Right... The problem with PCs is that they are so damned good, nobody buys them
Too good to need replacement is a widely studied pitfall in business. You are just showing your ignorance.
I never said such a problem can't exist, just that it doesn't apply here. The idea that the being "too good to need replacement" is an actual problem for the broader PC world is fucking moronic.
You have a point, as long as PCs' prices don't rise too much. I still have a few things to say:
they will always need to have a way for developers to create for iOS. For this reason, if no other (and I do believe there are many other reasons), Macs will always be around
Apple could phase out the MacBook Air in favor of some sort of maxiPad or iBook or something running iOS. The rumored TV with a built-in Apple TV might replace the iMac. Eventually, all iOS application developers would have to buy a Mac Pro, just as all developers for video game consoles have to buy a specific device.
But why? Why would Apple phase out proper Macs (except for the Mac Pro) in the near term? People are buying them in record numbers. The only reason Apple would replace them with iOS "Macs" would be if they think even more people would buy those instead.
At this point, it's not going to happen. Those that want iOS "PCs" can buy iPads, and far too many people still want and need proper PCs for Apple to phase out their PCs. It makes no sense today, on in the near future, for Apple to turn into the console model of selling only appliance-level consumer computers and dev kits. Once the Mac's popularity begins to significantly wane, only *then* would that make sense, and if it makes sense it won't be something to worry about, because, by definition, people aren't buying them anymore.
And even if Apple totally screws this up, and prematurely discontinues the Mac, you will always be able to buy a Windows or Linux PC, and even (in your scenario) a Mac Pro.
for as long as the PC in general is around, which I don't see disappearing altogether any time soon
The smallest laptops are already starting to disappear; Dell discontinued its 10" model.
What you mean to say is that they are phasing out their shittiest PCs, the netbook and the nettop. And now they are trying again with the "ultrabook" (read: MacBook Air clone). But PCs themselves are not disappearing, only changing. As they have been since the 70s. How many computers do you see today that are built into the keyboard? Not many. But even though they have been phased out, that didn't lead to PCs themselves disappearing.
The iPad (and iOS in general) allows for participation and creation. It doesn't, however, allow for much in the way of programming specifically, on the device specifically. That's the one and only specific scenario which is strongly associated with what you have laid out.
Apple doesn't control iOS simply for control's sake, and even if they did (for argument's sake), they will always need to have a way for developers to create for iOS. For this reason, if no other (and I do believe there are many other reasons), Macs will always be around (for as long as the PC in general is around, which I don't see disappearing altogether any time soon). And if they do somehow become rare, Apple will have to come up with some other way to develop for iOS, presumably on the iPad itself.
So I think you are worrying about something that isn't true today, and essentially cannot become true in the future.
I do see a schism that will widen over time, and people will be more likely to have only an iPad instead of only a PC, or a PC and an iPad, as the years go on. But these people aren't going to have started programming out of the blue anyway, so nothing is actually changed in outcome. Almost no one programs, percentage-wise, so almost no one will be missing out. And those that do want to program? PCs (including Macs) will be available. The only difference is that now (and ever more so in the near future), people who have no need or desire for a full-blown PC will no longer be forced to have one in order to do the things they wish to do, and those that want a full-blown PC will be able to buy one.
It's possible that this will lead to higher PC prices, but I'm not too sure about that. Yes, PCs will cost more than they would if everyone was buying one, but they will almost certainly be cheaper than they are today, simply because the chips and screens will be cheaper than they are today. They will probably cost more than iPads, but they already do now anyway.
I just don't see where the problem is. Most people will get exactly the computer they want, for cheaper and without the hassle of having to settle for the computer they don't want. And those that want to go beyond the limits of an iPad will have that option.
I really can't see how this isn't a win-win scenario for everyone involved.
So, a "majority of people" are going to take an introduction to programming course? Uh, no. That doesn't actually happen.
In the (U.S.) Democratic Party's vision as I understand it, everybody will have a chance to go to college. The college I attended had "Introduction to Programming and Problem Solving" as one of the general education prerequisites that all freshmen take. I'll admit this college was an edge case because all freshmen had to buy the same model laptop, but I imagine that in a few years, programming will soon sit alongside physics, chemistry, English composition, and the like as part of the standard freshman schedule at more and more institutions.
So, just so we're clear here, what you are saying is that I'm right, that *doesn't* actually happen.
Thanks for clearing that up. Though I'm not sure what your imaginary scenario that isn't representative of reality in any way whatsoever has to do with anything.
And for those that do, why would they buy a Transformer, when instead they can just buy a PC (notebook or desktop, Mac or Windows) and an iPad?
Because I understand that some people just don't want to own a PC.
Yet you don't also understand that they don't want an Android pseudo-PC, as evidenced by the fact that people are buying iPads, and not ASUS Transformers. Unless your point was just that a small number of people will prefer something like the Transformer over an iPad, which is something I fully agree with. A small number of people will, and do, just that.
And when you broaden it to the general non-professional population
Then you get to my general case: someone wants to try doing something, discovers that it would require buying a PC, and then decides that he doesn't want to do it enough to warrant buying a PC. If the economies of scale shift far enough that locked-down tablets are far cheaper than PCs, this situation will arise more and more often.
That wasn't your "general case" at all. It was that a "majority of people" will find that tablets aren't good enough for them. And now, your "general case" is to state that they will find tablets are good enough for them.
Sadly, you're both right. People are going to THINK they can do serious work on the iPad. And, they're going to do serious work, sucessfully.
Exactly. However, I don't see how that makes us *both* right. One of us stated the exact opposite, in fact.
The fact that they're horrbily limited devices isn't going to matter
Limited by whose measure?
they're going to restrict their work to what is possible on the iPad.
Everything has limits. The particular limits only matter to the people being subjected to them, for the tasks being measured against. No matter what task you are doing on your PC, your PC is limited compared to something else. Still, you seem to do ok I'd assume.
Same with the iPad.
(See, Photoshop on iPad is never going to meet the calibre of what's possible desktop.
"Never" is a bold word. I don't see why an iPad 10 couldn't match or exceed Photoshop on a Whatever_Bridge PC counterpart. But that doesn't matter. What matters is can it do the task at hand to your standards. If it can, cool. If not, use something else. I've never heard a single person say PCs will go away. Maybe people will still need them for Photoshop. Maybe not. But your example illustrates perfectly the point I'm making, which is that the tasks being trotted out for why iPads are unsuitable for everyone are actually tasks which are important to only a small niche of computer users. That has little application to the topic at hand.
But that's not going to matter because people are going to forget what's possible on the desktop.
Only because they are too busy making use of what's possible on the iPad. Well, more to the point, no one is going to forget anything. People just won't bother with kludgy-ass desktops in the first place.
The lowest common denominator will win.)
