Mother's refusal to accept SIDS diagnosis leads to discovery of metabolic issue with regards to cough medicines
So WHAT?
Seriously, do you realize how retarded that argument is? It's akin to the lunatic perpetual-motion-machine peddlers who always fall back on the "they laughed at the Wright Brothers" retort.
When you have hundreds of thousands of mothers who are in denial over the death of their child, one of them is bound to be right eventually. It doesn't matter. It's completely irrelevant. We're not going to go around investigating the ravings of every irate female just because statistics tells us that one will eventually turn out to be correct. That kind of thinking is wasteful and dangerous, and it's embarrassing to see it being pushed by supposed adults.
A reasonable sized 1500 sq foot home built by an archetict that actually knows what he/she is doing can be 100% solar with heat and electric in a climate as far north as 45deg latitude and cost the same as a current stupid sized house.
See, that's the problem right there - people want fancy, expensive, ridiculously big 1500 sq foot homes. Why, in the good old days, we used to fit a family of 8 into a 200sq foot cave, and WE WERE COMFORTABLE!! The whole thing was heated by a small fire. And electricity? Please. Buncha spoiled brats.
Especially since his story is almost certainly bullshit. I've never worked with liquid nitrogen, but I do work with liquid oxygen. To freeze an apple to the point where it will shatter when thrown takes about 45 seconds to a minute. I've seen guys get the equivalent of second-degree burns just from getting splashed - they couldn't have been in contact with the liquid for more than 5 seconds.
His explanation for WHY he didn't get injured would have made sense if he claimed to have done it for a split-second... but 35 seconds? Bullshit.
So I'll do it for him: DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME. People on the internet lie, all the time. Don't be a gullible idiot.
Unfortunately, lower species tend to be much more difficult to care for properly. They're quite happy to sit in their own filth until communicable diseases break out. Then we have to use force to go in and clean their cages.
Now, maybe if we split the OWS protesters into even smaller groups....
Either you didn't read the comment I was responding to, or there's something wrong with your ability to understand the context of a discussion. The fact that you're outright lying about much of what you've said seems almost irrelevant given that it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
The world know that China isn't as offensive like the U.S. is
lol. That's hilarious. I know some veterans of the Korean war who might object to that evaluation. Pretty sure Taiwan might have a thing or two to say, also.
But they DID do them in the name of some secular ideology or another-- whether it be for freedom, or prosperity, or nationalism.
Sure - they did them in the name of ideologies that are every bit as damaging as religion. Get rid of 'em all, I say!
Hitler himself would try to justify himself using principles of morality; that doesnt mean theres anything to it.
No, he can't use "morality" to justify it any more than he could use "physics" to justify it. He can say that his own personal moral-code led him to do something, but that's different than "morality" as a concept. And if he went out and codified his own moral code in a book which he then released for publication (as he actually more-or-less did when he published Mein Kampf) we could point to that book and say "This Is Bad". Just like we can point to the "moral" rules codified in the bible, and say "These Are Bad".
Likewise, people will claim any number of things are justified in the Constitution; that doesnt make it true.
The difference is that the Bible actually does lay out rules for things such as how to properly beat your slave, kill adulterers, and sell your daughter. If someone claims these things are supported by the constitution, we can examine the document and say "No, you're full of shit, it's not in there". Whereas, with the Bible, you have to go on some convoluted mind-trip to try and explain why the words written on it's pages don't actually mean what they say.
Yeah, I remember when the US asked Toronto to tear down the CN tower. Apparently all the new-yorkers were feeling inadequate. Even threatened to start a war over it. Luckily the Canadian government was reasonable, and made the tower shorter to avert a war.
The North Koreans are obsessive about not being shown up by the "imperialists", and have even showfully walked out of meetings in the DMZ because there was a disparity in the size of flags, or their soldiers were not tall enough, or there was some other very arbitrary breach of protocol. Only to come back with taller soldiers, bigger flags, and more attitude.
