Yes, this is well known to anyone who've been skiing cross-country at the time of year when the sun gets stronger, especially if you are on large expanses of snow. Your retinas got sunburnt. In my language we call it "being sun-blinded". The symptoms are exactly as you describe them. I'm surprised that your physician didn't recognise them for what they were. On the other hand, there is no cure except for ointments that give relief, so he got that part right:)
The flying window logo is one of the most recognisable logo's in IT, more so than the apple or Tux.
And it's scary as well. Remember the Futurama episode "The Honking", were Bender at one point was chased down a castle corridor by ghosts in the form of a flying Windows logo and ditto toaster:)
I think the toaster was from the screen saver package "After Dark"?
Would a strategy as described in the story be possible at all? It would be interesting to hear what someone knowledgeable thinks!
It's an entertaining read anyway:)
**** SPOILERS **** If you plan to read the story, pause here.
.
.
The story describes someone finding a "black box" that plays perfect Go, and using it to solve complex strategic problems for an immense company. The difficulty arises because of the strategists can't be sure that the Go problems they construct are good representations of the strategic challenges posed.
When I get back to my dorm, I throw my bag down. When I go to class, I toss my bag.
When you get a little older and acquire a bit of debt, you'll tend to treat your stuff with more care. It doesn't really cost all that much energy to place your bag on the floor instead of flinging it. Even with the e-book devices' disadvantage of inferior structural integrity, to me the advantages makes it worth it. Treat it like you would treat a laptop or even an mp3 player, and you should be fine.
I agree about the price of the devices, though. It's way to high as it is now. Especially when the e-books themselves are not that much cheaper than paperbacks.
I've had to explain why it isn't to so many clients I finally just wrote a white paper on the subject so when it comes up again I can just print it out and hand it to them.
This sounds handy, would you have any objections to publishing it on the web somewhere? I see this issue surprisingly often as well, even from people who should've known better. Such is the power of buzzwords. I sometimes make an analogy with an "XML Jerrycan"for fluids. This jerrycan is sometimes handy for transporting and storing fluids, but if you fill it with gasoline it won't convert it to diesel, drinking water, engine oil or alcohol for you no matter what. It's still gasoline, only in a can.
...probably because the fan or heatsink has stopped working.
That's true in my experience as well. I bought a second-hand GPU some time ago, and experienced severe instability. I fired up a hardware monitor, and sure enough, it was chugging along at 100-108 degrees Celsius under load. I was quite astounded that it didn't burn out.
I opened the case, and the fan and air ducts on the card was completely clogged. The fan spun, but moved no air at all. I removed a solid block of lint from the ducts after disassembling the card, problem solved. The temperature sensors weren't broken either, as I now get around 40-50 degrees on the GPU under load.
Incidentally, even if you don't have such serious problems, cleaning the various fans in your case for dust and lint will make your computer a lot more quiet, both from slower fan speed due to more effective fans and lack of friction between the fan blades and the air. Recommended at the price:)
Try installing XP or Vista on a computer you built yourself sometime.
I fully agree with your post, and will even go a bit further. In my experience Windows' hardware detection has been far worse than Linux' for quite some time now. I was flabbergasted the first time I tried to install XP at work on a box with sata drives. That's pretty much a no-go with the stock install CD. Luckily the computer had a floppy drive, so that problem got solved. I know that you can slipstream in the sata drivers prior to installing, but seriously, WTF?
Also I have an old sound card (SB Live) and ditto TV tuner card (PCTV Studio) which has never had driver support included in Windows. For some years Linux (Suse, Mandrake, Redhat and now, Ubuntu) have happily detected and used them without any hassle at all. I do feel the pain of those with hardware with poor driver support, but that is hardly Linux' fault. I do get the feeling that, as Linux becomes more popular, hardware manufacturers are more diligent with their Linux drivers as well.
Anyone who says that Linux is time consuming and difficult to install have probably never tried installing Windows from scratch. This is not even mentioning commodity software such as an office package and IM software, which most Linuxes now supply in a default install.
