Hunabku
Jul 28, 12:01 PM
Honestly Microsoft will fail, and it's not because they are going to take forever to show anyone anything. Microsoft will fail because it doesn't understand the demographic it is trying to produce a product for. Microsoft may cater to business and such, but in the eyes of teenagers, many of whom are anti-establishment, Microsoft is simply not cool. Not only is Microsoft uncool, it doesn't understand what IS cool.
True, but as i have send in a previous thread about MS, the people behind their XBox division are actually "cool" and creative and MS is said to be giving them lots of freedom. Let's not wholeheartly disregard our competition here - even though it feels good to do so!
True, but as i have send in a previous thread about MS, the people behind their XBox division are actually "cool" and creative and MS is said to be giving them lots of freedom. Let's not wholeheartly disregard our competition here - even though it feels good to do so!
Mister Snitch
Apr 14, 07:58 AM
yah the white iPhone looks fresh as hell!
Looks like a bar of soap. Which I guess is OK. It IS different, 'fresh', and will make a fashion statement for those who care about such things.
Looks like a bar of soap. Which I guess is OK. It IS different, 'fresh', and will make a fashion statement for those who care about such things.
peapody
Sep 16, 07:06 PM
Don't check my creatinine because it is going to be elevated!!!
Honeypig at Annandale VA. Korean BBQ open 24hours =)
Honeypig at Annandale VA. Korean BBQ open 24hours =)
leekohler
Mar 10, 05:31 PM
I have stayed out of this one for a while, but now he has gone from "sick" to "awesome" with this video on Funny or Die.
http://FunnyOrDie.com/m/5cwg
I don't even know what to say...
http://FunnyOrDie.com/m/5cwg
I don't even know what to say...
more...
rxse7en
Jul 28, 09:43 AM
My mistake, sorry. I got mixed-up between your replies to kevin.rivers, who replied to bigmc6000...
Maybe he meant "the only high-def console" on the market right now with the PS3 still a few months away?
No sweat. :D
Personally, I'd hope that the new gaming consoles--read PS3--would offer some DIVX playback too. I have a Samsung HT-q70 that upscales to 1080i over HDMI and it has a USB port on the front that allows you to plug an external drive into it and it plays VCD, DVD, DIVX, MPEG 2 & 4. That would be a nice simple feature that can be added to these consoles that would make them more useful as a media center.
B
Maybe he meant "the only high-def console" on the market right now with the PS3 still a few months away?
No sweat. :D
Personally, I'd hope that the new gaming consoles--read PS3--would offer some DIVX playback too. I have a Samsung HT-q70 that upscales to 1080i over HDMI and it has a USB port on the front that allows you to plug an external drive into it and it plays VCD, DVD, DIVX, MPEG 2 & 4. That would be a nice simple feature that can be added to these consoles that would make them more useful as a media center.
B
tripjammer
Apr 22, 04:24 PM
I think it looks tight...but we will have to wait and see...We all know it is gonna be lighter, slimmer and faster....
more...
ComputersaysNo
Apr 13, 04:02 PM
Internet wormhole - double post.
slidingjon
Jul 24, 11:39 PM
nice thoughts, all.
I would love all of the features brought up above, but I just don't see it in a sub $500 unit. It's just not going to happen any time soon. It would just cost too much. Besides who wants wireless usb when you can sync with FW800? :)
I would love all of the features brought up above, but I just don't see it in a sub $500 unit. It's just not going to happen any time soon. It would just cost too much. Besides who wants wireless usb when you can sync with FW800? :)
more...
Tailpike1153
Jan 12, 10:31 AM
Head exploded from trying to figure out how much food is in 30000 claroies.:eek:
nies
Apr 26, 07:48 PM
Yes I understand now
more...
DaBlackMamba
Mar 15, 10:38 AM
Mission Viejo has none left. They had around 25 total but only Verizon and some wifi.
Ohanmer
Apr 28, 06:15 PM
I'm not positive, but the white iPhone 4 could be slightly thicker in order to fix any light leakage issues associated with the new color. Thicker glass panels, less leakage.
more...
renewed
Sep 13, 02:02 PM
http://s.petco.com/Assets/product_images/8/800443052068C.jpg
destroyboredom
Apr 23, 06:46 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7E18 Safari/528.16)
Hmmm...September launch of the iPhone on T-mobile?
