I might be missing something, but I fail to see how this is different from a monthly fee?
Wha...?
The terribly confusing difference you're apparently missing is that in the first case, you're paying a monthly fee to play the game, and in the second case... you're not. What, exactly, is the confusion? In scenario one, you buy a game, and you have to pay to play every month. In scenario two, you buy a game, and you can play it for as long as you want without paying anything more. I don't understand how you're mixing the two concepts up?
I think it's cute that you continually assign me positions so that you can attack them:
And why are you so trusting of studies of therapies funded by companies with a financial interest in that therapy being proven safe and effective?
Riiight. Because I clearly stated that I happily accept any commercially-funded study and pop pills whenever I'm told. In fact, you can feel free to quote me if you ever find the magical fairy land where I stated that.
Of course, back here in reality I don't even take painkillers or cold medicine more than a half dozen times a year, and the last time I had a prescription it was for Darvacet for a broken, unset bone, and I flushed the whole bottle down the toilet. But whatever. Keep inventing my life for me.
And never mind that iatrogenic death outnumbers any other cause, including heart disease [Weinstein in EID, '98] [Lazarou in JAMA '98]?
Nice. "And never mind that a sweeping category of 'induced' deaths outnumbers any other specific cause of death, such as heart disease".
So, basically, you think you have a position because all the deaths "caused" by medical practioners outweigh individual categories of deaths not "caused" by medical practioners. Because, you know, it seems to me that the valid comparison here would be in the less than 1 million people who DO die because of some action by a medical practioner to the tens of millions of people who DON'T die because of some action by a medical practioner. This becomes especially true when one takes half a second to be honest about the statistic and point out that in YOUR category you're including hundreds of thousands of people who died in the course of potentially fatal treatment for absolutely fatal diseases.
In other words, if you give somebody a heavy chemo treatment as a last ditch attempt to save them from terminal cancer, and the chemo kills them, the guaranteed death by cancer isn't counted and, instead, it counts as "iatrogenic death" in these studies because TECHNICALLY it was the chemo that killed them.
What's REALLY cute, however, is that within your extremely broad category is one very specific high-death category: bedsores. Bedsores being primarily found in incapacitated elderly patients in NURSING HOMES who die because they don't receive proper treatment from nurses employed by that home, not a regular doctor.
Don't worry, who needs relevancy, right? You have statistics that look good! Well... as long as nobody actually thinks about them anyway.
I think it's cute when dumb people point to minority pieces of evidence and then expand it into a full-blown argument. I'd love to see how you justify pointing to occasional failures over a century as a counterweight to the constant, measureable improvement in health, longetivity, and mortality over that same time period.
In other words, we should accept your position because in the minority of cases, there are mistakes made. Never mind that there are thousands of people saved by modern medical procedures and medicines every day, we should clearly side with you because sometimes mistakes are made, and sometimes they're serious, even though far more often than not, the right decision is made, and sometimes seemingly miraculous results are brought about by dedicated, highly-skilled medical practioners.
Here's a list of things I hope you don't do, because even though they're safe for tens of thousands of people every day, sometimes things go wrong:
+ Drive a car, ride public transit, or fly (crashes). + Drink water (poisons, microbes) + Eat canned food (bacterial disease)
Your opinion is stupid, and it has no weight. I know slashbots don't like to hear that, but the fact remains that stupid opinions exist, and they're invalid. Feel free to have it yourself, but you've utterly failed to justify its validity, and anyone who would take into consideration is an imbecile.
Why do I care what the Senate says about first amendment rights, since it's the courts that would have to make that decision?
Not only that, I notice you didn't say anything at all about the House, so I guess it's a good thing that the Senate can't just go off on its own little tangents and pass whatever laws it wants on its own, huh?
Oh no! A panel in one half of the lawmaking body said something about maybe restricting something they may not even have the power to restrict! Everybody run to Canada! The dream is over! AAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!
When you think of how often medical science is wrong...
