I first stumbled on this video 8 years ago, "The Bitter Truth About Sugar" by Dr. Robert Lustig. He's an endocrinologist specializing in childhood obesity. It's a long video and he goes through the history of fructose consumption in the U.S. and gives statistics demonstrating the correlation between fructose and weight, but correlation does not imply causation. In the last 19 minutes he goes through the explicit metabolic responses by the human body to ingesting fructose. That convinced me to listen.

So I tried the experiment: severely restrict the amount of sugar (fructose to be precise, not glucose) in my diet: no soda, no candy, no ice cream, no fruit juices that weren't freshly squeezed by myself. The result: I went from 268 lbs. down to 205 lbs in approximately 4 months. He convinced me. The experiment was a success.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

on Reddit's TIFU: https://www.reddit.com/r/tifu/

Unless things have changed, Docker makes use of a feature of the Linux that allows creating processes that are in their own namespace. This feature requires the Linux kernel something that Mac OS X with its BSD kernel does not possess. It might be possible to do something analogous in a BSD kernel, but I don't know about it. Maybe someone else could comment on it?

I think it would be helpful if they medical people in the affected countries would take statistics on how many children were born to woman known to be infected with Zika and keep track of how many were babies were born with microcephaly vs. those who were not. If Zika really is involved then the ratio

#microcephaly & zika/ #no microcephaly & zika should be significantly different than the ratio #microcephaly & no Zika/#no microcephaly & no Zika.

I've seen in the news items of women who were tested for Zika after microcephaly, but that's just confirmation basis. Without the ability to compare the ratios I don't think it's clear that one can conclude that Zika causes microcephaly.

Does anyone know if those statistics have been published anywhere accessible? A google search on papers leads to the Elsevier paywall making the papers useless to me as I don't have an account with Elsevier.

1. The Zika virus has been Africa and Southeast Asia since forever.

2. They don't seem to have microcephalic cases like Brazil has.

3. The virus was introduced into Brazil sometime around 2015.

4. 2015 Brazil sees a 10x increase in microcephalic cases.

So far that seems compelling that Zika is causing the cases. But why aren't we seeing the same thing in Africa or Asia? It's not like the Zika virus in Brazil has had thousands of years to mutate into a version that causes microcephaly, but not the original strain in Africa and Southeast Asia. It's the same virus.

It's not like the people in Brazil don't have the same "immunity" that people in Africa and Southeast Asian people have -- a large percentage of the Brazilian people *have* West African ancestors where the Zika virus has been found.

Here's an alternate hypothesis: some kind of chemical has been introduced into Brazil in 2015 that's causing the birth defects. Maybe a pesticide that hasn't been properly tested, or a morning sickness drug that wasn't tested.

Citations:

For pesticides and birth defects: http://www.counterpunch.org/20... http://americanpregnancy.org/p... and http://www.beyondpesticides.or...

Pesticides and microcephaly: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm... and http://www.gmls.eu/beitraege/1...

For morning sickness drugs: http://www.aboutkidshealth.ca/...

This request is pointless. It's clear how it's advantageous to Microsoft to have their engine used instead of Google's.

But it has NO advantageous to either the node.js project OR the people who make use of node.js. Please don't even consider it.

I recommend git. It's fast, it's easy, it's decentralized so code cowboy can't burn your project. And there are gui's for it for windows as well: https://git-scm.com/download/g...

Since IT has set the policy to a Windows operating system only server, you've had your hands tied as to what technology you can use. Fortunately for you, you can run Docker on Windows: https://docs.docker.com/instal..., which means you'll have access to tens of thousands docker containers for various purposes such as gitlab: https://github.com/sameersbn/d...

For basic test on the code (Syntax errors, pytest/nose/or alike with coverage (of tests), check coding style) it sounds like what you're looking for might be jenkins: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and you can create a docker container for running jenkins on your server: https://github.com/jenkinsci/d... or https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/di...

Maybe it's Maybelline! https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

I thought those numbers were bizarre since I recalled that IE usage dropped had below 50% years ago. Now I see what the issue is. This survey is geared towards desktop usage only, and since the majority of desktops run Windows, and Windows comes with IE, it's no mystery that IE comes out on top. What is surprising is that looking at only desktop usage, IE is only barely a majority and not a slam dunk. That tells you how bad IE must be that people are actively switching away from IE. Hell, Microsoft itself is ditching IE for a new browser codenamed "Spartan" to get away from IE. What does that tell you?

Meanwhile, here are some links to actual web traffic usage patterns seen on the internet here and here. They tell a different story.

Why? I'm being serious here. What's the justification for reigning in google? In Microsoft's case it's obvious how much karma is has burned through and why it needed to be reigned in . Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C....

But what has Google done that was so bad it needs similar treatment? Has it forced anyone to use GoogleOS? Has it forced anyone to use only its browser? Has it forced anyone to use proprietary formats that are patent encumbered and cannot be fully implemented by anyone else? What has it done?

