That seems highly unlikely. No one suffers repeated catastrophic accidents that require months of hospital care, much less over decades while continuing the same behavior.
Keep making up stories to make yourself feel better about your laziness.
Only the intellect of an Anonymous Coward could come up with this. Roads were made for cars and trucks? I suppose that means there were no roads before cars and trucks.
This is right, of course. However, the OP is imagining there there is some sort of digestive tract "taste buds" mechanism separate from that because the article is suggesting it. Of course, the consequences would be the same...dire.
This is an unavoidable consequence that I have never seen addressed by anyone suggesting such a mechanism exists.
If insulin was released in response to diet soda, then dieters (and fasters) drinking diet sodas would know it immediately (and it could be dangerous).
While I can accept that some sweeteners may have unknown effects, the way it is presented wrt insulin is consistently BS.
"Basically, the part of your digestive tract that identifies incoming sugar and triggers an insulin release can't tell the difference between sugar and sweeteners."
Funny how "it" can't but but everyone else can when it comes to taste.;)
Incidentally, that article offers no proof that there IS a "part of your digestive tract that identifies sugar and triggers an insulin release", it merely suggests that such a mechanism may exist and it may possibly affect hormone levels, including insulin. It also acknowledges that other testing has produced different results.
"That's not a shocker:"
Why is it that people who so quickly leap to conclusions are so condescending about it? This would, in fact, be a shocker. Taste is a sensation that serves a specific purpose, there is absolutely no reason to believe that other organs need "taste buds" as well in order to serve entirely different functions. To suggest that this is obvious, as you have done, is idiotic.
"if our taste buds can be tricked, it's not crazy to imagine that our sugar-detecting circuits are also fallible."
It is not proven that we have such "sugar-detecting circuits" but if we did, it would be explained why they may not be tricked in the same way.
"When your body is continually flooded with elevated insulin, it becomes resistant to it. Another term for insulin resistance is type 2 (adult onset) diabetes."
It is very far from being concluded, however, that artificial sweeteners are related to this.
"No connection was found between those health risks and other sugary beverages, such as sugar-sweetened sodas, fruit juice and fruit drinks."
"Fat people", as you lovingly refer to diet soda drinkers, also drink beverages for which no connection was found. Sorry, but your comments aren't so insightful.
Turning it off, or not buying it in the first place, is a reasonable approach to the issue itself. However, those who propose an authoritarian solution to their own laziness and irresponsibility are a larger problem and one that we should "give a fuck" about.
"You're missing the point. Because BK will likely not suffer any legal action against them for this stunt, they are in fact legitimizing the activity of triggering digital assistants. A lack of legal action or punishment can easily set a precedent."
I haven't missed the point, the point is simply wrong. BK isn't "legitimizing" it because it is already legitimate. Digital assistants get triggered because they are designed to be triggered without regard to who or what triggers them. All BK has done is use the product in the manner intended.
As for your claim that no one cares, your posts indicate otherwise. It may be true that nothing will change but that doesn't alter the underlying facts.
Do you have any insight that might be remotely correct?
I don't know who this @sshat authoritarian mental midge Lauren Weinsten is, other than possessing the prestigious title of "Slashdot reader", but BK should be given an award for their public service. I'm a Slashdot reader, too, Lauren, although I'm not proud to admit it.
Just as it should be. BK isn't "legitimizing triggering digital assistants", they are exposing serious flaws in poorly thought out technology. BK is not to be blamed but thanked; the people who would allow themselves to be exposed to such triggering and the companies that makes the shoddy products are the problem.
It would be impossible to argue that simply yelling "OK Google" constitutes "computer misuse" since intent can't be determined with that information alone. Your answer is incorrect.
For some well-crafted definition of "neglect" that may be true, but for any reasonable definition they certainly are. The product line has had gaping holes for a decade, products are cancelled and not replaced, products go many years without update, software gets buggier and buggier. It's not different than Microsoft neglecting their Win95/98 codebase with Millennium and likely equally by design. The Mac Pro is neglect at its finest.
