Personally, I think it's a very good rule of thumb that if you can't take good quality notes and also understand the material being presented, then the teacher is doing something wrong - moving too fast, focusing on the wrong kind of examples, or slapping vast quantities of text on the screen. The medium is secondary, but in general chalk and talk is hard to beat if it's well done.
There's quite clearly something deeper going on here given how trivial the technical solution is and how easily it could be implemented on either side. Murdoch would like to be compensated, by Google, for every incoming eyeball they deliver. He's got no interest in actually blocking a huge swathe of his audience per se.
On the other hand, conditions in overseas sweatshops are so notoriously dangerous and unpleasant that it seems hard to believe the opportunities leave workers better off on balance.
If you've never picked through a rubbish dump for your dinner then, no, you probably don't understand why anyone would want to work in a sweatshop.
Please. It wll take thirty thousand years before we evolve any significant difference in our characteristics as a species. Now take your ignorant views elsewhere, Stormfront, maybe.
Bear in mind when you're that size to start with, you carry a massive amount of undigested food in your intestines. So the chances are the actual amount of fat lost was closer to 75-80lbs, at a guess. Swimming runs about 600 calories per hour, and it also kicks your metabolism up for the rest of the day. Add to the fact he was effectively on an unsustainable starvation diet, it looks entirely achievable.
It won't change your metabolism that much unless you build some very serious muscles. Also, bear in mind that bio-electrical impedance monitors are very innaccurate - if you use one, the best approach is to take daily readings and keep a moving average.
You would probably improve your results if you started keeping a log of your food intake and calories - if you do this for a couple of months, even estimating regularly, you will have a much clearer idea of what's going in and out. In practice, you don't actually have to change much to induce a mild calorie deficit that will get your weight trending downwards over a year or two.
No, that is psuedoscience made up by people who claim to be on a diet but actually do not run a calorie deficit. They explain their continued failure to lose weight by non-existant changes in their metabolism. Only one thing causes weight loss: a mild calorie deficit over a long period of time. Whether you achieve that through exercise, diet, or both is up to you, but any combination is possible, though not necessarily optimal.
Don't talk about elite athletes as if they do the same things the rest of us should be doing. They are aiming to achieve very specific ends and blindly doing what they do is a recipe for disaster.
Actually, muscles consume very few calories compared to other major organs in your body. Your brain runs at about 100 watts, you liver slightly less. Resting muscle burns very little (though, to be fair, more than the same volume of fat cells;)
Economic growth has no direct correlation with population growth (with the caveat that many developing countries currently have a bonanza of young, working age people with small elderly and child populations, which will of course help). The reason we continue to have economic growth is because people continually invent new products and services for others to buy. There was no market for iPhone UI designers fifty years ago. There's no market now for teledildonics. Do you think there will be?
It's human nature to assume that economics and the Western economy are some sort of conspiracy or evil plan to keep the peons down. Malice, ascribe, incompetence, etc.
Actually, if you plot GDP per head against fertility rates, there is a statistically significant uptick as GDP/head increases. The US is a particularly strong example, but there are a fair number of countries where this holds true, and there is no obvious cultural or religious correlation.
You're right, it seems pretty likely the largest technology company on the planet wouldn't have anybody working for them who might just have the silly idea one day that there are one or two naughty people out there who might abuse their lovely new technology. You should pass your insights on to them, I bet they'd be really grateful.
Showing leadership in a flagship model of emissions management to the rest of the world? Having a large, robust, functional carbon-trading market when the rest of the world catches up? In the most innovative and diverse economy on earth, creating a system which will result in innovation and progress in any energy related technology? Sounds like a total waste of time to me.
Oh dear. The reason the system works, that we can have exponential growth, is that money has no value. You can't eat it, fuck it, or wear it. We seem as a whole to be under the misapprehension that the economy is a linear system, with outputs that respond in some sensible way to perturbations of input and where if we just get the market players to behave in certain ways everything will play nicely. The world economy is in fact a chaotic system with unpredictable reactions which never reacts the same way twice. It acts as a linear system over small periods of time, but in the long term you cannot safely bet your shirt on it except in certain very broad ways.
Sure, but for the level of argument of the poster I originally replied to, it's a good starting point because it's an accessible idea. Designing your ideal society isn't very easy, but oddly enough everyone has an opinion. The weird thing is I'm the only one who's right. Funny old world, but you have to laugh, eh?
Were they? Do you actually know how a substantial number of people in the US lived in the 1950s? I can assure you it wasn't just fine. As for bums off the streets, if you believe that any oik can run a company, I do invite you to have a go. It demands a fairly rigorous skillset to do well, regardless of what you may have heard. The reason CEOs are well paid is because there is a strong market demand for quality leaders, and going by the numbers, the supply is less than the demand. Lastly, it might astonish you to learn that if you increase income taxes, other benefits will mushroom, like guaranteed stock options with locked in prices, or other magical instruments that are not in fact classed as income.
