Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • Mavric

      The 2018 HuskerBoard Starting Lineup   01/17/2018

      The 2018 HuskerBoard Starting Lineup is now live! Click HERE to read the rules, and look in the Contest Crib for nomination and voting threads throughout the next several weeks.   This is a great opportunity to say "thanks!" to your fellow HuskerBoard members for keeping you informed or entertained throughout the past year. Nominate your favorite HuskerBoard member today!

Kiyoat Husker

Members
  • Content count

    2,532
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Kiyoat Husker last won the day on August 22 2017

Kiyoat Husker had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,685 Excellent

About Kiyoat Husker

  • Rank
    Assistant Coach

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Sioux Falls, SD

Recent Profile Visitors

5,171 profile views
  1. Parkland, FL High School Shooting

    I'm sure I'll get some backlash for this, but there have been some wild rumors about the shooter's political affilliations (both sides). That's not surprising. It seems to happen every time there is a shooting. Snopes has weighed in on, and debunked, some of the rumors, but DID confirm something: https://www.snopes.com/did-shooters-instagram-picture-maga-hat/ The now-deleted Instagram site with a red MAGA hat in the avatar, was confirmed to be the shooter's site by multiple sources, including FoxNews. Here's a quote from one of his classmates: Also:
  2. Poll: Scientific consensus

    Yes, I agree. It was a blanket statement, and not accurate. Many chemicals are carcinogenic at some level of exposure, even some that people assume to be safe, and consume on a regular basis. Many chemicals likely are carcinogenic, but no causal relationship has yet been proven, so it is disingenuous to make that claim. I think the statement that all pesticides are TOXIC would be more accurate. If they weren't toxic, they wouldn't be effective as a pesticide, since the purpose is to kill stuff (insects, plants, fungi, rodents, etc.). The level of toxicity to humans for different pesticides is the question, I guess. Chronic exposure to any pesticide is something that should be avoided or limited if possible, IMO. Yes, I know that pesticides have to go through rigorous testing before they are allowed to be used in this country, but I'll still buy organic strawberries lettuce and celery for my kids, just in case. (and thoroughly wash apples).
  3. Parkland, FL High School Shooting

    It's also worth noting that the original power for the states to maintain militia actually comes from the pre-constitution Articles of Federation(1777), which the Constitution modified somewhat. Here is the more-descriptive version from the AOF: The "well-regulated" line in both documents can be interpreted as a response to the recurring problems they had with poorly trained, poorly equipped civilian militias, and the lack of resolve from some of those groups. This Wikipedia article is a great overview, if you care to read it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)
  4. Parkland, FL High School Shooting

    Exactly. Someone in this thread (not going to look for it) mentioned the possibility that State-level National Guard units could fit the definition of "well-regulated militia". I mean, State-level military has been referred to as "militia" in the past... http://www.nationalguard.mil/About-the-Guard/How-We-Began/
  5. Parkland, FL High School Shooting

    Here's the article..... He will be a man, or maybe still a boy. He will have a semiautomatic rifle — an AR-15, or something like it — and several high-capacity magazines filled with ammunition. The weapon will have been purchased legally, the background check no obstacle. He will walk into a school, or a concert, or an office building. And he will open fire into a crowd of innocents. Even as he’s still firing — crack crack crack — word will begin to spread. Survivors huddled in closets or behind bandstands will send pictures, text messages, and videos into a world that is again aghast. Televisions will play the videos recorded amid the carnage, the sound somehow worse than the images. The fear in the victims’ voices will be familiar, yet too potent — a sound outside the boundaries of our own empathy. We will hear about the heroes: Teachers who barricaded their classrooms or threw themselves between their students and the gunfire; concertgoers who shielded strangers as bullets plowed into their backs. And we will hear about him: He was strange and troubled and cruel to animals; he’d shown signs of mental illness; he lost his job; he beat his wife. A chorus will rise to ask why anybody should own such a weapon, much less someone so obviously troubled; another chorus will accuse the first of politicizing tragedy. Some will point to the Second Amendment, and blame a lack of treatment for the mentally ill. Politicians, and then the president, will emerge. Some will plead for new laws. More will ask only for thoughts and prayers. Some will not mention guns at all. Any promises will be broken. Beyond the shattered orbit of the school or church or concert that became a shooting gallery, the whole thing will recede too soon into memory. And then it will all happen again. Whoever he is, he may already have the rifle. And he will follow the script. So will we. There are only three things we don’t know about the next time: WHO, WHERE, AND HOW MANY?
  6. Poll: Scientific consensus

    Sure, but you could say that about almost anything in science. Like math. Besides, it's not just an arbitrary definition. Typically species breed with each other under natural conditions, and separate species either don't (geographic/physical/behavioral separation) or can't produce viable offspring. There is some grey area there, of course. Scientists are continually argue about whether certain populations should be considered races of the same species, or just closely related, but separate species. Hybridization is the breeding of two closely-related but separate species. Some hybrids are sterile, like Mules. Some are viable, like wolf/coyote/dog hybrids. This brings in to question whether wolves coyotes and dogs should be considered races of one species instead of separate species. The argument with Canids is that they don't hybridize regularly in the wild, under normal conditions. The problem with that argument is that they have shown some hybridization in the wild, although one could argue that this only happens regularly in the atypical environments we humans have created. (see the Northeast US Coy-Wolf) Wait, What were we talking about, again? I think I just confused myself....
  7. Poll: Scientific consensus

