I don't understand something about this particular theory. Life had to start somewhere, right? Why does it make more sense for it to have been formed somewhere else and transported here rather than being home grown?
Somebody did a mathematical model for the rate at which they believe life forms evolve new nucleotide sequences (or rather, they created a few possible ones) and found that it's likely that life began a billion or two years before the time period that we believe that our planet likely began.
With that in hand, just measure what you consume, and stick to the serving amounts on the package. Do this religiously for at least 3 months, and you get a pretty good idea of what you're doing.
As far as keeping track, either use a calorie tracking site (e.g. myfitnesspal.com) or just keep a meal-based note in your head. I'll do something like 250 calories for breakfast (trust me, meat for breakfast sates your hunger MUCH longer than cereal or any grain) 600 for lunch, adding the calories for one or two snacks between lunch and dinner, and then I can have a big meal for dinner if I didn't eat much earlier in the day, usually dining late enough for bed that I don't get hungry just as I go to bed.
Avoid carb based snacks which aren't very filling. For example, if you like chips, put lots of cottage cheese on them (and make sure to count both chips and cottage cheese when you add it up.) Jerky and pork rinds are very good for keeping you sated, and contrary to popular belief, they don't cause heart disease. Spicy snacks help you stay even fuller for longer, and with fewer calories.
I'll second that about men's health. It's just a glorified clickbait site.
In fact, dare I say, I haven't seen a single "health" website that I've actually liked. They all write recommendations based on whatever the latest shocking (and ultimately inconclusive) study or survey says, and rarely bother to correct themselves when these findings are later disproven.
Cilantro is an increasingly popular herb for many dishes, and shows up more and more as more chefs discover it. It's actually pretty healthy too. But some people have a gene that causes cilantro to taste like soap, and these people have banded together to fight its widespread use. They call it "The most offensive food known to man."
Anyways I guess you can say that, like artificial sweeteners, it's starting to get added to everything, much to the dismay of its detractors.
Normally I'd be on board with what you're saying, but I'm starting to have a huge problem with conclusions that are based upon studies and surveys. If all you have is a "link" from cause A to effect B without knowing the exact nature of the relationship, then you really haven't proven anything, and you could very well be wrong, and in fact a lot of recent "dietary wisdom" that was just based on studies showing correlation has been shown to be VERY wrong lately.
For example, for the period between the 70s and 2010s, the FDA firmly believed that saturated fats, dietary cholesterol, and red meat causes your blood cholesterol to rise. They based this on studies that found a link between the them. The problem is they never established an actual cause and effect relationship. In recent times, these studies have been debunked heavily, namely because they failed to do an "all other things being equal" control. In fact, most of these studies have no control at all, and just show correlation.
As I mentioned earlier how low carbing got rid of my cholesterol problems, I actually have a cause and effect analysis I can describe briefly: When you consume sugars, your liver first doles them out to whatever tissues (cells) need them. After your body has what it needs, then your liver has to do something with the rest. The liver of all mammals treats calories as precious, and never simply discards them. So what does your liver do? It does three things with them:
1) Converts them into triglycerides (a form of fat stored in your blood that your body uses for energy later) 2) Converts them into cholesterol 3) Converts them into fats that your liver itself retains (too much of this leads to fatty liver, and possibly NASH.)
Likewise, lowering your carb intake lowers your cholesterol. It's also now known that dietary cholesterol (cholesterol found in food prior to you eating it) doesn't end up in your blood stream. Your digestive system breaks that apart and uses it for other substances.
See that? Nice cause and effect relationship, no guessing based on correlation. If however you are hard up about studies and links, then read this:
At any rate, back to what you were saying about sweeteners: Both of the claims you have made come down to a link. Go ahead and investigate them, you'll find that there's no actual cause and effect behind either. Now, this isn't to say studies are pointless in doing. There's a very good reason to do studies: They help scientists investigate and narrow down the root cause and effect. However they shouldn't be used as dogma.
Say for example your argument about sweeteners stimulating your appetite. Why does it do this? Please provide a detailed cause and effect, along with all of the body chemicals involved (since you're talking about appetite, let's hear how it impacts say leptin for example, or any other hormone that governs hunger.) And how do we know that something else isn't coming into play here?
I can say, at least anecdotally, that it does not raise my appetite, and I've been losing about a pound a week. For what it's worth, my BMI was once 40, and now I'm at 29.5.
The main purpose of a diet soda is that it doesn't have any sugar, and therefore, no calories either. What defines "diet" isn't regulated, but every diet soda I've seen indeed has less than or equal to one Calorie.
