Slashdot Mirror

Both the Norovirus and the Flu swept though here over xmas, we're all fine now, it was fairly mild. I saw my doc today for the annual checkup thing and joked about the empty waiting room and how everyone must be over it. He said no, they're all at emerg and he saw 46 people yesterday with it and it's the worst it's been for years.

He said it's Type A flu.

These seemed to help, me at least, maybe that's why it was fairly mild around here while other folks seemed to be having a harder time of it.

http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/medicine/vitamins/flu/
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/medicine/ginger/

I have no idea why but chilis, garlic and ginger help A LOT too. But you have to get fairly large amounts into you. 3 or 4 garlic cloves a day and commensurate amounts of the others. This also seems to go a long way towards preventing a secondary infection too. I *always* used to get them, now, I don't since I started doing this about 7 years ago. Not once.

Flu rarely kills. It's the secondary infection that gets you. Lots of vitamin C and garlic goes a long way there, C is essential in the immune system and whenever the body heals and gets used up very quickly; you want lots in your system when it heals after the virus makes a mess, that's when you'll get a secondary infection if you're going to get one.

When flu does kill it's because of a Cytokine storm which is a feed forward loop where the immune system tries to kill itself and you drown in fluid in the lungs. Two things have been shown to stop this: niacin and smoking a cigarette. They hate to admit this, but it's true and there's ongoing research into nicotiine, nicotinic acid and related compounds to stop this.

The most conservative study shows C itself knocks a day off. Take really big, (15g/day) doses and it works even better. Two years ago when H1N1 went through here I was sick for 2 days with it. My ex died from it. I found the list of vitamins to take I gave here on her fridge when me and the kids cleaned out out. She never got any of them.

Also, olive leaf extract has been clinically shown to prevent flu in 20% of cases, but doesn't do a damn thing for you when you have it.

Both the Norovirus and the Flu swept though here over xmas, we're all fine now, it was fairly mild. I saw my doc today for the annual checkup thing and joked about the empty waiting room and how everyone must be over it. He said no, they're all at emerg and he saw 46 people yesterday with it and it's the worst it's been for years.

He said it's Type A flu.

These seemed to help, me at least, maybe that's why it was fairly mild around here while other folks seemed to be having a harder time of it.

http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/medicine/vitamins/flu/
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/medicine/ginger/

I have no idea why but chilis, garlic and ginger help A LOT too. But you have to get fairly large amounts into you. 3 or 4 garlic cloves a day and commensurate amounts of the others. This also seems to go a long way towards preventing a secondary infection too. I *always* used to get them, now, I don't since I started doing this about 7 years ago. Not once.

Flu rarely kills. It's the secondary infection that gets you. Lots of vitamin C and garlic goes a long way there, C is essential in the immune system and whenever the body heals and gets used up very quickly; you want lots in your system when it heals after the virus makes a mess, that's when you'll get a secondary infection if you're going to get one.

When flu does kill it's because of a Cytokine storm which is a feed forward loop where the immune system tries to kill itself and you drown in fluid in the lungs. Two things have been shown to stop this: niacin and smoking a cigarette. They hate to admit this, but it's true and there's ongoing research into nicotiine, nicotinic acid and related compounds to stop this.

The most conservative study shows C itself knocks a day off. Take really big, (15g/day) doses and it works even better. Two years ago when H1N1 went through here I was sick for 2 days with it. My ex died from it. I found the list of vitamins to take I gave here on her fridge when me and the kids cleaned out out. She never got any of them.

Also, olive leaf extract has been clinically shown to prevent flu in 20% of cases, but doesn't do a damn thing for you when you have it.

"The first corals were soft bodied, which probably helped."

You might wanna check that.

You don't get to leave out the effect of CO2 on growing trees and call yourself an expert on CO2.

You really think the current models are right now. Ooooooook.

Can you show me the warming trend in this:

http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/.images/HolocenePeriods.png

Please respond. Every time I show this to alarmists they go silent.

