By "old school" do you mean "real"?

There's plenty of studies into accupuncture. They show that the better the methodology, the worse accupuncture performs, and that in well done studies it performs as well as placebo. In fact, the last big study I read of it actually showed sham accupuncture marginally outperformed "real".

"If the subject is unaware of the intended effect, how could it be placebo effect? Supposing it is the brandy, why the effect would continue after it was no longer administered?"

Who reported the improvment? The same people that gave the child the "remedy", presumably.

The placebo effect improvement doesn't just have to be reported by the patient. It's well known in parents/children and owners/animals as well.

"If it seemingly works for some people we shouldn't say "it doesn't work" just because we believe it is not supposed to work. We should ask ourselves why it works"

No, first we should ask "does it *actually* work?". You don't simply hear a couple of anecdotes and assume "well this obviously works".

So you set up a study to see whether the anecdotal experiences are replicated in the population at large. This has been done countless times with homeopathy. The better designed the study, the less likely that it is to show any effect. Properly conducted, double-blinded studies consistently show no effect whatsoever over placebo.

The line that sceptics reject homeopathy because "it's not supposed to work" is a claim frequently used by proponents. It's simply not true. People reject homeopathy because all the good evidence shows it doesn't work. There's no good evidence to show it does work, and reams of the stuff to show it doesn't. It fails before you even get to pondering the questions of the mechanism, the law of similars etc.

I don't really have a problem with this, subject to one caveat. One of the reasons given for high game prices is that they have only small period of time to recoup their costs - the second hand market effectively prevents stuff selling more than a few months. So the people who want it in the first 6 weeks or so of release pay a hefty premium.

Drop the release price (and absorb that yourself rather than passing it on to the retailer) and I've no problem with them getting a cut of the 2nd hand costs to make up for it.

There's no way that "at no cost to existing subscribers" means this is going to be free to use; why would Sky undercut themselves?

I think it means that you won't have to pay anything to access the service (unlike, say, PlayTV which requires an outlay for the kit). Same as the downloadable films; any Live user can browse the service without having to pay, but it costs to actually download them.

I suppose it's too much to ask that MS sort out the constant.......... pauses........... when......... trying.......... to........... navigate........... NXE menus.......... as well?

I expect you would. Civil procedure isn't (for the most part) particularly complicated.

But there's no way the average person is going to just *know* how to apply for directions, how to draft a witness statement, how to complete a claim form so that they can claim interest, which court they should be applying to, which statutes apply (and where to find them and to check they're in force still etc), what defences the other side may use etc etc. You're right - none of these things are particularly hard to find out (indeed courts tend to bend over backwards to help litigants in person) but add them all together and it's going to take someone who isn't legally trained far, far longer to put a case together than someone who is.

And the LiP screws it up, the ramifications can be huge.

Paying a good lawyer for an hour's work will save a LiP at least 10x that, as well as all the associated stress, worry and confusion.

And, just as importantly, they've got someone to sue if the case gets ballsed up ;-)

Yeah. I'm surprised more people haven't commented on that.

The example was used to show that clearly the US Govt think it works as a coercive technique, not to draw parallels between the actual usage. I'd have thought that was obvious. Especially given that it was stopped at the request of the Vatican rather than given up on as ineffective, thereby rendering the usage incomparable.

As for "people are supposed to die if they go without sleep for much more than 54 hours" - where on earth have you plucked that stat from?

Effort to move goalposts to "ah, but people say torture isn't effective" noted. But you're confusing two uses of the word effective. "Effective at getting people to admit anything to put an end to it", and "effective at getting to the truth". Good at the former, less so the latter.

Still, you managed on 3 hours sleep a night for 5 whole days with only visual distortions! So clearly it follows from that *no* sleep and being bombarded with loud noise over any period can't be a problem for anyone but a "whiny bitch". Best let all those organisations that use it repeatedly and find it effective know that they're wrong, eh?

Noriega was in an embassy with rooms to lock himself away in, and (more than likely) earplugs etc.

Not really the same as being in a cell effectively open on (at least) one side, is it?

Try going without deep sleep for a week and see how that affects your perception of serious. And ask yourself why, if it doesn't have severe mental effects on the victim i) it's so commonly used as a tool of interrogation, and ii) it's so effective.

Not to say I don't feel your pain (I have a profound hatred of all Xmas music having worked in bars/restuarants over the festive period for several years) but if you can't see there's a fairly major difference between hearing an advertising jingle played during your work hours and having something played at loud volume 24 hours a day (with resultant sleep depreviation and all that comes with it) then I think it's you that's lacking perspective. Of course doing the latter can have a seriously detrimental physchological and physiological effect. Do you think the US army blasted AC/DC at Noriega as a favour to a rock fan?

I think some people need to read the OP again. He didn't describe being forced to watch the film as torture; he said that "if this is the sort of thing [marines] do behind closed doors - in fact they do worse (torture....)".

Not to say that being forced to watch a film over and over again couldn't be torture - a TV with the volume turned up to maximum, outside the cell but pointing in, playing the same film on repeat 24 hours a day for example. Not that I'm saying that necessarily happened here, although I think we can assume from the word "forced" that he didn't have the TV and remote in the cell with him.

Yeah, the guy was an asshole of epic proportions. But that doesn't make this right.

"We're very proud of our signed photo of Saddam and what it means", say Stone and Parker. Really? What, exactly, *does* it mean? Because AFAICS it just shows that some old man (albeit an epic asshole of an old man) was forced to do things against his will for the amusement of some bored soldiers who knew there was little chance of any comeback. And maybe it's just me, but I don't think that's something to be really proud of.

If you're on a CFA it'd be very unusual not to take out after the event insurance against exactly that possibility. It's another way the claimant is forced to assess the merits of the case well before proceedings are even issued.

But even with torture that couldn't be got out of them?

Well, clearly torture works. Case closed.

Score one for the UK :)

The losing plaintiff doesn't, other than disbursements. But the lawyer will have thrown thousands of pounds (in lost hours) at a case that earned them nothing.

So if you're a lawyer you want to be very sure that you're going to win before accepting a case.

Almost all tripping (bad paving etc) claims these days have to be funded under a conditional fee arrangement (AKA no win no fee). The combination of that fact and that the major insurers fight every case means that almost none of them come to court.

CFAs filter out all but the sure-fire wins well before court proceedings.