I suspect that it could very well be true that diet soda doesn't help you lose weight, but if so, it isn't the fault of the diet soda that you aren't losing weight. The more calories you consume, the more "full" you feel, and likewise, simply drinking diet soda isn't going to help you shed pounds if you're consuming something else in lieu of those calories.
Let's say for example that as part of your daily routine, instead of drinking a regular soda (about 150 calories) you decide to drink a diet soda, and have a chocolate chip cookie (typically about 150 calories) with it. In this scenario, you're still retaining the same calorie intake, so you aren't going to shed any pounds that you otherwise wouldn't have.
Having said all of the above, indeed you *can* use diet soda as part of your weight loss plan, but at the end of the day your calorie intake must be less than your Basal Metabolic Rate.
Oh and for anybody who wants to know how to lose weight, it's dead simple, just follow this formula:
Nc = F - (Bmr + E)
Where Nc = Net Calories, F = food calories consumed, Bmr = Basal Metabolic Rate, E = Calories burned during exercise.
So long as Nc is less than zero, you're losing weight. How fast you're losing weight depends on how much deficit. One pound of fat is roughly 3600 calories. As a rule of thumb, your food intake shouldn't be less than around 1800 calories per day for males, 1200 for females, and if you go below these figures, your liver slows down your metabolism (aka starvation mode) and you get tired all the time lose weight slower.
Also one thing to remember about calories: They are a total sum of protein, fat, carbohydrates, and alcohol. How much of each you need is debatable, but I've found that getting calories mostly from protein and fat (aka low-carb) works best for me (not to mention, low carb also got rid of my cholesterol problem.)
That's probably similar to where I live. Getting a mortgage will generally cost you less per month than renting will. Rent just usually costs more because it's in higher demand.
I could have gotten a mortgage (my credit score is 822 and I secured a pre-qualification letter) but I wanted to make sure my job stays secure for at least a year (my own personal requirement, not the bank's.)
Frozen paintballs shrivel a bit and cause you to sacrifice accuracy. They also don't hurt any worse than normal ones when shot with, and furthermore they still break apart (although they don't "splatter", they rarely stay in one piece after hitting a person, just like unfrozen balls.)
The material in them doesn't get that hard when frozen using any conventional means of freezing them, and I suspect that if you froze them completely solid (e.g. with liquid nitrogen) they probably wouldn't fire at all (they'd shrivel so much that the barrel would permit too much air to pass by, and assuming they did make it out, they probably wouldn't go far, and even if they did, they wouldn't shoot straight at all.)
For what it's worth, this is dead in the middle of the tech capital of Arizona, as a lot of big name tech firms are headquartered here and/or run major operations here. Intel for example has the world's most advanced semiconductor plant only five miles from me (or so intel says, I *think* this is their 14nm plant.)
Not HCl either. The thing is, a human body is made of all kinds of substances, and no one acid could break down all of them. HF is a very weak acid, but it is really good at breaking down substances high in Calcium, i.e. bone. HS would break down the skin pretty well. Etc.
A major stumbling block you're going to run into though is that any strong chemical reaction is going to be highly endothermic. That is, it's going to produce a LOT of heat. That said, you can surely expect not only a very strong smell of the different chemicals you're using, but if you used strong enough acids, you're going to see smoke as well, maybe even fire.
Acid is perhaps the worst way to dispose of a body that I could think of. Not only do you have to get the formula right, but it wouldn't be a clean process at all.
Well with regard to point 2, I don't see why these guys just move to a lower cost area. Every time I mention it to them, they babble something like they have the "right" to live there. For reference, $1094 a month's rent gets me:
1) 1 bedroom, 1 bathroom, living room, big kitchen, total 781 square feet, single floor unit and located on the first floor. 2) Two very large swimming pools (one of them has a beach style entry and sand pits) spa, gas powered grills that are free to use, cabanas, outdoor TVs. 3) Gated community, with a unique gate code per unit, and a remote for the gate so no reason to stop and reach for the number pad when you drive in 4) Trash butler who comes to my front porch and picks up my trash 5) Keyless entry to the pools (uses an NFC fob) 6) Same day service when I something breaks (for example, I called to complain that my AC was too loud, and somebody fixed it a few hours later. Dishwasher wasn't working, fixed the next morning.) 7) Fiber internet (max tier is gig) 8) Total cost for electricity and gas ends up being another $110 a month during the summer. Since this is in Arizona, heating costs are minimal during the winter. 9) Fitness center, with free gym classes. 10) Nice mountain view, and lots of nice places to eat and shop are within walking distance.
