"Modelling of planet Gliese 581d shows it has the potential to be warm and wet enough to nurture Earth-like life." Wow, modeling shows the potential for warmth and wet...one of us doesn't know what the word "confirmed" means. Or maybe one of us doesn't know what "modeling" and "potential" mean.
The cost to benefit ratio is just way too good not to get developers a second monitor. I mean seriously, if it increases productivity of a developer by 1% it will pay for itself 5 - 10 times over the course of a year.
Except that the select few are the ones that lobby the government, influence officials, and pay for their election campaigns. It is called "rent seeking". I would also like to live in that modern society you speak of but unfortunately it doesn't exist yet. You have to remember that monopolies and oligopolies only exist (and last) with the help of the government. Either the government creates barriers to entry for competition or turns a blind eye to anticompetitive behavior.
We are better off because of the industrial revolution and the advent of cheap energy and improved manufacturing processes, not because of government agencies. Government has several good uses, increasing economic efficiency is generally not one of them.
Why is this news? It's just a product coming in a new color. Just because Apple hasn't been able to tackle the technology to easily change the colors of their products yet doesn't mean this is news.
Except that old post forgot to mention the US post office is operating way into the red, public schools are terrible, the FDA approves drugs that are harmful and makes unprofitable remedies illegal to issue as medicine, the USDA let countless salmonella, ecoli, etc. contaminated foods hit the shelves that killed people, the weather service is never right, NASA wastes money hand over fist and produces surprisingly few results for the cost, the FCC allows decapitation but not boobs, the military is spread out across the globe to police the world (which we can't afford to do), the Federal Reserve Bank (with help from Congress) caused/allowed the housing bubble to form and is now debasing our currency, forests were just fine before the US National Park Service (could they really survive without our help?!?!?!), but I have to say that the internet is pretty neat. Did I miss anything?
http://www.ajcn.org/content/66/5/1264.abstract [ajcn.org] takes the integral of the insulin graph over 2 hours, it does not look at spikes and dips. Beef takes twice as long to digest as brown rice and that largely depends on how well cooked the rice was. If the rice was very well cooked then it could have caused an insulin spike then tapered off to nearly nothing for the rest of the 2 hours. The beef would cause a relatively constant insulin level over the 2 hours.
Thanks for the links, will have to look at the other ones later.
You really need to do more research into this area. Taubes is a carb-phobe, Eades and Wolf are not. Cordain, Eades, and Wolf are in the "eat as many carbs as you need but from good sources" camp. If you are sedentary then you shouldn't eat many carbs, if you are active then you should bump up the carbs.
ASP does not store fat, ASP is a hormone. LPL stores fat which is upregulated by insulin. Again, more research is in order.
Granted, Taubes oversimplifies and has some rather silly sounding quotes but if you listen to the arguments as a whole they don't violate any principles. Yes, eating more calories than your body needs will cause you to gain weight, he plainly states this. He is trying to answer WHY people overeat. His main point is that people overeat because they are "getting fat". What he means by "getting fat" is that their fat cells are storing fat when their bodies should be using it for energy. Carbs cause your fat cells to store fat. When you don't have fat in your blood stream for energy, you get hungry. When you get hungry, you eat more. I think Taubes primary fault is that he succumbs to the false dichotomy fallacy, not that he violates thermodynamics.
You must be on the wrong website. Logic is kind of a turn off around here.
Re:Sugar doesnt 'damage' you.
on
Is Sugar Toxic?
·
· Score: 1
As many other people have said, glucose and sugar are not the same thing. Sugar contains glucose and fructose. You are right about glucose, just completely wrong about sugar. He claims fructose is bad, not glucose.
You must be going off of "he said" "she said" information because that is not his claim. Straw man fallacies ahoy! People who eat carbs will tend to want to eat more. A person who eats 2,000 calories of veggies, fats, and meat will not be as hungry as they would be if they got those calories from bread, cookies, and chips. Soooo, the person who at the 2,000 calories loaded with carbs will then eat more than 2,000 calories whereas they would have otherwise been satiated. Don't believe me? Try it for yourself. That doesn't prove something for all people but it should at least show you it isn't complete nonsense.
