I am canadian, and if we are the most scientiically literate. I really pity the rest of you.
I pity us also. Does Canada have lots of relatively successful* politicians with whackadoodle opinions on climate change, Earth's age, and female reproductive biology?
* In terms of votes, not intelligence ranking.
True but it's much more a piece of trivia than a politically relevant fact.
A few years back I remember an article about Stephan Dion and Jack Layton (the then leaders of the 2nd and 3rd largest parties in a minority Parliament) claiming they were both atheists.
I don't know if it was true or not, I honestly didn't care that much. The astounding thing was that was the opinion shared by the overwhelming majority of online comments on the website of what I recall was a right wing paper. A few engaged in mild speculation but no one really cared enough to even dig or get emotional.
These were the 2nd and 3rd most important politicians in the country and the topic of their religious affiliation was so irrelevant people scarcely bothered to investigate.
By contrast the US is so obsessed with religion that congress doesn't have a single open atheist. Not to mention the massive religious examinations of presidential candidates.
Sure this stuff does become relevant, particularly with regards to climate change, but we have nowhere near the culture wars that are going on in the US.
and just stick to meat, fish, animal fats, oily fish, eggs, lard and butter, vegetables (starchy ones in smallish quantities, rather mostly greens) then, Paleo would say, things fall into place pretty quickly.
This is of course assuming a baked potato which has not been augmented with a cup of sour cream, half a cup of butter, half a pound of bacon, and a pound of shredded cheese.
I just had two amusing thoughts about that:
1) That might be a valid paleo meal.
2) If it isn't a paleo meal, probably the only thing they'd disallow was the potato, which happens to be the only thing paleolithic people might have actually eaten.
In Paleo we say that carbs create cravings, so yes, the less carbs you eat, the less you crave them. I can happily stand in front of a rack of aromatic pastries and don't even recognise them as food. There's more to Paleo than that though. It isn't just about weight loss, it is about a lifestyle you can do forever. What can one eat for the rest of one's life? Once you take the food pyramid out of it, which created this distorted notion that carbs are the bedrock of all nutrition, and just stick to meat, fish, animal fats, oily fish, eggs, lard and butter, vegetables (starchy ones in smallish quantities, rather mostly greens) then, Paleo would say, things fall into place pretty quickly. No need for psychological hypotheses. And believe me, bacon is very tasty. But it isn't a problem, because the fats are satiating, unlike carbs, which make one hungry again.
I'm skeptical that our paleolithic ancestors ate a lot of butter and bacon. I have no objection to the idea that paleo works, just to the idea that it's the only real thing that works or that we have a good idea of what our ancestors ate. Lots of modern subsistence hunters get a ton of their calories from starchy tubers or even honey, why not our paleolithic ancestors?
I don't think the success comes from cutting out carbs, it comes from cutting out highly processed food which are designed to be highly palatable (and often contain a lot of carbs). If paleo is an effective method for you then by all means keep doing it, but the source of the success isn't that fats are good or carbs are bad, it's that the super fattening aromatic pastries are definitely not allowed so you can just cross them off the list.
Yes, sugar is treated by the brain a bit like cocaine. That's part of the issue, but its not the whole story. High GI foods give you the quick hit of cocaine which wears off quickly. Low GI foods give you a slow burn that keeps you satisfied longer.
I very much disagree that baked potatoes are a weight loss food. You can eat anything if in moderation, but any kind of potatoes is not a great choice in the weight loss stakes.
The potato only diet is an extreme example but definitely shows that potatoes can cause weight loss.
I feel like Gary Taubes and his junk science has gotten a lot of people wrongly obsessed with GI. Protein also has a pretty decent GI load, and a lot of evidence suggests that high protein diets are even more successful than low-carb diets. You're working off the assumption that the body has almost no ability to regulate its own metabolism. But the blood sugar spike is followed by the insulin spike because the body is regulating the metabolism. GI is only a concern for diabetics because they've lost the ability to regulate blood sugar.
The palatability hypothesis explains both pieces of evidence beautifully. It explains why carbs, and particularly sugar, can be very fattening and trigger more cravings. But at the same time why a simple baked potato keeps you satisfied with far fewer calories.
People need to stop buying into fad diets and nonsense theories. Barring allergies, most humans are fully capable of assimilating anything they throw at their GI system. Exercise some bloody portion control and get off the couch once in awhile. The rest will take care of itself.
Diets that produce lower insulin response give a metabolic advantage and reduce hunger. In the study the advantage of a low-glycemic diet over a low fat one, at the same calorie level, was 125 calories per day. This has matched my own experience, additionally I've seen another 75 calorie per day advantage from hunger reduction when not controlling for total calories. (free feeding) Combined that's roughly equivalent to a 1.5 mile jog for a 200lb adult, nothing to sneeze at.
I don't think it has anything to do with insulin or glycemic index, in fact it's depressingly simpler than that, the palatability hypothesis.
When we're surrounded by highly palatable foots we overeat. And as it turns out mostly highly palatable things have a lot of carbs, hence the association between low-carb or low GI and weight loss. But one of the best weight loss foods is plain baked potatoes, and they're nothing but starch with a ridiculously high GI. That doesn't mean the food can't be tasty, fruit is pretty damn good, but you're not going to be able to get away with a diet of pizza, cookies, chips, and doughnuts because those trigger overeating like crazy. And if you're addicted to them it's not that hard to kill the addiction, just don't have them in the house. Out of sight, out of mind.
I've actually been surprised how avoiding the hyper-palatable foods has improved my cravings. Everyday at work they literally put a plate of cookies on a bookshelf directly in front of my desk and I don't even feel tempted. You don't have to do anything crazy, just keep to simple foods, avoid the super tasty snack foods, and it will make a huge difference.
