Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: AK2004 who wrote (278984)	3/8/2006 3:00:07 AM
From: Elroy	Respond to of 1572107

That seems reasonable I guess.

To: AK2004 who wrote (278984)	3/8/2006 3:34:21 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572107

Arab science Want to avoid diabetes? Eat slowly By Nina Muslim, Staff Reporter gulfnews.com Dubai: Preliminary findings of a study suggests some wisdom lies behind every mother's caution for her child to chew and eat slowly it may help delay the start of diabetes. The study, conducted by Dr Aus Al Zaid, diabetes consultant at Riyadh Armed Forces Hospital, found that the faster people ate, the higher their risk of developing diabetes. Dr Al Zaid told Gulf News that he wanted to determine if the high prevalence of diabetes in the Gulf was related to the Arab culture of finishing large meals quickly. "As a people, we tend to eat fast. I wondered if that is why [diabetes is high here]," he said after presenting a lecture at the Arab World Diabetes Summit. The study had 23 men per group consume the same dish at different speeds one in 10 minutes, while the other in 20 minutes. Both groups later switched to determine the reliability of the findings. Both times, the blood sugar level in fast eaters was 30 per cent higher than the slow eaters. He said the findings suggest that over the long term, the pancreas might shut down after continuously producing insulin, leading to diabetes.

To: AK2004 who wrote (278984)	3/8/2006 7:15:46 AM
From: Road Walker	Respond to of 1572107

Letting India in the Club? By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN India is a country that had me at hello. Call me biased, but I have a soft spot for countries of one billion people, speaking a hundred different languages and practicing a variety of religions, whose people hold regular free and fair elections and, despite massive poverty, still produce generations of doctors and engineers who help to make the world a more productive and peaceful place. Sure, as today's bombings in India illustrate, it has its problems — but it is not Iraq. It is a beacon of tolerance and stability. So I applaud President Bush's desire to form a deeper partnership with India. There is only one thing I would not do for that cause: endorse — in its current form — the nuclear arms deal that the Bush team just cut with New Delhi. I am all for finding a creative way to bring India into the world's nuclear family. India deserves to be treated differently than Iran. But we can't do it in a way that could melt down the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and foster a nuclear arms race in South Asia. What's the problem? India has never signed the N.P.T., which is the international legal framework that limited the world's nuclear club to the U.S., China, Russia, Britain and France. For decades, U.S. policy has been very consistent: we do not sell civilian nuclear technology to any country that has not signed the N.P.T. And since that included India, India could never buy reactors, even for its civilian power needs, from America. But with India eager to buy U.S. nuclear technology, and the U.S. eager to build India into an economic and geostrategic counterweight to China, the Bush team wanted — rightly — to find a way to get India out of the corner it put itself in when it first set off a nuclear blast in 1974. Under the Bush-India deal, India would designate 14 of its 22 nuclear power reactors as "civilian," to be put under international safeguards, leaving the other 8 free from inspections and able to produce as much bomb-grade plutonium as India wanted. In return, U.S. companies would be able to sell India civilian-use nuclear reactors and technology. This is a troubling deal for two reasons. First, it could only undermine the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Yes, I know, the Bush team doesn't believe in treaties and says the treaty isn't restraining the rogues anyway. But this treaty is the legal basis by which we have been able to build coalitions against the nuclear rogues to restrain them from spreading W.M.D. One of the key legal bases for isolating Saddam Hussein was that he'd violated the N.P.T., which Iraq had signed. The legal basis by which we are building a coalition against Iran's going nuclear is the N.P.T. Under the N.P.T., we board ships suspected of carrying W.M.D. Japan, Brazil and Argentina all chose to forgo nuclear weapons to gain access to foreign nuclear technology by abiding by the N.P.T. What are they going to think if India gets a free pass? What should we have done? Bob Einhorn, who has worked on nonproliferation for every administration since Nixon's, has the right idea: Tell India that it can have this deal — provided it does something hard that would clearly reinforce the global nonproliferation regime. And that would be halting all production of weapons-grade material, thereby capping India's stockpile of nuclear bomb ingredients where it is. That could be a lever to get Pakistan to do the same. The fewer bomb-making materials around, the less likely it is for any to fall into the hands of terrorists. "The Bush administration proposed such a production cutoff in negotiations, but dropped the idea when India balked," Mr. Einhorn said. "India says it is willing to adopt the same responsibilities and practices as the other nuclear powers. It so happens that the five original nuclear powers — U.S., U.K., France, Russia and China — have all stopped producing fissile material for weapons. If we are going to bring India into the club, it should do so as well." India says it needs to keep producing nuclear material to have a more credible deterrent. I can't judge that. All I know is that we should not go ahead with this deal until India is ready to halt its production of weapons-grade material. "The problem the Bush administration faces in selling the nuclear deal is not, as the president has said, that 'some people just don't want to change' or that they are focused on outdated concerns," Mr. Einhorn argued. "People are willing to change. They want to support the president's India initiative, even modify longstanding policies. But they want to do it in a way that also serves an objective that is hardly outdated: preventing nuclear proliferation."