That's why people recommend that you either eat more smaller meals or have healthy snacks throughout the day, to keep your metabolism going. Just cutting out food entirely will cause your metabolism to slow like you say, but if you eat smaller meals more regularly then your body will know it doesn't need to store as much fat. Doing proper exercise will also mean your body needs to convert fat into energy, though I'm confused at how much of your energy comes from say carbs/fat if you go out running, are you eventually running on pure fat, and does your body at any point start breaking down muscle to provide energy?
Personally I usually just eat whatever I like, but last week read about the using more calories than you eat, which does make sense a little, though you are also right that your metabolism comes into it a lot. My metabolism must be pretty good for me to not be a fat bastard by now, because I have a reputation for eating a lot but not being fat.. I have been a constant 13.5 stone (189 pounds) for the last few years, and even for the first month and a half that I started walking to work instead of driving, but now that I am trying to eat less I noticed I was more like 13.25 stone on monday (though it can still be back to 13.5 depending on how much food and drink I have in me:p ). I'm quite happy to put on more weight as long as it's muscle. When I first started university about 7 years ago I think I was around 11 stone if not less (that is, around 150 pounds). I'm 6' 1" and moderately built (used to be really scrawny until I was about 15 and started doing the occasional bit of weights).
Swimming doesn't usually have much effect on weight for the same reason - it really wears you out so the tendency is to have a big meal afterwards. If you can control your hunger then it is good exercise though.
I'd assume that swimming and other aerobic exercise is better for your heart than pure weight training as well? I find it pretty easy to do weights, but my lungs suck (no pun intended). I used to have an inhaler for asthma when I was a kid, and I still have hay fever. I lost to a fat chick on a 200metre race at school! When I was at university I started doing a bit of jogging at the gym and managed to build myself up so that I could jog/run for 20minutes without stopping, but at the moment I could probably only manage 2 or 3 minutes of jogging at a time depending on how warm it is (cold air is better as it has more oxygen).
Why would the tissue need to be rebuilt if it wasn't destroyed in the first place? While strength training will build up muscle mass over time, I think he meant that while you're actually doing the exercise you are damaging the muscles, and then they get rebuilt stronger over the next few days (hence why it's best to work different muscle groups on different days).
As for me, I have a pretty decent metabolism anyway, I've always been able to eat plenty and not get too fat, but since I got banned from driving a couple of months ago I've been walking to work and back each day (total of about an hour and 20 minutes walking each day, some of it on about a 10-15 degree gradient). I noticed I was slimming down slightly anyway and feeling healthier, so I've tried to combine that with eating more healthily too. I found that when I eat less it's a bit easier to get up in the mornings (though that only works to an extent - if I eat hardly anything at all I end up shattered the next day because I have no energy). My weight hasn't really changed but my waist is slimming down.
I do weights occasionally, and am doing ab crunches every couple of days at the moment. For once in my life I'd like to have a six pack just to prove to myself that I can do it:p Once I get there I'll have more incentive to keep eating well as well, as after driving to work for the last 3 years and not really getting any exercise my face and stomach were starting to get slightly more rounded, though I couldn't really be called 'fat' by anything but an anorexic's standard.. now I'm back to the way I was when I was still at University and walked everywhere.
The more people we have on planet earth, the more easy life gets, and the less every single person has to achieve. Today you don't have to hunt, build, fight, etc.
There are plenty of people on planet earth who still have to hunt, build and fight to survive. It doesn't have much to do with how many people there are so much as the local environment, government and national wealth in your area. In the US and Europe people generally have it way easy, sure, but in a few parts of Africa there are still plenty of people who really are struggling to survive.
People have always been pretty easily led, I wouldn't call it 'retarded' so much as brainwashed. Even the smartest person can be conditioned given enough time and the right environment (not to mention liberal application of drugs:P ). Some people are more easily conditioned than others though, and that probably correlates quite well with how 'dumb' they are.
He was not at this point acting in defence of himself or his property
If it was true that he had been burgled several times (the police didn't seem to think so of course), then why should he have to scare them away each time? Better to give them a bit more reason not to come back again, though I don't think they were quite worthy of actual death. Just because you have scared someone away once doesn't mean they won't be back with their mates later.
In America this wouldn't have been given a second look by the press, but over here in the UK it's a massive deal.
You really think people have only been looking for a solution to crime for 100 years?:p Humanity has been trying many different solutions for millenia! I think some countries in the world do have lower crime rates - especially when it comes to stuff like violent crime. Those that have stamped out violent crime may have a similar proportion of criminals, but it will be for namby-pamby stuff like file sharing.
As for "tech that stops crime before it can happen", that is very unlikely to ever exist. And as Minority Report aptly shows, if the tech isn't 100% accurate it shouldn't be used at all.
That was one of the main things initially, but since then I have reconsidered a lot of other things, and the whole thing just makes a lot more sense from the point of view that the bible is man-made rather than God-breathed. I know all the bullshit reasoning about why God let sin into the world, why people have to go to hell for it etc, but it does not seem like Justice to me. You will believe that God's concept of justice is above our own, but now I believe that in fact it was just the Israelites idea of justice and their own self importance. How likely is it that God would choose one race and let all the others for thouuuusands of years just go to Hell? And even today the majority of people are going to Hell. It's pretty easy to ignore how unjust the whole idea is if you take it locally, where most people around you have at least some exposure to Jesus, but taken on a global scale over thousands of years, it is ludicrous. It's the sort of thing you just gloss over if you're trying to explain the bible away, but when you start doubting the validity of the whole thing, you don't have to gloss over it anymore and can just accept that it's a load of bollocks.
