Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Lest you forget...the music industry is fine... (Score 1) 294

The music business is doing fine

HOW they are doing fine, I have no idea. I know I sound old, mainly because I am, but I am quite astonished what my nearly-teen daughter listens to. It's not that I don't get it... some of it catchy. But so much of it is just terrible in every way. I pull songs off of youtube for her, mainly because I can then monitor what she listens to and I can look up the lyrics as well. Also, she listens to things like parodies of songs and other things that aren't necessarily under the thumb of the music industry.

The other reason I can't believe they doing fine is because the entertainment industry has never really embraced digital music. If they had done so back in '98, '99, 2000, etc. they would have been able to capitalize on the desire for it. Instead, they fought against it. Just like VCRs, cassettes, CDR, DVDR, etc. They just can't loosen their grip on trying to maintain complete control. This is no different.

And I will say, I do listen to youtube at work, it's easy to just pull up some music. And if there is a particular old album out there that I don't have... it wouldn't be inconceivable to just download it from youtube, rip the audio, and run mp3splt with silence detection to get individual tracks.

Comment Re:Something deeper.. (Score 0) 448

> Companies should have the right to pick whoever they want whatever method they please.

I bet you think you sound intelligent when you say that, keepin' it real, being objective, and everything. "Life should be a meritocracy!" screams person who is too unfamiliar with history to notice how humans have never achieved a meritocracy in societies with zero laws barring discrimination throughout history. But if you spend two seconds thinking about it, what you're saying is fucking dumb. Companies can pick whoever they want so long as they obey the law, one of which is not discriminating against gender, race, and other factors, because to let them pick whoever they want would be stupid enough to think that a "leave the companies alone" market discourages or prevents discrimination. Never has, never will.

Comment Re:Bullshit (Score 1) 199

Yea, it will all be produced by windmills, the week after we all have personal jetpacks. But if you look at the reality it is that people keep making things like hydrogen powered trains and cars and all of that hydrogen is being produced by a dirty, wasteful process of breaking down natural gas by partial burning. The net effect is more carbon in the air and supposedly more global worming (not a typo). The train and the windmills will be underwater long before hydrogen is mass produced cleanly. Not that I'm saying that is a bad thing .....

Comment Bullshit (Score 1) 199

CO2-emission-free train

This is a total crock. You have to also look at how the Hydrogen is being produced. And not some theoretical but not real theory of how it could be made by electrolysis, but the real truth of how it is being made by a very dirty and wasteful process that breaks down natural gas and captures some hydrogen in the process. The truth of the matter is it would be much cleaner overall to just run the train on liquid natural gas. This Hydrogen bullshit is all smoke and mirrors with even more carbon being released into the atmosphere.

Comment Re:How so? (Score 1) 210

You're confusing a diet strategy with physiological facts. Changing your diet can be effective because you feel full with fewer calories and because you can avoid rapid rises in blood glucose. Calorie counting often fails because hunger is a strong drive and people tend to cheat, so they take in more calories than they count (or should).

It's not about tricking your body into feeling full. You touched on it when you said glucose. It's about regulating your hormones. The most effective way to do that is through your diet! I know because I have been doing it for four years. Low-carb, high-fat (saturated), no grains (or grain products), or sugar, NO restrictions or even consideration of calories. I lost 15 lbs in the first month and it has stayed off. (I was only 170) No rigorous exercise plan. Joint pain - gone. Back pain - gone. I am not starving myself, I am not hungry. I am often in a mild state of ketosis, or can get there easily. Without 'punishing' myself. I can fast for 24 hours and feel great. I am telling you, calories are a red herring. They play a role, but if you focus on what is important, you can ignore them.

Stop putting things into quotes that I didn't actually say. I said that exercise "influences hormone levels". That is, the amount of calories you burn off with exercise is not that important; what is important is the improvements in mood and physiological changes it causes.

