The Seiki TVs are absolutely horrible as computer monitors ESPECIALLY for photo work.

"The actual distinction in convenience is a half a second of fiddling per day."

This is, of course, wrong. Typical for /. though, people with utterly no experience stating things as fact and getting modded Insightful.

That is NOT why optimizing compilers were invented.

"On what evidence do you base your claim that the same number of calories per day will make you thinner if they come from a source that doesn't raise blood glucose?"

This is a really good question, in fact a central one. Now that you know what the question is, you could actually research it rather than have someone on /. do it for you. It is not "his claim", it is a fundamental truth.

"This is called confirmation bias. When you get the results you want assume the data to be true. When you don't, just assume the data is bad so that you can dismiss it."

and maybe it's because the data IS bad.

The people who insist weight control is nothing other than a simple, algebraic formula are the ones dismissing "data". It is quite possible for a 10% change to have an effect for one person but that's not proof that everyone else is just weak.

"The military studies that indicate the body will not enter starvation mode until you hit 6% body fat..."

Military studies are only concerned with young, healthy men. Obese people are commonly in "starvation mode" despite their body fat. That's why they are obese and that's why calorie counting won't matter for them. The underlying failure has to be fixed, not their "character flaws".

People can gain fat on 2000 calories a day. You only feel differently because you know nothing.

"Your body's "at rest" metabolism absolutely dominates."

But your body varies that based on what it perceives are survival circumstances. It has a number of mechanisms to preserve itself when faced with famine. Your body isn't an engine burning gas a constant rate.

"This is utter nonsense."

You are an idiot.

"A morbidly obese person who stays on a diet will eventually get the same metabolism and behavior as the skinniest person."

You are laughably wrong. You practice the science of "I don't have this problem therefore it doesn't exist".

You wouldn't claim that an alcoholic suddenly stops being an alcoholic the moment he stops drinking and you wouldn't claim that the liver damage he may have accumulated over a lifetime of abuse is suddenly absent because he is sober. Same with obesity, diabetes, fatty liver, metabolic syndrome, whatever the problem(s) are. You need to stop being a fool and learn something.

"And as I said repeatedly, if you aren't getting enough calories, it is UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE for your body to deposit excess fat."

Yeah, you should stop saying that. It makes you look stupid.

"It's pure PHYSICS that if you need a certain number of calories, and if you do not consume enough, you will lose weight."

Anyone who thinks "pure PHYSICS" matters in this discussion is too ignorant to participate in the discussion. Come back when you have some life experience.

Of course, it is impossible to know either the "certain number of calories" needed or the actual amount you consume so the whole point is irrelevant.

It is much more interesting to consider what drives hunger and what causes a body that is overweight to continually trigger hunger. People also need to stop thinking of all food as equal. There's a lot more that's important than just calories, anyone who is stuck in such simplistic thinking doesn't know what weight problems are like.

"Counting calories is a very effective way to lose/gain weight."

It is an effective way for SOME people to lose weight, specifically those whose weight regulation systems work the way they are supposed to. It's not true for everyone especially those who have the weight issues to begin with.

It's always those who have no experience with problematic weight control that offer up simplistic grade-school weight loss "facts" on their way to dismissing others' very real problems. No one desires to be obese; it is a failure of the body to work properly not a weakness or character issue.

" A 4.7" display is clearly in the realm of "difficult to use with one hand"..."

A 4.7" display is trivailly easy to use with one hand. The Moto X has a glorious form factor.

"Getting an Android phone with a 4" display generally means buying one with severely downgraded internal specs, leaving Apple to pretty much own the high-end compact smartphone market segment."

Yeah, like smaller batteries, lower clock rates, lower resolution screens, and dual core processors...just like an iPhone. The problem with Android is its crappy software not its inability to make smaller phones with "premium" specs. Apple proves that less hardware does just fine as long as you don't suck.

Just finished trying Android (Moto X) again for 3.5 months after being disgusted with a Note 2. Also tried the Nexus 4 and 5 as well as a Nexus 7 and a Sony Xperia Z Ultra. One thing they all had in common...infuriating low quality software that is constantly screwing up. I have never had a phone pocket activate itself as relentlessly as the Moto X. That phone cries out for better software. The packaging is great.

I'm delighted to be back on iPhone despite its ugly new iOS7 appearance, teeny display and hard-to-hold form factor. Apple is likely to fix that stuff in a year while Google never will. Android battery life is still pitiful and there's nothing uglier than stock KitKat. Embarrassing.

"That, IMHO, makes a bit more sense than curving it from side to side..."

Except after you think about it. A phone curved that way doesn't travel as well, doesn't lay flat, and isn't well suited to being used in landscape. It's OK to hold in your hand and worse otherwise (which is most of the time). The single argument in its favor, that the microphone is closer, is contrived. That doesn't matter at all.

Nothing remotely ironic about that. It's the express purpose.

And in neither of these cases where the ideas being stolen original to Apple. What "nagged" Jobs was not the stealing, it was that it was not him doing the stealing. After all, iOS itself was mostly unoriginal theft from other smartphone makers.

All this is is another example of Jobs' unbounded ego.

Mac had the worst SCSI implementation ever devised, had proprietary SCSI connectors, had the worst networking in the market, and had CPUs that lacked memory management hardware. Meanwhile, those 286's had complete protected memory subsystems. You are mistaken...what a surprise.