But if you can't get Vista to run just fine on something as old as an xp1800 with a gig of ram, then you're the problem or there is a hardware issue. Period. Point. Blank. Yeah. Whatever. When <random person> buys a computer with Vista and far superior specifications than that machine, boots it up first time, and it runs slow, then THEY are the problem. That makes sense. I'd expect better from an educated man...
You're not getting the point. Let's tackle this from another angle; what problems do Vista solve that should make an XP user want to upgrade? In spite of, oh, all the issues I mentioned in my earliest post? (If you seriously blame those on me being a liar, you're delusional, and should seek professional counsel.)
It's a simple question, now I want a straight answer. I do suspect that you're not able to provide it.
Contrary to you, I'm not interested in bending backwards to make Vista work for any price. I use what's best, and it's not Vista. Vista as it is now represents the opposite of both quality and value.
Tell me once more why I should bother to try this OS again? Oh, you never did. And you won't. I'm starting to reconsider my blessing of your internet connection.
So every time a POS laptop gets sold it's Vista's fault. Dell doesn't screw things up? No, and maybe. Who cares?
Where I live computers sold with Vista on them tend to be fairly high spec, because you need it to RUN THE FUCKING OS. "Vista approved" means that a computer meets the outrageous hardware requirements for the OS, or something.
An engineer would attack a problem by eliminating probable causes. When the machine works fine with other OSes, I tend to suspect Vista. Obviously the computer is OK.
My experience with Vista sucks. NO ONE has managed to show me an install that didn't run slow as molasses. Why should I give it another go because Liquidrage tells me I'm an idiot and a liar?
You're only attacking persons anyway, I don't see constructive information in neither of your two posts.
This is going nowhere. Don't bother to reply, I won't.
People that write crap like you do need to be modded into oblivion. Your posts add no value here. You're just another prick with a bias making up crap to support that bias. I hope your internet connection dies. How mature. You might have noticed, but he's not the only one.
While I have no deep knowledge of Vista's technical features, I have had the misfortune of helping a friend setting it up at the first run on a brand new, reasonably expensive and powerful laptop. She called me primarily to get help with networking and such, but also wondered why it was so damn sluggish. She thought that she must have received faulty or under-specced hardware.
How could she "do something wrong" with a pure default install?
No, it was just Vista doing fuck-knows. Response times in the GUI like I haven't seen since... well, never. All sorts of problems getting extremely simple third-party software (utorrent, Pidgin) to run. It could play very little of her varied media library. Networking was unstable, and disk operations had so poor performance I could hardly believe it. Frankly, it was horrible.
Needless to say Ubuntu had excellent performance, and did everything she needed the computer for after installing codecs, which is a breeze. She preferred to leave Vista on the hard drive just in case she needed service for it sometime.
I might have torn my hair out getting Vista to run properly, I'm a CS engineer, but why the hell bother? Vista is the worst of several alternatives.
I have previously run Win2kPro, which is decent. At work I use XP, also decent combined with access to a Linux server for scripting. When someone asks me about Vista, I can but recommend that they go with XP which they know, or try Ubuntu which I know, though they rarely require assistance with Ubuntu other than "In which menu is X".
Nevertheless, if you're happy with the huge load of crap that is Vista, good for you:)
May your internet connection live happily ever after.
More like giving the homeless guy drugs when he needs food, knowing that he'll come back to you for the next hit. They're "developing markets to their future business."
Most people don't make a specification comparison, or even think about it at all.
My father har no grasp of computers. While I run Linux on my ghetto desktop (I am very happy with it (I'm an engineer)), he appreciates the simplicity of using a mac. His iBook does everything he wants from a computer, it stores his pictures and it enables him to browse the web. He buys whichever computer he wants (he needn't fret about money), he asks for my my advice as well. I advice him to buy a new Mac, because it works for him.
When you can create human life from scratch, then come back and claim you can declare when life begins.
On behalf of whom do you speak? Should I listen to you? Of course not.
...without the cost of chucking our ethics out the window and abandoning our own souls.
Since when was it ethical to prohibit life-saving research because it was dependent on cells which would otherwise go to waste?
Totally unrelated linguistic question: Why pro-life, could this not just as easily be con-choice? It's pro or con abortion, as I understand it. English is not my first language, but would anyone remotely intelligent be mislead by such wordplay? Serious question.
If your whole post was a joke, I didn't get it. In that case, disregard this.
First off, you say that you prefer an "event based cutoff". Which event do you choose? You don't specify, so I'll assume conception, based on the rest of your post.
Anyway, you start off with a whole lot of handwaving about Chinese and 21-year-olds (WTF?), to end up with what I construe to be your conclusion; humans are being murdered (in italics) if an abortion concurs at any point after conception.
That is a fundamentalistic perspective.
As an aside, I'm going to assume that you eat meat. In that case you're not adverse to taking lives for an end which results in a comfortable, but by no means necessary experience for you (I enjoy meat as well). Even if it's not the case for you personally, my next point is still valid for most people of your opinion:
It's not *life* itself that's important to you. I assume that you perceive a difference between sentient and non-sentient life (Vegetables? Molluscs? Fish?). If you at any point claim that a human fetus at an age of under 12 weeks (the limit for abortion by choice in my society) is sentient by any definition of the term, or even significally different from an avian fetus of comparable age, then I have nothing more to discuss with you. We're living on different planets. If we're indeed living on the same planet, the act of eating an (unbeknownst to you) fertilized hen's egg would also be murder. This happens often enough, you've probably eaten one.
I'd enjoy to have this argument with you in real life. If you'd be the first from the con-choice (I can play word games as well) fundamentalist crowd to actually bring some real arguments to the table, it'd be a very interesting experience. On Slashdot I fear it won't be productive.
PS. I don't endorse uncritical abortions for the sole reason that it's "inconvenient" to bring a child into someone's life. It can have severe emotional consequences for the girl having the abortion, for one thing.
PSS. I know that I defined a fetus of 12 weeks of age as not being sentient. Prove me wrong.
I was born in -76, so I surely missed the start of the floppy revolution. My first IBM-clone actually had both a 5" 1/4 and a 3" 1/2 floppy drive. You probably have a point:) I always wondered why my C64-floppies always were extremely reliable in comparison, although dog slow. Probably something to do with density.
On a side note I just saw that I actually managed to use 'where' instead of 'were' in the quoted sentence as well. Shame on me:)
...and it was probably a lot faster and more reliable.
Oh, how I hate the floppy disk. It's been years since I had to use one, and I still hate them. Even if you bought an expensive brand, in my experience they STILL would have a failure rate of at least 1 in 15 or so.
Anyone remembers the distinct sound a floppy drive makes when a read error is coming up? *shudder*
Floppies where for saving data that you really didn't care about at all.
Re:%75 as effective as a prescription 3% the price
on
Science vs. Homeopathy
·
· Score: 1
Homeopathic drugs will never be superior to prescriptions because they are just water.
Actually, it's even worse... they soak sugar pills in their diluted super-water, and then let it evaporate. I used to work at a pharmaceutical wholesale distributor, and the most expensive item we had any way you looked at it was... a vial with THREE PILLS of a homeopathic drug costing about $3000. No shit.
That's a hefty price for sugar.
We supplied them because the customers still wanted them, but I know that some among the managers really wanted to stop carrying high-priced homeopathic drugs, as they were regarded as elaborate scams.
This usage is well-established, and just because you are too stupid to handle phrases having multiple meanings,...
I beg to differ. If you make a mistake, and "everyone" gets your point because they understand what you meant to say, a linguist would probably be satisfied about the communication having succeeded.
Not being a linguist I would react to the fact that you're misusing the phrase, and infer that it's either from ignorance or intent. In either case I would be more inclined to question the validity of the point you're trying to make.
