Sorry, but in the leap to appear clever and insightful a bunch of posters though they could post something witty about not being able to download the book. Unless you're talking about downloading the physical book into that replicator you just invented, it's an idiotic question. Just about everything Stallman has ever written publically is on gnu.org and/or stallman.org.
Here's my line of reasoning. One of the key points of Free software is free redistribution. This book could easily have been made available in digital form that could be freely redistributable. This seems to me like it would be in purest adherence with the Free principles. RMS's book is not available in a free, redistributable format. It is only available as a fairly expensive book. He is not adhering to Free principles in the purest sense. He of all people probably should.
There, I've laid it all out the best I can for you now, tell me where I'm being 'stupid'.
I respect Stallman's right to earn money off of his works. But I've seen a lot of posts here that say "where is the on-line version" of his book. Why are they being modded down? It's an opinion that directly relates to the article.
I'm posting as myself, too, and allowing myself the +1 bonus I receive (and normally don't use) because of my (IMO) decent contributions to Slashdot - solely as protest. Karma's overrated (3 bad jokes about Windows and I'll have made back all I lost, anyway). I'm sad to see negative moderation used in place of rational discussion. I hope it's corrected in meta-moderation.
That's either a troll or someone who is very ignorant about how Stallman uses the term "free". Here's a hint: he is not opposed to selling things.
I'll make this point again. I can easily go to the GNU project page, look at the definition of Free software (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html), and see that freedom to redistribute code is a pre-condition for Free software.
I wonder what would happen if I bought the book, scanned the pages, and started distributing them online... I'm sure it would be interesting, at any rate. My opinion is that if there was a commitment on their part to allow this, it would be available (possibly for fee) in an electronic format. But it's not.
How about redistributing the book then? There is PostScript, you know.
Free implies free. And besides that, even if you don't think so, FSF does:
(from gnu.org) The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
I looked around the GNU site, but was unable to find a link where I could download a copy of the book for free. Is it available for free download?
The poster has a completely valid point. If someone could explain to me the fundamental reason why software should be Free but a book should not be available in the same form, please respond.
When I left that job, two of my co-workers took over the program. They sat down and tried to decipher the program, where I used variables like "n" and "i", just like in BASIC class in high-school. They quizzed me as to meaning ("so, when n is 1, it means the pen is up?") and, quite frankly, I had absolutely no idea what it meant, it had come directly from my brain.
So, you document poorly, and in the absence of documentation it is not easily understandable.
If you know something well, you should be able to explain it to a child... I believe Feynman said that. To be totally frank, if you don't understand it well enough to explain it, it's probably not that great a piece of code. You might call it creative, I'd say it's disorganized and undisciplined.
That was childish, but will probably get modded way up for being so righteously indignant...
Right there, in the review, he says:
No player seems to be able to burn using a DVD burner.
Unable to use the service to purchase tracks using Mozilla.
And as for the 3rd: "Must remember to never let your machine die or be replaced. If you do, you'll never be able to reburn the audio."... Considering how they allowed him to download the songs again for free (with his machine still in perfect working order) when he found out he couldn't used a dvd/cd burner, my guess is they would do the same for a person whose computer died.
'So this thing traveling through your skull would be like detonating a pound of TNT inside of your head. The brain damage would definitely register.:)'
Yeah, if your head completely stops the quark matter... and given that a trip through several hundred miles of solid rock fails to stop it, I somehow doubt that your in-depth analysis is correct.
Yeah, but your typical idiot savant comes close to the computer time... So yes, humans are very capible of fast math. We just wern't made with that in evolutionary mind.
Your 'typical idiot savant' can propagate an electrochemical impulse along the cellular membrane of a neuron at the rate of about 100 m/s tops. Your typical consumer grade CPU executes a clock cycle in 1/1,000,000,000 second. So your 'typical idiot savant' still has sensory neurons transmitting the problem from his ears to Wernicke's area while the computer has solved the problem about a million times over. We are _not_ capable of 'very fast math' compared to computers.
Like hell they havent... All you have is input, process and output. You have sense nodes reporting to some basic decision-making logic. There is no "if I do this..." at all. You spray, it flies away from spray.
