Not all parts of the world get uvb. Those that get less (away from equator.. and in winter) have higher rates of all cancers.
The study of 3x is for melanoma. In general outdoor workers get the safer skin cancers earlier in life and more frequently (but it's the people with less vitamin d, mostly indoor workers, that tend to get the melanomas).
Onions and other veggies appear to help lower cancer rates in part by cutting off the food to cancer from us over-stuffing, but a bigger anti-cancer aid to modern society might be vitamin d supplements since people nowadays hardly get noon-time sunlight unless they are blocking vit d production by overusing sunblock lotion or being behind windows (outdoor workers 3x less likely to get cancer).
You may want to look up Mercola's articles on vitamin d or the interviews with Carole Baggerly.
I don't think I have had cancer, but vit d has been super helpful to me for other problems i had a couple years back [eliminate: pains in chest -- heart/lung area primarily; problems breathing at night; head pains when falling asleep lying flat; heartbeat skipping; horrible feelings overall after eating lots of cheese before going to bed (fat absorbs vit d from blood); frequent night time bathroom trips; .. and some others.]
low vit d is a silent killer since there are many diverse symptoms possible and harm to body coming from unexpected places (eg, careful with colonoscopies because of stress to internal organs that vitamin d with calcium help keep bound tightly.. and one of problems with cancer is cells break off from tissue).
At least part of the problem is that computers can have timing and endurance not matched by people, regardless of algorithms. For example, a person who is allowed to play a game and script it can beat a person without that ability depending on context (if used properly). This should be encouraged. I'm surprised so few games apparently teach people to script and come up with algorithms to help them.
Would you mind answering some of the questions I posed below?
Or answer these if you can:
-- Do you seriously believe the USDOJ did not have a good argument yet they magically convinced Congress to table something they were all supposedly supporting?
-- Are you suggesting they were blackmailing the leaders of Congress?
-- Are you willing to open up your business to FOIA-style requests by the public? If not, why not?
I would like every company on the planet to reveal all the details of what they communicate with others. No company even comes close to doing so, however. The US government is about the most open entity on the planet. If being open is good for accountability, why are the rules for openness for businesses (eg, to keep a license in good order) virtually non-existent and ditto for individuals (eg, to preserve citizenship rights), especially individuals in positions of power?
Do you think that maybe organizations find some value in keeping some things secret, but why is there such a difference between the US government and virtually every other organization on earth?
We should aspire for as much openness as possible, but it's ridiculous to ask of some group things that no other group, including competing governments, come close to providing.
As for the complaint about the USDOJ, since when has the USDOJ been able to convince the entirety of Congress to shelve anything that all or a vast majority of their members were against unless they presented an argument that actually convinced many members themselves to delay a bill or kill it.
Note, I am not trying to justify secrecy, but I do believe in balance and think it is a bit hypocritical to expect one organization to be extremely open about everything while at the same time arguing vehemently for privacy by virtually every other organization/person. Please reconcile that for me. Is there value in secrecy? If you believe so, are you an anarchist trying to undo our government by asking of them much more than is generally asked of any other organization?
..having a weak military, with people with experience and thirst on the outside (eg, expelled by Iraq for connections with Sunnis), is part of what made the rise of IS possible so fast (catching US intelligence off guard).
..just wanted to clarify that being begged to return to Iraq is not enough. It's a complex matter, and the US has insisted that the Iraqi gov make serious commitments to fix/deal with some of the biases it did not want to fix before and which are part of the problem making the IS takeover possible.
The Bible talks about killing and murder as well. And presents a fundamental bias against women.
No, actually, it's in the interpretation of the reader. That is why you can say you have peaceful Muslim friends. You specifically recognized you are referring to the interpretation of several imams. Yes, depending on interpretation Judaism and Christianity have serious problems. I mean, weren't the Crusades supposedly supported by the top Christian leaders and in agreement with Christianity? Lots of innocent people died there.
I don't like Islam, but you should not pretend that you are relying on interpretations that have alternative peaceful views (and many follow) in saying it is violent. However, I still think it is biased against women (clearly) from the bits I have read (even though a portion of that can be interpreted away if you attribute it to the context of the norms at the time).
