| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 2008/4/14-19 [Recreation/Activities, Science/Biology] UID:49746 Activity:nil |
4/14 'World peace' hitcher is murdered
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7344381.stm
She had said she wanted to show that she could put her trust in
the kindness of local people.
\_ "Think of it as evolution in action."
\_ is she up for a Darwin award yet?
\_ It's actually sort of dual evolution. She's not
going to breed now, and the murderer's ability
to continue to breed is about to get severely
curtailed. Thus, we can continue to purge the
gene pool of both victims and victimizers.
\_ Speaking of hitch-hiking, I saw a lot of hitch-hiking in old movies.
Was hitch-hiking in the US really that safe in the old days?
\_ My dad used to pick up hitchhikers all the time in the 1970s
and 1980s. I was with him a few times. I don't think it's
necessarily unsafe as most people are honest and have
integrity, however I wouldn't do it. I did used to hitch
rides in college to campus from other students (who I didn't
know) on their way in to school and I'm alive to tell about it.
\_ Cf. Casual Carpool these days. I've been using it both as
driver and passenger for three years. |
| 2008/4/14-19 [Health/Disease/AIDS, Health/Men] UID:49747 Activity:kinda low |
4/14 Political correctness over science
http://csua.org/u/l9y
\_ I think you have it exactly backwards; the Red Cross' position is
\_ I think you have it exactly backwards; the FDA's position is
fear-mongering over science. -tom
\_ Oh, classification as high-risk isn't science?
\_ All blood is tested. The vast majority of gay men are HIV-.
\_ How good is the test? What is the percentage of men who
have sex with men who have HIV compared to percentage of
men who don't have sex with men?
\_ The test is good enough that the Red Cross and
America's Blood Centers call the FDA's policy
"medically and scientifically unwarranted." But
feel free to keep digging. -tom
\_ So you don't know the comparative percentages?
\_ Keep digging. -tom
\_ "The FDA said HIV tests currently in use are
highly accurate, but still cannot detect the
virus 100 percent of the time."
\_ How accurate is it?
\_ Maybe they did a cost-benefit analysis of whether the
increase in infections due to false negatives from a higher
risk population outweighs the benefit of the extra blood.
How often do HIV tests give false negatives?
\_ Maybe you're talking out of your ass.
\_ I would be astonished if any kind of real risk analysis was
done. Just like most things in our society, it is all a result
of pandering to the worst instincts in people.
\_ Eh, the Red Cross got burned very badly in the 80's on
HIV. People dying from blood donations is not cool. I
can understand why they're touchy about it. They are very
touchy about a lot of other things as well, visiting
prostitutes, traveling through malaria infested areas,
any possible exposure to hepetitis, feeling even SLIGHTY
under the weather, etc.
\_ The Red Cross thinks the policy should be changed. -tom
\_ African American men are 8x more likely to have HIV
than white males.
African American women are over 18x more likely to
have HIV than white females.
( http://www.whitehouse.gov/onap/facts.html )
Would you be ok with the Red Cross saying if you are
black you can't give blood?
\_ Oh man. You're asking this on the motd? Here we
go...
\_ Your numbers don't really say anything, but I'll
wager that even at 18x the rate of whites,
it's still not 'high-risk' the way gay men are.
If blacks are high-risk, then sure. Giving blood
is not a right, it's not even a privilege.
Addendum: according to a 1994-2000 study, about 10%
of Men who have sex with men have HIV. That's a
pretty huge risk.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5205a2.htm
\_ That same survey claims HIV among african
americans is even higher. I think that you are
extrapolating bad data though. It's not saying
10% of all gay men have HIV.
\_ No, the study refers to black men in the
survey, not among Blacks generally.
\_ I think you mean black gay/bi men.
\_ Doesn't it say about 10% of men they tested
and interviewed 'who attended MSM-identified
venues?' I guess that is sort of self-selected.
Go ahead and find some better data.
\_ The whitehouse fact sheet says there are ~900k
HIV cases in america. There are more than 9
million men who have had sex with men.
\_ How many MSM are there in the US?
\_ Even so, about 70% of new AIDS cases are
due to MSM contact. Given that this is
also a realitively small section of the
population, that makes it THE high risk
behavior. (They also include high-risk
heterosexual contact and IV drug use as
people who can't give blood.)
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/resources/factsheets/msm.htm
\_ None of this discussion above approaches a real
cost-benefit analaysis, but at least it is a
discussion about what the real risk is. How many
people catch diseases today due to blood
transfusions? What would that percentage look like
if gay men were allowed to donate? How much is
the cost of the additional diseases? How much does
it cost the country to have the reduced blood
supply? You would have to answer all these
questions (and probably some more) before you
could do a real risk analysis. Simply being
risk adverse is not the same thing. Most people
are sheep and terrified of shit that is never
going to happen to them, like terrorism.
\_ Unless you're one of the people killed by it
or knows someone who was. But that'll never
happen. Bad stuff only happens to other
people.