No, I don't think Android is going to win. Nor Linux. But only time will tell, of course.
The same is true on Metro - people will do 'serious work' on it. Look at Dyamics GP 2013's stuff. And they'll be restricted to what is possible. CEOs will love it. Because it's easy to use. Simply the power of what is possible will be reduced, to make it easy.
And people will just have lowest-common-denominator expectations from here on in.
Oh, I see. You are defining "lowest common denominator" as "doing things in a way different than how I prefer". Who are you to sanction what people should and shouldn't be using? Isn't that for them to decide?
So, graphic artists are flocking to the iPad now because it has "Photoshop"?
Nope. Some are flocking to it for other apps though.
There are plenty of personal financial apps on the iPad
So, that means people just are just dumping their PCs because an iPad lets them do the same stuff they can already do?
Some people are some of the time.
People don't buy iPads because they are stupid fashion cultists.
Heh, I've seen lines full of 20-somethings with iPad 2s in their hands waiting to buy 'the new iPad' on launch day that say otherwise.
They say they are stupid fashion cultists? Or is that just what the little voice in your head says on their behalf?
What reason does the non-professional user have, today, to not buy an iPad?
...they own a PC (and possibly a smartphone) that already does everything an iPad can do? That's why I haven't bought one. Why pay $500 to do stuff you can already do, just so you can use your finger instead of a mouse?
Just as there's nothing a PC can do that you can't do in other ways. Still, you bought a PC. People buy iPads for the exact same reason. The absolutely hilariousness of your rebuttal here is laid bare by the simple fact that people are buying iPads. By the tens of millions. So clearly they are buying something that does the same things as the PC, just with a finger (or more) instead of a mouse.
Because it doesn't run Photoshop as capably as a PC, today? Because it doesn't run CAD software as capably as a PC, today? Because it doesn't run financial software as capably as a PC, today? For the 1% of people who actually need that sort of capability, *today* they need a PC. Good for them! But what about the other 99%?
I'm pretty sure a lot more than 1% of people buy things because of what they can do for them now, rather than they will be able do for them in 2 years. Besides, buying an iPad for what it will do in 2 years is especially dumb, because in 2 years it will cost a lot less, as the next iPad will have come out already. Besides, not even 2 years will help the iPad become a viable platform for professional use, because...
The 1% are the pros that need the pro software. Please read more carefully. Everyone buys what they need today.
Not quite as capable *today* as the PC versions, but over time those differences will diminish,
A fingertip based touchscreen will never be precise enough for things like graphic design, unlike a Wacom tablet, or even a mouse, which already are just about perfect. Also mobile devices are not well suited for battery-draining cpu-intensive operations like rendering.
And for those minute niches, they can buy PCs. Or whatever they prefer.
Right... The problem with PCs is that they are so damned good, nobody buys them!
Nobody said there was a problem with PCs... Also, a lot more people still use them than do iPads.
The OP did. But more broadly, if you don't think there are people saying that PCs have problems, your head is further up your ass than I had thus far assumed. And I had already assumed rather far up to this point.
...you make up a completely nonsensical theory about how people are simply dropping $500-$800+ on something they don't like,
Nobody said these people don't really like the iPad, they just like things that are fashionable.
Um, no, that's exactly what he said. They aren't buying them because they like them specifically, but because they are fashionable. Fashion being meta, not inherent.
Tablets aren't going to replace PCs for everyone, but for a majority of people who don't use computers in their jobs and don't have much of an interest in a PC, a tablet will be good enough for them.
Say someone who owns an iPad and no PC decides to take "introduction to programming" at the local college. Given Apple's stance against tools that allow development on a device, on which computer should this student test his own programs? Or should he have bought a Transformer instead because it runs AIDE?
So, a "majority of people" are going to take an introduction to programming course? Uh, no. That doesn't actually happen.
And for those that do, why would they buy a Transformer, when instead they can just buy a PC (notebook or desktop, Mac or Windows) and an iPad? What value would the Transformer provide? It's a shitty PC, and a shitty tablet, but it's all-in-one. That's preferable to going for a good PC and a good tablet, but are two devices? While we're only talking about a very small percent of people here (those that take programming courses), I doubt that a Transformer alone would be preferable to a proper PC and a proper tablet, even amongst them.
And when you broaden it to the general non-professional population, as the OP actually did and which you ignored (presumably to make a irrelevant point), I'm absolutely certain the Transformer is a poor choice.
I'm sorry AC but you are full of shit. NOBODY is gonna want to do serious work like photoshop or quickbooks or a bazillion other jobs on no damned iPad. what you and all those that worship the Cult of Steve seem to be missing is the big picture which i will now give to you..
You use words like "nobody", when you know that's an outright lie. Adobe sells a version of Photoshop on the iPad. There are plenty of personal financial apps on the iPad (including over a dozen apps from Intuit!).
As usual, hairyfeet, you're demonstrating just how woefully out of touch you are with reality. People don't buy iPads because they are stupid fashion cultists. They buy iPads because they *like* iPads! But since you don't sell iPads, and don't like them yourself, anyone who buys them must be stupid, cult followers, and fashionistas, right?
What reason does the non-professional user have, today, to not buy an iPad? Because it doesn't run Photoshop as capably as a PC, today? Because it doesn't run CAD software as capably as a PC, today? Because it doesn't run financial software as capably as a PC, today? For the 1% of people who actually need that sort of capability, *today* they need a PC. Good for them! But what about the other 99%? There are plenty of photo editors (including iPhoto, which is fantastic, and a version of Photoshop which is surprisingly capable), personal financial software, and CAD software (including software from Autodesk). Not quite as capable *today* as the PC versions, but over time those differences will diminish, as they have over the past 2+ years.
I don't think the PC is going away any time soon, but it's definitely becoming less and less necessary to more and more people year after year. I have no idea where the balance is going to eventually end up at, but I am quite certain that, already today, the iPad is more capable and the PC is less necessary than you seem to grasp, and that those trends are growing, not slowing.
The reason MSFT and the OEMs can't do this is frankly nobody gives a rat's ass about Windows or these OEMs as a brand, the ONLY thing they want a Windows PC for is to run their third party apps....
Exactly! They don't want the PC OS or PC hardware because they specifically want the PC OS or PC hardware, they simply want the capabilities that the PC OS and PC hardware enables. The iPad enables a significant portion of those capabilities, but without all the bullshit hassle that accompanies the PC OS and PC hardware.. That's why they like iPads. Not because they are stupid fashion cultists!
so ultimately X86 is simply a victim of its own success. they made chips so damned powerful that honestly nobody bothers to replace one until it dies and with just a tiny bit of care even that netbook or laptop can last 5 years or more.
