That's just it. The fats and proteins make you feel full.
An easy example is a steak dinner: soup, bread, then salad, then potatoes, then steak. Try it in reverse. Eat a big steak. Then see if you're still hungry for potatoes. If you finish the potatoes, go for a salad.
It's very rare that you'll feel inclined to eat the bread or the soup. The steak (or chicken, or pork, or tuna) is all your body needs to feel satiated. It's good to add vegetables to the meal, but your potatoes and bread are unnecessary.
From what I understand, if you lose weight too rapidly your body starts cutting muscle tissue as a way to slow your metabollism, even if you strength train. The muscle loss and its associated reduction in metabollism can take years of resistance training to fix.
It's only supposed to be an issue if your calorie deficit is very high, something like 750 calories a day or more. That's how yo-yo dieting happens.
"When somebody says, 'It's not the money,', it's always the money."
Forgive me for venturing far off of topic, but I beg to differ. It isn't always the money. If someone screwed me out of $300, I would gladly pay $1500 to a lawyer to get the money back. I don't care that I lost $1200 in the bargain, the point is, I don't like getting ripped off and I'll do whatever it takes to get justice/revenge.
Often the statement is, err, right on the money... but not always.
At the shop I'm at, the boss has written device drivers, tweaked compilers and filesystems, you name it... He's forgotten more about C than I'm likely to ever learn.
And I still found a loop he wrote that crashed when it tried to compare a string with a NULL string. Nobody's perfect.
Biodiesel is a great idea. We have the plant waste, we should use it productively.
But to supply all of our current petroleum needs with biodiesel, the entire damn country would have to be one fat biodiesel farm. Look up the stats, the estimates are ~~ 96% of land mass would need to be diverted to making biodiesel.
Biodiesel will help, but it won't solve our petroleum dependency by itself.
Check this article: http://www.landinstitute.org/vnews/displ ay.v/ART/2 001/03/28/3accb0712
do a search on "too much land"
The speak of ethanol, not biodiesel. If the US were to get its energy supply from ethanol, a full 50% of the continental US would have to be planted with corn. Even if biodiesel was twice as efficient, that would mean 25% of the US would have to be farmed just for fuel. I don't know if we have that much farmable land in addition to what we need for food.
Biodiesel is great, but we'd have to turn the whole country into one big deforested farm for it to work and turn half of our citizens into farmers. Any volunteers?
First, the parent didn't read the article, since they mention EVERY SINGLE ONE of his points in detail.
Just to clarify, though... a hybrid has the convenience of gassing up less often and does less environmental damage, but it still isn't cost effective. Prius mileage: 52/45, Corolla with manual, 32/40. Prius price is about $20K, Corolla about $16K. However, I think you get a $2,000 tax deduction for driving the Prius. That might save you an additional $500 in taxes.
So the price gap is effectively about $3500. If gas averages $2.00 a gallon, you have to use more $3500/$2 = 1750 extra gallons of gas with the Corolla for the Prius to be cheaper. Math: (1750 + X gallons of gas)(Corolla mileage) = (X gallons of gas)(Prius mileage). For city driving, X = 2,800. For highway driving, X = 14,000. So if you do mostly city driving, the Corolla total cost is more than the Prius after 145,600 miles. If you do mostly highway driving, the Corolla costs is more than the Prius after an astounding 630,000 miles. Most drivers do a mix of city and highway driving, so the Prius is probably not a better buy unless you intend to drive it for more than 250,000 miles.
Of course, if the price of gasoline skyrockets you have a different story. An automatic transmission on the Corolla makes it more expensive and reduces mileage a hair, so that changes things too. But generally speaking, hybrids aren't the cheap man's choice just yet.
The article alludes to what might happen. Any third world country that starts to modernize in when this fuel cell technology matures will have a huge advantage. They won't have an existing petroleum vehicle and fueling station infrastructure. They will be able to go hydrogen from scratch. Any reduction in world petroleum supplies won't effect them in the slightest.