Haven't really though this one through, huh? How does an organism see you? The basic function of vision is something that's _very hard_ to accomplish on a computer. Of course it's simultaneously recognizing you as a threat, managing the concerted contraction/relaxation of hundreds of muscles used in flying, guiding itself through spaces so it doesn't run into walls, and presumably determining a safe place to land. I'm guessing your simple little cockroach emulation program now looks more like a real-time, multi-threaded guidance system for a missile (which doesn't need to eat or mate, either).
And why? I consider the transfer of data as in + charge(and lack therof in the gaps) equalavalent to 0's and 1's in binary systems. Bio-systems have the same code in every cell, but can differentiate between organs and run the associated boot-code (where cells communicate between cells in the same organ and the organ communicates between the brain). It's a neural networking disaster (still, doesn't that explain why there's soo many diseases of the mind?)
I know less about biology than many people. But I know more than enough to spot another terrible computer/human body comparison. But I guess if all you have is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail...
It showed that hospital workers were too overworked to take the time to properly wash their hands with soap and water, which takes close to a minute when done properly.
Their conclusion was that using alcohol-based gel hand cleaners resulted in more efficient health care, because there were fewer secondary infections resulting from poor hygiene.
Doesn't the increased resistance incur a decreased competitive advantage? I.E., are the staph using more resources to be resistant, and therefore less likely to survive in the absence of a selection pressure (say, vancomycin?) over many generations?
I just wonder if this resistance would be likely to spread outside of hostpitals, or if non-resistant strains would out-compete the multi-drug resistant strains for resources...
Diabetes causes lower extremity vascular problems, and all the immune response in the world won't work if there is no blood circulation in the area. This can lead to gangrene if left untreated.
So the point is that gangrene in toes is not a definitive sign of weak immune system. Maybe their immune system was weakened by septicemia resulting from the gangrene, but there's really no reason to think that antibiotics wouldn't help against non-resistant strains. There's also no reason to think the patient was at deaths door before the staph infection, the gangrene often remains a localized problem.
Whatever, it shows you can't prioritize well. Your job as a college student is to learn everything in the classes you enroll in. If you are going to run 2 businesses and 3 clubs, you should consider not being in college, perhaps, and save a lot of money.
(and I had a poor GPA too, but don't make excuses about it)
TMTOWTDI (from my experience with PERL) is definitely a drawback for large scale projects, and the presentation mentioned that there are 600+ engineers there.
I would imagine the Yahoo engineers spend much more time reading other peoples' code than writing new code, and that (IMO) is where PERL is worst. Complicated tasks can lead to some truly horrendous looking code and very non-standard code organization. While it is fun to write and powerful, it can be awful to figure out what some other developer is trying to accomplish unless they are very disciplined.
I once inherited a 1000+ line script at a previous company for analyzing IIS logs, and it was pretty difficult to get up to speed compared with comparable tools I've worked on written in Java, C/C++, or VB.
(That said, I like PERL and use it whenever appropriate.)
People who send cash through the mail are stupid. It's untraceable, so if it gets stolen you're hosed. Don't be stupid.
You are a dense one, huh? I didn't say you should send cash through the mail, I said you could send cash through the mail.
By the way, checks aren't cash, so you've still not answered the question. Have a nice day.
First, thanks for the brilliant correction. 'checks aren't cash'. Great... Perhaps my point was that the poster was limiting him or herself to artificially restricted set of solutions. Why is there a need to send cash at all when a check would do just as well. If you want me to answer the question in the artificially restricted set of solutions, then wire it. Western Union does this. Most banks do for a small fee.
You're ignoring the fact that I said *merchant*, not *charity*.
The entire subject of this discussion is the tip jar for the Abiword project, a CHARITY. The parent poster is trying to stay on topic.
In addition, you cannot send cash through the mail. How do you get a donation to an out of city or out of country charity by using cash?
Okay, ignoring the fact that you can easily send cash through the mail, there are these things called CHECKS. I don't have anything against PayPal, but there are obviously alternatives - people weren't stupid and running around like chickens with there heads cut off from the dawn of recorded history until about 20 years ago. Somehow, people managed to get things done without credit cards for hundreds of years.
i no longer have mod points, but i would like to offer my congratulations on some very informative posts. you really raised the level of discussion here.
