She has a weekly audience with the prime minister, and it's not known what's said behind those closed doors.
So, if you want to believe she keeps her role separate from politics, then there's no evidence to contradict that view. But also, if you want to believe she takes a keen interest, and nudges the government to do what she wants, there's no evidence to contradict that either.
It is true that if a government gave her a speech she really didn't agree with, she'd be obliged by convention to read it -- or spark a constitutional crisis.
This will all become more interesting when Charles becomes king, since he's much more forthcoming about his own political views.
So if you had any substantial amount of work beyond basic scaling, cropping and simple filtering, you'd have switched in a heart beat.
I'm first to admit I don't have high end needs.
But "scaling cropping and simple filtering" is IrfanView territory. Very basic indeed. GIMP gives me layers, masks -- and scriptability way beyond my needs.
Of course natural contribution matters. If we can run a whole industrial society and our contribution to the effect is effectively the margin of error of the measurements, then what is the point of getting torqued up about AGW?
Well, it's moot because as someone else has pointed out, mankind's CO2 output dwarfs that of volcanos.
But even if that were not so, your point doesn't work. OK - if man's CO2 contribution really was small enough to be within the error bars, you might have a point. But beyond that, a small delta to a large natural level matters.
By analogy:
- Imagine a substance X that naturally occurs in your blood
- By some natural process over which you have no control, the normal level is 20%
- 21% will kill you
The 1% is small compared to the 20%. But you'd do well to avoid ingesting that extra 1%, since it'll keep you alive, and it's the only part you can avoid.
How on earth could that be true? There are extremely wealthy bodies -- such as oil producers -- who would like to disprove AGW. Surely they'd be eager to provide grants to research that would achieve this.
OK, let me revise that. It's good enough that so far no replacement SSL library has been any near as widely adopted.
It's "Nobody ever got fired for using OpenSSL" territory.
Years ago when I worked for IBM, we used IBM's internal GSKIT SSL libraries -- at around the time I left, they were bringing OpenSSL code into GSKIT, and many of their products were adopting OpenSSL instead of GSKIT.
Thanks for drawing NSS to my attention. I had always assumed Netscape and Mozilla used OpenSSL.
My assumption (and no, I'm not looking at the code) would be that the SSL/TLS handshake would involve parsing certificates (which contain ASN.1) supplied by the remote host, which you'd be reading from a socket wrapped in a BIO stream. Is that not the case?
I guess it's not unlikely that by happenstance, the SSL/TLS handshake reads the entire certificate into memory then parses that. But is that confirmed?
Have you ever looked at the OpenSSL code? It could have the Ark of the Covenant hidden in all that mess somewhere for all we know and we'd never find it.
Yeah. OpenSSL has a problem -- it's good enough.
It's poorly documented. It triggers all kinds of compiler warnings if you turn them on. Valgrind throws up all kinds of complaints. The code is really hard to grok.
As a user of the API, there are all kinds of gotchas. Best practice isn't reflected in the defaults; you have to pick up the best flags to pass in by examining how other people have done it, or asking around.
But, it's good enough that so far nobody's thought it's worth the effort to write a new SSL library from scratch. It's good enough that so far nobody's thought it's worth the effort to really firm up the free documentation (so, buy the O'Reilly book instead).
After all, you go through a bunch of pain understanding enough of OpenSSL to put it in your app -- but you only go through that pain once, and after that, it works.
When I started driving in the early 1990s, if you had, say, a 7 year old car, you'd pretty much expect to have trouble starting it on a cold/wet day. You'd allow 20 minutes extra in the morning for fiddling with the choke and spraying the engine with WD-40. That's just how cars were.
Nowadays, if you buy something that old, even a low-status brand, it'll start every time, barring some serious fault.
From what I can tell, most people with gym memberships in the UK don't actually go there and exercise. So it's money down the drain.
Commercial gyms prey on people's lack of self-control:
- "I know, if I join a gym, I'll definitely do exercise, because I'll want to get my money's worth"
- "Hmm, I haven't been to the gym all month. Still can't get the money back now. I'll definitely go next month...."
I'm pretty sure most gyms couldn't cope if all their customers chose to actually use the facilities.
