PeterMP

Members
  • Content Count

    2,289
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About PeterMP

  • Rank
    The Dirtbags
  • Birthday 07/11/1972

Profile Information

  • Location
    Something catchy like headexplode or EA's

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I do not think it is actually USC's yacht. It appears the yacht belongs to a member of the USC Board of Trustees. Somebody gets lazy on the details and everybody else jumps on the mis-reported thing. https://www.today.com/news/lori-loughlin-s-daughter-was-usc-board-chairman-s-yacht-t150360 (and no, this isn't why college costs are going up. Decline in public investment as compared to increases in people going to college (many schools are actually spending less now per a student to educate people than they were decades ago, but they are also educating more people, while when adjusted for inflation getting less money from states), health care costs, and increased administrative costs (associated with things like Title IX compliance) are way tuitions are going up.)
  2. https://www.fastcompany.com/90311509/we-have-to-fix-fashion-if-we-want-to-survive-the-next-century "We have to fix fashion if we want to survive the climate crisis" I just want to use this story to make the point that a lot of time people (especially liberals) get caught up on fixing climate change (and a lot of other problems we face) by introducing new technology (or other new ideas). Just basic conservation would go along way in helping fixing climate change (and I suspect addressing a lot of other issues).
  3. I'll point, we have done a lot of this in the past, and I'd be somewhat shocked it wasn't part of any plan by Democrats in the future. (Search for Obama "alternative energy" loan guarantees: https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=EUKEXKHAEYib_QboyayYCg&q=Obama+"alternative+energy"+loan+guarantees&btnK=Google+Search&oq=Obama+"alternative+energy"+loan+guarantees&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i22i29i30.17.9425..9622...0.0..0.880.9316.5j10j3j5-5j5......0....1..gws-wiz.......0j0i22i30.jKDQBbOkn5c) And while the author was right, a lot of the New Deal is also what is taught in High School. The government borrowing money to employee people or build something.
  4. PeterMP

    NPR: How Federal Disaster Money Favors The Rich

    The only point I've made about jobs is that your comment isn't based on any evidence. "For healthy businesses, this idea that flooding is net loss of jobs to the workers is not backed up by any evidence." That's it. I've never said that a casino being destroyed won't hurt tax revenue more than 100 low income houses. I've never said that an oil refinery being destroyed won't affect more people than 100 low income homes (I have said that the idea of the government building the refinery a wall or the refinery being destroyed by a flood is a false choice. When people make the point that the destruction of an oil refinery will affect more people, I don't claim they are wrong. I point out in the context of the conversation where the government is building the walls for the oil refinery, they are offering a false choice.) I've not said any of the things that you are saying I've said. Reading comprehension is your friend. Disaster preparedness programs and disaster relief programs that only consider bang for the buck more heavily benefit the wealthy (which is really what we do now for the most part). That's my point in this thread and that statement is absolutely true.
  5. PeterMP

    NPR: How Federal Disaster Money Favors The Rich

    1. In the future it might be useful if you lead with we need with more/better low income housing. 2. Companies are planning for floods. They are planning for floods by lobbying the government to build walls for them. And then even when they don't, they really do have a plan and that is for the government to bail them out with a recovery bill after the natural disaster. 3. My either or comment is not related to building a levee for houses or businesses (casinos). My point is that it isn't either or in terms of the government building the levees for businesses. It isn't the government build the levees for the refineries or they don't get built. The government cannot build the levees, and the levees can still be built and jobs will not be lost (and if companies won't do it on their own since we have building restrictions and approvals in most areas that businesses are located in government can mandate it). 4. You think you are making a point about my comment about jobs, but you really aren't. I never said MORE jobs, and I've never claimed that jobs are the end all and be all. Things like health and quality of life matter too. My only comments about jobs have been related to responding to other people, and my point with respect to you is that similar the last thread I engaged you in, you are making comments by treating things that you think are true, but can't actually back up as actually true. You talk about the government needing to build structures to protect businesses from natural disaster to protect jobs. But it isn't even clear if protecting current businesses from natural disaster does help the economy. https://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/business/worldbusiness/08iht-disasters.4.14335899.html In yet another case, you are making arguments based on assumptions that aren't necessarily true.
  6. You're talking conspiracy theories. The bacteria that causes Lyme's disease is very old and most likely ancient. Due to large scale deforestation and decimation of wild animal populations, the tick population in most of the western world in the era of modern medicine was minimal. With that so was the prevalence if Lyme's disease and so few cases of it and so little knowledge of it. Lyme's disease became prevalent in the US in the 1970s when DNA recombinant technology was infancy (not long after animal and natural conservation became a more prevalent concern), and today when genomes of current bacteria are compared to older preserved samples, there is no real evidence of genetic manipulation by humans. That this novel technology that was just beginning to be applied to already well studied laboratory organisms was applied to a "wild" strain in any significant (and meaningful way in terms of causing a disease to spread) is highly unlikely. "Genetic engineering" of all organisms is not the same. Exact methods/protocols that work well for some bacteria do not actually work well for even closely related strains. In the western world, we've had very few issues with many diseases because we've largely wiped out many of the natural animal vectors.
  7. I'm not sure that's the intent. It isn't clear to me if that was his actual intent, or he's just so used to writing for a technical population that it happened unintentionally. He is also making a more subtle argument there about the nature of evolution, especially flu viruses. it could have been, and I have no problem with making an argument that the statement is misleading. I was just pointing out that technicality to No Excuses.
  8. Nobody is not saying not be prepared at all. Again, if you have 5 or so independent drug/vaccine targets to the bird flu, you are most likely going to be well prepared for any version that become more pathogenic to humans. You are offering a false choice. There is no evidence that this research makes us more prepared than studying the natural evolution of the virus and developing drugs/vaccines based on what actually exist in nature. Even the vaccine we have will likely be effective against what would become airborne. Your also being ludicrous with the idea of the greatest pandemic in human history. You have no idea what the lethality would be for a bird flu that IF it evolves that can easily be transmitted through the air. Talk about trying to scare people. You are the one trying to scare people. And that ignores our modern knowledge of how diseases spread and always improving ability to create and produce drugs and vaccines. Basic things like hand sanitizer and cough into you elbow make us more safe than ever. (Work that was done suggest an inverse relationship between being air borne and lethality: http://www.virology.ws/2012/03/01/influenza-h5n1-is-not-lethal-in-ferrets-after-airborne-transmission/ And certainly that appears to be a general trend. Things like Ebola kill very rapidly, but they also don't spread easily. The flu spreads very easily, but is not very lethal. There's a general idea that evolution selects against things that are quickly highly lethal, but being able to spread rapidly and easily requires you to be well evolved to the hosts so the combination is evolutionarily rare.) There's good reasons to believe that unless first we have a general break down of society that something akin to the 1918 Spanish flu is highly unlikely (noting the high lethality of the Spanish flu was partly because of WW1, which partly caused a break down of society.)
  9. Just pointing out, that he didn't actually get basic facts wrong. Your link doesn't actually disprove what he said. He didn't say we don't stock pile vaccines against no viruses. He said we don't stock pile vaccines against the normal flu (which is true). You might argue that is statements were misleading. And that's the only one you've actually pointed out not "multiple".
  10. PeterMP

