I wonder if there is a way to save some of your stem cells now, while you are are younger, just in case the technology is available when you are older.
> were these healthy people or were the sick averaged in?
Unless you have a magical cureall and were wondering whether to bother taking it, that's not really relevant. You're going to get sick as you get older.
Why wouldn't you be able to? Unless you age really badly you should still be just fine. Maybe at 90 you will just be too tired, but unless you get a brain disease or some other kind of dementia you will still be the same as you are now. Al lot of people work at 70 or older, it's recommended that you work until 70 before you collect social security if your retirement funds are lacking.
You young kids think anything over 45 is ancient, well it's not, and 70 is "young" old age, and people are still perfectly capable.
Everybody here walks circuitous routes around cubes and through hallways in order to minimize any possible chance of running into another human being.
I say just let everyone work at home of they want. It's the inevitable course of the future.
I hate open office plans. I want my privacy. if I need to hike up my skirt and and adjust something I want to be able to do it. if I need to call my gynecologist I want to be able to do it. If I want to surf the web I don't want anyone looking at my screen. I don't want people to be able to see when I floss my teeth. I would like an office with a door. Barring that, a cubicle with high walls and a door. Barring that, a cubicle with high walls that isn't missing the fourth wall. Barring that I want to get the hell out of there.
Management that does an open office is doing it because they're cheap and don't trust employees to do work if they can't see you. All that other stuff is pure horseshit.
Odd, just two days ago I was remembering a college class where we had to create a new programming language, and I named mine "Hack". The cover of the paper was a copy of K&R only "C" was replaced by "Hack" and of course I was the author.
The Gluten Free nonsense drives me the most crazy. Of course they don't have Celiac disease, but they are "Sensitive" to it, which there is no way to refute. There is so much pseudoscience crap floating around I'm glad there's one book out there refuting it, I just wish he was a nutrition researcher doctor or something instead of a pharmacist, which doesn't sound very impressive for a diet book.
There is one benefit from it, though: a much larger market of gluten-free products than would exist if the only people buying them were people who legitimately suffer from celiac. In that respect it's a net positive: stupid people are out some money, but it's hard to get too worked up about that since (being stupid) they would have probably found some other pointless thing to waste it on anyway, and at least this way their waste makes it possible for celiac sufferers to have a better quality of life.
The only hitch is that fads are by their nature transitory, so at some point the stupid people will flit away from gluten-free to some other fad, and the market of gluten-free products will collapse. Which will kind of suck for those who actually need them.
It's frustrating. But I've been there. First coupe years slow-carb, low-carb, plaeo, grain-is-poison. All diets work. But it was only after I got the fundamentals really down, and just did the work required that my body snapped into amazing shape, remarkably quickly. And it's possible for virtually everyone, at nearly any age.
I bet if you counted the calories in/calories out it would show the calorie deficit accounting for it. The thing with low carb, in my experience, is that it does make it easier to eat less if you have the right attitude about it. I do it AND count calories. Also, just the fact that it cuts out most of the foods in the universe helps to make it an easy decision whether or not to eat something, whereas with just calorie counting all foods are available and that one bite can become 10 bites so easily. I believe those two things account for it's success rather than some trick subverting thermodynamics.
> I bet if you counted the calories in/calories out it would show the calorie deficit accounting for it
By definition it would have to be true that you consumed fewer calories than expended. Calories in/calories out is not wrong, it's just not useful (or at least it's not a nearly complete picture).
Calories in/out are not independent variables. The type of calories you consume dictate at least: 1) how your body processes the calories you consume, 2) the energy you will have to expend, and 3) the hunger you will feel.
It was really funny that the major norwegian newsite vg.no published a screen shot of the bad page when they broke the story, with the guys "ssn" (they have something else there) and full name. Somebody must have pointed it out because later they blurred it out. Kenneth is getting his 15 minutes of fame out of this.
