That cannot be true. I don't think you understand the point of such experiments. Apple was trying to determine the ways people interact with computers. The presumption was, going into it, exactly what you think is true, that the keyboard is faster (generally speaking. assume for this thread that unless I say, "always", I'm talking about generalities. You make the mistake of assuming absolutes later, which I'll point out in a moment). The study showed that the people *in* the study reported that using the keyboard was faster. The clock, on the other hand, showed that using the mouse was faster.
Now, you come along and state that the keyboard is faster. You've never timed yourself (an assumption, but a fairly safe one). That makes your perception, at least, exactly that of the participants of the study. In other words, just *thinking* the keyboard is faster does not contradict the study. In fact, it's *exactly*in*line* with it.
Of course, that doesn't mean your perception isn't accurate. Just that it's been demonstrated that people tend to think the keyboard is faster, while it's been demonstrated that the opposite is, in fact, the case. It's only one study, however. I would be interested in more studies which target different aspects of computing.
The keyboard does not always require "active thinking." I never said it did (hint: always, as alluded to above).
Most keyboard shortcuts are muscle memory for me. That's probably part of the illusion. Muscle memory is things that you do automatically, without thinking (like typing on a keyboard, navigation in vi, etc). Things like deleting the next three words, or regex replacing, etc, are, by definition, *not* muscle memory. They can't be, simply because you have to build them in your mind each time. What you've really done, in most such cases, is remembered the keys to hit, but you can't just type them unconsciously (I'll grant "delete the next three words" if you were to type that a *lot* (I mean, that *exact* same key sequence, many times a day for many days), sort of like how you can type "the" without even realizing it once you've typed it so many times).
In general, aside from cut/copy/paste/print/close window/close program/switch task/switch program, most keyboard shortcuts are not muscle memory.
They each have their benefits and I'm sure Apple's study showed the mouse was more advantageous for their goals and audience. That's a lame tact. It's always "implied" in such statements that Apple is trying to either promote the GUI, or is simply targeting computer newbies. This study was to find out how much the keyboard should be used in GUI programs over the mouse. In fact, I believe the Lisa made extensive use of keyboard shortcuts due exactly to the notion that this study, which came later, was meant to test.
Let's take it from the absurd angle: using the mouse for everything. Clearly, the keyboard is faster for typing words than the mouse would be. Some universal commands (mentioned above) are also *generally* faster, but the speed advantage isn't nearly as great. Once you start stacking commands together (vi, your file delete example), the mouse tends to be faster. During that transition, however, it's been found that the mouse actually becomes faster before it's perceived to be faster.
And to my original point. vi isn't faster than notepad *because* it uses the keyboard. It's faster *because* it can do more things automatically than notepad. If notepad used the exact same keyboard shortcuts and modality as vi *and* still allowed the use of the mouse, don't you think using notepad would be faster than vi, if for no other reason than for the things that the mouse can do (i.e., jump to a specific point in the text) would give it the edge?
This is what makes someone who has spent the time mastering vi to say things like, "Oh my God, that will take you forever to do in notepad!" That's because notepad lacks functionality, *not* because vi is keyboard-driven.
Apple did some research years ago regarding using the mouse vs using keyboard shortcuts. As it turned out, people always tended to *think* using the keyboard was faster, but the clock showed that using the mouse was faster. The conclusion was that using the keyboard required active thinking ("what key do I press?" or in your vi example, "how many words do I need to delete? Three. Ok, that's 3 delete word, d, w, ok, '3dw'."), while the time spent moving the mouse to the menu (or selecting the three words and hitting 'delete') required little conscious thought, which made it feel like it took longer.
That's not to say the keyboard is always slower than the mouse, or anything like that. Just that the aversion to the GUI, or the reverence for the obscure-but-rational interface, is not borne out by experiment.
I think Gandhi would beg to differ. That would be difficult. He's dead.
Regardless, Gandhi certainly didn't just say, "I guess I won't eat for a while," and left it at that. It's absolutely certain his fasts took varying degrees of effort, beyond simply thinking, "I just won't eat," and leaving it at that.
My point, specifically, was that the drive to eat (which includes what, how much, and how often) is not a fully rational drive, but one which is laden with evolutionarily necessary impulses which cannot be willfully 'turned off' for any extended period of time.
