Posts made by rawr

@MrMazda:

Yes… The shocking thing is about the rates is that since 2000 when the studies started getting done with the newer meds that have come out post 1998. The interesting thing with them is no matter what the regime was, if the person had an undetectable viral load, there has not been so much as ONE documented case since the studies began 14 years ago of HIV transmission from an HIV+ partner who is undetectable. This is why I say that you could reasonably conclude that it's "safe" for lack of a better term. Even the statistics with condom use do have some (albeit not many) cases where infection has occurred as the result of a condom failure.

As far as I know and the databases I have access to, this is correct.

Note: To be clear in my previous post, I'm talking about transmission reduction rates, not actual transmission rates, after I re-read it, it may not have been obvious. So transmission is reduced by 96% clinically (it's realistically zero and there are no documented cases, but doctors are unwilling to say 100% for a few reasons; such as human error during testing, patients not taking their medication, exposure to mutations, and a few other factors.)

The HIV transmission rate being reduced by only 80% clinically when using condoms is shocking, I think this is due to regional issues. I'm sure in certain parts of the world they are "far less effective" simply because their users were not properly educated on how to use them. Including only developed countries with sex education programs, I'm sure it's much higher, but I can't find a statistic for that. There's also the risk of them just falling off, I really don't understand how somebody could break a latex condom when used properly. I'm sure there's a bigger chance with certain other materials, but again, in developed countries effectiveness and durability seem to be strong marketing points.

@MrMazda:

What may I ask do you define as "safe"? Statistically speaking, unprotected sexual intercourse with an HIV+ partner with an undetectable viral load is actually proven to be safer than sexual intercourse with a condom with an HIV+ person with a high viral load. This could reasonably conclude that it is "safe" to do it raw with an HIV+ partner with an undetectable viral load.

I completely agree and have personally done the math on this (factored at clinical transmission rates, which are 96%, which includes multiple forms of human error.) Even at 96% (like I said previously, that's a conservatively low number) in some communities it is definitely safer to have unprotected sex with a random undetectable partner rather then protected sex with a random partner (numbers pulled from health databases.) But, not in all communities, in my community, HIV is relatively low so other diseases are also a concern. So, in regards to HIV, you are generally correct but you're forgetting that at 96% and 80% condom effectiveness (sounds low as well), the combination of the two puts you in the odds ranges of things like getting severely injured in motor vehicle accident on the way to work (per trip.)

I have read some of your other posts and understand your situation, but he's right in the sense that protected sex with a undetectable partner is still statistically safer then unprotected sex with an undetectable partner (word redundancy intended) but realistically it's the same. If the other partner is also on PREP, we get into completely unrealistic statistical ranges, maybe more likely then winning the lottery off a single ticket, but pretty terrible odds.

Edit: sorry I didn't save the numbers, but my math does include the actual HIV transmission rate, which some may find surprising what it actually is.

@nordicblue:

It sounds to me that you are the one doing the double speak, not the lawyers.  How exactly is this a "chaotic system" as you say.  Maybe your point would be clearer if you didn't try to sound so erudite.

I can't help you understand basic concepts.

Since you have chosen to repeatedly insult me, I am done attempting to communicate with you.

You're correct I meant transitive. But you have the property backwards.

"Analogic "syllogism": Reasoning that if A is similar to B, and B is similar to C, therefore A is similar to C. Of course, the relation of "similar" is not transitive, but if the target can be induced to presume it is, this ruse may succeed in persuading. This is a favorite method in the "informal reasoning" used by lawyers."

This fallacy also seems very relevant.

"Complex cause: The cause identified is only a part of the entire cause of the effect."

As well as:

"Treating chaotic system as mechanical: Attributing the effect to causes as though it is predictable, when in fact the system, while parts may exhibit seemingly predictable patterns, cannot be generally predicted in principle from initial conditions. "

@nordicblue:

Alright, then explain why you think this is a false cause fallacy.  GABA doesn't need to make you stupid.  It decreases brain function is the areas affected, mainly executive functioning in the frontal lobe and allow the limbic system to go unchecked.  Teenagers make more rash decisions than adults due to their underdeveloped frontal lobe, which does not keep their amygdala in check.  :crazy2:

In regards to the false cause in the study : it's a transitional logic flaw. If A->B=true and B->C=true, that doesn't mean A->C=true. The media presented C->A and the uncredited study did not suggest that was true. (There is likely a very good reason why the paper was not directly cited. It's clear from the abstract that the conclusion drawn from it was very reaching.)

Note: Timothy Verstynen, Ph.D. is a psychologist.

The paper in which the media publication is loosely based on is here -> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22879428

Note: The article also uses incorrect facts (Why am I not surprised?) The original article is here -> http://www.menshealth.com/weight-loss/being-fat-makes-you-stupid

The conclusion presented in the abstract is "Our results show that increased BMI is globally associated with a reduction in white matter integrity throughout the brain, elucidating a potential mechanism by which changes in physical health may influence cognitive health."

Notice it is suggesting "a potential mechanism" not stating "it is a fact that." The word "may" is also used.

