OT: FCC repeals net neutrality

[Winfield Hill]

https://news.slashdot.org/story/18/01/25/2359235/burger-king-makes-the-case-for-net-neutrality


--
Thanks,
- Win

[Long Hair]

Winfield Hill wrote:

> https://news.slashdot.org/story/18/01/25/2359235/burger-king-makes-the-case-for-net-neutrality
>
>
I sure hope the entire thing goes away completely. (the 'law' which
got repealed)

It was one of the worst things Trump did.

[Jim Thompson]

On 26 Jan 2018 05:45:33 -0800, Winfield Hill
<hi...@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote:

>https://news.slashdot.org/story/18/01/25/2359235/burger-king-makes-the-case-for-net-neutrality

Only wusses buy what Burger King is selling.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson | mens |
| Analog Innovations | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| STV, Queen Creek, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

It's what you learn, after you know it all, that counts.

[Long Hair]

Jim Thompson wrote:

> On 26 Jan 2018 05:45:33 -0800, Winfield Hill
> <hi...@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
>>https://news.slashdot.org/story/18/01/25/2359235/burger-king-makes-the-case-for-net-neutrality
>
> Only wusses buy what Burger King is selling.
>
> ...Jim Thompson

Are you really that far removed from reality that you do not know what
this net neutrality thing is about?

Why am I not surprised?

[Tom Gardner]

On 26/01/18 15:31, Jim Thompson wrote:
> On 26 Jan 2018 05:45:33 -0800, Winfield Hill
> <hi...@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
>> https://news.slashdot.org/story/18/01/25/2359235/burger-king-makes-the-case-for-net-neutrality
>
> Only wusses buy what Burger King is selling.

And just listen to the doppler shift as the point screams past him :)

[Winfield Hill]

Tom Gardner wrote...

Actually, I've lately become a fan of Burger King
grilled chicken sandwiches, with extra onion.


--
Thanks,
- Win

[Joerg]

So do you get those in the ultra-fast line, the standard line or the
budget line?

:-)

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

[Winfield Hill]

Joerg wrote...

>
> Winfield Hill wrote:
>>
>> Actually, I've lately become a fan of Burger King
>> grilled chicken sandwiches, with extra onion.
>
> So do you get those in the ultra-fast line,
> the standard line or the budget line?

Hah, avoiding the pun and the issues, actually
I'm often in the slow lane because I order one
on my way to work for lunch, and have to wait
for the grill to get started and up to temp.


--
Thanks,
- Win

[Joerg]

When I spec'd out a company building for a med-tech start-up with the
architects one of the items I had on my list was a small concrete pad
outside the cantina for a charcoal barbecue. They looked at me ...
"WHAT?!". After they realized that I was serious it was done that way.

[Winfield Hill]

Joerg wrote...

>
>When I spec'd out a company building for a med-tech start-up with the
>architects one of the items I had on my list was a small concrete pad
>outside the cantina for a charcoal barbecue. They looked at me ...
>"WHAT?!". After they realized that I was serious it was done that way.

Good man!!


--
Thanks,
- Win

[Kevin Aylward]

"Winfield Hill" wrote in message news:p4flj...@drn.newsguy.com...

Well Win, I have become a great fan of keeping fit over the last year, and
yes, its only grilled chicken for me, no crispy. Crispy is a waste of 150
calories. Never eat fries now either. Only whole grain brown rice and
boiled/baked potatoes.

Happy to say my waist/height is 0.437, BMI=20.5 and 5k running stat at 24
min 50 sec (top 10% of New York 2010 marathon) resting heart rate 50 BPM,
that of an elite 30 year old athlete, all at an age of er.. ahmmm.... I am
only 135 lbs but can leg press 500lbs...

Yeah...had to find an excuse to get that lot in...somehow... :-)

-- Kevin Aylward
http://www.anasoft.co.uk - SuperSpice
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/index.html

[Winfield Hill]

Kevin Aylward wrote...

>
> "Winfield Hill" wrote in message news:p4flj...@drn.newsguy.com...
>

>> Actually, I've lately become a fan of Burger King
>> grilled chicken sandwiches, with extra onion.
>
>Well Win, I have become a great fan of keeping fit over the last year, and
>yes, its only grilled chicken for me, no crispy. Crispy is a waste of 150
>calories. Never eat fries now either. Only whole grain brown rice and
>boiled/baked potatoes.
>
>Happy to say my waist/height is 0.437, BMI=20.5 and 5k running stat at 24
>min 50 sec (top 10% of New York 2010 marathon) resting heart rate 50 BPM,
>that of an elite 30 year old athlete, all at an age of er.. ahmmm.... I am
>only 135 lbs but can leg press 500lbs...
>
>Yeah...had to find an excuse to get that lot in...somehow... :-)

Excellent, Kevin, we're impressed with those stats,
is there some secret ingredient, that is, other than
grilled chicken sandwiches? Maybe a protein powder?
Or is it just plain old discipline and hard work?


--
Thanks,
- Win

[Kevin Aylward]

"Winfield Hill" wrote in message news:p4hq5...@drn.newsguy.com...

It is discipline and hard work, unfortunately... 5 nights a week at the gym.
I do 4 km + 3 sets on 15 different weight machines on two weight nights, and
6 km on the other 3. Do a combination of HIIT and endurance. For someone my
age, I think doing 5-6 spurts at 20 km/hr is fair dinkum. My brother died of
heart failure last year at 62, so it had some impact on me. Just over a year
ago, I could not run for 30 seconds. So, hopefully I might inspire a few
more to get fitter...

It gives me really good blood stats as well. Like triglycerides = 0.7,
sugar and cholesterols all low. Exercise really is key. I would say I
doubled my lung capacity over the year.

Its only the one life, one wants to spend final retirement climbing castle
turrets without a zimmer frame.

[k...@notreal.com]

Unfortunately, much of that is genetics. My brother died of sudden
heart failure at 66 but was the most fit of the four of us. He worked
out (mostly swimming five miles) 7 days a week but he's still the one
who's heart just stopped. That's not to say that exercise is bad,
just that it isn't everything.

