Well... yes and no. 5000 calories is a lot, even in high-caloric foods. I think you would poop a lot and you wouldn't WANT to eat that much food because you wouldn't need to. The calorie argument is a red herring - it is a piece of information, but only a small one.
But I can tell you this. After eating high-fat (animal fats, butter, coconut oil, olive oil), no grains/legumes and virtually no sugar for a year, and not counting calories at all or exercising any more than I normally did, I lost 15 lbs and 2 inches off my waist. Actually that happened in the first 3 months, but I tracked it for a year. I went from 170 lbs to 155. If I were overweight, I would have lost a lot more. I have been eating this way for 4 years now, and after increasing my non-grain carbs a little I am at 160 with no effort. And I feel better than I ever have. There are other great effects of eating this way, such as reducing inflammation.
A year or so ago I did track what I ate and measured the fat/calories/sugar for a week. It was typical, and I made no adjustments to my diet. The daily average came out to 2300 calories, 54 grams carbs, 186 grams fat, 18 grams sugar. I actually expected the calories to be higher, but that is what I found. I did actually think for a moment "oh no, I'm not eating enough... the average male should consume..." NO! That is generalized hogwash for the masses based on old information (I can't even call it science). Watch this video by Dr Peter Attia on Vimeo who talks about how our Dietary Guidelines are what they are. I know.. it's long, but it's really interesting. He has some really deep info on his website about how our diet and fat affects our cholesterol. Another fun fact - high cholesterol isn't bad. Another fun fact - half of all people who have heart attacks have normal cholesterol. Cholesterol is simply one thing, one factor in the grand scheme... but you know what doctors say... you need to lower it, I want you to take statins. (which are at the top of the most prescribed drug lists, in quantity and in dollars) But I digress...
I think it would be hard to eat 5000 calories in a day. I can see where someone doing vigorous work all day would require more food, but that is not saying the same thing as "just eat fewer calories and you will lose weight". I can only explain so much... I referenced some good books that go into far greater detail on the topic. Your body operates on hormones, and what you eat directly impacts that process. Calories do not. It's really that simple. But please, don't take my word for it, find those books and read them. The information is out there.
The only people who would win in this scenario is lawyers. Our entire system is built by lawyers, for lawyers. In general, the answer is not "more laws".
Something just does not become impossible. if something impossible does exist then you'd be able to see it.. if somebody for example made something impossible it actually is not impossible because it had succeeded via the person's own intent. but if that person had covered up the intent well that is still not impossible because we already know something impossible cannot exist.
"His weapon flails wildly at any or all targets, the truth. his theory placed with humble intentions cannot be understood until someone proves him wrong"
What in the fuck is wrong with you?
Those are actually lyrics from a Ke$ha song.
I think the question "What in the fuck is wrong with you?" still applies.
Having lost 150lbs over the past few years, I have read innumerable articles over that time about nutrition and have come to a conclusion: Nobody has any fucking idea what they're talking about. Carbs are bad for you, fat is bad for you, refined sugar is bad for you, all sugar is bad for you, processed food of any kind is bad for you, artificial sweeteners are bad for you, and on and on. I can find an article and a study to back up just about any claim you care to make about nutrition. It's all bullshit pseudo science.
Here's the consensus: Burn more calories than you consume and you will lose weight, and try to eat some vegetables every once in a while to ensure you get some vitamins. That's about it.
If you're having trouble gaining weight, you're not eating enough. Simple as that. Here's what you do: Eat what you normally would every day, then eat an entire loaf of bread and a jar of peanut butter every night. That's an extra 10000 Calories or so every day. If you can't gain weight on that then you're a medical marvel or an Olympiad in training. Will it be hard to force yourself to eat all that? You bet it will. It's at least as hard for people on the opposite end of the spectrum who have to force themselves not to eat, trust me. So it's really just a matter of how bad you want it, isn't it?
You are wrong on some points. There are NOT studies that back up some of your assertions (i.e. fat is bad for you). People have selectively interpreted results to fit their own opinions, and in some cases outright lied about them. IT IS NOT ABOUT CALORIES IN / CALORIES OUT.
