Either way, IMNSHO, means that there are just too many dupes. I suspect there are a few people who leave every time a story is duped; I know it makes it hard to keep reading/. every time I see one.
Why read the same articles (or even 98%-close ones) when I can pull up stories from thousands of other locations, and rarely see any dupe-articles?
Also realize that you're assuming that there will be a need for that extra 1000 calories. If the person is not doing anything in the manner of exercize (or even motion for that matter, i.e. sitting / laying in front of a computer screen / TV all day) then the necessity of consuming said 1000 calories becomes over-kill and more detrimental than helpful.
Besides, I can't assume what background you have in sciences, but you should remember something basic from phys-ed 101: Fat cells are Chemical Storage Devices, designed to maintain / retain energy that is not in abundance in the organism's environment; i.e., thermal energy from lack of heat (as you see on whales) or lack of sustinance in food (unable to find proper nutrition).
Yes, a person would require more energy the more fat they retained, but take into account that most people who become overweight stay that way, or get worse, because the required energy consumption to maintain the same locomotor skills as a skinnier person gets harder to achieve, so people don't attempt it! They sit down more often, allow their muscles to attrophy from lack of use (which then requires less energy to sustain), and the body responds by storing more energy. Activity beyond normal locomotor functions (walking briskly, running, riding a bike - something outside what the body considers a "normal" expenditure of energy) and a proper intake of chemical energy (a level not too far below "normal" for the person) will force the body to find the energy elsewhere - the fat cells. Fat is used, weight decreases (of course, if muscles have attrophied and are now being rebuilt, there will be a noticable increase in weight, but eventually it will return to a stable decline (which, btw, is why alot of people stop exercizing - they believe their activity isn't helping them anymore, which of course is false. Judgement solely on weight is a poor measurement.) and the cycle will continue until a stable input/output ratio comes back into play.) and those fat cells to go away.
It is only in societies where even those considered poor can afford lots of food where other factors become decisive.
Hate to say it, and knowing attitudes on/., I'll pay for it, but this is not a completely valid statement.
Having *less* food can often impact you in the same way as having too much. Someone who eats very little food (and in the case of poverty, not always the most healthy food) and does very little exercise in any amount (walking instead of driving/bus-ing) will invoke a much ignored fact that an inactive lifestyle with small amounts of food intake reduces the usage of energy (in any format) in the body, storing said energy as fat. Your body sees lack of use and low intake of foods the same way an animal hibernates in the winter.
That's funny; IE crashes much more than firefox - especially on a spy/malware infested system....Don't think I've ever seen firefox crash... actually, now that I think about it, I never *have* had firefox crash on me. Anyone else have problems with firefox? Even the new beta hasn't rendered itself broken.
Sorry, buddy... If it's any indication from previous/.'ing, your homepage will probably be bombarded, your bandwidth sucked up, and you'll probably be whipped by your bandwidth provider for traffic overflow.
See, the editor did you a favor. Not to mention removing a little self-advertising for your blog.
Do you really want the future of web processing to be entirely web based and saved on somebody else's machine?
This trick to this statement is that everything "online" is already stored on someone else's machine. Every bit of E-Mail, every web page, every/. post - the only reason you can access it because it's stored *somewhere* that isn't your machine. Something to think about next time you do your bills online.
Why don't they eat each other? They probably do... But killing regular humans has got to be easier than killing other reavers which is probably why they bothered to get ships working to go on raids (after killing all the folks made docile on their home planet).
If they "killed all the folks" then why were their many, many bodies on the ground, and pretty much everywhere else?
Answer - They didn't. If you read my post waaaaay up there in the ancestory, you'll see what I mean. Probably the thing that created the Reavers (which was the same thing that made everyone else unresponsive/mentally-docile) prevented them from eating the people - hence, you see lots of dead and decaying people on Miranda.
As for why they bothered to get the ships working - also see above post.
Sorry about the Spoilers, BTW - The information was inherent to the discussion. I figure not many people would really know that much about Reavers and be able to discuss them - my mistake.
The trick to all of this Reaver Talk is considering the initial "creation" of the Reavers.
They were "made" by the PAX (long name i can't remember), a drug that induced chemical changes in the host.