Compare the control one normally has when lifting their arm. For most people in most cases, it's an effortless, willful act. Now imagine a person willing themselves to not eat, or to eat 'healthy' foods, or (really) to eat anything that significantly varies from what they *want* to eat, and you will notice, with the possible exception of those medicated or with severe disease/disability (like the people born without the ability to feel pain, perhaps there are people born without any form of 'hunger'?), that it takes significantly more effort than it takes to lift an arm.
And this is why people are fat. Because they are told to give up the foods they like and eat foods they don't like. I *never* said to eat food you don't like. I said to eat foods that affect your appetite in such a way that you naturally eat less. Eating "healthy" foods, if one doesn't like them, is *not* going to naturally lead to eating less, it's going to (as you correctly noted) have an adverse effect.
I lost 62 pounds that way. If you truly did *only* change portion size, and not the actual make up of what you eat, your altered portion size within a range you can maintain for an indefinite period of time (assuming this is a long-term weight loss).
If you *can* do this, then there is no need to proceed to diet change I outlined.
That change isn't to eat "diet" foods, it's to eat *different* foods. Whatever type of food you eat, your appetite, and subsequently your weight, will approach a certain range of equilibrium. For any given person who is overweight, there are foods different from what they normally eat that, were they to simply eat until they feel full in the same way they currently do, they will naturally approach a weight that is less than their current weight.
For some people, this will be enough, just as, for you, cutting your portion size has ostensibly been enough. This is a fairly effortless change that many people could benefit from, and is definitely better than reciting the first law of thermodynamics.
Your answer is absolutely correct. The problem is it answers the wrong question. People aren't asking, "physically, why is my weight what it is", but, "diet-wise, what can I do to lose weight?". Simply answering, "either decrease input, or increase output," is physically correct, but does not answer the question, "what *can* I do?" No one has full rational control over what they eat. Evolution couldn't allow that.
Eating the same foods, but less, is not a generally viable long-term solution. The main reason is that it's exceptionally difficult to maintain a diet where you parcel out your calories based on a desired result. Generally, the amount of food we eat is dictated by hunger, which is why it's extremely difficult to significantly (and sufficiently) the *amount* of calories we eat of any particular food in the long term.
Fortunately, not all foods affect hunger in the same way. This means that we can indirectly affect hunger by the foods we *do* choose to eat, which will naturally lead to a different caloric intake. So instead of the *extremely difficult* task of eating less indefinitely, we can instead take on the much easier (but not necessarily "easy") task of changing *what* we eat, to effect the same weight-related results.
That's the "input" side of the equation. There's also things that can be done to affect the "output" side. But *neither* side is properly addressed by merely saying, "conservation of energy."
"Idiocy" is not the thing that keeps the vast majority of computer users from backing up their files. If your goal is to get people to back up their data, calling them "idiots" is not going to help you with that goal.
If, on the other hand, your goal is to state what everybody already knows, but in off-putting terms, without any reasonable expectation of effecting change for the better, then consider yourself "mission accomplished." Keep up the good work!
Replying to a post does not mean you have read it. There's an example to prove this, but you've already written it.
Re:If there was only content worth watching
on
Miro Turns 1.0
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I would have thought that if the grandparent was a flamebait, the parent would have been just as much a flamebait, if not moreso. Perhaps a paraphrasing will help clear things up for you:
0. We're at 1.0! (the story) 1. You suck (flamebait) 2. Look who's talking! (insightful)
// If more people were aware of these things, then vendors would be forced to make their license agreements less onerous.// That doesn't necessarily follow.
It does, if people were unwilling to accept onerous agreements, vendors would be forced to change them. You said, "if more people are aware of these things", not "if more people were unwilling to accept onerous agreements". It's an important point, and I do not think a mis-wording on your part. How many geeks are sufficiently aware of the 'onerous agreement' and still willing to click "I Agree"? I suspect your average person, were they aware of the terms, would be even more likely to accept.
It just doesn't follow that onerous terms are sufficient to stave off acceptance of the agreement. "Free Market", Libertarian-types, will point out that this means that the terms are acceptable. I fully disagree with this notion. The problem is that, for most people, it is (or they think it is) a choice between Windows and nothing. That puts Microsoft in a position to make outrageous demands, because they are competing against "No Computer At All", not "Reasonably Equivalent OS B with less onerous EULA".
