The amazingly easy diet is simply this: slow down. It's a very well established fact that it takes your body up to 25 minutes to register "I've had enough to eat", and that's 25 minutes of time you continue to feed your face past your need. If you just pace your meals, take small portions at a time and make several trips to the buffet instead of PILING up two plates, not gulp down your food, you'll find you get to "satisfied" without eating nearly as much food or making ANY changes in your diet.
So many people that are struggling with dieting are slaves to their appetite, and this is a very easy way to get around that obstacle. It's hard for some people to understand others' "need to feed" when their body says its hungry and they lack willpower, but this is one of those little things you can try that doesn't require willpower - you can stop eating at that same satisfied level without having actually eaten as much.
what's sad is that "fat" is considered a disability.
In my book, a "disability" is something that's beyond your control, you're asking society to help you with a disadvantage you can't fix. You can't fix paralyzed, you can't fix amputatated, you can't fix crippled, and you can't fix blind. While I realize this is not always the case, most of the time, you canfix FAT.
Problem is, the 95% of the people with "fixable fat" are trying to suck up to the system to help enable their problem, under the banner of the 5% with unfixable fat. (thyroid etc)
It's just like any other risk assessment on the planet. When they have access to a monstrous amount of data, even the most obscure, apparently completely unrelated facts can cause a change in their statistics. They don't have to justify them. They don't even have to claim to have any understanding of them, they just look at the numbers which do not lie, and trust them and set their rates accordingly.
I'd be surprised if they weren't doing this, it'd be bad business. And in a business where you're handing millions (or billions) of dollars, that quirky effect that for unknown reasons shifts the balance by even 0.1 % is HUGE. And they'll take advantage of it, every single time.
There should be some polls/studies around somewhere that allow people to tell advertisers what parts of the ads they dislike the most, so we can at least deal with more tolerable advertising, since it [b]is[/b] necessary sometimes. Here's my top most annoying ads:
1) ads that try to talk to me. ABSOLUTELY CANNOT STAND THEM. talking ad = CLOSE TAB every single time. 2) popups and popunders (I still get occasional sneaky popunders even with popup blocking on) 3) distracting animations and "Click to Play Me" ads for games 4) ads that take up considerable space on my screen, like interstitials that turn a 2 page article into a 9 page article, or that use 1/3 of my screen by bannering the left and right sides so I'm reading paragraphs with around ten words per line. I didn't buy this widescreen laptop just so you could fill the new room with more of your ads.
Get rid of these four and I'll turn off my adblockers.
It's really annoying to browse the web with someone else's computer, where I just feel I'm getting bombarded by ads. Browsing to familiar web sites I can't help but think "I'd NEVER go here on a regular basis like I usually do if I had to put up with all this crap". So I'm stealing from you? If I couldn't block the crap I wouldn't go there in the first place and you'd get nothing, and right now you're still getting nothing because you're flinging more crap at me than the chimps at the zoo. So whose fault is it again you're not getting ad revenue from me?
You can't expect a company to make major changes to their online sales system to support 0.2% of the people that want to use it, even if you're IN that small minority. Be reasonable.
Besides that, a very large part of why the app store exists is to make money. (of course some is to add feature value to their hardware) They won't make money off this. So why should they do it if it's only going to cost them money? And the availability of free software on the store would devaluate the paid software on the store, losing Apple and the other devs money, to add what most people will not appreciate as a valuable addition. It's not good tradeoff in Apple's eyes.
It benefits the consumer, and the people such as those that run the VLC project, but it doesn't benefit Apple, and costs the other devs on the store money. And since it's Apple's decision, this is perfectly reasonable to expect.
Well, if they're technically suing the kid (and not the parents), then just have the kid declare bankruptcy.
Fourteen years later the kid is trying to buy their first cheap car and the bank says "what can you tell us about this bankrupcy on your record?" lol. Ya, I got into some financial trouble, I was FOUR at the time.... o_O
That being said, if a broken hip was enough to kill the woman, I don't wish to sound disrespectful, but it's likely that something else would have taken her out in relatively short order as well.
I would disagree with that. A broken hip is a major injury even for a healthy adult. It's more common in older people because their bones are more fragile and they're more likely to suffer an uncontrolled fall. The injury itself has to be dealt with because the fractured bones can cause life threatening injury if left unrepaired. And that's major surgery, which for any older person is that much riskier also. You can't just put someone in a cast for that either.
I'm not even going to get into the main thread here, I think we can all agree the judge is a tool.
the light from this far-flung object has been traveling a whopping 13.1 billion years to get here!
What really boggles my mind is that we can detect it at all. Considering the enormous travel time, and thus the enormous distance, and that radiant power is what, quartered every time you double the distance, I'm just amazed we get any photons at all from there. At that distance, the shell of photons it emitted 13 billion years ago have got to be pretty spread out, and we'd almost be able to count them coming in, one every few minutes at best?
the other thing I was wondering is does it have anything to do with the mounting of the glass? I haven't seen an iphone4 closeup yet, but the previous models all had the glass inside a metal rim. The 4 looks a lot like the new imacs, where the glass extends all the way to the edge of the machine. For the imacs, it means if something hits the edge of the machine it's hitting the glass, making the glass a lot more vulnerable to damage. Does the glass come to the edge on the 4?
Are you high? This has nothing to do with "illegal parking". It's called "revenue enhancement". (they could care less if you park illegally, they want to squeeze more money out of you with tickets)
Parking meters and parking tickets are a combination of managing available parking and making the city money. Sometimes more of one, sometimes more of the other. When you go to a lot that's ALWAYS almost empty, and ALWAYS have to feed the meter, try talking to the meter maid about "if there's never a parking problem here why are there meters here and why do you have to give me a ticket?" They want your money, in those cases it has nothing to do with parking, that's just the excuse to milk your wallet.
At least one of the linked articles says the new OS, though home-grown, would run Windows software.
Brilliant. If you're into security, there's one rule of thumb you can always count on. Don't develop your own. Invariably you'll overlook something obscure and subtle and will create a weakness big enough to fly a 747 through. Stick with time-proven methods that have been under the microscope for years and have withstood the test of time and had all the bugs, shortfalls, and subtle problems worked out of them. Basically, you're not smarter than all the people that have contributed to making the currently available selections as secure as they presently are.
If they're going to create an entirely new os themselves, in-house, for the sake of security, they're about to re-learn the above lesson.
And sorry, but runs Windows? The whole security problem there to begin with is its never-ending craving to run old software that just wasn't bothered to be written securely. Look at the giant headache that was the breaking of windows software when XP came out. Then when Vista came out. Then when 7 came out. This is going to be a whole new level worse. They may say it can run Windows software, but either it won't run MOST of it, or they're just going to be defeating one of the primary purposes of writing their own secure OS to jimmy it to run any sizeable portion. If they're insisting on making their own OS, they may as well expect to have to write their own software too. In for a penny, in for a pound.
well maybe not that free, but they certainly do run a racket. It's basically an international Collusion or Price Fixing.
Basically the long distance phone racket is a global Price Fix. Though they don't have any way to combat voip and the increasing options such as skype and telephones tied to cable modems. (we have those here in town... one cable modem provides your house with cable tv, internet, and phone service) Though the phone service I think is still using traditional long distance, but that may change. I suppose it's possible they're working hard behind to scenes to try to keep such digital phone service reliant on their "land lines", even though the calls would be going over the same fibers either way. Kinda funny how the same bits are being priced vastly differently, isn't it?
I can sell you this nail for two cents. Or would you prefer one of my high-tensile-strength wood adhesion devices for a quarter?
oh no. Pretty much every AV software digs itself deep into the system. Multiple running processes, launch daemons, startup items, hooks hooks hooks. Some of the really fun ones outright replace kexts with their own to hook things that normally aren't hookable. (and imagine the overhead this adds)
My favorite symantec trick... user brings in their computer, they've done what appears to the layman to be the right way to remove the app... deleted the "Symantec" folder in/Applications. Now they get popup errors several times during startup and all the time they try to use their computer, because components can't find each other anymore
Uninstall it? Symantec tells you how. Open the Symantec folder and run the uninstaller. What, you deleted the folder? Reinstall it.
