Slashdot Mirror

Hence the claim low level antibiotics would kill gut bacterias in a way that you end up fat is scientific utter nonsense.

Maybe we're talking about two different things. Low-levels of antibiotics will probably not "kill all the gut bacteria and make you fat", but the way doctors are prescribing them (start off at low-level antibiotics, get no results, then go to higher-level antibiotics) can certainly kill a shit-load of good gut bacteria (as well as bad gut bacteria). Once that happens, you will begin noticing problems in your gut, although most will never connect the dots. I'm speaking from experience, if that makes me an asshat, then there's nothing that I can do about it.

1) There is not a lot of evidence that most people who share this material are actually involved in harming children in any way.

18 years for trading child pornography?

I'll come out and say it, these laws are wrong. We have a higher incarceration rate than anyplace else in the world, rivaling Russia and China. Do you want to send those rates up even further?

I agree that child sexual exploitation is wrong. I think child pornography should be used as evidence for prosecuting the underlying crime. I can accept a reasonable criminal punishment for distributing child pornography, if that's the only way to send a message that our society strongly condemns child sexual exploitation. It seems that prosecuting people for having child pornography on their computers does more harm than good overall. I'm not convinced that prosecuting people at six degrees of separation from the underlying crime should be a crime itself. And I'm also not convinced that possessing child pornography created outside the U.S. should be a crime within the U.S. (Our bombs blow children to pieces in our many wars, which I think is a greater harm than their being sexually abused.) We don't prosecute web sites like bestgore.com that show beheadings and rapes.

But 18 years for trading child pornography is way out of bounds. That's the sentence we should give to somebody who originally abused the children to create the pornography, not someone at several steps removed who winds up with the images of it.

I think child pornography prosecutions are like traffic tickets. It's a lot easier for a cop to sit on his ass eating donuts in front of a computer monitor than it is to go out and prosecute actual sex crimes. And it would take a large shift in budget from uneducated cowboy cops to social workers, criminologists and social scientists who actually understand child sexual abuse and how to stop it.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...
Child abuse rises with income inequality
February 11, 2014
Summary: As the Great Recession deepened and income inequality became more pronounced, county-by-county rates of child maltreatment -- from sexual, physical and emotional abuse to traumatic brain injuries and death -- worsened, according to a nationwide study.

http://www.bmj.com/content/347...
Research: Preventing sexual abusers of children from reoffending: systematic review of medical and psychological interventions
BMJ 2013; 347 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.... (Published 9 August 2013)

http://www.miamiherald.com/201...
Florida spurns $50 million for child-abuse prevention

Not everyone lives under a rock either.

And if you are arguing that you've never heard of that Futurama reference before... You are either lying, have been in a coma for the last couple of decades (it's a show from the '90s, bro), are 3 years old, have been in a prison (solitary) for the last couple of decades or in some other way removed from the society in general and geek/nerd crowd in particular.

I'm leaning towards being a convicted murderer who just got out of prison and killed the real cribera, stealing his laptop and now posting on slashdot under his name. It would also explain the trolling. You do that cause you're a sociopath.

Not everyone lives under a rock either.

And if you are arguing that you've never heard of that Futurama reference before... You are either lying, have been in a coma for the last couple of decades (it's a show from the '90s, bro), are 3 years old, have been in a prison (solitary) for the last couple of decades or in some other way removed from the society in general and geek/nerd crowd in particular.

I'm leaning towards being a convicted murderer who just got out of prison and killed the real cribera, stealing his laptop and now posting on slashdot under his name. It would also explain the trolling. You do that cause you're a sociopath.

It's awesome that you think I'm lying or was in a coma, just because I don't watch a TV cartoon.

I have a beautiful wife, and a very bright and funny child to share joy. I adore my work, I'd do it for free if I wouldn't need the money to keep my lifestyle. We go to vacations, we party with friends, in group or alone, according the situation (social life is intense and frequent in my place, you have to choose what to leave aside to avoid abuse in partying). I read books, career-related and recreational. I don't really find too much time to watch TV, neither feel the compulsory need to do it. From time to time I watch some important games of NBA, tennis or soccer, little else.

BTW, I googled about it, and it seems that I didn't do a bad thing by not teaching my kid to watch TV shows, instead of finding him creative ways to play. http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...

