This, out of the 30 something federal workers I work with 1 will be furloughed. I guess you could call us mission critical, we work on an airfield that supports 0 aircraft.
I would lowball half of federal workers could be eliminated with 0 consequences to the government (probably more like 80%).
So, you willing accept a federal subsidy for doing no work? At least poor people admit they are on government welfare.
The federal shutdown is only affecting 800,000 employees out of a few million uniformed servicemen, civilian employees and contractors. I would be surprised if it's even 25% of the federal workforce.
What this shutdown means is that until the budget goes through, the feds aren't buying any new toys and those considered "non-essential" to the mission of their agency (or department, in some cases) will be treated like dead weight.
Ironically, this would be an excellent time for an audit of the federal labor force and contracts to see who should be permanently let go and/or have their contract torn up.
Of course such an audit would be performed by the same "non-essential" employees that just got furloughed. Also a shutdown has nothing to do with the fed buying new toys. The military and homeland security are the ones that gets all of those new toys and their budgets are still in place. No, what it means is that the government lays off a bunch of employees, quits paying contractors, quits making transfers to state budgets for federal grants, quits accepting new people into social security, quits processing passport requests and stuff like that. All of those things combined are just a fraction of the budget, but impact real people's lives.. The forced shutdown is a symbolic gesture, made by those who won't be impacted by it.
Congress has one main job right now -- to come up with a budget for a fiscal year that are half way through. If they can't do it, then maybe they should look towards themself with regards to non-essential personnel.
it was permanent. This shutdown only brings a temporary respite to the oppression the American people suffer at the hands of it's own government.
Oh, yes, the American people are so oppressed. Maybe you should go live in the Middle East, or China, or Nigeria or any other place that the people really are oppressed. The sad thing is that the American people are so narcissistic that they think they are oppressed when they have more freedom and autonomy than most anywhere else on the planet.
As for it seeming common sense, you have to remember that it was filed in 1999, long before what we accept as normal ways to do things, today, just 12 years later.
On PCs with a real-time clock, MS-DOS and Windows 3.1 could sort documents by modification date. So "arranging documents in a time flow" has to be specific enough not to cover that.
Unfortunately that is not what the actual patent is about. If it was don't you think Microsoft would be suing Apple.
That's irrelevant; merely replicating a manual process on the computer is not patentable.
The courts have ruled differently. Patents are about processes. Arranging documents chronologically on a computer takes a different process than arranging them manually.
he patent was ridiculous even when Gelernter got it 12 years ago; people back then already had many ways of arranging and browsing documents and other content graphically very similar to the way Gelernter attempted to patent.
That is probably true, but none of the other people patented the idea. I guess if they had published how they were doing it, then prior art might be applicable, but just because they were doing it does not, in and of itself, make it prior art. People were killing mice long before the first mouse trap was patented.
He ruled that Apple didn't infringe the patent. In effect, he said that the only way the patent is valid is that it is so narrow that Apple didn't infringe. There are lots of narrow patents like that (exact shape of print cartridges, exact shape of connectors, etc.). They can be valuable, but in this case, they probably aren't.
Actually, he ruled the patent valid and that Apple did not prove it's case against the patent. He further ruled that there also wasn't sufficient evidence presented to determine if the patent was infringed. That is different than ruling Apple didn't infringe.
The main thing that seems to have changed over the last decade or two is that more and more dumb and inexperienced people have entered the computer industry so that things that seemed to be obvious to anybody "skilled in the art" all of a sudden are mystifying and novel to people like you.
Ummm, my first computer work was done on a bunch of IBM 360s and DEC PDP12 equipment. Then I did a lot of mainframe work, then microprocessor development and finally was involved with software development for the last 30 years on personal computers. I am quite confident that you have used several of the projects that I was part of the development of (or at least ones derived from those projects). So, how long does somebody have to be in the industry before you consider them experienced?
Why do you call this guy a patent troll? From what I read, it was a legitimately filed patent back in 1999. Aren't most patent trolls the ones who purchase portfolios of patents and then use them against other companies?
Last time I checked, ramen noodles were less than a dollar, hotdogs were around $2 a pack and frozen burritos were $4 a bag. Those are all cheaper than fresh vegetables and real meat. Junk food is more than just twinkees and donuts.
The (thin) articles say that Gelertner's patent was for arranging documents in a time flow. Why wouldn't Eadweard Muybridge's work be prior art? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muybridge)
This sure seems to me to be Yet Another Duh! patent.
Muybridge died in 1904, long before documents were stored and retrieved electronically. As for it seeming common sense, you have to remember that it was filed in 1999, long before what we accept as normal ways to do things, today, just 12 years later.
Besides, the overturning judge ruled the patent valid, somehow, he just wrote off the damages from the infringement.
This is bad news for small developers. According to the article, the original patent in question was filed in 1999 and a jury determined that Apple infringed upon it. Then when it was appealed, the judge determined that even though the jury ruled one way, they were wrong. Then he goes on to eliminate the awarded damages, while at the same time stating that original patent was valid.
So, if the judge agrees with the jury that the original patent was valid and then Apple uses the technology without paying royalties, So, how can a judge find that the original patent is valid (which is also what the jury determined), recognize that Apple used the patented technology (which is also what the jury determined) and then through out the award and close the the case? At a minimum, should it not have been sent back to the lower court to be re-tried?
First they want to get rid of undocumented workers. Now they want to get rid of overweight people and people who smoke. Correct me if I'm wrong, but who will be left in Arizona if they are successful with all of these things?
There are so many problems with this I don't know where to begin. For one, to qualify for medicaid, you must be below the poverty level. The assumption with this proposal is that the people on medicaid are over eating. Given their income, it is most likely not how much they are eating but instead what they are eating. When you are poor, it is hard to eat healthy. Fruits and vegetables and meat cost money that you don't have. Junk food, on the other hand, is relatively cheap.
Then, what about diabetics? Many are overweight on account of their medical condition. In the private sector, when a business tries something like this, it runs afoul of the ADA. Why wouldn't the state's proposal? If diabetics are exempted, then what about people in wheel chairs? They tend to become overweight, too? If diabetics and people in wheel chairs, what about the next group with a legitimate cause? Once you make an exception for one group, you are opening the doors for others. And if you do have exceptions, then you are going to be paying somebody to determine and monitor the exception.
