I'm sorry, where did I misread? Your initial post flat out state that alcohol plays no role in hangovers. Your subsequent post was to cite an article which does nothing to support that claim, instead identifying an additional factor (cogeners) which plays a role in the product of hangovers. And your last post was entirely content-free.
So I suppose, then, that you have a citation or two that demonstrates that alcohol plays on role, whatsoever, in the development of a hangover? I know I've never come across such a thing, which seems to suggest such a theory is *highly* unlikely, but hey, I could certainly be wrong.
Clearly Wikipedia is the font of all knowledge (that was sarcasm (for the Americans)). You haven't had your brain replaced by a parrot brain have you?
Huh, clearly you're not illiterate, yet you apparently didn't even read the article I posted, which explicitly mentioned cogeners as exacerbating hangover symptoms.
Meanwhile, nowhere in the article you linked to do I see text which suggests that "It isn't the alcohol which gives you a headache"... probably because that's completely false.
Uh, no. Put down the drink, it seems to have damaged your brain.
The primary cause of most hangover symptoms is very simple: Dehydration. The rest are caused by the presence of metabolic by-products of alcohol, which cause, among other things, a decline in available glucose for use by the brain, inhibition of liver function, and vitamin B12 deficiency.
Funny, a family friend of ours, who contracted antibiotic resistant staph in his spinal column following surgery, would tend to disagree, given he had to lay there for quite some time with open wounds that had to be debrided and drained. Thank god vancomycin-resistant staph is still fairly uncommon, as otherwise the infection may have killed him.
Wake me up when you demonstrate it's not (I've issued this challenge many times, and no one's managed to achieve it).
Hint: Patents are published 18 months after filing, and a patent must be filed on an invention within a year of publication, otherwise the inventor forfeits the right to patent the invention. Furthermore, patents can only be submarined if the inventor forfeits the right to file the patent overseas, something I highly doubt MS is willing to do. As such, if parts of Mono were covered by patent, we'd almost certainly know about it by now (certainly there are enough anti-Mono trolls that *someone* should've been able to come up with such a patent by now).
and frankly if you're using Mono you're probably an MS guy who wants his stuff to work on linux rather than a *nix dev anyway. Aren't you?
No. Why? Because Unix developers prefer primitive tools?
C#, as a language, is really very good, and combined with the plethora of libraries available (bindings for the entire Gnome stack, among other things), makes for a very rich software stack. And MonoDevelop does an excellent job of integrating a visual forms designer (who, in their right mind, wants to build GUIs by hand these days?) with an intelligent editor (it's code completion isn't anywhere near as sophisticated as Intellisense, but close), providing a very neat package for throwing together full-blown Gnome desktop applications very quickly.
Of course, I wouldn't use that toolset for everything. When I'm hacking code for my DS, or otherwise find myself writing C/C++ on the job, I use a big xterm with GNU Screen, vim (nedit? *snicker*), and good ol make/gcc/etc. But if I want to rapidly build a desktop application for Linux, Mono and MonoDevelop is definitely one of the options on the table.
1) Lots of content available in a small package. You can carry a library with you wherever you go, which is fantastic for travel (who wants to haul around multiple books in a carry-on?).
2) Easy to purchase new content quickly. Out of books? Buy another one and it's there and available in seconds.
3) No bookmarks. An e-reader remembers exactly where I was at any given time.
4) No need to hold a damn book open. Combined with 3, it's suddenly practical to read while standing on the bus, waiting in line at the grocery store with a basket in one hand, etc, not to mention enabling more comfortable reading positions at home (lying on one's side in bed, lying the book on your lap or propped up on your knees, etc). And it's a lot less fatiguing on the hands.
5) You can easily change font sizes (this is a killer feature for a kindle owner I know). Do you have poor vision? Are your eyes just tired? Crank up the point size and you're good to go.
Of course, there are plenty of disadvantages, not the least of which is the lack of that wonderful smell of paper, and the tactile sensations as you turn the page and handle the book, hence why I would never completely replace my paper library with a digital one. But the advantages mean that I typically split my time, switching between reading electronic and paper books.
Through evil government intervention, sure. But your claim was that, if humans keep doing something, it must be good. Humans keep burning fossil fuels without considering the consequences (it's not as if China couldn't learn from, say, LA's experiences, but they don't). So by your logic, it must be just fine.
What sort of regulations do you think will fix the fact that the most common and popular variety of banana came from a single plant?
Who said anything about regulations? My point was simply to refute your claim: That humans doing something over and over means it must be good.
Hell, by your definition, war must be fantastic, not to mention murder, rape, theft, etc.
