Not sure what you mean here. If anything I'm on the other end, I currently do industrial automation which is 90% just product integration with COTS modules. I'm actively working to get back to lower level electronics and PCB design because I want to be able to optimise things at that level.
I'm definitely not saying there's no place for analog designs, I just mean that an increasing proportion of things are done digitally out of convenience where before they'd have been built with opamps and... stuff. Yeah I don't claim to be an analog wizard, doesn't mean I don't respect and somewhat envy them.
Not necessarily 100%, but yes, I'm assuming consistent absorption rate. This seems to be pretty well accepted but I'm happy to accept scientific evidence to the contrary.
You seem confused. I don't blame my behaviour on it, I merely mention that it's a contributing factor. I never said it's not my fault, either - if it wasn't my fault I wouldn't apologise, even tacitly.
If you want to read anything into that combination of quotes, it should be "fractoid cares less about upsetting random slashdotters than he does about not getting fat."
Calorie restriction relative to expenditure is the only effective weight loss strategy and it is universally effective when applied. Note that I'm not getting into issues of willpower etc. I'm just talking about basic physical facts. If you eat more calories than you burn then you will gain weight. If you eat fewer calories than you burn then you will lose weight. It's the law of conservation of energy.
If you want to get into matters of which weight loss method is psychologically easier or more likely for people to actually follow in practice, then that's where hormones and type of calories etc. come into play. This certainly effects how feasible various strategies are for unsupervised humans to implement on their own. It does not change how effective a given daily calorie limit will be on producing weight gain or loss.
It is that simple (this isn't even biology, it's the laws of thermodynamics). People burn roughly 6500 to 9000 kJ per 24h period while resting. That doesn't change the fact that if you, personally, eat fewer kilojoules than you burn then you WILL lose weight. If you don't lose weight, then it is because you didn't eat fewer kilojoules than you burned. There's no grey area here, it's a physical law.
I think analog has a higher skill cap and a higher ultimate potential (for a given level of technology) than digital. I'd love to see more funding go to it just as an intellectual exercise... but sadly 'easy' is more important commercially than 'awesome'.
(I say this as someone who has a fair bit of experience with digital circuit design and a lot of software experience, and very little practical experience with analog circuits... I love analogue stuff but it's very hard to make it pay its way.)
Because fat people want to be told it's not their fault.
No, seriously, that's it. "Digestion and metabolism" don't have more effect than calories in the food consumed. NOTHING has ANY effect (directly on body weight) other than calories in the food consumed.
Various foods may slightly increase or decrease hunger. Various activities may slightly increase or decrease energy expenditure, and may affect hunger one way or the other. No matter how the subject *feels*, the amount of weight gained or lost is directly proportional to the calorie difference between food eaten and energy expended.
Analog circuits are always going to be faster, more accurate per area of silicon, and less deterministic than digital circuits. They're also always going to be harder to understand than digital circuits for anyone who isn't a wizard. There's less need for analog circuit wizards than there is for digital circuit designers just the same way there's less need for deep embedded software wizards than there is for your garden-variety software engineers. It hurts to say it but technology is advancing to the point where it's less important to get 100% out of our current technology than it is to get 25% out of it in a manner that mere mortals can understand.
There'll always be a place for analog design but it will be confined to an ever-shrinking niche on the cutting edge where, as bogglingly capable as it is, our digital technology just isn't quite up to the task.
I think you make a great point. What are we trying to do here? If we're accepting the results of one form of voluntary excess as a disability, then we have no moral grounds not to accept them all. At which point the onus shifts to society for supporting those choices, whether that means specially marked car bays for fat people or legislation against firing people for being drunk at work.
I certainly enjoy my vices but I would never demand that society to pay for them.
No, to lose weight I have to eat fewer calories than I burn. That's how it works. And I take full responsibility for being on the internet in the meantime while I'm irritable.
If being greedy turned you into a Jew, or eating watermelon and fried chicken made you black, or being bad at driving and good at maths made you Asian, then you might have a point... IF being Jewish, or black, or Asian was actually bad for your health and indicated poor self-control. Which, you r... *ahem* which it does not.
Stereotyping people based on outwardly visible genetic factors is often wildly inaccurate. Stereotyping people based on outwardly visible factors (such as physical build, grooming, dress, interpersonal and communication skills) determined by your long-term lifestyle is far more accurate because these factors are based on how you live.
A fully functioning metabolism tries to hoard fat so that when you're starving, you have something to live off. Fully functioning metabolisms do not help you lose weight. Weight loss (barring significantly changed life circumstances) is what happens when your conscious mind overrides your natural homeostasis to limit your intake of dietary calories in order to deliberately burn your fat reserves.
Yeah, but that's less than 1% of the population. The rest of the fatties are physically capable and just don't have the discipline.
If you disbelieve me, how many people do you know who "just couldn't lose weight" and had gastric banding surgery? Because anyone who "couldn't lose weight" but did so with gastric band surgery was lying and could have lost weight at any point by simply not fucking eating so much.
If this comes across as somewhat snippy it's because I didn't have lunch today because I'm cutting back a couple of kilos.
