So Nokia's board, who hired Elop, and the CEOs before Elop, have absolutely no blame in Nokia's downfall?
Their mistake was going with Windows Phone. Even Microsoft has made a big mistake creating it to begin with. They're trying to inject a very non-disruptive smartphone platform into an OS market segment, and consumer OSes tend to be a market of only two major competitors with practically no room for a third.
Microsoft executives and fans insisted that Microsoft has to have some kind of mobile presence in order to have a future, which is dead wrong. That would be like saying EMC, Oracle, or Redhat need a mobile OS in order to have a future.
Because I typed the message elsewhere on a smartphone and copy pasted it. Only I didn't see that it actually copy pasted because the desktop UI is kind of broken (the mobile one is worse though) and I didn't realize it the paste was successful all three times until after I had already hit the submit button.
Ooh and as for what holds the radio gun in place... Dunno, the moon perhaps? Or we don't really care where it ends up after we use it, but that costs half of its kinetic energy.
The comment about kinetic energy is assuming you want to shatter it into many pieces instead of changing its course, which I don't believe a nuke can do, unless Bruce Willis drills a hole in it.
The idea being a rail gun gains its kinetic energy from magnetism, colliding with the object. I guess a more appropriate term is to shatter it rather than blow it up, but since it's in space there's not much of a visual distinction.
If you blow up an object, I very much doubt that all of its pieces are still going to hit you. Some of them will go in the opposite direction, some will land in a slowly decaying orbit, and very few of them are likely to continue on their existing trajectory, and the few that do will have their kinetic energy reduced.
That's assuming that the nuke actually blows it up. Nukes are FAR less effective in space because there's no atmosphere for the thermal energy to create a big shockwave, and there's no solid ground beneath it to amplify the intended direction of said shockwave.
IMO if you want to blow up an NEO, you'll probably want some kind of kinetic weapon akin to a giant bullet, maybe a space born railgun or something.
Still though, nudging is probably a better approach.
You misunderstand. Stephen Elop just fulfilled his destiny created by Steve Ballmer: Appear competent while being incompetent, and destroy the world's largest handset manufacturer by making sure it never picks up Android so that it becomes an easy takeover target.
Now that his destiny has been fulfilled, Microsoft no longer needs his services.You misunderstand. Stephen Elop just fulfilled his destiny created by Steve Ballmer: Appear competent while being incompetent, and destroy the world's largest handset manufacturer by making sure it never picks up Android so that it becomes an easy takeover target.
Now that his destiny has been fulfilled, Microsoft no longer needs his services.
They all have found low carb diets are significantly better.
Meanwhile the most commonly cited studies that favor your camp, like the Harvard Study, the Princeton Study, and the China Study, have all been debunked because none of those included proper controls. They were hardly a study either, they were mostly just a survey that asked people what they ate and included a wellness check. Most people tend to inaccurately record what they eat, so a study is much better if they're given a meal plan, cooking lessons to meet the properly diet, and counseling first.
Also it's worth pointing out that your camp is based on 80's and 90's FDA opinions that the FDA no longer holds, as well as commentary by groups like PETA who are being subjective based on a moral agenda, rather than using objective science.
Moderation is never a bad approach, but in my opinion, overall we consume too many carbs.
One of the nice things about carbs is that your body can quickly convert them into ATP, so they can get you full in the short term, making you feel sated quicker, so you are less tempted to eat a big meal, regardless of whether it's high in protein/fat or not.
I often eat one Jimmy Dean turkey sausage egg and cheese sandwich, (they're about 250 calories) and I don't get hungry until about 5 hours later most of the time. That means I can do two 800 calorie meals (which is quite a feast, relatively speaking) or three 500 calorie meals and still be well below my daily metabolic rate. If I get a sugar craving, I have one of those zero calorie Sparkling ICE drinks, and I usually feel fine after that.
Amazon allows Plex, even features Plex, and I don't know anybody who doesn't use it for piracy. Plex is basically a forked version of XBMC that you pay money for to get extra features (namely, an auto-transcoding server that doesn't rely on annoying nfs/samba configuration, which I wish XBMC had.)
