If you can teach someone to speak, read and write a natural language (such as French, German, Arabic, etc.) in an intensive course lasting a few weeks - which is well known to be possible - why shouldn't you be able to teach someone to write code at a fairly basic level?
The advantages of focus and intensity are great, although to stay with such a schedule the students must of course be highly motivated.
And nothing else. I am still waiting for Slashdot to implement my request for a marker in each thread to show where the trolls stop, and the actual discussion begins.
Actually, of course, it can mean either (or both). The Concise Oxford English Dictionary says:
primary n adjective 1 of chief importance; principal. 2 earliest in time or order. Ø(Primary) Geology former term for Palaeozoic. 3 not caused by or based on anything else. 4 chiefly British relating to or denoting education for children between the ages of about five and eleven. 5 of or denoting the input side of a transformer or other inductive device. 6 Chemistry (of an organic compound) having its functional group on a carbon atom bonded to no more than one other carbon atom. Øderived from ammonia by replacement of one hydrogen atom by an organic group. n noun (plural primaries) 1 (in the US) a preliminary election to appoint delegates to a party conference or to select the candidates for a principal, especially presidential, election. 2 Astronomy the body orbited by a smaller body.
ORIGIN
Middle English: from Latin primarius, from primus 'first'.
"None of the long term practitioners of an all-meat Zero Carb diet that I have interviewed take any supplemental vitamin C. None of these individuals have experienced any symptoms of vitamin C deficiency, even after 2-18 years of eating this way. If you wish to read the dietary details of some of these individuals, please see my page with links to all of the Zero Carb Interviews that I have published to date.
"There appears to be an alternative biochemical pathway for preventing scurvy that occurs when one is eating a fat-burning ketogenic diet, as opposed to a sugar-burning glucogenic diet".
I always wonder about comments like this. Have you ever been on a high-protein, low-carb diet?
No. That would be a bad idea. The right amount of protein is about 1 gram per kilogram of body weight per day. Say 100 grams for a fairly big person, equivalent to maybe 1/2 - 2/3 lb of meat. Or about 20% of your daily calories, assuming you're in calorie balance. Relying too much on protein is known to cause "rabbit starvation". The answer is to eat 20% of your calories as protein, and most of the rest as fat. Eggs, cheese, and most meat gives you that kind of proportion automatically.
Ketosis doesn't feel good, and one of the byproducts is acetone. Have you ever urinated with the smell of acetone coming out of your body?
I've been in ketosis for about 48 hours right now, and I feel great. It's really nice, from time to time, just to take your digestive system offline and give it a complete rest for a day or two. You don't feel hungry, or full, or bloated, or any of that. It almost feels as if you don't have any guts to bother you. Concentration is easier, and you have more energy. (After all, fat has more than twice as much energy per gram as glucose).
As for the smell, have you ever eaten asparagus? It's like that, but a slightly different smell.
It gets even worse if you exercise. Have you ever been on a low carb, high-protein diet and tried to run five miles? It feels awful. Fat helps a little bit, but your body really wants some carbohydrates.
I haven't tried to exercise (much) on a low-carb high-fat diet - the most I did was a couple of 30-mile walks at about 4.5 mph. I noticed that I felt rather sluggish and heavy after a while, but I also noticed that I could keep going almost indefinitely.
I have read that some athletes do very well on LCHF, but it can take weeks or months to get the body used to it. That makes sense, when you think that you have spent decades consuming far too much carbohydrate, so your body has become reliant on it. As I see it, though, it is the glucose that is "emergency" fuel and fat that the body evolved to rely on most of the time.
As for wanting carbs, there is a huge difference between real need and appetite. The "food-like products" industry has put centuries and many billions of dollars into designing foods that are exceptionally attractive. But once you break the habit, your tastes change. When I was a teenager I used to take 4-5 spoonsful of sugar in every cup of tea or coffee! Then I gave that up, and soon the milk I used seemed quite sweet enough.
The ideal language would probably have to find a balance between various requirements.