Part of the proposal requires the people to go to the doctor, get on a plan and stick with the plan. Who is going to pay for those doctor visits? We've already established that the people in the program are below the poverty level. Of course, it will be the state. So, in addition to hiring staff for determination and monitoring the people in the program. The state will have to pay more out to doctors and that also adds staff to process those payments.
Finally, none of this solves the real problem, which is not that the people in question are overweight, but that they are poor and need assistance with basic necessities including but not limited to health care.
"Protein and fats are broken down into glucose just like carbs."
Wrong. Gluconeogenesis is *very* different than the digestion of carbohydrates.
" if all you eat is protein or all you eat is fat, you will starve to death,"
Wrong. See the Masai and Inuit.
"With regards to fats, saturated fat is not "good" for you"
Yes, it is. Of course, this is mostly because wherever you see saturated fat, you actually see a combination of saturated and unsaturated fat, but to imagine it as "bad" is a misconception.
"The average American diet is very high in fat."
But the fat isn't the problem. It's the carbs.
"Carbs are not bad for you. Protein is not bad for you. Fat is not bad for you. Excess of any one of them is bad for you."
The problem is that "excess" is different for all three, and the worst one is carbs.
Seriously, did you watch the Gary Taubes lecture? More importantly, are you going to?
No, I am not going to watch the Gary Taube lecture. I am very familiar with the work. My doctoral dissertation on nutrition referenced many of the same resources. I am actually agreeing with most of what you are saying. I have been dumbing down the explanation since most people reading this on slashdot are not at the same level as Taubes, you or myself. So, when I say it is broken down into glucose or stored as fat, I am very much aware, as are you that the process and mechanisms are significantly more complicated than that. However, the average John Doe does not make that distinction. They are not aware of ketosis, or the krebs cycle or any of the technical processes involved.
As I said, I agree with just about everything you state, with the exception that all food types (carb, protein, fat), need to be broken down by the body to be utilized and that process ultimately equates to glycogen (which the body stores and later converts back to glucose) and amino acids. In layman's terms, since all cells require this, the body has to produce it if it is not present in the diet. That means that even an all protein diet eventually creates glucose somewhere. When glucose is introduced through the diet, it requires insulin to be released because the amount introduced far exceeds the body's current need. When your body produces it, it only produces the exact amounts it needs and there is not an appreciable rise in blood sugar.
We could get all technical and into the specific mechanisms and things, but slashdot really isn't the place for that discussion. Suffice it to say, that I am more or less in agreement with what you are saying.
I can eat a 40 oz steak, and not drive my blood sugar up, not raise my insulin levels, and not accumulate fat. I can eat half a potato, and drive my blood sugar up, raise my insulin levels, and have my insulin resistant body accumulate fat. The portion size and calorie amount isn't what is important here -> the effect on insulin levels *is*.
Seriously, google "gary taubes berkeley", watch his lecture, then get back to me with what you've learned.
For the most part, I agree with you. However, that 40 oz steak only has no impact on your glucose if you already are eating low carbs. If you have a typical american diet, even a healthy one, but one where you eat a lot of carbs and today, you eat nothing but that steak, your glucose level will rise. Only after you have gone about three days without significant carbs will that steak only meal not impact your glucose.
I agree whole heartedly, that a baked potato is not good for you. It is no different than eating than eating a 1/4 cup of sugar (for 1/2 a potato). Sugar is definitely empty calories, is readily converted to glucose, will provide more glucose than the body can utilize in a short time and the insulin will cause it to be converted to fat (triglycerides, actually and then stored as fat).
From what you are describing, you sound like you are pre-diabetic and you are using a low carb high protein diet to control your glucose level. That diet works very well for that. However, for somebody who is not insulin compromised, the calories from that steak, unless they too, are on a low carb diet, will be converted to glucose (it's just not the first step of the process like it is with a baked potato). Given your condition, your doctor is probably not telling you that you can eat all the steak and bacon that you want. He/she would normally still be advising moderation.
I commend you on maintaining your regimen. As I stated before, most americans would be better served lowering their carb intake, even if not by definition a low carb. The real issue for most people, though is carb + fat. The carbs in french fries work just like a baked potato and cause an insulin release. That insulin causes the fat in the fries (which is not present in a baked potato unless you add sour cream and cheese) to be converted to tryglicerides. From there it is either converted back to glucose or stored as fat. Again, given your low carb diet, this process does not occur for you.
Assuming you went low carb by following Atkins or South Beach or something similar, by the time you are at maintenance, you are around 100 grams of carbs a day. That is far below the average diet, but by definition, is not low carb, which is in the 20 to 40 grams per day.
On these diets, they tend to be high fat and protein in the early stages and then as you approach your maintenance, you start adding carbs and reducing the fat. If you were to have a glucose test after eating a normal meal while in maintenance mode, you would see a glucose rise, which is then followed by a release of insulin. A high fat diet at that point would trigger weight gain.
The human body cannot stay at a low carb intake (20-40 grams) indefinately, other problems will occur along with an ever decreasing metabolism. The early settlers ate only rabbit during the winter months -- zero carbs plus the few vegetables they had - low carbs. Many of them died from starvation because they did not have sufficient fat stores to be converted to glucose. Without the fat, the body turns to muscle and it does not distinguish between the muscles in your butt or your heart muscle.
I agree that low carb dieting is great for dropping weight. It turns out the more overweight your are the more quickly you will lose, too. However, by the time you reach maintenance weight, by definition, you are consuming enough carbs but no more that your body can convert into glucose and consume. Yes, you are relatively low carb at 100grams (only 450 calories), but that is still enough to trigger an insulin response which would store the fat. The reason it probably is not is that your total caloric intake is probably around 1,500 and the rest of what you are eating is being converted immediately and burned. If you were to eat 2,500 calories but only 100 grams of carbs, you would put weight on (unless you were really active to burn the extra calories).
Protein and fats are broken down into glucose just like carbs. However, it does require insulin to be present. In the absence of carbs, this can't happen, so if all you eat is protein or all you eat is fat, you will starve to death, just like the settlers did when all they could eat during the winter was rabbit. In reality, it doesn't take 0 carbs for this to happen, but a low enough amount that there is minimal insulin released.
