The Unix approach is that one tool does a single job and does it well. For example: tar bundles mutiple files into one, compress makes files smaller and gimp does photo editing.
Hmm. Of course, GNU/tar presented us with tar xzvf which bundles and compresses in one step. Its not like tar xc - | gzip -c is that much harder, but I've never seen anyone use it when the z option is available. But thanks for playing.
And as for photo editing, doing lightweight drawing is a very, very frequent desire of photo editors (myself included, come to think of it). Adding some good looking text as a copyright statement, for example, or drawing a circle to highlight an area. Very, very common "photo editing" requirements.
There's a correlation. Most people who have high BMI are also not in very good shape. Hell, look around you. Better yet, go somewhere else (like Europe) for a couple of weeks. Then come back here and look around. Then we'll talk. Americans, as a general rule, are fat. Some people aren't. Most people are. Its totally not PC, but its a fact.
I'm 5'7" and weigh 175 lbs. This puts me at a BMI of 27.4. 30 is "obese". I'm almost in the "obese" category (well over the "overweight" lower limit).
Okay, fair enough. An awful lot of people are in this category.
However, I am in tremendous shape. I run over 3 miles a day (2 at 6:30 before I have breakfast), lift weights 5 days a week, have a resting heart rate better than the average human on Earth, and play tennis twice a week for nearly 2 hours.
And I run 40-50 miles a week, and I'm still barely below being overweight. Which is true - I could easily stand to lose 5-10 pounds. Its easy to be in good shape, and still be overweight. And 3 miles a day is not "tremendous." Its better than most, I'll happily grant you that, but still.
However, according to BMI, I am overweight. Draw your own conclusions.
Marathons have a weight category for heavy runners, many of whom are way fast. Some under three hours. Being overweight doesn't mean you're not fit. BMI does not measure fitness.
A caliper test is also not necessarily accurate - just for grins, I had mine done at three gyms in one day, and ended up with an 8% variation. As in 8% bodyfat, not that they were within 8% of each other. As far as I can tell its almost completely dependent on the skill level of the person performing the test, as opposed to the other methods, x-rays, et cetera.
I do see your point, but I take issue with the government using BMI to state that 30% of Americans are overweight. While I was in the Army quite a few guys in my unit had to be tested for body fat after each weigh in because of high BMI and we were all in our 20's (well under the national average).
I'd like to believe that the armed forces would have a fairly high percentage of people who fell into the very fit and muscled category, personally...
At 225, I would be a VERY healthy weight, but BMI says I'm a lard-ass. That scale needs to go, and we need to focus on PERCENT BODY FAT.
Two points.
First, BMI is effective for a large percentage of the population. And by large I'm not making a bad joke, I mean 95% plus. Not 100%.
Second, actual body fat testing (reliable stuff, not Tanita scales) is expensive.
This means that BMI testing is damned useful. Not perfect, by any stretch of the imagination, but damned useful. And, by the way, I totally agree with your weight loss strategy - that's how I lost mine as well.
As I said in another post, that may not always be an option - and won't be one for many in corporate, domain run environments especially if the ability to disable it could be controlled via domain policies, which I can see as very likely happening.
Many corporate, domain run environments can afford to spend $500 a year on a certificate. Bzzzzt, but thanks for playing.
The end-user should always be in full control of the system.
They are. The end-user in this case is the corporation, for whom the typist is an employee. Nothing Microsoft is doing is stopping the company -- the one who owns the systems -- from releasing that restriction. Not a damn thing.
Actually, back when he weight 180 he was in pretty good shape. Now he's 196 and has 17% body fat. Not a lard-ass, of course, but not ultra-fit either. Back when he was in Austin, he was in much better shape. More details in this ABC News report. It was commented that he was "pretty good for a man who just turned 60." Not "damn good for anyone, even better than his bodyguards."
Have you seen any pictures recently? President Bush is overweight. Seriously. Look at his face. As to the others... well, I'm going to steal from another post I made above.
