Comments on Lifehacker
The nuclear family is a concept that began in the 1950's. It's literally refering to nuclear age. It's hard to say it's critical to Australia's stability when the concept is that recent.
The live baiting issue isn't really a case to ban the sport. It's not an inherent requirement - its a regulatory failure like doping.
But I was referring specifically to the fact that fifty-percent of dairy cows are culled immediately after birth, and the rest are culled once their productivity decreases.
This is something I just don't get. Obviously, greyhound racing as currently practiced is cruel, but almost all of the arguments for banning it equally apply to horse racing and to the dairy industry. It seems an awful lot like it was singled out as an easy target.
Thanks Spandas! I feel like a bit of an idiot - I've been reading the site for years and never picked up on the IT slant.
Incidentally - I don't have any problem like this. You guys can be as political as you want as long as the reporting remains accurate!
Out of curiosity - what is Lifehackers mission these days. It isn't immediately obvious to me why some articles are on this site rather than Giz?
I'm not saying you can't do it. There doesn't need to be a law against. Just don't act surprised when your not welcome at that store anymore because they think your a creep.
I think it's fine in principle if you think that they may be interested (though I totally get that people on registers get hit on all the time), but everything about this makes me think you really shouldn't. "Young lady", "infatuated", "41". I think you may need to look elsewhere my friend.
I think the problem isn't just that it's cruel, it's that it's self defeating. Incidentally, there's a lot evidence to suggest that a good chunk of regularly visitors to solitary are only disruptive because they need mental health services, not prison.
I effectively do occasional work for various Universities around Sydney. However, there are several benefits I derive from this in terms of my professional networks, status and access to university facilities that makes me far more effective in my current role.
This post reminded why I don't normally bother with this stuff on the net. If you ever get sick, I hope that whatever you decide to do helps. Obviously its not up to me. Regardless, best of health to you.
But here's the rub - although homeopathy requires only a single coincidence, it also the most like of those things to be just a coincidence. Why? Because when we get into a lab, we can't replicate it. Further, it doesn't have a sound (or remotely plausible) explanation drawn from our observations of chemicals or biology.
You have a point about an anecdote potentially being data. However, its not very useful data in an explanatory sense, because your anecdote has no control. It doesn't matter what else you know about the situation, you can't isolate what resulted in an improvement from what was just stuff that also just happened around the same time. For example, for all we know the improvement was from drinking more liquids, rather than the nature of those liquids (homeopathic or not).
Counter argument that isn't God, luck or "just one of those things": placebo. They took what they thought was a medicine, and they felt better. Placebos have even been known to stave off cancer. Fucking cancer! It doesn't mean the placebo is a bonafide treatment.
The thing is, it didn't challenge my philosophical presupposition. My philosophical presupposition is that efficacious treatments can observed under controlled conditions, which rule out confounding variables. I was pointing out that that the anecdote linking homeopathy to a positive outcome doesn't rule out many potential confounds (especially seeing as the diagnosis was vague).
In a way though, your right, I don't think it was homeopathy. Why? Because I'm not considering the anecdote in isolation. When homeopathy has been assessed in controlled trials, it was no better than a placebo. This suggests that, in the anecdote presented by the OP, it was some other variable that prolonged their life.
You keep using the word data, but your describing an anecdote. It's not data, because their is no control. We have no idea why they lived longer - it could have been homeopathy, or it could have been that they had a good sleeping pattern.
The other thing I find a bit odd about your anecdote, is your putting a lot of stock into their longevity, when the doctors couldn't even diagnose the problem. How do you know that the disease wasn't a lot slower acting than they thought it was?
Your confused about the reasons why homeopathy doesn't have adequate funding. Believe it or not, scientists don't just get funding (in any discipline) to throw stuff against the wall and see what sticks. The reason homeopathy has not received a lot of research funding to date is because their was never a clear rationale or proposed mechanism for why it might potentially work.
