While it's nice to get confirmation for the umpteenth time that certs (and formal education) don't mean jack in the realm of programming, it would be nice to have a more streamlined path available to juniors with little to no experience. I've done scripting and SQL for my GIS work and would like to branch off into development, though without hard experience in Javascript or.NET my resume wouldn't get a glance. I find it hard to believe that building my own superfluous toy website for its own sake at my leisure is the ticket to a job of following orders as part of a large team, but that seems to be the advice given time after time.
Would be nice if employers were forced to train like the old days rather than searching for a combination of qualifications that seldom exists and using that excuse to hire temp visas or something.
Mind you, the greater the increase in wage, the greater the negative impact on prices and unemployment in the long-run. It's a band-aid fix.
An increase matching inflation makes sense, but beyond that you're eroding the purchasing power of the middle-class. I would rather see incentives for employers to train for better positions, easier access to general labor positions, and cheaper education.
After 5 years of of austerity and negotiations, Greece has only been getting worse. I'd say this was bound to happen one way or another. Varoufakis has been clear that "the left is not ready" to leave the eurozone, but given the conditions of the alternative, I'm not so sure.
The country's banks behaved the way most others did in pre-recession. The borrowing euphoria was due to very low interest rates at the time and growing economy - the big tab seemed to be a problem for the future that would be dealt with given growing gdp. Once the global economy sank the scope of the error became apparent. French and German banks are certainly equally at fault in lending those vast sums.
It certainly is up to the reader (myself include). The study offers the following finding: people with plenty of fats and sugars have lower cognitive ability than those, who do not. Whether
the latter is "normal" and the former — "decreased", or
the former is "normal" and the latter — "elevated"
is a debate as sensible, as arguing about a half-empty/full glass
Quite sure that high sugar and fat content as stated by researchers, were it explicitly defined, is not anywhere close to "normal" (i.e. optimal) intake. This was conducted on young mice - I'm sure they know what they eat. The relativism game doesn't apply here.
That the study makes no distinction between the two vastly different classes of foods — sugars and fats — leads me to the conclusion, that the key here is the total caloric intake, not the particular foods.
Last I checked, sugar and fat is measurable and quantifiable. According to this - http://www.labdiet.com/cs/grou...... calories from mouse feed pellets are 30% protein, 13.4% fat and 56.7% carbs, and less than 5% of the chemical composition is sugar (sucrose, glucose, fructose).
Merely increasing feed intake and calling it an increase in fat and sugar would not be a case of "all things held equal" and it's frankly laughable to believe that's what was conducted here. It would be outright un-scientific and render this a false study.
The joy of getting this from fruit is that the high insoluble fiber content means your body uses less insulin to break down sugars. Nature's candy, man.
That being said, I can understand the distaste for fruit when the vast majority of commercial variety is just awful, awful quality. Apples are cold-storage waxy paperish shit now. Even cheap bananas taste weirder. Buy high grade or organic and you'll taste the difference and learn to enjoy fruit again.
True, I wouldn't haste to demonize fats - even saturated fats get an unfairly bad rap when they are in fact necessary. Transfats (hydrogenated palm/vegetable oils) remain evil, though few people seem to know how to identify them proper.
Grains are much more complicated an issue, in my mind.
This misconstrues so much.
First, beyond the fact that it's not up to you what the study shows (without even reading it no less), lets [i]assume[/i] that we experience an increase in cognitive ability during a shortage. You're deciding to conflate sustenance with "eating what we want" when the dialogue here is healthy vs unhealthy - as if to depict healthy eating as a shortage when, in actuality, poor eating habits cause malnutrition along with obesity. Ironically that's the true shortage in this context. I promise you that eating shit food isn't increasing your cognitive ability.
Second, I'd say Western society's conception of what healthy is is not necessarily in line with media's depiction, which wavers anyway (this seems to be "generation ass", as hips are back in favor and seemingly larger than those of 40's pinups.. not universally of course, but prominently).
Third, It's amusing to think that super-thin idols "wouldn't have survived" in the 19th century when the vast majority (i.e. the peasant class) had to do just that, farming and supplying meats to the upper-class while surviving on soup and hard bread, laboring for long hours. The revolution in eating habits for proletariat didn't really occur until the 20th century for most of the world, mind you this happened quicker in the U.S. than, say, Italy.
There's something to be said for laziness. It's easy to cook up a healthy, tasty, low-effort inexpensive meal, but convenience seems to trump all of that for a good chunk of the populace. Nobody knows or cares how to cook up a decent meal.
