Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



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) 300

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: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 How so? (Score 1) 210

Please, explain.

Perhaps you were hoping for a Funny mod.

Knowing your weight, or your physical activity level, means nothing about weight loss. Nothing.
If anyone has any interest in weight loss or getting healthier, should learn more about the science behind our bodies. "Exercise more and lose weight" isn't the answer. Calories-in/Calories-out is a small portion of the story, at best. Low-fat is dangerous. Portion control is a red herring. Fad diets are stupid.

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

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?

Comment Anyone heard of the Miniscribe incident? (Score 1) 341

Quentin Thomas ("QT") Wiles was brought in to turn around the company, and his high-pressure 'management style' led to disaster for the company.

When hard drive salesmen were rewarded for great performance and punished for less-than-great performance, some managers didn't handle the pressure well.
"the managers rented a second warehouse in Colorado where they personally packed 26,000 bricks into hard drive boxes and shipped them to Singapore in order to shore up the inventory count. After the count was complete, they recalled those serial numbers as defective units, but instead of writing them off, they checked them into inventory, along with other failed drives that had been returned."

Miniscribe on Wikipedia
More on QT Wiles and MiniScribe bankruptcy

You would think that this DASH process by Wiles was abandoned, but I've seen it used today... for IT projects! Although the pressure as far as I can tell has been reasonable.

Comment Cue Huawei, Xiaomi, BLU..... (Score 1) 203

I think this is a big opportunity for some of the up and coming brands to grab some market share.
I have a BLU Life One X and I am not sure how "vanilla" it is, but it's definitely not bloated. It's affordable ($150) has good specs, dual sim, and is unlocked.
Why would I want an iPhone or Nexus?

It's kind of a shame that people only think there are a couple of choices when it comes to phones.

Comment ///M is for Motorsport (Score 1) 224

but in general, yes, it means Performance. :)

I agree, at this point the i for injected is somewhat a leftover. They have a pretty long history at making cars, and have stuck with it.
I actually haven't kept up with their model for the past 10 years or so. I've had a few BMWs. A 1988 528e sedan (5 series, e = efficient instead of performance), a 1997 318i sedan (3 series, 1.8 liter), and a 1988 M3. -- that one is special. :)

Yes, they haven't always strictly held to the naming convention, but you know basically what you are getting. If you say a BMW 3-series, you have a general idea what it is. The years for a model are designated by a generation you may hear about... e.g. E30 (3-series from 1982-1994) or E28 (5-series from 1981-1988). It's a pretty good system, and scales much easier than names do. But it can get pretty abstract. I have never heard of the model you mentioned.... but I would guess it is a 2-series (smaller than the 3 series, so likely a coupe - whereas the 3 is either coupe or sedan), not sure about the engine but you covered that... and xdrive I would guess is all-wheel-drive. They used to put an x in the badge for that back in the 80s.

Comment Don't use Excel for CSV files! (Score 1) 349

It's not like Excel alters the underlying data, all you have to do is correctly change the column type.

Oh! but it does - once you save it.

If you open a CSV with Excel by default, it will simply read in the values and format it how it sees fit.
Then if you save it, even as a csv, it will give you a warning saying something like "some of the features are not compatible with this format type"
If you proceed, your file is now changed. I have seen scientific notation changed like this. Many columns and rows, you may miss a malformatting and save it as csv. Boom, your data is now toast.

It is why I always look at my CSV files with a text editor first, and only open copies in Excel.
And if you use a real editor like vi, even opening files with millions of rows isn't an issue.

Slashdot Top Deals

I program, therefore I am.

Working...