Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Bye Bye Samsung Smart TVs (Score 1) 309

Not to mention that Smart TVs have a bad record of having their interfaces/applications updated.

This was actually the primary reason I opted for the ROKU and a short bus TV. I had read many horror stories of services no longer working in reviews of older "smart" TVs because the firmware was never updated. My ROKU updates all the time. Plus it's got an awesome remote or I can control it with my phone! And way more services than smart TVs. And lots of WAY COOL hidden channels too.

I have a SmartTV that's about 3 years old now, and it seems like every three days it updates something or other.

Comment Re:It's all about the shoes. (Score 1) 200

The doctors told him that pretty much anyone who jogged that much has to get new knees.

Running is a complex biomechanical activity. Most people I see running are not running with biomechanically-correct form. This probably stems from lack of knowledge of how to run correctly, lack of core strength to run correctly, shoes that do not fit their physiology and personal running form, etc., etc.

Since most people run with poor form, it's not a surprise that most people that jog require knee replacements.

Running, when done correctly, produces minimal stress on knee joints, even at 10+ mph.

Modern padded running shoes promote bad form, causing knee and other injuries, and prevent your feet from strengthening, causing planar fascitis and a few other maladies. Your foot is actually well constructed to run, but it can't do it's job wrapped in a ton of leather and foam.

I've had some success with minimalist running shoes (abrasion protection only, no padding, sole is about 1/8" thick)- it's important to enable your feet to strengthen. After a few weeks of walking around in thin shoes, I started running again and it felt like I had new feet- it was awesome.

I've been wearing Newtons for the past few years. I had tried running regularly in the past, but always quit after awhile because of knee/leg pain. The first few times it was from just trying to go too far too fast. One year I took it up slowly and was able to do a 5k, but my knees/legs were still sore. After that first 5k, I picked up a pair of Newtons to give them a shot. The first month of running in them was very awkward and caused soreness in whole different groups of muscles, but even on the first run with them I didn't feel it in my knees at all. Been running mostly pain free since then.

Comment Re:Internet hyperbolic echo chamber strikes again. (Score 1) 200

10 years ago in college I was talking with a teacher with a PHD related to wellness and we got on this exact topic. They told me too much exercise is well known to increase arterial plaque and was a major health issue with long distance runners. Great hearts, bad plaque.

So, that's interesting, but why does it happen?

Comment Re:The backwards approach to fitness is the proble (Score 1) 958

Everyone I know equates a good diet with being healthy.

A more important aspect is the activity level and physical exercise.

When I was a state champion level gymnast my health was amazing. I had six pack abs at the age of eleven because I worked out and trained 20 hours a week.

During that time I ate mcdonalds every day. I ate fries at school. Milkshakes, candy bars. Any source of calories I could get.

And my health was phenomenal.

Everyone (but women especially for some reason) seems to think that a 'healthy' diet is the answer when what they really need is to work more. I'm not saying healthy eating is bad. But if you don't use your body it will never truly be your tool and always be something your working against rather than working for you.

Use your body or it will atrophy in every way.

Do you still have that six pack? Are you still eating mcdonalds, fries, milkshakes, and candy bars all the time?

Comment Re:Wrong (Score 1) 958

"I used to think vitamins had been thoroughly studied for their health trade-offs. They haven't. The reason you take one multivitamin pill a day is marketing, not science."

What the hell has he been reading? Clearly not enough.

In the 1930s vitamins and biochemistry suddenly appeared. By 1948 it had been shown one cures polio with 100% efficacy and zero side effects. But, the commercial pressure from the pharma companies who stood to make billions suppressed it. There are thousands of clinical reports that show clearly some vitamins in therapeutic doses have a rather dramatic effect.

In Japan for example they've treated MRSA with IV C with striking success and they keep asking why no American journal will publish it.

Scott doesn't have enough of a biochem background and hasn't read enough to know what's what. The levels in a multivitamin are too low to be useful, so I guess we agree they're worthless.

In the last 5 years, fish oil, niacin and bad gut flora have been recognized by the medical industry; prior to that they were ridiculed as "alternative" medicine for 100, 50 and 35 years respectively. It takes generations for new advances to filter out to the medical establishment and if Adams had done the proper reading he's see where science hasn't failed us, marketing has. Foster's work on HIV or Shaefer and Potter's work on cancer would open anyones eyes who knew enough to understand what they've written.

First and foremost, what do you think stoped Ebola, Scott? It wasn't a vaccine.

was not found.

"Klenner's paper (Klenner FR. The treatment of poliomyelitis and other virus diseases with vitamin C. J. South. Med. and Surg., 111:210-214, 1949.) on curing 60 cases of polio in the epidemic of 1948 should have changed the way infectious diseases were treated but it did not." - Robert Cathcart

That's amazing! Why are they still messing around with antibiotics to combat MRSA then if they already know that IV C works?
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/ne...

It's not all a conspiracy...

Comment Re:Broscience .. (Score 1) 958

If you want to learn about nutrition and exercise get away from the marketing and the news and start looking at what athletes and bodybuilders are doing. They've been doing it for a long time and if you look closely a lot of what they do is backed up by science. Eating grilled chicken/steak/fish with brown rice and steamed vegetables and doing weight lifting/high intensity interval training doesn't grab headlines though and takes effort.

