Dear God of the Internet, please grant me this one gift, the perfect way to cancel out the world around me and concentrate on Your work!

My friend Meaflux mentioned a strange concept called polyphasic sleep that would supposedly allow me to spend less time sleeping, thus maximizing my waking time. I usually love sleep, I can sleep half a day if you let me and I am very cranky when forcefully waken up... as in every day when going to work, doh! Also, I enjoy dreaming and even nightmares. Sure, I get scared and lose rest and there are probably underlying reasons for the horrors I experience at night sometimes, but they are cool! Better than any Hollywood horror, that's for sure. My brain's got budget :)

Anyway, as I get older I understand more and more the value of time, so a method that would give me an extra of 2 to 6 hours a day sounds magical and makes me reminisce of the good times of my childhood when I had time for anything! Just that instead of skipping school I would skip sleep. But does it work?

A quick Google shows some very favourable articles, including one called How to Hack your Brain and the one on Wikipedia, which is ridiculously short and undocumented. A further search reveals some strong criticism as well, such as this very long and seemingly documented article called Polyphasic Sleep: Facts and Myths. Then again, there are people that criticise the critic like in An attack on polyphasic sleep. Perhaps the most interesting information comes from blog comments from people who have tried it and either failed miserably or are extremely happy with it. Some warn about the importance of the sleep cycles that the polyphasic sleep skips over, like this Stage 4 Sleep Deprivation article.

Given the strongly conflicting evidence, my only option is to try it out, see what I get. At least if I suddenly stop writing the blog you know you should not try it and lives will be saved :) Ok, so let's summarise what this all is about, just in case you ignored all the links above.

Most people are monophasic sleepers, a fancy name for people who sleep once a day for about 8 hours (more or less, depending on how draconic your work schedule and responsibilities are). Many are biphasic, that means they sleep a little during the afternoon. This apparently is highly appreciated by "creative people", which I think means people that are self employed and doing well, so they can afford the nap. I know many retired people have a biphasic sleep cycle at least and probably children. Research shows that people normally feel they need to sleep most at around 2:00 and 14:00, which accounts for the sleepiness we feel after lunch. The mid day sleep is also called Siesta.

Now, poliphasic sleep means you reduce your sleep (which in the fancy terminology is called core sleep) and then compensate by having short sleep bursts of around 20 minutes of sleep at as fixed intervals as possible called naps. This supposedly "fixes" your brain with REM sleep, which is the first in the sleep lifecycle, however it is a contested theory. The only sure thing seems to come from an italian researcher called Claudio Stampi who did a lot of actual research and who clearly stated that sleeping many short naps is better than sleeping only once at the same number of hours of sleep. So in other words six 20 minutes naps are better than one 3 hour sleep.

Personally, I believe there is some truth to the method, as many people are actually using it, but with some caveats. Extreme versions like the Uberman (six naps a day, resulting in 2 hours of actual sleep) probably take their toll physiologically, even if they might work for the mental fitness. Also, probably some people are better suited than others for this type of customised sleep cycles. And, of course, it is difficult for a working man to actually find the place and time to nap during the afternoon, although I hear that it has become a fashion of sorts in some major world cities to go to Power nap places and sleep for 20 minutes in special chairs. No wonder New Yorkers are neurotic :) On a more serious yet paranoid note: what if this works and then employers make it mandatory? :-SS

So, in the interest of science, I will attempt this for a while, see if it works. My plan is to sleep 5 hours for the core, preferably from 1:00 to 6:00, then have two naps, one when I get back from work (haven't decided if before or after dinner, as there are people recommending not napping an hour after eating) and another close to 8:30 when I go to work. So far I have been doing it for three days, but it seems all this needs at least a few weeks of adjustment.

Now, with 5 hours and 40 minutes of sleep instead of 7 I only gain 1.33 hours a day, but that means an extra TV show, programming a small utility, reading a lot and maybe even writing... so wish me luck!

Update: I did try it, but I didn't get the support I needed from the wife, so I had to give it up. My experience was that, if you find the way to fall asleep in about 5 minutes, the method works. I didn't feel sleepy, quite the contrary, I felt energized, although that may be from the feeling of accomplishment that the thing actually works :) Besides, I only employed the method during the work week and slept as much as I needed in the weekend. I actually saved about 40 hours a month, which I could use for anything I wanted. If one works during that time, it means an increase in revenue to up to 25%. That's pretty neat.

A while ago, before the election craze began to grip Romania, someone asked me what I think will happen. At the time (as now) I knew more about the plot of the TV series I am watching and the insides of .NET than what was going on politically in my country. Of course, I answered anyway, as the truth is often found in the mouths of children and crazy people. Being both, I said Basescu, the current president, would win the elections, due to populace inertia, and the coalition of parties that wanted to replace him will see each of the inner parties split into people that don't want Basescu and people that want power, making the Democratic Party even larger, even meaner, even worse.