The (A->B) (B->C) logic is not even consistent with the actual research that was done, (A MAY cause B) and (B MAY cause C), so therefore is it impossible to say (A CAUSES C). It's not even an established fact that A directly causes B or B directly causes C, there may be an observational correlation but it is not a guaranteed. Not to mention, there are many other causes for these conditions other then obesity.

The basics to logical fallacies are presented here for your reference. -> http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logical-fallacies

The media article is suggesting that "a reduction in white matter integrity" causes one to be stupid, this may be true, but it is certainly not the only cause of stupidity. More importantly the point of the study was not to evaluate white matter integrity and intelligence, nor are the instruments of measuring intelligence defined in the study.

As with many media opinions, actual facts that have been determined in respectable studies are directly cited, but are unrelated to the premise. As I said before, nobody is disputing that being "fat" is unhealthy and these are the only studies cited.

I also think you may have not noticed that this media article is an advertisement for a product called speed shred. I don't know about you, but I personally take what I read in advertisements with a grain of salt.

In regards to GABA, I'm not going to go into all the specifics, but it's a critical neurotransmitter that is required for normal brain function.

You can read about it here -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma-Aminobutyric_acid

You can read about the myriad of conditions caused by low GABA here -> http://www.vitalityandwellness.com.au/low-gaba-levels

Considering the lengthy list of conditions caused by low GABA levels, I think it's safe to say that lower GABA levels are not associated with higher intelligence. Depression, excessive stress, and hypertension are known to occur though and are also caused by obesity, so your linkage is flawed (or at the very least incomplete/inadequate.)

@nordicblue:

Well if you think it is a junk study, then stay fat and see what happens.

Excuse me? That seems like a pretty ignorant response.

Your argument is besides the point.

No… That WAS the point. I'm sure it's a fact that being obese is unhealthy. Nobody is entertaining the idea that it isn't.

As you say, try reading more than "29 people who were having fMRIs and noticed a trend".  Excess adipose tissue increases the length of blood vessels, which increases stress.  Cortisol is releases in response to stress.  Cortisol increases GABA production, which induces neural inhibition, i.e., decreases brain activity.

GABA doesn't make you stupid, there you go again. Correlation does not indicate causation. You are falling into the trap the clever author of this article created, there is no factual evidence what so ever to support his claim, your mind is drawing the conclusion.

All I read was

Researchers quizzed 29 people who were having fMRIs and noticed a trend

29 People? That's all? Notice the word "correlation" was not even used. This is a junk study and these researchers are intelligent enough to know this. This is an opinion, I'm not completely sure why some people got upset about it, but it might be because the title of this post is misleading. Also, it's even hinted in the direct quote to what the real cause of what this "lack of intelligence" could be caused by. I doubt being obese (which could potentially lead to those conditions) is directly causing lower intelligence, but rather the potential side effects of it. Also, these subjects were conveniently in some type of test, so there is inherent (and significant) selection bias.

A more appropriate title for this post would be : "High blood pressure and inflammation might make you stupid."

Edit: Also, it appears you copied this from an out dated article on menshealth.com, this website is owned by an institution that generates income from advertising revenue, their sole purpose is to draw as much income through catchy titles/articles as possible. It is not to provide accurate medical information, it is not a source of information that should be considered "trustworthy." The content is provided for "entertainment purposes" only, as with many media publications.

https://www.gaytorrent.ru/browse.php?showsearch=1&c31=1&search=bear&incldead=0&inname=1&orderby=added&sort=desc

I don't know about you guys but, I personally can not stand low quality rips and always strive to get the best quality available.

95% all of them are available with reasonable upload speeds.  ;D

The one chart is really interesting, it seems to indicate (if I'm reading it correctly) that the death rate goes up for people below a BMI of about 22.5.

A BMI of 20-25 is considered to be "normal weight".

I store everything on my file server and the only way anyone can connect to it is via SFTP (or shell.) Everything is stored on a raid 5 array running 5x 2gb disks. I use the server to backup my personal business files as well. Anything I'm actually interested in watching (or re-watching) is on a separate hard drive on my main PC in the drive's root folder. I'm not at all concerned about somebody finding anything.

If you are hyper sensitive about somebody finding your stash I would suggest you buy a cheap laptop and do the "dirty things" on that, then hide it where nobody can find it. Even with something like drive encryption you could still be leaving a history of what you were watching in the video player or websites you don't want people to know you visit could show up with various recovery tools. Plus then you have this encrypted drive and someone could ask "hey yeah what are you hiding on that drive there?" Just get a "business" laptop, make sure your password isn't easy, and use a VPN, I doubt anybody will figure you out. If somebody finds the laptop and questions you, say it's your private personal diary and you would be extremely offended/upset if anybody were to read it.

Can you share what client and settings you are using? Are you using a VPN?

What you seem to be saying is that you get slow UL on this site but not on others, this tracker isn't doing anything all that different then other trackers, so this is a pretty difficult problem to diagnose.

I've personally had some issues caused by my old cheap router being a piece of junk, resetting it fixed the issue but only temporarily. Have you tried reducing your out going connections by turning off resolve host names and disabling DHT?

can we get a free leech only tick box on the picture browser? thx!

edit: btw love the pic browser