Now the entire comment section for this article will essentially be a huge subthread for that guy's inflamatory comments.
Yeah yeah, I know this is par for the course for
Are you sure that's not the intent for
I'd expect most people to interpret "eugenics" as the Greek stems for "good" and "genes", because that's where the word comes from. A fairly obscure nazzy doktor with a similar name isn't what tainted the word.
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.
I'd be cool with it if it were Ed Harris
If you're referring to Pollock, hee came across in the movie as being manic-depressive, not schizophrenic.
When people read the summary of this story, I'm sure a lot will be like "blah blah blah blah MAGNETS GOOD FOR HEALTH AND CURE EBOLA blah blah blah.
Just as the PhD Comics comic referred to in another posting says.
"When antibiotics are used to kill them, dying viruses release toxins"
Too bad SlashDot isn't a science web site...
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.
I know how that one turns out. Making such a basic mistake make me doubt the other claims being made.
Yes, I'd be inclined to pay attention to only the claims in the Nature news article on the same topic.
I call bullshit on this. Not a credible source, and whoever submitted the article bungled the science...
A better source is the article in Nature .
When antibiotics are used to kill them, dying viruses release toxins in the blood that begin to multiply quickly.
Is it just me, or is this sentence completely devoid of any scientificic sense in many different ways (antibiotics killling viruses? Toxins multiplying ??)
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 .
Yeah, for years we were told magnet therapy was bullshit. Now there's money to be made by "legitimate" medicine, though, it's suddenly scientifically acceptable.
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 want to go to Harvard.
Makes me not want to read the International Business Times, but to, instead, read the news article from Nature , as suggested in another post.
So, why do you waste money on the phone?
It provides a convenient phone number to provide to people who require one but to whom you don't want to talk, e.g. charitable organizations that will pester you to increase your donation. Turn the ringer off, give it an answering machine or similar service, and let people leave messages which you pick up later.
(It may also work better for speakerphone calls than a mobile phone.)
Of course! It's all rainbows, sunshine, lollipops and unicorns up here so there's nothing interesting to report.
Yup. And honored by a "mainly Canadian economics blog", no less.
"Rejects empirical data" is another way of saying "taking it on faith", i.e. the Austrian school is a religion by another name.
Oh I feel your pain. I've had to put up with those damned mathematical religionists taking it on faith that not all primes are odd, when time after time my experiment taking a random sample of one thousand of the first billion primes has kept showing them all to be odd.
And I've had to put up with those damned geographers claiming they've seen triangles with three right angles when it's been mathematically proven that the sum of the angles in a triangle is 180 degrees! "Empirical evidence" indeed!
Another possibility is that the "well-reasoned logical argument" wasn't actually well-reasoned. For example, I've seen a perversion of the Austrian School axiom
And, of course, an axiom is just a starting point; if the axioms are inconsistent with each other, or with reality, the conclusions drawn from the axioms could be bogus, no matter how air-tight the reasoning.
Consider also that the technicalities of a backup are beyond most non-technical consumers. Which is the group most people, including celebrities, fall in to.
They wouldn't be if the phone wasn't a deliberately arcane restricted POS.
Because some other type of phone would require you to understand the technicalities of a backup? Sounds like the kind of phone most non-technical consumers wouldn't use.
Or because, with some other type of phone, the technicalities of a backup would be simple enough for non-technical consumers to use?
An authority is a person who can tell you more about something than you really care to know.
