Sitting here, next to my wife, reading Slashdot on my MBP, I have to say it made me giggle. It at least qualifies as funny, even if it doesn't advance to the next round on "Slashdot's Got Jokes".
What's funny is that I was just starting to be introduced to Apple products right around the time when Jobs was falling ill and loosening his grip on the company. At that point, Apple was making one product that caught my eye: the 17" MBP. Jobs loosened his grip and marketing cut the product I was interested in. Cook isn't doing well to keep me around, either.
Typed on my 17" MBP using an iPad Air as a secondary display.
people who care about computers or phones above anything else than what they can achieve with them tend to be quite pathetic fucks.
Interesting assessment. So, all this things you do with the "things you use for doing something"... let me ask you... how many of them could you do if there wasn't someone out there caring about accomplishing that thing, then making it possible?
Yeah it did, he's not seeing ads. Where did it say he *had* to buy? It seems he doesn't mind supporting sites by buying swag; he just doesn't want to see ads.
When it was named that, it was,in fact, *not* an MP3 encoder. In fact, that it now ships with an encoder at its core does not change the fact that the LAME project (the part built around that encoder), in and of itself, is not an MP3 encoder. It's called nuance, those little details that matter oh so much.
Did the eventually-included encoder violate patents? Yeah, probably. Does it now? No, they've expired. Is LAME the encoder? No, it just includes it.
It just has to be unbroken until the product lifespan has expired.
So, 70-some-odd years, by which point the format will be dead anyway? I mean, if the product lifespan of a copyrighted work is shorter than that, there is no need for copyright to be that long, is there?
I think we have different viewpoint of the same end result, and I certainly value yours. As I said, I'm not a doctor or a dietician, and there are a lot of things that I simply do not know, so any time someone can shed some light on that area, or maybe approach the subject from a different angle that also makes sense to me, that's just more useful data. I'll admit I simply don't have the mental capacity, after a day of working with... well, what I work with all day, to sit down and figure out every little detail of what I've eaten for the day; so I won't deny that your assessment is probably correct.
That being said, my wife *does* do that for her diet, and with very minimal success. I just can't seem to get her on board with the whole balance thing. She ends up limiting her caloric intake, nutrition be damned, and the end result is her body entering "starvation mode" due to deficiencies in her diet, due to imbalance, impeding her weight loss efforts. She actually sees a nutritionist, who has given the same assessment; her minimal success at weight loss is more a factor of dietary imbalance than caloric intake.
Of course, you can't take in as many calories as I do (she doesn't, by far), balance or not, and expect to lose weight, either; which is why I'm not surprised I haven't lost much of that extra 50.
So, then, how does that explain why I can eat the same sugary snack a few hours later, or the next day, without the same result, but if I go a few days or longer without any sugary snacks, I get the same result again? I'm not saying you're wrong (because you actually addressed my theory, rather than outright telling me I'm wrong), just asking you to help me fit that piece into the puzzle, because there is clearly still something missing if you're right.
The fact that this is an abnormal response shows that the normal thing is to absorb every calorie.
Uhm... no. That is the result of one specific group of bacteria having mutated in one specific way. Absent that mutation, the bacteria either process the lactose properly, or let it pass by; absent that specific group of bacteria, the lactose simply passes through the upper intestine, where it is processed in a different manner (e.g. as waste rather than nutrients) by the flora in the lower intestine. Failure to process one source of calories altogether being an abnormal condition does not make, or even imply that, absorbing all calories is the normal condition.
No argument here. In fact, I'll further your remark by adding that what your body needs in a modern society and what it's likely to get haven't been the same thing since the advent of modern society, unless you can afford to shop at a farmers market, get proper cuts of meat from a proper butcher, and find the time to prepare every meal from scratch. The moment you substitute out a whole ingredient in favor of something prepackaged, either because it's what you can afford or it's what you have time for, most likely all hope is lost. If you like eating out, you're more or less screwed in that respect, as well.
Of course, that really only applies if you're counting calories. If you remove that restriction, you find that you can balance the crap that everyday life throws at you with non-crap, and the end result is that your body gets what it needs and you poop a bit more.
I wasn't talking about type 2 diabetes. Also, pretty much everything you eat converts to glucose. A balanced diet so your body stops processing every bit of food you give it (looking for those missing nutrients) will go a lot farther than what most people consider a "low-carb" diet. That said, a high-carb diet is not balanced, so we're somewhat in agreement there. You aren't really disagreeing with me, nor are you proving me wrong; for dietary-porposes, "carb" and "sugar" are interchangeable terms.