They overlooked the part in their model where more acidic seas dissolve existing carbonate faster. Nature recycles. How do you think coral survived 7000ppm CO2?

http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/.images/Evo_large.gif

They've overlooked simple biomechanics before: "8th December 2010 13:24 GMT - A group of top NASA and NOAA scientists say that current climate models predicting global warming are far too gloomy, and have failed to properly account for an important cooling factor which will come into play as CO2 levels rise.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/08/new_model_doubled_co2_sub_2_degrees_warming/

See also: There are winners and losers among corals under the accumulating impacts of climate change, according to a new scientific study. In the world’s first large-scale investigation of how climate affects the composition of coral reefs, an international team of marine scientists concludes that the picture is far more complicated than previously thought - but that total reef losses due to climate change are unlikely. Ref: http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(12)00255-2"

Lets play spot the warming trend: http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/.images/HolocenePeriods.png

Yawn

http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/.images/HolocenePeriods.png

Really? Show me the warming:

http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/.images/HolocenePeriods.png

Why do experts on Co2 not know trees eat the stuff? From last year:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j2BAdNIG5Q2FJlEdac1l-KXiTSCA?docId=CNG.dfe97e07f144a2d29eb615412e0c12be.a81

Those aren't scientists. They marketing assholes.

First instance I've found is 1953: http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/.images/med_greenhouse_effect.jpg

Then there's this: http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/.images/HolocenePeriods.png
Show me the warming part.

First instance I've found is 1953: http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/.images/med_greenhouse_effect.jpg

Then there's this: http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/.images/HolocenePeriods.png
Show me the warming part.

Couple of things they fail to mention:

1) A lot of that ice grew in the 1940s.
http://news.ku.dk/all_news/2012/2012.5/glaciers_greenland_photos/
"At the time many glaciers underwent a melt similar or even higher than what we have seen in the last ten years. When it became colder again in the 1950s and 1960s, glaciers actually started growing," says Dr. Kurt H. Kjær"

"Kurt H. Kjær has previously worked with his colleague Svend Funder from Center for GeoGenetics on investigating sea ice extent in the Arctic Ocean. Results showed that the sea ice extent has been far from stable throughout the last 10,000 years."

2) This is what NASA has to say about the "unprecedented melt":
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/greenland-melt.html

"Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data."

3) "Arctic Ice Threatens Northern Hemisphere
Posted on April 19, 2009 (note the date)
While the eastern Antarctic ice pack continues inexorable year over year growth, Arctic ice is greater than it’s been in the last 8 years, and showing massive expansion again this year."
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/AMSR-E.jpg

4) "Antarctic sea ice grows to record extent while Arctic continues to shrink"
http://antarcticsun.usap.gov/science/contenthandler.cfm?id=2750

5) http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/.images/HolocenePeriods.png
The world is warming, or cooling, depending on the time scale you look at. See for yourself.

6) The real problems are pollution in a general sense and deforestation. Given mans contribution to carbon is at best 3% and that we've removed so fucking many trees (look for yourself, fly over the Island of Borneo in google maps would be a good start, its gone, it's all gone)... what did you expect was gong to happen. "By Marlowe Hood (AFP) – Jul 14, 2011
PARIS — Forests play a larger role in Earth's climate system than previously suspected for both the risks from deforestation and the potential gains from regrowth, a benchmark study released Thursday has shown." http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j2BAdNIG5Q2FJlEdac1l-KXiTSCA?docId=CNG.dfe97e07f144a2d29eb615412e0c12be.a81

That's right, in 2011 the geniuses that know all about CO2 got the revelation that trees eat the stuff. Next time somebody calls them "experts" rememnber that.

Possibly this was in response to NASA and the NOAA bitch-slapping the IPCC by pointing out in 2012 they'd sort of ignored this fact in their "models":
"8th December 2010 13:24 GMT - A group of top NASA and NOAA scientists say that current climate models predicting global warming are far too gloomy, and have failed to properly account for an important cooling factor which will come into play as CO2 levels rise."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/08/new_model_doubled_co2_sub_2_degrees_warming/

Which doubt caused Gaia-dude to recant, showing he has at least a modicum of intellectual integrity:

""James Lovelock, the scientist that came up with the 'Gaia Theory' and a prominent herald of climate change, once predicted utter disaster for the planet from climate change, writing 'before this century is over billions of us will die

Damn, beat to the punch. But that doesn't matter, what matters is http://australia.sucks/ works even though it doesn't at time of writing. Or typing. Whatever.

But it's not Australia per se. It's a guy called Paul Twomey. He showed up in the late 90s after making a real dogs breakfast of internet regulations in Australia and was about as smarmy as they come so of course he did well in the den of lying clueless shitbag skullduggery that is ICANN and lasted 10 years until he lied to congress and achieved zero deliverables in a decade.

http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/internet/domains/eyestar/icann/ceo/salary/

So, after being ousted and replaced by Beckstrom I'd wager he ran around to any governmental authority that would list and for only $way_too_much helped them write a report on the order of ".sucks" sucks.