Are you familiar enough with the research Nikitin and Dunwoody to judge if Nikitin's work looks solid? Unfortunately my knowledge of topology doesn't range much further than the basics (ie, i understand what you mean when you talk about the equivalence classes of paths under homotopy, manifolds, compactness), and Nikitin doesn't seem to mention the Dunwoody's work, and whether he fixed particular holes in that approach or developed an entirely new one.
Evolution with regards to common ancestry assumes there exist micro-evolutionary steps from this original organism all the way down to every currently living creature.
Not necessarily. There is nothing about multiple starting points of life that contradict evolutionary theory. Anyway, divergence is accelerated by speciation (when 2 population no longer interbreed, mutations are no longer shared between the 2 gene pools and they evolve independently.)
Not only that, it assumes that EVERY one of these mutations was beneficial enough that natural selection or some other mechanism would survive to pass the mutation on.
Completely wrong, evolution "assumes" that deleterious mutations reduce the fitness of an organism, which reduces its ability to reproduce and hence the presence of the genotype in the population. It "assumes" that beneficial mutations increase the fitness of an organism, which increase the chance it will reproduce and hence increase the presence of the genotype in the population. It assumes nothing about the relative frequencies of deleterious v. beneficial mutations. It also ignores unexpressed mutations, as they have no impact on the fitness of the organism. (I have quoted "assumes" because these observations are so obvious, that description would mischaracterize them)
Furthermore, the above mentioned evolutionary paths must have occured in 5 million years time. Again this part of evolution is based on faith, which is based on observation of other evidences.
I will assume you mistyped with '5 million years time'... the Earth is provably much older than that, and life has provably existed for much of that time. And your last sentence is just words strung together without content, meaningless.
The pledge of allegiance is older than the 1950s, but the addition of the phrase "One nation under God,..." is a product of the Cold War (the US government attempting to exploit the Communist repression of religion)
The report goes on to develop minimum carbohydrate reccomendations explicitly based on the need to avoid ketosis. Now, that may well be a worthwhile goal, and there are clearly some problems associated with ketosis (such as kidney stones), but one can hardly use that report as another, independent reason for rejecting high-fat, low-carbohydrate diets
Why not? High fat, low-carb diets almost certainly lead to ketosis. Seems like a rejection of Atkins style diets to me...
I lost 40 pounds through moderate diet and excercise, and kept it off for 4 years on a 90% vegetarian diet with plenty of carbs. I only gained it back when I started working insane ours and had to cut exercise. Even at 250 pounds now (and losing again, thanks to exercise), my heart rate is low, my cholesterol is below 160, and by blood pressure has never tested over 130/80 (typically lower)
Frankly, I don't see how the 'industry' has any more to gain that Dr Atkins does through the reverse position. I'm not doubting the validity of his 'diet', which involved STRUCTURED, REGULAR MEALS AND EXCERCISE.... He could have you eating buttered white bread 3 times a day at regular intervals with exercise, and you would lose weight. The only thing that will help you in the long run is a commitment to living healthfully.
As for your comments:
FACT: The foods that you are often encouraged to eat the most of, are the foods that are the easiest and the cheepest to produce. They are also the ones that MAXIMIZE profit for that industry.
What is your point?? That companies encourage you to eat their highest profit products is obvious.
Are you saying the food industry is suppressing Atkins because he is threatening there highest profit lines of business? That is baloney.
FACT: Fat in your diet, or [sic]protien does not put fat on your body - carbohydrates do. Period. End of discussion.
Read these links. You can eat whatever you want as long as you keep your blood sugar down (ie, eating nothing but fat is completely equal to exercise+low cal diet as both will keep insulin levels down, but only one accelerates your metabolism and excercises your heart and lungs...)
FACT: Anyone who says otherwise has either bought the industry hype, or has outright been bought by them.
Right.... remember to put on your tin foil hat. Again, if you can't support your argument, attack your adversaries...
FACT: Benign dietary ketosis (NOT the same thing as ketoacidosis) is the ONLY WAY your body removes fat stores.
