So what you are telling us is that this is a regulatory problem. It's the regulators who are, at least in effect, demanding that medical devices be built using old insecure operating systems and then not be tampered with, and since they have the power of the state behind them everyone else is helpless in the face of their incompetence.
That is half of the problem.
The other half of the problem is that equipment makers still choose to use off the shelf consumer operating systems on their equipment in the full knowledge that these things need upgrading while the regulations prevent it. There are plenty of embedded system options for OSs that are not linux or windows. If the equipment maker isn't building a system that is safe within the context of the regulations, then they are incompetent.
Current popular thinking among physicists is that the universe itself does not know the exact location and momentum of fundamental matter.
The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics tells us that the universe has a true random component. No, not pseudo-random. True random.
However, nobody could tell the difference without doing a strictly more computational work than is required to iterate through all the states of the the pseudo random system. Doing computational work takes energy and for a sufficiently large state space, it would take more energy than is available in the universe. If I wanted the state transitions in my simulated environment to be indistinguishable from random to the poor sods being simulated I'd just make sure there wasn't enough energy available in the system to compute the internal state of the PRNG.
It's not your ability to program. Lots of people can program and to a first approximation, most programmers are expected to be able to adapt to a new language or environment.
What makes you distinct is the contextual skills you bring. E.G. 802 or LTE protocols, HIPPA rules, industrial process control, DECT, pig farming automation, Point of Sale. There are thousands of different skill areas that a random programmer off the street won't know, but somebody needs.
>A Trusted Platform Module AKA hardware DRM. >or... the bit of extra hardware that means you don't own the PC you just paid for.
You are wrong. It is not a TPM. It's a thing to keep your crypto operations, including keys, away from the prying eyes of malware and side channel attacks.
What I noticed is that the light output end of the LED bulb has an opaque back with the LED array pointing through a glass aperture on the front.
The halogen bulb of the same format and nominal rating had a glass bulb that is not opaque at the back and so scatters light over a much wider angle. This scattering is modified by the reflective surface on the inside of the housing that the bulb is plugged into.
However the LED bulb doesn't scatter back into the light housing because it's all heading directly out of the front surface of the bulb.
This make the LED lamp qualitatively different to the halogen, not just in brightness, but also in scattering. For whole room lighting with LEDs, either the LED bulb needs to change or the housing needs to change to improve the scattering for that application. For spot lighting, LEDs are great.
Yup. We put up some track lights and found the LED bulbs would illuminate a small patch of floor, but blind you if you looked directly into it.
In order to have lots of light and stay within the current rating of the track, I mixed them 50/50 with halogens. The halogens lit the room, the led were set to be pointing at things like desks that benefit from better illumination.
LED room lights have a way to go before they're a complete replacement.
You, my friend, need to show why obesity follows malnourished populations as well as over-nourished populations. You need to show why the 'eat less, exercise more' mantra has gone hand in hand with a rise on obesity as fat intake goes down and carb intake goes up.
The government advice is widely ridiculed by anyone who pays any attention to the nutritional research.
Try read 'Good Calories, Bad Calories' by Gary Taubes for an excellently researched analysis of the inconsistencies in the commonly accepted models of obesity. 'Why we get fat' is the same thing, but shorter and easier to read.
You should also be able to explain why high fat, low carb diets consistently cause people to lose weight and improve their lipid profile. Check out the results of the 'A to Z' study for a well run comparison of weight loss diets (hint - low carb wins on all metrics). If the government advice was consistent with reality, these results would not happen.
Indeed. But it goes further. There is substantial evidence that bulk fructose, in it's role as 50% of sucrose is the underlying cause of the modern rise of obesity.
The story goes like this..
The POMC neurons in the brain (the VMH - Ventromedial Hypothalamus to be precise) regulates energy expenditure are hunger based on levels of glucose, non esterified fatty acids and various hormones, principally insulin and leptin.
Bulk fructose damages those cells, so the regulation goes out of whack. Then the carb-insulin mechanism of obesity kicks in and you're sensitive to carbs. Now regardless of the leptin signaling and the copious NEFAs, the brain isn't telling the rest of the body that you're in an energy rich environment and so it resist burning fat in favor of storing it and you're hungry all the time.
