Acme

You're welcome. No, there is no reflection. The magnetotail exists because charged particles from the Sun -which carry the Sun's magnetism to Earth- deform and stretch Earth's magnetic field. This deformation is dynamic, i.e. always changing in intensity and size, but the deformation always streams away from Earth in a direction opposite the side of Earth facing the Sun. While there is still much to learn about the magnetotail and Earth's and the Sun's magnetism, there is actually quite a bit that is known.

It wont' have any effect on Earth's magnetic field because the magnetotail is always going/pointing away from Earth and the Moon does not have an active magnetic field. (The Moon does have local magnetism that varies depending on the area it is found in, but this magnetism does not extend far from the surface.)

If Congress is representative of the population at large, then your doubt is unfounded. Perhaps you could clarify your winky comment about 'really no other way to know in almost every case. ;)'. Isn't the way to know what any people think, is to ask them? Section 7: Global Warming, Environment and Energy

I suppose one difference to consider in regards the conservative effort to draw Blacks and Hispanics to their party-of-choice is that Blacks tend to be Protestants whereas Hispanics tend to be Catholic. (I'll go with that casual observation and only find the stats if demanded of me.) It is unlikely we will get an interview with the Hunts in which they clarify their psychological mind-set concerning the Southern Strategy and whether or how it plays a role in trying the same approach with Hispanics that failed with Blacks. On to some study material. The Authoritarians On-topic views from whatever perspective are welcome. Arguably it's my ball but I'm staying to see the game out. Spoken like a true high RWA. (Regardless of whether you rate that label, your comment matches such behavior as revealed in the study.) Were you to bother reading the study you might understand your error. Given that high-RWA are not so good at logic, and given your apparent high-RWA comment above, I wouldn't bet on it. And as I have stated before, the author of this particular study is a Canadian professor teaching in Canada. (Now retired.) You keep bringing your personal attributes into this which in some sense requires me to reply to them. However, as this puts me on risky ground for a staff admonition to attack the idea and not the person I'll thank you to stop introducing your personal attributes into the discussion. Again, if you had read the study you would know who it applies to. The Democrats have done so. Since this thread is not specifically about parties, and as we learned from the Southern Strategy article that conservatism has migrated between parties, then discussion of Democrats really does not play into it. If you or anyone else have studies indicating that liberal and/or Democratic party politically leaning folk are mildly insane then by all means start a thread and present them. ----------------------------------- [Appended separate post] Notes of note. The Authoritarians

As evidenced by the Dead Sea scrolls, the Essenes were OCD on hygiene as well. (There is some argument if the Essenes penned the scrolls, but the hygiene aspect is evident.) I don't have a transcript at hand to quote just now nor do I know how much overlap there may be between the scrolls and traditional canon whether Leviticus or otherwise.

Fortunately science does not hinge on what you are convinced of. Clearly.

Since mined salt gets in the ground from ancient evaporating seas it doesn't make sense that it should have any major chemical difference. This short article says the minerals in commercial sea salt have been removed from the mined salt and supports my suspicions. The large grain size for cooking and food preparation is not unique to sea salt, as anyone who has used Kosher salt knows. There are practical reasons to use the larger grained salt in cooking and there is no end of such reasons expounded by cooks. FWIW Q&A: Is 'sea salt' different from regular salt?

Still reading away and nothing to quote from The Authoritarians study just now, however a news story caught my eye that bears on Ten oz' Southern Strategy piece. It seems that this time rather than the questionably sane conservatives trying to court the Black vote via religion, it's now Hispanics. This quote seems apropos. Koch brothers reach out to Hispanics

Making my attempt at answering your question Łame. Ya win a few, ya lose a few. Interesting study anyway; I saved the PDF & will read.

So if you know that much, or at least know how to look it up, why are you asking here? Is that information what constitutes your 'My understanding is...'? Isn't it possible that such complex analyses have no effective layman's terms? Perhaps in layman's terms, they proceed cautiously.

IANE (I Am No Expert) but the way I read that page, only logistic regression is a technique. It sounds to me like survival analysis simply refers to the overall aim/goal of looking at who lived and who died. Notice there is no mention of survival analysis in their section titled Methods. (I don't see the term 'survival analysis' at the page at all; where did you find it?)

I'll be reading on-and-off throughout the day and save any further quoting posts until this evening. The Authoritarians

Your response is laughable. The Austrian study, unlike anything you have offered in any of your threads on the topic, is well controlled and gives careful and explicit attention to its shortcomings as well as its validity. Moreover, the studies you present are actually not studies at all but popular media reports about studies and you present them as if their correlations are conclusive evidence. The Austrian study clearly calls into question your ill-supported ongoing blanket assertions that a vegetarian (vegan, etc. ) diet is 'healthier' than a diet containing meat. The China study has been discredited numerous times, most recently that I recall in Ten oz's thread on whether the world must adopt vegetarianism. (I'll find the reference.) Moreover, even if people can survive on a non-meat diet it is a non sequitur to conclude it is healthier than those diets that include meat. PS Your China study link is a dead-end, i.e. it does not lead to the study or even a discussion of it. Worthless. What or who are you responding to? We covered the B12 supplement issue and the bacterial source for commercial production of B12 and people that eat meat do not need to supplement their B12. ------------------------ Addendum: I didn't find the China study debunking where I expected, but that is little matter as to its existence. I also seem to recall that I have already presented this to Ed when he brought the China study issue up before, and whether that recollection is correct or not is again of no matter other than the ongoing ignoring of contrary evidence to Ed's claims. The China Study: Fact or Fallacy?