This was done through the "Government Advisory Committee" or "GAC", and I was there that day when the GAC was introduced by the ITU wonk Bob Shaw as an "essential" part to this. Where "this" was supposed to be "measure the consensus of the internet communty and implement it".

During an open mike session later that hour, I asked for a show of hands for support for this GAC. 11 out of 1000 people raised their hands, all government reps to the GAC even though it hadn't been created yet. It was emphasized this was "advisory" only.

Ok, we heard your advice, now fuck off.

P.S. I still have the .rm files of that day in Berlin fom the Berkman center archives if anyone's interested.

Yeah. I get all my hard science from newspapers. They really know their stuff.

http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/observations/globe/

Glaciation cycles are an example of one that's longer than a year.

If you look at the charts and graphs earth basically has two modes: coming out of an ice age and having an ice age. We're still coming out of an ice age so of course it's getting warmer. At what point did you think earth's climate was static? It doesn't work that way.

The next glaciation event seems on track for 300 years from now, so yeah the weather will be a bit weird for a while. Nothing you can do about it though except prepare. Evolution reward those who adapt the best, not the strongest.

The cause and schedule of glaciation and how it impacts clouds in general and climate specifically is explained here: http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/poles/ - note that this is the famous model that CERN validated then put a gag order on. The commercial forces behind carbon markets are very powerful, move in the shadows and leave no fingerprints.

Also, this seems to me to falsify the AGW argument: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrI03ts--9I I've not yet seen anyone refute it. Be the first on your block!

As to why there is such a carbon hysteria, this author makes the case for manufactured consent: http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/16/manufacturing-consensus/ and the Adam Curtis docco (BBC, 4 hrs, well worth it) "Century of the Self" shows the principles of how and when this was done: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmUzwRCyTSo

Watch this: http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/poles/ it tempers things a bit.

That's not true at all. Look at the historical graphs around glaciation events, it rises very suddenly then. These are in turn linked to magnetic pole reversal, that is CO2 follows these, and does not cause them.

http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/poles/

No, it's the alarmists who haven't read all the literature and cling to an unproven hypothesis that no government has accepted yet, that NASA proved faulty and even their own spiritual leader has backpedaled on.

NASA/NOAA to IPCC: your models are broken, you ignored the facts plants eat CO2 (2010)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/08/new_model_doubled_co2_sub_2_degrees_warming/

NASA: 150 year Greenland melt cycle right on time (2012)
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/greenland-melt.html

James "Gaia theory" Lovelock gives up (2012): "The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books — mine included — because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened," Lovelock said. "The climate is doing its usual tricks. There's nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," he said. "The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that," he added.' Lovelock still believes the climate is changing, but at a much, much slower pace."
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/no_consensus/its_over/

A more moderate approach is articulated: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/08/ff_apocalypsenot/all

Global warming is so 1985. It's not like we haven't known about it since the 1940s, nobody could figure out a way to make money of it until now, so they're exploiting it for all it's worth now. And you're helping. *slow clap*

http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/.images/med_greenhouse_effect.jpg (Popular mechanics, August 1953, P 119)

No, it's the alarmists who haven't read all the literature and cling to an unproven hypothesis that no government has accepted yet, that NASA proved faulty and even their own spiritual leader has backpedaled on.

NASA/NOAA to IPCC: your models are broken, you ignored the facts plants eat CO2 (2010)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/08/new_model_doubled_co2_sub_2_degrees_warming/

NASA: 150 year Greenland melt cycle right on time (2012)
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/greenland-melt.html

James "Gaia theory" Lovelock gives up (2012): "The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books — mine included — because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened," Lovelock said. "The climate is doing its usual tricks. There's nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," he said. "The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that," he added.' Lovelock still believes the climate is changing, but at a much, much slower pace."
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/no_consensus/its_over/

A more moderate approach is articulated: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/08/ff_apocalypsenot/all

Global warming is so 1985. It's not like we haven't known about it since the 1940s, nobody could figure out a way to make money of it until now, so they're exploiting it for all it's worth now. And you're helping. *slow clap*

http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/.images/med_greenhouse_effect.jpg (Popular mechanics, August 1953, P 119)

Now superimpose it, with normalized axes, on the recent Norwegian tree ring data: http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/fraud/climategate/.images/00-both2.png

http://rs79.vrx.net/works/photoessays/2011/godaddy/

Bob makes his own dead pachyderms.

