Same problem in Firefox v17 in an updated Mac OS X 10.8.2 on my client's new 13" MacBook Pro:

$ top -u
Processes: 132 total, 2 running, 4 stuck, 126 sleeping, 594 threads 08:06:31
Load Avg: 1.06, 0.85, 1.00 CPU usage: 10.37% user, 3.53% sys, 86.8% idle
SharedLibs: 15M resident, 12M data, 0B linkedit.
MemRegions: 33217 total, 1493M resident, 65M private, 518M shared.
PhysMem: 1216M wired, 1738M active, 930M inactive, 3883M used, 4307M free.
VM: 322G vsize, 1058M framework vsize, 163854(2) pageins, 0(0) pageouts.
Networks: packets: 216196/213M in, 154539/18M out.
Disks: 93154/1760M read, 53341/2164M written.

PID COMMAND %CPU TIME #TH #WQ #POR #MREGS RPRVT RSHRD RSIZE
2981 firefox 26.7 02:18.97 34 3 233+ 4004+ 716M+ 139M 979M+
2968 Terminal 10.1 00:10.04 7 3 157+ 373+ 16M+ 31M 34M+
3322 top 5.3 00:00.96 1/1 0 26 30 1092K 216K 1840K
1753 WindowServer 3.5 01:35.71 4 1 430- 1278- 17M- 47M- 61M-
52 hidd 3.3 01:15.74 5 3 90 68 1232K 288K 3180K
0 kernel_task 2.5 04:09.18 82/4 0 2 513+ 46M+ 0B 491M+
44 mds 0.9 01:51.20 9 7 214+ 362+ 103M+ 19M 105M+
1 launchd 0.7 00:02.92 3 0 412 44 1436K 380K 1932K
3313 mdworker 0.5 00:00.34 4 1 57 73 5836K 2760K 12M
43 mtmd 0.3 00:05.73 6 5 75+ 73+ 6264K+ 11M 9100K+
1847 SystemUIServ 0.2 00:05.80 5 4 259+ 339 10M 36M 26M
53 fseventsd 0.1 00:03.44 81 1 314 216 7368K 216K 8072K
1848 Finder 0.1 00:01.83 4 3 178 354 10M 44M 33M
21 cfprefsd 0.0 00:01.46 5 5 164+ 53+ 1004K+ 224K 1712K
...

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Fantomas.

I rode the Acela from Balmer, MD to Penn Station ten years ago. Nice ride.

>> ^petpeeved:

De-criminalize all drugs in the United States. Make them available and cheap with a prescription from an MD. along with mandatory attendance at a drug counselor. Voila, no more drug lords, no more massacres.
I'd also be willing to venture that the same people who are using drugs now, will be the ones using them after decriminalization while the ones not currently using, won't turn into druggies just because they can access them legally.


Yah I wonder why they won't do the ONE thing the drug lords DON'T want, which is to make drugs legal. The thing that upsets me the most about this is that because an essentially harmless plant has been made ilegal, thousands upon thousands of people die every year, for what? Nothing...

De-criminalize all drugs in the United States. Make them available and cheap with a prescription from an MD. along with mandatory attendance at a drug counselor. Voila, no more drug lords, no more massacres.

I'd also be willing to venture that the same people who are using drugs now, will be the ones using them after decriminalization while the ones not currently using, won't turn into druggies just because they can access them legally.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by ReverendTed.

I guess that is because they look at it as a temporary diet (Yoyo dieting) and not a change in their diet for the rest of their lives... I'm a (self-described) "carbaholic" and as such when I "fall of the wagon" I eat carbs like nobodies business (as in 4 doughnuts, a pound of chocolate, about a gallon of soda and energy drinks, 3-6 candy bars and ~2 pounds of assorted pick-and-mix candy every single day). As it is now I will never return to a carb heavy diet because I cannot handle it, in the same way that an alcoholic can't handle drinking just one beer. And not to go all Ad-Hominem on you but as an MD you are specialised on disease and not health.

I recommend that you look at this page as it has 17 links to 17 RCT studies on the effects of LCHF diets.

Also from the mayo clinic which I assume is a pretty good source: "There have been a number of studies comparing weight loss with these two types of diets [LCHF/HCLF - My clarification]. In general, low-carb diets may result in a little more weight loss in the first 3 to 6 months. However, after 1 to 2 years there isn't much difference. What's interesting is that the amount of weight loss varies widely among people following either diet. So which type of diet you choose may matter less than whether you stick to it."
On an LCHF diet where you are full all and have a stable blood sugar level all the time it is a lot easier to stay on the diet and not splurge... (Kind of an anecdote... see my previous post in this thread)

Also some more science posts here
1 LCHF vs. HCLF diet (I recommend reading all of it)
2 (A full text from 2002 that might not be available for all [I logged on my Uni resources to search databases for the it] and it is a decade old but still a bit interesting. Name of the study is: Very-low-carbohydrate weight-loss diets revisited. Authors: Volek JS; Westman EC in case you need to search for it on Google scholar or the like)
3 Long term (1 year +) effects

I'm drunk right now so can't be arsed to find more sources.. it is Friday Damn it!!


