As a T1D, I'll note that the GP didn't really comment on what it means to be a T2D. The characterization, however, is mostly true for an overwhelming majority of t2d, but completely false for t1d. T2D is controllable with diet and exercise alone in something like 80-90% of the T2D population. Weight and lifestyle factors make up an overwhelming percentage of the risk factors. And while there is clearly a genetic (usually associated with the likelihood that weight/lifestyle will give way to t2d, not that the genetics alone cause t2d) and medical condition component too, this is the clear minority.
Diabetes is more of a "syndrome" than a "disease". Even divided into groups of T1 (typically no insulin produced in the body), T2 (insulin resistant), T1.5 (LADA), MODY, T3 ("Double Diabetes") & "Gestational Diabetes". Insulin resistance tends to promote conversion of glucose into fat since it reduces the amount the body can use for anything else. Obesity also tends to increase insulin resistance. Leading to a positive feedback loop. To make matters worst hyperglycemia is toxic to cells, including those which produce insulin. An important factor is that in the last 30 or so years dietary advice has been to eat lots of carbohydrates. (In some cases up to 70%.) With the result that both obesity and T2 diabetes has dramatically increased. Something previously unheard of called "diabulimia" has appeared amongst T1 diabetics (mostly young women.) But the idea that "Low fat, low calorie, high carbohydrate" might not be the best (let alone the worst) kind of diet for humans tends to result in the classic "heritic treatment". The biggest irony being that humans (possibly all mammals) do not actually need to eat any carbohydrates in the first place. Are there many high carbohydrate (especially high starch) foods which are not the product of agriculture?
It doesn't only solve the two mentioned problems, it would completely change the life style!
- eat whenever you want to
- stop eating when you feel you had enough, instead of eating "enough" for the insulin you took
No doubt there are plenty of T1s who can regulate their insulin dosage to be able to do this.
- no need to wake up in the night to check sugar level
If someone is frequently interrupting their sleep then it might be better to adjust their control methods.
- exercise whenever you want to w/o worrying that your sugar level is high enough for the effort
The only organ which really needs glucose for respiration is the brain. Muscle cells can directly use amino acids and fatty acids for respiration. Also the liver will perform both gluconeogenesis and glycogenolysis to prevent hypoglycemia. Which can in some cases result in reactive hyperglycemia. All a reading before exercise will indicate is how much glucose is in the blood. It won't indicate how much glycogen is in the liver or the muscles to be used. How much gluconeogenesis the liver is capable of. Even which metabolic pathways the muscles might use. Even if this were to work exactly as intended you'd still need to know when it's time for the next injection.
Pregnant diabetic women could be much less worried too.
Presumably you mean T1s diagnosed before they became pregnant. Rather than those diagnosed with "gestational diabetes".
This is a neat idea, but not yet remotely ready to try in people. There were quite significant local infammatory reactions (big lumps!) in some of the mice tested.
There's probably ten years of work, and well north of $150 million dollars before the first human tests.
Would any sensible T1 want to try this if all it will do is get their blood glucose level below 200mg/dl? Which is still nowhere near normal (non diabetic) for either a mouse or a human.
Lettuce isn't a fruit, so lack of pollination on the field shouldn't be a problem, tomatoes and potatoes are from the new world
You really wouldn't want to eat the fruit of potatoes. They are rather toxic to humans. Though both the fruits and the flowers do make it clear that potatoes are closely related to tomatoes.
My issue is that the price difference per pound isn't going to be more than a few cents is it? Passenger weight is fairly insignificant compared to the weight of the plane itself. There might be standard 50 tons of people/luggage on a jumbo (250 lbs combined * 400 ppl).
There have been crashes where the aircraft being overweight has been identified as a factor. Anyway Samoa Air dosn't have B747s (or A380s). Instead they operate very much smaller planes. Around 10 passengers seats.
Yet these people never explain why millions of people with no inclination to drink more than a couple of glasses of wine or beer a week -- despite the fact that it's legal, cheap and broadly accepted to drink more than that -- would suddenly start having interest in heroin, amphetamines or cocaine.
