know how you feel. I'm 194, but I'm also a bit overweight (BMI 28). However, it's not my stomach (where most of my extra fat is) that doesn't quite fit in the seat. My shoulder width is 54 cm (21.25 inches). That means it's physically impossible for me to have my arms inside the armrest (17 inch seat).
Add to that a seat in front of me, that is too close for me to fit properly. If I pull my ass as far back as it can come, my knee caps are 64 cm (25 inches) further away, and the seat in front tends to be maybe a cm (half an inch) further away. That makes it pretty much impossible to sit comfortably in a flight seat. I've been on flights where I couldn't possibly sit where I had been assigned, because the overhead rack was lower than the top of my head.
My problem getting into a seat isn't that I'm fat (it was an issue when I wasn't overweight as well) - it's that I don't fit inside the box designed for the 'average' person who's maybe 170 cm (5'7") tall and 60 kg (135 lbs).
I'm yet to fly on a plane with a dedicated 1st or business class. Only place on the planes I've been on that has decent leg room is the front row, and if I can get those, I want that, but that's only 1 out of 20 to 30 rows. I try to get an aisle seat, because that's pretty much the only place I have any chance of getting legroom, and even then I've been scolded by the flight attendant because I didn't fit in the seat:
"Sir, you need to stop nudging the seat in front of you." "And how do you suggest I do that? This seat isn't built for someone my height." "You need to stop nudging the seat in front of you." "I'd love to, but I wasn't allowed to bring my chain saw, so I can't exactly cut off my legs!"
Alright, I didn't say that last line, I just rolled my eyes and made a big show out of showing that I had my ass firmly up against the seat back and that my legs simply wouldn't fit in the allotted space. That made her go away.
Shhhh... don't tell him that. Watching a race that has more than four left turns and 0 right turns per lap requires more than 5 seconds worth of attention.
Slander/libel laws shouldn't even exist. If you don't like what somebody is saying about you, then [...] tell those frakkers to "put up (evidence) or shut up".
And that will of course work, right?
If someone keeps calling you a child raping, baby eating monster, they should of course be entitled to do so, and your only recourse should be to say "nu uh!". Especially if the name caller is someone rich enough to say... buy ads in TV, radio, print and online, so that everyone you know and will come into contact with in the foreseeable future will be constantly reminded that you (name and picture) are a child raping, baby eating monster.
You are right - there should be absolutely no consequences for anyone to claim such things. It should be up to you to convince everyone that you are in fact not a child raping, baby eating monster. And if should be up to you to ensure that everyone knows about this. I mean, it's not like mobs have ever lynched anyone falsely accused of something, especially when there was no evidence backing it up. Right?
I suspect this is a somewhat silly question, but...
Will the extra costs incurred to Thomas after the 54k verdict be plaintiff? I.e. if the RIAA's tactic here incurs an extra 5,000 dollar in legal fees, will she be allowed to deduct that from the next verdict?
Or can this be seen as a tactic to put more strain on her financial situation? I.e. they know they can't get more than 54,000 dollars, but if they can force her into bankruptcy by not only holding that 54,000 dollar verdict over her head but also constantly increasing legal fees, they can force her into an out of court settlement that may be cheaper for her (legal fees only), but kept under wraps so as not to set precedent.
Excel's latest release is version 12, and patched in April 2009.
Now obviously Microsoft are [insert whatever soap box rantings you believe], but linking to a study from June 4th, 2004 isn't exactly impressive. Even Microsoft can manage to fix or improve their software in that time. They even point out that they only use Excel 2003 in only 3 test cases, making the other 9 even more out of date.
They may still give the same results (Excel failing miserably), but again, the study is five and a half years old AND uses software that is one to two full versions out of date.
Find us a study that is at least CLOSE to being relevant to the software on the market today.
Would this kind of device be useful in the bathroom? Probably not as a replacement for flossing or brushing, but fighting plaque build-ups in places you can't really get?
Alright, you seem about as close to an expert as anyone around here.
What would be a reasonable price for a non-DRM eBook? And if it's bought directly from the author instead of through a publisher? Why not use eBooks as a marketing ploy along the lines of hardcovers? I.e. include one for download with the hard-cover version.
Yet, if you get it right in the first attempt but at a much higher cost, you get smacked around because obviously it was a waste of money. Just look at the Y2K bug.
