patrick.net

RE: DDT. It is definitely dangerous. But some of those arguments aren't denying that DDT is dangerous, but instead challenging the relative value of safety. That is, could more lives have been saved by continuing DDT use in certain situations? For DDT, this is pretty complicated and probably highly uncertain either way.

A better example (and keeping with the air-travel conspiracy) is the recent decision by the FTSB/FAA to not enforce child-restraint seats for children under 2 on commercial aircraft. There is no question that putting all children in restraint would save lives and injury due to turbulence. But, the incidence is low, and well documented.

After studying the issue they found out that forcing parents to buy tickets for toddlers would result in a pretty high percentage of marginal trips (could drive or fly) where parents decide to drive instead due to cost of the 3rd ticket, even at 75% discounts. (A bit of mental accounting going on here). Even with child restraints, driving is so exponentially more dangerous than flying, the conclusion was that more children were spared death and injury by allowing them to fly unsafely on their mother/father's laps.

yeah, there are counter-arguments to the somewhat emotional '50 million lives could have been saved if DDT wasn't banned' line from michael crichton et al.

for instance, mosquito populations become resistant to DDT after 6-7 years, there are other ways of managing the populations, etc...

further, DDT hasn't been banned in many countries which have a malaria problem, so you wonder where the poor science is emanating from...

more on the politics of govt decision making and the power of lobbies: i like the way american airline companies chose not to ban cigarette lighters and books of matches on planes post 9/11... because the tobacco companies know smokers want to light up just as soon as they get off the no smoking flight...

Even with child restraints, driving is so exponentially more dangerous than flying, the conclusion was that more children were spared death and injury by allowing them to fly unsafely on their mother/father’s laps.

hmm, maybe it's that airlines are so desperate to get any customers to stay solvent post-9/11 they're willing to throw safety concerns out the window... (figuratively speaking...)

randy, can u delete this post and one awaiting moderation with the word 'commercial ising' in it -- i already posted it a second time with a hyphen to get round the spam filter. sorry to increase your workload...

What troubles me most is the number of innocent families that are going lose their homes through foreclosure because of this real estate bust.

You heard of "Survival of the Fittest", let's just call this the "Survival of the less Ignorant". There are too many idiots in this world, some of them just have to go!

go where

Here is a sheeple about to be vaporized.

see, the bull dust is working already.... that just proves it....

hey, i said civil union, and they're already a reality in several states... massachusetts has gone all the way to marriage in the high court...

only 40% are against civil unions in 1 poll...

USA Today
Americans' views are sharply divided on gay rights, with most against same-sex "marriage" but fewer opposed to "civil unions," a new poll shows.
The word "marriage" makes a difference, suggests the latest USA TODAY/ CNN/Gallup Poll, based on phone interviews with 1,003 adults Jan. 9-11.

A majority (53%) opposes a law that "would allow homosexual couples to legally get married," while 24% favor it. But significantly fewer (41%) oppose "civil unions," giving homosexual couples "some of the legal rights of married couples."

Vermont legalized civil unions in July 2000; Massachusetts will begin issuing marriage licenses to gay couples in May. In California, legislation establishing domestic partnerships with the same legal rights as marriage goes into effect in 2005.

I miss Jack. :-(

Any of you regulars heard from him? I know he teaches, but I thought he might start stopping by again now that summer is here. And I'm curious to hear his opinions about Marin, now that Dataquick is showing a YOY decline. Wasn't his prediction that Marin County would decline only 10% due to fundamentals?

A lot of people think this is some kind of Scrooge-like turn for Buffett, but there's nothing new to see here.

Obviously, Buffet was waiting for Bill Gates to announce his going full-time on the foundation.

Buffett has long had a way for shareholders (of A shares, at least) to designate a charity.

Buffett was the one who got Bill interested in philanthropy in the first place. But Buffett has always been careful about giving away money, because it's hard for lots of money to be given (witness the corruption of the money donated for the last few catastrophies).

Also, Buffett has always planned to give away his money, so this isn't news, really. He's just getting old now. And he's never wanted his kids to inherit his money (not good for them).