It's the first time I read that I'm a weirdo for not watching enough TV. If being this happy is being a weirdo or a sociopath, I'd like to know where do you get your definitions.

I feel medical publishing needs to move away from the current paradigm even more than the open-access journals that have been discussed so widely. The company that made this advance, Agios doesn't seem to be a typical "big pharma" company: They are running lean on market cap (350 million in outstanding shares) and big dreams. Imagine a world with a hundred more companies like this could be creating equally innovative solutions. Then realize that the biggest drug company has a market cap that could be funding over 500 Agios's.

Given advertising costs that number is a little deceptive. Nevertheless we are talking about human trials in the US, an enormously expensive process. It's popular to be conservative about medicine, especially in the US and there's a good reason for that but there's a line between looking for more likely results and wasting money on almost exclusive focus on incremental improvements. We've crossed that line.

Medicine is science and science is moving faster all the time. As a society we need to keep up by focusing capital on smaller, more agile companies, not only to prevent the tragedy of unaddressed new problems but to move the state of the art forward as fast as possible. There are lives to be saved.

Of course. I read about this quite a few years ago in a book called Global Warming and Other Bollocks. It has a chapter on salt. I'm still recovering from being told that egg yolks are as bad for me as smoking, though I don't eat 20 eggs a day (or smoke any more), it turns out that actually they're probably only bad for people with heart disease or diabetes.

Anyone losing the will to live yet? I could go on...

They do, actually. It has lead to some very amusing graphs.

Egyptian and Nubuian mummy's bones are stained black because of the tetracycline in their beer.

"We tend to associate drugs that cure diseases with modern medicine," Armelagos says. "But it's becoming increasingly clear that this prehistoric population was using empirical evidence to develop therapeutic agents. I have no doubt that they knew what they were doing." Ancient brew masters tapped antibiotic secrets

I rather doubt the Pharaohs were the only one who knew how to brew beer, more likely it was a priest guild with a pharonic charter.

"That's why cancer "will probably never be completely eradicated.""

http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...

Vegans would make domestic cattle extinct. Is that better?

And in related news, a study using animals might have found an effective vaccine for a disease the kills ~30,000 in the US every year. Think about that; 30,000 people every year. But I suppose you would prefer that medical research doesn't have breakthroughs like that since it involved testing on animals - better to just let those tens of thousands of people die a painful death.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...

The study's results, however, contradict this view sharply. Test subjects with an artificially enhanced testosterone level generally made better, fairer offers than those who received placebos, thus reducing the risk of a rejection of their offer to a minimum. "The preconception that testosterone only causes aggressive or egoistic behavior in humans is thus clearly refuted," sums up Eisenegger. Instead, the findings suggest that the hormone increases the sensitivity for status. For animal species with relatively simple social systems, an increased awareness for status may express itself in aggressiveness. "In the socially complex human environment, pro-social behavior secures status, and not aggression," surmises study co-author Michael Naef from Royal Holloway London. "The interplay between testosterone and the socially differentiated environment of humans, and not testosterone itself, probably causes fair or aggressive behavior."

Moreover the study shows that the popular wisdom that the hormone causes aggression is apparently deeply entrenched: those test subjects who believed they had received the testosterone compound and not the placebo stood out with their conspicuously unfair offers. It is possible that these persons exploited the popular wisdom to legitimate their unfair actions. Economist Michael Naef states: "It appears that it is not testosterone itself that induces aggressiveness, but rather the myth surrounding the hormone. In a society where qualities and manners of behavior are increasingly traced to biological causes and thereby partly legitimated, this should make us sit up and take notice." The study clearly demonstrates the influence of both social as well as biological factors on human behavior.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...

The study's results, however, contradict this view sharply. Test subjects with an artificially enhanced testosterone level generally made better, fairer offers than those who received placebos, thus reducing the risk of a rejection of their offer to a minimum. "The preconception that testosterone only causes aggressive or egoistic behavior in humans is thus clearly refuted," sums up Eisenegger. Instead, the findings suggest that the hormone increases the sensitivity for status. For animal species with relatively simple social systems, an increased awareness for status may express itself in aggressiveness. "In the socially complex human environment, pro-social behavior secures status, and not aggression," surmises study co-author Michael Naef from Royal Holloway London. "The interplay between testosterone and the socially differentiated environment of humans, and not testosterone itself, probably causes fair or aggressive behavior."

