If that's true, then you're just flat out wrong about HIV not being present in AIDS patients.
How does a tiny retrovirus do that damage? Nobody knows at all.
It attacks immune cells. That lets other stuff do the more obvious damage. Like HPV, the viral infection qua the infection is harmless, but the side effects do kill. With HPV it's cancer, with HIV is a supressed immune system.
Examine the history of how HIV was labelled as the culprit by Dr Robert Gallo.
So one guy hijacked a whole branch of medical research, and everyone else just followed him. I don't buy it.
Yes. My glibness is a measure of how well-formed I consider your arguments to be.
Not to mention AIDS tests are not carried out on most African 'AIDS victims'.
(I'll assume you meant "HIV tests", since you think HIV and AIDS are unrelated.) But the ones that do have HIV tests... still fit the standard model.
If you read the link and actually cared about this subject you'd see that malnutrition is also a big factor.
So here's the story so far. Using drugs all the way through the early 70s never (or very, very rarely) caused AIDS, then gay drug users started getting it while the strait ones didn't, then 10 year old blood transfusion patients start getting it, and then the drug use starts affecting strait people in the same way. Meanwhile in Africa a new type of malnutrition appeared, much different than any other kind, primarily affecting the relatively wealthy truck drivers and the poorer hookers they visited. In the mean time, Africans cultures with more monogomous tendancies managed to avoid this new kind of malnutrition?
In a sample from a viral victims blood or cells there should be a significant amount of virus present
There is, that's why most of us think that HIV causes AIDS.
If someone died of flu this would be the case. Why not HIV?
Most infections kill fairly directly, HIV does not. The ususal progression is: HIV infects the immune system (that's called being HIV positive), later the degraded immune system allows unusual infections to occur (that's called having AIDS), later the other infections kill the patient. It's like how small injuries used to often kill people - the wound gets infected, sepsis leads to gangrene, the gangrene damages the heart, and that kills the person.
No, that something can be modelled in a computer doesn't mean it can be modelled in reasonable time.
So doing something slowly is the same as not doing it. OK...
Besides that, the computations are "reasonable aproximations". They are not exactly like the real thing.
So? If I made a copy of my car (which, of course, wouldn't be a molecule-by-molecule duplicate) the copy wouldn't count as a car. OK...
It's like the chapters in CSI where the modelling just don't fit the experimental data because they just missed some things that should be in the model from the start. They change the model and then it fits, but it's too late for the case.
I'll tell a little more about your primary example, and one at random (other than the hypnotherapist, 'cause that would be too easy):
Kary Mullis - PCR is a general genetics technique, no knowledge of HIV or AIDS was needed to develop it, and while his name is given as the inventor of PCR, the invention was clearly a group effort, not a solo one. Kary is also well known for his LSD use and disbelief in both global warming and CFCs causing ozone damage, and his possible alien abduction.
Dr. Andrew Herxheimer - His quote says nothing about the HIV/AIDS link. All he's suggesting is that AZT isn't effective and could be dangerous. If that's the best proof you have, you've got a long ways to go.
I could get an equally qualified group to suggest that AIDS can be prevented by circumcision, or that autism is caused by mercury in vaccines. We should look at those possibilities, but when it's a few random doctors on one side and every major medical group on the planet on the other, I think it's safest to go with what the overwhelming majority is convinced of. Sure, sometimes we find that ulcers are cause by bacteria, but when that happens it should be easy to show the connection or lack of one - in this case there's no data, just a willingness to believe.
Where to start?
Homophobes - The evil gays are spreading disease!
Alternative therapy peddlers - I can cure AIDS with homeopathic medicine!
Politicians - AIDS was made by white men to kill black people!
Jackasses - Sure I'm HIV+ baby, but it doesn't cause AIDS!
The HIV hypothesis fails Koch's postulates because the victim is not overrun by HIV at time of death as would normally be the case with a fatal virus infection.
Being "overrun" is not one of Koch's postulates. In this case, HIV damages the immune system to the point where other diseases have an easy time killing the patient. Your logic would lead to the conclution that the flu doesn't make people sick, because most of the symptoms (fever, aches, weakness) are caused by the patients own body.
Why is it important to develop a way to allow people who have little regard for their own health to remain healthy?
For the same reason we developed seatbelts, bulletproof vests and the cooking of meat. Sure, people can avoid being in motor vehicles, professions where they're likely to get shot at in and not eat pork, but that curtails their lives tremendously.
