Slashdot Mirror

Perhaps these folks were smoking that much pot as a coping means ("self medicating") because of their troubles, rather than pot causing the troubles

Possibly, but that doesn't fully explain why people who smoked pot at an earlier age (under 15) were more likely to have psychotic episodes at an earlier age, nor why those who smoked stronger pot in larger quantities were also more likely to experience such episodes. The study found both effects. And since the study focused on people who had psychotic episodes in the first place (i.e. people who likely had mental issues to start with), it's unlikely self-medication is the explanation. Possible, of course, but unlikely.

Obviously, we'd need a study that has people smoke pot with a control group that doesn't smoke pot to be sure, but that might never happen due to legal and ethical concerns.

Cite your source. Most of the hits in my search were for the recent FDA announcements, but I did find http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/45/Supplement_2/S137.long which seems to contradict your claim.

Vaccine failures are nothing new, and are not increasing. For example there was a vaccine failure for measles in the late 1980s-early 1990s that led to 55000 cases of measles and 123 deaths.

http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/189/Supplement_1/S1.long

The fact is biochemistry is hard. Not everything always works the way you want. But the overall effect of these programs is so overwhelming positive we actually have nincompoops saying that these diseases were never a problem in the first place.

Well, there is a cognitive bias called recency. Clearly that's what's happening here.

How the hell is declaring something that is subjectively (and I would argue, generally) true dehumanizing? Especially statements that happen to be backed up by research, for instance, which sex is more charitable.

I wonder, would you defend men in the same way as you just did women, or is that a bit of gender role hypocrisy coming out?

Mutations do not prevent reproduction (most of the time). This includes changing the number of chromosomes. For a human example, people with Down's syndrome can reproduce, despite having an extra 21st chromosome. Having a different number of chromosomes does not cause a new species. A well-known example is the evolution of the horses. The Przewalski's horse has 66 chromosomes, domesticated horses have 64, and they can interbreed, resulting in an animal with 65, and that animal is fertile. See this paper

In fact, There are multiple types of 'horse' type animals, including domesticated horses, Przewalski's horse, (until recently) the tarpan, donkeys, zebras (multiple), etc. They often have different numbers of chromosomes, but can often interbreed. The offspring are usually infertile, but that appears to be because of things other than the number of chromosomes. The most famous cross breeding is a mule, which comes from a male donkey and female horse. However, some of them are fertile.

Also, plants reproduce all the time with wildly different numbers of chromosomes.

At a constant height, body fat is added to the cross-section. I guess that's part of the rationale for the ballpark guess that is BMI.

Except the "cross-section" has height too. A 6'8" man with a giant beer belly compared to a 5'0" man with a giant beer belly not only adds cross-sectional area, but also a larger "height" over the stomach area where the excess weight is distributed. It's not like short men have a rounded belly, but taller men have a giant bulging rubber tire around the waist and flat upper abs! The bulge is roughly the same shape in 3-dimensions, excepting of course extreme cases (dwarfism, etc.).

Is there a better obesity metric that is as convenient to measure as BMI?

Sure -- how about using height cubed instead of height squared? Or, more likely, the best exponent probably falls between 2 and 3, since you're somewhat right that mass doesn't quite increase cubically when height does. Maybe it's 2.7 or maybe it's 2.3, and I'm sure epidemiological studies could easily come up with the best figure to correlate to bodyfat. And have two separate scales for men and women, just like doctors do for actual bodyfat measurements.

It still won't take into account things like muscle mass vs. fat and body type, but at least it doesn't have a built-in dimensional problem that skews diagnosis whenever you get more than a few inches off of average.

Aside from improving the BMI formula with a simple exponent change, they could also just use another simple measurement. Lots and lots of recent studies have shown that even taking a waist measurement (or a waist-to-hip ratio) is more accurate at predicting disease than the idiotic BMI formula.

I mean, how screwed up is that? If a formula that can be used with a simple tape measure -- like "if your waist is more than X inches, you're at higher risk," regardless of height, weight, or whatever -- is significantly better than some more complex formula involving squaring numbers and division and accurate scales, why the heck are we still using BMI?!?

