That's not how it would work. It's cloth. It has ripples and shades. There would be patterned ripples across the dress where "real" colors would show in shades or highlights.
IF the photo itself wasn't messed up by the camera/software, effectively replacing the color palette in the entire photo.
William Gibson foresaw this in his "Bigend cycle" books. Hubertus Bigend wears International Klein Blue suits just to fuck with everyone else, as it can't be represented correctly on monitors or in print - note two different whites in the color corrected photo in order to get both the skin tones and the dress right.
Gibson just didn't thought of adding shitty CCDs to the list of technology with issues with reproduction of the color. Or, illiterate "designers". She calls it "Royal Blue" in the video.
Sure... If one could get people to wear a computer screen, calibrated to show the web palette of colors. There will be little difference. THERE. On the screen. Especially if one's screen is not even close to calibrated.
On the other hand.... Trying to mix those "equivalent" values listed in RGB and CMYK. In Web-RGB they WILL look exactly the same. And so will the blacks. http://i.imgur.com/QdL00rr.jpg
Ask the same industry standard company to do it using their other, more professional tool, with full RGB and CMYK gamut... http://i.imgur.com/46B6H55.jpg
The color she envisioned on her screen is NOT the color of cloth chosen for the dress, based on the color on the screen. She wanted "royal blue" but picked ultramarine - because Web-RGB royal blue is closer to aquamarine IRL. The person designing the dress DOES NOT KNOW WHAT COLOR IT IS.
It's not about "rods and cones" and "everyone seeing colors a little differently". It's about people using wrong names for colors, often calling many different colors by the same name and the same color by different names. Then it is about faulty capture technology and badly written color conversion and calibration algorithms. Then it is about faulty display technology, which can't show the same image under different viewing angles. THEN, and only then, MAYBE, color perception and ambient lighting might fool the untrained eye.
But it is most likely that in most cases it is again different people calling a shade of red pink and orange. While trying to GUESS the "correct" color from a crappy photo on a crappy screen.
1) It consumes nitrogen from the atmosphere, binding it in the form that humans can't breathe, while eating up ALL PLANT LIFE at the same time. Humans just managed to create species of plants they need for food which managed to stand out longer.
They got dustbowls because there are no more plants to hold down the dirt. On the entire planet. Corn is the last EDIBLE PLANT that they can grow. Possibly last plant at all. And that would include plankton. It's Soylent Green all over again. It's not about the food - it's about the collapse of the entire biosphere.
2) It's a post global war society, REVERTING BACK to old technology. Think 20th century humans going back to horse and cart. They still got the science and knowledge, they just don't have the resources anymore.
And they are clearly far more advanced in robotics and AI, they have means of artificially growing humans without a human uterus, they have space planes which can take off from the surface of a planet unassisted, cryogenics...
3) Because the entire setting of the story was picked and arranged by the distant future humans to provide the conditions for present (in the movie) humans to OBSERVE a very specific black hole and then transfer that data back to Earth without violating causality - with the help of a temporary tesseract attached along the universe and then collapsed. They've scoured the ENTIRE UNIVERSE to find them those exact conditions.
No time traveling or time altering ever takes place nor does any matter or information leave or enter the universe. All they did was bend the existing space to get humans to a place where data for figuring out anti-gravity could be gathered.
4) "Future utopia" would not exist without the data gathered by observing a black hole for 20 years or so, then dropping an AI probe into it, then telegraphing all that OUT of the black hole without breaking causality, to a specific point in space-time to a specific human with training and motivation to solve the problem and a means of reading the message.
Why aren't they leaving a perfectly good solar system with a slightly used home planet in a goldilocks zone that has only been messed up a little by an ecological catastrophe, and with dozens of planets, moons and asteroids laying around... I'm guessing smurfs.
Also, what makes you think that it's an utopia? Those are kids and grandkids of generations of "caretakers". Not explorers. They've sent the last batch of explorers out to die far away in space somewhere. They just want to play baseball and eat corn. And "take care" of museums.
It's a project that has its genesis in the two-decades-long friendship between Obst, an astronomy enthusiast who produced "The Siege" and "The Fisher King," and Thorne, the Feynman professor of theoretical physics at Caltech. (When Obst was producing "Contact," adapted by screenwriters James V. Hart and Michael Goldenberg from Carl Sagan's novel, Thorne conceptualized a wormhole sequence for the film that also advanced the field of theoretical physics.)
Over the years, Thorne's work on gravitational-wave detectors, which calculate negative space in things like black holes and imploding galaxies, has been at the very front edge of Einsteinian astrophysics. At one point Obst and Thorne were brainstorming about, as Obst puts it, "the most exotic events in the universe suddenly becoming accessible to humans," and crafted a potential cinematic scenario that hooked Spielberg enough to consider directing.
And that version was... Well, let's just say that Jar Jar Abrams and studio heads would have loved it. There is sex in zero gravity and a Chinese expedition too. And the robot wears a baseball cap.
a. the MP3 player is badly designed. There should be sufficient capacitance to smooth the power level out to within a few percent of standard even at full read or write. Alternatively the audio traces could be routed too close to the data lines or the designer for the DAC may have had a bad day. This means that the MP3 player was cheap enough that the designers weren't allowed the time to test their design properly.
Let's face it - from the Quality-Cheap-Quick triangle (pick any two) 'a' covers TWO possibilities. Meaning that it will ALWAYS be present in anything you can purchase with money alone without waiting for years for someone to design and build and test it specially, just for you.
And no... paying premium MONEY for design is not the solution. Only premium TIME spent on design-testing-redesign-retesting... counts for something. So one ends up with an overpriced AND outdated 128MB player that plays their 64 bps MP3s without any outside noise whatsoever. Making everyone in their retirement home jealous of their superior audio bling. Or not.
Which brings us back to SONY, who MAY actually be rectifying a real problem and not selling snake oil. AND... Should they actually succeed, they are opening further possibilities to future designers who now don't have to care about that one issue anymore.
It's just a tool. It's how one sees it and uses it that liberates or enslaves. One man's magical no-baby pill is another man's realization that no one want's his genetic material, only his sexual favors.
But being a cynical asshole, I hereby prophesize that this will be labeled as an "instrument of rape culture".
As the song says, this ain't no garden of Eden, this isn't the summer of love. It's no longer the '60s. Now everything exists only as polar extremes. White-black, good-evil, love-hate... You can't not choose sides, mildly dislike something or be ambivalent towards it. You must love it or mildly praise it - or you are an -ist of some kind and a hater. Which is now the ultimate reduction - Reductio ad Osoribus.
