The co-opting of the term "curvy" is a real problem. Lots of women refer to themselves as "curvy" as a way to put a big positive spin on something they should recognize as a problem that needs to be addressed. Curvy might be technically correct, but when the arc of the longer curves exceeds 180 degrees, you probably need to work on that. I can't respect people who try to pretend that being overweight is not a problem at all. The best significant others I have ever had were overweight, but they weren't fine and dandy with that and they definitely didn't sugar-coat it to pretend that it's okay. I wouldn't touch a "fat acceptance movement" moron with a ten-foot pole though; many of them are some of the most deluded motherfuckers on the entire planet. "Fat healthy" is not something a human being can be, and your blood work numbers being in tolerable ranges doesn't automatically mean you're healthy.
It constantly amazes me how well some people construct a bullshit world in their heads where everything wrong with them is okay and it's other people that are the problem.
Demonizing saturated fats and pushing grain as the primary food source is why we're so fat. Excessive carbohydrate intake makes you fat. Humans must eat at least some animal products to be healthy.
Saturated fat is good for you. It also helps you feel fuller longer. The lies fed to us over the past 30 years about "don't eat saturated fats and eat tons of grains" is why this society is so fat in the first place. There is nothing wrong with a moderated consumption of saturated fat.
The protein sparing modified fast is a crash diet that was designed to preserve as much lean body mass as possible while consuming very few calories per day. It's probably the only crash diet that doesn't leave someone in a far worse state at the end than they were in before. (I wouldn't exactly call it a "fast" since you're still eating.) Adhering to it correctly...well, that's another story. It's not remotely easy, and most of the people who fail to stick to it do so because they fall into the trap of "OH NO, I ate cookies! IT'S RUINED! I might as well give up and be fat!" These are the people that make a food log on a forum that stops at day 9 and they're never heard from again.
When someone brought me a Surface RT with a forgotten local account password due to having not used it for a month, I began to quickly realize what a pile of goat shit Windows RT really is, and I saw "in the flesh" why forced secure boot is a pretty terrible thing. The only repair options are those Microsoft decides to give you, and in her case that meant losing everything on the tablet.
I just want a laptop with a 17" or bigger WQXGA (2560x1600) display that isn't outrageously expensive. It could have a cheaper processor like an AMD A8-4500M and I'd happily buy it. It doesn't seem to exist. Monitors that go beyond 1080p resolutions are way too expensive relative to their 1080p brethren of the same diagonal as well.
If you disable secure boot, you can install a number of operating systems on UEFI, including Linux. Even Windows 7 will happily install on top of UEFI if you want it to. I think you should replace "UEFI" with "secure boot" in your questions for a more reasonable approach. UEFI is definitely the way to go with things in the future, and having the BIOS compatibility mode available is unlikely to vanish anytime soon. By the time it does, you won't be trying to crowbar XP onto new machines anymore anyway.
One reason my main workflow PCs don't run security software is the laggy performance that they cause. Even Avast (my AV of choice) causes a noticeable drop in performance when starting programs and opening files. Since those PCs aren't used to touch the Internet excluding a very minimal number of safe sites, I don't really worry about them, and the boost is quite nice.
Ironically, most handheld games consoles don't even have enough RAM to run a normal Linux on top (I know DSLinux exists but it's far from "normal" in the Linux world, being no-MMU with 4MB of RAM to work out of.)
Why would you ever buy a brand new one? I know people who are GIVING AWAY computers that are better than some I own to people they know that need them. I love to see old hardware put to new use.
The exception would be people who bought el cheapo laptops. For the past few years, $280 would get you a full-size laptop with Windows 7 and at least 2GB of RAM, but they've all saved the money by using the worst processors possible. The Celeron 900 isn't exactly fast, nor the AMD V140. I have drastically improved the performance of a V140 laptop for someone recently by installing Debian with XFCE, but I also know that that's not an option for many people. The bottom-of-the-line CPUs going into many under-$400 laptops are garbage on performance, and owners of those machines would greatly benefit from buying something a little better. The difference between $300 and $400 laptops is insane, and people who cheap out (usually because they honestly don't know any better) get a much worse machine than they might have expected. The only mitigating factor is that if they buy a $280 laptop, they probably don't know it's slow anyway. That or they are broke and need it to job hunt, and I couldn't blame someone in that position for taking the crummy deal if their livelihood depends on it.
