Didn't Microsoft itself provided a reference implementation that would work perfectly under BSD? What, they are shooting themselves in their feet?
The primary competitor to C# is java. Moves like standardisation, porting, etc are probably intended to raise the stature of C#, and make it look more like a serious standard language (like C or C++) and
less like a proprietary Mickey-Mouse fad-language (like Visual Basic)
Dont you all see the pattern here? Oh geez, let's all begin developping using this so neat C$ language and let's contribute to this so great.NET$ "innovation". Bill and his buffoons must be smoking a big fat one with a smile now.... And we are even lighting it for them...
...
And of course, there is no way in hell Bill will pollute his own spec just for our own good and for the sake of his own pocket
You're completely missing the point. What Bill
chooses to do or not to do with Microsofts implementation of the C# language has little relevance to its usefulness as a
development tool for writing Linux/UNIX applications.
Unlike Java, C# has been turned over to standardisation committees. Basically, it's got a life of its own outside of Microsoft HQ now.
Bill can't unilaterally "pollute" something that is
controlled by a standards body. Of course, Microsoft
can make a non-compliant version of their own language. But then again, so what ? Microsoft have been making non-compliant implementations of other languages for years. C, C++, Java... you name it, they've butchered it. But it didn't prevent those
technologies from being useful.
Yes, good comments. I agree that their move to XML will not help that much. It will lower the bar to access, meaning that the average perl hacker will be able to extract something from the document, as opposed to a C programmer whose studied their APIs, but I don't think
this will have huge consequences in terms of compatibility.
I addressed some of these issues
here
, including the issue with rendering documents (basically, a standard format doesn't help if every word processor has different algorithms for document rendering, and some of those may be patented). Your point about proprietary languagers and ODBC
is also an excellent one though, it's yet another
good reason why XML will not really improve compatibility that much.
Other than to make pretty things for managers, VPs, CEOs, and other clooballs to look at, what good is being able to do that?
Is that not a good enough reason ? It's not just these people either. Advanced embedding capabilities are heavily used in presentation software like powerpoint. RTF is quite limited and
simply doesn't cut it as a sort of universal
document format.
Personally, and maybe this is because mostly I just write code, I just want my word processor to have spelling and grammer checking; nothing fancy required.
Yes, obviously we have biases because we have a certain "usage model" based on our own usage. Other users may have different needs and behaviours. I use Latex for most document preparation, but I'd be the first to admit that it's not for everyone.
Alright, so I did. Embedded an Excel sheet into and RTF file made in WordPad, then opened it up in Word. Worked fine...
OK, but there are a number of other problems with RTF. It's a relatively braindead document format,
and not a replacement for a word processor document format, or a structured document format like TeX.
In the real business world, Office will be king until MS opens its format. StarOffice (which I've used quite a bit) is nice, but at 99.5% compatability, it just isn't good enough. No one wants to lose a business deal because they don't use the standard.
Opening up the format will not help. HTML has been an "open format" since the beginning of time, but after years have passed, you still only have "99.5%" compatibility. Why would we only get that much ? Well, just look to HTML to see why.
We'd get differing typefaces or versions of the same typefaces, differing font renderers, differing renditions of the same documents : paragraph formatting, line formatting, in the form of justification/stretch/kerning algorithms, page breaking algorithms, different ways to format
bulleted or itemised lists, different choices
of default table rendition,
embedded documents that use proprietary formats,
and possibly documents whose formats are closely
coupled to rapidly evolving APIs.
The truth of the matter is that Microsoft document
formats, like HTML, are already published and available. But this doesn't really help. There are
an enormous number of other problems, the main
one being that understanding the format doesn't
help unless the rendering algorithms and software can be reproduced perfectly. Which is, approximately when hell freezes over.
To address some of the way off-the-mark posts
in this thread:
Isn't Microsoft.doc format based on XML already?
Yes, but this doesn't really help a whole lot. XML is a standard for designing document formats, it is not a format in its own right. The fact that
Microsoft's format is "based on XML" really only says that they will use HTML-like tags <foo>some text here</foo>, it doesn't
say that how their word processor will interpret those tags, or even what the tags will be, etc.
What's wrong with RTF or straight-up ascii?