Right... The problem with PCs is that they are so damned good, nobody buys them! Fucking brilliant! And the reason the iPad is selling so well? Because it's complete shit! Your logic is amazing, hairyfeet.
People buy iPads because they like them. You can't seem to understand this, so you make up a completely nonsensical theory about how people are simply dropping $500-$800+ on something they don't like, but which is simply some sort of fashion statement (even though people don't do that for *anything* else in the sort of numbers you see for the iPad).
You run a business by going after the stingiest of clients. You push netbooks onto them, going after the cheapskates who will buy the shittiest PC money can buy (the $300 netbook), then marvel when they don't come back year after year for upgrades? Yet somehow, this is because the PC is just too damned amazing!
Have you considered that you are going after the worst type of customer? The one who will spend the least amount of money possible? How can you be surprised that they don't buy new hardware very often? And for those who you are providing a disservice to by pushing
Recap: Apple just used sledgehammer to solve problem that tweezers would of solved.
Conclusion: Apple just acted like a corporate bastard again and held up their user's legitimate business so they could get more cash.
They have rules, and the rules aren't about cash directly (the 30%), it's about making a product as trouble-free as possible.
In this case, it involves any account subscription sign ups going through iTunes. One card, one trusted gatekeeper, one interface, all leading to a singularly unparalleled customer experience. And it shows in the customer satisfaction levels Apple holds.
Mergers like Comcast/NBC should be illegal. Once content providers are also content distributers, they can pull shenanigans like these.
While I don't disagree with your conclusion, the logic is based on a falsehood.
This story is an obvious lie by Sony. There's no way they would not go forward with a service simply because *some* people might hit a data cap. You never hear Netflix, Apple, Amazon, Google, Hulu, or anyone else complaining about *actual* customer service problems, do you?
No, that's just a lame excuse for the fact that they can't put together a decent service to compete with whole solution providers like Apple, and well-liked streaming services like Netflix. If they had a good product, it would be sold, and if the data caps caused problems, they'd publicly blast Comcast, not scrap the whole thing.
The tragedy is that as great as all that you propose is, it's very much illegal and truly isn't fair to the content producers.
As I understand it, downloading isn't illegal. I don't know of a single person who has been sued or prosecuted for downloading music, television, or movies.
Sharing is where the trouble comes in.
As for fairness, the fault isn't with the downloader, as the current system is unfair to the consumer, and it's outside of the control of the consumer. Resorting to "piracy" is an act to rectify an imposed unfairness.
The producer, on the other hand, has the right to chose to allow shows to be more easily available, and they often choose against it. They are far more complicit in creating the initial unfairness than the consumer is.
And, Trolly McHypocrite, demanding citations, without providing any yourself, here's where you can learn a thing or two:
USDA Food Database. You'll see that meat is extremely rich in nutrients, wheat is poor in nutrients, and that's even before realizing that the nutrients in meat are highly absorbable, while the nutrients in plants, and especially cereals, are more difficult to absorb.
From the absolute nonsense in your last post, I have to conclude that you are either a troll or are hopelessly lost to some propaganda, so I'm signing off.
Spoken like a true troll.
Meat trumps vegetables for vitamins, and grains are pathetically low in vitamins. Flour isn't fortified with B simply to replace what was removed, it's fortified with B, and many other vitamins, because eating wheat leads to malnutrition.
Grains are mostly for calories, not for (most) nutrients.
Really? I had to read though a bunch of irrelevant handwaving just to get to that point? Why waste so much space disagreeing with me, only to agree to my premise? Contrarianism?
But if you are going to eat grains, which most hard-working people in the past had to do to get enough calories, whole grains are probably better in part because they are harder to digest.
Please explain how. Grains consist of bran, endosperm, and germ. Bran (what makes grains brown, like brown rice or wheat bread), is fiber. It's what makes grains hard to digest, and completely, 100%, without nutritional benefit. Eating it doesn't help anything aside from bowel regularity.
The germ, which is also removed from white flour, is fattier and less nutritionally dense than the endosperm. Eating germ is fine, but not as good as eating the endosperm.
The endosperm is where it's at, nutritionally, for wheat, and even this part, the best part is woefully lacking in nutrients. That's why we fortify flour.
So, please explain why you think taking what was once 1 part endosperm, the best part, and replacing it with 1/x parts endosperm, 1/x parts germ, and 1/x parts bran, adding up to 1 part, is *better*! You've removed some of the best part, and replaced with with indigestible fiber and some fat.
What's worse, whole grain has the best part, the endosperm, locked away behind a bran coating from being digest, which is what it's there for, to protect the seed (the grass's offspring) in the first place.
While some of the benefits of whole grains are in question or unproven,
I'll state it outright: aside from calories, and the impact on bowel movement, there's absolutely zero benefit to eating whole grains over processed white flour, in terms of nutrition.
I do think a link between diabetes and processed grains makes a lot of sense, given the way processed white flour and rice is almost like pure sugar in the way it screws with our body chemistry. For that reason alone, I'd say whole grains are usually a better choice.
By sugar, of course you mean glucose. The benefit isn't in any of the germ or the bran, it's simply in eating less glucose (and I'm not against glucose, but too much is known to be correlated with diabetes). But this only comes into play when one is eating too much glucose and fructose in the first place. A better hedge against diabetes is to be more thoughtful about that than replacing refined grains with whole grains.
However, the people who are likely to do so are also more likely to be conscious about added fructose. Hmm...
So, when I say "fake processed shit", I'm including things you might be mistaking for being healthy.
Great. So, the fact that I bake my own bread, which generally includes at least a half dozen whole grains plus some seeds or some other stuff is no better than Wonderbread. Forget about cooking up some quinoa -- I'm just as good eating that cheap white rice. Thanks for educating me.
Yup, glad I could help. But more to the point, there's nothing wrong, as far as I'm aware, with eating whole wheat, it's just not doing you any good outside of bowel regularity, the calories it provides, and the enjoyment it provides. Nutritionally, it's fairly lacking.
What happens to the male calves is irrelevant when discussing whether cows object to being milked.
However, to answer your question, they are eaten by people.
As for diary in general, I can take it or leave it, but it sure is tasty (heavy cream is a truly fantastic treat, though I prefer soy/rice/etc. milk to low fat milk), and it's extremely nutritious. Hell, it can build a whole fucking cow!
Aside from characterizations of common eating habits, I don't disagree much, except for whole grains vs processed grains. I was referring to whole grains. They are embarrassingly deficient in nutrients, and even worse when you look into bioavailable nutrients!
Wheat is made up of bran, endosperm, and germ. White flour is just the endosperm. Bran is basically just fiber, and germ is fat and a small amount of nutrients. The endosperm is also where most of the nutrients are. It's a myth that whole grains are notably more nutritious than processed white flour. There's more fiber in whole grains, which *can* be beneficial (but is not nearly as important as commonly believed), and overall there is more nutrients (not a lot, and because the germ and endosperm are surrounded by the bran, they aren't even given the chance to be absorbed!).
