You mean the way the police reacted in this story. I know that wasn't a neighborhood watch story. It was much worse, it was a group known for illegal behavior.
Not only that, but if that guy from the IRS that you called for help gets it wrong, you are still liable for any penalties that accrue from following his advice.
Certainly that is a possibility, but it is also possible it has something to do with the fact that the leading cause of death among black males between the age of 15 and 34 is homicide. In most of those cases, the killer is another black male. Whereas the leading cause of death among white males in the same age group it is unintentional injuries. To be precise, very close to 50% of the deaths of black men between 15 and 34 is homicide, while homicide is only responsible for less than 10% of the deaths of white males in the same age range.
The real problem is that in the real-world, the police didn't bother to do anything but to take the shooter at his word that it was self-defense.
Except that the police did not just "take the shooter at his word", they spent seven hours at the scene talking to the various witnesses. Then they took the shooter down to the station. However, at the end of all of that, there was no evidence which contradicted the shooter's story and quite a bit of evidence which supported his story. I see no reason to think that a black neighborhood watch volunteer in the same situation would have been treated any different by the police.
Who says the server will be in Deutschland? I would be more concerned with the unauthorized by the manufacturer server a few miles away that someone uses to update my car's software for the fun of it.
If you look at the information on this compound you discover that they have done studies on how toxic it is when it is taken orally. They discovered that when this compound is eaten by mammals, it has an LD50 similar to that of salt. Any bi-products created in production that would be distributed with the pesticide in use would have been included in the samples administered to conduct the studies.
If you look at the studies on toxicity for imidacloprid, you discover that the toxicity levels for it are off the scale large relative to the dosage levels it is used at as an insecticide. As a matter of fact, the LD50 in the closest human analogs (dogs, rats) for this pesticide is in the same range as that for salt.
While, yes it is true that there may be other things that the pesticide in the corn syrup has affected, none of the things you list are among those that are likely. The pesticides in question are unlikely to have any affect on these disorders for the simple reason that humans do not have the neurotransmitters which they target.
It's not misrepresenting, though it is highlighting indirectly significant information.
The poison gets to the bees through High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS).
The poison gets into the HFCS from corn that's resistant to pesticide.
The corn that's resistant to pesticide is grown from seeds sold by Monsanto.
Ordinary corn wouldn't lead to this, because that much pesticide would have killed it.
Ordinary sugar wouldn't lead to this, because it's not from a crop that's drenched in the implicated pesticide.
So HFCS is a critical link.
Except that points two through four are wrong. It has nothing to do with corn that is resistant to pesticide because the pesticides in question have no impact on the corn itself. The pesticides in question work by interfering with insect neurotransmitters (plants do not have neurotransmitters). These particular neurotransmitters have no chemical analogs in humans or other vertebrates, so humans and other vertebrates are not effected by the pesticides in question.
However, you do point out a key thing. HFCS is a critical link in this problem. It does not appear that the pesticide gets into the bees in a way that is a problem from the nectar of plants that have been treated with these pesticides. It appears that the problem occurs when the pesticide is introduced to the bees through HFCS used to feed them. It would be interesting if someone would do a study to determine why that is the case (I can think of at least two things that might explain it off of the top of my head and could probably come up with three or four more theories with a little thought)
Except that what the study shows is that the problem is the pesticide in the corn syrup. At this point, it seems that the pesticide as used on crops is not causing the problem. The corn syrup itself is not causing the problem. The problem seems to be when corn syrup made from corn sprayed with these pesticides is fed to bees. The solution seems to be pretty obvious, stop feeding bees corn syrup that contains these pesticides (this probably means stop feeding bees corn syrup made from corn sprayed with these pesticides, although it may be possible to remove these pesticides from the corn syrup).
if the corn syrup affects bees why wouldn't it affect humans?!?!?
Well, the answer is not necessarily. Of course, the even more complete answer is that the problem is not the corn syrup. The problem is not even the pesticides. The problem is the pesticide in the corn syrup.
Except that these studies suggests that the problem is not the trace amounts of the pesticide in the nectar. Rather the problem is the trace amounts in the HFCS that the beekeepers feed their bees in the late winter. If this is the case, then the problem is solvable without outright banning these pesticides.
An important point about these particular pesticides is that they have no impact on mammals because mammals do not use the chemicals they interact with as neurotransmitters (insects do). That is why these particular pesticides were developed, they are toxic to insects yet have no impact on mammals (actually, I believe that they have no impact on vertebrates of any kind, but I would need to do more research than I feel like at the moment to confirm that).
You make a good point, but even you slightly miss. The problem is feeding something that contains a bug killer to bugs. Perhaps the solution would be for the beekeepers to find something that does not have a bug killer in it to feed their bees? I am quite sure that now that the problem has been identified, some company or individual will begin marketing a product that has been tested and certified to not contain these types of pesticides.
Current U.S. sugar tariffs go back to the 1930s and have nothing to do with the Castro regime in Cuba. U.S. sugar tariffs are, as they always have been, about protecting U.S. sugar producers. If you look closely, you will find almost no support for sugar tariffs amongst the rank and file conservatives. What you will find is that sugar tariffs have a minimal negative impact on a large number of people so that it is not an important issue for them. However, they have a large positive impact on a small group that very aggressively campaigns to maintain them. This group is well aware that if this issue were to become well publicized, their position would be wildly unpopular, so they maintain a very low profile only allowing it to become high profile when they are in a position to spin the story to be about "American jobs".
This is an issue that if you want to actually make a difference on, you should avoid trying to make it a left vs right issue because it isn't. There are just as many left wing politicians who have supported the sugar tariffs as there are right wing politicians who have done so.
You are partially correct. What this indicates is that the problem is the pesticide being present in the HFCS being used to feed the bees in the late winter. The solution therefore is for beekeepers to either find a source of HFCS that will guarantee that it is free of these types of pesticides (and possibly of all pesticides) or to find an alternate, pesticide-free product to feed to their bees in the late winter.
This solution has two things going for it. First, it relies on those who have an economic incentive to find a solution to find that solution. Second, it does not involve government regulation of industries that are only peripherally related to the problem.
The problem is that bee keepers had been feeding bees HFCS for some years before the pesticides (and the increased occurrence of CCD) started showing up int the HFCS, so there was no reason to connect HFCS to the CCD. Looking at the information from this study, it looks like the correct answer is for beekeepers to find a source of HFCS (or some other sugar solution) that guarantees that it does not contain these pesticides. These studies seem to imply that the problem does not occur from the use of these pesticides in agriculture, but from the small amount of pesticide that finds its way into HFCS that beekeepers feed their bees at the end of the winter. If this is correct, it does not require outlawing these pesticides. It just requires beekeepers to be aware of the problem and avoid HFCS that is so contaminated.
There is no need to do so. You make the mistake of not understanding the definition of conservative as it currently applies to American politics. A conservative as it generally applies in today's American politics is someone who believes that the Federal government should be limited to those powers explicitly given it by the Constitution. When you look at the actions taken by those who were at the Constitutional Convention when they were President (or otherwise in decisive positions), you get a pretty good idea of what they understood to be the limits. Several of them addressed issues like the way that Obamacare (and other federal laws) try to twist the Commerce Clause to grant Congress unlimited power, by explaining the limited definition of "commerce" that was meant in that clause.
Any politician (or other individual) who supports the federal government exceeding the limits set by the Framers of the Constitution is not a conservative.
Except that it still does not address those situations where one or more of the participants does not consider one or more of the other participants as deserving of any share in the cake, which is what the poster you replied to was getting at.
No, conservatives told those politicians that claimed to be conservative that the Constitution did not authorize Congress to meddle with healthcare and thus politicians who had at one time supported various forms of federal healthcare reform dropped it some time before Obama supported those ideas. There were politicians who claimed to be conservatives who believed that some kind of federal control over everyone's healthcare was an avenue to greater political power because many Americans had been convinced that that was the only way to fix what was wrong with American healthcare (Most Americans considered the primary problem with American healthcare to be the out of control price increase. Obamacare demonstrated that any federal program designed to "fix" healthcare would make that problem worse).
The analyst who claims that Zimmerman was not the one shouting for help has previously stated that in order to identify whether or not a voice sample is from a particular person, you must have either a sample of that person speaking in a similar manner to the sample you wish to identify or a very large sample of the known person speaking. He then claims to have positively identified that Zimmerman is not the one shouting based on comparing the recording of his 911 call to the recording of the 911 call with someone shouting in the background. Oh yeah, he happens to have a newly released software product that he is selling for voice analysis, perhaps he just made shit up to sell that product.
To be precise, the analyst who claims to have categorically determined that the one shouting for help is a completely unreliable witness. I have also seen an article that questioned his credentials as a voice analyst, but I do not have that information in front of me so I cannot tell you whether they make a case for that or not (at the time I did not really care that much because I had already seen the arguments that raised the issue of doing an analysis on the basis of the information he had available).
You said that what I believe about liberals is made up shit, when what I believe about liberals is a combination of what they do and what they say. They say they want to expand government regulation in order to protect my freedom (which is nonsensical on the face of it, how can an increase in the rules I need to follow make me more free?). They do expand government regulation and spend tax payer dollars on projects that reward their rich supporters.
Slashdot Mirror
Especially when you are willing to ignore both the law creating the bureaucracy in question and the Constitution.
You mean the way the police reacted in this story. I know that wasn't a neighborhood watch story. It was much worse, it was a group known for illegal behavior.
Not only that, but if that guy from the IRS that you called for help gets it wrong, you are still liable for any penalties that accrue from following his advice.
If my product leaks your username, email, and password, it costs me nothing.
Until some lawyer files a class action lawsuit against you for all of the people whose information your product may have leaked.
Certainly that is a possibility, but it is also possible it has something to do with the fact that the leading cause of death among black males between the age of 15 and 34 is homicide. In most of those cases, the killer is another black male. Whereas the leading cause of death among white males in the same age group it is unintentional injuries. To be precise, very close to 50% of the deaths of black men between 15 and 34 is homicide, while homicide is only responsible for less than 10% of the deaths of white males in the same age range.
The real problem is that in the real-world, the police didn't bother to do anything but to take the shooter at his word that it was self-defense.
Except that the police did not just "take the shooter at his word", they spent seven hours at the scene talking to the various witnesses. Then they took the shooter down to the station. However, at the end of all of that, there was no evidence which contradicted the shooter's story and quite a bit of evidence which supported his story. I see no reason to think that a black neighborhood watch volunteer in the same situation would have been treated any different by the police.
I have a friend who haggles on just about every big ticket item he buys (furniture, power tools, appliances, etc).
Who says the server will be in Deutschland? I would be more concerned with the unauthorized by the manufacturer server a few miles away that someone uses to update my car's software for the fun of it.
If you look at the information on this compound you discover that they have done studies on how toxic it is when it is taken orally. They discovered that when this compound is eaten by mammals, it has an LD50 similar to that of salt. Any bi-products created in production that would be distributed with the pesticide in use would have been included in the samples administered to conduct the studies.
If you look at the studies on toxicity for imidacloprid, you discover that the toxicity levels for it are off the scale large relative to the dosage levels it is used at as an insecticide. As a matter of fact, the LD50 in the closest human analogs (dogs, rats) for this pesticide is in the same range as that for salt.
While, yes it is true that there may be other things that the pesticide in the corn syrup has affected, none of the things you list are among those that are likely. The pesticides in question are unlikely to have any affect on these disorders for the simple reason that humans do not have the neurotransmitters which they target.
It's not misrepresenting, though it is highlighting indirectly significant information.
The poison gets to the bees through High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS). The poison gets into the HFCS from corn that's resistant to pesticide. The corn that's resistant to pesticide is grown from seeds sold by Monsanto. Ordinary corn wouldn't lead to this, because that much pesticide would have killed it. Ordinary sugar wouldn't lead to this, because it's not from a crop that's drenched in the implicated pesticide.
So HFCS is a critical link.
Except that points two through four are wrong. It has nothing to do with corn that is resistant to pesticide because the pesticides in question have no impact on the corn itself. The pesticides in question work by interfering with insect neurotransmitters (plants do not have neurotransmitters). These particular neurotransmitters have no chemical analogs in humans or other vertebrates, so humans and other vertebrates are not effected by the pesticides in question.
However, you do point out a key thing. HFCS is a critical link in this problem. It does not appear that the pesticide gets into the bees in a way that is a problem from the nectar of plants that have been treated with these pesticides. It appears that the problem occurs when the pesticide is introduced to the bees through HFCS used to feed them. It would be interesting if someone would do a study to determine why that is the case (I can think of at least two things that might explain it off of the top of my head and could probably come up with three or four more theories with a little thought)
Except that what the study shows is that the problem is the pesticide in the corn syrup. At this point, it seems that the pesticide as used on crops is not causing the problem. The corn syrup itself is not causing the problem. The problem seems to be when corn syrup made from corn sprayed with these pesticides is fed to bees. The solution seems to be pretty obvious, stop feeding bees corn syrup that contains these pesticides (this probably means stop feeding bees corn syrup made from corn sprayed with these pesticides, although it may be possible to remove these pesticides from the corn syrup).
if the corn syrup affects bees why wouldn't it affect humans?!?!?
Well, the answer is not necessarily. Of course, the even more complete answer is that the problem is not the corn syrup. The problem is not even the pesticides. The problem is the pesticide in the corn syrup.
Except that these studies suggests that the problem is not the trace amounts of the pesticide in the nectar. Rather the problem is the trace amounts in the HFCS that the beekeepers feed their bees in the late winter. If this is the case, then the problem is solvable without outright banning these pesticides.
An important point about these particular pesticides is that they have no impact on mammals because mammals do not use the chemicals they interact with as neurotransmitters (insects do). That is why these particular pesticides were developed, they are toxic to insects yet have no impact on mammals (actually, I believe that they have no impact on vertebrates of any kind, but I would need to do more research than I feel like at the moment to confirm that).