I doubt the global energy system will ever collapse all at once - but the energy system in North America and Europe might if we don't switch off of petroleum in time. If that happens, we become the newest third world countries. Whether the collapse is fifteen or seventy-five years away, I have no idea.
Remember too, Europe has a much higher population density than the US. While it is cost effective to build a rail system in each of the major cities (and in fact, it already exists in most of them), interconnecting the US cities by rail would require a much larger investment per passenger than doing the same thing in Europe.
I disagree... my parents were religious fanatics. When I finally did have sex before marriage (at 21, no less), no screaming demons wreathed in flames came to drag me away.
And feeling guilty about jerking off? That's one thing I'd REALLY like to tell my 12 year old self to stop feeling guilty about.
I'm looking at my $390 car payment and $110 insurance payment and thinking that with a $2000 junker and another $600 a year in insurance, I'd save something like $22,000. That's more than enough to handle all repairs the car could need, plus put away for retirement AND take some extra vacations.
Then to add insult to injury, my wife insists its only fair that she get a new car too. I can't fault her logic.
Why was I so damn stupid? I don't care if my salary hits 6 figures, I'm never buying a new car again.
Dude, in my experience you have it backwards. All of my computer and engineering friends in school are doing okay in the job market. The English majors and History majors are either unemployed or working in very low pay jobs.
Now of course, my experience doesn't define any sort of general case.
My father-in-law used to work for Lockheed Martin, a major government contractor. The company competes in the free market only in theory. It's fat from government subsidies, and he's got dozens of stories of wasting millions of dollars like water.
This is exactly what we don't need. The plant where he worked switched locations (constructed entirely new buildings) 3 times in ten years. If my employer tried to do that, we'd be out of business in an eyeblink - and we have record profit.
I knew more than a few people that died from cancer. I don't know anyone, or anyone that knows anyone, that managed to be cured through changes in diet, herbal remedies, meditation, prayer, or anything else. The ones that survived caught the cancer early and had the affected areas surgically cleared.
The thing I hated (HATED) about Diablo 2 is that the skill trees weren't remotely balanced against each other. Each class had a few must-have skills, a few skills that were a complete waste, and a few so-so skills. The patches didn't fix the problem, they only changed which skills were the 'killer' ones.
For instance, in the early patches generally speaking a barbarian with whirlwind will rip through enemies faster than one with berserk, who in turn is more dangerous than one with frenzy, and all three will fare better than a guy who relies exclusively on his war shouts and potion finding abilities. Why can't all four paths be valid choices throughout the game?
A necromancer who maxes his skeletons isn't going to get nearly the mileage out of them as one who maxes his golems. A Necromancer with bone spirit and revive can crush them both. Why can't they balance out?
but in my experience there are plenty of people that don't know where C stops and C++ begins
For example... me. I picked up a CS minor in college, and the way my schedule worked, I learned C++ in a class but not C. At work, over 95% of the programs I work on are C++.
I can't remember how many times I've had compile problems because I accidentally tried a class declaration or screwed up a header in a C program. All mistakes only an idiot (i.e. me) would make.
I just want to throw in my two cents with everyone else here...
Infants diapers start to stink because of the bacteria that take residence in the lower digestive tract. My younger siblings and I had a diet of breast milk and Gerber veggies until about 11 months. I remember vividly that my little brother's diapers started reeking to high heaven long before he ate meat.
And I can't speak for rice, but lentils are a legume, aren't they? I don't know any legumes that don't cause plentiful and noxious flatulence.
I'm not trying to toss out flame bait, I'm asking an honest question. We've been force fed the 'complex carbs good, fats bad' since childhood, and most people refuse to accept even the possibility that it may be incorrect.
Unfortunately, there's no way to immediately demonstrate the health affects of different foods. So I have no quick response when I hear "that's a heart attack waiting to happen" as I'm enjoying some eggs and bacon.
You present this: the vendor must choose a software company to work with, and their best choice is Microsoft.
Duh.
