Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



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

Comment Re: Actually, idiots are always a loud minority. (Score 1) 799

Half the population has above average intelligence.
Yet the last time voter turnout in US even ticked 65% was over a hundred years ago. And that's just the presidential elections.
Similarly, mid-term elections ticked 50% turnout at about the same time. Now even 40% is A LOT.

In both cases, if the intelligence were a factor in voting, it's either that nearly all voters (or all when it comes to midterms) ARE of above average intelligence - or that they are all idiots.
Depending on how that correlation would work out.
The fact that most of those below average IQ are closer to the average (34% are between 85 and 100 IQ) than to people who are not actually functional individuals... that also indicates that neither those 40% or those 60% are of the below average IQ.
Cause there simply aren't enough of such people.

Skills as in learned skills... like logic or solving problems related to elections... That's again nothing but education.
Or the lack thereof. Or the consequence of bad education - i.e. adoption of prejudice and misinformation.
Which, again, Trump is doing a fabulous job of presenting.

He is doing a fantastic job presenting to the entire world what not to vote for.

Comment Re:Nope. It's quite a measurable health risk. (Score 1) 175

My posting was in reaction to whiny people who want to try to get us believe there is any health risk to people smoking outdoors.

No. Your post was about representing "office building entrance, and in couple of corners around my location" as "outside".

Which may very well be so - or it may be the only place one is allowed to step out to in order to get a breath of if not fresh than at least not stale air.
Or to reset one's focus from half a meter in front of one's face onto something a bit more distant.
A place where one can see a sky without looking at a pane of glass.

If one goes there to catch some air and everyone else goes there to smoke... everyone goes there to inhale smoke.

I am a semi-vegetarian and I can't stand the smell of cooking/burning meat. To me, the odor is very offensive. But is I went around claiming it was "harming" me or a "health risk" that would be similarly ludicrous.

No, that would be a false analogy. Meat is not an addictive neurotoxin.

Hell, I once had a nicotine overdose from a mousepad.
A brand new mousepad - except its packaging had an opening so you can feel the softness of the silicone.
And clearly, store I bought it at used their storage room as the break room.
How much nicotine condensated in it and for how long I don't know. I only know that after several washings and shampooing, drying out for a few days - it still had enough nicotine in it that after using it for half a day I started getting headaches, dry mouth, my heart was pounding...
All that from skin contact with something I thought of as "not smelling that bad anymore".
Like a nicotine patch, only bigger and softer.
It took a few more rounds of washing and airing it out to get the smell out.

Smokers are desensitized to how potent a drug nicotine is or how badly cigarettes can smell.
Particularly industrial kind. Homegrown tobacco doesn't smell half as bad and airs out of the room in hours.
I don't know what gets mixed into each brand, but boy does every one of them smell far worse, lingering for days when someone who smokes prepackaged smokes comes over.

Comment No. That's not the failure of democracy. (Score 1) 799

If Trump wins it will be confirmation that democracy is failing in the English speaking world.

To use the ever popular car analogy and to refer to that old misquote about educated citizenry and democracy...

What you are seeing is not a failure of a car as a means of transport - it's the driver who doesn't know how to read signs and signals and who is trying to drive along the wrong side of the road, while his passengers are asleep.

I.e. Democracy is fine.
It's just that for it to work for the benefit of all, people need to vote, need to understand the political process (which is not about your side winning - it's about everyone winning) - and need to have a better (as in more accurate) informed understanding of the world in general.

And Brexit is a fantastic example of exactly that.
NOT a failure of democracy, but a failure of the public to properly inform themselves.
It's not the stars dear Brutus - it's that you are an uneducated idiot who reads horoscopes and celebrity gossip instead of the political section.

Fortunately, in this case Trump has been doing YUGE amounts of educating the populace just how YUGELY incompetent, racist, stupid, lying, cowardly, did I say incompetent? etc. he really is.
And unlike with Brexit, not only is it very clear TO EVERYONE that this will be a really real McRealFace vote - he is also actively campaigning against about 28% of US population.
And that's not counting the Asians. But there's still time for him to propose a wall to keep the Chinese away.