"The day that the various desktop environments decide to cut out the middlemen."
Right. Because a Window Manager is the OS. All that threading, management of processes, filesystems and the like are just uneeded cruft!
He's not entirely wrong. The underpinnings are critical of course, buy they're also sort of generic. But even as someone who primarily uses a CLI the Window Manager is still my primary point of interaction. Application switching, clipboard style, aesthetics, etc, I see the effects of the WM every time I interact with the machine.
"Then I can say to my relatives "Linux? Just go get KDE" and there'll be no confusion anymore. If it's KDE compatible, it's KDE compatible."
You have what you are asking for available today. You just don't know which distribution to recommend. Your recommendation to relatives should be: "Find someone with a clue and they can help you." Your problem is that you are pretending to have when, when you actually don't
Give your relatives a computer sans OS and try recommending : "Just go get Windows!" and see how far they get before they ask Which version? Home? Premium? 7? What is this Server 2008? Or should I get Server 2012? Maybe I want MS-SQL? What's the difference between 32 bit and 64 bit? How many Gigabytes should be CPU be? The Hard Drive is the box with all the cables coming out, right?
Here I agree, I've never seen the plethora of distros as an issue. In fact I see them as a strength as they can very easily tailor and market for a specific audience without diluting their brand. I mean how well does apple actually do in the server space? They shouldn't have any trouble with their Unix underpinnings but I think a lot of people have trouble taking Apple seriously as a server because of their home user market focus.
If someone asks me for advice on installing Linux I generally recommend Fedora or Ubuntu depending on how bleeding edge they want to be (or for a laptop how well the LiveCD works). From a novice user's perspective the distro's are pretty generic.
Is he an actual scientist? Did he do any scientific research? Did he merit a the title of university professor? Sure, he did make money, but that doesn't automatically mean he should earn a title that few people get after working very hard, usually without extreme luxury or profit.
He's not teaching science, he's teaching business, a subject that as the former CEO of Microsoft he should know a lot about.
And so what if he didn't earn the title the same way a PhD did? (though he won't be a full Professor)
It's not about granting him some privilege, it's about giving the students the best business education and I have to think he's in a good position to do that.
~3 birds each day seems like a lot of KFC for a power plant....
anyway, seems like the environmental impact is quite less than mining of coal etc etc, and more easily solved....audible chirps, clicks, etc to scare the birds away? Or maybe a little metal eagle or hawk statue on the roof..
Just wait a while and we'll evolve flame resistant birds.
Well, yes, of course. When Microsoft throws that much software license cuts and maybe a few junkets for the mucky-mucks in exotic places for âoeconferencesâ, well, this is the way it goes.
Is there anyone who really thought it would go any other way?
I love linux as much as anyone on here. But I'm not about to pretend the sky ain't blue just to support my argument. Linux, plain and simple, is not user friendly. The only notable exception is Android. If they tried to just push their own Nix flavor at government types, I'm not surprised that they got complaints. I've never seen a Linux GUI environment that wasn't a tacked on joke. You're still required to go to the command line to do anything meaningful. Control panels that fail at even the most basic tasks, and on and on. If Linux is to ever take off as a desktop environment, someone will need to do a complete overhaul like Google did with Android.
Now queue all the people ranting about how the public is just dumb and don't know how to use Linux. To you I say, you're right... the public is dumb and don't know how to use linux. Yet those same people can use Windows. See the problem? You can have an IQ of a slice of Bacon and still get your mail open in Windows... that's how easy it has to be. Make Linux that easy and you'll have something.
There are three basic levels of users:
1) Complete novices: Don't really understand basic concepts but learn enough repetition to use their programs at a basic level.
2) Competent users: Get the main concepts fairly well, can manage applications and the computer settings fairly well, but they get out of their depth fairly quickly and don't know any coding.
3) Gurus: Whatever the task they'll figure it out eventually.
Group 1 is good with any OS because they're not doing anything more than clicking icons and using apps.
Group 3 will really excel with Linux because of the power and flexibility it gives them.
Group 2 is the Window's base. They're smart enough to master the Window's administration environment but Linux is too complex and text based.
The thing it that group 2 isn't really an issue in a corporate setting. The users, regardless of competency, are basically confined to acting like level 1 novices fiddling with apps but ignoring the OS. And the admin staff will be guru's regardless.
If there is a problem it likely has nothing to do with usability but instead is based on app availability. The big name high quality end user apps are still lacking on Linux, and those are the things people will miss.
One reason I'm rooting for an Altcoin is I'm worried about deflation if Bitcoin wins.
A limited amount of inflation is a good thing, if the cash sitting in your wallet gets progressively less valuable you have a motive to spend it and generate economic activity.
But there's a finite amount bitcoins, which means at some point they'll all be mined. At that point as the economy grows each bitcoin will represent an ever larger portion of the economy. People will be reluctant to spend bitcoin because they'll be forgoing those future price increases and the economy will suffer.
I'm not sure how well any Altcoins solve this problem, but I'd prefer a currency where the money supply grows in pace with the economy.
To me the problematic part isn't the risk, it's the relationship between the family and the people in the war. He's essentially treating the war and the people suffering it a bit like an educational exhibit and it sounds uncomfortably similar tourists who visit warzones for the experience.
I'm not saying he shouldn't have done it, and I think both his kids and the people they visited will benefit from the exchange. But there's still a slight dehumanizing aspect to the exchange.
Man I wish could flaunt my IQ on the interwebs, but I can't because I'm too damn smart. Typically we of the IQ > 220 crowd keep quiet in public, allowing ourselves only gentle stroking of our nipples and an intolerably arrogant half-grin - well, that and some posting on/. obviously.