Try embedding a spreadsheet in RTF, and get back to us (is this question for real ?)
I was under the impression that Microsoft Office 11 was promoting their own??? version of XML. If that is the case, I am sure that BillG wouldn't want anything else as a standard
No, Microsoft are using their own document format.
It's not a "version of XML", XML is a specification for writing document formats. It isn't a format in its own right. Bill couldn't care less if something else became standard, but the issue here is convenience. Microsoft may want to be able to add tags to their document format, as they add features to their software. It's really a case of the "not invented here" syndrome -- everyone likes to invent their own format. Even with standards like POSIX, C++, C, and HTML, any vendor of consequence adds their own vendor extensions.
Yes, MS isn't going to open up one of its proprietary license. Especially one that is so widely used. If this comes as a surprise, you need to soak your head.
"Proprietary licenses" are not the issue here. Microsoft are moving to an XML based format, and
they already allow developers access to documentation for their formats. Moving to XML will
make their formats more accesible -- it might not
make much difference to a serious implementor, but
it will make it much easier for the average
perl hacker to do something with their documents.
The
issue is that MS don't want someone else controlling the format that their software uses. It's simply more convenient if you have complete
control over the specifications of your format.
Compatibility requires some discipline, and possibly a certain amount of inconvenience. Whether or not that inconvenience is worthwhile
depends on the merits of the format, which is why
Microsoft are playing "wait and see".
In any case, I doubt Microsoft would use a standard format as their native format, at best they would base their native format on a standard
and add a bunch of vendor extensions to it.
The age of the Internet may well be the beginning of an age of 'new communism' -- people contribue what they can, with the expectation that in return they will receive other peoples contributions as well;
So let's say that someone contributes to society by contributing creative works. Now are you saying that they "receive other peoples contributions" in that they get paid for producing creative works, or are you merely suggesting that they are allowed free access to the creative works of others ? Such a model is clearly a disincentive to anyone who would author creative works, because as valuable as the right to use the works of others is, it doesn't put food on the table.
So if you want to have a true communist model,
then it can't just involve taking from creative
people. That's not "communist" at all, that's merely greed on the part of people who don't value creativity.
The people who make non-creative contributions to society -- the accountants, the
farmers, the workers, etc, need to share their works too.
More than a shame, I think it borders on evil to deprive others of knowledge that there is no *real* barrier to their having.
But there is. This so-called "knowledge" requires resources to create, and those resources are finite. Someone has to contribute those resources.
Does anyone else think that Qt should forward declare more classes than it does? The compilation time of Qt projects has went up five fold since Qt 1.x due to excessive of C++ templates.
The simplest way to address this is to avoid using too many different instances. The way the QObject model works, you shouldn't need a whole lot of different instances of the same template class.
If you're concerned about the compile load of
template instantiations, you can always compile with -fno-implicit-templates. Sure it's a bit of a pain, but it can shave a lot off your compile times.
On another topic, who else thinks C++0x should make provisions to forward declare templatized class instances? Including all these template definitions in every header file is complete death for compilation time: #include , for example.
You already can do similar to this. Some compilers, like gcc allow you to suppress implicit instantiation. Of course, the compiler still has
to parse the extra code, but it no longer has to
create instances of those member functions.
The compile checking on uninstantiated members
is minimal.
In terms of Consensus, we have the best system in the world, which is why our government has only broken down into fighting once.
While I agree with this assertion, I disagree that it has much to do with the voting system. In America, the senate rules pretty much make consensus a necessity. Even members of opposite parties need to work together frequently. Bills do not often go through the senate on straight party-line votes.
As for governments not breaking down into fighting -- Australia has an instant runoff system, and they haven't broken down into fighting either.
Copyright is an infringment on my human rights. Copyright is a monopoly. Copyright is censorship. Copyright makes me into a slave.
No it's not. It's analogous to entering into a contract with the creator of the work. Simply put, the creator should be able to enter into a consensual agreement with a buyer. Is your precious Rand against consensual contractual agreements ?
Is it not true that you are free to choose not to subject yourself to copyrights you find disagreeable, by not acquiring the copyrighted work in the first place ?
You'll also have to explain why US universities should be beholden to US citizens. US universities should work to become the best universities that they can.
