Well, we all go that way, don't we? Some after having lived a life in abundance, but most after a short and miserable one.
I am shocked and deeply disturbed every time I see just how many people still have the delusion that big weapons = invincible power. Haven't you learned from the long long list of failures - just to mention a few: Vietnam, Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq all show that even though you can roll all your weapons and killing machines over a nation, it doesn't mean that you have won.
What would happen if USA turned a place into a glazed desert? Well, first of all the world would have lost whatever that area held in the form of natural riches; you might go prospecting for rarae and strange minerals there after a while if you wear a protective suit, but there would be no living things. And, believe it or not, the greatest potential value in this world lies in the living ecosystems, not in the minerals - just think of eg. new medicines.
Secondly, every time a nation is seen to be grossly unjust - as is the case with eg. USA in Iraq, Vietnam..., or Israel in Palestine - it creates more enemies. Just think about it; if I were to smack your face in front of a crowd of people, I would certainly turn you against me, but I would probably also generate resentment amongst the people who saw it. So, if I start with just one enemy and deal harshly with him/her, I end up with many more. It's simple, really.
So we should all have more 'nukes' or 'nukuler atomic bombs'? Or, I assume, USA should have more. I don't think so. That kind of 'thinking' will only speed us on the way to WWIII, and I for one am not eager to get there - I can't decide whether I would rather survive that one or not. As Einstein said: 'I don't know what will be used in the next world war, but the 4th will be fought with stones.' (according to http://www.quoteworld.org/browse.php?thetext=war,f ight,battle,conflict&page=8)
Another nice one by the way: 'He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would fully suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, senseless brutality, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be part of so base an action! It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.'
"But then again, China is hardly communist any more is it? Their government is more of a form of esocialism, and in some areas (Shenzhen district, Shanghai)quite capitalist. There's hardly the cadres and communist frameworks that used to exist."
Really? They don't go away that quick. The Communist Party is still The Party, and the framework is still in place, even if the restrictions are being eased. The thing is - the way that especially the Americans are used to think about 'communism' and 'capitalism' it sounds like 'communism' is equivalent to 'extreme totalitarianism' and 'capitalism' is the exact same as everything good.
The fact remains, however, that the Chinese see themselves as a basically communist state - and who are you and I to tell them that this is the wrong use of that word? And still, as you say, they are getting more and more freedom.
Another fact is that the USA, which we all agree is a capitalist society (none more so!) is losing freedom by the shipload every day. So is 'capitalism' really 'Freedom etc' and is 'communism' really the opposite? I'd say not.
"But before we get a warm and fuzzy feeling about communism, let's not forget the cultural revolution in China and everything that it destroyed. Over a million people alone killed in Tibet. A vast cultural heritage smashed within China, in the name of communism. Pretty horrible stuff."
You're right - the cultural revolution happened and it was horrible. But was this 'communism' or was it those certain people in power? Also, by the same token, Christianity must be one of the most evil religions in the world, just look at the actions done in the name of Christ.
On the other hand, there has been a lot of Christians who were good people, and Christianity is not generally seen as evil for that very reason. The same is true about communism - there are many good people in the world that are communists and by the same token Communism shouldn't be seen as evil.
'You'd be surprised at how capitalist China is. It's fast becoming a highly affluent society, and the companies that get in on the market are going to win enormously - those that don't are going to be left behind.'
- and then again... Perhaps (some) people's idea about 'communism' as 'utterly vile and repressive by it's very nature' isn't entirely accurate.
"The US has an abundance of natural resources. It has lots of trees, minerals, fertile soil and water. Granted all those resources are being abused but there is enough left to last for at least another generation if not two. If we cut back even a little on consumption they might last for decades."
Yes, USA has some natural resources, but you are very far away from being able to sustain your living standard on your own. This is not just about having iron ore in the mountains ; have you any idea how much each and every American has to cut back on consumption in order to get down to European levels, not to mention eg. China or others? You guys have a completely grotesque overconsumption of things like energy and clean water.
"Most of the rest of world has already eaten through it's natural resources and will be buying them from us for a long time."
Hmm, yes, right. Try to read something about this subject. Why do you think your rich-boy's-club president and his thugs chose to attack Iraq - a country with huge oil reserves? Because their hearts were bleeding for all those poor Iraqis who had to go without American style demockery?
