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


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

Comment Re:Wondering how it will compare to the real thing (Score 1) 81

Was going to post something, the planet is trying to kill you. They don't have to worry about their suits or habitats failing.

We're never going to be able to test the actual psychological toll of these factors, and they're pretty significant ones, and who knows how they'd affect behaviour over time -- even in the 'right' people. Funnily, the submarine comments above are probably more relevant than people give them credit for. It would add a bit more weight and realism to what they're doing. Or sniper robots set up around the perimeter that might go off at any time. ;)

This is not to discount the simulation, there's still a lot more to prep and plan for, but there's an extreme psychological pressure that we won't know the effect of.

Comment Re:And the next food craze starts (Score 1) 176

Well, no, you targeted me specifically. Cheap shots rarely improve a conversation as well, as something to consider.

Why do you disagree about saturated fats? What do you know that nearly every other dietician doesn't know, and that countless studies have determined? Just because you like how something tastes doesn't mean you should eat it. Dogs love the taste of antifreeze, but it'll kill them every time.

You're probably right about the subsidies, smaller scale agriculture gets even less subsidies. Crops like soy, wheat and corn are helped quite a bit, but part of the reason is that 70% or more of all that's grown is fed to livestock (at least here in Canada and the US.) It's all pretty slanted, and not towards what really improves our health.

Comment Re:And the next food craze starts (Score 1) 176

10kgs of cow's milk goes into making 1kg of cheese. How can you possibly say that's not 'concentrated'?

By your standards, they shouldn't call 'concentrated orange juice' concentrated's only 3 cans of water to make 4 cans of OJ, and is significantly less concentrated than the 1:10 cheese ratio (at least, by every other standard than yours. ;)

Comment Re:And the next food craze starts (Score 1) 176

Please show me one credible study that shows animal fats are "good for you". There have been some recent studies indicating they may not be "as bad" as some other studies suggest, but I've not come across any that say they're "good", as-in, everyone should increase how much you eat. Every nutritional body (ADA, WHO, etc) recommends restricting animal fat consumption. For example:

Less than 30% of total energy intake from fats (1, 2, 3). Unsaturated fats (e.g. found in fish, avocado, nuts, sunflower, canola and olive oils) are preferable to saturated fats (e.g. found in fatty meat, butter, palm and coconut oil, cream, cheese, ghee and lard) (3). Industrial trans fats (found in processed food, fast food, snack food, fried food, frozen pizza, pies, cookies, margarines and spreads) are not part of a healthy diet.

Do a little research into how much egg is in mayo. (Spoiler: very little.)

You say milk is for kids, yet cheese is concentrated milk. It's like saying Kool Aid is for kids, but eating the packets without water is okay.

Fruits, vegetables, grains, etc, are typically cheaper than animal products. Here in Canada, animal products are heavily subsidized. So while someone might pay $4/lb for hamburger, the actual cost is a lot higher, and it's taxpayer money that makes it more 'affordable'. Produce doesn't get nearly the 'help' from governments. Still, with a little effort, you can save a ton buy sticking to plant-based foods. Certainly more than eating animal products. For a few dollars I can get enough brown rice to last me 15-20 meals. What animal product can you get that will add a substantial amount to 15-20 meals for a few dollars?

For the record I live below the poverty line, and 'consume' less than nearly anyone I know, but thanks for playing. Best you stay out of the profiling industry. ;)

Comment Re:And the next food craze starts (Score 1) 176

It isn't the studies, it's the industries behind the studies. Livestock is big business in the US and Canada, and have powerful lobbies and influence school programs very heavily. Cow's milk is practically devoid of nutrition (short of protein, which virtually ALL of us are already well in excess of), and there are plenty of other common foods that provide the same nutrients in higher amounts, and without the 'baggage' (like saturated fat, hormones, fecal matter, blood, pus, etc). Milk is credited with having iodine for example - fresh milk straight from a cow doesn't have much iodine, it's in the milk because they use iodine to disinfect the machinery. They may as well brag about there being soap in it as well. Vitamin D? It's an additive, an ingredient they add.

There are some interesting books that cover the history of the industry, Cash Cow and Got Milked? are two specifically on dairy, and reveal how cow's milk was lobbied into our fridges, and science and nutrition really had little to do with it. The milk industry has their inane 'Got Milk' campaign, and were willing to provide 'nutritional' information to schools, so long as it helped sell their products. (No human should be consuming ANY animal milk past being weaned, let alone the singularly bizarre act of consuming the milk from ANOTHER species! Give up ALL dairy for a week, then dig into a cheese pizza - you'll really start to see how ill equipped our bodies are at digesting dairy. Most people are just used to feeling a certain way, and don't realize the negative impact it has on how they feel since they've never considered living without it.)

Do some research into the 'four food groups' - why on earth are meat and dairy fully 1/2? Study after study after study after study shows that the more animal products you consume (almost always at the cost of reducing plant-based foods), the more diseases you're likely to inflict on yourself. Yet we get the impression that they ought to be at least fully half our diet. Going further back in time before this influence, there were 8, 12 or more food groups - back when dieticians called the shots, and not industry.

Plant-based food lobbies have much less sway. Just look at the wacky story of Hampton Creek, and the collusion between the egg industry and government agencies because their 'mayo didn't have eggs in it'. Oh, the horror. Unilever (Hellman's) was a part of this as well, and after losing stuck their own eggless vegan mayo on shelves. (Shows how critical eggs are to mayo.)

I could go on, but look at where the studies come from before what the studies say, and it becomes clear why we hear what we hear. These trends (high fat, high protein, gluten-free, paleo) come about because there are industries making profits with products and books to sell, and people desperate for an answer to their health issues. Ever ask why they almost all all focus on increasing animal-based foods?

