large amounts of concrete also recycle well into the sand and gravel used to make new concrete. Concrete recycling is generally only done on the scale of contruction/demolitions. How can you tell that recycling these materials saves energy? Recycling centers will PAY to take them.
Uhm, I haven't heard about this. Years ago for a few years I worked for a concrete/masonery contractor and what was said then was that using recycled concrete could be hazardous. Things may of changed since though.
I think it's generally just the sand and gravel that's reused, and new cement has to be added. And it may be limited in its uses. Hmm... come to think of it contractors usually have to pay to drop off their old concrete. Just that the fence company I worked for had a deal with the local company cause we put up their fence for a good deal. But it's probably cheaper than having the large bulk taken to a landfill.
Then you are one of the rare SUV drivers who actually needs it. Note that the general complaint is SUV's that never go off-road and never are used for actual utility. The pizza joint down the road from me that has an H2 as their delivery vehicle in a severely overparked area is simply assinine.
I didn't know my recycling... was a political action
Sometiems, recycling is an action that HARMS the environment. When people show the benefits of recycling, the biggest is energy costs. However, these energy savings are after the material enters the recycling plant. The collection system (trucks driving all over town,) sorting machines, etc, use more energy than mining the raw materials for making virgin materials. For plastics, this is an obvious detriment as the extra energy used to collect and sort the recycled materials comes from fossil fuels, primarilly petrolem. It would take less fossil fuels to make new plastic than to recycle it.
For paper, the energy use also favors new materials. The collection system simply uses too much energy. Also, much of the energy used in making paper from virgin product comes from burning parts of the tree not usable for pulping. But what about the forests cut down to make the paper? Simple... they were planted in the first place to make paper out of. At least 99% of paper comes from farmed timber. These tree farms are a good percentage of what we have left for forests and provide a good environment for many animals. Increasing demand for virgin pulp would increase the demand, and therefore the acreage devoted to tree farms. I don't suggest replacing our few remaining old growth forests with tree farms and hope we do everything in our power to keep those, but papermaking really isn't going to impact them. Old growth wood is used more in high end woodworking for furniture, etc. What about the water pollution involved in milling wood for paper? Recycling paper causes just as much water pollution, as the material has to be repulped and the inks bleached out.
What do we do with the paper? Incineration of paper (vs other trash such as plastics) is relatively clean and could potentially be used as an energy source rather than sink, but I do not know how clean this is compared to fossil fuel based energy production, especially considering that paper for incineration would have to be specially collectd much as it is in recycling, and then any energy gains might be lost. What happens to paper that is simply put into the dump? It just sits there, not adding the dreaded cadmium, lead or other heavy metals into the dump that people worry about. Those chemicals come mainly from batteries and other disposed goods. All paper does is A)decomposes, becoming methane which is siphoned off and burned for energy in modern landfills or B)just sits there. Paper that just sits there is carbon that we are putting back in the ground, so when you add that to the energy savings over recycling, less CO2 is pumped into the air by throwing away and using new paper than is with recycling paper. Paper is indeed a renewable resource.
And if you don't believe me, just look at the cost of 100% post-consumer recycled paper. A significant amount of the increase in costs comes from... extra energy needs. I do, however, support pre-consumer recycling of paper goods (essentially re-using the scraps not used) as the energy required to gather large amounts of essentially unused paper from a factory is much lower than that needed to collect it from curbs all around town. And this collection is generally highly subsidized by local municipalities anyways. Look into how much your city is spending on recycling, and then figure out why recycled goods do not cost the consumer less. It may shock you.
Now, there are some materials for which recycling makes sense: Aluminum, steel, and concrete. Converting bauxite ore into usable aluminum is extremely energy intensive and so quite significant energy savings are realized by recycling this material. High grade steel also recycles quite nicely and with minimal energies. The same is most likely true for many other metals, although I haven't looked into it much. large amounts of concrete also recycle well into the sand and gravel used to make new concrete. Concrete recycling is generally only done on
And I don't really see Wal-Mart or McDonald's really offering employee incentives. And UPS would probably have at least as much environmental impact improving the efficiency of their own fleet of trucks/planes etc.
I've done a mad scientist costume a couple years, and my favorite prop starts with one rubber chicken.
Add fake eyeballs with LEDs wired through them. Flashing LEDs or wiring up a bread board to make them flash is extra points. A knife switch wired to turn the eyes on and off is a delicious addition. Resistors may need to be placed in series with the LEDs depending on the batteries used. Batteries are of course placed inside the body of the chicken.