So to reiterate - I now base my doubts on all of it, the stuff that I'd previously explained away with a complex web of interweaving crap. If you selectively ignore things and just say "oh, we'll never understand that because it's way above us" rather than accepting that the Israelite god was just as much a man-made thing as Baal and all the other gods from that era, then you are just convincing yourself of a lie. I understand how easy it is to do that once you are entrenched in your beliefs, believe me, but I now see that I was just being an idiot. I don't care if Genesis was a poem, it is possible to make a poem beautiful and yet factual at the same time. If you always operate on the assumption that the bible is truth then you will find ways of making it such in your head. If you operate on the assumption that it is man-made, then you no longer have to make pathetic excuses for why Genesis is wrong, why there are so many supposedly Christian denominations that believe totally different things (if God was there then he would be guiding them more to be of one body and believe the same things), and any inconsistency is not to do with divine wisdom and mystery, it is simply due to everything being made up.
I admire people who at least try to reason and think about their beliefs and defend them, it shows strength of character, but I also am disappointed that people can be made to believe rubbish so easily. If you think about Buddhists or Muslims or whatever you'll think "how could they believe that rubbish, it's obviously not The Way", but yet they think the same of you, and now I think the same of all Christians. It's all a matter of perspective, and I am at least attempting to be more reasonable rather than just go with what I have been conditioned (by others and by myself) to believe.
The systems that could disable your car on the road already exist.
I know what ECUs do, and they tend to be single PROM type chips rather than whole computer systems like the MS system would be. The fact that they have been used for decades in thousands of models of car means that they are pretty proven technology, they don't tend to just die unless perhaps you screw around with them. MS have not proven themselves as reliable at all either in the hardware or software arena.
The stuff MS is building doesn't need to touch the important stuff.
That's why I said "imagine it fries all the electronics" rather than say it messes with the ECU via a local car network or whatever. There are probably other ways that this could screw up the car though, especially if the manufacturers make the mistake of trusting MS to build the interface that say controls whether 'sport' mode in your car is on or off, and in that case it means that the MS system would have access to the ECU, though if they were smart they'd make it a simple 'on/off' input channel into the ECU rather than let MS have free reign on it. But when so many functions can be tuned in the ECU (how the central locking, electric windows, wipers, etc work) then most likely any sufficiently complex system would end up with a bit more than just 'on/off' input lines. I just wouldn't trust MS to do things the 'right' way in any system, they have a very poor track record. Another poster on this page even said his MS Auto--whatever-it-was-called equipped car in the 90s wouldn't start up if you tried to switch it on too quickly after the engine died (either by switching it off, or stalling, which makes it a major safety concern).
Most current cars use mechanical linkages for the throttle pedals and steering wheel, but some cars are 'fly by wire'. I'm taking the term from fighter planes which use entirely electronic controls that aren't directly linked to any control surfaces or anything. Obviously the pilots and designers of these billion dollar craft trust systems like that, and it looks like car manufacturers are starting to as well. So any system in a car that links up to the ECU to control functions does have the possibility of locking up inputs in a system that is fully fly by wire. I'm not sure about fully electronic wheels, but I've definitely seen some (think they were Peugots) on TV that have fully electronic pedals, and most cars at least have assisted (though a lot of times it will just be a hydraulic system) steering which if it screwed up could make the car very difficult to control - if it simply disabled it would be okay, but just imagine if it started opposing driver inputs rather than assisting them.
Both BMW and Mercedes at least already do voice control for menu functions, tuning the radio etc. So it won't be long before other manufacturers start doing it too (Mercedes were the first company to have anti-locking brakes, seatbelt pre-tensioners, airbags, stability control etc on production cars).
While I wouldn't particularly find a screen in my dash that useful, a HUD would be very useful.
Nothing wrong with making your car last if it's doing what you need it to:)
Singley said that human factors were considered in the decision to use NT, partly because it was thought to have a more friendly graphical user interface (GUI) than Unix systems. Critics of the move pointed out that modern Unix-like operating systems have multiple GUIs to choose from.
Quite possibly the worst reason to choose an OS ever. I doubt that on a Warship they'd be working directly from the Windows Desktop..
"The enemy has deployed mines in this area!"
"Quick, sir, we'd better open this minesweeper application!"
Surely 99% of the time they'd be in the GUI of whatever application has been written to control ship functions, so the only factor that is important for the OS is stability and even NT was regarded at the time to be less stable than UNIX systems. Imagine a war was being lost because the enemy uploaded a virus to all the enemy warships and they were left dead in the water. Windows would quickly lose favour with any government in that situation! To be fair the problem in the article sounded more like a badly designed application and network than a fault with NT though.
Yeah I didn't say that it wasn't, but I see what the original poster was getting at now it should just have been joules rather than watts whenever time is involved.
I don't disagree that going NT based was a good move, I knew that NT was the better OS, but the lack of USB and DirectX were the main issues! I think when 2000 came out its version of DirectX was backwards compatible with NT.. can't remember. Basing 2000 on NT was an awesome idea, and I don't think XP has much over 2000 than a bit of an interface redesign and built in support for wireless.. still a good OS though. How did MS manage to screw up so badly after starting to head in the right direction!?
Well, actually Neptune was a lot more than just Windows 2000 with a different logon screen. This was orginally a developer's release for something that was supposed to be much better. Neptune was not canceled. All you have to do is browse through some of the court testimonials available on Microsoft.com and you can clearly see that. In addition, Neptune has a feature called Activity Centers. I am sure all of you have seen screenshots of them. If you haven't, click here. For some reason, people kept thinking that once Bill Gates became head of Windows that he canceled the project and formed Whistler, but that is incorrect. Neptune's ideas have been around ever since Cairo times (technologies that were originally destined for Windows NT 4, the Windows 2000), but they simply could not be relased because of their complexity for the time. So, after Windows 2000 was released, MS released Codename Neptune, which was the starter for all of the echnologies. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, Microsoft deceided that they should tone down on the project and try to combine the 9x kernel with the more stable NT kernel. This is where Whistler (XP) came in to existence. As you can clearly see, MS used the login screen from Neptune for XP. Click here for a screenshot of the login screen from Whistler build 2250. Then of course, it went through beta and was perfected and Windows XP was released. All this time, however, Neptune was still being worked on. As time went on, MS used ideas like WinFS (a concept of MS's from 1993) and kept adding them to Neptune, jumping it from core to core (Windows 2000 --> Windows XP --> Windows Server 2003) until it arrived to where it is now: Core version 6.0. Yes, if you haven't guessed, this IS LONHGORN! Neptune is very much alive in Longhorn, as you can see, because one example is the Activity Centers that are integrated into explorer.
