The only caveat is, as someone posted just a short distance up that page, is that the benefits over a longer period are not as stunning as the short term. Can't say I am surprised; most of us are pretty "carbocentric"(?yay making up words) and that would be quite a shock to my body:-) But like anything, your body adapts and the weight loss tapers off.
The key, it seems, is to use the diet as a stepping stone to lifestyle change; ie. drop a lot of weight so that an obese person can jog without ruining themselves. Hey, it all comes down to what your body likes and doesn't like!
S'ok. The comparison of London to Washington is still valid, despite the fact that large cities have higher rates than countries as a whole. To put it another way, I believe that London's homicide rate is lower than that of the United States:-)
Another interesting part about British law is that (when last I read about it, forgive me if things have changed) it is nearly impossible to get away with self-defence in a homicide case. You basically have to prove that you could not run away and the person was about to kill you (and I believe it is explicitly to kill, and not injure).
They thankfully have very little tolerance for gun culture, and even in a city as big as London a shooting homicide that takes place in another city is still a fairly big deal.
Heh. No, I meant that you have guns that are used for hunting and you have guns that are used for killing humans, and while people can argue that an outright ban of all guns is not right because rifles have a purpose, it is hard to justify the need for handguns. Not that I am so naive as to think that rifles are not used to hurt people...
Heh. That's good(?) timing for sure. But you can't allow responsible citizens to carry weapons without having irresponsible citizens carrying weapons. If someone wants to kill you they can use a car or a bat or whatever, but at least these objects have a useful purpose. I would rather take all the guns away rather than let anyone have a gun, and you have to start somewhere!
It is certainly not too late to outlaw handguns. I think the bigger problem is that people think they need a gun in the first place. If guns were banned today, would we be having conversations like this in 20 years? Or would the gun culture have died down a bit? I am not optimistic that things would be just rosy a few years down the road, but I think that banning the guns is better than not doing anything about the problem. What's the alternative? Gun education? Criminals don't go to class. Registration? Criminals won't register. Nothing short of an outright ban will do any good.
Look at it this way. Citizens haven't been able to legally purchase assault rifles for a while, but criminals still have them. But how often do you hear of a robber breaking into a house with an AK-47? If the guns are banned it will become too expensive for the criminals that could potentially affect our lives to import from another country. Not too many crackheads will be flying to Mexico to get a gun, and so they would eventually become viable only to those with money, ie. big time dealers or something like that. Those people don't have a direct impact on people's lives, but rather act through others.
I know this is really REALLY idealized, but I am just typing whatever runs into my head:-) I think there is a lot to gain from banning guns, but there is even more to lose by not banning them.
As you probably noticed, I think that whole "I need a gun for my house" thing is bullshit. Maybe if I get robbed at gunpoint someday my opinion will change? I hope not and I don't think it will, but who knows for sure.
>I can't find any mention about not considering >repercussions being required for someone to be a >criminal or for some act to be a crime. Of >course, your claim is totally silly since, were >it true, I could just consider the repercussions >as I violated a law and rest easily that I can't >be considered to be a criminal.
Oh for Christ's sake. It's called context you frigging pedant. Ok, let's replace "considering repercussions" with "heeding repercussions". Do you honestly think that there are people who wouldn't shoot someone before the gun ban was passed because they were afraid of being shot themselves? Criminals carry guns, not law-abiding citizens (for the most part; let me nip that one in the bud), so when going after unarmed citizens (read: almost everybody, before and after the law was passed) the criminals never had anything to worry about.
>>and if they are crazy enough to shoot someone >>they will do it whether they have a gun or not.
>I guess you have to be really crazy to shoot >someone without using a gun. What are you talking >about? Rubber-bands? Photography?
My apologies. Perhaps if you worried more about what I was trying to say rather than trying to correct my grammar then you would have realised I left "are allowed to" out by accident. Perhaps you should also have spelled "rediculousness" properly.
I think we have to be specific on the type of gun we are talking about. I think that while hunting rifles may have a purpose, there is no place in this world for handguns and semi-automatic weapons. They are designed explicitly for killing other human beings. Naturally, a rifle can be used for shooting people, but cars can also be used to run people over...the difference of course is that a handgun has no other purpose.
