Slashdot Mirror

Yesterday it was 54. I wish you trolls would make up your collective minds (or lack thereof) about this stuff. Am I a fat virgin or fat fuck today?

You're making the category error of assuming that all of the people who are AC's are trolls, who have a collective will & mind, and are coordinating in some way. I've never called you a names - I don't care where you dick has been (or hasn't been), and I don't see the point in calling someone names based on their being fat. If I'm going to insult you, it'll be because you act like an ignoramus, not because you're fat.

Feel free to carry the discussion on my blog.

Again, I have no interest in creating content for your blog and lining your pockets. I won't produce a long, well-written post for your blog so that you can reap the financial rewards.

Which I've been hearing about for the last 48 years of my life. If it wasn't ten, it was 20. If it wasn't 20, it was 30. If it wasn't 30, it was 40. If it wasn't 40, it was 54 or 57.

Just because you haven't ended your life yet doesn't mean you are not shortening it with your existing lifestyle. And those warnings are silly and untrue, until they're serious and true - which you usually realize right about the time you keel over from a massive coronary.

It is indisputable fact that being dramatically obese shortens your life span. A 5'10 man weighing 357 has a BMI of 51.2, which falls into the "Class III Obesity" category in the NIH article above - this means an average reduction in lifespan of up to 14 years, according to their results. The number varies, but they generally range from 10-20 years lower life expectancy. Average lifespan for a man in the US is 78 years today. Knock 10-20 years off that, and you're dead at 58-68 years of age. Yeah, being fat at 20 won't usually kill you. Being fat from a young age into your late 40's means you've probably already knocked off a significant chunk of your lifespan.

Don't want to believe an AC? How about the NIH?

Or, how about the UK's NHS?

Or, how about the CDC?

Yes, you've claimed to be losing a pound a week - that's great if it's true, keep it up. But the fact that you suddenly had a story to tell about how you really were losing weight makes the entire claim suspect. You claim to be doing the "same thing" you've been doing for the last 5 years, but suddenly, in the last 13 weeks, it's turned into dramatic weight loss that matches exactly what the CDC is telling you to shoot for. If nothing changed, why haven't you been losing weight at a pound a week for the last 5 years? It doesn't add up.

And, in the meantime, your high blood pressure, high blood sugar, high triglycerides & cholesterol are all putting undue stress on your body, making it harder to get the rest and exercise you need. Imagine what you could do with your weight loss if you actually took good, medically sound advice, and worked at it without inventing a million reasons why the advice is just another "troll" attempt?

Or keep doing what you're doing, losing small snouts of weight before pouring it back on, and be wheelchair bound, soon.

This is what the CDC has to say about weight loss (keep in mind that I lost 13 pounds in 13 weeks):

It's natural for anyone trying to lose weight to want to lose it very quickly. But evidence shows that people who lose weight gradually and steadily (about 1 to 2 pounds per week) are more successful at keeping weight off. Healthy weight loss isn't just about a "diet" or "program". It's about an ongoing lifestyle that includes long-term changes in daily eating and exercise habits.

https://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/losing_weight/index.html

It's true that Plutonium is highly toxic, but an airborne particle is probably not enough to cause significant health effects from that (the toxology profile suggests the level for that is 10 ppm)

This is talking about plutonium oxide and not plutonium chloride which is more soluble.

• This was interesting:
• Inhaled plutonium that has entered the blood appears to be largely bound to transferrin and becomes associated with iron-binding proteins such as ferritin and lipofuscin upon entering hepatocytes

Iron-binding, as in it's an iron analogue to the body. So this seems to be saying that plutonium oxide does becomes organically bound, which means it can accumulate in the lungs, dammit, I thought it was exhaled. I thought that only plutonium chloride was organically bound.

Thanks this is an interesting paper, is there a similar paper for water bound plutonium chloride?

It's true that Plutonium is highly toxic, but an airborne particle is probably not enough to cause significant health effects from that (the toxology profile suggests the level for that is 10 ppm) - depending on how many are inhaled of course.

But the radiation is indeed the bigger hazard. Plutonium's long half-life means it's not as dangerously radioactive as some other elements - so long as exposure is relatively brief or distant (inverse square law applies). When it gets inside you though, it sticks in there for decades, and at that extremely close range the radiation is a lot more powerful, so your chances of cancer go up significantly.

I expect you were just a troll but whatever.

Not even sure what you are suggesting is coherent, adults are not perfect, they cannot protect children perfectly at all times. And of course every responsible gun owner locks their gun up, or has a locking trigger guard.

BUT Are all adults responsible and conscientious? No of course not, hence:

Example of adults 'contributing' to child death (as of 2014 leading cause of child death is improper restraint in motor vehicle accidents):
https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns...
http://www.jpeds.com/pb/assets...

Are you suggesting that we dont teach children anything and just bubble wrap them from 1-17, then let them loose at 18 and 'hope' it works out somehow?

There are endless 'tragedies in the making', are you suggesting that we lock everything and everyone down 'for our own good?'?

