Re:Correlation Does Not Imply Causation
on
The Evolution of Diet
·
· Score: 5, Informative
People need to stop buying into fad diets and nonsense theories. Barring allergies, most humans are fully capable of assimilating anything they throw at their GI system. Exercise some bloody portion control and get off the couch once in awhile. The rest will take care of itself.
As it turns out not all calories consumed are the same: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/ar...
Diets that produce lower insulin response give a metabolic advantage and reduce hunger. In the study the advantage of a low-glycemic diet over a low fat one, at the same calorie level, was 125 calories per day. This has matched my own experience, additionally I've seen another 75 calorie per day advantage from hunger reduction when not controlling for total calories. (free feeding) Combined that's roughly equivalent to a 1.5 mile jog for a 200lb adult, nothing to sneeze at.
Wait, why would I would the system init function to be monitoring and restarting services? That's an unwarranted scope expansion. Yes, I may want that capability, but there is no reason for the init function do be doing it.
I've yet to read something I'd consider a valid argument against it.
It violates basic *nix design philosophy, which basically has two pieces: 1) Everything is a text file 2) Lots of small tools that can be chained together to do big things
Boot time is essentially irrelevant, I don't see why everyone gets so excited about it.
This fetish to connect everything to the internet is just asinine.
Perhaps, but we're moving towards a world of full connectivity of all devices and total internet coverage of all areas. The chance that these devices would be able to be reliably kept separate are pretty low. The most realistic option is to improve their security architecture to make them less vulnerable. Requiring third party security audits, two factor authentication and encrypted communications would go a long ways towards resolving the current issues.
That's one possible interpretation. On the other hand this could be an early sign that the current modest levels of man made global warming are triggering a clathrate gun similar to that which may have caused the Permian-Triassic extinction event. It's fairly common for complex natural systems to have "tipping points" where a slow series of gradual changes suddenly goes parabolic before settling into a new stable dynamic.
If we look at power sources with all externalized costs included then nuclear power is a good choice. They're expensive to build but cheap to run. A sensible plan would have us building a mix of uranium and thorium based reactors with associated fuel reprocessing plants while the remainder would be made of up of hydro, solar and wind. Sure, base load isn't for everything but if we start adjusting our building codes to require solar for every building equal to it's daytime peak load minus nightime base load that would flatten out power requirements considerably while also reducing CO2 emissions.
Republicans don't wan to get rid of the minimum wage.
Sure they do, it just doesn't poll well enough right now.
Any rational, educated person knows that minimum wages are a policy with significant trade offs. On the one hand a price floor creates oversupply and reduces demand, so effectively it creates unemployment. On the other hand the equilibrium wage could easily be at a level we as a society don't find conscionable, or with sufficient automation technology it could even fall below subsistence levels. Since our society no longer has a frontier with unclaimed land as an escape valve we have to provide some mechanism to resolve this problem.
"Social stabilization" is just a way of saying "the direction of the herd."
Not really. Social stability is actually an important goal no matter your economic/government form. You can push people around and abuse them quite a bit because frankly they're mostly concerned with their own daily activities. Once you cross the line and get them all riled up with nothing more to lose though, look out because here come the pitchforks and guillotines.
"The public is like a sleeping dragon, do whatever you want as long as you don't wake them up." --source unknown
CO2 output by burning vehicle fuels (gas, diesel, aviation fuel, etc.) is not the biggest offender. Power generation using Coal, Natural Gas, Oil, etc. makes up the largest portion of emissions. So, while you're right that nuclear power in and of itself wouldn't get us to zero emissions it would reduce them significantly. Requiring all fleet vehicles (semi-trucks, rental cars, delivery vans, etc.) to switch to natural gas would get us a 25% reduction in the bulk of the transportation emissions while battery technology continues to be developed. That's all irrelevant though since we don't have time for rational solutions!
You're giving the Democrats way too much credit. The Republicans may be trying to establish a hereditary plutocracy, but the Democrats are working towards something that has the goals & efficiency of Communism with the forms of Fascism. (A large central bureaucracy, little economic freedom for individuals, integration of government and corporate interests, a disarmed populace subjugated by a wide array of government agents, etc.) On the bright side, with the two parties working at cross purposes we're ending up with the worst parts of both systems.
Well as long as we're blaming people without evidence then I choose environmentalists. They're already responsible for global warming since they blocked the transition from fossil fuels to nuclear. I'm sure once we dig into the issue it's likely to be caused by the banning of disposable bags or the manufacture of electrical vehicles or some other process which sounds good on the surface but has unintended bad side effects.
People are still terrified of fluoride in their water.
