I wasn't implying it takes ridiculously low amounts of calories to lose weight, but I have to cut down a lot more than regular people to reach my goals. I'm one of the lucky ones who can do that. I have friends who're trying to lose weight who couldn't cut down like that, and for them it really is hard to lose weight as it goes so slow and comes back so easily. On the other hand, I have a couple of friends who have the opposite "problem": no matter what they eat, they stay skinny. Two of them are seeing a dietician about it, just to help them to stay out of the "severely underweight" weight range. So why do people find it so surprising that for some of us folks it might be the other way around: our metabolism is just too damn good at extracting calories from whatever we consume?
For me it's really simple: pay attention and maintain weight, or cut down to levels others might find unbearable, but which I can tolerate (gets easier after the first couple of days) when I want to lose some. But I always have to be conscious about it; I don't maintain a "normal" weight naturally or by instinct.
As for the rest, I'm not gonna bother answering point by point; let's just say that I'm not, as you seem to be implying, someone who drinks a liter or two of heavily sugared tea every day, then fills his face with chips or candy, and tops it off with 4-6 beers in the evening, every single day. I'm used to taking the good stuff in moderation. Out of necessity, but as a nice side effect, it means that when I drink my occasional beer or tea, I can really enjoy it because it's not something I consume regularly.
My normal food intake is already well below 2400 for maintaining my weight, so I'm not reducing it by that much. Other than that, there are some more ingredients going into my meal than just lean chicken breast and rice: there's some olive oil involved, and some sugar, yoghurt and coconut milk for the curries. And while I avoid sugary drinks, my tea does contain both sugar and honey. And I drink the occasional beer or two in the evening.
So obviously I'm getting calories from sources other than my meals. That 120kcal/day figure you calculated is way lower than my real caloric intake during that period, but as I didn't bother calculating my real caloric intake, I have no idea how much it really was. Probably around 800-1000 I guess, from past experience with matching my caloric intake to my weight progression. The point I was trying to make was not that I need to restrict my caloric intake to unrealistic low amounts; it's that when I need to lose weight, I need to make my meals a *lot* smaller if I want to see some results. Regular size meals, but healthier ingredients only help me maintain my weight, not lose it.
So plan ahead and measure your food before preparing it. Nobody forces you to sit down at a table and gorge until you feel full.
Hmm, I thought I made it pretty clear that that was more or less my approach, although I don't bother measuring; I can eyeball it pretty well.
Our grandparents didn't have that luxury.
Mine did, as did my parents. Work hard, eat big meals to maintain energy levels.
Besides, You'd be surprised how quickly the human body adapts to a lower food intake, you won't feel hungry for long.
Sorry, doesn't surprise me one bit as it's already known to me.;)
Oh, and do some exercise. An hour of jogging a day and the weight will fall off. People spend 5+ hours watching TV, take an hour to look after your health dammit.
Exercise may work for some, but does jack shit for me. I only manage to hit the gym 2-3 times a week (usually 2). I don't have time, as in actual *time*, not inclination, to work out more often. Besides, most dieticians and gym teachers will tell you that you can always out-eat your exercise, and that weight loss happens in the kitchen rather than the gym. But I know a guy who got pretty good results by just jogging every day and being more conscious about his food; when my evening class is over (one more year to go), I'm considering starting that too. Not so much for the weight loss as I got that pretty well covered; the increased endurance interests me more, tbh...
Just to keep things in perspective, I come from a family of overweight and obese people, and I've put a great deal of effort into developing healthier habits than them to stay healthy.
Same here; my point is that while for some people these habits come naturally, that's not the case for everyone. Yeah, in time I guess it will become second nature too, most days it already is. Junk food has gone from something I used to love, to something I'd rather avoid in favour of a healthier and well-prepared meal. But there are occasions where you still have to consciously keep track of your food intake, such as at barbecues, christmas parties at the family's, birthday parties,...
Your claim that to lose 22lb in 3 months is absurd unless you truly don't do anything, all day, as that much food would provide you with a mere hundred calories a day and that is no attempt at weight loss, that's trying to starve yourself to death.