Well... I'm thinking of it. All I can seem to come up with is steady longetivity as medical knowledge advances, beginning with a huge increase starting around the time modern sanitation came into play. That, and how countries with more modern medical practices have significantly lower infant mortality rates, higher incidences of diseases associated with old age, and minimal death rates from things like, oh, say, Polio or dysentary.
I think I see your point: because every now and then someone says eggs are bad, when really they aren't, we should be trusting medical science the other 9,999 times even though it was right about all those things. Yes, good point.
If the price of my being able at some time in the future to refuse a treatment that I think is pseudoscience -- despite its having a lot of funding from pharmaceutical companies and being backed by the NIH -- is that I have to sit by and watch parents make decisions about their children's care that I don't agree with... well, sorry for the kids but that freedom is worth more than a life.
It's a good thing smarter people recognize the difference between supposedly mature adults making their own stupid choices and the problem of immature, ignorant, and stupid adults inflicting harmful choices on children. For example, adults are free to drink beer, but they're quite restricted from giving it to their toddlers.
But, hey, don't let real world examples crowd in here. That would make a mockery of your whole argument.
As for the particulars of this study, I seem to recall a theory not too long ago that if someone knew they were being prayed for (particularly if they were religious), that would have a positive effect on their recovery.
The people being prayed for who knew it had higher incidences of post-surgical complications and reaped no benefits. Feel free to become at least partially acquainted with the material next time before making stupid remarks like this.
Maybe because they frequently decline life-saving medical treatment for their children, effectively leaving them to die needlessly and, sometimes, painfully.
I fail to see how that behavior is practically different from, for example, getting stupid drunk, passing out on the couch, and letting your two year old fall into the pool and drown. Both are exceptionally negligent and inexcusable, but only one is actualy punishable.
...am I the only one concerned here that the results are still so high?
Probably.
I'm glad to see that progress is being made, but it seems like there's still something else that needs to be done to bring the results more in line with other purchases such as movie theaters(anyone have numbers for those, BTW?)
Sooo... you're glad that the results are falling, but you're not happy that they're not in line with a number you don't currently know?
Ya I'm a girl - do you have a problem with it, bub?
No, but it annoys me that you're clearly exploiting the claim for attention. Of course, I don't believe you anyway, but whatever.
Yes, your Big Brother doomsday scenario is firmly supported by quotes such as:
The FTC further points out that the survey found "marked other improvements by retailers, compared with results from the previous undercover shops by the FTC."
and
"Store policy compliance has improved three-fold since 2000 when the FTC first conducted these studies, and we will continue to work with retailers in their efforts to train store associates and educate their customers about ESRB ratings."
Truly, the end of freedom in the U.S. will come at the hands of FTC workers as they "work with retailers [...] to train store associates and educate [...] customers about ESRB ratings".
Ooooooooooooooo scary! Yah bettah hordjer gawns now Cletus, cuz they's a-comin' fer yeh!
It's society's responsibility to both employ your offspring as a responsible young adult... and restrict your same offspring as an irresponsible child when using his or her earned income to make entertainment decisions?
That is the most absurd thing I have ever seen in my life.
Using your logic we should do away with the drinking, smoking restrictions, and are requirements for drivers licenses and porno.
Ah, yes. The ol' slashdot analogy. Despite the fact that drinking and smoking both cause chronic, potentially fatal diseases, and that driving before being fully equipped is a good way to get killed, or kill other people, go ahead and compare that to, for example, watching a cartoon zombie eat people which, to the best of my knowledge, can't cause any liver diseases or cancer, or run over the neighbor's dog.
As far as porn, that's just puritan nonsense. I don't care if your kid buys porn. Like the rest of the responsibility you're trying to shirk, I shouldn't be the one that has to enforce that rule. Don't want your kid to buy porn or Stubbs? Tell him or her that. Don't trust them to listen to you? Then the kid's not responsible enough to hold a job anyway, so don't let them have one.
