IE 7, when run on Windows Vista, would not have fallen victim to this or any other exploit of this nature. The reason for this is the fact that IE 7 on Vista runs as a user with virtually no privileges, regardless of privileges of the user using IE 7.
Essentially all actions that require higher privileges, such as writing to non-temp locations on the file system, executing applications, installing plugins, changing settings, etc, will be done through the use of a broker.
The broker is very small, perhaps only a few thousand lines of code. This makes auditing the broker far easier than auditing the hundreds of thousands of lines in IE 7.
When IE 7 wants to save a file to the user's desktop, for instance, it must first "ask" the broker if it can do this. The broker is written in such a way that all actions require the user to confirm this is OK via a dialog box. If the user says it's OK the broker completes the action on behalf of IE 7.
If IE 7 has a buffer overflow or exploit of some kind and tries to do something nasty it will always fail because it is running as a user with basically no privileges on the system.
There is a video that describes this in detail on Microsoft's Channel 9 web site.
So Oracle is losing business to open source alternatives because one part of one company is switching to EnterpriseDB and because of an anecdotal quote?
Oracle has always been pricey, but for a long time their DB features were hard to beat. Competitors, both closed and open, and finally getting to the point where they are on all levels with Oracle.
I can get stuff up and running in half the time under Linux with it's standard socket interface
Can you give me a more specific example?
Basically, the Windows tools are designed to be good at cranking out MDI applications
Huh? Windows tools are great at cracking out all sorts of applications. Why would you think that "MDI applications" are somehow the target of Windows development tools?
You can't pipe program output, redirect to file, etc.
First, I can't recall the last time I needed or wanted to redirect output to a file from a command line app while I was doing development. Perhaps it's because I do a different kind of development than you do, but regardless, I would hardly classify XP is a bad development platform over something like that. Even so, you're completely wrong as it's very easy to pipe output in XP.
Search through source file relies on 3rd party solutions, and few of them have the ability to work with regular expressions.
Huh? Aside from the fact that hitting F3 in Windows will bring up a find dialog that can search the contents of files, Visual Studio (and virtually every other IDE that runs on Windows) has the ability to search with regular expressions.
Windows XP does not compare favorably with Linux, Macintosh or UNIX variants as a development platform.
Really? Windows has excellent development tools (almost all 3rd party tools run on Windows, and Visual Studio is usually considered one of the best if not the best IDE for development).
The interop argument is silly. If you're writing code for interop you can do it just as easily on Windows as any other platform.
If you're writing stuff for Windows, you have the support of some of the best frameworks available today.
... is because of the strong brick and mortar casino lobby. Native American casinos and Vegas casinos have a very strong (and well funded) lobby that pushes for this legislation every year.
It just so happens that we have scummy enough politicians in power that are happy to make it happen.
With internet gambling shut down the only place people will be able to gamble are brick/mortar casinos, and, of course, state sponsored lotteries.
What you'll hear from these politicians is some baloney about gambling addiction, or maybe even the obligatory "what about the children!?" plea. I absolutely hate these people. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds.
I don't want Microsoft and its crappy console to gain any foothold.
Have you used the "crappy console"? It's actually a helluva lot of fun. The launch titles were only so-so. No bad ones, but no truly great ones. That aside, Xbox Live makes up for it all. It's an incredible experience and it alone makes buying an X360 worth it.
The only reason the XBox exists is to push the Windows platform into the living room--originally Microsoft offered their platform libraries to Sony and Nintendo and only made the X-Box when both companies refused to ship Windows on their consoles.
This is completely false. Microsoft created the trimmed down version of Win2k for the Xbox exclusively. They never made any such offer to Nintendo or Sony. They intended to enter the market and compete with these companies from the get-go. In addition, saying that the Xbox runs Windows is misleading. The Xbox runs a very, very customized version of the Windows 2000 kernel, but that's about where things end. There is certainly a strategy to make the Xbox/X360 work well with PCs running Windows (media center in particular), but that's just one part of the overall strategy to win the gaming market.