OK, try to reinstall. "you must first remove the previous installation before reinstalling". No I'm not kidding. Can't uninstall it without installing it. Can't install it without uninstalling it. Brilliant! Fastest resolution at that point is to find another similarly norton'd computer with same version on it and do a drag and drop of the symantec folder over and then run the uninstaller. No, you can't just copy the uninstaller, it won't start the uninstallation unless it finds everything that's supposed to be there.
IMHO, symantec is worse malware than the malware it purports to save you from.
that, and I was also wondering since I don't know how their podcast system works... when you submit a podcast, or sign up to be an author, do you sign something that gives them some (possibly commercial) rights to the material you submit? In that case it would be incompatible to submit a CC licensed work?
Lots of (shady and even not so shady) online forums are that way, little do you know when you use their service to distribute something, that you're signing away a chunk of your rights and they can do what they please with your content.
I forgot to add... a CIA government car. The FBI tracking a CIA car would be an interesting one to explain.
Or a powerful politician with something to hide... trick learned from Enemy of the State
That's about the only way to really give them what they have coming. I'm just dumbfounded that the court of appeals ruled this practice legal in the first place. I'd like to see that dragged to the supreme court for a more public bloodletting.
Yes, this is a slashdot and MS bashing is the name of the game, but Adobe is so much worse than MS that this merger can only be a net gain for end users.
Not bashing, just watching the blind leading the blind...
the local univ here basically has the same requirements. You don't get your MAC packets to route on any of the campus's switches or routers until you've brought your computer into them to "secure". (read "scan and then install bloatware")
Mac users kept bringing in their laptops because they've been "norton'd" and aren't working right anymore. Symantec's had a pretty good track record lately of making their software very hard to remove. Two years ago a removal tool didn't exist and they'd point you to a web page to type in, I am not kidding, almost 200 lines in terminal. And even doing that, it still would cough up errors all over the place because bits were still installed.
It took them over a year and somewhere around 10 version of a shell script wrapped in an applet to get their "removal tool" to do a close to proper removal. And about that time they got the kinks worked out of Symantec AV vers 10-12 and they didn't continuously hose the computer. I haven't been forced to remove Norton in half a year, it's fairly well behaved now it seems. But 2 yrs ago it was downright malware, and I felt sorry for all the students that had to pay us to remove the crap their school forced them to have installed.
Really, AV software on a Mac? how does that brilliant idea make it up the chain of command at a large university's IT staff? (care to bet they got a site license that just so happened to include macs as well as pc's, and thought "sure why not, what can it possibly hurt?") I haven't seen a virus on a mac in almost 10 years, since the days of OS 9, and the only malware I've seen is the dns-changing trojan ("click here to download and install the codec required to play the porn you are trying to view") that installs a cronjob to keep your dns servers pointed to their banner servers. (which incidentally has dreadfully bad response time, forcing them to bring in their computer because "the web is slow", where the malware is instantly identified and removed) Not really smart of them to do something that triggers an immediate trip to the shop for removal? But I digress.
Yes this really does reek of a "everything will be much better if you buy exclusively from us, we can take care of you as long as you don't buy from anyone else." Riiiiight. Cuz you've shown you're just so good at that.
Slashdot Mirror
The amazingly easy diet is simply this: slow down. It's a very well established fact that it takes your body up to 25 minutes to register "I've had enough to eat", and that's 25 minutes of time you continue to feed your face past your need. If you just pace your meals, take small portions at a time and make several trips to the buffet instead of PILING up two plates, not gulp down your food, you'll find you get to "satisfied" without eating nearly as much food or making ANY changes in your diet.
So many people that are struggling with dieting are slaves to their appetite, and this is a very easy way to get around that obstacle. It's hard for some people to understand others' "need to feed" when their body says its hungry and they lack willpower, but this is one of those little things you can try that doesn't require willpower - you can stop eating at that same satisfied level without having actually eaten as much.
what's sad is that "fat" is considered a disability.
In my book, a "disability" is something that's beyond your control, you're asking society to help you with a disadvantage you can't fix. You can't fix paralyzed, you can't fix amputatated, you can't fix crippled, and you can't fix blind. While I realize this is not always the case, most of the time, you can fix FAT.
Problem is, the 95% of the people with "fixable fat" are trying to suck up to the system to help enable their problem, under the banner of the 5% with unfixable fat. (thyroid etc)
but there's nothing illegal with the doorway to the interviewer's office being really narrow ;)
The bad news about botnet operators, malware authors, and other black hats: they aren't stupid.
And the worse news: we ARE
and that's why they're in business.
It's just like any other risk assessment on the planet. When they have access to a monstrous amount of data, even the most obscure, apparently completely unrelated facts can cause a change in their statistics. They don't have to justify them. They don't even have to claim to have any understanding of them, they just look at the numbers which do not lie, and trust them and set their rates accordingly.
I'd be surprised if they weren't doing this, it'd be bad business. And in a business where you're handing millions (or billions) of dollars, that quirky effect that for unknown reasons shifts the balance by even 0.1 % is HUGE. And they'll take advantage of it, every single time.
There should be some polls/studies around somewhere that allow people to tell advertisers what parts of the ads they dislike the most, so we can at least deal with more tolerable advertising, since it [b]is[/b] necessary sometimes. Here's my top most annoying ads:
1) ads that try to talk to me. ABSOLUTELY CANNOT STAND THEM. talking ad = CLOSE TAB every single time.
2) popups and popunders (I still get occasional sneaky popunders even with popup blocking on)
3) distracting animations and "Click to Play Me" ads for games
4) ads that take up considerable space on my screen, like interstitials that turn a 2 page article into a 9 page article, or that use 1/3 of my screen by bannering the left and right sides so I'm reading paragraphs with around ten words per line. I didn't buy this widescreen laptop just so you could fill the new room with more of your ads.
Get rid of these four and I'll turn off my adblockers.
It's really annoying to browse the web with someone else's computer, where I just feel I'm getting bombarded by ads. Browsing to familiar web sites I can't help but think "I'd NEVER go here on a regular basis like I usually do if I had to put up with all this crap ". So I'm stealing from you? If I couldn't block the crap I wouldn't go there in the first place and you'd get nothing, and right now you're still getting nothing because you're flinging more crap at me than the chimps at the zoo. So whose fault is it again you're not getting ad revenue from me?
It would be much simpler if their Eulas got trimmed,
You'll have to kill all the lawyers first, or totally reform the law. (you're more likely to succeed going the lawyer route)
You can't expect a company to make major changes to their online sales system to support 0.2% of the people that want to use it, even if you're IN that small minority. Be reasonable.
Besides that, a very large part of why the app store exists is to make money. (of course some is to add feature value to their hardware) They won't make money off this. So why should they do it if it's only going to cost them money? And the availability of free software on the store would devaluate the paid software on the store, losing Apple and the other devs money, to add what most people will not appreciate as a valuable addition. It's not good tradeoff in Apple's eyes.
It benefits the consumer, and the people such as those that run the VLC project, but it doesn't benefit Apple, and costs the other devs on the store money. And since it's Apple's decision, this is perfectly reasonable to expect.
In English Common Law you follow precedent unless you can satisfactorily distinguish the instant case from prior cases.
Just to clarify, that's the second level. Usually you refer to the law first, and look for precedence for clarifications.
Well, if they're technically suing the kid (and not the parents), then just have the kid declare bankruptcy.
Fourteen years later the kid is trying to buy their first cheap car and the bank says "what can you tell us about this bankrupcy on your record?" lol. Ya, I got into some financial trouble, I was FOUR at the time.... o_O
Remember, this is an age group that still pees or poops itself when out playing.
