I was trying to be kind. I'm actually quite impressed with some of the work Microsoft has been doing, including open-sourcing large parts of .NET, and evolving C#, which was already a great OOPL, into a truly multiparadigm language. I'm not terribly unhappy with some of the othe products that have been mentioned, and I'm not aware of anything else quite like Visual Studio. I don't hate Microsoft because it is Microsoft; I don't hate it at all. I do think that some of its past and present business practices have harmed the industry including Microsoft itself, and that they need a strong, consistent vision if they wish to survive the transition from a desktop- to a mobile-centric world. A UI framework that was truly best-of-breed, open-sourced and yet largely controlled and stewarded by Microsoft, could have been a great opportunity for Microsoft to establish and maintain a foothold in that world, and, over time, even to help bring Apple and Google down a notch, by helping promote a standard way to build UIs rather than proprietary iOS or Android (or WinRT) native apps. Now, my prediction is that evolution is going to happen anyway, but it will be focused around the HTML5 stack rather than anything from Microsoft.

By some measures of success, sure. But my understanding is that Microsoft makes minimal money on most of these products, and even loses money on some of them. Windows and Office have always been the cash cows.

I was surprised that the WPF issue has not been discussed more. Aside from C#, which is a sweet little language in most respects, and still ahead of Java IMO, WPF is the other fairly unique thing that .NET Microsoft brings to the table. It has no real parallel for the rich- or smart-client use case. (Mozilla's XUL is perhaps the most directly comparable FOSS technology.) And it is NOT being open-sourced. In fact, instead of throwing its weight behind a single WPF / XAML implementation, Microsoft allowed it to fragment between Silverlight (deprecated), WPF (supported only in the most lackluster fashion), and the client component of WinRT (Windows 8 only). This may in fact prove to be the opening needed for the modern HTML5 stack to become the preferred rich- and smart-client deployment technology even for desktop and laptop form factors. In that case it would also rapidly eat away at the very last piece of the technology business that Microsoft dominates.

OK, yes, but don't worry. It will be split into 4,212 different assemblies (although each will depend on all of the others). :)

But then Big Pharma doesn't profit. Therefore, it won't happen. A better idea IMO: dose *yourself* with appropriate amounts of these nutrients (I'd say much more than the current RDA, which is useless, but still less than you suggested, only because that much C would be prohibitively expensive and that much D could be toxic over long periods of time; 1-5g of C and 4800IU of D should suffice in a person not already sick). On top of a proper diet including lots of green leafy veggies, fresh fruits, and as little other sugar or high-glycemic carbs as possible. And start now. Odds are you will be much more resistant to any viral infection, and will defeat it much more easily should it happen anyway.

Don't hold back dude. Tell us how you really feel.

For most people it probably will. I was not so fortunate, at least not yet. My research leads me to believe that in as extreme a case as mine, there is a lot of arterial damage already, and BP won't come down much until that is reversed. I will say that my cardio endurance has improved a great deal . . . I went from not being able to walk a mile without pain, to being able to run 4, albeit at a fairly gentle pace (13-15 minute miles), in just under 2 months, although since that time I keep injuring my calf, rendering me unable to run although I still walk and bike an hour a day when possible. So my heart, liver, and kidneys are probably still serviceable, but I'll need time for the arteries to become more flexible. Interval training is said to be better for this purpose than pure cardio, and I'm looking into how I can do some without continually re-injuring my legs.

HFCS is indeed broken down more rapidly which likely accounts for much of the difference, for the same reasons that high-glycemic carbs cause more damage than the same amount of low-glycemic carbs. Sugars follow different metabolic pathways when too much are consumed in too short a period of time. But, in addition, there are several other concerns regarding HFCS: (a) It is often contaminated with heavy metals, which damage the body in similar ways as fructose itself (and more - they are generally neurotoxic as well). (b) It contains large traces of the enxymes used in its manufacture, which have the nice effect of breaking down other carbs into sugars early in the digestive process. (c) It does not need to be broken down into fructose and glucose, as does sucrose, which is most of why it is absorbed more rapidly. And (d) because it is cheaper it is used in much greater quantities than sugar.

