Seconded.
3,175 karma · joined August 11, 2012
Forcing everyone to use a government-sanctioned standard is a good way to prevent the next big thing from happening and succeeding.
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/ketones-and-ketosis/carbo...
"Since cancers can't really get nourishment from anything but glucose, it stands to reason that cutting off this supply would, at the very least, slow down tumor growth, especially in aggressive, fast-growing cancers requiring a lot of glucose to fuel their rapid growth. Thomas Seyfried [showed] that ketogenic diets in animals and humans can stop malignant brain tumors."
On the other hand, "The China Study", Dr. Campbell's best-selling popular book wherein he attempts to interpret the data causatively, has been absolutely demolished and debunked as egregiously bad science for some time now. Evgeny already linked to Denise Minger's notorious initial critique that got the ball rolling. Dr. Eades (of the grandparent post) wrote his own critique at:
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/cancer/the-china-study-vs...
"The web has been alive with commentary the past few weeks since Denise Minger lobbed her first cannonball of a critique across the bow of The China Study, the vessel T. Colin Campbell, Ph.D. rode to fame and bestsellerdom. Seems like everyone is now jumping into the fray and gunning for poor Dr. Campbell, who early on in the fracas made a few halfhearted attempts to fight back but has now fled the scene. I've been laying low watching it all play out, and so now figured it's about time I add my two cents worth to the debate."
"Researchers doing observational studies have much the same problem. They try to think of all the differences between two large populations of subjects so that they can statistically negate them so that only the observation in question – the vitamin C level in the example above – is different between the groups. Problem is they can never possibly think of all the differences between the groups. As a consequence, they never have a perfect study with exactly the same number, sex, age, lifestyle, etc. on both sides with the only difference being the study parameter. And so they don’t really ever prove anything. In fact, we would all probably be a lot better off if all the researchers doing observational studies had followed my lead and fallen asleep mid study."
http://falkvinge.net/2014/02/28/the-gox-crater-crowd-detecti...
Did you actually read the article?
"Some recovered the ability to communicate"
http://falkvinge.net/2014/02/28/the-gox-crater-crowd-detecti...
No shit it involves other parties: all your customers, for one.
"What they propose for the new HTTP/2.0 protocol is nothing short of officially sanctioned snooping."
> Q: Why do you use SHA-1 in the place of a MAC?
> Technically speaking, in our implementation SHA-1 can be seen as a specific case of a MAC (but not HMAC), since it is also used as an encryption key.
> We use it, because it is faster, especially when you need to send photos or large videos (Telegram supports videos and documents up to 1Gb). And since this means still requiring at least 2^128 operations (instead of 2^256 with, say, SHA-2) to even begin trying to break this scheme, the trade-off seems fair.