Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:BMI is 2d but people are 3d (Score 1) 329

Health is much too complicated to be defined in such a simple way

But health is too important to be NOT defined in simple ways. Everyone will not study the human body for 10 years. Simple ways to keep healthy, and detect if you could be going wrong are essential. Human body being complex, simple ways don't turn out to be perfect. But I haven't seen a better substitute for BMI.

Comment Re:Who the F gets to live without competition? (Score 1) 417

Except that is NOT the argument made by the person to whom I responded

In your response, you said "People keep arguing that London's black cabs are better than Uber and therefore Uber should not be allowed to compete with them". Emphasis mine. The poster to which you replied did not argue this at all. He just said drivers of black cabs have been shown to be superior, and can't conceivably be "peer" to ones with lower barriers to entry. So your strawman has 2 variances with that poster :
1. No "therefore" or equivalent in that post
2. He didn't say Uber should not be allowed to compete - just that they are not peers. So Uber drivers paying extra tax might suffice. Or some extra certifications.

In addition, you are the first person to make the argument that London with only black cabs is better than London with black cabs and Uber

No. This post , the medcine doctor example, is similar, just that mine was more in your language - in the sense that some things are better than others and people choose between them. You narrow mindedly reduced choice to taxis rather than whole cities.

The post that I link to above, while essentially being similar argument, didn't use "your" language - but went into how choices have other impacts. The choice with side-effects again IS choice but at a higher level than strictly the object being chosen.

Comment Re:BMI is a lie! (Score 1) 329

Neither have you posted the contrary. This is just a random request

Random request? You came up with random people, with their BMI values, and YOU don't think they are "overweight", without defining "overweight". If you can't go into those people's future from the time the photograph was clicked, and find their health problems, your opinion on their being overweight is meaningless.

Anyhow, I've posted links showing that waist to height is preferable

Which doesn't really show it is preferable. It doesn't answer the women question. Secondly, a large majority of men develop lots of fat only near their abdomen. While waist to height ratio does correctly predict higher CVD incidence for such people, the pattern of diffuse fat deposition all through the body causes higher joint strain. Waist to height ration does nothing to predict that. This diffuse fat deposition pattern while being more popular in women, is not limited to women.

If you narrow down the purpose of a metric to CVD prediction, that too correctly only in males, waist to height ration could be said to be better.

around 5-10%

Funny, you don't consider the ~50% women important but 5-10% "incorrect" predictions makes BMI a "lie" ?

Comment Re:BMI is a lie! (Score 1) 329

Waist to height ratio doesn't work well on females because with low testerone levels, fat deposition isn't primarily around the waist. False positives are because it catches the health risks due to hormone imbalance in women. A large paunch is anyway a health risks in males, so this metric doesn't bring much to the table.

BTW you haven't posted health risks in future for the individuals by whose photographs you declared them non-overweight.

Comment Re:Sugar (Score 1) 329

The math seriously works out to something akin to a 200 pound man needing to climb ~20 flights of stairs to burn the equivalent of a single piece of white bread. (90-100 calories?). That's a lot of stairs. And that's only assuming his appetite wouldn't increase to accommodate the increased output

Actually exercise reduces food cravings. See this and this. I admit these don't sound like the last word, scientifically, but I have other arguments :

1. Personal experience - being an irregular exerciser, I know both states of mind. The exerciser me yields a lot less to temptations.

2. Comfort food : Lots of people eat because they are depressed. Exercise reduces depression.

3. That's a lot of stairs : The one who exercises knows that a LOT of exercise is required to burn a little extra food. He also knows the effort / pain/ willpower required to exercise that much. The one who doesn't exercise, doesn't know at least one of these. Since it is a lot of stairs to burn the extra bread, the exerciser is more likely to choose to not eat the extra bread.

Comment Re:BMI is a lie! (Score 1) 329

Really? I think the following people aren't overweight

From looks, that too clothed? How is your opinion any useful?

For a metric to be successful, it should be fit for a purpose. The purpose of BMI is NOT to tell whether a person looks overweight to Alomex when appropriately camouflaged in clothes.

The purpose of BMI to be an easy to compute formula for easy to obtain raw metrics to determine chances of disease. It is a difficult problem to solve. If the only objection to BMI is that overweight people according to BMI "look" non-overweight to you, that is a great metric.

Do you have an alternative ? Equally easy to calculate on equally easy to obtain raw metrics with better chance of predicting lifestyle disease than BMI? You could win a Nobel. Though I guess like all nit-picking-non-Nobel-laureates, you just don't understand the purpose of things you are picking nits in.

Comment Re:Who the F gets to live without competition? (Score 1) 417

It is not that the black cabs are better than Uber cabs. It is that the London (+ suburbs) which can only have black cabs is expected to be better than the London (+ suburbs) which can have non-black cabs. Expected by the people of London, and I can see why they expect this.

May not be true, but the decision should be theirs.

Comment Re:Physically impossible (Score 1) 426

The universe however is a Turing machine

No it isn't. It isn't even a machine.

memory, the abiltity to read memory the ability to write to memory the ability to inciment and decriment data stored in memory, and at the minimum run a NAND instruction on data.

And most human memories cannot write to infinite memory addresses and recall them correctly - which is a necessity for being a Turing machine. Not even a trillion memory addresses, most would make significant errors within hundred memory addresses.

So no, humans are a very poor approximation of a Turing machine.

Probably you need to understand that Turing machine is a theoretical concept and there need not be actual Turing machines in the world for that to make sense or be useful.

Comment Re:Bad syllogism (Score 1) 426

Freewill may be an illusion, but consciousness is NOT an illusion, at least to me. In fact it is the ONLY THING that I can be sure of!

The question is not about whether one's own consciousness is an illusion. But that how can you tell that the computer someone has built is actually conscious, or just behaves that way.

So all your "knowledge" about your own consciousness does zilch to tell you that what it is to call someone else "conscious". Even if you are very close to a person, you cannot tell for sure whether they are conscious or just behaving that way. As a scientific definition, the "feeling" that one is conscious is useless. As is the epistemological truism that one's consciousness is the only certain thing in the world.

Comment Re:Bad example (Score 1) 800

Yes, and helping yourself comes first. By swerving in any direction, you might give evidence for your prosecution that you had time to swerve. By not swerving, you could argue you never had time. A jury might even forgive you for being dumbstruck. Unless your blood has one in a gazillion trace of alcohol or "drugs".

Slashdot Top Deals

"The voters have spoken, the bastards..." -- unknown

Working...