My man, if the climate changes as drastically as some believe, whole lot of things we care about will be affected and coffee isn't even that important, in the scale of things.
Funny you should say that, given how vital a cash crop it is in many developing nations. After all, if the wild varieties of coffee died out due to GW, and the domesticated cultivars were wiped out by disease, I suspect those people would care a whole lot as their livelihood went up in smoke.
That said, as far as concerns go, yeah, it's probably lower down on the list (below, say, the destruction of our modern day breadbasket regions). But it's certainly an interesting consequence of AGW, and might put into perspective for some the range of damage that AGW threatens to cause..
When someone wants to turn some human activity into a little morality play, they should consider why people keep doing the same thing over and over again. The most common reason is because it works and yields some desired benefit.
And humans are extremely short-sighted and don't consider the long-term consequences of their actions.
For example, as humans, we have, time and time again, resorted to burning things so that we might harness the released energy. And that works great, until millions of people start developing COPD thanks to a lack of emissions regulations.
But we keep doing it, so it *must* be good, right?
I will take my chances with surviving climate change over surviving increased government.
Of course *you* will. Like me, you're almost certainly a fat, happy westerner who lives in gross luxury compared to most of the world. You can *easily* adapt to any drastic changes at the hands of global warming, while comforted by your wonderful sense of ideological purity and moral superiority.
OTOH, a subsistence farmer in India might have a slightly different perspective on the topic. But, like I said before, fuck 'em, right?
Let's put this into context. Species are evolving as the environment, including the climate, changes, and at any given time a large number of wild species are at the threat of extinction. Given that evolution is random, and that we already have several domesticated cultivars adopted to different locales, this story simply throws coffee and climate change together for attention grab.
That's only true if you believe that those wild species aren't important, which is incredibly short-sighted given what we know of the dangers of genetic monocultures among our preferred crop and livestock species.
One possible solution to climate change is to scrap outdated, racist, and downright xenophobic immigration rules. The border should be open, and voting rights extended to all residents.
Yes, because the sole problem with millions of destitute refugees rushing into neighbouring regions is one of xenophobia...
Nah... We the poor will use the same thing that we have used since the beginning of time... Our feet, or our boats to get where we need to.
And go where? Do you understand how difficult it is to deal with millions of displaced, starving refugees? What, you think they just wander over into the next nation and set up shop? Seriously, how naive are you, exactly? All over the world there are examples of displaced populations (Africa is a great place to start looking) and the hardships they've endured, yet you apparently haven't learned from any of those lessons.
We'll keep them going as climate changes - they hold too high an economic value for us.
You're absolutely right. We'll definitely protect the domesticated cultivars. But the article is warning about the loss of *wild* varieties. And humans won't bother protecting those as they offer no obvious economic benefit.
Humans have adapted to be able to live everywhere.
Yeah, no kidding. But if the climate *changes*, then we have to actively adapt, and that means some people will die. Heat waves will kill some, cold snaps will kill others. Flooded coastal areas will displace some, while droughts and torrential rains will displace others. Meanwhile, crop and grazing land will be destroyed so that those who do adapt to the changes run the risk of starvation.
Will humans adapt? Sure! The sufficiently rich will move to more hospitable areas. Sufficient rich farmers will move to new cropland. But the subsistence farmers and the poor who lack the means to move will die.
Coffee trees enjoy warm climates; what if "global warming" will BENEFIT coffee crops?
Nope, sorry. Coffee trees enjoy a very *specific* type of climate, which is why the growing regions are restricted to specific altitudes, latitudes, rainfall rates, and so forth. Change that environment significantly and the result would be very destructive.
That tree survived for millions of years on a planet that faced all kinds of cataclysmic events
In their current form? Doubtful. All plants either evolve or die off. More likely is that the tree evolved to fit a particular niche that wasn't filled by any other plant. But the current species is now very sensitive to it's growing conditions, as it's exquisitely well adapted to where it grows (as any coffee cultivator will tell you).
Of course, given enough time, species will typically evolve to new pressures (although they may just as often die out... when was the last time you saw a sabre toothed tiger?). Unless, of course, the rate of change is too drastic, and the species is unable to adapt before those pressures become overwhelming (poor poor tigers)...
Absolutely. It's not unlike the modern banana monoculture. As a species, the modern banana has been *very* successful, thanks to it being desirable to humans.
But monocultures are also very dangerous. By minimizing genetic variation in a population, the species becomes extremely susceptible to new types of disease, fungus, and so forth. And again, bananas teach us much, here, as there's great fear that the modern banana could end up being wiped out by disease.
