That's why I stopped bothering with tea and went back to soda, I had to put in so much sugar to make the tea palatable and it was a chore to prepare it every time versus just going to the fridge and grabbing a can.
Have you tried drinking one of the naturally sweeter teas? (or tisane for the pedants)
Rooibos (red bush) is naturally a little sweeter... although a lot of people don't like it anyway. But you can get it mixed with other flavours if the plain rooibos isn't to your palette. There are some ginger, chai, hibiscus, or cinnamon blends that have no artificial sweeteners or sugars that naturally taste sweet without adding sugars.
Personally, I'm a big fan of lemongrass too, not really sweet but the flavor will make you not miss sweetness (and often mixed with sweeter herbs anyway)
Coffee is back to being great for you this month. Next month... A single cup a year will give you CancerAids, warts and make you sexually attracted to the wrong gender for you. But red wine and chocolate will "cure" all those things.
Actually... almost all the studies involving coffee have been positive for decades now.
Back in the 80's everyone was convinced coffee must be bad for you like smoking, so they launched all these long term studies to prove it. Over the subsequent decades almost every study has come back saying the opposite.
Coffee linked to less of certain cancers. Coffee linked to heart health. Coffee linked to lower diabetes. Coffee linked to less chance of strokes. Coffee linked to less gout. Coffee linked to better memory.... the list goes on and on. Coffee hasn't been "out-of-favour" with health scientists since the 80's. And back then they didn't have any data, just convinced it had to be bad for you, without a reason.
Even if tomorrow they announce some bad disease linked to coffee, it probably still won't be out of favour because of all the GOOD things about coffee that out-weigh it.
more than 185,000 white and non-white participants
Uh... ??
You can't just say "more than 185,000 people"? Why would race be injected into this reporting?
It was poorly worded. I think the purpose behind that statement was to say they studied the effects on multiple races to see if all races have the same impact.
drinking one cup of coffee a day was linked to a 12% lower risk of death at any age, from any cause while those drinking two or three cups a day had an 18% lower risk, with the association not linked to ethnicity.
So basically- they tested to see if the benefit only applied to some races and not others and they found that it benefitted all races equally.
It's not the first time a study like this has been performed though.
Coffee is one of the most studied drinks of all time. All the studies back each other up. This is far from the first study to suggest coffee improves heart health or risk of stroke avoidance.
Either they're all making the same fundamental mistakes or coffee really does help.
Starbucks? Please. Their coffee sucks. My wife grinds fresh beans for me in the morning.
I grind my own beans each morning... it hurts... but it's worth it.
I also grind some coffee beans each morning for my French press. Best way to drink coffee... although when lazy I will sometimes use the Keurig. Not as good, but better than no coffee.
Given how many people put a little bit of coffee in their cup of sugar, what's the big difference?
Putting a ton of sugar in your coffee is to drinking coffee as drinking cold Budweiser is to drinking beer.
You don't really like the flavor of the real thing (coffee/beer) so you try and drink something that doesn't taste like it, you're just drinking it to fit in with some preconceived notion of what your should be.
But they never would have been first. The iPhone was a fundamental reimagining of the mobile phone, a generational change. After the iPhone razed the landscape of clunky, carrier controlled phones, others, like Android and Windows phone, were able to step into the new world. The iPhone was the big bang of mobility devices.
That's not entirely true. There was the IBM Simon and the Palm Pilot phones and blackberries before iPhone. There were also other "dumb" phones that could run apps. I had one that predated iPhone.
Apple were just the first to put a really solid device together that worked well and appealed to a large market.
It's not impossible to believe that someone at Microsoft could have thought "Let's make a better version of the Palm Pilot Phone" before Apple had the idea... they just didn't. Or if they did, the stupidity of the MS management squashed the idea until it was too late.
They were too late to the game. If they had been first they probably would have been the standard.
We'd all have been complaining about it like we do the windows desktop- but it would be silly to have anything else because Windows Phone would be the standard.
Ewwww, now I got a mental picture of Lt. Commander Data in my bed. Which I suppose is good analogy for Android, technically fully functional yet not at all what I want. YMMV.
Could be worse. Could be one of the few poor sods with a Windows Wife.
I wish someone would bring better internet to mid-sized cities in the US.
We're still stuck with low quality monopoly cable internet paying 3 or 4 times what you guys in big cities with Google Fiber get after competition drives prices down.
