Can any compete with Microsoft's resource scheduling?"
Um. Yeah. They all compete somehow.
If you'd say what feature you wanted and what you wanted to do, someone could tell you how that feature in program X competes with Outlook. Short of that, I think the best answer is "Um. Yeah."
That is an extremely arrogant point of view to have.
It's extremely arrogant to think that your team/group/squad/country/self may be the best at something?
You must be fun at sporting events. "Quick everyone, stop the we're number 1 chant before Alphonse hears you. We don't need another lecture on how arrogant we are and how the other team has good players too. He also disapproves of your giant foam finger, your hat with sports team logo, and your body paint because all the teams' logos aren't represented."
One could argue that the US's biggest games company is EA...
If Amazon had evidence that linked the guy to fraud, why shouldn't they be asked for it? You guys really want Amazon to be the place where anyone can hide any evidence of any crime?
Discovery of evidence in a court proceeding is not a privacy issue. Since when is privacy a factor in what courts do?
Maybe OJ Simpson should have been able to keep his shoe size private? And why did the court really need to know his relationship to the victims anyway? Let alone where he was at the time of the murders?! Like that was any of the court's business! Pretty soon they'll be asking those questions of all suspected murderers. We better stop it now before you can't get away with murder or fraud any more. I'm outraged.
Government regulation is going to be the main thing holding back technology in the next 20 years. These regulations are spawned by people wanting to substitute their choices for yours and mine. And greed. Examples:
- Restrictions on talking on the phone in your car - Restrictions on talking on the phone in airplanes - Electrical rate-hikes and forced conservation to combat Global Warming - Sarbanes-Oxley and other laws that make business finance riskier (so there are fewer tech startups) - Internet taxes - Other taxes that take money away from folks who could but tech and put it in the hands of governments
My children just lick the lead house paint. So I don't have to buy expensive Chinese toys.
My post was an implied criticism of the media, not the public. The news media are corrupt and their reports are misleading such that they are useless on average. The public has no reliable sources of information. There are many sources, none can be relied on completely. It's a sad situation, and it's not the public's fault.
It's fairly clear that scientists have different interests than the public though. If you polled the two groups, you'd find that to be true.
"The public" worries about what the media tells them to worry about. Did you know everyone's children are going to die from Chinese toys with lead in them? The public does.
Scientists worry about science-related things they think are interesting. Hence, asteroids hitting Earth and nanotech are worried about.
This should surprise no one.
Social scientists are probably worried about the disconnect between the publics' and scientists' thinking though.
Simply answering, "either decrease input, or increase output," is physically correct, but does not answer the question, "what *can* I do?" No one has full rational control over what they eat. Evolution couldn't allow that.
I lost 62 pounds that way.
This means that we can indirectly affect hunger by the foods we *do* choose to eat, which will naturally lead to a different caloric intake.
And this is why people are fat. Because they are told to give up the foods they like and eat foods they don't like. And there's no guarantee it will work or even a meaningful reason to believe it will work. And someone else is saying the exact opposite thing.
So dieters' food makes them unhappy and it doesn't seem to be working because diets (especially with increased exercise) take a while to show an improvement on the scale.
So people either eat a lot of "healthy" food or cheat on their diet. And it fails. Or they stick to it and it succeeds until they are finally done and they go back to eating the food they like again. And they gradually fatten back up.
So instead of the *extremely difficult* task of eating less indefinitely
It's actually not that difficult if you don't try to hurry.
--
If you do it, a use vs. intake diet is a sure thing. There's a number that says use is greater than intake each day and weight loss was successful, even if it doesn't show on the scale for a while.
The special food diets are complicated and uncertain and, when they actually succeed, they work by the same mechanism anyway.
I'll take the food I like and the guarantee over the diet food and the uncertainty.
I have a fairly accurate way of measuring that. A company called Tanita makes sub-$100 scales that tell me my BMR and body fat percentage. When I add to some approximations for exercise and calories-used readouts from my treadmill or pedometer, I get a fairly accurate measurement of my use. It's more than close enough.
So the rest of what you've said basically doesn't apply.
I have "calories in" and "calories out" in numbers that are accurate enough to be useful over the course of time. If I keep the "calories in" number lower than the "calories out" number each day, my diet is a guaranteed success.
"Avoid foods that make you feel sleepy" is at least as important as "eat less calories".
This is another mumbo-jumbo rule. Not only does it mean I have to give up a food I like, but it also doesn't necessarily mean I'll lose weight in the process. I don't doubt that it's probably helpful. But it's really easy to overeat so-called "health" foods, just like any other food.
The "lost in excreted waste" factor is of vast importance. You're measuring the input of a process but not the output...
For a certain levels of input and use, weight loss is assured. The waste factor just changes the rate of weight loss. And the input and use levels are under my control whereas I lack the knowledge to control the waste factor.
Luckily, controlling that waste factor is not necessary because I want to lose weight, not precisely control the rate at which I lose weight.
The kind of food determines the percentage that is excreted - why is a concept this simple so hard to understand?
It's not. But there's so much weird diet mumbo-jumbo that all these details you guys proclaim are not useful. Why should someone try to navigate the minefield of diet tricks? About 75% of what everyone says about diets and food is false. And it's all contradicotry of something else that someone else is saying.
A calorie of twinkies and a calorie of beef jerky will have totally different effects on weight gain.
- If you pretend they are the same, you can use that information to lose weight by keeping your intake at less than your use.
- If you pretend they are different, you can either lose weight by guessing right or gain weight by guessing wrong.
See how that works? One way is guaranteed success with a very simple explanation. The other is a complete crap-shoot that can't be measured or quantified in any meaningful way.
(Oh, and if you choose "they're the same" you get to eat the food you like while you are guaranteed to lose weight. If you choose "they are different" you have to eat the special magic foods whether you like them or not.)
You can get this number fairly easily. It's not going to be the exact number. It's going to be an approximation. It will be close enough.
There are sub-$100 scales that will tell you your weight, BMR and body fat percentage. (BMR is the number of calories burned at rest.) Add the calories from exercise to the BMR. There are various gadgets and approximation methods to get the calories from exercise. Use that as "calories out".
2) You don't know what your calories in are.
Read the package and add up the amounts. You will get a number. It's not going to be the exact number. It's going to be an approximation. It will be close enough.
If there's no number, look it up on the Internet. When that fails, guess. Try to guess right. You'll probably be close enough.
---
Then, if you keep the "calories in" approximation at less than the "calories out" approximation, you should lose weight after a month or so. If you don't, and if you're not gaining muscle mass, then adjust one of the numbers by 100 calories and repeat.
It could be thought of as "not consumed", but if it makes you happy to add a "lost in excreted waste" factor, go nuts.
2. Some forms of energy we consume, requires energy to metabolize, while others don't.
When I use energy metabolizing a food, then that energy is "used", isn't it?
The problem is way more complicated, and the energy conservation has no real meaning when it comes to food consumption.
Except that it's more-or-less everything you need to know to understand how to lose weight. There are other issues that are related to losing weight, but it's basically about using up your stored energy faster than you replace it.
When you make a statement, all I have to do is point out one instance where your statement is wrong to show that it is not correct, or at least completely correct.
You should come up with one then and post it here. What's the magic food and how does this magic work?
-
Notice I didn't say anything about amputation. You can lose energy if you get your leg amputated. That's why I said the statement was a "simplification". You understand that, right? Because the statement is about food and diets, not about getting your leg amputated or drinking crude oil or drinking pure alcohol and starting your breath on fire. Ok?
Let's just agree that there are a whole lot of standards our there, okay?
See where I said "even though tastes differ, there's something great for everyone".
And I didn't say "American cuisine". I was talking about food that's available in the US -- which is basically every cuisine from everywhere in the world.
...a simple less food == less fat answer is incorrect.
No. It is correct.
The other important thing you completely miss is the aim is to be healthy not thin...
Except when the aim is to be thin. Then that's the aim.
It is very simple for a fat guy to lose weight. Eat less calories than you use.
Achieving perfect health that can be sustained forever is impossible. And approaching that state is extremely difficult and complicated and fraught with contradictory courses of action.
Losing weight is extraordinarily simple though. Not easy, simple.
If you understand this, it should be obvious that digestion can be a fairly complex process, not all food is equal, and you can't measure the "calories" in a food as if you had a gas gauge.
Yes you can. No matter how complex the process, energy is neither created nor destroyed. It is either used or stored. If you use more energy than you take in, the deficit is made up from the body's stored energy. This results in weight loss if continued over time.
It's amazing that there's even an argument. What's next? Gravity doesn't pull things down because sometimes there is wind and they go a little sideways for a while?
The flaw with your assumption is that the body will always full utilize all Calories that are consumed when it has been shown on many occasions that certain forms of Calories cannot be processed by the body. For a good example of this see Olestra...
The body has a number of holes. Energy (Calories) lost out of one of these holes can be considered to be "used" or can be considered to be "not consumed", whichever you like. The rule still holds. And it is not an "assumption".
Of course the energy is conserved, the question is how and where it is conserved.
Calories are energy. Fat is energy storage. Using more energy (Calories) than the energy (Calories) you consume will always result in less energy (Calories) stored.
Yes, this is a simplification. But it can not be contradicted. There is no magic.
Slashdot Mirror
Can any compete with Microsoft's resource scheduling?"
Um. Yeah. They all compete somehow.
If you'd say what feature you wanted and what you wanted to do, someone could tell you how that feature in program X competes with Outlook. Short of that, I think the best answer is "Um. Yeah."
That is an extremely arrogant point of view to have.
It's extremely arrogant to think that your team/group/squad/country/self may be the best at something?
You must be fun at sporting events. "Quick everyone, stop the we're number 1 chant before Alphonse hears you. We don't need another lecture on how arrogant we are and how the other team has good players too. He also disapproves of your giant foam finger, your hat with sports team logo, and your body paint because all the teams' logos aren't represented."
One could argue that the US's biggest games company is EA...
One could more-correctly argue it's Activision.
Surely, going from inside to outside, Voyager 2 will have to cross the boundary an odd number of times?
I was going to ask this same question.
I wonder what's wrong with the mods who moderated you down?
Have you guys thought about this at all?
If Amazon had evidence that linked the guy to fraud, why shouldn't they be asked for it? You guys really want Amazon to be the place where anyone can hide any evidence of any crime?
Discovery of evidence in a court proceeding is not a privacy issue. Since when is privacy a factor in what courts do?
Maybe OJ Simpson should have been able to keep his shoe size private? And why did the court really need to know his relationship to the victims anyway? Let alone where he was at the time of the murders?! Like that was any of the court's business! Pretty soon they'll be asking those questions of all suspected murderers. We better stop it now before you can't get away with murder or fraud any more. I'm outraged.
Government regulation is going to be the main thing holding back technology in the next 20 years. These regulations are spawned by people wanting to substitute their choices for yours and mine. And greed. Examples:
- Restrictions on talking on the phone in your car
- Restrictions on talking on the phone in airplanes
- Electrical rate-hikes and forced conservation to combat Global Warming
- Sarbanes-Oxley and other laws that make business finance riskier (so there are fewer tech startups)
- Internet taxes
- Other taxes that take money away from folks who could but tech and put it in the hands of governments
There are more examples, but I'm out of time.
My children just lick the lead house paint. So I don't have to buy expensive Chinese toys.
My post was an implied criticism of the media, not the public. The news media are corrupt and their reports are misleading such that they are useless on average. The public has no reliable sources of information. There are many sources, none can be relied on completely. It's a sad situation, and it's not the public's fault.
It's fairly clear that scientists have different interests than the public though. If you polled the two groups, you'd find that to be true.
So in Canada and other socialized-medicine countries, it'll be 3-9 months on the waiting list for a 1-minute scan.
"The public" worries about what the media tells them to worry about. Did you know everyone's children are going to die from Chinese toys with lead in them? The public does.
Scientists worry about science-related things they think are interesting. Hence, asteroids hitting Earth and nanotech are worried about.
This should surprise no one.
Social scientists are probably worried about the disconnect between the publics' and scientists' thinking though.
This is another problem that can easily be solved by carrying a handgun.
Simply answering, "either decrease input, or increase output," is physically correct, but does not answer the question, "what *can* I do?" No one has full rational control over what they eat. Evolution couldn't allow that.
I lost 62 pounds that way.
This means that we can indirectly affect hunger by the foods we *do* choose to eat, which will naturally lead to a different caloric intake.
And this is why people are fat. Because they are told to give up the foods they like and eat foods they don't like. And there's no guarantee it will work or even a meaningful reason to believe it will work. And someone else is saying the exact opposite thing.
So dieters' food makes them unhappy and it doesn't seem to be working because diets (especially with increased exercise) take a while to show an improvement on the scale.
So people either eat a lot of "healthy" food or cheat on their diet. And it fails. Or they stick to it and it succeeds until they are finally done and they go back to eating the food they like again. And they gradually fatten back up.
So instead of the *extremely difficult* task of eating less indefinitely
It's actually not that difficult if you don't try to hurry.
--
If you do it, a use vs. intake diet is a sure thing. There's a number that says use is greater than intake each day and weight loss was successful, even if it doesn't show on the scale for a while.
The special food diets are complicated and uncertain and, when they actually succeed, they work by the same mechanism anyway.
I'll take the food I like and the guarantee over the diet food and the uncertainty.
Since you have no way to measure your use...
I have a fairly accurate way of measuring that. A company called Tanita makes sub-$100 scales that tell me my BMR and body fat percentage. When I add to some approximations for exercise and calories-used readouts from my treadmill or pedometer, I get a fairly accurate measurement of my use. It's more than close enough.
So the rest of what you've said basically doesn't apply.
I have "calories in" and "calories out" in numbers that are accurate enough to be useful over the course of time. If I keep the "calories in" number lower than the "calories out" number each day, my diet is a guaranteed success.
"Avoid foods that make you feel sleepy" is at least as important as "eat less calories".
This is another mumbo-jumbo rule. Not only does it mean I have to give up a food I like, but it also doesn't necessarily mean I'll lose weight in the process. I don't doubt that it's probably helpful. But it's really easy to overeat so-called "health" foods, just like any other food.
The "lost in excreted waste" factor is of vast importance. You're measuring the input of a process but not the output...
For a certain levels of input and use, weight loss is assured. The waste factor just changes the rate of weight loss. And the input and use levels are under my control whereas I lack the knowledge to control the waste factor.
Luckily, controlling that waste factor is not necessary because I want to lose weight, not precisely control the rate at which I lose weight.
The kind of food determines the percentage that is excreted - why is a concept this simple so hard to understand?
It's not. But there's so much weird diet mumbo-jumbo that all these details you guys proclaim are not useful. Why should someone try to navigate the minefield of diet tricks? About 75% of what everyone says about diets and food is false. And it's all contradicotry of something else that someone else is saying.
A calorie of twinkies and a calorie of beef jerky will have totally different effects on weight gain.
- If you pretend they are the same, you can use that information to lose weight by keeping your intake at less than your use.
- If you pretend they are different, you can either lose weight by guessing right or gain weight by guessing wrong.
See how that works? One way is guaranteed success with a very simple explanation. The other is a complete crap-shoot that can't be measured or quantified in any meaningful way.
(Oh, and if you choose "they're the same" you get to eat the food you like while you are guaranteed to lose weight. If you choose "they are different" you have to eat the special magic foods whether you like them or not.)
1) You don't know what your calories out are
You can get this number fairly easily. It's not going to be the exact number. It's going to be an approximation. It will be close enough.
There are sub-$100 scales that will tell you your weight, BMR and body fat percentage. (BMR is the number of calories burned at rest.) Add the calories from exercise to the BMR. There are various gadgets and approximation methods to get the calories from exercise. Use that as "calories out".
2) You don't know what your calories in are.
Read the package and add up the amounts. You will get a number. It's not going to be the exact number. It's going to be an approximation. It will be close enough.
If there's no number, look it up on the Internet. When that fails, guess. Try to guess right. You'll probably be close enough.
---
Then, if you keep the "calories in" approximation at less than the "calories out" approximation, you should lose weight after a month or so. If you don't, and if you're not gaining muscle mass, then adjust one of the numbers by 100 calories and repeat.
There's really no way this can fail.
Tell that to the guy from Spain that I was replying to.
Complicate it all you want. It's still true.
1. We don't use/store all the energy we eat.
It could be thought of as "not consumed", but if it makes you happy to add a "lost in excreted waste" factor, go nuts.
2. Some forms of energy we consume, requires energy to metabolize, while others don't.
When I use energy metabolizing a food, then that energy is "used", isn't it?
The problem is way more complicated, and the energy conservation has no real meaning when it comes to food consumption.
Except that it's more-or-less everything you need to know to understand how to lose weight. There are other issues that are related to losing weight, but it's basically about using up your stored energy faster than you replace it.
When you make a statement, all I have to do is point out one instance where your statement is wrong to show that it is not correct, or at least completely correct.
You should come up with one then and post it here. What's the magic food and how does this magic work?
-
Notice I didn't say anything about amputation. You can lose energy if you get your leg amputated. That's why I said the statement was a "simplification". You understand that, right? Because the statement is about food and diets, not about getting your leg amputated or drinking crude oil or drinking pure alcohol and starting your breath on fire. Ok?
Let's just agree that there are a whole lot of standards our there, okay?
See where I said "even though tastes differ, there's something great for everyone".
And I didn't say "American cuisine". I was talking about food that's available in the US -- which is basically every cuisine from everywhere in the world.
A calorie of protein does not equal a calorie of sugar, for example, because insulin ignores protein.
A Calorie is a Calorie. It's either used, stored, or excreted. There are no other choices.
What then?
Then it can be considered as "not consumed".
what about cellulose?
If it passes through your system intact, consider it "not consumed". Or subtract "energy left over in excreted waste" if it makes you happy.
--
There's no "what about XYZ" that magically makes this work out to a different basic answer.
No. It is correct.
The other important thing you completely miss is the aim is to be healthy not thin...
Except when the aim is to be thin. Then that's the aim.
It is very simple for a fat guy to lose weight. Eat less calories than you use.
Achieving perfect health that can be sustained forever is impossible. And approaching that state is extremely difficult and complicated and fraught with contradictory courses of action.
Losing weight is extraordinarily simple though. Not easy, simple.
If you understand this, it should be obvious that digestion can be a fairly complex process, not all food is equal, and you can't measure the "calories" in a food as if you had a gas gauge.
Yes you can. No matter how complex the process, energy is neither created nor destroyed. It is either used or stored. If you use more energy than you take in, the deficit is made up from the body's stored energy. This results in weight loss if continued over time.
It's amazing that there's even an argument. What's next? Gravity doesn't pull things down because sometimes there is wind and they go a little sideways for a while?
The body has a number of holes. Energy (Calories) lost out of one of these holes can be considered to be "used" or can be considered to be "not consumed", whichever you like. The rule still holds. And it is not an "assumption".
Of course the energy is conserved, the question is how and where it is conserved.
Calories are energy. Fat is energy storage. Using more energy (Calories) than the energy (Calories) you consume will always result in less energy (Calories) stored.
Yes, this is a simplification. But it can not be contradicted. There is no magic.
Can you give us some examples of this please.
An apple. Lots of carbs (sugars), lots of water (juice), and also fiber (the peel).
I think you just misunderstood him.