Hmmm...September launch of the iPhone on T-mobile?
more...
KnightWRX
Dec 30, 10:43 PM
Under normal circumstances, you're more or less right.
No, I'm 100% right. Weight control is about calories. End of story. Calories in < Calories out and you lose weight. Opposite and you gain weight. There's no more or less here, that is the very basic premise. You want to discuss specifics that affect calories in/calories out, but that's flawed. Teach people the base first, and let them balance themselves out. You can very easily test your metabolic rate.
However, many supersize people have participated in crash diets, drugs and other questionable regimens over the years in search of quick-fix thinness. Doing so can, after a while, sabotage the body's normal metabolic rate and endocrine output, making it much harder for these people to find the balance in their caloric equation without depriving themselves of needed micronutrients (vitamins, minerals).
So you're saying these people have abnormally low "Calories out". It still comes down to that very simple equation. These people first have to fix their calories out, get their metabolism back straight, then they can fix their calories in.
It is that easy to lose weight. People don't know this very simple and basic concept, they think "Fat/Sugar" has to do with weight, which is completely false. "Low Saturated Fat!" on a box of cookies means squat if the cookies are 170 calories for 3 vs 180 calories for 3 of the same cookies with normal saturated fat. You still can't eat the whole box in one sitting and think "hey, it's low fat, I can't gain weight from this".
You'd be surprised how many people think this way.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but the question that runs through my mind is: if it's so easy, why do people struggle with it? Why are there entire industries built around people that struggle with losing weight on their own?
People struggle because like someone pointed out, they lack willpower and I'll add that they lack education. Calorie control is the only way to lose weight. There's seriously no other way, since weight is based off of calories and calories alone. To lose weight, you need a calorie deficiency. To be more precise, 3500 calories = 1 lbs, each way. So you need to create a calorie deficiency of 3500 calories before you lose 1 lbs. My metabolic rate is around 1740, that's what I burn each day without lifting a finger. Add in my normal routine, and I'm around the magic 2000 calorie diet. Let's not add in my gym routine. So to lose 1 lbs in 7 days, I need to go on a 1500 calorie diet per day. That's going to give me a deficiency of 500 per day, times 7 days, 1 lbs lost.
There's entire industries because they profit from it. Some people like to buy "instant" solutions. 1 lbs in 7 days ? Bah humbug, too long, I have 100 to lose! There's no instant solutions to weight loss, quite the contrary, the entire weight loss industry makes money by keeping people fat and coming back for miracle cures. Their proposed plans of "1 shake/bar for breakfeast, same for lunch and a balanced diner" is awful. First, it should be the opposite, a good breakfeast and then their bars/shakes for lunch and diner. Breakfeast is where you get your day's energy. Second, that's not calorie control since it doesn't explain that it is trying to create a calorie deficit. So people just still overeat, they compensate the calories they didn't eat at breakfeast/lunch with a huge "balanced" diner.
I'm going to just assume you are young and have time on your hands. Because when I was young and had time staying trim was quite easy., Let's talk when you're in your 30's and are a busy professional :rolleyes:
I'm 32, work 35 hours per week in IT (sitting down on my ass), am on call with tons of pages coming in once every 2 weeks. I have a girlfriend, a mortgage and a dog.
Again, staying trim has nothing to do with having time or being busy or not. If you spend less calories, eat less calories. Balance your calories in to your calories out and you'll stay trim. Sure it means doing a bit more research into what you're eating, but that's not impossible. It also means listening to your body. Feeling "stuffed" means you overate. You should never feel full or stuffed. A donut is not faster to mow down than an Apple. It's not more filling either. It's tons more calories though.
You made an assumption about me and you were wrong. You should look at yourself and what you are or aren't doing that is making you fat, not make up excuses.
look. I'm not trying to make excuses. I'm not THAT out of shape. I do bikram yoga 4 times per week and walk a lot. I just can't be as extensive about it as I was in my youthful years. I'm very healthy but I do need to drop 20ish lbs. per doctors orders. I've completely cut out any sugar drinks other than water and a few organic smoothies and an occaional glass of wine here and there. But at my age and with my busy schedule it's just not as easy as it was when I was 25. Not an excuse, just a simple fact.