That is exactly what thousands of researchers have been trying to accomplish, designing literally hundreds (if not thousands) of languages in the past 60 or so years.
But it's not a reasonable goal.
Falling back on the hackneyed but serviceable "transport" analogy, if you want a cheap, simple conveyance that can easily be operated by a single person, a bicycle is good. Want more power and speed, at the cost of greater weight and cost? Try a motorcycle. If you need to fly, you'll need - at least - a microlight, although a helicopter has its advantages. Want to cross water? Submerge? Resist armour-piercing shot? Carry 50 passengers or 20 tons of freight? Look great and attract new friends?
I hope you get my drift. There is no "one size fits all", and there can't be. Languages like C let you get down to the bare metal (or as close as you want to), but you have to do a lot of extra work. High-level languages let you program much faster, but may not run as fast, or may limit what you can do in ways you find unduly restrictive.
From time to time a "local winner" emerges. I don't think anything better than Cobol has ever been created for run-of-the-mill business applications. Come to that, Fortran is still excellent for mathematics, unless you want to give APL a spin. And you'll find, if you look into it, that most avionics nowadays is written in Ada - and I'm very glad of it.
And then there are the pioneers...
"The more I ponder the principles of language design, and the techniques that put them into practice, the more is my amazement at and admiration of ALGOL 60. Here is a language so far ahead of its time that it was not only an improvement on its predecessors but also on nearly all its successors".
- C.A.R. Hoare, "Hints on Programming Language Design", 1973
I'm not so sure the parent poster means that we need to eat sugar, merely that it's the main energy source in our blood.
Glucose is the main energy source in your blood if and only if you eat enough carbohydrates to provide that sugar. If you don't - either because you are fasting or because you eat mostly protein and fat (as in meat, fish, eggs, cheese, etc.) - your blood will circulate ample triglycerides, and instead of glucose your cells will absorb fatty acids that are unpackaged from those triglycerides. The cells burn fatty acids just as satisfactorily as they burn glucose - in fact there is some evidence that the results can even be slightly better. In the long run, it is far better to rely on fat for energy rather than glucose, because glucose is actually poisonous. In extreme quantities it causes the terrible damage of diabetes, but even in lesser amounts it still causes harm. People don't tend to realise this, because the harm is very gradual. Most of us can eat anything in our teens and stay slim and vigorous. That gets harder in the 20s, in the 30s you may start on a paunch, and by the 40s and 50s the fat really piles on.
Now the brain is a slight exception, in that it requires some glucose. Not the 200-300 g per day sometimes quoted, but - if you aren't eating carbs - perhaps about 50 g per day. That is provided by gluconeogenesis, which converts protein to glucose. (Fat can also be converted to glucose - indeed it is now known that the body can convert all three main energy sources - fats, proteins and sugars - to one another if necessary).
A calorie is a calorie is a calorie is true as far as measuring different things energy via combustion, but if a calorie was a calorie regarding nutrition, we would be able to eat 3000 calories of wood pulp or 3000 calories of fuel oil and it would be the same thing as eating steak or kale.
Exactly. But it's more than that. The biochemist Richard David Feinman points out in his book "The World Turned Upside Down: The Second Low-Carbohydrate Revolution" that the well-known process of gloconeogenesis kills "a calorie is a calorie" stone dead.
Gluconeogenesis is the body's way of converting protein to carbohydrate (glucose). If the "calorie is a calorie" theory were correct, since the energy obtained from 1 gram of protein is the same as the energy obtained from 1 gram of carbohydrate, gluconeogenesis would not cost any energy. But in fact it is significantly endergonic: it does consume energy. This is a sufficient existence proof that a calorie is NOT always a calorie. It depends entirely on what reactions the body performs on it.
"For example, eating a healthy carb like an apple is more nutrient dense and better for you than eating a bag of processed potato chips," O'Dea said.
