Well, I don't know about you, but I'm forever getting emails circulating around 20odd people. You get one reply to all, others reply back. The mail gets forwarded on to someone else as an 'FYI' and... quite soon after, it's a mess.
I like wave because it's an email that is automatically a group document - any 'replies' I or anyone else make are automatically merged into the original.
I like Wave because it's also a wiki - we have had wikis in the past, but... only a subset of people have the enthusiasm necessary to bother to edit it - where 'correcting' and email they've got open, and have that change replicate... means it's much more likely to happen.
And worst case, you just use it like you would email anyway, and nothing lost.
Indeed my only real concern with Wave is regarding privacy and auditing/control - many companies are reluctant to have a dependancy on a third party. Many are also very touchy about sensitive information being outside their control. ANd then there's no shortage of places where information _MUST_ be collated, journaled and stored because of various compliance/insider trading regulations.
Wave will make a mess of that sort of thing for a while, but I've no doubt that it has potential.
Yeah, RAID is just playing statistics - you're taking a chance that during your rebuild window, you don't get a second drive outage in the same RAID set. The bigger the RAID set, the lower the chance is, but the chance is always present. Even if you go to extremes like triple mirror, remote site replicas... the chance of a compound 6 drive failure exists - it's just the odds are phenomenally low, that at that point you're far more likely that what's happened is that a plane has fallen out of the sky onto your datacentre instead.
The early precursers to trousers were separate items - one per leg. So you would have a 'pair of hose'... which gradually evolved into a pair of breeches, and a pair of trousers (or pants).
Technically, that means each 'leg' of your underpants counts as separate, it's only convenience that has them being joined up.
A brassiere on the other hand is a much more recent item of clothing - but it evolved from a single piece 'chest wrap' that held both breasts in place - there was never a separate item, one for each breast - and so it never became a 'pair' of anything.
You would seem to be correct. But I think that's less about happiness, than about how one defines success. Success is how much you exceed expectations by. Your expectations are set by looking at your 'peers'. Therefore to be 'successful' you need to be doing better than your peers are. Successful in turn, tends to promote feelings of contentment and happiness, because people feel that 'things could be worse'. More enlightened will realise what utter hogwash this is, but most will still go to work tomorrow, to work for a crust, to support their family/buy their house anyway.
Thing is, it's not actually all that hard to do. It just requires a bit of overcoming of the initial 'I don't want to interact' antipathy. If you're anything like me, you've been introverted for a lot of your life, because... well, people just suck. It's true, the do. Everyone is in some degree an arsehole. That doesn't mean you can't like them, nor does it mean you can't appreciate the positive parts of them. There's relatively few who are outright poison in terms of relationships.
To become a social hub, all you really need is to be able to take an interest in everyone else. Start off by faking it, but once you've done that a bit, you've already got the level of background knowledge that you don't need to any more - it's basically the same as 'geeking' only this time the subject of your study is people and social dynamics. Accept the idiosyncracies of people without passing judgement, much like you would with a hardware platform. Take the time to figure out what they're good and bad at, and keep up to date with their revision history. From there, all it takes is a bit of spreading of invites when you choose to do something - e.g. if you feel like going to the cinema, circulate the notion - include time, venue and film, and invite people to turn up if they're interested. People will, and suddenly you're a social hub, and that's something that'll take fairly minimal effort to maintain.
Peer pressure isn't a new phenomenon. Groups mutually conform, as part of their group identity. Which can be mutually positive, and can be mutually destructive. Particularly drinking/drug use tends to increase in much the same way.
I've also run into the 'domino wave' of couples getting married as well - you seem to get several over the course of about a year, and the same with dropping sproglets.
Hmm, there is a difference though between twitter and email - twitter's more of a 'broadcast' - I might mail a party organizer to say 'sorry won't make it' but the rest of my circle of friends who might or might not already be attending? *shrug*. Put up a 'broadcast' on a blog (or twitter) and then people who care enough to read it will know, and those that don't... well, don't care.
I think it's a very elegant solution, because it encourages people to drivel ON TWITTER rather than anywhere else. And thus I can minimise my drivel by just not reading twitter at all.
At least, until they find the '... and replicate to my blog' functionality, which is an internet-face-stabbing-offense.
Amusingly, it seems that Adams had read that one too - I'm fairly sure there's a reference to 'something naaasty in the woodshed' in one of the Dirk Gently books.
Oh that's easy. It's another cash in, hitch hiker's guide labeled book. It will sell more copies because of that, than some talentless hack's debut novel will.