A month after my prediction, month spent in the hope that I was just a fool and didn't know anything about anything, it came true.

And, as if things couldn't get worse, I get to see how the difference between candidates has mostly been provided by the Romanian diaspora, rather than the poor bastards that have to live with the decision. And I know these guys, people that left the country in search of better payment, better conditions, maybe some respect. Knowing nothing about Romania anymore, they just vote as they see from afar, smug in their belief that they do one good thing or the other. Like fighting communism. Maybe it would have worked 20 years ago when you left! That, my friends, pisses me off. If you left, dear diasporans, leave us the fuck alone! Choose a president where you live, not where we do. I can't believe that the same people shouting the country is shit, that they want to go live in a "real" country, that they want to be treated with decency and so on and so on, gather en mass outside the borders to vote with the same idiot that ruled us so far.

And you know what is the funny thing here? People that see how this went and are just as disappointed and disgusted as I am... they say this could have happened only in Romania and they want to leave! It's like a zombie infection, isn't it? And we all got bitten.

My world view is limited by the data that comes to me. I have my tiny slice of reality, a few friends, my work, then there are movies, news, documentaries, the Internet and so on. You will notice that I placed them in a certain order, it is the order that to me seems to go from more bullshit and less information to more information. I never believed the expression "Truth is stranger than fiction", so lets set the slice of reality aside. And, being first on my list... full of bullshit :)

Movies teach me a lot, but there is just as much untruth and deceit in them as there is stuff worth knowing. News are focused on a part of life that normally doesn't interest me, but they still have a higher percent of useful information. Then there are the documentaries, stuff from Discovery Channel and the likes. Well, I have mixed feelings about those. There are things that they teach me and they do it in a pleasant manner, yet, by the time they end, I feel like there is so much more that I wanted to know and that it all just stopped when it got interesting. On further analysis, it seems the quantum of information in an hour of film was something I could blog in two or three paragraphs.

And then there is the Internet. It is bursting with information, if only I knew where to look and only if I had the discipline of researching, summarising and storing that information. I am working on that, even this blog is used to store what I find, but I am still only an amateur. There is something that attracted me a while ago, something called Open Courseware. There were courses from the largest universities, freely available on the net. However, they left me feeling disappointed as they were mostly text, the few that were in media format were mostly audio and, in the end, they were only poor recordings of classroom courses, sounds of scribling on the blackboard included.

Enter The Teaching Company, a company that produces recordings of lectures by nationally top-ranked university professors as well as high-school teachers. The lectures are well done, they feature some guy or gal that present the information without having to write stuff on blackboards. If anything is to be shown, it will be a computer slide or animation, while the details on spoken information are added to the screen (for example the names of people). Wonderful stuff, only it is not free.

If you go to the official site you will find courses on just about anything, priced at around 35$ per download and 70$ per DVD if they are "on sale" and the rest of them going to about 250$, with a range of 20-40 lectures per course. Of course, there is the option of looking for "TTC torrent" on Google and see what you find there. For the people in Africa that just got an Internet cable installed, I mean.

I had the luck to start with linguistics (Understanding Linguistics: The Science of Language by John McWhorter), lucky not because linguistics is so interesting, but because John McWhorter was really charismatic and had a very well constructed set of lectures. And because linguistics is an interesting topic, at least at the introductory level of this course. It was funny, too, the guy is what I imagine a typical New Yorker to be. He is black with a Scottish name, he talks a lot of Broadway plays and old movies, he is socially astute; very cosmopolitan.

Then I went for astronomy (New Frontiers: Modern Perspectives on Our Solar System by Frank Summers). If you like those National Geographic documentaries about the solar system, you will love this. Towards the end it got detailed in a bad way, but only compared with the beginning of the course, which was really well done. The lectures are about the Solar System, from the standpoint of a modern astronomer, in light of all the recent discoveries. Also, a very well made point about why the structure of the solar system was revised and Pluto got demoted. At the end it talks of other star systems and what are the methods to detect and study them.

Not all the courses are so good, though. I had the misfortune of trying out Superstring Theory: The DNA of Reality by Sylvester James Gates, Jr. The guy is a black man in his late fifties who tries to explain Superstring theory without using any mathematics. He starts by repeating a lot of what he said in previous lectures and, indeed, in the same one earlier on, then goes asking these stupid questions that repeat what he said again. Something like "As I said in a previous lecture this and this and this happened. But why did this and this and this happen?". Ugh. If it was only about that, I would have finished watching the course, but it was something completely unstructured, boring and dragging. After 12 lectures out of 24 I knew nothing about string theory, except vague things like "if I imagine a ball that goes towards another ball and they shout at each other and the waves make other balls while the previous balls disappear but wait they appear again...". What I knew is that I had to stop watching. Sorry, Mr. Gates, lecturing... just not your thing. Stick to short appearances on Nova PBS shows.

