Well, I'm happy that you didn't flame me. I don't rule out the possibility that perhaps I'm just very tolerant to caffeine or something like that, and that people really do have caffeine addictions. I just wanted to pose the question since that hadn't been my experience with caffeine. Thanks for the reply.
I am really just posing a question...and more specifically it is a question aimed at people who drink soda or who eat sugary treats with their coffee or tea....and then complain about caffeine addiction.
Please don't flame me immediately and gripe how this is so stupid. I'm just going to propose something that really isn't scientifically based...just based soley on observations of people I know who complain that they must be addicted to caffeine. So, just take it for what its worth, and if it is nothing to you...then no worries.
Now that the disclaimer is there, what I wonder is if there is really such a thing as caffeine addiction at all...at least not with the caffeine consumption level that the grand majority of people have?
Someone else must of shown this already in a post, but from poking around other caffeine content studies I found that the following drinks (in ounces) have the amount of caffeine (in milligrams) in them listed after the drink:
I put the "~" or approximately in there just because some brew tea weaker or stronger depending on what they like. Same with coffee.
But what that means is that the 16 ounce glass of coffee I buy from my local coffee shop in the morning has approx. 330mg of caffeine in it...assuming that I drink the whole cup. That is like drinking SIX cans of Mountain Dew, except for one thing......no sugar.
The USDA recommends that the average person have no more than 10 TEASPOONS of sugar PER DAY (40 grams). But look at the sugar content in these drinks and food items:
1 teaspoon of sugar = 4 grams
Yogurt, 8oz, lowfat fruit-flavored = 28 grams
7-Up, 12oz = 39 grams
Coke, 12oz = 39 grams of sugar
Pepsi, 12oz = 41 grams
Mountain Dew, 12oz = 46 grams
Cinnabon cinnamon roll = 48 grams
So by drinking ONE 12oz CAN of Mountain Dew you exceed the USDA's recommendation by 1.5 teaspoons of sugar. Most people that I know who drink soda generally have two 12oz cans or even two 16oz plastic bottles of soda per day. Or others even have those 24oz "refill" cups.
Now for me, even though I have ~330-660mg of caffeine in my one or two 16oz cups of coffee each day...I can easily take a weekend off without coffee and suffer absolutely zero side effects. Now...this wouldn't be the case for my mother, as an example, who drinks FAR more coffee per day than I do. She drip-brews fresh ground coffee all day long...so she might have 32-64oz EVERY day, and she does get headaches if she goes without, unlike myself with my intake.
So, what I'm suggesting is that most people who claim they are caffeine addicted are more likely addicted to the sugars they get with their soda, or the sugars that they get with their "treat" they have with their coffee, since the body can become addicted to sugars as well far more easily than caffeine.
It should be noted that Lomborg is a statistician, and he is looking at statistics gathered by other companies, studies, and researchers...then making his own conclusion. This is hardly discrediting environmentalists. Lomborg's opinion based on numbers he has collected from others (which may or may not be all the numbers or even any correct numbers), which is not 'proof' as you claim.
He can also hardly conclude the the world is 'healthier' now than it has ever been in the past.
I think that it is good that others have brought up more birds being killed by buildings, cats, and acid rain on a massive scale compared to wind turbines. Here are a couple articles to read concerning that:
Re:IT matters to shareholders
on
Does IT Matter?
·
· Score: 1
And the amount of your neighbors out of work and a burden on you as a taxpayer because of that additional $560k in profits? Well...I guess if you are a serious investor then you can afford to help your neighbors out, right?
Music sharing is OFF by default. So, you are sharing if you tell it to do so. You'd also have to open your firewall to allow that port to communicate also. Port 3869, I believe.
iTunes doesn't change any of your computer's policies behind your back. Your Internet security level is the same as before you installed iTunes. Is there something specific that you were perhaps referring to?
It is good to be a skeptic. There are obviously bugs for them to work out, as friends of mine claimed to have had it crash on them already (I have not...yet), the windowing is a bit slow, and music sharing doesn't always show everyone's share like it should.
The Fairplay DRM seems to be much more approachable than the license that services like BuyMusic.com or Rhapsody have.
But yes...you are right that it is a creaky tower as of yet. My hope is that people DO hack up iTunes for Windows, so that Apple knows where their holes are. Apple has a tendency to patch those, unlike Microsoft.:-)
My memory is fading on this issue....but was there even a Premiere 6 version made for MacOS X? If there wasn't...then what you see there is a Premiere 6 test run from MacOS 9 Classic. And that would be slow from the get go, and of course make the G5 look so poor, which if you have used FinalCut Pro on the G5 even a little bit, you'd see the big improvements made over that running on a G4.