Richard, I agree with your position. That other conclusion makes as much sense as to say to have all of our law enforcement go on early retirement so that people would see how bad things get. And more, do it right after a major battle starts or we are invaded. Or yes have our military disband and allow ISIL over here and then we will really hate terrorism and stop funding it. So instead of moderate rule of law, we can just have horrible restrictions and virtually no due process by modern standards. That will teach those terrorism funding Westerners!!!
Most people over there are not our enemies any more than most civilians are our enemies.
Anyway, when we went to Iraq, etc, from the US pov, we were defending. That made terrorism "hit home" and the defenders the good guys. Now, in going over there after we were begged to return and in limiting our participation, we are also part of the defending going on in most people's eyes .. importantly from the Iraqi, etc, pov. And we'd be doing more, but we aren't currently helping out in places where legally it would be problematic (because of Russia objections).
Obama is on track in saying that we should let them do most of the work, but to stand back and not bomb IS equipment is rather poor judgment. Civilian casualties in those cases are very small and the difference in helping (or lack) is very large to those fighting IS on the ground and ultimately to the people who must live there through no fault of their own except having been born there and not be very wealthy or willing to uproot and leave. [Most are rather poor and are living in very bad conditions because of displacement from their homes. They voted to live in quasi freedom in bad conditions rather than death or very little freedom. That was their vote and it happened before we put a single bomb in place.]
Yes, I agree, but I am not surprised the other comment gets attention in part because of the creeping bias against Obama on this site (understandable to have biases and for them to creep.. I have a reverse bias and tend to notice).
BTW, the White House has been clear that their civilian near 0 policy approach never applied to areas of hostilities, which the current situation clearly is. That was clear in material produced at the time, and the very person quoted in this article specifically reminds us of that as well. Not sure how that was missed.
Sure, ignore those terrorists. That's great advice. No, that's why most of the voting public supports limited air strikes. And never has the "almost no civilian" been applied in a war context. The military has always had their standards and they are in line with international legal standards, which do allow for casualties.
Mike: .. and Obama did not redefined "civilian". He reused the existing definition from the prior administration. You also seem to ignore the relationship between Al Queda and ISIL. By your view, any terrorist can get off simply by changing names and coming up with some story or how they are independent and didn't like prior management. Fact is that drones have issues but have enabled many fewer casualties overall per top leader killed. [Yes, there are issues.]
I never saw as many petitions and conversations with government as we are seeing now. Lots of data is more easily accessible.
Obama is not expected to force bureaucrats to disclose info in the record number of FOIA requests. BTW, I have seen examples cited to potentially protect Republicans. Each agency uses their own judgment.
And "leaks" are not public information even if they help drive the Press.
Reporters want leaks. Juicy bits. They assume things are afoul and want as many scoops as possible as early as possible. I don't think Obama was talking about revealing political decisions ahead of time or private conversations. Reporters recognize it is their task to get those rather than have it handed to them. There is more competition now with the Internet. That was recognized I think in one of the articles linked above. The Press has to work harder.
FOIA request have gone up and many deal with subjects from the past years before Obama. The agencies still decide (Obama does not since he leaves to their discretion). You also have some effects from requests about terrorism since 9/11 (including post 2009) that agencies don't want out.
What the transparency pledge covers primarily is making gov services and data more open and to listen more to what the public has to say. I haven't seen any claims that this administration is failing in that.
Again, juicy bits are not forthcoming and leaks of material not legally accessible are what reporters want and are not getting. FOIAs depend on the agency's judgment (not Obama) and happens to include lots of material from post 9/11 which is less likely to be accessible than in other times because of the increased connections to existing terror ops or people or what the gov considers safety nets (there is a huge increase in requests of "does the cia have my phone" which are routinely not granted). Finally, the admin has been unprecedented in exploiting feedback (thanks to Internet of course) and revealing the works the gov does and services it offers. Fewer leaks, but more of the stuff intended to help people directly.
