Okay, yeah that was a little internally contradictory. By "use everything that comes with it", I meant that I use all the major apps that come with it, not every nugget of functionality that the phone offers or every technical feature. So, I use Contacts, Calendar, Mail, YouTube, etc. On my BlackBerry, I rarely if ever bothered because the interface was so awkward that it simply wasn't worthwhile. I didn't even use Google Maps much because the GPS was completely crippled and could literally almost never get a lock (this was a BB Pearl.) Certainly I should've been clearer.
As for being a fan-boy... before App Store, I actually bought a BlackBerry because I thought the iPhone was overrated (December of 2007 to be precise.) But AppStore changed things, which was my point. And it's not just the availability of apps--it's the quality of the apps, a lot of which I attribute to the very mature CocoaTouch programming environment.
And for those mods who modded me flamebait, you can go to hell.
I truly don't think Apple has anything to worry about. The iPhone's greatest strength is not the iPhone itself, but the App Store--the 10's of thousands of applications, games, etc. that are already available for it. The quality of these applications has improved markedly over the past year, and it's going to continue to improve. What does Android have? They say "thousands", but market realities being what they are I'm sure that the quality and development time that has gone into these thousands just isn't there. "There's an app for that" about covers it--with my iPhone, I know that whatever I'm doing I will have a choice of several apps that do it.
Can Android catch up? Probably eventually. But I think it's going to be difficult. First, Apple's already got a huge lead, and this is a self-perpetuating cycle. Huge lead means more developers, which means huge lead continues. Second, I think that in the long run Android's hardware diversity will hurt it when it comes to (for example) games--it's a pain for game developers to have to test on a wide variety of devices, and many of them may not bother until Android has proved itself as a platform. Last, it's worth remembering that Apple still commands a huge lead in the all-important digital content market. This creates a big incentive for people with large iTunes libraries to stay with iPhone.
Is Verizon's network better? Yes, probably. However, it's also reaching saturation. I live in a very rural area and have both an iPhone (personal) and a Verizon cell phone (work), and I pretty much get coverage everywhere I go. And let's not forget that AT&T's going to provide adequate coverage for 90+% of the population anyway, even if they do get spotty in rural areas.
No, the iPhone was/is popular because it enables me to do useful things that I could not (and cannot) do as well with any other phone currently available. That simple.
Cut and paste? It's been out for months now, never used it. MMS? Never used it. MP3/AAC ringtones? Always supported, (you have to change the file extension is all), but actually never used them. Video recording? Never used it (and yes I have a 3gs.) I could go on, but literally all the features you bitch about are things that I don't want/never would use. Maybe you really do need them, but frankly I could give a crap less.
What I do use is an application for tracking my blood sugar. And another application for tracking my weight-training log. And another app that functions as a pedometer when I go walking/running. And another app that tracks my weight. Oh yeah, and an app that lets me do Go problems on my phone. And Kindle for iPhone. And... the list could go on ad infinitem, but the point is that your little checklist doesn't begin to encapsulate what makes this the best possible device for me.
Before iPhone, I had a Treo, I had a Blackberry, I had Windows Mobile. I hated them and never used even the features that came with them. With iPhone I use everything that comes with it and then some because the iPhone makes it easy. Could I figure out how to do this stuff on, say, my Blackberry? Yes. Was it fun? Hell no. Was it easy to find apps? No. Did the apps cost $1.99 each? No.
So, sorry, but the iPhone is not popular just because it's from Apple. It's popular because it works.
"Low" blood sugar (i.e. hypoglycemia) and "Lowered" blood sugar are not the same thing. The whole purpose of Metformin is to reduce blood glucose levels by reducing insulin resistance in the liver. I say this as a Type 2 Diabetic who takes Metformin for exactly that, and I can assure you that it does indeed lower blood sugar.
Well, I'm no biomedical researcher, but my understanding is that diet studies are notoriously hard to do. It's generally not possible to do a double blind diet study on humans (although some interesting, but not truly "double blind", studies have been done on rats and mice by infusing food directly into their stomachs.) Humans aren't going to put up with what would be required.
So, the best bet is probably longitudinal studies. What's interesting is that, at least from what I've read, most of the longitudinal studies that were supposed to confirm the lipid hypothesis (i.e. "fat is evil")--such as the Framingham Heart Study, MRFIT, etc.--have failed to do so in any substantial way. Unfortunately, this failure to support the lipid hypothesis seems to be regarded as the study being a failure! Hardly scientific.
