It's funny you mention suburban drivers. I have lived and have friends who lived in both suburban and rural areas and I found that without exception rural drivers are far, far, more likely to drive drunk.
>To be clear, Superfish technology is purely based on contextual/image and not behavioral. It does not profile nor monitor user behavior. It does not record user information. It does not know who the user is. Users are not tracked nor re-targeted. Every session is independent.
We've heard this song and dance before. Excuse my skepticism, but I don't believe you and until we can see some source code, I won't believe you.
>To treat ongoing CDI-related diarrhea problems, the woman received a fecal transplant from her overweight but healthy daughter, via colonoscopy.
One possible situation is that she was eating poorly but didn't gain weight due to diarrhea and when she had healthy stool she gained the weight. Also, 'fatty has no-self control' is a way to stifle opposition to your opinion. Ther is no need for that. The laws of physics apply to all people. Burn more calories than you take in, you lose weight. Clearly there will be factors that determine how many calories you burn (perhaps someone burns them much slower than the average person), but as far as I've read magic isn't real yet. The laws of the universe still apply to everyone. I've yet to see anyone eat well and exercise and not maintain a healthy weight. Ever. Not once.
Your body is immensely complex, can rid itself of toxins, pathogens, and other invaders ... but is not able to discard excess calories it doesn't need? To the point of making you sick and immobile?
That makes sense to you? That our body doesn't have a regulation mechanism?
Or perhaps it's more likely that it works in some people and is broken in others. Yes, starving yourself will always work. So will increasing exertion. But so will fixing that regulation mechanism. Just because we don't know how is hardly enough reason to discard the possibility.
>Your body is immensely complex, can rid itself of toxins, pathogens, and other invaders ... but is not able to discard excess calories it doesn't need? To the point of making you sick and immobile?
>That makes sense to you? That our body doesn't have a regulation mechanism?
It's so new of a concept, that evolution hasn't had to select for it for more than a few generations, while 99.9999999% of your evolution has favored gathering as many calories as possible.
I realize it's fashionable to believe all of our ancestors were starving all the time, but there isn't exactly any evidence to back this up.
We're a social species with status playing a substantial role. It's far more likely some were starving and others were extremely well fed. Same as today. That would mean there was plenty of selective pressure over millions of years. Look at other primates for evidence.
Of course the body has a regulation mechanism related to energy intake and usage. However, that doesn't mean that mechanism can't be overwhelmed or made to work in non-optimal ways.
Yes, your body can purge itself of toxins. But despite this, intake toxins faster than your body can purge itself of them, those toxins will still cause damage. Why should this not apply to the body's energy regulation mechanisms as well?
It is entirely possible that by consuming poor quality food (rotten, junk, infested with parasites/chemicals/etc.) the regulation mechanism is overwhelmed or broken.
It is also possible it's through a genetic defect. An environmental toxin. A virus or bacteria. A bazillion other alternatives that our level science cannot detect or explain.
My point is that when you see an obese person, the response shouldn't be lazy/stupid/eat less/diet/exercise more. It should be sick/needs research/treatment.
Simple over-eating should be 100% regulated by our bodies and the excess material discarded. It should NOT be a problem. But it IS. Something is poisoning us. Rather than blaming the sick, we should find out WHAT that is.
> Your body is immensely complex, can rid itself of toxins, pathogens, and other invaders ... but is not able to discard excess calories it doesn't need? To the point of making you sick and immobile? That makes sense to you? That our body doesn't have a regulation mechanism?
Umm.... You are aware that this state of a ton of food being very easy to procure is a recent development right? For a vast majority of the body's evolution food as very rare which resulted in being able to conserve energy optimally being ideal. Evolution is a sum of the entire species past, why are you thinking it makes sense for the body to self regulate its self to a six pack?
> I've yet to see anyone eat well and exercise and not maintain a healthy weight. Ever. Not once.
I too had never, ever met an overweight person who ate well and exercised. Not even once! Until I did meet one. Your anecdotal absence of proof is not proof of absence. The vast majority of overweight people may eat poorly and not exercise, but that doesn't exclude other possibilities.
In my case, I eat junk food and lead a sedentary lifestyle, and yet I'm lean and muscular. Care to explain?
Look at my original comment. Clearly there will be people who can get away with doing little and maintain weight while others will have to work much harder. I would guess you're pretty young as well, most young people stay relatively fit without doing much.
