I'm American and I live in the US, but I lived in Israel for a while. For what it's worth, I never once heard someone in Israel saying that Israelis were "Asians". It was always "Israeli" or "Middle Eastern".
This clearly has bothered you a lot, but I'm frankly not sure why, because this issue seems pretty pedantic, to me. In the US, I've never heard an Indian person self-identify as "Asian". South Asia is often referred to as the Indian Subcontinent, so the terms "Indian" and "Asian" aren't necessarily even redundant in that context.
On the grand scale of things to get pissed off about, I guess I'm just a bit surprised that this even registered. But what do I know? I'm not Asian, nor Indian, so I guess I don't have much of an opinion here.
Dude! Your condom ad came along with more disclaimers than Happy Fun Ball! I'm a pretty meticulous adult and I don't even trust myself to put on a condom perfectly every time in the heat of the moment. There's no way I'd trust your average horny teenager.
Condoms are a secondary form of birth control. That's it. That's how I used them before I got married.
What "could" be a great partner? You want to avoid the risks, but you're not willing to use effective sort criteria? Come on. If you're constantly worried about her getting pregnant, she's by definition not a great partner.
You are either trolling me, or you are a loon. Normally I can tell the difference, but I'm having considerable difficulty in your case. Anyway, it's unrealistic to expect men, especially young men, to limit their potential sex partners to provably-infertile women only.
As far as the "common relationship pattern", again, play with fire, you may get burnt - that's a choice you knowingly make. Same as not using a condom with someone when you don't know what their disease status is. Ready to play Russian Roulette? Possibly with your life?
This is ridiculous. People start having sex long before they're ready to become parents. People have sex with people that they don't want to become parents with. Almost all sex, in 2015, happens for purposes other than procreation. That's life.
For decades, the choice whether or not to conceive and bear a child has been the woman's alone. She could forget or "forget" to take her pill and then get pregnant. If she changes her mind, she can get an abortion. The man is just along for the ride and must support her, either way. We deserve our own effective means of birth control so that we truly have a choice whether or not to become a father. Condoms are simply not good enough. Their failure rate is too high, and they are also vulnerable to sabotage.
FYI, there are other interesting male birth control options on the horizon, too. Check this one out.
The pill is not 99.9% effective. Condoms by themselves have a 98% success rate - the same as the pill. Throw in some spermicide and it goes even higher.
I'm not going to argue facts with you, but your numbers for typical use condoms are laughable. Google for the correct numbers during typical use not ideal use.
Also, selecting a woman who is sterile is something that is in your control.
This is silly for two reasons: 1. It makes no sense to ditch what could be a great partner because she is fertile, and 2. It is a very common relationship pattern that people want to get together and have sex at first, delaying having children until later. Can't very well do that if I'll only be with sterilized women.
I'm beginning to think that you are arguing here only for argument's sake. Are you seriously of the opinion that men having access to simple, highly effective, totally reversible birth control is a bad idea? Why?
Condoms have a failure rate of 18% in typical use. Spermicides have a 29% failure rate (typical use).
And finding a partner who claims to have had a hysterectomy or tubal ligation is, again, not something that I can control about my reproductive system (that's all on her). As for finding a woman who is infertile: she could be wrong about that. My cousin was told by doctor after doctor that she couldn't have kids, but wouldn't you know it? One day she got pregnant. With twins, no less. Oopsie! Plus, what if I meet a woman who I really like as a person, but she doesn't meet one of those conditions? Shall I just tell her to go get lost?
And it's great if she's into oral and anal. Hell, so am I! But I'm also into vaginal, so restricting myself to oral and anal is not a long term solution.
And please tell me that you're joking about vasectomies. They are only sometimes reversible, attempting a reversal is extremely costly, and it's not typically covered by insurance. Also, most urologists will not perform a vasectomy on young men because "he might change his mind".
So, yes, I actually do want a simple, safe, 99.9% effective form of birth control that is easily reversible. For me. Like women have had for decades.
Voice controls that were as responsive and reasonably reliable as the Amazon Echo, which gets it right a surprisingly large amount of the time.