From where I sit all I see is a company that has provided me:

1. An awesome search engine that doesn't mess with me with some lame "best viewed with our lame web browser" message.
2. An awesome maps engine that makes navigation so much easier.
3. A cloud print environment to make it way easy to print to any printer that's cloud print capable and that I have permission to use.
4. A free e-mail service whose spam filter is so good, I have only received 1 spam message in the past 10 years.
5. An easy way to share documents using a FOSS document format.
6. A FOSS operating system for both tablets and phones that does what I need it to do.
7. A FOSS browser whose javascript engine was so good, it spanked every other browser into getting their act together on javascript performance. No chrome, no awesome javascript performance.
8. A Linux based laptop that's so easy to use to browse the internet and at the same I can run my Debian or Ubuntu on it using a chroot if I want. No funkytown licenses. No funkytown registrations. No obnoxious "protect your computer from boogie monster viruses, install/update/stick with our crapware!!!" pop up ads.

So I'm honestly asking again, what exactly has Google done that was so bad? Who has been hurt by its actions?

As a software developer who's been a git user for 7 years, I don't know how I could have written any serious code without git. Branching and merging is trivial. Cloning is trivial. The staging area makes choosing what to commit trivial. git rebase makes life much easier when it comes to reordering/editing/removing commits out of the history. git blame --- such a nice tool. Binary searching to find bugs is trivial. Every git tool is documented to within an inch of its life.

And the icing on the cake? Code cowboy hates git. Like sunlight or garlic to a vampire, Code cowboy abhors git. He can't hold the source code hostage to his every brain damaged whim. He can't hose anybody with a distributed version control system. It's no wonder why Code Cowboy is always yapping away at git -- he can't show off his genius if his code can be ignored.

I've seen a lot of pro and con posts about Microsoft's place in computer history. Maybe this post will help people see it more clearly.

1. Microsoft didn't invent BASIC. BASIC was around since 1964. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B....
2. Microsoft didn't invent DOS. They bought something called QDOS and rebranded it DOS. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8...
3. Microsoft didn't invent ubiquitous computing. IBM created a personal computer based on the Intel 8086. But long before that there was the TRS 80, the Commodore Pet, Apple II, and for those people who preferred to roll their own hardware, there were Heathkit parts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heathkit_H8, and http://oldcomputers.net/heathk...) to build one's own computers.
4. Before there was DOS there was CP/M which could run on Intel 8080, Zilog Z80, Motorola 6502 (it was available as a card for Apple II's). There was even a version for 8086. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP/M)
5. The PC industry began not with Microsoft, but with Compaq who made the first IBM PC clones. You may be too young to remember, but PCs used to be called IBM PCs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
6. Others have already pointed out that GUIs began with Xerox PARC, and the mouse itself goes back to 1968 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mother_of_All_Demos)

So what exactly did Microsoft invent? Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

1. A method of ensuring an operating system monopoly by preventing other operating systems from being preinstalled on OEM equipment.
2. A method of ensuring that OEMs cooperated by giving them a kickback if they cooperated with Microsoft's strategies.
3. A EULA (End User Licensing Agreement) making it difficult, if not impossible, for an individual to decline the license, return the software, and receive a refund for the Microsoft software they didn't want to use.

I don't believe it's immoral or wrong for folks to make their livelihood using Microsoft products, but I do think it's unwise to do business with Microsoft while being ignorant of their long history. I also think it's dishonest not to admit that the Microsoft Corporation has a long history of doing shady things to software partners (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spyglass,_Inc.#Browser_wars and http://www.justice.gov/atr/cas... for example) , OEM vendors, Standards Boards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standardization_of_Office_Open_XML) and lastly to customers (http://www.ecis.eu/documents/Finalversion_Consumerchoicepaper.pdf)

said Tom Persechino, executive director of marketing for the association. "When a person buys an American quarter horse, they want to know that my quarter horse has the blood of these horses running through it, not copies of it."

Does Mr. Persechino not understand what the word "copy" means? Perhaps he's never met twins?

It sounds a lot like the diamond industry where they finally perfected an industrial means of making diamonds at a much lower price than the ones that De Beers charge for their "precious" diamonds. So what does the "precious" diamond industry do? They claim that manufactured diamonds aren't as "precious" as the ones they dig out of the ground. No shit Sherlock! The price is set by the supply, but now the supply is not so small now is it? And as for the diamonds? I don't think they "care" whether they're made in some deep volcanic process or in an industrial plant. They're still... DIAMONDS!

As I understood it the difference is that Internet Explorer was a web browser that could not be uninstalled, and while individuals could and did install other web browsers, the Microsoft OS only used Internet Explorer to do its updates/upgrades via Internet Explorer.

While in this case, the issue is choice of search engine in the Android OS. And that can be (and is) changed by the individual. Unlike the Microsoft case, upgrades occur through the OS not the choice of search engine. There is no vendor lock in, only a default choice.