To refer to your knife analogy, it is like permitting kitchen knives outlawing switchblades, which are designed for concealment and violence.
By stating that the gun ban has caused crime to rise, you are implying that all these criminals who had guns were afraid to use them for fear of being shot. This is a completely ridiculous statement.
Criminals by definition do not consider the repercussions of their crimes, and if they are crazy enough to shoot someone they will do it whether they have a gun or not. Are you trying to tell me that everyone in England had guns until a few years ago? Please. I lived in England as well, and I heard of far less homicides and shootings than I see on American TV everyday.
Last I checked, England had one of the lowest homicide rates in the world. I assume much has not changed in a couple of years.
If you can give me a few statistics to make me believe that England has a higher homicide rate than DC then I will change my views accordingly. But having lived in London for some time, I am pretty sure that you will not find any such information.
Hmmm...was the arms race caused by preparation for war or was the preparation for war caused by the arms race? A topic of much debate for people other than myself.
Whereas you had too little coffee before posting I think I had too much: I should have left my flamethrower in the basement before flying off the handle...my apologies.
His point, my dear Troll, is that by building hundreds of nuclear weapons and waving them in each other's face the "nuclear detente" was inevitable. Oh, and do watch where you swing that "Moron" insult; you might hit yourself if you aren't careful.
You have been listening to your government for too long.
"Proactive terrorism prevention" is, as many posters have pointed out, not designed to prevent terrorism. The government now has unprecedented power to control their own citizens, and if they happen to accuse a few brown-skins of being terrorists along the way then that's just an added bonus. How long did it take the US government to draw up the Patriot Act? 4 days after the WTC attacks? Or did they just have it sitting around, waiting for the right time to ply it on the unsuspecting masses.
If the Patriot Act was an anti-terrorism measure then they would have publicly announced it, citing it as one more manoeuvre against terrorism. Instead they slipped it by while the citizens were stunned and distracted.
Coordinating efforts against world-wide terrorism is an example of proactive policy, but I guarantee you that the only intelligence made possible by "proactive anti-terrorism" is on US citizens.
Wow. This was just like that research into rearranging all the letters in a phrase except the beginning and end...once I realised the pattern I could read your post without a second's thought!
You should get a grant to further this research. Hell, if people can get money to prove that the three-second rule doesn't really work then you should be able to get something.
Quite right. People don't quite realise how hard it is to determine large structures at the level of theory required to replace experimental techniques. Never mind proteins; simulations of much smaller structures at a high level of precision is a very challenging task for today's computers.
For one of my courses I have to optimize the geometry of a couple of molecules and carry out some further calculations on it. When I told him that my research is in porphyrins (large, sure, but much smaller than many/most proteins) he quite nearly had a stroke!
Most importantly, our predictive methods are constantly being refined and overhauled whenever we encounter a system that does not behave experimentally the way it "should" according to our calculations. These simulations are based on our prior knowledge and expectations, and there is often more than meets the eye in these large systems (solvent effects, other species running around in the system, etc...), so these are nothing but guesses.
On a different note, kudos to the Nobel Laureates. When I first heard that the Medicine prize was awarded for MRI and the Chemistry prize was awarded for cell membrane proteins I thought they had mixed up the names:-)
At least FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND American dollars? Are you high? If you want to live within spitting distance of l'Arc de Triomphe in Paris, perhaps, but there are many other places to go!
You could buy a house for $200,000CDN, furniture/appliances, 2 cars, all new clothing and still have a nice little nest egg left over for later if you moved where I live. Of course, your polo lessons and country club membership will cost a little bit more, but not everyone considers that a cost of moving!
Hear hear. But having said all that, the masses are already calling us dirty hippies for playing with Linux and Apple and not playing along.
This is the golden opportunity for Apple and for Linux to get some more market share, should the price of DRM Windows shoot through the roof. Perhaps we should be encouraging this trend?
Personally, if it were economically viable and if I had the time to spend on re-educating myself I would be off the Windows bandwagon ASAP, as I have wasted too much of my life reinstalling Windows.
More recently, I have spent the better part of the weekend trying to get 2 computers on WinXP that are 3 feet away from each other to see each other on the network, despite the fact that one of them can access the other's FTP server. Having accomplished this one of the computers decided to ditch 1/2 the RAM and ignore the network card...
