Unless it's a serious concussion, I think most still go unreported.

Aside from the "all concussions are serious" aspect, in a team sport someone being disoriented should be reported by the other team members, if only in the interest of not losing the game.

However, what we're discussing here in particular is the common case where a player is clearly concussed (as in, disoriented or briefly unresponsive) and instead of being sent to hospital is kept on the bench and frequently sent back into the game after a short rest. At best, they're out for the game but back in practice the following school day and playing the following week.

Give them something better than football, and convince them that it really is better, and the world will change.

You mean like election engineering? That does seem to be right up there with football, and remarkably (given that it happens at the same time of year) the two don't seem to be exclusive.

As long as the school budget cuts don't impact the sports program, it's all good. Keeps the kids from getting funny ideas.

And the schools don't dare inform parents of all the risks - parents would say "What, are you crazy? I'm going to risk my kids future so you can get a stupid trophy for your office? DIAF."

I wish you were right, but experience with the parents of brain-damaged young athletes indicates otherwise.

There is some promising work concerning hormone therapy for TBI patients by a Dr. Mark L. Gordon

He's regenerating CNS tissue? How does that work in animal spinal models?

risk-avoisive bullshit just because people fear being fucked for life over a moderate injury;

Ummm -- do you have even the faintest glimmer of a clue as to the consequences of repetitive concussions?

Why, yes, that was a rhetorical question.

Who said anything about not wanting to play football?

How about we at least stop putting concussed kids back on the field? A concussion is a more serious injury than a freaking broken arm -- I know, I've treated hundreds of both. Nobody ever died of a closed arm fracture, but the same can't be said for a closed head injury.

I'm an emergency medic and unfortuntately meet a lot of kids who have been concussed -- and when they come in saying, "I think I have a concussion, it feels like the ones I get playing football" it's all I can do to not lose my shit right there. The story is always the same: kid gets his bell rung, is either unconscious or maybe A&Ox2 on the field, and if he's more or less functional by the end of the game, he's back on the field.

Those brain cells are gone for good -- and we're talking about minors who are acting under the care of an adult in authority.

Indeed, referenced in their paper

[11] W. van Eck, "Electromagnetic Radiation from Video Display Units: An Eavesdropping Risk?," Computers and Security 4, pp. 269-286, 1985.

Most places have a faraday cage in which the classified material and any electronic device accessing the material is houses. If a device leaves the cage, it is handled appropriately and never turned on. Problem solved. Such measures have been used well before Gene Hackman's cage in Enemy of the State :-) Of course, a human mistake is much more likely to reveal the information...

Nothing really new here.

Wolves, then seen as unreservedly undesirable, were eradicated from the Yellowstone region by the early 20th century. Between then and the end of the century, coyotes got larger and started hunting in packs, taking the ecological niche that wolves had filled and pursuing larger prey.

Then (1994) we reintroduced wolves to Yellowstone.

Even in the short time since, observed coyotes have gotten smaller and started acting less like apex predators and more like the sneak and scavengers that they are in other habitats where they're threatened by the apex predators.

That's a lot fewer generations than the reported adaptation of lizards in the islands.

The population density of the USA is low in large part because huge portions have no people at all. Yes, the internet access there sucks, but the bears and elk don't really seem to care. On the other hand, some parts of the USA do have very low population density but still have fat pipes.

Around 25 to 35Mbps depending on the encryption method and how much load that crypt takes.

You say that like it's slow. It's an order of magnitude greater than most Americans can afford. Fiber vs. copper isn't the bottleneck, and neither is encryption bandwidth. The rates providers charge is, and when they switch to fiber the rates per Mbps increase, not decrease.

Of course, the rates per megabit increase regardless.

At least in large parts of the USA, it's that "broadband" isn't affordable. "Basic" DSL or cable, with download rates of less than 5 Mbps, cost upwards of $50/month. Higher speeds are proportionally faster -- and very, very few people even in the USA are willing to pay hundreds of dollars a month for download speeds far less than those taken for granted in other developed countries.

The correlation is not just in the USA, not just the past six years, for another.

And FWIW, the past thirty years have constant-dollar wages in the USA flat while productivity increased. (Household income increased due to increasing hours worked, mostly women.) The exception was during the 90s, when (despite predictions to the contrary) wages actually increased.

Facts on the US part readily available from the lovely search and visualization tools at the St. Lous Federal Reserve.