I didn't say red meat makes you FULL. I said that the protein balance found in red meat (and not adequately substitutable with anything else) keeps your *long-term* appetite under control -- and the effect there is that you need *fewer* carbs to achieve that final feeling of satsifaction.
In general, vegetarians tend to be thinner than the rest of the population. I've never noticed anyone who ate red meat being any thinner than the people I know who don't.
One potato will do instead of two, and so on.
Never could eat two potatoes in one sitting anyways, and can usually only finish one if it's small. As I said before, people are different.
(BTW being low on B-complex vitamins will make you crave wheat products.)
I'm not low on B vitamins. And I don't eat wheat products obsessively, I have them as part of normal-sized meals. It's just that if I have a meal without any wheat products then I'm usually hungry afterwards.
And you are right, it's perfectly possible to be pretty chunky and still be healthy; lots of farmers and eskimos will agree with you. But if your weight is affecting your lifestyle (including negative impacts on health, such as joint problems or diabetes), ie. preventing you from activities you could do when you were thinner, you are carrying too much, and that threshold can be 5 pounds or 100 pounds (which is about the max before it WILL negatively impact your life).
Diabetes (type II) isn't caused by obesity, it correlates with obesity. Only a tiny percentage of obese people have diabetes. Type II diabetes is genetic, so if you have a lot of family members with it then you will likely get it, whether you're fat or thin. And if you want to bring up fat children with Type II, remember that it was only recently that anyone even tested children for Type II (and you can go for years with diabetes without knowing, ask anyone with it). So we haven't gone from 0 to whatever the number is now, we've gone from unknown to known.
5 extra pounds is not going to impact your health. 5 pounds is nothing.
As for the high end, some people are just built chunky and can't get skinny in any healthy way. I have a friend who has always been fat (about 300lds now), and the only time she wasn't was when she was bulimic. She's tried a lot of different diets and changes (besides bulimia), at one point she was vegetarian, and now she's trying high protein, low carb. Her weight doesn't go down with reasonably healthy diets (from whatever philosophy), it only goes down with starvation, and that's not healthy. People should focus more on being healthy instead of what they weigh. Sure, many people who eat healthy and exercise will be at a good weight, but some won't, and we shouldn't push them to starve themselves because their bodies don't react like other people's.
Veggies are very poor weight-control food, as you need to eat a lot more calories worth of veggies to get the same net level of nutrients that you do from a more-concentrated food. Lack or imbalance of nutrients creates cravings (which is why in general you should listen to your cravings, not fight them).
You've got that confused. Veggies are very low in calories (by volume, compared to other foods) and have more nutrients than just about anything. Here's the nutrition facts for spinach. It only has 7 calories per serving, less than a gram of fat, 0 cholesterol (of course), and a whole list of nutrients, from calcium and potassium to things that I don't even know what they are. Now look at the nutrition facts of beef (according to the meat man, chosen because he's not likely to be biased against meat). The cut with the lowest amount of calories is still at 150, has 7 grams of fat, 70 micrograms of cholesterol, and... meatman doesn't list any nutrients besides iron and
I don't think there's one way for everyone. You say that red meat is what makes you full, but for me I'd feel like I was starving without carbs. We also have different metabolisms, the slowdown you say happens at 30 hit me at 20. I also think it's very unlikely for most people to return to their teenage weight, and it would be impossible for me. Today I eat healthier (mostly veggies and whole grains) than I ever did as a teenager (I actually ate cheese and *sugar* sandwiches, and my cookie and donut cravings had no bounds) and I do try to exercise when I can, but I'm never going to get to my teenage weight, and if my metabolism slows down again at 30 I'll likely be obese. But that's ok, because it's eating badly and being sedentary that are the health risk factors, not obesity (though they usually correlate) and as long as I try to be healthy I won't worry about my weight. Not all of us have the genes to be skinny, and that's ok.