Microsoft cares nothing at all about games or quality of games, which is why we get commercials espousing the wonders of sweat on a basketball player mesh.
Microsoft case about the quality of its games the same way Nintendo and Sony do - only insofar as that quality makes them money. You honestly think that Sony is some pure of heart company that loves its gamers? Get a grip.
his gives more time for the XBox 360 to actually gain a foothold, even despite their pathetically slow start (Nintendo sold more Gamecubes last Christmas than Microsoft sold XBox 360s).
Are we in the No-Spin-Zone all of a sudden? Microsoft's "slow start" was completely due to the LACK OF AVAILABE CONSOLES TO BUY. EVERYBODY wanted one, but they were all sold out. Everywhere. Why do you think they were going for 5x face value on eBay? Meanwhile, Gamecubes are a dime a dozen.
Microsoft will undoubtedly solidfy a strong lead over the next few months thanks to finally being able to go into almost any store and buy an Xbox 360.
...is that you get the benefit of the optimization that can only occur when compiling for a specific machine without actually needing to do the work yourself.
In platforms like.NET and Java the IL/byte code is JIT'ed before execution and can have these machine-specific optimizations inserted.
No need to break out gcc or try and resolve dependencies. Ahh... I loved the managed world.:)
There is a big difference between adapting to new markets and technology and allowing existing ones to be pilfered by thieves.
While the RIAA and MPAA certainly make themselves look stupid when they sue grandma's for downloading mp3s, they are simply trying to protect and existing marketplace.
It's no different than a shop owner calling the cops when somebody robs them at gun point. Do we expect the shop owner to adapt to robbery? No. We expect law enforcement to prevent that robbery and punish those who are caught after the fact.
Obviously there are lots of new market opportunities created by technology. MP3s have certainly changed the way we listen to music. But just as a gun makes it easier to rob a bank, mpeg compression makes it easier to share near full quality music with millions of people.
The industry IS slowly changing. They are investing massive amounts of money in DRM which will allow them to participate in the emerging markets created by compression schemes like MP3. Them trying to stop file sharers from distributing copyrighted material to millions of people illegally is a separate and independent issue.
Sure they do, it's just a different clue that the one you have.
Yahoo cares about making money. They yield to foreign governments for fear of economic reprisal, and they ban allah from screen names for fear of domestic reprisal.
What a great job the poster did at editing out any pro-Microsoft sentiments in the article summary.
We wouldn't want to have that filth on the front page of Slashdot, now would we? Here is the full quote that was only partially included in the article summary:
"The reason I decided to leave had to do with my specific experiences working in Microsoft's Linux Lab. Although I believe that the concept behind Microsoft's Linux Lab is a good one, I wasn't able to work at my full level of technical ability and I found this frustrating," he said.
Also, earlier in the article:
"I didn't make the decision to leave Microsoft due to concerns about the company as a whole -- Microsoft has just had a string of very successful product launches and I anticipate that it will continue to enjoy great success," he said.
Porsche doesn't have 95% market share, they don't even have 5% market share - yet they are the most profitable car company in the world.
Good point, but I'm not sure it really applies. Porsche certainly does target the same people that General Motors or Ford targets. Porsche is a niche market.
Apple, on the other hand, would love to target Windows users. This is clear from their advertising campaigns like the famous "switch" campaign. I don't see Porsche saying "go head, switch from your mustange to a new 911." Different markets... much different.
Appple has a very loyal fan base, but they have a lot of trouble expanding that fan base. Google would have the same issues. That's my point.
You can be a multi-billion dollar company and still be in plenty of financial trouble.
Do you honestly think it was just a coincidence that Apple's stock was hovering around $10 a share for years, and then all of a sudden they shot up to $80 a share right when the iPod was released?
Come on.
At any rate, you're completely missing the point of my post.
I would define success as gaining any significant market share. Most people agree that 10% of a market is a milestone. Mac OS X has been out for nearly 5 years now, and it still hovers at under 3%.