Even if they were "interested" wouldn't it be more likely that they would be interested in something equivalent to "beer" or "wine" than "spirits". When there was alcohol prohibition in the US the black market supply was virtually entirely crude spirits (moonshine). But when legal alcoholic drinks reappeared it was in a diverse form.
The only way I can explain this happening is "legalizing" being made semantically equivalent to "mass commercialization and marketing" and the general public suddenly being largely tricked in consuming products with these drugs blended in ("Mountain Dew Super Rush!") or in new formulations ("Tylenol UltraPain, now with 10 mg oxycodone!") or as "new" products with their real content hidden.
First of all, no legalization regime for anything stronger than marijuana would ever allow for these substances -- all accepted as drugs -- to be added to existing consumer products, and the FDA would likely NOT approve them being added to OTC drug formulations, either., even under existing law. Secondly, I don't think even the biggest legalize-everything advocates would back the kind of crass commercialism we have now, even at the limited levels permitted for alcohol sales..
People currently do things like mix alcoholic and soft drinks. (As well as with coffee and chocolate.) So there might well be a market for "coca-cola" with actual cocaine in. Even heroin in something like its original form.
Most importantly, the social stigma of these drugs wouldn't go away overnight if ever, really. I can drink a beer at a suburban kids birthday party, it seems highly unlikely though that in anything less than a generation I'd be able to snort a couple of lines of coke or heroin; even pot smoking would probably be sketchy due to the smoking aspect.
Snorting a line is more like downing a quarter litre of vodka in one go than having a beer. That might be more sipping Coca leaf or poppy flower tea.
The only thing that closes the window of opportunity in some countries is their adherence a political idea that windmills and solar cells will be able to provide all the power needed for their future populations. That works if the populations are drastically reduced.
Also that don't want electricity when it's dark and windless (or too windy).
The manufacture of photovoltaics is environmentally harmful (probably more than nuclear fission.) It takes 1000 wind turbines to generate the same power as a single nuclear fission plant - where are all of those wind turbines going to go? Hydroelectric is tapped out. Geothermal is very location-dependent.
Photovoltaics and wind are also rather location specific. But the most important problem both of them have is that output varies essentially randomly.
It also take a lot of upfront cash. So as nice as it would be to have more nuclear energy; the window of opportunity is gone. Renewable energy sources will be far cheaper by the time a new nuclear plant opens.
Fission power is about the only form of power generation which can be called "renewable". Since you can produce new fuel from that which has already been used. The first nuclear power plant took more like 3 years to build. So there is no good reason why it should now take 7 times as long!
At a certain point, it may be more efficient to transport a fuel, and not only for 'mobile' use. We already do so with natural gas, there is no reason not to do so with hydrogen.
Hydrogen is a much smaller molecule than methane which means that it's harder to make pipes and tanks which don't leak. In addition it reacts with a lot of things methane dosn't react with. So there is less choice of materials to make those pipes and tanks out of.
Now compound the above with the fact that neither of the two most widely used DNS servers on the planet, BIND and MicrosoftDNS(That's right Bernstein fans so STFU.), check requesting source address validity.
IIRC MicrosoftDNS is slightly modified version of bind 4.
All of the "studies" I have seen "proving" that DST saves energy are thought "experiments" rather than actual real life studies of what happens when some locale changes from not having DST to having DST. All of the studies of actual occurrences of changing from never changing the clocks to implementing DST have shown an increase use of energy after the change (although in at least one of those cases the change was small and could potentially be attributed to other causes). In other words, all real-world studies of energy use and DST indicate that best case scenario is that DST makes NO difference in energy use and quite possibly increases it.
There also must be an economic cost to changing clocks which do not change automatically. As well as those which should change automatically, but in practice require human intervention.
Well.. You can run your life on GMT or Zulu if you want, but it is a bit less confusing if the sun is overhead at noon at lunchtime for me.