\_ Or unless you're one of the people killed
because of a blood shortage. Risk works
both ways. -tom
\_ Is there any evidence that excluding
certain high risk groups will result in
a blood shortage or are you just talking
out of your ass again?
\_ I am sure that it costs money. How
much money? Has anyone actually
bothered to do the calculation?
much, we will never know, because
fear, not logic, rules the human
heart.
\_ If you are that fearful, how do you ever
gather the courage to leave your house in
the morning? I am sure your chances of dying
in a car accident on the way to work are
much greater than any risk caused by tainted
blood. You are one of the sheep I was
referring to earlier. Your masters have
told you to be fearful and you bleat
approvingly, not even understanding why.
\_ Wow, perfect example of someone who
has lost trying to regain some face.
Sadly, you've failed.
\_ People are poor gaugers of risk, that's well
known. I bet you are to, do you think
swimming is a good idea?
Anyway, to respond to the only intelligent
thing you said, if you want to know, why not
ask the Red Cross? Seems more effective than
trolling the motd. I know they have some
numbers on tainted blood. They check
carefully to make sure a donor does not have
a cold, for example. Why? Because many
people receiving blood have suppressed
immune systems. They could certainly tell
you if there is a serious blood shortage that
people die from. (I doubt it)
As for a real risk analysis, I bet part of
the answer is that the PR aspect would result
in more deaths than actually tainted blood
would. It only takes one case to get people
into a tizzy, and some people would refuse
blood because they wouldn't trust the
FDA to have correctly analyzed and advertised
the real risks.
\_ I get paid to do risk analysis, so at least
someone thinks I am good at it. If nothing
else, I have more experience at it than
most people. Colds are common and hard
to screen for, HIV is neither. I am glad to
see that you are at least starting to come
around to my main point: the only thing we
have to fear is fear itself. And rather than
reassure people, the Red Cross just pandered
to the fear-mongering. So it goes.
else, I have more experience than most.
Colds are common and hard to screen for,
HIV is neither. I am glad to see that you
are at least starting to come around to
my main point: the only thing we have to
fear is fear itself. And rather than
reassure people, the Red Cross just
pandered to the fear-mongering. So it goes.
\_ I see you still can't provide any
evidence to back up your speculation.
The opposing debators have provided
quite a bit of evidence that doesn't
100% answer your question, but does
show that a reasonable risk exists.
I don't want to hear your useless
blather, put up or shut up.
\_ No, they have not provided any
hard evidence for their opinions
whatsover. Here, read this and get
back to me:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=4989
"it appears at this time that the
risk of possible transfusion-
associated AIDS is on the order of
one case per million patients
transfused. There is a risk that
widespread attempts to direct
donations, while not increasing the
safety of transfusions, will seriously
disrupt the nation's blood donor
system."
(Page 74)
\_ "The Red Cross thinks the policy
should be dropped." |
| 2008/4/14-17 [Recreation/Celebrity/ParisHilton] UID:49748 Activity:kinda low |
4/14 Step aside, Paris Hilton. This tops them all.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080414/people_nm/marilyn_monroe_sexfilm_dc
\_ Why does this top anything? "MM gives BJ!" is not a shocker.
\_ $1.5M
\_ Ok, that's kinda shocking, yeah.
\_ On film? I think it is. It wasn't the 2000s where every
public figure is on tape taking it up the ass.
\_ URL?
\_ She looks a bit chunky by today's unreasonable standards.
\_ You'd hit that. So would I. |
| 2008/4/14-19 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic] UID:49749 Activity:nil |
4/14 LA is facing a budget crisis. The city's a shithole. Ditto with
80% of the S Cal cities.
\_ Unlike beautiful urine-soaked San Francisco.
\_ Golden shower in the Golden State.
\_ http://www.danheller.com/sf-top.html
\_ Doesn't mention how all of these sites smell like urine.
\_ You have your nose in the gutter, when instead you
should have your eyes upon the stars.
\_ surprisingly, people like LA more than SF, according
to Mr. Google:
http://appleorangescale.com/?wd0=san%20francisco&wd1=los%20angeles |
| 2008/4/14-17 [Uncategorized] UID:49750 Activity:nil |
4/14 Compare these:
http://opa.berkeley.edu/AcademicCalendar/calendardisp.aspx?terms=2006A
http://opa.berkeley.edu/AcademicCalendar/calendardisp.aspx?terms=2007A
What happened to the holidays from 2007 onward? Why was MLK Jr Holiday
no longer MLK Jr Holiday, and so on? Political correctness in play?
\_ You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think
it means
\_ Whatever. So why were the names changed? |
| 2008/4/14-19 [Recreation/Food] UID:49751 Activity:moderate |
4/14 How Hunger Could Topple Regimes - Yahoo! News:
http://www.csua.org/u/la3
\_ growing corn and wheat for alternative fuels is cause
\_ "Government intervention on behalf of the poor - so out of fashion
during globalization's roaring '90s and the current decade -
may be about to make a comeback."