So, no, fats or proteins do not suddenly gain a glycemic index, but in the presence of other carbs they will be converted to glucose. The conversion is not as efficient as the bodies method of converting carbs to glucose, and it happens differently, but it does happen.
With regards to fats, saturated fat is not "good" for you. During the Viet Nam war, when doing autopsies on dead soldiers, all young (between the age of 18 and 22), there was regular evidence of atherosclerosis. This was before there was a large amount of transfats. A transfat is really a polyunsaturated fat that has had hydrogen or bromine bubbled through it to saturate the bonds. It is not significantly different to the human body than saturated fats from animal products. The bad part of any digestible fat is the saturated part. Taking relatively healthy poly unsaturated fats like corn oil or soybean oil and then altering them (so they are solid at room temperature) so that they become saturated fats is what makes them bad. If you fry a doughnut in lard or you fry it in Crisco, it is the same effect. If you fry it in olive oil, it would be healthier but taste like crap.
The problem with transfats, is that they are in everything. Fat makes things taste better and transfats don't go rancid like saturated animal fats, so transfats allow for a longer shelf life. Couple the high fat content with the carb content (high or not) causes the body to either store the fat or break it down in the liver into glucose depending on the body's needs.
The average American diet is very high in fat. The average male, on a 2500 calorie diet only needs about 250 calories from fat to absorb the fat soluble nutrients. That is approximately 27.7 grams of fat or about two tablespoons a day. The average diet, however provides about 900 calories from fat, or 100 grams or almost 4 times what is needed. There are only three places for that fat to go: 1) be stored, 2) be converted to glucose for energy, 3) be pooped out. In the presence of carbs, all three of those occur, although with extremely low carbs, the fat as it is converted is then burned. Even a starving person has a normally glucose level, which means the body has to produce it from something (fat and protein stores). Your brain cannot function without an adequate supply of glucose, so your body will produce what it needs at the expense of muscle and other organs.
Carbs are not bad for you. Protein is not bad for you. Fat is not bad for you. Excess of any one of them is bad for you. Excess carbs will cause fat in the diet to be stored and if it is really high, will be converted to fat itself. Excess proteins will impact your kidneys. Excess fat will impact your liver and gallbladder. The proper balance, and I do agree with you that the American diet has too many carbs to be healthy, but he proper balance and people will have healthier lives (whether overweight or not).
They deserve better than that, whether sick or not, whether overweight or not, whether you like their choices or not.
This. I have several overweight friends. One is convinced doctors are trying to kill him. In one years-long episode, he was feeling bad and getting sores. Every doctor he went to insisted he get tested for diabetes, even though he told them he had been tested, recently, multiple times, and was not diabetic. They just could not believe that an overweight person with sores was not diabetic.
Eventually, after he reported feeling much better on antibiotics, they figured out he had a sinus infection suppressing his immune system. The person that figured this out wasn't a doctor, but a nurse. Go figure.
If you have a weightist attitude, you have no business being a GP. Go into research or something where you are less likely to hurt your patients.
I have a hypotheses as to why overweight people have a lot more health issues and it has to do with diagnoses. Yes, obesity leads to certain problems. Those are well known and the crux of the problem. When an overweight person comes in, it is far too easy to assume that their problems are caused by their obesity. When treating the obesity doesn't resolve the problem, then they look for other causes. For thin and normal weight people, they look at the other causes first, so the treatment is started early in the disease cycle and has better results.
Basically, overweight people suffer not only from the direct impact their weight causes on their health, but also the tremendous prejudice this country and many in the medical profession have against obesity. Obesity, very often, is looked at as a personal moral failure and treated by society that way. Once all we see is another fat person, then we dismiss them as an individual. When a person in the medical profession does this, then they jeopardize that individual's health. It wasn't too long ago that if you were a woman or a minority, that you were treated this way. It still happens for those two groups to some extent. Now, however, it is the obese that get the full brunt of our individual desire to feel superior.
So you are saying that nutritionists are not able to calculate the nutritionally available calories with any semblance of accuracy? The unavailable calories don't seem to have many implications for weight gain.
So in fact the body has to get the calories it uses from the nutritionally available calories in food, it isn't a trope.
Of course it isn't always simple, but "The Biggest Loser" does a pretty good job demonstrating that a normalized diet and heap of exercise have a big impact.
He (or she) to whom you are responding to is using the net carb notion of Atkins and other low carb diets (whether for weight loss or diabeties). Since low carb and net carb got a bad rap, it is now called low glycemic index (which is probably a more accurate term). Since dietary fiber is non digestible, although it is technically a carb, the body cannot use it and it therefore doesn't count towards the calories or insulin response.
It really has to do with the way they measure carbs. They burn the food to measure total calories. Then they actually measure the amount of protein and the amount of fat. What's left are carbs. However, that process does not take into account whether they are digestible or not. Fiber is not, so any carbs from the fiber don't effect sugar levels.
So the original poster is correct, you can pretty much eat all the celery you want and won't gain weight, because celery has almost no nutritional value for human beings. You could also eat all of the grass clipping from your front yard for the same reason. (If you were a cow, this would not be true).
As for the biggest loser and diets. The problem with most diets that use extremes, like low carb or really low calorie or liquid diets, etc. Is that most people cannot stay on them for ever. They get tired of them or quit for whatever reason and as soon as they go back to eating normal food at what they perceive to be normal portions (which are usually 2 to 3 times a real portion), they put the weight back on.
Studies show that the most effective weight loss program is WeightWatchers (I have no affiliation with them), because the participants learn how to properly eat (food choices, portion sizes) and lifestyle changes (exercise, etc.) all wrapped up in a self-help support group framework. That doesn't mean that everybody on WW is successful, just compared to most other programs there is a higher success rate.
The secret to weight loss and keeping it off, is the amount of digestible calories consumed must be burned and then some for weight loss to occur. The most effective and healthiest way to do that is with proper food choices and proper portion sizes along with increased activity.
Carbs are carbs. Eating 300 carbs of chocolate (1 candy bar) has the same effect of eating 300 digestible carbs (ie does not include fiber) of green beans. The difference is 300 carbs of green beans (not the fixings that go with it), is probably more than the average person can hold in their stomach. And, if you don't burn those 300 carbs off, they will be stored as fat.