Most MMORPGS aren't. EVE is. It's a very strategic game, it's just not often recognised as such because of the viewpoint of each pilot - you're controlling 'your' ship, not 'an army'.
But what's actually happening is you're getting:
Resource management - both in 'raw finances' - making isks, buying stuff with them wisely (There's very definite diminishing returns on price vs. performance - a 5bn isk fit will lose to 2 100mil isk ships).
Logistics - getting spare ships in place, spare fittings to allow you tactical/strategic flexibility.
Intelligence - scouting your opponent, know what their fielding and flying. Hiding your strength, watching for traps whilst preparing your own.
Unit variance - most pilots can fly a variety of ships - picking what to fly, and how to fit it. That gives a wide range of potential gang configurations.
Unit veterancy - experienced pilots do better than inexperienced ones. Some pilots handle different combat scenarios better or worse.
Unit Morale - related to veterancy, but you can break the morale of an opponent in a strategic or tactical context.
Command and control - a fleet/squad commander will give directives, and units may do what they're asked. A good leader does well at this, a bad leader, badly.
Propaganda - after winning your battle, how do you represent it to everyone else? Chestbeat for a big win, or be magnanimous about it? Get the knife in and 'crush' them, or leave them to withdraw? Same with a loss...
Territorial control - beat them down, take their stuff, and use their 'turf' to finance your next campaign. Just don't expect the 'next guy' to leave you alone whilst you do.
Politics - friends and enemies in the personal, corporate or alliance scale, which alter greatly the viability of a strategic situation.
Corruption, spying, betrayal - no where has a spying or corruption mechanic like EVE does - simply because 'fighting dirty' is a good way to win. But that can back fire on you - be it politically or propaganda, when no one is prepared to trust you in future.
I really love it for that very reason - skill advancement is real time, not grindy, and the combat system is very strategic in nature - the 'tactical' bits, each of the pilots controls what he's doing in line with a general strategy from the fleet commander. (Or not, as the case may be.
Crowd control makes the PvP experience frustrating, therefore any MMO with a PvP element needs to think hard about it. There is nothing more annoying than getting locked down and ganked, even if on a 'battlefield' level, that ends up balanced (be it through equal amounts on both sides, or just the opportunity cost of fielding the crowd control in the first place)
You're quite correct - if it's fun to play, who cares? Left 4 Dead sort of enshrines this somewhat - infected are not 'balanced' compared to 'survivors' but they're both fun to play.
Problem is, in most games 'fun to play' also correlates to 'not getting whupped, every single time you fight'. Being mediocre at everything, no matter how awesome your are a player, really isn't as much fun as being an awesome player with an awesome character, and killing everything that moves.
Skill gains have always been offline as well as online. It's one of the things I've liked best about EVE since day one - the fact that I am 'levelling up' regardless of actual hours in game, and thus don't fall behind massively the people who don't have a day job.
But the 'won't ever catch up' isn't as much a problem as you might imagine - I mean, you'll never have the same skillpoint total as a really old character. But at the same time, it takes a relatively short amount of time to be competitive with them - each ship only has a subset of skills that apply to it, and the last 80% of training time, provides 20% of the benefit. So what happens in practice, is that 'veteran' players are the ones that can fly a lot of different shipclasses with high effective skillpoints (not necessarily well - I've seen many 'veterans' getting slaughtered by newbies who have a better idea of game mechanics) but not actually any better than anyone else.
Similarly, EVE is heavy on 'strategic thought' - maxed skills give an advantage in a straight fight, but in EVE you don't really get straight fights - in practice, higher skills are offset by the fact that you brought a knife to a nuke fight. There's still a correlation where older playerse know what they're doing more, and thus do better at it, but... that's not actually related to skillpoints, as much as having more 'combat time' - something available to anyone.
And then you add in how EVE is much more often a game about gang combat, and the differences go out the window - it matters much less your hard sps, and much more how good a team player you are - be that supporting member, fleet commander, scout, light tackler, heavy tackler, firepower role... well, of these it's only a firepower role that really increases significantly with character age, and even then it's by only by about a factor of 2. (Which is a lot, but it's not so much that it cannot be overcome)
I'm an 'old player' (5 years or so) with a lot of SPs. I can fly ships from 3 races at a skill level I consider to be 'good' but in any given ship, I'm no better at flying it (sp wise at least) than a 6 month old character. I'm basically 10 separate '6 month old' characters stuck together (ok, one of them might be a year old).