In which case you'd want no DST and a timezone where local noon was close to 12:00 (pm). There are plenty of places where this is not true now. e.g. Iceland and West Africa which use Zulu rather than November. South Island New Zealand which uses Lima rather than Mike. Fiji which uses Mike rather than Kilo. Thus it's possible for "noon" to be anywhere between 9:00 and 15:00.
Daylight Savings was an invention by the railroads and sold to government officials for political financial support for the purpose of simplifying train schedules around many disparate "local times" which were synchronized to the actual rising and setting of the sun.
In the case of timetables changing the clocks twice a year is a complication. Though less so than having to deal with local time at every station. Indeed US railroad companies were against it. The concept of DST originates from around the turn of the 20th century. The event which caused it to actually happen being The "Great War".
it just means they weren't subject to the same pressures that drove other cultures to embrace them. For example there's no shortage of food in a rainforest, and so no incentive to pursue agriculture beyond encouraging particularly tasty or useful plants to grow in convenient locations. Ironworking appears to have been known in North America, but very few iron tools were made, possibly because stone tools had evolved far beyond anything seen in Eurasia.
IIRC the first iron tools were not as good as bronze tools. What made the difference was that iron was cheaper. If the Americans already had cheap sophisticated stone tools then iron tools could have been things for the rich to show off.
The wheel was known in Central America, but apparently only used for children's toys, who knows why.
The Romans could have built steam powered machines. But they didn't...
The minute I have not been able to dig up information on as to when it was first conceived. What you then quoted were modern (Late Common Era) definitions of what a second is, not where it came from and why it first was a "second". Their origins may not truly be that arbitrary as they did emerge from some systematic approach that required their existence, true. But why 60ths? Was a minute always that long?
IIRC "second" is short for "second minute". The same terms are also used for angular measurement with one degree being 60 minutes or 3,600 seconds. Wonder if the terms were first applied to time or angles.
Are you saying "processed" salt doesn't have sodium chloride?
There's a somewhat strange term which can appear on food labels called "salt equivalent". It's derived by multiplying the mass of sodium by 2.5. In other words assuming that the only sodium containing compound present is NaCl. Possibly even in cases where there is zero NaCl. In such cases you can't actually tell how much "salt" is present...
And once we are eating that diet free of salt, sugar, and all the rest of that, we'll all die of malnutrition since most of those things are (or are our primary source of) vital nutrients.
It turns out that there is no such thing as an "essential sugar" in the human diet. Not even amylose or amylopectin...
i want the chair to record the lobyist that sit next to them and the amount of money they change hands.
How about one which also keeps totals for both lobyist and politician. With the ability to psudo-randomly eliminate (or teleport at least 14,000 km away) both of them. With the probability of doing so increasing the higher their totals. Now that would be a smart chair:)
When gun technology was developed "in the first place" there was none of this remote firing of which you speak.
IIRC the earliest method of "remote firing" was a trail of black powder to the touch hole. Which works for any size of gun and can test multiple guns. Generally carried out in a "proof house". Using a string to pull the trigger on a clamped gun is also fairly obvious.
I would be surprised to learn of any major military power today that DOESN'T have a cyberwarfare division (and god knows how many government contractors doing it on the sly).
Of course if such entities were any good they might be run by an entity different from that which appears to be running them.
The best system in the world wouldn't change my wife's situation, which is based on safety. She could easily take the train. She'd have to transfer, but to a subway which runs quite frequently. The problem is the sketchy neighborhood.
Have you remembered to include in your risk assesment the dangers of driving? Cars being the most dangerous machines most people will operate in their lifetimes.
Under the guise of protecting jobs, the sugar lobby bribed congress and congress instituted a sugar import quota system. The result is sugar prices are twice what they are in Mexico or Canada. The result is also that candy manufacturing has now largely moved to Mexico and Canada. Net result: a loss of jobs.
But probably not as bad as the US annexing another country.