And yes, the figure I quoted above includes all of the amenities and taxes. At the start of the month, that's the exact amount I pay.
Tell me how much something like that costs in San Francisco or New York.
Basically, Apolo astronauts found a camera from a probe mission whose previous handlers sneezed on it. It was on the moon for a total of three years, and the bacteria were still growing.
A similar outcome found here, this time deliberately:
What a hostile response. Sounds like I'm speaking to the pope. I'm sorry I upset your religious worldview. Put down your bible for a minute, and I'll go through your points:
1) Life is theorized to have arisen multiple times on early Earth, in between giant catastrophic impacts. Once the solar system was quieter, it "stuck" and here we are.
Maybe, but there's also very compelling evidence that says otherwise:
2) The Sun is nearly 100 million miles from the Earth, and has been as long as they have both been in existence. Any other star coming in between would have utterly destroyed the solar system. It has been theorized that the solar system's Oort cloud was shaped by close encounters with other stars at a distance of around a light year but that's pointless to even measure in miles.
Except when Earth was a protoplanet. Earth has only fully cleared its orbital position of meteors somewhat recently. Now, I'm not saying that the edge of another star system came within a hundred million miles, rather likely somewhere under a billion.
It's entirely likely that all of our planets received ejecta containing this material, but remember that Earth is the only planet to truly be within the Goldilocks zone.
3) Microbes "thriving" in space have never been detected, so we clearly don't "know" that. In any case, it's much more likely for life to evolve on a planet than for life to evolve on a planet, then magically survive transportation through space and arrive on another planet where it can also magically survive.
I'm sorry that wasn't mentioned in your bible, but it is mentioned here:
And a lot of other places, if you just looked up from your bible. I know, I know, it's hard to get past a self inflicted dogmatic view, but all I ask is that you try.
Just don't let anybody from the occupy movement hear that, or else they'll give you an earful about how they deserve both:
1) A high paying job because dammit, they're human beings, and they deserve it! 2) Low price rent in a high cost, high demand, area. Because again, being human and having feelings means they deserve it.
I think you're missing something critical here. At the time we believe life began, Earth wasn't even fully formed. Not only that, but the nearest star to us was within the millions range of miles, meaning that its planets and our planets likely had periods where they were considerably closer to one another than their parent stars.
Sure, it seems improbable today because of the vast distance other stars are from us, however that wasn't the case several billion years ago.
Not only that, but we already know that microbes can actually thrive in space.
I personally don't believe life originated here, I think it's more likely that more primitive microbes started elsewhere, and when that elsewhere planet was subjected to meteor bombardment, its ejecta seeded life on other planets in its star cluster, including ours.
Of course, we've long since drifted away from that cluster, and who knows if any sapient life exists in those former neighboring systems.
Having said all of that, I don't think we'll necessarily find the conditions that started life here.
Designed by Microsoft to for us to upgrade to Windows 10, the only version to get this new time zone. This will also mess up the cell phones that can't be updated. That should bump sales a bit.
I'm thinking they might sell two more phones this year as a result. Presently, 8 of the 10 Windows Phone owners in the world can only afford low end handsets, which is why Microsoft mostly caters to the low end market. The two people in the high end of the market (Steve Ballmer, and Stephen Elop) will surely buy a new phone however.
Really that's going to be your line in the sand? Its a sport as long as it requires at least some minimum level of motor control?
Skeet shooting, curling, and bowling all need less motor control than a game like League of Legends. Sure, curling and bowling need strength, but not fine motor control.
While complexity does add to spectator interest in a game, if it goes too far, then spectators aren't interested. For example, Blizzard decided to make Starcraft 2 so fucking hard for beginners to compete at all (that is, they made everything so micro heavy that you need an APM of like 200 just to even begin to get competitive, with the top end players being at over 300 APM,) so that none of them are even interested in watching people play it either. Thus all of the big gaming leagues no longer hold tournaments for Starcraft 2 anymore. However they still hold them for regular Starcraft.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't understand something about this particular theory. Life had to start somewhere, right? Why does it make more sense for it to have been formed somewhere else and transported here rather than being home grown?
Somebody did a mathematical model for the rate at which they believe life forms evolve new nucleotide sequences (or rather, they created a few possible ones) and found that it's likely that life began a billion or two years before the time period that we believe that our planet likely began.