It depends on what style of game you're playing. In WoW, I'd say not so much. In some games though, that's acceptable - something like EVE, you have a choice of ships and fits. Part of the battle is picking something out that suits what you're trying to achieve, and then finding the 'right fight' for it - it's a strategic 'pre fight' element, and I consider that entirely reasonable - there are some ship classes that are just useless against certain opposition, but when you can choose something else instead, then it's an intel/information/logistics battle, prior to the actual fight.
Furthermore, spreadsheets are NOT databases, and anyone who uses them as such is an idiot. They don't work for managing host configuration, because host configuration has many to many relationships. Y'know, stuff like having two IP addresses, or maybe dual NICs?
Of course, my employer does actually do this, but we REALLY should know better, because it's stupid.
Followed closely by: Make machine hostnames unique over the lifespan of a server, and don't recycle them. If you need to resolve them by a 'name' then add an alias for whatever service you're connecting to. Move the services around as you need to, and have 'mail.yourorg.com' what people connect to for mail, not really caring if it's crocus, rosebud or primrose they're talking to.
Not true. Fat can and is metabolised when you're exercising. What's important is the intensity of the exercise. If you're on light to moderate intensity exercise, you're metabolising fat as you go - your body is conserving the 'fast access' sugar in your blood stream, in case a lion tries to eat you. If you ramp it up to high intensity exercise, you end up switching to using the sugars because - as you say - fat can't be broken down fast enough at that point.
It's one of the mistakes I was making when trying to exercise really hard to lose weight - I was failing because I was working too hard, using up my blood sugar in a fairly short amount of time, and collapsing exhausted. (at least, metaphorically). Burned a few hundred calories maybe, but not very much in practice, despite feeling like i'd worked out really hard. (Because I had).
If you think about it - you can walk 30 miles, almost continuously, over the course of a day. You can sprint flat out a couple of hundred meters. In terms of calories per hour, the sprinting comes out ahead, but in terms of calories per day, walking wins.
So I hooked myself up with a heart rate monitor, and make sure I do most of my exercise at about 70% max heart rate, with maybe the odd sprint to 90%+. But I still can't sustain 90%+ MHR exercise for more than a few minutes (burning a couple of hundred calories, maybe), where I can do 70% MHR for an hour or more, and use 1000+ calories whilst doing so.
Some people are good at metabolising whatever they eat. They're quite easy to tell, they're the ones that are a stable weight regardless of what they're consuming. Others... not so much. As long as your body is good at processing calories in, and turning them into calories out, then... it doesn't matter if you're a 2000 calories a day, or a 5000 calories a day sort of person.
Not that simple I'm afraid. Or rather, it is in the literal sense. But practically speaking, your body adjusts to the amount of available fuel - if you're starving yourself, then what will happen is your body will conserve energy so you can live as long as possible. What will happen then, is you find yourself exhausted and listless, and using very little energy, so not actually losing weight, despite cutting back on your intake.
Similarly if you eat raw sugar, you get a lot of calories very efficiently, but your metabolism will 'flare up' and shut down again, much like a fire if you douse it with petrol.
It's not really about self discipline at all - any more than anorexia is a good way to lose weight - it's all about getting enough food and nutrients to have your body working efficently, and... oddly enough, that is pretty much what dietician will suggest as a 'balanced' diet.
I'm losing weight at the moment - and am actually eating _more_ than a 'normal' amount each day, because I'm working out quite a lot. It's much easier to maintain a 500 calorie deficit if your daily usage is 4000 or so, than if it's the 2500 'no exercise' average.
I'm playing EVE to have fun. I make isks, I go out PvPing, and generally if I'm good at it, 300mil will last me a good long time (it doesn't, I tend to buy new toys quite regularly). I don't see that as much of a problem though - the reason PvP is fun, is because you're gambling - you're gambling with what you're flying, vs. whether you're better than them. You're 'buying up' an edge, by T2/faction fitting it, but stand to lose more if you do actually lose. But... that cuts both ways.
If you're only after the PvE content, then sure - not a problem. PvE in EVE is basically a profitmaking industry unless you're an idiot. But... it really is missing the point of the whole game IMO.
The idea anyway, is not that you lose your fight, it's that you win. I think we're all agreed that winning is good, and winning when it _matters_ is better.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I don't know about you, but I'm forever getting emails circulating around 20odd people. You get one reply to all, others reply back. The mail gets forwarded on to someone else as an 'FYI' and ... quite soon after, it's a mess.
