Typical Chromebooks aren't powerful enough to run VMs nicely. The limitation is quite hard in the RAM department, one may not want to spend money in upgrading it when performance will be bad even after RAM upgrade - why not run proper Linux distribution on bare metal and save the expense and performance hit?

The malfunctioning of the noise making device may not be illegal (or less illegal) than not having the noise making device. So nobody ever services noise making devices, car manufacturers attach progressively worse noise making devices which are more and more prone to failure.

Eventually people get used to silent fast moving large hard solid objects moving about the streets.

Read http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

You claimed this by hiding behind this Vik Khanna's article, who does claim this.

Because the article you point to keeps repeating that fitness correlates with health must mean standing desks do not correlate with health. You misinterpret the studies it cites to mean standing desks do not corelate with good health whereas they say nothing of the sort.

Nope, that article assumes an option between (standing work + no exercise) and (sitting work and lots of exercise). The studies it cites all relate fitness to health - which no one is denying. But they DO NOT relate standing work to health.

And telling it to you for the 5th time - standing work does NOT prevent you from exercising.

And yet lots of people consume lots of more calories than they spend in a day. Which adds up to very unhealthy amounts of fat over time in their bodies. Which they could have prevented/reduced - in this regard the calorie burn is equivalent to a 1.5-2.5 hour workout.

But you claim erroneously that there is no benefit of spending this extra 320 kilocalories, equivalent to 5 such cheese slices per day.

Which also doesn't prevent them from performing other forms of exercise - as I keep reminding you falling on deaf ears.

One would hope their activities DO SOMETHING about their fitness level, not just indicate something about their fitness level.

See this. Converting 8 hours of work from sitting to standing assuming 50% addition to calories per hour, adds equivalent of about 1.5-2.5 hours of workout a day. In addition to which regular workout can still be done.

99% of first world population and well-off third world population doesn't even do 1.5-2.5 hours of such workout a day. And even most of those that do definitely do not consider 1.5-2.5 hours of workout a day "infinitesimal".

That is ignoring the much heavier semi-voluntary activities that standing induces.

If it doesn't contribute anything to fitness, why would fitness enthusiasts give their right hand to achieve similar effects?

It doesn't preclude exercise, you know.

I don't know what question this Vik Khanna is trying to answer, but if you put that article in this article's context it seems as if you are assuming there is a dichotomy between (standing work + no exercise) and (sitting work + exercise). I.e. it appears you are saying one cannot exercise along with standing work. Which is obviously incorrect. This statement from the article you quote is also highly misleading :

50% higher metabolic cost is huge. Fitness enthusiasts would give their right hand to increase their rest metabolism by 50% - if giving their right hand didn't reduce the rest metabolism that is. Even if workday is considered only of 4 hours - 50% over 4 hours can surely not be called infinitesimal.

It takes much more energy to stand rather than sit. Not only that, the semi-voluntary movements one makes while thinking are much more energy intensive when standing than when sitting. That is because while standing we move much much heavier body parts - e.g. legs+torso, pelvis+torso, whole body on ankle/knee joint etc. While sitting such movements are typically restricted to arm movements, head movements, leg movements not translating to whole body movements because ass is glued to a chair. It is clear which movements consume more energy. And while thinking there is a lot of semi-voluntary body movement going on.

Then there is the consideration of what our ancestors evolved doing. While it is not standing, standing is still much closer to it than sitting on comfy chairs. Invention of chair doesn't go as far back as early man.

1. Instinct is an extremely well understood term in animal behavior. A non-troll could not have searched 2 seconds and not found the correct meaning of this word in this context. I even gave an example.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=instinct

2. I didn't make any leap- I just said another theory can also explain pack hunting without involving mirror neurons. You made the incredible keep in concluding that I made any leap.

3. I would have appreciated less insolent language from you especially since my post was completely polite.

4. There was more evidence in my follow up post about why instinct explains this better than theory of mind.

Forgot to add - a lioness and a leopardess spent a lot of time together and were "friends". They could hunt individually, but could never succeed hunting together. Lions hunt in prides, and leopards rarely but surely do hunt together.

If they had a theory of mind they might have been able to hunt together, but the instinct theory explains their inability. I can't be sure, of course.

Yes, mirror neurons form parts of brain that have this hardware virtualization functionality to run another's brain as a virtual machine in one's own brain. But so far such functionality has primarily been found in primates - with mimicry portion also found in birds.

The non-primate mammal hunting in packs can also be explained by genetic instinct - like a lion brought up in a zoo hunts less efficiently but similarly to a lion of a forest. Similarly the pack hunting behaviour can be explained by instinct - the theory of mind is not necessary to explain pack hunting.

I mostly agree. Females do devote quite a disproportionate effort in reproduction, so that explains it partially. But the questions you put do raise serious doubts on this study.

This could be because this study wasn't published 10 years ago?

Not sure whether you understand how you missed the point by miles. Same is true in Microsoft monopoly case too - for different reasons. New features and old features of Solaris and IRIX don't matter because no one is using Solaris or IRIX (by MS monopoly hypothesis).