How to get rabies

You know that feeling you get sometimes when you absolutely want to have rabies? Well, here's how to get it.

Get a flight ticket to some poor country where dogs are running freely. There should be garbage lying around in this country, since the dogs then will live on the garbage. That will be a natural attractive place for dogs to meet and spread diseases between each other. The good thing is also that those meeting places will be easy for you to find - ask the local citizen about where people dispose their garbage. If this is a poor country (as recommended), chances are that the animal (disease) control are terrible and that rabies thrives among the animals.

A symptom of rabies is aggression. The last thing you need to do is to get close to a dog that acts weirdly or especially shows signs of aggression.

Disclaimer: for educational purpose. Rabies is a terrible deadly disease, don't get it. Also, I'm no more educated than you about the subject, so don't take my word for it.

Best pointless list of top 10 arbitrary cats of no special significance

Here's my list of top 10 best cats in no particular order. They're completely arbitrary and the cats doesn't even exists. This is a list of my imagination and nobody knows what it is that I'm really imagining. Yep, this is what the internet has come to.

1. A cat not making sense. It has cake on its head and it eats bread. LOL. I call it lolcat.
2. Spacecat
3. Dogcat
4. Asciicat
5. Spicecat
6. Trollolololcat and trollcat
7. 7cat
8. My imaginary cat friend
9. toaster cat, I use it when I pretend to toast bread
10. chocolatecat-2000, known for its ability to flip coins in reverse
11. Physics cat, also known as 11cat. It's outside the system and not even on the list.

Freedom!

Why this post you might ask? We'll it's simply an experiment. I don't think anyone is reading this blog even.

Copy-paste without the formatting in Linux

When you copy something in Firefox, it copies the formatting too. If you are experiencing weird formatting when you're pasting something from one page into another (say, a WYSIWYG editor in FF) you can paste it in plain text with CTRL+SHIFT+V.

Have some cake.

What is a Canuck?

A canuck is a low-res person who's half part of the head is completely separated from the lower part of the head. As the canuck speak, the higher part of the head moves around randomly with about 5 frames per second in a really low-budget way to represent mouth movement. They prefer to eat hockey.

Quick note on EzineArticles

I reviewed an article yesterday that I consier harmful quackery. I noted that the very same "expert author" (a title you pay for and do nothing else to earn) has multiple articles on EzineArticles. I suppose that sums up what EzineArticles is worth.

EFT tapping, it's stupid and pseudoscience

I came across this video the other day, after seeing an episode of Penn & Teller's bullshit where EFT tapping were covered: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCXsWRXHBSM (that basically sums up EFT tapping). Note the sheer irony of that video.

Later I found this article with the most misleading title ever, while trying to find resources pointing out the stupidity of EFT tapping. Since I mostly found more stupid miracle claims about EFT tapping while trying to find sensible opinions about it, I'm writing this post hoping that I can save at least one soul from its sheer stupidity. I feel that posts like this drowns in a sea of positive claims about EFT, and that more posts of this kind are needed.

I'll write it as a response to Audrey Finch's article linked above. Note how the article advertises some company or site called "Better Life 4u" after stating seemingly good things about EFT tapping.

So why do I even care? Because those darn things are advertised as therapies. From the article: "A lot of people are very sceptical [sic] about EFT as a therapy, but are soon convinced of its effectiveness."

There are real people out there, feeling bad, who are looking for helpful resources online. Instead of coming across more useful and more scientific resources, some people end up buying junk from "Better Life 4u" and the like instead of getting real professional help. It would be one thing if EFT tapping worked as claimed, but it does not.

Lets review the article (that I consider dangerous), shall we. Everything cited from hereon is from that article unless stated otherwise. Now, we don't even have to consult science (yet, but we will) for the article to look suspicious and raise a lot of eyebrows.

"EFT or eft tapping works by having the client tap various parts of their body while talking to themselves. I know, it sounds crazy when you put it like that, but I have seen it work time and time again."

Yes, it do sound crazy and you don't have any reason to believe that it 'works' (whatever that means) until you have reason to believe otherwise. Now, why should we believe that it works? Here are some claims of what it can do, and how it "works".

