I just want a slot in the dash I can insert my iPhone and have the touchscreen on my in-dash display, with audio integrated with the stereo and the steering wheel controls.
I'd like to see the dock connector updated so that the entire iPhone display and touch interface could be used on the car's in-dash display, reformatted and enlarged if necessary to fit the screen's native display resolution and orientation, along with all the other expected integration like phone, audio and video.
Apple could license this interface to car makers for free and then help them create apps specific to the car, binding the carmaker to Apple and making consumers shop for iPhone integration specifically.
It would also get Apple closer to the point where the iPhone was really a portable computer that could be docked and then taken anywhere.
Did they have anything to teach the rest of the world about virtualization to begin with? I know I've ready plenty of posts here on how IBM was doing this with VM/CMS decades ago, complete with many of the facilities we associate with VMware.
What VMware got good at was making x86 virtualization work, given the x86 platforms inherent limitations and lack of native virtualization abilities (IIRC, ESX was released long before Intel added VT, to whatever degree that helps).
I this point, I think you're largely right in terms of the hypervisor itself, but IMHO what they still seem to have the lead on is the next logical step in virtualization, which is management of many hypervisors (and hence VMs).
I sometimes wonder if negative numbers wasn't something that was invented as part of trade/commerce to help accommodate the concept of indebtedness.
You don't really find negative numbers in physical nature, or at least not as the physical world was known in the BC era. A lake or river may be lower than average, but never has a negative quantity of water. Even subtraction is somehow positive, because if you take 2 apples from a basket of 10, the two you take aren't somehow negative, they still exist in the same form and are counted as a group as 2 apples.
I think the problem is that the "Home" directory concept was originally based around single-system access to the directory (ie,/usr/home/foo was accessed on a single machine) and where file locking, IPC and other similar mechanisms prevented multiple logins accessing mail from trashing files. The Wintel PC world's view of it has largely been as a private personal directory on shared storage, not generally as a user profile directory although MS kind of makes that work (for some definitions of roaming profiles..).
Once you had applications running and storing and updating settings in the "Home" directory, you kind of run into problems when you get into multiple system access without a common locking method.
There's little to believe why a diet that minimizes fat deposition isn't good for people who have a healthy weight.
Prior to the mid-20th century, most Inuit ate a traditional diet which was 60-75% fat, and the rest protein with a small quantity of carbohydrates, mainly from either seaweed or berries.
According to Taubes' book, cancer was so unknown among the Inuit that when one did develop it, it made the medical journals. Now their cancer rates are on par with non-Inuit since they have adopted a "Western" high carb diet.
A ketogenic (aka low carb diet) is used on children who have epilepsy untreatable with drugs and about a third of them stop having seizures at all and the next third are easily treatable with medications.
This leads Taubes to speculate on a possible link between a high carb diet and Alzheimer's disease, although no specific research has been done. Taubes does note that the large increases in Alzheimer's in recent history does dovetail with the epidemic of obesity, which is closely tied to the medical community's adoption of a low-fat, high-carb dietary paradigm.
Stanford ran a comparison of various diets, including Atkins, and Atkins beat the other diets by 2:1 or better in terms of weight loss, and one of the diets was a traditional high carb, low fat "starvation" diet.
That's one of the better trials, but much of the rest isn't "scientific" studies per say but clinical experience with patients who actually use the diets.
This one refer specifically to blood pressure, although there's a guy at Duke (whose name escapes me) running a weight loss clinic using a low carb diet.
For even better reading and the science involved, you could read:
Check out his two books, "Good Calories, Bad Calories" and "Why We Get Fat" for detailed, well-annotated scientific explanations of low carb, high fat diets specifically.
The politics of the USA Food Pyramid isn't about meat being bad, but about the large and profitable agribusiness sector that wants to insure a market for its high-margin grain crops.
That being said, it would have never made it on politics alone if the medical community wasn't firmly in the grasp of the "dietary fat and cholesterol are bad for you" paradigm, which has never been scientifically proven. There was some preliminary research which indicated a possible link between dietary fat and cholesterol in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the medical community got behind it 100% and refused to let go.
Now that reputations and entire careers based are based on this paradigm, it's really hard to let go of it, despite a lack of scientific proof linking dietary cholesterol and fat to heart disease and a scientifically proven understanding of insulin's role in fat deposition and inhibiting fat burning.
