Fat consumption has nothing whatsoever to do with diabetes. You could eat bacon 3 meals a day and not have high glucose levels. (Your blood pressure and cholesterol levels might not be so terrific...)
Type 2 diabetes is one of two things: 1. You are not producing insulin fast enough to process large amounts of glucose in the blood. Or 2. Your body is not absorbing the insulin fast enough to do so.
In either case, when you eat foods that are quickly turned to sugar in the blood (any foods which are high in starch or sugar, including white bread and potato products, and especially sugary foods like Pepsi) your blood's glucose level goes way up, because your body can't process it. This causes all kinds of problems. Fatty foods do neccesarilly raise your blood sugar levels. You may be confused because obesity (fat tissue, not fat consumption) slows insulin absorbtion, and is a contribuiting factor to Type 2 diabetes.
I agree. I'm on an old iBook G3 700, and it handles those apps fine. If he's having speed issues with the newer G4 1GHz iBook, he's either running 10.2, hasn't put in enough memory, or has completely hosed his system up somehow.
Yeah, but a sub-second pause (finish up playing previous song, then immediately start next one which was being pre-cached) would still be a lot better than the current state of affairs on the iPod...
A sub-second pause is the current state of affairs on the iPod. Try to keep up.
The iPod pre-caches about 30 minutes of music at a time, and starts grabbing the next 30 minutes into memory before the first 30 completely runs out, so it already does exactly what you say it wants you to do. The rest of us are just whining about the presense of that tiny sub-second gap, which is annoying when listening to Dark Side of the Moon or other albums where the tracks lead into each other continuously.
That can't be correct, because it caches about a half-hour of music at a time. I think it's more likely what that other poster was talking about, where the sound is compressed into chucks, and there's trailing silence at the end of the last chunk.
The lack of gaplessness is the one and only nit-pick I have about the iPod. I just bought my second one (sold my old one to a friend and bought the 20GB model), and I'm hoping whatever comes out three years or so down the road (after I've filled up this one and want an even bigger one) will have solved this problem.
What makes this not astroturfing is that the guy comes right out and says he works for Mircrosoft. If he hid that information before rambling about how nifty MS is, then he would be following in the Grand Tradition of his company.
I remember the Windows "switcher" fiasco with fondness. IIRC, what got them busted was using public-domain clip-art photos as the people who supposedly switched. People were like, "hey, wasn't she just telling me to refinance my mortgage in a pop-up add last week?"
Re:Get used to disappointment
on
The War Of The Word
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I can't blame him. Were I a "Mac geek" who got hired into management level by Microsoft, with all those phat stock options to look forward to, I would claim to be a newly-converted "devotee" as well.
That's the edge that the military gives him. It's like the masons, or skull-and-bones, or a frat. You have a built-in network out there if you are wise enough to harness it.
See, the idea behind spells like "Bull's Strength" is supposed to be: "The thief has scouted ahead, and discovered the dragons lair beyond that door. Let's get ready to go in... (cleric waves his holy symbol over a few people, including self...) Okay, we go in on three. One... two..."
If you want to be strong all the time, play a character with high strength. If you want to call on the power of your God to aid you in times of need and crisis, play a cleric. It fits.
As for bards, like I said, they became much better in 3.5. It was 3.0 when they were mostly useless. (Multi-classing asside, that is. There were so many sick and wrong multi class options in 3.0, such as the infamous theif/ranger, that many GM's either disallowed them outright, found a way to nerf them, or just threw impossible monsters at them. Very munchkiny.)
Dude, if you were a tech guy for the US Navy, you will find a job when you get out. I've never meet a hiring manager that doesn't move former military guys to the very top of the resume pile... A very tall pile with lots of civilian MCSE geeks in it.
You probably know a few people in your field who left the service before you did. Give them a call. Networking gets you jobs a lot more reliably than headhunters do, especially dumbass headhunters who ignore qualifications like yours.
The messed up the Cleric spells too. Bull's Strenght and Cat's grace should last for hours, not minutes.
D&D is not Everquest. Warriors don't get to walk around perpetually "buffed" just because they grouped up with a cleric. Treating clerics like buff machines is even more munchkiny than treating them like walking first aid kits.
That and not Bards can't have Mage Armor.
In the history of D&D, the Bard has never been a balanced class. They were originally sickeningly uber, with gawd-awful requirements to get there, and were rapidly revised from over-powerful to pathetic. The 3.0 bard was, by far, the most useless iteration ever in a typical D&D campaign. The 3.5 made some considerable improvements, so the loss of Mage Armor (which really isn't a very "bard-like" spell) is a small price to pay.
