I've done extensive research in this area for myself and family's health. There is a LOT more to it, but I recommend eliminating wheat to everyone, because candida overgrowth can cause so many issues, and it's fed by wheat and sugar. I'm advocate because of the huge health benefits WE have seen for ourselves. There is not room here to go posting the volumes of research I have, but a good place to start is William Davis' book Wheat Belly.

Well maybe, but you won't find many foods that have wheat gluten and nothing else from the wheat, plus it all depends on who you ask. I've lost weight since I went gluten free, but I've made other changes too (like avoiding processed sugar and eating more saturated fats), so can't attribute my own success to wheat avoidance alone.

No, they are not. Cholesterol has been labeled a boogeyman, along with saturated fats, but it's all based on erroneous or over-hyped information. That has given us margarine (plastic for your body), high carbohydrate diets loaded with wheat gluten, and the result is massive obesity - and all the concomitant health issues.

You NEED a good amount of cholesterol for a healthy nervous system, and avoiding eggs and cholesterol containing foods in general is thought to be responsible for the increase in Alzheimer's disease, among other issues.

I disagree that those are working. Yes, they can target you from cookie data, and that works to show you ads. But what I've notices is I get TONS of "targeted" ads for stuff I just bought. I don't need a hotel room right after I just booked one. I don't need any of this stuff I bought yesterday, or last week. And while I recognize what I did to get certain "targeted" ads, I do nothing based on them, and no one I've ever talked to ever click on them or buy anything based on seeing them. So as far as I can tell they don't really work to improve revenue.

There have actually been studies that have demonstrated that, but for some reason the marketers still spending money on them haven't been clued into it yet. Yet.

Yes, and they are throwing it at all kinds of ideas hoping something pays off big before it dawns on all the marketing folks that "Internet advertising" is practically worthless, and the market collapses. A British study recently estimated that everyone could have ad-free Internet for something like $29 / mo. That would be a bargain, particularly when you realize it would also eliminate all the web poisoning by people trying to game the advertisers.

Good troll. I was really, really tempted to give you a "Funny" mod. Here's some kudos instead.

Pft. Not if we can get Elizabeth Warren to run!

She could have created that account and posts herself. I haven't seen a police report to back up the claim that she "notified authorities". She has previously been caught lifting someone else's art for use in her money-making efforts, as well as trolling 4-chan then claiming she didn't know anything about 4-chan. In short, she is not a credible figure.

Well, then it looks like her marketing campaign (because that's what this is) seems to be working. The YouTube comments don't look like anything worse than you can find on many YouTube videos - it has to be the most inane set of commenters anywhere on the Internet. The set of threats from the one Twitter account certainly justifies calling the authorities, but there is no evidence it is a real person and not part of her marketing campaign.

No doubt Romney's campaign used the term, but it was in widespread use long before then. Everything that I've read indicates that Hillary's primary campaign actually coined the term, so you might have a point that it was a campaign that promoted, but both of those were presidential campaigns, not "shady machinery of high-profile congressional campaigns."

You might be able to argue that "Death panels" was "engineered by the shady machinery of high-profile congressional campaigns" (Sarah Palin is credited with coining the term), but definitely not "Obamacare" (the media promoted that one), or "Birthers", which was certainly an organic meme, to describe people questioning Obama's origins. It's also a form of the "something-ers" form of describing a group (deniers, anti-vacciners, etc.), which as I recall sprang out of calling the 9/11 conspiracy theorists "truthers".

Actually, some of them (such as Joshua Halpern a.k.a. ‘Eli Rabett’) are paid directly by taxpayer funding to blog on places like realclimate.org. So, yes, there is a financial motivation.

As far as "well what's wrong with that if they are telling the truth", that always seems to be the go-to, but it apparently is only acceptable to trot out this defense for alarmists, and never for skeptics like Watt. The minor and late-to-the-game contribution from Heritage that alarmists use to beat Watt over the head with is nothing but a red herring and ad hominem used to distract from debate on the real issues anyway, and it pales in comparison to Peter Gleick's fraud and forging of documents to discredit his opponents.

Be that as it may, you seem to be under the impression that these guys have some interest in "truth" or "honesty", and that is simply not the case. As Gleick demonstrated, they have no interest in truth, and any will use any means to further their agenda. They are only interested in science when it supports that agenda, and when it doesn't they will throw out science and use other tactics instead. There are many examples of editing of comments on the site, decption and lies, etc., - there is no real discussion allowed. That's not surprising since it is run by Fenton Communications, run by David Fenton, an unapologetic anti-Semite and propagandist that would have made Goebbels proud.

The point of the site isn't even to promote science, it's to promote "consensus".

Exactly. Funny they mention Puppet, it's the default used in Red Hat's latest Dev Ops initiative, OpenShift.

Dude, the question was about Enterprise servers. Do your development on Mint, that's just fine, but are you really going to deploy your production enterprise application on a farm of ... Mint servers? really?

That sounds more like a methodology to me. The "belief system" part is only related to the value of the methodology. That's fine, but science itself is a methodology, as I think you have described here.

I certainly agree with your assessment of it, and that the methodology is the important thing to teach, not the facts or even thoroughly tested hypotheses. Everything flows from core principles. As you have done, you can describe your belief system as a faith in the scientific method. But that's something else.

There are, of course, some very clear opposing bases for belief systems in general, which often come down to faith in a higher power or faith only in empirical evidence. But you can pick either one and still do science.