Does "the West" have a patent on this methodology?
"To spice up the news, directors sometimes use Hollywood-like special effects, such as a computer-animated tank that looks like it is rolling over the newscaster's feet or Israeli fighter jets that fly a virtual loop through the studio before dropping their bombs over a map of Syria."
Let the record show that TFA correctly states "I-5". Somebody in Michigan needs to watch his typos.
Not the first link. At least not as of the time I read it. The Slashdot summary is a pure cut and paste (with links restored) of the first paragraph from the Discovery News article.
Why would terrorists waste the energy trying to change western culture when we'll happily do it for them?
Because they don't actually give a flying flip about our laws or our freedoms. All they want is us out of the Middle East, all of the secular rulers of Islamic countries that we favor out of power, and for Israel left to their tender mercies.
As long as we stay on our side of the planet, they're relatively okay with mere contempt at us having our vaunted freedoms.
Do you have anything substantial to say about the arguments within, or are you just proudly declaring that you've already shut your mind because you don't like the source?
Like most simple, reductionist concepts, The Hacker's Diet falls short on the details.
It fails to account for the endocrine system and the fact that not all calories are equivalent from a health and weight gain perspective. It fails to account for cravings, managing willpower reserves, and sustainability. It fails to account for the many health benefits of exercise independent of losing weight -- you're better off being a bit fat and exercising than being thin and sedentary. It also fails to account for shifting metabolism with age.
It assumes that you have the simple *willpower* to stick to a strict calorie control system. Calorie control alone is the most failure prone form of dieting, because it's miserable. If you have the willpower to make it on a calorie counting system, you have the willpower to make it on more nutritionally focused diets.
Perhaps you simply misunderstood the GP's use of the word "virtue" to mean "moral superiority," whereas all he meant was "positive trait." In no way did the GP suggest that one should simply accept someone who claims wisdom at face value. He simply said that if you have the needed strengths and skills to tackle a problem, you should not sit idly by and let someone without those skills do it instead and produce worse results. That would apply even in your "saint" and "serial murderer" scenario.
(Besides, you speak about the need to recognize the value of the message over the messenger, and yet you open with an appeal to authority "Speaking as a Scientist." Kind of undermining your message, there.)
GW Bush signed the patriot act.....not obama.....the patriot act created these programs.....
Who cares? After 4 1/2 years, you can firmly say that Obama has taken ownership of that problem, especially after the "compromise" reauthorization in 2011. Obama ran on a campaign that in part was supposed to be about putting an end to war on terror abuses. Instead, the only "wrongdoers" Obama has pursued with any vigor in connection with war on terror crimes and state surveillance are government whistleblowers.
I voted twice for Obama. And now, I just feel like I've been voting against "the wrong lizard" the whole time (because I don't believe for a second that Romney or McCain would have been better on 4th Amendment rights). I'm getting incredibly disillusioned with American democracy, and it's the fault of the people for spending far more time getting worked up on partisan circus issues than real, substantial matters of policy. I'd say we need a revolution, but I'm even more terrified of the most eager revolutionaries than I am of the lizards in charge.
Only the person with the corresponding private key can decrypt any of the messages...
That's the problem right there. You can't encrypt a single message for multiple recipients without making a separate, encrypted copy for each recipient, unless every recipient has a copy of the same private key. A shared secret is no secret at all.
That means that signal to noise ratio worsens with every conversation you aren't a party to, so the more people use it, the less useful it is, because you have to download more and more messages for each message you want that you can't decrypt -- and that you can't tell you can't decrypt without spending CPU to try. Imagine having to read all of Twitter just to get the one message sent to you.
The main protein in milk and meat is casein. However casein has been linked to adverse health effects.
Casein is not found in meat, much less its main protein. I don't know where you read that crazy idea. Casein is radically different in structure from myofribullar proteins that give muscle its strength and from myoglobins which store oxygen which are two of the more common proteins in meat.
And other than allergic reactions, pretty much the only people purporting adverse health effects from casein are the authors of "The China Study," who mix some common sense, pro-vegetarian suggestions with some questionable and some really, really bad science. For your perusal, he is a extremely detailed takedown of the science in the book, including the casein/aflatoxin study.
However, vegetarians are motivated by other reasons - such as a healthier diet that makes it practically impossible to get fat even if you eat a lot.
While most of your post is spot on, I think this is a little bit propaganda. You can be vegetarian and eat incredibly unhealthy on a diet filled with starches and sugars and hydrogenated vegetable oils. I have had quite a number of vegetarian, Indian coworkers and friends who had an unhealthy weight.
(That said, most people who make a conscious choice to convert to a diet radically different from the mainstream go to one that's healthier than the mainstream.)
On the other hand, if a sudden and unfamiliar noise from your cellphone makes you drive unsafely, then you should get off the fucking road and let the competent people drive.
