Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment: Processed foods (Score 0) 235 235

I suspect processed foods are not harmful

There are countless credible scientific studies that suggest otherwise. They're not even hard to find. Not all processed foods are bad. Some processing techniques like pasteurization are demonstrably beneficial. But there is plenty of evidence to suggest that moderation should be exercised in their use.

A raw food diet is a lot likely to be less optimal

It's not about raw foods. It's about what is done to the foods. Processed foods purchased from a store tend to have high amounts of sugar, salt, fat, preservatives, additives and other ingredients to make them more appealing and/or have longer shelf life. Some processing is fine and even necessary. But it's really easy to eat a very poor diet if you aren't careful with processed foods.

If you cook from fresh ingredients, guess what you're still eating processed food.

You are not necessarily however eating preservatives, ingredients of substandard quality, chemicals with unpronounceable names, excessive amounts of sugar, salt, fat and other needless additives.

Comment: Extrapolating from anecdotes (Score 2) 235 235

Yankees first baseman just gave up milk as well and says he's never felt better.

Good for him. That has nothing to do with me or millions of other people. I drink milk daily and I feel great. Times when I've gone without it had no effect on me positive or negative. So what exactly am I to learn from your anecdote?

even if you're not allergic to milk like I am, it's not very good for you after a while

And your evidence for this is what exactly? Unless you have a specific digestion problem with dairy (and many people do) every bit of evidence suggests it is a fine part of a balanced diet. It's on the food pyramid and every dietician I've ever met will tell you dairy is just fine. We're mammals so milk is one of the things that sort of defines us. It's basically the perfect food for a mammal nutrition-wise so long as you can digest it safely.

Comment: Effects of processed food (Score 0) 235 235

Really? Where? Just because canned food is "processed" it does not make it bad for you.

There are countless studies out there regarding the health effects of processed foods. Twenty seconds on Google should answer your question.

And i have never seen a study to support this assertion in any way or form.

Then you haven't looked. You might want to actually study the issue before discussing.

After all bread is processed foods!


Comment: Unsupported assertions (Score 4, Informative) 235 235

generally eating gluten free is better for your digestive system

There is no credible scientific study I am aware of that supports this statement. If you wish to assert this you need to provide non-anecdotal evidence, preferably in the form of a double blind study supporting this assertion. I am not aware of any evidence that gluten is measurably harmful to individuals without celiac disease, an allergy or other form of gluten sensitivity. This is a very small portion of the population (somewhere between 0.5% and 1%) that is known to be affected. The best available evidence appears to clearly show that if your aren't part of that population then avoiding gluten is a waste of effort.

if you want to stay young, avoid as many processed foods as you can.

Again you are asserting that "staying young" is linked to avoiding processed foods. While there is evidence to support that processed foods are frequently harmful if consumed regularly over time, you cannot automatically generalize this to link it to biological aging (versus chronological aging) without evidence. There may very well be a link but it is unproven at this time. I understand that it sounds reasonable but lots of things sound reasonable that aren't actually true.

Comment: Working from home is no panacea (Score 1) 281 281

I see it as a win-win; you're able to work in the home environment you are most productive in, and you can use the time you would've been commuting to work a bit longer for the employer

I've worked from home in years gone by. Speaking for myself I'm definitely NOT most productive working from home. Far too easily distracted. I also know several other people who have worked from home and had the same experience. Furthermore people generally do not use the commute time to squeeze in another hour of work in general. Some people can work effectively from home. I would say most are more effective in an office.

Not only that, but you're not adding to road congestion either.

True, though most companies really don't care about that much if at all. They regard that as your problem, not theirs and the marginal decrease of one car from the road is basically negligible.

Skype, etc. make communication with coworkers a snap these days.

It makes it easier but it isn't the same as being in the same building. Furthermore it is MUCH easier to have a quick group meeting in person than through video conferencing. There tends to be a lot of administrative overhead with phones and video. Now that isn't always a bad thing since too many meetings is possibly worse than too few. I've noticed programmers frequently think that a few skype calls is all that is needed to communicate effectively with coworkers and that often is not the case. A distributed team presents some very real challenges to work effectively together.

Comment: Buy what works for you (Score 1) 293 293

They were compelling reasons to me. The market obviously judged the player a colossal failure, but I loved mine.

Nothing wrong with that. I've bought some products myself that were a bit off the beaten path. You have to buy what works for you.

The truck I drive right now is probably the slowest selling pickup on the US market but it was excellent value for money and fits my particular needs almost perfectly. I've always been mystified why people aren't more objective about their actual needs versus buying something that is popular but a bad fit for them. For example the Ford F150 is the best selling vehicle in the US but most people that buy them would actually be better served by a different vehicle based on what they actually do with it. People want bad-ass off-road trucks but only something like 5% of drivers ever leave the pavement.

