For quite a long time I thought that, no matter what, if you eat less energy than your body needs, you will loose weight.
Then I learned about this "Thyroid condition" case...
In that case, even when people eat less than their body really needs, the body will stockpile the fat, to the point that the person can't sustain her functions and will faint.
So, those people don't have a lot of choice if they don't want to faint, they need to eat more.
How many "Thyroid condition" do we have in the population ?
I don't know. Anyone has some information ?
I guess that's not very common.
But usually I see fat people at self-service restaurant with: => delicatessen
=> meat, sauce and hydrocarbs
=> pastry
for every single meal!
While I usually take:
=> various raw vegetables without sauce
=> not always meat, but at least one vegetables (fries not excluded but once a week at most)
=> yogourt, fruit or occasional pastry
Guess what ? My weight is stable since over 20 years ( +/- 500g at most), and I'm rather slim.
That's why I show now mercy at all for fat people. The vast majority of them eat too much, I can see that everywhere.
[..] you can believe that this particular theory is the right one [...]
This is not a belief, since I wouldn't say that I *believe* that it is the right one, no...
I would rather say that I'm convinced and that I agree with the reasoning of this theory, given the facts and using logic.
And it is by far the best, and in fact the only one that is still valid and was reinforced during a century of observations, also with predictions comforted by new observations.
There is no other theory left about evolution, and this one was remarkable for its scientific validation.
With all those facts and observations, if you still have doubts, then you must also have some about any theory, even wonder is Earth is flat or not, who knows ?
And have absolute doubt, question even reality...
You can, if you want.
BTW, "believe" might be an ambiguous word in English, like "Free" (Libre or Gratis?), this can be confusing for some people.
Do they say "believe" for "having the belief" - with faith - or just "thinking it's right and valid" - no faith needed - as it can be used casually.
Mixing the two is really confusing.
Go for it! Thank to/. thread on Firefox new version (new UI) I've discovered Pale Moon.
I've installed my usual extensions (Adblock, NoScript, Stylish) and the flash plugin.
It's the 64bit version of Pale Moon.
I'm happy with it and see no reason going back to Firefox... bye! It's been quite a long time but I leave now.
I've even installed the Portable version, 64 bit also, with the same set of plugins.
No problems so far (2 weeks).
The Planetary Grand Tour was reduced from 4 to 2 probes but those Voyagers are great space exploration success.
Such planetary configuration will occur again in quite a long time, about 130 years, however we must be able by then to launch a new set of probes to take advantage of the gravitational slingshots. I'm afraid humanity might not be able to achieve this in case of new economic crisis at that time or because of some world conflicts, society collapse, whatever may distract us (or impede us) from working on the challenge.
How do you feel about this next window?
Shall we start to think about it and show to short-sighted politicians that great scientific challenges are at stake?
At least there's a chance that this event would be considered indisputable by everybody, unlike some other scientific phenomenons which will have great (negative) impact on us.
... russian speaking ukranians were imported to Ukraine, and the originally ethnic groups were cleared out. ... I propose they just move back to Russia, and leave Ukraine to the ethnic groups that were cleared out.
Then what about people in US move back wherever they came from and leave the continent to the ethnic groups that were cleared out ?
I guess there's a duration threshold somewhere, after that people living somewhere can claim the land.
Maybe 50 years is a bit short, a few hundreds start to be interesting, and thousands year long occupation seems fair.
Anyway, there might have been some other original ethnic group there before any of both today, they should focus on something else than their ancestors' culture and learn to live together.
Besides, if they were able to do what they claim, they would better look for gold in sunken ships and tell no one.
Their imaginary references are as old as 2003 with a site born in 2014... really ?
Face it: this is a hoax, at best, and more likely a scam.
I've read that in Switzerland their suicide kit comprises a helium bottle and a plastic bag.
Also when I give 0,5 litre of my blood, I know that I may faint if I don't drink enough and then stand up suddenly.