And since one pill liberated women, only logical black-white conclusion is that this one will enslave them. Or are you an -ist of some kind?
..."Scientists Still Trying To Determine Who Exactly Was On First".
It's an imaginary problem involving perfectly rational actors. Humans are NOT rational. End of story. Trying to "solve it" with humans is like trying to calculate a joke.
The risk of VAPP is not equal for all OPV doses in the vaccination series. The risk of VAPP is 7 to 21 times higher for the first dose than for any other dose in the OPV series. From 1980 through 1994, 303 million doses of OPV were distributed and 125 cases of VAPP were reported, for an overall risk of VAPP of one case per 2.4 million doses. Forty-nine paralytic cases were reported among immunocompetent recipients of OPV during this period. The overall risk to these recipients was one VAPP case per 6.2 million OPV doses. However, 40 (82%) of these 49 cases occurred following receipt of the first dose, making the risk of VAPP one case per 1.4 million first doses. The risk for all other doses was one per 27.2 million doses. ... The last case of VAPP acquired in the United States was reported in 1999.
New cases per 100,000 population in 2011 Rubeola (measles) 0.06
That's 1 in 1.66 million for measles. 1 in 2.4 million for Vaccine-Associated Paralytic Polio - overall risk. 1 in 1.4 million for Vaccine-Associated Paralytic Polio - for first doses. 1 in 27.2 million for Vaccine-Associated Paralytic Polio - for all other doses.
Only thing is, that 1 in 1.66 million number for measles is for a single year, 2011. Even the "worst" numbers for polio vaccine are from data FOR 14 YEARS. 1980 - 1994. What are the numbers for that period for measles?
New cases per 100,000 population in 1980 Rubeola (measles) 5.96
New cases per 100,000 population in 1990 Rubeola (measles) 11.17
That's somewhere between 1 in 16778.52 and 1 in 8952.55 during a similar time period, vs. 1 in 1400000 to 1 in 27200000. You can't really compare them for "new outbreaks" - AS THERE WERE NONE FOR POLIO SINCE 1999.
As for lightning strikes data... That may be more relevant in the lottery discussion from the other day. As those are both cases closer to pure mathematical chance, while measles and vaccines are preventable risks. Though in reality those lightning strikes probably fail to match their average US numbers when comparing millions of people riding on subways and people climbing mountains.
I.e. You can significantly increase your chances to get hit by lightning, but not really for catching polio from a vaccine or for winning a jackpot.
Oliver is fine doing his own "Stewart wannabe" show. There he can be as opinionated and as biased as he wants, his fans will think he's funny and even insightful. But you can forget him replacing Stewart on the Daily Show.
Cause while Stewart will coast into false equivalences and non sequiturs and even ad hominems for comedic effect - he still always works from a sound and reasoned out perspective, which makes him insightful. And that practice is what makes people actually turn to that show for their news. Which might seem kinda insane, but then again... If you want someone to point out flaws in the logic you're being fed AND explain why it is so in simple, easy to understand terms... who else is there?
Oliver on the other hand is blind to his own flaws. He does an entire segment on pandering and how it is bad - and then keeps doing exactly that in his other segments. He doesn't think through or research his segments as thoroughly nor as dispassionately as it is needed, and he loves to preach. Which makes him a pale copy of Stewart and half a step away from becoming a left/liberal/SJW/whatever version of O'Reilly.
Granted, there is audience for that, but that is not the Daily Show audience. Put him on as Stewart's replacement and he'll kill it. Off.
Or maybe it's related to the fact that two of them are married and that they got three kids while on the show?
Meaning that since Jones joined the show in 2005, Bee was on and off every two years. And having three kids to raise can put a strain on people's marriage and/or career. As they're still together...
In 1993, a court found that the reasoning which the publishing house used to produce their own editions was flawed: where they reasoned that the lapse of a copyright renewal indicated that it was a de facto forfeiture of rights, the court disagreed. The opinion noted that provisions within a 1909 copyright law did protect the rights of the original copyright holder: While " 'forfeitures are never to be inferred from doubtful language.' Washingtonian Publishing Co. v. Pearson, 306 U.S. 30, 42, 59 S.Ct. 397, 403, 83 L.Ed. 470 (1938), this rule need not be relied upon: the 1909 Copyright Act makes no provision anywhere for forfeiture of copyrights of aliens because of distribution of their works without a copyright notice."
Which does not mean that Tolkein was not a dick and a two-faced bigoted stuck-up asshole.
Tolkien was not interested in seeing his books in paperback form: "When he called up Professor Tolkien in 1964 and asked if he could publish Lord of the Rings as Ace paperbacks, Tolkien said he would never allow his great works to appear in so 'degenerate a form' as the paperback book." ... It's interesting to see that Tolkien utilized the fanbase that he so abhorred to fight back against the unauthorized editions. He was also correct: The incredible publicity that the row received, which pulled in efforts from the Science Fiction Writers of America, helped to grow the fervent readership for the tales from Middle Earth. It's also ironic that while Tolkien had resisted so " 'degenerate a form' as the paperback book," it was in that format which they first appeared and grew in popularity within the United States.
Sufficiently advanced magic would simply bend and alter reality without the need for shimmering or floating eyes. Which are artifacts of insufficiently advanced technology as well as the similarly advanced magic.
Sufficiently advanced technology would have a small flock of self-propelled and autonomously-powered pico-cams flying around the wearer of the invisibility item. Each cam would posses many modes of vision, sound, temperature and other telemetry including but not limited to zoom, infrared, ultraviolet, smell-o-vision, microscopic vision, 360 degree dome etc. - projected directly to the inner side of the invisibility item OR into wearer's mind.
Seeing around, over or through corners would be as simple as getting the entire swarm into someone's body, floating it into their brain and causing an aneurism there.
On the contrary, helping people to succeed does not necessarily mean that others do not succeed. There are not a finite number of "successes," as you imply is the case
In some theoretical sense, yes - it is beneficial to everyone in a society and the society as a whole if there is some way to help those in need. No issue there.
Problem is that the case described above is not that. It is favoritism according to sex, parental income and racial/ethnic status.