What IS clear to me, based on a truly excessive amount of reading but no professional qualifications, is that the proposal that dietary fat is the root of all dietary evils is probably not correct. If nothing else, the link between excessive consumption of carbohydrate and insulin resistance seems clear, and the effectiveness of carb restriction in treatment of type 2 diabetes has been conclusively established over the past few years.
It's worth mentioning that low-carb diets have also been shown (at least preliminarily) to restrict tumor growth. See http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1662484,00.html. I wonder whether part of Metformin's effect might be related to it's lowering of blood sugar, above and beyond the direct biochemical mechanism mentioned in the article.
If these become popular, then expect to see outlets at the street (with locks on them, I'm sure.) Building codes and other legal infrastructure might have to catch up, especially in urban areas. Or possibly, in highly urban areas, you'll see plugs installed along the curb with some sort of metering.
Actually, I'm allowed to install browser plugins, and even alternative browsers. The PC's not completely locked down or anything. BUT... there are internal websites which only work with IE6. So, either you run two browsers (what I actually do), OR you use IE tab (which doesn't always work for some reason, not sure why.) Guarantee you that if adopting Google Apps or Google Wave was proposed and they didn't work with IE6, my company would say "no thanks" rather than upgrade all these web sites. However, they might very well install a browser plugin.
You need to stop thinking of this like RMS and start thinking about it like Google. This isn't about ideals, it's a bout MONEY and MARKET SHARE.
Dudes... I work at a company whose standard is IE6. Not IE7, not IE8. IE6. And IE6 isn't even compatible with IE8 in some cases.
The reason Google is releasing Chrome Frame is very simple--so that they can get Google Wave in the door of enterprises who have standardized on IE (including IE6) without having to develop 4 different versions of it (Standards Compliant, IE6, IE7, and IE8). They decided that doing Chrome Frame was easier, cheaper, and better for the future of Google Apps (broadly construed to include Wave) than continuing to pander to IE.
I don't think they want to "enable" IE users... but they'd rather enable IE users to continue to be stupid than cripple their applications as they've been doing ever since gmail came out. From Google's point of view, this is ALL about the apps, not the browser wars.
Am I the only one that finds it a bit ironic that the most polluted states are also the most environmentally conscious? I suppose that the arrow of causation probably goes from pollution towards environmental activism (rather than from environmental activism towards pollution), but STILL. Living in Virginia and looking at how other states do things, I'm often struck by just how hard-nosed and practical Virginia usually manages to be on most of the "core" issues (roads, taxes, regulation)--and how well it usually works. Not that VA is perfect... but compared to California or Massachussets? How can you live in those places?!
Okay, so personally I think this particular company doesn't seem to have much chance of succeeding. They don't seem to have the funding or the infrastructure. But what's important is this: for the first time ever we're seeing private companies trying to develop launch capabilities. And not just one or two, and not just so they can resell to governments (like SpaceX), but a bunch of them, with many different business models. You throw enough paint at the wall, some of it might stick. And, eventually, I think it is possible to dramatically reduce launch costs this way--which makes things like solar power satellites and space tourism practical.
In 50 years, the space industry could be transformed by this sort of thing into an actual, profit-making enterprise. And it's only once there is profit to be had that the ideal of true multi-planetary life can become a reality.
Because it's a trivial amount of effort for them to do so? Because they know that I own it, they know it's registered to me (via my mobile account, credit card, etc.) and all they need to do is have a hash file somewhere?
It would do to remember, also, that Apples previous foray into the phone market, the Motorola "ROKR", was an absolute FLOPR. Granted, that was nothing like the iPhone... it was just a phone that could play iTunes DRM... but AT&T really was taking a chance. Nobody really KNEW that the iPhone would dominate.
Look, Turing's been dead for 50 years. The politicians that made the laws he was convicted under are all dead. The judge who sentenced him is dead. The police and the lawyers and everyone else involved are most likely dead.
A corporate body cannot take responsibility, only an individual can, and our major moral problem is that we keep deluding ourselves into thinking that "corporate morals" means something. It doesn't. YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT YOU DO, and "just taking orders" is never an excuse. Just as a bureaucracy cannot take the fault for a heinous act, it can no more offer real contrition, nor can it offer a real apology.