Thus, protecting these heirloom species is extremely important, as it provides a pool of genetic diversity is present in the wild, providing some protection against the dangers of monoculture.
As found on the warmlist, this isn't the first time climate change has been accused of threatening coffee. Amazing how climate change seems to be the bane of all existence...
Well, given that every species on the planet, including ourselves, is thoroughly adapted to their current environment=, I'm a little shocked you find that surprising.
Of course, species will adapt or die off, but that's really the point: The species we rely on now are exquisitely adapted to their specific climates (coffee has a very narrow growth range, AFAIK, and is very sensitive to temperature, humidity, and so forth), so it should be no great news that their survival is threatened by climate change.
Uh, no it doesn't. See those little blue balls? Those are temperatures! Note how they have *not* been consistently dropping for 3 years straight? How it was a drop, an increase, then another drop? And how, regardless, it all falls comfortably within the noise in the graph?
Sorry, no, the idea that the world is somehow now magically cooling because of a single cold year (the others are *well* within the trend line) is absolutely absurd, and anyone who makes that claim is either lying or completely blinded by their personal ideology.
Global average temperature has fallen last three years
Uh, no, it hasn't. And even if it had, let me introduce you to a concept called "noise". Or: Why three years of data doesn't represent anywhere close to a trend.
But, keep lying in the face of facts. I'm sure it makes you feel so very much better.
Global dimming, and this article, are actually based on real facts.
Pro-tip: "facts" aren't things which just happen to match your personal world view. Or: why confirmation bias is something to try and avoid.
Oh, and BTW, if you'd read the whole summary, you'd note that a) the himalayan glaciers are melting *much* faster than any others on the planet, well above the rate expected when global warming is taken into account, and b) soot can only attribute for about half the melting, leaving the other half to... you guessed it, global warming.
Lastly: The earth is not cooling. No, it really isn't. You can say it is over and over, chanting it with the rest of your denier friends, as I'm sure doing so makes you feel better, not to mention so very superior, but it's a lie, plain and simple.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry, where did I misread? Your initial post flat out state that alcohol plays no role in hangovers. Your subsequent post was to cite an article which does nothing to support that claim, instead identifying an additional factor (cogeners) which plays a role in the product of hangovers. And your last post was entirely content-free.
So, please, enlighten me. What did I miss?
So I suppose, then, that you have a citation or two that demonstrates that alcohol plays on role, whatsoever, in the development of a hangover? I know I've never come across such a thing, which seems to suggest such a theory is *highly* unlikely, but hey, I could certainly be wrong.
Clearly Wikipedia is the font of all knowledge (that was sarcasm (for the Americans)). You haven't had your brain replaced by a parrot brain have you?
Huh, clearly you're not illiterate, yet you apparently didn't even read the article I posted, which explicitly mentioned cogeners as exacerbating hangover symptoms.
Meanwhile, nowhere in the article you linked to do I see text which suggests that "It isn't the alcohol which gives you a headache"... probably because that's completely false.
It's not. I missed the point. But thanks for being the third poster to point it out. I wonder who the fourth will be?
Uh, no. Put down the drink, it seems to have damaged your brain.
The primary cause of most hangover symptoms is very simple: Dehydration. The rest are caused by the presence of metabolic by-products of alcohol, which cause, among other things, a decline in available glucose for use by the brain, inhibition of liver function, and vitamin B12 deficiency.
For more information, wikipedia is your friend.
Funny, a family friend of ours, who contracted antibiotic resistant staph in his spinal column following surgery, would tend to disagree, given he had to lay there for quite some time with open wounds that had to be debrided and drained. Thank god vancomycin-resistant staph is still fairly uncommon, as otherwise the infection may have killed him.
Wake me up when you demonstrate it's not (I've issued this challenge many times, and no one's managed to achieve it).
Hint: Patents are published 18 months after filing, and a patent must be filed on an invention within a year of publication, otherwise the inventor forfeits the right to patent the invention. Furthermore, patents can only be submarined if the inventor forfeits the right to file the patent overseas, something I highly doubt MS is willing to do. As such, if parts of Mono were covered by patent, we'd almost certainly know about it by now (certainly there are enough anti-Mono trolls that *someone* should've been able to come up with such a patent by now).
and frankly if you're using Mono you're probably an MS guy who wants his stuff to work on linux rather than a *nix dev anyway. Aren't you?
No. Why? Because Unix developers prefer primitive tools?