Here are all the claims I could extract from the article about what EFT do for you:

• "It can even be used to improve your golf game!"
• "Well, I think there are a couple of reasons why it works so effectively." Note the "Well, I think", that's very academic (not). This is a cite early from the article, where EFT is just claimed to work, as if that is a thing in 
• "[..] but it [doing EFT] is actually incredibly powerful [..]". Again a meaningless claim that means absolutely nothing. The sentence continues with another claim (yes it's not coupled with the former cite semantically):
• "[..] and it can often provide instant relief when everything else has failed.". 
• "All in all EFT is a safe, fun, holistic therapy which keeps on delivering amazing results.". What is it delivering really?

So there is only one actual claim here that makes sense at all (since context says nothing about what the other stuff means). It talks about relief. So EFT tapping can give us some relief? Well, what kind of relief is she talking about really? It sounds like a panacea, you can interpret it anyhow you like; "it relief my physical pain, it relief my emotional pain, it relief my urge to eat". Perhaps I just haven't understood what she really mean by relief, and are making a lot of hasty assumptions here. I should see what her website says first (sorry, I'm not going to link to a website like that, but you can google the phrase if you want the source or click the link in her article) "relief from pain, diseases and emotional issues". If you keep reading on that page, it seems like a miracle cure for pretty much anything. Hence, she IS advertising a panacea.

What's so nasty and sad about it, is that people WANT relief from things, some are desperate for it, and she's selling a fake cure for it (bear with me, I need to back that up). It's highly unethical. Those who gets caught in this trap are people in need for real help, or those who are desperate and wants to believe.

The physics of this super panacea is explained with the help of a bunch of straw man fallacies (a kind of logical fallacy, often abused), deliberately if you let me guess. This is how it works, according to the article:

"First of all, our mind, body and soul, or spirit, are connected. That means if you feel sad, your whole body feels sad. If you are angry, every part of you is angry. The second reason is that we are composed of energy which flows through us and which can sometimes get blocked."

That tells me absolutely nothing about why it works, but let's bear with her. First there's that metaphysical claim about mind, body and soul/spirit being connected. That still don't actually mean anything in general, but let's bear with her. Se says that it means that "if you feel sad, your whole body feels sad". Again, that actually doesn't mean anything. You can feel sad, but your body feeling sad, what does that actually mean? Let's just keep bearing with her.

Next she claims that we're composed of energy which flows trough us and which can sometimes be blocked. Alright, yet another nonsensical claim without any connections to reality. This vague "energy flow whatever" is actually a pseudotheory that has been tried to be proved multiple times, and it has never ever in any way passed any real scientific test. It lacks proof and it has been disproved. Altogether, it's also nonsensical. This nonsense is what she base the rest of her theory about how EFT works. We'll get back to that.

So, the article continues with a paragraph or two where she paints a general scenario about stress (where people can relate), about feeling bad and talks about emotions (I give the paragraphs and the nonsense that appears here and there an F- in empathy). There are some meager actual facts stated there too, such as that your digestion slows down when you're stressed. It also name drops 'flight and fight'. But overall it's nothing impressive (I give that small part an E-), I've seen better pre-school homework. Now, what I want to say here is that the 'flight and fight & stress' talk has absolutely nothing to do with EFT or the article in general. The paragraph is completely off-topic in the article and does not relate to the rest of the content in any way. But it tries to bind that paragraph with the nonsensical junk that it's trying to sell:

"[...] Your heart will beat faster, blood will flow to the main muscles [..] is prolonged these changes to do real damage to your body.

This is where the energy comes in. EFT proposes that throughout your life you are being impacted by events for good or bad. These experiences add to the 'writing on your wall'. In other words, your values and beliefs are formed by your experiences. These can cause a blockage, or a malfunction within your internal energy field."

Can you see how those two paragraphs relates to each other in any way at all? I certainly can't. I don't even see how "the energy comes in" there. How does it come in there?

I can't even bear with her anymore. But let's keep going anyway. After the energy "comes in", there's a lot of nonsensical rambling. That's what it is, it's nonsensical with no scientific ground whatsoever. It's starting to get really bizarre. But she has this extremely weird straw man of energies that she's been working with for a while, so how's it going to end?

"EFT tapping works by removing these blockages and has been described as acupuncture without the needles. By tapping one end of an energy line, you remove the blockage, allowing energy to flow freely. Proper balance is restored."

Even if that mumbo-jumbo were true, "proper balance is restored" makes no sense in the context of removing a blockade so that the 'energy can flow'. And tapping in the end of an energy line (yet again more nonsense even in the nonsensical context itself), that removes the blockade? How does she know all this? She keeps making up all this nonsense. She's not even a doctor, and even less a psychiatrist.