The real benefit with low glycemic index foods is not that the carbs don't raise blood sugar (glucose). It is that for a normal serving size, the digestible carbs do not raise blood sugar. Go beyond that serving size (over eat) and the blood sugar goes up.
Actually, the tired old trope of "calories in, calories out" has been thoroughly refuted by a number of studies, detailed in Gary Taubes' "Good Calories, Bad Calories". Google for "gary taubes berkeley", watch his lecture, then get back to me.
A few more corrections:
1) proteins and fats have nearly zero effect on blood sugar levels. google "glycemic index"
2) there is no such thing as an essential carbs -> you can, and people have, lived very well without carbs. google "masai" and "inuit"
3) poor cholesterol levels (as measured by high triglycerides and low HDL) has been shown to be a result of high-carb/low fat diet. Putting people on low-fat diets after heart attacks should be considered malpractice.
It is misleading to state proteins and fat have nearly zero effect on blood sugar levels. That is only true in the absence of carbs. A baked potato is loaded with carbs. However, unless blood sugar levels are a problem is relatively okay. That same potato cut up and deep fried as in french fries, however is a whole different story. It is also only true if one is always eating low carbs. Take a normal moderate carb diet and the next day only eat bacon and eggs and do a glucose test and the glucose will be high. Low glycemic only works when one always eats low glycemic (as diabetics do).
It is true that there are good carbs and bad carbs (with insoluble fiber being a good carb). Good carbs don't increase blood sugar, they also don't provide energy for the body to function. Usually, though this is explained in terms of nutritional value/energy provided. Peanut butter is a relatively low carb, low glycemic index food. However, because of the high fat/high calorie content (ie high energy) you can't eat a lot of it. Two tablespoons eaten from the spoon itself is one serving. Most people eat quite a bit more, so even though it is low glycemic, in the quantity consumed it is not. Drinking a Select 55 or Miller 64 will not appreciably raise one's blood sugar. Drinking a six pack will.
So, while it is true that there are good carbs and bad carbs, most Americans over consume the good carbs (let alone the bad) and effectively the glycemic index does not work. If they stuck to actually serving sizes, that would be different.
Your final statement about poor cholesterol seems to refute what you say about good carbs/bad carbs. Just like carbs, there are good fats (mono saturated) and bad fats. The low fat post heart attack diets are not malpractice, they eliminate the bad fats (poly saturated). Also, HDL and triglycerides are much more complex than high carb diets. Studies have shown that highly active people can eat and often do eat high carb diets (like the marathon runner bulking up on pasta). However, these same people have low tryglicerides and high HDL levels, which is why exercise is so often recommended for improved health after a heart attack.
Point 3 also ignores the normal diet, say around the Mediterranean, which by US standards would be classified as high carb, low fat.
All of that said, most Americans have a horrible diet being high carb, high protein and high fat. That is a deadly combination.
Super duper easy. The chronic diseases of civilization that cost us the most money (obesity, diabetes, cancer, heart disease, etc), all have their source in the effect of the hormone insulin. Insulin levels are raised by high blood sugar levels, and blood sugar levels are raised by carbohydrate intake.
Now, you probably won't find that data in people's medical records, but if they started tracking that, I think they'd have an excellent predictor of future problems.
And your medical degree was from where? While it is true that once one is diabetic, carbs are an issue. Obesity is not so much carb related but the input of calories exceed the expenditure of calories, that could be carbs, more likely fats, and definitely a sedentary life style., Most heart disease has nothing to do with carb intake and actually after a heart attack, most survivors are placed on a high carb low fat diet.
Carbs do raise your blood sugar levels, of course so do protein and fats, unless you are on a low carb diet. But for normal diets, just about everything with calories raises your blood sugar levels as that is because the cells in the body, particularly the brain need glucose to function. Carbs are not bad, you couldn't live without carbs. People in Southeast Asia eat relatively high carb diets, mainly rice, and have low incidences of of any of the diseases you mentioned. There are also a good number of vegetarians that have very high carb diets that are not obese or with any of the ailments you list.
Reduced carbs are good for losing weight, and dealing with glucose levels for those that glucose is a problem, such as diabetics, but it is not the cure all and be all for the general public.
The commonest disabilities in the western world are heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and multiple arthritis from being too heavy for your poor bones to handle.
I'm a GP doctor; as folk walk in the door, it is usually obvious who is going to be at risk for future problems. They are fat, overflowing my poor abused seats, they groan as they stand up, they are obviously unfit. As a added bonus, I can often smell the cigarettes on their breath.
Does knowing who is at risk help? Sadly, all too often it doesnt.
Lazy fat slobs will on average die considerably younger of way too many diseases, and I have not even mentioned chronic crappy disabilities like back pain, hip pain, knee pain. I pride myself that I turn a few of these folks to the bright side of eating a bit better, exercising a tad more, and thus living longer and actually enjoying those healthy extra years.
You don't need an algorithm to work out who is at risk of future disease, it is bloody obvious (can I have my $3M now?). The problem is getting these fat, unfit folk to realise there is more to exercise than driving to buy their next greasy pizza.
Oh! they deliver now as well...
If you truly are a physician, It's hard to understand why you would choose to stay in practice with the arrogant attitude you have towards your patients. I am so glad that in your humanitarian care, you have chosen to turn a few of these burdensome patients of yours to the bright side. If what you posted it really how you feel, then it is truly sad for the patients you treat. They deserve better than that, whether sick or not, whether overweight or not, whether you like their choices or not.
While it may be a noble effort to try and predict when people will be sick and need major medical care or even use the information to provide preventative measures before the events occur, there is also much potential for the information to be misused. The same information to predict serious illness can also be used to deny coverage to those individuals that have negative predictions
70 years ago, splitting the atom led to the expectation of cheap, safe, unlimited energy. However, as the world found out, that same effort also lead to bombs of unbelievable destructive capability. Splitting the atom was a neutral thing. How it is used became a moral thing. Likewise, predicting illness is a neutral thing, but how it could be used will very much turn into a moral thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Legally if you just hold what the user uploaded directly you cannot be liable.
A lot of colleges and universities believed that, too. At least until they found out otherwise.
