And what do you think will happen when all rich countries will buy bananas from africa?
For the most part, they (we?) won't. Most varieties of Banana's are rather small and nasty. They're not the kind of thing your average westerner is likely to enjoy.
On the other hand, assuming they can find a variety of Banana which is easy to cultivate, resistant to this disease, AND tasty, then it'll be a huge boon to their economy. It could do more good for Africa than all the foreign aid of the last three decades combined.
Maybe it was someone working as a US mercenary for a private company such as Blackwater?
In which case he wasn't fighting for his country, he was fighting for a paycheque. Mercs have their uses, and a lot of them are really good guys (hell, I almost took a job with them in Bosnia back in 2000) but I wouldn't put them in the same class as soldiers. If he's having issues with the medical system I certainly feel some sympathy, but it's not the governments job to look after him.
Wilbur Coffin was executed after supposedly murdering 3 Americans on or before June 12th. However, police had a letter written by one of the victims on June 13th.
What do you expect from Quebeckers!:D
Seriously, part of the problem in that case is that the guy was convicted in 1954 and hanged in 1956. That's less than 2 years between trial and executions. Whereas in the US these days the average time spent on death row is something like 10 years. Looking at the Quebec legal system of the 1950's and comparing it to the modern-day American legal system... it's apples and oranges. You may as well point to people being executed in North Korea, and say that it proves that some people are also being executed in France. It's a non-sequitur.
Remember, in most cases, once someone is executed, people stop digging for evidence that would reverse the decision - what's the point - the person is now dead?
Yes, this is certainly true. And, once again, I don't disagree with the idea that using the death penalty will eventually lead to an innocent person being executed. What's in question is how often this will occur under a given legal system, and whether it's worth it.
Just do a search on how many people have had their convictions reversed because of DNA evidence decades later... statistically, it's a certainty that at least some of those who received the death penalty would have been similarly exonerated.
Except for the fact that death penalty convictions are much harder to push through in the first place, many fail on appeal, and quite a few are overturned before the person is executed. In other words, the standard of evidence is generally much higher.
In addition, the number of people you cite as being wrongfully convicted is fairly low - 200 over 20 years. How many people were incarcerated during that time period? What percentage does that 200 present? Let's say it's 0.5%. Given the difficulty of actually getting an execution carried out, it's safe to assume that maybe 0.05% of those who have been executed happened to be innocent. Given that 1,099 people have been executed since the reinstatement of the death penalty, we can come to the conclusion that one half of an innocent person has been executed by the US.
Now, I agree that it's probably a fair assumption that at least one innocent person either has been executed already, or will be executed at some point in the future. However, you've done a piss-poor job of proving your assertion. There is no evidence of an innocent person ever being executed after receiving the death penalty, and a statistical analysis doesn't even show that ONE innocent person was likely to have suffered such a fate, let alone that several have.
I'm not trying to defend the death penalty. Frankly, I'm not even sure if I agree or disagree with it. I'm just pointing out that your conclusions are wrong.
Utter and total bullshit. Look at all the convicted murderers whose guilty verdicts were later overturned.
Not to be too picky, but how does a murder conviction being overturned indicate that innocent people were killed?
In each case, the execution is nothing more than state-sanctioned murder of an innocent person.
In each case, the conviction would have been murder, had it not been overturned before the execution was performed. All you're really saying is that the system works - people who are innocent, or whose crimes do not warrant death, are sometimes released from death row. Are you saying this is a bad thing?:)
The "I vas just followink orders" went out with the Nuremburg trials.
It's not about following orders, it's about doing what you believe is right. We can argue over whether executing criminals is right or wrong, but don't make the mistake of thinking that those who carry out the sentences are "just following orders".
The issue with people starving on this planet has nothing whatsoever to do with the amount of food available, and everything to do with greed. It is really just that simple.
Easy there, Lenin. I was actually rather enjoying your comment up until that point. If you really believe that food distribution problems are a result of greed, just have a chat with the UN or any foreign aid organization. Greed has little to do with it - local squabbles and tribal warfare are usually the culprit.
And we pay them for the privilege of having our shit processed in the most inane way possible.
