Slashback: Bugfixed, Attribution, Atkins 423
Go ahead and get this one out of the way. Seth Scali writes: "The decision last week that ruled the Greek ban on video games as unconstitutional has been overturned, and a new trial has been ordered. Story from TheRegister is here. Don't take your GBA on that trip to Athens just yet ..."
It takes a strong man. Reader edrock200 submitted the story about a TiVO mod which could expand system capacity to more than 1000 hours of recording. The story as shown says that 9thTee is the card's developer; edrock200 corrects this "'The QuadCard, like the AirNet and TurboNet adapters also sold through 9thTee, were developed by a TiVo user named Nick Kelsey (known as 'jafa' on the TiVo Community Forum.) 9thTee is the distributor - though I don't want to take anything away from them, they have been remarkably supportive of the TiVo community and they deserve kudos for taking the financial risks of selling these add-ons.'
'It is truly amazing what Nick has been able to do with his electronics expertise.'"
Thanks for the clarification!
The Lizard sleeps with one eye open. An anonymous reader writes "MozillaZine have updated their article on the recently reported minor security bug in Mozilla [Note Slashdot posting]with the news that a fix has been completed. The bug allowed the webmaster of a site to find out where a user went after their site. The fix means that there are again no known security bugs in Mozilla. Presumably, updates to Mozilla-based browsers (Netscape, Galeon, Chimera etc.) will follow."
What about the all-shrimp-and-chili-paste diet? Schlemphfer writes "A few months back, Slashdot featured a NY Times story that talked about the Atkins diet in glowing terms. This week, the Times has published a Jane Brody article raising serious questions about whether Atkins-style diets are dangerous and unsustainable. Brody is one of the most prominent and respected nutrition journalists, so it's worthwhile to read her take on the matter. Brody's article, which cites some important new research, may be an eye-opening read for Slashdot readers who took the plunge with Atkins back in July." (The NYT requires free registration.)
Suddenly everyone is in deadly earnest. Ian Cumming was one of several people to write with evidence of smileys predating the smileys unearthed by Mike Jones of Microsoft Research. He forwarded an informative message from Brian Dear of Birdrock Ventures, which reads in part:
"On the PLATO system, emoticons were much richer -- made using multiple characters displayed on top of each other. It was possible to type, say, a single character, then press SHIFT-space (which moved the cursor exactly one space backwards), then type another character. The second would display on top of the first. You could keep doing this for multiple characters and create many different faces, beer glasses, martini glasses, all kinds of things. And people peppered their emails and notesfile (PLATO's newsgroups) postings with them all the time."
And what is the PLATO system? The short version is this: PLATO was (is) an education-centered computer system developed at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Luckily for you, Dear is writing a book about PLATO. His site is fascinating, and the book promises to be as well. Here is a page showing the richness of PLATO emoticons.
Reader Grant Barrett also writes: "The earliest (not first: you can never precisely say which was first) recorded smiley in print discovered so far was found by etymologist and word researcher Barry Popik who posted this message to the email list of the American Dialect Society. He discusses the yellow smiley face which everyone knows, but this particular smiley is the familiar punctuation-based emoticon. (On a side note, he has uncovered some evidence that Harvey Ball *did not* invent the familiar yellow-faced smiley.)"
That reference puts the typographic smiley all the way back to 1953, and as Barrett mentions, was in print rather than online. He also points out that "ESR's Jargon File cites a 'rival claim by Kevin McKenzie, who seems to have proposed the smiley on the MsgGroup mailing list, April 12 1979.'"
But there's only one groove per side ... To all those who thought that the optical-scanning method for playing vinyl was an elaborate joke, note that you can download the creator's code if you'd like. This is not the easy way to do things, but is one way.
Call me lazy... (Score:2, Insightful)
---
Jedimom.com [jedimom.com], picking out a thermos, for you.
Re:Charting progress (Score:3, Insightful)
RTFA plz.
Let's look at the look at Atkins (Score:5, Insightful)
Count calories? Everyone realizes that if you eat more calories than you burn, you will gain weight. However, on an Atkins diets, one of the common effects is a loss of appetite, which results in fewer calories in. Ever eat a high fat meal and feel really full? Yup, that's the fat at work. Ever suck a whole bag of chips or a box of cookies down? That's those speedy carbs at work.
"But in a major report last week, the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies emphasized the importance of balance of nutrients, with carbohydrates -- starches and sugars -- making up 45 percent to and 65 percent of daily calories"
And this is different from the current party line how exactly? It's not. It's the same thing they've been preaching for 30 years as American obesity has gone through the roof.
One question I'd like to see answered is how long anyone can stay on such a scheme and what happens when you start adding back some of the wholesome foods limited or forbidden on this diet, like sweet corn, grapes, watermelons, potatoes, carrots, beets or oatmeal.
You don't go adding those things back. It's not just a "weight loss" diet, it's a "way of life" diet. It's like saying "How long until a vegetarian starts adding on the bacon, hot dogs, hamburgers", etc. When they do that, they're no longer in that group, and the benefits they see start dropping off.