Yeah... I'm sure very-rural America would love to have cable speed connections but a big bang for the buck could be had by removing cable monopolies on broadband internet in the mid sized cities.
Too many recent phones lack that. And some lack the headphone jack. Sometimes things change for the worse.
I've probably used my headphone jack at most a dozen times in the last 2 years... not that often... but there's no way in hell I'd get a phone without one.
Different priorities for different people. Other people may not care, and that's fine... but it still strikes me as a bizarre step.
Right now, the guy on the outside helping was untouchable until the moment his drone actually released it's cargo.
What's wrong with waiting for the drone to drop the cargo and nab both the outsider and the inmate?
If police stumble upon a drone operator outside the prison, they won't necessarily know how close to drop off it is. The drone operator may panic, disappear and not come back for a few weeks and carry out the execution when the police can't find him.
I've not much experience with that technology, but if it exists and is reasonably accurate I would prefer that solution. If it turned out to not be accurate for whatever reason- I'd still say multiple-small range blockers around the prison would be a decent alternative (if made legal).
But yeah, if what you suggest works- I'm all for that instead.
Slashdot Mirror
More like the other 59% have never been online :)
Or they don't realize people are making fun of them behind their backs online.
What's a "boring math class"?
It's a class where any maths is taught.
That's why I stopped bothering with tea and went back to soda, I had to put in so much sugar to make the tea palatable and it was a chore to prepare it every time versus just going to the fridge and grabbing a can.
Have you tried drinking one of the naturally sweeter teas? (or tisane for the pedants)
Rooibos (red bush) is naturally a little sweeter... although a lot of people don't like it anyway. But you can get it mixed with other flavours if the plain rooibos isn't to your palette. There are some ginger, chai, hibiscus, or cinnamon blends that have no artificial sweeteners or sugars that naturally taste sweet without adding sugars.
Personally, I'm a big fan of lemongrass too, not really sweet but the flavor will make you not miss sweetness (and often mixed with sweeter herbs anyway)
Coffee is back to being great for you this month. Next month ... A single cup a year will give you CancerAids, warts and make you sexually attracted to the wrong gender for you. But red wine and chocolate will "cure" all those things.
Actually... almost all the studies involving coffee have been positive for decades now.
Back in the 80's everyone was convinced coffee must be bad for you like smoking, so they launched all these long term studies to prove it. Over the subsequent decades almost every study has come back saying the opposite.
Coffee linked to less of certain cancers. ... the list goes on and on. Coffee hasn't been "out-of-favour" with health scientists since the 80's. And back then they didn't have any data, just convinced it had to be bad for you, without a reason.
Coffee linked to heart health.
Coffee linked to lower diabetes.
Coffee linked to less chance of strokes.
Coffee linked to less gout.
Coffee linked to better memory.
Even if tomorrow they announce some bad disease linked to coffee, it probably still won't be out of favour because of all the GOOD things about coffee that out-weigh it.
Uh... ??
You can't just say "more than 185,000 people"? Why would race be injected into this reporting?
It was poorly worded. I think the purpose behind that statement was to say they studied the effects on multiple races to see if all races have the same impact.
drinking one cup of coffee a day was linked to a 12% lower risk of death at any age, from any cause while those drinking two or three cups a day had an 18% lower risk, with the association not linked to ethnicity.
So basically- they tested to see if the benefit only applied to some races and not others and they found that it benefitted all races equally.
Well, more accurately, humans are still animals with all that entails.
I'd be a cannibal if humans came bite sized and covered in chocolate.
Fuck all of you.
41% of adults have been harassed online. The other 59% haven't visited Slashdot yet.
"Plants Can Turn Caterpillars Into Cannabis To Avoid Getting Eaten!".
Man! I got some wacked out caterpillar brownies you need to try.
It's not the first time a study like this has been performed though.
Coffee is one of the most studied drinks of all time. All the studies back each other up. This is far from the first study to suggest coffee improves heart health or risk of stroke avoidance.
Either they're all making the same fundamental mistakes or coffee really does help.
Coffee can be made at home you know, for a fraction of the starbucks price.
At starbucks, you're not paying for coffee; you're paying to be waited on by someone and enjoy sitting in their café. It's about an experience.
