I've been using two HD copies and a DynaMO for years. Magneto-optical drives require both light and magnetism to write, and are predicted stable for 100+ years. However, I no longer have confidence that drives will be available when my primary and backup ones die. I'm shifting over to three HD's; at 59 years old, they'll last me long enough
I used to use DynaMO ages ago, but got burned multiple times. Yes, the media is stable for just about forever. But the fucking drives had failure modes that would corrupt the data on the media!
Along with your work, you provide a promise not to sue, giving up all your rights to the work in question. It's clearly illegal to do that with the intent of changing your mind later.
Well, since the armchair/. lawyers will soon descend upon your post spouting off about how you can't enforce anything without a contract, let's just go ahead and get this posted: Promissory Estoppel;-)
You misinterpret the studies it cites to mean standing desks do not corelate with good health whereas they say nothing of the sort.
So where exactly is the part where they establish that standing desks DO correlate with good health???
Uhm, yeah, I never made the claim you're stating above. Your claim about what I said is pure 100% unadulterated bullshit. I claim now that it has not been established that standing desks cause good health.
And that wasn't even my original claim. Simple fact: what is being claimed widely now is that sitting is very toxic even for those who are fit. Simple fact: that is bullshit.
And telling it to you for the 5th time - standing work does NOT prevent you from exercising.
And why exactly are you so focussed on that distraction??? 1) I never said it did. 2) That is completely irrelevant to the question of what its benefits might be.
(Well actually, foot pain, ankle pain, knee pain, hip pain, back pain, varicose veins--all potential side effects of standing desks, especially for the unfit--might in fact discourage or reduce exercise. There, I didn't say it before, because I consider it a very minor point, but since you keep on and on about it like a broken record...)
I suspect this may be a matter of the disposition of the team causing both diversity and efficiency, rather than diversity directly causing efficiency. Teams that aren't full of a-holes tend to accept more varied members and end up more diverse, and also happen to work well together...
Weeeell... My limited experience is that there is actual benefit to diversity itself. Of course the "disposition" of the team is a necessary prerequisite, but given the same disposition, but lack of diversity because of lack of qualified candidates, and you don't get the same benefits.
I really don't think we should be socially engineering too much to push women into jobs that many do not like. I really don't think 50/50 is necessary. But I definitely see some from 25-30% female (and find it hard to believe that there's not at least that many who would be interested if there weren't societal/attitude barriers).
When it comes to diversity of race and nationality, I really haven't seen a difference. In my experience white, black & asian nerds are all still nerds and the mix doesn't make a bit of difference;-)
(But I say "black" because in my limited experience I've never hired an African-American, just African. So I can't rule out that AA vs A would indeed bring different viewpoints/attitudes.)
And that's why it cannot be done. Too many people would apply it to opinions they did not agree with.
Which is unfortunate, because many of the discussions here do deal in cold hard facts. And I disagree about karma, when the discussion is truly fact based, posting a falsehood as fact should absolutely damage one's karma.
If it doesn't contribute anything to fitness, why would fitness enthusiasts give their right hand to achieve similar effects?
They would not, if they have a clue what it means. A 50% rise in resting metabolism is an indicator that you've increased muscle mass (and cardiovascular capacity necessary to support it) by a huge amount. Burning 50% more calories standing than sitting is an indicator that you're standing--it indicates absolutely nothing about your fitness level.
See this [harvard.edu]. Converting 8 hours of work from sitting to standing assuming 50% addition to calories per hour, adds equivalent of about 1.5-2.5 hours of workout a day.
When it comes to fitness (and health benefits) burning an extra 40 or so calories an hour for 8-hour period is in no way equivalent to burning 150 calories an hour for 2 hours.
I already do this on Facebook, but I always provide a link to Politifacts or Factcheck or even Snopes. If you don't, you'll just be that guy who says "no" because he's to naive to believe that Obama already has secret death panels that kill millions of Americans each year.
Wait, you mean that picture of Obama shaking hands with Hitler was fake? Gosh, sure could have fooled me. (Tea Partiers, the pathetic trolls of conservative politics...)
Exactly my 1st thought. Maybe not "false" exactly, but I've long wanted to be able to mod comments "-1 incorrect". Of course I also want a "+1 funny AND insightful".
Which is obviously incorrect. This statement from the article you quote is also highly misleading :
The metabolic cost of standing is about 50% greater than the metabolic cost of sitting, but in both cases the absolute load is very small so the incremental increase in benefit is infinitesimal
50% higher metabolic cost is huge.
No, it is not.
Fitness enthusiasts would give their right hand to increase their rest metabolism by 50%
Yes, they would. But that is completely different than thinking that an "activity" that requires 150% of rest metabolism contributes anything to fitness. (And by the way, 50% is a very generous estimate.)
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously, some people have a different definition of "uncommon" than I do.
...you're some shiftless loser lackey barely able to answer a phone.
Yep.
Often they have to work side jobs like waiting tables to pay the bills...
Yeah, right, app developers waiting tables. What bullshit.
So "almost 99.999% making 'near zero'" vs. 99.9538% ---- I think I was pretty close!
Well, if you consider being off by 47x pretty close and you consider $25,000/year to be zeroing out, then yeah you were right ;-)
...and assuming they're just as likely to pay up.
Which is not even remotely true.
A handful of Freemium games are the top payouts, with almost the 99.999% of the rest making near 0.
Wrong. The curve is sharp, but it's not anywhere near that bad. See here,
Just uninstalled Flash minutes ago. I'd been thinking about it for a while, but this pushed me to take action.
Now if I run into any site that requires it, I'll just go away.