But I think the OP is actually right. You know, I love running. But even if I'm running 6 days a week, the first 3 weeks after a long layoff are not fun for me. In fact, most of the time I hate it. Then, suddenly (and seemingly magically) it becomes fun. I can't really describe what the difference is, but one day I start feeling my body moving. Everything is effortless; I can go faster or slower and it doesn't hurt my body. I start to think, "How fast can I really go?" and I start to push myself. I get out of breath and my muscles get tired, but not like it is in the first 3 weeks. It doesn't actually hurt.
I'm glad for you. I'm not sure whether or not I've experienced that. I guess I'd know if I had. I've run 5 or 6 10K races in the last 4 years and in the approach to those I was running 3-4 times a week for a few months, so it's not as if I'm not giving it a fair shot.
I also think that the old "exercise releases endorphins" thing is a factor. I have never experienced any kind of euphoria from exercise. I believe people who say they have. I think it's just a physiological difference between people.
The skiing thing's interesting isn't it? People I know absolutely love it, but only get the opportunity to do one week a year -- so they're managing to have fun without committing huge amounts of practice and achieving mastery.
I have a cycling poncho. That works pretty well. But cycling in driving rain is actively unpleasant, and I'm not willing to put up with it if it's avoidable. So I don't cycle if it's doing more than a drizzle in the morning, or if the forecast says proper rain later. Arriving at work drenched is not an option. Getting home drenched is acceptable but I'd prefer to avoid it if possible.
I'm also nervous about the combination of darkness, ice and other traffic, so when it froze hard I didn't cycle.
Because I think it's boring. It's not that I don't have the time, but I would just rather be doing other things. I think a lot of people who say, "I don't have the time" are like that, too.
For people like you and me, exercise is like doing the dishes. We don't do it because we enjoy it, we do it because we don't want a pile of dirty dishes in the kitchen.
Maybe you're young and/or lucky enough that you don't need exercise. I had to start because my lack of fitness was affecting my sleep.
Then join a game of ultimate, or basketball, or shinny.
I'm personally not in the least attracted to team games.
But on a practical note, for those who are -- where do you find people playing these games who are happy to welcome newcomers with no stamina, coordination or tactical affinity for the game?
It just seems like an opportunity to have a rotten time, upsetting your team mates (perhaps delighting the opposing team).
Right, because the people who ate wheat for thousands of years are all wrong.
I'm sympathetic to this view, but you can't deny that some people have severe gluten intolerance, and I'm willing to believe that the severity of that intolerance covers the whole spectrum from "completely tolerant" through "discomfort and ill health" to "could die".
There are realistic claims that the action of yeast breaks down the compounds in wheat that many people are intolerant of -- but that this takes time. Modern bread products made with high-gluten flour and an artificially rapid rise (Google the Chorleywood process) don't give the yeast long enough for that breakdown to occur. Bread that rises overnight is tastier and better for you.
This. And if there isn't some form of calorie burning activity that interests you enough to do (while adding the fact that you'll probably live longer if you do it), you just aren't trying very hard.
Sorry if I guessed wrong, but I bet you didn't need to try very hard. I bet whatever exercise it is that you do, you saw people were doing it, thought "that looks fun, I really want to try that", tried it and had fun. Or at worst, tried it, had no fun, but thought "That was no fun, but I can definitely tell that when I've practised a bit and got the hang of it, it's going to be fun."
Some of us aren't wired that way. I went skiing last year. I did it as a kind of favour to my sister, who really enjoys the snow. I thought, well I don't see the appeal, but she enjoys it, and lots of other people rave about it, and they can't all be wrong. I did 3 days of lessons, and from what I understand made better-than-average progress. It was alright. I'm glad I did it, but I wouldn't do it again. On the fourth day, I decided that the cost of an extra day's equipment hire -- and the discomfort of walking in ski boots -- outweighed the benefits, so I wandered around Whistler village while my sister rode the mountain. When we were due to meet up, I stood at the bottom of the run watching people coming off the mountain with massive grins on their faces. It made me feel a bit flat -- these people are having a wonderful time; they're prepared to spend large amounts of time and money on clothes, equipment, travel, lift passes, because they enjoy it so much. Why is there not an exercise I enjoy that much?
People like me have to repeat that experience over and over again, with different sports, before *maybe* stumbling upon the one that clicks for them.
Or, as I do, run around the block once in the while, because although it's no fun, it's cheap and keeps your heart and lungs working.