The primary basis for this assertion is observational studies where people who eat whole grains over processed grains live longer. This shows a correlation, but not a causation. The correlation is readily explained by two factors. One, people who deliberately chose whole grains are also more likely make other healthy choices, with the choice in grains specifically indicating overall habits, and not a cause in and of itself. The other is that processed grains (white flour, specifically), are more likely to be used in junk food and as bread for processed meats, while whole grains are more likely to be included in healthier dishes.
But, ultimately, grains can't hold a candle to meat when it comes to nutrients, and what little nutrients grains have is locked away behind bran, as well as being bundled with phytates and lectins, which limit their ability to be absorbed and used, as well as affecting other nutrients in the body, in animals like humans which lack a means to break them down.
That's why flour and bread in America are generally fortified. Back at the turn of the century, Americans were extremely malnourished, and bread was the primary culprit. Leading up to WWII, the US Government looked into this, and paid the bread makers to add a vitamin pellet to the dough so that the military would have a healthy population from which to draw on. Since then, the manufacturers have kept adding the relatively inexpensive nutrients, first (in the 50s and 60s) to promote sales of something traditionally seen as unhealthy and for poor people. Bread is very cheap, easy, and quick to make, and thus a perfect commercial product. Tying it to health claims made it desirable to consumers. It's rather funny today the way people think of bread as healthy, when it's always been known to be unhealthy and lead to malnutrition when a primary food, and weight gain when added to more nutritious diets. Same with pasta.
So, when I say "fake processed shit", I'm including things you might be mistaking for being healthy.
You're reading too much into common language. It might be sloppy wording, but aside from actual religious people, no one thinks we are "made", in the "intelligent designer" or any other conscious agent sense, when they say things like that.
We are "made", by our genes in conjunction with nutrients and other environmental factors in a self-building process. We are not "made" by a god or even a creature with full intentions over such details. We are "made" by our parents, of course, but they don't (yet) decide much about our biological makeup.
Regardless, we are still made in such a manner as to be suited or unsuited for various things. And we are made to thrive on meat, and (with effort) survive on vegetation. Try surviving on wild, non-farmed plants--it's harder than you'd think. No rice, no corn, no wheat, those remove a load of calories right there. Some fruit in the summer (though not nearly as fleshy as modern fruits), and tubers, those won't be anything to subsist on indefinitely, but they are great sources of calories and some other nutrients. But without meat, life isn't going to be easy! That's the milieu in which our genes were selected, and those very same genes continue to direct our biology today.
So, fair enough, the wording is not ideal, but the fundamental ideas being communicated are sound.
well, one easy standard to apply is "would they do were it not forced on them?" i have yet to read about or see any animal in the wild stockpile their milk outside their bodies, let alone for consumption by another species.
Do cows actively try to avoid being milked? If so, then one could assume they object to it. Otherwise, given that they have a means to object, and they use it in other situations, but don't in this situation, it's fair to conclude they are not being forced against their will.
I wouldn't be too hard on such people. I don't see what's wrong with being <something>, with exceptions.
It would be one thing to claim being a vegan, but eating meat or dairy or something regularly, without admitting to it. But it's another to be a vegan, but have certain, admitted, exceptions. The idea that you have to be all or nothing in most anything is absurd and strikes me as a sort of mental illness.
Atkins specifically, yes. But he wasn't promoting a healthy diet, he was promoting a weight-loss program. And although he had some correct ideas, his diet as outlined was neither healthy nor successful as a weight loss program in the long run.
But some of the things he got right are that it's perfectly fine to be low carb (it's also perfectly fine to be relatively high carb, but one needs to be careful about certain metabolic issues that can ensue). The idea that low carb is somehow better for weight loss is flawed. Some people will eat less on low carb, and some people will eat more, and ultimately, calories decide weight, so Atkins works for some and not others. A good portion of initial weight loss is not fat, but water and glycogen, which gives a false initial impression, especially compared with other diets. Even if you overeat on Atkins, at first you will lose non-fat weight, while you are actually gaining fat! Though I doubt that's too common, and that most people are under eating, and thus losing fat as well.
Ultimately, however, because Atkins tends to be difficult for most people to follow for more than a year (too restrictive relative to the culinary milieu in America), people fall off the diet, and without some solid guiding principles, go back to their old ways of eating, and regain all their weight (as well as making up for lost time, go beyond it). It's essentially a magic trick (water/glycogen), a bio-hack (low carb, *high protein*, medium fat, which helps people naturally eat less (really, low carb, high fat, medium protein, is superior for long-term health)), in the short term, and unsustainable in the long term (for most people).
Two things that I don't think he ever touched upon, but would definitely help to make his diet more balanced and reasonable, is that saturated fat does not cause heart disease, and in fact is extremely healthy (your body absolutely *loves* using it as a fuel. So much so that it turns carbs into it and stores it for use later, and burns it every night while you sleep, and every day between meals!), and cholesterol does not cause heart disease. Cholesterol is an important molecule for life (why would your body make it if it wasn't?), but abnormally small, damaged cholesterol (which is uncommon except for people eating a junk-food type diet, which in America now means almost everyone), gets trapped in damaged arteries. Cholesterol is normally too large to do so (HDL, what is commonly called the good cholesterol). So is LDL, but VLDL is not, and that's where the correlation comes from.
Anyway, Atkins took a few correct notions, and over applied them resulting in a reasonably OK, but ultimately inaccurate weight loss theory.
The scientific research says that vegetarian and vegan diets adequately meet nutritional needs and are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including infancy and early childhood (American Dietetic Association)
No it doesn't. It *can*, if you are careful about it, but as a blanket statement, it's not true in practice, and veganism is exceptionally difficult for children, who have very high dietary needs.
Vegetarian and vegan diets tend to consist of bread, pasta, rice, all sorts of fake processed shit, and ironically, very little actual vegetables. And there's good reason for that. It's exceptionally difficult to meet one's caloric needs on vegetables alone. Grains are nutritionally bankrupt, except for calories. Vegetarians, in order to meet their nutritional needs, need to either be rather careful to make sure they are getting sufficient nutrients, or eat processed, fortified crap.
Omnivores, on the other hand, rarely have to worry about malnutrition. Red meat is embarrassingly nutrient-dense.
But Google is excessively fickle in this regard. You are thinking far too binary, where something that happens now and then, and something that happens all the fucking time, are treated as equal simply because they both happen.
Slashdot Mirror
In other words, "those guys just bought the wrong ones."
So, how are they supposed to know which one to buy? And why are stores selling such crap in the first place?
Now, go out and buy the wrong iPad. You can't.