Sickening how Vista was hyped up so much and in the end was just a load of cruft and bloat:(
I think he was more bothered about the comma. As others pointed out above, it's a cultural thing. Some places in Europe apparently use comma instead of period. Only some though, here in the UK we use period. How confusing.
In fact I was happy with 98SE for a LONG time there.
Seconded. 98 + Firewall (even just an incoming hardware firewall) was fine. If I'd had firefox all along instead of IE then I probably never would have had a virus in Windows at all (I only started using Windows around 1998). I only upgraded to XP because I wanted to play Lego Star Wars and it refused to install on 98SE (while stuff like Half-Life 2 was perfectly fine).
Microsoft wants you to buy their products. They don't want to own you.
In a monopoly market, those are pretty much the same thing. If it weren't for pepsi, coke would have free reign so to speak.
Microsoft, as companies go, are leaning towards the evil end of the scale. All companies are out to make a profit, but some of them do it in a much nicer way. Admittedly it's often the ones with the underhanded tactics that rise to the top, though that's not always the case. Anyway, I wouldn't have such a problem with MS being evil if they actually made GOOD products. XP is pretty stable and efficient (for example I was running 98 until about 3 years ago, then switched to XP and found that it actually booted quicker then 98, and hardly ever crashed or needed rebooting or a complete reinstall compared to my 98 box which needed a refresh at least every year). Apple are a bunch of bastards sometimes too, but at least they make decent products. Linux is borne of general goodwill, happiness, puppies, sunshine and fluffy open source kittens so open source products generally are better for the consumer as long as they have a dedicated team behind them and aren't one of those projects that get left 50% complete.
MS, as usual, would be trying to squeeze all the money they could muster out of this by using proprietary standards, trying to lock in as many manufacturers as they can, and probably they'd have a bit of advertising through in as well. I'd expect the MS system to be similar to Windows Mobile (if not actually just a modified version of it). Windows mobile admittedly has awesome functionality (DirectPUSH is great), but the interface is slow as ass, and as well as being slow it redraws itself very badly, which is just plain ugly. A Linux based system would probably be more responsive, and more focus/targeted at the task in hand. IMO anyone who tries to defend Microsoft tends to be someone who has been brought up with them and has never spent much time with alternative Operating Systems or software. Having grown up with Amigas and Macs I used to always get pissed off that Windows on a 1Ghz machine could hardly keep with my 30Mhz Amiga even with simple things like moving window panes around the screen smoothly. Windows to me has always been pathetic, bloated, and shit. So yes, that's why I have unmitigated loathing for MS.
And I don't have an XBox as you probably could have guessed, I have a PS3;)
I had a quick google but couldn't turn up anything for either. Is the "DRM" to just stop people messing with the settings?
Just as an OT aside, I had my Fabia remapped and so it should have about 30-40bhp over standard (turbo-diesels tend to remap pretty nicely), and my dad used to have an Evo VI as a company car before he died. I now work for the same company, but I have to be 25 before I'm allowed to drive any of the more powerful cars, damnit (having said that, before the directors found out about the age restriction on the insurance policy, I'd had a go in the Golf R32 and the Jag XJR, hehe)! Only 3 months until I'm 25 though:D And one month of my driving ban left to serve *ahem*
I was pretty sure it was a Golf I saw, BMW and others probably do it too though. Impressive stuff!
Half-ton? Even the smallest of modern cars literally weigh a ton (eg. the Volkswagen Fox is 978kg). Things like airbags, air-con etc all add up. To get anywhere near half a ton you'd need to build most of your car out of carbon fibre, aluminium composites and titanium, and lose all the comforts:p
That said, I emphatically agree with your main point!
once they get into our cars, then they've opened the way to possibly building devices that a user can carry with them at all times to offer something of an uninterrupted Microsoft experience.
I can't think of anything more horrific. I often go for a drive just to to 'get away from it all'.
Even if such a system from MS didn't turn out obnoxious, annoying, distracting and reduce your MPG to 1, I still wouldn't trust it to be stable. I only use Microsoft products when there is no better alternative available, or when I need Windows to run certain apps (and I'm planning this week to rearrange my machine so that I can run Windows in a VM rather than having to have a dual boot system for work:) ). An "uninterrupted Microsoft experience" sounds to me like a euphemism for Hell. Actually, it's more like the other way round!
Actually I love that as long as the level change is done properly. I always used to turn the radio up at higher speeds when there is road or wind noise, and you don't need to concentrate so much as there is less going on, and down in town where there is a lot more movement and no road noise, or you need to hear someone give directions to their place or whatever.
My mum's car (Vauxhall Astra) has a variable setting to allow you to change how much the volume changes by but I couldn't find a setting that I was particularly happy with when I used it, it seemed to grow kind of exponentially rather than linearly (I know that the decibel system isn't exactly linear as volume doubles every 3 decibels, but surely the manufacturer could work that out..).
My own car (Skoda Fabia vRS) doesn't have any settings to change the level of adaption, apart from perhaps on/off, but it's thankfully pretty spot-on anyway:) The only problem I have now is that radio presenters seem to have their volume up waaaay too loud so that if I ever listen to the radio I have to turn it up for music, and down for the presenters!