I am not giving opinions, I am citing scientific evidence. Your failure to understand the distinction is abysmal.

Really? I stated my opinions for the record, because others had remarked about my opinions, when I felt they didn't know what I believed. I'd rather have everyone know how I feel about things, rather than have someone else confuse them on my behalf. Unfortunately, if you don't read about something, you are uninformed, and if you do read about it, you are misinformed--Mark Twain. The problem Ed is that you keep putting up these threads as if your opinions were fact and without exception the articles you put in the OPs have serious flaws in their methodology. Yet you blithely ignore those problems when people point them out as you continue to assert vegetarianism (veganism, ovo yada yada yada whatever you are misrepresenting-anism) is 'more' healthy. So yes really; your words are useless if not worthless. Moreover, by the well-controlled study that I just cited [and you ignored and/or failed to address] from Austria, your opinions/recommendations to vegetarianism may actually be putting people at risk were they to act on your words. You have flawed science if science at all in lo these many threads Ed. Seriously. Unsubstantiated hogwash.

Chapter Four opens with a questionnaire used to ascertain a person's religious fundamentalism. I'll give a few of the 12 questions and some commentary on the scale. To clarify again, these scales are not directly measuring conservatism, rather they are measuring RWA [Right-Wing Authoritarianism], fundamentalism, prejudice, etc. and a statistically significant number of people who rank as high-RWA, high-fundamentalist, or high-prejudice have a strong correlation with self-identification as politically conservative. The Authoritarians

Roger. That is the meta-study that I have been referring to. It summarizes some 80 different studies and Bob Altemeyer's The Authoritarians that I have been quoting from most recently is just the first of those 80+ studies that I have begun reading in depth. Take your time and a big g'donya for taking up the challenge of reading more than the snappy headline article that prompted this thread. Given the responses here I suspect many have not even bothered to go beyond the headline to the article, let alone the meta-study itself that you have now read and which I found referenced in that snappy article . The devil is in the details and the details are in the actual research. Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; read, and ye shall know.

What you don't get is that your opinions without legitimate reference or support are useless if not worthless.

There's a whole chapter on it and I haven't quoted from it or commented as I haven't completed reading it yet. On the face of it that is true. To revisit other shared qualities from study results we have: 1. Illogical Thinking 2. Highly Compartmentalized Minds 3. Double Standards 4. Hypocrisy 5. Blindness To Themselves 6. A Profound Ethnocentrism 7. Dogmatism: The Authoritarians Last Ditch Defense Arguably these play into religious belief, but I'll wait 'til I finish the religion chapter before drawing unwarranted conclusions. Again this seems true on the face of it but the study I'm working through indicates there is more complexity to it and illumes some of the whys-and-wherefores of peoples' conception of 'best personal interest'. Again turning to the study on RWA -and with understanding it is just one of 80+ studies evaluated in the meta-study- it is not so much that conservatives dislike reason as they don't know what it is or per se understand it and so they use reason/logic poorly. While I didn't quote much from the study about how high RWA come to their condition (another reason I encourage everyone to read it themselves), the indications are that it has much to do with living a sheltered childhood and continuing in later life to seek the company of like-minded folk. With that in mind, education exposes people to ideas and folk outside their otherwise narrow scope which can and does in some cases lessen some of the extremes of thought and action by high RWAs. Will try and finish Chapter Four, Authoritarian Followers and Religious Fundamentalism by tomorrow and then post accordingly. Here's the PDF link again for those interested in doing their own reading. >> The Authoritarians

Duly noted. The reason one reads such papers is to learn more about the subject. I'll just quote the conclusion and let everyone else not read it in their own time.

I have finished reading the article and thanks again for throwing it into the psycho-politico mix. While I have yet to read all of Chapter Four on RWA and religion in Bob's work I found this bit interesting from your Sothern Strategy piece. As we all know, the attempt has failed. Perhaps because 'reasoning' that suggests religion will trump racial prejudice is flawed to the point of mild insanity.

While I agree with you that Ed is wrong on his claim, I don't necessarily agree that 'vegetarians' choose the lifestyle because of 'animal cruelty'. The following article says many do it for health reasons. (A subject for a study in-and-of itself.) In any case it is no simple situation as Ed seems to believe. I will only quote a few passages as I see fit, but reading the entire article is necessary to cover all the arguments and facts presented. Don't knee-jerk respond to the title as Ed does with his many threads and fallacious conclusions. I will quote the first paragraph of the article to emphasize that point. Repeat: Read the entire article before responding to it with a post. EDIT: PS There is a link in the article to a PDF of the full actual study. I encourage interested folk to download and read it as I will. (I got an error trying to left-click on the file so I right-clicked and saved the PDF to my disk successfully.) Additionally, this study does not look at Blacks and arguably may not belong in this thread. Keeping track of Ed's multiple threads makes selecting a fit a crap-shoot. >> http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0088278&representation=PDF Are Meat Eaters Healthier Than Vegetarians?

No one doubts that you will continue as you have or that your interest is pressing your personal bias. However nothing you have posted in this or any of your threads constitutes scientific support of a meatless diet. Allow me to reiterate a support of my claim which you either missed or ignored.

We've been over these classifications and nuances in numerous threads so I saw no need to repeat them here. The upshot is that I probably mean Ed is full of bull.

My bad. You are correct; bacteria are neither plant nor animal these days. The three-domain classification was introduced in the late 70's. Nevertheless, in regards to the topic of this thread B12 cannot be had from a vegetarian diet no matter a person's race.