I'll bet your comment would be really relevant in a world where the goal of this behavior was to "cure all of society's ills" versus "study the effect at the retail level of game ratings".
But don't let common sense get in the way of a good sound bite. It's much more important that you sound clever than actually say something smart.
It's not about doing work for them. It's about a bunch of nerds who:
A) Want to see the movie. B) Don't want to pay for the movie. C) Don't want to admit that they're just petty theives.
999/1000 people on this site seem to think that it's okay to just take something if you don't think it's value is proportional to its price. Of course, by that logic, I should be able to walk into a Macy's and take whatever I want, but hey (cue irrational excuse for thievery about not depriving someone of a material object in 5, 4, 3...)
So, basically, your theory here is that if somebody is offended by something, and you choose not to run it, you're acting out of facist sympathies, not out of basic respect for other people?
Thanks, got it. In other news, because slashdot doesn't post Goatse and Tubgirl on the main page of every story (since it offends people, and not posting offensive things is facist), Slashdot is a facist organization.
Just this administration. The last administration tried this type of stupidity too, but apparently the Democrats are smart enough to say "oh, gee, it failed, let's go do something else", whereas this administration is, apparently, hellbent on creating some degree of facism before its time is up in 08.
Maybe that should be the Democratic platform for 2008: "Yes, we'll try to intimidate and oppress you too, but unlike Bush's friends, we'll just give up if it doesn't work the first time!"
I'm voting Democrat. All the Bushies who aren't just idiotic fanatics always say "Oh, but they're spineless snivelers", but maybe that's the best that can be hoped for, since at least they'll back down.
The article may or may not be genuine, but your argument for why it isn't is ridiculous. It's a lot like all the people who continually argue that there can be no global warming problem because "global warming has always existed".
Both are examples of excellent arguments if you're attempting to sway imbeciles who are incapable of noticing that YOU are talking as if this is being studied from the angle of something new being introduced to the environment by humans when, in fact, the study is specifically focused on how human beings have CHANGED the existing environmental factors and how CHANGES to the existing factors impact biological organisms and their environments.
But don't let things like, say, reality stand in your way. This is slashdot. You have an ego to stroke, after all, and you don't actually need to be smart, you just need to be smarter than the other idiots who post.
MySpace: A social networking site for 12 year olds with digital cameras and a few hours between the time they get home from school and the time their parents get home from work.
Facebook: A social networking site for the MySpace users who managed to get into college.
Oh, but then how will Facebook match innovative MySpace features such as the ability to crash your computer remotely, or get your fired when you load a profile with an embedded porn clip?
Sites like this are created for imbeciles, visited by imbeciles, and desired by people who's main market is imbeciles. This entire ridiculous fad reminds of the day AOL gave all its 12 year old users access to Usenet X(
Well if that's all you're using your Winbox for as well, I might suggest you learn how to configure a Windows system properly if you're noticing any lag at all.
#1: Of course it's true, don't be dense. Just because it's not a regular part of every con's nightly habit like the TV wants people to think doesn't mean it doesn't happen at all.
And it would make the primary task of a bookmark tool - data insertion and retrieval - much more complicated with a significant performance penalty for large sets of data.
XML is not for data extraction or storage, it's for data description, primarily to simplify the task of exporting, importing and merging data through disparate systems (as with synchronization jobs).
The ideal solution would be to extend the bookmark tool to allow it to export XML content from the current data store for people such as yourself.
I forsee no problems. It's a surprisingly minimal addition to a software package, and the problems with Firefox's memory management are very likely in unrelated modules.
"SQL" engines tend to evoke images of hulking software packages like PostgreSQL, SQL Server, and Oracle, but those things do an awful lot more than the typical desktop app needs, and the SQLite engine is much, much simpler in order to meet that lesser demand.
Slashdot Mirror
I might be missing something, but I fail to see how this is different from a monthly fee?
Wha...?