How I wish I could share in the pleasures of the simple folk.
We of the 300+ crowd find that somewhere in the range [263.4, 267.2] the nipple stroking becomes intolerable. The harmonic frequency of the human nipple bears a subtle, but undeniable, relationship to the cosmic background radiation. The resulting vibrations enhance our awareness of the approaching heat death of the universe while heightening our sense of ennui.
Unfortunately the only body part we can massage without distress is our left pinky toe. As such we tend to spend much of our time practising yoga to maximally extend our remaining toe stroking years.
Society A is violent by culture. Therefore, the people who survive and propser, and pass on their genes, in Society A, are those who are better at giving and receiving violence; physical attributes, mental attributes, etc etc.
Society A eventually moves towards a less violent culture. But would the genetics not still be there, unless and until they were actively selected against?
Or society A breeds people who are tough but have low tempers because being a violent person in a violent society is a great way to get killed.
I don't know which just so story is right, probably neither, but it's all pseudoscience without real evidence which is what the book seems to be.
Now, nearly 140 senior human population geneticists around the world, many of whose work was cited in the book, have signed a letter to The New York Times Book Review stating that Wade has misinterpreted their work.
Guys, he can "misinterpret" your works as much has he likes, that's the whole point of "original research" and "original opinion". He takes your works and forms is own conclusions. It's him, not you. As long as he cites you.
Hell, you don't have to agree with him. Obviously.
He's a reporter, he wasn't claiming to be doing "original research", he was claiming to communicate the existing research.
And just like he's allowed to write about, and misinterpret, their research, they're also allowed to call him out for misrepresenting their work.
what is globally accepted in animal breeding, that certain behavioral tendencies accompany accompany genetics right along with certain physical characteristics, is the worst taboo to apply to people.
which is ridiculous. populations living in specific social environments will SELECT FOR and AGAINST various physical and behavioral traits... and those traits which are successful in a specific society will then go on to build the society that those traits are best adapted to. like a feedback loop.
is there something totally crazy here?
The ridiculous thing is that in animal breeding we can control for environment and culture. With humans that's impossible.
African societies are more violent. Is that because of climate, religion, economic development, genetics, a culture that hasn't had an enlightenment phase, dysfunction from colonialialism, etc?
The evidence against a genetic basis is actually fairly strong. Wade basically talks about black people like they're a race, but that's scientific nonsense. There's actually a huge variation among black people, all the skin colour signifies is their proximity to the equator. Everyone talks about blacks being good at running, but which black people and which running? West Africans are amazing sprinters, but terrible distance runners, East Africans are terrible sprinters but amazing distance runners. If they're so different in this capacity why assume they share the same behavioural genetic traits? The fact that these violent tendencies vary by skin colour and not actual genetic subgroups suggests that the origin is cultural, not genetic.
Geneticists admit that physical appearance varies thanks to mutations and variations in the expression of the genome, so why is intellectual variability so verboten? Because it's politically incorrect?
A truth that is politically incorrect will encounter extra resistance from scientists.
That doesn't make political incorrectness and scientific resistance to be evidence of truth.
And, heck, arguably B5 has a better story than Trek ever did.
Star Trek had a story? What made B5 great was that there was a story arc. Star Trek never seemed to have any continuity from one episode to the next.
Different kinds of story.
Star Trek at its best was short fiction told in space. The main characters left to themselves would be fine, but external events turned them into foils against which the actual story unfolded. After the story they'd generally reset so the next episode could tell a new story.
B5 was a character drama told in space. The main characters left to themselves generated the story. They had to evolve in order for the story to advance.
I loved B5. I hate reboots, at least as I understand the word. I have no problem with replacing the actors. That happens frequently in movie franchises. James Bond has been played by a number of actors, and even the gender of a major supporting character was changed in that franchise without calling it a reboot. In my mind a reboot is when the producers and/or director want to take advantage of the name and existing fan base, but decide to do two other distasteful things: First, change key story concepts that have already been established, and second, they usually want to retell yet another origin story. Why is this being called a reboot, and is JMS calling it a reboot himself or are others just misusing the term? I'll gladly go see a new B5 movie (and I really don't go to many movies), but I'll avoid a B5 reboot like I would avoid an Ebola infected missionary. If JMS wants to tell a completely different Sci-fi story then I would welcome that too, but he should not reuse the B5 name, If he wants to pick back up story telling in the B5 universe then he shouldn't try to tear down what has already been done.
On a side note, the list of lost actors from the B5 production should include Tim Choate who played my favorite character, Zathras.
I'm not opposed to the idea, but it's important to remember that it's no guarantee of success. Consider all the elements that can cause a TV show to fail, cast, characters, writing, concept, plots, etc. With the reboot you're starting out on familiar ground so you avoid a lot of potential pitfalls, but you still have a big risk of making a dud.
The original B5 was great, but to be honest it's not doing anything anymore. The people who watched it have already extracted all of the joy they can, and the small minority of people who will watch it in the future will be thrown off by the clunky 90's style writing and special effects.
If there's a chance they can take the concept and try to tell it again, leveraging on the mythos of the old story, I say great. It will probably fail but even if it does I don't see it doing any harm.
There is no threat to border nations. Georgia, for example, attacked their provinces, and Russia used the fact that in USSR these provinces were not part of Georgia.
So no threat to border nations. As long as Russia doesn't decide their nation isn't valid.
Ukraine started to attack Russian-oriented population
No they didn't.
and Russia used the fact that in USSR (and before that) Crimea was part of Russia.