(Which is, incidentally, one of the major reasons our society is so screwed up. To paraphrase C.S. Lewis from an intro to one or the other edition of Screwtape Letters, the great evil done today is not done by thieves and criminals in the dens of crime Dickens loved to paint, but by well-dressed men in offices, acting behind the shield of a bureaucracy.)
One thing I forgot to mention... the studies which found low-carb diets "as effective" generally tapered off the low-carb aspect of the diet after 6 months--at which point weight loss slowed. Studies which have not done that (there are a couple referenced in the paper a couple of levels down) have found that low-carb blows calorie restriction away. There are some Japanese studies, for example...
The ability of subjects to comply has nothing to do with the best diet for curing the obesity epidemic? Get real. The one certain thing we know is that diets don't work. The success rate on diets is something like less than 1%--and yet we have you apologists for the "gluttony and sloth" theory still preaching the gospel, even as the louder that gospel has been preached, the more people have become obese.
As for "calories in, calories out," you know, repeating it doesn't make it so. The whole "calories in, calories out" mantra has been repeated again and again for the past 50 years or so, but it fails to account for a multitude of falsifying observations. For example, have you not seen the pictures of obese women in the third world with starving children? This is a pattern that is seen again and again wherever traditional diets are replaced with diets rich in refined carbohydrate.
I can tell you from my own experience that I have been on reduced calorie diets again and again and have often had disappointing weight loss so long as those diets included abundant carbohydrate. For example, I was on Weight Watchers for almost a year, which equated to around a 1600 calorie a day diet--at the time I weighed over 400 lbs., so I should have lost tons of weight. Initially, I lost about 25 lbs. However, after the first two months, I started to slowly gain weight. Weight Watchers advised me to reduce my points, so I did, and it slowed the rate of gain but failed to get me back to losing. Ultimately, they accused me of cheating (I wasn't).
One falsifying observation to falsify an hypothesis. Anecdotal? Sure, but anecdotal evidence is sufficient to falsify an hypothesis if the evidence is reliable (and I know my evidence to be reliable, and all you need is a copy of National Geographic for the other.)
Gary Taubes gave a really great talk on this subject at Berkeley. I suggest you take a listen and at least consider that maybe there's more to this story than simple thermodynamics. Metabolism matters. As Richard Feinman (not the physicist, the other one) puts it, "you aren't what you eat, you're what your body does with what you eat." Not that the laws of thermodynamics don't apply, but they don't apply in the simple-minded, deterministic way that you want to apply them. The talk is available at: http://webcast.berkeley.edu/event_details.php?webcastid=21216
Look, even the American Diabetes Association (who were adamantly opposed to low carb diets) have conceded that Low Carb diets are "safe and effective for weight loss". What's interesting is that when you look at the studies they reference (e.g. in the 2009 clinical guidelines) you find that while the conclusions of those studies say that low-carb diets were "as effective" as low-fat, the actual data show them to be more effective. The low-carb dieters lost somewhat more weight, had better lipid profiles, and were more likely to comply with their diet and most importantly liked the diets better. Can you lose weight on a low-fat diet? Yes, you can. But you'll be miserable doing so. See for example the Minnesota Starvation Experiment, which put 40 people on a low-fat, 1500 calorie diet back in the forties and literally put 5% of them in the mental hospital, had another participant cut off his fingers under suspicious circumstances, and had every single participant constantly obsessing about food and complaining of depression.
That drives me crazy... It's like, "what do you think made you fat in the first place?!?" I've been losing massive amounts of weight on a low-carb regime for the past several months, and I've had to accept that I'm never going to be able to go back to a "normal" diet. But, ultimately, that's a small price to pay for the benefits I get. I do hope that I'll be able to relax the carb counts more when I get down to a tolerable weight, but that's going to be a matter of experimentation.
If you're referring to this review, I understand him more to be citing a single countervailing study to dispute one core point of Taubes' argument. I'd actually like to hear a response from Taubes to that point (haven't found one) but otherwise the review is actually pretty positive.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, yeah that was a little internally contradictory. By "use everything that comes with it", I meant that I use all the major apps that come with it, not every nugget of functionality that the phone offers or every technical feature. So, I use Contacts, Calendar, Mail, YouTube, etc. On my BlackBerry, I rarely if ever bothered because the interface was so awkward that it simply wasn't worthwhile. I didn't even use Google Maps much because the GPS was completely crippled and could literally almost never get a lock (this was a BB Pearl.) Certainly I should've been clearer.
