You'll have to explain to me why it "directly contradicts" my claim. That study is very specific on being on post-menopausal women, not men. And it's not that they couldn't find a link, it's just that the sample size was not high enough to make any definitive conclusions. This is understandable as women have lower risk for heart disease than men and so you need a proportionately larger sample to draw correlation.
As for the first link, I don't see how it relates in any way to what I'm saying. You're imaging I'm saying something I'm not, and then replying to this imaginary straw man.
The problem with various paleo diets is that they are either not paleo, not healthy, or both.
Hunter-gatherers didn't eat like that. No combination of foodstuffs from your local market could even resemble what they ate. See this talk, it's informative: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
And where are the insects? Yes, paleolithic diets included meat, but what most people don't tell you is that a lot of that was insect meat. Beetles, moth larvae, witchetty grubs, even cockroaches - our ancestors loved that shit. It was an important part of the diet too, because there were long periods were people did not have access to any other type of lean meat. Insect meat contains proteins and vitamins in higher concentrations than many other types of meat.
Paleo advocates love to say that you should eat more meat. Actually, evidence from preserved cooking fires and teeth shows that 70% of the calories of the actual paleo diet came from plant matter. Since meat is so much more calorie-rich than plants, this basically means they spent most of their day chewing on plants. And when I say chewing, I mean it - their idea of vegetables wasn't succulent, easy-to-eat, delicious modern broccoli or carrots or potatoes. It was tough plant fibers and roots. Most of which had very little calorie value. Some of which were even poisonous (they avoided death by rotating between different types of poisons to avoid overdose on any single one). If you want to spend all day chewing on toxic wild roots, be my guest. I'm going to go for the nutrient-rich, vitamin-rich, mineral-rich marvels of modern agriculture that can be found in my supermarket.
It's useless to argue with people like that. If someone is incapable of the basic logical reasoning to figure out that an all-meat diet is not healthy, they've probably already damaged their brain through malnutrition far beyond the point where you could reason with them.
Well I've been paying attention to nutritional science and I'm not. Where are the studies and the evidence? So far all evidence points to saturated fat being a risk factor for heart disease, and I have never seen any evidence saying otherwise.
Obviously it's not like you're going to have a heart attack after having some butter on toast. But if you have steak every day for 50 years, then don't be surprised if you wind up with clogged arteries.
The tinkerer market is really really small. Most major cities have 'hackerspaces' and they're typically small. I don't really see how you could sustain a huge business model on this.
I don't know where you're getting that info from.The average American male eats 2800-3500 kcal a day (depending on where you get your figures from). Multiple sources agree that 2400-2600 kcal a day is considered normal for a moderately active male in the 19-30 age range. For higher age ranges, you're right, 2000 kcal/day should be more than enough for ages 40+, when you consider decreased physical activity.
I'm not worried. I'm just pointing out that cutting out milk from your diet probably isn't going to have any negative effect, and might have a slight positive affect too.
That's something that's hard to say. Life expectancy increased, but that may have just been due to less violence. Height decreased, but that may have just been environmental adaptation rather than any problem with nutrition (people in colder climates tended to have less height because shorter, stockier frames lost less heat in the winter). It's known that there were more infectious diseases in concentrated population areas but this has nothing to do with diet and nutrition. So it's hard to say if humans were really healthier in agricultural or hunter-gatherer times.
It's not fat-o-phobia; saturated fat is and always has been known to be a risk factor for heart disease. Unsaturated fats are perfectly healthy; no one's arguing with that.
Yet people lived on bread for 10,000 years and were reasonably healthy during this time.
There's nothing wrong with carbs. You're the guy who's replied to my other comment saying I have "fat-o-phobia", seems like you have "carb-o-phobia." Let me guess, you like Atkins or paleo. Reality check: paleo is pseudoscience garbage and is NOT healthy for you. And as for Atkins... hah is all I can say
What a lot of people on/. don't seem to realize is that the brick-and-mortar electronics supply business was mostly kept alive by repairmen (yes, there used to be people who actually made a living off of repairing TV sets and stereos) and A/V technicians. When the repairmen went, the electronics components business went with it, left hanging by the thin thread of hobbyists and EE undergrads. And then online retailers like ebay soaked up the remnants of even that market. There is still a tiny market for A/V technicians and you'll some kind of store catering to them in most major cities. But it's not a big market and doesn't have much overlap with hobbyist stuff.