Right now I am on Building Great Sentences: Exploring the Writer's Craft by Brooks Landon. It talks about constructing good sentences in order to improve one's writing. I have the feeling that the guy uses more detail than necessary. Like when he explains a concept he has to give at least 5 examples, when 2 or 3 would have been enough. But then again, maybe I am wrong. I will have to finish the course to give you a definite opinion.

Next on my list:
Quantum Mechanics: The Physics of the Microscopic World by Benjamin Schumacher
Understanding Genetics: DNA, Genes, and Their Real-World Applications by David Sadava
Introduction to Number Theory by Edward B. Burger
Understanding the Brain by Jeanette Norden

Does all this make me a very smart person? Not really. Remember that most of these are introductory courses. They do not contain exercises or books that you need to read, nor do they require a very high level of previous knowledge in order to understand them. They are, pure and simple, like those Discovery Channel shows, only they don't end when they get interesting and they are not so full of bullshit. After watching one of these courses (or, indeed, listening to them as podcasts while you are going to work) you will have an idea on where to go digging deeper for the topics that interest you.

Good learning!

I didn't know about this, however, through a weird series of events, I have read about this in a book, then heard about it from a friend, then wiki'ed it and got really disgusted, then found it in the news, as the UK government finally issued an apology to one of the great men of computing.

Here is the government apology link and (apparently, the apology was too much for the Brits to leave on their web site for too long. Instead, you have to read the text from the historical archives of the government site here) another link from a blog I am reading which says just about what I was going to say.

I have to say that governments scare the shit out of me. The things they can do are so horrendous that most people refuse to think about it. And as the sleep of reason produces monsters, they usually become monstrous. After all, what are they than a big clump of responsability that every citizen sheds in order to feel good about doing nothing?

So, sorry, Alan Turing, for being part of the species that did this to you! I truly feel ashamed.

Update 24 December 2013: The UK government issued a pardon for Alan Turing. Posthumous, a gesture that would be rather pointless if it weren't for the chronic inability of authority to admit to their mistakes (not to mention actually pay for them).

We all know that dogs are smart. They understand verbal commands and can make complex decisions in new situations. However, they can't speak. Well, there are some weird rare cases of dogs sort of snarling "mama", but it's not real speach.

Right now, though, I've had an epiphany: dogs WON'T SPEAK, because they simply are not equipped to. They are smart enough to try and learn from their failures. However, the dog that lives next to my office now howls to the same notes as the ambulances that pass by the building. Also there are numerous cases where dogs are howling in the tune of a song they hear.

Now this is my idea: what if dogs are able of speach, just not human one? What if a properly constructed highly vocal and high pitched language would work for dogs? WE could not speak dog then, but we are smart, we have devices and computers and stuff like that.

Update: Having thought a bit more about this I have come to a conclusion. It makes sense that dogs should be able to communicate by howling. Duh! They are descended from wolves. They are still, genetically speaking, wolves. What about the barking? Wolves bark when they are pups. Somehow, the domestication process makes canides retain some youthful characterstics. Therefore, it only makes sense that they should be able of communication at a higher level through howling rather than barking. Although, dogs being smart as they are, it is only one hypothesis that needs proof.

My friend, Meaflux, by his own description "an anthropology buff", reminded me of the other "smart animals", the Cetacea order, whales and dolphins and such. They sing, they use high pitched wails (whails? :D) to communicate. I agree, it makes sense underwater, but since they are descended from a wolf like ancestor and since fish don't use this communication system, I would say there is a strong connection.

So, in conclusion, it is possible that the pack communication method of wolf howling combined with the millenia old dog interaction with humans could result, with some training, in sone sort of meaningful conversation skills? If only people working with dogs and apes would read my blog...

Well, this is a time of great change in my life. First I had to give my cat away, due to medical reasons. I had him for more than 5 years and I really liked him. Now he is living in the countryside, with my parents in law, trying to get some pussy (sorry, couldn't help it :) ) and getting beat up for it by sturdy country female cats.

A few months after I got the cat, I also got a new job, prompting me to write my first blog entry. I was saying then that I am starting my first real software developer job in an Italian company. Now, after almost five years, I am giving away my cat and also changing jobs.

My new company is (hopefully) a place where I can accelerate the rate of my learning and professional development and I will be working there on a Windows desktop WPF+WCF+WF+Entity Framework application. So expect a lot of blog entries about new (for me) technologies. I will be starting work there on the first of June.

