I used to use Altaviista and Lycos. Google was way ahead - obviously, otherwise they wouldn't have pulled out so far in front.
Orkut is a Google social networking site, you fucking numbnuts (sorry, I am in a sweary mood:p ).
Android is way better than all those OSes. I used to use Windows Mobile. iOS was an improvement, but not my style. Android is great.
Google glasses. Google's auto-drive system. Yes they both have advertising potential, but they also are really cool products which require a lot of R&D. You are an idiot.
The difference here could be that RIMs products have always been shitty. They were first out the gates for mobile email, but their software has always been poorly designed (IMO), and they've barely improved their products let alone done anything innovative. Everyone else has overtaken them now.
Google on the other hand tend to create things that work well, and are still improving and innovating. If any tech giants are set to go downhill over the next few years, it's RIM, MS and Apple (the iPhone 5 reception was hardly stellar.. Apple are losing their cool factor without Jobs' guidance). Google should at least keep going steadily. Not that I even invest in the stock market anyway so I don't care that much:p
Yeah because the US government is soooo much better. Only 100,000 rather than hundreds of thousands. And the US is such a great place to be in a minority group.
I would have thought constantly introducing more variety into the gene pool would slow down "evolution" - if by evolution you mean creating new species and traits. If we all keep interbreeding then wouldn't new traits take far longer to take hold? Everyone would be more similar, rather than having racial traits as we have just now. Not that I have a problem with any of that really:) But for cool things to evolve, generally they have to be isolated from the rest of the world - just think of all the interesting marsupials in Australia for example.
I think of it like libraries in programming. A small group of people do some work that benefits a much larger groupd in the future. If we all had to do everything from scratch all the time, nothing would get done. For one thing we'd all have to work out our own individual languages and the laws of physics. Somehow I don't think that work work. Checking up on food quality isn't a "nanny state", it's just sensible.
I'm Scottish, and it's written Scotsman/Scots by the way.
Anyway, back to the topic at hand; I have to say that I don't know what you're talking about. I'd say that at least 80% of sheep aren't that sexually attractive.
Okay, it's a bit weird that I'm defending Apple here, but before the iPhone most people didn't even install apps on their phones. I did personally, but Apple actually increased people's expectations of their phones. Yes they keep a tight reign on their market, but for those people who actually care, there is Android. I have 3 Android powered devices that I use regularly, and I much prefer them to the Apple alternatives.
Most people don't care about software freedom, and never have. There is no "expectation" from anyone apart from us geeks.
Also I just RTFA and I saw this:
"Although Microsoft's stipulations require also that x86/x64 systems provide an option to disable Secure Boot"
This is completely different to what I'd expected after the anger and fear that I've seen here over the Secure Boot thing. It sounds like just another BIOS option. Anyone who wants to try out Linux probably also is aware how to edit BIOS settings. Or they can use a VM if they want to take the easiest route, that will presumably completely bypass Secure Boot too.
So far Apple only really care about and have control over their own products. Microsoft are trying to control everything else, which is something like 90% of general purpose PCs.
So we should all hire private investigators any time we want to try a new brand of food, or every other week to make sure that food companies are still making "the good stuff" in an ethical way?
People already do have the choice to buy dirt cheap stuff if they want. Just because the ingredients are on the packet doesn't mean that a lot of people won't chose based on price. I know that's what I did when I was a student. Now that I don't really need to care about the cost of food, I just base my choices on things like protein content and sugar content.
Reading the ingredients would not help in this case. Not that I'm convinced it's a bad thing anyway. If fish like eating shit and can survive on it, I don't really see the problem. Plants eat shit too.
As a part developer, part network admin, part IT support type jack of all trades for a small business, I'm just really confused as to where I fit in here.
Well when I first started eating low carb and told someone about it, she was saying how her father shouldn't eat red meat because of his heart condition etc. People very often make jokes about burgers and steaks giving you heart attacks and such. There's a deeply held attitude in western culture that fat, especially saturated fat, is unhealthy. I agree with your diet completely, and I think broccoli is awesome:p The scientific/medical community is gradually being righted, but the majority of people still seem to think that saturated fat = bad.
Well, I thought that much was obvious (that the data advertisers see, if any, is anonymous), but it is definitely not all anonymised otherwise there would be no way to link it back to your account.
I didn't demonstrate it, but I linked to a wikipedia article showing the original study that made people think it was bad, and the reasons that the study is invalid - cherry picking of data to suit Ancel Keys' desired result. Read up on HDL and LDL cholesterol and you will see that HDL is reckoned to protect against heart disease these days, and counteract the effect of LDL rising. In other words, higher cholesterol from eating saturated fat has no actual negative effects like they said it did in the 50s. They're just backpedalling on the crap that "everybody knows" to have been true for 60 years.
