The problem with the "simple formula" is that it's a truism. Yeah of course if you expend more energy than you use you lose weight. That humans don't violate the laws of thermodynamics is hardly shocking. The real challenge is actually causing the human body to use more energy than it expends over a sustained period.
Neither exercise nor calorie restriction has a proven track record of being able to do this. Even the most favourable studies done on the effectiveness of such regimes show that we're talking at most a 5% success rate (and some studies put it much lower than that, in the sub 1% range).
The problem is hunger. Hunger is your body's way of saying "Hey, you know all that energy you're using doing that exercise? Replace it".
Exercise makes you expend more energy, but also makes your body want more energy to compensate. The net result is that people don't lose weight by exercising.
I don't know where people get the idea AoC is a PvP game. It's a PvE game first, PvP game second, much like WoW. Just look at the server counts they went with initially: 9 PvE vs 5 PvP in the US.
Sure, PvP is in the game as a core element rather than tacked on as an afterthought, but that doesn't mean it's a game intended to only appeal to PvP players.
Option A, and I didn't even have to think about it. Installation management is the biggest strength Linux has over other operating systems. Instead of having to search all over the place for applications, and having no easy and consistent way to install, manage and update them, it's all done through a single interface that keeps track of everything.
Why on earth would anyone think this is a weakness?
Re:Backups shouldn't be fair use.
on
Region-free PS3
·
· Score: 1
To substitute a few words:
Companies should be able to polute the environment as much as they like though. You seem to think it's ok to tell them they can't. Why is that?
I think the answer in both cases is because it's a net public good to restrict anti-social behaviour of companies.
Exposure to porn makes people more likely to believe that rape is acceptable. Exposure to porn makes people more likely to believe domestic violence is acceptable. Exposure to porn makes people more likely to be opposed to women's rights. Exposure to porn makes people believe fringe sexual activities like beastiality are more common than they really are. Exposure to porn makes people less happy with their own sexual partners and their sex lives.
And that's not even getting into the harm it does to the women actually appearing in pornography. That's just the users.
I used to think porn was harmless too, but there's a whole heap of research that shows it is anything but.
$10 a month for unlimited (well, actually the sent you nastygrams and cut you off after 2000 a month, but it's close enough) mp3 downloads. Lame --preset-standard quality.
That was perfect for me, because I considered it 10 bucks a month to find new bands and get a big supply of music to sample. I don't consider digital music in any format to be a substitute for the warm and fuzzy fealing of a physical object.
So to get me in, it's going to have to be a pay X per month deal. I'm not paying a per song cost, it's not worth it for something I don't consider particuarly valuable (a digital file). I'm paying for access to a range of music 24/7 at fast download speeds. In other words, convenience over P2P networks.
If I were a publisher who had recently replaced "The Complete Geek's Guide to Posting on Slashdot" with "The New and Revised Complete Geek's Guide to Posting on Slashdot," I would probably take the original version out of print and wouldn't want it released into the public domain as free competition for my newer product.
This is exactly why things should go into the public domain quickly. The purpose of copyright isn't to ensure people can make easy money, it's to promote progress in the useful arts.
Therefore, it's best that your old work should go public domain quickly. That way you have a significant incentive to make significantly better versions in future in order to ensure you still have a product people are willing to pay money for.
When companies can't screw people for incremental upgrades, I consider it a good thing.
It would also be a good thing for the music industry too. If the bands of the 60s and 70s were public domain, the record companies might have to release new music that appeals to fans of that type of music, rather than relying on the fact that they don't have to chase that audience, because they already have a product that fits the bill.
Long copyright terms inhibit, not promote, progress.
But how about some context. This is what he actually says: "To me C is dead. Except for the JIT!" (emphasis mine).
He's not saying C is gone, that nobody is going to use it anymore. He's saying that he's not using it anymore, except to write the JIT compiler for mono.
So the quote is accurate, but the meaning is completely changed once you put it into context!
This is just another dick measuring contest. "Oh you haven't played X? You're not a real gamer". Give me a break.
People who go on about literary canons all have one thing in common: they're a bunch of concieted academics all trying to prove they're more important than the next concieted academic because they're a bigger expert than the next guy.
Does anyone really think gaming would benefit from going down the same path?
Play the games you enjoy, and if you're a developer, let your influence flow from your personal favourites, with a healthy dose of inovation.
It's like in music: some artists have been influenced by Dylon, some by the Sex Pistols, some by Nirvana, etc. Different people are going to draw from different sources. Nobody criticises an artist if they can't name the Beatles albums in chronological order, so long as they make good music.
If the work is not graded, there's no incentive to cheat. So don't grade the work. You'll eliminate cheating that way, and you can focus on actually educating students, rather than ranking them.
Of course, with education having little to do with education, I doubt this is possible.:(
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with the "simple formula" is that it's a truism. Yeah of course if you expend more energy than you use you lose weight. That humans don't violate the laws of thermodynamics is hardly shocking.
The real challenge is actually causing the human body to use more energy than it expends over a sustained period.
Neither exercise nor calorie restriction has a proven track record of being able to do this. Even the most favourable studies done on the effectiveness of such regimes show that we're talking at most a 5% success rate (and some studies put it much lower than that, in the sub 1% range).
Show me a overweight Olympic level marathon runner, and I might believe it.
Me thinks you have cause and effect mixed up here. People are Olympic runners because they have a body that's optimal for it, not vice versa.
The problem is hunger. Hunger is your body's way of saying "Hey, you know all that energy you're using doing that exercise? Replace it".
Exercise makes you expend more energy, but also makes your body want more energy to compensate. The net result is that people don't lose weight by exercising.
I don't know where people get the idea AoC is a PvP game. It's a PvE game first, PvP game second, much like WoW. Just look at the server counts they went with initially: 9 PvE vs 5 PvP in the US.