I agree with most of your points, but this one is
pretty simple. In the case of private universities, the answer is that they shouldn't. In the case of government funded universities, they should serve the interests of the citizens that government represents and acquires those funds from.
When I was applying to grad schools, I lost count of the number of things that "required US citizenship" (in particular, financial support). Most of the decent schools accept mostly American students, and only a small number of overseas students (who are usually much stronger). Some of the weaker universities accept a lot of foreign students.
As for selecting honest people, that's a noble sentiment, but it's difficult to determine honesty on an application, and it's not practical to interview all candidates.
Sugar and white flour become the same thing very shortly after entering your body. Eating a muffin is the same thing as drinking a soda, from the body's standpoint.
I agree. I think refined high GI foods are a greater source of diet problems in modern society than sugar.
Complex carbohydrates break down slower, but they still break down, and it takes some time for insulin levels to drop.
White flour is a complex carbohydrate. Complex vs simple carb doesn't have a lot to do with the insulin response. (GI measures this)
So a small amount of brown rice is unlikely to raise your insulin level much because it takes longer to break down and you're not eating so much to begin with, but a large amount of brown rice will have the same effect as eating white rice, for example.
Yes, but there's no reason why you'll eat more brown rice. Actually, you'll usually end up eating less of most high fiber foods.
I miss beans and rice terribly.
Beans and rice are very healthy, if you emphasise the beans and have a moderate serve of brown rice. Beans have a very low GI, and are full of nutrients.
but the one that's least useful (and most harmful) is the carbohydrates.
Sorry, that's not true. Carbohydrates are useful
for replenishing glycogen stores. They don't
necessarily provide immediate energy (though glucose and
some glucose polymers come close), release time for carbs varies greatly, and depends on the type of carb, and what you eat with it.
Again,
you don't need to consume enormous amounts of processed food to consume carbs, and dieters should shoot primarily for unrefined carb sources that are
high in fiber. There is nothing "evil" about carbs (just like there is nothing evil about fat), what is harmful is indiscriminate eating.
If low-carb works for you, that's fine, but it's
just not true that carbs are some sort of bogey-man.
I think that should read protein-rich diets. A diet that is high in protein will be
good at preserving lean mass regardless of whether or not it's low-carb.
are better at preserving lean muscle mass than other diets because of the increased protien intake.
The diet results in increased protein metabolism, so you need more protein on
that diet. The high protein intake is there for a
reason, it is important on that diet. It is important on any diet, but more so on the Atkins diet.
When you're a teen your body is growing the same way it grows when you are excersising heavily and it needs more protein than normal for muscle growth.
Teens also have substantial calcium and iron requirements. They'll end up anemic long before protein becomes an issue.
I've known many vegetarian and vegan teens who eat nothing but lettuce, broccoli, and carrots, and drink nothing but water.
That's a vegan diet, as opposed to a non-vegan vegetarian diet. A vegan diet is quite hard to manage (calcium, B12, and iron are big issues), while a non-vegan vegetarian can still fall back on yoghurt and milk.
Guess what? Americans aren't eating less fat, they are eating more fat, more carbs, more everything.
Unfortunately, they get too many junk-carbs: sugar, starch, highly refined products, and no-where near enough dietary fiber. Lots of empty calories. A moderate amount of fat and some quality carbs with some fiber (vegetables, fruit, oats) would be as filling and contain considerably less calories.
I eat just as much on the atkins diet as I did before it, if not more. Now instead of consuming calories from carbohydrates, I get them from fat and protein.
That's called an "anecdote". It's not hard evidence that the Atkins diet outperforms any other diet with a comparable amount of calories. But I find it very hard to believe that you consume a few thousand calories in fat and protein alone (which is what the average American gets in their diet)
The answer: Forever. Some people have been on this diet all their lives, healthily.
Some people. Most people who "go on a diet" don't stay on it forever. The problem is that people want to "fix" their weight problem, but they need a lifestyle change. It's a classic cure-the-symptom approach.
What's surprising is that people in countries who ate this way in the first place didn't convince you.