One could also define success as being able to support a company financially. Without the iPod, Apple would be in serious financial trouble.
Lastly, one could define success as being the dominant player in terms of market share.
There are already alternatives to Windows which, in many ways, are better than Windows. (I'm sure many of you are saying DUUU right now, but I'm talking about Mac OS X, not Linux.)
Mac OS X is certainly prettier than Windows (and that's very important from a marketing perspective), and it has most of the basic applications that 95% of the people out there use.
Yet despite all of this, it doesn't succeed. Why? There are lots of answers to this question. Some involve Microsoft's market dominance and the fact it is a defacto standard. Some involve Apple's typically more expensive hardware. (Although this seems to be slowly changing.) Some involve the fact that Windows has a far larger software library available. Some involve people being more comfortable using at home what they use at work, and that is almost invariably a PC with Windows.
Whatever the reason, how does Google's OS overcome these? What about Google as a company makes us all think they could do any better? Sure, they have tons of money... but Microsoft will always have more, and they have a 20 year head start as far as market share goes.
Obviously a diabetic or somebody who knows they have a specific condition wouldn't try this. What I said wasn't wreckless if you, and the people reading my comment, would also use some common sense.
It's kind of like saying "take asprin for your headaches" or "take amoxicillin for your strep throat" is wreckless because a certain percentage of the population could be hurt or killed because of existing conditions. That does not negate the validity of the comments, nor does it address anything I said specifically.
Crash dieting prevents you from getting the nutrients you need.
I'm not "crash" dieting. I continue to eat about 1200 calories a day and have been doing so for over 2 years now.
Even a perfectly balanced 1-meal a day cannot, repeat CAN NOT, deliver the proper nutrients because they absorbed at different rates
That's why I also take a few multi-vitamins each day to ensure that I'm not missing anything big. But the fact of the matter is that I'm quite healthy. (At least according to my doctor.)
That's why there's no supervitamin that has everything you need for a day: you'd really need a drip IV to do this.
Everything? Certainly not. But a single meal, as long as the meal has a decent amount of variety, works just fine when coupled with a multivitamin.
Second, you can eat 3,000 kcal a day and still lose weight: exercising uses calories.
True, but that ignores my goal of slowing my metabolism. Eating 3000 calories and excercising will likely increase your metabolism, which is exactly the opposite of what I want.
Third, whether or not you experience ill effects from your personal dieting strategy depends on genetic history, such as hypertension, cholesterol, diabetes, etc.
True, which is why I didn't just say it works for me therefor it works for everybody. There have been many studies done, one of which i cited in my original posting, that show that caloric restrictions works both in animals and in humans. It results in weight loss, longer life, and being healthier in general.
This research cannot possibly be correct. Why? Because, as others have pointed out, the only thing that can "cause obesity" is consuming more calories than you use. Period. End of story. (Unless somebody comes up with a way to absorb calories without actually eating them.)
So while there may be a virus that changes an individuals metabolic rate, or perhaps gives them intense and constant urges to eat, it is still the act of eating that results in getting fat.
Certainly I can understand why people who have this virus (if it's true) might gain weight more easily than those without it, but THEY CAN CONTROL THIS.
Over the past few years I have been experimenting with lowering my metabolic rate as much as possible. I used to eat upwards of 3000 calories a day, easily. I'd eat a large lunch and then, usually around 9pm, I'd eat a large dinner. The result? 260 Lbs. No so good, despite my height of 6'4".
I started a caloric restriction diet, which was absolutely brutal for the first two months. I ate 1 meal a day. No exceptions. I tried to keep this mean as close to 1000 calories as possible, but aside from that the content of the meal didn't matter. The result? I now weigh 190 Lbs. I would like to get that to about 180, but it seems that 190 is the weight I can most easily maintain while eating about 1000 to 1200 calories a day.
In addition to the weight loss, my cholesterol is now excellent despite the fact I routinely eat fatty foods and foods high in sodium. And there is a lot of evidence that eating less and slowing your metabolism will lead to a longer life due to reduced free radical production by the cells in my body.
