Archive

Archive for November 7, 2010

NSFW Links: Nov 7, 2010

November 7, 2010 Leave a comment

Yes, these links are NSFW.

Olga from MetArt: Unika Black leather boots, black leather chair and one nekkid chic.

Self Shots: Nov 6, 2010 You are so vain..

Enjoy!

Categories: Uncategorized

The Concept of “Illegal” is Fatally Flawed

November 7, 2010 8 comments

CONservatives and LIEbrals have some common interests, and one of them is-

Making things, actions, ideas or behaviors which they don’t like “illegal”.

While they are differences in their tastes, morality and levels of stupidity, both groups have abiding faith in the ability of written law to ‘change the world for the better’ (or they pretend that the law can do that). Whether it is abortion, guns, gay marriages, drugs, the environment, immigration or outsourcing- clever morons seem to believe that problems can be solved with more laws, rules and regulations.

While basic laws, rules and regulations have their place in a functional society, multiplying their numbers to ‘solve’ non-problems creates even more dysfunction and problems.

Let me explain- Very few people would support the view that pre-mediated homicide is not a crime, even if there were some contributing or aggravating factors. On the other hand unintentional homicide or self-defense are a gray area, in which each case has to be evaluated on its own merits.

Now let us consider drug use. Alcohol and tobacco use is condoned and taxed, while other drugs such as pot, methamphetamine or opiates are “illegal”. However more people die due to the abuse/use of alcohol and tobacco than all other “illegal” drugs combined. This is inspite of far better quality control for and lack of criminal activity associated with legal drugs. Moreover, drugs like methamphetamine are both easily available and cheap enough for poor whites to abuse them.

So what we consider “legal” or “illegal” is a matter of taste and ideology, not reason or social utility. While the previous example uses drugs to illustrate that point, it can be applied to every other area of law, rules and regulations.

The unpleasant reality is that most laws, rules and regulations are about taste, personal morality, control issues and other other assorted brainfarts masquerading as social utility and reason.

Even worse, they are not applied consistently or fairly.

You might say- ‘but why is that bad?’ or ‘it has always been like that?’

My answer is – What worked yesterday might not work today. Each system has inbuilt limits to the internal stains it can endure before it implodes or falls apart. These limits change and evolve over time. A young and growing population can paper over many flaws in a system which only become obvious when the boom is over.

Things change.. Who is going to pay for the ever increasing cost of drug law enforcement? What about incarceration rates and the cost of doing so? How are you going to deal with the stifling effects of current patent and copyright laws on innovation? Who is going to pay for governmental agencies that are nosy and disruptive but without any utility? What about the neglect of useful regulations and agencies?

Do you really think that all of this is without consequence? Can you really solve problems with more laws, rules and regulations? Maybe the application and evolution of basic laws, rules and regulations is more important for a functional society.

In any case, it might be necessary to move away from an arbitrary concept of “illegal” to one of “clearly defined and demonstrable, reproducible, quantifiable negative utility”.

Comments?

How To Perform Fraudulent, Incomplete or Useless Medical Research: 1

November 7, 2010 4 comments

I thought that an introduction to the real current state of biomedical research might be useful before any discussion about specific problems arising from it are discussed.

Let me start by giving you a quick explanation about how we got here.

The success of biomedical research prior to the 1970s made it a very lucrative area of research. However, this same lucrativeness made it attract the worst of “scientists” in the 1970-late 1990s timespan . Essentially biomedical research is populated by the most dishonest, narcissistic, feminine, incompetent, lying, thieving, politically minded subhumans that any major scientific field had the misfortune of attracting.

There is a reason why the majority of peer-reviewed biomedical research is unreproducible and even the reproducible parts are gamed and meaningless. Almost every single news item about a new cure for disease x or y is an utter fraud, delusion, fantasy or scam. The reality is that killing every single researcher who works in a university or institute devoted to medical research would have practically no negative effect on progress in that field. It might, paradoxically, lead to real advances and progress in that area.

So why did I talk about the 1970-late 1990s timespan? are people getting more honest? The answer is- regrettable NO. Since the late 1990s the classical mode of fraud has started to run out of money and some rats have jumped onto other related ships.

So, is there something else about biomedical research as a subject (even without the money) that makes it particularly susceptible to fraud and so attractive to sociopaths? The answer is a bit complicated, and a short version is given in the next paragraph.

The answer partially lies in the type of people who are often attracted to biomedical research. Regrettably, it attracts people with a god or messiah complex. Now that in itself would not be a big issue if they had a good basic science or math background, but they do not. Biomedical science is full of people with big egos and poor objective thinking skills. They may be clever, but objectivity and intelligence are not their strong points.

Another problem is that the major sources of talent for biomedical research, premed and physician types, are notorious for lacking any ability to think outside the box. Their minds are best suited for regurgitating information and appearing competent. Dogmatic types who follow authority, protocol and tradition do not make good scientists.

The problems with biomedical research therefore lie in both the perverse economic incentives and types of personalities prevalent in that field.

I will write more in future parts of this series.

Comments?