The method I mentioned has the advantage of getting the documents in a form usable to you immediately. Offline is cool, though. I use IMAP with offline for my e-mail.
The Debian forums are full of people who have no qualms about saying "Go troll somewhere else!" Even given that negative, I still prefer the Debian forums to the Ubuntu ones because I can't handle the kind of user who posts an error message which contains instructions on what to do, then asks what to do.
Was I arguing that it should be? No. I was just commenting that an R&D budget of half your revenue is going to look big if you compare it to other industries.
I also like how Balmer claims that OSS builds on the interoperability dicuments that MS makes available at little or no charge, while completely ignoring the fact that these documents are practically brand new (giving very little time to have anything built on them) and beaten out of MS with a stick by the EU.
In the original Ubuntu Forums thread, some people said the story needed to be Dugg (which it was). Later, a voice of reason said that the story should be submitted to Slashdot so that they could find out what was really going on in the BIOS.
I'm proud that Slashdot has the rep of having really smart posters who know their shit.
I wasn't arguing your point, just clarifying so that no one picked your comment up and repeated it.
I know that the GPL client source and binary are available on Debian (and I guess Ubuntu) as virtualbox-ose. It lacks a couple of features, but the Debian boys got it to compile. You might try the deb-src from debian.org.
Oh, and I agree that releasing unbuildable stuff sucks, but it may have to do with the compiler Sun uses vs. the one you use. Not sure, but it might.
A Debian developer who 'got rid of build errors' by commenting out 2 very critical lines of source code put hundreds of thousands or millions of users in jeopardy (because of weak SSL keys generated with insufficient randomness)
Not actually. There were no build errors. The package manager used an automated process to search for references to memory in unallocated areas and fixed the problems the process found. Unfortunately, those references were used to increase entropy in the system and the result led to an insecure key generator.
Strength training does destroy muscle mass every time you lift to complete failure. Your body just rebuilds the lost stuff and adds some for good measure. This is why you're sore and need recovery time. It's also why you use a hell of a lot of calories when you lift weights -- most of the calories are spent after the training is over.
But what's the point of your "right" weight? Two years ago, I was 6'3" and 110-115kg with ~35% body fat. After a year of heavy weight training, I was down to 15% BF and... still 110-115kg.
I fucked up a 200kg deadlift three months ago and tore my hamstring, so I've been off everything. I'm probably in the mid-20% BF... and still 110-115kg.
I can drop down below 110kg if I really try, but why would I? 110-115 appears to be my natural weight now.
Except that your hour of casual cycling stops burning calories almost the moment you stop, while strength training (lifting to failure) means your body is spending energy to repair itself for two days.
It also means that if I skip a workout, my body still burns more calories while the cardio guy just gets to watch TV.
Eating 2-3 meals a day means that your insulin levels aren't stable and that leads to storing fat. The more meals you eat, the more stable your insulin is.
Re:Technical explanation; didn't rtfa.
on
How Do Geeks Exercise?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
You need to count more than the increased muscle mass (which is estimated to increase base metabolism by anywhere from 10-60 calories per pound). Strength training destroys muscle mass: your body spends extra energy for days after the session is over rebuilding the damaged tissue. The nervous system gets shocked and the system doesn't convert carbs to fat for a couple of hours.
I went from ~35% body fat to ~15% last year using primarily strength training (4-5 hours a week) supplemented by 2-4 hours of cardio. That translated to about 35lbs of lost fat. I didn't diet. My weight stayed relatively constant. That meant I added about 35 lbs. of muscle. I got to eat a lot of food. I had the doughnuts I love (only right after lifting). The better physique started drawing a lot of attention from women and I got picked up several times. People think I'm five to ten years younger than I really am.
To those who say that aerobic exercise will lead to muscle mass increases, you only need to look at marathon runners' legs to see that isn't really true. more than an hour of cardio a day leads to muscle loss.
Bottom line:
Get in a gym 3-4 times a week and lift until you throw up. Use a full-body workout if you can.
Slashdot Mirror
The failure of Copland and the dark age during which AAPL traded at $12/share and Sun take-over rumors ran rampant.
AAPL actually hit $3-4 at one point in the 90's.
You nailed it. Saying Google isn't a real business is like calling your local TV station a sham.
The method I mentioned has the advantage of getting the documents in a form usable to you immediately. Offline is cool, though. I use IMAP with offline for my e-mail.
