There's nothing bigoted I remember about Ender's Game, but knowing Card's views does change how I perceive Ender's Game and how much I enjoy it, for that fact I might decide it's not worthwhile to see the movie. But I'm not going to go as far to say that any support of the film is an attack on civil rights, particularly when the hypothetical beneficiary organization, NOM, is on the side of a culture war that has pretty much lost.
Well maintainers have to make some decisions, though from the bug report it sounds like there was enough of a response that they've changed it back.
I'm undecided, I feel weird when I can see my passwords and I'd definitely have a problem if there isn't a button to re-hide it (there's times when you'll have to do an install when untrusted parties are around), but the common use-case does indicate to me that people would be better served with the password visible than hidden.
Not entirely.
AMD's main drivers are proprietary, but they have open specs making it much easier for the community to write open source drivers, and they also assist the community in making those drivers.
NVIDIA neither opens their specs or assists in the development of the open source drivers.
That the open source AMD drivers would trounce the open source NVIDIA drivers is about as surprising as the Daily Mail finding something causes cancer.
I'm gonna guess that the people who would use grocery delivery are not people who are going to walk, bike, or even take transit.
They're probably elderly or physically challenged, or they prioritize convenience and wouldn't take the time for the more efficient forms of transportation.
Yeah, I'm 95% sure it's just the guy's buddy or agent trying to get some interest. If he's trying to attract fans a 'promo video' is a dumb way to do it, just find a video or yourself doing your funniest poem ever and post that, don't tell me you're funny and assume I'll believe you, just show it.
From the abstract ...
Methods:
"Belief in God, treatment credibility/expectancy, emotion regulation and congregational support were assessed prior to treatment."
Results:
"Perceived treatment credibility/expectancy, but not emotional regulation or community support, mediated relationships between belief in God and reductions in depression. No variables mediated relationships to other outcomes. Religious affiliation was also associated with treatment credibility/expectancy but not treatment outcomes."
So I read that as believing in god helps, but the more they believed in both god and the treatment the better they got (sounds like a particularly faithful subgroup).
I would have attributed the religious advantage to partially being a byproduct of religious people having better community support, but this seems to partially contradict that.
I don't really see why the networks would do this. They're probably better at judging the shows themselves than trying decipher the online opinion. And they may not like the idea of the public seeing an early version before they've had a chance to tinker. For Amazon it's probably a good idea for the PR value and they don't have the same show picking experience.
One thing I could see on the other hand is a show releasing its own pilot online. Say they're having trouble getting picked up or they want to drive up their price. Release the pilot on the Internet, build some momentum, and come to the table with a ready made fanbase.
From what I understand the bacteria themselves aren't attacking the cancer.
The bacteria are being covered with radiation, most of the bacteria are quickly killed by the immune system and expelled from the body. But since the tumour suppresses immune activity the bacteria in the tumour last quite a bit longer and keep irradiating the tumour. So basically the bacteria are being used to deliver the radiation directly to the tumour.
So it sounds like there's no real way of getting around the radiation or radiating your kidneys to some extent. But if you have pancreatic cancer long term prospects probably aren't your primary concern :(
The other issue is that the other researchers in the article sounded a bit skeptical. It could be this is another example of a medical breakthrough in the headlines that doesn't pan out.