Sure, PvP is in the game as a core element rather than tacked on as an afterthought, but that doesn't mean it's a game intended to only appeal to PvP players.
And yet the people who are trying to take away the rights by and large identify as Christian. I don't buy your argument at all.
Option A, and I didn't even have to think about it. Installation management is the biggest strength Linux has over other operating systems. Instead of having to search all over the place for applications, and having no easy and consistent way to install, manage and update them, it's all done through a single interface that keeps track of everything.
Why on earth would anyone think this is a weakness?
To substitute a few words:
Companies should be able to polute the environment as much as they like though. You seem to think it's ok to tell them they can't. Why is that?
I think the answer in both cases is because it's a net public good to restrict anti-social behaviour of companies.
It's harmful to both minors and adults.
Exposure to porn makes people more likely to believe that rape is acceptable. Exposure to porn makes people more likely to believe domestic violence is acceptable. Exposure to porn makes people more likely to be opposed to women's rights. Exposure to porn makes people believe fringe sexual activities like beastiality are more common than they really are. Exposure to porn makes people less happy with their own sexual partners and their sex lives.
And that's not even getting into the harm it does to the women actually appearing in pornography. That's just the users.
I used to think porn was harmless too, but there's a whole heap of research that shows it is anything but.
I want something like the old eMusic.
$10 a month for unlimited (well, actually the sent you nastygrams and cut you off after 2000 a month, but it's close enough) mp3 downloads. Lame --preset-standard quality.
That was perfect for me, because I considered it 10 bucks a month to find new bands and get a big supply of music to sample. I don't consider digital music in any format to be a substitute for the warm and fuzzy fealing of a physical object.
So to get me in, it's going to have to be a pay X per month deal. I'm not paying a per song cost, it's not worth it for something I don't consider particuarly valuable (a digital file). I'm paying for access to a range of music 24/7 at fast download speeds. In other words, convenience over P2P networks.
This is exactly why things should go into the public domain quickly. The purpose of copyright isn't to ensure people can make easy money, it's to promote progress in the useful arts.
Therefore, it's best that your old work should go public domain quickly. That way you have a significant incentive to make significantly better versions in future in order to ensure you still have a product people are willing to pay money for.
When companies can't screw people for incremental upgrades, I consider it a good thing.
It would also be a good thing for the music industry too. If the bands of the 60s and 70s were public domain, the record companies might have to release new music that appeals to fans of that type of music, rather than relying on the fact that they don't have to chase that audience, because they already have a product that fits the bill.
Long copyright terms inhibit, not promote, progress.
The white stripes: bmg - a major label.
;)
Franz Ferdinand: sony - a major label.
Oh well, 1 out of 3 aint bad!
Maybe the major labels are a bigger part of the market than you think. Many so called "indie" musicians are signed on RIAA affiliated labels.
Miguel said, "C is dead", sure.
But how about some context. This is what he actually says: "To me C is dead. Except for the JIT!" (emphasis mine).
He's not saying C is gone, that nobody is going to use it anymore. He's saying that he's not using it anymore, except to write the JIT compiler for mono.
So the quote is accurate, but the meaning is completely changed once you put it into context!
http://www.musicbrainz.org/ - download the mass tagger. It uses a similar algorithm, so you can get an idea of how much cpu it'll chew up per song.
Australia already has bugger all fair use rights (we can't even tape a show from TV for later viewing legally).
Now it looks like we're set to inherit all the bad stuff from US IP laws.
We'll be leading the world in fucked up IP legeslation. Things are really looking up for Australia's place in the world!
I fail to see why this matters. If you're already opting out of buying it, it makes absolutely no difference whether you download it or not.
Boycotting the RIAA's distribution model is what hurts them and sends them a message. Whether you boycott the actual product has no effect either way.
Now, you can argue whether it's a moral decision to make, but that's up to the individual to determine for themselves.
203.108.174.141 = an address on ozemail ...
;)
I wish the RIAA luck in bringing proceedings against an Australian user by filing in the US. I somehow doubt he's going to be extradited over this.
I'll tell you why: there's no portable music player on the market large enough to hold my collection.
If I'm going to have to swap things on and off anyway, why not go with a player that's smaller in size and cheaper?
Untrue about Apple being the least restrictive. eMusic offers totally DRM free MP3s.
... and that's "elitism".
This is just another dick measuring contest. "Oh you haven't played X? You're not a real gamer". Give me a break.
People who go on about literary canons all have one thing in common: they're a bunch of concieted academics all trying to prove they're more important than the next concieted academic because they're a bigger expert than the next guy.
Does anyone really think gaming would benefit from going down the same path?
Play the games you enjoy, and if you're a developer, let your influence flow from your personal favourites, with a healthy dose of inovation.
It's like in music: some artists have been influenced by Dylon, some by the Sex Pistols, some by Nirvana, etc. Different people are going to draw from different sources. Nobody criticises an artist if they can't name the Beatles albums in chronological order, so long as they make good music.
a) I know plenty of gay gamers. ;)
b) OTOH, they generally prefer the real thing to polygons.
Why do you assume only women would be interested in seeing bulging codpieces? Not everyone with an interest in the male form is female ...
Humans always need food, water and air to survive. I don't see why requiring electricity is any different.
How about just making the games fun to play so you don't need unlockable content to entice people to play more?
If the game is fun enough, people will want to play it for the game, not because they're obsessive/compulsive about "finishing" it.
If the work is not graded, there's no incentive to cheat. So don't grade the work. You'll eliminate cheating that way, and you can focus on actually educating students, rather than ranking them.
:(
Of course, with education having little to do with education, I doubt this is possible.
What's wrong with the simple solution of just putting a proxy server in to cache the data from the original site?