These agreements won't be changed without user education. That's not true. Not even *remotely* true. A single lawsuit that only accidentally educates a fraction of the user population could change these agreements. A law, which educates even fewer users, could have the same effect. Other marketplace changes could change the EULA. For example, if Linux ever became a major threat against Windows (a greater threat than Firefox currently poses against IE, for example), MS's EULA could change, not because the users are any more educated, but because it might keep the geeks that advise their friends and family, and write tech reviews for the media, might either be less adamant about promoting Linux, or more friendly towards Windows.
The point being, that there *are* ways to change the EULA that don't require user education. Even more notable is that these ways are much easier to bring to pass than the monumental task of not only *educating* a majority of users, but of also convincing them to care enough about this issue to switch from Windows in numbers sufficient to convince MS to fix their EULA.
And that's their own fault. No, it's not. Your sentiment essentially says it's OK to do whatever you can to *trick* people into contractual obligations. It's like that old trick, "a [something negative] says what?" and when the person asks, "what?", you treat them as if that means they *actually* are the [something negative].
Would you sign an employment contract without reading it first? How about a contract for the transfer of a house or other property? Absolutely not. But we're not talking about employment contracts or deeds.
If your willing to agree to things without reading them, i have a few contracts for you to sign! And, hypothetically, if I *were* to sign such a contract without reading it, without any actual *agreement* between us being met, without any understanding or knowledge of the contents, I would be legally able to void the contract. That's because the signature isn't the actual agreement, it's merely the physical representation of it. If the thing it represents doesn't actually exist, it's a sham.
People need to be educated as to what they're agreeing to, and perhaps get legal advice before agreeing to anything like this. It's absolutely absurd to expect people to consult a lawyer every time they are presented with an "I Agree" button. You're right about the need for education, however. Which is the exact thing needed to make these EULAs actual, honest contracts. If the end-user *actually* understands the contents, then that makes them much, *much* more valid as a legal contract.
If more people were aware of these things, then vendors would be forced to make their license agreements less onerous. That doesn't necessarily follow.
In order for a contract to be valid, there *must* be some reasonable measure of actual *agreement* and *understanding* (among other things, but these are the aspects pertinent to the topic at hand).
Clearly, most people do not understand, and have not actually *AGREED* to anything. All they've done is clicked a button. That click *might* count as an "electronic signature", but that's not the primary issue I've raised. The issue is that the contract is not predicated on the fundamental principles of a contract.
Those fundamental principles include (as stated above), agreement and understanding (again, amongst other things). The signature on the contract merely "seals the deal", but if there is no actual agreement, and no actual understanding, the underlying foundation of the contract is critically weakened, and the contract is, essentially, void.
With software EULAs, that essentially means you no longer (and really, never did) have the right to "copy it into memory" (a very dubious restriction as it is, but an entirely separate topic).
Pff. When you installed windows you agreed not to hold them liable. I didn't *agree* to shit. I clicked a button.
It's well known that people don't read the EULA. It's also well known (and follows) that the overwhelming majority of people have no idea the actual contents of the EULA. That strikes me as extremely shaky ground on which to base claims of any sort of actual "agreement" to anything.
In reality, the only thing agreed to is the user agrees to click a series of "affirmative" buttons in order to install some software.
That's like blaming all the deaths in WWII on Roosevelt or all the lives lost in the Revolutionary war on Washington. Please try to make a coherent argument. WWII was not a preemptive, elective war. Neither was the Revolutionary War.
To say they don't a chance because... why? They are brown? They were not born in the right place? What's your reasoning as to why they don't deserve a chance? How *dare* you, you swine. They deserve a chance, but *I'm* not the one taking it away. The ones taking it away are the superstitious thugs they are surrounded by. If you want to advocate eradicating superstitious thugs from the planet, that's a valid topic, but it's not the case you are making now, it's just a convenient red herring.
What I'm afraid of is Neville Chamberlain types that hold us down until we have good reason to fear them. Ahmadinajad is not Hitler. Ahmadinajad is not the ruler of Iran. Ahmadinajad is no threat to the US. Ahmadinajad, given free, unsupervised reign for the remainder of his life could not attain even 1/100th the power over the world that Hitler attained. He talks shit, but he's got no game.
And don't forget, the only reason he's the president of Iran at all is due to the bumbling lunacy called the Bush foreign policy. Prior to the invasion of Iraq and the "Axis of Evil" nonsense, there wasn't a chance in hell someone as fucked up as him could have been elected president. But when the biggest, baddest mutherfucker on the planet calls you a member of the "Axis of Evil", and invades the only other member of that "axis" who doesn't have nuclear weapons on false pretenses, the people get a little scared, and tend to take a hard right in their politics.