As for being a fan-boy... before App Store, I actually bought a BlackBerry because I thought the iPhone was overrated (December of 2007 to be precise.) But AppStore changed things, which was my point. And it's not just the availability of apps--it's the quality of the apps, a lot of which I attribute to the very mature CocoaTouch programming environment.
And for those mods who modded me flamebait, you can go to hell.
I truly don't think Apple has anything to worry about. The iPhone's greatest strength is not the iPhone itself, but the App Store--the 10's of thousands of applications, games, etc. that are already available for it. The quality of these applications has improved markedly over the past year, and it's going to continue to improve. What does Android have? They say "thousands", but market realities being what they are I'm sure that the quality and development time that has gone into these thousands just isn't there. "There's an app for that" about covers it--with my iPhone, I know that whatever I'm doing I will have a choice of several apps that do it.
Can Android catch up? Probably eventually. But I think it's going to be difficult. First, Apple's already got a huge lead, and this is a self-perpetuating cycle. Huge lead means more developers, which means huge lead continues. Second, I think that in the long run Android's hardware diversity will hurt it when it comes to (for example) games--it's a pain for game developers to have to test on a wide variety of devices, and many of them may not bother until Android has proved itself as a platform. Last, it's worth remembering that Apple still commands a huge lead in the all-important digital content market. This creates a big incentive for people with large iTunes libraries to stay with iPhone.
Is Verizon's network better? Yes, probably. However, it's also reaching saturation. I live in a very rural area and have both an iPhone (personal) and a Verizon cell phone (work), and I pretty much get coverage everywhere I go. And let's not forget that AT&T's going to provide adequate coverage for 90+% of the population anyway, even if they do get spotty in rural areas.
No, the iPhone was/is popular because it enables me to do useful things that I could not (and cannot) do as well with any other phone currently available. That simple.
Cut and paste? It's been out for months now, never used it. MMS? Never used it. MP3/AAC ringtones? Always supported, (you have to change the file extension is all), but actually never used them. Video recording? Never used it (and yes I have a 3gs.) I could go on, but literally all the features you bitch about are things that I don't want/never would use. Maybe you really do need them, but frankly I could give a crap less.
What I do use is an application for tracking my blood sugar. And another application for tracking my weight-training log. And another app that functions as a pedometer when I go walking/running. And another app that tracks my weight. Oh yeah, and an app that lets me do Go problems on my phone. And Kindle for iPhone. And... the list could go on ad infinitem, but the point is that your little checklist doesn't begin to encapsulate what makes this the best possible device for me.
Before iPhone, I had a Treo, I had a Blackberry, I had Windows Mobile. I hated them and never used even the features that came with them. With iPhone I use everything that comes with it and then some because the iPhone makes it easy. Could I figure out how to do this stuff on, say, my Blackberry? Yes. Was it fun? Hell no. Was it easy to find apps? No. Did the apps cost $1.99 each? No.
So, sorry, but the iPhone is not popular just because it's from Apple. It's popular because it works.
"Low" blood sugar (i.e. hypoglycemia) and "Lowered" blood sugar are not the same thing. The whole purpose of Metformin is to reduce blood glucose levels by reducing insulin resistance in the liver. I say this as a Type 2 Diabetic who takes Metformin for exactly that, and I can assure you that it does indeed lower blood sugar.
Well, I'm no biomedical researcher, but my understanding is that diet studies are notoriously hard to do. It's generally not possible to do a double blind diet study on humans (although some interesting, but not truly "double blind", studies have been done on rats and mice by infusing food directly into their stomachs.) Humans aren't going to put up with what would be required. So, the best bet is probably longitudinal studies. What's interesting is that, at least from what I've read, most of the longitudinal studies that were supposed to confirm the lipid hypothesis (i.e. "fat is evil")--such as the Framingham Heart Study, MRFIT, etc.--have failed to do so in any substantial way. Unfortunately, this failure to support the lipid hypothesis seems to be regarded as the study being a failure! Hardly scientific. What IS clear to me, based on a truly excessive amount of reading but no professional qualifications, is that the proposal that dietary fat is the root of all dietary evils is probably not correct. If nothing else, the link between excessive consumption of carbohydrate and insulin resistance seems clear, and the effectiveness of carb restriction in treatment of type 2 diabetes has been conclusively established over the past few years.