I guess making someone give all of it would be fatal with no pain.
(again I want to state that I'm against death penalty, I don't suggest anything to carry on those punishments, just wondering why they still use drugs)
Well, maybe I've been misled by the report mentionned by this other interesting article about Chernobyl wildlife (two parts, see at the bottom of part 1, continued on part 2).
Pale Moon has a strong opinion against FF4 v29
on
Firefox 29: Redesign
·
· Score: 1
Me too.
I'll tell them I no longer like FF by moving away of FF and uninstalling it on 1 Mac, 3 Win, 2 Linux (home) and 2 other Win (pro).
In addition, later versions of Pale Moon aim to provide more freedom of choice than Mozilla about how people want to browse the web, which tools or extensions they wish to use, and which feedback users want to see; efficiency, after all, should not stop at the engine of a browser, but extend to all parts of it, including the user interface. Specifically, Firefox 4 and later have redesigned the user interface after the visions of the Mozilla Firefox product directors and user experience team to provide a more minimalist interface; unfortunately also removing essential functions and making a few less logical design choices, confusing minimalism with cleanliness. Later on, with "Australis", much more has been changed, breaking in many ways with previous versions, standard user interface conventions and ergonomics, as well as proper visual integration with the operating system.
Which is ironic because nuclear fallout preserves nature but wipes out mankind from the lands.
It preserves inorganic nature and the lowest lifeforms.
The Chernobyl exclusion zone acts like a sink for big mammals coming from safe areas.
This is not a paradise where they thrive.
Also, there is a gradient between the misanthropes that would pretty much like a planet Earth in the state it was ten thousand years ago, and left activists who pose as environmentalists and feel uneasy when one talk about overpopulation.
I vaguely remember a comic where a mars explorer writes his monotonous diary, and where the most exciting moment of the week would be to go a few metres far to have a look at a slightly darker stone...
6) Paralax can be consistently observed in real 3D display scene when you move and change your point of view, whereas the stereoscopic display lure the brain that there would be paralax effect if you move but, when you try to do so, it doesn't happen, you can't make a close object actualy translate faster than a distant one, and you won't see what's behind neither - not more that the other eye was already seeing.
Back to previous points:
#1) Yes, we can have all plans in focus at once for a stereoscopic display (like in video games), and it's more comfortable than not being able to focus on a plan that wasn't chosen to be displayed in focus.
But then there is still a difference for the user experience: when all points are in focus one is much more distracted by a distant background detail when locking at a close object. For a real 3D display the fact that only one plan can be in focus on observer's eyes retina is an advantage for the immersion of the observer and the depth feeling.
Yet, all-plans-in-focus-display can be an advantage for some specific purpose, like surveillance.
#3)
Most of the effect in #3 is mental, not physical. Your brain is not processing what you aren't focusing on (and no, focus is not an optical term in this context, if you know a better term for "location of attention", I'm open to it).
It's indeed a physical effect on your retina, due to optical eye property and geometry, where the really out of focus plan is completely blured, so the brain hasn't the information to process anymore.
Try again: focus on a detail 15cm from you and try to pay attention to a car one km away (almost align both): you won't even see that car.
Maybe some people can't do this experiment easily, but the popular blind spot experiment show that many people can center their gaze at a point while paying attention to another, you should be able to do so with some training and understand what I try to explain.
#4)
They add depth to width and height. Your argument is that 2+1 != 3. I don't think you'll win that one. That you object to the depth doesn't make it not there.
My argument is more like 2+0.5 != 3 , as you can read above.
Today's stereoscopic display only advantage on 2D picture is that eyes have a different perspective, that's nice but far from real 3D display. Focus issues, paralax, different perspectives for different observers (at once with the same device),... there's so much missing to reach what real 3D display achieves.
I have a video game analogy, with some 2D games (Tetris), 3D games (Quake & many FPS), and 2.5D games. It's not about the display here, but the game immersion and possibilities.
