Annoying Questions I'd Like Answered...

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sat Dec 12, 2015 9:19 pm

Kaelik wrote:And yet, there are no good randomized trials that show moderate alcohol consumption improves health

This is totally wrong. There are lots of studies into risk factors for a host of diseases that have found people in the moderate alcohol consumption category to have lower risks than both the no-alcohol and heavy alcohol groups. Colon cancer, atherosclerosis, stroke, and so on and so forth.

There are no good studies that show moderate alcohol consumption to promote general wellness, but only because "general wellness" is not actually a thing. Moderate alcohol consumption makes you slightly less likely to die from a bunch of things that kill old people. It just does.

-Username17

DrPraetor · Post by **DrPraetor** » Sat Dec 12, 2015 10:18 pm

The NIH is moving to remedy this, by the way:
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-f ... 6-363.html

It's a puritanical country so this has been difficult to study, but within a few years we should have the randomized trial results that we'd want.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sat Dec 12, 2015 11:08 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:
Kaelik wrote:And yet, there are no good randomized trials that show moderate alcohol consumption improves health
This is totally wrong. There are lots of studies into risk factors for a host of diseases that have found people in the moderate alcohol consumption category to have lower risks than both the no-alcohol and heavy alcohol groups. Colon cancer, atherosclerosis, stroke, and so on and so forth.

I don't think you have investigated the methodologies of those studies, because in fact none of them are good. First off, I suspect that most of the ones you are thinking of study people who already have those habits, not directly ask people to comply to a new regime, which is of course the entire point I was making.

Now, plenty of those studies have other problems (including former heavy drinkers who quit when they are older, or deader as "none" drinkers), but even if they were well performed "studies" into risk factors, they would still not be randomized trials. Which means they would still fail to address issues relating to people who drink in moderation being people who live otherwise healthier lifestyles in ways aside from alcohol, whereas people who abstain from alcohol might just be the type of people who are incapable of moderation, and therefore live otherwise unhealthy lifestyles.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Fri Dec 18, 2015 10:57 pm

random background- I take my grandmother to her hair appointments on Fridays because she has limited mobility, and she gave me her car, and also pays me.

When we got back today, Obama was giving his speech on TV, and she remarked "I don't know what this jerk's doing on... sorry if you like him," because my entire family is Conservative. For my sins. I simply responded "eh, better than the other guy," because of course Mitt "I don't care about 47% of the population" Romney would have been shitastic.

But it did make me wonder- lets assume McCain was elected, and did not have a heart attack and leave us at the mercy of Palin. How would a McCain presidency have likely gone? I mean, he seems like one of the relatively less insane republican politicians...

angelfromanotherpin · Post by **angelfromanotherpin** » Sat Dec 19, 2015 2:14 am

I don't think there's any way to really know what would have happened, but my guess is total catastrophe. The big deal in 2008-2009 was the economic crisis, and McCain was running on cutting taxes and balancing the budget. One round of neo-Hooverism later and the world is plunged into Great Depression II. After that, things get a lot less predictable, but not better.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Sat Dec 19, 2015 10:08 am

There are three big things that would have been different under McCain:

1) Higher interest rates. Low interest rates encourage spending and reduce the pain of the debt overhang (vital to managing this crisis), but McCain would never have kept the rates this low, because low interest rates hurt the yields of the Wall Street class's investments.

2) No quantitative easing. There's a lot of debate about whether or not quantitative easing was "moderately effective" or "did nothing at all" - and when I say debate, I mean debate between sane economicists. But either way, McCain never would have attempted it, because quantitative easing hurts the yields of the Wall Street class's investments.

3) Austerity from the outset and more austerity total. We managed to avoid an initial dose of austerity, and then have been hit with austerity since because of the intractable Republican-held legislature. Note that even among countries who accepted austerity, basically none of them had a social safety net as weak as the one in the United States. The economic damage inflicted by the additional austerity would have been severe, but the human tragedy involved would have been staggering.

You're probably looking at something like 20% unemployment for an extended period of time (we actually peaked at 10% and climbed down ~.75%/year) - I don't think we would have hit Greece levels of economic shittasticness, but only because our underlying economy is a lot stronger. But the amount of social unrest accompanying that unemployment probably would have been far greater than anything seen in Europe, simply because after a round of savage austerity we wouldn't have a social safety net at all and that would have left 1 in 5 Americans left to survive without income or assistance. Note that in this crisis that unemployment has hit the young and able-bodied the hardest, by an overwhelming margin - it is both a senseless waste of productive labor and exactly the sort of people most likely to take to the streets to fuck shit up.

