Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: That is not a conspiracy. Nor semantics. (Score 1) 396

Not the purposefully coordinated kind where everyone meets in a dark room somewhere to plot their actions, but the kind where everyone sharing fundamentally rotten values leads to effectively coordinated flock behaviour.

That's philosophy. Ideology. Worldview.

There is no need for a conspiracy to cover up anything - if everyone KNOWS not to be a "snitch". Or a "rat". Or a "stool pigeon".
You know... a traitor.

People will act independently towards the same goal, if they share the same philosophy or ideology.
Individuals don't even need to be aware of each other's existence for it to work.
They just need to have a same set of beliefs and/or ideas.

Security

Doxing Victim Zoe Quinn Launches Online "Anti-harassment Task Force" 685

Posted by Soulskill
from the life-free-of-swat-teams-and-unordered-pizzas dept.
AmiMoJo writes: On Friday, developer and doxing victim Zoe Quinn launched an online "anti-harassment task force" toolset, staffed by volunteers familiar with such attacks, to assist victims of a recent swell of "doxing" and "swatting" attacks. The Crash Override site, built by Quinn and game developer Alex Lifschitz, offers free services from "experts in information security, white hat hacking, PR, law enforcement, legal, threat monitoring, and counseling" for "victims of online mob harassment."

They have already managed to preemptively warn at least one victim of a swatting attempt in Enumclaw, Washington. As a result, the police department's head e-mailed the entire department to ask any police sent to the address in question to "knock with your hand, not your boot."

Comment: Re:No... THAT is bullshit. (Score 1) 167

by denzacar (#48852175) Attached to: FDA Approves Implantable Vagus Nerve Disruptor For Weight Loss

And that tells you that your simplistic view that obesity is due to a "difference in metabolism" can't be true

I'll leave simplistic views to you, thank you very much.

You're the one spouting single cause, "you people are eating too much - that's why you're fat" nonsense.

and if people who exercise stopped exercising for a few weeks, they'd balloon.

That's exactly what happens to many high-school/college sports stars once they hit regular employment and stop their regular exercise.
Not in a few weeks though, as it takes longer to lose ALL that muscle and replace it with fat, and cause it takes A LOT of fat for it to become noticeable as they are already "big".

Obesity occurs when you keep eating even though your caloric needs are met; the difference is stored as fat. Most commonly that happens because processed foods are so efficient at delivering calories that you have ingested excess calories before your body tells you to stop eating, and because simple carbs are absorbed too quickly to be utilized. And the way to fix that is to eat foods that deliver calories slower.

Back to single bullet theory are we? Simplistic much? Or not enough?

Eating less IS a solution but unless you're in a prison or a hospital or have a personal cook/dietician counting your calorie intake - it will only cause you to yo-yo up and down.
Average human can't measure accurately OR afford to match in/out calories to the letter.
So, they end up starving themselves then binging on food then trying to quickly starve-off and sweat-off those calories - which is impossible.
It takes 10 seconds to eat a candy bar and two hours of walking or more to burn it out.

Let's assume that one can measure calories with great precision. Only eat measured out and labeled food.
And let's take a 2000 calories BMR, with "little to no exercise" 1.2 activity factor included in there.
Now reduce that by not eating 100 grams of white bread (about 2-3 slices) each day to an intake of 1740.
That's a reduction of 1820 per week, or about a pound of fat lost every 2 weeks.

A single 14", 850 gram pizza on Sunday, as a "reward" for keeping up with the diet is 2269 calories.
Add a large, 500 ml Coke and that's another 210 calories.
There goes the entire week of dieting, with 659 calories to spare.
That's a pound of fat gained every 5 weeks, while on a diet.

Cause people are not robots. Heck, forget the pizza.
Friends and family will make one eat that AND MORE - out of politeness.

Now, try that same regimen - but with half an hour to an hour of cardio+strength 3 times a week, knocking down about 100 calories and increasing one's activity factor to 1.375.
That's a change of 3*100 calories on exercise, plus an additional 291 daily calorie difference.
Now add that to those 1820 calories from diet alone.
260*7 + 100*3 + 291*7 = 4157 calories reduced, per week. Instead of 1820.