This, out of the 30 something federal workers I work with 1 will be furloughed. I guess you could call us mission critical, we work on an airfield that supports 0 aircraft.
I would lowball half of federal workers could be eliminated with 0 consequences to the government (probably more like 80%).
So, you willing accept a federal subsidy for doing no work? At least poor people admit they are on government welfare.
The federal shutdown is only affecting 800,000 employees out of a few million uniformed servicemen, civilian employees and contractors. I would be surprised if it's even 25% of the federal workforce.
What this shutdown means is that until the budget goes through, the feds aren't buying any new toys and those considered "non-essential" to the mission of their agency (or department, in some cases) will be treated like dead weight.
Ironically, this would be an excellent time for an audit of the federal labor force and contracts to see who should be permanently let go and/or have their contract torn up.
Of course such an audit would be performed by the same "non-essential" employees that just got furloughed. Also a shutdown has nothing to do with the fed buying new toys. The military and homeland security are the ones that gets all of those new toys and their budgets are still in place. No, what it means is that the government lays off a bunch of employees, quits paying contractors, quits making transfers to state budgets for federal grants, quits accepting new people into social security, quits processing passport requests and stuff like that. All of those things combined are just a fraction of the budget, but impact real people's lives.. The forced shutdown is a symbolic gesture, made by those who won't be impacted by it.
Congress has one main job right now -- to come up with a budget for a fiscal year that are half way through. If they can't do it, then maybe they should look towards themself with regards to non-essential personnel.
it was permanent. This shutdown only brings a temporary respite to the oppression the American people suffer at the hands of it's own government.
Oh, yes, the American people are so oppressed. Maybe you should go live in the Middle East, or China, or Nigeria or any other place that the people really are oppressed. The sad thing is that the American people are so narcissistic that they think they are oppressed when they have more freedom and autonomy than most anywhere else on the planet.
"Which grads students are the most miserable?"
That's easy. Unemployed ones.
As for it seeming common sense, you have to remember that it was filed in 1999, long before what we accept as normal ways to do things, today, just 12 years later.
On PCs with a real-time clock, MS-DOS and Windows 3.1 could sort documents by modification date. So "arranging documents in a time flow" has to be specific enough not to cover that.
Unfortunately that is not what the actual patent is about. If it was don't you think Microsoft would be suing Apple.
That's irrelevant; merely replicating a manual process on the computer is not patentable.
The courts have ruled differently. Patents are about processes. Arranging documents chronologically on a computer takes a different process than arranging them manually.
he patent was ridiculous even when Gelernter got it 12 years ago; people back then already had many ways of arranging and browsing documents and other content graphically very similar to the way Gelernter attempted to patent.
That is probably true, but none of the other people patented the idea. I guess if they had published how they were doing it, then prior art might be applicable, but just because they were doing it does not, in and of itself, make it prior art. People were killing mice long before the first mouse trap was patented.
He ruled that Apple didn't infringe the patent. In effect, he said that the only way the patent is valid is that it is so narrow that Apple didn't infringe. There are lots of narrow patents like that (exact shape of print cartridges, exact shape of connectors, etc.). They can be valuable, but in this case, they probably aren't.
Actually, he ruled the patent valid and that Apple did not prove it's case against the patent. He further ruled that there also wasn't sufficient evidence presented to determine if the patent was infringed. That is different than ruling Apple didn't infringe.
The main thing that seems to have changed over the last decade or two is that more and more dumb and inexperienced people have entered the computer industry so that things that seemed to be obvious to anybody "skilled in the art" all of a sudden are mystifying and novel to people like you.
Ummm, my first computer work was done on a bunch of IBM 360s and DEC PDP12 equipment. Then I did a lot of mainframe work, then microprocessor development and finally was involved with software development for the last 30 years on personal computers. I am quite confident that you have used several of the projects that I was part of the development of (or at least ones derived from those projects). So, how long does somebody have to be in the industry before you consider them experienced?
Why do you call this guy a patent troll? From what I read, it was a legitimately filed patent back in 1999. Aren't most patent trolls the ones who purchase portfolios of patents and then use them against other companies?
Last time I checked, ramen noodles were less than a dollar, hotdogs were around $2 a pack and frozen burritos were $4 a bag. Those are all cheaper than fresh vegetables and real meat. Junk food is more than just twinkees and donuts.
The (thin) articles say that Gelertner's patent was for arranging documents in a time flow. Why wouldn't Eadweard Muybridge's work be prior art? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muybridge)
This sure seems to me to be Yet Another Duh! patent.
Muybridge died in 1904, long before documents were stored and retrieved electronically. As for it seeming common sense, you have to remember that it was filed in 1999, long before what we accept as normal ways to do things, today, just 12 years later.
Besides, the overturning judge ruled the patent valid, somehow, he just wrote off the damages from the infringement.
This is bad news for small developers. According to the article, the original patent in question was filed in 1999 and a jury determined that Apple infringed upon it. Then when it was appealed, the judge determined that even though the jury ruled one way, they were wrong. Then he goes on to eliminate the awarded damages, while at the same time stating that original patent was valid.
So, if the judge agrees with the jury that the original patent was valid and then Apple uses the technology without paying royalties,
So, how can a judge find that the original patent is valid (which is also what the jury determined), recognize that Apple used the patented technology (which is also what the jury determined) and then through out the award and close the the case? At a minimum, should it not have been sent back to the lower court to be re-tried?
First they want to get rid of undocumented workers. Now they want to get rid of overweight people and people who smoke. Correct me if I'm wrong, but who will be left in Arizona if they are successful with all of these things?
There are so many problems with this I don't know where to begin. For one, to qualify for medicaid, you must be below the poverty level. The assumption with this proposal is that the people on medicaid are over eating. Given their income, it is most likely not how much they are eating but instead what they are eating. When you are poor, it is hard to eat healthy. Fruits and vegetables and meat cost money that you don't have. Junk food, on the other hand, is relatively cheap.
Then, what about diabetics? Many are overweight on account of their medical condition. In the private sector, when a business tries something like this, it runs afoul of the ADA. Why wouldn't the state's proposal? If diabetics are exempted, then what about people in wheel chairs? They tend to become overweight, too? If diabetics and people in wheel chairs, what about the next group with a legitimate cause? Once you make an exception for one group, you are opening the doors for others. And if you do have exceptions, then you are going to be paying somebody to determine and monitor the exception.
