Many "real treatments" are actually only moderately better than placebos and come with significant side effects; yet placebos are often much better than no treatment at all.
This is why the Bonkers Institute is recommending that sugar pills be replaced with warfarin:
"One of the most common rodenticides is warfarin, a chemical compound introduced commercially in 1948 and still widely used as rat poison today, sold under brand names like Adios, Dethnel, Kaput, Kumatox, Rat-B-Gone and Warfarat. Scientists discovered that small doses of warfarin, though lethal to laboratory mice, could actually be of therapeutic value to humans. In 1954 the FDA approved warfarin as a human anticoagulant, and today it remains the anticoagulant of choice, commonly prescribed for the prevention of blood clots in patients with a history of heart disease. Brand names include Coumadin and Jantoven. Serious life-threatening side effects are relatively rare in most patients, especially at low doses of 1 milligram or less."
"Replacing sugar pills with rat poison would have far-reaching implications for the way new drugs are marketed to the public. Claiming that a drug works "better than a sugar pill" is simply another way of saying it's better than nothing. On the other hand, saying a drug is "better than rat poison" may cause patients to think twice before swallowing it. Describing adverse effects as "similar to rat poison," "not as bad as rat poison," or "milder than rat poison" would be a simple yet effective reminder to both patients and physicians that FDA-approved prescription medicines are seldom fatal when taken as directed."
"The universal adoption of a "rodenticide standard" will mark the dawn of a new medical era. By adopting rigorous new guidelines requiring every drug entering the market to be at least as safe and effective as rat poison, many lives will be saved, litigation avoided, and negative publicity minimized. No longer merely "better than nothing," medicine of the future would actually be superior to nonlethal quantities of a known toxic substance. The bar has been raised from sugar pill to rodenticide."
Microsoft advertises windows support for their xbone controllers. They sell a cable for the explicit purpose of using with your Windows PC.
And when it breaks after just a couple days, you're screwed.
"Note You must register your Xbox One console to replace a wireless controller thatâ(TM)s under warranty."
Seems like a flagrant violation of Magnuson-Moss to me.
The only browser I can think of that isn't tied to some other browser is Konqueror but unfortunately I find KHTML to be somewhat awful and even if it wasn't Konqueror is *nix only.
That sounds very much like a gender-based stereotype.
I don't think you quite understand what that word means.
I don't think you quite understand what that word means.
A stereotype is a simplistic model that is held as if it were true of *all* members of some group.
Ok. I'm with you there.
So if I say, "blacks are poorer than whites in the US," that's not a stereotype
I disagree. See your own definition above. You just demonstrated a simplistic model, being held as if it was true for all members of the group. There are some fabulously rich black people in the US. Your statement is not uniformly true.
it's a statistical assertion about differences in economic attainment between groups in aggregate
You didn't assert any statistics. If you had, then it would have been such an assertion. Besides, such an assertion would make a good foundation for a stereotype. (Stereotypes aren't always bad, or unjust. That's just a stereotype about stereotypes.)
But if I say "Blacks are poorer because blacks are lazy," that's using a stereotype because it attributes something inherent to blackness.
No. It's two stereotypes. 1. Blacks are poorer. 2. Blacks are lazy. They are both stereotypes because they are both general simplistic models of a group.
Likewise if I say "Bob can't own that Mercedes because he's black," I'm implicitly stating that all blacks are too poor to own a Mercedes so that's a stereotype.
If you're simply viewing Bob and stating your opinion about him driving his Mercedes, that's prejudice. Furthermore, if Bob does own the Mercedes, your prejudice is also false. It's related to stereotypes, but different. Prejudice is "a preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience." The basis for prejudice is often stereotypes.
On the other hand, if you're refusing to sell Bob a Mercedes because he's black, that would be discrimination. Discrimination is often the result of prejudice, which is often the result of stereotypes. Discrimination can sometimes be against the law. AFAIK, there are no laws in the US against holding stereotypes or prejudices, so long as you do not discriminate.
With regard to your other points, I agree.
Not all Christians are assholes. Such a sign would be counterproductive. Limit your retaliatory actions to the actual assholes.
Just ask every customer, "Do you support the $BILL_WHICH_ALLOWS_FOR_DISCRIMINATORY_PRACTICES ?"
"I believe your religion is dangerous, and don't want it in my store. Get the fuck out of here. Never come back."
"Welcome to my store! How can I help you?"
If 'I don't know':
"You shouldn't. Welcome to my store! How can I help you?"
I believe It's discrimination to not hire/or fire based on sexual orientation. I do not believe that it is discrimination to refuse to take the money and provide services to someone who wants to you to make a cake for their same-sex wedding.
I believe you don't know the definition of "discrimination".
1. recognize a distinction; differentiate.
2. make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, sex, or age.
You [wouldn't] even have to look for GPL violations in products anymore, corporations will do that for you in the products of their competitor, hoping to kick them out of the market that way.
I'm concerned my competition is sucking up all of my users with their superior product and marketing. So, naturally, I was wondering: How can I discourage users from using my competitors product?
That's it! I should force my competitor to make his product free! The users will come flocking straight to me. Brilliant!
All the mobile browsers are absolutely fucking horrible. Firefox mobile is the best, but it also sucks.
On Android, I use XServer-XSDL, an Ubuntu chroot (Debian doesn't build chromium for armhf anymore), and desktop Firefox + Grab-and-Drag, or Chromium+umatrix. This also sucks, but it sucks less than anything native. YMMV.
Link to Original Source
Suddenly an alien probe starts microwaving Earth's oceans. To save Earth, Starfleet instantly promotes Kirk to double-plus-admiral and gives him an experimental portable time travel module, which he uses to take the enterprise back to 1980s Earth.
No, it won't be 1980's Earth. It will be 2010's Earth. Doing the 1980's would cost more, and have fewer opportunities for product placement. Do you remember the blatant Nokia marketing in Star Trek XI? Kirk, as a child, driving a 'vette, blasting the Beastie Boys, and taking calls on his clearly-branded Nokia cell phone (ringtone and all). They could make a whole fucking movie out of that shit.
Star Trek used to give me hope for the future of humanity. It was a vision of the future where mankind had outgrown capitalism, racism, and petty politics, and were free to explore the universe simply because it was there. Each new planet was an opportunity to learn about ourselves, and grow even more civilized as we learned to interact with alien cultures peacefully. Spock acted as a foil to Kirk, demonstrating that if we can reconcile our desire to do good with cold, unflinching logic, we can bring truth, justice, and liberty to the whole of the galaxy.
Now it seems the message is "We will gladly shit upon all your values to make a quick buck. Spock is having a temper tantrum. Fuck you. Buy more shit."
Furthermore, when the adminstrator logs in to the student's account, FB's advertisers are actually harmed. They paid good money to show ads directed toward the school-age bully who lives in Illinois demographic. When someone other than the registered user logs in, that money is fraudulently wasted.
It's actually in FB's interest to sue and push for criminal charges. They've got an advertising business to run, and if people other than the registered user are logging into accounts, that lowers the value of their ads.
It boosts development time significantly for building apps of the same functionality
Wow! Silverlight sounds great! I'm always looking for ways to boost my development time. I charge by the hour.