The question here is whether those two things are mutually exclusive. Frankly, we can see from the example of our two countries that they're not. Rich people in Canada live with a de facto two-tier system. They have most of their care paid for through their taxes. Effective primary care means that they--and everyone else--prevent a substantial amount of sickness. This is good for society on the whole. While I don't have hard data to back that up exactly, it seems to follow: a society where people are sick is going to have a reduced capacity to work.
One of the biggest problem in the US is the money spent on paperwork. Study after study has shown that having the insurance middleman screwing things up is no small part of the additional costs. That's how the US can spend more money per capita by almost a factor of two and still get no better outcomes. Canada's single-payer system reduces the drag inherent in providers fighting with insurers over how much to pay.
Canada's health system, it should be noted, only covers a list of 'essential' services, so we also live in a mildly two-tier system. Laser eye surgery isn't covered by the state, and only partially covered by insurance (yes, you can buy private insurance here, too!) Unsurprisingly, the price of lasik continues to go down. But again, it's deemed non-essential, and that's probably true.
Moreover, you CAN, if you like, open a private, for-profit heart surgery clinic in Canada. You just can't bill the Canadian government for it. Private citizens would have to field the full cost of the surgery, with no medicare payments to defray the cost. But nobody does that here because the market simply doesn't have enough people in it to support that. Hence the tourist surgery.
As a Canadian, I can answer why Canadians would do this.
Firstly, there's a chance that the Canadian government will pay for your treatment anyway. These cases aren't super common, but they (actually, the provincial governments) will cover procedures that are hard to get or experimental in Canada under certain restrictions.
Secondly, if you have the money, everything is possible, no matter where you live. The reason why America is so enticing is precisely why it fails its own citizens (IMO): there is excess capacity. If you have money, there are doctors and hospitals that have a lot of extra room for you because they're not concerned with serving people without money or insurance (until it's an emergency). In Canada, the queues are full. The people have been triaged, and rich or poor, they've got to wait. Someone that makes a million dollars a year doesn't get to jump the line because of their income, and someone that barely scrapes by can be assured that they'll get their care. So if you're rich in Canada and you can afford not to wait, you may skip out of the country to get an operation somewhere else. (Frankly, this is something I encourage. It makes the lines shorter for everyone else.)
Care at the very high level in the US is extremely good; nobody in their right mind argues with that. American researchers and surgeons are often also the ones performing new and different techniques, so your system is on the leading edge.
So, yeah. The American system works for people that don't live in America precisely because it ISN'T fair, and the system inside my country is a level playing field that the rich don't want to wait on. (This is not a criticism of the wealthy in Canada, per se. As far as I know, they think our system is as great as the rest of us do. But they have the money, and they can decide how to spend it.)
Hmm, if you're going to be pedantic about the subject/object of the sentence, doesn't this configuration indicate that the footballer was thrown out of his university? Cruel! Heart attack AND thrown out of university just weeks before graduating!
Here's the REAL question that rarely gets asked: why should fuel prices be lower? Fuel prices in other countries are much higher than in the US (with some exceptions in the Middle East where the fuel is subsidized to extraordinary degrees), mainly due to taxes. The taxes are there to limit consumption, while bringing in tax revenue to fund other services.
Is there a good reason why fuel prices should be low at all? We know there are costs associated with high use that aren't baked into the price of petrol. Arguably, we've never paid the true price for the fuel we use.
I understand that high fuel prices disproportionately affect the poor; rich people have more than enough money to pay for petrol. But that indicates other things wrong with the infrastructure of cities and how people move around.
Virtually no matter how you look at it, prices for petrol should be higher. On the extreme capitalist side, they should be higher because the product is in demand, the supply is dwindling and public opinion is getting harder to buy (oil spills, climate change). On the more socialist side, prices should be higher through taxes, to move money into providing better infrastructure for all drivers, encouraging better city layouts, and funding already badly strapped local governments. 'Because I hate paying more for something that used to be cheap' isn't really a reason.
It's too bad they didn't do this properly. There ARE controversies in evolutionary theory. They're not controversies in whether or not evolution works, but there IS disagreement in the specific mechanisms of evolution. Punctuated equilibrium or phyletic gradualism? Duke it out! Teach those controversies!
Oh wait, I guess I'm asking for science to be taught in science class. My bad.
It's fairly simple, really: the primary concern of Apple and by extension, OS X, is to make money.
This driving factor means that they look at the whole experience completely differently. They go out of their way to make it easy to switch. They'll even let you set up an appointment at one of their stores so you can bring your old machine in and have someone help you migrate all your data and find solutions to your problems. Quite a lot of the process can be done with one transfer cable and a lot of step-by-step, easy to follow instructions with pictures and clear text.