In contrast, my friend doesn't even know what the inside of his Mac looks like...
What are you worried about? If you don't want to support the RIAA then don't. If you don't want to support MS then don't. Buy indie. Buy a Mac or Linux. There will ALWAYS be someone to offer an alternative to the flavor of the day, and you have a choice.
The people who buy the disposable crap that the RIAA peddles probably won't see the effects of DRM like a more advanced user will. I know this is a very large brush I am using here, but I will go out on a limb and say that 99% of the people who buy Britney Spears or The Ataris albums use their computers for e-mail, ICQ, and writing their resume to get a job at The Gap. You could give them a patch entitled "MS Will Spy On You Patch" and these people would still download it because a computer guy told them it was required.
The people who know better will not use DRM, plain and simple. And before you go into a "but when MS rules the world and all hardware has to comply to their specs" argument, there is simply too much money in big business and education/research for the entire hardware industry to shift this way. Virginia Tech just proved that admirably with their G5 flotilla, to pick a recent development from the haystack.
It is good that you are concerned, but to go so far as to say that we are all screwed is just being dramatic because you will always have a choice.
I think some of the people here are missing the point of the research.
Scientists have known that restricting your intake of food helps leads to a longer lifetime. Note that the emphasis is not on eating correctly or better, but just less. Based on my limited biochemistry/metabolism knowledge, this is thought to be a consequence of how your GI system breaks down food and the long-term effect of the potent chemical processes on your body; this is also briefly restated in the article.
Where this differs is that they have shown that benefits can be had at any time in an organism's life cycle, indicating that something else is afoot. So no, this is not yet another study that says you should go on the Atkins/grapefruit/carrot soup/wicker chair & bagels diet.
Re:I'm as stumped as my girlfriend usually is
on
Telstar 4 is Down
·
· Score: 1
I can't believe someone modded this up.
I'm pretty sure he understood the story, pal. I agree with him; it does sound like a bad sci-fi movie, and my girlfriend would definitely start to ignore me if I started talking like that.
Slashdot Mirror
The only caveat is, as someone posted just a short distance up that page, is that the benefits over a longer period are not as stunning as the short term. Can't say I am surprised; most of us are pretty "carbocentric"(?yay making up words) and that would be quite a shock to my body :-) But like anything, your body adapts and the weight loss tapers off.
The key, it seems, is to use the diet as a stepping stone to lifestyle change; ie. drop a lot of weight so that an obese person can jog without ruining themselves. Hey, it all comes down to what your body likes and doesn't like!
S'ok. The comparison of London to Washington is still valid, despite the fact that large cities have higher rates than countries as a whole. To put it another way, I believe that London's homicide rate is lower than that of the United States :-)
Another interesting part about British law is that (when last I read about it, forgive me if things have changed) it is nearly impossible to get away with self-defence in a homicide case. You basically have to prove that you could not run away and the person was about to kill you (and I believe it is explicitly to kill, and not injure).
They thankfully have very little tolerance for gun culture, and even in a city as big as London a shooting homicide that takes place in another city is still a fairly big deal.
Heh. No, I meant that you have guns that are used for hunting and you have guns that are used for killing humans, and while people can argue that an outright ban of all guns is not right because rifles have a purpose, it is hard to justify the need for handguns. Not that I am so naive as to think that rifles are not used to hurt people...
Heh. That's good(?) timing for sure. But you can't allow responsible citizens to carry weapons without having irresponsible citizens carrying weapons. If someone wants to kill you they can use a car or a bat or whatever, but at least these objects have a useful purpose. I would rather take all the guns away rather than let anyone have a gun, and you have to start somewhere!
It is certainly not too late to outlaw handguns. I think the bigger problem is that people think they need a gun in the first place. If guns were banned today, would we be having conversations like this in 20 years? Or would the gun culture have died down a bit? I am not optimistic that things would be just rosy a few years down the road, but I think that banning the guns is better than not doing anything about the problem. What's the alternative? Gun education? Criminals don't go to class. Registration? Criminals won't register. Nothing short of an outright ban will do any good.
:-) I think there is a lot to gain from banning guns, but there is even more to lose by not banning them.