It's worth mentioning that low-carb diets have also been shown (at least preliminarily) to restrict tumor growth. See http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1662484,00.html. I wonder whether part of Metformin's effect might be related to it's lowering of blood sugar, above and beyond the direct biochemical mechanism mentioned in the article.
If these become popular, then expect to see outlets at the street (with locks on them, I'm sure.) Building codes and other legal infrastructure might have to catch up, especially in urban areas. Or possibly, in highly urban areas, you'll see plugs installed along the curb with some sort of metering.
Actually, I'm allowed to install browser plugins, and even alternative browsers. The PC's not completely locked down or anything. BUT... there are internal websites which only work with IE6. So, either you run two browsers (what I actually do), OR you use IE tab (which doesn't always work for some reason, not sure why.) Guarantee you that if adopting Google Apps or Google Wave was proposed and they didn't work with IE6, my company would say "no thanks" rather than upgrade all these web sites. However, they might very well install a browser plugin.
You need to stop thinking of this like RMS and start thinking about it like Google. This isn't about ideals, it's a bout MONEY and MARKET SHARE.
Dudes... I work at a company whose standard is IE6. Not IE7, not IE8. IE6. And IE6 isn't even compatible with IE8 in some cases.
The reason Google is releasing Chrome Frame is very simple--so that they can get Google Wave in the door of enterprises who have standardized on IE (including IE6) without having to develop 4 different versions of it (Standards Compliant, IE6, IE7, and IE8). They decided that doing Chrome Frame was easier, cheaper, and better for the future of Google Apps (broadly construed to include Wave) than continuing to pander to IE.
I don't think they want to "enable" IE users... but they'd rather enable IE users to continue to be stupid than cripple their applications as they've been doing ever since gmail came out. From Google's point of view, this is ALL about the apps, not the browser wars.
"Libertarianism: Rich wolves and poor sheep deciding who to have for dinner"
Fixed that for ya.
Am I the only one that finds it a bit ironic that the most polluted states are also the most environmentally conscious? I suppose that the arrow of causation probably goes from pollution towards environmental activism (rather than from environmental activism towards pollution), but STILL. Living in Virginia and looking at how other states do things, I'm often struck by just how hard-nosed and practical Virginia usually manages to be on most of the "core" issues (roads, taxes, regulation)--and how well it usually works. Not that VA is perfect... but compared to California or Massachussets? How can you live in those places?!
Okay, so personally I think this particular company doesn't seem to have much chance of succeeding. They don't seem to have the funding or the infrastructure. But what's important is this: for the first time ever we're seeing private companies trying to develop launch capabilities. And not just one or two, and not just so they can resell to governments (like SpaceX), but a bunch of them, with many different business models. You throw enough paint at the wall, some of it might stick. And, eventually, I think it is possible to dramatically reduce launch costs this way--which makes things like solar power satellites and space tourism practical.
In 50 years, the space industry could be transformed by this sort of thing into an actual, profit-making enterprise. And it's only once there is profit to be had that the ideal of true multi-planetary life can become a reality.
Because it's a trivial amount of effort for them to do so? Because they know that I own it, they know it's registered to me (via my mobile account, credit card, etc.) and all they need to do is have a hash file somewhere?
Or at least that was the case a few years ago. I ditched my LL long ago.
For all us old Berkeley types who put "/usr/ucb" first in the path it would.
It would do to remember, also, that Apples previous foray into the phone market, the Motorola "ROKR", was an absolute FLOPR. Granted, that was nothing like the iPhone... it was just a phone that could play iTunes DRM... but AT&T really was taking a chance. Nobody really KNEW that the iPhone would dominate.
Look, Turing's been dead for 50 years. The politicians that made the laws he was convicted under are all dead. The judge who sentenced him is dead. The police and the lawyers and everyone else involved are most likely dead.
A corporate body cannot take responsibility, only an individual can, and our major moral problem is that we keep deluding ourselves into thinking that "corporate morals" means something. It doesn't. YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT YOU DO, and "just taking orders" is never an excuse. Just as a bureaucracy cannot take the fault for a heinous act, it can no more offer real contrition, nor can it offer a real apology.
(Which is, incidentally, one of the major reasons our society is so screwed up. To paraphrase C.S. Lewis from an intro to one or the other edition of Screwtape Letters, the great evil done today is not done by thieves and criminals in the dens of crime Dickens loved to paint, but by well-dressed men in offices, acting behind the shield of a bureaucracy.)