Well, I can tell you for certain that Echo isn't resistant to sabotage by ill-behaved house guests:
"Alexa, add hookers to my shopping list." "Alexa, add blow to my shopping list." "Alexa, add handcuffs to my shopping list." "Alexa, add whipped cream to my shopping list."
What can I say? I like to set my friends up for good times.
"women always trick men into marriage by getting pregnant"
I don't know if anyone is saying "always", but plenty of women mess up taking the pill, sometimes accidentally, sometimes intentionally. Women are human beings just like us, you know. They are just as capable as we are of both errors and treachery.
Personally, I'd love to enjoy the same control over my reproductive decisions that women have enjoyed having over theirs for decades, now.
Well, you can't view all guys as though we are one monolithic group. If I were single again, I would be super happy to have a safe, reliable, temporary form of birth control that I could use. Women have been known to mess up taking the pill, sometimes accidentally, sometimes intentionally.
I'd love to enjoy the same level of control over my reproductive options that women have enjoyed over theirs for decades.
I run in pretty geeky circles and even given that, the number of time I've GPGed a file for anyone other than my own personal archives, I could probably count on 1 hand. Because let's face it. It's a pain in the ass.
FWIW, I think that's a mistake. Why trust the opaque "encryption" feature of the application like Excel or acrobat when you can use something well-proven?
I don't necessarily disagree with this point, but I will happily answer the question.
As I'm sure you are well-aware, security is not a binary value (secure vs. insecure). Because any security measure can be defeated given enough time and money, it's more of an economics problem (perceived value of defeating the security measure vs. cost to defeat security measure). There's also a convenience factor in there, because if the security measure makes life too difficult, then no one will use it properly (passphrases written on sticky notes, mouse movers to prevent screens from locking, etc.).
I haven't googled for it, but I doubt that there are any known exploits against Excel encryption other than brute-forcing the passphrase. MS surely would have fixed it if there were. We also don't know how sensitive the information is and who might be trying to get it. Is a simple Excel encrypt good enough? We don't have enough information to know, but I suspect that it's fine.
I can even envision a situation where Excel encryption is better than a PKI solution like GPG. Imagine a situation where a firm is under investigation and has to turn all email over to opposing counsel. Opposing counsel is reviewing emails and encounters this encrypted spreadsheet. What happens now?
In the case of Excel encrypted: Them: "Give me the passphrase!" You: "Uhh, that was like a year ago. I don't remember it." So now they have to choose whether it's worth brute-forcing or to just move on.
In the case of GPG encrypted: Them: "We have the private key from discovery, so give us the passphrase!" You: "Uhhh, I don't remember the passphrase." Them: "Bullshit! You just signed an email with it 5 minutes ago, dumbass!"
Ridiculous? I dunno. But anyway, I think that Excel encryption has its place in a business setting. It's not like you're protecting nuclear launch codes.
I asked another applicant a similar question: "Suppose you wanted to send me a file with very sensitive information, how would you encrypt it in such a way that I would decrypt it?" The person started off by asking me if it was an excel file, a PDF, etc.
Why are you holding this up as an answer to be ridiculed? This is a perfectly fine way to approach the problem.
Many sensitive documents are in Excel format and Excel has an encryption function (same with the PDF standard). If I were to send a sensitive Excel file to someone, I would most likely just encrypt it within Excel, send it on its merry way, and then just deliver the password to you out of band (like via the telephone). That is secure enough for most corporate purposes. It's not like I'm sending you nuclear launch codes or anything.
Obviously that doesn't work in the general sense because not all document types have specs that support encryption, but what's wrong with taking the easy route? I can pointy-clicky encrypt an Excel file much more quickly than you can organize a key exchange, verify each other's keys' authenticity, etc. Your way would be more secure, true, but sometimes, you just need to email a fucking Excel file and get on with your life.
It all comes down to what you define as "general knowgledge" for a developer should be and that is highly subjective.
