In My Memory

I assume a product like that is a "last defence" kind of product. If it is safe, and women are willing to use it, then I dont see why it shouldnt be produced. The only thing safer is a chastity belt.

John,

I originally intended this thread to feature of a few popular commercial products, but I just couldnt resist posting this program that I discovered in one of the Google ads that appears the top of this site! This is perhaps the strangest product I've found yet: Mental Pilates: When I was searching through the Mental Pilates site, I could not find any pictures of the product. I assume the product is a series of exercise tapes to teach users various methods of how to meditate. Here are some of the claims of the product: Essentially, the program aims to help you become more emotionally stable, develop your innermost personal convictions, and achieve mental vitality. I think all it takes to discredit this product is to post what the author believes is scientific evidence: I was disappointed, the authors didnt use the word "vibrations" not one time. Oh well

Sayonara got it. Browsers tend to ignore whitespace (such as 3 or more consequetive spaces and tabs), the nbsp forces the Browser to insert an extra space. You can find uses for this code when you want to seperate words with more than three spaces, or prevent words from wrapping around the text window (assuming you are too lazy to consider the [nobr] tag), or if your ASP/PHP code is having difficulty spacing text the way you intend.

Budullewraagh, A sense of jaded negativity I suppose. I consider that he is relatively new, and doesnt have a great deal to show, so I have little reason to throw my hands up for him to cheer as loudly as the rest of Illinois. At best, his high-profile entrance into politics and high public approval are good predictors of his solid place in politics, but I'm afraid I am without reason to believe he should be anymore remarkable any other politician. (If in the worst case scenario, that he habitually votes along party lines, then my respect for him would be on the same level as every other ideological politician.) Pangloss, I wouldnt call him an extremist, but recently I've been rather disappointed with McCain. My repsect for McCain has waned after he campaigned heavily for a Bush victory in '04. Recently, he has trumpeted Mr. Bush's social security plan. However, the fact McCain supports this plan so ardently before Bush considers actually revealing his social security fix is evidence that McCain is merely toeing the partisan line. Those kinds of moves cost him valuable integrity points. Dapthar, Maybe we should raise our standards of "electable ticket" above a man to the left of the Democrat's mean, and above the level of a former ambulance chaser. The election was very close, 51/49, it seems the nation voted virtually along party lines. I believe the deciding factor in the election were the "moral values" factor (which to anyone who can read between the lines, translates directly into "smear the queers") that probably put Bush over the top. I believe that particular constitutional provision should be repealed. The provision was originally included to prevent English kingsmen from obtaining power and eventually merging the US back under the English monarchy - I dont think we need to worry about those things now. Today, the natural-born requirement discriminates against certain group of citizens, and I consider that to be grounds to declare the Article II obsolete. Democrats are currently opposing the provisions to rewrite the Article is to prevent Arnold from becoming president (if he ran, I'm certain he would win). A major problem for the Democrats in refusing to re-amend the constitution is that is looks like they are being prejudiced against people from foreign nations - Dems are stuck being a rock and a hard place.

Pangloss,

If for a few minutes I played along and egged her on, does that make a bad person? (Recently, I learned the backstory behind the stange idea: inspired by Discovery Health channel's stories of maggots cleaning wounds and leeches draining swollen limbs, a groan woman feels enchanted to try her own home remedies - that would make for a fun call to the hospital. )

No surprise to find yet many more weight-loss scams: From Consumer Health Digest - National Council Against Health Fraud: One of these products in particular, the TrimSpa, is one that really sets off my skeptical alarms. Those particular commercials use the slogan "Be envied", and make what I would consider vulgar use of sex appeal to sell their product. The FDA warns to watch for false claims:

