What's new

The Little Thread Which Grew - the Apollo '73 to Everything But

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thu Oct 7, 12:21 pm ET
Culprits identified in worldwide honeybee die-off
By Brett Michael Dykes

Over the past few years, there's been some panic over a dramatic decrease in the world's honeybee population, an occurrence that has left many experts scratching their heads. Now it appears as though part of the bee die-off mystery has been solved.

As reported by Kirk Johnson of the New York Times, a somewhat odd pairing of entomologists and military scientists has pinpointed likely culprits: a fungus and a virus, both of which flourish in cool, wet environments. While scientists aren't certain, they believe the fungus and virus work together to hamper the insect's digestive system. Each is relatively harmless on its own, Johnson says, but their combination is deadly.

The findings by Army scientists in Maryland and bee experts in Montana are outlined in a paper published by the Public Library of Science's PLoS One.
The honeybee die-off -- populations in the United States alone are believed to have dropped 20 percent to 40 percent -- was a source of growing concern because of the vital role bees play in the food chain. As a 2007 "60 Minutes" report on the die-off noted, the bees are "crucial to the production of one-third of the foods we eat" because of their role in pollination.

The phenomenon of entire beehives disappearing has come to be known as colony collapse disorder.

Informed speculation previously blamed a host of factors for the die-off, such as pesticides and the cell-phone-driven increase of radiation in the atmosphere.

Though the identification of a cause is encouraging, scientists still find reason for concern.

"I hope no one goes away with the idea that we've actually solved the problem," Jeff Pettis of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service told MSNBC. "We still have a great deal of research to do to resolve why bees are dying in the U.S. and elsewhere."
 
Thu Oct 7, 12:21 pm ET
Culprits identified in worldwide honeybee die-off
By Brett Michael Dykes

Over the past few years, there's been some panic over a dramatic decrease in the world's honeybee population, an occurrence that has left many experts scratching their heads. Now it appears as though part of the bee die-off mystery has been solved.

As reported by Kirk Johnson of the New York Times, a somewhat odd pairing of entomologists and military scientists has pinpointed likely culprits: a fungus and a virus, both of which flourish in cool, wet environments. While scientists aren't certain, they believe the fungus and virus work together to hamper the insect's digestive system. Each is relatively harmless on its own, Johnson says, but their combination is deadly.

The findings by Army scientists in Maryland and bee experts in Montana are outlined in a paper published by the Public Library of Science's PLoS One.
The honeybee die-off -- populations in the United States alone are believed to have dropped 20 percent to 40 percent -- was a source of growing concern because of the vital role bees play in the food chain. As a 2007 "60 Minutes" report on the die-off noted, the bees are "crucial to the production of one-third of the foods we eat" because of their role in pollination.

The phenomenon of entire beehives disappearing has come to be known as colony collapse disorder.

Informed speculation previously blamed a host of factors for the die-off, such as pesticides and the cell-phone-driven increase of radiation in the atmosphere.

Though the identification of a cause is encouraging, scientists still find reason for concern.

"I hope no one goes away with the idea that we've actually solved the problem," Jeff Pettis of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service told MSNBC. "We still have a great deal of research to do to resolve why bees are dying in the U.S. and elsewhere."

Interesting. I hadn't seen this. Thanks for posting it.


Mark A. Baker
 
Afterall, you can't take it with you. :whistling:

I couldn't find a YouTube audio of this (or video).

"Your money or your life"


A master of the carefully timed pregnant pause, Jack Benny and his writers used it to set up what is popularly (but incorrectly) believed to be the longest laugh in radio history. It climaxed an episode (broadcast March 28, 1948) in which Benny borrowed neighbor Ronald Colman's Oscar and was returning home when accosted by a mugger (voiced by comedian Eddie Marr).

After asking for a match to light a cigarette, the mugger demanded, "Don't make a move, this is a stickup. Now, come on. Your money or your life."

Benny paused, and the studio audience—knowing his skinflint character—laughed. The robber then repeated his demand: "Look, bud! I said your money or your life!"

And that's when Benny snapped back, without a break, "I'm thinking it over!"

This time, the audience laughed louder and longer than they had during the pause.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LItvNnwOk4
 
Last edited:

Hatshepsut

Crusader
For the record I would be "fine" with even the logically extreme case of one person paying 100% of all taxes while societal rules are set through some general mechanism of consensus.

[Something like this was actually the case in traditional Hawaiian tribal culture, as the tribal chieftains were regarded as holding all "communal property" for the benefit of the group. Hence, "sole proprietorship". When Kamehameha I established the kingdom he became Chief of Chiefs and custodian of all communal resources throughout the islands. This characteristic of Hawaiian culture formed the basis for the establishment of the Queen Lili'uokalani Trust which the non-hawaiian residents in the islands have been trying to bust almost since its inception.]