I'd like to see them run tests with equal version applications...something new too. How long has Premiere 6 since been sunset? Cripes.
This is totally an exaggeration. Of course the card doesn't fit in the PC-card slot. The Airport Extreme doesn't even look like a PC-card at all.
The PowerBook G4's are indeed cramped, and do not lend themselves to be tinkered with...but that doesn't conclude "tragedy of design".
The Airport card install isn't that difficult. Remove the battery, take out 7 screws to remove cover, plug in card, plug in antenna....put cover back on, and insert battery....done.
If you had read the customer-installable parts procedure, it explains it very simply:
I had the opportunity of watching one of the local banks put in an ATM at the mall. The machine had a full PC in it, along with a modem of some sort (DSL?...I wasn't asking questions).
They installed and set up Windows 98 and then put a Java virtual machine on it...version 1.3.1 for that machine. The ATM software was built in Java.
So...what is the point of that? Why pay for a Windows license and deal with their BS? If you are just going to run a Java application, why not pick a free OS and use Java on that? What was the "value added" by Windows?
This is sort of funny how this is being portrayed. So...the liberals are attacking the conservative media, eh? And Trent Lott, who is sponsoring this move against the new FCC media rules, is such a liberal.
Here is a decent article from ZDNet that explains why CONSERVATIVES are even against these new rules:
Well...and this 1% statistic only represents SOLD Linux packages, and has no bearing on the number of different OS's that are downloaded, like some Linux distributions. They (like Gartner) are just tracking marketshare via sales. They really need to do an analysis on operating system USE.
Like this article states for MacOS, operating system saturation and use is more interesting than just tracked sales are. Linux likely has more like a 5 to potentially 15% saturation by itself (not counting other free OSs) on desktops.
Some computer sales including MacOS or Windows are reinstalled with Linux or FreeBSD (or other) once they are set up...but those are going to be recorded as sales for Microsoft or Apple. This can be deceiving.
A friend of mine at work were discussing this very thing just when the crappy Netscape 7.1 was released a couple weeks ago.
I also think that AOL should donate the Netscape trademark to the Mozilla Foundation. They would have a MUCH easier time with adoption because of name recognition.
It is too bad that Netscape 6.x scarred so many people too. I wish they hadn't released that one.
I'd like to just emphasise your point about the fact that people likely already have MP3's and CD's already that they would like to put on portable music device. The money is already spent...so why pay $120 a year to rent the few more that you want to hear?
This is just the same old banter from Microsoft about "leasing" media, including software and music.
I think that people in Michigan, and also those in states putting out similar laws, should all write their congresspersons and senators. We all still need to show our disapproval with letters, emails, and such.
http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/states/
But I agree that it certainly feels like it does no good...what with so many in government campaigning about one thing and doing another. Also, when you do write...you get back stupid form letters and photocopies.
We still have an obligation to hold our government accountable.
I can still recall writing C++ code for an old class using the GNU C++ compiler on Linux...and having people in the rest of the class, using M$ Visual Studio of course, not being able to compile my code. Just to comment no the C++ standard example...I can relate.
I have read a number of articles about bullying done by anti-virus producers, like McAfee. Apparently they send in their little spies to find a "problem" or at least something they can yell negative press about.
It is not a far cry to believe that since companies like Symantec do get insider information as to how to filter for these viruses and worms that they might have people writing some of them.
I'm not suggesting that it is definitely true...but it is probable.
Just remember that MSVM is Java 1.1.8 (or something around there). It is whatever they had before Sun legally prevented Microsoft from stealing Java out from under them when MS was trying that little J++ stunt.
Yeah....hard disks are really cheap now...but is the quality still up to par?
Watching warranties for disks is depressing as a lot of companies drop their previous 3 year warranties and replace them with 1 year and even 90 day warranties for hard disks.
For example, I have a Maxtor 80GB drive that has been replaced 3 times in the past 2 years. The only thing saving me is that, at least up until now, they have been resetting my 1 year warranty on that drive with each replacement. But I don't expect that to continue either.
And I have heard a lot of bad stories concerning 120 GB drives failing often also. I've talked to people that won't buy one without a good backup solution.
Also, hasn't the physical limits of space on the platters coming close to their theoretical maximum? There is going to come a time when reliability and actual physical space come crashing down...and they'll need to move to a new technology.
I know a lot of people with A+ certification...which is just about the most worthless certification ever. I wonder why it is still respected at all.
But there are numbers of other certifications that don't seem to make a hill of beans difference in the competence of the person. Like the NT MCSE certifications, for example. I know quite a number of people who have this cert, but still can't solve practical NT server issues.
I think that if these were regulated and certs were required then schools would get wealthy while the knowledge base is not necessarily improved. The thought of creating better standards is a good one, but by method of requiring certifications is a bad idea.
This book sounds a little like Neal Stephenson's "Snow Crash", which is set in a dark future where corporations have mostly taken over governing. The main character finds himself in the middle of a corporate conspiracy involving a 'net virus called Snow Crash. My synopsis is so poor for such a great book.
You are right. It is JUST a job. But why should I not get a job that I'm very qualified for and could do very well just because someone's vanity was not satisfied?
Worse yet...why should a committed and contributing employee be fired because of the vanity of the perception of business attire?
I respect your liking ties and suits. I don't. But lets say that we both are up for the same position. Lets say that I not only have more qualifications, but also job experience for this position that you don't have. You are the runner up in qualifications/experience. BUT, you wear a 3 piece expensive suit, and I wear Dockers and an Irish wool classic-looking sweater. And then you get the job. You don't find that to be fundamentally misguided?
I think that it reveals prejudice created by an old European tradition about what society considers 'professional'. It has nothing to do with reality...and therefore in my opinion should not be part of the decision.
In the same example...if the person doing the hiring was not sighted, I would bet that the suit tradition would lose and the qualifications would be the primary influence.
I've watched people here at my job not get a position because someone else, who is less qualified, had a nicer suit...or wasn't overweight...or was more 'pretty' in some respect. After having seen this many, many time...I have a bit of an opinion about fairness in this issue.
Unfortunately this turns into such a polar argument...suits to nudity...quite the range. Again, I think that most people would be happy with just being able to dress 'nicely'.
If someone says: no jeans, no tennis/running shoes, no print/undergarment t-shirts as primary shirts...would this be sufficient?
I work in a place that largely defines 'professional' dress as a series of clothes to avoid...which technically allows for a lot of freedom. It makes them look very open. But if you talk to management about the dress code, they will make the claim that it say, "definitely suit and tie"...even though it says nothing of the sort.
I'm guessing that a lot of people, like myself, deal with 'interpretation issues' with dress codes.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I'm happy that you didn't flame me. I don't rule out the possibility that perhaps I'm just very tolerant to caffeine or something like that, and that people really do have caffeine addictions. I just wanted to pose the question since that hadn't been my experience with caffeine. Thanks for the reply.
I'd like to add a clarification to my own post...
I am really just posing a question...and more specifically it is a question aimed at people who drink soda or who eat sugary treats with their coffee or tea....and then complain about caffeine addiction.
Thanks.
Please don't flame me immediately and gripe how this is so stupid. I'm just going to propose something that really isn't scientifically based...just based soley on observations of people I know who complain that they must be addicted to caffeine. So, just take it for what its worth, and if it is nothing to you...then no worries.
Now that the disclaimer is there, what I wonder is if there is really such a thing as caffeine addiction at all...at least not with the caffeine consumption level that the grand majority of people have?
Someone else must of shown this already in a post, but from poking around other caffeine content studies I found that the following drinks (in ounces) have the amount of caffeine (in milligrams) in them listed after the drink:
I put the "~" or approximately in there just because some brew tea weaker or stronger depending on what they like. Same with coffee.
But what that means is that the 16 ounce glass of coffee I buy from my local coffee shop in the morning has approx. 330mg of caffeine in it...assuming that I drink the whole cup. That is like drinking SIX cans of Mountain Dew, except for one thing......no sugar.
The USDA recommends that the average person have no more than 10 TEASPOONS of sugar PER DAY (40 grams). But look at the sugar content in these drinks and food items:
So by drinking ONE 12oz CAN of Mountain Dew you exceed the USDA's recommendation by 1.5 teaspoons of sugar. Most people that I know who drink soda generally have two 12oz cans or even two 16oz plastic bottles of soda per day. Or others even have those 24oz "refill" cups.
Now for me, even though I have ~330-660mg of caffeine in my one or two 16oz cups of coffee each day...I can easily take a weekend off without coffee and suffer absolutely zero side effects. Now...this wouldn't be the case for my mother, as an example, who drinks FAR more coffee per day than I do. She drip-brews fresh ground coffee all day long...so she might have 32-64oz EVERY day, and she does get headaches if she goes without, unlike myself with my intake.
So, what I'm suggesting is that most people who claim they are caffeine addicted are more likely addicted to the sugars they get with their soda, or the sugars that they get with their "treat" they have with their coffee, since the body can become addicted to sugars as well far more easily than caffeine.
Thoughts?
