Slashdot Mirror

Honestly the article is stupid. I regularly charge an iphone and an IPAD in 2 hours with a solar panel, in fact I also run a laptop off of it while they charge.

Yes, it's a larger 3 panel fold out array I have for camping, but I'm still charging on solar.

They need to clarify, you CANT charge a cellphone in a reasonable amount of time with a $1.99 garbage cell glued to the back of a cellphone. Their design was no better than taking a couple of solar panels from yard lights and thinking they were innovative.

Doubly stupid because solar chargers for smartphones already exist. I can read the customer reviews and tell you it doesn't work.

Good thing this study wasn't government funded.

If it's OK for the media lobbies to steal our public domain works from us in perpetuity, then by all means let's even the score.

Once more into the breach for Baron Thomas Babington Macaulay, 1841 & 1842:

I will only say this, that if the measure before us should pass, and should produce one-tenth part of the evil which it is calculated to produce, and which I fully expect it to produce, there will soon be a remedy, though of a very objectionable kind. Just as the absurd acts which prohibited the sale of game were virtually repealed by the poacher, just as many absurd revenue acts have been virtually repealed by the smuggler, so will this law be virtually repealed by piratical booksellers. At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side. Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouths of deserving men. Everybody is well pleased to see them restrained by the law, and compelled to refund their ill-gotten gains. No tradesman of good repute will have anything to do with such disgraceful transactions. Pass this law: and that feeling is at an end. Men very different from the present race of piratical booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly. Great masses of capital will be constantly employed in the violation of the law. Every art will be employed to evade legal pursuit; and the whole nation will be in the plot.

You'll find a commentary on the first speech with references on Kuro5hin.

And in a final bit of irony you can buy these 160 year old public-domain speeches printed in a paperback book for $21.24 from Amazon.com. So there is even no need for long onerous copyright if there's profit to be made in public domain works.

Windows 7 Ultimate is $162.99

Windows 7 Professional is $139.99

Windows 7 Home Premium is $99.99

For most people, Home Premium is probably the best buy. If you have your old XP disc, you can just download VirtualBox and get the equivalent of XP mode (actually better since Win 7 Ultimate uses Virtual PC), remote desktop can be replaced with VNC, disk encryption can be replaced with TrueCrypt and you can easily unlock the more frivolous features like Dreamscenes in Home Premium.

Windows 7 Ultimate is $162.99

Windows 7 Professional is $139.99

Windows 7 Home Premium is $99.99

For most people, Home Premium is probably the best buy. If you have your old XP disc, you can just download VirtualBox and get the equivalent of XP mode (actually better since Win 7 Ultimate uses Virtual PC), remote desktop can be replaced with VNC, disk encryption can be replaced with TrueCrypt and you can easily unlock the more frivolous features like Dreamscenes in Home Premium.

Windows 7 Ultimate is $162.99

Windows 7 Professional is $139.99

Windows 7 Home Premium is $99.99

For most people, Home Premium is probably the best buy. If you have your old XP disc, you can just download VirtualBox and get the equivalent of XP mode (actually better since Win 7 Ultimate uses Virtual PC), remote desktop can be replaced with VNC, disk encryption can be replaced with TrueCrypt and you can easily unlock the more frivolous features like Dreamscenes in Home Premium.

The slashot summary isn't terribly accurate, and even if you violate the social norms of /. and click through to read the article, the article is pretty sketchy as well. We're already getting comments from people who think this is about substituting video lectures for live lectures, and that's totally inaccurate.

This method is not new. I teach physics at a community college (not at Hahvahd like Mazur, alas), and I've been using methods similar to his for about 15 years. I learned about them from Mazur's book, which was published in 1996.

It's also not just some guy's opinion about how to teach. It's solidly backed up by research.