How would *YOU* have reacted had the roles been reversed?
People like you that scream you'd rather die than give up a single freedom and in the very next breath claim that "war is never the answer." Like hell we do. War definitely *is* an answer. But in the case of Iran, it's not. And it doesn't seem likely it will become one any time soon. Iran poses no significant threat to the US. What *does* pose a threat is taking on yet another war of choice. Iraq and Afghanistan already look to cost us over two trillion dollars, has spread our resources thin, and utterly destroyed our esteem in the world.
You're nothing but a coward, a paranoid swine who'd rather wage a never-ending war for fear that some nation some where might some day be able to attack us. An attack that, were they ever to take it, would ensure their destruction.
North Korea is *FAR* more powerful than Iran, is led by a man who is *FAR* more insane than Ahmadinajad, has made *NUCLEAR* threats against our cities, has launched *ACTUAL* missiles over Japan, has a *STRONG* ally in China, has, right now, the capability to *DESTROY* the capital of their nearby enemy, and is still *AT WAR* with the US, and even *they* won't attack us. And if they did, that country would become a footnote in history, while the US would continue. But if we spread ourselves thin and spend ourselves bankrupt chasing after boogeymen who can never be defeated, it is *we* who will become that footnote. You list Chamberlain as a model to fear. I list Rome and the USSR. Let's not take ourselves down the paths they took.
Really? Link? Do you just make this shit up as you go along? Here's proof that you are either retarded-gold-fish stupid or a liar. WE ARE STILL HERE The US has had nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them anywhere in the world since 1946. And yet, we are still here. No Armageddon. That should be all the proof you need. The fuck? Christians are taught to welcome Armageddon and the end times, and there are Christians who are doing everything they can to bring that about. There's a Christian group that, as we speak, is trying to build some temple that's supposed to happen before Armageddon can happen.
Right. The comparison is absurd. The USSR had the ability to end the USA's existence. A nuclear armed Iran does not. Nor have they ever threatened to, while the Russians had, and almost tried on more than one occasion. Again, not just wrong, but fucking wrong. How about if I showed you a picture of Ahmadinajad watching a military parade with banners that read "Death to America". Shit, I had to double-quote just to show how fucking pathetic your argument is. Those banners aren't threats. They're just a bunch of fucked up posturing Ahmadinajad does to appeal to his base. No worse than the idiotic nonsense that comes out of our leaders' mouths. Remember "bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb-bomb-Iran"? Remember "Axis of Evil"? But even if you consider that a threat, it's a non-critical aspect of what I stated (which undermines your "not just wrong, but fucking wrong" statement). The rest still stands.
Ahmadinajad can't do *shit* to us. Even if left completely free to make all the bombs and missiles he wants and given 50 years to do so, he *still* wouldn't be able to do shit to us.
What's it like to fear a mouse like Iran?
Of course, I won't even get started on how many US soldiers have died in Iraq because of Iranian actions. That alone is an act of war. No. Please do get started. How many US soldiers have died in Iraq because of Iranian actions? What actions are you talking about, exactly? If you *really* want to go down this road, how many US soldiers have died in Iraq because of the Bush administration's actions? All you're really doing is grasping at any straw which you can stuff your imaginary enemy with to make him bigger.
Iran isn't a threat to the US. To fear them is absurd, and makes you a pathetic coward. Seriously, stop and think about it for a moment--YOU'RE AFRAID OF IRAN. How pathetic is that? Iran? Really?
Um... I don't see neocons or radical Christians beheading people on YouTube while chanting "God is Great". Why behead people when you've got the biggest and broadest arsenal on earth?
Beheading only comes into the picture when all you've got is a sword.
Hell I'd want them too if I was a country that the US was targetting - it would grant me autonomy. *Especially* if the sitting US President singled you out as part of an "Axis of Evil".
Hitler spelled out his intentions in Mein Kamph, but no one believed it until it actually happened. And what of the million other people who "spell out their intentions"? Ahmadinejad might *want* a lot of things, but there's so absolutely little risk that he'll get any of it, it's absurd to fear him.
You do know that the people who run Iran are members of a religious group that teaches that it is their religious obligation to bring about Armageddon if the opportunity presents itself. The same is true of America. Different religion, same Armageddon fetish.
