That is not an accurate way of depicting usernames, passwords, or biometrics. Usernames identify authorized users (unique account to track access, used to validate passwords, biometrics, etc against). Biometrics are used to identify a person (who you are), passwords are used as a shared secret to help validate identity (what you know). These are not the same and should not be treated as the same.
Don't forget the what you want part, i.e. authorization by the user[*]. Biometrics do not provide this.
[*]: Authorization is a two way street - not only does the service authorize the user, but the user also authorizes the service. Take away user-initiated authorization, and you open for exploitation and coercion.
Not a fair metric when 90% are crappy clones of each other.
This is unfortunately so. I am sure there are people who will be thrilled that they now can get several times as many visual novels and badly made side scrollers, but I'm not one of them.
The problem is not that they can't tell you how huge, complex machines work together, the problem is the alarming lack of knowledge on how things work generally.
Indeed. The dumbing down of the public is scary. People know a lot of tidbits that are needed to pass tests, but understand very little, and are generally unable to figure out anything. Especially so with Google and Wikipedia at their fingertips. The word "why" might be dying, because people don't feel a need to understand anything. Even simple things become magic that's just accepted.
The world would be a tedious place if we had to do all out computational thinking ourselves; that's why we invented computers in the first place.
No, we invented computers not to avoid the computational thinking, but to speed up computational repeat work, in particular the work of code breaking. Using computers to avoid thinking is a new use case.
It's not so long ago that you had to be able to think and troubleshoot far more than the average person in order to use computers.
You will not get the lazy slobs off the couch by telling them lies that diet makes no change
Of course not. Tell them the truth, that diets do work for weight loss, but you that you won't just lose fat, but muscle too, and that there's an overwhelming risk that they'll regain the weight. And tell them that they can lose fat faster with exercise, with other health benefits too. But sure, it requires more effort to do it through exercise.
I'm not sure what the average is, but Swedes like to live in the countryside (not just suburbs) or different cities than where they work, and quite a few commute by train. It's not uncommon for train commuters to start working while on the train, using laptops and mobile phones.
From what I've read, it does cause problems for some. It's a small glass tube implanted in the fleshy part between the thumb and index finger, which works well for most. Except those that use that part of both hands quite a bit, like woodworkers and mechanics.
I imagine it might interfere with some sports and recreation too, like archery, cross country skiing, tequila drinking, rappelling and foosball.
The cap has less surface area and if transported correctly comes in contact with the contents of the container less than the walls do.
You might be young, and not remember back when the layer between the glass bottle and cap was first cork, and then soft foam. Both were prone to small pieces breaking off, because you rub the intermediary between the glass and the metal, pretty hard, and even more so when you open the bottle. I would not be surprised if the same happens with the harder plastic used now, but that what rubs off is going to be microparticles. Looking at a Mexicola cork here, I see scuff and stress marks on the plastic inlay, so I don't think that's an unreasonable guess.
If someone can't code, they are _wasting_their_life_ trying to contribute the Kernel.
I think it's even a bit worse than that, and an even higher standard is needed. That you can code isn't enough. The saying is that greatness is 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration, but in the case of something like the kernel, it falls down if the 10% isn't there. You need to be a programmer with a good understanding (and not just memorization) of logic and algorithms, not just a coder, or you may do more harm than good. There are eyes on the code that will catch many problems, but still, bad code slips through. The code itself may be wonderful, but when the logic behind the code isn't, it goes south.
Why are you listing radio frequencies and other things that wouldn't make any sense in the US?
Because on European cars, you are generally allowed to make a choice (either through menu choices or dip switches), and it only defaults to the local configuration. But if the same car is shipped to the US, that choice has to be removed. You cannot have a car-installed receiver that can receive a 87.5 FM station, even if you drive to somewhere where there is such a station.
European cars in the US are built to US rules, and are somewhat different than their local-market models.
