Lets just hope our municipalities don't use your logic when they say the water out of our taps is 'potable'. I would hate to think that after people start dying around town that the water authority doesn't make the statement of "We didn't say that it was _only_ potable water that we were pumping through your pipes."
You realize that we are at the end of 2009 right? And that Windows 7 is just now being released? MS might just be considering that in 2020 we might still be running Windows 8. I know that only looking 1Q into the future is hip for businesses, but maybe MS is looking farther ahead than that. We are still living with issues created by PC limitations from the 16-bit era. Probably a bunch from the 8-bit era that I am not aware of. I see no problem with planning ahead so that they can get the transition done sooner rather than later, or just make the transition smoother than previous bit size transitions.
Good luck on that. Given that:
Our government's (US) official recommended diet is something like 80% sugar.
The medical and insurance industries that are considered 'experts' by the population (including those that would make school corriculum) us BMI as gosple.
The vast majority of the population think that Calories Eaten - Calories Burned is exactly how you adjust diet for healthy eating.
I don't see how you could ever hope to get schools to teach proper nutrition. Of course, they try, and in trying, they are just taking us one step closer to a full orphanage society. Heck, the new push is to get kids to just eat food supplied by the school system. OK, to be fair, they are not trying to take away dinner yet, but schools do push to get as many kids eating breakfast and lunches supplied by the schools.
I'm talking about that fact that this has only become a problem now. At the time that XP was released, the vast majority of people liked it, and they saw it as noticably better than what they were previously running. Certainly SP1 made it better, but the initial release was well accepted and rightfully so.
And there you go. You were in the minority of people who both were already enjoying the stability of the NT codebase and placed usability below stability. For you, XP was an incremental improvement instead of the revolutionary improvement it was for the vast majority of users who where on 95 or ME. Combine the hype and the more attractive interface and it is no surprise that you and the minority of users that were in you position didn't like XP.
All in all XP was a huge improvement for most users, a small improvement for the rest of the users, and a huge improvement for MS in that they could bring their consumer and business OSes into a single code base. Most people realized this.
I keep hearing that lately, but I saw it happen. When XP came out, everyone was still stinging from ME. They had been happy with 95 because, like it or not, for the day, it was a pretty decent OS. ME came out and was a horrible. Then XP came out. It added the shiny of ME plus some, and the stability of 2000. The only people that I ever heard complaining about XP were the people who were already running 2000, had no interest in playing games, and were offended by the rounded edges of XP's interface. That was a pretty small group. Beyond that, all I ever heard were people who like the massive improvement in stability.
As far as I can tell, this XP hate is just revisionist history.
Domino 8.5.1 to be released within the next couple of weeks can use the Exchange protocol to talk to phones. Domino has had IMAP for years. As for web based email on PCs, Domino has had offline access to the web based email for years. Well, actually, it has had offline access for ANY web based application running on Domino that the developer decided to implement offline access for.
In the short run, I agree with you. In the long run, I can conceive of a universe where people think it is insane to have exposed electrical sitting out in plain sight every 12 feet in every room of a home. Think of the children!!!! Joking aside, There was a time when people thought nothing of having bear electrical wires running through their house to power lights. Today, we would think they were insane. Give it one generation of magnetic resonance being used to power household appliances, and people would think you were crazy to have a bunch of holes in the wall that would let a small child electrocute themselves.
Of course for that to become the standard, we would either need some new, clean, cheap form of power generation so that the waste didn't matter, or we would need a senator to have a child that cooked themselves by putting the end of their metal bracelet in an outlet.
This is why I was never impressed by the Prius. It didn't get any better gas mileage than my 1985 Geo Metro. (52 mpg mixed city/highway use) I know it is a bigger/safer vehicle, but we are talking about over two decades of development. Making a little bit bigger car that gets the same mileage is pretty pethetic. Then there is the fact that making an all electric car that has a gas generator is such an obvious no brainer, I have to believe that they intentionally built the car badly.