The hypothesis is that the bacteria in your gut are able to affect your hunger. If you have this bacteria you are always hungry and eat the wrong kind of food.
> You met a person who burned more calories than they consumed, and yet didn't lose weight?
No, as I said, I met an overweight person who consistently ate well and exercised (a college roommate). I have no idea how many calories they burned.
By comparison, I ate much more and exercised much less and had very low body fat. Again, I have no idea how many calories I burned.
And that's exactly point. That is to say, given the tremendous variation in almost every aspect of human physiology, is it plausible that there exist outliers whose bodies burn calories at markedly different rates? I don't know, but without more evidence, I'm hesitant to declare it impossible.
> No, as I said, I met an overweight person who consistently ate well and exercised (a college roommate). I have no idea how many calories they burned.
By comparison, I ate much more and exercised much less and had very low body fat. Again, I have no idea how many calories I burned.
Typically when I'm told this either by people wanting to lose or people wanting to gain I just ask them to write down everything they eat for week. Guess what we learn at the end of the week? They really had no clue what they were eating. The skinny people were barely crossing 1500 cals and the overweight people were 2500-3000 and had zero idea. The other fun fact here is that food wise both of those are not very far away. A couple sweets or sugary sodas each day and you can easily cross over.
While there are likely exceptions and extremes (thyroid issues), the vast majority have zero clue about how much they really eat. This is why things like Weight Watchers work so well for many people. You get X points/day. Foods are worth differing amounts of points and when you hit zero stop. People quickly learn what foods are 'free' (veggies, most fruit) and load up on those and then plan the non-free foods to maximize taste/fullness/whatever.
This may be the case, but it's the exception to the rule and shouldn't be used by every person overweight who just give up on discipline because they think it's useless.
> Burn more calories than you take in, you lose weight.
Wrong. Exercise burns calories, but also promotes muscle formation. Forming muscle, pound per pound, takes less calories than burning fat produces. So you can have a calorie deficit while gaining more weight in muscle than is lost in fat.
Depending on exercise patterns, precise nutrition, and other factors, a calorie deficit can result in:
Weight loss and decrease in body fat % (net weight loss disproportionately from fat),
Weight loss with no change in body fat %,
Weight loss and increase in body fat % (weight loss from disproportionately from muscle),
Weight gain and decrease in body fat % (weight loss from fat offset by greater weight gain in muscle.)
(I don't think there is any way for a calorie deficit to result in weight gain and increase in body fat % simultaneously, but I may be overlooking something.)
Additionally, changes in absorption, metabolic efficiency, and other factors can make what is assumed to be a calorie surplus based on food/exercise logs into a deficit or vice versa; both the "in" and "out" side of calories in vs. calories out are, absent a lot of detailed measurement most people aren't undergoing even in inpatient medical settings, a lot more approximate and have a lot more bundled assumptions than people tend to think.
You are just vastly oversimplifying a complex issue. It's like telling a drug addict to stop after 2 beers. Or teliing black kids to study more for school. How about telling people to stop having kids out of wedlock. Simple, just don't to it! SOLVED!Debt issues? Just make more than you spend.
Just eat less, conservation of energy man. Science YO! argument is essentially the abstinence solution for STDs.
Normal people aren't a healthy weight because they sit there and resist hunger all day. Their body keeps it in check.
Finding out why obese people don't keep their diet in check would be a huge help in fighting obesity.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure for a lot people poor impulse control is part of it, but it clearly isn't the whole story.
Back when I was going through cancer, my weight dropped to around 130 pounds on a 6'4", large build frame. Obviously, I looked like Death himself and I was seriously underweight. However, even when I got back up to my normal 210 pounds and I still looked a bit too skinny, the chart showed me as being "overweight" at a BMI of 26.
So I'd take that "overweight" indicator with a grain of salt. If this woman is on the tall side or has broad shoulders and hips, that BMI of 26 could mean she appears athletic or even skinny, and she can certainly be healthy with that misleading number.
My ex husband was career military. When he was on recruiting duty, every single year they had some annual conference. Every single year, there were insurance reps there or something. Everyone in the office would get told they were "overweight" according to the (civilian) insurance reps height and weight charts. All of these people had to a) pass their PT test and b) meet weight. In the military, if your weight is too high for the chart, they tape-test you to check if you are actually fat or not. Bodybuilders in the military often cannot meet the weight requirement, but they pass the tape-test with flying colors.
BMI isn't perfect, but it takes height into account.