Indeed. Some of the differences can include: - No differentiated fuel tank holes to only fit nozzles giving the right fuel. - No key lock on the fuel cap. - Rear fog lights are usually disconnected, because Americans have no restraint and think they should be used when visibility is more than 10m/30ft. - No splash guards. - No knock-off safety mirrors, hood ornaments or antennas. - No way to manually disable airbags (like for transporting elderly or backward facing child seats) - No orange rear blinkers. - No warning triangle or safety vests. - Yellow headlights (which penetrate fog better) are not allowed. - For older cars, no longwave radio. - For newer cars, no DAB+ radio. - For FM, only bands 9 kHz apart are available, not switchable to 10 kHz. - No Galileo satellites on the nav system, only GPS and GLONASS. Galileo has too good resolution to have been approved. - For cars with hotspot functionality, no WiFi channels 12-14 on the 2.4 GHz band. - Voice assistants are female sounding, not male.... and commonly softer suspension and wider seats.
I also train using a power meter, which measures the actual amount of work I do, which is translated into watts, and also easily converted to calories, and harder sessions typically result in 600-800 calories burned per hour, sometimes more. (This is a lot more accurate than measuring heart rate.)
Not necessarily. The reason is that you don't measure the extra work that doesn't go into the bike, including the work keeping your heart pumping, your lungs inflating and deflating, and keeping you warm. Combining your heart rate (using a strap) with up-to-date min and max heart rates, height, weight and VO2 max is pretty good for estimating the total burn. Some products are better at this than others - a Polar V650 bike tracker is fairly good, as long as you remember to keep the values updated. It will estimate that an untrained overweight person who does the exact same track and heart rate as a well trained lean person burns a heck of a lot more calories. Which is true.
A pack of crackers I just checked has 480 kcal per 100 gram. 100 grams of crackers is nothing, they can be eaten within 5 minutes in front of TV without even noticing. Good luck burning it in 5 minutes.
You don't have to burn it in 5 minutes, you know. You can burn it off with a 40 minute light run or exercise bike. The added benefit being that you increase your cardiovascular health compared to if you hadn't eaten the crackers and then exercised them off.
(And if you watch less TV, you have more time to burn off calories too.)
I'm glad you lost weight, but you did it in the most inefficient way possible.
Going from 240 lb to 150 lb in seven months while gaining muscle is the most inefficient way possible? Oh, okay. I should have done a diet instead. I was obviously wrong.
Very, very few people are capable of that, and it's not good advice for weight loss. It'll fail for 99.9% of people on the planet.
I have not seen any statistics for how many who fail losing weight through dedicated daily exercise, but diets fail for more than 95% of people. Oh, most lose weight, but then they bounce back up, with the only difference being that they now have less muscle mass, because they went for weight loss, not fat loss.
Unfortunately, the only data I have on this is a single datum - me. If anyone has published data on what the success/failure rate is for dedicated exercise, I haven't been able to find it. My suspicion is that many don't even try it due to all the people saying that you have to start with a diet.
Also: as one exercises more, it is every easy to start eating more. As your body burns more energy, it will "request" more energy by making you feel hungry. So even if you want to keep taking in the same amount of calories, you may want / need to change the type of food to ingest to keep the hunger pangs at bay (more fats and proteins, which help with satiety).
Yes, exercising more doesn't help if you just eat more. A good mix of proteins and fiber helps keeping food cravings[*] at bay.
[*] Not hunger pangs, which is something few people in our richer societies have ever experienced. If you have doubled over in pain and raided a birch to chew on its leaves, you have experienced hunger.
Over a week, I bet that you eat more than 1000 kcal a day on average. That you mention the exercise you do also means you have upped your burn, and cannot ascribe all of the weight loss to a starvation diet.
...yeah, while that might be true if you take two samples, one at 21, the other at 70, and draw a straight line, in practice the amount of spare time you have at 65 is unlikely to be significantly lower than it is when you're 30.
One word: kids Not everyone have them, but enough that it surely skews the numbers, making people in their 30s and 40s on average have significantly less spare time.
Slashdot Mirror
That is not an accurate way of depicting usernames, passwords, or biometrics. Usernames identify authorized users (unique account to track access, used to validate passwords, biometrics, etc against). Biometrics are used to identify a person (who you are), passwords are used as a shared secret to help validate identity (what you know). These are not the same and should not be treated as the same.
Don't forget the what you want part, i.e. authorization by the user[*]. Biometrics do not provide this.
