Slashdot Mirror


Compound From Olive-Pomace Oil Inhibits HIV Spread

Researchers in Madrid are claiming that they have discovered that a type of wax found in olive skin can help to slow the spread of HIV. "Their work shows that maslinic acid - a natural product extracted from dry olive-pomace oil in oil mills - inhibits serin-protease, an enzyme used by HIV to release itself from the infected cell into the extracellular environment and, consequently, to spread the infection into the whole body. These scientists from Granada determined that the use of olive-pomace oil can produce an 80% slowing down in AIDS spreading in the body."

266 comments

  1. And it's a good fat too by gbulmash · · Score: 4, Funny

    Rachel Ray finds another use for Eee-Vee-Ohh-Ohh.

    - Greg

    1. Re:And it's a good fat too by rob1980 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yum-o!

    2. Re:And it's a good fat too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's also Yum-o is my cum which can also cure cancer, along with every other disease. Suck me off, you know you want too. I'm in ur pantz sniffing ur n4dz...
    3. Re:And it's a good fat too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually..pomace oil is sort of like comparing Amsoil to sludge. Pomace is the very last scrounged up press for olive oil.. extra virgie on the other hand..thats tasty.

  2. hmm. by apodyopsis · · Score: 4, Funny

    ..and works as a lubricant too? :-)

    my, thats handy.

    1. Re:hmm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what's hand gotta do with this?

    2. Re:hmm. by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 5, Funny

      My hand does not have HIV, so i fail to see the relevance.

      --
      - These characters were randomly selected.
    3. Re:hmm. by Lockejaw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ..and works as a lubricant too? :-)
      If you use it that way, it may increase rate of HIV transmission -- remember, folks, condoms are soluble in oil.
      --
      (IANAL)
    4. Re:hmm. by More_Cowbell · · Score: 1
      Petroleum based products, yes.

      No, I have not tested nor researched, but I'm pretty sure EVOO will not dissolve latex.

      --
      Experience teaches only the teachable. -AH
    5. Re:hmm. by TornCityVenz · · Score: 1

      pumice stone and olive oil...no wonder it's cutting down on the HIV count...who'd want to use Pumice stone as a lubricant....OUCH

      --
      I Need someone to rebuild a Digitech Digital Delay pedal for me....for me...for me...for me.
    6. Re:hmm. by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually yes, any old oil will dry out latex, that includes corn oil. But there are also polyurethane and vinyl (eew?) condoms.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:hmm. by zolaar · · Score: 1

      When you shake someone's hand, you're shaking the hands of everyone that person has shaken hands with.

      Department heads. District Managers. Hell, I bet there's even a VP of Sales in there, given how chummy your last supervisor turned out to be. Can you vouch for each of them as well?

      Get tested.

      --
      One man's constant is another man's variable.
    8. Re:hmm. by PPH · · Score: 1

      Yeah. It inhibits HIV because you keep slipping out!

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  3. I don't buy it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    I went to Spain once. Hooked up with a Spanish hooker. BAMN! AIDS!

  4. Re:Please help me understand this. by Samalie · · Score: 1, Insightful

    +1 Insightful? What is it, bring a troll to mod day today?

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  5. I am what I am by reytron · · Score: 0

    And Popeye thought that his strength always came from spinach. No wonder Bluto was always kidnapping her.

  6. HIV is not AIDs by MSTCrow5429 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm skeptical. The source article, by stating "these scientists from Granada determined that the use of olive-pomace oil can produce an 80% slowing down in AIDS spreading in the body," conflates HIV with AIDs. You can slow down the spread a virus, such as the human immunodeficiency virus, in the body. You cannot slow down the spread of a syndrome, theorized not as caused directly by HIV, but by opportunistic infections as a result of HIV infection, in the body; only said opportunistic infections.

    --
    Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
    1. Re:HIV is not AIDs by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, the opportunistic infections have an opportunity because of HIVs effect on the human immune system. Reduce the spread of HIV, reduce the effect on the immune system, reduce the opportunities of opportunistic infections. Pretty simple if you ask me.

      I don't think that a layman's article conflating HIV with AIDS -- not an unfair layman's conflation, considering that there is at least a causal relationship between them even if they are not the same thing -- should inspire such skepticism.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    2. Re:HIV is not AIDs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're conflating the fact that the conflation he was pointing out (i.e., that the article conflates HIV with AIDS) is a serious conflation and is a little more significant than a layman's conflation which would not conflate the specifics to non-laymen who would understand and appreciate such a conflation.

    3. Re:HIV is not AIDs by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think you're conflating the word conflation with some other word, since you never pointed out what I'm conflating "the fact that the conflation he was pointing out (i.e., that the article conflates HIV with AIDS) is a serious conflation and is a little more significant than a layman's conflation which would not conflate the specifics to non-laymen who would understand and appreciate such a conflation" with.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    4. Re:HIV is not AIDs by fonik · · Score: 1

      Didn't I read about this in that "All Natural Cures THEY Don't Want You To Know About" book? A quick google search reveals a few other pop-sci sites reporting the same stuff, but no link to a paper. There does seem to be a Andrés García-Granados at the Universidad de Granada, according to their website, but this sounds too much like a miracle herbal cure.

    5. Re:HIV is not AIDs by fonik · · Score: 1

      Ah nevermind, there is a story about it directly on the university's website.

      Linky
      It even has the researcher's email and telephone. I love academia.

    6. Re:HIV is not AIDs by Otter · · Score: 1

      There doesn't seem to be a paper yet, but the guy has a serious publication record and doesn't seem prone to publicity stunts. Probably it's the usual case of a university PR office hearing "HIV" and going nuts with the press release.

    7. Re:HIV is not AIDs by Elemenope · · Score: 1

      Ah! Recursion burns!

      --
      All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
    8. Re:HIV is not AIDs by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Funny

      Are you sure you aren't conflating recursion and fire? I did once, and my attempts to pop the stack did no good.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    9. Re:HIV is not AIDs by iamacat · · Score: 1

      HIV directly infects brain, causing dementia and, if you take anti-viral drugs that do not cross blood-brain barrier for long enough, probably death. AIDS patients are much sicker than those taking immunosuppresant drugs after a transplant. Opportunistic infections are only part of the story, you would die from AIDS even if you lived in a sterile glass bubble.

    10. Re:HIV is not AIDs by Elemenope · · Score: 1

      Are you sure you aren't conflating recursion and fire? I did once, and my attempts to pop the stack did no good.

      The. Best. Computer. Science. Joke. Ever!

      --
      All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
    11. Re:HIV is not AIDs by LiENUS · · Score: 1

      Link? I've never heard this and the wikipedia article mentions no such thing

    12. Re:HIV is not AIDs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AIDS is not caused by opportunistic infections. AIDS is "Acute Immunodeficiency Syndrome". HIV infects and kills T-cells, and infection leads eventually to low T-cell counts, i.e. immunodeficiency. AIDS and HIV are *dangerous* because immunodeficiency allows opportunistic infections. You can slow down the spread of HIV; this will often lead to higher T-cell counts; i.e. prevent full-blown AIDS.

      As long as you're being picky about wording, I might as well set you straight.

    13. Re:HIV is not AIDs by Lurker2288 · · Score: 1

      http://www.merck.com/mmhe/sec17/ch199/ch199a.html

      The Merck Manual page suggests that most of the neurological effects associated with HIV/AIDS are due to the development of cancerous growths in the brain. They also point out infection with Toxoplasmosis and Cryptococcus as potentially causing dementia and personality changes, but in listing the causes of death they list dementia and wasting as being separate entities from opportunistic infections.

      So yeah, HIV by itself will lead to death, it's just that in many cases, the destruction of the immune system allows something else to do it first.

  7. oral or topical? by rebmemeR · · Score: 1

    Is the substance taken orally or applied topically?

    --
    Birth is the leading cause of death.
    1. Re:oral or topical? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's topically applied directly to the blood.

    2. Re:oral or topical? by Otter · · Score: 2, Informative

      The only experiments described are in cell cultures. (I.e. the stuff is dumped directly on cells in in a dish.) The "can produce an 80% slowing down in AIDS spreading in the body" seems to be just wishful thinking at the moment.

    3. Re:oral or topical? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      It's topically applied directly to the blood. Olive-On, apply directly to the blood.
      Olive-On, apply directly to the blood.
      Olive-On, apply directly to the blood.
    4. Re:oral or topical? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mac users and other homosexuals would prefer it anally, as it also would double as a lube.

    5. Re:oral or topical? by enjerth · · Score: 1

      Best one I've seen all day.

    6. Re:oral or topical? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anally.

    7. Re:oral or topical? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In your case... anally.

    8. Re:oral or topical? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, no. It's a suppository.

  8. Good on bread by kc2keo · · Score: 1

    Enhances the taste of bread. mmm

  9. Re:Please help me understand this. by MightyMartian · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    The pastor of your church is a moron, and I can only assume, by extension, that you are a moron too. As to why AIDS gets lots of funding, well, perhaps it has something to do with an incredible crisis in Africa that I'm thinking neither you or your braindead religious leader care much about (or possibly even know of).

    Sometimes I wish there was a cure of retarded religious flunkies. They're one of the true threats to health and harmony.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  10. Re:Please help me understand this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tell your preacher he is wrong. Gays can reproduce pretty easily via artificial insemination.

  11. Correlation != Causation by L.+VeGas · · Score: 1

    I suspect it's more likely that individuals with a slower-than-typical HIV growth after infection from the virus are the same individuals that really, really like olive-pomace oil.

    Occams razor and all that.

    1. Re:Correlation != Causation by NumaNuma · · Score: 1

      Knowledge of something like that would actually be more useful, as it would provide a way to view the genetic basis of slowed virus spreading, allowing scientists to link it to a more easily observable trait. Since they can't go around infecting people directly, finding observable traits that may be linked to unobservable ones tends to allow geneticists and other biologists to isolate chromosomal locations of defects (or, in this case, advantages).

    2. Re:Correlation != Causation by Lockejaw · · Score: 2, Funny

      How can they tell which petri dishes of cells like olive-pomace oil? Should they make them fill out a survey?

      --
      (IANAL)
  12. Dear sir, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

    1. Re:Dear sir, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. Sure! You can sign up right here and get ready to humble yourself!

      We're going to sing " God bless America" and God will bless us just because we're such nice people and we're nicer here than those guys over in the Middle East who are attacking us. Don't believe that for one minute! That we're OK before God. God says, "If you want my blessing, humble yourself." Now bend over and let's get ready to HUMBLE!
  13. Re:Please help me understand this. by evanbd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yikes, there are so many problems with this arguments I don't know where to begin. But, whether you're trolling or not, it's a commonly stated one, so I'll answer it (at least in part).

    Regardless of how you define "moral behavior," many cases of AIDS are spread through "moral behavior." People get it from their spouse, when neither of them knew the spouse had it. The spouse might have gotten it from a previous partner, or a blood transfusion problem (fortunately rather rare now). What about the child who contracts it from their mother?

    Whether sex outside of marriage is moral or not is a matter of personal interpretation. Certainly much of society views it as normal. Many people have a single monogamous relationship at a time, but more than one through their lifetime. Is that so immoral that we should condemn them to die because of it?

    There is no evidence of "recruitment" by homosexuals. Rather, there is a mounting body of evidence that people become homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual as a result of factors beyond their control -- both genetic and environmental. This, combined with ample of evidence of homosexuality in the animal kingdom, would seem to imply that homosexuality is quite natural -- and that therefore the classification of it as immoral is a rather odd invention of mankind.

    As to why AIDS gets so much funding -- it's a horrible disease, with a near-100% fatality rate. It infects a staggering number of people. It is currently busy depopulating much of sub-Saharan Africa (where, by the way, the primary mechanism of spreading is between married partners and from mother to child). Diseases that are epidemic in scale, have exceedingly high fatality rates, and which we don't know how to cure should scare anyone. Hopefully all this research will be helpful if another such disease appears.

  14. Weekly World News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah, misleading headlines! This one makes it sound less like a clinical study and more like one of those "miracle cure" articles you see in tabloids, promoting some ordinary food like garlic or olive oil as anything from a diet aid (lose weight eating nothing but garlic!) to a cure for cancer.

  15. Still wont help me get lucky :( by coren2000 · · Score: 1

    I (obviously) have no use for this.