Well, probably got quite a few extra calories from the olive oil used to wok the chicken cubes. Most of my food intake during those 3 months was either spicy chicken or homemade curries. Also important perhaps if it wasn't clear already, 125g of rice is dry weight, prior to cooking; it's a simple quick-boil bag for 1-2 portions. And of course there was the occasional regular meal when invited somewhere (once every couple of weeks). I also relaxed a bit toward the end; some weekends I'd have like one large hamburger, or one kebab, just to have something different (when you're losing weight at 100g/day, that one hamburger in the weekend won't upset your schedule much and it breaks the monotonous chicken/rice cycle). And no, I wasn't trying to starve myself to death. In fact, I can survive just fine on such a limited diet, despite working out 2-3 times/week. I was never really hungry during that period, just a mildly grumbling stomach when lunch time approached. But no, I don't do much physical exercise during the day. As I said, on a good day work + commute already amount to 10.5-11 hours/day, time spent in a car or an office chair.
The fact that you'd make such a claim shows you've put literally no effort into finding out how to eat right and be healthy.
Don't jump to conclusions based on limited information. Of course I have; I got fed up with being overweight and out of shape for most of my life, so I decided to do something about it. I've been to a dietician for about a year (mostly so I'd have someone to answer to when I was falling behind on schedule but got some good tips from him too), I've adopted healthier eating habits, I work out when time permits. I never claimed the above diet was in any way healthy... I mean, be serious: no vegetables and no variation whatsoever. I just rolled into it by accident: bad shit happened that affected my appetite for a couple of weeks. Noticing I accidentally rolled into an unplanned weight loss period, I simply decided to keep riding that wave for a couple of months because it was working, and working faster than my regular approach. My normal approach to weight loss is a lot healthier: a diet of salads (no pasta, no or little dressing) combined with veggies and lean meat in the wok for the warm meals, and the occasional fish dish and of course some fruit to top it off. Unfortunately, that takes a bit more work as I need to go shopping more often for the fresh veggies and need to cook every day. When I get home in the evening, I don't always feel like cooking. Besides, what with the gym, my evening class and the one "social" night, I don't get home before 11pm during the week anyway. Yeah, I know, I could do my shopping during the day or on the way home, and get up a little earlier and cook in the morning. Sorry, my days are long enough as-is; right now my main problem is not weight loss, but sleep deprivation.
You sound a lot like my aunt did, before she decided to stop eating fast food and start hitting the
Ever seen a newborn? Yes, you *are* born that way.;)
But I agree with your other points. Although, I must nuance your views a bit. For a health freak who doesn't eat the same stuff as the rest of us and considers that "normal", or someone blessed with a fast metabolism who can hog out on junk food and stay slim, it may be hard to comprehend that for some people it is in fact quite hard to lose weight and keep it off.
The situation is a bit more complex than just saying "put down that fork". For a lot of us overweight and obese people, the basic feedback loop that tells us when we've had enough is broken. And most of the fault there lies with the previous generation, although it's hard to blame them when they didn't know better. They were for the most part hard working labourers raised on big meals, dumping those same big meals onto the plates of their offspring, while simultaneously doing everything in their power and giving us all the opportunities to ensure we would never have to work as hard as they do. Oh, and of course, coming from a situation of scarcity, they would not accept "I've had enough" while there was still food on the plate... So from a young age we're raised on the wrong idea of how big a meal should be and taught to ignore the signals our bodies tell us when we've had enough. Now we're no longer capable of recognising those signals, assuming our bodies still bother sending them at all. We're the ones who have to measure and track to compensate for that broken feedback loop. Even now, after years of being conscious about my food intake, the meals I eat still look rather small to me. Yet they do manage to fill my belly and satisfy me just fine, and I *know* I feel better eating smaller meals rather than those feasts that leave you bloated for hours to come. But I can still not rely on those automatic clues to know when I've had enough like some others do; I'll always have to be conscious about what I eat and how much.
Now, combine previous with the realities of modern life: most of us have a sedentary life, spending the bulk of our days in an office chair. Most food these days is so rich in calories, fat, other junk, and processed to death... Food that's much too rich, combined with way too little time for physical exercise. Again something that may be alien to some; as I understand, commute times in the States are rather short. But here in Europe it's not unheard of to be away for 11 hours a day for work alone. My commute eats a good 2.5 hours out of my day, *on a good day*.
So while I agree with what you say: being overweight is a matter of choice, it's not as simple as most people blessed with better metabolisms pretend it is. We can't simply close our eyes, click our heels together three times and wish ourselves thin. For some of us, it is rather hard. I for one am in that camp: it takes a lot of effort to lose weight, and constant (luckily mild in my case) vigilance to keep it off. To give you an idea, in order to lose 10kg (22lb) over a period of 3 months, one 125g (4.4oz) bag of rice and one chicken breast would be my total food intake over 4 days, for that entire 3 month period. We're measuring daily food intake in tablespoons at that time, and the number is either single digits or "let's count in hex so we can keep it in single digits". Yeah, I work out too. No, it doesn't help. Weight loss happens in the kitchen, not the gym, no matter what people tell you.
