Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Bodybuilding (Score 1) 148

Would you be so kind as to comment a bit on your methodology?

There seems to be no small confusion over terms such as "intermittent fasting". I've seen lots of folk use this to mean essentially 16 hours from after an early dinner to a late breakfast. But some of the earlier studies used this term to mean fasting 1 day out of 4 or something like that. A quasi-periodic approach yet indeed fasting for 24 hours (or more) at a time.

I'm curious how you manage your macro-nutrients overall? Do you eat fairly regularly the 11 days? Do you increase protein or caloric intake in general on the eating days? Anything special on the day after the fast? Anything special the day before?

Next, what about your workout regimen? Do you avoid workouts on fasting days? Or specific kids of workouts?

Comment: Re:And low-cal? (Score 1) 148

But what would be intrinsically different between fasting for a few days so the body says "hey I gotta metabolize some stuff so let's burn up the deadwood" and going low-cal for a longer period of time where the body essentially has to do the same thing?

As long as you follow this with a period of maintenance or balanced intake so the body can then rebuild said immune system stuff, why would fasting be so different from caloric deficit?

Comment: Re:Nuclear waste (Score 3, Interesting) 281

This would entail the risk of failure in the launch phase which could rain down a nasty amount of stuff anywhere on Earth.

MAYBE when we have a viable Space Elevator would folk give careful consideration to this. Until then, forget about it.

But even then, you'd still have the expense of the Delta-V to get it to fall into the Sun. It almost certainly would be cheaper to send the stuff to Alpha Centuari than to the Sun.

Comment: Re:WTF?? (Score 2) 798

Your interpretation of the actions of the police as incompetent are probably mistaken because of a failure to appreciate the true goals and motives of the police here.

This story makes me pause and consider cui bono.

It appears the mother went directly to the principal rather than the teacher. The recording and transcription also seems to cast the teacher in a poor light. So it would seem the initial complaint was as much against the ineffectiveness of the teacher as it was against the bullying itself. It seems the mother had discussed this issue with the teacher previously... repeatedly.

Next, why in the world would the school administration involve the police at all? Do they truly have no ability to manage things at this school without this? No, it seems blatantly clear the goals and motives of the school administration immediately shifted to DAMAGE CONTROL. They never had any concern over the bullying issue itself. The teacher had a reputation to defend. The school was in an adversarial role from the beginning - fighting the complaint, not addressing it.

So... why would the police allow themselves to be used in such a fashion? Because using antiquated wiretapping laws to prevent citizens from recording the actions of police is a rather favorite interest of the police these days. The police had no intention whatsoever from the very beginning to "address the problem" if by that you meant the bullying. They eagerly jumped on board here because they were handed, on a silver platter, a wonderful opportunity to make a loud example of someone to remind everyone they shouldn't DARE record the police. Failing back to disorderly conduct wasn't inept. It was entirely in line with their goals.

Soo... what SHOULD they have done? I am sympathetic with the idea of tossing the video immediately into the Net. But other than the PR or novelty impact, how would this have changed anything vis-a-vis the Wiretapping charge or the actions of the school? I wonder what would have happened if instead, the mother asked for a meeting with the teacher and principal and sat down to discuss these issues, alluding to the transcript only if necessary. At the very least she might have gotten the principal to consider addressing the bullying issue by properly managing the teacher rather than running straight to the school's attorney.

Comment: Re:It's a Planet (Score 1) 47

by ChromaticDragon (#46748007) Attached to: Pluto May Have Deep Seas and Ancient Tectonic Faults

It's all somewhat arbitrary in any case.

It's all just a matter of what we choose to call things and how we choose to categorize things. Lumping things into categories based on similar characteristics is helpful for a number of reasons.

If you go back and look at the history of when and why Ceres (and Vista, and Pallas, etc.) was demoted from planetary status, you'll see all sorts of similarities. The continued discovery of Kupier bodies shows Pluto was part of a larger community, just like Ceres.

What folk mean when they say defining things such that you keep Pluto in and leave Ceres out is that they're looking for a consistent pattern of categorization and nomenclature which minimizes changes. It's simply easier to drop the ninth to to squeeze back in a fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth.