Mod parent down:

>you can't teach empathy

I call bullshit. For example, http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/05/20/0956797612469537.short and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2333803

There are several dozen other studies you can find that show emapthy can be taught in cooperating subjects. Note, especially, that in the second link, it was the affective part of empathy that was increased rather than the cognitive aspect of empathy--the very thing that the doubters presume cannot be influenced (affective part of empathy is usually associated with antisocials/narcissists/etc., whereas cognitive empathy is more affected in autism spectrum disorders and such).

Even in psychopaths, empathy can be increased (as measured directly by imaging of brain activation, rather than relying on self-reporting from unreliable subjects): http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/136/8/2550.full?sid=a0dd82b4-a4aa-4af8-a9d2-e3d1ad6d2e97

>Two year olds are sociopaths. Fourteen year olds shouldn't be- they can sometimes be stereotypically *insensitive* due to their brains still developing

More bullshit. The prefrontal cortex doesn't complete development until early 20s and in adults its dysfunction is closely associated with antisocial behavior. There was a study some years ago that showed most children and adolescents, compared to normal adults, have significant impairment in recognizing facial expressions of fear (confusing it with things like surprise or disgust)--just like psychopaths, and that was also linked to incomplete prefrontal cortex development.

There is NOT a clear scientific consensus at all.

For example:

http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/content/114/1/1.full

and:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21438738

The British Medical Research Council is not some Koch funded faux science organization. This group has supported or hosted over 50 Nobel Laureates in science and medicine including names like Fleming and Crick and Watson.

There is NO mechanism that accounts for the reports of these affects at the extremely low levels reported, and as the above article notes, efforts to reproduce these studies by national labs (not industry supported labs) are very often unsuccessful.

Apparently you fail to grasp what higher quantum yield means.

That means green light drives photosynthesis more efficiently.

http://pcp.oxfordjournals.org/content/50/4/684.full

Try actually paying attention to what is being said before commenting, eh?

WRONG.

WRONG.

WRONG.

http://pcp.oxfordjournals.org/content/50/4/684.full

Try again when you actually study this for a living.

If I transport you back in time and drop you in the middle of some cavemen and Ug decides he wants to kill you he will not hand you a club to defend yourself with first; he will simply bash your skull in. Rights are a societal concept. For example I believe that all people have the right to be treated equally. While many would agree with me, that "right" is in fact a relatively modern invention.

Also if the Constitution simply codified natural rights and the right to own a gun was an extension of the right to self defense then gun laws today would be much more strict. There are many legal firearms today that are obviously meant to serve a much more offensive purpose. The whole Bill of Rights was designed with one purpose in mind - to keep government tyranny in check.

As for your idea that guns are the best self-defense tool, read this: http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

You don't need to even bother with any reputable source. The simple fact is this. If you want to beat an anti-vaxxer in an argument, simply give in to them. Admit every single thing they said is true.

Now, with that said. We are going to assume that measles causes 10 autism cases per 1000 kids. A 1% rate.

Measles alone, and JUST Measles, in a first world country, has a 0.3% mortality rate - http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/189/Supplement_1/S4.full

Now we have 3 dead kids, against 10 autistic ones. This doesn't factor in the kids maimed and permanently blinded by complications of just measles.

Now throw in rubella, diphtheria, polio, smallpox, pertussis, hep b, influenza, mumps and chicken pox.

How are those 10 autistic kids looking against the pile of dead, blind and scarred kids.

Exactly. I can concede every single point to an anti-vaxxer and still show the outcome is better with vaccines.

As a Personal Genome Project participant, I have a cell line at Coriell that anyone with $80 to spare can order. These days, they just infect your cells with Epstein-Barr, and instant immortality.

Even there, the open source nature is helpful. The same drug has stirred interest for multiple myeloma, heart failure, contraception, and HIV treatment (it is thought that it can activate latent HIV in the presence of anti-viral therapy to wipe out the reservoir). All 4 could share the phase I safety trial (and it's costs).

