Friday, September 2, 2016

September 2, 2016 -- A Quick Run Around the Web

Video: "4 Knots To Set Up A Tarp"--Survival Lilly.

 To recap, these are the basic steps to take when someone is shot:
  • Ensure your safety.
  • Call 911.
  • Begin chest compressions if needed.
  • Stop the bleeding (look for entrance and exit wounds; use direct pressure and/or a tourniquet).
  • Plug gunshot holes with cloth or a tampon.
  • "The Best Rifle for Survival"--Modern Survival Online. The author discusses why the .22 LR is the most overall useful cartridge for most survival situations (with a focus on hunting small game) and lists the pro's and con's of the .22 LR.
  • "Best Finishes For Your SHTF Gun"--Survival Cache. A discussion of the best and most common coatings/finishes for firearms, with particular attention to what you can do yourself.
  • "What’s in an MRE?"--Survival Weekly. The author tries out an MRE and gives his thoughts and impressions as to how they might fit into your preps. Hint: as a small supplement, not a significant part of your food storage.
  • "Is This The Best Bug Out Shelter?"--Daily Prep. The author addresses some of the misconceptions of using shipping containers as a shelter or residence, including potential pitfalls, and links to resources for those more interested in the topic.
  • "Prepper, or Refugee?"--A Survival Plan. The difference, at least for someone bugging out, is that the prepper has a realistic plan.
  • Nuclear War Survival Skills (PDF). (H/t Getting Started In Emergency Preparedness).
  • "Gun Ownership Still Rising"--Anonymous Conservative. AC writes:
    I’ll bet if you had the real numbers, at least 55% of households have a gun, and the number could be as high as 75%. This is human machines detecting what is coming, and remolding their cognitive processes to function in the new reality.
      Of course, for consideration in the apocalypse, 4 or 5% of those gun owners could be criminals, gangbangers, and others who also know that you don’t admit to anything if you don’t have to. Of course they are probably concentrated in liberal areas, surrounded by unarmed rabbits.
        They are somebody else’s problem – and what a big problem they are going to be.
        • "How to spot if society is DOOMED: Researchers reveal the signs that show civilization is set to collapse"--Daily Mail. As you would expect in this age of Gaia worship, the answer is environmental degradation of some sort. But (and this is a big "but") the researchers were only looking at small Neolithic settlements in Northern Europe. Obviously, a civilization spread out over a much larger area is going to be more immune to local changes in climate or environment. Tainter discussed, and ultimately rejected, the environmental change an an explanation for the collapse of complex societies, only noting that it was stressor that could trigger a collapse if the society was too complex and lacked the spare resources to deal with such a change. But the stressor could be reasons other than climate or environment, such as warfare or disease, or some combination.

        Other Stuff:
          When the Head Start Impact Study generally failed to show cognitive or behavioral improvements that lasted beyond kindergarten, Head Start’s defenders pointed to possible “sleeper effects” as a reason to keep the program going. The argument is that Head Start may have imparted a benefit that is not detectable in the elementary years but that emerges later on. A new paper from Brookings’ “Hamilton Project” follows in that tradition, claiming that Head Start improves high school graduation rates, college attendance, self-control, self-esteem, and parenting practices.
            The author challenges this conclusion and the methodology used to reach it. For one thing, the Brookings' researchers compared the performance between siblings, one of which attended Head Start versus a sibling that did not, even though there may be other reasons for differences in performance between siblings. He also notes that although the Impact Study showed no differences in performance in pre-teen years between those taking Head Start and those not, this research showed that the students that did better in later years also did better in their pre-teens. On that point, the author writes:
              If the Hamilton study is really isolating the effect of Head Start the same way the Impact Study does, we should not see Hamilton’s Head Start children doing so much better in the early grades. That divergence from the experimental evidence suggests that Head Start children are systematically different than their non-Head Start siblings, and the long-term Head Start benefits reported by Hamilton may be an artifact of that difference.
                The reason why the answer to this question is significant is because evidence (or lack thereof) of a benefit would prove (or disprove) that environment is a significant factor in developing intelligence. That is, if Head Start helps students long term, then environmental factors (rather than genetic factors) must account, at least in part, for higher intelligence. Until this Hamilton Project, studies had shown that Head Start had essentially no impact on learning and academic performance, even within a few years, suggesting that intelligence is an inheritable trait. That poses a problem for those asserting that all people are the same, because there is quite clearly stark differences in mean IQ for different ethnic groups. (I recognize that the researchers at the link claim that wealth explains the different IQ's, but that doesn't follow from the graph--if that were the case, China would not be one of the countries falling in the highest ranking). 
                Given the current political and cultural environment, there is strong pressure to find scientific evidence that lower or higher IQs are a result of environmental factors, and that those environmental factors are, therefore, the cause of lower performance or achievement from certain groups (or, conversely, explain the higher performance and achievement of other groups). So far, however, the environmental explanation of IQ has not fared too well. Which is why the environmentalists have had to retreat to the nebulous theory of "white privilege" to explain different outcomes, and why 50 years of programs to assist certain "disadvantaged" groups has not made one iota of difference. We could have spent the money from these programs in other areas--and had our moon bases and space stations and high speed rails under the ocean--but instead wasted it on a fool's errand. 
                • A reminder that we live in the 21st Century: "An innovative new fabric made from plastic can keep you cooler than cotton"--Quartz. The fabric works because it is breathable, but also, because it is plastic, it also passes infrared heat that is otherwise trapped by clothing. According to the article, "they found it kept the surface of a body-heat simulator nearly three degrees Celsius (about a 4.25 degree change in Fahrenheit) [cooler than cotton fabric] and almost the same temperature as bare skin."

                No comments:

                Post a Comment