Sounds like a great opportunity for the other side to make them look like a bunch of fools by showing up with 3' tall midgets dressed in third-hand uniforms, and flags to match. Then kick back, light a cigar, and say "Kimmie, old boy, if you'd like those food shipments to keep coming in, we're gonna need to talk..."
Don't worry, sooner or later we'll get to the point where our educational system will be good enough to make people like you extremely rare, and our understanding of human psychology will become good enough to cure the rest. It probably won't happen in my lifetime, but, eventually, we will be able to fix you. Until then, we may as well enjoy the lulz!
What you describe is unlikely, not impossible. Maybe you need to understand the difference, and stop trying to pass your opinions as facts.
You realize he was talking about Martians landing in a place that doesn't actually exits, right?
If that fits in your definition of "unlikely", it's safe to say that there is nothing which is impossible. Really, the main difference between "unlikely" and "impossible" is that people with no evidence grip on to the former and claim that it's not the latter, while failing to understand that even "impossible" events are just really, really, really unlikely.
Eh. In Canada, we do that with pretty much everything. The US has been sending people up here to try and figure how we keep our military aircraft flying as long as we do.
Note to government: I know healthcare is expensive, but that doesn't mean you have to cheap out on everything else!
Yaaay, exercise and relaxation are good for you. Film at 11.
I don't think you really understand how "controls" work, which is the key issue here. There's no indication that any of the studies in this sample actually bothered to compare the effects of Asian-Voodoo-Art vs regular exercise and relaxation. If they're not controlling for those variables, they're not saying anything about the efficacy of the particular "art" which they happen to be studying.
Secondly, while 77 studies might be significant if they're of decent quality AND they all look at the same effect, 77 studies is NOT impressive when they're talking about "163 different physiological and psychological health outcomes".
All in all, the original complaints he made are right on the money - you're using some poorly controlled studies with interesting but questionable results to make broad statements in support of your hobby. We see that with every pseudo-scientific claim, so you've got lots of company, but don't expect the rest of us to buy it.
You should be modded through the roof. Doubt it'll happen though. I'm used to seeing self-promoting quacks getting publicity while rational responses flounder in obscurity, but I used to expect better than that from slashdot.
the only ones 'excited' are the ones collecting money each time we are farked over by the system. accountants: they get excited by this crap. normal people simply want the system to do its job then get out of the way and stay out of the way.
I dunno, I'm pretty excited about living a longer, healthier life.
Really, if you don't find new healthcare tech exciting from both a technical perspective, and from a "cool, less death and disease!" perspective, you're not much of a geek. And if you insist on going around complaining that other peoples interests are boring, you're not a particularly pleasant human being, either.
"Healthcare in the US costs more because it's privatized. How do I know? Because privatization is the best way to maximize profits. How do I know that? Because healthcare in the US costs more."
"Anyone disagreeing with my POV is just repeating talking points that are part of "Their" propaganda. How do I know? Because "They" try to twist the system to maximize gains through propaganda. How do I know that? Because anyone who disagrees with me is just repeating "Their" propaganda..."
I'm gonna have to remember that style of logic for future discussions....
Looking at Wikipedia, the lowest tax bracket in the US is 10%. Highest is 35%. So if you put that in practice you've just cut tax revenue by a huge amount.
While this is true in a technical sense, it doesn't account for all the tax-breaks, kickbacks, etc., which the government currently doles out. Still, I think if you run the figures, you'd find the money collected would be about half to two thirds of what's currently being collected, so his proposed solution would require some drastic cuts (which is needed now, anyway). A better figure might be 15%; it would still require cuts, but would be more sustainable.
Slashdot Mirror
Mother's refusal to accept SIDS diagnosis leads to discovery of metabolic issue with regards to cough medicines
So WHAT?
Seriously, do you realize how retarded that argument is? It's akin to the lunatic perpetual-motion-machine peddlers who always fall back on the "they laughed at the Wright Brothers" retort.
When you have hundreds of thousands of mothers who are in denial over the death of their child, one of them is bound to be right eventually. It doesn't matter. It's completely irrelevant. We're not going to go around investigating the ravings of every irate female just because statistics tells us that one will eventually turn out to be correct. That kind of thinking is wasteful and dangerous, and it's embarrassing to see it being pushed by supposed adults.