Now you can have that pizza and coke AND lose a pound every two weeks AND gain muscle.
Or just drop that diet and keep it at 2000 calories.

Now... Which one is easier to keep up with?
Making sure one's calorie intake matches one's calorie expenditure 7 days a week - OR making sure that one's BMR is kept a LITTLE higher only 3 times a week?
One is very hard to measure and takes a lot of will power.
The other is relatively easy to measure with a pedometer, a clock, a scale and the ability to count to 10. And it takes a lot less will power.
Because BMR.

Comment: Those ARE interesting graphs. (Score 1) 167

by denzacar (#48851015) Attached to: FDA Approves Implantable Vagus Nerve Disruptor For Weight Loss

Particularly cause they are supposed to be from the same source - but they don't match.

On the first graph Canada never goes above 55% (not even in projections) - on the second one it hits 60% overweight in 2008.
Austria is around 44% in 2006 on the first graph, never going over 48%, even in projections, but it hits 48% in 2006 on the second graph.
Italy - 39% or 46% in 2008?
Australia - 54% or 62% in 2007?
Is it England or United Kingdom?

Also, that's not the only place they messed up.

Correction: September 23, 2010
An earlier version of the second graph in this post ("Percent of Adults Who Are Overweight/Obese") had reversed the labels for the rates of obesity and overweight populations. The graph has been corrected.

Comment: Re:Worst idea ever. (Well, one of them). (Score 2) 167

by denzacar (#48850729) Attached to: FDA Approves Implantable Vagus Nerve Disruptor For Weight Loss

The implant does not cause the lack of appetite - it simulates the feeling of being full and prevents one from feeling "hungry", where hungry is synonymous with "empty stomach".
It does not stop one from snacking NOR "treating" anxiety with food NOR absorbing calories through the stomach OR the intestines.

Without intentionally changing my diet, with the exception of ditching soda for iced tea, I lost 85 pounds in 10 months.

How much soda? Those are HUGE source of sugar.
On top of that, CO2 in sodas increases the pressure and turbo-charges the reaction of absorption of those calories.

Once I stopped taking those pills, I slowly put the weight back on

Did you start drinking soda again and what made you start going to lunch again? Hunger for food or for social interaction?
Clearly, you didn't need those calories for almost a year - while you were taking in a substance which messes with dopamine levels.

Comment: Re:Fatties, just eat less (Score 1) 167

by denzacar (#48849933) Attached to: FDA Approves Implantable Vagus Nerve Disruptor For Weight Loss

Changing nutrition and exercising costs nothing

2000 calories per day from processed cereal, from fresh fruit and vegetables and from meat costs the same?

Ready to eat burger and soda, 5 minute microwave meal and an hour-long preparation of a meal (plus cleaning up afterward) take up the same time and cost the same to prepare?

A hour of exercise each day is something which is affordable to both those making $100 an hour and those making $3 and hour, doing 3 jobs?

Comment: No... THAT is bullshit. (Score 1) 167

by denzacar (#48849889) Attached to: FDA Approves Implantable Vagus Nerve Disruptor For Weight Loss

That's bullshit. Obese people have pretty much the same metabolism as skinny people. It's not your "metabolism" that makes you obese, it's how much and what you eat.

People are NOT one size fits all.
And there are HUGE variations in BMR from person to person.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...

Causes of individual differences in BMR

  The basal metabolic rate varies between individuals. One study of 150 adults representative of the population in Scotland reported basal metabolic rates from as low as 1027 kcal per day (4301 kJ/day) to as high as 2499 kcal/day (10455 kJ/day); with a mean BMR of 1500 kcal/day (6279 kJ/day). Statistically, the researchers calculated that 62.3% of this variation was explained by differences in fat free mass. Other factors explaining the variation included fat mass (6.7%), age (1.7%), and experimental error including within-subject difference (2%). The rest of the variation (26.7%) was unexplained. This remaining difference was not explained by sex nor by differing tissue size of highly energetic organs such as the brain.[10]

Thus there are differences in BMR even when comparing two subjects with the same lean body mass. The top 5% of people are metabolizing energy 28-32% faster than individuals with the lowest 5% BMR.[11] For instance, one study reported an extreme case where two individuals with the same lean body mass of 43 kg had BMRs of 1075 kcal/day (4.5 MJ/day) and 1790 kcal/day (7.5 MJ/day). This difference of 715 kcal/day (67%) is equivalent to one of the individuals completing a 10 kilometer run every day.[11]

On top of that, activity factor would have no effect if it were "not your "metabolism" that makes you obese, it's how much and what you eat."