Personally I don't like dietary studies all that much, because saying there's "a link between x and y" typically doesn't take a correct "all other things being equal" approach. For example, vegetarians LOVE to cite studies that show diets that include meat include all kinds of health problems, but none of them have created a control that keeps alcohol consumption, high sugar consumption, and smoking the same between all participants. Because vegetarians are less likely to do those things to begin with, the studies commonly show in their favor.
That's very much a valid study because they seem to have done a proper control.
Many nutritionists and health authorities have “actively advised against” low-carbohydrate diets, said the lead author of the new study, Dr. Lydia A. Bazzano of the Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine. “It’s been thought that your saturated fat is, of course, going to increase, and then your cholesterol is going to go up,” she said. “And then bad things will happen in general.”
The new study showed that was not the case.
By the end of the yearlong trial, people in the low-carbohydrate group had lost about eight pounds more on average than those in the low-fat group. They had significantly greater reductions in body fat than the low-fat group, and improvements in lean muscle mass — even though neither group changed their levels of physical activity.
While the low-fat group did lose weight, they appeared to lose more muscle than fat.
“They actually lost lean muscle mass, which is a bad thing,” Dr. Mozaffarian said. “Your balance of lean mass versus fat mass is much more important than weight. And that’s a very important finding that shows why the low-carb, high-fat group did so metabolically well.”
Well first of all, those are whole grains, which doesn't include most cereals, breads, and pastas, which typically don't include whole grains. Second of all, 5-8 ounces isn't really that much, it's less than two slices of sandwich bread, and is far less than what the FDA recommended in the past.
If you have one sandwich, you've already exceeded what the FDA recommends (depending on the specific bread used.)
Well you don't want to retain too much water, even if you're healthy. Generally your kidneys are good at filtering out both water and sodium, but if you have too much then it does raise your blood pressure (the total fluid in your body adds to your blood pressure much like air in a balloon, even if that fluid isn't in your blood.)
This, by the way, is the same reason chronic kidney disease patients are told to avoid too much sodium.
Having high blood pressure can certainly lead to heart problems (and kidney problems, eye problems, brain problems, etc) but you need to consume a lot more than 2,300 grams of sodium per day every day for that to even become an issue, depending on your ethnicity. (Africans tend to fare the worst, Asians the best, and Europeans are somewhere in the middle.) Having said that, I don't think the FDA recommendation is accurate for everybody. Personally, I think nobody should be below 1,800 grams with 3,500 being a reasonable top level for most people, but I haven't scientifically tested that, nor do I hold any kind of medical or scientific degree, so take that advice with a pinch of salt.
Usually that's for congestive heart failure, and the reason why isn't necessarily because of the electrolytic property of the sodium, but because your body needs a certain ratio of water to sodium, (which is for electrolytic balance, but hear me out) and the more water you have in your body, the worse congestive heart failure gets. So the often recommended solution is to decrease sodium intake and also add diuretics.
I've never done Atkins, but I certainly agree with the concept. Our metabolic system just doesn't work well on too many carbs. Our livers can't properly balance our body chemistry like that, which strongly says we've evolved more carnivorous than herbivorous (though we still remain omnivores as our bodies need vitamin k, where true carnivores do not.)
Thomson's bagel thins. Use half of one, toast it and put butter and one scrambled egg on it. I promise you'll feel plenty full to last until lunch and you've likely only done 300 calories. Sure, it has carbs, but not many.
Really. Why then do you think the FDA used to recommend high amounts of cereal grain and pasta with their "food pyramid" and now they no longer use that model and advise nobody to go by it anymore?
No, I don't, actually. This is all based on advise I took from a doctor after being diagnosed with NAFLD. The simplified message they gave me was "eat less sugar." But I looked it up and found things like this:
And of course, an NIH whitepaper that I can't find at the moment.
