Considering that we're finally seeing liquid fueled molten salt reactors built (in China) based on cutting edge state-of-the-1960s technology can we stop calling pressurized water and boiling water reactors "modern"?
Technically true but in practice any institution that touches dollars ends up being bound to obey US law if it wants access to the international financial system.
While I will grant you that the 1980s was the last great decade of America (for some time to come, at least), if you get too wrapped up in 1980s VHS films, you've got something wrong with you. I believe the term is "reality avoidance".
Especially since everybody who grew up in the 1980s knows that Betamax was better than VHS in every way.
Telling overweight people to lose weight is like telling people who are bad at math to do better on a math test. Easy to say, hard to do.
I disagree.
I've been both obese and fit and the difference is a matter of eating different foods rather than eating less food. There are certain foods that I really enjoy that cause me to gain weight rapidly. I no longer eat them because I decided that my long term health was more important than my short term enjoyment. Losing the weight was a choice
I could have decided that the effort of changing and the loss of immediate enjoyment was not worth the long term benefit and continued what I was doing before. That would have also been a choice.
Either way I would been choosing the outcome. It's not a matter of being right vs wrong, it's just choices and consequences. Some people may prefer to take the enjoyment now and not worry about the long term but that's a perfectly valid choice too.
I agree that there's a feedback interaction between your gut culture and what you eat/want to eat. Every time I've made a sudden change to the content of my diet, due to a deliberate decision, or international travelling, or due to financial reasons there are always... side effects as the gut flora that thrived on the previous diet are suddenly deprived of their preferred food source while other bacteria that prefer the new food source grow to replace them.
The bacteria that live off of starch and sugars will die off if you stop eating those foods and other species will take their place that are adapted for a healthier diet. I don't see anything wrong with probiotic techniques to help this process along.
I have a feeling though that most people aren't going to look at that headline and think, "Ah. If I change my gut bacteria it will make it easier for me to change the content of my diet because those bacteria won't be using chemical signals to adversely affect my appetite any more." They are more likely to say, "Great - another pill I can take that will allow me to continue eating whatever I want but without the consequences".
Very few people choose to be overweight and sick. Some people just need a bit more assistance in avoiding/correcting it than others.
I look at choice from an economic viewpoint. People know when they are overweight and by now everybody knows what the long term risks of this condition are. I do not believe that in the general case that correcting obesity is beyond the capability of anyone - it's just a matter of how many resources they must allocate in order to achieve that goal. If they decide not to devote the necessary resource to achieve the goal and instead spend their resources on something else well then that's just a choice. It's neither right nor wrong - nobody can tell another person how they should allocate their own time, energy, finances, health, etc. Every choice has both positive and negative side effects so it's simply a matter of letting people know what those side effects are so they can make their own decisions.
If someone would prefer to disregard their long-term health and enjoy life in the present who am I to tell them they are "wrong" for doing so and need to be corrected? I'll tell them why I don't make the same choice, if they're interested, and explain the likely outcomes of their choices but the decision of how to use or abuse their own life is entirely theirs to make.
That doesn't change the fact that your genetics will determine uppper/lower weight boundaries, what kinds of food will give you the best results, as well as how much food your body needs on a daily basis.
Sure there's variations but the basic role of insulin in signaling fat cells to start storing sugars in and leptin in appetite regulation don't vary a whole lot for most of the population.
My experience with genetics is that I have a family history of obesity, diabetes and thyroid problems from both parents. I've got two brothers and two sisters. Two of us eat focus on eliminating sugars and starches and replacing them with healthy fats, meat and vegetables. Both of us have gone from being overweight to being healthy and don't have any sign of those problems. The other three eat a standard diet and look more like our parents every year. So maybe I have a genetic propensity towards obesity. It doesn't matter though because all that it means is that I can't "cheat" as much as other people might be able to get away with.
If you were interesting in the truth you'd actually examine the site and discover that he does in fact cite actual controlled trials and references known facts about endocrinology to arrive at his conclusions. Then if you actually had any facts to refute him with you'd present those instead of ad-hominem attacks.
But, hey, since it's so easy you should get a grant for your ideas and make billions (yes with a B).
You could show all these dummies in the several buildings around where I'm sitting (major university biomedical research departments) how easy it all is.
And to think, they had to get PhDs and work for decades in biochemical and medical research. The fools.
Those grants are the reason for the bad advice in the first place. Government (and government-funded) nutritional advice is slanted to favor the special interest groups who are most successful at lobbying.
Alternative information is available to anyone who wants it so there isn't $billions to be made. I benefit personally in the form of improved health but I can't make choices for other people so all I do is point out that the information exists and works.
I lost 50 lbs by eliminating sugar, starches and grains (and byproducts) and replacing those with saturated fats, green vegetables and meat without even bothering to think about calories and without spending nearly every waking moment exercising. The primal/paleo diets work for a lot of people, far more than are able to make a low-calorie, low-fat diet work for any substantial period of time.