No it wasn't. Crimea was part of Ukraine in the USSR (though it was part of Russia before that).
Who else? Finland. A former province of Russia. Member of EU and important trade partner of Russia. They had war in 1939, when USSR demanded exchange of territories - they wanted to have more land between the border and St.Petersburn (then Leningrad). Finland refused, and this ended up with terrible war. Russians got what they wanted, and paid a price that allowed them to withstand Hitler's attack. Later, Spanish friends of Hitler blockaded St. Petersburg causing hundreds of thousands of people to die of starvation, but they would have a better chance if Russians wouldn't have that war before. Finland still remembers that war and some unstable Finnish boneheads still hate Russia for it. However, there are no tensions between two countries and I can't imagine them to have a military conflict.
So the USSR wanted some of Finland and Finland refused so the USSR attacked them.
And somehow you think Finland is the one to blame?
These two didn't exist before the USSR. In fact, Latvia was part of Russia for around 300 years. They never had nobility (dukes, princes, whatever) and even their language was first formalized in 19th century by Latvians who studied in St. Petersburg. Without Latvians, communism wouldn't win in Russia after the Great War, as Latvians were the main power of Lenin. So, that was a genuine part of Russian Empire and this worries Latvians. They have a territory dispute with Russia over the territory that was never part of Latvia but was promised by Lenin. If Latvia wouldn't be part of EU and Nato, they, IMHO, could be in some danger, especially taking into account that large part of population (more than half in capital) are ethnic Russians.
So another pair of border nations Russia doesn't really recognize and would like to invade but currently can't do so safely.
They had so good relations with Russia that eventually became part of it. And yes, I am talking about Tartars.
The Tartars who got expelled from Crimea by the USSR, came back when it was part of Ukraine, and are overwhelmingly against this recent annexation.
Well, speaking about China - they have the main quality of an ally for Russia - they don't betray their allies. Neither does Russia.
Except of course Ukraine.
Who else? Canada. Is hostile towards Russia because of Arctics. Both countries want control over it. Everything else are merely excuses.
Canada has bigger territorial disputes over the Arctic with Denmark and the US. No hostility there. And Canada isn't hostile to Russia, we just strongly disapprove of fascism and wars of expansion.
Georgia. Home of Joseph Stalin. Ex ally and friend of Russia. Neither Russians or Georgians are hostile towards each other, but Russians deeply disapprove the political decisions of Georgia. Current leaders of Georgia are way more adequate than their predecessor, but they can't undo the damage (i.e. return two republics to Georgia), as Russia recognized the independence of both South Osetia and Abkhazia.
Russia assisted the independence of South Osetia and Abkhazia, along with Transnistria in Moldova.
You spent a lot of time pointing out Russia wasn't a threat to nations it had good relations with and no claims to. Well of course they aren't a current threat to those nations. But the moment Russia's mood changes, or they feel they're owned some of the land, you've demonstrated that Russia will simply try to take it. By your own story Russia is a massive threat to bordering nations.
Because no matter how strongly they state that a configuration is not supported, if it's not expressly blocked, people will try to get technical support for it. And with the distro landscape as it is, supporting mainstream software on "Linux" is a nightmare.
It might be simpler than that.
Up till now there hasn't been a browser that would identify as Linux and run Netflix (unless the Wine/Silverlight combo did so).
So if a browser identifies as coming from Linux it's a surefire guarantee it won't work, so rather than trying to run and throwing up an obscure but unfixable error it's better to simply tell the user to give up right at the start.
Now there's a Chrome beta where Netflix can run on Linux, maybe when the beta is released they'll start official Linux support, but I wouldn't draw too much from their long term plans based on the fact that they block a formerly unrunnable configuration.
It'll do the world a favour once Russia realizes they're the fucking third world - they're not a peer, they're not a competitor, they're a backward relic from a bygone era. The US, EU, and China represent the real powers in the globe, with a strong first-world supporting cast of Japan and other countries; a strong second-world with a developing Brazil, India and the Asia Tigers; finally you have those which time is slowly forgetting. Russia clearly fits in to a clearly defined role.
As reported to European media, their population loves the actions their leaders are undertaking to "stick it to the west"; as far as we should be concerned, they can sleep in the bed that Vladimir makes.
I've lost some sympathy for the Russian people due to their general backing of Putin's policies.
However, I'm extremely worried for the nations bordering Russia who are full of nice people who would rather not be invaded and turned into the USSR 2.0.
It sounds quite fishy because they ask for a 120$ subscription, not to let you access the data, but for a service that lets you know if you are affected by it or not.
- Here, my 120$, what's going on with this? - You're not affected, goodbye. - But, hey! - You're not affected, goodbye.
Then again they could just be trying to make money.
I'm definitely in favour of open disclosure and would like to think they'd do better businesswise releasing the info and getting good PR. But if you're looking to make money off the info that is the way to do it.
Of course it could also be a scam, if they're planning on this business strategy they should have someone respectable under an NDA to at least vouch that the information is legit.
I think you are forgetting Putting causing ebola and sending ebole infected people (surely KGB agents) to US. Only the KGB agent tramp did not get the memo yet but he surely will and US society will crumble under this siege. In other news Putin caused the harvest in Europe to fail. Previous reports that it was a harsh weather were incorrect as harsh weather was due to KGB doing nasty stuff with air currents etc.
In the US talk of Obama assassinating critical journalists is rightly considered moronic.
In Russia talk of Putin assassinating critical journalists is rightly considered quite plausible.
In the US talk of Bush orchestrating 9/11 is rightly considered moronic.