The evidence is pretty good and getting stronger as new studies dig in. E.G. There are many ways to break the VMH in rats. Do it and they get fat. Starve them and they stay fat, but rob their own muscles and organs in order to survive, while leaving the fat cells intact. MSG will do it, Fructose will do it. An ice pick will do it. Section the brains of freshly dead fat people and they have exactly the same lesions in their VMH.
We never had bulk fructose until recent centuries and we never had it in the quantities we have it now. People fart around arguing about micro-nutrients and trace elements looking for reasons, but the macro-nutrients are where the first order effects can be explained.
Yup. As I said above, these rats are bred to get cancer. They will get cancer. You can't just feed a small population of normal rats and look for cancer. They don't get it at a high enough rate to get a viable signal in the data.
You want rats that are likely to get cancer. Then you see how interventions you are studying modulate the cancer compare with a control.
In tiny quantities. It is the primary signaling chemical between neurons. Overload cells with glutamates and they die messily (rather than in the ordered aptosis way). Google for 'excitotoxins'. If you get to Blaylock's talk, he's a crank on many things, but he's right on this.
Slashdot Mirror
So what you are telling us is that this is a regulatory problem. It's the regulators who are, at least in effect, demanding that medical devices be built using old insecure operating systems and then not be tampered with, and since they have the power of the state behind them everyone else is helpless in the face of their incompetence.
That is half of the problem.
The other half of the problem is that equipment makers still choose to use off the shelf consumer operating systems on their equipment in the full knowledge that these things need upgrading while the regulations prevent it. There are plenty of embedded system options for OSs that are not linux or windows. If the equipment maker isn't building a system that is safe within the context of the regulations, then they are incompetent.
Ha, like any other physicists are any more sane!
Current popular thinking among physicists is that the universe itself does not know the exact location and momentum of fundamental matter.
The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics tells us that the universe has a true random component. No, not pseudo-random. True random.
However, nobody could tell the difference without doing a strictly more computational work than is required to iterate through all the states of the the pseudo random system. Doing computational work takes energy and for a sufficiently large state space, it would take more energy than is available in the universe. If I wanted the state transitions in my simulated environment to be indistinguishable from random to the poor sods being simulated I'd just make sure there wasn't enough energy available in the system to compute the internal state of the PRNG.
Switch to hardware. Do chip design. Then you can complete the process of turning your hair grey. But it pays better than software.
It's not your ability to program. Lots of people can program and to a first approximation, most programmers are expected to be able to adapt to a new language or environment.
What makes you distinct is the contextual skills you bring. E.G. 802 or LTE protocols, HIPPA rules, industrial process control, DECT, pig farming automation, Point of Sale. There are thousands of different skill areas that a random programmer off the street won't know, but somebody needs.
>A Trusted Platform Module AKA hardware DRM.
>or... the bit of extra hardware that means you don't own the PC you just paid for.
You are wrong. It is not a TPM. It's a thing to keep your crypto operations, including keys, away from the prying eyes of malware and side channel attacks.
Who whined? I engineer!
What I noticed is that the light output end of the LED bulb has an opaque back with the LED array pointing through a glass aperture on the front.
The halogen bulb of the same format and nominal rating had a glass bulb that is not opaque at the back and so scatters light over a much wider angle. This scattering is modified by the reflective surface on the inside of the housing that the bulb is plugged into.
However the LED bulb doesn't scatter back into the light housing because it's all heading directly out of the front surface of the bulb.
This make the LED lamp qualitatively different to the halogen, not just in brightness, but also in scattering. For whole room lighting with LEDs, either the LED bulb needs to change or the housing needs to change to improve the scattering for that application. For spot lighting, LEDs are great.
> the spread was too narrow.
Yup. We put up some track lights and found the LED bulbs would illuminate a small patch of floor, but blind you if you looked directly into it.
In order to have lots of light and stay within the current rating of the track, I mixed them 50/50 with halogens. The halogens lit the room, the led were set to be pointing at things like desks that benefit from better illumination.
LED room lights have a way to go before they're a complete replacement.
Cows evolved to eat grass.
No good came from feeding them corn. I can't see how feeding them gummy worms will turn out well.
Good luck with sticking to your messed up paradigm. It'll get you in the end.
Yes I have read the China Study.
But I'm not going to bother firing science at you because your mind seems closed to anything other that texts that confirm your worldview.