Harping that the admin is closed because of unprecedented FOIA requests (more denials and more revelations as well) and fewer leaks doesn't go against the majority of what Obama "promised".
> We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.
> Government should be transparent. > Government should be participatory. > Government should be collaborative.
... After reading some of the ruling, I suspect they might accept when "original" ideas are presented in detail in the patent.
They are unclear and leave room open. They don't say specifically that a computer with attached screen can or can't ever be patentable based on that behavior/screen contents. But they leave some options open, including referencing Diehr (which used computer logic in an "industrial" machine). I think they might accept new algorithms/apps to some extent.
What they did do in part was to eliminated for near certainty the taking of descriptions that don't impress anyone (obvious to a PHOSITA etc) and adding a computer into the process via computer programming.
BTW, I think being non-obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art is an extremely low standard that would almost surely not result in advancing the progress as anticipated in the Constitution. I hope SCOTUS addresses this issue more carefully some day.
zI don't think one has to twist much to recognize ISIL as a de facto extension of Al Queda's terrorism threat and the 2001 authority certainly allows for dealing with Al Queda's still extant threat. If you go after the mafia that blew up a restaurant. And later that mafia grows in size (resulting in continued threat). And then a subgroup wanting to do more harm than the leadership of the mafia is prepared to undertake breaks off with a new name, those people are still part of the threat you were tasked to defeat. Otherwise it would be trivial to thwart Congressional authority by the bad guys by changing names and breaking off claiming they are independent. "We aren't Al Capone's organization but we do similar things and trained with them and know intimate secrets of that group and still pose a threat to you."
Or maybe "imminent threat" means imminent threat. They didn't say they had to know the precise details of a potential attack. threat: "the possibility that something bad or harmful could happen."
Any maybe ISIL, as a more violent subset that joined Al Queda and then broke off from Al Queda with plans to hurt the US, is part of the future threat from those helping to make 9/11 possible and which the 2001 resolution gave the President the power to quell.
Title says Obama is redefining words and uses as an example that ISIL is not alqueda (more generally, that they didn't help in 911), even though their prior name is Al-Queda in Iraq and was strongly linked to Al-Queda and even though the 2001 resolution doesn't limit the US to go after any specific group and includes those that aided and their future potential acts of terrorism.
> (a) > In General.--That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
That's pretty general. Where is the argument that this necessarily excludes ISIL?
From Wikipedia: > Zarqawi formed al-Tawhid wal-Jihad in the 1990s, and led it until his death in June 2006. ...In late 2004 he joined al-Qaeda, and pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden. After this al-Tawhid wal-Jihad became known as Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), and al-Zarqawi was given the Al-Qaeda title, "Emir of Al Qaeda in the Country of Two Rivers".
So we have a whole article and conversation that fails to explain how the US currently couldn't possibly be trying to prevent future acts of terrorism to the US (including embassies in other nations) by going after a major terrorist group clearly related to Bin Laden/Al Queda which no one argues helped make 911 possible and continues to pose threats to the US.
Hey, let's have a faction get mad that our terrorist group isn't hurting the US enough because we want more blood, fork off and change name, and then we'll get support from online forums trying to stop the from US hounding us because we won't be a part of "Al Queda" any more as "everyone" knows that name didn't even exist before 911 so the people couldn't possible be linked.
Takes lots of pressure off people who make apps for use especially on what they hope to argue would be a "generic computer". It leaves the hypothetical industry rubber processes with robots in play (however you define that), but the average computer use (eg, when not attached to industrial creation process.. whatever that might mean to anyone but myself) seems safe. Great ruling.
Re: Re: Fasting...
clarifications:
Not all parts of the world get uvb. Those that get less (away from equator.. and in winter) have higher rates of all cancers.
The study of 3x is for melanoma. In general outdoor workers get the safer skin cancers earlier in life and more frequently (but it's the people with less vitamin d, mostly indoor workers, that tend to get the melanomas).
Re: Fasting...