I need to emphasise how extraordinarily unlikely it is for a measles outbreak to occur in a vaccinated population. Unless a new strain of measles has arisen that the vaccine is not effective against - and as far as I know measles is incredibly stable - then the only way that an outbreak can occur is in the unvaccinated population.

What an absolute load of bullshit

Measles (Rubeola) in Previously Immunized Children, Pediatrics Vol. 46 No. 3 September 1970, pp. 397-402
Measles Outbreak among Vaccinated High School Students — Illinois, Centers for Disease Control (CDC) 1984 Report
A measles outbreak at a college with a prematriculation immunization requirement. American Journal of Public Health (1991)
Explosive School-based Measles Outbreak, American Journal of Epidemiology, 1998
Largest Measles Outbreak in the Americas since 2000: Quebec Ongoing Epidemic, IDSA Boston Oral Abstract, 2011

The USA stopped vaccinating for smallpox in 1972. You may remember those diseases as minor, but measles in the US had a 0.3% death rate over 1987-2000 and a 0.1% rate of encephalitis, of whom "33% of survivors have lifelong neurological sequelae, including severe retardation, motor impairment, blindness, and sometimes hemiparesis". These are not harmless illnesses.

According to this: http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/45/Supplement_2/S137.long -
"Soaps containing triclosan within the range of concentrations commonly used in the community setting (0.1%–0.45% wt/vol) were no more effective than plain soap at preventing infectious illness symptoms and reducing bacterial levels on the hands."

The point of soap is not to kill the bacteria, but to make it easier to wash things off the skin that would not wash off with water alone.

Yes, but when serious studies show that antibacterial soap is no more effective than non-antibacterial, why use the one with a chemical that potentially screws with your hormones?

In addition, it seems that nanoscopic metals can be used for antibacterial purposes as well.

Take a deep breath, and say to yourself less than one percent of junk DNA has biological activity in the cell. Unless, of course, you use ENCODE's physical chemistry definition of biological activity. One of the definitions of biological activity ENCODE used was "is transcribed", even when the transcribed RNA is then immediately discarded. Note that junk DNA tends to be copied in one copy number, but the mRNA it is supposed to control by binding tends to have copy numbers in the thousands (the small amount of junk mRNA that binds other RNA's is more properly thought of as noise). It has been shown in animal models that large amounts of this junk DNA can be excised with no discernible effect. It has also been shown that our cells have specific mechanisms to suppress sections of this junk DNA, as they are potentially harmful transposons. More of it is degraded viral DNA. You really don't want that active either.

Note that this stuff is junk DNA, not garbage DNA. It clutters the place up, and at this stage has no biological function. It could provide material for mutation and future adaptation. But I wouldn't hold my breath while waiting.

It was pointed out to the ENCODE team as early as 2007 that their definition was useless. It is also kinda cyclic. It also hinges on the odd assumption that 70% of the Human genome is impervious to deleterious mutation in the absence of selection pressure. But rather than correct their error they decided to piss $288M up against the wall. But then, I'm just an angry biochemist, pissed off at such a stupidly wasted opportunity. What would I know about it?

A gentle critique of ENCODE

Epidemiological studies say otherwise: restricting access to means of suicide just changes the method. It has no impact on the suicide rate. Ban guns, and people switch to hanging, or wrist-cutting, or stepping in front of trains, or...

With all due respect, you are completely full of shit.

individuals in a firearm owning home are close to five times more likely to commit suicide than those individuals who do not own firearms. Gun Violence and Suicide

Additional citations: Guns in the home -- American Journal of Epidemiology, Gun availability is a risk factor for suicide - Harvard Univerisity

There is plenty of legitimate research out there on GMO safety.

This review article published by the Society of Toxicology in the Oxford Series Toxicological Sciences is a good starting point.

http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/content/71/1/2.full

It is science that wins, not conspiracy theories.

