Good advice. Should be an OSHA rule.

I was talking about federal, state, and municipal.

So if you think the federal government has "effective regulation" of firearms there isn't much to talk about. Maybe your idea of what "effective regulation" is different than my idea of "effective regulation". The key word here is "effective". We all know they have been able to pass some regulations (constitutional or not).

"BTW if you want people to be polite and welcoming you might want to be polite yourself and avoid insulting people who haven't mentioned you, your opinions or your stance on gun control."

Please quote where I haven't done this. I'd be very surprised if you could find anything. Please note: "newtboy" literally asked.

Edit: oh wait. You think my warning about making assumptions is an insult! I see. No, it isn't. If you weren't taught that making assumptions is dumb then the reminder may well seem like an insult. Rest assured, it is good advice.

@newtboy,

If North America is to adopt the Amish lifestyle, how many acres of land can the entire continent support? The typical Amish family farm is something like 80 acres is it not? I believe adopting this nationwide as a 'solution' requires massive population downsizing...

If you want to look at the poorest conditions of people in the world and advocate that the poverty stricken regions with no access to fossil fuel industry are the path forward, I would ask how you anticipate selling that to the people of California as being in their best interests to adopt as their new standard of living...

You mention overpopulation as a problem, then invent the argument that I think we should just ignore that and make it worse. Instead I only pointed out that immediately abandoning fossil fuels overnight would impact that overpopulation problem as well. It's like you do agree on one level, then don't like the implications or something?

The massive productivity of modern agriculture is dependent on fossil fuel usage. Similarly, our global population is also dependent upon that agricultural output. I find it hard to believe those are not clearly both fact. Please do tell me if you disagree. One inescapable conclusion to those facts is that reducing fossil fuel usage needs to at least be done with sufficient caution that we don't break the global food supply chain, because hungry people do very, very bad things.

Then you least catastrophic events that ARE NOT supported by the science and un-ironically claim that it's me who is ignoring the science.

You even have the audacity to ask if I appreciate the impacts of massive global food shortages, after having earlier belittled my concern about exactly that!

The IPCC shows that even in an absolute worst case scenario of accelerating emissions for the next century an estimated maximum sea level rise of 3ft, yet you talk about loss of 'most' farmland to the oceans...

Here's where I stand. If we can move off gas powered cars to electric, and onto a power grid that is either nuclear, hydro or renewable based in the next 50 years, our emissions before 2100 will drop significantly from today's levels. I firmly believe we are already on a very good course to expect that to occur very organically, with superior electric cars, and cheaper nuclear power and battery storage enabling renewables as economical alternatives to fossil fuels.

That future places us onto the IPCC's better scenarios where emissions peak and then actually decrease steadily through the rest of the century.

I'm hardly advocating lets sit back and do nothing, I'm advocating let's build the technology to make the population we have move into a reduced emissions future. We are getting close on major points for it and think that's great.

What I think is very damaging to that idea, is panicky advice demanding that we must all make massive economic sacrifices as fast as possible, because I firmly believe trying to enact reductions that way, fast enough to make a difference over natural progress, guarantees catastrophic wars now. Thankfully, that is also why nobody in sane leadership will give an ounce of consideration to such stupidity either. You need a Stalin or Mao type in charge to drive that kind change.

Am I wrong, or is her fame not predicated on the relationship and life advice she gave for years while her own relationship crumbled due to her own massive cocaine/crack addiction?

Reminiscent of Limbaugh, somehow still respected by some despite being one of the biggest opioid addicts in the country while lambasting others for smoking cigarettes and less.

Sound legal advice.

*doublepromote some *quality advice.
The correct answer to any and every question is "Ask my attorney."

Know who you take advice from....
Just gonna leave this here....

Wiki-
Dr Michael Klaper-In August 1993 Klaper issued a medical certificate for the insurers of two movies that River Phoenix was working on at the time, Dark Blood and Interview With the Vampire. The certificate was signed by both Klaper and Phoenix and stated that Phoenix had never used "LSD, heroin, cocaine, alcohol in excess, or any other narcotic, depressant, stimulant or psychedelic. At the time Phoenix was deeply into the drug scene and died from a drug overdose two months later on October 31, 1993. Phoenix's death resulted in Dark Blood being scrapped, and his role in Interview with the Vampire being replaced by Christian Slater. A total $US5.7 million was paid out by the insurers of both movies as the result of Phoenix's death. Since Phoenix's death, insurance rates have increased significantly, medical certificates are no longer accepted, and actors are required to undergo more rigorous medical examination prior to being insured. [23]

According to oncologist David Gorski "Klaper subscribes to the all-too-common claim that a vegan diet is better than any other and supplements that claim with a belief that undergoing fasts, in which one consumes only water, is a major part of the path to health and wellness". He supports multiple pseudoscience medical claims such as acupuncture, chiropractic, naturopathy and border-line "germ theory denialism". Klaper also gives "highly dubious advice for cancer patients, even claiming that fasting can shrink malignant tumors. Klaper claims that fasts will clear up inflammation, eczema, arthritis and other issues. "The situation" according to Gorski, is "way more complicated than Dr. Klaper paints it". As a surgeon himself, Gorski is appalled that Klaper claims that fasting encourages "faster wound healing" a statement that Gorski calls "Bullshit!". Magician Penn Jillette reported on multiple podcasts that he has lost over 25 pounds on Klaper's water fast diet, Gorski responded that of course he will lose weight on a water-only diet. In Gorski's opinion as a medical doctor himself, "Jillette has fallen "hook, line, and sinker for a whole lot of dietary pseudoscience and promoting it on his show with a credulous interview with someone like Dr. Klaper". Gorski hopes that Jillette will eventually realize "that Dr. Klaper is peddling highly dubious claims (at best). Basically, the product Dr. Klaper is peddling in terms of science is a massive exaggeration based on dubious science, cherry picked cases, and bad evolutionary analogies. Worse, fasts, even when supervised by a physician, are potentially dangerous"

