Firefox is dying of old age: There was a time when Firefox was the new kid on the block shaking things up. Now they’re just tired and old. I don’t particularly care whether they port to iOS or not, but it shows their attitude, and that’s exactly it, attitude. They are very full of themselves, all based on past glories and not act like a frontrunner who has no need to compete. My real beef with them is that Firefox now sucks, esp. after they did the HTML5 integration. Haven’t they ever heard of coding no-wait I/O for the network (it stalls sometimes, fellows, and having an unresponsive browser because you’re waiting on a slow (possibly never) event is really so 1970s; ever heard of threading?) But worse they just love bouncing the screen around with highly dynamic pages; hey, fellows, every heard of the UI concept that code doesn’t change focus, only user actions do. The stupidity in Firefox + the stupidity in some web pages makes them mostly unusable, not cool, fellows.
GMOs strike back: Explanations of GMOs isn’t going to change anything. This is leftie conspiracy stuff which is just as stupid as rightwingnut conspiracy stuff. Truth won’t matter which the myths can spread instead. Let’s actually look at what is beneath all this. The initial hostility to GMOs was in Europe, primarily France, and simply put it was a form of protectionism. GMOs can be and are patented and by U.S. companies. So this was simple a trade dispute squabble over money, pure and simple. Then the Seattle meetings blew it up, literally using the same tricks as the Kochs used to fund the tea baggers, but in this case it was clueless lefties, organized to fight on one side or the other of a corporate dispute over profits (who bothered to check the facts when perfectly good conspiracy theories worked better). By then the anti-GMO movement was set in stone, just like the anti-tax movement; facts and circumstances weren’t going to change anything. So now people come along, including former opponents, and recognize the facts: a) every food is genetically engineered by humans, all we’re arguing about is which lab technique is used, and, b) genetic modification of food, all through human history, is what has allowed us to escape the Malthusian death spiral and it still applies today, and, c) GMO is green, which is amusing given the clueless greens (vs the knowledgeable greens) are the main opponents. Right up there with nutrition nonsense, vaccine nonsense, the lefties again prove they can be stupid too.
This explains it. The CTO of HuffPo had this to say about browsers. If any of you are techies and you can’t spot many mistakes in this in a quick scan, then turn in your techie strips. HuffPo creates some of the worst pages on the web and given this guy, with these ideas, is their CTO explains it. Hey, HuffPo, get some first-rate people.
Harvard deans are surprised? It just goes to show a bunch of education doesn’t mean you know anything. These people are surprised that their employer snoops on the email they sent through the employer’s email system. Don’t they know who owns those emails? Haven’t they read anything about workers in companies [mostly] knowing not to send private stuff, like discussions with another potential employer through company systems. I guess they really do live in an ivory tower.
And this rates another DUH on the privacy front: Gosh, the footprints you leave at Facebook allows someone the ability to deduce all sorts of personal information about you. This is news! This is rocket science! People need to be told this! For instance, I bet automated techniques (not human pattern recognition and investigative ingenuity) can deduce almost everything about me from my postings here at WordPress.com. In fact, I bet they can deduce things about me I can’t even imagine can be done. But at least I know I’ve leaving these digital footprints (forever, btw folks, as your next lesson nothing ever disappears even if you delete it) will reveal a lot. My privacy plan – simple, anonymity. Is the NSA reading this? I doubt it, and besides I’ve seen some of NSA’s technology and it sucks in comparison to what the ad tracking people can do, proves the Repug case of private enterprise (greed) working better than government (patriotic duty). Why! A) because they’re semi-incompetent, B) law enforcement always goes for low-hanging fruit (so they can “close” cases), and, C) this isn’t probably where any bad guys the NSA is looking for hangs out, and, D) terrorists couldn’t write as much volume of English language text as I can. Are the Repugs looking for me – nope, they could care less? Is some religinut cult looking for me, nope, they could care less. And on and on. Is some advertiser looking for me, you bet, but blogs confuse them and personal chit-chat at Facebook provides much better pickings. But the point is the public simply cannot adopt these things and then be “surprised” when it turns out your information is being put to other uses than chatting with your friend list. Come on, folks – all this is business, motivated by greed (not free public services). They will pick your pocket whenever they can. So wise and stop being such a fool, public – you’re smarter than that. Maybe? I hope?
Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good – is bad data really so bad? In Bad Data Handbook Q. Ethan McCallum reminds us of this point. I’ve been hard on nutritionists or nutrition advisor in my posts and mostly, I think, justifiably. Most are wrong or at best only vaguely right, sorta up there with supplement guru, homeopathic doctors, acupuncturists, and astrologers, BUT, even a broken clock is right twice a day. The problem is that I’m scoring these “experts” from the lofty perch of substantial knowledge about nutrition, biochemistry, engineering logic, math competency, and cuisine. I rate myself in the top 5%, maybe only top 10%, maybe top 1% in these areas, but at the very least fairly high. I can read and understand scientific papers. OTOH, nutritionist and dieticians, even the quacks on HuffPo, are pitching at the 98% or 95% or 90% who don’t do these things. Therefore I will allow some of their advice, some of the time, for some people may be correct AND almost assuredly it is better information that held by those being advised. For instance, in this country, by states, obesity is very highly correlated (inversely) with income and education; IOW, the wretched red states that only have Repugs that are ruining our whole country are the worst states in almost any measure of health. These are also states with the worst education systems, the most home schooling, the most religious mythology. Is it any wonder they know nothing about nutrition and are obese, not so much by “choice” but by ignorance. So the advice that I’m denouncing is quite possibly good for those people. In short, I’m setting the bar at the “perfect” and finding most fall short of that, when in fact those people, the good ones, who are genuinely trying to help people with their health issues at setting the bar at the “good”. So I should come them some slack. But among these well-intentioned people there are some charlatans who are, in fact, taking advantage of people, and those need to be denounced. Furthermore there are people who “information” is politically motivated (in this case mostly by leftie causes) and thus just plain wrong (if it were FauxNews I’d call them lies, but I cut lefties some slack). So the political and the opportunistic are like the old idea of guerilla fighters hanging out with and getting support from a gullible public. A real dietician can’t throw out the quacks on HuffPo and since their advice overlaps won’t (they should, I think). But I think the hacks must be denounced. But just realize I don’t paint all the people with the same brush. Nor do I think none of the people do any good at all (unfortunately the quacks often do harm). So I don’t make the mistake of this headline, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to label every opinion stated with disclaimers.
Misplaced article, fooled HuffPo. Huffington Post is its never ending war of good eating is a sucker for every quack there is peddling a book or diet plan. Whoever picks articles must not read them. Here, for instance, is an article on gluten. Note this is NOT in the Food section but in the Health section. Naturally I expected the usual rant about gluten and poison and how if we haven’t yet been diagnosed with celiac disease and should hide under the bed from gluten then it’s a conspiracy of the conventional medical establishment, who depends of data and facts, you know like tests, to not tell you all your food allergies to modern factory food (oops, they forget wheat and bread are kinda ancient foods, aren’t they, not exactly invented in a chemical plant). No, instead it’s a fairly plain vanilla article, purely about the effect of gluten on baked goods, which anyone who has read any kind of baking cookbook would know by heart. So why is such a Cooking 101 article in the Health section. I’ll bet it’s due to some stupid editor who merely assumed any article on gluten has to be a rant on the horror of gluten and just tossed it in along with all the other quackery in the Health sections.