Even from the moment you open the box, things are laid out in a way that encourages you to touch them, get used to them and study them. This is not a mistake. The design effort put into the boxes alone is staggering. It's said that when Apple's first computer with a mouse shipped, one of the first things you had to do was remove the mouse from the packaging in a way that forced you to look at and get used to the device. Nobody had used a mouse before, and so it was alien, but Apple (Jobs, really) insisted that it be packaged in such a way that it wouldn't be intimidating the first time it was actually in use because the owner had already sort of figured it out before it even got plugged in. Hell, the handle on the top of the original iMac was there to encourage people to form a literal attachment to the device. You may think that sounds hokey, but people respond to this sort of thing. The iMac was a friendly, colourful device with a handle that you could easily come to grips with. Contrast this with the beige PCs of the day, cumbersome and hard to wield, boxy and hard to find a place for.
Then once you're actually sitting in front of the computer, the UI is big and friendly, and encourages you to click on things. When applications launch, they do so in a bouncy, friendly way. You know something is happening. The programs work when you click on them; there are no cryptic messages or complicated setup. Apple's own software is laid out on the default dock, and they present the first user experience, which is, of course, polished to hell. There's no bloatware. Installing something means putting it on your computer. Uninstalling something means deleting it. All your applications go in the 'Applications' folder.
That said, I'd like to point out that it feels slightly more cluttered and complicated than it used to; I feel that Apple is losing sight of a few things here and there. The experience isn't, and has never been, perfect. The important take-away point is that they want to connect with the user. The whole front face to the OS is that attempt. They do better on the desktop because their goal is to be better on the desktop.
By contrast, I feel like Linux is there to Get Things Done. I don't use it (or FreeBSD) anymore, but I did, and I liked them. I got a lot of work done, ran my own mail server, etc., etc. But that's not friendly. It's like asking why most people hire a contractor to put up drywall. The contractor is a much friendlier interface. You pay someone, the work happens, and then it's done; the implementation details are largely unimportant to you. But if you're the kind of person that can get things done, you can go and get the tools to do it yourself. That will always be the less popular option, because not everyone wants to understand how to install their own drywall. Not everyone wants to understand anything at all about their computer; not everyone CAN.
Listen, Apple's no angel, and neither is anyone else. I think we can all agree on that.
But Apple is the company making the biggest noticeable difference in this space. Whether that's out of the goodness of their hearts (unlikely) or the fact that the know they're under greater scrutiny because they're the big fish in this pond (considerably more likely), it does mean that the workers in the Apple foxconn factories are the ones that are likely to see the benefits of Apple's largess first.
Almost universally, however, workers at these factories feel they're better off than they would have been if they'd stayed in rural China. It IS a choice they make to work there; they line up to apply for jobs.
If that remains unconvincing to you--which is fair--write your political representatives and get them to try and convince the Chinese government to pass better worker protection laws and enforce them. Ultimately, it shouldn't be up to Apple, Samsung, Google or the consumers to protect the people of China.
The passphrase system they studied wouldn't allow duplicate passphrases. So if you picked one that was already in use, it would tell you so.
The problem isn't that the passphrase is insecure, the problem is that the system itself is giving you information about what's inside it. Doesn't it seem obvious that any security system that relies on secret data that gives up information about the secret data is insecure?
Then they did an analysis on passphrases that use english words with the same frequency as in standard English. So the word 'betwixt' was probably pretty low down on the list, and 'material' was probably higher. That also seems unreasonable. Just because you want a memorable password/passphrase, it doesn't mean that you have to use small, ultra-common words.
This study has little merit in declaring that passphrases are insecure. (It does have merit in letting us know that obvious security problems are, in fact, obvious security problems.)
Ostensibly, the number of eggs that a female is born with is the number of eggs she carries through her life. It's perfectly believable that a) the number of eggs is a finite and small number; and b) no more eggs are created after birth. The wikipedia article on ovum claims that this fixed number is a property of all mammals.
I haven't seen any scientific articles that have claimed otherwise, though I admit that I've taken this on faith. It IS fact that human ovulation has a beginning and an end that don't coincide with the absolute beginning and end of the woman's life.
But given the preponderance of scientific consensus on this matter, I think you'll need some evidence to back up your assertion that women are born with or have access to more eggs than about 30 years worth.
It's not actually well established what the reason for menopause is. Not all mammals undergo menopause. Socio-economic status is a far better predictor of the ultimate health of the child than the age of the mother. The reason why women lose their fertility is merely because they run out of eggs. They run out of eggs because from an evolutionary perspective, there's no downside to running out of eggs 20-30 years after the onset of menarche. Evolutionary adaptations don't have to be advantages per se; they merely must not be deleterious. This is why we still carry around vestigial organs like the appendix. By and large, it's not a problem, but it no longer confers any advantage.
