Draws a crowd? Part of the message only. Stories like these generally cover much more than a singular issue like popularity. I see also the article demonizing certain cartels as part of the message. I'm not claiming the drug cartels are good guys by that statement. I'm claiming that the cartel pushing for prohibition of certain narcotics creates the black markets. Meanwhile the guys making some drugs illegal approves and sells their own drugs, which more often than not get used for the same purpose as what they prohibit.

I didn't read the full article because the headline describes itself as "one possible theory". I'm sure I could find other hidden gems in the full article, but today I lack the time to dissect and absorb a new conspiracy theory (not intended as derogatory).

His later books got more than a little bizarre and disturbing. Strange things seem to happen to aging SF writers.

I'm sure it's true to a point, but considering the fauna that has lived there long before humans came along, I'd say the jungle predates human activity by a very long period of time.

I honestly do not know. I never worked for the NSA. I do not know the culture. Me personally I would have quit, when I started to deal with information that was getting into the gray area of my morals, and couldn't communicate my issues up the chain.
However I think the line is in the details. Whistleblowing the few big issues as a general problem. Spying on US Citizens communication, having back door keys with big companies consumer products. Wiretapping our friends leaders phones. Should be enough to alert attention, without giving the detail that could disrupt a legit operation in plan, and put others at risk.

For me the real issue isn't what the NSA did, or is doing, but the fact there isn't any bottom up mechanism to alert on potential wrong doing.

The President wants to know what a country is doing. The edict goes to the NSA, The higher ups push it different departments, Each department uses its own specialty to answer the question to the best of its ability. Somewhere down the chain of direction the line was crossed. Or no one actually crossed the line, but the outcome of each legit action became an illegal total action.

Well that group of people who are fit, have altered their workout to have cardio exercise without using their legs.
If you have legs that allow you to be mobile, then the best cardio exercise is moderately high intensity, low resistance, that gets your heart rate up for a long time. Humans have evolved to hunt prey not by running faster than them, but tiring them out. While that bison can run 20 mph vs our 10mph, if in decent condition we can maintain that speed for about 5 minutes, while the bison may be able to keep that speed for 1 minute. So we just force them to run until they collapse. If you cut that speed down a bit you can go on exponentially longer. Running for hours at 5 mph.

Because mass surveillance doesn't exist in other economic and political systems.

Wrist you believe and what actually is at two different things. There is considerable prestige in overthrowing older views. But they are not overthrown by taking money from fossil fuel companies and writing pieces in the WSJ.

Genes are a factor but not as great as you like them to be. The I have bad Genes argument is a copout towards working towards a better life. Your environment, has a major effect as well, and you have luck too. Changing your environment helps your odds.

Lets say everytime you smoke a cigarette you have a 1 in 500,000 chance of getting lung cancer. Lets say your genes make you more resistant so you may have 1 in 600,000 chance instead. So if you have good genes and you smoke a packs of cigarettes a day that is 20 chances in that 1 in 600,000 a day. If you have the average genes, and you don't smoke then you may get 1 chance every week from second hand smoke.

The evidence of the person who lived a long life despite having a risk factors may be due to just dumb luck, combined with other positive lifestyle choices not mentioned to get the overall odds up.

Also what you may call a bad Gene isn't necessarily a bad gene, but they are designed for a life style that we are not living.
There are people who keep on eating junk food and stay skinny, their body has a high metabolism. With our culture that seems like a good thing, however for these people if they are late for their meal or cannot eat, they merely go into a panic, their body had used up more energy then they took in, and they just used that energy for silly things, such as shaking their leg while sitting, or creating more body heat. Then you have someone with a slower metabolism, that means they will be tend to be heavier, and store extra fat, this extra fat can cause health issues. However if they are unable to eat for a while they are not in such a shock. Now if you have a slow metabolism, and you need to manage the risks of being fat, then you need to exercise, to force your metabolism to go up for while and burn fat, and/or adjust your diet to insure you are just taking in the amount your body needs.

That Gym membership doesn't change your Genes, but if you use that Gym membership, it will help you work with what your genes had evolved you to do.

What is with this -200 - 200 BS
At least tell us how to get these numbers. Is it based in heart rate, O2 levels, speed /age, length of time at a given heart rate. Just saying people who score over 100 are a strong indicator is meaningless unless we know how this number is calculated. I am sick of the media hiding science details and math from the public. No wonder why so many people do not trust science, the media covering it treats it like a magic box, that only special people with a PHD can get.

If you're a climate scientist who says there's no Anthropogenic Climate Change, there are lots of Fossil Fuel groups that will shower you with money - much like Tobacco companies would to any Scientists that said Smoking doesn't cause Cancer.

And predictably its often the very same "scientists" who where tobacco "experts" in the 80s saying that tobacco is harmless who now are "atmospheric scientists" claiming that CO2 violates physics and doesn't heat up when exposed to infrared light.

Is this ever expanding definition of "SJW" now including protective fathers pissed off that creeps are harassing their daughters?

Well I guess I'm an SJW then, because anyone hurts my little girl and I'll put a bullet in their head.

Since we all got mothers, I'd argue misogyny IS misanthropic.

Climatologists get paid whether the world is warming or cooling, and it's not as if the politicians are doing much in regards to what the scientists are saying.

Besides, there's a lot more profit in being a mouthpiece for the fossil fuel industry.

But hey, maybe you can hire Ben Stein to narrate a documentary detailing how all the biolo... er climatologists are in an evil cabal to hide the truth.

Fortunatley, they don't, and you're still either a liar or a retard. One thing is for sure, you're beneath contempt.