mp3 at less than 512kbps
Empty carbs.... you do know that Atkins died young?
Where does this meme I keep reading about how Atkins' diet killed him come from? He died at 72 from surgical compilcations after a head trauma sustained by slipping on icy pavement.
Low Fat, Low Carb...oooh...hardcore...(thats what I did)...nearly died from that one...
Yep, it's long been known that extremely high protein diets are bad for humans. I actually RTFA, and in the mouse study, it was a 50% protein diet. Mice are herbivores, that much protein is effectively toxic for them.
So the mouse study doesn't show that low protein diet extends lifespan as much as a ultra-high protein diet reduces lifespan, which is not really news.
The second study was an observational study of humans, which joins a long list of such studies where you'll find something to support pretty much any nutritional hypothesis you can imagine.
It depends on a lot of factors. First of all, for e. coli, most strains are harmless and so 1 or 10,000 of those cells won't really affect you. However, the greater the number you ingest, the greater the chances that you'll get one of the pathogenic strains. For someone with a normal immune system, I'd expect the chance of just one cell causing an infection is exceedingly small, but for someone with compromised immunity it would obviously be much higher.
But as I mentioned upthread, when water is contaminated, it is rarely just one cell.
Yes, but, the OP didn't say that one shouldn't use the method...those were *your* words and *your* assumption. The analogy simply points out that '99% removal' may not be adequate in this particular case.
What a silly thing to say; as if not filtering 99% of something harmful is a better idea...
OP does have a quite valid point...I worked in water testing lab years ago so I have some experience with this. The EPA standard for coliform in drinking water is zero, that is to say one e. coli bacteria in a water sample (usually 100 ml) means the water is contaminated. (And generally when water is contaminated, there will be far more than just one bacteria per 100 ml.)
So while, yes, removing 99% of the bacterial load is better than not, as a general rule a 99% effective "decontamination" process still leaves you with contaminated water
But I don't think the promotion to Schedule 1, about 40 years later IIRC, was pushed by any lobbyists--it was a pure executive branch thing, and based on the flimsiest of pretend science.
Sorry to say, but you are mistaken on several counts. The scheduling of drugs only came about with the Controlled Substances Act in 1970, passed by Congress (i.e., lobbyists were surely involved) and signed into law by Nixon. Marijuana was Schedule I from day one and has remained so, even though Part F of the umbrella legislation (the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970) known as the Shafer Commission, tasked to study the problem of marijuana abuse, recommended decriminalization (which Nixon famously ignored).
According to Wikipedia, they are not an endangered species though there are reports of declining populations. As to breeding them in captivity:
Raising horseshoe crabs in captivity has proven to be difficult. Some evidence indicates mating only takes place in the presence of the sand or mud in which the horseshoe crab's eggs were hatched. Neither what is in the sand that the crab can sense nor how they sense it is known with certainty.
Here's the difference: technology CEOs run companies that make things and contribute to society. Bankers earn a profit by moving other peoples' money around and taking some off the top. One of those jobs is necessary for us to progress.
Unless/until humanity overthrows the global captialist/monetary economic system, banking is just as necessary for 'progress' as the tech sector.
Banking is not inherently evil...the problem arises when the financial sector grows too politically powerful and can twist the laws to permit them greater and greater capacities for rent-seeking. This is not limited to the financial sector, they just seem to be in a better position to do so than most other enterprises.
The problem is with an electorate that is politically disengaged and doesn't notice when the laws are gradually changed to allow economic players to shift from active wealth creation to passive wealth accumulation, until one day you notice that bankers are ignoring the traditional risks of their business because the laws permit them to privatize their profits while shifting their losses to the public. But this is not limited to banking/finance...even in the tech sector you have the telcos and the trend towards walled gardens where they are more looking to simply skim fees rather than provide better and more useful technology.
I am by no means a dyed-in-the-wool capitalist, but as long as we are stuck with the system we have, it is not very useful to single out banking as a whole as the cancer on the system, and instead focus on how we regulate the actors in the system we have.
The ones I've been to only cut you off when you can't pay, puke on the floor, or start a fight.
I'm envisioning a bartender saying: "Sorry sir, but you must either pay, puke on the floor, or start a fight...or else we can no longer serve you."
Who said their primary mission was advocating openness? I thought their mission was building an online encyclopedia. (Or as the Wikimedia Foundation puts it more generally, "... to bring free educational content to the world.") When did it turn into an ideological crusade?
From the Wikimedia Foundation MIssion Statement:
The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.
..and from the Wikipedia page:
The Wikimedia Foundation's stated goal is to develop and maintain open content, wiki-based projects and to provide the full contents of those projects to the public free of charge.
...although it doesn't explicitly state that patent-unencumbered formats are necessary for those goals, but it's safe to say that insisting on them is fully compatible with those goals. No more ideological than the rest of their 'crusade', IMO.
It's like you show up to a benefit potluck for your local library, and people start ranting about how the food people brought isn't vegan.
