Comment Google explains why... (Score 1) 579
But the summary does not. Sheesh.
But the summary does not. Sheesh.
Along with your work, you provide a promise not to sue, giving up all your rights to the work in question. It's clearly illegal to do that with the intent of changing your mind later.
Well, since the armchair
You misinterpret the studies it cites to mean standing desks do not corelate with good health whereas they say nothing of the sort.
So where exactly is the part where they establish that standing desks DO correlate with good health???
Uhm, yeah, I never made the claim you're stating above. Your claim about what I said is pure 100% unadulterated bullshit. I claim now that it has not been established that standing desks cause good health.
And that wasn't even my original claim. Simple fact: what is being claimed widely now is that sitting is very toxic even for those who are fit. Simple fact: that is bullshit.
And telling it to you for the 5th time - standing work does NOT prevent you from exercising.
And why exactly are you so focussed on that distraction??? 1) I never said it did. 2) That is completely irrelevant to the question of what its benefits might be.
(Well actually, foot pain, ankle pain, knee pain, hip pain, back pain, varicose veins--all potential side effects of standing desks, especially for the unfit--might in fact discourage or reduce exercise. There, I didn't say it before, because I consider it a very minor point, but since you keep on and on about it like a broken record...)
I suspect this may be a matter of the disposition of the team causing both diversity and efficiency, rather than diversity directly causing efficiency. Teams that aren't full of a-holes tend to accept more varied members and end up more diverse, and also happen to work well together...
Weeeell... My limited experience is that there is actual benefit to diversity itself. Of course the "disposition" of the team is a necessary prerequisite, but given the same disposition, but lack of diversity because of lack of qualified candidates, and you don't get the same benefits.
I really don't think we should be socially engineering too much to push women into jobs that many do not like. I really don't think 50/50 is necessary. But I definitely see some from 25-30% female (and find it hard to believe that there's not at least that many who would be interested if there weren't societal/attitude barriers).
When it comes to diversity of race and nationality, I really haven't seen a difference. In my experience white, black & asian nerds are all still nerds and the mix doesn't make a bit of difference
(But I say "black" because in my limited experience I've never hired an African-American, just African. So I can't rule out that AA vs A would indeed bring different viewpoints/attitudes.)
But you claim [slashdot.org] erroneously...
Well-designed studies support that claim, as referenced in the article I linked.
Do you want to give Karma: Insightful. Don't you want to give Karma: Funny.
I did not realize that.
When I see overrated applied to a post, I know beyond any reasonable doubt that it was moderated in spite, and not for any valid reason.
??? I use it for "incorrect" because there is no option that fits better. (Yes, it is often used inappropriately.)
I'm so sorry that you've been mislead. That really is a picture of Hitler passing Obama a fake birth certificate.
Brilliant! Here's hoping you get the mod'ing you deserve: +6 funny (& insightful)!
A lot of "facts" really are opinions anyway.
And that's why it cannot be done. Too many people would apply it to opinions they did not agree with.
Which is unfortunate, because many of the discussions here do deal in cold hard facts. And I disagree about karma, when the discussion is truly fact based, posting a falsehood as fact should absolutely damage one's karma.
Wait, if that's fake...then you're telling me no one has ever seen Obama and Hitler in the same room at the same time?!
Of course not you dumbass. That picture was clearly taken outside
If it doesn't contribute anything to fitness, why would fitness enthusiasts give their right hand to achieve similar effects?
They would not, if they have a clue what it means. A 50% rise in resting metabolism is an indicator that you've increased muscle mass (and cardiovascular capacity necessary to support it) by a huge amount. Burning 50% more calories standing than sitting is an indicator that you're standing--it indicates absolutely nothing about your fitness level.
See this [harvard.edu]. 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.
When it comes to fitness (and health benefits) burning an extra 40 or so calories an hour for 8-hour period is in no way equivalent to burning 150 calories an hour for 2 hours.
I already do this on Facebook, but I always provide a link to Politifacts or Factcheck or even Snopes. If you don't, you'll just be that guy who says "no" because he's to naive to believe that Obama already has secret death panels that kill millions of Americans each year.
Wait, you mean that picture of Obama shaking hands with Hitler was fake? Gosh, sure could have fooled me. (Tea Partiers, the pathetic trolls of conservative politics...)
Exactly my 1st thought. Maybe not "false" exactly, but I've long wanted to be able to mod comments "-1 incorrect". Of course I also want a "+1 funny AND insightful".
Kleeneness is next to Godelness.