Further there is increasing evidence that eating a diet high in fat, moderate in protein and very low in carbohydrates is actually good for you. It's been amply demonstrated in clinical settings that eating this kind of diet results in near effortless weight loss (other than the effort to not inhale baskets of chips or candy) without exercise along with accompanying improvements in metabolic risk factors (high blood pressure, elevated blood sugar).
But such evidence runs counter to the paradigm and those vested in the "high carb, low fat" paradigm resist this because they look wrong and in many cases it can damage careers and status when they have been pushing the wrong "cure".
As a rational exercise, I can find enough positive things about my job and wife that make me want to keep them.
As an emotional exercise, I can find things about both of those things that I am unhappy with and want changed. Sometimes perhaps even enough that I may feel like I don't want either of those two things.
You end up eating less in terms of calories than you may have eaten on a high-carb diet, but the reduction in calories is only a small contributor to weight loss.
The metabolic changes, namely the reduction in insulin levels, is what drives fat loss and hence weight loss on a low carb diet, not a reduction in caloric consumption. The types of calories matter as much or more than the quantity of calories.
Every legitimate low carb diet I've read about is not calorie restricted. There is no calorie counting, and those following the diet are encouraged to "eat until they are full".
Such diets are also high in fat; fat has more than double the calories than carbohydrates, so it is unlikely that such diets are inherently low calorie, although the satiation associated with high fat consumption often produces a decrease in calorie consumption comparied to a high carb diet.
Low carb diets result in weight loss because they suppress insulin production and because they are ketogenic which results in body fat conversion via gluconeogenesis.
Starvation diets slow metabolism, reduce energy consumption (tired, hunrgry, etc) and do not produce sustainable weight loss, and what weight loss they produce is generally the result of the reduced carbohydrate consumption that follows from overall lower calorie consumption.
I guess I'd ask why it would be illogical to extrapolate back to pre-agricultural populations, or about 8,000 years ago, the generally accepted start of agriculture in human history.
I suppose it's *possible* that these humans at a diet primarily composed of some now-extinct non-meat plant source that is currently unavailable to the studied non-agricultural populations, but that's an even larger assumption than extrapolation from the studied bodies of populations.
I'd go one further, the SEC only goes after parties its sure it can defeat. I'm sure there are other criteria, too, such as policies which state that SEC enforcement actions cannot have a "deleterious effect on market conditions" which means that they will only go after large players in limited ways, since something like nailing Goldman Sachs to the wall may hurt overall market activity.
Foraging may be a part of human nature, but as we're able to study actual human nature, the humans involved seem to prefer animal calories over plant calories.
See:
Cordain, L., J.B. Miller, S.B. Eaton, N. Mann, S.H. Holt, and J.D. Speth, 2000. "Plant-Animal Subsistence Ratios and Macronutrient Energy Estimations in Worldwide Hunter-Gatherer Diets." American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Mar;71(3): 682-692.
1 in 5 of the 229 studied populations got at least 85% of their calories from meat or fish; some got 100%. Only 14% got more than half from plant food. None of the studied populations was exclusively vegetarian. Averaged across all the populations, two-thirds of total caloric consumption was from animals.
They'll also push a high-carb, low-fat diet which won't do anything for you but leave you hungry and make you fat.
The medical industry bought into Ancel Keys early and misleading research on dietary cholesterol and heart disease, none of which has been scientifically validated over time, despite a ton of money (6 NIH studies, $100 million dollars).
Of course, once careers and status is on the line, nothing is let go, and we're still stick in a paradigm that insists that eating carbs and eschewing animal fat is somehow good for us when it's been scientifically well established for 75 years that insulin is the primary driver of fat accumulation.
If the ADA is so fucking smart about diet, why do so many people go on high carb, low-fat, reduced calorie diets and end up as fat as they were when they started? It's a false paradigm.
Man as a species wasn't "made" for some higher purpose, but this is probably a sloppy way of saying that homo sapiens evolved with a biological predisposition to consume animal fat and protein as a primary diet source. In other words, man as a species wasn't "made" for a purpose, but any living man was made to eat meat.
In his book "Why We Get Fat", author Gary Taubes makes the point (which the Paleo diet advocates also make) that humans didn't develop anything like organized agriculture until about 8,000 years ago, too recent in our physical evolution to have developed a predominantly grain-consuming physiology.