You can actually work back words with her weight and BMI to calculate that her height is less than 5'1".
BMI is pretty accurate most of the time unless you're an athlete. Women putting on far less muscle on average than men, it's far more likely that she was actually overweight...
BMI is pretty accurate for heights that were common in 19th century Belgium. It assumes that people's weights ought to go up as the square of their height but as Galileo pointed out back in the day you would expect a person's weight to go up as the cube of their height.
This means that tall people will tend to have higher BMIs all things being equal and short people lower BMIs. Which actually suggests that the woman might have been overweight if she was only 5'1" despite what her BMI said.
> BMI is pretty accurate for heights that were common in 19th century Belgium. It assumes that people's weights ought to go up as the square of their height but as Galileo pointed out back in the day you would expect a person's weight to go up as the cube of their height.
My understanding is that BMI doesn't "assume" anything about what weight "should" do, its instead a measure which has been empirically shown to have a useful (though rather loose) correlation to risks related to various health conditions, particularly cardiovascular conditions. (Mostly, AIUI, it serves as a proxy for a host of other measures, which together are more accurate but more involved to gather.)
The cube-of-height scaling you refer to is what you would expect if taller people were exactly like smaller people but linearly scaled equally in all dimensions -- but that's neither empirically what taller people are built like nor are taller people whose weight relates to that of shorter people that way on average as healthy in the areas BMI is used a risk measure for as the shorter people.
It bothers me when people post statistics out of context. If the unemployment rate was 48% and now it's 24% that's an amazingly successful policy to cut unemployment by half. If it was 12% and now it's 24% clearly something is wrong if unemployment doubles. Honest question, what is going through your mind when you post a statistic like that with absolutely context? How, to you, does this prove a point one way or the other?
I think the context in this case is the usual, everyday awareness of typical unemployment rates, which politically conscious individuals tend to have.
For instance, at the very least people probably have heard that U.S. unemployment has been anywhere from 9% to 5% in recent years. And we know that things were pretty bad when unemployment was 9%, and surely 24% is a lot worse than 9%.
If you were good at U.S. history, you might recall that our great depression had similar unemployment rates. There's just about no context where that's a good number.
It sounds like you're blaming your problems on the drugs and not yourself. Did you smoke cigarettes before any of this? Why isn't that the gateway drug? People tend to like yellow mustard before they move on to dijon. People tend to like light beers before they move on to IPAs. There is a natural progression there and to blame the drugs for your clearly addictive personality is wrong. Yes, they can be dangerous and because of that demand respect, but you have "mixed feelings" of people seeing if these drugs can help humans who are sick? Honestly, that is extremely extremely selfish. It's like the people who are against pot and refuse to even let sick people use it even though it's fucking magical for stomach issues and nausea (think of cancer patients going through chemo), great for glaucoma, proving to be amazing for seizures, etc... Your mistakes mean we should be hesitant to give sick people relief? Do you have "mixed feelings" morphine drips for people in intense pain? I don't understand how you can be so short sighted and selfish.
I was about to upvote you, and then I realized that that's not what the OP is saying at all. Hell, his words were that it "makes great sense to him", and he just cautioned against treating LSD as a panacea.
>It is essentially giving up and saying we are going to live with Internet access being run by monopolies like the power company. It puts us back to the Bell System in 1982, and that makes me sad.
What do you think we have now? A robust ecosystem of carriers?
Also, your post sounds a lot like you don't want Title II because you'll have to comply with regulations and you don't like the current system because instead of complying with regulations you found a loop hole and then the ISPs found a loop hole to throttle you. This whole post sounds like why it's bad for you and provides no reason why it would be bad for the vast majority of people.
> What do you think we have now? A robust ecosystem of carriers?
No, not at all. I think we pretty much have a duopoly with the cable company (Comast+TW) and the phone company (AT&T) as the only realistic choices for the vast majority of consumers.
>Also, your post sounds a lot like you don't want Title II because you'll have to comply with regulations and you don't like the current system because instead of complying with regulations you found a loop hole and then the ISPs found a loop hole to throttle you. This whole post sounds like why it's bad for you and provides no reason why it would be bad for the vast majority of people.
If that is what it sounds like I'm sorry because that was not what I wanted to convey. I wanted to convey that Title II regulation may solve the net neutrality issue in the short term, but may set a framework and precedent that will subject all ISPs (and the Internet) to other harmful regulations which could ensure we never move beyond the duopoly we have now. Remember cable companies and AT&T are masters of guiding agency regulation and state laws (see for example the state laws banning municipal fiber projects). They are probably going to lose this round because of the public outcry and their outrageous behavior regarding net neutrality, but we should be very weary of what they will be able to do with the new regulatory framework.