After all, the theory of evolution is just a theory, not fact, right?
Jogging can be a very poor exercise for the overweight, especially the very overweight. That's a lot of stress to be putting on joints.
Ah, this is why I love slashdot. Knowledgeable people who pitches in with their wisdom:)
Anyway, by "jogging" above I really meant "make yourself active". An overweight person should start by walking as much as possible, take the stairs instead of the elevator, and so on. If even that's strenuous due to extreme overweight he won't get a good effect, and he risks load injuries. In that case exercise biking is a good alternative, swimming is even better. The buoyancy of the water will take the strain off of his body, while still enabling him to expend that excess fat. He _will_ get almost immediate results (1-2 weeks), which is very important. It helps a lot to see that it's actually working.
I completely agree with your opinion about catching obesity in its infancy. But, even if you fail that, it's still not very difficult to correct your mistake. It's all about imposing a frame of mind upon yourself when it comes to eating habits, and it doesn't necessarily involve much of a sacrifice of anything in your lifestyle. My tall, previously overweight friend still drinks as much beer as ever, which is quite a lot.
If, however, you blame it on Nixon, you've already lost. That was the point of my first post in this thread:)
My friend is about 2 m high, that's 6'6". He is broad across the shoulders as well, so 100 kg is close to ideal weight for him. It looks right.
He chose his method because he didn't want it to be too much of a hazzle. I guess whatever works for you is right. 3.75 lbs a week sounds like a lot though.
For my own part I'm quite athletic, I used to exercise. I don't anymore but am generally active. I really should work out to gain a little more muscle mass.
Wrong advise, bread is the worse thing to use to replace anything. Too many carbs.
Thanks for the advise! I must admit I'm no expert, I never really had any need to lose weight. I guess too much of anything's basically not good for you.
BTW, one of my friends lost around 40 kgs (from ~140 to 100) in about fourteen months, just by cutting snacks and pizza. He didn't exercise, but he never went hungry either. It can be done.
When I observed how easily he lost weight, with only a little discipline, I changed my standard response to "Well, you might be overweight, but don't complain about it. You're not really trying":)
The most likely culprit are changes to food allowed by the Nixon administration
This is just another excuse.
Apart from a few rare medical conditions, obesity comes from eating too much without getting enough exercise. I'm at a normal weight level because I don't eat whatever comes in my way, still I never go hungry.
To my overweight friends who complain about how difficult it is to lose weight I say: Replace one or both of your two hot meals a day with bread or something healthy. Drop the pack of crisps every night. If that doesn't help, start jogging.
You'll get no sympathy from me whatsoever for your weight problem, it's very fixable.
Yes, "randomness == unpredictability" is a very common notion, but they are two different things. You may have a set of numbers that are unpredictable for you, or for a computer, but will still fail any statistical test for randomness. The concept of randomness is surprisingly difficult to grasp, much less explain. Other people does it a lot better than I. The Wikipedia article is a good starting point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness#Randomness _versus_unpredictability.
I think that dice are unpredictable because they represent a chaotic system, although I am out on a limb here. Check out the article on Chaos theory.
Have fun, I just finished work, and am off to have a beer or two:)
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, this is well known to anyone who've been skiing cross-country at the time of year when the sun gets stronger, especially if you are on large expanses of snow. Your retinas got sunburnt. :)
In my language we call it "being sun-blinded". The symptoms are exactly as you describe them.
I'm surprised that your physician didn't recognise them for what they were. On the other hand, there is no cure except for ointments that give relief, so he got that part right
I think the toaster was from the screen saver package "After Dark"?
Couldn't find a video clip, sorry.
Would a strategy as described in the story be possible at all? It would be interesting to hear what someone knowledgeable thinks!
It's an entertaining read anyway
**** SPOILERS **** If you plan to read the story, pause here.
.
.
The story describes someone finding a "black box" that plays perfect Go, and using it to solve complex strategic problems for an immense company.