Can I be snarky for a moment and just enjoy the irony of a sentence that wonders what should be considered to be "general knowledge", and it has the word "knowledge" misspelled?:) Continuing with the theme, I'm sure I just made a run-on or something in the midst of my pedantry.
OK, back to business. This is a hard question to answer for a senior developer, what should be considered to be "general knowledge". I think that to be a successful developer at the senior level, you really need to know a little bit about a lot of things, and be able to look up what you don't know.
By way of example, as a developer, if I were to see something like "192.168.0.0/24", I recognize that immediately as an IP address range in CIDR notation. Mind you, I have no earthly clue how to compute that range--I'm not a network guy--but I know what it is in the general sense. Enough to google for "CIDR calculator" in order to compute the range in a format that I understand.
Part of being a developer is having a decent working knowledge of security concepts. Like "Oh, I'm sending a file across the public Internet. Someone could intercept that. I'd better protect it somehow with encryption." Maybe the developer doesn't quite know what type of encryption to use yet. Should the connection be encrypted, or the file? Or both? Is it required to verify the authenticity of the file? Should it be signed? Or is it good enough to verify the remote host? Or some type of login?
Incidentally, I disagree with OP that the answer of "The person started off by asking me if it was an excel file, a PDF, etc." was totally unacceptable. Excel and the PDF standards both have encryption support, so if the "sensitive data" were an Excel file, the path of least resistance would be to pointy-clicky through the menu and click "Encrypt this here spreadsheet" (or whatever the command is). Likewise with the PDF, but with Acrobat instead. Of course this does not solve the general problem of "how do I protect sensitive data?", but maybe he doesn't want to bother looking up and verifying your public key, installing GPG or setting up S/MIME or whatever if a simple solution exists. If I were to send you a spreadsheet of salary data for the company, you can bet I'd just encrypt the fucker within excel and tell you the password via some other channel like the telephone.
Locking phones should just be illegal to begin with. If you sign a contract saying you are going to pay for service for 2 years, you have to pay for that service (or pay an ETF) regardless of if your phone is locked or not.
I agree 100%. I wonder what their collection rate on ETFs is. Seems like the carriers should be required to unlock their phones for anyone who asks as long as customer allows the carrier to hold their ETF in escrow until the contract is completed. For customers with good credit, they could even waive the escrow.
Why are they overcomplicating their project by trying to build a drone that can cross the Pacific ocean and back? Not that I'm confident that they'd even be able to build one that can even go a few hundred miles, but round trip from the west coast to the Korean Peninsula is gonna be 12 freakin' thousand miles, minimum.
Female-Run Companies Often do Better Than Male-Run Ones
Shouldn't that be the expected situation?
I didn't watch the motherfucking autoplay video at my desk at the office where my fucking coworkers had to hear a fucking autoplaying fucking shitpile of shit video*, but I would expect 50% of female-run companies to outperform male-run companies just by chance, alone.
Do female CEOs do better than a coin flip? If so, then I guess that's news. And if not, then I suppose that's news, too.
* For all I know, the video was an exemplary piece of journalism, but I'm still a bit incensed that it autoplayed. Not cool.
Ehhh, as gaffe-prone as Bachmann is, I think that you have not accurately reported her statement.
Having read the article that you linked to, it says that Bachmann said that she "had been approached by a mother who claimed her daughter suffered from mental retardation from complications due to the vaccine." That is very different from claiming that "the HPV vaccine would make kids autistic."
You might be tempted to argue that she shouldn't brought that point up in serious conversation because it was obviously bullshit, and I would tend to agree with you. However, I think she sufficiently hedged on this one, that she was just relaying a conversation.
That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if a few random unlucky folks have had serious complications from Gardasil. Most vaccines have like a 1:10,000,000 chance or something of serious complication. The reason we vaccinate anyway is because we have a several order of magnitude higher chance of serious complication from the disease that we are vaccinating against, so we accept the 1:10M risk in getting, say, the MMR vaccine, because we don't like the fact that 1:500 kids who contract measles will die from it.
It really depends on your goal. If your goal is to be more physically fit, then of course increased physical activity is the only way to achieve that.