It should be noted that Lomborg is a statistician, and he is looking at statistics gathered by other companies, studies, and researchers...then making his own conclusion. This is hardly discrediting environmentalists. Lomborg's opinion based on numbers he has collected from others (which may or may not be all the numbers or even any correct numbers), which is not 'proof' as you claim.
He can also hardly conclude the the world is 'healthier' now than it has ever been in the past.
Bjorn Lomborg is neither sceptical nor an environmentalist.
Bjorn Lomborg's wonderful world
I think that it is good that others have brought up more birds being killed by buildings, cats, and acid rain on a massive scale compared to wind turbines. Here are a couple articles to read concerning that:
Are Wind Turbines Actually Bird Blenders?
Wind Turbine Myth #1 - Danger to Birds
And the amount of your neighbors out of work and a burden on you as a taxpayer because of that additional $560k in profits? Well...I guess if you are a serious investor then you can afford to help your neighbors out, right?
Music sharing is OFF by default. So, you are sharing if you tell it to do so. You'd also have to open your firewall to allow that port to communicate also. Port 3869, I believe.
iTunes doesn't change any of your computer's policies behind your back. Your Internet security level is the same as before you installed iTunes. Is there something specific that you were perhaps referring to?
It is good to be a skeptic. There are obviously bugs for them to work out, as friends of mine claimed to have had it crash on them already (I have not...yet), the windowing is a bit slow, and music sharing doesn't always show everyone's share like it should.
The Fairplay DRM seems to be much more approachable than the license that services like BuyMusic.com or Rhapsody have.
But yes...you are right that it is a creaky tower as of yet. My hope is that people DO hack up iTunes for Windows, so that Apple knows where their holes are. Apple has a tendency to patch those, unlike Microsoft. :-)
My memory is fading on this issue....but was there even a Premiere 6 version made for MacOS X? If there wasn't...then what you see there is a Premiere 6 test run from MacOS 9 Classic. And that would be slow from the get go, and of course make the G5 look so poor, which if you have used FinalCut Pro on the G5 even a little bit, you'd see the big improvements made over that running on a G4.
I'd like to see them run tests with equal version applications...something new too. How long has Premiere 6 since been sunset? Cripes.
*applause*
This is totally an exaggeration. Of course the card doesn't fit in the PC-card slot. The Airport Extreme doesn't even look like a PC-card at all.
The PowerBook G4's are indeed cramped, and do not lend themselves to be tinkered with...but that doesn't conclude "tragedy of design".
The Airport card install isn't that difficult. Remove the battery, take out 7 screws to remove cover, plug in card, plug in antenna....put cover back on, and insert battery....done.
If you had read the customer-installable parts procedure, it explains it very simply:
http://www.info.apple.com/usen/cip/pdf/pbg4/pbg4dv i1ghz-apc-cip.pdf
I had the opportunity of watching one of the local banks put in an ATM at the mall. The machine had a full PC in it, along with a modem of some sort (DSL? ...I wasn't asking questions).
They installed and set up Windows 98 and then put a Java virtual machine on it...version 1.3.1 for that machine. The ATM software was built in Java.
So...what is the point of that? Why pay for a Windows license and deal with their BS? If you are just going to run a Java application, why not pick a free OS and use Java on that? What was the "value added" by Windows?
This is sort of funny how this is being portrayed. So...the liberals are attacking the conservative media, eh? And Trent Lott, who is sponsoring this move against the new FCC media rules, is such a liberal.
Here is a decent article from ZDNet that explains why CONSERVATIVES are even against these new rules:
Why the FCC is wrong on media ownership
by David Coursey
There is a useful site at:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/
They have a database of vehicles, their fuel economy, and what emissions the vehicle produces.
Well...and this 1% statistic only represents SOLD Linux packages, and has no bearing on the number of different OS's that are downloaded, like some Linux distributions. They (like Gartner) are just tracking marketshare via sales. They really need to do an analysis on operating system USE.
Like this article states for MacOS, operating system saturation and use is more interesting than just tracked sales are. Linux likely has more like a 5 to potentially 15% saturation by itself (not counting other free OSs) on desktops.
Some computer sales including MacOS or Windows are reinstalled with Linux or FreeBSD (or other) once they are set up...but those are going to be recorded as sales for Microsoft or Apple. This can be deceiving.
Here is the article:
Shattering the five percent myth
A friend of mine at work were discussing this very thing just when the crappy Netscape 7.1 was released a couple weeks ago.
I also think that AOL should donate the Netscape trademark to the Mozilla Foundation. They would have a MUCH easier time with adoption because of name recognition.
It is too bad that Netscape 6.x scarred so many people too. I wish they hadn't released that one.
Exactly.