Perhaps the judge is old and senile enough to also have this problem?
Getting run over by a five year old kid should be likened to an act of god. You get hit by lightning, it's no one's fault. Tough luck.
no no no. You sue the weatherman
That being said, if a broken hip was enough to kill the woman, I don't wish to sound disrespectful, but it's likely that something else would have taken her out in relatively short order as well.
I would disagree with that. A broken hip is a major injury even for a healthy adult. It's more common in older people because their bones are more fragile and they're more likely to suffer an uncontrolled fall. The injury itself has to be dealt with because the fractured bones can cause life threatening injury if left unrepaired. And that's major surgery, which for any older person is that much riskier also. You can't just put someone in a cast for that either.
I'm not even going to get into the main thread here, I think we can all agree the judge is a tool.
the light from this far-flung object has been traveling a whopping 13.1 billion years to get here!
What really boggles my mind is that we can detect it at all. Considering the enormous travel time, and thus the enormous distance, and that radiant power is what, quartered every time you double the distance, I'm just amazed we get any photons at all from there. At that distance, the shell of photons it emitted 13 billion years ago have got to be pretty spread out, and we'd almost be able to count them coming in, one every few minutes at best?
the other thing I was wondering is does it have anything to do with the mounting of the glass? I haven't seen an iphone4 closeup yet, but the previous models all had the glass inside a metal rim. The 4 looks a lot like the new imacs, where the glass extends all the way to the edge of the machine. For the imacs, it means if something hits the edge of the machine it's hitting the glass, making the glass a lot more vulnerable to damage. Does the glass come to the edge on the 4?
excuse of preventing illegal parking.
Are you high? This has nothing to do with "illegal parking". It's called "revenue enhancement". (they could care less if you park illegally, they want to squeeze more money out of you with tickets)
Parking meters and parking tickets are a combination of managing available parking and making the city money. Sometimes more of one, sometimes more of the other. When you go to a lot that's ALWAYS almost empty, and ALWAYS have to feed the meter, try talking to the meter maid about "if there's never a parking problem here why are there meters here and why do you have to give me a ticket?" They want your money, in those cases it has nothing to do with parking, that's just the excuse to milk your wallet.
It all looks good on paper, though, and it'll confuse the hell out of shareholders enough to make them look profitable.
Well at least somebody wins... (the lawyers)
OR there's a PHB somewhere up high in the decision tree that can't live without his Entourage and Word.
At least one of the linked articles says the new OS, though home-grown, would run Windows software.
Brilliant. If you're into security, there's one rule of thumb you can always count on. Don't develop your own. Invariably you'll overlook something obscure and subtle and will create a weakness big enough to fly a 747 through. Stick with time-proven methods that have been under the microscope for years and have withstood the test of time and had all the bugs, shortfalls, and subtle problems worked out of them. Basically, you're not smarter than all the people that have contributed to making the currently available selections as secure as they presently are.
If they're going to create an entirely new os themselves, in-house, for the sake of security, they're about to re-learn the above lesson.
And sorry, but runs Windows? The whole security problem there to begin with is its never-ending craving to run old software that just wasn't bothered to be written securely. Look at the giant headache that was the breaking of windows software when XP came out. Then when Vista came out. Then when 7 came out. This is going to be a whole new level worse. They may say it can run Windows software, but either it won't run MOST of it, or they're just going to be defeating one of the primary purposes of writing their own secure OS to jimmy it to run any sizeable portion. If they're insisting on making their own OS, they may as well expect to have to write their own software too. In for a penny, in for a pound.
well maybe not that free, but they certainly do run a racket. It's basically an international Collusion or Price Fixing.
Basically the long distance phone racket is a global Price Fix. Though they don't have any way to combat voip and the increasing options such as skype and telephones tied to cable modems. (we have those here in town... one cable modem provides your house with cable tv, internet, and phone service) Though the phone service I think is still using traditional long distance, but that may change. I suppose it's possible they're working hard behind to scenes to try to keep such digital phone service reliant on their "land lines", even though the calls would be going over the same fibers either way. Kinda funny how the same bits are being priced vastly differently, isn't it?