It's understandable that some people just consider it too much work for something they don't perceive as a benefit: if you're a good coder, it doesn't matter how fit you are. The increased health and fitness may perhaps improve your brain functions a bit, but at the expense of coding time which builds and maintains your skills. If you're a good coder now , while overweight, it must mean your current strategy is working. Do you really want to risk messing with that? Especially considering that computer time is fun time, while physical
What kind of shitty future did I wake up in where 'unlocking your cellphone' is a "superpower"?
Don't know man, humanity's changing and more and more people are waking up with new and strange powers. Take me, for example... A couple of weeks ago I discovered I have the power to look through solid windows!
While this may be true for your typical pop artists, it does not hold true for the seasoned artists that release concept album. These are albums where a number of songs are used to tell a story - much like a musical.
Examples of this include MuseThe Resistance, Tokyo JihenJust Can't Help It, and GotyeMaking Mirrors. If you ever want to completely lose yourself into music, I recommend seeking these out.
While you're at it, check out some stuff by Shpongle (doesn't tell a story, but the songs have inter-song and intra-song variation and flow into each other nicely so that it's hard to tell where one song ends and the next begins) or Ayreon (space opera, rock opera; can particularly recommend "Into The Electric Castle").
Underestimating the artists themselves as most don't have more than 2-3 good songs an album anyways.
You mean overestimating, for sure!;)
but so far the best model I've seen for selling music based off of samples is playing the first 20-30 seconds of the song and then asking if the user wants to buy it.
Probably works quite well for pop music and other styles that settle into "the meat of the thing" during that timeframe. But some of the electronic stuff I listen to is a bit too complex or evolves too slowly to be sampled in a mere 30 seconds, regardless whether it comes from the front, the end or the middle. I'd rather they allowed me to choose between either listening to part of the song in high quality, or the complete song in lower quality. Or even better, like on the radio in the old days: the entire song, with a radio jingle at the beginning and/or end.
And that's allowing for the industry's view that previews should be mutilated in a futile attempt to curb piracy.
If "transport from point A to point B" was the sole use case for automobiles, the only model in existence would be the Ford Fiesta.
Because the soccer mom who needs to drive her kids and their friends to practice, the farmer who needs to pick up a ton of supplies in town and drives on unpaved roads a lot of the time, or the courier who needs to distribute a bunch of parcels are all equally well served with a Ford Fiesta...
Who could possibly have a need for a Volkswagen Touran, Toyota Hilux or Citroën Berlingo other than to better connect to the road and fully experience the joy of driving? These cars are simply *made* for pleasure!
if you go into a tunnel, you will come out and get the signal again. and its not like you need to navitage inside a tunnel.
Not all tunnels have only one entry and exit point. I already missed an exit in the tunnels under Brussels on a couple of occasions. And even if all tunnels were simple one-pipe affairs... What if you need to make a turn shortly after the tunnel, and your GPS takes too long to get a fix so it still has you at the tunnel's entrance when you blissfully sail past your turn?
I'm not saying we couldn't cope without these improvements, as indeed in the past we managed to do just fine without GPS. But there's room for useful improvement nonetheless.
Oh, but they aren't -- because those people own the government. Because those people are "too big to fail". Because those people have friends in high places and lots of lawyers to defend them. They aren't easy targets, even though they are big targets.
As amusing as that little stark raving mad streetcorner lunatic act was, I believe it has more to do with big companies running their own mail servers instead of relying on third-party providers. It's easy for the IRS to request emails from an ISP since it's not in the ISP's interest to antagonize them by protecting a $50/mo customer's privacy. It's quite different if the company you're sending an email access request to is the very same company you're investigating.
Don't want the IRS to read your mails? Do as I did for years: run your own IMAP server at home and have all your mails forwarded to it. I did it for technical reasons, but it's equally applicable to this situation. Of course, that only works for as long as they don't decide they should also have access to mails in transit. I'd suggest using encryption, but good luck getting all your contacts to adopt it...
Which is great, but your average Joe doesn't know about that; most still run "Linksys" or whatever as their ESSIDs. Heck, I didn't know about the _nomap tag. Sure makes your ESSID look ugly, btw. Anyway, two flaws: requires uncommon knowledge, it's opt-out instead of opt-in.
That being said: I fail to see the problem, but haven't given it much thought either. As far as I'm concerned, you bought a device that you know broadcasts radio waves to do its thing. You know radio waves don't stop at the boundaries of your house/garden. Therefore, you know it's already known by your neighbours. What's the problem if some info about it, that can't be used to identify you in any way, ends up in a database that helps cellphones get their geographic position without turning on the GPS chip?