I don't have anything to do with the VOIP company anymore, my only skin in the game is as a ISP customer whose only choices are Time Warner and AT&T for internet access, both of which offer what I consider crappy service and speeds.
Although I actually spent several months and a bit of money looking to put together a local fiber ISP in my area, but in the end shelved (or put on hold) the plans due to a (mostly state/municipal) regulatory environment that was heavily tilted in favor of incumbent companies who were cable cos or telcos.
As someone that has been waiting for GFiber because of the lack of Title II classification, I say bring on the Title II. They already abuse their classifications when possible anyways.
Linux is beyond user friendly these days. It just depends on what you want. I gave my wife's parents, two old hippies who live in the middle of nowhere and have literally no computer skills, an old laptop with Ubuntu on it. It's been totally fine. If they can use it, anyone can. Long gone are the days of needing editing configuration files in a terminal editor. Of course power users still can, but for novice users it's just as friendly as Windows and more friendly than OSX I would argue.
I wanted to use my Raspberry Pi to share an external NTFS formatted hard drive on the network. This required installing support for NTFS, making changes in fstab to mount it with read and write privileges, installing Samba, making changes in Samba's configuration file, making a new Samba user, restarting services, and probably more that I've since forgotten about. Every step needed to be researched through a mixture of blog posts, Wikis and other online resources.
I also wanted to run a Python 3 script I'd written on a different computer. Python 3 wouldn't install through apt-get, so I downloaded and installed it myself. Various dependencies wouldn't install using pip, instead giving error messages mixed in the regular output from the install process. I don't remember the actual errors now, I gave up and ran it on a Windows desktop instead.
Sometimes Linux gets in the way of what you want to do. Sure, keep at it and you've learned something, but sometimes you want to get stuff done and don't really care about how hard drive mounting works.
I'm still a big fan of Linux and open source, but I think Windows is a fine option for Raspberry Pi 2.
OK so let's take your example from the perspective of a Linux user trying to use Windows 10...
So I want to share out my external ext4 filesystem from Windows 10. There are no options. I'm done.
Sure, an ext4 tool exists for Windows on x86 but it will not work on ARM. Probably won't work on Windows 10 in general anyway.
Even if I could get Windows to mount the drive I still have the hurdle of NFS (or sshfs or other options) to overcome. Windows Server 2012 ships with old school NFSv3 support but regular desktop Windows does not. That means finding and downloading a 3rd party tool.
In the past I've solved the problem by using openssh under cygwin but let me tell you: getting openssh server setup and configured in Windows, starting on boot is much harder and more complicated than getting Python 3 running on Raspbian (the latest version of which actually has Python 3 in the repos).
There's another thing I want to point out: The Python 3 problem you experienced has already been solved but I don't see the ext4 (or any other common Linux filesystem) being supported by Windows any tine soon. It won't be solved because Microsoft has no interest in interoperability and the closed nature of Windows means it is difficult for 3rd parties to solve for the rest of us.
What distro were you using? Most ship with NTFS support last I checked (though perhaps there's a higher concentration of distros without NTFS support for the RPi).
Similarly: why even use NTFS in the first place if you're doing a network share? Samba can serve files from an ext4-formatted volume to a Windows client just fine. Unless you were planning on being able to remove the drive and plug it into a Windows machine directly, there's no need to use NTFS at all.
> Every step needed to be researched through a mixture of blog posts, Wikis and other online resources.
This is true of a lot of things, no matter which operating system one uses.
Remember that Samba is designed for enterprise environments. Setting up a fileshare in such an environment with Windows is typically just as complicated (but involving a lot of graphical wizards instead of configuration file editing), since there's a lot more involved than just right-clicking the drive letter and telling Windows to broadcast it on the network.
You're right that the process for sharing files over a network with Windows hosts ought to be made more accessible for home users. Linux doesn't really have a "Homegroup" equivalent, which is unfortunate.
> why even use NTFS in the first place if you're doing a network share? [...] Unless you were planning on being able to remove the drive and plug it into a Windows machine directly
That's exactly what I was planning. Also, the drive already had data on it that was supposed to be shared.
