People who believe that weight gain or loss is a simple matter of calories versus demand have no concept of "plateaus". They've never had to battle weight problems either. A body that believes it's starving will do everything it can to preserve its weight.
Conservation of matter has nothing to do with it. Metabolism is highly variable, and fools who believe that weight gain is a simple matter of balancing equations must completely ignore that fact in order to cling to their ignorant opinions. Their arrogance is eventually overcome, however, when they hit their 30's and realize that weight management is far more complicated than they imagined when they were 18.
"Ahh. So you know a way to eat less energy than the body takes to maintain itself, and NOT have the body use up energy from its own reserves?"
Are you trolling?
Yes, I do. The body has builtin regulation mechanisms to control weight. Neither the body nor the mind desires to be obese, no one sets out to be fat, and the fact is that the body wastes energy that it doesn't need and doesn't desire to store. When the body thinks that it needs to gain weight and is faced with an energy deficit, it goes into conservation mode. In that respect, yes, there is a way to do exactly as you describe. The body lowers its needs in response to starvation.
"Some kind of magical energy comes out of nowhere?"
Of course not, but it's clear I'm having a discussion with an idiot.
"It didn't work for Steorn, and it's not going to work for fatties who can't face up to the fact that their weight problem is caused by overeating and overlazing."
But the overeating and overlazing are caused by an underlying hormonal failure, not that fatties are hopelessly inferior to you. No one desires to be obese and the body doesn't naturally either. The body, however, gets tricked into thinking that it is starving when it is, in fact, too fat. When that happens, hormones cause the person to feel lethargic and to constantly eat. That's why obese people cannot control their appetites and cannot find the energy to exercise. You've clearly not experienced this. I have.
Perhaps you'd like to stop being an arrogant, juvenile asshole and read some science on the matter:
Except it's not true. The decade's old claim that fats are bad for you turns out to be bullshit. It's the overloading of carbohydrates in the diet, the processing away of dietary fiber, and the abundance of fructose and simple sugars that are the problem. A low fat diet is helpful in keeping total calories down, that's all. Many fats are, in fact, good for you.
"Because real sugar triggers an insulin release from the pancreas whereas HFCS doesn't."
You are completely mistaken. HFCS, the kind used as a sugar replacement, has functionally the same ratio of glucose to fructose as cane sugar. It's horrifying effect on insulin levels and its long term destruction of the liver are the same.
"So it won't matter how much of this bone-formation hormone (or whatever results from this discovery) we give people, if they continue to eat sweeteners that circumvent the body's natural regulation mechanism."
Cane sugar does that exactly the same way as HFCS does. The natural regulation mechanism you refer to is interfered with by the long term exposure to fructose. Cane sugar is half fructose.
"The sad thing is that real sugar also tastes a lot better too and would be cheaper were it not for government subsidies to corn growers. Thank you ADM (and our government's irrational fear of our communist neighbor to the south)!"
Yes, the horrible thing about HFCS is that the government subsidizes the cheap and plentiful poisoning of its citizens. Make no mistake, though, if all our comsumption of HFCS were replaced by cane sugar we'd be equally fucked.
"If you want to weigh less, you simply consume less energy than it takes to maintain your body, no matter what your activity level."
Bullshit spoken by a know-nothing asshole who likely never has had to deal with weight issues in his life.
"Eat correctly, you will not be obese, simple as that."
Yes, but you couldn't define "eat correctly" to save your life. It isn't just "eat less".
"Studies like this one are just giving fatties an excuse to validate their obese existence by blaming it on something out of their control, instead of just PUTTING DOWN THE FORK OR TAKING THEIR HAND OUT OF THE BAG."
You obviously don't know a thing about the subject.
No, HFCS and cane sugar are equally unhealthy. Both are essentially poisonous to your liver and their effects on your body are the same since they are effectively identical once they hit your mouth.