Don't fall into the 'Food Reward' trap that Guyenet fell into and hasn't escaped from yet. It isn't relevant to cell metabolism.
HFCS is 45% glucose and 55% fructose unbound.
Sucrose is 50% glucose bound to 50% fructose.
By the time the sucrose hits the stomach, it has been cleaved by enzymes into an unbound 50:50 mix.
So the difference is just the 45:55 vs 50:50 thing
Can you point to research that supports your assertions. I haven't read anything along those lines.
>So, herbicides plus extracts of seaweed make you oh so fat... sweet.
And fruits and vegetables give you cancer
I had bacon eggs and sausage for breakfast. Can you blame me?
Here are some good starting points for the lay reader:
http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/2012/01/used-brain-for-sale-one-careful-owner.html
http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/2012/09/protons-linoleic-acid-in-hypothalamus.html
http://www.flyfishingdevon.co.uk/salmon/year3/psy337EatingNeuralFactors/PSY337EatingNeuralFactors.htm#evidenceforceontrolcentresforfeeding
Everything I've read suggests that HFCS and sucrose are metabolically equivalent.
My personal data is here.
You, my friend, need to show why obesity follows malnourished populations as well as over-nourished populations. You need to show why the 'eat less, exercise more' mantra has gone hand in hand with a rise on obesity as fat intake goes down and carb intake goes up.
The government advice is widely ridiculed by anyone who pays any attention to the nutritional research.
Try read 'Good Calories, Bad Calories' by Gary Taubes for an excellently researched analysis of the inconsistencies in the commonly accepted models of obesity. 'Why we get fat' is the same thing, but shorter and easier to read.
You should also be able to explain why high fat, low carb diets consistently cause people to lose weight and improve their lipid profile. Check out the results of the 'A to Z' study for a well run comparison of weight loss diets (hint - low carb wins on all metrics). If the government advice was consistent with reality, these results would not happen.
That's not how lab rat based science works. Google 'oncomouse'.
In DSP you certainly do raise the noise to extract a signal that is below the quantization threshold.
In oncomice, you're raising the signal, not the noise.
Indeed. But it goes further. There is substantial evidence that bulk fructose, in it's role as 50% of sucrose is the underlying cause of the modern rise of obesity.
The story goes like this..
The POMC neurons in the brain (the VMH - Ventromedial Hypothalamus to be precise) regulates energy expenditure are hunger based on levels of glucose, non esterified fatty acids and various hormones, principally insulin and leptin.
Bulk fructose damages those cells, so the regulation goes out of whack. Then the carb-insulin mechanism of obesity kicks in and you're sensitive to carbs. Now regardless of the leptin signaling and the copious NEFAs, the brain isn't telling the rest of the body that you're in an energy rich environment and so it resist burning fat in favor of storing it and you're hungry all the time.
The evidence is pretty good and getting stronger as new studies dig in. E.G. There are many ways to break the VMH in rats. Do it and they get fat. Starve them and they stay fat, but rob their own muscles and organs in order to survive, while leaving the fat cells intact. MSG will do it, Fructose will do it. An ice pick will do it. Section the brains of freshly dead fat people and they have exactly the same lesions in their VMH.
We never had bulk fructose until recent centuries and we never had it in the quantities we have it now. People fart around arguing about micro-nutrients and trace elements looking for reasons, but the macro-nutrients are where the first order effects can be explained.
>Say "Hi" to heart disease for me.
My heart disease risk factors have dropped dramatically since going on a high fat diet.
This is not uncommon.
Come on! A serious peer reviewed paper showing bacon protects against cancer should at least garner an 'interesting'.
Yup. As I said above, these rats are bred to get cancer. They will get cancer.
You can't just feed a small population of normal rats and look for cancer. They don't get it at a high enough rate to get a viable signal in the data.
You want rats that are likely to get cancer. Then you see how interventions you are studying modulate the cancer compare with a control.
That is why they got cancer.
In tiny quantities. It is the primary signaling chemical between neurons.
Overload cells with glutamates and they die messily (rather than in the ordered aptosis way).
Google for 'excitotoxins'. If you get to Blaylock's talk, he's a crank on many things, but he's right on this.
Show us your data then.
Raw milk dairies need to be held to a higher standard. The pasteurization is really there to mask the unsanitary practices that are prevalent.