I used to be in the "BMI == Worthless" camp myself. Had all sorts of reasons why it was bunk, used to be able to quote muscle density, et cetera, just like everyone else on here.
Then I grew up and lost over 80 pounds.
Anyone who show as "obese" on the BMI charts but has enough muscle to throw things off is obviously either way toned, or way strong. Seriously. If you're an average person, even a once or twice a week gym habit, and you show as obese... then you're 99% probably fat. Grow up and admit it. Especially in the USA, "normal," is a long way from "fit." The vast, vast majority of people with high BMIs are fat, end of story.
Sure, Tom Cruise is the poster child for "overweight by BMI standards." He's obviously not. If you can see your sculpted abs, you probably aren't as well. Otherwise, you are. Deal with it.
Notice that everybody else you listed in that chart -- at least most of them -- are damn fit athletes, or actors with ultra-low body fat. As for the ones that aren't, well, you included Dr. Phil in your list. Like President Bush, he's overweight. I mean, seriously, the guy is fat.
If you want to ignore your own BMI, that's your decision. Be overweight, if you're not a toned athlete. But stop pretending you're not. And also, more to the point, stop trying to convince everybody else that they're not overweight because you can't deal with your own issues. And yes, that is a more generic rant than just one aimed at the parent poster, but its still true.
I used to be in the "BMI == Worthless" camp myself. Had all sorts of reasons why it was bunk, used to be able to quote muscle density, et cetera, just like everyone else on here.
Then I grew up and lost over 80 pounds.
Anyone who show as "obese" on the BMI charts but has enough muscle to throw things off is obviously either way toned, or way strong. Seriously. If you're an average person, even a once or twice a week gym habit, and you show as obese... then you're 99% probably fat. Grow up and admit it. Especially in the USA, "normal," is a long way from "fit." The vast, vast majority of people with high BMIs are fat, end of story.
Sure, Tom Cruise is the poster child for "overweight by BMI standards." He's obviously not. If you can see your sculpted abs, you probably aren't as well. Otherwise, you are. Deal with it.
If you want to ignore it, that's your decision. Be overweight. But stop pretending you're not. And also, more to the point, stop trying to convince everybody else that they're not overweight because you can't deal with your own issues. And yes, that is a more generic rant than just one aimed at the parent poster, but its still true.
Funny, I'm using IE and I just tested this... it works perfectly. And to my knowledge, it always has. There are some sites that, I believe, are defaulting fields after the page loads; IE will respect that request and re-run the defaults on a BACK (sometimes - its not just anything with a default value - never have figured out what the magic combination is; does FF ignore a page-load script when using the BACK button?). Admittedly this is with IE7 which I've been using for months now, but IIRC IE6 had the same behavior.
He might have been rich as Bill Gates, and he still should have been a suspect.
Oh, absolutely. But most suspects don't get arrested. Suspects against whom the prosecution feels that it has enough evidence to make a strong case get arrested. Being an estranged spouse isn't usually, in and of itself, damning evidence in a murder trial. Prosecutors don't generally play the "let's just arrest everyone we can think of and see which case will stick," method.
That's because you don't (or at least you're not supposed to) patent a concept. You patent a process. They're patenting a much smoother, more seamless process. That's allowable, and is actually what patents were originally intended to support.
One employee admits, 'we are rather shaken and stressed at the moment, although I cannot say we didn't see it coming.'
Your boss is arrested for killing his wife, and nobody in the office is surprised? You know, I've worked in some pretty annoying companies before, but I've never been able to say that. Nor would I want to. If anyone else is in the same position, I strongly suggest that you get off your ass and jump ship. Low standards is one thing, but c'mon guys. I don't care how sweet their after-hours-pizza-reimbursement policy is, that's just fucked up.
Admuncher. Quite simply the single, absolute, best ad blocking software for Windows. And no, I'm not selling it -- I'm just an incredibly happy customer. Free trial, possibly forever but I paid for it after just a day or two. Its that good, and I totally wish that I could get it for OSX as well. And I've tried many an option.