There's even a bonus of all those racists crawling up from their lairs outside in the sun for everyone to see them for what they really are.
And you know how they say... Build a hundred bridges, but fuck ONE goat...
All this education he's providing is not going away.
Tree of liberty might grow from blood, but its roots grow much deeper when certain "radical thinkers" decide to start taking a dump on it.

Comment Actually, idiots are always a loud minority. (Score 1) 799

What the wast majority are is being uninformed. I.e. Uneducated.

Fortunately, Trump and his cohorts are providing so much education he is going to make McCain's 2008 numbers look like a distant impossible dream.
He has successfully and completely alienated and keeps alienating over a quarter of US population.
And that's not even counting the expected 40-50% that either party gets anyway.
Hell... he may make both Bush and Dole numbers against that other Clinton look like an impossible dream.
He might create a landslide for Hillary likes of which hasn't been seen since Nixon obliterated McGovern.

All the while making idiots come out of their holes to explain to the entire internet just how big idiots they are.
Mostly by being racist and by aligning themselves with racists.
Which is something I'm sure their grandkids will appreciate.
What with being related to a known racists being SO popular even know, let alone in a future world which will be far less white than this one.

Comment Nope. It's quite a measurable health risk. (Score 1) 175

During my obligatory service in the army I've spent a half the time working in the office with chain smokers.
It took me months to stop wheezing and coughing when I came out of the uniform.
Basically, I was smoking a pack or two a day just sitting there.

A close neighbor (as in close family friends) died from cancer recently. Never quit smoking though.
He'd call me up often to do tech support and being eager to know but lacking tech skills (or knowledge of English) he'd have a lot of questions.
So I'd often spend hours explaining stuff.
Meanwhile, he and his wife would go through a pack or two. I'd literally have to take a shower after coming home cause I was reeking of tobacco.
At his wake, sitting in the same small room with friends and relatives, most of them smoking, at one moment I literally felt getting dizzy from all the smoke.

Second hand smoking is not passing by someone for "brief few seconds" on a crowded street" who just happens to exhale smoke.
It's sitting there and inhaling smoke for hours cause other people can't handle their addiction.

Comment Not quite. (Score 1) 539

Original premise was "more religious people give" than do "non-religious people give".
Which is not true. In fact, they don't give - they are taxed by the church. But it is counted as "giving".

Similarly, secondary premise that "Republicans give more than Democrats" is not true.
In fact, they don't even give. They invest.
Into rich institutions, which include religious ones - but explicitly excludes working poor and public schools.
Such donate-for-profit scheme was established by - Republicans.
I.e. Republicans are deliberately and systematically taking from the poor and giving to the "many religious charities" - cause that makes them a profit.

Thus, those "many religious charities that do much good in the world" are taking the money from the poor, creating profit for the rich - while servicing said rich.
I.e. Not even that "do much good in the world" is true.

Unless we count making rich more rich and making poor suffer more. You know... like what "Mother" Teresa did.

Comment More like bad, p-hacked study. (Score 1) 210

First of all, let's forget the wearable devices. Cause study participants sure did.

Out of 24 months, they wore them on average 170 days. That's about the quarter of the time.
And that's median value. They actually wore them 68-347 days.
Oh... and it's only 80% of the "wearable device" group (i.e. technology-enhanced weight loss intervention group) members that were using said devices.
Also, when they were using monitors, median values was 241.1 minutes per day (99.3-579.1).

I.e. Monitors were mostly ignored.

Of the 237 participants randomized to enhanced intervention, 191 participants received the wearable device that was a component of the intervention starting after month 6 and wore the device for 1 day or longer (median days worn, 170.0 [25th-75th percentile: 68.0-347]).
On days that the device was worn, the median wear time was 241.1 min/d (25th-75th percentile: 99.3-579.1).