Only one of those can be in some way or form a responsibility of the society, and a thing that society should work to amend. "Amending" someone's racial or gender status is not only wrong on account of such actions treating perfectly normal biological attributes as a disability. It is favoritism and built-in corruption BECAUSE it treats one's perfectly healthy biological attributes as a disability.
It is exactly the same thing as giving a pass to an athlete on account of his/her biological ability to run after or with a ball. Or someone getting their doctor friend to diagnose them with a disability which would allow them to park in the handicapped spots.
Also, while there is no such thing as "a finite number of "successes"" - there IS such a thing as a finite number of chairs, computers and teachers per classroom, classrooms per school, classes per day etc.
Again... if resources can be made more available in such a fashion that those who could not get access to those resources DUE TO SCARCITY OF RESOURCES could now get access, without taking away access to said resources from others - no issue there. I.e. By BUYING more computers and chairs, HIRING more teachers, BUILDING more classrooms, holding more classes... by getting MORE resources.
If it can be done by addressing NON-BIOLOGICAL factors, by widening the doors to the classroom so to speak - GREAT. If you have to put a gender/race/ethnicity percentage checker on the door to the classroom to get the right amount of each flavor of kids - that's corruption and favoritism.
Bilbo only uses the ring to fool the dragon, the ring was not made or previously owned by said dragon. It was actually Sauron who forged the ring, as it was explained already in Lord of the Rings.
Best the kids learn early that rational thought and reason does not exist if the words threat, school, sex, gay, religion, race, and more are used in a sentence.
From TFA:
He's already been suspended three times this school year. Two of the disciplinary actions this year were in-school suspensions for referring to a classmate as black and bringing his favorite book to school: "The Big Book of Knowledge."
"He loves that book. They were studying the solar system and he took it to school. He thought his teacher would be impressed," Steward said.
But the teacher learned the popular children's encyclopedia had a section on pregnancy, depicting a pregnant woman in an illustration, he explained.
After the remaining population had been expelled, the Germans continued the destruction of the city.[7] Special groups of German engineers were dispatched to burn and demolish the remaining buildings. According to German plans, after the war Warsaw was to be turned into nothing more than a military transit station,[73] or even an artificial lake[150] â" the latter of which the Nazi leadership had already intended to implement for the Soviet/Russian capital of Moscow in 1941.[151][152] The demolition squads used flamethrowers and explosives to methodically destroy house after house. They paid special attention to historical monuments, Polish national archives and places of interest.[153]
That's what happens to those who think that you can just pick up a rifle and defeat an entire army. They kill you, then burn you, then stomp you into the ground THEN THEY PUT A FUCKING LAKE OVER YOU!
And if you think that guerrilla warfare is the answer, go over to Spain and ask the Maquis how that goes.
You're basing your ideas on some romanticized form of survivor bias. Primarily regarding the factors of how brutal and motivated the military is to EXTERMINATE any opposition. You only need to "conquer" someone if you need them for something later. If you just need the land or the fillings in their teeth or just don't care...
In the American Revolutionary War (1775â"1783), France recognized American independence in 1778, Went to war with Britain, and sent its army and navy as well as money and munitions. French intervention made a decisive contribution to the American victory in the war. Motivated by revenge for its losses in the Seven Years War, France began secretly sending supplies in 1775. Spain and the Netherlands joined France, Making it a world war in which the British had no major allies. France got its revenge, but materially it gained little and was left with 1000 million livre in debts.
The very reference quoted for cash reserves paint a much grimmer picture.
Of a company getting its shit together but still being far away from standing back up, not yet breaking even but already looking for ways to cut another billion dollars of expenses on top of that goal, sacking thousands of employees, planning further layoffs and actually quite needing those $150 million to pay off a short term debt ($152 million actually) and other debts. Also, claiming at the time that they didn't need partners nor that they were approached by anyone. That was July. Next month they announce they're partnering up with Microsoft.
$150 million wasn't just money. MS agreed not to sell that stock for the next 3 years. It was a guarantee of solvency and trust. "MS plans to hold on to Apple stock. They must know something no one else does. Maybe it's not the time to get rid of it yet. Maybe it's time to buy more of it."
That's what $150 million and partnership with MS got them. Not just cash in hand.
FOOL CONFERENCE CALL SYNOPSIS* By Debora Tidwell (TMF Debit)
Apple Computer, Inc. (Nasdaq: AAPL) One Infinite Loop Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 996-1010 http://www.apple.com/
ALEXANDRIA, VA (July 17, 1997)/FOOLWIRE/ --- Apple Computer, Inc. released their third quarter 1997 results after the market close yesterday. Revenues for the quarter were $1.7 billion compared to $1.6 billion last quarter and $2.2 billion in last year's third quarter. International sales accounted for 53% of revenues in the quarter. Gross margins for the quarter were 20% compared to 18.9% last quarter and 18.5% in the year-ago third quarter. The company reported a net loss for the quarter of $56 million or $(0.44) per share compared to a net loss of $708 million or $(5.64) per share last quarter and a net loss of $32 million or $(0.26) in the year-ago quarter.
OPERATING LOSS. The company's loss from operations was $60 million representing a significant sequential improvement from the loss from operations of $186 million exclusive of charges for restructuring and writeoffs of in-process R&D. The company's loss from operations a year ago was $160 million. Operating expenses for the quarter were $408 million, down $81 million from last quarter, exclusive of charges for restructuring and the writeoffs of in-process R&D, and down $111 million compared to the year-ago quarter. One analyst noted that they are ahead of their projected expense reduction targets and asked if there were new targets. Apple responded that consistent with wanting to drive the break-even point below $8 billion, they will want to drive the operating expenses, which had been targeted at $400 million per quarter or $1.6 billion, lower.
UNIT SALES. In terms of sales, revenues increased by 8.5% sequentially. Unit sales were approximately 698,000 and represented a 6-8% sequential increase over last quarter. The sequential growth was driven largely by sales in the US education market, as well as greatly improved sales in Japan. Unit sales of Apple-branded entry level desktop products, which they are now referring to as "value product line" internally grew by approximately 27% during the quarter while sales of the flagship PowerMac products grew by 32%. Sequential growth in these two product lines were offset in part by a 29% reduction of Powerbook unit sales. They attribute the reduction in Powerbook sales to both an easing in the pent-up demand for their high-end 3400 series, which was introduced last quarter, as well as general softness in the entry level segment of the Powerbook space.
OTHER INCOME. Other income breaks down as follows: $18 million in interest income, $18 million in interest expense, a foreign exchange gain of about $6 million, and then a couple of other minor items. Claris was a little lower than last quarter at $55 million in
...that which can be explained by pandering. Mainly by Slashdot.