It depends very much on what you understand by "nutrient dense". A bag of potato crisps/chips has a lot more calories than an average apple - and weighs a lot less - so it is much more "calorie dense". Those calories come about equally from carbs and fat in the chips, from sugar only in the apple (mostly fructose, with varying admixtures of glucose and sucrose), making the chips again slightly better.
The apple contains about twice as much fibre, but has no protein or fat whereas the chips contain both. The bag of crisps will typically have slightly more Vitamin C than an apple, and also provides some iron and calcium - and of course a good shot of sodium - whereas the apple lacks those but does offer some potassium and a little Vitamin B6.
So on the basis of facts it's not quite clear which is "better for you". But notice how the dietitian simply declares that the apple is better for you, rather as a priest might pass down dogma to his congregation.
"All foods contain three major macronutrients essential for life -- fat, carbohydrate and protein".
That, too, turns out not to be the case. Protein and fat are necessary for life, but carbohydrate isn't. You will not be able to find any requirement for carbohydrate itself, nor for anything that comes with it. But if you examine carefully the constituents of a nice piece of fatty meat, you might be surprised to find how very nourishing it is. Vitamins A, D, E, K2 and the whole range of B vitamins are there, plus most of the essential minerals - and, what's more, in the appropriate proportions. That's not surprising, as the meat came from an animal that was in good health (until it was slaughtered).
And by the way, the proportions of saturated and unsaturated fats in red meat are almost exactly the same as in olive oil.
The steak is good, although fatter cuts of meat are preferable. It has often been observed that carnivores, when they have killed, begin by eagerly devouring the liver, intestines and other fatty parts of their prey and often leave when sated, abandoning the muscle meat - what we call "steak" and the like - to scavengers. Likewise the Inuit, Masai and other carnivorous humans have always tended to prefer fatty meat and organs.
Needless to say, you should avoid ketchup because it is about half sugar - like most manufactured condiments. By all means eat tomatoes with your meat, though!
It has been shown by many writers that science was not to blame. Even while charismatic scientists like Ancel Keys were making their controvesial claims that fat kills and we must all eat more "healthy whole grains", their own research results demonstrated otherwise. It's well worth reading "Good Calories, Bad Calories"/"The Diet Delusion", or alternatively Nina Teicholz's "The Big Fat Surprise" or any of the other good books on the subject. Otherwise you simply wouldn't believe the depths of duplicity (or possibly self-deception) to which scientists can stoop.
One conclusion is completely unavoidable. Just as sugar (in any but small quantities) is poisonous to humans, money is poisonous to good science.
around the time they started taking fat out of everything and replacing it with sugar.
That would be around the time of the Neolithic Revolution, right?
As a matter of fact, no. I think it was Dr John Yudkin, in his fine book "Pure, White and Deadly" who pointed out that in Elizabethan England refined sugar was about as expensive as cocaine is today. It was definitely a drug for the wealthy.
Everything changed when the New World was discovered and exploited. It was found that the West Indies provided ideal conditions for growing sugar cane in vast amounts. Then the only problem was finding human workers who could survive the conditions - Europeans died (in the classic phrase) "like flies". Eventually it was discovered that West Africans tended to do much better, and could indeed provide many years of labour before dying. That kicked the slave trade into high gear, which in turn flooded Western markets with cheap sugar. Ironically, the horrible treatment of slaves led - as one of its by-products - to the sickness, suffering and premature death of millions who consumed the "product". And manufacturers like Messrs Tate & Lyle, who now appear in the light of mass murderers, became extremely rich.
There was one serious problem with slavery. It seems incompatible with Christianity (at least with the New Testament). An ingenious way around this objection was soon found: to claim, with all kinds of spurious arguments, that black people were not fully human. Thus the demand for sugar led to slavery, which led to racism as we know it.
Oh, quit with the "poison" nonsense. Sugar is our primary cellular fuel. The issue is the quantity, the level of refinement, and the relative difficulty in obtaining food not saturated in it.
That turns out not to be the case. It is well known, and has repeatedly been demonstrated, that the body's cells run equally well on fat. See, for example, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... For further copious details, including case studies, see Gary Taubes' excellent summary "Good Calories, Bad Calories" (published in the UK as "The Diet Dilemma" for reasons unknown to all but the publisher).