Hey, here's an idea! Why don't you and some of your green friends build your own waste processing plant? What with all these fantabulous ideas you've got, you should have no problem raising the capital and showing a profit. Granted, you might have to deal with some of those nasty engineering types, but you can always wash your hands afterwards....
Have a look here [nih.gov] and here [medicalacupuncture.org].. For more, see Google [google.com]
Heh. You might want to examine the last names of all the people cited in those "studies".
What's that you say? Acupuncture is popular in the Orient? NO! There's a shocker!
And seriously... linking to a site called "medicalacupuncture" in order to prove that acupuncture is legit? Please! You may as well link to Gene Ray's site in order to prove that the Time Cube rules the universe.
You want to conduct your own experiment? It's quite simple really. Think up a disease for yourself. Any disease. Then pick up a phone book and find yourself 20 local acupuncture "clinics". Visit each one in turn, making sure to explain your symptoms in a clear and consistent manner. Then document the treatment.
I guarantee that by the time you're done, you'll have received at least 10 completely different treatments for your ailment. If you then confront each "doctor" in turn, each one will tell you that HIS method is the ones which worked, and all the other guys are just frauds.
You'd have as much luck going to see a faith-healer, or some aura-modifying-new-age-psychic. They all operate on the same principle - human gullibility.
No, acupuncture works better than placebo. It's more like, hey, I've just been stuck with something sharp, better give off some endorphins. Similar to how when you have a headache, a kick in the nuts will often cure it.
Which has nothing to do with the advertised effects of acupuncture. I don't give a damn ho many endorphins you release, they're not going to cure asthma, lower blood pressure, or get rid of kidney-stones. If you want to argue that acupuncture might cure headaches, ok, I'll give you that one. Other than that... please. Don't be silly.
As for the whole pharmaceutical industry cover up of antidepressants, would you consider the New England Journal of Medicine [nejm.org] and the New York Times [nytimes.com] credible?
That's very interesting, thanks. However, even if we take the report at face value, you're still at the very least guilty of exaggeration.
You claimed that "most psychopharmaceuticals are no more effective than placebos", and neither of the articles you linked to support that conclusion. At worst they show that some negative studies were suppressed, however both articles show that even in these high-profile cases the drugs were still more effective than placebo.
They also don't state that "most psychopharmaceuticals" have been similarly misrepresented - only some.
In any event, it's a fairly recent development, and one which I intend to keep an eye on. Thanks.
Acupuncture isn't COMPLETE bunk. It just doesn't seem to matter where you stick the needles.
In other words, it's the placebo effect, which is the same as saying it's bunk. May as well just give the guy a sugar pill - at least that way he won't pick up any new diseases from improperly sterilized needles.
Psychology is not loosely regulated and it is not full of quacks and charlatans. You still need a Ph.D. to call yourself a psychologist. If you had said "Therapy" in general, you'd be closer to correct.
You also need a Ph.D. to call yourself a professor of religious studies. Doesn't make your field any more legit:)
You're right, though, it's mainly the "therapists" who are the problem. I stand corrected.
And as far as psychiatry goes, you do know that the pharmaceutical companies covered up data showing that most psychopharmaceuticals are no more effective than placebos, right?
This project isn't nearly as outlandish as the Electric Universe model itself -- it's quite certain that fusion can be made to occur under the circumstances in question, and the big question is whether the reaction can be made net-positive in output.
Technically speaking, you're correct. However, that's rather like saying that we can create electricity by rubbing our socks on the carpet, so we should spend $600,000 to study whether rubbing two REALLY BIG socks against a really big carpet will produce usable current:)
certainly, that's money that's not being spent on a sure thing, but someone needs to fund the long shots
I don't buy that argument. If it's not something we consider worth funding, then why does someone else need to fund it?
It would be nice if the lead weren't a known crackpot wrt. his preferred model -- but folks with more conventional views have signed off on funding this project, so it's not quite the utter insanity you make it out to be.
I'll have to look into that. I know that the main character is a complete nut, but I haven't read about any credible scientists signing on. Thanks for the tip.
Interestingly, witch doctors have the same cure rate as modern science in the field of mental illness but only waste 24 hours or so and cost a chicken.