Yeah it actually does, but it's the only one that does, see a posting of mine a page or two up.

There is a problem with the flu shot, it does't actually prevent any deaths. But it's not per se generally harmful.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/11/does-the-vaccine-matter/307723/

Everyone in my family seems to get a mild flu for two weeks after getting a flu shot, so, based on
this: http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/medicine/vitamins/flu/ and a few other similar papers, if we get the flu (very rare) we take vitamins a-z in decent sized doses and eat a high protein diet with lots of garlic, chilis and ginger. I have yet to have one that lasted 2 days and no secondary infection compared to a week and a 50/50 channce of a chest infection. This seems to have held true for everyone in the family for the past decade or so. That's what I've seen anyway.

The other vaccines all seem to work as advertised without side effects.

Ok you explain the tree ring data then.

As for the link, it doesn't seem to be what you say.

I did the same thing though, here it is: http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/fraud/climategate/

Look how it compares to the Scandanavian data: http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/fraud/climategate/.images/00-both2.png

How bout simply comparing the Hockey Stick graph to the Scandanavian data (after the X and Y axes are normalized.

http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/fraud/climategate/.images/00-both2.png

"It hasn't. We're warming faster than ever before, and we can actually now say that with a fair statistical significance."

Maybe not. If the Scandinavian tree ring proxy data holds up, that is it's validated by other observations of the same thing then this is what that hockey stick graph looks like superimposed on it with axes normalized. Well beyond the freak out point of Mann's hockey stick graph is the range Roman soldiers had to put up with and CRU's assertion that "it's hotter in the last half of the twentieth century than at any time in the last 1000 years" is false.

http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/fraud/climategate/.images/00-both2.png

You have it backwards. It's not that there's CO2, it's that we're killing all the things that eat co2. Go into google maps right now and look at Borneo. 3rd largest island in the world, 95% unexplored, and look what's there now instead of the trees. Where'd the trees in Europe go? How many old growth forests are there left?

"Jul 14, 2011 PARIS — Forests play a larger role in Earth's climate system than previously suspected"
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j2BAdNIG5Q2FJlEdac1l-KXiTSCA?docId=CNG.dfe97e07f144a2d29eb615412e0c12be.a81

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/08/new_model_doubled_co2_sub_2_degrees_warming/
"8th December 2010 13:24 GMT - A group of top NASA and NOAA scientists say that current climate models predicting global warming are far too gloomy, and have failed to properly account for an important cooling factor which will come into play as CO2 levels rise."

Now watch these two:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrI03ts--9I
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/poles/

I dunno about you, but these gave me a different perspective.

How to run it? Are you kidding?

First of all the CEO is never in the office. Second, ICANN has been around for a decade and has burned though ten of millions of dollars. Show me the deliverables. If any other government agency acted like this there'd be charges.

Keep in mind Beckstrom succeeded a guy that lied to congress about how much money he made (it's on youtube!) and was quickly sent home back to Australia.

I mean, that much money to run THIS: http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/internet/domains/eyestar/icann/inside/ ?

Prediction: it's a setup. Beckstrom came out of nowhere with no experience except for a stint at DHS. They've installed a guy with a foreign sounding name to run the US company that controls all the names and addresses on the net. How do you think the current congress will react to that? (They ultimately have aegis over this). This, the salary and the now one-year-delay before even looking at the new tld apps, I think this is all a setup to let the USG turn off this five star travelling dog and pony show and let NIST/FCC run it like they run other/similar things.

Oh and look what I found: Teklogix company picnic, 1976. Great shots of Dave Conroy's back.

http://rs79.vrx.net/works/photoblog/2011/Feb/9/

"The article angers me in some ways, actually, because it contributes to some myth that mania and psychosis are somehow beneficial"

David Horrobin's book "The Madness of Adam and Eve" is based exactly on this premise based on lipid chemistry and chaging diet over the past 100K or so years. He makes a rather compelling case.

Selected excerpts here: http://rs79.vrx.net/works/books/Bionutrition/refs/madness/

I put together a porn website out of material on Wikipedia. Sort of. I did stick everything I could find on one page with thumnails. NSFW, duh.