Claiming the two are somehow different, while popular here, is absurd. HFCS is processed so that is specifically the same as cane sugar; it's fructose content is not higher and its health ramifications are not different.
"...or as an installer for illegal software (which, in areas like the US, it certainly is (DeCSS, LAME, etc.)..."
Any system capable of running "illegal software" is, by definition, an illegal software installer. It's a meaningless, inflammatory statement that serves no purpose other than to express the author's personal bias. The fact that it was ambiguously stated shows that the author has literacy as well as competency issues.
While everything you say is true, it's also true of the entire legal system. The patent system is broken in far greater ways than just its accessibility to the layman. You CAN get a patent on a "perfectly novel and new invention" on your own, it simply costs money and involves hiring someone to help with the process. Hell, filing your income taxes is, for many people, the same way.
Apple is, itself, quite the patent whore. Look no further than the iPod click-wheel patent for evidence of that. Apple may not be in the same class as IP-only companies, but it uses its patents destructively as much as any. Unlike the vast majority of larger companies that use their portfolios defensively, Apple actively surpresses competition with its patents.
It's no surprise that Apple argues against reform of the patent process. They are one of the big players of the system.
Yes and, furthermore, Apple's and Google's views are not necessarily opposed.
The other quote from Apple, "Most patents issued are never litigated and never licensed,"... "We need to focus on fixing the litigation system. That's most relevant.", is most certainly disingenuous. Patents are very rarely litigated because the stakes are so high. Apple plays the patent game as aggressively as anybody and this is an attempt for them to direct attention away from the process of bogus patent hoarding which they so eagerly participate. Unlike the majority of large corporations, Apple uses its patent portfolio offensively.
Saying the patent system is the best in the world doesn't mean it isn't hopelessly corrupt.
Just got to change the argument when you are exposed as a fraud, right? Classis mac fanboy bullshit.
I'd take a plastic "piece of crap" case that withstands drops tests to a fragile aluminum one that costs $600+ to repair after a 12" drop. Yes, I'm speaking from experience and, yes, I'm talking about the MBP.
The fact of the matter is that you have no facts to back up your argument and there is no reason to accept your disqualifying every example contrary to your point as being not "high quality". This whole "Apple is stratospherically expensive" may be old and tired but it's still true, especially regarding the MBP.
The retard is the one who deliberately lies and intentionally chooses biased comparisons to argue his losing position. That would be you. No idiot would compare a MBP to an M90.
I just did and my result was $2914 or a difference of $15 in favor of the Apple. You are a liar.
The interesting question is not why you'd lie about something so petty but why you'd choose to compare the MBP to the M90 at all. The M90 is, after all, a workstation-replacement portable with Quadro graphics. It is expected to be more expensive. A much more reasonable comparison would be an Inspiron notebook but you couldn't do that because the Dell would be cheaper.
I'm also interested to know why you would choose a 17" WUXGA version to compare since Apple has only began offering that recently whereas Dell has offered it for many years. Just a few months ago Apple would tell you that such a configuration was of no value and zealots like you would ignore such an option. Now you specify it---mostly likely because Apple charges $50 less than Dell for the upgrade.
Incidently, a Dell Inspiron 1720, which includes the Santa Rosa chipset, configured with a 2.4GHz processor, 2GB of memory, the identical 8600M graphics and WUXGA display, same hard drive, WiFi, bluetooth and webcam is $1974; a whopping $925 cheaper than your Apple. Your bullshit disgusts me.
No, outrageousness comes solely from the prejudice of the author and it is he who has confused morality and legality. There is nothing outrageous about the demands---they are simply for bargaining position.
"At least in my state, driving an automobile is not a RIGHT, but a privilege granted by the department of revenue."
You don't understand the meaning of "right" versus "privilege". Driving is a privilege because without government there would be no need to be licensed at all. We aren't born with the right to drive, in other words. The government has no right to deny you a license without grounds and, in that respect, driving is a right. Voting is a privilege, too, by the way.