The difficulty arises because of the strategists can't be sure that the Go problems they construct are good representations of the strategic challenges posed.
When you get a little older and acquire a bit of debt, you'll tend to treat your stuff with more care. It doesn't really cost all that much energy to place your bag on the floor instead of flinging it.
Even with the e-book devices' disadvantage of inferior structural integrity, to me the advantages makes it worth it. Treat it like you would treat a laptop or even an mp3 player, and you should be fine.
I agree about the price of the devices, though. It's way to high as it is now. Especially when the e-books themselves are not that much cheaper than paperbacks.
I see this issue surprisingly often as well, even from people who should've known better. Such is the power of buzzwords.
I sometimes make an analogy with an "XML Jerrycan"for fluids. This jerrycan is sometimes handy for transporting and storing fluids, but if you fill it with gasoline it won't convert it to diesel, drinking water, engine oil or alcohol for you no matter what. It's still gasoline, only in a can.
That's true in my experience as well. I bought a second-hand GPU some time ago, and experienced severe instability. I fired up a hardware monitor, and sure enough, it was chugging along at 100-108 degrees Celsius under load. I was quite astounded that it didn't burn out.
I opened the case, and the fan and air ducts on the card was completely clogged. The fan spun, but moved no air at all. I removed a solid block of lint from the ducts after disassembling the card, problem solved. The temperature sensors weren't broken either, as I now get around 40-50 degrees on the GPU under load.
Incidentally, even if you don't have such serious problems, cleaning the various fans in your case for dust and lint will make your computer a lot more quiet, both from slower fan speed due to more effective fans and lack of friction between the fan blades and the air. Recommended at the price
I fully agree with your post, and will even go a bit further. In my experience Windows' hardware detection has been far worse than Linux' for quite some time now.
I was flabbergasted the first time I tried to install XP at work on a box with sata drives. That's pretty much a no-go with the stock install CD. Luckily the computer had a floppy drive, so that problem got solved. I know that you can slipstream in the sata drivers prior to installing, but seriously, WTF?
Also I have an old sound card (SB Live) and ditto TV tuner card (PCTV Studio) which has never had driver support included in Windows. For some years Linux (Suse, Mandrake, Redhat and now, Ubuntu) have happily detected and used them without any hassle at all. I do feel the pain of those with hardware with poor driver support, but that is hardly Linux' fault. I do get the feeling that, as Linux becomes more popular, hardware manufacturers are more diligent with their Linux drivers as well.
Anyone who says that Linux is time consuming and difficult to install have probably never tried installing Windows from scratch. This is not even mentioning commodity software such as an office package and IM software, which most Linuxes now supply in a default install.
You're not getting the point. Let's tackle this from another angle; what problems do Vista solve that should make an XP user want to upgrade? In spite of, oh, all the issues I mentioned in my earliest post? (If you seriously blame those on me being a liar, you're delusional, and should seek professional counsel.)
It's a simple question, now I want a straight answer. I do suspect that you're not able to provide it.
Contrary to you, I'm not interested in bending backwards to make Vista work for any price. I use what's best, and it's not Vista. Vista as it is now represents the opposite of both quality and value.
Tell me once more why I should bother to try this OS again? Oh, you never did. And you won't.
I'm starting to reconsider my blessing of your internet connection.
I just replied to remind you that I wouldn't reply :)
What's your gripe with Dells, anyway? With a decent OS, they're great value for money. Oh, I forgot, you're not running a decent OS.
This is fun.
Where I live computers sold with Vista on them tend to be fairly high spec, because you need it to RUN THE FUCKING OS. "Vista approved" means that a computer meets the outrageous hardware requirements for the OS, or something.
An engineer would attack a problem by eliminating probable causes. When the machine works fine with other OSes, I tend to suspect Vista. Obviously the computer is OK.
My experience with Vista sucks. NO ONE has managed to show me an install that didn't run slow as molasses. Why should I give it another go because Liquidrage tells me I'm an idiot and a liar?