This is the original study which made people believe that saturated fat was bad. Ever since the 1950s people have been told that fat makes you fat and gives you heart disease and all that. When really all the low fat junk we have now has sugar or artificial sweeteners added, and people eating that stuff get fat a lot quicker than if they just ate normal full-fat foods and avoided the sugary junk.
I actually tried eating low fat food for a while when I was losing weight, and my weight loss stopped. When I then switched to low carb, high protein, high fat foods and just eating whatever I wanted, I started losing too much weight and had to add carbs back in. Fat and protein definitely satisfy you quickly, I often had to force myself to eat to get my calories in when doing low carb.
Trans fats have been shown to be incredibly bad for you yes. Saturated fats raise cholesterol yes, but surprise surprise, there is both "good" and "bad" cholesterol, and it also raises your good cholesterol and overall has no effect on heart disease in properly controlled studies.
And yet they raise both HDL ("good") and LDL ("bad") cholesterol, which apparently effectively cancel each other out when it comes to heart disease risk.
Well, I am one of those people, and it's never been an issue. Using a computer isn't about knowing where everything is so much as knowing a few general principles about how things generally work in an OS, and being ready to figure things out. It will help a little to know where some options are hiding, but Windows 7 isn't even that much different to Windows 95 when it comes down to it. I'm comfortable with pretty much any OS, usually you just poke around and you find what you need. The only outlier so far has been trying to do common tasks like copying files to SD card or configuring email accounts on Blackberrys. Those things are the least intuitive devices I've ever used.
If Jeremy Clarkson at 6'5" can be comfortable in a VW Polo, I think you're either doing it wrong or just are really unlucky with the cars you're getting. The Polo is hardly a gas guzzler. It's in the "mini" category, the only smaller one being "supermini".
Slashdot Mirror
I used to use Altaviista and Lycos. Google was way ahead - obviously, otherwise they wouldn't have pulled out so far in front.
Orkut is a Google social networking site, you fucking numbnuts (sorry, I am in a sweary mood :p ).
Android is way better than all those OSes. I used to use Windows Mobile. iOS was an improvement, but not my style. Android is great.
Google glasses. Google's auto-drive system. Yes they both have advertising potential, but they also are really cool products which require a lot of R&D. You are an idiot.
What R&D company do you know that doesn't create lots of projects and cancel the ones that don't work out? Pfft.
The difference here could be that RIMs products have always been shitty. They were first out the gates for mobile email, but their software has always been poorly designed (IMO), and they've barely improved their products let alone done anything innovative. Everyone else has overtaken them now.
Google on the other hand tend to create things that work well, and are still improving and innovating. If any tech giants are set to go downhill over the next few years, it's RIM, MS and Apple (the iPhone 5 reception was hardly stellar.. Apple are losing their cool factor without Jobs' guidance). Google should at least keep going steadily. Not that I even invest in the stock market anyway so I don't care that much :p
Yeah because the US government is soooo much better. Only 100,000 rather than hundreds of thousands. And the US is such a great place to be in a minority group.
Uh yeah, because having a trial means you're always guilty, right?
I would have thought constantly introducing more variety into the gene pool would slow down "evolution" - if by evolution you mean creating new species and traits. If we all keep interbreeding then wouldn't new traits take far longer to take hold? Everyone would be more similar, rather than having racial traits as we have just now. Not that I have a problem with any of that really :) But for cool things to evolve, generally they have to be isolated from the rest of the world - just think of all the interesting marsupials in Australia for example.
I think of it like libraries in programming. A small group of people do some work that benefits a much larger groupd in the future. If we all had to do everything from scratch all the time, nothing would get done. For one thing we'd all have to work out our own individual languages and the laws of physics. Somehow I don't think that work work. Checking up on food quality isn't a "nanny state", it's just sensible.
I'm Scottish, and it's written Scotsman/Scots by the way.
Anyway, back to the topic at hand; I have to say that I don't know what you're talking about. I'd say that at least 80% of sheep aren't that sexually attractive.
You should keep reading the article until it no longer means what you currently think it means.
Okay, it's a bit weird that I'm defending Apple here, but before the iPhone most people didn't even install apps on their phones. I did personally, but Apple actually increased people's expectations of their phones. Yes they keep a tight reign on their market, but for those people who actually care, there is Android. I have 3 Android powered devices that I use regularly, and I much prefer them to the Apple alternatives.
