Homeopathic and Naturalpath are historically based from Eastern Medicine - wherein "cures" and "treatments" take the form of their natural state:
No, homeopathy is based on considering the exception as the rule - treating a disease with highly-diluted substances that would cause the same symptoms if you took a large dose of it.
Funny thing is, there are actually a couple of cases where the principle would work, if you didn't dilute the heck out of the active ingredient first. Malaria is one, ADHD would be another.
And hell, one gram per day should be fine; more helps more
Given that in homeopathy, more dilution means more potency, then the people who think that taking more of a homeopathic remedy will help more are idiots _twice_ - first for believing in homeopathy and then for failing to follow the actual principles of homeopathy.
If you want to do homeopathy, at least follow the instructions of its inventors, please?
Homeopathic quackery is infamous and justly ridiculed for the fact that its 'remedies' contain exactly no active ingredients and - unsurprisingly - also have exactly no biological effects. This zinc based stuff is obviously not homeopathic.
No no no, you misunderstand homeopathy completely. You see, the "weak" homeopathic stuff ("low potency") might actually still contain some of the active ingredient, while the "strong" stuff ("high potency", used by, err, "professionals") usually doesn't.
Also, you treat diseases with stuff that causes the same symptoms. So, if colds cause you to lose your sense of smell, then something that causes loss of sense of smell is used to treat colds.
As far as I'm concerned, the people who bought this stuff and lost their sense of smell got _exactly_ what they were asking for. If they don't understand the hypotheses used in homeopathy, that's not the fault of whoever makes the remedies. Maybe they should see a "professional" next time and get some of the "high potency" stuff that doesn't contain any trace of the active ingredient, then they won't experience any of the symptoms that the ingredient would cause.
What kind of healthcare system would penalize someone for ensuring they are living the healthiest lifestyle possible?
One that is run for profit? In such a system, it doesn't matter how healthy your lifestyle is. All that matters is how large and calculable your risk is. If your genes say that you're an unacceptable risk, you can live as healthy as you want and sill not get any insurance (or a rate that pretty much says 'We don't want to insure you.').
There's only so much gas, bread, water and canned food you can practically store in your basement while you wait out the apocolypse. But gold you can store easily, and redeem when things go back to normal.
Yeah, if you haven't starved, frozen to death, or just been killed by someone who stocked up on guns and ammo.
It's not the colonoscopies they're looking for, it's the "I have the sniffles again this week and I NEED an antibiotic, doc! Don't worry, my insurance will cover it!"
That's where copayments and the point about covering only treatments that are both medically necessary and effective comes in. Treating a common cold with an antibiotic is neither, so if you wanted that antibiotic anyway (which your doctor should advise against, see the whole issue of resistances, plus you're messing up your digestive system as a side effect), you can pay the twenty bucks or so out of your own pocket.
And doctors aren't supposed to prescribe whatever the patient wants. They'd put drug dealers out of business if they did.
Because private insurance companies are free to deny coverage to "unacceptable risks" or jack up your rates sky-high.
This not a condition known before signing the insurance, as such the insurance has to accept the loss and carry the costs.
That may be true, but don't even think of switching to a different insurance contract. You'll basically be locked into the one you have now (or locked out of getting any if you didn't have one before), and the insurance company is going to pull every sleazy trick up their sleeve to get rid of you. Have fun... and don't get sick.
And yet, as they overconsume, costs rise, calculations change and premiums rise. So what you don't pay directly to the care provider, you (more than) make up in periodic payments to your insurer. And that causes the consumer to think things like "I pay so much already, I may as well go consume even more health care".. it is a.. not optimal cycle.
I'm sure people are really keen on overconsuming chemotherapies, colonoscopies, root canals, hip and knee replacements, brain surgery, appendectomies, tonsillectomies, mastectomies, etc.
"Yes, I have a car like that, and unfortunately it spontaneously combusted/disintegrated/got eaten by rust ten minutes ago. I'd like to make use of my warranty (you just said that it _was about to_ expire, right, so I still have it right now)?"
The purpose of the few coding reviews I have assisted was only to improve code metrics in order to avoid:
Err... that's not the job of a code review. Make some coding guidelines and stick with them, e.g. no more than X levels of nesting unless you submit a written statement of necessity, functions should be no longer than Y lines (exceptions allowed), etc.
Why the hell would anyone in their right mind in business pursue #1? I have no idea what company you work for but normally compaines don't hire inexperienced programmers. Why would I waste money on somone who isn't experienced?
1. Experienced programmers are expensive.
2. The task at hand may not require an experienced programmer.
3. Once the inexperienced programmer gains experience, he may be less expensive than hiring an experienced programmer in the first place (if he's a sucker and sticks around. Remember that the larged salary increases usually happen by switching jobs).
Earths magnetic field is big (compared to, say, Mercurys, Venus' or Mars'). And compared to the mass of the planet, the oceans are tiny, shallow puddles on the surface. If I were to bet, my money would still be on the "molten iron currents" hypothesis.
What a god awful method... pay for service to a service person who is already paid to do the job they are asking you to do.
