I think it depends a lot on the person. Last time I ran with a heart rate monitor, my 5K pace was about 90% MHR, and I could comfortably sustain it. I'm in mediocre shape at best.
It sounds simple, but unless you have your body hooked up to a calorimetry laboratory, it's hard to know how many calories you've burned in a day.
True. My solution was just to weigh myself every day immediately after waking up and take a 2 week moving average. If the average wasn't holding around -5 pounds/month, I'd eat a little less or exercise a little more. I don't need to know the exact number, I just need evidence the balance is tipped the right way.
That's basically what you're prescribing.
I suppose it depends on how you look at it. It's conceptually simple, but hard to execute. I hate being hungry. I like running in moderation, but whenever I commit to a serious distance or fitness goal, it honestly becomes a real pain in the ass. Even a short run costs me an hour (dress, run, shower after). Long runs are a couple hours, so you're basically planning your weekend around them.
Call it what you will, though, we have never had more experts willing to tell us the simple, easy way to get in shape, and we've never been fatter.
and yet they very rarely do anything long distance steady pace(like a 10k or half marathon etc) on the show. There is probably a reason for that, the HIIT is much more effective at burning fat than doing long sustained exercises are.
I've been running for a long time, and the most basic of advice you get about distance events like that is to build your miles slowly to avoid injury. 10% a week is the commonly accepted number. Everyone breaks that rule sometimes, and I've certainly done it, but I've occasionally paid for it. I remember pushing too quickly to half marathon distance and finding that it was painful to even finish the distance at all, forget actually running it. I've also given myself plantar fasciitis twice in the same way.
I'd bet the reason they rarely have Biggest Loser contestants doing distance events like that is because there isn't enough time to train safely for it, especially when one is starting from zero and is morbidly obese.
These are problems that can be overcome, of course, but claiming it is a simple inequality is ignoring a number of complications, tautological, and not particularly helpful.
It's said to refute nonsense claims people make. It's not even in disagreement with what you said. If I burn 2,500 cal a day and you 3,200/day and we both eat 2,400 a day, you're going to lose a lot faster than I am. The simple claim is that if you eat less than you burn, you lose weight. It IS that simple. Yes, restricting your calories can cause your body to adapt. That simply resets the number, it doesn't invalidate the fact. If I cut back on calories and drop to 2,300 cal a day, eating 2,400 isn't going to work anymore. My personal choice is not to restrict calories, but to exercise more, but I'm still playing the same inequality. I may eat 2,600/day, but I burn 3,000/day.
People want simple cures. They want to look fit without exercising. They want to lose weight while eating like a pig. It's simply not going to happen. If people would accept this and just do what is necessary, the US wouldn't have a 33% obesity rate.
I rather suspect AngryDeuce got that this was about iTunes. I agree this is stupid. Jobs did fantastic things for *commerce* related to music. Nothing for music, really.
I'd give one to the Guitar Hero people long before I'd give one to Jobs. They got millions of non-musicians playing fake instruments. Some of those, like me, were inspired to go try and buy the real thing. Some of those actually became good. I'm not one of them, but I know a couple.
In its own way, this is just as bad as proclaiming that anybody who won't let the government snoop through their communications has something to hide. Anyone who walks around proclaiming the world is full of child rapists has had some compelling exposure to the fact that they exist. They may have been the child at one point. They might have read a high profile news story. That's me, as far as a lot of this surveillance stuff goes. I've never so much as had a car or house searched and have, as far as I know, never been under surveillance, but I read a lot, so I have strong opinions about it.
A lot of those protect-the-children type organizations are started by the parents of child victims. They're a great case in point where people preaching the dangers of child rapists or murderers have an excellent reason for doing so and it's not because they are the offenders.
Things were different when the average life expectancy was 40, but we don't live in those times anymore.
No, not really. Life expectancy doesn't mean what you think. It doesn't mean everyone dropped dead around 40. Life expectancy was low because so many died before reaching adulthood at all. Even in the middle ages, if you made it to 21, you were likely to see 60. It was a cultural difference.
This is not in defense of sexualizing the young, but in opposition to treating adults as children. Case in point, excusing whatever a drunk college "kid" does because they're "young".
I dunno, GP makes a pretty sound case. I agree that "think of the children" is a crock when applied to most censorship, but if you're talking about adults actually plotting crimes against children, does that not cross the line? Your point is somewhat valid. They probably will just go somewhere else, but still, if someone is conducting themselves in a vile and depraved way, wouldn't you kick them out of your house? Why not out of your web site?