He references cross-cultural anthropological studies of discovered primitive societies (no organized agriculture) that demonstrate a predominant consumption of animal fat and protein, which tends to reinforce the idea that human physiology is actually evolved to consume animal fats and protein as a primary calorie source.
I highly recommend this book, or if you're up for a more sophisticated read, his earlier book "Good Fat, Bad Fat" which is largely the same topics in a more in-depth version.
This just underscores how the managerial and executive class actually operates like a social hierarchy, much like an actual aristocracy, where spaces are essentially reserved for people in the managerial class and upward mobility is inhibited.
This is just a rehashing of the classic arrogance of the executive class -- that "managing" is the skill they specialize in, and there's no need to have any specialized knowledge of the area you manage.
The justification for this perspective often boils down to some combination of:
* I'm a decision-maker/course-setter. I hire area experts to explain complex details to me in simplified terms and then I make decisions and set future directions based upon this information. Structuring the management decisions is what's really important.
* I'm well educated and intelligent. I can figure most of this stuff out on my own. So-called "experts" in this field aren't as smart as they think they are (and I actually am) and dramatically overstate the complexity of their fields and the amount of information needed to make decisions.
While these two positions are somewhat contradictory, I've seen plenty of executives who hold both positions simultaneously. The former is actually somewhat reasonable and is more or less how most large organizations have to function.
The problem is that arrogance creeps in, and executives tend to cherry-pick -- when their area experts don't tell them what they want to hear, they fall back to their belief that they are the smartest guy in the room and make poorly informed decisions based on their own "understanding" of the topics at hand.
Slashdot Mirror
I just want a slot in the dash I can insert my iPhone and have the touchscreen on my in-dash display, with audio integrated with the stereo and the steering wheel controls.
I'd like to see the dock connector updated so that the entire iPhone display and touch interface could be used on the car's in-dash display, reformatted and enlarged if necessary to fit the screen's native display resolution and orientation, along with all the other expected integration like phone, audio and video.
Apple could license this interface to car makers for free and then help them create apps specific to the car, binding the carmaker to Apple and making consumers shop for iPhone integration specifically.
It would also get Apple closer to the point where the iPhone was really a portable computer that could be docked and then taken anywhere.
A few elite instructions will get as much time as they want, the rest will have to queue up once a week to get whatever time is available.
No, we played Duck, Duck, Grey Duck!
Did they have anything to teach the rest of the world about virtualization to begin with? I know I've ready plenty of posts here on how IBM was doing this with VM/CMS decades ago, complete with many of the facilities we associate with VMware.
What VMware got good at was making x86 virtualization work, given the x86 platforms inherent limitations and lack of native virtualization abilities (IIRC, ESX was released long before Intel added VT, to whatever degree that helps).
I this point, I think you're largely right in terms of the hypervisor itself, but IMHO what they still seem to have the lead on is the next logical step in virtualization, which is management of many hypervisors (and hence VMs).
I sometimes wonder if negative numbers wasn't something that was invented as part of trade/commerce to help accommodate the concept of indebtedness.
You don't really find negative numbers in physical nature, or at least not as the physical world was known in the BC era. A lake or river may be lower than average, but never has a negative quantity of water. Even subtraction is somehow positive, because if you take 2 apples from a basket of 10, the two you take aren't somehow negative, they still exist in the same form and are counted as a group as 2 apples.
I think the problem is that the "Home" directory concept was originally based around single-system access to the directory (ie, /usr/home/foo was accessed on a single machine) and where file locking, IPC and other similar mechanisms prevented multiple logins accessing mail from trashing files. The Wintel PC world's view of it has largely been as a private personal directory on shared storage, not generally as a user profile directory although MS kind of makes that work (for some definitions of roaming profiles..).
Once you had applications running and storing and updating settings in the "Home" directory, you kind of run into problems when you get into multiple system access without a common locking method.
There's little to believe why a diet that minimizes fat deposition isn't good for people who have a healthy weight.
Prior to the mid-20th century, most Inuit ate a traditional diet which was 60-75% fat, and the rest protein with a small quantity of carbohydrates, mainly from either seaweed or berries.
According to Taubes' book, cancer was so unknown among the Inuit that when one did develop it, it made the medical journals. Now their cancer rates are on par with non-Inuit since they have adopted a "Western" high carb diet.