The only realistic way for radio shack to have survived would have been as an online retailer like ebay or amazon. Brick-and-mortar doesn't make any sense now for electronics supplies. For groceries or dinner, maybe, but not electronics.
> It's getting more informed now, but if you look back the food pyramid wasn't necessarily bad, even today it's okay to have proteins, vegetables, breads, and dairy, it's the proportions and processing that are under scrutiny.
Right, if you follow even the flawed food pyramid and consume a healthy amount of calories (~2500 for a typical male) you'll stay thin and healthy. People overdo it.
One notable example is milk. There is no scientific study anywhere that shows that milk is necessary or even healthy for adults. Yet milk has become so ingrained in our culture that it's almost become a sign of healthy eating (when it's not). This is largely due to the advertising efforts of the milk industry (which is one of the largest industries in the USA and many other countries). Milk contains saturated fat which has proven negative effects on health (yes, even skim milk has saturated fat). The only good thing about milk I can think of is calcium, but you can (and should) be getting that through other means, such as vegetables.
Most 'nutritional information' you know is a result of industry advertising and is not true.
That link (from a super-conservative news site) contradicts itself multiple times. It first says that 2014 was 'nowhere near' the hottest year on record, then it says that the 0.02 difference is not 'statistically significant'. Wtf?
About the second link, it says that 2010 and 2014 are tied for warmest year. Alright, the difference between the two years isn't that high. So at any rate the warmest year happened in the past 5 years. I... don't see how this invalidates my point at all?
And about the third link, it's a gross misrepresentation (basically an outright lie) about the IPCC's results. In fact IPCC AR5 makes an even stronger claim for anthropogenic warming than AR4.
I told you to stop being dumb. I realize that's impossible. Now I must tell you to at least stop being a retarded shit-flinging monkey with fetal alcohol syndrome.
> Solar sail can achieve 25% light speed, according to NASA, and Alpha Centauri is 4 light years away.
Citation needed. According to figures I've read, solar sails can reach a maximum of about 60 km/s. That's several orders of magnitude lower than 25% c.
Laser-propelled sails might be theoretically able to get up to 25% c but that's definitely not currently-available technology. We do not have anything close to the kind of lasers that would be required for this.
About manned/unmanned, it seems kind of pointless to spend all that time and money on a mission purposefully designed/expected to fail. My advice: never take on a management position.
No, you want a robotic mission that is as small and conservative as you can make it, to test out if short-duration (less than millenia) interstellar travel is possible at all, even in principle. For all we know, radiation and interstellar gas could prevent it from being possible. Once you know that you can send electronics to another star safely, then you send humans (if you need to).
> you learn the furthest a manned mission can reach.
This is a meaningless question. There's no 'distance limit', only a velocity limit. In the trivial case of a generation ship (or just assuming Earth is your starship), a manned 'mission' can 'reach' at least across thousands of light years, as Earth has traveled that much since humans evolved.
And what about when a human driver does this? I look forward to the day when humans are banned from driving. I've been driving for 10 years and have had people smash their cars into me from so many angles it's not even funny. Got a concussion from one encounter. All of the people behind the wheel were either high or drunk. To the brain-dead idiots who say that computers will never be as good at driving as humans are (which is just a selfish excuse so they can continue to 'enjoy' the 'thrill' of driving), I say this: You should have been aborted. But it's not too late, you can still kill yourself. Oh, and self-driving cars already drive orders of magnitude better than a person who has emptied a bottle of vodka or has smoked 3 joints. Get realistic and pull your head out of your ass.
> We have the technology today to get a manned mission to Alpha Centauri and back. It would take 15-20 years for the journey and the probability of survival is poor, but we could do it.