I did not intend to start a Linux-Windows flame war, I merely pointed out that for the majority of people buying a Raspberry Pi 2 for the purpose of using it for other things that learning Linux, Windows will be an acceptable choice and in a lot of circumstances probably get out of their way more than Linux. On the other hand, I don't know how you would use the GPIO pins in Windows, but that's easy in Linux. It depends on what you're doing and what you're used to.
Good point. I forget that Linux on this new Pi will be more like Ubuntu on a laptop than a CLI with a stuttery slow X interface or Wayland with much tinkering.
I wouldn't trust my parents to configure any of my machines securely (Windows, OSX or Linux). In fact, I advised my mum to use an iPad as it stops her fretting all the time. Sadly, she still struggles with using iOS since they removed all text and replaced it with obscure 1px line hieroglyphs that are apparently meant to communicate an idea (obviously, a box with a tiny arrow coming out of it means share, right??)
Let's hope that they make the SD card reader on this new Pi respect the RW/RO switch on SD cards!
A co-worker completely corrupted his install of Mint and had to start fresh because he changed his background. So, uh, no, I politely disagree. It's not user friendly.
I don't believe so, per se. I think though, that if - as there are examples in this thread - you feel compelled to be sure everyone is aware of the disdain you have, replete with remarks like "overpaid gorillas" "getting paid far too much to chase a piece of rubber around with some sticks", then you do veer into snob territory, a la The Onion's Man Who Doesn't Own A TV.
While there are many valid arguments to be made about sport and the importance thereof, it's also condescending for someone (not you specifically) to act like this - there's quite a degree of talent and skill and hard work that I think a lot of people don't quite realize. "Oh, he's a good player, but I could have played college ball, and made it".
No, most likely you couldn't. There's a huge gap in skill.
I played cricket as a teen and we had two international players come to our club for a BBQ and hit around session. The kids bowling to them, they just blocked.
The adults, several of whom played at the state level themselves and to us were "very skilled"?
No. Not in comparison. Everything they threw at these guys was hit out of the park. I'm not exaggerating. Fast, slow, skilled players. Every. Single. Ball. Out of the park without a bounce. It gives you a realization of the level of talent and skill to play at that level.
Yes, this thread has been a bit depressing. I don't see why being a fan of different sports and different teams should preclude people from being also simultaneously interested in science and math and other 'intellectual' pursuits.
Becoming a professional player requires as much (if not much more) hard work and talent as becoming a software engineer. These people dedicate their lives to the task, and are genuinely much much better than 99% of humans at their task, and are getting paid for their ability to entertain.
I don't get why people would look down upon these players and their fans.
You are allowed to dislike sports, even hate sports.
What you shouldn't do is brag about your ignorance or dislike/hate of it as a way of projecting your status.
I don't follow baseball or most sports, but folks might ask me about so-and-so team, and my response is often "Oh, I don't really follow X, but <insert another topic you find interesting and may have common discussion point on>".
As the article points out, for most folks just exhibiting how much you dont care to follow sports ends the conversation, and makes you seem somewhat snobbish and like you don't want to engage on any topic. However, expressing it in a more open way, where you then volley back an alternative topic keeps the conversation alive.
Heck, even if you dont follow or don't care about the topic, the other person apparently does -- so try not to be too dismissive or indifferent..
>the lax rules, for better or worse, is what it really has going for it.
Better. 4chan was the most culturally influential website out there. I don't know how much that's true today but it shaped the humor and language of the internet in a way nothing else did. It's good to have places where there are no rules, no sacred cows, no need to be polite and politically correct. In a sea of bland derivatives, it at least had a personality. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad this site and others are not like that, but it's good to have that somewhere. There is no denying how influential that site was over the last 10 years. The stuff we joke about today was born in the depths of 4chan a long time ago.
One thing I noticed that is really interesting, is that MANY 4chan memes that leaked into internet at wide, started at 2chan...
4channers that also frequent 2chan frequently end posting 2chan memes in 4chan, 4chan then modifies them as needed (ie: "westernizes" them), and then those memes might one day become widespread on the english internet.
This has the interesting side effect of syncing many memes between the english and japanese internet, while some other countries are very isolated in general (Brazillian memes for example are usually only Brazillian)
I think there's been quite a lot of interplay between these forum sites, in a way that is pretty hard to track. There's also a reasonable amount of 4chan's cultural/linguistic/meme output that is an adaptation of stuff from SomethingAwful's forums, especially in 4chan's earlier years.