It's actually pretty easy once you get used to it. Just get a food scale, like this one (which I own and like a lot):
http://www.amazon.com/EatSmart...
With that in hand, just measure what you consume, and stick to the serving amounts on the package. Do this religiously for at least 3 months, and you get a pretty good idea of what you're doing.
As far as keeping track, either use a calorie tracking site (e.g. myfitnesspal.com) or just keep a meal-based note in your head. I'll do something like 250 calories for breakfast (trust me, meat for breakfast sates your hunger MUCH longer than cereal or any grain) 600 for lunch, adding the calories for one or two snacks between lunch and dinner, and then I can have a big meal for dinner if I didn't eat much earlier in the day, usually dining late enough for bed that I don't get hungry just as I go to bed.
Avoid carb based snacks which aren't very filling. For example, if you like chips, put lots of cottage cheese on them (and make sure to count both chips and cottage cheese when you add it up.) Jerky and pork rinds are very good for keeping you sated, and contrary to popular belief, they don't cause heart disease. Spicy snacks help you stay even fuller for longer, and with fewer calories.
I'll second that about men's health. It's just a glorified clickbait site.
In fact, dare I say, I haven't seen a single "health" website that I've actually liked. They all write recommendations based on whatever the latest shocking (and ultimately inconclusive) study or survey says, and rarely bother to correct themselves when these findings are later disproven.
You ought to read this website:
ihatecilantro.com
Cilantro is an increasingly popular herb for many dishes, and shows up more and more as more chefs discover it. It's actually pretty healthy too. But some people have a gene that causes cilantro to taste like soap, and these people have banded together to fight its widespread use. They call it "The most offensive food known to man."
Anyways I guess you can say that, like artificial sweeteners, it's starting to get added to everything, much to the dismay of its detractors.
Normally I'd be on board with what you're saying, but I'm starting to have a huge problem with conclusions that are based upon studies and surveys. If all you have is a "link" from cause A to effect B without knowing the exact nature of the relationship, then you really haven't proven anything, and you could very well be wrong, and in fact a lot of recent "dietary wisdom" that was just based on studies showing correlation has been shown to be VERY wrong lately.
For example, for the period between the 70s and 2010s, the FDA firmly believed that saturated fats, dietary cholesterol, and red meat causes your blood cholesterol to rise. They based this on studies that found a link between the them. The problem is they never established an actual cause and effect relationship. In recent times, these studies have been debunked heavily, namely because they failed to do an "all other things being equal" control. In fact, most of these studies have no control at all, and just show correlation.
As I mentioned earlier how low carbing got rid of my cholesterol problems, I actually have a cause and effect analysis I can describe briefly: When you consume sugars, your liver first doles them out to whatever tissues (cells) need them. After your body has what it needs, then your liver has to do something with the rest. The liver of all mammals treats calories as precious, and never simply discards them. So what does your liver do? It does three things with them:
1) Converts them into triglycerides (a form of fat stored in your blood that your body uses for energy later)
2) Converts them into cholesterol
3) Converts them into fats that your liver itself retains (too much of this leads to fatty liver, and possibly NASH.)
Likewise, lowering your carb intake lowers your cholesterol. It's also now known that dietary cholesterol (cholesterol found in food prior to you eating it) doesn't end up in your blood stream. Your digestive system breaks that apart and uses it for other substances.
See that? Nice cause and effect relationship, no guessing based on correlation. If however you are hard up about studies and links, then read this:
http://authoritynutrition.com/...
At any rate, back to what you were saying about sweeteners: Both of the claims you have made come down to a link. Go ahead and investigate them, you'll find that there's no actual cause and effect behind either. Now, this isn't to say studies are pointless in doing. There's a very good reason to do studies: They help scientists investigate and narrow down the root cause and effect. However they shouldn't be used as dogma.
Say for example your argument about sweeteners stimulating your appetite. Why does it do this? Please provide a detailed cause and effect, along with all of the body chemicals involved (since you're talking about appetite, let's hear how it impacts say leptin for example, or any other hormone that governs hunger.) And how do we know that something else isn't coming into play here?
I can say, at least anecdotally, that it does not raise my appetite, and I've been losing about a pound a week. For what it's worth, my BMI was once 40, and now I'm at 29.5.
The main purpose of a diet soda is that it doesn't have any sugar, and therefore, no calories either. What defines "diet" isn't regulated, but every diet soda I've seen indeed has less than or equal to one Calorie.
