shirgall

I came to FDR from Stef's appearances as a guest host of the Peter Schiff show.

Related: http://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g7346 Televised medical talk shows—what they recommend and the evidence to support their recommendations: a prospective observational study Results We could find at least a case study or better evidence to support 54% (95% confidence interval 47% to 62%) of the 160 recommendations (80 from each show). For recommendations in The Dr Oz Show, evidence supported 46%, contradicted 15%, and was not found for 39%. For recommendations in The Doctors, evidence supported 63%, contradicted 14%, and was not found for 24%. Believable or somewhat believable evidence supported 33% of the recommendations on The Dr Oz Show and 53% on The Doctors. On average, The Dr Oz Show had 12 recommendations per episode and The Doctors 11. The most common recommendation category on The Dr Oz Show was dietary advice (39%) and on The Doctors was to consult a healthcare provider (18%). A specific benefit was described for 43% and 41% of the recommendations made on the shows respectively. The magnitude of benefit was described for 17% of the recommendations on The Dr Oz Show and 11% on The Doctors. Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest accompanied 0.4% of recommendations. Conclusions Recommendations made on medical talk shows often lack adequate information on specific benefits or the magnitude of the effects of these benefits. Approximately half of the recommendations have either no evidence or are contradicted by the best available evidence. Potential conflicts of interest are rarely addressed. The public should be skeptical about recommendations made on medical talk shows.

I'm working my way through this book, now, and the section on peer review did indeed remind me of this:

Every transaction carries an explicit contract. Receipts and written agreements are merely evidence of contract. When you buy a movie ticket you agree to exchange your currency for a (most likely future) performance of a film for a single person, in a specific setting, at a specific time. There may even be reasonable expectations of quality of the performance and reasonable expectations of your behavior when participating in the performance. Failure of this contract could imply refunding of value or of being ejected from the performance. The ticket is evidence of this agreement, and evidence of how explicit the agreement is. People should refuse to engage in transactions with those that don't believe in fair deals such as the above. It's tantamount to fraud (knowingly misrepresenting the value of the exchange or commitment to the terms and conditions of the transaction), but the value of the fraud is so small that the appropriate level of censure is on the order of snubbing and negative word of mouth. If someone raises the stake to having a snit in the lobby in front of other customers, I would be tempted to raise the level of censure.

Well, let's see. Abuse in boarding school, "in this world... or another", "this is not the end of me" song, the explicit "are you insane?" question, "I don't believe in bedtime stories"... Should I mention the castration implication of cutting the "Peter" out of "Peter Pan" for the title or the joke of mistaking "Pan" for a princess? Looks like we're in for another ride into fantasy as lunatic asylum.

I do think gals care more about "the wrapping paper on the present" than guys do. A quote I saw on "Real Men Real Style": This is somewhat the opposite of the idea that you cannot judge a book by its over but RMRS is helping guys reveal their personality by explaining what their selections signify. They are improving guy's judgment in selecting clothes. In my experience, gals notice this. Even if you are not in perfect shape, you can make a darned good impression by choosing clothes that fit correctly, let alone going further to accentuate what you want and obscure what you don't. For example, when it comes to interviewing for a job, you don't necessarily want to stand out but you want to indicate your respect for the process by dressing for your part. For professional jobs there's practically a uniform for this: dark suit--usually charcoal or black, white shirt, red tie, black shoes that have to be shined; second interview navy suit, matching shirt and tie, brown shoes that have to match the belt. Another example, when a guy goes on a date with a gal, dressing appropriately for the venue goes over a great deal better than being overdressed or underdressed. When I was learning public speaking, and later when I was teaching firearms instructors, the maxim was to dress only "one step" above the intended audience. It's not because you want to be respected it's because you respect the audience. I admit I do the treadmill and some other things to help stay in shape. Limiting food types only goes so far... especially in "cookie season". What I seek is to break a sweat, but not overdo it, for about a half hour a day, alternating muscle groups between days.

I think slavery is the absolute form of servitude... completely subject to another's direction. You can voluntarily become a slave, but you cannot voluntarily leave being a slave. Also, you cannot set boundaries (time or type of service) for being a slave. Temporary forms of complete service (for example signing up for a three year stint with the armed services) may not fall into the category of slavery but the problem I have with that is that you can be ordered to your death. In that case the "temporary" condition fails. Indentured servitude has been equated with slavery at times, but the cause of that was the long-term nature of the servitude (effectively permanent) or the arrangements where you "buy yourself out" through service but are never paid enough to complete the contract. The "democratized slave" definition has merit, and people will always tell you that it's temporary because laws can be changed or you could always move somewhere else... but as a practical matter neither of those hold up (there is no completely tax free place to go and it costs a heck of a lot to just move to places with lower taxes).

There is evidence to the contrary on this one, although it might just be my rural experience. Police departments do have mandatory training on use of force doctrine, appropriate escalation and de-escalation, less lethal alternatives, and so on. What drives the opposite, in my opinion, is the "drug war", the rhetoric around the "terror war", and what amounts to free tanks, cool-looking tactical gear, and military-style training from state and national budgets. For example. some of us older folks will remember the Coast Guard being primarily in the news when they rescued boaters or helped with sudden storms. Now what I see involves immigration enforcement and drug seizures. It used to be the Navy that did the "projecting power" portion of the seaborne mission. Now it's both.

http://jech.bmj.com/content/47/3/200.short Magnitude and causes of mortality differences between married and unmarried men. ... Overall mortality was greater for all groups of unmarried men ...