What I miss most from 2nd Edition is the loss of Clerical "Granted Powers" from the Legends and Lore book, which added a lot of color and variety to the Cleric class.
With that comment, Hemos exposed himself as somebody who's main exposure to 3rd Edition has been via NWN, the PC game which is "based on" 3rd Edition rules. That game allows you to flank off a familiar, and bend the rules in several other ways to be more video-game friendly.
Flanking in 3.5 makes sense, sort of, but the biggest problem with it is that the requirement of standing on exactly opposite sqares turnes every battle into what I like to call "The Flanking Melee Conga Line", where all the miniatures are lined up in a perfect row in order to take advantage of flanking bonuses. Also, four people can flank one opponent, but three can not. WTF?
Simple solution: Consider an enemy flanked you attack them and have an ally attacking who is two squares or more away from you. (In other words, the three squares opposite from you are all flanking squares.) It makes a lot more sense, because fighting two people who are surrounding you and 135 degrees apart would make life difficult.
Likewise, Greedo did not really know whether Han would be killed. He was just collecting a bounty head, alive, for repayment of a debt. Han didn't want to gamble on Jabba's mercy, especially since he didn't have the money yet, so he shot Greedo in cold blood to escape.
Don't worry about it. In 2017, Lucas will release a "Very Special Edition" of episodes 4-6, with David Prowse digitally matted out of the shot and replaced with a fortysomething Christopher What's-his-face wearing whatever cool cyborg costume was introduced in Episode 3, lip-synching with the original dialog of James Earl Jones, except altered so that he never drugs and tortures Princess Leah, but instead offers her a refreshing beverage from his floating fountain dispenser.
Then he will refuse to sell all previous versions in any format, and pretend they never existed, insisting that this new Vader is the one he "meant to do" all along.
Not the first SF universe where things have gone backwards. Battletech comes to mind. I forget which book it was first in but yea Lucas stole it.
All Japanese robot anime, including "Battletech" (a.k.a. "Macross") goes back to Heinlein for the inspiration.
Lucas stole it, but not from Battletech, which hit the screen years after the first Star Wars film.
What made it cool in Star Wars was that the decay was there, but never really explained, implying a rich history of the rise of an Empire. The prequels are in the process of over-explaining and de-mythologizing everything about Star Wars, reducing it to something far less cool. Alas.
On a related note, I would gladly pay a premium "rip-off" price for the original theatrical releases of Star Wars on DVD, whether slightly touched up and restored or raw and scratched up. I won't pay one red cent for the Special Edition versions. George Lucas can go screw himself.
Uhh , what? First of all, that requires that the company be listed on the stock market.
Right. And how many companies launch multi-million dollar TV ad campaigns which are not listed on the market (or about to be listed)? That's right. None. Remember the Superbowl a few years ago with all the dot-com IPO ads?
Sales are important, but TV advertising is not a very effective way to drive them, at least not with large-scale commodity products like cola, beer, toilet paper, cars, computers, etc. Like I said before, I'm a typical watches-a-lot-of-TV American, and I don't make any of my purchasing decisions based on TV ads. Even my "brand awareness" runs counter to what advertisers would like. (For example, my awareness of Nike is that they tend to run too narrow for my feet. The fact that Kevin Garnett endorses them and wears them on TV doesn't change that opinion for me. Now, if I haven't been "hypnotized" into a sheep-like creature by now, I put it to you that it is not really happening on a large scale, either. All that "right brain / left brain" crap you were spewing earlier is obsolete thinking among real psychologists. It only ever gets repeated by people with an agenda (like Adbusters).
Sales are driven by many other factors. Having your widget available at Wal-Mart or Best Buy is vastly more important to sales than a 30-second spot during Friends. At best, a good ad campaign might make retailers more interested in your product.
There are many many hundreds of different kinds of beers. If you are trying to tell me each one of them tastes different for all people, I'm done talking with you.
And if you're trying to tell me that all beers taste the same, you probably don't have much to say, anyway.
Are you kidding? The "New Generation" Pepsi campaign is held up as one of the best marketing campaigns ever conducted. It transformed Pepsi from a cheap knock off of Coke to one that captured almost 50 percent of Coke's market share.
No, the "Pepsi Challenge" is the campaign that put them on the map. Actual sales people in supermarkets conducting "taste tests." That, along with the bungling of "New Coke" is what boosted Pepsi sales... but they never captured 50% of Coke's market share. They never even captured 50% of the total soda market. (Coke remains #1 to this day, and Diet Coke is #3.)