I suspect it goes something like this:

In the 1980s, the commercial scientific publishers discovered that they could keep raising their subscription rates at well above inflation, and university libraries would keep paying them. So not only did their profits soar, but their expectation for future revenue increases also soared. On the basis of this, the companies were rated as being very valuable and got bought out for very large sums. Now some suit somewhere has invested billions of dollars in such a company, having borrowed the money to do so, and believes he is entitled to a reasonable rate of return on investment, so the huge subscription costs become 'reasonable' in that they are needed to support that billion dollar debt. What is lost to him is that the price paid for the company was based on the unreasonable proposition that not only were the current subscription rates reasonable, but that they could continue to be raised.

While the scenario above is consistent with my knowledge, I confess it is largely guess work.

Having said that, $3000 per article for open access is not out of line with the rest of the industry. The first non-commercial journal I looked up (Bioinformatics, by Oxford University Press) also charges $3000 to open access a full length article from a first world country.

Yes, total garbage science.

What do Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, Rwanda, Swaziland, and Tanzania have in common? These are countries where the HIV rate is higher among circumcised men than among intact ones. So much for a protection that does not appear in real life numbers.

Science does confirm that circumcision is related to reduced sexual pleasure and other sexual difficulties. Hell, it's been known for centuries!

Also, why no mention of circumcision-related deaths?

OK, I did the research, by which I mean I used Google to find out what research had already been done. Honestly, these guys just about took care of it back in 2006. The answer appears to be a qualified "yes," in that many of the basic features of experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis translate to MS, but MS is known to have more involvement from some pathways and less from others. In particular, the method of inducing EAE infection in mice led to a focus on the role of CD4+ cells (which include the TH17 cells) for years, until it was discovered that CD8+ cells also play a major role in MS. It turns out that treatments developed using EAE have had mixed results in treating human MS. For instance, there was a lot of hope in the late 1990s for a tumor necrosis factor blocker called lenercept, which was effective against EAE, but actually made MS worse. On the other hand, secukinumab, an antibody against interleukin-17 itself, has shown positive results against MS in a early proof-of-concept trial.

As the Gold, et al. paper concludes, "Autoimmune encephalomyelitis is, thus, an excellent tool for studying basic mechanisms of brain inflammation and immune-mediated CNS tissue injury, and for obtaining proof of principle, whether a certain therapeutic strategy has the potential to block these pathways. Whether they are relevant for multiple sclerosis patients in general and, if yes, for what subpopulation of patients has to be determined in respective clinical studies."

And... it seems to be subject of debate even among people who did specialize in the interpretation of constitutional law: http://icon.oxfordjournals.org/content/10/1/242.abstract
This is definitely a question far beyond the parsing the English language (as both sides in this /. debate have asserted so far).

But to get back on subject: let's say the bottom line is that one sector of the US economy (the movies, music and software industry) will (allegedly) suffer because another sector (gambling - yes even if you consider it government-controlled, it's still a sector of the economy) successfully lobbied lawmakers into violating a WTO treaty. Greedy people doing stupid stuff.

"Try going 72 hours without food. You'll be amazed how *real* discomfort can focus the mind."

For some people, if you do it right:
http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1137654
http://schizophreniabulletin.oxfordjournals.org/content/3/2/288.full.pdf
http://www.fastingconnection.com/forum/General-posts-to-Index/1184-fasting-and-bipolar-disorder

See Dr. Joel Fuhrman's work for how to fast correctly.
http://www.amazon.com/Fasting-Eating-Health-Medical-Conquering/dp/031218719X

Although ultimately people have to eat right:
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/natural_depression.aspx

Bullshit.

Classy. He says "bullshit" with an abc news article as evidence.

How about some scientific papers instead of commentary by a politician who is very unlikely to be critical of his own laws.

Lee, Wang-Sheng; & Suardi, Sandy (2010). "The Australian Firearms Buyback and Its Effect on Gun Deaths". Contemporary Economic Policy 28 (1): 65–79.

or

http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/content/47/3/455.abstract (disclosure: this was written by known firearms advocates but it is peer reviewed - unlike John Howard's comments).