Decorate liberally with old serial/parallel ports from old computers, scraps of wire, resistors and other interesting looking electronics equipment. I've even had a serial cable running from the chicken to an old defunct laptop.
Electronic gizmos, such as a cheap box from Radio Shack or similar which can record a couple seconds of sound and playback always add to the fun.
I have rigged the chicken with coathangers and fishing line so I could move the head around puppet-like.
Frankenstein bolts in the neck are easy to accomplish... a bolt can easilly be held on with a nut inside the neck and one outside the neck.
Stitch the whole thing up coarsely with thick black thread, possibly leaving a hole to be able to get to the battery/make spot repairs.
Best accompanied with a labcoat, miss-buttoned white or light blue shirt, rubber chicken tie poorly tied. Brown dress pants or curdoroys, one leg tucked into the socks. Bright yellow chuck taylor's make good shoes, although clunky dress shoes work too. A pair of welding goggles (don't have to be worn on eyes... up on forehead is good enough) is good. Having poofy hair which can be costume painted white/gray is great, although a white wig from a costume shop does the trick too (better if gray/bluish highlights are added with costume paint.) And of course, an Erlenmeyer flask or graduated cylinder to drink from (Red Bull works well, with or without liquor.) Pocket protector, comically large syringe (preferably real 60cc syringe with no needle) stethescope, doctor's head reflector, and other medical trinkets always a plus. Black facepaint/ash to simulate explosion leaving clean goggle lines is good for effect, but seems to be counterproductive in actually talking to people.
And if you don't check the cats, does that mean that the light is in a probabilistic state between being on and off? I wonder what would that do to the efficiency rating of items incorporating this material.
And I'd be willing to bet that the SPCA would have a vocal objection to the use of the possibly endangered Felis cattus schroedingerae.
My guess: What is more likely to happen is these microdots could just replace or augment the fluorescent material in typical flurescent bulbs, with appropriate re-engineering. Although as an LED coating this would be amenable to more portable light, such as the little LED keychain lights except with a more natural looking spectrum.
After a little research, it appears that LEDs have been designed that surpass the efficiency of compact fluoros, but these are not on the market yet. More info on on Wikipedia. However, this efficiency is for a given pure color LED, and the flourescence required to make an LED emit white light will reduce the efficiency somewhat. It would be interesting to see what the efficiency of fluorescence is with these microdots vs more traditional materials, in addition to differences in manufacturing costs and health/environmental factors.
So it will break down to we have a new tool which will be better in some circumstances. The pros and cons of will have to be weighed out in each situation. Where shock resistance and length of life is important, LEDs can have a significangt advantage over fluorescent bulbs.
When's the last time you dropped a hard drive that you were using? The anti-scratch comes in not so much because of any physical resiliance of the media, but because you do not have to remove the file from the computer to watch a different movie.
Yes, hard drives will eventually fail. But just about everyone I know upgrades before that happens. Everything that stays on the old hard drive is stuff that you don't really feel like getting rid of, but in all likelyhood will never use again. In some cases it doesn't even work any more. (or like my old copy of Impulse tracker... even if it did work nowdays, I don't forsee a time when I will actually have a use for it. Mostly keep it around for nastalgia value of the BBS days. I should start writing music on the computer again...)
That is one of the codecs that the content provider has the choice of using within the HD-DVD or the Blu-Ray format. There are several other options available.
They did mention that it was generally done at internet cafes... the scammers don't necesarilly own their own computer. It could be, however, that they just don't want it linked to their home. A cafe has plausible deniability in that they did not perpitrate the crime.
Have you ever tried to apply for a janitorial position or McJob with no ID, no phone number and no home address? If you did, you simply wouldn't get the job. That 16 bucks will be wasted. On the other hand that 16 bucks can buy you a couple bottles of cheap liquor or enough drugs to let you forget for a night or two.
However the $10 thrift shop outfit for applying at a job really isn't that out there. I know some people in sales who have to look money that always fake it buy hitting up the thrift shops for new work clothes. Takes a little more time than shopping at the mall, but you can find a good enough suit for less than the price of a movie and popcorn.
For me it's a buck or two whenever the jackpot reaches some absurdly high amount. That's kinda fun. Every week (or twice a week depending on the lotter) is a bit much. And five bucks a pop? Nah. I recently heard that about 80% of lottery winners bought a single ticket and about 20% of winners were office pools. The number of individuals who bought multiple tickets for that drawing is statistically insignificant.