Weasel Here is how I consider: I suppose in a watered down way' date=' morality essentially stems from what people believe is the best way to behave - in other words, the ultimate origin of morality exists in part from the fact that some behaviors can be more desirable than others. The beauty of that particular definition is in its simplicity. It can be deduced logically from almost every definition of morality imagined (usually, morality is defined as "the branch of philosophy which concerns itself with right and wrong actions"). And this particular definition makes so few unnecessary demands that, for the most part, I find it can be acceptable to even the most strident of subjectivists and nihilists. Reason. People argue all the time - presumably, people in argument are doing more than just expressing whether they believe something is acceptable or not, they are having disagreements about actual objective facts (such as the rightness or wrongness of [moral dilemma of your choice here]). Sorting out the facts tells you whether something is right or wrong. It it must be asked "on what criteria should we judge the objective facts of moral questions", I would say such criteria themselves can be reasoned. As long as morality isnt shoved aside in favor of relativist logic such as "thats only your opinion", or committed to subjective aestetic tastes, then there is always room for the force of reason to determine right and wrong. Specifically, on Divine Command theories of morality: Morality being defined in the way I've put forward is the fact that it does not limit morality to the subjective tastes of a hypothetical God. I've considered that any command God could prescribe, I could command the same things - there is no intrinsic difference between God's commands and my own (except that God could probably crush you like a bug). I've always figured that if God could not mount his moral commands on a solid foundation of logic and reason, then his commands have no merit. There is a famous dilemma, called the Euthyphro, which without being winded acknowledges that either God considers some things to be moral because there are objective reasons to believe they are moral (in which case, morality exists outside of God, and such objective reasons can be obtained by theists and non-theists), or some things are moral because God values them (in which case, as there are no objective reasons to consider something moral, a non-theist no worse off than a theist in behaving morally). Whatever the case, it ought to be rejected that morality must be determined by a God. Certain actions can certainly be reasoned to be more desirable than other actions, so this is a definite yes. Because I value consistency and reason. For the most part, the things I consider to be ethical probably fall very closely along the lines of the preference utilitarian. The short and sweet explanation for why I find this ethic to be most believable is: it follows logically from the fact that causing things pain or dissatisfying preferences is intrinsically undesirable (such acts would be considered immoral), and likewise contributing to happiness and satisfying preferences is intrinsically desirable (such acts are moral). Another good point about this form of ethic is universal prescriptivism: on the basis that feeling pains and happiness is morally relevant and is a universal feature across all societies and cultures, I flatly reject the idea that certain moral actions are culturally relative. I wouldnt say I believe anything for the reason that I had been taught to believe those things. My ethical system (which when expounded in more complete terms lends itself to veganism, animal rights consideration, environmentalism, and many interesting life and death concerns) is probably far out of the mainstream, but I consider that to be merely a result of mainstream ethics being murky, underdeveloped, and a minefield of contradictory moral values. "Just say 'no' to the status quo" is what I always say (actually, I've never said that, but maybe today I'll start ) Hope this helps

Metabolism seems to be the most universal feature of life, so I choose to limit my definition of life at that point. Plants, trees, fish, ova, sperm, gametes, blastocysts, embryos, fetuses, and human beings are all living things. Yes, from the moment of conception, whatever blob of cells that is created is "alive". The debate of when life begins is what I consider to be a discredit to the pro-choice movement. I cannot understand by any standard, scientifically acceptable definition of life, something that metabolizes nutrients for growth isnt considered a life - which a pre-embryo blob of cells certainly can do. "When life begins" isnt morally meaningful. Pro-life and pro-choice should focus their efforts on defining how a being attains moral worth. However, pro-life is maken if they claim to believe "life" is intrinsically of moral worth in itself, and certainly mistaken if they believe something being a "life" implies an absolute moral imperative to protect the life. I think this point proves itself over and over again at the dinner table. When I consider the question "when is something morally valuable", I have a tendency to consider a utilitarian approach (such as the utilitarian arguments presented by Peter Singer). Unless I am terribly mistaken, it is very difficult to give much moral weight to a being that cannot suffer, is not sentient, has no interests at all - therefore, I do not believe the fetus (regardless of the fact it is a life) has any moral status until it achieve some level of sentience, and I dont think pro-life can be defended coherently unless it seriously reconsiders its moral foundations.

Nameta, Nature for the most part isnt terribly goal-oriented (I believe the analogy is "the blind watchmaker"), so trying to imagine it churning out things to achieve some secondary goal (or even a primary goal) is probably skirting into the territory of anthromorphism. Its probably inappropriate to ask "did nature evolve me to invent the microchip?". Although, I find inspiration in the complexity (whatever that means) arising out of nature from a few simple mathematical functions: * the movement of a speck of dust, while unpredictable and seemingly random, can be precisely stated as a few simple mathematical rules * the movement of stream will sort rocks according to their size and density (larger rocks will be found in fast moving water, smaller rocks and silts will be found in sluggish water) * populations of animals can be modeled and predicted on a few simple differencial equation * Clouds, coastlines, and mountain tops appear to more or less meaningless, but models of these objects can be expressed as chaotic systems I find such things very aesthetically intriguing.

I am a more humble, and perhaps a better human being for having seen that. Come, we shall found a religion!