Do you really think the patriarchy would allow another video about a strong female?

Reminded of this topic by some recent threads, let's dive into reciprocal altruism and hedging risk by watching each others' backs: Forgot the link: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6586

"In the Chaordic Age, success will depend less on rote and more on reason; less on the authority of the few and more on the judgment of the many; less on compulsion and more on motivation; less on external control of people and more on internal discipline." http://www.amazon.com/Birth-Chaordic-Age-Dee-Hock/dp/1576750744 Has anyone here read this book? With a quote like that it sounds like it might be interesting.

It's pretty clear to me that the organizations that benefit from these events simply prepare for the next one but that doesn't imply that they actually conspire to make them. Intelligence agencies prepare for intelligence failures so they can take advantage of the need to spend more on them. Gun control NGOs prepare for the next shooting so they can take advantage of the need to further control the people. Every advocacy organization does this, it doesn't have to be more sinister than that.

I actually upvoted you to counteract downvotes.

I think I have to echo the idea that "practiced" does not equal "contrived." We all want to sound natural, but one of the ways to sound natural is to practice with a real human being that gives you feedback. Having it all as a jumble in your head will not be as effective.

I wonder if the right answer to the "Do you have kids?" question is, "It doesn't matter, I was a kid once and I know what haunts me all my life and what doesn't."

I think you exposed the truth, that you will be wrong (to her) if you are a parent or if you are not, so it does not matter how you answered the question.

There are private hunting and fishing areas in the United States if you prefer to get away from so-called public lands and excess licensure. You still need a hunting license to hunt on a private reserve most places.

Even the Mormons say the ends don't justify the means. However, much of their "preparedness" efforts in my area are non-religious, like supporting the local HAM club, getting bulk sales of vegetables and meats for canning parties, youth firearms training, and things like that... They don't push the Mormon aspect at these, although I suspect that's a local/individual decision. I drew the line at the Boy Scouts, as there's a bit of indoctrination in that which I did not like.

exec /usr/bin/google-chrome --disable-background-mode --user-data-dir=${HOME}/.userdata/${INSTANCENAME}/ And .userdata has subdirectories that are links to isolated tmpfs, etc, etc. I have four instances I use at this point (home, work, banking, spare).

I have to echo this on precious metals. Other commodities don't work out as well as this, though. I have chickens, though.

The type of homework and the type of learner make all the difference here. This barely scratches the surface: http://www.nctm.org/news/content.aspx?id=13816 When I was an educator (of a sorts) what I discovered is that if students experienced the same lesson in three ways they retained it better. They read it (or at least saw it on a slide), they heard it (as in a lecture), and they experience it by trying it out. Certain skills need rote practice, like memorization, arithmetic, and trigger-press. Certain skills need a different kind of practice, like case studies, word problems, and real-world scenarios. Another thing I learned was that students needed knowledge, skills, and attitude in combination to be successful with what they learned. (This KSA principle shows up in other places.) The holy grail is that you've learned enough to deal with something new with a solid toolset and the confidence to apply it. I'm not sure homework gets there, unless it's extremely tailored for each student. My students hated me for several reasons. First was I had a MWF class at 8am (because I had to do my real job after class). Second was that I would assign work every week and I'd do it on the projector in the first 5-10 minutes in class on Monday (and not accept late submissions). My secret was I gave full credit if it was clear they tried it because my hope was that if they had tried it and then they saw me do it they learned more than they would from a boring assignment alone. My objective for the class was for them to have confidence and ability to do their assignments in future classes: a good foundation. For that I needed to give out homework and back it up by making the homework meaningful.

I'm going to overlook the argument from ignorance and explain myself in more detail. It means I have to take race into account with my actions and words because they could be perceived as offensive, even if I never intend offense and even if I do not otherwise care what race or gender someone is. The whole point of calling out race and gender in the original post was because that person was afraid of the reaction that person would have to a personal intervention because of race and gender! This is exactly opposite of what race and gender "relations" people say they want, but it is what they get because of their historical actions. Welcome to the law of unintended consequences. It is the outraged offended reactions of people who feel discriminated against, even when they weren't discriminated against, that creates reaction formation as a defense mechanism. The reason you were asked not to antagonize people on the race issue is because this explanation has been given--in various formulations--repeatedly in this thread. It genuinely pains people to have it brought up again, because, frankly, people are ashamed that they have to do these things to avoid conflict over race and gender. That's the bottom line. The easily offended, and those that excel at acting offended, have exactly what they want: deferral to their sensitivity to the point that they personally gain from interactions. Now the entire thread has been derailed from a discussion of child abuse to a discussion of race relations. I would have preferred to talk about the intervention, because I am not brave enough to do it, and instead we have created a paragon example of bikesheding.

An alternative to getting rid of accounts is to compartmentalize. I literally have different instances of my web browsers (and I configure my web browsers to use separate directories on a ram disk for caching purposes) for work and for home purposes. The important thing to remember is to never cross the streams. Nothing is perfect, but car alarms don't prevent thefts of or from cars, they just make them less attractive when easier targets are available.

If you have not been trained to be sensitive to race in your relations with others, you are a very lucky person. As a manager and a businessman I avoid angering people.