I'm saying they're CONFLICTING, nothing more, nothing less. It means something's up with something, and unless you've got some method of deal with this conflict (with supporting evidence, of course), it's quite early to go "LOL ALL YOU 'SKEPTICS' SURE WERE WRONG HUH"
Oh, ok. But as I said, the way to solve this conflicts is to look at the scope of the conclusion. Either that, or someone messed up.
Now, I left something important out of my first post (yikes). The title is meant to be trollish and exaggerated. It's not a Nelson laugh!
Again, you are leaping to the conclusion that skepticism against acupuncture was unwarranted based on the results of a single study which conflicts with multiple existing studies.
Hum... No. Not unwarranted. But as this study shows you can always discover something new where many thought 'there was nothing there'. And that's the good thing about science.
You most certainly do not know how science works. You don't just pick and choose studies and go "welp I like the results of this one more so it's way more important than the others".
There's a field of studies called meta-analysis just for that. To see if they're picking only the studies they like.
Funny how you think you know more about science and didn't provide examples or knew about meta-analysis
Did you even read the rest of the summary, particularly the part about existing studies that conflict with this one?
So, what you're saying is that studies that contradict this one are more important?? That they should be taken more seriously, because everybody knows "acupunture is BS" right?!
As it is, there's not a whole lot of research on acupuncture, and much of it appears to conflict each other.
They usually don't, but it looks like that due to people exaggerating the scope of the conclusions.
If you're suddenly rushing to mock skeptics...you either don't understand how this "science" thing works at all,
No, it's the "skeptics" that don't understand how this 'science' thing works. And worse, don't know squat about the history of science.
As the example I gave in my post, most of the initial development of electromagnetism/electricity was called BS for a long time
The discovery of Helicobacter pylori and appropriate treatment also was hampered by those 'skeptics'. But it's ok I'm sure only a few people died because of that.
Also I'm sure not a lot of people died or got maimed because that thing called X-Ray is no good as a diagnosis help.
Also, it's easier to come up with results that match previous WRONG results www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm (search Millikan)
So yeah, I'm in no position to question that, sir because obviously I don't know anything about science or history of science...
It's another to say "we don't know how this may work, thus it doesn't mean that it works BUT IT ALSO DOESN'T MEAN IT DOESN'T"
There are skeptics and there are "skeptics". "skeptics" make their first reaction to everything "this is BS"
"Look, arteries may not have air inside them after all" "this is BS" "hey maybe interactions between charged particles can be abstracted by using 'a field'" "this is BS"
It's ok to be skeptic, just keep your mind open before calling BS on everything. Good thing is these people never come up with a new theory or a new experiment usually.
How does semiconductor doping works in these cases?
In "big" transistors, silicon is doped with other elements, to a very high ratio silicon/other element (can't remember, but I recall something aroung 10E6 ratio)
So when you have only seven atoms, what happens?? (ok, I guess this is already a problem with current tech, but still)
Or they could be uneven in time. Maybe every 54.12 years the relation between produced matter/antimatter switches from 1:1.01 to 1.01:1.
Funny you mention that, there are some theories that say the speed of light changed in time, so in the past (like, billions of years ago) it was slower, IIRC
Slashdot Mirror
So, poking the skin with a sharp object triggers the release of painkillers by the body?
I'm impressed.
Yes, but please let's keep homeopatic on this one ok.
Don't try this with a sword, it won't be better than a needle.
I'm saying they're CONFLICTING , nothing more, nothing less. It means something's up with something, and unless you've got some method of deal with this conflict (with supporting evidence, of course), it's quite early to go "LOL ALL YOU 'SKEPTICS' SURE WERE WRONG HUH"
Oh, ok. But as I said, the way to solve this conflicts is to look at the scope of the conclusion. Either that, or someone messed up.
Now, I left something important out of my first post (yikes). The title is meant to be trollish and exaggerated. It's not a Nelson laugh!
Again, you are leaping to the conclusion that skepticism against acupuncture was unwarranted based on the results of a single study which conflicts with multiple existing studies.
Hum... No. Not unwarranted. But as this study shows you can always discover something new where many thought 'there was nothing there'. And that's the good thing about science.
You most certainly do not know how science works. You don't just pick and choose studies and go "welp I like the results of this one more so it's way more important than the others".
There's a field of studies called meta-analysis just for that. To see if they're picking only the studies they like.
Funny how you think you know more about science and didn't provide examples or knew about meta-analysis
Did you even read the rest of the summary, particularly the part about existing studies that conflict with this one?