IE7 does a pretty good job of "just working," too. And despite all of the developer's comments to the contrary, most end-users switched to Firefox for a very few reasons:
1) it was the "cool", "edgy" thing to do 2) it has tabbed browsing 3) it was faster than IE.
Well, IE7 takes care of 2 and 3. And time basically takes care of 1. I'm a web developer so I have most of the major players installed on most platforms. You know what? On my Windows box I end up using IE7. On OSX I use Safari. On Linux I use Firefox, but I don't do casual Linux work that much any more (even though it used to be my primary workstation). For actually using the web, I prefer Safari hands-down. Second place honestly on Windows would go to IE7 at this point. Its fast, does everything I want it to, and it "just works," whereas Firefox seems slower and has slightly more issues on the websites I personally happen to visit.
Is this proof of anything? Not even close. But it does mean that, for most people, Firefox isn't the slam-dunk it used to be. Even when it comes to security, as long as you're comparing it to IE7 (although to be honest even with IE6 I never came across a security issue - but I don't go downloading HappySmileyFunPack(tm) either).
Has anyone else noticed that alot of suits like this ask for completely unreasonable amounts of money? There is no possible way that slandering someone on the internet cost 10.4 million dollars
Actually, that's not entirely true. Without having RTFA, I can come up with a pretty simple explanation. I don't know what this woman charges for her services, but say that she bills out $500,000 a year. Sounds exorbitant, but for the kind of service she provides, I could believe it. Or it might be $20k, who knows. Maybe she can point to some other, leading figures in her field who are billing out $500 large. Do you know why they'd be able to do that? Reputation, pure and simple. If she can prove (and with no defendant, proof is surprisingly easy) that her reputation was ruined to the point that the kind of client who pays a ton of money would never trust her (again, or in the future, either way) then she can point to that money as lost future earnings that the defendant cost her.
Is it reasonable? Who knows. It could be. Either way, its reasonable enough that without a defendant present, the jury could be convinced fairly easily. And, as I mentioned earlier, it could even be completely accurate. Someone providing expensive child-related personal services could be ruined for the foreseeable future by public negative comments, whether or not they're true.
That's why we have libel laws. And a legal process where if you're accused of libel but are not guilty you're granted the right to say so, and convince a jury thereof.
Last time I checked (which was admittedly back in the old NT days, but since that's the source codebase these days...) there were different levels of driver. Writing something to convert USB commands to keystrokes should be different than writing something running in ring 0. At least, that's the way that I remember it. But I freely admit that I could be wrong here.
Anyone who has a need to write kernel-level drivers can almost certainly toss $500 a year at a certificate. Compared to the cost of, say, manufacturing hardware, this is noise.
A nuke is a last resort suicide bomb that you use when you lost already, only to make sure that your opponent doesn't win.
And that's why its really scary when they're in the control of a person (ie: KJI) rather than a country or a military. The country knows that's its going to be around a while longer. If KJI finds out he has cancer, who's to say that he won't decide to take out everyone he can? He's already "lost" in that case. Now, that's scary.
Recently we've had the Patriot Missile BS where pretty hopeless systems were claimed to be invincible. During WW2 there were carrots (gave the British superior night vision) and the Americans had the Norton Bombsight - both of which have over-hype PR which exists to this day. No doubt this will continue as long as conflict of any sort exists.
The whole carrot thing was started intentionally to try to disguise the fact that the British had figured out radar. Of course there were questions as to how they were suddenly far more effective and a rumor like that one -- unprovable but possible -- was exactly what was needed to throw people off the track, at least for long enough to make the difference.
I don't think that the patriot missile was a cover-up for anything else spectacular.
Yeah. First off, an older car isn't what you want - too heavy. And as bbsguru said, to do this on the cheap? Not likely. this guy converted a junked Hyundai Elantra, doing all of his own welding/fabrication and buying everything piecemeal from EBay (no kits here), and still spent $6000 to get a 25 mile range and 'pretty darned slow' acceleration. Of course, its a work in progress, but that should give you some idea of the bare minimum. For that money, you can buy a nice well-maintained diesel VW and get 45-50mpg just fine.