>> ^DocDarm:

>> ^pyloricvalve:
In "Why we get fat", Gary Taubes argues very persuasively that the above is almost entirely wrong. Increasing exercise will have have the effect of increasing hunger or reducing your activity at other times through tiredness. Eating less will likewise reduce your activity level or lead to levels of hunger that are intolerable in the long term. The way to lose weight according to him is the Atkins, South Beach, Primal method of reducing sugar and carb intake to something very low. Personally I found it very convincing and I strongly recommend the book.

As a medical doctor, I call bullshit on this guy. Look at Atkins/South Beach's effect on peoples weight 1 year AFTER the diet. I see people go on diets all the time. They almost universally fail after 1 year. (Remember, we're talking about LONG-TERM weight loss, not SHORT-TERM weight loss...Atkins/South Beach perform very well in the short term!) My patients that go to the gym to lose weight do much, much better....but only if they KEEP going to the gym.

You seem like a really reasonable person. Gary Taubes is probably the best authority on weightloss and health right now. Regardless of what the MD's say.

In reply to this comment by pyloricvalve:
That's interesting. When you say people fail, do they start to eat sugar and carbs again and get fat or do they stay not eating sugar and carbs and even so start to get fat again. If it is the former it doesn't mean it's not the correct way to lose weight, it just means people need more determination not to eat sugar and carbs. My impression is that the usual prescription of eat less exercise more is also very hard to maintain in the long run.

Again I strongly recommend the book. It's not so much a diet book as a book about the evolution of the dietary science.

>> ^DocDarm:

>> ^pyloricvalve:
In "Why we get fat", Gary Taubes argues very persuasively that the above is almost entirely wrong. Increasing exercise will have have the effect of increasing hunger or reducing your activity at other times through tiredness. Eating less will likewise reduce your activity level or lead to levels of hunger that are intolerable in the long term. The way to lose weight according to him is the Atkins, South Beach, Primal method of reducing sugar and carb intake to something very low. Personally I found it very convincing and I strongly recommend the book.

As a medical doctor, I call bullshit on this guy. Look at Atkins/South Beach's effect on peoples weight 1 year AFTER the diet. I see people go on diets all the time. They almost universally fail after 1 year. (Remember, we're talking about LONG-TERM weight loss, not SHORT-TERM weight loss...Atkins/South Beach perform very well in the short term!) My patients that go to the gym to lose weight do much, much better....but only if they KEEP going to the gym.

I'd like to see this guys disgnosis. Its absolutely great with what he's accomplished but I'm always a little bothered when people say things like, "doctors told me I'd never walk again." I'm sure there is much more to what the doctors or others in the medical field have said or meant. There is another video online with a lady that had a spinal injury and said the same thing but now ambulates utilizing a mechanical walking device. It's great and all but it always feels like MD's and the like are being slightly vilified in context.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Boise_Lib.

Isn't Morphex an pain killer?


Yes. http://www.catalog.md/drugs/morphex.html Yes it is.

Fuck that pill is big.

Statist!!1! >> ^chingalera:

"Do you think there should be any limits on how much property a person can own?"
No, but there should be criteria in place for just how much property assholes,cunts,and douchebags may own.

Yeah, I get that. usually the left is calling for more than "some" regulation.

As the scamulus proved, collusion between government and banks is also possible.

Also, "merriment". Good word.


>> ^Bradaphraser:

I think the point dystopianfuturetoday is making is that when regulation is reduced, there is ALWAYS collusion. Adam Smith understood this. "Two men of the same trade cannot meet, even for merriment and diversion, without the conversation ending in a conspiracy against the public."

The general idea is that SOME regulation is necessary to ENSURE that supply and demand are driving prices, and not guilds and cartels.

Fucking shit. Thank you, Phraser!

@quantumushroom, this is why.

>> ^Bradaphraser:

I think the point dystopianfuturetoday is making is that when regulation is reduced, there is ALWAYS collusion. Adam Smith understood this. "Two men of the same trade cannot meet, even for merriment and diversion, without the conversation ending in a conspiracy against the public."

The general idea is that SOME regulation is necessary to ENSURE that supply and demand are driving prices, and not guilds and cartels.

>> ^TheFreak:


Is willful ignorance like yours genetic or is it a life choice?
Depends, does dissenting opinion have a place in the twilight zone where you live?