Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Hackers Diet FTW. (Score 1) 978

The thing about exercise is, until you get to the point where you are pushing yourself to the limits you wont see drastic results. Most of the obese people I see in my gym spend half their time sitting around, or cycling on the lowest level while reading a magazine.

The folks in this study were under close supervision, exercising fairly intensely. It's fun to trot out your favorite lines about exercise but that's not really applicable here.

Actually, no. Read the Times article. It found that the hunger produced by exercise could counteract the benefit. Another factor is the sense of entitlement that we get from exercise. Oh, I walked 3 miles today, I can have that muffin. Boom - weight loss benefit shot.

Comment Re:Hackers Diet FTW. (Score 1) 978

Getting 150 calories from a Twinkie certainly is less beneficial than 150 calories from oatmeal, for the exact reasons you describe, but they both give your body 150 calories to use (or store...).

Same calories as we count them in chemistry class but not the same effect in the body. Digestion is a complex process and a number of factors influence how the body burns/stores fat. Basically the more processed and soft a food is the more the tendency to produce body fat. Part of that is glycemic response. But it also seems that soft foods like that Twinkie will make you fat in a way that foods you actually have to chew won't. It isn't the few calories burned in the chewing, either. There are a lot more factors involved in food composition and digestion, but to simplify the explanation, Daengbo was spot on about whole foods. The 150 calories from the Twinkie will have a more detrimental effect on the metabolism than the same 150 calories from an apple.

Comment Re:Reply to your points on Joomla (Score 2, Informative) 240

all your points are valid. *AND* they are not easy concepts for the non-technical user to grasp. The article we're supposedly discussing compares ease of use of Wordpress and Joomla. I've built and trained people on 8 Joomla sites. Without exception I have many more support calls from Joomla users asking how do I do.... Many of them come from just the connection of an entry to the menu that I've outlined.

I've made step-by-step tutorials. I've created screencasts. I've spend hours upon hours in training. It's not my training style. I teach several computer related subjects through the local community college. I give classes through a MUG. I build and support sites in Wordpress. Joomla is the only system that I use and support that requires this level of repetition.

Comment Re:Substancial criticisim please. (+5 Interesting? (Score 1) 240

Create a new entry in Joomla. Where does it live? Does it even exist other than in the db table? Is it a page? No. Is it a blog entry? Maybe, if the system is set up that way. What kind of entry is it? Try explaining the difference to a non-technical user.

Choose the category you want. Oh, you need a new section. Forget about making a menu link to the entry and create a new section, then a new category. At this point it's actually easier to delete the original entry and post it again.

Now create a menu item. Which menu? If the site is complicated at all that's a legitimate question. Once you've created the menu item, then go back and find the created entry and attach it to the menu item. Okay, your new page is live. Whew.

The system is certainly flexible when it comes to creating a complex site, but for small sites and non-technical users it's both confusing and a lot of work.

Now you need to change something on one of the pages. Is it a component? Maybe it's a article. Oh, it's a module. No... Give up and call the IT guy.

Comment Re:Huh-whuh? (Score 1) 167

Having spent years as a psychiatric social worker I agree that these all sound like the work of the mentally ill.

Knowing that makes a lot of the comments seem pretty mean spirited. But this section is for idiot submissions. It just turns out that those are coming from the commenters this week.

Feed Science Daily: Some Biofuels Are Worse Environmentally Than Fossil Fuels, Analysis Shows (sciencedaily.com)

Biofuels reduce greenhouse-gas emissions in comparison to fossil fuels. In the journal Science, researchers consider environmental costs of biofuel production. Corn, soy and sugarcane come up short. The authors urge governments to be far more selective about which biofuels they support, as not all are more environmentally friendly than fossil fuels.


Biotech

Submission + - Plastic-degrading bacteria discovered in Mexico (google.com)

Spy der Mann writes: "A bacteria capable of degrading polyurethane, was just discovered in the sewage waters of Mexico City. It's Alicycliphilus bacteria, unicellular organism with a mechanism not yet clarified degrades the polyurethane, perhaps the most commonly used plastic for half a century. Thanks to a team of scientists from the Faculty of Chemistry of the UNAM, the bacterium went to university laboratories to open a new horizon for research, which in a few years might find a solution to transform polyurethane, which is manufactured from oil and does not degrade when it is discarded. (Original spanish text)"

Slashdot Top Deals

Remember to say hello to your bank teller.

Working...