The only cells that appear to need glucose are those of the brain. However, it is easy to get the wrong idea even here. After a few days' fasting, the brain starts to use ketones which are produced as a by-product of metabolozing fat for fuel. A rather small minimum amount of glucose still seems necessary, but the liver manufactures this through gluconeogenesis. Indeed, the paper cited above clearly implies that the body can manufacture everything it needs for full health in the absence of any food intake at all, provided fat reserves are adequate. If the only source of protein were the body's own muscles, etc., no fast could possibly extend longer than a few months at most.
The only reason why we have all been told that glucose is the body's normal fuel source is that we live in a grain- and sugar-fed society. Hunter-gatherers obtain much less glucose and regularly fast for varying periods. As long as one does not eat carbohydrates, fasting does not cause hunger. For instance, as I write this I have eaten no solid food (only some coffee with cream and soup) for over 40 hours. I feel great, and have absolutely no desire for food.
That's not harsh. This might be harsh (but I don't think so):
"His high pitched voice already stood out above the general murmur of well-behaved junior executives grooming themselves for promotion within the Bell corporation. Then he was suddenly heard to say: 'No, I'm not interested in developing a powerful brain. All I'm after is just a mediocre brain, something like the President of the American Telephone and Telegraph Company.' (In the Bell Labs cafeteria, New York, 1943)".
- Alan Hodges ("Alan Turing: the Enigma of Intelligence")
Doxing and stalking are crimes in their own right - the use of a computer is irrelevant. As for "bullying", that's an extremely subjective thing. Every day, millions of people feel they are being bullied at work - but just let them try to convince a policeman, a court, an industrial tribunal, or even their manager or HR rep.
... they don't hate anyone - although you might think otherwise to hear or read some of their statements.
No, when governments kill individuals for resisting them, or millions for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, they don't do it out of hatred - or any emotion.
"With its Russian main engine running at full throttle, the Atlas 5 booster lifted off at 8:29 a.m. EDT (1229 GMT) from Complex 41 at Cape Canaveral. The 191-foot-tall rocket, with its Russian first stage generating 860,000 pounds of thrust, aimed eastward and accelerated out of the atmosphere with NASA's TDRS-M spacecraft".
"RD AMROSS, a limited liability company, is a U.S. joint venture between Pratt & Whitney of West Palm Beach, Florida and NPO Energomash of Khimki, Russia based in Jupiter, Florida.
"NPO Energomash manufactures the RD-180 rocket engine for RD AMROSS, and provides designing, manufacturing, testing and other services for liquid propulsion rocket engines. The RD-180 provides the main thrust on the Atlas V launch vehicle made by the United Launch Alliance...
"Under RD AMROSS, Pratt & Whitney is licensed to produce the RD-180 in the United States. Originally, production of the RD-180 in the US was scheduled to begin in 2008, but this did not happen. According to a 2005 GAO Assessment of Selected Major Weapon Programs, Pratt & Whitney planned to start building the engine in the United States with a first military launch by 2012. This, too, did not happen. In 2014, the Defense Department estimated that it would require approximately $1 billion and five years to begin US domestic manufacture of the RD-180 engine.
"In late April 2014, SpaceX filed a complaint seeking an injunction against the continued import of the Russian made rocket motor as a result of the US sanctions against Russia over its policies and practices in the Ukraine. The US Federal Court of Appeals granted the injunction".
Slashdot Mirror
If you can teach someone to speak, read and write a natural language (such as French, German, Arabic, etc.) in an intensive course lasting a few weeks - which is well known to be possible - why shouldn't you be able to teach someone to write code at a fairly basic level?
The advantages of focus and intensity are great, although to stay with such a schedule the students must of course be highly motivated.
And nothing else. I am still waiting for Slashdot to implement my request for a marker in each thread to show where the trolls stop, and the actual discussion begins.
But I suppose that's what the moderators are for.
It's invisible hand rather than magic hand.
I think you missed fluffermutter's irony.
Wish I could mod you up. Excellent post, very clearly explained. Thanks!
Primary means chosen first, it doesn't mean best.
Actually, of course, it can mean either (or both). The Concise Oxford English Dictionary says:
primary
n adjective
1 of chief importance; principal.
2 earliest in time or order. Ø(Primary) Geology former term for Palaeozoic.
3 not caused by or based on anything else.
4 chiefly British relating to or denoting education for children between the ages of about five and eleven.
5 of or denoting the input side of a transformer or other inductive device.
6 Chemistry (of an organic compound) having its functional group on a carbon atom bonded to no more than one other carbon atom. Øderived from ammonia by replacement of one hydrogen atom by an organic group.
n noun (plural primaries)
1 (in the US) a preliminary election to appoint delegates to a party conference or to select the candidates for a principal, especially presidential, election.
2 Astronomy the body orbited by a smaller body.
ORIGIN
Middle English: from Latin primarius, from primus 'first'.
No wonder you feel good in ketosis, compared to what you were doing to yourself before, your current diet is amazing.
It has been about 50 years since I took sugar in my hot drinks.
"None of the long term practitioners of an all-meat Zero Carb diet that I have interviewed take any supplemental vitamin C. None of these individuals have experienced any symptoms of vitamin C deficiency, even after 2-18 years of eating this way. If you wish to read the dietary details of some of these individuals, please see my page with links to all of the Zero Carb Interviews that I have published to date.
"There appears to be an alternative biochemical pathway for preventing scurvy that occurs when one is eating a fat-burning ketogenic diet, as opposed to a sugar-burning glucogenic diet".
https://zerocarbzen.com/vitami...
I always wonder about comments like this. Have you ever been on a high-protein, low-carb diet?
No. That would be a bad idea. The right amount of protein is about 1 gram per kilogram of body weight per day. Say 100 grams for a fairly big person, equivalent to maybe 1/2 - 2/3 lb of meat. Or about 20% of your daily calories, assuming you're in calorie balance. Relying too much on protein is known to cause "rabbit starvation". The answer is to eat 20% of your calories as protein, and most of the rest as fat. Eggs, cheese, and most meat gives you that kind of proportion automatically.
Ketosis doesn't feel good, and one of the byproducts is acetone. Have you ever urinated with the smell of acetone coming out of your body?
I've been in ketosis for about 48 hours right now, and I feel great. It's really nice, from time to time, just to take your digestive system offline and give it a complete rest for a day or two. You don't feel hungry, or full, or bloated, or any of that. It almost feels as if you don't have any guts to bother you. Concentration is easier, and you have more energy. (After all, fat has more than twice as much energy per gram as glucose).
As for the smell, have you ever eaten asparagus? It's like that, but a slightly different smell.
It gets even worse if you exercise. Have you ever been on a low carb, high-protein diet and tried to run five miles? It feels awful. Fat helps a little bit, but your body really wants some carbohydrates.
I haven't tried to exercise (much) on a low-carb high-fat diet - the most I did was a couple of 30-mile walks at about 4.5 mph. I noticed that I felt rather sluggish and heavy after a while, but I also noticed that I could keep going almost indefinitely.
I have read that some athletes do very well on LCHF, but it can take weeks or months to get the body used to it. That makes sense, when you think that you have spent decades consuming far too much carbohydrate, so your body has become reliant on it. As I see it, though, it is the glucose that is "emergency" fuel and fat that the body evolved to rely on most of the time.
As for wanting carbs, there is a huge difference between real need and appetite. The "food-like products" industry has put centuries and many billions of dollars into designing foods that are exceptionally attractive. But once you break the habit, your tastes change. When I was a teenager I used to take 4-5 spoonsful of sugar in every cup of tea or coffee! Then I gave that up, and soon the milk I used seemed quite sweet enough.
The ideal language would probably have to find a balance between various requirements.