I'd like to just emphasise your point about the fact that people likely already have MP3's and CD's already that they would like to put on portable music device. The money is already spent...so why pay $120 a year to rent the few more that you want to hear?
This is just the same old banter from Microsoft about "leasing" media, including software and music.
I think that people in Michigan, and also those in states putting out similar laws, should all write their congresspersons and senators. We all still need to show our disapproval with letters, emails, and such.
http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/states/
But I agree that it certainly feels like it does no good...what with so many in government campaigning about one thing and doing another. Also, when you do write...you get back stupid form letters and photocopies.
We still have an obligation to hold our government accountable.
Awesome comment! I agree.
I can still recall writing C++ code for an old class using the GNU C++ compiler on Linux...and having people in the rest of the class, using M$ Visual Studio of course, not being able to compile my code. Just to comment no the C++ standard example...I can relate.
I have read a number of articles about bullying done by anti-virus producers, like McAfee. Apparently they send in their little spies to find a "problem" or at least something they can yell negative press about.
It is not a far cry to believe that since companies like Symantec do get insider information as to how to filter for these viruses and worms that they might have people writing some of them.
I'm not suggesting that it is definitely true...but it is probable.
Just remember that MSVM is Java 1.1.8 (or something around there). It is whatever they had before Sun legally prevented Microsoft from stealing Java out from under them when MS was trying that little J++ stunt.
Yeah....hard disks are really cheap now...but is the quality still up to par?
Watching warranties for disks is depressing as a lot of companies drop their previous 3 year warranties and replace them with 1 year and even 90 day warranties for hard disks.
For example, I have a Maxtor 80GB drive that has been replaced 3 times in the past 2 years. The only thing saving me is that, at least up until now, they have been resetting my 1 year warranty on that drive with each replacement. But I don't expect that to continue either.
And I have heard a lot of bad stories concerning 120 GB drives failing often also. I've talked to people that won't buy one without a good backup solution.
Also, hasn't the physical limits of space on the platters coming close to their theoretical maximum? There is going to come a time when reliability and actual physical space come crashing down...and they'll need to move to a new technology.
For the most part....I agree with you.
I know a lot of people with A+ certification...which is just about the most worthless certification ever. I wonder why it is still respected at all.
But there are numbers of other certifications that don't seem to make a hill of beans difference in the competence of the person. Like the NT MCSE certifications, for example. I know quite a number of people who have this cert, but still can't solve practical NT server issues.
I think that if these were regulated and certs were required then schools would get wealthy while the knowledge base is not necessarily improved. The thought of creating better standards is a good one, but by method of requiring certifications is a bad idea.
This book sounds a little like Neal Stephenson's "Snow Crash", which is set in a dark future where corporations have mostly taken over governing. The main character finds himself in the middle of a corporate conspiracy involving a 'net virus called Snow Crash. My synopsis is so poor for such a great book.
You know...Wil Wheaton, from the Next Generation.
http://www.wilwheaton.net/
You are right. It is JUST a job. But why should I not get a job that I'm very qualified for and could do very well just because someone's vanity was not satisfied?
Worse yet...why should a committed and contributing employee be fired because of the vanity of the perception of business attire?
I respect your liking ties and suits. I don't. But lets say that we both are up for the same position. Lets say that I not only have more qualifications, but also job experience for this position that you don't have. You are the runner up in qualifications/experience. BUT, you wear a 3 piece expensive suit, and I wear Dockers and an Irish wool classic-looking sweater. And then you get the job. You don't find that to be fundamentally misguided?
I think that it reveals prejudice created by an old European tradition about what society considers 'professional'. It has nothing to do with reality...and therefore in my opinion should not be part of the decision.
In the same example...if the person doing the hiring was not sighted, I would bet that the suit tradition would lose and the qualifications would be the primary influence.
I've watched people here at my job not get a position because someone else, who is less qualified, had a nicer suit...or wasn't overweight...or was more 'pretty' in some respect. After having seen this many, many time...I have a bit of an opinion about fairness in this issue.
Thanks for the good discussion.
Unfortunately this turns into such a polar argument...suits to nudity...quite the range. Again, I think that most people would be happy with just being able to dress 'nicely'.
If someone says: no jeans, no tennis/running shoes, no print/undergarment t-shirts as primary shirts...would this be sufficient?
I work in a place that largely defines 'professional' dress as a series of clothes to avoid...which technically allows for a lot of freedom. It makes them look very open. But if you talk to management about the dress code, they will make the claim that it say, "definitely suit and tie"...even though it says nothing of the sort.
I'm guessing that a lot of people, like myself, deal with 'interpretation issues' with dress codes.