Slashdot Mirror
The Unix approach is that one tool does a single job and does it well. For example: tar bundles mutiple files into one, compress makes files smaller and gimp does photo editing.
Hmm. Of course, GNU/tar presented us with tar xzvf which bundles and compresses in one step. Its not like tar xc - | gzip -c is that much harder, but I've never seen anyone use it when the z option is available. But thanks for playing.
And as for photo editing, doing lightweight drawing is a very, very frequent desire of photo editors (myself included, come to think of it). Adding some good looking text as a copyright statement, for example, or drawing a circle to highlight an area. Very, very common "photo editing" requirements.
There's a correlation. Most people who have high BMI are also not in very good shape. Hell, look around you. Better yet, go somewhere else (like Europe) for a couple of weeks. Then come back here and look around. Then we'll talk. Americans, as a general rule, are fat. Some people aren't. Most people are. Its totally not PC, but its a fact.
Grandparent was probably thinking of the tongue.
Now that's a mental picture I really didn't need.
I'm 5'7" and weigh 175 lbs. This puts me at a BMI of 27.4. 30 is "obese". I'm almost in the "obese" category (well over the "overweight" lower limit).
Okay, fair enough. An awful lot of people are in this category.
However, I am in tremendous shape. I run over 3 miles a day (2 at 6:30 before I have breakfast), lift weights 5 days a week, have a resting heart rate better than the average human on Earth, and play tennis twice a week for nearly 2 hours.
And I run 40-50 miles a week, and I'm still barely below being overweight. Which is true - I could easily stand to lose 5-10 pounds. Its easy to be in good shape, and still be overweight. And 3 miles a day is not "tremendous." Its better than most, I'll happily grant you that, but still.
However, according to BMI, I am overweight. Draw your own conclusions.
Marathons have a weight category for heavy runners, many of whom are way fast. Some under three hours. Being overweight doesn't mean you're not fit. BMI does not measure fitness.
A caliper test is also not necessarily accurate - just for grins, I had mine done at three gyms in one day, and ended up with an 8% variation. As in 8% bodyfat, not that they were within 8% of each other. As far as I can tell its almost completely dependent on the skill level of the person performing the test, as opposed to the other methods, x-rays, et cetera.
I do see your point, but I take issue with the government using BMI to state that 30% of Americans are overweight. While I was in the Army quite a few guys in my unit had to be tested for body fat after each weigh in because of high BMI and we were all in our 20's (well under the national average).
I'd like to believe that the armed forces would have a fairly high percentage of people who fell into the very fit and muscled category, personally...
At 225, I would be a VERY healthy weight, but BMI says I'm a lard-ass. That scale needs to go, and we need to focus on PERCENT BODY FAT.
Two points.
First, BMI is effective for a large percentage of the population. And by large I'm not making a bad joke, I mean 95% plus. Not 100%.
Second, actual body fat testing (reliable stuff, not Tanita scales) is expensive.
This means that BMI testing is damned useful. Not perfect, by any stretch of the imagination, but damned useful. And, by the way, I totally agree with your weight loss strategy - that's how I lost mine as well.
As I said in another post, that may not always be an option - and won't be one for many in corporate, domain run environments especially if the ability to disable it could be controlled via domain policies, which I can see as very likely happening.
Many corporate, domain run environments can afford to spend $500 a year on a certificate. Bzzzzt, but thanks for playing.
The end-user should always be in full control of the system.
They are. The end-user in this case is the corporation, for whom the typist is an employee. Nothing Microsoft is doing is stopping the company -- the one who owns the systems -- from releasing that restriction. Not a damn thing.
Actually, back when he weight 180 he was in pretty good shape. Now he's 196 and has 17% body fat. Not a lard-ass, of course, but not ultra-fit either. Back when he was in Austin, he was in much better shape. More details in this ABC News report. It was commented that he was "pretty good for a man who just turned 60." Not "damn good for anyone, even better than his bodyguards."
Have you seen any pictures recently? President Bush is overweight. Seriously. Look at his face. As to the others... well, I'm going to steal from another post I made above.
I used to be in the "BMI == Worthless" camp myself. Had all sorts of reasons why it was bunk, used to be able to quote muscle density, et cetera, just like everyone else on here.
Then I grew up and lost over 80 pounds.
Anyone who show as "obese" on the BMI charts but has enough muscle to throw things off is obviously either way toned, or way strong. Seriously. If you're an average person, even a once or twice a week gym habit, and you show as obese... then you're 99% probably fat. Grow up and admit it. Especially in the USA, "normal," is a long way from "fit." The vast, vast majority of people with high BMIs are fat, end of story.
Sure, Tom Cruise is the poster child for "overweight by BMI standards." He's obviously not. If you can see your sculpted abs, you probably aren't as well. Otherwise, you are. Deal with it.
Notice that everybody else you listed in that chart -- at least most of them -- are damn fit athletes, or actors with ultra-low body fat. As for the ones that aren't, well, you included Dr. Phil in your list. Like President Bush, he's overweight. I mean, seriously, the guy is fat.
If you want to ignore your own BMI, that's your decision. Be overweight, if you're not a toned athlete. But stop pretending you're not. And also, more to the point, stop trying to convince everybody else that they're not overweight because you can't deal with your own issues. And yes, that is a more generic rant than just one aimed at the parent poster, but its still true.
I used to be in the "BMI == Worthless" camp myself. Had all sorts of reasons why it was bunk, used to be able to quote muscle density, et cetera, just like everyone else on here.
Then I grew up and lost over 80 pounds.
Anyone who show as "obese" on the BMI charts but has enough muscle to throw things off is obviously either way toned, or way strong. Seriously. If you're an average person, even a once or twice a week gym habit, and you show as obese... then you're 99% probably fat. Grow up and admit it. Especially in the USA, "normal," is a long way from "fit." The vast, vast majority of people with high BMIs are fat, end of story.
Sure, Tom Cruise is the poster child for "overweight by BMI standards." He's obviously not. If you can see your sculpted abs, you probably aren't as well. Otherwise, you are. Deal with it.
If you want to ignore it, that's your decision. Be overweight. But stop pretending you're not. And also, more to the point, stop trying to convince everybody else that they're not overweight because you can't deal with your own issues. And yes, that is a more generic rant than just one aimed at the parent poster, but its still true.
Funny, I'm using IE and I just tested this ... it works perfectly. And to my knowledge, it always has. There are some sites that, I believe, are defaulting fields after the page loads; IE will respect that request and re-run the defaults on a BACK (sometimes - its not just anything with a default value - never have figured out what the magic combination is; does FF ignore a page-load script when using the BACK button?). Admittedly this is with IE7 which I've been using for months now, but IIRC IE6 had the same behavior.
Oh, absolutely. But most suspects don't get arrested. Suspects against whom the prosecution feels that it has enough evidence to make a strong case get arrested. Being an estranged spouse isn't usually, in and of itself, damning evidence in a murder trial. Prosecutors don't generally play the "let's just arrest everyone we can think of and see which case will stick," method.
Of course you haven't. As the GPP pointed out, they have better things to do.
That's because you don't (or at least you're not supposed to) patent a concept. You patent a process. They're patenting a much smoother, more seamless process. That's allowable, and is actually what patents were originally intended to support.
Your boss is arrested for killing his wife, and nobody in the office is surprised? You know, I've worked in some pretty annoying companies before, but I've never been able to say that. Nor would I want to. If anyone else is in the same position, I strongly suggest that you get off your ass and jump ship. Low standards is one thing, but c'mon guys. I don't care how sweet their after-hours-pizza-reimbursement policy is, that's just fucked up.