However, if the goal is weight loss, that goal almost certainly will only be achieved in the kitchen. Reason: in adults, increased physical activity will make your body want to increase its food intake, and that increase, in the typical case, is way more calories than were burned during the increased physical activity.
I get what you're saying. I used to be an athlete in my teens as well, and I ate like crazy, any garbage I could find. But between a teenager's metabolism and working out 3+ hours daily, I couldn't put on a pound of weight. But most adults don't work out 3+ hours per day, and neither do we need to eat more to compensate for a growing/developing body. So if we, as adults, want to lose weight, it's going to be by eating less in nearly all cases.
This is correct. The processed food producers were only too happy to substitute sugar (or in the US case, HFCS because it's much cheaper that sugar here due to corn subsidies) for oils because HFCS and sugar are so much cheaper and have a longer shelf life due to oil's tendency to go rancid.
Most everyone is well aware that in order to lose weight, they must eat less. The problem is, most everyone lacks the willpower to deny themselves over the long run.
Think about it. Hunger is one of the strongest human emotions. Many wars have been fought over hunger. When their bodies are saying, "I'm hungry! I'm hungry!" most people can say "no!" once, twice, maybe a few more times. Most most cannot say "no!" in the long term.
And that is what the best diets address: the need to change your lifestyle so you don't have to constantly say "no!" to yourself, because if you do, most everyone will falter, eventually. But if you change your lifestyle and eating habits toward foods that make you feel sated for longer, you actually stand a chance.
Slashdot Mirror
Where are you?
I'm American and I live in the US, but I lived in Israel for a while. For what it's worth, I never once heard someone in Israel saying that Israelis were "Asians". It was always "Israeli" or "Middle Eastern".
This clearly has bothered you a lot, but I'm frankly not sure why, because this issue seems pretty pedantic, to me. In the US, I've never heard an Indian person self-identify as "Asian". South Asia is often referred to as the Indian Subcontinent, so the terms "Indian" and "Asian" aren't necessarily even redundant in that context.
On the grand scale of things to get pissed off about, I guess I'm just a bit surprised that this even registered. But what do I know? I'm not Asian, nor Indian, so I guess I don't have much of an opinion here.
Dude! Your condom ad came along with more disclaimers than Happy Fun Ball! I'm a pretty meticulous adult and I don't even trust myself to put on a condom perfectly every time in the heat of the moment. There's no way I'd trust your average horny teenager.
Condoms are a secondary form of birth control. That's it. That's how I used them before I got married.
What "could" be a great partner? You want to avoid the risks, but you're not willing to use effective sort criteria? Come on. If you're constantly worried about her getting pregnant, she's by definition not a great partner.
You are either trolling me, or you are a loon. Normally I can tell the difference, but I'm having considerable difficulty in your case. Anyway, it's unrealistic to expect men, especially young men, to limit their potential sex partners to provably-infertile women only.
As far as the "common relationship pattern", again, play with fire, you may get burnt - that's a choice you knowingly make. Same as not using a condom with someone when you don't know what their disease status is. Ready to play Russian Roulette? Possibly with your life?
This is ridiculous. People start having sex long before they're ready to become parents. People have sex with people that they don't want to become parents with. Almost all sex, in 2015, happens for purposes other than procreation. That's life.
For decades, the choice whether or not to conceive and bear a child has been the woman's alone. She could forget or "forget" to take her pill and then get pregnant. If she changes her mind, she can get an abortion. The man is just along for the ride and must support her, either way. We deserve our own effective means of birth control so that we truly have a choice whether or not to become a father. Condoms are simply not good enough. Their failure rate is too high, and they are also vulnerable to sabotage.
FYI, there are other interesting male birth control options on the horizon, too. Check this one out.
The pill is not 99.9% effective. Condoms by themselves have a 98% success rate - the same as the pill. Throw in some spermicide and it goes even higher.
I'm not going to argue facts with you, but your numbers for typical use condoms are laughable. Google for the correct numbers during typical use not ideal use.
Also, selecting a woman who is sterile is something that is in your control.