On the other hand I don't know if it would be permitted (or I would have the time) to stay available for chat on the blog, so if I don't answer, it's probably because I can't.

Wish me luck, everybody!

A while ago I wrote a little post about pandemics. I was saying then how little we know about them and how little we are taught about disease outbreaks as opposed to, say, war. This post, however, it about the reverse of the coin: mediatization of pandemic fears.

I was watching the news and there was this news about a swine flu pandemic in Mexico. Thousands were infected, more than 100 people dead and the disease had already spread in the entire world and it was impossible to contain. Gee, serious trouble, yes? I had to stay informed and safe. (see the twisted order on which my brain works?)

So I went directly to the World Health Organization site and subscribed to their disease outbreak RSS feed. And what do I read? 27 cases of infections and 9 dead. Come again? They said 150 dead on the news. The news can't possibly lie! It must be either a) a US site where they only list US citizens b) a machination so that people don't panic when the situation is so obviously blown. [... a week passed ...] I watch the news and what do I see? The reported death toll from the swine influenza strain has dropped to about 15 people. False alarm, people, the rest of those 150 people actually died of other unrelated stuff. So the WHO site was right after all, maybe it having to do with the fact that they work with data, not viewer rates. Hmm.

The moral of the story? My decision to stop watching TV is a good one. Get the real genuine source of information and "feed" from it. I am now subscribed to the new disease outbreaks feed and the earthquake feed and I feel quite content in that particular regard.

That doesn't mean the "Swine" flu is something to be taken lightly. As of today, there are almost 1000 cases of infection world wide and, even if the flu development has reached a descendant curve, this might change. The 1918 epidemic actually had four outbreaks, two consecutive years, in the spring and autumn.

On a more personal note, my wife has (and probably myself, too) something called toxoplasmosis, a disease that you take from a cat. I only heard about it two times, one from a colleague and one from Trainspotting. It a strange disease, one that is mostly asymptomatic, doesn't have a real cure, causes behavioral changes in mice and has been linked to a certain type of schizophrenia. Wikiing it, I got that there are about 30% to 65% of the world population that have it and that the drug used to treat it is actually a malaria drug. Is toxoplasmosis the malaria of the developed world? A lot of us have it, but we bear with it?

Stuff like that shows how fragile is both our understanding of as well as our defense from the microscopic world. Could it be that, with all the medical advances from the last century, we are still in the Dark Ages?

A friend of mine asked me about what a tea was based only on pictures of the Japanese writing on the tea bag. How can I do that? I knew it was Kanji, or the Chinese style of writing, but I had no idea what to do. Looked for online Kanji character recognition, Kanji character list, etc. Nothing really worked. Until I accidentally (half through painstaking translation) bumped into nciku! Why, of course, you idiot! If they are Chinese style characters, wouldn't you be able to find an online dictionary for Chinese, not Japanese characters?

Well, nciku has a nice feature called "Handwrite Characters" which pretty much allowed me to translate the rest of the text. But the trick is to take the recognized character, then go to... Wikipedia! Because you don't really need the Chinese translation, but the Japanese one. You get the translation and the use and other useful things.

So, use nciku for online Japanese Kanji/Chinese character recognition. Yatta! :)

The previous post was the 500^th post in this blog! And I haven't even noticed. Let's celebrate late with news about the end of the world!

How bored can I be? I've read this article about the asteroid Apophis striking the Earth in 2029 or 2036 and my first thought was "oh man! Why so late?". I was already calculating how unfair it is that I would have to live to be 59 years old before the world ends. So I have to cope with it until then, then, close to my retirement, the pleasant moment when I get money from the state and do nothing while my mind slowly rots away, it all goes away. Then it hit me: I am a complete idiot! What was I thinking? Sheesh!

Anyway, here is a cute animation made by a guy on youtube. I personally prefer the first one, the one that is only graphics and no realism. Again, who wants real? But it wouldn't be in the spirit of the blog :) So watch the second one, the one made to satisfy the critics.

Update: the guy REMOVED (who does that?!) the videos from YouTube. I am putting another ridiculously grand video of a possible asteroid (although this seems more like a dwarf planet :) ) destruction of the Earth to satisfy the ones hungry for obliteration.

[youtube:InPNk44v7uw]

Wow, think how many blog posts I would have written until 2036!

Well, I am alive and blogging. It is a new year, one that brings as much hope and fulfilment as the last one (lots of hope there!), the big 2009. I can vaguely remember a kid that computed his age for the year 2000 and thought "I will be old enough to go to Mars!", but apparently, no human is old enough yet.

