Nope. They are just really small unicorns. Re read the above until you see why you're wrong. I've led you to water, it's up to you now. If you need further help, I suggest a basic philosophy of science course.
OK, prove it. By looking in to the bin? They are just hiding really well, so you just can't see them. You're shifting the definition of "unicorn". A horse with a horn cannot hide in any way in a trash bin. I'm not going to explain this further, if you don't believe me, go take an intro to informal logic course.
Why haven't it's detractors performed them? Surely they would just LOVE to show to the world what a crummy diet Atkins is? And why wouldn't the proponents want to test the long-term effects of the diet? Do you think that they WANT people to suffer? That they might have thought that the diet might be dangerous, but they would prefer to hide that fact from others? Because that's not how medical science works. If you want to sell your snake oil as healthy, it's up to you to prove it has the effects you claim without any detractions. I'm not interested in spending my time debunking crackpot diets any more than historians want to spend time debunking moon landing or holocaust deniers.
Further, it would be incredibly unethical to perform a study on something you suspect to be dangerous when there are better solutions available.
By your standards, anorexia is a far more effective diet. It's a given that safety is a factor, as there are lots of easy but unsafe ways to quickly lose weight. Bulimics eat well and still lose weight.
Medical science doesn't work the way you want it to. It's assumed that things are dangerous until proven otherwise, most especially when the previous consensus is that they are, such as high fat/protein diets.
Proving a negative is not at all hard. It's proving a universal negative that's difficult. It's pretty easy to conclusively prove there are no unicorns in my trash bin.
Your article implies that there have been no long term studies on the Atkins diet. If that's the case, and it's been around since the 70's, it sounds like it's proponents have deliberately decided not to perform them.
Christopher Gardner, a professor of medicine at Stanford and the lead author on the study, also cautioned that the long-term safety of low-carb, high-protein diets is still in question.
"We don't know what a high-protein diet would do over 10 years," he said. "It could impair kidney function or leach calcium out of the bones. But we didn't look at that."
If you're willing to injure yourself to spite a cop, so be it. You can only break your arm so many times before it won't heal properly.
The fact of the matter is that many cops *do not* take every reasonable precaution to protect the people the come in contact with, and there are currently no serious consequences for that.
A rational actor chooses the best possible product at all times. Not just the worst, even the second best is an irrational choice.
The existence of advertising proves that people are not rational actors. If people were rational actors, advertising would have no effect (rational actors have perfect knowledge of the economy, another fallacy). That it does exist proves that either those who purchase it or those who are influenced by it are not rational actors.
Of course they can be held responsible if they act contrary to their orders. There should be some consequences when they injure people while following them, too.
Unfortunately, they usually aren't punished even in the former case.
Police cannot be personally sued over their conduct on the job, only the force can.
I didn't say they couldn't make any physical contact. It's perfectly possible to restrain someone without injuring them. Under my plan, they would still be able to use force, but there would be a price attached to any force that caused injury. This is acceptable in my view; officers are expendable, civilians are not.
Most of the world (and all of the developed world) uses a limited market system; allow the market to give it a go, and step in with regulations where it doesn't work.
That's not the definition of "rational" used in economics. If people were rational economic actors, advertising would be ineffective.
If it isn't important enough for anyone to go to jail for, it isn't really all that necessary.
This would also work really well against police brutality. If any cop who injured a civilian went to jail, regardless of necessity, there wouldn't be very much unnecessary brutality.
The idea that contracts can ever be perfectly enforced is hilarious. It's up there with the idea that markets consist of rational actors. That capitalism is based on those ideas proves that it can never be stable without intervention.
So why not just get the insurance, then get tested. If preventative care is cheaper for the insurance company, then the company should be willing to provide for it, since you are now their problem. Or the insurance company can "lose" your premium cheque, and cite non-payment as a reason to drop your policy. Never assume good faith on the part of insurance companies, it's a bad wager.
why should an insurance company be required to accept people who are known risks (especially ones who choose to do so - smokers, etc.) More importantly, why should I pay higher premiums to cover them? Because that is the function of insurance; to spread uneven risk over a large group. If you don't like that, don't buy into an insurance collective in the first place.
The free market "solution" is to charge him a crapload of money, or don't insure him. From the insurance companies position, you're right. From his position, the solution is to cover his ears and shout "I can't hear you" whenever anyone in his family talks about their medical history.
Usian health care is comparable to developing nations for people who can't pay for more than what's freely available. That's the only metric that has any meaning, as the rich can always travel to where the best care is available.
Which is why insurance needs heavy regulation
on
Life with a Lethal Gene
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Under that system, the optimal strategy is to know *nothing* about your health. Don't have any tests taken, and especially don't talk to your parents or other family about their medical history. That way you can honestly say you know of no medical issues you may have. This is of course bad for everyone involved. You can't seek preventative medical care, and end up costing the insurance provider more.
Yet another example of a problem a free market cannot solve.
But why would you want to pay homage to the yearly vomit of dull, repetitive sports games? And why not acknowledge the full vision, infinite fps massively multiplayer version that's been available since the invention of the ball?
Sure, zero false positives would be better, but not if it means false negatives. While you need to make sure there aren't excessive false positives, it's better to err on the side of caution. You don't lose anything from simply not doing business with people who set off the flags.
I'm hardly the last to take a jab at MS, but that sort of reactionary attitude doesn't help. Is the wireless mouse I bought from MS for use on my Linux machine a scam?
No jabbing at MS intended. Something like this *should* generate more false positives than false negatives, because the cost to the user from a false positive is less than a false negative. Further, it shows that they aren't playing favourites, they've been caught in the same net anyone else might.