Most people don't care about software freedom, and never have. There is no "expectation" from anyone apart from us geeks.
Also I just RTFA and I saw this:
"Although Microsoft's stipulations require also that x86/x64 systems provide an option to disable Secure Boot"
This is completely different to what I'd expected after the anger and fear that I've seen here over the Secure Boot thing. It sounds like just another BIOS option. Anyone who wants to try out Linux probably also is aware how to edit BIOS settings. Or they can use a VM if they want to take the easiest route, that will presumably completely bypass Secure Boot too.
So far Apple only really care about and have control over their own products. Microsoft are trying to control everything else, which is something like 90% of general purpose PCs.
Who do you know that can walk at 12mph? Even "power walkers" only walk at 5.5mph.
So we should all hire private investigators any time we want to try a new brand of food, or every other week to make sure that food companies are still making "the good stuff" in an ethical way?
People already do have the choice to buy dirt cheap stuff if they want. Just because the ingredients are on the packet doesn't mean that a lot of people won't chose based on price. I know that's what I did when I was a student. Now that I don't really need to care about the cost of food, I just base my choices on things like protein content and sugar content.
Reading the ingredients would not help in this case. Not that I'm convinced it's a bad thing anyway. If fish like eating shit and can survive on it, I don't really see the problem. Plants eat shit too.
As a part developer, part network admin, part IT support type jack of all trades for a small business, I'm just really confused as to where I fit in here.
Why is the parent modded 'Funny' - that is the story behind how the scientists in Jurassic Park found dinosaur DNA...
You just explained why it's funny.
Well when I first started eating low carb and told someone about it, she was saying how her father shouldn't eat red meat because of his heart condition etc. People very often make jokes about burgers and steaks giving you heart attacks and such. There's a deeply held attitude in western culture that fat, especially saturated fat, is unhealthy. I agree with your diet completely, and I think broccoli is awesome :p The scientific/medical community is gradually being righted, but the majority of people still seem to think that saturated fat = bad.
Well, I thought that much was obvious (that the data advertisers see, if any, is anonymous), but it is definitely not all anonymised otherwise there would be no way to link it back to your account.
How can it be both "anonymized" and persistently linked to your account at the same time?
I'd like to know what the hell does matter to you if this isn't good enough nerd news.
I didn't demonstrate it, but I linked to a wikipedia article showing the original study that made people think it was bad, and the reasons that the study is invalid - cherry picking of data to suit Ancel Keys' desired result. Read up on HDL and LDL cholesterol and you will see that HDL is reckoned to protect against heart disease these days, and counteract the effect of LDL rising. In other words, higher cholesterol from eating saturated fat has no actual negative effects like they said it did in the 50s. They're just backpedalling on the crap that "everybody knows" to have been true for 60 years.
This is the original study which made people believe that saturated fat was bad. Ever since the 1950s people have been told that fat makes you fat and gives you heart disease and all that. When really all the low fat junk we have now has sugar or artificial sweeteners added, and people eating that stuff get fat a lot quicker than if they just ate normal full-fat foods and avoided the sugary junk.
I actually tried eating low fat food for a while when I was losing weight, and my weight loss stopped. When I then switched to low carb, high protein, high fat foods and just eating whatever I wanted, I started losing too much weight and had to add carbs back in. Fat and protein definitely satisfy you quickly, I often had to force myself to eat to get my calories in when doing low carb.
Trans fats have been shown to be incredibly bad for you yes. Saturated fats raise cholesterol yes, but surprise surprise, there is both "good" and "bad" cholesterol, and it also raises your good cholesterol and overall has no effect on heart disease in properly controlled studies.
And yet they raise both HDL ("good") and LDL ("bad") cholesterol, which apparently effectively cancel each other out when it comes to heart disease risk.
Well, I am one of those people, and it's never been an issue. Using a computer isn't about knowing where everything is so much as knowing a few general principles about how things generally work in an OS, and being ready to figure things out. It will help a little to know where some options are hiding, but Windows 7 isn't even that much different to Windows 95 when it comes down to it. I'm comfortable with pretty much any OS, usually you just poke around and you find what you need. The only outlier so far has been trying to do common tasks like copying files to SD card or configuring email accounts on Blackberrys. Those things are the least intuitive devices I've ever used.
If Jeremy Clarkson at 6'5" can be comfortable in a VW Polo, I think you're either doing it wrong or just are really unlucky with the cars you're getting. The Polo is hardly a gas guzzler. It's in the "mini" category, the only smaller one being "supermini".