We can debate the specifics of various weight loss plans, but I think that most reasonable diets will work if they are followed. Less calories and more exercise will inevitably lead to weight loss.
However, following the plan seems to be the trick for many people, myself included. Are there any good resources on how to train your mind and will to stick to a plan? Any science on how exercise, types of food, eating schedules, stress, etc., affect one's mental ability to follow through?
I'm not looking for some moron's hyped up self help book, but something from a reliable and scientific source. This part of the weight loss equation seems to be continually neglected, and instead we get a succession of one new eating-plan-of-the-week after another.
No matter which one you believe, you can easily use that belief to justify trying LSD or whatever else needs justifying. You only live once? Better go out and really live! You come around again? Then taking a risk isn't as risky as it seems!
Bronfman went on to say he would be pressing the RIAA to drop all lawsuits immediately, and that Warner would repay the excessive fees and settlements levied against file sharers. He then revealed Warner Music's new online store, featuring albums available in FLAC, 320kb mp3, and ogg formats, with most albums selling for $3-$5. Albums over 25 years old will be offered for free, with advertising to compensate the server costs.
He went on to state that many of his label's acts had been promoted based on style over substance, and that these acts would no longer be actively promoted. Instead, Warner's new site would also provide a place where any band could freely compete for listeners based on word of mouth and the quality of their work, with the most appealing bands rising to the top, and being rewarded with the opportunity to be promoted by Warner. Warner will split the profits from album, t-shirt, and touring sales with the bands, but the bands will retain full creative and copyright control of their works.
Universities are corporations, nothing more or less.
Right. As usual on Slashdot, everything must be black and white. It's not as if universities could seek to profit from their inventions, AND educate people and give back to society. Also, since making a profit makes you evil, they are obviously not trying to use the money to improve their programs and stretch their limited budgets.
Watch out, you're on a dark path. First it's the torrents, next thing you know you're on the marijuana.
Re:SETI looks for obsolete technology
on
Is SETI Worth It?
·
· Score: 1
Despite having invented the microwave and nuclear power, we still use fire quite a bit. I would guess that any advanced civilization would use radio waves when it was convenient to do so, even if they had much more advanced techniques available.
What is more important - the number of human beings alive on the planet, or the average quality of life and sense of purpose held by each human who is alive?
Say we could pour all our extra resources into ending all disease and death, and we knew we could succeed. But we could only succeed by ending all (non-medical) scientific pursuit, outlawing entertainment and individuality, and forcing everyone to wear monocolor robes and work everyday at identical, menial, repetitive tasks. Should we do it?
That's a contrived example, but it highlights a point: our goal should be not to simply keep human bodies alive, but to make life as wonderful as it can be, and allow people to be free to move the human race forward in new ways. If we stop learning about science and searching out new answers, it greatly reduces the meaning of our existence. Even if we manage to save lives, we could just be keeping bodies alive to live empty lives.
Also, consider that there is a false dichotomy at work here. Investing in esoteric pursuits such as theoretical physics, and even poetry, will in the long run increase our ability to keep our bodies healthy and long living.
What then should we seek to maximize? With a larger population comes a wider variety of ideas and accomplishments, up to a point. But too great a population strains our planet's ability to support us, putting us all at risk, and diverts our efforts towards avoiding environmental disasters.
Maintaining an ideal population level is a highly controversial, ethically confounding issue. However, it is not impossible. It needs to be approached in a careful and well considered manner, but first of all we need to step past the fear of discussing it.
Our goal should be this: To have the greatest number of healthy, happy humans our planet can support, and then to maximize the value of each of those lives. It is not enough to save people from disease, hunger, poverty, and hopelessness. We should aim even higher, to help them to a life of wonder and purpose.
You know what they say about Acrobat Reader - "If you don't like this version, wait 5 minutes!"
It seems like every time I open a PDF with Reader, it's asking me to upgrade to a new version. I'm not sure why this is, since all it needs to do is display some text and images, which seems to have worked fine for several versions now.
From an engineering perspective, how does moving the power supply brick into the unit make it any cheaper? The current external power converter must be pretty cheap for them to produce by the millions. They'll still have to produce one inside the unit, but now it has to be redesigned and made smaller. All the internals of the PS2 have to be shrunk down as well. Heat will more of a problem as well since the power supply gets pretty warm. Making electronics smaller is generally more expensive, at least initially.
If I had to guess, I'd say they compressed several internal components of the PS2 into a single, cheaper chip, and with the space they saved they are moving the power supply in there.
Don't think Mario is offensive? Consider these points:
Mario is a plumber. It's a well known fact that well over half of the homes in Italy have indoor plumbing, hence the need for many plumbers. As they say in Rome, "Hey look! It's yet another Italian plumber!"
The castle clearly symbolizes the Vatican, and the search for the princess is the Italians' search for God. When the game declares that "the princess is in another castle," it is a kick to the nuts of the Catholic church.
