Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
What's the story with these ads on Slashdot? Check out our new blog post to find out. ×

Comment Re:I volunteer as tribute. (Score 2) 381

And not just "eat less", but be happy and healthy. That's the real challenge. 10 years later. Ie. not a 21 day diet, but a lifestyle.

This is why Paleo/Banting gets advocated. Anyone can starve themselves. But increase their health whilst also increase their food intake and enjoy their meals and have more energy?

Comment Re:I volunteer as tribute. (Score 1) 381

These days the Paleo/Banting/Real Food view is more or less, you can't outrun a bad diet, and the diet does make a big difference, but the exercise doesn't.

Also, the "healthy" diet most often recommended (low fat, balanced, etc.), is just wrong, so it was never going to work. Basically, because of the carbs. High Fat Low Carb does work, generally, except for people who have other issues as well. But basically, like this research, there is far more going on that just "you ate too much" — as Taubes put it, a child doesn't grow because he overeats, he overeats because he's growing. There is more going on that simple energy in/out.

Yet many traditional organisations continue to recommend a "balanced" diet" and, when it doesn't work for people, claim they're just eating a few bytes too many and not burning off the excess. Ie. it isn't our advice that's wrong, you're just lazy! So I appreciate your comment here in that light also.

Well, people can try Paleo for themselves and see whether it works for them. The big problem has always been that things like diet are very hard to test rigorously. So nutrition has had a lot of pseudo-science, and sometimes, your great grandma was indeed right that pasta does make you fat.

Comment Apple KITT (Score 3, Funny) 118

I'm really looking of forward to a car I can talk to.

Mike Traceur: [awakes suddenly] Man, I was out cold.
K.I.T.T.: Actually, Michael, you were not out cold. You were in a very heavy REM state.
Mike Traceur: You know, you sometimes sound like Hal from 2001?
K.I.T.T.: I find that movie extremely confusing.
Mike Traceur: You know what confuses me?
K.I.T.T.: There are not enough hours in the day to list all the things that confuse you.
Mike Traceur: Oh, snap.
K.I.T.T.: Yes, Michael. Snap.

Comment Re:Slashdot Paradox (Score 1) 417

LOL, thanks. But yours explains another reason why just counting words is not a good metric. The meaning of your paragraph only becomes clear IN THE LAST PHRASE. Up until then, the reader is wondering, how is any of this connected? Where is this going? What are all the facts? Which are the important ones I need to remember? All of which only becomes apparent in the last phrase.
My paragraph is a simple chain, so you don't have to remember too many items as you go along.

Comment Re:Slashdot Paradox (Score 1) 417

Not that I read every article and comment, but I think Slashdot shifted from pro-AGW to anti after the Climategate stuff was released, but also broadly, we had too many people claiming that we had just 4 years to save the planet, and that was a long time ago now.

Disclosure: my own view is that climate change is simply one instance of a class of problems which are global, global in that, they can't be solved by any one government acting alone, so it is these global problems which may necessitate humanity to move to a new set of values which are truly planetary, ie. it is deeply unfair that a kid's chances in life are determined by where they happen to be born, so a kid born in Somalia has a very different life than one born in California, and to really remedy that, we need a united humanity, and so in a sense, global problems like climate change are to be faced not in a technological way, but more essentially in a social and political way, to change people's values, to make people less greedy and more cooperative, and I think that this is why many people are deeply concerned about climate change, because they feel that humanity needs to change its character (changing how we produce energy is just icing on the cake) — however, there is fatal flaw in this, and bear me out, but for succinctness I'm going to say it in an offensive way, namely that, trying to wrap a new morality and ethics inside a science theory, is as bad as creationists trying to refute evolution because they'd rather your little kids grew up believing in their mythic God, in other words, it is a very dumb idea, and apparently, an idea invented by Margaret Thatcher, a very right wing politician who wanted to break the coal miner unions' stranglehold on energy, in around 1985 to 89, and she made a case that coal was very bad, hiding her real reason, her opposition to the miners, and instead gave speeches at the UN about climate change, one of the first politicians to do so, as she wanted to justify going off coal on "scientific" grounds, so she talked about greenhouse gasses and CO2 and man's pollution, and she founded the Hadley Centre and so on... so the moral of the story is, if you really want to transform people's ethics, then talk about the ETHICS themselves, because otherwise, will your ethics become useless if the science ends up changing? or did your ethics actually have their own merit in the first place, regardless of any particular scary problem? that's what the whole environmental movement is going to have to rethink, because as I say, I am in favour of a global united humanity living well in the ecosystems of the world, where every child has a reasonable chance in life, with health and education, but the whole AGW mantra has just blown a huge credibility hole in the project, if one cares to look at it objectively.