The terribly confusing difference you're apparently missing is that in the first case, you're paying a monthly fee to play the game, and in the second case... you're not. What, exactly, is the confusion? In scenario one, you buy a game, and you have to pay to play every month. In scenario two, you buy a game, and you can play it for as long as you want without paying anything more. I don't understand how you're mixing the two concepts up?
I think it's cute that you continually assign me positions so that you can attack them:
And why are you so trusting of studies of therapies funded by companies with a financial interest in that therapy being proven safe and effective?
Riiight. Because I clearly stated that I happily accept any commercially-funded study and pop pills whenever I'm told. In fact, you can feel free to quote me if you ever find the magical fairy land where I stated that.
Of course, back here in reality I don't even take painkillers or cold medicine more than a half dozen times a year, and the last time I had a prescription it was for Darvacet for a broken, unset bone, and I flushed the whole bottle down the toilet. But whatever. Keep inventing my life for me.
And never mind that iatrogenic death outnumbers any other cause, including heart disease [Weinstein in EID, '98] [Lazarou in JAMA '98]?
Nice. "And never mind that a sweeping category of 'induced' deaths outnumbers any other specific cause of death, such as heart disease".
So, basically, you think you have a position because all the deaths "caused" by medical practioners outweigh individual categories of deaths not "caused" by medical practioners. Because, you know, it seems to me that the valid comparison here would be in the less than 1 million people who DO die because of some action by a medical practioner to the tens of millions of people who DON'T die because of some action by a medical practioner. This becomes especially true when one takes half a second to be honest about the statistic and point out that in YOUR category you're including hundreds of thousands of people who died in the course of potentially fatal treatment for absolutely fatal diseases.
In other words, if you give somebody a heavy chemo treatment as a last ditch attempt to save them from terminal cancer, and the chemo kills them, the guaranteed death by cancer isn't counted and, instead, it counts as "iatrogenic death" in these studies because TECHNICALLY it was the chemo that killed them.
What's REALLY cute, however, is that within your extremely broad category is one very specific high-death category: bedsores. Bedsores being primarily found in incapacitated elderly patients in NURSING HOMES who die because they don't receive proper treatment from nurses employed by that home, not a regular doctor.
Don't worry, who needs relevancy, right? You have statistics that look good! Well... as long as nobody actually thinks about them anyway.
I think it's cute when dumb people point to minority pieces of evidence and then expand it into a full-blown argument. I'd love to see how you justify pointing to occasional failures over a century as a counterweight to the constant, measureable improvement in health, longetivity, and mortality over that same time period.
In other words, we should accept your position because in the minority of cases, there are mistakes made. Never mind that there are thousands of people saved by modern medical procedures and medicines every day, we should clearly side with you because sometimes mistakes are made, and sometimes they're serious, even though far more often than not, the right decision is made, and sometimes seemingly miraculous results are brought about by dedicated, highly-skilled medical practioners.
Here's a list of things I hope you don't do, because even though they're safe for tens of thousands of people every day, sometimes things go wrong:
+ Drive a car, ride public transit, or fly (crashes).
+ Drink water (poisons, microbes)
+ Eat canned food (bacterial disease)
Your opinion is stupid, and it has no weight. I know slashbots don't like to hear that, but the fact remains that stupid opinions exist, and they're invalid. Feel free to have it yourself, but you've utterly failed to justify its validity, and anyone who would take into consideration is an imbecile.
Idiot...
Why do I care what the Senate says about first amendment rights, since it's the courts that would have to make that decision?
Not only that, I notice you didn't say anything at all about the House, so I guess it's a good thing that the Senate can't just go off on its own little tangents and pass whatever laws it wants on its own, huh?
Oh no! A panel in one half of the lawmaking body said something about maybe restricting something they may not even have the power to restrict! Everybody run to Canada! The dream is over! AAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!
When you think of how often medical science is wrong...