Still, if Google got in trouble over this, the same should apply to anyone else doing the same thing. Otherwise, you're just unfairly targetting certain companies while giving others a free pass.
There is also an app for your mobile which automatically enters this data, and you can upload data from e.g. Airomap and other wardriving applications.
So yes, it's voluntary for the person collecting and uploading this data, just as it was a voluntary decision on Google's part. It is however not at all voluntary for the people who own the AP's whose data are being collected.
And no AV scans or backups. Unfortunately, not an option for our org but thanks for the info. Any resources or public data available for figuring out the value of BC mining? I've looked but can't find any...
What places like the symphony need are simply content that is more relevant to those they want to attract. It's hard to sell traditional symphonic material to younger crowds, so provide that but also a bit of more contemporary stuff.
No, what places like the Symphony need is to get off this stupid idea that kids/teens belong in the opera house. Teens rebel against the older generation, rejecting everything they stand for, and that's a normal and natural phase in their development. Some kids/teens may genuinely be into classical though, and that's fine. Just don't try to push your notion of culture onto the ones who show no interest. Classical music is an acquired taste, not a forcefed one: don't be the Jehova's Witnesses of music.
I used to play the piano as a teenager, yet even then I never really got into the whole classical music thing. But I've matured, learned to appreciate somewhat better audio equipment and the subtleties it exposes in the source material. Classical became a lot more enjoyable since I'm not playing it over shitty cans/buds anymore. I guess being exposed to more classical-ish music in the scores of many great movies, during pivotal and emotionally gripping scenes, has also helped in that regard. I see similar tendencies among some of my friends. So yes, as people mature they tend to broaden their cultural horizons. The opera house will always have an audience; it will always be an older crowd.
An more advanced form of this is the rock band Guster, who is going around to a few select cities and playing many favorite songs that have been re-cast to work with the full symphony playing. The results are spectacular.
That way you get younger listeners to understand why you might want to attend a full symphony, and will probably get them to attend more events. But you have to get them interested first.
That's great, and I definitely applaud artists who try to make classical more accessible by making it more contemporary. But don't expect this to draw the crowds to the opera house anytime soon. There's a huge difference between having a symphonic orchestra accompany you on a contemporary work, and three hours of Mozart.
I don't think it's age. I've not been able to remember where I set my mug since I started drinking coffee. I've been losing my glasses since before I drank coffee. They're just details that don't seem important when they happen.
True, at work I usually have more pressing matters to worry about than keeping track of some generic office mug...
Really? Because the only reason I remember where I left my mug is because I always leave it in the same spot; if I leave it elsewhere, I end up looking all over the place to see where it's gone to. So I tend to forget where my source of caffeine is. I've been known to occasionally take a clean mug at work because I forgot there was one on my desk already.
Then again, except for the queen which can live up to 5 years, drones and worker bees live significantly less than a year (4 months max.), all of which is significantly less than my age. Maybe just a case of age beating the effects of caffeine.
And you also have to take into account that I don't consider caffeine to be critical to my survival, contrary to the way a bee sees a source of nectar. We tend to forget the less important things, and remember the critical stuff with much higher accuracy. Except for the flawed ones (think Darwin Awards nominees), obviously.
Yeah, I've been noticing a decline in the writing skills of the/. editors as of late. Long rambling walls of text made up of disconnected segments, conclusions that don't follow from (or even directly contradict) the "facts" presented immediately before. Titles that leave you wondering how the hell they figured that captured the essence of, or is even remotely related to, the summary. But then again, the summary is usually just as factually wrong w.r.t. the original article as the title is w.r.t. the summary, and that's been a problem here for a bit longer than that.
I used to be able to find at least a good handful of interesting articles here on a daily basis; now I'm happy if I get the same amount in a week. So does anyone know good nerd-news sites that have a broad coverage, but with competent editors?
Kind of hard to do when it crashes at startup. That's why it's a beta: to identify these issues and fix them before the less tech-savvy people get on it.
Slashdot Mirror
I wasn't implying it takes ridiculously low amounts of calories to lose weight, but I have to cut down a lot more than regular people to reach my goals. I'm one of the lucky ones who can do that. I have friends who're trying to lose weight who couldn't cut down like that, and for them it really is hard to lose weight as it goes so slow and comes back so easily. On the other hand, I have a couple of friends who have the opposite "problem": no matter what they eat, they stay skinny. Two of them are seeing a dietician about it, just to help them to stay out of the "severely underweight" weight range. So why do people find it so surprising that for some of us folks it might be the other way around: our metabolism is just too damn good at extracting calories from whatever we consume?
