Assuming you mean a wireless base station? I'm curious as to how you determined this was the cause, as opposed to something like mold in the apartment? For that matter, why would it not happen 10 meters further away from the base station, or 10 meters closer? In the case of mold, its adverse effects are documented; whereas to the best of my knowledge, adverse reactions to EM remain unproven.
All he did was to buy a house and then waited till somebody started making him sick.
Let's look a little closer at TFA...
She keeps in touch, she said, with relatives in the U.S., Asia, Europe and the Middle East. "Because my family members live in different time zones, I have always made myself available to them at all hours," she said. "We communicate often through Skype, Gmail chat, video and audio sessions."
Firstenberg knew this when he mentioned to her that the Casados Street house was for rent, but after Monribot moved in, he and a friend insisted that she turn off her Wi-Fi router and other equipment. She tried to comply, but felt harassed.
So your innocent victim knew that she used wireless devices before she moved in, but conveniently waited until after she moved in to mention the issues he had with them?
"Ah," you say, "Clearly he did not know of them before hand."
But then we see this:
Nearly 400 people signed an online petition that Firstenberg helped organize against plans to add Wi-Fi antennas around town. The City Council postponed the project last month.
..
Hmm. Well, maybe this was after the fact too?
Here, wait, let's look a little deeper - Mr Fristenberg has a wikipedia page (The sources of the page do check out)
s an American activist on the subject of electromagnetic hypersensitivity.[1] He is the founder of the independent campaign group the Cellular Phone Task Force.[2] His 1997 book Microwaving Our Planet: The Environmental Impact of the Wireless Revolution was published by the group.[3]
Ah, now things become even more clear. This known activist who went so far as authoring a book about the evils of EM years before he met his new neighbor... just *happened* to not mention his concerns when they spoke up front? (Here's an article he wrote two or three years before the incident... even before his neighbor moved in: http://www.mindfully.org/Technology/2006/Firstenberg-EMF-Experiment1jan06.htm. I'll let you discover the misrepresentations in there for yourself, if you're of a mind to.)
Why don't you look from the other side - make the lady put her house in a Faraday cage if she insist on her wireless?
Mr Firstenberg is bathed in EM spectrum every day, as he is well aware. Given that he has had issues with this dating back to at least 1997 or so, and given that he knows he can't control the actions of everyone walking by his house every day, I think that enclosing his house in a Faraday cage is quite a reasonable request. Kind of like closing your windows and running the AC when humidity gives you a headache.
I'll give it a try. Most of my work is on a Windows box, but the systems I back up to are Linux. Currently I'm switching over to SVN for a lot of this - thought it's far from ideal.
Wait, suggesting that we're eating bad foods is "looking to external factors to blame", but suggesting that we're eating too much food isn't? I don't see the difference.
The difference is between blaming the foods you eat, and accepting responsibility for your choice to consume them -- and there *is* a choice.
Beyond that, *everything* has HFCS in it. If you go to the grocery store and buy bread and apple juice, each of those probably have corn syrup in them.
Fresh meats don't. Frozen and fresh vegetables don't. Potatoes (even several brands of instant potato) don't. There's a huge list of things that *don't* have it -- but that depends on the types of things you're looking to buy.
Yes, it's theoretically true that we could expect people to cook all their own meals from scratch, never go out to eat, bake their own bread and juice their own fruits.
Nowhere did I say "all" or "never" though. I still go out. I still eat store-bought bread (though not as often). I still eat quick meals. I just do so in moderation, and never as much as I used to. Still -- there's this thought that "cooking from scratch" needs to be a difficult and arduous task -- when most of the time it seldom takes as long as required to bake a frozen meal, or run to the store to pick up some take-out. The only down-side is more dishes to wash;) And it's possible to get juices without sugar added - mostly due to the increasing market for diabetics, but it does exist. Personally, I just eat the fruit these days instead of drinking juice but that's my own choice.
