They are not "nothing", but the psychological mechanism is what does the work. The trigger is in fact "nothing", in that it plays no part in the medical effect.
WTH. Mods on crack.
You said pretty much the same thing I said, except you made a mistake when you said "the trigger is in fact 'nothing'. " The "trigger" is often a sugar pill or some regimen believed not to have a therapeutic effect. Again, as you and I have both said, that is not nothing,
Nothing would be no exposure, either to a placebo or a substance/regimen suspected to have a therapeutic effect.
So the best argument in favor of your treatment is that it works as well as nothing, which is totally proven to work, sometimes?
You're equating "placebo" with "nothing". A "placebo" is not the same as "nothing". Placebos may activate psychological (or other) mechanisms to achieve their better-than-nothing results but, by definition, they are not nothing.
I think you're ignoring the obvious. Or maybe you're actually saying something of value and I can't parse. Maybe you're trolling.
So, telecoms charge to build and run infrastructure that transports packet traffic.
Internal distinctions a company makes about where to invest revenue and resources to build and run that infrastructure do not change the fact that building and maintaining that infrastructure is the same phenomenological process that moves data across the Internet's networks.
All the bureaucratic details of what a telecom must do to keep the infrastructure running doesn't change this fact.
The "academic" branch of feminism - like all academia - is safely removed from the real world and traffics mainly in the Andrea Dworkin "all heterosexual intercourse is rape" and Starhawk-style schools of radical feminism. This is a holdout from pre-'80s feminism and remains the intellectual vanguard of feminism but is a small niche among women.
As a former faculty of American Literature at at a research university, I can assure you that you have no idea what academic feminism is.
Critical theory, race studies, religious studies, psychoanalysis, film theory, subject spectator theory, semiotics, linguistics, cultural anthropology, and more are all well-understood by and -represented among the scholars and intellectuals who are recognized as feminists. Academic feminists analyze and consider the signs, systems of meaning, legal histories, social histories, cultural artifacts, popular culture, etc. etc, etc. insofar as they affect women and the people to whom women are connected, which would be every human being who has ever lived.
Feminism is multiple, not singular, and the best way to describe what drives feminists is the desire to see women—and the people and collectives to which those women are connected and by which they are constituted—to be empowered and autonomous rather than (as has historically been and, in many contexts, currently is the case) disenfranchised and subjugated.
Seriously, do yourself a favor and understand that movements that promote human welfare are good for everyone. People threatened by feminism don't understand feminism. Feminism is about making things better, flawed as some of its approaches may be.
Here's something old-school style that demonstrates some "academic" feminism from 1991: Donna Haraway's "A Cyborg Manfiesto". That's some old-school cultural anthropological feminism for you that is super awesome, fun, literate, and though-provoking.
Try it and see. Some of these people are smart and amazing. You might be surprised.
(As a straight male professor, it agonized me when young intelligent women would come to my survey on critical theory and proudly announce during our feminist section that "I am not a feminist." I am grateful to have had the opportunity to change some of these young persons' minds.)
Let me take a shot at incorporating this detail: The buyer is paying the post office's parent company for construction and maintenance of post roads.
Come on. Are you even trying to make a coherent argument?
In the case of the Internet, paying for the "construction and maintenance" of infrastructure is the same thing as paying to have the bits go back and forth across the networks that make up the Internet.
Or are you seriously saying telecomms are charging to "move" ones and zeroes separately from the infrastructure and energy through which those ones and zeroes "move"?
I really don't like when companies turn my app from a standalone product to one requiring a subscription to access new features. BranchFire did it with "PDF Annotate" and Abvio has done it with "Cyclemeter".
Part of the reason I purchased "PDF Annotate" and "Cyclemeter" ($25 and $5, respectively) is they didn't phone home or require a subscription that was looking for an excuse to go belly up.
My guess is once new user growth slows, the companies consider monetizing their current user base (aka "seeking rent"). So, in the next upgrade they introduce subscription services.
I'm sorry, but I'm not interested. At all.
Users should have the ability to roll back any upgrade, including OS upgrades.
This is why if you ever do anything in your life that people might want to know about, never EVER answer a request for an interview with anything that could even be used to find a bit of truth. "Off the record" means "this will get into the headline" and everything you say can and will be used against you to get pageviews. The two best responses to a request for an interview are to file a restraining order and if that doesn't work, spend a couple bitcoins on an assassin.
