Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Curious... (Score 1) 1017

However, the more important question (also answered in the article and the video) is:

Why do people eat more than they need? Why, when the human body can detect when it has enough nutrients and signal satiety to the brain?

The answer being: Because we've developed foods (by using high fructose amounts in them, through sugar) that block those signal paths. We've perfected foods that we want to crave and that don't make us feel we've had enough, so that we can consume more.

Yes, one possible answer to the caloric equation is: Have a strong will, be hungry and you'll be lean. The other is: Eat right, and you'll feel satiated after eating exactly the amount that's needed for your health.

And, btw, the equation assumes that all you eat and is digestible gets digested. That obviously isn't true, when overeating a lot of the food just goes through without the nutrients getting extracted. If that wasn't the case, many people would weigh thousands of pounds today.

Comment Re:Glucose anyone? (Score 1) 1017

To answer the question: Fats and proteins, of course. Meatabolizing both produces ATP - directly useful energy. But they're used only when sugar isn't abundant in the bloodstream. But that isn't the point of the Lustig claim. The point is that there is one specific sugar, fructose, which has a very different buildup. It is a 5-carbon cycle versus a 6-carbon cycle for just about every other sugar. The human body doesn't metabolize fructose well. Specifically when there is plenty fructose available and little energy demand, fructose gets converted directly into harmful fatty acids. The body obtains fructose from HFCS, regular sugar (sucrose) and fruits, particularly pulp-free juices. On the other hand, glucose, the more usual 6-carbon sugar is still considered safe. It only doesn't taste at all as good. And then all the other carbohydrates - starches - are a safe, s 6-carbon-cycle, sources of energy. Eg. potatoes, rice, pasta, bread.

Comment Re:does it run Linux - yea but it is "boring" (Score 4, Informative) 326

The current limit on Linux (with 2.6 series) is 8192 CPUs on POWER and 4096 on x86. And there are even a number of non-x86 machines today that reach these sizes in a cache-coherent (ccNUMA) manner that Linux works well on. You still have to be careful with application design, though, because it's fairly easy to hit bottlenecks either in the application or in the kernel that will limit scalability. Most common workloads are already seeing

"Tube Map" Created For the Milky Way 142

astroengine writes "Assuming you had an interstellar spaceship, how would you navigate around the galaxy? For starters, you'd probably need a map. But there's billions of stars out there — how complex would that map need to be? Actually, Samuel Arbesman, a research fellow from Harvard, has come up with a fun solution. He created the 'Milky Way Transit Authority (MWTA),' a simple transit system in the style of the iconic London Underground 'Tube Map.' (Travel Tip: Don't spend too much time loitering around the station at Carina, there's some demolition work underway.)"

Comment Re:Security enhancement at best (Score 2, Insightful) 59

It just means the clone will have to be a bit more expensive.

Cloned tags aren't using the same cheap chips that the common passive tags do. An attacker can afford to carry batteries with him and make the tag completely locally powered. Then he has much more powerful electronics at his disposal and can simulate whatever frequency response the original tag had due to its cheap (few cents per tag) design.

This fingerprinting will do no more than to force the attacker to pay a few bucks more to create a clone.

Comment Wrong assumptions (Score 5, Insightful) 444

The article assumes that when within a RAID5 array a drive encounters a single sector failure (the most common failure scenario), an entire disk has to go offline, be replaced and rebuilt.

That is utter nonsense, of course. All that's needed is to rebuild a single affected stripe of the array to a spare disk. (You do have spares in your RAID setups, right?)

As soon as the single stripe is rebuilt, the whole array is again in a fully redundant state again - although the redundancy is spread across the drive with a bad sector and the spare.

Even better, modern drives have internal sector remapping tables and when a bad sector occurs, all the array has to do is to read the other disks, calculate the sector, and WRITE it back to the FAILED drive.
The drive will remap the sector, replace it with a good one, and tada, we have a well working array again. In fact, this is exactly what Linux's MD RAID5 driver does, so it's not just a theory.

Catastrophic whole-drive failures (head crash, etc) do happen, too. And there the article would have a point - you need to rebuild the whole array. But then - these are by a couple orders of magnitude less frequent than simple data errors. So no reason to worry again.


Comment Re:Huh? (Score 1) 951

Indeed, the term Darwinism is mainly used by Creationists, the same way that Allopathy is a term coined by practitioners of Homeopathic medicine.

And the reason for that is because creating such a duality makes it seem that both approaches are equally valid. I'm sure there are many more examples ...

Slashdot Top Deals

You're not Dave. Who are you?