So are you advocating that we just all kill ourselves? Or go back to sleeping under trees? Because once we start building anything, we create some kind of pollution.
No, it's because a majority feel safer putting their lives in the hands of others who aren't as interested in the majority being safe. Police (specifically, beat cops) are more security theater.
Not necessarly. While you may burn more calories doing cardio, you burn more calories from FAT doing weight training. Thirty minues of cardio after at least 30 minutes of moderate weight training is the way to go. Also, as you weight train you build more muscle, which helps you burn more calories.
If you're looking to lose weight, you need 30 minutes of cardio after at least 20 to 30 minutes of weight training. And tracking your diet with something like DietMinder will help immensely as well... you won't be able to lie to yourself. When my wife and I lost weight, that's how we did it. She's now training to be in a body building show.. and we only started less than two years ago.
Not always practical. A few retards here in Vt try to bike in the dead of winter. It's dangerous enough for bikes on roads in the summer, in the winter.. well I saw someone come very close to being killed because neither bike nor car can really stick to a road coated with 2" of ice.
I wouldn't recommend working out at home anyway. Paying a gym can be a good motivator to actually make sure you go. Also, being surrounded by others also trying to get fit or stay fit is a motivator. As a geek, hopefully you can afford a trainer once in a while too. They are great, especially if you find one that works well with you.
Go to the bookstore or online and find a DietMinder book, and use it properly. Combine that with 30 minutes of good cardio (a heart monitor is a must) and weight training and you'll drop pounds. I lost 70 lbs in about 10 months. I enjoy it so much now, I've become a gym rat outside of work and starting to work on packing on muscle.
I've never felt better, and exercise can at least take the stress away, if not turn things around completely.
It seems like neither of you understand business. Cleaning up the tables for a platform which they are now going to pretend doesn't exist costs money, with no return. It works with the software they want it to work with, and they don't claim otherwise.
I'm with you, but to say ciminals get "lots of money without... much risk" is silly. The risk is exactly what allows the price to skyrocket. I don't see how being shot by cops or other dealers, or at least the risk of spending years of your life in jail as "not much risk."
You talk making while blanket statements. I would argue that a vast majority of "criminals" should not even be criminals, and the only reason they are is because state and the Federal governments are far overreaching their borders. And there's nothing funny about a runaway government either.
I already addressed why the tables for Linux might have been there. It may have been decided that it wasn't worth the effort to continue support for linux before the product was completed.
Cutting corners? They don't see linux as important enough to support, so they don't bother testing it with linux. It could be that they originally planned on it, but decided not to later, hence the tables. But I don't see that as cutting corners any more than when I design my software for my job I only test on Windows, because it's not worht it to test on Linux for the one person that would want to use it.
It's basic property law. Otherwise I could "borrow" anything I wanted from you without permission, and as long as I said I would return it, there'd be nothing wrong. If you're really questioning this... well, you really don't know the first thing about the law.
Trespassing. That prevents you from entering the building to reclaim your stuff. Sure, the company still has to return your personal items, but it has to be in a reasonable amount of time, not necessarily instantly just because you demanded it.
Your property can be returned to you without you trespassing. You question basic property law, then come up with this nonsense? Please, cite the law YOU think allows them to hold your property for "a reasonable amount of time." That's my point, AFAIK, none exists, but I'm also not going to claim I know the law in all 50 states. But please, if you can find even one, I'd be suprised.
Should it be something important like keys, wallet, phone, or medication that might be at your desk or in your brief case in our office, most places aren't likely to be unreasonable. They'd probably escort you to your desk to get your important stuff.
So you claim the law distinguishes between "important" property when deciding how long employers may hold it? Again, back it up.
Otherwise, they'll have a security or an employee with an observer get it for you while you wait in the lobby. Otherwise, if the company is being difficult, you'd have to call the police who could demand the items right away. Failure to do so would result in a fine, but nothing else.
