You are ever bit as bad as the right-wingers you hate.
That's pretty funny. Half of Slashdot thinks I'm a far right Nazi, the other half apparently thinks I'm an antifa goon. You're all retarded.
You decided about this case before you ever heard the facts because of who was upset about it.
I decided about the case after reviewing the actual evidence; you don't care about evidence which is why you repeatedly keep lying about it. The ONLY thing you got right is that the doctors at Children's didn't bother talking to the goof who diagnosed her with mito; an irrelevant factoid which has no bearing on anything. Pretty much everything else you have said - from your claims about genetic evidence to your claims about the judge, and especially your claims about the doctors - has been a blatant lie.
Wouldn't you at least review the various diagnoses? Wouldn't you contact the patient's doctor? I bet you would. I hope I would. I expect almost anyone would. They didn't...
You are lying again. Dr Peters reviewed her diagnostic history in detail; in fact this was part of what led him to suspect parental abuse. He noted that she had had multiple interventions with numerous specialists, and yet none of that had led to any actually unifying diagnosis.
Earlier you suggested that the hospital didn't know that the doctor who diagnosed her with myto hadn't done a muscle biopsy, but this also is a lie; Peters wrote in his initial assessment that "Metabolic workup was unremarkable" and "She has not had a muscle biopsy". He knew these things exactly because he had reviewed her history.
It's also worth noting that part of her history was the fact that doctors at Tufts - a completely seperate hospital - had also made allegations with CPS suggesting that the parents were neglecting Justina. How wide do you imagine that this grand conspiracy is?
That different judge reversed the original judge's decision when more facts came to light is seriously damning to the hospital. That's why she is back with her parents.
You are still lying. It wasn't a different judge, it was the same judge, and the reason she is back with her parents is because he decided that they had changed their behaviour enough to justify letting them have custody again. Feel free to read his words instead of making shit up:
It's fun how you lie about the parents having genetic evidence, get called out for lying about it, and then respond to the guy who called you out with "hurr, durr, well you're not a parent".
I can tell you really care about what's true. They should like totally have you on that jury.
So the guys having fun killing civilians (including a Reuters reporter) from an Apache helicopter committed no crime?
Correct.
Have you ever thought about adding a swastika as 51st star? Truth in labelling and all...;-P
Sure, as long as you go ahead and add it to the flag of every nation which has ever accidentally killed civilians in war. Would be rather amusing seeing the proliferation of swastikas at the next UN summit.
No one is arguing against choices; you can make all the retarded choices you like. We are merely pointing out that your choices have nothing to do with food safety and everything to do with marketing.
Are you saying that I can't choose to point out that your politicians are protectionist cunts, and you're a gullible fool? Don't you dare question my choices!
The CEO actually didn't know what to do about IP addresses that couldn't be located more precisely than "the USA"? I can do that one instantly. Tell the user that the IP address can't be located more precisely than "the USA".
That's what they did. "The IP address is located somewhere within this massive circle". It's not their fault that idiots interpreted that as "at the centre of this massive circle".
I agree that changing the coordinates of the centre of the circle to an unpopulated area makes sense given that the world is full of idiots, but not doing it by default isn't malicious and certainly shouldn't be grounds for a lawsuit in any sane legal system.
Not too long after that, of course, the remaining dairy farmers started dosing their cows with rBST to gain a competitive advantage - and now we're back in the same situation.
If by "remaining" you mean "less than 20%", then yeah, this is kinda right.
So you're trying to say that the government cut production in half (50%) and then 20% of the remaining 50% started raising slightly bigger cows... which somehow doubled the production of the entire industry back to previous levels?
There's something worse: American "chocolate". I first thought the sample I tried is badly spoiled -- it tasted like vomit.
There's something very wrong with you. I could see someone who had only ever tasted dark "chocolate" thinking that milk chocolate was a little strange (and vice versa), but if you honestly think it tastes like vomit there's something horribly wrong with your taste buds.
Because most of them actually believe in following the law, and the rest don't really want to go to jail. All it would take would be for one of these assassins to be prosecuted successfully enough to give up his superiors, and suddenly the whole system comes tumbling down.
Their last device got landfill-binned for good reason.
What reason was that? I picked up a shield tablet pretty cheap a few years back thanks to the poor sales, but never understood why people didn't like them. I'm still using it today.
Yes, there definitely some good social science out there. Unfortunately it gets lost in a sea of crap. That's the value of these hoax papers; they show just how easy it is to get nonsense published as long as you're hitting all the right jargon. Hopefully it will embarrass some of the legitimate academics in the field enough to bring in some actual standards and start purging the SJWs from their ranks.
It's called "proving the null hypothesis", and it's a basic approach to experimentation.
It would be if their null hypothesis was that a specific trait causes differences. It never is, though, as can be seen from the conclusions such papers draw, and the talking points they're used to support. The findings are always "once we remove the big differences there are only small differences", and the conclusion is "therefore there's no difference, and it's all the fault of white males!".
I'm oversimplifying slightly... but only slightly.
He demonstated crappy journals exist (well known).