Nothing bad happened, so obviously all the money spent to avoid all the bad things would have happened were badly spent.
In an age when most of us could do with more exercise, not less, and could reduce energy usage not increase it - these seem like a bad idea. It will be interesting to see if the percentage of people who are obese in either of these countries increase in parallel with the switch to electric bikes.
Joe Blow is 350 lbs and can barely walk to his car without having a stroke. He's not going to get on a bike to drive a mile to the store. He's going to take the car.
Now, if Joe Blow can get to the store and back on his electrical assist bike, he might be inclined to take the bike instead of the car.
A little bit of exercise is a LOT better than no exercise. And as the small amounts of exercise slowly weans him from 350 to 340 lbs, he'll be in better shape and can do even more exercise.
Personally, in this weather I'd love to have an electrical assist bike. It's 26C below freezing (-15F), and to get back home from the store (2 km total), I need to get up a 40 meter climb over a 500 meter distance (8% average incline). Now, I'm not in very good shape as it is, and with this kind of cold, I need to wear a balaclava. Even in the lowest gear I have (2.5:1), my heart rate hits 175 bpm. That's not because I'm in horrible shape, but because my breath freezes solid on the balaclava, making it REALLY difficult to breathe. Electrical assist would make it a lot easier.
But I'm sure you're right. The electrical bike is only interesting for fat ass people who can't sit on a bike without crushing it. They'd never ever be interesting for those of us who actually like riding a bike and would like to get even further about. Possibly allowing us to commute long distances without being soaked with sweat.
The interesting thing about the electrical assist bikes is that if I'm usually using a 1,100 kcal for an 18 km ride and the electrical assist can provide me with the equivalent of 2,200 kcal, I would now be able to do at least 50 km while using the same amount of fat-energy. It might not get my heart rate up as high, but at least I'll know that if I pretty much die from exhaustion, I'm not stuck in the middle of nowhere until I recuperate.
Using a primary plus two secondary means of birth control can help (condom + pill + rhythm method)[...]I've been in two accidents in my life (both when I was 17 with less than a year's driving experience)
Damn.. you got pregnant twice at 17? That's... I'm not sure if it's scary or impressive.
According to the last story on the space cannon, the cheapest current cost to orbit was 11,000 dollar pr kg.
The Apollo lunar module weighed 14,696 kg. That's 161,656,000 dollars just to get the damn thing into an orbit. A moon shot will be significantly more expensive.
And that's just the fuel costs. This doesn't include anything else. 161 million dollars to lift a lunar lander module into low earth orbit.
$2,000/gram of moon rock will make a dent into the expenses, but it won't make it profitable.
So it's okay for the banks to borrow billions of dollars and then pay them back later, but it's not okay for a car company to borrow hundreds of millions of dollars and then pay them back later?
If Tesla is such a good investment then why cant they raise $450 million from the private equity market instead of from taxpayers; 99% of whom will never sit behind the wheel of a Tesla?
If the banks are such good investments, why can't they raise their billions and billions dollars instead of completely unconditional loans and gifts from the government?
The biggest difference I see, is that Tesla has a viable business model, whereas the banks' business models seem to be "siphon money into CEO's pockets". Granted, that's a pretty viable business model for the CEOs, but not really for anyone else.
Fuck... "plastic surgery" suggests my motivation was cosmetic. Not!
Cosmetic or not, with no real medical reason, you are altering someone's appearance. And as for the idea preventative surgery to remove an unnecessary piece of the body, why not take out his tonsils as well? That can be done without major surgery, which you obviously cannot do with the appendix.
"Amputation"? Seems like yet another charged word.
Foreskin certainly looks like an extremity to me. It's not very large, true. And it's attached to an extremity, but if you get the distal phalanges removed, it's still an amputation, and it's an extremity attached to an extremity (the finger), attached to an extremity (the hand), attached to an extremity (the arm).
But hey, doctors always use charged words that aren't the proper description of their procedure. That's why they call it baby-murder instead of an abortion.
Slashdot Mirror
know how you feel. I'm 194, but I'm also a bit overweight (BMI 28). However, it's not my stomach (where most of my extra fat is) that doesn't quite fit in the seat. My shoulder width is 54 cm (21.25 inches). That means it's physically impossible for me to have my arms inside the armrest (17 inch seat).