You're probably right on that count. I was thinking that if you tell a vendor they sent you customer data without offering some form of proof, you're very likely to get a nonsense reply that adds up to "No, we didn't." To be clear, if there's anything with a mandatory reporting requirement, I do agree that you DO turn it in. When you don't, you ARE guilty of a crime.
Maybe the question is "What do you want to accomplish?" Get on with your life? Then just wipe the drive. Hold the vendor accountable? That gets messy. I'll still stick with "Wipe your own data." If you mail your data to someone, assume they WILL disclose it.
I dunno, there are kinds of data on that drive that compel you to report it to the police. Then you get to hope they get it right and don't prosecute you. Its a small probability to be sure, but I get kind of protective when faced with a small probability that the entire rest of my life will become dramatically worse. I'd much rather just wipe the drive, content in the knowledge that it's 99.999% likely there's nothing interesting on it anyway. If you must, grab just enough data from the drive to send off to the vendor to show them it was sent to you with someone else's data on it. A partition table, a ls/dir of the root or user folders, etc.
The bigger lesson here, IMO, is that you better never believe that when you return something to a company with your data on it that it will be protected. Assume it won't and wipe it yourself.
Just like a book, it depends on the medium on which it's written. If it's on a hard drive, I'd say it's the mass of all the sectors containing the bits comprising the MP3. I'm sure you'll object that you could erase it, or write something else there and it would weigh about the same. Very true. Likewise, you could painstakingly pick the ink out of the paper fibers, stick them to different paper fibers, and make an entirely different book that would weigh about the same.
In short, it has a mass even if it's hard to measure, and pointless to bother trying.
So are managers who think making grown ups do childish things for laughs is a good idea. If I have to choose between a guy who talked to a lawyer and one who made his subordinates sing goofy songs during meeting times, I'll take the lawyer guy. That at least smacks of a reasonable response, though reasonable people might differ on whether the cause warranted it.
If the BusyBox guys also hold copyright on those other GPL'd projects, they should bring suit. If they don't, they should be silent. I know, everybody's panties just got in a bunch, but think about it, should I use my GPL software's license to leverage you into paying the MPAA/RIAA for any illegally obtained songs or movies you have? Aren't they both cases where I'm sticking my nose into someone else's business and playing legal heavy where it's not my right to do so?
It doesn't have to be expensive. You need two groups of people, one to play with the real busybox and develop a specification for software to do what busybox does, and a group to write software to the spec. It gets really cheap if you can get people to volunteer their time to do it.
I'm really not against this one bit, to be honest. GPL software is nice and all, but if anything beats it it's software with no license restrictions whatsoever, and that's what you get when you're the author. I don't think the BusyBox folks have any rights to complain if someone chooses to write software that does what theirs does. They're making an offer: you can use the software as long as you comply with the license. Sony doesn't want to do that, but does want the functionality, so they're trying to get different software to do what they need. I expect someone to make the patent argument, so I'll pre-argue that BusyBox isn't doing anything more than code reuse. Roll lots of utilities together into a tiny package by writing code the way we've known we should for what, 50 years now?
The argument in TFA that once you lose the license, the copyright holder has to explicitly give it back falls flat, IMO. That rests on something in GPLv3, which is an entirely different animal. IMO, the assertion that the GPLv3 language stating that you get the license back if you play nice DOES NOT mean that isn't true in v2, and certainly doesn't create some lifetime ban out of thin air. I'd argue (or have a lawyer argue, since IANAL) that, apprised of my violation, I mended my ways and downloaded a fresh copy, complete with a sparkly new license.
The problem is that while terrorists may indeed exhibit those behaviors, a massively larger number of people who are not terrorists also do. Like, oh, doctors, nurses, your insurance company, finance companies, any company that has trade secrets, any individual who has a sense of privacy, etc.
In other words, the positive predictive value of that test is extremely low. Nearly every time you report someone, you're reporting someone who is not a terrorist. In fact, I seriously doubt the pool of suspects generated by this would be any higher in actual terrorists than random selection would get you.
I've remember being in Borders, finding a book that looked good on sale for like 50% off. Borders was going out of business, so lots of stuff was cheap. I whipped out the old smartphone and looked up the online price, which was similar, and the kindle price, which was cheaper.
I'm also an impulse book buyer. If I hear about an interesting book, I might read reviews of it online, but then I want it RIGHT NOW. I will happily drive to the nearest book store and pay retail because I don't feel like waiting, and saving $5-20 on a book is pretty irrelevant in the grand scheme.
