Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

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

The first one is the pumpkin woman - I covered her already: Photo is distant, front on, fully clothed, wearing stripes so hard to judge her shape. However, she certainly doesn't look skinny.

The 2nd photo looks like a professionally shot photo, very likely for a magazine. Indeed, you can see writing in the bottom left corner, as if from a catalogue. It's suspicious that this photo is in there. If this photo hasn't been retouched, well it's certainly been shot to show this woman in the best possible light. Further, again, she's wearing stripes and its front on - making it hard to tell.

The 4th: He's got a slightly baggy shirt on, so hard to be sure, but from the way it goes in at his belt, he may well have a very slight paunch - which would be very consistent with 'overweight', no?

The 5th: He's about my height, and he's definitely heavier set than I am - you can see some spare subcutaneous fat between his neck and jawline.

I am right on the line between normal and overweight, FWIW. My face and neck and shoulders probably look like I'm not carrying much fat. However, I still have a slight spare tyre around my midriff. Further, under the skin is not the only place fat accumulates. It also accumulates around the organs. People can look relatively thin if judged just on the upper body or legs or skin, but still be overweight because of visceral fat.

I think the problem perhaps is that people have become accustomed to overweight being "normal". However, it wasn't. If I look through old photos, from my grandparents times when my parents when kids, in the 50s and 60s, to when I was a young child in the 70s, it is *striking* to me how people then were generally much thinner than people today, particularly pre-middle-aged adults (e.g. my parents).

Just because overweight has become "normal" in the sense that most western populations are now overweight, doesn't mean it is "normal" with respect to a healthy weight.

Comment Re:Sugar (Score 1) 329

Yeah, portions have increased. It's especially noticeable when you compare plate sizes. I did this last time I was at my mother's: We compared the old plates she still had from the 70s, to the more modern plates we use today. The modern ones are much bigger. The old dinner plates, you'd use them for lunch or cakes or appetisers today.

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

I went through the first 21 or so of those photos, and the BMI classification doesn't seem at all wrong to me. The most "contraversial" one might be the 3rd photo - woman in front of the pumpkin - but the photo doesn't really show you her shape, and the stripes also hide it. She doesn't look skinny though.

That photoset basically affirms the utility of BMI as a heuristic diagnostic, for me. (I'm a hair under overweight, which I think is pretty fair).

Comment Re:Sugar (Score 1) 329

How old are you? Specifically, are you still in your twenties? I'm late thirties, ~178 cm and 73 kg, which I maintain by cycling and limiting sugar and snacking. Cycling alone is not sufficient to control my weight. To really not have to watch what I eat, I'd have to be doing professional-cyclist levels of it (i.e. many hours each day, and >500 kilometres / week).

Comment Re:Also how is the backhaul? (Score 1) 142

In this case, the connection out of Svalbard is decent - 10 Gb/s, "with a future potential capacity of 2,500 Gbit/s" via currently unused fiber. See Svalbard Undersea Cable System.

One imagines that with the $50 million cost partly funded by NASA, that they also paid some attention to the peering connection at Harstad, where the connection terminates.

Comment Re: Combined with the ringing phones ? (Score 1) 382

Mobile GSM phones are well capable of talking to towers on the ground at 35k feet. That's only about 10 kilometres. There will likely also be several towers within roughly equal distance with good line of sight. Indeed, one part of the reason mobile phones have been banned in aircraft for so long is because they would interfere with the *ground*. The fear being that having thousands of stations moving fast overhead, in range of potentially dozens of towers at the same time and roaming across them, would be too taxing for GSM to handle, causing service issues.

I've had phone conversations with people in aircraft, at altitudes of around 20k to 25k feet (6.1 to 7.6 kilometres), with them ringing on their GSM phones and it worked fine.

Comment Re:READY OR NOT IS NOT THE ISSUE!!! (Score 1) 2219

Not just 6 digit IDs.

I've just had a look at the beta, and it's a bit bizarre. Pointless huge images. Lot more redundant white-space. No comment links. UIDs are not shown. The comment posting box is missing "Post anonymously". There doesn't seem to be any benefit to the redesign. It very much smacks of change merely for the sake of change, which is not good.

Slashdot Top Deals

The moving cursor writes, and having written, blinks on.

Working...