COMPLETELY FALSE AND RIDICULOUS. Ketogenesis only occurs when acetyl-CoA levels exceeds the capabilites of the TCA (Krebs Citric Acid) cycle to utilize it. Granted, it is a SYMPTOM of high levels of fatty acids in the blood (rapid release of fatty acids from adipose (fat) cells), but it is certainly not the only method. Your body can easily remove fat stores through the following process: Low levels of glucose in the blood stimulate the release of glucagon, glucagon causes a reactions in adipose cells which activates hormone sensitive lipase, triggering a reaction converting the triacylglycerols stored in the adipose cells to fatty acids and glycerol which diffuse into the blood, and all cells are totally capable of passively absorbing fatty acids from the blood and converting them to acetyl-CoA in the cytoplasm via Fatty acid + ATP + CoA -------> Acyl-CoA + PPi + AMP.
Having used both, I honestly believe that Segue's Silk Performer is a superior load testing tool. I haven't used the Mercury tool in about a year, so it may have improved dramatically since then...
I guess it really depends on what you're testing - for finer grain control, I would choose LoadRunner, the moderately constrained C variant scripting language allow for some need tricks (of course, you can shoot yourself in the foot...always nice to have a memory leak in a test script, but it is nice to easily be able to call your own custom dlls and existing C code).
Silk Performer has some very nice playback and verification features, and their tool is much better for scripting at a higher level (IE, if your pages have a lot of javascript that dynamically builds links, handles form inputs...). The BDL is a Pascal-esque bastard language, and the script editor is awful.
So, LoadRunner: can generate tons of load not doing complex requests or workflows, SilkPerformer: can generate a lot of load and do a good job with complex workflows and funky scripting.
Yes, the 'Theorists' you made up are even more embarassing.
One aside, too. These are Christian Creationists - not 'Creationists'. These people use the Bible as the root of their model, not the Koran or Torah - okay? Let's be intellectually honest here.
All these evangelists are doing is putting a nice dress on a pig and taking it to the prom.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, but in the leap to appear clever and insightful a bunch of posters though they could post something witty about not being able to download the book. Unless you're talking about downloading the physical book into that replicator you just invented, it's an idiotic question. Just about everything Stallman has ever written publically is on gnu.org and/or stallman.org.
Here's my line of reasoning. One of the key points of Free software is free redistribution. This book could easily have been made available in digital form that could be freely redistributable. This seems to me like it would be in purest adherence with the Free principles. RMS's book is not available in a free, redistributable format. It is only available as a fairly expensive book. He is not adhering to Free principles in the purest sense. He of all people probably should.
There, I've laid it all out the best I can for you now, tell me where I'm being 'stupid'.
I'll post this as myself - I'm not going to hide.
I respect Stallman's right to earn money off of his works. But I've seen a lot of posts here that say "where is the on-line version" of his book. Why are they being modded down? It's an opinion that directly relates to the article.
I'm posting as myself, too, and allowing myself the +1 bonus I receive (and normally don't use) because of my (IMO) decent contributions to Slashdot - solely as protest. Karma's overrated (3 bad jokes about Windows and I'll have made back all I lost, anyway). I'm sad to see negative moderation used in place of rational discussion. I hope it's corrected in meta-moderation.
That's either a troll or someone who is very ignorant about how Stallman uses the term "free". Here's a hint: he is not opposed to selling things.
I'll make this point again. I can easily go to the GNU project page, look at the definition of Free software (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html), and see that freedom to redistribute code is a pre-condition for Free software.
I wonder what would happen if I bought the book, scanned the pages, and started distributing them online... I'm sure it would be interesting, at any rate. My opinion is that if there was a commitment on their part to allow this, it would be available (possibly for fee) in an electronic format. But it's not.
How about redistributing the book then? There is PostScript, you know.
Free implies free. And besides that, even if you don't think so, FSF does:
(from gnu.org)
The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
I looked around the GNU site, but was unable to find a link where I could download a copy of the book for free. Is it available for free download?
The poster has a completely valid point. If someone could explain to me the fundamental reason why software should be Free but a book should not be available in the same form, please respond.
When I left that job, two of my co-workers took over the program. They sat down and tried to decipher the program, where I used variables like "n" and "i", just like in BASIC class in high-school. They quizzed me as to meaning ("so, when n is 1, it means the pen is up?") and, quite frankly, I had absolutely no idea what it meant, it had come directly from my brain.
