It is the opening line from my a poem of mine, my Opus magnum if you will. This poem and countless others were tragically lost several years ago. And now the poem remains only as a single line and only as a sig on a website that boasts "News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters."
It's interesting how different peoples' metabolisms work. I had an uncle who ate at McDonalds virtually every day, often twice a day. And he was as thin as a rail. Granted, he died of a heart attack at 46, but I don't know how much of that was diet vs. familial reasons (his dad and brothers also died of heart attacks in their 40s).
I saw a show on the Food Network some time back about NBA players and what they eat. IIRC, they said that the average NBA starter burns over 6,000 calories during the course of an NBA game. I don't doubt it, given all of the running, jumping, and physical contact that is involved.
BMI doesn't really apply to people who are in good shape. Many professional athletes, for example, have BMIs that classify them as obese.
It's just an easy way to get a general assessment. Body fat percentage, resting heart rate, heart rate during exercise, etc., are much better metrics of one's overall fitness and health.
Seven expect to ultimately be spending 1 to 2 hours a day training
I don't think losing weight requires this sheer amount of exercise. Yes, the more you exercise the better shape you will be in and the quicker you'll lose the weight, but in my experience it is quite possible to have a very healthy body and fitness level with just 30-45 minutes of strenuous exercise per day. By strenuous I mean getting the heart rate up to 120+ for at least 20 minutes straight. Or doing 30-45 minutes of weight lifting to the point where your muscles are sore for several hours afterwards.
Of course it also helps to through in more physical activity in your daily mix. Take the stairs. Park at the far end of the parking lot. Stop watching TV and fill the time instead with walks with your loved one or walking the dog or cleaning. Assuming you don't live in a remote rural or exurb area, walk your errands instead of driving them. Carry home those groceries in a backpack. Etc., etc.
Eight if/when you stop (everyone has bad times that stops them from training), start again today. Don't wait until tomorrow. Start today. Don't beat yourself up over stopping. Just start again right now.
My wife and I did the Body for Life regimen for about six months last year, and what is really nice about that plan is that the seventh day of the week is a free day. Eat whatever you want, as much of it as you want. This weekly free day is like a beacon of light that keeps you motivated during the week to stick to your diet. And the good news is that as time progresses, the free days become more responsible. For example, on the free day of the first week I stuffed my face with fast food and dessert items that I hadn't enjoyed at all during the week. And felt mighty ill the next day - sick to my stomach, cramps, and so forth. After a month, my free day's diet only differed from my non-free days in the sense that I'd eat fast food for lunch and then for dinner we'd go to a restaurant with healthy choices (restaurants that served small portions, were vegetarian-friendly, etc.).
But the key take away - which you mention repeatedly - is that what really matters is eating less/healthier and getting off your butt.
Listen to Ted Stevens's commentary. It's painful. And it's not just his terminology or laymen's understanding of the Internet. It's that his speech is jarring, disjointed, and difficult (almost painful) to listen to.
While only two people have verbally complained, they probably represent 200 (or whatever) people who are peeved. FireFox is my preferred browser. If I hit an IE-only site for something that is billing-related or essential for me to using a service that I enjoy, I grumble to myself and fire up IE. I'd prefer that the page work in FF, but I'm not going to take the time to write in a complaint. Even if I were pissed off to the point where I was going to move my business elsewhere, I still doubt I'd take the time to write an email complaining. I'd just move on and vote with my dollars, so to speak.
That's a pretty bold assertion that is very far from the truth. I have setup, administered, and even created commercial forum software in the past. It's a topic I've given a lot of thought on in the past because of my experience and history. I agree that moderation is a draining time sucker, but it's the only sure-fire way to stop spam. And it is possible. And it's not that bad if you only allow users with accounts to make posts, and you make creating an account a multi-step process that involves a CAPTCHA somewhere in the pipeline.