Uh oh, does this mean SOCIALISM is back again? Hooray for
Billary and the Democraps? -dim wit #1 fan
\_ I read this article and all I could think about was how the
author doesn't understand how there could be so much food
available and yet no one can afford it. Never a second thought
to how the two might be related and that if prices were lower
there wouldn't be any food to buy. A warehouse of food doesn't
feed an entire country for very long.
\_ I don't think you read the article right. The author never says
that. He says that if sockpiles of food exists for people who
can afford it, those who can't are going to revolt. That's
petty much a given. Starving people leads to anarchy and
brutal military dictatorships.
\_ (That's especially true when the source of their hunger is
not the absence of food supplies but their inability to
afford to buy the available food supplies. [...] As Josette
Sheeran of the U.N. World Food Program put it last month, "We
are seeing food on the shelves but people being unable to
afford it.")
The above reflects a misunderstanding of basic economics.
There is inflation likely because there is a shortage.
\_ The difference is it isn't a catastrophic famine caused
by non market forces. For instance there isn't a war
going on that has destroyed all the crop land (or manpower)
nor is there weather that is killing the crops. The land
is fertile. The work force is there, but food is still
too damn expensive for people to eat. That is
significantly differenct than the last generation's food
problems.
\_ If the food is too expensive then there's obviously
a shortage. If there was a glut it would be a lot
cheaper. Do you also not understand economics?
\_ I do. I'm saying the reasons for food security
failure are very different this time around.
\_ So what if they are?
\_ Because in recent times famine has been
a side effect of a nation's fall to chaos.
What we are seeing is nations with the
infrastructure, with a reasonable workforce,
with no major food blights or
weather catastrophes with a stable government
that can't afford to feed their populations.
Stable countries may very well slide into total
chaos purely because the food is just too
expensive. That's a pretty scary scenario,
even if your freshman economics can explain
WHY the food is expensive.
\_ If they cant get basic econ. right then
I can't really trust anything else they
wrote.
\_ Once again, you are reading something
that isn't there. The food exists. It
is possible to make food. The land
is fertile. The roads work. Until
now famines didn't happen because of
food just cost too damn much to make.
But that's ok, you took some undergrad
classes in the free market and know
exactly what's the problem.
\_ What is your point? You don't understand
economics. It's not food costing too
much to make. It's demand for food.
What do YOU think the problem is?
The article also says there have been
crop failures recently.
\_ Maybe if you'd taken some of those
classes instead of sociology you'd
better understand.
\_ Let them eat cake. The food is being diverted for
other uses, like transportation. People are starving
so that others can driver Hummers. You can see how
so that others can drive Hummers. You can see how
the people starving might object to this.
\_ Once again, if they are unable to support
themselves, it is their fault. Why should I
care about other people? -dim wit #1 fan
\_ More like: so that others can eat better. How
should it be rationed?
\_ My only point is that the author of the article
and Ms. Sheeran both indicate that food is
plentiful, but expensive. This demonstrates a
lack of knowledge of basic economics. If they
had said "There is no food because fuel producers
are buying all of it up" that would be
something else entirely, but that's not
alluded to. They paint a picture of adequate
supply, but evil market forces maliciously
driving up prices.
\_ One of the reasons I think the 'Chicken Little'
attitude towards global warming is bad is stuff
like this. People decided to get fuel from
corn "because it's not oil," without thinking
about the consequences. The consequences, of
course is that corn now tracks oil price.
And consequently other commodity crops trend
up. And why shouldn't they? So now we have
an expensive, self-perpetuating (due to
lobbying) mistake. Is having a 'bridging
technology' worth more people starving? Of
course I bet people will try other expensive
interventions without understanding what they
will actually do, and the circus of human
misery will continue. -- ilyas
\_ uh, the people who decided to get fuel from
corn are for the most part global warming
deniers with a political base in the
corn belt. -tom
\_ How do they correlate with the
PEAK OIL nut jobs?
\_ I see, so the 25 years of Congress
activity promoting ethanol use is just
a Vast Global Warming Denier Conspiracy?
operating covertly? -- ilyas
-- ilyas
\_ What do you know, we do agree on things
every once in a while. -ausman
\_ If oil demand vs. supply is really getting
out of whack, then natural market forces
would lead to this anyway, no? The main
problem I've had with it so far is that
the science and math didn't add up, and
it was heavily subsidized. (ethanol that is)
\_ I am not sure why you are discussing
natural market forces when talking about
food and oil, two commodities whose
production and price is driven by a lot
of 'uneconomic' forces (national security
considerations, charity considerations,
cartelization, etc. etc.) My main point:
economy, like climate, is complex and
poorly understood. Clumsy, politically
motivated interventions will come out
well about as often as a broken clock
will tell correct time. -- ilyas |