Ultimately the concept of "property" is simply another arbitrary postulate. Historically it has been used as a "tool" to facilitate physical resource allocation & distribution in human SOCIETIES. To that end it has "pluses" and "minuses". Apart from some sort of a social setting "property" has no meaning. Ultimately and for "good" or "ill", societies set the limits of property.

[Try sitting on a rock in deep space with absolutely NO OTHER LIFEFORMS with which to interract. :)]

Obsession with the concept of "mine" is also one of the most common exemplars of aberration which humans routinely possess. This has been repeatedly recognized in most genuinely spiritual human traditions in recorded history. Right up there with sex. :coolwink:

What is more, in itself it has little to do with "greatest good across ALL the dynamics". :eyeroll:

Best not to get too hung up about it. Afterall, you can't take it with you. :whistling:


Mark A. Baker

WHOA.....That's deep! :yes:
 
I couldn't find a YouTube audio of this (or video).

"Your money or your life"


A master of the carefully timed pregnant pause, Jack Benny and his writers used it to set up what is popularly (but incorrectly) believed to be the longest laugh in radio history. It climaxed an episode (broadcast March 28, 1948) in which Benny borrowed neighbor Ronald Colman's Oscar and was returning home when accosted by a mugger (voiced by comedian Eddie Marr).

After asking for a match to light a cigarette, the mugger demanded, "Don't make a move, this is a stickup. Now, come on. Your money or your life."

Benny paused, and the studio audience—knowing his skinflint character—laughed. The robber then repeated his demand: "Look, bud! I said your money or your life!"

And that's when Benny snapped back, without a break, "I'm thinking it over!"

This time, the audience laughed louder and longer than they had during the pause.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LItvNnwOk4

I loved the Jack Benny show as a kid. It was often on in the afternoons and I'd rush home to watch it. As to what type of man he was, according to his friends he was the personification of generosity, in every sense of the word.


Mark A. Baker
 
That was a "front page" news article on Yahoo home page recently.
The initial hoopla, awhile back, was that it might be due to effects from global warming.
It looks like maybe not.

Global warming may still be implicated. Don't be too quick to dismiss it.

Biota are highly susceptible to changes in environment resulting from climate influences. Microscopic life forms are not immune to such factors. To the degree that gw will have effects it will be through apparently secondary influences such as changes in local climate patterns and the effects on ecosystems.

What makes natual systems complex are not first order effects but the effects arising from higher order perturbations. First order effects are "easy".


Mark A. Baker
 
I loved the Jack Benny show as a kid. It was often on in the afternoons and I'd rush home to watch it. As to what type of man he was, according to his friends he was the personification of generosity, in every sense of the word.

I was / am a fan of radio shows more than TV. The special effects on radio were / are much more impressive, ie. Benny's vault, his Maxwell car (Mel Blanc), FibberMcGee's closet, the science fiction radio programs, etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTMaVckMpQI
 
I was / am a fan of radio shows more than TV. The special effects on radio were / are much more impressive, ie. Benny's vault, his Maxwell car (Mel Blanc), FibberMcGee's closet, the science fiction radio programs, etc.

You've still got a couple of years on me (not many though). I only heard the radio shows a few times, and that was years after there original broadcasts. However Burns & Allen and Benny were both still running on tv when I was a youngun'.


Mark A. Baker
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
Here is an interesting idea.

Yes, Enthetan!!:thumbsup:

When there was a near 70% Income Tax during the time that Lakey is referencing no one was paying the 70% or even close. Those folks were heavily invested in leveraged REIT's and Investment Partnerships that took advantage of loopholes, such as accelerated depreciation. The Tax Code changes in ’86 changed the game over night and pulled the rug out from underneath the existing Tax Sheltering System that had been functioning for over 30 years and that system had been created by the earlier Tax Code "adjustments".

Markets are heavily dictated and structured by Tax Codes and when Uncle Sam "sneezes” and makes another one of its’ ill conceived “adjustments” the Markets go through everything from a cold to a heart attack until they adjust to and figure out how to exploit the new "rules of the game". The S&L meltdown and the collapse of the Commercial Real Estate Market in the later '80's and early '90's is an example. The Tax Payers footed the bill to cover Uncle Sams stupidity.

Investment, private, commercial and retail Bankers are like a pack of dogs. They'll whine, beg, bark and roll over for their master to throw them any scrap of food and if you throw them a Kobe prime rib their gonna wolf it down. That's why the Tax Payers are on the hook for the sub-prime mortgage backed credit default swap meltdown that was a result of Uncle Sam's "adjustments".

