chucK

Looks like our strong allies in FREEDOM, the Brits, the country with the "official secrets act", has now condemned the free press! Jack Straw condemns publishing cartoons One might note that this is an official govt. guy of the UK, whereas the French Editor firing that JayB was so indignant about was fired by the owner of the paper (an Egyptian).

A related issue was reported yesterday on NPR of how the DOE is undermining states' efforts to push existing "green" coal plant technology. NPR story

So the creation of another poverty ridden radical islamic state is exactly what the world needs? Exactly who is the idiot here? But what's the alternative? Give money to a government that expressly advocates the destruction of Israel through violent means? Sure, maybe we subsidize a lot of that shit in other parts of the world, but that isn't a good reason in its favor. I definitely don't think we should shut down all dialogue with them, but it doesn't seem that unreasonable to not send them money. Perhaps if there was some way to just give aid to the people and not the government, that'd be cool. That worked just dandy in Iraq though

Latte sipper

One note of interest is that Google at least held out for the provision that if the search came up with something censored, then the results would indicate as such. So as it stands Google may censor stuff but will verify that there is something out there, but that the govt. is not allowing you to access it.

No, sorry, this isn't yet another thread about CrazyJZ Check this out before it's cycled off the NPR website. It's really good. crackpots However, if you've never visited NPR or other subversive websites, you might want to hold off and keep your name off the NSA list.

Here's a cool tale that features Monkeys with drugs in 'em

You sure fucked up! Are you posting from the drunk tank or the real jail? Glad you're OK.

p < .001 baby! I don't think large sample sizes are as necessary in a controlled laboratory experiment as they are in a (phase III) human trial. Plus I don't think you should really be concerning yourself too much about generalizability when your experiments are on chickens! Looking at the paper again, I did find this possibly worrying bit of info: "DISCLOSURES Dr. Atkinson owns all shares of Obetech, LLC, a company that markets assays to detect infection with human adenovirus-36 and owns patent rights for these assays." -- Your momma's so fat, when I tell her to haul ass, she's gotta make two trips.

Good point Though I think the main value of the chicken trial is that, it being a prospective controlled trial, it provides evidence against reverse causality (i.e. fat increases likelihood of having/getting virus). re: PIMA's: Yes, I agree exercise and diet almost assuredly play large roles in obesity. The PIMA's, though, are not the best of your examples to illustrate this point. If they are geographically separated communities, they could easily be disporportionately affected by a communicable virus.

HOLY SHIT!! ROTFL!!! HA HA HA HA!!! (How's that? more your style?)

Oh, so you have scientific credentials. Demonstrate your knowledge. 1. Explain the difference between these two phrases: a) "a causal factor", b) "the primary causal factor". 2. Suppose a virus causes a chicken to move about less, which in turn alters the chicken's lipid profile. a) Did the chicken gain weight? b) Does this mean the virus did not affect the chicken's lipid profile?

I agree with that statement too.

You seem particularly logic-challenged this afternoon. First, I have not attempted to discredit any science. I am only countering those who spout off and attempt to discredit a scientific study only because it conflicts with their preconceived notions. Second, even if I did believe society is to blame for obesity, how would arguing that a virus is the culprit further that agenda?

So looks like you didn't read the article or paper either, huh? In fact, I'm sure that you haven't read the paper or the article. As if you did you would have found out that the current study was on chickens. I'm sure you would have had a few snide zingers about that. The study did not demonstrate association with weight change, only total fat, visceral fat, and lipid composition (more cholesterol, less triglycerides). Maybe your "end of story" is a bit premature? Why? We get new viruses every day. Plus, I'll bet you could take any point in human history and say that relative to the previous times there was a lot more food and sedentary living. You seem to be inferring that this study and/or I am blaming all cases of obesity on this virus. Neither I, nor the authors of the paper, am not. I don't think the paper makes this claim. They actually found little difference in the amount of food consumed. Note this was a randomized, controlled experiment, in chickens, thus they had very good control of diet. The article did have a reference to a study in monozygotic (human) twins. Among those who were discordant in the Ad-36 virus, those who had it were heavier. Again, you assume that someone implied all obesity is caused by this virus. You should really read at least some of the current scientific literature on this area. Do you really know anything about stomach stapling other than what you hear on Rush Limbaugh? That could explain the monozygotic twin study, but not the current chicken one. Randomized controlled trial, innoculating with the viruses. Could be. But your arguments don't sway me so much that I wouldn't be willing to bet $10 on it. Care to take that wager?

Right! Bias/general opinion versus science. Sounds like "Earth is the center of the universe/solar system". Even if one accepts as fact that "most fat people are looking for an excuse as to why being fat isn't their fault", does that in any way invalidate the theory? All you get with that argument is a completely unsubstantiated smear of the scientists. Again, this is much like the politicians. "I don't like that conclusion, must be some scientist with an agenda."

That sounds sorta hopeful! You want a more pessimistic view? Check this out Gore Vidal: President Jonah

OK, so maybe Bush has an evil motive for being uninquisitive. What's yours?

I don't think I gave any credit to GWB, but it does seem like maybe something is being done right over there link

You guys who are just rejecting this out of hand are funny. Any of you actually read the article or the study? Not much different than the Bushies, really. Think about this next time you rail at Bushco for ignoring scientists about global warming.

The Wedgewood Ale House was great! We should have it there every time (or perhaps alternate between there and the Wedgewood Broiler).

Didn't you say something good about the Wedgewood Alehouse recently? Their N Face looks like a pretty good bouldering wall (and it's in an alley). Wedgewood Ale House anybody? Before/during/after (?) the SOTUA by the POTUS?

I think Dru is rather sensitive to people always implying that he can't climb 5.10. So much so that he thought David Whitelaw was insulting him from afar, similar to that nutcase who got the restraining order on Letterman .

"This guide is for climbers with busy lives who want to make the most of their time on the rock." One of the biggest reasons climbing, like golf, is so addictive is because the only way to keep up the performance is do it a lot. If you don't get out often, your skills deteriorate. Maybe I'm a "rich bumbly" but I find it's pretty damn hard to climb in excess of 10a off the couch. So given the premise of his book "for climbers with busy lives", I'd say his focus of sub 5.10 is a great idea. I doubt there's a lot of guidebooks out there that have 300 routes in 'em that I could do off the couch. Now there's at least one.