Right... The problem with PCs is that they are so damned good, nobody buys them
Too good to need replacement is a widely studied pitfall in business. You are just showing your ignorance.
I never said such a problem can't exist, just that it doesn't apply here. The idea that the being "too good to need replacement" is an actual problem for the broader PC world is fucking moronic.
You have a point, as long as PCs' prices don't rise too much. I still have a few things to say:
they will always need to have a way for developers to create for iOS. For this reason, if no other (and I do believe there are many other reasons), Macs will always be around
Apple could phase out the MacBook Air in favor of some sort of maxiPad or iBook or something running iOS. The rumored TV with a built-in Apple TV might replace the iMac. Eventually, all iOS application developers would have to buy a Mac Pro, just as all developers for video game consoles have to buy a specific device.
But why? Why would Apple phase out proper Macs (except for the Mac Pro) in the near term? People are buying them in record numbers. The only reason Apple would replace them with iOS "Macs" would be if they think even more people would buy those instead.
At this point, it's not going to happen. Those that want iOS "PCs" can buy iPads, and far too many people still want and need proper PCs for Apple to phase out their PCs. It makes no sense today, on in the near future, for Apple to turn into the console model of selling only appliance-level consumer computers and dev kits. Once the Mac's popularity begins to significantly wane, only *then* would that make sense, and if it makes sense it won't be something to worry about, because, by definition, people aren't buying them anymore.
And even if Apple totally screws this up, and prematurely discontinues the Mac, you will always be able to buy a Windows or Linux PC, and even (in your scenario) a Mac Pro.
for as long as the PC in general is around, which I don't see disappearing altogether any time soon
The smallest laptops are already starting to disappear; Dell discontinued its 10" model.
What you mean to say is that they are phasing out their shittiest PCs, the netbook and the nettop. And now they are trying again with the "ultrabook" (read: MacBook Air clone). But PCs themselves are not disappearing, only changing. As they have been since the 70s. How many computers do you see today that are built into the keyboard? Not many. But even though they have been phased out, that didn't lead to PCs themselves disappearing.
Thanks for the honest reply.
The iPad (and iOS in general) allows for participation and creation. It doesn't, however, allow for much in the way of programming specifically, on the device specifically. That's the one and only specific scenario which is strongly associated with what you have laid out.
Apple doesn't control iOS simply for control's sake, and even if they did (for argument's sake), they will always need to have a way for developers to create for iOS. For this reason, if no other (and I do believe there are many other reasons), Macs will always be around (for as long as the PC in general is around, which I don't see disappearing altogether any time soon). And if they do somehow become rare, Apple will have to come up with some other way to develop for iOS, presumably on the iPad itself.
So I think you are worrying about something that isn't true today, and essentially cannot become true in the future.
I do see a schism that will widen over time, and people will be more likely to have only an iPad instead of only a PC, or a PC and an iPad, as the years go on. But these people aren't going to have started programming out of the blue anyway, so nothing is actually changed in outcome. Almost no one programs, percentage-wise, so almost no one will be missing out. And those that do want to program? PCs (including Macs) will be available. The only difference is that now (and ever more so in the near future), people who have no need or desire for a full-blown PC will no longer be forced to have one in order to do the things they wish to do, and those that want a full-blown PC will be able to buy one.
It's possible that this will lead to higher PC prices, but I'm not too sure about that. Yes, PCs will cost more than they would if everyone was buying one, but they will almost certainly be cheaper than they are today, simply because the chips and screens will be cheaper than they are today. They will probably cost more than iPads, but they already do now anyway.
I just don't see where the problem is. Most people will get exactly the computer they want, for cheaper and without the hassle of having to settle for the computer they don't want. And those that want to go beyond the limits of an iPad will have that option.
I really can't see how this isn't a win-win scenario for everyone involved.
So, a "majority of people" are going to take an introduction to programming course? Uh, no. That doesn't actually happen.
In the (U.S.) Democratic Party's vision as I understand it, everybody will have a chance to go to college. The college I attended had "Introduction to Programming and Problem Solving" as one of the general education prerequisites that all freshmen take. I'll admit this college was an edge case because all freshmen had to buy the same model laptop, but I imagine that in a few years, programming will soon sit alongside physics, chemistry, English composition, and the like as part of the standard freshman schedule at more and more institutions.
So, just so we're clear here, what you are saying is that I'm right, that *doesn't* actually happen.
Thanks for clearing that up. Though I'm not sure what your imaginary scenario that isn't representative of reality in any way whatsoever has to do with anything.
And for those that do, why would they buy a Transformer, when instead they can just buy a PC (notebook or desktop, Mac or Windows) and an iPad?
Because I understand that some people just don't want to own a PC.
Yet you don't also understand that they don't want an Android pseudo-PC, as evidenced by the fact that people are buying iPads, and not ASUS Transformers. Unless your point was just that a small number of people will prefer something like the Transformer over an iPad, which is something I fully agree with. A small number of people will, and do, just that.
And when you broaden it to the general non-professional population
Then you get to my general case: someone wants to try doing something, discovers that it would require buying a PC, and then decides that he doesn't want to do it enough to warrant buying a PC. If the economies of scale shift far enough that locked-down tablets are far cheaper than PCs, this situation will arise more and more often.
That wasn't your "general case" at all. It was that a "majority of people" will find that tablets aren't good enough for them. And now, your "general case" is to state that they will find tablets are good enough for them.
So, um, which is it?
Sadly, you're both right. People are going to THINK they can do serious work on the iPad. And, they're going to do serious work, sucessfully.
Exactly. However, I don't see how that makes us *both* right. One of us stated the exact opposite, in fact.
The fact that they're horrbily limited devices isn't going to matter
Limited by whose measure?
they're going to restrict their work to what is possible on the iPad.
Everything has limits. The particular limits only matter to the people being subjected to them, for the tasks being measured against. No matter what task you are doing on your PC, your PC is limited compared to something else. Still, you seem to do ok I'd assume.
Same with the iPad.
(See, Photoshop on iPad is never going to meet the calibre of what's possible desktop.
"Never" is a bold word. I don't see why an iPad 10 couldn't match or exceed Photoshop on a Whatever_Bridge PC counterpart. But that doesn't matter. What matters is can it do the task at hand to your standards. If it can, cool. If not, use something else. I've never heard a single person say PCs will go away. Maybe people will still need them for Photoshop. Maybe not. But your example illustrates perfectly the point I'm making, which is that the tasks being trotted out for why iPads are unsuitable for everyone are actually tasks which are important to only a small niche of computer users. That has little application to the topic at hand.
But that's not going to matter because people are going to forget what's possible on the desktop.
Only because they are too busy making use of what's possible on the iPad. Well, more to the point, no one is going to forget anything. People just won't bother with kludgy-ass desktops in the first place.