Why would you want to send a manned mission as the first mission? A robotic probe should be the first mission. 20 years for alpha centauri and back translates to about half the speed of light. I highly doubt that any current or foreseeable technology could get a probe to that speed. Not even fusion-powered rockets could, and we don't have them. A fission-powered rocket might realistically be able get up to 0.5% c (1500 km/s), in which case it would take a millenium and a half to complete the mission. Some more intelligent proposals like huge orbital linear accelerators might accelerate a tiny robotic probe to 10% the speed of light but even then you're looking at a 90 year journey.
Your scenario sounds insanely over-optimistic, to put it mildly.
They aren't a good starting point. They are ridiculous and stem from lack of any sort of knowledge about AI.
Not even Asimov took them seriously, and this was a guy who (a) knew very little about computers/robots, by his own admission, and (b) came up with them in the 40's, before we even had modern computers at all.
Anyway, about the topic. Looking at the 'Future of Life Institute' webpage, they seem to be composed of all the usual suspects. Philosophers and public figures who have been talking about the 'dangers of AI' for a long time. There is nothing new to see here.
You don't even need to go that far. Terrorists are always coming up with stupid plans to blow stuff up. All you have to do is just sit back and let them do their thing.
Was there anyone familiar with the situation who _didn't_ see this attack coming? And couldn't it have been prevented with just tighter security around Charlie Hebdo's offices?
Write up draconian legislation, wait for a terrorist attack to happen, and immediately unleash it on the public. The media will be all to eager to play into your hand by whipping the public up into a frenzy. Ever since 9/11 every single terrorist attack has been an excuse for tighter surveillance and censorship across the world.
Look, it was sad that a bunch of people died over cartoons. But it changes nothing - absolutely NOTHING - about the importance of our freedoms. In fact, if anything, it highlights the importance of our freedoms, as these cartoonists died over free speech.
Anyone who tells you that increased surveillance and censorship will be 'selective' and 'only target high-risk individuals' is either ignorant or lying, as a cursory glance at previous measures will readily reveal.
Slashdot Mirror
You'll have to explain to me why it "directly contradicts" my claim. That study is very specific on being on post-menopausal women, not men. And it's not that they couldn't find a link, it's just that the sample size was not high enough to make any definitive conclusions. This is understandable as women have lower risk for heart disease than men and so you need a proportionately larger sample to draw correlation.
As for the first link, I don't see how it relates in any way to what I'm saying. You're imaging I'm saying something I'm not, and then replying to this imaginary straw man.
Eat less meat, it's getting to your head.
The problem with various paleo diets is that they are either not paleo, not healthy, or both.
Hunter-gatherers didn't eat like that. No combination of foodstuffs from your local market could even resemble what they ate. See this talk, it's informative: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
And where are the insects? Yes, paleolithic diets included meat, but what most people don't tell you is that a lot of that was insect meat. Beetles, moth larvae, witchetty grubs, even cockroaches - our ancestors loved that shit. It was an important part of the diet too, because there were long periods were people did not have access to any other type of lean meat. Insect meat contains proteins and vitamins in higher concentrations than many other types of meat.
Paleo advocates love to say that you should eat more meat. Actually, evidence from preserved cooking fires and teeth shows that 70% of the calories of the actual paleo diet came from plant matter. Since meat is so much more calorie-rich than plants, this basically means they spent most of their day chewing on plants. And when I say chewing, I mean it - their idea of vegetables wasn't succulent, easy-to-eat, delicious modern broccoli or carrots or potatoes. It was tough plant fibers and roots. Most of which had very little calorie value. Some of which were even poisonous (they avoided death by rotating between different types of poisons to avoid overdose on any single one). If you want to spend all day chewing on toxic wild roots, be my guest. I'm going to go for the nutrient-rich, vitamin-rich, mineral-rich marvels of modern agriculture that can be found in my supermarket.
It's useless to argue with people like that. If someone is incapable of the basic logical reasoning to figure out that an all-meat diet is not healthy, they've probably already damaged their brain through malnutrition far beyond the point where you could reason with them.
Well I've been paying attention to nutritional science and I'm not. Where are the studies and the evidence? So far all evidence points to saturated fat being a risk factor for heart disease, and I have never seen any evidence saying otherwise.