Want to be healthier? Start where there's less money to be made: eat plants. Fruits, veggies, legumes, whole grains, nuts and seeds. Center your diet around these, and chances are you'll find yourself feeling better and see your health improve. Simply put: if you see a commercial for it, chances are you're better off not eating it.

Comment Re:A clear preference (Score 1) 734

hahaha - are you having a laugh? Okay, pretending for a minute this is actually true (let's see some evidence, apparently the US dumped money into Russian campaigns, but that's fairly legitimate and above-board - if Putin or Russia publicly funded US candidates, I wouldn't be too chuffed, if it's legal) no one has had a snowball's chance in hell for decades of upsetting the dominant power regime in Russia. A little reading:

Comment Re:VEGAN (Score 1) 133

Are you being dense on purpose? The vast majority (99.99%) of the 10 billion livestock in the US aren't roaming cattle. Now you tell me: what do all the chickens and pigs eat? 70% or more of all corn, soy and wheat grown in the US are fed to livestock. How is that efficient? You're using the person who smokes a few cigarettes a year to prove that smoking doesn't cause cancer.

Comment Re:Bullshit (Score 1) 574

How about we have conversations without pejoratives and labeling people you don't even know? I observed all the references provided, and summarized. Unless you're making an admittance to willful ignorance on the side of whoever isn't a "libtard", you're only inflaming the discussion. If you couldn't tell from my writing, I thought the WaPo was out of line as well, so you're denigrating someone who might actually agree with you. While I do lean liberal, I appreciate the challenge *thoughtful* conservatives offer, and in the US system deem it necessary as a counterbalance. (And I'm not even American.)

Although the Future Leader of the Free World is apparently unable to contain himself (which itself is a fact, albeit an unflattering one), maybe the rest of us can leave the insults out of it and try and stick to the facts and try and make things a bit better. The core of my post is that responding to sensationalism with more sensationalism doesn't do any good. Do you disagree with that, as the opposite of "libtard" (what's that, conservatard?) are you all for it?

Comment Re:Bullshit (Score 2, Informative) 574 link to BoingBoing, who in turn links to Glenn Greenwald who himself is infamous for spinning wildly inaccurate stories. Greenwald asserts:

What’s the problem here? It did not happen.

There was no “penetration of the U.S. electricity grid.” The truth was undramatic and banal. Burlington Electric, after receiving a Homeland Security notice sent to all U.S. utility companies about the malware code found in the DNC system, searched all their computers and found the code in a single laptop that was not connected to the electric grid.

Sadly, the premise of his claim may be true (there is a chance the code wasn't a deliberate attempt by Russia), but rather than simply state that, he makes his own unsubstantiated claim that "it did not happen". He does not know for certain that it wasn't a deliberate attempt from Russia.

There's a lot of words in the Greenwald piece, but it all hinges on this press release from the power company (via the Burlington Free Press):

Statement from Burlington Electric Department:

"Last night, U.S. utilities were alerted by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) of a malware code used in Grizzly Steppe, the name DHS has applied to a Russian campaign linked to recent hacks," said Mike Kanarick, spokesman for Burlington Electric Department. "We acted quickly to scan all computers in our system for the malware signature. We detected the malware in a single Burlington Electric Department laptop not connected to our organization’s grid systems. We took immediate action to isolate the laptop and alerted federal officials of this finding. Our team is working with federal officials to trace this malware and prevent any other attempts to infiltrate utility systems. We have briefed state officials and will support the investigation fully."

Greenwald conveniently excludes the press release (the foundation of his claims), because anyone reading it would realize he's being just as hysterical, and relies on dopes like the editor at BoingBoing to 'trust' that somehow Greenwald knows more.

Shame on BoingBoing for being so lazy, and shame on the OP for not actually doing a little reading, and perpetuating the very same spin tactics. It took me all of 30 seconds to get to the bottom of this. The Washington Post also took it too far and sensationalized the story.

The code was found on a laptop at the power station, and it's Russian in origin. It's uncertain if it's deliberate, and they're investigating that aspect of it now. That's the whole story as I can see it, and it doesn't seem like something to dismiss. It's definitely concerning, regardless of where the code came from. The laptop wasn't connected to the power station network, but depending on the malware, it might not have taken much (a USB stick copying some files to a network computer) to change that. So yes, let's keep investigating, and hopefully it was just some 'user viewing a bad website', but we can't say that right now either.

Comment Re:Meh (Score 1) 120

No, their best chance of survival is influencing areas encroaching on cheetah habitat to recognize their needs and give them the space they need. *That* is their best chance. Breeding them in captivity keeps them 'around', but isn't a solution. Very few captive-bred facilities ever result in animals returning to the wild, any honest facility will admit as much. And too often they turn in the opposite direction to make a buck. Look at lions - very few in the wild, but many in roadside zoos in the US. Or there are endangered species of African antelope in breeding centers in the US, where they 'thrive', but then it's turned into a canned-hunt.

The very best thing for any species is to allow them the environment they thrive in, which is not captivity.

Comment Re:Meh (Score 4, Insightful) 120

"and it's only peripherally due to humans"

Not quite, if humans were out of the equation, they'd probably be doing a lot better, and their limited genetic diversity would probably continue to grow. We've most certainly limited their potential and influenced their chances of survival negatively. Yes, the cards were stacked against them, and humans have burned most of the deck to boot.

Slashdot Top Deals

...though his invention worked superbly -- his theory was a crock of sewage from beginning to end. -- Vernor Vinge, "The Peace War"