Last mile is not even close to a natural monopoly. All it would take is running conduit to the house and larger conduit to your central point. Cities already run sewer lines and storm drains. A 4 inch pipe like that used for sewage could handle more lines than any one house would likely ever need for the foreseeable future with no problem. 4 foot pipes could easily carry hundreds of data lines. Cities are already experienced with running these kinds of pipes, and once installed right of ways become a non-issue.
so using a 14W (75W equivalent) for reading lamps is probably a minimum.
There is one of the big problems with CFL acceptance. I don't know how they rate the lumens, but the human eye doesn't get a 75w incandescent equivalent amount of light in it from a 14w CFL. You need something more like a 27w CFL to match a 75w incandescent. So, when people buy a CFL that is 14W and claims to be a 75w incandescent equivalent, they feel like the CFLs are too dark. Better labeling would go a long way in improving CFLs reputation. Of course, they wouldn't be able to claim as great of energy savings, but 27w is still way less than 75w.
That has been the story of the personal computer since the beginning. MS never "Won". They were just the company that shot themselves in the foot the fewest times...Until now anyway. They still haven't bled out yet, but they are also not in top shape.
Same here. I have bought 1 motherboard with built in ATI graphics, One ATI video card, and I going to get another motherboard with built in ATI graphics next week. Prior AMD moving to support OSS, I had zero ATI graphics, and they were not something I would have even considered.
Yes, one of the big problems for Notes is that it is so incredibly stable, and so dead simple to administer and develop for that the administrators and developers are often the first secretary to get it loaded on their machine. Then to add on top of the fact that companies often end up assigning temp receptionists to be their developers, the development cycle for Notes applications tend to be about 25% to 35% of the time given to identical projects in other platforms. Notes isn't perfect, but the ability to have it work 90% with incompetent administrators and developers has caused a great deal of bad PR.
There is also the problem that the UI was left fairly stagnant from the time it was introduced in 1989 up until they finally started to make real changes in 1999 with version 5.
Another huge problem is that people tend to think the first way they see something is the "right" way for it to be. Since Notes is used primarily in the Enterprise, far more people start with MS products, and thus see anything that is done differently in Notes as being "wrong".
Over the last couple of years IBM has started to sell Notes/Domino as "Express" versions. These are the full Notes/Domino applications. The "Express" is only about pricing. The new pricing is Dramatically cheaper for small installations, and it is now a very good deal for SMB. The price is something like ~$140 per initial user and ~$35 a year per user after that. This includes the client, the server and the cost of all upgrades, including major releases, and is available for installations from 1 to 500 users.
"who only seen the Web as a medium a few ages ago"
Only if you consider 1996 to be a few years ago. Domino's biggest problem is that it has been too far ahead of it's competitors, so it is common for people not to understand the benefits that it offers, and by the time the rest of the industry catches up, the features have been rebuild a little different, and the people who now start to understand it complain because the feature that Domino had a decade earlier doesn't look just like the program that was developed this year.
You are like the person who insists that they are a vegetarian, and just happens to eat meat at every meal. Then think that it is a valid label because lots of other meat eaters call themselves vegetarians too.
Your saying that posers and wannabes have completely Usurped the word Christian. Because by your definition, Atheists, Muslims and Satanist can be Christians too. It has no meaning when you say it because it no longer labels anything.
If I were a Christian, I would hate you and see you as an incredibly bad person. Going around telling people that you don't have to believe in the basic tenets of Christianity to be a Christian is deceitful at best. If I were Christian, I would also do my best to keep my children as far away from you as possible, to prevent you from spreading your lies about there being no God to my children. Atheists, Muslims, even Satanists, would be OK, as I could explain to them that they have a different set of beliefs. You on the other hand claim to have the same basic beliefs.
There is no legislative body that defines MOST words. That doesn't mean that if you say you Tea-bagged someones daughter, that it doesn't mean a very specific act.