How is this modded insightful? Social justice is no more about power than anything is generally, this is just how people are. Furthermore, social justice IS about making the world a better place, the observation here is that it is often corrupted by people's flaws just as everything else is. The OP couldn't be more wrong.
Social justice doesn't oppose alternative lifestyles, in fact it desires "justice" for them. If the "alternative lifestyle" is one that creates injustice then that's the problem. Not saying that's the case here, just that the OP is a moron.
Desktop processors aren't advancing because there isn't a market that demands it. Server and mobile processors are advancing because their markets do. It has nothing to do with Moore's law or your interpretation of it.
While mobile processors (and platforms) have improved greatly, they are still limited by battery technology and thermals, neither of which are subject to "Moore's law". Meanwhile, "our tech" improves as rapidly as it ever has, just not your small view of it.
"The nexus 6 is a total slouch. Modern phones such as the iphone 7 and the S8 are completely on par with midrange desktop systems."
Your reference does not include any data to support the claim that the S8 is "completely on par with midrange desktop systems". The claim is also misleading as "completely on par with" must be interpreted as "the fastest phones ever" are significantly slower than desktops from 2 years ago.
If you take Android phones, the subject of this article, the benchmark you chose shows they are not as fast of modern desktops with the S7 being the fastest yet being roughly a third the speed of iMacs from 2 years ago and half the speed of the Apple phone you cherry-picked.
Your comparison uses a Geekbench summary score for a single core. Ignoring all the other absurdities of this, the multi-core scores are more interesting since desktops ARE fundamentally multi-core as are all the phones in the class being discussed. When viewed in this way, the cream of the crop iPhone 7 is a third the speed of crappy desktops built around the reference i7 6600U and roughly half the speed of a Mac mini from 5 years ago that was a dog when it was new. Modern desktop processors are far faster than this and benefit from far faster and larger memories, storage and IO. It's not even close.
Where is your data to support the S8 (a phone) is "even faster" that an A10 fusion (a processor) or that the A10 fusion is only slightly slower than a i7 6600U (no A10 processor benchmarks) and why have you used an Apple processor in an Android article at all? Why compare the latest phone processors to two year old dual-core desktop processors? What's the agenda here?
It's clear the narrative you're trying to push here, it's just wrong. Desktop processors kick the crap out of mobile processors and always will until the desktop is dead. This is because desktop processors are artificially limited out of lack of need, we could easily see a bump in core count should the need arise. Meanwhile, mobile platforms are throttled by their thermal envelopes, a problem that's far more intractable. If you want to see a more direct comparison of CPU capability between Intel and "mobile" look at the market performance of server-class ARM processors. It's not very impressive to date. Maybe Oracle or someone else can make a run of it, but so far it looks like a failure. Mobile CPUs may be adequate for their task but they are not in the desktop class.
If "anyone" means the general public then yes, that could very well be the case depending on circumstances. He could tell some people, for instance those who provided him the information and therefore already know.
One thing trump seems to enjoy is slandering people. As president, those who suffer from that have no recourse until he leaves office. He can't be sued as president.
"If he wants to speak about classified information than he can, and literally nobody can stop him."
That's true of everyone, not just the president. Doesn't mean there won't be consequences, that's how the law works.
Of course, with the president there can be no prosecution while in office but he can be prosecuted after he leaves office. Furthermore, he can be removed from office through impeachment and disclosing "whatever he wants" could constitute an impeachable offense. You are simply wrong on this, the constitution has more authority than the president and he can't simply do what he wants.
Presidents always have a direct line to public, twitter hasn't changed that and people don't dislike it. People don't like trump for other reasons.
Right, the problem is that government isn't really interested in doing its job...serving the public's best interest. Instead they cater to special interests.
Why not set a speed limit of zero? Make it illegal to drive on the streets at all? I mean if damaging the usefulness of a few roads is good and damaging a lot more is better, why not go whole hog?
