Global warming 'confirmed' by independent study
-
jschell wrote:
Sorry if I wasn't clear.
Your "hypothetical" scenarios cannot exist in the real world as it applies to the automobile market.Are you seriously that dence. What part of "Hypothetical" do you not understand? It is not wether it is real or not. It is about what happens if it is... Let me put this in idiot terms. IF you were smart, would you continue to come back here with no facts and no argument? Well I think it is clear this is also fantasy, but it can still be answered. That is the point of using Hypothetical cases[^]. If you do not understand this then do not respond to the case with "that can't happen".
jschell wrote:
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
It is close to being owned.
The automobile market - not even close. Far, far from close.
Please name the people who owns the following companies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_industry#By_manufacturer[^]
Then name who owns these companies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_car_brands[^]Not sure why you are quoting me... I was quoting your statement. You said it. Not me. No more point in arguing that one. You gave in already :)
jschell wrote:
I ALREADY said that price fixing exists. What I SAID was that for your example to work it would have had to been done in a market that was owned (or involved thousands of people) and it would have had to exist for decades at least. And that NO ONE knows about it.
And guess what your example proves every single point that I made.
At the time that it occurred Microsoft owned the market (ignoring the rest of the world by the way in which there were competitors not impacted.)
It did not last for decades.
And it is certainly known about - becaCollin Jasnoch wrote:
Are you seriously that dence. What part of "Hypothetical" do you not understand?
I understand that they do not apply to the discussion. No more so than if you claimed that demons from hell were running the companies.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Not sure why you are quoting me... I was quoting your statement.
You said "It is close to being owned." Which is exactly what I quoted. If you misspoke then you should make it clear. Although nothing that followed that suggested that you understood that the automobile market is not close to being owned by a single entity.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Always fail -> Nope. Looks like I provided a case where MS made out like a bandit.
Err...it failed because it is no longer going on and because the public knows about it.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Microsoft did NOT own the market. Have you ever heard of SunSystems or Apple?
You brought up DeBeers as an example of a monolithic entity that owns an entire market as an ANALOGY to the automobile market. My presumption is that you actually understood how much of the market that company controls, why it controls it, how it maintains that control, and why it is allowed to continue to control it in that manner. In contrast to what it would take for the automobile industry to suppress a 'better' car based on entity owning the market. No entity does. Since there is some confusion at this point...your analogy is not apt. It is not comparable in a vast number of ways to the automobile market. I was merely trying to demonstrate how lacking your analogy was. Since that is obviously pointless I will just reject it out of hand.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
What the frick does battery improvement over the last 30 years have to do with it
Don't know what to tell you there. You introduced Durcell into the conversation. You introduced battery lifetime as well. Presumably you thought those were relevant.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Simply put, you buy a battery for you remote, RC Car, Flashlight, Dildo, whatever and you NEVER in your entire life would need to buy another one for it.
So lets see... First that has nothing to do with what I sa
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Are you seriously that dence. What part of "Hypothetical" do you not understand?
I understand that they do not apply to the discussion. No more so than if you claimed that demons from hell were running the companies.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Not sure why you are quoting me... I was quoting your statement.
You said "It is close to being owned." Which is exactly what I quoted. If you misspoke then you should make it clear. Although nothing that followed that suggested that you understood that the automobile market is not close to being owned by a single entity.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Always fail -> Nope. Looks like I provided a case where MS made out like a bandit.
Err...it failed because it is no longer going on and because the public knows about it.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Microsoft did NOT own the market. Have you ever heard of SunSystems or Apple?
You brought up DeBeers as an example of a monolithic entity that owns an entire market as an ANALOGY to the automobile market. My presumption is that you actually understood how much of the market that company controls, why it controls it, how it maintains that control, and why it is allowed to continue to control it in that manner. In contrast to what it would take for the automobile industry to suppress a 'better' car based on entity owning the market. No entity does. Since there is some confusion at this point...your analogy is not apt. It is not comparable in a vast number of ways to the automobile market. I was merely trying to demonstrate how lacking your analogy was. Since that is obviously pointless I will just reject it out of hand.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
What the frick does battery improvement over the last 30 years have to do with it
Don't know what to tell you there. You introduced Durcell into the conversation. You introduced battery lifetime as well. Presumably you thought those were relevant.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Simply put, you buy a battery for you remote, RC Car, Flashlight, Dildo, whatever and you NEVER in your entire life would need to buy another one for it.