I think you'd be hard pressed to call most of this "porn". There does seem to be more male dangly bits than anything else, by far, and I suspect this is is the source of republican *cough*closeted*cough* objection in the first place.

http://rs79.vrx.net/interests/computers/net/wikiporn/

(post additions here if you feel like it, I'll check)

Causes of glaciation are indeed key. For the longest time we just didn't know.

Now, a French team have pretty good proof of causes of glaciation, and it translates into "global warming? hah, I wouldn't exactly panic if I were you".

David Suzuki did an hour on it. .

http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/poles/

CERN validated the theory. Then put a gag order on the results

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/18/cern_cosmic_ray_gag/

"Do you think climatologists haven't heard or the Panama strait closing and the effect it had on global ocean circulation?"

Wouldn't surprise me. They hadn't heard plants eat CO2: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/08/new_model_doubled_co2_sub_2_degrees_warming/

Or that cosmic rays cause global cooling and glaciation: http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/poles/

Or the pesky carbon-13 dilemma: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrI03ts--9I

Or that's it's not good to lie: http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change

WTF is a climate scientist anyway? In 1985 climate research and climate scientists appeared out of nowhere. Where did they get their training? Where did they get their attitude nobody else was qualified to talk about this?

I think they're just failed scientists from other fields who were good at getting funding and the nuclear industry was all too happy to help out.

Given how much Hansen has been caught lying I'm surpised anybody listens to him. How do you know he's not lying now?

There's a whole bunch of these things out there, here's more: http://rs79.vrx.net/interests/free_online_college_courses/

You forgot Mark William's C - or was that just Z-80, I don't remember.

At any rate, GCC owes a lot to DECUS C which was donated to DECUS (the Digital Users Group, digital as in PDP-11 digital) by David G. Conroy who wrote the compiler for Dec's RSX11M operating system. He did this when he was at the University of Waterloo and finished it at Teklogix in Mississauga where he and I both worked.

I was the second or third person to use it. Here's a picture of me an Dave at the Teklogix picnic in Terra Cotta. This must have been about 78. http://rs79.vrx.net/works/photoblog/2011/Feb/9/

Sometime in the very early 90s I ftp'd into John Gilmore's toad.com for a reason I can't remember now, but it was something to do with this. GCC was suppose to be a clean rewrite but I'd looked at the early source and has seen "DGC" signed comments. So in my mind GCC is, or is at least part derived from Dave's compiler that I used so many years ago.

Watch this and ask if you still have a question. Nature of things, David Suzuki, 1 hr. We're 200 years into a 1000 year cycle of magnetic pol revrsal. This is why they keep having to change the numbers on runways periodically.

CERN reproduced the findings which does explain the climate. Then the CERN lab director put a gag order on the results. Look this all up for yourself.

http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/poles/

I used to get "sinus infections" a lot up until 5 years ago. Usually in the spring and the fall. Doc said it's cause of all the mold in the air then. *cillin isn't that useful for this and the last time he gave me Ciprio. Awful stuff. Makes you utterly lactose intolerent and one bowl of clam chowder let me now what cholera must feel like.

Turns out though, that oregano oil is chesaper, safer, quicker and more effective than any antibiotics I've ever tried. I don't even get them any more. But, everyone who has a "head cold" - which is often how a sinus infection presents, should try this.

Oregano oil is really really strong. This does bit a little, but you fell better pretty much immediatly. Oregano oil is one of the strongest anti fungals known, it's anti-viral and kills bacteria so well a recent university of bristol (?) study fond it not only kills MRSA (as Mayo found out) but does do so in stupid low concentrations.

It's also good in pizza and/or spaghetti sauce. Use one drop.

Here's how you treat your sinuses with it: http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/medicine/oregano/sinus/

Notes:
1) all synthetic medicine has side effects. avoid antibiotics if you can
2) i've seen more bad advice on this page than I'm even used to on /. - wow.
3) make sure you get organic oregano oil. when you concentrate things this much any traces of pesticide or what have you become significant. you want to avoid that.

You can check for yourself, during the 70s and 80s "the next ice age" was mentioned quite a bit. try news.google.com/archivesearch and look for yourself.

"global warming" popped up in 1985.

althoiugh it was first mentioned in the popular press in 1953

http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/.images/med_greenhouse_effect.jpg

The news was fond of the next ice age thing. People studying climate were never very convinced and as more and more data came in global warming kept looking more and more probable. Don't confuse media hype with the state of research or an informed opinion.

You can check for yourself, during the 70s and 80s "the next ice age" was mentioned quite a bit. try news.google.com/archivesearch and look for yourself.