Let's start from the evidence. There is very strong evidence that lecturing is a terrible way to teach physics. The classic studies work like this. You give students a multiple-choice test at the beginning of the semester on very simple, basic concepts of physics. What hits the ground first, a larger rock or a smaller rock? What forces act on a book that's lying on a table? They do badly, but you expect that, because most of them haven't had high school physics. Then you teach a semester's worth of physics to them and give them the test again to measure how much they've improved. The usual statistic used to measure their improvement is the gain, G, defined as G=(final score-initial score)/(100%-initial score). In other words, if they haven't improved at all, G=0, and if they've improved as much as it was possible for them to improve, G=1. With classes that use traditional lecturing -- even by experienced, award-winning teachers who get glowing reviews from their students, are enthusiastic, and put a great deal of effort into their lectures -- you get about G=0.25. In other words, the students have developed very little conceptual understanding beyond what they came in with. On the other hand, if you use interactive teaching techniques that force students to participate actively and talk about concepts, you can usually get much higher G's.

The evidence is that it doesn't really matter very much what specific interactive technique you use, as long as it's interactive and deals with concepts. Mazur pioneered a technique called peer instruction. Just to be concrete, I'll describe his specific technique. You require the students to read the book *before* they come to class. You enforce this with reading quizzes given when they walk into lecture. The class consists basically of a bunch of multiple-choice conceptual questions. You pop up one of the questions on the screen and ask students to show you their initial opinion about which answer is right. This can be done with expensive electornic "clickers" or with cheap pieces of cardboard marked A, B, C, and D. If you see that almost everyone got it right, you briefly confirm that, and then move on. If they didn't, you have them break up into small groups and discuss the question. You walk around and listen a lot without saying much. Then you have them vote again again. The theory is that the right answer is supposed to win out over the wrong answers in the discussion. When it's time to give a test, you make sure that the test includes some purely conceptual questions, because otherwise students will tend to resist dropping the "plug and chug" approach they're used to and switching to focusing on concepts.

Mazur's book shows data where he got G~0.5 with this method. Nobody has ever gotten a G that high with traditional lecturing. Over the years since 1996, many of us who use interactive techniques have refined what we do, and it's not uncommon to significantly higher G's. The average for three of us who teach freshman calc-based physics at my school last semester was 0.7.

A common concern is that if the teacher d

Ask and ye shall receive.

Interesting... I bought a cheap $8.53 USB audio adapter from Amazon and it works great in Linux...

http://www.amazon.com/Syba-SD-CM-UAUD-Adapter-C-Media-Chipset/dp/B001MSS6CS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1325624971&sr=8-1

The C-Media chipset works well.

I still consider it a transitionary solution, useful, but only until we can grow organs and nerve tissue and basically fix people like we fix machinery :)

It's interesting you think that, as it's rather the opposite of the trend of science-fiction and posthumanist fantasizing.

For the former, Larry Niven's Known Space universe (such as the tales in Flatlander ) had organ transplantation as a widely implemented medical solution (amusingly leading to the death penalty for even minor crimes), but eventually ended by alloplasty, "gadgets instead of organs".

For the latter, Ray Kurzweil and his fans hope that we'll be able to upload our brains into computers any day now. And that's understandable, since a civilization that has technology advanced enough to produce new biological parts in vitro may be on the cusp of transcending biology entirely.

http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-Economics-Revised-Expanded-Dethroned/dp/1848139926/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1317717312&sr=8-1

Read the Web application Hacker's Handbook. Once you can think like a malicious user you will build more secure code. Once your app is almost production ready, have it Penetration tested by a reputable security vendor like Emagined, and then remediate any identified vulnerabilities. Rinse and repeat. Never release a security critical application without due diligence.

Ive seen a lot of comments talking about input validation but it's not enough. User input validation is not the holy grail of security. Here's my short list of things to think and read about to get you started:

If you dont know what Cross Site Scripting, Cross Site Request forgery, SQL Injection (actually any kind of input injection), buffer/request splitting, timing attacks, corruption, reuse, (and many other such attack vectors), then hire a professional to train you on todays web security landscape so you understand the major attack vectors in use today and how they can be most commonly mitigated. Make sure they explain to you what the limits of technolgoies like SSL are - what they should be relied upon to assert, and what they cannot assert.

Never use user input to take actions across security boundaries. Validating user input is easy - you know what your system expects, but its not enough. For example - dont load a specific file by constructing the path to the file from user input - you might expose yourself to canonicalization attacks. Instead use a hash to lookup the file path that your system knows and key off the file name the user provided. Whitelists are better than blacklists, etc. There are many and numerous traps you can fall into; too many to list here. You'll need to do a lot of learning / hire an expert to get you going.

Knowing and following a security process and security practices is essential to sustained/maintainable secure software development. For example - threat modeling early in your design to understand the interactions in your system and the assumptions each interaction is making. The outcome will result in specific mitigations that must be implemented to maintain security and it will inform you about constraints you need to place on all developers writing code in your application/server to not impair security. You also need to put to memory and insist on basic security practices like least privilege or obscurity is not security. Sticking to security processes and practices will make you uncomfortable at times because it WILL take MUCH longer to implement the software the right way, but the benefit will be more secure system to start with. In the end you'd have to spend much greater effort defending an attack or explaining what happened to your customerâ(TM)s sensitive data.

Meticulously review your system - not just your software, but the entire environment it works in. Ideally have a 3rd party assigned in your organization who is responsible for reviewing security (and know what they're doing), signoff on your work before you release. Fresh eyes with deep understanding of security threats will find many holes in your system and you'll be grateful. You need to learn about security tools like fuzzers and ensure they are run before release and all issue found are fixed. You need to learn about the penetration testing mindset and either train someone or hire someone to penetration tests your systems. And once you're done with that, you'll need to keep aware of new kinds of security attacks and ensure you are mitigating the attacks before reach release.

So theres lots to learn and do, but there are plenty of organizations embracing a secure by default mindset.

Id highly recommend surveying the literature for a decent book on security process and practices. Writing Secure Code Second Edition by Michael Howard is a great starting place for a newbie or a good review if you're an old timer - http://www.amazon.com/Writing-Secure-Second-Michael-Howard/dp/0735617228/

HTH.

Coming from a windows environment, you've probably already lost.

But here is a book to show you how much you don't know (in a platform agnostic way):

The Tangled Web by Michal Zalewski.

Also, forget all of the advice above about starting by writing your own webserver. That's a fool's errand.

You're saying cornered rats are easier to fight?

You might want to read a little history. Or better yet, read Machievelli's Art of War , Sun Tse's Art of War , and Clausewitz's On War . They all have something to say about your choice of strategy.

You're saying cornered rats are easier to fight?

You might want to read a little history. Or better yet, read Machievelli's Art of War , Sun Tse's Art of War , and Clausewitz's On War . They all have something to say about your choice of strategy.

You're saying cornered rats are easier to fight?

You might want to read a little history. Or better yet, read Machievelli's Art of War , Sun Tse's Art of War , and Clausewitz's On War . They all have something to say about your choice of strategy.

Either that, or "those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it." Which is advice that I wish that half of our first-world countries' leaders would listen to. Fall of the Roman Empire, anyone?

The bad news is they've done so, and it's all good for them, so they're not changing course.

Which is the basic tenet of Barbara Tuchman's excellent "The March of Folly" which so much influenced my view of history, as a young man...

Palmisano was not well liked within IBM. He was after all the guy who told IBM's US employees they could take a job in the third-world at third-world wages or stay in the US and get sacked. For this Palmisano will be forever despised.

http://www.infoworld.com/d/the-industry-standard/ibms-palmisano-techs-slumdog-millionaire-257

Sure, the business press has wet dreams about Palmisano and Gerstner who picked him as his successor:

http://www.forbes.com/2011/01/03/forbes-india-person-of-the-year-sam-palisan-ibm.html

But the truth was really quite ugly. You won't read this in Forbes, but you will read it in - of all places - the reader feedback at Amazon:
It is strangely ironic that, after doing his best to suppress all negative communication within IBM, it should be the reader feedback on amazon.com that alerts Gerstner to what the world at large really thinks of him.

In the last five years, Gerstner has reaped a profit of [$$$] million in the sale of awarded stock options. These stock options were awarded while he held the joint positions of IBM CEO and chairman. During that period, IBM spent [$$$] billion buying back its own stock to drive the price up so that executives could cash out at handsome profits. This is money that could have been spent on developing new products, attracting new talent and honoring promises made to employees and retirees.

Where did all that money come from?

Not from profit growth, which remained flat at about 2 percent per year when you strip out the retirees' pension fund surplus "vapor profits."

It came from selling off large chunks of the company and its assets, laying off tens of thousands of employees and slashing pension and health care benefits for employees and retirees. In 2002 alone, IBM has quietly cut 15,000 jobs. Health benefits, which were promised "free for life," now cost retirees a substantial amount of their pensions. Only one minuscule cost-of-living increase has been awarded pension recipients in the past 11 years.

The greed doesn't stop there. Now, Lou had not only been retained as chairman of the board, he has been awarded a 10-year consulting contract, with fully paid expenses at his previous salary of $2 million a year. These expenses have been conservatively estimated to be $100,000 annually.

Save IBM? More like turning it into just another money grubbing corporation while lining his pockets. I would love to see a rebuttal book. God help us all if Lou's management methods become benchmarks for future corporate leaders.

http://www.amazon.com/Elephants-Dance-Inside-Historic-Turnaround/product-reviews/0060523794/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt/185-5256096-7601530?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

Or you could just buy an energy efficient incandescent.

They've been on the market for years, called "halogen bulbs."

53w == 75 standard incandescent,
http://www.amazon.com/Bulbrite-115152-Efficient-Incandescent-Equivalent/dp/B003VGW57G

$3.25 for a two pack and meet energy standards.

LED replacement "tubes" for fluorescent fixtures.
http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=led+fluorescent+tube+replacement&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest#client=opera&rls=en&q=led+fluorescent+tube+replacement&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbo=u&tbm=shop&source=og&sa=N&tab=wf&ei=7vcAT4-zKIH10gGQhLyQAg&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=e6a8ab2beaf464d&biw=1024&bih=556

It's pretty simple, you just open the fixture, remove the ballast and hook the 115vac lines directly to the fixture. Snap in your bulb and you're done.

A 20W LED tube replaces a 32W 48" fluorescent. Or you can get 40W LED tubes and just use one in a two bulb fluor fixture.
http://www.amazon.com/LED-fluorescent-replacement-ballast-Ledwholesalers/dp/B002P3FQI6
Sam

The brightest shop light you linked to is 300 lumens. A 75-watt incandescent bulb produces 1200 lumens.

As for your arguments, (a) is false, (b) is debatable depending on how you define rugged and what failure modes you're considering, for this purpose I'll concede that you're right, and (c) isn't something I care about in most instances.

Notice that nowhere have I complained about the cost of alternatives, merely their performance characteristics. You're right, I can most certainly afford a $30 flashlight, but what I want is a shop light. My criteria for performance are volumetric density, total light output, ruggedness, consequences of failure, and probability of failure. Incandescent bulbs are an excellent fit for the application.

For what it's worth, the LED bulbs work just great in my kitchen.

There are lots of LED shop lights out there. They are better than incandescents because (a) they are brighter, (b) being solid-state they are far more rugged and (c) they are usually cordless.

If you really have replaced all of your household bulbs with LEDs, then you can certainly afford the ~$30 to buy a new LED shop light.

There are lots of LED shop lights out there. They are better than incandescents because (a) they are brighter, (b) being solid-state they are far more rugged and (c) they are usually cordless.

If you really have replaced all of your household bulbs with LEDs, then you can certainly afford the ~$30 to buy a new LED shop light.

There are lots of LED shop lights out there. They are better than incandescents because (a) they are brighter, (b) being solid-state they are far more rugged and (c) they are usually cordless.

If you really have replaced all of your household bulbs with LEDs, then you can certainly afford the ~$30 to buy a new LED shop light.

There are lots of LED shop lights out there. They are better than incandescents because (a) they are brighter, (b) being solid-state they are far more rugged and (c) they are usually cordless.

If you really have replaced all of your household bulbs with LEDs, then you can certainly afford the ~$30 to buy a new LED shop light.

There are lots of LED shop lights out there. They are better than incandescents because (a) they are brighter, (b) being solid-state they are far more rugged and (c) they are usually cordless.

If you really have replaced all of your household bulbs with LEDs, then you can certainly afford the ~$30 to buy a new LED shop light.

Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud

Just sayin'.

http://www.amazon.com/47452-equivalent-Energy-Smart-Spiral/dp/B000S5OK12/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1325377514&sr=8-1

You can more easily get around it just by buying any incandescent bulb that's in any way "weird", which means basically anything but the "normal" bulb. Bulbs of most non-standard shapes and sizes are all grandfathered in due to not having suitable CFL replacements. For example, stuff like this or this.

You can more easily get around it just by buying any incandescent bulb that's in any way "weird", which means basically anything but the "normal" bulb. Bulbs of most non-standard shapes and sizes are all grandfathered in due to not having suitable CFL replacements. For example, stuff like this or this.

I'm basing it on _New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy_ by Robert Spitzer, not my own work. He goes into some detail about where cosmology in general fails as a philosophy- and why physicists should stick to physics.

http://www.amazon.com/New-Proofs-Existence-God-Contributions/dp/0802863833

As always, the 1 star ratings are the ones we should be reading. They highlight the problems.

No. Ratings of 2 through 4 stars should be read, rest could be largely ignored.

I already know what the 5-star ratings will say, that the product or app is amazing. Usually those are people who just received their product or app, tried it for a few minutes and they're still very excited by it. I also already know what the 1-star ratings will say, that the product or app completely sucks. Sometimes these 1 star ratings are from people who were using the product or app wrong or they're upset about something else entirely.

Example: reviews of the Escort Passport 9500ix radar detector on Amazon. Out of 198 reviews, 20 are 1-star. Some of those 1-star reviews are complaining that the software updates are not compatible with Macs which, for the majority of users, doesn't matter at all, so those ratings are worthless. Other 1-star reviews complain the price is too high which also does not matter because if you're reading the reviews there's a good chance you already know the price and you're comfortable with it. And other reviews said the item arrived broken and was replaced under warranty or that Amazon is not a authorized dealer. That's nice, but it doesn't tell me much about the performance of the product does it?

It's the 2 through 4 star ratings that are interesting. It's usually the people who actually used the product or app for awhile and found some flaws they'd like to discuss. The reviews are usually well thought out and go into great detail, unlike a 5-star "I LOVE THIS!" review or 1-star "THIS SUCKS!" review. A 2-star rating to me means the user actually tried to use the product but it has some major problems. Again in the 2-star category the radar detector had a lot of complaints about not being Mac compatible. The 3 or 4 star ratings are usually the most interesting, because those are from people who used the product for a long time and found some minor flaws they're willing to live with. Those are the reviews I read first.

This controller is awful. I originally bought it hoping to improve my noob slaying skills. Merely looking at it however caused me to become blind in my left eye. The special tension wires and switches severed my thumbs and index fingers on both hands. Also unknown to me at the time, the Avenger controller is made of asbestos and coal dust and now I have the black lung and Mesothelioma. When I called customer support I was told to stop being a b***h and that they were websiting since I was a sperm inside my father. All that is left for me to do is weep inside my iron lung. Do not buy this controller. (permalink)

Seriously, I missed the drama earlier this week and finally went to look at this thing. It's ugly as sin, and I can't see how those goofy-looking levers could do anything but break with a few hours use.

I have two cheap $15 Logitech USB game pads that I regularly use that are constantly breaking and needing to be repaired, including wires breaking due to the lack of strain reliefs. (compared to standard Sony PS2 game pads that last months before I need to repair them... yeah, I need to just get a PS2-USB adapter already) This looks much more fragile than those.

There is no BT in the published specs, how are you going to connect to the OBD-II interface?

Most of the OBD-II interfaces are either bluetooth or wifi.

http://www.amazon.com/OBDLink-Bluetooth-Multiprotocol-OBD-II-ScanTool/dp/B003XNADSA/ref=sr_1_11?s=automotive&ie=UTF8&qid=1325175467&sr=1-11
http://www.amazon.com/ELM327-Bluetooth-Diagnostic-Scanner-Scantool/dp/B0051CAE1C/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1325175347&sr=8-4
http://www.amazon.com/Soliport-Bluetooth-Diagnostic-Scanner-wireless/dp/B004KL0I9I/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1325175347&sr=8-3
http://www.amazon.com/OBDLink-OBD-II-Interface-Adapter-425101/dp/B002M07XHO/ref=sr_1_3?s=automotive&ie=UTF8&qid=1325175402&sr=1-3

There is no BT in the published specs, how are you going to connect to the OBD-II interface?

Most of the OBD-II interfaces are either bluetooth or wifi.

http://www.amazon.com/OBDLink-Bluetooth-Multiprotocol-OBD-II-ScanTool/dp/B003XNADSA/ref=sr_1_11?s=automotive&ie=UTF8&qid=1325175467&sr=1-11
http://www.amazon.com/ELM327-Bluetooth-Diagnostic-Scanner-Scantool/dp/B0051CAE1C/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1325175347&sr=8-4
http://www.amazon.com/Soliport-Bluetooth-Diagnostic-Scanner-wireless/dp/B004KL0I9I/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1325175347&sr=8-3
http://www.amazon.com/OBDLink-OBD-II-Interface-Adapter-425101/dp/B002M07XHO/ref=sr_1_3?s=automotive&ie=UTF8&qid=1325175402&sr=1-3

There is no BT in the published specs, how are you going to connect to the OBD-II interface?

Most of the OBD-II interfaces are either bluetooth or wifi.

http://www.amazon.com/OBDLink-Bluetooth-Multiprotocol-OBD-II-ScanTool/dp/B003XNADSA/ref=sr_1_11?s=automotive&ie=UTF8&qid=1325175467&sr=1-11
http://www.amazon.com/ELM327-Bluetooth-Diagnostic-Scanner-Scantool/dp/B0051CAE1C/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1325175347&sr=8-4
http://www.amazon.com/Soliport-Bluetooth-Diagnostic-Scanner-wireless/dp/B004KL0I9I/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1325175347&sr=8-3
http://www.amazon.com/OBDLink-OBD-II-Interface-Adapter-425101/dp/B002M07XHO/ref=sr_1_3?s=automotive&ie=UTF8&qid=1325175402&sr=1-3

There is no BT in the published specs, how are you going to connect to the OBD-II interface?

Most of the OBD-II interfaces are either bluetooth or wifi.

http://www.amazon.com/OBDLink-Bluetooth-Multiprotocol-OBD-II-ScanTool/dp/B003XNADSA/ref=sr_1_11?s=automotive&ie=UTF8&qid=1325175467&sr=1-11
http://www.amazon.com/ELM327-Bluetooth-Diagnostic-Scanner-Scantool/dp/B0051CAE1C/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1325175347&sr=8-4
http://www.amazon.com/Soliport-Bluetooth-Diagnostic-Scanner-wireless/dp/B004KL0I9I/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1325175347&sr=8-3
http://www.amazon.com/OBDLink-OBD-II-Interface-Adapter-425101/dp/B002M07XHO/ref=sr_1_3?s=automotive&ie=UTF8&qid=1325175402&sr=1-3

My favorite is uCOS/II

http://www.amazon.com/MicroC-OS-II-Kernel-CD-ROM/dp/1578201039/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1325141293&sr=8-1

It runs on the ColdFire processors in the NetBurners.

http://www.netburner.com/

I like these for embedded controllers.

I feel they have their ducks in a row and know whats important.

And let's face it, red meat isn't really good for you either. Too much fat. At least according to studies.

Citation needed.

I'm not just being snarky. Try this: Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease.

TLDR: Eating lots of saturated fat DOESN'T INCREASE RISK of coronary heart disease, stroke or cardiovascular disease.

Read Good Calories, Bad Calories or the newer one, Why We Get Fat for a good treatment of the science behind nutrition and health. For something more directly discussing what to eat, Protein Power is pretty good. It includes sections discussing the science of the diet and why it works.

And let's face it, red meat isn't really good for you either. Too much fat. At least according to studies.

Citation needed.

I'm not just being snarky. Try this: Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease.

TLDR: Eating lots of saturated fat DOESN'T INCREASE RISK of coronary heart disease, stroke or cardiovascular disease.

Read Good Calories, Bad Calories or the newer one, Why We Get Fat for a good treatment of the science behind nutrition and health. For something more directly discussing what to eat, Protein Power is pretty good. It includes sections discussing the science of the diet and why it works.

And let's face it, red meat isn't really good for you either. Too much fat. At least according to studies.

Citation needed.