While it is possible that the fear of Iran getting nuclear weapons is exaggerated, the comparison with the USSR doesn't hold up to careful examination. Right. The comparison is absurd. The USSR had the ability to end the USA's existence. A nuclear armed Iran does not. Nor have they ever threatened to, while the Russians had, and almost tried on more than one occasion.
I can take the mod hit so I will tell you the difference:
The Russians weren't insane !! (evil maybe but insane no) There is absolutely no evidence that Iran is suicidal (which is what you should mean, since "insane" doesn't make any sense here). You may be referring to Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran. Two points to remember, here:
1. He's *not* the top guy in Iran. 2. Iran was on *our* side after 9-11. It wasn't until the Iraq war, and the abysmally idiotic "Axis of Evil" statement, that the Iranian people swerved hard to the right and elected him. (what would *we* do if the most powerful nation on the planet called us out like that?) Calling Iran our enemy is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
He's moving to impeach Cheney when he knows it wont happen. It *definitely* won't happen if no one tries. At least Kucinich is trying.
Even if it did, it would be too late to have much of an effect. Not much of an effect, except having accomplished "doing the right thing". People respect that, and it builds character. It also sets precedent, which will help make things more difficult for the neo-cons to trash things so horribly in the future.
Don't think for one moment that after Bush leaves office, they're going to stop trying to implement their "Project for the New American Century". They've been trying ever since the Nixon administration (where do you think Cheney and Rumsfeld come from?), if they can wait 30 years, they aren't going to just give up just because it's the end of an inning.
So, in other words, you don't want to charge Bush and Cheney with a crime, because if you do, they may commit an even *worse* crime?
Two things spring to mind. The first is the moral depravity of such a stance. I understand, however, that sometimes practicality can trump morality. Although I don't think this is one of those cases, let's assume it is. If Bush and Cheney are impeached and convicted, how are they going to start the war? If they are impeached and acquitted, how does that help them if they commit this even *worse* crime? (This worse crime being essentially identical to the first, BTW.)
And if the fear of impeachment is the only thing preventing a war with Iran, if they really want the war, won't they just wait until impeachment would essentially be "too late" from a practical standpoint?
You exemplify the problem with the current Democratic party. Far too many Democrats look at the practical side, when the people just want them to do the right thing. I'd *MUCH* rather the House and Senate try and fail, then for them to not try at all.
It happened during the witchhunt, but it was a result of him perjuring himself. If he hadn't done that, there would not have been any impeachment, witchhunt or no. No, he was acquitted of perjury. I don't think you know what the term "impeachment" means. Impeachment doesn't mean you did something wrong, it means you've been *charged* with doing something wrong.
For instance there is absolutely no simple way to merge two folders contents together on the mac. Open a folder, "Select All", drag into destination folder.
If you drag a folder called "Documents" into your home directory and click on "OK", the Mac OS will happily delete your entire documents folder. It does state this is going to happen in the window with the OK button.
I was reminded of this enormous frustration while recovering from some multi-volume backups recently, having to resort to an obscure OS X commandline tool 'pax' and Leopard's newfound support of hardlinks to make some simple file copies play nice and not unnecessarily consume 3 times the disk space they should have. If you were going with the command line, you could have just used "cp" or "rsync". Your mention of hardlinks is perplexing, though. OS X has supported hard links forever. It recently added support for hard linking folders (extending hard links beyond the standard). Since you're comparing with Windows, does Windows somehow know if you are copying a file that's identical to one that already exists, and makes a hard link? I'm fairly sure it doesn't.
For all of the flack the Windows file copy interface gets, it is both safer and more flexible than trying to use the Finder How so? This bug aside, I don't see how it's safer *or* more flexible. The difference--the *only* difference--here is whether folders replace or merge. Windows isn't more flexible, as it does one way, not both. As for safer, they both tell you when something destructive is going to happen.
the Finder: an interface that makes file management so stupefying it becomes impossible. Impossible? Really? All because it replaces folders (and tells you, with a chance to abort) instead of merging them?
Slashdot Mirror
Now, you come along and state that the keyboard is faster. You've never timed yourself (an assumption, but a fairly safe one). That makes your perception, at least, exactly that of the participants of the study. In other words, just *thinking* the keyboard is faster does not contradict the study. In fact, it's *exactly*in*line* with it.
