About the only thing that comes up every now and again about Doom and Doom 2 was that we laugh among friends about the memory of not being able to Jump.
Ah, I misunderstood your "organic" comment. Yes locally grown at farmers market is best, and you are right, unfortunately more expensive. I thought you were referring to "organic" brands in the store, which is mostly just that, branding.
Also I only said I didn't grow up in poverty, that isn't to say that I haven't ever had to make do with very little money or means.
Sorry all for gay marriage and stuff, but in the above example a simple will would have solved that issue. If they were together for 30 years and didn't make wills out to each other, that is silly. You can put all sorts of stuff in wills like power of attorney etc... Marriage does offer some automatic "default" rights, but you can still set them up yourself if you really want to.
About the only argument that I have against gay marriage is that of certain government benefits (mostly tax breaks) that married couples get. The idea behind this is to promote families, ultimately procreation, and even beyond that population growth. Which you are not going to get with a gay couple. Honestly I think government should get out of all of that entirely, or if not, base it only on offspring, in which case if a gay couple adopted, or surrogate, or artificial, or whatever, then they would be just as eligible. Plenty of straight couples out there getting benefits with no intention of having kids, why is government supporting them also?
The answer I know is votes really. Show me a politician who wants to come out anti-family or increasing taxes on families and I will show you one that isn't going to win.
Hmmm. Interesting. Always neat when you find contrary stories. Makes me wonder what is actually true and where the bias might be.
This seems to be from the french perspective (mostly), while the one I read I seem to recall being German. Perhaps there was some political bias in the German one.
Then again: "The grid said the rise in German power imports was due to a big increase in sun power capacity and because coal-fired power plants were now far more competitive."
That was really the only explanation given. They went on to talk about other numbers, but don't provide any for the facts around WHY? "Big increase" how big, why not use a number. Coal-fired plans? So Germany is using more production from coal? Importing from other countries that use coal as it is cheaper power? How much?
Anyway hard to tell if it is just poor writing or if again, there is only a partial story being presented.
Also who the fsck is "The grid" and are they unbiased?
I never said less money. Only that you can do it with little money.
First of all food labeled "Organic" is at least in my mind about 80% BS. It is a marketing ploy to simply make more money. Everything you said is still processed food. Buying things like rice, beans, vegetables, fruits, and the basics like bread, butter, and the like. I have heard parents exclaim about the cost of milk, but that might be due to the volumes that kids drink. As you say as a kid I didn't ever come from poverty, however even I remember mom buying that awful powered milk stuff.
As a student I was pretty was poor then, and while eating healthy was more difficult it wasn't probably more expensive (i.e you need to know how to actually cook things, and also have the time to do so). That said I didn't eat particularly healthy, but I think I could have if I had made the effort.
One thing that hasn't been mentioned at all is that those in poverty also tend to live from paycheck to paycheck, or even less than that by using those horrible payday loan places. Apart from the vegetables which can be cheap, much of the other stuff requires "bulk" purchases, like a 10kg bag of whatever, not individual servings of whatever you can get that day. It requires saving and planning and budgeting, or at least a little anyway. Could be that some are so far behind that is impossible, and I don't really know what to say to that.
How are those folks that bought the Xbox One with the video camera now?
On a more funny note, the FIRST thing I thought of was this:
Presidential Speech: Obama: Blah Blah Blah Freedom Blah Blah Change, etc... Secret Service Agent: *whispers into Obama's ear* Sir we have reports that Stormwind is under attack... Obama:...something of national security has come up I will have to pick this up later.
Later in the Oval Office: OrcPrez69 has logged in.
I would say worse (not in actuality, but in hypocrisy) is that by far they buy the most power from France, who in turn generates 80% of their power VIA.... nuclear.
So what is Germany doing again?
They are politically making it someone else's problem while not solving their own issues.
Like anything, you are correct in some situations. I would agree that the primary indicator for obesity is Poverty. However it *is* lazy to assume that the actual reason for this is the lack of actual money.
As I know my mantra on slashdot is causation VS causality. Too many lazy researchers and statisticians will see a LINK and assume some sort of primary cause which is BS.
As mentioned I have no doubt in some cases having to live off "dollar" menu is the cause. Is it is the primary? I would say, no it is not. Healthy food is not that expensive to come by for one even by "dollar" menu standards. It sometimes takes a bit of planning and know how, but isn't out of reach for most. Food is cheaper than ever, and we have more access than ever. Those in the 3rd world would laugh at the assertion that McD's seems the only option. Those in poverty are also the least educated. The least employed. They come from poor backgrounds, with other less educated situations, they usually have a host of other things going on, like drinking more, smoking, etc... (despite only having dollar menu money)... Anyway fat parents make fat kids, as they make their diet choices which are pass on to their kids, etc...