Eating more does not make you fat. Period. Being overweight is due to an imbalance in how your body regulates fat storage due to hormonal regulation of homeostasis. The main driver of this process is insulin. Insulin is directly affected by WHAT you eat, now how much. And more precisely, it is the amount of carbs in your diet. Sugars are particularly nasty in this regard.
It's a lot more complex than this, but that is a sufficient summary of the basics. Overeating or sedentary behavior does NOT make you fat. It's pretty much the other way around - becoming fat increases the amount of food you need and makes it more difficult to be physically active.
Good Calories Bad Calories (or Why We Get Fat: and what to do about it) and the Primal Blueprint are great books to read on this topic. And Grain Brain is good for how grains have been shown to impact our brains, which is more to the topic of this story.
(some of the above was copy/pasted from another post I replied to in this story)
If there's a correlation it could be the other way around: perhaps people with those specific brain characteristics are prone to eating more.
Eating more does not make you fat. Period. Being overweight is due to an imbalance in how your body regulates fat storage due to hormonal regulation of homeostasis. The main driver of this process is insulin. Insulin is directly affected by WHAT you eat, now how much. And more precisely, it is the amount of carbs in your diet. Sugars are particularly nasty in this regard.
It's a lot more complex than this, but that is a sufficient summary of the basics. Overeating or sedentary behavior does NOT make you fat. It's pretty much the other way around - becoming fat increases the amount of food you need and makes it more difficult to be physically active.
Good Calories Bad Calories (or Why We Get Fat: and what to do about it) and the Primal Blueprint are great books to read on this topic. And Grain Brain is good for how grains have been shown to impact our brains, which is more to the topic of this story.
I am not an admin, I only need to remember my passwords. Personally, I have a less-secure "story" and a more-secure "story". So I basically have 2 variations on the story behind my passwords. That doesn't mean I have only 2 passwords of course. So even if someone cracked one of my passwords they would be able to guess my others. And I have been using the secure scheme since 1996. The password looks totally random, but I know the story behind it, and remember the variations I made. So I can write down a single letter (or number) and know what the password is.
I think my point is that people need to THINK about their passwords, and make it unguessable yet something they can write down reminders for without compromising the guessability. Now making it 'uncrackable' is a different story completely.
True, to some degree... I only use this type of naming scheme where I am required to change my password - which is pretty much everywhere except on things that I control. Sometimes you have to deal with reality, and that means having to change your password. Is DaisyRIPyy99 harder to crack than DaisyRIPzz00? Not at all, but it is a method to help the user remember it.
Reminder: Brandon Lee (Bruce Lee's son) was killed on a movie set by a strange mishap with a handgun. Accidents happen no matter how many precautions are taken. Negligence or misuse just ups the odds.
Well, all this IT tech has done is forced the user to come up with a new password and WRITE IT DOWN ON ANOTHER POST-IT. He may think he is being clever, but what he has done is ensure that they will just do it again because it's a new password.
What he should do is come up with a method by which they can create a secure password and write down the hint to remember it, and distribute that process to everyone. In other words, TEACH them how to do good passwords.
1. Think of a very memorable event in your life. 2. Come up with a password based on that event. 3. Make it follow convention. (e.g. capitals, letters, length, etc) 4. Make it able to be changed easily without changing the event.
Example: My dog Daisy died in 1998 password: DaisyRIPxx98
Now when you have to change it in the future, you could "increment" the xx to yy, then zz, etc. Or you could increment the 98 to 99, 100, etc. Or better yet both.
So next password is DaisyRIPyy99, then DaisyRIPzz00, then DaisyRIPaa01,...... The user can write down a hint "puppy c3" in plain sight, and without knowing the scheme, nobody would ever be able to guess it. (in this case, DaisyRIPcc03)
But why was the IRS involved in catching him? Because I am pretty sure there were no charges until after this investigation. And Al Capone was a US Citizen, in the US.
I went so far as to look into the IRS Criminal Investigation manual, and I will admit it was a challenge to take it all in. But I found it quite curious that the IRS were the ones who initiated this investigation. (see page 21 of https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndil/file/877591/download ) Not much more is said about it, but I have to question why was the IRS investigating a torrent site? Is it because someone running it may have been in the US, and may have been profiting from it? That is the only thing I can think of, but that leads to all kinds of other questions.