"Combine that with the enourmous amount of captial that has accumulated in this country and you will realize that we will not be lining up for handouts anytime soon."
Your enormous wealth is based almost entirely on American military power and presence in the world. As long as the US Dollar is the de facto standard currency for most international trade, it is easy for American companies to borrow money whereas other countries are at a disadvantage; in effect America controls the world market that way. However, the Dollar is losing out to eg. the Chinese RMB and the Euro (OPEC have been talking about trading in Euro - another very good reason for Bush to go to war against Iraq, as a warning).
On top of this most American companies and individuals are in deep debt; so I would say that America's incredibly fabulous wealth is just a bit fictitious. You may find yourselves looking for handouts before you think.
'What if they decide to ignore the GPL and start stealing code without offering sources?'
Yeah, what if? One of the ideas with the GPL is that you give the code away to the world, thus making it impossible for anybody else to say 'I made this and it's my IP, and boy I'm going to cash in'. It is perfectly valid in my opinion to take opensourced code, change it and use it - I don't think it was ever the intention of the GPL to make the code somebody's property. I see the GPL as a smart way to protect public domain stuff against commercial greed. This BTW is the way the scientific community used to work: you publish your work and get proper credits for it, but the results are free for anybody in the scientific community to use.
That sounds like such an intelligent idea! Yes, do let's send the British navy over there, just like the opium wars (that was when queen Victoria was the greatest drug dealer in the world). After all there is all of ~50 million Brits, and the Chinese are just 1.2 billion.
As for human rights issues - I wonder how they would compare if one actually made an honest analysis? China still does have some serious issues I'm sure, but as far as I can see, they are actually working on improving things. On the other hand, here in the West things have gone the other way recently, not least in USA; if this continues much longer, we will be less fortunate than the Chinese and the Tibetans.
Was it Iain M Banks that introduced this term? Anyway, it doesn't look bloody likely anymore if you ask me. We are running out of environment to fuck up and rapidly.
According to several articles recently in mags. like New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/) et al. things like fishstocks and other wild species are on the brink of plummeting and we are going to see species disappear in significant numbers in the near future. Go on, call me a tree hugger, but I think it is sad (to say the least) - and it will probably have catastrophic consequences for most of us.
On top of that, resources such as oil and clean drinking water are soon to become scarce. So I think instead of dreaming about 'The Age of Plenty' you should prepare yourself for 'The Age of Only Just Enough If You Are Lucky'.
Wow, you've been caught out in a blizzard of shit, mate.
To lose weight is simple, in a way: eat less than you need. How to accomplish this can be a little tricky, though. This is what I do:
First of all I swim 1 hour every morning - this is not to lose weight as such, but simply to get exercise in a way that I like. The advantage of swimming is that it's not a team sport and you don't feel quite as bothered when you sweat; also it builds muscles all over your body and helps you avoid pain in the back and shoulders (which is why I started in the first place).
Secondly, I eat strategically: I find that I can tolerate being hungry when I do something interesting, which is most of the morning and afternoon, so I eat ligthly in the morning and for lunch (and only those two meals!). Eg. for lunch I have a bowl of sweet corn and a bowl of peas with a bit of raw onion and a few walnuts (with salt). Also I don't mind going to bed hungry, so I tend to cut out the evening meal all week days and only prepare dinner in the weekend. Instead I have eg. half a melon or similar.
This probably sounds radical - but it works for me and it isn't all that hard either; one gets used to it. I do feel rather wasted in the evening, but I find that it is possible to be active anyway - once you get started it feels OK, it's just the getting started that's tough.
I think the basic message here is:
1. Exercise 2. Tolerate being hungry
What I particularly like about this diet is that it is cheap. I only buy very basic foods; no mysterious powders or dubious pills, no attending extremely expensive 'health clubs'. I save money with this life style, and I have got more energy.
One more thing: get somebody to check your weight regularly, like once a month. The thought of 'losing face' helps strengthen your resolve a lot, I find. Plus, it can be difficult judging your progress otherwise. I have gone to my control weighing feeling that I must have put on a lot only to find out that I had lost several pounds - because changing the diet can make you feel bloated and fat. And I have gone there thinking I was doing very well, but discovering that I had gained.
It's about learning a new lifestyle without getting trapped in the world of lifestyle junk out there.