I read your article, I'm sure you'll do likewise and read mine.

Original paper: http://mnras.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/01/07/mnras.sts497.full.pdf+html

A pity that original submitter didn't include original research paper.

Are we talking billion=10^9 or 10^12 ? It depends on the country of origin of researchers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_scale
So I checked in the original paper, and it is 1240 Mpc=4.04*10^9 ly, so it is 4 billions ly on short scale. BTW, I hate that we have two different scales - billion is ambigious.

I'm not sure about that. This paper found that storage didn't make any difference.

I've never understood how "storage" works. The main argument for having a gun in the home is that the gun owner can protect himself in case of home invasion. That means the gun has to be readily accessible day and night. It has to be readily accessible to your 16-year-old daughter when she's home alone. Or your 16-year-old son.

It seems that safe storage and protection are mutually exclusive. If the gun is available to protect you and your family, it's available enough to make it easy for you and your family to commit suicide.

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.long
Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study
Linda L. Dahlberg, Robin M. Ikeda and Marcie-jo Kresnow
Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4).
The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.

That is indeed cool news!
Now the question: is this an actual structure (i.e., gravitationally bonded together), or is it merely the appearance of one?
My astrophysics isn't quite up to scratch for getting this from The Fine Article in a quick glance.

That's the kind of story I'd like to see a link to, but let's assume it's true.

If your grandmother has a gun in her house, she's more likely to use it to kill herself, or another innocent party, as she is to use it to defend herself.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/02/opinion/at-the-er-bearing-witness-to-gun-violence.html
At the E.R., Bearing Witness to Gun Violence
By DAVID H. NEWMAN
Published: January 1, 2013
I do not know exactly what measures should be taken to reduce gun violence like this. But I know that most homicides and suicides in America are carried out with guns. Research suggests that homes with a gun are two to three times more likely to experience a firearm death than homes without guns, and that members of the household are 18 times more likely to be the victim than intruders.
Emergency rooms are themselves volatile environments, not immune to violence. Over the last decade, a quarter of gun crimes in American E.R.’s were committed with guns wrested from armed guards.

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.long
Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study
Linda L. Dahlberg, Robin M. Ikeda and Marcie-jo Kresnow
Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4).
The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506
Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home
Arthur L. Kellermann, Frederick P. Rivara, Norman B. Rushforth, Joyce G. Banton, Donald T. Reay, Jerry T. Francisco, Ana B. Locci, Janice Prodzinski, Bela B. Hackman, and Grant Somes
N Engl J Med 1993; 329:1084-1091
October 7, 1993
DOI: 10.1056/NEJM199310073291506
Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3713749
N Engl J Med. 1986 Jun 12;314(24):1557-60.
Protection or peril? An analysis of firearm-related deaths in the home.
Kellermann AL, Reay DT.
Only 2 of these 398 deaths (0.5 percent) involved an intruder shot during attempted entry. Seven persons (1.8 percent) were killed in self-defense. For every case of self-protection homicide involving a firearm kept in the home, there were 1.3 accidental deaths, 4.6 criminal homicides, and 37 suicides involving firearms. Hand-guns were used in 70.5 percent of these deaths.

http://www.annemergmed.com/article/S0196-0644(12)01408-4/abstract
Annals of Emergency Medicine
Volume 60, Issue 6 , Pages 790-798.e1, December 2012
Hospital-Based Shootings in the United States: 2000 to 2011
Gabor D. Kelen, Christina L. Catlett, Joshua G. Kubit, Yu-Hsiang Hsieh
In 23% of shootings within the ED, the weapon was a security officer's gun taken by the perpetrator.

I'll agree that it's not about Christians' beliefs in particular, but about the norms of that time (although virtually all Europeans/Euro-Americans were of course 'good Christians', at least nominally). And those norms included regarding Native Americans as 'savages', and that was enough justification for just about any atrocity, including biological warfare. The Amherst letters make this point of view clear enough.