Anyway I am not trying to be mean, I am just saying that while poverty is no doubt one of the primary indicator of obesity it is not necessarily the lack of actual funds to buy healthy food that is the root cause. That is total BS I think. It is one of a host of factors, and I think one of the lesser ones, that most determine the challenges one might face in this regard.
Anyway I agree obviously fat doesn't mean lazy, though one could probably easily say statistically that more lazy people are fat as easily as you say that most fat people are poor. It is one of many things. Education and upbringing I think are probably bigger indicators, it just happens that usually better off people have better off upbringing (insofar as diet and food choices go), and have better access to education etc... Once you are in that fat category, I can no doubt understand it is a hard monkey to shake off your back, and requires sweeping lifestyle changes. To do that take a lot of discipline. Those that have done it, obviously have some. Those that haven't may be lacking in that department. So again statistically, it would easily be said that fat people have less discipline that others. Again only one of meny factors. There could be health issues of course, and it could likely be argued that poor people are in worse health, which contributes to obesity, in a vicious circle, the bigger and longer you are that way, the less healthy you are, which makes it more difficult to change, etc... Particularly when this all starts when you are a kid and not really making your own decisions (hence the "upbringing" comment, i'm not trying to be elitist or anything).
I think you probably see where I am going with this. It isn't as simple as being poor and ordering dollar menu items and frankly I think that is lazy and used by a crutch by far too many.
The response to the rest of the article is that probably why doctors are not prescribing diet pills for obesity is because they are educated and not idiots. Other than in very special circumstances, pills are not the answer. Eating habits and lifestyle changes are. The weigh secret is this: Eat a bit less and better (and you know how idiot), and be a bit more active. That's it.
And yes you are right. Anyway that has done a smidge of research (and I have done very little) will tell you it is VERY obvious that the BIGGEST issue with food, isn't fat, salt, or whatever, it is sugar. Specifically refined sugar. People didn't have access to in the past what we do now, and what we do now is ubiquitous in everything. It is like trying not to eat salt in processed foods. It isn't possible. With only a few food choices a typical person will be well over their health allotment of sugar in a day. Hell I have had two coffee's this morning and I probably am already. Anyway it is everywhere and in everything, and actually trying to avoid it can be difficult. Part of the reason is the addiction thing people keep mentioning. I am not sure I would go so far as to say it is intentional on the part of the food industry, but I would say that it has been institutionalized over time for successful profits. Anyway the more refined the worse it is. The reason is the less refined, the longer it takes for your body to absorb it, while the more refined it goes a straight shot through your system. I bet if you looks at rates of diabetes from years ago to now it is through the roof and getting worse, partly due to obesity which is in part caused by sugar anyway, and partly directly to do is increase consumption.
Anyway it is the one thing that I look a bit closely at and try to regulate a bit in my diet. However even things that seem "healthy" like certain fruit juices, and some grains are just loaded with natural sugars, it isn't just the artificially refined stuff.
That is generally what I remember. The emperor was to remain in political power (part of the problem with surrender was no one would oppose him), and I believe they also wanted to keep a standing army. Both of which the US didn't really want to do (for legitimate reasons).
There is always a choice however, and the alternative was to incinerate a couple hundred thousand civilians which was seen as a better alternative.
From what I have read, the Japanese were entrenched and told to hold out til the end. Estimates produced by the US as to what their losses would be for a land invasion ranged from 500,000 to 1,000,000 troops.
They know politically that the US public would never stand for that amount of loss and stay in the war. The only two alternatives were to negotiate with the emperor (which they were unwilling), or to start dropping atomic bombs to intimidate them into capitulation.
I remember there was communication that the Japanese would consider surrender, but they wanted all sorts of concessions. So they didn't HAVE to, but they were unwilling. As to why they were unwilling, be it for strategic reasons, or political ones I am not sure, probably a bit of both.
I am no nuclear scientist, but I thought radiation sickness and death was a factor of emission of the source and well as time exposed and distance. The exact details of the source can be found here(111 TBq): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt-60#Safety
However all they did was find the material, unshielded. They don't know how long the thieves had been exposed to it. Unless the level was high enough that any unshielded exposure would lead to insta-death (which I find hard to believe). It could be that their exposure was reduced to opening it, discarding it, and leaving, so on the magnitude of minutes. Anyway they seem to be missing 2 or 3 variables to make such a assured claim.