Some people are truly self-interested idiots. The problem is inadequate shared resources; you don't fix that by taking more of it away. Don't give a crap about the residents, it's everyone's problem. Making the residents feel pain would actually help the issue, not hurt, but only if those motivated to act aren't willing to settle for a half-assed measure intended to shut them up.
"Essentially, yes. Write your state congress-person. Demand additional lanes be added to all freeways in the area. Get 100,000 of your closest friends and family to sign it too."
Sounds great. Why don't the local residents do that? Why should they not be burdened by the problem just as much as the drivers are? Why the double standard?
"...but I also don't blame communities for adding in signs, speed bumps and other traffic slowers to make things safer for residence."
Then you are a fool. The drivers are not only helping themselves but also improving the overall throughput for everyone. The residents are deliberately ruining a public resource for everyone. The two are not comparable.
"It's the sort of thing that prompts local authorities to put in traffic restrictions, entirely reasonably,..."
Not "entirely reasonably", not reasonably at all. What causes authorities to put in restrictions is the endless complaints of an entitled few, not concern over improper use.
"...because residential streets are designed for access, not throughput. And if they get misused, then that's bad."
BS. All roads are designed for "throughput", some for higher throughput that others. No road, however, is optimized for throughput since it's speed limit is set intentionally too low, at least in the US. Driving on a public road to get somewhere is NEVER misuse.
"Anyway it's a classic case of "this is why we can't have nice things". People will abuse the residential roads and eventually the authorities will intervene."
No, we can't have nice things because a few ruin it for others. The few in this case are not the drivers, it's the residents who think that public roads are their private property.
"Then those abusers will whine and the locals will grumble a bit about the restrictions, but not that much because of the reduced traffic on unsuitable roads."
The way to "reduce traffic on unsuitable roads" is to fix the roads which are intended to handle that traffic. No discussion of that though! Who cares just so long as the residents get the roads reserved for their use only.
Slashdot Mirror
That seems highly unlikely. No one suffers repeated catastrophic accidents that require months of hospital care, much less over decades while continuing the same behavior.
Keep making up stories to make yourself feel better about your laziness.
Only the intellect of an Anonymous Coward could come up with this. Roads were made for cars and trucks? I suppose that means there were no roads before cars and trucks.
This is right, of course. However, the OP is imagining there there is some sort of digestive tract "taste buds" mechanism separate from that because the article is suggesting it. Of course, the consequences would be the same...dire.
This is an unavoidable consequence that I have never seen addressed by anyone suggesting such a mechanism exists.
If insulin was released in response to diet soda, then dieters (and fasters) drinking diet sodas would know it immediately (and it could be dangerous).
While I can accept that some sweeteners may have unknown effects, the way it is presented wrt insulin is consistently BS.
"Basically, the part of your digestive tract that identifies incoming sugar and triggers an insulin release can't tell the difference between sugar and sweeteners."
Funny how "it" can't but but everyone else can when it comes to taste. ;)
Incidentally, that article offers no proof that there IS a "part of your digestive tract that identifies sugar and triggers an insulin release", it merely suggests that such a mechanism may exist and it may possibly affect hormone levels, including insulin. It also acknowledges that other testing has produced different results.
"That's not a shocker:"
Why is it that people who so quickly leap to conclusions are so condescending about it? This would, in fact, be a shocker. Taste is a sensation that serves a specific purpose, there is absolutely no reason to believe that other organs need "taste buds" as well in order to serve entirely different functions. To suggest that this is obvious, as you have done, is idiotic.
"if our taste buds can be tricked, it's not crazy to imagine that our sugar-detecting circuits are also fallible."
It is not proven that we have such "sugar-detecting circuits" but if we did, it would be explained why they may not be tricked in the same way.
"When your body is continually flooded with elevated insulin, it becomes resistant to it. Another term for insulin resistance is type 2 (adult onset) diabetes."
It is very far from being concluded, however, that artificial sweeteners are related to this.
"No connection was found between those health risks and other sugary beverages, such as sugar-sweetened sodas, fruit juice and fruit drinks."