In my mind that's the real issue, above and beyond issues of utility or stability
So you'd rather a system that could for example fry all the electronics in your car while you're on the move, possibly causing a complete lack of response on any of the controls (some modern cars are getting close to fly-by-wire..) and imminent death, rather than a system where those in control of te servers can see what regions you've requested map updates for?:P Personally I don't care. I'm quite happy to tell people I'm off to France for a holiday this week, I'm not afraid they're going to send an assassin after me or anything.. if you are concerned about that type of thing then just use a map instead of GPS!
Oh FFS.. how can MS be so bad at everything they do?
I'm just glad this is about stuff like GPS and MP3 system inputs, and not actual car control. I don't want to have to wait til SP2 until it's safe for friends and family to use the MS Autodrivatron. I'd rather have a more ethically responsible corporation in charge of software and hardware that can endanger human life. The car manufacturers themselves are probably the best bet for designing self-driving cars. In fact I know that VW at least has a self-driving Golf that can race fast round a track made of cones, think it was on Top Gear I saw it. Big step from there to a car that can recognise and react to pedestrians properly, but at least there is some proper research being done towards the self-driving car.
But the software tools still speed things up and take a lot of the brunt of the calculations. Smaller companies do benefit from a lack of red tape sure, and they don't necessarily have to pay poorly, but they still generally have less funding per project at their disposal than large companies. I work for a small company myself and we have plenty of smart and experienced engineers, but ANSYS and CFX have been invaluable to us when it comes to testing out our structures and designing blades for our mass-flow dredging tools and a tidal turbine that we are developing. One of our guys is a genius with his calculations (went to Cambridge, used to work for Rolls Royce, and used to teach at our local university before he started working for us full time) and probably could have done a fair bit of the work without them given enough time, but that is not the point. Computers are great at churning through calculations very quickly, and they do reduce the man hours and resources required to do design and test complex structures. Better to run a simulation on software that you pay a yearly fee for, than to manufacture a new part and then hire a wind tunnel every time you need to test out a design.
I wasn't thinking of CAD actually, it's almost entirely analagous to 2D drawing unless you're using 3D CAD (which most our engineers do).
I was thinking more of structural analysis tools and fluid analysis tools (we use ANSYS/CFX for this). That greatly reduces the time it takes to calculate fatigue, blade efficiency (for things like wind turbines and underwater impellers), aerodynamics etc. You can use a wind tunnel to 'see' what is happening aerodynamically, but as far as testing for weak points in a complex structure, it's more reliable and quicker just to give it over to the computer rather than rely on gut instinct and human calculations (though you still need a human to give the inputs to the simulation so it could still be flawed). It also leaves room for more interesting designs as say architects could use simulations to test out unusual designs and different uses of materials. Sure they already generally know what is possible, but simulations help give a proof-of-concept.
Computer modelling tools mean that even small firms without much cash can design proper supercars and rockets without having anywhere near as much money as companies like Ferrari or NASA.
Everything you say is true, and as I am trying to fit myself into the mould of a "responsible adult", I probably should start doing things like writing to local MPs. I certainly feel disillusioned with the whole process before having even gotten involved with it, what with all the scandals and mud slinging that goes on in politics, but I've started to become more acquainted with the different parties and ideologies through simple things like posting on slashdot and starting to watch slightly more adult television programs (usually political satire, but you still learn a bit about politics through it;) ). I still get too pissed off and depressed when I watch or listen to the news though, the world really is a horrible place.
As for living in China, it might not be as nice as out here in the west, but compared to certain places in Africa, and North Korea, it's probably like living in Disneyland. I also had a friend go over to Saudi Arabia recently for a few months, and he liked it - but he was out there working for an oil company, so perhaps that makes all the difference.
Well when I said totally different I meant Japan has quite a different culture to ours in the 'west', though yes it won't be identical to China's either, but Asian cultures are a lot more similar to each other than they are to western civilisation, thinking from simple things like using chopsticks right through to religious things like a predominance of mystic-type religions, and generably more honourable and respectful traditions. The Chinese government banning all religions would have damaged their traditions quite a lot though I'd expect:/
Respect for authority is just a healthy thing. I am not good at it I admit (I got banned from driving for speeding a couple of months ago), but I can see the value in it. As you point out most governments don't do anything to earn respect, and in most cases they do the opposite, but they do keep our countries running and are representative of us. Perhaps if we gave them more respect they'd do a better job *shrug*
I tend to play devil's advocate a bit too much, which may be where part of my inconsistency comes from, but there is also the fact that I'm still trying to work out my stance on these issues as well. It's very hypocritical of me saying it, but I think respect is admirable as long as you're not letting people walk over you at the same time. I've met a few guys from China (though most were from Hong Kong which is a bit more westernised), Malaysia etc - I just think they're nice people and like their culture, and perhaps we could learn from them as well as trying to force all our own ideals and politics onto them.
I don't believe I need a choice who to vote for - I have been given a choice in that - I just feel like I should be given a more fine grained choice. How does choosing between basically 2 main parties in any way reflect my opinion on the tends of thousands of different matters that come up in government each year? They may as well just flip a coin on each vote for a law and be done with it! I recently saw people advocating 'Open Source Government' here on/. , and it does sounds more in line with the system that I'd ideally want to follow. I wouldn't want to spend all my time voting on political matters, but I'd like to be able to vote directly on matters that are important to me rather than trusting some MP to do so. I could write letters to MPs, but again I'd rather just vote than try to persuade some two-faced "public servant" who is just trying to grab some power and money for himself.
I know that they know that they will make you think you know that they didn't know about this. But you should know that they could have known and were double bluffing for know-it-alls just like you. Know what I mean? No? Meh.