Moreover the study shows that the popular wisdom that the hormone causes aggression is apparently deeply entrenched: those test subjects who believed they had received the testosterone compound and not the placebo stood out with their conspicuously unfair offers. It is possible that these persons exploited the popular wisdom to legitimate their unfair actions. Economist Michael Naef states: "It appears that it is not testosterone itself that induces aggressiveness, but rather the myth surrounding the hormone. In a society where qualities and manners of behavior are increasingly traced to biological causes and thereby partly legitimated, this should make us sit up and take notice." The study clearly demonstrates the influence of both social as well as biological factors on human behavior.

Actually, that reminds me... earlier today I read that you can make some interesting stuff by microwaving some graphite. Apparently it's "just like popcorn".

The story about Chernobyl is far from clear. See, for example:

http://unconventionaltravel.co...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...

And, in my view most impressive:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffi...

Note that human beings are mammals; so, if other mammals thrive in an area, presumably human being would too (if not excluded by regulations).

Environment definitely plays a role. Genes play directly into that, mainly as an adaptation to that environment. Is already well known that if you have relatives with diabetes (of any type) you are more likely to have it, but also statisticians found that Caucasians are least likely to have it, with Asian being higher than most, and Native American (who happen to be mongoloid, just like Asians) having by far the greatest chance of developing it.

And, as recent research turns out, diabetes isn't new to Native Americans. Furthermore, the high glycemic load foods they now eat make the symptoms stick out more, but this is mainly because their evolution centered around diets that had very low glycemic load to begin with (and are foods that Caucasians would more likely starve to death on because they don't provide sufficient caloric needs as our metabolic system isn't equipped to process them the same as natives do.)

http://www.livescience.com/218...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...

At any rate, for GP's comments to be true, most diabetics would have to starve themselves to death long before they'd consume few enough sugars to not need insulin. Natives *could* be a different story, but remember that in many cases they literally did starve, and furthermore their metabolic system is more able to deal with that than ours.

Can't remember whether I saw this on /. or another news site, but the cutting edge research on evolution has been called "neo Lamarckism". Intelligence itself can be passed on genetically. A recent "Epigenetic inheritance" study showed that mice who were taught to associate an odor with danger had baby mice who reacted strongly to the same odor. http://www.sciencedaily.com/re... (Science Daily 12/2013). It may be that learning or education "triggers" latent genes. Lamarck may not turn out to be a Tesla, but Darwin is unfinished business.

Fundamentally economics is the study of human psychology. At some point it goes beyond the kind of math that you can "check."

No, it is not. For example, answer this question. What is the largest market in the world?

Here's a hint, this market has somewhere in the neighborhood of 10^30 participants estimated.

The math of economics works whether humans are involved or not. I can say meaningful things about economics in another galaxy.

That wasn't really a question of economics more so outright cheating/lying by the bond rating agencies.

Conflict of interest is a standard economic feature.

Partially (as I understand it)... the front runner seems to be some Neocotinoid Pesticides. See full story here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03... Other references to diesel fumes causing issues: http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...

Yeah sure.
  http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...

At the end of the article: "Our data suggest that neuronal reactivation during sleep is quite important for growing specific connections within the motor cortex," Dr. Gan adds.

That suggests that the sleep deprived mice might have created stronger connections if they had a second session on the treadmill while the others were sleeping. As I understand it the study provides physical evidence that current theories about how memories form are not false. Those theories include replaying neuron firing patterns during sleep. It's the 'physical evidence' that's important here from what I gather. The 'sleep helps with memory' is more of a headline.

I'm curious how this translate to humans and abstract thought. For me there seems to be a big difference between remembering how to move your arm and learning algebra.

And this conclusion has been peer reviewed. With Cyanogenmod, you even get a line-item veto (privacy guard).

Malicious software has appeared in the iTunes store. Android, in contrast, displays everything that an application will need to access so that users can decide themselves whether to go ahead with an installation.

To compare these two security models, Han and co-workers identified 1,300 popular applications that work identically on both iOS and Android. These applications, such as Facebook, often access code libraries on smartphones called security-sensitive application programing interfaces (SS-APIs), which provide private user data or grant control over devices such as the camera.