IMO, the problem is the "Two Party System" which is not provided for anywhere other than the self-preserving legislation created by the Dems and the Repubs. A pox on their houses says I!

Face:)

Here is an interesting concept. If the tax rate is very high, say 70% for the wealthiest taxpayers and it is true that hardly anyone pays this rate, then wealthy people either devise schemes to avoid paying taxes legally, often paying their accountants excessively high fees to get out of paying taxes legally or people simply cheat on their taxes and simply do not report all that they make and carry on much of their business under the table, hidden from the government's view.

When the tax rate is made more realistic, say 28%, the wealthy figure it not more expiditeous to just legally pay their taxes rather than to hire accountants to avoid payment or to conduct business under the table.

The second alternative may keep tax revenues about the same or may actually increase them as Enthetan's graphs show. There are added benefits which have not been mentioned. Namely, wealthy people save large accountant and tax dodge fees and have more money to invest in plants, equipment, and hiring workers and perhaps even more important, THE WEALTHY PEOPLE STAY HONEST AND DO NOT CONDUCT BUSINESS UNDER THE TABLE AND BREAK THE LAW!! Thus they do not commit criminal acts against their governments and they do not have withhholds from their governments. This would tend to keep the entire business climate more honest, open and high toned.

As far as the non wealthy, the same beneficial effects occur and are observed. Say a middle class family drops from a 40% bracket to a 25% bracket under someone like Reagan. They will not have to cheat and conceal their income from the government. They do not have to buy from an underground or cash economy and they do not have withholds from the government. Additionally, revenues to the government tend to increase and not decrease.

If this concept is carried to an extreme, it would mean all citizens pay 100% to the government. Under that tax system, almost no one would bother working and the government would have no income. That is obvious. The most vibrant economy would be if there were no taxes whatsoever but this would also mean the government received no income and could not carry out it basic governmental duties such as providing for national security and defense plus performing their regulatory duties. The game then becomes divising the most optimum level of taxation to maximize both government services and a strong secular economy.

When you have the indigent numbering over 50% of the population and not contributing and yet being able to out vote the productive portion of the population, you get the situation we find ourselves in today. More and more people become idle and are put on the dole while the cost of funding the government falls more and more onto on the shoulders of the producers. This is Hubbard's classic theory that if you reward non production, you will get more non production and vice versa. This is one of the fundamental principles of Hubbard's Management tech where I feel he was totally correct.
Lakey
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
You young whippersnappers......

I loved the Jack Benny show as a kid. It was often on in the afternoons and I'd rush home to watch it. As to what type of man he was, according to his friends he was the personification of generosity, in every sense of the word.


Mark A. Baker[/QUOTE

You young whippersnappers should know that the Jack Benny Radiio Program came on every Sunday afternoon on NBC radio for a full hour. I believe the sponsor was Lucky Strike cigarettes. During the latter half of the 1940's and continuing until around 1950, almost every radio in the country was tuned to that show. After 1950, Jack's radio show continued for a couple more years but by 1952, radio, as a major entertainment outlet was virtually dead and everybody started watching TV instead. That is about when Jack Benny's radio program moved to Television. Radio remained as mainly the playing a records by disc jockeys. There were not too many dramas or comedy shows on radio after that time. I think that radios in cars are mainly what kept radio alive for the first few years when TV went nationwide and mainstream. Later on radio developed more venues including "talk radio" and hourly news and traffic reports.
Lakey
 
Last edited:
Important message!

Hey folks! :) - I've not bragged or made much of it.. But I'm a natural OT! -It's just not in my character to brag about such.

But.. I do feel I need to tell you this.. After all there are people here who are pretty perceptive spiritually. So as not to leave anyone in confusion.. Hmm..

Just half an hour ago I abolished unicorns! - Removed them from reality altogether. Both the flying ones and those without wings. There's a swimming one I left in place.. Of course, this was a whole track edit of reality. There will be traces left of unicorns anyway.. As in folk legends and such. But they are gone!

I realize that some of you might object. Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.. Change it back if you don't like the new reality.

However, a reality edit of this magnitude sort of spills effect all over the place, as you might imagine.. Those very spiritually perceptive of you might still recall that I was a Zeppeliner skipper of great accomplisment, wearing a spiked hat and all... The world was full of Zeppliners and I was roaming the skies.

Well, that was when a flying unicorn punctured my zeppeliner. Crazy bugger! - I crashed and burned! - I will NOT put up with shit like that!

So that was the immediate reason for deleting the silly beasts from reality... Without sorrow I might add!