The main benefit for fluoridated water is to improve the tooth health of children. That's a worthy goal, but it doesn't justify putting it in the public water supply given the other effects of fluoride on adults. Fluoride for children can be quite easily administered at public schools with the same effects. I know, because that's how they did it here in Portland when I was growing up. With the development of Fluoride toothpastes in the 1970s the benefits are of water fluoridation are significantly reduced and the case for it no longer as clear cut as it was in the first half of the 20th century.
We automated agriculture so everyone moved to manufacturing. Then we automated manufacturing so everyone moved to service. Now we're automating service.
That pretty much covers the three main sectors of the economy. So what's left?
None of that seems like it could absorb the large mass of people that will be automated out of the service sector. Eventually, if we don't destroy ourselves, things should be fantastic, but the transition period is going to be pretty awful.
Well, you're welcome to embrace pacifism, but that's not a philosophy I can agree with. If someone's point of view is "I own you now, you're my slave" or "You're an infidel and must convert or die" then you can expect me to respond with violence. Obviously it's not appropriate in discussions of bedroom paint color or whether we should issue a bond to build a swimming pool at the High School.
Emotionally, just by looking at the aggression that pops up when someone suggests the very minute lifestyle change of having one vegetarian-food day per week... Well, you get the point.
How about we just let the market set the price of meat and people can make their own decisions on whether it's worth it or not? The important part is to ensure that externalized costs are re-internalized so that prices reflect the true cost of production.
Personally I've looked at the data and it seems pretty obvious that things are getting warmer but that doesn't mean fixing it is free. Significant restriction of CO2 emissions will have a large economic cost. As a Libertarian I think we should be forcing the re-internalization of all externalized costs anyways just from principle so something along the lines of a carbon tax should be a no brainer but there are plenty of others who don't agree. (Including the corporate shill faction of my own party)
Slashdot Mirror
People need to stop buying into fad diets and nonsense theories. Barring allergies, most humans are fully capable of assimilating anything they throw at their GI system. Exercise some bloody portion control and get off the couch once in awhile. The rest will take care of itself.
As it turns out not all calories consumed are the same: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/ar... Diets that produce lower insulin response give a metabolic advantage and reduce hunger. In the study the advantage of a low-glycemic diet over a low fat one, at the same calorie level, was 125 calories per day. This has matched my own experience, additionally I've seen another 75 calorie per day advantage from hunger reduction when not controlling for total calories. (free feeding) Combined that's roughly equivalent to a 1.5 mile jog for a 200lb adult, nothing to sneeze at.
Wait, why would I would the system init function to be monitoring and restarting services? That's an unwarranted scope expansion. Yes, I may want that capability, but there is no reason for the init function do be doing it.
I've yet to read something I'd consider a valid argument against it.
It violates basic *nix design philosophy, which basically has two pieces: 1) Everything is a text file 2) Lots of small tools that can be chained together to do big things
Boot time is essentially irrelevant, I don't see why everyone gets so excited about it.
This fetish to connect everything to the internet is just asinine.
Perhaps, but we're moving towards a world of full connectivity of all devices and total internet coverage of all areas. The chance that these devices would be able to be reliably kept separate are pretty low. The most realistic option is to improve their security architecture to make them less vulnerable. Requiring third party security audits, two factor authentication and encrypted communications would go a long ways towards resolving the current issues.
That's one possible interpretation. On the other hand this could be an early sign that the current modest levels of man made global warming are triggering a clathrate gun similar to that which may have caused the Permian-Triassic extinction event. It's fairly common for complex natural systems to have "tipping points" where a slow series of gradual changes suddenly goes parabolic before settling into a new stable dynamic.
If we look at power sources with all externalized costs included then nuclear power is a good choice. They're expensive to build but cheap to run. A sensible plan would have us building a mix of uranium and thorium based reactors with associated fuel reprocessing plants while the remainder would be made of up of hydro, solar and wind. Sure, base load isn't for everything but if we start adjusting our building codes to require solar for every building equal to it's daytime peak load minus nightime base load that would flatten out power requirements considerably while also reducing CO2 emissions.
Republicans don't wan to get rid of the minimum wage.
Sure they do, it just doesn't poll well enough right now. Any rational, educated person knows that minimum wages are a policy with significant trade offs. On the one hand a price floor creates oversupply and reduces demand, so effectively it creates unemployment. On the other hand the equilibrium wage could easily be at a level we as a society don't find conscionable, or with sufficient automation technology it could even fall below subsistence levels. Since our society no longer has a frontier with unclaimed land as an escape valve we have to provide some mechanism to resolve this problem.