That is exactly what thousands of researchers have been trying to accomplish, designing literally hundreds (if not thousands) of languages in the past 60 or so years.
But it's not a reasonable goal.
Falling back on the hackneyed but serviceable "transport" analogy, if you want a cheap, simple conveyance that can easily be operated by a single person, a bicycle is good. Want more power and speed, at the cost of greater weight and cost? Try a motorcycle. If you need to fly, you'll need - at least - a microlight, although a helicopter has its advantages. Want to cross water? Submerge? Resist armour-piercing shot? Carry 50 passengers or 20 tons of freight? Look great and attract new friends?
I hope you get my drift. There is no "one size fits all", and there can't be. Languages like C let you get down to the bare metal (or as close as you want to), but you have to do a lot of extra work. High-level languages let you program much faster, but may not run as fast, or may limit what you can do in ways you find unduly restrictive.
From time to time a "local winner" emerges. I don't think anything better than Cobol has ever been created for run-of-the-mill business applications. Come to that, Fortran is still excellent for mathematics, unless you want to give APL a spin. And you'll find, if you look into it, that most avionics nowadays is written in Ada - and I'm very glad of it.
And then there are the pioneers...
"The more I ponder the principles of language design, and the techniques that put them into practice, the more is my amazement at and admiration of ALGOL 60. Here is a language so far ahead of its time that it was not only an improvement on its predecessors but also on nearly all its successors".
- C.A.R. Hoare, "Hints on Programming Language Design", 1973
I'm not so sure the parent poster means that we need to eat sugar, merely that it's the main energy source in our blood.
Glucose is the main energy source in your blood if and only if you eat enough carbohydrates to provide that sugar. If you don't - either because you are fasting or because you eat mostly protein and fat (as in meat, fish, eggs, cheese, etc.) - your blood will circulate ample triglycerides, and instead of glucose your cells will absorb fatty acids that are unpackaged from those triglycerides. The cells burn fatty acids just as satisfactorily as they burn glucose - in fact there is some evidence that the results can even be slightly better. In the long run, it is far better to rely on fat for energy rather than glucose, because glucose is actually poisonous. In extreme quantities it causes the terrible damage of diabetes, but even in lesser amounts it still causes harm. People don't tend to realise this, because the harm is very gradual. Most of us can eat anything in our teens and stay slim and vigorous. That gets harder in the 20s, in the 30s you may start on a paunch, and by the 40s and 50s the fat really piles on.
Now the brain is a slight exception, in that it requires some glucose. Not the 200-300 g per day sometimes quoted, but - if you aren't eating carbs - perhaps about 50 g per day. That is provided by gluconeogenesis, which converts protein to glucose. (Fat can also be converted to glucose - indeed it is now known that the body can convert all three main energy sources - fats, proteins and sugars - to one another if necessary).
A calorie is a calorie is a calorie is true as far as measuring different things energy via combustion, but if a calorie was a calorie regarding nutrition, we would be able to eat 3000 calories of wood pulp or 3000 calories of fuel oil and it would be the same thing as eating steak or kale.
Exactly. But it's more than that. The biochemist Richard David Feinman points out in his book "The World Turned Upside Down: The Second Low-Carbohydrate Revolution" that the well-known process of gloconeogenesis kills "a calorie is a calorie" stone dead.
Gluconeogenesis is the body's way of converting protein to carbohydrate (glucose). If the "calorie is a calorie" theory were correct, since the energy obtained from 1 gram of protein is the same as the energy obtained from 1 gram of carbohydrate, gluconeogenesis would not cost any energy. But in fact it is significantly endergonic: it does consume energy. This is a sufficient existence proof that a calorie is NOT always a calorie. It depends entirely on what reactions the body performs on it.
"For example, eating a healthy carb like an apple is more nutrient dense and better for you than eating a bag of processed potato chips," O'Dea said.
