Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Calories in, calories out... (Score 1) 108

by martas (#48442499) Attached to: Doubling Saturated Fat In Diet Does Not Increase It In Blood
Yes, which is bad because it leads you to eat more, thus making the "calories in" part bigger. That was my point. What matters most is physiology -> psychology -> fat, not physiology -> fat, so you should optimize a diet for psychology subject to a fixed amount of calories. If you use information about physiology in order to do so then great, but you don't need to, and in fact it may at some point be counterproductive because the more mental energy you use thinking about physiology, the less you have left to enforce the calorie limit. I'm willing to bet many people who have had a long term struggle to lose weight have gone through cycles of "try to implement great idea that helps lose weight -> start slacking off on calorie restriction because there's already a dopamine release from eating/doing 'the right thing' -> don't lose weight -> get discouraged -> say fuck it and eat an entire pizza in one sitting". Not everyone, but many people.

Comment: Re:Calories in, calories out... (Score 3, Insightful) 108

by martas (#48441927) Attached to: Doubling Saturated Fat In Diet Does Not Increase It In Blood
"Calories in, calories out" is given as a good first order approximation of reality for the purposes of weight loss (at least whenever I've seen it). This article isn't about weight loss, it's about health. It's obvious that being conducive to weight loss and being healthy are not synonymous. I could lose weight by eating nothing but cyanide.

Now, it's true that even for weight loss "calories in, calories out" is only an approximation, but based on the admittedly small amount of information I have it is basically the most practically useful one, and using more complex models is counterproductive. Ultimately for most people trying to lose weight the most limiting factor is psychology. If you have some really nice theory about how different nutrients (or even exercise) affect weight differently, chances are you will be tempted to slack off on the by far much more important "calories in, calories out" equation, because you have a limited amount of mental energy. All the physiological tricks mean jack shit if you're inputting too much energy into yourself. Now of course what you eat still matters a lot, but mainly because it affects your psychology differently -- for instance, I've heard many anecdotal reports that 1200 calories from carbs leaves people feeling much less satisfied than the same amount from fat and protein, which of course is going to make it harder for a person not to eat any more. In other words, a corollary to "calories in, calories out" is "find whichever source of calories makes it easiest for you to maintain the equation", but even then physiology matters only in the way that it affects psychology, and not directly because some sources of calories are metabolized differently than others.

Comment: Re:What's it good for? (Score 1) 225

by Remus Shepherd (#48436361) Attached to: Russia May Be Planning National Space Station To Replace ISS

The purpose of the ISS was to spread the cost of a space station among many different countries, so that no one of them had to foot the bill for their own. One of the reasons the USSR went bankrupt is because they could not keep up with US cold war expenditures, including the space race.

Which makes it truly bizarre that Russia would be thinking of going into space alone again. Putin doesn't appear to remember any history at all.

Comment: Re:Almost any car from the last 5-10 years should (Score 1) 183

by Sowelu (#48435561) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What's the Most Hackable Car?

Personally I'd be happy to hack my car's windows in the opposite direction. On the driver side only, if you tap "up", it rolls up all the way--you have to hold it down for it to not do that. Which means if you want to adjust it a quarter of an inch, you have to go down and then up, or up too far and then back down.

Comment: Re:what would be useful (Score 1) 29

by Sowelu (#48430661) Attached to: Google Announces Image Recognition Advance

If you had a program that could generate a scale invariant hash of an image, and given a command line tool that could tell you the resolution of an image (which exist, just don't know the names), I'm pretty sure you could do that in a single line in bash.

Wouldn't be surprised if there was a program that generated an image hash. Even better if it generates a value where stronger features are higher bits and smaller features (that could be lost in scaling) are lower bits, so you could truncate and compare? That might be too fiddly.

United States

Congress Suggests Moat, Electronic Fence To Protect White House 211

Posted by samzenpus
from the greased-monkeys-with-straight-razors dept.
PolygamousRanchKid writes Acting Secret Service director Joseph Clancy on Wednesday faced a number of tough questions from the House Judiciary Committee about the fence jumper who made it deep into the White House. But along with the tough questions, Clancy fielded a couple eyebrow raising suggestions on how to better protect the president's home. "Would a moat, water six feet around, be kind of attractive and effective?" Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., asked with trepidation. Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, asked: “Would you be in favor of removing the fence around the White House and having, maybe, a virtual or electronic fence around it?” Clancy liked the moat idea better than the electric fence. “My knee-jerk reaction to that would be no, sir,” he told Gohmert. “Partly because of the number of tourists that come up Pennsylvania Avenue and come up to that area.”

Truth is free, but information costs.

Working...