Ah.. The spill effects.. The Zeppeliners went non existent too! - That pisses me off and leaves me without my preferred job, dammit!

Now I haven't really oriented myself in this new reality yet. But hells bells! - L.Ron Hubbard seems to have created quite a confounded mess! - And he's dead too!

Imagine my utter amazement.. That guy, L.Ron Hubbard was quite funny. He did a show that had us all in stitches of laughter.. Ol'e Mutha Hubbard.. He'd dress as a really outlandish fat woman and comment on just about anything... Shuck's! - At first I thought there was no reality change, when I saw Dame Edna on the telly! - I thought: Hey! There's Ol'e Mutha Hubbard.. And I got ready for a giggle.

Then I find out that he created this obscene Sinister Scam Cult of Scientology!

Shit! Half an hour ago he was Ol'e Mutha Hubbard and funny as shit!

Well, it does make me regret I did the reality edit.. Too late now.. I better not make any more reality edits.. What with all manner of freaky spilleffects!

I do realize that I inadvertently caused this royal mess.. It wasn't my intention.. I just wanted to get rid of those pesky unicorns! - All those outrageous and unnerving changes were accidental! - But I do take responsibility! - I placed myself in treason and postulated myself back in power immediatly.. A small step for a thetan, a huge leap of incredulity!

We'll just have to work together and get rid of that damned cult! - What say you? - Shall we clean up this place?

:yes:

Thank you Schwimmy for leaving the swimming ones in place...I have always thought they were charming with their long spiral horns! :coolwink:
 

SchwimmelPuckel

Genuine Meatball
Thank you Schwimmy for leaving the swimming ones in place...I have always thought they were charming with their long spiral horns! :coolwink:
Yeah.. I figured they could do no harm.. They can't puncture a submarine after all..

But I'm afraid I've brought myself in a horrible bind with that reality edit. It appears that I'm not an OT anymore! - I noticed yesterday that I had to stop for a red traffic light. Didn't think much of it at first, but since I've had to stop for red repeatedly! - Hell.. I've even suffered the ignomity of there NOT being vacant parking space where I needed it!

So I checked it out.. I even have to mow my damned lawn physically!!

Of course I only have myself to blame. Even for me, the old reality is now like a vague memory of a dream slipping away.

Thank's for believing me anyway.. Most people don't.. They can't of course.. Since it was the actual real reality I changed. Not just 'my reality'.. Like scientology OT's like to do.. They're pipsqueak OT's!

But look what it brought me!! Let this be a warning.

:nervous:
 

Enthetan

Master of Disaster
The point I am making is, why the hell should a critical issue like societal healthcare be allowed to be ripped off for profits by by a money making machine at the expense of bankrupting healthcare providers like hospitals.

Why should a critical issue like food be allowed to be ripped off for profits? Because when governments run food production, people generally wind up starving.

Similarly with health care, the US with its much maligned system seems to be the destination to go to when somebody needs care that his home system is unable to provide. They don't go to Cuba.

A big part of why things are so expensive in the US appears to come from malpractice suits, and the expensive insurance that doctors need to maintain. Tort reform would probably do a lot towards reducing expenses. For example, in an article on malpractice insurance rates in NY:
The rates, set by the department, vary by county and specialty. Currently, brain surgeons in Brooklyn pay $267,000 a year for malpractice insurance, while obstetricians in Queens pay $180,490.
 

RogerB

Crusader
Why should a critical issue like food be allowed to be ripped off for profits? Because when governments run food production, people generally wind up starving.

Similarly with health care, the US with its much maligned system seems to be the destination to go to when somebody needs care that his home system is unable to provide. They don't go to Cuba.

A big part of why things are so expensive in the US appears to come from malpractice suits, and the expensive insurance that doctors need to maintain. Tort reform would probably do a lot towards reducing expenses. For example, in an article on malpractice insurance rates in NY:

Who's ripping off food for profit? It's freely produced and made available for anyone to purchase at choice.

I think you need to travel the world and see how the healthcare thing is done in other countries.

AS an example, in England when I lived there, and I suspect it still exists, for those who wish to have private "privileged" medical treatment, there is an organization called BUPA . . . it is a non-profit mutual organization (British United Provident Association). Its beneficiaries are its policy holders . . . not some profit centered other entity, and nor is the system ripped off by exorbitant $million salaries.

When I lived there it cost $150 a YEAR for complete coverage.

In England, Germany (I had an office there) and Scandinavia etc . . . the healthcare system is not "run" by the government, it is paid for by government.

R
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
Enthetan - You shine in this area of knowledge

Why should a critical issue like food be allowed to be ripped off for profits? Because when governments run food production, people generally wind up starving.

Similarly with health care, the US with its much maligned system seems to be the destination to go to when somebody needs care that his home system is unable to provide. They don't go to Cuba.

A big part of why things are so expensive in the US appears to come from malpractice suits, and the expensive insurance that doctors need to maintain. Tort reform would probably do a lot towards reducing expenses. For example, in an article on malpractice insurance rates in NY:

Enthetan, you shine in this area of knowledge. Two great points, One, where do VIP's from Canada, England, etc. go to when they need top quality medical services done quickly and with the best possible tech. They go to the USA. Second, our friends, the left wing, are in bed with the Attorneys' lobby in congress and veto all efforts at tort reform. A ruthless but skillful class action attorney won hundreds of millions of dollars from the medical industry in North Carolina - I am refering to former Senator John Edwards, who ran against Obama and Hillary for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008. His greedy actions, announced as being made for the public welfare, drove skilled doctors out of North Carolina to other states and caused the closing of numerous hospitals.

Tort reform in the Medical field could be greatly expedited if the USA adopted the British law that the loser in a law suit pay the attorney fees for both parties. Over and over, the left wing in the USA sees that this measure is voted down. The way our laws are now, any kind of phoney trumped up charge can be made up and a nearly frivolous law suit can be leveled at a doctor or a medical institution. If the British law were in force and the lawsuit was found to be frivolous, the plaintiff would have to pay the defendant's legal fees. This simple law would go a long, long way towards tort reform in the medical field but it routinely blocked by the Trial Lawyers' lobbies in Washington, a lobby which is in bed with the far left wing of the Democratic party. Without this law in place, the medical institution or doctor usually chooses to settle with the plaintiffs rather then to enter into long and costly litigation.

SCIENTOLOGY APPLICATION - This loser pays all attorney fees law would also stop C of S from launching so many phoneyed up law suits. You can be damn sure that if they had to buy the winning defendent's attorney fees, they would not be able to misuse the US Court System as they do.
Lakey
 

Enthetan

Master of Disaster
For the record I would be "fine" with even the logically extreme case of one person paying 100% of all taxes while societal rules are set through some general mechanism of consensus.
What happens to your society and its consensus when that one person who keeps the wheels turning dies, retires, or just decides to run away?

That's the persistent problem with communistic systems: the most productive individuals turn their abilities towards figuring out ways to escape being enslaved by the system. When you look at it deeply, that's what communism is: a system where an articulate upper class (the Party) and a numerous lower class conspire to enslave the productive middle class.

[Something like this was actually the case in traditional Hawaiian tribal culture, as the tribal chieftains were regarded as holding all "communal property" for the benefit of the group. Hence, "sole proprietorship". When Kamehameha I established the kingdom he became Chief of Chiefs and custodian of all communal resources throughout the islands. This characteristic of Hawaiian culture formed the basis for the establishment of the Queen Lili'uokalani Trust which the non-hawaiian residents in the islands have been trying to bust almost since its inception.]

It's interesting that you give as an example a society that was effectively at a stone-age level when encountered by property-owning Westerners.

Ultimately the concept of "property" is simply another arbitrary postulate. Historically it has been used as a "tool" to facilitate physical resource allocation & distribution in human SOCIETIES. To that end it has "pluses" and "minuses". Apart from some sort of a social setting "property" has no meaning. Ultimately and for "good" or "ill", societies set the limits of property.

In all of history, you have seen maximal societal prosperity when private property has been stable.

Conversely, whenever people try to impose the "communal ownership" model, you get poverty (after a period of mass murder where the new rulers try to impose their system). The Soviet Union collapsed. China is increasingly turning towards capitalism. Even Fidel Castro has announced "The Cuban Model Doesn't Even Work For Us Anymore" and now plans to lay off 10% of the government-sector work force.

[Try sitting on a rock in deep space with absolutely NO OTHER LIFEFORMS with which to interract. :)]

Try sitting in Somalia (or any of a number of third World places), where there are lots of other people to "interact" with, but where lack of protected property rights have generated widespread starvation.

Obsession with the concept of "mine" is also one of the most common exemplars of aberration which humans routinely possess. This has been repeatedly recognized in most genuinely spiritual human traditions in recorded history. Right up there with sex. :coolwink:

Yep, the concept of "mine" is a deep part of human emotions. That's why when people are allowed to "HAVE", things prosper, and when they are denied havingness, societies fail. Western Europe endured a thousand years of poverty during the Dark Ages and Middle Ages, a time when only the lord in his castle had the right to have things. It ended when peasants were able to escape to defensible cities, where they could work and keep the products of their labor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top