Slashdot Mirror
Force them to think, even if it makes them cry. They'll thank you eventually.
Personally, I think it's a very good rule of thumb that if you can't take good quality notes and also understand the material being presented, then the teacher is doing something wrong - moving too fast, focusing on the wrong kind of examples, or slapping vast quantities of text on the screen. The medium is secondary, but in general chalk and talk is hard to beat if it's well done.
There's quite clearly something deeper going on here given how trivial the technical solution is and how easily it could be implemented on either side. Murdoch would like to be compensated, by Google, for every incoming eyeball they deliver. He's got no interest in actually blocking a huge swathe of his audience per se.
~Barbara
If you've never picked through a rubbish dump for your dinner then, no, you probably don't understand why anyone would want to work in a sweatshop.
Re electric cooking - have you ever tried an induction hob? Worth a look if you haven't.
Please. It wll take thirty thousand years before we evolve any significant difference in our characteristics as a species. Now take your ignorant views elsewhere, Stormfront, maybe.
Bear in mind when you're that size to start with, you carry a massive amount of undigested food in your intestines. So the chances are the actual amount of fat lost was closer to 75-80lbs, at a guess. Swimming runs about 600 calories per hour, and it also kicks your metabolism up for the rest of the day. Add to the fact he was effectively on an unsustainable starvation diet, it looks entirely achievable.
Not hanging around on /. would be a good start :p
You would probably improve your results if you started keeping a log of your food intake and calories - if you do this for a couple of months, even estimating regularly, you will have a much clearer idea of what's going in and out. In practice, you don't actually have to change much to induce a mild calorie deficit that will get your weight trending downwards over a year or two.
No, that is psuedoscience made up by people who claim to be on a diet but actually do not run a calorie deficit. They explain their continued failure to lose weight by non-existant changes in their metabolism. Only one thing causes weight loss: a mild calorie deficit over a long period of time. Whether you achieve that through exercise, diet, or both is up to you, but any combination is possible, though not necessarily optimal.
Don't talk about elite athletes as if they do the same things the rest of us should be doing. They are aiming to achieve very specific ends and blindly doing what they do is a recipe for disaster.
Actually, muscles consume very few calories compared to other major organs in your body. Your brain runs at about 100 watts, you liver slightly less. Resting muscle burns very little (though, to be fair, more than the same volume of fat cells ;)
Check out the price of beer first though. They didn't get everything *quite* right...
Maybe you should take this advce when reading other people's posts, too ;)
It's human nature to assume that economics and the Western economy are some sort of conspiracy or evil plan to keep the peons down. Malice, ascribe, incompetence, etc.
Actually, if you plot GDP per head against fertility rates, there is a statistically significant uptick as GDP/head increases. The US is a particularly strong example, but there are a fair number of countries where this holds true, and there is no obvious cultural or religious correlation.
You're right, it seems pretty likely the largest technology company on the planet wouldn't have anybody working for them who might just have the silly idea one day that there are one or two naughty people out there who might abuse their lovely new technology. You should pass your insights on to them, I bet they'd be really grateful.
Showing leadership in a flagship model of emissions management to the rest of the world? Having a large, robust, functional carbon-trading market when the rest of the world catches up? In the most innovative and diverse economy on earth, creating a system which will result in innovation and progress in any energy related technology? Sounds like a total waste of time to me.
Oh dear. The reason the system works, that we can have exponential growth, is that money has no value. You can't eat it, fuck it, or wear it. We seem as a whole to be under the misapprehension that the economy is a linear system, with outputs that respond in some sensible way to perturbations of input and where if we just get the market players to behave in certain ways everything will play nicely. The world economy is in fact a chaotic system with unpredictable reactions which never reacts the same way twice. It acts as a linear system over small periods of time, but in the long term you cannot safely bet your shirt on it except in certain very broad ways.
Hey, Steven Spielberg has made the odd bad movie too, ya know.
On a totally irrelevant note, what's going on with your movie? You've been editing it for as long as I can remember :p
Sure, but for the level of argument of the poster I originally replied to, it's a good starting point because it's an accessible idea. Designing your ideal society isn't very easy, but oddly enough everyone has an opinion. The weird thing is I'm the only one who's right. Funny old world, but you have to laugh, eh?
Well, shit.
Were they? Do you actually know how a substantial number of people in the US lived in the 1950s? I can assure you it wasn't just fine. As for bums off the streets, if you believe that any oik can run a company, I do invite you to have a go. It demands a fairly rigorous skillset to do well, regardless of what you may have heard. The reason CEOs are well paid is because there is a strong market demand for quality leaders, and going by the numbers, the supply is less than the demand. Lastly, it might astonish you to learn that if you increase income taxes, other benefits will mushroom, like guaranteed stock options with locked in prices, or other magical instruments that are not in fact classed as income.