... only a subset of people have the enthusiasm necessary to bother to edit it - where 'correcting' and email they've got open, and have that change replicate ... means it's much more likely to happen.
I like wave because it's an email that is automatically a group document - any 'replies' I or anyone else make are automatically merged into the original.
I like Wave because it's also a wiki - we have had wikis in the past, but
And worst case, you just use it like you would email anyway, and nothing lost.
Indeed my only real concern with Wave is regarding privacy and auditing/control - many companies are reluctant to have a dependancy on a third party. Many are also very touchy about sensitive information being outside their control. ANd then there's no shortage of places where information _MUST_ be collated, journaled and stored because of various compliance/insider trading regulations.
Wave will make a mess of that sort of thing for a while, but I've no doubt that it has potential.
Is that just an off the cuff remark, or is something like that actually available/in existance? Because it sounds like an interesting idea ...
Yeah, RAID is just playing statistics - you're taking a chance that during your rebuild window, you don't get a second drive outage in the same RAID set. The bigger the RAID set, the lower the chance is, but the chance is always present. Even if you go to extremes like triple mirror, remote site replicas... the chance of a compound 6 drive failure exists - it's just the odds are phenomenally low, that at that point you're far more likely that what's happened is that a plane has fallen out of the sky onto your datacentre instead.
The early precursers to trousers were separate items - one per leg. So you would have a 'pair of hose' ... which gradually evolved into a pair of breeches, and a pair of trousers (or pants).
Technically, that means each 'leg' of your underpants counts as separate, it's only convenience that has them being joined up.
A brassiere on the other hand is a much more recent item of clothing - but it evolved from a single piece 'chest wrap' that held both breasts in place - there was never a separate item, one for each breast - and so it never became a 'pair' of anything.
You would seem to be correct. But I think that's less about happiness, than about how one defines success. Success is how much you exceed expectations by. Your expectations are set by looking at your 'peers'. Therefore to be 'successful' you need to be doing better than your peers are. Successful in turn, tends to promote feelings of contentment and happiness, because people feel that 'things could be worse'. More enlightened will realise what utter hogwash this is, but most will still go to work tomorrow, to work for a crust, to support their family/buy their house anyway.
Thing is, it's not actually all that hard to do. It just requires a bit of overcoming of the initial 'I don't want to interact' antipathy. If you're anything like me, you've been introverted for a lot of your life, because ... well, people just suck. It's true, the do. Everyone is in some degree an arsehole. That doesn't mean you can't like them, nor does it mean you can't appreciate the positive parts of them. There's relatively few who are outright poison in terms of relationships.
To become a social hub, all you really need is to be able to take an interest in everyone else. Start off by faking it, but once you've done that a bit, you've already got the level of background knowledge that you don't need to any more - it's basically the same as 'geeking' only this time the subject of your study is people and social dynamics. Accept the idiosyncracies of people without passing judgement, much like you would with a hardware platform. Take the time to figure out what they're good and bad at, and keep up to date with their revision history. From there, all it takes is a bit of spreading of invites when you choose to do something - e.g. if you feel like going to the cinema, circulate the notion - include time, venue and film, and invite people to turn up if they're interested. People will, and suddenly you're a social hub, and that's something that'll take fairly minimal effort to maintain.
Peer pressure isn't a new phenomenon. Groups mutually conform, as part of their group identity. Which can be mutually positive, and can be mutually destructive. Particularly drinking/drug use tends to increase in much the same way.
I've also run into the 'domino wave' of couples getting married as well - you seem to get several over the course of about a year, and the same with dropping sproglets.
If Mexico were a continent, you might have a point.
Hmm, there is a difference though between twitter and email - twitter's more of a 'broadcast' - I might mail a party organizer to say 'sorry won't make it' but the rest of my circle of friends who might or might not already be attending? *shrug*. Put up a 'broadcast' on a blog (or twitter) and then people who care enough to read it will know, and those that don't ... well, don't care.
I think it's a very elegant solution, because it encourages people to drivel ON TWITTER rather than anywhere else. And thus I can minimise my drivel by just not reading twitter at all.
At least, until they find the '... and replicate to my blog' functionality, which is an internet-face-stabbing-offense.
Or maybe they're the smart ones, who've figured out what's _actually_ important.
http://peep.sourceforge.net/intro.html Turns network activity into 'audio', but clearly that's illegal too :)
Amusingly, it seems that Adams had read that one too - I'm fairly sure there's a reference to 'something naaasty in the woodshed' in one of the Dirk Gently books.