Onions and other veggies appear to help lower cancer rates in part by cutting off the food to cancer from us over-stuffing, but a bigger anti-cancer aid to modern society might be vitamin d supplements since people nowadays hardly get noon-time sunlight unless they are blocking vit d production by overusing sunblock lotion or being behind windows (outdoor workers 3x less likely to get cancer).
Re: Re: big biz
You may want to look up Mercola's articles on vitamin d or the interviews with Carole Baggerly.
I don't think I have had cancer, but vit d has been super helpful to me for other problems i had a couple years back [eliminate: pains in chest -- heart/lung area primarily; problems breathing at night; head pains when falling asleep lying flat; heartbeat skipping; horrible feelings overall after eating lots of cheese before going to bed (fat absorbs vit d from blood); frequent night time bathroom trips; .. and some others.]
low vit d is a silent killer since there are many diverse symptoms possible and harm to body coming from unexpected places (eg, careful with colonoscopies because of stress to internal organs that vitamin d with calcium help keep bound tightly.. and one of problems with cancer is cells break off from tissue).
At least part of the problem is that computers can have timing and endurance not matched by people, regardless of algorithms. For example, a person who is allowed to play a game and script it can beat a person without that ability depending on context (if used properly). This should be encouraged. I'm surprised so few games apparently teach people to script and come up with algorithms to help them.
Re:
Would you mind answering some of the questions I posed below?
Or answer these if you can:
-- Do you seriously believe the USDOJ did not have a good argument yet they magically convinced Congress to table something they were all supposedly supporting?
-- Are you suggesting they were blackmailing the leaders of Congress?
-- Are you willing to open up your business to FOIA-style requests by the public? If not, why not?
Serious?
To whom it may concern:
I would like every company on the planet to reveal all the details of what they communicate with others. No company even comes close to doing so, however. The US government is about the most open entity on the planet. If being open is good for accountability, why are the rules for openness for businesses (eg, to keep a license in good order) virtually non-existent and ditto for individuals (eg, to preserve citizenship rights), especially individuals in positions of power?
Do you think that maybe organizations find some value in keeping some things secret, but why is there such a difference between the US government and virtually every other organization on earth?
We should aspire for as much openness as possible, but it's ridiculous to ask of some group things that no other group, including competing governments, come close to providing.
As for the complaint about the USDOJ, since when has the USDOJ been able to convince the entirety of Congress to shelve anything that all or a vast majority of their members were against unless they presented an argument that actually convinced many members themselves to delay a bill or kill it.
Note, I am not trying to justify secrecy, but I do believe in balance and think it is a bit hypocritical to expect one organization to be extremely open about everything while at the same time arguing vehemently for privacy by virtually every other organization/person. Please reconcile that for me. Is there value in secrecy? If you believe so, are you an anarchist trying to undo our government by asking of them much more than is generally asked of any other organization?
Re: Re: Re:
"creeping bias against Obama"
imo, it's more accurately a pro-Libertarian bias as go the main bloggers, even if it draws enough anti-Obama comments.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
..having a weak military, with people with experience and thirst on the outside (eg, expelled by Iraq for connections with Sunnis), is part of what made the rise of IS possible so fast (catching US intelligence off guard).
Re: Re: Re:
..just wanted to clarify that being begged to return to Iraq is not enough. It's a complex matter, and the US has insisted that the Iraqi gov make serious commitments to fix/deal with some of the biases it did not want to fix before and which are part of the problem making the IS takeover possible.
Re: Re:
The Bible talks about killing and murder as well. And presents a fundamental bias against women.
No, actually, it's in the interpretation of the reader. That is why you can say you have peaceful Muslim friends. You specifically recognized you are referring to the interpretation of several imams. Yes, depending on interpretation Judaism and Christianity have serious problems. I mean, weren't the Crusades supposedly supported by the top Christian leaders and in agreement with Christianity? Lots of innocent people died there.
I don't like Islam, but you should not pretend that you are relying on interpretations that have alternative peaceful views (and many follow) in saying it is violent. However, I still think it is biased against women (clearly) from the bits I have read (even though a portion of that can be interpreted away if you attribute it to the context of the norms at the time).
