Slashdot Mirror

Colonization is possible, sure. However, it doesn't solve anything other than extinction due to a planet-wide event.

According to the World Population Clock the world's population is going up by 150 people per MINUTE. So, let's magically say we can build a new type of space shuttle that could travel interplanetary distances and could perfectly recycle everything, so we need minimal consumables. The shuttle's useful load was 55,250 pounds (25,060 kg). For easy math, we'll say each person - and their luggage - is about 220 pounds (100 kg), giving us a max passenger capacity of about 250 people. So, to keep population EVEN, we need to launch a space shuttle every 100 seconds. Every hour, every day, forever. How realistic does that sound? Remember, I already hand-waved the physics and consumables problem.

So, the short version... We are stuck on this planet, so we should probably work on keeping it in good shape.

There are some major issues, here.

One, I'm familiar with the study you linked concerning housework distribution. Are you aware that in that study, half again as many men were employed full-time as the women? Do you agree that if one person is employed full time and the other isn't, that the one that is not should take on a greater share of housework? Also, you claim the link points out a correction for this, but I don't see one. Can you cite, please?

Two, recent studies show that lesbian couples experience domestic violence at a similar rate to heterosexual couples, and it is known that men underreport, so I wouldn't say the situation is so cut and dries as "man=criminal, woman=victim."

Three, you attack the "women want wealth" position as not being supported, but cursory searching turns up evidence. Here's a couple:
Women more attracted to men in expensive cars
Women's orgasm frequency increases with the wealth of their partner

Carrying it so far as to imply the majority of divorces are because of crimes perpetrated by men is, frankly, sensationalist. I have seen deep discourse from you on this site, so I know you are not trolling, but your claims, implications, and position here are not defensible.

Dichloroacetate (DCA) is a cheap, un-patentable, drug (essentially 1vinegar molecule+2chlorine atoms) currently used to treat a rare enzyme disorder in children, but researchers have found it useful in allowing cancer cells to learn how to kill themselves with reasonably acceptable temporary side effects. See "DCA and How It Works" below.

There is almost no funding for this drug study due to it being un-patentable despite quite encouraging results, and reasonably acceptable and reversible side-effects.

Recent human trial reported here:
http://www.medindia.net/news/Dichloroacetate-Effective-Against-Aggressive-Brain-Cancer-68867-1.htm

Initial news from a couple of years ago...

http://www.dca.med.ualberta.ca/Home/index.cfm
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg19325874.700-cheap-safe-drug-kills-most-cancers.html?DCMP=ILC-Top5&nsref=mg19325874.700

Here's an excerpt...
"DCA and How It Works
Dichloroacetic acid versus Sodium Dichloroacetate

Dichloroacetic acid is a small molecule, basically acetic acid with 2 chlorines. The molecular formula is Cl2CHCOOH.

Dichloroacetate is the sodium salt of dichloroacetic acid. Replace a hydrogen with sodium and you get Cl2CHCOONa

If you view the video from CTV you will see a jar of dichloroacetic acid prominently displayed. http://www.depmed.ualberta.ca/dca/vid1.htm is well worth watching. But they used a “cheap ...powder”. Dichloroacetic acid only comes in liquid. The powder is the sodium salt of dichloroacetic acid. It is sodium dichloroacetate. The researchers did not use the acid.

For those of you searching for DCA, do not buy the acid. I posted info on the FAQ about it. The acid is not the same thing as the acetate. The acid is dangerously corrosive.

How does DCA work, briefly?

The Michelakis team reports that DCA turns on the mitochondria of cancer cells, allowing them to commit cellular suicide, or apoptosis.

Cancer cells shut down the mitochondria, which is the part of the cell that is involved in metabolism and, incidentally, initiates the cell suicide.

A non-cancerous cell will initiate apoptosis when it detects damage within itself that it cannot repair. But a cancer cell resists the suicide process. That is why chemotherapy and radiation treatments do not work very well and actually result in terrible side effects the healthy cells actually die much easier.

Michelakis and his team discovered that they could re-activate the mitochondria of cancer cells. Not only that, the DCA is very effective in doing it: To quote from the Michelakis paper: “The decrease in [Ca2+]i occurs within 5 min and is sustained after 48 hr of DCA exposure.” The mitochondria are so sensitive to DCA that just 5 minutes of exposure reactivates them for 48 hours.

The metabolic approach to cancer is supported by other research. Inhibition of Glycolysis in Cancer Cells: A Novel Strategy to Overcome Drug Resistance Associated with Mitochondrial Respiratory Defect and Hypoxia is a paper by a John Hopkins research team supporting this approach.

http://www.thedcasite.com/dcaforum/DCForumID1/79.html is a post on our chat room by Willis. giving a prediction as to which cancers DCA might not control, and it is being supported by the reports we are receiving."

More on the left side of this web page:
http://www.thedcasite.com/dca_how_it_works.html

= 9J =

Though perhaps they won't need massive amounts of force to subdue humanity; from what I've seen, most people would choose the blue pill.

I've long believed that the physical reality we live in, being entirely a product of energy and thus little more than an illusion, the idea of matter and as such is inherently linked to consciousness. . , that all things in our reality can be observed as and understood to be metaphors for systems and conflicts we are experiencing in our conscious awareness.

-You have to plug humans into the Matrix at the start of their lives when kids are most inquisitive. Red Smarties are the most popular color, and the battle over Blue Smarties rages on. . !

In 2006 it was announced that Nestlé were removing all artificial colourings from Smarties in the UK, owing to consumer concerns over the effect of chemical dyes on children's health. Nestlé decided to replace all synthetic dyes with natural ones, but as they were unable to source a natural blue dye, the blue Smarties were removed from circulation, and white Smarties were introduced in their place. White Smarties were later removed from the range, and blue Smarties were re-introduced in the UK in February 2008, using a natural blue dye derived from the cyanobacteria spirulina.

Dieticians [...] said that the blue coloring was the one which was most likely to cause intolerance in kids. "The thing about blue is there are no natural equivalents. All the others can be obtained from natural sources," said Linda Hodge, a dietitian. "I believe the Brilliant Blue causes the worst symptoms of chemical intolerances."

She added that when consumers are being tested for intolerances, the first color tried out is yellow. "When we are trying to determine if a person is sensitive to food coloring, we test them first on yellow. If there is no reaction we then use red, then blue. We don't start off with blue because it is a the strongest color and gives the worst reactions," she observed.

Humans naturally try to reject the Matrix. "Entire crops were lost."

Neat, huh?

-FL

Climate Changes And Increased Rainfall 'Greening' the Sahara Desert Becoming Green Due to Climate Change August 4, 2009.

It has its flaws, as any large institution does, but these are flaws that are siezed upon by opponents and used as propaganda (check out the raft of TV commercials on US TV during Clinton's attempt to get a national system running in the US - "you can't choose your own doctor! you won't have access to cutting edge treatments! the doctors don't get paid a decent wage! you'll have to wait years for lifesaving surgeries!)

And what part of that is not true in different health care systems around the world? More importantly, what part of that was not true with Hillary care that was being pushed in 1993?

Now, in a system like the UK NHS you do have long wait times for certain things if the system is busy, and if there's one major criticism to be levelled at it, it's that it is a behemoth organisation with a lot of bloat in it, soaking up money like a sponge, yet still requiring huge investment with a lot of faults. It is still recovering from 15 years of neglect from a Tory government in the 80s, but it is coming around gradually.

If by coming around you mean providing substandard treatments, denying treatment to anyone they can justify, and killing treatment for anyone who wants to pay the difference for better treatment, then I guess your right.

Even with the horror stories that the newspapers and private healthcare shills love to jump on (I waited 4 hours in the ER when I broke my leg!), these are totally atypical of the experience, and even with these issues that arise (which do need to be addressed), it is still vastly superior to the US system which exists solely to make drug companies, senators, congressmen and other select individuals very rich and has nothing to do with actual health care, other than as a side effect.

Read some of the links I provided above. This isn't a 4 hour wait for a broken leg. It's a refusal to provide effective treatment, long wait times for things like MRI scans and medically necessary procedures and so on in the various different health care systems.

And yes, it's so bad in Canada that it's economically viable for insurance companies to offer wait list insurance that will take you to another country is necessary to get treatment. Try taking a look at medical tourism where a lot of brits seem to be going to India and parts Asia if not just others parts of Europe for cheap medical coverage that they already have in the UK.

... if it weren't for the fact that I'm skeptical enough to know better.

Ignoring the fact that they spend twice as much on advertising as on R&D, routinely dump their toxic crap in underdeveloped countries; the truth is that the majority of their products are worthless, and may do more harm than good

Though you are no doubt right to be cynical, I can remember one recent announcement of a disease being cured, and it's a big one, cervical cancer (though perhaps it is truer to say it is a prevention rather than a cure).

The cure to obesity is to eat and live healthier

Well, that is one cure. Researchers are discovering cures to new techniques to reduce obesity though without diet and exercise. One example are two drugs that are about to get FDA approval here. Also, researchers are currently looking at drugs that modify genes to change metabolism. This would cause an obese person to digest food faster. This research is very promising and should be out in 5 years. It's a narrow view to think that the only solution to a problem is the one you know. Many people can't or don't want to cure obesity with diet and exercise.

IANAL and I don't know about India's legal system, but I don't think they have the sue-for-every-mistake mentality we do here. Two recent developments, One where doctors fall under the Consumer Protection Act. Here complaints are handled by a consumer forum, ie., headed by a retired judge and other experts and the doctor & the patient have to trash it out. its quicker than going through the courts. Secondly, the Supreme court in a judgement has ruled that a doctor cannot be held liable for criminal negligence for the death of a patient during the treatment due to error of judgement or an accident.