I recently started riding again, after my bike was stolen two years ago. I can't say enough how much I enjoy my recreational ride along the bay and ocean up here in Crescent City on a sunny day. I once rode on busy streets with no problem, but I'm now retired and will avoid busy streets. I've been watching YouTube videos of bicycling in Amsterdam (do a search) and would love to have that kind of bike infrastructure here.
Terrific series--more please!
The next step for us would be Gold--and perhaps, someday the coveted Platinum level--like Stanford University and almost all of Holland. The Dutch have a country the size of New Jersey with 10,000 miles of dedicated bike trails. They get health care, bike infrastructure and social benefits for their tax guilders; we get aircraft carriers. And balloon people (virtually unknown in Holland)
Anyway, ride on Jennifer!
Your fan, Gordon Inkeles
My personal experience with statin side effects, I would advise don't go there. "Muscle aches" was nearly disabling pain, and there was a mental fog that is not talked about. My pain cleared within 7 days of stopping, but nerve issues and brain fog took a lot longer to lift.
Thanks Ben, yes, I saw this 2008 article some time ago, but was trying to tie my column in with the very recent recommendations. Much appreciated, anyway.
Before taking statins please read:
I just found your article on the Kelsey Trail. Thanks for the great highlights. I used to live on the Klamath River up Bear Peak Rd near Clear Creek. I proposed reconstructing the trail to the Forest Service but they said that the Clear Creek section was pretty much demolished by logging roads. We (Clear Creek Legal Defense Fund) fought the road construction and logging upper Clear Creek and won administrative appeal with support of Sierra Club legal defense fund. By keeping upper Clear Creek preserved it was thereby able to be included in Siskiyou National Widerness area. I left there in 1981 but have always treasured that area. Someday I hope to see the entire Kelsey Trail reconstructed so more people can enjoy that wild area.
He said 28 ounces, not 28 pounds. Maybe 28 pounds is the Aussie version.
Sorry, Frederick Scott ARCHER
A kind reader corrected my erroneous claim re wikipedia and Frederick Scott Arthur--not just a page, but an entire category in wikimedia! https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Categor…
I am duly humbled!
Or, test your soil. It's not expensive.
Some things wrong with this:
Bindweed grows in most local garden soil types.
The aggressive thistle weed species we get here occur primarily in low-tillage soil.
Vetch prefers slightly acidic soil and is well-adapted to high nitrogen content.
Some things right:
Yes, plant ryegrass and hairy vetch aka green manure.
Garden advice is nice and everything, but this stuff doesn't apply to our climate. Most of our soil problems are related to being too acidic and stripped of boron, not what kinds of weeds are growing. Getting a proper soil test will let one know accurately how to amend these issues.
What suggestion do you have for invasive bamboo (courtesy of my neighbor's water garden). It's roots are as dense as the bamboo itself and they spread under the ground and sprout up shoots everywhere.
How about dandelions? What do they tell us about the soil?
Is this the one in Westhaven?
Chemtrails are nonsense. Even if you believed that there was a world wide conspiracy involving hundreds of thousands of people and many different governments, some of whom are at war with each other, keeping such a secret you still have to answer some tough questions.
What are they spraying and why and why keep it a secret ? What could they possibly spray at 40,000 feet high that would affect us on the ground ?
-40°C is exactly the same as -40°F
Former FBI Chief Admits Chemtrails Are Real - And Then He Is Poisoned And Dies
All your article tells me, barry, is that you've spent a lot more time staring at digital screens than you have paying attention to the evolution of the sky right over your head for the past 40 years. I spent my life flanked by the Oakland and San Francisco airports. If you don't "believe" in chemtrails at this point, there's probably no chance you ever will. There's no fear or poison or aliens in my limited comprehension of phenomenon. Those are your projections. There is a very real conspiracy going on that involves high altitude planes conditioning the air in some way for reasons I can only guess have to do with the very-rapidly changing climate. "Chemtrails" are very real. Google on, brainiac!
Actually, the quote was from an interview of Lenny by Amanda Geftner of New Scientist about his book and I was in Peter Woit's forum the day that she showed up there to ask for input for her upcoming interview with Lenny. In fact it was *I* who prompted the question and response from him...
All of which has absolutely nothing to do with anything that I said... other than the "undeniable (fact) that the universe appears to be designed".
String theory has virtually nothing to do with the point beyond the fact that it is necessary for the selection principle to be valid.
Thanks for your comments, Rick.
I suspect you didn't actually read Susskind's book from which you quoted (The Cosmic Landscape) because it's the weirdest defense of string theory ever written. (Check out http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpre… for instance.) String theory is dead (as is an anthropic string theory landscape): no evidence, no predictions, no falsifiability.
(BTW, Leonard Susskind is a delightful man, who talks MUCH better than he writes!) (and who was ONE of the fathers of string theory)
"A fine-tuned universe without apparent cause is an accidental universe: "We're here because we're here because we're here," as the song goes."
But there *is* an "apparent" although willfully ignored cause, as famous theoretical physicist, ("the father of string theory") Leonard Suskind says... "The appearance of design is undeniable".
Actually, a scientist would interpret this as... 'The appearance for a logically meaningful law of nature that requires life... is undeniable...'
And I say that it is willfully ignored because the direct observation implicates a true cosmological principle that defines the structuring of the universe from first physics principles rather than chance and selection effects so this implication takes theoretical precedence over all others because...
1) Your asserted 'incidental universe' is not what is indicated by the observation so the assumption requires that you produce a cosmological principle that explains the structure of the universe from first principles that also explain why the observed "bio-orientation" is just a consequence of the physics rather than the reason for it.
2) The unobservable multiverse assumption requires a complete and tested theory of quantum gravity to justify the assumption.
IF YOU KNOW HOW TO FOLLOW THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD... then the "anthropic principle" is "most apparently"... a bio-oriented cosmological principle.
But scientists are far to dogmatic to actually recognize and research their strongest lead...
and they wonder why they have no ToE... *eyeroll*
In Print This Week:
Oct 1, 2015
vol XXVI issue 40
The North Coast Journal Weekly
Website powered by Foundation