>It gives me really good blood stats as well. Like triglycerides = 0.7,
>sugar and cholesterols all low. Exercise really is key. I would say I
>doubled my lung capacity over the year.

I don't know what triglycerides of 0.7 means (the number doesn't make
sense with the US system - "200" is considered the "high limit") but,
again, without statins, there is only so much that can be done with
the lipid numbers.

[bitrex]

On 01/26/2018 08:45 AM, Winfield Hill wrote:
> https://news.slashdot.org/story/18/01/25/2359235/burger-king-makes-the-case-for-net-neutrality
>
>

The net has been de-facto non-neutral for years; to use a food analogy
again this is just gravy.

The idea that the FCC could have any true enforcement power over
telco/cable infrastructure controlled by monopolies was kind of silly to
begin with, definitely a "McFly! I _own_ the police"-kind of situation.

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQ7kp-SofVs>

[bitrex]

Trying to enforce net neutrality regulations by government on private
telco monopolies that control all the infrastructure is more or less a
waste of time, anyway. Say a telco starts breaking the "rules" - what
exactly is government gonna do to stop them?

Fine them? No problem, we'll just raise rates in all the areas where
people don't have any other options and blame you for it. Plenty of
people hate you more than they do us and will be happy to let government
take the fall for it. Shut us down? And disconnect 50 million people
from their favorite Netflix shows? You'd have a revolution on your hands.

"Can't Enforce"

[k...@notreal.com]

On Sat, 27 Jan 2018 12:21:29 -0500, bitrex
<bit...@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:

>On 01/26/2018 09:19 AM, Long Hair wrote:
>> Winfield Hill wrote:
>>
>>> https://news.slashdot.org/story/18/01/25/2359235/burger-king-makes-the-case-for-net-neutrality
>>>
>>>
>> I sure hope the entire thing goes away completely. (the 'law' which
>> got repealed)
>>
>> It was one of the worst things Trump did.
>>
>
>Trying to enforce net neutrality regulations by government on private
>telco monopolies that control all the infrastructure is more or less a
>waste of time, anyway. Say a telco starts breaking the "rules" - what
>exactly is government gonna do to stop them?

Fine the snot out of them? Break them up? You do know that it *has*
been done before.

>
>Fine them? No problem, we'll just raise rates in all the areas where
>people don't have any other options and blame you for it. Plenty of
>people hate you more than they do us and will be happy to let government
>take the fall for it. Shut us down? And disconnect 50 million people
>from their favorite Netflix shows? You'd have a revolution on your hands.
>
>"Can't Enforce"

Oh, good grief, you're stupid.

[Jim Thompson]

On Sat, 27 Jan 2018 12:21:29 -0500, bitrex
<bit...@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:

>On 01/26/2018 09:19 AM, Long Hair wrote:
>> Winfield Hill wrote:
>>
>>> https://news.slashdot.org/story/18/01/25/2359235/burger-king-makes-the-case-for-net-neutrality
>>>
>>>
>> I sure hope the entire thing goes away completely. (the 'law' which
>> got repealed)
>>
>> It was one of the worst things Trump did.

What? Repealing it? Trump didn't initiate it...

<http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/why-ajit-pais-decision-killing-obamas-net-neutrality-fcc-regulation-is-good/article/2641528>

>>
>
>Trying to enforce net neutrality regulations by government on private
>telco monopolies that control all the infrastructure is more or less a
>waste of time, anyway. Say a telco starts breaking the "rules" - what
>exactly is government gonna do to stop them?
>
>Fine them? No problem, we'll just raise rates in all the areas where
>people don't have any other options and blame you for it. Plenty of
>people hate you more than they do us and will be happy to let government
>take the fall for it. Shut us down? And disconnect 50 million people
>from their favorite Netflix shows? You'd have a revolution on your hands.
>
>"Can't Enforce"
>

"Net neutrality" was just a scheme of the cellphone providers to grab
all the bandwidth.

[Long Hair]

Jim Thompson wrote:

> What? Repealing it? Trump didn't initiate it...
>

You really are lost.

What Trump initiated was to attempt to KILL net nuetrality, and what
BK did was put a stop to the crap he was trying to pull, and yes it
was Trump who put the idiot at the helm of the FCC.

[tom]

"Long Hair" <DecadentLinux...@decadentlinuxuser.org> wrote in
message news:p4ii9e$1hb9$1...@gioia.aioe.org...

Wrong again, always wrong.

[Tim Williams]

"bitrex" <bit...@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Uo2bC.624$F%2....@fx04.iad...

> On 01/26/2018 08:45 AM, Winfield Hill wrote:
>> https://news.slashdot.org/story/18/01/25/2359235/burger-king-makes-the-case-for-net-neutrality
>>
>>
>
> The net has been de-facto non-neutral for years; to use a food analogy
> again this is just gravy.

Well, no.

To what level has it?

Backbone providers have been negotiating bandwidth for decades. That's not
neutral. That's just business.

The recent stink is about extending that to the end user: charging them for
different types and rates of bandwidth.

Is that "just business", or is that something that will negatively affect
you?

If you feel very attached to your one particular cable provider and all
their services, go ahead, you won't notice a single thing change... it might
even get cheaper for you. (Well, until their monopoly grows and they hike
rates because they can, not because they need to. By then it will be too
late. The old "good men who do nothing" adage, y'know?)

For those of us who get our knowledge and entertainment from diverse
sources, we're screwed. I will have to pay to be different. Which causes
knock-on effects as that raises the baseline cost of my business.

And yes, this has been done before, and it's ongoing now. Netflix still
pays a premium for their bandwidth. AT&T charges for off-network traffic
but 100% discounts on-network traffic to DirecTV (oh, but they're pledging
in favor of neutrality, how convenient). In the past, all the big names
have discriminated against competitive traffic (I don't remember the list of
cases offhand). So far, those were all shot down, but not until months
after the damage was done.

Tim

--
Seven Transistor Labs, LLC
Electrical Engineering Consultation and Contract Design
Website: https://www.seventransistorlabs.com/

[Jim Thompson]

Such failures are not unusual...