I suspect that it could very well be true that diet soda doesn't help you lose weight, but if so, it isn't the fault of the diet soda that you aren't losing weight. The more calories you consume, the more "full" you feel, and likewise, simply drinking diet soda isn't going to help you shed pounds if you're consuming something else in lieu of those calories.
Let's say for example that as part of your daily routine, instead of drinking a regular soda (about 150 calories) you decide to drink a diet soda, and have a chocolate chip cookie (typically about 150 calories) with it. In this scenario, you're still retaining the same calorie intake, so you aren't going to shed any pounds that you otherwise wouldn't have.
Having said all of the above, indeed you *can* use diet soda as part of your weight loss plan, but at the end of the day your calorie intake must be less than your Basal Metabolic Rate.
Oh and for anybody who wants to know how to lose weight, it's dead simple, just follow this formula:
Nc = F - (Bmr + E)
Where Nc = Net Calories, F = food calories consumed, Bmr = Basal Metabolic Rate, E = Calories burned during exercise.
So long as Nc is less than zero, you're losing weight. How fast you're losing weight depends on how much deficit. One pound of fat is roughly 3600 calories. As a rule of thumb, your food intake shouldn't be less than around 1800 calories per day for males, 1200 for females, and if you go below these figures, your liver slows down your metabolism (aka starvation mode) and you get tired all the time lose weight slower.
Also one thing to remember about calories: They are a total sum of protein, fat, carbohydrates, and alcohol. How much of each you need is debatable, but I've found that getting calories mostly from protein and fat (aka low-carb) works best for me (not to mention, low carb also got rid of my cholesterol problem.)
That's probably similar to where I live. Getting a mortgage will generally cost you less per month than renting will. Rent just usually costs more because it's in higher demand.
I could have gotten a mortgage (my credit score is 822 and I secured a pre-qualification letter) but I wanted to make sure my job stays secure for at least a year (my own personal requirement, not the bank's.)
Frozen paintballs shrivel a bit and cause you to sacrifice accuracy. They also don't hurt any worse than normal ones when shot with, and furthermore they still break apart (although they don't "splatter", they rarely stay in one piece after hitting a person, just like unfrozen balls.)
The material in them doesn't get that hard when frozen using any conventional means of freezing them, and I suspect that if you froze them completely solid (e.g. with liquid nitrogen) they probably wouldn't fire at all (they'd shrivel so much that the barrel would permit too much air to pass by, and assuming they did make it out, they probably wouldn't go far, and even if they did, they wouldn't shoot straight at all.)
That doesn't make sense. Paintballs have more stopping power than a super soaker.
For what it's worth, this is dead in the middle of the tech capital of Arizona, as a lot of big name tech firms are headquartered here and/or run major operations here. Intel for example has the world's most advanced semiconductor plant only five miles from me (or so intel says, I *think* this is their 14nm plant.)
Ahwatukee, which is the southern tip of Phoenix, Arizona.
Oops, sorry, meant to say exothermic rather than endothermic.
Not HCl either. The thing is, a human body is made of all kinds of substances, and no one acid could break down all of them. HF is a very weak acid, but it is really good at breaking down substances high in Calcium, i.e. bone. HS would break down the skin pretty well. Etc.
A major stumbling block you're going to run into though is that any strong chemical reaction is going to be highly endothermic. That is, it's going to produce a LOT of heat. That said, you can surely expect not only a very strong smell of the different chemicals you're using, but if you used strong enough acids, you're going to see smoke as well, maybe even fire.
Acid is perhaps the worst way to dispose of a body that I could think of. Not only do you have to get the formula right, but it wouldn't be a clean process at all.
Well with regard to point 2, I don't see why these guys just move to a lower cost area. Every time I mention it to them, they babble something like they have the "right" to live there. For reference, $1094 a month's rent gets me:
1) 1 bedroom, 1 bathroom, living room, big kitchen, total 781 square feet, single floor unit and located on the first floor.
2) Two very large swimming pools (one of them has a beach style entry and sand pits) spa, gas powered grills that are free to use, cabanas, outdoor TVs.
3) Gated community, with a unique gate code per unit, and a remote for the gate so no reason to stop and reach for the number pad when you drive in
4) Trash butler who comes to my front porch and picks up my trash
5) Keyless entry to the pools (uses an NFC fob)
6) Same day service when I something breaks (for example, I called to complain that my AC was too loud, and somebody fixed it a few hours later. Dishwasher wasn't working, fixed the next morning.)
7) Fiber internet (max tier is gig)
8) Total cost for electricity and gas ends up being another $110 a month during the summer. Since this is in Arizona, heating costs are minimal during the winter.
