I don't know what a root DNS server does. I do probably know way more physics, mathematics, and philosophy than you
That would be wonderful if you were on a "Philosophy news" website.../. is (or at least used-to-be) fairly tolerant of noobs with gaps in their knowledge, but if you don't have a decent background in tech, I don't see why you're here.
Well, sorry to say, but with that phrasing Xiph is closer to the thruth.
Not at all true. Xiph has heavily stack the deck to get the answer they wanted.
we are more or less constrained to Baseline Profile sue to mobile devices
Baseline H.264 is much simpler than Theora. Comparing baseline H.264 to full-fledged Theora is utterly unfair.
No sane person is claiming order of magnitude differences.
A) Such simplistic terms of comparison will always be inaccurate. B) Since when is an order of magnitude difference required? 2X - 4X is realistic, and means a huge difference in file sizes, and required bandwidth. C) For high quality, it's MORE THAN AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE difference. Theora can't do high quality at ANY bitrate, so the bitrate difference is actually INFINITE.
Therefore "horrid" and "light-years behind" are fanboy (don't ask me why there are codec fanboys) exaggerations.
The fact that you're calling me a "fanboy" for telling the truth, based on my years of codec development, just demonstrates that YOU are the one who has a problem with the truth.
HDD manufacturers are prohibited by local and international law from using base 2 units as the only or main size statement.
Bullshit. Since when are HDD manufactures legally required to even note the capacity? Sure, we require that for food and the like, but when you go out and buy a TV, you won't see a weight label.
If there was a legal issue with non-SI units, then HDD manufactures are screwed for using base-8 BYTES instead of notating everything in BITS.
While a HDD can have an arbitrary size
It can, TODAY. However, it wasn't long ago that Cyl/Heads/Sec restricted HDDs to very few specific size classes.
I do not understand why so many people cling to a mistake. Grow up!
It's not a mistake. It's the fundamental difference in a base-2 machine versus a base-10 world. The base-10 size of a HDD is useless. Using base-10 is merely forcing people to convert the numbers. When you start looking at non-text files in a decimal-coded-binary editor, let me know.
There wouldn't be nearly so much resistance if not for the fact that manufacturers insist on using the SAME NOTATION. If they'd have chosen different prefixes to note the numbers were base-10, everyone would be fine, there would be no confusion. Now, you have to guess which notation is in-use.
I would just like to follow up by saying that your use of the English language is greatly mistaken, as have most others, for several hundred years. Starting tomorrow, several large companies will revert back to the proper (old) definitions for all words in the English language. Don't be upset at us, after all, we're just correcting an old mistake.
A lot of the work in that area is conducted in universities with public money, so that part would have been. What about commercially? Given the huge amount of money that can be made with a decent CODEC by the film industry, it seems pretty obvious that the research and development would have been funded even without patents.
The H.264 patent list for companies vastly overwhelms those from Universities. Besides, even if ALL the patents were owned by universities, there would be no standards group to put them all together, and make a product out of it. I believe MPEG-2 would have happened if patents didn't exist, but MPEG-4 and H.264 was a VASTLY more involved and complex undertaking.
H.264 is also all about low-bitrate streaming video. It really doesn't perform significantly better than MPEG-2 when you get into high bitrates, as you're talking about.
So we can pretty well say that H.264 in particular, would have no chance of happening in a world without patents, and software patents in particular.
Sadly few have realized (despite it being the main focus of most of those articles, but hey, who reads those) that quality will not be the merit to win this battle.
Abolishing software patents will work wonderfully for your PC... It will likely do absolutely nothing for your cell phone, however. Note that MP3 decoder software is unencumbered in countries that ignore software patents, but MP3 decoder software burned into the Flash chips of MP3 players need to be licensed...
So before someone starts the whole "which codec is better" flamewar again: someone at xiph thinks theora is better, ars thinks h264 is better,
Xiph claims Theora might be able to compete, and everyone else in the world says Theora is horrid, and is light-years behind H.264. End of story.
Sadly few have realized (despite it being the main focus of most of those articles, but hey, who reads those) that quality will not be the merit to win this battle.