The lowest common denominator will win.)
No, I don't think Android is going to win. Nor Linux. But only time will tell, of course.
The same is true on Metro - people will do 'serious work' on it. Look at Dyamics GP 2013's stuff. And they'll be restricted to what is possible. CEOs will love it. Because it's easy to use. Simply the power of what is possible will be reduced, to make it easy.
And people will just have lowest-common-denominator expectations from here on in.
Oh, I see. You are defining "lowest common denominator" as "doing things in a way different than how I prefer". Who are you to sanction what people should and shouldn't be using? Isn't that for them to decide?
Adobe sells a version of Photoshop on the iPad.
So, graphic artists are flocking to the iPad now because it has "Photoshop"?
Nope. Some are flocking to it for other apps though.
There are plenty of personal financial apps on the iPad
So, that means people just are just dumping their PCs because an iPad lets them do the same stuff they can already do?
Some people are some of the time.
People don't buy iPads because they are stupid fashion cultists.
Heh, I've seen lines full of 20-somethings with iPad 2s in their hands waiting to buy 'the new iPad' on launch day that say otherwise.
They say they are stupid fashion cultists? Or is that just what the little voice in your head says on their behalf?
What reason does the non-professional user have, today, to not buy an iPad?
...they own a PC (and possibly a smartphone) that already does everything an iPad can do? That's why I haven't bought one. Why pay $500 to do stuff you can already do, just so you can use your finger instead of a mouse?
Just as there's nothing a PC can do that you can't do in other ways. Still, you bought a PC. People buy iPads for the exact same reason. The absolutely hilariousness of your rebuttal here is laid bare by the simple fact that people are buying iPads. By the tens of millions. So clearly they are buying something that does the same things as the PC, just with a finger (or more) instead of a mouse.
Because it doesn't run Photoshop as capably as a PC, today? Because it doesn't run CAD software as capably as a PC, today? Because it doesn't run financial software as capably as a PC, today? For the 1% of people who actually need that sort of capability, *today* they need a PC. Good for them! But what about the other 99%?
I'm pretty sure a lot more than 1% of people buy things because of what they can do for them now, rather than they will be able do for them in 2 years. Besides, buying an iPad for what it will do in 2 years is especially dumb, because in 2 years it will cost a lot less, as the next iPad will have come out already. Besides, not even 2 years will help the iPad become a viable platform for professional use, because...
The 1% are the pros that need the pro software. Please read more carefully. Everyone buys what they need today.
Not quite as capable *today* as the PC versions, but over time those differences will diminish,
A fingertip based touchscreen will never be precise enough for things like graphic design, unlike a Wacom tablet, or even a mouse, which already are just about perfect. Also mobile devices are not well suited for battery-draining cpu-intensive operations like rendering.
And for those minute niches, they can buy PCs. Or whatever they prefer.
Right... The problem with PCs is that they are so damned good, nobody buys them!
Nobody said there was a problem with PCs... Also, a lot more people still use them than do iPads.
The OP did. But more broadly, if you don't think there are people saying that PCs have problems, your head is further up your ass than I had thus far assumed. And I had already assumed rather far up to this point.
...you make up a completely nonsensical theory about how people are simply dropping $500-$800+ on something they don't like,
Nobody said these people don't really like the iPad, they just like things that are fashionable.
Um, no, that's exactly what he said. They aren't buying them because they like them specifically, but because they are fashionable. Fashion being meta, not inherent.
The fa
Tablets aren't going to replace PCs for everyone, but for a majority of people who don't use computers in their jobs and don't have much of an interest in a PC, a tablet will be good enough for them.
Say someone who owns an iPad and no PC decides to take "introduction to programming" at the local college. Given Apple's stance against tools that allow development on a device, on which computer should this student test his own programs? Or should he have bought a Transformer instead because it runs AIDE?
So, a "majority of people" are going to take an introduction to programming course? Uh, no. That doesn't actually happen.
And for those that do, why would they buy a Transformer, when instead they can just buy a PC (notebook or desktop, Mac or Windows) and an iPad? What value would the Transformer provide? It's a shitty PC, and a shitty tablet, but it's all-in-one. That's preferable to going for a good PC and a good tablet, but are two devices? While we're only talking about a very small percent of people here (those that take programming courses), I doubt that a Transformer alone would be preferable to a proper PC and a proper tablet, even amongst them.
And when you broaden it to the general non-professional population, as the OP actually did and which you ignored (presumably to make a irrelevant point), I'm absolutely certain the Transformer is a poor choice.
I'm sorry AC but you are full of shit. NOBODY is gonna want to do serious work like photoshop or quickbooks or a bazillion other jobs on no damned iPad. what you and all those that worship the Cult of Steve seem to be missing is the big picture which i will now give to you..
You use words like "nobody", when you know that's an outright lie. Adobe sells a version of Photoshop on the iPad. There are plenty of personal financial apps on the iPad (including over a dozen apps from Intuit!).
As usual, hairyfeet, you're demonstrating just how woefully out of touch you are with reality. People don't buy iPads because they are stupid fashion cultists. They buy iPads because they *like* iPads! But since you don't sell iPads, and don't like them yourself, anyone who buys them must be stupid, cult followers, and fashionistas, right?
What reason does the non-professional user have, today, to not buy an iPad? Because it doesn't run Photoshop as capably as a PC, today? Because it doesn't run CAD software as capably as a PC, today? Because it doesn't run financial software as capably as a PC, today? For the 1% of people who actually need that sort of capability, *today* they need a PC. Good for them! But what about the other 99%? There are plenty of photo editors (including iPhoto, which is fantastic, and a version of Photoshop which is surprisingly capable), personal financial software, and CAD software (including software from Autodesk). Not quite as capable *today* as the PC versions, but over time those differences will diminish, as they have over the past 2+ years.
I don't think the PC is going away any time soon, but it's definitely becoming less and less necessary to more and more people year after year. I have no idea where the balance is going to eventually end up at, but I am quite certain that, already today, the iPad is more capable and the PC is less necessary than you seem to grasp, and that those trends are growing, not slowing.
The reason MSFT and the OEMs can't do this is frankly nobody gives a rat's ass about Windows or these OEMs as a brand, the ONLY thing they want a Windows PC for is to run their third party apps....
Exactly! They don't want the PC OS or PC hardware because they specifically want the PC OS or PC hardware, they simply want the capabilities that the PC OS and PC hardware enables. The iPad enables a significant portion of those capabilities, but without all the bullshit hassle that accompanies the PC OS and PC hardware.. That's why they like iPads. Not because they are stupid fashion cultists!
so ultimately X86 is simply a victim of its own success. they made chips so damned powerful that honestly nobody bothers to replace one until it dies and with just a tiny bit of care even that netbook or laptop can last 5 years or more.