Slashdot Mirror
As a T1D, I'll note that the GP didn't really comment on what it means to be a T2D. The characterization, however, is mostly true for an overwhelming majority of t2d, but completely false for t1d. T2D is controllable with diet and exercise alone in something like 80-90% of the T2D population. Weight and lifestyle factors make up an overwhelming percentage of the risk factors. And while there is clearly a genetic (usually associated with the likelihood that weight/lifestyle will give way to t2d, not that the genetics alone cause t2d) and medical condition component too, this is the clear minority.
Diabetes is more of a "syndrome" than a "disease". Even divided into groups of T1 (typically no insulin produced in the body), T2 (insulin resistant), T1.5 (LADA), MODY, T3 ("Double Diabetes") & "Gestational Diabetes".
Insulin resistance tends to promote conversion of glucose into fat since it reduces the amount the body can use for anything else. Obesity also tends to increase insulin resistance. Leading to a positive feedback loop. To make matters worst hyperglycemia is toxic to cells, including those which produce insulin.
An important factor is that in the last 30 or so years dietary advice has been to eat lots of carbohydrates. (In some cases up to 70%.) With the result that both obesity and T2 diabetes has dramatically increased. Something previously unheard of called "diabulimia" has appeared amongst T1 diabetics (mostly young women.) But the idea that "Low fat, low calorie, high carbohydrate" might not be the best (let alone the worst) kind of diet for humans tends to result in the classic "heritic treatment". The biggest irony being that humans (possibly all mammals) do not actually need to eat any carbohydrates in the first place. Are there many high carbohydrate (especially high starch) foods which are not the product of agriculture?
It doesn't only solve the two mentioned problems, it would completely change the life style!
- eat whenever you want to
- stop eating when you feel you had enough, instead of eating "enough" for the insulin you took
No doubt there are plenty of T1s who can regulate their insulin dosage to be able to do this.
- no need to wake up in the night to check sugar level
If someone is frequently interrupting their sleep then it might be better to adjust their control methods.
- exercise whenever you want to w/o worrying that your sugar level is high enough for the effort
The only organ which really needs glucose for respiration is the brain. Muscle cells can directly use amino acids and fatty acids for respiration. Also the liver will perform both gluconeogenesis and glycogenolysis to prevent hypoglycemia. Which can in some cases result in reactive hyperglycemia.
All a reading before exercise will indicate is how much glucose is in the blood. It won't indicate how much glycogen is in the liver or the muscles to be used. How much gluconeogenesis the liver is capable of. Even which metabolic pathways the muscles might use.
Even if this were to work exactly as intended you'd still need to know when it's time for the next injection.
Pregnant diabetic women could be much less worried too.
Presumably you mean T1s diagnosed before they became pregnant. Rather than those diagnosed with "gestational diabetes".
This is a neat idea, but not yet remotely ready to try in people. There were quite significant local infammatory reactions (big lumps!) in some of the mice tested. There's probably ten years of work, and well north of $150 million dollars before the first human tests.
Would any sensible T1 want to try this if all it will do is get their blood glucose level below 200mg/dl? Which is still nowhere near normal (non diabetic) for either a mouse or a human.
Lettuce isn't a fruit, so lack of pollination on the field shouldn't be a problem, tomatoes and potatoes are from the new world
You really wouldn't want to eat the fruit of potatoes. They are rather toxic to humans. Though both the fruits and the flowers do make it clear that potatoes are closely related to tomatoes.
The Herschel Space Observatory is 1,500,000 km away at a Lagrangian point. Servicing missions of any kind are out of the question.
A robot tanker resupply is rather different from the kind of EVA service performed on the HST.
My issue is that the price difference per pound isn't going to be more than a few cents is it? Passenger weight is fairly insignificant compared to the weight of the plane itself. There might be standard 50 tons of people/luggage on a jumbo (250 lbs combined * 400 ppl).
There have been crashes where the aircraft being overweight has been identified as a factor. Anyway Samoa Air dosn't have B747s (or A380s). Instead they operate very much smaller planes. Around 10 passengers seats.
Yet these people never explain why millions of people with no inclination to drink more than a couple of glasses of wine or beer a week -- despite the fact that it's legal, cheap and broadly accepted to drink more than that -- would suddenly start having interest in heroin, amphetamines or cocaine.