Anyways, knowing what I already knew about calories, and the fact that I was already consuming fewer calories than my basal metabolic rate, meant I had to shift my calorie consumption away from carbs and more towards protein/fat. And, it was the correct move.
by now we've all consumed enough of them to potentially suffer
Not likely. While I certainly agree that trans fats are bad, I think there are things that people consume that are much worse for them that they consume more often. Take for example refined sugars, or pure/mostly pure simple carbohydrate breakfasts (which if you eat cereal or bread of any variety for breakfast, then that describes you. That also includes any variety of bread/pasta throughout the day.) The message of avoiding (for example) eggs and bacon for breakfast in favor of cereals, waffles, or pancakes was the wrong one, which the FDA only finally realized just a few months ago.
I honestly think that is doing more harm to most people than trans fats are. Believe it or not, simple carbs raise your cholesterol and triglycerides far more than fats and dietary cholesterol, and the reason why is because your liver has to make up for the unsaturated fats that you aren't consuming, and it produces all lipids/cholesterol as a packaged deal.
I'm actually a living example of what I just described, by the way. After switching to just eggs and sausage for breakfast every single day, my cholesterol is now normal without taking any kind of statin drugs, and I used to be on a heavy dose.
What?! The US is an enormous war monger! They have started more wars in the last century than any other country!
No, definitely not. Who is the biggest "war monger" over the last century depends on how you measure it.
England declared a LOT of wars during the early 20th century to establish masses of colonies. There was a saying "the sun never sets over England" which was meant literally. Why do you think it was meant literally?
Russia declared performed a lot of military actions, though it's hard to say whether or not they were wars; they were expanding and maintaining the Iron Curtain, and a lot of people died.
China killed some 40 million people along its borders over the last century, though they weren't exactly wars.
A lot of wars that are commonly attributed as being started by the US were started by Europeans. For example, the Vietnam War started as a French effort to colonize the country.
Slashdot Mirror
MS lives on income through OS for customers and some notorious office suite.
Correct, and that mainly comes from enterprise customers, who the most part don't even touch Windows Phone.
So Nokia's board, who hired Elop, and the CEOs before Elop, have absolutely no blame in Nokia's downfall?
Their mistake was going with Windows Phone. Even Microsoft has made a big mistake creating it to begin with. They're trying to inject a very non-disruptive smartphone platform into an OS market segment, and consumer OSes tend to be a market of only two major competitors with practically no room for a third.
Microsoft executives and fans insisted that Microsoft has to have some kind of mobile presence in order to have a future, which is dead wrong. That would be like saying EMC, Oracle, or Redhat need a mobile OS in order to have a future.
Because I typed the message elsewhere on a smartphone and copy pasted it. Only I didn't see that it actually copy pasted because the desktop UI is kind of broken (the mobile one is worse though) and I didn't realize it the paste was successful all three times until after I had already hit the submit button.
I know. You hear that Satya?
It helps it see where it's going.
Ooh and as for what holds the radio gun in place... Dunno, the moon perhaps? Or we don't really care where it ends up after we use it, but that costs half of its kinetic energy.
The comment about kinetic energy is assuming you want to shatter it into many pieces instead of changing its course, which I don't believe a nuke can do, unless Bruce Willis drills a hole in it.
The idea being a rail gun gains its kinetic energy from magnetism, colliding with the object. I guess a more appropriate term is to shatter it rather than blow it up, but since it's in space there's not much of a visual distinction.
Ben Affleck will be too busy getting taco flavored kisses.
If you blow up an object, I very much doubt that all of its pieces are still going to hit you. Some of them will go in the opposite direction, some will land in a slowly decaying orbit, and very few of them are likely to continue on their existing trajectory, and the few that do will have their kinetic energy reduced.
That's assuming that the nuke actually blows it up. Nukes are FAR less effective in space because there's no atmosphere for the thermal energy to create a big shockwave, and there's no solid ground beneath it to amplify the intended direction of said shockwave.
IMO if you want to blow up an NEO, you'll probably want some kind of kinetic weapon akin to a giant bullet, maybe a space born railgun or something.
Still though, nudging is probably a better approach.
Oops major editing mistake, now I appear incompetent.