Of course if anyone with clout wanted us to actually get off of oil, they would be pushing for all electric vehicles that have a standard plug/powersource compartment. This way, the vehicle could be sold today with a gas engine, but you could go buy a third party (or first) battery pack/hydrogen generator/fuel cell/whatever to power the thing. If it was mandated to be in a configuration that would make for an easy end user swap, we could actually see people having a battery pack for around town use, and a seperate generator for that once a year trip to visit the relatives. Heck, you might even be able to just rent a gas engine instead of an entire car. This would also solve the recharging speed problem. If it is a 10 minute process to roll my battery over to my car and plug it in, I don't car if it takes two day to charge.
If your goal is to educate them in the high demand field of biological space heating, then you are absolutely correct. Kids already spend an absurd amount of time in school for what they actually learn. Many of the fundamental premises that our school system is built on are simply flawed to the point of uselessness. Extending that time would only be throwing away good time after bad.
You miss the poster's point. He isn't saying that evolution didn't happen. He is positing that he believes the divergence happened WAY sooner than what the 'consensus' claims. He believes that having feathers and not having feathers is a large enough evolutionary gap, and we have enough fossils from the currently believed deliverance period, that if the time line were correct, we would see a lot of intermediary fossils.
To poster isn't saying that birds didn't evolve from dinosaurs. He is saying that he believes that by just saying 'evolved from dinosaurs' implies that it happened towards the middle or end of their existence as opposed to the beginning. This leads to many people making a perfectly reasonable but incorrect conclusion as to when it happened, while adding nothing to those that correctly understand the statement. Since, if the divergence happened as early as the poster believes, basically all complex animals evolved from 'dinosours'. Since the statement adds nothing for those who are not confused by it, but gives the wrong conclusion to people who are confused by it, from a pragmatic standpoint, it is wrong.
Of course, it being right or wrong depends on when birds actually first appeared. I'm not arguing that. I'm just pointing out that you are misunderstanding the parent poster.
Dude, I didn't come up with this on my own. It's basic science that has been demonstrated over and over. A (relative) lack of 400-lb people is not proof that the laws of thermodynamics cease to exist inside your body.
No, in fact the lack of 400 pound people doesn't prove that thermodynamics ceases to exist, but it does prove that your theory is wrong, and you fundamentally misunderstand the laws of thermodynamics. Your theory is disprovable. Good job on that part. Where your fail is that when your theory is disproven, you just ignore the results. If your theory was correct, and this was simply a case of applying the laws of thermodynamics to the calories being eaten, and the calories burned, then one single instance of a high calorie dieter who doesn't exercise would disprove the laws of thermodynamics. We see this happening every day. So, to maintain a semblance of intelligence, we need to choose. Do we declare the laws of thermodynamics to be incorrect, or do we declare that you are just wrong about what you think is happening when someone eats food?
I'm not talking about putting your body in starvation mode. I'm talking about taking in way more calories than your body uses.
Yes, you are. Starvation is exactly what happens when your body when you body gets less calories than it thinks it needs, and in many (most?) cases where people try to limit their calorie intake for weight loss. This is why people who exercise and reduce their calories, more often than not, fail to lose weight over any significant period of time. Again, there is plenty of evidence, everywhere you look, to support this.
A body cannot "stop using" calories unless it is dead. It can, however, reduce the number of calories it uses,
What?!?!? You are directly contradicting yourself. Any calories that your body reduces are calories that it stopped using. This is a serous case of congative disassociation.
Also, it can start breaking down muscle tissue for fuel instead of fat cells, which I assume is one of the "all sorts of bad things happen" you refer to.
Yes, it is one of the "bad things". It can and does happen to fat people that starve themselves.
You Acknowledge the physical evidence that proves your theory wrong; you acknowledge the logical evidence that proves your theory wrong; and yet you still maintain your conclusions. What appears to be the case is that you are one of the many people who believe that fat is caused by immorality, and you are trying to rationalize the irrational by using the word 'thermodynamics'. You sound like the witch trial scene from Monty Python, claiming "If she weighs the same as a duck, she is made of wood, and therefor, a witch".
Yes, it is awesome that AAA has shown that drunk driving is less dangerous than talking on a cell phone. So, every person out there that doesn't feel that talking on a cell phone is an unreasonable risk can now feel good knowing that if they pound a few drinks before getting in their car, it is safer than a cell phone. If what you say is true, we definitely need to massively reduce our penalties for drunk driving.