Of course, that doesn't mean your perception isn't accurate. Just that it's been demonstrated that people tend to think the keyboard is faster, while it's been demonstrated that the opposite is, in fact, the case. It's only one study, however. I would be interested in more studies which target different aspects of computing. The keyboard does not always require "active thinking." I never said it did (hint: always, as alluded to above). Most keyboard shortcuts are muscle memory for me. That's probably part of the illusion. Muscle memory is things that you do automatically, without thinking (like typing on a keyboard, navigation in vi, etc). Things like deleting the next three words, or regex replacing, etc, are, by definition, *not* muscle memory. They can't be, simply because you have to build them in your mind each time. What you've really done, in most such cases, is remembered the keys to hit, but you can't just type them unconsciously (I'll grant "delete the next three words" if you were to type that a *lot* (I mean, that *exact* same key sequence, many times a day for many days), sort of like how you can type "the" without even realizing it once you've typed it so many times).
In general, aside from cut/copy/paste/print/close window/close program/switch task/switch program, most keyboard shortcuts are not muscle memory. They each have their benefits and I'm sure Apple's study showed the mouse was more advantageous for their goals and audience. That's a lame tact. It's always "implied" in such statements that Apple is trying to either promote the GUI, or is simply targeting computer newbies. This study was to find out how much the keyboard should be used in GUI programs over the mouse. In fact, I believe the Lisa made extensive use of keyboard shortcuts due exactly to the notion that this study, which came later, was meant to test.
Let's take it from the absurd angle: using the mouse for everything. Clearly, the keyboard is faster for typing words than the mouse would be. Some universal commands (mentioned above) are also *generally* faster, but the speed advantage isn't nearly as great. Once you start stacking commands together (vi, your file delete example), the mouse tends to be faster. During that transition, however, it's been found that the mouse actually becomes faster before it's perceived to be faster.
And to my original point. vi isn't faster than notepad *because* it uses the keyboard. It's faster *because* it can do more things automatically than notepad. If notepad used the exact same keyboard shortcuts and modality as vi *and* still allowed the use of the mouse, don't you think using notepad would be faster than vi, if for no other reason than for the things that the mouse can do (i.e., jump to a specific point in the text) would give it the edge?
Apple did some research years ago regarding using the mouse vs using keyboard shortcuts. As it turned out, people always tended to *think* using the keyboard was faster, but the clock showed that using the mouse was faster. The conclusion was that using the keyboard required active thinking ("what key do I press?" or in your vi example, "how many words do I need to delete? Three. Ok, that's 3 delete word, d, w, ok, '3dw'."), while the time spent moving the mouse to the menu (or selecting the three words and hitting 'delete') required little conscious thought, which made it feel like it took longer.
That's not to say the keyboard is always slower than the mouse, or anything like that. Just that the aversion to the GUI, or the reverence for the obscure-but-rational interface, is not borne out by experiment.
Regardless, Gandhi certainly didn't just say, "I guess I won't eat for a while," and left it at that. It's absolutely certain his fasts took varying degrees of effort, beyond simply thinking, "I just won't eat," and leaving it at that.
My point, specifically, was that the drive to eat (which includes what, how much, and how often) is not a fully rational drive, but one which is laden with evolutionarily necessary impulses which cannot be willfully 'turned off' for any extended period of time.
Compare the control one normally has when lifting their arm. For most people in most cases, it's an effortless, willful act. Now imagine a person willing themselves to not eat, or to eat 'healthy' foods, or (really) to eat anything that significantly varies from what they *want* to eat, and you will notice, with the possible exception of those medicated or with severe disease/disability (like the people born without the ability to feel pain, perhaps there are people born without any form of 'hunger'?), that it takes significantly more effort than it takes to lift an arm.
If you *can* do this, then there is no need to proceed to diet change I outlined.
That change isn't to eat "diet" foods, it's to eat *different* foods. Whatever type of food you eat, your appetite, and subsequently your weight, will approach a certain range of equilibrium. For any given person who is overweight, there are foods different from what they normally eat that, were they to simply eat until they feel full in the same way they currently do, they will naturally approach a weight that is less than their current weight.
For some people, this will be enough, just as, for you, cutting your portion size has ostensibly been enough. This is a fairly effortless change that many people could benefit from, and is definitely better than reciting the first law of thermodynamics.