Quality has been one of the top two central points from the very beginning, right behind patent concerns, and I fully believe the fight would have been much closer if Theora's quality was even close to competitive. Honestly, at this point the fight has been decided, so none of it matters, but quality is as important as any other issue (if not, why not use good old MPEG-2?).
The GIF argument just isn't applicable. When everyone standardized on GIF, there really wasn't a viable alternative that worked nearly as well. There is a viable alternative to H.264.
Theora is NOT a viable alternative to H.264. You might as well say uncompressed video is a viable alternative, too... Or maybe good old MJPEG... Or are you suggesting we should switch to LPs, since they are a viable alternative to patented CD technology?
Theora's quality is horrendous, and that's simply not going to change. H.264's quality is top of the line. The implementation is terrible, and the standard is horrible. Even if the codec wasn't so bad, requiring a horrid Ogg container is a nightmare.
H.264 can deliver watchable video in less than 1/2 the bitrate... H.264 can deliver high quality video (at higher bitrates) that Theora can't match AT ANY RATE. H.264 can be decoded on innumerable devices. There are numerous implementations of H.264, and just 1 of Theora. H.264 is developing and improving quickly, while Theora continues to stagnate. The ONLY THING to come out of Theora is this endless whining politics of utterly irrational idiots, and those naive enough to believe their bullshit.
Don't you agree it's pretty damned stupid to repeat that exact mistake yet again under the whole "fool me once, fool me twice" tenet?
PNG caught on, eventually, not because it was patent free, but because it was superior. If it had performed worse than GIF, it would have gone nowhere, patents or no.
Secondly, GIFs were a problem because nobody knew they needed a license for 15 odd years, and then they got retroactively sued. With H.264, the licensing is up-front, RAND, etc.
i feel like i am in some alternative universe with some sort of crazy secret. i don't know why this diet isn't standard procedure.
Anecdotes are... interesting... but again, studies haven't shown this amazing improvement you're seeing. THAT is why it's not standard practice. Additionally, you haven't been on this diet very long. Studies show those who lose weight most quickly are those likely to gain back the majority of it over time. And with any anedotes, there's always the possibilty of outside factors not noticed by the individual (warmer weather?) or even the placebo effect.
I wish you great luck with your diet, but I'm certainly not going to dismiss all outside evidence on on person's (short-term, so far) success.
If you have no good signal nearby then you're either S.O.L. or stuck with a "mini-cell" thingy from your provider.
Umm... that's not really true.
If it wasn't for the curvature of the earth, we could well have a single cell tower serving entire countries. Is there anywhere on the planet that you can't get a cell phone signal while in a jet at cruising altitude?
With an antenna, or a repeater (a proxy antenna...) a few feet of vertical rise can double the signal strength... So while you may have no signal on ground level, getting a signal on your roof-top is quite likely, and the best location for an antenna/repeater.
If you've still got no signal, raising the antenna on a pole, several feet above your roof-top is even more likely, still, to give you a great signal. Frankly, unless your have some MAJOR obstructions in every direction from where you are (mountain, giant sequoias, etc.), I expect it is ALWAYS possible to get a cell phone signal, with some work...
I've never seen or heard of a study that accurately measured people's diets over a period of decades. It's self-reported nonsense, about as reliable as self-reported penis size surveys.
Though not decades, there have been randomized clinical trials on diets that have spanned YEARS.
In controlled experiments, there are certainly measurable differences in body composition based on changes in hormones and *type* (not amount) of food consumed.
Nothing that rises above the levels of statical noise in human diets. After dozens of such studies, and tons of money on the line, if there was a significant difference in the various diets, someone would be shouting it from the rooftops by now.
When you say something like, 'Well, all other things being equal - if you eat 1/10th of what you eat now....you'd lose weight'. Okay - sure, assuming someone is eating whatever they burn and aren't gaining or losing weight; reducing the calories and keeping everything else the same should result in a reduction of weight. But again, it's a GROSS oversimplification.
I'm glad that you at least acknowledge that point.