Look at the ASP.NET Forums, for instance (a messageboard site I helped moderate at one time). Here are the current stats: 278,860 users have contributed to 688,376 threads and 1,533,621 posts. And it's all moderated! Now, with the ASP.NET Forums moderators can mark users as "Trusted," which means they're posts are automatically approved, so that cuts down on your frequent posters, but the vast, vast majority of users are moderated. But that's ok, because in most communities there are a select few who make the lion's share of posts. For example, in another messageboard I run, there are 861,398 posts in total. The top 10 posters comprise about 150,000 posts, or nearly 18% of the total number of posts!
The only surefire way is moderation of posts, but that, as you noted, slows the flow of the discussion. One option to help mitigate this (other than to have a large volunteer staff to help with moderation) is to moderate user accounts that have made less than X posts, and let the others go through freely. Yes, this too can be gamed, but I don't know how many spammers would have the patience to get 15 posts approved for an account to get in a handful of spam posts before their account would be suspended.
Would some study results from a research company help persuade your bosses?
Microsoft researchers haven't perfected the genie, but they've found a tool that can increase your productivity by 9 to 50 percent and make your work day easier. And you can begin using it right away. The researchers conducted user studies that proved the effectiveness of adding a second or even third monitor to your workstation, creating a wide-screen effect. In addition, they found out how the operating system needs to change to accommodate a larger screen area.
http://research.microsoft.com/displayarticle.aspx? id=433
Or how about this one?
A systematic study conducted by NEC-MitsubishiOpen link in new window, ATI TechnologiesOpen link in new window and the University of UtahOpen link in new window has concluded that the use of multiple monitors in the workplace increases productivity.
Granted, you have to take the results of research with a grain of salt when the team is headed by a company that makes monitors, but still...
And if they're the kind of folks that like anecdotal evidence, just send them here and here.
I know this would be hard to enforce, but one option that would make sense here is a sliding pricing scale. Namely, the first domain name is cheap - say, $6/year - but if you want a second one that one costs $10/year. A third is $18/year, a 4th at $25/year, and so on. So if you want 100 domain names that first one is still going to cost you $6/year, but the 100th one might be $200/year.
I think the message isn't, "Messy is better!", but rather that what's most productive is if the neat people have neat environs and the messy people messy ones. I am a messy slob and am most productive in my cluttered workspace. If I was told from a boss that I had to clean my desk, that would stifle my productivity. But my coworker may be a guy who needs neat, clean, tidy spaces to be optimal. For him, if the boss told him that he had to have a cluttered desk, he'd be just as unproductive as I would if I had an organized one.
The main difference between newspapers/magazines and encyclopedias is of course the timing of information
That and mode of consumption. With encyclopedias, I'm usually already at my computer, doing research of some kind. I like to read my magazines in bed, while in the bathroom, or when I need to kill time (public transportation, waiting at a doctor's office for an appointment, etc.). I don't want to sit at my computer and read a magazine.
My biggest concern.. though it is not likely.. would be what if the images are altered. By this, I mean, it is not unreasonable to think that there is a part of the population (although not a majority) who could possibly alter the images before it is sent to 911.
From a legal standpoint and from a first responder standpoint I don't see how a faked photo could/would be treated any differently than a faked call in the first place. That is, today you can call up 911 and make a fake crime report and that's a whole lot easier than digitally altering an image and sending it in.
What a sig! LMAO!:-) Is it a quote, or did you come up with it yourself?
It is the opening line from my a poem of mine, my Opus magnum if you will. This poem and countless others were tragically lost several years ago. And now the poem remains only as a single line and only as a sig on a website that boasts "News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters."
I remember back when I was a young lad, and the only access to pornography we had was through a friend's dad's discovered "collection", or, in some less proud moments, the Victoria Secret's catalog. Kids today don't know how good they have it.
Of course, you are very fortunate in the sense that your checkbook is tight, but you do still live in an environment where there's modern sanitation, health care, free education, high literacy levels, women's rights, freedom of religion, etc., etc., etc., things that we take for granted but aren't readily available in other parts of the world.