Conversely, I could also never reach 150 lbs without resorting to amputation. There is simply a range that my body is genetically capable of achieving. The same applies to everyone else.
I've seen and experienced for myself far too many success stories with low carb/primal eating to take claims like that at face value. My personal experience corresponds to Mark Sisson's claim that diet is 80% of what determines your body composition.
Part of the problem is that so many people have been taught that "eating well" means avoiding saturated fat and eating lots of grains and vegetable oil, despite the evidence that such a diet has the exact opposite effect of what is claimed.
Once you figure out that eating well means almost the complete opposite of what the government-sponsored experts have been telling us for the last 30 years it becomes very easy to reverse the process.
Type II diabetes and metabolic syndrome are so easy to prevent by not eating the wrong kinds of foods that it's more accurate to refer to those conditions as lifestyle choices rather than diseases.
I don't really think you understand the relationship between corporations and governments. The difference between a business and a corporation is a government that artificially protect the business owners from liability and grants them a bunch of other privileges at the expense of everybody else. Businesses could never accumulate economic power for malicious purposes if they didn't have governments helping them out by shifting their costs to taxpayers.
Imagine GE wanted to force everybody to buy its new CFL light bulbs but didn't have a government around to bribe. Do you actually think it would be profitable for them to send thugs around the country to break people's kneecaps if they bought or sold incandescents? The only want this kind of abuse happens is when a government can tax the citizens in order to pay the salary of the thugs so that GE doesn't have to.
The problem is that that specialization went from governance to cronyism, and none of us know how to stop it. Well, not peaceably, anyway.
Nothing attracts amoral sociopaths more than centralized, concentrated political power. As long as those types of people exist they will always be drawn towards politics.
This legislation, which is so tilted against the interests of the vast majority of the populace
I don't know how much more evidence it is going to take before people stop listening to the propaganda and start facing reality.
They don't care.
Representative government is a myth. It's a contradiction; there are rulers (those who govern) and there are subjects (those who are governed). Guess which one you are?
You're lying. Anyone who is actually interested in the technology will do their own research and see how you're lying so there's no need for me to continue this conversation
Hint: perhaps you should say, "Yep. That's the truth. What can be done about it?"
I didn't bring that up because it makes your case even worse.
Nuclear power as it exists today is safer than any form of alternative energy. There certainly are risks however.
Nuclear power can be made at least two orders of magnitude safer than existing plants (LFTR) so if we allow for the possibility of technological improvement (if your analysis allows for it for wind/solar/etc then it's only fair to do the same for nuclear) then there's absolutely no comparison.
Slashdot Mirror
Considering that we're finally seeing liquid fueled molten salt reactors built (in China) based on cutting edge state-of-the-1960s technology can we stop calling pressurized water and boiling water reactors "modern"?
Technically true but in practice any institution that touches dollars ends up being bound to obey US law if it wants access to the international financial system.
Especially since everybody who grew up in the 1980s knows that Betamax was better than VHS in every way.
Now you've created a situation in which law enforcement personnel can demand a bribe of up to $9,999 in order to not enforce the fine.
That's legal in Texas. Deadly force is permissible to defend property from vandalism or criminal mischief at night.
I don't know about PXE but Linux NFS does work over IPv6. My home directory on the computer I'm using right now is an NFS share mounted over IPv6.
I disagree.
I've been both obese and fit and the difference is a matter of eating different foods rather than eating less food. There are certain foods that I really enjoy that cause me to gain weight rapidly. I no longer eat them because I decided that my long term health was more important than my short term enjoyment. Losing the weight was a choice
I could have decided that the effort of changing and the loss of immediate enjoyment was not worth the long term benefit and continued what I was doing before. That would have also been a choice.
Either way I would been choosing the outcome. It's not a matter of being right vs wrong, it's just choices and consequences. Some people may prefer to take the enjoyment now and not worry about the long term but that's a perfectly valid choice too.
I agree that there's a feedback interaction between your gut culture and what you eat/want to eat. Every time I've made a sudden change to the content of my diet, due to a deliberate decision, or international travelling, or due to financial reasons there are always... side effects as the gut flora that thrived on the previous diet are suddenly deprived of their preferred food source while other bacteria that prefer the new food source grow to replace them.
The bacteria that live off of starch and sugars will die off if you stop eating those foods and other species will take their place that are adapted for a healthier diet. I don't see anything wrong with probiotic techniques to help this process along.
I have a feeling though that most people aren't going to look at that headline and think, "Ah. If I change my gut bacteria it will make it easier for me to change the content of my diet because those bacteria won't be using chemical signals to adversely affect my appetite any more." They are more likely to say, "Great - another pill I can take that will allow me to continue eating whatever I want but without the consequences".