I've had one of these go off for the first time while driving in utter silence, and it is extremely startling.
I don't think you should make such a disparagement against people who are quick to snap to attention when something suddenly changes while driving; those people are probably being more vigilant than those who are *accustomed* having things suddenly interrupt their driving that they weren't previously aware of.
Generally, yes, but this is one in which two children are missing belonging to a woman who was found murdered in the burned wreckage of their house and who is thought to be fleeing to Canada.
I wish there was a way to selectively set whether to receive AMBER alerts. I would actually be interested in trying to do something about this one if I was still in the Pacific NW. I couldn't have given two cents about the one in New York that got attention a few weeks ago.
It's not an ad hominem attack against Mother Jones. There are some really scary extremists that have honored positions there.
Do you not know what an ad hominem attack is and why it's considered a logical fallacy? I mean, you say you're not doing it, and then you immediately do it again. You aren't directly addressing the issue of whether or not lead shot is safe on its own merits. You are saying, "Mother Jones is full of extremists" as if that alone discredits their argument. A disposition to make a certain type of argument does not inherently make that argument wrong.
As soon as we can have a national conversation, loudly, in public about inconvenient scientific findings like these, we'll talk about the partisan blinders being off. Then we can talk about minor problems like the NRA in the same fashion.
I think there are at least two problems with that argument.
First, I don't think issues of which race is most attractive to be on par with issues surrounding heavy metal poisoning of people and wildlife for importance, much less the belief that the latter is actually "minor" in comparison -- especially when we're talking about one of the most powerful lobbying groups in the country going on the attack against scientists as part of a broader right-wing effort to dispute the motives of scientists to try to get people to ignore the facts they find.
Second, in most issues of science race is a nonsense category since the actual genetic variation between races is often much smaller than the genetic variation within a so-called race (i.e. there is more genetic diversity among African ethnicities than between the rest of humanity combined).
This case, however, is not such an example, and while I have not had a chance to evaluate her work, it does seem to be a genuine case of academic bias against her work, since it had entirely to do with the superficial differences between races and its impact on dating. That said, the scientific process worked. As she herself stated, "[T]here have been at least three articles, published in highly prestigious, peer-reviewed scientific journals, which confirm all of my conclusions and speculations in my original blog post last year." In other words, for all the talk of bias, scientists are still getting peer reviewed work done in the area without being smothered by some sort of "shady, liberal pseudoscience groupthink."
I have a giant hunk of rock asbestos sitting on a shelf, and the odds of it ever harming anyone is pretty slim (unless I throw it at you, or such), but if I ground up a couple tons of it and exposed it to you over some time, it wouldn't be optimal.
Ah, geez. That sucks. Rare allergies are the worst, because no one makes accommodations for them. Thank you for informing me about that issue. I was unaware thiomersal could cause an allergic reaction.
All one needs to say is "NRA" and it is immediately assumed that they are on the wrong side of the argument, whatever it might be this time. "Against scientists and environmental organizations" as if they were one and the same!
But they are on the wrong side of the argument, and the scientists here are wildlife biologists upon whose work the environmental groups are relying. Is it really at all controversial that lead is bad for you and for wildlife? Does an argument in the opposite direction even pass the sniff test? Are people that ignorant of the basics of ballistic forensics as to think no lead gets in their food when they shoot animals with it?
I think what perhaps is more scary is the fact that the NRA has come out with such a ridiculous stance, and people like yourself immediately flock to its defense. If you want to look at partisan blinders, look in the mirror. I mean look at your own ad hominem attack against Mother Jones as the source of the argument rather than considering it on it's merits. Do you not see that you are what you are accusing others of being?
The vast majority of gun owners I know are somewhat left of center.
(emphasis added)
I suggest you might have a bit of sample bias? Gallup polls show that Republicans are far more likely to own guns than Democrats. Now, not all Republicans are of the fire-breathing, cloud of denial variety, and half of all gun owners are Democrats or self-declared Independents, but I think your experience is potentially biased by where you live.
(And not to match anecdote to anecdote, but I live in the South, where the stereotype above is very true. YMMV.)
Now do you see why the NRA is attacking scientists? The facts just don't align with their policy goals, and if you can't get the facts on your side, you attack the people stating them. Same strategy for tobacco companies. Same for major carbon emitters. Etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Does "the West" have a patent on this methodology?
"To spice up the news, directors sometimes use Hollywood-like special effects, such as a computer-animated tank that looks like it is rolling over the newscaster's feet or Israeli fighter jets that fly a virtual loop through the studio before dropping their bombs over a map of Syria."
Based on the last election, I'd say CNN does.
Let the record show that TFA correctly states "I-5". Somebody in Michigan needs to watch his typos.