Your body stores what it thinks it will need. If you have a deficiency of one or more nutrients, it thinks it needs more than it actually does. I eat. A lot. I'm not fat. A bit overweight, but not getting bigger; I was at 132 for 12 years, then I changed my diet and started gaining due to dietary imbalance (I was dating a vegetarian and she convinced me to try it). After gaining 50lb during a year of that, I changed back and the weight gain stopped. I'll eat anywhere from 500-20,000 calories in a given day and the only time I have weight issues is when I throw my diet out of balance. Hell, I've even been slowly losing some of that excess weight now that I've started walking more... eating the same "way too much" I've been eating for the past 20 years.
Not defending Samsung here (I'm an HTC guy), but you can transfer files over S-beam without having to tap the phones together, it just requires a bit more interaction with the device itself, just like AirDrop (also a Mac and iPad user, so yes, I use AirDrop). The difference, here, is that S-beam gives you an easier way to initiate the transfer if you *do* happen to be in the same room.
If you know of a way to enable AirDrop transfers without requiring both parties to actively open AirDrop, please do tell, as I would find it most useful.
Right, and I can connect my bluetooth headphones to my iDevice without NFC, as well, but being able to tap them against the back of my phone, realize I want them to connect to that device, and have it "just work" is really nice. And that's why I use an Android phone and have an NFC tag stuck on the bottom of my MBP and the inside of my iPad case. I prefer not having the already too bulky item I take in and out of my pocket all day in a case and I've found that stickers don't tend to last long in that environment, so sticking an NFC tag to an iPhone isn't a viable solution; even if I did put my phone in a case, it's not a solution at all for the iPhone 6, as it would interfere with the phone's own NFC.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, if you read the comment I was addressing...........
When did things change from bashing Apple users by insinuating that they're gay to bashing gays by insinuating that they're Apple users?
Sitting here, next to my wife, reading Slashdot on my MBP, I have to say it made me giggle. It at least qualifies as funny, even if it doesn't advance to the next round on "Slashdot's Got Jokes".
What's funny is that I was just starting to be introduced to Apple products right around the time when Jobs was falling ill and loosening his grip on the company. At that point, Apple was making one product that caught my eye: the 17" MBP. Jobs loosened his grip and marketing cut the product I was interested in. Cook isn't doing well to keep me around, either.
Typed on my 17" MBP using an iPad Air as a secondary display.
Scratch that... I need to learn to read... really, seriously... sorry...
people who care about computers or phones above anything else than what they can achieve with them tend to be quite pathetic fucks.
Interesting assessment. So, all this things you do with the "things you use for doing something"... let me ask you... how many of them could you do if there wasn't someone out there caring about accomplishing that thing, then making it possible?
I've lived this long without it. If I needed it, I wouldn't have,
Yeah it did, he's not seeing ads. Where did it say he *had* to buy? It seems he doesn't mind supporting sites by buying swag; he just doesn't want to see ads.
By default, adblock lets through a certain subset of non-intrusive ads. You can disable this, as well.
And what I was doing was refuting your first claim. Do you have a source that confirms it?
When it was named that, it was ,in fact, *not* an MP3 encoder. In fact, that it now ships with an encoder at its core does not change the fact that the LAME project (the part built around that encoder), in and of itself, is not an MP3 encoder. It's called nuance, those little details that matter oh so much.
Did the eventually-included encoder violate patents? Yeah, probably. Does it now? No, they've expired. Is LAME the encoder? No, it just includes it.
and it infringes on tons of the MP3 patents held by Fraunhofer
I think you mean "infringed", as those patents have long expired.
I prefer to think of it as getting right to the heart of the problem.
No, that's the music.
It just has to be unbroken until the product lifespan has expired.
So, 70-some-odd years, by which point the format will be dead anyway? I mean, if the product lifespan of a copyrighted work is shorter than that, there is no need for copyright to be that long, is there?
I think we have different viewpoint of the same end result, and I certainly value yours. As I said, I'm not a doctor or a dietician, and there are a lot of things that I simply do not know, so any time someone can shed some light on that area, or maybe approach the subject from a different angle that also makes sense to me, that's just more useful data. I'll admit I simply don't have the mental capacity, after a day of working with... well, what I work with all day, to sit down and figure out every little detail of what I've eaten for the day; so I won't deny that your assessment is probably correct.