Add to that a seat in front of me, that is too close for me to fit properly. If I pull my ass as far back as it can come, my knee caps are 64 cm (25 inches) further away, and the seat in front tends to be maybe a cm (half an inch) further away. That makes it pretty much impossible to sit comfortably in a flight seat. I've been on flights where I couldn't possibly sit where I had been assigned, because the overhead rack was lower than the top of my head.
My problem getting into a seat isn't that I'm fat (it was an issue when I wasn't overweight as well) - it's that I don't fit inside the box designed for the 'average' person who's maybe 170 cm (5'7") tall and 60 kg (135 lbs).
I'm yet to fly on a plane with a dedicated 1st or business class. Only place on the planes I've been on that has decent leg room is the front row, and if I can get those, I want that, but that's only 1 out of 20 to 30 rows. I try to get an aisle seat, because that's pretty much the only place I have any chance of getting legroom, and even then I've been scolded by the flight attendant because I didn't fit in the seat:
Alright, I didn't say that last line, I just rolled my eyes and made a big show out of showing that I had my ass firmly up against the seat back and that my legs simply wouldn't fit in the allotted space. That made her go away.
Shhhh ... don't tell him that. Watching a race that has more than four left turns and 0 right turns per lap requires more than 5 seconds worth of attention.
And if he doesn't do either, you'll do what, exactly? Take him to court for defamation?
Again, that works if it's a small voice claiming it.
Now throw in a few tens of millions in advertising time, and you have absolutely no way of making that kind of voice go away.
And what exactly is wrong with putting it on a whale shark? Is 10+ meters and 20+ tonnes not big enough for you?
And that will of course work, right?
If someone keeps calling you a child raping, baby eating monster, they should of course be entitled to do so, and your only recourse should be to say "nu uh!". Especially if the name caller is someone rich enough to say ... buy ads in TV, radio, print and online, so that everyone you know and will come into contact with in the foreseeable future will be constantly reminded that you (name and picture) are a child raping, baby eating monster.
You are right - there should be absolutely no consequences for anyone to claim such things. It should be up to you to convince everyone that you are in fact not a child raping, baby eating monster. And if should be up to you to ensure that everyone knows about this. I mean, it's not like mobs have ever lynched anyone falsely accused of something, especially when there was no evidence backing it up. Right?
I suspect this is a somewhat silly question, but ...
Will the extra costs incurred to Thomas after the 54k verdict be plaintiff? I.e. if the RIAA's tactic here incurs an extra 5,000 dollar in legal fees, will she be allowed to deduct that from the next verdict?
Or can this be seen as a tactic to put more strain on her financial situation? I.e. they know they can't get more than 54,000 dollars, but if they can force her into bankruptcy by not only holding that 54,000 dollar verdict over her head but also constantly increasing legal fees, they can force her into an out of court settlement that may be cheaper for her (legal fees only), but kept under wraps so as not to set precedent.
Excellent. If we ignore the fact that this is using software that is at least five and a half years old (Gnumeric 1.2 was last modified 2004-07-24).
Excel's latest release is version 12, and patched in April 2009.
Now obviously Microsoft are [insert whatever soap box rantings you believe], but linking to a study from June 4th, 2004 isn't exactly impressive. Even Microsoft can manage to fix or improve their software in that time. They even point out that they only use Excel 2003 in only 3 test cases, making the other 9 even more out of date.
They may still give the same results (Excel failing miserably), but again, the study is five and a half years old AND uses software that is one to two full versions out of date.
Find us a study that is at least CLOSE to being relevant to the software on the market today.
Well, the RIAA are the ones insisting on a new trial, so I suspect the answer is until the RIAA gets the verdict they want .
Would this kind of device be useful in the bathroom? Probably not as a replacement for flossing or brushing, but fighting plaque build-ups in places you can't really get?
Alright, you seem about as close to an expert as anyone around here.
What would be a reasonable price for a non-DRM eBook?
And if it's bought directly from the author instead of through a publisher?
Why not use eBooks as a marketing ploy along the lines of hardcovers? I.e. include one for download with the hard-cover version.
Yet, if you get it right in the first attempt but at a much higher cost, you get smacked around because obviously it was a waste of money. Just look at the Y2K bug.