Slashdot Mirror
I pity us also. Does Canada have lots of relatively successful* politicians with whackadoodle opinions on climate change, Earth's age, and female reproductive biology?
* In terms of votes, not intelligence ranking.
True but it's much more a piece of trivia than a politically relevant fact.
A few years back I remember an article about Stephan Dion and Jack Layton (the then leaders of the 2nd and 3rd largest parties in a minority Parliament) claiming they were both atheists.
I don't know if it was true or not, I honestly didn't care that much. The astounding thing was that was the opinion shared by the overwhelming majority of online comments on the website of what I recall was a right wing paper. A few engaged in mild speculation but no one really cared enough to even dig or get emotional.
These were the 2nd and 3rd most important politicians in the country and the topic of their religious affiliation was so irrelevant people scarcely bothered to investigate.
By contrast the US is so obsessed with religion that congress doesn't have a single open atheist. Not to mention the massive religious examinations of presidential candidates.
Sure this stuff does become relevant, particularly with regards to climate change, but we have nowhere near the culture wars that are going on in the US.
Butter is in according to this reply
and just stick to meat, fish, animal fats, oily fish, eggs, lard and butter, vegetables (starchy ones in smallish quantities, rather mostly greens) then, Paleo would say, things fall into place pretty quickly.
This is of course assuming a baked potato which has not been augmented with a cup of sour cream, half a cup of butter, half a pound of bacon, and a pound of shredded cheese.
I just had two amusing thoughts about that:
1) That might be a valid paleo meal.
2) If it isn't a paleo meal, probably the only thing they'd disallow was the potato, which happens to be the only thing paleolithic people might have actually eaten.
In Paleo we say that carbs create cravings, so yes, the less carbs you eat, the less you crave them. I can happily stand in front of a rack of aromatic pastries and don't even recognise them as food. There's more to Paleo than that though. It isn't just about weight loss, it is about a lifestyle you can do forever. What can one eat for the rest of one's life? Once you take the food pyramid out of it, which created this distorted notion that carbs are the bedrock of all nutrition, and just stick to meat, fish, animal fats, oily fish, eggs, lard and butter, vegetables (starchy ones in smallish quantities, rather mostly greens) then, Paleo would say, things fall into place pretty quickly. No need for psychological hypotheses. And believe me, bacon is very tasty. But it isn't a problem, because the fats are satiating, unlike carbs, which make one hungry again.
I'm skeptical that our paleolithic ancestors ate a lot of butter and bacon. I have no objection to the idea that paleo works, just to the idea that it's the only real thing that works or that we have a good idea of what our ancestors ate. Lots of modern subsistence hunters get a ton of their calories from starchy tubers or even honey, why not our paleolithic ancestors?
I don't think the success comes from cutting out carbs, it comes from cutting out highly processed food which are designed to be highly palatable (and often contain a lot of carbs). If paleo is an effective method for you then by all means keep doing it, but the source of the success isn't that fats are good or carbs are bad, it's that the super fattening aromatic pastries are definitely not allowed so you can just cross them off the list.
Yes, sugar is treated by the brain a bit like cocaine. That's part of the issue, but its not the whole story. High GI foods give you the quick hit of cocaine which wears off quickly. Low GI foods give you a slow burn that keeps you satisfied longer.
I very much disagree that baked potatoes are a weight loss food. You can eat anything if in moderation, but any kind of potatoes is not a great choice in the weight loss stakes.
The potato only diet is an extreme example but definitely shows that potatoes can cause weight loss.
I feel like Gary Taubes and his junk science has gotten a lot of people wrongly obsessed with GI. Protein also has a pretty decent GI load, and a lot of evidence suggests that high protein diets are even more successful than low-carb diets. You're working off the assumption that the body has almost no ability to regulate its own metabolism. But the blood sugar spike is followed by the insulin spike because the body is regulating the metabolism. GI is only a concern for diabetics because they've lost the ability to regulate blood sugar.
The palatability hypothesis explains both pieces of evidence beautifully. It explains why carbs, and particularly sugar, can be very fattening and trigger more cravings. But at the same time why a simple baked potato keeps you satisfied with far fewer calories.
People need to stop buying into fad diets and nonsense theories. Barring allergies, most humans are fully capable of assimilating anything they throw at their GI system. Exercise some bloody portion control and get off the couch once in awhile. The rest will take care of itself.
As it turns out not all calories consumed are the same: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/ar...
Diets that produce lower insulin response give a metabolic advantage and reduce hunger. In the study the advantage of a low-glycemic diet over a low fat one, at the same calorie level, was 125 calories per day. This has matched my own experience, additionally I've seen another 75 calorie per day advantage from hunger reduction when not controlling for total calories. (free feeding) Combined that's roughly equivalent to a 1.5 mile jog for a 200lb adult, nothing to sneeze at.
I don't think it has anything to do with insulin or glycemic index, in fact it's depressingly simpler than that, the palatability hypothesis.
When we're surrounded by highly palatable foots we overeat. And as it turns out mostly highly palatable things have a lot of carbs, hence the association between low-carb or low GI and weight loss. But one of the best weight loss foods is plain baked potatoes, and they're nothing but starch with a ridiculously high GI. That doesn't mean the food can't be tasty, fruit is pretty damn good, but you're not going to be able to get away with a diet of pizza, cookies, chips, and doughnuts because those trigger overeating like crazy. And if you're addicted to them it's not that hard to kill the addiction, just don't have them in the house. Out of sight, out of mind.
I've actually been surprised how avoiding the hyper-palatable foods has improved my cravings. Everyday at work they literally put a plate of cookies on a bookshelf directly in front of my desk and I don't even feel tempted. You don't have to do anything crazy, just keep to simple foods, avoid the super tasty snack foods, and it will make a huge difference.