Well, welcome to a free market method of allocating a scarce resource. If there was enough of the resource available, such a method would not work (since whoever is using it would be fired for idling at work).
Leaving trademark and design/copyright issues out of account, you could build all the replicas you want after the patents have expired (that's, what, 20 years? Way, way more sensible than a fscking century after the death of the inventor, as it were for music, don't you think?)
Yeah Mozart, because he was really a typical example of your average professional musician.
So? When he died, he was still living a fairly lavish livestyle, but was also neck-deep in debt. It's true that his widow had problems paying back all that debt even after selling her husbands luxury items (billard table, clothes, instruments), but in no way did Mozart die in "abject poverty". Far from it.
Amazing how life in abject poverty and dying at 40 motivated people.
Who are you referring to? W.A. Mozart (that's the one that closest fits the age you give)? He didn't die in abject poverty, that's a myth. He blew all of his money on an expensive lifestyle (clothes, servants, luxury items like a billard table, etc). Also, when you're making the equivalent of $150k per year, then ending up with lots of debt doesn't mean that you're poor, but that you're bad at managing your finances.
So basically those who create original products (music, films, books, whatever) have to first go around looking for sponsors, before they create anything. How do you think that's going to go?
Worked just fine for most of the classical composers. Maybe that's why they kept composing for most of their lifetimes instead of spending their last 30 years spending all the money they're getting from a piece they wrote when they were 20?
Not trying to troll or anything, but I'd always hear of how parallel programming is very complicated for programmers,
Yeah, yeah, any idiot can do parallel programming. The hard parts are a) finding ways to make parallel programming efficient and b) debugging such a program, since you have to deal with all kinds of concepts that never occur in a single-threaded program (reentrancy, deadlocks, locking mechanisms, etc).
now what if bach had no patrons because everyone already has a copy of his music,
Then he'd have to write more music! Oh noes!
By pure coincidence, this is exactly how things worked back then anyway. There was no copyright law in Bachs time, however, copying any of his works also required quite a bit of effort, as it had to be done manually.
Ironically, college itself used to be known as 'a life time of debt', granted only as a joke, but who would have imagined just 10 years ago, that the schools 'lets you on the LAN' software that finds 10 mp3's means you now owe 3/4th a million dollars to the RIAA, zero dollars to the artists, and since legal debt needs paid first, zero dollars towards tuition until age 45 (roughly how long it will take to pay off the RIAA while working at McDonalds or Walmart)
Even with a modest 5% interest rate, three quarters of a million dollar will accrue almost $40k in interest per year. Good luck paying off any of that while working at McDonalds or WalMart.
Slashdot Mirror
No, homeopathy is based on considering the exception as the rule - treating a disease with highly-diluted substances that would cause the same symptoms if you took a large dose of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy#Law_of_similars
Funny thing is, there are actually a couple of cases where the principle would work, if you didn't dilute the heck out of the active ingredient first. Malaria is one, ADHD would be another.
Given that in homeopathy, more dilution means more potency, then the people who think that taking more of a homeopathic remedy will help more are idiots _twice_ - first for believing in homeopathy and then for failing to follow the actual principles of homeopathy.
If you want to do homeopathy, at least follow the instructions of its inventors, please?
Homeopathic quackery is infamous and justly ridiculed for the fact that its 'remedies' contain exactly no active ingredients and - unsurprisingly - also have exactly no biological effects. This zinc based stuff is obviously not homeopathic.
No no no, you misunderstand homeopathy completely. You see, the "weak" homeopathic stuff ("low potency") might actually still contain some of the active ingredient, while the "strong" stuff ("high potency", used by, err, "professionals") usually doesn't.
Also, you treat diseases with stuff that causes the same symptoms. So, if colds cause you to lose your sense of smell, then something that causes loss of sense of smell is used to treat colds.
As far as I'm concerned, the people who bought this stuff and lost their sense of smell got _exactly_ what they were asking for. If they don't understand the hypotheses used in homeopathy, that's not the fault of whoever makes the remedies. Maybe they should see a "professional" next time and get some of the "high potency" stuff that doesn't contain any trace of the active ingredient, then they won't experience any of the symptoms that the ingredient would cause.
One that is run for profit? In such a system, it doesn't matter how healthy your lifestyle is. All that matters is how large and calculable your risk is. If your genes say that you're an unacceptable risk, you can live as healthy as you want and sill not get any insurance (or a rate that pretty much says 'We don't want to insure you.').
There's only so much gas, bread, water and canned food you can practically store in your basement while you wait out the apocolypse. But gold you can store easily, and redeem when things go back to normal.
Yeah, if you haven't starved, frozen to death, or just been killed by someone who stocked up on guns and ammo.
That's where copayments and the point about covering only treatments that are both medically necessary and effective comes in. Treating a common cold with an antibiotic is neither, so if you wanted that antibiotic anyway (which your doctor should advise against, see the whole issue of resistances, plus you're messing up your digestive system as a side effect), you can pay the twenty bucks or so out of your own pocket.
And doctors aren't supposed to prescribe whatever the patient wants. They'd put drug dealers out of business if they did.