Don't anthropomorphise evolution. It has no purpose or direction. Creatures end up where they end up because of the context of the selection pressures. That's it.
Yes, I noticed the same thing. Basically, you have to decide if your cancer risk is higher than your heart disease risk. My family history tends strongly towards heart disease, so the cholesterol thing is pertinent. Alternatively, try other methods like the red wine first.
It's funny that I ran across your comment here, because I just read through a huge pile of other comments that are taking Apple to task for daring to get the user to acknowledge that maybe running an unsigned package isn't a good idea.
I don't think you're wrong, but it amuses me that everyone finds a completely different way to criticise Apple, even when those criticisms are diametrically opposed.
Yours is the more correct complaint, but hey, that's marketing for you.:/
From what I've been able to glean, yes. The metal filters are too porous to stop the oils from passing through. For the purposes of flavour, this is usually desirable.
You should actually be able to see the difference in your coffee; coffee's natural oils naturally float on the top of the water, as you'd expect. With a paper filter in the way, I don't see any of that, and there's noticeably less particulate in my cup. (In fact, the paper filter usually gets quite clogged to the point where the water barely drips through when I'm close to the bottom of the carafe.)
It's not actually THAT hard. I mean, it's hard, but it's not an intractable problem.
First, go and find a formula for BMR or RMR. Estimate your daily calorie burn. That's a good basis to start.
Start weighing your food. I do this at least once a year for at least a month at a time. I race bicycles, so there are times where I need to be extremely aware of my intake and output. Now that I'm coming off my off-season, I have to reset my thinking about what constitutes a reasonable meal. Just KNOWING how many calories something has is a big deal. For instance, peanut butter is a killer. 1 Tbsp is about 100 calories. You're actually better off eating a handful of chocolate chips from a strictly caloric standpoint.
You can get tools to help you. You can go to a gym with a body fat and metabolism measurement system. You stand on it, hold some electrodes in your hands, and it measures your weight, fat composition, hydration, and heartrate. It makes an estimate of your BMR based on those factors.
If you've got money to burn, buy a bicycle or bike trainer that can measure your output in watts. Power expenditure on a bicycle is easily measurable (relatively speaking) and directly mappable to calories burned.
Thermodynamics works. It ALWAYS works. You need information to make use of it, but I'm not sure how doing some basic measurements is harder than making arbitrary decisions about exercise and food and hoping that it turns out for the best. There is a moderate amount of effort involved in the measurements, but the frustration factor essentially goes away. You're in control. You know what's going on. It is, actually, easy. What it ISN'T is effortless. They aren't the same.
Man, this is the sort of stuff that we geeks should LOVE. You get to use interesting gadgets, examine and tinker with a system. In the end, you can have measurable results and more opportunities for study and tinkering. Win/win, man.
-Don't exercise if your flu/cold is below the neck. If you're just stuffed up, that's fine. If your lungs are labouring, hard work will just cause more problems. You'll get better sooner by resting.
-Coffee has numerous health benefits if had in moderation and if of high quality. Find a coffee place that either roasts its own coffee or can tell you about the coffee that you're getting (where they source it from, who roasted it, etc.) Grind it fresh yourself, have a cup or two a day. Don't drink it for the caffeine, drink it because it tastes good when you do it right. If you brew it in a French press, filter the liquid coffee through a paper filter to remove the cafestol, a compound in the oils that raises cholesterol.
-Consider adding red wine back into your diet. It's the only thing I drink on an even semi-regular basis. I'm a competitive cyclist who eats fairly well and keeps fit, but I still have a cholesterol problem (almost certainly genetics working against me, here). Red wine is something almost nobody argues against. It doesn't take much to have a health benefit.
There are plenty of good reasons to stretch. You probably want to do it after exercise, when the muscles are already warm and pliable.
Stretching, for me, is less about the muscles and more about the tendons and joints. I have an IT band injury, for instance. The correct stretches make the problem manageable (that is, I can still be a competitive cyclist). If I don't do them, I will eventually end up in a position where cycling causes massive inflammation and makes my leg incapable of performing any exercise at all. Doing the right stretches actually MOVES the IT band back into place for me. I can feel the band roll over my hip, from where it was displaced, to where it should nominally sit. Stretches that my physiotherapist and that a yoga instructor have shown me have both helped tremendously.
I occasionally do light yoga in the morning, absent any warmup, but again, most of this is about settling the joints and tendons into their places. I do very little stretching that could be considered a strain on the muscles at all.