On the other hand, what kind of idiot argues that a safety measureshouldn't be developed?. The "let 'em die" attitude is rather uncivilized.
How come planes don't just implode like a sub that strays too deep?
Planes have more pressure on the inside, so they would tend to explode, not implode. And just so you know, an airplane in the stratosphere has to withstand the same amount of pressure as a submarine does when it's fifteen feet underwater.
I'd always thought it "shifted" to uppercase. Never considered "shifting the case from what is selected". So by my thought, it's not logical.
It's like using a Mac. Drag a folder to the trash and it gets deleted, but drag a drive to the trash and it gets unmounted. To a normal person drives are just the top level of directories and "throw away" and "give to me" are opposites - thus the interface makes no sense. But spend enough time using one, and you'll find it weird that normal people freak out when you "delete" their photos.
On the other hand, a "case reverse" key would make more sense, now that it doesn't lock the keyboard to only typing caps.
I can't think of a case where Shift overriding a button with "Lock" in the label is desirable.
Passwords. Nothing makes it harder to learn your password than by watching than by adding a few caps lock and arrow key presses.:)
You're probably a troll, but I prefer to believe that you didn't stop and think before hitting the 'Submit' button. After cutting out your insults, you've made the following points:
most people can't just tell their boss to shove it and go get a job as waiter where they won't get slowly killed by idiots burning dried tobacco leaves and inhaling the smoke.... Hey, you can just go and get another job, can't you? Perhaps you and I can, but 90% of the world's population are not educated, smart, good-looking, lucky and rich enough to do so.
First, a couple of side points. The risk from second hand smoke is fairly small - 20-30% greater chance of getting a single deadly disease - much smaller than the risks of other professions. As for the poor 90% of the world, they have so many problems, most much more pressing than a little cigarette smoke, that they could care less about it. Besides, how many waiters are there in third world countries (outside of tourist zones)?
Second, the Liberal Paradox seems to be at the center of this discussion. The plain english translation is that in order to have any signifigant freedom, you have to be able to choose things that harm others in some way, even if it's very indirect. Or in reverse: the only way to protect people completely from other people's choices is to not let them make choices in the first place. A good example is driving: if driving is legal it puts innocent lives at risk, but if it's illigal people's freedom is reduced.
In the end, though, my dislike of smoking bans comes down to the fact that I worry more about overdoing protection rather than overdoing freedom. It's always politically easier to add more laws to improve safety rather than to remove or reform laws once you have too many.
In what kind of... world is it OK for private businesses to discriminate against you because you are gay, catholic or have big tits?
The same world where they're allowed to discriminate based on height, appearance and gut feelings. Why is not hiring a gay person a federal case, but not hiring a guy you 'just don't like' OK? Oh, right, one where you're allowed to make your own decisions, even if they're stupid and/or immoral ones.
Discriminating against races and sexual persuasions is OK, but sharing of guitar tabs sends you into rant-mode for hundreds of words? You might want to get your priorities straight.
You might want to re-read his post. You might disagree with him, but he did make a clear argument that you haven't even tried to address.
"Would you kill for an abstraction?" Anyone honestly answering yes may not use the software.
people who would kill another for differing gods, political viewpoints, etc. would be SOL as far as the license.
Would 'freedom' count as an abstraction? Would 'pro-democracy' count as a political viewpoint? You end up letting slavery-loving (but wouldn't kill for it) people use your software and at the same time preventing strong advocates of emacipation from doing the same.
I think you just proved the point: you're "codifying morality into inflexible dogma", all the way down to one hard-coded rule - and it sucks.
Great! I now have precident for my "Patch for no use by blacks, gays, Jews, hippies, people that use the word 'like' incorrectly, and those that don't understand the purpose of the Three Laws of Robotics". I mean, you try to discriminate, and there's always some liberal making you hire people based on merit, but they might let this one through because it's anti-military. Then when I get sued for my "Can't be used by companies with women CEOs" clause, I can point out that we've already decided that there's no problem with picking and choosing who gets to use my code.
As for the horrid warping of the Three Laws, the whole point to the series was that morality is too complex to be described by a small set of binary statements. They were written as an example fo something that sounds very good, but is completely unworkable. Anyone who's actually read Asimov should understand that they were a warning about what not to do.
