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


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:The real reason? (Score 4, Informative) 381

The issue is that it can be perfectly healthy to eat around 900,000 calories a year, but if you eat just around 15,000 calorie per year too much, people gain 5 pound a year. That is less than 2% over target, but a weight gain of 5 pound per year, will easily cause significant issues in the long term. 15,000 calories a year is just 41 calories a day or about an half an apple every day.
People do not have to eat significant amounts of food to become fat, even tiny amounts of extra food can easily add up to significant gains. Without a closed regulation loop it is basically impossible to eat just the right amount of food. If people have broken internal regulation loop, they build their own regulation loop and permanently count calories and watch their weight to adjust the amount of calories consumed. Unfortunately there is a lot of noise in weight measurements and a broken internal regulation loop often tries to counteract external regulation. It seems that an unhealthy diet can damage the internal regulation. Gastric bands seem to help because they help to readjust the internal regulation loop and not just make it harder to consume a lot of calories.

Comment Re:Warning: Healthy At Every Size supporter (Score 4, Insightful) 381

I think the main issue here is that HEAS and fat acceptance people are overdoing it. Some people can be slightly overweight but everything can be fine health wise and try to force them to a normal weight is more likely to make things worse. There are also some complaints against "fat shaming" that are justified. Obesity is a significant lifestyle-based health issue, but there are many others such as smoking, lack of sleep, drug abuse, risky sexual behavior or being underweight. Shaming should to be fair: If people ignore smoking but are shaming slightly overweight people and claim that shaming is based on health concerns instead of aesthetics that is just bigotry or bad information.

A little big of overweight (BMI 25-27), especially with low levels of abdominal fat is not a big health issue, it might even be slightly more healthy than normal weight. Something like BMI 27 to 30 is unhealthy most of the time, but on average still causes smaller health issues than smoking. But many people are significantly fatter than that. They almost always have health issues caused by their weight and should really lose weight and could easily do so by swapping some high calorie count items in their diet with vegetables.

Comment Re:Thanks! (Score 4, Informative) 339

The german stellerator Wendelstein 7-X aims for up to 30 minutes of confinement. At the moment only a some very earlier tests have been done, that did not aim for long confinement but just to check that everything is okay with the installation. Wendelstein 7-X started operating end of last year and EAST started operating in 2006.
This chinese tokamak aims for confinement of up to 1000s and has reached 102 seconds of confinement after 10 years. At the end of 2013 they already had reached 30 seconds. Wendelstein 7-X will first do some experiments that do not aim for a really long confinement time, only up to 10 seconds. These experiments are planned to last about 2 years, after that they will install some additional equipment, that is planned to take 15 month. The chinese record should thus last for at least 3-4 years. But news from Wendelstein 7-x have been very positive, I would not be surprised if confinement works extremely well.

Comment Power Rating (Score 1) 138

This sounds like a good idea, however when using a 240V surge protector at 100V you need to consider the reduced power rating. The power rating is likely mostly an maximum current rating and the same amount of power at 100 V instead of 240 V uses 2.4 times the current. So if you need 150 Watt maximum power at 100 V, you should use a 240v surge protector rated at least 360 W.

Comment Questionable Results (Score 4, Interesting) 73

These results seem to be very questionable. Their graphs claim that in some configurations almost all 4k read requests are handled within 100 ns. But getting even a single DRAM burst from a random DRAM location already takes almost 100ns, even through the memory controller is connected with a much tighter interface, optimized for low latency and PCIe is much slower than DRAM interface. Even without overhead 4 PCIe 3.0 lanes ( 8 GB/s) can only transfer 8 KB per s. Transfering a 4 KB Block should thus take at least 0.5 s or 500ns and that does not include any overhead nor the time needed to actually send the request to the SSD, open the page from the NAND flash, run ECC and decompression.

Comment Re:BMI is a poor tool (Score 1) 425

It is a rule of thumb, but a very inaccurate one. If the BMI of someone is 30, it is extremely likely that he or she should lose weight. But if the BMI is 25-28, then it is very unclear. Depending on muscle mass, fat distribution, blood pressure, sugar levels, he or she might be perfectly fine and healthy or too fat. Some people with a BMI of 25 should lose weight, while others with a BMI of 27 are perfectly fine. So basically BMI does not tell you anything that most people would not know without the BMI. Someone with a BMI of 30 usually noticed that he or she should lose weight. BMI is helpful to people with body image disorders that think they are fat with a BMI of 18 or are healthy and just a little bit chubby with a BMI of 35. But normal people do not get much extra information from the BMI. Waist-to-Height Ratio is actually much more useful.

Comment 50 extra calories day are >5 lbs gain per year (Score 1) 425

Everyone can figure out why someone who is overeating more than 500 calories a day gets fat. But even if someone consumes just 50 calories (a small apple) each day too much, he or she gains 5 lbs each year, in ten years he or she can easily go from normal weight to obese. It is almost impossible to estimate both calorie intake and use to such a high accuracy.

