Fail Quotes

[MrBogosity]

If it wasn't clear, the EQUIVALENT of 25 cups of coffee.  I think she said it was pure caffeine--in anhydrous powder form being used as a weight loss supplement--that was in his system.

10g of caffeine is the LD50, and it metabolizes in something like 12 hours. It's actually not hard to OD in pure form. But that's actually a testament to the free market: the industry self-regulates through the ABA, and it isn't a problem unless people are really juicing up on it like that. Make it illegal, and you'll have people ODing on it like they do on cocaine.

[dallen68]

If it wasn't clear, the EQUIVALENT of 25 cups of coffee.  I think she said it was pure caffeine--in anhydrous powder form being used as a weight loss supplement--that was in his system.

Yeah, that bit was clear, I also found the article she was referring to: It says a teaspoon of the powder has the equivalent of 25 cups of coffee (~2.5 g). It does not mention how much the athlete actually consumed. Then it goes on to say that he may have mis guessed how much he was taking because kitchen measuring things aren't really all that accurate.

[Travis Retriever]

Yeah, that bit was clear, I also found the article she was referring to: It says a teaspoon of the powder has the equivalent of 25 cups of coffee (~2.5 g). It does not mention how much the athlete actually consumed. Then it goes on to say that he may have mis guessed how much he was taking because kitchen measuring things aren't really all that accurate.

Really now? You found it? Can you post it here for reference? That would be much appreciated.

[dallen68]

http://wlfi.com/2014/07/19/fda-powdered-caffeine-can-be-lethal/

There you go. 

[Travis Retriever]

/sigh
Jacob Fennec being stupid again.
In red, his, in blue my response:


"Are you trying to say that environmental problems are not a tragedy of the commons problem?  Because they are.  The atmosphere is a commons, which we all share. "
Reread my original post.  I said that TotC is a problem that arises when GOVERNMENT owns the land/resources/etc and there isn't private property rights.

"The problem with marine cloud whitening and other geoengineering projects is that they require public funding, which means taxation.  Such projects also come with the risk of unknown consequences."
1) Cult of the omnipotent state thinking.  What besides government laws, regulations, etc is preventing people from pooling resources and doing this themselves?
2) Unknown consequences are a part of ANY plan of action.  If you want absolute certainty, you were born in the wrong universe.

"This isn't a scarcity or shortage problem, either.  What we are talking about are waste products accumulating in the environment, causing problems for everybody.  Also, there is a lack of recognition among private property owners that carbon sinks (trees and grasses) actually do have a monetary value to the economy.  Undeveloped land, full of trees, is actually sustaining the economy through gas exchange, yet land owners who have trees never get paid for the oxygen they produce through the sequestration of carbon via photosynthesis.  The reason is because we universally take carbon cycling and oxygen production for granted, even though we would all die without them. "
Limited resources in the environment isn't a scarcity/shortage problem? Ridiculous.  Also, it still ignores the point of private property.  If you own the land, you can seek restitution for having it polluted.   Simple.  I fail to see what you've posted in that has to do with that or how it would change that.
For your benefit:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xta4c731F-Y

"Developing the market for solar and ending oil subsidies is a much better long term solution to the problem.."
And while we're doing that, we could simply tear down all the coal plants and replace them with nuclear.  Nuclear is very clean, cheap, and efficient.  Nuclear waste is vastly understated and were it not for government treaties and other bogosity, could be simply re-enriched and  used again and without that issue.

Link to the full thread:  https://plus.google.com/107601466108345042986/posts/bNAavAzHBBF  Tsk.  You should know better than that, dude.

..something annoying Jason Fennec was him going on about was how, "Oh, environmental issues like Global Warming aren't an economic issue because it's not a scarcity issue.  It's a tragedy of the commons issue."
I tried telling him that TotC is ONLY something you get when government owns the land or resources.  And that despite his arguments from apocalypse, that we DO already have a viable solution to end all those issues:  It's called marine cloud whitening, and it works.  As you and Stef said, that should be the end the discussion as it is.  And sorry, Jason, you fucking drug abusing hippy, but that is NOT a reason to cut back on red meat.
He really needs to read that article by Rothbard on Air Pollution.  The only reason I didn't link it myself is because I've yet to read it (It's very long...and it's still on my to-do list) and didn't want to be a hypocrite.  So I linked him to Shane's video response to TheAmazingAtheist regarding polution and the like.  Sorry, Jason, but this IS an economic issue because it involves trade offs and things of value.  And really? Doesn't involve things of scaricity? So resources aren't a scarcity issue? Unpolluted land isn't a scarcity issue? Good lord. I've heard of some stupid rebutalls but that one takes the cake in terms of things.  Or the fact that government is the world's biggest polutter by far even if you don't count war, which you should.  If him and the other greentards want me to take them seriously, they'll call out government.  Until then, as far as I'm concerned, they're bullshitters and scam artists just like the homeopaths and naturopaths.  Plain and simple.