I saw the article. Full of questionable assertions, like the one about the "exercise rate not changing", or the complete failure to notice that the countries with high incidence of obesity
were all from the same ethnic group. (Italian food, btw, is full of fat as well as starch. Again, beware of cherry-picked data points.). On the other hand, the article
does make some good points about the "fat-is'bad" myth.
Eating tons of ready carbs means your insulin level spikes, and that's hard on the pancreas.
The main fallacy that keeps recurring in your post as well as the shoddy argument you cite is the false dichotomy between the Atkins diet, and binging on high glycemic index carbs. I don't think anyone in their right mind recommends consuming enormous amounts of sugar and refined carbs.
You know, that's what we were told to do.
Horseshit. No-one ever recommended binging on sugar, and consuming enormous amounts of empty calories.
This is horseshit too. While you are in ketosis, you do not store fat. When you have unburned fat, you remove it from your body by an ancient process known today (medically) as a bowel movement.
On what basis do you assume that ketosis magically prevents all dietary fat from being stored ? Ketones are a by-product of a metabolic process, it's not some sort of infinitely large tapeworm.
I want to know which cracker and chip company commissioned this FUD.
Hate to break it to you, but this is a controversial topic. Not everyone who disagrees with you is in on saome sort of conspiracy.
Our food has evolved into a carbohydrate-rich diet because that's what the USDA said was good for us.
Not true. The diet that most Americans eat has very little to do with what any nutritionist or the USDA says. It contains a lot of fat, a lot of saturated fat, and a lot of relatively un-nutritious empty calories in the form of sugar and/or highly refined carbs.
Probably the reason that todays diet is relatively carb rich has a lot to do with the move towards sugars and/or highly processed foods with high glycemic index, and low dietary fiber. In other words, todays carb feedings are less filling, more prone to producing energy spikes, and less prone to producing a gentle, sustained release of energy.
On that note, carbohydrates are also the cheapest form of food, so when the Gub'ment is handing out subsidized food to everyone (public schools, hospitals, army bases, FBI cafeterias, etc), it would make sense to hand out carbohydrates.
A lot of the handed-out food is also high in saturated fat, and contains more than enough protein.
Abundant, cheap, energy-rich? C'mon. It makes perfect economic sense. But it doesn't follow nature.
There's nothing unnatural about carbs. We've been eating them for thousands of years, but we're fatter today than we were 100 years ago. What is unnatural is this food processing that results in these highly refined carbs.
Getting the person with a fistfull of twinkies back on the proper metabolic path is an awesome feat of biochemistry and cell biology, but it happens when you go low/no carbs.
Almost any sensible diet will eliminate twinkies for the simple reason that they, like most other junk food, contain a lot of fat, and a lot of sugar.
Many vegetarians do not know that they have to eat a lot of soy, nuts, and legumes to get enough protein,
This is not true. Protein-deficiency is an enormous non-issue. Unless you're on a vegan diet, dairy products can still supply protein, but in any case, it's difficult to run short enough of protein for it to cause health problems. Or rather, it's relatively difficult. For vegetarians
who are training (endurance or weights), protein
is more of an issue, but most people who train
seriously also take nutrition seriously.
The biggest two health issues in vegetarian diets are iron and B12. You will become anemic from iron or B12 deficiency long before protein becomes an issue.
I'd really like to be able to read the output
of gcc, but most assembly language books deal
with Intel syntax, while gcc outputs AT&T syntax.
Are there any decent books for someone interested
in reading gcc output ?
Slashdot Mirror
The primary competitor to C# is java. Moves like standardisation, porting, etc are probably intended to raise the stature of C#, and make it look more like a serious standard language (like C or C++) and less like a proprietary Mickey-Mouse fad-language (like Visual Basic)
You're completely missing the point. What Bill chooses to do or not to do with Microsofts implementation of the C# language has little relevance to its usefulness as a development tool for writing Linux/UNIX applications. Unlike Java, C# has been turned over to standardisation committees. Basically, it's got a life of its own outside of Microsoft HQ now. Bill can't unilaterally "pollute" something that is controlled by a standards body. Of course, Microsoft can make a non-compliant version of their own language. But then again, so what ? Microsoft have been making non-compliant implementations of other languages for years. C, C++, Java ... you name it, they've butchered it. But it didn't prevent those
technologies from being useful.
