Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Why use Flash? (Score 1) 47

by macs4all (#48888187) Attached to: Adobe Patches One Flash Zero Day, Another Still Unfixed

That would be ... a massive step backward. Computing like it's 1994.

My 2013 MBP came without Flash Installed; and to be perfectly honest, while I have, on about one or two occasions, been tempted to install it, ultimately, there has been nothing so far that I MUST have to the point that I have pulled that trigger.

Unless you have a work-requirement to run some sort of Flash app; it just isn't worth the security risk anymore.

One thing that DOES frost me, though, is browsing to a site that works FINE without Flash on iOS (and I presume Android); but which simply REFUSES to open in OS X, unless it sees that Flash is available (no "Open Non-Flash Site", or anything. Just GTFO). That's just lazy and rude. If you, as the site Developer, have worked out a way to avoid Flash on your site, why, oh, why would you REQUIRE it on ANY Platform?

Comment: Re:Worst idea ever. (Well, one of them). (Score 1) 166

by macs4all (#48853773) Attached to: FDA Approves Implantable Vagus Nerve Disruptor For Weight Loss

Cutting 500 calories per day from an obese maintenance diet does not result in a person feeling like they're starving all the time, and it doesn't result in the body going into muscle consumption mode.

Nor will it result in weight loss! even over an extended period of time.

You think it's all a matter of energy accounting. That the body is like a balloon with a small hole in it. And that all you have to do to make the balloon smaller is to stop blowing it up as fast, right?

But it simply isn't that simple. The body really DOES have a say in the matter, and can adjust it's calorie consumption over an astonishingly wide range. So, there is a feedback mechanism at work, and unfortunately, in order to swamp-out that closed-loop,system's ability to compensate, most people who are overweight and insulin-resistant (which is pretty-much the same set), do in fact have to uncomfortably restrict their caloric intake; far beyond the "skip the large fries" level that you high-handed-ly suggest.

Comment: Re:Worst idea ever. (Well, one of them). (Score 1) 166

by macs4all (#48852151) Attached to: FDA Approves Implantable Vagus Nerve Disruptor For Weight Loss

Most overweight people who are otherwise mostly healthy can reduce their caloric intake significantly without feeling like they're "starving all the time."

But they CANNOT simply reduce their caloric intake enough to BOTH lose weight AND not feeling like they are starving all the time.

In experiments, they reduced the caloric intake of obese rats to below what was considered starvation levels, and guess what, the rats' metabolic processes simply adjusted, and there was little to no weight reduction (but I'm sure if you could have asked the rats, they would have said they were "starving").

In fact, when you go into caloric deprivation, you actually consume muscle, not fat. Fat is consumed only as a last resort. This is what makes the anorexics die.

All of the species that survived the last Ice Age were the ones that were able to go for long periods without regular food intake. Caloric restriction, by itself, is abysmally poor at producing weight reduction; but is excellent at producing miserable test subjects.

Comment: Re:Worst idea ever. (Well, one of them). (Score 1) 166

by macs4all (#48852081) Attached to: FDA Approves Implantable Vagus Nerve Disruptor For Weight Loss

There is a simple solution to obesity: change your diet. It's easy, risk-free, and doesn't cost anything (it actually saves you money).

Hopefully, "in 1,000 years", people will consider neurostimulation, surgery or drugs to "treat" obesity to be barbaric and uneducated.

So says the person who hasn't dieted.

Comment: Re:Worst idea ever. (Well, one of them). (Score 1) 166

by macs4all (#48852067) Attached to: FDA Approves Implantable Vagus Nerve Disruptor For Weight Loss

Actually, that theory doesn't seem to explain observations. I have seen research that the suicidal ideation itself can be stimulated by SSRIs, not just the motivation to act on existing suicidal ideation.

Exactly. I know the plural of anecdote is not data; but how many anecdotes DOES it take before it is a good first-approximation of data?

Comment: Re:Worst idea ever. (Well, one of them). (Score 1) 166

by macs4all (#48852059) Attached to: FDA Approves Implantable Vagus Nerve Disruptor For Weight Loss

It's the same shotgun style approach they've been using with SSRI's all these years, the result of which has been a placebo effects, severe anxiety, anger management, even greater depression, teenagers jumping off cliffs and an occasional person whom benefits.

Wish I had Mod points!

Mods: Mod this to Infinity, and beyond!

No truer words were ever spoken. I have been preaching this for about a decade. Most people look at me like I have two heads. But you're right. They have been using SSRIs to turn knobs in the brain, but they don't even know which way to turn them, let alone how far...

Comment: Re:Apple is a horrible counterexample (Score 1) 141

by macs4all (#48831937) Attached to: Google Glass Is Dead, Long Live Google Glass

Pippin. Newton. Macintosh TV. Lisa. Macintosh Portable. eMate. You could argue for both the Apple III, AppleLink, and eWorld to have places on this list as well. And that's not even mentioning the unreleased products that were killed internally, such as Copeland and project Star Trek (well known), and the less well known ones I probably can't mention without violating NDA.

First, who provides support for "products" that never actually become "products"? This removes all of your "unreleased products" (in engineering, we call those "canceled R&D projects"). Quite frankly, your inclusion of those non-products in your argument just makes you sound like you're grasping at straws (which you obviously are, as seen below).

As for the others, Pippin was sold to Bandai; thus Apple had no further responsibility to support it; Macintosh TV: Fairly good idea for the time, but miniscule sales usually means miniscule support for any product from any company; same thing with the Newton, Lisa, Macintosh Portable and the eMate, and the Apple /// as well. Low sales numbers always translates into short product life-cycles, which always translates into abbreviated support.