I don't know much about Lusting so I won't comment on that aspect, you are wrong about Gary Taubes though. Gary Taubes violates the laws of thermodynamics in pretty much the same way that evolution does. Neither of them do. His argument is more that people will overeat because they are hungry because carbs make you ultimately want to eat more. Wanting to eat excess calories is the symptom of the problem that your body is storing too much fat. One day, try to eat 5,000 calories of avocados, vegetables, and meat. The next day try to eat 5,000 calories of mash potatoes, ice cream, chocolate cake, cookies, pizza, and nachos. I can promise you that you will have to force feed yourself the avocados, vegetables, and meat to reach 5,000 calories (even if they taste good) but 5,000 calories of the other stuff wouldn't be hard. This has nothing to do with the laws of thermodynamics.
I sort of agree but at the same time, could they actually make it any worse? It would be hard to imagine a more poorly run, idiotic industry than the music industry.
Based on this post I think they were probably right in modding it flamebait. If someone doesn't like your "joke" then you shouldn't get mad, just shrug it off. If you get this worked up about it then there is something more going on and you probably are a troll.
Or because we elect people who don't spend our tax money wisely and don't save during boom times to compensate for bust times. There is no such thing as "paying enough taxes", the Government can always spend more money than it currently collects. Just because SOME taxes are justified doesn't automatically mean ALL taxes are justified.
With a graphing calculate I can take it out, hit the "On" button, enter an equation, and get an answer very quickly. No need to boot up a computer, launch an application, etc. The battery life on a calculator is also and order of magnitude better. A graphing calculator is wayyyy less distracting. Yes they have drug wars...but they don't have facebook,/., and the other countless distractions that a netbook would provide. Lastly, 99.999999% of people will never need the tools on a graphic calculator OR the ones you described. Most peoples lives do not involve solving complex equations on a regular basis, if ever. So who cares if it is antiquated technology.
That TED talk is covering designing and creating synthetic life from scratch, not life spontaneously forming. It is a massive achievement but it does not demonstrate how life spontaneously started.
Saying that a particle accelerator demonstrates and repeats the big bang is like saying demonstrating an apple falling from a tree scientifically proves that an apple fell from a tree and hit Newton on the head to spark his theories on gravitation (yeah, I know that didn't actually happen).
Please demonstrate and repeat the big bang for me. Please demonstrate and repeat the origin of life. I'm not saying they didn't happen as you may think (I don't know what you think), I'm saying that your statement about Science being demonstratable, repeatable, and self-correcting is either not true or that the big bang and the origin of life (and countless other things considered "scientific") are not science at all.
Unfortunately 6 years ago was about the peak of this experimentation. I know people who have managed those types of teams and most of them ultimately failed. The language barrier and time difference make it difficult to manage an outsourced team effectively and achieve the desired results. Many companies that tried this have moved back to local talent.
Testing, on the other hand, has been seen to be fairly effective when outsourced. The time difference is actually a benefit in that case. Programmers here write code by day and ship it off. Then Indian testers test the code and product when it is night here. Then programmers here arrive in the morning with their code tested.
Not only did you not RTFA, you didn't even read the summary.
"...relating to the theory of intelligent design or other alternate theories of the origination and development of organisms."
Again, 'or other alternative theories'. That would clearly include other major religions, world views, etc.
I wonder how much of Apple's gloated iPad sales are from situations like this? Aka, companies, schools, and other institutions buying them in bulk and handing them out instead of individuals choosing to purchase them.
By the way, I like that they ignore the fact that "the best" doesn't necessarily mean "worth while". Just because it is the best option among that group doesn't mean the entire endeavor is justified. How about cut tuition and let students decide if they want to purchase one? Maybe even hire more teachers instead?
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, you mean like Atheists.
