only if they would have had access to read it already anyway. if windows didn't make a users data, documents, and web caches world readable by default this wouldn't be an issue.
anything google desktop search 'enables' somebody to find, they would have been able to find anyway without it. it just would have taken longer (and may have required a little more knowledge about what you were looking for).
while i can understand why some people might be leary of the security implications here, how in the world does this qualify as spyware? it doesn't pop up annoying adds, it doesn't send my data to some secret gathering place, it doesnt report any of my habits to any other person (unless thay also have physical access to my computer and can search for that information)
oh yeah, got ahead of myself. spyware is the new virus. its just a word one person uses to scare another person when neither one really knows what they are talking about. nothing to see, move along...
From the parent: The OQO is smaller and more portable but the TC1000 already feels "slightly below the minimum" with regards to comfortably reading webpages.
just a guess, but i interpreted that as "my device is already slightly too small to read web pages comfortably, so something even smaller would probably be worse"
has anybody ever figured out *how much* extra co2 humans have been pumping into the atmosphere? if we add up the millions of barrels of oil burned every year, and all the other co2 that we have been providing, does that add up to 1-2ppm increase per year for the last hundred years or so? i'm not trying to make a point one way or the other here, i'm asking an honest question.... the atmosphere is a big place, and the earth has a lot of it's own ways of adding co2 to it. how do we even know that our contributions make up 1% of that increase?
while i don't think it made it down into indiana, some parts of the united states have been buried by large glaciers as recently as 10,000 years ago. and more recently, say 500 years ago, the vikings established a thriving settlement on a rich and fertile island they called "Green Land".
anyway, i don't dispute the fact that the earth has been getting warmer, and i will even accept that there is a correlation with atmospheric co2 levels. and while i think that it would be a good idea for the u.s. to commit to reducing co2 emmissions (at least for political/diplomatic reasons if not out of genuine concern) until we understand the earth's climate model better, i don't believe that our understanding will improve much given the current situation. all of the research i've seen with regard to the actual _cause_ of the climate changes seems to have clear motivations, either commercially or politically. the only thing that people really seem to agree on is that the earth has indeed gotten warmer in the last hundred years or so, and that co2 levels have been observed to increase during that same timeframe.
running at redline will overheat your engine in rather short order (much faster at standstill obviously because you wont be taking any air into the engine to cool it off) but your engine won't immediately rev to the point where you will lose pistons or cause other irrepairable damage.
in this particular case, i would imagine the amount of time required to bring the car under control and turn it off with the transmission in neutral would not be long enough to cause lasting damage to the engine.
it's probably true to varying degrees for any non-sports car, but three of the specific cars in question were an 88 nissan sentra, an 87 jeep cherokee laredo, and a 92 eddie bauer ford explorer. the eddie bauer ford explorer was easily $1,000-$1,500 dollars less than the equivalently equipped automatic, and the jeep was probably about $800 less than an equivalently equipped automatic. on the nissan the price difference was probably fairly negligible, but the car also only cost us about $3000, iirc. in particular, if you are looking at a used suv, family sedan, and probably most types of trucks and vans, a stick will always be cheaper than a comparable automatic. for anything that considers itself a sports car, the opposite is probably true. for "sporty coupes" its probalby fairly even. with the small economy models it seems you rarely have a choice anymore, unless you are getting something with a "sports package" (see ssporty coupe).
The issue is not whether it's constitutional, but whether any state of decent size would willingly split up its electoral votes and thus reduce it's relevance in the outcome of the election. There's also the issue that if one large state that always goes the same way, such as new york or texas, unilateraly decides to split its vote, that would tip the balance the balance of th electoral college drastically to one party until a state or number of states leaning the other way does the same.
The person who I was arguing with claims that this could never happen unless a constitutional ammendment forced all the states to do it at once, because no state would agree to it unless all the others did as well.
personally, i think that the fact that two states already work this way, and a third is voting on it in this election means that it is possible for this to happen one state at a time (although i would welcome an ammendment to speed up the process)
Re:Does it work properly/completely with Opera yet
on
Gmail Adds Features
·
· Score: 1
I've been doing it for years as well. you don't need XmlHttpRequest, but it makes the process a hell of a lot simpler.