This is demonstrably false. Mental illness today is treated with a variety of drugs which allow victims of mental disorders to lead mostly normal lives.
Don't confuse psychology and psychiatry - one is a modern, scientific sub-field of medicine, while the other is a loosely regulated field full of quacks and charlatans.
Acupuncture was seen as complete bunk in western medicine until fMRI studies showed an actual effect.
Sorry buds, but acupuncture IS complete bunk. I'm not sure what "studies" you've been reading, but I very much doubt there's anything to them.
Pardon? How did this get into a discussion of evolution? I certainly wasn't talking about it. I was talking about alternative theories of physics.
Gotcha. Your comment was poorly worded. You complained about people belittling religion, then said "heaven forbid that any part of a well-established theory be called into question", and followed that up by assuring me that you were an ID'er. Since your comment didn't even mention physics, I naturally assumed you were referring to evolution and ID.
I was talking about your license to belittle and offend ("God's Gargantuan Fart, and that interstellar space is composed of His Holy Flatulence").
Awww, muffin. Did I huwt youw wee wiffle feewings?
I'm sorry, but I'm not going to allow your touchiness to censor my speech. Otherwise next thing you know the Muslims will be threatening to kill me for drawing pictures of their prophet, and the Scientologists will be suing me for making fun of Tom Cruise.
You guys (yeah, generalizing here) are really fixated on ID, aren't you? Why is that?
Well, yeah. But if it's someone else shoving that money... let them.
Well they're not asking my permission, so I have no choice but to let them:)
After all -- it's someone else's money on the input side, but it may be everyone's "good stuff" on the output side. Granted, I might see this a bit differently were I Chilean.
No matter where it occurs, it's still a waste of resources, and it causes real harm in that it discourages rational thought. So maybe it's happening in Chile and doesn't affect me directly, but that doesn't change the nature of the act.
Also, if I were criticizing the US administration for funding something silly, I doubt you'd come to their defence in this way:)
An example:
I think it's a massive waste for various Law Enforcement agencies in the US to contact "psychics" to help with difficult cases. There's no evidence that these people have any powers whatsoever, and they've never been of any real assistance in solving a crime. Yet investigators continue to waste money and time on these charlatans. Now, when I hear of such a case occurring, should I keep silent just because it's happening in the US and doesn't affect me directly?
But heaven forbid that any part of a well-established theory be called into question.
I suggest you take some remedial English classes, my friend, since your reading comprehension is atrocious. I quite clearly stated that you are welcome to question evolution. You conveniently ignored that, and went on construct a straw man and complain about everyone picking on you for daring to question the establishment. Poor you.
You didn't, by any chance, have anything to do with that abortion of a film "Expelled", did you?
For the record, as an ID'er (which of course, means that I am a Neanderthal ooga-booga sun worshipper, somewhat below a monkey in intelligence)
No, just silly. I don't think kids are "Neanderthal ooga-booga sun worshippers" for believing that the presents under the Christmas tree were left by a fat man in a red suit who climbed down the chimney, so why would I accuse you of any such thing?
I am rather embarrassed at what passes for science among Creationists these days, particularly when they use material that they just do not understand.
Then you agree with the premise of my comment, and I'm not sure what you're trying to prove. As I said - you're more than welcome to espouse whatever ideas you want - just don't pretend to be using science to prove them when you're clearly relying on faith.
Not to be a snob, but my IQ according to at least 3 professionally administered IQ tests when I was in elementary and secondary school is at least 150, and they scored me at 112.
Ditto. In the past I've scored between 148 and 154, and this site scored me at 106.
As others have pointed out, many of the questions have little to do with IQ. Asking me when the Berlin wall was built doesn't test my intelligence, only my knowledge of history.
But it is an argument that such alternative approaches may have value, if only as a way of finding interesting things to use an input for the more modern R&D apparatus.
No, it's just a demonstration that even a broken clock is right twice a day. And while you may eventually get the right time by throwing money at a broken clock, it's much more productive to pay a knowledgeable person to fix it.