  16. skeptical at best. by Brigadier · · Score: 1, Interesting



    I'm always skeptical of these third world countries scientific claims of some miracle cure usinging some natrual substance. i recently went to a seminar given by a recruiter for one of the larger universities in the Caribbean. I was flabergasted to hear them making claims of there findings as far as avocado curing aids and other such BS. The fact is though ambitious i'm sure they lack the level of technical abilities and testing proceedure to make a truly scientific claim. Flame me if you want but this is something that I see happen over and over again. In my eyes this is no different than than me testing HIV cultures in show polish containers using coconut oil in unsanitary surroundings.

    1. Re:skeptical at best. by reytron · · Score: 0, Insightful

      are you also skeptical of willow bark being used to treat headaches, aloe plants being used to soothe sunburns, and mold being used to treat infections? drugs come from plants.

    2. Re:skeptical at best. by Kelson · · Score: 1

      I'm always skeptical of these third world countries scientific claims of some miracle cure usinging some natrual substance.

      Wait... Spain is a third-world country?

    3. Re:skeptical at best. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps you're confusing Granada, Spain with Grenada?

    4. Re:skeptical at best. by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm always skeptical of people who classify Spain as "third world".

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    5. Re:skeptical at best. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn, now Spain got demoted to third world country. Guess that makes Nigeria 4th or 5th world. Where the hell can one find a civilized place nowadays, anyway?

    6. Re:skeptical at best. by roman_mir · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well, it's not one of the States, it must be the 'third world'.

    7. Re:skeptical at best. by marcello_dl · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm always skeptical of these third world countries scientific claims of some miracle cure usinging some natrual substance (...) I'm sure they lack the level of technical abilities and testing proceedure to make a truly scientific claim.

      But this is illogical. Scientific doesn't mean accurately measured, it's a matter of method. A Fermi problem's solution is not unscientific.

      Back to the topic, verifying the effectiveness of a cure for AIDS doesn't necessarily involve a pretty color image of a neutralized HIV. Watch for average life expectancy, reaction to infections. So the technical ability needed is a six month course in statistics, and the testing procedure involves being able to count days of survival for a decent sized sample.

      If you want to be logical then be skeptical whenever a therapy involving artificial stuff is compared favorably against a natural cure because:
      • the interests in pushing something proprietary and patented are usually much higher.
      • nature synthesizes complex stuff which has been around for longer while the interactions of artificial substances with man and environment are analyzed for too little time, for sheer impracticality and again commercial interests.
      • there are documented precedents of interests pushing the under-performing candidate. Cotton against hemp. Private cars against public transport (see). Windows against a real OS...
      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    8. Re:skeptical at best. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spain a "third world country"? Oh my god...

      And you are from...?

    9. Re:skeptical at best. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, I just found the stupidest human being reading Slashdot. Let's study him/her to discover a cure against the spread of "IDIOCY".

      Get an atlas. Get an education. Get a life.

    10. Re:skeptical at best. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cold War is over, buddy. "Third-world" is so last century. Besides, the "first world" medicines seem just as crap/good as folk medicines (at least the ones that stood the test of time). Read the crap reportings that come out of NYT, USA Today, and all the other big dailies. I don't know which is worse, voodoo cures, or the ones pushed by AMA/Big Pharma.

    11. Re:skeptical at best. by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Informative

      You have no idea where Universidad de Granada is, do you? Hint: Granada, Spain, a "First World" NATO country. TFA even says it's the medical branch in Madrid. You know where that is? Hint: also Spain.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    12. Re:skeptical at best. by servognome · · Score: 1

      Well, it's not one of the States, it must be the 'third world'.
      Well one of the 'real' states like California, New York, Florida.... we all know states like Alabama and Arkansas are 'third world'/
      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
  17. its NOT in the Extra Virgin Olive Oil by G4from128k · · Score: 4, Informative

    Olive pomace is the left-over skins and fruit pulp for the first pressings of the olives. Secondary treatment of the pomace with steam and solvents extracts the residual oil and also extracts this seemingly beneficial oil/wax.

    Ironically, the cheaper grades of olive oil probably have more of this oil.

    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
    1. Re:its NOT in the Extra Virgin Olive Oil by suv4x4 · · Score: 1

      Ironically, the cheaper grades of olive oil probably have more of this oil.

      Why "ironically". Do you intend to use food olive oil to prevent HIV next time?

  18. Don't feed the trolls by mollog · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Please, let's not feed the trolls. I don't believe that OP is truly serious. I think he's trying to start a flame war.

    --
    Best regards.
  19. Here is why by backslashdot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The HIV virus is a very interesting virus. Of all the common viruses, it is one of most deadly and the hardest to cure. It kills millions of people every year. Which other virus is doing that? Please tell me. This is why it is interesting for study. Most of other infectious diseases people are dying of can be cured with antibiotics, but people never get them.

    When the next viral pandemic hits, we want to make sure we know all about how to quickly and effectively deal with it.

    Cancer and heart disease do get more funding than AIDS (as they should). Although it's pretty sad that I have to mention this .. you should know that curing AIDS will save many heterosexual and monogamous women's lives in Africa (you and your preacher should be interested in that right?). These are innocent women who's husbands cheated on them with prostitutes. Also importantly, treating AIDS will enable children in Africa to grow up with mothers and/or fathers.

    PS> Why don't you stop hating? The venom is eating away your rational thoughts.

    1. Re:Here is why by eln · · Score: 3, Informative

      Of all the common viruses, it is one of most deadly and the hardest to cure. It kills millions of people every year. Which other virus is doing that? Please tell me. Not caused by a virus, but how about malaria? It not only kills millions of people a year but has severe economic impacts, because even if it doesn't kill you you can get it over and over again. It's hard to develop an economy when a huge chunk of the people are sick most of the time.

      Malaria and AIDS in concert are great contributors to the overall sense of hopelessness and the inability to sustain a functioning society that plagues much of Africa. They are both exacerbated by poverty, and in turn exacerbate poverty, making it much more difficult for people to lift themselves up.

      Finding cures for malaria and AIDS would probably do more for the overall global economy than anything else could.
    2. Re:Here is why by dgatwood · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Of all the common viruses, it is one of most deadly and the hardest to cure. It kills millions of people every year. Which other virus is doing that? P

      The HPV virus. It has been linked to multiple varieties of cancer, including cervical cancer and various skin cancers. I don't know exact death figures, but they're in the upper tens of thousands, I believe, and were it not for early detection and advanced cancer treatments, would also be measured in millions of deaths per year.

      Not saying HIV isn't important. It definitely is, if only because the virus is so insidious in the way it uses the immune system as a delivery mechanism. However, it's a stretch to say that it is dramatically more important than other viruses with more common delivery mechanisms---they're all pretty important, IMHO. What we should be focusing on, IMHO, is disrupting the infection mechanisms used by viruses and in so doing, creating more broad spectrum antiviral medications. As such, this article probably represents a step in the right direction. It would be interesting to see whether this substance has any similar effects on other viruses.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    3. Re:Here is why by doktor-hladnjak · · Score: 1

      I can't remember where I read it, but I did read something not too long ago about how being HIV+ affects severity of malaria and how malaria affects contraction of HIV+ and progression to AIDS. Basically, once you get one, it becomes much more likely that you'll get and have more medical problems faster with the other one.

    4. Re:Here is why by chrispatch · · Score: 1

      >The HIV virus is a very interesting virus. Of all the common viruses, it is one of most deadly and the hardest to cure. It kills millions of people ?every year. Which other virus is doing that? Please tell me.

      Influenza virus kill tens of thousands in the US each year. They are another virus family that mutates rapidly, but some of these are spread though airborne transmission / casual contact.

    5. Re:Here is why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IMHO? URHO!
      [IANAL? UANAL!]

  20. Don't Forget The Easy Way! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I have been HIV positive for 3 years, although I don't have full-blown AIDS yet. Many mazing developments and new treatments have been found in the past few years, and I have faith that some day, we will be able to find a cure. But for now, there is a much more effective method for preventing HIV infection. You can nearly eliminate the risk by abstaining from sex outside of a trusting marriage between two people who have practiced celibacy. If that's not an option for you, at least avoid high-risk sex and make use of STD testing (keep in mind that someone may be HIV+ for several months before tests start showing it.) Avoiding intravenous drug use and low-quality tattoo or piercing parlors can further reduce the chances of catching this horrid disease.

    1. Re:Don't Forget The Easy Way! by cculianu · · Score: 1

      How did you catch HIV? Was it IV drug use? I only ask because I think it's exceedingly rare to catch HIV through straight sex -- I know like 15 HIV+ people (a friend of mine works in a clinic) and it's funny because to us we wonder who the straight people are that get it. It's almost always homosexual males that practice anal sex or IV drug users.

      Just wondering.

    2. Re:Don't Forget The Easy Way! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I caught HIV through homosexual sex.

    3. Re:Don't Forget The Easy Way! by doktor-hladnjak · · Score: 1

      If you look across the entire world, you'll find that the overwhelming majority of people who are HIV+ (and especially those dying of AIDS) caught the disease through heterosexual sex. Europe and North America are exceptions to the rest of the world, although even in those places the share of infections from heterosexual sex (particularly among non-drug using black and hispanic populations) continues to climb.

    4. Re:Don't Forget The Easy Way! by caol.kailash · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Not to be rude, but funny how you talk about 'avoiding high-risk sex' but don't say that condoms are part of how that is done...merely focus on the abstinence. Teen pregnancy is one of the consequences of this lack of mention. Granted if you read slashdot you likely know what that means, but it makes me wonder about the whole sex education system as a whole. "Don't have sex! But if you do, don't do high risk sex and be safe" Be safe how? With what? Would a 10 year old really know what that means? Even in today's society?

    5. Re:Don't Forget The Easy Way! by Dogtanian · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I'm not sure where you got this religion idea from though, since everything in my post was entirely true, and didn't mention anything religious. To be honest, I doubted the truth of the OP's story (I don't know if you're the same AC or not). The story about him/her having AIDs was cursory and somewhat non-specific. The whole thing smacked of a vague "cautionary tale" being used as an excuse to promote a particular sexual/religious agenda.

      I would never claim that condom use is 100% reliable. You'll notice that I said it "vastly reduces the risks"; which is correct.

      Most studies find that condoms reduce the risk of HIV by 75%-95% (and that's only if they are used every time, and always used properly.) Where did you get that statistic? According to the ones I'm aware of, they reduce the risk by 80% for typical use (not correct use on every occasion, which would provide much greater protection).

      Even taking the best case scenario there of 95% reduction, is high-risk sex really worth even a 5% chance of a near-certain death sentence? That's an incredibly stupid (or blatant and deliberate) misinterpretation of the 95% figure. It's a twentyfold reduction of the original risk. These start off at between 1 in 50 (ouch...) and 1 in 1300 for the riskiest forms of sex, and are more like 1 in 100,000 for vaginal sex. Using a condom reduces this between five and twenty times further .

      Obviously the risks vary between what you're doing and how you do it- I'm not going to tell anyone that there is no risk when using a condom. It's their life and their decision... but it's just as evil to spout misinformative b******ks as you do.
      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    6. Re:Don't Forget The Easy Way! by cculianu · · Score: 1

      Well you are 1000 times less likely to catch it through if you are male and engage in heterosexual vaginal sex with a woman than you are to catch it if you are engaging in anal sex.

      This is something people don't realize.

      Also it is beginning to seem to be just about impossible to get HIV through unprotected oral sex at all.

      I am not saying everyone should go out and not use condoms -- but I think people are too paranoid about HIV and it ruins their sex lives and their sexual "comfort".

      God I wish HIV didn't exist. It ruined so much fun...

  21. Correlation by Brian+Cohen · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I noticed that eastern Mediterranean countries that produce a lot of olives have a lower incidence of adult HIV. Not to imply that there is causation, and I know that other factors are at work, but I still found it interesting.

    1. Re:Correlation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The correlation is that those countries are very religious-- everyone there is either Eastern Catholic, Orthodox Christian, or Muslim.

    2. Re:Correlation by alx5000 · · Score: 1, Informative

      As a Spaniard, I'd like to point out that, even thought a majority of the Spanish population would declare themselves as Catholics:

        - A couple of years ago we had one of the lowest birth rates in the world (I'm not implying Catholics must have lots of children, but, come on, people fuck no matter what).
        - Prostitution is one of the main industries (if not the biggest) here.
        - The average age for getting married is 31 in men, and 29 in women, whilest losing one's virginity happens at 17 years old (also on average); yes, there's a lot of not-too-Catholic out-of-marriage sex.

      So I wouldn't be so careless as to attribute a lower number of HIV infections to abstinence. IMHO, education (there's a lot of emphasis on wearing condoms here) is one of the keys (I have no clue about olive oil).