Re:Does it work properly/completely with Opera yet
on
Gmail Adds Features
·
· Score: 1
The posts that were originally stating that Gmail uses ActiveX were stating that if they went to Gmail with a browser pretending to be Internet Explorer were being turned away with a message saying that in order to use Gmail with Internet Explorer you need to have ActiveX enabled. There were a variety of people speculating about how ActiveX was used or why it was required, but it came straight from google that it was used and required.... Your ass-itude was completely uncalled for.
var control = (agt.indexOf('msie 5') != -1) ? 'Microsoft.XMLHTTP' : 'Msxml2.XMLHTTP'; try { new ActiveXObject(control); } catch (e) { top.location = '/gmail/html/noactivex.html'; }
Re:Does it work properly/completely with Opera yet
on
Gmail Adds Features
·
· Score: 1
most likely thay are using an XmlHttpRequest object to perform asynchronous I/O (i.e. load mailbox/message data without refreshing the whole page- you'll notice that pretty much no matter what you do in GMail, the page never actually reloads). In (Windows) Internet Explorer, XmlHttpRequest objects are instantiated by doing:
new ActiveXObject("Msxml2.XMLHTTP") or new ActiveXObject("Microsoft.XMLHTTP") (depending on the version of MSXML installed)
In Mozilla and recent versions of Safari, you just do: new XMLHttpRequest();
as far as i know, no other browsers support XmlHttpRequest currently- in other browsers you can imperfectly emulate the functionality by using Java or hidden iframes.
ummm..... neutral pretty much by definition means that the engine is not connected to the wheels in any way. every car i know of has a rev limiter that will keep you from doing serious damage to the engine while in neutral. you are probably more likely to over-rev the engine by down shifting, as the rev limiter will be useless while the engine is physically connected to the wheels and must rotate at a fixed ratio to the speeds the wheels are turning.
i've experienced this first hand twice in a manual, when the driver accidentally downshifted from 5th to 2nd instead of 5th to 4th. i would imagine most automatics wont let you downshift at all if it would redline the engine.
you probably drive a stick. that little button has been on every stick i've ever driven, but not on a single automatic. the first time my wife drove my old jeep, she had to ask me how to turn it off, because every car her family ever owned was an automatic.
i don't think it would help in this case- pushing that button becomes an automatic act that is just part of turning the key. anybody who doesnt know enough not to turn the car all the way off (and thus engage the wheel lock) will not be stopped by that button....
it depends on how picky you are about the car you are getting. of the five used cars my family has purchased since 1990, four have been stick shifts, mainly because a stick will knock about 5-10% of the resale value of a car- my father will specifically look for stick shifts when buying a used car because he knows he will be able to pick them up about $1000 dollars cheaper than an equivalently equipped automatic.
You can, however, MECHANICALLY overrev a manual transmission by downshifting into a lower gear while the wheels are turning at a faster speed than is otherwise proper for that gear. The wheels and the engine are mechanically connected, and downshifting to too low a gear will spin the motor up - no rev limiter can protect against this.
i can verify this from experience. this happened to a car i used to own twice, both times when i was letting somebody else drive on a long trip. both times, the driver (different drivers each time) accidentally downshifted from 5th to 2nd instead of 5th to 4th while the car was moving ~60-65 mph. the first time, fortunately, it had just been raining, so the road was wet enough that the car started skidding rather than over-revving the engine. (also, fortunately, there were no other cars around for a very freaked out college girl to have to avoid while trying to figure out why the car she was driving was skidding and decelerating abruptly) the second time i was not so fortunate, and i had to replace about 3 quarts of oil that sprayed out through one of the engine seals due to the suddenly drastically increased pressure inside the engine.
while i could understand that power braking would be an issue, i dont see how the loss of power steering would hurt- power steering really only helps at relativley low speeds. i've driven cars with and without power steering up to ~95 mph and its actually easier to control a car at high speeds without power steering. my understanding is that more modern speed sensitive power steering systems disable the amount of power assist as speed increases, leaving you with essentially no power steering above maybe 45 mph anyway.