But you then imply that everyone else must be excluded. Why? It won't hurt the hardware vendor to release detailed documentation to the public at large. If they do that, other software companies (open source or proprietary) can write their own compatible rendering libraries. Cost to the vendor, zero. If the other software companies produce good software, people might buy the product. The vendor benefits from increased sales and exposure.
It may not be as much sales as those from working with Microsoft, but it will be some, and at zero cost to the hardware maker. How can they lose? Why shouldn't they do it?
Re:Crichton isn't really an SF author
on
Prey
·
· Score: 1
Don't get me wrong, engineers can be arrogant...
I was surprised, and irritated, because while Crichton's characters kept touting Mother Nature's ability, it was human errors that got them killed. If Nedry hadn't picked that day to leave, there would have been no movie.
Learned to play chess at age 4. Attended the US Naval Academy, competed in fencing and marksmanship. Graduated 20th in a class of 243 with a degree in engineering. Served in the Navy until honorably discharged at rank Lieutenant because of Tuberculosis. Ran as a Democrat for representative in California on a platform of ending poverty (lost). Was active in politics as a fundraiser, speaker, and committee member throughout most of his life. His 'libertarian claptrap' was, right or wrong, the product of his disaffection with politics through years of direct personal experience. Amon his many interests and careers, he dabbled in mining, photography, and masonry. During WWII he worked with the US military on high altitude aviation suits, the precursor to modern day astronaut uniforms. Designed and built his own house while in his 50s.
I'd say it's fair for a writer that happens to be a jack of all trades, sexually open-minded, highly intelligent, libertarian, and reasonably athletic to write about characters that also have those characteristics, don't you?
Slashdot Mirror
You're right, but two hours of off again on again exertion at volleyball is still much better than two hours watching the boob tube.
If I recall correctly, Jim Fixx was a smoker too. That could have caused his problems.
That's just it. The fats and proteins make you feel full.
An easy example is a steak dinner: soup, bread, then salad, then potatoes, then steak. Try it in reverse. Eat a big steak. Then see if you're still hungry for potatoes. If you finish the potatoes, go for a salad.
It's very rare that you'll feel inclined to eat the bread or the soup. The steak (or chicken, or pork, or tuna) is all your body needs to feel satiated. It's good to add vegetables to the meal, but your potatoes and bread are unnecessary.
From what I understand, if you lose weight too rapidly your body starts cutting muscle tissue as a way to slow your metabollism, even if you strength train. The muscle loss and its associated reduction in metabollism can take years of resistance training to fix.
It's only supposed to be an issue if your calorie deficit is very high, something like 750 calories a day or more. That's how yo-yo dieting happens.
"When somebody says, 'It's not the money,', it's always the money."
Forgive me for venturing far off of topic, but I beg to differ. It isn't always the money. If someone screwed me out of $300, I would gladly pay $1500 to a lawyer to get the money back. I don't care that I lost $1200 in the bargain, the point is, I don't like getting ripped off and I'll do whatever it takes to get justice/revenge.
Often the statement is, err, right on the money... but not always.
At the shop I'm at, the boss has written device drivers, tweaked compilers and filesystems, you name it... He's forgotten more about C than I'm likely to ever learn.
And I still found a loop he wrote that crashed when it tried to compare a string with a NULL string. Nobody's perfect.
Someone brings this up every frickin' time.
Biodiesel is a great idea. We have the plant waste, we should use it productively.
But to supply all of our current petroleum needs with biodiesel, the entire damn country would have to be one fat biodiesel farm. Look up the stats, the estimates are ~~ 96% of land mass would need to be diverted to making biodiesel.
Biodiesel will help, but it won't solve our petroleum dependency by itself.
Check this article:l ay.v/ART/2 001/03/28/3accb0712
http://www.landinstitute.org/vnews/disp
do a search on "too much land"
The speak of ethanol, not biodiesel. If the US were to get its energy supply from ethanol, a full 50% of the continental US would have to be planted with corn. Even if biodiesel was twice as efficient, that would mean 25% of the US would have to be farmed just for fuel. I don't know if we have that much farmable land in addition to what we need for food.