Obviously it's not like you're going to have a heart attack after having some butter on toast. But if you have steak every day for 50 years, then don't be surprised if you wind up with clogged arteries.
The tinkerer market is really really small. Most major cities have 'hackerspaces' and they're typically small. I don't really see how you could sustain a huge business model on this.
I don't know where you're getting that info from.The average American male eats 2800-3500 kcal a day (depending on where you get your figures from). Multiple sources agree that 2400-2600 kcal a day is considered normal for a moderately active male in the 19-30 age range. For higher age ranges, you're right, 2000 kcal/day should be more than enough for ages 40+, when you consider decreased physical activity.
I'm not worried. I'm just pointing out that cutting out milk from your diet probably isn't going to have any negative effect, and might have a slight positive affect too.
That's something that's hard to say. Life expectancy increased, but that may have just been due to less violence. Height decreased, but that may have just been environmental adaptation rather than any problem with nutrition (people in colder climates tended to have less height because shorter, stockier frames lost less heat in the winter). It's known that there were more infectious diseases in concentrated population areas but this has nothing to do with diet and nutrition. So it's hard to say if humans were really healthier in agricultural or hunter-gatherer times.
It's not fat-o-phobia; saturated fat is and always has been known to be a risk factor for heart disease. Unsaturated fats are perfectly healthy; no one's arguing with that.
Yet people lived on bread for 10,000 years and were reasonably healthy during this time.
There's nothing wrong with carbs. You're the guy who's replied to my other comment saying I have "fat-o-phobia", seems like you have "carb-o-phobia." Let me guess, you like Atkins or paleo. Reality check: paleo is pseudoscience garbage and is NOT healthy for you. And as for Atkins... hah is all I can say
What a lot of people on /. don't seem to realize is that the brick-and-mortar electronics supply business was mostly kept alive by repairmen (yes, there used to be people who actually made a living off of repairing TV sets and stereos) and A/V technicians. When the repairmen went, the electronics components business went with it, left hanging by the thin thread of hobbyists and EE undergrads. And then online retailers like ebay soaked up the remnants of even that market. There is still a tiny market for A/V technicians and you'll some kind of store catering to them in most major cities. But it's not a big market and doesn't have much overlap with hobbyist stuff.
The only realistic way for radio shack to have survived would have been as an online retailer like ebay or amazon. Brick-and-mortar doesn't make any sense now for electronics supplies. For groceries or dinner, maybe, but not electronics.
> It's getting more informed now, but if you look back the food pyramid wasn't necessarily bad, even today it's okay to have proteins, vegetables, breads, and dairy, it's the proportions and processing that are under scrutiny.
Right, if you follow even the flawed food pyramid and consume a healthy amount of calories (~2500 for a typical male) you'll stay thin and healthy. People overdo it.
You can get fat on even the healthiest diets.
One notable example is milk. There is no scientific study anywhere that shows that milk is necessary or even healthy for adults. Yet milk has become so ingrained in our culture that it's almost become a sign of healthy eating (when it's not). This is largely due to the advertising efforts of the milk industry (which is one of the largest industries in the USA and many other countries). Milk contains saturated fat which has proven negative effects on health (yes, even skim milk has saturated fat). The only good thing about milk I can think of is calcium, but you can (and should) be getting that through other means, such as vegetables.
Most 'nutritional information' you know is a result of industry advertising and is not true.
That link (from a super-conservative news site) contradicts itself multiple times. It first says that 2014 was 'nowhere near' the hottest year on record, then it says that the 0.02 difference is not 'statistically significant'. Wtf?
About the second link, it says that 2010 and 2014 are tied for warmest year. Alright, the difference between the two years isn't that high. So at any rate the warmest year happened in the past 5 years. I... don't see how this invalidates my point at all?
And about the third link, it's a gross misrepresentation (basically an outright lie) about the IPCC's results. In fact IPCC AR5 makes an even stronger claim for anthropogenic warming than AR4.
I told you to stop being dumb. I realize that's impossible. Now I must tell you to at least stop being a retarded shit-flinging monkey with fetal alcohol syndrome.
http://www.scientificamerican....
Don't be dumb.
And what is your magical free market solution to climate change?