Not the first link. At least not as of the time I read it. The Slashdot summary is a pure cut and paste (with links restored) of the first paragraph from the Discovery News article.
Why would terrorists waste the energy trying to change western culture when we'll happily do it for them?
Because they don't actually give a flying flip about our laws or our freedoms. All they want is us out of the Middle East, all of the secular rulers of Islamic countries that we favor out of power, and for Israel left to their tender mercies.
As long as we stay on our side of the planet, they're relatively okay with mere contempt at us having our vaunted freedoms.
Consider the source, take with grain of salt, etc.
That's a textbook ad hominem attack.
Do you have anything substantial to say about the arguments within, or are you just proudly declaring that you've already shut your mind because you don't like the source?
Like most simple, reductionist concepts, The Hacker's Diet falls short on the details.
It fails to account for the endocrine system and the fact that not all calories are equivalent from a health and weight gain perspective. It fails to account for cravings, managing willpower reserves, and sustainability. It fails to account for the many health benefits of exercise independent of losing weight -- you're better off being a bit fat and exercising than being thin and sedentary. It also fails to account for shifting metabolism with age.
It assumes that you have the simple *willpower* to stick to a strict calorie control system. Calorie control alone is the most failure prone form of dieting, because it's miserable. If you have the willpower to make it on a calorie counting system, you have the willpower to make it on more nutritionally focused diets.
Someone doesn't get self-deprecating humor.
Perhaps you simply misunderstood the GP's use of the word "virtue" to mean "moral superiority," whereas all he meant was "positive trait." In no way did the GP suggest that one should simply accept someone who claims wisdom at face value. He simply said that if you have the needed strengths and skills to tackle a problem, you should not sit idly by and let someone without those skills do it instead and produce worse results. That would apply even in your "saint" and "serial murderer" scenario.
(Besides, you speak about the need to recognize the value of the message over the messenger, and yet you open with an appeal to authority "Speaking as a Scientist." Kind of undermining your message, there.)
GW Bush signed the patriot act.....not obama.....the patriot act created these programs.....
Who cares? After 4 1/2 years, you can firmly say that Obama has taken ownership of that problem, especially after the "compromise" reauthorization in 2011. Obama ran on a campaign that in part was supposed to be about putting an end to war on terror abuses. Instead, the only "wrongdoers" Obama has pursued with any vigor in connection with war on terror crimes and state surveillance are government whistleblowers.
I voted twice for Obama. And now, I just feel like I've been voting against "the wrong lizard" the whole time (because I don't believe for a second that Romney or McCain would have been better on 4th Amendment rights). I'm getting incredibly disillusioned with American democracy, and it's the fault of the people for spending far more time getting worked up on partisan circus issues than real, substantial matters of policy. I'd say we need a revolution, but I'm even more terrified of the most eager revolutionaries than I am of the lizards in charge.
I just don't know what to do anymore.
Only the person with the corresponding private key can decrypt any of the messages...
That's the problem right there. You can't encrypt a single message for multiple recipients without making a separate, encrypted copy for each recipient, unless every recipient has a copy of the same private key. A shared secret is no secret at all.
That means that signal to noise ratio worsens with every conversation you aren't a party to, so the more people use it, the less useful it is, because you have to download more and more messages for each message you want that you can't decrypt -- and that you can't tell you can't decrypt without spending CPU to try. Imagine having to read all of Twitter just to get the one message sent to you.
That's what I mean by saying it won't scale.
Seeing how you can only use public key crypto for a 1:1 communication, this system would not scale at all.
Damnit. I should read the comments to the comments before thinking I can get in first with a classic like that...
ob. joke.. I like my coffee like my men - strong and black.
I like my bourbon like my women -- 13 years old and mixed up with coke.
The main protein in milk and meat is casein. However casein has been linked to adverse health effects.
Casein is not found in meat, much less its main protein. I don't know where you read that crazy idea. Casein is radically different in structure from myofribullar proteins that give muscle its strength and from myoglobins which store oxygen which are two of the more common proteins in meat.
And other than allergic reactions, pretty much the only people purporting adverse health effects from casein are the authors of "The China Study," who mix some common sense, pro-vegetarian suggestions with some questionable and some really, really bad science. For your perusal, he is a extremely detailed takedown of the science in the book, including the casein/aflatoxin study.
Already covered by #10.
However, vegetarians are motivated by other reasons - such as a healthier diet that makes it practically impossible to get fat even if you eat a lot.
While most of your post is spot on, I think this is a little bit propaganda. You can be vegetarian and eat incredibly unhealthy on a diet filled with starches and sugars and hydrogenated vegetable oils. I have had quite a number of vegetarian, Indian coworkers and friends who had an unhealthy weight.
(That said, most people who make a conscious choice to convert to a diet radically different from the mainstream go to one that's healthier than the mainstream.)