Why hasn't the government tested it? One possible reason is that it is unlikely to be approved by any review committee, given what is known about the effects of animal fats and cholesterol on the risk of heart disease, strokes and some cancers, as well as accumulating evidence that diets rich in fruits and vegetables and moderate in protein and fat can prevent diseases like high blood pressure, prostate cancer, heart disease and diabetes.
Excuse me? It's think a chicken and egg problem? We can't test the effects of that because we think the effects are bad? If they won't test it, how do we really know what the affects are? The Atkins side says its the high carbs, not the fats, in the diet that are causing the health problems. The western diet has been shown to have a severe negative affect on many non-westerns. Look at Native Americans. Their rates of obesity, high blood pressure and diabetes are huge thanks to this "healthy" high-carb diet.
The Atkins diet is shy on several vital nutrients, including the B vitamins and vitamins A, C and D, antioxidants that slow the effects of aging, and calcium. And, a diet rich in animal protein can draw calcium from the bones, increasing the risk of osteoporosis and hip fractures.
Sigh. Atkins himself tells people to take multivitamins and calcium supplements. There are certain types of foods we simply don't eat often in modern society (organ meats anyone?) so that we miss out on some crucial vitamins.
First, Americans are simply eating more -- an average of 400 calories a day more than they did decades ago.
And why is that? Could it be the fact that with less fat to make them feel full, and they eat more carbs, which leads to them eating even more carbs?
What it all comes down to is the fact we need to test these things rather than repeating the same thing for the past 30 years that IS NOT working. Yes, change hurts, but sometimes it is necessary.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:duh (Score:3, Insightful)
Atkins diet (Score:4, Insightful)
Some misconceptions:
* Can't eat many vegetables such as carrots. Actually there are three different phases of the diet, and only on the first and shortest phase is this true.
* Lacking in vitamins. Again this is mainly true of the first phase and less so in the later phases. The Atkins book *strongly* emphasizes the need for taking a wide range of vitamins. Only someone who never read the book could not have noticed this -- vitamin taking is an integral part of the diet! And at any rate now that I am on the long term maintaining part of the diet, I doubt that I am lacking in vitamin intake now.
* The diet is boring and focused mainly on saturated fats meat (ie beef). Again, only someone who has not looked into this diet seriously could make such a claim. Ironically, as a result of this diet I have been eating much *more* vegetables than I would have otherwise. I've also been eating a wider range of foods.
But even more important than that is that she never directly comes to terms with the first articles main theses -- it is an outright scandal that the Atkins test has never been properly tested. Her response is just the sarcastic:
"Why hasn't the government tested it? One possible reason is that it is unlikely to be approved by any review committee, given what is known about the effects of animal fats and cholesterol on the risk of heart disease, strokes and some cancers, as well as accumulating evidence that diets rich in fruits and vegetables and moderate in protein and fat can prevent diseases like high blood pressure, prostate cancer, heart disease and diabetes."
In other words the first NYT article was right -- the establishment already knew what was the correct answer and weren't about to let an inconvenient thing like science get in the way! The problem this poses for me is that when I try to find truly, objective scientific points of view -- they are hard to find if they exist at all in the world of nutrition!
Optical record thing. (Score:3, Insightful)
Lordfly
Re:Perhaps a better option than atkins (Score:5, Insightful)
The biggest problem (in my opinion) is that people have a phobia about moderation. They want foods to be either "good" or "bad." For years people thought that fat was bad and instead pigged out on no fat desserts. I remember an episode when I was on an airplane, and the woman next to me told me that the no-fat cookie that we had been given was good. It looked disgusting to me, so I offered it to her. Instead of accepting it, she went off on a tirade about how it was perfectly okay for me to eat it because it fat-free and cholesterol-free and therefore was sin-free and guilt-free, while inwardly I was thinking that it was still full of sugar, and still looked disgusting. Those same kind of people also looked at me funny any time I ate nuts or avocados because they were bad "high-fat" foods.
Now, instead, people have taken the opposite approach and are banning anything with carbs. My dad has seen fried pork rinds being advertised as a carb-free diet food!
There are clearly health issues that go along with either extreme approach (e.g. diabetes and tryglicerides with simple carb diets and kidney and GI problems with high protein diets), but it seems people would rather cycle between the extremes than try to find a more sensible middle ground.
Sorry if this is a bit lengthy, but this is an issue that has bugged me for a long time.
--Exito
I'm not that impressed with Brody (Score:3, Insightful)
while the report actually says
The report goes on to develop minimum carbohydrate reccomendations explicitly based on the need to avoid ketosis. Now, that may well be a worthwhile goal, and there are clearly some problems associated with ketosis (such as kidney stones), but one can hardly use that report as another, independent reason for rejecting high-fat, low-carbohydrate diets.
Re:Diets suck (Score:3, Insightful)
If people hate looking at/dealing with obese people, why make fun of them and send them right back to eating ho-ho's and twinkies?