Regarding whether they acted upon this idea, your Straight Dope link is entirely inadequate. Even before receiving Amhersts' and Bouquet's instructions, those at Fort Pitt had already done it:

[...] Fort Pitt account books make it clear that the British military both sanctioned and paid for the deed. The records for June 1763 include this invoice submitted by Levy, Trent and Company: To Sundries got to Replace in kind those which were taken from people in the Hospital to Convey the Smallpox to the Indians Viz 2 Blankets 1 Silk Handkerchef & 1 Iinnen do

See: Fenn, Elizabeth A. 2000. “Biological Warfare in Eighteenth-Century North America: Beyond Jeffery Amherst.” The Journal of American History 86 (4): 1552–1580.

When convenient, non-Indians could of course also be labeled as 'savages' so that otherwise not acceptable tactis could be used, such as against those savage Americans in the Revolutionary war:

"Dip arrows in matter of smallpox, and twang them at the American rebels, in order to inoculate them; This would sooner disband these stubborn, ignorant, enthusiastic savages, than any other compulsive measures. Such is their dread and fear of that disorderl'" -- Donkin, 1777, Military Collections and Remarks (also see Fenn 2000).

Regarding lack of proof: it is not so surprising that not much evidence was produced to document such dishonorable acts when they did take place. Many or most smallpox epidemics were probably the result of accidents rather than intentional acts. But that is no excuse for the prevailing ethics of that time.

Actually, most man who "know both ways" confirm it.

...circumcised men ... were more likely to report frequent orgasm difficulties after adjustment for potential confounding factors [11 vs 4%, ORadj=3.26; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.42–7.47], and women with circumcised spouses more often reported incomplete sexual needs fulfilment (38 vs 28%, ORadj=2.09; 95% CI 1.05–4.16) and frequent sexual function difficulties overall (31 vs 22%, ORadj=3.26; 95% CI 1.15–9.27), notably orgasm difficulties (19 vs 14%, ORadj=2.66; 95% CI 1.07–6.66) and dyspareunia (12 vs 3%, ORadj=8.45; 95% CI 3.01–23.74).

"Avoid Green. It is the only colour of light that is not absorbed by chlorophyl."

Wrong. Green has a higher quantum yield at sunlight intensity.

http://pcp.oxfordjournals.org/content/50/4/684.full

I'm curious. Have you ever had an infected dick?

I ask only because nobody mutilated me, and I've never had one. Never. Not "not on a regular basis" but never.

As opposed to the mutilated children, assaulted with no possibility of consent, a high proportion of whom need medical assistance as a result.
e.g. http://jpubhealth.oxfordjournals.org/content/33/2/280.abstract

When I see the word "strands", both in the linked story and the summary, I assume a terminal event. If the fish can get back in the water under its own power at will, it certainly does not amount to a stranding. Beached is more appropriate, but even it suggests something of an irreversible predicament.

Neither is exactly true, since there is no mention of fish deaths. The fish have the ability to get back in the water.

A poor choice of words to add sensationalism. Sort of akin to calling every human venture into the water a drowning.

Further, fish going ashore for other reasons is not that rare. Many fish spawn ashore including the Grunion. Dolphins chase fish ashore too. Which is interesting because two species are going ashore for two different reasons, one to escape, one to eat.
.

In the study referenced there are LOTS of "conclusions" mentioned that can be taken out of context of the article. This be because the paper references many other studies and quotes their conclusions or observations. The bulk of the paper points out positive and negative aspects of previous studies. The paper itself does not present the conclusion of "a near doubling of the risk of fatal crashes" as suggested above. There may be another paper with that conclusion, but it's not this one. If that number came from one of the other studies that this paper cites, it would be interesting to see how this paper's authors address that conclusion. http://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/21/2/222.full.pdf

There are three points at the end of this paper:

"Overall we conclude that the weight of the evidence indicates that:"

1. No evidence that consumption of cannabis increases the risk of culpability for fatal traffic crashes and may decrease them. 2. The evidence for the combined effect of cannabis and alcohol relative to alcohol alone is unclear. 3 It is not possible to exclude that cannabis use, with or without alcohol leads to an increase risk of road traffic crashes causing less serious injuries and vehicle damage.