Oh that's easy. It's another cash in, hitch hiker's guide labeled book. It will sell more copies because of that, than some talentless hack's debut novel will.
But what's actually happening is you're getting:
Resource management - both in 'raw finances' - making isks, buying stuff with them wisely (There's very definite diminishing returns on price vs. performance - a 5bn isk fit will lose to 2 100mil isk ships).
Logistics - getting spare ships in place, spare fittings to allow you tactical/strategic flexibility.
Intelligence - scouting your opponent, know what their fielding and flying. Hiding your strength, watching for traps whilst preparing your own.
Unit variance - most pilots can fly a variety of ships - picking what to fly, and how to fit it. That gives a wide range of potential gang configurations.
Unit veterancy - experienced pilots do better than inexperienced ones. Some pilots handle different combat scenarios better or worse.
Unit Morale - related to veterancy, but you can break the morale of an opponent in a strategic or tactical context.
Command and control - a fleet/squad commander will give directives, and units may do what they're asked. A good leader does well at this, a bad leader, badly.
Propaganda - after winning your battle, how do you represent it to everyone else? Chestbeat for a big win, or be magnanimous about it? Get the knife in and 'crush' them, or leave them to withdraw? Same with a loss...
Territorial control - beat them down, take their stuff, and use their 'turf' to finance your next campaign. Just don't expect the 'next guy' to leave you alone whilst you do.
Politics - friends and enemies in the personal, corporate or alliance scale, which alter greatly the viability of a strategic situation.
Corruption, spying, betrayal - no where has a spying or corruption mechanic like EVE does - simply because 'fighting dirty' is a good way to win. But that can back fire on you - be it politically or propaganda, when no one is prepared to trust you in future.
I really love it for that very reason - skill advancement is real time, not grindy, and the combat system is very strategic in nature - the 'tactical' bits, each of the pilots controls what he's doing in line with a general strategy from the fleet commander. (Or not, as the case may be.
Crowd control makes the PvP experience frustrating, therefore any MMO with a PvP element needs to think hard about it. There is nothing more annoying than getting locked down and ganked, even if on a 'battlefield' level, that ends up balanced (be it through equal amounts on both sides, or just the opportunity cost of fielding the crowd control in the first place)
You're quite correct - if it's fun to play, who cares? Left 4 Dead sort of enshrines this somewhat - infected are not 'balanced' compared to 'survivors' but they're both fun to play.
Problem is, in most games 'fun to play' also correlates to 'not getting whupped, every single time you fight'. Being mediocre at everything, no matter how awesome your are a player, really isn't as much fun as being an awesome player with an awesome character, and killing everything that moves.
Skill gains have always been offline as well as online. It's one of the things I've liked best about EVE since day one - the fact that I am 'levelling up' regardless of actual hours in game, and thus don't fall behind massively the people who don't have a day job. ... that's not actually related to skillpoints, as much as having more 'combat time' - something available to anyone.
But the 'won't ever catch up' isn't as much a problem as you might imagine - I mean, you'll never have the same skillpoint total as a really old character. But at the same time, it takes a relatively short amount of time to be competitive with them - each ship only has a subset of skills that apply to it, and the last 80% of training time, provides 20% of the benefit. So what happens in practice, is that 'veteran' players are the ones that can fly a lot of different shipclasses with high effective skillpoints (not necessarily well - I've seen many 'veterans' getting slaughtered by newbies who have a better idea of game mechanics) but not actually any better than anyone else.
Similarly, EVE is heavy on 'strategic thought' - maxed skills give an advantage in a straight fight, but in EVE you don't really get straight fights - in practice, higher skills are offset by the fact that you brought a knife to a nuke fight. There's still a correlation where older playerse know what they're doing more, and thus do better at it, but
And then you add in how EVE is much more often a game about gang combat, and the differences go out the window - it matters much less your hard sps, and much more how good a team player you are - be that supporting member, fleet commander, scout, light tackler, heavy tackler, firepower role... well, of these it's only a firepower role that really increases significantly with character age, and even then it's by only by about a factor of 2. (Which is a lot, but it's not so much that it cannot be overcome)
I'm an 'old player' (5 years or so) with a lot of SPs. I can fly ships from 3 races at a skill level I consider to be 'good' but in any given ship, I'm no better at flying it (sp wise at least) than a 6 month old character. I'm basically 10 separate '6 month old' characters stuck together (ok, one of them might be a year old).
