This is exactly the right answer. The lack of credibility of science has provided a foothold for anyone with a plausible idea and good marketing. The "science" that we see today in the common press is just not a reliable source of information. Between academic fraud, cherry picking results, governments failed oversights no one can tell truth from fiction so it's back to our biological dispositions.
As a prepaid account I don't have access to the privacy settings. I spent an 1:15 on the phone with Verizon with no luck (no one had any idea what I was talking about). This has huge potential to be abused. It won't take long for companies to link your real name to web traffic and know exactly everything you look at on your phone. Wait until the cable/DSL companies realize the untapped revenue potential.
That's my understanding. You should also be aware that the licensing is per-platform. Also, since Xamarin.Forms is a layer of abstraction on top of Xamarin, I don't think a ton of people are using Xamarin.Forms for game development, if that matters. I think there are several mobile game devs using Xamarin and Unity, though.
I've been converting a couple of stupid little apps into Xamarin.IOS and Xamarin.Android, which has been a fun exercise. The tools are pretty good, and the community is just large enough to find answers to common problems.
The post is a bit winey, but it's a real problem. Google's search results are not much better then they were five years ago (worse in many cases). They are having a difficult time combating web-spam. Also, are you suggesting no business should try and create an ad supported website? To get the volume of viewers any public site needs organic search is a must.
Okay. It's not Google's goal to provide the absolute best answer. They just want to avoid a wrong answer while providing an acceptable answer for a majority of searchers. Google has over-valued authority domains at the cost of smaller sites/blogs that have rich/deep/narrow content. Faking an authority domain is difficult using black-hat seo techniques so it's the sledge hammer that Google uses today. So yes, big sites are rewarded and the little guys are locked out if they try and compete.
It's so easy to believe our food is toxic because the people selling it have no long term concern for our health. If it doesn't cause an acute health issue they've done their job. Food that is sweet, long lasting and attractive is what we are told to buy with marketing dollars and shelf space that is paid for by food companies. Supermarkets in the US devote 80%-90% of it's food space on products that are not fit for regular human consumption. Companies driven by quarterly profits are not worried about some health problem that might happen at some future date. The C level executives will be retired and cashed out the stock options long before they'll be called on the carpet. I know it's supply and demand, but it's also deceit and manipulation.
After reading some of sites' other posts I think it's just not a reliable source of information. The 'science' is hand picked to support the author's arguments. This is no different them the candida, sugar or vitamin proponents. They all have scientific explanations and plans of action.
His argument in this post is "The laws of physics are unavoidable". That makes no sense at all! There is no logical reason to believe that calories (a thermodinamic unity) is transformed in fat in our body.
This is the same as saying that all fat should go to the feet because of Gravity and the laws of physics are unavoidable. It is pure non-sense.
Do you know how to measure calories on food? You burn it and measure the heat it generates. How this apply to our body function is a mistery to me. To anyone actually.
Taubes theory is based on hormones, which is what the medicine proved for the last century that is what regulates all kind of function in our bodies. Make much more sense, no??
Calories in - calories out muchbe relevant to a thermal plant, no to our body producing fat.
Agreed, it reads like the same faddish, pseudo-science the author purports to debunk. "I tried all the diet books, and none of them worked, but finally here's one that does, because SCIENCE!"
It's the same old shopping channel and sideshow sales pitch people have peddling for hundreds of years, except it tries to play on a mark's trust for scientific authority instead of religious belief or new age mysticism, the same way some magicians pass off classic tricks as clever mentalism by exploiting people's belief in the power of modern psychology.
And the actual obesity cure it outlines is the same as every other mainstream diet: Reorient your whole life around planning, purchasing, preparing, eating and recording a weighed, calorie counted, macro-nutrient balanced diet, and try to get some more exercise as well.
Most people, particular in those groups most risk of obesity - those poor in time and money - will never be able to adopt such a strategy. Consider a single parent trying to raise three or four kids, while working a couple of jobs, and travelling everywhere via long public transport journeys. There's no way that they're going to be do all this.
Processed food is successful because it:
- is cheap
- tastes good
- is easy to acquire
- is easy to prepare
Any solution to widespread obesity needs to provide a source of healthy food that at the very least matches processed food in these regards.