Right... The problem with PCs is that they are so damned good, nobody buys them! Fucking brilliant! And the reason the iPad is selling so well? Because it's complete shit! Your logic is amazing, hairyfeet.
People buy iPads because they like them. You can't seem to understand this, so you make up a completely nonsensical theory about how people are simply dropping $500-$800+ on something they don't like, but which is simply some sort of fashion statement (even though people don't do that for *anything* else in the sort of numbers you see for the iPad).
You run a business by going after the stingiest of clients. You push netbooks onto them, going after the cheapskates who will buy the shittiest PC money can buy (the $300 netbook), then marvel when they don't come back year after year for upgrades? Yet somehow, this is because the PC is just too damned amazing!
Have you considered that you are going after the worst type of customer? The one who will spend the least amount of money possible? How can you be surprised that they don't buy new hardware very often? And for those who you are providing a disservice to by pushing
Point missed.
Recap: Apple just used sledgehammer to solve problem that tweezers would of solved.
Conclusion: Apple just acted like a corporate bastard again and held up their user's legitimate business so they could get more cash.
They have rules, and the rules aren't about cash directly (the 30%), it's about making a product as trouble-free as possible.
In this case, it involves any account subscription sign ups going through iTunes. One card, one trusted gatekeeper, one interface, all leading to a singularly unparalleled customer experience. And it shows in the customer satisfaction levels Apple holds.
Mergers like Comcast/NBC should be illegal. Once content providers are also content distributers, they can pull shenanigans like these.
While I don't disagree with your conclusion, the logic is based on a falsehood.
This story is an obvious lie by Sony. There's no way they would not go forward with a service simply because *some* people might hit a data cap. You never hear Netflix, Apple, Amazon, Google, Hulu, or anyone else complaining about *actual* customer service problems, do you?
No, that's just a lame excuse for the fact that they can't put together a decent service to compete with whole solution providers like Apple, and well-liked streaming services like Netflix. If they had a good product, it would be sold, and if the data caps caused problems, they'd publicly blast Comcast, not scrap the whole thing.
This is beyond pathetic.
The tragedy is that as great as all that you propose is, it's very much illegal and truly isn't fair to the content producers.
As I understand it, downloading isn't illegal. I don't know of a single person who has been sued or prosecuted for downloading music, television, or movies.
Sharing is where the trouble comes in.
As for fairness, the fault isn't with the downloader, as the current system is unfair to the consumer, and it's outside of the control of the consumer. Resorting to "piracy" is an act to rectify an imposed unfairness.
The producer, on the other hand, has the right to chose to allow shows to be more easily available, and they often choose against it. They are far more complicit in creating the initial unfairness than the consumer is.
And, Trolly McHypocrite, demanding citations, without providing any yourself, here's where you can learn a thing or two:
USDA Food Database. You'll see that meat is extremely rich in nutrients, wheat is poor in nutrients, and that's even before realizing that the nutrients in meat are highly absorbable, while the nutrients in plants, and especially cereals, are more difficult to absorb.
From the absolute nonsense in your last post, I have to conclude that you are either a troll or are hopelessly lost to some propaganda, so I'm signing off.
Spoken like a true troll.
Meat trumps vegetables for vitamins, and grains are pathetically low in vitamins. Flour isn't fortified with B simply to replace what was removed, it's fortified with B, and many other vitamins, because eating wheat leads to malnutrition.
Grains are mostly for calories, not for (most) nutrients.
Really? I had to read though a bunch of irrelevant handwaving just to get to that point? Why waste so much space disagreeing with me, only to agree to my premise? Contrarianism?
But if you are going to eat grains, which most hard-working people in the past had to do to get enough calories, whole grains are probably better in part because they are harder to digest.
Please explain how. Grains consist of bran, endosperm, and germ. Bran (what makes grains brown, like brown rice or wheat bread), is fiber. It's what makes grains hard to digest, and completely, 100%, without nutritional benefit. Eating it doesn't help anything aside from bowel regularity.
The germ, which is also removed from white flour, is fattier and less nutritionally dense than the endosperm. Eating germ is fine, but not as good as eating the endosperm.
The endosperm is where it's at, nutritionally, for wheat, and even this part, the best part is woefully lacking in nutrients. That's why we fortify flour.
So, please explain why you think taking what was once 1 part endosperm, the best part, and replacing it with 1/x parts endosperm, 1/x parts germ, and 1/x parts bran, adding up to 1 part, is *better*! You've removed some of the best part, and replaced with with indigestible fiber and some fat.
What's worse, whole grain has the best part, the endosperm, locked away behind a bran coating from being digest, which is what it's there for, to protect the seed (the grass's offspring) in the first place.
While some of the benefits of whole grains are in question or unproven,
I'll state it outright: aside from calories, and the impact on bowel movement, there's absolutely zero benefit to eating whole grains over processed white flour, in terms of nutrition.
I do think a link between diabetes and processed grains makes a lot of sense, given the way processed white flour and rice is almost like pure sugar in the way it screws with our body chemistry. For that reason alone, I'd say whole grains are usually a better choice.
By sugar, of course you mean glucose. The benefit isn't in any of the germ or the bran, it's simply in eating less glucose (and I'm not against glucose, but too much is known to be correlated with diabetes). But this only comes into play when one is eating too much glucose and fructose in the first place. A better hedge against diabetes is to be more thoughtful about that than replacing refined grains with whole grains.
However, the people who are likely to do so are also more likely to be conscious about added fructose. Hmm...
So, when I say "fake processed shit", I'm including things you might be mistaking for being healthy.
Great. So, the fact that I bake my own bread, which generally includes at least a half dozen whole grains plus some seeds or some other stuff is no better than Wonderbread. Forget about cooking up some quinoa -- I'm just as good eating that cheap white rice. Thanks for educating me.
Yup, glad I could help. But more to the point, there's nothing wrong, as far as I'm aware, with eating whole wheat, it's just not doing you any good outside of bowel regularity, the calories it provides, and the enjoyment it provides. Nutritionally, it's fairly lacking.
What happens to the male calves is irrelevant when discussing whether cows object to being milked.
However, to answer your question, they are eaten by people.
As for diary in general, I can take it or leave it, but it sure is tasty (heavy cream is a truly fantastic treat, though I prefer soy/rice/etc. milk to low fat milk), and it's extremely nutritious. Hell, it can build a whole fucking cow!
Aside from characterizations of common eating habits, I don't disagree much, except for whole grains vs processed grains. I was referring to whole grains. They are embarrassingly deficient in nutrients, and even worse when you look into bioavailable nutrients!