Anyone that tells you that they can solve this problem is lying or ignorant. A specification is just words, and maybe a few diagrams. It is being suggested that someone who had legitimate authority to view that info, gave it to someone else. Since the legitimate viewer could just retype the spec, there is no technological solution. The only hope you would have is to pull a phone book maneuver, and intentionally insert a few errors. This will still only give you circumstantial evidence. You could spend billions trying to make your documents secure, and it will still never happen. This is strictly a social problem with no technical solution.
Heck, this problem existed before computers were even used in business. Documents were copied, sales people would leave with lists of customers, you name it. Thinking that you can solve the problem with a computer program is just fantasy.
What to call them? How about something that is even remotely descriptive of what they are. I've always thought that netbook was a stupid name for a notebook computer anyway. What more does it have to do with the 'net' than any other notebook computer. How about we just call them notebooks, or laptops, since that is what they are. If you must have a special name for small notebook, how about paperback, lightbook, leafbook, featherbook, handheld, or anything that implies it is small. Net in no way does that.
Now, psion might be in the wrong for not defending the trademark earlier, but the name 'netbook' is definitely not an obvious name for a very small battery operated computer. Now if it was terminal, so it only worked when connected to a network, THEN the name netbook might be obvious.
No, it isn't misidentified in the common vernacular. People using the common vernacular know exactly what they are saying when they say champagne. They are just ignoring lawyers and pretentious asses who want to take control of the language.
Geography is not an important factor, and with curricula being based upon arbitrary state lines, some places WILL have crappy education, but then some will have very good education. This is opposed to what we have now which is crappy education for everybody.
To be fair, much of the curriculum is decided at the state, county, and even specific school level, so you already get pretty wide variance on public school quality. Our public schools are broken from bottom to top. From the parents to the teachers to the administrators to the state and federal levels. It is broken all the way up to the President who, in a public speech, referred to the smart kids as "The Nerd Patrol". One of the problems we currently have is massive finger pointing. The parents point at the teachers. The teachers point at the parents and administrators and state. The state points fingers at the feds parents and teachers, and the feds point fingers back down at the teachers and administrators. It is one big blame party, and none of them are getting their own act together because when they say that the others are broken, they are correct. This leads to nobody getting their own house in order because they have plenty of other people to blame, and unfortunately, any one level getting their act together isn't going to fix the problem anyway because there are too many groups with their fingers in the pot screwing thing up. Beyond that, there is way too much money in doing education wrong for it to get fixed as it currently stands.
While I don't have a huge amount of hope that it will get fixed, reducing the number of levels of screwed up bureaucracy with a vested interest in prevent the system from being effective is necessary if the public education system is ever going to get fixed.
I have to agree. Old games are easy to find. Heck, my family has been having a ball with GameTap. Even on my wife's machine that cost less than $400 to build every single game runs fine.
Re:Chiropractic treatment worked for me
on
Trick or Treatment
·
· Score: 1
favored
Not defined. He defined it as "the law of similars" not the "law of dilution". He may not have gotten it 100% right when he favored dilution beyond the point of retaining any active ingredient, Einstien and Newton didn't get their theories exactly right either. That does not mean that his definition of homeopathy required the dilution to the point of removing all active ingredients.
You must remember that the concept of Atoms was extremely crude at the time that homeopathy was defined, so it is not surprising that a researcher would not know exactly how many atoms there would be in a particular quantity of a substance. The principal of "similars" is certainly sound though, and is exactly what vaccines are.
Re:Chiropractic treatment worked for me
on
Trick or Treatment
·
· Score: 1
I seriously doubt the authors said herbal medicine was scientifically impossible - in fact judging by the overview of the book presented here, the authors seems to acknowledge that herbal medicine do work (in contrast to the other examined treatments).
Right from the summary.
A recurring theme the book stresses is that acupuncture, homeopathy, chiropractic and other alternative therapies are scientifically impossible
there is actually an active ingredient in a vaccine, as opposed to homeopathic remedies.