I can sell you this nail for two cents. Or would you prefer one of my high-tensile-strength wood adhesion devices for a quarter?
oh no. Pretty much every AV software digs itself deep into the system. Multiple running processes, launch daemons, startup items, hooks hooks hooks. Some of the really fun ones outright replace kexts with their own to hook things that normally aren't hookable. (and imagine the overhead this adds)
My favorite symantec trick... user brings in their computer, they've done what appears to the layman to be the right way to remove the app... deleted the "Symantec" folder in /Applications. Now they get popup errors several times during startup and all the time they try to use their computer, because components can't find each other anymore
Uninstall it? Symantec tells you how. Open the Symantec folder and run the uninstaller. What, you deleted the folder? Reinstall it.
OK, try to reinstall. "you must first remove the previous installation before reinstalling". No I'm not kidding. Can't uninstall it without installing it. Can't install it without uninstalling it. Brilliant! Fastest resolution at that point is to find another similarly norton'd computer with same version on it and do a drag and drop of the symantec folder over and then run the uninstaller. No, you can't just copy the uninstaller, it won't start the uninstallation unless it finds everything that's supposed to be there.
IMHO, symantec is worse malware than the malware it purports to save you from.
that, and I was also wondering since I don't know how their podcast system works... when you submit a podcast, or sign up to be an author, do you sign something that gives them some (possibly commercial) rights to the material you submit? In that case it would be incompatible to submit a CC licensed work?
Lots of (shady and even not so shady) online forums are that way, little do you know when you use their service to distribute something, that you're signing away a chunk of your rights and they can do what they please with your content.
I forgot to add... a CIA government car. The FBI tracking a CIA car would be an interesting one to explain.
Or a powerful politician with something to hide... trick learned from Enemy of the State
That's about the only way to really give them what they have coming. I'm just dumbfounded that the court of appeals ruled this practice legal in the first place. I'd like to see that dragged to the supreme court for a more public bloodletting.
Yes, this is a slashdot and MS bashing is the name of the game, but Adobe is so much worse than MS that this merger can only be a net gain for end users.
Not bashing, just watching the blind leading the blind...
the local univ here basically has the same requirements. You don't get your MAC packets to route on any of the campus's switches or routers until you've brought your computer into them to "secure". (read "scan and then install bloatware")
Mac users kept bringing in their laptops because they've been "norton'd" and aren't working right anymore. Symantec's had a pretty good track record lately of making their software very hard to remove. Two years ago a removal tool didn't exist and they'd point you to a web page to type in, I am not kidding, almost 200 lines in terminal. And even doing that, it still would cough up errors all over the place because bits were still installed.
It took them over a year and somewhere around 10 version of a shell script wrapped in an applet to get their "removal tool" to do a close to proper removal. And about that time they got the kinks worked out of Symantec AV vers 10-12 and they didn't continuously hose the computer. I haven't been forced to remove Norton in half a year, it's fairly well behaved now it seems. But 2 yrs ago it was downright malware, and I felt sorry for all the students that had to pay us to remove the crap their school forced them to have installed.
Really, AV software on a Mac? how does that brilliant idea make it up the chain of command at a large university's IT staff? (care to bet they got a site license that just so happened to include macs as well as pc's, and thought "sure why not, what can it possibly hurt?") I haven't seen a virus on a mac in almost 10 years, since the days of OS 9, and the only malware I've seen is the dns-changing trojan ("click here to download and install the codec required to play the porn you are trying to view") that installs a cronjob to keep your dns servers pointed to their banner servers. (which incidentally has dreadfully bad response time, forcing them to bring in their computer because "the web is slow", where the malware is instantly identified and removed) Not really smart of them to do something that triggers an immediate trip to the shop for removal? But I digress.
Yes this really does reek of a "everything will be much better if you buy exclusively from us, we can take care of you as long as you don't buy from anyone else." Riiiiight. Cuz you've shown you're just so good at that.