It's obviously hard to predict, but bare minimum it would have been a fucking god awful catastrophe and a powder keg for a decade of wildly destructive rioting.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Sat Dec 19, 2015 10:30 am

Yeah, I certainly didn't think a McCain administration would be wine and roses, but it's interesting to see the hypotheticals.

name_here · Post by **name_here** » Sun Dec 20, 2015 2:40 am

Interest rates would likely have gone low anyway. The Fed is semi-independent. I don't know enough about the board members to say if McCain could have appointed enough new ones to matter, but odds are the Fed would have done whatever it felt like regardless of the President's opinion on the matter.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Sun Dec 20, 2015 2:59 am

I'm not nearly as confident in that assessment as you are. The fed's latest rate hike makes zero fucking sense - they are literally gambling a recessionary dip on making Republicans and Wall Street fatcats happy. The rate hike does literally nothing else. And when I say literally I literally mean literally. Inflation is still below target and there is nothing to be gained and no crisis to avert by raising rates, but it does make shoving money into metaphorical mattresses more appealling than letting it flow out into the actual economy where it will employ actual people. The current fed just said "fuck it, why not, the economy can probably take the hit; more money for millionaires and billionaires!"

I absolutely think a McCain White House could have convinced a bunch of plutocratic cocksuckers to suck plutocrat cock early on the first date instead of late on the second. The fed is very obviously not immune to simple political pressure.

name_here · Post by **name_here** » Sun Dec 20, 2015 4:04 am

Eh, the current Fed repeatedly indicated they might want to raise interest rates, the Dow fell several hundred points, and they declared they were just kidding. This marks the first time that suggesting the idea did not make the stock market freefall.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Tue Dec 22, 2015 2:24 am

SO... the cracked bullshit title changes... There was a video about how andy is actually a really great guy in Toy Story 3. The title changed to: "How Andy is secretly the Villian of Toy Story."

WTF? He's explicitly the only villian in Toy Story! Losing the three and changing to Villain is just the dumbest dumb thing ever.

violence in the media · Tue Dec 22, 2015 2:10 pm

Given the recent flap regarding Nicki Minaj performing in Angola (and the related issue of pop stars performing for dictators), I'm curious if there are any legal mechanisms for actually prohibiting that?

I mean, the US and/or the international community have, in the past, enacted and enforced various combinations of business and travel bans with places like Cuba, Iran, and North Korea. Where do musicians fit into those restrictions? If ISIS genuinely wanted the Rolling Stones to throw a concert in the ruins of Palmyra, and they agreed to it, could/would they be arrested for material support to terrorists or some such? Would the Brits arrest them, or would the FBI wait until the next time they toured North America?

Basically, is there any situation where a performer would face legal repercussions for performing for a person, or in a nation, that invited them there?

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Tue Dec 22, 2015 2:31 pm

Violence in the media wrote:Basically, is there any situation where a performer would face legal repercussions for performing for a person, or in a nation, that invited them there?

There are travel restrictions on some locations and there are financial sanctions on some groups. You might find yourself on the wrong end of the law for violating either or both of those. So for example, if you accepted money into your bank account that originated in an Iranian bank account, you could be in violation of financial sanctions.

It is not presently illegal to express support for any group or regime in the United States, though it may put you on a no-fly list. In many other countries, expressing support for various groups or regimes can get you fined or even jailed.

Bottom line is that if ISIS invited the Rolling Stones to perform a concert in one of their ruined holes and paid them with ISIS blood money, the Rolling Stones would probably have violated a bunch of laws regarding travel to proscribed areas and financial sanctions and shit. They might even go to jail.

You can do any kind of performance you want in Angola, because there are no sanctions on Angola. Angola is the US' third largest trading partner in Sub-Saharan Africa. Picking on Niki Minaj for doing business with Angola is fucking bizarre. The United States sells a billion and a half dollars worth of stuff to Angola every year. This is not a small an isolated dictatorship. It's a huge country that does an enormous amount of business with the West.

-Username17

violence in the media · Tue Dec 22, 2015 2:39 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:Angola is the US' third largest trading partner in Sub-Saharan Africa. Picking on Niki Minaj for doing business with Angola is fucking bizarre. The United States sells a billion and a half dollars worth of stuff to Angola every year. This is not a small an isolated dictatorship. It's a huge country that does an enormous amount of business with the West.

-Username17

I didn't know that. I'm somewhat surprised that none of the articles I've seen talking about her performing there have mentioned that.

Regardless, this made me wonder whether or not there were circumstances where the State department would step in and say, "No, actually, you can't do that."

name_here · Post by **name_here** » Tue Dec 22, 2015 7:57 pm

Only if there's some sort of specific sanction or embargo. Otherwise the State Department can at most ask you not to and maybe release a statement about how you are in no way representing the position of the US government.

Count Arioch the 28th · Sat Dec 26, 2015 6:02 am

Random question, how the hell do you join a union?

One of the things I was thinking about today was the fact that I had to switch careers entirely a few years back due to several factors, one of which was that every good position in my previous field in this area is a union job. That makes a huge difference, like literally the difference between a light duty job running tests and reading gauges and digging ditches in the rain and cold (something that my declining health would not permit anymore).