Slashdot Mirror
That's why people recommend that you either eat more smaller meals or have healthy snacks throughout the day, to keep your metabolism going. Just cutting out food entirely will cause your metabolism to slow like you say, but if you eat smaller meals more regularly then your body will know it doesn't need to store as much fat. Doing proper exercise will also mean your body needs to convert fat into energy, though I'm confused at how much of your energy comes from say carbs/fat if you go out running, are you eventually running on pure fat, and does your body at any point start breaking down muscle to provide energy?
Personally I usually just eat whatever I like, but last week read about the using more calories than you eat, which does make sense a little, though you are also right that your metabolism comes into it a lot. My metabolism must be pretty good for me to not be a fat bastard by now, because I have a reputation for eating a lot but not being fat.. I have been a constant 13.5 stone (189 pounds) for the last few years, and even for the first month and a half that I started walking to work instead of driving, but now that I am trying to eat less I noticed I was more like 13.25 stone on monday (though it can still be back to 13.5 depending on how much food and drink I have in me :p ). I'm quite happy to put on more weight as long as it's muscle. When I first started university about 7 years ago I think I was around 11 stone if not less (that is, around 150 pounds). I'm 6' 1" and moderately built (used to be really scrawny until I was about 15 and started doing the occasional bit of weights).
Swimming doesn't usually have much effect on weight for the same reason - it really wears you out so the tendency is to have a big meal afterwards. If you can control your hunger then it is good exercise though.
I'd assume that swimming and other aerobic exercise is better for your heart than pure weight training as well? I find it pretty easy to do weights, but my lungs suck (no pun intended). I used to have an inhaler for asthma when I was a kid, and I still have hay fever. I lost to a fat chick on a 200metre race at school! When I was at university I started doing a bit of jogging at the gym and managed to build myself up so that I could jog/run for 20minutes without stopping, but at the moment I could probably only manage 2 or 3 minutes of jogging at a time depending on how warm it is (cold air is better as it has more oxygen).
Why would the tissue need to be rebuilt if it wasn't destroyed in the first place? While strength training will build up muscle mass over time, I think he meant that while you're actually doing the exercise you are damaging the muscles, and then they get rebuilt stronger over the next few days (hence why it's best to work different muscle groups on different days).
As for me, I have a pretty decent metabolism anyway, I've always been able to eat plenty and not get too fat, but since I got banned from driving a couple of months ago I've been walking to work and back each day (total of about an hour and 20 minutes walking each day, some of it on about a 10-15 degree gradient). I noticed I was slimming down slightly anyway and feeling healthier, so I've tried to combine that with eating more healthily too. I found that when I eat less it's a bit easier to get up in the mornings (though that only works to an extent - if I eat hardly anything at all I end up shattered the next day because I have no energy). My weight hasn't really changed but my waist is slimming down.
I do weights occasionally, and am doing ab crunches every couple of days at the moment. For once in my life I'd like to have a six pack just to prove to myself that I can do it :p Once I get there I'll have more incentive to keep eating well as well, as after driving to work for the last 3 years and not really getting any exercise my face and stomach were starting to get slightly more rounded, though I couldn't really be called 'fat' by anything but an anorexic's standard.. now I'm back to the way I was when I was still at University and walked everywhere.
The more people we have on planet earth, the more easy life gets, and the less every single person has to achieve. Today you don't have to hunt, build, fight, etc.
There are plenty of people on planet earth who still have to hunt, build and fight to survive. It doesn't have much to do with how many people there are so much as the local environment, government and national wealth in your area. In the US and Europe people generally have it way easy, sure, but in a few parts of Africa there are still plenty of people who really are struggling to survive.
People have always been pretty easily led, I wouldn't call it 'retarded' so much as brainwashed. Even the smartest person can be conditioned given enough time and the right environment (not to mention liberal application of drugs :P ). Some people are more easily conditioned than others though, and that probably correlates quite well with how 'dumb' they are.
He was not at this point acting in defence of himself or his property
If it was true that he had been burgled several times (the police didn't seem to think so of course), then why should he have to scare them away each time? Better to give them a bit more reason not to come back again, though I don't think they were quite worthy of actual death. Just because you have scared someone away once doesn't mean they won't be back with their mates later.
In America this wouldn't have been given a second look by the press, but over here in the UK it's a massive deal.
You really think people have only been looking for a solution to crime for 100 years? :p Humanity has been trying many different solutions for millenia! I think some countries in the world do have lower crime rates - especially when it comes to stuff like violent crime. Those that have stamped out violent crime may have a similar proportion of criminals, but it will be for namby-pamby stuff like file sharing.
As for "tech that stops crime before it can happen", that is very unlikely to ever exist. And as Minority Report aptly shows, if the tech isn't 100% accurate it shouldn't be used at all.
That was one of the main things initially, but since then I have reconsidered a lot of other things, and the whole thing just makes a lot more sense from the point of view that the bible is man-made rather than God-breathed. I know all the bullshit reasoning about why God let sin into the world, why people have to go to hell for it etc, but it does not seem like Justice to me. You will believe that God's concept of justice is above our own, but now I believe that in fact it was just the Israelites idea of justice and their own self importance. How likely is it that God would choose one race and let all the others for thouuuusands of years just go to Hell? And even today the majority of people are going to Hell. It's pretty easy to ignore how unjust the whole idea is if you take it locally, where most people around you have at least some exposure to Jesus, but taken on a global scale over thousands of years, it is ludicrous. It's the sort of thing you just gloss over if you're trying to explain the bible away, but when you start doubting the validity of the whole thing, you don't have to gloss over it anymore and can just accept that it's a load of bollocks.