Exercise is great for you, and does influence hormone levels. But you can lose weight without it, it is not required. You can get healthy without it. Your diet is so much more important than exercise in losing weight and being healthy. I didn't mean that to be me quoting you, it was me quoting the phrase "burn off calories" because that phrase is misleading and very simplistic statement around a complex system. Moreover, it's not necessary! Because people think that you have to exercise heavily to burn burn burn away fat. You don't. The oft prescribed "diet and exercise" rarely works because exercising makes you hungry. (work up an appetite) So you eat more (usually carbs) and that gets stored as fat. It's a never-ending cycle, a battle. It doesn't have to be. All you have to do is retrain your body to not rely on carbs for energy. THEN it will use your fat as energy and you will lose it. It's how we came to be, it's in our genes. It's not starvation, it's not tricks. It's pure and simple science.

Comment Re:How so? (Score 1) 210

Fat accumulation is mainly driven in our bodies by hormones, most notably insulin. Learn how that works and what affects it. That's it.

Lucky, then, that you can influence hormone levels through what you eat, how much you eat, and how much you exercise.

You can lose weight and keep it off by changing your diet alone. The others influence it, but to much lesser degrees. If you change WHAT you eat the amount (in quantity or calories) is largely irrelevant. Exercise is good for you, but you don't have to kill yourself trying to "burn off calories"

Knowing your weight, or your physical activity level, means nothing about weight loss. Nothing.

Knowing your weight means determining whether the dietary changes you made in order to lose weight are working. That's important because different bodies react differently to diets and exercise.

Again, hung up on the old "diet and exercise" shtick. Diet, YES - but not "dieting". You don't need a scale to know or help you lose weight.

Calories-in/Calories-out is a small portion of the story,

No, they are actually the entire story: every food calorie that has been absorbed by your body either needs to be burned or stored (primarily as fat).

*sigh* It's like a finger pointing away to the moon. Don't concentrate on the finger or you'll miss out on all the heavenly glory.

Look at human history - allllll the way back. Do you think any of these fads helps us survive as humans? Do you have ANY idea how many generations of people have lived? How did they do it without scales and digital trackers?

Most of those generations lived in an environment of food scarcity and they frequently starved. And obesity isn't usually going to kill you before your reproductive period is over, which is why evolution has erred on the side of gaining weight. (They also lived without antibiotics, but that doesn't mean that antibiotics are useless.)

You really haven't looked at the numbers, have you? Let's roughly estimate.... over 2.5 million years of human evolution, if the average lifespan was 50 years that means that within 100 years there would be 3 full generations. (year 0 - 50 is one, year 25 - 75 is two, year 50 - 100 is three). 2.5MM / 100 = 25,000 * 3 generations = 75,000 generations. [and they overlap, since at year 100, the next generation would have started already] And would be just one "family", which would have obviously grown and spread over time, so if I thought about it longer and harder I am thinking the number would be bigger. So you're saying "most of these generations lived in an environment of food scarcity and they frequently starved". What is this based on? On the fact there were no McDonalds? From what we can tell, we as a people only started agriculture 10,000 years ago. That is a tiny, miniscule part of 2.5 million years! How did we as humans not only survive, but THRIVE and evolve during this time? It wasn't because we could get fat. It was because we weren't relying on grains, starches, processed fats (like vegetable/bean oils) and sugars for fuel. Our bodies haven't adapted to these things well enough yet, which is why we have so much sickness today. (heart disease, obesity, diabetes, cancer, ....) The bad science, pseudo-science, and pure lies behind our dietary guidelines are making us sicker and sicker.

Comment Re:Connectng (Score 1) 76

Your front door can be broken into. Yet you still lock it, because doors are useful and the pragmatic likelihood that somebody will break down your door is a lot lower than somebody walking into it unlocked. The real question I have to wonder if what do hackers have to gain from hacking a car? If the barrier to entry is high enough, there are plenty of easier ways of causing people harm, stealing the car, or whatever other police-procedural fantasy crime you can think of.

Slashdot Top Deals

In 1750 Issac Newton became discouraged when he fell up a flight of stairs.

Working...