What that means to me is that about 80% of lottery tickets are sold to someone who buys one ticket, 20% go to office pools, and very few people actually buy more than one ticket. Hmm... I guess this coincides with my observations. When I notice people buying tickets, it's usually one ticket, or if it is multiple tickets it's a couple different types of tickets (Give me a Powerball, a megabucks and a double moo-lah).
If bacon is one of your big triggers to craving meat, there is something to remember: bacon doesn't really taste all that good. It's just that the SMELL of bacon makes whatever you're eating taste really good. Try it sometime... next time you are around the smell of freshly cooked bacon, simply eat your normal foods, take your time and enjoy the sensation.
Now, I'm nowhere near a vegetarian and so can have bacon pretty much anytime I want, but... still. Just mentally think about it each time you get a craving from smelling bacon.
Big Mac attack? Probably the same thing. McDonald's food often actually smells really appealing, but the taste is just... ehh.
Mars' atmosphere is drastically thinner than ours, and that is assumed to be in a large part due to the smaller size. The gravitational pull simply can't maintain a thick atmosphere, and Mars' size is such that the core has cooled off, and techtonic activity has stopped. Lack of techtonic activity means that atmospheric gasses are no longer being replenished. It may be possible that life could exist without an atmosphere, but it seems very unlikely to me. There would at least need to be a liquid medium to distribute metabolic chemicals (such as CO2 and O2 on earth) to allow for life to have the proper energy to survive. On Mars this would have to be on the surface, as the lack of techtonic activity means there would be no thermal vents such as on earth which provide another chemical gradient which allows some forms of life to survive. I don't have a problem seeing that life could have existed at one time on mars, but I highly doubt that it is currently there. There may be some remnant organisms in deep deep stasis which are basically waiting for favorable conditions to revive, but I personally do not call that currently living.
Your situation would call more for a station wagon than an SUV. I personally drive a '92 Caprice wagon which I picked up for $200, so price really isn't an issue. When I was a kid my family went on a trip to california in a Caprice wagon. 4 adults, 2 teenagers, 3 young children and a 120 pound dog, with camper in tow and still plenty of room. The roof rack on my Caprice is at least as sturdy as that of any SUV and it's a whole lot easier to put stuff (ladders, etc) onto that than onto an SUV. The lower center of gravity also makes a station wagon far less prone to rolling over than an SUV could ever hope. Besides style, I have not heard of one good reason to have an SUV over a station wagon for family use (And familys generally don't need to go offroad any more than a station wagon can handle.) And new station wagons are far more off-road capable than mine could ever hope to be.
Atkins claims all early humans were pure carnivores
Did you read the post you responded to? Vegetables are extremely important to the Atkins diet. As are nuts and seeds. Some fruits are also eliminated in the early stages of the diet, but most people can slowly add reasonable amounts later on. The only thing cut out is refined sugars and grains (and even they are redintroduced in limited form later on.) Most of these grains are essentially inedible raw, so would definately have been out of the early hominid diet. There is a chance that I am wrong and that Dr. Atkins did claim this, but I have not seen this anywhere in the literature. I will not comment on anything in the South Beach diet as I have not read up much on it, except I do know two people that started on it and significantly reduced their weight (one person 50 pounds, one person 75 pounds.) Neither person has since gained a noticeable amount of weight back, and I don't know if they still follow the diet now. I don't talk to them about what they eat very often.
Making claims about how stupid people are for following a plan that has improved lives is pretty damn idiotic in and of itself.
But yes, jumping in and out of various diets between periods of binging is bad for your health. If you are going to try to make yourself healthier, you need to make a commitment to stick with a plan for a while. If that particular plan does not work for you, then maybe try something else. And exercise really must be a part of any lifestyle change intended to better your health, along with a doctor's advice.
The potential dangers of Atkins have been greatly overstressed. The major "risks" that are touted are complete lies or misunderstandings.
1)A high fat diet is bad for your heart.
FalseThe majority of people who go on the Atkins plan experience greatly improved blood lipid levels. That is because the fat you are eating is being burned as energy rather than stored.
2)Atkins puts the body in a state of Ketosis which acidifies the blood, leading to leached minerals from bones and other things. FALSEThis comes from a confusion of the terms ketosis and ketoacidosis. Ketones ARE produced in the body whenever fat is burned, regardless of whether the person is on a low carb or "traditional" diet regimen. A properly functioning body can get rid of these ketones quite efficiently through urine, sweat and breathing. Ketoacidosis arises when there is a problem with the body, such as liver failure due to alcoholism or other disorders. This will then allow the buildup of the Ketones created in the burning of fat (or alcohols) to such a great extent that the blood does become acidic. However, barring the well known (to doctors) conditions which cause ketoacidosis, the body can quite efficiently regulate blood acid levels through regulation of CO2 levels. Hyperventilation will do more to change your blood pH than going on Atkins.