It depends very much on what you understand by "nutrient dense". A bag of potato crisps/chips has a lot more calories than an average apple - and weighs a lot less - so it is much more "calorie dense". Those calories come about equally from carbs and fat in the chips, from sugar only in the apple (mostly fructose, with varying admixtures of glucose and sucrose), making the chips again slightly better.
The apple contains about twice as much fibre, but has no protein or fat whereas the chips contain both. The bag of crisps will typically have slightly more Vitamin C than an apple, and also provides some iron and calcium - and of course a good shot of sodium - whereas the apple lacks those but does offer some potassium and a little Vitamin B6.
So on the basis of facts it's not quite clear which is "better for you". But notice how the dietitian simply declares that the apple is better for you, rather as a priest might pass down dogma to his congregation.
TFA says:
"All foods contain three major macronutrients essential for life -- fat, carbohydrate and protein".
That, too, turns out not to be the case. Protein and fat are necessary for life, but carbohydrate isn't. You will not be able to find any requirement for carbohydrate itself, nor for anything that comes with it. But if you examine carefully the constituents of a nice piece of fatty meat, you might be surprised to find how very nourishing it is. Vitamins A, D, E, K2 and the whole range of B vitamins are there, plus most of the essential minerals - and, what's more, in the appropriate proportions. That's not surprising, as the meat came from an animal that was in good health (until it was slaughtered).
And by the way, the proportions of saturated and unsaturated fats in red meat are almost exactly the same as in olive oil.
Is it ok to shovel that down your fat pie hole?
The steak is good, although fatter cuts of meat are preferable. It has often been observed that carnivores, when they have killed, begin by eagerly devouring the liver, intestines and other fatty parts of their prey and often leave when sated, abandoning the muscle meat - what we call "steak" and the like - to scavengers. Likewise the Inuit, Masai and other carnivorous humans have always tended to prefer fatty meat and organs.
Needless to say, you should avoid ketchup because it is about half sugar - like most manufactured condiments. By all means eat tomatoes with your meat, though!
It has been shown by many writers that science was not to blame. Even while charismatic scientists like Ancel Keys were making their controvesial claims that fat kills and we must all eat more "healthy whole grains", their own research results demonstrated otherwise. It's well worth reading "Good Calories, Bad Calories"/"The Diet Delusion", or alternatively Nina Teicholz's "The Big Fat Surprise" or any of the other good books on the subject. Otherwise you simply wouldn't believe the depths of duplicity (or possibly self-deception) to which scientists can stoop.
One conclusion is completely unavoidable. Just as sugar (in any but small quantities) is poisonous to humans, money is poisonous to good science.
around the time they started taking fat out of everything and replacing it with sugar.
That would be around the time of the Neolithic Revolution, right?
As a matter of fact, no. I think it was Dr John Yudkin, in his fine book "Pure, White and Deadly" who pointed out that in Elizabethan England refined sugar was about as expensive as cocaine is today. It was definitely a drug for the wealthy.
Everything changed when the New World was discovered and exploited. It was found that the West Indies provided ideal conditions for growing sugar cane in vast amounts. Then the only problem was finding human workers who could survive the conditions - Europeans died (in the classic phrase) "like flies". Eventually it was discovered that West Africans tended to do much better, and could indeed provide many years of labour before dying. That kicked the slave trade into high gear, which in turn flooded Western markets with cheap sugar. Ironically, the horrible treatment of slaves led - as one of its by-products - to the sickness, suffering and premature death of millions who consumed the "product". And manufacturers like Messrs Tate & Lyle, who now appear in the light of mass murderers, became extremely rich.
There was one serious problem with slavery. It seems incompatible with Christianity (at least with the New Testament). An ingenious way around this objection was soon found: to claim, with all kinds of spurious arguments, that black people were not fully human. Thus the demand for sugar led to slavery, which led to racism as we know it.
Oh, quit with the "poison" nonsense. Sugar is our primary cellular fuel. The issue is the quantity, the level of refinement, and the relative difficulty in obtaining food not saturated in it.