Holding people to their own words is 'harsh'? Hardly.  It's called expecting a standard of integrity.  If you don't have the integrity and moral fiber to practice what you preach, at least have the decency to preach what you practice.

[evensgrey]

/sigh
Jacob Fennec being stupid again.
In red, his, in blue my response:

[snipped bits I'm not responding to]

"Developing the market for solar and ending oil subsidies is a much better long term solution to the problem.."
And while we're doing that, we could simply tear down all the coal plants and replace them with nuclear.  Nuclear is very clean, cheap, and efficient.  Nuclear waste is vastly understated and were it not for government treaties and other bogosity, could be simply re-enriched and  used again and without that issue.

Link to the full thread:  https://plus.google.com/107601466108345042986/posts/bNAavAzHBBF  Tsk.  You should know better than that, dude.

Here's now cheap nuclear is to operate:  One of my brothers works in nuclear safety here in Canada.  He once told me he'd be quite happy to take ownership of every nuclear power plant in Ontario, since they make money hand over fist.  Yes, they cost a vast amount to build, the fuel per pound costs a fortune, but once you get them built correctly and perform proper preventive maintenance, they operate for years at a time with no problems, their fuel consumption is actually very small, their waste production is correspondingly small, we know everything we can need to know about containing it thanks to the research into the Oklo natural reactors, and they produce gobs and gobs of power at the lowest cost per kilowatt hour of any generation technology in existence.  The only real problem with nuclear is reactors have just about the worst power response of any power source ever devised, so they aren't really suitable as a sole source of power for a whole grid.  You need something you can throttle quickly when the load spikes, like coal-, oil-, or gas-fired plants.

[MrBogosity]

The only real problem with nuclear is reactors have just about the worst power response of any power source ever devised, so they aren't really suitable as a sole source of power for a whole grid.  You need something you can throttle quickly when the load spikes, like coal-, oil-, or gas-fired plants.

That sounds to me more like a problem with the grid than anything else.

[evensgrey]

10g of caffeine is the LD50, and it metabolizes in something like 12 hours. It's actually not hard to OD in pure form. But that's actually a testament to the free market: the industry self-regulates through the ABA, and it isn't a problem unless people are really juicing up on it like that. Make it illegal, and you'll have people ODing on it like they do on cocaine.

Caffeine is also notably more toxic when taken in pure form rather than as a (quite minor) component of a drink or medication.  Way back in university when I took Organic Chemistry I, one lab exercise involved extracting and purifying the caffeine from the contents of a tea bag (a pretty routine sort of operation in most organic analysis labs).  We were cautioned that the quantity we extracted, in the purity we would be able to reach with the equipment at hand and our skill level, could be fairly toxic. (That may also have been because of some of the solvents used. This sort of thing is done with what's called a 2-phase extraction, where you do the initial extraction into a solvent like water, and then transfer the substance of interest to some other solvent that doesn't dissolve in the first solvent.  Most such solvents are pretty nasty for humans.)

[evensgrey]

That sounds to me more like a problem with the grid than anything else.

I think it's more a problem with people than the hardware.  We tend to consume electricity in very uneven patterns when it's for private use.  Industrial and commercial uses tend to be rather smoother.

[MrBogosity]

I think it's more a problem with people than the hardware.  We tend to consume electricity in very uneven patterns when it's for private use.  Industrial and commercial uses tend to be rather smoother.

Hey, if we're paying for a service, we should be able to use it howeverthefuck we want. If you can't provide it reliably on that basis, that's your problem, not ours.

[AnCap Dave]

Woooooooow this guy is a doooouche.

I responded to that turd burglar last night that I linked to, and he had this to say. Also that stuff at the bottom about Norway smells of shit. Anyone have any actual info about that shit?

So we have established thus far that you really do think that the government is a collective group of evil people, who actually work against the people rather than for it. And that by exclaiming that more government involvement draws parallels to the Stockholm syndrome, where the citizens are kept hostages, you also imply that it is not just your government having issues with regulation and modernization, but it is the concept of a government itself that is hostile. Basically you are doing your best to undermine the role and importance of a well operating government, by making excuses of how you have a poorly executing one, and you describe the best alternative as absolute capitalism, also known as... anarchy?

I find that to be quite hilarious actually. How your rage against the government has developed to such a state, that you are basically set and ready to say "**** the lower class, **** the middle class". Because that is what an anarchy really stands for. You deal in absolutes, which TRULY through history (your statements about history do not apply to a general image, as you refer to poor execution of an idea, not the idea itself), have shown itself working the least efficiently to serve all but one demographic.

I was slightly sarcastic at first about you being a rebel, but turns out, you really are. Guess what you are looking for, is a revolution going back to the Medieval ages.

For a government that works largely unaffected by corruption, take a look at Norway. Below is a shorter quote on how the system's mechanisms is in general, and you can figure out the rest yoursel. And before saying that this is only possible with oil resources, also take a look at the rest of Scandinavia, with similar systems and results.