Okay, okay. I admit it's an acquired taste, but I put it to you that "Kino's Journey" is the best lone-traveler anthology since "Kung Fu" went off the air in the early 70's. Anime has gotten considerably better and more varied in the last 5 years or so. It ain't all giant robots and schoolgirls anymore. You might want to give it a second look.
The primary goal of the advertising of almost every product is to get you to buy the product.
No it's not.
Everything you said after that is based on that false premise, and therefore invalid.
The primary goal of advertising is to improve the stock portfolio of the company. Profits are nice, but investors are first looking for growth in the value of the shares they own. Advertising helps push the value of shares.
Look at Coke and Pepsi. Between then, they've spent millions of dollars each year for decades. Yet, they have not managed to get any Coke drinkers to prefer Pepsi or Pepsi drinkers to switch to Coke. What they have done is maintain their strong market positions. (Pepsi doesn't sell quite as well, so they need to do a lot more advertising to keep their visibility up.)
Hmm.. how many different beers does Anhauser-busch make?? does it really matter whats on the label? Would you even be able to tell in a blind taste test? (no)
If you can't tell the difference between beers in a blind taste test, you have no business talking about what drives sales in the beer industry. I could hold a slice of lemon in each cheek and still instantly know the difference between a Bud and a Miller, let alone between one of those and a good beer.
Ads do work. Not for selling product, but for selling shares.
All those Nike swooshes that cover Tiger Woods helps keep the stock value of Nike up. It sure as hell doesn't "hypnotize" golfers into buying baseball caps, or even Nike golf shoes, as the grandparent post was trying to claim.
Ever notice how many car commercials brag about being the "#1 selling car in its class"? If you are shopping for a car, do you give a shit if it's selling a lot? I don't. So why do they mention it? Because the purpose of the ad is not to sell you a car, but to convince Wall Street that they are a good company to invest in.
What adbusters and others who "study" such things fail to recognize is that 90% of television marketing is not directed at consumers. Brand placement almost never succeeds at driving sales. It's done to drive stock value.
The purpose of the Pepsi ads proclaiming "The Choice of a New Generation" is not to talk young, hip kids into drinking Pepsi. It's to convince investors that Pepsi is what the young, hip kids are drinking.
That's why Budweiser has not gotten me to overlook the shitty rice-tainted flavor of their beer, or even for a moment believe that the associations of fun and sex apply: They're not trying to. They want potential investors to see their ads and think: "They can afford to spend millions on sexy ads during football games, so they must be doing well." If I actually try one of their beers because of the good-looking women in their ads, well that's just gravy.
I lack cable and therefore am out of the Daily Show loop. Living in a city with 9 crystal-clear broadcast channels doesn't give one much reason to pay monthly fees when a roof antenna provides most of what I need. I can watch stuff like The Soppranos on DVD with the money I save by not getting basic cable.
Then why don't I like any of the beers sold advertised during David Letterman's shows? I watch a lot of TV. If there was any truth to your gibberish whatsoever, I would automatically prefer Miller and Budweiser over my favorite mircro-brews... but I think they're shitty.
It sounds to me like the folks from Adbusters were far more successful at brainwashing you than network TV has been with me.
The funny thing is, the way the picture is displayed seems to hypnotize people. Scientific studies have shown that, within about 10 seconds of watching TV, the brain slips out of alpha waves and into beta waves (like you're sleeping).
My God, how I wish that was true! I've been an insomniac for my whole life, and if TV was an effective substitute for sleep (rather than something to occupy my restless waking hours), my problems would be over!
Slashdot Mirror
Fat consumption has nothing whatsoever to do with diabetes. You could eat bacon 3 meals a day and not have high glucose levels. (Your blood pressure and cholesterol levels might not be so terrific...)
Type 2 diabetes is one of two things: 1. You are not producing insulin fast enough to process large amounts of glucose in the blood.
Or 2. Your body is not absorbing the insulin fast enough to do so.
In either case, when you eat foods that are quickly turned to sugar in the blood (any foods which are high in starch or sugar, including white bread and potato products, and especially sugary foods like Pepsi) your blood's glucose level goes way up, because your body can't process it. This causes all kinds of problems. Fatty foods do neccesarilly raise your blood sugar levels. You may be confused because obesity (fat tissue, not fat consumption) slows insulin absorbtion, and is a contribuiting factor to Type 2 diabetes.
I agree. I'm on an old iBook G3 700, and it handles those apps fine. If he's having speed issues with the newer G4 1GHz iBook, he's either running 10.2, hasn't put in enough memory, or has completely hosed his system up somehow.
A sub-second pause is the current state of affairs on the iPod. Try to keep up.
