Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Tech Talk / Re: Cryptocurrency
« Last post by gmalivuk on Today at 11:05:57 PM »
Let me know where one can use cash to set up recurring online orders and I'd be happy to pass that information along.
Forum Games / Re: Visual Counting
« Last post by Morvis13 on Today at 09:50:30 PM »
General Discussion / Re: Disney to Buy 20th Century Fox
« Last post by The Latinist on Today at 09:39:25 PM »
Yeah, I think that’s just it: NBC and the WB will be looking to sell off their share in Hulu, and it will become the ‘new’ Disney streaming platform. Some representative of Disney said they seeing Hulu as a turnkey solution to their streaming ambitions.
TV & Movies / Re: Rate the last movie you just saw.
« Last post by Desert Fox on Today at 09:31:16 PM »
Star Wars: The Force Awakens 8/10
A lot of it was formulaic but I thought it was still enjoyable. I wanted to watch it again because hoping to see the Lat Jedi Monday.

(click to show/hide)
Further, the questionnaires themselves are not detailed enough to allow sufficient control for dietary variables. I used the meat and bread pairings as an example.

You made a claim that they are not "detailed enough" without evidence or even knowledge about how much detail is actually necessary.  You "supported" that claim with the erroneous idea that since red meat and carbohydrate consumption is positively correlated that you can't separate their effects, except that red meat and carbohydrate consumption is actually negatively correlated and you can separately measure their effects (and you could if they were positively correlated anyway).  You don't have any cogent argument whatsoever; all you have is a misunderstanding of the methodology.
Forum Games / Re: Visual Counting
« Last post by ella on Today at 08:18:18 PM »
Tech Talk / Re: Net Neutrality ?
« Last post by John Albert on Today at 08:02:23 PM »
Washington state leaders announce first-of-its-kind plan to defend net neutrality for constituents

BY MONICA NICKELSBURG | December 13, 2017 at 1:05 pm

Gov. Jay Inslee speaks at an event in Seattle. (GeekWire Photo / Monica Nickelsburg)

Internet companies may still need to comply with net neutrality standards if they want to do business in Washington state — even if the Obama-era regulations are repealed tomorrow.

Gov. Jay Inslee, Attorney General Bob Ferguson, and other officials announced a plan today to maintain standards in Washington that require internet providers to offer the same speed of service for all online content. The news comes on the eve of a vote by the Federal Communications Commission. It is expected to roll back regulations that prevent companies like Comcast and Verizon from throttling service to some content or creating a “fast lane” that customers can pay for.

Inslee’s plan would start by directing Washington’s Utilities and Transportation Commission (UTC) to establish a certification that internet companies can acquire by complying with net neutrality principles. Without that certification, the state would not provide benefits like easements and use of UTC poles. Washington is the first state to “proactively protect net neutrality,” according to Inslee.

“Washington state is going to stand up for innovation,” Inslee said during a press conference Wednesday. “It is going to stand up for consumers and it is going to stand up for an open internet.”

The state also plans to flex its muscle as a big internet customer “to incentivize Washington companies to adhere to net neutrality principles.” That’s according to an announcement published by Gov Inslee’s office Wednesday.

The announcement details additional methods the state can use to pressure internet companies to maintain net neutrality standards, like exploring municipal broadband and pursuing legislation that favors neutral providers.

Comcast has repeatedly said it does not plan to “block, throttle, or discriminate against lawful content.” Verizon has echoed that sentiment.

“This is not the end of net neutrality,” Comcast said in a statement. “Despite repeated distortions and biased information, as well as misguided, inaccurate attacks from detractors, our Internet service is not going to change. Comcast customers will continue to enjoy all of the benefits of an open Internet today, tomorrow, and in the future.”

The FCC has accepted more than 20 million public comments on the proposal to repeal net neutrality regulations. Ferguson’s office is looking into reports of fake comments submitted to the FCC in support of its plan. Today he and 17 other attorneys general sent a letter to the FCC asking to delay its vote until the potentially fraudulent comments can be investigated.