Well... I'm thinking of it. All I can seem to come up with is steady longetivity as medical knowledge advances, beginning with a huge increase starting around the time modern sanitation came into play. That, and how countries with more modern medical practices have significantly lower infant mortality rates, higher incidences of diseases associated with old age, and minimal death rates from things like, oh, say, Polio or dysentary.
I think I see your point: because every now and then someone says eggs are bad, when really they aren't, we should be trusting medical science the other 9,999 times even though it was right about all those things. Yes, good point.
If the price of my being able at some time in the future to refuse a treatment that I think is pseudoscience -- despite its having a lot of funding from pharmaceutical companies and being backed by the NIH -- is that I have to sit by and watch parents make decisions about their children's care that I don't agree with... well, sorry for the kids but that freedom is worth more than a life.
It's a good thing smarter people recognize the difference between supposedly mature adults making their own stupid choices and the problem of immature, ignorant, and stupid adults inflicting harmful choices on children. For example, adults are free to drink beer, but they're quite restricted from giving it to their toddlers.
But, hey, don't let real world examples crowd in here. That would make a mockery of your whole argument.
As for the particulars of this study, I seem to recall a theory not too long ago that if someone knew they were being prayed for (particularly if they were religious), that would have a positive effect on their recovery.
The people being prayed for who knew it had higher incidences of post-surgical complications and reaped no benefits. Feel free to become at least partially acquainted with the material next time before making stupid remarks like this.
Maybe because they frequently decline life-saving medical treatment for their children, effectively leaving them to die needlessly and, sometimes, painfully.
I fail to see how that behavior is practically different from, for example, getting stupid drunk, passing out on the couch, and letting your two year old fall into the pool and drown. Both are exceptionally negligent and inexcusable, but only one is actualy punishable.
...am I the only one concerned here that the results are still so high?
Probably.
I'm glad to see that progress is being made, but it seems like there's still something else that needs to be done to bring the results more in line with other purchases such as movie theaters(anyone have numbers for those, BTW?)
Sooo... you're glad that the results are falling, but you're not happy that they're not in line with a number you don't currently know?
Ya I'm a girl - do you have a problem with it, bub?
No, but it annoys me that you're clearly exploiting the claim for attention. Of course, I don't believe you anyway, but whatever.
and
Truly, the end of freedom in the U.S. will come at the hands of FTC workers as they "work with retailers [...] to train store associates and educate [...] customers about ESRB ratings".
Ooooooooooooooo scary! Yah bettah hordjer gawns now Cletus, cuz they's a-comin' fer yeh!
Soooo....
It's society's responsibility to both employ your offspring as a responsible young adult... and restrict your same offspring as an irresponsible child when using his or her earned income to make entertainment decisions?
That is the most absurd thing I have ever seen in my life.
Using your logic we should do away with the drinking, smoking restrictions, and are requirements for drivers licenses and porno.
Ah, yes. The ol' slashdot analogy. Despite the fact that drinking and smoking both cause chronic, potentially fatal diseases, and that driving before being fully equipped is a good way to get killed, or kill other people, go ahead and compare that to, for example, watching a cartoon zombie eat people which, to the best of my knowledge, can't cause any liver diseases or cancer, or run over the neighbor's dog.
As far as porn, that's just puritan nonsense. I don't care if your kid buys porn. Like the rest of the responsibility you're trying to shirk, I shouldn't be the one that has to enforce that rule. Don't want your kid to buy porn or Stubbs? Tell him or her that. Don't trust them to listen to you? Then the kid's not responsible enough to hold a job anyway, so don't let them have one.
I'll bet your comment would be really relevant in a world where the goal of this behavior was to "cure all of society's ills" versus "study the effect at the retail level of game ratings".
But don't let common sense get in the way of a good sound bite. It's much more important that you sound clever than actually say something smart.
It's not about doing work for them. It's about a bunch of nerds who:
A) Want to see the movie.
B) Don't want to pay for the movie.
C) Don't want to admit that they're just petty theives.