The iPod pre-caches about 30 minutes of music at a time, and starts grabbing the next 30 minutes into memory before the first 30 completely runs out, so it already does exactly what you say it wants you to do. The rest of us are just whining about the presense of that tiny sub-second gap, which is annoying when listening to Dark Side of the Moon or other albums where the tracks lead into each other continuously.
The lack of gaplessness is the one and only nit-pick I have about the iPod. I just bought my second one (sold my old one to a friend and bought the 20GB model), and I'm hoping whatever comes out three years or so down the road (after I've filled up this one and want an even bigger one) will have solved this problem.
I remember the Windows "switcher" fiasco with fondness. IIRC, what got them busted was using public-domain clip-art photos as the people who supposedly switched. People were like, "hey, wasn't she just telling me to refinance my mortgage in a pop-up add last week?"
I can't blame him. Were I a "Mac geek" who got hired into management level by Microsoft, with all those phat stock options to look forward to, I would claim to be a newly-converted "devotee" as well.
That's the edge that the military gives him. It's like the masons, or skull-and-bones, or a frat. You have a built-in network out there if you are wise enough to harness it.
2. I wasn't using "geek" in deragotory at all. Re-read my post and try not to be so sensitive.
If you want to be strong all the time, play a character with high strength. If you want to call on the power of your God to aid you in times of need and crisis, play a cleric. It fits.
As for bards, like I said, they became much better in 3.5. It was 3.0 when they were mostly useless. (Multi-classing asside, that is. There were so many sick and wrong multi class options in 3.0, such as the infamous theif/ranger, that many GM's either disallowed them outright, found a way to nerf them, or just threw impossible monsters at them. Very munchkiny.)
Damn. The best ideas are always the ones that seem obvious after you hear them.
You probably know a few people in your field who left the service before you did. Give them a call. Networking gets you jobs a lot more reliably than headhunters do, especially dumbass headhunters who ignore qualifications like yours.
D&D is not Everquest. Warriors don't get to walk around perpetually "buffed" just because they grouped up with a cleric. Treating clerics like buff machines is even more munchkiny than treating them like walking first aid kits.
That and not Bards can't have Mage Armor.
In the history of D&D, the Bard has never been a balanced class. They were originally sickeningly uber, with gawd-awful requirements to get there, and were rapidly revised from over-powerful to pathetic. The 3.0 bard was, by far, the most useless iteration ever in a typical D&D campaign. The 3.5 made some considerable improvements, so the loss of Mage Armor (which really isn't a very "bard-like" spell) is a small price to pay.
What I miss most from 2nd Edition is the loss of Clerical "Granted Powers" from the Legends and Lore book, which added a lot of color and variety to the Cleric class.
Flanking in 3.5 makes sense, sort of, but the biggest problem with it is that the requirement of standing on exactly opposite sqares turnes every battle into what I like to call "The Flanking Melee Conga Line", where all the miniatures are lined up in a perfect row in order to take advantage of flanking bonuses. Also, four people can flank one opponent, but three can not. WTF?
Simple solution: Consider an enemy flanked you attack them and have an ally attacking who is two squares or more away from you. (In other words, the three squares opposite from you are all flanking squares.) It makes a lot more sense, because fighting two people who are surrounding you and 135 degrees apart would make life difficult.
Who's the huge nerd now? :)
Likewise, Greedo did not really know whether Han would be killed. He was just collecting a bounty head, alive, for repayment of a debt. Han didn't want to gamble on Jabba's mercy, especially since he didn't have the money yet, so he shot Greedo in cold blood to escape.
Then he will refuse to sell all previous versions in any format, and pretend they never existed, insisting that this new Vader is the one he "meant to do" all along.
All Japanese robot anime, including "Battletech" (a.k.a. "Macross") goes back to Heinlein for the inspiration.
Lucas stole it, but not from Battletech, which hit the screen years after the first Star Wars film.
What made it cool in Star Wars was that the decay was there, but never really explained, implying a rich history of the rise of an Empire. The prequels are in the process of over-explaining and de-mythologizing everything about Star Wars, reducing it to something far less cool. Alas.
On a related note, I would gladly pay a premium "rip-off" price for the original theatrical releases of Star Wars on DVD, whether slightly touched up and restored or raw and scratched up. I won't pay one red cent for the Special Edition versions. George Lucas can go screw himself.
That's rich, coming from somebody who still believes in "right brain/left brain" pop psychology.
First of all, that requires that the company be listed on the stock market.
Right. And how many companies launch multi-million dollar TV ad campaigns which are not listed on the market (or about to be listed)? That's right. None. Remember the Superbowl a few years ago with all the dot-com IPO ads?