From TFA.
Favorability ratings for the National Security Agency (NSA) have changed little since the fall of 2013
Except... Back then unfavorable/favorable/don't know ratio was 35/54/11.
Now it is 37/51/12. With a +/- 2.9 percentage points error, sample-wise. Or +/- 4.1 form-wise. Going all the way up to +/- 8.8 for "Form 1" republicans.
Which tells us that in those year and a half, unfavorable/favorable ratio has shifted towards unfavorable. And it may be up to 5 percentage points. That's 1 in 20.
Also, comparison of data shows that U/F ratio has slipped across the board towards unfavorable. NASA, VA and CDC have dropped by 2, 13 and 9 points. Department of Veterans Affairs has dropped by 13 points.
Distrust towards federal government has risen across the board.
The other thing is, survey was AIMED at younger people.
Respondents in the landline sample were selected by randomly asking for the youngest adult male or female who is now at home. Interviews in the cell sample were conducted with the person who answered the phone, if that person was an adult 18 years of age or older.
Add to that how
Among those with less education, favorable opinions of the NSA outnumber unfavorable views.
And you get results of a pole where few older, better educated or simply suspicious about the federal government in general, shift the ratio towards unfavorable on their end. While a greater majority (about the third of surveyed population was deliberately chosen among the younger adults) of younger population is picked from the less educated.
Causing the 65+ group to be deliberately a LOT smaller, more extremist and opinionated, get-off-my-lawn group, than the artificially inflated 18-29 group.
And it is kinda important to keep that artificial inflation in mind, as "unfavorable" opinion of NSA rises with the level of education.
Post-grads have almost exactly the same opinion of NSA as 50-64-year-olds - i.e. 45 / 45 / 10.
It ain't the stupidity, disinterest NOR shrewdness of the youth. It's the EDUCATION and/or EXPERIENCE. "If well informed" is simply another way of saying educated.
Not the purposefully coordinated kind where everyone meets in a dark room somewhere to plot their actions, but the kind where everyone sharing fundamentally rotten values leads to effectively coordinated flock behaviour.
That's philosophy. Ideology. Worldview.
There is no need for a conspiracy to cover up anything - if everyone KNOWS not to be a "snitch". Or a "rat". Or a "stool pigeon". You know... a traitor.
People will act independently towards the same goal, if they share the same philosophy or ideology. Individuals don't even need to be aware of each other's existence for it to work. They just need to have a same set of beliefs and/or ideas.
And that tells you that your simplistic view that obesity is due to a "difference in metabolism" can't be true
I'll leave simplistic views to you, thank you very much.
You're the one spouting single cause, "you people are eating too much - that's why you're fat" nonsense.
and if people who exercise stopped exercising for a few weeks, they'd balloon.
That's exactly what happens to many high-school/college sports stars once they hit regular employment and stop their regular exercise. Not in a few weeks though, as it takes longer to lose ALL that muscle and replace it with fat, and cause it takes A LOT of fat for it to become noticeable as they are already "big".
Obesity occurs when you keep eating even though your caloric needs are met; the difference is stored as fat. Most commonly that happens because processed foods are so efficient at delivering calories that you have ingested excess calories before your body tells you to stop eating, and because simple carbs are absorbed too quickly to be utilized. And the way to fix that is to eat foods that deliver calories slower.
Back to single bullet theory are we? Simplistic much? Or not enough?
Eating less IS a solution but unless you're in a prison or a hospital or have a personal cook/dietician counting your calorie intake - it will only cause you to yo-yo up and down. Average human can't measure accurately OR afford to match in/out calories to the letter. So, they end up starving themselves then binging on food then trying to quickly starve-off and sweat-off those calories - which is impossible. It takes 10 seconds to eat a candy bar and two hours of walking or more to burn it out.
Let's assume that one can measure calories with great precision. Only eat measured out and labeled food. And let's take a 2000 calories BMR, with "little to no exercise" 1.2 activity factor included in there. Now reduce that by not eating 100 grams of white bread (about 2-3 slices) each day to an intake of 1740. That's a reduction of 1820 per week, or about a pound of fat lost every 2 weeks.
A single 14", 850 gram pizza on Sunday, as a "reward" for keeping up with the diet is 2269 calories. Add a large, 500 ml Coke and that's another 210 calories. There goes the entire week of dieting, with 659 calories to spare. That's a pound of fat gained every 5 weeks, while on a diet.
Cause people are not robots. Heck, forget the pizza. Friends and family will make one eat that AND MORE - out of politeness.
Now, try that same regimen - but with half an hour to an hour of cardio+strength 3 times a week, knocking down about 100 calories and increasing one's activity factor to 1.375. That's a change of 3*100 calories on exercise, plus an additional 291 daily calorie difference. Now add that to those 1820 calories from diet alone. 260*7 + 100*3 + 291*7 = 4157 calories reduced, per week. Instead of 1820.
Now you can have that pizza and coke AND lose a pound every two weeks AND gain muscle. Or just drop that diet and keep it at 2000 calories.
Now... Which one is easier to keep up with? Making sure one's calorie intake matches one's calorie expenditure 7 days a week - OR making sure that one's BMR is kept a LITTLE higher only 3 times a week? One is very hard to measure and takes a lot of will power. The other is relatively easy to measure with a pedometer, a clock, a scale and the ability to count to 10. And it takes a lot less will power. Because BMR.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not how it would work. It's cloth. It has ripples and shades.
There would be patterned ripples across the dress where "real" colors would show in shades or highlights.
IF the photo itself wasn't messed up by the camera/software, effectively replacing the color palette in the entire photo.
William Gibson foresaw this in his "Bigend cycle" books.
Hubertus Bigend wears International Klein Blue suits just to fuck with everyone else, as it can't be represented correctly on monitors or in print - note two different whites in the color corrected photo in order to get both the skin tones and the dress right.
Gibson just didn't thought of adding shitty CCDs to the list of technology with issues with reproduction of the color.
Or, illiterate "designers".
She calls it "Royal Blue" in the video.
Sure... If one could get people to wear a computer screen, calibrated to show the web palette of colors.
There will be little difference. THERE. On the screen.
Especially if one's screen is not even close to calibrated.
On the other hand.... Trying to mix those "equivalent" values listed in RGB and CMYK.