I don't doubt that intervals can make me faster and I will do some before the race, but that is easily the worst part of my training. It is just very unpleasant to run at >90% of max capacity. I even prefer 15 mile long runs over intervals.
It's horses for courses isn't it? I don't mind a 100 meter sprint -- it feels fast and at least it's over in under 15 seconds. Long distance running is just tedious. For me.
If it's boring, then you're doing it wrong. Find something that's fun to do - like riding a bike, basketball, soccer, playing frisbee with your dog... You get the idea.
I get the idea, but the thing is, you may think those things are fun, but not everybody does. I'm full of envy for people who enjoy sport -- they can keep fit and do what they enjoy at the same time.
I go for a run every once in a while, but I couldn't possibly call it fun. It's a chore that prevents me from being unfit (I have been unfit, and I didn't like it). Running has the benefit of hardly costing anything (some suitable shoes, shorts and t-shirt), and having hardly any travel overheads. I can't say I've ever looked forward to a run, or thought "yay I'm having fun" while running. I struggle to motivate myself to do it; when I get home I'm glad I've done it, but I'm also glad it's over.
Depressing, huh?
When the weather's suitable, cycling to work is good. It's still not fun, but it's using my commute time to provide exercise, saves petrol, and sometimes gets me home faster than driving would.
Slashdot Mirror
Well...
She has a weekly audience with the prime minister, and it's not known what's said behind those closed doors.
So, if you want to believe she keeps her role separate from politics, then there's no evidence to contradict that view.
But also, if you want to believe she takes a keen interest, and nudges the government to do what she wants, there's no evidence to contradict that either.
It is true that if a government gave her a speech she really didn't agree with, she'd be obliged by convention to read it -- or spark a constitutional crisis.
This will all become more interesting when Charles becomes king, since he's much more forthcoming about his own political views.
So if you had any substantial amount of work beyond basic scaling, cropping and simple filtering, you'd have switched in a heart beat.
I'm first to admit I don't have high end needs.
But "scaling cropping and simple filtering" is IrfanView territory. Very basic indeed. GIMP gives me layers, masks -- and scriptability way beyond my needs.
I tried Photoshop, and I didn't like it because it wasn't the GIMP.
I'm sure PS is fine, but once you've learned one UI it's difficult to adapt to a different one.
Actually, a lot can fit in a Prius. They are quite roomy.
Compared to most European cars: roomy.
Compared to most US cars: tiny.
Of course natural contribution matters. If we can run a whole industrial society and our contribution to the effect is effectively the margin of error of the measurements, then what is the point of getting torqued up about AGW?
Well, it's moot because as someone else has pointed out, mankind's CO2 output dwarfs that of volcanos.
But even if that were not so, your point doesn't work. OK - if man's CO2 contribution really was small enough to be within the error bars, you might have a point. But beyond that, a small delta to a large natural level matters.
By analogy:
- Imagine a substance X that naturally occurs in your blood
- By some natural process over which you have no control, the normal level is 20%
- 21% will kill you
The 1% is small compared to the 20%. But you'd do well to avoid ingesting that extra 1%, since it'll keep you alive, and it's the only part you can avoid.
How on earth could that be true? There are extremely wealthy bodies -- such as oil producers -- who would like to disprove AGW. Surely they'd be eager to provide grants to research that would achieve this.
Do remember the NYT is a very left-wing paper and that climate change supporters are majority left-wing. Bias is everywhere.
Hmm, so you've observed a correlation between rationality in the face of evidence, and having left wing views.
Useful. I'll take it.
Blast you and your facts.
OK, let me revise that. It's good enough that so far no replacement SSL library has been any near as widely adopted.
It's "Nobody ever got fired for using OpenSSL" territory.
Years ago when I worked for IBM, we used IBM's internal GSKIT SSL libraries -- at around the time I left, they were bringing OpenSSL code into GSKIT, and many of their products were adopting OpenSSL instead of GSKIT.
Thanks for drawing NSS to my attention. I had always assumed Netscape and Mozilla used OpenSSL.
My assumption (and no, I'm not looking at the code) would be that the SSL/TLS handshake would involve parsing certificates (which contain ASN.1) supplied by the remote host, which you'd be reading from a socket wrapped in a BIO stream. Is that not the case?
I guess it's not unlikely that by happenstance, the SSL/TLS handshake reads the entire certificate into memory then parses that. But is that confirmed?