    I agree with all of your points except the lack of enough land. Right now farming techniques and technology are so efficient in this country that we could easily feed the entire world. We are also blessed with a huge amount of the richest soils in the world. The problem is more in food distribution. Also, consider that a lot of acres are devoted to animal feed crops. If we needed to increase the number of humans we feed per acre, just converting some percentage of that to direct human consumption crops would exponentially increase that number. A resource that powerful should be protected from soil loss with sustainable practices, IMO
  8. Poll: Scientific consensus

    I guess I would recommend reading about science from respected sources rather than random websites that are biased at best, and propaganda at worst. good sources for science news, off the top of my head, ... Smithsonian Mag, National Geographic, Nature, Popular Science, Scientific American, Discover, etc. Being a skeptic is GOOD in science! That's how scientists approach their own research, and how they debate each other's research. That's how you protect yourself from the propaganda-peddling and B.S. Be skeptical when politicians or talk shows or news agencies make assertions without referencing data or academic research. Be skeptical of "experts" that have never actually done research, or been published in peer-reviewed journals, or that have taken money from special interest groups. it takes a little extra effort to identify misleading information these days, but it's worth the effort.
  9. Tyjon Lindsey

  10. WBB: 2017-18 Season Notes

    Which is why the RPI is sh#t. They should be looking at advanced metrics, like Massey (KenPom doesn't do WBB). Massey weights more recent record a little heavier, and looks at margin of win up to a certain point. RPI: #59 (just outside the bubble) Massey: #35 (solidly in)
  11. Poll: Scientific consensus

    Fair points. I'll try to take the long view on Roundup. As a tangent to this tangent..... What do you think about reversing the CRP policy of basing payments on the value of the land (which is based on production value)? I get it that part of the goal is to allow even prime farmland to "rest" and be fallow for a few years. It's a soil conservation thing. OTOH, the "marginal" lands for farming are actually some of the most productive lands for biologically diverse habitat (wetlands, wetland-upland edge, dry sandy upland, etc.). So if the CRP payment for those marginal lands were even slightly increased, it would greatly incentive-ize NOT cultivating prime habitat. Overall, the government would be spending less, and the farmer would be making more, AND there would be way more bang for your buck in terms of native habitat. Just a thought.
  12. Parkland, FL High School Shooting

    You made a good point, though. It's easy to say "yeah, that sounds like a good idea". Then when you can't hunt anymore because you were diagnosed with depression, it doesn't seem like a good idea anymore. There is so much grey area as it relates to mental illness, psychoses, etc, that trying to predict who is going to go postal becomes a fool's errand. The gun proliferation and generally easy access is the bigger picture issue, I think. It's like the good guys/bad guys debate in gun control, or incarceration. Most people are in the grey area of that. Many fantastic people in good standing in the community, etc. have still driven a car while drunk, for example. Once they kill somebody, they immediately become a "bad guy", even though they had engaged in the same risky behavior before. Or felons that turn their life around will always carry that "scarlet letter", and will always be viewed with suspicion.
  13. Poll: Scientific consensus

    Well, just because I was using Milkweed as an example doesn't mean I am only talking about Milkweed. The article mentions Roundup not to pick on that chemical, but because it is the herbicide that is used in a vast majority of GM crops. As you know, Roundup is a non-selective herbicide. So increased use of Roundup-ready GM crops = increased use of Roundup = very clean fields and very dead weeds. Unfortunately, the term "weeds" can apply to both invasive non-native noxious weeds, as well as native plants that provide habitat and food for native ecosystems. So killing lots of milkweed (and many other critical native plants) is essentially destroying breeding habitat for the Monarch Butterfly, (and many other critical insects, like native bees that are critical for agriculture) If there was a way to ensure that a certain amount of native habitat could persist alongside GM fields, I probably would have no problem with GM crops. Because the CRP program is voluntary, and prices/subsidies were up, much of that has been tilled. Even marginal land. That has probably had as big an impact, and is a separate issue. But the fact is that the tiny fraction of land in the midwest that harbors functioning native habitat is shrinking, and GM crops are a big part of that. I'll take your word on the (relative) safety of Roundup, as an improvement over other herbicides. and the decreased use of insecticides is definately a good thing. Of course, this is relative, because virtually ALL pesticides are carcinogenic at some level of exposure.
  14. Poll: Scientific consensus

    Kind of like the purpose of this poll? ....ha.... well played... I think.
  15. Parkland, FL High School Shooting

    I'm not going to debate the difficulties in defining mental illness, because I don't disagree with you. Somehow drafting effective legislation on that would be difficult. I was simply illustrating that on many gun control proposals, there is a large majority of Americans that hypothetically would be in favor of them. Mental Illness just happened to be the one with the highest level of support from both parties, and from gun owners and non-gun-owners. I mean, Friggin' 90%! The fact that the NRA digs its heels in on any and all gun control legislation, even (hypothetical) proposals with 90% support, was my point. I could have chosen some of the other gun control proposals with majority support from that poll, like: 1. Background checks for private sales and at gun shows = 84% in favor 2. Barring gun purchases by people on no-fly or watch lists = 83% in favor 3. Creating a federal database to track gun sales = 71% in favor, including 54% of gun owners 4. Banning assault weapons = 68% in favor, including 48% of gun owners 5. Banning high-capacity magazines = 65% in favor, including 44% of gun owners But none of these initiatives will ever see the light of day because of the NRA's influence. That was my point. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/americas-complex-relationship-with-guns/
×