A ketogenic (aka low carb diet) is used on children who have epilepsy untreatable with drugs and about a third of them stop having seizures at all and the next third are easily treatable with medications.
This leads Taubes to speculate on a possible link between a high carb diet and Alzheimer's disease, although no specific research has been done. Taubes does note that the large increases in Alzheimer's in recent history does dovetail with the epidemic of obesity, which is closely tied to the medical community's adoption of a low-fat, high-carb dietary paradigm.
http://nutrition.stanford.edu/projects/az.html
Stanford ran a comparison of various diets, including Atkins, and Atkins beat the other diets by 2:1 or better in terms of weight loss, and one of the diets was a traditional high carb, low fat "starvation" diet.
That's one of the better trials, but much of the rest isn't "scientific" studies per say but clinical experience with patients who actually use the diets.
http://www.dukehealth.org/health_library/news/low_carb_diet_effective_at_lowering_blood_pressure
This one refer specifically to blood pressure, although there's a guy at Duke (whose name escapes me) running a weight loss clinic using a low carb diet.
For even better reading and the science involved, you could read:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/magazine/what-if-it-s-all-been-a-big-fat-lie.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
Another article on a related topic by the same author, Gary Taubes:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
Check out his two books, "Good Calories, Bad Calories" and "Why We Get Fat" for detailed, well-annotated scientific explanations of low carb, high fat diets specifically.
The politics of the USA Food Pyramid isn't about meat being bad, but about the large and profitable agribusiness sector that wants to insure a market for its high-margin grain crops.
That being said, it would have never made it on politics alone if the medical community wasn't firmly in the grasp of the "dietary fat and cholesterol are bad for you" paradigm, which has never been scientifically proven. There was some preliminary research which indicated a possible link between dietary fat and cholesterol in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the medical community got behind it 100% and refused to let go.
Now that reputations and entire careers based are based on this paradigm, it's really hard to let go of it, despite a lack of scientific proof linking dietary cholesterol and fat to heart disease and a scientifically proven understanding of insulin's role in fat deposition and inhibiting fat burning.
Further there is increasing evidence that eating a diet high in fat, moderate in protein and very low in carbohydrates is actually good for you. It's been amply demonstrated in clinical settings that eating this kind of diet results in near effortless weight loss (other than the effort to not inhale baskets of chips or candy) without exercise along with accompanying improvements in metabolic risk factors (high blood pressure, elevated blood sugar).
But such evidence runs counter to the paradigm and those vested in the "high carb, low fat" paradigm resist this because they look wrong and in many cases it can damage careers and status when they have been pushing the wrong "cure".
Exercise doesn't really contribute much here. Your body will just request more food to counter the increased caloric consumption.
Decreasing your glycemic load is spot-on though.
In the UK there are umpteen people advising that, for example, cancer can be treated with high doses of vitamin C.
Isn't that because you can get ascorbic acid now, over the counter, but an appointment with a NHS oncologist is 6 months out?
As a rational exercise, I can find enough positive things about my job and wife that make me want to keep them.
As an emotional exercise, I can find things about both of those things that I am unhappy with and want changed. Sometimes perhaps even enough that I may feel like I don't want either of those two things.
I don't see this as a contradiction.
You end up eating less in terms of calories than you may have eaten on a high-carb diet, but the reduction in calories is only a small contributor to weight loss.
The metabolic changes, namely the reduction in insulin levels, is what drives fat loss and hence weight loss on a low carb diet, not a reduction in caloric consumption. The types of calories matter as much or more than the quantity of calories.
"Good Calories, Bad Calories" -- both books are by Taubes, "Why We Get Fat" being a streamlining of "Good Calories" into a less technical book.
Every legitimate low carb diet I've read about is not calorie restricted. There is no calorie counting, and those following the diet are encouraged to "eat until they are full".
Such diets are also high in fat; fat has more than double the calories than carbohydrates, so it is unlikely that such diets are inherently low calorie, although the satiation associated with high fat consumption often produces a decrease in calorie consumption comparied to a high carb diet.
Low carb diets result in weight loss because they suppress insulin production and because they are ketogenic which results in body fat conversion via gluconeogenesis.
Starvation diets slow metabolism, reduce energy consumption (tired, hunrgry, etc) and do not produce sustainable weight loss, and what weight loss they produce is generally the result of the reduced carbohydrate consumption that follows from overall lower calorie consumption.