In Web-RGB they WILL look exactly the same. And so will the blacks.
http://i.imgur.com/QdL00rr.jpg
Ask the same industry standard company to do it using their other, more professional tool, with full RGB and CMYK gamut...
http://i.imgur.com/46B6H55.jpg
And just try using the RGB and CMYK values for Ultramarine (essentially IKB).
http://i.imgur.com/Idc2pr7.jpg
The color she envisioned on her screen is NOT the color of cloth chosen for the dress, based on the color on the screen.
She wanted "royal blue" but picked ultramarine - because Web-RGB royal blue is closer to aquamarine IRL.
The person designing the dress DOES NOT KNOW WHAT COLOR IT IS.
It's not about "rods and cones" and "everyone seeing colors a little differently".
It's about people using wrong names for colors, often calling many different colors by the same name and the same color by different names.
Then it is about faulty capture technology and badly written color conversion and calibration algorithms.
Then it is about faulty display technology, which can't show the same image under different viewing angles.
THEN, and only then, MAYBE, color perception and ambient lighting might fool the untrained eye.
But it is most likely that in most cases it is again different people calling a shade of red pink and orange.
While trying to GUESS the "correct" color from a crappy photo on a crappy screen.
1) It consumes nitrogen from the atmosphere, binding it in the form that humans can't breathe, while eating up ALL PLANT LIFE at the same time.
Humans just managed to create species of plants they need for food which managed to stand out longer.
They got dustbowls because there are no more plants to hold down the dirt. On the entire planet.
Corn is the last EDIBLE PLANT that they can grow. Possibly last plant at all. And that would include plankton.
It's Soylent Green all over again. It's not about the food - it's about the collapse of the entire biosphere.
2) It's a post global war society, REVERTING BACK to old technology.
Think 20th century humans going back to horse and cart.
They still got the science and knowledge, they just don't have the resources anymore.
And they are clearly far more advanced in robotics and AI, they have means of artificially growing humans without a human uterus, they have space planes which can take off from the surface of a planet unassisted, cryogenics...
3) Because the entire setting of the story was picked and arranged by the distant future humans to provide the conditions for present (in the movie) humans to OBSERVE a very specific black hole and then transfer that data back to Earth without violating causality - with the help of a temporary tesseract attached along the universe and then collapsed.
They've scoured the ENTIRE UNIVERSE to find them those exact conditions.
No time traveling or time altering ever takes place nor does any matter or information leave or enter the universe.
All they did was bend the existing space to get humans to a place where data for figuring out anti-gravity could be gathered.
4) "Future utopia" would not exist without the data gathered by observing a black hole for 20 years or so, then dropping an AI probe into it, then telegraphing all that OUT of the black hole without breaking causality, to a specific point in space-time to a specific human with training and motivation to solve the problem and a means of reading the message.
Why aren't they leaving a perfectly good solar system with a slightly used home planet in a goldilocks zone that has only been messed up a little by an ecological catastrophe, and with dozens of planets, moons and asteroids laying around...
I'm guessing smurfs.
Also, what makes you think that it's an utopia?
Those are kids and grandkids of generations of "caretakers". Not explorers.
They've sent the last batch of explorers out to die far away in space somewhere.
They just want to play baseball and eat corn. And "take care" of museums.
Lynda Obst and Kip Thorne came up with the the movie, then gave it to Spielberg and Jonathan Nolan to work out a scenario.
http://articles.latimes.com/20...
It's a project that has its genesis in the two-decades-long friendship between Obst, an astronomy enthusiast who produced "The Siege" and "The Fisher King," and Thorne, the Feynman professor of theoretical physics at Caltech. (When Obst was producing "Contact," adapted by screenwriters James V. Hart and Michael Goldenberg from Carl Sagan's novel, Thorne conceptualized a wormhole sequence for the film that also advanced the field of theoretical physics.)
Over the years, Thorne's work on gravitational-wave detectors, which calculate negative space in things like black holes and imploding galaxies, has been at the very front edge of Einsteinian astrophysics. At one point Obst and Thorne were brainstorming about, as Obst puts it, "the most exotic events in the universe suddenly becoming accessible to humans," and crafted a potential cinematic scenario that hooked Spielberg enough to consider directing.
And that version was...
Well, let's just say that Jar Jar Abrams and studio heads would have loved it.
There is sex in zero gravity and a Chinese expedition too. And the robot wears a baseball cap.
a. the MP3 player is badly designed. There should be sufficient capacitance to smooth the power level out to within a few percent of standard even at full read or write. Alternatively the audio traces could be routed too close to the data lines or the designer for the DAC may have had a bad day.
This means that the MP3 player was cheap enough that the designers weren't allowed the time to test their design properly.
Let's face it - from the Quality-Cheap-Quick triangle (pick any two) 'a' covers TWO possibilities.
Meaning that it will ALWAYS be present in anything you can purchase with money alone without waiting for years for someone to design and build and test it specially, just for you.
And no... paying premium MONEY for design is not the solution.
Only premium TIME spent on design-testing-redesign-retesting... counts for something.
So one ends up with an overpriced AND outdated 128MB player that plays their 64 bps MP3s without any outside noise whatsoever.
Making everyone in their retirement home jealous of their superior audio bling. Or not.
Which brings us back to SONY, who MAY actually be rectifying a real problem and not selling snake oil.
AND...
Should they actually succeed, they are opening further possibilities to future designers who now don't have to care about that one issue anymore.
It's just a tool.
It's how one sees it and uses it that liberates or enslaves.
One man's magical no-baby pill is another man's realization that no one want's his genetic material, only his sexual favors.
But being a cynical asshole, I hereby prophesize that this will be labeled as an "instrument of rape culture".
As the song says, this ain't no garden of Eden, this isn't the summer of love. It's no longer the '60s.
Now everything exists only as polar extremes. White-black, good-evil, love-hate...
You can't not choose sides, mildly dislike something or be ambivalent towards it.
You must love it or mildly praise it - or you are an -ist of some kind and a hater.
Which is now the ultimate reduction - Reductio ad Osoribus.
And since one pill liberated women, only logical black-white conclusion is that this one will enslave them.
Or are you an -ist of some kind?
..."Scientists Still Trying To Determine Who Exactly Was On First".
It's an imaginary problem involving perfectly rational actors. Humans are NOT rational. End of story.
Trying to "solve it" with humans is like trying to calculate a joke.