'if diverting money from social programmes to industry boosts employment' goes the usual catchphrase. It doesn't work that way; the rich people get richer, the poor don't, that's all. You'll find out after a few more years of Bush's reward-my-pals-scheme; that is, if you don't die in the meantime because you couldn't get medical benefit.
As for the military - this is about research, right? And we people of the internet believe in freedom of information - especially when it comes to scientific information. The army should be thrown out, simply - they don't believe in openness and sharing information. Giving them more money will just make them grow bigger, so America will alienate more of the world, so the army needs to grow bigger, which will create more enemies, etc etc ad nauseam.
America needs two things: humbleness and frugality. Humbleness, which is necessary for building friendship, and frugality with resources that are soon going to be scarce. Fusion is not likely to be within easy reach in the near future. We simply know too little, and perhaps it will turn out that the only profitable way to produce energy that way is to create a star.
Under the link 'Can it really sail away?' there's a diagram saying that since, on a perfect mirror the photons will not lose energy, the mirror can't receive any energy. This is wrong:
The photons change direction when they are reflected; this means they have changed momentum, which corresponds to a force exerted on the mirror. The situation is equivalent to a little steel balls hitting a hard surface - if the 'reflection' is perfect, no energy is lost as heat. However, both photons and steel balls will lose energy by transferring it to the reflecting surface.
In the case of photons the force exerted on the surface is very small per photon as well as of very short duration, so the mirror isn't accelerated very much, and the energy transfer is very small, but it is not 0!
Come to think of it, I own the patent on breathing and I'm going to sue everybody in the world.
Let's be realistic - even if they had a case, who would care? UNIX is out there and there is no way that the entire world is going to pay SCO loads of cash or stop using UNIX or something like that. If the 'law' says that we ought to, then that law will have to be changed to fit reality or something.
The way they go about it reminds me about the ravings of a manic; they seem to be losing contact with reality. A manic can be very persuasive at first, but as time wears on it becomes clear that he/she has lost grip on reality. I wouldn't be surprised if SCO soon either suddenly shut up (because somebody with a bit of sense takes over) or they start claiming 100s of billions in damages.
> It then taps the brake and tightens the seatbelt > Anything about an upper limit? Are we going to read about speed bullies having been crushed by their seatbelts?
People keep talking about how we need more and more: 'more connectivity', 'more bandwidth'.... But there's a reason why broadband is not happening as quickly as some would like: people don't need it.
First of all, there is a difference between 'needing' and 'finding it useful once you have it'. I don't think anyone really needs the Internet, or only very few. Just look at what is actually flowing around there: adverts, lame entertainment etc etc. High quality information is not what takes up the capacity out there, that much is certain. We only need more in the same sense as we need a bowl of popcorn or a fancy dress.
As for the usefulness, if we had the huge capacity etc: many people would probably find that it was quite nice on occasion, but would they really use it?
Shopping - I have only ever bought 2 kinds of things on the internet: books, if I know the title in advance, and flight tickets (again I know where I want to go).
Entertainment: No way. I hardly watch more than two or three channels, and certainly not every day - I have better things to do, as I suspect many people do.
Information: This is the one thing that the internet is seriously good for. But I normally don't mind waiting for a little while when I download things - to me information is something I want to spend time on learning, so the download time is not a huge issue.
Mail: I receive 2 or 3 useful emails per day. But I receive maybe 50 - 100 mails about eternal youth, penis enlargement and illegal medicine.
So I'd say we need less internet capacity and more expensive access. That way it would probably only be used by those that actually need it.
'Contrary to visible light, gamma rays are non-thermal meaning that they are not produced in hot celestial bodies like the sun. Gamma rays occur in exceptional circumstances such as in the aftermath of a stellar explosion, in the vicinity of black holes, or at the core of active galaxies'
This is of course not true - gamma rays are produced in many places, among other things by Radium, if my memory serves me. And the Sun does indeed produce gamma rays are essentially just high energy photons, just like visible light (and radio waves, for that matter) with 'high energy'. Electromagnetic radiation is quantified in 'packets' called photons, and it is mostly a metter of taste whether you call them radio waves, microwaves, light, X-rays or gamma rays. There's an upper for gamma photons by the way (sort of): a photon with very high energy will tend to 'split' and form a pair consisting of an electron and a positron, which then annihilate in a burst of photons.