But again, it's just because you don't understand your caloric need for a day and you either overeat or eat just the right amount to maintain your weight. You don't even need to exercise to create a calorie deficiency. I think you're the perfect example of what I'm talking about, you don't understand the very basic concept, which has nothing to do with time spent, but rather food ingested.
People need to get it out of their heads that it is about exercise. It's 10% working out, 90% food. Get your nutrition right and you won't need to exercise a day in your life. If you want to get fit however, make sure to balance your nutrition around your added caloric need to not drop weight too fast or at all if your goal is maintaining.
No, I'm 100% right. Weight control is about calories. End of story. Calories in < Calories out and you lose weight. Opposite and you gain weight. There's no more or less here, that is the very basic premise. You want to discuss specifics that affect calories in/calories out, but that's flawed. Teach people the base first, and let them balance themselves out. You can very easily test your metabolic rate.
However, many supersize people have participated in crash diets, drugs and other questionable regimens over the years in search of quick-fix thinness. Doing so can, after a while, sabotage the body's normal metabolic rate and endocrine output, making it much harder for these people to find the balance in their caloric equation without depriving themselves of needed micronutrients (vitamins, minerals).
So you're saying these people have abnormally low "Calories out". It still comes down to that very simple equation. These people first have to fix their calories out, get their metabolism back straight, then they can fix their calories in.
It is that easy to lose weight. People don't know this very simple and basic concept, they think "Fat/Sugar" has to do with weight, which is completely false. "Low Saturated Fat!" on a box of cookies means squat if the cookies are 170 calories for 3 vs 180 calories for 3 of the same cookies with normal saturated fat. You still can't eat the whole box in one sitting and think "hey, it's low fat, I can't gain weight from this".
You'd be surprised how many people think this way.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but the question that runs through my mind is: if it's so easy, why do people struggle with it? Why are there entire industries built around people that struggle with losing weight on their own?
People struggle because like someone pointed out, they lack willpower and I'll add that they lack education. Calorie control is the only way to lose weight. There's seriously no other way, since weight is based off of calories and calories alone. To lose weight, you need a calorie deficiency. To be more precise, 3500 calories = 1 lbs, each way. So you need to create a calorie deficiency of 3500 calories before you lose 1 lbs. My metabolic rate is around 1740, that's what I burn each day without lifting a finger. Add in my normal routine, and I'm around the magic 2000 calorie diet. Let's not add in my gym routine. So to lose 1 lbs in 7 days, I need to go on a 1500 calorie diet per day. That's going to give me a deficiency of 500 per day, times 7 days, 1 lbs lost.
There's entire industries because they profit from it. Some people like to buy "instant" solutions. 1 lbs in 7 days ? Bah humbug, too long, I have 100 to lose! There's no instant solutions to weight loss, quite the contrary, the entire weight loss industry makes money by keeping people fat and coming back for miracle cures. Their proposed plans of "1 shake/bar for breakfeast, same for lunch and a balanced diner" is awful. First, it should be the opposite, a good breakfeast and then their bars/shakes for lunch and diner. Breakfeast is where you get your day's energy. Second, that's not calorie control since it doesn't explain that it is trying to create a calorie deficit. So people just still overeat, they compensate the calories they didn't eat at breakfeast/lunch with a huge "balanced" diner.
I'm going to just assume you are young and have time on your hands. Because when I was young and had time staying trim was quite easy., Let's talk when you're in your 30's and are a busy professional :rolleyes:
I'm 32, work 35 hours per week in IT (sitting down on my ass), am on call with tons of pages coming in once every 2 weeks. I have a girlfriend, a mortgage and a dog.
Again, staying trim has nothing to do with having time or being busy or not. If you spend less calories, eat less calories. Balance your calories in to your calories out and you'll stay trim. Sure it means doing a bit more research into what you're eating, but that's not impossible. It also means listening to your body. Feeling "stuffed" means you overate. You should never feel full or stuffed. A donut is not faster to mow down than an Apple. It's not more filling either. It's tons more calories though.