"With that privilege comes certain restrictions."
So what? Do those restrictions include giving up your constitutional rights?
"All they are doing is scanning the license to see if there are any stolen vehicles or warrants."
No, they're doing more than that.
"Don't give me the "probable cause" argument either...it won't fly."
Who's giving you that?
"Once again, the ACLU is looking out for the bad guy at the expense of the good guys."
Hmmm, you have an interesting view on who the bad guys are. They bad guys are the ones producing tracking information on me without cause. The ACLU is taking them on.
Stop listening to government propaganda and start thinking for yourself.
You can't increase cursor speed beyond a setting that is comfortable in overall use and cursor acceleration is useless when returning to an app after travelling cross-country to get to the menu bar. It's only impossible to overshoot the target half the time in the mac system. With a local menu bar you have to carefully move it but the shorter distance enables you to use more controllable cursor speeds.
The sad thing is that mac users continue to argue this in the presence of overwhelming usability evidence to the contrary. Try a mac on a 30" monitor; it's ridiculous. I know, I have one, and it's a source of constant errors and frustration. It is possible to miss the menu, by the way, and the penalty for that is particuarly severe. You have to travel back to the app in order to get the menu to reappear. What a great usability feature;-)
Slashdot Mirror
People who believe that weight gain or loss is a simple matter of calories versus demand have no concept of "plateaus". They've never had to battle weight problems either. A body that believes it's starving will do everything it can to preserve its weight.
Conservation of matter has nothing to do with it. Metabolism is highly variable, and fools who believe that weight gain is a simple matter of balancing equations must completely ignore that fact in order to cling to their ignorant opinions. Their arrogance is eventually overcome, however, when they hit their 30's and realize that weight management is far more complicated than they imagined when they were 18.
"Ahh. So you know a way to eat less energy than the body takes to maintain itself, and NOT have the body use up energy from its own reserves?"
7 /1969924.htm
Are you trolling?
Yes, I do. The body has builtin regulation mechanisms to control weight. Neither the body nor the mind desires to be obese, no one sets out to be fat, and the fact is that the body wastes energy that it doesn't need and doesn't desire to store. When the body thinks that it needs to gain weight and is faced with an energy deficit, it goes into conservation mode. In that respect, yes, there is a way to do exactly as you describe. The body lowers its needs in response to starvation.
"Some kind of magical energy comes out of nowhere?"
Of course not, but it's clear I'm having a discussion with an idiot.
"It didn't work for Steorn, and it's not going to work for fatties who can't face up to the fact that their weight problem is caused by overeating and overlazing."
But the overeating and overlazing are caused by an underlying hormonal failure, not that fatties are hopelessly inferior to you. No one desires to be obese and the body doesn't naturally either. The body, however, gets tricked into thinking that it is starving when it is, in fact, too fat. When that happens, hormones cause the person to feel lethargic and to constantly eat. That's why obese people cannot control their appetites and cannot find the energy to exercise. You've clearly not experienced this. I have.
Perhaps you'd like to stop being an arrogant, juvenile asshole and read some science on the matter:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/healthreport/stories/200
That article pretty much sums it up, including explaining how wrong you are. Good luck.
Except it's not true. The decade's old claim that fats are bad for you turns out to be bullshit. It's the overloading of carbohydrates in the diet, the processing away of dietary fiber, and the abundance of fructose and simple sugars that are the problem. A low fat diet is helpful in keeping total calories down, that's all. Many fats are, in fact, good for you.
"Because real sugar triggers an insulin release from the pancreas whereas HFCS doesn't."
You are completely mistaken. HFCS, the kind used as a sugar replacement, has functionally the same ratio of glucose to fructose as cane sugar. It's horrifying effect on insulin levels and its long term destruction of the liver are the same.
"So it won't matter how much of this bone-formation hormone (or whatever results from this discovery) we give people, if they continue to eat sweeteners that circumvent the body's natural regulation mechanism."