"global warming" popped up in 1985.

althoiugh it was first mentioned in the popular press in 1953

http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/.images/med_greenhouse_effect.jpg

These guys make a pretty credible and robust case for 600, not 10,000 years. CERN just reproduced some of their results (which the director of CERN put a gag order on).

1 hr. David Suzuki. Well worth watching

http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/poles/

"Yes, because others became faster. They did so by using JIT and such. Then Opera did the same thing, and now all browsers are basically the same performance wise."

For everything except Javasctipt, sure. But Chrome is head and shoulders faster for JS than anything else.

Stuff like this is why that's significant: http://rs79.vrx.net/interests/computers/sw/js/demos/year/20/1/1/

"white sugar", as you call it, is a problem equal to HFCS, not less than "half the problem" as you suggest. Another "expert" that hasn't watched the presentation.

Correct.

As others as already pointed out, aspertame is not proven to be a problem at all. Of all sweeteners, only sugar/HFCS is proven to be harmful.

There are conflicting studies. The studies that show it was safe were paid for by the drug companies. They're used to sponsoring ghost written research and have been caught at it many times. In fact things are so bad now about half the literature is junk. [1]

It became well known in the medical community by 1987 that aspartame shouldn't be used by people with epilepsy or migraines.

[1] http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/observations/ghosts/

The porn industry could give a shit. Seven people own nearly half of .com names and a bunch of wanna ba .com kings have hands full of .com names. Enough of these guys felt threatened that they paid some no-account porn people to protest. They even paid a homeless guy in San Fransisco to protest. http://rs79.vrx.net/works/photoessays/2011/dot-xxx/

There's no real opposition in pornland. They don't give a shit. It's the guys with ".com portfolios" that were doing this to try to keep .com names valuable.

The whole point of tld expansion was to create new resources and to prevent regulation of extant resources; that is, life doesn't end at .com. Opposition with vested interests not withstanding.

http://rs79.vrx.net/works/photoblog/2010/Sep/23/

Notice the page, being served from facebook.com, saying "bad DNS". Think about that
for a second.

http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/observations/significant/2010/environment/

"There is no money in a cure...."

Truer words were never spoken.

In Suzanne Somers' book 'Knockout' Dr Russell Blaylock says on p157 "The problem is that is has gotten to be such big business. If we found the cure for cancer there would be a terrible economic impact. Hospitals would have to get rid of all their mammogram units; they would get rid of a lot of the CT scanners and MRI scanners. Oncologists would be out of their jobs, radiology units would close. The impact would be hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars. The pharmaceutical companies would lose major revenuesand that is what keeps research from following a course that would lead to truly curing patients."

To get an idea of how corrupt big pharma is see: http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/observations/ghosts/

Then watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vq63CZNYw6I

I've met people whose cancer has been reversed by this stuff.

Not also that the mechanism by which cancer transports glucose into the cell also transports ascorbic acid the same way. Linus Pauling reversed cancer in some poeple with huge doses of C (~ 60-100G/day) given intravenously. Big pharma spent millions "proving" he was a quack and discredited him the same way they did to Abram Hoffer - yet these guys cured thousand of poeple from various disorders just by giving the right molucules in the right doses.

Read everything here: http://orthomolecular.org/library/jom/

There will be a book coming out later this year called "What really causes breast cancer" by H.D. Foster. Pay attention to it.

See also salvestrols.ca and fosterhealth.ca

Big pharma is not even close to being your friend.

(no affiliation with any of these)

You have to be kidding me. Where would this network be today if I could spell?

http://rs79.vrx.net/works/usenet/alt.sex/
http://rs79.vrx.net/works/usenet/terms/froup/

You have to be kidding me. Where would this network be today if I could spell?

http://rs79.vrx.net/works/usenet/alt.sex/
http://rs79.vrx.net/works/usenet/terms/froup/

"Just how many domains do they think they're going to be selling? At competitive rates you'd have to sell tens of thousands just to keep a single person employed to maintain the TLD, never mind having some money to give away."

Actually you have to sell 100,000 just to cover the filing fees. And that's without paying for any infrastructure or people.

Here's how the other new tlds have fared so far:
http://idashboard.icann.org/idashboards/engine.swf?dashID=159&serverURL=http://idashboard.icann.org/idashboards&guest=icannguest ( http://is.gd/28LvZ )

(Warning, slow and a cpu eater)

Plus, .green has been more vocal than .eco so far. Look at the Twitter public timeline (if you can).