Part of the proposal requires the people to go to the doctor, get on a plan and stick with the plan. Who is going to pay for those doctor visits? We've already established that the people in the program are below the poverty level. Of course, it will be the state. So, in addition to hiring staff for determination and monitoring the people in the program. The state will have to pay more out to doctors and that also adds staff to process those payments.
Finally, none of this solves the real problem, which is not that the people in question are overweight, but that they are poor and need assistance with basic necessities including but not limited to health care.
"Protein and fats are broken down into glucose just like carbs."
Wrong. Gluconeogenesis is *very* different than the digestion of carbohydrates.
" if all you eat is protein or all you eat is fat, you will starve to death,"
Wrong. See the Masai and Inuit.
"With regards to fats, saturated fat is not "good" for you"
Yes, it is. Of course, this is mostly because wherever you see saturated fat, you actually see a combination of saturated and unsaturated fat, but to imagine it as "bad" is a misconception.
"The average American diet is very high in fat."
But the fat isn't the problem. It's the carbs.
"Carbs are not bad for you. Protein is not bad for you. Fat is not bad for you. Excess of any one of them is bad for you."
The problem is that "excess" is different for all three, and the worst one is carbs.
Seriously, did you watch the Gary Taubes lecture? More importantly, are you going to?
No, I am not going to watch the Gary Taube lecture. I am very familiar with the work. My doctoral dissertation on nutrition referenced many of the same resources. I am actually agreeing with most of what you are saying. I have been dumbing down the explanation since most people reading this on slashdot are not at the same level as Taubes, you or myself. So, when I say it is broken down into glucose or stored as fat, I am very much aware, as are you that the process and mechanisms are significantly more complicated than that. However, the average John Doe does not make that distinction. They are not aware of ketosis, or the krebs cycle or any of the technical processes involved.
As I said, I agree with just about everything you state, with the exception that all food types (carb, protein, fat), need to be broken down by the body to be utilized and that process ultimately equates to glycogen (which the body stores and later converts back to glucose) and amino acids. In layman's terms, since all cells require this, the body has to produce it if it is not present in the diet. That means that even an all protein diet eventually creates glucose somewhere. When glucose is introduced through the diet, it requires insulin to be released because the amount introduced far exceeds the body's current need. When your body produces it, it only produces the exact amounts it needs and there is not an appreciable rise in blood sugar.
We could get all technical and into the specific mechanisms and things, but slashdot really isn't the place for that discussion. Suffice it to say, that I am more or less in agreement with what you are saying.
I can eat a 40 oz steak, and not drive my blood sugar up, not raise my insulin levels, and not accumulate fat. I can eat half a potato, and drive my blood sugar up, raise my insulin levels, and have my insulin resistant body accumulate fat. The portion size and calorie amount isn't what is important here -> the effect on insulin levels *is*.
Seriously, google "gary taubes berkeley", watch his lecture, then get back to me with what you've learned.
For the most part, I agree with you. However, that 40 oz steak only has no impact on your glucose if you already are eating low carbs. If you have a typical american diet, even a healthy one, but one where you eat a lot of carbs and today, you eat nothing but that steak, your glucose level will rise. Only after you have gone about three days without significant carbs will that steak only meal not impact your glucose.
I agree whole heartedly, that a baked potato is not good for you. It is no different than eating than eating a 1/4 cup of sugar (for 1/2 a potato). Sugar is definitely empty calories, is readily converted to glucose, will provide more glucose than the body can utilize in a short time and the insulin will cause it to be converted to fat (triglycerides, actually and then stored as fat).
From what you are describing, you sound like you are pre-diabetic and you are using a low carb high protein diet to control your glucose level. That diet works very well for that. However, for somebody who is not insulin compromised, the calories from that steak, unless they too, are on a low carb diet, will be converted to glucose (it's just not the first step of the process like it is with a baked potato). Given your condition, your doctor is probably not telling you that you can eat all the steak and bacon that you want. He/she would normally still be advising moderation.
I commend you on maintaining your regimen. As I stated before, most americans would be better served lowering their carb intake, even if not by definition a low carb. The real issue for most people, though is carb + fat. The carbs in french fries work just like a baked potato and cause an insulin release. That insulin causes the fat in the fries (which is not present in a baked potato unless you add sour cream and cheese) to be converted to tryglicerides. From there it is either converted back to glucose or stored as fat. Again, given your low carb diet, this process does not occur for you.
Assuming you went low carb by following Atkins or South Beach or something similar, by the time you are at maintenance, you are around 100 grams of carbs a day. That is far below the average diet, but by definition, is not low carb, which is in the 20 to 40 grams per day.
On these diets, they tend to be high fat and protein in the early stages and then as you approach your maintenance, you start adding carbs and reducing the fat. If you were to have a glucose test after eating a normal meal while in maintenance mode, you would see a glucose rise, which is then followed by a release of insulin. A high fat diet at that point would trigger weight gain.
The human body cannot stay at a low carb intake (20-40 grams) indefinately, other problems will occur along with an ever decreasing metabolism. The early settlers ate only rabbit during the winter months -- zero carbs plus the few vegetables they had - low carbs. Many of them died from starvation because they did not have sufficient fat stores to be converted to glucose. Without the fat, the body turns to muscle and it does not distinguish between the muscles in your butt or your heart muscle.
I agree that low carb dieting is great for dropping weight. It turns out the more overweight your are the more quickly you will lose, too. However, by the time you reach maintenance weight, by definition, you are consuming enough carbs but no more that your body can convert into glucose and consume. Yes, you are relatively low carb at 100grams (only 450 calories), but that is still enough to trigger an insulin response which would store the fat. The reason it probably is not is that your total caloric intake is probably around 1,500 and the rest of what you are eating is being converted immediately and burned. If you were to eat 2,500 calories but only 100 grams of carbs, you would put weight on (unless you were really active to burn the extra calories).
Protein and fats are broken down into glucose just like carbs. However, it does require insulin to be present. In the absence of carbs, this can't happen, so if all you eat is protein or all you eat is fat, you will starve to death, just like the settlers did when all they could eat during the winter was rabbit. In reality, it doesn't take 0 carbs for this to happen, but a low enough amount that there is minimal insulin released.