Might as well be the first to copy/paste the Farenheit 9/11 soundtrack: 1. I Am A Patriot (And The River Opens For The Righteous) - Little Steven & the Disciples of Soul 2. Chimes Of Freedom (Live) - Bruce Springsteen 3. With God On Our Side - Bob Dylan 4. We Want It All - Zack de la Rocha 5. Boom! - System Of A Down 6. No One Left - The Nightwatchman 7. Masters Of War (Live) - Pearl Jam 8. Travelin' Soldier - Dixie Chicks 9. Fortunate Son (Live) - John Fogerty 10. Know Your Rights - The Clash 11. The Revolution Starts Now - Steve Earle 12. Where Is The Love? - Black Eyed Peas feat. Justin Timberlake 13. Good Night, New York (Live) - Nanci Griffith 14. Hallelujah - Jeff Buckley

Validation: Turn "detoxifier" on without putting you feet in, watch water become murky. Ad hoc explanation: Clearly, the machine works so well that it pulls toxins from the nearest person through the air and into the machine. Simply being around one of these things is enough to make you healthy! The One True™ scientific explanation is: [insert 10,000 word long technobabble littered with words "quantum", and if possible "vibrations" and "supervenience" to make ad hoc explanation sound believable. Paragraph breaks should be eliminated to add legitimacy to explanation whilst maximizing frustration for potential debunkers.]

Sometimes it is very difficult to spot the pseudoscience in household products, but there are a lot of them. Sometimes these products can cause physical injury to you or the people around you, but almost always they will injure your wallet. I'll use this thread to post pseudoscientific products, feel free to add your own products as well (I also recommend including a link to said item, a picture, and information regarding why the product is pseudoscience). That being said, here is the first product I can find: Ionic Breeze by Sharper Image, a silent air purifier. It claims to remove allergens and make the air inside your home fresh and clean. Consumer Research is unimpressed by the Ionic Breeze: So, the Ionic Breeze does not clean air, and much worse it produces illegally high levels of ozone. The Ionic Breeze gets an "A" for being one of the quietest air cleaners on the market, but an "F" for the "works as advertised" department. I suppose at a bargain of about US$200 to US$500, you really get what you paid for.

Hellbender, The US$250,000 prize is more than a publicity stunt, its fraudulent. It cant be won. TalkOrigins has an impressive critique of the prize. Hovind uses the blanket term "evolution" to lump together almost the whole of biological sciences, cosmologies, and (I'm pretty sure its safe to say) the entirety of all sciences. His challenge is essentially as follows: * "Evolution" most be proven objectively and scientifically, and leave no room for the idea that it could have taken place with God * The evidence will be presented to a panel of "trained scientists" of Hovind's choosing (the scientists will remain nameless and anonymous) * Hovind will report the result of the scientists judgment * It most be "proven" that evolution is the only possible way anything in the universe could have formed. You know, I almost feel obligated to set up In My Memory's US$1,000,000 challenge. I will make it simple: Kent Hovind will have to prove any claim using his very own protocol of secret judges, disproving all alternative explanations, etc., then Mr. Hovind can judge for himself whether my test is fair. Answers In Genesis - Maintaining Creationist Integrity has a fairly scathing critique of Mr. Hovind. Off topic: Some Creationists are almost adorable in their crackpottery in comparison to Hovind. Have you heard of Ed Conrad? Some people might remember him from Sci.Evolution on Usenet a few years ago. Conrad believed pieces of coal that looked like body parts were actually fossilized human fingers and toes He's not a PhD at all. Some information on his education: For US$50 and a 2 weeks out of your life, you could have the "PhD" credentials of Mr. Hovind.

The imbalance is actually strikingly deceptive. Using Excel' date=' I've put together some data and created this chart to show the balance of power using our [i']current social security system[/i]: Annual Income Average SS Paid Average Benefits Paid/Benefit Per Year Per Year (Larger numbers denote Larger financial burden) < US$45 000 US$2 790 US$9 160 .3045 US$45 001 US$4 650 US$13 688 .3397 to US$85 000 > US$85 001 US$5 580 US$17 700 .3152 (These numbers are not intended to add up to 1.00) [The chart assume 6.2% Social Security tax. The figures for projecting the benefits come from [url=http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/quickcalc/index.html]SSA.gov Social Security Calculator[/url].] Unless my math is incorrect (which I wouldnt exclude as a possibility as the process of computing social security burden across 10 financial brackets is complicated), the greatest financial burden is on the middle class. When you break down the burden into much smaller teirs (i.e. US$10 000 - US$15 000, US$15 001 to US$20 000, etc.), the greatest financial burden appears to be focused toward the middle 68.5% of Americans (i.e. US$55 000 +/- US$11 400). Low-income families have the least burden, whereas higher income families have an intermediate burden. Allowing taxpayers to opt out does not increase the financial burden - the only thing that really makes your US$1 worth less is when citizens retire early and live longer, otherwise the calculations in a few hypothetical models I've put into Excel show no essential change in the burden of social security. (However, when trying to calculate how this would effect the social security deficit, my numbers would not converge on a single date. Estimates are around 2100 of SS rates between 6% and 7%, with wide discrepancy noted.)