I too thought it had something to do with the programming language. I remember taking C and Pascal the same semester in college. Big mistake! Why not just refer to it as "Pascal architecture" in the story summary? I get that people who follow this might know that is what was meant, but not everyone spends thousands of dollars on video cards or follows things like this. I would think that for a summary story, it would be a little more front-page-friendly. But then again, I prefer the/. of old.
Seriously, they don't have specialized equipment for high altitude jumps or to detect radiation?! I can only hope that for a special forces tactical assault kit they are getting some custom designed ones and not off-the-shelf phones.
The article links to another article at dodbuzz that gives some better info.
This reminds me of when my brother asks me if I saw the latest golf tournament. Even though HE loves golf and I don't. When I say I didn't and don't like golf, he proceeds to tell me all about it in excruciating detail.
We get it. You are into live theater. You're on Broadway, in New York! How can everyone NOT like live theater?! We're still relevant! We're still relevant!
I RTFA because I couldn't believe what the summary said. It's true, it's all true. I don't know what parts of it angered me the most but the below comes close.
"Beginning to end, the whole process of building the computer took me almost five hours, and I had to make two emergency calls to PC Gamer's Fenlon during the process: once when I couldn't figure out why the case fans weren't spinning, and again when the computer didn't recognize an ethernet cable. I was literally bleeding from a cut on my hand by the end of it, which my YouTube guides said was common. I bled for this fucking thing.... But getting there was a nightmare. It is by far the most difficult product I've ever bought and put together. "
All I can say is that this "journalist" sounds like an entitled, whiny, moron who needs to STFU.
That was a problem, but I had disabled that. It was some dbus process run amok . Every time I thought it was fixed, I would wake up to a 100% pegged CPU that had been that way for who knows how long.
I agree, I use updatedb/locate/find/grep
I think I will install the new LinuxMint18 XFCE as soon as it is released and try KWIN with it (on an older unused PC or in a VM) and see how it goes.
To me "grains" means grains and any grain products. You are right, I did leave out beans and legumes. And if you don't consume those things, it pretty much takes away most processed foods. I do have concessions for myself - cheese, dark chocolate (60%+), wine and some booze - but no beer. I know it's not by-the-book paleo, but it works for me.
I will first say that I don't shop at WalMart, but I do know:
1. They have plenty of fresh produce there, including a deli. Maybe not the older stores, but I think all the new ones probably do. One-stop-shopping and all.
2. Calories don't make people fat. Being fat is due to the body's inability to properly regulate fat storage. One of the major contributors to the process of fat regulation is insulin. What has the greatest impact on insulin in your body? Carbs, and in particular grains and sugars. Look at the amounts of these two things in the cheap foods that lower income people eat. (and it really extends to everyone, not just lower income people) Read the book Good Calories, Bad Calories. (or a more layman-friendly version of it called Why We Get Fat: And What To Do About It.
Thank you for this. I used to use KDE back on Redhat, then Mandrake, and eventually Kubuntu. But then it started going nutso, consuming 100% CPU at random times and would stay like that until I would log out.
I tried several other DEs, but landed on XFCE (Xubuntu) and switched to MintXFCE a few years ago. I've tried KDE and others along the way, but always come back to XFCE. I will give this a shot, it might be exactly what I have been wanting.
The only place you're seeing any adoption of Linux on the desktop is a few European companies, and that's due to anti-American sentiment more than any technical superiority.
Sure, we all know you are trolling. But why not throw in some fun (actual) facts?
There is a company who uses Linux on their desktops. They are slightly technical, and you may have heard of them - Google. And although it was about 4 years ago, there was a nice article about Goobuntu (their modified version of Ubuntu) on ZDNET. Another interesting fact from the article is that they were paying customers for it, and not the largest. Things may have changed since then, I don't know. But I do know that they haven't switched over to Windows.
What I really don't understand is what you get out of your copy/paste trolling. Or do you really believe what you posted? Either way, you're obviously wrong. But then again, you're posting as an AC, so what else could be expected.
I remember back in the good old days when trolls at least had a little bit of skill.
Slashdot Mirror
Well... yes and no. 5000 calories is a lot, even in high-caloric foods. I think you would poop a lot and you wouldn't WANT to eat that much food because you wouldn't need to. The calorie argument is a red herring - it is a piece of information, but only a small one.