Re: Re:
Richard, I agree with your position. That other conclusion makes as much sense as to say to have all of our law enforcement go on early retirement so that people would see how bad things get. And more, do it right after a major battle starts or we are invaded. Or yes have our military disband and allow ISIL over here and then we will really hate terrorism and stop funding it. So instead of moderate rule of law, we can just have horrible restrictions and virtually no due process by modern standards. That will teach those terrorism funding Westerners!!!
Most people over there are not our enemies any more than most civilians are our enemies.
Anyway, when we went to Iraq, etc, from the US pov, we were defending. That made terrorism "hit home" and the defenders the good guys. Now, in going over there after we were begged to return and in limiting our participation, we are also part of the defending going on in most people's eyes .. importantly from the Iraqi, etc, pov. And we'd be doing more, but we aren't currently helping out in places where legally it would be problematic (because of Russia objections).
Obama is on track in saying that we should let them do most of the work, but to stand back and not bomb IS equipment is rather poor judgment. Civilian casualties in those cases are very small and the difference in helping (or lack) is very large to those fighting IS on the ground and ultimately to the people who must live there through no fault of their own except having been born there and not be very wealthy or willing to uproot and leave. [Most are rather poor and are living in very bad conditions because of displacement from their homes. They voted to live in quasi freedom in bad conditions rather than death or very little freedom. That was their vote and it happened before we put a single bomb in place.]
Yes, I agree, but I am not surprised the other comment gets attention in part because of the creeping bias against Obama on this site (understandable to have biases and for them to creep.. I have a reverse bias and tend to notice).
BTW, the White House has been clear that their civilian near 0 policy approach never applied to areas of hostilities, which the current situation clearly is. That was clear in material produced at the time, and the very person quoted in this article specifically reminds us of that as well. Not sure how that was missed.
Re: Re: Re:
80% of Afgha deaths, but what fraction of Iraq deaths?
War in Afgh went up and part of result was capture of Bin Laden.
Despite its issues, drones get terrorist masterminds at a high rate per general cost in life.
One prob is money allegiance, yes. Corps have 1st amend rights is major prob.
Re: No surprise
Sure, ignore those terrorists. That's great advice. No, that's why most of the voting public supports limited air strikes. And never has the "almost no civilian" been applied in a war context. The military has always had their standards and they are in line with international legal standards, which do allow for casualties.
Mike: .. and Obama did not redefined "civilian". He reused the existing definition from the prior administration. You also seem to ignore the relationship between Al Queda and ISIL. By your view, any terrorist can get off simply by changing names and coming up with some story or how they are independent and didn't like prior management. Fact is that drones have issues but have enabled many fewer casualties overall per top leader killed. [Yes, there are issues.]
Re: It's a matter of differing definitions
I never saw as many petitions and conversations with government as we are seeing now. Lots of data is more easily accessible.
Obama is not expected to force bureaucrats to disclose info in the record number of FOIA requests. BTW, I have seen examples cited to potentially protect Republicans. Each agency uses their own judgment.
And "leaks" are not public information even if they help drive the Press.
Re:
Reporters want leaks. Juicy bits. They assume things are afoul and want as many scoops as possible as early as possible. I don't think Obama was talking about revealing political decisions ahead of time or private conversations. Reporters recognize it is their task to get those rather than have it handed to them. There is more competition now with the Internet. That was recognized I think in one of the articles linked above. The Press has to work harder.
FOIA request have gone up and many deal with subjects from the past years before Obama. The agencies still decide (Obama does not since he leaves to their discretion). You also have some effects from requests about terrorism since 9/11 (including post 2009) that agencies don't want out.
What the transparency pledge covers primarily is making gov services and data more open and to listen more to what the public has to say. I haven't seen any claims that this administration is failing in that.
Again, juicy bits are not forthcoming and leaks of material not legally accessible are what reporters want and are not getting. FOIAs depend on the agency's judgment (not Obama) and happens to include lots of material from post 9/11 which is less likely to be accessible than in other times because of the increased connections to existing terror ops or people or what the gov considers safety nets (there is a huge increase in requests of "does the cia have my phone" which are routinely not granted). Finally, the admin has been unprecedented in exploiting feedback (thanks to Internet of course) and revealing the works the gov does and services it offers. Fewer leaks, but more of the stuff intended to help people directly.