I'm not just being snarky. Try this: Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease.

TLDR: Eating lots of saturated fat DOESN'T INCREASE RISK of coronary heart disease, stroke or cardiovascular disease.

Read Good Calories, Bad Calories or the newer one, Why We Get Fat for a good treatment of the science behind nutrition and health. For something more directly discussing what to eat, Protein Power is pretty good. It includes sections discussing the science of the diet and why it works.

koan wrote:
>POTUS has pretty good Intel on likely future scenarios, in a dry World what's more valuable than oil? Water.

Science fiction story on that:

http://www.amazon.com/Texas-Rocks-Daniel-Cruz/dp/0345316592

William

Organic, huh?

You can see the entire surface of the moon from, well, just step outside on a night with a full moon.

You think you're seeing the entire surface of the moon when you look up?! Evidently you've forgotten that the Moon is a sphere and you've never heard this

.

Fairly sure this is the item Dave was waiting on: http://www.amazon.com/Playstation-3-Avenger-Controller/dp/B005CMZJL6/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1325024685&sr=8-1-fkmr1

They also have an xbox version: http://www.amazon.com/Avenger-Xbox-360-Adapter/dp/B0051JSJ44/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1325024502&sr=8-1

Fairly sure this is the item Dave was waiting on: http://www.amazon.com/Playstation-3-Avenger-Controller/dp/B005CMZJL6/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1325024685&sr=8-1-fkmr1

They also have an xbox version: http://www.amazon.com/Avenger-Xbox-360-Adapter/dp/B0051JSJ44/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1325024502&sr=8-1

Seriously. Re-read the e-mails and ask yourself, "Does this sound like something a sociopath would say?"

If you don't know what a sociopath is, then read Snakes in Suits.

"Over and over, we read of hidden, manipulated, and cherry-picked data, refusals to abide with having outsiders vet their work, and allowing naked advocacy into the IPCC reports on climate change as if they were peer-reviewed science. "

Yes indeed. And anyone who claims otherwise--such as the parent--is either ignorant or dishonest. Here are some sources, but it feels unfair to only list these few.

The Hockey Stick Illusion (book about the "hockey stick")
The Delinquent Teenager (book about IPCC being infiltrated by extreme advocates)
"Understanding Climategate's hidden decline" (article about "hide the decline")
Watts Up With That? (leading blog)
Letter to the Science and Technology Committee (on fraud)

Etc. Etc.

seems you are asking a sincere question, so my take is that someone like Al Gore is the prototypical "liberal elite." He talks about saving the environment, helping out the poor people, and yet he flies all over the world in his private jet and probably doesn't know anything about being poor. Obama is another example, he is so out of touch that when he wants to commiserate with poor people he complains about the high price of arugula. This sort of observation is often coupled with the idea that, "government should stop messing with us and leave us alone, they don't know what they are doing." That is the concept of the liberal elite.

Of course, liberals have their own take on the elites, rich capitalists who support Republicans and step on the backs of the poor.

An interesting twist on the theme is the idea that the country is divided into the elite political class, and the rest of us. The political class thinks it can use government to run things for us, and the rest of us want to run things ourselves. The idea rejects that the major division in America is Democrat/Republican, but rather political class/democratic class.

By some coincidence, just yesterday someone replied to a post of mine with a link to a relevant book on the topic. This was in the discussion of the report that a lot of security cameras are broken or were never installed correctly (or were fakes from the start), but it applies here equally well.

It's all part of a universal aspect of "human nature", in which groups (including governments, corporations, etc.) rarely respond to a problem until it has grown into a serious disaster. This is true even when a problem is well-understood by part of the population. There are often pressures to make decisions that produce short-term benefits to the decision makers. This typically involves ignoring unpleasant facts, and denigrating the people who push for acting on problems.

About all we can do is keep trying to bring the facts (including the science) to people's attention. But so far, we don't seem to have any effective ways to persuade them to listen. And society's leaders always seem to have good reasons to encourage general ignorance ("bread and circuses").

Maybe this will be the next big social advance, to follow the Enlightenment and Democracy after an unknown number of centuries. I wonder if there are any studies that have turned up any approaches that are verified to work? I haven't read of them, if they exist.