That's goats. Completely different.
NO, I think you technically always need a real control group receiving a placebo for it to be real science.
"We shot 20 guys in the head with a 12-gauge shotgun, and they died."
"But you didn't shoot a control group with sugar pills, so how do you know it was the gunshots that killed them?"
"...."
The Toronto Star is more credible than the website of the university which is running the program?
There's something seriously wrong with your method for determining credibility.
A reasonable sized 1500 sq foot home built by an archetict that actually knows what he/she is doing can be 100% solar with heat and electric in a climate as far north as 45deg latitude and cost the same as a current stupid sized house.
See, that's the problem right there - people want fancy, expensive, ridiculously big 1500 sq foot homes. Why, in the good old days, we used to fit a family of 8 into a 200sq foot cave, and WE WERE COMFORTABLE!! The whole thing was heated by a small fire. And electricity? Please. Buncha spoiled brats.
you forgot the "don't try this at home, kids"
Especially since his story is almost certainly bullshit. I've never worked with liquid nitrogen, but I do work with liquid oxygen. To freeze an apple to the point where it will shatter when thrown takes about 45 seconds to a minute. I've seen guys get the equivalent of second-degree burns just from getting splashed - they couldn't have been in contact with the liquid for more than 5 seconds.
His explanation for WHY he didn't get injured would have made sense if he claimed to have done it for a split-second ... but 35 seconds? Bullshit.
So I'll do it for him: DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME. People on the internet lie, all the time. Don't be a gullible idiot.
Unfortunately, lower species tend to be much more difficult to care for properly. They're quite happy to sit in their own filth until communicable diseases break out. Then we have to use force to go in and clean their cages.
Now, maybe if we split the OWS protesters into even smaller groups ....
How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?
so that Americans can save their faces
Let me guess: you're Chinese?
Either you didn't read the comment I was responding to, or there's something wrong with your ability to understand the context of a discussion. The fact that you're outright lying about much of what you've said seems almost irrelevant given that it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
The world know that China isn't as offensive like the U.S. is
lol. That's hilarious. I know some veterans of the Korean war who might object to that evaluation. Pretty sure Taiwan might have a thing or two to say, also.
Thanks :) You too!
Great! If you could provide the proof, we can end all this religion nonsense right now.
Heh. Religious people convinced by proof. That's a good one!
But they DID do them in the name of some secular ideology or another-- whether it be for freedom, or prosperity, or nationalism.
Sure - they did them in the name of ideologies that are every bit as damaging as religion. Get rid of 'em all, I say!
Hitler himself would try to justify himself using principles of morality; that doesnt mean theres anything to it.
No, he can't use "morality" to justify it any more than he could use "physics" to justify it. He can say that his own personal moral-code led him to do something, but that's different than "morality" as a concept. And if he went out and codified his own moral code in a book which he then released for publication (as he actually more-or-less did when he published Mein Kampf) we could point to that book and say "This Is Bad". Just like we can point to the "moral" rules codified in the bible, and say "These Are Bad".
Likewise, people will claim any number of things are justified in the Constitution; that doesnt make it true.
The difference is that the Bible actually does lay out rules for things such as how to properly beat your slave, kill adulterers, and sell your daughter. If someone claims these things are supported by the constitution, we can examine the document and say "No, you're full of shit, it's not in there". Whereas, with the Bible, you have to go on some convoluted mind-trip to try and explain why the words written on it's pages don't actually mean what they say.
Yeah, I remember when the US asked Toronto to tear down the CN tower. Apparently all the new-yorkers were feeling inadequate. Even threatened to start a war over it. Luckily the Canadian government was reasonable, and made the tower shorter to avert a war.
The North Koreans are obsessive about not being shown up by the "imperialists", and have even showfully walked out of meetings in the DMZ because there was a disparity in the size of flags, or their soldiers were not tall enough, or there was some other very arbitrary breach of protocol. Only to come back with taller soldiers, bigger flags, and more attitude.