Secondly, groups were not random.
They took a group of people they KNEW were leaning towards underperforming and lazyness and gave them monitors (which they ignored) - while the higher performing "standard" group was selected to self-monitor.

For first six months both groups had the same regimen.
They were one group, with similar, self-reported baselines for physical exercise.
Then, AFTER six months, during which they've gathered data - researchers formed two groups.

One group had 118.8 minutes less of light physical exercise per week when compared to the other group.
Same group had 98.6 minutes less of medium-to-vigorous physical exercise, per week.
354.3 minutes less of metabolic equivalents of medium-to-vigorous physical exercise, per week.
76 minutes of 10+ minutes sessions of medium-to-vigorous physical exercise, per week.

They gave that group the monitors.
Negative trends continued, as expected, though the differences between the groups WERE decreasing with time.
But by the end of the study, differences in various exercise durations was still around 30 minutes in favor of "standard" group.

I.e. Researchers selected for lazy people with a tendency to overestimate personal physical performance - and gave them devices which should promote lazy behavior.
Lo and behold - people with devices performed worse.

It's like dividing a class of students into those with higher grades and those with lower grades.
Then giving those with lower grades computers and those with higher grades pencils to keep notes while studying French.
Then publishing a study titled something like "Computers - a detriment to education".

Comment Nope. That's biased misrepresentation. Again. (Score 1) 539

From the actual source.
https://www.philanthropy.com/a...

Religion has a big influence on giving patterns.
Regions of the country that are deeply religious are more generous than those that are not.
Two of the top nine states - Utah and Idaho - have high numbers of Mormon residents, who have a tradition of tithing at least 10 percent of their income to the church.
The remaining states in the top nine are all in the Bible Belt.

When religious giving isn't counted, the geography of giving is very different.
Some states in the Northeast jump into the top 10 when secular gifts alone are counted.
New York would vault from No. 18 to No. 2, and Pennsylvania would climb from No. 40 to No. 4.

Their presentation is biased, cause they know not that "data and finger-wagging [don't] inspire people".
I.e. It would do them no good to NOT praise religious donors by presenting them as NOT better than those donating to secular donors.
Particularly by adjusting for tax exemptions.

Tax incentives matter.
State policies that promote giving can make a significant difference and in some cases are influencing the rankings.
In Arizona, charities are reaping more than $100-million annually from a series of tax credits adopted in recent years.

Where would that "red state" end up on the "giving scale" should those $100 million per year be controlled for?
Cause is it really giving if you're making money out of it?
Which sounds a lot like making a profit.

And it gets particularly interesting when it comes to what kind of donations are promoted by the legislature - i.e. Republicans.

A second problem is that the dollar-for-dollar tax credits are available only to those charities approved by the Arizona Legislature, including religious schools.
Other charities qualify only for a state income tax deduction, worth no more than 4.1 cents on the donated dollar.

...

So the working poor and public schools can get $400 each from married taxpayers, while private schools can get more than five times as much, with a dollar-for-dollar state tax credit.

It takes about $100,000 of income to qualify for all five credits.
A married couple meeting that threshold can give $1,200 to public schools, the working poor, and military relief, plus $2,062 to private schools at no cost if their state tax liability is that high.
If they're in the top tax bracket, the couple can turn a profit of $1,292 if they itemize on their federal income tax return.

...

The most suspect part of the Arizona scheme is that it heavily favors private schools, most of which are religious, by giving not just the largest credit, but two separate credits.
Catholic schools are by far the largest single beneficiary of the private school tax credits.

When the government is favoring one group over the other it may or may not be discrimination.
Like how promoting growth of small businesses is not discriminatory towards big businesses.

But when the government sets the rules in such a way that it NOT ONLY favors the rich, but it actually awards the rich who only give to the rich with the money from the state coffers, while penalizing everyone for giving to the poor - that's quite literally taking from the poor and giving to the rich.