This is silly for two reasons:
1. It makes no sense to ditch what could be a great partner because she is fertile, and
2. It is a very common relationship pattern that people want to get together and have sex at first, delaying having children until later. Can't very well do that if I'll only be with sterilized women.
I'm beginning to think that you are arguing here only for argument's sake. Are you seriously of the opinion that men having access to simple, highly effective, totally reversible birth control is a bad idea? Why?
Please tell me you're joking.
Condoms have a failure rate of 18% in typical use. Spermicides have a 29% failure rate (typical use).
And finding a partner who claims to have had a hysterectomy or tubal ligation is, again, not something that I can control about my reproductive system (that's all on her). As for finding a woman who is infertile: she could be wrong about that. My cousin was told by doctor after doctor that she couldn't have kids, but wouldn't you know it? One day she got pregnant. With twins, no less. Oopsie! Plus, what if I meet a woman who I really like as a person, but she doesn't meet one of those conditions? Shall I just tell her to go get lost?
And it's great if she's into oral and anal. Hell, so am I! But I'm also into vaginal, so restricting myself to oral and anal is not a long term solution.
And please tell me that you're joking about vasectomies. They are only sometimes reversible, attempting a reversal is extremely costly, and it's not typically covered by insurance. Also, most urologists will not perform a vasectomy on young men because "he might change his mind".
So, yes, I actually do want a simple, safe, 99.9% effective form of birth control that is easily reversible. For me. Like women have had for decades.
Voice controls that were as responsive and reasonably reliable as the Amazon Echo, which gets it right a surprisingly large amount of the time.
Well, I can tell you for certain that Echo isn't resistant to sabotage by ill-behaved house guests:
"Alexa, add hookers to my shopping list."
"Alexa, add blow to my shopping list."
"Alexa, add handcuffs to my shopping list."
"Alexa, add whipped cream to my shopping list."
What can I say? I like to set my friends up for good times.
If it makes you feel better, I guess I'm a "Software Architect". Just don't ask me to plan that addition you've always want to put on your house.
"women always trick men into marriage by getting pregnant"
I don't know if anyone is saying "always", but plenty of women mess up taking the pill, sometimes accidentally, sometimes intentionally. Women are human beings just like us, you know. They are just as capable as we are of both errors and treachery.
Personally, I'd love to enjoy the same control over my reproductive decisions that women have enjoyed having over theirs for decades, now.
Well, you can't view all guys as though we are one monolithic group. If I were single again, I would be super happy to have a safe, reliable, temporary form of birth control that I could use. Women have been known to mess up taking the pill, sometimes accidentally, sometimes intentionally.
I'd love to enjoy the same level of control over my reproductive options that women have enjoyed over theirs for decades.
Obviously in the USA, as your wording is distinctly American, distinguishing India (which is Asian) from Asian.
Is this really a US phenomenon? I thought it was pretty common to distinguish South Asians and Middle Easterners from East Asians.
Since it all matters so much, and all.
I run in pretty geeky circles and even given that, the number of time I've GPGed a file for anyone other than my own personal archives, I could probably count on 1 hand. Because let's face it. It's a pain in the ass.
There are better MVNOs that allow roaming.
Name them, please. I'm not aware of any.
Consumer Cellular (ATT)
That's not a very long list, assuming that you are correct!
FWIW, I think that's a mistake. Why trust the opaque "encryption" feature of the application like Excel or acrobat when you can use something well-proven?
I don't necessarily disagree with this point, but I will happily answer the question.
As I'm sure you are well-aware, security is not a binary value (secure vs. insecure). Because any security measure can be defeated given enough time and money, it's more of an economics problem (perceived value of defeating the security measure vs. cost to defeat security measure). There's also a convenience factor in there, because if the security measure makes life too difficult, then no one will use it properly (passphrases written on sticky notes, mouse movers to prevent screens from locking, etc.).
I haven't googled for it, but I doubt that there are any known exploits against Excel encryption other than brute-forcing the passphrase. MS surely would have fixed it if there were. We also don't know how sensitive the information is and who might be trying to get it. Is a simple Excel encrypt good enough? We don't have enough information to know, but I suspect that it's fine.