So lets see... First that has nothing to do with what I sa
You talk of 'real' world yet you clearly do not live in it. You critisize my arguments, yet provide no actually facts or logical reasoning for that matter. My examples have been concrete facts and hypothetical situations. Of which both you are unable to discuss on other than claim they are not related. You are clearly a horrible debater. Unless you want to come back with non opion statements move a long nothing else to see here. As I said before, leave the debating to the big kids.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
You talk of 'real' world yet you clearly do not live in it. You critisize my arguments, yet provide no actually facts or logical reasoning for that matter. My examples have been concrete facts and hypothetical situations. Of which both you are unable to discuss on other than claim they are not related. You are clearly a horrible debater. Unless you want to come back with non opion statements move a long nothing else to see here. As I said before, leave the debating to the big kids.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
You critisize my arguments, yet provide no actually facts or logical reasoning for that matter.
The fact that you couldn't follow it does not lead to that statement. I didn't need to do much since you kept providing examples that supported me and contradicted you. In reading from your first response I really like the fact that you start out by claiming that the market will not adjust and then provided your Durcell example which is as specific example of a market doing just that. It specifically supports what I said. 1. Competitive markets are in fact competitive. 2. Innovations that produce a 'better' product do in fact make it to the market. 3. This specifically contradicts your claims that innovation is suppressed when it is seen as negatively impacting total product sales. Contradicts it in a big way since longer battery life has been a primary market driver for at least a decade and probably two. And spans the entire market as well.
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
You critisize my arguments, yet provide no actually facts or logical reasoning for that matter.
The fact that you couldn't follow it does not lead to that statement. I didn't need to do much since you kept providing examples that supported me and contradicted you. In reading from your first response I really like the fact that you start out by claiming that the market will not adjust and then provided your Durcell example which is as specific example of a market doing just that. It specifically supports what I said. 1. Competitive markets are in fact competitive. 2. Innovations that produce a 'better' product do in fact make it to the market. 3. This specifically contradicts your claims that innovation is suppressed when it is seen as negatively impacting total product sales. Contradicts it in a big way since longer battery life has been a primary market driver for at least a decade and probably two. And spans the entire market as well.
Are you seriously that dence?
jschell wrote:
I didn't need to do much since you kept providing examples that supported me and contradicted you.
You apparently can't read then.
jschell wrote:
In reading from your first response I really like the fact that you start out by claiming that the market will not adjust and then provided your Durcell example which is as specific example of a market doing just that. It specifically supports what I said.
Again are you really that dence? For one, this was a hypothetical situation. Therefore you can not use the 'outcome' of it as evidence, for it has not happened. For two, my argument was it will not be released due to profit decline. Learn to read before hitting the post button.
jschell wrote:
1. Competitive markets are in fact competitive
Ahhh... Thats like saying Blue is blue so I must be right. My point was the competition gets squashed out. Again, learn to read before hitting post (I re-iterate... Maybe it will help you :))
jschell wrote:
Innovations that produce a 'better' product do in fact make it to the market.
Nope. You still have not provided any evidence disproving what I have said or facts I have given. I gave you many examples of larger companies squashing competition ragardless of their innovations. Have you ever heard of Patent Trolls? Guess not. Simply put you are dead wrong here. I have given you ample evidence supporting it yet you have provided no counter evidence.
jschell wrote:
This specifically contradicts your claims that innovation is suppressed when it is seen as negatively impacting total product sales. Contradicts it in a big way since longer battery life has been a primary market driver for at least a decade and probably two. And spans the entire market as well.
Again, you don't get it. It is not about 'longer' battery life. It is about 'infinite' battery life. It is the same principal as service providers that offer a "Life-Time" membership. It seems like a good idea to both parties at first, but as time goes on it is a guarenteed loss. TV-Replay is an example of this. They offered lifetime membership to users quite a few years ago. It basically was paying 2 years worth of service up front and you
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
sell homeopathy
Thats a homeopath, not a chirppractor. In fact the AECC does not teach homeopathy.