Because private insurance companies are free to deny coverage to "unacceptable risks" or jack up your rates sky-high.
This not a condition known before signing the insurance, as such the insurance has to accept the loss and carry the costs.
That may be true, but don't even think of switching to a different insurance contract. You'll basically be locked into the one you have now (or locked out of getting any if you didn't have one before), and the insurance company is going to pull every sleazy trick up their sleeve to get rid of you. Have fun ... and don't get sick.
And yet, as they overconsume, costs rise, calculations change and premiums rise. So what you don't pay directly to the care provider, you (more than) make up in periodic payments to your insurer. And that causes the consumer to think things like "I pay so much already, I may as well go consume even more health care" .. it is a .. not optimal cycle.
I'm sure people are really keen on overconsuming chemotherapies, colonoscopies, root canals, hip and knee replacements, brain surgery, appendectomies, tonsillectomies, mastectomies, etc.
"Yes, I have a car like that, and unfortunately it spontaneously combusted/disintegrated/got eaten by rust ten minutes ago. I'd like to make use of my warranty (you just said that it _was about to_ expire, right, so I still have it right now)?"
Err ... that's not the job of a code review. Make some coding guidelines and stick with them, e.g. no more than X levels of nesting unless you submit a written statement of necessity, functions should be no longer than Y lines (exceptions allowed), etc.
Why the hell would anyone in their right mind in business pursue #1? I have no idea what company you work for but normally compaines don't hire inexperienced programmers. Why would I waste money on somone who isn't experienced?
1. Experienced programmers are expensive.
2. The task at hand may not require an experienced programmer.
3. Once the inexperienced programmer gains experience, he may be less expensive than hiring an experienced programmer in the first place (if he's a sucker and sticks around. Remember that the larged salary increases usually happen by switching jobs).
Earths magnetic field is big (compared to, say, Mercurys, Venus' or Mars'). And compared to the mass of the planet, the oceans are tiny, shallow puddles on the surface. If I were to bet, my money would still be on the "molten iron currents" hypothesis.
Knives. Definitely the knives that are part of their uniform. And the major mushroom problem that destroyed their homeworld.
as my molecules will always live on,
No, they won't. They'll be broken down into their component atoms soon enough, and even those may eventually be split or merged with other atoms.
The neutrinos from a core collapse supernova would be lethal to humans at the distance of Jupiter.
I think if you're that close to a supernova, you've got much, much bigger problems than neutrinos.
Nothing. Capes tend to get sucked into cooling fans.
What a god awful method... pay for service to a service person who is already paid to do the job they are asking you to do.
Well, welcome to a free market method of allocating a scarce resource. If there was enough of the resource available, such a method would not work (since whoever is using it would be fired for idling at work).
Leaving trademark and design/copyright issues out of account, you could build all the replicas you want after the patents have expired (that's, what, 20 years? Way, way more sensible than a fscking century after the death of the inventor, as it were for music, don't you think?)
So? When he died, he was still living a fairly lavish livestyle, but was also neck-deep in debt. It's true that his widow had problems paying back all that debt even after selling her husbands luxury items (billard table, clothes, instruments), but in no way did Mozart die in "abject poverty". Far from it.
Who are you referring to? W.A. Mozart (that's the one that closest fits the age you give)? He didn't die in abject poverty, that's a myth. He blew all of his money on an expensive lifestyle (clothes, servants, luxury items like a billard table, etc). Also, when you're making the equivalent of $150k per year, then ending up with lots of debt doesn't mean that you're poor, but that you're bad at managing your finances.
So basically those who create original products (music, films, books, whatever) have to first go around looking for sponsors, before they create anything. How do you think that's going to go?
Worked just fine for most of the classical composers. Maybe that's why they kept composing for most of their lifetimes instead of spending their last 30 years spending all the money they're getting from a piece they wrote when they were 20?
Yeah, yeah, any idiot can do parallel programming. The hard parts are a) finding ways to make parallel programming efficient and b) debugging such a program, since you have to deal with all kinds of concepts that never occur in a single-threaded program (reentrancy, deadlocks, locking mechanisms, etc).
now what if bach had no patrons because everyone already has a copy of his music,
Then he'd have to write more music! Oh noes!
By pure coincidence, this is exactly how things worked back then anyway. There was no copyright law in Bachs time, however, copying any of his works also required quite a bit of effort, as it had to be done manually.
Ironically, college itself used to be known as 'a life time of debt', granted only as a joke, but who would have imagined just 10 years ago, that the schools 'lets you on the LAN' software that finds 10 mp3's means you now owe 3/4th a million dollars to the RIAA, zero dollars to the artists, and since legal debt needs paid first, zero dollars towards tuition until age 45 (roughly how long it will take to pay off the RIAA while working at McDonalds or Walmart)
Even with a modest 5% interest rate, three quarters of a million dollar will accrue almost $40k in interest per year. Good luck paying off any of that while working at McDonalds or WalMart.
Ugh. How horrible. It's like seeing the Communists placing in the EU elections. Neither of them understand basic economics.
Did you see the actual ballot? Compared to some of the parties on it (how about an "esoteric" party), the Commies seem downright sane.