Cane sugar does that exactly the same way as HFCS does. The natural regulation mechanism you refer to is interfered with by the long term exposure to fructose. Cane sugar is half fructose.
"The sad thing is that real sugar also tastes a lot better too and would be cheaper were it not for government subsidies to corn growers. Thank you ADM (and our government's irrational fear of our communist neighbor to the south)!"
Yes, the horrible thing about HFCS is that the government subsidizes the cheap and plentiful poisoning of its citizens. Make no mistake, though, if all our comsumption of HFCS were replaced by cane sugar we'd be equally fucked.
"If you want to weigh less, you simply consume less energy than it takes to maintain your body, no matter what your activity level."
Bullshit spoken by a know-nothing asshole who likely never has had to deal with weight issues in his life.
"Eat correctly, you will not be obese, simple as that."
Yes, but you couldn't define "eat correctly" to save your life. It isn't just "eat less".
"Studies like this one are just giving fatties an excuse to validate their obese existence by blaming it on something out of their control, instead of just PUTTING DOWN THE FORK OR TAKING THEIR HAND OUT OF THE BAG."
You obviously don't know a thing about the subject.
No, HFCS and cane sugar are equally unhealthy. Both are essentially poisonous to your liver and their effects on your body are the same since they are effectively identical once they hit your mouth.
Claiming the two are somehow different, while popular here, is absurd. HFCS is processed so that is specifically the same as cane sugar; it's fructose content is not higher and its health ramifications are not different.
"...or as an installer for illegal software (which, in areas like the US, it certainly is (DeCSS, LAME, etc.)..."
Any system capable of running "illegal software" is, by definition, an illegal software installer. It's a meaningless, inflammatory statement that serves no purpose other than to express the author's personal bias. The fact that it was ambiguously stated shows that the author has literacy as well as competency issues.
Authors should avoid such ambiguities and, frankly, such bullshit commentaries as well.
"While we are well aware it's not public domain, the argument here is that it should be."
I don't see how you got that from what was posted. It wasn't your comment either.
"Damn, do we need to be as explicit as lawyers here?"
No, it's just plain English. You do need to have basic reading comprehension skills hoewever.
Of course that's right. What's more interesting is that there are people naive enough to ask this question in the first place.
While everything you say is true, it's also true of the entire legal system. The patent system is broken in far greater ways than just its accessibility to the layman. You CAN get a patent on a "perfectly novel and new invention" on your own, it simply costs money and involves hiring someone to help with the process. Hell, filing your income taxes is, for many people, the same way.
Apple is, itself, quite the patent whore. Look no further than the iPod click-wheel patent for evidence of that. Apple may not be in the same class as IP-only companies, but it uses its patents destructively as much as any. Unlike the vast majority of larger companies that use their portfolios defensively, Apple actively surpresses competition with its patents.
It's no surprise that Apple argues against reform of the patent process. They are one of the big players of the system.
Yes and, furthermore, Apple's and Google's views are not necessarily opposed.
... "We need to focus on fixing the litigation system. That's most relevant.", is most certainly disingenuous. Patents are very rarely litigated because the stakes are so high. Apple plays the patent game as aggressively as anybody and this is an attempt for them to direct attention away from the process of bogus patent hoarding which they so eagerly participate. Unlike the majority of large corporations, Apple uses its patent portfolio offensively.
The other quote from Apple, "Most patents issued are never litigated and never licensed,"
Saying the patent system is the best in the world doesn't mean it isn't hopelessly corrupt.
Just got to change the argument when you are exposed as a fraud, right? Classis mac fanboy bullshit.
I'd take a plastic "piece of crap" case that withstands drops tests to a fragile aluminum one that costs $600+ to repair after a 12" drop. Yes, I'm speaking from experience and, yes, I'm talking about the MBP.
The fact of the matter is that you have no facts to back up your argument and there is no reason to accept your disqualifying every example contrary to your point as being not "high quality". This whole "Apple is stratospherically expensive" may be old and tired but it's still true, especially regarding the MBP.