*Or* we could think about whether the people making billions of dollars from feeding us have some responsibility to provide healthy food, but I guess that's just expecting too much from people
It is expecting too much. Don't lose sight of the fact that they make billions of dollars by selling the things that people want to consume. If there's a market for other options, then things will be sold to fill that market. (And they are.) The only responsibility sellers have is to sell things that make money. That in no way abrogates our responsibility to know what we're eating.
Lets instead expect everyone to grow and butcher their own livestock and live off of what fruits and grains and vegetables they can grow in their own gardens, since we can't afford to trust the people providing our food
Of course we can trust. But we also should be aware of what we're putting into our bodies, shouldn't we? And not just take someone's word for it? Or just assume that because someone is selling it, it must be healthy for us?
EG. You claim that if you "feel full", then you already ate far too much. That implies that our body's mechanism for telling us we're full is defective. Not sure I agree with that, so much as I think our bodies evolved these systems during a period of time when we didn't have such calorie-packed foods to choose from. I'm pretty sure it's possible to feel full by eating a bunch of salad, and yet not have consumed excessive calories in that meal.
Or that you're perhaps misinterpreting what they mean? Hungry -> need food. Not hungry -> don't need food anymore. Full -> Had too much food. At least, that's how I tend to perceive them.
'm pretty sure it's possible to feel full by eating a bunch of salad, and yet not have consumed excessive calories in that meal
No, lettuce is horribly bad for you! Joking of course - as with any "rule", common sense should apply.
There's also that fact that "fast food" places simply lack an interest in offering people healthier choices.
The simple choice here is not to eat "fast food" until they change this. I think I eat fast food maybe once a month, if that. (Used to eat it several times a week. Can't imagine how *that* contributed to weight gain...;) Nobody is saying it doesn't taste good, but you get it *knowing* how bad it is... the consequences are yours to bear.
Frankly, I would love to see a fast food place that sold exclusively healthy food (not to be confused with "health food") in reasonable proportions. But for me, the lack of them means that I just don't frequently get fast food.
ll I can figure, though, is that most fast food places find it less expensive to serve up the other stuff. Maybe they have a tougher time keeping the fresh veggies and/or fruits from going bad?
I wouldn't think so - as long as they're moving through in quantity... I wonder if anyone has even tried this though? Perhaps some local shop that hasn't expanded, or failed for other reasons?
Have to contradict you completely. Go to your nearest super market, look at what they are selling, and you'll find that everything is stuffed full with sugar. Sugar is cheap, it is fat-free (and for thirty years the industry has indoctrinated us with "fat is bad" to the point where jelly babies consisting of 75% sugar are sold as "fat-free" and people buy them thinking it is good for you), it doesn't fill you up, it gives you energy for a short time and craving afterwards, in other words it is _designed_ to make you eat excessive.
Damn you Nature, for trying to make me gain too much weight! And damn you greedy corporations, for forcing me to eat your food!
I agree as far as overkill on "fat is bad, don't think about the sugar" path -- but but both of those fit in with the concept of moderation.
There's no reason to excise sugars from your diet, but you *do* need to pay attention to how much you consume. And contrary to what you seem to believe, this is simple to do. It's just a matter of deciding what you will eat, and how much of it. Unless you've an underactive thyroid , it *is* that simple -- and the evil addictive sugars can be kept in their place.
And you _can_ eat until you are full _and_ lose weight, if you eat the right stuff, forget about the anti-fat indoctrination and get rid of sugar (and get rid of sugar substitutes as well, because they just lead to more cravings).
Yes, if you eliminate sugars from your diet completely, you will certainly lose weight. Until you snap from not having sugars and you gain back what you lost and then some -- that would be the downside of the Atkins diet, at least based on my own observations among many people who attempt to follow it. Let's not forget that for many people, high carb/low fat does nasty things to cholesterol levels in addition to other documented risks.