Bellevue wireless carrier T-Mobile submitted its own comments to the FCC and actually warned against states taking action if federal regulations are repealed.

“T-Mobile and other providers have seen state regulators take an increasingly active role with respect to broadband Internet access service,” the comments say. “Having shown their propensity to regulate broadband, it is virtually certain that they will try to
do so again absent a definitive bar. Such actions will impose significant costs and undermine consumer interests.”

Moz CEO Sarah Bird and Sub Pop Recordings IT Director Andrew Sullivan joined Inslee and Ferguson during today’s press conference to announce Washington’s net neutrality plan.

“If this is rolled back and we have kingmakers in this marketplace where we have never had them before, there will be fewer startups and less innovation and particular kinds of technology that we need so greatly right now will be completely left in the cold,” Bird said during the event. ” It’s very critical that this rule stays in place for all of us.”
This one is a pretty good overview (albeit a bit dated, but the guidelines have barely changed since.

In the face of contradictory evidence: Report of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans Committee - Nutrition

Concerns that were raised with the first dietary recommendations 30 y ago have yet to be adequately addressed. The initial Dietary Goals for Americans (1977) proposed increases in carbohydrate intake and decreases in fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and salt consumption that are carried further in the 2010 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) Report. Important aspects of these recommendations remain unproven, yet a dietary shift in this direction has already taken place even as overweight/obesity and diabetes have increased. Although appealing to an evidence-based methodology, the DGAC Report demonstrates several critical weaknesses, including use of an incomplete body of relevant science; inaccurately representing, interpreting, or summarizing the literature; and drawing conclusions and/or making recommendations that do not reflect the limitations or controversies in the science. An objective assessment of evidence in the DGAC Report does not suggest a conclusive proscription against low-carbohydrate diets. The DGAC Report does not provide sufficient evidence to conclude that increases in whole grain and fiber and decreases in dietary saturated fat, salt, and animal protein will lead to positive health outcomes. Lack of supporting evidence limits the value of the proposed recommendations as guidance for consumers or as the basis for public health policy. It is time to reexamine how US dietary guidelines are created and ask whether the current process is still appropriate for our needs.
TV & Movies / Re: Rate the last movie you just saw.
« Last post by Harry Black on Today at 07:49:45 PM »
Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls

It sucks so bad and is clearly obnoxious and irritating, yet it's still funny for some reason. Maybe it was the booze.

Touched my first boob to this movie in the cinema.
It will never be not great.
The left one or the right one?

Star Wars The Last Jedi 7/10

Pretty decent. Bit disappointing.
Its the best looking Star Wars by far and it has some neat twists but the humour really hurt it.
Tonally it just isnt Star Wars and the humour feels too winky. The design in some parts is too close to specific earth things to be fully imersive and one or two moments felt more like Space Balls than Star Wars.
Worth your money but disappointing.
Does "conventional wisdom" make it true?

When I said "conventional wisdom," what I meant to imply is, "according to the current understanding of most dietitians and nutritional epidemiologists." I didn't figure a term like that would require clarification, but here we are.

Fine. Does that make it true?

Come on, you know that's not how science works. Things are not true because people believe them to be true. Rather, the sciences rely on evidence gathered by strict, methodological investigation.

Would you ever ask questions like this in a discussion about any other topic of science? Take AGW for example. If I said that the conventional wisdom about global warming was that it's caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions, would you try to engage me in some obtuse semantic detour about the meaning of the idiom "conventional wisdom"? Would you then follow up with "does that make it true?"

I wasn't asking how science worked, I was asking about you. Do you believe because it's the mainstream consensus that means it's true?

(If you don't like that question being asked of you maybe you should look at the questions you asked me.)

quote author=CarbShark link=topic=49615.msg9542570#msg9542570 date=1513276398]Actually what I'm expecting is pretty much what I've gotten (mostly knee-jerk responses relying on a cursory understanding of the issue and unskeptically accepting some version of "mainstream" which in some cases misses that mark too. (Along with some informed and reasoned, albeit closed-minded defense of the mainstream)

Why would I expect any different?