3)The Atkins plan calls for a dangerously low amount of vegetables in the diet. BLATANTLY FALSE The Atkins plan is essentially centered around first making sure that you get enough healthy vegetables in your diet. By choosing proper vegetables, one gets far more servings of vegetables than the average diet. Many vegetables are very high in nutrient content and low in carbohydrates. In induction, the most carbohydrate restricted phase, carbohydrates are generally restricted to 20 grams per day (not including fiber.) This would allow for 100 cups of spinach every day, which has 0.2grams of sugars and starch. Granted the vegetables you eat should be varied, so a wide variety of vegetables is eaten including brocolli, asparagus, peppers, zucchini, baby corn, many other leafy vegetables, turnips, water chestnuts, bamboo shoots, tomatoes, various squashes, radishes, onions, mushrooms, jicama, fenel, endive, egplant, cucumbers, cauliflower, brussel sprouts, etc. And this is just a list of some of the veggies with under 4 grams of net carbohydrates which means you could have five servings of them daily DURING INDUCTION. There are a whole lot more which can be added when the very low carb (spinach, other leafy greans, etc) vegetables are used. After the first two weeks of induction, more and more vegetables can be added to the diet.
After you make sure that you get enough vegetables in your diet, then meats, eggs, etc are added untill you are no longer hungry.
Oh, and do me a favor. find me one controlled scientific study which shows that a low fat/high carbohydrate diet increases health. And I'm not talking about a study which also has the low fat group exercising more than the other group. Those are the studies always pointed to, and using multi factor studies is simply bad science. If you really want, I can point you to many studies that show that a low carb diet improves health for the majority of people who go on it. Saying that the long term effects of a low carb lifestyle have not been properly studies is misleading, as ketogenic diets (very similar to Atkin's plan) have been used to help keep cerebral palsy and epilepsy under control for over 80 years. The Ketogenic diet is far more restrictive than the Atkin's plan, and that makes sense as it is used to treat a different problem than obesity.
BTW, the Atkins plan or any low carb diet is not meant for everyone. Consulting a doctor and having them monitor your health is very important for any drastic lifestyle change. Certain health conditions (such as those which prevent the
The point of this system is not to add more hard security to the phone. The point is to make it so the user does not have to enter a password every time the phone is used. This also means the user is less likely to turn the password off, leaving the phone open and clear for anyone to use.
And don't give me the old song about how users should take responsiblity for their own information. Considering the number of people who are willing to give away their passwords for a candy bar, you simply can not trust an end user with security issues.
No. Legally (at least in the U.S.) you are able to dial 911 on any cell phone. Even if the phone is not associated with a plan. Any password lock is also be overridden when 911 is dialed.
You enter your password and tell the phone to use your new gait. Probably need to do the same thing if you get a significantly different pair of shoes. Or if the thing is reasonably engineered you can just turn off the gait detection feature alltogether (after the password is entered, of course.) And what happens if you forget the password? There's probably a reasonably intricate sequence of keypresses involved to clear out the password. Or possibly it could only be cleared with a special device. Something reasonably secure enough.
If you think that's bad, you should try a fashion magazine sometime. My roomate brought one home once, so I decided to count the pages of ads. Of the first 100 pages, 93 were ads. 4 of the other pages were reviews of insanely expensive products, all glowing. The other two pages? Table of contents. Price? nine bucks. It was there that I realized how horribly idiotic fashionistas are.
Slashdot Mirror
large amounts of concrete also recycle well into the sand and gravel used to make new concrete. Concrete recycling is generally only done on the scale of contruction/demolitions. How can you tell that recycling these materials saves energy? Recycling centers will PAY to take them.
Uhm, I haven't heard about this. Years ago for a few years I worked for a concrete/masonery contractor and what was said then was that using recycled concrete could be hazardous. Things may of changed since though.
I think it's generally just the sand and gravel that's reused, and new cement has to be added. And it may be limited in its uses. Hmm... come to think of it contractors usually have to pay to drop off their old concrete. Just that the fence company I worked for had a deal with the local company cause we put up their fence for a good deal. But it's probably cheaper than having the large bulk taken to a landfill.
