From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Nov 11 18:28:55 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA18864 for chat-outgoing; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 18:28:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-chat) Received: from ns.mt.sri.com (SRI-56K-FR.mt.net [206.127.65.42]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA18852 for ; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 18:28:50 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nate@rocky.mt.sri.com) Received: from rocky.mt.sri.com (rocky.mt.sri.com [206.127.76.100]) by ns.mt.sri.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA05651; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 19:28:42 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from nate@rocky.mt.sri.com) Received: (from nate@localhost) by rocky.mt.sri.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id TAA01045; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 19:28:41 -0700 (MST) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 19:28:41 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <199711120228.TAA01045@rocky.mt.sri.com> From: Nate Williams MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Terry Lambert Cc: don@partsnow.com, perhaps@yes.no, nate@mt.sri.com, freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Newest Pentium bug (fatal) In-Reply-To: <199711120153.SAA20048@usr04.primenet.com> References: <3468FAD1.49A8@PartsNow.com> <199711120153.SAA20048@usr04.primenet.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.29 under 19.15 XEmacs Lucid Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > As I remember, the prayer experiment was very well prepared. The > > pray-ees didn't know they were being prayed for, and the pray-er's > > didn't know who they were praying for, except a first name and a general > > description of the problem. The groups were statistically equal, and > > relatively large. If I remember [too many bosses whizzing past FTL, > > Amancio], there were a total of 400 in the study. > > How can you seperate the telepathy theory from the God theory with this > set up? > > The researchers should have lied about the names, or given only number, > and/or not stated the symptom(s). In my feeble mind, I remeber that the only information given was a 'pseudo-name' (to make it somewhat more personal), and the symptoms were given in order to have the prayers be 'specific'. > They should also have put two guys named "John" with the same disease > in the same room, and see if there was preferential healing of one > "John", or if if there was 50% of the "prayer effect" split between > the two... Yeah, I'm sure they had the ability to pick and choose among all sorts of dieseases and such to make it a truly effective test (NOT!). Nate