You misunderstand. Stephen Elop just fulfilled his destiny created by Steve Ballmer: Appear competent while being incompetent, and destroy the world's largest handset manufacturer by making sure it never picks up Android so that it becomes an easy takeover target.
Now that his destiny has been fulfilled, Microsoft no longer needs his services.You misunderstand. Stephen Elop just fulfilled his destiny created by Steve Ballmer: Appear competent while being incompetent, and destroy the world's largest handset manufacturer by making sure it never picks up Android so that it becomes an easy takeover target.
Now that his destiny has been fulfilled, Microsoft no longer needs his services.
Oh and by the way, in addition to what I said above, here's a detailed analysis of 23 studies that did a proper control and randomization:
http://authoritynutrition.com/...
They all have found low carb diets are significantly better.
Meanwhile the most commonly cited studies that favor your camp, like the Harvard Study, the Princeton Study, and the China Study, have all been debunked because none of those included proper controls. They were hardly a study either, they were mostly just a survey that asked people what they ate and included a wellness check. Most people tend to inaccurately record what they eat, so a study is much better if they're given a meal plan, cooking lessons to meet the properly diet, and counseling first.
Also it's worth pointing out that your camp is based on 80's and 90's FDA opinions that the FDA no longer holds, as well as commentary by groups like PETA who are being subjective based on a moral agenda, rather than using objective science.
Moderation is never a bad approach, but in my opinion, overall we consume too many carbs.
One of the nice things about carbs is that your body can quickly convert them into ATP, so they can get you full in the short term, making you feel sated quicker, so you are less tempted to eat a big meal, regardless of whether it's high in protein/fat or not.
I often eat one Jimmy Dean turkey sausage egg and cheese sandwich, (they're about 250 calories) and I don't get hungry until about 5 hours later most of the time. That means I can do two 800 calorie meals (which is quite a feast, relatively speaking) or three 500 calorie meals and still be well below my daily metabolic rate. If I get a sugar craving, I have one of those zero calorie Sparkling ICE drinks, and I usually feel fine after that.
Amazon allows Plex, even features Plex, and I don't know anybody who doesn't use it for piracy. Plex is basically a forked version of XBMC that you pay money for to get extra features (namely, an auto-transcoding server that doesn't rely on annoying nfs/samba configuration, which I wish XBMC had.)
Personally I don't like dietary studies all that much, because saying there's "a link between x and y" typically doesn't take a correct "all other things being equal" approach. For example, vegetarians LOVE to cite studies that show diets that include meat include all kinds of health problems, but none of them have created a control that keeps alcohol consumption, high sugar consumption, and smoking the same between all participants. Because vegetarians are less likely to do those things to begin with, the studies commonly show in their favor.
However because you asked for it:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09...
That's very much a valid study because they seem to have done a proper control.
Many nutritionists and health authorities have “actively advised against” low-carbohydrate diets, said the lead author of the new study, Dr. Lydia A. Bazzano of the Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine. “It’s been thought that your saturated fat is, of course, going to increase, and then your cholesterol is going to go up,” she said. “And then bad things will happen in general.”
The new study showed that was not the case.
By the end of the yearlong trial, people in the low-carbohydrate group had lost about eight pounds more on average than those in the low-fat group. They had significantly greater reductions in body fat than the low-fat group, and improvements in lean muscle mass — even though neither group changed their levels of physical activity.
While the low-fat group did lose weight, they appeared to lose more muscle than fat.
“They actually lost lean muscle mass, which is a bad thing,” Dr. Mozaffarian said. “Your balance of lean mass versus fat mass is much more important than weight. And that’s a very important finding that shows why the low-carb, high-fat group did so metabolically well.”
Well first of all, those are whole grains, which doesn't include most cereals, breads, and pastas, which typically don't include whole grains. Second of all, 5-8 ounces isn't really that much, it's less than two slices of sandwich bread, and is far less than what the FDA recommended in the past.
If you have one sandwich, you've already exceeded what the FDA recommends (depending on the specific bread used.)
