Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
What's the story with these ads on Slashdot? Check out our new blog post to find out. ×

Comment Re:Makes sense (Score 1) 85

Explain the cowpox/smallpox thing. Is there actually a correlation there or did you just pull some scienceism out of thin air? Seriously, WTF? Dirty farm air and the development of vaccination have nothing to do with each other unless you want to really reach. I suppose cowpox was contracted by farm workers so there's your brain's connection.

People who contracted cowpox - which is a rather minor illness, were immune from smallpox, which is a major issue. And with the symptoms of smallpox being rather dramatically evident, people made the connection quickly, since the milkmaids and people around the cows had nice skin, not something that looked like the surface of Mercury.

Comment Re:Makes sense (Score 1) 85

This sounds a bit like the theory that children are less likely to develop allergies to common foods like milk, eggs, wheat, and so on if exposed to them at a young age. I have no idea if that's factual or not, but based on how our bodies adapt and develop immunity to common pathogens, it doesn't seem like such an outrageous theory.

My son would get these red blotchy marks all over when we took him along with us to visit out horse. We talked to his pediatrician about it, to see what could be done, or if we should keep him away from horses. He told us to keep taking him to the barn as long as it was just the splotches. Sure enough, a few more visits, and no more reaction. The doctor said a little dirt and dander is good.

Interestingly enough, after he hit his teens, probably 3/4 of his Ice hockey team was on inhalers for athsma, and often the children of the most affluent. I'm pretty convinced there is some relationship.

Comment Re:Makes sense (Score 1) 85

Genetics and microbial exposure are part of your health makup.

As in most of it. It's weird, looking back through my family history, teh men tend to live to right around 85 years old, except for accident or war.

My father's generation, with modern medical assistance, better health care, and healthier lifestyle choices, lived to....... 85 years old.

The idea that doing this or that is going to make you live 30 years longer is merely wishful thinking. Moderation in all things isn't dramatic, but it's the truth.

Comment Re:Makes sense (Score 1) 85

If you're cycling 50 km/day, it is likely that you are making ongoing lifestyle choices that contribute to your health. You probably don't have to attribute those choices to genetics or micro-organisms.

You'll be the healthiest guy in the dementia ward.

It's rather amusing that the biggest chemical enhanced doping sport on earth is used as an example of good health decisions.

Comment Looking under the streetlamp (Score 4, Insightful) 172

because the light is better there.

Lessee, we have shows about insane hairdressers in LA. We have weird shows about making people run around in the woods without clothing - but in a twist, blur out the tittilating bits. We have shows about the contents of storage units and parking meter attendants, we have shows about idiots who live in teh Alaskan bush, yet seem to know as much about survival in the bush as someone from New York city. We have shows about how people are stupid, and every human advance is because of ancient aliens. We have shows about peole who think that a woman's vagina is a clown car. I gotta stop - but there are hundreds more examples.

The fact is, Television today is simply bottom of the barrel bad!

And the channels that were good at one time have been taken over. The learning channel was once about learning, The history channel once had history, not swamp logging midgets who run a pawn shop in Alaska's north slope.

So no - it isn't too much programming. It's that none of it is worth watchning

Comment Re: And we care because...why? (Score 2) 276

The problem I see with your "weak women" argument is that you seem to suggest that all of the harassment women in STEM fields is trivial and if that drives you from the field, you are weak.

Wow. It's time for me to just keep quiet about this. No matter how I try to say that women are actually strong, and not weak, I'm wrong. I say they are stronger than the excuses given for them staying out of STEM. It's too confusing to say women are strong, then have people come back to say I'm saying they are weak when I say thyy are not. I give up.

I'll state one last time my thoughts, then go back to the tried and true method of not sharing my opinion.

Real actual sexual harassment should in every case be pursued actively. Perhaps the list of what construes sexual harassment is being expanded beyond reasonable expectations. Because It's a big world, and a lot of people in it, some who are plain nasty. It woud be great if we could protect everyone from jerks. The guy that tried to force my wife to give him oral sex at work has now become the moral equivalent of a dongle joke.