9) Fitness center, with free gym classes.
10) Nice mountain view, and lots of nice places to eat and shop are within walking distance.
And yes, the figure I quoted above includes all of the amenities and taxes. At the start of the month, that's the exact amount I pay.
Tell me how much something like that costs in San Francisco or New York.
Oh, and also:
http://science1.nasa.gov/scien...
Basically, Apolo astronauts found a camera from a probe mission whose previous handlers sneezed on it. It was on the moon for a total of three years, and the bacteria were still growing.
A similar outcome found here, this time deliberately:
http://helix.northwestern.edu/...
That would be hard to determine without actually seeing said planet.
What a hostile response. Sounds like I'm speaking to the pope. I'm sorry I upset your religious worldview. Put down your bible for a minute, and I'll go through your points:
1) Life is theorized to have arisen multiple times on early Earth, in between giant catastrophic impacts. Once the solar system was quieter, it "stuck" and here we are.
Maybe, but there's also very compelling evidence that says otherwise:
http://science.slashdot.org/st...
2) The Sun is nearly 100 million miles from the Earth, and has been as long as they have both been in existence. Any other star coming in between would have utterly destroyed the solar system. It has been theorized that the solar system's Oort cloud was shaped by close encounters with other stars at a distance of around a light year but that's pointless to even measure in miles.
Except when Earth was a protoplanet. Earth has only fully cleared its orbital position of meteors somewhat recently. Now, I'm not saying that the edge of another star system came within a hundred million miles, rather likely somewhere under a billion.
It's entirely likely that all of our planets received ejecta containing this material, but remember that Earth is the only planet to truly be within the Goldilocks zone.
3) Microbes "thriving" in space have never been detected, so we clearly don't "know" that. In any case, it's much more likely for life to evolve on a planet than for life to evolve on a planet, then magically survive transportation through space and arrive on another planet where it can also magically survive.
I'm sorry that wasn't mentioned in your bible, but it is mentioned here:
http://gizmodo.com/why-do-bact...
And here:
http://content.time.com/time/h...
And a lot of other places, if you just looked up from your bible. I know, I know, it's hard to get past a self inflicted dogmatic view, but all I ask is that you try.
No.
Just don't let anybody from the occupy movement hear that, or else they'll give you an earful about how they deserve both:
1) A high paying job because dammit, they're human beings, and they deserve it!
2) Low price rent in a high cost, high demand, area. Because again, being human and having feelings means they deserve it.
I think you're missing something critical here. At the time we believe life began, Earth wasn't even fully formed. Not only that, but the nearest star to us was within the millions range of miles, meaning that its planets and our planets likely had periods where they were considerably closer to one another than their parent stars.
Sure, it seems improbable today because of the vast distance other stars are from us, however that wasn't the case several billion years ago.
Not only that, but we already know that microbes can actually thrive in space.
I personally don't believe life originated here, I think it's more likely that more primitive microbes started elsewhere, and when that elsewhere planet was subjected to meteor bombardment, its ejecta seeded life on other planets in its star cluster, including ours.
Of course, we've long since drifted away from that cluster, and who knows if any sapient life exists in those former neighboring systems.
Having said all of that, I don't think we'll necessarily find the conditions that started life here.
Designed by Microsoft to for us to upgrade to Windows 10, the only version to get this new time zone. This will also mess up the cell phones that can't be updated. That should bump sales a bit.
I'm thinking they might sell two more phones this year as a result. Presently, 8 of the 10 Windows Phone owners in the world can only afford low end handsets, which is why Microsoft mostly caters to the low end market. The two people in the high end of the market (Steve Ballmer, and Stephen Elop) will surely buy a new phone however.
And Lollipop raised them again.
Not by much.
Really that's going to be your line in the sand? Its a sport as long as it requires at least some minimum level of motor control?
Skeet shooting, curling, and bowling all need less motor control than a game like League of Legends. Sure, curling and bowling need strength, but not fine motor control.
There are exceptions... https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
While complexity does add to spectator interest in a game, if it goes too far, then spectators aren't interested. For example, Blizzard decided to make Starcraft 2 so fucking hard for beginners to compete at all (that is, they made everything so micro heavy that you need an APM of like 200 just to even begin to get competitive, with the top end players being at over 300 APM,) so that none of them are even interested in watching people play it either. Thus all of the big gaming leagues no longer hold tournaments for Starcraft 2 anymore. However they still hold them for regular Starcraft.