PC horsepower exceeded the needs of the average non-professional user a long time ago. I'm sitting in front of a $400 laptop from a couple of years ago that I can use for Adobe Premiere workflow! The market is flooded with computers that do everything a person needs, so why would you expect sales to continue increasing? People who barely use computers are moving to tablets, but tablets aren't what is trashing PC sales. People just don't need new ones, and good for them for milking that hardware until it blows up.
Because "health insurance" today is not just "insurance." Insurance is something you have in the unlikely event that something bad happens which you would normally not be able to afford. "Insurance" that pays for routine visits and checkups and medications and pretty much everything else (at a reduced rate for the company than you would pay in cash) is entirely on the other end of the spectrum from what insurance is supposed to be. If auto insurance was like health "insurance," your insurance company would help pay for routine maintenance, mechanic visits, and transmission replacements. Why don't they? Because it's real insurance, not a subscription discount payment plan.
The ACA forces insurance companies to pay for everything. Insurance companies are not non-profit corporations. They must make sufficient money for their shareholders on a quarterly basis. What the sticker shock on bullshit ACA plans does is finally demonstrate to the common man that in the end they pay for everything anyway. It's just moving from indirect through hidden taxes and wealth redistribution to direct through your glorious new ACA healthcare plan that you voted for.
CJDNS lets you use web browsers. That immediately makes it a useless way to develop secure communications that less technical people can use. All it takes is one line of JavaScript to unmask your real IP address. You disabled JavaScript? Well now most of the web doesn't work. How useless is that?
It's still a valiant and interesting effort. The security of it is still debatable.
You can't change your palm vein layout or your fingerprint when an attacker makes a copy of it somehow. You can easily change a password with practically no real effort. Biometrics are a key to a door where the key is unchangeable. I reinstalled everything on a laptop of mine and didn't even waste time putting a driver in place for the fingerprint reader it came with.
Anything that works via a browser is automatically not secure. The same reasons that Tor is not secure apply to all other things that use a web browser. This service would be interesting if it weren't for the fact that it "supports the open web."
For the purposes of security, the "open web" is completely broken. The required change is far more radical than "we can do encrypted tweet-like communications with heavily insecure and NSA-breakable applications as the framework."
Slashdot Mirror
The co-opting of the term "curvy" is a real problem. Lots of women refer to themselves as "curvy" as a way to put a big positive spin on something they should recognize as a problem that needs to be addressed. Curvy might be technically correct, but when the arc of the longer curves exceeds 180 degrees, you probably need to work on that. I can't respect people who try to pretend that being overweight is not a problem at all. The best significant others I have ever had were overweight, but they weren't fine and dandy with that and they definitely didn't sugar-coat it to pretend that it's okay. I wouldn't touch a "fat acceptance movement" moron with a ten-foot pole though; many of them are some of the most deluded motherfuckers on the entire planet. "Fat healthy" is not something a human being can be, and your blood work numbers being in tolerable ranges doesn't automatically mean you're healthy.
It constantly amazes me how well some people construct a bullshit world in their heads where everything wrong with them is okay and it's other people that are the problem.
This isn't a troll post from an angsty teenager at all. /s
Demonizing saturated fats and pushing grain as the primary food source is why we're so fat. Excessive carbohydrate intake makes you fat. Humans must eat at least some animal products to be healthy.
Saturated fat is good for you. It also helps you feel fuller longer. The lies fed to us over the past 30 years about "don't eat saturated fats and eat tons of grains" is why this society is so fat in the first place. There is nothing wrong with a moderated consumption of saturated fat.
The protein sparing modified fast is a crash diet that was designed to preserve as much lean body mass as possible while consuming very few calories per day. It's probably the only crash diet that doesn't leave someone in a far worse state at the end than they were in before. (I wouldn't exactly call it a "fast" since you're still eating.) Adhering to it correctly...well, that's another story. It's not remotely easy, and most of the people who fail to stick to it do so because they fall into the trap of "OH NO, I ate cookies! IT'S RUINED! I might as well give up and be fat!" These are the people that make a food log on a forum that stops at day 9 and they're never heard from again.
Check your breathing privilege!
When someone brought me a Surface RT with a forgotten local account password due to having not used it for a month, I began to quickly realize what a pile of goat shit Windows RT really is, and I saw "in the flesh" why forced secure boot is a pretty terrible thing. The only repair options are those Microsoft decides to give you, and in her case that meant losing everything on the tablet.
I just want a laptop with a 17" or bigger WQXGA (2560x1600) display that isn't outrageously expensive. It could have a cheaper processor like an AMD A8-4500M and I'd happily buy it. It doesn't seem to exist. Monitors that go beyond 1080p resolutions are way too expensive relative to their 1080p brethren of the same diagonal as well.
