While I love my T-Mobile Dash, as soon as I discovered where the quote stemmed from, I immediately dismissed it. HTC's products are far from the superstars they wish they were.
BMI is a nice quick rule-of-thumb, but the better test is to see how long it takes for you to get winded running at a moderate pace.
This is a little contentious, since there are different ways of being "fit." For instance, many cyclists, even at the professional level, make pretty bad runners, and vice versa.
Aren't there all-around fitness tests that gauge this metric more accurately?
I can see that the intent of the article will lead to immense amounts of false justification. See, the majority of people that are overweight usually arrive at that state from extended periods of poor eating habits (or lots of drinking), inactivity or a combination of both.
It also appears that both articles base their study largely on BMI, which is well-known for being an outdated indicator of health in relation to weight. It works for those that are not athletic or abnormal, but is unreliable for anyone in those two categories. What might have been a better criterion for this study was body fat, which correlates much better to a person's weight.
Intuitively, I agree with the point made here. From the little that I know about nutrition, I've read that having some extra weight (apart from lean body weight and the necessary amount of body fat) helps the body function much better in everyday situations. Should this reach mass media, I'm almost positive that this, amongst other things, will be the excuse for those that don't wish to consider improving their health and lifestyle choices.
Oh well. Mental masturbation never fails to relieve.
Voting must be anonymous and private. If you allow online voting, then nothing prevents someone from standing over your shoulder and paying you $50 to vote the way he wants.
Unless the voter could vote as himself and not have it counted...if there is true voter confidentiality, the briber wouldn't know the difference.
One possibility to solving that is distributing readers to those who register for online voting, since re-registering for online elections would probably be a mandate anyway...
I guess this proves that the Internet is still a great medium to make overreaching assumptions. And everyone knows what's said of assumptions...
There are plenty of fallacies in your logic that fail to address why online voting might be a bad idea. Your paradigm implicates that for the sake of preserving "democracy," those "read" enough to "understand" foreign and domestic policy and such should be the only citizens eligible to vote. Here's the big issue: how much does one have to be "read" to "understand" the political agendas of the electorate? Good political candidates ensure that their policies and promises are phrased so that everyone, even the "lazy and stupid," can understand them. Furthermore, the propaganda in presidential elections is covered by so many media sources, that one has to be living under a rock or actively not be paying attention to miss them. That's not a problem, since that populace usually doesn't vote anyway.
One huge tenet in a democracy is to give everybody the right to vote. While I agree that the voting population will have an imbalance in knowledge of current events, that, by no means, should translate into giving suffrage only to those who "understand the issues" (enough to cross your bar of understanding, of course).
There are lots of great reasons why online voting would be an ideal component to elections. Benefits to the working population, the disabled and those distanced too far from a polling booth are a few that come to mind. There are also many more critical reasons why online voting needs significant work before getting prime time, with the main one being the security of voter integrity and confidentiality.
I'm not a hardware guy and I'm no fan of IBM but I must be missing something here: what is it about mainframes that makes them so different from servers?
I'm not a mainframe guy, but from the little that I know about them, mainframes are very, very good at performing multiple, computationally-intensive processes very, very quickly. Their architecture allows them to do massive calculations that would take some servers out; a company I worked with previously used them specifically for pricing schemes, and I know of several HUGE financial institutions that are still using them today (though I wouldn't doubt that a large reason why they are still in use is because the cost to migrate to servers would be way too high for little return). They are also horrifically over-engineered, which I believe plays a major part in capitalizing their extremely high price tags.
What they are not so good at is performing small tasks repeatedly, simply because they are optimized for large-scale computation. This is where servers excel significantly, in that they perform these tasks quicker, more efficiently, and at a MUCH lower cost. They also save lots of power, which makes for better environmental ratings and such.
Again, I'm not that experienced with mainframes, but in short: if you want to do lots and lots of hard maths, go with mainframes; otherwise, stick with servers.
Considering that many of the world's most powerful and critical organizations and corporations use Windows Server 2003/2008 in even mission-critical environments, I wouldn't throw my money down.
She must've drank from it by mistake. This is why Moms should be attentive of their children!
Seriously, age is a really interesting field to me, especially cognitive age. I really like how there are stages in raising a child that, if followed honestly, usually lead to children becoming very capable, healthy adults. What's even more interesting is what happens to a child should the development of any of those stages be tampered with.
Not sure if someone's already done this, but here are some good and bad reasons to consider working here in "The City." Pros:
LOTS of IT jobs are available around here (though obviously not as many as there were pre-recession).
A fair amount of the offices here are actually really nice.
Nightlife is freaking outstanding, even if you're conservative.
The subway is actually really, really efficient during working hours.
Salaries are generally higher.
Tons upon tons of diversity (if that's of any importance).