After a little research it appears that the aggregate is mainly used for lining roads and the like before the final surface (concrete or asphalt) is poured. There is apparantly research that is making recycled aggregate useful in making up some of the bulk in general concrete usage, but a good portion of virgin material must be used as well. Materials testing prior to construction is strongly recommended before actual application as there are some changes in characteristics. Some pretty good information here and a thorough writeup can be found here. It also appears that one of the greatest benefits is in reconstruction, where old concrete can be processed on site for new uses eliminating the need to truck the debris out and then ship new materials in, leading to significant cost savings and greatly reduced effects on traffic patterns.
Then you are one of the rare SUV drivers who actually needs it. Note that the general complaint is SUV's that never go off-road and never are used for actual utility. The pizza joint down the road from me that has an H2 as their delivery vehicle in a severely overparked area is simply assinine.
Would be easier to allow individual cities to apply their own gas tax. And just quit subsidizing the fuel industry.
I didn't know my recycling... was a political action
Sometiems, recycling is an action that HARMS the environment. When people show the benefits of recycling, the biggest is energy costs. However, these energy savings are after the material enters the recycling plant. The collection system (trucks driving all over town,) sorting machines, etc, use more energy than mining the raw materials for making virgin materials. For plastics, this is an obvious detriment as the extra energy used to collect and sort the recycled materials comes from fossil fuels, primarilly petrolem. It would take less fossil fuels to make new plastic than to recycle it.
For paper, the energy use also favors new materials. The collection system simply uses too much energy. Also, much of the energy used in making paper from virgin product comes from burning parts of the tree not usable for pulping. But what about the forests cut down to make the paper? Simple... they were planted in the first place to make paper out of. At least 99% of paper comes from farmed timber. These tree farms are a good percentage of what we have left for forests and provide a good environment for many animals. Increasing demand for virgin pulp would increase the demand, and therefore the acreage devoted to tree farms. I don't suggest replacing our few remaining old growth forests with tree farms and hope we do everything in our power to keep those, but papermaking really isn't going to impact them. Old growth wood is used more in high end woodworking for furniture, etc. What about the water pollution involved in milling wood for paper? Recycling paper causes just as much water pollution, as the material has to be repulped and the inks bleached out.
What do we do with the paper? Incineration of paper (vs other trash such as plastics) is relatively clean and could potentially be used as an energy source rather than sink, but I do not know how clean this is compared to fossil fuel based energy production, especially considering that paper for incineration would have to be specially collectd much as it is in recycling, and then any energy gains might be lost. What happens to paper that is simply put into the dump? It just sits there, not adding the dreaded cadmium, lead or other heavy metals into the dump that people worry about. Those chemicals come mainly from batteries and other disposed goods. All paper does is A)decomposes, becoming methane which is siphoned off and burned for energy in modern landfills or B)just sits there. Paper that just sits there is carbon that we are putting back in the ground, so when you add that to the energy savings over recycling, less CO2 is pumped into the air by throwing away and using new paper than is with recycling paper. Paper is indeed a renewable resource.
And if you don't believe me, just look at the cost of 100% post-consumer recycled paper. A significant amount of the increase in costs comes from... extra energy needs. I do, however, support pre-consumer recycling of paper goods (essentially re-using the scraps not used) as the energy required to gather large amounts of essentially unused paper from a factory is much lower than that needed to collect it from curbs all around town. And this collection is generally highly subsidized by local municipalities anyways. Look into how much your city is spending on recycling, and then figure out why recycled goods do not cost the consumer less. It may shock you.
Now, there are some materials for which recycling makes sense: Aluminum, steel, and concrete. Converting bauxite ore into usable aluminum is extremely energy intensive and so quite significant energy savings are realized by recycling this material. High grade steel also recycles quite nicely and with minimal energies. The same is most likely true for many other metals, although I haven't looked into it much. large amounts of concrete also recycle well into the sand and gravel used to make new concrete. Concrete recycling is generally only done on
And I don't really see Wal-Mart or McDonald's really offering employee incentives. And UPS would probably have at least as much environmental impact improving the efficiency of their own fleet of trucks/planes etc.
Yes, there are LED lamps on the market, but not ones that surpass the efficiency of fluorescent bulbs.
I've done a mad scientist costume a couple years, and my favorite prop starts with one rubber chicken.
Add fake eyeballs with LEDs wired through them. Flashing LEDs or wiring up a bread board to make them flash is extra points. A knife switch wired to turn the eyes on and off is a delicious addition. Resistors may need to be placed in series with the LEDs depending on the batteries used. Batteries are of course placed inside the body of the chicken.