And no, it isn't an oversimplification at all. A small difference in caloric intake will vastly outweigh all other dietary and hormonal considerations you've listed, except in very, very extreme circumstances. A person who was maintaining their weight, and cuts 1/10th of their consumption out of their diet, will lose weight. If they were gaining weight, they will gain weight more slowly, or even lose it. Even if you switch from steak to rice, this will remain true. Sure, it'll have some affects on your body, at least in the short term, but you'll maintain very close to the same weight with either. Calories are calories, and it's absolutely imperative you reduce your intake to lose weight. For 95% of people, there is no other way to lose weight. Change your GI as much as you want, you'll continue to gain weight if you don't cut down on the calories. Claiming otherwise is foolish, based on wishful thinking, and a simple lack of self-control in dieters, promoted by those looking to make an easy buck.
Hormones have a much larger impact than a lot of people want to acknowledge. This is why two groups of rats, one feed a high GI diet and one feed a low GI diet end up with vastly different amounts of body fat.
It's been studied in humans, and no useful guidance has ever come out of GI. Your body's naturally attempts to balance such things out, complicates the attempts to utilize this to engineer diets. Go either way you want, and prepare for your insulin levels to change to match, and leave you right back where you were... If we were all rats... well... we'd have 200 cures for cancer by now.
Calories in Vs. Calories out also fails to address the dietary requirements of the human body. Essential amino acids/vitamins/etc that can't be produced by the body need to be supplied by our diets. CiVco doesn't have any such concept.
CiVsCo doesn't have any such concept as mowing lawns, or repairing cars, either. Yet both are important to humans...
You're talking past the point. In short, you're saying any diet plan should be totalitarian, and tell you what you should eat every second of the day... While you're free to come up with such a diet plan with your doctor, it's completely unnecessary. Dietitians will tell you, the most overwhelmingly important factor in human health is maintaining a proper weight level. Even if you keep your terribly unbalanced diet, losing a few pounds will make you healthier than balancing your diet and maintaining your excess weight...
Additionally, your fear of an unbalanced diet, is simply not founded in the real world. Study after study by dietary supplement manufacturers have TRIED so very hard to prove that you need to buy their pills, and yet they
Unless you live in a lab or something; we don't know how many calories go in. We know how many calories we *eat*. But we don't know how many calories we crap out. I know, it's a crazy concept, but our bodies aren't 100% perfectly efficient machines. A regular person has no means of accurately measuring how many calories go in.
Not crazy, just stupid... Sure, you don't had an exact measurement of how many calories your body is absorbing. However, it really doesn't matter. You can count on it to remain consistent, at least. If you eat a hamburger every day, and one day, cut it in half, and only eat half of it, you're pretty sure to have just about half the calories in.
Cut 1/10th of the volume of foods you eat, and you'll have about 1/10th fewer calories going in.
Calories in vs. calories out is a gross oversimplification of the incredibly complicated processes our bodies go through when storing and using energy.
No, it isn't. Consume notably fewer calories, and you will lose weight. There's no lab necessary, as foods are labeled, and even an unlabeled food product is rather consistent in caloric content from day to day... We don't eat mystery foods which might be beef one day, and pork the next... It's close enough to the same that consuming a smaller amount will consistently reduce caloric intake.
Medical studies show us that other factors besides calories in and calories out play a very significant role in body composition and weight.
No, actually they have repeatedly shown it to be a very small role. Try any studies which compared different diets, head-to-head for DECADES at a time. You will find no significant variance between types of diets. Sure, force someone to eat nothing but liver at every meal for years, and there will be health issues, which will result in body-weight issues. Short of that, there's no evidence for any of this, in the real world.
all it means is you eat fat and protein, and no carbohydrates. the pounds melt right off
Bull. There have been innumerable studies on the various diets through the years. High protein has not performed any better than low-fat, or Mediterranean diets. And the studies where it was even competitive, and where they used large quantities of non-animal protein, to avoid the saturated fat.
The only diet that has ever worked is the physics diet. If you eat a bit less, you will begin to lose weight. No exceptions. Everything else is fraud or superstition. At best, limiting yourself to one type of food just means there are less foods you will eat, and therefore, will eat less.
Exercise won't do it, unless you run marathons, the increase in calories burned while exercising, versus at rest, is minimal. And as usual, studies find those who exercise may just be less active during the rest of the day, averaging out the amount of energy burned over-all. Studies show those who exercise are more healthy, and I certainly wouldn't discourage it, but don't expect to lose an ounce by exercise.
