The Calorie just gives you a basic idea of the relative energy in something you eat compared to something else you may choose to consume
Except it doesn't. It doesn't even give you relative energy between more and less cooked versions of the same food in the same portions.
From the article:
Wrangham’s findings have significant consequences for dieters. If Nash likes his porterhouse steak bloody, for example, he will likely be consuming several hundred calories less than if he has it well-done.
The calorie is fundamentally broken as a dietary tool. Relative energy is only useful on the large scale at best. Like steak vs. broccoli.
my experience is that foods fall into groups - sugars, meats, fish, fruits, vegetables, and so forth - and within a group one food is much the same as another in terms of its Calorie value
From the article:
Wrangham’s findings have significant consequences for dieters. If Nash likes his porterhouse steak bloody, for example, he will likely be consuming several hundred calories less than if he has it well-done.
First time I heard this song was some amateur performing a cover. And after I got done making fun of how bad the lyrics were and how stupid it was, I was informed that it was a famous song.
The fact that the calorie is "easy" is meaningless if it doesn't actually provide any information you need to know. You don't just go from eating a 300g portion of chicken and a 60g portion of broccoli to eating a 200g portion of chicken and a 40g serving of broccoli. For one, you'll just end up hungry and more likely to fail. And if you decide to eat different foods to get the most satiety out of your more limited calorie budget, you're going to be comparing apple calories to orange calories. For another, the human diet is a lot more diverse than the same entree and vegetable for every meal.
I'm not suggesting an alternative, as that's a much harder job, but knowing how many degrees you can warm up water by incinerating the food is not that useful either.
The study indicates that something as simple as cooking a steak to well done instead of eating it medium rare can result in a difference in a hundred or more bioavailable calories. We're not talking about 3 decimal places here.
Eating less is a useless metric alone. Because without satiety you are going to have far less success. Consuming more calories, but fewer that your body will actually use will mean that you won't be hungry and you still lose weight. And some of the foods you're eating don't necessarily need to be cut - maybe they need to make up a bigger portion of your diet. And not everyone eats a only small variety of food, so that complicates things even more.
I think you need to actually read the article before you speak about something you know nothing about.
Eat "less" is the part that's in question. how much less to eat depends entirely on what type of calorie you are eating (specific types of fat, protein, or carbohydrate). Cutting out the soda but not cutting out the ribeye steak might make a lot bigger difference than the converse, even if they are the same decrease in overall calories. And there are some arguments that decreasing carbohydrates and increasing fat intake and overall consuming more calories can still result in weight loss (or at least no additional gain), depending on individual biology.
If the weight goes up, I eat less. If the weight goes down, I eat more. For all the complexities of it, it really is simple to track.
That only applies if you eat the same thing every day. The quantities you should/can eat for each form of protein, fat, or carbohydrate vary wildly. So eating a little less refined sugar might make a bigger difference than eating a lot less olive oil.
Well - the subsidies for providing broadband to unprofitable areas already exist. This is what is formerly known as the Universal Service Fund, but is now moving to a new Connect America Fund.
Changing the definition of broadband in a large chunk makes cheaper, nearsighted efforts not qualify for these subsidies. And that helps prevent waste and fraud so the same areas aren't getting upgraded with the same subsidies every 2-3 years as the definition of broadband changes.
So if anything, this involves the spending less money wastefully. But the funding is not out of the federal budget - it comes from the phone companies' revenues. So it's really the phone companies spending their own (pooled) money to upgrade their networks (which is how it should be).
The ISPs are no different. They'll have to install better connections eventually. The world demands data.
ISPs are generally publicly traded corporations. The current trend is to sacrifice the future to save this quarter's profits. And if they don't, the shareholders will stupidly sue. Blame this on the stupidity enabled by high-volatility trading.
The competition makes the vendors fight for market share and pushes them to innovate and look for ways to keep the customers happy - with the vendors that fail ending and new vendors with new choices entering the markets.
