I sincerely do not understand the mentality of people that experience moral outrage at commercials. My son is the same way, and he can't explain it to me.... but commercials make him feel like his head is going to explode. He cannot even be in the same room as someone who is sitting quietly without even being phased by the fact that their entertainment happens to have been interrupted by a commercial.
I frankly suspect it's some sort of power trip.... because commercials may represent a lack of control over what is happening to someone while they are intending to watch a program.
Personally, I figure it's just television... and not worth getting upset over.
I pay only marginally more than zero attention to commercials anyways... how can I get upset over something that I barely notice except when I pay explicit attention to it?
There are 6 TV programs per week that I regularly watch. Commercial breaks are about 3 minutes a piece, and there are typically 5 such breaks in one hour. That works out to 15 minutes per show of commercials, and six such shows makes 90 minutes of commercials. There are as many as 26 weeks throughout the year where there is actually new programming, and I don't watch shows I've already seen so that works out to a grand total of as many as 39 hours of commercial watching in an entire year. That's kinda falling pretty short of their estimate of 6 days. That's not even 2.
Oh, and commercial breaks also gives the opportunity to mentally disengage from the tv screen at intervals that are not overly long, and be sociable with the people one may be watching television with instead of just staring at the screen like a zombie for one uninterrupted stretch.
Outside of circumstances where the brain is capable of perceiving an imminent threat to survival, you are radically underestimating how powerful habits are. They can be overcome, unlike actual instinctive needs (although even some instinctive needs can be suppressed by application of sufficient willpower, such as sex), but that doesn't mean that the brain will perceive the drives that govern habitual behavior as being any easier to ignore (in fact, outside of situations where one might be circumstantially forced into responding in a particular way, the habitual behavior can even override the instinctive one, or else conditions like anorexia would not exist).
And when that something healthier doesn't satisfy.... or is simply unappealing to one's pallet, one ends up simply avoiding eating entirely, being preferable to one's immediate circumstances than putting food in one's mouth simply to stave off a threat of alleged starvation, which is unlikely in a developed country, until those instinctive urges to eat kick in and overpower that. At that time, you eat whatever is nearby... whether it is healthy or not. Restricting what you bring home keeps the unhealthy choices away from you when you are there, but it does not limit your unhealthy choices when one is not at home, and with the availability of unhealthy options in abundance, default choice is to fall back on the familiar foods before the unfamiliar ones. It takes a deliberate choice, a conscious act of willpower, to choose to not act in a habitual way, that is no less intense than an instinctive need to satisfy hunger or thirst. The only difference is that not doing the latter will eventually kill you, but when you are not literally starving to death, the part of your brain that is governing that does not perceive a difference.
That is again only applicable to food that you are intending to consume later. It is not so cut and dried when you are buying food because you are hungry right now. You again are assuming that most of a persons caloric intake will be at home, where they have complete control over what food choices are available to them when they *do* get hungry.
I'm not rationalizing an unhealthy lifestyle, I'm saying that changing it is FAR easier said than done, but you seem to be ignoring that point
Different yes... but not necessarily easier. The only real difference comes into play where the circumstances become imminently pressing to simple survival, otherwise the drives to repeat even habitual behavior are no different than the drives that govern instinctive behavior. When survival is not an issue, overcoming a habit such as an unhealthy lifestyle is not any easier than not satisfying instinctive urges, such as hunger.
I'm just pointing out that there is a difference between the willpower necessary to resist eating stuff in your fridge (major) and the willpower necessary to change your life in a way that you can lose weight (minor).
Neuroscience disagrees. There are actual psychological reasons why changing habits is hard for most people. I don't presume to suggest it's impossible, in fact, I'd dare say that it almost never is, but to suggest that they are trivial for anyone to deal with when alternative avenues that do not require the same degree of effort or concentration are readily available to them (more of a problem in developed countries, which typically have food supplies in abundance) is really not seeing the entire picture about why weight is difficult for people to take off once they've accumulated it in the first place.
... it was a metaphor. You know, like "dark web" or some such thing... "black search results"... But no, the headline is saying literally what Google was doing: making the links black.
I'm not sure I see any added value to this, and I think some strong arguments can be made that it is a bad idea.
I would imagine that would only be a problem is the data or the results of your processing were being distributed to anyone else. If they are not, what is the problem? How would anyone generally otherwise even know that this was being done? Not that I think that Facebook has done nothing wrong here... since it is apparent that they are not retaining it for themselves alone.
You assume that most of one's caloric intake will be at home. This is not necessarily the case, particularly if you work extended hours. When you are not at home, you may not have as much control over what food choices are available to you, and so the willpower thing comes back into play. Always bringing all of the food that you will eat with you from home wherever you go is not always practical.
Eating over the period of an hour also helps. There is no rush. Take your time.