Actually he demonstrated that some of the most influential journals in the field were crappy journals. Something which has long been known, but continues to be denied.
The only data he is accused of faking is in his paper titled "Human reactions to rape culture and queer performativity at urban dog parks in Portland, Oregon" which, if you re-read that title carefully, purports to be a study of dogs raping other dogs in dog parks.
The data he "faked"? Check it out:
"While I closely and respectfully examined the genitals of slightly fewer than ten thousand dogs, being careful not to cause alarm and moving away if any dog appeared uncomfortable, there is some relevant margin of error concerning my observations about their gender in some instances."
"The data suggest that the deciding variable for whether or not a human would interfere in a dog's rape/humping incident was the dog's gender. When a male dog was raping/humping another male dog, humans attempted to intervene 97% of the time. When a male dog was raping/humping a female dog, humans only attempted to intervene 32% of the time."
"During the span of my observations, there were 29 incidents among 15 dogs in which dogs controlled by shock collars were delivered an electric shock. All of those 15 dogs were male with male owners, and all 15 of the incidents involved a sexual act with another male dog, possibly implying homophobic shame triggering a violent response in the dogs' male human companions."
Anyone who reads that and doesn't immediately flag it as blatant trolling has no business working in academia, let alone publishing or reviewing scientific papers.
That would be a fair argument if the papers they submitted had any semblance of validity. Wakefield may have been an ass, but his paper was well written and his data seemed to support the conclusion.
The papers being discussed here are just vacuous rambling which any person who wasn't a feminist studies major would immediately identify as blatant nonsense. One of them even directly copied entire passages from Mein Kamph, but changed some of the wording to include feminist jargon. That particular paper was praised by a feminist academic reviewer as "offering important dialogue for social workers and feminist scholars". Jawohl!
The vast majority of social science studies end up finding no difference between any (human) groups once socioeconomic and cultural factors are controlled.
Heh. So once you get rid of the biggest differences, there's very little difference. Very cute. So sciency.
Slashdot Mirror
You are ever bit as bad as the right-wingers you hate.
That's pretty funny. Half of Slashdot thinks I'm a far right Nazi, the other half apparently thinks I'm an antifa goon. You're all retarded.
You decided about this case before you ever heard the facts because of who was upset about it.
I decided about the case after reviewing the actual evidence; you don't care about evidence which is why you repeatedly keep lying about it. The ONLY thing you got right is that the doctors at Children's didn't bother talking to the goof who diagnosed her with mito; an irrelevant factoid which has no bearing on anything. Pretty much everything else you have said - from your claims about genetic evidence to your claims about the judge, and especially your claims about the doctors - has been a blatant lie.
Wouldn't you at least review the various diagnoses? Wouldn't you contact the patient's doctor? I bet you would. I hope I would. I expect almost anyone would. They didn't...
You are lying again. Dr Peters reviewed her diagnostic history in detail; in fact this was part of what led him to suspect parental abuse. He noted that she had had multiple interventions with numerous specialists, and yet none of that had led to any actually unifying diagnosis.
Earlier you suggested that the hospital didn't know that the doctor who diagnosed her with myto hadn't done a muscle biopsy, but this also is a lie; Peters wrote in his initial assessment that "Metabolic workup was unremarkable" and "She has not had a muscle biopsy". He knew these things exactly because he had reviewed her history.
It's also worth noting that part of her history was the fact that doctors at Tufts - a completely seperate hospital - had also made allegations with CPS suggesting that the parents were neglecting Justina. How wide do you imagine that this grand conspiracy is?
That different judge reversed the original judge's decision when more facts came to light is seriously damning to the hospital. That's why she is back with her parents.
You are still lying. It wasn't a different judge, it was the same judge, and the reason she is back with her parents is because he decided that they had changed their behaviour enough to justify letting them have custody again. Feel free to read his words instead of making shit up:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/me...
It's fun how you lie about the parents having genetic evidence, get called out for lying about it, and then respond to the guy who called you out with "hurr, durr, well you're not a parent".
I can tell you really care about what's true. They should like totally have you on that jury.
Pretty sure the hospital successfully getting her away from her nutbag parents for a while is what saved her life.
So the guys having fun killing civilians (including a Reuters reporter) from an Apache helicopter committed no crime?
Correct.
Have you ever thought about adding a swastika as 51st star? Truth in labelling and all... ;-P
Sure, as long as you go ahead and add it to the flag of every nation which has ever accidentally killed civilians in war. Would be rather amusing seeing the proliferation of swastikas at the next UN summit.
By the sounds of that... You don't actually know what EU standards are. They aren't particularly high
Whether or not they're "high" is irrelevant; I'm pointing out that some of them are bullshit. Low bullshit isn't any better than high bullshit.
Thailand can meet them, not sure why the US cant.
Because the rules aren't designed to exclude Thailand.
No one is arguing against choices; you can make all the retarded choices you like. We are merely pointing out that your choices have nothing to do with food safety and everything to do with marketing.