So what am I planning this year? Getting back on track would be a good idea. Stop wasting time that I don't have and if I have and waste, then I don't deserve. My book? Ahem. Let's hope I get inspired beyond the mere autobiographic. My AI MMORPG WMATCL project? I still have to design an AI that is worthy of its name. My job? Well, it's still there. I find myself wondering why? from time to time, but I guess it is good to have a job in this troubled time. My blog? Well, I intend to spice it up, but I need to actually do interesting stuff for that. I will update it with info gathered from a new Windows Forms application that I am building as well as information about the ReportViewer control that I've finally managed to use and to love/hate. My personal life? I have reached that point that many people find themselves at without really understanding how they got there. I've made the compromises that make one accept their life "as is" and postpone who they are. Sometimes that "myself" I have imprisoned deep inside growls and pulls on the bars. But maybe he's there for life (pun intended). Then again, maybe not. He feels more and more like a stranger now.

Oi! What's with the depressed text!? Forget all that! It's a new year! Happy new year!!! [Party trompet and silly face]

We are working on these projects in which people either receive an email with an invitation or they register on a web site or they simply play and expect an instant result. What is the best way to compute the chance of winning?

Case 1: People register then, at a certain date, an extraction of prizes takes place. Ah, this is the best and simple situation. You have the list of players, the list of prizes. Just do an index = Random(0,number_of_players) and if index is smaller than number_of_prizes, you know the person won a prize. A second random on the number of prizes will determine the prize itself. The win probability is number_of_prizes/number_of_players.

Case 2: People enter a site that allows them to play instantly and win a prize. Here the problem is trickier. While the algorithm is basically the same, prizes over people, you don't have the total number of players. There are some subcases here based on the following parameters:

• The win campaign lasts for a certain amount of time or is indefinite
• The prizes must all be given at the end of the campaign or not
• The players play after they have received an invitation (email, sms, etc) or just randomly coming from ad clicks or for some information on the site

.

Let's assume that the campaign doesn't last for a finite time. The only solution is to pick a win probability and be done with it until you remain out of prizes. You always compute this by considering the number of people playing over a period of time, in other words the speed of people playing. However, in this case the only thing influencing the selected probability is a psychological one: how many people would need to win in order to have a marketing effect?

Now, if the campaign does have a finite time, you would use the speed of the people playing to determine the total number of people that would play. Let's assume you know people are visiting your site at an average rate of 1000 per hour, then you see how many are playing and you remember this percentage, so you can estimate the number of players per hour, then you just multiply that number to the total number of hours in the campaign. Again, we get to the prizes over people formula.

However, it is very important to know how people are deciding the participate in the extraction!

If it is just a game added to one's site, then the people are coming and going based on that site's popularity and hourly/daily distribution (since the number of visitors fluctuates). So just computing this from the first hour of people coming to the site and playing doesn't help, but it might when using the first day and maybe the first week. One week of statistical data is best to estimate the number of people over time. Then the formula is number_of_prizes_available_per_week/people_visiting_per_week. Where the number of prizes available per week is either the total number of prizes over the finite campaign time or an arbitrary number chosen by the campaign creator.

If, instead, people are being invited to play, as following an email promotion campaign, let's say, then they will come as soon as they read their email. That means they will flock to your site in the first hours, then just trickle in the next week, then nothing. That means that estimating the total number of players from the first hour or day is not really feasible unless you are certain of a statistical distribution of people playing games after email campaigns. It is difficult as different messages and designs and game types might attract more or less people.

A mixed hybrid can also exist, with a game on a site that also people are invited to play over email. Then all the parameters from above must be used. In any case, the best estimation I can think of comes from the total of players in similar campaigns. The more similar the better.

But what if ALL the prizes must be given to people, as required by law or simple common sense (so as not to be seen as keeping some for you or your friends)? Then one can adjust the probability rate to suit the extraction speed. The same prizes over people formula is used, but only on the remaning values. The probability of winning is given by number_of_remaining_prizes/number_of_remaining_people.

But that has some disadvantages. If the number of total participating people is badly estimated it will result into a roller coaster of probabilities. People playing in the first part of the campaign would be either advantaged or disadvantaged than the people in the last part as the total number of players is being adjusted over time to compensate for the first bad estimation.

Let's do a small example:

	Day 1	Day 2	Day 3	Day 4	Day 5	Day 6	Day 7
People playing	7500	1000	400	300	200	300	100
Percentage	75%	10%	4%	3%	2%	3%	1%
Estimated total players	15000	25000	12000	11000	10000	10000	10000
Estimated remaining players	7500	16500	3100	1800	600	200	100
Remaining prizes (day start)	100	50	47	42	36	27	13
Win probability	0.66%	0.30%	1.52%	2.33%	6.00%	13.50%	13.00%

As you can see, the people playing first were screwed pretty much, because it was expected the total players to be 15000 and the distribution closer to linear. After half of them played in the first day, panic made them all increase the expected players to 25000, while thinking what to do. Then they realised that the distribution of players is affected by the fact that all play after reading their emails and then they will probably not come play anymore. They adjust the win probability every day and as you can see, it is good to play in the last days.