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Fixx>

<http://www.mymedicalmantra.com/renowned-gynaecologist-collapses-dies-of-heart-attack/>

<https://www.snopes.com/medical/doctor/atkins.asp>

A whole lot of old age survival has to do with genetics... and
sometimes just luck... I had my heart attack (1996)_after_ admission
to hospital with "indigestion".

>
>>It gives me really good blood stats as well. Like triglycerides = 0.7,
>>sugar and cholesterols all low. Exercise really is key. I would say I
>>doubled my lung capacity over the year.
>
>I don't know what triglycerides of 0.7 means (the number doesn't make
>sense with the US system - "200" is considered the "high limit") but,
>again, without statins, there is only so much that can be done with
>the lipid numbers.

My numbers...

Cholesterol 149
Triglyceride 69
Cholesterol/HDL Ratio 3.9
HDL Cholesterol 38
Non­HDL Cholesterol 111
LDL Cholesterol, Calculated 97*
VLDL Cholesterol 14

>
>>Its only the one life, one wants to spend final retirement climbing castle
>>turrets without a zimmer frame.

As I told the doctors during my recent septic episode, when they were
giving the standard BS about palliative care... "Cut the crap. There's
a difference between 'living' and 'existing', and I'm not into
'existing'".

[Kevin Aylward]

wrote in message news:ed6p6dt894tsvf04q...@4ax.com...

>>, much of that is genetics. My brother died of sudden
>>heart failure at 66 but was the most fit of the four of us.

He spent a year in bed started by gout. Pretty much no exercise at all. He
also smoked 40 a day, drunk, well, a lot... His heart was fucked by
lifestyle, not genetics.

The majority of the US and UK is overweight. It is why diabetes has gone up
by a factor of 10. Its that simple.

>He worked
>>out (mostly swimming five miles) 7 days a week but he's still the one
>>who's heart just stopped. That's not to say that exercise is bad,
>>just that it isn't everything.

It's a lot. Lack of exercise is a fundamental contributor to type 2
diabetes. Eating too much is the other.

Exercise significantly determines the body weight set point is. The body has
evolved to be as efficient as possible. If you are carrying a 50kg
backpack, and you see a lion chasing you what do you do? Once the body
knows it is doing lots of energy expenditure, it goes, well, is it easier to
get a larger food supply, or get rid of the fat? Its why HIIT (high
intensity interval training) works.

"Women with a body mass index (BMI) of 30 kg/m2 have a 28 times greater risk
of developing diabetes than do women of normal weight. The risk of diabetes
is 93 times greater if the BMI is 35 kg/m2.1 "

These are stunning numbers. Its not a shit 20% increase. Its *causal*.

The cause:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3066828/

The cure:

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-42154666

Most are in denial and lazy.

Average calorie intake has went up 500 cal over the last 40 years or so.

Fat at 0.125 per cal, its 62.5 gms of fat. If all stored, its 22kg per year.
Its a health disaster .

>It gives me really good blood stats as well. Like triglycerides = 0.7,
>sugar and cholesterols all low. Exercise really is key. I would say I
>doubled my lung capacity over the year.

>I don't know what triglycerides of 0.7 means (the number doesn't make
>sense with the US system - "200" is considered the "high limit") but,
>again, without statins, there is only so much that can be done with
>the lipid numbers.

Its in UK units which is mmol/l. Should be below 2.4 mmol/l

imo, statins is a 30 billion $cam. Diet and exercise fixes pretty much any
need for statins.

[k...@notreal.com]

On Sat, 27 Jan 2018 11:05:16 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 27 Jan 2018 12:21:29 -0500, bitrex
><bit...@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>On 01/26/2018 09:19 AM, Long Hair wrote:
>>> Winfield Hill wrote:
>>>
>>>> https://news.slashdot.org/story/18/01/25/2359235/burger-king-makes-the-case-for-net-neutrality
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I sure hope the entire thing goes away completely. (the 'law' which
>>> got repealed)
>>>
>>> It was one of the worst things Trump did.
>
>What? Repealing it? Trump didn't initiate it...
>
><http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/why-ajit-pais-decision-killing-obamas-net-neutrality-fcc-regulation-is-good/article/2641528>
>
>>>
>>
>>Trying to enforce net neutrality regulations by government on private
>>telco monopolies that control all the infrastructure is more or less a
>>waste of time, anyway. Say a telco starts breaking the "rules" - what
>>exactly is government gonna do to stop them?
>>
>>Fine them? No problem, we'll just raise rates in all the areas where
>>people don't have any other options and blame you for it. Plenty of
>>people hate you more than they do us and will be happy to let government
>>take the fall for it. Shut us down? And disconnect 50 million people
>>from their favorite Netflix shows? You'd have a revolution on your hands.
>>
>>"Can't Enforce"
>>
>
>"Net neutrality" was just a scheme of the cellphone providers to grab
>all the bandwidth.

No, for government to grab control of the Internet.

[k...@notreal.com]

AlwaysWrong is, of course, _always_ wrong.

[k...@notreal.com]

On Sun, 28 Jan 2018 00:24:35 -0000, "Kevin Aylward"

Gout isn't caused by the lack of exercise. Nothing to do with the
discussion, at all.

>
>The majority of the US and UK is overweight. It is why diabetes has gone up
>by a factor of 10. Its that simple.

Diabetes has nothing to do with it, either.

>>He worked
>>>out (mostly swimming five miles) 7 days a week but he's still the one
>>>who's heart just stopped. That's not to say that exercise is bad,
>>>just that it isn't everything.
>
>It's a lot. Lack of exercise is a fundamental contributor to type 2
>diabetes. Eating too much is the other.

Far less than choosing the right parents.

>
>Exercise significantly determines the body weight set point is. The body has
>evolved to be as efficient as possible. If you are carrying a 50kg
>backpack, and you see a lion chasing you what do you do? Once the body
>knows it is doing lots of energy expenditure, it goes, well, is it easier to
>get a larger food supply, or get rid of the fat? Its why HIIT (high
>intensity interval training) works.

We aren't discussing lions, either.