How is this relevant to a candidate who holds that the federal government has no say, either way, in those issues? Check out the "Sanctity of Life Act" that he introduced in Congress and then tell me he doesn't think the federal government should have a say on abortion or stem cell research.
The only reason I've seen average users have a problem with 512 is when they have a bunch of spyware and adware, or otherwise had a bunch of programs running in the back they don't need. Install Avast, Windows Defender, and then run msconfig, startup->disable all. Then go to system->advanced->performance settings and uncheck all but the last one (the last one is the only one that makes a difference they'll notice). It'll go plenty fast enough then. Of course, if they're running a computer with Linux like this one they won't even need that, because Linux doesn't have spyware and it's programs usually use less memory (compare Pigeon to Yahoo Messenger). Unless you're running new games or high end programs, 512 is still fine.
The best Wii games have come out in the past couple of months. Try Metroid, or Mario Galaxy, or Zak and Wiki, or the new Fire Emblem (I don't know what genres you like).
Game consoles always start a little slow with awesome games. I remember when Mario 64 was the only good game for the DS. But, it picked up and now there are lots of awesome games for it. The Wii's actually doing quite a bit better on games than the DS was doing a year after launch. I think it'll be just fine.
$20k/year is certainly a living wage. $20k a year isn't minimum wage. $20k is the poverty line for a family of four. Minimum wage is about half that. When I made a little bit over minimum wage (~$800 a month after taxes) the only reason I was able to get by is because I didn't have a car payment. Oh, and of course, no health insurance. Minimum wage is not a living wage for one person, let alone a family.
i have/home on a separate partition... will it wipe my home dir or not if i make a new user with the same name as my current user? If you do a clean install, you can tell it not with the/home dir, just watch what options you select during install. If you upgrade, it should leave your/home as it is. You should make a backup just in case, but you shouldn't have any problems.
It might be in a repository for Ubuntu, but not openSUSE. If something isn't in your distro's repository, you're SOL. I did some searching, and it appears you're right, there's no mud client in openSUSE. But you're not SOL, or stuck compiling from source. You can get a.rpm for Mud Magic or find mudclient with an RPM.
So again, I ask, what program would a newbie (or anyone) need that is not in the repositories or rpm/deb (or has another easy method of install, like klik or autopackage)?
A mud client. MUDs are alive and well and much more approachable for your average user then cli. Can you name a specific MUD client that isn't in a repository or has a.deb or.rpm? And why would a newbie use that specific cleint over the half dozen that are in the Ubuntu repositories?
What I don't understand is why no one has made a 'compile software wizard'. Because the users that would run for the hills before typing "./configure && make && make install" generally don't have needs great enough that they'd need to. Almost everything is in a repository, and if not then it's in a.deb or an.rpm. I can't think of any program at all, let alone one a cli-afraid n00b would use, that is not available in cli or.deb. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that's the reason no one has made a 'compile software wizard'.
PuTTY. Yes I know Ubuntu comes with SSH, but for being a techie and somewhat new to Linux I had a hell of a time getting even something so simple as PuTTY installed without the aid of a packet manager. Packet manager? Do you mean package manager? If that's what you meant, that's like saying it's hard to install programs on Windows without the installer.exe. Go to your command prompt and type "sudo apt-get install putty". It's as simple as that.
If it uses domain names, a Hosts file entry might work. Did you read?
if Relic's authentication servers are offline, you have to *disable* your network connection to have the game check your DVD. If it detects a network connection but cannot connect to the servers, sorry, you are not allowed to play.
I haven't seen many games for Wii that a casual gamer would die for.. I think part of the definition of "casual gamer" is that they wouldn't die for a game...
They all scream "rental" rather than buy. Casual gamers don't rent, they buy one game and play it for months. Many casual gamers are still playing Wii Sports. Between Sports, Play, Mario Party, Super Monkey Ball, Wario Ware, and VC games like Dr Mario, casual gamers have more than enough games for the limited times they play.
