> It's called "thirst"

Is that a new app? Where can I get that?

The push for https everywhere also means there is more metadata floating around. If all your are looking at is the metadata and not the data stream, https gives an observer more info about what is going on than with just http. Once you get into properly verifing certs, both sides and an observer has more info to tie a converstaion between a specific client and a server.

You can see this yourself by getting something that does netflow and look at the data that comes from that.

In your world then NASA is a climate change denier:

http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...

Arctic ice stopped shrinking 5 years ago.

NASA photos:

http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...

Do you know enough to state unequivocally that everything he talks about doesn't work?

If the answer is yes would you care to put (a lot of) money on this?

That's not actually true at all.

http://projects.propublica.org...

Perhaps you saw the John Oliver rant that referenced this? If not here is it again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Who's he paid by?

There's nothing wrong with telling people about other things. Untested always mean ineffective.

The Herb Boneset was used by native Americans for fever. It was used by the Pennsylvania Dutch to survive the spanish influenza. But it's untested.

Actually chinese snake oil actually works - it' made from water snakes with a high Omega 3 content and is still sold today. It has proven efficacy at a topical liniment to relieve inflammation mostly in joints..

American snake oil was made from rattlesnakes who ate mice and contained no Omega 3 and didn't do anything. So it's really a pejorative of the patent medicine industry in the US, and a known working product in Asia. It says more about the person using it that doesn't know this than it does about anything else.

That is it's not really hokum the pharma industry just fucked it up without knowing what they were doing and never tested it properly. If you watch Ben Goldacre's Ted talk you'll see the exact same thing happens today and if you look at the history of scurvy it's been going on for at least 500 years.

And they always say they're right of course.

Evidence based medicine is commonly wrong because the evidence is interpreted incorrectly.

Around the 1600s, cedar leaf tae saved Jacques Cartier's crew from scurvy, 25 died the rest were save and when he got back to France was told there as no evidence this worked.

Prior to that Vasco de Gamma nearly diet near the Cape of Good Horn but his crew found eating citrus fixed it.

Hundreds of years later, evidence showed citrus prevented scurvy and it became institutionalized. Later it was boiled on copper kettles (which neutralize the C) and nobody noticed it didn't work any more as diets had improved, until sailors and polar explorers began dying. Similarly at around the same time the new process of warming babies milk to kill bacteria also killed the vitamin C and a new disease of the rich emerged: infantile scurvy. By 1933 vitamin C had be found and scurvy became much less widespread.

The point is scurvy has been around for 20 million years, it' s in recorded history for 5500 years but as of the Scott Antarctic expedition people were still dying of it despite cures being known since Egyptian times ("bitter herbs" all have ascorbate). It's not that the evidence is lacking, it's that there's a disruptive influence from commerce and industrialization. Some unintentional, some because of vested interest. History records that "the evidence was contradictory" and while this is true it never stopped being true that two fresh citrus a day prevented and even cured scurvy, of course more was better, ascorbate does not take up into the body in hours it takes days. so any time i the past 500 years it's been true people have been saying "look I know if I eat fresh fruit I won't get sick" while the medical community insisted, no, it' something else we disproved that. During Scott's antarctic mission the medically accepted ce for scurvy was a brew called "vitriol" containing sulphuric acid. That where evidence based medicine got you and this is one of the reason it's a UN right that you can deterring your own course of treatment to any illness. Science is just a sure it's right the nit's wrong as it is when it's right and it's been worn as recently as elat year, the recent fats ans cholesterol deacle as well as finding out sugar is the cause of cholesterol is proof at least to me that the conventional wisdom is neither.

It cannot be said this does not exist today. I'm not a TV guy and have only a very casual knowledge of the claims he made. ome I know are wrong and know why there are right and I know why but are rejected by industry. Given the near complete control by industry of antu to do with pharmaceuticals they are not the best ones to adjudicate this. The belief that if it's in our pharmacopoeia it's good and anything that isn't is bad it fatally flawed in many many ways.

I don't think they'll pursue this very far. All it's going to take is one thing Oz says that works that they say doesn't but actually does and now everything else they say is in question.

If you have unwavering faith in the pharmaceutical industry to be acting only out of the best interests of your health in an ethical manner at all times then you must not have seen these:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
http://projects.propublica.org...
https://web.archive.org/web/20...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/soci...
http://www.plosmedicine.org/ar...
http://www.nature.com/nature/j...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
http://www.ted.com/talks/ben_g...
https://www.ted.com/talks/ben_...
http://truth-out.org/news/item...
http://www.theatlantic.com/mag...
http://theantimedia.org/big-ph...

But once you accept the premise they're not infallible than anything they say must be regarded with some scepticism. Goodness knows it wouldn't be the first time something from science for so long only to be ridiculed - for decades or even a century - before being accepted by mainstream medicine despite the evidence it worked being there all along: in the past 10 years therapeutic use of niacin, fish oils and the gut flora hypotheses have been examples of this.

Another way to look at this is the harm done. For all the crazy things Oz said where's the pile of bodies? It's the usual metric governments use for these sorts of things. Now compare that to the pile of bodies (zero) with the pharmaceutical industry (who are the ones complaining he is dangerous, nobody else has budget and time to bother with this, and make no mistake, sales are down) from unintended side effects: 60 - 100,000 every year in the US in no small way making the medical system the third leading cause of death in the US behind Cancer and heat disease.

I realize how crazy this all sounds. But it's only crazy if it's not true. I've looked at this for some years now and the evidence is pretty overwhelming and there's a lot to learn.

The best modern farm equipment can grow alternate crops in alternate rows. It can be done in a way that is sort of mix between what had historically been done by using seasonal crop rotation and planting trees as wind breaks.

The system works by using a high precision DGPS system so the tractor wheels are in the same spot every year so the rows stay in the same places. The hills can also be mapped so that the side of a hill may get processed first or last in a season and the amount of fertilizer or planting depths of crops can be adjusted for optimum yield or land protection.

Many of the California farming areas were settled after people left the mid-west dust bowl. Most of the dust bowl problems were a result of not using the best farming techniques when a drought worsened and it took lots of time to rebuild those areas. Those areas also get massive amounts of rain from time to time from hurricanes hitting the Gulf of Mexico. California doesn't have that advantage.

Another odd thing is there seems to be some connection between early crop failures in the midwest that predate the dust bowl and those crop failures started screwing with the futures markets which some have claimed was the start of the stock market crash and great depression.

That is a might fine web site there. It provides many great examples of things that should cause you to fire your web designer. Go with a slightly aged browser and it falls over in some very interesting ways. If they can't test a simple website, how are they testing their product?

Its nearly 3 inces. What was the precision of the Saturn 5?

The math works fine; the problem is choosing the appropriate method. My hunch is that the biggest mistake in the use of stats in the social sciences is failing to correct p-values for multiple comparisons. That is, if you're hypothesis is limited to predicting an association between two variables, then p-values are just fine. But if you sent out a questionnaire with 20 questions on it and compute all 190 pairwise correlations between them, you'll get around 9 or 10 "significant" (p 0.05) but meaningless associations just by chance. You can't (or shouldn't) cherry-pick these and write them up like they mean anything. Yet many people do just this, often not realizing how the hypotheses were selected (it can sometimes be subtle, or buried in the history of the project).

You already have them. The white people left the cities and formed their own little planets, complete with nearly-total white schools. By default, the cities became nearly all black and, since the money and employment ran away, poor.