      --
      My 0.02 cents
  22. Re:Please help me understand this. by Vandilizer · · Score: 1

    Sometimes I wish there was a cure of retarded religious flunkies. They're one of the true threats to health and harmony. Unfortunately it would cost way to much, more then all the money spent on researching other diseases.

    Although the amount required to fund the research in to this disease is not of an issue to the infected. They tend to spend it trying to buy their way in to some version of heaven.
  23. OT: E.V.O.O doesn't mean what she thinks it means. by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 2, Informative

    She uses it to fry things, which is a big "WTF?" if you know anything about olive oil. The whole point of extra virgin olive oil is that it's a lighter more flavorful oil, and it's usually substantially more expensive. Use it in a salad dressing or as a condiment, drink it straight out of the bottle like the Greeks do, but don't fry in it, jesus! It doesn't even have a very high smoke point, compared to refined olive oil.

    It's like frying something in sesame oil, or flaxseed oil, or any other oil that you can think of that is used primarily for how it tastes, rather than as an efficient conductor of heat.

    Of course, in the U.S., EVOO is defined by acidity, so you're not buying real EVOO at the stores, just regular refined oil with a low acid level.

    --
    ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
  24. Italians? by Zarjazz · · Score: 2, Informative

    So how come the home of Olive oil, Italy, has one of the highest infection rates in Europe? http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/hiv-aids/hiv-aid s-infection-rate-by-country-europe-and-the-new-ind ependent-states/

    1. Re:Italians? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The home of olive oil is Greece, or possibly Israel.

    2. Re:Italians? by hotdiggitydawg · · Score: 0

      I'm going to go out on a limb here, and suggest that maybe, just maybe, that has something to do with the Vatican banning the use of condoms. What with Italy being a predominantly Catholic country with a reputation for promiscuity, and all.

      Although they would have you believe that condoms don't stop aids anyway.

    3. Re:Italians? by alx5000 · · Score: 1

      I'm Spanish! I wins! I wins!!

      --
      My 0.02 cents
    4. Re:Italians? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My guess is that promiscuity is to blame.

      If someone doesn't listen when the Church says it's wrong to have sex outside of marriage, why would they listen to the Church's teachings on condoms? Your argument doesn't make sense.

      The fact is that encouraging condom use also encourages promiscuity, which in turn helps the spread of AIDS. Without condoms, people who might be tempted to have sex outside of marriage would be afraid of getting AIDS, and so would remain abstinent. On the other hand, with condoms, people feel protected from AIDS, and so have sex with multiple people, and may get AIDS on those occasions when condoms fail; and then spread the disease to others.

    5. Re:Italians? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So how come the home of Olive oil, Italy, has one of the highest infection rates in Europe?

      If you have ever been to Italy, you'd know why. Making love to an Italian is about as sanitary as humping a parking meter in Chicago (although the Italian probably smells better).

    6. Re:Italians? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First of all, it's evident that you don't have a clue what you're talking about. The Vatican does not ban condoms. I'll say it again, in case you're stupid-- the Vatican does not ban condoms.

      Secondly, you're claiming that people follow the rules of the Church because they don't use condoms. In the same sentence, you're also claiming that people don't follow the rules of the Church because they're having high-risk extramarital sex and spreading AIDS. Why would someone ignore the Church teachings on the basic purposes of sex, and then suddenly start following the doctrines regarding contraception?

  25. Most of us are ignorant. by iknownuttin · · Score: 1
    Regardless of how you define "moral behavior," many cases of AIDS are spread through "moral behavior."

    You're correct. But I think the parent was referring to the truckers in Africa who solicit whores on their trips. Unfortunately, there is still sooo much misinformation on AIDS that quite a few folks have some misguided opinions about it. And to be honest, with all of the FUD out there, I'm not so sure I know anything more then the parent. SO, mod me down to as an ignoramus. And then again, it's un-PC to criticize Africans and their culture. I'll leave that to you to research and for me to take the karma hit - I'd much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much rather take a karma kit than have us Westerners live in ignorance - myself included!

    --
    I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
    1. Re:Most of us are ignorant. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then again, it's un-PC to criticize Africans and their culture.

      Yeah, like criticizing the belief that having sex with a (infant) virgin will cure you of AIDS. Or criticizing the belief that having a shower after the act will lessen your chances of catching it.

      Why do you think I am posting AC? :-)

    2. Re:Most of us are ignorant. by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      Why do you think I am posting AC? :-)
      Because you're labouring under the mistaken (yet commonly-held) belief that karma matters in the slightest?
    3. Re:Most of us are ignorant. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you think I am posting AC? :-)

      Because you're labouring under the mistaken (yet commonly-held) belief that karma matters in the slightest?


      Karma? Who said anything about karma, or anything of the sort? I post as AC when I don't want a google search of a future employer to associate these words with my name. This is the point of anonymity, relevant in a prior story -- the ability to speak one's mind without fear of it being taken out of context in the future, which in the current world is much too easy. I'm not talking about evading accountability, but of speaking openly about topics for which *any* expressed opinion will bring you enemies (from abortion/religion/politics or conservation-of-the-whales to drugs/meds/sex/porn/piracy and rock-and-roll habits). This is the benefit of anonymous posting, and I praise slashdot for sticking to its principles about it, even given the downsides.

      Note that I'm a different AC than the GP, but I had this rant pent up, and your karma comment reminded me of it.

      w.
  26. Great by Mockylock · · Score: 0

    But it probably causes cancer.

    --
    "Please, shut up. Just when I think you can't say anything more stupid, you speak again." -Archie Bunker.
    1. Re:Great by goarilla · · Score: 1

      listen to your sig god damn it :D
      olives are healthy vegetables and well one of the few i actually like

    2. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      aren't the technically fruits though?

  27. Trolly trolly troll troll. by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's because we like immoral behavior; if it only affected religious zealots, we'd add it to the water supply.

    I just love how so many so-called Christians can be so happy to watch other people die. Whole buncha stone throwing fake christians in the world today.

    Don't get me wrong, I don't hate all religious people. Just the holier-than-thou hypocrites who talk about god while imposing their narrow-minded world view on everyone else.

    --
    ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    1. Re:Trolly trolly troll troll. by StarscreamZX · · Score: 1

      Out of every reply to this article I don't think I've agreed with anything more. So many people today are so quick to knock down everyone else and not even recognize that they too are causing many problems in the world by being so un-accepting.

      --
      "In a world without walls or fences, who needs Windows and Gates?"
    2. Re:Trolly trolly troll troll. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's it. I've gone and done it now. I must have killed hundreds of thousands of people because I was so un-accepting. Why couldn't I just have said, ok, I accept you? Then the world would be a happy place.

      Might as well outlaw intolerance. I can't stand those fuckers.

    3. Re:Trolly trolly troll troll. by Peter+La+Casse · · Score: 1

      Don't get me wrong, I don't hate all religious people. Just the holier-than-thou hypocrites who talk about god while imposing their narrow-minded world view on everyone else.

      Don't be so discriminating: it's ok to oppose the imposition of any world view on anyone else, be it narrow-minded or enlightened, imposed by religionists or not, and so on. Non-hypocrites are the scariest of all, when it comes to imposing world views on others. Fortunately there aren't many of them.

    4. Re:Trolly trolly troll troll. by ShadowsHawk · · Score: 1

      I actually agree with your last statement, but the rest of your post makes you a walking hypocrite. You state that you'd like to kill him and everyone that follows the same beliefs and then you go on to scold him for enjoying the deaths of others. I too wish that more religious groups could find tolerance for people that hold different beliefs. In the mean time, I doubt wishing for their deaths will improve their outlook.

  28. Not to take away from the seriousness, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Saying "HIV virus" is like saying "ATM machine". :D

    1. Re:Not to take away from the seriousness, but... by gotem · · Score: 1

      silly people.
      BRB, gotta check the cable of my network NIC

  29. Re:OT: E.V.O.O doesn't mean what she thinks it mea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Huh? I (stir) fry with sesame seed oil all the time - BECAUSE of the taste.

  30. Re:Please help me understand this. by WarwickRyan · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    All arguments and bigotry aside, if your pastor was correct then AIDs wouldn't be the problem it is today.

    Looking at this map of AIDs infection per African country in 2001, you can see that some countries are closing in on having 40% of their population infected.

    ahref=http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/afri ca/03/aids_debate/img/africa_epidemic/africa_2001_ 2.gifrel=url2html-20970http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/s hared/spl/hi/africa/03/aids_debate/img/africa_epid emic/africa_2001_2.gif>

    Now, these figures are hard to estimate, but this site provides some figures on the number of people whom have experimented with same-sex partners http://www.avert.org/hsexu1.htm. Lets take 10% as a figure, for example - that's still a quarter of the number required to make your Pastor's comments anything but pure BS.

    Just look at the stats: this disease is killing a huge number of people, the people who are among the poorest and least educated in the world. There are literally millions of kids who are born HIV infected. These kids right now have little chance of even reproducing. What life they do have is plagued by sickness.

    As a Christian you should be the first to empathize and want to do something to help these people. You should be he first people cheering news articles such as this one. Unless of course the Trollish race got the philosophies of Hitler and JC muddled up..

  31. Re:OT: E.V.O.O doesn't mean what she thinks it mea by fonik · · Score: 1

    Olive oil's low smoke point could be dangerous when frying. I know a guy who cleaned a cast iron pan with olive oil and then heated it to about 500 fahrenheit. Luckily he didn't burn down his kitchen, but he's still cleaning the smoke marks off the wall.

  32. Re:OT: E.V.O.O doesn't mean what she thinks it mea by mdozturk · · Score: 1

    Of course, in the U.S., EVOO is defined by acidity, so you're not buying real EVOO at the stores, just regular refined oil with a low acid level.

    I'm curious. What is your definition of extra virgin olive oil?

  33. Re:OT: E.V.O.O doesn't mean what she thinks it mea by spun · · Score: 1

    Sesame oil at least has a high smoke point. Does Rachel actually fry stuff in extra virgin olive oil? That's just plain stupid. The high heat of frying ruins the taste and creates nasty, harmful compounds. I mean, regular olive oil is a bad choice for frying, let alone EVOO.

    And in case anyone doesn't know, EVOO traditionally means the first oil to run off from the first pressing. Virgin olive oil is the rest of the first pressing, and other olive oils come from the second and subsequent pressings. EVOO has a better taste, but only raw. If you want to fry, the best oil is peanut oil.

    Okay, I just read her wiki page. Anthony Bourdain called her a bobblehead. That's all I need to know.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  34. Re:OT: E.V.O.O doesn't mean what she thinks it mea by spun · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Not just his, but outside the US, everyone's: the first run off from the first pressing of a batch of olives. It contains the purest oil and the least amount of olive solids. The olive solids create acidity, but that is by no means the proper measure of virgin or extra virgin status.

    What did you think it meant?

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  35. extra virgin? by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 4, Funny

    What's an extra virgin? the /. regulars should know, right? hey-o!

    --
    stuff |
    1. Re:extra virgin? by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      Ironically, most extra virgins don't have to worry about slowing down the spread of HIV in their bodies.

    2. Re:extra virgin? by Himring · · Score: 1

      Extra virgin olive oil comes from really ugly olives....

      --
      "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
    3. Re:extra virgin? by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      What's next -- Extra Virgin KY?

      Then of course the advertisement would be;
      "You Poke or Stroke and we'll prevent the Croak"

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
  36. Re:OT: E.V.O.O doesn't mean what she thinks it mea by Synchis · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As mentioned in a subsequent reply, Extra Virgin Olive Oil refers to the very first Oil taken from the first pressing of olives, and traditionally has nothing to do with the oil's acidity.

    In the states (and I presume canada) oils go through processing to remove impurities, kill bacteria, etc... and so whats labelled on a store shelf as extra virgin olive oil, really isn't, in the traditional sense. This is also why most north american olive oils are shipped in clear plastic containers, instead of opaque glass bottles. Traditional EVOO is light sensitive, and should be stored in opaque glass or metal cans to preserve the best flavour.

    But yes, frying in EVOO is ridiculous. I use Peanut oil to fry in, and to season my Cast Iron pans (the best non-stick pan you'll ever know). :)

    --
    Thomas A. Knight
    Author of The Time Weaver
  37. Re:Please help me understand this. by Ironix · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm a homosexual and I've been HIV+ for 11 years now. Lucky for me, I'm one of the small percentage of people with whom the virus seems to have a difficult time spreading. As such, in those 11 years I have yet to take any medication.

    Now with that out of the way, I must stress that as a homosexual I am completely and utterly uninterested in converting ANYONE to my lifestyle. Nor have I ever in my 13 years of being 'out' even tried to 'convert' anyone. I would think that you would find this true of most any homosexual that you'd care to talk to.

