EBM is meant to be serious science, but there's been a real effort to co-opt it for quackery. SBM is an attempt to inject science back into it. The difference comes down to how they treat evidence.
For example, homeopathy states that a remedy becomes stronger the more dilute it becomes - i.e. the lower the dose, the stronger the effect. This defies the dose-response relationship between an active ingredient and its effect. Further, it states that even when no more of the active ingredient remains, it can still have an effect.
SBM would say homeopathy isn't worth studying because it has no plausibility based on what we know of medicine and physics.
EBM would say let's test it and see what we get.
The problem is that if you test the same thing enough times, or measure enough variables, and then discard the ones that don't meet your desired outcome, you can gather "evidence" for basically anything.
SBM would say weak evidence for a claim like homeopathy is meaningless, as the claim is extraordinary (it overturns physics), so you need stronger evidence than you might accept for a less exceptional claim. EBM doesn't make that judgment, it treats all evidence as equally valid.
Science Based Medicine is a movement to improve Evidence Based Medicine with a stronger focus on scientifically rigorous evidence. It's not in opposition to EBM.
To quote the SBM blog's about page:
"Good science is the best and only way to determine which treatments and products are truly safe and effective. That idea is already formalized in a movement known as evidence-based medicine (EBM). EBM is a vital and positive influence on the practice of medicine, but it has limitations and problems in practice: it often overemphasizes the value of evidence from clinical trials alone, with some unintended consequences, such as taxpayer dollars spent on “more research” of questionable value. The idea of SBM is not to compete with EBM, but a call to enhance it with a broader view: to answer the question “what works?” we must give more importance to our cumulative scientific knowledge from all relevant disciplines."
Yep, Windows can tell if it's running inside a VM. In Windows 8 you can see this in the Task Manager (Performance -> CPU). In the lower right it'll say something along the lines of:
I believe the pricing restriction only applies to In App Purchases. The iOS edition of your app is unique to iOS so it stands to reason to price it independently. Sell a subscription to your service in the app? Then it needs to be the same price as on your website. It's protecting customers, not Apple.
It's nothing so sinister as that. It's actually more simple: they're protecting their own users from being ripped off, by being charged a premium because they're iOS users. It has some negative effects but as a user it makes you feel safer buying something through an app if you know you're not being charged more than you would if you did it through the same supplier's website.
That may be true of words like "deposit", but I can't even come up with a dirty use for "k mart".
There are also a fair number of misspellings (which might make sense to catch intentional avoidance), but the weird part is the correct spelling is quite often missing - for example, several variations of masturbate, but not the actual word itself.
For example, homeopathy states that a remedy becomes stronger the more dilute it becomes - i.e. the lower the dose, the stronger the effect. This defies the dose-response relationship between an active ingredient and its effect. Further, it states that even when no more of the active ingredient remains, it can still have an effect.
SBM would say homeopathy isn't worth studying because it has no plausibility based on what we know of medicine and physics.
EBM would say let's test it and see what we get.
The problem is that if you test the same thing enough times, or measure enough variables, and then discard the ones that don't meet your desired outcome, you can gather "evidence" for basically anything.
SBM would say weak evidence for a claim like homeopathy is meaningless, as the claim is extraordinary (it overturns physics), so you need stronger evidence than you might accept for a less exceptional claim. EBM doesn't make that judgment, it treats all evidence as equally valid.