My Points: 1. As one of the previous posts said, there's the "Shark-to-Shark Attack" case where they won't attack because they're not stupid enough to take on equals, but what about the fact that the only time we see Reavers become crazy/insane is when they're in the general proximity of LIVING HUMANS. Perhaps the PAX is inducing these in-human rage-filled instincts to feed/rape/kill. Perhaps it's the "Untainted Human" that causes these traits to come out - which would explain how they're coherent enough to pilot ships and plan attacks - no Untainted Humans around. Obviously, they can't be *that* coherent because they wouldn't be crazy enough to continue.
2. How exactly does a Reaver tell another Reaver from a Untainted Human? Perhaps the blood - The PAX could have changed a Reaver's blood - some chemical properties that would make it inherently different from normal blood. Good old fashioned "blood in the water" scenario.
3. Also, The "Recruit" vs. "Made" argument is this - the "Recruiting" is making a human "unstable" - in truth, the "recruited" Reavers are simply humans-gone-mad, emulating their captors/torturers. In "Bushwacked", the "Recruit" killed and ran - But obviously he didn't try to feed! No blood on his lips/face! He just tried to get back to familiar ground - and attempted to take out invaders (Mal, Alliance Commander et. al.)
4. Reavers aren't more than 10-12 Years old (meaning there haven't been Reavers for more than 10-12 years - not that their ages are 10-12). They haven't had time to reproduce to the point that their offspring would be old enough to continue. Perhaps they will, though - this could be a future plot line. So "raping" women may actually just be the above mentions rage/insanity (the primal urge to have a go at everything in site) and not for procreation reasons at any step of reasoning.
And, Off that subject, The "One Star System with ~12 planets and hundreds of moons" Scenario makes more sense than multiple star systems or even a bi/tri-nary system. During the series, one of the most confusing aspects of the "space travel" was that they never seemed to move fast enough to warrent traveling between different star systems, and they never really explained the positional/relational locations of the planets/moons that they visited - all very much left up in the air. When the movie came out, and explicity explained that it was one solar system - it makes much more sense that it would take "2 weeks" to get to another planet or "a couple of days at a hard burn". Planetary positioning and all that.
Lexar Media - Had a 128Mb USB drive go through wash 3 times. Each time, after dry-out, the data was intact. Finally stopped working ~2 years later when someone ran over it with a car.
I myself will never again recommend ASUS boards to any of my customers. Not only are they prone to small failures like being unable to read the CPU fan speed to crashing onboard components, but with the exception of one board (which I later found out *had* broken - it just wasn't important enough to count) almost every ASUS board I've used in both my machines and a co-worker's machines have intermitent "connection" problem with the Southbridge. I don't know how many times I got called out to figure out what was wrong with a Network or Audio card, and it turns out to be a faulty PCI bus. Thank you ASUS, you won't be gettin' any of my business ever again.
And this video card with no fan, relying on *heatsinks* where other manufacturers recommend *water cooling*... Watch the failure rates on these puppies. No thank you!
I often wonder if this is what Google could be trying to do behind closed doors: making a Linux-Comparable OS with Total GUI Support.
Also, in difference to all OS's, Ease-of-Use and Ease-of-Destruction tend to go hand in hand. If a user is given the ability to easily do things like add Low-Level Printer Drivers (say, like MS Win) then it will be easy for them to mess something up bad.
I've been working with PCs all my life. (Win, Mac, Li/Unix) I've become comfortable believing a certain thing: That there are two kinds of Computer Users: Techs and Non-Techs. 90% of the people Out There are of the group Non-Techs. These are the people who are afraid of the mouse up to the people who are dangerous enough to install said Printer Drivers. A system that caters to them is convenient for Monetary Gain. But it is also convenient to disreputable users. I don't see good way to combine the two Fields of Thought. There *should* be that distinction - There will never be a time where Every Single Person will know every in-and-out of a computer system. Yes, they'll be more and more educated over time, but the level of tech will continually rise, outpacing them. The goal of the next OS should be to prevent the 90% of users from needing to see *any* Techs-worthy details of a machine.
You should write a quick C# Program, two params (start and end) and view it that way like "Tail" or "Head" on linux. Bypass the big bads, they always autoformat your data anyway without your permission.
Slashdot Mirror
What, did they change the specs on sunscreen again!? And I was just getting used to them!
I just realized, I'm a C# dev, so that may not actually be how it is in C++. Sorry for the confusion.
IWhatever is the hungarian notation for interfaces. CWhatever is for objects that are complete classes.
Why read the same articles (or even 98%-close ones) when I can pull up stories from thousands of other locations, and rarely see any dupe-articles?
If I had mod points, I'd be modding you +5 Informative.
It's nice to finally see someone who paid attention during astronomy/astrophysics.