You are redefining homeopathy to meet your conclusion that it doesn't work. It doesn't take much research to find out the homeopathy is NOT "get cured by diluting out all of the active ingredient". It is easy to find that homeopathy is "Active ingredients that cause similar symptoms will cure, and that since you don't want to cause as much damage with the cure as you do with the disease, you dilute the active ingredient down". The fact that most 'practitioners' of homeopathy get no real results because they do dilute it down to the point of having no active ingredients is a different argument form whether homeopathy works or not.
You seem to be quite confident that huge companies with highly-skilled marketing, accounting, and product research divisions "just don't get it", as if the ideas you present have never crossed their minds. But in fact the article spends a whole section or two discussing the issues that you refer to. For example:
You and the author seem to make the mistake of assuming that by their very nature, huge companies with highly-skilled marketing, accounting, and product research divisions "just get it". The number of huge companies that have ridden themselves into the ground clearly show that one does not necessarily follow the other. Then throw in that we are talking about monopolies here, and the assumption becomes even worse.
Re:Chiropractic treatment worked for me
on
Trick or Treatment
·
· Score: 1
That is why I started with "That is completely true." I wasn't arguing that ALL alternative medicine worked. I wasn't even arguing that MOST alternative medicine worked. I was agreeing with you that there are plenty of quacks, but that it isn't INHERENTLY quackary. I was also pointing out that the "alternative medicine is scientifically impossible" line in the review/book is patently false.
Re:Chiropractic treatment worked for me
on
Trick or Treatment
·
· Score: 1
Stuff does not only work when its manufactured in a lab, but the safety is sooo much better!
I certainly don't dispute that. My exception to the author and reviewer was that they said herbal medicine was scientifically impossible. There is a wide game between saying that lab manufactured/refined drugs are safer, and non-lab manufactured/refined drugs effects are scientifically impossible. In fact, since it is trivial to prove that non-lab manufactured/refined drugs DO work, making the statement that they don't only goes to convince those who already distrust 'traditional medicine' that they are being lied to, and pushes them away from the safer alternative.
Seriously, what a load of bullshit. Vaccines are not even close to homeopathy, as they are not diluted beyond Avogadro's number....:-).
You are redefining homeopathy to be "stuff that doesn't work". Homeopathy does not require that there be no active ingredient.
Furthermore, "artificial" vaccines are already in production.
Ok. So, homeopathy is in wide use in 'traditional medicine'. Saying that it is sold by big pharma, so it isn't homeopathy, just fuels conspiracy theories.
Re:Chiropractic treatment worked for me
on
Trick or Treatment
·
· Score: 1
Yes, I know how vaccines work.
Side note: my original field was biochem/microbiology. I'm not just pulling stuff out of my ass.
You may not be pulling the vaccine part out of your ass, but you are pulling the homeopathy out of your ass.
Re:Chiropractic treatment worked for me
on
Trick or Treatment
·
· Score: 1
Me:
Making the statement that Herbal remedies don't work is simply stupid.
You:
The author almost assuredly isn't making a blanket statement like that (and the review doesn't say he is).
The reviewer:
A recurring theme the book stresses is that acupuncture, homeopathy, chiropractic and other alternative therapies are scientifically impossible
You:
Yes, some it to treat back and joint pain only, and yes, some manipulations are effective in that regard.
Great. Then you agree with me completely, that a blanket statement that chiropractic doesn't work is stupid.
you are taking a word with a meaning and massively generalizing it to disingenuously suggest it means something else.