Have you ever looked at the OpenSSL code? It could have the Ark of the Covenant hidden in all that mess somewhere for all we know and we'd never find it.
Yeah. OpenSSL has a problem -- it's good enough.
It's poorly documented. It triggers all kinds of compiler warnings if you turn them on. Valgrind throws up all kinds of complaints. The code is really hard to grok.
As a user of the API, there are all kinds of gotchas. Best practice isn't reflected in the defaults; you have to pick up the best flags to pass in by examining how other people have done it, or asking around.
But, it's good enough that so far nobody's thought it's worth the effort to write a new SSL library from scratch.
It's good enough that so far nobody's thought it's worth the effort to really firm up the free documentation (so, buy the O'Reilly book instead).
After all, you go through a bunch of pain understanding enough of OpenSSL to put it in your app -- but you only go through that pain once, and after that, it works.
If you were an ordinary person (rather than a gearhead) at that time, the standard, "bread and butter" affordable cars at that time had chokes.
I learned in a Mark II Ford Escort, in case you're interested.
Nowadays everything has fuel injection because it's more reliable. Same with lots of other subsystems, which backs up TOA.
Yep exactly.
When I started driving in the early 1990s, if you had, say, a 7 year old car, you'd pretty much expect to have trouble starting it on a cold/wet day. You'd allow 20 minutes extra in the morning for fiddling with the choke and spraying the engine with WD-40. That's just how cars were.
Nowadays, if you buy something that old, even a low-status brand, it'll start every time, barring some serious fault.
Nah, I was rake-thin throughout my teens and early 20s. Didn't smoke. Didn't do any formal exercise.
My later weight gain, I blame on my workplace canteen, and drinking culture among my peers.
And now, yeah, I need to exercise to feel well.
You haven't explained to us what your "proper motivation" was.
How did you go from being someone with no interest in exercise, to someone who really wanted to race bikes?
It sounds like you're motivated by your top-10 finishes. What do you think motivates the people who come nowhere near top 10?
From what I can tell, most people with gym memberships in the UK don't actually go there and exercise. So it's money down the drain.
Commercial gyms prey on people's lack of self-control:
- "I know, if I join a gym, I'll definitely do exercise, because I'll want to get my money's worth"
- "Hmm, I haven't been to the gym all month. Still can't get the money back now. I'll definitely go next month...."
I'm pretty sure most gyms couldn't cope if all their customers chose to actually use the facilities.
Seriously though, you do hear of athletes and apparently fit people dropping dead of heart attacks or other heart problems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_association_footballers_who_died_while_playing
A vanishingly small proportion of people with "weird electrical problems", as my GP described it.
But I think the OP is actually right. You know, I love running. But even if I'm running 6 days a week, the first 3 weeks after a long layoff are not fun for me. In fact, most of the time I hate it. Then, suddenly (and seemingly magically) it becomes fun. I can't really describe what the difference is, but one day I start feeling my body moving. Everything is effortless; I can go faster or slower and it doesn't hurt my body. I start to think, "How fast can I really go?" and I start to push myself. I get out of breath and my muscles get tired, but not like it is in the first 3 weeks. It doesn't actually hurt.
I'm glad for you. I'm not sure whether or not I've experienced that. I guess I'd know if I had. I've run 5 or 6 10K races in the last 4 years and in the approach to those I was running 3-4 times a week for a few months, so it's not as if I'm not giving it a fair shot.
I also think that the old "exercise releases endorphins" thing is a factor. I have never experienced any kind of euphoria from exercise. I believe people who say they have. I think it's just a physiological difference between people.
The skiing thing's interesting isn't it? People I know absolutely love it, but only get the opportunity to do one week a year -- so they're managing to have fun without committing huge amounts of practice and achieving mastery.
Yep I'm in the UK.
I have a cycling poncho. That works pretty well. But cycling in driving rain is actively unpleasant, and I'm not willing to put up with it if it's avoidable. So I don't cycle if it's doing more than a drizzle in the morning, or if the forecast says proper rain later. Arriving at work drenched is not an option. Getting home drenched is acceptable but I'd prefer to avoid it if possible.
I'm also nervous about the combination of darkness, ice and other traffic, so when it froze hard I didn't cycle.