Calorie counting only works because people will also constantly monitor their weight and adjust calorie intake accordingly. People can usually not get a stable weight by calorie counting. They will do classical bang-bang (on/off) control and constantly switch between eating a few hundred calories less than needed and eating a few hundred calories more than needed. That way calorie counting does not have to be very exact and still works but also causes stress. If calorie intake and use could be monitored more precisely people would not need to switch between two different states, but instead tiny adjustments of meal size would also work.

Comment Re:Prior Art (Score 4, Interesting) 103

Makani uses a completely different approach: They use a wind turbine to generate electric energy and just use a kite to get the turbine to 250m height, while the kites from switzerland are basically passive kites and the aerodynamic lift is used for generation of power. Makani could generate energy contiguously while this SwissKitePower approach would alternate between ascend and retraction phases and only produce power during ascend.

Comment Re: What's not to dislike? (Score 1) 116

Both Islam and Christianity (and Judaism too, since they share the Old Testament with the Christians) advocate genocide and violence in their holy books. Why aren't they banned?

No, they don't. They describe genocides and mass killings in their holy books but no mainstream flavor of Christianity, e.g.: Lutheran Protestants or Roman Catholics understands these parts as advocating another genocide. They are not saying something such as "Let's finish the job and kill the remaining Canaanites." You cannot just take these holy texts, use your own interpretation and then based on your own interpretation decide to ban them, even through the meaning of the text as understood by the adherents of a religion is completely different. Interpretation matters a lot for holy books. Mainstream versions of these religions interpret their holy books in a way that is not advocating genocides.

Comment Re: What's not to dislike? (Score 1) 116

Wooosh! I think the gravity of this strange example is a clear indicator you're starting to realize the slippery slope you just entered.

This is a slippery slope, sure. But that slope is slippery just means you need to be very careful, not that you are guaranteed to slip if you step on the slope. Also notice that the US also ban some types of speech: libel, national security, copyright, trade secrets, obscenity.

Comment Re: What's not to dislike? (Score 1) 116

Every harmful-vs-beneficial analysis is based on certain cultural assumptions.

Sure, but a small subset of these cultural assumptions is part of the German constitution. This small subset is big enough to allow the classification of certain kinds of hatespeech as very harmful and not beneficial.

Many people have a culture+religion which says genocide of certain groups is OK, so if you ban "hate speech" but don't ban the religion itself, you're being inconsistent.

If a religion cannot exist without extreme hate speech then it is banned. Just like a religion that mandates ritual killings of other humans is banned. However, almost all religions come in many different flavors. If only some flavors mandate illegal things you cannot ban the other flavors of the religions, that are within the bounds of the laws.

Comment Re: What's not to dislike? (Score 1) 116

Based on what I just said, you probably know where this is going. Let's make religions illegal! They cause harm to society (Islam is oppressing women, for example, and Christianity has historically had similar traits and still has) and as such are clearly not valuable.


No, because causing harm is not enough to show that something is clearly not valuable. All sorts of things are causing harm. Many people are dying every year in traffic accidents, still we are not banning cars. And many people are dying in hospitals because of malpractice, still we are not closing all hospitals. You cannot look at harm alone, but need to look at benefits as well. The benefits of hospitals and cars are quite clear.

You look will find completely different assessments of harms and benefits of religion. It is completely unclear, if religions add something valuable to the society or if they are cause harm. Especially because religions concern topics where the same thing is perceived as harm by some people and as a benefit by others, e.g.: some people will consider staying virgin until marriage to be beneficial, others will consider it harmful. So how would you tell if it is harmful or beneficial?

The constitution does not say anything about extramarital sex. If religions are causing more benefits than harms is a completely unclear question and differs a lot based on personal viewpoint. However the German constitution has a clear stance on human dignity. Stuff such as killing humans just because they are migrants is always unacceptable from the viewpoint of the constitution.

Comment Re: What's not to dislike? (Score 0) 116

This has always bothered me. How can denying historical facts be *illegal*? That's an extreme form of thoughtcrime.

It is not a thought crime, as long as you only think that the holocaust never happend it is legal, but once you start telling people it is illegal. Telling people that the holocaust never happened is causing real damage by inviting violence against minorities and could cause Jews and other minorities targeted in the holocaust to leave Germany.

Now there is your problem right there. Who gets to define what is "valuable" and what is not? How is this any different from the past Germany is trying to distance itself from?

This was my personable opinion on valuable. Do you personally think that this kind of hatespeech is valuable? Or do you just think that is hard to define valuable?

The good news is that it is not really required to define valuable precisely. If it is unclear, if a piece of speech is valuable or not, then it should be legal. But if something is clearly not valuable and could cause harm to the society, then it is fine to make it illegal.

Also think about it from a different perspective: These extreme forms of hate speech could only be a valuable contribution to the society, if unchangeable parts of the constitution that guarantee human rights are wrong. The constitution does not allow to kill people just because they are migrants. If want to claim that extreme hatespeech might be a valuable contribution to the society, then having a constitution that guarantees certain rights to everyone, would be a problem, because it prevents the implementation of what is proposed the hatespeech.

Slashdot Top Deals

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. -- Arthur C. Clarke