thras
Lots of people kill themselves with marathons. Maybe there's a right way to do it, but obviously it's easy to do it the wrong way. Which makes marathons dangerous until someone figures out your right way.
"if running a marathon is bad, then surely running half a marathon is still not good, right?"
No. Does not follow. As you say, there are probably distances where the good far outweighs the bad. 26 miles is not that distance.
I'm moving to the Bay Area myself in a couple of weeks, and was kind of hoping that that was the solution to the cold weather problem. I am a little worried about finding good quality dirt trails.
Still, the more I find out about the device, the less interested I am. It looks like it's just going to be a huge iPhone. Fun, but not useful. And while I miss almost nothing about my previous smartphones before the iPhone, I do miss the ability to be able to install whatever I wanted. Locked devices foster an entirely different application ecosystem -- one that's not super useful for programmers, I find.
The iPhone has some nice apps, but runs nothing important to me in my professional life. And if the new tablet isn't going to be a useful work tool, why would I want it?
Now comes the million dollar question: Why was I so hungry that I ate 470,000 extra calories? Could carbohydrate driving insulin driving fat explain it?
Homeostasis in the human body doesn't just fail without a reason.
At 305, I was still 30 pounds under my max...but something tells me it wasn't water weight.
Of course, no one has ever seen this in action, so it's pretty unlikely that group selection is very important in evolutionary history.
Googling for calorie information...good god, that's 2900-4500 calories a day. And I'm only 5'10". No modified fast for me. Lost 65 pounds in the last year. Not an amazing result. On the other hand, an amazing result -- on a 3000-4000 calorie diet.
Pay attention to fiber? The research in support of that suggestion is execrable (pun intended).
I did try the 500-1000 calorie deficit for a number of months. My weight loss was on the order of 5-10 pounds, and I was hungry the entire time. And then I gained the weight back and more when I wasn't able to carry through. People simply do not lose large amounts of weight on small deficits. It's bizarre. According to the trash bin theory of body fat it should work. It doesn't. Almost like the trash bin theory is wrong...
The carb free living is sustainable and healthy. If you aren't going to read Taubes, then at least read Victor Steffansson. He's a bit more fun.
Anyway, here's Taubes on Gout: http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2009/10/05/gout/
As far as my energy levels nowadays...pretty much boundless. I'm ravenously hungry when I don't eat. But I'm told that's how it's supposed to work. When I was fat, I was hungry around the clock, even after eating.
At my normal healthy weight, I was starving. And weak as a kitten. I took up running, and stopped watching my diet. I literally could not keep up the willpower necessary to continue a 3000 calorie diet, even though 900 had been doable for so long. Despite running for an hour a day, I immediately started gaining 10-15 pounds a month.
So I was convinced that it was all about calories. I was fat because I ate too much. Why my body was so hellbent on eating 4000-5000 calories a day, I didn't know. I seemed to have a lot more willpower than anyone else I knew. It was sort of confusing. Then about a year ago, I read Taubes' book.
What if the human body is actually sort of complicated? What if hormonal regulation controls fat? What if the "trash bin" theory of body fat is actually a humongous oversimplification or just wrong? What if, after getting to a "healthy" weight by starving fat, muscle, and vital tissue, I wasn't healthy at all? What if it had also made me malnourished (hence the amazing hunger at my "healthy" weight)?
Anyway, I cut the carbohydrates out of my diet last December. I made zero effort at calorie restriction. In fact, I ate a lot. I made very little effort to exercise more. After a year of this, I'm almost 100 pounds under my max weight. I recently started running again, for fun, not weight loss, and am up to 2-3 miles a day.
And I am stronger than I've ever been in my life. Eating steak every day is probably more expensive than building the same muscle mass with steroids, but I'm pretty happy. I wasn't expecting it. It's good being a carnivore.
Badly-written comments are worse than no comments at all.
Badly-named variables and functions are worst than that even.
Also, according to the article I just linked, "The highest rates of inbreeding were observed in the Hindu community among whom there was a notable preference for uncle-niece marriages."
This can be dismissed until they get to 3-5 sigma.
There is no need to treat nuclear waste massively differently than other kinds of waste. There are some special considerations, but it's not so dangerous as to require the vast storage expenditures being talked about.
This problem is endemic in the whole nuclear industry. People don't make rational risk/cost assessments when it comes to nuclear power. They don't even make irrational risk/cost assessments. The locals where I live are deadly afraid of a local air force base's small reactor. But nary a worry about the actual nuclear weapons they have that could (potentially) devastate the entire area.
Did you even read the exploit code? He's figured out a way to overwrite LD_PRELOAD environment variable for anything SUID. That means that you get to tell the binary to load libraries other than what it planned on loading. And hence run arbitrary code.
This has nothing to do with "localhost." If you'd like to give examples of people using "localhost vulnerability" in the past, go right ahead and link to them.
He has claimed that "localhost vulnerability" was the term used on the OpenBSD list in the 1990s. Why don't you try to find it there: http://emailthreads.org/list/openbsd-security-announce.en.ht...
A short time ago a "local root" exploit was posted to the full-disclosure mailing list;
You don't know what you're talking about. This exploit appears to give local users root privileges, making it a local root exploit exactly as the security advisory states.
The phrase "localhost vulnerability" remains meaningless techno-babble. Localhost refers to a network address and this exploit appears to have nothing to do with that.
EDIT: Since I got modded down for saying this, try to Google for it. There are less than 300 hits for "localhost vulnerability," with this article leading the charge. It's simply a mistake by someone who doesn't know the terminology.
http://www.halfsigma.com/2009/11/what-happened-to-mangans-bl...
http://www.halfsigma.com/2009/11/google-censorship-rears-its...
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2009/11/where-did-dennis-mangans-...