That being said, my wife *does* do that for her diet, and with very minimal success. I just can't seem to get her on board with the whole balance thing. She ends up limiting her caloric intake, nutrition be damned, and the end result is her body entering "starvation mode" due to deficiencies in her diet, due to imbalance, impeding her weight loss efforts. She actually sees a nutritionist, who has given the same assessment; her minimal success at weight loss is more a factor of dietary imbalance than caloric intake.
Of course, you can't take in as many calories as I do (she doesn't, by far), balance or not, and expect to lose weight, either; which is why I'm not surprised I haven't lost much of that extra 50.
Right, at best it's half that.
So, then, how does that explain why I can eat the same sugary snack a few hours later, or the next day, without the same result, but if I go a few days or longer without any sugary snacks, I get the same result again? I'm not saying you're wrong (because you actually addressed my theory, rather than outright telling me I'm wrong), just asking you to help me fit that piece into the puzzle, because there is clearly still something missing if you're right.
The fact that this is an abnormal response shows that the normal thing is to absorb every calorie.
Uhm... no. That is the result of one specific group of bacteria having mutated in one specific way. Absent that mutation, the bacteria either process the lactose properly, or let it pass by; absent that specific group of bacteria, the lactose simply passes through the upper intestine, where it is processed in a different manner (e.g. as waste rather than nutrients) by the flora in the lower intestine. Failure to process one source of calories altogether being an abnormal condition does not make, or even imply that, absorbing all calories is the normal condition.
No argument here. In fact, I'll further your remark by adding that what your body needs in a modern society and what it's likely to get haven't been the same thing since the advent of modern society, unless you can afford to shop at a farmers market, get proper cuts of meat from a proper butcher, and find the time to prepare every meal from scratch. The moment you substitute out a whole ingredient in favor of something prepackaged, either because it's what you can afford or it's what you have time for, most likely all hope is lost. If you like eating out, you're more or less screwed in that respect, as well.
Of course, that really only applies if you're counting calories. If you remove that restriction, you find that you can balance the crap that everyday life throws at you with non-crap, and the end result is that your body gets what it needs and you poop a bit more.
I wasn't talking about type 2 diabetes. Also, pretty much everything you eat converts to glucose. A balanced diet so your body stops processing every bit of food you give it (looking for those missing nutrients) will go a lot farther than what most people consider a "low-carb" diet. That said, a high-carb diet is not balanced, so we're somewhat in agreement there. You aren't really disagreeing with me, nor are you proving me wrong; for dietary-porposes, "carb" and "sugar" are interchangeable terms.
Well, I haven't, and even I know NFC is widely used in other countries. Japan and Australia come to mind.
Your body stores what it thinks it will need. If you have a deficiency of one or more nutrients, it thinks it needs more than it actually does. I eat. A lot. I'm not fat. A bit overweight, but not getting bigger; I was at 132 for 12 years, then I changed my diet and started gaining due to dietary imbalance (I was dating a vegetarian and she convinced me to try it). After gaining 50lb during a year of that, I changed back and the weight gain stopped. I'll eat anywhere from 500-20,000 calories in a given day and the only time I have weight issues is when I throw my diet out of balance. Hell, I've even been slowly losing some of that excess weight now that I've started walking more... eating the same "way too much" I've been eating for the past 20 years.
Not defending Samsung here (I'm an HTC guy), but you can transfer files over S-beam without having to tap the phones together, it just requires a bit more interaction with the device itself, just like AirDrop (also a Mac and iPad user, so yes, I use AirDrop). The difference, here, is that S-beam gives you an easier way to initiate the transfer if you *do* happen to be in the same room.
If you know of a way to enable AirDrop transfers without requiring both parties to actively open AirDrop, please do tell, as I would find it most useful.
Right, and I can connect my bluetooth headphones to my iDevice without NFC, as well, but being able to tap them against the back of my phone, realize I want them to connect to that device, and have it "just work" is really nice. And that's why I use an Android phone and have an NFC tag stuck on the bottom of my MBP and the inside of my iPad case. I prefer not having the already too bulky item I take in and out of my pocket all day in a case and I've found that stickers don't tend to last long in that environment, so sticking an NFC tag to an iPhone isn't a viable solution; even if I did put my phone in a case, it's not a solution at all for the iPhone 6, as it would interfere with the phone's own NFC.