And I exercise quite a lot as well (weight lifting). I weigh myself every day at the same time (right after I wake up). Now I'm not too concerned with day-to-day fluctuations but by having data points for every day I can more accurately adjust my calorie intake to match my current exercise goals (if I'm trying to bulk and I'm losing weight then I need to up my energy intake, if I'm trying to cut and I'm gaining weight then most likely I need to eat less).

I also keep track of my daily energy and nutrient intake because hey, I'm a nerd so I like statistics and it's actually helpful.

It's been a while since Perl was The language used by sysadmins. It's still around, sure. But shell scripts never really went away and Python has been growing steadily as well.

How is Python "pedantic"? Because you can just dump out unreadable gibberish without bother to format your code in any sensible way? Because that seems to be the main complaint from those who dislike Python. This is also why I think it's a good language for beginners, better to have them learn right away how to use indentation and proper code formatting than have to deal with their unreadable code several years down the line (and boy have I seen some unreadable code by developers who, for some reason, never got around to learning when to indent. It should be so simple, instead they manage to just insert a random number of spaces and/or tabs at the beginning of each line).

In Sweden he's called "Jultomten". Oh, and we don't call the holiday Christmas, we call it Jul.

As for it being a religious holiday, yeah the christians try to make it into that, for most people it has very little to do with religion.

While every standard has its issues I'm really hoping your hatred of XML/XHTML isn't the usual one. That is, that the "problem" with XHTML and XML is that parsers simply refuse to deal with broken XML/XHTML*, as far as I'm concerned that's a feature, not a bug.

* I've heard complaints about this many times, the core complaint seems to be "well, now I have to write markup that's actually standards-compliant and that's just too hard! I want HTML that will render even if it's horribly broken!"

I'm going to say I don't really need a 10 foot UI but it would be nice with something a bit more like it than ordinary desktop UIs. Slightly larger widgets, text that defaults to a slightly larger size, just enough to make it easy to use from the couch. It's not that I can't see what's on the screen, it's that when I'm on the couch and I leave XBMC to check out some website or whatever I don't want to have to be as precise with the mouse as I am when I'm at my desktop machine.

You have to keep in mind that Tolkien's world during the third age is still very much one filled with magic, both still-active and lost relics. The magic has begun to fade and the age of men is approaching but it's still all around. And it's not like the swords are somehow one-of-a-kind super-special ones.

My overall point is that whenever there's a story about anyone using any kind of force against a woman there are tons of comments from people who are outraged that the police/a robbery victim/whatever would use violence against a woman(!!!11one) no matter how justified (woman had an AK-47 and some guy managed to knock her out before she fired it into a crowd? You can bet there are people online bashing the guy for using violence against a woman).

Seeing as I'm on the other end of the spectrum, male, tall and not always so innocent-looking (that is, it's pretty easy for me to look like I'm up to no good) it tends to irk me (especially since I'm hardly a violent individual, it just seems a lot of people assume I'm more dangerous than I really am).

Well, the same rules should apply regardless of who they're arresting. As a 6'4" guy who works out regularly I fully expect that if the police ever decide to arrest me for anything I'm likely to get maced and beaten simply because I'm a big guy, the same should be done to short skinny women as well, maybe then people will care.

The next step would be for bouncers at bars and clubs to apply the same standards to both men and women (here in Sweden I have myself experienced being told that I needed to "calm down" and that I'd had too much to drink after my first beer of the night because, well I'm not sure, but minutes later several very drunk young women were dancing on chairs and rather than getting threats of violence from the bouncer while he held his hand on his baton he simply calmly asked them not to dance on the chairs)...

SafeSearch used to have three settings:

• Strict - Fairly straightforward, unlikely to see anything that might offend overly nervous parents or people with invisible sky-friends.
• Moderate - The default, might let some slightly "naughty" things through but overall a lot closer to Strict than Off.
• Off - No filtering, if the best result for your search was a naked a woman or some guy fucking a watermelon, that's what you got. For good and bad

What has some of us upset is that Google removed the "Off" setting. Instead they're saying "yeah well if you want porn just add 'anal rape tentacle gangbang' to your search string". Which would make sense if the only/ reason for setting SafeSearch to Off was to browse porn. However, in practice I've found that outside of the workplace it often makes sense to set SafeSearch to Off in order to get more accurate results, quite often fairly innocent images would not show up with SafeSearch set to Strict or Moderate.

Well, the problem is, as stated further up in the thread. What if you want, for example, to find pictures of something which by American moral standards is considered slightly dirty? Search for just what you're looking for and you get the neutered results, add "porn" or some other explicit term and suddenly you're getting hardcore porn instead. One major advantage of being able to just leave the filter off is that you can get "raw" results (yeah, I've written some basic code for searching through data, splitting data into N-grams, assigning relations to words based on their TF-IDF and all that junk, I know the results aren't "raw" in the same sense as looking for documents where your exact term pops up the most times, but at least you could turn off that damn SafeSearch filter in the past).

So? In the past you had to disable SafeSearch to see them, now you have to go out of your way to find them by repeatedly tweaking your search terms to figure out how to trick Google into showing those results.

As others have pointed out, the biggest problem isn't if you're looking for hardcore porn, if you search for "violent anal gangbang" chances are you'll get what you're looking for, the problem is the gray areas, those searches that aren't for that kind of material but which aren't for "fluffy happy bunny captions" either...

I tried this mode on the OS X client recently and it was extremely clunky and was mostly a pain in the ass to work with.

It's a great first try at a ten foot interface but they've definitely got some work to do.

Yeah, sadly this is one of those things that work much better on Windows than OS X or any Linux setup I've tried (Sure, if you want to get picky about it you could write your own patches to deal with this, perhaps even introducing a new abstraction layer, but for an average user this is hardly an option).

Wow, here in Sweden SMS is finally and very slowly starting to die out in favor of various online methods of messaging (Apple's Messenger thing seems to be growing and lots of people just use Facebook's chat function with push alerts on their cellphones).