"Fat people", as you lovingly refer to diet soda drinkers, also drink beverages for which no connection was found. Sorry, but your comments aren't so insightful.
Turning it off, or not buying it in the first place, is a reasonable approach to the issue itself. However, those who propose an authoritarian solution to their own laziness and irresponsibility are a larger problem and one that we should "give a fuck" about.
"You're missing the point. Because BK will likely not suffer any legal action against them for this stunt, they are in fact legitimizing the activity of triggering digital assistants. A lack of legal action or punishment can easily set a precedent."
I haven't missed the point, the point is simply wrong. BK isn't "legitimizing" it because it is already legitimate. Digital assistants get triggered because they are designed to be triggered without regard to who or what triggers them. All BK has done is use the product in the manner intended.
As for your claim that no one cares, your posts indicate otherwise. It may be true that nothing will change but that doesn't alter the underlying facts.
Do you have any insight that might be remotely correct?
I don't know who this @sshat authoritarian mental midge Lauren Weinsten is, other than possessing the prestigious title of "Slashdot reader", but BK should be given an award for their public service. I'm a Slashdot reader, too, Lauren, although I'm not proud to admit it.
Just as it should be. BK isn't "legitimizing triggering digital assistants", they are exposing serious flaws in poorly thought out technology. BK is not to be blamed but thanked; the people who would allow themselves to be exposed to such triggering and the companies that makes the shoddy products are the problem.
Nailed it.
It would be impossible to argue that simply yelling "OK Google" constitutes "computer misuse" since intent can't be determined with that information alone. Your answer is incorrect.
For some well-crafted definition of "neglect" that may be true, but for any reasonable definition they certainly are. The product line has had gaping holes for a decade, products are cancelled and not replaced, products go many years without update, software gets buggier and buggier. It's not different than Microsoft neglecting their Win95/98 codebase with Millennium and likely equally by design. The Mac Pro is neglect at its finest.
Approved. Curious to see if you will get modded equally insightful for seeing the comment for what it is.
How is this modded insightful? Social justice is no more about power than anything is generally, this is just how people are. Furthermore, social justice IS about making the world a better place, the observation here is that it is often corrupted by people's flaws just as everything else is. The OP couldn't be more wrong.
Social justice doesn't oppose alternative lifestyles, in fact it desires "justice" for them. If the "alternative lifestyle" is one that creates injustice then that's the problem. Not saying that's the case here, just that the OP is a moron.
Desktop processors aren't advancing because there isn't a market that demands it. Server and mobile processors are advancing because their markets do. It has nothing to do with Moore's law or your interpretation of it.
While mobile processors (and platforms) have improved greatly, they are still limited by battery technology and thermals, neither of which are subject to "Moore's law". Meanwhile, "our tech" improves as rapidly as it ever has, just not your small view of it.
"The nexus 6 is a total slouch. Modern phones such as the iphone 7 and the S8 are completely on par with midrange desktop systems."
Your reference does not include any data to support the claim that the S8 is "completely on par with midrange desktop systems". The claim is also misleading as "completely on par with" must be interpreted as "the fastest phones ever" are significantly slower than desktops from 2 years ago.
If you take Android phones, the subject of this article, the benchmark you chose shows they are not as fast of modern desktops with the S7 being the fastest yet being roughly a third the speed of iMacs from 2 years ago and half the speed of the Apple phone you cherry-picked.
Your comparison uses a Geekbench summary score for a single core. Ignoring all the other absurdities of this, the multi-core scores are more interesting since desktops ARE fundamentally multi-core as are all the phones in the class being discussed. When viewed in this way, the cream of the crop iPhone 7 is a third the speed of crappy desktops built around the reference i7 6600U and roughly half the speed of a Mac mini from 5 years ago that was a dog when it was new. Modern desktop processors are far faster than this and benefit from far faster and larger memories, storage and IO. It's not even close.
Where is your data to support the S8 (a phone) is "even faster" that an A10 fusion (a processor) or that the A10 fusion is only slightly slower than a i7 6600U (no A10 processor benchmarks) and why have you used an Apple processor in an Android article at all? Why compare the latest phone processors to two year old dual-core desktop processors? What's the agenda here?