If your math actually worked, 400lbs would be down right common. It isn't. Thus we have empirical proof that you are full of it. While fat is not produced out of air, if you don't get enough calories, you starve. Your body stops USING the calories and starts storing them. All sorts of bad things happen to your body, one of which is weight gain. So, yes, you can certainly gain weight by taking in less calories. I know that I would be willing to bet hard cash that I could gain weight by eating a 2500 cal per day diet, and then loss that same weight on a 3200 cal a day diet with absolutely no extra exercise. And in fact, I have done that. Not for cash, only for the right to say I told you so, but I can do it at will.
Doing bad math doesn't refute the physical evidence that is in front of you on a daily basis.
I can't believe that such a simple equation like "what you eat, minus what you burn, is what you wear on your ass and thighs" doesn't make sense to people.
That would be because most of us are talking about HUMAN weight and diet. Humans have some big factors that make your equation completely useless. For example, most humans have an anus. It's an orifice that expels things your body isn't going to be using.
What I have a hard time believing is that even with all of the empirical evidence shoved in their face every day, that they still deny that "what you eat, minus what you burn, is what you wear on your ass and thighs" is a ridiculous idea to applied to humans. Go to your local mall. Watch for the fattest person that walks by (or drives by on one of those little scooters). Then ask yourself. Could you get that fat if you tried? Likely the answer is on. Even if you put an honest effort into trying to gain as much weight as possible, you probably couldn't get close to 350 or 400 pounds. If your 'simple equation' were even close to accurate, we could all get to 400 pounds easily.
It's not just the media, and it's not just women. I have had multiple 'health experts' tell me that I should be working off of BMI to gauge my proper weight. According to the BMI, I don't reach a 'normal' weight until I am down to 176. At 177 pounds the BMI declares me 'overweight'. Now, I have recently been hydrostatically weighed, so I know that I have 165 pounds of lean body mass. That means that to be considered 'normal' by the health industry, I have to get down to something like 6% body fat. That is just to barely sqeeze into what they consider 'normal'. The normal range for my height (5'11") goes all the way down to 132 pounds. That would require not only 0% body fat, but also the actual amputation of body parts to reach.
This is all with virtually no exercise. Based on how quickly my body builds muscle, it is not unthinkable that with moderate exercise, my lean body mass could edge up over the 176 pounds that the 'health professionals' call 'normal'.
If I take their advice, I literally face the risk of dieing due to low body weight while the 'health industry' calls me fat.
So, blame the media if you want... Blame the consumers if you want... Until the doctors and health insurance companies stop telling perfectly normal people that they are fat and obese, I blame them.
I think it is a story because we all see the Mac Store employees as being interchangeable with any other employee working in a mall. Thus, it seems that they are offering more money with no good reason.
The anti-Notes trolls won't like it, but for email, there is also Lotus Notes/Domino that runs just fine on Linux and is a fine solution for email WITH calendaring and shared address books.
Thank you for reinforcing my point on the stupidity of people who have no problems with the exact same results produced by a pre-90's technology like a walkman or even AM radio, while thinking that post 90's technology is somehow far more dangerous.
(Yes, I know that the cell phone technically predates the 90's, but it was post 90 that it became popularized.)
Wow, that is a new level of ludditism. Now, it's not just interactive conversations that are somehow magically more dangerous if you use one of those evil modern talkie devices. Now, you are somehow being more dangerous listening to music if it is produced by the one of those evil modern talkie devices than if it is produced by the good and holy devices that became popular in or before the more righteous and holy 1980's.
You are right. I could afford to take the time off for jury duty is I were chosen, but I certainly don't want to. I hate to place an undue burden on employers, but I honestly believe that jury duty needs to be treated much like family leave, and people need to be able to actually collect enough money to live while they are doing the job.
Slashdot Mirror
Lets just hope our municipalities don't use your logic when they say the water out of our taps is 'potable'. I would hate to think that after people start dying around town that the water authority doesn't make the statement of "We didn't say that it was _only_ potable water that we were pumping through your pipes."