I have nothing against using information gathered through "alternative" means. Heck, even a good chunk of modern inventions were discovered by accident - penicillin being a well known example. However, it's one thing to say:
"Hey, this guy has some good stuff, let's use it!"
and quite another to say:
"Let's shove money at this guy even though his theories violate all known laws, he's a dishonest quack who fabricates results, and we have no example of his ideas ever producing anything viable!"
One is simple common sense. The other is pure idiocy.
I don't know much about the electric universe theory. It probably is a load of crap, but still I like to laugh at the expense of anyone who is offended by those who dare to put forward alternatives to the "settled" theories of mainstream science. (Hah! I'm not afraid to use the phrase, so there.)
It's not the theories that we're opposed to, it's the approach. You're more than welcome to suggest that the entire universe was the result of God's Gargantuan Fart, and that interstellar space is composed of His Holy Flatulence through which electromagnetic waves propagate. I might think you're being silly, but I won't be offended by your theory. What I WOULD be offended by is your attempt to pervert the scientific method in order to try and "prove" your theory.
Another example: I'm not offended by creationists who use scripture to dispute evolution. If they want to believe some ancient manuscript instead of modern science, that's their call. But I AM offended when they pretend to disprove evolution by misquoting and misrepresenting the research of others, or by presenting their own asinine assumptions as if they were scientifically verifiable facts.
Alchemy, in spite of being largely nonsense, produced a lot of valid conclusions (although, sadly, not a method of transmuting elements) and it may be that the Electric Universe Theory falls into the same category.
Yeah, and witch-doctors managed to save one or two people when they weren't poisoning dozens. You won't catch me going to one of them instead of an MD, though.
We all know that's more expensive than computer storage has ever been before.
Right?
And if hard disk storage had ever been that expensive, it would have meant the abandonment of the hard disk technology forever.
Right?
THat's a specious argument. It doesn't matter what HD's cost 30 years ago, what matter is how much they cost now. And if you don't agree with that, then I'm sure you'd be happy to buy my vintage late 80's 20 megabyte HD for $600, right?
The goal of the market as an economic system is not equitable results, it's efficient allocation of resources. If the cost of polluting is reflected in the cost of gasoline, then the usage of gasoline will adjust to this reality, reducing pollution. Whether the people benefitting from this change are litigants, lawyers, or large corporations is beside the point.
Slashdot Mirror
For the most part, they (we?) won't. Most varieties of Banana's are rather small and nasty. They're not the kind of thing your average westerner is likely to enjoy.
On the other hand, assuming they can find a variety of Banana which is easy to cultivate, resistant to this disease, AND tasty, then it'll be a huge boon to their economy. It could do more good for Africa than all the foreign aid of the last three decades combined.
Where the hell did you find Banana Jelly???
In which case he wasn't fighting for his country, he was fighting for a paycheque. Mercs have their uses, and a lot of them are really good guys (hell, I almost took a job with them in Bosnia back in 2000) but I wouldn't put them in the same class as soldiers. If he's having issues with the medical system I certainly feel some sympathy, but it's not the governments job to look after him.
What do you expect from Quebeckers!
Seriously, part of the problem in that case is that the guy was convicted in 1954 and hanged in 1956. That's less than 2 years between trial and executions. Whereas in the US these days the average time spent on death row is something like 10 years. Looking at the Quebec legal system of the 1950's and comparing it to the modern-day American legal system
Yes, this is certainly true. And, once again, I don't disagree with the idea that using the death penalty will eventually lead to an innocent person being executed. What's in question is how often this will occur under a given legal system, and whether it's worth it.
Except for the fact that death penalty convictions are much harder to push through in the first place, many fail on appeal, and quite a few are overturned before the person is executed. In other words, the standard of evidence is generally much higher.
In addition, the number of people you cite as being wrongfully convicted is fairly low - 200 over 20 years. How many people were incarcerated during that time period? What percentage does that 200 present? Let's say it's 0.5%. Given the difficulty of actually getting an execution carried out, it's safe to assume that maybe 0.05% of those who have been executed happened to be innocent. Given that 1,099 people have been executed since the reinstatement of the death penalty, we can come to the conclusion that one half of an innocent person has been executed by the US.