Well this is a skeptics forum after all, and the viewpoint you're promoting is rather fringey. [/quote]
And that justifies the knee-jerry and closed minded dismissal?
You're right. I'm not a medical researcher.

Gee, how did I ever guess?

You didn't have to. I never claimed to be.
I have presented a clear and cogent criticism of the FFQ that are used by nearly all of those studies.

Not by my standards you haven't. And you've also failed to respond to technical criticisms of your understanding of the methodology in those studies.   

If you don't find these criticisms clear and cogent, that's on you, not me. I'll say it one more time:

The FFQs used in these studies are questionnaires where people are asked about what they over the last x years. In some cases they get this information one time, at the beginning of the study, then look at the respondents years later to see how many survived or got some disease, and draw conclusions based on what they said they ate x years ago.

Other studies do the questionnaires every four years, so in a 10 year study of food eaten they get three data points based on memory.

Further, the questionnaires themselves are not detailed enough to allow sufficient control for dietary variables. I used the meat and bread pairings as an example.

As for technical criticisms all I recall seeing was a repetitive "yes they are" with no details, other than an indication that they were "verified." (The verification of these FFQs taken years apart and covering a period of years, was the same survey taken for a single month, at the end of the month.)

Epidemiology may be the worst way to conduct this kind of science, especially nutritional epidemiology based on FFQs.

Nutritional epidemiology is the study of illnesses and diseases related to dietary intake. Now you're dismissing entire fields of legitimate medical research.   

That's not exactly what Nutritional Epidemiology is. And no, I'm not dismissing the entire field, I'm suggesting it's the worst way to conduct this kind of science. Specifically, to understand the effect of specific foods and groups on heath. (RCTs are much better.)

We all have our own skeptical blind spots, which is why forums like this are so useful. It helps to have our beliefs challenged by other skeptics. We're forced to question our own assumptions and engage in the research of figuring out the truth.

And what are yours when it comes to diet and nutrition? Or do you think that just excepting what you think the mainstream might be isn't a blind spot.

The same could be said about any science denialist position. Is it a blind spot to accept what I think is the mainstream scientific opinion about the age of the Earth?
Or would it be a "clear and cogent criticism" to dispute the accuracy of radiometric dating, ancient tree ring data, and the age and morphology of fossils because they don't conform to one's own opinions about the age of the Earth?

So that wasn't an answer to the question, was it?

[quote author=CarbShark link=topic=49615.msg9542451#msg9542451
It's been a government blunder since the Senate Agriculture Committee staffer (a non scientist who himself was enamored with a fad vegetarian diet) drafted the guidelines and they passed the committee and full Senate over the objections of the national science advisor and every scientist who testified at the committee hearings.
Do you have some kind of link to information about this?
I find it, it's pretty well known and documented. There's a you-tube video of the National Science advisor testifying at the SAC hearing urging the Senate not to adapt the guidelines an McGovern explaining to the Scientist that the Senate doesn't have the time to wait until all the science is in and must act now.
Allow me to clarify: I'm asking you for evidence to back up your claim. Stuff like documentation, historical records, etc. I'm sure if this is anywhere near the level of scandal that you're alleging, there ought to be some historical information about it somewhere online. But it's your claim, so the burden is not on me to find evidence to support your argument. 


But there are some aspects of this topic where there are actual conspiracies and corruption. (The latest example is the Sugar industry covering up numerous studies that showed negative health effects of sugar consumption.)
Yes, I'm aware of all that. But it doesn't justify jumping on a fad diet bandwagon and assuming an anti-science attitude about the healthcare industry. This fad diet nonsense is potentially just as bad as other aspects of the alt-med industry.

So while you are smearing me with the conspiracy theorist crank nutcase label, you are at the same time aware of an actual conspiracy to hide results of scientific studies.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10