Look at it this way. Citizens haven't been able to legally purchase assault rifles for a while, but criminals still have them. But how often do you hear of a robber breaking into a house with an AK-47? If the guns are banned it will become too expensive for the criminals that could potentially affect our lives to import from another country. Not too many crackheads will be flying to Mexico to get a gun, and so they would eventually become viable only to those with money, ie. big time dealers or something like that. Those people don't have a direct impact on people's lives, but rather act through others.
I know this is really REALLY idealized, but I am just typing whatever runs into my head
As you probably noticed, I think that whole "I need a gun for my house" thing is bullshit. Maybe if I get robbed at gunpoint someday my opinion will change? I hope not and I don't think it will, but who knows for sure.
>I can't find any mention about not considering >repercussions being required for someone to be a >criminal or for some act to be a crime. Of >course, your claim is totally silly since, were >it true, I could just consider the repercussions >as I violated a law and rest easily that I can't >be considered to be a criminal.
Oh for Christ's sake. It's called context you frigging pedant. Ok, let's replace "considering repercussions" with "heeding repercussions". Do you honestly think that there are people who wouldn't shoot someone before the gun ban was passed because they were afraid of being shot themselves? Criminals carry guns, not law-abiding citizens (for the most part; let me nip that one in the bud), so when going after unarmed citizens (read: almost everybody, before and after the law was passed) the criminals never had anything to worry about.
>>and if they are crazy enough to shoot someone >>they will do it whether they have a gun or not.
>I guess you have to be really crazy to shoot >someone without using a gun. What are you talking >about? Rubber-bands? Photography?
My apologies. Perhaps if you worried more about what I was trying to say rather than trying to correct my grammar then you would have realised I left "are allowed to" out by accident. Perhaps you should also have spelled "rediculousness" properly.
I think we have to be specific on the type of gun we are talking about. I think that while hunting rifles may have a purpose, there is no place in this world for handguns and semi-automatic weapons. They are designed explicitly for killing other human beings. Naturally, a rifle can be used for shooting people, but cars can also be used to run people over...the difference of course is that a handgun has no other purpose.
To refer to your knife analogy, it is like permitting kitchen knives outlawing switchblades, which are designed for concealment and violence.
By stating that the gun ban has caused crime to rise, you are implying that all these criminals who had guns were afraid to use them for fear of being shot. This is a completely ridiculous statement.
Criminals by definition do not consider the repercussions of their crimes, and if they are crazy enough to shoot someone they will do it whether they have a gun or not. Are you trying to tell me that everyone in England had guns until a few years ago? Please. I lived in England as well, and I heard of far less homicides and shootings than I see on American TV everyday.
Last I checked, England had one of the lowest homicide rates in the world. I assume much has not changed in a couple of years.
If you can give me a few statistics to make me believe that England has a higher homicide rate than DC then I will change my views accordingly. But having lived in London for some time, I am pretty sure that you will not find any such information.
Hmmm...was the arms race caused by preparation for war or was the preparation for war caused by the arms race? A topic of much debate for people other than myself.
Whereas you had too little coffee before posting I think I had too much: I should have left my flamethrower in the basement before flying off the handle...my apologies.
His point, my dear Troll, is that by building hundreds of nuclear weapons and waving them in each other's face the "nuclear detente" was inevitable. Oh, and do watch where you swing that "Moron" insult; you might hit yourself if you aren't careful.
You have been listening to your government for too long.
"Proactive terrorism prevention" is, as many posters have pointed out, not designed to prevent terrorism. The government now has unprecedented power to control their own citizens, and if they happen to accuse a few brown-skins of being terrorists along the way then that's just an added bonus. How long did it take the US government to draw up the Patriot Act? 4 days after the WTC attacks? Or did they just have it sitting around, waiting for the right time to ply it on the unsuspecting masses.
If the Patriot Act was an anti-terrorism measure then they would have publicly announced it, citing it as one more manoeuvre against terrorism. Instead they slipped it by while the citizens were stunned and distracted.
Coordinating efforts against world-wide terrorism is an example of proactive policy, but I guarantee you that the only intelligence made possible by "proactive anti-terrorism" is on US citizens.
(/rant)
Wow. This was just like that research into rearranging all the letters in a phrase except the beginning and end...once I realised the pattern I could read your post without a second's thought!
You should get a grant to further this research. Hell, if people can get money to prove that the three-second rule doesn't really work then you should be able to get something.