"Modelling of planet Gliese 581d shows it has the potential to be warm and wet enough to nurture Earth-like life." Wow, modeling shows the potential for warmth and wet...one of us doesn't know what the word "confirmed" means. Or maybe one of us doesn't know what "modeling" and "potential" mean.
The cost to benefit ratio is just way too good not to get developers a second monitor. I mean seriously, if it increases productivity of a developer by 1% it will pay for itself 5 - 10 times over the course of a year.
Except that the select few are the ones that lobby the government, influence officials, and pay for their election campaigns. It is called "rent seeking". I would also like to live in that modern society you speak of but unfortunately it doesn't exist yet. You have to remember that monopolies and oligopolies only exist (and last) with the help of the government. Either the government creates barriers to entry for competition or turns a blind eye to anticompetitive behavior.
We are better off because of the industrial revolution and the advent of cheap energy and improved manufacturing processes, not because of government agencies. Government has several good uses, increasing economic efficiency is generally not one of them.
Why is this news? It's just a product coming in a new color. Just because Apple hasn't been able to tackle the technology to easily change the colors of their products yet doesn't mean this is news.
Except that old post forgot to mention the US post office is operating way into the red, public schools are terrible, the FDA approves drugs that are harmful and makes unprofitable remedies illegal to issue as medicine, the USDA let countless salmonella, ecoli, etc. contaminated foods hit the shelves that killed people, the weather service is never right, NASA wastes money hand over fist and produces surprisingly few results for the cost, the FCC allows decapitation but not boobs, the military is spread out across the globe to police the world (which we can't afford to do), the Federal Reserve Bank (with help from Congress) caused/allowed the housing bubble to form and is now debasing our currency, forests were just fine before the US National Park Service (could they really survive without our help?!?!?!), but I have to say that the internet is pretty neat. Did I miss anything?
http://www.ajcn.org/content/66/5/1264.abstract [ajcn.org] takes the integral of the insulin graph over 2 hours, it does not look at spikes and dips. Beef takes twice as long to digest as brown rice and that largely depends on how well cooked the rice was. If the rice was very well cooked then it could have caused an insulin spike then tapered off to nearly nothing for the rest of the 2 hours. The beef would cause a relatively constant insulin level over the 2 hours. Thanks for the links, will have to look at the other ones later.
You really need to do more research into this area. Taubes is a carb-phobe, Eades and Wolf are not. Cordain, Eades, and Wolf are in the "eat as many carbs as you need but from good sources" camp. If you are sedentary then you shouldn't eat many carbs, if you are active then you should bump up the carbs. ASP does not store fat, ASP is a hormone. LPL stores fat which is upregulated by insulin. Again, more research is in order.
Granted, Taubes oversimplifies and has some rather silly sounding quotes but if you listen to the arguments as a whole they don't violate any principles. Yes, eating more calories than your body needs will cause you to gain weight, he plainly states this. He is trying to answer WHY people overeat. His main point is that people overeat because they are "getting fat". What he means by "getting fat" is that their fat cells are storing fat when their bodies should be using it for energy. Carbs cause your fat cells to store fat. When you don't have fat in your blood stream for energy, you get hungry. When you get hungry, you eat more. I think Taubes primary fault is that he succumbs to the false dichotomy fallacy, not that he violates thermodynamics.
You must be on the wrong website. Logic is kind of a turn off around here.
As many other people have said, glucose and sugar are not the same thing. Sugar contains glucose and fructose. You are right about glucose, just completely wrong about sugar. He claims fructose is bad, not glucose.
You must be going off of "he said" "she said" information because that is not his claim. Straw man fallacies ahoy! People who eat carbs will tend to want to eat more. A person who eats 2,000 calories of veggies, fats, and meat will not be as hungry as they would be if they got those calories from bread, cookies, and chips. Soooo, the person who at the 2,000 calories loaded with carbs will then eat more than 2,000 calories whereas they would have otherwise been satiated. Don't believe me? Try it for yourself. That doesn't prove something for all people but it should at least show you it isn't complete nonsense.