You make a good point, but even you slightly miss. The problem is feeding something that contains a bug killer to bugs. Perhaps the solution would be for the beekeepers to find something that does not have a bug killer in it to feed their bees? I am quite sure that now that the problem has been identified, some company or individual will begin marketing a product that has been tested and certified to not contain these types of pesticides.
Current U.S. sugar tariffs go back to the 1930s and have nothing to do with the Castro regime in Cuba. U.S. sugar tariffs are, as they always have been, about protecting U.S. sugar producers. If you look closely, you will find almost no support for sugar tariffs amongst the rank and file conservatives. What you will find is that sugar tariffs have a minimal negative impact on a large number of people so that it is not an important issue for them. However, they have a large positive impact on a small group that very aggressively campaigns to maintain them. This group is well aware that if this issue were to become well publicized, their position would be wildly unpopular, so they maintain a very low profile only allowing it to become high profile when they are in a position to spin the story to be about "American jobs".
This is an issue that if you want to actually make a difference on, you should avoid trying to make it a left vs right issue because it isn't. There are just as many left wing politicians who have supported the sugar tariffs as there are right wing politicians who have done so.
You are partially correct. What this indicates is that the problem is the pesticide being present in the HFCS being used to feed the bees in the late winter. The solution therefore is for beekeepers to either find a source of HFCS that will guarantee that it is free of these types of pesticides (and possibly of all pesticides) or to find an alternate, pesticide-free product to feed to their bees in the late winter.
This solution has two things going for it. First, it relies on those who have an economic incentive to find a solution to find that solution. Second, it does not involve government regulation of industries that are only peripherally related to the problem.
The problem is that bee keepers had been feeding bees HFCS for some years before the pesticides (and the increased occurrence of CCD) started showing up int the HFCS, so there was no reason to connect HFCS to the CCD. Looking at the information from this study, it looks like the correct answer is for beekeepers to find a source of HFCS (or some other sugar solution) that guarantees that it does not contain these pesticides. These studies seem to imply that the problem does not occur from the use of these pesticides in agriculture, but from the small amount of pesticide that finds its way into HFCS that beekeepers feed their bees at the end of the winter. If this is correct, it does not require outlawing these pesticides. It just requires beekeepers to be aware of the problem and avoid HFCS that is so contaminated.
There is no need to do so. You make the mistake of not understanding the definition of conservative as it currently applies to American politics. A conservative as it generally applies in today's American politics is someone who believes that the Federal government should be limited to those powers explicitly given it by the Constitution. When you look at the actions taken by those who were at the Constitutional Convention when they were President (or otherwise in decisive positions), you get a pretty good idea of what they understood to be the limits. Several of them addressed issues like the way that Obamacare (and other federal laws) try to twist the Commerce Clause to grant Congress unlimited power, by explaining the limited definition of "commerce" that was meant in that clause.
Any politician (or other individual) who supports the federal government exceeding the limits set by the Framers of the Constitution is not a conservative.
Except that it still does not address those situations where one or more of the participants does not consider one or more of the other participants as deserving of any share in the cake, which is what the poster you replied to was getting at.
No, conservatives told those politicians that claimed to be conservative that the Constitution did not authorize Congress to meddle with healthcare and thus politicians who had at one time supported various forms of federal healthcare reform dropped it some time before Obama supported those ideas. There were politicians who claimed to be conservatives who believed that some kind of federal control over everyone's healthcare was an avenue to greater political power because many Americans had been convinced that that was the only way to fix what was wrong with American healthcare (Most Americans considered the primary problem with American healthcare to be the out of control price increase. Obamacare demonstrated that any federal program designed to "fix" healthcare would make that problem worse).
So, are you saying that those who currently identify themselves as liberals do not favor expanding government regulation (for example, Obamacare)?
The analyst who claims that Zimmerman was not the one shouting for help has previously stated that in order to identify whether or not a voice sample is from a particular person, you must have either a sample of that person speaking in a similar manner to the sample you wish to identify or a very large sample of the known person speaking. He then claims to have positively identified that Zimmerman is not the one shouting based on comparing the recording of his 911 call to the recording of the 911 call with someone shouting in the background. Oh yeah, he happens to have a newly released software product that he is selling for voice analysis, perhaps he just made shit up to sell that product.
To be precise, the analyst who claims to have categorically determined that the one shouting for help is a completely unreliable witness. I have also seen an article that questioned his credentials as a voice analyst, but I do not have that information in front of me so I cannot tell you whether they make a case for that or not (at the time I did not really care that much because I had already seen the arguments that raised the issue of doing an analysis on the basis of the information he had available).
You said that what I believe about liberals is made up shit, when what I believe about liberals is a combination of what they do and what they say. They say they want to expand government regulation in order to protect my freedom (which is nonsensical on the face of it, how can an increase in the rules I need to follow make me more free?). They do expand government regulation and spend tax payer dollars on projects that reward their rich supporters.