Back in 1996 when this started and .com was under a million names a bunch of new tlds like Jon Pstel advocated would have taken the steam out of .com. But not that it's at 80M names most poeple who want a domain have one. "need" has not transformed to "want" and in this economy buying a .eco name or a solar AA battery charger becomes the decision of the day.

Here's some more numbers:
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/internet/domains/dotcom/
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/internet/domains/tlds/
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/internet/domains/eyestar/icann/IAF/
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/internet/domains/eyestar/iana/idn/

As for "Rival Green Groups Bid To Snatch .eco Domain" I hate to say it but .snatch would probably at least break even.

"Just how many domains do they think they're going to be selling? At competitive rates you'd have to sell tens of thousands just to keep a single person employed to maintain the TLD, never mind having some money to give away."

Actually you have to sell 100,000 just to cover the filing fees. And that's without paying for any infrastructure or people.

Here's how the other new tlds have fared so far:
http://idashboard.icann.org/idashboards/engine.swf?dashID=159&serverURL=http://idashboard.icann.org/idashboards&guest=icannguest ( http://is.gd/28LvZ )

(Warning, slow and a cpu eater)

Plus, .green has been more vocal than .eco so far. Look at the Twitter public timeline (if you can).

Back in 1996 when this started and .com was under a million names a bunch of new tlds like Jon Pstel advocated would have taken the steam out of .com. But not that it's at 80M names most poeple who want a domain have one. "need" has not transformed to "want" and in this economy buying a .eco name or a solar AA battery charger becomes the decision of the day.

Here's some more numbers:
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/internet/domains/dotcom/
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/internet/domains/tlds/
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/internet/domains/eyestar/icann/IAF/
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/internet/domains/eyestar/iana/idn/

As for "Rival Green Groups Bid To Snatch .eco Domain" I hate to say it but .snatch would probably at least break even.

"Just how many domains do they think they're going to be selling? At competitive rates you'd have to sell tens of thousands just to keep a single person employed to maintain the TLD, never mind having some money to give away."

Actually you have to sell 100,000 just to cover the filing fees. And that's without paying for any infrastructure or people.

Here's how the other new tlds have fared so far:
http://idashboard.icann.org/idashboards/engine.swf?dashID=159&serverURL=http://idashboard.icann.org/idashboards&guest=icannguest ( http://is.gd/28LvZ )

(Warning, slow and a cpu eater)

Plus, .green has been more vocal than .eco so far. Look at the Twitter public timeline (if you can).

Back in 1996 when this started and .com was under a million names a bunch of new tlds like Jon Pstel advocated would have taken the steam out of .com. But not that it's at 80M names most poeple who want a domain have one. "need" has not transformed to "want" and in this economy buying a .eco name or a solar AA battery charger becomes the decision of the day.

Here's some more numbers:
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/internet/domains/dotcom/
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/internet/domains/tlds/
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/internet/domains/eyestar/icann/IAF/
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/internet/domains/eyestar/iana/idn/

As for "Rival Green Groups Bid To Snatch .eco Domain" I hate to say it but .snatch would probably at least break even.

"Just how many domains do they think they're going to be selling? At competitive rates you'd have to sell tens of thousands just to keep a single person employed to maintain the TLD, never mind having some money to give away."

Actually you have to sell 100,000 just to cover the filing fees. And that's without paying for any infrastructure or people.

Here's how the other new tlds have fared so far:
http://idashboard.icann.org/idashboards/engine.swf?dashID=159&serverURL=http://idashboard.icann.org/idashboards&guest=icannguest ( http://is.gd/28LvZ )

(Warning, slow and a cpu eater)

Plus, .green has been more vocal than .eco so far. Look at the Twitter public timeline (if you can).

Back in 1996 when this started and .com was under a million names a bunch of new tlds like Jon Pstel advocated would have taken the steam out of .com. But not that it's at 80M names most poeple who want a domain have one. "need" has not transformed to "want" and in this economy buying a .eco name or a solar AA battery charger becomes the decision of the day.

Here's some more numbers:
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/internet/domains/dotcom/
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/internet/domains/tlds/
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/internet/domains/eyestar/icann/IAF/
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/internet/domains/eyestar/iana/idn/

As for "Rival Green Groups Bid To Snatch .eco Domain" I hate to say it but .snatch would probably at least break even.