It's all just bullcake, and it looks stupid because it is. It's sad and it's abusive. I'm not even allowed to use the words I believe is appropriate for such misleading psybhaviorathy. It's crackpottery.

What do REAL psychologists and scientist have to say about EFT? Here's an abstract of a paper: http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/a0016025

And here's how someone sums up that very same paper on wikipedia:

"A 2009 review found "methodological flaws" in some research studies that had reported "small successes" for EFT and the related Tapas Acupressure Technique. The review concluded that positive results may be "attributable to well-known cognitive and behavioral techniques that are included with the energy manipulation. Psychologists and researchers should be wary of using such techniques, and make efforts to inform the public about the ill effects of therapies that advertise miraculous claims."

I also find the following extremely manipulative (near the end of the article before the panacea product is pushed up in your face). Yet again we're painting imaginary things with conviction and we're building hopes.

"However, EFT can bring traumatic memories and emotions to the fore, so treat it with respect. Careful questioning can be used to tackle deep-seated issues quickly, without the need for reliving past experiences."

Translation:

"With great power comes great responsibility, blah blah blah.. and this is professional stuff, professional careful quackery can quack quickly without quack BUT(!) --see I have a solution-- here's my professional opinion quack quack.. let's touch your sensitive spots a little you traumatized duck.. put your trust in me and my quackery, I'm a professional quack... your past experiences are part of this quackery".

Are Harry Potter and religion comparable? Fiction and religion

I just need to make myself clear before we begin. This is by no mean any attack against any group (especially not a specific religious group). I'm trying to take a completely objective and logical view on Harry Potter and the typical religious script and compare those two. If anyone is offended by that, they are not looking at it rationally but are projecting their own views (not mine) on this article. You are free to write a blogpost in response and criticize me, no one is being evil here, I'm just expressing what I sincerely believe without hating anyone (in this specific post). The following is my analysis, not my opinions (heck, I might even be a religious fanatic, it shouldn't make a difference). If something is wrong, it's a logical error, not an error in opinion. I'm trying to be rational here

Alright, so if you haven't read any Harry Potter books (or seen any of its movies), you'll learn what you need to know here anyway. In short: Harry Potter is a child of two wizards who died when he was a babie, and he's attending to a Wizard school (named Hogwart or something) where magic drama is happening as in any other typical wizard-high-school movie/book.

Here are some similarities between Harry Potter and the typical religious holy script:

• Both texts involves spectacular events and abilities. Harry Potter can fly with his broom and make things fly with his magic, and the characters in the scripts conducts spectacular miracles comparable with the things the characters in Harry Potter do.
• In both texts, physics as we know it is defied. No need to point out the [in my opinion absurd] differences between our experience of how the world really behaves, and how it work in Harry Potter. Similar law-defying physics appears to happen in the typical script too. None of the "miracles" in neither text can be demonstrated with an experiment/demonstration other than with illusions (magic tricks), CGI (computer-generated imagery), misunderstanding or with actual expected physical explanations (= non-magic / non-miracles .. e.g. taking antibiotics to get rid of a bacteria).
• Scripts often make two poles; believers and non-believers (in turn divided to deniers and agnostics). The believers are typically righteous and the agnostics/non-believers are typically "lost" (and will go to hell for that). In the world of Harry Potter a similar kind of dichotomy prevails: there are mugglers (non-magicians) and Wizards (magicians). The wizards are esoteric, and the mugglers don't have a clue about that esoteric stuff.
• There are the evil guys, and the good guys.
• Both contains subjects with super human powers, with no equals observed (concretely) in real life.
• You can curse or praise both texts (while holding them) as much as you want without experiencing any unexpected physical events caused by that. Your expectations and beliefs surrounding the text in question can however make you feel (thus experience) things - caused by psychology well known and explained in a rational and scientific manner.

Some last words. The list can be made much longer, but that's not the point of this post. The point is that I think they are comparable in many ways. You sure can compare many unrelated things, but as literary texts they match quite well. The similarities between Harry Potter and a book in theoretical physics or clinical psychology is however not as digestible as this comparison is. Further, the dissimilarities between fiction and a factual books are similar to the dissimilarities between holy scripts and factual books. As I said, this is not a matter of opinion but the result of callous analyses that I've done - if the results where strictly against any opinions of mine I'd have openly shared those conclusion.