It would be more accurate to say that the muscle is more *dense* than the fat, but I think it's obvious what he meant. A pound of muscle weighs the same as a pound of fat, but takes up less space. Hence the not uncommon "problem" of the person attempting to "lose weight" with a program involving strength training. You can lose inches (or centimeters if you prefer), while the scale doesn't move much, or even goes up. It's why most exercise based weight loss plans try to keep people focused on measurements rather than weight.

And trace amount of arsenic. Don't forget the microscopic amounts of poison :-) That said, apples are fairly unusual, most fruits are pretty good sources of nutrition, though you're right that veggies are lower calorie choices with similar nutritional profiles. I'd rather people eat apples than Ho-Hos though, even if a carrot would be better still.

Make the exercise time. There's several reasons I say this (and I hope it's clear that I say this form a position of wanting to help, not accusation). First, fitness has been shown to be more important than fatness as a predictor for a long and healthy life. It's not a panacea, and fit and lean is better than fit and fat, but fit and fat is better than thin and not fit. Second, time to exercise is the easiest chink to make in the problem's armor. You can get DVDs that you can do in your living room in half an hour. It's often not the most ideal way to exercise (though some are quite good), but it gets you moving, which is step one. Or just go for a walk every afternoon. Half hour, every afternoon, rain or shine, push a little harder every day. Third, as I said in an earlier comment, fitness begets fitness. You workout. You burn calories, and the calories don't get stored as fat... that's good. You also build muscles. Muscles are really nice things, because they burn calories at rest. So after your workout you're siting on the couch watching TV, or sleeping at night, and you're still burning more calories. I've noticed tremendous increases in my weight loss since I added strength training to my exercise regime.

It's definitely doable, and it doesn't require huge lifestyle changes. You may find that it inspires lifestyle changes... I can tell you that I spend a lot more time doing fun active things than I did 35 pounds ago; it turns out that running away from people in zombie costumes while traversing mud and obstacles is actually a huge amount of fun. That's more of a choice opened up to you by greater fitness than an actual requirement though.

Mostly stuff that Hulu just links to the network's website. I ran into this when I changed to FIOS and forgot to setup "Criminal Minds" to record. It's not on On Demand, and Hulu lists it on their site, but only links to cbs.com, so I couldn't use the XBox. We just watched it on my wife's laptop, but I definitely would have preferred the TV.

I suspect it won't do Flash or ActiveX, so it'll probably be reasonably safe. No bridge to outside world is completely safe of course, but if you limit the active content to JavaScript it probably won't be too bad. IE isn't nearly as full of holes as it used to be (not much worse than any other browser these days, really) and a lot of what is there for holes are in ActiveX. Add to that the fact that the XBox won't run unsigned code, it doesn't run Windows so any exploit would have to be completely retooled, and the fact that while there are a fair number of XBoxes out there, it's only a fraction of the number of Windows PCs; and I suspect not too many people will be willing to devote the effort to put nasties in the wild. Who know though. Maybe someone will figure out how to own the things.

The problem is the zero tolerance policy of prosecution and the general lack of understanding of the technology among law enforcement. You are no doubt correct, but making those sorts of distinctions is harder than it seems when the laws say "possession is possession". If a browser cache is defined as "possession", then it's much harder to avoid prosecution of innocents. Also I have limited experience with the sort of malware that others have commented on, but I wouldn't be surprised if something like that could populate your cache pretty fast (of course it should also leave its own signature, but again law enforcement isn't always expert in these matters). Frankly I think that a real "pedobear" would probably have at least some "favorite" stuff saved somewhere other than their browser cache; so this probably won't really hurt legitimate prosecutions much, but might help a few innocents.

To be fair, the big problems with BMI (as you yourself point out) are on the high end. Especially with athletic people (muscle weighs more than fat), but also with people who have higher bone density, or other reasons that the weight more than they "should", but aren't really fat. On the low end, it's usually a pretty reasonable measure. If your BMI is too low it almost always indicates *some* kind of problem (anorexia, glandular issues, low bone density, whatever, something is making you weigh to little). It's also, even on the high end, a pretty good tool for averaging. Most people with "obese" BMIs are in fact obese. In any individual case, though it should be followed up with more info. Athletes are notoriously on the high end of the BMI scale, despite clearly not being obese.

  I agree with the overall tone of your post though.

This. While software vendors certainly deserve some part of the blame for eating more cycles, much of that is not bloat, and any realistic analysis of the problem must also take into account usage patterns. Does Photoshop use more cycles and more RAM than it used to? Yes, for certain. It's also able to do many more things than it used to, and is regularly run on huge images by relative standards. I also think nothing of having a browser with 20-30 tabs open, while listening to MP3s, editing a photo, and say ripping a CD all at the same time.

Hell, right now at this moment I'm running a browser with around 12 tabs, listening to music and working on a Word document... No big deal you say? Well while I'm doing that I have an entire virtual machine running a whole separate OS instance so I can use Windows software while I'm simultaneously working in the native OS. This whole separate OS ALSO has a browser running (with a corporate training app that only works in IE chugging along), plus my Outlook e-mail, a few communications apps, and an Excel spreadsheet. My computer isn't even trying hard, and it's a year old low end Macbook model.

Compared to the days when I used to have to shut everything down before burning CDs (buffering errors), or ripping MP3s (way to slow otherwise, and sometimes you'd get encoding errors if the CPU was working too hard).

To be fair here, we aren't invading these countries and forcing them to accept our evil new weapon system on their soil. It's more like:

"Hey, you want a missile defense system?"
"Sure!"

IF these systems were offensively capable, Russia might have a case. IF we were building them without the consent of the nations involved, Russia might have a case. As it is they're trying to interfere with the internal matters of their former satellite nations and getting pissy because no one wants to listen to them. The Russians firmly believe that Eastern Europe is their playground and their annoyed that the Americans are playing with their puppets. It's all bullshit, they have no right to determine who Poland does or does not accept help from.

I've seen it. I wouldn't be surprised if others have as well. It's not all that sensitive as such things go actually. Which is not to say it isn't classified or that I can give out details, but it's not one of our more closely guarded secrets either. I can say that what's in there is definitely not all the threatening in a "mass destruction" sense. It can do what it was designed to do, but couldn't, like, blow up a city, or even a city block.