Most of the studies I reviewed came to the conclusion that being high does impair you. Also, even very small quantities of alcohol significantly increases the amount of impairment experienced. Smoking a bone with a couple of friends may not result in significant impairment, but having a couple of beers too may result in severe impairment.

Please see this for specific cites.

marijuana use in the absence of other substances impairs driving very little

Yeah, my stoner roommate used to say shit like that too. Of course, he also claimed it helped him study, but unless one considers watching the Cartoon Network all day "studying" then I never saw any evidence of it. And, while I never was a full-time stoner myself, I did smoke enough to know that I sure as shit wouldn't have felt comfortable driving on it (or doing anything else that required concentration).

Of course, I'm sure the stoner brigade can produce a plethora of studies claiming that weed is a fucking miracle cure-all with no downsides whatsoever, written by the same kind of biased researchers that produce studies showing that burning shit-tons of coal is great for the environment.

So your "gut feeling" is more relevant than peer-reviewed studies because you "feel" that the researchers are biased? Please refute the data with data, not emotional reactions to the "stoner brigade". For example, here is a study on driving under the influence of Cannabis that cites several other studies, if you have a problem with the data please point out the problem instead of resorting to logical fallacies.

http://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/21/2/222.full.pdf

In the study referenced there are LOTS of "conclusions" mentioned that can be taken out of context of the article. This be because the paper references many other studies and quotes their conclusions or observations. The bulk of the paper points out positive and negative aspects of previous studies. The paper itself does not present the conclusion of "a near doubling of the risk of fatal crashes" as suggested above. There may be another paper with that conclusion, but it's not this one. If that number came from one of the other studies that this paper cites, it would be interesting to see how this paper's authors address that conclusion.
http://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/21/2/222.full.pdf

There are three points at the end of this paper:

"Overall we conclude that the weight of the evidence indicates that:"

1. No evidence that consumption of cannabis increases the risk of culpability for fatal traffic crashes and may decrease them.
2. The evidence for the combined effect of cannabis and alcohol relative to alcohol alone is unclear.
3 It is not possible to exclude that cannabis use, with or without alcohol leads to an increase risk of road traffic crashes causing less serious injuries and vehicle damage.

We've known of photosynthesis in UVA (~360-380nm) for at least a decade.

Green light is a more recent discovery.

Please stop relying upon Google/Wiki-Know-Nothing-Pedia and get a hold of real books and journals.

Consider the car and oil industries. They are reputed to have patented all sorts of things to stop them.

Please don't use weasel words to make insinuations that you can't back up with evidence. Patents are public records. Can you point to a single case of this actually happening?

The early development of the steam engine: an evolutionary interpretation using complexity theory.

Google, 15 seconds, key words "patent impact development early engine". If Patents are public records, then people who ask for proof in a world with Google have only their laziness to blame. But you probably wanted recent examples. Tough, the patent system has been around a long time and abuses have been ongoing since day one.

For the tl;dr crowd, it is public record that the development of the steam engine and automobile were both held back by competitors who held rival patents on various aspects of their field's technology. Technically it's not patents that are the evil here, but that it is human being who wield them to evil ends. But then how wise is it to give matches to pyromaniacs when you live by a lake of gasoline?

i.e. at least spared other continents from the worst (e.g. when certain courts and Commission were attempting similar "power grabs"), as shown in several articles at http://ijlit.oxfordjournals.org/reports/most-read (cf. also various developing nations restricting patenting of "traditionally known" biotech).

But keep in mind that subscription fee journals typically charge hundreds of dollars for color and extra pages (e.g. most IEEE Transactions journals charges $300 per page over 8).

Many journals do that though - not just subscription based journals.
eg
http://www.oxfordjournals.org/our_journals/cid/for_authors/charges.html
"Open Access charges are in addition to any page charges and color charges that might apply. "

Simon Phipps: What if all this effort could have been avoided simply be re-reading the law Congress wrote and understanding it differently?