Right. Because a Window Manager is the OS. All that threading, management of processes, filesystems and the like are just uneeded cruft!
He's not entirely wrong. The underpinnings are critical of course, buy they're also sort of generic. But even as someone who primarily uses a CLI the Window Manager is still my primary point of interaction. Application switching, clipboard style, aesthetics, etc, I see the effects of the WM every time I interact with the machine.
You have what you are asking for available today. You just don't know which distribution to recommend. Your recommendation to relatives should be: "Find someone with a clue and they can help you." Your problem is that you are pretending to have when, when you actually don't
Give your relatives a computer sans OS and try recommending : "Just go get Windows!" and see how far they get before they ask Which version? Home? Premium? 7? What is this Server 2008? Or should I get Server 2012? Maybe I want MS-SQL? What's the difference between 32 bit and 64 bit? How many Gigabytes should be CPU be? The Hard Drive is the box with all the cables coming out, right?
Here I agree, I've never seen the plethora of distros as an issue. In fact I see them as a strength as they can very easily tailor and market for a specific audience without diluting their brand. I mean how well does apple actually do in the server space? They shouldn't have any trouble with their Unix underpinnings but I think a lot of people have trouble taking Apple seriously as a server because of their home user market focus.
If someone asks me for advice on installing Linux I generally recommend Fedora or Ubuntu depending on how bleeding edge they want to be (or for a laptop how well the LiveCD works). From a novice user's perspective the distro's are pretty generic.
Lesson 1: if the company executives are bigger news than the company and more importantly, its products, then you're doing something seriously wrong.
Like Steve Jobs?
Is he an actual scientist? Did he do any scientific research? Did he merit a the title of university professor? Sure, he did make money, but that doesn't automatically mean he should earn a title that few people get after working very hard, usually without extreme luxury or profit.
He's not teaching science, he's teaching business, a subject that as the former CEO of Microsoft he should know a lot about.
And so what if he didn't earn the title the same way a PhD did? (though he won't be a full Professor)
It's not about granting him some privilege, it's about giving the students the best business education and I have to think he's in a good position to do that.
~3 birds each day seems like a lot of KFC for a power plant....
anyway, seems like the environmental impact is quite less than mining of coal etc etc, and more easily solved....audible chirps, clicks, etc to scare the birds away? Or maybe a little metal eagle or hawk statue on the roof..
Just wait a while and we'll evolve flame resistant birds.
Well, yes, of course. When Microsoft throws that much software license cuts and maybe a few junkets for the mucky-mucks in exotic places for âoeconferencesâ, well, this is the way it goes.
Is there anyone who really thought it would go any other way?
I love linux as much as anyone on here. But I'm not about to pretend the sky ain't blue just to support my argument. Linux, plain and simple, is not user friendly. The only notable exception is Android. If they tried to just push their own Nix flavor at government types, I'm not surprised that they got complaints. I've never seen a Linux GUI environment that wasn't a tacked on joke. You're still required to go to the command line to do anything meaningful. Control panels that fail at even the most basic tasks, and on and on. If Linux is to ever take off as a desktop environment, someone will need to do a complete overhaul like Google did with Android.
Now queue all the people ranting about how the public is just dumb and don't know how to use Linux. To you I say, you're right... the public is dumb and don't know how to use linux. Yet those same people can use Windows. See the problem? You can have an IQ of a slice of Bacon and still get your mail open in Windows... that's how easy it has to be. Make Linux that easy and you'll have something.
There are three basic levels of users:
1) Complete novices: Don't really understand basic concepts but learn enough repetition to use their programs at a basic level.
2) Competent users: Get the main concepts fairly well, can manage applications and the computer settings fairly well, but they get out of their depth fairly quickly and don't know any coding.
3) Gurus: Whatever the task they'll figure it out eventually.
Group 1 is good with any OS because they're not doing anything more than clicking icons and using apps.
Group 3 will really excel with Linux because of the power and flexibility it gives them.
Group 2 is the Window's base. They're smart enough to master the Window's administration environment but Linux is too complex and text based.
The thing it that group 2 isn't really an issue in a corporate setting. The users, regardless of competency, are basically confined to acting like level 1 novices fiddling with apps but ignoring the OS. And the admin staff will be guru's regardless.
If there is a problem it likely has nothing to do with usability but instead is based on app availability. The big name high quality end user apps are still lacking on Linux, and those are the things people will miss.
One reason I'm rooting for an Altcoin is I'm worried about deflation if Bitcoin wins.
A limited amount of inflation is a good thing, if the cash sitting in your wallet gets progressively less valuable you have a motive to spend it and generate economic activity.
But there's a finite amount bitcoins, which means at some point they'll all be mined. At that point as the economy grows each bitcoin will represent an ever larger portion of the economy. People will be reluctant to spend bitcoin because they'll be forgoing those future price increases and the economy will suffer.
I'm not sure how well any Altcoins solve this problem, but I'd prefer a currency where the money supply grows in pace with the economy.
To me the problematic part isn't the risk, it's the relationship between the family and the people in the war. He's essentially treating the war and the people suffering it a bit like an educational exhibit and it sounds uncomfortably similar tourists who visit warzones for the experience.
I'm not saying he shouldn't have done it, and I think both his kids and the people they visited will benefit from the exchange. But there's still a slight dehumanizing aspect to the exchange.
Man I wish could flaunt my IQ on the interwebs, but I can't because I'm too damn smart. Typically we of the IQ > 220 crowd keep quiet in public, allowing ourselves only gentle stroking of our nipples and an intolerably arrogant half-grin - well, that and some posting on /. obviously.