Sounds like a great opportunity for the other side to make them look like a bunch of fools by showing up with 3' tall midgets dressed in third-hand uniforms, and flags to match. Then kick back, light a cigar, and say "Kimmie, old boy, if you'd like those food shipments to keep coming in, we're gonna need to talk ..."
So what you're saying is that rape victims vote for their rapists?
I'm thinking there's something wrong with your analogy.
lol. You bet your ass I'm laughing :)
Don't worry, sooner or later we'll get to the point where our educational system will be good enough to make people like you extremely rare, and our understanding of human psychology will become good enough to cure the rest. It probably won't happen in my lifetime, but, eventually, we will be able to fix you. Until then, we may as well enjoy the lulz!
What you describe is unlikely, not impossible. Maybe you need to understand the difference, and stop trying to pass your opinions as facts.
You realize he was talking about Martians landing in a place that doesn't actually exits, right?
If that fits in your definition of "unlikely", it's safe to say that there is nothing which is impossible. Really, the main difference between "unlikely" and "impossible" is that people with no evidence grip on to the former and claim that it's not the latter, while failing to understand that even "impossible" events are just really, really, really unlikely.
Eh. In Canada, we do that with pretty much everything. The US has been sending people up here to try and figure how we keep our military aircraft flying as long as we do.
Note to government: I know healthcare is expensive, but that doesn't mean you have to cheap out on everything else!
Yaaay, exercise and relaxation are good for you. Film at 11.
I don't think you really understand how "controls" work, which is the key issue here. There's no indication that any of the studies in this sample actually bothered to compare the effects of Asian-Voodoo-Art vs regular exercise and relaxation. If they're not controlling for those variables, they're not saying anything about the efficacy of the particular "art" which they happen to be studying.
Secondly, while 77 studies might be significant if they're of decent quality AND they all look at the same effect, 77 studies is NOT impressive when they're talking about "163 different physiological and psychological health outcomes".
All in all, the original complaints he made are right on the money - you're using some poorly controlled studies with interesting but questionable results to make broad statements in support of your hobby. We see that with every pseudo-scientific claim, so you've got lots of company, but don't expect the rest of us to buy it.
You should be modded through the roof. Doubt it'll happen though. I'm used to seeing self-promoting quacks getting publicity while rational responses flounder in obscurity, but I used to expect better than that from slashdot.
the only ones 'excited' are the ones collecting money each time we are farked over by the system. accountants: they get excited by this crap. normal people simply want the system to do its job then get out of the way and stay out of the way.
I dunno, I'm pretty excited about living a longer, healthier life.
Really, if you don't find new healthcare tech exciting from both a technical perspective, and from a "cool, less death and disease!" perspective, you're not much of a geek. And if you insist on going around complaining that other peoples interests are boring, you're not a particularly pleasant human being, either.
Clever.
"Healthcare in the US costs more because it's privatized. How do I know? Because privatization is the best way to maximize profits. How do I know that? Because healthcare in the US costs more."
"Anyone disagreeing with my POV is just repeating talking points that are part of "Their" propaganda. How do I know? Because "They" try to twist the system to maximize gains through propaganda. How do I know that? Because anyone who disagrees with me is just repeating "Their" propaganda ..."
I'm gonna have to remember that style of logic for future discussions ....
Affordable health care is as close as your fingertips. (That's not the only way to do it, either; there are many energy healing modalities.
lol. Right. Also free energy and a total understanding of the universe are right at your fingertips, too!
Looking at Wikipedia, the lowest tax bracket in the US is 10%. Highest is 35%. So if you put that in practice you've just cut tax revenue by a huge amount.
While this is true in a technical sense, it doesn't account for all the tax-breaks, kickbacks, etc., which the government currently doles out. Still, I think if you run the figures, you'd find the money collected would be about half to two thirds of what's currently being collected, so his proposed solution would require some drastic cuts (which is needed now, anyway). A better figure might be 15%; it would still require cuts, but would be more sustainable.