Nor will it result in weight loss! even over an extended period of time.

You think it's all a matter of energy accounting. That the body is like a balloon with a small hole in it. And that all you have to do to make the balloon smaller is to stop blowing it up as fast, right?

But it simply isn't that simple. The body really DOES have a say in the matter, and can adjust it's calorie consumption over an astonishingly wide range. So, there is a feedback mechanism at work, and unfortunately, in order to swamp-out that closed-loop,system's ability to compensate, most people who are overweight and insulin-resistant (which is pretty-much the same set), do in fact have to uncomfortably restrict their caloric intake; far beyond the "skip the large fries" level that you high-handed-ly suggest.

But they CANNOT simply reduce their caloric intake enough to BOTH lose weight AND not feeling like they are starving all the time.

In experiments, they reduced the caloric intake of obese rats to below what was considered starvation levels, and guess what, the rats' metabolic processes simply adjusted, and there was little to no weight reduction (but I'm sure if you could have asked the rats, they would have said they were "starving").

In fact, when you go into caloric deprivation, you actually consume muscle, not fat. Fat is consumed only as a last resort. This is what makes the anorexics die.

All of the species that survived the last Ice Age were the ones that were able to go for long periods without regular food intake. Caloric restriction, by itself, is abysmally poor at producing weight reduction; but is excellent at producing miserable test subjects.

Exactly.

So says the person who hasn't dieted.

Exactly. I know the plural of anecdote is not data; but how many anecdotes DOES it take before it is a good first-approximation of data?

Wish I had Mod points!

Mods: Mod this to Infinity, and beyond!

No truer words were ever spoken. I have been preaching this for about a decade. Most people look at me like I have two heads. But you're right. They have been using SSRIs to turn knobs in the brain, but they don't even know which way to turn them, let alone how far...

First, who provides support for "products" that never actually become "products"? This removes all of your "unreleased products" (in engineering, we call those "canceled R&D projects"). Quite frankly, your inclusion of those non-products in your argument just makes you sound like you're grasping at straws (which you obviously are, as seen below).

As for the others, Pippin was sold to Bandai; thus Apple had no further responsibility to support it; Macintosh TV: Fairly good idea for the time, but miniscule sales usually means miniscule support for any product from any company; same thing with the Newton, Lisa, Macintosh Portable and the eMate, and the Apple /// as well. Low sales numbers always translates into short product life-cycles, which always translates into abbreviated support.

How much support did MS throw behind Windows ME, for example?

As for AppleLink and eWorld, at that time, there were dozens, if not hundreds, of "internet-y" software packages that simply didn't make it, like, for example, CyberDog; which even had a pretty devoted following; but just not in sufficient numbers to continue developing/supporting it.

But when we look at Apple's product-support track record, overall, there is little argument that can be reasonably made that they fall-short in that category, seriously, when compared with the rest of the "high-tech-consumer-computing-products" industry.

So, kindly cite a "successful" Apple Product that suffered from Premature Support Termination, or STFU.

I'm not sure what you mean by "supported"?

Through their JIT 68k -> PPC compiler built into MacOS, you could run 68k apps LONG after their "platform-switch" to PPC. In fact, IIRC, it was only in MacOS 9 that Apple excised all PPC code from the OS itself, because their 68k -> PPC JIT system/Fat Binaries were so successful.

The PPC -> x86 had a similarly glass-smooth transition, first with "Classic" Mode allowing a built-in virtualization of Mac OS9 under OS X, and also with CarbonLib even providing a way for Developers to rather painlessly create Applications that would run seamlessly both in "Classic" MacOS as well as OS X, and Rosetta providing PPC-emulation on x86 systems (however briefly). Not as protracted a transition as the 68k -> PPC one, to be sure; but by that time, I think Apple had decided that the 68k -> PPC had gone on a little too long. But in fact, IIRC, CarbonLib has only now just been deprecated; but I think it is still present, even in Yosemite (but I might be wrong about that).

As for the Newton, I admit they probably could have supported that a little longer; but it was never a very successful product, in Apple terms, and from what I have read, Jobs simply didn't like it.

And finally, the Pippin: Didn't Apple sell that to Bandai? This begs the question: How long should Apple continue to support a product that isn't "theirs" anymore?

If fictional literary works can be construed as "prior art", then no, it isn't.

In the sci-fi novel "When H.A.R.L.I.E. Was One" (but don't read the nasty politically-corrected 2.0 version!) by David Gerrold, Harlie (an intelligent computer) recognized who was communicating with him (via teletype) by measuring the human's inter-key typing cadence. This is a hop, skip and a step away from your "walking cadence" identification postulated above.

But I don't know if fictional literature can be construed as "prior art".

I will have to re-check; but I thought I did copy/paste from my MBP.

And the RDC Client on my work Windows 7 laptop has that EXACT "Clutter" of "Recent Connections" in the place where you enter "Random Connections"; so I'm not exactly sure what you are whining about...

But I was actually focusing my comments on the performance and the way they smoothly integrated the OS X Menu Bar and Dock from your local machine into the app's Full Screen mode. The Windows RDC Client is MUCH clumsier at handling those same local/remote "context-switching" concepts.

So, how is Apple responsible for the failings of a third-party developer (in this case, MS)?

Do they have that ability on the Server side (i.e. Server 2012) as well? I HATE the constant pawing around in the Start Screen clusterfuck. With Win 8/Server 2012 I always feel like I'm trapped in a maze of twisty passages, all alike.

Just an aside: I'm no fan of MS, even though I have to work in a Windows environment; however, when dealing with MS Servers, I have found that the recent versions of the Microsoft RDC Client for OS X is actually even more capable, just as fast (or maybe even faster), and a WHOLE lot better-mannered than even the Windows native RDC Client.

If you run OS X, but need to "Remote-In" to Windows Servers/Workstations, check it out. It's free, and quite pleasant.

And now I have to go wash my hands for typing something complimentary about Windows...

Duh! Consider the source.

download.com has gotten so bad that, on Windows, I simply won't install anything, no matter how bad I want/need it, unless I can get it from the author.

On OS X, OTOH, there is macupdate.com; which has never tried to bundle crapware, and always (or nearly always) also offers a link to the Developer's site as well.

Where do you see a Mac Pro being unable to run Yosemite?

And which Mac Pro are you talking about? The one that looks like a G5 tower, or the "Trashcan" (not my term) one?

Searching around shows that both versions have several video card options; but in order for me to not cut/pasta the entire internet, you need to be more specific that simply "Mac Pro".