Where by 'enough years' you're talking somewhere in the region of 25 :).
It depends on what style of game you're playing. In WoW, I'd say not so much. In some games though, that's acceptable - something like EVE, you have a choice of ships and fits. Part of the battle is picking something out that suits what you're trying to achieve, and then finding the 'right fight' for it - it's a strategic 'pre fight' element, and I consider that entirely reasonable - there are some ship classes that are just useless against certain opposition, but when you can choose something else instead, then it's an intel/information/logistics battle, prior to the actual fight.
Furthermore, spreadsheets are NOT databases, and anyone who uses them as such is an idiot. They don't work for managing host configuration, because host configuration has many to many relationships. Y'know, stuff like having two IP addresses, or maybe dual NICs?
Of course, my employer does actually do this, but we REALLY should know better, because it's stupid.
Followed closely by: Make machine hostnames unique over the lifespan of a server, and don't recycle them. If you need to resolve them by a 'name' then add an alias for whatever service you're connecting to. Move the services around as you need to, and have 'mail.yourorg.com' what people connect to for mail, not really caring if it's crocus, rosebud or primrose they're talking to.
Not true. Fat can and is metabolised when you're exercising. What's important is the intensity of the exercise. If you're on light to moderate intensity exercise, you're metabolising fat as you go - your body is conserving the 'fast access' sugar in your blood stream, in case a lion tries to eat you. If you ramp it up to high intensity exercise, you end up switching to using the sugars because - as you say - fat can't be broken down fast enough at that point.
It's one of the mistakes I was making when trying to exercise really hard to lose weight - I was failing because I was working too hard, using up my blood sugar in a fairly short amount of time, and collapsing exhausted. (at least, metaphorically). Burned a few hundred calories maybe, but not very much in practice, despite feeling like i'd worked out really hard. (Because I had).
If you think about it - you can walk 30 miles, almost continuously, over the course of a day. You can sprint flat out a couple of hundred meters. In terms of calories per hour, the sprinting comes out ahead, but in terms of calories per day, walking wins.
So I hooked myself up with a heart rate monitor, and make sure I do most of my exercise at about 70% max heart rate, with maybe the odd sprint to 90%+. But I still can't sustain 90%+ MHR exercise for more than a few minutes (burning a couple of hundred calories, maybe), where I can do 70% MHR for an hour or more, and use 1000+ calories whilst doing so.
Some people are good at metabolising whatever they eat. They're quite easy to tell, they're the ones that are a stable weight regardless of what they're consuming. Others ... not so much. As long as your body is good at processing calories in, and turning them into calories out, then ... it doesn't matter if you're a 2000 calories a day, or a 5000 calories a day sort of person.
Not that simple I'm afraid. Or rather, it is in the literal sense. But practically speaking, your body adjusts to the amount of available fuel - if you're starving yourself, then what will happen is your body will conserve energy so you can live as long as possible. What will happen then, is you find yourself exhausted and listless, and using very little energy, so not actually losing weight, despite cutting back on your intake. ... oddly enough, that is pretty much what dietician will suggest as a 'balanced' diet.
Similarly if you eat raw sugar, you get a lot of calories very efficiently, but your metabolism will 'flare up' and shut down again, much like a fire if you douse it with petrol.
It's not really about self discipline at all - any more than anorexia is a good way to lose weight - it's all about getting enough food and nutrients to have your body working efficently, and
I'm losing weight at the moment - and am actually eating _more_ than a 'normal' amount each day, because I'm working out quite a lot. It's much easier to maintain a 500 calorie deficit if your daily usage is 4000 or so, than if it's the 2500 'no exercise' average.
I'm playing EVE to have fun. I make isks, I go out PvPing, and generally if I'm good at it, 300mil will last me a good long time (it doesn't, I tend to buy new toys quite regularly). I don't see that as much of a problem though - the reason PvP is fun, is because you're gambling - you're gambling with what you're flying, vs. whether you're better than them. You're 'buying up' an edge, by T2/faction fitting it, but stand to lose more if you do actually lose. But ... that cuts both ways. ... it really is missing the point of the whole game IMO.
If you're only after the PvE content, then sure - not a problem. PvE in EVE is basically a profitmaking industry unless you're an idiot. But
The idea anyway, is not that you lose your fight, it's that you win. I think we're all agreed that winning is good, and winning when it _matters_ is better.