The point is, during the first couple of months of my diet I ate less than 1/3rd what I usually ate. My body was absolutely screaming for food almost all the time. I had to learn to control this, and it was by no means easy. I found that if I hate food in my apartment, I basically would eat it. My will power just wasn't there. What did I do? Got rid of the food. When I bought food, I would buy enough for that meal. For those times where I would feel faint (only happened rarely due to drops in blood sugar early on) I would snack on things like olives (healthy and filling, but have few calories), and drink a decent amount of water or lemon water.
At any rate, while it was tough, I controlled myself. I reject the argument that I have greater will power than the average American fattie. I certainly don't. (Trust me.) It's a matter of choosing the long term benefits of not being a fattie over the short term pleasure of eating when you're hungry, or upset, or whatever. Sometimes this is hard, but if you're committed to it anybody can do it. The problem is most people simply choose the short term pleasure of eating that last piece of pie.
You mean like how developer developers are better off targeting the dominant platform to maximize the return on their development effort by creating software for the largest audience possible with the least work possible?
Unfourtunalty the "sky is falling mentallity" may be an accurate one. There are few, if any, geologists who think that we won't peak for 50 or 100 years.
This is a problem we will be faced with not only within our lifetime, but also likely within the lifetime of our current automobile. If 10 years from now we still haven't peaked I will be extremely surprised.
Again, at this point, my only hope is for the oil shale technologies to pan out. That, or some kind of major break through in fusion.
You are incorrect. Nearly a third of all electrical production in the United States comes from oil and natural gas, and coal produces about 43% of our electricty, not 60%.
Natural gas produces about 19%. Oil contributes about 12%. Nuclear is about 14%. Hydroelectric is about 7%. And lastly, renewables, not including hydroelectric, are about 12%.
Slashdot Mirror
IE 7, when run on Windows Vista, would not have fallen victim to this or any other exploit of this nature. The reason for this is the fact that IE 7 on Vista runs as a user with virtually no privileges, regardless of privileges of the user using IE 7.
Essentially all actions that require higher privileges, such as writing to non-temp locations on the file system, executing applications, installing plugins, changing settings, etc, will be done through the use of a broker.
The broker is very small, perhaps only a few thousand lines of code. This makes auditing the broker far easier than auditing the hundreds of thousands of lines in IE 7.
When IE 7 wants to save a file to the user's desktop, for instance, it must first "ask" the broker if it can do this. The broker is written in such a way that all actions require the user to confirm this is OK via a dialog box. If the user says it's OK the broker completes the action on behalf of IE 7.
If IE 7 has a buffer overflow or exploit of some kind and tries to do something nasty it will always fail because it is running as a user with basically no privileges on the system.
There is a video that describes this in detail on Microsoft's Channel 9 web site.
So Oracle is losing business to open source alternatives because one part of one company is switching to EnterpriseDB and because of an anecdotal quote?
Wow. Spare me the spin.
Isn't it also possible that the far cheaper closed source alternatives are getting a little business as well?
Oracle has always been pricey, but for a long time their DB features were hard to beat. Competitors, both closed and open, and finally getting to the point where they are on all levels with Oracle.
I can get stuff up and running in half the time under Linux with it's standard socket interface
Can you give me a more specific example?
Basically, the Windows tools are designed to be good at cranking out MDI applications
Huh? Windows tools are great at cracking out all sorts of applications. Why would you think that "MDI applications" are somehow the target of Windows development tools?
You can't pipe program output, redirect to file, etc.
First, I can't recall the last time I needed or wanted to redirect output to a file from a command line app while I was doing development. Perhaps it's because I do a different kind of development than you do, but regardless, I would hardly classify XP is a bad development platform over something like that. Even so, you're completely wrong as it's very easy to pipe output in XP.
Search through source file relies on 3rd party solutions, and few of them have the ability to work with regular expressions.
Huh? Aside from the fact that hitting F3 in Windows will bring up a find dialog that can search the contents of files, Visual Studio (and virtually every other IDE that runs on Windows) has the ability to search with regular expressions.