The researchers found that 73% of iOS applications, especially advertising and analytical code, consistently accessed more SS-APIs than their counterparts on Android. Additionally, the SS-APIs invoked by iOS tended to be those providing access to sensitive resources such as user contacts.

The results imply that by allowing users to control permissions, Android may be better at preventing stealthy applications from getting hold of private information. Notably, Android also intentionally avoids using SS-APIs if non-security-sensitive APIs can be used to achieve the same functions.

they lead us, head and shoulders, in privacy

What a lovely Orwellian speak! This "right to be forgotten" is about forcing one entity to forget about another. This may sound find for the subject of the record, but it is, in fact, rather draconian, towards the record-keeper.

Whatever law applies to corporations (crosses himself, go away evil, evil!), would — or should — apply to individuals too. Would you like your ex-girlfriend to demand, you destroy the pictures the two of you took in happier times?

And why stop there — at the destruction of material mementos — huh? "Forgotten" means "forgotten" in any language, does not it?.. We are on the verge of being able to selectively erase certain memories — would you approve of a law requiring people to subject themselves to the procedure, whenever someone they once met demands, they forget him? Heck, there may not even be a need for a new law for this — it might follow directly from this much-heralded European initiative.

only a fool would criticize privacy

And there I thought, the "only a fool would" kind of argument was soundly destroyed by Hans Christian Andersen centuries ago...

" bacteria growing in it within a week due to the ethanol being a great thriving place for it."

You apparently don't know biology either. In "the real world" alcohol is actually used as an antiseptic (ie a compound which KILLS various microbes) From 12 year old bottles of scotch, to vodka, wine, and even that sterilizing cotton swab the doc uses before a shot, ethanol kills bugs dead.

Maybe you're thinking of diesel fuel or even gasoline - which can host notable bacterial colonies?

Oh yea? Microbial contamination of fuel ethanol fermentations
Ethanol-loving bacteria accelerate cracking of pipeline steels Plus what the guy with the motorcycle upthread is complaining about.

a permanent reduction of grey matter due to marijuana abuse.

clearly you know nothing about marijuana based on that statement. Marijuana does not reduce grey matter and in fact http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...

maybe you should do some research before you go out calling other people names and make yourself look like a fool

This article at Science Daily is helpful in understanding the issue: http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...

Comparing CPUs and brains is like comparing apples to planets: Granted, both are somewhat round but that's pretty much the end of any useful comparison.

Note that I don't agree that CPU-based computers can't be made to be intelligent, but I do think such intelligence will be significantly different.

If it sounds unlikely, consider that a single bacterium, which only doubles every generation, can rapidly give rise to large colonies. For example, with a reasonable doubling time of 1 hour, 1 bacterium will become ~268 million in 48 hours. In contrast, viruses can create hundreds or thousands of copies with each generation. When actively replicating, they can spread very quickly.

The variety in diversity of viral populations in recent infections is probably caused by a variation in initial viral dose (b/c more particles make genetic diversity more likely), and also by effects like the two you mentioned. I'm a graduate student in biochemistry, and I've learned never to assume that those types of phenomena are mutually exclusive.

By the way, this popular summary describes a model experiment on the feasibility of very low dose infections and how genetic diversity of the viral population varies probabilistically with the initial dosage.

BPA is harmless. It's toxic at levels far above normal intake and concentration in the blood. BPA-Free polycarbonate now uses BPS, which is exactly as toxic as BPA but leaches at a rate 20 times that of BPA. It breaks the toxicity barrier with gusto, so enjoy your new toxic world.

Water bottles are most often PET or LDPE. These plastics aren't made with BPA or any analog.

It's not just humans. You may find this interesting to read, as well as this. Male fish are definitely not supposed to have female characteristics.

As far as humans are concerned, you may find this an interesting read. It indicates that humans may be more susceptible to such endocrine disruptors (like BPA) than previous studied using rodents initially indicated.

So then we're back to what constitutes good decision-making. Fact: I have no overriding reason why I absolutely must use containers made with BPA. Fact: not only are alternatives to such containers readily available, I also happen to like them better for aesthetic and durability reasons. Conclusion: exposing myself to BPA is an unnecessary risk.

Still, if you think it's harmless you are free to continue using it. At one time people were told (by doctors no less) that cigarettes were beneficial. Now if I had some dire need (as in my life and well-being absolutely depended on it) to use BPA-containing plastics, perhaps I'd take my chances. But I don't.