Your advice is a good one for subjects of a possible exposé or smear campaign, however, out of hand dismissing journalists as people without integrity is not in the best interests of an informed public and (probably) in many cases unwarranted.
When I was a university professor, the Chronicle of Higher Education asked for an interview about what it's like to be single and a new faculty (ha!). I agreed to an interview and, on several occasions, said that I wanted to say a few things "off the record" about the behavior of colleagues and the spouses of colleagues (ahem). Some of what I said off the record was juicy and I told my interviewer those things to contextualize my "on the record" remarks.
The article was published, my female colleague who was written up got a couple of marriage proposals, and everything attributed to me was on the up and up.
I know not all journalists adhere to a code of ethics, but I believe that many do. Clamming up when a story needs to get out may protect you, but one needn't be suspicious form the get go.
Again, how is this really different from any other colonization project? Look at the history of colonization in the Americas, and you'll see that many died out entirely as a result of being unprepared for the environment that they encountered. I suspect that you'll see similar results in the history of colonization into Australia, and if records existed, for pretty much any migration into areas where humans had not been before.
Can anyone in 2014, with a straight face, write that the Americas and Australia were places where "humans had not been before"?
Such statements don't withstand the scrutiny of someone with even gradeschool historical knowledge, yet here we are having to chew on a +4 comment that forgot humans were in these places well before Europeans got it into their minds to begin displacing indigenous peoples.
Imagine a colonization trip to Mars that discovered humans who had been living on Mars since before recorded history. These indigenous "Martian" humans then sheltered and fed those of us who traveled from Earth, receiving as thanks a colonist-driven campaign to kill them and appropriate their resources AND THEN two to three hundred years later the colonizers "recalled" how exceptionally difficult it was to colonize Mars, a place where no humans had been before.
While the likelihood of finding indigenous humans on other planets is unlikely, one day our descendants may encounter extraterrestrial indigenous life forms and, with thinking like the kind exhibited in your post, would destroy those life forms, appropriate the liberated resources, and write a history that enshrined themselves as resourceful adventurers struggling to survive in a harsh "unlivable" environment.
I just want to know how many first steps they can take, it seems I am always hearing about this first step or that first step
Actually you're misremembering what's alway been the first step. It's just that before taking a second step, one must go halfway and take the first step. But before taking that first step, one must go halfway and take half a step. But before taking that half a step, one must go halfway and take a quarter step. .
tl;dr: it's halfsies all the way down.
A lot of Youtube content is not available in HTML5 yet. Plus, all the famous Zynga games use Flash.
This is simply untrue. This is the experience if you have Flash unavailable on a desktop browser but plug that same URL into, for example, an iPhone and an iPad and the desired content ALWAYS loads.
The failure to deliver HTML5-compliant content on YouTube to desktop browsers is a strategy on Google's part and has nothing to do with the availability of HTML5 content.
To be clear, when searching on the terms michelle obama princeton classmate the results are a bit more reputable and include links to articles debunking the false association between Michelle Obama's and Toni-Townes Whitley's concurrent matriculation and political corruption.
Princeton is where both matriculated (Michelle Obama also attended Harvard law school). "Yale" as a search term surfaces disreputable links in this context. "Princeton" and "Harvard" as search terms return links to more reliable articles.
Like the original contract for this website which went to a college buddy of the POTUS' wife, without open bidding.
The executive whose company won the no-bid contract is Toni-Townes Whitley and the only association she and Michelle Obama have had is that they were classmates at Princeton.
The right-wing media attempted to twist this fact of attending the same school at the same time as proof of cronyism. Fortunately for those of us who would be informed rather than manipulated, the biggest evidence of this failed smear campaign is the blasted Google landscape around the search terms "michelle obama yale classmate".
The only people repeating this as proof of corruption are biased right-wing media organs and poorly informed
From TFA:
The researchers surveyed 410 patients between the ages of 18 and 65, two thirds of them male, all of whom had a psychotic episode and were admitted to in-patient psychiatric units.
I'm not a statisticianololgist, but passing out surveys to psychotic people in a mental hospital doesn't seem to me to be the best way to gather accurate data for a study.
This study's major flaw is that the researchers needed 10 more patients to pass the threshold for statistical relevance.
With your bare hands?!?