You realize that we are at the end of 2009 right? And that Windows 7 is just now being released? MS might just be considering that in 2020 we might still be running Windows 8. I know that only looking 1Q into the future is hip for businesses, but maybe MS is looking farther ahead than that. We are still living with issues created by PC limitations from the 16-bit era. Probably a bunch from the 8-bit era that I am not aware of. I see no problem with planning ahead so that they can get the transition done sooner rather than later, or just make the transition smoother than previous bit size transitions.
Good luck on that. Given that: Our government's (US) official recommended diet is something like 80% sugar. The medical and insurance industries that are considered 'experts' by the population (including those that would make school corriculum) us BMI as gosple. The vast majority of the population think that Calories Eaten - Calories Burned is exactly how you adjust diet for healthy eating. I don't see how you could ever hope to get schools to teach proper nutrition. Of course, they try, and in trying, they are just taking us one step closer to a full orphanage society. Heck, the new push is to get kids to just eat food supplied by the school system. OK, to be fair, they are not trying to take away dinner yet, but schools do push to get as many kids eating breakfast and lunches supplied by the schools.
I'm talking about that fact that this has only become a problem now. At the time that XP was released, the vast majority of people liked it, and they saw it as noticably better than what they were previously running. Certainly SP1 made it better, but the initial release was well accepted and rightfully so.
And there you go. You were in the minority of people who both were already enjoying the stability of the NT codebase and placed usability below stability. For you, XP was an incremental improvement instead of the revolutionary improvement it was for the vast majority of users who where on 95 or ME. Combine the hype and the more attractive interface and it is no surprise that you and the minority of users that were in you position didn't like XP.
All in all XP was a huge improvement for most users, a small improvement for the rest of the users, and a huge improvement for MS in that they could bring their consumer and business OSes into a single code base. Most people realized this.
I remember the days when XP was the abomination.
I keep hearing that lately, but I saw it happen. When XP came out, everyone was still stinging from ME. They had been happy with 95 because, like it or not, for the day, it was a pretty decent OS. ME came out and was a horrible. Then XP came out. It added the shiny of ME plus some, and the stability of 2000. The only people that I ever heard complaining about XP were the people who were already running 2000, had no interest in playing games, and were offended by the rounded edges of XP's interface. That was a pretty small group. Beyond that, all I ever heard were people who like the massive improvement in stability.
As far as I can tell, this XP hate is just revisionist history.
Domino 8.5.1 to be released within the next couple of weeks can use the Exchange protocol to talk to phones. Domino has had IMAP for years. As for web based email on PCs, Domino has had offline access to the web based email for years. Well, actually, it has had offline access for ANY web based application running on Domino that the developer decided to implement offline access for.
In the short run, I agree with you. In the long run, I can conceive of a universe where people think it is insane to have exposed electrical sitting out in plain sight every 12 feet in every room of a home. Think of the children!!!! Joking aside, There was a time when people thought nothing of having bear electrical wires running through their house to power lights. Today, we would think they were insane. Give it one generation of magnetic resonance being used to power household appliances, and people would think you were crazy to have a bunch of holes in the wall that would let a small child electrocute themselves.
Of course for that to become the standard, we would either need some new, clean, cheap form of power generation so that the waste didn't matter, or we would need a senator to have a child that cooked themselves by putting the end of their metal bracelet in an outlet.
This is why I was never impressed by the Prius. It didn't get any better gas mileage than my 1985 Geo Metro. (52 mpg mixed city/highway use) I know it is a bigger/safer vehicle, but we are talking about over two decades of development. Making a little bit bigger car that gets the same mileage is pretty pethetic. Then there is the fact that making an all electric car that has a gas generator is such an obvious no brainer, I have to believe that they intentionally built the car badly.
Of course if anyone with clout wanted us to actually get off of oil, they would be pushing for all electric vehicles that have a standard plug/powersource compartment. This way, the vehicle could be sold today with a gas engine, but you could go buy a third party (or first) battery pack/hydrogen generator/fuel cell/whatever to power the thing. If it was mandated to be in a configuration that would make for an easy end user swap, we could actually see people having a battery pack for around town use, and a seperate generator for that once a year trip to visit the relatives. Heck, you might even be able to just rent a gas engine instead of an entire car. This would also solve the recharging speed problem. If it is a 10 minute process to roll my battery over to my car and plug it in, I don't car if it takes two day to charge.