Where are people getting the idea that the media isn't talking about the lack of male teachers? I hear about it constantly. In fact, I suspect you might have to be particularly plugged-in to tech news to be hearing significantly more about women in tech than male teachers.

Here's one: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/m...
Here's another: http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...
Another: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/s...
Another: http://www.dallasnews.com/news...
Another: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...

Actually, American adults are more scientifically literate that most other societies, including almost all nations in Europe, and science literacy is improving:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...

But don't let facts get in the way of your bigotry.

Science tends to disagree.

In order to try to meet a significant level of the earth's current energy usage, airborne turbines are necessary.

"Airborne turbines that convert steadier and faster high-altitude winds into energy could generate even more power than ground- and ocean-based units. The study examined the limits of the amount of power that could be harvested from winds, as well as the effects high-altitude wind power could have on the climate as a whole.

Turbines create drag, or resistance, which removes momentum from the winds and tends to slow them. As the number of wind turbines increases, the amount of energy that is generated increases. But at some point, the winds would be slowed so much that adding more turbines will not generate more electricity.

The group found that wind turbines placed on Earth's surface could extract kinetic energy at a rate of at least 400 terawatts, while high-altitude wind power could extract more than 1800 terawatts. Current total global power demand is about 18 terawatts.

At maximum levels of power generation, there would be substantial climate effects from wind harvesting."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120910143414.htm

Current models, as I understand it, are conflicting in terms of the level of effect of feedback loops. Pulling energy out slows the wind. Slower wind means less energy to pull out, but also localized heating, which likewise makes the location less functional. We are talking orders of magnitudes (yes, plural) regarding disagreement in overall interactive effect, especially between "theoretically possible" and "actually plausible", and "plausible and also non-catastrophic". Without doubt, though, there is a geophysical limit. Also without doubt, somewhere way below the geophysical limit of maximum sustainable drain, there is a region of maximum acceptable ecologic impact. That region is the only region that matters.

The first item on a Google search for "wind power limits 10% usa energy " deals with carbon emission problems scaling wind power

Existing estimates of the life-cycle emissions from wind turbines range from 5 to 100 ... this study concludes that a more practical upper limit for wind penetration is 10%. .... sible wind energy industry in the U.S.”

report


Also of interest: report
"Each wind turbine creates behind it a "wind shadow" in which the air has been slowed down by drag on the turbine's blades. The ideal wind farm strikes a balance, packing as many turbines onto the land as possible, while also spacing them enough to reduce the impact of these wind shadows. But as wind farms grow larger, they start to interact, and the regional-scale wind patterns matter more.
Keith's research has shown that the generating capacity of very large wind power installations (larger than 100 square kilometers) may peak at between 0.5 and 1 watts per square meter. Previous estimates, which ignored the turbines' slowing effect on the wind, had put that figure at between 2 and 7 watts per square meter.

In short, we may not have access to as much wind power as scientists thought.

An internationally renowned expert on climate science and technology policy, Keith holds appointments as Gordon McKay Professor of Applied Physics at the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS) and as Professor of Public Policy at Harvard Kennedy School. Coauthor Amanda S. Adams was formerly a postdoctoral fellow with Keith and is now assistant professor of geography and Earth sciences at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.
"One of the inherent challenges of wind energy is that as soon as you start to develop wind farms and harvest the resource, you change the resource, making it difficult to assess what's really available," says Adams. But having a truly accurate estimate matters, of course, in the pursuit of carbon-neutral energy sources. Solar, wind, and hydro power, for example, could all play roles in fulfilling energy needs that are currently met by coal or oil. "If wind power's going to make a contribution to global energy requirements that's serious, 10 or 20 percent or more, then it really has to contribute on the scale of terawatts in the next half-century or less," says Keith. If we were to cover the entire Earth with wind farms, he notes, "the system could potentially generate enormous amounts of power, well in excess of 100 terawatts, but at that point my guess, based on our climate modeling, is that the effect of that on global winds, and therefore on climate, would be severe -- perhaps bigger than the impact of doubling CO2."