You made an assumption about me and you were wrong. You should look at yourself and what you are or aren't doing that is making you fat, not make up excuses.
look. I'm not trying to make excuses. I'm not THAT out of shape. I do bikram yoga 4 times per week and walk a lot. I just can't be as extensive about it as I was in my youthful years. I'm very healthy but I do need to drop 20ish lbs. per doctors orders. I've completely cut out any sugar drinks other than water and a few organic smoothies and an occaional glass of wine here and there. But at my age and with my busy schedule it's just not as easy as it was when I was 25. Not an excuse, just a simple fact.
But again, it's just because you don't understand your caloric need for a day and you either overeat or eat just the right amount to maintain your weight. You don't even need to exercise to create a calorie deficiency. I think you're the perfect example of what I'm talking about, you don't understand the very basic concept, which has nothing to do with time spent, but rather food ingested.
People need to get it out of their heads that it is about exercise. It's 10% working out, 90% food. Get your nutrition right and you won't need to exercise a day in your life. If you want to get fit however, make sure to balance your nutrition around your added caloric need to not drop weight too fast or at all if your goal is maintaining.
ForzaJuve
Apr 26, 12:03 PM
Yes, that's great, but I am surprised it's already noon and there have been no articles about who is suing who yet.
more...
everydave
May 3, 08:00 AM
I've not seen any word on if one could use the new iMacs as an external display like you could previously. A 27" display with a "built in" quad core media server for the price of a core 2 duo mini is sounding really good right now!
Mr. McMac
Sep 14, 11:30 AM
This t shirt
http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q146/atbglenn/Computers/d1bb1ec8.jpg
http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q146/atbglenn/Computers/d1bb1ec8.jpg
Clix Pix
Jan 10, 08:27 PM
I stumbled on to this discussion and continued reading the thread out of fascination.....
This woman clearly has some mental health issues. Aside from the obvious obesity, she clearly may have some physical issues, too, which are only contributing to this overall situation. That is most unfortunate and I really do hope that she is receiving both medical and psychological help, as she certainly is demonstrating that she is very needy, very in need of help outside of herself and her own little world.
It's interesting, isn't it? Onlookers recoil in horror at the sight of a very obese, morbidly obese, beyond-morbidly obese, individual and shudder. Someone who is 400, 500, 600 pounds or more just isn't a lovely sight.
On the opposite end of the spectrum onlookers also recoil in horror at the sight of a very emaciated individual, someone who is skeletal, skin-and-bones..... Someone who is an adult, even a short one, weighing in at 40, 50 or 60 pounds just isn't a lovely sight, either.
Funny how very often the emaciated ones (those suffering from anorexia nervosa, which is a clinical diagnosis outlined and fully described in the psychiatric literature and the DSM -- Diagnostic and Statistical Manual -- issued on a periodic basis by psychiatrists) -- do wind up in a clinical setting, either a medical floor or a psychiatric floor...... It's pretty clear to even the most naive of laypersons that there is something wrong when a person seems to be starving him/herself to death and is presenting as skeletal.
Funny that when someone is going to the opposite extreme and stuffing him/herself to death that it isn't acknowledged in the same way and that very often it is only when someone has really gone to extremes such as weighing several hundred pounds over mere "overweight" status that anyone really takes notice. When someone presents weighing 600, 700, 800 pounds, yes, that is suggestive of the need for clinical intervention, both medical and psychological, isn't it?
On both ends of that spectrum, people die. Anorexics weighing 30 or 40 or 50 pounds die -- they also can die at much higher weights, closer to "normal" weights, too, actually, if the refeeding process and clinical treatment isn't handled carefully. Yes, they can die at so-called "normal" weights due to some underlying psychological issues never being addressed at all or not being addressed successfully even as the weight is seemingly restored.
Undoubtedly many people who have gotten to the point of morbid obesity or beyond that also have died, even during the process of attempting to restore weight to a healthier or more normal level....and again, chances are that this is due to the underlying psychological issues never being addressed or being inadequately addressed.
Sad, isn't it? Going to extremes in any direction is not a good thing and when this occurs it usually is pointing to significant underlying issues in an individual's life which really need to be addressed along with the particular weight situation.