Except the libertarian ideal is to maximize freedom. The obvious solution is to give men more choices, not restrict the choices women have. Let men choose whether or not they are willing to have the child in their lives - if yes, then the current system would work - if no, then they're allowed to drop all parental rights and have no liability with reagard to the child.
While this wouldn't give men an exact copy of abortion rights, a 'paper abortion' would be as close as we can get within practical limits.
But it is science to say we have measurements we can't explain so lets invent something we can test that explains them. As far as I know, all of these hypothesies can be tested, so they are scientific.
P.S. - The cosmological constant was origionally formed to make a static universe, not one that is expanding at an accelerating rate. Now, modified to fit new observations, it is treated as a possible form of dark energy (quintessence being the other) - it's not just another name for the same thing.
To add to your evidence:
And the wavelength of that radiation is exactly what the Big Bang theory predicted.
And the ratio between light elements is what you'd expect after a Big Bang.
And the way galaxies are distributed fits well with the theory.
As for progress, dark energy wasn't even suggested until better measurements were taken in the '90s.
And the whole "dark energy" idea, developed because of cosmology, has had a major impact on physics, so I think it's had an impact on other fields.
I know of no atheist willing to do such a thing when attacking religion.
They do it all the time.
It's easier, it seems, to act based on prejudices than to seek good information and answer it point by point.
Every side of every confilict involving large groups does this on occation. Don't let one jerk overwhelm a dozen good arguments just because they're on the same side.
When will we see a "Summa Against God"? Never, I bet.
Otherwise you'd know that religions (actual ones, not this thing Americans usually take as such) follow the first pattern, not the second.
No, they don't. Religions are built on intuitions and feelings, things that are by their nature subjective. Science is just a way of avoiding the mental shortcuts (gut feelings, intuition, emotion) that might often be useful and good in their own way, but prevent us from using rational thought effectively.
If religion worked as you say it does, then after this much time there would be at least a few things that were beyond contestation. But religion hasn't even proved that the things it talks about (god, souls, reincarnation, supernatural things in general) exist. If biology was in the same state, there would be some people that have strong, reasonable arguments that suggest that living things don't exist!
No, some interesting effects are produced by the way the brain processes sound, but this isn't one of them. The beat frequency is produced physically, through nonlinear elements such as air, your ear and eardrum, and various objects around you. You can be completely deaf to the higher-frequency components and still hear the tone that's the difference of the two frequencies.
If the sound didn't carry, and this was only being used on private property, then you'd have a point. But the fact is that you can't contain sound like that. Do you really think you could play rock music loud enough to consistantly drive old people off your property and still not disturb the ones that live right next to you? And keep in mind that high-frequency hearing is lost gradually, if it's annoying enough to get most of the loud ones off the lawn 10 feet away, it's annoying enough to push some of the quiet ones off the sidewalk 15 feet away.
I'm sorry you had problems with kids, but they still deserve the same right not to be harassed that the rest of us enjoy.
ask him _politely_ why... And listen to what he says.
Moderation: +1 Good Advice - It's always best to try amicable solutions first.
This may be the hardest thing you have ever done in your life, showing some respect for the people around you, thinking about the consequences of your actions and behaving like a responsible adult. Maybe think about things that you do that you think are funny when you are drunk, and think what other people would feel about them.
Moderation: -1 Hypocrisy - Telling someone to be polite and respectful while insulting them.
the easiest and best solution is to just stay away.
Moderation: -1 Spineless - The old guys behavior is almost certainly illegal and it's interfering with people's right to enjoy their lives. I wouldn't suggest the criminal options, but legal escalation it just as much a part of "being a man" as ovatures of diplomacy.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry, but this is quite an odd story.
Kary Mullis - PCR is a general genetics technique, no knowledge of HIV or AIDS was needed to develop it, and while his name is given as the inventor of PCR, the invention was clearly a group effort, not a solo one. Kary is also well known for his LSD use and disbelief in both global warming and CFCs causing ozone damage, and his possible alien abduction.
Dr. Andrew Herxheimer - His quote says nothing about the HIV/AIDS link. All he's suggesting is that AZT isn't effective and could be dangerous. If that's the best proof you have, you've got a long ways to go.
I could get an equally qualified group to suggest that AIDS can be prevented by circumcision, or that autism is caused by mercury in vaccines. We should look at those possibilities, but when it's a few random doctors on one side and every major medical group on the planet on the other, I think it's safest to go with what the overwhelming majority is convinced of. Sure, sometimes we find that ulcers are cause by bacteria, but when that happens it should be easy to show the connection or lack of one - in this case there's no data, just a willingness to believe.