    With that said, I have yet to collect a toaster oven.

    --
    Still #1 -- Lonely Gay Geek
  38. Pickles. by C10H14N2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Scandinavia has the lowest rate in the world, Iceland beating everyone save North Dakota, which is populated nearly exclusively by Viking stock. Across Europe, there is a very strong correlation between latitude and HIV infection rates that roughly follows the increasing tendency toward pickling of both sustenance and self.

    If anything, it ain't the oil, it's the vinegar.

    1. Re:Pickles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "North Dakota, which is populated nearly exclusively by Viking stock"

      Nah... In North Dakota, the Vikings lose to the Germans (30% to 44%).

      http://www.city-data.com/states/North-Dakota-Ethni c-groups.html

      Unlike Minnesota where the Vikings lose to.. Well, everyone. :)

    2. Re:Pickles. by moosesocks · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Which is interesting, because you'd tend to think that descendants of Northern cultures would have weaker immune systems, given the fact that viruses tend to thrive in warmer climates.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    3. Re:Pickles. by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      The mutation which gives immunity to Plague also gives immunity to HIV. Europeans with roots in plague-ravaged populations have a pretty good chance of being immune to HIV. It has nothing to do with food.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
  39. Cool, but you know *somebody* will read this as... by FlyByPC · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "If I eat olive oil, I won't get AIDS."

    --
    Paleotechnologist and connoisseur of pretty shiny things.
  40. Re: Oooo baby! Bring 'em on! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I, for one, welcome our olive-skinned, AIDS-free, hottie overlords!!!

  41. nice tagging by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've got to hand it to Slashdot. The "tagging beta" seems to be getting more and more "beta" all the time.

  42. Re:Please help me understand this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, the feeling is mutual.

  43. Re:OT: E.V.O.O doesn't mean what she thinks it mea by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yep, everyone before me is right. The only thing I want to add is that there is actually a group that decides what oil actually fits in what categories: the International Olive Oil Council. All IOOC member nations (the US isn't one) have to abide by their standards in labeling olive oils. By their standards, there can be no refined oil in either EVOO or just plain VOO.

    Just one more example of the FDA's obsession with pasteurization and processing. What a country...Can't get unpasteurized cheese because it might hurt you, but they don't have to label GM foods or hormone pumped cow products.

    --
    ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
  44. Re:Cool, but you know *somebody* will read this as by alx5000 · · Score: 1

    Well, if you eat olive oil instead of having sex or using somebody else's needles, yes, there's a pretty high chance you won't...

    --
    My 0.02 cents
  45. test tube works better than clinical by peter303 · · Score: 1

    There were lots of promising anti-HIV and anti-virals that were promising in the petri dish, but failed in clinical application. Hope this one is a clinical success.

  46. Re:OT: E.V.O.O doesn't mean what she thinks it mea by mrbooze · · Score: 1

    500 degrees seems awfully high for many oils.

    Olive oil can be perfectly safe for frying:
    http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2007/May /23/il/FP705230314.html

    Pomace oil, particularly, is commonly used for frying in parts of the world.

  47. Re:OT: E.V.O.O doesn't mean what she thinks it mea by eiapoce · · Score: 1, Interesting

    By definition by Italian Legal Standards:

    Olive Oil = Mixture of refined oils including olive oil - Treatment might include decolouring - deodoring - precipitating acids - adding colours
    Extra Virgin Olive Oil = 100% olive oil whith only partial treatment - Infact only filtering is allowed

    But I like more greek standars by which every olive oil is "extra virgin" like the italian PLUS they have to state the acidity on the bottle.

    You might wonder why acidity is important. Here is a brief explaination: When a mature olive falls it starts decomposing. In the process the fats become acid. Thus olives with a low acidity are those well preserved and processed just at the right time. Oils with hight acidity are usually made from poor grade olives fallen on the ground and then collected with nets or veils to save on manpower.

    That's all

  48. Re:OT: E.V.O.O doesn't mean what she thinks it mea by SydShamino · · Score: 1

    Of course, in the U.S., EVOO is defined by acidity, so you're not buying real EVOO at the stores, just regular refined oil with a low acid level.

    If someone in the U.S. is buying Hi-Vee brand olive oil, they deserve what they get.

    There are plenty of stores that sell European olive oil in the U.S., where the label not only says "Extra-virgin" but also says "from the finest first-press olives only" or somesuch.

    --
    It doesn't hurt to be nice.
  49. Re:OT: E.V.O.O doesn't mean what she thinks it mea by mdozturk · · Score: 1

    I have a friend who works in the olive oil industry in Turkey. His definition of "extra virgin" was "low in acidity". Although his description of EVOO production is the same as yours (the first batch of oil extracted).

  50. Re:OT: E.V.O.O doesn't mean what she thinks it mea by norton_I · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Lots of people get sick or die from food poisoning. Nobody to my knowledge has died from GM foods, irradiated foods, or growth hormone. There are no scientific studies that show negative effects from the first two.

    I find the occasionally excessive enthusiasm for pasteurization annoying, but it isn't like there is no reason for it.

  51. Re:OT: E.V.O.O doesn't mean what she thinks it mea by Nasarius · · Score: 1

    Does Rachel actually fry stuff in extra virgin olive oil? That's just plain stupid. The high heat of frying ruins the taste and creates nasty, harmful compounds.
    I don't think the OP meant deep-fry, but rather saute. Personally, as I'm deathly allergic to peanuts, I do like to cook with cheap olive oil. But anyone who does that with extra virgin (even the fake stuff) is an idiot with way too much money.
    --
    LOAD "SIG",8,1
  52. AIDS Cocktail by EnsilZah · · Score: 2, Funny

    Does this mean the AIDS Cocktail will now come with an olive in it?
    Shaken, not stirred?

    *Ducks*

    1. Re:AIDS Cocktail by witte · · Score: 1

      I'm not touching that with a ten foot moderation.

  53. Re:OT: E.V.O.O doesn't mean what she thinks it mea by Shatrat · · Score: 1

    Sesame oil is actually even worse for deep frying than olive oil.
    I think you must be thinking of peanut oil.

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  54. Re:So for complete protection... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps you haven't heard the doubts of circumcision (which should never be done to non-adults) as a means of preventing AIDS. The short version is that those studies were flawed. Also, if you do get AIDS, you become much more likely to transmit it to your partner. Also, if circumcision prevented AIDS, why does the US, by far and away the most circumcised country in the western world, have more AIDS than anybody else?

  55. Re:OT: E.V.O.O doesn't mean what she thinks it mea by spun · · Score: 1

    Reading the wiki page, low acidity is a criteria. First pressing is also, but the one we both missed is: no chemical treatment or refinement of the oil.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  56. The REAL cure for aids... by Gabbermatt · · Score: 0

    A jar of gypsy tears will always protect you from AIDS.

  57. A joke from the old days by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When AIDS was first "discovered" (actually, when it came to the notice of the public), it was seen as something that happened to two groups: Gays and Haitians. Since this was the early 80's, being gay was not considered acceptable, so the joke went something like this:

        Q: "What's the worst part of getting AIDS?"
        A: "Convincing your parents that you're Haitian"

    Well, it seemed funny at the time, anyway.

    1. Re:A joke from the old days by packeteer · · Score: 1

      haha, homophobia is funny... NOT!

      --
      unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
  58. Re:OT: E.V.O.O doesn't mean what she thinks it mea by spun · · Score: 1
    Reread my comment. I said sesame has a high smoke point, which is true. From the wiki page:

    Cooking. Sesame oil carries a premium relative to other cooking oils and is considered more stable than most vegetable oils due to antioxidants in the oil. Sesame oil is least prone, among cooking oils, to turn rancid. This is because it has a very high boiling point. In effect, sesame oil retains its natural structure and doesn't break down even when heated to a very high temperature. Also it has a good reputation for being safe to the heart just like Olive oil and Sun Flower oil. Because of this, it is ideally suited for deep frying. I said peanut oil is good for frying. I mean, honestly, you are wrong, sesame is good for frying, but I would never use it pure! It imparts too strong a flavor and is too expensive, but it actually is very good for frying because of it's high smoke point. For frying up Asian foods, say crispy pork for sweet and sour, I often use an (approximate) 8-1 mixture of peanut to sesame oils.
    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  59. Re:Cool, but you know *somebody* will read this as by Tackhead · · Score: 1
    > "If I eat olive oil, I won't get AIDS."

    His tongue's strong to the finish,
    'Cos he eats more than spinach,
    He's Popeye the Slashdot-man!

  60. Re:OT: E.V.O.O doesn't mean what she thinks it mea by spun · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Oh. Yeah, sure, saute in olive oil. For those who are unsure of the difference, sauteing happens at a slightly lower temperature than deep frying, and the foods are only half covered by the oil. It is also important in sauteing that the food is not crowded in the pan, sauter means 'to jump' in French, and the food should have room to jump about in the pan. If it is too tightly packed, you are in effect simmering or steaming instead.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  61. Re:Please help me understand this. by CrankyOldBastard · · Score: 1

    One reason why there is so much funding devoted to HIV/AIDS research is that the economic costs of the disease are so high. Then if you consider the social costs of a large proportion of the population being orphaned, the cost of research is paltry by comparison.

    I have to point out as well the contradiction in the phrase "homosexuals are indoctrinating your children and making them choose their lifestyle" - you can't make someone choose something, although you can make particular choices more likely by controlling the information they have access to.

    Finally, it's mainly in the 'developed' 'Christian' countries that HIV/AIDS is a disease mainly affecting gays and IV users. In Africa and SE Asia the disease is predominantly affecting heterosexuals, mainly due to use of prostitutes and a culture that does not strictly adhere to the concepts of chastity and monogamy. That is the 'moral' basis for the disaster befalling Africa, Asia and the Pacific.

  62. Re:OT: E.V.O.O doesn't mean what she thinks it mea by binarybum · · Score: 1

    but you certainly can buy real EVOO at the stores. There is plenty of excellent EVOO available in the states.

    --
    ôó
  63. Sucked in.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I just love how so many so-called Christians"

    The troll is a jew.

  64. Re:Please help me understand this. by Rakishi · · Score: 0, Troll

    Some interesting points for you to consider:
    -Homosexuality is genetic although it is not necessarily a simple genetic inheritance.
    -You know all those homophobic people you likely know? Well statistically most of them are closet homosexuals. Your pastor is probably one as well actually. Many of them have kids, right? Well guess whose genes those kids got.
    -I assume your religion advocates having many children? I mean from a logical point of view contraceptives are murder if one assumes that all abortion is murder. In that case your religion is helping to spread homosexuality as one documented cause of homosexuality is directly related to how many children a woman has (each male child has a higher chance of being gay than the previous one).

    In other words your religious beliefs that force closet homosexuality and the having of children directly help increase the prevalence of homosexuality.

  65. Re:OT: E.V.O.O doesn't mean what she thinks it mea by binarybum · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Try grapeseed oil - can get it at your local asian market, has a very high smoke point, it's quite healthy, and imparts very little flavor - but just enough to taste in something very mild like tofu - and it tastes good!

    --
    ôó
  66. Okay. by Eco-Mono · · Score: 1

    The World Health Organization would like a word with your pastor outside.

    --
    (rot13) rpbzbab@tznvy.pbz
  67. Tags by Khyber · · Score: 1

    How the hell are we supposed to run a decent site when stories get tags such as the ones for this story? Slashdot becomes digg more and more each day with this childish nonsense.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  68. Re:Please help me understand this. by geekinaseat · · Score: 2, Funny

    Seriously... doesn't slashdot have any mechanisms to ban users who are consistantly racist/anti-homosexual and generally offensive on here? I realise that every one of this guy's posts have been modded down to -1 and therefore rarely get seen but this kind of offensive behaviour should not be tolerated. Thats my 2 cents anyway.

  69. Re:OT: E.V.O.O doesn't mean what she thinks it mea by fonik · · Score: 1

    His mistake wasn't using olive oil. His mistake was using extra virgin olive oil.

  70. Re:Please help me understand this. by Ant+P. · · Score: 2, Funny

    Wouldn't just taking the warning labels off everything solve this problem?

  71. Similar to Monolaurin for Herpes virus by Theovon · · Score: 1

    Monolaurin is an extract from coconut milk that is used to kill herpes virus strains including Epstein-Barr.

    The thing that bugs me about all of this is that most MDs don't seem to know about these things. MDs want to put you on toxic antivirals from pharm companies, when you can take something just as effective and nontoxic to humans like monolaurin.

