This is the second post I've seen in three weeks where someone has implied that pacemaker-induced heart failiure would somehow cause their modem to hang up. It doesn't make sense, damnit!
The fact that you've lumped the first to together as if their equivalent, doesn't speak well of your grasp of the situation.
The net effect of both categories is that the therapy in question has not been scientifically established as medicine. If you can't see this, then it doesn't speak well of your grasp of english comprehension and logic.
In what way is category 3 any different from category 2? Things "seeming" to work is not scientific evidence.
if you were to take the first 4 attempts to use it to control infections, you'd see unreliable results,
Which is why scientific rigour demands sufficiently large datasets to justify conclusions. What's your point?
it was studied, and discovered that by chewing on willow bark you were essentially getting a low dose of Aspirin.
so what you're saying is, it was scientifically tested and the efficacy and mechanism were both verified, and thus was scientifically determined to be medicine. So hopefully, that would mean in the case of the vast litany of hokum like magnet therapy and homeopathy and everything else that has been extensively tested and determined to have no effect whatsoever beyond placebo, that you'd accept that those "complimentary" and "alternative" therapies are nonsense.
What you're straining at by picking apart these distinctions is a way to fallaciously insert the use of anecdotal evidence as a valid method for evaluating the efficacy of a therapy. It is not. It's worse than useless.
Just because anecdotal evidence can be a useful way to suggest possible lines of enquiry does not mean it is any use as an indicator of what is and isn't valid. For every willow bark there are a thousand homeopathies or magnet therapies. The fact that some people have convinced themselves by intuition that something works is no indication that it actually does.
They're one and the same thing. Anything that doesn't work has to label itself "alternative and complimentary" as a euphemism for "scientifically determined to not work, or at best no scientific evidence that it does work, and therefore does not qualify as medicine". Science focuses very specifically on what objectively works, not what people delude themselves into believing works.
Thanks for providing a citation to back me up. If you read that article it should help clear up your confusion. No link pointing to a definition of ad-hominem just to hammer my point home too?
They were all written by unknown people. There are claimed authors, but absolutely no way of knowing whether these claims are true, and very little reason to believe that they are.
And if you don't like reading complaints about complaints, then you're definately reading the wrong website. Now if you'll excuse me, i'm going to FUCKING GO SOMEWHERE ELSE before someone calls me a fucking child:p
Then we've been leading a merry dance because all I've been trying to do is figure out what you're asking me. If you read my original post again, you'll note it's a hypothetical statement beginning with "if" and makes no specific mention of this movie.
If I pay a hitman to kill someone, don't you think I bear some responsibility for that person's death?
You bear responsibility for paying the hitman, but that is all.
So if you paid to have someone killed, you wouldn't feel or consider yourself responsible for their death? The death that would not have occured unless you deliberately orchestrated it?
That depends on what you mean by "responsibility." Do you mean being criticized for your actions? Punished for them?
I mean it should be recognised that you are in some part to blame. The response of society to that blame is a seperate matter. Personally I think criticism and social stigma are far preferable in this case to laws curtailing free speech, which would of course cause far more harm to society and would be largely unenforcible.
The key point that people keep missing is that it's not that the person performing the violence has any diminished responsibility. They should always be considered violent lunatics that are in no way justified to react the way they do. It's just that there is some other responsiblity afforded to the person who's intent it was to deliberately provoke the violence. If you make a webcomic about mohammed because you feel that there is something you want to say, and you know this may cause a violent reaction from unreasonable people, fair enough. If you make it as nothing more than a calculated move to cause violent reprisals, you have deliberately instigated violent reprisals, and there is nothing defensible about your action.
You're being rather coy, it smells like you're labouring under the misapprehension that I've in some way advocated the curtailment of free speech. If you'd care to make your point, I'd be happy to answer it.
Slashdot Mirror
I dont understand why everyone thinks she's so attractive. Her, Pamela Anderson and Marilyn Monroe. It mystifies me.
Why include OV-101 but not NX-01?
This make so much more conceptual sense than rock paper scissors
You still have some of it left - you can choose to not waste that.
This is the second post I've seen in three weeks where someone has implied that pacemaker-induced heart failiure would somehow cause their modem to hang up. It doesn't make sense, damnit!
In what morbid universe would that be at all appropriate?!
In keeping with the BBC Micro inspired naming scheme, they should have just called them the B+
The BBC model B+ was basically a B with twice as much RAM.
but I though Slashdot was
Did you?
