Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Things to solve (Score 1) 253

"License to Live"

You can "apply" for a "License to Live" and it grants you, government-supported, up to an extra 100 years of healthy life extension, which includes government supported vasectomy or sterilization. Only people who have had no more than 2 kids are eligible to receive such a license. People who have only had o or 1 child can get up to 150 years of govt-supported life extension.


If you become unhealthy (heart disease, cirrhosis, cancer, etc) then you are only allowed to continue receiving treatments on the public dime if they are reversing your disease. If not, then you'r left to foot the bill if you wish.

Buying your own life extension still requires the same basic child count and sterilization policy.

When the public policy runs out, you can buy your own.

People who want to have more kids can opt out and reverse their sterilization but will forfeit any legal means of life extension afterward.

Comment Re:never underestimate (Score 1) 55

The evil I refer to is the idea of taking pains to commit random, motiveless murder of a helpless innocent victim for no reason other than to do it.

Most murders have a highly relevant and particular motive to the murderer. Even terrorism has a motive, but to achieve that motive it must have a broad reach. Hacking a medical connection to kill one person won't achieve that.

Yet surely, someone would do it just to prove they can.

You might say a terrorist would want to do it many times over because that would be effective. But I counter that doing it just once would lead to the closure of whatever loophole he exploited; to continue any further would be an expensive cat and mouse game. No terrorist sees the ROI in that. So it's a dead end.

So, in reality, what we're looking at —as the only viable scenario— is a sick loser who wants to incite disgust and sorrow.

Hence, "never underestimate people's capacity to be mind-blowingly evil".

Comment Re: artificial sweeteners spike insulin (Score 1) 630

The problem with diabetes is that either you're T1 and you don't produce insulin (therefore no response) or T2 and your cells are insulin resistant and the temporary extra insulin you get from a diet soda has no effect because the cells just ignore it.

I posted a citation above. But do your own research. Nothing is conclusive in nutrition. Far from it (just look at the cholesterol debacle). But the evidence is damning.

Like I said, go ahead and be a lab rat, but be informed.

Comment Re:artificial sweeteners spike insulin (Score 4, Interesting) 630

Re insulin response in sucralose:

Also, protein itself elicits an insulin response.

Admittedly the case for Aspartame is weaker, and I can't find the citation right now, but despite early studies showing no insulin response for Aspartame, a more recent study DID make make a correlation.

Either way, artificial sweeteners being associated with insulin resistance regardless of BMI has been well-established. It stands to reason, given the evidence that Sucralose has been confirmed to result in an Insulin response, and that Insulin management in general is a tricky thing, that one should treat all artificial sweeteners with the same level of suspicion in this regard.

The only thing that excuses Stevia for now is that studies have shown a beneficial effect as opposed to any negative effect. Feel free to be a lab rat, just be an informed lab rat.

Comment artificial sweeteners spike insulin (Score 4, Interesting) 630

The problem is that artificial sweeteners create an insulin response even though they are calorie free.

The insulin causes two things: 1) it tells cells to uptake sugar from your blood, which leaves you slightly hypoglycemic, since the insulin response is out of proportion to the actual sugar load consumed (particularly on an empty stomach). 2) chronically elevated insulin leads to insulin resistance (the precursor to metabolic syndrome which makes you fat, diabetic, hypertensive, etc).

This is the real reason we need to stop using most artificial sweeteners. Stevia and Erythritol have not been shown to cause this insulin response. It doesn't mean they aren't also bad. Only that for now, the jury is still out and they appear to be safe. Stevia in particular has been associated with something of an opposite effect, where it seems to improve insulin response in people who consume it.

Now for the popular reason they're getting rid of it:

Aspartame itself appears to have neurological effects as well, which in sufficient quantities causes problems. I personally know that any more than 20 oz of Diet Coke starts making me feel "odd" for lack of a better way to put it. It's not the caffeine. I don't get the effect from non-aspartame caffeinated drinks.

This seems like a relatively minor reason to stop using aspartame unless you're consuming vast quantities. Regardless, people think it's a neurotoxin and can't have that. (Forget about all the other benzene additives, colorants... even caffeine itself is a toxin).

Anyway, glad to see they are doing away with it. Here's hoping they don't use use Sucralose, which is even worse than Aspartame at producing a phantom insulin spike. (And people get upset at the chlorine... but say nothing about drinking chlorinated water or soaking in hot tubs).

Comment camera shake? (Score 3, Interesting) 21

Accurately and precisely canceling out camera shake (indeed the movement of the building/foundation where the camera itself sits too) on something like this would seem to be a big deal.

I guess instead of having accelerometers on the building they put them on the camera? Article didn't really get into this aspect.

Comment Re:Apple REULEZ! (Score 1) 408

You're a ridiculous, abject moron. Undeniably an ad-hominem, but since it's obviously true I'm ok with it =]

For the record, the ad-hominem in question was calling Marlin's integrity, intent, and legitimacy into question as your justification for calling his position and opinion unviable and of no value. Either you can't see that, hence you're a moron, or you can but you choose to argue and troll away regardless... hence you're a moron.

Comment Re:Apple REULEZ! (Score 5, Insightful) 408

Nice way to interpret his intent into something base can prop your ad hominem upon.

There's nothing wrong with establishing an argument that claims you work in a particular field and therefore are accustomed to making educated choices about stuff related to that field.

If someone calls themselves a chef or a foodie, it may not make them right when they say how long you should boil pasta, but it means their opinion about it IS based on care, thought, and knowledge about the subject at hand. If someone random says "boil spaghetti for 20 minutes" then you may be more apt to consider their opinion as out of hand than someone who presents "credentials".

If slashdot wasn't such a fucking non-stop pissing-contest people might not feel the need to present "papers please" when offering their thoughtful opinions about stuff.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The value of marriage is not that adults produce children, but that children produce adults." -- Peter De Vries