>"Women with a body mass index (BMI) of 30 kg/m2 have a 28 times greater risk
>of developing diabetes than do women of normal weight. The risk of diabetes
>is 93 times greater if the BMI is 35 kg/m2.1 "

Again, we aren't discussing diabetes (or lions).

>These are stunning numbers. Its not a shit 20% increase. Its *causal*.
>
>The cause:
>
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3066828/
>
>The cure:
>
>http://www.bbc.com/news/health-42154666
>
>Most are in denial and lazy.
>
>Average calorie intake has went up 500 cal over the last 40 years or so.
>
>Fat at 0.125 per cal, its 62.5 gms of fat. If all stored, its 22kg per year.
>Its a health disaster .
>
>>It gives me really good blood stats as well. Like triglycerides = 0.7,
>>sugar and cholesterols all low. Exercise really is key. I would say I
>>doubled my lung capacity over the year.
>
>>I don't know what triglycerides of 0.7 means (the number doesn't make
>>sense with the US system - "200" is considered the "high limit") but,
>>again, without statins, there is only so much that can be done with
>>the lipid numbers.
>
>Its in UK units which is mmol/l. Should be below 2.4 mmol/l
>
>imo, statins is a 30 billion $cam. Diet and exercise fixes pretty much any
>need for statins.

Bullshit.

[k...@notreal.com]

Exactly my point.

>>>It gives me really good blood stats as well. Like triglycerides = 0.7,
>>>sugar and cholesterols all low. Exercise really is key. I would say I
>>>doubled my lung capacity over the year.
>>
>>I don't know what triglycerides of 0.7 means (the number doesn't make
>>sense with the US system - "200" is considered the "high limit") but,
>>again, without statins, there is only so much that can be done with
>>the lipid numbers.
>
>My numbers...
>
>Cholesterol 149
>Triglyceride 69
>Cholesterol/HDL Ratio 3.9
>HDL Cholesterol 38

>Non胄DL Cholesterol 111

>LDL Cholesterol, Calculated 97*
>VLDL Cholesterol 14

My numbers...

Cholesterol 145
Triglyceride 47
Cholesterol/HDL Ratio ?
HDL Cholesterol 63
Non胄DL Cholesterol 82
LDL Cholesterol, Calculated 73
VLDL Cholesterol 9

My total cholesterol was 225 but the HDL was 45, so they weren't all
that worried about it, right up until they did the catheter angiogram.
Two arteries 100% blocked, one 90% and another 80% changed their mind
fast.

>>
>>>Its only the one life, one wants to spend final retirement climbing castle
>>>turrets without a zimmer frame.
>
>As I told the doctors during my recent septic episode, when they were
>giving the standard BS about palliative care... "Cut the crap. There's
>a difference between 'living' and 'existing', and I'm not into
>'existing'".

Much of what modern medicine does is "quality of life" rather than
extending life. I just had my third catheter ablaition (at $100K a
pop) because the arrhythmia is a PITA, not because it's particularly
dangerous. They'd just as soon leave it alone.

[gregz]

Depletion of minerals can induce electrical malfunction. Too much stress on
tissues and chemistry. Nothing to do with arteries. I had a friend who went
from poor circulation to great. I think he also started to take inhibitors,
yet he died in his sleep.

Greg

[Kevin Aylward]

>krw wrote in message news:gleq6ddggi56ura5u...@4ax.com...

>>
>>It is discipline and hard work, unfortunately... 5 nights a week at the
>>gym.
>>I do 4 km + 3 sets on 15 different weight machines on two weight nights,
>>and
>>6 km on the other 3. Do a combination of HIIT and endurance. For someone
>>my
>>age, I think doing 5-6 spurts at 20 km/hr is fair dinkum. My brother died
>>of
>>heart failure last year at 62, so it had some impact on me. Just over a
>>year
>>ago, I could not run for 30 seconds. So, hopefully I might inspire a few
>>more to get fitter...
>
>>>, much of that is genetics. My brother died of sudden
>>>heart failure at 66 but was the most fit of the four of us.
>
>>He spent a year in bed started by gout. Pretty much no exercise at all.
>>He
>>also smoked 40 a day, drunk, well, a lot... His heart was fucked by
>>lifestyle, not genetics.

>Gout isn't caused by the lack of exercise. Nothing to do with the
>discussion, at all.

Oh dear.... I did not say that Dah.....

My brother couldn't/didn't walk because of the *pain* of Gout. He took to
his bed because of it. Essentially, his heart atrophied because he did zero
exercise for a year. He lived in his bed. His smoking also doubled his
chance of getting heart disease.

>
>>The majority of the US and UK is overweight. It is why diabetes has gone
>>up
>>by a factor of 10. Its that simple.

>Diabetes has nothing to do with it, either.

Your reply seems logically unrelated to what I have wrote.

Exercise is crucial in getting a strong heart and exercise is crucial in
reducing the risk of diabetes.

You appear to be saying that I am claiming that a weak heart is directly
related to diabetes, which I am not.

>>He worked
>>>out (mostly swimming five miles) 7 days a week but he's still the one
>>>who's heart just stopped. That's not to say that exercise is bad,
>>>just that it isn't everything.
>
>It's a lot. Lack of exercise is a fundamental contributor to type 2
>diabetes. Eating too much is the other.

>Far less than choosing the right parents.

Bollocks if you mean genetics. Fine if you mean that bad parents feed their
kids sweets, fries and pastries, and let them stay in their rooms 12 hours a
day playing Doom rather than football.

Genetics have not changed in the last 50 years to account for the massive
increase in obesity and diabetes. 50 years ago hardly anyone was obese.
Sure, there are different likelihoods of the effects of overeating due to
genetics, but non of that that even remotely accounts for the obesity crises
we have today. Its a simple calculation for an engineer, what is stored is
input - output.

I posted a link that showed that BMI > 30 is 28 times more likely to get you
diabetes, BMI > 35 is 92 times more likely to get diabetes.
I posted a link that showed that 86% of those with type 2 diabetes that lost
15kg in a year had it go into remission.