999/1000 people on this site seem to think that it's okay to just take something if you don't think it's value is proportional to its price. Of course, by that logic, I should be able to walk into a Macy's and take whatever I want, but hey (cue irrational excuse for thievery about not depriving someone of a material object in 5, 4, 3...)
iF THE lAMENEss FILteR Is STill aroUNd, hOW do You EXPLain THe facT ThaT thEY'rE sTILl pOStIng apRIl fOOlS STOries?
So this is slashdot's "NO YOU" to April 1st?
Conservatives would rather just shoot them all dead: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=181692&cid=150 25375
Sanctity of life, liberty, and justice you know...
So, basically, your theory here is that if somebody is offended by something, and you choose not to run it, you're acting out of facist sympathies, not out of basic respect for other people?
Thanks, got it. In other news, because slashdot doesn't post Goatse and Tubgirl on the main page of every story (since it offends people, and not posting offensive things is facist), Slashdot is a facist organization.
You're an idiot.
Just this administration. The last administration tried this type of stupidity too, but apparently the Democrats are smart enough to say "oh, gee, it failed, let's go do something else", whereas this administration is, apparently, hellbent on creating some degree of facism before its time is up in 08.
Maybe that should be the Democratic platform for 2008: "Yes, we'll try to intimidate and oppress you too, but unlike Bush's friends, we'll just give up if it doesn't work the first time!"
I'm voting Democrat. All the Bushies who aren't just idiotic fanatics always say "Oh, but they're spineless snivelers", but maybe that's the best that can be hoped for, since at least they'll back down.
The article may or may not be genuine, but your argument for why it isn't is ridiculous. It's a lot like all the people who continually argue that there can be no global warming problem because "global warming has always existed".
Both are examples of excellent arguments if you're attempting to sway imbeciles who are incapable of noticing that YOU are talking as if this is being studied from the angle of something new being introduced to the environment by humans when, in fact, the study is specifically focused on how human beings have CHANGED the existing environmental factors and how CHANGES to the existing factors impact biological organisms and their environments.
But don't let things like, say, reality stand in your way. This is slashdot. You have an ego to stroke, after all, and you don't actually need to be smart, you just need to be smarter than the other idiots who post.
MySpace: A social networking site for 12 year olds with digital cameras and a few hours between the time they get home from school and the time their parents get home from work.
Facebook: A social networking site for the MySpace users who managed to get into college.
Oh, but then how will Facebook match innovative MySpace features such as the ability to crash your computer remotely, or get your fired when you load a profile with an embedded porn clip?
Sites like this are created for imbeciles, visited by imbeciles, and desired by people who's main market is imbeciles. This entire ridiculous fad reminds of the day AOL gave all its 12 year old users access to Usenet X(
Well if that's all you're using your Winbox for as well, I might suggest you learn how to configure a Windows system properly if you're noticing any lag at all.
Your Debian system performing a different function from your Windows system runs differently?
Nooooo. I'd have never guessed.
I wasn't concerned, they rewrote my article to include a large amount of content I never mentioned.
#1: Of course it's true, don't be dense. Just because it's not a regular part of every con's nightly habit like the TV wants people to think doesn't mean it doesn't happen at all.
#2: Jail is not prison.
And it would make the primary task of a bookmark tool - data insertion and retrieval - much more complicated with a significant performance penalty for large sets of data.
XML is not for data extraction or storage, it's for data description, primarily to simplify the task of exporting, importing and merging data through disparate systems (as with synchronization jobs).
The ideal solution would be to extend the bookmark tool to allow it to export XML content from the current data store for people such as yourself.
I forsee no problems. It's a surprisingly minimal addition to a software package, and the problems with Firefox's memory management are very likely in unrelated modules.
"SQL" engines tend to evoke images of hulking software packages like PostgreSQL, SQL Server, and Oracle, but those things do an awful lot more than the typical desktop app needs, and the SQLite engine is much, much simpler in order to meet that lesser demand.