Decorate liberally with old serial/parallel ports from old computers, scraps of wire, resistors and other interesting looking electronics equipment. I've even had a serial cable running from the chicken to an old defunct laptop.
Electronic gizmos, such as a cheap box from Radio Shack or similar which can record a couple seconds of sound and playback always add to the fun.
I have rigged the chicken with coathangers and fishing line so I could move the head around puppet-like.
Frankenstein bolts in the neck are easy to accomplish... a bolt can easilly be held on with a nut inside the neck and one outside the neck.
Stitch the whole thing up coarsely with thick black thread, possibly leaving a hole to be able to get to the battery/make spot repairs.
Best accompanied with a labcoat, miss-buttoned white or light blue shirt, rubber chicken tie poorly tied. Brown dress pants or curdoroys, one leg tucked into the socks. Bright yellow chuck taylor's make good shoes, although clunky dress shoes work too. A pair of welding goggles (don't have to be worn on eyes... up on forehead is good enough) is good. Having poofy hair which can be costume painted white/gray is great, although a white wig from a costume shop does the trick too (better if gray/bluish highlights are added with costume paint.) And of course, an Erlenmeyer flask or graduated cylinder to drink from (Red Bull works well, with or without liquor.) Pocket protector, comically large syringe (preferably real 60cc syringe with no needle) stethescope, doctor's head reflector, and other medical trinkets always a plus. Black facepaint/ash to simulate explosion leaving clean goggle lines is good for effect, but seems to be counterproductive in actually talking to people.
And if you don't check the cats, does that mean that the light is in a probabilistic state between being on and off? I wonder what would that do to the efficiency rating of items incorporating this material.
And I'd be willing to bet that the SPCA would have a vocal objection to the use of the possibly endangered Felis cattus schroedingerae .
My guess: What is more likely to happen is these microdots could just replace or augment the fluorescent material in typical flurescent bulbs, with appropriate re-engineering. Although as an LED coating this would be amenable to more portable light, such as the little LED keychain lights except with a more natural looking spectrum.
After a little research, it appears that LEDs have been designed that surpass the efficiency of compact fluoros, but these are not on the market yet. More info on on Wikipedia. However, this efficiency is for a given pure color LED, and the flourescence required to make an LED emit white light will reduce the efficiency somewhat. It would be interesting to see what the efficiency of fluorescence is with these microdots vs more traditional materials, in addition to differences in manufacturing costs and health/environmental factors.
So it will break down to we have a new tool which will be better in some circumstances. The pros and cons of will have to be weighed out in each situation. Where shock resistance and length of life is important, LEDs can have a significangt advantage over fluorescent bulbs.
When's the last time you dropped a hard drive that you were using? The anti-scratch comes in not so much because of any physical resiliance of the media, but because you do not have to remove the file from the computer to watch a different movie.
Yes, hard drives will eventually fail. But just about everyone I know upgrades before that happens. Everything that stays on the old hard drive is stuff that you don't really feel like getting rid of, but in all likelyhood will never use again. In some cases it doesn't even work any more. (or like my old copy of Impulse tracker... even if it did work nowdays, I don't forsee a time when I will actually have a use for it. Mostly keep it around for nastalgia value of the BBS days. I should start writing music on the computer again...)
That is one of the codecs that the content provider has the choice of using within the HD-DVD or the Blu-Ray format. There are several other options available.
They did mention that it was generally done at internet cafes... the scammers don't necesarilly own their own computer. It could be, however, that they just don't want it linked to their home. A cafe has plausible deniability in that they did not perpitrate the crime.
Have you ever tried to apply for a janitorial position or McJob with no ID, no phone number and no home address? If you did, you simply wouldn't get the job. That 16 bucks will be wasted. On the other hand that 16 bucks can buy you a couple bottles of cheap liquor or enough drugs to let you forget for a night or two.
However the $10 thrift shop outfit for applying at a job really isn't that out there. I know some people in sales who have to look money that always fake it buy hitting up the thrift shops for new work clothes. Takes a little more time than shopping at the mall, but you can find a good enough suit for less than the price of a movie and popcorn.
north
You are in a wasteland of twisting subdivisions, all the same. Exits are North, South, East, West.
>west
You are in a wasteland of twisting subdivisions, all the same. Exits are North, South, East, West.
>north
You are in a wasteland of twisting subdivisions, all the same. Exits are North, South, East, West.