From Wikipedia on the Father of Homeopathy:
Samuel Hahnemann conceived of homeopathy while translating a medical treatise by Scottish physician and chemist William Cullen into German.[1] Being sceptical of Cullen's theory concerning cinchona's action in malaria, Hahnemann ingested some of the bark specifically to see if it cured fever "by virtue of its effect of strengthening the stomach".[41] Upon ingesting the bark, he noticed few stomach symptoms, but did experience fever, shivering and joint pain, symptoms similar to some of the early symptoms of malaria, the disease that the bark was ordinarily used to treat. From this, Hahnemann came to believe that all effective drugs produce symptoms in healthy individuals similar to those of the diseases that they can treat. This later became known as the "law of similars", the most important concept of homeopathy.[1] The term "homeopathy" was coined by Hahnemann and first appeared in print in 1807, although he began outlining his theories of "medical similars" in a series of articles and monographs in 1796.[42]
While it may be true that Hahnemann believed in magic, so do a very large portion of our current medical researchers. Hahnmann's original coining of Homeopathy WAS that you use a deluted version of a toxin because too much was harmful. That IS what vaccines are. They are just the specific subset called Isopathy which is using the specific substance that causes the disease deluted to create the cure. What you are doing is basically saying that homeopathy doesn't work, because when it does work I'm not going to call it homeopathy.
No. You clearly don't know what homeopathy means if you claim such a thing. Homeopathy is *all about* watering things down.
The National Center for Homeopathy would disagree with you. Given that they are promoting a practice that they call "Homeopathy", and it is NOT "*all about* watering things down, it is pretty clear that you are making the same error as the author and reviewer. I will repeat:
A big part of the problem is that there ARE quacks in the "alternative medicine" industry. So, when people want to deride them, they find a few quacks, point them out, and say, "See! It's all hogwash!" It is no better than pointing to a pill prescribing doctor who is no better than a drug dealer, and declaring all traditional medicine a grand drug dealing scheme.
A vaccine that was made from something other than the actual disease, (which as I said, is likely to eventually be within our grasp) would be a textbook case of homeopathy.
Acupuncture does not necessarily manipulate the nervous system
Again:
A big part of the problem is that there ARE quacks in the "alternative medicine" industry. So, when people want to deride them, they find a few quacks, point them out, and say, "See! It's all hogwash!" It is no better than pointing to a pill prescribing doctor who is no better than a drug dealer, and declaring all traditional medicine
Slashdot Mirror
Last mile is not even close to a natural monopoly. All it would take is running conduit to the house and larger conduit to your central point. Cities already run sewer lines and storm drains. A 4 inch pipe like that used for sewage could handle more lines than any one house would likely ever need for the foreseeable future with no problem. 4 foot pipes could easily carry hundreds of data lines. Cities are already experienced with running these kinds of pipes, and once installed right of ways become a non-issue.
so using a 14W (75W equivalent) for reading lamps is probably a minimum.
There is one of the big problems with CFL acceptance. I don't know how they rate the lumens, but the human eye doesn't get a 75w incandescent equivalent amount of light in it from a 14w CFL. You need something more like a 27w CFL to match a 75w incandescent. So, when people buy a CFL that is 14W and claims to be a 75w incandescent equivalent, they feel like the CFLs are too dark. Better labeling would go a long way in improving CFLs reputation. Of course, they wouldn't be able to claim as great of energy savings, but 27w is still way less than 75w.
"Widowns lost."
That has been the story of the personal computer since the beginning. MS never "Won". They were just the company that shot themselves in the foot the fewest times...Until now anyway. They still haven't bled out yet, but they are also not in top shape.
Same here. I have bought 1 motherboard with built in ATI graphics, One ATI video card, and I going to get another motherboard with built in ATI graphics next week. Prior AMD moving to support OSS, I had zero ATI graphics, and they were not something I would have even considered.
Yes, one of the big problems for Notes is that it is so incredibly stable, and so dead simple to administer and develop for that the administrators and developers are often the first secretary to get it loaded on their machine. Then to add on top of the fact that companies often end up assigning temp receptionists to be their developers, the development cycle for Notes applications tend to be about 25% to 35% of the time given to identical projects in other platforms. Notes isn't perfect, but the ability to have it work 90% with incompetent administrators and developers has caused a great deal of bad PR.
