Link to Original Source
From the abstract:
Compared with participants whose cumulatively updated total caffeine consumption was <125 mg/day, participants who consumed 500 mg/day had a trend toward increased risk of EG/EGS that was not statistically significant (RR = 1.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.98–2.08); P trend = 0.06).
If it's not statistically significant, then how can we take this seriously?
Slackware -> RedHat -> Mandrake -> Mandriva -> Kubuntu -> OpenSUSE -> Ubuntu -> Kubuntu
Mandrake -> Mandriva -> OpenSUSE
Family Machine (limited, with 1GB RAM):
Mandrake -> Kubuntu -> Ubuntu -> Debian Stable with Trinity Desktop
I'd highly recommend Theocracy.
Since much of the joy of Star Trek is about the characters, pick the characters you like the best. If you're going with the originals (a good bet since the 2009 reboot, since they're now the new "current" Star Trek), pick a couple character-driven episodes like Amok Time and Space Seed, and then go right to The Wrath of Khan and watch the TOS movies in order. By then, there should be enough interest in those characters to go back and watch more old episodes, and maybe TMP.
If you want to go with TNG, for your own sake, skip the first season. I might start, again, with something really well-written and character driven: season 2's "The Measure of a Man," and then maybe just continue with the episodes from there. There's not much of the series before that is must-watch anyway.
I'd stick to one of those two paths. DS9 is my favorite series, but I think it's better to start with TNG or TOS since they're the most well known.
As a conservative, I would say that this study itself is an example of what conservatives object to, because the word "science" isn't clarified at all. What do they mean by "science?" Do they mean the scientific method? If so, I'm betting conservatives have as much trust in science as anybody else. Do they mean practical science, that results in things like technology, new inventions, and space travel? Again, conservatives would confidently place their trust here.
The issue here is the defining of "science" as the majority scientific establishment, rather than science as a discipline. The lack of trust comes with regard to the scientific establishment, which, like every other group in existence, is made up of flawed human beings who have their own agendas. This is where you have a majority that produces ad hominem arguments to bully the minority, rather than responding honestly to the minority's objections.
One example is global warming. Regardless of what you believe about global warming, I get uncomfortable when I see a group of people with much to gain politically and financially responding to global warming objections by seeking to discredit the scientists, i.e., the people on the other side of the argument, rather than responding to the argument itself. That smacks to me of corruption in the same way our politics are corrupt. The same argument applies to Intelligent Design, whether a fetus is just tissue or life, or any number of other issues.
So when you see a study like this, I think it would be better to say that conservatives have a lack of trust in the scientific establishment, because it's a group of people with their own agenda just like any other. Conservatives don't have a lack of trust in science itself. Science is a method for determining facts. That method is applied by people. And people--even scientists--, once they get power and influence, seek to hold on to it. When you see responses in the form of personal attacks and censorship, rather than dealing with arguments, then yes, that tends to reduce trust.
I don't know you and never met you, but I've been reading Slashdot for over a decade (as my user # will tell you). It's been my home page for forever. I just wanted to let you know how much I have appreciated what you created, and how useful it is. Though I don't always agree with the majority opinion here, I can't tell you how many times Slashdot has been the source of one interesting story after another. I've found it so helpful that I've actually featured it in my book, which should be out in a month (Liferay in Action), as one of the first, if not the first, community blog on the Internet.
So thank you. Thank you for starting Slashdot, for building it into something that could be sustained, and for keeping it going all these years. I wish you much success in the future, both personally and professionally, and am hoping that you find whatever it is that will enable to continue fulfilling your dreams.