Comment Re:It'd be hilareous if not so sad... (Score 1) 338

You need to take a holistic view, rather than focusing on tiny individual actions. While small things are important, the are often only significant when everyone is doing them, which is why regulation to mandate efficiency is important.

There was a long post/book by a mathematician (excuse I can't remember the ref., but his point was simple) who wrote that, if a lot of people make a small saving, then as a whole, the nation has made a small saving.

For myself, it is only an accident of other life conditions which have meant I can get away with not having a car. But that could easily change. Not everyone can live near where they work, or afford to choose where to live.

I mean, I agree that regulating for efficiency is much better. But in terms of the sorts of scale of use that we're talking about when it comes to nuclear, and how people want electric cars (where's that energy going to come from), I don't see how we'll get there.

Comment Re:It'd be hilareous if not so sad... (Score 2) 338

Does it explain why energy consumption went down? Less industry perhaps?

I think the main argument about energy is simply, how much is needed? Cutting energy use 10% might not make much difference, to say, whether one can ditch nuclear or coal altogether.

I live in a small house, wear jumpers indoors, don't have a car, rarely fly (once in ten years), always turn the lights off when I leave a room, etc. I doubt I'm making any significant difference to my energy use. Fact is, I use what I need to use. There are no big savings to be made. We forget that we have washing machines and fridges and TVs and computers which previous generations didn't have. We forget that when we turn up to work, we're by law expected to enjoy a comfortable environment, a standard previous generations would have thought extravagant. And whatever you do, don't get sick and need a hospital, just think of the enormous amount of infrastructure you are making use of there. We will always be using a lot of energy. 20% less of a lot is still a lot.

The only way forward really is new cheaper energy sources. We need much much more energy available. And saving is good but that's always been the case that we find some things we can make more efficient. But generally, efficiencies mean people can use more. It is only when you make things much more expensive that you may stop people using energy, but then you are forcing people to be poor.

Comment Re: Fallacy of Climate Control (Score 1) 248

Sure, but today, or in a million years? Nature gave us that ingenuity, and like any creature, we use what we have. If the human experiment has run its course and we've reached the limit our survival skills, so be it. But if we can survive, invent space travel, mine the asteroid belt for resources, educate every child to great intelligence, and let Earth return back to a big garden, great. If we can't, we can't.

Comment Re:Fallacy of Climate Control (Score 1) 248

One of the richest farmland valleys in the world gave great wealth to its country and did so for "eons."

Then a change in the weather caused rainfall to drop by 30% and eventually by something around 80% and the farmland wealth 'evaporated.'

This all occurred a couple thousand years or more before Christ, when the inland valley that was originally a terrific growing area suffered a natural change of world weather which dried it up. That was not caused by man-made activity. It can and will happen again. Man has never had enough power to turn the weather "back" to reclaim the inland growing area of Egypt.

Quoting you in full because you were modded "troll".

And reading Gates' piece, he exactly admits this. Wind and solar can't get us there, and the climate changes ANYWAY. So for Gates, the ACTUAL problem, which he says, is very simple: we all need cheap abundant energy.

And that's where environmentalism splits into the two threads: man is a scourge and we need to deindustrialise and stop growth, v. all human beings, wherever they are born, deserve health and prosperity.

When a natural disaster hits a poor country, it doesn't have the resources to cope, and many people die. When a natural disaster hits a wealthy country, people cope far better. For starters, they probably have better building codes. And then, they have better emergency services and so on. That's the kind of help that the poor of the world need against any and all disasters.

And to get that they need development and resources and to get there cheaply and quickly. Ie. better technology.

Of course some new tech brings new evils, but if you think the world is overpopulated, and over consuming, what you gonna do? Tell people to just stop? That only delays the inevitable. And it is inevitable if you don't invent better tech.

Humanity has always been fighting for survival in the environment. We ill go the way of the dinosaurs if we can't invent better tech. Anything else is just delaying the an inevitable collapse.

Don't be irreplaceable, if you can't be replaced, you can't be promoted.

Working...