I've been using two HD copies and a DynaMO for years. Magneto-optical drives require both light and magnetism to write, and are predicted stable for 100+ years. However, I no longer have confidence that drives will be available when my primary and backup ones die. I'm shifting over to three HD's; at 59 years old, they'll last me long enough
I used to use DynaMO ages ago, but got burned multiple times. Yes, the media is stable for just about forever. But the fucking drives had failure modes that would corrupt the data on the media!
But the summary does not. Sheesh.
Along with your work, you provide a promise not to sue, giving up all your rights to the work in question. It's clearly illegal to do that with the intent of changing your mind later.
Well, since the armchair /. lawyers will soon descend upon your post spouting off about how you can't enforce anything without a contract, let's just go ahead and get this posted: Promissory Estoppel ;-)
You misinterpret the studies it cites to mean standing desks do not corelate with good health whereas they say nothing of the sort.
So where exactly is the part where they establish that standing desks DO correlate with good health???
Uhm, yeah, I never made the claim you're stating above. Your claim about what I said is pure 100% unadulterated bullshit. I claim now that it has not been established that standing desks cause good health.
And that wasn't even my original claim. Simple fact: what is being claimed widely now is that sitting is very toxic even for those who are fit. Simple fact: that is bullshit.
And telling it to you for the 5th time - standing work does NOT prevent you from exercising.
And why exactly are you so focussed on that distraction??? 1) I never said it did. 2) That is completely irrelevant to the question of what its benefits might be.
(Well actually, foot pain, ankle pain, knee pain, hip pain, back pain, varicose veins--all potential side effects of standing desks, especially for the unfit--might in fact discourage or reduce exercise. There, I didn't say it before, because I consider it a very minor point, but since you keep on and on about it like a broken record...)
I suspect this may be a matter of the disposition of the team causing both diversity and efficiency, rather than diversity directly causing efficiency. Teams that aren't full of a-holes tend to accept more varied members and end up more diverse, and also happen to work well together...
Weeeell... My limited experience is that there is actual benefit to diversity itself. Of course the "disposition" of the team is a necessary prerequisite, but given the same disposition, but lack of diversity because of lack of qualified candidates, and you don't get the same benefits.
I really don't think we should be socially engineering too much to push women into jobs that many do not like. I really don't think 50/50 is necessary. But I definitely see some from 25-30% female (and find it hard to believe that there's not at least that many who would be interested if there weren't societal/attitude barriers).
When it comes to diversity of race and nationality, I really haven't seen a difference. In my experience white, black & asian nerds are all still nerds and the mix doesn't make a bit of difference ;-)
(But I say "black" because in my limited experience I've never hired an African-American, just African. So I can't rule out that AA vs A would indeed bring different viewpoints/attitudes.)
But you claim [slashdot.org] erroneously...
Well-designed studies support that claim, as referenced in the article I linked.
Do you want to give Karma: Insightful. Don't you want to give Karma: Funny.
I did not realize that.
When I see overrated applied to a post, I know beyond any reasonable doubt that it was moderated in spite, and not for any valid reason.
??? I use it for "incorrect" because there is no option that fits better. (Yes, it is often used inappropriately.)
I'm so sorry that you've been mislead. That really is a picture of Hitler passing Obama a fake birth certificate.
Brilliant! Here's hoping you get the mod'ing you deserve: +6 funny (& insightful)!
A lot of "facts" really are opinions anyway.
And that's why it cannot be done. Too many people would apply it to opinions they did not agree with.
Which is unfortunate, because many of the discussions here do deal in cold hard facts. And I disagree about karma, when the discussion is truly fact based, posting a falsehood as fact should absolutely damage one's karma.
Wait, if that's fake...then you're telling me no one has ever seen Obama and Hitler in the same room at the same time?!
Of course not you dumbass. That picture was clearly taken outside ;-)
If it doesn't contribute anything to fitness, why would fitness enthusiasts give their right hand to achieve similar effects?
They would not, if they have a clue what it means. A 50% rise in resting metabolism is an indicator that you've increased muscle mass (and cardiovascular capacity necessary to support it) by a huge amount. Burning 50% more calories standing than sitting is an indicator that you're standing--it indicates absolutely nothing about your fitness level.
See this [harvard.edu]. Converting 8 hours of work from sitting to standing assuming 50% addition to calories per hour, adds equivalent of about 1.5-2.5 hours of workout a day.
When it comes to fitness (and health benefits) burning an extra 40 or so calories an hour for 8-hour period is in no way equivalent to burning 150 calories an hour for 2 hours.
I already do this on Facebook, but I always provide a link to Politifacts or Factcheck or even Snopes. If you don't, you'll just be that guy who says "no" because he's to naive to believe that Obama already has secret death panels that kill millions of Americans each year.
Wait, you mean that picture of Obama shaking hands with Hitler was fake? Gosh, sure could have fooled me. (Tea Partiers, the pathetic trolls of conservative politics...)
Exactly my 1st thought. Maybe not "false" exactly, but I've long wanted to be able to mod comments "-1 incorrect". Of course I also want a "+1 funny AND insightful".
They are complete crap.
Why did your company choose them?
Which is obviously incorrect. This statement from the article you quote is also highly misleading :
The metabolic cost of standing is about 50% greater than the metabolic cost of sitting, but in both cases the absolute load is very small so the incremental increase in benefit is infinitesimal
50% higher metabolic cost is huge.
No, it is not.
Fitness enthusiasts would give their right hand to increase their rest metabolism by 50%
Yes, they would. But that is completely different than thinking that an "activity" that requires 150% of rest metabolism contributes anything to fitness. (And by the way, 50% is a very generous estimate.)