    If you're interested, see the Medicinal properties of the wikipedia article. "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coconut_milk"

  72. Well of course! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course it slows down HIV. It's been known for a long time that high temperatures slow down the virus. But what's the point of frying people in olive oil?! Humans are also pretty incompatible with high temperatures!

  73. Article is Nonsensical by btavshan · · Score: 1

    From a biological perspective, this article doesn't seem to make sense whatsoever (maybe something is lost in translation?). My understanding is that there is a single protease encoded by the HIV genome which is essential for viral production...and that it is an ASPARTYL protease ("aspartyl" being a term used to classify a particular class of proteases). "Serin-protease" makes no sense, it's not a specific name of any enzyme--it's like saying "enzyme that binds glucose". If these are inhibitors of the the HIV protease I'm thinking of (the one actually called "HIV protease), there's nothing new about this--HIV protease inhibitors were among the first drugs used to treat the disease and have been around for close to 20 years now.... The only thing that makes sense to me is if they're suggesting this is a common natural substance that inviduals can take to prevent HIV infection. Even if this is true, it's IDIOTIC--having millions of people take a protease inhibitor as a prophylactic regimen is the most surefire way of generating HIV virus RESISTANT to the drug.

  74. NOT published or peer-reviewed! by posterlogo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    None of the news blurbs about this research mention any sort of publication associated with these findings (for example: "published in this week's issue of Science", etc.). Also, a quick search in pubmed for garcia-granados shows limited publications in specialist journals, nothing nearly as flashy as this olive-oil HIV thing. My guess is they haven't published yet, or even had their paper reviewed yet. Most respectable journals embargo press releases until the issue of the journal comes out in which the findings are reported. This could certainly be interesting, but for now I would take it with a grain of salt, especially the part about "the use of olive-pomace oil can produce an 80 per cent slowing down in AIDS spreading in the body." WHAT body?? There's no way this treatment is in human clinical trials. This statement is pure baloney. Judging from their publication record, the Garcia-Granados lab is purely an organic chemistry/biochemistry lab. I seriously doubt they have any data with mammalian models.

    1. Re:NOT published or peer-reviewed! by posterlogo · · Score: 1
      "The effects of this compound in the fight against AIDS are simultaneously being studied in the UGR and in Hospital Carlos III in Madrid by a team headed by Prof. Vallejo Nájera."


      Well, that's where they're doing the human trials, though I can't imagine how they could be doing this so fast... maybe the clinical trial system is different is Spain.

    2. Re:NOT published or peer-reviewed! by dzfoo · · Score: 0

      Probably because we're talking about a natural compound that most people consume regularly, not a potential toxic chemical that was manufactured in the lab, which may possibly have serious side effects.

      If you want to study the effects of, say, honey as an expectorant and possible cure for the common cold, would you find it necessary to start feeding honey to rats and rabbits? Or would you assume that it is safe enough to start trying humans and document their reactions?

                  -dZ.

      --
      Carol vs. Ghost
      ...Can you save Christmas?
    3. Re:NOT published or peer-reviewed! by posterlogo · · Score: 1

      Having work in biology research, I can tell you there's no such thing as a "healthy, non-toxic" natural compound when you're talking about the kinds of doses and enrichment they are. They are using highly enriched maslinic acid for their research, not just olive oil off the shelf. For example, vitamin C will kill you at high enough doses too. I'm sure they must have done the toxicity tests on other animals first -- no reputable medical establishment would just let you inject random promising drugs into people, one would hope. If I wanted to study honey as a remedy for colds, yes, one could start with a "safe" amount of honey that a normal person might consume in a well-controlled trial. But this is comparing apples and oranges... you can normally eat honey, and a small amount is not likely to hurt you. Nobody *normally* gets extract from dry olive-pomace oil injected into their bloodstream.

    4. Re: NOT published or peer-reviewed! by Mutatis+Mutandis · · Score: 1

      I don't think that it has more than novelty value. A concentration of 30 microgram/milliliter is quite high: The molecular weight of maslinic acid is 472, so if I didn't miscalculate that would be 64 micromolar: Way above what most drug companies would regard as a promising starting point, and over a thousand times less active than a good drug.

      Worse, if it "can produce an 80% slowing down" of the replication of HIV, that probably means that it generates resistant viruses after only one or two replication cycles.

      And last but not least, if it isn't specific but a generic protease inhibitor, the side effects are likely to be considerable. A search on "maslinic acid" reveals that among other things, it also stimulates the growth of trout! I wonder whether it would afflict patients with lipodistrophy -- aka "buffalo hump".

  75. Re:Please help me understand this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    everyone has the right of opinion and to express it. that's democracy, so live with it. if you want to live in a censored society, move to china. not that i support any homophobic, racist, whatever comment. but you just can't remove the rights of a person just because society/morality doesn't share his opinion.

  76. Re:OT: E.V.O.O doesn't mean what she thinks it mea by dreddnott · · Score: 1

    I fry/saute with extra virgin olive oil - "First Cold Press", the glass bottle claims. It's imported, I live in the United States of America. It's delicious!

    --
    I may make you feel, but I can't make you think.
  77. Re:OT: E.V.O.O doesn't mean what she thinks it mea by heinousjay · · Score: 2, Funny

    No! You can't possibly! If it's in the US it must be inferior to anything European! Go read your Slashdot handbook immediately.

    --
    Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
  78. Re:Please help me understand this. by geekinaseat · · Score: 1

    I understand the problems with censorship but banning racism does not have anything to do with not being democratic.... Indeed it is a fundamental human right to have freedom of expression but another of our rights is not to be discrimated against because of the colour of our skin... racism is against the law in most countries.... all I'm asking is why isn't it 'against the law' on slashdot?

  79. Re:Please help me understand this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, if you want to live in a censored society, just browse /. at a level above 0. All the asshats like the GP will suddenly vanish miraculously.

  80. Re:OT: E.V.O.O doesn't mean what she thinks it mea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    From http://www.internationaloliveoil.org/web/aa-ingles /oliveWorld/aceite3.html:

    Olive oil is ideal for frying. In proper temperature conditions, without over-heating, it undergoes no substantial structural change and keeps its nutritional value better than other oils, not only because of the antioxidants but also due to its high levels of oleic acid. Its high smoking point (210C) is substantially higher than the ideal temperature for frying food (180C). Those fats with lower critical points, such as corn and butter, break down at this temperature and form toxic products.
  81. Re:OT: E.V.O.O doesn't mean what she thinks it mea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The point is, by allowing the inferior crap on your shelves, you drive up the price of decent stuff. In europe, we pay about as much for decent olive oil or chocolate or coffee as you pay for processed muck (well, not recently, if you consider exchange rates, BUT, as a proportion of our take-home pay, if we spend as much, we get much better food and drink. Because, well, we have standards. It's like dating.)

  82. Re:OT: E.V.O.O doesn't mean what she thinks it mea by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

    You forgot to add the reason: Because we Americans are all like Jethro Bodine and don't appreciate the difference anyway.

    --
    Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
  83. Re:Please help me understand this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah, hell, all it takes is a woman of any sexual orientation (let's assume lesbian), a gay man, a hard-core muscle magazine, and a turkey baster... how hard can it be?

  84. Re:So for complete protection... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what are you saying, that babies shouldn't be circumcised? What do you expect, that men will choose it for themselves? They would probably just not bother.

  85. Re:OT: E.V.O.O doesn't mean what she thinks it mea by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

    I entertain Europeans regularly, and most are thrilled to get a decent steak, stating that European beef is just bland and plain (I agree). And these are business owners and rather affluent people who would eat in the finer places. I guess all our harmones and antibiotics make our beef tastier. Our pork and poultry also kicks their asses, likely for the same reasons: Ours are healthier with the extra drugs they ban there.

    They also like California wines (similar in quality to French). They do, however, hate our French Fries. I have to admit, they make better fries. And chocolate.

    --
    Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
  86. Re:OT: E.V.O.O doesn't mean what she thinks it mea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know about deep frying (peanut oil all the way there), but sesame oil is awesome for pan-frying and stir-frying.

  87. Re:Please help me understand this. by element-o.p. · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Dude, I'm Christian too, but seriously -- comments like this are entirely counter-productive. Let me dissect your, and I use the term loosely, "logic" point by point:

    1) Quote: Why does AIDS get such a huge amount of funding?
    Perhaps because it is a truly horrible disease that brings a boatload of suffering to millions of people around the world?

    2) Quote: Other diseases kill far more people every year...
    True. Do you think no one is working on them?

    3) Quote: ...and most of them aren't caught by immoral behavior.
    Is AIDS/HIV only caught by immoral behavior? Back in the late '80s, there was a huge story on the news about a kid in Florida (IIRC) who caught AIDS from a blood transfusion (this was before screening blood for HIV was as common as it is now). In what type of immoral behavior did this kid engage? How about EMT's, paramedics, doctors, nurses or other good Samaritans who contract AIDS while attempting to render assistance to someone else who has AIDS? If you are a paramedic or E.R. nurse, can you tell for certain which of your patients is "moral" before supplying medical care? Or would you just prefer to let everyone care for themselves?

    4) Quote: The pastor at my church says it's the gays promoting their choices as normal behind all this.
    The problem with conspiracy theories is that it requires everyone involved in the conspiracy to carry the secret to the grave. Most people can't keep a secret. Ergo, conspiracies of the magnitude you are describing tend to be very, very rare.

    5) Quote: The homosexuals are indoctrinating your children and making them choose their lifestyle. They can't reproduce so they have no choice BUT to recruit. They are forcing the government to back their behavior with laws... Laws against God and Jesus.
    Like I said above, I am a Christian, too. I disagree with the homosexual lifestyle for the same reasons that you don't agree with it. But I'm also the first person to say, yeah, I've made mistakes in my life, too. I'm no more or less perfect than the very people you want to turn your back to, and neither are you. You say God gave laws prohibiting homosexuality. He also gave laws prohibiting adultery. Do you remember the story in the New Testament where the Pharisees wanted to stone the woman "caught in the act of adultery&quot? Do you remember Jesus' answer? "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone."

    Now let's take this one step further. What do you think is a Christian's purpose on earth? Somehow I doubt it's to work hard five days a week, sit in a pew on Sunday morning, buy a big house and a nice car and watch the world turn. I suspect it has a little more to do with telling others that they can be freed from the screwed up lives we tend to live when left to our own devices. If that's the case, then do you think someone is going to listen to you if you start out by telling them that, because of their own immorality, funding to cure the disease that is slowly taking their life away should be canceled? How callous is that? On the contrary, I think a true Christian -- someone who really lives the life modeled by Jesus -- would instead be rushing to the sides of the AIDS victims in an attempt to reach them with the gospel before the end of their lives. If researchers can develop a drug to buy you more time to reach such a person, a Christian should be all over that.

    The pastor at my church says you should hate the sin, but never the sinner. That , in my humble opinion, is pretty good logic.

    --
    MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
  88. Re:OT: E.V.O.O doesn't mean what she thinks it mea by zergl · · Score: 1

    I, OTOH have never seen anybody get sick/die from food poisoning because he ate non-pasteurized Cheese.

    Microbiological checks at the production facility, proper storage at home and the "Best before" date should be enough and if you eat anything (way) past the BB date it's your own fault if you get an aching tummy.

  89. Re:Please help me understand this. by anakin876 · · Score: 1

    Would you really call that pretty easily? When you consider th level of technology and whatnot - I would imagine it's kind of complicated.

  90. Re:Please help me understand this. by kristinester · · Score: 1

    I can't speak for any other countries, but I don't believe that racism by itself is illegal in the US. This is primarily due to the fact that thoughts aren't illegal, yet. The KKK itself isn't illegal, but when they start lynchings, THAT is illegal.

    There's a fine line between sharing an unpopular opinion and hate speech, sometimes those two things are one and the same, but not always. It's a difficult thing to regulate and police as it all comes down to a matter of perception. Personally, I just saw the OP as some dumb kid who's being brainwashed by his church, and/or a dumb kid that enjoys getting a rise out of people here by posting inflammatory comments.

    Actually, it's interesting to see the different comments that have sprung up from that one. Incredibly insightful statements about moral relativism, and then of course, the trolls.

    Although the statement could have been phrased better, it wasn't overly offensive to the point where it needs to be removed, or the user (in this case an Anonymous Coward) needs to be banned. Let's not jump the gun here with passing "laws" for slashdot.

