Can you not read your own references?

Zicam is a homeopathic remedy plus non-homeopathic Zinc. That the zinc actually does something isn't evidence for homeopathy since the Zinc hasn't been dilluted according to homeopathy. The other "active" ingredients have, and note of course you aren't bothering to claim they do anything (which is wise since unlike the zinc there isn't actually any of them in the final product).

Then it isn't homeopathic.

That homeopathic practitioners also use non-homeopathic treatments is completely irrelevant to claims made about homeopathy.

http://www.plosone.org/article... is one study that disagrees with that.

Most of them will never learn to ride a horse because they can always use a car, is that also interesting/surprising/disappointing?

Sure, but I wasn't talking about the actual bill or article, just the post I responded too which also wasn't about the actual bill.

I find freedom or religion vile and disgusting. And I find it vile and disgusting that a warrant is required to search a criminal's house.

So I sure hope there isn't such a way. Though I'm sure some lawmaker somewhere can interpret the commerce clause to require it...

Though you would think the lack of a model release type form would make such porn illegal already anyway - unless the person in it was really dumb enough to sign such a thing, in which case they wanted it shown anyway you would have to assume.

Nope, they are a sixth of the way there though. Though I really doubt the plan is to find it in order to repair it and put is back in service...

Who cares? Does it really matter what label someone else gives or doesn't give you?

Wheaton's own definition of nerd/geek seems broad enough to cover just about everything anyway (including explicitly those into sports): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

That's the point.

1. A is doing B because of C
2. C isn't true because if D
Thus A is being stupid.

Has been an argument style long before twitter existed. That you don't understand basic arguments is your problem and has nothing to do with kids with twitter these days.

Sickle cell anemia doesn't help you pass on your genes either. And yet there was selection pressure for it due to people who could produce children with it having higher malaria survival rates.

It's hardly uncommon for a selection pressure to result in a gene with some down side (like say some children being autistic) being selected before because it also has a upside (like some children fitting into the modern working world and hence being able to have more kids).

Of course that's not going to be the case here because those people don't in fact have more kids than people who don't have tech desk jobs, but for your general question there could be a bunch of advantages that "being more likely to have a child with autism" could provide if the genetics for that happen to also be related to something else...

Except it isn't a 25% increase from the base and then a 21% decrease from that higher result. It's a 21% decrease from the base. Where the base is the average Monday rate.

So if heart attacks are evenly distributed across the days of the year (which seems very unlikely but I don't know the stats on it and can't be bothered looking it up) and there are 52 Mondays in a year (well a little more...) then 2% of heart attacks happen on a Monday. Taking the conclusion in the headline at face value then there's a 4% increase due to daylight saving. We have a 0.08% increase in the number heart attacks in a year.

I'm pretty sure there's other slightly more impactful risk factors to tackle first...

The fact that competitive debating is a thing is pretty clear evidence that you are wrong.

Of course that wasn't the type of debate being discussed - but you changed "the" into "a" thus making a more general claim.

Also surely "when your opponent's arguments convince you to agree with them" is winning, "When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?" and all.

No one does. Well I guess you do, but you are clearly an idiot.

Right. "work for hire" is the efficient way of sating that.

Sure, but it's being put up against a theory with no numbers or data at all.