The video shows someone pressing each of the keys firmly for a second or longer so that the keys have time to heat up. Who the hell enters a PIN like that?
You started by saying that it that it doesn't vary between fat people and thin people and only food intake and exercise matters. Now you're trying to argue that the variance is irrelevant because it it is partly caused by differences in fat mass and free fat mass.
Additionally, you're ignoring this line from the link I provided: The rest of the variation (26.7%) was unexplained. It could not be accounted for by age, gender, fat mass, free mass or any other factor they found.
And this: In one study, when comparing individuals with the same lean body mass, the top 5% of BMRs are 28-32% higher than the lowest 5% BMR.
I could keep going, but there's no point. You've offered no proof whatsoever to back up the opinions you keep stating as fact and you're contradicting yourself in your own arguments. I'm not going to bother replying any more because this is turning into the equivalent of arguing with a new earther about evolution.
BMR (basal metabolic rate) really doesn't vary much person to person.
Hold up there skippy: One study of 150 adults representative of the population in Scotland reported basal metabolic rates from as low as 1027 kcal per day (4301 kJ/day) to as high as 2499 kcal/day (10455 kJ/day);
In what universe does a 243% increase qualify as "doesn't really vary much"?
Making up 'facts' to justify your viewpoint doesn't make them facts, no matter how much you wish it did.
I'm not familiar with German copyright law, but there are precedents in other countries that allow artists to use copyright on art that they've sold to prevent its destruction.
If Germany grants similar rights under copyright law, that would mean that the chef could not only prevent photos from being taken, but could refuse to let the diner eat the food or even move it around on the plate since it's now copyrighted.
Threaten to sue people for downloading the most embarrassing shit you can imagine (i.e. freaky porn or an Adam Sandler movie) and then send them a letter offering to settle for a few thousand dollars to keep their name out of the publicly accessible legal filings.
I knew someone would say something like this. There's always some yutz who thinks that freedom of speech means that other people are required to provide them with a platform to speak from.
The price has been set so high so that DBC can't expect to make any money on the claims if they break the court's rules.
The whole point of a setting a bond is to remove any financial incentive a company would have for breaking the rules. If it was set it so low that the company would still make money by breaking the rules and paying the fine, then setting the bond would be pointless.
The last time I saw an old-fashioned gear and spring driven watch on someone's wrist, I honestly thought they were wearing an ironic throwback time piece. Then I realized they were wearing an expensive, highly redundant, gaudy looking piece of trash that they actually thought would impress other people.
I will just assume that it didn't happen as it is more likely that the police wouldn't do something that would taint all the evidence of the crime occurring.
Congratulations on your mastery the dictionary. Perhaps you could put those skills to work teaching the submitter how to use the word properly.
The hackers didn't go around or bypass or circumnavigate the entertainment system. They hacked the entertainment system and used it to bypass other security measures. If they had not gone through the entertainment system, they would not have been able to compromise the vehicle's communication network.
The term "Stingray" has gotten lots of press while the phrase "IMSI-catcher" is unknown to most people. Relating a device to the most commonly known term for it is normal.
It's no different than Scotch tape being used to refer to any brand of cellophane tape and Kleenex being used to refer to any brand of facial tissue.
I like how the submitter tries to sound intellectual by using terms like "Manichean" despite writing garbled phrases like "leaves civilizational scale death-becoming a technical possibility."
Please point us to the law that was passed to make recording conversations with abortion providers illegal and then we can discuss whether that law is constitutional or not.
A judge's decision is not a law and can be appealed, so that's an entirely different conversation.
Companies have demonstrated how careful and responsible they are with the DMCA takedowns, so it's only logical that we allow them to go further and actively attack the evil-doers out there.
You're ignoring the fact that much of the top 1% gain wealth in forms that don't show up as income. Being paid with shares of stock rather than cash is one of the most obvious of the many, many ways that the wealthy use to increase their wealth without having to list it as income and pay taxes.
I even benefit from that, in fact, as I get shares in the company I work for equal to about 20% of my salary per year. Until I sell those shares, which I won't be doing until I'm retired, I won't pay a cent in taxes on that increase in my wealth.
And yes, I realize it's a bit hypocritical that I take advantage of the very tax dodges that I'm saying shouldn't exist. That doesn't change the fact that the wealthy don't need more tax breaks on top of the metric buttload that they already have.
The "houses kept too clean" theory is interesting but by no means proven; northwest Scotland is considered to have the cleanest environment in the developed world (due to wind and rain from the Atlantic) and that was true before 1970 as well but children there have seen the same increase in nut allergies as elsewhere.
The wind and rain from the Atlantic isn't really a factor in how clean a house is unless there's something very wrong with the roof and/or windows.
Slashdot Mirror
The video shows someone pressing each of the keys firmly for a second or longer so that the keys have time to heat up. Who the hell enters a PIN like that?
Hipster geek disabled flash before disabling flash was cool.
Now you're contradicting yourself.
You started by saying that it that it doesn't vary between fat people and thin people and only food intake and exercise matters. Now you're trying to argue that the variance is irrelevant because it it is partly caused by differences in fat mass and free fat mass.
Additionally, you're ignoring this line from the link I provided:
The rest of the variation (26.7%) was unexplained. It could not be accounted for by age, gender, fat mass, free mass or any other factor they found.
And this:
In one study, when comparing individuals with the same lean body mass, the top 5% of BMRs are 28-32% higher than the lowest 5% BMR.