The retard is the one who deliberately lies and intentionally chooses biased comparisons to argue his losing position. That would be you. No idiot would compare a MBP to an M90.
I just did and my result was $2914 or a difference of $15 in favor of the Apple. You are a liar.
The interesting question is not why you'd lie about something so petty but why you'd choose to compare the MBP to the M90 at all. The M90 is, after all, a workstation-replacement portable with Quadro graphics. It is expected to be more expensive. A much more reasonable comparison would be an Inspiron notebook but you couldn't do that because the Dell would be cheaper.
I'm also interested to know why you would choose a 17" WUXGA version to compare since Apple has only began offering that recently whereas Dell has offered it for many years. Just a few months ago Apple would tell you that such a configuration was of no value and zealots like you would ignore such an option. Now you specify it---mostly likely because Apple charges $50 less than Dell for the upgrade.
Incidently, a Dell Inspiron 1720, which includes the Santa Rosa chipset, configured with a 2.4GHz processor, 2GB of memory, the identical 8600M graphics and WUXGA display, same hard drive, WiFi, bluetooth and webcam is $1974; a whopping $925 cheaper than your Apple. Your bullshit disgusts me.
Where did the author say it was surprising(, exactly)?
Of what use is your comment, exactly?
"I believe hd-dvd is on the order of 15-20gb, where a blu-ray disc is 50-60gb."
Thanks for your rigorous research. It would have been so tough to confirm the right answer.
"...which is why I think (opinion only) Blu-ray is the better format."
an opinion based on little understanding of the two formats.
"think before you write, it'll save me moderator points."
So much attitude for someone who can't be bothered to check the facts.
No, outrageousness comes solely from the prejudice of the author and it is he who has confused morality and legality. There is nothing outrageous about the demands---they are simply for bargaining position.
"At least in my state, driving an automobile is not a RIGHT, but a privilege granted by the department of revenue."
You don't understand the meaning of "right" versus "privilege". Driving is a privilege because without government there would be no need to be licensed at all. We aren't born with the right to drive, in other words. The government has no right to deny you a license without grounds and, in that respect, driving is a right. Voting is a privilege, too, by the way.
"With that privilege comes certain restrictions."
So what? Do those restrictions include giving up your constitutional rights?
"All they are doing is scanning the license to see if there are any stolen vehicles or warrants."
No, they're doing more than that.
"Don't give me the "probable cause" argument either...it won't fly."
Who's giving you that?
"Once again, the ACLU is looking out for the bad guy at the expense of the good guys."
Hmmm, you have an interesting view on who the bad guys are. They bad guys are the ones producing tracking information on me without cause. The ACLU is taking them on.
Stop listening to government propaganda and start thinking for yourself.
That didn't answer the question though. In what way did NeXT "give rise" to the Web browser? Being the application platform used means nothing.
You can't increase cursor speed beyond a setting that is comfortable in overall use and cursor acceleration is useless when returning to an app after travelling cross-country to get to the menu bar. It's only impossible to overshoot the target half the time in the mac system. With a local menu bar you have to carefully move it but the shorter distance enables you to use more controllable cursor speeds.
;-)
The sad thing is that mac users continue to argue this in the presence of overwhelming usability evidence to the contrary. Try a mac on a 30" monitor; it's ridiculous. I know, I have one, and it's a source of constant errors and frustration. It is possible to miss the menu, by the way, and the penalty for that is particuarly severe. You have to travel back to the app in order to get the menu to reappear. What a great usability feature
I didn't realize that macs required such a learning curve. I thought they were the computer for everyone else. I thought they "just worked". Who knew?
I realized mac users were elitist but I had no idea they were just juvenile nerd-pricks with more money. Thanks for setting the record straight.
So he's wrong because reinstalling OS X is easier and is needed less frequently than Windows?
Thanks for all the detail.