I guess I'd ask why it would be illogical to extrapolate back to pre-agricultural populations, or about 8,000 years ago, the generally accepted start of agriculture in human history.
I suppose it's *possible* that these humans at a diet primarily composed of some now-extinct non-meat plant source that is currently unavailable to the studied non-agricultural populations, but that's an even larger assumption than extrapolation from the studied bodies of populations.
I'd go one further, the SEC only goes after parties its sure it can defeat. I'm sure there are other criteria, too, such as policies which state that SEC enforcement actions cannot have a "deleterious effect on market conditions" which means that they will only go after large players in limited ways, since something like nailing Goldman Sachs to the wall may hurt overall market activity.
Foraging may be a part of human nature, but as we're able to study actual human nature, the humans involved seem to prefer animal calories over plant calories.
See:
Cordain, L., J.B. Miller, S.B. Eaton, N. Mann, S.H. Holt, and J.D. Speth, 2000. "Plant-Animal Subsistence Ratios and Macronutrient Energy Estimations in Worldwide Hunter-Gatherer Diets." American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Mar;71(3): 682-692.
1 in 5 of the 229 studied populations got at least 85% of their calories from meat or fish; some got 100%. Only 14% got more than half from plant food. None of the studied populations was exclusively vegetarian. Averaged across all the populations, two-thirds of total caloric consumption was from animals.
No, in fact, it has been actually validated.
http://nutrition.stanford.edu/projects/az.html
They'll also push a high-carb, low-fat diet which won't do anything for you but leave you hungry and make you fat.
The medical industry bought into Ancel Keys early and misleading research on dietary cholesterol and heart disease, none of which has been scientifically validated over time, despite a ton of money (6 NIH studies, $100 million dollars).
Of course, once careers and status is on the line, nothing is let go, and we're still stick in a paradigm that insists that eating carbs and eschewing animal fat is somehow good for us when it's been scientifically well established for 75 years that insulin is the primary driver of fat accumulation.
If the ADA is so fucking smart about diet, why do so many people go on high carb, low-fat, reduced calorie diets and end up as fat as they were when they started? It's a false paradigm.
Man as a species wasn't "made" for some higher purpose, but this is probably a sloppy way of saying that homo sapiens evolved with a biological predisposition to consume animal fat and protein as a primary diet source. In other words, man as a species wasn't "made" for a purpose, but any living man was made to eat meat.
In his book "Why We Get Fat", author Gary Taubes makes the point (which the Paleo diet advocates also make) that humans didn't develop anything like organized agriculture until about 8,000 years ago, too recent in our physical evolution to have developed a predominantly grain-consuming physiology.
He references cross-cultural anthropological studies of discovered primitive societies (no organized agriculture) that demonstrate a predominant consumption of animal fat and protein, which tends to reinforce the idea that human physiology is actually evolved to consume animal fats and protein as a primary calorie source.
I highly recommend this book, or if you're up for a more sophisticated read, his earlier book "Good Fat, Bad Fat" which is largely the same topics in a more in-depth version.
And have any opinion on his distillation of the research on weight gain and the optimal diet?
It seems compelling, and without any sort of effort other than cutting out carbs I've dropped nearly 20 pounds in two months.
This just underscores how the managerial and executive class actually operates like a social hierarchy, much like an actual aristocracy, where spaces are essentially reserved for people in the managerial class and upward mobility is inhibited.
This is just a rehashing of the classic arrogance of the executive class -- that "managing" is the skill they specialize in, and there's no need to have any specialized knowledge of the area you manage.
The justification for this perspective often boils down to some combination of:
* I'm a decision-maker/course-setter. I hire area experts to explain complex details to me in simplified terms and then I make decisions and set future directions based upon this information. Structuring the management decisions is what's really important.
* I'm well educated and intelligent. I can figure most of this stuff out on my own. So-called "experts" in this field aren't as smart as they think they are (and I actually am) and dramatically overstate the complexity of their fields and the amount of information needed to make decisions.
While these two positions are somewhat contradictory, I've seen plenty of executives who hold both positions simultaneously. The former is actually somewhat reasonable and is more or less how most large organizations have to function.
The problem is that arrogance creeps in, and executives tend to cherry-pick -- when their area experts don't tell them what they want to hear, they fall back to their belief that they are the smartest guy in the room and make poorly informed decisions based on their own "understanding" of the topics at hand.