For me it's really simple: pay attention and maintain weight, or cut down to levels others might find unbearable, but which I can tolerate (gets easier after the first couple of days) when I want to lose some. But I always have to be conscious about it; I don't maintain a "normal" weight naturally or by instinct.
As for the rest, I'm not gonna bother answering point by point; let's just say that I'm not, as you seem to be implying, someone who drinks a liter or two of heavily sugared tea every day, then fills his face with chips or candy, and tops it off with 4-6 beers in the evening, every single day. I'm used to taking the good stuff in moderation. Out of necessity, but as a nice side effect, it means that when I drink my occasional beer or tea, I can really enjoy it because it's not something I consume regularly.
My normal food intake is already well below 2400 for maintaining my weight, so I'm not reducing it by that much. Other than that, there are some more ingredients going into my meal than just lean chicken breast and rice: there's some olive oil involved, and some sugar, yoghurt and coconut milk for the curries. And while I avoid sugary drinks, my tea does contain both sugar and honey. And I drink the occasional beer or two in the evening.
So obviously I'm getting calories from sources other than my meals. That 120kcal/day figure you calculated is way lower than my real caloric intake during that period, but as I didn't bother calculating my real caloric intake, I have no idea how much it really was. Probably around 800-1000 I guess, from past experience with matching my caloric intake to my weight progression. The point I was trying to make was not that I need to restrict my caloric intake to unrealistic low amounts; it's that when I need to lose weight, I need to make my meals a *lot* smaller if I want to see some results. Regular size meals, but healthier ingredients only help me maintain my weight, not lose it.
So plan ahead and measure your food before preparing it. Nobody forces you to sit down at a table and gorge until you feel full.
Hmm, I thought I made it pretty clear that that was more or less my approach, although I don't bother measuring; I can eyeball it pretty well.
Our grandparents didn't have that luxury.
Mine did, as did my parents. Work hard, eat big meals to maintain energy levels.
Besides, You'd be surprised how quickly the human body adapts to a lower food intake, you won't feel hungry for long.
Sorry, doesn't surprise me one bit as it's already known to me. ;)
Oh, and do some exercise. An hour of jogging a day and the weight will fall off. People spend 5+ hours watching TV, take an hour to look after your health dammit.
Exercise may work for some, but does jack shit for me. I only manage to hit the gym 2-3 times a week (usually 2). I don't have time, as in actual *time*, not inclination, to work out more often. Besides, most dieticians and gym teachers will tell you that you can always out-eat your exercise, and that weight loss happens in the kitchen rather than the gym. But I know a guy who got pretty good results by just jogging every day and being more conscious about his food; when my evening class is over (one more year to go), I'm considering starting that too. Not so much for the weight loss as I got that pretty well covered; the increased endurance interests me more, tbh...
Just to keep things in perspective, I come from a family of overweight and obese people, and I've put a great deal of effort into developing healthier habits than them to stay healthy.
Same here; my point is that while for some people these habits come naturally, that's not the case for everyone. Yeah, in time I guess it will become second nature too, most days it already is. Junk food has gone from something I used to love, to something I'd rather avoid in favour of a healthier and well-prepared meal. But there are occasions where you still have to consciously keep track of your food intake, such as at barbecues, christmas parties at the family's, birthday parties, ...
Your claim that to lose 22lb in 3 months is absurd unless you truly don't do anything, all day, as that much food would provide you with a mere hundred calories a day and that is no attempt at weight loss, that's trying to starve yourself to death.
Well, probably got quite a few extra calories from the olive oil used to wok the chicken cubes. Most of my food intake during those 3 months was either spicy chicken or homemade curries. Also important perhaps if it wasn't clear already, 125g of rice is dry weight, prior to cooking; it's a simple quick-boil bag for 1-2 portions. And of course there was the occasional regular meal when invited somewhere (once every couple of weeks). I also relaxed a bit toward the end; some weekends I'd have like one large hamburger, or one kebab, just to have something different (when you're losing weight at 100g/day, that one hamburger in the weekend won't upset your schedule much and it breaks the monotonous chicken/rice cycle). And no, I wasn't trying to starve myself to death. In fact, I can survive just fine on such a limited diet, despite working out 2-3 times/week. I was never really hungry during that period, just a mildly grumbling stomach when lunch time approached. But no, I don't do much physical exercise during the day. As I said, on a good day work + commute already amount to 10.5-11 hours/day, time spent in a car or an office chair.