#5)
And if you insist #5 isn't stereoscopy, then you are insisting that both eyes are fed the same image. I assert that's false.
The observer is not the display device. The fact that my eyes don't see the same image when I'm looking at an object doesn't mean that this object is stereoscopic. This isn't a property of the object.
The full holographic 3D display (Startrek one or other lab's device) doesn't make only two images available, one for each eye, but an infinity of images can be perceived, one for each place from which you can see it. Whereas stereoscopic devices present only two images, no matter what.
Also two spectators with the same real 3D display device will see the scene with a different perspective, while the stereoscopic "3D" movie show the same perspective for everyone.
I hope I haven't been trolled here and that I've been more than clear now, otherwise I won't know what I could add.
I'd like to stress the differences between my real 3D (a) and your fake 3D (b).
1) Looking at 3D(a) scene, a spectator can focus his eyes on whatever point he wants, whereas the 3D(b) scene offers only one focus plan, which leads to problems and this is the whole point of my previous post and its parent post.
2) Fixed and non fixed perspective exists for both 3D(a) and 3D(b), so I don't get your argument here.
Fixed for 3D(a) is achieved by not being able to move relatively to the displayed scene (just sit there), and non fixed for 3D(b) is available with headset,walking pad, and CGI.
3) A simple test that I recommend to you: experiment real 3D(a) with only one eye and fixed perspective !
If you don't have a real 3D display in your lab, use the real world instead: Close one eye, look at the horizon through the window, don't move, then watch a dust on the glass (your eye just changes focus). You won't see the same thing, will you? Try this with your fake 3D(b): not possible.
4) Your equation 2D+depth=3D is only valid when depth isn't only a limited feeling of depth, as provided by stereoscopic pictures.
Again this limitation that I stress is the point of my previous post and its parent.
5) Startrek holograms, or today's lab real 3D displays, are not stereoscopy, even with a very pedantic sense. Why? See previous points 1,3,4.
I hope those differences will enlight you and demonstrate the vast superiority of real 3D display (that I call 3D for short) and your fake 3D (the stereoscopic effect).
Let's face it: so called 3D movies today are a marketing scam, and I wonder:
How will they call the real 3D display when it gets out of labs to be in mass products?
Even "real 3D" is already used by the stereoscopic movies... So?
Even if you're honest, almost everybody will treat you like a criminal. Sooner or later, there is no choice but to prove them right or starve.
Actually you also confirm that they are criminals ? I find it quite ironic, but I understand what you mean: not inherently criminals but turned into because of the rest of the world.
However your rationale does not explain what I have experienced from them.
Also, their kids have pretty much a hard time in school due to bullying, they really need to hang on, but they can achieve a decent scholarship if they really want to and get out of their slum. And become a lawyer! I know one, she succeeded (and no longer looks like one of them).
And again: this is off topic, I won't go further in this discussion.
Slashdot Mirror
If it can match colors up to 94% of "nature's true palette" , maybe it could be used to display a test for tetrachromate people ?
I always wanted to make such a test, but I was quite difficult with real pigments.
I hope some application will try to make such a test, it would be amazing !
For quite a long time I thought that, no matter what, if you eat less energy than your body needs, you will loose weight.
Then I learned about this "Thyroid condition" case...
In that case, even when people eat less than their body really needs, the body will stockpile the fat, to the point that the person can't sustain her functions and will faint.
So, those people don't have a lot of choice if they don't want to faint, they need to eat more.
How many "Thyroid condition" do we have in the population ?
I don't know. Anyone has some information ?
I guess that's not very common.
But usually I see fat people at self-service restaurant with :
=> delicatessen
=> meat, sauce and hydrocarbs
=> pastry
for every single meal!
While I usually take:
=> various raw vegetables without sauce
=> not always meat, but at least one vegetables (fries not excluded but once a week at most)
=> yogourt, fruit or occasional pastry
Guess what ? My weight is stable since over 20 years ( +/- 500g at most), and I'm rather slim.