  91. Re:Please help me understand this. by Johnny+Mnemonic · · Score: 1


    It is currently busy depopulating much of sub-Saharan Africa

    You might be interested in this article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2006/04/05/AR2006040502517.html

    How AIDS in Africa Was Overstated

    Reliance on Data From Urban Prenatal Clinics Skewed Early Projections

    By Craig Timberg

    Washington Post Foreign Service

    Thursday, April 6, 2006; Page A01

    KIGALI, Rwanda -- Researchers said nearly two decades ago that this tiny country was part of an AIDS Belt stretching across the midsection of Africa, a place so infected with a new, incurable disease that, in the hardest-hit places, one in three working-age adults were already doomed to die of it.

    But AIDS deaths on the predicted scale never arrived here, government health officials say. A new national study illustrates why: The rate of HIV infection among Rwandans ages 15 to 49 is 3 percent, according to the study, enough to qualify as a major health problem but not nearly the national catastrophe once predicted.

    --

    --
    $tar -xvf .sig.tar
  92. maybe not, but your mother does. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which is why I always wear two condoms Trebek. I'll take "Anal bum cover" for $500.

  93. Re:Please help me understand this. by Y-Crate · · Score: 1

    Do you mind if ask whether or not you experienced Acute Retroviral Syndrome after your initial infection (to your knowledge, anyway)?

    In light of your body's natural resistance, I'm curious to know if HIV came charging in, replicating like crazy, before got knocked back to where it is now, or simply made a small foothold and went on from there.

  94. Re:Please help me understand this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is the 10' the length of the penis or the height of the man? These are deciding factors!

  95. Re:OT: E.V.O.O doesn't mean what she thinks it mea by fireslack · · Score: 1

    ... and the singular form of criteria is criterion. Who knew?!

    --
    This sig only exists because you are observing it.
  96. Re:OT: E.V.O.O doesn't mean what she thinks it mea by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

    Let your 'friend' know that animal fats work best for cast iron. Most vegetable oils tend to get gummy. A good hunk of lard does wonders

  97. The irony of NOT Extra Virgin Olive Oil by G4from128k · · Score: 1

    It's ironic because most people, including some of the early posters, associate high-quality, high-price, extra virgin olive oil as being "more healthful" than the cheap stuff. I'd wager than more than few victims of HIV/AIDs are buying extra virgin oil on the news of the experimental result in hopes of stemming the progress of their illness.

    It's ironic if oil extracted with chemical solvents is actually more beneficial than the pure, traditional, cold pressed oil.

    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
    1. Re:The irony of NOT Extra Virgin Olive Oil by Applekid · · Score: 1

      Only ironic if you believe all modern chemistry is evil and has never brought any good to humanity.

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
  98. Re:OT: E.V.O.O doesn't mean what she thinks it mea by fonik · · Score: 1

    Thanks, I'll let "him" know.

  99. Re:Please help me understand this. by ampathee · · Score: 1

    If you ban him, he'll just create a new account.
    All his posts are quickly modded down, and you can add him as a foe since he's not banned and therefore creating new accounts (and give foes a -5 modifier).

  100. Re:OT: E.V.O.O doesn't mean what she thinks it mea by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

    They are way over enthusiastic...Slow pasteurization or no pasteurization for certain things is acceptable as long as it's clearly labeled...Not everything needs to be nuked to fricking death. People die from undercooked meat as well, but if I'm going to have a fillet, I'm not going to cook it brown just to save myself a tiny bit of risk. What the hell is the point?

    Likewise, I'd rather be able to make an informed choice about the origins of my food...GM vegetables aren't a big concern of mine, other than the fact that I fricking hate Monsanto and their ilk over the goddamn self-terminating seed issue, and would like to be able to avoid their products. However, hormone treated animal meat/milk bothers me, and I'd really like to be able to avoid that by some method other than raising my own cows.

    --
    ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
  101. Re:Please help me understand this. by pembo13 · · Score: 1

    I hope you all don't believe someone who actual goes to church wrote that, right?

    --
    "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
  102. Re:OT: E.V.O.O doesn't mean what she thinks it mea by NewsWatcher · · Score: 1
    OK, I am with you on GM food and irradiated food, but growth hormone? CJD is a fatal disease.

    As for pasteurisation, people should surely have the choice whether they want to be able to eat cheese made from pasteurised milk or not.

    "It isn't like there is no reason for it".

    Perhaps there are good reasons to pasteurise, but you ever tried cheese made from raw milk? These cheeses taste better and when it comes down to it, if I wanna take a risk, surely it is up to me to decide.

    --
    If the pattern goes 9am, 10am, 11am, why isn't noon 12am?
  103. a rather evil suggestion by r00t · · Score: 1

    It is not sane to trust a flimsy latex membrane to save you from horrible diseases that can kill you.

    It is not moral or ethical to suggest that somebody trust their life to a condom.

    Sure, it may work most of the time, but "most" is nowhere near good enough. You can accept "most" when the consequence is something like losing $1000, losing your job, a broken arm, a dead pet, etc. It's not good enough for human death.

    What makes the suggestion really evil is that most people don't understand probability, let alone any serious statistics. Suppose you do everything right, and get 99% protection -- a generous estimate indeed. Suppose you have sex once a week, year after year. Do you know how to calculate the chance of infection after a decade of that behavior? I do. You have a 99.46% chance of getting the disease!!!

    Let me repeat: 99.46%

    That's a death sentence.

    1. Re:a rather evil suggestion by doktor-hladnjak · · Score: 2, Informative

      Of course you're assuming that if the condom fails, you will get definitely HIV, which is a faulty assumption.

      You really need to multiply that 1% (the chance of failure) by the chance that you'll become infected from a known positive partner (depends on the act but even receptive anal sex is about 1 in 50 or 2%) by the chance that your partner is HIV+ in the first place (varies greatly by population but even among gay men in big cities it's about 10%). So instead of 1%, you're looking more at something like 0.01 * 0.02 * 0.1 = 0.002% or about 500 times less risky than the figure you claim. And that's for a high risk population engaging in a lot of sex with different partners.

    2. Re:a rather evil suggestion by aukset · · Score: 1

      As an EMT, I routinely trust flimsy latex to protect me from many more nasty diseases than just HIV.

      Sex is a risk. Protected sex, however, is much more safe than driving your car down to the mini mart. Likewise, my taking care of a HIV+ patient is a risk, but I'm more likely to die in an accident on the way to or from the scene.

      Asking people to be abstinent is all fine and dandy, but not everyone is going to do that. You cannot force them to. No amount of "education" or religious indoctrination will change human nature. Neglecting to educate people on the proper way to engage in safe sex is what is immoral. If that person has or is going to have sex, they are ALREADY at risk. It is not just immoral to give them the tools to reduce their risk, it is criminal. It would be criminal for me as an EMT, it would be for a doctor in the ER. It should be just as criminal for a politician on capitol hill.

      --
      No sig now
    3. Re:a rather evil suggestion by jonathonjones · · Score: 1

      The only way to be 100 percent certain that you will not be in a car accident is to not drive, but surely that doesn't mean you shouldn't drive. And it wouldn't be evil to suggest wearing a seat belt while driving, which significantly increases your chances of survival, but fails to guarantee it. What's the difference?

    4. Re:a rather evil suggestion by Dogtanian · · Score: 1
      Before we get to the meat-and-veg of this stupidity, let's deal with these weasel words:

      It is not sane to trust a flimsy latex membrane to save you from horrible diseases that can kill you. "It is not sane to trust a flimsy latex membrane?" Emotionally-loaded use of language that would do an adman proud. Either it does the job or it doesn't. No-one would claim that it reduces the risks to zero, but it significantly reduces them, which is its job- and all that matters.

      What makes the suggestion really evil most people don't understand probability, let alone any serious statistics. That's the part that really pisses me off- you'll see why after you read this bit:

      Suppose you do everything right, and get 99% protection -- a generous estimate indeed. Suppose you have sex once a week, year after year. Do you know how to calculate the chance of infection after a decade of that behavior? I do. You have a 99.46% chance of getting the disease!!! Let me repeat: 99.46% That's a death sentence. Your reasoning is shockingly flawed; it assumes (as this idiot also did) that any given unprotected sexual encounter carries a 100% chance of becoming infected. This simply isn't true (see others' replies for more in-depth explanation).

      For someone who implies that they know more than "most people [who] don't understand probability, let alone any serious statistics", you couldn't have more clearly demonstrated your incompetence. I'd dismiss you as an arrogant kid who has just learned probability at school and thinks he knows it all (the numbers are correct; their application is totally wrong). But this is unlikely given your lowish user number; given your experience you ought to know better, and you don't.

      Let's make this clear. You're claiming to know statistics and probability (and using it to back up your argument) when you obviously have little experience in the areas. You're calling my suggestion "evil", and spouting ludicrous assertions such as "You have a 99.46% chance of getting the disease!!!" and "That's a death sentence" on the basis of a blatantly flawed argument.

      In this case, I feel justified in saying that you are one hell of an arrogant and deluded FUCKWIT. Don't you fucking dare call me or anyone or anything else "evil", when you so clearly know nothing about the subject, and probably never will. The only evil thing around here is a stupid and arrogant fool giving out flawed "advice" on a serious subject.
      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    5. Re:a rather evil suggestion by Applekid · · Score: 1

      The only way to be 100 percent certain that you will not be in a car accident is to not drive, but surely that doesn't mean you shouldn't drive. And it wouldn't be evil to suggest wearing a seat belt while driving, which significantly increases your chances of survival, but fails to guarantee it. What's the difference?

      The vast majority of slashdotters have driven a car before?

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    6. Re:a rather evil suggestion by r00t · · Score: 2

      Note that 99% is absurdly optimistic if it only includes condom failure. I chose that number on purpose, being generous and simplifying things.

      If you want to argue over details like chance of infection with unprotected sex, then I'll take back my 99%. Real world condom success, including the problem of many people who mess up, is far lower. (be careful: many condom-related numbers wrongly exclude incorrect usage)

      Shall we go with 70% instead?

    7. Re:a rather evil suggestion by Dogtanian · · Score: 1
      I'm wary of giving your incompetent statistical analyses any further credibility by taking them (and you) seriously. It's already been made clear why they're worth of nothing but derision. That having been said, I'll bite:

      Note that 99% is absurdly optimistic if it only includes condom failure. I chose that number on purpose, being generous and simplifying things. A 99% reduction of risk (i.e. 0.01 * existing_risk), is almost certainly "absurdly optimistic". But since you misused that figure (to imply that any given sexual encounter carried a 1% risk of infection), it's hardly being "generous". On the contrary- if you're talking about the absolute risk of infection for any given sexual encounter, then you're wrong- the risks are much lower than 1% (even *without* condom use) in almost every case.

      That's not to say that they're insignificant, but they're sure as hell nowhere near 1%, let alone 100%!

      If you want to argue over details like chance of infection with unprotected sex, then I'll take back my 99%. You still don't get it, do you? If you don't understand what that percentage is supposed to mean or how to apply it correctly, it doesn't really matter.

      And you're a hypocrite- you accuse me of arguing over "details", but relied on those same statistical details as the basis of your "argument"... and even then you couldn't use them correctly!

      Real world condom success, including the problem of many people who mess up, is far lower. (be careful: many condom-related numbers wrongly exclude incorrect usage)
      Shall we go with 70% instead? What is this- haggling over figures?

      The reduction of risk figure I've seen was 80% in typical (i.e. not ideal) usage.

      Really, all this is irrelevant. You didn't acknowledged the well-founded criticisms of your seriously flawed argument ("You have a 99.46% chance of getting the disease!!! That's a death sentence."). Either you still don't understand what the problem was, or you're just trying to skirt the issue.

      I'm not even sure if you're just a stupid person acting in good faith, or trying to distort things to promote your own agenda.
      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  104. in South Africa, this has been known for ages :-( by r00t · · Score: 1

    Guys there believe that sex with a virgin will suck the HIV out of their bodies. Very young girls, even babies, are frequently raped for this reason.

  105. Re:Please help me understand this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Jesus said "Let not the sodomites live without fear for they shall be smite in the Kingdom of God"
    and "The man who lay with other men shall not live in the house of my Father"

    God said "If a man takes another as he would take a woman, he shall be put to death"
    and "A man which copulates with man is a blasphemer and will be smote"

    Only through Jesus will you love your fellow man in the way as was meant. Loving a man outside of the Kingdom of God is unholy and wicked.

    PRAISE JESUS!

  106. Re:OT: E.V.O.O doesn't mean what she thinks it mea by bestiarosa · · Score: 1

    In Italy, we use EVOO for frying because it isn't as expensive as it is in other countries. Plus, it doesn't degrade at high temperatures as other kinds of oils do, so it's healthier. I bet in Spain and in Greece they do the same.