the bigger issue is that if you turn your car all the way off, you will engage the steering wheel lock on most cars, which would definitely be a big problem.
off topic, i know, but fyi, my wife and i wanted to buy a prius when we needed a new car about 6 months ago- the waiting list for a new prius was over a year long in every state. of course the dealer immediately offered us a used 2001 prius for almost the same price that the new ones are selling for.
we ended up with a corolla- not quite as unique looking, but it cost much less and has still made over 35mpg on every tank of gas so far.
as somebody who just spent a large part of yesterday stuck behind a car very similar to the one the parent mentioned, i must say that i have no problem being behind somebody who is not going around the corners at the posted speed limit. however, ifyou are going to drive down the entire mountain at 10 mph below the posted speed, you could at least have the courtesy to use the slow vehicle pullouts provided every few miles specifically for those drivers. personally, i'm starting to believe that police should give out tickets for people going under the speed limit not using the slow vehicle pullouts, and the amount of the ticket would be the same amount as a speeding ticket would be for going he same number of miles per hour over the speed limit as the driver in question is going under the speed limit. that or maybe a ticket for not using the pullout when you have more than 7 cars backed up behind you.
Another thing that i would add to your bullet list:
- it reduces the chances of hitting a pedestrian who steps out in front of you.
i noticed riding my bike around chicago that not only do most cars not see you or realize that you are moving greater than 5-10 mph, but most pedestrians dont either. i have had several people step out in front of me in to cross the street, even after looking straight at me. in busy cities with lots of cars parked on the shoulder it is sometimes impossible to see these pedestrians until they actually enter the street, and i have had to slam my brakes hard several times to avoid hitting them.
yes, i know that they have the right of way, and i would happily stop for them if they gave me the chance. but most people i know would not blindly step out into the street when a car is coming along at 20 mph, they need to realize that a bike traveling at 20 mph is little different...
counting the calories you burn in any given physical activity is not going to help you determine how much weight you will lose. given your example, (~6000 calories) you will lose about 1.7 pounds from that weekend if you eat nothing at all during that same time period (~3500 calories burned == 1 pound weight loss). not really a healthy way to lose weight.
counting calories that you consume can be helpful in maintaining a consistent diet, but counting the calories burned during any given physical activity is mostly meaningless. the parent poster is correct in pointing out that most of the calories that you burn are burned at rest. however, he missed the point. while the 6000 calories that you burned working out this weekend are not going to make you lose much weight (considering you state you take in about 10,000 calories during that same time period), doing that on a consistent basis will increase the amount of calories your body burns at rest.
by simple calorie counting math, i would lose just as much weight eating 2000 calories a day and not working out as i would eating 5000 calories a day and going on a three hour run or bike ride every day. in reality, this is not true- the person eating 5000 calories and going on a bike ride that burns 3000 calories every day will lose substantially more weight than a person who eats 2000 calories and sits on the couch watching tv or playing playstation every night, because his metabolism is substantially higher. this is the simple fact that many calorie counters miss out on. it's not hard to keep track of every calorie you take into your body, but it's almost impossible to accurately keep track of how many calories your body burns throughout an entire day.
you are certainly right about calling out the parent poster on cardio workouts. working your heart is the best way to increase your metabolism, if you do it on a regular basis. the key is that since they dont burn as many calories during the workout as more high impact workouts, you won't see much results if you don't do them consistently. runners are freakishly skinny because most people who run competitively run about 3-5 miles a day. for people who only want to be bothered to work out once or twice a week, you will probably get better results (at least initially) from 2 hours weight lifting a week than from 2 hours of running or bicycling. for people who are willing to work out at least a half an hour 4 days a week or more, the bicycling or running will produce far better results.
The amont of calories you burn at a work out are almost worthless.