Your point about anecdotal evidence is just wrong. You'll find a lot of medical research begins with anecdotal observations. The difference is, the researchers are able reconcile those anecdotes with previous observations or theories. Homeopathy is basically incompatible with basic chemistry and biology, hence why the anecdotes were never taken seriously.
Many herbal remedies, for example, receive research funding based on anecdotal evidence to see 1. If they work; and 2. If they do work, why. The difference is, the researchers actually presented some theoretical explanation as to how these treatments might work. Homeopathy, on the other hand, was basically impossible to reconcile with basic chemistry and biology. Further, if they are found not to work (and believe me, homeopathy has had a fair shake simply because researchers got sick of dealing with proponents and wanted some hard data), we stop funding research of them.
By the way - that is the point of the Lancet article. Which is why we've wasted too much time on homeopathy already.
I think your a bit confused about the role of the NHMRC. Their primary role is to fund PROMISING medical research. Their standard is: having been subjected to preliminary scientific enquiry, is this treatment potentially efficacious. The reason they made this ruling is because there has been plenty of scientific research on the efficaciousness of homeopathy, and the consensus is that it doesn't work. It would be a bad area to spend limited research funds in the future. Believe me, there are lots of other treatments this applies to - many of which had a much stronger rationale than homeopathy. It's always disappointing when a researcher has to abandon what seemed like a promising cancer treatment when they began their careers.
I'm happy to hear your relative lived an additional twenty years. Unfortunately, this doesn't mean much from a research perspective. Your anecdote may well have happened regardless of what they took. Indeed, we have control groups because people have spontaneously recovered from cancer after being given placebos. After a couple of decades of research, its pretty clear that homeopathy is no more effective than a placebo.
By the way, for those who don't know, the Lancet publishes a joke edition each year. The point the authors were making was that a lot of research is unnecessary because we can already intuit the results from other observations. I'd argue that this also applies to homeopathy, because its theoretical rationale is completely non-sensical.
I'm guessing they are coming in to your store specifically for desktops though, because the major retailers mostly sell laptops now days. At best, they MIGHT stock one really lousy desktop model.
I believe they actually ended up installing lights on many dual carriage roundabouts (which totally defeats the purpose). Might explain the drop.
Dude - Rent assistance didn't even cover one quarter of my dingy room in a condemned apartment. Seriously though, most banks will let you hold off on paying your mortgage if you become unemployed.
Nine of the ten worst traffic black spots in NSW (as of a few years ago) were roundabouts. Not entirely sure why, because what your saying intuitively makes sense. My guess is that lots of people enter roundabouts at speed too.
The ABC said that officially you can pay the fee on your credit card, but I would have thought that you weren't allowed to accrue new debts once your aware your insolvent. Can someone with a legal or accounting background answer that?
I did learn Gimp. It was functional, but it was super hard to learn how to do basic stuff like make shapes. Then I got given free access to photoshop. What took me months to learn in gimp took me minutes to learn in PS. The difference really is that massive.
That said - I didn't try these mods.
This annoys the hell out of me. I'm one of those maven assholes that needs to know the price of everything, and even I've been fooled like five times. The worst part is, I ended up wasting other peoples time, because I have to get the nice checkout person to take the item off, because I'm not paying the non-card-holder price.
Y'all a bunch a girly-men. I use a bowie knife. Sure, I slipped once a sliced my sack off, but I was able to sew it back up using sinew I procured from a goat killed with said bowie knife.
I feel like a lot of the commentator's here are missing the complexity of the problem. Obviously, an individuals weight and diet is their own responsibility, but when you have a massive population shift in weight, it's probably due to some sort of population level change. It might be increased wealth, it might be new technologies, it might be the commercialization of food. Regardless, the population level problem can only be changed through population level interventions.
A junk food tax seems pretty sensible to me. It worked pretty well for cigarettes (though not so well for booze), but regardless of whether it pushes people to eat better, it at least recuperates some of the expenses that poor diet has on the health system.