C#, as a language, is really very good, and combined with the plethora of libraries available (bindings for the entire Gnome stack, among other things), makes for a very rich software stack. And MonoDevelop does an excellent job of integrating a visual forms designer (who, in their right mind, wants to build GUIs by hand these days?) with an intelligent editor (it's code completion isn't anywhere near as sophisticated as Intellisense, but close), providing a very neat package for throwing together full-blown Gnome desktop applications very quickly.
Of course, I wouldn't use that toolset for everything. When I'm hacking code for my DS, or otherwise find myself writing C/C++ on the job, I use a big xterm with GNU Screen, vim (nedit? *snicker*), and good ol make/gcc/etc. But if I want to rapidly build a desktop application for Linux, Mono and MonoDevelop is definitely one of the options on the table.
Stripping the DRM so you can use it on a different device than the manufacturer intended is a pretty clear cut and dried violation of the DMCA.
Then it's a good thing not everyone lives in a backward nation like the United States, eh?
There are a number of advantages:
1) Lots of content available in a small package. You can carry a library with you wherever you go, which is fantastic for travel (who wants to haul around multiple books in a carry-on?).
2) Easy to purchase new content quickly. Out of books? Buy another one and it's there and available in seconds.
3) No bookmarks. An e-reader remembers exactly where I was at any given time.
4) No need to hold a damn book open. Combined with 3, it's suddenly practical to read while standing on the bus, waiting in line at the grocery store with a basket in one hand, etc, not to mention enabling more comfortable reading positions at home (lying on one's side in bed, lying the book on your lap or propped up on your knees, etc). And it's a lot less fatiguing on the hands.
5) You can easily change font sizes (this is a killer feature for a kindle owner I know). Do you have poor vision? Are your eyes just tired? Crank up the point size and you're good to go.
Of course, there are plenty of disadvantages, not the least of which is the lack of that wonderful smell of paper, and the tactile sensations as you turn the page and handle the book, hence why I would never completely replace my paper library with a digital one. But the advantages mean that I typically split my time, switching between reading electronic and paper books.
The developed world has since fixed that.
Through evil government intervention, sure. But your claim was that, if humans keep doing something, it must be good. Humans keep burning fossil fuels without considering the consequences (it's not as if China couldn't learn from, say, LA's experiences, but they don't). So by your logic, it must be just fine.
What sort of regulations do you think will fix the fact that the most common and popular variety of banana came from a single plant?
Who said anything about regulations? My point was simply to refute your claim: That humans doing something over and over means it must be good.
Hell, by your definition, war must be fantastic, not to mention murder, rape, theft, etc.
My man, if the climate changes as drastically as some believe, whole lot of things we care about will be affected and coffee isn't even that important, in the scale of things.
Funny you should say that, given how vital a cash crop it is in many developing nations. After all, if the wild varieties of coffee died out due to GW, and the domesticated cultivars were wiped out by disease, I suspect those people would care a whole lot as their livelihood went up in smoke.
That said, as far as concerns go, yeah, it's probably lower down on the list (below, say, the destruction of our modern day breadbasket regions). But it's certainly an interesting consequence of AGW, and might put into perspective for some the range of damage that AGW threatens to cause..
When someone wants to turn some human activity into a little morality play, they should consider why people keep doing the same thing over and over again. The most common reason is because it works and yields some desired benefit.
And humans are extremely short-sighted and don't consider the long-term consequences of their actions.
For example, as humans, we have, time and time again, resorted to burning things so that we might harness the released energy. And that works great, until millions of people start developing COPD thanks to a lack of emissions regulations.
But we keep doing it, so it *must* be good, right?
I will take my chances with surviving climate change over surviving increased government.
Of course *you* will. Like me, you're almost certainly a fat, happy westerner who lives in gross luxury compared to most of the world. You can *easily* adapt to any drastic changes at the hands of global warming, while comforted by your wonderful sense of ideological purity and moral superiority.
OTOH, a subsistence farmer in India might have a slightly different perspective on the topic. But, like I said before, fuck 'em, right?
Let's put this into context. Species are evolving as the environment, including the climate, changes, and at any given time a large number of wild species are at the threat of extinction. Given that evolution is random, and that we already have several domesticated cultivars adopted to different locales, this story simply throws coffee and climate change together for attention grab.
That's only true if you believe that those wild species aren't important, which is incredibly short-sighted given what we know of the dangers of genetic monocultures among our preferred crop and livestock species.
One possible solution to climate change is to scrap outdated, racist, and downright xenophobic immigration rules. The border should be open, and voting rights extended to all residents.
Yes, because the sole problem with millions of destitute refugees rushing into neighbouring regions is one of xenophobia...