That's why I show now mercy at all for fat people.
The vast majority of them eat too much, I can see that everywhere.
[..] you can believe that this particular theory is the right one [...]
This is not a belief, since I wouldn't say that I *believe* that it is the right one, no...
I would rather say that I'm convinced and that I agree with the reasoning of this theory, given the facts and using logic.
And it is by far the best, and in fact the only one that is still valid and was reinforced during a century of observations, also with predictions comforted by new observations.
There is no other theory left about evolution, and this one was remarkable for its scientific validation.
With all those facts and observations, if you still have doubts, then you must also have some about any theory, even wonder is Earth is flat or not, who knows ?
And have absolute doubt, question even reality...
You can, if you want.
BTW, "believe" might be an ambiguous word in English, like "Free" (Libre or Gratis?), this can be confusing for some people.
Do they say "believe" for "having the belief" - with faith - or just "thinking it's right and valid" - no faith needed - as it can be used casually.
Mixing the two is really confusing.
Thanks for the story
You may also point the the original article (PDF version), there is an handful of examples more.
As soon as I saw his eyebrows and glasses, I figured out the video wasn't worth watching.
This actually saves time, even when you compare with text only media.
One must filter information according to prejudices that one have on the physical aspect of the Narrator...
“It is only shallow people who do not judge by appearances”
Oscar Wilde
Go for it! Thank to /. thread on Firefox new version (new UI) I've discovered Pale Moon.
I've installed my usual extensions (Adblock, NoScript, Stylish) and the flash plugin.
It's the 64bit version of Pale Moon. I'm happy with it and see no reason going back to Firefox... bye! It's been quite a long time but I leave now.
I've even installed the Portable version, 64 bit also, with the same set of plugins.
No problems so far (2 weeks).
The Planetary Grand Tour was reduced from 4 to 2 probes but those Voyagers are great space exploration success.
Such planetary configuration will occur again in quite a long time, about 130 years, however we must be able by then to launch a new set of probes to take advantage of the gravitational slingshots. I'm afraid humanity might not be able to achieve this in case of new economic crisis at that time or because of some world conflicts, society collapse, whatever may distract us (or impede us) from working on the challenge.
How do you feel about this next window?
Shall we start to think about it and show to short-sighted politicians that great scientific challenges are at stake?
At least there's a chance that this event would be considered indisputable by everybody, unlike some other scientific phenomenons which will have great (negative) impact on us.
... russian speaking ukranians were imported to Ukraine, and the originally ethnic groups were cleared out.
... I propose they just move back to Russia, and leave Ukraine to the ethnic groups that were cleared out.
Then what about people in US move back wherever they came from and leave the continent to the ethnic groups that were cleared out ?
I guess there's a duration threshold somewhere, after that people living somewhere can claim the land.
Maybe 50 years is a bit short, a few hundreds start to be interesting, and thousands year long occupation seems fair.
Anyway, there might have been some other original ethnic group there before any of both today, they should focus on something else than their ancestors' culture and learn to live together.
... 11,000 meters deep... ...
Scientists say
... 16,000 pounds per square inch
Time to embrace the metric system, don't you think so ?
I've already posted that before, but anyway, I'll tell it again:
A search on their patent refs leads nowhere except to their site.
This remind me the Great Oil Sniffer Hoax
Besides, if they were able to do what they claim, they would better look for gold in sunken ships and tell no one.
Their imaginary references are as old as 2003 with a site born in 2014... really ?
Face it: this is a hoax, at best, and more likely a scam.
Is wild life and plants immune to radiation?
Those with radiation induced complications die much earlier.
I've read that in Switzerland their suicide kit comprises a helium bottle and a plastic bag.
Also when I give 0,5 litre of my blood, I know that I may faint if I don't drink enough and then stand up suddenly.
I guess making someone give all of it would be fatal with no pain.
(again I want to state that I'm against death penalty, I don't suggest anything to carry on those punishments, just wondering why they still use drugs)
Do you want to know exactly how bad I feel that this guy suffered for an hour?