Also realize that you're assuming that there will be a need for that extra 1000 calories. If the person is not doing anything in the manner of exercize (or even motion for that matter, i.e. sitting / laying in front of a computer screen / TV all day) then the necessity of consuming said 1000 calories becomes over-kill and more detrimental than helpful.
Besides, I can't assume what background you have in sciences, but you should remember something basic from phys-ed 101: Fat cells are Chemical Storage Devices, designed to maintain / retain energy that is not in abundance in the organism's environment; i.e., thermal energy from lack of heat (as you see on whales) or lack of sustinance in food (unable to find proper nutrition).
Yes, a person would require more energy the more fat they retained, but take into account that most people who become overweight stay that way, or get worse, because the required energy consumption to maintain the same locomotor skills as a skinnier person gets harder to achieve, so people don't attempt it! They sit down more often, allow their muscles to attrophy from lack of use (which then requires less energy to sustain), and the body responds by storing more energy. Activity beyond normal locomotor functions (walking briskly, running, riding a bike - something outside what the body considers a "normal" expenditure of energy) and a proper intake of chemical energy (a level not too far below "normal" for the person) will force the body to find the energy elsewhere - the fat cells. Fat is used, weight decreases (of course, if muscles have attrophied and are now being rebuilt, there will be a noticable increase in weight, but eventually it will return to a stable decline (which, btw, is why alot of people stop exercizing - they believe their activity isn't helping them anymore, which of course is false. Judgement solely on weight is a poor measurement.) and the cycle will continue until a stable input/output ratio comes back into play.) and those fat cells to go away.
It is only in societies where even those considered poor can afford lots of food where other factors become decisive.
Hate to say it, and knowing attitudes on /., I'll pay for it, but this is not a completely valid statement.
Having *less* food can often impact you in the same way as having too much. Someone who eats very little food (and in the case of poverty, not always the most healthy food) and does very little exercise in any amount (walking instead of driving/bus-ing) will invoke a much ignored fact that an inactive lifestyle with small amounts of food intake reduces the usage of energy (in any format) in the body, storing said energy as fat. Your body sees lack of use and low intake of foods the same way an animal hibernates in the winter.
Now *that* joke just made my day!
I guess greed and money eventually will corrupt any legal system.
It's not necessarily money - greed itself can come from a barter system, as well. It seems to be more human nature than anything.
All I know is my code does (2d10 + (1/2 * DEX)) physical damage vs. Windows.
LMAO! That would be a perfect sig!
That's funny; IE crashes much more than firefox - especially on a spy/malware infested system. ...Don't think I've ever seen firefox crash... actually, now that I think about it, I never *have* had firefox crash on me. Anyone else have problems with firefox? Even the new beta hasn't rendered itself broken.
Sorry, buddy... If it's any indication from previous /.'ing, your homepage will probably be bombarded, your bandwidth sucked up, and you'll probably be whipped by your bandwidth provider for traffic overflow.
See, the editor did you a favor. Not to mention removing a little self-advertising for your blog.
Good luck!
Do you really want the future of web processing to be entirely web based and saved on somebody else's machine?
This trick to this statement is that everything "online" is already stored on someone else's machine. Every bit of E-Mail, every web page, every /. post - the only reason you can access it because it's stored *somewhere* that isn't your machine. Something to think about next time you do your bills online.
Probably should not buy a plastic-encased USB Flash Drive that can't withstand the weight of a large vehicle.
e -512mb-sandisk-cruzer-titanium-p-249.html
I do believe they make heavy-duty USBFDs, too!
Example: http://www.mrgadget.com.au/catalog/usb-flash-driv
Why don't they eat each other? They probably do... But killing regular humans has got to be easier than killing other reavers which is probably why they bothered to get ships working to go on raids (after killing all the folks made docile on their home planet).
If they "killed all the folks" then why were their many, many bodies on the ground, and pretty much everywhere else?
Answer - They didn't. If you read my post waaaaay up there in the ancestory, you'll see what I mean. Probably the thing that created the Reavers (which was the same thing that made everyone else unresponsive/mentally-docile) prevented them from eating the people - hence, you see lots of dead and decaying people on Miranda.
As for why they bothered to get the ships working - also see above post.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=164244&thresho ld=0&commentsort=0&tid=214&mode=nested&cid=1371609 4
Sorry about the Spoilers, BTW - The information was inherent to the discussion. I figure not many people would really know that much about Reavers and be able to discuss them - my mistake.