Other than to make pretty things for managers, VPs, CEOs, and other clooballs to look at, what good is being able to do that?
Is that not a good enough reason ? It's not just these people either. Advanced embedding capabilities are heavily used in presentation software like powerpoint. RTF is quite limited and simply doesn't cut it as a sort of universal document format.
Personally, and maybe this is because mostly I just write code, I just want my word processor to have spelling and grammer checking; nothing fancy required.
Yes, obviously we have biases because we have a certain "usage model" based on our own usage. Other users may have different needs and behaviours. I use Latex for most document preparation, but I'd be the first to admit that it's not for everyone.
OK, but there are a number of other problems with RTF. It's a relatively braindead document format, and not a replacement for a word processor document format, or a structured document format like TeX.
Opening up the format will not help. HTML has been an "open format" since the beginning of time, but after years have passed, you still only have "99.5%" compatibility. Why would we only get that much ? Well, just look to HTML to see why. We'd get differing typefaces or versions of the same typefaces, differing font renderers, differing renditions of the same documents : paragraph formatting, line formatting, in the form of justification/stretch/kerning algorithms, page breaking algorithms, different ways to format bulleted or itemised lists, different choices of default table rendition, embedded documents that use proprietary formats, and possibly documents whose formats are closely coupled to rapidly evolving APIs.
The truth of the matter is that Microsoft document formats, like HTML, are already published and available. But this doesn't really help. There are an enormous number of other problems, the main one being that understanding the format doesn't help unless the rendering algorithms and software can be reproduced perfectly. Which is, approximately when hell freezes over.
Isn't Microsoft .doc format based on XML already?
Yes, but this doesn't really help a whole lot. XML is a standard for designing document formats, it is not a format in its own right. The fact that Microsoft's format is "based on XML" really only says that they will use HTML-like tags <foo>some text here</foo>, it doesn't say that how their word processor will interpret those tags, or even what the tags will be, etc.
What's wrong with RTF or straight-up ascii?
Try embedding a spreadsheet in RTF, and get back to us (is this question for real ?)
I was under the impression that Microsoft Office 11 was promoting their own??? version of XML. If that is the case, I am sure that BillG wouldn't want anything else as a standard
No, Microsoft are using their own document format. It's not a "version of XML", XML is a specification for writing document formats. It isn't a format in its own right. Bill couldn't care less if something else became standard, but the issue here is convenience. Microsoft may want to be able to add tags to their document format, as they add features to their software. It's really a case of the "not invented here" syndrome -- everyone likes to invent their own format. Even with standards like POSIX, C++, C, and HTML, any vendor of consequence adds their own vendor extensions.
Yes, MS isn't going to open up one of its proprietary license. Especially one that is so widely used. If this comes as a surprise, you need to soak your head.
"Proprietary licenses" are not the issue here. Microsoft are moving to an XML based format, and they already allow developers access to documentation for their formats. Moving to XML will make their formats more accesible -- it might not make much difference to a serious implementor, but it will make it much easier for the average perl hacker to do something with their documents.
The issue is that MS don't want someone else controlling the format that their software uses. It's simply more convenient if you have complete control over the specifications of your format. Compatibility requires some discipline, and possibly a certain amount of inconvenience. Whether or not that inconvenience is worthwhile depends on the merits of the format, which is why Microsoft are playing "wait and see".
In any case, I doubt Microsoft would use a standard format as their native format, at best they would base their native format on a standard and add a bunch of vendor extensions to it.
So let's say that someone contributes to society by contributing creative works. Now are you saying that they "receive other peoples contributions" in that they get paid for producing creative works, or are you merely suggesting that they are allowed free access to the creative works of others ? Such a model is clearly a disincentive to anyone who would author creative works, because as valuable as the right to use the works of others is, it doesn't put food on the table.
So if you want to have a true communist model, then it can't just involve taking from creative people. That's not "communist" at all, that's merely greed on the part of people who don't value creativity. The people who make non-creative contributions to society -- the accountants, the farmers, the workers, etc, need to share their works too.
More than a shame, I think it borders on evil to deprive others of knowledge that there is no *real* barrier to their having.