How much support did MS throw behind Windows ME, for example?

As for AppleLink and eWorld, at that time, there were dozens, if not hundreds, of "internet-y" software packages that simply didn't make it, like, for example, CyberDog; which even had a pretty devoted following; but just not in sufficient numbers to continue developing/supporting it.

But when we look at Apple's product-support track record, overall, there is little argument that can be reasonably made that they fall-short in that category, seriously, when compared with the rest of the "high-tech-consumer-computing-products" industry.

So, kindly cite a "successful" Apple Product that suffered from Premature Support Termination, or STFU.

Comment: Re:Glass was doomed from the start (Score 1) 141

by macs4all (#48831605) Attached to: Google Glass Is Dead, Long Live Google Glass

Yes, just like they supported 680x0 CPUs for years after the switch to PowerPC and again how they gave 110% support for years and years and years for the PowerPC after they switched to x86.

I'm not sure what you mean by "supported"?

Through their JIT 68k -> PPC compiler built into MacOS, you could run 68k apps LONG after their "platform-switch" to PPC. In fact, IIRC, it was only in MacOS 9 that Apple excised all PPC code from the OS itself, because their 68k -> PPC JIT system/Fat Binaries were so successful.

The PPC -> x86 had a similarly glass-smooth transition, first with "Classic" Mode allowing a built-in virtualization of Mac OS9 under OS X, and also with CarbonLib even providing a way for Developers to rather painlessly create Applications that would run seamlessly both in "Classic" MacOS as well as OS X, and Rosetta providing PPC-emulation on x86 systems (however briefly). Not as protracted a transition as the 68k -> PPC one, to be sure; but by that time, I think Apple had decided that the 68k -> PPC had gone on a little too long. But in fact, IIRC, CarbonLib has only now just been deprecated; but I think it is still present, even in Yosemite (but I might be wrong about that).

As for the Newton, I admit they probably could have supported that a little longer; but it was never a very successful product, in Apple terms, and from what I have read, Jobs simply didn't like it.

And finally, the Pippin: Didn't Apple sell that to Bandai? This begs the question: How long should Apple continue to support a product that isn't "theirs" anymore?

Comment: Re:Not very broad (Score 1) 105

by macs4all (#48813833) Attached to: Apple Awarded Gesture-Control Patent

IF they did something super spiffy like authenticating the user via Fitbit, audible pacing of footsteps, and a gesture then the patent still would not be on the concept, it would be on the aggregation of the data in such a manner that it constitutes and unique representation of the user. Definitely patentable

If fictional literary works can be construed as "prior art", then no, it isn't.

In the sci-fi novel "When H.A.R.L.I.E. Was One" (but don't read the nasty politically-corrected 2.0 version!) by David Gerrold, Harlie (an intelligent computer) recognized who was communicating with him (via teletype) by measuring the human's inter-key typing cadence. This is a hop, skip and a step away from your "walking cadence" identification postulated above.

But I don't know if fictional literature can be construed as "prior art".

Comment: Re: Nostalgic for Windows 7? (Score 1) 633

by macs4all (#48808841) Attached to: Microsoft Ends Mainstream Support For Windows 7

Quite pleasant? You can't cut and paste from windows to your Mac. Nor can you open up a simple connection to a random server. You have to actually create a new connection, then open it up. Then delete the connection because why would I want random servers cluttering it.

I will have to re-check; but I thought I did copy/paste from my MBP.

And the RDC Client on my work Windows 7 laptop has that EXACT "Clutter" of "Recent Connections" in the place where you enter "Random Connections"; so I'm not exactly sure what you are whining about...

But I was actually focusing my comments on the performance and the way they smoothly integrated the OS X Menu Bar and Dock from your local machine into the app's Full Screen mode. The Windows RDC Client is MUCH clumsier at handling those same local/remote "context-switching" concepts.

Comment: Re:But (Score 1) 633

by macs4all (#48803473) Attached to: Microsoft Ends Mainstream Support For Windows 7

Install the 8.1 update and select startup to desktop Install classic start menu Disable the idiotic touchpad gestures MS "designed" for Win 8 Optionally install something like ModernMix to be able to run metro apps windowed (I have it installed but never use it)

Voila: A usable Windows installation where one doesn't need to use anything metro/"modern" if one doesn't want to. Somewhat like Windows 7 on steroids.

Do they have that ability on the Server side (i.e. Server 2012) as well? I HATE the constant pawing around in the Start Screen clusterfuck. With Win 8/Server 2012 I always feel like I'm trapped in a maze of twisty passages, all alike.

Comment: Re:Nostalgic for Windows 7? (Score 5, Insightful) 633

by macs4all (#48803317) Attached to: Microsoft Ends Mainstream Support For Windows 7

More and more, I'm finding myself working at places where I really don't have to use a Windows UI if I don't want to. Right now I'm typing this on my corporate-issued MacBook Pro, and only rarely do I bother logging onto a Windows server (vSphere client, and even then only out of habit since the web-client works pretty much as well).

Just an aside: I'm no fan of MS, even though I have to work in a Windows environment; however, when dealing with MS Servers, I have found that the recent versions of the Microsoft RDC Client for OS X is actually even more capable, just as fast (or maybe even faster), and a WHOLE lot better-mannered than even the Windows native RDC Client.

If you run OS X, but need to "Remote-In" to Windows Servers/Workstations, check it out. It's free, and quite pleasant.

And now I have to go wash my hands for typing something complimentary about Windows...

The reason that every major university maintains a department of mathematics is that it's cheaper than institutionalizing all those people.

Working...