When did theft become punishable by only a fine? Have you ever read any criminal statutes?
So you're claiming an OS just released should be optimized to work on a specific kind of drive who's future is still not set in stone?
I love how Vista is singled out, as if somehow any previous version of Windows was optimized for SSD. And while there may be a distro of Linux "optimized" for SSD, I somehow doubt the popular ones are similarly optimized.
Finally, the article is really short on details. The controllers are more complex, so it's Vista's fault? Or is it their fault for not knowing the design specs of their target platform. I wonder..
Except that Linux market share isn't growing in any significant way. It's largely replacing Unix servers, not Windows. It's going nowhere on the desktop.
As a developer, make it hard for me to develop for your platform, when your platform has little market share, and I won't even bother developing for the platform at all. That's why I like developing on Windows, BTW. It's a hell of a lot easier.
How is it better in the long term, when long term the vendors simply choose to not release any drivers at all? It's silly to think that changing the api is a good way to "force" vendors to do anything. If they updated the windows drivers, why wouldn't they update the linux ones? If they actually let the drivers stagnate, you as a customer should complain.
This just sounds like one side not willing to compromise at all, then wondering why no one is playing with the gpl community.
Well, to start, the matter in question is here in the US, so what happens in the UK is irrelevent. It's also very stupid; it leaves anyone in a position to say "I'll return it eventually." That wouldn't fly in any US court. When one demands their property back, they tend to get it.
Legally if you demand it now, they have to give it to you now. I don't recall seeing any special laws exempting employers from returning personal property on demand.
Nice idea, except I simply won't come back to the site, as I suspect many other AVG users would not do. The novices out there will read your message as "Sorry AVG user, your antivirus is abusive and wastes our resources. Disable AVG and come back so we can infect your machine!"
There is no constitutional protection when not in the United States and at border crossings you're nowhere.
That's just an Orwellian way around the constitution. If you're really nowhere, then US Customs have no authority in that piece of land either... after all, it's not part of the US, right?
oh yes, our hallowed rights to making donuts with trans-fats. I'm sure the founding fathers are turning in their graves at the very thought of banning it. Are you serious? I don't buy the slippery slope "first they came for my trans-fats" BS either....and if the "simple solution" is no longer eating out, that's kind of a problem.
As opposed to your hallowed right to eat out? Please, give it a rest. Nothing gives you the right to interfere between two other private parties. You have no basis on it. Your quip at the founders shows how little you really do understand of their thinking; I think they no support banning of transfats anymore than they would support hundreds of other ways out government is stepping on our rights today.
Read up more on trans-fats. Most of the health problems occur even with small amounts, and 0.5 grams per serving is much more than the trace amounts of natural trans-fats you mention that no one cares about. These aren't naive people calling for the ban. They're more educated on the subject than either of us.
I did; look at the four reference about margarine again, and not it says "high levels." Note also that later it says that small amounts of transfats are found in EVERY fat. In other words, they CAN and DO naturally occur in small amounts, so it stands to reason small amounts won't be harmful to humans, since we've been eating them for thousands of years.
All other fats are natural nutrients that the body is not allergic to, as with trans-fats, so that's irrelevant.
You didn't even read the links I posted did you? Transfat IS a "natural nutrient," it does occur in small amounts naturally.
How about if you make a donut with crack in it? Your logic implies that, like the unicorn dude, the government has no place regulating businesses, which I think is pretty silly.
You're right; as long as it's known I'm baking the donuts with crack, I absolutely should be allowed to sell it. The "war on drugs" in unconsitutional, government HAS NO RIGHT TO DICTATE WHAT ENTERS MY BODY. Because that's what drug and food bans are doing; telling me what I'm allowed to do with my own body. I personally find that exteremly offensive.
Soda is not that big of a problem, or at least, studies haven't confirmed that artificial sweetener is a problem. Furthermore, soda serves a unique purpose. Trans-fat serves no purpose that natural fats don't already serve, except longer shelf lives.