There's a rush when you only get a half-hour break for lunch. You can end up getting inadvertently conditioned to eat *all* of your meais quickly, even when you are not under any kind of time pressure, unless you make the conscious decision to force yourself not to do this. The big problem is that most people don't decide to consciously try and do something to control their weight until they are already too fat, where it *does* become difficult to get the weight back off and keep it off.
Where did you see that the "set point" was supposed to be genetic? What you are saying actually causes the change instead of the set point is in fact what has actually raised the set point in the first place, and why it is so difficult for many people who are obese to lose weight. While it might seem that the simplest solution to this is to not get obese in the first place, even this can be difficult as well, due to cultural and other environmental factors unless one consciously makes a choice, and continually acts upon that choice, to not allow those factors to so impact one's health... and this has to be done even before it has become a serious issue, or else for most, they do not consider the impact that these factors will have upon them until they have already found themselves 40 or more lbs heavier than they used to be, gained over a period of many years, and they simply do not have the ready ability to reliably get that weight back down owing to that 'set point'.
But as I said, the renewal cycle for fossil fuels is impractically long, and the *only* thing that would actually prevent if from getting depleted before it runs out, if alternatives are not sought, is not that it eventually renews itself, as is the case with energy sources that *are* perceived as renewable, but the simple impracticality of paying for the increasing difficulty that will be encountered in obtaining an ever-depleting resource that would otherwise be completely exhausted long before any more useful amounts would be created.
... buf if facebook has lawful possession of the raw data, what is the issue with them finding and retaining biometric information that they glean from it, exactly? The data is, I said, already lawfully in their possession.
Except that Snapchat's "disclaimer" simply says "Do not use while driving". This is not even so much of disclaimer as simple and straightforward directions that Snapchat expects its users to abide by while using the application. Suggesting that this could somehow make Snapchat responsible for the negative consequences when people choose to ignore that directive is like suggesting that the signs you see in bars that tell people to not drink and drive are somehow partially responsible if people choose to do that.
It's also proof that they would have done everything that was legally required by them to discourage people from trying it even though some people still might.
That 18 year-old probably doesn't have a pot to piss in.
I won't dispute that, but Snapchat even explicitly warns people *NOT* to use that facility while driving. How can Snapchat be justly found to be liable for damages merely because the driver chose to ignore that warning?
Slashdot Mirror
I sincerely do not understand the mentality of people that experience moral outrage at commercials. My son is the same way, and he can't explain it to me.... but commercials make him feel like his head is going to explode. He cannot even be in the same room as someone who is sitting quietly without even being phased by the fact that their entertainment happens to have been interrupted by a commercial.
I frankly suspect it's some sort of power trip.... because commercials may represent a lack of control over what is happening to someone while they are intending to watch a program.
Personally, I figure it's just television... and not worth getting upset over.
I pay only marginally more than zero attention to commercials anyways... how can I get upset over something that I barely notice except when I pay explicit attention to it?
There are 6 TV programs per week that I regularly watch. Commercial breaks are about 3 minutes a piece, and there are typically 5 such breaks in one hour. That works out to 15 minutes per show of commercials, and six such shows makes 90 minutes of commercials. There are as many as 26 weeks throughout the year where there is actually new programming, and I don't watch shows I've already seen so that works out to a grand total of as many as 39 hours of commercial watching in an entire year. That's kinda falling pretty short of their estimate of 6 days. That's not even 2.
Oh, and commercial breaks also gives the opportunity to mentally disengage from the tv screen at intervals that are not overly long, and be sociable with the people one may be watching television with instead of just staring at the screen like a zombie for one uninterrupted stretch.
Because, perhaps, whatever one might be hiding is simply private?
Outside of circumstances where the brain is capable of perceiving an imminent threat to survival, you are radically underestimating how powerful habits are. They can be overcome, unlike actual instinctive needs (although even some instinctive needs can be suppressed by application of sufficient willpower, such as sex), but that doesn't mean that the brain will perceive the drives that govern habitual behavior as being any easier to ignore (in fact, outside of situations where one might be circumstantially forced into responding in a particular way, the habitual behavior can even override the instinctive one, or else conditions like anorexia would not exist).
And when that something healthier doesn't satisfy.... or is simply unappealing to one's pallet, one ends up simply avoiding eating entirely, being preferable to one's immediate circumstances than putting food in one's mouth simply to stave off a threat of alleged starvation, which is unlikely in a developed country, until those instinctive urges to eat kick in and overpower that. At that time, you eat whatever is nearby... whether it is healthy or not. Restricting what you bring home keeps the unhealthy choices away from you when you are there, but it does not limit your unhealthy choices when one is not at home, and with the availability of unhealthy options in abundance, default choice is to fall back on the familiar foods before the unfamiliar ones. It takes a deliberate choice, a conscious act of willpower, to choose to not act in a habitual way, that is no less intense than an instinctive need to satisfy hunger or thirst. The only difference is that not doing the latter will eventually kill you, but when you are not literally starving to death, the part of your brain that is governing that does not perceive a difference.
