Your argument is not convincing. Saying 'it must have been this cause I can't think of anything else" just makes people think you lack creativity.

The need to find a way to test the hypothesis, not just accept it. I.E. find a group of people from that same area but had a lot of/more sugar as a control.

That is a very good point. duckduckgo.com (to use an example) does not summarize the search results for you, and, once you know what to look for the ads are clearly marked. To be honest, purchasing ads on duckduckgo.com is likely a sign of good taste on the part of the advertiser as well. Honestly, I hadn't even considered using a non-Google search option for a long time. That is almost certainly part of the problem. Thanks for your response.

Would a properly installed firewall stop someone from accessing this via the IP?

Seems to me that is what firewalls are supposed to do - stop random people from accessing IP addresses on your network.

From my minimal web search it appears to me that:
1) the Plaintiff, Global Plasma Solutions appears to make an inferior product and make ridiculous claims for it.
2) The defendant, media company Elsevier published a poor quality review that made ridiculous and unsupported claim about the quality of the review.

In other words, two a-holes fighting.

Technically you are allowed to lie to MOST cops.

But there is a law that makes it illegal (5 years punishment) to lie to certain federal officials, as you referenced.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...

This definitely applies to the FBI (lots of cases) and I think it applies to Border agents, but I am not as sure about that. So yes, the border agents that questions him should be able to charge him for lying.

EXCEPT:
The border agents claimed he was not entitled to a lawyer because he was legally not in the US until after he passed customs. He repeatedly asked for one.

If the court holds this to be true (unlikely) than he could argue he was not in their jurisdiction when they questioned him.

If the court says it was not true, then the courts will state anything he said cannot be used as evidence after he asked for a lawyer, including any lies he stated.

If that was what happened, you would be correct. But it is NOT what happened.He did not just try to refuse a search. He also specifically asked for a lawyer. While inside the physical US.

The border patrol stated and said that legally he was not inside the US and therefore did not have the right to a lawyer. They denied him one.

Which means either:

1) (Stupid argument in response to their stupid claim) They are correct and he was not inside the USA so the they did not have jurisdiction which means they cannot charge him with a crime for anything he did. US codes do not apply.

2) (Real argument) They denied him a lawyer when he was asked for one during a search, which means it was an ILLEGAL search and he had the legal right to destroy the evidence as they had no legal right to get it.

This is the actual argument his lawyer is already making.

There was nothing automatic about Google's trustworthiness. It simply counted up links that lead back to a particular page. If it had more links it was (supposedly) a better page. Almost immediately webmasters around the world started gaming the system. Google still restricts some of the things my account can do for hidden links that were added to some ads on websites that I ran in like 2001. GoDaddy and all of the other big web hosting companies of that era all rose to prominence on the strength of gaming the PageRank system.

I am sure that other industries tell the same story.

PageRank might seem trustworthy to you, but that's only because you weren't trying to game the system back in the day. I can assure you that, right from the start, people were abusing PageRank in precisely the same way that upsets you now. The only difference was that registering a domain back then cost $70 for two years, and you probably created the links you used to game the system by writing Perl. That raised the barrier to entry significantly. However, there was still real money to be made in that arena, and whether the winners paid Google directly, or paid for back links to their content (or both), I can guarantee you that the road to your trust was paved in money.

In the end Google has decided that the most reliable way to have publishers show that their information is trustworthy is to force them to pay for the privilege. Coincidentally that also happens to be the method that makes Google the most money. For years an entire SEO industry has thrived around the idea that if you pay someone enough money they can trick Google to steal your information instead of your competitors. Now we are finally at the endgame and Google doesn't even send traffic. They simply summarize the information for their customers. Chances are excellent that you don't even leave the google.com domain.

Google's competitors are simply doing the same thing at a different domain. All of them make their money by charging publishers to show up prominently in search ranks. Whether you are rooting for Oceania, Eurasia, or Eastasia it's Big Brother all of the way down.

This is a study of people born in a set time period at a set location.

There were LOTS of things happening at that time. Yes sugar was rationed, but there were also a lot less chemicals being made, some new chemicals started up, jet travel became common, the men had come home, but some did not. New medicines appeared. New foods became common besides sugar.

The writers of this study picked one of thousands of potential explanations and ascribed it as the cure. They have NO EVIDENCE at all that reduced sugar was the cause.

This is the WORST possible example bad studies. It's like I looked at one of the cancer maps people make, pick a school in the center and blamed the Principal of the school for intentionally giving cancer to his students.

This study indicates Britain's of a certain age have health benefits. It does NOT indicate sugar had anything to do with it.

Thus getting back the money Trump extorted for his librabry.

" Half of those using them said they could not make ends meet otherwise, according to the latest edition of a survey that LendingTree, a loan marketplace, has compiled for years."

If you are using any loan to 'make ends meet' you are not making ends meet, you are merely delaying bankruptcy.

They specifically mentioned Flex, Zip and Affirm, which can easily reach 20% and even 36%. Basically credit card rates.

It is possible to pay these rates for a short term emergency and then take years to pay it off.

Food, rent, etc. are things you need to buy every week, not an emergency. If you cannot afford it this week, you will never be able to do it. Instead you keep getting more and more debt at these rates until you reach the credit limit, then go bankrupt.

The subject said "same problem".

The problem is that the equipment either
a) solves a problem by spending more than it is worth or
b) does not solve the problem and costs a ton.

That applies to Flock cameras - they cost too much for what they do.

Yes, just buy my pet rock / invermectin / Ponzi Scheme and it will cure what ails ya!

No I won't be specific about how it works, cause I do not know!

Sure I will give you a Guarantee - but don't expect your money back.

One of the issues with traffic enforcement cameras (speeding, red light) is that they can either:

a) Do the claimed job: reduce infractions (less speeding, less running red lights)

b) Fulfill predictions and pay for themselves. Note, I did not say be profitable, I said pay for themselves. Usually they end up costing the city more money then the cost to install/maintain. At best a company is paid to manage them and they make money but not the city.

They cannot do both. If they reduce the infractions, then the tickets drop and it is not profitable. If enough tickets are paid, then that means infractions remain constant.

For this reason a lot of the time, towns just end the contract.