Which seems much closer to what Congress actually had in mind, as http://ijlit.oxfordjournals.org/content/14/3/257.full?ijkey=rF2MI0t8NYrGuJJ&keytype=ref#p-88 has pointed out previously:

‘[t]he Federal Circuit erred’ in citing [in State Street] a 1952 Senate Report [82-1979(5)] to construe 35 U.S.C. 101 as encompassing ‘anything under the sun that is made by man’, whereas in fact these words are taken out of context from a phrase that proves quite the opposite legislative intention: one of ‘clarifying a limit’, which the U.S. Supreme Court, unlike the CAFC, still seems to have been aware of when making the initial quotation. [...] Congress actually expressed a restrictive aim by stating that ‘a machine or manufacture, which may include anything under the sun that is made by man, (...) is not necessarily patentable'.

men with adult circumcisions report that sex is BETTER afterwards

Nope.

By all means, cherry pick "studies" done in (the minority) environments where circumcision is the norm, studies that even lack the ability to factor in this in the result. Please look away before reading any actual scientific studies performed in other places than USA/some African countries, e.g. the recent rigorous study in Denmark. I'll wait while you look away.

Still haven't read it? I guess not. Why would anyone want scientific rigor to contradict "reason", "belief" and shoddy studies? After all, I'm sure God and your parents have already told you about the right way.

"+5 informative", that's complete horseshit. It's "+5 I agree since I am also in this group, even if the very reference cited does not support the point trying to be made". It boggles the human mind, that it itself can be so stubbornly embedded in these ideas without realizing it.

You are circumcised? No one will think any lesser of you. Don't see any of the preceding discussion in this thread as an "attack" on the person. No one has any bad feelings towards people for what their parents made them do as babies! Just don't continue to preach (note the word) the practice to future generations, and don't go looking for studies made by other people with the same background, who inevitably will come to positive conclusions. It is (should be) Science 101.

What are the lies?

This? "Male circumcision does not appear to adversely affect penile sexual function/sensitivity or sexual satisfaction."

This study seems to contradict that claim.

You'll be hard pressed to find a single peer reviewed study that shows finger prints to be a valid means of identification

challenge accepted

http://lpr.oxfordjournals.org/content/7/2/87.short

Counter example:

In 2004, cognitive neoroscientist Itiel Dror set out to examine whether the process of fingerprint analysis, long considered one of the most reliable forms of forensic science, can be biased by the knowledge examiners have when they attempt to find a match for prints from a crime scene... Dror constructed an experiment using the case of Brandon Mayfield. Mayfield, an Oregon lawyer, was at the center of international controversy in 2004 after the FBI and an independent analyst incorrectly matched his prints to a partial print found on a bag of detonators from the Madrid terrorist bombings.

Dror asked five fingerprint experts to examine what they were told were the erroneously matched prints of Mayfield. In fact, they were re-examining prints from their own past cases. Only one of the experts stuck by their previous judgments. Three reversed their previous decisions and one deemed them “inconclusive.”

You'll be hard pressed to find a single peer reviewed study that shows finger prints to be a valid means of identification

challenge accepted

http://lpr.oxfordjournals.org/content/7/2/87.short

This isn't an example of "cutting both ways", it's an example of conflicting and even contradictory facts. I'm actually really confused about this because it goes against what I've always understood to be true.

Previous studies have shown that the healthiness of the children is strongly correlated to the age of the mother - and in fact the age of the father has little (or at least less) to do with it*. But this study is claiming that the mother's age doesn't matter and it's all about how old the father was.

So which is it?

* The risk of an infant having a birth defect varies according to the mother's age and the medical history of both parents
The risk of having a baby with chromosomal disorders increase as a woman grows older ... risk also rises for non-chromosomal birth defects and pregnancy complications such as gestational diabetes, pre-eclampsia and intrauterine growth retardation
after adjusting for potential confounding of maternal age ... Infants born to older fathers have a slightly increased risk of birth defects. ... However, given the weak association, paternal age appears to play a small role in the aetiology of birth defects