Of note, however, is that a low-carb diet will, over time, slow brain growth... You're denying it nutrients it thrives on, and so reduced growth is the result.
It's very practical for people trying to get to work, or to the train station, or the local shops. It's not practical for hyper speed travel across country.
I will have to disagree with you there...
A vehicle that's less capable than a $2,000 used car is inherently impractical, to some extent. A few decades ago, most families only had a single car. Though that number has increased, we aren't to the point that every individual has 2 - 3 cars, and we shouldn't ever get there... There are inherent costs of maintenance, licensing, insurance, etc., and even depreciation over time, which makes owning a larger number of vehicles impractical.
In short, if you EVER drive in excess of the range of this vehicle, or need more capacity than it has, it can't be your sole transport. In which case, you need to keep-up this vehicle for your short trips, and another for longer trips. If you have a large family of car drivers, this might be practical, but otherwise, it's a substantial waste of money.
We have several client states that would revolt if we provided democratizing influences like free access to information. These states include: Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey...
Pakistan and Jordan have minimal internet censorship. I seriously doubt their losing that ability would become an international row...
You are confusing bytes (8 bits) with words (32 bit or 64 bit depending on the system).
Yes indeed, I was. A single byte would, however, be practically sufficient for a non-astronomical range of years. And I still maintain the parent's assertion of one byte per decimal digit is insane, and yes,
it was not unheard of to store a year as 4 bytes.
Perhaps, but likely not if you are as space constrained and overloaded as the given scenario.
Those 2 extra bytes times 100000 records * 20 date fields was 1/10 of your drive back then.
TWO EXTRA BYTES? What?
If your entire date field takes more than 1 byte, you're doing something wrong. Maybe another byte for time, if needed. You could even follow the Unix model and do pretty well keeping the date and time (down to the second) in a single byte... Not Y2038 compliant, but not as stupid as coding every bit of a date with it's own byte.
And the stupidity of this scheme should be self-evident in your own summary... If the "19" in '1980' is taking up 1/10th of your storage, the other half of the year must be taking up another 1/10th, the month and year taking up 2/10ths, the time taking up 2/10ths, etc., you're using more than half your storage space just for the DATE AND TIME of these EMPTY RECORDS, with or without the century field...
Blu Ray and CDs are still "spinning media" aren't they? I think I've seen many holographic storage disc products (touted to be THE FUTURE) that were spinning as well.
CDs are tiny... ~12 full CDs will fit on a $30 USB thumb drive. Blu-Ray isn't all that big, either... ~40 Blu-Ray movies on a $100 HDD?
Optical media will succeed only if densities can continue to increase, all the while the pressing technology remains fairly simple. As soon as Disc+ yields / speeds are low enough that writing data to Flash is faster, discs will go away for good... The ability to stamp out discs at high speeds and low costs is a great benefit, but the drawbacks will kill the medium as soon as those benefits aren't so huge anymore... For example, if the number of layers on a disc has to climb much more than 2 to keep up with desired capacities, expect prices to rise, substantially.
And holographic discs are the ultimate in vaporware... Slashdot has been having stories on multi-terabyte HVDs since '99. They come with a massively expensive product they swear will be dirt cheap in a month, they get a bit of funding, then they fizzle out...
You put the emphasis on the wrong word... "BULB" is operative... There were electric lights before Edison, and florescent light came along shortly thereafter. Bulbs became popular for no good reason. We'd all have been better off if we skipped the hundred odd years of energy-wasting bulbs in homes.
Slashdot Mirror
That would be wonderful if you were on a "Philosophy news" website... /. is (or at least used-to-be) fairly tolerant of noobs with gaps in their knowledge, but if you don't have a decent background in tech, I don't see why you're here.
No. No truth... Just facts...
Not at all true. Xiph has heavily stack the deck to get the answer they wanted.
Baseline H.264 is much simpler than Theora. Comparing baseline H.264 to full-fledged Theora is utterly unfair.
A) Such simplistic terms of comparison will always be inaccurate.
B) Since when is an order of magnitude difference required? 2X - 4X is realistic, and means a huge difference in file sizes, and required bandwidth.
C) For high quality, it's MORE THAN AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE difference. Theora can't do high quality at ANY bitrate, so the bitrate difference is actually INFINITE.
The fact that you're calling me a "fanboy" for telling the truth, based on my years of codec development, just demonstrates that YOU are the one who has a problem with the truth.
Your comprehension needs work....
Bullshit. Since when are HDD manufactures legally required to even note the capacity? Sure, we require that for food and the like, but when you go out and buy a TV, you won't see a weight label.
If there was a legal issue with non-SI units, then HDD manufactures are screwed for using base-8 BYTES instead of notating everything in BITS.
It can, TODAY. However, it wasn't long ago that Cyl/Heads/Sec restricted HDDs to very few specific size classes.
It's not a mistake. It's the fundamental difference in a base-2 machine versus a base-10 world. The base-10 size of a HDD is useless. Using base-10 is merely forcing people to convert the numbers. When you start looking at non-text files in a decimal-coded-binary editor, let me know.
There wouldn't be nearly so much resistance if not for the fact that manufacturers insist on using the SAME NOTATION. If they'd have chosen different prefixes to note the numbers were base-10, everyone would be fine, there would be no confusion. Now, you have to guess which notation is in-use.
I would just like to follow up by saying that your use of the English language is greatly mistaken, as have most others, for several hundred years. Starting tomorrow, several large companies will revert back to the proper (old) definitions for all words in the English language. Don't be upset at us, after all, we're just correcting an old mistake.
Why not just rsync? ...
Now that that's out of the way...
For one thing, rdiff will give you a mess... rsync will give you multiple full filesystem trees...
The H.264 patent list for companies vastly overwhelms those from Universities. Besides, even if ALL the patents were owned by universities, there would be no standards group to put them all together, and make a product out of it. I believe MPEG-2 would have happened if patents didn't exist, but MPEG-4 and H.264 was a VASTLY more involved and complex undertaking.
H.264 is also all about low-bitrate streaming video. It really doesn't perform significantly better than MPEG-2 when you get into high bitrates, as you're talking about.
So we can pretty well say that H.264 in particular, would have no chance of happening in a world without patents, and software patents in particular.
Abolishing software patents will work wonderfully for your PC... It will likely do absolutely nothing for your cell phone, however. Note that MP3 decoder software is unencumbered in countries that ignore software patents, but MP3 decoder software burned into the Flash chips of MP3 players need to be licensed...
Xiph claims Theora might be able to compete, and everyone else in the world says Theora is horrid, and is light-years behind H.264. End of story.
Quality has been one of the top two central points from the very beginning, right behind patent concerns, and I fully believe the fight would have been much closer if Theora's quality was even close to competitive. Honestly, at this point the fight has been decided, so none of it matters, but quality is as important as any other issue (if not, why not use good old MPEG-2?).
Theora is NOT a viable alternative to H.264. You might as well say uncompressed video is a viable alternative, too... Or maybe good old MJPEG... Or are you suggesting we should switch to LPs, since they are a viable alternative to patented CD technology?
Theora's quality is horrendous, and that's simply not going to change. H.264's quality is top of the line. The implementation is terrible, and the standard is horrible. Even if the codec wasn't so bad, requiring a horrid Ogg container is a nightmare.
H.264 can deliver watchable video in less than 1/2 the bitrate...
H.264 can deliver high quality video (at higher bitrates) that Theora can't match AT ANY RATE.
H.264 can be decoded on innumerable devices.
There are numerous implementations of H.264, and just 1 of Theora.
H.264 is developing and improving quickly, while Theora continues to stagnate.
The ONLY THING to come out of Theora is this endless whining politics of utterly irrational idiots, and those naive enough to believe their bullshit.
PNG caught on, eventually, not because it was patent free, but because it was superior. If it had performed worse than GIF, it would have gone nowhere, patents or no.
Secondly, GIFs were a problem because nobody knew they needed a license for 15 odd years, and then they got retroactively sued. With H.264, the licensing is up-front, RAND, etc.
From the top of your link to WP: "as yet, there is not a general consensus on their efficacy"
I take no responsibility for your dogma...
The research is real, and easy to find. What you believe has no affect on the facts.
Here's just one source, citing two different studies:
http://www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/updates/update0904c.shtml
And no, Harvard and the relevant researchers won't apologize to you, either.
"Oh, I'm sorry, I can see now that you were disturbed long before I called..."
Anecdotes are... interesting... but again, studies haven't shown this amazing improvement you're seeing. THAT is why it's not standard practice. Additionally, you haven't been on this diet very long. Studies show those who lose weight most quickly are those likely to gain back the majority of it over time. And with any anedotes, there's always the possibilty of outside factors not noticed by the individual (warmer weather?) or even the placebo effect.
I wish you great luck with your diet, but I'm certainly not going to dismiss all outside evidence on on person's (short-term, so far) success.
Umm... that's not really true.
If it wasn't for the curvature of the earth, we could well have a single cell tower serving entire countries. Is there anywhere on the planet that you can't get a cell phone signal while in a jet at cruising altitude?
With an antenna, or a repeater (a proxy antenna...) a few feet of vertical rise can double the signal strength... So while you may have no signal on ground level, getting a signal on your roof-top is quite likely, and the best location for an antenna/repeater.
If you've still got no signal, raising the antenna on a pole, several feet above your roof-top is even more likely, still, to give you a great signal. Frankly, unless your have some MAJOR obstructions in every direction from where you are (mountain, giant sequoias, etc.), I expect it is ALWAYS possible to get a cell phone signal, with some work...
Though not decades, there have been randomized clinical trials on diets that have spanned YEARS.
Nothing that rises above the levels of statical noise in human diets. After dozens of such studies, and tons of money on the line, if there was a significant difference in the various diets, someone would be shouting it from the rooftops by now.
I'm glad that you at least acknowledge that point.
And no, it isn't an oversimplification at all. A small difference in caloric intake will vastly outweigh all other dietary and hormonal considerations you've listed, except in very, very extreme circumstances. A person who was maintaining their weight, and cuts 1/10th of their consumption out of their diet, will lose weight. If they were gaining weight, they will gain weight more slowly, or even lose it. Even if you switch from steak to rice, this will remain true. Sure, it'll have some affects on your body, at least in the short term, but you'll maintain very close to the same weight with either. Calories are calories, and it's absolutely imperative you reduce your intake to lose weight. For 95% of people, there is no other way to lose weight. Change your GI as much as you want, you'll continue to gain weight if you don't cut down on the calories. Claiming otherwise is foolish, based on wishful thinking, and a simple lack of self-control in dieters, promoted by those looking to make an easy buck.
It's been studied in humans, and no useful guidance has ever come out of GI. Your body's naturally attempts to balance such things out, complicates the attempts to utilize this to engineer diets. Go either way you want, and prepare for your insulin levels to change to match, and leave you right back where you were... If we were all rats... well... we'd have 200 cures for cancer by now.
CiVsCo doesn't have any such concept as mowing lawns, or repairing cars, either. Yet both are important to humans...
You're talking past the point. In short, you're saying any diet plan should be totalitarian, and tell you what you should eat every second of the day... While you're free to come up with such a diet plan with your doctor, it's completely unnecessary. Dietitians will tell you, the most overwhelmingly important factor in human health is maintaining a proper weight level. Even if you keep your terribly unbalanced diet, losing a few pounds will make you healthier than balancing your diet and maintaining your excess weight...
Additionally, your fear of an unbalanced diet, is simply not founded in the real world. Study after study by dietary supplement manufacturers have TRIED so very hard to prove that you need to buy their pills, and yet they
Not crazy, just stupid... Sure, you don't had an exact measurement of how many calories your body is absorbing. However, it really doesn't matter. You can count on it to remain consistent, at least. If you eat a hamburger every day, and one day, cut it in half, and only eat half of it, you're pretty sure to have just about half the calories in.
Cut 1/10th of the volume of foods you eat, and you'll have about 1/10th fewer calories going in.
No, it isn't. Consume notably fewer calories, and you will lose weight. There's no lab necessary, as foods are labeled, and even an unlabeled food product is rather consistent in caloric content from day to day... We don't eat mystery foods which might be beef one day, and pork the next... It's close enough to the same that consuming a smaller amount will consistently reduce caloric intake.
