vertr07

No, but it's better than being paranoid and not doing anything about it.

Maybe reflash your bios? Have you considered that it might be your network?

So turn it off while you are working.

Reddit is over there. <<<<<<<

They are "mocking" Gladwell for presenting anecdotes as science, not for simplification.

Perhaps the name was fake?

I agree, locks are a pain. I would be more excited about bike storage co-ops in the city than this too. I only commute by bike when I can keep it in the building. My bikes are never locked outside unless its for a short duration or very close.

I really don't see that happening on a campus. If I'm going to setup a bike share, I'm not going to leave the bikes outside locked in a public place.

Second, keys are pretty fucking convenient. What exactly is the downside of keys?

Finally, you should disclose that this is your project when commenting on it.

Did these guys think about the bike lock market at all when they created this? Why reinvent the wheel? For bike locks people value security and convenience. This offers neither over standard key locks.

I'm a cyclist. Why would I want to mess with an electro lock when all I want to do is get on my bike and ride? This seems a symptom of 'an app for everything' syndrome.

Seems like he mixed a few quotes up to me. ;)

You can deny the categories all you want, but that doesn't mean you don't fall into one of them. Ideology does make a mess of things, but that doesn't mean that the causes gripped by ideology are incorrect. (On either side.)

Nihilism?

I think what you are referring to is: “He who stands for nothing will fall for anything.” ― Alexander Hamilton

Nice try though.

I always find it funny when the religious claim that atheists are actually religious too and use that to dismiss them.

Way out of line. It is pretty clear from your comments that you automatically think that anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot. That's funny given the lack of depth your thinking demonstrates so far.

Arguing that your opponent's argument is a "fringe notion" and throwing it in with another irrelevant example of a fringe notion is a pathetic excuse for a counter. You actually have to write a direct counter-argument instead of relying on dismissiveness and fallacy. But hey, acting like an asshole is definitely the easier way.

It is important to note that this appears to apply to a limited selection of books.

Since when did the market price for books reflect the effort put in by the author?

They are definitely putting the design talent of every other American automaker to shame.

>I don't think you should be so sure that all solutions to cancer have been tried.

He never said that.

>There is no money in natural cures, so most researchers don't bother.

Even if this is true, it doesn't mean the natural cures actually exist in a usable way currently.

>And then, of course, this being in the internet and all, you insult the intelligence of the poster.

>Fool.

Cute.

'Natural' products appeal to people who apparently have a distrust of technology, drug companies, etc. I think the notion of natural breakfast cereal, or natural processed products is hilarious to begin with (where exactly is this in nature?). I think if you label a product as natural it is pretty out of touch with the actual definition and intention of the word.

I'm not sure that I agree though that diluting the word natural is the best course of putting the hucksters out of business. We already have a lot of that, and people still buy into natural cures and food without any scientific backing whatsoever.

Perhaps we need more aggressive public education in skepticism and rational thinking?

Jobs is a good counter-example to this kind of thinking. A guy with effectively unlimited resources couldn't find a natural cancer cure.

But 'cancertutor.com' is just the ticket! Bleh.

All you have to do is invoke the magical word 'natural' and you have your audience.

It always astonishes me that texts like this seem legitimate to some people.

It's the cures they don't want you to have! Reminds me of this guy: http://www.skepdic.com/trudeau.html

>Not only is cancer not caused by DNA damage, but safe and gentle natural medicine cancer treatments exist that can revert cancer cells into normal cells. This was first done in the 1930s, but the technology was shut down by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is essentially the "police force" of the ultra-wealthy and politically-connected drug companies.

Seems legit and not conspiratorial AT ALL.

Wow, all of those links are full of utter bs.