As an example, buy a handful of mars bars, and buy some high-cocoa chocolate (more than 70%). Try how much you can eat of each. You can easily stuff yourself with mars bars no end; try eating 50 grams of 70% cocoa chocolate and you won't be able to fit more.
But I've no interest in having more than a bit of each anyway... which I suppose is my entire point. Given a choice between almost eliminating entire broad categories of food -- categories which any nutritionist will tell you are pretty necessary for long-term health -- and simply eating less, I think I'm gonna go for eating less.
Did I mention that I've lost 40+ lbs this way so far, by changing quantities of food , stopping before I get full, and walking a few times a week? That blood pressure and cholesterol levels have dropped (the latter pretty uncommon for atkins) to within normal ranges?
As far as artificial sweeteners - most of my weight loss was while I was drinking ridiculous amounts of diet soda. I've since stopped - hoping that ceasing intake of aspartame might help with my tinninitus (it didn't). But much like blaming sugars, blaming substitutes is just a way to avoid accepting responsibility. Yes, if you have sugar substitutes and then *increase* intake of other sugars because you think the sugar substitute makes up for it, it won't help you. For years I did not lose weight while drinking diet soda because of this exact reason. But when I woke up and make some relatively minor changes, the sugar substitute (and the sugars) were no longer a limiting factor even though I continued to consume both.
The problem I've seen in too many people who follow the high fat/low carb option is that they inevitably gain it back. I've no speculation as to why, it's just something I've seen happen far more often than not -- not universally though. I'm also curious if you've checked your cholesterol lately?
I've lost 40lbs+ recently as well, and did it by eating smaller portions and walking my dogs four nights a week... blood pressure and cholesterol (both of which had been high) are now within normal range. I also increased the ratio of vegetables to everything else on my plate. As you said eating when hungry is important too- conversely, NOT eating when NOT hungry is very important too.
We all evolved to like bacon and pizza and the like. Now act responsibly. In my youth I would eat a whole large deep dish pepperoni pizza. I can still eat that much, I just recognize that my caloric needs when it comes to pizzas is two slices for a meal. I understand some people have lower sensitivity dopamine receptors but that's just how you were born and you should deal with it. At some point we're all flawed in some way. Why do people find that controlling their eating is so difficult?
If only I had mod points left. Eating anything is OK in moderation, and if the bulk of your consumption is reasonably healthy. Eating anything in excess is unhealthy. There is no way around this. And unfortunately, "normal" portion sizes for most people are excessive -- a disturbing number think they need to eat until they are full; but that thin margin is the difference between "moderation" and "excess".
I've been doing this weird thing lately.... "cooking". From base ingredients. I don't mean some kinda "all natural" kick, but most of my meals are cooked using basics. Flour. Sugar. Water. Various cooking oils. Beef/Chicken/Vegetable stock. Spices. Rice. Pasta in reasonable amount. Vegetables - fresh or fresh frozen -- which should take up a larger portion of your meal than they probably do. I also started exercising* a few times a week, and eating reasonable proportions -- and as a result of those changes have lost forty pounds and counting. I still eat the crappy stuff with too much HFCS and excessive fat (I've a mental addiction to cheeze-its and butterfingers) but in moderation.
THe problem here isn't HFCS. It's not fatty foods. If anything, part of the problem lies in looking for external factors to blame. It's eating too much food, too regularly, and most of us not getting any significant exercise*. In my case, for a long time it was lack of knowledge of when is "enough" to eat.(Hint - if you feel full when you're done eating, you've eaten far too much.) Once you have that knowledge, it's also lack of willingness to exercise self control.
The point of this mini-rant: look to yourself when trying to find a reason. For the vast majority of people, it starts and ends there. If you think it's HFCS -- ok, fine. But HFCS in quantity is far easier to avoid than you make it sound. Hell, fresh bread takes 30 minutes of actual time once a week, without even using a bread machine. Most other alternatives are as easy; or come with a slight increase of time in exchange for healthier food that tastes as good or better.