Admuncher. Quite simply the single, absolute, best ad blocking software for Windows. And no, I'm not selling it -- I'm just an incredibly happy customer. Free trial, possibly forever but I paid for it after just a day or two. Its that good, and I totally wish that I could get it for OSX as well. And I've tried many an option.
IE7 does a pretty good job of "just working," too. And despite all of the developer's comments to the contrary, most end-users switched to Firefox for a very few reasons:
1) it was the "cool", "edgy" thing to do
2) it has tabbed browsing
3) it was faster than IE.
Well, IE7 takes care of 2 and 3. And time basically takes care of 1. I'm a web developer so I have most of the major players installed on most platforms. You know what? On my Windows box I end up using IE7. On OSX I use Safari. On Linux I use Firefox, but I don't do casual Linux work that much any more (even though it used to be my primary workstation). For actually using the web, I prefer Safari hands-down. Second place honestly on Windows would go to IE7 at this point. Its fast, does everything I want it to, and it "just works," whereas Firefox seems slower and has slightly more issues on the websites I personally happen to visit.
Is this proof of anything? Not even close. But it does mean that, for most people, Firefox isn't the slam-dunk it used to be. Even when it comes to security, as long as you're comparing it to IE7 (although to be honest even with IE6 I never came across a security issue - but I don't go downloading HappySmileyFunPack(tm) either).
Has anyone else noticed that alot of suits like this ask for completely unreasonable amounts of money? There is no possible way that slandering someone on the internet cost 10.4 million dollars
Actually, that's not entirely true. Without having RTFA, I can come up with a pretty simple explanation. I don't know what this woman charges for her services, but say that she bills out $500,000 a year. Sounds exorbitant, but for the kind of service she provides, I could believe it. Or it might be $20k, who knows. Maybe she can point to some other, leading figures in her field who are billing out $500 large. Do you know why they'd be able to do that? Reputation, pure and simple. If she can prove (and with no defendant, proof is surprisingly easy) that her reputation was ruined to the point that the kind of client who pays a ton of money would never trust her (again, or in the future, either way) then she can point to that money as lost future earnings that the defendant cost her.
Is it reasonable? Who knows. It could be. Either way, its reasonable enough that without a defendant present, the jury could be convinced fairly easily. And, as I mentioned earlier, it could even be completely accurate. Someone providing expensive child-related personal services could be ruined for the foreseeable future by public negative comments, whether or not they're true.
That's why we have libel laws. And a legal process where if you're accused of libel but are not guilty you're granted the right to say so, and convince a jury thereof.
Last time I checked (which was admittedly back in the old NT days, but since that's the source codebase these days...) there were different levels of driver. Writing something to convert USB commands to keystrokes should be different than writing something running in ring 0. At least, that's the way that I remember it. But I freely admit that I could be wrong here.
Bullshit.
Anyone who has a need to write kernel-level drivers can almost certainly toss $500 a year at a certificate. Compared to the cost of, say, manufacturing hardware, this is noise.
That was bad. And by bad I mean good. But in a bad way.
And that's why its really scary when they're in the control of a person (ie: KJI) rather than a country or a military. The country knows that's its going to be around a while longer. If KJI finds out he has cancer, who's to say that he won't decide to take out everyone he can? He's already "lost" in that case. Now, that's scary.
The whole carrot thing was started intentionally to try to disguise the fact that the British had figured out radar. Of course there were questions as to how they were suddenly far more effective and a rumor like that one -- unprovable but possible -- was exactly what was needed to throw people off the track, at least for long enough to make the difference.
I don't think that the patriot missile was a cover-up for anything else spectacular.
Yeah. First off, an older car isn't what you want - too heavy. And as bbsguru said, to do this on the cheap? Not likely. this guy converted a junked Hyundai Elantra, doing all of his own welding/fabrication and buying everything piecemeal from EBay (no kits here), and still spent $6000 to get a 25 mile range and 'pretty darned slow' acceleration. Of course, its a work in progress, but that should give you some idea of the bare minimum. For that money, you can buy a nice well-maintained diesel VW and get 45-50mpg just fine.