The opening post is much longer than I realized at first, so for all the people who are much too overwhelmed to read it all, here is a summary: * Social security has problems, but current privatizing solutions do nothing to solve them. * On the other hand, opting out of social security is good. * One less person to pay into social security means one less person to inherit benefits. Proportionately, there is no net gain or loss. * People who find social security to be sound may have the option to stay in the current system, otherwise they may withdraw from the system and be reimbursed. * This particular system can save social security without resorting to drastic measures of increasing taxes or reducing benefits. * Much of the burden of social security is relieved from government and unwilling taxpayers. * Everyone goes home happy.

I think only the people hiding under the largest of rocks, on the most distant planets, without cable, havent heard about the plan to reform the US Social Security system to privatize security. The problems are to social security are obvious (increasing burden on taxpayers, especially as more people are retiring earlier and living longer), but I dont think privatizing social security is a solution (the 39 - 55 year old group will lose immediate benefits before investments have time to compensate, and price index formulas predict privatizing will result in net loss for investors). So, I have a better plan: Allow Americans to opt out of social security. The idea isnt original, but I am not sure why it hasnt caught on. At least to me, it would seem like some of the basic premises of allowing Americans to opt out are obvious: Imagine if a hypothetical American, Bob, has been working for 10 years. He has paid into social security at least US$2000 (accuracy in numbers isnt necessary to get the point across). If he chose not to opt out of social security, he will have paid another US$8000 over the next 30 or so years. However, Bob chooses to opt out of social security. He is now owed US$2000 (or whatever its 2040 equivalent), which will presumably be paid back to him either in installments, or upon his retirement (it will be as if he never opted out, but his benefits have been reduced to US$2000, and no more than US$2000). I consider the current integrity of government will probably reimburse Bob with US$2000 upon retirement (for the reason that US$2000 being worth slightly less in 2040 is a sly way of cutting benefits); the spirit of lurking variables in this type of governmental slyness allows for slight curtailing of social security reserves from being depleted so quickly. Otherwise, paying Bob the 2040 equivelant to his 2005 investment of US$2000 allows the mathematics of social security to break even, as it follows that one less person paying into social security implies one less person to inherit the benefits of social security. In this sense, the individuals who have faith in Social Security will remain happy, as essentially the pool of money which pays them social security is proportionately identical a system in which no one were allowed to opt out. The individuals who believe social security is a ponzi scheme or nothing more than robbery, they will be happy as well seeing an instantaneous increase in their net income by 7.5%. I can imagine that the additional cash in the average American's pocket will make the supply-side economists happy as well. I think the people most likely to opt out are the individuals with incomes below US$25000, and the individuals above US$150000. Theoretically, this particular type of reform in social security ought to involve no increase in taxes (unless there is some kind of one-time only "opt out of social security tax"), and no decrease in benefits, and be less burdensome on taxpayers. It is a win-win-win situation. I predict that if given the option to opt out, most people would take it - and inevitably, the social security program will most likely dissolve on its own, but the effects will be profoundly positive. A large fiscal burden will be shifted off the government on the basis that the social security decifit ought to be reduced substancially, and many previously unwilling taxpayers will become satisfied. Only until we allow taxpayers to opt out of social security is the idea of a private retirement fund optimally sensible. I would recommend for individuals who feel that an important safety net has been cut away to seek the assistence of professional retirement counselors, or perhaps work out a system that would forward some amount of money per paycheck into a completely private savings account (the "safety net" theory is essentially identical to social security, but now you get out exactly what you put in + interest). Provided I havent overlooked a fundamental flaw, I personally find the idea of opting out of social security to be 100x simpler and more stable than currently proposed social security fixes. (Of course, before I commit myself to trying to encourage public support for the "opt out" solution, I will try to establish the solution on a firm foundation of statistics, greater appeal to commonly accepted economic theories, and colorful charts).

Amen! (I thought tax-exemption implied the churches do not participate in government?)

OH! You poor young man! On a serious note, I get most of my news from... blogs... there, I've said it, and I am ashamed to admit it . My preferred blog is the About.com - Atheism/Agnosticism blog, it is high quality material whenever I care to follow the religious news. For political commentary, I prefer St. Cynic - Dispatches from the Culture Wars. When I'm not reading blogs, I enjoy TIME, Google News, BBC for non-US news, and follow items of interests that crop up in the "politics" section of some of the other messageboards I follow. And when I have time, I might read a Weekly World News.

My fondest wishes go to the pope