I don't know how to calculate a lethal dose from the indicated source strength to figure out the amount of time needed. Looking into it, calculating TBq (or Curie) into Gy/h (or rads/h) looks pretty complicated. Found an online tool, but it doesn't seem to work.
Anyway far from "They will, without a doubt, die.", unless it is of that insta-gib variety.
OK, I admit I didn't read too carefully. Thought you were just comparing the Xbox and PS4 situation.
However it is likely for the exact same reason. When is DDR5 coming out? Can you actually buy some? No you cannot. Why design and release something you cannot use?
Reminds me of the funny MB with two slots, one for one kind of DDR VS another. I have no doubt the have another version all ready for "release" once DDR5 become viable and common place.
I could be wrong, but it had little to do with AMD and more to do with MS specifications.
The only difference between the graphic cores on the Xbox One and PS4 is that the PS4 uses newer DDR5 memory, while the xbox DDR3. Xbox tried to compensate for the slower memory by adding additional cache on die, however this takes up physical real estate, which forced them to use a couple less cores (in exchange for faster memory handling). To simply say one is faster/better than the other is a bit misleading.
The reason for this was that MS speculated that the new DDR5 memory would be in short supply and there would not be enough production to supply their manufacturing. Considering the PS4, if they both used it, they would have probably been correct.
So anyway you are only looking at the GPU aspect, put it is integrated with the CPU, that does include an increased amount of cache on the xbox side. I think it is a bit early to tell what real life difference it makes. Early comparisons say little to none. Given time maybe, of course by then MS may adapt their design.
I am unbiased in this as I am not buying either, at least not for some time...
Slashdot Mirror
And when its not windy you have a 0MW wind farm.
a sufficient number of them might actually do something productive...
Just because we are all holograms does that make us any less real? I think therefore I am! I have feelings damn it! :)
About the only thing that comes up every now and again about Doom and Doom 2 was that we laugh among friends about the memory of not being able to Jump.
It's Finland... I guess they are west, sort of. West of Russia. Then again everything is except Canada and the US, does that make more sense?
Ah, I misunderstood your "organic" comment. Yes locally grown at farmers market is best, and you are right, unfortunately more expensive. I thought you were referring to "organic" brands in the store, which is mostly just that, branding.
Also I only said I didn't grow up in poverty, that isn't to say that I haven't ever had to make do with very little money or means.
Rather than Satan, have Stalin, not sure which would piss them off more!
Also
The biggest fattest laughing Budda! It is all a grand cosmic joke!
Sorry all for gay marriage and stuff, but in the above example a simple will would have solved that issue.
If they were together for 30 years and didn't make wills out to each other, that is silly.
You can put all sorts of stuff in wills like power of attorney etc...
Marriage does offer some automatic "default" rights, but you can still set them up yourself if you really want to.
About the only argument that I have against gay marriage is that of certain government benefits (mostly tax breaks) that married couples get. The idea behind this is to promote families, ultimately procreation, and even beyond that population growth.
Which you are not going to get with a gay couple. Honestly I think government should get out of all of that entirely, or if not, base it only on offspring, in which case if a gay couple adopted, or surrogate, or artificial, or whatever, then they would be just as eligible. Plenty of straight couples out there getting benefits with no intention of having kids, why is government supporting them also?
The answer I know is votes really. Show me a politician who wants to come out anti-family or increasing taxes on families and I will show you one that isn't going to win.
I'm not a Satanist, but I would donate money towards that cause...
Whatever, Satanists VALIDATE their beliefs. They should hate them, but somehow be glad they are around.
Atheists just think they are nuts.
Hmmm. Interesting. Always neat when you find contrary stories.
Makes me wonder what is actually true and where the bias might be.
This seems to be from the french perspective (mostly), while the one I read I seem to recall being German. Perhaps there was some political bias in the German one.
Then again:
"The grid said the rise in German power imports was due to a big increase in sun power capacity and because coal-fired power plants were now far more competitive."
That was really the only explanation given. They went on to talk about other numbers, but don't provide any for the facts around WHY? "Big increase" how big, why not use a number. Coal-fired plans? So Germany is using more production from coal? Importing from other countries that use coal as it is cheaper power? How much?
Anyway hard to tell if it is just poor writing or if again, there is only a partial story being presented.
Also who the fsck is "The grid" and are they unbiased?
I never said less money. Only that you can do it with little money.
First of all food labeled "Organic" is at least in my mind about 80% BS. It is a marketing ploy to simply make more money. Everything you said is still processed food. Buying things like rice, beans, vegetables, fruits, and the basics like bread, butter, and the like. I have heard parents exclaim about the cost of milk, but that might be due to the volumes that kids drink. As you say as a kid I didn't ever come from poverty, however even I remember mom buying that awful powered milk stuff.
As a student I was pretty was poor then, and while eating healthy was more difficult it wasn't probably more expensive (i.e you need to know how to actually cook things, and also have the time to do so). That said I didn't eat particularly healthy, but I think I could have if I had made the effort.
One thing that hasn't been mentioned at all is that those in poverty also tend to live from paycheck to paycheck, or even less than that by using those horrible payday loan places. Apart from the vegetables which can be cheap, much of the other stuff requires "bulk" purchases, like a 10kg bag of whatever, not individual servings of whatever you can get that day. It requires saving and planning and budgeting, or at least a little anyway. Could be that some are so far behind that is impossible, and I don't really know what to say to that.
K, that would have made more sense if I said Orgrimmar... whatever it's a joke.
Someone somewhere just made an WOW toon called "TotallyNotTheNSA"...
How are those folks that bought the Xbox One with the video camera now?
On a more funny note, the FIRST thing I thought of was this:
Presidential Speech: ...something of national security has come up I will have to pick this up later.
Obama: Blah Blah Blah Freedom Blah Blah Change, etc...
Secret Service Agent: *whispers into Obama's ear* Sir we have reports that Stormwind is under attack...
Obama:
Later in the Oval Office:
OrcPrez69 has logged in.
The NSA has to use a CDROM and connect using a 28.8k baud modem to connect to AOL which severely limits how much data they can download.
It also doesn't help that someone down in accounting keeps picking up the phone making them have to start all over again...
I would say worse (not in actuality, but in hypocrisy) is that by far they buy the most power from France, who in turn generates 80% of their power VIA.... nuclear.
So what is Germany doing again?
They are politically making it someone else's problem while not solving their own issues.
Lego brick diet seems the new way to go... :)
"After eating lego bricks, I am just not hungry anymore!"
(May cause gastrointestinal problems and instant death, this diet isn't for everyone)
Like anything, you are correct in some situations. I would agree that the primary indicator for obesity is Poverty. However it *is* lazy to assume that the actual reason for this is the lack of actual money.
As I know my mantra on slashdot is causation VS causality. Too many lazy researchers and statisticians will see a LINK and assume some sort of primary cause which is BS.
As mentioned I have no doubt in some cases having to live off "dollar" menu is the cause. Is it is the primary? I would say, no it is not. Healthy food is not that expensive to come by for one even by "dollar" menu standards. It sometimes takes a bit of planning and know how, but isn't out of reach for most. Food is cheaper than ever, and we have more access than ever. Those in the 3rd world would laugh at the assertion that McD's seems the only option. Those in poverty are also the least educated. The least employed. They come from poor backgrounds, with other less educated situations, they usually have a host of other things going on, like drinking more, smoking, etc... (despite only having dollar menu money)... Anyway fat parents make fat kids, as they make their diet choices which are pass on to their kids, etc...
Anyway I am not trying to be mean, I am just saying that while poverty is no doubt one of the primary indicator of obesity it is not necessarily the lack of actual funds to buy healthy food that is the root cause. That is total BS I think. It is one of a host of factors, and I think one of the lesser ones, that most determine the challenges one might face in this regard.
Anyway I agree obviously fat doesn't mean lazy, though one could probably easily say statistically that more lazy people are fat as easily as you say that most fat people are poor. It is one of many things. Education and upbringing I think are probably bigger indicators, it just happens that usually better off people have better off upbringing (insofar as diet and food choices go), and have better access to education etc... Once you are in that fat category, I can no doubt understand it is a hard monkey to shake off your back, and requires sweeping lifestyle changes. To do that take a lot of discipline. Those that have done it, obviously have some. Those that haven't may be lacking in that department. So again statistically, it would easily be said that fat people have less discipline that others. Again only one of meny factors. There could be health issues of course, and it could likely be argued that poor people are in worse health, which contributes to obesity, in a vicious circle, the bigger and longer you are that way, the less healthy you are, which makes it more difficult to change, etc... Particularly when this all starts when you are a kid and not really making your own decisions (hence the "upbringing" comment, i'm not trying to be elitist or anything).
I think you probably see where I am going with this. It isn't as simple as being poor and ordering dollar menu items and frankly I think that is lazy and used by a crutch by far too many.
The response to the rest of the article is that probably why doctors are not prescribing diet pills for obesity is because they are educated and not idiots. Other than in very special circumstances, pills are not the answer. Eating habits and lifestyle changes are. The weigh secret is this: Eat a bit less and better (and you know how idiot), and be a bit more active. That's it.
And yes you are right. Anyway that has done a smidge of research (and I have done very little) will tell you it is VERY obvious that the BIGGEST issue with food, isn't fat, salt, or whatever, it is sugar. Specifically refined sugar. People didn't have access to in the past what we do now, and what we do now is ubiquitous in everything. It is like trying not to eat salt in processed foods. It isn't possible. With only a few food choices a typical person will be well over their health allotment of sugar in a day. Hell I have had two coffee's this morning and I probably am already. Anyway it is everywhere and in everything, and actually trying to avoid it can be difficult. Part of the reason is the addiction thing people keep mentioning. I am not sure I would go so far as to say it is intentional on the part of the food industry, but I would say that it has been institutionalized over time for successful profits. Anyway the more refined the worse it is. The reason is the less refined, the longer it takes for your body to absorb it, while the more refined it goes a straight shot through your system. I bet if you looks at rates of diabetes from years ago to now it is through the roof and getting worse, partly due to obesity which is in part caused by sugar anyway, and partly directly to do is increase consumption.
Anyway it is the one thing that I look a bit closely at and try to regulate a bit in my diet. However even things that seem "healthy" like certain fruit juices, and some grains are just loaded with natural sugars, it isn't just the artificially refined stuff.
That is generally what I remember. The emperor was to remain in political power (part of the problem with surrender was no one would oppose him), and I believe they also wanted to keep a standing army. Both of which the US didn't really want to do (for legitimate reasons).
There is always a choice however, and the alternative was to incinerate a couple hundred thousand civilians which was seen as a better alternative.
A lot more people died than 12 Million. I remember hearing that most the casualties were Russian, and that figure was 20+ million by itself.
Wiki says 60 Million.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties
From what I have read, the Japanese were entrenched and told to hold out til the end. Estimates produced by the US as to what their losses would be for a land invasion ranged from 500,000 to 1,000,000 troops.
They know politically that the US public would never stand for that amount of loss and stay in the war. The only two alternatives were to negotiate with the emperor (which they were unwilling), or to start dropping atomic bombs to intimidate them into capitulation.
I remember there was communication that the Japanese would consider surrender, but they wanted all sorts of concessions. So they didn't HAVE to, but they were unwilling. As to why they were unwilling, be it for strategic reasons, or political ones I am not sure, probably a bit of both.
I am no nuclear scientist, but I thought radiation sickness and death was a factor of emission of the source and well as time exposed and distance.
The exact details of the source can be found here(111 TBq):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt-60#Safety
However all they did was find the material, unshielded. They don't know how long the thieves had been exposed to it. Unless the level was high enough that any unshielded exposure would lead to insta-death (which I find hard to believe). It could be that their exposure was reduced to opening it, discarding it, and leaving, so on the magnitude of minutes. Anyway they seem to be missing 2 or 3 variables to make such a assured claim.
I don't know how to calculate a lethal dose from the indicated source strength to figure out the amount of time needed. Looking into it, calculating TBq (or Curie) into Gy/h (or rads/h) looks pretty complicated. Found an online tool, but it doesn't seem to work.
Anyway far from "They will, without a doubt, die.", unless it is of that insta-gib variety.
Here is a mortality chart:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acute_radiation_syndrome#Signs_and_symptoms
2-6 Gy seems bad but possibly treatable, while 6+ means you are probably going to die regardless of what you do.
OK, I admit I didn't read too carefully. Thought you were just comparing the Xbox and PS4 situation.
However it is likely for the exact same reason. When is DDR5 coming out? Can you actually buy some? No you cannot. Why design and release something you cannot use?
Reminds me of the funny MB with two slots, one for one kind of DDR VS another. I have no doubt the have another version all ready for "release" once DDR5 become viable and common place.
I could be wrong, but it had little to do with AMD and more to do with MS specifications.
The only difference between the graphic cores on the Xbox One and PS4 is that the PS4 uses newer DDR5 memory, while the xbox DDR3. Xbox tried to compensate for the slower memory by adding additional cache on die, however this takes up physical real estate, which forced them to use a couple less cores (in exchange for faster memory handling). To simply say one is faster/better than the other is a bit misleading.
The reason for this was that MS speculated that the new DDR5 memory would be in short supply and there would not be enough production to supply their manufacturing. Considering the PS4, if they both used it, they would have probably been correct.
So anyway you are only looking at the GPU aspect, put it is integrated with the CPU, that does include an increased amount of cache on the xbox side. I think it is a bit early to tell what real life difference it makes. Early comparisons say little to none. Given time maybe, of course by then MS may adapt their design.
I am unbiased in this as I am not buying either, at least not for some time...