It's true that justice and moral doesn't seem to have much to with the way that especially this US government acts. This is not necessarily right, though, but I agree that a government should always represent the views of the people and should be untainted by religion.
Contrary to common belief moral isn't a religious issue - it is a common human trait to formulate moral rules (some would even say that it's not limited to humans either). Religion seems to invariably twist the minds of people so they are no longer able to see what is right - just take Taliban as an example. Or the terrorists. Or indeed this mr. Bush, who I believe is the president somewhere.
- it's worth thinking about the environmental impact. Since the industrial revolution we've kept saying that 'of course pollution is no problem' - first we created smog in the cities, then we filled the seas and rivers with shit, now we have global warming etc etc. So lets just stop briefly before we plunge into this one, OK?
This affects not only the athmosphere by releasing ammonia (which is only a minor problem), but also the temperature balance in the ocean. Things such as the major ocean currents are driven by differences in salinity and temperature of the water. The big currents control at least part of our climate - eg. if the Gulf Stream were to shut down (which some think it might all too easily do if the polar ice cap melts), we will probably have a new ice age
And before you start jeering and making stupid jokes about it, remember that only 30 years ago the idea that human pollution could affect our athmosphere and the seas, was regarded as utter nonsense and hysteria.
... will be one that simply taps it's power from any electromagnetic radiation happens to be around, like radio waves or the electric noise from passing car electrics.
I can be done, actually. I knew a guy who lived near a tv mast - he put up an aerial and got a major savings on his electricity bill. That is, until the owners of the mast discovered it.
Re:I have to wonder...
on
TiVo++ from India
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Yes, it is a sign of what's to come. All analysts (ie the ones I have read/heard) seem to agree that the West and especially the US have reached the end of the line, so to speak. We may be fabulously rich and have big military power, but since our economy is based on growth alone, and we have nowhere to grow anymore, we've only got one way to go: down.
Well, what about the 'emerging markets' - China, India,... ? Do you really think they are as stupid as just letting Western businesses in and take over everything? Think again.
When did I use something else? About 10 minutes ago.
The thing is - Google may be good for most part, but I stopped using it all the same. Maybe I just search for things that are totally out of this world, but at the time I simply didn't get good enough results. Far too many irrelevant things. I haven't back since, because what I use now works.
You've got a point there, but I think the problem is on a deeper level (and the same as what plagues the rest of the intertainment industry): originality. I mean, after the first version of the shoot'em up games, just to take one example, it's all just been minor variations of the same theme and better graphics/sound. It's like watching episode 2134 of 'Coronation Street' - you've either more or less guessed the plot by now, or something is seriously wrong.
Croquet - yet another 'Ain't I interesting' stunt
on
Opencroquet
·
· Score: 0
3D OS? This is an utterly meaningless term - emperor's new clothes. There's no natural way to assign 'dimensions' to software.
So what we have here is simply an system that uses '3D graphics' - ie 2D graphics that look like it has 3 dimensions. Oh, and some things about portability and object oriented programming...
The penalty we have to pay for using such a system is of course that we need faster HW and lots of it. IMHO this is only a toy, and calling this an OS is like when MS called Win3 an OS.
- perhaps this one doesn't make it through either, but...
Are we in the West ready for Globalisation? So far the 'Globalisation' has been all about elbowing our own ways of life and, not least, our multinational companies into other countries. That was easy when the countries in question had few resources. But we can't do that when it comes to the stronger countries, like China. We will have to find compromises - we will have to allow other countries to influence us. It's like people, really - who wants to accept the viewpoints of somebody that's a selfish and inflexible jerk? We have to give as well as take.
Apart from that - it is popular to talk about 'Capitalism' as if people knew what it is all about. Has everybody forgotten that capitalism isn't just about all having equal opportunities; in fact, that's totally alien to capitalism. Instead it has a lot to do with exploiting the ones that are weaker in order to make more profit. And this hated and despised 'Communism' - at the kernel it wasn't about suppressing people, but about sharing and helping the weakest; and it isn't dead just because the Soviet abomination fell apart. In fact, it doesn't really seem to be about to die at all - just look at China.
So, I ask again - are we really ready for REAL globalisation? Namely the process where we not only spread our way of life, but also accept to change in the process? And perhaps even learn from (gulp) the Communists?