I hear this cited an awful lot, and although it's true, it's mostly irrelevant if you workout regularly. A consistant workout schedule will increase your metabolism a noticeable amount, such that, while the calories burned during the workout are mostly negligible, you will burn a noticeably higher amount of calories throughout the day at resting heart beat. Someone who starts doing a >30 minute cardio workout at least 3-4 times a week on a consistent schedule will lose much more weight than calculating the number of calories burned during the workouts would indicate, and will be able to consistenly lose weight even without changing eating patterns.
colorado's vote for this election will not follow the same model as maine and nebraska, but will be directly proportional.
it's also worth noting that not everyone believes that this could be accomplished without a constitutional ammendment. (i had an extended discussion with somebody about this issue in the debate questions article- http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12344 9&cid=10374920)
although i would like to see some electoral reform, i suspect i will be voting against the proposed change here in colorado (even though the candidate i support is likely to lose 4 electoral votes if it fails) because i dislike the idea that it is effective this election. people should know going into the voting booth how their votes will be counted. if this change would be effective 2008, i would probably be in support of it. however, i don't really like the idea of changing how the electoral votes for a state are being divided up essentially after the fact, as no one will know whether or not this passes until after they have cast their vote.
while this would help in a state such as california which contains several very populous cities, of very different political orientation, it wouldn't work so well in every case. illinois is the most obvious example- you have the city of chicago which is rougly a third of the states population, the chicago suburbs, which is another third, and the rest of the state which is almost entirely rural. in order to split illinois into multiple states reasonably, you would have to either split chicago, or make chicago an island state surrounded by another state that consists of its suburbs.
even new york, the third most populous state, is mostly rural outside of new york city. i don't know the population numbers for new york as well as i do for chicago, but i would suspect that new york city and it suburbs easliy make up half of the state of new york.
maybe because most people can't stand the ghastly color they give off. maybe the newest flourescents are better (my wife- an architect- is continuously trying to convince me that i wouldn't mind them) but i have yet to see a flourescent light that doesnt make everything look rather sickly. and after having grown up speding all of grade school and high school in classrooms with flourescent lights, and most of thet time having flourescent lights in my bedroom as well (former owner of our house had converted that room into a home office) i would be quite happy to never have to look at a flouresent light again.
when they can make a flourescent or other low enrgy light bulb that can give off the same color as a halogen or an old fashioned incandescent, then i'll be interested. for the most part, now that i live in an area where this is a possibility, i'd rather save energy by leaving the lights off and enjoying the natural light from outside.
Slashdot Mirror
only if they would have had access to read it already anyway. if windows didn't make a users data, documents, and web caches world readable by default this wouldn't be an issue.
anything google desktop search 'enables' somebody to find, they would have been able to find anyway without it. it just would have taken longer (and may have required a little more knowledge about what you were looking for).
while i can understand why some people might be leary of the security implications here, how in the world does this qualify as spyware? it doesn't pop up annoying adds, it doesn't send my data to some secret gathering place, it doesnt report any of my habits to any other person (unless thay also have physical access to my computer and can search for that information)
oh yeah, got ahead of myself. spyware is the new virus. its just a word one person uses to scare another person when neither one really knows what they are talking about. nothing to see, move along...
From the parent:
The OQO is smaller and more portable but the TC1000 already feels "slightly below the minimum" with regards to comfortably reading webpages.
just a guess, but i interpreted that as "my device is already slightly too small to read web pages comfortably, so something even smaller would probably be worse"
i knew what it was
has anybody ever figured out *how much* extra co2 humans have been pumping into the atmosphere? if we add up the millions of barrels of oil burned every year, and all the other co2 that we have been providing, does that add up to 1-2ppm increase per year for the last hundred years or so? i'm not trying to make a point one way or the other here, i'm asking an honest question.... the atmosphere is a big place, and the earth has a lot of it's own ways of adding co2 to it. how do we even know that our contributions make up 1% of that increase?
while i don't think it made it down into indiana, some parts of the united states have been buried by large glaciers as recently as 10,000 years ago. and more recently, say 500 years ago, the vikings established a thriving settlement on a rich and fertile island they called "Green Land".
