I know people have been hating on this article because it only addresses a few specific conditions, but it is one in a long line of studies that have shown vitamin supplements to have no positive (and occasionally negative!) effects, unless you are actually deficient in that vitamin.

People are so taken by advertisements and anecdotes about vitamins that they neglect the reality. If you hear a commercial that says "You might be deficient in X!" you suddenly need to take that vitamin/mineral "just in case." Rinse and repeat for every single vitamin, mineral, or "energy/immune/etc booster," and suddenly you're taking 100+ supplements and spending an excessive amount on useless pills.

The takeaway is this:

Unless you actually have a condition that requires you to supplement a specific nutrient, you do not need to take vitamins, to say nothing of multivitamins.

If you are concerned that you are actually deficient, go get a blood test from your doctor. Saving yourself the cost of supplementation over the next 20 years when you find out that you don't actually need them will more than pay for the appointment.

I certainly hope this isn't like DARE, or else it'll encourage an entire generation of kids to experiment with DDoS...

According to your very own definition of a quack ("someone who doesn't use the right process, who avoids peer review, who insists they can't be wrong"), Pauling *was* a quack.

Yes, he had two nobel prizes in a completely unrelated field. Just because he was an expert in that field does not mean that he is an expert in all fields, nor does it mean that he even felt he should use the scientific method in other fields. (Obligatory SMBC.)

There had already been studies showing Vitamin C didn't cure colds before Pauling made his claim. His (completely anecdotal) claim made other people do *more* studies which also showed no link between Vit. C and curing anything. From the article: "Although study after study showed that he was wrong, Pauling refused to believe it, continuing to promote vitamin C in speeches, popular articles, and books."

Yes, he was a smart guy and brilliant in some ways. But in medicine, he was a quack, by your own definition.

While I agree completely, it's more about the exchange rate than anything else...

I went to the GDC talk by SimCity's lead designer. He said that city type is equivalent to a retirement community, and is a legitimate city design. I of course think it's just a rationalization, but...

It is still a thought-crime, however. He bought no weapons, built no bombs, created no toxins. He did nothing but possess knowledge and harbor some crazy fantasies. If he had started to enact those fantasies, I would totally agree that he would have to be arrested. Until that point, however, he had committed no physical crime.

It's interesting that you can get over two years of prison time just for *thinking* about doing something bad, but if you are in the right position, you can murder 24 civilians and get away with it.

I never quite understood why it is so abhorrent (by comparison) to do things to dead bodies (which cannot feel or be affected by such acts) while the actual act of killing those people (which obviously affects those people quite a bit...) doesn't get much mention. We don't care that these men were killed, we care that they were peed on afterward. Why the differing standards?

I think the idea behind coating electronics is that you can coat them both inside *and* outside. When you are applying such a thin layer of (what is apparently) plastic, you have to worry about friction wearing off the coating on the outside. When it's also applied to the inside electronics, which are not exposed to wear and tear, those parts can stay waterproof over a long time, keeping the device safe.

A boat is different, however. Instead of applying this waterproofing to inside, non-worn parts, you'd be applying it to the outside of the hull. Those are the parts which would receive the most friction, and would likely cause the coating to wear off very quickly. Unless you plan on coating your boat before every ride, I have doubts that this would be terribly (long-term) useful.

Read the article. They aren't restricting who can buy their products. They are only restricting who can get *free samples.* No shopkeep or store will refuse to sell these pudding cakes to children, but the company can certainly refuse to give *free samples* to children (who are not their target market).

What makes you think that Obama should've immediately posted his long-form birth certificate long ago?

It's only a "red flag" to people who are already overly suspicious. No other president or presidential candidate has ever had to prove their place of birth, why should Obama simply because some people are trolling around for a reason to disqualify him as a legitimate president? I won't even get in to the racial overtones.

What's next? Demand all his college transcripts! If he doesn't release them *immediately* then it is clearly a "red flag" that he didn't actually go to college and that the CIA must be mocking up documents right now. Demand his driver's license! It may be a "red flag" that he actually doesn't know how to drive a car. Demand his vaccination records! If he doesn't it's a "red flag" that he's actually an anti-vaxxer.

It's not OK to demand unreasonable things and then say that since he didn't immediately comply with your demands, it's a "red flag" that your conspiracy theories are true. Additionally, once he *does* comply with your first demand, what's to stop you from making more and more demands until you get the "red flag" that you want?