How I wish I could share in the pleasures of the simple folk.
We of the 300+ crowd find that somewhere in the range [263.4, 267.2] the nipple stroking becomes intolerable. The harmonic frequency of the human nipple bears a subtle, but undeniable, relationship to the cosmic background radiation. The resulting vibrations enhance our awareness of the approaching heat death of the universe while heightening our sense of ennui.
Unfortunately the only body part we can massage without distress is our left pinky toe. As such we tend to spend much of our time practising yoga to maximally extend our remaining toe stroking years.
Ah, but perhaps culture drives evolution?
Society A is violent by culture. Therefore, the people who survive and propser, and pass on their genes, in Society A, are those who are better at giving and receiving violence; physical attributes, mental attributes, etc etc.
Society A eventually moves towards a less violent culture. But would the genetics not still be there, unless and until they were actively selected against?
Or society A breeds people who are tough but have low tempers because being a violent person in a violent society is a great way to get killed.
I don't know which just so story is right, probably neither, but it's all pseudoscience without real evidence which is what the book seems to be.
Guys, he can "misinterpret" your works as much has he likes, that's the whole point of "original research" and "original opinion". He takes your works and forms is own conclusions. It's him, not you. As long as he cites you.
Hell, you don't have to agree with him. Obviously.
He's a reporter, he wasn't claiming to be doing "original research", he was claiming to communicate the existing research.
And just like he's allowed to write about, and misinterpret, their research, they're also allowed to call him out for misrepresenting their work.
what is globally accepted in animal breeding, that certain behavioral tendencies accompany accompany genetics right along with certain physical characteristics, is the worst taboo to apply to people.
which is ridiculous. populations living in specific social environments will SELECT FOR and AGAINST various physical and behavioral traits... and those traits which are successful in a specific society will then go on to build the society that those traits are best adapted to. like a feedback loop.
is there something totally crazy here?
The ridiculous thing is that in animal breeding we can control for environment and culture. With humans that's impossible.
African societies are more violent. Is that because of climate, religion, economic development, genetics, a culture that hasn't had an enlightenment phase, dysfunction from colonialialism, etc?
The evidence against a genetic basis is actually fairly strong. Wade basically talks about black people like they're a race, but that's scientific nonsense. There's actually a huge variation among black people, all the skin colour signifies is their proximity to the equator. Everyone talks about blacks being good at running, but which black people and which running? West Africans are amazing sprinters, but terrible distance runners, East Africans are terrible sprinters but amazing distance runners. If they're so different in this capacity why assume they share the same behavioural genetic traits? The fact that these violent tendencies vary by skin colour and not actual genetic subgroups suggests that the origin is cultural, not genetic.
Geneticists admit that physical appearance varies thanks to mutations and variations in the expression of the genome, so why is intellectual variability so verboten? Because it's politically incorrect?
A truth that is politically incorrect will encounter extra resistance from scientists.
That doesn't make political incorrectness and scientific resistance to be evidence of truth.
And, heck, arguably B5 has a better story than Trek ever did.
Star Trek had a story? What made B5 great was that there was a story arc. Star Trek never seemed to have any continuity from one episode to the next.
Different kinds of story.
Star Trek at its best was short fiction told in space. The main characters left to themselves would be fine, but external events turned them into foils against which the actual story unfolded. After the story they'd generally reset so the next episode could tell a new story.
B5 was a character drama told in space. The main characters left to themselves generated the story. They had to evolve in order for the story to advance.
I loved B5. I hate reboots, at least as I understand the word. I have no problem with replacing the actors. That happens frequently in movie franchises. James Bond has been played by a number of actors, and even the gender of a major supporting character was changed in that franchise without calling it a reboot. In my mind a reboot is when the producers and/or director want to take advantage of the name and existing fan base, but decide to do two other distasteful things: First, change key story concepts that have already been established, and second, they usually want to retell yet another origin story. Why is this being called a reboot, and is JMS calling it a reboot himself or are others just misusing the term? I'll gladly go see a new B5 movie (and I really don't go to many movies), but I'll avoid a B5 reboot like I would avoid an Ebola infected missionary. If JMS wants to tell a completely different Sci-fi story then I would welcome that too, but he should not reuse the B5 name, If he wants to pick back up story telling in the B5 universe then he shouldn't try to tear down what has already been done.
On a side note, the list of lost actors from the B5 production should include Tim Choate who played my favorite character, Zathras.
I'm not opposed to the idea, but it's important to remember that it's no guarantee of success. Consider all the elements that can cause a TV show to fail, cast, characters, writing, concept, plots, etc. With the reboot you're starting out on familiar ground so you avoid a lot of potential pitfalls, but you still have a big risk of making a dud.
The original B5 was great, but to be honest it's not doing anything anymore. The people who watched it have already extracted all of the joy they can, and the small minority of people who will watch it in the future will be thrown off by the clunky 90's style writing and special effects.
If there's a chance they can take the concept and try to tell it again, leveraging on the mythos of the old story, I say great. It will probably fail but even if it does I don't see it doing any harm.
There is no threat to border nations. Georgia, for example, attacked their provinces, and Russia used the fact that in USSR these provinces were not part of Georgia.
So no threat to border nations. As long as Russia doesn't decide their nation isn't valid.
Ukraine started to attack Russian-oriented population
No they didn't.
and Russia used the fact that in USSR (and before that) Crimea was part of Russia.
No it wasn't. Crimea was part of Ukraine in the USSR (though it was part of Russia before that).