Where's the DS/Wii interactive games? After all the complaints about the Gamecube/GBA games and how horrible it is to require a console and a handheld or 4, I'm shocked that they're even making more games like that.
Where's games like Pikmin 3 Try Elebits.
or Katamari? Never on a Nintendo system before. Try Monkey Ball.
Or DDR Released last month.
or Guitar Hero? You've got less than a month to go. Getting a bit impatient?
I've got one and only bothered to rent half a dozen games so far... that's not good. Maybe you need to look around more.
N64 - killed by the Playstation. Not necessarily better graphics Actually the PS1 had worse graphics, and the N64 wasn't killed - it lived out a normal lifespan with good games released until the end. The N64 was vastly outsold by the PS1 because Nintendo pissed off 3rd party developers.
The DS had that problem at first too. But eventually, developers got used to the new controls and it got some awesome games. The Wii's had some dry spots, but it's got some really good games and it's going to have a good Christmas. Upcoming it has Fire Emblem, Resident Evil, Mario Galaxy, Soul Calibur Legends, Mario & Sonic Olympics, and NiGHTS (and other exclusives - check out IGN's release list), and you should check out Super Paper Mario and Metroid if you haven't already. There's a lot of original content for Wii, and there will be a whole lot more. Don't give up on it.
February != the Christmas season. Yeah. But, even though Smash and Kart have been delayed, the Wii still has Mario Galaxy, Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn, Link's Crossbow Training (no, it's not a full game, but you know everyone will buy it), and Resident Evil: Umbrella Chronicles among their exclusives until the end of the year. The Wii's gonna be just fine this holiday.
I don't have any hard numbers but it sure looks to me like the Kart franchise is the biggest one Nintendo has. No, Smash is. At least it was the best seller on the Gamecube, followed by Mario Sunshine.
Never throw the player into a boss fight they absolutely can't win. I second that. I hate running through all my potions and phoenix downs just to find out that if I had stood there and done nothing it would have had the same effect. Also completely aggravating? Working my ass off to beat the boss, and then watching a cutscene that assumes I lost. GRRR!
Were any of them released in Europe before the United States? For example, the GBA games Kuru Kuru Kururin and Payback (not RPGs) are out in Ireland and the United Kingdom, but they probably won't see an official release in North America until after I'm dead. Still, the North American GBA and DS play Irish/UK GBA games just fine. Not on his list, though there is a Tingle RPG in Europe that hasn't been to the US (yet?) but it doesn't look all that good.
As opposed to a used DS? Yeah, that was probably unfair, but I didn't know the price of used DS off the top of my head.
Besides, this factor of 2 difference is still much smaller than the factor of 4 or 5 difference between a new PS2 and a new PS3. Yeah, but I didn't tell anyone to get a new PS3.
The DS does have good reasons to get it, for instance it has resurrected the adventure genre on consoles. Hotel Dusk is a really amazing game, and there's other great games in other genres depending on what you like. And even though it doesn't have as many good RPGs as the GBA, it does have some, and that might be enough to make it worth it to you. I wasn't telling anyone to not be a DS because it's useless, just saying I'm a little disappointed so far in the RPG offerings.
You try spending an overseas flight without a PSP and then tell me it's a minor inconvenience. I generally can't sleep on planes, I can't read for more than 8 hours streight which is usually only half the flight. I'll go crazy without something to keep my mind occupied. My PSP has been a saving grace while flying and long flights are the only reason I bought extra batteries for it. Try a Gameboy SP. No, it's not as pretty as a PSP, but it has a lot of great games, and the batteries will last the whole trip.
Your list separates the different versions of Pokemon while mine doesn't Yours did, too.
Besides, I didn't count any Harvest Moon, because if I had, that would make at least 2 more games. There's only been one Harvest Moon released for DS, unless you count Rune Factory, which you already did.
You're adding ports to, while I didn't. FFIII and Xenosaga aren't ports?