I think as little as me, but that is not the point.
What I personally dislike is the gruesome picture that this botched execution sends back to society.
(I also feel the need to state that I'm against death penalty, for miscelanous reasons)
Well, maybe I've been misled by the report mentionned by this other interesting article about Chernobyl wildlife (two parts, see at the bottom of part 1, continued on part 2).
Me too.
I'll tell them I no longer like FF by moving away of FF and uninstalling it on 1 Mac, 3 Win, 2 Linux (home) and 2 other Win (pro).
I think I'll try Iceweasel or Pale Moon.
I'd like to quote this from Pale Moon info page:
In addition, later versions of Pale Moon aim to provide more freedom of choice than Mozilla about how people want to browse the web, which tools or extensions they wish to use, and which feedback users want to see; efficiency, after all, should not stop at the engine of a browser, but extend to all parts of it, including the user interface.
Specifically, Firefox 4 and later have redesigned the user interface after the visions of the Mozilla Firefox product directors and user experience team to provide a more minimalist interface; unfortunately also removing essential functions and making a few less logical design choices, confusing minimalism with cleanliness.
Later on, with "Australis", much more has been changed, breaking in many ways with previous versions, standard user interface conventions and ergonomics, as well as proper visual integration with the operating system.
Which is ironic because nuclear fallout preserves nature but wipes out mankind from the lands.
It preserves inorganic nature and the lowest lifeforms.
The Chernobyl exclusion zone acts like a sink for big mammals coming from safe areas.
This is not a paradise where they thrive.
Also, there is a gradient between the misanthropes that would pretty much like a planet Earth in the state it was ten thousand years ago, and left activists who pose as environmentalists and feel uneasy when one talk about overpopulation.
And those who signed the Ottawa treaty still produce specific land mines parts, labeled otherwise, via offshore subcontractors.
I remind an Italian campany and a French company (factory located in Brasil) - no refs sorry.
Also, if some company is so gready that it commit itself into land mines production, its aim will be to make reliable, cheap, furtive mines.
A search on their patent refs leads nowhere except to their site.
This remind me the Great Oil Sniffer Hoax
Not this one. I think I was a human explorer, planing to have a look to such a stone.
I vaguely remember a comic where a mars explorer writes his monotonous diary, and where the most exciting moment of the week would be to go a few metres far to have a look at a slightly darker stone...
Is that an xkcd ? I can't find it.
6) Paralax can be consistently observed in real 3D display scene when you move and change your point of view, whereas the stereoscopic display lure the brain that there would be paralax effect if you move but, when you try to do so, it doesn't happen, you can't make a close object actualy translate faster than a distant one, and you won't see what's behind neither - not more that the other eye was already seeing.
Back to previous points:
#1) Yes, we can have all plans in focus at once for a stereoscopic display (like in video games), and it's more comfortable than not being able to focus on a plan that wasn't chosen to be displayed in focus.
But then there is still a difference for the user experience: when all points are in focus one is much more distracted by a distant background detail when locking at a close object. For a real 3D display the fact that only one plan can be in focus on observer's eyes retina is an advantage for the immersion of the observer and the depth feeling.
Yet, all-plans-in-focus-display can be an advantage for some specific purpose, like surveillance.
#3)
Most of the effect in #3 is mental, not physical. Your brain is not processing what you aren't focusing on (and no, focus is not an optical term in this context, if you know a better term for "location of attention", I'm open to it).
It's indeed a physical effect on your retina, due to optical eye property and geometry, where the really out of focus plan is completely blured, so the brain hasn't the information to process anymore.
Try again: focus on a detail 15cm from you and try to pay attention to a car one km away (almost align both): you won't even see that car.
Maybe some people can't do this experiment easily, but the popular blind spot experiment show that many people can center their gaze at a point while paying attention to another, you should be able to do so with some training and understand what I try to explain.