Being fat as a cause of diabetes is just as strong as smoking causes lung
cancer. It is a self inflicted condition which the vast majority want to
make an "its not my fault" excuse for. Diabetes costs the UK NHS 10% of its
budget (£11B) and 1:7 of its beds. Estimate are that it is £40B in economy
costs per year. For the USA, the costs are rated in the 100s of billions $
range.

For example, for dinner I eat a large half plate of veg, a piece of chicken
and a piece of salmon. Its around 500 calories. A McD's muffin is 500
calories. You only need 2,000 day. Get the point?

End of story.

>
>>Exercise significantly determines the body weight set point is. The body
>>has
>>evolved to be as efficient as possible. If you are carrying a 50kg
>>backpack, and you see a lion chasing you what do you do? Once the body
>>knows it is doing lots of energy expenditure, it goes, well, is it easier
>>to
>>get a larger food supply, or get rid of the fat? Its why HIIT (high
>>intensity interval training) works.

>We aren't discussing lions, either.

I am pointing out the evolutionary arguments as to why techniques like HIIT
(High Intensity Interval Training) actually work. I am discussing health
and fitness, brought on by noting Win's preference to grilled chicken rather
than crispy chicken. It struck a chord with me.

>>"Women with a body mass index (BMI) of 30 kg/m2 have a 28 times greater
>>risk
>>of developing diabetes than do women of normal weight. The risk of
>>diabetes
>>is 93 times greater if the BMI is 35 kg/m2.1 "

>Again, we aren't discussing diabetes (or lions).

I am discussing health and fitness, it makes a change from Trump. If you
don't want to discuss this, go away. Grilled chicken is reduced calories
from crispy chicken, which reduces the chance of getting fat, which reduces
the chance of getting type 2 diabetes, which reduces the chance of going
blind, having your fingers amputated and a whole host of really nasty
disease like cancer.

https://www.diabetes.co.uk/

>These are stunning numbers. Its not a shit 20% increase. Its *causal*.
>
>The cause:
>
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3066828/
>
>The cure:
>
>http://www.bbc.com/news/health-42154666
>
>Most are in denial and lazy.
>
>Average calorie intake has went up 500 cal over the last 40 years or so.
>
>Fat at 0.125 per cal, its 62.5 gms of fat. If all stored, its 22kg per
>year.
>Its a health disaster .
>
>>It gives me really good blood stats as well. Like triglycerides = 0.7,
>>sugar and cholesterols all low. Exercise really is key. I would say I
>>doubled my lung capacity over the year.
>
>>I don't know what triglycerides of 0.7 means (the number doesn't make
>>sense with the US system - "200" is considered the "high limit") but,
>>again, without statins, there is only so much that can be done with
>>the lipid numbers.
>
>Its in UK units which is mmol/l. Should be below 2.4 mmol/l
>
>imo, statins is a 30 billion $cam. Diet and exercise fixes pretty much any
>need for statins.

>Bullshit.

I appreciate your well reasoned arguments.

[Kevin Aylward]

>"Jim Thompson" wrote in message
>news:o4qp6dl5cauv7tamg...@4ax.com...

>>
>>It is discipline and hard work, unfortunately... 5 nights a week at the
>>gym.
>>I do 4 km + 3 sets on 15 different weight machines on two weight nights,
>>and
>>6 km on the other 3. Do a combination of HIIT and endurance. For someone
>>my
>>age, I think doing 5-6 spurts at 20 km/hr is fair dinkum. My brother died
>>of
>>heart failure last year at 62, so it had some impact on me. Just over a
>>year
>>ago, I could not run for 30 seconds. So, hopefully I might inspire a few
>>more to get fitter...
>
>>Unfortunately, much of that is genetics. My brother died of sudden
>>heart failure at 66 but was the most fit of the four of us. He worked
>>out (mostly swimming five miles) 7 days a week but he's still the one
>>who's heart just stopped. That's not to say that exercise is bad,
>>just that it isn't everything.

>Such failures are not unusual...

Actually they are "unusually" in that the probability of this happening is
actually quite low. It’s in the media because its notable, not because it’s
that common.

See below link.

><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Fixx>

><http://www.mymedicalmantra.com/renowned-gynaecologist-collapses-dies-of-heart-attack/>

><https://www.snopes.com/medical/doctor/atkins.asp>

https://runningtowardsthefacts.wordpress.com/2012/08/10/the-odds-of-dying-during-a-marathon/

I never run more than 5km at a time. Hint:

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/marathon-running-could-damage-kidneys#2

"82% of of the runners in the study showed stage 1 acute kidney injury"

>A whole lot of old age survival has to do with genetics... and
>sometimes just luck... I had my heart attack (1996)_after_ admission
>to hospital with "indigestion".

Sure, genetics can play a major factor in ones health. However, essentially,
fatness, for the vast bulk of the population is not a genetic condition.
When I was at school, there was literally, only one “fat kid”. Go and look
at photos of schools in the 20s, 30s, 40s, 60s. No fat kids. Evolution
Selection and Mutation just hasn’t changed diddly squat in 50 years to
account for today. Simple maths does. One needs to explain why an increase
of 500 calories a day, with reduction in exercise does not result in massive
weight gain.

>
>>It gives me really good blood stats as well. Like triglycerides = 0.7,
>>sugar and cholesterols all low. Exercise really is key. I would say I
>>doubled my lung capacity over the year.
>
>>I don't know what triglycerides of 0.7 means (the number doesn't make
>>sense with the US system - "200" is considered the "high limit") but,
>>again, without statins, there is only so much that can be done with
>>the lipid numbers.

>My numbers...

>Cholesterol 149
>Triglyceride 69
>Cholesterol/HDL Ratio 3.9
>HDL Cholesterol 38
>Non­HDL Cholesterol 111
>LDL Cholesterol, Calculated 97*
>VLDL Cholesterol 14

Need to convert yours to EU standard. These were non fasting results, about
1-2 hours after breakfast

Triglycerides 0.7 mmol/L
Cholesterol 4.1 mmol/L
HDL Cholesterol 1.3 mmol/L
Total/HDL Cholesterol ratio 3.15
LDL Cholesterol 2.48 mmol/L
Non-HDL Cholesterol 2.8 mmol/L
Glucose (random plasma) 4.2 mmol/L

>
>>>Its only the one life, one wants to spend final retirement climbing
>>>castle
>>>turrets without a zimmer frame.