... is because of the strong brick and mortar casino lobby. Native American casinos and Vegas casinos have a very strong (and well funded) lobby that pushes for this legislation every year.
It just so happens that we have scummy enough politicians in power that are happy to make it happen.
With internet gambling shut down the only place people will be able to gamble are brick/mortar casinos, and, of course, state sponsored lotteries.
What you'll hear from these politicians is some baloney about gambling addiction, or maybe even the obligatory "what about the children!?" plea. I absolutely hate these people. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Ya ya... forgot to select Plain Text instead of HTML. Whatever. :-p
I don't want Microsoft and its crappy console to gain any foothold. Have you used the "crappy console"? It's actually a helluva lot of fun. The launch titles were only so-so. No bad ones, but no truly great ones. That aside, Xbox Live makes up for it all. It's an incredible experience and it alone makes buying an X360 worth it. The only reason the XBox exists is to push the Windows platform into the living room--originally Microsoft offered their platform libraries to Sony and Nintendo and only made the X-Box when both companies refused to ship Windows on their consoles. This is completely false. Microsoft created the trimmed down version of Win2k for the Xbox exclusively. They never made any such offer to Nintendo or Sony. They intended to enter the market and compete with these companies from the get-go. In addition, saying that the Xbox runs Windows is misleading. The Xbox runs a very, very customized version of the Windows 2000 kernel, but that's about where things end. There is certainly a strategy to make the Xbox/X360 work well with PCs running Windows (media center in particular), but that's just one part of the overall strategy to win the gaming market. Microsoft cares nothing at all about games or quality of games, which is why we get commercials espousing the wonders of sweat on a basketball player mesh. Microsoft case about the quality of its games the same way Nintendo and Sony do - only insofar as that quality makes them money. You honestly think that Sony is some pure of heart company that loves its gamers? Get a grip. his gives more time for the XBox 360 to actually gain a foothold, even despite their pathetically slow start (Nintendo sold more Gamecubes last Christmas than Microsoft sold XBox 360s). Are we in the No-Spin-Zone all of a sudden? Microsoft's "slow start" was completely due to the LACK OF AVAILABE CONSOLES TO BUY. EVERYBODY wanted one, but they were all sold out. Everywhere. Why do you think they were going for 5x face value on eBay? Meanwhile, Gamecubes are a dime a dozen. Microsoft will undoubtedly solidfy a strong lead over the next few months thanks to finally being able to go into almost any store and buy an Xbox 360.
...is that you get the benefit of the optimization that can only occur when compiling for a specific machine without actually needing to do the work yourself.
.NET and Java the IL/byte code is JIT'ed before execution and can have these machine-specific optimizations inserted.
:)
In platforms like
No need to break out gcc or try and resolve dependencies. Ahh... I loved the managed world.
...but accepting theft is another.
There is a big difference between adapting to new markets and technology and allowing existing ones to be pilfered by thieves.
While the RIAA and MPAA certainly make themselves look stupid when they sue grandma's for downloading mp3s, they are simply trying to protect and existing marketplace.
It's no different than a shop owner calling the cops when somebody robs them at gun point. Do we expect the shop owner to adapt to robbery? No. We expect law enforcement to prevent that robbery and punish those who are caught after the fact.
Obviously there are lots of new market opportunities created by technology. MP3s have certainly changed the way we listen to music. But just as a gun makes it easier to rob a bank, mpeg compression makes it easier to share near full quality music with millions of people.
The industry IS slowly changing. They are investing massive amounts of money in DRM which will allow them to participate in the emerging markets created by compression schemes like MP3. Them trying to stop file sharers from distributing copyrighted material to millions of people illegally is a separate and independent issue.
Sure they do, it's just a different clue that the one you have.
Yahoo cares about making money. They yield to foreign governments for fear of economic reprisal, and they ban allah from screen names for fear of domestic reprisal.
Ah yes, of course. It couldn't possibly be that his comments were honest or anything.