Trace amounts of DNA fragments exist in most plant and animal oils. Table salt is DNA-free though.
> Solar sail can achieve 25% light speed, according to NASA, and Alpha Centauri is 4 light years away.
Citation needed. According to figures I've read, solar sails can reach a maximum of about 60 km/s. That's several orders of magnitude lower than 25% c.
Laser-propelled sails might be theoretically able to get up to 25% c but that's definitely not currently-available technology. We do not have anything close to the kind of lasers that would be required for this.
About manned/unmanned, it seems kind of pointless to spend all that time and money on a mission purposefully designed/expected to fail. My advice: never take on a management position.
No, you want a robotic mission that is as small and conservative as you can make it, to test out if short-duration (less than millenia) interstellar travel is possible at all, even in principle. For all we know, radiation and interstellar gas could prevent it from being possible. Once you know that you can send electronics to another star safely, then you send humans (if you need to).
> you learn the furthest a manned mission can reach.
This is a meaningless question. There's no 'distance limit', only a velocity limit. In the trivial case of a generation ship (or just assuming Earth is your starship), a manned 'mission' can 'reach' at least across thousands of light years, as Earth has traveled that much since humans evolved.
And what about when a human driver does this? I look forward to the day when humans are banned from driving. I've been driving for 10 years and have had people smash their cars into me from so many angles it's not even funny. Got a concussion from one encounter. All of the people behind the wheel were either high or drunk. To the brain-dead idiots who say that computers will never be as good at driving as humans are (which is just a selfish excuse so they can continue to 'enjoy' the 'thrill' of driving), I say this: You should have been aborted. But it's not too late, you can still kill yourself. Oh, and self-driving cars already drive orders of magnitude better than a person who has emptied a bottle of vodka or has smoked 3 joints. Get realistic and pull your head out of your ass.
> We have the technology today to get a manned mission to Alpha Centauri and back. It would take 15-20 years for the journey and the probability of survival is poor, but we could do it.
Why would you want to send a manned mission as the first mission? A robotic probe should be the first mission. 20 years for alpha centauri and back translates to about half the speed of light. I highly doubt that any current or foreseeable technology could get a probe to that speed. Not even fusion-powered rockets could, and we don't have them. A fission-powered rocket might realistically be able get up to 0.5% c (1500 km/s), in which case it would take a millenium and a half to complete the mission. Some more intelligent proposals like huge orbital linear accelerators might accelerate a tiny robotic probe to 10% the speed of light but even then you're looking at a 90 year journey.
Your scenario sounds insanely over-optimistic, to put it mildly.
> Authoritative/reliable
Ha. Haha. Good one.
If anything, it's more "Averaged opinion of a whole lot of people" > "Opinion of a small number of people"
They aren't a good starting point. They are ridiculous and stem from lack of any sort of knowledge about AI.
Not even Asimov took them seriously, and this was a guy who (a) knew very little about computers/robots, by his own admission, and (b) came up with them in the 40's, before we even had modern computers at all.
Anyway, about the topic. Looking at the 'Future of Life Institute' webpage, they seem to be composed of all the usual suspects. Philosophers and public figures who have been talking about the 'dangers of AI' for a long time. There is nothing new to see here.
You don't even need to go that far. Terrorists are always coming up with stupid plans to blow stuff up. All you have to do is just sit back and let them do their thing.
Was there anyone familiar with the situation who _didn't_ see this attack coming? And couldn't it have been prevented with just tighter security around Charlie Hebdo's offices?
Write up draconian legislation, wait for a terrorist attack to happen, and immediately unleash it on the public. The media will be all to eager to play into your hand by whipping the public up into a frenzy. Ever since 9/11 every single terrorist attack has been an excuse for tighter surveillance and censorship across the world.
Look, it was sad that a bunch of people died over cartoons. But it changes nothing - absolutely NOTHING - about the importance of our freedoms. In fact, if anything, it highlights the importance of our freedoms, as these cartoonists died over free speech.
Anyone who tells you that increased surveillance and censorship will be 'selective' and 'only target high-risk individuals' is either ignorant or lying, as a cursory glance at previous measures will readily reveal.
Don't let them bait you.