A $1200 product being sold for $75 is probably either a) not a $1200 product, or b) a scam, so this seems to have worked well. Special academic discounts are a fringe case.
I'm not going to source what should be common knowledge for anyone remotely familiar with Apple. GE light bulbs are manufactured to a standard that GE does not control. Ford cars drive on standard roads and take standard gas. Apple operating systems are hobbled to run only on Apple hardware. Apple has a monopoly on OS X hardware, but thankfully not a monopoly on the desktop (though the article this is attached to proposed they may some day).
Apple is not a hardware company. They are both a hardware and a software company. Dell is a hardware company.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope. They are just really small unicorns. Re read the above until you see why you're wrong. I've led you to water, it's up to you now. If you need further help, I suggest a basic philosophy of science course.
Further, it would be incredibly unethical to perform a study on something you suspect to be dangerous when there are better solutions available.
By your standards, anorexia is a far more effective diet. It's a given that safety is a factor, as there are lots of easy but unsafe ways to quickly lose weight. Bulimics eat well and still lose weight.
Medical science doesn't work the way you want it to. It's assumed that things are dangerous until proven otherwise, most especially when the previous consensus is that they are, such as high fat/protein diets.
Proving a negative is not at all hard. It's proving a universal negative that's difficult. It's pretty easy to conclusively prove there are no unicorns in my trash bin.
Your article implies that there have been no long term studies on the Atkins diet. If that's the case, and it's been around since the 70's, it sounds like it's proponents have deliberately decided not to perform them.
"We don't know what a high-protein diet would do over 10 years," he said. "It could impair kidney function or leach calcium out of the bones. But we didn't look at that."
Atkin's diet need not be debunked to be criticized. The burden of proof is on it's proponents to show that it is effective.
I'll just dismiss it with a valid appeal to authority; Health Canada has banned any reference to it as positive on food labelling.
If you're willing to injure yourself to spite a cop, so be it. You can only break your arm so many times before it won't heal properly.
The fact of the matter is that many cops *do not* take every reasonable precaution to protect the people the come in contact with, and there are currently no serious consequences for that.
A rational actor chooses the best possible product at all times. Not just the worst, even the second best is an irrational choice.
The existence of advertising proves that people are not rational actors. If people were rational actors, advertising would have no effect (rational actors have perfect knowledge of the economy, another fallacy). That it does exist proves that either those who purchase it or those who are influenced by it are not rational actors.
Of course they can be held responsible if they act contrary to their orders. There should be some consequences when they injure people while following them, too.
Unfortunately, they usually aren't punished even in the former case.
Police cannot be personally sued over their conduct on the job, only the force can.
I didn't say they couldn't make any physical contact. It's perfectly possible to restrain someone without injuring them. Under my plan, they would still be able to use force, but there would be a price attached to any force that caused injury. This is acceptable in my view; officers are expendable, civilians are not.
Most of the world (and all of the developed world) uses a limited market system; allow the market to give it a go, and step in with regulations where it doesn't work.
That's not the definition of "rational" used in economics. If people were rational economic actors, advertising would be ineffective.
If it isn't important enough for anyone to go to jail for, it isn't really all that necessary.
This would also work really well against police brutality. If any cop who injured a civilian went to jail, regardless of necessity, there wouldn't be very much unnecessary brutality.
The idea that contracts can ever be perfectly enforced is hilarious. It's up there with the idea that markets consist of rational actors. That capitalism is based on those ideas proves that it can never be stable without intervention.
Usian health care is comparable to developing nations for people who can't pay for more than what's freely available. That's the only metric that has any meaning, as the rich can always travel to where the best care is available.
Under that system, the optimal strategy is to know *nothing* about your health. Don't have any tests taken, and especially don't talk to your parents or other family about their medical history. That way you can honestly say you know of no medical issues you may have. This is of course bad for everyone involved. You can't seek preventative medical care, and end up costing the insurance provider more.
Yet another example of a problem a free market cannot solve.
Would one be obliged to inform insurance companies of this "pre-existing" condition. If so, it seems one would probably be better off not knowing.
They've been looking for signs of liquid water, primarily in the distant past.
But why would you want to pay homage to the yearly vomit of dull, repetitive sports games? And why not acknowledge the full vision, infinite fps massively multiplayer version that's been available since the invention of the ball?
Sure, zero false positives would be better, but not if it means false negatives. While you need to make sure there aren't excessive false positives, it's better to err on the side of caution. You don't lose anything from simply not doing business with people who set off the flags.
I'm hardly the last to take a jab at MS, but that sort of reactionary attitude doesn't help. Is the wireless mouse I bought from MS for use on my Linux machine a scam?
No jabbing at MS intended. Something like this *should* generate more false positives than false negatives, because the cost to the user from a false positive is less than a false negative. Further, it shows that they aren't playing favourites, they've been caught in the same net anyone else might.
A $1200 product being sold for $75 is probably either a) not a $1200 product, or b) a scam, so this seems to have worked well. Special academic discounts are a fringe case.
Please, enlighten me as to what you seem to think an end user of GPLed binaries is obligated to do.
I'm not going to source what should be common knowledge for anyone remotely familiar with Apple. GE light bulbs are manufactured to a standard that GE does not control. Ford cars drive on standard roads and take standard gas. Apple operating systems are hobbled to run only on Apple hardware. Apple has a monopoly on OS X hardware, but thankfully not a monopoly on the desktop (though the article this is attached to proposed they may some day).
Apple is not a hardware company. They are both a hardware and a software company. Dell is a hardware company.
And with an open document format, all those people can use whatever programs and formats they like, and export to the mandated format as needed.
Take the readily available cracked versions of OS X, and start selling either alone or installed. See how long Apple refrains from preventing you.