.NET application for Windows is also just a ploy for future employment as well.
I guess his choice of leaving Microsoft to do development of
Get a grip man.
Visual Studio 2005 .NET Framework 2.0
SQL Server 2005
The
I've used these fairly extensively (since beta 1 of all three), and they are without a doubt quality releases.
In March they will be launching Team Foundation Server and judging from the Beta 3 and Dec. CTP releases, this is an excellent product as well.
What a great job the poster did at editing out any pro-Microsoft sentiments in the article summary.
We wouldn't want to have that filth on the front page of Slashdot, now would we? Here is the full quote that was only partially included in the article summary:
"The reason I decided to leave had to do with my specific experiences working in Microsoft's Linux Lab. Although I believe that the concept behind Microsoft's Linux Lab is a good one, I wasn't able to work at my full level of technical ability and I found this frustrating," he said.
Also, earlier in the article:
"I didn't make the decision to leave Microsoft due to concerns about the company as a whole -- Microsoft has just had a string of very successful product launches and I anticipate that it will continue to enjoy great success," he said.
Porsche doesn't have 95% market share, they don't even have 5% market share - yet they are the most profitable car company in the world.
Good point, but I'm not sure it really applies. Porsche certainly does target the same people that General Motors or Ford targets. Porsche is a niche market.
Apple, on the other hand, would love to target Windows users. This is clear from their advertising campaigns like the famous "switch" campaign. I don't see Porsche saying "go head, switch from your mustange to a new 911." Different markets... much different.
Appple has a very loyal fan base, but they have a lot of trouble expanding that fan base. Google would have the same issues. That's my point.
You can be a multi-billion dollar company and still be in plenty of financial trouble. Do you honestly think it was just a coincidence that Apple's stock was hovering around $10 a share for years, and then all of a sudden they shot up to $80 a share right when the iPod was released? Come on. At any rate, you're completely missing the point of my post.
I would define success as gaining any significant market share. Most people agree that 10% of a market is a milestone. Mac OS X has been out for nearly 5 years now, and it still hovers at under 3%.
One could also define success as being able to support a company financially. Without the iPod, Apple would be in serious financial trouble.
Lastly, one could define success as being the dominant player in terms of market share.
Clearly, OS X doesn't do any of these.
There are already alternatives to Windows which, in many ways, are better than Windows. (I'm sure many of you are saying DUUU right now, but I'm talking about Mac OS X, not Linux.)
Mac OS X is certainly prettier than Windows (and that's very important from a marketing perspective), and it has most of the basic applications that 95% of the people out there use.
Yet despite all of this, it doesn't succeed. Why? There are lots of answers to this question. Some involve Microsoft's market dominance and the fact it is a defacto standard. Some involve Apple's typically more expensive hardware. (Although this seems to be slowly changing.) Some involve the fact that Windows has a far larger software library available. Some involve people being more comfortable using at home what they use at work, and that is almost invariably a PC with Windows.
Whatever the reason, how does Google's OS overcome these? What about Google as a company makes us all think they could do any better? Sure, they have tons of money... but Microsoft will always have more, and they have a 20 year head start as far as market share goes.
Obviously a diabetic or somebody who knows they have a specific condition wouldn't try this. What I said wasn't wreckless if you, and the people reading my comment, would also use some common sense.
It's kind of like saying "take asprin for your headaches" or "take amoxicillin for your strep throat" is wreckless because a certain percentage of the population could be hurt or killed because of existing conditions. That does not negate the validity of the comments, nor does it address anything I said specifically.
Thanks. :)
Crash dieting prevents you from getting the nutrients you need.
I'm not "crash" dieting. I continue to eat about 1200 calories a day and have been doing so for over 2 years now.
Even a perfectly balanced 1-meal a day cannot, repeat CAN NOT, deliver the proper nutrients because they absorbed at different rates
That's why I also take a few multi-vitamins each day to ensure that I'm not missing anything big. But the fact of the matter is that I'm quite healthy. (At least according to my doctor.)