Copious amounts of leisurely activities, many of which never age (in enjoyment).
Cons
Living expenses are very high, especially now.
People are generally edgy, especially around Wall Street.
Pollution is something of a problem.
The atmosphere is VERY fast and somewhat unforgiving; it can cause a large transitional shock.
Don't even THINK of driving through the city (except from Monday to Thursday, 11PM to around 5AM).
Basic dining can be expensive, depending on where you're moving from.
The "New York" way of life might not be for everyone.
Overall, I think that NYC is a great place to be and work in, and is especially a very good place to live if you're young and child-less. I wouldn't completely recommend it for families, but it's definitely do-able. (Children born and raised in NYC are of a different breed, though. The environment here can really make a difference, like anywhere else.)
Well, the most popular one for the BB is midpSSH, which was mentioned here, and I've never found it to be anywhere near as good as, say, Terminal for iPhone...
But here's my question: does using polyurethane condoms really enhance sexual pleasure that significantly? I'm considering trying them, though the Durex condoms that I usually get now are working really well for me. I'm also a bit frightened by the higher risk of breakage.
Most of the quick research I'm doing suggests that polyurethane condoms are nearly equal in effectiveness to latex condoms, but nothing regarding any differences in the sexual "experience."
I'm not trying to argue that condoms are something of a side effect; I'm pointing out that condoms don't necessarily spoil the sexual moment unless YOU as a partner allow them to. I've been tempted many, MANY times to go bareback, but after realizing that they can make the moment just as enjoyable, I haven't really had the desire to.
The first condoms that I've used were horribly smelly and uncomfortable, so I sought for better fitting and more pleasurable condoms and found them. I took too long at putting them on, so I just got better at putting it on and found different ways to put it on without disrupting "the moment" too much. In my experience, I've found that when the moment's really, really intense, having sex with even the worst condom feels just as good as the times I've used the optimized ones.
We're converging to the same point, though, in that this research has the potential to spark some really positive change for male birth/STD control. On a somewhat unrelated note, what's the deal with the polyurethane ones? Are those as safe to use, or is it that it hasn't been proven if they are?
Slashdot Mirror
While I love my T-Mobile Dash, as soon as I discovered where the quote stemmed from, I immediately dismissed it. HTC's products are far from the superstars they wish they were.
VO2_max is pretty much set by genetics. There's no way to increase that, but there are ways to get closer to the upper limit. Is that what you meant?
BMI is a nice quick rule-of-thumb, but the better test is to see how long it takes for you to get winded running at a moderate pace.
This is a little contentious, since there are different ways of being "fit." For instance, many cyclists, even at the professional level, make pretty bad runners, and vice versa.
Aren't there all-around fitness tests that gauge this metric more accurately?
Body fat calculators are free, and correlate body weight to body type significantly better than BMI does.
I can see that the intent of the article will lead to immense amounts of false justification. See, the majority of people that are overweight usually arrive at that state from extended periods of poor eating habits (or lots of drinking), inactivity or a combination of both.
It also appears that both articles base their study largely on BMI, which is well-known for being an outdated indicator of health in relation to weight. It works for those that are not athletic or abnormal, but is unreliable for anyone in those two categories. What might have been a better criterion for this study was body fat, which correlates much better to a person's weight.
Intuitively, I agree with the point made here. From the little that I know about nutrition, I've read that having some extra weight (apart from lean body weight and the necessary amount of body fat) helps the body function much better in everyday situations. Should this reach mass media, I'm almost positive that this, amongst other things, will be the excuse for those that don't wish to consider improving their health and lifestyle choices.
Oh well. Mental masturbation never fails to relieve.
I have a God-like body, you insensitive clod!
So how's that iPhone treating ya? :)
Voting must be anonymous and private. If you allow online voting, then nothing prevents someone from standing over your shoulder and paying you $50 to vote the way he wants.
Unless the voter could vote as himself and not have it counted...if there is true voter confidentiality, the briber wouldn't know the difference.
Actually, if you dig a couple of minutes into it, you'll find that it's most definitely not. There are protocols innovated for this kind of stuff.
If it were easy, it would have been done already!
That's freaking awesome. Mod parent up.
One possibility to solving that is distributing readers to those who register for online voting, since re-registering for online elections would probably be a mandate anyway...
I guess this proves that the Internet is still a great medium to make overreaching assumptions. And everyone knows what's said of assumptions...
There are plenty of fallacies in your logic that fail to address why online voting might be a bad idea. Your paradigm implicates that for the sake of preserving "democracy," those "read" enough to "understand" foreign and domestic policy and such should be the only citizens eligible to vote. Here's the big issue: how much does one have to be "read" to "understand" the political agendas of the electorate? Good political candidates ensure that their policies and promises are phrased so that everyone, even the "lazy and stupid," can understand them. Furthermore, the propaganda in presidential elections is covered by so many media sources, that one has to be living under a rock or actively not be paying attention to miss them. That's not a problem, since that populace usually doesn't vote anyway.