By Republicans.
The anti-Robin Hoods.

And a special shout-out to my downmoderators who think that "I don't like reading the truth" is the same as "YOU are flamebaiting".
There's still an unlimited amount of copy/paste out there. Unlike mod-points.

Comment Re:Actually, the mean is 59% fructose. (Score 1) 526

Though frankly, if you are drinking those sodas, you have already given up. Everyone at all interested knows that drinking sugar is the fastest way to sugar-related health problems.

It's not just the sodas.
Homemade "healthy" juices and "shakes" can be just as bad or worse.
All those ads for various juicers are basically promoting liquifying food, often while removing the fiber and leaving only sugar in the mix.

But the ones that liquify the whole fruit ain't much better either.
My family has been into homemade juices long before it was cool.
Sure, there's a "health" element to it, but there's also the "either we grow our own fruit, or extended family does or it is dirt cheap at the moment" - i.e. it's cheaper than buying it.

Problem is that you can drink a glass after glass after glass of it without actually being less thirsty or having enough.
You can literally drink more juice than water.
Which is not surprising since we spend first months of our lives with a stomach the size of a peanut - and eating nothing but liquid full of sugars and fat.

Doing the same as an adult, with a much larger digestive system... you can pick up 2-5 kilograms of weight (most of it water though) per week, depending on your constitution.
I can only imagine the "wonders" that does for blood sugar levels.
Particularly if grapefruits are on sale. Suddenly it's 7 in the morning the next day and you're sitting there going - "Why am I not sleepy?"

Comment You don't eat grams. You eat until full. (Score 1) 526

But let's take those 100 grams of sucrose as a measurement of being full.

I.e. After ingesting 100 grams of sucrose, one's blood sugar reaches the level at which the body decides that it's had enough.
How does the body measure that? It doesn't count grams or calories. Instead, it constantly monitors and regulates glucose levels in the blood.

So... 100 grams of sucrose makes one full.
I.e. 50 grams of fructose and 50 grams of glucose raise the blood sugar level to the point that the body doesn't want more food.
50 grams of glucose = stop eating.
Less than 50 grams of glucose = keep eating more.

Now, instead of 100 grams of sucrose, take 100 grams of HFCS.
How much glucose does it have? Above or below the "stop eating" level?

At the same time, does it have more or less of fat-forming fructose?
How about HFCS' quantity of fructose per unit of glucose? I.e. Per unit of satiety?
If ingesting 100 units of sucrose contains 50 units of fructose and 50 units of glucose, how many units of sucrose are in a quantity of sucrose which contains 42 units of glucose?
How many units of fructose does such quantity contain?

How many units of HFCS are needed to ingest 42 units of glucose? How much fructose is in that much HFCS?
How many units of sucrose would be needed to ingest 42 units of glucose? How much fructose is in that much sucrose?
Is it more or less per the same amount of glucose ingested through HFCS?
How much more of fructose would one ingest with the amount of glucose needed to reach the glucose satiety level of 50 - after ingesting 42 units of glucose from sucrose?
How much more of fructose would one ingest with the amount of glucose needed to reach the glucose satiety level of 50 - after ingesting 42 units of glucose from HFCS?

It is very simple math. You are only looking at the problem from the wrong angle.
Human bodies don't count calories or grams. All we know is "not enough" and "enough". "Give me more" and "stop giving me more".
We eat until we've had enough or until we've emptied the plate, cup, can, whatever.
And if that is "not enough" we WILL go all Oliver Twist and WILL ask for and will take some more.

I.e. We just get another can.

Comment Nope. That's biased misrepresentation. (Score 0, Flamebait) 539

From the actual source.
https://www.philanthropy.com/a...

Religion has a big influence on giving patterns.
Regions of the country that are deeply religious are more generous than those that are not.
Two of the top nine states - Utah and Idaho - have high numbers of Mormon residents, who have a tradition of tithing at least 10 percent of their income to the church.
The remaining states in the top nine are all in the Bible Belt.