That's why there's no supervitamin that has everything you need for a day: you'd really need a drip IV to do this.
Everything? Certainly not. But a single meal, as long as the meal has a decent amount of variety, works just fine when coupled with a multivitamin.
Second, you can eat 3,000 kcal a day and still lose weight: exercising uses calories.
True, but that ignores my goal of slowing my metabolism. Eating 3000 calories and excercising will likely increase your metabolism, which is exactly the opposite of what I want.
Third, whether or not you experience ill effects from your personal dieting strategy depends on genetic history, such as hypertension, cholesterol, diabetes, etc.
True, which is why I didn't just say it works for me therefor it works for everybody. There have been many studies done, one of which i cited in my original posting, that show that caloric restrictions works both in animals and in humans. It results in weight loss, longer life, and being healthier in general.
This research cannot possibly be correct. Why? Because, as others have pointed out, the only thing that can "cause obesity" is consuming more calories than you use. Period. End of story. (Unless somebody comes up with a way to absorb calories without actually eating them.)
So while there may be a virus that changes an individuals metabolic rate, or perhaps gives them intense and constant urges to eat, it is still the act of eating that results in getting fat.
Certainly I can understand why people who have this virus (if it's true) might gain weight more easily than those without it, but THEY CAN CONTROL THIS.
Over the past few years I have been experimenting with lowering my metabolic rate as much as possible. I used to eat upwards of 3000 calories a day, easily. I'd eat a large lunch and then, usually around 9pm, I'd eat a large dinner. The result? 260 Lbs. No so good, despite my height of 6'4".
I started a caloric restriction diet, which was absolutely brutal for the first two months. I ate 1 meal a day. No exceptions. I tried to keep this mean as close to 1000 calories as possible, but aside from that the content of the meal didn't matter. The result? I now weigh 190 Lbs. I would like to get that to about 180, but it seems that 190 is the weight I can most easily maintain while eating about 1000 to 1200 calories a day.
In addition to the weight loss, my cholesterol is now excellent despite the fact I routinely eat fatty foods and foods high in sodium. And there is a lot of evidence that eating less and slowing your metabolism will lead to a longer life due to reduced free radical production by the cells in my body.
The point is, during the first couple of months of my diet I ate less than 1/3rd what I usually ate. My body was absolutely screaming for food almost all the time. I had to learn to control this, and it was by no means easy. I found that if I hate food in my apartment, I basically would eat it. My will power just wasn't there. What did I do? Got rid of the food. When I bought food, I would buy enough for that meal. For those times where I would feel faint (only happened rarely due to drops in blood sugar early on) I would snack on things like olives (healthy and filling, but have few calories), and drink a decent amount of water or lemon water.
At any rate, while it was tough, I controlled myself. I reject the argument that I have greater will power than the average American fattie. I certainly don't. (Trust me.) It's a matter of choosing the long term benefits of not being a fattie over the short term pleasure of eating when you're hungry, or upset, or whatever. Sometimes this is hard, but if you're committed to it anybody can do it. The problem is most people simply choose the short term pleasure of eating that last piece of pie.
You mean like how developer developers are better off targeting the dominant platform to maximize the return on their development effort by creating software for the largest audience possible with the least work possible?
Unfourtunalty the "sky is falling mentallity" may be an accurate one. There are few, if any, geologists who think that we won't peak for 50 or 100 years.
This is a problem we will be faced with not only within our lifetime, but also likely within the lifetime of our current automobile. If 10 years from now we still haven't peaked I will be extremely surprised.
Again, at this point, my only hope is for the oil shale technologies to pan out. That, or some kind of major break through in fusion.
You are incorrect. Nearly a third of all electrical production in the United States comes from oil and natural gas, and coal produces about 43% of our electricty, not 60%.
Natural gas produces about 19%.
Oil contributes about 12%.
Nuclear is about 14%.
Hydroelectric is about 7%.
And lastly, renewables, not including hydroelectric, are about 12%.
See my source for more details.