>As I told the doctors during my recent septic episode, when they were
>giving the standard BS about palliative care... "Cut the crap. There's
>a difference between 'living' and 'existing', and I'm not into
>'existing'".

I agree.

[k...@notreal.com]

On Sun, 28 Jan 2018 09:11:35 -0000, "Kevin Aylward"
<kevinR...@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:

>>krw wrote in message news:gleq6ddggi56ura5u...@4ax.com...
>
>>>
>>>It is discipline and hard work, unfortunately... 5 nights a week at the
>>>gym.
>>>I do 4 km + 3 sets on 15 different weight machines on two weight nights,
>>>and
>>>6 km on the other 3. Do a combination of HIIT and endurance. For someone
>>>my
>>>age, I think doing 5-6 spurts at 20 km/hr is fair dinkum. My brother died
>>>of
>>>heart failure last year at 62, so it had some impact on me. Just over a
>>>year
>>>ago, I could not run for 30 seconds. So, hopefully I might inspire a few
>>>more to get fitter...
>>
>>>>, much of that is genetics. My brother died of sudden
>>>>heart failure at 66 but was the most fit of the four of us.
>>
>>>He spent a year in bed started by gout. Pretty much no exercise at all.
>>>He
>>>also smoked 40 a day, drunk, well, a lot... His heart was fucked by
>>>lifestyle, not genetics.
>
>>Gout isn't caused by the lack of exercise. Nothing to do with the
>>discussion, at all.
>
>Oh dear.... I did not say that Dah.....

That *was* the discussion. Gout is a red herring.

>
>My brother couldn't/didn't walk because of the *pain* of Gout. He took to
>his bed because of it. Essentially, his heart atrophied because he did zero
>exercise for a year. He lived in his bed. His smoking also doubled his
>chance of getting heart disease.

Smoking is what killed him.

>>>The majority of the US and UK is overweight. It is why diabetes has gone
>>>up
>>>by a factor of 10. Its that simple.
>
>>Diabetes has nothing to do with it, either.
>
>Your reply seems logically unrelated to what I have wrote.

No, 2/3rds of your post was a red herring. I was pointing that out.

>Exercise is crucial in getting a strong heart and exercise is crucial in
>reducing the risk of diabetes.

Of course. There is a limit and there are other issues with excessive
exercise but those, too, are red herrings.

>You appear to be saying that I am claiming that a weak heart is directly
>related to diabetes, which I am not.

No, I'm saying that it is has nothing to do with the discussion at
hand.

>>>He worked
>>>>out (mostly swimming five miles) 7 days a week but he's still the one
>>>>who's heart just stopped. That's not to say that exercise is bad,
>>>>just that it isn't everything.
>>
>>It's a lot. Lack of exercise is a fundamental contributor to type 2
>>diabetes. Eating too much is the other.
>
>>Far less than choosing the right parents.
>
>Bollocks if you mean genetics. Fine if you mean that bad parents feed their
>kids sweets, fries and pastries, and let them stay in their rooms 12 hours a
>day playing Doom rather than football.

No bollocks. Genetics.

>Genetics have not changed in the last 50 years to account for the massive
>increase in obesity and diabetes. 50 years ago hardly anyone was obese.
>Sure, there are different likelihoods of the effects of overeating due to
>genetics, but non of that that even remotely accounts for the obesity crises
>we have today. Its a simple calculation for an engineer, what is stored is
>input - output.

Again, diabetes has ZERO to do with the discussion at hand. You keep
changing the subject.

>
>I posted a link that showed that BMI > 30 is 28 times more likely to get you
>diabetes, BMI > 35 is 92 times more likely to get diabetes.
>I posted a link that showed that 86% of those with type 2 diabetes that lost
>15kg in a year had it go into remission.

See above.

>Being fat as a cause of diabetes is just as strong as smoking causes lung
>cancer. It is a self inflicted condition which the vast majority want to
>make an "its not my fault" excuse for. Diabetes costs the UK NHS 10% of its
>budget (£11B) and 1:7 of its beds. Estimate are that it is £40B in economy
>costs per year. For the USA, the costs are rated in the 100s of billions $
>range.

More red herrings.

>For example, for dinner I eat a large half plate of veg, a piece of chicken
>and a piece of salmon. Its around 500 calories. A McD's muffin is 500
>calories. You only need 2,000 day. Get the point?

Aren't you impressive! You must be at least a Bishop in your
religion.

>End of story.
>
>>
>>>Exercise significantly determines the body weight set point is. The body
>>>has
>>>evolved to be as efficient as possible. If you are carrying a 50kg
>>>backpack, and you see a lion chasing you what do you do? Once the body
>>>knows it is doing lots of energy expenditure, it goes, well, is it easier
>>>to
>>>get a larger food supply, or get rid of the fat? Its why HIIT (high
>>>intensity interval training) works.
>
>>We aren't discussing lions, either.
>
>I am pointing out the evolutionary arguments as to why techniques like HIIT
>(High Intensity Interval Training) actually work. I am discussing health
>and fitness, brought on by noting Win's preference to grilled chicken rather
>than crispy chicken. It struck a chord with me.

No, you're not. You're changing the subject so you can preen about
your religion.

>
>>>"Women with a body mass index (BMI) of 30 kg/m2 have a 28 times greater
>>>risk
>>>of developing diabetes than do women of normal weight. The risk of
>>>diabetes
>>>is 93 times greater if the BMI is 35 kg/m2.1 "
>
>>Again, we aren't discussing diabetes (or lions).
>
>I am discussing health and fitness, it makes a change from Trump. If you
>don't want to discuss this, go away. Grilled chicken is reduced calories
>from crispy chicken, which reduces the chance of getting fat, which reduces
>the chance of getting type 2 diabetes, which reduces the chance of going
>blind, having your fingers amputated and a whole host of really nasty
>disease like cancer.

That wasn't the subject. Neither was your new-found religion.