I can even envision a situation where Excel encryption is better than a PKI solution like GPG. Imagine a situation where a firm is under investigation and has to turn all email over to opposing counsel. Opposing counsel is reviewing emails and encounters this encrypted spreadsheet. What happens now?
In the case of Excel encrypted: Them: "Give me the passphrase!" You: "Uhh, that was like a year ago. I don't remember it." So now they have to choose whether it's worth brute-forcing or to just move on.
In the case of GPG encrypted: Them: "We have the private key from discovery, so give us the passphrase!" You: "Uhhh, I don't remember the passphrase." Them: "Bullshit! You just signed an email with it 5 minutes ago, dumbass!"
Ridiculous? I dunno. But anyway, I think that Excel encryption has its place in a business setting. It's not like you're protecting nuclear launch codes.
I asked another applicant a similar question: "Suppose you wanted to send me a file with very sensitive information, how would you encrypt it in such a way that I would decrypt it?" The person started off by asking me if it was an excel file, a PDF, etc.
Why are you holding this up as an answer to be ridiculed? This is a perfectly fine way to approach the problem.
Many sensitive documents are in Excel format and Excel has an encryption function (same with the PDF standard). If I were to send a sensitive Excel file to someone, I would most likely just encrypt it within Excel, send it on its merry way, and then just deliver the password to you out of band (like via the telephone). That is secure enough for most corporate purposes. It's not like I'm sending you nuclear launch codes or anything.
Obviously that doesn't work in the general sense because not all document types have specs that support encryption, but what's wrong with taking the easy route? I can pointy-clicky encrypt an Excel file much more quickly than you can organize a key exchange, verify each other's keys' authenticity, etc. Your way would be more secure, true, but sometimes, you just need to email a fucking Excel file and get on with your life.
It all comes down to what you define as "general knowgledge" for a developer should be and that is highly subjective.
Can I be snarky for a moment and just enjoy the irony of a sentence that wonders what should be considered to be "general knowledge", and it has the word "knowledge" misspelled? :) Continuing with the theme, I'm sure I just made a run-on or something in the midst of my pedantry.
OK, back to business. This is a hard question to answer for a senior developer, what should be considered to be "general knowledge". I think that to be a successful developer at the senior level, you really need to know a little bit about a lot of things, and be able to look up what you don't know.
By way of example, as a developer, if I were to see something like "192.168.0.0/24", I recognize that immediately as an IP address range in CIDR notation. Mind you, I have no earthly clue how to compute that range--I'm not a network guy--but I know what it is in the general sense. Enough to google for "CIDR calculator" in order to compute the range in a format that I understand.
Part of being a developer is having a decent working knowledge of security concepts. Like "Oh, I'm sending a file across the public Internet. Someone could intercept that. I'd better protect it somehow with encryption." Maybe the developer doesn't quite know what type of encryption to use yet. Should the connection be encrypted, or the file? Or both? Is it required to verify the authenticity of the file? Should it be signed? Or is it good enough to verify the remote host? Or some type of login?
Incidentally, I disagree with OP that the answer of "The person started off by asking me if it was an excel file, a PDF, etc." was totally unacceptable. Excel and the PDF standards both have encryption support, so if the "sensitive data" were an Excel file, the path of least resistance would be to pointy-clicky through the menu and click "Encrypt this here spreadsheet" (or whatever the command is). Likewise with the PDF, but with Acrobat instead. Of course this does not solve the general problem of "how do I protect sensitive data?", but maybe he doesn't want to bother looking up and verifying your public key, installing GPG or setting up S/MIME or whatever if a simple solution exists. If I were to send you a spreadsheet of salary data for the company, you can bet I'd just encrypt the fucker within excel and tell you the password via some other channel like the telephone.
There are better MVNOs that allow roaming.
Name them, please. I'm not aware of any.
Locking phones should just be illegal to begin with. If you sign a contract saying you are going to pay for service for 2 years, you have to pay for that service (or pay an ETF) regardless of if your phone is locked or not.