But what would have happened if 1) they knew the percentual distribution of players would be 75,10,4,3,2,3,1 after an email campaign and 2) the total number of players will be a percentage out of all emails sent and so they estimated 10000 people playing and the right distribution?

	Day 1	Day 2	Day 3	Day 4	Day 5	Day 6	Day 7
People playing	7500	1000	400	300	200	300	100
Percentage	75%	10%	4%	3%	2%	3%	1%
Estimated total players	10000	10000	10000	10000	10000	10000	10000
Estimated remaining players	2500	1500	1100	800	600	300	100
Remaining prizes (day start)	100	25	15	11	8	6	3
Win probability	1.00%	1.00%	1.00%	1.00%	1.00%	1.00%	1.00%

Even if computing every day the number of remaining prizes over the remaining players, the probability was constantly 1%. Of course, one could say "Why didn't they stick to their 0.66% probability and be done with it? Like this:

	Day 1	Day 2	Day 3	Day 4	Day 5	Day 6	Day 7
People playing	7500	1000	400	300	200	300	100
Percentage	75%	10%	4%	3%	2%	3%	1%
Estimated total players	Not important
Estimated remaining players	Not important
Remaining prizes (day start)	100	43	40	38	37	35	34
Win probability	0.66%	0.66%	0.66%	0.66%	0.66%	0.66%	0.66%

Everything is perfectly honest, only that they remained with a third of prices on hand. Now they have to give them to charity and be suspected of doing this on purpose for whatever distant relative that works at that charity.

Well, think about it, and let me know what you think. Are there smarter solutions? Is there a web repository of statistical data for things like that?

In this day and age, being or getting fat is treated like a drug addiction, in all sense of the word treated. Fat people are marginalised, socially pushed to find a solution. Many solutions are provided, from pills that help you lose weight to food replacement things and "health food" so that they can slowly get rid of this addiction to food. And in many respects, fat people are behaving like addicts. They have cravings, they find reasons for eating "just a little bite", they show withdrawal symptoms, they try quitting and they fail. There are also "pushers", trying their best to hook you on chips, sugary drinks, fatty meats and fast foods as well as food suplements and slim drinks.

The funny thing is that the actual solution to extra weight is the same as in the case of hard drugs: you want to get rid of heroin addiction, stop taking heroin. There is this slightly annoying fact that you can live without heroin, but you can't without food. But there are people working on it.

Anyway, I started writing this because, as far as I am concerned, I know I have found the solution. And it is not so hard to do it, either. I've started from 116kg, lost 16 in 4 months, started drinking Coca-Cola like crazy while keeping the diet, didn't gain much weight, then started eating a lot of pasty, bready, pizzy and fatty food and gained 10 kg in about 1 month and a bit, then I started a custom (less strict) diet again and got to 104kg in 1 month. In other words, even if I stop the diet, I have to make an effort to gain weight. Even if I slip a little, it doesn't matter. And if I make my own food style, one that avoids too much fat and bread and sugar, I don't gain weight, even if I stop the diet completely. It is way easier to gain weight than to lose it, but that is not the point.

Bit by bit, though.

You have to consider that this is not a weight loss blog and that I am only describing my experience here, but hey, it worked. From what I could gather there are three points that need covering:

1. Don't gain extra weight
2. Eat the right stuff to maintain your weight
3. Keep your metabolism running to lose weight

. Pretty easy.

In order to not gain extra weight, eat less. A normal sedentary human needs about 2000 calories per day. We eat a lot more than that and a lot of it just goes out in the toilet. A small part (but significant to this blog entry) is stored as fat. By eating 1500 calories you get to stop gaining weight and start losing it. But how does one know what 1500 calories mean? Very simple: you get a list of what you are supposed to eat every day at every meal and you don't stray from it.

In order to maintain your weight even after stopping the diet, you need to eat the right stuff. I don't know exactly what that means, but guessing by the food I am allowed to eat and what I am not and what I Googled on the net, I found out that there is a separation of food types into alkaline and acidic foods. Supposedly, you need 75% of the first category and 25% of the latter. A normal Western diet is the other way around, hence the weight gain and the accumulation of fat. Also, the division of foods in these two categories seems to have nothing to do with pH, as lemons are considered highly alkaline. Probably the terms refer to the body's response to them. Also, you need to stay off carbo-hydrates. This is called a "low-carb" diet. Carbo-hydrates is a fancy word for sugars, but there is the good sort (like in fruits and a bit honey) and the bad sort (like refined sugar and refined flour products).