But I can tell you this. After eating high-fat (animal fats, butter, coconut oil, olive oil), no grains/legumes and virtually no sugar for a year, and not counting calories at all or exercising any more than I normally did, I lost 15 lbs and 2 inches off my waist. Actually that happened in the first 3 months, but I tracked it for a year. I went from 170 lbs to 155. If I were overweight, I would have lost a lot more. I have been eating this way for 4 years now, and after increasing my non-grain carbs a little I am at 160 with no effort. And I feel better than I ever have. There are other great effects of eating this way, such as reducing inflammation.
A year or so ago I did track what I ate and measured the fat/calories/sugar for a week. It was typical, and I made no adjustments to my diet.
The daily average came out to 2300 calories, 54 grams carbs, 186 grams fat, 18 grams sugar. I actually expected the calories to be higher, but that is what I found. I did actually think for a moment "oh no, I'm not eating enough... the average male should consume..." NO! That is generalized hogwash for the masses based on old information (I can't even call it science). Watch this video by Dr Peter Attia on Vimeo who talks about how our Dietary Guidelines are what they are. I know.. it's long, but it's really interesting. He has some really deep info on his website about how our diet and fat affects our cholesterol. Another fun fact - high cholesterol isn't bad. Another fun fact - half of all people who have heart attacks have normal cholesterol. Cholesterol is simply one thing, one factor in the grand scheme... but you know what doctors say... you need to lower it, I want you to take statins. (which are at the top of the most prescribed drug lists, in quantity and in dollars) But I digress...
I think it would be hard to eat 5000 calories in a day. I can see where someone doing vigorous work all day would require more food, but that is not saying the same thing as "just eat fewer calories and you will lose weight". I can only explain so much... I referenced some good books that go into far greater detail on the topic. Your body operates on hormones, and what you eat directly impacts that process. Calories do not. It's really that simple. But please, don't take my word for it, find those books and read them. The information is out there.
The only people who would win in this scenario is lawyers. Our entire system is built by lawyers, for lawyers. In general, the answer is not "more laws".
Something just does not become impossible. if something impossible does exist then you'd be able to see it.. if somebody for example made something impossible it actually is not impossible because it had succeeded via the person's own intent. but if that person had covered up the intent well that is still not impossible because we already know something impossible cannot exist.
"His weapon flails wildly at any or all targets, the truth. his theory placed with humble intentions cannot be understood until someone proves him wrong"
What in the fuck is wrong with you?
Those are actually lyrics from a Ke$ha song.
I think the question "What in the fuck is wrong with you?" still applies.
Having lost 150lbs over the past few years, I have read innumerable articles over that time about nutrition and have come to a conclusion: Nobody has any fucking idea what they're talking about. Carbs are bad for you, fat is bad for you, refined sugar is bad for you, all sugar is bad for you, processed food of any kind is bad for you, artificial sweeteners are bad for you, and on and on. I can find an article and a study to back up just about any claim you care to make about nutrition. It's all bullshit pseudo science.
Here's the consensus: Burn more calories than you consume and you will lose weight, and try to eat some vegetables every once in a while to ensure you get some vitamins. That's about it.
If you're having trouble gaining weight, you're not eating enough. Simple as that. Here's what you do: Eat what you normally would every day, then eat an entire loaf of bread and a jar of peanut butter every night. That's an extra 10000 Calories or so every day. If you can't gain weight on that then you're a medical marvel or an Olympiad in training. Will it be hard to force yourself to eat all that? You bet it will. It's at least as hard for people on the opposite end of the spectrum who have to force themselves not to eat, trust me. So it's really just a matter of how bad you want it, isn't it?
You are wrong on some points. There are NOT studies that back up some of your assertions (i.e. fat is bad for you). People have selectively interpreted results to fit their own opinions, and in some cases outright lied about them. IT IS NOT ABOUT CALORIES IN / CALORIES OUT.
Eating more does not make you fat. Period. Being overweight is due to an imbalance in how your body regulates fat storage due to hormonal regulation of homeostasis. The main driver of this process is insulin. Insulin is directly affected by WHAT you eat, now how much. And more precisely, it is the amount of carbs in your diet. Sugars are particularly nasty in this regard.