That turns out not to be the case. It is well known, and has repeatedly been demonstrated, that the body's cells run equally well on fat. See, for example, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... For further copious details, including case studies, see Gary Taubes' excellent summary "Good Calories, Bad Calories" (published in the UK as "The Diet Dilemma" for reasons unknown to all but the publisher).
The only cells that appear to need glucose are those of the brain. However, it is easy to get the wrong idea even here. After a few days' fasting, the brain starts to use ketones which are produced as a by-product of metabolozing fat for fuel. A rather small minimum amount of glucose still seems necessary, but the liver manufactures this through gluconeogenesis. Indeed, the paper cited above clearly implies that the body can manufacture everything it needs for full health in the absence of any food intake at all, provided fat reserves are adequate. If the only source of protein were the body's own muscles, etc., no fast could possibly extend longer than a few months at most.
The only reason why we have all been told that glucose is the body's normal fuel source is that we live in a grain- and sugar-fed society. Hunter-gatherers obtain much less glucose and regularly fast for varying periods. As long as one does not eat carbohydrates, fasting does not cause hunger. For instance, as I write this I have eaten no solid food (only some coffee with cream and soup) for over 40 hours. I feel great, and have absolutely no desire for food.
Three supporting views (I hope instructive and entertaining):
https://www.theatlantic.com/da...
http://www.independent.co.uk/v...
https://www.spectator.co.uk/20...
That's not harsh. This might be harsh (but I don't think so):
"His high pitched voice already stood out above the general murmur of well-behaved junior executives grooming themselves for promotion within the Bell corporation. Then he was suddenly heard to say: 'No, I'm not interested in developing a powerful brain. All I'm after is just a mediocre brain, something like the President of the American Telephone and Telegraph Company.' (In the Bell Labs cafeteria, New York, 1943)".
- Alan Hodges ("Alan Turing: the Enigma of Intelligence")
Nice coinage! I like it.
Are you trying to bully the Rust community??
[Irony alert].
Doxing and stalking are crimes in their own right - the use of a computer is irrelevant. As for "bullying", that's an extremely subjective thing. Every day, millions of people feel they are being bullied at work - but just let them try to convince a policeman, a court, an industrial tribunal, or even their manager or HR rep.
... they don't hate anyone - although you might think otherwise to hear or read some of their statements.
No, when governments kill individuals for resisting them, or millions for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, they don't do it out of hatred - or any emotion.
It's icy cold. Just business.
"With its Russian main engine running at full throttle, the Atlas 5 booster lifted off at 8:29 a.m. EDT (1229 GMT) from Complex 41 at Cape Canaveral. The 191-foot-tall rocket, with its Russian first stage generating 860,000 pounds of thrust, aimed eastward and accelerated out of the atmosphere with NASA's TDRS-M spacecraft".
FTFH
"RD AMROSS, a limited liability company, is a U.S. joint venture between Pratt & Whitney of West Palm Beach, Florida and NPO Energomash of Khimki, Russia based in Jupiter, Florida.
"NPO Energomash manufactures the RD-180 rocket engine for RD AMROSS, and provides designing, manufacturing, testing and other services for liquid propulsion rocket engines. The RD-180 provides the main thrust on the Atlas V launch vehicle made by the United Launch Alliance...
"Under RD AMROSS, Pratt & Whitney is licensed to produce the RD-180 in the United States. Originally, production of the RD-180 in the US was scheduled to begin in 2008, but this did not happen. According to a 2005 GAO Assessment of Selected Major Weapon Programs, Pratt & Whitney planned to start building the engine in the United States with a first military launch by 2012. This, too, did not happen. In 2014, the Defense Department estimated that it would require approximately $1 billion and five years to begin US domestic manufacture of the RD-180 engine.
"In late April 2014, SpaceX filed a complaint seeking an injunction against the continued import of the Russian made rocket motor as a result of the US sanctions against Russia over its policies and practices in the Ukraine. The US Federal Court of Appeals granted the injunction".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
So it looks as though there will be a strictly limited number of Atlas 5 launches in future. Just until they run out of stocks of RD-180s.