Comment: Fun, But Useless (Score 3, Funny) 129 129

This is a fun device that can show you what can be done with 3D printed plastic. That said, it's useless. It would be really cool if I could apply 1 pound of force to the crank, turn it a Million times, and have it apply a Million pounds of rotational force at the other end. But it's made of plastic, so it won't do that. Indeed, the fast-rotating parts would wear out before the slow-rotating part made a single turn. So it's not even good as a kind of clock.

All that said, it's a good conversation piece, and probably worth the price for that.

Comment: Re:Your biggest screw up (Score 1) 439 439

Reddit was started as an experiment in free speech.

Wait, what?

I recall Alex coming on Slashdot a lot to promote Reddit when he first launched it. "An experiment in free speech" was not anything I recall being discussed. I also remember him posting on Slashdot while still developing reddit.

What I recall, is promotion of a general interest platform that was more open than Slashdot (unlimited moderations for all!) and less susceptible to vote brigading than Digg.

It was while ago, so I may be a bit foggy on the specifics.

Comment: Re:Dwindling airable land? (Score 1) 256 256

I think what the Libertarians fail to realize is that farmers, as a general rule, are not smart enough to diversify or maintain course.

First, I think that's a ridiculous assertion. Smart farmers don't diversify because the taxpayers bear the risk of their crop failure, or of crashing prices; they have insufficient incentive to diversify.

Second, if we had a true free market, dumb farmers would go out of business and we would be left with smart farmers allocating resources efficiently. Isn't that the point of economic libertarianism?

Note: I am far from libertarian.

Comment: Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'? (Score 1) 256 256

What do you mean by cyclical? Do you mean the livestock/fertilizer/crop/fodder cycle? Do you mean crop rotation? Or something else entirely?

Just curious, since I'm not aware of either cyclical production or crop rotation being a requirement for organic farming (although both are considered best practices).

Comment: Solar panels and useful rooftops (Score 1) 256 256

Where are we gonna put the solar panels?

How about on the roofs that don't have gardens on them? Not like we're going to put a garden on every roof. At some point there is really no excuse for not putting solar panels or gardens or something productive on rooftops.

Comment: Put away the tinfoil hat (Score 0) 293 293

I listen to music on my iPod and I happened to own a dumb phone.

Your choice and that's fine but it puts you firmly in the minority these days.

And while a new phone would be great, not only can I not afford it, the amount of eavesdropping that can be done on a smart phone really makes it a stupid purchase this day & age.

Strange that I have nearly minimum wage employees working for me that somehow manage to afford a smartphone. Maybe you should use some of your time to seek a better job instead of posting here. Anyway it's quaint how you think that not having a smartphone makes you immune to eavesdropping. I think you might have a little of the paranoia. Here's a clue, "dumb" phones are just as easy to track as smartphones.

The convenience of a smartphone, does it really outweigh the negative aspects of having a device that records everything you do?

Once you put away your tinfoil hat the answer is yes.

Comment: Zune was a bad value not a bad product (Score 1) 293 293

I loved the brown version. It was beautiful. Whether it was ahead of its time, or behind its time, or just too niche, I don't know. I just know it looked fantastic in person and literally like crap in pictures.

The Zune wasn't a terrible product. It was a terrible value. The iPod rules the market at the time. For Zine to matter it either needed to be substantially better than the iPod or substantially cheaper to get people to care about it. It needed to be a better value proposition. Instead it was roughly comparable for a similar price. If your choice is between two effectively identical products, people are generally going to pick the one that is more popular and better known. People already knew the iPod worked pretty well and it already had the mind share. Microsoft hugely overestimated the value of their brand and provided nothing more than a me-too product with little to set it apart.

As for other compelling reasons: the Zune had better sound quality, better software, and a better screen than the iPod.

I think it's pretty much safe to say that almost nobody agrees with you on this. Even if all those things were technically better like you claim, they weren't enough better that it mattered. The sound from an iPod and the screen quality was more than good enough for all but the pickiest of customers. Zune did not change that. As for the software Zune being "better", I think you'll have a hard to proving that objectively even allowing for the fact that iTunes is widely regarded as rather poor quality. It certainly wasn't better enough to matter and I cannot recall any press proclaiming it to be even the slightest bit revolutionary or superior.

Comment: Re:Why nobody cares about Zune (Score 2) 293 293

I can't figure out how people use a phone for music; my phone has 16 GB capacity, and I have 105 GB of music

Really? You can't figure that out? My phone as a 128GB capacity and my music library is less than that. No disrespect intended but you have what is basically a cheap phone by today's standards. I never, ever need to sync my phone to change the music on it and honestly I couldn't be bothered even if storage capacity were an issue.

Constantly re-syncing my phone based on what I feel like listening too gets to be very tiring.

So don't. I never have. Buy a phone with a large enough capacity and get on with life.

The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance.