Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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

Comment Re: No? (Score 1) 346

Which things were declared unconstitutional by the judicial branch?

You seem to under the misapprehension that the opinions of courts make something constitutional or unconstitutional. No. It's the text of the constitution that makes it so. For example, Obergefell v. Hodges did not make it unconstitutional for the states to deny equal protection of the law to gay couples; it became unconstitutional long ago, when Amendment XIV took effect. If some future right-wing court undoes the Obergefell decision, it will still be unconstitutional and illegal for the states to deny equal protection.

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 Re:Pics or it didn't happen! (Score 1) 412

Personally I think you've already made the assumption that naked infant pictures are in some way embarrassing. To my mind, they're not. To most Europeans, they're not.

It seems I'm really struggling to say this sufficiently clearly: The difference between a photo of a naked 4 year-old and a clothed 4-year old to me is the clothes, that's it. I really don't care whether the kid has clothes on or not, it makes absolutely no difference to the photo, and the first comment that would come to mind would be something like "wasn't that Summer of '73" or "Hey look at the size of that sand-castle you were building", or something equally irrelevant to the clothing situation.

If someone wants to get all upset over the photos, then fine. It's a bit weird to make an issue out of it, but whatever. Similarly, if the parents don't want to take the photos down, that's also a bit weird, it seems like basic courtesy ought to rule here. As I said, I don't really care; I think it's a matter for the family to handle, and apparently they think it's a matter for the courts to handle. Fair enough. I don't really see why it's news, either.

Comment Re:Pics or it didn't happen! (Score 1) 412

[sigh] My point was that *I* live in the USA. If *I* posted pics of my 4-year-old niece naked, then *I* would be in trouble in the USA. Because nuts.

FWIW, I have no desire or plan to post pics of my niece naked, I see no reason to. I just don't regard it with the same level of apparent disgust that Anonymous Coward "Pics or it didn't happen" 2 posts up seems to.

I don't have a horse in the race here - I don't care what the parents or the child do in this particular case, I think they're both being stupid, but whatever.

Comment Re:Good Lord... (Score 2) 412

The law in the UK is specifically *not* for this sort of thing:

"The most recent amendment to the law, outlawing the possession of pornographic photographs of children, was introduced seven years ago, amid intense lobbying from campaigners who included Mary Whitehouse. Although John Patten, then a Home Office minister, emphasised it was not the intention to catch innocent family snaps of naked children in the bath or on the beach"

I quickly googled. There *are* people getting into trouble for taking photos of naked teens etc. on European beaches, but the photographer wasn't related to those teens and that makes a big difference. Naked teenagers is also a lot different from naked 4 year-olds. I didn't find anything successfully prosecuted over naked infant snaps when the photographer was related.

Comment Re:Good Lord... (Score 4, Insightful) 412

Maybe in the US.

It's pretty commonplace for infant kids to run around naked on the beach in Europe for example. My niece is 4, and when I'm iChatting my parents over in the UK, it's pretty common to see her wandering round the house naked (lunchtime here being bath time in the UK). I don't see why photos are any different. Nudity just isn't such a big deal when the kid is so young they're still "innocent", at least for most Europeans. As far as I'm aware it's the same in Asia. It's mainly the US that's so puritanical over the human body.

And (presumably) the photos aren't sexual in nature. If someone was jacking off to them, the fault lies with that person, not with the photo.

Comment Re: Fake GPS location spoofer (Score 1) 395

Why don't you just not use a device w/ Google software on it?

Because due to the way that capitalism corrodes market choice and reduces product quality, I have two viable choices for a smartphone: walled-garden bullshit from Google, or walled-garden bullshit from Apple. Since GOOG's walls are a little lower and I can climb over them more easily, I take that lesser of evils...along with a sledgehammer to break down those walls.

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.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Kill the Wabbit, Kill the Wabbit, Kill the Wabbit!" -- Looney Tunes, "What's Opera Doc?" (1957, Chuck Jones)