81–90 of 123 posts
Good thing that you can't comment on articles elsewhere on the Internet. Their legal strategy is saved!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/sep/20/richard-dawkin... Simon Singh has since won that case last I heard, but it was by no means a given. That it took so long for him to get off for saying fucking chiropractors of all people "quacks" (if they aren't, who possibly could be?) should say a lot about the extent to which correctness or belief in correctness is a real defense. edit: spelling
fucking chiropractors of all people "quacks" (if they aren't, who possibly could be?) You're mis-informed. Chiropractic treatments are very useful for certain problems. Some quacks say it will treat any and all illness, but most licensed chiropractors I've dealt with have been highly professional. I have first-hand experience. After a knee injury playing on my high school basketball team, I suffered from mild swellin…
The extent to which chiropractics can alievate back pain, the only sort of thing they can have a positive impact on in scientifically executed trails, they are only acting as (often unlicensed) physical therapists. IF this is what you go to the chiropractic for, and IF they are a licensed physical therapist, then call them your physical therapist. If on the other hand, they're not licensed, then do yourself a favor and go find one that is.
"Many whiplash victims are also referred to chiropractors."
The industry itself doesn't seem to agree that whiplash is among the defensible things they treat:
"If you have a website, take it down NOW.
"REMOVE all the blue MCA [McTimoney Chiropractic Association] patient
information leaflets, or any patient information leaflets of your own
that state you treat whiplash, colic or other childhood problems in your
clinic or at any other site where they might be displayed with your contact
details on them. DO NOT USE them until further notice."
This all said, even IF chiropractics can effectively treat a subset of the things the claim, they are still quacks for daring to claim the rest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know, I think if you're an enthusiast who cares about the environment, Clarkson isn't your favorite guy ever. I felt like the piece on the Tesla was pretty offensive in how biased it was, and I normally like the guys on Top Gear.
I do think Clarkson is a bit over the top anti-conservation; but suing him for that seems like the worst possible response. Something along the lines of a clever rebuttal in the form of a short video could've scored them some goodwill points.
Its not a documentary. Its a play and the actors play roles to a degree of excess (although tbf their roles are pretty close to their real life personas).
Say what you will about EPA numbers, but at least they involve standardized measurement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you are VASTLY overstating the importance of Top Gear, which is essentially an entertainment talk show which happens to talk about cars.
Name another entertainment show which talks about cars and has Top Gears global reach.
Just about EVERY "review" they do on cars is heavily biased, and in more than a few cases, outrageously so.
Anyone who watches the show without understanding that it is entertainment, first and foremost, needs to lighten up, get a sense of humour, and not take themselves so seriously.
Those are the types that TG go out of their way to ridicule on the show.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What part of it did you think was misleading? At least according to this article, everything they said in it was true (and was supported by Tesla)
I saw the piece quite a while ago, but I found a bunch of things misleading: 1) The way they quoted the 55 mile range made it sound like the 55 mile range was more representative of normal use than the 200 mile figure. I don't recall them ever saying something like "Toyota claims it gets 20mpg, but we've worked out it only gets 3mpg on our test track". Maybe they have (perhaps they mentioned the Veyron's fuel consump…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
fucking chiropractors of all people "quacks" (if they aren't, who possibly could be?) You're mis-informed. Chiropractic treatments are very useful for certain problems. Some quacks say it will treat any and all illness, but most licensed chiropractors I've dealt with have been highly professional. I have first-hand experience. After a knee injury playing on my high school basketball team, I suffered from mild swellin…
If you read the article I linked, the relating articles, or the original author by Simon, you'd know that he was sued for describing chiropractics treating things like ear infections as "bogus". Things that no poorly executed "scientific" study would ever even dream of asserting chiropractics can affect. The extent to which chiropractics can alievate back pain, the only sort of thing they can have a positive impact o…
What I didn't agree with was your cursing proclamation that chiropractors are quacks. Had fewer people held that general belief, I probably wouldn't have suffered as long as I did before being referred to one.
My question is: how did this get to the top position on HN? I could hardly care less about Jeremy Clarkson's opinions, or TV shows such as Top Gear.
I'm going to take a wild guess and say because 173 people clicked on the 'vote up' button
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you read the article I linked, the relating articles, or the original author by Simon, you'd know that he was sued for describing chiropractics treating things like ear infections as "bogus". Things that no poorly executed "scientific" study would ever even dream of asserting chiropractics can affect. The extent to which chiropractics can alievate back pain, the only sort of thing they can have a positive impact o…
I completely agree that the lawsuit is bogus. I also realize that there are some weird alternate care groups in the UK (which somehow get subsidized by tax payers!) What I didn't agree with was your cursing proclamation that chiropractors are quacks. Had fewer people held that general belief, I probably wouldn't have suffered as long as I did before being referred to one.
And your personal anecdote is meaningless. I know an elderly lady who swears she's met aliens. Nice lady, not trying to get on the local news, no reason to lie. I honestly think she believes it. Doesn't mean alien encounters aren't bullshit.
Unreproducible anecdotes are not how science works.
EDIT: There seems to be a believe in some circles that chiropractors are just a type of legitimate "back doctor". This is the most important misconception that needs to be stopped in it's tracks, the rest would really just be icing on the cake.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think any victory in courts is going to be a pyrrhic one. Ive said it before on earlier threads and I will say it again here - Tesla is alienating a large section of auto enthusiasts by going after Top Gear. It might be that some marketing guru has figured out that suing Top Gear is a cheaper way to get headlines than running a campaign. But they have picked the wrong target - Top Gear is at the heart and centre of…
I don't know, I think if you're an enthusiast who cares about the environment, Clarkson isn't your favorite guy ever. I felt like the piece on the Tesla was pretty offensive in how biased it was, and I normally like the guys on Top Gear.