When religious giving isn't counted, the geography of giving is very different.
Some states in the Northeast jump into the top 10 when secular gifts alone are counted.
New York would vault from No. 18 to No. 2, and Pennsylvania would climb from No. 40 to No. 4.

Their presentation is biased, cause they know not that "data and finger-wagging [don't] inspire people".
I.e. It would do them no good to NOT praise religious donors by presenting them as NOT better than those donating to secular donors.
Particularly by adjusting for tax exemptions.

Tax incentives matter.
State policies that promote giving can make a significant difference and in some cases are influencing the rankings.
In Arizona, charities are reaping more than $100-million annually from a series of tax credits adopted in recent years.

Where would that "red state" end up on the "giving scale" should those $100 million per year be controlled for?
Cause is it really giving if you're making money out of it?
Which sounds a lot like making a profit.

And it gets particularly interesting when it comes to what kind of donations are promoted by the legislature - i.e. Republicans.

A second problem is that the dollar-for-dollar tax credits are available only to those charities approved by the Arizona Legislature, including religious schools.
Other charities qualify only for a state income tax deduction, worth no more than 4.1 cents on the donated dollar.

...

So the working poor and public schools can get $400 each from married taxpayers, while private schools can get more than five times as much, with a dollar-for-dollar state tax credit.

It takes about $100,000 of income to qualify for all five credits.
A married couple meeting that threshold can give $1,200 to public schools, the working poor, and military relief, plus $2,062 to private schools at no cost if their state tax liability is that high.
If they're in the top tax bracket, the couple can turn a profit of $1,292 if they itemize on their federal income tax return.

...

The most suspect part of the Arizona scheme is that it heavily favors private schools, most of which are religious, by giving not just the largest credit, but two separate credits.
Catholic schools are by far the largest single beneficiary of the private school tax credits.

When the government is favoring one group over the other it may or may not be discrimination.
Like how promoting growth of small businesses is not discriminatory towards big businesses.

But when the government sets the rules in such a way that it NOT ONLY favors the rich, but it actually awards the rich who only give to the rich with the money from the state coffers, while penalizing everyone for giving to the poor - that's quite literally taking from the poor and giving to the rich.

By Republicans.
The anti-Robin Hoods.

Comment Re:You're just gonna get another can of Coke. (Score 1) 526

People generally drink their sodas in single-serve containers, which have a fixed number of calories and grams of various sugars.

You are ignoring several things - mostly price, human need and desire for MORE and habitual consumption.

Cans cost the most.
They've even introduced a smaller can, supposedly reducing the portions - which costs more than the older one.
And it doesn't take a lot of math to figure out that when faced with a choice of more for less versus less for more - most people will pick the bigger and cheaper option.
AKA the "sharing" option.
Note the attachment of "positive" verbiage to bigger packaging.

On the flip side, you got those who would lie to themselves that they are drinking less so they are entitled to keep drinking coke.
I.e. Having another one. One for the road. One to pick them up. One just because.
I have a friend who does exactly that. To indulge that one small vice. And then when his wife is not around he buys the big bottle - to indulge some more.

My dad does something similar - with booze. That was the Coke and Pepsi of his generation.

The idea that 3.0 fewer grams of glucose is going to make people drink another can of soda that they otherwise would have skipped is a stretch - that's not really how people consume soda.

It's not MAKING people drink more. It's ALLOWING people to drink more - while tasting better. I.e. Sweeter.
Just like that old trick with trying to eat sugar with a spoon. Doesn't take much to "hit the limit" and give up on that.
But mix that sugar into water or milk - and now you can drink it until your hands start to shake from all that sugar.

Except it's not just any sugar that's making your hands shake - it's glucose.
Reduction of the glucose part allows you to drink more before noticing that you've had way too much.
But what the Coca Cola and others are doing is NOT reduction of glucose percentage but INCREASING of the fructose percentage - cause it is sweeter.
That's the part that's making people drink more. Sweetness, but without the "hitting the limit" part - all packed with a big happy dose of otherwise bitter caffeine.

I.e. These now generation's booze.
We're chuggin that brown brew just like them older generations were slurpin their martinis and beers.

already metabolizing nearly 60 grams of fructose - that additional gram and a half is a rounding error. A Big Gulp with pure sucrose will have the same negative effects.

No. Do the math. It's not a rounding error.
Multiply 42 by 1.31 (i.e. increase it by 31%). Compare the result to the HFCS 55 mix.
Now compare that to the situation where the mix is equal.

Also, there is fundamental flaw in your logic.
ALL OF THAT SUGAR is not food calories - it's fat calories. All of it. Sucrose AND the HFCS kind.
People simply don't treat drinking as eating. We drink many more times per day and much more than we eat.
It's because we need water and we can't store it like we can store calories. It's evaporating out of our skin like crazy just sitting there.
Turning the action of drinking into eating means that ALL the calories we may be getting from that are pure extra calories which will be turned into fat.
Again... regardless if it is sucrose or fructose.

The difference is that the glucose part of HFCS and sucrose WILL get burned up immediately and will make us want to eat less for our next meal.
Fructose simply goes to fat. As long as there's any glucose in the system or any source of glucose in the system.
Not until well into second day without ANY food will your body consume the glycogen in the liver (i.e. primary fructose storage) and not until you consume all that will it go for the adipose fat.
That's the magic of fructose. Two days without food before going for those long term food savings.

Trouble is that when you don't need all that fat cause you don't have to pick up all you got and run for your life three times a week...
HFCS contains 30% more of that fat-forming sugar when compared to getting it from sucrose.

Comment You're just gonna get another can of Coke. (Score 1) 526

HFCS-55 is slightly sweeter than sucrose, so you need less of it.

That's talkin recipe - not what your brain needs to reach satiety and to stop bugging you for more.

Same goes for calories.
There's no buzzer going off once you ingest your daily intake nor will your stomach go into a shut down once you stuff yourself with enough calories.
Our bodies have evolved to eat until we're satisfied, then until we're full - and then to keep eating some more.
Particularly when it comes to fructose - which in nature comes bound to A LOT of fiber and it takes a while to extract it.
Or it comes attached to insects armed with poisonous stings.

In a can of HCFS-55 soda, you will consumer 19.25 grams of fructose and 15.75 grams of glucose.

The change in total fructose is negligible (+0.5 grams) compared to the change in glucose (-3.0 grams).

Number of calories in fructose alone doesn't matter. What matters is the "flavor" of those calories - cause only the glucose calories count for your brain.
If you're left wanting those 3.0 grams of glucose, you're just gonna get another can of Coke.
Again, there's nothing and no one stopping you from spending your money - and everything and everyone is enticing you to get that extra can. Or a bigger can/bottle.
From marketing to your own brain, which is sitting there and going "I need me that glucose, or I'm gonna make you feel like shit."

And even if you're not craving more glucose, if those 15.75 grams of glucose are all you need - you're still taking in 3.5 grams of fructose MORE than had you drank Coke with sucrose instead.
3.5 grams which goes straight to fat. Fat which you will never use - cause when you get a craving for calories due to your low blood sugar, you're just gonna eat more.
Or drink another Coke.

That's why those huge "big gulp" and "double gulp" servings sell - people don't just stop when they hit their calorie limit.
They keep drinking until they've "had enough". Which is regulated by glucose levels in their blood.
Meaning that even if fructose were just 1% more than glucose - you'd still be having more fructose per serving than the kind of sugar that activates the signal for being full.

And if you're ordering "gulps", you're probably gulping down HFCS 65 instead of HFCS 55.
Which is the kind used in the soda machines. Better sweet than sorry.

Slashdot Top Deals

MAC user's dynamic debugging list evaluator? Never heard of that.

Working...