* By "exercise" I'm not talking about anything drastic. I started walking my dogs for 30 minutes at a brisk walk, 4-5 times a week. I also started using stairs instead of elevators for up to three flights at work and not just one flight. More recently I've started running, but that's after I lost most of the weight and I do it because (amazingly) I find that it feels good.
Right, but why would they only disallow the functionality on the Mac build? The windows build does not have the same behavior, in that it allows all of the above options.
Most recently, I've been moving most of my documents and source-code level stuff to a LAN-based SVN repository; then periodically dumping that, encrypting, and tossing it onto dropbox. The versioning is good, but it's not so practical for downloaded files and various other content types.
Actually, just the title did it. I've historically had a bad habit of backing things up by taking tar/gzs of directory structures, giving them an obscure name, and putting them onto network storage. Or sometimes just copying directory structures without zipping first. Needless to say, this makes for a huge mess.
Just occurred to me that it would not be difficult to write a quick script to extract everything into its own tree; run sha1sum on all files; and identify duplicate files automatically; probably in just one or two lines.
So in other words -- thanks Slashdot! The otherwise unintelligible summary did me a world of good -- mostly because there was no context as to what the hell it was talking about, so I had to supply my own definition...
The difference here, of course, is that those are private funds. If they want to waste that money, it's their business -- because the money is not provided by you and me in the form of mandatory taxes.
No business executive deserves to earn millions of dollars.
Um, they don't? Why not? Can you substantiate this opinion in any way? That money belongs to the company and its shareholders, to dispense as they see fit. This means if those parties think that someone deserves a bonus, guess what -- that person deserves a bonus. Don't like it? Buy stock enough to get you on the Board of one of those companies, and then make your opinion known. Arrange mass boycotts of their products, such that it hurts their bottom line. Organize a negative publicity campaign. There are many ways you can effect change.
Alternatively you can just keep complaining about how nobody "deserves" that kind of money without substantiating your claims with any kind of logic. That's probably the easiest route as it requires nothing but a couple of minutes of your time: no personal involvement, no research, no commitment. Fortunately for the rest of us (including the Big Evil Corps), it's also the most ineffectual option available to you.
Only sad in that non-governmental citizens aren't really free to do the same thing -- for them it would be "fraud" once they made their findings public.
The sheer volume of applicants makes it infeasible for a single bureaucracy to effectively test physical hardware.
True, but it does not stop them from establishing independent testing guidelines, and allowing bidding from companies who can perform the certification (and who are accountable when something receives certification incorrectly.)
Indeed. The problem here is not gamestop selling at the ridiculous prices, but the fact that gamers are so willing to buy at such a deep "discount" of $5 off the retail price. As long as people are willing to pay it, Gamestop is perfectly within their rights to sell it for that much.
Thanks for the answer.
Re: "missing link" -- let me quote my reply to a very similar comment made by someone else further below:
True, I actually meant to put that phrase in quotes myself. When we're looking at minuscule genetic changes accreting over timespans that we can't imagine in a significant way, every piece of new info found is a part of the links we're looking for.
Torturously worded, perhaps, but in other words - yes I see your point and agree with it. I should have been clearer in my original post.
As a side note, I find the whole term "missing link" weird.
True, I actually meant to put that phrase in quotes myself. When we're looking at minuscule genetic changes accreting over timespans that we can't imagine in a significant way, every piece of new info found is a part of the links we're looking for. (And perhaps that answers my own question...)
I simply assert that anthropology is one of the subjects covered by "news for nerds". Nerds existed before computers, and many of us have interests beyond them.
True, and I don't disagree on that point. I was thinking more than GP wasn't thinking it was of no interest to nerds, so much as not seeing the relevance overall. 'course, I could be reading too much into it.
The relevance of religious artifacts such as the dead sea scrolls is pretty obvious. Bringing it up in this context only sidesteps the question I asked. What significance does this specific discovery have if valid? What can it change?