I don't really blame Target for what they're doing, and I do feel a slight pang of guilt when I do this. Then again, most retail operations pay their people fairly low wages and if offered the chance to pay half that, would leap at it. What we're doing is really not so different.
All depends on which part people are upset about. I'm pro immigration, so aliens (spare me the martian jokes, please) are quite welcome. I have tremendous respect for people who will give up their home, extended family and friends to make a new life in a new land. Now the illegal part, there I have a problem. If part of making your new life is disregarding the laws of the land, that's not good. Should we really welcome with open arms those who come here saying the hell with your laws, I'll do what I want?
The sentiment is just a consequence of the fact that we're not resolving the issue either way. We don't make it legal for them to be here, and we don't send them home. Pick one.
Sure, but this problem is only affecting the second hand market. For the games company it is as if they didn't make that second sale anyhow. How is withholding that second purchase going to make any difference?
Because it diminishes the value of the product to the original buyer. I don't buy many secondhand games and never sell them back, so I'll use an example for something I would buy: a decent mac laptop. They're not exactly cheap compared to the Wintel ones, but they have great resale value. I may not want to spend $1k on a laptop, but if I can buy it use it for a year and sell it for $800+, I'm no longer asking myself "Do you want to spend $1k?" It's become "Do you want to spend $200 to have this for a year?" The fact that I can sell the thing easily makes me a willing primary buyer.
ObCarAnalogy: It's as if when you buy the car, you can never sell it. You can blow it up, you can park it in your garage, you can cut the top off and plant plants in it, but you can never sell it. Suddenly cars have become very, very expensive for people who only keep them for a year or two. Those people will start buying fewer cars.
Wait, wait...isn't this the same guy who had another company that got into really deep hot water by hacking into people's phones and otherwise massively abusing their privacy? As in shut-the-company-down, pay-out-millions-to-the-victims, and some-just-got-arrested bad?
There IS a place for technology in schools, absolutely, and if you're at all familiar with schools the level of useless redundant work that goes on drives you nuts. Every year it ticks me off that I have to fill out 50 pages of nonsense information to tell the school what they already know. That said, you know who you don't give the job of modernizing it to? Someone with a track record of abusing the hell out of people's privacy.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it depends a lot on the person. Last time I ran with a heart rate monitor, my 5K pace was about 90% MHR, and I could comfortably sustain it. I'm in mediocre shape at best.
Except for how much money we spend on health care.
True. My solution was just to weigh myself every day immediately after waking up and take a 2 week moving average. If the average wasn't holding around -5 pounds/month, I'd eat a little less or exercise a little more. I don't need to know the exact number, I just need evidence the balance is tipped the right way.
I suppose it depends on how you look at it. It's conceptually simple, but hard to execute. I hate being hungry. I like running in moderation, but whenever I commit to a serious distance or fitness goal, it honestly becomes a real pain in the ass. Even a short run costs me an hour (dress, run, shower after). Long runs are a couple hours, so you're basically planning your weekend around them.
Call it what you will, though, we have never had more experts willing to tell us the simple, easy way to get in shape, and we've never been fatter.
I've been running for a long time, and the most basic of advice you get about distance events like that is to build your miles slowly to avoid injury. 10% a week is the commonly accepted number. Everyone breaks that rule sometimes, and I've certainly done it, but I've occasionally paid for it. I remember pushing too quickly to half marathon distance and finding that it was painful to even finish the distance at all, forget actually running it. I've also given myself plantar fasciitis twice in the same way.
I'd bet the reason they rarely have Biggest Loser contestants doing distance events like that is because there isn't enough time to train safely for it, especially when one is starting from zero and is morbidly obese.
It's said to refute nonsense claims people make. It's not even in disagreement with what you said. If I burn 2,500 cal a day and you 3,200/day and we both eat 2,400 a day, you're going to lose a lot faster than I am. The simple claim is that if you eat less than you burn, you lose weight. It IS that simple. Yes, restricting your calories can cause your body to adapt. That simply resets the number, it doesn't invalidate the fact. If I cut back on calories and drop to 2,300 cal a day, eating 2,400 isn't going to work anymore. My personal choice is not to restrict calories, but to exercise more, but I'm still playing the same inequality. I may eat 2,600/day, but I burn 3,000/day.