As you progress in your exercise, consider (if you haven't already) finding a personal trainer once every month or so to tell you what you can be doing to improve, what steps you need to take care of your body as you put it under more stress, and how to avoid injury. I've had great luck with my trainers and coaches over the years, and I've had to do much LESS work to get to where I am than if I'd done it alone.
I suspect that it has something to do with support level. Google doesn't do end-user support, so you're stuck with a raft of manufacturers that have no proven support structure and are notoriously behind schedule when it comes to OS updates. Apple has a good history of keeping their phones up to date with the latest OS revision for at least a couple of years, which is probably pretty enticing.
The REAL question is why they didn't consider Windows phones. Or maybe they did, but couldn't wait for the WP8 update. There's a company that has a long history of enterprise support; they seem like they'd be a natural fit.
Yeah, that's fine for us, but it abandons the reality of politics and science. It's a nice ideal to hold to, but none of us hold to it.
If there are two experts—and only two experts—on a subject, I'm skeptical of things they disagree on and confident of things they do agree on whether positively or negatively. When there are many experts, all working to find the truth, they're all privy to more information than I have at my disposal. I must make a determination based on the strength of their arguments, but also partly based on the number that agree in their various factions.
The number of scientists that agree on the side of AGW is very convincing in and of itself. Based on the things and the science I know, I believe in it anyway, but my knowledge of the subject is insignificant compared to their collective study. Importantly, I also believe that they're working in the best interests of science, not the best interests of an agenda, so I can trust their conclusions. And if they find evidence that shows that they're wrong, they'll change their positions and hypotheses as necessary.
It's not a popularity contest, but the numbers aren't insignificant.
Actually, Hurricanes were predicted to get stronger, and there's at least some evidence that that's true.
It's ALSO possible that some regions will experience much COLDER weather. Climate patterns are changing, but it doesn't mean that cold will no longer exist on the planet. We may see the return of glaciers in certain areas even while glaciers that have been around for a long time in other parts of the world recede.
The climate is changing. The average temperature will go up. The specifics are hard to discern.
Really? You've never seen an ad and thought, "Man, I was JUST thinking I'd like a product that does something like that!"
And then you've got the Superbowl, so you can't say that you've never wanted to see advertising. You just want to see GOOD advertising. I think that's a reasonable desire.
The problem with advertising is that generally, it sucks. Especially on the internet. But remember the 'i love bees' halo campaign? That was advertising, and that was awesome.
If you don't like certain ads, do two (or potentially three) things:
1) Don't buy the product. Obviously. 2) Let the company know that you hated their ad and won't buy their stuff. They actually pay attention to that sort of thing, apparently. 3) Contact whoever is running the ad and tell them that it was particularly bad, and you're not happy with having to see it. (This works especially well with people that run ads from ad networks on their websites. I know several folks that really want to hear what sort of ads you don't want to see on their sites, and they'll contact their ad networks and get those ads removed.)
I know 2 & 3 take some effort, but you can make a difference if you want to.
I'm not sure why that matters. It was PEBKAC people that were getting infected with viruses on their PCs, too. People that are careful generally don't get malware on their machines.
These are consumer devices, used by consumers. The fact that they have bad taste is largely irrelevant. People don't want to worry about malware on their stoves, dishwashers, espresso machines, vacuum cleaners, phones, or any other appliance. Maybe it's unreasonable for them to think that they shouldn't have to worry about such things on such amazingly capable devices as the average smartphone, but that's the way it is. Leave it for too long, and there'll be a market backlash against the phones that can't protect the user from themselves, particularly when there's an option (iOS, obviously; WinPhone, less obviously) that does for no extra hassle.
Really? Last I checked, Apple's phones don't cost any more than anyone else's, particularly on contract.
The majority of the money is coming from mobile phone carriers subsidizing the cost of the phone so you only have to pay ~$200 (iPhone 4S)/$100 (iPhone 4)/$0 (3Gs). Clearly THEY perceive some sort of benefit to Apple's phones; indeed, with these sales numbers, how could they not? It's clear that the iPhone still sells well enough to draw customers to their services.
Nobody is getting 'pwnd' here except for you. I don't know why your feelings are hurt that Apple is doing so well while nobody else seems to be able to figure out how to become not just a tech manufacturer but a cultural icon as well.
Here's my advice to you: go buy some Apple stock and then use whatever phone you like. You'll make some money and feel happy when Apple does well, but you'll still feed whatever it is inside you that needs to reject Apple's devices.