Your answer is absolutely correct. The problem is it answers the wrong question. People aren't asking, "physically, why is my weight what it is", but, "diet-wise, what can I do to lose weight?". Simply answering, "either decrease input, or increase output," is physically correct, but does not answer the question, "what *can* I do?" No one has full rational control over what they eat. Evolution couldn't allow that.
Eating the same foods, but less, is not a generally viable long-term solution. The main reason is that it's exceptionally difficult to maintain a diet where you parcel out your calories based on a desired result. Generally, the amount of food we eat is dictated by hunger, which is why it's extremely difficult to significantly (and sufficiently) the *amount* of calories we eat of any particular food in the long term.
Fortunately, not all foods affect hunger in the same way. This means that we can indirectly affect hunger by the foods we *do* choose to eat, which will naturally lead to a different caloric intake. So instead of the *extremely difficult* task of eating less indefinitely, we can instead take on the much easier (but not necessarily "easy") task of changing *what* we eat, to effect the same weight-related results.
That's the "input" side of the equation. There's also things that can be done to affect the "output" side. But *neither* side is properly addressed by merely saying, "conservation of energy."
"Idiocy" is not the thing that keeps the vast majority of computer users from backing up their files. If your goal is to get people to back up their data, calling them "idiots" is not going to help you with that goal.
If, on the other hand, your goal is to state what everybody already knows, but in off-putting terms, without any reasonable expectation of effecting change for the better, then consider yourself "mission accomplished." Keep up the good work!
Replying to a post does not mean you have read it. There's an example to prove this, but you've already written it.
0. We're at 1.0! (the story)
1. You suck (flamebait)
2. Look who's talking! (insightful)
// If more people were aware of these things, then vendors would be forced to make their license agreements less onerous.It does, if people were unwilling to accept onerous agreements, vendors would be forced to change them. You said, "if more people are aware of these things", not "if more people were unwilling to accept onerous agreements". It's an important point, and I do not think a mis-wording on your part. How many geeks are sufficiently aware of the 'onerous agreement' and still willing to click "I Agree"? I suspect your average person, were they aware of the terms, would be even more likely to accept.
It just doesn't follow that onerous terms are sufficient to stave off acceptance of the agreement. "Free Market", Libertarian-types, will point out that this means that the terms are acceptable. I fully disagree with this notion. The problem is that, for most people, it is (or they think it is) a choice between Windows and nothing. That puts Microsoft in a position to make outrageous demands, because they are competing against "No Computer At All", not "Reasonably Equivalent OS B with less onerous EULA". These agreements won't be changed without user education. That's not true. Not even *remotely* true. A single lawsuit that only accidentally educates a fraction of the user population could change these agreements. A law, which educates even fewer users, could have the same effect. Other marketplace changes could change the EULA. For example, if Linux ever became a major threat against Windows (a greater threat than Firefox currently poses against IE, for example), MS's EULA could change, not because the users are any more educated, but because it might keep the geeks that advise their friends and family, and write tech reviews for the media, might either be less adamant about promoting Linux, or more friendly towards Windows.
The point being, that there *are* ways to change the EULA that don't require user education. Even more notable is that these ways are much easier to bring to pass than the monumental task of not only *educating* a majority of users, but of also convincing them to care enough about this issue to switch from Windows in numbers sufficient to convince MS to fix their EULA.
In order for a contract to be valid, there *must* be some reasonable measure of actual *agreement* and *understanding* (among other things, but these are the aspects pertinent to the topic at hand).
Clearly, most people do not understand, and have not actually *AGREED* to anything. All they've done is clicked a button. That click *might* count as an "electronic signature", but that's not the primary issue I've raised. The issue is that the contract is not predicated on the fundamental principles of a contract.
Those fundamental principles include (as stated above), agreement and understanding (again, amongst other things). The signature on the contract merely "seals the deal", but if there is no actual agreement, and no actual understanding, the underlying foundation of the contract is critically weakened, and the contract is, essentially, void.
With software EULAs, that essentially means you no longer (and really, never did) have the right to "copy it into memory" (a very dubious restriction as it is, but an entirely separate topic).
It's well known that people don't read the EULA. It's also well known (and follows) that the overwhelming majority of people have no idea the actual contents of the EULA. That strikes me as extremely shaky ground on which to base claims of any sort of actual "agreement" to anything.
In reality, the only thing agreed to is the user agrees to click a series of "affirmative" buttons in order to install some software.