So to reiterate - I now base my doubts on all of it, the stuff that I'd previously explained away with a complex web of interweaving crap. If you selectively ignore things and just say "oh, we'll never understand that because it's way above us" rather than accepting that the Israelite god was just as much a man-made thing as Baal and all the other gods from that era, then you are just convincing yourself of a lie. I understand how easy it is to do that once you are entrenched in your beliefs, believe me, but I now see that I was just being an idiot. I don't care if Genesis was a poem, it is possible to make a poem beautiful and yet factual at the same time. If you always operate on the assumption that the bible is truth then you will find ways of making it such in your head. If you operate on the assumption that it is man-made, then you no longer have to make pathetic excuses for why Genesis is wrong, why there are so many supposedly Christian denominations that believe totally different things (if God was there then he would be guiding them more to be of one body and believe the same things), and any inconsistency is not to do with divine wisdom and mystery, it is simply due to everything being made up.
I admire people who at least try to reason and think about their beliefs and defend them, it shows strength of character, but I also am disappointed that people can be made to believe rubbish so easily. If you think about Buddhists or Muslims or whatever you'll think "how could they believe that rubbish, it's obviously not The Way", but yet they think the same of you, and now I think the same of all Christians. It's all a matter of perspective, and I am at least attempting to be more reasonable rather than just go with what I have been conditioned (by others and by myself) to believe.
The systems that could disable your car on the road already exist.
I know what ECUs do, and they tend to be single PROM type chips rather than whole computer systems like the MS system would be. The fact that they have been used for decades in thousands of models of car means that they are pretty proven technology, they don't tend to just die unless perhaps you screw around with them. MS have not proven themselves as reliable at all either in the hardware or software arena.
The stuff MS is building doesn't need to touch the important stuff.
That's why I said "imagine it fries all the electronics" rather than say it messes with the ECU via a local car network or whatever. There are probably other ways that this could screw up the car though, especially if the manufacturers make the mistake of trusting MS to build the interface that say controls whether 'sport' mode in your car is on or off, and in that case it means that the MS system would have access to the ECU, though if they were smart they'd make it a simple 'on/off' input channel into the ECU rather than let MS have free reign on it. But when so many functions can be tuned in the ECU (how the central locking, electric windows, wipers, etc work) then most likely any sufficiently complex system would end up with a bit more than just 'on/off' input lines. I just wouldn't trust MS to do things the 'right' way in any system, they have a very poor track record. Another poster on this page even said his MS Auto--whatever-it-was-called equipped car in the 90s wouldn't start up if you tried to switch it on too quickly after the engine died (either by switching it off, or stalling, which makes it a major safety concern).
Most current cars use mechanical linkages for the throttle pedals and steering wheel, but some cars are 'fly by wire'. I'm taking the term from fighter planes which use entirely electronic controls that aren't directly linked to any control surfaces or anything. Obviously the pilots and designers of these billion dollar craft trust systems like that, and it looks like car manufacturers are starting to as well. So any system in a car that links up to the ECU to control functions does have the possibility of locking up inputs in a system that is fully fly by wire. I'm not sure about fully electronic wheels, but I've definitely seen some (think they were Peugots) on TV that have fully electronic pedals, and most cars at least have assisted (though a lot of times it will just be a hydraulic system) steering which if it screwed up could make the car very difficult to control - if it simply disabled it would be okay, but just imagine if it started opposing driver inputs rather than assisting them.
Both BMW and Mercedes at least already do voice control for menu functions, tuning the radio etc. So it won't be long before other manufacturers start doing it too (Mercedes were the first company to have anti-locking brakes, seatbelt pre-tensioners, airbags, stability control etc on production cars).
While I wouldn't particularly find a screen in my dash that useful, a HUD would be very useful.
Nothing wrong with making your car last if it's doing what you need it to :)
From that link:
Singley said that human factors were considered in the decision to use NT, partly because it was thought to have a more friendly graphical user interface (GUI) than Unix systems. Critics of the move pointed out that modern Unix-like operating systems have multiple GUIs to choose from.
Quite possibly the worst reason to choose an OS ever. I doubt that on a Warship they'd be working directly from the Windows Desktop..
"The enemy has deployed mines in this area!"
"Quick, sir, we'd better open this minesweeper application!"
Surely 99% of the time they'd be in the GUI of whatever application has been written to control ship functions, so the only factor that is important for the OS is stability and even NT was regarded at the time to be less stable than UNIX systems. Imagine a war was being lost because the enemy uploaded a virus to all the enemy warships and they were left dead in the water. Windows would quickly lose favour with any government in that situation! To be fair the problem in the article sounded more like a badly designed application and network than a fault with NT though.
Yeah I didn't say that it wasn't, but I see what the original poster was getting at now it should just have been joules rather than watts whenever time is involved.
I don't disagree that going NT based was a good move, I knew that NT was the better OS, but the lack of USB and DirectX were the main issues! I think when 2000 came out its version of DirectX was backwards compatible with NT.. can't remember. Basing 2000 on NT was an awesome idea, and I don't think XP has much over 2000 than a bit of an interface redesign and built in support for wireless.. still a good OS though. How did MS manage to screw up so badly after starting to head in the right direction!?
I have never heard of Neptune, here's an interesting snippet from a discussion at http://www.flexbeta.net/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t2363.html :
Well, actually Neptune was a lot more than just Windows 2000 with a different logon screen. This was orginally a developer's release for something that was supposed to be much better. Neptune was not canceled. All you have to do is browse through some of the court testimonials available on Microsoft.com and you can clearly see that. In addition, Neptune has a feature called Activity Centers. I am sure all of you have seen screenshots of them. If you haven't, click here. For some reason, people kept thinking that once Bill Gates became head of Windows that he canceled the project and formed Whistler, but that is incorrect. Neptune's ideas have been around ever since Cairo times (technologies that were originally destined for Windows NT 4, the Windows 2000), but they simply could not be relased because of their complexity for the time. So, after Windows 2000 was released, MS released Codename Neptune, which was the starter for all of the echnologies. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, Microsoft deceided that they should tone down on the project and try to combine the 9x kernel with the more stable NT kernel. This is where Whistler (XP) came in to existence. As you can clearly see, MS used the login screen from Neptune for XP. Click here for a screenshot of the login screen from Whistler build 2250. Then of course, it went through beta and was perfected and Windows XP was released. All this time, however, Neptune was still being worked on. As time went on, MS used ideas like WinFS (a concept of MS's from 1993) and kept adding them to Neptune, jumping it from core to core (Windows 2000 --> Windows XP --> Windows Server 2003) until it arrived to where it is now: Core version 6.0. Yes, if you haven't guessed, this IS LONHGORN! Neptune is very much alive in Longhorn, as you can see, because one example is the Activity Centers that are integrated into explorer.