No, actually they have repeatedly shown it to be a very small role. Try any studies which compared different diets, head-to-head for DECADES at a time. You will find no significant variance between types of diets. Sure, force someone to eat nothing but liver at every meal for years, and there will be health issues, which will result in body-weight issues. Short of that, there's no evidence for any of this, in the real world.
Well...? We're all waiting.
Bull. There have been innumerable studies on the various diets through the years. High protein has not performed any better than low-fat, or Mediterranean diets. And the studies where it was even competitive, and where they used large quantities of non-animal protein, to avoid the saturated fat.
The only diet that has ever worked is the physics diet. If you eat a bit less, you will begin to lose weight. No exceptions. Everything else is fraud or superstition. At best, limiting yourself to one type of food just means there are less foods you will eat, and therefore, will eat less.
Exercise won't do it, unless you run marathons, the increase in calories burned while exercising, versus at rest, is minimal. And as usual, studies find those who exercise may just be less active during the rest of the day, averaging out the amount of energy burned over-all. Studies show those who exercise are more healthy, and I certainly wouldn't discourage it, but don't expect to lose an ounce by exercise.
Of note, however, is that a low-carb diet will, over time, slow brain growth... You're denying it nutrients it thrives on, and so reduced growth is the result.
I will have to disagree with you there...
A vehicle that's less capable than a $2,000 used car is inherently impractical, to some extent. A few decades ago, most families only had a single car. Though that number has increased, we aren't to the point that every individual has 2 - 3 cars, and we shouldn't ever get there... There are inherent costs of maintenance, licensing, insurance, etc., and even depreciation over time, which makes owning a larger number of vehicles impractical.
In short, if you EVER drive in excess of the range of this vehicle, or need more capacity than it has, it can't be your sole transport. In which case, you need to keep-up this vehicle for your short trips, and another for longer trips. If you have a large family of car drivers, this might be practical, but otherwise, it's a substantial waste of money.
Pakistan and Jordan have minimal internet censorship. I seriously doubt their losing that ability would become an international row...
Yes indeed, I was. A single byte would, however, be practically sufficient for a non-astronomical range of years. And I still maintain the parent's assertion of one byte per decimal digit is insane, and yes,
Perhaps, but likely not if you are as space constrained and overloaded as the given scenario.
TWO EXTRA BYTES? What?
If your entire date field takes more than 1 byte, you're doing something wrong. Maybe another byte for time, if needed. You could even follow the Unix model and do pretty well keeping the date and time (down to the second) in a single byte... Not Y2038 compliant, but not as stupid as coding every bit of a date with it's own byte.
And the stupidity of this scheme should be self-evident in your own summary... If the "19" in '1980' is taking up 1/10th of your storage, the other half of the year must be taking up another 1/10th, the month and year taking up 2/10ths, the time taking up 2/10ths, etc., you're using more than half your storage space just for the DATE AND TIME of these EMPTY RECORDS, with or without the century field...
CDs are tiny... ~12 full CDs will fit on a $30 USB thumb drive. Blu-Ray isn't all that big, either... ~40 Blu-Ray movies on a $100 HDD?
Optical media will succeed only if densities can continue to increase, all the while the pressing technology remains fairly simple. As soon as Disc+ yields / speeds are low enough that writing data to Flash is faster, discs will go away for good... The ability to stamp out discs at high speeds and low costs is a great benefit, but the drawbacks will kill the medium as soon as those benefits aren't so huge anymore... For example, if the number of layers on a disc has to climb much more than 2 to keep up with desired capacities, expect prices to rise, substantially.
And holographic discs are the ultimate in vaporware... Slashdot has been having stories on multi-terabyte HVDs since '99. They come with a massively expensive product they swear will be dirt cheap in a month, they get a bit of funding, then they fizzle out...
You put the emphasis on the wrong word... "BULB" is operative... There were electric lights before Edison, and florescent light came along shortly thereafter. Bulbs became popular for no good reason. We'd all have been better off if we skipped the hundred odd years of energy-wasting bulbs in homes.
Paper in bulk is easily under 0.003 cents/page. Laser printers operating costs are easily under half a cent per page. Both can be had for even less: http://www.pcandl.com/kyocera/fs_2020D_3920_4020.htm