On the other hand, if a sudden and unfamiliar noise from your cellphone makes you drive unsafely, then you should get off the fucking road and let the competent people drive.
I've had one of these go off for the first time while driving in utter silence, and it is extremely startling.
I don't think you should make such a disparagement against people who are quick to snap to attention when something suddenly changes while driving; those people are probably being more vigilant than those who are *accustomed* having things suddenly interrupt their driving that they weren't previously aware of.
Generally, yes, but this is one in which two children are missing belonging to a woman who was found murdered in the burned wreckage of their house and who is thought to be fleeing to Canada.
I wish there was a way to selectively set whether to receive AMBER alerts. I would actually be interested in trying to do something about this one if I was still in the Pacific NW. I couldn't have given two cents about the one in New York that got attention a few weeks ago.
It's not an ad hominem attack against Mother Jones. There are some really scary extremists that have honored positions there.
Do you not know what an ad hominem attack is and why it's considered a logical fallacy? I mean, you say you're not doing it, and then you immediately do it again. You aren't directly addressing the issue of whether or not lead shot is safe on its own merits. You are saying, "Mother Jones is full of extremists" as if that alone discredits their argument. A disposition to make a certain type of argument does not inherently make that argument wrong.
As soon as we can have a national conversation, loudly, in public about inconvenient scientific findings like these, we'll talk about the partisan blinders being off. Then we can talk about minor problems like the NRA in the same fashion.
I think there are at least two problems with that argument.
First, I don't think issues of which race is most attractive to be on par with issues surrounding heavy metal poisoning of people and wildlife for importance, much less the belief that the latter is actually "minor" in comparison -- especially when we're talking about one of the most powerful lobbying groups in the country going on the attack against scientists as part of a broader right-wing effort to dispute the motives of scientists to try to get people to ignore the facts they find.
Second, in most issues of science race is a nonsense category since the actual genetic variation between races is often much smaller than the genetic variation within a so-called race (i.e. there is more genetic diversity among African ethnicities than between the rest of humanity combined).
This case, however, is not such an example, and while I have not had a chance to evaluate her work, it does seem to be a genuine case of academic bias against her work, since it had entirely to do with the superficial differences between races and its impact on dating. That said, the scientific process worked. As she herself stated, "[T]here have been at least three articles, published in highly prestigious, peer-reviewed scientific journals, which confirm all of my conclusions and speculations in my original blog post last year." In other words, for all the talk of bias, scientists are still getting peer reviewed work done in the area without being smothered by some sort of "shady, liberal pseudoscience groupthink."
I have a giant hunk of rock asbestos sitting on a shelf, and the odds of it ever harming anyone is pretty slim (unless I throw it at you, or such), but if I ground up a couple tons of it and exposed it to you over some time, it wouldn't be optimal.
How... how big is this shelf!?
Ah, geez. That sucks. Rare allergies are the worst, because no one makes accommodations for them. Thank you for informing me about that issue. I was unaware thiomersal could cause an allergic reaction.
All one needs to say is "NRA" and it is immediately assumed that they are on the wrong side of the argument, whatever it might be this time. "Against scientists and environmental organizations" as if they were one and the same!
But they are on the wrong side of the argument, and the scientists here are wildlife biologists upon whose work the environmental groups are relying. Is it really at all controversial that lead is bad for you and for wildlife? Does an argument in the opposite direction even pass the sniff test? Are people that ignorant of the basics of ballistic forensics as to think no lead gets in their food when they shoot animals with it?
I think what perhaps is more scary is the fact that the NRA has come out with such a ridiculous stance, and people like yourself immediately flock to its defense. If you want to look at partisan blinders, look in the mirror. I mean look at your own ad hominem attack against Mother Jones as the source of the argument rather than considering it on it's merits. Do you not see that you are what you are accusing others of being?
The vast majority of gun owners I know are somewhat left of center.
(emphasis added)
I suggest you might have a bit of sample bias? Gallup polls show that Republicans are far more likely to own guns than Democrats. Now, not all Republicans are of the fire-breathing, cloud of denial variety, and half of all gun owners are Democrats or self-declared Independents, but I think your experience is potentially biased by where you live.
(And not to match anecdote to anecdote, but I live in the South, where the stereotype above is very true. YMMV.)
Lead fragments found in randomly sampled packages of venison donated to food banks.
Turns out that slugs leave metal fragments too.
Slashdot ate the best link. Try this one instead. Good pictures of fragments in the meat.
Irony: An idiot calling others idiots. You realize we don't eat our ammo?
Actually, you do. You really, really do.
Now do you see why the NRA is attacking scientists? The facts just don't align with their policy goals, and if you can't get the facts on your side, you attack the people stating them. Same strategy for tobacco companies. Same for major carbon emitters. Etc.