"The real punch line," he adds, "is that if you can't get much more than half a watt out, and you accept that you can't put them everywhere, then you may start to reach a limit that matters." In order to stabilize Earth's climate, Keith estimates, the world will need to identify sources for several tens of terawatts of carbon-free power within a human lifetime. In the meantime, policymakers must also decide how to allocate resources to develop new technologies to harness that energy. In doing so, Keith says, "It's worth asking about the scalability of each potential energy source -- whether it can supply, say, 3 terawatts, which would be 10 percent of our global energy need, or whether it's more like 0.3 terawatts and 1 percent." "Wind power is in a middle ground," he says. "It is still one of the most scalable renewables, but our research suggests that we will need to pay attention to its limits and climatic impacts if we try to scale it beyond a few terawatts." The research was funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.

WPA2 gets cracked http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...

Routers exploited worldwide http://www.bing.com/search?q=r...

* :)

(So, want to "tell us another one" on "how secure routers are"?)

After all - I dusted you on DNS, so you shifted to routers now? Bad move - see above!

APK

P.S.=> Between THESE proofs of the falsehood in your claims, and YOUR UTTER "NOOB" LEVEL SCREWUP ON HOW TO UPDATE HOSTS ACROSS NETWORKS YOU DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT HERE -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...

?

You aren't showing yourself to be either SKILLED, COMPETENT, or an AUTHORITY of any sort ... lol! You did it. to yourself...

... apk

The bacteria in your colon are what is triggering or preventing the triggering of many cancers. That is the main reason why eating fruit is NOT the same as drinking juice or supplements. The bacteria in your colon form an extremely complex web of interaction with your body. Healthy gut bacteria protect you from all sorts of food borne illnesses, like salmonella and even colon cancer. Never mind c. diff. and recent links to autism when population is disrupted or altered via oral antibiotics.

colon cancer,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...

salmonella,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...

autism,
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners...

It's not just a "sack of shit". It's the most important part of you and there is no "pill for it".

The bacteria in your colon are what is triggering or preventing the triggering of many cancers. That is the main reason why eating fruit is NOT the same as drinking juice or supplements. The bacteria in your colon form an extremely complex web of interaction with your body. Healthy gut bacteria protect you from all sorts of food borne illnesses, like salmonella and even colon cancer. Never mind c. diff. and recent links to autism when population is disrupted or altered via oral antibiotics.

colon cancer,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...

salmonella,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...

autism,
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners...

It's not just a "sack of shit". It's the most important part of you and there is no "pill for it".

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned this study yet. Perhaps Hypothyroid rates are skyrocketing and with it autism? http://www.sciencedaily.com/re... Autism four times likelier when mother's thyroid is weakened Pregnant women who don't make nearly enough thyroid hormone are nearly 4 times likelier to produce autistic children than healthy women, report scientists from the Houston Methodist Neurological Institute and Erasmus Medical Centre in an upcoming Annals of Neurology. The association emerged from a study of more than 4,000 Dutch mothers and their children, and it supports a growing view that autism spectrum disorders can be caused by a lack of maternal thyroid hormone, which past studies have shown is crucial to the migration of fetal brain cells during embryo development.

You obviously didn't take basic human biology in high school:
The review updates a previous Cochrane Systematic Review, carried out in 1999, with data from several new trials. In total, data from 15 trials, involving 1,360 people, were included. According to the results, zinc syrup, lozenges or tablets taken within a day of the onset of cold symptoms reduce the severity and length of illness. At seven days, more of the patients who took zinc had cleared their symptoms compared to those who took placebos. Children who took zinc syrup or lozenges for five months or longer caught fewer colds and took less time off school. Zinc also reduced antibiotic use in children, which is important because overuse has implications for antibiotic resistance.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...

Another famous study around 2003-ish proved that the average duration of a cold was reduced to around 3 days as opposed to 9 with a placebo.

If John Doe decides not to get vaccinated and you get vaccinated, how are you at risk?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...

In this case, herd immunity theory, as proferred by Fox in his Measles paper, uses a Reed-Frost statistical model consisting of a closed population of 1000 hosts.

You say that as if it was a bad thing.

The measles virus, like diptheria, does not follow the herd immunity theory.

But poliomyelitis, pertussis, small pox, and many of the other diseases for which there is an effective vaccine, do.

There are actually several ways unvaccinated children put the entire population at risk.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...

But be careful, you may find the dreaded Reed-Frost statistical model therein.