But there is. This so-called "knowledge" requires resources to create, and those resources are finite. Someone has to contribute those resources.
The simplest way to address this is to avoid using too many different instances. The way the QObject model works, you shouldn't need a whole lot of different instances of the same template class.
If you're concerned about the compile load of template instantiations, you can always compile with -fno-implicit-templates. Sure it's a bit of a pain, but it can shave a lot off your compile times.
On another topic, who else thinks C++0x should make provisions to forward declare templatized class instances? Including all these template definitions in every header file is complete death for compilation time: #include , for example.
You already can do similar to this. Some compilers, like gcc allow you to suppress implicit instantiation. Of course, the compiler still has to parse the extra code, but it no longer has to create instances of those member functions. The compile checking on uninstantiated members is minimal.
PyQt/sip (python bindings) have a more friendly license. The copyright notice is very permissive, it looks like the X11 license.
While I agree with this assertion, I disagree that it has much to do with the voting system. In America, the senate rules pretty much make consensus a necessity. Even members of opposite parties need to work together frequently. Bills do not often go through the senate on straight party-line votes.
As for governments not breaking down into fighting -- Australia has an instant runoff system, and they haven't broken down into fighting either.
No it's not. It's analogous to entering into a contract with the creator of the work. Simply put, the creator should be able to enter into a consensual agreement with a buyer. Is your precious Rand against consensual contractual agreements ? Is it not true that you are free to choose not to subject yourself to copyrights you find disagreeable, by not acquiring the copyrighted work in the first place ?
I agree with most of your points, but this one is pretty simple. In the case of private universities, the answer is that they shouldn't. In the case of government funded universities, they should serve the interests of the citizens that government represents and acquires those funds from.
As for selecting honest people, that's a noble sentiment, but it's difficult to determine honesty on an application, and it's not practical to interview all candidates.
Which means 9 cal fat to 8 cal carbs.
Cheers,
I agree. I think refined high GI foods are a greater source of diet problems in modern society than sugar.
Complex carbohydrates break down slower, but they still break down, and it takes some time for insulin levels to drop.
White flour is a complex carbohydrate. Complex vs simple carb doesn't have a lot to do with the insulin response. (GI measures this)
So a small amount of brown rice is unlikely to raise your insulin level much because it takes longer to break down and you're not eating so much to begin with, but a large amount of brown rice will have the same effect as eating white rice, for example.
Yes, but there's no reason why you'll eat more brown rice. Actually, you'll usually end up eating less of most high fiber foods.
I miss beans and rice terribly.
Beans and rice are very healthy, if you emphasise the beans and have a moderate serve of brown rice. Beans have a very low GI, and are full of nutrients.
but the one that's least useful (and most harmful) is the carbohydrates.
Sorry, that's not true. Carbohydrates are useful for replenishing glycogen stores. They don't necessarily provide immediate energy (though glucose and some glucose polymers come close), release time for carbs varies greatly, and depends on the type of carb, and what you eat with it. Again, you don't need to consume enormous amounts of processed food to consume carbs, and dieters should shoot primarily for unrefined carb sources that are high in fiber. There is nothing "evil" about carbs (just like there is nothing evil about fat), what is harmful is indiscriminate eating. If low-carb works for you, that's fine, but it's just not true that carbs are some sort of bogey-man.
I think that should read protein-rich diets. A diet that is high in protein will be good at preserving lean mass regardless of whether or not it's low-carb.
are better at preserving lean muscle mass than other diets because of the increased protien intake.
The diet results in increased protein metabolism, so you need more protein on that diet. The high protein intake is there for a reason, it is important on that diet. It is important on any diet, but more so on the Atkins diet.
Cheers,
Teens also have substantial calcium and iron requirements. They'll end up anemic long before protein becomes an issue.
I've known many vegetarian and vegan teens who eat nothing but lettuce, broccoli, and carrots, and drink nothing but water.
That's a vegan diet, as opposed to a non-vegan vegetarian diet. A vegan diet is quite hard to manage (calcium, B12, and iron are big issues), while a non-vegan vegetarian can still fall back on yoghurt and milk.