anyway, i don't dispute the fact that the earth has been getting warmer, and i will even accept that there is a correlation with atmospheric co2 levels. and while i think that it would be a good idea for the u.s. to commit to reducing co2 emmissions (at least for political/diplomatic reasons if not out of genuine concern) until we understand the earth's climate model better, i don't believe that our understanding will improve much given the current situation. all of the research i've seen with regard to the actual _cause_ of the climate changes seems to have clear motivations, either commercially or politically. the only thing that people really seem to agree on is that the earth has indeed gotten warmer in the last hundred years or so, and that co2 levels have been observed to increase during that same timeframe.
running at redline will overheat your engine in rather short order (much faster at standstill obviously because you wont be taking any air into the engine to cool it off) but your engine won't immediately rev to the point where you will lose pistons or cause other irrepairable damage.
in this particular case, i would imagine the amount of time required to bring the car under control and turn it off with the transmission in neutral would not be long enough to cause lasting damage to the engine.
it's probably true to varying degrees for any non-sports car, but three of the specific cars in question were an 88 nissan sentra, an 87 jeep cherokee laredo, and a 92 eddie bauer ford explorer. the eddie bauer ford explorer was easily $1,000-$1,500 dollars less than the equivalently equipped automatic, and the jeep was probably about $800 less than an equivalently equipped automatic. on the nissan the price difference was probably fairly negligible, but the car also only cost us about $3000, iirc. in particular, if you are looking at a used suv, family sedan, and probably most types of trucks and vans, a stick will always be cheaper than a comparable automatic. for anything that considers itself a sports car, the opposite is probably true. for "sporty coupes" its probalby fairly even. with the small economy models it seems you rarely have a choice anymore, unless you are getting something with a "sports package" (see ssporty coupe).
The issue is not whether it's constitutional, but whether any state of decent size would willingly split up its electoral votes and thus reduce it's relevance in the outcome of the election. There's also the issue that if one large state that always goes the same way, such as new york or texas, unilateraly decides to split its vote, that would tip the balance the balance of th electoral college drastically to one party until a state or number of states leaning the other way does the same.
The person who I was arguing with claims that this could never happen unless a constitutional ammendment forced all the states to do it at once, because no state would agree to it unless all the others did as well.
personally, i think that the fact that two states already work this way, and a third is voting on it in this election means that it is possible for this to happen one state at a time (although i would welcome an ammendment to speed up the process)
I've been doing it for years as well. you don't need XmlHttpRequest, but it makes the process a hell of a lot simpler.
The posts that were originally stating that Gmail uses ActiveX were stating that if they went to Gmail with a browser pretending to be Internet Explorer were being turned away with a message saying that in order to use Gmail with Internet Explorer you need to have ActiveX enabled. There were a variety of people speculating about how ActiveX was used or why it was required, but it came straight from google that it was used and required.... Your ass-itude was completely uncalled for.
var control = (agt.indexOf('msie 5') != -1) ? 'Microsoft.XMLHTTP' : 'Msxml2.XMLHTTP';
try
{ new ActiveXObject(control); }
catch (e)
{ top.location = '/gmail/html/noactivex.html'; }
most likely thay are using an XmlHttpRequest object to perform asynchronous I/O (i.e. load mailbox/message data without refreshing the whole page- you'll notice that pretty much no matter what you do in GMail, the page never actually reloads). In (Windows) Internet Explorer, XmlHttpRequest objects are instantiated by doing:
new ActiveXObject("Msxml2.XMLHTTP") or
new ActiveXObject("Microsoft.XMLHTTP")
(depending on the version of MSXML installed)
In Mozilla and recent versions of Safari, you just do:
new XMLHttpRequest();
as far as i know, no other browsers support XmlHttpRequest currently- in other browsers you can imperfectly emulate the functionality by using Java or hidden iframes.
ummm..... neutral pretty much by definition means that the engine is not connected to the wheels in any way. every car i know of has a rev limiter that will keep you from doing serious damage to the engine while in neutral. you are probably more likely to over-rev the engine by down shifting, as the rev limiter will be useless while the engine is physically connected to the wheels and must rotate at a fixed ratio to the speeds the wheels are turning.
i've experienced this first hand twice in a manual, when the driver accidentally downshifted from 5th to 2nd instead of 5th to 4th. i would imagine most automatics wont let you downshift at all if it would redline the engine.