Sickening how Vista was hyped up so much and in the end was just a load of cruft and bloat :(
I think he was more bothered about the comma. As others pointed out above, it's a cultural thing. Some places in Europe apparently use comma instead of period. Only some though, here in the UK we use period. How confusing.
In fact I was happy with 98SE for a LONG time there.
Seconded. 98 + Firewall (even just an incoming hardware firewall) was fine. If I'd had firefox all along instead of IE then I probably never would have had a virus in Windows at all (I only started using Windows around 1998). I only upgraded to XP because I wanted to play Lego Star Wars and it refused to install on 98SE (while stuff like Half-Life 2 was perfectly fine).
Microsoft wants you to buy their products. They don't want to own you.
In a monopoly market, those are pretty much the same thing. If it weren't for pepsi, coke would have free reign so to speak.
Microsoft, as companies go, are leaning towards the evil end of the scale. All companies are out to make a profit, but some of them do it in a much nicer way. Admittedly it's often the ones with the underhanded tactics that rise to the top, though that's not always the case. Anyway, I wouldn't have such a problem with MS being evil if they actually made GOOD products. XP is pretty stable and efficient (for example I was running 98 until about 3 years ago, then switched to XP and found that it actually booted quicker then 98, and hardly ever crashed or needed rebooting or a complete reinstall compared to my 98 box which needed a refresh at least every year). Apple are a bunch of bastards sometimes too, but at least they make decent products. Linux is borne of general goodwill, happiness, puppies, sunshine and fluffy open source kittens so open source products generally are better for the consumer as long as they have a dedicated team behind them and aren't one of those projects that get left 50% complete.
MS, as usual, would be trying to squeeze all the money they could muster out of this by using proprietary standards, trying to lock in as many manufacturers as they can, and probably they'd have a bit of advertising through in as well. I'd expect the MS system to be similar to Windows Mobile (if not actually just a modified version of it). Windows mobile admittedly has awesome functionality (DirectPUSH is great), but the interface is slow as ass, and as well as being slow it redraws itself very badly, which is just plain ugly. A Linux based system would probably be more responsive, and more focus/targeted at the task in hand. IMO anyone who tries to defend Microsoft tends to be someone who has been brought up with them and has never spent much time with alternative Operating Systems or software. Having grown up with Amigas and Macs I used to always get pissed off that Windows on a 1Ghz machine could hardly keep with my 30Mhz Amiga even with simple things like moving window panes around the screen smoothly. Windows to me has always been pathetic, bloated, and shit. So yes, that's why I have unmitigated loathing for MS.
And I don't have an XBox as you probably could have guessed, I have a PS3 ;)
I had a quick google but couldn't turn up anything for either. Is the "DRM" to just stop people messing with the settings?
Just as an OT aside, I had my Fabia remapped and so it should have about 30-40bhp over standard (turbo-diesels tend to remap pretty nicely), and my dad used to have an Evo VI as a company car before he died. I now work for the same company, but I have to be 25 before I'm allowed to drive any of the more powerful cars, damnit (having said that, before the directors found out about the age restriction on the insurance policy, I'd had a go in the Golf R32 and the Jag XJR, hehe)! Only 3 months until I'm 25 though :D And one month of my driving ban left to serve *ahem*
I was pretty sure it was a Golf I saw, BMW and others probably do it too though. Impressive stuff!
Half-ton? Even the smallest of modern cars literally weigh a ton (eg. the Volkswagen Fox is 978kg). Things like airbags, air-con etc all add up. To get anywhere near half a ton you'd need to build most of your car out of carbon fibre, aluminium composites and titanium, and lose all the comforts :p
That said, I emphatically agree with your main point!
once they get into our cars, then they've opened the way to possibly building devices that a user can carry with them at all times to offer something of an uninterrupted Microsoft experience.
I can't think of anything more horrific. I often go for a drive just to to 'get away from it all'.
Even if such a system from MS didn't turn out obnoxious, annoying, distracting and reduce your MPG to 1, I still wouldn't trust it to be stable. I only use Microsoft products when there is no better alternative available, or when I need Windows to run certain apps (and I'm planning this week to rearrange my machine so that I can run Windows in a VM rather than having to have a dual boot system for work :) ). An "uninterrupted Microsoft experience" sounds to me like a euphemism for Hell. Actually, it's more like the other way round!
Actually I love that as long as the level change is done properly. I always used to turn the radio up at higher speeds when there is road or wind noise, and you don't need to concentrate so much as there is less going on, and down in town where there is a lot more movement and no road noise, or you need to hear someone give directions to their place or whatever.
My mum's car (Vauxhall Astra) has a variable setting to allow you to change how much the volume changes by but I couldn't find a setting that I was particularly happy with when I used it, it seemed to grow kind of exponentially rather than linearly (I know that the decibel system isn't exactly linear as volume doubles every 3 decibels, but surely the manufacturer could work that out..).
My own car (Skoda Fabia vRS) doesn't have any settings to change the level of adaption, apart from perhaps on/off, but it's thankfully pretty spot-on anyway :) The only problem I have now is that radio presenters seem to have their volume up waaaay too loud so that if I ever listen to the radio I have to turn it up for music, and down for the presenters!
