Slashdot Mirror

Antibiotics are required to get over sinus infections (without waiting over a month in misery), which I get almost every time I get a cold.

Thank you for so aptly proving my point. Sinus infections are one of the classic overuse scenarios, since in most cases they're viral and thus antibiotics are utterly useless. (Oh, and by the way, you generally can't tell for sure whether you have one of the fairly rare bacterially-driven sinus infections until about 10 days in, at which point most cases are on the verge of clearing up on their own.)

Again, this is something you want instead of something you're against, so you basically just shrug it off, justify your own overuse, deny the well-understood and common-sense notion that antibiotic resistance in humans is driven by antibiotic overconsumption by humans, and ignore the mass of literature that quantifies exactly how serious the problem is getting:

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is recognized as one of the greatest threats to human health worldwide. Just one organism, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), kills more Americans every year than emphysema, HIV/AIDS, Parkinson’s disease and homicide combined.

So -- are we ready to take "one of the greatest threats to human health worldwide" head on, classify antibiotics as a controlled substance, criminalize misuse, and go door to door making sure people aren't taking them on the sly? Yeah, didn't think so. Once again, the current flap over vaccination is an astoundingly hypocritical, transparent excuse for exercising what would otherwise be considered an unacceptable degree of power and control over currently disfavored groups/mindsets.

No SK, it is not new and it has been applied to humans as well as mice.

Plain facts are that a diet that includes red meat (not raw meat, and processed meat like salami has higher content, and not even starting to talk about Monster drinks and all the other health drinks with carnitine) hurts humans

The only people muddying the water are meat producers who do not seem to care if the products that they profit from kill their customers.

Classic Milton Friedman business ethics there, enhancing shareholder value with no eye to the welfare of their customers

SK, you should read up on the role that Carnitine plays in heart disease bacteria digest L-carnitine and turn it into a compound called trimethylamine-N-oxide (TMAO). In studies in mice, TMAO has been shown to cause atherosclerosis, the disease process that leads to cholesterol-clogged arteries.

It is not just about reducing the impact that raising animals for food has on our environment, but on ourselves as well.

It's pretty impossible that complex reasoning, creativity, social and emotional intelligence, and sensory perception will ever be done by a machine.

I mean, all that machines can do for creativity now is create art in multiple styles including abstract weirdness like Dali, create photorealistic art based on crude drawings supplied as source material, write shitty stories, and create pop songs. There's no way that they will ever do more than that in the future, right?

I'm sure that they will never be able to sense emotions in people, nor will they replace a therapist. We certainly won't try to get AI to determine if people are likely to be criminals or re-offend if they have been convicted before.

Computers definitely will never be able to see and sort things, smell, recognize songs, or have a sense of touch or feel pain.

It's one thing to lay out soft skills that a lot of people don't have and say that's where jobs lie in the future. It's a whole different ballgame to ignore the fact that computers are already making inroads there, and already are better than some percent of the population at those things. Unless the authors are expecting technology to suddenly go in reverse, they're packing bags for a ship that's already sailed.

Genetics plays a role. But from what I've read, the biggest factor is gut flora and bacterial infection; often from bad oral hygiene (gingivitis). Meaning plaques build up in the brain and ostensibly the cardiovascular system as well.

https://www.health.harvard.edu...

While that makes some sense, Earth is a relatively small target in space. If it is generally following the ecliptic but just very slightly inclined or declined, it can definitely hit Earth from the top or the bottom. It's not immediately obvious to me that this random-walk effect is dominated by the near-coplanar orbits of Earth and its impactors.

So I looked it up.

* I found stackoverflow people asserting what you said without sources
* I found another site asserting that the main latitude difference was regions near the poles are always in the "morning" side of Earth and meteors impact more often at morning (since the morning side of the Earth is facing the direction Earth is going so it's kind of like the Earth is impacting the meteors rather than the meteors impacting Earth -- which makes sense to me). Which makes some sense although I think over the course of a full year, basically every location on Earth has to have roughly equal parts day and night (ignoring the impacts of elevation, mountain shadow, etc.).
* I found this article: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full.... It definitely supports your statement, although the rate is 50-60% at poles vs. equator so Russia should still be the biggest target given that it's more than twice as big as the next biggest (Canada, also not noted for its proximity to the equator).
* This one also supports you, but is not a huge sample size: http://www.abc.net.au/science/...

That "plenty of people" who escape the ghetto - is not nearly as many as you think. Sure it happens, but it's not routine and there isn't a simple, sure-fire way to do it. You might almost say it's a matter of "luck".

Citation.

Why people with philosophy degrees are unemployable.

Except this guy teaches at Harvard and, according to his faculty page, has:

... an Sc.B. in Mathematics and Computer Science and an M.S. in Cognitive and Linguistic Sciences from Brown University in 1989. After several years as a graduate student in Logic and Methodology of Science, he finally received his Ph.D. in Philosophy from the University of California at Berkeley in 1998.

Which is more education than I, and probably you, have.

if I recall Uber had no qualms about hiring a Waymo engineer on the basis of the proprietary information that he had, so some US companies certainly will do it.

Yes, Uber did. But that doesn't mean nothing happen. Waymo didn't care about their engineer but went after the bigger one -- Uber -- and it actually ended up with a lawsuit and settlement. That's how you do in the U.S. I doubt you can do that in China.

I agree with Yann that our current crop of languages aren't well suited to deep learning, but I'm not sure it's a Python specific problem. I don't think whitespace, threading, syntax etc are the barrier.

It's much more that Python is fundamentally an imperative language, and deep learning doesn't fit into either the imperative or functional category, I really think DL deserves its own category, designed from the ground up for manipulating tensor data structures of unknown shapes.

I haven't come across any language that encapsulate strong typing for tensor shapes, so you end up tracking shapes with pen and paper while debugging your code (and not everything is caught at compile time). Named tensors would be a good start (more information here http://nlp.seas.harvard.edu/Na...) but that wouldn't solve everything. People can't agree on computation graph vs a forward/back functional approach - PyTorch prefers the latter, TensorFlow originally preferred the former (but now seems to be migrating to the latter).

Julia does seem to be the most promising, but that may just be "the grass is always greener" speaking. I haven't played with it myself.

Maybe we should mandate all of these things too? Because there are hundreds of communicable diseases that all those protect people against -- not just measles.

https://www.drfuhrman.com/shop...
"In Disease-Proof Your Child, Dr. Fuhrman details how a Nutritarian [vegetable-emphasizing etc.] diet increases a child's resistance to common childhood illnesses like asthma, ear infections, and allergies. He explains how eating a high-nutrient diet during childhood protects against developing chronic illness including cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and autoimmune disorders."

https://www.everydayfamily.com...
"What all of this means, unfortunately, is that while breastfeeding generally provides the most protection against measles for babies when they are newborns and up to six months, those antibodies wane as they baby gets older. Currently, the CDC doesn't recommend that infants get the MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) vaccine until they are 12 months old, so babies who are my daughter's age â" 6 months â" are lacking in that protection."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
"It is now clear that vitamin D has important roles in addition to its classic effects on calcium and bone homeostasis. As the vitamin D receptor is expressed on immune cells (B cells, T cells and antigen presenting cells) and these immunologic cells are all are capable of synthesizing the active vitamin D metabolite, vitamin D has the capability of acting in an autocrine manner in a local immunologic milieu. Vitamin D can modulate the innate and adaptive immune responses. Deficiency in vitamin D is associated with increased autoimmunity as well as an increased susceptibility to infection. As immune cells in autoimmune diseases are responsive to the ameliorative effects of vitamin D, the beneficial effects of supplementing vitamin D deficient individuals with autoimmune disease may extend beyond the effects on bone and calcium homeostasis."

https://www.health.harvard.edu...
"Just like a healthy diet, exercise can contribute to general good health and therefore to a healthy immune system. It may contribute even more directly by promoting good circulation, which allows the cells and substances of the immune system to move through the body freely and do their job efficiently. ..."

Adequate sleep is also important for immune function:
https://valleysleepcenter.com/...
"One reason our immune system function is so closely tied to our sleep is that certain disease-fighting substances are released or created while we sleep. Our bodies need these hormones, proteins, and chemicals in order to fight off disease and infection. Sleep deprivation, therefore, decreases the availability of these substances leaving us more susceptible to each new virus and bacteria we encounter. This can also cause us to being sick for a longer period of time as our bodies lack the resources to properly fight whatever it is that is making us sick."

If the logic of forced vaccination holds up, shouldn't we also be putting people in jail for giving children junk food -- as well as for producing or selling junk food consumed by children?

Or maybe we should jail people who are not getting enough sleep (e.g. people who stay up late reading Slashdot) and so are posing a health risk to everyone?

Or is that too slippery a slope for people here to consider?

Humor also boost the immune system. So maybe people who don't laugh enough should also be sent to jail as a health risk? :-)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.ni

So, if I understand what you're saying, handing out free benefits to people (instead of them earning them) makes them feel better but essentially doesn't improve their condition so you're left with a largely dependent group of people who cannot fend for themselves?

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/cat...

Who'd a thunk it?

The rates of suicide do not go way up.

Not only do they go way up, but they go way, way, WAY up.

There is a definitive correlation between gun ownership rates and suicide rates.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/n...

TFA: "Any location data that Sidewalk Labs receives is already de-identified (using methods such as aggregation, differential privacy techniques, or outright removal of unique behaviors)"

Differential privacy is a rigorous mathematical definition of privacy. In the simplest setting, consider an algorithm that analyzes a dataset and computes statistics about it (such as the data's mean, variance, median, mode, etc.). Such an algorithm is said to be differentially private if by looking at the output, one cannot tell whether any individual's data was included in the original dataset or not. In other words, the guarantee of a differentially private algorithm is that its behavior hardly changes when a single individual joins or leaves the dataset -- anything the algorithm might output on a database containing some individual's information is almost as likely to have come from a database without that individual's information. Most notably, this guarantee holds for any individual and any dataset. Therefore, regardless of how eccentric any single individual's details are, and regardless of the details of anyone else in the database, the guarantee of differential privacy still holds. This gives a formal guarantee that individual-level information about participants in the database is not leaked. https://privacytools.seas.harv...

There is also American milk with extra hormones to increase milk production in cows and well, those hormones do what ever those hormones do to you. I would also wonder how much water has been added to that milk to increase 'er' production. The bigger the corporation, the worse their produce seems to be the modern rule. https://news.harvard.edu/gazet... mmm tasty tasty milk or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... want some pus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... in your dairy product, yes no. Perhaps this is why consumption of milk has fallen, corporate tainting of the product reducing demand.

Allow me to provide an example (or rather, a study), since you asked in our discussion above. Here you go.

Re: "His background or your feelings about it are irrelevant. Unlike you, we scientists deal in facts...What matters is his idea

Which part of the creation-from-nothing idea most persuades you as a scientist?

Re: "Until you provide a model that explains all of the observations equally or better, the leading models will have the consensus."

We can actually see high redshift quasars moving. They exhibit proper motion. How much more reason do you really need in order to ask the question of whether or not there exists an inherent redshift component?

If quasar redshifts are due to velocity, they should be so incredibly distant that proper motion is undetectable.

We know this to be the case due to published remarks by Maarten Schmidt in a 1963 Nature article titled "3C 273: A Star-like Object with Large Red-Shift":

"Only the detection of an irrefutable proper motion of parallax would definitely establish 3C 273 as an object within our Galaxy."

M. Schmidt, “3C 273: A Star-like Object with Large Red-Shift,” Nature 197 (March 16, 1963), p. 1040.

Now, consider the exemplary journalism below within the context of that quote:

"... Quasar 3C 279 is one of the brightest gamma ray objects in the sky. And with a redshift of .536 z as listed in NED it is assumed to be quite distant at almost 6.9 billion light-years away using a so-called Hubble Constant value of 55 (km/s)/Mpc. However, accepting such a distance would make this object one of the most energetic and powerful radiation emitters in the known Universe by many orders of magnitude.

3C 273 is the first celestial object ever identified as a quasar. It is also assumed to be one of the closest to Earth with a redshift of .158 z which supposedly places it at a distance of 2.5 billion light-years when using the same Hubble Constant. 3C 273 is the brightest quasar in the night sky with an apparent magnitude of 12.9 which makes it visible to even amateur astronomers’ telescopes. At its accepted distance this brightness equates to an absolute magnitude of 26.7 which also makes this quasar one of the most luminous in the known Universe.

The radio source 3C 278 is associated with the galaxy NGC 4782 and its companion NGC 4783. NGC 4782 is the host of 3C 278 and has a redshift of .013 z which gives it an assumed distance of 234 million light-years. NGC 4783 is the northern galaxy in most images of the pair and has a redshift of .154 z which would place it 270 million light-years distant. However both objects are themselves connected by a bridge of material and appear less than 40 arcseconds apart.

Quasar 3C 275 has a large redshift of .480 z which presumably puts it at a distance of 6.3 billion light-years away. Again, as with all the aforementioned 3C radio sources, distances were calculated using a Hubble’s 'Constant' of 55 (km/s)/Mpc.

How can such widely separated objects be bridged with such a highly energetic field of material on such an enormous scale? According to their accepted distances 3C 279 and 273 alone are roughly 1 billion light-years apart in the sky and over 4 / billion light-years apart in distance from Earth. There are over 6 billion light-years separating the closest objects from the furthest objects in this group. There is no real conceivable way such a body of mass and energy could exist in the Universe unless it was actually much closer to us than had previously been assumed. Greatly reducing the actual distances to these bright radio sources also resolves a very surprising discovery made when observing the cores of the two brightest objects, 3C 279 and 273 using the Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA) and other radio telescopes.

Jets of material have lon

they die. That's what they do. They die. About 1 every 11 minutes.

The left needs more fearmongering. But can you really call it fearmongering when there's something real and legitimate to be frightened of? I don't know, but we lean to heavy on hope and change. That doesn't get the votes. Fear does.

You know that famous painting, "The Scream"? Can you guess why the sky is orange? It's because of the 1883 Krakatoa eruption. Here are more paintings from that time". We might end up with an orange-tinted atmosphere, and the constant "sulfur" smell everywhere. Their idea is that injecting SO2 will chemically convert into SO4. It will also convert into H2SO4, more commonly known as "acid rain". It can also cause ozone depletion, which is one of the reasons it "can't stop" if we start.

It's an apocalyptic idea, and has an insane amount of unmitigated risks. It's an "end-game strategy" that will irreversibly alter our entire planet, and will be the ultimate Anthropocene Epoch event; this will be our Chicxulub.

Damnit, the link to the study is broken, sorry people. Here's a working one.

I clearly need more coffee.

Here in the US, most States provide zero-cost ID

Do they? 'Cause that's news to me. I asked an American living here in Finland that I have befriended about this and he said it's BS. So one of you guys is wrong. I tend to trust my friends more than strangers on the internet but because I wanted to make sure I went to Google and 10 seconds later found this in the wiki

According to a Harvard study, "the expenses for documentation, travel, and waiting time [for obtaining voter identification cards] are significant—especially for minority group and low-income voters—typically ranging from about $75 to $175. When legal fees are added to these numbers, the costs range as high as $1,500."[49][50] So even if the cards themselves may be free, the costs associated with obtaining the card can be expensive.[49] The author of the study notes that the costs associated with obtaining the card far exceeds the $1.50 poll tax outlawed by the 24th amendment in 1964.

The study in question is a 2014 study from Harvard Law School titled The High Cost of ‘Free’ Photo Voter Identification Cards '

So a trusted and informed friend and a dude from Harvard Law against 1 anonymous coward... damn, this is a tough one but I do think you may in fact be full of shit, because I did crunch the numbers and came tot he conclusion that a 'free card' costing anywhere from 75 $ upwards is not in fact free.

This reminds me of that quote from Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy:

“But the plans were on display”
“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”
“That’s the display department.”
“With a flashlight.”
“Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”
“So had the stairs.”
“But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”
“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”

People have been searching for evidence of other intelligent life in the universe pretty much as long as anyone has been able to conceive of the concept. There will undoubtedly be people looking as long as we haven't found any or ruled out their existence.

If you actually care, you can do it yourself.

21 cm Antenna and Receiver

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~n...

If you want bonus points you can go through the design process yourself

Talk about hyperbole. But you sound pretty serious about your feelings, so let me address each of your points one at a time.

1) We've been evolving into omnivores for at least a million years.

Not quite. Homo sapiens has been evolving for about 250,000 years, give or take. And we evolved into omnivores mostly because gathering plants and fruits was easier, safer, more reliable, and a more dependable source of food. Meat from hunting was a high-risk-high-reward method of feeding oneself; while more caloric-dense, hunting took days, risks, and many people to do, and many times the hunters came back empty-handed. Evolving into omnivores allowed us to diversify our diets, giving us a greater chance of survival.

2) You can't just decide you're going to be strict vegetarian and not expect to have health problems related to that.

Says who? There's plenty of research supporting the benefits of vegan diets. As long as people watch what they eat to make sure they're consuming appropriate amounts of vitamins, proteins, and lipids, it really doesn't matter what diet they consume.

3) How about instead of screwing with people's diets, we create a timeline to eliminate fossil fuel use entirely, and stick to it?

No complaints. Maybe eliminating fossil fuel use entirely is a bit of a stretch, especially given our dependence on plastics and petro-chemicals, but a significant reduction needs to start now. But when thirty-six percent of the food we grow is fed to livestock, you're fooling yourself if you think that you can do that while advocating for meat consumption.

4) Also how about we stop destroying existing forests and start re-planting them?

Great idea. But then, where will we get the farmland for animal feed?

5) And start controlling our population growth, seeing as how the planet can clearly and objectively only support so many humans at once?

Well, good luck convincing everyone on the planet to stop procreating. Though, in a pure sense of supply-and-demand economics, it's our ability to improve agriculture production that allows us to sustain our population. After all, humans can't live if we can't grow food to feed them. Probably the most important man that nobody's ever heard of is Fritz Haber. It's his invention of the industrial production of nitrogen fertilizer that allowed the population of the planet to quadruple in one hundred years.

6) Why do we need 10 BILLION people alive at the same time? Can we get the nutjob 'quiverfull' religious types to knock it the hell off?

While -some- religious groups have population growth greater than average, most do not. The most influential variables in the United States are youth, fertility, and immigration. So, feel free to complain about the Mexicans, but the religious nutjobs, not so much.

Now that I've addressed your points, I'll take just a moment to make a few of my own. We eat far more than we need to. Given how many resources it consumes, as the parent article references, reducing our meat intake is not a bad t

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and claim that this is a product of bias and mental issues by the authors.
Much like how the authors of SuperFreakonomics couldn't have resisted their "one clever trick to fix global warming" chapter thanks to their personal biases. Which came back to bite them.
Also, the claim made in the paper is clearly false, even fraudulent.
Whether due to bias or to drum up publicity, I don't know. But they actually show that they are wrong.
More on that below. First a word or two on authors.

David W.Keith is a pusher of solar and geoengineering as a solution for climate change.
Also, best way to solve that climate change, according to him, is to start spraying sulfuric acid into air.
And he owns and runs a geoengineering company.
Which kinda runs on tar sands money.

Carbon Engineering is funded by several government and sustainability-focused agencies as well as by private investors, including Microsoft founder Bill Gates and oil sands financier N. Murray Edwards.[5][6][7]

Lee Miller on the other hand really hates them windmills.
And both windmills and photovoltaics should be kept out of the cities, tucked away somewhere in the desert.

In fact, he's done resear... I mean he played with computer models to "prove" that installing windmills will basically... stop the wind. Well... slow it down.
Someone should have told him about all those sails we used to use globally, that we're no longer using.

I.e. That a reduction of things to preindustrial levels actually requires reduction of wind speeds as well.
Or remind him that the air moved by the wind is a fluid. Like water.
And just like how water in the sea doesn't stop moving because of all the boats blocking it from moving freely... neither will global air currents actually slow down.
And even if they do - we could just reduce the number of flags and start driving cars only downwind, while wearing more tight fitting clothes, right?
Or tell him about the chance that his model is NOT REALLY a completely accurate representation of reality.

As for the study... It claims the following:

generating today's US electricity demand (0.5 TWe) with wind power would warm Continental US surface temperatures by 0.24 C.
...
The warming effect is: small compared with projections of 21st century warming, approximately equivalent to the reduced warming achieved by decarbonizing global electricity generation, and large compared with the reduced warming achieved by decarbonizing US electricity with wind.

It also claims that solar effect would be smaller but that's besides the point, unless you're looking for more bias fodder.

The issue is that those "approximately equivalent" and "large compared with the reduced warming achieved by decarbonizing US electricity" are COMPLETELY ignoring that the US is a part of a global system.
As seen from the graph they've provided.

They claim a warming of 0.24C over Continental US from 0.5TWe produced with wind power, by 2080, at which point it would level out.
At the same time they claim a cooling of about -0.48C over Continental US from

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and claim that this is a product of bias and mental issues by the authors.
Much like how the authors of SuperFreakonomics couldn't have resisted their "one clever trick to fix global warming" chapter thanks to their personal biases. Which came back to bite them.
Also, the claim made in the paper is clearly false, even fraudulent.
Whether due to bias or to drum up publicity, I don't know. But they actually show that they are wrong.
More on that below. First a word or two on authors.

David W.Keith is a pusher of solar and geoengineering as a solution for climate change.
Also, best way to solve that climate change, according to him, is to start spraying sulfuric acid into air.
And he owns and runs a geoengineering company.
Which kinda runs on tar sands money.

Carbon Engineering is funded by several government and sustainability-focused agencies as well as by private investors, including Microsoft founder Bill Gates and oil sands financier N. Murray Edwards.[5][6][7]

Lee Miller on the other hand really hates them windmills.
And both windmills and photovoltaics should be kept out of the cities, tucked away somewhere in the desert.

In fact, he's done resear... I mean he played with computer models to "prove" that installing windmills will basically... stop the wind. Well... slow it down.
Someone should have told him about all those sails we used to use globally, that we're no longer using.

I.e. That a reduction of things to preindustrial levels actually requires reduction of wind speeds as well.
Or remind him that the air moved by the wind is a fluid. Like water.
And just like how water in the sea doesn't stop moving because of all the boats blocking it from moving freely... neither will global air currents actually slow down.
And even if they do - we could just reduce the number of flags and start driving cars only downwind, while wearing more tight fitting clothes, right?
Or tell him about the chance that his model is NOT REALLY a completely accurate representation of reality.

As for the study... It claims the following:

generating today's US electricity demand (0.5 TWe) with wind power would warm Continental US surface temperatures by 0.24 C.
...
The warming effect is: small compared with projections of 21st century warming, approximately equivalent to the reduced warming achieved by decarbonizing global electricity generation, and large compared with the reduced warming achieved by decarbonizing US electricity with wind.

It also claims that solar effect would be smaller but that's besides the point, unless you're looking for more bias fodder.

The issue is that those "approximately equivalent" and "large compared with the reduced warming achieved by decarbonizing US electricity" are COMPLETELY ignoring that the US is a part of a global system.
As seen from the graph they've provided.

They claim a warming of 0.24C over Continental US from 0.5TWe produced with wind power, by 2080, at which point it would level out.
At the same time they claim a cooling of about -0.48C over Continental US from

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and claim that this is a product of bias and mental issues by the authors.
Much like how the authors of SuperFreakonomics couldn't have resisted their "one clever trick to fix global warming" chapter thanks to their personal biases. Which came back to bite them.
Also, the claim made in the paper is clearly false, even fraudulent.
Whether due to bias or to drum up publicity, I don't know. But they actually show that they are wrong.
More on that below. First a word or two on authors.

David W.Keith is a pusher of solar and geoengineering as a solution for climate change.
Also, best way to solve that climate change, according to him, is to start spraying sulfuric acid into air.
And he owns and runs a geoengineering company.
Which kinda runs on tar sands money.

Carbon Engineering is funded by several government and sustainability-focused agencies as well as by private investors, including Microsoft founder Bill Gates and oil sands financier N. Murray Edwards.[5][6][7]

Lee Miller on the other hand really hates them windmills.
And both windmills and photovoltaics should be kept out of the cities, tucked away somewhere in the desert.

In fact, he's done resear... I mean he played with computer models to "prove" that installing windmills will basically... stop the wind. Well... slow it down.
Someone should have told him about all those sails we used to use globally, that we're no longer using.

I.e. That a reduction of things to preindustrial levels actually requires reduction of wind speeds as well.
Or remind him that the air moved by the wind is a fluid. Like water.
And just like how water in the sea doesn't stop moving because of all the boats blocking it from moving freely... neither will global air currents actually slow down.
And even if they do - we could just reduce the number of flags and start driving cars only downwind, while wearing more tight fitting clothes, right?
Or tell him about the chance that his model is NOT REALLY a completely accurate representation of reality.

As for the study... It claims the following:

generating today's US electricity demand (0.5 TWe) with wind power would warm Continental US surface temperatures by 0.24 C.
...
The warming effect is: small compared with projections of 21st century warming, approximately equivalent to the reduced warming achieved by decarbonizing global electricity generation, and large compared with the reduced warming achieved by decarbonizing US electricity with wind.

It also claims that solar effect would be smaller but that's besides the point, unless you're looking for more bias fodder.

The issue is that those "approximately equivalent" and "large compared with the reduced warming achieved by decarbonizing US electricity" are COMPLETELY ignoring that the US is a part of a global system.
As seen from the graph they've provided.

They claim a warming of 0.24C over Continental US from 0.5TWe produced with wind power, by 2080, at which point it would level out.
At the same time they claim a cooling of about -0.48C over Continental US from

No wonder so many people get trapped in a cycle of poverty.

You think eating out is what traps people in poverty? You might want to learn about poverty traps and their causes. There are lots of causes of poverty. Eating out is not a meaningful cause.

That's more than every other day! And the latest figure is still more than every other day.

If you look at the number of restaurants out there (and the obesity statistics) this should not surprise anyone. People like to look down their nose publicly at McDonalds and the like but the simple fact is that vast numbers of people eat at these places routinely regardless of what they actually say. You think they stay in business because people are eating at home? People LIKE to eat out, they like fast food, and honestly a lot of the food tastes better than what many people can cook themselves.

WTF people, the fastest way to save money is to not eat out; doesn't everyone know that??

Several points on that. Basically your thesis isn't necessarily supported by the facts.
1) There is plenty of evidence to suggest that eating healthy tends to be more expensive than eating badly, at least in the short term. Even if you do manage to save money (which can be done) it's going to come at the cost of an investment of time and energy.
2) There is also evidence to suggest that eating out can be cheaper than eating at home for many.
3) Eating at home requires having the time to prepare the food. Speaking as someone with a young child and a working wife this time can be hard to come by for many people even if you would prefer it.
4) Eating at home does not necessarily equal eating healthier nor does it necessarily equal costing less. It CAN but it often doesn't.
5) Many people don't know how to shop economically in grocery stores and grocery stores have no incentive to help.
6) Food culture is as subject to fads as anything else. One should expect to see variation over time in where and how people eat their food.

Here's an interesting study about the press coverage of Trump's first 100 days in office.

Whenever the tone is this overwhelming negative, the press is going out of their way to make shit up. Like they did with Trump's 'animals' comment, for example, juxtaposing a notorious criminal gang for 'immigrants'.

There is a simpler and more likely answer than a vast global conspiracy by every media outlet in every country (except Russia) in the world to make Trump look bad

I know that's a bit of a strawman, when really much of media ownership is consolidated by major corporations who call the shots. However, in the study they noticed that the only time Trump receives positive coverage by all the press, is when he launched cruise missile strikes on a Syrian airbase. That alone ought to tell you something.

I'll help you out a little: NASA uses it when speaking baby-talk to the public.

Gem from that website:

Eventually, X-rays were found to be another form of light. Light is the by-product of the constant jiggling, vibrating, hurly-burly of all matter.

Careful what company you keep.

It offends me that people like you have stolen the "pro-life" name. You aren't pro-life, you are pro-authoritarianism. You just want to tell people what to do and couch it in "moral terms. Your choosing who is more important and who is throw away, I'm saying let people make their own decisions.
Give them access to birth control, give them help if they are about to be evicted. Did you know how much more likely it is to get evicted when you have children, and I know from experience renting with children is way more difficult. With six kids your constantly the potential landlords second choice over someone with less.

My main contention is that abortion is not a legal issue. It's a social issue. It's a symptom of the problems in our society.

sponsored by the alcoholic beverage industry

Just a few of those doing those 'alcohol industry backed' studies:

The School of Public Health at Harvard University
Catholic University of Campobasso
Kew-Kim Chew, epidemiologist, University of West Australia
Department of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University
Edward J. Neafsey, Ph.D., Loyola University Chicago
University of East Anglia

There are more. It looks like, according to you, the six universites above are in the pocket of the alcohol industry. Your claim, now go about backing it up.

I haven't bothered to see if your math checks out, but naturally there are other ways besides CO2 to play with the Earth's climate. You can add or remove any number of chemicals to the air. More feasible than what you propose is spraying particles into the upper atmosphere which reflect sunlight - and importantly, this has been demonstrated naturally by volcanic eruptions.

But you miss the point. Doing something novel that changes the natural balance is a very different thing than allowing the natural system to continue functioning the way it has for thousands of years. We are currently artificially adding CO2 to the atmosphere, which is throwing it out of whack. By far the most straightforward thing to do is "don't do that". Everything else will almost certainly have consequences that we will not anticipate.

Let's look at the facts:
1. In America, suicides are twice as common as homicides.
2. Only 10% of people that survive a suicide attempt go on to successfully kill themselves in later attempts.
3. Women are more likely to attempt suicide, but men are more likely to succeed (in America, 3 dead men for every woman). China is the only country in the world where the female suicide death rate exceeds the male rate.
3. Guns are not the most common method for attempting suicide. But in America they are the most common method of successful suicides. Drug overdose is the most common method, but is only successful 3% of the time. Gun suicides are successful 85% of the time.
4. Gun owning households have significantly higher suicide rates.
5. Gun suicides, in particular, tend to be "on impulse" rather than planned.
6. The TYPE of gun matters. Handguns are used in suicides much more often than either rifles or shotguns.

It is unlikely that people using guns to kill themselves would have done so successfully with a different method, since other methods require more planning and preparation, and have much higher failure rates.

If you choose to keep a gun in your home, you should choose a rifle or shotgun (I own one of each), not a handgun. Keep it locked.

Guns and suicide
Guns, suicide, and public policy
List of countries by suicide rate

(1) https://www.reuters.com/articl... [reuters.com]

Those are people who don't have health insurance, often by choice, not people who can't get health insurance. That's a big difference. The ACA health plans are such a financial ripoff that it's rational to be uninsured, in particular if you're young and healthy. If I could, I wouldn't have ACA-compliant coverage; as is, I picked the cheapest and most useless plan I could get and pay everything out of pocket.

(2) I'm pretty sure spending more on healthcare for people who are un/underinsured will make them healthier. Not sure how you can disagree with that.

No, more spending does not translate into better health. For example, the US spends a lot more per capita than countries with better health outcomes. And it's been shown that people on Medicaid have health outcomes that are no better, and often worse, than those with no insurance at all. Ultimately, the best way to improve health is for people to live a healthy lifestyle and take preventative measures; healthcare has a very limited effect on health, and too much healthcare spending (as in the US) has a statistically negative effect on population health.

(3) This is debatable but there's numerous studies indicating that healthy workers contribute to a more robust economy. See: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/n... [harvard.edu]

The article talks about "indirect costs associated with preventable chronic diseases". What are those "preventable chronic diseases"? Heart disease and diabetes. The way to eliminate those costs is to actually prevent the preventable diseases. How do you do that? By maintaining a normal weight, eating a healthy diet, and exercising. None of those involve healthcare spending. In fact, excessive healthcare spending is what encourages people to lead the kinds of lifestyles that lead to preventable chronic diseases in the first place, because they assume (correctly) that they don't have to face the financial or personal consequences of their sloth and gluttony for many years to come.

OK, now I know you're just making shit up to justify your world view.

My world view is based on actually having looked at the data and having been insured in half a dozen different systems around the world. I encourage you to look at the data yourself, instead of trying to find various biased secondary articles written by journalists.

OK, now I know you're just making shit up to justify your world view.
(1) https://www.reuters.com/articl...
(2) I'm pretty sure spending more on healthcare for people who are un/underinsured will make them healthier. Not sure how you can disagree with that.
(3) This is debatable but there's numerous studies indicating that healthy workers contribute to a more robust economy. See: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/n...

You listed a bunch of plants that produce others of the B vitamins but not B12. You gave no plants that contain B12, not a single one, because there are none. The only way plant foods have B12 is if it is added by a manufacturer or if the manure used for fertilizer isn't washed off (and then the B12 is in the manure on the vegetable, not in the vegetable). This is not controversial science. Plants do not produce B12. Harvard's nutrition scientists say it too: "B12 is only found naturally in animal products" ( https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/n... ).

Your confusion on this probably arises from the mentally debilitating malnutrition inherent in a vegan diet.

Avoiding animal products. People who do not eat any meat, fish, poultry, or dairy products are at risk of becoming deficient in vitamin B12, since B12 is only found naturally in animal products. Thatâ(TM)s why vegans should make sure to include B12-fortified foods or a B12 supplement in their diets. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/n...

The only natural way to get vitamin b in sufficient quantities is by eating meat. Non animal sources require vitamin supplements. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/n...

Re: "The current flows predicted by the debunked EU theory have not been observed."

Observations with ESA's Herschel space observatory have revealed that our Galaxy is threaded with filamentary structures on every length scale. From nearby clouds hosting tangles of filaments a few light-years long to gigantic structures stretching hundreds of light-years across the Milky Way's spiral arms, they appear to be truly ubiquitous.

The column density map, derived from our 70-500 micron Herschel data, reveals a complex network of filaments, and confirms that these filaments are the main birth sites of prestellar cores.

(they infer "turbulence" as the cause of the 27 star forming filaments, which plainly appear to branch off of one another! lol!)

Neutral hydrogen (HI) surveys at high galactic latitude show that the interstellar gas is filamentary.

Fig. (1) is an adaptation of Verschuur’s Neutral Hydrogen Filaments at High Galactic Latitudes [31]. The HI plasma filaments are formed by the scavenging action of interstellar Birkeland currents flowing in our galaxy. Seen from Earth the filament twists gives the misleading impression of a puzzling HI ‘cloud’ seen as an ‘enhanced emission feature’ (EEF) in the 21-cm radio telescope beam. The closed ellipses in the right-hand schematic are EEFs where the filament orientation twists away from the plane of the sky. Verschuur concludes that “...much of what is observed to be ‘cloud’ structure in the interstellar medium is telling us about geometry of filaments and not about the physics of ‘clouds.’”

These long and narrow magnetised filaments were discovered in the 1980s using the Very Large Array (VLA) radio telescope in New Mexico, but their origin has remained a mystery.

Henri Poincaré, at the conclusion of the preface to his book, 'Hypothéses Cosmogoniques', states:

One fact that strikes everyone is the spiral shape of some nebulae; it is encountered much too often for us to believe that it is due to chance. It is easy to understand how incomplete any theory of cosmogony which ignores this fact must be. None of the theories accounts for it satisfactorily, and the explanation I myself once gave, is a kind of toy theory, is no better than the others. Consequently, we come up against a big question mark.

our results have now yielded firm evidence that many — possibly all — AGN jets have inward currents along their axes and outward currents in a more extended region surrounding the jets. This provides fundamental information about the conditions leading to the formation and launching of the jets, as well as key input to theoretical simulations of astrophysical jets. It also indicates that astrophysical jets are fundamentally electromagnetic structures, which must be borne in mind when interpreting observed features in the distributions of both their intensity and linear polarization.

The mention of cosmic-scale magnetic fields is still likely to met with an uncomfortable silence in some astronomical circles – and after a bit of foot-shuffling and throat-

Oh, and found this;

Lack of health insurance and U.S. mortality

and an older article;

New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage

How is this better than the 'socialised' system we have in the UK?

Notaries in Germany are apparently lawyers. https://guides.library.harvard...

Well, cultures that don't consume much dairy are generally shorter, less healthy and die earlier.

The longest-lived and healthiest people on the planet eat little dairy.

And its absolutely the most efficient way to get calcium

That is a total falsehood.

I'm sure you think taking vitamins is the best way to get calcium

That's because you're an assumption-making moron. I said literally nothing about supplements.

And you can't digest milk because you stopped drinking it at some point (probably before or during college)

I consume dairy all the time, so I can digest it just fine. However, I am not a moron, so I can acknowledge that it might not be a healthy behavior even though I am engaging in it. Sorry about your cognitive dissonance!

Also, fuck you for using open source software and then trying to deny the folks that built that software basic food stuffs.

Aww, you're cute. But that's not even vaguely close to what I'm doing. He was complaining about his high cost of living, and I was pointing out that it was unnecessary. If you want calcium, you should drink soup made with bone broth and green vegetables. It will be dramatically more effective than consuming dairy products, even those fortified with calcium (which is ineffective for the same reason as supplements.)

Maybe that milk isn't even for him and is for his niece.

Cow's milk isn't healthy for children, either.

But then again, drinkypoo I've been here for years and remember some of your other posts.

I've been here for more years, and I don't remember any of your posts. Guess you're irrelevant.

I think that's for momentum scaling. But impact craters generally scale with energy. A portion of the projectile's energy is transferred to the target and excavates a crater (O'Keefe and Ahrens, 1977). So the excavated crater scaling is really somewhere between momentum and energy. The pi-scaling relation's give a weak dependence of crater diameter on energy D ~ KE^0.22 (Melosh, 1989), or D ~ v^0.44. I believe depth-to-diameter ratio is more or less constant (Nagel and Fechtig, 1980), at least for simple craters. So you'd get a similar scaling for depth on velocity. Of course, 2 km/s is hardly even hypervelocity, so this scaling might not even apply yet.

(I know, these are some pretty ancient references.)

https://qz.com/1305718/the-sci... link to https://qz.com/1045037/the-med...
now whether you trust "QZ.com" is another story but they properly link to the original article : https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/n... and https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/n...

https://qz.com/1305718/the-sci... link to https://qz.com/1045037/the-med...
now whether you trust "QZ.com" is another story but they properly link to the original article : https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/n... and https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/n...

Government inaction has killed close to a million people over the last 20 years.

Here are some examples:

- In the USA some judges use sentencing software that analyses if a defendant would be likely to commit a crime again. This software turned out to be biased against black people.
https://www.propublica.org/art...

- Women were less likely to be shown Google adds for high paying jobs, as the algorithm had perceived the existing bias (women less often have high paying jobs), and then concluded that showing these adds to women would result in fewer clicks.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

- An algorithm denied pregnant women medicare. "The scholar Danielle Keats Citron cites the example of Colorado, where coders placed more than 900 incorrect rules into its public benefits system in the mid-2000s, resulting in problems like pregnant women being denied Medicaid."
https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/21/17144260/healthcare-medicaid-algorithm-arkansas-cerebral-palsy

- Google's sentiment analysis algorithms gave gay related words a low score.
https://tech.slashdot.org/stor...

The list is endless.

The general assumption is: 'algorithms use math and data, thus they must be neutral and scientific'. But it's not that simple. This site explains it: https://www.mathwashing.com/ [mathwashing.com]

"The real danger, then, is not machines that are more intelligent than we are usurping our role as captains of our destinies. The real danger is basically clueless machines being ceded authority far beyond their competence." - Daniel Denett

Why always putting people in the correct categories is mathematically impossible:
https://medium.com/@mrtz/how-big-data-is-unfair-9aa544d739de

Books on the subject:
https://nyupress.org/books/978...
https://weaponsofmathdestructi...
http://www.hup.harvard.edu/cat...

You really need to read the thing
https://knightcolumbia.org/sit... [knightcolumbia.org]

Bahahahahaha. That's rich. Okay, let's play. On the very first page of all the ruling is "Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, Rebecca Buckwalter, Phillip Cohen, Holly Figueora, Eugene Gu, Brandon Neely, Jospeh Papp, and Nicholas Pappas [Plaintiffs]
against
Dondal J. Trump, Hope Hicks, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, and Daniel Scavino [Defendants]."

NOWHERE I repeat NOWHERE is Twitter named a party to the suit. NOWHERE. The suit was not brought against Twitter therefore no court would order them to do anything. This is what is meant by a "party" to the lawsuit.

For example, you wrote: "The ruling literally says "The President" must do something."
I am unable to find any such thing in the ruling. Where do you see it? The ruling says: "Finally, we consider what form of relief should be awarded, as plaintiffs seek both declaratory relief and injunctive relief. While we reject defendants’ categorical assertion that injunctive relief cannot ever be awarded against the President, we nonetheless conclude that it is unnecessary to enter that legal thicket at this time."

Bahahahahahaha. Man you really don't understand anything do you? Or you are cherry picking your statements:

Declaratory
judgment is appropriate under the factors that the Second Circuit
directs us to consider, see Dow Jones & Co. v. Harrods Ltd., 346
F.3d 357, 359-60 (2d Cir. 2003), and a declaration will therefore
issue: the blocking of the individual plaintiffs from the
@realDonaldTrump account because of their expressed political
views violates the First Amendment. “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial
department to say what the law is,” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1
Cranch) 137, 177 (1803), and we have held that the President’s
blocking of the individual plaintiffs is unconstitutional under
the First Amendment. Because no government official is above the
law and because all government officials are presumed to follow
the law once the judiciary has said what the law is, we must assume
that the President and Scavino will remedy the blocking we have
held to be unconstitutional.

NOWHERE in any of that statement involves Twitter. NOWHERE.

But you didn't answer my question: Why would you lie about what your comments are when we can scroll up and see them. Your first comments implied that the plaintiffs could be blocked if they were harassing despite that not appearing in the ruling.

Then we can talk about why you feel that appeal is likely in a Summary Judgement case. I doubt you have answers.

You still haven't told me where the judge ordered them to do something. You can't, because she didn't. The judge "presumes" they will stop blocking but didn't order them to do it anywhere because she concluded it was "unnecessary to enter that legal thicket at this time." The legal thicket being that it is unclear she can order the President to do anything period. She can probably order Scavino to do something, but Trump can just change his password.

As for the Twitter lawsuit potential, here's another article from Noah Feldman saying the same thing: "if Trump Can’t Block Twitter Users, Twitter Can’t Either" https://www.bloomberg.com/view...

This is his bio: https://hls.harvard.edu/facult...

You left out Communism., which killed far more than Fascism. Funny how you left that out and threw in "Organized Religion." That would seem hard to do if you are genuinely interested and opposed to "the most evil movements the human race has ever seen." It is actually backwards.

Communism did its damage over nearly a century and most of those deaths were unintentional consequences. Facsism achieved most of its deaths in 3 short years and those were targeted and deliberate.

Hey, but keep telling yourself Fascism is Good(TM) because Communism is bad... Its like saying you'd rather have Hepatitis E over AIDS... Personally I'd rather not have either.

You left out Communism., which killed far more than Fascism. Funny how you left that out and threw in "Organized Religion." That would seem hard to do if you are genuinely interested and opposed to "the most evil movements the human race has ever seen." It is actually backwards.