Unfortunately, they get too many junk-carbs: sugar, starch, highly refined products, and no-where near enough dietary fiber. Lots of empty calories. A moderate amount of fat and some quality carbs with some fiber (vegetables, fruit, oats) would be as filling and contain considerably less calories.
Just a nit -- the bag of chips is actually full of fat. A large bag of chips can contain up to 1400 calroies, and they are not all carbs.
That's called an "anecdote". It's not hard evidence that the Atkins diet outperforms any other diet with a comparable amount of calories. But I find it very hard to believe that you consume a few thousand calories in fat and protein alone (which is what the average American gets in their diet)
The answer: Forever. Some people have been on this diet all their lives, healthily.
Some people. Most people who "go on a diet" don't stay on it forever. The problem is that people want to "fix" their weight problem, but they need a lifestyle change. It's a classic cure-the-symptom approach.
What's surprising is that people in countries who ate this way in the first place didn't convince you.
I saw the article. Full of questionable assertions, like the one about the "exercise rate not changing", or the complete failure to notice that the countries with high incidence of obesity were all from the same ethnic group. (Italian food, btw, is full of fat as well as starch. Again, beware of cherry-picked data points.). On the other hand, the article does make some good points about the "fat-is'bad" myth.
Eating tons of ready carbs means your insulin level spikes, and that's hard on the pancreas.
The main fallacy that keeps recurring in your post as well as the shoddy argument you cite is the false dichotomy between the Atkins diet, and binging on high glycemic index carbs. I don't think anyone in their right mind recommends consuming enormous amounts of sugar and refined carbs.
You know, that's what we were told to do.
Horseshit. No-one ever recommended binging on sugar, and consuming enormous amounts of empty calories.
This is horseshit too. While you are in ketosis, you do not store fat. When you have unburned fat, you remove it from your body by an ancient process known today (medically) as a bowel movement.
On what basis do you assume that ketosis magically prevents all dietary fat from being stored ? Ketones are a by-product of a metabolic process, it's not some sort of infinitely large tapeworm.
I want to know which cracker and chip company commissioned this FUD.
Hate to break it to you, but this is a controversial topic. Not everyone who disagrees with you is in on saome sort of conspiracy.
Not true. The diet that most Americans eat has very little to do with what any nutritionist or the USDA says. It contains a lot of fat, a lot of saturated fat, and a lot of relatively un-nutritious empty calories in the form of sugar and/or highly refined carbs.
Probably the reason that todays diet is relatively carb rich has a lot to do with the move towards sugars and/or highly processed foods with high glycemic index, and low dietary fiber. In other words, todays carb feedings are less filling, more prone to producing energy spikes, and less prone to producing a gentle, sustained release of energy.
On that note, carbohydrates are also the cheapest form of food, so when the Gub'ment is handing out subsidized food to everyone (public schools, hospitals, army bases, FBI cafeterias, etc), it would make sense to hand out carbohydrates.
A lot of the handed-out food is also high in saturated fat, and contains more than enough protein.
Abundant, cheap, energy-rich? C'mon. It makes perfect economic sense. But it doesn't follow nature.
There's nothing unnatural about carbs. We've been eating them for thousands of years, but we're fatter today than we were 100 years ago. What is unnatural is this food processing that results in these highly refined carbs.
Getting the person with a fistfull of twinkies back on the proper metabolic path is an awesome feat of biochemistry and cell biology, but it happens when you go low/no carbs.
Almost any sensible diet will eliminate twinkies for the simple reason that they, like most other junk food, contain a lot of fat, and a lot of sugar.
This is not true. Protein-deficiency is an enormous non-issue. Unless you're on a vegan diet, dairy products can still supply protein, but in any case, it's difficult to run short enough of protein for it to cause health problems. Or rather, it's relatively difficult. For vegetarians who are training (endurance or weights), protein is more of an issue, but most people who train seriously also take nutrition seriously.
The biggest two health issues in vegetarian diets are iron and B12. You will become anemic from iron or B12 deficiency long before protein becomes an issue.
I'd really like to be able to read the output of gcc, but most assembly language books deal with Intel syntax, while gcc outputs AT&T syntax. Are there any decent books for someone interested in reading gcc output ?
How is distributing GPL work in binary-only format equivalent to claiming that anything is my own work ?