To me, it's more like:you show up to a benefit potluck for your local library, and people start complaining that some people are charging money on the side for (or restricting access to) the food they bring. Do you want those people at your potluck?
Re the 2004 election, all I'll say is that the discrepancies are nowhere near what you are suggesting for the creationist polls.
As for the difference between the accuracy of election polls vs opinion polls, I can even buy that up to a point. After all as I noted, Pew gets 33% and Gallup gets 45% for what are both crystal-clear creationist options, that's a huge gap by election poll standards. But only up to a point. Pew gets 33%, Gallup 45%, but you want me to believe <10% without being able to produce even one poll to support anything close to that, a number less than polls of any country save for maybe Iceland and Norway. That's way beyond the point.
Otherwise, you're pretty much repeating the same kind of fallacious arguments in different variations over and over. I could reciprocate in the same vein until the cows come home: if there are so few creationists, why is "Left Behind" so popular, and why are there so many megachurches that cater to this nonsense, why does virtually no US politician publicly denounce the creationist agenda....and on and on with lots of circumstantial evidence that these views are indeed widespread. But that would all be based on various assumptions and biases that might make good rhetoric, but it's not rational argument.
And guess what? I don't have to make that kind of argument...because (sorry Trigger, here it comes again) pretty much every public opinion poll ever done on the matter indicates that at least a third of US population accepts creationism, and I don't need to invoke the proxy argument of "but if the were as few creationists you claim, then blah-bitty-blah" because as far as I know, the public opinion poll, however imperfect it may be, is the best measurement we have for, y'know, public opinion. That leaves you with the burden of proving your contention that all of the polls are so consistently wrong. As much I would celebrate it if you could prove your view to be even remotely likely, you have not convinced me in the slightest of it.
But elections are polls too. And polls that a lot of people actually happen to care about and participate in. And as I see it, when a Gallup poll ends up contradicting an election poll, I go with the latter.
But nobody votes for "I believe in YEC" in the election booth, unless by public referendum and I know of no such referendum anywhere. Generally, a voter picks a candidate to represent him/her based a prioritization of ALL issues important to the voter. So you are comparing apples and watermelons here, and making the implicit assumption that the vast majority of people who say they accept creationism have mandating creationist education as their #1 political priority. That is the glaring flaw in your argument and I don't find that a tenable position, to put it mildly.
And strange....when these same organizations conduct actual election polling that does compare apples-to-apples to actual election results, the standard margin of error is around 3%. But you compare a general opinion poll to that same election result, add a healthy dose of speculation and unfounded assumptions, and now you seem perfectly comfortable concluding on that basis alone that all of the opinion polls are totally, but yet somehow consistently out in left field.
That's my "some reason" for saying your argument is not rational, and you only keep convincing me of that further with each response.
Well, actually there's something like 18 states with med laws (though most of them are functionally useless)...but polling on allowing medical marijuana alone goes as high as 80% or more...and only 2 states have 'legalized' for recreational purposes...in neither case is the political success even close to reflecting public opinion. So again, I'd say that shows that just because a belief is widely held *doesn't* mean it will translate proportionally into policy. And I'd also posit that the *only* reason for the success of MJ advocates is because of ballot initiatives where the people can directly vote on the issue. Creationists, on the other hand, have had to influence elected school boards and legislatures (I am unaware of anywhere where these issues were decided by referendum), which makes it much harder for even a powerful minority to buck the system. And since the polls show creationists are *not* a majority as is the case with people favoring MJ legalization (or an overwhelming majority for medical MJ laws), whatever lack of success you think the creationists have had in comparison can easily be explained along those lines, as well as a number of other plausible factors i can think of, some of which I expressed earlier. The bottom line, as I see it, is that you are effectively arguing that the translation of a widely held public opinion into *successful* political action is *so certain* that the lack thereof is conclusive proof that the polling of that opinion is consistently overstated by a factor of 3-5. I find that patently absurd.
I think there's a simple explanation. The polls are wrong. I don't pretend to know exactly why.
If you invoke Occam's Razor to discount evidence (as opposed to hypotheses), you're using it wrong. That you "don't pretend to know exactly why" is an tacit admission of an unexplained mechanism that makes all of these polls *massively* overstate creationist beliefs. (Highlights: only the Scanadinavian countries seems to poll in approx the range you claim; even the UK, Canada, and Australia report closer (in the 25% range) to the US numbers than what you posit; and "A study published in Science compared [34 nations'] attitudes about evolution
In other words, your "simplest explanation" really seems to be the one that fits your pre-existing belief even though you have no evidence for it or any explanation why all the polls are so very wrong. My "simplest explanation" for the poll numbers is that they are correct (or at least reasonably accurate), and since all of your counter-arguments are at best speculative and IMO not conclusive of anything at all, you give me no reason to even entertain an unknown explanation in order to reject many years worth of consistent polling results.
Feel free to disagree, but don't expect me to tell you that you're making a rational argument, because you're not.