    --
    :(){ :|:& };:
  107. Re:Please help me understand this. by Lorkki · · Score: 1

    This, combined with ample of evidence of homosexuality in the animal kingdom, would seem to imply that homosexuality is quite natural -- and that therefore the classification of it as immoral is a rather odd invention of mankind.

    Ouch. Citing naturalism as a basis for any ethical argument is really just asking for trouble. Ethics are a property of human societies, and you can find practically endless numbers of examples from the rest of nature that support either socially acceptable or condemnable behaviour. Take your pick of incest, theft, murder and cannibalism, for starters.

    Homosexuality may have been a matter of moral consensus, but nowadays it's more of a social issue, pitting individual freedom against the peace of mind of some subcultural groups. Given how much time people spend saying that the former is a fundamental basis of our civilization and society, I think it's kind of sad to see these debates even going on.

  108. There are 2 main vectors for HIV/AIDS... by MadHungarian · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yes, it is a nasty disease, a friend of mines 25 year old son was recently diagnosed with it. And a very gifted pianist I know has had it for several years. I have a lot of sympathy and compassion for anyone with this terrible disease. But that said, there are two simple rules...

    1. Don't share needles if you are a drug user.
    2. Sexual contact - use a condom.

    If everybody followed these simple, common sense rules, there would be no HIV/AID epidemic.

    1. Re:There are 2 main vectors for HIV/AIDS... by stormi · · Score: 1

      It would be a nice solution for much of Africa, where they still don't understand HIV/AIDS and that is part of the problem. Sexual education has a long way to go there. Another problem is that using a condom is a big no-no culturally. It's seen as being unmasculine, in a culture that is still extremely chauvanistic. Womens rights has a long way to go there. Also, magic cures are still in use in much of the continent. There are various religions and tribes and just general hear-say that is completely wrong. I recall reading that some of them thought having sex with a virgin was a cure, for example. And it's not so simple as educating people there, as most cannot afford an education. And it's not as simple as handing out condoms, as changing a whole culture takes time and work.

      --
      "if only i had known i would have been a locksmith." -albert einstein
  109. Re:Please help me understand this. by evanbd · · Score: 1

    Actually, I agree with you. Naturalism as a basis for ethics is severely flawed. Ethics ought to take a logical approach, based on goals and principles. It does, however, have some basis when it comes to morals -- rules handed down from authority as opposed to derived from first principles. If your argument is "homosexuality is immoral because God said so" then the fact that animals engage in the behavior is relevant -- after all, God created them that way, they didn't have free will to choose it. The argument works within the "God as definer of morals" framework, even though I have plenty of problems with the framework as a whole.

  110. Re:OT: E.V.O.O doesn't mean what she thinks it mea by Noehre · · Score: 1

    Iatrogenic CJD is caused by natural hGH harvested from cadavers, not rhGH made in a lab.

    I'm pretty sure they don't use cadaver hGH anymore.

  111. you got that research wrong by r00t · · Score: 1

    It's not exactly "each male child has a higher chance of being gay than the previous one".

    It's consecutive male children. Granted, a woman with only 2 kids can't have 3 males in a row, but there isn't much difference between 7 kids and 12 kids.

    Either way, this suggests that homosexuality is NOT genetic. Since the research used adoption cases to rule out the family situation, the womb environment is suspected, particularly the mother's immune system. In other words, it's a birth defect. (there is no rule that says birth defects must be visible physical deformities -- they can be behavioral abnormalities too)

    1. Re:you got that research wrong by doktor-hladnjak · · Score: 1

      What's to say being gay is a defect though? Similarly, personality has complex environmental and genetic components, but we don't claim reclusive computer geeks (for example) are defective. Well, at least not around here.

    2. Re:you got that research wrong by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      Yes I'm aware of it being due to an immune effect by the mother's womb although if I remember that doesn't for all cases or for lesbians (or bisexuals likely, etc.). Likewise I'd be surprised if the womb immune system thing wasn't partially genetic in nature. It seems like one of those amusing things that evolves in social groups, after all evolution doesn't care about people but only about genes and your family shares your genes.

  112. That's RAPE-seed oil. by crovira · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No wonder its called Canola oil these days.

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
    1. Re:That's RAPE-seed oil. by CaptJay · · Score: 1

      Grandparent was referring to oil made from the seeds of grapes, which you may just learn about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grape_seed_oil

      Besides why would one want to go to an asian market for canola oil? The stuff is everywhere!

      --
      "I remember Y1K, every abacus had to get another bead"
    2. Re:That's RAPE-seed oil. by dpilot · · Score: 1

      Canola is also known as rapeseed oil, not grapeseed. Grapeseed doesn't need to be renamed because it sounds politically incorrect.

      A quick check on Wiki sort-of validates what a friend told me, that rapeseed oil was not widely used for human consumption because it had several bad components. According to the Wiki article, they were able to breed the plants to get rid of those components, which is when widespread human consumption became feasible. According to the friend, part of that breeding amounted to placing seeds in a radioactive environment to encourage mutations, then use conventional breeding techniques to select for desired characteristics.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  113. 1984. Thoughtcrime. Crimethink. by r00t · · Score: 1

    The fundamental human right to have and express an opinion is rather endangered these days.

    Europe lost it a long time ago. Merely expressing the opinion that the Holocoust didn't happen will put you in jail in many European countries. France is not a free country. Germany is not a free country. I think Austria and Belgium are on that list too, among others.

    In the USA, you can still express irrational hatred, but this causes you to be unfairly punished for minor crimes. For example, suppose you hate black people and let everybody know it. Suppose you are also a common crook or mildly violent. Suppose you beat somebody up. If you beat up a white person, it's a minor offense. If you happen to beat up a black person, it's a major felony -- even if you just did it to get his wallet or because he insulted your girlfriend.

    1. Re:1984. Thoughtcrime. Crimethink. by demon+driver · · Score: 1

      Legally, the denegation of facts is not necessarily a right according to the freedom of opinion or speech, see libel.

      Analyzing the path from the Weimar Republic to Nazi Germany, which included continued hate-speech propaganda which was not been properly dealt with by the authorities, democratic post-war Germany (and other European countries) made laws banning hate-speech which would be classifiable as "incitement of the people" ("Volksverhetzung"), in order to hamper such developments in the future.

      There are other German anti-nazi laws, one of which bans the public bearing of "anti-constitutional signs" like the swastika and other nazi signs, flags and emblems. Their purpose is to see to it that nazi victims, their families, friends, and their offspring do not publicly get confronted again with the symbols of their murderers and torturers.

      Seeing that German neo-nazi parties are gaining popularity, especially in the eastern parts, where they even obtain regional-parliament seats, while at the same time open violence by neo-nazi groups on the streets is increasing, one might think that existing anti-nazi laws are too little, not too much. What is happening there is a much bigger threat to freedom (or what some like to think as freedom, given that such "freedom" usually consists of having to work for others all day long, until you're of old age, with all the nice "democracy" shut out from the workplace), especially to the freedom of those traditionally endangered by nazi violence, than the restrictions on free speech imposed by anti-nazi laws.

      By the way, regarding "freedom of opinion", many people think of fascism and nazi ideology as "a crime, not an opinion".

  114. Don't expect US certification anytime soon by Nexus7 · · Score: 1

    There are some studies about neem oil against HIV, working by slowing down the production of viral proteins. Don't expect any of these to be certified in the US anytime soon.. the process involves expensive and expensive testing, and since these natural cures are not patentable, no pharma company is going to submit it for certification. Unless they can isolate the active ingredient, of course.

  115. Blender full of tequila and hot peppers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Blend then drink it all down.

    It won't cure AIDS but it will tell you what your asshole is for.

  116. Re:OT: E.V.O.O doesn't mean what she thinks it mea by vic-traill · · Score: 1

    Cold Press - First Cold Press, baby. Everything else on the label is just spin.

    --
    [17] Leary, T., White, C., Wood, P. R., Bhabha, W. D., and Wirth, N. Lambda calculus considered harmful. In Proceedings
  117. Enough already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They will soon learn that olive oil is only part of the solution.
    Research will prove that a cocktail of olive oil, oatmeal, flax oil, and fish oil poured over the circumcised genitals will be the key.

    Ugh, enough with the absurd AIDS article of the week. It is as if science, logic, and statistics no longer apply when you discuss AIDS. It has been over 20 years since the discovery of the HIV virus and there is no sign of a cure for AIDS. Why? Because Berkeley professor Peter Duesberg has already determined that HIV is not the cause of AIDS.

  118. Re:Please help me understand this. by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

    The pastor of your church is a moron, and I can only assume, by extension, that you are a moron too. Nice ad hominem

    As to why AIDS gets lots of funding, well, perhaps it has something to do with an incredible crisis in Africa Assuming the parent wasn't just trolling (and that's assuming a lot), the parent poster was probably referring to the underfunded malaria crisis, although he probably wasn't thinking of non drug/sex related transfer (mother-child). IMHO, that alone warrants its massive funding, but I think the point was that other diseases are underfunded, while AIDS programs raise millions, and (unless you live in a third world country and haven't been educated/aside from mother-child transfer) its about the easiest disease to not get.

    that I'm thinking neither you or your braindead religious leader care much about (or possibly even know of). Stereotypes save a lot of time and thought, don't they? Regardless of whatever preconceptions you may cling to, a lot (far from all, obviously) of people that you would likely consider 'braindead religious leaders' actually are reasonable, thinking, caring individuals.

    Sometimes I wish there was a cure of retarded religious flunkies. They're one of the true threats to health and harmony. Cool. Anything else you don't agree with that you wish were a thought crime, because any thought possible can become a potential threat to health and harmony. How do you feel about capitalism and communism? During the Cuban Missile Crises, each said the other almost destroyed the world (and they each wanted a cure for the other's ideologies). Religion had no involvement. The type of 'religious flunkies' you're referring to haven't even come close to being threats. Obviously, there is a class of religious flunky that is a threat, as we saw in 9/11(and maybe this guy[I really hope I'm wrong here]), but not the people you're talking about.
  119. Re:OT: E.V.O.O doesn't mean what she thinks it mea by Snarkhunter · · Score: 1

    Pretty sure the "extra virgin" is what helps you stop the AIDS....

  120. Support for Dr. Garlic? by DavidHumus · · Score: 1

    It's probably nonsense, as many posters have already pointed out, but that won't stop it being used as "evidence" for more nonsense like some important South Africans' beliefs about how to stop AIDS http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,36 04,1477400,00.html .

    1. Re:Support for Dr. Garlic? by butlerdi · · Score: 1

      Well, last year at the trial of Jacob Zuma (SA Vice President and head of the AIDS stuff, accused of having sex with a woman he knew to have Aids or HIV) he stated that he had taken a shower after sex and had used a bit of lemon juice as well.

      --
      "If the King's English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me!" -- "Ma" Ferguson, Governor of Texas (circa
  121. No, it's not by phorm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You have to pass all these obstacles:

    - Have an infected partner
    - Have a broken condom
    - Actually contract AIDS from the exposure

    Now in most cases, if you knowingly have encounter the first obstacle and proceed with sex, protected or not, you are knowingly engaging in a heavy risk. Multiple partners of course increases the risk of being unknowingly exposed, so knowing your partner is a bit thing, but adding protection to a known partner does greatly reduce risks.

    99% protection is still pretty damn good if you've got a reliable partner and are practicing good sexual practices/hygiene, although I would personally advocate against promiscuity I have nothing against sex itself. One would hope that having sex weekly for several years, you would have a partner who had been screened against HIV and safe. I'd like to know where you got the 99% number, care to cite your sources and factors?

    1. Re:No, it's not by r00t · · Score: 1

      I'm just being generous with the 99%. Mostly I've heard 80% to 90%, sometimes 70% or worse.

      The numbers vary because not everybody uses condoms correctly every time. People are quite bad about it actually. When counting failures, do you count only the cases where the condom was properly used or do you also count the times it failed because the user was a horny idiot fumbling around in the dark?

      Nearly all of us think that we are not that idiot, just like nearly all of us think that we are good drivers. We can't all be right; somebody has to be the idiot.

      Expecting people to CORRECTLY use a condom, knowing that many will screw up horribly, just adds to the evil of suggesting that condoms provide effective protection.

    2. Re:No, it's not by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      Do us all a favour. The basic flaw in your argument was pointed out; in the replies to this post, and you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

      You used your childish misunderstanding of your supposedly brilliant probability skills to make a flawed argument and witlessly brand what I said "evil".