Fisticuffs wrote:
vitamins
I see, so vitamins are crap are they? Lack of Ascorbic acide does not cause scurvy, vitamin D rickets? Have you published any papers on this or are your opinions just empty?
Fisticuffs wrote:
perform cervical manipulations (especially without giving due informed consent for risk of vertebral artery dissection and stroke)
Malpractice is unfortunately common in all medical fields but does not negate its efficacy.
Fisticuffs wrote:
advise on medical issues unrelated to their field, such as alternative vaccination schedules or eschewing vaccinations
Not taught by the AECC.
Fisticuffs wrote:
offer routine 'adjustments' and diagnose 'subluxations'
Entirely necessary and beneficial in many cases.
Fisticuffs wrote:
imply that 'disease is based in the spine'
etc.This is not taught by the AECC.
Fisticuffs wrote:
Spinal manipulation could just as easily be done by physiotherapists
And very effective they are too.
============================== Nothing to say.
-
Heh. What for? He's got it allllll figured out. He's worked in engineering, and had family doctors, so he knows everything about the profession already - doctors are like engineers and don't need to be able to think scientifically or do science, medicine is really just about memorizing a bunch of books and facts, patients in real life are treated exactly like you would treat someone online, and I'm probably not a real doctor anyway, I just play one on the internet. Did I miss anything? :D
- F
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
The fact is that I'm not a climate scientist and ultimately my opinion on the raw data or cherry-picked studies is worth nothing.
The fact is that you are not a psychologist either, so "It's a broad psychological phenomenon - the less someone knows about something, the more people [they] are likely to overestimate their knowledge of it." is also worth nothing. (Otherwise: The less one knows about people, the more one is likely to over estimate one's knowledge of them, would also hold true.) Pip, pip, Doc!
Be dogmatic, not thoughtful. It's easier, and you get bumper stickers.- Anon.
ict558 wrote:
The fact is that you are not a psychologist either, so "It's a broad psychological phenomenon - the less someone knows about something, the more people [they] are likely to overestimate their knowledge of it." is also worth nothing.
Yes, I have received no training in and know absolutely nothing about psychology or human behavior to successfully practice medicine. It is in no way relevant at all to what I do every day and I have no experience dealing with people who think they know more than they do because they happened to read a little bit about it on the internet. Congratulations, genius - you got me.
- F
-
Erudite__Eric wrote:
Entirely necessary and beneficial in many cases.
Crap. As chiros describe them, subluxations are a made-up disease. Routine adjustments have no value.
- F
I hope you have a bad back one day, one where your legs go numb, where you have sciatica, where you have involuntary muscle contractions due to it. Where you cant wal for more than a few hundred yards, and cant sit for more than 20 minutes. You will then know just how effective chiropractic is.
============================== Nothing to say.
-
I hope you have a bad back one day, one where your legs go numb, where you have sciatica, where you have involuntary muscle contractions due to it. Where you cant wal for more than a few hundred yards, and cant sit for more than 20 minutes. You will then know just how effective chiropractic is.
============================== Nothing to say.
Erudite__Eric wrote:
You will then know just how effective chiropractic is.
Personally, I wouldn't lecture an M.D. on the effectiveness of a medical procedure. He actually did make an allowance for spinal manipulations to treat lower back pain.
-
I hope you have a bad back one day, one where your legs go numb, where you have sciatica, where you have involuntary muscle contractions due to it. Where you cant wal for more than a few hundred yards, and cant sit for more than 20 minutes. You will then know just how effective chiropractic is.
============================== Nothing to say.
-
ict558 wrote:
The fact is that you are not a psychologist either, so "It's a broad psychological phenomenon - the less someone knows about something, the more people [they] are likely to overestimate their knowledge of it." is also worth nothing.
Yes, I have received no training in and know absolutely nothing about psychology or human behavior to successfully practice medicine. It is in no way relevant at all to what I do every day and I have no experience dealing with people who think they know more than they do because they happened to read a little bit about it on the internet. Congratulations, genius - you got me.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
Yes, I have received no training in and know absolutely nothing about psychology or human behavior to successfully practice medicine.
You have received some training in psychology and human behaviour. That does not make you a psychologist.