It is unfair to characterize all Italians as abusive to turtles, because of the deplorable actions of one Antonio Compagnoni. He left stomped, crushed turtles across the Italian countryside for five months in the summer of 1977 before police finally caught up with him.
It would be easy for them to implement. They can already tag articles for many other criteria, for example "the notability of this article is in question." It seems to make sense to have a system for ranking articles at different levels of notability. For example:
Dilbert = highly notable Liberty Meadows = medium XKCD = mildly notable Joe's Super Cool Comic = not notable
The page for Joe's wouldn't need to be deleted, it could just just be excluded from searches. An advanced search option would allow users to search non-notable articles if they wanted.
I've heard of this book before, and I think you have to very careful with such a way of thinking if you are at all susceptible to depression. (And most people are susceptible to at least minor depression.) Pessimistic thinking can have major emotional consequences, and a lack of positive thoughts can lead to giving up before you ever get started. Some people may be exceptions, but for the majority, having a generally positive outlook is necessary for day to day functioning. If you're not a robot, you can't take a purely logical approach and ignore your emotions, because they will catch up with you.
This book genuinely scares me, because it has the potential to lead someone to a very miserable place. Please approach it with caution!
People these days don't know the first thing about gibberish. I remember the days of great gibberish. Like the time I caught the ferry over to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for my shoe. So, I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days nickels had pictures of bumblebees on them. 'Give me five bees for a quarter', you'd say. Now, where were we? Oh, yeah...the important thing was that I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn't have white onions because of the war; the only thing you could get was those big yellow ones.
The anonymity of the internet is going to seriously reduce the effects of cultural pressure.
When one band releases a "name your own price" album, it's a novelty and many people will consider paying. However, imagine if the average consumer had 30 or more albums they were interested in, all released under that same model. Will they pay $240 for these albums as quickly as they paid $8 to Radiohead, especially when no one is watching?
I agree with your point, but I am most distressed by the notion of pissing out one's own shit. One would hope that the shit would at least be in a thin, liquid state to make such an act possible. And yet, one must question how the vile poop did find its way to the pisshole. Something internal has gone all fucked up sideways to allow such a fecal pathway.
I bought the disc box for ~$80 USD. Not because I thought it was a great album but because I wanted to support this model. The album is ok from what I've heard on MPR but it's growing on me.
You wanted to support the model of "bands selling mp3s for cheap online" by buying an $80 album with a ridiculous number of unnecessary extras? Or were you hoping to support the model of "bands releasing the most expensive albums conceivable?"
Of course if you bought the disc box because you want it, so be it. But to think you're helping a cause by sending a bunch of money to a wealthy band seems rather silly to me.
Slashdot Mirror
We can debate the specifics of various weight loss plans, but I think that most reasonable diets will work if they are followed. Less calories and more exercise will inevitably lead to weight loss.
However, following the plan seems to be the trick for many people, myself included. Are there any good resources on how to train your mind and will to stick to a plan? Any science on how exercise, types of food, eating schedules, stress, etc., affect one's mental ability to follow through?
I'm not looking for some moron's hyped up self help book, but something from a reliable and scientific source. This part of the weight loss equation seems to be continually neglected, and instead we get a succession of one new eating-plan-of-the-week after another.
No matter which one you believe, you can easily use that belief to justify trying LSD or whatever else needs justifying. You only live once? Better go out and really live! You come around again? Then taking a risk isn't as risky as it seems!
Bronfman went on to say he would be pressing the RIAA to drop all lawsuits immediately, and that Warner would repay the excessive fees and settlements levied against file sharers. He then revealed Warner Music's new online store, featuring albums available in FLAC, 320kb mp3, and ogg formats, with most albums selling for $3-$5. Albums over 25 years old will be offered for free, with advertising to compensate the server costs.
He went on to state that many of his label's acts had been promoted based on style over substance, and that these acts would no longer be actively promoted. Instead, Warner's new site would also provide a place where any band could freely compete for listeners based on word of mouth and the quality of their work, with the most appealing bands rising to the top, and being rewarded with the opportunity to be promoted by Warner. Warner will split the profits from album, t-shirt, and touring sales with the bands, but the bands will retain full creative and copyright control of their works.
Oh wait, that didn't happen at all.
Explain.
Right. As usual on Slashdot, everything must be black and white. It's not as if universities could seek to profit from their inventions, AND educate people and give back to society. Also, since making a profit makes you evil, they are obviously not trying to use the money to improve their programs and stretch their limited budgets.
Watch out, you're on a dark path. First it's the torrents, next thing you know you're on the marijuana.
Despite having invented the microwave and nuclear power, we still use fire quite a bit. I would guess that any advanced civilization would use radio waves when it was convenient to do so, even if they had much more advanced techniques available.
What is more important - the number of human beings alive on the planet, or the average quality of life and sense of purpose held by each human who is alive?
Say we could pour all our extra resources into ending all disease and death, and we knew we could succeed. But we could only succeed by ending all (non-medical) scientific pursuit, outlawing entertainment and individuality, and forcing everyone to wear monocolor robes and work everyday at identical, menial, repetitive tasks. Should we do it?