So, you document poorly, and in the absence of documentation it is not easily understandable.
If you know something well, you should be able to explain it to a child... I believe Feynman said that. To be totally frank, if you don't understand it well enough to explain it, it's probably not that great a piece of code. You might call it creative, I'd say it's disorganized and undisciplined.
Right there, in the review, he says:
And as for the 3rd: "Must remember to never let your machine die or be replaced. If you do, you'll never be able to reburn the audio."
'So this thing traveling through your skull would be like detonating a pound of TNT inside of your head. The brain damage would definitely register. :)'
Yeah, if your head completely stops the quark matter... and given that a trip through several hundred miles of solid rock fails to stop it, I somehow doubt that your in-depth analysis is correct.
Yeah, but your typical idiot savant comes close to the computer time... So yes, humans are very capible of fast math. We just wern't made with that in evolutionary mind.
Your 'typical idiot savant' can propagate an electrochemical impulse along the cellular membrane of a neuron at the rate of about 100 m/s tops. Your typical consumer grade CPU executes a clock cycle in 1/1,000,000,000 second. So your 'typical idiot savant' still has sensory neurons transmitting the problem from his ears to Wernicke's area while the computer has solved the problem about a million times over. We are _not_ capable of 'very fast math' compared to computers.
Like hell they havent... All you have is input, process and output. You have sense nodes reporting to some basic decision-making logic. There is no "if I do this..." at all. You spray, it flies away from spray.
Haven't really though this one through, huh? How does an organism see you? The basic function of vision is something that's _very hard_ to accomplish on a computer. Of course it's simultaneously recognizing you as a threat, managing the concerted contraction/relaxation of hundreds of muscles used in flying, guiding itself through spaces so it doesn't run into walls, and presumably determining a safe place to land. I'm guessing your simple little cockroach emulation program now looks more like a real-time, multi-threaded guidance system for a missile (which doesn't need to eat or mate, either).
And why? I consider the transfer of data as in + charge(and lack therof in the gaps) equalavalent to 0's and 1's in binary systems. Bio-systems have the same code in every cell, but can differentiate between organs and run the associated boot-code (where cells communicate between cells in the same organ and the organ communicates between the brain). It's a neural networking disaster (still, doesn't that explain why there's soo many diseases of the mind?)
I know less about biology than many people. But I know more than enough to spot another terrible computer/human body comparison. But I guess if all you have is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail...
Not quite.
It showed that hospital workers were too overworked to take the time to properly wash their hands with soap and water, which takes close to a minute when done properly.
Their conclusion was that using alcohol-based gel hand cleaners resulted in more efficient health care, because there were fewer secondary infections resulting from poor hygiene.
See it here:
http://www.asmusa.org/pcsrc/42icaac/1345.htm
Doesn't the increased resistance incur a decreased competitive advantage? I.E., are the staph using more resources to be resistant, and therefore less likely to survive in the absence of a selection pressure (say, vancomycin?) over many generations?
I just wonder if this resistance would be likely to spread outside of hostpitals, or if non-resistant strains would out-compete the multi-drug resistant strains for resources...
No
Diabetes causes lower extremity vascular problems, and all the immune response in the world won't work if there is no blood circulation in the area. This can lead to gangrene if left untreated.
So the point is that gangrene in toes is not a definitive sign of weak immune system. Maybe their immune system was weakened by septicemia resulting from the gangrene, but there's really no reason to think that antibiotics wouldn't help against non-resistant strains. There's also no reason to think the patient was at deaths door before the staph infection, the gangrene often remains a localized problem.
Whatever, it shows you can't prioritize well. Your job as a college student is to learn everything in the classes you enroll in. If you are going to run 2 businesses and 3 clubs, you should consider not being in college, perhaps, and save a lot of money.
(and I had a poor GPA too, but don't make excuses about it)
TMTOWTDI (from my experience with PERL) is definitely a drawback for large scale projects, and the presentation mentioned that there are 600+ engineers there.
I would imagine the Yahoo engineers spend much more time reading other peoples' code than writing new code, and that (IMO) is where PERL is worst. Complicated tasks can lead to some truly horrendous looking code and very non-standard code organization. While it is fun to write and powerful, it can be awful to figure out what some other developer is trying to accomplish unless they are very disciplined.