BTW, she aggressively proceed to use the system to destroy his life after that little assault.

Work is often nasty for everyone, men included.

Anyhow, I''m sorry for your experiences. You might actually prove my point about the strength of women, but I'm finished with the matter.

Comment Re:100% Consensus among scientific organizations (Score 1) 330

We were supposed to be dead at 6 billion people.

Yeah, but all that means is that the prediction was incorrect, not that the earth can support an infinte number of people.

I can even come up with a scenario in which we might be able to support several times the number of people, if we for some reason decided that that was a good goal.

Imagine if you will, underground hydroponic farms many miles in extent, with vats of algae for plant material, perhaps krill for protein value. Over time, humanity removes all other biocompetition, in order to replace it with human presence. The distribution system then sends this soylent green type material out ot everyone for consumption Water distribution will probably rely on nuclear powered desalinization plants. and a precisely metered system.

We might just be able to get every square foot of liveable land covered with a human being, assuming that disease or our innate tendency to violence doesn't take us out first.

Comment Re:100% Consensus among scientific organizations (Score 1) 330

One if it gets angry and whiny like a lefty it's probably a lefty.

Crikey man, are you calling Fox news leftists? I watch it, and there is more whining there than anywhere else . note though, I watch it for the lulz.

Anyway For 50+ years I have been watching prediction of climate doom come to naught.

define doom.

There are some kooks on the AGW side. Do you lump every AGW supporter with the kooks? That would be like calling every anti-AGW adherent stupid because they look out their windows, and it's cold, so much for global warming!

As noted before, I' a pragmatist, you know the one that most everyone hates because I'm not politically reliable. So I don't look at everyone as exactly one way or another, and don't consider people with opinions contrary to my own as the enemy

disclaimer - i do reserve the right to laugh at them on occasion.

You can also toss in the population bomb, eco doom, peak oil all pan out to nothing.

So what you are saying is that one thing proves another? That's an interesting argument.

Now if you want to talk about Ideology and public planning, you need to look at how the enviro nuts stopped California's water system improvements in a state known to have extended droughts.

It doesn't take an eco nut to understand that the California water system was taking water from other areas, exporting it to California, and using it all up, then coming back for more.

The left coast of California has seriously awesome weather.. But it is as close as you can get to a desert, without being a desert. And while the other conditions are good for growing crops, there isn't enough water.

So for many years, California just took water from other states. How much is enough? At this point, there are interests that want the water from the Columbia river. It seems though, that the loacls living there aren't to keen on turning the columbia into the Colorado river take 2.

And that's the problem. It's not sustainable, and California's approach is like getting mugged.

"How much water do you want?"

"How much water do you have?"

These are simple math problems, not leftist ideology. The leftist would say everyone needs to share their water with California because it's to our need

The pragmatist notes that in every case, people who share water with California, lose all their water.

Comment Re: And we care because...why? (Score 1) 276

At can be either the third wave "weak woman" model, where some incredibly trivial things can apparently force a young lady who is passionately into programming into dropping it completely.

It's nowhere near as extreme as that most of the time.

I'm male. I was previous at a really crap job. No support, no documentation, lots of pressure. I left and moved to a different industry after about six months. I'm not weak willed or anything like that, I just don't see why I should put up with a crap job and work environment when I can move on and have a much easier, better life somewhere else.

Aren't you making my argument? You left the job because it was for shit, not get out of the field because the job stunk.

The last thing I would say is that women are weak. Which is why the weak woman concept espoused by so many - the woman who will actually abandon a career path based on silly reasons, is so weird. There is absolutely no way that every single job in IT will be perfect, where everyone respects each other, and nary a negative comment is heard. That just isn't how humanity works.

"Gort, klaatu nikto barada." -- The Day the Earth Stood Still

Working...