[*]: Authorization is a two way street - not only does the service authorize the user, but the user also authorizes the service. Take away user-initiated authorization, and you open for exploitation and coercion.
Not a fair metric when 90% are crappy clones of each other.
This is unfortunately so. I am sure there are people who will be thrilled that they now can get several times as many visual novels and badly made side scrollers, but I'm not one of them.
The problem is not that they can't tell you how huge, complex machines work together, the problem is the alarming lack of knowledge on how things work generally.
Indeed. The dumbing down of the public is scary. People know a lot of tidbits that are needed to pass tests, but understand very little, and are generally unable to figure out anything. Especially so with Google and Wikipedia at their fingertips. The word "why" might be dying, because people don't feel a need to understand anything. Even simple things become magic that's just accepted.
The world would be a tedious place if we had to do all out computational thinking ourselves; that's why we invented computers in the first place.
No, we invented computers not to avoid the computational thinking, but to speed up computational repeat work, in particular the work of code breaking.
Using computers to avoid thinking is a new use case.
It's not so long ago that you had to be able to think and troubleshoot far more than the average person in order to use computers.
You will not get the lazy slobs off the couch by telling them lies that diet makes no change
Of course not. Tell them the truth, that diets do work for weight loss, but you that you won't just lose fat, but muscle too, and that there's an overwhelming risk that they'll regain the weight.
And tell them that they can lose fat faster with exercise, with other health benefits too.
But sure, it requires more effort to do it through exercise.
I'm not sure what the average is, but Swedes like to live in the countryside (not just suburbs) or different cities than where they work, and quite a few commute by train.
It's not uncommon for train commuters to start working while on the train, using laptops and mobile phones.
Johnny Mnemonic also springs to mind...
So many are using it? This is only 0.04% of Swedes. More people die from bee stings than are even doing this.
You're several orders of magnitude off there, bud. Swedish bees are relatively docile and seldom sting. Over a ten year period, one death due to bee stings was recorded.
RTFA. It's not inserted into the thumb, but the fleshy part between the thumb and index finger.
From what I've read, it does cause problems for some. It's a small glass tube implanted in the fleshy part between the thumb and index finger, which works well for most. Except those that use that part of both hands quite a bit, like woodworkers and mechanics.
I imagine it might interfere with some sports and recreation too, like archery, cross country skiing, tequila drinking, rappelling and foosball.
The cap has less surface area and if transported correctly comes in contact with the contents of the container less than the walls do.
You might be young, and not remember back when the layer between the glass bottle and cap was first cork, and then soft foam. Both were prone to small pieces breaking off, because you rub the intermediary between the glass and the metal, pretty hard, and even more so when you open the bottle. I would not be surprised if the same happens with the harder plastic used now, but that what rubs off is going to be microparticles. Looking at a Mexicola cork here, I see scuff and stress marks on the plastic inlay, so I don't think that's an unreasonable guess.
Glass bottles?
Examine the bottle cap more closely.
If someone can't code, they are _wasting_their_life_ trying to contribute the Kernel.
I think it's even a bit worse than that, and an even higher standard is needed. That you can code isn't enough.
The saying is that greatness is 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration, but in the case of something like the kernel, it falls down if the 10% isn't there. You need to be a programmer with a good understanding (and not just memorization) of logic and algorithms, not just a coder, or you may do more harm than good. There are eyes on the code that will catch many problems, but still, bad code slips through. The code itself may be wonderful, but when the logic behind the code isn't, it goes south.
You think he's used all the soap?
In the end, if the code is bad, it won't work, so who wrote it is ultimately irrelevant.
Unfortunately, if the code is bad, it might still sell.
On my BMW, the overlay text now says "Objects in the mirror are losing"...
Why are you listing radio frequencies and other things that wouldn't make any sense in the US?
Because on European cars, you are generally allowed to make a choice (either through menu choices or dip switches), and it only defaults to the local configuration. But if the same car is shipped to the US, that choice has to be removed. You cannot have a car-installed receiver that can receive a 87.5 FM station, even if you drive to somewhere where there is such a station.
European cars in the US are built to US rules, and are somewhat different than their local-market models.