Fisticuffs wrote:
It is in no way relevant at all to what I do every day
Just as well.
Fisticuffs wrote:
I have no experience dealing with people who think they know more than they do because they happened to read a little bit about it on the internet.
Ignoring the dollops of sarcasm: I had lots, and managed to enlighten without offence. Could it be that sensitivity trumps the theories of human behaviour? I'll just go and look it up on the Internet, there must be an unreviewed paper on the topic somewhere.
Fisticuffs wrote:
Congratulations, genius - you got me.
True, but don't feel bad about it.
Be dogmatic, not thoughtful. It's easier, and you get bumper stickers.- Anon.
-
Heh. What for? He's got it allllll figured out. He's worked in engineering, and had family doctors, so he knows everything about the profession already - doctors are like engineers and don't need to be able to think scientifically or do science, medicine is really just about memorizing a bunch of books and facts, patients in real life are treated exactly like you would treat someone online, and I'm probably not a real doctor anyway, I just play one on the internet. Did I miss anything? :D
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
Did I miss anything?
Doctors are all just slaves to the pharmaceutical companies? ;P
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
Did I miss anything?
Doctors are all just slaves to the pharmaceutical companies? ;P
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
Yes, I have received no training in and know absolutely nothing about psychology or human behavior to successfully practice medicine.
You have received some training in psychology and human behaviour. That does not make you a psychologist.
Fisticuffs wrote:
It is in no way relevant at all to what I do every day
Just as well.
Fisticuffs wrote:
I have no experience dealing with people who think they know more than they do because they happened to read a little bit about it on the internet.
Ignoring the dollops of sarcasm: I had lots, and managed to enlighten without offence. Could it be that sensitivity trumps the theories of human behaviour? I'll just go and look it up on the Internet, there must be an unreviewed paper on the topic somewhere.
Fisticuffs wrote:
Congratulations, genius - you got me.
True, but don't feel bad about it.
Be dogmatic, not thoughtful. It's easier, and you get bumper stickers.- Anon.
-
Are you seriously that dence?
jschell wrote:
I didn't need to do much since you kept providing examples that supported me and contradicted you.
You apparently can't read then.
jschell wrote:
In reading from your first response I really like the fact that you start out by claiming that the market will not adjust and then provided your Durcell example which is as specific example of a market doing just that. It specifically supports what I said.
Again are you really that dence? For one, this was a hypothetical situation. Therefore you can not use the 'outcome' of it as evidence, for it has not happened. For two, my argument was it will not be released due to profit decline. Learn to read before hitting the post button.
jschell wrote:
1. Competitive markets are in fact competitive
Ahhh... Thats like saying Blue is blue so I must be right. My point was the competition gets squashed out. Again, learn to read before hitting post (I re-iterate... Maybe it will help you :))
jschell wrote:
Innovations that produce a 'better' product do in fact make it to the market.
Nope. You still have not provided any evidence disproving what I have said or facts I have given. I gave you many examples of larger companies squashing competition ragardless of their innovations. Have you ever heard of Patent Trolls? Guess not. Simply put you are dead wrong here. I have given you ample evidence supporting it yet you have provided no counter evidence.
jschell wrote:
This specifically contradicts your claims that innovation is suppressed when it is seen as negatively impacting total product sales. Contradicts it in a big way since longer battery life has been a primary market driver for at least a decade and probably two. And spans the entire market as well.
Again, you don't get it. It is not about 'longer' battery life. It is about 'infinite' battery life. It is the same principal as service providers that offer a "Life-Time" membership. It seems like a good idea to both parties at first, but as time goes on it is a guarenteed loss. TV-Replay is an example of this. They offered lifetime membership to users quite a few years ago. It basically was paying 2 years worth of service up front and you
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Again are you really that dence? For one, this was a hypothetical situation. Therefore you can not use the 'outcome' of it as evidence, for it has not happened. For two, my argument was it will not be released due to profit decline.
Not sure what you are talking about but wrong for several issues. Some possible guesses as to what you are referring. First obviously the battery market is not hypothetical. It is making money and it is doing so by making a battery that lasts longer. Second on average business people make business decisions about what they think the market will do. They have no special abilities that allow them to see the future. Thus if they make a product that lasts longer they do so with the hope that is will increase revenue.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
My point was the competition gets squashed out.