Nothing bad happened, so obviously all the money spent to avoid all the bad things would have happened were badly spent.
Joe Blow is 350 lbs and can barely walk to his car without having a stroke. He's not going to get on a bike to drive a mile to the store. He's going to take the car.
Now, if Joe Blow can get to the store and back on his electrical assist bike, he might be inclined to take the bike instead of the car.
A little bit of exercise is a LOT better than no exercise. And as the small amounts of exercise slowly weans him from 350 to 340 lbs, he'll be in better shape and can do even more exercise.
Personally, in this weather I'd love to have an electrical assist bike. It's 26C below freezing (-15F), and to get back home from the store (2 km total), I need to get up a 40 meter climb over a 500 meter distance (8% average incline). Now, I'm not in very good shape as it is, and with this kind of cold, I need to wear a balaclava. Even in the lowest gear I have (2.5:1), my heart rate hits 175 bpm. That's not because I'm in horrible shape, but because my breath freezes solid on the balaclava, making it REALLY difficult to breathe. Electrical assist would make it a lot easier.
But I'm sure you're right. The electrical bike is only interesting for fat ass people who can't sit on a bike without crushing it. They'd never ever be interesting for those of us who actually like riding a bike and would like to get even further about. Possibly allowing us to commute long distances without being soaked with sweat.
The interesting thing about the electrical assist bikes is that if I'm usually using a 1,100 kcal for an 18 km ride and the electrical assist can provide me with the equivalent of 2,200 kcal, I would now be able to do at least 50 km while using the same amount of fat-energy. It might not get my heart rate up as high, but at least I'll know that if I pretty much die from exhaustion, I'm not stuck in the middle of nowhere until I recuperate.
Damn .. you got pregnant twice at 17? That's ... I'm not sure if it's scary or impressive.
According to the last story on the space cannon, the cheapest current cost to orbit was 11,000 dollar pr kg.
The Apollo lunar module weighed 14,696 kg. That's 161,656,000 dollars just to get the damn thing into an orbit. A moon shot will be significantly more expensive.
And that's just the fuel costs. This doesn't include anything else. 161 million dollars to lift a lunar lander module into low earth orbit.
$2,000/gram of moon rock will make a dent into the expenses, but it won't make it profitable.
So it's okay for the banks to borrow billions of dollars and then pay them back later, but it's not okay for a car company to borrow hundreds of millions of dollars and then pay them back later?
Your logic is impeccable.
If the banks are such good investments, why can't they raise their billions and billions dollars instead of completely unconditional loans and gifts from the government?
The biggest difference I see, is that Tesla has a viable business model, whereas the banks' business models seem to be "siphon money into CEO's pockets". Granted, that's a pretty viable business model for the CEOs, but not really for anyone else.
Al-right. Checking out the security-site, it does comment slightly:
Could be they were the temporary victims of a drive-by operation
Here's what happens when you read stuff and you're a bit drunk:
Why not? They're the same people who uses their waffle iron to make toasts and fried eggs.
What? People buy separate devices for separate things? That can't be right. It's all about convergence, isn't it?
Have you had a chance to look at the Pixel QI tablets coming out?
I can't say I've ever heard of Lulu.com before, but my browser (Opera) certainly has:
Not quite. The Romans didn't use subtractions in their numerals. They'd use "IIII", not "IV". In other words "XLIV" would be "XXXXIIII" in Roman times
Well, I suspect that maybe 30% of those who are involved in text-crashes were victims rather than the ones that caused it.
Cosmetic or not, with no real medical reason, you are altering someone's appearance. And as for the idea preventative surgery to remove an unnecessary piece of the body, why not take out his tonsils as well? That can be done without major surgery, which you obviously cannot do with the appendix.
"Amputation is the removal of a body extremity by trauma or surgery"
[...]
"The word amputation is derived from the Latin amputare, "to cut away""
Foreskin certainly looks like an extremity to me. It's not very large, true. And it's attached to an extremity, but if you get the distal phalanges removed, it's still an amputation, and it's an extremity attached to an extremity (the finger), attached to an extremity (the hand), attached to an extremity (the arm).
But let's look at what the Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics says on the subject:
Page 4: "and amputation of the foreskin"
But hey, doctors always use charged words that aren't the proper description of their procedure. That's why they call it baby-murder instead of an abortion.