Nah... We the poor will use the same thing that we have used since the beginning of time... Our feet, or our boats to get where we need to.
And go where? Do you understand how difficult it is to deal with millions of displaced, starving refugees? What, you think they just wander over into the next nation and set up shop? Seriously, how naive are you, exactly? All over the world there are examples of displaced populations (Africa is a great place to start looking) and the hardships they've endured, yet you apparently haven't learned from any of those lessons.
We'll keep them going as climate changes - they hold too high an economic value for us.
You're absolutely right. We'll definitely protect the domesticated cultivars. But the article is warning about the loss of *wild* varieties. And humans won't bother protecting those as they offer no obvious economic benefit.
Humans have adapted to be able to live everywhere.
Yeah, no kidding. But if the climate *changes*, then we have to actively adapt, and that means some people will die. Heat waves will kill some, cold snaps will kill others. Flooded coastal areas will displace some, while droughts and torrential rains will displace others. Meanwhile, crop and grazing land will be destroyed so that those who do adapt to the changes run the risk of starvation.
Will humans adapt? Sure! The sufficiently rich will move to more hospitable areas. Sufficient rich farmers will move to new cropland. But the subsistence farmers and the poor who lack the means to move will die.
But, eh, fuck them, right?
Coffee trees enjoy warm climates; what if "global warming" will BENEFIT coffee crops?
Nope, sorry. Coffee trees enjoy a very *specific* type of climate, which is why the growing regions are restricted to specific altitudes, latitudes, rainfall rates, and so forth. Change that environment significantly and the result would be very destructive.
That tree survived for millions of years on a planet that faced all kinds of cataclysmic events
In their current form? Doubtful. All plants either evolve or die off. More likely is that the tree evolved to fit a particular niche that wasn't filled by any other plant. But the current species is now very sensitive to it's growing conditions, as it's exquisitely well adapted to where it grows (as any coffee cultivator will tell you).
Of course, given enough time, species will typically evolve to new pressures (although they may just as often die out... when was the last time you saw a sabre toothed tiger?). Unless, of course, the rate of change is too drastic, and the species is unable to adapt before those pressures become overwhelming (poor poor tigers)...
Absolutely. It's not unlike the modern banana monoculture. As a species, the modern banana has been *very* successful, thanks to it being desirable to humans.
But monocultures are also very dangerous. By minimizing genetic variation in a population, the species becomes extremely susceptible to new types of disease, fungus, and so forth. And again, bananas teach us much, here, as there's great fear that the modern banana could end up being wiped out by disease.
Thus, protecting these heirloom species is extremely important, as it provides a pool of genetic diversity is present in the wild, providing some protection against the dangers of monoculture.
As found on the warmlist, this isn't the first time climate change has been accused of threatening coffee. Amazing how climate change seems to be the bane of all existence...
Well, given that every species on the planet, including ourselves, is thoroughly adapted to their current environment=, I'm a little shocked you find that surprising.
Of course, species will adapt or die off, but that's really the point: The species we rely on now are exquisitely adapted to their specific climates (coffee has a very narrow growth range, AFAIK, and is very sensitive to temperature, humidity, and so forth), so it should be no great news that their survival is threatened by climate change.
Uh, no it doesn't. See those little blue balls? Those are temperatures! Note how they have *not* been consistently dropping for 3 years straight? How it was a drop, an increase, then another drop? And how, regardless, it all falls comfortably within the noise in the graph?
Sorry, no, the idea that the world is somehow now magically cooling because of a single cold year (the others are *well* within the trend line) is absolutely absurd, and anyone who makes that claim is either lying or completely blinded by their personal ideology.
Global average temperature has fallen last three years
Uh, no, it hasn't. And even if it had, let me introduce you to a concept called "noise". Or: Why three years of data doesn't represent anywhere close to a trend.
But, keep lying in the face of facts. I'm sure it makes you feel so very much better.
Global dimming, and this article, are actually based on real facts.
Pro-tip: "facts" aren't things which just happen to match your personal world view. Or: why confirmation bias is something to try and avoid.
Oh, and BTW, if you'd read the whole summary, you'd note that a) the himalayan glaciers are melting *much* faster than any others on the planet, well above the rate expected when global warming is taken into account, and b) soot can only attribute for about half the melting, leaving the other half to... you guessed it, global warming.
Lastly: The earth is not cooling. No, it really isn't. You can say it is over and over, chanting it with the rest of your denier friends, as I'm sure doing so makes you feel better, not to mention so very superior, but it's a lie, plain and simple.