If your goal is to educate them in the high demand field of biological space heating, then you are absolutely correct. Kids already spend an absurd amount of time in school for what they actually learn. Many of the fundamental premises that our school system is built on are simply flawed to the point of uselessness. Extending that time would only be throwing away good time after bad.
You miss the poster's point. He isn't saying that evolution didn't happen. He is positing that he believes the divergence happened WAY sooner than what the 'consensus' claims. He believes that having feathers and not having feathers is a large enough evolutionary gap, and we have enough fossils from the currently believed deliverance period, that if the time line were correct, we would see a lot of intermediary fossils.
To poster isn't saying that birds didn't evolve from dinosaurs. He is saying that he believes that by just saying 'evolved from dinosaurs' implies that it happened towards the middle or end of their existence as opposed to the beginning. This leads to many people making a perfectly reasonable but incorrect conclusion as to when it happened, while adding nothing to those that correctly understand the statement. Since, if the divergence happened as early as the poster believes, basically all complex animals evolved from 'dinosours'. Since the statement adds nothing for those who are not confused by it, but gives the wrong conclusion to people who are confused by it, from a pragmatic standpoint, it is wrong.
Of course, it being right or wrong depends on when birds actually first appeared. I'm not arguing that. I'm just pointing out that you are misunderstanding the parent poster.
Dude, I didn't come up with this on my own. It's basic science that has been demonstrated over and over. A (relative) lack of 400-lb people is not proof that the laws of thermodynamics cease to exist inside your body.
No, in fact the lack of 400 pound people doesn't prove that thermodynamics ceases to exist, but it does prove that your theory is wrong, and you fundamentally misunderstand the laws of thermodynamics. Your theory is disprovable. Good job on that part. Where your fail is that when your theory is disproven, you just ignore the results. If your theory was correct, and this was simply a case of applying the laws of thermodynamics to the calories being eaten, and the calories burned, then one single instance of a high calorie dieter who doesn't exercise would disprove the laws of thermodynamics. We see this happening every day. So, to maintain a semblance of intelligence, we need to choose. Do we declare the laws of thermodynamics to be incorrect, or do we declare that you are just wrong about what you think is happening when someone eats food?
I'm not talking about putting your body in starvation mode. I'm talking about taking in way more calories than your body uses.
Yes, you are. Starvation is exactly what happens when your body when you body gets less calories than it thinks it needs, and in many (most?) cases where people try to limit their calorie intake for weight loss. This is why people who exercise and reduce their calories, more often than not, fail to lose weight over any significant period of time. Again, there is plenty of evidence, everywhere you look, to support this.
A body cannot "stop using" calories unless it is dead. It can, however, reduce the number of calories it uses,
What?!?!? You are directly contradicting yourself. Any calories that your body reduces are calories that it stopped using. This is a serous case of congative disassociation.
Also, it can start breaking down muscle tissue for fuel instead of fat cells, which I assume is one of the "all sorts of bad things happen" you refer to.
Yes, it is one of the "bad things". It can and does happen to fat people that starve themselves.
You Acknowledge the physical evidence that proves your theory wrong; you acknowledge the logical evidence that proves your theory wrong; and yet you still maintain your conclusions. What appears to be the case is that you are one of the many people who believe that fat is caused by immorality, and you are trying to rationalize the irrational by using the word 'thermodynamics'. You sound like the witch trial scene from Monty Python, claiming "If she weighs the same as a duck, she is made of wood, and therefor, a witch".
Yes, it is awesome that AAA has shown that drunk driving is less dangerous than talking on a cell phone. So, every person out there that doesn't feel that talking on a cell phone is an unreasonable risk can now feel good knowing that if they pound a few drinks before getting in their car, it is safer than a cell phone. If what you say is true, we definitely need to massively reduce our penalties for drunk driving.