There is also the problem that the UI was left fairly stagnant from the time it was introduced in 1989 up until they finally started to make real changes in 1999 with version 5.
Another huge problem is that people tend to think the first way they see something is the "right" way for it to be. Since Notes is used primarily in the Enterprise, far more people start with MS products, and thus see anything that is done differently in Notes as being "wrong".
Over the last couple of years IBM has started to sell Notes/Domino as "Express" versions. These are the full Notes/Domino applications. The "Express" is only about pricing. The new pricing is Dramatically cheaper for small installations, and it is now a very good deal for SMB. The price is something like ~$140 per initial user and ~$35 a year per user after that. This includes the client, the server and the cost of all upgrades, including major releases, and is available for installations from 1 to 500 users.
"who only seen the Web as a medium a few ages ago"
Only if you consider 1996 to be a few years ago. Domino's biggest problem is that it has been too far ahead of it's competitors, so it is common for people not to understand the benefits that it offers, and by the time the rest of the industry catches up, the features have been rebuild a little different, and the people who now start to understand it complain because the feature that Domino had a decade earlier doesn't look just like the program that was developed this year.
You are like the person who insists that they are a vegetarian, and just happens to eat meat at every meal. Then think that it is a valid label because lots of other meat eaters call themselves vegetarians too.
Your saying that posers and wannabes have completely Usurped the word Christian. Because by your definition, Atheists, Muslims and Satanist can be Christians too. It has no meaning when you say it because it no longer labels anything.
Hey! No using logic! That's not fair!
If I were a Christian, I would hate you and see you as an incredibly bad person. Going around telling people that you don't have to believe in the basic tenets of Christianity to be a Christian is deceitful at best. If I were Christian, I would also do my best to keep my children as far away from you as possible, to prevent you from spreading your lies about there being no God to my children. Atheists, Muslims, even Satanists, would be OK, as I could explain to them that they have a different set of beliefs. You on the other hand claim to have the same basic beliefs.
There is no legislative body that defines MOST words. That doesn't mean that if you say you Tea-bagged someones daughter, that it doesn't mean a very specific act.
Anyone that tells you that they can solve this problem is lying or ignorant. A specification is just words, and maybe a few diagrams. It is being suggested that someone who had legitimate authority to view that info, gave it to someone else. Since the legitimate viewer could just retype the spec, there is no technological solution. The only hope you would have is to pull a phone book maneuver, and intentionally insert a few errors. This will still only give you circumstantial evidence. You could spend billions trying to make your documents secure, and it will still never happen. This is strictly a social problem with no technical solution.
Heck, this problem existed before computers were even used in business. Documents were copied, sales people would leave with lists of customers, you name it. Thinking that you can solve the problem with a computer program is just fantasy.
Or maybe they just heard the incredibly load buzzing that TVs emit when they are turned on.
I jest about doubting you, but I'm serious about the TVs. Those things are loud!
What to call them? How about something that is even remotely descriptive of what they are. I've always thought that netbook was a stupid name for a notebook computer anyway. What more does it have to do with the 'net' than any other notebook computer. How about we just call them notebooks, or laptops, since that is what they are. If you must have a special name for small notebook, how about paperback, lightbook, leafbook, featherbook, handheld, or anything that implies it is small. Net in no way does that.
Now, psion might be in the wrong for not defending the trademark earlier, but the name 'netbook' is definitely not an obvious name for a very small battery operated computer. Now if it was terminal, so it only worked when connected to a network, THEN the name netbook might be obvious.
No, it isn't misidentified in the common vernacular. People using the common vernacular know exactly what they are saying when they say champagne. They are just ignoring lawyers and pretentious asses who want to take control of the language.
Geography is not an important factor, and with curricula being based upon arbitrary state lines, some places WILL have crappy education, but then some will have very good education. This is opposed to what we have now which is crappy education for everybody.