Oh come on, that's why the troops have been *there* for the past decade. Iraq was always fucked up, America went in to stop some serious badness happening, and spent over 10 years there trying to fix things up. And now when they finally (and in accordance with many locals' wishes) pull the troops out you start bitching that they didn't "send troops over to fix it"? Please.
If you don't understand what they are in isolation, how would you know what impact they have?
Anyway, half of them (accelerated UI, TRIM support) are "phone go faster" and the rest are all under-the-hood and your average pleb wouldn't know or care.
Blender is a modeler, and can integrate with a bunch of different renderers. As I understand it, Renderman is the specification for an interface to a rendering engine. PRMan is Pixar's implementation of the Renderman interface. For a long time there was a free implementation called Blue Moon Rendering Tools, but I think that got pulled after some legal issue with Pixar.
Java itself was alright, the problem was the lack of discipline as they worked on the Java API. Up to version 1.2 it was still pretty good. After that it just got bloated with redundant crap.
I realise I'm going against the local trend here, but I kinda accidentally clicked on TFA. The abstract states:
The odds of obesity, measured using body mass index, waist:hip ratio, waist:height ratio, and waist circumference, increased with increasing levels of LAN exposure (P even after adjustment for potential confounders such as sleep duration, alcohol intake, physical activity, and current smoking. We found a significant association between LAN exposure and obesity which was not explained by potential confounders we could measure.
So there's the various factors they accounted for in their calculation. If you want more "correlation/causation and all that", the data used was from the Breakthrough Generations Study. Feel free to apply for the study data and perform any extra analysis that you feel might be required.
I was talking more about comparing two guys with equal, fairly average, social skills, but different levels of physical attractiveness. The first guy is fit, has good facial symmetry, good grooming, wearing nice clothes. The second guy is flabby, unattractive face, has a neckbeard, wearing old/stained clothes, maybe doesn't smell so good. In this situation, the first guy is going to get a hug even if he *was* staring at the girl's boobs a bit, whereas the second guy is not (and if he was taking a look, he'll get called creepy).
When you're just describing two equal-looking guys with massively different behaviour, I agree that the lascivious, socially awkward guy will get called creepy while the socially adept guy will not. That's how it's meant to work.
Slashdot Mirror
Not sure what you mean here. If anything I'm on the other end, I currently do industrial automation which is 90% just product integration with COTS modules. I'm actively working to get back to lower level electronics and PCB design because I want to be able to optimise things at that level.
I'm definitely not saying there's no place for analog designs, I just mean that an increasing proportion of things are done digitally out of convenience where before they'd have been built with opamps and... stuff. Yeah I don't claim to be an analog wizard, doesn't mean I don't respect and somewhat envy them.
Not necessarily 100%, but yes, I'm assuming consistent absorption rate. This seems to be pretty well accepted but I'm happy to accept scientific evidence to the contrary.
You seem confused. I don't blame my behaviour on it, I merely mention that it's a contributing factor. I never said it's not my fault, either - if it wasn't my fault I wouldn't apologise, even tacitly.
If you want to read anything into that combination of quotes, it should be "fractoid cares less about upsetting random slashdotters than he does about not getting fat."
No it doesn't. Binging at the end of a period of reduced intake is what results in accumulated fat and yoyo dieting. Your second paragraph is spot on.
Calorie restriction relative to expenditure is the only effective weight loss strategy and it is universally effective when applied. Note that I'm not getting into issues of willpower etc. I'm just talking about basic physical facts. If you eat more calories than you burn then you will gain weight. If you eat fewer calories than you burn then you will lose weight. It's the law of conservation of energy.
If you want to get into matters of which weight loss method is psychologically easier or more likely for people to actually follow in practice, then that's where hormones and type of calories etc. come into play. This certainly effects how feasible various strategies are for unsupervised humans to implement on their own. It does not change how effective a given daily calorie limit will be on producing weight gain or loss.
It is that simple (this isn't even biology, it's the laws of thermodynamics). People burn roughly 6500 to 9000 kJ per 24h period while resting. That doesn't change the fact that if you, personally, eat fewer kilojoules than you burn then you WILL lose weight. If you don't lose weight, then it is because you didn't eat fewer kilojoules than you burned. There's no grey area here, it's a physical law.
I think analog has a higher skill cap and a higher ultimate potential (for a given level of technology) than digital. I'd love to see more funding go to it just as an intellectual exercise... but sadly 'easy' is more important commercially than 'awesome'.
(I say this as someone who has a fair bit of experience with digital circuit design and a lot of software experience, and very little practical experience with analog circuits... I love analogue stuff but it's very hard to make it pay its way.)
Because fat people want to be told it's not their fault.
No, seriously, that's it. "Digestion and metabolism" don't have more effect than calories in the food consumed. NOTHING has ANY effect (directly on body weight) other than calories in the food consumed.
Various foods may slightly increase or decrease hunger. Various activities may slightly increase or decrease energy expenditure, and may affect hunger one way or the other. No matter how the subject *feels*, the amount of weight gained or lost is directly proportional to the calorie difference between food eaten and energy expended.
Because it's not. The kilogram is the base SI unit of mass (unintuitive as that may seem, given the included scale prefix.)
Analog circuits are always going to be faster, more accurate per area of silicon, and less deterministic than digital circuits. They're also always going to be harder to understand than digital circuits for anyone who isn't a wizard. There's less need for analog circuit wizards than there is for digital circuit designers just the same way there's less need for deep embedded software wizards than there is for your garden-variety software engineers. It hurts to say it but technology is advancing to the point where it's less important to get 100% out of our current technology than it is to get 25% out of it in a manner that mere mortals can understand.
There'll always be a place for analog design but it will be confined to an ever-shrinking niche on the cutting edge where, as bogglingly capable as it is, our digital technology just isn't quite up to the task.
The 0.267m device weighs just 0.467kg and measures a mere 0.0066m in thickness.
Happy now?
Yep. The problem is your reading comprehension.
Much food -> accumulate fat (since there's enough energy coming from food, and some left over.)
Little food -> burn fat (since there's not enough energy coming from food, and more energy is needed.)
It's not complicated.
I think you make a great point. What are we trying to do here? If we're accepting the results of one form of voluntary excess as a disability, then we have no moral grounds not to accept them all. At which point the onus shifts to society for supporting those choices, whether that means specially marked car bays for fat people or legislation against firing people for being drunk at work.
I certainly enjoy my vices but I would never demand that society to pay for them.
No, to lose weight I have to eat fewer calories than I burn. That's how it works. And I take full responsibility for being on the internet in the meantime while I'm irritable.
If being greedy turned you into a Jew, or eating watermelon and fried chicken made you black, or being bad at driving and good at maths made you Asian, then you might have a point... IF being Jewish, or black, or Asian was actually bad for your health and indicated poor self-control. Which, you r... *ahem* which it does not.
Stereotyping people based on outwardly visible genetic factors is often wildly inaccurate. Stereotyping people based on outwardly visible factors (such as physical build, grooming, dress, interpersonal and communication skills) determined by your long-term lifestyle is far more accurate because these factors are based on how you live.
A fully functioning metabolism tries to hoard fat so that when you're starving, you have something to live off. Fully functioning metabolisms do not help you lose weight. Weight loss (barring significantly changed life circumstances) is what happens when your conscious mind overrides your natural homeostasis to limit your intake of dietary calories in order to deliberately burn your fat reserves.
Yeah, but that's less than 1% of the population. The rest of the fatties are physically capable and just don't have the discipline.
If you disbelieve me, how many people do you know who "just couldn't lose weight" and had gastric banding surgery? Because anyone who "couldn't lose weight" but did so with gastric band surgery was lying and could have lost weight at any point by simply not fucking eating so much.
If this comes across as somewhat snippy it's because I didn't have lunch today because I'm cutting back a couple of kilos.
Oh come on, that's why the troops have been *there* for the past decade. Iraq was always fucked up, America went in to stop some serious badness happening, and spent over 10 years there trying to fix things up. And now when they finally (and in accordance with many locals' wishes) pull the troops out you start bitching that they didn't "send troops over to fix it"? Please.
If you don't understand what they are in isolation, how would you know what impact they have?
Anyway, half of them (accelerated UI, TRIM support) are "phone go faster" and the rest are all under-the-hood and your average pleb wouldn't know or care.
Think YOU got it bad? In Australia, we don't have a Glorious Leader.
Blender is a modeler, and can integrate with a bunch of different renderers. As I understand it, Renderman is the specification for an interface to a rendering engine. PRMan is Pixar's implementation of the Renderman interface. For a long time there was a free implementation called Blue Moon Rendering Tools, but I think that got pulled after some legal issue with Pixar.
I don't understand why they never just asked Tank for a tank.
Java itself was alright, the problem was the lack of discipline as they worked on the Java API. Up to version 1.2 it was still pretty good. After that it just got bloated with redundant crap.
The odds of obesity, measured using body mass index, waist:hip ratio, waist:height ratio, and waist circumference, increased with increasing levels of LAN exposure (P even after adjustment for potential confounders such as sleep duration, alcohol intake, physical activity, and current smoking. We found a significant association between LAN exposure and obesity which was not explained by potential confounders we could measure.
So there's the various factors they accounted for in their calculation. If you want more "correlation/causation and all that", the data used was from the Breakthrough Generations Study. Feel free to apply for the study data and perform any extra analysis that you feel might be required.
I was talking more about comparing two guys with equal, fairly average, social skills, but different levels of physical attractiveness. The first guy is fit, has good facial symmetry, good grooming, wearing nice clothes. The second guy is flabby, unattractive face, has a neckbeard, wearing old/stained clothes, maybe doesn't smell so good. In this situation, the first guy is going to get a hug even if he *was* staring at the girl's boobs a bit, whereas the second guy is not (and if he was taking a look, he'll get called creepy).
When you're just describing two equal-looking guys with massively different behaviour, I agree that the lascivious, socially awkward guy will get called creepy while the socially adept guy will not. That's how it's meant to work.
What if what makes my brain happy is taking over the real world?