If you disable secure boot, you can install a number of operating systems on UEFI, including Linux. Even Windows 7 will happily install on top of UEFI if you want it to. I think you should replace "UEFI" with "secure boot" in your questions for a more reasonable approach. UEFI is definitely the way to go with things in the future, and having the BIOS compatibility mode available is unlikely to vanish anytime soon. By the time it does, you won't be trying to crowbar XP onto new machines anymore anyway.
One reason my main workflow PCs don't run security software is the laggy performance that they cause. Even Avast (my AV of choice) causes a noticeable drop in performance when starting programs and opening files. Since those PCs aren't used to touch the Internet excluding a very minimal number of safe sites, I don't really worry about them, and the boost is quite nice.
Ironically, most handheld games consoles don't even have enough RAM to run a normal Linux on top (I know DSLinux exists but it's far from "normal" in the Linux world, being no-MMU with 4MB of RAM to work out of.)
33% ;)
Why would you ever buy a brand new one? I know people who are GIVING AWAY computers that are better than some I own to people they know that need them. I love to see old hardware put to new use.
The exception would be people who bought el cheapo laptops. For the past few years, $280 would get you a full-size laptop with Windows 7 and at least 2GB of RAM, but they've all saved the money by using the worst processors possible. The Celeron 900 isn't exactly fast, nor the AMD V140. I have drastically improved the performance of a V140 laptop for someone recently by installing Debian with XFCE, but I also know that that's not an option for many people. The bottom-of-the-line CPUs going into many under-$400 laptops are garbage on performance, and owners of those machines would greatly benefit from buying something a little better. The difference between $300 and $400 laptops is insane, and people who cheap out (usually because they honestly don't know any better) get a much worse machine than they might have expected. The only mitigating factor is that if they buy a $280 laptop, they probably don't know it's slow anyway. That or they are broke and need it to job hunt, and I couldn't blame someone in that position for taking the crummy deal if their livelihood depends on it.
PC horsepower exceeded the needs of the average non-professional user a long time ago. I'm sitting in front of a $400 laptop from a couple of years ago that I can use for Adobe Premiere workflow! The market is flooded with computers that do everything a person needs, so why would you expect sales to continue increasing? People who barely use computers are moving to tablets, but tablets aren't what is trashing PC sales. People just don't need new ones, and good for them for milking that hardware until it blows up.
Citing a Salon article that exposes Fox News? Pot, meet kettle...
You obviously didn't catch the "I am self-employed" part.
Fair share? Fuck that. If you think it's patriotic to pay taxes, write the check out of your own account and stay out of mine. /going_along_with_satire
Because "health insurance" today is not just "insurance." Insurance is something you have in the unlikely event that something bad happens which you would normally not be able to afford. "Insurance" that pays for routine visits and checkups and medications and pretty much everything else (at a reduced rate for the company than you would pay in cash) is entirely on the other end of the spectrum from what insurance is supposed to be. If auto insurance was like health "insurance," your insurance company would help pay for routine maintenance, mechanic visits, and transmission replacements. Why don't they? Because it's real insurance, not a subscription discount payment plan.
The ACA forces insurance companies to pay for everything. Insurance companies are not non-profit corporations. They must make sufficient money for their shareholders on a quarterly basis. What the sticker shock on bullshit ACA plans does is finally demonstrate to the common man that in the end they pay for everything anyway. It's just moving from indirect through hidden taxes and wealth redistribution to direct through your glorious new ACA healthcare plan that you voted for.
Train, meet train. How's that?
OW! My eyes! WHERE is the UN-SEE BUTTON?!
CJDNS lets you use web browsers. That immediately makes it a useless way to develop secure communications that less technical people can use. All it takes is one line of JavaScript to unmask your real IP address. You disabled JavaScript? Well now most of the web doesn't work. How useless is that?
It's still a valiant and interesting effort. The security of it is still debatable.
Oh fun. We'll get to enjoy Athlete's Palmrest.
You can't change your palm vein layout or your fingerprint when an attacker makes a copy of it somehow. You can easily change a password with practically no real effort. Biometrics are a key to a door where the key is unchangeable. I reinstalled everything on a laptop of mine and didn't even waste time putting a driver in place for the fingerprint reader it came with.
Anything that works via a browser is automatically not secure. The same reasons that Tor is not secure apply to all other things that use a web browser. This service would be interesting if it weren't for the fact that it "supports the open web."
For the purposes of security, the "open web" is completely broken. The required change is far more radical than "we can do encrypted tweet-like communications with heavily insecure and NSA-breakable applications as the framework."