It's a lot more complex than this, but that is a sufficient summary of the basics. Overeating or sedentary behavior does NOT make you fat. It's pretty much the other way around - becoming fat increases the amount of food you need and makes it more difficult to be physically active.
Good Calories Bad Calories (or Why We Get Fat: and what to do about it) and the Primal Blueprint are great books to read on this topic. And Grain Brain is good for how grains have been shown to impact our brains, which is more to the topic of this story.
(some of the above was copy/pasted from another post I replied to in this story)
If there's a correlation it could be the other way around: perhaps people with those specific brain characteristics are prone to eating more.
Eating more does not make you fat. Period. Being overweight is due to an imbalance in how your body regulates fat storage due to hormonal regulation of homeostasis. The main driver of this process is insulin. Insulin is directly affected by WHAT you eat, now how much. And more precisely, it is the amount of carbs in your diet. Sugars are particularly nasty in this regard.
It's a lot more complex than this, but that is a sufficient summary of the basics. Overeating or sedentary behavior does NOT make you fat. It's pretty much the other way around - becoming fat increases the amount of food you need and makes it more difficult to be physically active.
Good Calories Bad Calories (or Why We Get Fat: and what to do about it) and the Primal Blueprint are great books to read on this topic. And Grain Brain is good for how grains have been shown to impact our brains, which is more to the topic of this story.
I am not an admin, I only need to remember my passwords. Personally, I have a less-secure "story" and a more-secure "story". So I basically have 2 variations on the story behind my passwords. That doesn't mean I have only 2 passwords of course. So even if someone cracked one of my passwords they would be able to guess my others. And I have been using the secure scheme since 1996. The password looks totally random, but I know the story behind it, and remember the variations I made. So I can write down a single letter (or number) and know what the password is.
I think my point is that people need to THINK about their passwords, and make it unguessable yet something they can write down reminders for without compromising the guessability. Now making it 'uncrackable' is a different story completely.
True, to some degree... I only use this type of naming scheme where I am required to change my password - which is pretty much everywhere except on things that I control. Sometimes you have to deal with reality, and that means having to change your password. Is DaisyRIPyy99 harder to crack than DaisyRIPzz00? Not at all, but it is a method to help the user remember it.
Reminder: Brandon Lee (Bruce Lee's son) was killed on a movie set by a strange mishap with a handgun. Accidents happen no matter how many precautions are taken. Negligence or misuse just ups the odds.
Well, all this IT tech has done is forced the user to come up with a new password and WRITE IT DOWN ON ANOTHER POST-IT. He may think he is being clever, but what he has done is ensure that they will just do it again because it's a new password.
What he should do is come up with a method by which they can create a secure password and write down the hint to remember it, and distribute that process to everyone. In other words, TEACH them how to do good passwords.
1. Think of a very memorable event in your life.
2. Come up with a password based on that event.
3. Make it follow convention. (e.g. capitals, letters, length, etc)
4. Make it able to be changed easily without changing the event.
Example: My dog Daisy died in 1998
password: DaisyRIPxx98
Now when you have to change it in the future, you could "increment" the xx to yy, then zz, etc.
Or you could increment the 98 to 99, 100, etc. Or better yet both.
So next password is DaisyRIPyy99, then DaisyRIPzz00, then DaisyRIPaa01, ......
The user can write down a hint "puppy c3" in plain sight, and without knowing the scheme, nobody would ever be able to guess it. (in this case, DaisyRIPcc03)
But why was the IRS involved in catching him? Because I am pretty sure there were no charges until after this investigation.
And Al Capone was a US Citizen, in the US.
After all, fair is fair. Let's have all the dirty laundry aired.
I went so far as to look into the IRS Criminal Investigation manual, and I will admit it was a challenge to take it all in. But I found it quite curious that the IRS were the ones who initiated this investigation. (see page 21 of https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndil/file/877591/download ) Not much more is said about it, but I have to question why was the IRS investigating a torrent site? Is it because someone running it may have been in the US, and may have been profiting from it? That is the only thing I can think of, but that leads to all kinds of other questions.
One company's success is another's failure.
I too thought it had something to do with the programming language. I remember taking C and Pascal the same semester in college. Big mistake! /. of old.