So, I never got any of the positions, and I suspect that a factor was me not being union (since several of them started with the spiel "This is a union position, so if someone in the union wants this job I'm throwing out all the applications and hiring him on the spot"). It was discouraging to say the least.

Considering all the goddamn red commie bastards on this board, one of you must know something about this.

(Don't get me wrong, I'm doing fine working with computers now. But it would be the difference of about 10-15k a year, and I'm not making so much that I wouldn't consider that a nice chunk of change, not by far).

name_here · Post by **name_here** » Sat Dec 26, 2015 6:57 am

I'd recommend finding out who in the union handles negotiating with management and asking them.

Orca · Post by **Orca** » Sat Dec 26, 2015 1:17 pm

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:Random question, how the hell do you join a union?

Wouldn't the obvious first step be to look up their phone number and ask them? They likely also have a website which tells you.

Count Arioch the 28th · Sat Dec 26, 2015 9:18 pm

Orca wrote:
Count Arioch the 28th wrote:Random question, how the hell do you join a union?
Wouldn't the obvious first step be to look up their phone number and ask them? They likely also have a website which tells you.

My brains are a bit scrambled up and what's obvious for most people isn't always obvious for me. However that is a good start and I thank you.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Sun Dec 27, 2015 8:07 am

So ages ago I asked if it's possible to use the placebo effect to cause symptoms, and Doctor Trollman confirmed it. More recently I saw a video that explained it in detail and pointed out that that is 100% of what Wind Turbine Syndrome is: coal companies pay people to dress as doctors and basically convince everyone they're getting sick.

Is that a crime? Because it sounds like it should be, even if you argue "the victims are the people stupid enough to fall for it" (seeing as that's not a defence for a financial scam), and it really seems like in any country with less of a hard-on for fossil fuels than Australia, authorities might want to do something about it.

And if it's not a crime, I need to get myself a labcoat and stethoscope, because I have a new hobby!

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Sun Dec 27, 2015 8:21 am

Well, it seems that Australia has some kind of law against impersonating a medical professional. Also, you know, the whole fraud thing, I would imagine there is some Australian law against.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Sun Dec 27, 2015 8:31 am

It occurs to me that I probably should specify I was making a bad-taste joke for the line that has the strike-out. But the rest of it, where it seems to apparently be okay for them to do this (meanwhile fatal black lung has been rediscovered, in Queensland, thanks to our ultra-safe new coal mines!) seems questionable.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Sun Dec 27, 2015 8:50 am

Well, I mean, you could dress up in a labcoat and stethoscope and head out to a bar or something and prescribe hot lesbian sex to attractive women, and I'm pretty sure you'd be in the clear. I mean, I knew you were joking, but that seems like something that might have a decent success rate and not actually something a person might try to drag you into the police department over.

Meanwhile, I was referring to the paid "doctors" and how they could probably be arrested for impersonating a medical professional.

maglag · Post by **maglag** » Sun Dec 27, 2015 9:08 am

FrankTrollman wrote: Bottom line is that if ISIS invited the Rolling Stones to perform a concert in one of their ruined holes and paid them with ISIS blood money, the Rolling Stones would probably have violated a bunch of laws regarding travel to proscribed areas and financial sanctions and shit. They might even go to jail.

ISIS is driving around in Toyota and USA-made pick-up trucks.

ISIS is also making money off selling tons of crude oil to advanced countries that can actually proccess that shit.

I didn't see anyone going to jail because of the above. I bet if the Rolling Stones went to perform at ISIS land and went back with a bunch of blood-soaked bills, no official would even bat an eye. The bank cashiers would most certainly accept the deposit and thank the Rolling Stones for their patronage.

Now if it was some small-time business or singer, then they would probably just get bombed or "disappear".

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sun Dec 27, 2015 11:47 am

maglag wrote:
FrankTrollman wrote: Bottom line is that if ISIS invited the Rolling Stones to perform a concert in one of their ruined holes and paid them with ISIS blood money, the Rolling Stones would probably have violated a bunch of laws regarding travel to proscribed areas and financial sanctions and shit. They might even go to jail.
ISIS is driving around in Toyota and USA-made pick-up trucks.

ISIS is also making money off selling tons of crude oil to advanced countries that can actually proccess that shit.

I didn't see anyone going to jail because of the above. I bet if the Rolling Stones went to perform at ISIS land and went back with a bunch of blood-soaked bills, no official would even bat an eye. The bank cashiers would most certainly accept the deposit and thank the Rolling Stones for their patronage.

Now if it was some small-time business or singer, then they would probably just get bombed or "disappear".

There are many countries in which it is not illegal to buy things from or sell things to ISIS. People in those countries trade with ISIS all the time. ISIS can buy The Rolling Stones are all British, and subject to British laws regarding restrictions on trade with organizations deemed terrorist groups by the UK government.

So you can be some dude in Saudi Arabia who trades a truck for a bunch of barrels of ISIS oil and not go to jail. But if an American did the same thing, they'd be in legal hot water.

-Username17