Comment: Re:Worst idea ever. (Well, one of them). (Score 3, Informative) 167

by denzacar (#48849651) Attached to: FDA Approves Implantable Vagus Nerve Disruptor For Weight Loss

Anything that can seriously help people control their weight isn't a gimmick, it's a fix

This is closer to a gimmick. And a dangerous one at that.
From TFA:

In a 12-month clinical trial considered by the FDA, 38.3% of subjects who received the active Maestro device lost at least a quarter of their excess weight, and 52.5% of subjects lost at least 20% of their excess weight. On average, weight loss in those subjects with an active device was about 8.5% greater than that seen in subjects who received a Maestro electrical pulse generator that was not activated.
  ...
 
While the cost of the device has not yet been set, Lea said that getting the device implanted and activated will likely cost "somewhere between $20,000 and $30,000"--an amount that is more than gastric banding but less some of the most complex gastric bypass surgery.

Over a year, on average, it increases the weight loss by "about 8.5%" compared to an implant which was turned off.
And, it works for about half the people.

I.e. For the people who have been losing weight through other means, 92.2% of the weight loss is attributable to FACTORS OTHER THAN THE IMPLANT.
"About 8.5%" increase is about 7.8% of the new total.

All that at the yet unknown cost of MAYBE $20-30k, invasive surgery and most importantly - randomly fucking about with one's nervous system.
They are patching-in this implant to jam that same network which we KNOW to be a major neurological pathway and of huge importance "in the bidirectional communication of the gut-brain axis and...useful therapeutic adjuncts in stress-related disorders such as anxiety and depression".

That thing severing of which causes mice to give up and surrender in stressful situations?
They are flooding that with jamming signals during the hours when one is awake.
What could possibly go wrong, right?

And to achieve what? A sense of satiety.
Because as we all know, we eat ONLY when we are hungry and we intake food by volume, regardless of the calories.
100 grams of Nutella and 100 grams of cucumbers is the same to us.
We just need to get our stomach to think it is stuffed with SOMETHING - and then we will stop gaining weight.

At least according to the logic behind this "50-50 chance for 8.5% increase in the effectiveness of dieting" gimmick which works by jamming one's nervous system.

That $30000 spent would be better invested into healthier food and exercise.
Heck... it's TWO annual federal minimum wages in the USA.
One could literally spend a year on that money doing nothing but working on their health.

Comment: Not true really. (Score 2, Informative) 291

by denzacar (#48846711) Attached to: Innocent Adults Are Easy To Convince They Committed a Serious Crime

It seems like it is - on paper.
In reality that bell curve is actually skewed to the right - due to the limiting effects of low intelligence and test error.

The peak in the middle of the curve is actually a flat line, so the top of the curve is not a single person with a perfect IQ100, but millions of people scoring AROUND IQ100.
Also, due to the built-in unreliability of the test itself, a certain percentage will certainly score less than their actual intelligence.
Due to stress, various environmental and personal issues, even things like time from last meal or how many hours of sleep one had prior to the test.
For all those things there is no normalizing effect which would increase the score - if there were it would be outselling any drug out there.

So, the curve actually leans to the right at the top, but the measured result comes out as symmetrical due to normalization which distorts the representation of the reality, due to the assumption that the only measurement error is in (in)accurately counting the number of correct answers (which is self-normalizing).

Meanwhile, on the far ends of the curve (both left and right) you got what seems like exactly the same number of geniuses (right) and severely retarded (left).
Except that those under a certain level of IQ can't take part in a society at all and must be housed in special institutions - or they die.

So instead of a perfect 50-50 bell curve, it is closer to 40something - average - 50something division.
Where 50+X % are of above average IQ, average IQ is a certain percentage instead of a peak in the middle, some small percentage of people are either babies, senile, comatose or severely retarded people incapable of taking care of themselves and the remaining 40+Y percent are in the below average but intellectually functional bracket.