you probably drive a stick. that little button has been on every stick i've ever driven, but not on a single automatic. the first time my wife drove my old jeep, she had to ask me how to turn it off, because every car her family ever owned was an automatic.
i don't think it would help in this case- pushing that button becomes an automatic act that is just part of turning the key. anybody who doesnt know enough not to turn the car all the way off (and thus engage the wheel lock) will not be stopped by that button....
it depends on how picky you are about the car you are getting. of the five used cars my family has purchased since 1990, four have been stick shifts, mainly because a stick will knock about 5-10% of the resale value of a car- my father will specifically look for stick shifts when buying a used car because he knows he will be able to pick them up about $1000 dollars cheaper than an equivalently equipped automatic.
You can, however, MECHANICALLY overrev a manual transmission by downshifting into a lower gear while the wheels are turning at a faster speed than is otherwise proper for that gear. The wheels and the engine are mechanically connected, and downshifting to too low a gear will spin the motor up - no rev limiter can protect against this.
i can verify this from experience. this happened to a car i used to own twice, both times when i was letting somebody else drive on a long trip. both times, the driver (different drivers each time) accidentally downshifted from 5th to 2nd instead of 5th to 4th while the car was moving ~60-65 mph. the first time, fortunately, it had just been raining, so the road was wet enough that the car started skidding rather than over-revving the engine. (also, fortunately, there were no other cars around for a very freaked out college girl to have to avoid while trying to figure out why the car she was driving was skidding and decelerating abruptly) the second time i was not so fortunate, and i had to replace about 3 quarts of oil that sprayed out through one of the engine seals due to the suddenly drastically increased pressure inside the engine.
while i could understand that power braking would be an issue, i dont see how the loss of power steering would hurt- power steering really only helps at relativley low speeds. i've driven cars with and without power steering up to ~95 mph and its actually easier to control a car at high speeds without power steering. my understanding is that more modern speed sensitive power steering systems disable the amount of power assist as speed increases, leaving you with essentially no power steering above maybe 45 mph anyway.
the bigger issue is that if you turn your car all the way off, you will engage the steering wheel lock on most cars, which would definitely be a big problem.
off topic, i know, but fyi, my wife and i wanted to buy a prius when we needed a new car about 6 months ago- the waiting list for a new prius was over a year long in every state. of course the dealer immediately offered us a used 2001 prius for almost the same price that the new ones are selling for.
we ended up with a corolla- not quite as unique looking, but it cost much less and has still made over 35mpg on every tank of gas so far.
as somebody who just spent a large part of yesterday stuck behind a car very similar to the one the parent mentioned, i must say that i have no problem being behind somebody who is not going around the corners at the posted speed limit. however, ifyou are going to drive down the entire mountain at 10 mph below the posted speed, you could at least have the courtesy to use the slow vehicle pullouts provided every few miles specifically for those drivers. personally, i'm starting to believe that police should give out tickets for people going under the speed limit not using the slow vehicle pullouts, and the amount of the ticket would be the same amount as a speeding ticket would be for going he same number of miles per hour over the speed limit as the driver in question is going under the speed limit. that or maybe a ticket for not using the pullout when you have more than 7 cars backed up behind you.
Another thing that i would add to your bullet list:
- it reduces the chances of hitting a pedestrian who steps out in front of you.
i noticed riding my bike around chicago that not only do most cars not see you or realize that you are moving greater than 5-10 mph, but most pedestrians dont either. i have had several people step out in front of me in to cross the street, even after looking straight at me. in busy cities with lots of cars parked on the shoulder it is sometimes impossible to see these pedestrians until they actually enter the street, and i have had to slam my brakes hard several times to avoid hitting them.
yes, i know that they have the right of way, and i would happily stop for them if they gave me the chance. but most people i know would not blindly step out into the street when a car is coming along at 20 mph, they need to realize that a bike traveling at 20 mph is little different...
counting the calories you burn in any given physical activity is not going to help you determine how much weight you will lose. given your example, (~6000 calories) you will lose about 1.7 pounds from that weekend if you eat nothing at all during that same time period (~3500 calories burned == 1 pound weight loss). not really a healthy way to lose weight.