So, no, fats or proteins do not suddenly gain a glycemic index, but in the presence of other carbs they will be converted to glucose. The conversion is not as efficient as the bodies method of converting carbs to glucose, and it happens differently, but it does happen.
With regards to fats, saturated fat is not "good" for you. During the Viet Nam war, when doing autopsies on dead soldiers, all young (between the age of 18 and 22), there was regular evidence of atherosclerosis. This was before there was a large amount of transfats. A transfat is really a polyunsaturated fat that has had hydrogen or bromine bubbled through it to saturate the bonds. It is not significantly different to the human body than saturated fats from animal products. The bad part of any digestible fat is the saturated part. Taking relatively healthy poly unsaturated fats like corn oil or soybean oil and then altering them (so they are solid at room temperature) so that they become saturated fats is what makes them bad. If you fry a doughnut in lard or you fry it in Crisco, it is the same effect. If you fry it in olive oil, it would be healthier but taste like crap.
The problem with transfats, is that they are in everything. Fat makes things taste better and transfats don't go rancid like saturated animal fats, so transfats allow for a longer shelf life. Couple the high fat content with the carb content (high or not) causes the body to either store the fat or break it down in the liver into glucose depending on the body's needs.
The average American diet is very high in fat. The average male, on a 2500 calorie diet only needs about 250 calories from fat to absorb the fat soluble nutrients. That is approximately 27.7 grams of fat or about two tablespoons a day. The average diet, however provides about 900 calories from fat, or 100 grams or almost 4 times what is needed. There are only three places for that fat to go: 1) be stored, 2) be converted to glucose for energy, 3) be pooped out. In the presence of carbs, all three of those occur, although with extremely low carbs, the fat as it is converted is then burned. Even a starving person has a normally glucose level, which means the body has to produce it from something (fat and protein stores). Your brain cannot function without an adequate supply of glucose, so your body will produce what it needs at the expense of muscle and other organs.
Carbs are not bad for you. Protein is not bad for you. Fat is not bad for you. Excess of any one of them is bad for you. Excess carbs will cause fat in the diet to be stored and if it is really high, will be converted to fat itself. Excess proteins will impact your kidneys. Excess fat will impact your liver and gallbladder. The proper balance, and I do agree with you that the American diet has too many carbs to be healthy, but he proper balance and people will have healthier lives (whether overweight or not).
They deserve better than that, whether sick or not, whether overweight or not, whether you like their choices or not.
This. I have several overweight friends. One is convinced doctors are trying to kill him. In one years-long episode, he was feeling bad and getting sores. Every doctor he went to insisted he get tested for diabetes, even though he told them he had been tested, recently, multiple times, and was not diabetic. They just could not believe that an overweight person with sores was not diabetic.
Eventually, after he reported feeling much better on antibiotics, they figured out he had a sinus infection suppressing his immune system. The person that figured this out wasn't a doctor, but a nurse. Go figure.
If you have a weightist attitude, you have no business being a GP. Go into research or something where you are less likely to hurt your patients.
I have a hypotheses as to why overweight people have a lot more health issues and it has to do with diagnoses. Yes, obesity leads to certain problems. Those are well known and the crux of the problem. When an overweight person comes in, it is far too easy to assume that their problems are caused by their obesity. When treating the obesity doesn't resolve the problem, then they look for other causes. For thin and normal weight people, they look at the other causes first, so the treatment is started early in the disease cycle and has better results.
Basically, overweight people suffer not only from the direct impact their weight causes on their health, but also the tremendous prejudice this country and many in the medical profession have against obesity. Obesity, very often, is looked at as a personal moral failure and treated by society that way. Once all we see is another fat person, then we dismiss them as an individual. When a person in the medical profession does this, then they jeopardize that individual's health. It wasn't too long ago that if you were a woman or a minority, that you were treated this way. It still happens for those two groups to some extent. Now, however, it is the obese that get the full brunt of our individual desire to feel superior.
I've worked with quite a few doctors over the years. He's not alone in that attitude.
That doesn't make his attitude correct.
So you are saying that nutritionists are not able to calculate the nutritionally available calories with any semblance of accuracy? The unavailable calories don't seem to have many implications for weight gain.
So in fact the body has to get the calories it uses from the nutritionally available calories in food, it isn't a trope.
Of course it isn't always simple, but "The Biggest Loser" does a pretty good job demonstrating that a normalized diet and heap of exercise have a big impact.
He (or she) to whom you are responding to is using the net carb notion of Atkins and other low carb diets (whether for weight loss or diabeties). Since low carb and net carb got a bad rap, it is now called low glycemic index (which is probably a more accurate term). Since dietary fiber is non digestible, although it is technically a carb, the body cannot use it and it therefore doesn't count towards the calories or insulin response.
It really has to do with the way they measure carbs. They burn the food to measure total calories. Then they actually measure the amount of protein and the amount of fat. What's left are carbs. However, that process does not take into account whether they are digestible or not. Fiber is not, so any carbs from the fiber don't effect sugar levels.
So the original poster is correct, you can pretty much eat all the celery you want and won't gain weight, because celery has almost no nutritional value for human beings. You could also eat all of the grass clipping from your front yard for the same reason. (If you were a cow, this would not be true).
As for the biggest loser and diets. The problem with most diets that use extremes, like low carb or really low calorie or liquid diets, etc. Is that most people cannot stay on them for ever. They get tired of them or quit for whatever reason and as soon as they go back to eating normal food at what they perceive to be normal portions (which are usually 2 to 3 times a real portion), they put the weight back on.
Studies show that the most effective weight loss program is WeightWatchers (I have no affiliation with them), because the participants learn how to properly eat (food choices, portion sizes) and lifestyle changes (exercise, etc.) all wrapped up in a self-help support group framework. That doesn't mean that everybody on WW is successful, just compared to most other programs there is a higher success rate.
The secret to weight loss and keeping it off, is the amount of digestible calories consumed must be burned and then some for weight loss to occur. The most effective and healthiest way to do that is with proper food choices and proper portion sizes along with increased activity.
Amen!