The "cost" of sending spam argument works only if the spammers are the ones originating the emails. More than likely, much of the spam comes from comprised home users' computers. Although I do agree with the premise of your post - SMTP is a dandy protocol, but it was not designed to handle the onslaught of spam we see today. And I bet we will see something new, eventually. SMTP will go the way of the dodo bird, just like USENET. (Yes, I know USENET is still alive and well, but consider what percentage of users today post to newsgroups vs., say, 15 years ago... same thing will come of SMTP, either through new protocols or users simply abandoning SMTP in favor of other communication mediums.)
How do you figure? What, exactly, does Bill do as the head of the Gates Foundation that could not be done by many others (besides supplying the working capital)? Or are you saying that's all he's good for (or maybe best for) - providing money to a cause? As others have noted throughout this discussion, Bill would have a leg up on many folks who currently are presidential contenders, the largest (IMO) being that he is not beholden to a bunch of special interests. Also, being an "outsider" in DC would be a good thing, IMO. Too much cronyism going on there. Personally, I don't care if it's Bill Gates or someone else, but that someone else would, in my mind, ideally be someone who is (a) not a career politician, (b) not beholden to special interests, and (c) does not cite God or religion as his rationale for making decisions that affect the world.
Bill would do more good as President. The US budget dwarfs the budget of the Gates Foundation. The actions of the US government impact more people worldwide than the Gates Foundation, both positively and negatively.
Agreed, but it's hard to imagine that a lot of these things could go down without presidential approval. Or to put it another way, if the president put his foot down, it wouldn't have happened. E.g., if JFK had said, unilaterally, "We are NOT going to invade Cuba!", would a Bay of Pigs invasion still occurred? If Nixon had said, "We will, under no circumstances, bomb Cambodia," would bombs have fallen? And so on and so on. There's plenty of blame to go around, sure, but the buck stops at the president, IMO.
Seeing as the President of the United States could end the world with the push of a button, I'd say it's a job that can affect more people than any charity. Would we be mired in Iraq if Gore had been elected? I'll let the reader decide what would have made more of an impact - an intact Saddam or tens of thousands of US and Iraqi lives spared from war.
Urm, you don't run a Fortune 500 company by micro-managing and being dictatorial. You get there by compromising, weighing others' ideas, and delegating, which are the same positive traits one would look for in a politician. Bill's smart, sure, but I doubt he's smart enough to build one of the most successful corporations in the history of the universe by simply shutting out all others' opinions and ideas and just saying, "MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY, BUSTER!"
Slashdot Mirror
It is the opening line from my a poem of mine, my Opus magnum if you will. This poem and countless others were tragically lost several years ago. And now the poem remains only as a single line and only as a sig on a website that boasts "News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters."
It's interesting how different peoples' metabolisms work. I had an uncle who ate at McDonalds virtually every day, often twice a day. And he was as thin as a rail. Granted, he died of a heart attack at 46, but I don't know how much of that was diet vs. familial reasons (his dad and brothers also died of heart attacks in their 40s).
I saw a show on the Food Network some time back about NBA players and what they eat. IIRC, they said that the average NBA starter burns over 6,000 calories during the course of an NBA game. I don't doubt it, given all of the running, jumping, and physical contact that is involved.
It's just an easy way to get a general assessment. Body fat percentage, resting heart rate, heart rate during exercise, etc., are much better metrics of one's overall fitness and health.
A couple of quick comments:
Seven expect to ultimately be spending 1 to 2 hours a day training
I don't think losing weight requires this sheer amount of exercise. Yes, the more you exercise the better shape you will be in and the quicker you'll lose the weight, but in my experience it is quite possible to have a very healthy body and fitness level with just 30-45 minutes of strenuous exercise per day. By strenuous I mean getting the heart rate up to 120+ for at least 20 minutes straight. Or doing 30-45 minutes of weight lifting to the point where your muscles are sore for several hours afterwards.
Of course it also helps to through in more physical activity in your daily mix. Take the stairs. Park at the far end of the parking lot. Stop watching TV and fill the time instead with walks with your loved one or walking the dog or cleaning. Assuming you don't live in a remote rural or exurb area, walk your errands instead of driving them. Carry home those groceries in a backpack. Etc., etc.