What really pisses me off is that people think that if you aren't less than 20% bodyfat, you are lazy, lack willpower, and are unhealthy.
There is no reason for everyone to be able to see their abs and be model-thin. It took me three years to remove the brainwashing from my formerly "fat" girlfriend and everytime I see a model with her ribs sticking out it just disgusts me - check out Stumptuous [stumptuous.com] for perspectives of a very intelligent view on these issues (and some damn fine tips on weightlifting too).
Also, there is no silver bullet for weight loss, but there are some general guidelines. If you honestly follow those guidelines and are still unable to get down to a healthy bodyfat, I would consider talking to a bariatric physician, even if you aren't necessarily obese. You could be insulin resistant, for example - this can cause weight loss plateau's and may actually constitute a temporary need for a low carb diet - I AM NOT A DOCTOR THOUGH
Also, make sure that you are not just packed with lean tissue and a nice layer of fat (think of powerlifters) - you could be in much better health than you think as a lot of healthy muscle will make you healthy and hungry (hence an inability to stick to lower cal diets) - yet another reason to see a registered dietitian or bariatric physician.
In fact, you may be better off bulking up than trying to lose weight - eat the same as you do now, cut the cardio a bit, and hit the iron three times per week
Sorry for all the advice, I'm a know-it-all
Re:Diets suck (Score:3, Insightful)
I am actually referring to a study I read (which, unfortunately, I cannot find right now, but I swear this isn't FUD). The study stated that something like 3/4 of the vegetarians/vegans they studied were dangerously low on a number of important nutrients (including, but not exclusively, protein). It was especially bad for teenagers, who were poorly educated in what a vegan/vegetarian teen should eat - a lot of them actually avoided nuts because they didn't want to consume fatty foods at all and they lacked protein because of it.
B12 is only found in meat products IIRC, but that is only a small part of the problem. Many vegetarians do not know that they have to eat a lot of soy, nuts, and legumes to get enough protein, and they don't eat enough variety to get all of their needed nutrients and vitamins.
Please, read my post again - all I said was that a lot of vegetarians are in terrible health. I did not imply that vegetarianism/veganism is unhealthy by itself (ie, I said do make sure you read up on a healthy vegetarian diet) or that an animal based diet is healthier (it isn't - it's just easier for most of us).
Re:Same story you read? (Score:5, Insightful)
Until I went on Atkins, I didn't think I was eating all that bad, blamed my "metabolism" for my weight problem, and so on - but now I know better. I could probably even stick to a "rabbit food diet" now - though it would not be as easy as low-carb.
It is bogus that "they" won't study Atkins properly. It isn't like they would have trouble finding volunteers. I only know it has to be better for me than being massively overweight - even with the risk of kidney stones.
Stupid Geeks (Score:2, Insightful)
They've lost every battle. Slim is nice, fat is bad.
Guess what, Geek?
Fat is a way of life. Not dark neither light, the system in first place, isn't right.
Laid on
Where's my candy?
Nowhere to be seen. I eat because I like. I lie not because I eat, but because I inhale other's people opinions.
I would rather die creep then die healthy. At least I would taste life.
Re:Let's look at the look at Atkins (Score:3, Insightful)
You write: " And why is that? Could it be the fact that with less fat to make them feel full, and they eat more carbs, which leads to them eating even more carbs?"
Guess what? Americans aren't eating less fat, they are eating more fat, more carbs, more everything. Supersize it!
Re:Charting progress (Score:3, Insightful)
The other thing is that Atkins is not the only low-carb advocate. There are plenty of other more moderate plans.
Point 1: None of them, AFAIK, advocate NO carbs.
Point 2: None of them, AFAIK, advocate high fat (while they may claim it's not as bad as people may think, none of them tell participants to eat lots of saturated fats). In fact, most go into detail about which fats are OK and which are not.
In other words, contrary to what even the article advocating Atkins said, Atkins never advocated eating a pound of bacon with a stick of butter melted on top. And when people give such examples it only shows their closed mind to the subject, where the gub-ment, and it's low fat crusade, can't be questioned because we've been doing it for so long.
When my nutritionist actually explained the low-carb theory to me, it made more sense then the low-fat theory, and I'd been a low-carb skeptic for a long time.
BTW, for me - it's 60 pounds in six months. I have more muscle mass then when I started. Yes, it's because I've been exercising, too, but any idiot can tell you working out is better than not working out, diet aside. Having lost all the weight helps me be able to work out.
And finally, anyone who thinks low-carb is unhealthy can answer me this: it's the only way I've been able to lose weight, so would I have been healthier 60 pounds ago and with the acid reflux disorder that I had back then?
There is also the case for cholesterol. Yes, it's a problem, but the truth is that long term effects of low-carb often include lower cholesterol. Why? Because your body produces 80% of the cholesterol in your blood stream, it's not ingested. How does it create it? The liver. What prompts the creation? Carbs.