Even if they were "interested" wouldn't it be more likely that they would be interested in something equivalent to "beer" or "wine" than "spirits". When there was alcohol prohibition in the US the black market supply was virtually entirely crude spirits (moonshine). But when legal alcoholic drinks reappeared it was in a diverse form.
The only way I can explain this happening is "legalizing" being made semantically equivalent to "mass commercialization and marketing" and the general public suddenly being largely tricked in consuming products with these drugs blended in ("Mountain Dew Super Rush!") or in new formulations ("Tylenol UltraPain, now with 10 mg oxycodone!") or as "new" products with their real content hidden.
First of all, no legalization regime for anything stronger than marijuana would ever allow for these substances -- all accepted as drugs -- to be added to existing consumer products, and the FDA would likely NOT approve them being added to OTC drug formulations, either., even under existing law. Secondly, I don't think even the biggest legalize-everything advocates would back the kind of crass commercialism we have now, even at the limited levels permitted for alcohol sales..
People currently do things like mix alcoholic and soft drinks. (As well as with coffee and chocolate.) So there might well be a market for "coca-cola" with actual cocaine in. Even heroin in something like its original form.
Most importantly, the social stigma of these drugs wouldn't go away overnight if ever, really. I can drink a beer at a suburban kids birthday party, it seems highly unlikely though that in anything less than a generation I'd be able to snort a couple of lines of coke or heroin; even pot smoking would probably be sketchy due to the smoking aspect.
Snorting a line is more like downing a quarter litre of vodka in one go than having a beer. That might be more sipping Coca leaf or poppy flower tea.
The only thing that closes the window of opportunity in some countries is their adherence a political idea that windmills and solar cells will be able to provide all the power needed for their future populations. That works if the populations are drastically reduced.
Also that don't want electricity when it's dark and windless (or too windy).
Sail is useful, but only for stuff that doesn't need to stick to a timeline.
Not even that useful. Otherwise sail powered commercial shipping would not be confined to history.
The manufacture of photovoltaics is environmentally harmful (probably more than nuclear fission.) It takes 1000 wind turbines to generate the same power as a single nuclear fission plant - where are all of those wind turbines going to go? Hydroelectric is tapped out. Geothermal is very location-dependent.
Photovoltaics and wind are also rather location specific. But the most important problem both of them have is that output varies essentially randomly.
It also take a lot of upfront cash. So as nice as it would be to have more nuclear energy; the window of opportunity is gone. Renewable energy sources will be far cheaper by the time a new nuclear plant opens.
Fission power is about the only form of power generation which can be called "renewable". Since you can produce new fuel from that which has already been used. The first nuclear power plant took more like 3 years to build. So there is no good reason why it should now take 7 times as long!
At a certain point, it may be more efficient to transport a fuel, and not only for 'mobile' use. We already do so with natural gas, there is no reason not to do so with hydrogen.
Hydrogen is a much smaller molecule than methane which means that it's harder to make pipes and tanks which don't leak. In addition it reacts with a lot of things methane dosn't react with. So there is less choice of materials to make those pipes and tanks out of.
Now compound the above with the fact that neither of the two most widely used DNS servers on the planet, BIND and MicrosoftDNS(That's right Bernstein fans so STFU.), check requesting source address validity.
IIRC MicrosoftDNS is slightly modified version of bind 4.
All of the "studies" I have seen "proving" that DST saves energy are thought "experiments" rather than actual real life studies of what happens when some locale changes from not having DST to having DST. All of the studies of actual occurrences of changing from never changing the clocks to implementing DST have shown an increase use of energy after the change (although in at least one of those cases the change was small and could potentially be attributed to other causes). In other words, all real-world studies of energy use and DST indicate that best case scenario is that DST makes NO difference in energy use and quite possibly increases it.
There also must be an economic cost to changing clocks which do not change automatically. As well as those which should change automatically, but in practice require human intervention.