    NPR: How Federal Disaster Money Favors The Rich

    You are assuming there is more protected low income housing that does not come with other increased costs (e.g. longer or more expensive transportation costs). Low income housing is not distributed equally over this country. Again, the choice is not either or. Healthy companies have the ability to spend money to protect themselves or (as I've already stated) even better to re-locate to safer ares, which will allow their employees to relocate to safer areas. The oil companies can pay for their own protection. The casinos weren't really healthy businesses and went out of business and so efforts to protect them didn't really do any good. The other thing is even if the wall doesn't get built around the refineries, the oil companies are going to have to pay to clean up and rebuild the refinerie in the event of a flood, which means jobs. For healthy businesses, this idea that flooding is net loss of jobs to the workers is not backed up by any evidence.
  11. If you followed his link, it is to an article about a test on stored avian flu vaccine (component) and them maintaining their effectiveness. For the normal flu, we don't stock pile vaccines, but for this flu we are and they appear to work and be effective over longish periods of time. (I presume this is because the avian flu is not seeing them regularly and so is not evolving to become resistant to them. We need a new flu vaccine every year because we don't ever eliminate the flu (partly because enough peopled don't get vaccinated) and it "sees" the vaccine to become resistant to it every year. The use of the normal flu vaccine partly drives its evolution to be resistant. If you have a vaccine that is not being used, its utility is likely not to be lost quickly.) IF it does in the wild AND what these people discover is relevant to what happens in the wild. Yes, some do, but that doesn't mean it is actually a good idea either.
  12. The airborne avian flu that doesn't actually exist. Yes, I understand the point of the article.
  13. I disagree that we have "ample evidence that we currently lack any effective technology to deal with them." When it appeared that Ebola would become a threat to the west and it appeared that making money was actually going to be involved several vaccines were relatively quickly created as well as other possible treatment mechanisms (e.g. RNAi treatmetns). Study what exist. Study the natural evolution of them until we become reasonably good predictors of what is going to naturally evolve next. Work on identifying 5 or 6 independent drugs and vaccines for what exist now.
  14. The problem is that they aren't actually studying a true deadlier form of the virus. I'm talking about studying the actual forms of the virus that actually do exist. You're talking about making something that there is essentially no evidence that will actually ever exist to study it. Please, actually cite something from virology research that suggest that there is a reasonable probability that these people will come up with something that is naturally likely to evolve. If what you are saying is "in line with everything we know so far from virology research." You should be able to actually cite something. Study the most deadly version of the bird flu that's actually out there. I've got no real problem with that. That's not what is being proposed here.
  15. The vast majority of the work involves organisms that aren't readily pathogenic to humans and even through decades of selection are only really well evolved to live in lab environments. There are significant differences between the genomes of lab strains of E. coli and even naturally non-pathogenic E. coli. Much less pathogenic versions of E. coli. This isn't the same where these viruses would have a clear advantage (i.e. the ability to infect humans) over naturally occurring bird flu viruses and recently come from nature.