The fact that you'd make such a claim shows you've put literally no effort into finding out how to eat right and be healthy.
Don't jump to conclusions based on limited information. Of course I have; I got fed up with being overweight and out of shape for most of my life, so I decided to do something about it. I've been to a dietician for about a year (mostly so I'd have someone to answer to when I was falling behind on schedule but got some good tips from him too), I've adopted healthier eating habits, I work out when time permits. I never claimed the above diet was in any way healthy... I mean, be serious: no vegetables and no variation whatsoever. I just rolled into it by accident: bad shit happened that affected my appetite for a couple of weeks. Noticing I accidentally rolled into an unplanned weight loss period, I simply decided to keep riding that wave for a couple of months because it was working, and working faster than my regular approach. My normal approach to weight loss is a lot healthier: a diet of salads (no pasta, no or little dressing) combined with veggies and lean meat in the wok for the warm meals, and the occasional fish dish and of course some fruit to top it off. Unfortunately, that takes a bit more work as I need to go shopping more often for the fresh veggies and need to cook every day. When I get home in the evening, I don't always feel like cooking. Besides, what with the gym, my evening class and the one "social" night, I don't get home before 11pm during the week anyway. Yeah, I know, I could do my shopping during the day or on the way home, and get up a little earlier and cook in the morning. Sorry, my days are long enough as-is; right now my main problem is not weight loss, but sleep deprivation.
You sound a lot like my aunt did, before she decided to stop eating fast food and start hitting the
you're not born that way
Ever seen a newborn? Yes, you *are* born that way. ;)
But I agree with your other points. Although, I must nuance your views a bit. For a health freak who doesn't eat the same stuff as the rest of us and considers that "normal", or someone blessed with a fast metabolism who can hog out on junk food and stay slim, it may be hard to comprehend that for some people it is in fact quite hard to lose weight and keep it off.
The situation is a bit more complex than just saying "put down that fork". For a lot of us overweight and obese people, the basic feedback loop that tells us when we've had enough is broken. And most of the fault there lies with the previous generation, although it's hard to blame them when they didn't know better. They were for the most part hard working labourers raised on big meals, dumping those same big meals onto the plates of their offspring, while simultaneously doing everything in their power and giving us all the opportunities to ensure we would never have to work as hard as they do. Oh, and of course, coming from a situation of scarcity, they would not accept "I've had enough" while there was still food on the plate... So from a young age we're raised on the wrong idea of how big a meal should be and taught to ignore the signals our bodies tell us when we've had enough. Now we're no longer capable of recognising those signals, assuming our bodies still bother sending them at all. We're the ones who have to measure and track to compensate for that broken feedback loop. Even now, after years of being conscious about my food intake, the meals I eat still look rather small to me. Yet they do manage to fill my belly and satisfy me just fine, and I *know* I feel better eating smaller meals rather than those feasts that leave you bloated for hours to come. But I can still not rely on those automatic clues to know when I've had enough like some others do; I'll always have to be conscious about what I eat and how much.
Now, combine previous with the realities of modern life: most of us have a sedentary life, spending the bulk of our days in an office chair. Most food these days is so rich in calories, fat, other junk, and processed to death... Food that's much too rich, combined with way too little time for physical exercise. Again something that may be alien to some; as I understand, commute times in the States are rather short. But here in Europe it's not unheard of to be away for 11 hours a day for work alone. My commute eats a good 2.5 hours out of my day, *on a good day*.
So while I agree with what you say: being overweight is a matter of choice, it's not as simple as most people blessed with better metabolisms pretend it is. We can't simply close our eyes, click our heels together three times and wish ourselves thin. For some of us, it is rather hard. I for one am in that camp: it takes a lot of effort to lose weight, and constant (luckily mild in my case) vigilance to keep it off. To give you an idea, in order to lose 10kg (22lb) over a period of 3 months, one 125g (4.4oz) bag of rice and one chicken breast would be my total food intake over 4 days, for that entire 3 month period. We're measuring daily food intake in tablespoons at that time, and the number is either single digits or "let's count in hex so we can keep it in single digits". Yeah, I work out too. No, it doesn't help. Weight loss happens in the kitchen, not the gym, no matter what people tell you.
It's understandable that some people just consider it too much work for something they don't perceive as a benefit: if you're a good coder, it doesn't matter how fit you are. The increased health and fitness may perhaps improve your brain functions a bit, but at the expense of coding time which builds and maintains your skills. If you're a good coder now , while overweight, it must mean your current strategy is working. Do you really want to risk messing with that? Especially considering that computer time is fun time, while physical
Thanks, ordered them. Looking forward to sinking my teeth in them soon as I'm through Pratchett and Baxter's The Long War.