You can certainly drink coffee for much less. You can certainly make your own better coffee for less. (not that I jump on the Starbucks hate train).
Starbucks? Please. Their coffee sucks. My wife grinds fresh beans for me in the morning.
I grind my own beans each morning... it hurts... but it's worth it.
I also grind some coffee beans each morning for my French press. Best way to drink coffee... although when lazy I will sometimes use the Keurig. Not as good, but better than no coffee.
Given how many people put a little bit of coffee in their cup of sugar, what's the big difference?
Putting a ton of sugar in your coffee is to drinking coffee as drinking cold Budweiser is to drinking beer.
You don't really like the flavor of the real thing (coffee/beer) so you try and drink something that doesn't taste like it, you're just drinking it to fit in with some preconceived notion of what your should be.
But they never would have been first. The iPhone was a fundamental reimagining of the mobile phone, a generational change. After the iPhone razed the landscape of clunky, carrier controlled phones, others, like Android and Windows phone, were able to step into the new world. The iPhone was the big bang of mobility devices.
That's not entirely true. There was the IBM Simon and the Palm Pilot phones and blackberries before iPhone. There were also other "dumb" phones that could run apps. I had one that predated iPhone.
Apple were just the first to put a really solid device together that worked well and appealed to a large market.
It's not impossible to believe that someone at Microsoft could have thought "Let's make a better version of the Palm Pilot Phone" before Apple had the idea... they just didn't. Or if they did, the stupidity of the MS management squashed the idea until it was too late.
The only question now is, between the heavyweight 'A' players. (Android and Apple) which will dominate the market. (or perhaps a fork of Android)
Depends on your definition of dominate. Android dominates by market share.
Apple dominates in profits for the host company.
They were too late to the game. If they had been first they probably would have been the standard.
We'd all have been complaining about it like we do the windows desktop- but it would be silly to have anything else because Windows Phone would be the standard.
Ewwww, now I got a mental picture of Lt. Commander Data in my bed. Which I suppose is good analogy for Android, technically fully functional yet not at all what I want. YMMV.
Could be worse. Could be one of the few poor sods with a Windows Wife.
OK, they have some midsized cities but I do consider cities like "Austin, SLC, Charlotte, Atlanta, Raleigh-Durham and maybe San Antonio to be big".
If you have a couple million or more people in your metro area it's hard to call the area mid sized.
I wish someone would bring better internet to mid-sized cities in the US.
We're still stuck with low quality monopoly cable internet paying 3 or 4 times what you guys in big cities with Google Fiber get after competition drives prices down.
Yeah... I'm sure very-rural America would love to have cable speed connections but a big bang for the buck could be had by removing cable monopolies on broadband internet in the mid sized cities.
My car is 5 years old so doesn't have Bluetooth as it wasn't standard in all cars back then.
As for "cheap wired things". The quality over wired headphones is greater than even the best possible Bluetooth headphones.
Go away, redditer! Over here we say, "You Insensitive Clod!".
I am both a redditer and a slashdotter you motherfucker insensitive clod!
Removable storage ? Check
Too many recent phones lack that. And some lack the headphone jack. Sometimes things change for the worse.
I've probably used my headphone jack at most a dozen times in the last 2 years... not that often... but there's no way in hell I'd get a phone without one.
Different priorities for different people. Other people may not care, and that's fine... but it still strikes me as a bizarre step.
Maybe it's time to upgrade to iWife 2.
With technology improving the way it is, you might soon be able to ditch the iWife and get an Android in your bed.
1200 bucks is gonna break you thats your own fault.
$1200 won't "break me", but I can sure as hell think of much better things to spend the money on.
When you can buy a year and a half-old tech premium phone for under $300- it seems silly to spend $1200 on something only marginally better.
Right now, the guy on the outside helping was untouchable until the moment his drone actually released it's cargo.
What's wrong with waiting for the drone to drop the cargo and nab both the outsider and the inmate?
If police stumble upon a drone operator outside the prison, they won't necessarily know how close to drop off it is. The drone operator may panic, disappear and not come back for a few weeks and carry out the execution when the police can't find him.
I've not much experience with that technology, but if it exists and is reasonably accurate I would prefer that solution. If it turned out to not be accurate for whatever reason- I'd still say multiple-small range blockers around the prison would be a decent alternative (if made legal).
But yeah, if what you suggest works- I'm all for that instead.