Carbs are carbs. Eating 300 carbs of chocolate (1 candy bar) has the same effect of eating 300 digestible carbs (ie does not include fiber) of green beans. The difference is 300 carbs of green beans (not the fixings that go with it), is probably more than the average person can hold in their stomach. And, if you don't burn those 300 carbs off, they will be stored as fat.
The real benefit with low glycemic index foods is not that the carbs don't raise blood sugar (glucose). It is that for a normal serving size, the digestible carbs do not raise blood sugar. Go beyond that serving size (over eat) and the blood sugar goes up.
Actually, the tired old trope of "calories in, calories out" has been thoroughly refuted by a number of studies, detailed in Gary Taubes' "Good Calories, Bad Calories". Google for "gary taubes berkeley", watch his lecture, then get back to me.
A few more corrections:
1) proteins and fats have nearly zero effect on blood sugar levels. google "glycemic index"
2) there is no such thing as an essential carbs -> you can, and people have, lived very well without carbs. google "masai" and "inuit"
3) poor cholesterol levels (as measured by high triglycerides and low HDL) has been shown to be a result of high-carb/low fat diet. Putting people on low-fat diets after heart attacks should be considered malpractice.
It is misleading to state proteins and fat have nearly zero effect on blood sugar levels. That is only true in the absence of carbs. A baked potato is loaded with carbs. However, unless blood sugar levels are a problem is relatively okay. That same potato cut up and deep fried as in french fries, however is a whole different story. It is also only true if one is always eating low carbs. Take a normal moderate carb diet and the next day only eat bacon and eggs and do a glucose test and the glucose will be high. Low glycemic only works when one always eats low glycemic (as diabetics do).
It is true that there are good carbs and bad carbs (with insoluble fiber being a good carb). Good carbs don't increase blood sugar, they also don't provide energy for the body to function. Usually, though this is explained in terms of nutritional value/energy provided. Peanut butter is a relatively low carb, low glycemic index food. However, because of the high fat/high calorie content (ie high energy) you can't eat a lot of it. Two tablespoons eaten from the spoon itself is one serving. Most people eat quite a bit more, so even though it is low glycemic, in the quantity consumed it is not. Drinking a Select 55 or Miller 64 will not appreciably raise one's blood sugar. Drinking a six pack will.
So, while it is true that there are good carbs and bad carbs, most Americans over consume the good carbs (let alone the bad) and effectively the glycemic index does not work. If they stuck to actually serving sizes, that would be different.
Your final statement about poor cholesterol seems to refute what you say about good carbs/bad carbs. Just like carbs, there are good fats (mono saturated) and bad fats. The low fat post heart attack diets are not malpractice, they eliminate the bad fats (poly saturated). Also, HDL and triglycerides are much more complex than high carb diets. Studies have shown that highly active people can eat and often do eat high carb diets (like the marathon runner bulking up on pasta). However, these same people have low tryglicerides and high HDL levels, which is why exercise is so often recommended for improved health after a heart attack.
Point 3 also ignores the normal diet, say around the Mediterranean, which by US standards would be classified as high carb, low fat.
All of that said, most Americans have a horrible diet being high carb, high protein and high fat. That is a deadly combination.
Super duper easy. The chronic diseases of civilization that cost us the most money (obesity, diabetes, cancer, heart disease, etc), all have their source in the effect of the hormone insulin. Insulin levels are raised by high blood sugar levels, and blood sugar levels are raised by carbohydrate intake.
Now, you probably won't find that data in people's medical records, but if they started tracking that, I think they'd have an excellent predictor of future problems.
And your medical degree was from where? While it is true that once one is diabetic, carbs are an issue. Obesity is not so much carb related but the input of calories exceed the expenditure of calories, that could be carbs, more likely fats, and definitely a sedentary life style., Most heart disease has nothing to do with carb intake and actually after a heart attack, most survivors are placed on a high carb low fat diet.
Carbs do raise your blood sugar levels, of course so do protein and fats, unless you are on a low carb diet. But for normal diets, just about everything with calories raises your blood sugar levels as that is because the cells in the body, particularly the brain need glucose to function. Carbs are not bad, you couldn't live without carbs. People in Southeast Asia eat relatively high carb diets, mainly rice, and have low incidences of of any of the diseases you mentioned. There are also a good number of vegetarians that have very high carb diets that are not obese or with any of the ailments you list.
Reduced carbs are good for losing weight, and dealing with glucose levels for those that glucose is a problem, such as diabetics, but it is not the cure all and be all for the general public.
The commonest disabilities in the western world are heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and multiple arthritis from being too heavy for your poor bones to handle.
I'm a GP doctor; as folk walk in the door, it is usually obvious who is going to be at risk for future problems. They are fat, overflowing my poor abused seats, they groan as they stand up, they are obviously unfit. As a added bonus, I can often smell the cigarettes on their breath.
Does knowing who is at risk help? Sadly, all too often it doesnt.
Lazy fat slobs will on average die considerably younger of way too many diseases, and I have not even mentioned chronic crappy disabilities like back pain, hip pain, knee pain. I pride myself that I turn a few of these folks to the bright side of eating a bit better, exercising a tad more, and thus living longer and actually enjoying those healthy extra years.
You don't need an algorithm to work out who is at risk of future disease, it is bloody obvious (can I have my $3M now?). The problem is getting these fat, unfit folk to realise there is more to exercise than driving to buy their next greasy pizza.
Oh! they deliver now as well...
If you truly are a physician, It's hard to understand why you would choose to stay in practice with the arrogant attitude you have towards your patients. I am so glad that in your humanitarian care, you have chosen to turn a few of these burdensome patients of yours to the bright side. If what you posted it really how you feel, then it is truly sad for the patients you treat. They deserve better than that, whether sick or not, whether overweight or not, whether you like their choices or not.
While it may be a noble effort to try and predict when people will be sick and need major medical care or even use the information to provide preventative measures before the events occur, there is also much potential for the information to be misused. The same information to predict serious illness can also be used to deny coverage to those individuals that have negative predictions
70 years ago, splitting the atom led to the expectation of cheap, safe, unlimited energy. However, as the world found out, that same effort also lead to bombs of unbelievable destructive capability. Splitting the atom was a neutral thing. How it is used became a moral thing. Likewise, predicting illness is a neutral thing, but how it could be used will very much turn into a moral thing.