You're only attacking persons anyway, I don't see constructive information in neither of your two posts.
This is going nowhere. Don't bother to reply, I won't.
While I have no deep knowledge of Vista's technical features, I have had the misfortune of helping a friend setting it up at the first run on a brand new, reasonably expensive and powerful laptop.
She called me primarily to get help with networking and such, but also wondered why it was so damn sluggish. She thought that she must have received faulty or under-specced hardware.
How could she "do something wrong" with a pure default install?
No, it was just Vista doing fuck-knows. Response times in the GUI like I haven't seen since... well, never. All sorts of problems getting extremely simple third-party software (utorrent, Pidgin) to run. It could play very little of her varied media library. Networking was unstable, and disk operations had so poor performance I could hardly believe it. Frankly, it was horrible.
Needless to say Ubuntu had excellent performance, and did everything she needed the computer for after installing codecs, which is a breeze. She preferred to leave Vista on the hard drive just in case she needed service for it sometime.
I might have torn my hair out getting Vista to run properly, I'm a CS engineer, but why the hell bother? Vista is the worst of several alternatives.
I have previously run Win2kPro, which is decent. At work I use XP, also decent combined with access to a Linux server for scripting. When someone asks me about Vista, I can but recommend that they go with XP which they know, or try Ubuntu which I know, though they rarely require assistance with Ubuntu other than "In which menu is X".
Nevertheless, if you're happy with the huge load of crap that is Vista, good for you
May your internet connection live happily ever after.
More like giving the homeless guy drugs when he needs food, knowing that he'll come back to you for the next hit. They're "developing markets to their future business."
Most people don't make a specification comparison, or even think about it at all.
My father har no grasp of computers. While I run Linux on my ghetto desktop (I am very happy with it (I'm an engineer)), he appreciates the simplicity of using a mac. His iBook does everything he wants from a computer, it stores his pictures and it enables him to browse the web. He buys whichever computer he wants (he needn't fret about money), he asks for my my advice as well. I advice him to buy a new Mac, because it works for him.
Yeah, I know. If only we had some way of previewing our posts before submitting
*ducks*
Since when was it ethical to prohibit life-saving research because it was dependent on cells which would otherwise go to waste?
Totally unrelated linguistic question: Why pro-life, could this not just as easily be con-choice? It's pro or con abortion, as I understand it. English is not my first language, but would anyone remotely intelligent be mislead by such wordplay? Serious question.
If your whole post was a joke, I didn't get it. In that case, disregard this.
First off, you say that you prefer an "event based cutoff". Which event do you choose? You don't specify, so I'll assume conception, based on the rest of your post.
Anyway, you start off with a whole lot of handwaving about Chinese and 21-year-olds (WTF?), to end up with what I construe to be your conclusion; humans are being murdered (in italics) if an abortion concurs at any point after conception.
That is a fundamentalistic perspective.
As an aside, I'm going to assume that you eat meat. In that case you're not adverse to taking lives for an end which results in a comfortable, but by no means necessary experience for you (I enjoy meat as well). Even if it's not the case for you personally, my next point is still valid for most people of your opinion:
It's not *life* itself that's important to you. I assume that you perceive a difference between sentient and non-sentient life (Vegetables? Molluscs? Fish?). If you at any point claim that a human fetus at an age of under 12 weeks (the limit for abortion by choice in my society) is sentient by any definition of the term, or even significally different from an avian fetus of comparable age, then I have nothing more to discuss with you. We're living on different planets. If we're indeed living on the same planet, the act of eating an (unbeknownst to you) fertilized hen's egg would also be murder. This happens often enough, you've probably eaten one.
I'd enjoy to have this argument with you in real life. If you'd be the first from the con-choice (I can play word games as well) fundamentalist crowd to actually bring some real arguments to the table, it'd be a very interesting experience. On Slashdot I fear it won't be productive.