I could keep going, but there's no point. You've offered no proof whatsoever to back up the opinions you keep stating as fact and you're contradicting yourself in your own arguments. I'm not going to bother replying any more because this is turning into the equivalent of arguing with a new earther about evolution.
Oops. You are correct. I should not post in the mornings before ingesting enough caffeine to raise my basal metabolic rate. :)
Still, that's a huge range of variation to dismiss as "doesn't vary much."
BMR (basal metabolic rate) really doesn't vary much person to person.
Hold up there skippy:
One study of 150 adults representative of the population in Scotland reported basal metabolic rates from as low as 1027 kcal per day (4301 kJ/day) to as high as 2499 kcal/day (10455 kJ/day);
In what universe does a 243% increase qualify as "doesn't really vary much"?
Making up 'facts' to justify your viewpoint doesn't make them facts, no matter how much you wish it did.
I'm not familiar with German copyright law, but there are precedents in other countries that allow artists to use copyright on art that they've sold to prevent its destruction.
If Germany grants similar rights under copyright law, that would mean that the chef could not only prevent photos from being taken, but could refuse to let the diner eat the food or even move it around on the plate since it's now copyrighted.
Threaten to sue people for downloading the most embarrassing shit you can imagine (i.e. freaky porn or an Adam Sandler movie) and then send them a letter offering to settle for a few thousand dollars to keep their name out of the publicly accessible legal filings.
I knew someone would say something like this. There's always some yutz who thinks that freedom of speech means that other people are required to provide them with a platform to speak from.
Um, care to cite any recent attacks planned our executed by Christians for anything related to religion?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Take your pick.
The price has been set so high so that DBC can't expect to make any money on the claims if they break the court's rules.
The whole point of a setting a bond is to remove any financial incentive a company would have for breaking the rules. If it was set it so low that the company would still make money by breaking the rules and paying the fine, then setting the bond would be pointless.
The last time I saw an old-fashioned gear and spring driven watch on someone's wrist, I honestly thought they were wearing an ironic throwback time piece. Then I realized they were wearing an expensive, highly redundant, gaudy looking piece of trash that they actually thought would impress other people.
I will just assume that it didn't happen as it is more likely that the police wouldn't do something that would taint all the evidence of the crime occurring.
There was a case heard by the supreme court just last year over police doing exactly that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And if you're within 100 miles of the US boarder, they have this to fall back on:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
There are plenty of other exceptions and ways around the fourth amendment, but it's honestly just too depressing to list them all.
I can think of someone who probably would wear them.
Congratulations on your mastery the dictionary. Perhaps you could put those skills to work teaching the submitter how to use the word properly.
The hackers didn't go around or bypass or circumnavigate the entertainment system. They hacked the entertainment system and used it to bypass other security measures. If they had not gone through the entertainment system, they would not have been able to compromise the vehicle's communication network.
Plenty of people borrow boats and cars in return for beer or pizza or other favors. That's sharing too.
No, that's bartering. Giving something with the expectation of payment in return is not sharing.
You fail to understand how language works.
The term "Stingray" has gotten lots of press while the phrase "IMSI-catcher" is unknown to most people. Relating a device to the most commonly known term for it is normal.
It's no different than Scotch tape being used to refer to any brand of cellophane tape and Kleenex being used to refer to any brand of facial tissue.
It would never work.
The problem is that your scheme attempts to steal money from the wealthy and powerful. You'll be hunted to the ends of the earth for that.
Figure out how to steal money from the poor, on the other hand, and nobody in power will give a shit.
Don't go to the zoo. The elephants' trunks will have you peeing yourself from fright.
I like how the submitter tries to sound intellectual by using terms like "Manichean" despite writing garbled phrases like "leaves civilizational scale death-becoming a technical possibility."
Please point us to the law that was passed to make recording conversations with abortion providers illegal and then we can discuss whether that law is constitutional or not.
A judge's decision is not a law and can be appealed, so that's an entirely different conversation.
Otherwise, this will create private, corporate owned, corporate sponsored armies. They will be, essentially, corporate warlords.
You mean like Academi/Xe/Blackwater?
Companies have demonstrated how careful and responsible they are with the DMCA takedowns, so it's only logical that we allow them to go further and actively attack the evil-doers out there.
You're ignoring the fact that much of the top 1% gain wealth in forms that don't show up as income. Being paid with shares of stock rather than cash is one of the most obvious of the many, many ways that the wealthy use to increase their wealth without having to list it as income and pay taxes.
I even benefit from that, in fact, as I get shares in the company I work for equal to about 20% of my salary per year. Until I sell those shares, which I won't be doing until I'm retired, I won't pay a cent in taxes on that increase in my wealth.
And yes, I realize it's a bit hypocritical that I take advantage of the very tax dodges that I'm saying shouldn't exist. That doesn't change the fact that the wealthy don't need more tax breaks on top of the metric buttload that they already have.
That top 1% owns 40% of the wealth in the country. Only a fool would argue that they shouldn't be paying 40% of the taxes.
Let me guess, you're a card-carrying member of the Republican party and you really believe that Fox News is fair and balanced.
The "houses kept too clean" theory is interesting but by no means proven; northwest Scotland is considered to have the cleanest environment in the developed world (due to wind and rain from the Atlantic) and that was true before 1970 as well but children there have seen the same increase in nut allergies as elsewhere.
The wind and rain from the Atlantic isn't really a factor in how clean a house is unless there's something very wrong with the roof and/or windows.