And last, but not least, eat many times a day. That is counter intuitive, but if you think about it, it makes a lot of sense. The human body is very adaptive. If you eat once a day, it will remember to shut off functions that use energy the rest of the day. Not to mention that you'll probably get an ulcer anyway. So instead of losing weight, you will lose energy. Even worse, when you start eating again, the body will just store it, since it is running in energy-saving mode. Instead, if you eat many times a day, your body knows energy is freely available and the metabolic rate will go up instead of down, helping you to burn reserves (fat).

Ok, enough theory. I will give you a general 1500 calory diet to follow every (fucking) day. If you get bored, read the part about the routine. Don't stop. Remember, I lost 16 kilos in 4 months and then I had to make an effort to put 10 kilos back.

So, there are 5 meals a day! breakfast, brunch, lunch, lupper (sorry, couldn't help it :) ), supper. You are allowed to drink water and green tea with no sugar only. Maybe coffee in the morning, but that's frowned upon :D.

Breakfast (7:00-8:00): 100g of low fat meat (like grilled chicken breast, fish, cremwurst (the thing in the hot dog), etc.) and/or low fat cheese (like mozarella or any low fat cheese). 100g in total. That means like 3 (slim) cremwurst sausages. Also a tomato and a cucumber (a normal cucumber, like the ones that are the total size of a tomato :) not the huge ones). You are allowed two slices of bread, not white, but wheat bread.

Brunch (10:00-11:00): 250g of fruit. Any fruit. Or 4-5 dried fruits.

Lunch (13:00-14:00): 150g of low fat meat (preferably grilled, else you start dreaming of warm meals) and a salad (tomato salad, green salad, boiled vegetables whatever. Use olive oil and as little salt as possible. Use lemon juice, not winegar). For example if you want to make yourself a tomato salad, you use 2 tomatos and a cucumber, some olive oil and lemon juice and a little salt. That's the size of a salad, not 4 kilos of tomatoes with mayo salad dressing. Two slices of wheat bread.

Meal between lunch and supper (16:00): 250g of fruit. Any fruit. Or 4-5 dried fruits.

Supper (18:30-19:30): 400g of yoghurt and/or low fat meat or salad. 400g in total, use at least 200g of yoghurt, though, it has enzimes that will help you during the night. Maybe replace the yoghurt with a less fatty soup. One slice of wheat bread.

That is it! You eat nothing else. You drink nothing else than water and grean tea. You avoid sugar as much as possible, onions and carrots and peas are sweet, too. No diet drinks or sugar-free chewing gum, they don't really help. Chocolate is a no no. Icecream is a crime. Alcohol deserves capital punishment. (well at least that's what the nutritionist told me).

My opinion of it? Well, things are not so bad. Remember that you cannot put more weight than what you eat. Even if you live by breathing air and you store everything you ingurgitate, you cannot gain 10 kilos if you only eat 1. Does your body store the Coca Cola drink you crave? No. But it uses that sugary goodness as energy and stores anything else you eat. Will you inflate like a balloon if you go to someone's birthday party and you eat a little cake and drink some champagne? Not really, unless people start looking at you funny while you are the only one eating the cake and there is not much left. This doesn't apply if you go to birthday parties every day!

And, remember, this is for a person that makes no physical effort whatsoever other than getting up each morning and going to work. Riding your bike at work or jogging or doing physical exercises will make this go even faster. They don't have to be difficult or complex. Finding your food in restaurants or shops is difficult, therefore you should prepare your lunch at home. That might look strange, to carry your own food, but weigh it (pun intended) against the purpose of your diet and the benefits of not being fat.

The thing is that after you reach your desired weight, you still have to keep up with this kind of eating. It keeps you fit. You can eat normal food, go to restaurants, drink sugary drinks and alcohol, but remember to balance it with the diet you just went through. Sugar and alcohol is somewhat like a really unhealthy fruit, fat is like a lot of meat, not eating vegetables is just not good. Your body is the result of evolution working on people who ate mostly plants and sometimes a little meat. Consider that when you order your double cheese hamburger and a diet Coke. Anyway, speaking of diet soft drinks, it doesn't really work. Drink the regular ones (unless you like the taste of the diet ones) just don't overdo it. It's the same with the food. Eat it rationally, even if you like to eat.

I felt no real feeling of hunger during this diet. The 5 meals a day thing keeps you full of energy and always with something in your stomach. You might feel hungry in the evening and then, if you reeeeeally find it hard to resist, drink a small glass of milk. Not regularly, just when you are really hungry. The milk makes your hunger go away, but also keep your body from losing weight.

The Routine

Well, you noticed it. The whole diet is based on daily routine. It might drive you crazy for a while, but consider that you have been doing it anyway. You wake up in the morning, wash, piss, drink the ritual coffee or whatever, get dressed, go to work, do the same thing you do every fucking day, return home and watch TV or spend "quality time" with the wife or play some silly game on the computer or even work part jobs. Then you go to sleep. It's a routine.