I don't understand what your point is, but if it is that RPG fans are starved more than on the GBA at the same relative time after launch, I could agree one year ago, but can't now. Agree with me or not, but the GBA was better for RPGs than the DS is now. In raw numbers it released more RPGs faster, and it had better ones. I'm been trying to play Contact right now, and the game just sucks. There's hardly a storyline, the combat system sucks and isn't really RPGish, and it's too focused on being "quirky". I played Lunar Dragon Song, and that just sucked (just look at the reviews). Where's the DS Golden Sun, Final Fantasy Tactics, or Fire Emblem? When you search the IGN reviews for DS RPGs, you get a bunch of crappy titles with scores as low as 4. The DS has been pretty much a disappointment so far when it comes to RPGs. It should pick up eventually, especially with Dragon Quest IX, but I don't think it'll have as good of a library in the end as the GBA has.
You're wrong of course, all of these games I cited have been released. Since we're talking in English, I'm thinking of games released in English.
Read again what I wrote, the clearly separated end of the list are the games released in Japan only for now. No, you had games in both sections that are not released in America yet.
Comparing a 6+ years old console library to a less than 3 years one is stupid anyway It is when you're debating between getting a used gameboy for $60 or a DS for $130. Anyways, the DS library hasn't been growing nearly as fast as the GBA's did. Let's compare GBA games released in the first 3 years to the first 3 years of the DS. Only counting good (because I'm not listing every one) GBA RPGs released through 2004 (using IGN), we have:
Golden Sun
Golden Sun: The Lost Age
Pokemon Ruby
Pokemon Sapphire
Pokemon FireRed
Pokemon LeafGreen
Breath of Fire
Breath of Fire 2
Mario & Luigi: SuperStar Saga
Fire Emblem
Final Fantasy Tactics Advance
Phantasy Star Collection
Final Fantasy Dawn of Souls
Harvest Moon
Shining Soul
Shining Soul 2
Sword of Mana
Kingdom Hearts
Your list has 10 games that are already released, my list has 18. Neither list is complete, of course, but the DS has been building its RPG library slower than the GBA did.
You aren't able to copy downloadable games to an SD card on the Wii? It seems like they'd tie it to the consoles serial number of something in order to prevent people from downloading games and shuttling them around between Wiis. No. If you run out of space you're supposed to delete games you don't play much and redownload them when you want to play them again (your Wii account saves them all for redownloading). I'm not sure if that's better or worse than buying extra memory cards and shuffling them around, but since I own all the old systems I don't really care much about the Virtual Console. Maybe once they start releasing Japan-only or new games to the VC I'll care.
If someone is pirating windows, why would they self identify and then agree to an eternal audit of their infrastructure? Prior employees at my company pirated software instead of get it legitly like management wants. I'm sure they'd benefit from a program like this, and might even thank me for telling them about it instead of yelling at me for telling them there's pirated software on their computers, but I hate my job and do not care. Which is why I'm browsing Slashdot and Monster and calling it "working".
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't say red meat makes you FULL. I said that the protein balance found in red meat (and not adequately substitutable with anything else) keeps your *long-term* appetite under control -- and the effect there is that you need *fewer* carbs to achieve that final feeling of satsifaction.
In general, vegetarians tend to be thinner than the rest of the population. I've never noticed anyone who ate red meat being any thinner than the people I know who don't.
One potato will do instead of two, and so on.
Never could eat two potatoes in one sitting anyways, and can usually only finish one if it's small. As I said before, people are different.
(BTW being low on B-complex vitamins will make you crave wheat products.)
I'm not low on B vitamins. And I don't eat wheat products obsessively, I have them as part of normal-sized meals. It's just that if I have a meal without any wheat products then I'm usually hungry afterwards.
And you are right, it's perfectly possible to be pretty chunky and still be healthy; lots of farmers and eskimos will agree with you. But if your weight is affecting your lifestyle (including negative impacts on health, such as joint problems or diabetes), ie. preventing you from activities you could do when you were thinner, you are carrying too much, and that threshold can be 5 pounds or 100 pounds (which is about the max before it WILL negatively impact your life).