>
>https://www.diabetes.co.uk/
>
>>These are stunning numbers. Its not a shit 20% increase. Its *causal*.
>>
>>The cause:
>>
>>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3066828/
>>
>>The cure:
>>
>>http://www.bbc.com/news/health-42154666
>>
>>Most are in denial and lazy.
>>
>>Average calorie intake has went up 500 cal over the last 40 years or so.
>>
>>Fat at 0.125 per cal, its 62.5 gms of fat. If all stored, its 22kg per
>>year.
>>Its a health disaster .
>>
>>>It gives me really good blood stats as well. Like triglycerides = 0.7,
>>>sugar and cholesterols all low. Exercise really is key. I would say I
>>>doubled my lung capacity over the year.
>>
>>>I don't know what triglycerides of 0.7 means (the number doesn't make
>>>sense with the US system - "200" is considered the "high limit") but,
>>>again, without statins, there is only so much that can be done with
>>>the lipid numbers.
>>
>>Its in UK units which is mmol/l. Should be below 2.4 mmol/l
>>
>>imo, statins is a 30 billion $cam. Diet and exercise fixes pretty much any
>>need for statins.
>
>>Bullshit.
>
>I appreciate your well reasoned arguments.

More than they deserved.

[M Philbrook]

In article <d9im6dlv91j0k98hv...@4ax.com>, To-Email-Use-
The-Enve...@On-My-Web-Site.com says...

>
> On 26 Jan 2018 05:45:33 -0800, Winfield Hill
> <hi...@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
> >https://news.slashdot.org/story/18/01/25/2359235/burger-king-makes-the-case-for-net-neutrality
>
> Only wusses buy what Burger King is selling.
>

> ...Jim Thompson

I don't know about that, I like their Wooppers!, you should see what it
has done for me!

I don't look like no wussie! ;)

[Kevin Aylward]

wrote in message news:8tgr6d15ehmdcecek...@4ax.com...

>
>>
>>>He spent a year in bed started by gout. Pretty much no exercise at all.
>>>He
>>>also smoked 40 a day, drunk, well, a lot... His heart was fucked by
>>>lifestyle, not genetics.
>
>>Gout isn't caused by the lack of exercise. Nothing to do with the
>>discussion, at all.
>
>>Oh dear.... I did not say that Dah.....

>That *was* the discussion. Gout is a red herring.

No it was not the discussion. You just made it up as you went along.

>
>>My brother couldn't/didn't walk because of the *pain* of Gout. He took to
>>his bed because of it. Essentially, his heart atrophied because he did
>>zero
>>exercise for a year. He lived in his bed. His smoking also doubled his
>>chance of getting heart disease.

>Smoking is what killed him.

So, you had access to my brother's death report ?

I actually did. No, it was not smoking. Do you understand what happens to
astronauts is space in a zero gravity situation?

My brother never got out of bed for a year. What part of bed bound do you
not understand?

Muscles atrophy if not used, that includes the heart.

>>Exercise is crucial in getting a strong heart and exercise is crucial in
>>reducing the risk of diabetes.

>Of course. There is a limit and there are other issues with excessive
>exercise but those, too, are red herrings.

Yes, 26 mile marathons are a disaster.

>>You appear to be saying that I am claiming that a weak heart is directly
>>related to diabetes, which I am not.

>No, I'm saying that it is has nothing to do with the discussion at
>hand.

You took the wrong end of the stick, mate.

>>>He worked
>>>>out (mostly swimming five miles) 7 days a week but he's still the one
>>>>who's heart just stopped. That's not to say that exercise is bad,
>>>>just that it isn't everything.
>>
>>It's a lot. Lack of exercise is a fundamental contributor to type 2
>>diabetes. Eating too much is the other.
>
>>Far less than choosing the right parents.
>
>>Bollocks if you mean genetics. Fine if you mean that bad parents feed
>>their
>>kids sweets, fries and pastries, and let them stay in their rooms 12 hours
>>a
>>day playing Doom rather than football.

>No bollocks. Genetics.

Completely delusional. Its the excuse that fat people usually use to absolve
them of any hint that getting fat is self inflicted except for those 1% ers
with a genuine medical condition.

I already explained below why it can not possibly be genetics.

Fat = 0.125 x calories. Average calorie consumption has gone up 500
calories. End of story.

Its so trivially obvious that too much food and no exercise results in
people getting fat that one can only hit one's head at the brick wall at
such a stupid idea that it isn't.

>>Genetics have not changed in the last 50 years to account for the massive
>>increase in obesity and diabetes. 50 years ago hardly anyone was obese.
>>Sure, there are different likelihoods of the effects of overeating due to
>>genetics, but non of that that even remotely accounts for the obesity
>>crises
>>we have today. Its a simple calculation for an engineer, what is stored is
>>input - output.

>Again, diabetes has ZERO to do with the discussion at hand. You keep
>changing the subject.

Nope. You never paid attention to what was actually being discussed.

>
>>I posted a link that showed that BMI > 30 is 28 times more likely to get
>>you
>>diabetes, BMI > 35 is 92 times more likely to get diabetes.
>>I posted a link that showed that 86% of those with type 2 diabetes that
>>lost
>>15kg in a year had it go into remission.

>See above.

Denial of the facts again.

>>Being fat as a cause of diabetes is just as strong as smoking causes lung
>>cancer. It is a self inflicted condition which the vast majority want to
>>make an "its not my fault" excuse for. Diabetes costs the UK NHS 10% of
>>its
>>budget (£11B) and 1:7 of its beds. Estimate are that it is £40B in economy
>>costs per year. For the USA, the costs are rated in the 100s of billions $
>>range.

>More red herrings.

Not for points I am addressing.

>>For example, for dinner I eat a large half plate of veg, a piece of
>>chicken
>>and a piece of salmon. Its around 500 calories. A McD's muffin is 500
>>calories. You only need 2,000 day. Get the point?

>Aren't you impressive! You must be at least a Bishop in your
>religion.

So, what Weight/Height ratio and BMI are you? I now suspect that you are one
of those that can't deal with reality.