There is no limit on the above average side of the curve at which said IQ would negatively affect a persons ability to function.
There is such a limit on the below average side, and it is far above 0.

Comment: Re:The Dangers of the World (Score 1) 781

by denzacar (#48831017) Attached to: Parents Investigated For Neglect For Letting Kids Walk Home Alone

and since the kids didn't have their "we're free range & ok" sign with them

Clearly, the solution is to make that sing into an armband or a badge that could be attached to kids' clothes.
It would probably be prudent to make it easily discernible and recognizable from a distance.
Perhaps something in bright yellow?

Comment: Re:Pope Francis - fuck your mother (Score 2) 891

by denzacar (#48824111) Attached to: Pope Francis: There Are Limits To Freedom of Expression

that's what you believe, all power to you to believe whatever it is. I'll argue the other side and we'll see who is more convincing.

It does not work like that.

Those people don't believe. They KNOW.

Religion and its rules gives one the luxury of a fully described, ordered universe.
So just as you KNOW that the fire is hot - they KNOW that you are an abomination. God says so.
The more you argue against it only proves that essential truth.
Everything religious IS essential. Word of god.

The people you "can get along with" don't really believe all that bullshit. They are religiously inert.
They wouldn't slit the throat of their firstborn cause a voice from the heavens or a dream or a vision told them to.
Those who REALLY believe all that shit - they would.

Or they would blow themselves up. Or kill doctors cause god said abortion is murder.
Or that you shall not have false idols, including drawings and sculptures.
He really hates that shit. It's a "kill your own brother" offense.

Comment: False dichotomy and red herrings... (Score 1) 891

by denzacar (#48823959) Attached to: Pope Francis: There Are Limits To Freedom of Expression

And the issue isn't as black/white as that either. Freedom comes with a price-tag; are we all willing to pay the price? And if not, is it right to force the majority to pay the price so that a minority can say what they like without having to fear any consquences? If you actually believe in freedom, then you have to accept that others have the freedom to not want the same as you.

There is no majority/minority dichotomy when it comes to freedom.
Both cost and benefit are suffered and enjoyed by ALL.
It is a presumed, preconceived and built-in feature of a society which aims for any kind of semblance to a society of equal norms of any kind.

You start distinguishing freedoms based on belonging to any kind or size of a group and you've got yourself a society of citizens and non-human humanoid... creatures.
Kinda like people but really lower beings.
You can cut them or prick them as much as you like. They don't really feel things like you and I do.
They only understand the whip. Anything else just does not get through their simpler senses.

And if not, is it right to force the majority to pay the price so that a minority can say what they like without having to fear any consquences?

Freedoms being universal in a society resembling something of a free and democratic one, that imaginary majority can suck a big one and bend over and take up their stupid ass as long as there is something to be given.
And then wait patiently until more is imported from abroad so it could be jammed up their stupid asses.

See... Without the freedom to say what you mean, you can't complain when minority comes into your house and uses you for a poker bucket.
You can't even say "Thank you sir. Please, can I have some more."
No freedom of speech. Sorry. Only freedom to obey left I'm afraid.

If you actually believe in freedom, then you have to accept that others have the freedom to not want the same as you.

Sure, sure...
Just as if you actually believe in money then you have to accept that I can just come into your home and take yours - because I want it.

No... Wait...
Wanting something (or not) does NOT make that a valid claim or argument.
If it did a harem of beautiful women would be servicing my cock at all times. On my private space-station/tropical island. And I'd be immortal.
Beggars and horses.
Them I'd use for target practice.

Nor does WANTING SOMETHING give it ANY validity as an argument for restriction of EVERYONE'S freedoms which are ESSENTIAL for anything like a free society.
Including imaginary unattainable concepts such as safety or security.

I REALLY desire that space station you know. And those beautiful women. And immortality.
I desire it more than any minority or majority could ever possibly desire for oxygen.

And the cock is my penis. Not my rooster.
Those beautiful women would be sucking on it and fondling it gently.
It's a part of a decades long scientific experiment to see if it ever gets boring.

What hath Bob wrought?

Working...