I guess you're either trolling, or ignorant. Feel free to check out the blog of M.D. Michael R. Eades at http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/ as well as his books, and "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by Gary Taubes (and a heap of other great books, none of which I can recall at the moment).

Natural fats aren't bad for your health. No, not even saturated fat. Do yourself and those close to you the most important favor you'll ever do and read some science on nutrition instead of gobbeling up the official nutritional guidelines with an unhealthy side-dish of insulin-raising, unnecessary carbohydrates.

As Gary Taubes, author of "Good Calories, Bad Calories" says, workout out makes you hungry. Everyone has heard about "Working up an appetite" but for some strange reason forgets it when they talk about exercise. If you just eat based on hunger, working out will do nothing to lower your weight. It will of course help cardiovascular health, and weight lifting helps keep your metabolism and good hormones up, your stress hormones down, helps your mental health and staves off the debilitating weakness of ageing.

As Mr. Taubes says in the book, it's not all about the calories though. A huge part of the problem these days is the massive consumption of carbohydrates. Carbohydrates raise blood sugar, which raises insulin levels, which promotes fat storage, inhibits release of energy from fat tissue and promotes inflammation, associated with next to all our "western diseases" like heart disease, stroke, Alzheimer's, fibromyalgia and so on. If you eat bread/pasta/rice/etc. 5 times a day because many small, supposedly healthy meals will help you loose weight, your insulin levels will be chronically high and it will be exceedingly hard to burn off any fat.

I know iWhatever probably saved Apple but really, what advantages have their products every had? I know the history (somewhat) but to me it seems that for every Apple product praised as the second coming of Christ, there has always been a better, competing product.

Another user just replied to another post I made, saying something along the lines of "Macs can run any OS, but OSX only runs on Macs". Is this true? If so, that is an artificially imposed limit by Apple to keep people buying their hardware despite them only really producing plastic cases and OSX. If OSX could be run on any hardware that can run Windows and Linux, I expect Apple would see a soul crushing dip in sales. Paying for a pretty OS on a pretty box is one thing. Paying for just the plastic casing though..

Heh, I still have my Chieftec Dragon fulltower in the basement, complete with a shitload of fans, side window, cold cathode lights, the works. The reason I said Lian Li is that they have some incredibly smooth looking aluminum cases that would fit much better in some minimalistic design apartment (or Apple's commercials) than (personal opinion warning) Apple's rickety, cheap-looking plastic stuff.

Thanks for your reply, but you completely missed the mark. I am genuinely curious as to what advantages Apple offers and posted a couple of reasons as to why I can't really see any, except it's supposed "simpleness" and "it's what the young folk use"-factor which appeals to people like my parents.

So come on, what are the advantages? What is the reason people get so territorial whenever Apple is brought up?

Really? You can't run OS X on any hardware, or at least any hardware that can run Windows? I didn't know this and if it's true, it's a huge weakness imposed by Apple to keep people who like OS X buying their hardware. If a Mac can run OS X, Win and Linux, then (barring artificial limitations) a computer containing the exact same hardware can surely do the same.

Again I have to ask, how is <Apple product in question> different from/better than <competing product>? When it comes to phones, I have had the questionable pleasure of using a Nokia N97 for a couple of months. I have also tried an iPhone 3G and a couple of HTC phones. My current phone is the HTC Desire and I must admit, I haven't loved a tech gadget this much since my SNES (hell, I can even play SNES games on it!). The closedness, lack of features and general asshattery of Apple just makes the HTC (with Android) a much more tempting choice, not to mention the immense amount of available apps and the powerful hardware.

As I posted further up, I used to get why Apple existed and did well. They filled a niche market by delivering hardware and software that performed certain tasks (video editing, Photoshop, etc.) better than a general purpose ("IBM") computer. Now though, an Apple computer is just a very expensive computer you can't really upgrade* in a shiny plastic case. It can run any OS and any software for that OS, as can any (much cheaper) computer I build to spec myself and stuff in a Lian Li case.

What are the advantages of Apple? Why is this flamewar still going strong, when Apple strictly speaking doesn't make anything but cases, an OS and the undeniably smooth but horribly locked-down iPhone (stripped/enlarged to produce iPod/iPad)? What's left to argue about..?

*Well, technically you can but doesn't warranties and such hinder you from doing such things freely?

I get the main point of your post, and I agree. In all fairness to Microsoft and all their *cough* previous escapades though, Windows 7 doesn't run bad at all on a 2008 laptop. In fact, Win7 doesn't run half bad on the 5 years old mid-end laptop I installed it on the other day, and runs very smooth on the 4 years old mid/high-end desktop computer at home.

Neither have I, because I value my freedom to buy and, you know.. own stuff almost as much as I value my hard-earned cash. I will never own an iPhone of any kind. I've used my fathers iPhone 3G a bit though to see what the big fuzz was about and my (subjective, I guess) conclusion is that my HTC Desire far outperforms the iPhone in every possible way relevant to my use (application availability (SNES/NES/GB emulators), connectivity, menu navigation, display quality, touch responsiveness, etc.).

Also.. why on Earth is Apple still around? I don't mean to be an uninformed ass but "back in the day", Apple computers were something wholly different. Different hardware, different OS, a lot of (specialized) software performed better thus companies doing design and such gladly payed to get the best tool for the job. These days though, an Apple computer is exactly the same as any other desktop computer except I don't control what goes into the fancy plastic casing.

Compared to building my own computer and stuffing it in a Lian Li case (which, by the way looks far more awesome than anything Apple ever made), what advantage(s) does an Apple computer have?

Except for the MagSafe. That shit is awesome, even if it's just a new application of an old idea.

I dream of the day when someone makes (and releases) an implantable blood glucose sensor. In October 2006, a company called Digital Angel was awarded a patent for an implantable, blood glucose measuring RFID-tag. From what I recall they even had a working device. The only downside was that due to scar tissue and encapsulation the chip needed to be removed every 6 months and a new one implanted, something any MD with a scalpel could do.

"Drive-thru"-surgery every 6 months to have constant blood glucose measurements? Yes please! Anyone know where this tech went? As a Type 1 Diabetic, it'd probably extend my lifespan by 10 years. Oh, and I could buy an RFID-reader and make my own data logger with graphs and biofeedback and everything!

First of all, I think it's awesome. Of the thousands upon thousands of people who have eye prosthetics, he is the first who both got the idea and actually got it made.

Second, he could see with this. Read up on Sensory Substitution, perhaps most relevant: the Tongue Display Unit. Currently at 25x25 resolution and a size of 3x3cm, the TDU is an electrode array placed on the tongue used to display information from other modalities through the tactile modality.

Wicab is currently working on higher resolution prototypes but research (going back 50 years) show that as little as 10x10 "taxels" is enough to recognize a familiar face. They are also theorizing about making the array wireless and putting it in a retainer-type mount. Imagine coupling this with the EyeBorg eye for anyone who has lost an eye. The TVSS (Tactile Visual Substitution System) is already working well enough to let users navigate and read signs etc. with a camera mounted on a pair of glasses. Imagine how much more natural the integration would be if the camera was in an eyepiece that looks around in sync with the remaining, working eye!

Also, pure freaggin Terminator awesomeness!

I don't think you really thought that through.. If we (being intelligent) create life, the ID'ers will just start screaming "AHA! Told you so! Life had to have an intelligent designer, it didn't just pop out of thin air now did it?". Effing morons.. =(

Best. Analogy. Ever.

I would, as politely as can be done, suggest that you stop talking out of your ass about things you obviously know precious little about, apart from the "facts" (dipped in corn syrup and chocolate and rolled in sprinkles) you've been spoon fed by the AHA and their ilk.

Yes, malnutrition is bad for you. What on earth does that have to do with carbohydrates? I just had a huge salad of Chinese cabbage, broccoli, celery and 4 boiled eggs. I've also finished off at least 100g of paranuts today. Does it sound like my body isn't getting enough nutrients..?

Another thing you seem oblivious to is the fact that most vitamins are found in fatty meat. We have essential fatty acids, essential amino acids, but no need what so ever of dietary carbohydrates. That's right. What? You thought you got fat-soluble vitamins from low-/no-fat veggies and bread?

If you cared to actually educate yourself on the subject at hand, you'd know that we evolved to eat meat. In fact, we probably evolved because we had such a high density energy source available, and to get it we needed intelligence and cooperation. We ate a diet consisting almost entirely of meat and fat supplemented by nuts and berries (and the occasional apple now and then) for millions of years and we were fine. Archaeological findings tell us that primitive man was bigger and built more solidly than us. Hell, they didn't even have tooth cavities, because they hardly ate any carbs.

Then comes agriculture, and the industrial revolution. In the decades prior to ~1970 about 11-13% of the American population was obese. Then, Ansel Keys and his fat-phobic peers got their way (and private funding) and in the next 10-20 years the percentage of obese Americans skyrocketed. Same with diabetes, ADHD/ADD, and a host of other so-called "life style" diseases.

Sure, historical evidence and correlation is not the same as a double-blind trial but at some point the numbers in favor of one side of the debacle become so overwhelmingly out of proportion, you just can't ignore the facts anymore. Oh, and for 40 years now AHA, ADA, ACA, etc. have put countless millions (if not billions) of dollars into proving their "saturated fats==high cholesterol==heart disease"-theory, without one single reliable study confirming any relationship between cholesterol and heart disease.

Enough about that, you're not going to listen to reason anyways. Regarding your advice to see my dietician.. Well, I have Diabetes Type 1 (the insulin dependent, "WTF happened?"-type) and yet I am adviced to eat precious little protein compared to how active I am, next to no fat and at least 60% of my daily energy intake from carbohydrates.

Do you know what happens if a Type 1 diabetic tries to eat that much carbohydrates every day? I die. Horribly. First I lose my eyesight, then neuropathy sets in with burning pains so intense it's better to have the extremeties amputated (which is what is done). Then the kidneys fail, and I am left a broken husk of a man. This is near inevitable even with blood glucose measurements several times a day, regular (according to the State) well composed meals, etc.

You know what happens when a Type 1 diabetic eats low carb? Kidneys work flawlessly, blood glucose is completely stable 24 hours a day, concentration and energy levels are higher and more stable than for years. What's even better, I'm taking one shot of 12-hour insulin each morning, down from 12-hour insulin morning and night and quick acting insulin at every damn meal.