I look at choice from an economic viewpoint. People know when they are overweight and by now everybody knows what the long term risks of this condition are. I do not believe that in the general case that correcting obesity is beyond the capability of anyone - it's just a matter of how many resources they must allocate in order to achieve that goal. If they decide not to devote the necessary resource to achieve the goal and instead spend their resources on something else well then that's just a choice. It's neither right nor wrong - nobody can tell another person how they should allocate their own time, energy, finances, health, etc. Every choice has both positive and negative side effects so it's simply a matter of letting people know what those side effects are so they can make their own decisions.
If someone would prefer to disregard their long-term health and enjoy life in the present who am I to tell them they are "wrong" for doing so and need to be corrected? I'll tell them why I don't make the same choice, if they're interested, and explain the likely outcomes of their choices but the decision of how to use or abuse their own life is entirely theirs to make.
Sure there's variations but the basic role of insulin in signaling fat cells to start storing sugars in and leptin in appetite regulation don't vary a whole lot for most of the population.
My experience with genetics is that I have a family history of obesity, diabetes and thyroid problems from both parents. I've got two brothers and two sisters. Two of us eat focus on eliminating sugars and starches and replacing them with healthy fats, meat and vegetables. Both of us have gone from being overweight to being healthy and don't have any sign of those problems. The other three eat a standard diet and look more like our parents every year. So maybe I have a genetic propensity towards obesity. It doesn't matter though because all that it means is that I can't "cheat" as much as other people might be able to get away with.
Can you point me towards the evidence that saturated fat intake results in adverse effects when high insulin levels are not present?
Grains, sugars, hydrogenated oils.
If you were interesting in the truth you'd actually examine the site and discover that he does in fact cite actual controlled trials and references known facts about endocrinology to arrive at his conclusions. Then if you actually had any facts to refute him with you'd present those instead of ad-hominem attacks.
Those grants are the reason for the bad advice in the first place. Government (and government-funded) nutritional advice is slanted to favor the special interest groups who are most successful at lobbying.
Alternative information is available to anyone who wants it so there isn't $billions to be made. I benefit personally in the form of improved health but I can't make choices for other people so all I do is point out that the information exists and works.
I lost 50 lbs by eliminating sugar, starches and grains (and byproducts) and replacing those with saturated fats, green vegetables and meat without even bothering to think about calories and without spending nearly every waking moment exercising. The primal/paleo diets work for a lot of people, far more than are able to make a low-calorie, low-fat diet work for any substantial period of time.
Conversely, I could also never reach 150 lbs without resorting to amputation. There is simply a range that my body is genetically capable of achieving. The same applies to everyone else.
I've seen and experienced for myself far too many success stories with low carb/primal eating to take claims like that at face value. My personal experience corresponds to Mark Sisson's claim that diet is 80% of what determines your body composition.
Part of the problem is that so many people have been taught that "eating well" means avoiding saturated fat and eating lots of grains and vegetable oil, despite the evidence that such a diet has the exact opposite effect of what is claimed. Once you figure out that eating well means almost the complete opposite of what the government-sponsored experts have been telling us for the last 30 years it becomes very easy to reverse the process.
Type II diabetes and metabolic syndrome are so easy to prevent by not eating the wrong kinds of foods that it's more accurate to refer to those conditions as lifestyle choices rather than diseases.
I don't really think you understand the relationship between corporations and governments. The difference between a business and a corporation is a government that artificially protect the business owners from liability and grants them a bunch of other privileges at the expense of everybody else. Businesses could never accumulate economic power for malicious purposes if they didn't have governments helping them out by shifting their costs to taxpayers.
Imagine GE wanted to force everybody to buy its new CFL light bulbs but didn't have a government around to bribe. Do you actually think it would be profitable for them to send thugs around the country to break people's kneecaps if they bought or sold incandescents? The only want this kind of abuse happens is when a government can tax the citizens in order to pay the salary of the thugs so that GE doesn't have to.
Nothing attracts amoral sociopaths more than centralized, concentrated political power. As long as those types of people exist they will always be drawn towards politics.
There are so many laws now that everybody is a felon.
This legislation, which is so tilted against the interests of the vast majority of the populace
I don't know how much more evidence it is going to take before people stop listening to the propaganda and start facing reality.
They don't care.
Representative government is a myth. It's a contradiction; there are rulers (those who govern) and there are subjects (those who are governed). Guess which one you are?
...says the Anonymous Coward who considers accusing people who disagree with him of wanting people to die of cancer to be a honest debate tactic.
Ok, dipshit now run the numbers for coal, natural gas, wind and solar
If we replaced all Euope's nuclear power with solar power how many more people would die than currently get cancer?
I'm tired of this.
You're lying. Anyone who is actually interested in the technology will do their own research and see how you're lying so there's no need for me to continue this conversation
I didn't bring that up because it makes your case even worse. Nuclear power as it exists today is safer than any form of alternative energy. There certainly are risks however. Nuclear power can be made at least two orders of magnitude safer than existing plants (LFTR) so if we allow for the possibility of technological improvement (if your analysis allows for it for wind/solar/etc then it's only fair to do the same for nuclear) then there's absolutely no comparison.