Quite right. People don't quite realise how hard it is to determine large structures at the level of theory required to replace experimental techniques. Never mind proteins; simulations of much smaller structures at a high level of precision is a very challenging task for today's computers.
:-)
For one of my courses I have to optimize the geometry of a couple of molecules and carry out some further calculations on it. When I told him that my research is in porphyrins (large, sure, but much smaller than many/most proteins) he quite nearly had a stroke!
Most importantly, our predictive methods are constantly being refined and overhauled whenever we encounter a system that does not behave experimentally the way it "should" according to our calculations. These simulations are based on our prior knowledge and expectations, and there is often more than meets the eye in these large systems (solvent effects, other species running around in the system, etc...), so these are nothing but guesses.
On a different note, kudos to the Nobel Laureates. When I first heard that the Medicine prize was awarded for MRI and the Chemistry prize was awarded for cell membrane proteins I thought they had mixed up the names
I hope you are just trolling and not actually proposing that these two situations are in any way similar.
Could someone please explain to me where that post turned into flamebait?
At least FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND American dollars? Are you high? If you want to live within spitting distance of l'Arc de Triomphe in Paris, perhaps, but there are many other places to go!
You could buy a house for $200,000CDN, furniture/appliances, 2 cars, all new clothing and still have a nice little nest egg left over for later if you moved where I live.
Of course, your polo lessons and country club membership will cost a little bit more, but not everyone considers that a cost of moving!
Hear hear. But having said all that, the masses are already calling us dirty hippies for playing with Linux and Apple and not playing along.
This is the golden opportunity for Apple and for Linux to get some more market share, should the price of DRM Windows shoot through the roof. Perhaps we should be encouraging this trend?
Personally, if it were economically viable and if I had the time to spend on re-educating myself I would be off the Windows bandwagon ASAP, as I have wasted too much of my life reinstalling Windows.
More recently, I have spent the better part of the weekend trying to get 2 computers on WinXP that are 3 feet away from each other to see each other on the network, despite the fact that one of them can access the other's FTP server. Having accomplished this one of the computers decided to ditch 1/2 the RAM and ignore the network card...
In contrast, my friend doesn't even know what the inside of his Mac looks like...
I had no idea; thank you for the information!
I'm sure someone has already said this, but...
What are you worried about? If you don't want to support the RIAA then don't. If you don't want to support MS then don't. Buy indie. Buy a Mac or Linux. There will ALWAYS be someone to offer an alternative to the flavor of the day, and you have a choice.
The people who buy the disposable crap that the RIAA peddles probably won't see the effects of DRM like a more advanced user will. I know this is a very large brush I am using here, but I will go out on a limb and say that 99% of the people who buy Britney Spears or The Ataris albums use their computers for e-mail, ICQ, and writing their resume to get a job at The Gap. You could give them a patch entitled "MS Will Spy On You Patch" and these people would still download it because a computer guy told them it was required.
The people who know better will not use DRM, plain and simple. And before you go into a "but when MS rules the world and all hardware has to comply to their specs" argument, there is simply too much money in big business and education/research for the entire hardware industry to shift this way. Virginia Tech just proved that admirably with their G5 flotilla, to pick a recent development from the haystack.
It is good that you are concerned, but to go so far as to say that we are all screwed is just being dramatic because you will always have a choice.
Thanks!
Hey, that's pretty interesting. Thanks for adding to my limited biochem/tech knowledge pile :-)
I think some of the people here are missing the point of the research.
Scientists have known that restricting your intake of food helps leads to a longer lifetime. Note that the emphasis is not on eating correctly or better, but just less. Based on my limited biochemistry/metabolism knowledge, this is thought to be a consequence of how your GI system breaks down food and the long-term effect of the potent chemical processes on your body; this is also briefly restated in the article.
Where this differs is that they have shown that benefits can be had at any time in an organism's life cycle, indicating that something else is afoot. So no, this is not yet another study that says you should go on the Atkins/grapefruit/carrot soup/wicker chair & bagels diet.
I can't believe someone modded this up.
I'm pretty sure he understood the story, pal. I agree with him; it does sound like a bad sci-fi movie, and my girlfriend would definitely start to ignore me if I started talking like that.