Norway does NOT have a socialist economy, but Americans are brainwashed by conservative talking points into thinking that the liberal model of capitalism practiced in Norway is actually "socialism."

Socialism means that the government owns and operates all of the productive facilities of the economy. In "totalitarian socialism" (communism) one party holds a monopoly of political power; in "democratic socialism" the government owns and operates all the productive resources, but there are democratic elections where different political parties compete to hold power. While we have a few examples of totalitarian socialism in the world today (China, Vietnam, etc), democratic socialism, although theoretically possible, has never existed in the modern post-industrial revolution world.

Most production in Norway is done by privately-owned businesses, some of them quite large. The difference is that these businesses are effectively regulated and taxed at much higher levels, to pay for a vast array of social services. This is NOT socialism; this is the liberal model of capitalism, taken further than we have ever gone in the USA.

What is life like in a truly liberal capitalist country? It is better than life in the USA. Let's take a look at a key economic statistic. (Data are from Wikipedia.)

Per capita income: USA = $50,789, Norway = $58,645
Taxes as a percentage of GDP: USA = 25% Norway = 41%
The Norwegian tax system is more "progressive" that the system in the USA: Poor people pay much less; Wealthy people (and corporations) pay much more — with fewer tax loop-holes and government subsidies.

And what do Norwegians get for their higher taxes? Extensive cradle-to-grave social services: health care, education, child day care, libraries, recreation and arts facilities — plus an extensive public transportation system. These are free or are offered at low cost, subsidized by taxes.

[evensgrey]

Hey, if we're paying for a service, we should be able to use it howeverthefuck we want. If you can't provide it reliably on that basis, that's your problem, not ours.

That's why I'm saying nuclear isn't suitable as the only source.  To provide for the quickly varying consumption of non-industrial/commercial consumers, we need something that has a better power response than a nuclear reactor (which can take literally days to bring up to full power).  We don't really want fast-ramping reactors (although we could build them) because they're less safe to operate than the slow-ramping ones with the same output. (The faster it can ramp up, the faster it can get out of control, too.  Basically, what the moron who caused the Chernobyl incident did was remove some of the systems that prevented the reactor from ramping up fast. Then, when it did ramp up faster and to a higher power level than was expected, someone hit the emergency shutdown, and flaws in the emergency shutdown system precipitated the steam explosion that began the primary containment breach.  The flaws also mean that that reactor was probably unsafe to operate in the first place and might have had an explosion in many scenarios needing an emergency shutdown.)

[BlameThe1st]

Sweet Celestia, what is with feminist social justice warriors not understanding nuance?

There are "old white men" whom I take seriously (Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell), but there are also "old white men" whom I do not take seriously (Rush Limbaugh and Bill Maher).

Likewise, there are women whom I take seriously (Julie Borowski and Angel Clark) and women I do not take seriously (Sarah Palin and Diana Feinstein). There are black men that I take seriously (Tom Sowell and Walter Williams) and black men that I do not take seriously (Barack Obama and Al Sharpton).

Venn Diagram, people. Learn what it is.

[Travis Retriever]

Caffeine is also notably more toxic when taken in pure form rather than as a (quite minor) component of a drink or medication.  Way back in university when I took Organic Chemistry I, one lab exercise involved extracting and purifying the caffeine from the contents of a tea bag (a pretty routine sort of operation in most organic analysis labs).  We were cautioned that the quantity we extracted, in the purity we would be able to reach with the equipment at hand and our skill level, could be fairly toxic. (That may also have been because of some of the solvents used. This sort of thing is done with what's called a 2-phase extraction, where you do the initial extraction into a solvent like water, and then transfer the substance of interest to some other solvent that doesn't dissolve in the first solvent.  Most such solvents are pretty nasty for humans.)

Not more toxic, just more bio-available:  http://bayesianbodybuilding.com/caffeine-is-a-femme-fatale/
Considering the lethal dose is several grams...about twice what he took, he likely had other medical problems (maybe he was caffeine sensitive?) that effed him up.
As 50-100 mg of anhydrous caffeine powder (or in capsule form) tends to give quite a kick, and is more effective than having it dissolved in a liquid, as explained by Menno, complete with sources.

[Travis Retriever]

Sweet Celestia, what is with feminist social justice warriors not understanding nuance?

There are "old white men" whom I take seriously (Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell), but there are also "old white men" whom I do not take seriously (Rush Limbaugh and Bill Maher).

Likewise, there are women whom I take seriously (Julie Borowski and Angel Clark) and women I do not take seriously (Sarah Palin and Diana Feinstein). There are black men that I take seriously (Tom Sowell and Walter Williams) and black men that I do not take seriously (Barack Obama and Al Sharpton).

Venn Diagram, people. Learn what it is.

The OP is a pussy beggar.