I'd expect most people neither to associate it with the Greek stems in question nor with Eugen Fischer; I'd expect them to have no clue where the word came from.

If you're referring to Pollock, hee came across in the movie as being manic-depressive, not schizophrenic.

Just as the PhD Comics comic referred to in another posting says.

Neither is the International Business Times, whence this article refers.

The web site for Nature magazine, however, is a science web site, and there's a much better story there on the same topic.

Yes, I'd be inclined to pay attention to only the claims in the Nature news article on the same topic.

A better source is the article in Nature .

No, it's not just you, and, yes, that sentence is completely devoid if any scientific sense. Better sentences can be found in the news article from Nature .

Well, there's "magnet therapy" as in "wear a magnet on your body", and there's "magnet therapy" as in "coat extremely small magnetic particles with a protein that binds to bacteria, viruses, and bacterial toxins, run your blood through a machine where the particles bind to the bacteria/viruses/toxins and get magnetically removed from the blood, and pump the blood back in".

It's quite possible for the first form of "magnet therapy" to be bullshit and the second form of "magnet therapy" to work.

Makes me not want to read the International Business Times, but to, instead, read the news article from Nature , as suggested in another post.

"Probably Comcast cares because NSA told them they should."

THIS!

Your argument is identical to that about poor young crack dealers, or mafia soldiers, or . . .

I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, and try to get it on the internet, you need a shrink far more than a lawyer . . .

anyway, the clean hands doctrine is a rule from "equity," not "law". It only applies to equitable relief, such as injunctions, not to suits for money

hawk, esq.

toggling the speaker by poking a memory address was good enough for the Apple ][, and it should be good enough for, uhh, . . . :)

hawk

Wait. Those weren't artists renderings of actual flying car prototypes on the cover of the Popular Science Magazine covers back in the middle of last century?

The problem here is that the law *requires* an email address. It was never really thought out for large companies with billions of customers, and the law is effectively a bad law as a result, but it is still in fact the law.

I can imagine that the response is going to be something like an IVR system, where you are emailed back something which requires you provide more context ("or you can click here"), and repeats the process narrowing down the context, each time ("or you can go here"), until it drills down to the automated system where it can bucket it into the appropriate web form you should have used in the first place instead of sending them an email, or your problem is answered, or you give up and go away.

Unless there's also a law against IVR in Germany?

Guaranteed that most of these emails to that address are SPAM and/or people bitching about seeing things in the search results they don't want to, or not seeing things in the search results that they expected to, and a human would be telling them, very politely, that nothing will be done about their complaint and/or they are not interested in pretending to be the heir to the fortune on deposit in the Bank of Lagos by the wife of the late oil minister ("now deceased, God Bless").