For Google Calendar:
or
For GMail:
For Picassa:
or
For YouTube
they have no forum that I know of
Debian Forums
The Debian forums are full of people who have no qualms about saying "Go troll somewhere else!" Even given that negative, I still prefer the Debian forums to the Ubuntu ones because I can't handle the kind of user who posts an error message which contains instructions on what to do, then asks what to do.
Was I arguing that it should be? No. I was just commenting that an R&D budget of half your revenue is going to look big if you compare it to other industries.
I also like how Balmer claims that OSS builds on the interoperability dicuments that MS makes available at little or no charge, while completely ignoring the fact that these documents are practically brand new (giving very little time to have anything built on them) and beaten out of MS with a stick by the EU.
That's a mistake many PHB's do: thinking that programming is manufacturing and can be treated and measured like assembly line work.
That's probably because software is just about the only industry where the production of the product is counted as R&D.
In the original Ubuntu Forums thread, some people said the story needed to be Dugg (which it was). Later, a voice of reason said that the story should be submitted to Slashdot so that they could find out what was really going on in the BIOS.
I'm proud that Slashdot has the rep of having really smart posters who know their shit.
BTW, I was always in the "bad copy-paste" camp.
You know that most of the MMORPGs in Asia run this way, right? People here play for free but pay to get the cool equipment or to level up faster.
I still hadn't forgotten the bnetd debacle so there's no way I'm ever forgiving Blizzard now.
Look at about 25 posts above yours to realize why this isn't a realistic explanation.
Why is your sig so screwed up?
I wasn't arguing your point, just clarifying so that no one picked your comment up and repeated it.
I know that the GPL client source and binary are available on Debian (and I guess Ubuntu) as virtualbox-ose. It lacks a couple of features, but the Debian boys got it to compile. You might try the deb-src from debian.org.
Oh, and I agree that releasing unbuildable stuff sucks, but it may have to do with the compiler Sun uses vs. the one you use. Not sure, but it might.
If you don't need RDP or USB support, try virtualbox-ose
A Debian developer who 'got rid of build errors' by commenting out 2 very critical lines of source code put hundreds of thousands or millions of users in jeopardy (because of weak SSL keys generated with insufficient randomness)
Not actually. There were no build errors. The package manager used an automated process to search for references to memory in unallocated areas and fixed the problems the process found. Unfortunately, those references were used to increase entropy in the system and the result led to an insecure key generator.
Not a typo. I think I just wasn't clear enough.
Strength training does destroy muscle mass every time you lift to complete failure. Your body just rebuilds the lost stuff and adds some for good measure. This is why you're sore and need recovery time. It's also why you use a hell of a lot of calories when you lift weights -- most of the calories are spent after the training is over.
I just meant "the key to adding mass is ...." Sorry for the confusion. Bodybuilders need both incredible genetics and large steroid stacks.
Glad it worked for you. It drove me back to Debian after three years.
But what's the point of your "right" weight? Two years ago, I was 6'3" and 110-115kg with ~35% body fat. After a year of heavy weight training, I was down to 15% BF and ... still 110-115kg.
... and still 110-115kg.
I fucked up a 200kg deadlift three months ago and tore my hamstring, so I've been off everything. I'm probably in the mid-20% BF
I can drop down below 110kg if I really try, but why would I? 110-115 appears to be my natural weight now.
Except that your hour of casual cycling stops burning calories almost the moment you stop, while strength training (lifting to failure) means your body is spending energy to repair itself for two days.
It also means that if I skip a workout, my body still burns more calories while the cardio guy just gets to watch TV.
The key is to lift in the 6-8 rep range. I put almost four inches on my chest last year while dropping ten from my waist.
Eating 2-3 meals a day means that your insulin levels aren't stable and that leads to storing fat. The more meals you eat, the more stable your insulin is.
I went from ~35% body fat to ~15% last year using primarily strength training (4-5 hours a week) supplemented by 2-4 hours of cardio. That translated to about 35lbs of lost fat. I didn't diet. My weight stayed relatively constant. That meant I added about 35 lbs. of muscle. I got to eat a lot of food. I had the doughnuts I love (only right after lifting). The better physique started drawing a lot of attention from women and I got picked up several times. People think I'm five to ten years younger than I really am.
To those who say that aerobic exercise will lead to muscle mass increases, you only need to look at marathon runners' legs to see that isn't really true. more than an hour of cardio a day leads to muscle loss.
Bottom line:
Introducing ... the Via Cyrix III (C3)