Because I think it's boring. It's not that I don't have the time, but I would just rather be doing other things. I think a lot of people who say, "I don't have the time" are like that, too.
For people like you and me, exercise is like doing the dishes. We don't do it because we enjoy it, we do it because we don't want a pile of dirty dishes in the kitchen.
Maybe you're young and/or lucky enough that you don't need exercise. I had to start because my lack of fitness was affecting my sleep.
Then join a game of ultimate, or basketball, or shinny.
I'm personally not in the least attracted to team games.
But on a practical note, for those who are -- where do you find people playing these games who are happy to welcome newcomers with no stamina, coordination or tactical affinity for the game?
It just seems like an opportunity to have a rotten time, upsetting your team mates (perhaps delighting the opposing team).
Right, because the people who ate wheat for thousands of years are all wrong.
I'm sympathetic to this view, but you can't deny that some people have severe gluten intolerance, and I'm willing to believe that the severity of that intolerance covers the whole spectrum from "completely tolerant" through "discomfort and ill health" to "could die".
There are realistic claims that the action of yeast breaks down the compounds in wheat that many people are intolerant of -- but that this takes time. Modern bread products made with high-gluten flour and an artificially rapid rise (Google the Chorleywood process) don't give the yeast long enough for that breakdown to occur. Bread that rises overnight is tastier and better for you.
This. And if there isn't some form of calorie burning activity that interests you enough to do (while adding the fact that you'll probably live longer if you do it), you just aren't trying very hard.
Sorry if I guessed wrong, but I bet you didn't need to try very hard. I bet whatever exercise it is that you do, you saw people were doing it, thought "that looks fun, I really want to try that", tried it and had fun. Or at worst, tried it, had no fun, but thought "That was no fun, but I can definitely tell that when I've practised a bit and got the hang of it, it's going to be fun."
Some of us aren't wired that way. I went skiing last year. I did it as a kind of favour to my sister, who really enjoys the snow. I thought, well I don't see the appeal, but she enjoys it, and lots of other people rave about it, and they can't all be wrong. I did 3 days of lessons, and from what I understand made better-than-average progress. It was alright. I'm glad I did it, but I wouldn't do it again. On the fourth day, I decided that the cost of an extra day's equipment hire -- and the discomfort of walking in ski boots -- outweighed the benefits, so I wandered around Whistler village while my sister rode the mountain. When we were due to meet up, I stood at the bottom of the run watching people coming off the mountain with massive grins on their faces. It made me feel a bit flat -- these people are having a wonderful time; they're prepared to spend large amounts of time and money on clothes, equipment, travel, lift passes, because they enjoy it so much. Why is there not an exercise I enjoy that much?
People like me have to repeat that experience over and over again, with different sports, before *maybe* stumbling upon the one that clicks for them.
Or, as I do, run around the block once in the while, because although it's no fun, it's cheap and keeps your heart and lungs working.
I don't doubt that intervals can make me faster and I will do some before the race, but that is easily the worst part of my training. It is just very unpleasant to run at >90% of max capacity. I even prefer 15 mile long runs over intervals.
It's horses for courses isn't it? I don't mind a 100 meter sprint -- it feels fast and at least it's over in under 15 seconds. Long distance running is just tedious. For me.
If it's boring, then you're doing it wrong. Find something that's fun to do - like riding a bike, basketball, soccer, playing frisbee with your dog... You get the idea.
I get the idea, but the thing is, you may think those things are fun, but not everybody does. I'm full of envy for people who enjoy sport -- they can keep fit and do what they enjoy at the same time.
I go for a run every once in a while, but I couldn't possibly call it fun. It's a chore that prevents me from being unfit (I have been unfit, and I didn't like it). Running has the benefit of hardly costing anything (some suitable shoes, shorts and t-shirt), and having hardly any travel overheads. I can't say I've ever looked forward to a run, or thought "yay I'm having fun" while running. I struggle to motivate myself to do it; when I get home I'm glad I've done it, but I'm also glad it's over.
Depressing, huh?
When the weather's suitable, cycling to work is good. It's still not fun, but it's using my commute time to provide exercise, saves petrol, and sometimes gets me home faster than driving would.
Ah, now Mahler I'd accept. And Stravinski and Prokofiev.
But their stuff is to Mozart as Pink Floyd are to Jerry and the Pacemakers.
They're not going to be playing Mahler in the subway.