From the links provided above:
The risk of VAPP is not equal for all OPV doses in the vaccination series. The risk of VAPP is 7 to 21 times higher for the first dose than for any other dose in the OPV series. From 1980 through 1994, 303 million doses of OPV were distributed and 125 cases of VAPP were reported, for an overall risk of VAPP of one case per 2.4 million doses. Forty-nine paralytic cases were reported among immunocompetent recipients of OPV during this period. The overall risk to these recipients was one VAPP case per 6.2 million OPV doses. However, 40 (82%) of these 49 cases occurred following receipt of the first dose, making the risk of VAPP one case per 1.4 million first doses. The risk for all other doses was one per 27.2 million doses.
...
The last case of VAPP acquired in the United States was reported in 1999.
New cases per 100,000 population in 2011
Rubeola (measles) 0.06
That's 1 in 1.66 million for measles.
1 in 2.4 million for Vaccine-Associated Paralytic Polio - overall risk.
1 in 1.4 million for Vaccine-Associated Paralytic Polio - for first doses.
1 in 27.2 million for Vaccine-Associated Paralytic Polio - for all other doses.
Only thing is, that 1 in 1.66 million number for measles is for a single year, 2011.
Even the "worst" numbers for polio vaccine are from data FOR 14 YEARS. 1980 - 1994.
What are the numbers for that period for measles?
New cases per 100,000 population in 1980
Rubeola (measles) 5.96
New cases per 100,000 population in 1990
Rubeola (measles) 11.17
That's somewhere between 1 in 16778.52 and 1 in 8952.55 during a similar time period, vs. 1 in 1400000 to 1 in 27200000.
You can't really compare them for "new outbreaks" - AS THERE WERE NONE FOR POLIO SINCE 1999.
As for lightning strikes data...
That may be more relevant in the lottery discussion from the other day.
As those are both cases closer to pure mathematical chance, while measles and vaccines are preventable risks.
Though in reality those lightning strikes probably fail to match their average US numbers when comparing millions of people riding on subways and people climbing mountains.
I.e. You can significantly increase your chances to get hit by lightning, but not really for catching polio from a vaccine or for winning a jackpot.
Oliver is fine doing his own "Stewart wannabe" show.
There he can be as opinionated and as biased as he wants, his fans will think he's funny and even insightful.
But you can forget him replacing Stewart on the Daily Show.
Cause while Stewart will coast into false equivalences and non sequiturs and even ad hominems for comedic effect - he still always works from a sound and reasoned out perspective, which makes him insightful.
And that practice is what makes people actually turn to that show for their news.
Which might seem kinda insane, but then again...
If you want someone to point out flaws in the logic you're being fed AND explain why it is so in simple, easy to understand terms... who else is there?
Oliver on the other hand is blind to his own flaws.
He does an entire segment on pandering and how it is bad - and then keeps doing exactly that in his other segments.
He doesn't think through or research his segments as thoroughly nor as dispassionately as it is needed, and he loves to preach.
Which makes him a pale copy of Stewart and half a step away from becoming a left/liberal/SJW/whatever version of O'Reilly.
Granted, there is audience for that, but that is not the Daily Show audience.
Put him on as Stewart's replacement and he'll kill it.
Off.
Or maybe it's related to the fact that two of them are married and that they got three kids while on the show?
Meaning that since Jones joined the show in 2005, Bee was on and off every two years.
And having three kids to raise can put a strain on people's marriage and/or career.
As they're still together...
Not quite.
On slashdot it may yet return to a positive number. On reddit it would be couple of million in the negative by now.
Ace Books DID pirate LotR books.
https://www.kirkusreviews.com/...
In 1993, a court found that the reasoning which the publishing house used to produce their own editions was flawed: where they reasoned that the lapse of a copyright renewal indicated that it was a de facto forfeiture of rights, the court disagreed. The opinion noted that provisions within a 1909 copyright law did protect the rights of the original copyright holder: While " 'forfeitures are never to be inferred from doubtful language.' Washingtonian Publishing Co. v. Pearson, 306 U.S. 30, 42, 59 S.Ct. 397, 403, 83 L.Ed. 470 (1938), this rule need not be relied upon: the 1909 Copyright Act makes no provision anywhere for forfeiture of copyrights of aliens because of distribution of their works without a copyright notice."
Which does not mean that Tolkein was not a dick and a two-faced bigoted stuck-up asshole.
Tolkien was not interested in seeing his books in paperback form: "When he called up Professor Tolkien in 1964 and asked if he could publish Lord of the Rings as Ace paperbacks, Tolkien said he would never allow his great works to appear in so 'degenerate a form' as the paperback book."
...
It's interesting to see that Tolkien utilized the fanbase that he so abhorred to fight back against the unauthorized editions. He was also correct: The incredible publicity that the row received, which pulled in efforts from the Science Fiction Writers of America, helped to grow the fervent readership for the tales from Middle Earth. It's also ironic that while Tolkien had resisted so " 'degenerate a form' as the paperback book," it was in that format which they first appeared and grew in popularity within the United States.
Sufficiently advanced magic would simply bend and alter reality without the need for shimmering or floating eyes.
Which are artifacts of insufficiently advanced technology as well as the similarly advanced magic.
Sufficiently advanced technology would have a small flock of self-propelled and autonomously-powered pico-cams flying around the wearer of the invisibility item.
Each cam would posses many modes of vision, sound, temperature and other telemetry including but not limited to zoom, infrared, ultraviolet, smell-o-vision, microscopic vision, 360 degree dome etc. - projected directly to the inner side of the invisibility item OR into wearer's mind.
Seeing around, over or through corners would be as simple as getting the entire swarm into someone's body, floating it into their brain and causing an aneurism there.
On the contrary, helping people to succeed does not necessarily mean that others do not succeed. There are not a finite number of "successes," as you imply is the case
In some theoretical sense, yes - it is beneficial to everyone in a society and the society as a whole if there is some way to help those in need.
No issue there.
Problem is that the case described above is not that.
It is favoritism according to sex, parental income and racial/ethnic status.
Only one of those can be in some way or form a responsibility of the society, and a thing that society should work to amend.
"Amending" someone's racial or gender status is not only wrong on account of such actions treating perfectly normal biological attributes as a disability.
It is favoritism and built-in corruption BECAUSE it treats one's perfectly healthy biological attributes as a disability.
It is exactly the same thing as giving a pass to an athlete on account of his/her biological ability to run after or with a ball.