In my mind that's the real issue, above and beyond issues of utility or stability
So you'd rather a system that could for example fry all the electronics in your car while you're on the move, possibly causing a complete lack of response on any of the controls (some modern cars are getting close to fly-by-wire..) and imminent death, rather than a system where those in control of te servers can see what regions you've requested map updates for? :P Personally I don't care. I'm quite happy to tell people I'm off to France for a holiday this week, I'm not afraid they're going to send an assassin after me or anything.. if you are concerned about that type of thing then just use a map instead of GPS!
Oh FFS.. how can MS be so bad at everything they do?
I'm just glad this is about stuff like GPS and MP3 system inputs, and not actual car control. I don't want to have to wait til SP2 until it's safe for friends and family to use the MS Autodrivatron. I'd rather have a more ethically responsible corporation in charge of software and hardware that can endanger human life. The car manufacturers themselves are probably the best bet for designing self-driving cars. In fact I know that VW at least has a self-driving Golf that can race fast round a track made of cones, think it was on Top Gear I saw it. Big step from there to a car that can recognise and react to pedestrians properly, but at least there is some proper research being done towards the self-driving car.
But the software tools still speed things up and take a lot of the brunt of the calculations. Smaller companies do benefit from a lack of red tape sure, and they don't necessarily have to pay poorly, but they still generally have less funding per project at their disposal than large companies. I work for a small company myself and we have plenty of smart and experienced engineers, but ANSYS and CFX have been invaluable to us when it comes to testing out our structures and designing blades for our mass-flow dredging tools and a tidal turbine that we are developing. One of our guys is a genius with his calculations (went to Cambridge, used to work for Rolls Royce, and used to teach at our local university before he started working for us full time) and probably could have done a fair bit of the work without them given enough time, but that is not the point. Computers are great at churning through calculations very quickly, and they do reduce the man hours and resources required to do design and test complex structures. Better to run a simulation on software that you pay a yearly fee for, than to manufacture a new part and then hire a wind tunnel every time you need to test out a design.
I wasn't thinking of CAD actually, it's almost entirely analagous to 2D drawing unless you're using 3D CAD (which most our engineers do).
I was thinking more of structural analysis tools and fluid analysis tools (we use ANSYS/CFX for this). That greatly reduces the time it takes to calculate fatigue, blade efficiency (for things like wind turbines and underwater impellers), aerodynamics etc. You can use a wind tunnel to 'see' what is happening aerodynamically, but as far as testing for weak points in a complex structure, it's more reliable and quicker just to give it over to the computer rather than rely on gut instinct and human calculations (though you still need a human to give the inputs to the simulation so it could still be flawed). It also leaves room for more interesting designs as say architects could use simulations to test out unusual designs and different uses of materials. Sure they already generally know what is possible, but simulations help give a proof-of-concept.
Computer modelling tools mean that even small firms without much cash can design proper supercars and rockets without having anywhere near as much money as companies like Ferrari or NASA.
Everything you say is true, and as I am trying to fit myself into the mould of a "responsible adult", I probably should start doing things like writing to local MPs. I certainly feel disillusioned with the whole process before having even gotten involved with it, what with all the scandals and mud slinging that goes on in politics, but I've started to become more acquainted with the different parties and ideologies through simple things like posting on slashdot and starting to watch slightly more adult television programs (usually political satire, but you still learn a bit about politics through it ;) ). I still get too pissed off and depressed when I watch or listen to the news though, the world really is a horrible place.
As for living in China, it might not be as nice as out here in the west, but compared to certain places in Africa, and North Korea, it's probably like living in Disneyland. I also had a friend go over to Saudi Arabia recently for a few months, and he liked it - but he was out there working for an oil company, so perhaps that makes all the difference.
Well when I said totally different I meant Japan has quite a different culture to ours in the 'west', though yes it won't be identical to China's either, but Asian cultures are a lot more similar to each other than they are to western civilisation, thinking from simple things like using chopsticks right through to religious things like a predominance of mystic-type religions, and generably more honourable and respectful traditions. The Chinese government banning all religions would have damaged their traditions quite a lot though I'd expect :/
Respect for authority is just a healthy thing. I am not good at it I admit (I got banned from driving for speeding a couple of months ago), but I can see the value in it. As you point out most governments don't do anything to earn respect, and in most cases they do the opposite, but they do keep our countries running and are representative of us. Perhaps if we gave them more respect they'd do a better job *shrug*
I tend to play devil's advocate a bit too much, which may be where part of my inconsistency comes from, but there is also the fact that I'm still trying to work out my stance on these issues as well. It's very hypocritical of me saying it, but I think respect is admirable as long as you're not letting people walk over you at the same time. I've met a few guys from China (though most were from Hong Kong which is a bit more westernised), Malaysia etc - I just think they're nice people and like their culture, and perhaps we could learn from them as well as trying to force all our own ideals and politics onto them.
I don't believe I need a choice who to vote for - I have been given a choice in that - I just feel like I should be given a more fine grained choice. How does choosing between basically 2 main parties in any way reflect my opinion on the tends of thousands of different matters that come up in government each year? They may as well just flip a coin on each vote for a law and be done with it! I recently saw people advocating 'Open Source Government' here on /. , and it does sounds more in line with the system that I'd ideally want to follow. I wouldn't want to spend all my time voting on political matters, but I'd like to be able to vote directly on matters that are important to me rather than trusting some MP to do so. I could write letters to MPs, but again I'd rather just vote than try to persuade some two-faced "public servant" who is just trying to grab some power and money for himself.
You have fallen right into their trap!
I know that they know that they will make you think you know that they didn't know about this. But you should know that they could have known and were double bluffing for know-it-alls just like you. Know what I mean? No? Meh.