Well.. You can run your life on GMT or Zulu if you want, but it is a bit less confusing if the sun is overhead at noon at lunchtime for me.
In which case you'd want no DST and a timezone where local noon was close to 12:00 (pm). There are plenty of places where this is not true now. e.g. Iceland and West Africa which use Zulu rather than November. South Island New Zealand which uses Lima rather than Mike. Fiji which uses Mike rather than Kilo. Thus it's possible for "noon" to be anywhere between 9:00 and 15:00.
Daylight Savings was an invention by the railroads and sold to government officials for political financial support for the purpose of simplifying train schedules around many disparate "local times" which were synchronized to the actual rising and setting of the sun.
In the case of timetables changing the clocks twice a year is a complication. Though less so than having to deal with local time at every station. Indeed US railroad companies were against it. The concept of DST originates from around the turn of the 20th century. The event which caused it to actually happen being The "Great War".
it just means they weren't subject to the same pressures that drove other cultures to embrace them. For example there's no shortage of food in a rainforest, and so no incentive to pursue agriculture beyond encouraging particularly tasty or useful plants to grow in convenient locations. Ironworking appears to have been known in North America, but very few iron tools were made, possibly because stone tools had evolved far beyond anything seen in Eurasia.
IIRC the first iron tools were not as good as bronze tools. What made the difference was that iron was cheaper. If the Americans already had cheap sophisticated stone tools then iron tools could have been things for the rich to show off.
The wheel was known in Central America, but apparently only used for children's toys, who knows why.
The Romans could have built steam powered machines. But they didn't...
The minute I have not been able to dig up information on as to when it was first conceived. What you then quoted were modern (Late Common Era) definitions of what a second is, not where it came from and why it first was a "second". Their origins may not truly be that arbitrary as they did emerge from some systematic approach that required their existence, true. But why 60ths? Was a minute always that long?
IIRC "second" is short for "second minute". The same terms are also used for angular measurement with one degree being 60 minutes or 3,600 seconds. Wonder if the terms were first applied to time or angles.
Are you saying "processed" salt doesn't have sodium chloride?
There's a somewhat strange term which can appear on food labels called "salt equivalent". It's derived by multiplying the mass of sodium by 2.5. In other words assuming that the only sodium containing compound present is NaCl. Possibly even in cases where there is zero NaCl. In such cases you can't actually tell how much "salt" is present...
And once we are eating that diet free of salt, sugar, and all the rest of that, we'll all die of malnutrition since most of those things are (or are our primary source of) vital nutrients.
It turns out that there is no such thing as an "essential sugar" in the human diet. Not even amylose or amylopectin...
i want the chair to record the lobyist that sit next to them and the amount of money they change hands.
:)
How about one which also keeps totals for both lobyist and politician. With the ability to psudo-randomly eliminate (or teleport at least 14,000 km away) both of them. With the probability of doing so increasing the higher their totals. Now that would be a smart chair
When gun technology was developed "in the first place" there was none of this remote firing of which you speak.
IIRC the earliest method of "remote firing" was a trail of black powder to the touch hole. Which works for any size of gun and can test multiple guns. Generally carried out in a "proof house".
Using a string to pull the trigger on a clamped gun is also fairly obvious.
I would be surprised to learn of any major military power today that DOESN'T have a cyberwarfare division (and god knows how many government contractors doing it on the sly).
Of course if such entities were any good they might be run by an entity different from that which appears to be running them.
The best system in the world wouldn't change my wife's situation, which is based on safety. She could easily take the train. She'd have to transfer, but to a subway which runs quite frequently. The problem is the sketchy neighborhood.
Have you remembered to include in your risk assesment the dangers of driving? Cars being the most dangerous machines most people will operate in their lifetimes.
Under the guise of protecting jobs, the sugar lobby bribed congress and congress instituted a sugar import quota system. The result is sugar prices are twice what they are in Mexico or Canada. The result is also that candy manufacturing has now largely moved to Mexico and Canada. Net result: a loss of jobs.
But probably not as bad as the US annexing another country.