Interesting Links for 2-6-2011

[andrewducker]

• Google Apps drops support for FF3.5, IE7 and Safari 3.
  (tags: google browser web)
• Global war on drugs has failed. (Odd how it's always _ex_ heads of state that tel the truth)
  (tags: politics society drugs)
• Our female ancestors used to travel to new places, while the men stayed at home.
  (tags: history gender anthropology)
• Very nice piece from the creator of Frozen Synapse on how the game came to pass (still addicted, by the way)
  (tags: games computer_games FrozenSynapse)
• 96% of Americans under 50 are on Facebook
  (tags: facebook usa)
• Low-carb, higher-fat diets don't add to risk of artery blockage. Also have faster weight loss.
  (tags: fat diet carbohydrates health heart)
• Mooncakes - an edible black market currency in China. No, really.
  (tags: economics china currency)
• Anti-reform peers shame the Lib Dems.
  (tags: libdem politics reform democracy)
• Why love is the most renewable resource in a relationship, and the least valuable.
  (tags: love relationships)
• Goldman Sachs lost 98% of Gaddafi's $1.3bn investment
  (tags: politics finance banking libya)

Comments

[draigwen]

The love thing rings true so much right now. It was the thing that kept me in the relationship for so long.

I know another two people now in the middle of breakups (and much more messy ones too). Does seem to be the season for it!

[feorag.livejournal.com]

The diet thing is the usual "let's pretend the problem is something else and deny that" FUD. The problem with Atkins type nonsense is that it fucks your kidneys. Hell, it even fucks cats' kidneys, and they've had millions of years of evolution selecting them to thrive on such a diet.

I have found the Getting Cancer Diet to be both more effective and safer.

[andrewducker]

My understanding is that the danger to kidneys is caused by ketosis, and this is only an issue during the induction phase - and even then not if you're following the diet and drinking plenty of water.

I've not heard anything about kidney issues outside of that - most low-carb diets aren't even no-carb diets, they just avoid sugar, refined carbs (like white bread), etc., so there's no danger there at all.

[feorag.livejournal.com]

No - it's long term kidney damage, and it's been known about since last time this nonsense was fashionable in the 70s and it killed people who followed it long-term. Ketosis has two effects: the short term one is that you are really unpleasant to be around, and the other is that you lose muscle, not fat.

The official advice still is that such diets should not be followed for more than 2 weeks without medical supervision, and that the supervision includes regular kidney function tests.

Of course white flour, white rice etc should be reserved for treats, but that's because they've been stripped of all nutritional value - they are empty calories. They should be replaced with wholemeal flour, brown rice etc, though. These are also more filling, which is a useful attribute if you're trying to lose weight.

[andrewducker]

Can you offer some citations for this? Because it goes counter to most of my reading. I've certainly bumped into nothing so far which indicates that ketosis causes muscle loss.

[spacelem.livejournal.com]

I've always thought that the major plus to these sorts of diets is that it gets people to actually think about what they're eating. I'm sure the Atkins diet is massively better than what some people are on.

In other news, what do you think of the glycaemic index (or load) style diet? (i.e. choosing carbohydrates which take a long time to break down over short time sugars). I wonder if the Atkins diet gives some results as a consequence of being fairly low GI/GL?

[andrewducker]

Well, yes. Atkins is at one end of the low GI diet (favouring, as it does, protein, and then low-carb vegetables).

It's all about the blood sugar, when you get right down to it.

[feorag.livejournal.com]

All diets are doomed because the moment you stop starving yourself, your body bounces back and puts the weight back on quickly, even if you're on the recommended number of calories for maintenance. Also, people don't think about what they're eating as they're obsessively following a rule book.

Atkins is worse than most people's ordinary diet. Too much meat, too little fibre, almost no vitamins and no fuel.

The only worthwhile diet advice I've ever seen is "Eat food, not too much, mostly vegetables". Combine that with an active lifestyle - geocaching helps here - and that's about the only way someone is going to attain and maintain a healthy weight.

[andrewducker]

All diets are doomed because the moment you stop starving yourself, your body bounces back and puts the weight back on quickly

Now that's something I can totally agree with - providing by "diet" you mean "A change to eating habits that is transitory and unsustainable." Which is what a lot of people mean by "going on a diet" - because they definitely mean to change back after a while.

The _other_ meaning of "diet" is just "What you eat, on an ongoing basis". And that is definitely changeable, and has long-term, reliable, consequences. A change in diet to something that is healthier is definietly worth doing, but only if it's sustainable in the long term.

"Atkins is worse than most people's ordinary diet. Too much meat, too little fibre"
Atkins very much encourages fiber: http://www.atkins.com/science/sciencearticleslibrary/Category9/Fiber.aspx
"We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again: You can’t get too much fiber"
"Full of fiber and phytonutrients, veggies are one of the best sources of carbohydrates."
to pick a couple of quotes.

[spacelem.livejournal.com]

Fair enough, however, I tend to think of diets as more long term. I don't care so much about losing weight right now (well I do, and that's why I've started doing more exercise), but I want to generally change my habits so that I'm choosing healthy food (e.g. keeping high salt foods out of my diet, eating all-bran for breakfast). If low GI is an all round better option, then that's something to keep an eye out for -- I'm not going for a quick fix by starving myself.

As it is, we only eat vegetarian food at home, and since Jules is also lactose intolerant, there's very little dairy, but my hours of sitting at a desk are not helping my stomach much.

[gonzo21.livejournal.com]

I'm surprised the article on the lords doesn't seem to understand the benefit of an un-elected house. I always thought the argument was that with an unelected house of lords, we have a group of people who do not have to kow-tow to the demands of the newspapers and the chittering masses to meet the expectation of the day in order to be popular and get elected.