Why not just refer to it as "Pascal architecture" in the story summary? I get that people who follow this might know that is what was meant, but not everyone spends thousands of dollars on video cards or follows things like this. I would think that for a summary story, it would be a little more front-page-friendly. But then again, I prefer the
Seriously, they don't have specialized equipment for high altitude jumps or to detect radiation?!
I can only hope that for a special forces tactical assault kit they are getting some custom designed ones and not off-the-shelf phones.
The article links to another article at dodbuzz that gives some better info.
What!? You mean baseball players might not be getting paid enough? Oh the humanity!!!!
FYI, the average salary for a player is $4 million.
This reminds me of when my brother asks me if I saw the latest golf tournament. Even though HE loves golf and I don't. When I say I didn't and don't like golf, he proceeds to tell me all about it in excruciating detail.
We get it. You are into live theater. You're on Broadway, in New York! How can everyone NOT like live theater?! We're still relevant! We're still relevant!
ugh.
If Facebook filtered all terrible content there wouldn't be much left.
I RTFA because I couldn't believe what the summary said. It's true, it's all true.
I don't know what parts of it angered me the most but the below comes close.
"Beginning to end, the whole process of building the computer took me almost five hours, and I had to make two emergency calls to PC Gamer's Fenlon during the process: once when I couldn't figure out why the case fans weren't spinning, and again when the computer didn't recognize an ethernet cable. I was literally bleeding from a cut on my hand by the end of it, which my YouTube guides said was common. I bled for this fucking thing. ...
But getting there was a nightmare. It is by far the most difficult product I've ever bought and put together. "
All I can say is that this "journalist" sounds like an entitled, whiny, moron who needs to STFU.
That was a problem, but I had disabled that. It was some dbus process run amok . Every time I thought it was fixed, I would wake up to a 100% pegged CPU that had been that way for who knows how long.
I agree, I use updatedb/locate/find/grep
I think I will install the new LinuxMint18 XFCE as soon as it is released and try KWIN with it (on an older unused PC or in a VM) and see how it goes.
To me "grains" means grains and any grain products. You are right, I did leave out beans and legumes. And if you don't consume those things, it pretty much takes away most processed foods. I do have concessions for myself - cheese, dark chocolate (60%+), wine and some booze - but no beer. I know it's not by-the-book paleo, but it works for me.
I will first say that I don't shop at WalMart, but I do know:
1. They have plenty of fresh produce there, including a deli. Maybe not the older stores, but I think all the new ones probably do. One-stop-shopping and all.
2. Calories don't make people fat. Being fat is due to the body's inability to properly regulate fat storage. One of the major contributors to the process of fat regulation is insulin. What has the greatest impact on insulin in your body? Carbs, and in particular grains and sugars. Look at the amounts of these two things in the cheap foods that lower income people eat. (and it really extends to everyone, not just lower income people) Read the book Good Calories, Bad Calories. (or a more layman-friendly version of it called Why We Get Fat: And What To Do About It.
Thank you for this. I used to use KDE back on Redhat, then Mandrake, and eventually Kubuntu. But then it started going nutso, consuming 100% CPU at random times and would stay like that until I would log out.
I tried several other DEs, but landed on XFCE (Xubuntu) and switched to MintXFCE a few years ago. I've tried KDE and others along the way, but always come back to XFCE. I will give this a shot, it might be exactly what I have been wanting.
Bah!
The only place you're seeing any adoption of Linux on the desktop is a few European companies, and that's due to anti-American sentiment more than any technical superiority.
Sure, we all know you are trolling. But why not throw in some fun (actual) facts?
There is a company who uses Linux on their desktops. They are slightly technical, and you may have heard of them - Google.
And although it was about 4 years ago, there was a nice article about Goobuntu (their modified version of Ubuntu) on ZDNET. Another interesting fact from the article is that they were paying customers for it, and not the largest. Things may have changed since then, I don't know. But I do know that they haven't switched over to Windows.
What I really don't understand is what you get out of your copy/paste trolling. Or do you really believe what you posted? Either way, you're obviously wrong. But then again, you're posting as an AC, so what else could be expected.
I remember back in the good old days when trolls at least had a little bit of skill.