One thing I forgot to mention... the studies which found low-carb diets "as effective" generally tapered off the low-carb aspect of the diet after 6 months--at which point weight loss slowed. Studies which have not done that (there are a couple referenced in the paper a couple of levels down) have found that low-carb blows calorie restriction away. There are some Japanese studies, for example...
Take a look at Dietary carbohydrate restriction in type 2 diabetes mellitus and metabolic syndrome: time for a critical appraisal. As a "critical appraisal", it references numerous studies (over 60 references!) which support each element of the position I'm arguing for. No "deeply held dogma" here--the "deeply held dogma" is strictly in the low-fat camp, thank you very much.
The ability of subjects to comply has nothing to do with the best diet for curing the obesity epidemic? Get real. The one certain thing we know is that diets don't work. The success rate on diets is something like less than 1%--and yet we have you apologists for the "gluttony and sloth" theory still preaching the gospel, even as the louder that gospel has been preached, the more people have become obese.
As for "calories in, calories out," you know, repeating it doesn't make it so. The whole "calories in, calories out" mantra has been repeated again and again for the past 50 years or so, but it fails to account for a multitude of falsifying observations. For example, have you not seen the pictures of obese women in the third world with starving children? This is a pattern that is seen again and again wherever traditional diets are replaced with diets rich in refined carbohydrate.
I can tell you from my own experience that I have been on reduced calorie diets again and again and have often had disappointing weight loss so long as those diets included abundant carbohydrate. For example, I was on Weight Watchers for almost a year, which equated to around a 1600 calorie a day diet--at the time I weighed over 400 lbs., so I should have lost tons of weight. Initially, I lost about 25 lbs. However, after the first two months, I started to slowly gain weight. Weight Watchers advised me to reduce my points, so I did, and it slowed the rate of gain but failed to get me back to losing. Ultimately, they accused me of cheating (I wasn't).
One falsifying observation to falsify an hypothesis. Anecdotal? Sure, but anecdotal evidence is sufficient to falsify an hypothesis if the evidence is reliable (and I know my evidence to be reliable, and all you need is a copy of National Geographic for the other.)
Gary Taubes gave a really great talk on this subject at Berkeley. I suggest you take a listen and at least consider that maybe there's more to this story than simple thermodynamics. Metabolism matters. As Richard Feinman (not the physicist, the other one) puts it, "you aren't what you eat, you're what your body does with what you eat." Not that the laws of thermodynamics don't apply, but they don't apply in the simple-minded, deterministic way that you want to apply them. The talk is available at: http://webcast.berkeley.edu/event_details.php?webcastid=21216
Why do I get a feeling you work for a NASA contractor?
Look, even the American Diabetes Association (who were adamantly opposed to low carb diets) have conceded that Low Carb diets are "safe and effective for weight loss". What's interesting is that when you look at the studies they reference (e.g. in the 2009 clinical guidelines) you find that while the conclusions of those studies say that low-carb diets were "as effective" as low-fat, the actual data show them to be more effective. The low-carb dieters lost somewhat more weight, had better lipid profiles, and were more likely to comply with their diet and most importantly liked the diets better. Can you lose weight on a low-fat diet? Yes, you can. But you'll be miserable doing so. See for example the Minnesota Starvation Experiment, which put 40 people on a low-fat, 1500 calorie diet back in the forties and literally put 5% of them in the mental hospital, had another participant cut off his fingers under suspicious circumstances, and had every single participant constantly obsessing about food and complaining of depression.
That drives me crazy... It's like, "what do you think made you fat in the first place?!?" I've been losing massive amounts of weight on a low-carb regime for the past several months, and I've had to accept that I'm never going to be able to go back to a "normal" diet. But, ultimately, that's a small price to pay for the benefits I get. I do hope that I'll be able to relax the carb counts more when I get down to a tolerable weight, but that's going to be a matter of experimentation.
Actually, just found Taubes' response. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/books/review/Letters-t.html?_r=1&ref=revie I think it's fair to say that he eviscerates the review.
If you're referring to this review, I understand him more to be citing a single countervailing study to dispute one core point of Taubes' argument. I'd actually like to hear a response from Taubes to that point (haven't found one) but otherwise the review is actually pretty positive.