These continued discoveries create the need for updating our categorizations because they highlight the problem of HAVING ALREADY demoted Ceres, Vista, Pallas, etc. It makes no sense to call these new things planets unless we also do this for the bodies between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter.

Comment: Longevity of the guns (Score 1) 630

by ChromaticDragon (#46707539) Attached to: Navy Debuts New Railgun That Launches Shells at Mach 7

I'm curious how they've addressed the issues of these sorts of things tearing themselves apart. The article doesn't go into details. One has to assume since the overall price per projective was determine that this was factored into things. And the video seems to show something rather purposely placed there that gets destroyed in the launch process.

Anyone find further details?

Comment: Re:Credibility (Score 4, Interesting) 703

Please pick up "Six Degrees" and read it.

You are woefully ill-informed if you believe 5C simply "sounds like a lot" but "local variations are far greater". The effects of Climate Change due to Global Warming are not limited to it being just a little warmer. 5C will make things very difficult.

To your point, you need to separate the purported propaganda of us reaching a 5C increase by 2100 vs. the effects of a 5C increase. Yes indeed it is one thing to go on and on about the effects of full scale nuclear war (or a catastrophic asteroid strike, Yellowstone erupting, or whatever) while ignoring the related probability of such an event. But it's foolish to debate the effect rather than said likelihood. These are separate issues/debates. Documenting what has happened in the past at certain temps is probably quite a bit more "settled" than predicting things for the rest of the century.

Comment: Re:Yeah, too bad there's no real reason to do so.. (Score 1) 292

by ChromaticDragon (#46543683) Attached to: Back To the Moon — In Four Years

I agree with you on the most part as long as we are thinking of things in the sense of economic/investment value.

Think of anything really and ask yourself whether it makes more sense to build/do such in space or down in another gravity well.

But for raw science, I would hope that we start deploying (very) large telescopes on the far side of the moon.

Comment: Re:Ah, the Planet Pluto (Score 3, Insightful) 138

If you believe there's some pedantic reason to keep Pluto as a planet, I have to ask whether you hold the same views regarding Ceres.

Ceres was "a planet for both the common and technical definitions for quite some time".

The circumstances surrounding demotion of Ceres and Pluto are rather similar. The timeframe either of the two were considered planets is also similar.

Now, what I find more interesting BOTH for this issue of Eris and Pluto and the argument over Planet classification is to look at MASS instead of diameter:

Look at this chart of bodies in our Solar System ranked by mass in a logarithmic chart. The eight planets unambiguously rank as the largest bodies. Eris still is more massive than Pluto. And all the dwarf planets are outranked by several moons.

Yes definitions are arbitrary. But the eight planets stand apart. It does make sense to align definitions to match such. In any case, the definitions OUGHT to be consistent. What criteria other than inertia of publications would you prefer that keeps Pluto IN yet leaves Ceres OUT?

Comment: Re:Not MITM (Score 5, Informative) 572

Yup. But proxies cannot handle HTTPS unless... they are acting as a MITM.

The proxy must either pass it along, block it outright or essentially stand in the middle so as to be able to perform all the usual filtering/sniffing/etc. it would do were the traffic plain ole' HTTP.

Comment: SuperBowl Death Knell (Score 2) 423

by ChromaticDragon (#46400271) Attached to: RadioShack To Close 1,100 Stores

I don't know about other folk. But when I saw RadioShack's SuperBowl commerical, I cringed.

Timothy remarks that "a few years ago" RadioShack was trying to get back to its roots as a hobbyist outlet. I don't know how anybody could reconcile that idea with the incredible disdain for the past demonstrated in that commercial.

Trouble is... what differentiates RadioShack? Why would I bother going THERE for cell phones? As they've tried more and more to become like everyone else, they've succeeded in undercutting and destroying any reason I'd have to go there first for anything. I'll still end up at RadioShack when my shopping research shows they have what I want less than others. But to go there on a lark? Not these days.

"You don't go out and kick a mad dog. If you have a mad dog with rabies, you take a gun and shoot him." -- Pat Robertson, TV Evangelist, about Muammar Kadhafy