And my point is that you are wrong. And your Durcell example specifically demonstrates that you are wrong.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
I gave you many examples of larger companies squashing competition ragardless of their innovations. Have you ever heard of Patent Trolls? Guess not. Simply put you are dead wrong here. I have given you ample evidence supporting it yet you have provided no counter evidence.
And your assertions on that topic are nonsense. In any number of ways especially as it applies to the automobile market. There is NO way that any of the tactics that you are referring to can broadly impact the automobile market. And as a specific example of that, many countries either do not respect the patent process that you refer to with "Patent Trolls" or the enforcement in the country is so lax that the country might as well not be part of the process. And many more countries are more likely to only enforce infringement that is blinding obvious.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Nope. You still have not provided any evidence disproving what I have said or facts I have given
Sorry? Are you claiming that the battery market has NOT been actively creating and marketing batteries that last longer for years?
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
It is about 'infinite' battery life....
Thought I made it clear...I will try again... Please read the followin
-
ict558 wrote:
Ignoring the dollops of sarcasm
It really wasn't put there to be ignored. :rolleyes:
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
It really wasn't put there to be ignored.
But I thought it best to. "Yes, I have received no training in and know absolutely nothing about psychology or human behavior to successfully practice medicine. It is in no way relevant at all to what I do every day and I have no experience dealing with people who think they know more than they do because they happened to read a little bit about it on the internet." After all, the sarcasm is heavy handed - hence 'dollops' - a bit William Brown-ish. But you musn't let the 'people who think they know more than they do [me]' get to you. Stop using this forum as a surrogate, get back to the Surgery and face them down. (Don't use sarcasm though, it's not your forté, and it alienates rather than wins over.)
Be dogmatic, not thoughtful. It's easier, and you get bumper stickers.- Anon.
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
It really wasn't put there to be ignored.
But I thought it best to. "Yes, I have received no training in and know absolutely nothing about psychology or human behavior to successfully practice medicine. It is in no way relevant at all to what I do every day and I have no experience dealing with people who think they know more than they do because they happened to read a little bit about it on the internet." After all, the sarcasm is heavy handed - hence 'dollops' - a bit William Brown-ish. But you musn't let the 'people who think they know more than they do [me]' get to you. Stop using this forum as a surrogate, get back to the Surgery and face them down. (Don't use sarcasm though, it's not your forté, and it alienates rather than wins over.)
Be dogmatic, not thoughtful. It's easier, and you get bumper stickers.- Anon.
-
Erudite__Eric wrote:
You will then know just how effective chiropractic is.
Personally, I wouldn't lecture an M.D. on the effectiveness of a medical procedure. He actually did make an allowance for spinal manipulations to treat lower back pain.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Personally, I wouldn't lecture an M.D. on the effectiveness of a medical procedure
After all, every MD is infallible. :)
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
He actually did make an allowance for spinal manipulations to treat lower back pain.
He did. Of course it works the whole spine, just that lower back pain is very common. Its also good for SI joints. (You could consider that lower back, but I doubt FistedChuff does). He also called vitamins crap, http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/4061842/Re-Whoops-hold-on-yet-again.aspx[^], despite centuries of acceptance thw world over as not crap.
============================== Nothing to say.
-
Erudite__Eric wrote:
You will then know just how effective chiropractic is.
The testimonial: last stop for people pushing ineffective placebos and late-night infomercials.
- F
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Personally, I wouldn't lecture an M.D. on the effectiveness of a medical procedure
After all, every MD is infallible. :)
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
He actually did make an allowance for spinal manipulations to treat lower back pain.
He did. Of course it works the whole spine, just that lower back pain is very common. Its also good for SI joints. (You could consider that lower back, but I doubt FistedChuff does). He also called vitamins crap, http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/4061842/Re-Whoops-hold-on-yet-again.aspx[^], despite centuries of acceptance thw world over as not crap.
============================== Nothing to say.
Erudite__Eric wrote:
He also called vitamins crap, http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/4061842/Re-Whoops-hold-on-yet-again.aspx[^], despite centuries of acceptance thw world over as not crap.
Until they tested them using double-blind studies. My understanding is that they are basically ineffective.