You're a fucking moron. Soda is a LARGER problem because people consume more of it, and the huge amounts of sugar cause more health problems than transfat ever has. Diabetes, and obesity, which then lead to heart attacks, stroke and cancer. It also dehydrates you and depletes vitamin K levels, increasing risk of osteoporosis. Soda as a nutirient has absolutely no value whatsoever. Four cans of soda (which is pretty common for a lot of people to drink) are 600 calories, or 30% of your TOTAL calorie needs. From JUST sugar. And you claim that serves some kind of "unique purpose?"
To equate banning trans-fat with banning a religion is utterly absurd. You're not allowed to use excessive amounts of lead in paint. I suppose christianity is next?
Why not? I can demonstrate that christianity is harming society. Many sexual preditors come from "highly religious" households, and many other people have all kinds of problems because of sexual hangups. Oh, and let's not forget priests raping boys, which the started when the catholic church banned priests marrying, and has known about for thousands of years and CONTINUES to hide.
For everything you think shouldn't be banned, I'm damn sure I can think of really good reasons TO ban them. And if you had any clue about history, you'd see we are continuing to slide down the slope.. but you think you're special and have some right to tell other's how to live their lives, so you don't see the problem.
But whatever.. I guess I should try to ban soda. Hope you didn't like it too much.
Thanks for linking something that requires $32 to read.
BMI isn't only inaccurate because of a person's heigh either; other factors come into play as well.
Back to your link, if the best that $32 study can say is that "shorter people may live longer," I think I'll file that under "bunk," especially when it doesn't sound like it came to the conclusion you seem to imply.
Slashdot Mirror
For those that don't believe in God, the same rights can be dervived through logic.
That was exactly my point... that almost anything we do will cause pollution, so the arguement that mining causes pollution is kinda moot.
So are you advocating that we just all kill ourselves? Or go back to sleeping under trees? Because once we start building anything, we create some kind of pollution.
No, it's because a majority feel safer putting their lives in the hands of others who aren't as interested in the majority being safe. Police (specifically, beat cops) are more security theater.
Not necessarly. While you may burn more calories doing cardio, you burn more calories from FAT doing weight training. Thirty minues of cardio after at least 30 minutes of moderate weight training is the way to go. Also, as you weight train you build more muscle, which helps you burn more calories.
If you're looking to lose weight, you need 30 minutes of cardio after at least 20 to 30 minutes of weight training. And tracking your diet with something like DietMinder will help immensely as well... you won't be able to lie to yourself. When my wife and I lost weight, that's how we did it. She's now training to be in a body building show.. and we only started less than two years ago.
Not always practical. A few retards here in Vt try to bike in the dead of winter. It's dangerous enough for bikes on roads in the summer, in the winter.. well I saw someone come very close to being killed because neither bike nor car can really stick to a road coated with 2" of ice.
I wouldn't recommend working out at home anyway. Paying a gym can be a good motivator to actually make sure you go. Also, being surrounded by others also trying to get fit or stay fit is a motivator. As a geek, hopefully you can afford a trainer once in a while too. They are great, especially if you find one that works well with you.
Go to the bookstore or online and find a DietMinder book, and use it properly. Combine that with 30 minutes of good cardio (a heart monitor is a must) and weight training and you'll drop pounds. I lost 70 lbs in about 10 months. I enjoy it so much now, I've become a gym rat outside of work and starting to work on packing on muscle.
I've never felt better, and exercise can at least take the stress away, if not turn things around completely.
It seems like neither of you understand business. Cleaning up the tables for a platform which they are now going to pretend doesn't exist costs money, with no return. It works with the software they want it to work with, and they don't claim otherwise.
I'm with you, but to say ciminals get "lots of money without ... much risk" is silly. The risk is exactly what allows the price to skyrocket. I don't see how being shot by cops or other dealers, or at least the risk of spending years of your life in jail as "not much risk."
You talk making while blanket statements. I would argue that a vast majority of "criminals" should not even be criminals, and the only reason they are is because state and the Federal governments are far overreaching their borders. And there's nothing funny about a runaway government either.
I already addressed why the tables for Linux might have been there. It may have been decided that it wasn't worth the effort to continue support for linux before the product was completed.
Cutting corners? They don't see linux as important enough to support, so they don't bother testing it with linux. It could be that they originally planned on it, but decided not to later, hence the tables. But I don't see that as cutting corners any more than when I design my software for my job I only test on Windows, because it's not worht it to test on Linux for the one person that would want to use it.
Do they? What law says they have to?
It's basic property law. Otherwise I could "borrow" anything I wanted from you without permission, and as long as I said I would return it, there'd be nothing wrong. If you're really questioning this... well, you really don't know the first thing about the law.
Trespassing. That prevents you from entering the building to reclaim your stuff. Sure, the company still has to return your personal items, but it has to be in a reasonable amount of time, not necessarily instantly just because you demanded it.
Your property can be returned to you without you trespassing. You question basic property law, then come up with this nonsense? Please, cite the law YOU think allows them to hold your property for "a reasonable amount of time." That's my point, AFAIK, none exists, but I'm also not going to claim I know the law in all 50 states. But please, if you can find even one, I'd be suprised.
Should it be something important like keys, wallet, phone, or medication that might be at your desk or in your brief case in our office, most places aren't likely to be unreasonable. They'd probably escort you to your desk to get your important stuff.
So you claim the law distinguishes between "important" property when deciding how long employers may hold it? Again, back it up.
Otherwise, they'll have a security or an employee with an observer get it for you while you wait in the lobby. Otherwise, if the company is being difficult, you'd have to call the police who could demand the items right away. Failure to do so would result in a fine, but nothing else.
When did theft become punishable by only a fine? Have you ever read any criminal statutes?
So you're claiming an OS just released should be optimized to work on a specific kind of drive who's future is still not set in stone?
I love how Vista is singled out, as if somehow any previous version of Windows was optimized for SSD. And while there may be a distro of Linux "optimized" for SSD, I somehow doubt the popular ones are similarly optimized.
Finally, the article is really short on details. The controllers are more complex, so it's Vista's fault? Or is it their fault for not knowing the design specs of their target platform. I wonder..
Except that Linux market share isn't growing in any significant way. It's largely replacing Unix servers, not Windows. It's going nowhere on the desktop.
As a developer, make it hard for me to develop for your platform, when your platform has little market share, and I won't even bother developing for the platform at all. That's why I like developing on Windows, BTW. It's a hell of a lot easier.
How is it better in the long term, when long term the vendors simply choose to not release any drivers at all? It's silly to think that changing the api is a good way to "force" vendors to do anything. If they updated the windows drivers, why wouldn't they update the linux ones? If they actually let the drivers stagnate, you as a customer should complain.
This just sounds like one side not willing to compromise at all, then wondering why no one is playing with the gpl community.
Well, to start, the matter in question is here in the US, so what happens in the UK is irrelevent. It's also very stupid; it leaves anyone in a position to say "I'll return it eventually." That wouldn't fly in any US court. When one demands their property back, they tend to get it.
Legally if you demand it now, they have to give it to you now. I don't recall seeing any special laws exempting employers from returning personal property on demand.
Ya, it's fine until you're caught, then you just move some place else.
Nice idea, except I simply won't come back to the site, as I suspect many other AVG users would not do. The novices out there will read your message as "Sorry AVG user, your antivirus is abusive and wastes our resources. Disable AVG and come back so we can infect your machine!"
Mine is between 150,000 and 180,000, and I think I got mine fairly early (in 1996).
Why would anyone be suprised the landfill for NYC and Philly would be dirty?
Oh good... then US customs agents have no authority there either, since they are not in the US either.
There is no constitutional protection when not in the United States and at border crossings you're nowhere.
That's just an Orwellian way around the constitution. If you're really nowhere, then US Customs have no authority in that piece of land either... after all, it's not part of the US, right?
oh yes, our hallowed rights to making donuts with trans-fats. I'm sure the founding fathers are turning in their graves at the very thought of banning it. Are you serious? I don't buy the slippery slope "first they came for my trans-fats" BS either. ...and if the "simple solution" is no longer eating out, that's kind of a problem.
As opposed to your hallowed right to eat out? Please, give it a rest. Nothing gives you the right to interfere between two other private parties. You have no basis on it. Your quip at the founders shows how little you really do understand of their thinking; I think they no support banning of transfats anymore than they would support hundreds of other ways out government is stepping on our rights today.
Read up more on trans-fats. Most of the health problems occur even with small amounts, and 0.5 grams per serving is much more than the trace amounts of natural trans-fats you mention that no one cares about. These aren't naive people calling for the ban. They're more educated on the subject than either of us.
I did; look at the four reference about margarine again, and not it says "high levels." Note also that later it says that small amounts of transfats are found in EVERY fat. In other words, they CAN and DO naturally occur in small amounts, so it stands to reason small amounts won't be harmful to humans, since we've been eating them for thousands of years.
All other fats are natural nutrients that the body is not allergic to, as with trans-fats, so that's irrelevant.
You didn't even read the links I posted did you? Transfat IS a "natural nutrient," it does occur in small amounts naturally.
How about if you make a donut with crack in it? Your logic implies that, like the unicorn dude, the government has no place regulating businesses, which I think is pretty silly.
You're right; as long as it's known I'm baking the donuts with crack, I absolutely should be allowed to sell it. The "war on drugs" in unconsitutional, government HAS NO RIGHT TO DICTATE WHAT ENTERS MY BODY. Because that's what drug and food bans are doing; telling me what I'm allowed to do with my own body. I personally find that exteremly offensive.
Soda is not that big of a problem, or at least, studies haven't confirmed that artificial sweetener is a problem. Furthermore, soda serves a unique purpose. Trans-fat serves no purpose that natural fats don't already serve, except longer shelf lives.
You're a fucking moron. Soda is a LARGER problem because people consume more of it, and the huge amounts of sugar cause more health problems than transfat ever has. Diabetes, and obesity, which then lead to heart attacks, stroke and cancer. It also dehydrates you and depletes vitamin K levels, increasing risk of osteoporosis. Soda as a nutirient has absolutely no value whatsoever. Four cans of soda (which is pretty common for a lot of people to drink) are 600 calories, or 30% of your TOTAL calorie needs. From JUST sugar. And you claim that serves some kind of "unique purpose?"
To equate banning trans-fat with banning a religion is utterly absurd. You're not allowed to use excessive amounts of lead in paint. I suppose christianity is next?
Why not? I can demonstrate that christianity is harming society. Many sexual preditors come from "highly religious" households, and many other people have all kinds of problems because of sexual hangups. Oh, and let's not forget priests raping boys, which the started when the catholic church banned priests marrying, and has known about for thousands of years and CONTINUES to hide.
For everything you think shouldn't be banned, I'm damn sure I can think of really good reasons TO ban them. And if you had any clue about history, you'd see we are continuing to slide down the slope.. but you think you're special and have some right to tell other's how to live their lives, so you don't see the problem.
But whatever.. I guess I should try to ban soda. Hope you didn't like it too much.
Thanks for linking something that requires $32 to read.
BMI isn't only inaccurate because of a person's heigh either; other factors come into play as well.
Back to your link, if the best that $32 study can say is that "shorter people may live longer," I think I'll file that under "bunk," especially when it doesn't sound like it came to the conclusion you seem to imply.