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Ralph Waldo Emerson
And don't forget, the only reason he's the president of Iran at all is due to the bumbling lunacy called the Bush foreign policy. Prior to the invasion of Iraq and the "Axis of Evil" nonsense, there wasn't a chance in hell someone as fucked up as him could have been elected president. But when the biggest, baddest mutherfucker on the planet calls you a member of the "Axis of Evil", and invades the only other member of that "axis" who doesn't have nuclear weapons on false pretenses, the people get a little scared, and tend to take a hard right in their politics.
How would *YOU* have reacted had the roles been reversed? People like you that scream you'd rather die than give up a single freedom and in the very next breath claim that "war is never the answer." Like hell we do. War definitely *is* an answer. But in the case of Iran, it's not. And it doesn't seem likely it will become one any time soon. Iran poses no significant threat to the US. What *does* pose a threat is taking on yet another war of choice. Iraq and Afghanistan already look to cost us over two trillion dollars, has spread our resources thin, and utterly destroyed our esteem in the world.
You're nothing but a coward, a paranoid swine who'd rather wage a never-ending war for fear that some nation some where might some day be able to attack us. An attack that, were they ever to take it, would ensure their destruction.
North Korea is *FAR* more powerful than Iran, is led by a man who is *FAR* more insane than Ahmadinajad, has made *NUCLEAR* threats against our cities, has launched *ACTUAL* missiles over Japan, has a *STRONG* ally in China, has, right now, the capability to *DESTROY* the capital of their nearby enemy, and is still *AT WAR* with the US, and even *they* won't attack us. And if they did, that country would become a footnote in history, while the US would continue. But if we spread ourselves thin and spend ourselves bankrupt chasing after boogeymen who can never be defeated, it is *we* who will become that footnote. You list Chamberlain as a model to fear. I list Rome and the USSR. Let's not take ourselves down the paths they took.
Ahmadinajad can't do *shit* to us. Even if left completely free to make all the bombs and missiles he wants and given 50 years to do so, he *still* wouldn't be able to do shit to us.
What's it like to fear a mouse like Iran? Of course, I won't even get started on how many US soldiers have died in Iraq because of Iranian actions. That alone is an act of war. No. Please do get started. How many US soldiers have died in Iraq because of Iranian actions? What actions are you talking about, exactly? If you *really* want to go down this road, how many US soldiers have died in Iraq because of the Bush administration's actions? All you're really doing is grasping at any straw which you can stuff your imaginary enemy with to make him bigger.
Iran isn't a threat to the US. To fear them is absurd, and makes you a pathetic coward. Seriously, stop and think about it for a moment--YOU'RE AFRAID OF IRAN. How pathetic is that? Iran? Really?
Beheading only comes into the picture when all you've got is a sword.
Quit being such a pathetic coward.
The Russians weren't insane !! (evil maybe but insane no) There is absolutely no evidence that Iran is suicidal (which is what you should mean, since "insane" doesn't make any sense here). You may be referring to Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran. Two points to remember, here:
1. He's *not* the top guy in Iran.
2. Iran was on *our* side after 9-11. It wasn't until the Iraq war, and the abysmally idiotic "Axis of Evil" statement, that the Iranian people swerved hard to the right and elected him. (what would *we* do if the most powerful nation on the planet called us out like that?) Calling Iran our enemy is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Don't think for one moment that after Bush leaves office, they're going to stop trying to implement their "Project for the New American Century". They've been trying ever since the Nixon administration (where do you think Cheney and Rumsfeld come from?), if they can wait 30 years, they aren't going to just give up just because it's the end of an inning.
So, in other words, you don't want to charge Bush and Cheney with a crime, because if you do, they may commit an even *worse* crime?
Two things spring to mind. The first is the moral depravity of such a stance. I understand, however, that sometimes practicality can trump morality. Although I don't think this is one of those cases, let's assume it is. If Bush and Cheney are impeached and convicted, how are they going to start the war? If they are impeached and acquitted, how does that help them if they commit this even *worse* crime? (This worse crime being essentially identical to the first, BTW.)
And if the fear of impeachment is the only thing preventing a war with Iran, if they really want the war, won't they just wait until impeachment would essentially be "too late" from a practical standpoint?
You exemplify the problem with the current Democratic party. Far too many Democrats look at the practical side, when the people just want them to do the right thing. I'd *MUCH* rather the House and Senate try and fail, then for them to not try at all.