The trick to all of this Reaver Talk is considering the initial "creation" of the Reavers.
They were "made" by the PAX (long name i can't remember), a drug that induced chemical changes in the host.
My Points:
1. As one of the previous posts said, there's the "Shark-to-Shark Attack" case where they won't attack because they're not stupid enough to take on equals, but what about the fact that the only time we see Reavers become crazy/insane is when they're in the general proximity of LIVING HUMANS. Perhaps the PAX is inducing these in-human rage-filled instincts to feed/rape/kill. Perhaps it's the "Untainted Human" that causes these traits to come out - which would explain how they're coherent enough to pilot ships and plan attacks - no Untainted Humans around. Obviously, they can't be *that* coherent because they wouldn't be crazy enough to continue.
2. How exactly does a Reaver tell another Reaver from a Untainted Human? Perhaps the blood - The PAX could have changed a Reaver's blood - some chemical properties that would make it inherently different from normal blood. Good old fashioned "blood in the water" scenario.
3. Also, The "Recruit" vs. "Made" argument is this - the "Recruiting" is making a human "unstable" - in truth, the "recruited" Reavers are simply humans-gone-mad, emulating their captors/torturers. In "Bushwacked", the "Recruit" killed and ran - But obviously he didn't try to feed! No blood on his lips/face! He just tried to get back to familiar ground - and attempted to take out invaders (Mal, Alliance Commander et. al.)
4. Reavers aren't more than 10-12 Years old (meaning there haven't been Reavers for more than 10-12 years - not that their ages are 10-12). They haven't had time to reproduce to the point that their offspring would be old enough to continue. Perhaps they will, though - this could be a future plot line. So "raping" women may actually just be the above mentions rage/insanity (the primal urge to have a go at everything in site) and not for procreation reasons at any step of reasoning.
And, Off that subject, The "One Star System with ~12 planets and hundreds of moons" Scenario makes more sense than multiple star systems or even a bi/tri-nary system. During the series, one of the most confusing aspects of the "space travel" was that they never seemed to move fast enough to warrent traveling between different star systems, and they never really explained the positional/relational locations of the planets/moons that they visited - all very much left up in the air. When the movie came out, and explicity explained that it was one solar system - it makes much more sense that it would take "2 weeks" to get to another planet or "a couple of days at a hard burn". Planetary positioning and all that.
Just my $0.02.
Lexar Media - Had a 128Mb USB drive go through wash 3 times. Each time, after dry-out, the data was intact. Finally stopped working ~2 years later when someone ran over it with a car.
I myself will never again recommend ASUS boards to any of my customers. Not only are they prone to small failures like being unable to read the CPU fan speed to crashing onboard components, but with the exception of one board (which I later found out *had* broken - it just wasn't important enough to count) almost every ASUS board I've used in both my machines and a co-worker's machines have intermitent "connection" problem with the Southbridge. I don't know how many times I got called out to figure out what was wrong with a Network or Audio card, and it turns out to be a faulty PCI bus. Thank you ASUS, you won't be gettin' any of my business ever again.
... Watch the failure rates on these puppies. No thank you!
And this video card with no fan, relying on *heatsinks* where other manufacturers recommend *water cooling*
I often wonder if this is what Google could be trying to do behind closed doors: making a Linux-Comparable OS with Total GUI Support.
Also, in difference to all OS's, Ease-of-Use and Ease-of-Destruction tend to go hand in hand. If a user is given the ability to easily do things like add Low-Level Printer Drivers (say, like MS Win) then it will be easy for them to mess something up bad.
I've been working with PCs all my life. (Win, Mac, Li/Unix) I've become comfortable believing a certain thing: That there are two kinds of Computer Users: Techs and Non-Techs. 90% of the people Out There are of the group Non-Techs. These are the people who are afraid of the mouse up to the people who are dangerous enough to install said Printer Drivers. A system that caters to them is convenient for Monetary Gain. But it is also convenient to disreputable users. I don't see good way to combine the two Fields of Thought. There *should* be that distinction - There will never be a time where Every Single Person will know every in-and-out of a computer system. Yes, they'll be more and more educated over time, but the level of tech will continually rise, outpacing them. The goal of the next OS should be to prevent the 90% of users from needing to see *any* Techs-worthy details of a machine.
Just my $0.02.You should write a quick C# Program, two params (start and end) and view it that way like "Tail" or "Head" on linux. Bypass the big bads, they always autoformat your data anyway without your permission.