Ah, well, perhaps not quite. But I can't really see this being anything like what I'd want. An OS should be reliable and useful. Both goals are most easily achieved by making the OS simple and without unnecessary limitations. UNIX is good in this respect: is it based on a few, simple and logically independent principles that are carried through with great consistency. This means that it is easy to understand (and therefore to maintain), which makes it easy to correct errors - so the system becomes more stable over time. It also means that it is easy to extend the functionality, so it becomes more useful over time.
The 'Cesium' idea contains a lot of buzzwords, but I can't see anything new and revolutionizing. It sounds like a number of ideas from AS/400 plus something from the world of web browsers. And I am sure that the entire thing could be built on top of any UNIX - a database filesystem etc etc. Yeah, why not?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, we all go that way, don't we? Some after having lived a life in abundance, but most after a short and miserable one.
..., or Israel in Palestine - it creates more enemies. Just think about it; if I were to smack your face in front of a crowd of people, I would certainly turn you against me, but I would probably also generate resentment amongst the people who saw it. So, if I start with just one enemy and deal harshly with him/her, I end up with many more. It's simple, really.
f ight,battle,conflict&page=8)
I am shocked and deeply disturbed every time I see just how many people still have the delusion that big weapons = invincible power. Haven't you learned from the long long list of failures - just to mention a few: Vietnam, Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq all show that even though you can roll all your weapons and killing machines over a nation, it doesn't mean that you have won.
What would happen if USA turned a place into a glazed desert? Well, first of all the world would have lost whatever that area held in the form of natural riches; you might go prospecting for rarae and strange minerals there after a while if you wear a protective suit, but there would be no living things. And, believe it or not, the greatest potential value in this world lies in the living ecosystems, not in the minerals - just think of eg. new medicines.
Secondly, every time a nation is seen to be grossly unjust - as is the case with eg. USA in Iraq, Vietnam
So we should all have more 'nukes' or 'nukuler atomic bombs'? Or, I assume, USA should have more. I don't think so. That kind of 'thinking' will only speed us on the way to WWIII, and I for one am not eager to get there - I can't decide whether I would rather survive that one or not. As Einstein said: 'I don't know what will be used in the next world war, but the 4th will be fought with stones.' (according to http://www.quoteworld.org/browse.php?thetext=war,
Another nice one by the way: 'He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would fully suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, senseless brutality, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be part of so base an action! It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.'
"But then again, China is hardly communist any more is it? Their government is more of a form of esocialism, and in some areas (Shenzhen district, Shanghai)quite capitalist. There's hardly the cadres and communist frameworks that used to exist."
Really? They don't go away that quick. The Communist Party is still The Party, and the framework is still in place, even if the restrictions are being eased. The thing is - the way that especially the Americans are used to think about 'communism' and 'capitalism' it sounds like 'communism' is equivalent to 'extreme totalitarianism' and 'capitalism' is the exact same as everything good.
The fact remains, however, that the Chinese see themselves as a basically communist state - and who are you and I to tell them that this is the wrong use of that word? And still, as you say, they are getting more and more freedom.
Another fact is that the USA, which we all agree is a capitalist society (none more so!) is losing freedom by the shipload every day. So is 'capitalism' really 'Freedom etc' and is 'communism' really the opposite? I'd say not.
"But before we get a warm and fuzzy feeling about communism, let's not forget the cultural revolution in China and everything that it destroyed. Over a million people alone killed in Tibet. A vast cultural heritage smashed within China, in the name of communism. Pretty horrible stuff."
You're right - the cultural revolution happened and it was horrible. But was this 'communism' or was it those certain people in power? Also, by the same token, Christianity must be one of the most evil religions in the world, just look at the actions done in the name of Christ.
On the other hand, there has been a lot of Christians who were good people, and Christianity is not generally seen as evil for that very reason. The same is true about communism - there are many good people in the world that are communists and by the same token Communism shouldn't be seen as evil.
'You'd be surprised at how capitalist China is. It's fast becoming a highly affluent society, and the companies that get in on the market are going to win enormously - those that don't are going to be left behind.'
- and then again... Perhaps (some) people's idea about 'communism' as 'utterly vile and repressive by it's very nature' isn't entirely accurate.
"The US has an abundance of natural resources. It has lots of trees, minerals, fertile soil and water. Granted all those resources are being abused but there is enough left to last for at least another generation if not two. If we cut back even a little on consumption they might last for decades."