Indeed. Some of the differences can include: ... and commonly softer suspension and wider seats.
- No differentiated fuel tank holes to only fit nozzles giving the right fuel.
- No key lock on the fuel cap.
- Rear fog lights are usually disconnected, because Americans have no restraint and think they should be used when visibility is more than 10m/30ft.
- No splash guards.
- No knock-off safety mirrors, hood ornaments or antennas.
- No way to manually disable airbags (like for transporting elderly or backward facing child seats)
- No orange rear blinkers.
- No warning triangle or safety vests.
- Yellow headlights (which penetrate fog better) are not allowed.
- For older cars, no longwave radio.
- For newer cars, no DAB+ radio.
- For FM, only bands 9 kHz apart are available, not switchable to 10 kHz.
- No Galileo satellites on the nav system, only GPS and GLONASS. Galileo has too good resolution to have been approved.
- For cars with hotspot functionality, no WiFi channels 12-14 on the 2.4 GHz band.
- Voice assistants are female sounding, not male.
I also train using a power meter, which measures the actual amount of work I do, which is translated into watts, and also easily converted to calories, and harder sessions typically result in 600-800 calories burned per hour, sometimes more. (This is a lot more accurate than measuring heart rate.)
Not necessarily. The reason is that you don't measure the extra work that doesn't go into the bike, including the work keeping your heart pumping, your lungs inflating and deflating, and keeping you warm.
Combining your heart rate (using a strap) with up-to-date min and max heart rates, height, weight and VO2 max is pretty good for estimating the total burn. Some products are better at this than others - a Polar V650 bike tracker is fairly good, as long as you remember to keep the values updated. It will estimate that an untrained overweight person who does the exact same track and heart rate as a well trained lean person burns a heck of a lot more calories. Which is true.
A pack of crackers I just checked has 480 kcal per 100 gram. 100 grams of crackers is nothing, they can be eaten within 5 minutes in front of TV without even noticing. Good luck burning it in 5 minutes.
You don't have to burn it in 5 minutes, you know. You can burn it off with a 40 minute light run or exercise bike. The added benefit being that you increase your cardiovascular health compared to if you hadn't eaten the crackers and then exercised them off.
(And if you watch less TV, you have more time to burn off calories too.)
I'm glad you lost weight, but you did it in the most inefficient way possible.
Going from 240 lb to 150 lb in seven months while gaining muscle is the most inefficient way possible?
Oh, okay. I should have done a diet instead. I was obviously wrong.
Very, very few people are capable of that, and it's not good advice for weight loss. It'll fail for 99.9% of people on the planet.
I have not seen any statistics for how many who fail losing weight through dedicated daily exercise, but diets fail for more than 95% of people. Oh, most lose weight, but then they bounce back up, with the only difference being that they now have less muscle mass, because they went for weight loss, not fat loss.
Unfortunately, the only data I have on this is a single datum - me. If anyone has published data on what the success/failure rate is for dedicated exercise, I haven't been able to find it. My suspicion is that many don't even try it due to all the people saying that you have to start with a diet.
Also: as one exercises more, it is every easy to start eating more. As your body burns more energy, it will "request" more energy by making you feel hungry. So even if you want to keep taking in the same amount of calories, you may want / need to change the type of food to ingest to keep the hunger pangs at bay (more fats and proteins, which help with satiety).
Yes, exercising more doesn't help if you just eat more. A good mix of proteins and fiber helps keeping food cravings[*] at bay.
[*] Not hunger pangs, which is something few people in our richer societies have ever experienced. If you have doubled over in pain and raided a birch to chew on its leaves, you have experienced hunger.
I have been doing alternative day fasting
Over a week, I bet that you eat more than 1000 kcal a day on average. That you mention the exercise you do also means you have upped your burn, and cannot ascribe all of the weight loss to a starvation diet.
...yeah, while that might be true if you take two samples, one at 21, the other at 70, and draw a straight line, in practice the amount of spare time you have at 65 is unlikely to be significantly lower than it is when you're 30.
One word: kids
Not everyone have them, but enough that it surely skews the numbers, making people in their 30s and 40s on average have significantly less spare time.