>east
You are in a wasteland of twisting subdivisions, all the same. Exits are North, South, East, West.
>north
You are in Canda. You want a Molsen's ay?
For me it's a buck or two whenever the jackpot reaches some absurdly high amount. That's kinda fun. Every week (or twice a week depending on the lotter) is a bit much. And five bucks a pop? Nah. I recently heard that about 80% of lottery winners bought a single ticket and about 20% of winners were office pools. The number of individuals who bought multiple tickets for that drawing is statistically insignificant.
What that means to me is that about 80% of lottery tickets are sold to someone who buys one ticket, 20% go to office pools, and very few people actually buy more than one ticket. Hmm... I guess this coincides with my observations. When I notice people buying tickets, it's usually one ticket, or if it is multiple tickets it's a couple different types of tickets (Give me a Powerball, a megabucks and a double moo-lah).
If bacon is one of your big triggers to craving meat, there is something to remember: bacon doesn't really taste all that good. It's just that the SMELL of bacon makes whatever you're eating taste really good. Try it sometime... next time you are around the smell of freshly cooked bacon, simply eat your normal foods, take your time and enjoy the sensation.
Now, I'm nowhere near a vegetarian and so can have bacon pretty much anytime I want, but... still. Just mentally think about it each time you get a craving from smelling bacon.
Big Mac attack? Probably the same thing. McDonald's food often actually smells really appealing, but the taste is just... ehh.
Mars' atmosphere is drastically thinner than ours, and that is assumed to be in a large part due to the smaller size. The gravitational pull simply can't maintain a thick atmosphere, and Mars' size is such that the core has cooled off, and techtonic activity has stopped. Lack of techtonic activity means that atmospheric gasses are no longer being replenished. It may be possible that life could exist without an atmosphere, but it seems very unlikely to me. There would at least need to be a liquid medium to distribute metabolic chemicals (such as CO2 and O2 on earth) to allow for life to have the proper energy to survive. On Mars this would have to be on the surface, as the lack of techtonic activity means there would be no thermal vents such as on earth which provide another chemical gradient which allows some forms of life to survive. I don't have a problem seeing that life could have existed at one time on mars, but I highly doubt that it is currently there. There may be some remnant organisms in deep deep stasis which are basically waiting for favorable conditions to revive, but I personally do not call that currently living.
Your situation would call more for a station wagon than an SUV. I personally drive a '92 Caprice wagon which I picked up for $200, so price really isn't an issue. When I was a kid my family went on a trip to california in a Caprice wagon. 4 adults, 2 teenagers, 3 young children and a 120 pound dog, with camper in tow and still plenty of room. The roof rack on my Caprice is at least as sturdy as that of any SUV and it's a whole lot easier to put stuff (ladders, etc) onto that than onto an SUV. The lower center of gravity also makes a station wagon far less prone to rolling over than an SUV could ever hope. Besides style, I have not heard of one good reason to have an SUV over a station wagon for family use (And familys generally don't need to go offroad any more than a station wagon can handle.) And new station wagons are far more off-road capable than mine could ever hope to be.
Talking about false claims?
Atkins claims all early humans were pure carnivores
Did you read the post you responded to? Vegetables are extremely important to the Atkins diet. As are nuts and seeds. Some fruits are also eliminated in the early stages of the diet, but most people can slowly add reasonable amounts later on. The only thing cut out is refined sugars and grains (and even they are redintroduced in limited form later on.) Most of these grains are essentially inedible raw, so would definately have been out of the early hominid diet. There is a chance that I am wrong and that Dr. Atkins did claim this, but I have not seen this anywhere in the literature. I will not comment on anything in the South Beach diet as I have not read up much on it, except I do know two people that started on it and significantly reduced their weight (one person 50 pounds, one person 75 pounds.) Neither person has since gained a noticeable amount of weight back, and I don't know if they still follow the diet now. I don't talk to them about what they eat very often.
Making claims about how stupid people are for following a plan that has improved lives is pretty damn idiotic in and of itself.
But yes, jumping in and out of various diets between periods of binging is bad for your health. If you are going to try to make yourself healthier, you need to make a commitment to stick with a plan for a while. If that particular plan does not work for you, then maybe try something else. And exercise really must be a part of any lifestyle change intended to better your health, along with a doctor's advice.
The potential dangers of Atkins have been greatly overstressed. The major "risks" that are touted are complete lies or misunderstandings.
1)A high fat diet is bad for your heart.