Eight if/when you stop (everyone has bad times that stops them from training), start again today. Don't wait until tomorrow. Start today. Don't beat yourself up over stopping. Just start again right now.
My wife and I did the Body for Life regimen for about six months last year, and what is really nice about that plan is that the seventh day of the week is a free day. Eat whatever you want, as much of it as you want. This weekly free day is like a beacon of light that keeps you motivated during the week to stick to your diet. And the good news is that as time progresses, the free days become more responsible. For example, on the free day of the first week I stuffed my face with fast food and dessert items that I hadn't enjoyed at all during the week. And felt mighty ill the next day - sick to my stomach, cramps, and so forth. After a month, my free day's diet only differed from my non-free days in the sense that I'd eat fast food for lunch and then for dinner we'd go to a restaurant with healthy choices (restaurants that served small portions, were vegetarian-friendly, etc.).
But the key take away - which you mention repeatedly - is that what really matters is eating less/healthier and getting off your butt.
Listen to Ted Stevens's commentary. It's painful. And it's not just his terminology or laymen's understanding of the Internet. It's that his speech is jarring, disjointed, and difficult (almost painful) to listen to.
While only two people have verbally complained, they probably represent 200 (or whatever) people who are peeved. FireFox is my preferred browser. If I hit an IE-only site for something that is billing-related or essential for me to using a service that I enjoy, I grumble to myself and fire up IE. I'd prefer that the page work in FF, but I'm not going to take the time to write in a complaint. Even if I were pissed off to the point where I was going to move my business elsewhere, I still doubt I'd take the time to write an email complaining. I'd just move on and vote with my dollars, so to speak.
Once again: you've never done this yourself.
That's a pretty bold assertion that is very far from the truth. I have setup, administered, and even created commercial forum software in the past. It's a topic I've given a lot of thought on in the past because of my experience and history. I agree that moderation is a draining time sucker, but it's the only sure-fire way to stop spam. And it is possible. And it's not that bad if you only allow users with accounts to make posts, and you make creating an account a multi-step process that involves a CAPTCHA somewhere in the pipeline.
Look at the ASP.NET Forums, for instance (a messageboard site I helped moderate at one time). Here are the current stats: 278,860 users have contributed to 688,376 threads and 1,533,621 posts. And it's all moderated! Now, with the ASP.NET Forums moderators can mark users as "Trusted," which means they're posts are automatically approved, so that cuts down on your frequent posters, but the vast, vast majority of users are moderated. But that's ok, because in most communities there are a select few who make the lion's share of posts. For example, in another messageboard I run, there are 861,398 posts in total. The top 10 posters comprise about 150,000 posts, or nearly 18% of the total number of posts!
The only surefire way is moderation of posts, but that, as you noted, slows the flow of the discussion. One option to help mitigate this (other than to have a large volunteer staff to help with moderation) is to moderate user accounts that have made less than X posts, and let the others go through freely. Yes, this too can be gamed, but I don't know how many spammers would have the patience to get 15 posts approved for an account to get in a handful of spam posts before their account would be suspended.
Would some study results from a research company help persuade your bosses?
Or how about this one?
Granted, you have to take the results of research with a grain of salt when the team is headed by a company that makes monitors, but still...
And if they're the kind of folks that like anecdotal evidence, just send them here and here.
I know this would be hard to enforce, but one option that would make sense here is a sliding pricing scale. Namely, the first domain name is cheap - say, $6/year - but if you want a second one that one costs $10/year. A third is $18/year, a 4th at $25/year, and so on. So if you want 100 domain names that first one is still going to cost you $6/year, but the 100th one might be $200/year.
I think the message isn't, "Messy is better!", but rather that what's most productive is if the neat people have neat environs and the messy people messy ones. I am a messy slob and am most productive in my cluttered workspace. If I was told from a boss that I had to clean my desk, that would stifle my productivity. But my coworker may be a guy who needs neat, clean, tidy spaces to be optimal. For him, if the boss told him that he had to have a cluttered desk, he'd be just as unproductive as I would if I had an organized one.
I, for one, was surprised to hear this news. I thought my $50 donation would have helped nip this capital problem in the bud.