Slashdot Mirror
The question here is whether those two things are mutually exclusive. Frankly, we can see from the example of our two countries that they're not. Rich people in Canada live with a de facto two-tier system. They have most of their care paid for through their taxes. Effective primary care means that they--and everyone else--prevent a substantial amount of sickness. This is good for society on the whole. While I don't have hard data to back that up exactly, it seems to follow: a society where people are sick is going to have a reduced capacity to work.
One of the biggest problem in the US is the money spent on paperwork. Study after study has shown that having the insurance middleman screwing things up is no small part of the additional costs. That's how the US can spend more money per capita by almost a factor of two and still get no better outcomes. Canada's single-payer system reduces the drag inherent in providers fighting with insurers over how much to pay.
Canada's health system, it should be noted, only covers a list of 'essential' services, so we also live in a mildly two-tier system. Laser eye surgery isn't covered by the state, and only partially covered by insurance (yes, you can buy private insurance here, too!) Unsurprisingly, the price of lasik continues to go down. But again, it's deemed non-essential, and that's probably true.
Moreover, you CAN, if you like, open a private, for-profit heart surgery clinic in Canada. You just can't bill the Canadian government for it. Private citizens would have to field the full cost of the surgery, with no medicare payments to defray the cost. But nobody does that here because the market simply doesn't have enough people in it to support that. Hence the tourist surgery.
As a Canadian, I can answer why Canadians would do this.
Firstly, there's a chance that the Canadian government will pay for your treatment anyway. These cases aren't super common, but they (actually, the provincial governments) will cover procedures that are hard to get or experimental in Canada under certain restrictions.
Secondly, if you have the money, everything is possible, no matter where you live. The reason why America is so enticing is precisely why it fails its own citizens (IMO): there is excess capacity. If you have money, there are doctors and hospitals that have a lot of extra room for you because they're not concerned with serving people without money or insurance (until it's an emergency). In Canada, the queues are full. The people have been triaged, and rich or poor, they've got to wait. Someone that makes a million dollars a year doesn't get to jump the line because of their income, and someone that barely scrapes by can be assured that they'll get their care. So if you're rich in Canada and you can afford not to wait, you may skip out of the country to get an operation somewhere else. (Frankly, this is something I encourage. It makes the lines shorter for everyone else.)
Care at the very high level in the US is extremely good; nobody in their right mind argues with that. American researchers and surgeons are often also the ones performing new and different techniques, so your system is on the leading edge.
So, yeah. The American system works for people that don't live in America precisely because it ISN'T fair, and the system inside my country is a level playing field that the rich don't want to wait on. (This is not a criticism of the wealthy in Canada, per se. As far as I know, they think our system is as great as the rest of us do. But they have the money, and they can decide how to spend it.)
This is obviously a fake story. It's April 1st, guys!
Hmm, if you're going to be pedantic about the subject/object of the sentence, doesn't this configuration indicate that the footballer was thrown out of his university? Cruel! Heart attack AND thrown out of university just weeks before graduating!
Here's the REAL question that rarely gets asked: why should fuel prices be lower? Fuel prices in other countries are much higher than in the US (with some exceptions in the Middle East where the fuel is subsidized to extraordinary degrees), mainly due to taxes. The taxes are there to limit consumption, while bringing in tax revenue to fund other services.
Is there a good reason why fuel prices should be low at all? We know there are costs associated with high use that aren't baked into the price of petrol. Arguably, we've never paid the true price for the fuel we use.
I understand that high fuel prices disproportionately affect the poor; rich people have more than enough money to pay for petrol. But that indicates other things wrong with the infrastructure of cities and how people move around.
Virtually no matter how you look at it, prices for petrol should be higher. On the extreme capitalist side, they should be higher because the product is in demand, the supply is dwindling and public opinion is getting harder to buy (oil spills, climate change). On the more socialist side, prices should be higher through taxes, to move money into providing better infrastructure for all drivers, encouraging better city layouts, and funding already badly strapped local governments. 'Because I hate paying more for something that used to be cheap' isn't really a reason.
It's too bad they didn't do this properly. There ARE controversies in evolutionary theory. They're not controversies in whether or not evolution works, but there IS disagreement in the specific mechanisms of evolution. Punctuated equilibrium or phyletic gradualism? Duke it out! Teach those controversies!
Oh wait, I guess I'm asking for science to be taught in science class. My bad.
Slackware forever. :)
It's fairly simple, really: the primary concern of Apple and by extension, OS X, is to make money.
This driving factor means that they look at the whole experience completely differently. They go out of their way to make it easy to switch. They'll even let you set up an appointment at one of their stores so you can bring your old machine in and have someone help you migrate all your data and find solutions to your problems. Quite a lot of the process can be done with one transfer cable and a lot of step-by-step, easy to follow instructions with pictures and clear text.