Yes, USA has some natural resources, but you are very far away from being able to sustain your living standard on your own. This is not just about having iron ore in the mountains ; have you any idea how much each and every American has to cut back on consumption in order to get down to European levels, not to mention eg. China or others? You guys have a completely grotesque overconsumption of things like energy and clean water.
"Most of the rest of world has already eaten through it's natural resources and will be buying them from us for a long time."
Hmm, yes, right. Try to read something about this subject. Why do you think your rich-boy's-club president and his thugs chose to attack Iraq - a country with huge oil reserves? Because their hearts were bleeding for all those poor Iraqis who had to go without American style demockery?
"Combine that with the enourmous amount of captial that has accumulated in this country and you will realize that we will not be lining up for handouts anytime soon."
Your enormous wealth is based almost entirely on American military power and presence in the world. As long as the US Dollar is the de facto standard currency for most international trade, it is easy for American companies to borrow money whereas other countries are at a disadvantage; in effect America controls the world market that way. However, the Dollar is losing out to eg. the Chinese RMB and the Euro (OPEC have been talking about trading in Euro - another very good reason for Bush to go to war against Iraq, as a warning).
On top of this most American companies and individuals are in deep debt; so I would say that America's incredibly fabulous wealth is just a bit fictitious. You may find yourselves looking for handouts before you think.
'What if they decide to ignore the GPL and start stealing code without offering sources?'
Yeah, what if? One of the ideas with the GPL is that you give the code away to the world, thus making it impossible for anybody else to say 'I made this and it's my IP, and boy I'm going to cash in'. It is perfectly valid in my opinion to take opensourced code, change it and use it - I don't think it was ever the intention of the GPL to make the code somebody's property. I see the GPL as a smart way to protect public domain stuff against commercial greed. This BTW is the way the scientific community used to work: you publish your work and get proper credits for it, but the results are free for anybody in the scientific community to use.
That sounds like such an intelligent idea! Yes, do let's send the British navy over there, just like the opium wars (that was when queen Victoria was the greatest drug dealer in the world). After all there is all of ~50 million Brits, and the Chinese are just 1.2 billion.
As for human rights issues - I wonder how they would compare if one actually made an honest analysis? China still does have some serious issues I'm sure, but as far as I can see, they are actually working on improving things. On the other hand, here in the West things have gone the other way recently, not least in USA; if this continues much longer, we will be less fortunate than the Chinese and the Tibetans.
Yeah, right, keep on dreaming mate.
Was it Iain M Banks that introduced this term? Anyway, it doesn't look bloody likely anymore if you ask me. We are running out of environment to fuck up and rapidly.
According to several articles recently in mags. like New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/) et al. things like fishstocks and other wild species are on the brink of plummeting and we are going to see species disappear in significant numbers in the near future. Go on, call me a tree hugger, but I think it is sad (to say the least) - and it will probably have catastrophic consequences for most of us.
On top of that, resources such as oil and clean drinking water are soon to become scarce. So I think instead of dreaming about 'The Age of Plenty' you should prepare yourself for 'The Age of Only Just Enough If You Are Lucky'.
Wow, you've been caught out in a blizzard of shit, mate.
To lose weight is simple, in a way: eat less than you need. How to accomplish this can be a little tricky, though. This is what I do:
First of all I swim 1 hour every morning - this is not to lose weight as such, but simply to get exercise in a way that I like. The advantage of swimming is that it's not a team sport and you don't feel quite as bothered when you sweat; also it builds muscles all over your body and helps you avoid pain in the back and shoulders (which is why I started in the first place).
Secondly, I eat strategically: I find that I can tolerate being hungry when I do something interesting, which is most of the morning and afternoon, so I eat ligthly in the morning and for lunch (and only those two meals!). Eg. for lunch I have a bowl of sweet corn and a bowl of peas with a bit of raw onion and a few walnuts (with salt). Also I don't mind going to bed hungry, so I tend to cut out the evening meal all week days and only prepare dinner in the weekend. Instead I have eg. half a melon or similar.
This probably sounds radical - but it works for me and it isn't all that hard either; one gets used to it. I do feel rather wasted in the evening, but I find that it is possible to be active anyway - once you get started it feels OK, it's just the getting started that's tough.