Clearly the next step here is to pass a bill mandating that all keyboards dial home to the (soon-to-be-established) National Child Protection Agency, including not only typing patterns but also bacteria patterns. ~ I, for one, welcome our new keyboard-monitoring overloads!
Slashdot Mirror
All he did was to buy a house and then waited till somebody started making him sick.
Let's look a little closer at TFA...
She keeps in touch, she said, with relatives in the U.S., Asia, Europe and the Middle East. "Because my family members live in different time zones, I have always made myself available to them at all hours," she said. "We communicate often through Skype, Gmail chat, video and audio sessions." Firstenberg knew this when he mentioned to her that the Casados Street house was for rent, but after Monribot moved in, he and a friend insisted that she turn off her Wi-Fi router and other equipment. She tried to comply, but felt harassed.
So your innocent victim knew that she used wireless devices before she moved in, but conveniently waited until after she moved in to mention the issues he had with them?
"Ah," you say, "Clearly he did not know of them before hand."
But then we see this:
Nearly 400 people signed an online petition that Firstenberg helped organize against plans to add Wi-Fi antennas around town. The City Council postponed the project last month.
.. Hmm. Well, maybe this was after the fact too? Here, wait, let's look a little deeper - Mr Fristenberg has a wikipedia page (The sources of the page do check out)
s an American activist on the subject of electromagnetic hypersensitivity.[1] He is the founder of the independent campaign group the Cellular Phone Task Force.[2] His 1997 book Microwaving Our Planet: The Environmental Impact of the Wireless Revolution was published by the group.[3]
Ah, now things become even more clear. This known activist who went so far as authoring a book about the evils of EM years before he met his new neighbor... just *happened* to not mention his concerns when they spoke up front? (Here's an article he wrote two or three years before the incident... even before his neighbor moved in: http://www.mindfully.org/Technology/2006/Firstenberg-EMF-Experiment1jan06.htm. I'll let you discover the misrepresentations in there for yourself, if you're of a mind to.)
Why don't you look from the other side - make the lady put her house in a Faraday cage if she insist on her wireless?
Mr Firstenberg is bathed in EM spectrum every day, as he is well aware. Given that he has had issues with this dating back to at least 1997 or so, and given that he knows he can't control the actions of everyone walking by his house every day, I think that enclosing his house in a Faraday cage is quite a reasonable request. Kind of like closing your windows and running the AC when humidity gives you a headache.
I'll give it a try. Most of my work is on a Windows box, but the systems I back up to are Linux. Currently I'm switching over to SVN for a lot of this - thought it's far from ideal.
Thanks for the typical self-important rhetoric, pompous imbecile.
Sorry to read that this is all you got out of it. Still -- if it makes you feel better to fling insults, lay on MacDuff! I can take it...
Wait, suggesting that we're eating bad foods is "looking to external factors to blame", but suggesting that we're eating too much food isn't? I don't see the difference.
The difference is between blaming the foods you eat, and accepting responsibility for your choice to consume them -- and there *is* a choice.
Beyond that, *everything* has HFCS in it. If you go to the grocery store and buy bread and apple juice, each of those probably have corn syrup in them.
Fresh meats don't. Frozen and fresh vegetables don't. Potatoes (even several brands of instant potato) don't. There's a huge list of things that *don't* have it -- but that depends on the types of things you're looking to buy.
Yes, it's theoretically true that we could expect people to cook all their own meals from scratch, never go out to eat, bake their own bread and juice their own fruits.
Nowhere did I say "all" or "never" though. I still go out. I still eat store-bought bread (though not as often). I still eat quick meals. I just do so in moderation, and never as much as I used to. Still -- there's this thought that "cooking from scratch" needs to be a difficult and arduous task -- when most of the time it seldom takes as long as required to bake a frozen meal, or run to the store to pick up some take-out. The only down-side is more dishes to wash ;) And it's possible to get juices without sugar added - mostly due to the increasing market for diabetics, but it does exist. Personally, I just eat the fruit these days instead of drinking juice but that's my own choice.