Now, I agree that it's probably a fair assumption that at least one innocent person either has been executed already, or will be executed at some point in the future. However, you've done a piss-poor job of proving your assertion. There is no evidence of an innocent person ever being executed after receiving the death penalty, and a statistical analysis doesn't even show that ONE innocent person was likely to have suffered such a fate, let alone that several have.
I'm not trying to defend the death penalty. Frankly, I'm not even sure if I agree or disagree with it. I'm just pointing out that your conclusions are wrong.
Not to be too picky, but how does a murder conviction being overturned indicate that innocent people were killed?
In each case, the conviction would have been murder, had it not been overturned before the execution was performed. All you're really saying is that the system works - people who are innocent, or whose crimes do not warrant death, are sometimes released from death row. Are you saying this is a bad thing?
It's not about following orders, it's about doing what you believe is right. We can argue over whether executing criminals is right or wrong, but don't make the mistake of thinking that those who carry out the sentences are "just following orders".
Easy there, Lenin. I was actually rather enjoying your comment up until that point. If you really believe that food distribution problems are a result of greed, just have a chat with the UN or any foreign aid organization. Greed has little to do with it - local squabbles and tribal warfare are usually the culprit.
Hey, here's an idea! Why don't you and some of your green friends build your own waste processing plant? What with all these fantabulous ideas you've got, you should have no problem raising the capital and showing a profit. Granted, you might have to deal with some of those nasty engineering types, but you can always wash your hands afterwards....
Heh. You might want to examine the last names of all the people cited in those "studies".
What's that you say? Acupuncture is popular in the Orient? NO! There's a shocker!
And seriously
You want to conduct your own experiment? It's quite simple really. Think up a disease for yourself. Any disease. Then pick up a phone book and find yourself 20 local acupuncture "clinics". Visit each one in turn, making sure to explain your symptoms in a clear and consistent manner. Then document the treatment.
I guarantee that by the time you're done, you'll have received at least 10 completely different treatments for your ailment. If you then confront each "doctor" in turn, each one will tell you that HIS method is the ones which worked, and all the other guys are just frauds.
You'd have as much luck going to see a faith-healer, or some aura-modifying-new-age-psychic. They all operate on the same principle - human gullibility.
Which has nothing to do with the advertised effects of acupuncture. I don't give a damn ho many endorphins you release, they're not going to cure asthma, lower blood pressure, or get rid of kidney-stones. If you want to argue that acupuncture might cure headaches, ok, I'll give you that one. Other than that
That's very interesting, thanks. However, even if we take the report at face value, you're still at the very least guilty of exaggeration.
You claimed that "most psychopharmaceuticals are no more effective than placebos", and neither of the articles you linked to support that conclusion. At worst they show that some negative studies were suppressed, however both articles show that even in these high-profile cases the drugs were still more effective than placebo.
They also don't state that "most psychopharmaceuticals" have been similarly misrepresented - only some.
In any event, it's a fairly recent development, and one which I intend to keep an eye on. Thanks.
In other words, it's the placebo effect, which is the same as saying it's bunk. May as well just give the guy a sugar pill - at least that way he won't pick up any new diseases from improperly sterilized needles.
You also need a Ph.D. to call yourself a professor of religious studies. Doesn't make your field any more legit
You're right, though, it's mainly the "therapists" who are the problem. I stand corrected.
Got a (credible) citation on that?
Technically speaking, you're correct. However, that's rather like saying that we can create electricity by rubbing our socks on the carpet, so we should spend $600,000 to study whether rubbing two REALLY BIG socks against a really big carpet will produce usable current
I don't buy that argument. If it's not something we consider worth funding, then why does someone else need to fund it?
I'll have to look into that. I know that the main character is a complete nut, but I haven't read about any credible scientists signing on. Thanks for the tip.
This is demonstrably false. Mental illness today is treated with a variety of drugs which allow victims of mental disorders to lead mostly normal lives.
Don't confuse psychology and psychiatry - one is a modern, scientific sub-field of medicine, while the other is a loosely regulated field full of quacks and charlatans.
Sorry buds, but acupuncture IS complete bunk. I'm not sure what "studies" you've been reading, but I very much doubt there's anything to them.
poo. that'll exactly teach me to exactly proofread.