People want simple cures. They want to look fit without exercising. They want to lose weight while eating like a pig. It's simply not going to happen. If people would accept this and just do what is necessary, the US wouldn't have a 33% obesity rate.
I rather suspect AngryDeuce got that this was about iTunes. I agree this is stupid. Jobs did fantastic things for *commerce* related to music. Nothing for music, really.
I'd give one to the Guitar Hero people long before I'd give one to Jobs. They got millions of non-musicians playing fake instruments. Some of those, like me, were inspired to go try and buy the real thing. Some of those actually became good. I'm not one of them, but I know a couple.
In its own way, this is just as bad as proclaiming that anybody who won't let the government snoop through their communications has something to hide. Anyone who walks around proclaiming the world is full of child rapists has had some compelling exposure to the fact that they exist. They may have been the child at one point. They might have read a high profile news story. That's me, as far as a lot of this surveillance stuff goes. I've never so much as had a car or house searched and have, as far as I know, never been under surveillance, but I read a lot, so I have strong opinions about it.
A lot of those protect-the-children type organizations are started by the parents of child victims. They're a great case in point where people preaching the dangers of child rapists or murderers have an excellent reason for doing so and it's not because they are the offenders.
"Against a body cavity search? You must be a drug mule!"
Yeah, that is kinda fun.
No, not really. Life expectancy doesn't mean what you think. It doesn't mean everyone dropped dead around 40. Life expectancy was low because so many died before reaching adulthood at all. Even in the middle ages, if you made it to 21, you were likely to see 60. It was a cultural difference.
This is not in defense of sexualizing the young, but in opposition to treating adults as children. Case in point, excusing whatever a drunk college "kid" does because they're "young".
I dunno, GP makes a pretty sound case. I agree that "think of the children" is a crock when applied to most censorship, but if you're talking about adults actually plotting crimes against children, does that not cross the line? Your point is somewhat valid. They probably will just go somewhere else, but still, if someone is conducting themselves in a vile and depraved way, wouldn't you kick them out of your house? Why not out of your web site?
Yes, they have for as long as I've known anything about it, and that's about 20 years. This is nothing new.
You're probably right on that count. I was thinking that if you tell a vendor they sent you customer data without offering some form of proof, you're very likely to get a nonsense reply that adds up to "No, we didn't." To be clear, if there's anything with a mandatory reporting requirement, I do agree that you DO turn it in. When you don't, you ARE guilty of a crime.
Maybe the question is "What do you want to accomplish?" Get on with your life? Then just wipe the drive. Hold the vendor accountable? That gets messy. I'll still stick with "Wipe your own data." If you mail your data to someone, assume they WILL disclose it.
I dunno, there are kinds of data on that drive that compel you to report it to the police. Then you get to hope they get it right and don't prosecute you. Its a small probability to be sure, but I get kind of protective when faced with a small probability that the entire rest of my life will become dramatically worse. I'd much rather just wipe the drive, content in the knowledge that it's 99.999% likely there's nothing interesting on it anyway. If you must, grab just enough data from the drive to send off to the vendor to show them it was sent to you with someone else's data on it. A partition table, a ls/dir of the root or user folders, etc.
The bigger lesson here, IMO, is that you better never believe that when you return something to a company with your data on it that it will be protected. Assume it won't and wipe it yourself.
I parsed that last bit as "then == ale", and realized it was time to go home. Then does in face equal ale.
Just like a book, it depends on the medium on which it's written. If it's on a hard drive, I'd say it's the mass of all the sectors containing the bits comprising the MP3. I'm sure you'll object that you could erase it, or write something else there and it would weigh about the same. Very true. Likewise, you could painstakingly pick the ink out of the paper fibers, stick them to different paper fibers, and make an entirely different book that would weigh about the same.
In short, it has a mass even if it's hard to measure, and pointless to bother trying.
So are managers who think making grown ups do childish things for laughs is a good idea. If I have to choose between a guy who talked to a lawyer and one who made his subordinates sing goofy songs during meeting times, I'll take the lawyer guy. That at least smacks of a reasonable response, though reasonable people might differ on whether the cause warranted it.
Oh, well that's the cool thing about relativistic weaponry. You don't see them until they hit you.
On which side?
If the BusyBox guys also hold copyright on those other GPL'd projects, they should bring suit. If they don't, they should be silent. I know, everybody's panties just got in a bunch, but think about it, should I use my GPL software's license to leverage you into paying the MPAA/RIAA for any illegally obtained songs or movies you have? Aren't they both cases where I'm sticking my nose into someone else's business and playing legal heavy where it's not my right to do so?