I don't know much about Lusting so I won't comment on that aspect, you are wrong about Gary Taubes though. Gary Taubes violates the laws of thermodynamics in pretty much the same way that evolution does. Neither of them do. His argument is more that people will overeat because they are hungry because carbs make you ultimately want to eat more. Wanting to eat excess calories is the symptom of the problem that your body is storing too much fat. One day, try to eat 5,000 calories of avocados, vegetables, and meat. The next day try to eat 5,000 calories of mash potatoes, ice cream, chocolate cake, cookies, pizza, and nachos. I can promise you that you will have to force feed yourself the avocados, vegetables, and meat to reach 5,000 calories (even if they taste good) but 5,000 calories of the other stuff wouldn't be hard. This has nothing to do with the laws of thermodynamics.
I sort of agree but at the same time, could they actually make it any worse? It would be hard to imagine a more poorly run, idiotic industry than the music industry.
Based on this post I think they were probably right in modding it flamebait. If someone doesn't like your "joke" then you shouldn't get mad, just shrug it off. If you get this worked up about it then there is something more going on and you probably are a troll.
Or because we elect people who don't spend our tax money wisely and don't save during boom times to compensate for bust times. There is no such thing as "paying enough taxes", the Government can always spend more money than it currently collects. Just because SOME taxes are justified doesn't automatically mean ALL taxes are justified.
With a graphing calculate I can take it out, hit the "On" button, enter an equation, and get an answer very quickly. No need to boot up a computer, launch an application, etc. The battery life on a calculator is also and order of magnitude better. A graphing calculator is wayyyy less distracting. Yes they have drug wars...but they don't have facebook, /., and the other countless distractions that a netbook would provide. Lastly, 99.999999% of people will never need the tools on a graphic calculator OR the ones you described. Most peoples lives do not involve solving complex equations on a regular basis, if ever. So who cares if it is antiquated technology.
Well, if you can't discriminate you have to be indiscriminate pretty much by definition.
That TED talk is covering designing and creating synthetic life from scratch, not life spontaneously forming. It is a massive achievement but it does not demonstrate how life spontaneously started. Saying that a particle accelerator demonstrates and repeats the big bang is like saying demonstrating an apple falling from a tree scientifically proves that an apple fell from a tree and hit Newton on the head to spark his theories on gravitation (yeah, I know that didn't actually happen).
Please demonstrate and repeat the big bang for me. Please demonstrate and repeat the origin of life. I'm not saying they didn't happen as you may think (I don't know what you think), I'm saying that your statement about Science being demonstratable, repeatable, and self-correcting is either not true or that the big bang and the origin of life (and countless other things considered "scientific") are not science at all.
You must not be familiar with "study" based "science." Studies have shown that correlation does indeed imply causation.
Unfortunately 6 years ago was about the peak of this experimentation. I know people who have managed those types of teams and most of them ultimately failed. The language barrier and time difference make it difficult to manage an outsourced team effectively and achieve the desired results. Many companies that tried this have moved back to local talent. Testing, on the other hand, has been seen to be fairly effective when outsourced. The time difference is actually a benefit in that case. Programmers here write code by day and ship it off. Then Indian testers test the code and product when it is night here. Then programmers here arrive in the morning with their code tested.
Not only did you not RTFA, you didn't even read the summary. "...relating to the theory of intelligent design or other alternate theories of the origination and development of organisms." Again, 'or other alternative theories'. That would clearly include other major religions, world views, etc.
I wonder how much of Apple's gloated iPad sales are from situations like this? Aka, companies, schools, and other institutions buying them in bulk and handing them out instead of individuals choosing to purchase them. By the way, I like that they ignore the fact that "the best" doesn't necessarily mean "worth while". Just because it is the best option among that group doesn't mean the entire endeavor is justified. How about cut tuition and let students decide if they want to purchase one? Maybe even hire more teachers instead?