Are you saying that I can't choose to point out that your politicians are protectionist cunts, and you're a gullible fool? Don't you dare question my choices!
The CEO actually didn't know what to do about IP addresses that couldn't be located more precisely than "the USA"? I can do that one instantly. Tell the user that the IP address can't be located more precisely than "the USA".
That's what they did. "The IP address is located somewhere within this massive circle". It's not their fault that idiots interpreted that as "at the centre of this massive circle".
I agree that changing the coordinates of the centre of the circle to an unpopulated area makes sense given that the world is full of idiots, but not doing it by default isn't malicious and certainly shouldn't be grounds for a lawsuit in any sane legal system.
Not too long after that, of course, the remaining dairy farmers started dosing their cows with rBST to gain a competitive advantage - and now we're back in the same situation.
If by "remaining" you mean "less than 20%", then yeah, this is kinda right.
So you're trying to say that the government cut production in half (50%) and then 20% of the remaining 50% started raising slightly bigger cows ... which somehow doubled the production of the entire industry back to previous levels?
I don't think your math is quite right.
It's no different from banning imports of toys painted with lead paint.
It's very, very different. Lead paint is demonstrably harmful, whereas the hysteria over "GMOs" and "teh kemikillzzz!" is just clever marketing.
There's something worse: American "chocolate". I first thought the sample I tried is badly spoiled -- it tasted like vomit.
There's something very wrong with you. I could see someone who had only ever tasted dark "chocolate" thinking that milk chocolate was a little strange (and vice versa), but if you honestly think it tastes like vomit there's something horribly wrong with your taste buds.
Because most of them actually believe in following the law, and the rest don't really want to go to jail. All it would take would be for one of these assassins to be prosecuted successfully enough to give up his superiors, and suddenly the whole system comes tumbling down.
Ignorance breeds paranoia.
Their last device got landfill-binned for good reason.
What reason was that? I picked up a shield tablet pretty cheap a few years back thanks to the poor sales, but never understood why people didn't like them. I'm still using it today.
Yes, there definitely some good social science out there. Unfortunately it gets lost in a sea of crap. That's the value of these hoax papers; they show just how easy it is to get nonsense published as long as you're hitting all the right jargon. Hopefully it will embarrass some of the legitimate academics in the field enough to bring in some actual standards and start purging the SJWs from their ranks.
It's called "proving the null hypothesis", and it's a basic approach to experimentation.
It would be if their null hypothesis was that a specific trait causes differences. It never is, though, as can be seen from the conclusions such papers draw, and the talking points they're used to support. The findings are always "once we remove the big differences there are only small differences", and the conclusion is "therefore there's no difference, and it's all the fault of white males!".
I'm oversimplifying slightly ... but only slightly.
He demonstated crappy journals exist (well known).
Actually he demonstrated that some of the most influential journals in the field were crappy journals. Something which has long been known, but continues to be denied.
The key word there is "prerogative". Those who do not have the same prerogative are punished dearly by the emperor.
Congrats, you've just created a hurdle which makes shit journals immune from scientific investigation. Hope you feel good about yourself.
The only data he is accused of faking is in his paper titled "Human reactions to rape culture and queer performativity at urban dog parks in Portland, Oregon" which, if you re-read that title carefully, purports to be a study of dogs raping other dogs in dog parks.
The data he "faked"? Check it out:
"While I closely and respectfully examined the genitals of slightly fewer than ten thousand dogs, being careful not to cause alarm and moving away if any dog appeared uncomfortable, there is some relevant margin of error concerning my observations about their gender in some instances."
"The data suggest that the deciding variable for whether or not a human would interfere in a dog's rape/humping incident was the dog's gender. When a male dog was raping/humping another male dog, humans attempted to intervene 97% of the time. When a male dog was raping/humping a female dog, humans only attempted to intervene 32% of the time."
"During the span of my observations, there were 29 incidents among 15 dogs in which dogs controlled by shock collars were delivered an electric shock. All of those 15 dogs were male with male owners, and all 15 of the incidents involved a sexual act with another male dog, possibly implying homophobic shame triggering a violent response in the dogs' male human companions."
Anyone who reads that and doesn't immediately flag it as blatant trolling has no business working in academia, let alone publishing or reviewing scientific papers.
That would be a fair argument if the papers they submitted had any semblance of validity. Wakefield may have been an ass, but his paper was well written and his data seemed to support the conclusion.
The papers being discussed here are just vacuous rambling which any person who wasn't a feminist studies major would immediately identify as blatant nonsense. One of them even directly copied entire passages from Mein Kamph, but changed some of the wording to include feminist jargon. That particular paper was praised by a feminist academic reviewer as "offering important dialogue for social workers and feminist scholars". Jawohl!
The vast majority of social science studies end up finding no difference between any (human) groups once socioeconomic and cultural factors are controlled.
Heh. So once you get rid of the biggest differences, there's very little difference. Very cute. So sciency.
Yeah, huffpoo is great!
How bout an app that uses SMS as a remote control channel for when you lose your phone?
Use data instead. Problem solved.
Right, those didn't exist when we first started building castles.