So, what you're saying is that studies that contradict this one are more important?? That they should be taken more seriously, because everybody knows "acupunture is BS" right?!
As it is, there's not a whole lot of research on acupuncture, and much of it appears to conflict each other.
They usually don't, but it looks like that due to people exaggerating the scope of the conclusions.
If you're suddenly rushing to mock skeptics ...you either don't understand how this "science" thing works at all,
No, it's the "skeptics" that don't understand how this 'science' thing works. And worse, don't know squat about the history of science.
As the example I gave in my post, most of the initial development of electromagnetism/electricity was called BS for a long time
The discovery of Helicobacter pylori and appropriate treatment also was hampered by those 'skeptics'. But it's ok I'm sure only a few people died because of that.
Also I'm sure not a lot of people died or got maimed because that thing called X-Ray is no good as a diagnosis help.
Also, it's easier to come up with results that match previous WRONG results www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm (search Millikan)
So yeah, I'm in no position to question that, sir because obviously I don't know anything about science or history of science...
For example, we didn't understand the underlying mechanism for aspirin until 1971, but before that salicylates had been used for centuries.
Exactly! Thank you!
Now that I have your attention bear with me...
It's one thing to say "this is BS"
It's another to say "we don't know how this may work, thus it doesn't mean that it works BUT IT ALSO DOESN'T MEAN IT DOESN'T"
There are skeptics and there are "skeptics". "skeptics" make their first reaction to everything "this is BS"
"Look, arteries may not have air inside them after all" "this is BS"
"hey maybe interactions between charged particles can be abstracted by using 'a field'" "this is BS"
It's ok to be skeptic, just keep your mind open before calling BS on everything. Good thing is these people never come up with a new theory or a new experiment usually.
And that's the Religion of peace and understanding, everybody...
I hear fat executives make a really good well plug
From what I heard, the company wanted to drill in a specific way, and the BP "manager" (of course) said "No, let's driil this another way"
(sorry, can't find the source but it was in the news a couple of days ago)
This shouldn't absolutely be a 'don't ask don't tell' thing, but if the guy does his job properly leave him be...
Also, several nutcases in science have nothing to do with religion, like the MMR "controversy", HIV denialists, etc, etc
Yes, but while some whine about that some go about turning seawater into drinkable water
You know the whole "2/3 of the planet is water"
Well, not really
The P6 was a really good architecture. it's what AMD battled with the K7 arch (really good as well)
Of course, that, until Intel shot itself in the foot with the Netburst architecture (AKA Pentium 4)
A 1GHz P3 could run circles around the 1.4GHz, 1.6GHz even higher clocked Willamette P4
But the P6 arch carried on and Core 2 is based on it (with a lot of improvements on top)
Oh so that's why they got the pink flamingos up there
How does semiconductor doping works in these cases?
In "big" transistors, silicon is doped with other elements, to a very high ratio silicon/other element (can't remember, but I recall something aroung 10E6 ratio)
So when you have only seven atoms, what happens?? (ok, I guess this is already a problem with current tech, but still)
What a fscking moron
Or a show-off.
Or better, a fscking show-off moron
I couldn't think of anything more irrelevant, like, REALLY
I mean, this is Uri Geller type of BS
The mind boggles.
You think Phillip Morris should be allowed to kill babies since cigarette taxes are so high?
Yes please. Especially the screaming ones.
No, I'd say:
It's a security conference, if you can't handle a USB drive with a (Windows program) virus you shouldn't be there.
I think these (AWE32/AWE64) were the last good Creative cards
After that onboard audio took over and Creative jumped the shark
With the exception of really crappy onboard cards or professional audio, 'offboard' sound cards ceased to matter
Too bad my AWE32 (ISA!) died :/
Well, thank god, really
I wouldn't want a java program controlling a nuclear facility!
Or better, I wouldn't want the average java programmer making a java program that will control a nuclear facility.
Yes, there is life. They're polluting the oil
So it does matter... and anti-matter, and energy...
yay
Or they could be uneven in time. Maybe every 54.12 years the relation between produced matter/antimatter switches from 1:1.01 to 1.01:1.
Funny you mention that, there are some theories that say the speed of light changed in time, so in the past (like, billions of years ago) it was slower, IIRC
And then A5 maybe?!
Or they could have gone with nVidia/ATI or something similar
Or Cell PCI-X boards for PC (IIRC there are some)
How about this:
Ban them forever from selling to the US Gov.
You know, the whole "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me"
Books for wizard kids (Harry Potter) have things that speak and move for themselves and the kids seem to do just fine.