It doesn't have to be expensive. You need two groups of people, one to play with the real busybox and develop a specification for software to do what busybox does, and a group to write software to the spec. It gets really cheap if you can get people to volunteer their time to do it.
I'm really not against this one bit, to be honest. GPL software is nice and all, but if anything beats it it's software with no license restrictions whatsoever, and that's what you get when you're the author. I don't think the BusyBox folks have any rights to complain if someone chooses to write software that does what theirs does. They're making an offer: you can use the software as long as you comply with the license. Sony doesn't want to do that, but does want the functionality, so they're trying to get different software to do what they need. I expect someone to make the patent argument, so I'll pre-argue that BusyBox isn't doing anything more than code reuse. Roll lots of utilities together into a tiny package by writing code the way we've known we should for what, 50 years now?
The argument in TFA that once you lose the license, the copyright holder has to explicitly give it back falls flat, IMO. That rests on something in GPLv3, which is an entirely different animal. IMO, the assertion that the GPLv3 language stating that you get the license back if you play nice DOES NOT mean that isn't true in v2, and certainly doesn't create some lifetime ban out of thin air. I'd argue (or have a lawyer argue, since IANAL) that, apprised of my violation, I mended my ways and downloaded a fresh copy, complete with a sparkly new license.
Let me introduce everyone to those two important concepts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitivity_and_specificity
The problem is that while terrorists may indeed exhibit those behaviors, a massively larger number of people who are not terrorists also do. Like, oh, doctors, nurses, your insurance company, finance companies, any company that has trade secrets, any individual who has a sense of privacy, etc.
In other words, the positive predictive value of that test is extremely low. Nearly every time you report someone, you're reporting someone who is not a terrorist. In fact, I seriously doubt the pool of suspects generated by this would be any higher in actual terrorists than random selection would get you.
Clever, and true. Well played.
Interesting. I've done it both ways.
I've remember being in Borders, finding a book that looked good on sale for like 50% off. Borders was going out of business, so lots of stuff was cheap. I whipped out the old smartphone and looked up the online price, which was similar, and the kindle price, which was cheaper.
I'm also an impulse book buyer. If I hear about an interesting book, I might read reviews of it online, but then I want it RIGHT NOW. I will happily drive to the nearest book store and pay retail because I don't feel like waiting, and saving $5-20 on a book is pretty irrelevant in the grand scheme.
I don't really blame Target for what they're doing, and I do feel a slight pang of guilt when I do this. Then again, most retail operations pay their people fairly low wages and if offered the chance to pay half that, would leap at it. What we're doing is really not so different.
All depends on which part people are upset about. I'm pro immigration, so aliens (spare me the martian jokes, please) are quite welcome. I have tremendous respect for people who will give up their home, extended family and friends to make a new life in a new land. Now the illegal part, there I have a problem. If part of making your new life is disregarding the laws of the land, that's not good. Should we really welcome with open arms those who come here saying the hell with your laws, I'll do what I want?
The sentiment is just a consequence of the fact that we're not resolving the issue either way. We don't make it legal for them to be here, and we don't send them home. Pick one.
Because it diminishes the value of the product to the original buyer. I don't buy many secondhand games and never sell them back, so I'll use an example for something I would buy: a decent mac laptop. They're not exactly cheap compared to the Wintel ones, but they have great resale value. I may not want to spend $1k on a laptop, but if I can buy it use it for a year and sell it for $800+, I'm no longer asking myself "Do you want to spend $1k?" It's become "Do you want to spend $200 to have this for a year?" The fact that I can sell the thing easily makes me a willing primary buyer.
ObCarAnalogy: It's as if when you buy the car, you can never sell it. You can blow it up, you can park it in your garage, you can cut the top off and plant plants in it, but you can never sell it. Suddenly cars have become very, very expensive for people who only keep them for a year or two. Those people will start buying fewer cars.
Wait, wait...isn't this the same guy who had another company that got into really deep hot water by hacking into people's phones and otherwise massively abusing their privacy? As in shut-the-company-down, pay-out-millions-to-the-victims, and some-just-got-arrested bad?
There IS a place for technology in schools, absolutely, and if you're at all familiar with schools the level of useless redundant work that goes on drives you nuts. Every year it ticks me off that I have to fill out 50 pages of nonsense information to tell the school what they already know. That said, you know who you don't give the job of modernizing it to? Someone with a track record of abusing the hell out of people's privacy.