Or someone getting their doctor friend to diagnose them with a disability which would allow them to park in the handicapped spots.
Also, while there is no such thing as "a finite number of "successes"" - there IS such a thing as a finite number of chairs, computers and teachers per classroom, classrooms per school, classes per day etc.
Again... if resources can be made more available in such a fashion that those who could not get access to those resources DUE TO SCARCITY OF RESOURCES could now get access, without taking away access to said resources from others - no issue there.
I.e. By BUYING more computers and chairs, HIRING more teachers, BUILDING more classrooms, holding more classes... by getting MORE resources.
If it can be done by addressing NON-BIOLOGICAL factors, by widening the doors to the classroom so to speak - GREAT.
If you have to put a gender/race/ethnicity percentage checker on the door to the classroom to get the right amount of each flavor of kids - that's corruption and favoritism.
This is why my partner and I make sacrifices in order to send our child to a private school.
To which deity and/or demon? And does he/she/it demand living things or only objects or food?
Blindness by invisibility is only a problem when using SCIENCE.
Magical invisibility causes no such issues.
Is it draconian?
That's a common misconception.
Bilbo only uses the ring to fool the dragon, the ring was not made or previously owned by said dragon.
It was actually Sauron who forged the ring, as it was explained already in Lord of the Rings.
Best the kids learn early that rational thought and reason does not exist if the words threat, school, sex, gay, religion, race, and more are used in a sentence.
From TFA:
He's already been suspended three times this school year.
Two of the disciplinary actions this year were in-school suspensions for referring to a classmate as black and bringing his favorite book to school: "The Big Book of Knowledge."
"He loves that book. They were studying the solar system and he took it to school. He thought his teacher would be impressed," Steward said.
But the teacher learned the popular children's encyclopedia had a section on pregnancy, depicting a pregnant woman in an illustration, he explained.
Actually, history has proven that no military, no matter how powerful, no matter how brutal, can ever conquer an armed civilian population.
Look up Hungary in 1956.
Or Warsaw in 1944.
After the remaining population had been expelled, the Germans continued the destruction of the city.[7] Special groups of German engineers were dispatched to burn and demolish the remaining buildings. According to German plans, after the war Warsaw was to be turned into nothing more than a military transit station,[73] or even an artificial lake[150] â" the latter of which the Nazi leadership had already intended to implement for the Soviet/Russian capital of Moscow in 1941.[151][152] The demolition squads used flamethrowers and explosives to methodically destroy house after house. They paid special attention to historical monuments, Polish national archives and places of interest.[153]
That's what happens to those who think that you can just pick up a rifle and defeat an entire army.
They kill you, then burn you, then stomp you into the ground THEN THEY PUT A FUCKING LAKE OVER YOU!
And if you think that guerrilla warfare is the answer, go over to Spain and ask the Maquis how that goes.
You're basing your ideas on some romanticized form of survivor bias.
Primarily regarding the factors of how brutal and motivated the military is to EXTERMINATE any opposition.
You only need to "conquer" someone if you need them for something later.
If you just need the land or the fillings in their teeth or just don't care...
You want to fight off an army - get an army and A BUNCH OF ALLIES.
In the American Revolutionary War (1775â"1783), France recognized American independence in 1778, Went to war with Britain, and sent its army and navy as well as money and munitions. French intervention made a decisive contribution to the American victory in the war. Motivated by revenge for its losses in the Seven Years War, France began secretly sending supplies in 1775. Spain and the Netherlands joined France, Making it a world war in which the British had no major allies. France got its revenge, but materially it gained little and was left with 1000 million livre in debts.
The very reference quoted for cash reserves paint a much grimmer picture.
Of a company getting its shit together but still being far away from standing back up, not yet breaking even but already looking for ways to cut another billion dollars of expenses on top of that goal, sacking thousands of employees, planning further layoffs and actually quite needing those $150 million to pay off a short term debt ($152 million actually) and other debts.
Also, claiming at the time that they didn't need partners nor that they were approached by anyone.
That was July. Next month they announce they're partnering up with Microsoft.
$150 million wasn't just money. MS agreed not to sell that stock for the next 3 years.
It was a guarantee of solvency and trust.
"MS plans to hold on to Apple stock. They must know something no one else does. Maybe it's not the time to get rid of it yet. Maybe it's time to buy more of it."
That's what $150 million and partnership with MS got them. Not just cash in hand.
https://www.fool.com/Calls/199...
FOOL CONFERENCE CALL SYNOPSIS*
By Debora Tidwell (TMF Debit)
Apple Computer, Inc.
(Nasdaq: AAPL)
One Infinite Loop
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 996-1010
http://www.apple.com/
ALEXANDRIA, VA (July 17, 1997)/FOOLWIRE/ --- Apple Computer, Inc. released their third quarter 1997 results after the market close yesterday. Revenues for the quarter were $1.7 billion compared to $1.6 billion last quarter and $2.2 billion in last year's third quarter. International sales accounted for 53% of revenues in the quarter. Gross margins for the quarter were 20% compared to 18.9% last quarter and 18.5% in the year-ago third quarter. The company reported a net loss for the quarter of $56 million or $(0.44) per share compared to a net loss of $708 million or $(5.64) per share last quarter and a net loss of $32 million or $(0.26) in the year-ago quarter.
OPERATING LOSS. The company's loss from operations was $60 million representing a significant sequential improvement from the loss from operations of $186 million exclusive of charges for restructuring and writeoffs of in-process R&D. The company's loss from operations a year ago was $160 million. Operating expenses for the quarter were $408 million, down $81 million from last quarter, exclusive of charges for restructuring and the writeoffs of in-process R&D, and down $111 million compared to the year-ago quarter. One analyst noted that they are ahead of their projected expense reduction targets and asked if there were new targets. Apple responded that consistent with wanting to drive the break-even point below $8 billion, they will want to drive the operating expenses, which had been targeted at $400 million per quarter or $1.6 billion, lower.
UNIT SALES. In terms of sales, revenues increased by 8.5% sequentially. Unit sales were approximately 698,000 and represented a 6-8% sequential increase over last quarter. The sequential growth was driven largely by sales in the US education market, as well as greatly improved sales in Japan. Unit sales of Apple-branded entry level desktop products, which they are now referring to as "value product line" internally grew by approximately 27% during the quarter while sales of the flagship PowerMac products grew by 32%. Sequential growth in these two product lines were offset in part by a 29% reduction of Powerbook unit sales. They attribute the reduction in Powerbook sales to both an easing in the pent-up demand for their high-end 3400 series, which was introduced last quarter, as well as general softness in the entry level segment of the Powerbook space.