#4)
They add depth to width and height. Your argument is that 2+1 != 3. I don't think you'll win that one. That you object to the depth doesn't make it not there.
My argument is more like 2+0.5 != 3 , as you can read above. ... there's so much missing to reach what real 3D display achieves.
Today's stereoscopic display only advantage on 2D picture is that eyes have a different perspective, that's nice but far from real 3D display. Focus issues, paralax, different perspectives for different observers (at once with the same device),
I have a video game analogy, with some 2D games (Tetris), 3D games (Quake & many FPS), and 2.5D games. It's not about the display here, but the game immersion and possibilities.
#5)
And if you insist #5 isn't stereoscopy, then you are insisting that both eyes are fed the same image. I assert that's false.
The observer is not the display device. The fact that my eyes don't see the same image when I'm looking at an object doesn't mean that this object is stereoscopic. This isn't a property of the object.
The full holographic 3D display (Startrek one or other lab's device) doesn't make only two images available, one for each eye, but an infinity of images can be perceived, one for each place from which you can see it. Whereas stereoscopic devices present only two images, no matter what.
Also two spectators with the same real 3D display device will see the scene with a different perspective, while the stereoscopic "3D" movie show the same perspective for everyone.
I hope I haven't been trolled here and that I've been more than clear now, otherwise I won't know what I could add.
I'd like to stress the differences between my real 3D (a) and your fake 3D (b).
1) Looking at 3D(a) scene, a spectator can focus his eyes on whatever point he wants, whereas the 3D(b) scene offers only one focus plan, which leads to problems and this is the whole point of my previous post and its parent post.
2) Fixed and non fixed perspective exists for both 3D(a) and 3D(b), so I don't get your argument here.
Fixed for 3D(a) is achieved by not being able to move relatively to the displayed scene (just sit there), and non fixed for 3D(b) is available with headset,walking pad, and CGI.
3) A simple test that I recommend to you: experiment real 3D(a) with only one eye and fixed perspective !
If you don't have a real 3D display in your lab, use the real world instead: Close one eye, look at the horizon through the window, don't move, then watch a dust on the glass (your eye just changes focus). You won't see the same thing, will you? Try this with your fake 3D(b): not possible.
4) Your equation 2D+depth=3D is only valid when depth isn't only a limited feeling of depth, as provided by stereoscopic pictures.
Again this limitation that I stress is the point of my previous post and its parent.
5) Startrek holograms, or today's lab real 3D displays, are not stereoscopy, even with a very pedantic sense. Why? See previous points 1,3,4.
I hope those differences will enlight you and demonstrate the vast superiority of real 3D display (that I call 3D for short) and your fake 3D (the stereoscopic effect).
Let's face it: so called 3D movies today are a marketing scam, and I wonder:
How will they call the real 3D display when it gets out of labs to be in mass products?
Even "real 3D" is already used by the stereoscopic movies... So?
May I remind you all that the so called 3D movies are not 3D but only stereoscopic movies.
You only have the depth perception, but you won't turn around the scene as you would be able to do with a 3D volume display.
There isn't any issue of focus with a real 3D movie (volume display), since the spectator focuses his eyes on the part of the scene he watches.
Of course I agree with the focus issues that the stereoscopic movies have.
The best answer would be a Net Gun.
From market or DIY. That's $400 or $60-$80.
I think many of the catched drone parts can be salvaged, after the fall.
Even if you're honest, almost everybody will treat you like a criminal. Sooner or later, there is no choice but to prove them right or starve.
Actually you also confirm that they are criminals ? I find it quite ironic, but I understand what you mean: not inherently criminals but turned into because of the rest of the world.
However your rationale does not explain what I have experienced from them.
Also, their kids have pretty much a hard time in school due to bullying, they really need to hang on, but they can achieve a decent scholarship if they really want to and get out of their slum. And become a lawyer! I know one, she succeeded (and no longer looks like one of them).
And again: this is off topic, I won't go further in this discussion.