yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeessssssss!

finally. thank the deities.

We laughed at the british armies when we read about the Revolutionary War in school. They would just stand there and take no cover but wait for the enemy to shoot them. They were stupid because of their rules. We laughed at that.

I'm going to call you out for racism. Generalizing something like the coding ability of the millions of coders in either Japan, India, or the US is ludicrous. Some people code well, some people don't. It has a little bit to do with education but mostly with passion and dedication. That can't really be taught and can develop in people at different times in their life. So I think as long as the education is somewhat adequate, the blame and glory of the results rests solely with the individual.

sites.google.com

you get hosting and editing all on the web. it's super easy and most likely will always be up.

It may be that I can write some of that fancy new server side code to generate those 100,000+ files, then cache them to get the same performance. ;)

I'm a 29 year old developer. I've heard this story from at least one co-worker at every company I've been at:

"Boy oh boy, technology X from 10+ years ago was really the best, why did we ever move away from that?"

As if Microsoft and all the other evil companies randomly force everyone to develop in their newest environments. If you like something, use it and stick with it. If you think it makes sense for Microsoft to become obsolete just because you fell in love with their technology, you're a little off your rocker.

As for me, HTML5 and JS is the best technology ever, I'm going to learn that and never have to learn anything ever again ;)

It's ironic that this question is posted on Slashdot. The answer to it is: Slashdot. The moderation system *moderates* viewpoints. It keeps crazies and lazies in check while promoting well thought out posts. Like this one ;)

Agree all the way down to the "the rich can afford to eat well. the poor can't" part. I raised this question to my very intelligent friend. He tried not to be too condescending in his answer:

rice, beans, potatoes

True! But, going along with the GP's post, the dietary caloric value isn't going to tell us whether or not we'll get fat. It's only going to explain how the digestible food will burn. So, it'd be nice if we had *personalized* calories. Our fat cells may be greedier and may take in sugars more readily. If we could measure such things we could have dynamically updating nutrition panels. *That* would be the *Shiznit*!

Seriously, read TFA.

I'm starting to wonder whether people read anything besides the title of articles or websites. Alan Aragon had some very good "let's all calm down" points in his rebuttal to Lustig's lecture. However, neither he nor James Krieger disagree with the idea that sugar is very bad for you. They merely point out that Lustig focuses on fructose in some ways that don't apply to real world HFCS or sucrose intake. They also point out that he uses some absolute phrases like "fructose is absent in the Japanese diet". This is true, Lustig definitely overstated a lot of things. He's definitely angry at fructose because he works with obese children on a daily basis. He behaved like any biased human does when evidence all seems to line up - he exaggerated.

However, from my perspective, Aragon and Krieger mostly agree with Lustig's points of view. The fine distinctions do not "debunk" but strengthen and generalize Lustig's more informal presentation.

Now, it's up to us rational listeners and readers to sift through and sort out what a more objective truth is. Having done that with Lustig, Aragon, and Krieger's articles as well as based on my own research, I'd like to reaffirm: sugar is toxic. Sugar is not good for you, and should be eaten in small quantities. Fructose is worse than glucose. People who eat less sugar and less fructose, and exercise more, those people are healthier.

Michael Phelps would disagree. And as has been pointed out a lot on this thread, it's not a matter of quantity. It's sometimes good to watch the presentation before criticizing the title.

Goodness gracious. As many people have stated, please watch the video before criticizing the title. He specifically makes the distinction between fructose and glucose. He argues the same point about glucose that you just did. He also does not call fructose a drug. He calls it a toxin. I have a feeling you'd agree that fructose isn't food after considering his presentation more carefully.

Cute, but I think his presentation is worth more than uninformed denial. He makes a persuasive case that fructose metabolizes in a dramatically different, and potentially dangerous, way from, say, glucose. He's pointing out new and not so new research that predicts obesity more accurately than the lipid hypothesis. Especially in children. Considering the average age for obese and diabetic people is lower than 80-90 years, I'm scrutinizing his presentation before drinking any more orange juice :)

I fix my computers. My friends' computers. My parents' computers. My friends' parents' computers. I'm so sick of it even though I love computers. I don't love updating and patching and cleaning and defragmenting. I love writing software. So give me an operating system with vim, svn and firefox. Give all my computer troubled friends and relatives an operating system with just firefox. And watch how we can *finally* start taking advantage of technology instead of the other way around.