I once inherited a 1000+ line script at a previous company for analyzing IIS logs, and it was pretty difficult to get up to speed compared with comparable tools I've worked on written in Java, C/C++, or VB.
(That said, I like PERL and use it whenever appropriate.)
If the thing wasn't functional, and beyond repair, then he could be forgiven for gutting it and sticking in a flexatx based crap-rig.
If it was functional, then may god have mercy on his soul for defiling it like that.
amen, brother.
People who send cash through the mail are stupid. It's untraceable, so if it gets stolen you're hosed. Don't be stupid.
You are a dense one, huh? I didn't say you should send cash through the mail, I said you could send cash through the mail.
By the way, checks aren't cash, so you've still not answered the question. Have a nice day.
First, thanks for the brilliant correction. 'checks aren't cash'. Great... Perhaps my point was that the poster was limiting him or herself to artificially restricted set of solutions. Why is there a need to send cash at all when a check would do just as well. If you want me to answer the question in the artificially restricted set of solutions, then wire it. Western Union does this. Most banks do for a small fee.
Lawyers enforce the law. Elected representatives make the law. You elect the representatives.
Are you going to volunteer time to you favorite politician for the Nov 5 elections? You aren't? Okay, then zip it.
You're ignoring the fact that I said *merchant*, not *charity*.
The entire subject of this discussion is the tip jar for the Abiword project, a CHARITY. The parent poster is trying to stay on topic.
In addition, you cannot send cash through the mail. How do you get a donation to an out of city or out of country charity by using cash?
Okay, ignoring the fact that you can easily send cash through the mail, there are these things called CHECKS. I don't have anything against PayPal, but there are obviously alternatives - people weren't stupid and running around like chickens with there heads cut off from the dawn of recorded history until about 20 years ago. Somehow, people managed to get things done without credit cards for hundreds of years.
i no longer have mod points, but i would like to offer my congratulations on some very informative posts. you really raised the level of discussion here.
Are you familiar enough with the research Nikitin and Dunwoody to judge if Nikitin's work looks solid? Unfortunately my knowledge of topology doesn't range much further than the basics (ie, i understand what you mean when you talk about the equivalence classes of paths under homotopy, manifolds, compactness), and Nikitin doesn't seem to mention the Dunwoody's work, and whether he fixed particular holes in that approach or developed an entirely new one.
Evolution with regards to common ancestry assumes there exist micro-evolutionary steps from this original organism all the way down to every currently living creature.
... the Earth is provably much older than that, and life has provably existed for much of that time. And your last sentence is just words strung together without content, meaningless.
Not necessarily. There is nothing about multiple starting points of life that contradict evolutionary theory. Anyway, divergence is accelerated by speciation (when 2 population no longer interbreed, mutations are no longer shared between the 2 gene pools and they evolve independently.)
Not only that, it assumes that EVERY one of these mutations was beneficial enough that natural selection or some other mechanism would survive to pass the mutation on.
Completely wrong, evolution "assumes" that deleterious mutations reduce the fitness of an organism, which reduces its ability to reproduce and hence the presence of the genotype in the population. It "assumes" that beneficial mutations increase the fitness of an organism, which increase the chance it will reproduce and hence increase the presence of the genotype in the population. It assumes nothing about the relative frequencies of deleterious v. beneficial mutations. It also ignores unexpressed mutations, as they have no impact on the fitness of the organism. (I have quoted "assumes" because these observations are so obvious, that description would mischaracterize them)
Furthermore, the above mentioned evolutionary paths must have occured in 5 million years time. Again this part of evolution is based on faith, which is based on observation of other evidences.
I will assume you mistyped with '5 million years time'
The pledge of allegiance is older than the 1950s, but the addition of the phrase "One nation under God, ..." is a product of the Cold War (the US government attempting to exploit the Communist repression of religion)
The report goes on to develop minimum carbohydrate reccomendations explicitly based on the need to avoid ketosis. Now, that may well be a worthwhile goal, and there are clearly some problems associated with ketosis (such as kidney stones), but one can hardly use that report as another, independent reason for rejecting high-fat, low-carbohydrate diets
Why not? High fat, low-carb diets almost certainly lead to ketosis. Seems like a rejection of Atkins style diets to me...
Totally, complete FUD. FUD, FUD, FUD.
s is.html and http://www.indstate.edu/thcme/mwking/fatty-acid-ox idation.html)
I lost 40 pounds through moderate diet and excercise, and kept it off for 4 years on a 90% vegetarian diet with plenty of carbs. I only gained it back when I started working insane ours and had to cut exercise. Even at 250 pounds now (and losing again, thanks to exercise), my heart rate is low, my cholesterol is below 160, and by blood pressure has never tested over 130/80 (typically lower)
Frankly, I don't see how the 'industry' has any more to gain that Dr Atkins does through the reverse position. I'm not doubting the validity of his 'diet', which involved STRUCTURED, REGULAR MEALS AND EXCERCISE.... He could have you eating buttered white bread 3 times a day at regular intervals with exercise, and you would lose weight. The only thing that will help you in the long run is a commitment to living healthfully.
As for your comments:
FACT: The foods that you are often encouraged to eat the most of, are the foods that are the easiest and the cheepest to produce. They are also the ones that MAXIMIZE profit for that industry.
What is your point?? That companies encourage you to eat their highest profit products is obvious.
Are you saying the food industry is suppressing Atkins because he is threatening there highest profit lines of business? That is baloney.
FACT: Fat in your diet, or [sic]protien does not put fat on your body - carbohydrates do. Period. End of discussion.
http://www.indstate.edu/thcme/mwking/ (in particular: http://www.indstate.edu/thcme/mwking/lipid-synthe
Read these links. You can eat whatever you want as long as you keep your blood sugar down (ie, eating nothing but fat is completely equal to exercise+low cal diet as both will keep insulin levels down, but only one accelerates your metabolism and excercises your heart and lungs...)
FACT: Anyone who says otherwise has either bought the industry hype, or has outright been bought by them.
Right.... remember to put on your tin foil hat. Again, if you can't support your argument, attack your adversaries...
FACT: Benign dietary ketosis (NOT the same thing as ketoacidosis) is the ONLY WAY your body removes fat stores.
COMPLETELY FALSE AND RIDICULOUS. Ketogenesis only occurs when acetyl-CoA levels exceeds the capabilites of the TCA (Krebs Citric Acid) cycle to utilize it. Granted, it is a SYMPTOM of high levels of fatty acids in the blood (rapid release of fatty acids from adipose (fat) cells), but it is certainly not the only method. Your body can easily remove fat stores through the following process: Low levels of glucose in the blood stimulate the release of glucagon, glucagon causes a reactions in adipose cells which activates hormone sensitive lipase, triggering a reaction converting the triacylglycerols stored in the adipose cells to fatty acids and glycerol which diffuse into the blood, and all cells are totally capable of passively absorbing fatty acids from the blood and converting them to acetyl-CoA in the cytoplasm via Fatty acid + ATP + CoA -------> Acyl-CoA + PPi + AMP.
Having used both, I honestly believe that Segue's Silk Performer is a superior load testing tool. I haven't used the Mercury tool in about a year, so it may have improved dramatically since then...
I guess it really depends on what you're testing - for finer grain control, I would choose LoadRunner, the moderately constrained C variant scripting language allow for some need tricks (of course, you can shoot yourself in the foot...always nice to have a memory leak in a test script, but it is nice to easily be able to call your own custom dlls and existing C code).
Silk Performer has some very nice playback and verification features, and their tool is much better for scripting at a higher level (IE, if your pages have a lot of javascript that dynamically builds links, handles form inputs...). The BDL is a Pascal-esque bastard language, and the script editor is awful.
So, LoadRunner: can generate tons of load not doing complex requests or workflows, SilkPerformer: can generate a lot of load and do a good job with complex workflows and funky scripting.
Yes, the 'Theorists' you made up are even more embarassing.
One aside, too. These are Christian Creationists - not 'Creationists'. These people use the Bible as the root of their model, not the Koran or Torah - okay? Let's be intellectually honest here.
All these evangelists are doing is putting a nice dress on a pig and taking it to the prom.