OTHER INCOME. Other income breaks down as follows: $18 million in interest income, $18 million in interest expense, a foreign exchange gain of about $6 million, and then a couple of other minor items. Claris was a little lower than last quarter at $55 million in
...that which can be explained by pandering.
Mainly by Slashdot.
From TFA.
Favorability ratings for the National Security Agency (NSA) have changed little since the fall of 2013
Except...
Back then unfavorable/favorable/don't know ratio was 35/54/11.
Now it is 37/51/12.
With a +/- 2.9 percentage points error, sample-wise. Or +/- 4.1 form-wise.
Going all the way up to +/- 8.8 for "Form 1" republicans.
Which tells us that in those year and a half, unfavorable/favorable ratio has shifted towards unfavorable.
And it may be up to 5 percentage points. That's 1 in 20.
Also, comparison of data shows that U/F ratio has slipped across the board towards unfavorable.
NASA, VA and CDC have dropped by 2, 13 and 9 points.
Department of Veterans Affairs has dropped by 13 points.
Distrust towards federal government has risen across the board.
The other thing is, survey was AIMED at younger people.
Respondents in the landline sample were selected by randomly asking for the youngest adult male or female who is now at home. Interviews in the cell sample were conducted with the person who answered the phone, if that person was an adult 18 years of age or older.
Add to that how
Among those with less education, favorable opinions of the NSA outnumber unfavorable views.
And you get results of a pole where few older, better educated or simply suspicious about the federal government in general, shift the ratio towards unfavorable on their end.
While a greater majority (about the third of surveyed population was deliberately chosen among the younger adults) of younger population is picked from the less educated.
Causing the 65+ group to be deliberately a LOT smaller, more extremist and opinionated, get-off-my-lawn group, than the artificially inflated 18-29 group.
And it is kinda important to keep that artificial inflation in mind, as "unfavorable" opinion of NSA rises with the level of education.
Favorable / Unfavorable / Other/Don't Know
Post-grad: 45 / 43 / 12
College grad: 53 / 39 / 8
Some college: 53 / 37 / 11
HS or less: 51 / 36 / 13
Post-grads have almost exactly the same opinion of NSA as 50-64-year-olds - i.e. 45 / 45 / 10.
It ain't the stupidity, disinterest NOR shrewdness of the youth.
It's the EDUCATION and/or EXPERIENCE.
"If well informed" is simply another way of saying educated.
Excellent!
Unfortunately, you can't ask nature to sort her shit out.
You just need a pyramid, a fancy getup, some sharp knives and plenty of disposable humans for sacrifices.
I'm sure that internet will provide the instructables on how to remove human hearts most easily, along with some recipes.
Not the purposefully coordinated kind where everyone meets in a dark room somewhere to plot their actions, but the kind where everyone sharing fundamentally rotten values leads to effectively coordinated flock behaviour.
That's philosophy. Ideology. Worldview.
There is no need for a conspiracy to cover up anything - if everyone KNOWS not to be a "snitch". Or a "rat". Or a "stool pigeon".
You know... a traitor.
People will act independently towards the same goal, if they share the same philosophy or ideology.
Individuals don't even need to be aware of each other's existence for it to work.
They just need to have a same set of beliefs and/or ideas.
And that tells you that your simplistic view that obesity is due to a "difference in metabolism" can't be true
I'll leave simplistic views to you, thank you very much.
You're the one spouting single cause, "you people are eating too much - that's why you're fat" nonsense.
and if people who exercise stopped exercising for a few weeks, they'd balloon.
That's exactly what happens to many high-school/college sports stars once they hit regular employment and stop their regular exercise.
Not in a few weeks though, as it takes longer to lose ALL that muscle and replace it with fat, and cause it takes A LOT of fat for it to become noticeable as they are already "big".
Obesity occurs when you keep eating even though your caloric needs are met; the difference is stored as fat. Most commonly that happens because processed foods are so efficient at delivering calories that you have ingested excess calories before your body tells you to stop eating, and because simple carbs are absorbed too quickly to be utilized. And the way to fix that is to eat foods that deliver calories slower.
Back to single bullet theory are we? Simplistic much? Or not enough?
Eating less IS a solution but unless you're in a prison or a hospital or have a personal cook/dietician counting your calorie intake - it will only cause you to yo-yo up and down.
Average human can't measure accurately OR afford to match in/out calories to the letter.
So, they end up starving themselves then binging on food then trying to quickly starve-off and sweat-off those calories - which is impossible.
It takes 10 seconds to eat a candy bar and two hours of walking or more to burn it out.
Let's assume that one can measure calories with great precision. Only eat measured out and labeled food.
And let's take a 2000 calories BMR, with "little to no exercise" 1.2 activity factor included in there.
Now reduce that by not eating 100 grams of white bread (about 2-3 slices) each day to an intake of 1740.
That's a reduction of 1820 per week, or about a pound of fat lost every 2 weeks.
A single 14", 850 gram pizza on Sunday, as a "reward" for keeping up with the diet is 2269 calories.
Add a large, 500 ml Coke and that's another 210 calories.
There goes the entire week of dieting, with 659 calories to spare.
That's a pound of fat gained every 5 weeks, while on a diet.
Cause people are not robots. Heck, forget the pizza.
Friends and family will make one eat that AND MORE - out of politeness.
Now, try that same regimen - but with half an hour to an hour of cardio+strength 3 times a week, knocking down about 100 calories and increasing one's activity factor to 1.375.
That's a change of 3*100 calories on exercise, plus an additional 291 daily calorie difference.
Now add that to those 1820 calories from diet alone.
260*7 + 100*3 + 291*7 = 4157 calories reduced, per week. Instead of 1820.
Now you can have that pizza and coke AND lose a pound every two weeks AND gain muscle.
Or just drop that diet and keep it at 2000 calories.
Now... Which one is easier to keep up with?
Making sure one's calorie intake matches one's calorie expenditure 7 days a week - OR making sure that one's BMR is kept a LITTLE higher only 3 times a week?
One is very hard to measure and takes a lot of will power.
The other is relatively easy to measure with a pedometer, a clock, a scale and the ability to count to 10. And it takes a lot less will power.
Because BMR.
Who said that BMR is genetic alone?