Who else? Finland. A former province of Russia. Member of EU and important trade partner of Russia. They had war in 1939, when USSR demanded exchange of territories - they wanted to have more land between the border and St.Petersburn (then Leningrad). Finland refused, and this ended up with terrible war. Russians got what they wanted, and paid a price that allowed them to withstand Hitler's attack. Later, Spanish friends of Hitler blockaded St. Petersburg causing hundreds of thousands of people to die of starvation, but they would have a better chance if Russians wouldn't have that war before.
Finland still remembers that war and some unstable Finnish boneheads still hate Russia for it. However, there are no tensions between two countries and I can't imagine them to have a military conflict.
So the USSR wanted some of Finland and Finland refused so the USSR attacked them.
And somehow you think Finland is the one to blame?
These two didn't exist before the USSR. In fact, Latvia was part of Russia for around 300 years. They never had nobility (dukes, princes, whatever) and even their language was first formalized in 19th century by Latvians who studied in St. Petersburg. Without Latvians, communism wouldn't win in Russia after the Great War, as Latvians were the main power of Lenin. So, that was a genuine part of Russian Empire and this worries Latvians. They have a territory dispute with Russia over the territory that was never part of Latvia but was promised by Lenin. If Latvia wouldn't be part of EU and Nato, they, IMHO, could be in some danger, especially taking into account that large part of population (more than half in capital) are ethnic Russians.
So another pair of border nations Russia doesn't really recognize and would like to invade but currently can't do so safely.
They had so good relations with Russia that eventually became part of it. And yes, I am talking about Tartars.
The Tartars who got expelled from Crimea by the USSR, came back when it was part of Ukraine, and are overwhelmingly against this recent annexation.
Well, speaking about China - they have the main quality of an ally for Russia - they don't betray their allies. Neither does Russia.
Except of course Ukraine.
Who else? Canada. Is hostile towards Russia because of Arctics. Both countries want control over it. Everything else are merely excuses.
Canada has bigger territorial disputes over the Arctic with Denmark and the US. No hostility there. And Canada isn't hostile to Russia, we just strongly disapprove of fascism and wars of expansion.
Georgia. Home of Joseph Stalin. Ex ally and friend of Russia. Neither Russians or Georgians are hostile towards each other, but Russians deeply disapprove the political decisions of Georgia. Current leaders of Georgia are way more adequate than their predecessor, but they can't undo the damage (i.e. return two republics to Georgia), as Russia recognized the independence of both South Osetia and Abkhazia.
Russia assisted the independence of South Osetia and Abkhazia, along with Transnistria in Moldova.
You spent a lot of time pointing out Russia wasn't a threat to nations it had good relations with and no claims to. Well of course they aren't a current threat to those nations. But the moment Russia's mood changes, or they feel they're owned some of the land, you've demonstrated that Russia will simply try to take it. By your own story Russia is a massive threat to bordering nations.
Because no matter how strongly they state that a configuration is not supported, if it's not expressly blocked, people will try to get technical support for it. And with the distro landscape as it is, supporting mainstream software on "Linux" is a nightmare.
It might be simpler than that.
Up till now there hasn't been a browser that would identify as Linux and run Netflix (unless the Wine/Silverlight combo did so).
So if a browser identifies as coming from Linux it's a surefire guarantee it won't work, so rather than trying to run and throwing up an obscure but unfixable error it's better to simply tell the user to give up right at the start.
Now there's a Chrome beta where Netflix can run on Linux, maybe when the beta is released they'll start official Linux support, but I wouldn't draw too much from their long term plans based on the fact that they block a formerly unrunnable configuration.
It'll do the world a favour once Russia realizes they're the fucking third world - they're not a peer, they're not a competitor, they're a backward relic from a bygone era. The US, EU, and China represent the real powers in the globe, with a strong first-world supporting cast of Japan and other countries; a strong second-world with a developing Brazil, India and the Asia Tigers; finally you have those which time is slowly forgetting. Russia clearly fits in to a clearly defined role.
As reported to European media, their population loves the actions their leaders are undertaking to "stick it to the west"; as far as we should be concerned, they can sleep in the bed that Vladimir makes.
I've lost some sympathy for the Russian people due to their general backing of Putin's policies.
However, I'm extremely worried for the nations bordering Russia who are full of nice people who would rather not be invaded and turned into the USSR 2.0.
It sounds quite fishy because they ask for a 120$ subscription, not to let you access the data, but for a service that lets you know if you are affected by it or not.
- Here, my 120$, what's going on with this?
- You're not affected, goodbye.
- But, hey!
- You're not affected, goodbye.
Then again they could just be trying to make money.
I'm definitely in favour of open disclosure and would like to think they'd do better businesswise releasing the info and getting good PR. But if you're looking to make money off the info that is the way to do it.
Of course it could also be a scam, if they're planning on this business strategy they should have someone respectable under an NDA to at least vouch that the information is legit.
I think you are forgetting Putting causing ebola and sending ebole infected people (surely KGB agents) to US. Only the KGB agent tramp did not get the memo yet but he surely will and US society will crumble under this siege. In other news Putin caused the harvest in Europe to fail. Previous reports that it was a harsh weather were incorrect as harsh weather was due to KGB doing nasty stuff with air currents etc.
In the US talk of Obama assassinating critical journalists is rightly considered moronic.
In Russia talk of Putin assassinating critical journalists is rightly considered quite plausible.
In the US talk of Bush orchestrating 9/11 is rightly considered moronic.
In Russia talk of Putin orchestrating the Moscow apartment bombings is far fetched, though disturbingly plausible.
The idea of US government screwing with high profile critical bloggers is plausible, but a bit paranoid.
The idea of the Russian government threatening, imprisoning, or even killing moderately popular critical bloggers is a very legitimate fear.