I see. So what exactly are you doing, exactly?
Gotcha. Your comment was poorly worded. You complained about people belittling religion, then said "heaven forbid that any part of a well-established theory be called into question", and followed that up by assuring me that you were an ID'er. Since your comment didn't even mention physics, I naturally assumed you were referring to evolution and ID.
Awww, muffin. Did I huwt youw wee wiffle feewings?
I'm sorry, but I'm not going to allow your touchiness to censor my speech. Otherwise next thing you know the Muslims will be threatening to kill me for drawing pictures of their prophet, and the Scientologists will be suing me for making fun of Tom Cruise.
It's an easy example of human foolishness.
Any other questions?
Well they're not asking my permission, so I have no choice but to let them
No matter where it occurs, it's still a waste of resources, and it causes real harm in that it discourages rational thought. So maybe it's happening in Chile and doesn't affect me directly, but that doesn't change the nature of the act.
Also, if I were criticizing the US administration for funding something silly, I doubt you'd come to their defence in this way
An example:
I think it's a massive waste for various Law Enforcement agencies in the US to contact "psychics" to help with difficult cases. There's no evidence that these people have any powers whatsoever, and they've never been of any real assistance in solving a crime. Yet investigators continue to waste money and time on these charlatans. Now, when I hear of such a case occurring, should I keep silent just because it's happening in the US and doesn't affect me directly?
I suggest you take some remedial English classes, my friend, since your reading comprehension is atrocious. I quite clearly stated that you are welcome to question evolution. You conveniently ignored that, and went on construct a straw man and complain about everyone picking on you for daring to question the establishment. Poor you.
You didn't, by any chance, have anything to do with that abortion of a film "Expelled", did you?
No, just silly. I don't think kids are "Neanderthal ooga-booga sun worshippers" for believing that the presents under the Christmas tree were left by a fat man in a red suit who climbed down the chimney, so why would I accuse you of any such thing?
Then you agree with the premise of my comment, and I'm not sure what you're trying to prove. As I said - you're more than welcome to espouse whatever ideas you want - just don't pretend to be using science to prove them when you're clearly relying on faith.
Ditto. In the past I've scored between 148 and 154, and this site scored me at 106.
As others have pointed out, many of the questions have little to do with IQ. Asking me when the Berlin wall was built doesn't test my intelligence, only my knowledge of history.
No, it's just a demonstration that even a broken clock is right twice a day. And while you may eventually get the right time by throwing money at a broken clock, it's much more productive to pay a knowledgeable person to fix it.
I have nothing against using information gathered through "alternative" means. Heck, even a good chunk of modern inventions were discovered by accident - penicillin being a well known example. However, it's one thing to say:
"Hey, this guy has some good stuff, let's use it!"
and quite another to say:
"Let's shove money at this guy even though his theories violate all known laws, he's a dishonest quack who fabricates results, and we have no example of his ideas ever producing anything viable!"
One is simple common sense. The other is pure idiocy.
It's not the theories that we're opposed to, it's the approach. You're more than welcome to suggest that the entire universe was the result of God's Gargantuan Fart, and that interstellar space is composed of His Holy Flatulence through which electromagnetic waves propagate. I might think you're being silly, but I won't be offended by your theory. What I WOULD be offended by is your attempt to pervert the scientific method in order to try and "prove" your theory.
Another example: I'm not offended by creationists who use scripture to dispute evolution. If they want to believe some ancient manuscript instead of modern science, that's their call. But I AM offended when they pretend to disprove evolution by misquoting and misrepresenting the research of others, or by presenting their own asinine assumptions as if they were scientifically verifiable facts.
Yeah, and witch-doctors managed to save one or two people when they weren't poisoning dozens. You won't catch me going to one of them instead of an MD, though.
Just be happy in the knowledge that your suffering has provided us with 30 seconds of entertainment.
THat's a specious argument. It doesn't matter what HD's cost 30 years ago, what matter is how much they cost now. And if you don't agree with that, then I'm sure you'd be happy to buy my vintage late 80's 20 megabyte HD for $600, right?
So you're just being pedantic? Ok. I'm glad you cleared that up.
That actually makes perfect sense. Thanks!