One huge tenet in a democracy is to give everybody the right to vote. While I agree that the voting population will have an imbalance in knowledge of current events, that, by no means, should translate into giving suffrage only to those who "understand the issues" (enough to cross your bar of understanding, of course).
There are lots of great reasons why online voting would be an ideal component to elections. Benefits to the working population, the disabled and those distanced too far from a polling booth are a few that come to mind. There are also many more critical reasons why online voting needs significant work before getting prime time, with the main one being the security of voter integrity and confidentiality.
Your ideologies are not one of those reasons.
Debian can be icompletely nstalled with less than 700 MB, as can Ubuntu. Just saying.
No, no. Weed can make you think that far out. It ought to be the acid.
I don't know about you, but I would not want to be 16 for 30 years...
I'm not a hardware guy and I'm no fan of IBM but I must be missing something here: what is it about mainframes that makes them so different from servers?
I'm not a mainframe guy, but from the little that I know about them, mainframes are very, very good at performing multiple, computationally-intensive processes very, very quickly. Their architecture allows them to do massive calculations that would take some servers out; a company I worked with previously used them specifically for pricing schemes, and I know of several HUGE financial institutions that are still using them today (though I wouldn't doubt that a large reason why they are still in use is because the cost to migrate to servers would be way too high for little return). They are also horrifically over-engineered, which I believe plays a major part in capitalizing their extremely high price tags.
What they are not so good at is performing small tasks repeatedly, simply because they are optimized for large-scale computation. This is where servers excel significantly, in that they perform these tasks quicker, more efficiently, and at a MUCH lower cost. They also save lots of power, which makes for better environmental ratings and such.
Again, I'm not that experienced with mainframes, but in short: if you want to do lots and lots of hard maths, go with mainframes; otherwise, stick with servers.
Considering that many of the world's most powerful and critical organizations and corporations use Windows Server 2003/2008 in even mission-critical environments, I wouldn't throw my money down.
She must've drank from it by mistake. This is why Moms should be attentive of their children!
Seriously, age is a really interesting field to me, especially cognitive age. I really like how there are stages in raising a child that, if followed honestly, usually lead to children becoming very capable, healthy adults. What's even more interesting is what happens to a child should the development of any of those stages be tampered with.
Most of the people who will pay $29 for snow leopard paid apple for their hardware. How many vista users bought their hardware from microsoft?
All of the ones that bought Vista bundled with their PC, since all OEMs have to pay Microsoft to do that.
Keep in mind that this constitutes a large portion of their user base.
When the prices are cheaper, people will complain that it's not cheap enough.
When the product is gratis, people will complain that it's not quality enough.
You can't please everyone, I suppose. I think this is quite a good price cut. (Because $400+ for Vista Ultimate was always ridiculous to begin with.)
Not sure if someone's already done this, but here are some good and bad reasons to consider working here in "The City."
Pros:
Cons
Overall, I think that NYC is a great place to be and work in, and is especially a very good place to live if you're young and child-less. I wouldn't completely recommend it for families, but it's definitely do-able. (Children born and raised in NYC are of a different breed, though. The environment here can really make a difference, like anywhere else.)
Well, the most popular one for the BB is midpSSH, which was mentioned here, and I've never found it to be anywhere near as good as, say, Terminal for iPhone...
Add in the fact that there is no decent SSH client for the Blackberry, and that makes your argument even more valid.
But here's my question: does using polyurethane condoms really enhance sexual pleasure that significantly? I'm considering trying them, though the Durex condoms that I usually get now are working really well for me. I'm also a bit frightened by the higher risk of breakage.
Most of the quick research I'm doing suggests that polyurethane condoms are nearly equal in effectiveness to latex condoms, but nothing regarding any differences in the sexual "experience."
Thanks!
I'm not trying to argue that condoms are something of a side effect; I'm pointing out that condoms don't necessarily spoil the sexual moment unless YOU as a partner allow them to. I've been tempted many, MANY times to go bareback, but after realizing that they can make the moment just as enjoyable, I haven't really had the desire to.
The first condoms that I've used were horribly smelly and uncomfortable, so I sought for better fitting and more pleasurable condoms and found them. I took too long at putting them on, so I just got better at putting it on and found different ways to put it on without disrupting "the moment" too much. In my experience, I've found that when the moment's really, really intense, having sex with even the worst condom feels just as good as the times I've used the optimized ones.
We're converging to the same point, though, in that this research has the potential to spark some really positive change for male birth/STD control. On a somewhat unrelated note, what's the deal with the polyurethane ones? Are those as safe to use, or is it that it hasn't been proven if they are?