Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


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

by RobDude (#30035016) Attached to: Why Doesn't Exercise Lead To Weight Loss?

Calories In vs. Calories out - at least at the level that any reasonable person can measure it - is worthless. I that it's easy to remember and even sounds kind of cool - but science doesn't support it. There are plenty of studies that show things eating the same number of calories and having dramatically different weight gain or loss.

Measuring what you eat and estimating how much you burn by your daily activities is clearly not enough to accurately determine if a person will gain or lose weight.

Here's two studies - you can find many, many, many more....

Here's a study where different groups of mice ate the same number of calories, but at different times of the day/night, and the different groups saw different levels of weight gain/loss.

Here's a study where different groups of mice ate the same number of calories, but one group had a low-gi diet and another group had a high-gi diet. The high-GI diet mice gained more weight than the low-GI diet mice.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, and I like the 'gist' of the Hacker Diet. But the entire premise of the diet doesn't hold up. Not in any way that a regular person can measure. Maybe, the habits like how much you sleep or when you eat or the GI index affect either how much you burn (even though your activities are no different) or how effective your digestion is - but until you've got a magic toilet that tells you how many calories you've just dumped off and a watch that will tell you exactly how many calories you are burning - it's not useful.

But yeah, the general idea of eating less, eating better, and exercising are all generally good things. Those things are hardly unique to the 'Hacker Diet' though. I don't know of anyone who eats healthy food, in moderation, and follows some sort of physical fitness routine who isn't in decent shape; but grossly oversimplifying what's going on doesn't benefit anyone.

Comment: Re:Hit'em in their wallets (Score 3, Insightful) 462

by mcgrew (#30034962) Attached to: Massive Power Outages In Brazil Caused By Hackers

We can't know what would happen if banks were fully deregulated

read a little history, young man.

Lets see, if I'm unhappy about the level of service of my current utility what are my options? Not a whole lot.

Exactly. They are beholden to the shareholders, not their customers. They're a monopoly and don't have to care about their customers. A lot of the financial mess we're in now is a result of businesses that aren't monopolies acting as if they were.

My utility company is owned by the city. If they piss me off I'll not vote for the incumbant mayor (an dthat's happened here before). As a result, we get cheap dependable power.

Or you know, how about allowing utility companies to actually compete for prices, service and security.

And how do you go about that? Have ten different power grids in your town with ten electric companies, all with their own poles and cables? Utilities are a natural monoploly and NEED to be heavily regulated. Actually, natural monopolies shouw be owned by the city or state. It's the only way they can be held accountable to the people who pay them.

Comment: Re:Really? (Score 1) 513

by Sarlin (#30034940) Attached to: What Does Google Suggest Suggest About Humanity?
I have really narrow ear canals and had to have ear wax removed once when I was in the military (q-tips don't work for me). They used warm water with hydrogen-peroxide. The peroxide causes a bubbling action which helps break up the build up. After a few pounds were pulled out of my ears I was dizzy for about a day, but could hear really, really good. My ear hygiene improved from then on.

Comment: What about reducing our energy INTAKE?!! (Score 1) 235

by ismism (#30034926) Attached to: Tech Allows Stable Integration of Wind In the Power Grid
So many analyses seem to compare the potential output with what is now being used, but just look around - especially at night - and you'll see that HUGE amounts of energy are being wasted on poor insulation, lights left on, heating large, deserted spaces, etc., etc. Renewable energy, YES! but we also need to seriously reduce our usage.

Comment: Re:Only video sites? (Score 1) 372

by Simetrical (#30034896) Attached to: Tired of Flash? HTML5 Viewer For YouTube

You mention that Flash should be replaced by open video standards for video applications. However, I frequently find video and even more so video live streams to be very fragile when the browser uses the systems video player. I then often just download the video and play it externally, because the internal video player doesn't respond and I don't know why.

No one says browsers will use the system video player. In fact, they pretty much can't launch a separate app to play the video, because they have to expose a sophisticated JavaScript API that requires them to know exactly how the video is playing. (Of course, you could always manually open the video in a separate app if you like, just like an image.)

View this in Firefox 3.5 and tell me how smoothly it works for you: <http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/video/>. In my experience, <video> is as smooth and hitch-free as you could ask for, although I've run into some teething troubles (like a Theora video from Mozilla having desynced sound on Chrome).

Comment: Re:it's not perpetual motion- energy is being adde (Score 1) 210

by NorthDude (#27574671) Attached to: Computer-Controlled Cargo Sailing Vessels Go Slow, Frugal

This is false, you can not sail upwind using traditionals sails but using wind turbines it is certainly feasible. And why would moving forward require more then 100% of the energy captured? As long as the wind is pushing hard enough, it will move forward. The energy provided by the wind just has to exceed the resistance of the boat to move (friction). And then, the energy needed to move the boat against the wind does not increase linearly with the wind speed.

Imagine a boat with a windmill on it. Imagine the windmill being sideways to the boat (at 90%). Now, we both agree that if the wind makes the turbine turn sufficiently fast, the boat will move forward, right? Now, turn the turbine so it faces the bow. The same wind force, a bit more if we account for wind resistance, will be needed to turn the turbine blades and move the boat forward in the wind direction. The turbine does not care at all what direction the boat is going, it only care about apparent wind speed.

And wind speed on a boat is all about apparent wind speed. This is also how boats and vehicle can sail much faster then the wind itself. They create their own wind! Look up the Greenbird land yacht that recently reached 126.1 mph with winds only between 30 mph and 40 mph.

Whom the gods would destroy, they first teach BASIC.