Don't be repelled by the severely obese person you meet or the severely emaciated person you meet; these are real people with real feelings, real issues hiding in there somewhere and the bottom line is that these are people who need help.
This woman clearly has some mental health issues. Aside from the obvious obesity, she clearly may have some physical issues, too, which are only contributing to this overall situation. That is most unfortunate and I really do hope that she is receiving both medical and psychological help, as she certainly is demonstrating that she is very needy, very in need of help outside of herself and her own little world.
It's interesting, isn't it? Onlookers recoil in horror at the sight of a very obese, morbidly obese, beyond-morbidly obese, individual and shudder. Someone who is 400, 500, 600 pounds or more just isn't a lovely sight.
On the opposite end of the spectrum onlookers also recoil in horror at the sight of a very emaciated individual, someone who is skeletal, skin-and-bones..... Someone who is an adult, even a short one, weighing in at 40, 50 or 60 pounds just isn't a lovely sight, either.
Funny how very often the emaciated ones (those suffering from anorexia nervosa, which is a clinical diagnosis outlined and fully described in the psychiatric literature and the DSM -- Diagnostic and Statistical Manual -- issued on a periodic basis by psychiatrists) -- do wind up in a clinical setting, either a medical floor or a psychiatric floor...... It's pretty clear to even the most naive of laypersons that there is something wrong when a person seems to be starving him/herself to death and is presenting as skeletal.
Funny that when someone is going to the opposite extreme and stuffing him/herself to death that it isn't acknowledged in the same way and that very often it is only when someone has really gone to extremes such as weighing several hundred pounds over mere "overweight" status that anyone really takes notice. When someone presents weighing 600, 700, 800 pounds, yes, that is suggestive of the need for clinical intervention, both medical and psychological, isn't it?
On both ends of that spectrum, people die. Anorexics weighing 30 or 40 or 50 pounds die -- they also can die at much higher weights, closer to "normal" weights, too, actually, if the refeeding process and clinical treatment isn't handled carefully. Yes, they can die at so-called "normal" weights due to some underlying psychological issues never being addressed at all or not being addressed successfully even as the weight is seemingly restored.
Undoubtedly many people who have gotten to the point of morbid obesity or beyond that also have died, even during the process of attempting to restore weight to a healthier or more normal level....and again, chances are that this is due to the underlying psychological issues never being addressed or being inadequately addressed.
Sad, isn't it? Going to extremes in any direction is not a good thing and when this occurs it usually is pointing to significant underlying issues in an individual's life which really need to be addressed along with the particular weight situation.
Don't be repelled by the severely obese person you meet or the severely emaciated person you meet; these are real people with real feelings, real issues hiding in there somewhere and the bottom line is that these are people who need help.
Moyank24
Apr 30, 03:31 PM
Ummm, I'm not sure this game is over yet... there's still an infected Villager out there...
That's what he said. Reread what he wrote.
That's what he said. Reread what he wrote.
cebritt
Jan 27, 03:31 PM
The old stock adage is, "Buy on rumor, sell on news."
twoodcc
Nov 5, 05:22 PM
Both computers now up-and-running. No complaints from the designers regarding poor performance :)
I'm running the standard client, I'll look into the other options when I got some spare time.
It's quite remarkable to see the performance boost compared to my G5 dual 1.8 that's been folding for years.
glad to hear it. just so you know, the bigadv units will get you some big time points. it really is worth it if the machine is fast enough, and i'm pretty sure those are
I'm running the standard client, I'll look into the other options when I got some spare time.
It's quite remarkable to see the performance boost compared to my G5 dual 1.8 that's been folding for years.
glad to hear it. just so you know, the bigadv units will get you some big time points. it really is worth it if the machine is fast enough, and i'm pretty sure those are
Christopher387A
Apr 22, 05:54 PM
That's hideous! :eek:
pkson
Apr 12, 07:10 PM
Wow, we're all over the place aren't we. If we cover our bases we'll have to be right! :D
hahaha, yes, indeed.
Just put up the whole calendar and say, "one of these days, we'll get an iPad 3, and an iPhone 5."
hahaha, yes, indeed.
Just put up the whole calendar and say, "one of these days, we'll get an iPad 3, and an iPhone 5."
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق