Slashdot Mirror

I thought previously that there was no information available on Bill Gates' personal shareholdings.

there is always information and of course it is unsurprisingly damning, unsurprising to me anyway, because I have not forgotten that Bill Gates was found guilty of unlawfully depriving others of billions of dollars. He's a fucking supervillain, because face it, who would have stuck with his gimpy crap throughout the years without aggressive lock-in? He'd be just another nerdy-looking also-ran, he wouldn't have a hot wife, he wouldn't have a fucking Gates foundation for us to argue about.

Why you need more evidence is beyond me. The man is an unrepentant criminal. He's never apologized for what he's done; indeed, he continues to pursue a hardass stance on IP that helps to hold the world back in any number of ways.

As for Gates and Eugenics, his dad was head of Planned Parenthood back when it had just been conceived of by the American Eugenics Society (not saying anything about PP now, mind you.) There's a PBS interview where he claims that he is essentially a former Malthusian. But there is some debate over the "former" part. He talks an awful lot about lowering birth rates for specific nations and communities.

IT's not, and it's been debunked. HInt: All alarmist 'documentaries' are alarmist and as such shouldn't be trusted as a source.

It has been banned, debunked is in the eye of the beholder:

http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2003/11/26/millions_of_bees_dead_bayers_gaucho_blamed.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imidacloprid_affects_on_bees

Alarmist 'documentaries' tell another side of the story, not always further from the truth than Fox news.

I don't understand all the hate for Bill.

You may hand in your geek card at the door.

If BillG's actions as the head of Microsoft we're enough for you, then surely his new mission of spreading IP law across the third world should get your attention? The Gates foundation makes for-profit investments that are killing people they claim to be trying to save. Bill is personally heavily invested in big pharma and Gates supports strong IP law in order to protect his profits.

If Lead has had such and effect, I wonder what effect injection Mercury straight into a small infant must have.

From the CDC web site:
Thimerosal is a mercury-containing preservative used in some vaccines and other products since the 1930s.

The CDC saids it doesn't cause and harm ,but since it's introduction in Children's Vaccines, the Autisms rates are almost 1%!

The Law requires all infants and small children to be injected with these mercury-containing Vaccines on a regular basis!
Worse they can not enter school and it's considered child abuse not to have them injected. They will take the kids away to a foster home and have them vaccinated against the parents will.

It is just mind boggling that there could even be a debate about forcibly injecting potentially harmful heavy metals to our kids.

http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2004/02/17/cdc_knew_mercury_in_vaccines_induces_autism.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/od/science/iso/concerns/thimerosal.htm

http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2004/08/10/t he_doctor_many_believe_can_cure_cancer.htm

Or is this just the same (quackery|alternative treatement) in a different guise?

Some of the studies listed here go back to the 1980's... http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2007/03/06/mi llions_of_bees_die_are_electromagnetic_signals_to_ blame.htm

One must also ask, and this is something I rarely see in the general debate : "What about all the nitrogen?"

Even back in 1994 the global warming potential of fertilizers were known :

"In wet soils, denitrifying bacteria convert nitrate to nitrous oxide and gaseous nitrogen. The former is a greenhouse gas that has an energy reflectivity per mole 180-fold higher than that of carbon dioxide."

I came across the notion in an MIT courseware video lecture (16 or 17 I think)

On a slightly different tack nitrogen's role in reducing carbon fixing was documented in 1996
  and thus warning against adding nitrogen to the ecosystem because it reduces the ability to fix the dreaded carbon, ignoring N's own contribution.

Yet here we have Nasa saying that carbon fixing is nitrogen limited and we should add more nitrogen to the system.

Not that all modern thinking is pro-nitrogen.

Add into the mix the world's estimated 1,300,000,000 cattle belching out 400 litres of methane each per day : 520,000,000,000 litres

Here's more on methane

Methane is responsible for nearly as much global warming as all other non-CO2 greenhouse gases put together. Methane is 21 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2. While atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have risen by about 31% since pre-industrial times, methane concentrations have more than doubled. Whereas human sources of CO2 amount to just 3% of natural emissions, human sources produce one and a half times as much methane as all natural sources. In fact, the effect of our methane emissions may be compounded as methane-induced warming in turn stimulates microbial decay of organic matter in wetlands--the primary natural source of methane.

and more

What conclusions?
My conclusion is that reducing one's carbon footprint will not suffice. The way to fix more nitrogen is to grow more pulses and legumes which is good because you're going to need something to replace the cows you're eating now. Stop pouring nitrogen on to the fields and start eating more organic produce.

As we've been saying for a while : "think globally, act locally"

For the record, I absolutely love my country, which is why I can't stand the direction it is going, especially since the coup back in 1913 when the private banking cartel managed to take over the country for real. Perhaps if you don't feel like you're being censored, it's because your views are more mainstream than mine. I left for China, coincidentally, the day after the US invaded Iraq. Leading up to that I was working for Gateway and traveling to South Dakota every week, along with other people involved in the same CRM project. It literally got to the point where I just wouldn't open my mouth because I had to continue working with those people and the looks of hatred that came along with the verbal abuse and labels of "anti-American" "why don't you move back overseas if you don't like it" etc. were quite startling. Before that, I was just a kooky oddball who was always spouting off during flu season about mercury and monkey viruses in vaccines, the fact that fluoride in water is a really bad idea discovered by the Nazis, etc. which got me curious looks, but nothing like the wrath I felt before leaving.

My comment about feeling freer to express myself here in China has a lot to do with finding sympathetic ears when I bemoan US imperialism. However, most Chinese I talk to are buying into all I oppose hook, line and sinker. I do my best to get people to investigate things for themselves instead of just swallowing it down whole, same as I do in the US. Of course there are real limits to my freedoms here, and I am certainly much freer than most Chinese people who can't even travel outside the country except in large groups. It isn't as though I like the Chinese government better, but at least Chinese people don't go around bragging about how "free" they are. Look around you and you will find others there in the US who feel the same way about what's happening, only the might not speak out because they are tired of being called "un-American".

While you can use UV LEDs for water purification, it doesn't really make much sense in remote, undeveloped areas, as such a system (which has to include a container, a power source and, of course, the LEDs,) is way more expensive than the cheapest known alternative.

The alternative is, of course, sunlight.

Using clear plastic bottles (the indestructable bane of the environment, now ubiquitous,) and combining a little shaking and a few hours of exposure to sunlight, you can sterilize quite a bit of water at the cost of a small amount of labor--much less labor than that required to obtain the water in the first place in many locales.

http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2006/03/24/lo wtech_solar_water_purification_it_works.htm

There is a research grant, http://apps.nciia.org/WebObjects/NciiaResources.wo a/wa/View/GrantProfile?n=1000504
which claims that "...recycled plastic bottle coated with titanium dioxide and placed in the sun for several hours, killing not only bacteria but other harmful substances such as arsenic and herbicides."

I really want to know more about this one, since in claims to eliminate the toxicity of the element arsenic....

The energy used to make a panel is recovered within 1-2 years of operation, beyond which a further 13-18 years of net energy production remain
Also here

Since the price of solar panels makes the economic breakeven point 10-20-50 years, this must be because of the cost of materials, which can be recycled. All of this, of course, assume you live somewhere solar is useful, not, say, England.

Autism is a spectrum disorder. That means it has a wide variety of symptoms and conditions. It means that people classified as "autistic" can be anywhere from mildly to sevearly affected. The big thing to keep in mind is that they are not all the same, probably not even similar in some cases. It is a wide variety of conditions captured in one term: Autism. The most common symptom between them is childhood development delays and weakness in language and social development.

There are reports that Autism increased in the 90's due to the use of Mercury in childhood vaccines. The vaccine preservative in question was discontinued in the US a few years ago, but is still in use in other parts of the world.

The combined result is likely something like:
1. Some genetic combinations can cause autistic trates immediately.
2. Some genetic combinations can cause latent autistic tendencies that must be activated by external force, like mild metal contamination (mercury, lead, other heavy metals).
3. Some genetic combinations are not succeptable to autistic trates. However, extreme contamination can still cause developmental damage.

How these different traits manifest themselves may depend on both the genetic condition, and the severity of the contamination.

I'm not sure I agree with what you posted.

First, I know my parents trusted scientists when they said carbs were good, margarine was good and butter was bad. The homeopaths were crying foul from day one, and have been decrying the previous Food Pyramid for years. Now it seems the natural foods freaks were right/

Second, I know that scientists are just humans like you and I -- their income depends on being right more than being wrong. Cooked books would seem to be the norm, especially when public money is at stake. Remember the second hand smoke lies that were found wrong by the Supreme Court but are still being used today to ban smoking in restaurants? These were honored and respected scientists funded by public dollars -- and they lied.

I'm guessing you'd call for licensing for scientists -- so we end up with the same high costs and low quality service we get in any licensed industry. I'm glad we have the "whack-jobs" of alternative medicine. I may not agree with what they have to say, but I know I want to see private industry competition to what is quickly becoming a public industry: science and the politicing that comes along with public funding of it.

Moreover, I'm not sure I'm comfortable making the pay (I'd say salary, but we only have two salaried staff members) of each employee public information, when I've had "day jobs" I have rarely wanted my personal income to be a matter of public record.

I concur wholeheartedly with your point here. It does not seem unreasonable to publish the total amount spent on salaries though.

Personally, I stopped donating to the Red Cross when I found that the San Diego Director was pulling in a $200k+ salary. Wow! How many people had to donate just to pay her salary? It is obviously not an organization that poor or middle class people should be donating too.

An interesting (but seemingly biased) link is here: http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/cgi-bin/mt-comment s.r484.cgi?entry_id=2032

strike

You mean like aids testing on orphans or nonconsentual syphilis, cancer and hepatitis tests on people who were not even informed of the test or radiation testing on retarded children?

Here's are the seriously inflated CDC statistics. They're claim 36,000/year
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/keyfacts.htm

Here are the actual numbers as reported by the American Lung Association (see page 9)
http://www.lungusa.org/atf/cf/%7B7A8D42C2-FCCA-460 4-8ADE-7F5D5E762256%7D/PI1.PDF

"Placebos are supposed to be completely inert substances. Otherwise they would produce a physiological effect all of their own and ruin the experiment. In the case of MSG toxicology studies, the placebo used to test the excitotoxin glutamate is NutraSweet, which contains the excitotoxin aspartate. It has been clearly shown in a multitude of studies that aspartate produces the identical destructive reactions on the nervous system as MSG. It would seem obvious even to the layman that you would not use a control substance to compare to a known toxin if the control contained the same class of chemical toxin. But that is exactly what is being done."

In any fair test, I can tell you whether food contained MSG or not. In fact, I can tell you within 5 minutes at a restaurant whether food I just ate contains MSG or not by my physical reaction.

The fact is, artificial engineered glutamate and natural glutamate are handled by the body very differently. It would be like if Olestra were also called soybean oil and then we were told the body handles soybean oil no problem, which, of course, is a ludicrous statement to then apply that logic to the artificial stuff.

BTW, excitotoxins are among the leading candidates as causes for Alzheimer's http://www.zarcrom.com/users/alzheimers/w-07.html and ALS/Gulf War disease http://www.wnho.net/aspartameandgulfwar.htm.

They have also been documented to cause Multiple Sclerosis symptoms http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2004/06/10/as partame_and_multiple_sclerosis_neurosurgeons_warni ng.htm and blindness http://health.benabraham.com/html/impotence___blin dness_from_die.html.

I wonder if he could combine his design with this one which I believe was featured on Slashdot at one time. Just draw the water from the pot-in-pot refridgerator which should be sitting out on the balcony or somewhere else outside.

Man, what a sad thing to hear (read) about. I've always had respect for Nobel Prize awards and those who get them.

But this does confirm what you just stated:

http://www.atsnn.com/story/86750.html

http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2004/10/12/wa ngari_maathai_nobel_calls_aids_weapon_of_mass_dest ruction.htm

I'll definitely put less weight into the Nobel prizes after knowing this.

Well maybe not "we" as a whole, but "we" as in one of the human race, already can.. There is a Russian girl whom posses some kind of x-ray type vision. She claims she can swap between normal vision, or the x-ray type vision at will.
Yes, you don't have to believe it if you don't want, for all those sceptics, I'll agree it seems a pretty outrageous claim, but despite efforts of scientists, they have been unable to disprove her claims. She has successfully seen into people's bodies and correct one claim that a pateint had cancer, when in fact it was just a cyst. She's going to study medical.

Anyway, back to the article.. this seems like a very very very useful piece of technology, surely it could be ported to other things than eyes, eventually enabling a vast amount of disfunctions to be rectified. And I don't see why it couldn't be modified, as the parent says, to be able to have nightvision, infra-red vision, etc.

I believe he is talking about the early days of xrays as we are just now in the early days of lasik and pervasive wireless radio devices in everything that surrounds us.

I know people who were treated for relatively minor facial acne with xrays (by a licensed doctor in the US) in the early days of radiation and have skin cancer now. Medicine/government doesn't like to talk about these types of massive failures because it is same learned and parental organizations who tell people that SRRIs are safe now were telling people that xrays were safe for treating all kinds of crap 50 years ago.

Come on, these SSRIs are probably responsible for the most spectacular killings of the last 10+ years (outside 911) and they are still selling them like nothing is wrong with a cartoon egg who lives in a cave and ladybug on TV. And school districts are forcing parents to put kids on the drugs or threatening to sic the child protective service departemnt on them - all the while the FDA is saying exxxcellent.

What about the recent (last month?) results that show AM radio waves appear to cause cancer, etc?

Re Lasik: Although Cofer's case is extreme, new research suggests that a large percentage of people who have LASIK procedures develop vision problems related to the surgery.
Come on down to Original Joe's Lasik and get better than 20/20 vision, yeah! Oh, please sign here and, uh, here...