counting calories that you consume can be helpful in maintaining a consistent diet, but counting the calories burned during any given physical activity is mostly meaningless. the parent poster is correct in pointing out that most of the calories that you burn are burned at rest. however, he missed the point. while the 6000 calories that you burned working out this weekend are not going to make you lose much weight (considering you state you take in about 10,000 calories during that same time period), doing that on a consistent basis will increase the amount of calories your body burns at rest.
by simple calorie counting math, i would lose just as much weight eating 2000 calories a day and not working out as i would eating 5000 calories a day and going on a three hour run or bike ride every day. in reality, this is not true- the person eating 5000 calories and going on a bike ride that burns 3000 calories every day will lose substantially more weight than a person who eats 2000 calories and sits on the couch watching tv or playing playstation every night, because his metabolism is substantially higher. this is the simple fact that many calorie counters miss out on. it's not hard to keep track of every calorie you take into your body, but it's almost impossible to accurately keep track of how many calories your body burns throughout an entire day.
you are certainly right about calling out the parent poster on cardio workouts. working your heart is the best way to increase your metabolism, if you do it on a regular basis. the key is that since they dont burn as many calories during the workout as more high impact workouts, you won't see much results if you don't do them consistently. runners are freakishly skinny because most people who run competitively run about 3-5 miles a day. for people who only want to be bothered to work out once or twice a week, you will probably get better results (at least initially) from 2 hours weight lifting a week than from 2 hours of running or bicycling. for people who are willing to work out at least a half an hour 4 days a week or more, the bicycling or running will produce far better results.
The amont of calories you burn at a work out are almost worthless.
I hear this cited an awful lot, and although it's true, it's mostly irrelevant if you workout regularly. A consistant workout schedule will increase your metabolism a noticeable amount, such that, while the calories burned during the workout are mostly negligible, you will burn a noticeably higher amount of calories throughout the day at resting heart beat. Someone who starts doing a >30 minute cardio workout at least 3-4 times a week on a consistent schedule will lose much more weight than calculating the number of calories burned during the workouts would indicate, and will be able to consistenly lose weight even without changing eating patterns.
colorado's vote for this election will not follow the same model as maine and nebraska, but will be directly proportional.
4 9&cid=10374920)
it's also worth noting that not everyone believes that this could be accomplished without a constitutional ammendment. (i had an extended discussion with somebody about this issue in the debate questions article- http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1234
although i would like to see some electoral reform, i suspect i will be voting against the proposed change here in colorado (even though the candidate i support is likely to lose 4 electoral votes if it fails) because i dislike the idea that it is effective this election. people should know going into the voting booth how their votes will be counted. if this change would be effective 2008, i would probably be in support of it. however, i don't really like the idea of changing how the electoral votes for a state are being divided up essentially after the fact, as no one will know whether or not this passes until after they have cast their vote.
while this would help in a state such as california which contains several very populous cities, of very different political orientation, it wouldn't work so well in every case. illinois is the most obvious example- you have the city of chicago which is rougly a third of the states population, the chicago suburbs, which is another third, and the rest of the state which is almost entirely rural. in order to split illinois into multiple states reasonably, you would have to either split chicago, or make chicago an island state surrounded by another state that consists of its suburbs.
even new york, the third most populous state, is mostly rural outside of new york city. i don't know the population numbers for new york as well as i do for chicago, but i would suspect that new york city and it suburbs easliy make up half of the state of new york.
maybe because most people can't stand the ghastly color they give off. maybe the newest flourescents are better (my wife- an architect- is continuously trying to convince me that i wouldn't mind them) but i have yet to see a flourescent light that doesnt make everything look rather sickly. and after having grown up speding all of grade school and high school in classrooms with flourescent lights, and most of thet time having flourescent lights in my bedroom as well (former owner of our house had converted that room into a home office) i would be quite happy to never have to look at a flouresent light again.
when they can make a flourescent or other low enrgy light bulb that can give off the same color as a halogen or an old fashioned incandescent, then i'll be interested. for the most part, now that i live in an area where this is a possibility, i'd rather save energy by leaving the lights off and enjoying the natural light from outside.