Harping that the admin is closed because of unprecedented FOIA requests (more denials and more revelations as well) and fewer leaks doesn't go against the majority of what Obama "promised".
> We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.
> Government should be transparent.
> Government should be participatory.
> Government should be collaborative.
Re: Re: Still good to have
... After reading some of the ruling, I suspect they might accept when "original" ideas are presented in detail in the patent.
They are unclear and leave room open. They don't say specifically that a computer with attached screen can or can't ever be patentable based on that behavior/screen contents. But they leave some options open, including referencing Diehr (which used computer logic in an "industrial" machine). I think they might accept new algorithms/apps to some extent.
What they did do in part was to eliminated for near certainty the taking of descriptions that don't impress anyone (obvious to a PHOSITA etc) and adding a computer into the process via computer programming.
BTW, I think being non-obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art is an extremely low standard that would almost surely not result in advancing the progress as anticipated in the Constitution. I hope SCOTUS addresses this issue more carefully some day.
Re:
zI don't think one has to twist much to recognize ISIL as a de facto extension of Al Queda's terrorism threat and the 2001 authority certainly allows for dealing with Al Queda's still extant threat. If you go after the mafia that blew up a restaurant. And later that mafia grows in size (resulting in continued threat). And then a subgroup wanting to do more harm than the leadership of the mafia is prepared to undertake breaks off with a new name, those people are still part of the threat you were tasked to defeat. Otherwise it would be trivial to thwart Congressional authority by the bad guys by changing names and breaking off claiming they are independent. "We aren't Al Capone's organization but we do similar things and trained with them and know intimate secrets of that group and still pose a threat to you."
Re: Re: Redifining words, huh?
Or maybe "imminent threat" means imminent threat. They didn't say they had to know the precise details of a potential attack. threat: "the possibility that something bad or harmful could happen."
Any maybe ISIL, as a more violent subset that joined Al Queda and then broke off from Al Queda with plans to hurt the US, is part of the future threat from those helping to make 9/11 possible and which the 2001 resolution gave the President the power to quell.
Title, article, and conversations are off (I guess Obama bashing is too much fun to pass up opportunity)
Title says Obama is redefining words and uses as an example that ISIL is not alqueda (more generally, that they didn't help in 911), even though their prior name is Al-Queda in Iraq and was strongly linked to Al-Queda and even though the 2001 resolution doesn't limit the US to go after any specific group and includes those that aided and their future potential acts of terrorism.
> (a) > In General.--That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
That's pretty general. Where is the argument that this necessarily excludes ISIL?
From Wikipedia:
> Zarqawi formed al-Tawhid wal-Jihad in the 1990s, and led it until his death in June 2006. ...In late 2004 he joined al-Qaeda, and pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden. After this al-Tawhid wal-Jihad became known as Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), and al-Zarqawi was given the Al-Qaeda title, "Emir of Al Qaeda in the Country of Two Rivers".
So we have a whole article and conversation that fails to explain how the US currently couldn't possibly be trying to prevent future acts of terrorism to the US (including embassies in other nations) by going after a major terrorist group clearly related to Bin Laden/Al Queda which no one argues helped make 911 possible and continues to pose threats to the US.
Hey, let's have a faction get mad that our terrorist group isn't hurting the US enough because we want more blood, fork off and change name, and then we'll get support from online forums trying to stop the from US hounding us because we won't be a part of "Al Queda" any more as "everyone" knows that name didn't even exist before 911 so the people couldn't possible be linked.
Re: Still good to have
Takes lots of pressure off people who make apps for use especially on what they hope to argue would be a "generic computer". It leaves the hypothetical industry rubber processes with robots in play (however you define that), but the average computer use (eg, when not attached to industrial creation process.. whatever that might mean to anyone but myself) seems safe. Great ruling.