Sales are important, but TV advertising is not a very effective way to drive them, at least not with large-scale commodity products like cola, beer, toilet paper, cars, computers, etc. Like I said before, I'm a typical watches-a-lot-of-TV American, and I don't make any of my purchasing decisions based on TV ads. Even my "brand awareness" runs counter to what advertisers would like. (For example, my awareness of Nike is that they tend to run too narrow for my feet. The fact that Kevin Garnett endorses them and wears them on TV doesn't change that opinion for me. Now, if I haven't been "hypnotized" into a sheep-like creature by now, I put it to you that it is not really happening on a large scale, either. All that "right brain / left brain" crap you were spewing earlier is obsolete thinking among real psychologists. It only ever gets repeated by people with an agenda (like Adbusters).
Sales are driven by many other factors. Having your widget available at Wal-Mart or Best Buy is vastly more important to sales than a 30-second spot during Friends. At best, a good ad campaign might make retailers more interested in your product.
There are many many hundreds of different kinds of beers. If you are trying to tell me each one of them tastes different for all people, I'm done talking with you.
And if you're trying to tell me that all beers taste the same, you probably don't have much to say, anyway.
No, the "Pepsi Challenge" is the campaign that put them on the map. Actual sales people in supermarkets conducting "taste tests." That, along with the bungling of "New Coke" is what boosted Pepsi sales... but they never captured 50% of Coke's market share. They never even captured 50% of the total soda market. (Coke remains #1 to this day, and Diet Coke is #3.)
Okay, okay. I admit it's an acquired taste, but I put it to you that "Kino's Journey" is the best lone-traveler anthology since "Kung Fu" went off the air in the early 70's. Anime has gotten considerably better and more varied in the last 5 years or so. It ain't all giant robots and schoolgirls anymore. You might want to give it a second look.
No it's not.
Everything you said after that is based on that false premise, and therefore invalid.
The primary goal of advertising is to improve the stock portfolio of the company. Profits are nice, but investors are first looking for growth in the value of the shares they own. Advertising helps push the value of shares.
Look at Coke and Pepsi. Between then, they've spent millions of dollars each year for decades. Yet, they have not managed to get any Coke drinkers to prefer Pepsi or Pepsi drinkers to switch to Coke. What they have done is maintain their strong market positions. (Pepsi doesn't sell quite as well, so they need to do a lot more advertising to keep their visibility up.)
Hmm.. how many different beers does Anhauser-busch make?? does it really matter whats on the label? Would you even be able to tell in a blind taste test? (no)
If you can't tell the difference between beers in a blind taste test, you have no business talking about what drives sales in the beer industry. I could hold a slice of lemon in each cheek and still instantly know the difference between a Bud and a Miller, let alone between one of those and a good beer.
All those Nike swooshes that cover Tiger Woods helps keep the stock value of Nike up. It sure as hell doesn't "hypnotize" golfers into buying baseball caps, or even Nike golf shoes, as the grandparent post was trying to claim.
Ever notice how many car commercials brag about being the "#1 selling car in its class"? If you are shopping for a car, do you give a shit if it's selling a lot? I don't. So why do they mention it? Because the purpose of the ad is not to sell you a car, but to convince Wall Street that they are a good company to invest in.
The purpose of the Pepsi ads proclaiming "The Choice of a New Generation" is not to talk young, hip kids into drinking Pepsi. It's to convince investors that Pepsi is what the young, hip kids are drinking.
That's why Budweiser has not gotten me to overlook the shitty rice-tainted flavor of their beer, or even for a moment believe that the associations of fun and sex apply: They're not trying to. They want potential investors to see their ads and think: "They can afford to spend millions on sexy ads during football games, so they must be doing well." If I actually try one of their beers because of the good-looking women in their ads, well that's just gravy.
I lack cable and therefore am out of the Daily Show loop. Living in a city with 9 crystal-clear broadcast channels doesn't give one much reason to pay monthly fees when a roof antenna provides most of what I need. I can watch stuff like The Soppranos on DVD with the money I save by not getting basic cable.
It sounds to me like the folks from Adbusters were far more successful at brainwashing you than network TV has been with me.
The funny thing is, the way the picture is displayed seems to hypnotize people. Scientific studies have shown that, within about 10 seconds of watching TV, the brain slips out of alpha waves and into beta waves (like you're sleeping).
My God, how I wish that was true! I've been an insomniac for my whole life, and if TV was an effective substitute for sleep (rather than something to occupy my restless waking hours), my problems would be over!