To be fair, much of the curriculum is decided at the state, county, and even specific school level, so you already get pretty wide variance on public school quality. Our public schools are broken from bottom to top. From the parents to the teachers to the administrators to the state and federal levels. It is broken all the way up to the President who, in a public speech, referred to the smart kids as "The Nerd Patrol". One of the problems we currently have is massive finger pointing. The parents point at the teachers. The teachers point at the parents and administrators and state. The state points fingers at the feds parents and teachers, and the feds point fingers back down at the teachers and administrators. It is one big blame party, and none of them are getting their own act together because when they say that the others are broken, they are correct. This leads to nobody getting their own house in order because they have plenty of other people to blame, and unfortunately, any one level getting their act together isn't going to fix the problem anyway because there are too many groups with their fingers in the pot screwing thing up. Beyond that, there is way too much money in doing education wrong for it to get fixed as it currently stands.
While I don't have a huge amount of hope that it will get fixed, reducing the number of levels of screwed up bureaucracy with a vested interest in prevent the system from being effective is necessary if the public education system is ever going to get fixed.
While my XBMC does not stream from NetFlix, it IS completely silent, and takes up far less than 4"x4"x2" since XBMC is a program, not hardware.
I have to agree. Old games are easy to find. Heck, my family has been having a ball with GameTap. Even on my wife's machine that cost less than $400 to build every single game runs fine.
favored
Not defined. He defined it as "the law of similars" not the "law of dilution". He may not have gotten it 100% right when he favored dilution beyond the point of retaining any active ingredient, Einstien and Newton didn't get their theories exactly right either. That does not mean that his definition of homeopathy required the dilution to the point of removing all active ingredients.
You must remember that the concept of Atoms was extremely crude at the time that homeopathy was defined, so it is not surprising that a researcher would not know exactly how many atoms there would be in a particular quantity of a substance. The principal of "similars" is certainly sound though, and is exactly what vaccines are.
I seriously doubt the authors said herbal medicine was scientifically impossible - in fact judging by the overview of the book presented here, the authors seems to acknowledge that herbal medicine do work (in contrast to the other examined treatments).
Right from the summary.
A recurring theme the book stresses is that acupuncture, homeopathy, chiropractic and other alternative therapies are scientifically impossible
there is actually an active ingredient in a vaccine, as opposed to homeopathic remedies.
You are redefining homeopathy to meet your conclusion that it doesn't work. It doesn't take much research to find out the homeopathy is NOT "get cured by diluting out all of the active ingredient". It is easy to find that homeopathy is "Active ingredients that cause similar symptoms will cure, and that since you don't want to cause as much damage with the cure as you do with the disease, you dilute the active ingredient down". The fact that most 'practitioners' of homeopathy get no real results because they do dilute it down to the point of having no active ingredients is a different argument form whether homeopathy works or not.
Do they have to choose?
It is a great deal for people who listen to crappy bands. It is a crappy deal for people that listen to good ones.
You seem to be quite confident that huge companies with highly-skilled marketing, accounting, and product research divisions "just don't get it", as if the ideas you present have never crossed their minds. But in fact the article spends a whole section or two discussing the issues that you refer to. For example:
You and the author seem to make the mistake of assuming that by their very nature, huge companies with highly-skilled marketing, accounting, and product research divisions "just get it". The number of huge companies that have ridden themselves into the ground clearly show that one does not necessarily follow the other. Then throw in that we are talking about monopolies here, and the assumption becomes even worse.
That is why I started with "That is completely true." I wasn't arguing that ALL alternative medicine worked. I wasn't even arguing that MOST alternative medicine worked. I was agreeing with you that there are plenty of quacks, but that it isn't INHERENTLY quackary. I was also pointing out that the "alternative medicine is scientifically impossible" line in the review/book is patently false.
Stuff does not only work when its manufactured in a lab, but the safety is sooo much better!