FalseThe majority of people who go on the Atkins plan experience greatly improved blood lipid levels. That is because the fat you are eating is being burned as energy rather than stored.
2)Atkins puts the body in a state of Ketosis which acidifies the blood, leading to leached minerals from bones and other things.
FALSEThis comes from a confusion of the terms ketosis and ketoacidosis. Ketones ARE produced in the body whenever fat is burned, regardless of whether the person is on a low carb or "traditional" diet regimen. A properly functioning body can get rid of these ketones quite efficiently through urine, sweat and breathing. Ketoacidosis arises when there is a problem with the body, such as liver failure due to alcoholism or other disorders. This will then allow the buildup of the Ketones created in the burning of fat (or alcohols) to such a great extent that the blood does become acidic. However, barring the well known (to doctors) conditions which cause ketoacidosis, the body can quite efficiently regulate blood acid levels through regulation of CO2 levels. Hyperventilation will do more to change your blood pH than going on Atkins.
3)The Atkins plan calls for a dangerously low amount of vegetables in the diet.
BLATANTLY FALSE The Atkins plan is essentially centered around first making sure that you get enough healthy vegetables in your diet. By choosing proper vegetables, one gets far more servings of vegetables than the average diet. Many vegetables are very high in nutrient content and low in carbohydrates. In induction, the most carbohydrate restricted phase, carbohydrates are generally restricted to 20 grams per day (not including fiber.) This would allow for 100 cups of spinach every day, which has 0.2grams of sugars and starch. Granted the vegetables you eat should be varied, so a wide variety of vegetables is eaten including brocolli, asparagus, peppers, zucchini, baby corn, many other leafy vegetables, turnips, water chestnuts, bamboo shoots, tomatoes, various squashes, radishes, onions, mushrooms, jicama, fenel, endive, egplant, cucumbers, cauliflower, brussel sprouts, etc. And this is just a list of some of the veggies with under 4 grams of net carbohydrates which means you could have five servings of them daily DURING INDUCTION. There are a whole lot more which can be added when the very low carb (spinach, other leafy greans, etc) vegetables are used. After the first two weeks of induction, more and more vegetables can be added to the diet.
After you make sure that you get enough vegetables in your diet, then meats, eggs, etc are added untill you are no longer hungry.
Oh, and do me a favor. find me one controlled scientific study which shows that a low fat/high carbohydrate diet increases health. And I'm not talking about a study which also has the low fat group exercising more than the other group. Those are the studies always pointed to, and using multi factor studies is simply bad science. If you really want, I can point you to many studies that show that a low carb diet improves health for the majority of people who go on it. Saying that the long term effects of a low carb lifestyle have not been properly studies is misleading, as ketogenic diets (very similar to Atkin's plan) have been used to help keep cerebral palsy and epilepsy under control for over 80 years. The Ketogenic diet is far more restrictive than the Atkin's plan, and that makes sense as it is used to treat a different problem than obesity.
BTW, the Atkins plan or any low carb diet is not meant for everyone. Consulting a doctor and having them monitor your health is very important for any drastic lifestyle change. Certain health conditions (such as those which prevent the
The point of this system is not to add more hard security to the phone. The point is to make it so the user does not have to enter a password every time the phone is used. This also means the user is less likely to turn the password off, leaving the phone open and clear for anyone to use.
And don't give me the old song about how users should take responsiblity for their own information. Considering the number of people who are willing to give away their passwords for a candy bar, you simply can not trust an end user with security issues.
No. Legally (at least in the U.S.) you are able to dial 911 on any cell phone. Even if the phone is not associated with a plan. Any password lock is also be overridden when 911 is dialed.
You enter your password and tell the phone to use your new gait. Probably need to do the same thing if you get a significantly different pair of shoes. Or if the thing is reasonably engineered you can just turn off the gait detection feature alltogether (after the password is entered, of course.) And what happens if you forget the password? There's probably a reasonably intricate sequence of keypresses involved to clear out the password. Or possibly it could only be cleared with a special device. Something reasonably secure enough.
Hey, I think humane interface guidelines would be a great place to start. Interfaces which are marked or motivated by concern with the alleviation of suffering would be much better than the status quo.
If you think that's bad, you should try a fashion magazine sometime. My roomate brought one home once, so I decided to count the pages of ads. Of the first 100 pages, 93 were ads. 4 of the other pages were reviews of insanely expensive products, all glowing. The other two pages? Table of contents. Price? nine bucks. It was there that I realized how horribly idiotic fashionistas are.