Wheat is made up of bran, endosperm, and germ. White flour is just the endosperm. Bran is basically just fiber, and germ is fat and a small amount of nutrients. The endosperm is also where most of the nutrients are. It's a myth that whole grains are notably more nutritious than processed white flour. There's more fiber in whole grains, which *can* be beneficial (but is not nearly as important as commonly believed), and overall there is more nutrients (not a lot, and because the germ and endosperm are surrounded by the bran, they aren't even given the chance to be absorbed!).
The primary basis for this assertion is observational studies where people who eat whole grains over processed grains live longer. This shows a correlation, but not a causation. The correlation is readily explained by two factors. One, people who deliberately chose whole grains are also more likely make other healthy choices, with the choice in grains specifically indicating overall habits, and not a cause in and of itself. The other is that processed grains (white flour, specifically), are more likely to be used in junk food and as bread for processed meats, while whole grains are more likely to be included in healthier dishes.
But, ultimately, grains can't hold a candle to meat when it comes to nutrients, and what little nutrients grains have is locked away behind bran, as well as being bundled with phytates and lectins, which limit their ability to be absorbed and used, as well as affecting other nutrients in the body, in animals like humans which lack a means to break them down.
That's why flour and bread in America are generally fortified. Back at the turn of the century, Americans were extremely malnourished, and bread was the primary culprit. Leading up to WWII, the US Government looked into this, and paid the bread makers to add a vitamin pellet to the dough so that the military would have a healthy population from which to draw on. Since then, the manufacturers have kept adding the relatively inexpensive nutrients, first (in the 50s and 60s) to promote sales of something traditionally seen as unhealthy and for poor people. Bread is very cheap, easy, and quick to make, and thus a perfect commercial product. Tying it to health claims made it desirable to consumers. It's rather funny today the way people think of bread as healthy, when it's always been known to be unhealthy and lead to malnutrition when a primary food, and weight gain when added to more nutritious diets. Same with pasta.
So, when I say "fake processed shit", I'm including things you might be mistaking for being healthy.
You're reading too much into common language. It might be sloppy wording, but aside from actual religious people, no one thinks we are "made", in the "intelligent designer" or any other conscious agent sense, when they say things like that.
We are "made", by our genes in conjunction with nutrients and other environmental factors in a self-building process. We are not "made" by a god or even a creature with full intentions over such details. We are "made" by our parents, of course, but they don't (yet) decide much about our biological makeup.
Regardless, we are still made in such a manner as to be suited or unsuited for various things. And we are made to thrive on meat, and (with effort) survive on vegetation. Try surviving on wild, non-farmed plants--it's harder than you'd think. No rice, no corn, no wheat, those remove a load of calories right there. Some fruit in the summer (though not nearly as fleshy as modern fruits), and tubers, those won't be anything to subsist on indefinitely, but they are great sources of calories and some other nutrients. But without meat, life isn't going to be easy! That's the milieu in which our genes were selected, and those very same genes continue to direct our biology today.
So, fair enough, the wording is not ideal, but the fundamental ideas being communicated are sound.
well, one easy standard to apply is "would they do were it not forced on them?" i have yet to read about or see any animal in the wild stockpile their milk outside their bodies, let alone for consumption by another species.
Do cows actively try to avoid being milked? If so, then one could assume they object to it. Otherwise, given that they have a means to object, and they use it in other situations, but don't in this situation, it's fair to conclude they are not being forced against their will.
I wouldn't be too hard on such people. I don't see what's wrong with being <something>, with exceptions.
It would be one thing to claim being a vegan, but eating meat or dairy or something regularly, without admitting to it. But it's another to be a vegan, but have certain, admitted, exceptions. The idea that you have to be all or nothing in most anything is absurd and strikes me as a sort of mental illness.
Atkins specifically, yes. But he wasn't promoting a healthy diet, he was promoting a weight-loss program. And although he had some correct ideas, his diet as outlined was neither healthy nor successful as a weight loss program in the long run.
But some of the things he got right are that it's perfectly fine to be low carb (it's also perfectly fine to be relatively high carb, but one needs to be careful about certain metabolic issues that can ensue). The idea that low carb is somehow better for weight loss is flawed. Some people will eat less on low carb, and some people will eat more, and ultimately, calories decide weight, so Atkins works for some and not others. A good portion of initial weight loss is not fat, but water and glycogen, which gives a false initial impression, especially compared with other diets. Even if you overeat on Atkins, at first you will lose non-fat weight, while you are actually gaining fat! Though I doubt that's too common, and that most people are under eating, and thus losing fat as well.
Ultimately, however, because Atkins tends to be difficult for most people to follow for more than a year (too restrictive relative to the culinary milieu in America), people fall off the diet, and without some solid guiding principles, go back to their old ways of eating, and regain all their weight (as well as making up for lost time, go beyond it). It's essentially a magic trick (water/glycogen), a bio-hack (low carb, *high protein*, medium fat, which helps people naturally eat less (really, low carb, high fat, medium protein, is superior for long-term health)), in the short term, and unsustainable in the long term (for most people).
Two things that I don't think he ever touched upon, but would definitely help to make his diet more balanced and reasonable, is that saturated fat does not cause heart disease, and in fact is extremely healthy (your body absolutely *loves* using it as a fuel. So much so that it turns carbs into it and stores it for use later, and burns it every night while you sleep, and every day between meals!), and cholesterol does not cause heart disease. Cholesterol is an important molecule for life (why would your body make it if it wasn't?), but abnormally small, damaged cholesterol (which is uncommon except for people eating a junk-food type diet, which in America now means almost everyone), gets trapped in damaged arteries. Cholesterol is normally too large to do so (HDL, what is commonly called the good cholesterol). So is LDL, but VLDL is not, and that's where the correlation comes from.
Anyway, Atkins took a few correct notions, and over applied them resulting in a reasonably OK, but ultimately inaccurate weight loss theory.
The scientific research says that vegetarian and vegan diets adequately meet nutritional needs and are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including infancy and early childhood (American Dietetic Association)
No it doesn't. It *can*, if you are careful about it, but as a blanket statement, it's not true in practice, and veganism is exceptionally difficult for children, who have very high dietary needs.
Vegetarian and vegan diets tend to consist of bread, pasta, rice, all sorts of fake processed shit, and ironically, very little actual vegetables. And there's good reason for that. It's exceptionally difficult to meet one's caloric needs on vegetables alone. Grains are nutritionally bankrupt, except for calories. Vegetarians, in order to meet their nutritional needs, need to either be rather careful to make sure they are getting sufficient nutrients, or eat processed, fortified crap.
Omnivores, on the other hand, rarely have to worry about malnutrition. Red meat is embarrassingly nutrient-dense.
The modder's mother was vegan.
But Google is excessively fickle in this regard. You are thinking far too binary, where something that happens now and then, and something that happens all the fucking time, are treated as equal simply because they both happen.
The only troll regarding Apple's patents on Thunderbolt here is yourself.