 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/24/2010 5:50 PM, Tim Attwood wrote:
>> But, unfortunately, its also true that one of the things people are
>> good at is taking a lie, telling it often enough, and getting enough
>> "apparent" positive results from doing so, that they provisionally,
>> then finally completely fall for it themselves.
>
> That reminds me of Obama-care.
Which version? The real one, which includes a mass of shit that
Republicans insisted be added, then refused to vote for, none of which
does more than 10% of what any other country in the west has done to try
to fix theirs, or the one that is made up of lie, after lie, after lie,
about what it contains, while ***never*** actually linking to the text
of the actual document, so people can see what it actually does say?
You know.. The "40% of Republicans think Obama is a socialist Muslim
anti-Christ, out to turn us into a new China.", versus the, "46% of
everyone things the bill sucks, because it doesn't do enough.", version
of it?
Sorry for the rant, but I am getting real tired of this crap. Obama
isn't trying to undermine the American way of life, and if anything,
isn't fracking trying hard enough to do what should be done, so pisses
me off to no end a lot of the time. The Republicans haven't had anything
to offer at all for 20 years on the subject (or at least since fracking
Nixon, who also failed to pass anything at all), and the only thing that
has changed is that now they don't want to even negotiate to pass
anything at all (if they did, 50% of the crap in the bill, including the
damn "individual mandate" which 14 states are now trying to challenge,
where ***Republican*** inclusions, which he compromised on adding, in
hopes to get bipartisan support). What has happened is that we have a
badly compromised bill, which doesn't encourage competition, contains
**nothing** in it about new taxes, or the like, no language adding
abortion coverage, or any of about 50 other lies told about it, but
which also does almost nothing that would stop the insurance companies,
which are already nearly 30% of the national economy, and in the last
few years have raised rates 40-60% in various places, *during* a
financial crisis, from ending up owning 50%, or 80%, or even, now that
they can, thanks to five people on the Supreme Court, basically buy up
any politician they want, 90%? of the entire economy. I mean, if they
own the government (via massive election funding campaigns), who is
going to challenge them on having monopolies, or excessive influence?
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
> > Remember that the active ingredient is something that *causes* the
> > symptoms, not something that *cures* them (for example in a homeopatic
> > sleeping pill the active ingredient is usually caffeine). Hence taking
> > this ingredient *away* from the water likewise takes the *symptoms* away
> > from the person. The more of it you take away, the more effective the
> > stuff is. It makes perfect sense.
> It's a load of codswallop.
My text above was written in jest.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
TC wrote:
>> Homeopathy is innocuous. Believing it works is the danger. :-)
>
> Believing it works is the cure...
Bazinga!
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Yes, we're traveling togeher,
but to different destinations.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
TC wrote:
> I find the notion that a medicine becomes stronger as it gets diluted a
> rather strange one.
Technically, the stuff in the "remedy" isn't something that cures you, but
something that makes you sick in the same way. It's closer to a vaccine
than a cure. The homeopathic remedy for poison ivy is something that makes
you itch, well-diluted.
Altho when you start getting into the actual numbers like 30C, you find out
that it's literally impossible to create such a dilution. It would take more
than all the oceans in the world to dilute something that much, so you'd
have to go back to the water you'd already thrown out and re-use it in the
dilution process.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Yes, we're traveling togeher,
but to different destinations.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
TC wrote:
> Apart from this all: the strangest thing is the (scientifically proven)
> effect of a placebo - it is strange that it actually works.
Even stranger: The placebo effect is getting stronger. There are medicines
on the market in the USA that if you re-tested them, you'd find they're
ineffective. The placbo effect has gotten stronger to the point where it's
now stronger than the actual medicine that passed scrutiny a couple decades ago.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Yes, we're traveling togeher,
but to different destinations.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
TC wrote:
> MDs don't know everything.
A huge number of deaths are caused by trying to get treated for something
that isn't life-threatening. As in, something like 40% of all hospital
deaths of people who weren't in danger of dying are caused by mistakes made
while they were in the hospital. Or some such number.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Yes, we're traveling togeher,
but to different destinations.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Altho when you start getting into the actual numbers like 30C, you find out
> that it's literally impossible to create such a dilution. It would take more
> than all the oceans in the world to dilute something that much, so you'd
> have to go back to the water you'd already thrown out and re-use it in the
> dilution process.
To get a 1:10^30 dilution you only need 30 cubic units of water.
Suppose you have 30 containers with 0.9 liters of water in each (totaling
27 liters). Put 0.1 liters into the first container, then take 0.1 liters
from this solution, put it in the second container, then take 0.1 liters of
this solution, put it in the third container, and so on.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> It's a load of codswallop. If I titrate caffeine to the point there's
> none left in solution in the water, the water is *no different* than
> taking water that's never been near caffeine. It is chemically the
> *same*.
I think these people believe there is something "beyond" basic chemistry, ie
even when no active substance can be detected, it has somehow made its mark
on the carrier substance (water, sugar etc). And as is completely normal
with human nature, they subconsciously interpret the results of a few very
unscientific tests (eg my friends mum was cured by it) and conclude it
works.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/25/2010 3:52 PM, Darren New wrote:
> TC wrote:
>> Apart from this all: the strangest thing is the (scientifically
>> proven) effect of a placebo - it is strange that it actually works.
>
> Even stranger: The placebo effect is getting stronger. There are
> medicines on the market in the USA that if you re-tested them, you'd
> find they're ineffective. The placbo effect has gotten stronger to the
> point where it's
> now stronger than the actual medicine that passed scrutiny a couple
> decades ago.
>
Sometimes this is called "over use". People are exposed, directly or
indirectly, to things so much that their bodies "get used to" having it
in the blood stream, so when you do need it, its less effective. This is
well known, with almost *everything*, especially if it effects nerves,
brain function, etc.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> I think these people believe there is something "beyond" basic chemistry, ie
> even when no active substance can be detected, it has somehow made its mark
> on the carrier substance (water, sugar etc). And as is completely normal
> with human nature, they subconsciously interpret the results of a few very
> unscientific tests (eg my friends mum was cured by it) and conclude it
> works.
I have hard time understanding the psychological phenomenon that many
people are eager to believe in some things based solely on what other
people *claim*, without any actual convincing evidence, or with just some
flimsy circumstancial evidence of eyewitness testimony, and *keep believing*
in it even after an enormously more comprehensive and accurate testing shows
that the thing is bogus.
Someone might believe that something works because someone claims that it
worked on 10 people. Even if a scientifically accurate study is then performed
repeatedly on 1000 people, and this test shows that it doesn't actually work,
these people will *still* believe it works.
I really can't understand why. It's like accurate scientifical testing which
is more extensive and more thorough is less convincing than a much smaller
sample of inaccurate circumstancial evidence.
Why do so many people think like this? What is the psychological phenomenon
behind this kind of thinking?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