Me too, through much of my 20s and 30s. (Not MD . . Pepsi . . but metabolically basically the same thing.) Then I had a family, and needed life insurance, and couldn't get it, because of metabolic syndrome (obesity, high blood pressure, high blood glucose, the whole works). I decided, this past summer, to make what I hope will be permanent lifestyle changes to try to reverse this damage. I'm now mostly soda-free, HFCS-free, still addicted to some other sweets (and other high-glycemic carbs which are almost as bad), but working on it. Trying to exercise more and to eat mostly nutrient-dense rather than calorie-dense foods. I look and feel better already, but BP and other numbers are still bad. I expect to have to lose much of the fat I gained before they improve enough for me to represent a decent risk to a life insurance company, and, by then, I may well be in my mid-50s, so it will still be expensive, but it will be possible. I wish I could go back in time and change this nasty habit, perhaps by educating myself better about what it would ultimately entail, not just for me but much more importantly for the people I love. You may very well have some manifestations of metabolic syndrome, not all of which are outwardly apparent. If you have access to decent healthcare, get yourself checked out, even if you feel and look otherwise healthy. But be aware that most doctors will want to prescribe drugs, which will treat some of the symptoms but possibly at the expense of causing or exacerbating others. What you really want instead is to eliminate the cause, which most nutritionists believe to be consumption of sugars and high-glycemic carbs, which trigger insulin and leptin surges, resistance to these and other hunger-related hormones over time, and a positive feedback loop eventually leading to high blood pressure, heart and artery disease, diabetes, obesity, and a high risk of death from stroke, heart attack, or renal failure. Most people who have not yet been hospitalized for one or more of these ailments - and even some who have - have been able to reverse them through proper nutrition and exercise.

The beauty of the system you just described is that it paints not just "opposing" authoritarians, but those of us who are more liberty-minded as well, as the enemy. Of both sides. It is perhaps the most demonically clever system of social control ever devised. It can tolerate a certain amount of dissent, which is why people like you and me are still alive. It knows that even if a few people discover that they are in a Matrix, they are very unlikely to ever convince enough others to matter. Now, let's see if it can handle the combination of Ebola plus a billion or so people who actually live out their faith, as opposed to simply using it as an excuse to live as they please. My guess is that it can't. Of course, even if it did, any system of tyranny always contains the seeds of its own destruction. Betting on the long-term survival of this wicked world empire would be an extremely bad bet, although it will likely still do a lot of damage before it finally goes away.

Not half. A tiny, tiny minority. However, I would be honored to be among that minority. There would be no doubt left at that point that anything that hurt the rogue U.S. regime would help the U.S. people (whom I have sworn an oath to defend against any enemy, foreign OR DOMESTIC) as well as the people of the entire world, and I will consider it an honor, if need be, to give my life in service of that oath. BTW, I also will happily give my life, if need be, to protect my Muslim neighbors or innocent Muslims elsewhere, even though I do not share their faith, culture, or heritage. They are good, peaceable, hospitable neighbors; they have done nothing to wrong me, and our disagreement is not sufficient reason for me to be able to justify taking their lives, whether directly, or through the same cowardly inaction that doomed so many Jewish people during the middle of the previous century.

So anyone who disagrees with the OP "hasn't a clue about science." Wow. You could not ask for a better example of ignorance, arrogance, and projection, all at the same time. Yes, the metric system has numerous advantages over the imperial one, and yes, it would be much better for almost everyone if those remaining places that have not adopted it would do so. But to say that anyone who doesn't "hasn't a clue about science" says only that the OP hasn't a clue about science. It is a method of learning about the world and universe around us. It is NOT a priesthood. It is not a popularity contest. And it is not a fixed, unchanging, dogmatic body of conclusions, verified by a circle-jerk of industry- and government-funded "peer review." There will be far too little real science done until people, including even some people who unjustifiably fancy themselves to be "scientists," get this through their amazingly ignorant heads.

The study was badly flawed and does not support the conclusion in the headline.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse...

I take no position on whether "low-fat" or "low-carb" is more stupid. They are both stupid. The body needs adequate amounts of both, and nutrients that are only available, or absorbable, in the presence of one or the other. While there are many unanswered questions in the science of nutrition, there is overwhelming evidence that nutrient-dense diets, all else being even close to equal, are ALWAYS superior to calorie-dense diets. In other words, avoid high-fat and high-carb diets and eat as much natural food, in as close to its natural state, as possible. Avoid refined junk. Exercise. If you are of color or live someplace other than the equator, supplement with vitamin D.

I'll agree with you in large part. Not that it's a secret conspiracy, but rather a conspiracy hidden in plain view. Modern processed "food" is engineered to be addictive. It needs to be avoided insofar as possible. The approach I have become sold on, and am seeing good results with in my own life, is to go for a high nutrient-to-calorie ratio (also advocated by Dr. Joel Furhman and many other nutritionists). You avoid anything that is calorie-dense (sugars, most fats, and refined grains), fill your stomach with high-nutrient, low-calorie foods first (fruits, veggies, beans, nuts, seeds, etc.), and then eat reasonable portions of as much moderate-nutrient, moderate-calorie foods (UN-refined grains, starchy vegetables) as is consistent with your weight loss goals. Both bulk and calories are needed to trigger satiety, especially in people addicted to overeating, so this approach produces allows eating less, while getting more nutrients, and without feeling hungry all the time.

Speed matters greatly in parts of the U.S. which are fairly spread out. Even here in northeast Ohio, which is not, at 120MPH, commuting to any of the 5 or 6 major cities closest to me (Detroit, Pittsburgh, Columbus, Erie, Buffalo) would be a realistic option. At 30-40MPH, it is not.