If your math actually worked, 400lbs would be down right common. It isn't. Thus we have empirical proof that you are full of it. While fat is not produced out of air, if you don't get enough calories, you starve. Your body stops USING the calories and starts storing them. All sorts of bad things happen to your body, one of which is weight gain. So, yes, you can certainly gain weight by taking in less calories. I know that I would be willing to bet hard cash that I could gain weight by eating a 2500 cal per day diet, and then loss that same weight on a 3200 cal a day diet with absolutely no extra exercise. And in fact, I have done that. Not for cash, only for the right to say I told you so, but I can do it at will.
Doing bad math doesn't refute the physical evidence that is in front of you on a daily basis.
I can't believe that such a simple equation like "what you eat, minus what you burn, is what you wear on your ass and thighs" doesn't make sense to people.
That would be because most of us are talking about HUMAN weight and diet. Humans have some big factors that make your equation completely useless. For example, most humans have an anus. It's an orifice that expels things your body isn't going to be using.
What I have a hard time believing is that even with all of the empirical evidence shoved in their face every day, that they still deny that "what you eat, minus what you burn, is what you wear on your ass and thighs" is a ridiculous idea to applied to humans. Go to your local mall. Watch for the fattest person that walks by (or drives by on one of those little scooters). Then ask yourself. Could you get that fat if you tried? Likely the answer is on. Even if you put an honest effort into trying to gain as much weight as possible, you probably couldn't get close to 350 or 400 pounds. If your 'simple equation' were even close to accurate, we could all get to 400 pounds easily.
It gets worse when the diet that the nanny state recommends is really bad for you, and the weights that they claim are normal can outright kill you.
It's not just the media, and it's not just women. I have had multiple 'health experts' tell me that I should be working off of BMI to gauge my proper weight. According to the BMI, I don't reach a 'normal' weight until I am down to 176. At 177 pounds the BMI declares me 'overweight'. Now, I have recently been hydrostatically weighed, so I know that I have 165 pounds of lean body mass. That means that to be considered 'normal' by the health industry, I have to get down to something like 6% body fat. That is just to barely sqeeze into what they consider 'normal'. The normal range for my height (5'11") goes all the way down to 132 pounds. That would require not only 0% body fat, but also the actual amputation of body parts to reach.
This is all with virtually no exercise. Based on how quickly my body builds muscle, it is not unthinkable that with moderate exercise, my lean body mass could edge up over the 176 pounds that the 'health professionals' call 'normal'.
If I take their advice, I literally face the risk of dieing due to low body weight while the 'health industry' calls me fat.
So, blame the media if you want... Blame the consumers if you want... Until the doctors and health insurance companies stop telling perfectly normal people that they are fat and obese, I blame them.
I think it is a story because we all see the Mac Store employees as being interchangeable with any other employee working in a mall. Thus, it seems that they are offering more money with no good reason.
The anti-Notes trolls won't like it, but for email, there is also Lotus Notes/Domino that runs just fine on Linux and is a fine solution for email WITH calendaring and shared address books.
Wow. Every single sentence of that post showed a great deal of ignorance. Seriously. Every single one of them. Just amazing.
Thank you for reinforcing my point on the stupidity of people who have no problems with the exact same results produced by a pre-90's technology like a walkman or even AM radio, while thinking that post 90's technology is somehow far more dangerous.
(Yes, I know that the cell phone technically predates the 90's, but it was post 90 that it became popularized.)
Oh, and put the phone down. You're driving.
Wow, that is a new level of ludditism. Now, it's not just interactive conversations that are somehow magically more dangerous if you use one of those evil modern talkie devices. Now, you are somehow being more dangerous listening to music if it is produced by the one of those evil modern talkie devices than if it is produced by the good and holy devices that became popular in or before the more righteous and holy 1980's.
Where are the funny mods when you need them?
You are right. I could afford to take the time off for jury duty is I were chosen, but I certainly don't want to. I hate to place an undue burden on employers, but I honestly believe that jury duty needs to be treated much like family leave, and people need to be able to actually collect enough money to live while they are doing the job.
It's like debating fuel economies of the Chevy Volt vs. the Nissan Leaf.