It's clear the narrative you're trying to push here, it's just wrong. Desktop processors kick the crap out of mobile processors and always will until the desktop is dead. This is because desktop processors are artificially limited out of lack of need, we could easily see a bump in core count should the need arise. Meanwhile, mobile platforms are throttled by their thermal envelopes, a problem that's far more intractable. If you want to see a more direct comparison of CPU capability between Intel and "mobile" look at the market performance of server-class ARM processors. It's not very impressive to date. Maybe Oracle or someone else can make a run of it, but so far it looks like a failure. Mobile CPUs may be adequate for their task but they are not in the desktop class.
If "anyone" means the general public then yes, that could very well be the case depending on circumstances. He could tell some people, for instance those who provided him the information and therefore already know.
One thing trump seems to enjoy is slandering people. As president, those who suffer from that have no recourse until he leaves office. He can't be sued as president.
It very well may be illegal. Presidents are not above the law although some, including trump, believe they are and have said so.
"Not if the president does it."
Trump has said this and it's very, very wrong. Nixon said it too. He was wrong as well and paid the price for it.
"If he wants to speak about classified information than he can, and literally nobody can stop him."
That's true of everyone, not just the president. Doesn't mean there won't be consequences, that's how the law works.
Of course, with the president there can be no prosecution while in office but he can be prosecuted after he leaves office. Furthermore, he can be removed from office through impeachment and disclosing "whatever he wants" could constitute an impeachable offense. You are simply wrong on this, the constitution has more authority than the president and he can't simply do what he wants.
Presidents always have a direct line to public, twitter hasn't changed that and people don't dislike it. People don't like trump for other reasons.
Right, the problem is that government isn't really interested in doing its job...serving the public's best interest. Instead they cater to special interests.
Why not set a speed limit of zero? Make it illegal to drive on the streets at all? I mean if damaging the usefulness of a few roads is good and damaging a lot more is better, why not go whole hog?
Some people are truly self-interested idiots. The problem is inadequate shared resources; you don't fix that by taking more of it away. Don't give a crap about the residents, it's everyone's problem. Making the residents feel pain would actually help the issue, not hurt, but only if those motivated to act aren't willing to settle for a half-assed measure intended to shut them up.
Not doubt the author of this considered it insightful. This has utterly no relation to the issue at hand.
"Essentially, yes. Write your state congress-person. Demand additional lanes be added to all freeways in the area. Get 100,000 of your closest friends and family to sign it too."
Sounds great. Why don't the local residents do that? Why should they not be burdened by the problem just as much as the drivers are? Why the double standard?
"...but I also don't blame communities for adding in signs, speed bumps and other traffic slowers to make things safer for residence."
Then you are a fool. The drivers are not only helping themselves but also improving the overall throughput for everyone. The residents are deliberately ruining a public resource for everyone. The two are not comparable.
"It's the sort of thing that prompts local authorities to put in traffic restrictions, entirely reasonably,..."
Not "entirely reasonably", not reasonably at all. What causes authorities to put in restrictions is the endless complaints of an entitled few, not concern over improper use.
"...because residential streets are designed for access, not throughput. And if they get misused, then that's bad."
BS. All roads are designed for "throughput", some for higher throughput that others. No road, however, is optimized for throughput since it's speed limit is set intentionally too low, at least in the US. Driving on a public road to get somewhere is NEVER misuse.
"Anyway it's a classic case of "this is why we can't have nice things". People will abuse the residential roads and eventually the authorities will intervene."
No, we can't have nice things because a few ruin it for others. The few in this case are not the drivers, it's the residents who think that public roads are their private property.
"Then those abusers will whine and the locals will grumble a bit about the restrictions, but not that much because of the reduced traffic on unsuitable roads."
The way to "reduce traffic on unsuitable roads" is to fix the roads which are intended to handle that traffic. No discussion of that though! Who cares just so long as the residents get the roads reserved for their use only.