Diabetes (type II) isn't caused by obesity, it correlates with obesity. Only a tiny percentage of obese people have diabetes. Type II diabetes is genetic, so if you have a lot of family members with it then you will likely get it, whether you're fat or thin. And if you want to bring up fat children with Type II, remember that it was only recently that anyone even tested children for Type II (and you can go for years with diabetes without knowing, ask anyone with it). So we haven't gone from 0 to whatever the number is now, we've gone from unknown to known. 5 extra pounds is not going to impact your health. 5 pounds is nothing. As for the high end, some people are just built chunky and can't get skinny in any healthy way. I have a friend who has always been fat (about 300lds now), and the only time she wasn't was when she was bulimic. She's tried a lot of different diets and changes (besides bulimia), at one point she was vegetarian, and now she's trying high protein, low carb. Her weight doesn't go down with reasonably healthy diets (from whatever philosophy), it only goes down with starvation, and that's not healthy. People should focus more on being healthy instead of what they weigh. Sure, many people who eat healthy and exercise will be at a good weight, but some won't, and we shouldn't push them to starve themselves because their bodies don't react like other people's.
Veggies are very poor weight-control food, as you need to eat a lot more calories worth of veggies to get the same net level of nutrients that you do from a more-concentrated food. Lack or imbalance of nutrients creates cravings (which is why in general you should listen to your cravings, not fight them).
You've got that confused. Veggies are very low in calories (by volume, compared to other foods) and have more nutrients than just about anything. Here's the nutrition facts for spinach. It only has 7 calories per serving, less than a gram of fat, 0 cholesterol (of course), and a whole list of nutrients, from calcium and potassium to things that I don't even know what they are. Now look at the nutrition facts of beef (according to the meat man, chosen because he's not likely to be biased against meat). The cut with the lowest amount of calories is still at 150, has 7 grams of fat, 70 micrograms of cholesterol, and... meatman doesn't list any nutrients besides iron and
I don't think there's one way for everyone. You say that red meat is what makes you full, but for me I'd feel like I was starving without carbs. We also have different metabolisms, the slowdown you say happens at 30 hit me at 20. I also think it's very unlikely for most people to return to their teenage weight, and it would be impossible for me. Today I eat healthier (mostly veggies and whole grains) than I ever did as a teenager (I actually ate cheese and *sugar* sandwiches, and my cookie and donut cravings had no bounds) and I do try to exercise when I can, but I'm never going to get to my teenage weight, and if my metabolism slows down again at 30 I'll likely be obese. But that's ok, because it's eating badly and being sedentary that are the health risk factors, not obesity (though they usually correlate) and as long as I try to be healthy I won't worry about my weight. Not all of us have the genes to be skinny, and that's ok.
The only reason I've seen average users have a problem with 512 is when they have a bunch of spyware and adware, or otherwise had a bunch of programs running in the back they don't need. Install Avast, Windows Defender, and then run msconfig, startup->disable all. Then go to system->advanced->performance settings and uncheck all but the last one (the last one is the only one that makes a difference they'll notice). It'll go plenty fast enough then. Of course, if they're running a computer with Linux like this one they won't even need that, because Linux doesn't have spyware and it's programs usually use less memory (compare Pigeon to Yahoo Messenger). Unless you're running new games or high end programs, 512 is still fine.
The best Wii games have come out in the past couple of months. Try Metroid, or Mario Galaxy, or Zak and Wiki, or the new Fire Emblem (I don't know what genres you like).
Game consoles always start a little slow with awesome games. I remember when Mario 64 was the only good game for the DS. But, it picked up and now there are lots of awesome games for it. The Wii's actually doing quite a bit better on games than the DS was doing a year after launch. I think it'll be just fine.
I fear fearless mice. I somehow got cats without the "kill small animals instinct" so I know all the fearless mice are going to move to my house.
So again, I ask, what program would a newbie (or anyone) need that is not in the repositories or rpm/deb (or has another easy method of install, like klik or autopackage)?
They all scream "rental" rather than buy. Casual gamers don't rent, they buy one game and play it for months. Many casual gamers are still playing Wii Sports. Between Sports, Play, Mario Party, Super Monkey Ball, Wario Ware, and VC games like Dr Mario, casual gamers have more than enough games for the limited times they play.
Where's the DS/Wii interactive games? After all the complaints about the Gamecube/GBA games and how horrible it is to require a console and a handheld or 4, I'm shocked that they're even making more games like that.
Where's games like Pikmin 3 Try Elebits.
or Katamari? Never on a Nintendo system before. Try Monkey Ball.
Or DDR Released last month.
or Guitar Hero? You've got less than a month to go. Getting a bit impatient?
I've got one and only bothered to rent half a dozen games so far... that's not good. Maybe you need to look around more.
The DS had that problem at first too. But eventually, developers got used to the new controls and it got some awesome games. The Wii's had some dry spots, but it's got some really good games and it's going to have a good Christmas. Upcoming it has Fire Emblem, Resident Evil, Mario Galaxy, Soul Calibur Legends, Mario & Sonic Olympics, and NiGHTS (and other exclusives - check out IGN's release list), and you should check out Super Paper Mario and Metroid if you haven't already. There's a lot of original content for Wii, and there will be a whole lot more. Don't give up on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_games
As opposed to a used DS? Yeah, that was probably unfair, but I didn't know the price of used DS off the top of my head.
Besides, this factor of 2 difference is still much smaller than the factor of 4 or 5 difference between a new PS2 and a new PS3. Yeah, but I didn't tell anyone to get a new PS3.
The DS does have good reasons to get it, for instance it has resurrected the adventure genre on consoles. Hotel Dusk is a really amazing game, and there's other great games in other genres depending on what you like. And even though it doesn't have as many good RPGs as the GBA, it does have some, and that might be enough to make it worth it to you. I wasn't telling anyone to not be a DS because it's useless, just saying I'm a little disappointed so far in the RPG offerings.
Besides, I didn't count any Harvest Moon, because if I had, that would make at least 2 more games. There's only been one Harvest Moon released for DS, unless you count Rune Factory, which you already did.
You're adding ports to, while I didn't. FFIII and Xenosaga aren't ports?
I don't understand what your point is, but if it is that RPG fans are starved more than on the GBA at the same relative time after launch, I could agree one year ago, but can't now. Agree with me or not, but the GBA was better for RPGs than the DS is now. In raw numbers it released more RPGs faster, and it had better ones. I'm been trying to play Contact right now, and the game just sucks. There's hardly a storyline, the combat system sucks and isn't really RPGish, and it's too focused on being "quirky". I played Lunar Dragon Song, and that just sucked (just look at the reviews). Where's the DS Golden Sun, Final Fantasy Tactics, or Fire Emblem? When you search the IGN reviews for DS RPGs, you get a bunch of crappy titles with scores as low as 4. The DS has been pretty much a disappointment so far when it comes to RPGs. It should pick up eventually, especially with Dragon Quest IX, but I don't think it'll have as good of a library in the end as the GBA has.
Read again what I wrote, the clearly separated end of the list are the games released in Japan only for now. No, you had games in both sections that are not released in America yet.
Comparing a 6+ years old console library to a less than 3 years one is stupid anyway It is when you're debating between getting a used gameboy for $60 or a DS for $130. Anyways, the DS library hasn't been growing nearly as fast as the GBA's did. Let's compare GBA games released in the first 3 years to the first 3 years of the DS. Only counting good (because I'm not listing every one) GBA RPGs released through 2004 (using IGN), we have:
Your list has 10 games that are already released, my list has 18. Neither list is complete, of course, but the DS has been building its RPG library slower than the GBA did.