      You are either an idiot or intentionally trying to deceive people with misuse of probability for your own ideological reasons; and that would be truly "evil". Either way, please just shut up.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  122. Re:OT: E.V.O.O doesn't mean what she thinks it mea by ElectricRook · · Score: 1

    I'm not going to cook it brown just to save myself a tiny bit of risk.

    For steaks, the most likely location of contamination is the outside. So a surface browning is sufficient.

    If you've ever disassembled an animal, you know why (it's a messy operation). With ground meats, the surface contamination is mixed through the whole body of the meat.

    For that reason, I'd rather buy ground meats frozen.

    --
    - High Tech workers, please say NO to Union Carpenters, their Union sees fit to control our compensation.
  123. spreading... by beefubermensch · · Score: 1

    ...olive pomade on the body *is* one way to prevent the spread of AIDS.

  124. Re:Please help me understand this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    are you aware that Isaac Asimov died from HIV from a blood transfusion? would you call that "immoral behavior"?

  125. Re:Please help me understand this. by Weirsbaski · · Score: 1

    The pastor at my church says it's the gays promoting their choices as normal behind all this. Two Sundays ago he said (and I quote as I remember it well) "The homosexuals are indoctrinating your children and making them choose their lifestyle. They can't reproduce so they have no choice BUT to recruit. They are forcing the government to back their behavior with laws... Laws against God and Jesus."

    Yes, government says that beating the shit out of gays "just for fun" is wrong, and that's the proof that gays use the gov't to promote homosexuality.

    Maybe your pastor should spend less time regurgitating that scary-sounding-but-bullshit story, and more time preaching about the (very well documented) evils of members of the clergy abusing young boys. But I suppose that would hit too close to home...

    --

    I am not a sig.
  126. Yeah sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because we all know that french people are dying by DROVE due to their cheese eating habbit. Can you see that, every years millions of them die. Oh mon dieux, c'est un terrible massacre.

    Or alternatively the rare case of listerose *may* come from a badly made cheese, just like the rare case of salmonelose is from bad hygien/bad cold chain, and I even hear in some country where they pasteurize everything they can't avoid the odd epidemic of bad spinach.

  127. Re:Please help me understand this. by grounded_roamer · · Score: 0

    hi Ironix, My friend is also HIV+ but he has AIDS for some years now. I want to help him, but i am confused by this /. post. In your eyes, do you find this post helpful? If yes - what should he buy/drink in order to slow down HIV?

  128. Re:Please help me understand this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is a little different than what you have stated. The media and govt is putting pressure on the people to accept homosexuality as normal, and if you happen to disagree with this view you are labeled a homophobic bigot. While I do not personally agree with homosexuality I must tolerate it, but I will not accept it as normal. TOLERANCE ACCEPTANCE ( see Southpark Mr. Garrison makes this point for me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_Camp_of_Tol erance )

  129. Re:OT: E.V.O.O doesn't mean what she thinks it mea by chawly · · Score: 0

    Oh sure - but let us not forget if "sauter means 'to jump' in French," sauté means "jumped".

    --
    How many beans make five, anyhow ? ... Charles Walmsley
  130. Re:OT: E.V.O.O doesn't mean what she thinks it mea by software_god · · Score: 1
    Actually, if you know about olive oil you use it to deep fry anything that can stand up to the taste. I currently live in Italy, and around here every Italian home kitchen I know of fries only in Olive oil. If you're frying tempura, you would probably want to use a lighter tasting oil so that the delicate taste is not impaired.

    When you fry food a certain percentage of moisture that is present in the food must evaporate out of the food before the oil can penetrate it. Each oil has a different percentage of moisture that must evaporate first before penetrating. Of the different oils olive oil has one of the highest percentages of moisture that first has to evaporate. This means that the food stays in the oil for longer without the oil penetrating the food and leads to the food feeling less oily after cooking. It's also a healthier type of oil to use than most other oils due to the fat type.

    You would definitely want to fry with a filtered olive oil to make sure that the little bits of olive won't scorch and it wouldn't make sense to pick the most delicate tasting oil as much of the taste would be lost during the heating and frying process. But, filtered EVOO is very good for a home kitchen for frying because the antioxidants that are present in it will help keep the oil from degrading. Olive oil is NOT an appropriate choice for frying in a restaurant because it doesn't handle being heated up over and over again and kept at hot temperatures for long periods of time.

    Also, EVOO is defined by acidity the world over, among other factors such as taste and having no processing other than filtering. From the IOOC website:

    Virgin olive oils are the oils obtained from the fruit of the olive tree solely by mechanical or other physical means under conditions, particularly thermal conditions, that do not lead to alterations in the oil, and which have not undergone any treatment other than washing, decantation, centrifugation and filtration.
    Virgin olive oils fit for consumption as they are include:

    Extra virgin olive oil: virgin olive oil which has a free acidity, expressed as oleic acid, of not more than 0.8 grams per 100 grams, and the other characteristics of which correspond to those fixed for this category in this standard If by

    so you're not buying real EVOO at the stores you mean the normal brands in the clear glass containers on the supermarket shelves, you're right. You can tell that by looking at the label, but unfortunately most Americans aren't educated on what to look for.

    Keith
    Olive Oil Health
    L'arte dell' Olivo fresh olive oil
  131. Re:OT: E.V.O.O doesn't mean what she thinks it mea by Ed+Avis · · Score: 1

    The 'extra virgin' classification doesn't mean very much now, if it ever did. It essentially means it comes from the first pressing of the olives. But with modern machinery, the first pressing can extract a large amount of oil. In some countries most olive oil produced counts as extra virgin, with lower grades made in smaller quantities. So it's not exactly a waste to use it for frying - it often isn't much more expensive than lower-grade olive oil.

    You are right that chemically it may not be well suited for frying. Perhaps lard is best after all.

    --
    -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
  132. Watch those figures... do they assume infection? by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

    If you got that "1 in 50" figure from about.com, then AFAICT it simply referred to the risk in any given unprotected sexual encounter with a random person. In other words, it already took the percentage of infected people into account; so you're counting it twice.

    Still, that's the figures without condom use. And also, I note that about.com gave the risk of unprotected receptive anal sex as between 1 in 50 and 1 in 1300 (a much lower figure). (I would assume that the 1 in 50 figure is a "worst case" guess, and that it applies mainly to ultra-promiscuous gay men in drug-using, multiple-partners/clubbing type situations).

    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  133. Re:Please help me understand this. by LS · · Score: 1

    Not to throw oil on any fires that should probably die out, but I have several gay friends, and have had two of them try to "convert" me. Basically they try to convince me that there is no such thing as homosexual or heterosexual, as they are just artificial boundaries drawn by those who are afraid to open themselves up to new experiences. After being very clear that I am oriented only towards those of the opposite sex, both of these men told me that they would have given me a blowjob otherwise. Mind you I am a very open person, and they probably wouldn't have been this open to anyone who might have gotten upset about such topics of conversation.

    LS

    --
    There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
  134. Re:Please help me understand this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe you haven't considered the question fully?

    After I fully and honestly considered the possibility that I might be gay, I realized that I'm one of the straightest men who ever lived. As an added bonus, I've now free of homophobia for the 4 years.

    BTW, given what the gay people I know, it sounds like your friends might be bisexual and hedonists. Because I've spent the last decade in an academic settings, most of the gay people I know are actually kind-of prudish -- like most of my friends. They're also mostly educated professionals -- which is also typical of all of my friends, regardless of their orientation. It's odd that I don't really know anyone who wantonly sleeps around -- but maybe myself and my friends are all a bit prudish about that kind of thing. Or maybe we just don't hear about it.

    One other observation -- I started dating a girl a few months ago, and I'm likely to marry this girl for lots of great reasons. One of the weird things about this relationship, though, is that it's now quite difficult to care at all about anyone else's sex-life at all, since mine is great. My guess is that the people who get worked up about sex just aren't getting very much. Just a thought for the next time I see some jackass on a street-corner, talking bad about my friends.

  135. And that from an olive tree.. by BaatZ · · Score: 0

    Imagine the great wealth of medicines and knowledge we could extract from plants, not even know yet, from the vast rainforests and jungles around the world. Oh wait, we're cutting those down for cheap wood, grain and soja. Too bad...

  136. Bit harsh...makes sense if not entirely correct by jenik · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I agree that the HIV protease is an aspartyl protease (uses two residues of aspartate to chop up proteins) and not a serine one (uses one residue of serine to do the same) but this new compound, as I understand the article, is in fact a SERINE proteases inhibitor that happens to slow down the spread of HIV (and other organisms) - which also isn't entirely new.

  137. Sex Police by SupaYoda · · Score: 1

    "Sometimes I think Christians get all hung up on the sex thing because it's easier to worry about sex than to ask yourself, Am I a good person? If as long as you don't have sex with a lot of people you're a good person, that's easy. It's easy to avoid that. It's easy to think, I'm not f***ing anyone, so I'm good. It makes it easy to be cruel, because as long as you're not f***ing around, nothing you do can be that bad. Is that really all you think of God? Is he just the sex police for you... Or is it that sex is easy to worry about, easy to avoid, and the whole love-your-neighbor-as-you-love-yourself thing that's hard?"

    --Laurell K. Hamilton, The Harlequin

  138. Re:Please help me understand this. by manowar821 · · Score: 1

    Even if god were real, and it was the kind of god you're speaking of, I'd find it and punch it in the face for being a douche-bag. If power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, what would god power do? We must kill it.

    --
    Internet: Serious Business
  139. Dammit, this is /. !!! by elrous0 · · Score: 1

    You guys are wasting WAY too much time cooking! Why can't you do something more constructive with your life, like joining a WoW guild or becoming an online porn addict?!?!

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  140. Re:OT: E.V.O.O doesn't mean what she thinks it mea by spun · · Score: 1

    Ugh. Me use words good.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  141. Re:OT: E.V.O.O doesn't mean what she thinks it mea by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

    I do tend to cook ground beef a bit more, though I have to admit, I love the rare hamburger...Sometimes I buy higher end meat, just so I can eat a rare burger with low risk.

    It's all about acceptable risks. There is a little risk in all of it, but if you're intelligent about it, you can still eat stuff that tastes good without too much worry.

    --
    ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
  142. Re:OT: E.V.O.O doesn't mean what she thinks it mea by Ubergrendle · · Score: 1

    atrogenic CJD is caused by natural hGH harvested from cadavers, not rhGH made in a lab. I'm pretty sure they don't use cadaver hGH anymore.

    So you're saying this soylent cola isn't good for me? Guess I'd best switch to Slurm...

    --
    John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
  143. Re:Please help me understand this. by the+not-troll · · Score: 1

    What about the child who contracts it from their mother?


    Wasn't there something in the bible like "your sins shall be visited onto your offspring unto the seventh generation"? I'd say that's definite proof that it's gods punishment for being... uh... alive or something?
    --
    In Soviet Russia, government controls corporations.
    In Capitalist America, corporations control government.
  144. Lorenzo's extra virgin olive oil by fat-edgar · · Score: 1

    I was going to discuss any similarities with the movie, (ie good luck with that), but I doubt anyone will read past the retard postings, so never mind.

  145. Re:Please help me understand this. by eaolson · · Score: 1

    The pastor at my church says it's the gays promoting their choices as normal behind all this.

    Well, if your pastor said it, it must be true!

    They are forcing the government to back their behavior with laws... Laws against God and Jesus."

    Really? Please tell us what Jesus had to say on the topic of homosexuality. He talked a lot about it, right?

    And what's with this "forcing" business? Exactly what laws are being passed that are forcing you to do anything at all? Please be specific. You do understand that even if gay marriage becomes the law of the land in every state and at the federal level it will still be voluntary, right? Even in Massachusetts I'm not aware of gangs of gays rounding up innocent straight people and forcing them to get gay-married at gunpoint.

  146. RAPE-seed oil aka Canola Oil by CodeMunch · · Score: 1

    No wonder its called Canola oil these days.

    The word "canola" is derived from "CANadian Oil, Low Acid" in 1978.

    Canola Oil

    * Bold emphasis from wikipedia article
    * Uppercase emphasis is mine (the bold being difficult to see through the blockquote formatting)

  147. Re:Please help me understand this. by adamfranco · · Score: 1

    "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
        -- Mahatma Gandhi
    --
    "When ideology and theology couple, their offspring are not always bad but they are always blind." -- Bill Moyers
  148. Re:Please help me understand this. by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

    I've seen that quote before, and I really like it. I may at times be a poor reflection of Christ, but I'm working on it :)

    --
    MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
  149. Re:OT: E.V.O.O doesn't mean what she thinks it mea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For rare or medium hamburgers, buy your meat, sear it, and grind it yourself. A food processor can work if you do not have a grinder.