The competition fights for the most profitable markets and not only leave out the barren farmlands, but even cities and communities of 10,000 or less where economies of scale don't lead to the highest profits. The problem is, they would still be mildly profitable if they were forced to serve them. But the complete freedom makes it very difficult for someone else to step in and offer that.
A lot of cheap web hosts only have a gigabit connection at the server level. I think you'll find a few larger data centers with multiple 10GbE connections per server and backbone connections in the range of 50Gbps to 500Gbps. Take 500Gbps to an overselling capacity of 100:1 (most web isn't straight large-file downloads) and you'll easily support 50,000 people hitting that one data center in the average day. Yes, that's relatively small. But see my next couple points.
There's more to it than a single connection to a single server. You have two people in your house hitting the local Netflix node (in the ISP data center) pulling in 1080p video, one Linux torrent downloading at insane speeds, a skype call, and Windows updates all happening in tandem. As long as the bottleneck isn't in your household, you won't have any hiccups in that skype call while this is going on.
There's also a benefit at the local level. You and 3 friends decide to set up a really nice NAS and split the cost 3 ways. You can now share that NAS over VPN and it's as fast as if the drives were on your own LAN and it's instant offsite backup for 2 of you.
Slashdot Mirror
The Calorie just gives you a basic idea of the relative energy in something you eat compared to something else you may choose to consume
Except it doesn't. It doesn't even give you relative energy between more and less cooked versions of the same food in the same portions.
From the article:
Wrangham’s findings have significant consequences for dieters. If Nash likes his porterhouse steak bloody, for example, he will likely be consuming several hundred calories less than if he has it well-done.
The calorie is fundamentally broken as a dietary tool. Relative energy is only useful on the large scale at best. Like steak vs. broccoli.
my experience is that foods fall into groups - sugars, meats, fish, fruits, vegetables, and so forth - and within a group one food is much the same as another in terms of its Calorie value
From the article:
Wrangham’s findings have significant consequences for dieters. If Nash likes his porterhouse steak bloody, for example, he will likely be consuming several hundred calories less than if he has it well-done.
Nothin' on You ft. Bruno Mars
First time I heard this song was some amateur performing a cover. And after I got done making fun of how bad the lyrics were and how stupid it was, I was informed that it was a famous song.
old man with a closed mind ranting
Sounds like this rapper, though he's a bit young to be doing so much closed-mind ranting.
On the other hand, I want to see more angry old men rapping.
The fact that the calorie is "easy" is meaningless if it doesn't actually provide any information you need to know. You don't just go from eating a 300g portion of chicken and a 60g portion of broccoli to eating a 200g portion of chicken and a 40g serving of broccoli. For one, you'll just end up hungry and more likely to fail. And if you decide to eat different foods to get the most satiety out of your more limited calorie budget, you're going to be comparing apple calories to orange calories. For another, the human diet is a lot more diverse than the same entree and vegetable for every meal.
I'm not suggesting an alternative, as that's a much harder job, but knowing how many degrees you can warm up water by incinerating the food is not that useful either.
The study indicates that something as simple as cooking a steak to well done instead of eating it medium rare can result in a difference in a hundred or more bioavailable calories. We're not talking about 3 decimal places here.
Eating less is a useless metric alone. Because without satiety you are going to have far less success. Consuming more calories, but fewer that your body will actually use will mean that you won't be hungry and you still lose weight. And some of the foods you're eating don't necessarily need to be cut - maybe they need to make up a bigger portion of your diet. And not everyone eats a only small variety of food, so that complicates things even more.
I think you need to actually read the article before you speak about something you know nothing about.
Eat "less" is the part that's in question. how much less to eat depends entirely on what type of calorie you are eating (specific types of fat, protein, or carbohydrate). Cutting out the soda but not cutting out the ribeye steak might make a lot bigger difference than the converse, even if they are the same decrease in overall calories. And there are some arguments that decreasing carbohydrates and increasing fat intake and overall consuming more calories can still result in weight loss (or at least no additional gain), depending on individual biology.
If the weight goes up, I eat less. If the weight goes down, I eat more. For all the complexities of it, it really is simple to track.