That is again only applicable to food that you are intending to consume later. It is not so cut and dried when you are buying food because you are hungry right now. You again are assuming that most of a persons caloric intake will be at home, where they have complete control over what food choices are available to them when they *do* get hungry.
I'm not rationalizing an unhealthy lifestyle, I'm saying that changing it is FAR easier said than done, but you seem to be ignoring that point
Different yes... but not necessarily easier. The only real difference comes into play where the circumstances become imminently pressing to simple survival, otherwise the drives to repeat even habitual behavior are no different than the drives that govern instinctive behavior. When survival is not an issue, overcoming a habit such as an unhealthy lifestyle is not any easier than not satisfying instinctive urges, such as hunger.
And, as you said, willpower generally fails.
Neuroscience disagrees. There are actual psychological reasons why changing habits is hard for most people. I don't presume to suggest it's impossible, in fact, I'd dare say that it almost never is, but to suggest that they are trivial for anyone to deal with when alternative avenues that do not require the same degree of effort or concentration are readily available to them (more of a problem in developed countries, which typically have food supplies in abundance) is really not seeing the entire picture about why weight is difficult for people to take off once they've accumulated it in the first place.
I'm not sure I see any added value to this, and I think some strong arguments can be made that it is a bad idea.
Article didn't really say... just said that they are.
I would imagine that would only be a problem is the data or the results of your processing were being distributed to anyone else. If they are not, what is the problem? How would anyone generally otherwise even know that this was being done? Not that I think that Facebook has done nothing wrong here... since it is apparent that they are not retaining it for themselves alone.
You assume that most of one's caloric intake will be at home. This is not necessarily the case, particularly if you work extended hours. When you are not at home, you may not have as much control over what food choices are available to you, and so the willpower thing comes back into play. Always bringing all of the food that you will eat with you from home wherever you go is not always practical.
There's a rush when you only get a half-hour break for lunch. You can end up getting inadvertently conditioned to eat *all* of your meais quickly, even when you are not under any kind of time pressure, unless you make the conscious decision to force yourself not to do this. The big problem is that most people don't decide to consciously try and do something to control their weight until they are already too fat, where it *does* become difficult to get the weight back off and keep it off.
Which requires something called willpower, which you just finished saying doesn't work for weight loss.
Where did you see that the "set point" was supposed to be genetic? What you are saying actually causes the change instead of the set point is in fact what has actually raised the set point in the first place, and why it is so difficult for many people who are obese to lose weight. While it might seem that the simplest solution to this is to not get obese in the first place, even this can be difficult as well, due to cultural and other environmental factors unless one consciously makes a choice, and continually acts upon that choice, to not allow those factors to so impact one's health... and this has to be done even before it has become a serious issue, or else for most, they do not consider the impact that these factors will have upon them until they have already found themselves 40 or more lbs heavier than they used to be, gained over a period of many years, and they simply do not have the ready ability to reliably get that weight back down owing to that 'set point'.
But as I said, the renewal cycle for fossil fuels is impractically long, and the *only* thing that would actually prevent if from getting depleted before it runs out, if alternatives are not sought, is not that it eventually renews itself, as is the case with energy sources that *are* perceived as renewable, but the simple impracticality of paying for the increasing difficulty that will be encountered in obtaining an ever-depleting resource that would otherwise be completely exhausted long before any more useful amounts would be created.
How is saying that the OS-type is "Windows" instead of "Other OS" a wrong BIOS setting when one is actually booting Windows?
And the irony is that at that point, installing windows 10 doesn't even seem to be any kind of option, since their computer won't boot.
What it "needs" and what it actually gets are going to remain two very different things for all of the foreseeable future.
... buf if facebook has lawful possession of the raw data, what is the issue with them finding and retaining biometric information that they glean from it, exactly? The data is, I said, already lawfully in their possession.
That "cycle" is on the order of many tens of thousands, if not actually millions of years... for all intents and purposes, it is non-renewable.
Except that Snapchat's "disclaimer" simply says "Do not use while driving". This is not even so much of disclaimer as simple and straightforward directions that Snapchat expects its users to abide by while using the application. Suggesting that this could somehow make Snapchat responsible for the negative consequences when people choose to ignore that directive is like suggesting that the signs you see in bars that tell people to not drink and drive are somehow partially responsible if people choose to do that.
It's also proof that they would have done everything that was legally required by them to discourage people from trying it even though some people still might.
I'm not going to dispute that it's a CYA... it probably is, but my point is that Snapchat's "A" should be considered "C"'d.
I won't dispute that, but Snapchat even explicitly warns people *NOT* to use that facility while driving. How can Snapchat be justly found to be liable for damages merely because the driver chose to ignore that warning?