That's a contrived example, but it highlights a point: our goal should be not to simply keep human bodies alive, but to make life as wonderful as it can be, and allow people to be free to move the human race forward in new ways. If we stop learning about science and searching out new answers, it greatly reduces the meaning of our existence. Even if we manage to save lives, we could just be keeping bodies alive to live empty lives.
Also, consider that there is a false dichotomy at work here. Investing in esoteric pursuits such as theoretical physics, and even poetry, will in the long run increase our ability to keep our bodies healthy and long living.
What then should we seek to maximize? With a larger population comes a wider variety of ideas and accomplishments, up to a point. But too great a population strains our planet's ability to support us, putting us all at risk, and diverts our efforts towards avoiding environmental disasters.
Maintaining an ideal population level is a highly controversial, ethically confounding issue. However, it is not impossible. It needs to be approached in a careful and well considered manner, but first of all we need to step past the fear of discussing it.
Our goal should be this: To have the greatest number of healthy, happy humans our planet can support, and then to maximize the value of each of those lives. It is not enough to save people from disease, hunger, poverty, and hopelessness. We should aim even higher, to help them to a life of wonder and purpose.
You know what they say about Acrobat Reader - "If you don't like this version, wait 5 minutes!"
It seems like every time I open a PDF with Reader, it's asking me to upgrade to a new version. I'm not sure why this is, since all it needs to do is display some text and images, which seems to have worked fine for several versions now.
"Hey man, is your library available?"
"What? I don't know."
"Well, I guess you'd better go double check your local public library's operating hours!"
Bam! Zowa! Still got it!
From an engineering perspective, how does moving the power supply brick into the unit make it any cheaper? The current external power converter must be pretty cheap for them to produce by the millions. They'll still have to produce one inside the unit, but now it has to be redesigned and made smaller. All the internals of the PS2 have to be shrunk down as well. Heat will more of a problem as well since the power supply gets pretty warm. Making electronics smaller is generally more expensive, at least initially.
If I had to guess, I'd say they compressed several internal components of the PS2 into a single, cheaper chip, and with the space they saved they are moving the power supply in there.
Less fun, but more realistic: Run thin wires through the walls. If any wire is cut, set off loud alarms, flash red lights, and call the cops.
You misunderstood, we're not talking about those violated by company IT policy. That's a separate discussion! :)
No, I want Wikipedia to tailor its own search engine to make use of those tags.
As for the external search engines, they have other means of determining importance, such as which Wikipedia pages are most commonly linked to.
It would be easy for them to implement. They can already tag articles for many other criteria, for example "the notability of this article is in question." It seems to make sense to have a system for ranking articles at different levels of notability. For example:
Dilbert = highly notable
Liberty Meadows = medium
XKCD = mildly notable
Joe's Super Cool Comic = not notable
The page for Joe's wouldn't need to be deleted, it could just just be excluded from searches. An advanced search option would allow users to search non-notable articles if they wanted.
What I'd like to know is, if Colbert has to go to court over this, would he have the balls to stay in character?
I've heard of this book before, and I think you have to very careful with such a way of thinking if you are at all susceptible to depression. (And most people are susceptible to at least minor depression.) Pessimistic thinking can have major emotional consequences, and a lack of positive thoughts can lead to giving up before you ever get started. Some people may be exceptions, but for the majority, having a generally positive outlook is necessary for day to day functioning. If you're not a robot, you can't take a purely logical approach and ignore your emotions, because they will catch up with you.
This book genuinely scares me, because it has the potential to lead someone to a very miserable place. Please approach it with caution!
Can they use this to make an external USB drive that doesn't get hot enough to fry bacon, even when no data has been transferred to/from it for hours?
Cause that drives me nuts.
People these days don't know the first thing about gibberish. I remember the days of great gibberish. Like the time I caught the ferry over to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for my shoe. So, I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days nickels had pictures of bumblebees on them. 'Give me five bees for a quarter', you'd say. Now, where were we? Oh, yeah...the important thing was that I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn't have white onions because of the war; the only thing you could get was those big yellow ones.
The anonymity of the internet is going to seriously reduce the effects of cultural pressure.
When one band releases a "name your own price" album, it's a novelty and many people will consider paying. However, imagine if the average consumer had 30 or more albums they were interested in, all released under that same model. Will they pay $240 for these albums as quickly as they paid $8 to Radiohead, especially when no one is watching?
Kids these days and all their browsering... they're going to catch the malware!
I agree with your point, but I am most distressed by the notion of pissing out one's own shit. One would hope that the shit would at least be in a thin, liquid state to make such an act possible. And yet, one must question how the vile poop did find its way to the pisshole. Something internal has gone all fucked up sideways to allow such a fecal pathway.
Of course if you bought the disc box because you want it, so be it. But to think you're helping a cause by sending a bunch of money to a wealthy band seems rather silly to me.