*Or* we could think about whether the people making billions of dollars from feeding us have some responsibility to provide healthy food, but I guess that's just expecting too much from people
It is expecting too much. Don't lose sight of the fact that they make billions of dollars by selling the things that people want to consume. If there's a market for other options, then things will be sold to fill that market. (And they are.) The only responsibility sellers have is to sell things that make money. That in no way abrogates our responsibility to know what we're eating.
Lets instead expect everyone to grow and butcher their own livestock and live off of what fruits and grains and vegetables they can grow in their own gardens, since we can't afford to trust the people providing our food
Of course we can trust. But we also should be aware of what we're putting into our bodies, shouldn't we? And not just take someone's word for it? Or just assume that because someone is selling it, it must be healthy for us?
EG. You claim that if you "feel full", then you already ate far too much. That implies that our body's mechanism for telling us we're full is defective. Not sure I agree with that, so much as I think our bodies evolved these systems during a period of time when we didn't have such calorie-packed foods to choose from. I'm pretty sure it's possible to feel full by eating a bunch of salad, and yet not have consumed excessive calories in that meal.
Or that you're perhaps misinterpreting what they mean? Hungry -> need food. Not hungry -> don't need food anymore. Full -> Had too much food. At least, that's how I tend to perceive them.
'm pretty sure it's possible to feel full by eating a bunch of salad, and yet not have consumed excessive calories in that meal
No, lettuce is horribly bad for you! Joking of course - as with any "rule", common sense should apply.
There's also that fact that "fast food" places simply lack an interest in offering people healthier choices.
The simple choice here is not to eat "fast food" until they change this. I think I eat fast food maybe once a month, if that. (Used to eat it several times a week. Can't imagine how *that* contributed to weight gain...;) Nobody is saying it doesn't taste good, but you get it *knowing* how bad it is... the consequences are yours to bear.
Frankly, I would love to see a fast food place that sold exclusively healthy food (not to be confused with "health food") in reasonable proportions. But for me, the lack of them means that I just don't frequently get fast food.
ll I can figure, though, is that most fast food places find it less expensive to serve up the other stuff. Maybe they have a tougher time keeping the fresh veggies and/or fruits from going bad?
I wouldn't think so - as long as they're moving through in quantity... I wonder if anyone has even tried this though? Perhaps some local shop that hasn't expanded, or failed for other reasons?
Have to contradict you completely. Go to your nearest super market, look at what they are selling, and you'll find that everything is stuffed full with sugar. Sugar is cheap, it is fat-free (and for thirty years the industry has indoctrinated us with "fat is bad" to the point where jelly babies consisting of 75% sugar are sold as "fat-free" and people buy them thinking it is good for you), it doesn't fill you up, it gives you energy for a short time and craving afterwards, in other words it is _designed_ to make you eat excessive.
Damn you Nature, for trying to make me gain too much weight! And damn you greedy corporations, for forcing me to eat your food!
I agree as far as overkill on "fat is bad, don't think about the sugar" path -- but but both of those fit in with the concept of moderation.
There's no reason to excise sugars from your diet, but you *do* need to pay attention to how much you consume. And contrary to what you seem to believe, this is simple to do. It's just a matter of deciding what you will eat, and how much of it. Unless you've an underactive thyroid , it *is* that simple -- and the evil addictive sugars can be kept in their place.
And you _can_ eat until you are full _and_ lose weight, if you eat the right stuff, forget about the anti-fat indoctrination and get rid of sugar (and get rid of sugar substitutes as well, because they just lead to more cravings).
Yes, if you eliminate sugars from your diet completely, you will certainly lose weight. Until you snap from not having sugars and you gain back what you lost and then some -- that would be the downside of the Atkins diet, at least based on my own observations among many people who attempt to follow it. Let's not forget that for many people, high carb/low fat does nasty things to cholesterol levels in addition to other documented risks.