Even from the moment you open the box, things are laid out in a way that encourages you to touch them, get used to them and study them. This is not a mistake. The design effort put into the boxes alone is staggering. It's said that when Apple's first computer with a mouse shipped, one of the first things you had to do was remove the mouse from the packaging in a way that forced you to look at and get used to the device. Nobody had used a mouse before, and so it was alien, but Apple (Jobs, really) insisted that it be packaged in such a way that it wouldn't be intimidating the first time it was actually in use because the owner had already sort of figured it out before it even got plugged in. Hell, the handle on the top of the original iMac was there to encourage people to form a literal attachment to the device. You may think that sounds hokey, but people respond to this sort of thing. The iMac was a friendly, colourful device with a handle that you could easily come to grips with. Contrast this with the beige PCs of the day, cumbersome and hard to wield, boxy and hard to find a place for.
Then once you're actually sitting in front of the computer, the UI is big and friendly, and encourages you to click on things. When applications launch, they do so in a bouncy, friendly way. You know something is happening. The programs work when you click on them; there are no cryptic messages or complicated setup. Apple's own software is laid out on the default dock, and they present the first user experience, which is, of course, polished to hell. There's no bloatware. Installing something means putting it on your computer. Uninstalling something means deleting it. All your applications go in the 'Applications' folder.
That said, I'd like to point out that it feels slightly more cluttered and complicated than it used to; I feel that Apple is losing sight of a few things here and there. The experience isn't, and has never been, perfect. The important take-away point is that they want to connect with the user. The whole front face to the OS is that attempt. They do better on the desktop because their goal is to be better on the desktop.
By contrast, I feel like Linux is there to Get Things Done. I don't use it (or FreeBSD) anymore, but I did, and I liked them. I got a lot of work done, ran my own mail server, etc., etc. But that's not friendly. It's like asking why most people hire a contractor to put up drywall. The contractor is a much friendlier interface. You pay someone, the work happens, and then it's done; the implementation details are largely unimportant to you. But if you're the kind of person that can get things done, you can go and get the tools to do it yourself. That will always be the less popular option, because not everyone wants to understand how to install their own drywall. Not everyone wants to understand anything at all about their computer; not everyone CAN.
Listen, Apple's no angel, and neither is anyone else. I think we can all agree on that.
But Apple is the company making the biggest noticeable difference in this space. Whether that's out of the goodness of their hearts (unlikely) or the fact that the know they're under greater scrutiny because they're the big fish in this pond (considerably more likely), it does mean that the workers in the Apple foxconn factories are the ones that are likely to see the benefits of Apple's largess first.
Almost universally, however, workers at these factories feel they're better off than they would have been if they'd stayed in rural China. It IS a choice they make to work there; they line up to apply for jobs.
If that remains unconvincing to you--which is fair--write your political representatives and get them to try and convince the Chinese government to pass better worker protection laws and enforce them. Ultimately, it shouldn't be up to Apple, Samsung, Google or the consumers to protect the people of China.
Moreover, he claims that the characters in the drawings in question were actually fully clothed.
So pictures of clothed people not involved in sexual acts and not necessarily underage is now 'Child Porn'.
What a travesty. As a Canadian, this is an embarrassing story for our legal system.
The passphrase system they studied wouldn't allow duplicate passphrases. So if you picked one that was already in use, it would tell you so.
The problem isn't that the passphrase is insecure, the problem is that the system itself is giving you information about what's inside it. Doesn't it seem obvious that any security system that relies on secret data that gives up information about the secret data is insecure?
Then they did an analysis on passphrases that use english words with the same frequency as in standard English. So the word 'betwixt' was probably pretty low down on the list, and 'material' was probably higher. That also seems unreasonable. Just because you want a memorable password/passphrase, it doesn't mean that you have to use small, ultra-common words.
This study has little merit in declaring that passphrases are insecure. (It does have merit in letting us know that obvious security problems are, in fact, obvious security problems.)
Ostensibly, the number of eggs that a female is born with is the number of eggs she carries through her life. It's perfectly believable that a) the number of eggs is a finite and small number; and b) no more eggs are created after birth. The wikipedia article on ovum claims that this fixed number is a property of all mammals.
I haven't seen any scientific articles that have claimed otherwise, though I admit that I've taken this on faith. It IS fact that human ovulation has a beginning and an end that don't coincide with the absolute beginning and end of the woman's life.
But given the preponderance of scientific consensus on this matter, I think you'll need some evidence to back up your assertion that women are born with or have access to more eggs than about 30 years worth.