All you need to do is alter it a little to suit your needs.

People worst than you have done it. People incarcerated and tortured every day found solace in the real life inside their heads while living the reality in a state of trance brought on by routine. Routine is the basis of one's comfort. You only explore when you leave your comfort zone. You can do it "in your free time", if this mythical thing even exists, or just in your head, while your body is running the automated program you set up. Now I am not really talking about losing weight here, I am going general. The thing that keeps everyone content and not going crazy is not the quality of life, but the routine of it. We train ourselves to function in the given conditions.

Talking about drugs you cannot not talk about Trainspotting. The film that old people took as a drug promoting movie while for all the people that actually watched it, it was a powerful anti-drug statement. There is this part of the movie where Renton tries to quit heroin and he just hates his life. It's not because of the withdrawal symptomps, but because of the sheer boredom of it. When something that defines your pleasure is taken away, when the excitement is gone, your life feels like a slow death. It's easy to just go back to the pleasure you know. Even if it is just as boring, it feels good. But routine is what saves your ass.

The same applies to food. You dream of all the possible combinations of taste and texture and what you would do if you weren't on the diet. You don't feel hungry, you see, you don't need food, you need the pleasure of it. You want to fuck that food with your mouth and make it cum saliva. But it's all fake. When you slip and try to eat that food you realise that the fat you craved makes you feel sick, the food you want may be not on the diet sheet, but you can just about make it with those ingredients. You don't need junk food to eat good. And that is what this is all about after all. You get healthier by adjusting some parameters, not by losing something. Even if you can't lose all the weight you wanted, who gives a damn if you are still a little fat? You are a healthy fat guy! Not a morbidly obese piece of blubber that just waits miserably for their coronary.

So stick to the routine. Experiment with food while keeping to the principles of the diet when you get out of it. Stay in the comfort zone and leave it for short periods of time when you feel good about yourself. Choose your next stage of development and get to it when you feel like it.

Now I sound like those people trying to sell you stuff. I wanted to write this for a long time, mostly because I had to explain all of this to a lot of people over and over again. Now I have this post, you can read it here. I guess the bottom line is that your body as well as your brain is always in training mode. Whenever you do something that feels good, you train it to want more, whenever you do something that feels bad, you train it to want less. So it is your responsability, after all, to choose the things that make you feel good.

I finally bought myself a laptop and I had to figure out how to transfer files from my computer to the new device. I'll spare you the details, the thing is that I finally decided to use a 4Gb flash stick that my wife had from work.

I wanted to copy about four episodes from a tv series (that's less than 1.5Gb) and it said it needed to do it in 30 minutes. I thought, well, maybe the stick is slow. I was in no hurry, so I let it copy. I noticed that it worked in great bursts of data. First copy fast, then wait, then copy again, then wait again. When I moved it to the laptop, the file system was corrupt. What the.. ? So I formatted the stick. Apparently, I had only the FAT32 option, not NTFS. Then started copying again.

I Googled for it and found out that Windows XP does not enable write caching for removable drives. Me being me, I immediately went to the hardware properties of the stick and changed the way it worked from 'Optimize for quick removal' to 'Optimize for performance' (which specified that it enabled write caching). Wow! I am so smart. But I continued Googling anyway and I've learned that the setting doesn't really change anything, other than giving you the option of formatting with NTFS, which then would allow write caching.

But there was also another option, even with 'Optimize for quick removal' on: use the Windows XP command line utility Convert which is used to convert a FAT drive to an NTFS drive. I stopped the copying, only to notice that the file system was corrupt again. I deleted the files, ran chkdsk K: and then convert K: /fs:ntfs /v /NoSecurity. While the copying went a lot smoother, it still took 15 minutes to copy the damn thing. At least I could read it at the other end, anyway.

I don't exclude the possibility that drivers or stick hardware were at fault (since it is the first time this is happening to me), but be aware that you can always have this option of using NTFS instead of FAT32.

Disadvantages of using NTFS and write caching:

1. You need to use the software option of removing the USB stick and wait until it says it is safe to remove it, otherwise you might have write errors
2. NTFS has this ugly write last access time option that you can only remove it through a registry hack.
3. NTFS sticks cannot be used for some devices like mp3 players and such, since they only know FAT32 access. Windows 98 is also oblivious to NTFS, although there are third party NTFS drivers for it

Almost all information here can be found in more detail at this link: Tips for USB pen drives.

In the blog posts about my trip to Greece I placed some of the pictures taken, but mostly stuff pertaining to the place we were in and the paragraph before. Here are other pictures that have no special meaning other than that I like how they turned out.