PS. I don't endorse uncritical abortions for the sole reason that it's "inconvenient" to bring a child into someone's life. It can have severe emotional consequences for the girl having the abortion, for one thing.
PSS. I know that I defined a fetus of 12 weeks of age as not being sentient. Prove me wrong.
I was born in -76, so I surely missed the start of the floppy revolution. My first IBM-clone actually had both a 5" 1/4 and a 3" 1/2 floppy drive. You probably have a point :)
:)
I always wondered why my C64-floppies always were extremely reliable in comparison, although dog slow. Probably something to do with density.
On a side note I just saw that I actually managed to use 'where' instead of 'were' in the quoted sentence as well. Shame on me
Even if you bought an expensive brand, in my experience they STILL would have a failure rate of at least 1 in 15 or so.
Anyone remembers the distinct sound a floppy drive makes when a read error is coming up? *shudder*
Floppies where for saving data that you really didn't care about at all.
I used to work at a pharmaceutical wholesale distributor, and the most expensive item we had any way you looked at it was... a vial with THREE PILLS of a homeopathic drug costing about $3000. No shit.
That's a hefty price for sugar.
We supplied them because the customers still wanted them, but I know that some among the managers really wanted to stop carrying high-priced homeopathic drugs, as they were regarded as elaborate scams.
Not being a linguist I would react to the fact that you're misusing the phrase, and infer that it's either from ignorance or intent. In either case I would be more inclined to question the validity of the point you're trying to make.
After all, the theory of evolution is just a theory, not fact, right?
Anyway, by "jogging" above I really meant "make yourself active". An overweight person should start by walking as much as possible, take the stairs instead of the elevator, and so on. If even that's strenuous due to extreme overweight he won't get a good effect, and he risks load injuries. In that case exercise biking is a good alternative, swimming is even better. The buoyancy of the water will take the strain off of his body, while still enabling him to expend that excess fat. He _will_ get almost immediate results (1-2 weeks), which is very important. It helps a lot to see that it's actually working.
I completely agree with your opinion about catching obesity in its infancy. But, even if you fail that, it's still not very difficult to correct your mistake. It's all about imposing a frame of mind upon yourself when it comes to eating habits, and it doesn't necessarily involve much of a sacrifice of anything in your lifestyle. My tall, previously overweight friend still drinks as much beer as ever, which is quite a lot.
If, however, you blame it on Nixon, you've already lost. That was the point of my first post in this thread
My friend is about 2 m high, that's 6'6". He is broad across the shoulders as well, so 100 kg is close to ideal weight for him. It looks right.
He chose his method because he didn't want it to be too much of a hazzle. I guess whatever works for you is right. 3.75 lbs a week sounds like a lot though.
For my own part I'm quite athletic, I used to exercise. I don't anymore but am generally active. I really should work out to gain a little more muscle mass.
Anyway, good luck with your program!
BTW, one of my friends lost around 40 kgs (from ~140 to 100) in about fourteen months, just by cutting snacks and pizza. He didn't exercise, but he never went hungry either. It can be done.
When I observed how easily he lost weight, with only a little discipline, I changed my standard response to "Well, you might be overweight, but don't complain about it. You're not really trying"
Apart from a few rare medical conditions, obesity comes from eating too much without getting enough exercise. I'm at a normal weight level because I don't eat whatever comes in my way, still I never go hungry.
To my overweight friends who complain about how difficult it is to lose weight I say: Replace one or both of your two hot meals a day with bread or something healthy. Drop the pack of crisps every night. If that doesn't help, start jogging.
You'll get no sympathy from me whatsoever for your weight problem, it's very fixable.
The concept of randomness is surprisingly difficult to grasp, much less explain.
Other people does it a lot better than I. The Wikipedia article is a good starting point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness#Randomnes
I think that dice are unpredictable because they represent a chaotic system, although I am out on a limb here. Check out the article on Chaos theory.
Have fun, I just finished work, and am off to have a beer or two