>
>>>"Women with a body mass index (BMI) of 30 kg/m2 have a 28 times greater
>>>risk
>>>of developing diabetes than do women of normal weight. The risk of
>>>diabetes
>>>is 93 times greater if the BMI is 35 kg/m2.1 "
>
>>Again, we aren't discussing diabetes (or lions).
>
>>I am discussing health and fitness, it makes a change from Trump. If you
>>don't want to discuss this, go away. Grilled chicken is reduced calories
>>from crispy chicken, which reduces the chance of getting fat, which
>>reduces
>>the chance of getting type 2 diabetes, which reduces the chance of going

>>blind, having your fingers amputated and a host of really nasty

>>disease like cancer.

>That wasn't the subject. Neither was your new-found religion.

I certainly agree that I have only relatively recently got to grips with the
crisis in western obesity and I don't apologise for bringing it to peoples
attention. It kills millions prematurely.

Most have never bothered to even think about the subject. However, once one
has been given the nod, it is stunningly trivial to do some goggling and
really discover the extent of the problem.

say "us obesity crisis"


I agree, that there are also some doctors in denial as well. There is
certainly no incentive for fast food chains to highlight the fact that they
encourage people to eat twice the calories that they need in a day. Nor is
there any incentive for food manufactures to stop putting sugar in say,
savoury products like peanut butter to get more people to buy it.

Supermarkets are stuffed to the brim with cakes, sweets, chocolate, cookies,
50% sugar cereals for kids, and you say it has nothing to do with food, its
all genetics or "I have big bones" Yeah. Right.

[bitrex]

On 01/27/2018 04:06 PM, Tim Williams wrote:
> "bitrex" <bit...@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:Uo2bC.624$F%2....@fx04.iad...
>> On 01/26/2018 08:45 AM, Winfield Hill wrote:
>>> https://news.slashdot.org/story/18/01/25/2359235/burger-king-makes-the-case-for-net-neutrality
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The net has been de-facto non-neutral for years; to use a food analogy
>> again this is just gravy.
>
> Well, no.
>
> To what level has it?
>
> Backbone providers have been negotiating bandwidth for decades.  That's
> not neutral.  That's just business.
>
> The recent stink is about extending that to the end user: charging them
> for different types and rates of bandwidth.
>
> Is that "just business", or is that something that will negatively
> affect you?
>
> If you feel very attached to your one particular cable provider and all
> their services, go ahead, you won't notice a single thing change... it
> might even get cheaper for you.  (Well, until their monopoly grows and
> they hike rates because they can, not because they need to.  By then it
> will be too late.  The old "good men who do nothing" adage, y'know?)

It's already bit late to make a national fuss about it now, yeah? Telcos
were fairly careful about how they worded their advertisements, and for
whatever reason, for the better part of two decades, consumers seemed to
think that what they were being sold was something different than it
actually was. The telcos argue that what they were selling was simply
the last-mile connection to their network, not the ability to access any
site, anywhere, anytime, at some arbitrarily high X Mbps connection speed.

They couldn't possibly do the latter without some kind of
traffic-shaping, they just don't have the infrastructure in place to
accommodate that level of traffic over the last mile, because it wasn't
required to support the product which they were selling.

Frankly I gotta say after thinking it over I find their position has a
certain validity; they sold a product, the consumer for the most part
accepted it as it was, and now as demand for bandwidth skyrockets to the
heavens simply as a matter of scarce-resource allocation I don't see
that they have much choice but to play favorites.

It was the logical outcome of the consumer's taciturn acceptance of the
product they were sold. If the consumer had wanted something different,
then the consumer needed to start demanding something different. 20
years ago.

[Tim Williams]

"bitrex" <bit...@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote in message

news:cEqbC.2388$1Y2...@fx15.iad...

> They couldn't possibly do the latter without some kind of traffic-shaping,
> they just don't have the infrastructure in place to accommodate that level
> of traffic over the last mile, because it wasn't required to support the
> product which they were selling.
>
> Frankly I gotta say after thinking it over I find their position has a
> certain validity; they sold a product, the consumer for the most part
> accepted it as it was, and now as demand for bandwidth skyrockets to the
> heavens simply as a matter of scarce-resource allocation I don't see that
> they have much choice but to play favorites.

This sounds like BS. I remember years ago, back when cable was new here, it
would get congested many evenings, as everyone in the neighborhood came home
and did whatever they were doing. Mind this was before video streaming was
a thing (YouTube was, what, 2003?), and probably coincident with the
widespread rollout of digital cable boxes.

That sounds like "last mile" to me. If you mean something different, in
terms of infrastructure or traffic patterns, I don't know.

I haven't seen neighborhood scale congestion in a long time. Presumably
because they improved their infrastructure to the point where most internet
traffic always runs smoothly.

Soon with the exception of streaming videos that compete with their
entertainment bundle.

There is no technical reason to discriminate. Typical tests show my
connection, for example, is more than capable of sustaining multiple file
downloads and streams, simultaneously.

Even if that were a large burden on their backbone (which it would, because
they sell based on peak, not guaranteed average, speeds; such activity would
unfairly impact my neighbors, and if everyone were doing that at the same
time, there would be congestion), the fact is, they have that bandwidth
available, specifically for their own needs at the very minimum -- that is,
streaming their own authorized content to set top boxes.

So the only way they can compete is to create an artificial barrier,
discriminating based on traffic location, an anti-consumer action.

[k...@notreal.com]

On Sun, 28 Jan 2018 08:06:19 -0000 (UTC), gregz <ze...@comcast.net>
wrote:

Certainly. There are many things that cause electrical malfunctions
but chemistry is usually a temporary issue and if not is easily
discovered and corrected. Coronary artery disease is very high on the
list and I'm well down that road already. I've had the CABG/MAZE and
three catheter ablations and six cardioversions (two as part of
"failed" ablations). The last ablation (two weeks ago) didn't do much
(according to the electophysiologist). Drugs were working but were
causing dangerous side effects. If this ablation doesn't work (and
the electrophysiologist doesn't think it will), the next step is
likely drugs with a pacemaker to mitigate those side effects.