It's not actually well established what the reason for menopause is. Not all mammals undergo menopause. Socio-economic status is a far better predictor of the ultimate health of the child than the age of the mother. The reason why women lose their fertility is merely because they run out of eggs. They run out of eggs because from an evolutionary perspective, there's no downside to running out of eggs 20-30 years after the onset of menarche. Evolutionary adaptations don't have to be advantages per se; they merely must not be deleterious. This is why we still carry around vestigial organs like the appendix. By and large, it's not a problem, but it no longer confers any advantage.
Don't anthropomorphise evolution. It has no purpose or direction. Creatures end up where they end up because of the context of the selection pressures. That's it.
Yes, I noticed the same thing. Basically, you have to decide if your cancer risk is higher than your heart disease risk. My family history tends strongly towards heart disease, so the cholesterol thing is pertinent. Alternatively, try other methods like the red wine first.
It's funny that I ran across your comment here, because I just read through a huge pile of other comments that are taking Apple to task for daring to get the user to acknowledge that maybe running an unsigned package isn't a good idea.
I don't think you're wrong, but it amuses me that everyone finds a completely different way to criticise Apple, even when those criticisms are diametrically opposed.
Yours is the more correct complaint, but hey, that's marketing for you. :/
From what I've been able to glean, yes. The metal filters are too porous to stop the oils from passing through. For the purposes of flavour, this is usually desirable.
You should actually be able to see the difference in your coffee; coffee's natural oils naturally float on the top of the water, as you'd expect. With a paper filter in the way, I don't see any of that, and there's noticeably less particulate in my cup. (In fact, the paper filter usually gets quite clogged to the point where the water barely drips through when I'm close to the bottom of the carafe.)
It's not actually THAT hard. I mean, it's hard, but it's not an intractable problem.
First, go and find a formula for BMR or RMR. Estimate your daily calorie burn. That's a good basis to start.
Start weighing your food. I do this at least once a year for at least a month at a time. I race bicycles, so there are times where I need to be extremely aware of my intake and output. Now that I'm coming off my off-season, I have to reset my thinking about what constitutes a reasonable meal. Just KNOWING how many calories something has is a big deal. For instance, peanut butter is a killer. 1 Tbsp is about 100 calories. You're actually better off eating a handful of chocolate chips from a strictly caloric standpoint.
You can get tools to help you. You can go to a gym with a body fat and metabolism measurement system. You stand on it, hold some electrodes in your hands, and it measures your weight, fat composition, hydration, and heartrate. It makes an estimate of your BMR based on those factors.
If you've got money to burn, buy a bicycle or bike trainer that can measure your output in watts. Power expenditure on a bicycle is easily measurable (relatively speaking) and directly mappable to calories burned.
Thermodynamics works. It ALWAYS works. You need information to make use of it, but I'm not sure how doing some basic measurements is harder than making arbitrary decisions about exercise and food and hoping that it turns out for the best. There is a moderate amount of effort involved in the measurements, but the frustration factor essentially goes away. You're in control. You know what's going on. It is, actually, easy. What it ISN'T is effortless. They aren't the same.
Man, this is the sort of stuff that we geeks should LOVE. You get to use interesting gadgets, examine and tinker with a system. In the end, you can have measurable results and more opportunities for study and tinkering. Win/win, man.
Three things:
-Don't exercise if your flu/cold is below the neck. If you're just stuffed up, that's fine. If your lungs are labouring, hard work will just cause more problems. You'll get better sooner by resting.
-Coffee has numerous health benefits if had in moderation and if of high quality. Find a coffee place that either roasts its own coffee or can tell you about the coffee that you're getting (where they source it from, who roasted it, etc.) Grind it fresh yourself, have a cup or two a day. Don't drink it for the caffeine, drink it because it tastes good when you do it right. If you brew it in a French press, filter the liquid coffee through a paper filter to remove the cafestol, a compound in the oils that raises cholesterol.
-Consider adding red wine back into your diet. It's the only thing I drink on an even semi-regular basis. I'm a competitive cyclist who eats fairly well and keeps fit, but I still have a cholesterol problem (almost certainly genetics working against me, here). Red wine is something almost nobody argues against. It doesn't take much to have a health benefit.
There are plenty of good reasons to stretch. You probably want to do it after exercise, when the muscles are already warm and pliable.
Stretching, for me, is less about the muscles and more about the tendons and joints. I have an IT band injury, for instance. The correct stretches make the problem manageable (that is, I can still be a competitive cyclist). If I don't do them, I will eventually end up in a position where cycling causes massive inflammation and makes my leg incapable of performing any exercise at all. Doing the right stretches actually MOVES the IT band back into place for me. I can feel the band roll over my hip, from where it was displaced, to where it should nominally sit. Stretches that my physiotherapist and that a yoga instructor have shown me have both helped tremendously.