Or do we make some kind of effort however feeble and try to teach children something? Yes including about guns, and car seats, and whatever else.

Or did you just want to link a 'think about the children!' thing and moonwalk out of here?

First off they define a child as anyone under the age of 18, which is a complete distortion. The government defines children as under the age of 15 not 18. 56% of those deaths were criminals killing criminals or police killing criminals. In other words teenagers 15-18.
Second they lump in suicides with those numbers which takes another 38% of the total off the number of deaths. A smart gun will not stop suicides since there are literally an unlimited number of other means to do so in the absence of a gun.
6% where "unintentional" so that mean 78, MIGHT be stopped by a smart gun, but then again a simple gun safe, along with a little training will do a better job.
Firearms do not even make it into the top 20 causes of child death by the way.
https://www.cdc.gov/

because the thing that you should most be worried about in a home invasion is getting killed by your own gun.

Again warping statistics. Nearly all deaths "with your own gun" are suicides not home invasions gone wrong. That statistic was debunked 20 years ago.

Add to that the well document FACT that transgendered people commit suicide at a far greater rate than the average person ...

Comparing against "average person" (assuming whole population either including or excluding transgender people) is in absolutely no way a valid comparison. In this case men in age military service versus transgender of same age should be compared (ignoring biases introduced by all men versus those that join the military, etc).

According to CDC suicide for men all ages is "just" 2.5% while for ages 15-34 is between 16-20%. And suicide rates for men are much higher than for women. So "average person" rates are extremely misleading.

The tipoff was the estimate of a whopping $2.1 meeeeeleeon increase in public health costs. FTFS:

We found that a 5% decline in MMR vaccine coverage in US children would result in a 3-fold increase in national measles cases in this age group, for a total of 150 cases

Elsewhere the study says that age group comprises about 30% of total measles cases. So in theory we'd see about 300 more cases per year.

Sorry, but that's not deserving of words like "explosive" or "unshakeable."

And even that would require a drop in coverage TFA dismissively couches as a "mere" 5%, but which would in reality be an enormous move for a statistic that is now only about 1% off its one-time peak and is running right around its mean over the last couple of decades.

Before you go there, my children are vaccinated. But this sort of sensationalism is not helpful.

These outbreaks aren't happening in the suburbs, they're happening in the migrant ghettos.

Disneyland is a "migrant ghetto" now?

You have a reference to a more secure source?

https://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/losing_weight/index.html

It's natural for anyone trying to lose weight to want to lose it very quickly. But evidence shows that people who lose weight gradually and steadily (about 1 to 2 pounds per week) are more successful at keeping weight off. Healthy weight loss isn't just about a "diet" or "program". It's about an ongoing lifestyle that includes long-term changes in daily eating and exercise habits.

This is a known fact, has been known, has been studied, and is not only common knowledge but also common sense. Another waste of time and money from the No Shit Sherlock Institute of Bloody Obvious Conclusions.

The CDC published a rather good metastudy of cardiovascular and other health issues possibly caused by long working hours back in 2004. Direct PDF link

Chicken pox is not a concern for children. No one had a vaccine for it when I was a kid and everyone caught it and it was sort of normal. Chicken pox is mostly a concern for adults where the symptoms are much worse.

When people mention vaccines and how they help children, it's about the SERIOUS diseases! Ie, measles can be fatal. Bringing up the minor stuff just puts you into the anti-vaxx hysteria camp.

Just because you don't know any kids who died of chicken pox doesn't mean it is super rare.

https://www.cdc.gov/chickenpox...

"Chickenpox used to be very common in the United States. In the early 1990s, an average of 4 million people got varicella, 10,500 to 13,000 were hospitalized (range, 8,000 to 18,000), and 100 to 150 died each year. In the 1990s, the highest rate of varicella was reported in preschool-aged children.

Chickenpox vaccine became available in the United States in 1995. In 2014, 91% of children 19 to 35 months old in the United States had received one dose of varicella vaccine, varying from 83% to 95% by state. Among adolescents 13 to 17 years of age without a prior history of disease, 95% had received 1 dose of varicella vaccine, and 81% had received 2 doses of the vaccine. Eighty-five percent of adolescents had either a history of varicella disease or received 2 doses of varicella vaccine.

Each year, more than 3.5 million cases of varicella, 9,000 hospitalizations, and 100 deaths are prevented by varicella vaccination in the United States."

I don't know how much the hospitalizations and deaths should be priced at in comparison the the "costs" of varicella vaccination, but similar arguments to your could be made for seatbelts - nobody I know died because of lack of seatbelts before they were mandated.

Secondhand smoke actually kills a lot of people every year..
https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/da...

My vote would would be. Allow smoking, but only in special places with good ventilation and filtration-systems that prevents anyone else from being affected. $100 fine for anyone that smokes closer than 20 meters from another person (so you could smoke in your backyard, but only if you don't affect your neighbour.).

Let people do whatever they want as long as they don't cause harm to others. Their rights extend to the point where my rights starts.

No-one uses their cellphone while driving in Europe because of the strict laws.

Total bullcrap. Why would you even write such patent nonsense? "No one"? Really?

Texting and talking on cellphones in Europe is less than in America but is still common and is a major cause of accidents.

The CDC on Bedbugs

Bed Bug Infestations in an Urban Environment

Bed Bugs: Integrated Pest Management In and Around the Home

The CDC on Bedbugs

Bed Bug Infestations in an Urban Environment

Bed Bugs: Integrated Pest Management In and Around the Home

I download plenty of shady things from shady sources and I have never gotten a virus. Plus.. my pc's are usable.

I will happily lend you my sister if you really want to test your AV solution.

I have a pretty good anti-viral solution for you sister

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/...

Sure. It's pretty easy to find good stats on the topic from CDC and NHS going back a couple decades.
I pulled a few links together, but that's always tricky for people on the Internet... what is your definition of "non-biased"? I encourage you to go search around yourself if you have doubts... there's a whole lot of data, from a whole lot of countries, and it is all pretty consistent.

CDC numbers for 2015 are here. 41% had full heterosexual intercourse. Rates of oral sex and hand jobs are higher. Numbers for homosexual sex are much harder to come by. The cites for the studies are in the summary report.

I suppose least biased, most obvious stats are CDC numbers on teen pregnancy and STD spread. Those are relatively low and falling for the last decade, but they provide a minimum threshold. 22 pregnancies per 1000 women in 2015. That's a pretty small percentage (0.2%)... but it is also a record low. Backing up to 2007, back then it was 80 per 1000. 1991 was 116 per 1000, according to US HHS. The trend has been downward as contraception becomes more accessible. Does anyone really think the sex rate has been going down during the same window? :-). The percentages are not evenly distributed. You can find teen pregnancy rates over 1% in some parts of Texas and the southern USA. So that's a bare minimum.

There's plenty of researchers who work on this, and their numbers largely agree: by the time their 19, well over half, usually around 3/4, have had oral sex. Full intercourse is usually lower. These numbers hold in the USA, in Britain, in Austrailia, in France... I'm less aware of other cultures, but, frankly, humans are humans. I bet the numbers hold... there's a reason we used to get married commonly at 14 (men and women).

If you want something more direct, go do interviews on college campuses about their HS experiences. You can put your own numbers together pretty quick.

Sure. It's pretty easy to find good stats on the topic from CDC and NHS going back a couple decades.
I pulled a few links together, but that's always tricky for people on the Internet... what is your definition of "non-biased"? I encourage you to go search around yourself if you have doubts... there's a whole lot of data, from a whole lot of countries, and it is all pretty consistent.

CDC numbers for 2015 are here. 41% had full heterosexual intercourse. Rates of oral sex and hand jobs are higher. Numbers for homosexual sex are much harder to come by. The cites for the studies are in the summary report.

I suppose least biased, most obvious stats are CDC numbers on teen pregnancy and STD spread. Those are relatively low and falling for the last decade, but they provide a minimum threshold. 22 pregnancies per 1000 women in 2015. That's a pretty small percentage (0.2%)... but it is also a record low. Backing up to 2007, back then it was 80 per 1000. 1991 was 116 per 1000, according to US HHS. The trend has been downward as contraception becomes more accessible. Does anyone really think the sex rate has been going down during the same window? :-). The percentages are not evenly distributed. You can find teen pregnancy rates over 1% in some parts of Texas and the southern USA. So that's a bare minimum.

There's plenty of researchers who work on this, and their numbers largely agree: by the time their 19, well over half, usually around 3/4, have had oral sex. Full intercourse is usually lower. These numbers hold in the USA, in Britain, in Austrailia, in France... I'm less aware of other cultures, but, frankly, humans are humans. I bet the numbers hold... there's a reason we used to get married commonly at 14 (men and women).

If you want something more direct, go do interviews on college campuses about their HS experiences. You can put your own numbers together pretty quick.

Sure. It's pretty easy to find good stats on the topic from CDC and NHS going back a couple decades.
I pulled a few links together, but that's always tricky for people on the Internet... what is your definition of "non-biased"? I encourage you to go search around yourself if you have doubts... there's a whole lot of data, from a whole lot of countries, and it is all pretty consistent.

CDC numbers for 2015 are here. 41% had full heterosexual intercourse. Rates of oral sex and hand jobs are higher. Numbers for homosexual sex are much harder to come by. The cites for the studies are in the summary report.

I suppose least biased, most obvious stats are CDC numbers on teen pregnancy and STD spread. Those are relatively low and falling for the last decade, but they provide a minimum threshold. 22 pregnancies per 1000 women in 2015. That's a pretty small percentage (0.2%)... but it is also a record low. Backing up to 2007, back then it was 80 per 1000. 1991 was 116 per 1000, according to US HHS. The trend has been downward as contraception becomes more accessible. Does anyone really think the sex rate has been going down during the same window? :-). The percentages are not evenly distributed. You can find teen pregnancy rates over 1% in some parts of Texas and the southern USA. So that's a bare minimum.

There's plenty of researchers who work on this, and their numbers largely agree: by the time their 19, well over half, usually around 3/4, have had oral sex. Full intercourse is usually lower. These numbers hold in the USA, in Britain, in Austrailia, in France... I'm less aware of other cultures, but, frankly, humans are humans. I bet the numbers hold... there's a reason we used to get married commonly at 14 (men and women).

If you want something more direct, go do interviews on college campuses about their HS experiences. You can put your own numbers together pretty quick.

I would dare say, if you removed the suicide gun deaths

I don't really advocate for stronger laws against gun ownership (at least without a constitutional amendment), but this seems very disingenuous. Suicides by firearms are tragic and a big problem in the US. It provides an unsurpassed easy and effective way for someone to end their life in a momentary surge of desperate emotion.

In 2014, 50% of all suicides in the US were caused by firearms. Any discussion about gun deaths must include suicides.

1. Guns kill more people in the US every year than car accidents.

It looks like the CDC has them virtually neck and neck. I would dare say, if you removed the suicide gun deaths, and justified shootings where it was a "bad guy" that died.... I would guess the numbers would be a good bit lower than traffic deaths.

Glad to see others who want to limit governmental overreach.

Government overreach is when you could make things better by simply repealing the laws and doing nothing else. We have some of that but what we mostly have is laws that simply don't work. We have blatantly racist sentencing laws for drug related offenses. We have harsh imprisonment for borderline harmless drugs like weed. We spend ungodly fortunes fighting a misguided failure of a "war on drugs" (because no politician wants to look soft on drugs) and imprisoning the highest percentage of the population among industrialized nations. The government has to play a very serious role in these issues but US policy is just idiotic. Other countries have similar levels of government involvement but far saner strategies and laws and get better results.

Although I think that most people who are in favor of criminalizing drugs do so from the belief that that is the way to stop people from doing harm.

I don't think of it that way at all. I think the people are going to harm themselves anyway. I don't see a practical alternative to banning quite a few "hard" drugs like opiates. However, if the typical acute side effects are mild like they are for alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, etc then I think it is a huge waste of money, brains, and time to worry about making criminals out of those who use them. Basically we should have learned our lesson from Prohibition. Allow it, guide usage, tax it, and punish only those who cause harm to others through irresponsible actions. If someone wants to smoke a joint in the privacy of their home or at a bar and no one else is likely to be hurt, who gives a shit?

Are people too fat raise taxes on soda

Actually I think it's quite reasonable to do that. If people are going to give themselves diabetes then the cost of treating that epidemic (a shared cost whether you like it or not) should be paid for by taxing the proximate cause. It's no different than taxing gasoline to maintain the roads. If you smoke then part of the cost of your habit should go towards paying for the medical care that results from it. If you drink part of the cost should go towards treating alcohol related diseases and accidents. We've proven that people will do these things even when they know they aren't good for them so let's just make it so that we minimize the harm to society. It's really just a form of indirect insurance for all of us.

does a sick person shoot up a school then guns are the problem

Guns ARE a problem. While I'm in no way suggesting we do away with second amendment protections (I own several), to pretend that the US doesn't have a serious problem with firearms is to live in a fantasy world. There were over 30,000 deaths from firearms in the US last year according to the CDC. If you think that guns aren't a serious problem then you are delusional. It's not even a debate. The question is what to do about it and there is no sane solution that does not involve some amount of regulation. I have no interest in living in a place that is in a constant Mexican standoff. Fortunately in most of the US there is little actual need to own a firearm. There are a few times and places where your safety might be enhanced by carrying but these are vanishingly uncommon and thankfully so.

and to hell to people who think they have a right to defend themselves from predators (and the gov't);

Ahh yes the classic trope that you are actually going to defend hearth and home from "predators" and the government. By all means please tell me one example of someone successfully fending off the government with their rifle in the last 100 years. You really think your rifle will protect you from a military with assault helicopters and stealth bombers? Th

Of course there's some corner case scenario where someone determined to hack my TV might be able to exfiltrate data

so there is a tornado/flash flood/armed gunman/gas leak/etc in the area, you're watching TV to see if you are in danger, it's hacked, and you die

Apparently I should be concerned mostly about poisoning. https://www.google.com/imgres?...

But this one says heart disease first, then cancer : https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fasta...

At least my TV isn't doing the cooking.

"According to the Dietary Guidelines for Americans,1 moderate alcohol consumption is defined as having up to 1 drink per day for women and up to 2 drinks per day for men."
http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/faq...

The proposal to ban laptops from the cabins of planes appears to be attempting to take advantage of the following logical fallacies and cognitive biases:

• * Zero-risk bias: Prefer to reduce a small risk to zero, over a greater reduction of a larger risk. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
• * Nirvana/Perfection fallacy: Prefer to abandon functional good for unachievable perfection. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
• * Identifiable victim effect: We respond more strongly to a single identified victim, than a faceless group of victims. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Remember that time they said they needed porno scanners? It turned out that the porno scanners didn't work. https://radsec.org/secure1000-... And, DHS upper management (Chertoff http://www.motherjones.com/moj... ) got rich off the sale of the porno scanners. This shows that we should not blindly accept TSA/DHS proposals.

The TSA success rate at finding known weapons and explosives is 5%. IE, they only find 1 out of 20: https://www.theguardian.com/co... This means that the laptop change will not actually make a difference to the real risk.

If they are worried that a well funded group will make explosives that look like a laptop, why would they only do laptops? Why wouldn't an attacker make explosives that look like a suitcase? A CPAP? A baby stroller? Why can't an attacker disguise explosives as a big enough item that it doesn't make any difference where it is on a plane? If they can't find an explosive shaped like a laptop, they are not going to find an explosive shaped like other things. Are they going to ban all carry-ons and checked items?

On the face, It seems looke like they have decided to increase their security theater.

While we wait for the TSA's analysis, lets review a few facts. Here are some reference pages on various types of death in the US:

• * https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fasta...
• * http://www.nsc.org/NSC%20Image...
• * https://www.start.umd.edu/pubs...
• * https://www.theguardian.com/us...

So, your chance of dying of various things in the US is:

• * US Citizen killed by terrorists from 2005 through 2014: (about 1 in 240K deaths.)
• * Killed by lightning in the US: (about 1 in 160K.) For every terrorism death, there are about 1 and 1/2 deaths by lightning.
• * Dying in a plane crash: (about 1 in 10,000) For every terrorism death, there are about 25 deaths by plane crashes
• * Being killed by police in the US: (about 1 in 2300) For every terrorism death, there are about 105 deaths by police
• * Drowning in the US: (about 1 in 1200) For every terrorism death, there are about 200 deaths by drowning.
• * Dying in a motor vehicle accident: (about 1 in 100.) For every terrorism death, there are about 2,200 deaths by motor vehicle accidents
• * Heart disease & cancer in the US: (about 1 in 7 deaths.) For every terrorism death, there are 35,000 deaths by heart disease and cancer.

There hasn't been a big increase in deaths by terrorism. Or laptop. Why aren't we banning laptops in order to protect people from lightning? It would make just as much sense.

It looks like you could show a decrease in deaths by

No need to exaggerate.
The OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit for CO2 is 5,000 ppm average over an 8-hour period (about 12 times what it is outdoors today, or 0.5%). OSHA's 15-minute STEL is 30,000 ppm (about 75 times ambient outdoor conditions, or 3%)
According to CDC-NIOSH "...electrolyte imbalances and other metabolic changes have been associated with prolonged exposures to 10,000 to 20,000 ppm CO(2) (Schulte 1964/Ex. 1-366; Gray 1950, as cited in ACGIH 1986/Ex. 1-3, p. 102)". (about 25 to 50 time what is outdoors today, or 1% to 2%) So many people would have health problems at much less than 6% CO2 in the atmosphere.
Of course, the beer industry wants OSHA to set much more lenient standards.

Here are some reference pages on various types of death in the US:

• - https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fasta...
• - http://www.nsc.org/NSC%20Image...
• - https://www.start.umd.edu/pubs...
• - https://www.theguardian.com/us...

So, your chance of dying of various things in the US is:

• - Heart disease & cancer in the US: (about 1 in 7 deaths.) For every terrorism death, there are 35,000 deaths by heart disease and cancer.
• - Dying in a motor vehicle accident: (about 1 in 100.) For every terrorism death, there are about 2,200 deaths by motor vehicle accidents
• - Drowning in the US: (about 1 in 1200) For every terrorism death, there are about 200 deaths by drowning.
• - Being killed by police in the US: (about 1 in 2300) For every terrorism death, there are about 105 deaths by police
• - Dying in a plane crash: (about 1 in 10,000) For every terrorism death, there are about 25 deaths by plane crashes
• - Killed by lightning in the US: (about 1 in 160K.) For every terrorism death, there are about 1 and 1/2 deaths by lightning.
• - US Citizen killed by terrorists from 2005 through 2014: (about 1 in 240K deaths.)

The TSA failure to find weapons and explosives rate is 95%. IE, they only find 1 out of 20: https://www.theguardian.com/co...

It looks like you could show a decrease in deaths by shutting down the TSA and spending the money on all kinds of other things. For example, you would probably save thousands of people every year, if you took the TSA's budget and used that money to give a daily carrot to everybody in America.

Of course, the future of the KID (Karrot Issuance Daily) agency is not all shiny orange. The yearly number of carroticides might even exceed the number of US people killed by terrorists. But, even factoring in the increase of death by carrot, there still would be tremendous net positive benefit.

Medical error is currently the third leading cause of death in the U.S.,
Not according to the CDC https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fasta....
Even if "accidents" are all medical and not mostly automotive, that doesn't get you to 3rd place.

Does the CDC cover up medical "oopsies" and prescription mishaps? Both of these get huge body counts in the media but never hit a leading cause of death list.
I am very serious about this question and not trolling. Is the CDC owned like the FCC and the FDA and the ... oh, I guess I should have seen that coming.

i jsut have no tolerance for people like you who think that driving is anything less than a serious responsibility. The sooner we get people like you out from behind the wheel, the better.

Nationwide in the US, ~30% of driver fatalities involve alcohol: http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topic...

I've lived in Japan for the past 6 years, and when I first got here I was amazed that they have these long-established taxi services called "daiko", to prevent drunk driving. ( https://japan365.wordpress.com... ) If we are serious about preventing road fatalities, why aren't these services prolific in the states? Why don't we have stiffer penalties for DUIs, and lower BAC limits?

I know a LOT of "recreational drivers". NONE of them go joyriding under the influence. So if anything they take the responsibility of operating a motor vehicle more seriously than the general population. Japan is where drifting was invented, and to this day there remains a large subculture of late-night street racing. Yet the country has significantly lower fatality rates than the US: ( http://www.sciencedirect.com/s... ). Also note that, unlike the US, Japan has almost no fatalities due to intoxicated drivers ( http://www.stat.go.jp/english/... ), despite the fact that BAC limit in Japan is 0.03 instead of the US's 0.08.

Insurance rates are all about numbers, and the instant the autonomous cars surpass human safety numbers, human-driving will be over.

If that's the case, and it's all about insurance liability, why aren't motorcycles illegal or otherwise priced out of the market? Hell, why aren't sports cars ALREADY so stupid-expensive to insure that no one could afford them?

Full disclosure: I used to drift here in Japan, until I wrecked my Toyota Chaser and parted it out (a single-vehicle, low-speed accident at ~2am, on a public road only used to access a fenced-off area on rare occasions). I still own a sports coupe (Toyota Supra) that is getting upgraded to ~600hp for non-drifting fun on the streets. Last year I got a motorcycle license and bought a 250cc naked bike. I ride ATGATT (All The Gear, All The Time). Outside of computers and women, automotive hobbies are the biggest allocation of my time, and by far biggest allocation of recreational funds. Yet my insurance is CHEAP compared to what people pay in America (No argument for Liberty can silence the 30,00 dead every year from auto collisions.

What is your objective? What number of auto fatalities is acceptable? 10,000? zero?

Enjoy it while you can, we are coming for exactly people like you

Are you this vitriolic in your efforts to prevent other sources of mortality, such as suicide (42,000+ in 2014)? https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fasta...

Your post is a perfect example of why the Nanny State is so despised. You exaggerate the risk posed by some activity that you don't like (usually a position borne out of gross ignorance), and then go on a crusade to undermine people's ability to enjoy themselves by leveraging the government and other institutions to stuff other individuals back into the box of what your erroneous ideals tell you is the "approved" way of living. The sort of busybody that is active in Homeowner Associations, making everyone else miserable.

This guy gets it: ( https://books.google.com.vn/bo...)

You need to get better, apparently.

humans are incapable of driving cars without getting intoxicated first and even if not, they kill thousands more than robots would.

I get that you're either a marketing shill and/or an idiot, but the issue with self-driving cars isn't that they're worse drivers than some people, it's that if you aren't a terrible driver you are giving up control over your life to a machine which very well may be worse, but at the very least can be hacked, can be confused by novel scenarios, etc. Sure, anyone with a DUI in their track record should be forced to use only self-driving cars, for most people however it's a massive step down AND it puts their lives in the hands of governments, corporations, and a bunch of politically-zealous hipsters living in Silicon Valley.

Hell, let's say a best case scenario we have the ~30,000 auto deaths in the US every year reduced in half. Why only half, since machines are so great, you demand? Well, the same reason we have Moore's law, not because that is a true metric of the development and capability of technological progress, but because it is what the markets will tolerate for maximum gain. If the government, silicon valley execs, liberal extremists in Silicon Valley (all likely "hackers" if they even get caught) can kill off 15,000 of their enemies every year and get away with it while being hailed as heros for pushing a technology that reduced deaths by half, why wouldn't they? So, what's so bad about reducing the death toll by half, even if what I just wrote is true, you demand like a petulant child? Well, 30k/yr random people is nothing compared to the 15k/yr most politically, financially and otherwise active people of specific groups. That changes society as a whole from having just another mindless thing people die by more or less at random (not even a cause in the top 10) to a weapon which, like most other technology these days, will be used to control people, remove liberty, expand the wealth gap, and increase the bar to entry in industry. Oh, and to top it all of they will put the largest single industry employing high-school-educated-males (the group most likely to revolt and start killing everyone if they are horrendously impoverished) out of work while moving all that wealth further up the ladder to the executives of FedEx, UPS, and more industrialized transportation companies you probably haven't even heard of.

TL;DR: Technology is the devil and self-driving cars have the potential to be arch-demons with little hope for tangible benefits capable of outweighing the damages to our society.

The cost of Sovaldi and Daklinza (used together) to treat Hepatitis C (which infects 3.5-5 million Americans), is $336,000 for the 24-week course of treatment. $1000 for each pill. The cure rate of Sovaldi and Daklinza is approximately 90%. The same drugs in India cost about $4 per pill.

Hepatitis C currently kills more Americans than any other infectious disease.

https://www.cdc.gov/media/rele...

Did you know that your children are more likely to die violently in a rural area than in the city? And people in rural areas are also more likely to die from heart disease and cancer, among other diseases and injuries.

A suburb is a cross between an urban and a rural area, so it isn't clear at all that a suburb is a "much healthier environment" than a city.

What people mean by a "healthier environment" is the fact they can have a large house, big car, pet and other things that are difficult to own in high density areas. Basically they want some idealised 1950's white picket fence fantasy whilst forgetting that they're working 80 hours a week and commuting for another 20 to have enough money just to make the payments on their fantasy whilst trying to avoid the inevitable divorce of their loveless marriage which would make their already unbalanced crotchspawns even more fucked up.

Middle aged men like fancy cars because it's much easier to realise the rest of your life has gone to shit when you're doing 0 to 60 in 5 seconds.

Could also have something to do with real estate getting more expensive in high density urban environments.

Did you know that your children are more likely to die violently in a rural area than in the city? And people in rural areas are also more likely to die from heart disease and cancer, among other diseases and injuries.

A suburb is a cross between an urban and a rural area, so it isn't clear at all that a suburb is a "much healthier environment" than a city.

Also, unlike contracting the disease, getting the vaccine doesn't risk giving it to several others before you (or they) even know you have it.

This is simply not true. There have been documented cases where children who had no prior history with the disease infected other children after being vaccinated.

From the CDC. That article was about Pertussis not measles but it isn't too hard to find measles cases if you look.

You could start with

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesaf...

which summarizes expected risks and links to some studies, published medical articles.

All because some little shit stain and their parents decided that it was a good idea to have their kid out in public while infectious.

Is this speculation on your part, or do you know this for a fact?

Because chickenpox can be contagious before you show any symptom.

1. Chickenpox can sneak in without any symptoms. You may be contagious even before you know you have chickenpox. But, the time you are most contagious is probably the first few days after the "pox" appear.

So you are good with riding the subway surrounded by people who are coughing because they could not get treated for their tuberculosis?

Here, let me offer you a hand getting off of that slippery slope....

15-24 coincides with the age brackets used by the CDC. So I suspect it's a standard demographic grouping.

Comparative statistics are only useful if stats you collect now cover the same age groupings as stats collected in the past. So if 15-24 is a standard group, statisticians will want to continue to collect stats for that group even if it doesn't make as much sense for a particular stat.

Do we really need you guys talking anymore? Can't we just ASSUME "smoking = CANCER" and just move on?

Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of death in the United States.

This is called normalization.

Agreed, and tobacco tax has the same effect as well. there are plenty of studies out there, but here's one: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/previ...

Inebriation is no barrier to driving https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehic..., it is just a barrier to driving properly.

I've read a story somewhere about the manager of an engineering department dealing with critical systems at NASA during the space race. He imposed 9 to 5 work days, as part of his plan to promote a healthy routine. He noticed that overwork leads to mistakes and that nullifies any productivity gain made during extra hours.

It is absolutely true. For work in the trades (machinists, welders, etc), we see the majority of accidents occurring in the final 2 hours of a 12 hour shift. It is naive to think that white collar people don't suffer from fatigue too. The CDC even hosts a study titled "Overtime and Extended Work Shifts: Recent (not so recent now) Findings on Illnesses, Injuries, and Health Behaviors" showing that there may be profound effects on the long-term health of workers as well.

Cats are filthy animals. They shit and pee in the house. That tramp through the feces and urine in their little box. Then they hop on the kitchen counters, tables, furniture, and beds spreading their filth. They harbor all kinds of parasites and nasty germs. I'm no fan of dogs either, but if you have a choice of getting bit by a dog or a cat, choose the dog. Dogs only harbor about six potentially dangerous pathogens in their mouths. Cats harbor about 135 dangerous pathogens. The doctor will put you on industrial strength antibiotics if you are bitten by a cat.

Anyone who has ever met a "cat lady" (or a "cat girl") knows they are whacked and mentally unstable. Men who adore cats are usually femmes themselves often exhibiting traits of latent homosexuality. Yes, cat ownership is a sign of mental illness, whether or not the cause is cat born parasite.

Don't believe me? See what the CDC has to say about the huge problem of zoonotic disease. According to the CDC, most infectious diseases are directly spread from animals to humans.

When are individuals held responsible for their actions? I see many successful blacks in America one was the most powerful man on the planet. Statistics can highlight certain things but it can't tell you the why or how.

Statistically, if you don't want to be poor do 3 things:
1) graduate high school
2) get a full time job
3) get married before you have kids

Why is this advice falling on deaf ears? #3, probably the most important, is only about the choices you make and the black community has a problem with single parent house holds. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/...

I am sorry but at some point your actions have consequences. It isn't the white man or the police that are making poor decisions that are markers for poor economic outcomes. How much time must pass for the individual to be judged by their own actions without using statistics to dismiss their responsibility?

You're by no means obligated to smoke, you can just enjoy your drinks there.

sigh

Thankfully due to all these anti smoking laws I now can be.

Regarding your sig ... isn't it reasonable to conclude that a man in drag (for purposes other than a gag like I once saw at a Halloween party) is someplace on the "transsexual spectrum", or at least is thinking about becoming a transsexual? After all men who identify as masculine and heterosexual generally don't dress in drag. Is "woman trapped in a man's body" the only criteria you recognize? How much commitment do you require before you grant the recognition: must the man take estrogen and grow breasts, or go all the way and modify the genitals with reassignment surgery?

Absolutely not. First - "men who identify as masculine and heterosexual generally don't dress in drag" - if you believe that, you're in for a REAL surprise. Some surveys put the number of males who have worn one or more pieces of woman's clothing for erotic pleasure at least once at 60%. cross-dressing is a sexual fetish, and has nothing to do with gender identity.

The APA specifically state that being gender variant is NOT the same as being transsexual. There are specific diagnostic criteria that only apply to transsexuals, and not to the "transgender community", who do not need treatment because they do not have a medical condition.

Gender dysphoria is not the same as gender nonconformity, which refers to behaviors not matching the gender norms or stereotypes of the gender assigned at birth. Examples of gender nonconformity (also referred to as gender expansiveness or gender creativity) include girls behaving and dressing in ways more socially expected of boys or occasional cross-dressing in adult men. Gender nonconformity is not a mental disorder. Gender dysphoria is also not the same being gay/lesbian.

The LGBT are pissed off that anyone would dare point out the distinction publicly, because they see it as a threat to the "unity of the community." To bad for them that 50% of female transsexuals are straight, and thus have no reason to be part of the gay "community" - or to be represented by people who continue to publicly confuse the difference between "transgender" and "transsexual" with such idiotic statements by leaders of the gay community such as "Of course we support transsexuals - we had drag queens on our Mardi Gras float."

Combine that with the far higher rates of violence, including domestic violence, in the gay community, higher rates of health-risk behavior such as smoking, higher rates of risky sex, especially among transgenders and transsexuals who are members of the LGBT community (the highest rate of HIV/AIDS of any group - 16% for latinos, 17% for whites, 56% of blacks, as well as very high rates of prostitution) - who the hell wants to be part of such a "community" if they're not gay or lesbian?

I've heard the excuses for the high rates (+50%) trans prostitution, and they don't wash. Being ridden bareback by gay men paying for anal sex is not "gender-affirming" behaviour. And the poverty argument also doesn't wash - 39% of single mothers live in poverty, but we don't see half of them engaging in prostitution as a career. But don't you dare point that out - you're somehow "transphobic" for pointing out that the "justifications" are bullshit in the face of statistics.

But to answer your question - a diagnosis of Gender Dysphoria from psychiatrists who are trained both to recognize it, and to recognize when what someone self-diagnoses as "being transsexual" is in fact not true, is the only acceptable standard. Why would you NOT want to get expert help anyway.

And no, I am not anti-LGB. Rights are rights, and everyone has a right to exist. What they don't have is a right to speak for non-gays, especially since they've proven over and over again that they just don't "get it."

The CDC and American Academy of Pediatrics cite numerous studies showing blankets increase the risk of death.

https://www.cdc.gov/sids/paren...

http://pediatrics.aappublicati...

Quoting American Academy of Pediatrics:
"It is important to note that a large percentage of infants who die of SIDS are found with their head covered by bedding. Therefore, no pillows, sheets, *blankets*, or any other items that could *obstruct infant breathing* or cause overheating should be in the bed."

"Soft objects,19,20,55â"58 such as pillows and pillow-like toys, quilts, comforters, sheepskins, and loose bedding,4,7,59â"64 such as blankets and nonfitted sheets, can obstruct an infantâ(TM)s nose and mouth. An obstructed airway can pose a risk of suffocation, entrapment, or SIDS."

AAP cites:
Hauck FR, Herman SM, Donovan M, et al. Sleep environment and the risk of sudden infant death syndrome in an urban population: the Chicago Infant Mortality Study. Pediatrics. 2003;111(5 pt 2):1207â"1214pmid:12728140

Fleming PJ, Blair PS, Bacon C, et al; Confidential Enquiry into Stillbirths and Deaths Regional Coordinators and Researchers. Environment of infants during sleep and risk of the sudden infant death syndrome: results of 1993-5 case-control study for confidential inquiry into stillbirths and deaths in infancy. BMJ. 1996;313(7051):191â"195pmid:8696193

Brooke H, Gibson A, Tappin D, Brown H. Case-control study of sudden infant death syndrome in Scotland, 1992-5. BMJ. 1997;314(7093):1516â"1520pmid:9169398

Kemp JS, Nelson VE, Thach BT. Physical properties of bedding that may increase risk of sudden infant death syndrome in prone-sleeping infants. Pediatr Res. 1994;36(1 pt 1):7â"11pmid:7936840

Kemp JS, Livne M, White DK, Arfken CL. Softness and potential to cause rebreathing: differences in bedding used by infants at high and low risk for sudden infant death syndrome. J Pediatr. 1998;132(2):234â"239pmid:9506633

And many more