That's *hard*...lifting and high intensity interval training takes like an hour out of my day! Then cooking stuff? That's at least another hour for prep, cooking, eating, and cleaning! After eating that way for a few months, the idea of going to a seafood joint and ordering the Admiral's platter of everything in the sea fried up with a side of fries and hush puppies doesn't even sound the least bit appetizing. At that point, it's just kind of habit and easy.

Comment Re:Science... Yah! (Score 1) 958

Utter bullshit. The easiest way to control weight is to exactly follow the scientific advice. I lost a lot of weight (about 25 kg over 6 months) by a simple system: ...

Within the chosen margin of error of measurement, it works, bitches.

During this time, did your food source significantly change? If you went from ordering two big macs from McDonalds every day to only one big mac, then your conclusions are valid. If you went from eating two big macs to something else that is the caloric equivalent of one big mac, but a substantially different food, then there are more variables at play. That is why nutrition, weight loss, etc is such a tricky thing to get correct. There are so many variables that can have a huge impact. Energy in - Energy out simplifies it a bit too much, but the general idea is sound. Why that approach works for people usually has more to do with them starting to pay attention to their food intake and activity levels, and making more sound choices for both as a result.

Comment Re:Lets get our terms straight here... (Score 1) 244

When Slashdot is polling about TV watching, they're not talking about using a consumer viewing device at a set time determined by a broadcaster's schedule, OTA or over a cable subscription. This is Slashdot, not Meatspace. If you're viewing (scripted) video entertainment produced by an entertainment production company (I was going to insert "mostly Hollywood", but the times keep changing) through DVD/blurays, DVR, torrents, Netflix or Amazon, you're still viewing TV.

So lets cut the crap about never having watched The Wire, Battlestar Galactica (2004), Games of Thrones, Breaking Bad, PBS/Discovery/Sci series, Star Trek (TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager or Enterprise), Dr. Who, or Person of Interest. Yes, there's going to be a higher percentage of those people on Slashdot, but its not 60%.

Does that include porn too?
I may have to adjust my response.

Comment Re:Double Irish (Score 1) 825

This is clearly aimed at companies abusing the "Double Irish" system. Seems like the rate should be set much higher, so that companies are punished and lose more than they would if they did the right thing and repatriated profits and paid the normal tax rates on them.

Unfortunately, you would most likely see a lot of companies moving their official headquarters to someplace else. The most recent example I can think of is the Walgreens/Boots purchase/merger. It seems that one of the reasons behind it was for the combined entity to have is GHQ in Europe instead of the US to get around US tax code. The backlash towards Walgreens was rather severe though, so they said they were no longer considering that option.

Comment Re:Why even 3? (Score 1) 96

combine the two and now they know that the person who was at shop A at time X, shop B at time Y, and shop C at time Z also appears to live at address Q and work at address R, and there you go: anyone who can get the "anonymized" data knows where you live, and that you just bought not only new living room electronics but also airline tickets.

and then......?
They send a salesman to your house from shops A, B, and C trying to sell you something?
How often do you buy a lot of living room electronics, then go on vacation?

Comment Re:Misleading summary (Score 1) 265

Firstly, the mosquito in question, Aedes aegypti is not native to the Americas. If we destroy them utterly, bats and whatever will go back to eating other mosquitoes.

Secondly, the release of genetically altered mosquitoes has been done before in the Cayman Islands, which reduced the mosquito population by 80%.

Thirdly, this type of modification (where the insects mate but the offspring don't develop) has been done in America before with the screw worm, which infected mostly livestock (and some humans). The screw worm has no redeeming qualities whatsoever, good riddance.

And finally, the headline "FDA Wants To Release Millions of Genetically Modified Mosquitoes In Florida" is one-sided and inflammatory. It does not mention "FDA wants to control several types of tropical fevers" or "FDA wants to eliminate a non-native pest that transmits disease".

Let's get everyone all worked up about the uncertainties of genetic engineering by completely ignoring the contextual reasons for doing so.

Because, you know, genetic engineering is bad in any form, even if it saves lives and brings the ecology closer to its original state.

Too bad you can't be modded +6. Replace those articles with your post and they would be far more effective at informing.

Comment Re:What could possibly go wrong? (Score 1) 265

So, rabbits that got released in Australia are the top predator? The Pampas grass in California is the top predator? I can make a long list of invasive species that are not the top predator and still influenced their ecosystem a lot. Grass, as far as I know, is pretty much the bottom of the food chain.

Make sure you list the Aedes aegypti mosquito is on your invasive species list for the Florida Keys. Particularly relevant since those are the ones they are trying to get rid of. I don't think anybody release rabbits in Australia to control the invasive rabbit population.

Comment Re:What could possibly go wrong? (Score 1) 265

That's because most physics and chemistry experiments don't breed and multiply.

This has the potential to affect people directly. They are not talking about an experiment somewhere in a lab. They are talking about something that happens literally in their own backyard. People are responsible for their own well-being, and they should understand the risks that affect their lives. They are right to do a risk assessment. They see a potentially large effect, and do not yet understand the chance of it going wrong, so they logically assume the worst and therefore scream and shout. It's up to those arrogant scientists to better explain the experiment that is about to take place in people's backyards.

Also, biology experiments have gone wrong before. Changing the balance in an ecosystem can have huge consequences.

They've done the same thing in the Cayman Islands. You can look there and see what the impact was.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Engineering without management is art." -- Jeff Johnson

Working...