I think the basic message here is:
1. Exercise
2. Tolerate being hungry
What I particularly like about this diet is that it is cheap. I only buy very basic foods; no mysterious powders or dubious pills, no attending extremely expensive 'health clubs'. I save money with this life style, and I have got more energy.
One more thing: get somebody to check your weight regularly, like once a month. The thought of 'losing face' helps strengthen your resolve a lot, I find. Plus, it can be difficult judging your progress otherwise. I have gone to my control weighing feeling that I must have put on a lot only to find out that I had lost several pounds - because changing the diet can make you feel bloated and fat. And I have gone there thinking I was doing very well, but discovering that I had gained.
It's about learning a new lifestyle without getting trapped in the world of lifestyle junk out there.
'if diverting money from social programmes to industry boosts employment' goes the usual catchphrase. It doesn't work that way; the rich people get richer, the poor don't, that's all. You'll find out after a few more years of Bush's reward-my-pals-scheme; that is, if you don't die in the meantime because you couldn't get medical benefit.
As for the military - this is about research, right? And we people of the internet believe in freedom of information - especially when it comes to scientific information. The army should be thrown out, simply - they don't believe in openness and sharing information. Giving them more money will just make them grow bigger, so America will alienate more of the world, so the army needs to grow bigger, which will create more enemies, etc etc ad nauseam.
America needs two things: humbleness and frugality. Humbleness, which is necessary for building friendship, and frugality with resources that are soon going to be scarce. Fusion is not likely to be within easy reach in the near future. We simply know too little, and perhaps it will turn out that the only profitable way to produce energy that way is to create a star.
Under the link 'Can it really sail away?' there's a diagram saying that since, on a perfect mirror the photons will not lose energy, the mirror can't receive any energy. This is wrong:
The photons change direction when they are reflected; this means they have changed momentum, which corresponds to a force exerted on the mirror. The situation is equivalent to a little steel balls hitting a hard surface - if the 'reflection' is perfect, no energy is lost as heat. However, both photons and steel balls will lose energy by transferring it to the reflecting surface.
In the case of photons the force exerted on the surface is very small per photon as well as of very short duration, so the mirror isn't accelerated very much, and the energy transfer is very small, but it is not 0!
Come to think of it, I own the patent on breathing and I'm going to sue everybody in the world.
Let's be realistic - even if they had a case, who would care? UNIX is out there and there is no way that the entire world is going to pay SCO loads of cash or stop using UNIX or something like that. If the 'law' says that we ought to, then that law will have to be changed to fit reality or something.
The way they go about it reminds me about the ravings of a manic; they seem to be losing contact with reality. A manic can be very persuasive at first, but as time wears on it becomes clear that he/she has lost grip on reality. I wouldn't be surprised if SCO soon either suddenly shut up (because somebody with a bit of sense takes over) or they start claiming 100s of billions in damages.
> It then taps the brake and tightens the seatbelt
>
Anything about an upper limit? Are we going to read about speed bullies having been crushed by their seatbelts?
People keep talking about how we need more and more: 'more connectivity', 'more bandwidth'.... But there's a reason why broadband is not happening as quickly as some would like: people don't need it.
First of all, there is a difference between 'needing' and 'finding it useful once you have it'. I don't think anyone really needs the Internet, or only very few. Just look at what is actually flowing around there: adverts, lame entertainment etc etc. High quality information is not what takes up the capacity out there, that much is certain. We only need more in the same sense as we need a bowl of popcorn or a fancy dress.
As for the usefulness, if we had the huge capacity etc: many people would probably find that it was quite nice on occasion, but would they really use it?
Shopping - I have only ever bought 2 kinds of things on the internet: books, if I know the title in advance, and flight tickets (again I know where I want to go).
Entertainment: No way. I hardly watch more than two or three channels, and certainly not every day - I have better things to do, as I suspect many people do.
Information: This is the one thing that the internet is seriously good for. But I normally don't mind waiting for a little while when I download things - to me information is something I want to spend time on learning, so the download time is not a huge issue.
Mail: I receive 2 or 3 useful emails per day. But I receive maybe 50 - 100 mails about eternal youth, penis enlargement and illegal medicine.
So I'd say we need less internet capacity and more expensive access. That way it would probably only be used by those that actually need it.
How can anything that old still be modern? Haven't people got any taste? ;-)
Getting companies to mail you lots of rubbish may be an excellent way to ensure you never run out of things to burn to keep you warm.