I occasionally do light yoga in the morning, absent any warmup, but again, most of this is about settling the joints and tendons into their places. I do very little stretching that could be considered a strain on the muscles at all.
As you progress in your exercise, consider (if you haven't already) finding a personal trainer once every month or so to tell you what you can be doing to improve, what steps you need to take care of your body as you put it under more stress, and how to avoid injury. I've had great luck with my trainers and coaches over the years, and I've had to do much LESS work to get to where I am than if I'd done it alone.
I suspect that it has something to do with support level. Google doesn't do end-user support, so you're stuck with a raft of manufacturers that have no proven support structure and are notoriously behind schedule when it comes to OS updates. Apple has a good history of keeping their phones up to date with the latest OS revision for at least a couple of years, which is probably pretty enticing.
The REAL question is why they didn't consider Windows phones. Or maybe they did, but couldn't wait for the WP8 update. There's a company that has a long history of enterprise support; they seem like they'd be a natural fit.
Yeah, that's fine for us, but it abandons the reality of politics and science. It's a nice ideal to hold to, but none of us hold to it.
If there are two experts—and only two experts—on a subject, I'm skeptical of things they disagree on and confident of things they do agree on whether positively or negatively. When there are many experts, all working to find the truth, they're all privy to more information than I have at my disposal. I must make a determination based on the strength of their arguments, but also partly based on the number that agree in their various factions.
The number of scientists that agree on the side of AGW is very convincing in and of itself. Based on the things and the science I know, I believe in it anyway, but my knowledge of the subject is insignificant compared to their collective study. Importantly, I also believe that they're working in the best interests of science, not the best interests of an agenda, so I can trust their conclusions. And if they find evidence that shows that they're wrong, they'll change their positions and hypotheses as necessary.
It's not a popularity contest, but the numbers aren't insignificant.
Actually, Hurricanes were predicted to get stronger, and there's at least some evidence that that's true.
It's ALSO possible that some regions will experience much COLDER weather. Climate patterns are changing, but it doesn't mean that cold will no longer exist on the planet. We may see the return of glaciers in certain areas even while glaciers that have been around for a long time in other parts of the world recede.
The climate is changing. The average temperature will go up. The specifics are hard to discern.
Really? You've never seen an ad and thought, "Man, I was JUST thinking I'd like a product that does something like that!"
And then you've got the Superbowl, so you can't say that you've never wanted to see advertising. You just want to see GOOD advertising. I think that's a reasonable desire.
The problem with advertising is that generally, it sucks. Especially on the internet. But remember the 'i love bees' halo campaign? That was advertising, and that was awesome.
If you don't like certain ads, do two (or potentially three) things:
1) Don't buy the product. Obviously.
2) Let the company know that you hated their ad and won't buy their stuff. They actually pay attention to that sort of thing, apparently.
3) Contact whoever is running the ad and tell them that it was particularly bad, and you're not happy with having to see it. (This works especially well with people that run ads from ad networks on their websites. I know several folks that really want to hear what sort of ads you don't want to see on their sites, and they'll contact their ad networks and get those ads removed.)
I know 2 & 3 take some effort, but you can make a difference if you want to.
I'm not sure why that matters. It was PEBKAC people that were getting infected with viruses on their PCs, too. People that are careful generally don't get malware on their machines.
These are consumer devices, used by consumers. The fact that they have bad taste is largely irrelevant. People don't want to worry about malware on their stoves, dishwashers, espresso machines, vacuum cleaners, phones, or any other appliance. Maybe it's unreasonable for them to think that they shouldn't have to worry about such things on such amazingly capable devices as the average smartphone, but that's the way it is. Leave it for too long, and there'll be a market backlash against the phones that can't protect the user from themselves, particularly when there's an option (iOS, obviously; WinPhone, less obviously) that does for no extra hassle.
Really? Last I checked, Apple's phones don't cost any more than anyone else's, particularly on contract.
The majority of the money is coming from mobile phone carriers subsidizing the cost of the phone so you only have to pay ~$200 (iPhone 4S)/$100 (iPhone 4)/$0 (3Gs). Clearly THEY perceive some sort of benefit to Apple's phones; indeed, with these sales numbers, how could they not? It's clear that the iPhone still sells well enough to draw customers to their services.
Nobody is getting 'pwnd' here except for you. I don't know why your feelings are hurt that Apple is doing so well while nobody else seems to be able to figure out how to become not just a tech manufacturer but a cultural icon as well.
Here's my advice to you: go buy some Apple stock and then use whatever phone you like. You'll make some money and feel happy when Apple does well, but you'll still feed whatever it is inside you that needs to reject Apple's devices.