Glad I wasn't the only one to instantly make that connection. :D
What kind of shitty future did I wake up in where 'unlocking your cellphone' is a "superpower"?
Don't know man, humanity's changing and more and more people are waking up with new and strange powers. Take me, for example... A couple of weeks ago I discovered I have the power to look through solid windows!
While this may be true for your typical pop artists, it does not hold true for the seasoned artists that release concept album . These are albums where a number of songs are used to tell a story - much like a musical.
Examples of this include Muse The Resistance, Tokyo Jihen Just Can't Help It, and Gotye Making Mirrors. If you ever want to completely lose yourself into music, I recommend seeking these out.
While you're at it, check out some stuff by Shpongle (doesn't tell a story, but the songs have inter-song and intra-song variation and flow into each other nicely so that it's hard to tell where one song ends and the next begins) or Ayreon (space opera, rock opera; can particularly recommend "Into The Electric Castle").
Underestimating the artists themselves as most don't have more than 2-3 good songs an album anyways.
You mean overestimating, for sure! ;)
but so far the best model I've seen for selling music based off of samples is playing the first 20-30 seconds of the song and then asking if the user wants to buy it.
Probably works quite well for pop music and other styles that settle into "the meat of the thing" during that timeframe. But some of the electronic stuff I listen to is a bit too complex or evolves too slowly to be sampled in a mere 30 seconds, regardless whether it comes from the front, the end or the middle. I'd rather they allowed me to choose between either listening to part of the song in high quality, or the complete song in lower quality. Or even better, like on the radio in the old days: the entire song, with a radio jingle at the beginning and/or end.
And that's allowing for the industry's view that previews should be mutilated in a futile attempt to curb piracy.
If "transport from point A to point B" was the sole use case for automobiles, the only model in existence would be the Ford Fiesta.
Because the soccer mom who needs to drive her kids and their friends to practice, the farmer who needs to pick up a ton of supplies in town and drives on unpaved roads a lot of the time, or the courier who needs to distribute a bunch of parcels are all equally well served with a Ford Fiesta...
Who could possibly have a need for a Volkswagen Touran, Toyota Hilux or Citroën Berlingo other than to better connect to the road and fully experience the joy of driving? These cars are simply *made* for pleasure!
There are several good open source/free to use database engines. MySQL is not one of them.
On the other hand, it's the only concurrent DB I would consider to be a perfect match for PHP. ;)
if you go into a tunnel, you will come out and get the signal again. and its not like you need to navitage inside a tunnel.
Not all tunnels have only one entry and exit point. I already missed an exit in the tunnels under Brussels on a couple of occasions. And even if all tunnels were simple one-pipe affairs... What if you need to make a turn shortly after the tunnel, and your GPS takes too long to get a fix so it still has you at the tunnel's entrance when you blissfully sail past your turn?
I'm not saying we couldn't cope without these improvements, as indeed in the past we managed to do just fine without GPS. But there's room for useful improvement nonetheless.
Oh, but they aren't -- because those people own the government. Because those people are "too big to fail". Because those people have friends in high places and lots of lawyers to defend them. They aren't easy targets, even though they are big targets.
As amusing as that little stark raving mad streetcorner lunatic act was, I believe it has more to do with big companies running their own mail servers instead of relying on third-party providers. It's easy for the IRS to request emails from an ISP since it's not in the ISP's interest to antagonize them by protecting a $50/mo customer's privacy. It's quite different if the company you're sending an email access request to is the very same company you're investigating.
Don't want the IRS to read your mails? Do as I did for years: run your own IMAP server at home and have all your mails forwarded to it. I did it for technical reasons, but it's equally applicable to this situation. Of course, that only works for as long as they don't decide they should also have access to mails in transit. I'd suggest using encryption, but good luck getting all your contacts to adopt it...
Which is great, but your average Joe doesn't know about that; most still run "Linksys" or whatever as their ESSIDs. Heck, I didn't know about the _nomap tag. Sure makes your ESSID look ugly, btw. Anyway, two flaws: requires uncommon knowledge, it's opt-out instead of opt-in.
That being said: I fail to see the problem, but haven't given it much thought either. As far as I'm concerned, you bought a device that you know broadcasts radio waves to do its thing. You know radio waves don't stop at the boundaries of your house/garden. Therefore, you know it's already known by your neighbours. What's the problem if some info about it, that can't be used to identify you in any way, ends up in a database that helps cellphones get their geographic position without turning on the GPS chip?