Biodiesel is great, but we'd have to turn the whole country into one big deforested farm for it to work and turn half of our citizens into farmers. Any volunteers?
First, the parent didn't read the article, since they mention EVERY SINGLE ONE of his points in detail.
Just to clarify, though... a hybrid has the convenience of gassing up less often and does less environmental damage, but it still isn't cost effective. Prius mileage: 52/45, Corolla with manual, 32/40. Prius price is about $20K, Corolla about $16K. However, I think you get a $2,000 tax deduction for driving the Prius. That might save you an additional $500 in taxes.
So the price gap is effectively about $3500. If gas averages $2.00 a gallon, you have to use more $3500/$2 = 1750 extra gallons of gas with the Corolla for the Prius to be cheaper. Math:
(1750 + X gallons of gas)(Corolla mileage) = (X gallons of gas)(Prius mileage).
For city driving, X = 2,800. For highway driving, X = 14,000.
So if you do mostly city driving, the Corolla total cost is more than the Prius after 145,600 miles. If you do mostly highway driving, the Corolla costs is more than the Prius after an astounding 630,000 miles. Most drivers do a mix of city and highway driving, so the Prius is probably not a better buy unless you intend to drive it for more than 250,000 miles.
Of course, if the price of gasoline skyrockets you have a different story. An automatic transmission on the Corolla makes it more expensive and reduces mileage a hair, so that changes things too. But generally speaking, hybrids aren't the cheap man's choice just yet.
The article alludes to what might happen. Any third world country that starts to modernize in when this fuel cell technology matures will have a huge advantage. They won't have an existing petroleum vehicle and fueling station infrastructure. They will be able to go hydrogen from scratch. Any reduction in world petroleum supplies won't effect them in the slightest.
I doubt the global energy system will ever collapse all at once - but the energy system in North America and Europe might if we don't switch off of petroleum in time. If that happens, we become the newest third world countries. Whether the collapse is fifteen or seventy-five years away, I have no idea.
I was forced to learn Maple. Maple isn't particularly user friendly, but it's pretty powerful.
We did, in no particular order: differential equations, groups, rings, RSA encryption, McLaurent series, and matrix manipulation.
But I can't compare it to any of the other programs because it's the only one I used.
Remember too, Europe has a much higher population density than the US. While it is cost effective to build a rail system in each of the major cities (and in fact, it already exists in most of them), interconnecting the US cities by rail would require a much larger investment per passenger than doing the same thing in Europe.
I disagree... my parents were religious fanatics. When I finally did have sex before marriage (at 21, no less), no screaming demons wreathed in flames came to drag me away.
And feeling guilty about jerking off? That's one thing I'd REALLY like to tell my 12 year old self to stop feeling guilty about.
Hey hey, where were you five years ago?
I'm looking at my $390 car payment and $110 insurance payment and thinking that with a $2000 junker and another $600 a year in insurance, I'd save something like $22,000. That's more than enough to handle all repairs the car could need, plus put away for retirement AND take some extra vacations.
Then to add insult to injury, my wife insists its only fair that she get a new car too. I can't fault her logic.
Why was I so damn stupid? I don't care if my salary hits 6 figures, I'm never buying a new car again.
Dude, in my experience you have it backwards. All of my computer and engineering friends in school are doing okay in the job market. The English majors and History majors are either unemployed or working in very low pay jobs.
Now of course, my experience doesn't define any sort of general case.
My father-in-law used to work for Lockheed Martin, a major government contractor. The company competes in the free market only in theory. It's fat from government subsidies, and he's got dozens of stories of wasting millions of dollars like water.
This is exactly what we don't need. The plant where he worked switched locations (constructed entirely new buildings) 3 times in ten years. If my employer tried to do that, we'd be out of business in an eyeblink - and we have record profit.
Too bad I can't mod you up.