As an example, buy a handful of mars bars, and buy some high-cocoa chocolate (more than 70%). Try how much you can eat of each. You can easily stuff yourself with mars bars no end; try eating 50 grams of 70% cocoa chocolate and you won't be able to fit more.
But I've no interest in having more than a bit of each anyway... which I suppose is my entire point. Given a choice between almost eliminating entire broad categories of food -- categories which any nutritionist will tell you are pretty necessary for long-term health -- and simply eating less, I think I'm gonna go for eating less.
Did I mention that I've lost 40+ lbs this way so far, by changing quantities of food , stopping before I get full, and walking a few times a week? That blood pressure and cholesterol levels have dropped (the latter pretty uncommon for atkins) to within normal ranges?
As far as artificial sweeteners - most of my weight loss was while I was drinking ridiculous amounts of diet soda. I've since stopped - hoping that ceasing intake of aspartame might help with my tinninitus (it didn't). But much like blaming sugars, blaming substitutes is just a way to avoid accepting responsibility. Yes, if you have sugar substitutes and then *increase* intake of other sugars because you think the sugar substitute makes up for it, it won't help you. For years I did not lose weight while drinking diet soda because of this exact reason. But when I woke up and make some relatively minor changes, the sugar substitute (and the sugars) were no longer a limiting factor even though I continued to consume both.
I've lost 40lbs+ recently as well, and did it by eating smaller portions and walking my dogs four nights a week... blood pressure and cholesterol (both of which had been high) are now within normal range. I also increased the ratio of vegetables to everything else on my plate. As you said eating when hungry is important too- conversely, NOT eating when NOT hungry is very important too.
We all evolved to like bacon and pizza and the like. Now act responsibly. In my youth I would eat a whole large deep dish pepperoni pizza. I can still eat that much, I just recognize that my caloric needs when it comes to pizzas is two slices for a meal. I understand some people have lower sensitivity dopamine receptors but that's just how you were born and you should deal with it. At some point we're all flawed in some way. Why do people find that controlling their eating is so difficult?
If only I had mod points left. Eating anything is OK in moderation, and if the bulk of your consumption is reasonably healthy. Eating anything in excess is unhealthy. There is no way around this. And unfortunately, "normal" portion sizes for most people are excessive -- a disturbing number think they need to eat until they are full; but that thin margin is the difference between "moderation" and "excess".
I've been doing this weird thing lately.... "cooking". From base ingredients. I don't mean some kinda "all natural" kick, but most of my meals are cooked using basics. Flour. Sugar. Water. Various cooking oils. Beef/Chicken/Vegetable stock. Spices. Rice. Pasta in reasonable amount. Vegetables - fresh or fresh frozen -- which should take up a larger portion of your meal than they probably do. I also started exercising* a few times a week, and eating reasonable proportions -- and as a result of those changes have lost forty pounds and counting. I still eat the crappy stuff with too much HFCS and excessive fat (I've a mental addiction to cheeze-its and butterfingers) but in moderation.
THe problem here isn't HFCS. It's not fatty foods. If anything, part of the problem lies in looking for external factors to blame. It's eating too much food, too regularly, and most of us not getting any significant exercise*. In my case, for a long time it was lack of knowledge of when is "enough" to eat .(Hint - if you feel full when you're done eating, you've eaten far too much.) Once you have that knowledge, it's also lack of willingness to exercise self control.
The point of this mini-rant: look to yourself when trying to find a reason. For the vast majority of people, it starts and ends there. If you think it's HFCS -- ok, fine. But HFCS in quantity is far easier to avoid than you make it sound. Hell, fresh bread takes 30 minutes of actual time once a week, without even using a bread machine. Most other alternatives are as easy; or come with a slight increase of time in exchange for healthier food that tastes as good or better.