She posted a video demonstrating the kinds of comments she was posting, which were then promptly deleted. As far as I could tell there was nothing in them to warrant their deletion except the suggestion that data may be recoverable - which apparently Apple thinks is bogus advice.

re. Encryption - as far as I am aware she repairs the phones enough for them to turn on, the phone's owner still has to unlock it they want their things back. There are also some components which have some sort of hardcoded serial number, and cannot be replaced, but apparently enough of the parts can be interchanged that it isn't usually a problem.

Breaking the toilet in front of the pooch made me grit my teeth as well. That were dumb.

I don't think there should be an onus on Apple to repair instead of replace, but they could cooperate a little (or a lot) better with those businesses that are willing to offer that service. At the very least they should cease misleading their customers and stop removing perfectly legitimate advice.

My advice: don't.

It's my principle to not buy an Apple product knowing their hubris and business practices...

And I'm going to assume you don't know who Zoe Harcombe is, because I know a person like yourself who hates bias, would never willingly post something from her blog, since:

"Zoë Harcombe is an author, nutritionist and cholesterol denialist from Wales. Harcombe disagrees with mainstream medical advice on dieting. She has been criticized for promoting misleading health advice that is not based on scientific evidence.[2] She sells a fad diet known as the "Harcombe Diet".[3]"


Because I know you hate it when there are unproven claims and so on.

In the wake of the financial crisis Iceland refused to listen to the bad advice of the bankers who caused the mess and locked them up instead. This let them recover their economy instead of falling deeper in to the bankers debt.

It's not time you lack, I got an A in statistics which I took after advanced placement B/C calculus, thank you.
Please stop hyper exaggerating the danger of all animal products and the benefits of veganism.

No, we're acting like +1% lifetime risk of one type of cancer, from 5%-6%, is a totally acceptable level of risk to trade for a lifetime of pleasure when taken knowingly, and is a far cry from +18% every time you eat bacon. It's probably far less than the additional risk of drinking municipal water, or breathing anywhere East of the West coast, certainly exponentially less than breathing air in any major metropolitan area, or living within 25 miles of a military base or airport.

I'm also acting like people who lie about or misrepresent the stats only prove their position is untenable and that they're untrustworthy. If 1% total increased lifetime risk is enough to make your point, why erroneously claim +18% per serving? It makes it so easy to dismiss and overlook any real point you might have had.

Nothing is unanimous, and that goes double for nutritional advice. Somewhere there's a doctor that insists you can't possibly get enough nitrates, most would say if you're healthy go ahead and have some bacon...in moderation. My doctor and numerous documentaries say the stress of worrying incessantly about every little risk factor is a much bigger risk factor than almost any other for innumerable disorders and diseases. I'll take his advice, thanks.

I have strong feelings on how people should treat each other. The blast of comments(some your own included) declaring that it's absurd for people to dislike the profiling of most men as violent and sexually abusive, or making excuses for same, are what I am calling out for the sexism that it is.

As for joining the chorus, that's kind of exactly the opposite of what I've been trying to communicate. Picking teams and setting yourself on team man/woman or white/black or straight/gay or dem/rep is one of the awful trends in society today. I want to get away from that thank you very much. I don't have the attributation for the quote but I'd pass you this as advice:
"When you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect"

For strikeout you can use the html 'strike' tag, never knew before this thread or not if it worked on the sift either.

If you made reasonable responses and not suggestions that people should get medical advice from specific Google searches instead of medical professionals and peer reviewed science, we wouldn't argue.

It's a lie to claim veganism cures arthritis, I think that's why you won't site sources, you know I'll investigate and debunk them with ease.

The arthritis foundation has studied dozens of studies on vegan diets and arthritis and concluded results are mixed at best and vegan diets are absolutely not effective to the level of making people totally pain free, are not immediate, they don't work at all for many people, and certainly are not miraculous cures as you suggest, your few third party anonymous anecdotal claims notwithstanding. They also mention a number of serious problems that vegan diets can cause or exacerbate especially in people with medical issues.

I have to admit, I originally thought this was a new sift. I scrolled down after watching it and saw my previous comment before seeing your new one at the end here and was a little taken aback by how cruel it reads. I can be fairly certain my intended tone was meant to be playfully mocking, but with four years to forget in between, it seems downright venomous now.

Somewhere a few years back, I read that when sending an e-mail or whatever, it is best to read it back to yourself imagining it was written by the biggest asshole you know. Then based on the assumption that it will be received the same way by the actual recipient, edit it so it doesn't piss you off anymore. That was pretty good advice.

Naturally that doesn't apply here, of course, because I am anonymous and being a giant asshole is my god given right.