I certainly don't dispute that. My exception to the author and reviewer was that they said herbal medicine was scientifically impossible. There is a wide game between saying that lab manufactured/refined drugs are safer, and non-lab manufactured/refined drugs effects are scientifically impossible. In fact, since it is trivial to prove that non-lab manufactured/refined drugs DO work, making the statement that they don't only goes to convince those who already distrust 'traditional medicine' that they are being lied to, and pushes them away from the safer alternative.
Seriously, what a load of bullshit. Vaccines are not even close to homeopathy, as they are not diluted beyond Avogadro's number.... :-).
You are redefining homeopathy to be "stuff that doesn't work". Homeopathy does not require that there be no active ingredient.
Furthermore, "artificial" vaccines are already in production.
Ok. So, homeopathy is in wide use in 'traditional medicine'. Saying that it is sold by big pharma, so it isn't homeopathy, just fuels conspiracy theories.
Side note: my original field was biochem/microbiology. I'm not just pulling stuff out of my ass.
You may not be pulling the vaccine part out of your ass, but you are pulling the homeopathy out of your ass.
Making the statement that Herbal remedies don't work is simply stupid.
You:
The author almost assuredly isn't making a blanket statement like that (and the review doesn't say he is).
The reviewer:
A recurring theme the book stresses is that acupuncture, homeopathy, chiropractic and other alternative therapies are scientifically impossible
You:
Yes, some it to treat back and joint pain only, and yes, some manipulations are effective in that regard.
Great. Then you agree with me completely, that a blanket statement that chiropractic doesn't work is stupid.
you are taking a word with a meaning and massively generalizing it to disingenuously suggest it means something else.
From Wikipedia on the Father of Homeopathy:
Samuel Hahnemann conceived of homeopathy while translating a medical treatise by Scottish physician and chemist William Cullen into German.[1] Being sceptical of Cullen's theory concerning cinchona's action in malaria, Hahnemann ingested some of the bark specifically to see if it cured fever "by virtue of its effect of strengthening the stomach".[41] Upon ingesting the bark, he noticed few stomach symptoms, but did experience fever, shivering and joint pain, symptoms similar to some of the early symptoms of malaria, the disease that the bark was ordinarily used to treat. From this, Hahnemann came to believe that all effective drugs produce symptoms in healthy individuals similar to those of the diseases that they can treat. This later became known as the "law of similars", the most important concept of homeopathy.[1] The term "homeopathy" was coined by Hahnemann and first appeared in print in 1807, although he began outlining his theories of "medical similars" in a series of articles and monographs in 1796.[42]
While it may be true that Hahnemann believed in magic, so do a very large portion of our current medical researchers. Hahnmann's original coining of Homeopathy WAS that you use a deluted version of a toxin because too much was harmful. That IS what vaccines are. They are just the specific subset called Isopathy which is using the specific substance that causes the disease deluted to create the cure. What you are doing is basically saying that homeopathy doesn't work, because when it does work I'm not going to call it homeopathy.
No. You clearly don't know what homeopathy means if you claim such a thing. Homeopathy is *all about* watering things down.
The National Center for Homeopathy would disagree with you. Given that they are promoting a practice that they call "Homeopathy", and it is NOT "*all about* watering things down, it is pretty clear that you are making the same error as the author and reviewer. I will repeat:
A big part of the problem is that there ARE quacks in the "alternative medicine" industry. So, when people want to deride them, they find a few quacks, point them out, and say, "See! It's all hogwash!" It is no better than pointing to a pill prescribing doctor who is no better than a drug dealer, and declaring all traditional medicine a grand drug dealing scheme.
A vaccine that was made from something other than the actual disease, (which as I said, is likely to eventually be within our grasp) would be a textbook case of homeopathy.
Acupuncture does not necessarily manipulate the nervous system
Again:
A big part of the problem is that there ARE quacks in the "alternative medicine" industry. So, when people want to deride them, they find a few quacks, point them out, and say, "See! It's all hogwash!" It is no better than pointing to a pill prescribing doctor who is no better than a drug dealer, and declaring all traditional medicine