The main difference between newspapers/magazines and encyclopedias is of course the timing of information
That and mode of consumption. With encyclopedias, I'm usually already at my computer, doing research of some kind. I like to read my magazines in bed, while in the bathroom, or when I need to kill time (public transportation, waiting at a doctor's office for an appointment, etc.). I don't want to sit at my computer and read a magazine.
My biggest concern.. though it is not likely.. would be what if the images are altered. By this, I mean, it is not unreasonable to think that there is a part of the population (although not a majority) who could possibly alter the images before it is sent to 911.
From a legal standpoint and from a first responder standpoint I don't see how a faked photo could/would be treated any differently than a faked call in the first place. That is, today you can call up 911 and make a fake crime report and that's a whole lot easier than digitally altering an image and sending it in.
What a sig! LMAO! :-) Is it a quote, or did you come up with it yourself?
It is the opening line from my a poem of mine, my Opus magnum if you will. This poem and countless others were tragically lost several years ago. And now the poem remains only as a single line and only as a sig on a website that boasts "News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters."
Short answer "No" with a "but", long answer "Yes" with an "if".
I remember back when I was a young lad, and the only access to pornography we had was through a friend's dad's discovered "collection", or, in some less proud moments, the Victoria Secret's catalog. Kids today don't know how good they have it.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Of course, you are very fortunate in the sense that your checkbook is tight, but you do still live in an environment where there's modern sanitation, health care, free education, high literacy levels, women's rights, freedom of religion, etc., etc., etc., things that we take for granted but aren't readily available in other parts of the world.
The "cost" of sending spam argument works only if the spammers are the ones originating the emails. More than likely, much of the spam comes from comprised home users' computers. Although I do agree with the premise of your post - SMTP is a dandy protocol, but it was not designed to handle the onslaught of spam we see today. And I bet we will see something new, eventually. SMTP will go the way of the dodo bird, just like USENET. (Yes, I know USENET is still alive and well, but consider what percentage of users today post to newsgroups vs., say, 15 years ago... same thing will come of SMTP, either through new protocols or users simply abandoning SMTP in favor of other communication mediums.)
How do you figure? What, exactly, does Bill do as the head of the Gates Foundation that could not be done by many others (besides supplying the working capital)? Or are you saying that's all he's good for (or maybe best for) - providing money to a cause? As others have noted throughout this discussion, Bill would have a leg up on many folks who currently are presidential contenders, the largest (IMO) being that he is not beholden to a bunch of special interests. Also, being an "outsider" in DC would be a good thing, IMO. Too much cronyism going on there. Personally, I don't care if it's Bill Gates or someone else, but that someone else would, in my mind, ideally be someone who is (a) not a career politician, (b) not beholden to special interests, and (c) does not cite God or religion as his rationale for making decisions that affect the world.
Bill would do more good as President. The US budget dwarfs the budget of the Gates Foundation. The actions of the US government impact more people worldwide than the Gates Foundation, both positively and negatively.
Agreed, but it's hard to imagine that a lot of these things could go down without presidential approval. Or to put it another way, if the president put his foot down, it wouldn't have happened. E.g., if JFK had said, unilaterally, "We are NOT going to invade Cuba!", would a Bay of Pigs invasion still occurred? If Nixon had said, "We will, under no circumstances, bomb Cambodia," would bombs have fallen? And so on and so on. There's plenty of blame to go around, sure, but the buck stops at the president, IMO.
Seeing as the President of the United States could end the world with the push of a button, I'd say it's a job that can affect more people than any charity. Would we be mired in Iraq if Gore had been elected? I'll let the reader decide what would have made more of an impact - an intact Saddam or tens of thousands of US and Iraqi lives spared from war.
Urm, you don't run a Fortune 500 company by micro-managing and being dictatorial. You get there by compromising, weighing others' ideas, and delegating, which are the same positive traits one would look for in a politician. Bill's smart, sure, but I doubt he's smart enough to build one of the most successful corporations in the history of the universe by simply shutting out all others' opinions and ideas and just saying, "MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY, BUSTER!"