Well you don't want to retain too much water, even if you're healthy. Generally your kidneys are good at filtering out both water and sodium, but if you have too much then it does raise your blood pressure (the total fluid in your body adds to your blood pressure much like air in a balloon, even if that fluid isn't in your blood.)
This, by the way, is the same reason chronic kidney disease patients are told to avoid too much sodium.
Having high blood pressure can certainly lead to heart problems (and kidney problems, eye problems, brain problems, etc) but you need to consume a lot more than 2,300 grams of sodium per day every day for that to even become an issue, depending on your ethnicity. (Africans tend to fare the worst, Asians the best, and Europeans are somewhere in the middle.) Having said that, I don't think the FDA recommendation is accurate for everybody. Personally, I think nobody should be below 1,800 grams with 3,500 being a reasonable top level for most people, but I haven't scientifically tested that, nor do I hold any kind of medical or scientific degree, so take that advice with a pinch of salt.
Usually that's for congestive heart failure, and the reason why isn't necessarily because of the electrolytic property of the sodium, but because your body needs a certain ratio of water to sodium, (which is for electrolytic balance, but hear me out) and the more water you have in your body, the worse congestive heart failure gets. So the often recommended solution is to decrease sodium intake and also add diuretics.
I've never done Atkins, but I certainly agree with the concept. Our metabolic system just doesn't work well on too many carbs. Our livers can't properly balance our body chemistry like that, which strongly says we've evolved more carnivorous than herbivorous (though we still remain omnivores as our bodies need vitamin k, where true carnivores do not.)
Thomson's bagel thins. Use half of one, toast it and put butter and one scrambled egg on it. I promise you'll feel plenty full to last until lunch and you've likely only done 300 calories. Sure, it has carbs, but not many.
Really. Why then do you think the FDA used to recommend high amounts of cereal grain and pasta with their "food pyramid" and now they no longer use that model and advise nobody to go by it anymore?
No, I don't, actually. This is all based on advise I took from a doctor after being diagnosed with NAFLD. The simplified message they gave me was "eat less sugar." But I looked it up and found things like this:
http://www.webmd.com/heart-dis...
And this:
http://drhyman.com/blog/2014/0...
And of course, an NIH whitepaper that I can't find at the moment.
Anyways, knowing what I already knew about calories, and the fact that I was already consuming fewer calories than my basal metabolic rate, meant I had to shift my calorie consumption away from carbs and more towards protein/fat. And, it was the correct move.
by now we've all consumed enough of them to potentially suffer
Not likely. While I certainly agree that trans fats are bad, I think there are things that people consume that are much worse for them that they consume more often. Take for example refined sugars, or pure/mostly pure simple carbohydrate breakfasts (which if you eat cereal or bread of any variety for breakfast, then that describes you. That also includes any variety of bread/pasta throughout the day.) The message of avoiding (for example) eggs and bacon for breakfast in favor of cereals, waffles, or pancakes was the wrong one, which the FDA only finally realized just a few months ago.
I honestly think that is doing more harm to most people than trans fats are. Believe it or not, simple carbs raise your cholesterol and triglycerides far more than fats and dietary cholesterol, and the reason why is because your liver has to make up for the unsaturated fats that you aren't consuming, and it produces all lipids/cholesterol as a packaged deal.
I'm actually a living example of what I just described, by the way. After switching to just eggs and sausage for breakfast every single day, my cholesterol is now normal without taking any kind of statin drugs, and I used to be on a heavy dose.
What?! The US is an enormous war monger! They have started more wars in the last century than any other country!
No, definitely not. Who is the biggest "war monger" over the last century depends on how you measure it.
England declared a LOT of wars during the early 20th century to establish masses of colonies. There was a saying "the sun never sets over England" which was meant literally. Why do you think it was meant literally?
Russia declared performed a lot of military actions, though it's hard to say whether or not they were wars; they were expanding and maintaining the Iron Curtain, and a lot of people died.
China killed some 40 million people along its borders over the last century, though they weren't exactly wars.
A lot of wars that are commonly attributed as being started by the US were started by Europeans. For example, the Vietnam War started as a French effort to colonize the country.