Still, if Google got in trouble over this, the same should apply to anyone else doing the same thing. Otherwise, you're just unfairly targetting certain companies while giving others a free pass.
Wigle it, just a little bit?
No, this is voluntary.
From the summary:
There is also an app for your mobile which automatically enters this data, and you can upload data from e.g. Airomap and other wardriving applications.
So yes, it's voluntary for the person collecting and uploading this data, just as it was a voluntary decision on Google's part. It is however not at all voluntary for the people who own the AP's whose data are being collected.
And no AV scans or backups. Unfortunately, not an option for our org but thanks for the info. Any resources or public data available for figuring out the value of BC mining? I've looked but can't find any...
Wake on lan? Wake by BIOS clock (scheduled)?
What places like the symphony need are simply content that is more relevant to those they want to attract. It's hard to sell traditional symphonic material to younger crowds, so provide that but also a bit of more contemporary stuff.
No, what places like the Symphony need is to get off this stupid idea that kids/teens belong in the opera house. Teens rebel against the older generation, rejecting everything they stand for, and that's a normal and natural phase in their development. Some kids/teens may genuinely be into classical though, and that's fine. Just don't try to push your notion of culture onto the ones who show no interest. Classical music is an acquired taste, not a forcefed one: don't be the Jehova's Witnesses of music.
I used to play the piano as a teenager, yet even then I never really got into the whole classical music thing. But I've matured, learned to appreciate somewhat better audio equipment and the subtleties it exposes in the source material. Classical became a lot more enjoyable since I'm not playing it over shitty cans/buds anymore. I guess being exposed to more classical-ish music in the scores of many great movies, during pivotal and emotionally gripping scenes, has also helped in that regard. I see similar tendencies among some of my friends. So yes, as people mature they tend to broaden their cultural horizons. The opera house will always have an audience; it will always be an older crowd.
An more advanced form of this is the rock band Guster, who is going around to a few select cities and playing many favorite songs that have been re-cast to work with the full symphony playing. The results are spectacular.
That way you get younger listeners to understand why you might want to attend a full symphony, and will probably get them to attend more events. But you have to get them interested first.
That's great, and I definitely applaud artists who try to make classical more accessible by making it more contemporary. But don't expect this to draw the crowds to the opera house anytime soon. There's a huge difference between having a symphonic orchestra accompany you on a contemporary work, and three hours of Mozart.
Do Vending Machines have Friends?
Yes, they do.
Damn it, I'm overanalyzing this, aren't I?
Too much coffee?
Absolutely! :D
I don't think it's age. I've not been able to remember where I set my mug since I started drinking coffee. I've been losing my glasses since before I drank coffee. They're just details that don't seem important when they happen.
True, at work I usually have more pressing matters to worry about than keeping track of some generic office mug...
Really? Because the only reason I remember where I left my mug is because I always leave it in the same spot; if I leave it elsewhere, I end up looking all over the place to see where it's gone to. So I tend to forget where my source of caffeine is. I've been known to occasionally take a clean mug at work because I forgot there was one on my desk already.
Then again, except for the queen which can live up to 5 years, drones and worker bees live significantly less than a year (4 months max.), all of which is significantly less than my age. Maybe just a case of age beating the effects of caffeine.
And you also have to take into account that I don't consider caffeine to be critical to my survival, contrary to the way a bee sees a source of nectar. We tend to forget the less important things, and remember the critical stuff with much higher accuracy. Except for the flawed ones (think Darwin Awards nominees), obviously.
Damn it, I'm overanalyzing this, aren't I?
There isn't any place to go if you want to escape.
Soon on SlashDot: Download This Rocket - 3D printed rocket reliable up to Mars, plans for habitats being worked on.
Yeah, I've been noticing a decline in the writing skills of the /. editors as of late. Long rambling walls of text made up of disconnected segments, conclusions that don't follow from (or even directly contradict) the "facts" presented immediately before. Titles that leave you wondering how the hell they figured that captured the essence of, or is even remotely related to, the summary. But then again, the summary is usually just as factually wrong w.r.t. the original article as the title is w.r.t. the summary, and that's been a problem here for a bit longer than that.
I used to be able to find at least a good handful of interesting articles here on a daily basis; now I'm happy if I get the same amount in a week. So does anyone know good nerd-news sites that have a broad coverage, but with competent editors?
Kind of hard to do when it crashes at startup. That's why it's a beta: to identify these issues and fix them before the less tech-savvy people get on it.