I knew more than a few people that died from cancer. I don't know anyone, or anyone that knows anyone, that managed to be cured through changes in diet, herbal remedies, meditation, prayer, or anything else. The ones that survived caught the cancer early and had the affected areas surgically cleared.
Nonsense.
The thing I hated (HATED) about Diablo 2 is that the skill trees weren't remotely balanced against each other. Each class had a few must-have skills, a few skills that were a complete waste, and a few so-so skills. The patches didn't fix the problem, they only changed which skills were the 'killer' ones. For instance, in the early patches generally speaking a barbarian with whirlwind will rip through enemies faster than one with berserk, who in turn is more dangerous than one with frenzy, and all three will fare better than a guy who relies exclusively on his war shouts and potion finding abilities. Why can't all four paths be valid choices throughout the game? A necromancer who maxes his skeletons isn't going to get nearly the mileage out of them as one who maxes his golems. A Necromancer with bone spirit and revive can crush them both. Why can't they balance out?
but in my experience there are plenty of people that don't know where C stops and C++ begins
For example... me. I picked up a CS minor in college, and the way my schedule worked, I learned C++ in a class but not C. At work, over 95% of the programs I work on are C++.
I can't remember how many times I've had compile problems because I accidentally tried a class declaration or screwed up a header in a C program. All mistakes only an idiot (i.e. me) would make.
I just want to throw in my two cents with everyone else here...
Infants diapers start to stink because of the bacteria that take residence in the lower digestive tract. My younger siblings and I had a diet of breast milk and Gerber veggies until about 11 months. I remember vividly that my little brother's diapers started reeking to high heaven long before he ate meat.
And I can't speak for rice, but lentils are a legume, aren't they? I don't know any legumes that don't cause plentiful and noxious flatulence.
Do you ever feel like nobody is listening?
I'm not trying to toss out flame bait, I'm asking an honest question. We've been force fed the 'complex carbs good, fats bad' since childhood, and most people refuse to accept even the possibility that it may be incorrect.
Unfortunately, there's no way to immediately demonstrate the health affects of different foods. So I have no quick response when I hear "that's a heart attack waiting to happen" as I'm enjoying some eggs and bacon.
You present this: the vendor must choose a software company to work with, and their best choice is Microsoft.
Duh.
But you then imply that everyone else must be excluded. Why? It won't hurt the hardware vendor to release detailed documentation to the public at large. If they do that, other software companies (open source or proprietary) can write their own compatible rendering libraries. Cost to the vendor, zero. If the other software companies produce good software, people might buy the product. The vendor benefits from increased sales and exposure.
It may not be as much sales as those from working with Microsoft, but it will be some, and at zero cost to the hardware maker. How can they lose? Why shouldn't they do it?
Don't get me wrong, engineers can be arrogant...
I was surprised, and irritated, because while Crichton's characters kept touting Mother Nature's ability, it was human errors that got them killed. If Nedry hadn't picked that day to leave, there would have been no movie.
Learned to play chess at age 4.
Attended the US Naval Academy, competed in fencing and marksmanship. Graduated 20th in a class of 243 with a degree in engineering.
Served in the Navy until honorably discharged at rank Lieutenant because of Tuberculosis.
Ran as a Democrat for representative in California on a platform of ending poverty (lost). Was active in politics as a fundraiser, speaker, and committee member throughout most of his life. His 'libertarian claptrap' was, right or wrong, the product of his disaffection with politics through years of direct personal experience.
Amon his many interests and careers, he dabbled in mining, photography, and masonry.
During WWII he worked with the US military on high altitude aviation suits, the precursor to modern day astronaut uniforms.
Designed and built his own house while in his 50s.
I'd say it's fair for a writer that happens to be a jack of all trades, sexually open-minded, highly intelligent, libertarian, and reasonably athletic to write about characters that also have those characteristics, don't you?
Hey hey, I got the reference...
Too bad that series has gone downhill... I loved everything up to (but not including) Sweet Myth-Tery of Life.