Ideally, I'd like to see a house of lords where the lords are picked from amongst the brightest and best in the country, excellent businessmen, philosophers, scientists, etc.

[a-pawson.livejournal.com]

Lib-Dem policy is to have a fully elected second chamber. The article is pretty much highlighting what I see as one of the main benefits of having a non-elected HoL - peers don't have to blindly follow what the party leader/whip demands.

[gonzo21.livejournal.com]

I could really get behind a party that was going to select peers on the basis of ability and intelligence.

[fearmeforiampink]

In theory it's possible to get elected lords who do not have to kowtow to the demands of the newspapers and the chittering masses to meet the expectation of the day in order to be popular and get elected. Because the main suggestion currently tabled for elected Lords is that they would serve 15 year terms, and only be able to serve one term.

[gonzo21.livejournal.com]

Ah yes, that could work. Still, I'd rather people be selected on merit (and arguably against their will, because I've always reckoned those most suited to ruling are probably the ones who desperately do not want to. :) )

[fearmeforiampink]

The problem is separating 'merit' from 'because they did something for the government of the day and said government thinks they'll votes for them'.

While I can see the arguments in favour of against their will, it would be an unacceptable violation of those peoples rights (which you probably know/agree with, thus the smiley).

Given the nature of the second chamber, I'd imagine that people standing to be Lords would primarily sell themselves on their expertise, so in theory that should at least partly solve that.

[makyo.livejournal.com]

Ideally, I'd like to see a house of lords where the lords are picked from amongst the brightest and best in the country, excellent businessmen, philosophers, scientists, etc.

Exactly - and this is one of the major strengths of the current system. An elected House of Lords would sweep away all that expertise, replace it with a bunch of second-rate political cronies, and further consolidate the grip on power of the party-political elite.

One of the other major problems is that an elected second chamber would naturally claim (and rightly so) some sort of electoral mandate and challenge the primacy of the Commons. The current, shambolic reform proposals address this issue by effectively saying "No they won't, because we'll tell them not to, la la la, I can't hear you..."

There is certainly a case for some sort of Lords reform, but these proposals are stupid and extraordinarily poorly thought out.

[andrewducker]

I care not for the primacy of the Commons. I want a revising house that can tell the Commons to go stuff itself if it's doing something stupid. And I want it to have an electoral mandate for exactly that reason.

And the whole point of 15-year single terms is to avoid political cronyism - once a person is elected there is no hold over them.

[makyo.livejournal.com]

I care not for the primacy of the Commons. I want a revising house that can tell the Commons to go stuff itself if it's doing something stupid.
I agree with both of these points, to be honest. I'm not particularly wedded to the primacy of the Commons (except that they currently have some thin and flimsy fig-leaf of electoral accountability, so in the event of a deadlock they should probably get their way).

I also want a revising house that can make the Commons rethink stupid legislation - and indeed this is what we have at the moment, as statistically about 50% of Lords amendments are subsequently accepted by the Commons.

And I want it to have an electoral mandate for exactly that reason.
This is all well and good, but there appears to be no obvious mechanism for getting this while at the same time ensuring that the members of that house have the required expertise and knowledge to do the revising job sufficiently well.

And the whole point of 15-year single terms is to avoid political cronyism - once a person is elected there is no hold over them.
Yes, but we have that now, by appointing them for life. Once they're in, not only do we have relatively little say in how they vote, neither does whoever happens to be in charge of their affiliated party.

[andrewducker]

Who picks them? And how much say do I get in it?

Because I do not consent to be governed by people I do not have a say in selecting.

[gonzo21.livejournal.com]

We're not really governed by the house of lords though are we? They're a sort of emergency stop-gap which only comes into effect when it derails a particularly awful piece of government legislation.

I see them as a sort of safety-valve.

They don't make decisions. They don't propose policy, or create laws. And if we ever wind up with a fascist party in power, the Lords will probably act as a counter balance to stop the worst excesses of any party of the extreme.

[andrewducker]

Actually, they can propose policy. And also prevent it, except in certain limited situations. They send back stuff with changes all the time.

[makyo.livejournal.com]

But how much say do you have in the selection of the MPs in the Commons?

My MP is a New Labour backbencher, selected by the local party selection committee, and presented to the electorate (a very safe Labour constituency) as the anointed candidate. I've never voted for him, I think he does a lousy job at representing his constituents' interests, and I don't want him as my MP. But because some shadowy bunch of unelected, unaccountable people on the local selection committee have picked him, he gets a job for life. Every four or five years we're presented with the fiction that we could vote him out, but it never happens because the other parties just aren't a credible alternative where I live, and our electoral system doesn't give independent candidates much of a look-in either.

Apart from the fiction of electoral accountability, how is this any different from nominating members of the Lords?

[lpetrazickis.livejournal.com]

In Canada, the Senate is appointed by the Prime Minister.

There is a movement on the right to make it elected and a movement on the left to abolish it.

Personally, I think that unicameral legislatures (like the provincial one in Ontario) work well enough.

[danieldwilliam.livejournal.com]

I would rather see the second chamber wholly elected. Whilst I see the argument that having 20% appointed Peers allows experts to be co-opted I think in reality those places will be filled by party nominees. Given a choice between the electorate having all of the choice and no experts and the government of the day having some choice and no experts I would like the electorate to have all the choice.

I would like to see the 15 year term tempered by a right of recall. Otherwise there is nothing to stop someone elected putting their feet up for 15 years or becoming corrupt.

I think the use of STV will allow some plurality of voices to be heard. I’m looking forward to some more Green politicians. I’m fascinated to see what happens when UKIP have a more high profile voice and I can’t wait to see a BNP Peer. The joy of Nick Griffen in Parliament for 15 years is making me smirk in anticipation even now.