That only applies if you eat the same thing every day. The quantities you should/can eat for each form of protein, fat, or carbohydrate vary wildly. So eating a little less refined sugar might make a bigger difference than eating a lot less olive oil.
counting calories from feces is horribly inaccurate
Well sure - it's exactly the opposite of the energy your body actually took in. I can't see how it makes any sense at all to assume it's proportional.
Well - the subsidies for providing broadband to unprofitable areas already exist. This is what is formerly known as the Universal Service Fund, but is now moving to a new Connect America Fund.
Changing the definition of broadband in a large chunk makes cheaper, nearsighted efforts not qualify for these subsidies. And that helps prevent waste and fraud so the same areas aren't getting upgraded with the same subsidies every 2-3 years as the definition of broadband changes.
So if anything, this involves the spending less money wastefully. But the funding is not out of the federal budget - it comes from the phone companies' revenues. So it's really the phone companies spending their own (pooled) money to upgrade their networks (which is how it should be).
This isn't about the government giving away or funding anything (mostly). It's about making that level of service available at all.
That has nothing to do with availability.
The ISPs are no different. They'll have to install better connections eventually. The world demands data.
ISPs are generally publicly traded corporations. The current trend is to sacrifice the future to save this quarter's profits. And if they don't, the shareholders will stupidly sue. Blame this on the stupidity enabled by high-volatility trading.
Language evolves is the real point. Just like debugging no longer means removing literal bugs from circuitry. Are you going to argue that one, too?
That's not exactly true. It could range anywhere from 2Mbps to 30Mbps. All depends on what level of quality loss you're willing to allow.
Netflix quotes 3GB/hr. for HD. That's a little over 6Mbps for one HD stream. More than 15Mbps for UHD.
he cannot get usable internet at all. Literally, nothing.
If the latency isn't an issue, you usually have a choice in some fairly decent (but expensive) satellite options. Or at least 3G cellular.
How is it people really want 4k when we blissfully tolerate not getting quality anywhere near what is possible with 1080 as is?
Marketing has convinced people that the reason their 1080p looks like garbage is that we need to move on to 4K.
But if you don't build it, it won't become necessary.
The competition makes the vendors fight for market share and pushes them to innovate and look for ways to keep the customers happy - with the vendors that fail ending and new vendors with new choices entering the markets.
The competition fights for the most profitable markets and not only leave out the barren farmlands, but even cities and communities of 10,000 or less where economies of scale don't lead to the highest profits. The problem is, they would still be mildly profitable if they were forced to serve them. But the complete freedom makes it very difficult for someone else to step in and offer that.
Facebook, Netflix and Youtube, all of which work fine with a 10Mb connection.
Individually. If I lived alone I would definitely get by with less.
it is Rick solid
So it's never gonna give you up?
That is, in digital communication, 1 hz = 1 bps. There might be some overhead used for error correction and encoding, but that's not the point.
I think you're confusing bandwidth with baud rate. Bandwidth really is measured in bits per second.
A lot of cheap web hosts only have a gigabit connection at the server level. I think you'll find a few larger data centers with multiple 10GbE connections per server and backbone connections in the range of 50Gbps to 500Gbps. Take 500Gbps to an overselling capacity of 100:1 (most web isn't straight large-file downloads) and you'll easily support 50,000 people hitting that one data center in the average day. Yes, that's relatively small. But see my next couple points.
There's more to it than a single connection to a single server. You have two people in your house hitting the local Netflix node (in the ISP data center) pulling in 1080p video, one Linux torrent downloading at insane speeds, a skype call, and Windows updates all happening in tandem. As long as the bottleneck isn't in your household, you won't have any hiccups in that skype call while this is going on.
There's also a benefit at the local level. You and 3 friends decide to set up a really nice NAS and split the cost 3 ways. You can now share that NAS over VPN and it's as fast as if the drives were on your own LAN and it's instant offsite backup for 2 of you.
Meant to say the 20:1 limit for an "up to" claim was a theoretical fix, not actual reality.