Kif! Open hailing frequencies for my victory yodel...
The fact that you've lumped the first to together as if their equivalent, doesn't speak well of your grasp of the situation.
The net effect of both categories is that the therapy in question has not been scientifically established as medicine. If you can't see this, then it doesn't speak well of your grasp of english comprehension and logic.
In what way is category 3 any different from category 2? Things "seeming" to work is not scientific evidence.
if you were to take the first 4 attempts to use it to control infections, you'd see unreliable results,
Which is why scientific rigour demands sufficiently large datasets to justify conclusions. What's your point?
it was studied, and discovered that by chewing on willow bark you were essentially getting a low dose of Aspirin.
so what you're saying is, it was scientifically tested and the efficacy and mechanism were both verified, and thus was scientifically determined to be medicine. So hopefully, that would mean in the case of the vast litany of hokum like magnet therapy and homeopathy and everything else that has been extensively tested and determined to have no effect whatsoever beyond placebo, that you'd accept that those "complimentary" and "alternative" therapies are nonsense.
What you're straining at by picking apart these distinctions is a way to fallaciously insert the use of anecdotal evidence as a valid method for evaluating the efficacy of a therapy. It is not. It's worse than useless.
Just because anecdotal evidence can be a useful way to suggest possible lines of enquiry does not mean it is any use as an indicator of what is and isn't valid. For every willow bark there are a thousand homeopathies or magnet therapies. The fact that some people have convinced themselves by intuition that something works is no indication that it actually does.
Yes. Eventually each object in the universe will be in it's own lonely little bubble, out of range of everything else
focus on what works, not what it is called
They're one and the same thing. Anything that doesn't work has to label itself "alternative and complimentary" as a euphemism for "scientifically determined to not work, or at best no scientific evidence that it does work, and therefore does not qualify as medicine". Science focuses very specifically on what objectively works, not what people delude themselves into believing works.
Thanks for providing a citation to back me up. If you read that article it should help clear up your confusion. No link pointing to a definition of ad-hominem just to hammer my point home too?
thanks for noticing!
A brilliance this intense is impossible to ignore
Why would your heart giving out cause your modem to hang up?
Any more ad hominems or non sequiturs you care to throw out there?
That's exactly what I thought when I read your point 1, an ad hominem, and point 2, a non sequitur.
you're spectacular :)
They were all written by unknown people. There are claimed authors, but absolutely no way of knowing whether these claims are true, and very little reason to believe that they are.
With 7 Billion people in the world, sending everybody else a penny will cost each individual 70 million dollars.
That idiot Tibor...
And if you don't like reading complaints about complaints, then you're definately reading the wrong website. Now if you'll excuse me, i'm going to FUCKING GO SOMEWHERE ELSE before someone calls me a fucking child :p
Older people just don't identify with the younger artists. I don't think it's anything more convoluted than that.
This is a very confusing troll.
Then we've been leading a merry dance because all I've been trying to do is figure out what you're asking me. If you read my original post again, you'll note it's a hypothetical statement beginning with "if" and makes no specific mention of this movie.
If I pay a hitman to kill someone, don't you think I bear some responsibility for that person's death? You bear responsibility for paying the hitman, but that is all.
So if you paid to have someone killed, you wouldn't feel or consider yourself responsible for their death? The death that would not have occured unless you deliberately orchestrated it?
That depends on what you mean by "responsibility." Do you mean being criticized for your actions? Punished for them?
I mean it should be recognised that you are in some part to blame. The response of society to that blame is a seperate matter. Personally I think criticism and social stigma are far preferable in this case to laws curtailing free speech, which would of course cause far more harm to society and would be largely unenforcible.
The key point that people keep missing is that it's not that the person performing the violence has any diminished responsibility. They should always be considered violent lunatics that are in no way justified to react the way they do. It's just that there is some other responsiblity afforded to the person who's intent it was to deliberately provoke the violence. If you make a webcomic about mohammed because you feel that there is something you want to say, and you know this may cause a violent reaction from unreasonable people, fair enough. If you make it as nothing more than a calculated move to cause violent reprisals, you have deliberately instigated violent reprisals, and there is nothing defensible about your action.
You're being rather coy, it smells like you're labouring under the misapprehension that I've in some way advocated the curtailment of free speech. If you'd care to make your point, I'd be happy to answer it.