Homophobes - The evil gays are spreading disease!
Alternative therapy peddlers - I can cure AIDS with homeopathic medicine!
Politicians - AIDS was made by white men to kill black people!
Jackasses - Sure I'm HIV+ baby, but it doesn't cause AIDS!
Oh, forget it. This is too easy.
Becuse all those Africans living on "$1 a day" can afford drugs. Sure...
On the other hand, what kind of idiot argues that a safety measure shouldn't be developed?. The "let 'em die" attitude is rather uncivilized.
On the other hand, a "case reverse" key would make more sense, now that it doesn't lock the keyboard to only typing caps.
Passwords. Nothing makes it harder to learn your password than by watching than by adding a few caps lock and arrow key presses.Second, the Liberal Paradox seems to be at the center of this discussion. The plain english translation is that in order to have any signifigant freedom, you have to be able to choose things that harm others in some way, even if it's very indirect. Or in reverse: the only way to protect people completely from other people's choices is to not let them make choices in the first place. A good example is driving: if driving is legal it puts innocent lives at risk, but if it's illigal people's freedom is reduced.
In the end, though, my dislike of smoking bans comes down to the fact that I worry more about overdoing protection rather than overdoing freedom. It's always politically easier to add more laws to improve safety rather than to remove or reform laws once you have too many.
The same world where they're allowed to discriminate based on height, appearance and gut feelings. Why is not hiring a gay person a federal case, but not hiring a guy you 'just don't like' OK? Oh, right, one where you're allowed to make your own decisions, even if they're stupid and/or immoral ones. You might want to re-read his post. You might disagree with him, but he did make a clear argument that you haven't even tried to address.I think you just proved the point: you're "codifying morality into inflexible dogma", all the way down to one hard-coded rule - and it sucks.
Great! I now have precident for my "Patch for no use by blacks, gays, Jews, hippies, people that use the word 'like' incorrectly, and those that don't understand the purpose of the Three Laws of Robotics". I mean, you try to discriminate, and there's always some liberal making you hire people based on merit, but they might let this one through because it's anti-military. Then when I get sued for my "Can't be used by companies with women CEOs" clause, I can point out that we've already decided that there's no problem with picking and choosing who gets to use my code.
As for the horrid warping of the Three Laws, the whole point to the series was that morality is too complex to be described by a small set of binary statements. They were written as an example fo something that sounds very good, but is completely unworkable. Anyone who's actually read Asimov should understand that they were a warning about what not to do.
While this wouldn't give men an exact copy of abortion rights, a 'paper abortion' would be as close as we can get within practical limits.
P.S. - The cosmological constant was origionally formed to make a static universe, not one that is expanding at an accelerating rate. Now, modified to fit new observations, it is treated as a possible form of dark energy (quintessence being the other) - it's not just another name for the same thing.
And the wavelength of that radiation is exactly what the Big Bang theory predicted.
And the ratio between light elements is what you'd expect after a Big Bang.
And the way galaxies are distributed fits well with the theory.
As for progress, dark energy wasn't even suggested until better measurements were taken in the '90s.
And the whole "dark energy" idea, developed because of cosmology, has had a major impact on physics, so I think it's had an impact on other fields.
They do it all the time.
Every side of every confilict involving large groups does this on occation. Don't let one jerk overwhelm a dozen good arguments just because they're on the same side.
Here's TWO! Why I Am Not A Christian and The Age Of Reason are both philosophical classics. The Secular Web's Library has plenty of other examples of atheists mulling over the ideas presented by theists. And that's just what I know of off the top of my head.
No, they don't. Religions are built on intuitions and feelings, things that are by their nature subjective. Science is just a way of avoiding the mental shortcuts (gut feelings, intuition, emotion) that might often be useful and good in their own way, but prevent us from using rational thought effectively.
If religion worked as you say it does, then after this much time there would be at least a few things that were beyond contestation. But religion hasn't even proved that the things it talks about (god, souls, reincarnation, supernatural things in general) exist. If biology was in the same state, there would be some people that have strong, reasonable arguments that suggest that living things don't exist!
I'm sorry you had problems with kids, but they still deserve the same right not to be harassed that the rest of us enjoy.
The beat frequency will be quite different than the original.