Obviously, Buffett is impressed with the B&M G foundation, and thinks Bill and Melinda and Bill's dad will do a good job.

>>oh please, i have a really hard time believing anything good is ever going to come from that ruthless nerd Gates.

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Grants/

New thread: Doh!

Mexico is for mexicans. America is for americans.

except you took california and texas from mexico 1846-48 in a war of territorial expansion. there IS an irony that they are slowly taking it back by other means...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_American_War

gatesy has quit his job to manage the foundation, which is a Good Thing -- I don't see many other billionaires setting up and running foundations of that magnitude with those humanitarian goals.

but i agree with you on 9/11, which has some rather scary implications for the psyche of the american ruling elite and just what sort of mess you're in over there.

hee hee, you're funny, bap. glad you could bring more of your famous rationality back into the debate which was otherwise derailing and going downhill...

Is it not odd that the same lefty-libs that demand safer cars, gun control, speed limits, child-proof everything, super clean waste water, super duper clean drinking water, no hate speech, child proof everything, no spanking of kids …

so by implication, normal american families want dangerous cars, guns everywhere, no speed limits, dangerous toys, dirty contaminated drinking water containing giardia and typhus, loads of hate speech, more dangers for children, and the ability to abuse kids and traumatise them... o-ka-a-ay... just so long as we're clear on those biblical principles of enhancing well-being...

HIV/AIDS happens to be everyone's problem, if you look at the very high heterosexual infection rates in other parts of the world. faithful and monogamous same-sex couples committing to a civil union are extremely unlikely to be a part of the epidemiological problem.

Bap33,

I'm sorry, but your earlier comment was over the line. I am a pretty tolerant moderator, but I won't allow such broad vitriol in my threads. Please keep your political comments on point and directed. Any "all X people are evil" kind of stuff is better left on more reactionary forums. Please consider that we welcome all readers here, not just the ones you would choose in your own utopia.

Any of you regulars heard from him? (Jack)

I talked to him in May before I went on vacation, haven't heard from him since. It would be cool to hold a N.Bay meet again, maybe we can lure him for a few beers?

Wasn’t his prediction that Marin County would decline only 10% due to fundamentals?

Sounds familiar, and not to burst his projection, but I was seeing 10% reductions last fall. And just today, I went to an open house where the realtor offered me 10% off without asking; I'm sure I could get 15% if I were serious.

started what? :|

given that all your policy ideas contradict each other, it's hard not to say anything that won't set off some strange reaction...

Is only his lefty lib, anti-American, anti-establishment view welcome?

yes. you're being too antidisestablishmentarian.

Bap33,

I welcome any views and I think you probably know by now that I'm not ideological. The specific comments about homosexuals were over the line. I ask people to keep in mind that we have all types of readers. Arguments about the relative position of homosexuality in society are fine. Calling them names based upon a personal viewpoint is not.

I would have similarly censored anyone calling all southerners stupid, or all republicans heartless.

The only broad generalizations I let slide are all FBs using NAAVLPs are imbeciles.

well, that's a tidy little 555 posts...

i came in at about post 400 with time zone lag, and repeated half the arguments already made... oh well...

but i still maintain that 2+2=4 is not 'true', it's 1) a symbolic representation and 2) a claim or belief that is actually not even real, but is a semiotic representation of physicalness enforced by an overweening semantic patriarchalism... neodeconstructivist conceptualism ... social convention... experential intersubjectivity... etc... burble...

Rancher:
30 = gross profit for rancher
-5 = discount paid by rancher
25 = net profit to rancher

Men:
-30 = gross cost
3 = rebate
-27 = net cost

Boy:
2 = gained from stealing portion of rebate

The Boy's $2 is the difference between the Rancher's profit and the Men's cost.

Bap33, thanks for demonstrating the power and import of accounting principles.

Bap33

LOL! I guess I did assume the Rancher leveraged at 0% in order to have a $0 cost of goods sold.

Damned exotic cow financing products.