Slashdot Mirror
Rather he's saying "if it weren't for racism and micro-cultures of poverty"
While it's nice to get confirmation for the umpteenth time that certs (and formal education) don't mean jack in the realm of programming, it would be nice to have a more streamlined path available to juniors with little to no experience. I've done scripting and SQL for my GIS work and would like to branch off into development, though without hard experience in Javascript or .NET my resume wouldn't get a glance. I find it hard to believe that building my own superfluous toy website for its own sake at my leisure is the ticket to a job of following orders as part of a large team, but that seems to be the advice given time after time.
Would be nice if employers were forced to train like the old days rather than searching for a combination of qualifications that seldom exists and using that excuse to hire temp visas or something.
Mind you, the greater the increase in wage, the greater the negative impact on prices and unemployment in the long-run. It's a band-aid fix. An increase matching inflation makes sense, but beyond that you're eroding the purchasing power of the middle-class. I would rather see incentives for employers to train for better positions, easier access to general labor positions, and cheaper education.
Methinks this is mostly to protect gun manufacturers' interest in the market.
After 5 years of of austerity and negotiations, Greece has only been getting worse. I'd say this was bound to happen one way or another. Varoufakis has been clear that "the left is not ready" to leave the eurozone, but given the conditions of the alternative, I'm not so sure. The country's banks behaved the way most others did in pre-recession. The borrowing euphoria was due to very low interest rates at the time and growing economy - the big tab seemed to be a problem for the future that would be dealt with given growing gdp. Once the global economy sank the scope of the error became apparent. French and German banks are certainly equally at fault in lending those vast sums.
It certainly is up to the reader (myself include). The study offers the following finding: people with plenty of fats and sugars have lower cognitive ability than those, who do not. Whether
is a debate as sensible, as arguing about a half-empty/full glass
Quite sure that high sugar and fat content as stated by researchers, were it explicitly defined, is not anywhere close to "normal" (i.e. optimal) intake. This was conducted on young mice - I'm sure they know what they eat. The relativism game doesn't apply here.
That the study makes no distinction between the two vastly different classes of foods — sugars and fats — leads me to the conclusion, that the key here is the total caloric intake, not the particular foods.
Last I checked, sugar and fat is measurable and quantifiable. According to this - http://www.labdiet.com/cs/grou... ... calories from mouse feed pellets are 30% protein, 13.4% fat and 56.7% carbs, and less than 5% of the chemical composition is sugar (sucrose, glucose, fructose).
Merely increasing feed intake and calling it an increase in fat and sugar would not be a case of "all things held equal" and it's frankly laughable to believe that's what was conducted here. It would be outright un-scientific and render this a false study.
If you polled everyone on what a "balanced diet" is however....
The joy of getting this from fruit is that the high insoluble fiber content means your body uses less insulin to break down sugars. Nature's candy, man. That being said, I can understand the distaste for fruit when the vast majority of commercial variety is just awful, awful quality. Apples are cold-storage waxy paperish shit now. Even cheap bananas taste weirder. Buy high grade or organic and you'll taste the difference and learn to enjoy fruit again.
True, I wouldn't haste to demonize fats - even saturated fats get an unfairly bad rap when they are in fact necessary. Transfats (hydrogenated palm/vegetable oils) remain evil, though few people seem to know how to identify them proper. Grains are much more complicated an issue, in my mind.
This misconstrues so much. First, beyond the fact that it's not up to you what the study shows (without even reading it no less), lets [i]assume[/i] that we experience an increase in cognitive ability during a shortage. You're deciding to conflate sustenance with "eating what we want" when the dialogue here is healthy vs unhealthy - as if to depict healthy eating as a shortage when, in actuality, poor eating habits cause malnutrition along with obesity. Ironically that's the true shortage in this context. I promise you that eating shit food isn't increasing your cognitive ability. Second, I'd say Western society's conception of what healthy is is not necessarily in line with media's depiction, which wavers anyway (this seems to be "generation ass", as hips are back in favor and seemingly larger than those of 40's pinups.. not universally of course, but prominently). Third, It's amusing to think that super-thin idols "wouldn't have survived" in the 19th century when the vast majority (i.e. the peasant class) had to do just that, farming and supplying meats to the upper-class while surviving on soup and hard bread, laboring for long hours. The revolution in eating habits for proletariat didn't really occur until the 20th century for most of the world, mind you this happened quicker in the U.S. than, say, Italy.
There's something to be said for laziness. It's easy to cook up a healthy, tasty, low-effort inexpensive meal, but convenience seems to trump all of that for a good chunk of the populace. Nobody knows or cares how to cook up a decent meal.