'Contrary to visible light, gamma rays are non-thermal meaning that they are not produced in hot celestial bodies like the sun. Gamma rays occur in exceptional circumstances such as in the aftermath of a stellar explosion, in the vicinity of black holes, or at the core of active galaxies'
This is of course not true - gamma rays are produced in many places, among other things by Radium, if my memory serves me. And the Sun does indeed produce gamma rays are essentially just high energy photons, just like visible light (and radio waves, for that matter) with 'high energy'. Electromagnetic radiation is quantified in 'packets' called photons, and it is mostly a metter of taste whether you call them radio waves, microwaves, light, X-rays or gamma rays. There's an upper for gamma photons by the way (sort of): a photon with very high energy will tend to 'split' and form a pair consisting of an electron and a positron, which then annihilate in a burst of photons.
It's true that justice and moral doesn't seem to have much to with the way that especially this US government acts. This is not necessarily right, though, but I agree that a government should always represent the views of the people and should be untainted by religion.
Contrary to common belief moral isn't a religious issue - it is a common human trait to formulate moral rules (some would even say that it's not limited to humans either). Religion seems to invariably twist the minds of people so they are no longer able to see what is right - just take Taliban as an example. Or the terrorists. Or indeed this mr. Bush, who I believe is the president somewhere.
This affects not only the athmosphere by releasing ammonia (which is only a minor problem), but also the temperature balance in the ocean. Things such as the major ocean currents are driven by differences in salinity and temperature of the water. The big currents control at least part of our climate - eg. if the Gulf Stream were to shut down (which some think it might all too easily do if the polar ice cap melts), we will probably have a new ice age
And before you start jeering and making stupid jokes about it, remember that only 30 years ago the idea that human pollution could affect our athmosphere and the seas, was regarded as utter nonsense and hysteria.
I can be done, actually. I knew a guy who lived near a tv mast - he put up an aerial and got a major savings on his electricity bill. That is, until the owners of the mast discovered it.
Well, what about the 'emerging markets' - China, India,
The thing is - Google may be good for most part, but I stopped using it all the same. Maybe I just search for things that are totally out of this world, but at the time I simply didn't get good enough results. Far too many irrelevant things. I haven't back since, because what I use now works.
You've got a point there, but I think the problem is on a deeper level (and the same as what plagues the rest of the intertainment industry): originality. I mean, after the first version of the shoot'em up games, just to take one example, it's all just been minor variations of the same theme and better graphics/sound. It's like watching episode 2134 of 'Coronation Street' - you've either more or less guessed the plot by now, or something is seriously wrong.
So what we have here is simply an system that uses '3D graphics' - ie 2D graphics that look like it has 3 dimensions. Oh, and some things about portability and object oriented programming...
The penalty we have to pay for using such a system is of course that we need faster HW and lots of it. IMHO this is only a toy, and calling this an OS is like when MS called Win3 an OS.
Are we in the West ready for Globalisation? So far the 'Globalisation' has been all about elbowing our own ways of life and, not least, our multinational companies into other countries. That was easy when the countries in question had few resources. But we can't do that when it comes to the stronger countries, like China. We will have to find compromises - we will have to allow other countries to influence us. It's like people, really - who wants to accept the viewpoints of somebody that's a selfish and inflexible jerk? We have to give as well as take.
Apart from that - it is popular to talk about 'Capitalism' as if people knew what it is all about. Has everybody forgotten that capitalism isn't just about all having equal opportunities; in fact, that's totally alien to capitalism. Instead it has a lot to do with exploiting the ones that are weaker in order to make more profit. And this hated and despised 'Communism' - at the kernel it wasn't about suppressing people, but about sharing and helping the weakest; and it isn't dead just because the Soviet abomination fell apart. In fact, it doesn't really seem to be about to die at all - just look at China.
So, I ask again - are we really ready for REAL globalisation? Namely the process where we not only spread our way of life, but also accept to change in the process? And perhaps even learn from (gulp) the Communists?
The 'Cesium' idea contains a lot of buzzwords, but I can't see anything new and revolutionizing. It sounds like a number of ideas from AS/400 plus something from the world of web browsers. And I am sure that the entire thing could be built on top of any UNIX - a database filesystem etc etc. Yeah, why not?