You're off by a factor of 10 if the density of the 800MW wind farm is anywhere close to the ideal density. 60,000 km^2 would equal the US generating capacity (and doesn't approach world generating capacity).

There is a limit to how close together you can put wind generators. Not to mention the effect they have on buffering storms and affecting rainfall. And spacing them further apart actually increases efficiency: http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...

" The paper filters, the article suggested, removed the coffee oils, which contain cafestol."

from:

How Coffee Raises Cholesterol

Arguably, the increasing incidence of pedestrians and cyclists being injured or killed by distracted drivers requires a legislative effort to minimise the harm, as people cannot be trusted to act responsibly. Some people would argue the same for online pornography, given the failure of many parents to educate and monitor their children's Internet usage.

I believe the immediate danger to all road users associated with distracted driving far outweighs the largely moral issue of online pornography.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...

I don't know what the temperature delta is, as I didn't see it listed anywhere. Still, this is being done with an off the shelf product. I would imagine a purpose designed version would be able to eliminate the issue, if it is one.

However from Science Daily, The muscle strokes also are reversible for millions of cycles as the muscles contract and expand under heavy mechanical loads.". I wish they would have better explained what they mean by millions though. There's a pretty big difference between 2 million and 800 million. But again, 2 million for an off the shelf product that costs less than $10 is pretty cool if you ask me.

They've been doing this on solar cells for a while.

http://energy.sandia.gov/wp/wp...
http://www.solexel.com/Interso...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...

In the not too distant future ppl will 3D print carbon nano tube graphene solar cells,
and the cost will fall over time.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...

Wow, bring back all the crap that use to kill thousands of people a year. Well done on your drive to take us to the dark ages.

Urine is NOT sterile. That myth needs to die in a fire.
There are many disease that can appear through urine, even in health people.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...

Untreated solid waste also carries many disease. I"m not sure why you think the magically go away.

That bit about continents *is* a standard theory... but it has nothing on 11k years ago. Same thing goes for the orbit. So no, it isn't the orbit, and it isn't the landmasses.

Let's see... you have the North American Clovis Point people going extinct at the same time. So it isn't *who* killed them either. If the Clovis people had killed them off, you wouldn't have had them going extinct.

Also, at the same time, you have wildfires throughout North America. That soot contains microdiamonds.

You also have mammoths in Siberia at that time, flash frozen (Alaska Science Forum November 1, 1976. Mystery of the Mammoth and the Buttercups Article #122 by J. Holland).

You also have great areas in Alaska of jumbled up, blasted fauna caracases, many of them torn apart.

Now, all told, I'm going to posit -- and I doubt I'm the first to do so -- that an asteroid hit a glacier up against the south side of a mountain in Northern Alaska. The first thing it did, was melt/throw the ice of the glacier in a great parabolic trajectory. The water of the glacier went into near space, froze to extremely low temperatures, and came down. But meanwhile, the asteroid impacted the south side of the mountain, and vaporized, causing a fireball to project back into North America.

Thus the soot, thus the extinctions (animal and Clovis culture), thus the flash-frozen mammoth, thus the tectites, thus the great boneyards.

And no, for those creationists here, I extremely doubt that ANY of this had to do with Noah's flood. Noah's flood dates to about 5000 ya, and seems to match the Madagascar chevrons and 8' of river mud, pretty well. This is something different.

There has been evidence of this association floating around for ages. On the balance of evidence there may be reason for concern, but in particular as with anything in medicine, the right decision for any individual may come from presence of the right (or wrong) risk factors.

See e.g. : http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121114083928.htm http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2012/01/11/the-neuroscience-of-pot-researchers-explain-why-marijuana-may-bring-serenity-or-psychosis/

One factor that would seem to be relevant is the proportion of THC and cannabidiol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabidiol) present in plant strains, and change in ratios from decades past as plant breeding has changed the landscape of what effects may be expected from a particular plant.

The extreme reaction of "Reefer Madness" is almost certainly misguided, but there is reason to suggest that more science is needed towards ascertaining that the full benefits may be had, and risk factors removed (e.g. via genetic tests and controlled breeding/testing of plant strains) whether for medicinal purposes or otherwise.

I think most of the mid to high end cars are going this way. Some even go further and attempt to monitor stuff that has nothing to do with the car.

I realize that Google is hard, but this was simple to find. I don't expect an apology, but a correction to your fabrication should follow.