I agree 100%. I wonder what their collection rate on ETFs is. Seems like the carriers should be required to unlock their phones for anyone who asks as long as customer allows the carrier to hold their ETF in escrow until the contract is completed. For customers with good credit, they could even waive the escrow.
Why are they overcomplicating their project by trying to build a drone that can cross the Pacific ocean and back? Not that I'm confident that they'd even be able to build one that can even go a few hundred miles, but round trip from the west coast to the Korean Peninsula is gonna be 12 freakin' thousand miles, minimum.
Yeah, good luck with that.
2.5gb of 4G data
FYI, that's a promotion and it will reset to 1GB of 4G data in January 2016.
Female-Run Companies Often do Better Than Male-Run Ones
Shouldn't that be the expected situation?
I didn't watch the motherfucking autoplay video at my desk at the office where my fucking coworkers had to hear a fucking autoplaying fucking shitpile of shit video*, but I would expect 50% of female-run companies to outperform male-run companies just by chance, alone.
Do female CEOs do better than a coin flip? If so, then I guess that's news. And if not, then I suppose that's news, too.
* For all I know, the video was an exemplary piece of journalism, but I'm still a bit incensed that it autoplayed. Not cool.
Ehhh, as gaffe-prone as Bachmann is, I think that you have not accurately reported her statement.
Having read the article that you linked to, it says that Bachmann said that she "had been approached by a mother who claimed her daughter suffered from mental retardation from complications due to the vaccine." That is very different from claiming that "the HPV vaccine would make kids autistic."
You might be tempted to argue that she shouldn't brought that point up in serious conversation because it was obviously bullshit, and I would tend to agree with you. However, I think she sufficiently hedged on this one, that she was just relaying a conversation.
That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if a few random unlucky folks have had serious complications from Gardasil. Most vaccines have like a 1:10,000,000 chance or something of serious complication. The reason we vaccinate anyway is because we have a several order of magnitude higher chance of serious complication from the disease that we are vaccinating against, so we accept the 1:10M risk in getting, say, the MMR vaccine, because we don't like the fact that 1:500 kids who contract measles will die from it.
It really depends on your goal. If your goal is to be more physically fit, then of course increased physical activity is the only way to achieve that.
However, if the goal is weight loss, that goal almost certainly will only be achieved in the kitchen. Reason: in adults, increased physical activity will make your body want to increase its food intake, and that increase, in the typical case, is way more calories than were burned during the increased physical activity.
I get what you're saying. I used to be an athlete in my teens as well, and I ate like crazy, any garbage I could find. But between a teenager's metabolism and working out 3+ hours daily, I couldn't put on a pound of weight. But most adults don't work out 3+ hours per day, and neither do we need to eat more to compensate for a growing/developing body. So if we, as adults, want to lose weight, it's going to be by eating less in nearly all cases.
This is correct. The processed food producers were only too happy to substitute sugar (or in the US case, HFCS because it's much cheaper that sugar here due to corn subsidies) for oils because HFCS and sugar are so much cheaper and have a longer shelf life due to oil's tendency to go rancid.
(Change in Weight (kg))/7700
Most everyone is well aware that in order to lose weight, they must eat less. The problem is, most everyone lacks the willpower to deny themselves over the long run.
Think about it. Hunger is one of the strongest human emotions. Many wars have been fought over hunger. When their bodies are saying, "I'm hungry! I'm hungry!" most people can say "no!" once, twice, maybe a few more times. Most most cannot say "no!" in the long term.
And that is what the best diets address: the need to change your lifestyle so you don't have to constantly say "no!" to yourself, because if you do, most everyone will falter, eventually. But if you change your lifestyle and eating habits toward foods that make you feel sated for longer, you actually stand a chance.
FYI, it's Gardasil, and I don't think anyone has ever claimed (incorrectly, obviously) that the HPV vaccine causes autism spectrum disorder.
vaccines are over 99.9% effective
Each vaccine has its own effectiveness rate. I'm lookin' at you, chickenpox vaccine!