* By "exercise" I'm not talking about anything drastic. I started walking my dogs for 30 minutes at a brisk walk, 4-5 times a week. I also started using stairs instead of elevators for up to three flights at work and not just one flight. More recently I've started running, but that's after I lost most of the weight and I do it because (amazingly) I find that it feels good.
Right, but why would they only disallow the functionality on the Mac build? The windows build does not have the same behavior, in that it allows all of the above options.
No, people shouldn't choose solutions based on merits? What, then, should they use as the basis for their decisions?
I'll take a look at this - thanks for the post.
Even better -- thanks!
Just occurred to me that it would not be difficult to write a quick script to extract everything into its own tree; run sha1sum on all files; and identify duplicate files automatically; probably in just one or two lines.
So in other words -- thanks Slashdot! The otherwise unintelligible summary did me a world of good -- mostly because there was no context as to what the hell it was talking about, so I had to supply my own definition...
How is that not waste on a far larger scale?
The difference here, of course, is that those are private funds. If they want to waste that money, it's their business -- because the money is not provided by you and me in the form of mandatory taxes.
No business executive deserves to earn millions of dollars.
Um, they don't? Why not? Can you substantiate this opinion in any way? That money belongs to the company and its shareholders, to dispense as they see fit. This means if those parties think that someone deserves a bonus, guess what -- that person deserves a bonus. Don't like it? Buy stock enough to get you on the Board of one of those companies, and then make your opinion known. Arrange mass boycotts of their products, such that it hurts their bottom line. Organize a negative publicity campaign. There are many ways you can effect change.
Alternatively you can just keep complaining about how nobody "deserves" that kind of money without substantiating your claims with any kind of logic. That's probably the easiest route as it requires nothing but a couple of minutes of your time: no personal involvement, no research, no commitment. Fortunately for the rest of us (including the Big Evil Corps), it's also the most ineffectual option available to you.
Only sad in that non-governmental citizens aren't really free to do the same thing -- for them it would be "fraud" once they made their findings public.
The sheer volume of applicants makes it infeasible for a single bureaucracy to effectively test physical hardware.
True, but it does not stop them from establishing independent testing guidelines, and allowing bidding from companies who can perform the certification (and who are accountable when something receives certification incorrectly.)
Resulting in a net save of $120...
Indeed. The problem here is not gamestop selling at the ridiculous prices, but the fact that gamers are so willing to buy at such a deep "discount" of $5 off the retail price. As long as people are willing to pay it, Gamestop is perfectly within their rights to sell it for that much.
You do know that nobody sees your tags except you -- unless you're a subscriber -- right?
Well they *were* there, before you single-handedly brought down his web site! Nice going... ;)
True, I actually meant to put that phrase in quotes myself. When we're looking at minuscule genetic changes accreting over timespans that we can't imagine in a significant way, every piece of new info found is a part of the links we're looking for.
Torturously worded, perhaps, but in other words - yes I see your point and agree with it. I should have been clearer in my original post.
As a side note, I find the whole term "missing link" weird.
True, I actually meant to put that phrase in quotes myself. When we're looking at minuscule genetic changes accreting over timespans that we can't imagine in a significant way, every piece of new info found is a part of the links we're looking for. (And perhaps that answers my own question...)
I simply assert that anthropology is one of the subjects covered by "news for nerds". Nerds existed before computers, and many of us have interests beyond them.
True, and I don't disagree on that point. I was thinking more than GP wasn't thinking it was of no interest to nerds, so much as not seeing the relevance overall. 'course, I could be reading too much into it.
The relevance of religious artifacts such as the dead sea scrolls is pretty obvious. Bringing it up in this context only sidesteps the question I asked. What significance does this specific discovery have if valid? What can it change?
Clearly the next step here is to pass a bill mandating that all keyboards dial home to the (soon-to-be-established) National Child Protection Agency, including not only typing patterns but also bacteria patterns. ~ I, for one, welcome our new keyboard-monitoring overloads!