"Social stabilization" is just a way of saying "the direction of the herd."
Not really. Social stability is actually an important goal no matter your economic/government form. You can push people around and abuse them quite a bit because frankly they're mostly concerned with their own daily activities. Once you cross the line and get them all riled up with nothing more to lose though, look out because here come the pitchforks and guillotines.
"The public is like a sleeping dragon, do whatever you want as long as you don't wake them up." --source unknown
We had our own struggles during the era of the robber-barons.
Umm, wrong transition period, that was the Agricultural to Industrial changeover not the Industrial to Service one.
CO2 output by burning vehicle fuels (gas, diesel, aviation fuel, etc.) is not the biggest offender. Power generation using Coal, Natural Gas, Oil, etc. makes up the largest portion of emissions. So, while you're right that nuclear power in and of itself wouldn't get us to zero emissions it would reduce them significantly. Requiring all fleet vehicles (semi-trucks, rental cars, delivery vans, etc.) to switch to natural gas would get us a 25% reduction in the bulk of the transportation emissions while battery technology continues to be developed. That's all irrelevant though since we don't have time for rational solutions!
You're giving the Democrats way too much credit. The Republicans may be trying to establish a hereditary plutocracy, but the Democrats are working towards something that has the goals & efficiency of Communism with the forms of Fascism. (A large central bureaucracy, little economic freedom for individuals, integration of government and corporate interests, a disarmed populace subjugated by a wide array of government agents, etc.) On the bright side, with the two parties working at cross purposes we're ending up with the worst parts of both systems.
Fantastic, it's like we're back in the 1980s and I can just ignore the phone unless I'm at my desk!
Element hiding helper, solves the edge cases pretty easily.
Which is why we use ad-blocker blocker blockers, duh!
Well as long as we're blaming people without evidence then I choose environmentalists. They're already responsible for global warming since they blocked the transition from fossil fuels to nuclear. I'm sure once we dig into the issue it's likely to be caused by the banning of disposable bags or the manufacture of electrical vehicles or some other process which sounds good on the surface but has unintended bad side effects.
People are still terrified of fluoride in their water.
The main benefit for fluoridated water is to improve the tooth health of children. That's a worthy goal, but it doesn't justify putting it in the public water supply given the other effects of fluoride on adults. Fluoride for children can be quite easily administered at public schools with the same effects. I know, because that's how they did it here in Portland when I was growing up. With the development of Fluoride toothpastes in the 1970s the benefits are of water fluoridation are significantly reduced and the case for it no longer as clear cut as it was in the first half of the 20th century.
We automated agriculture so everyone moved to manufacturing. Then we automated manufacturing so everyone moved to service. Now we're automating service.
That pretty much covers the three main sectors of the economy. So what's left?
Information, Education, R&D, financial planning, politics, management, media, culture and government.
None of that seems like it could absorb the large mass of people that will be automated out of the service sector. Eventually, if we don't destroy ourselves, things should be fantastic, but the transition period is going to be pretty awful.
The discussion was about "methods used to express a point of view" not "having an opinion".
Forget the flying car thing. It's not just safety issues, it's a really bad use of dwindling supplies of fossil fuel.
Which is why it will be powered by a small nuclear reactor!
Well, you're welcome to embrace pacifism, but that's not a philosophy I can agree with. If someone's point of view is "I own you now, you're my slave" or "You're an infidel and must convert or die" then you can expect me to respond with violence. Obviously it's not appropriate in discussions of bedroom paint color or whether we should issue a bond to build a swimming pool at the High School.
One could express disagreement by saying "No" or by shooting someone else in the face with a shotgun.
Which one is appropriate depends on the point of view they're expressing.
Ah, so you're selecting for candidates with financially well off parents, check.
There are only three ways to authenticate someone no matter what the context:
1) Something you know
2) Something you have
3) Something you are
Any security system is made up of some combination of the above.
Emotionally, just by looking at the aggression that pops up when someone suggests the very minute lifestyle change of having one vegetarian-food day per week... Well, you get the point.
How about we just let the market set the price of meat and people can make their own decisions on whether it's worth it or not? The important part is to ensure that externalized costs are re-internalized so that prices reflect the true cost of production.
Personally I've looked at the data and it seems pretty obvious that things are getting warmer but that doesn't mean fixing it is free. Significant restriction of CO2 emissions will have a large economic cost. As a Libertarian I think we should be forcing the re-internalization of all externalized costs anyways just from principle so something along the lines of a carbon tax should be a no brainer but there are plenty of others who don't agree. (Including the corporate shill faction of my own party)