Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:not the point (Score 1) 370

by bingoUV (#48931439) Attached to: Why Screen Lockers On X11 Cannot Be Secure

You're having to resort to plain lies - what does that suggest?

I never said you were right about run levels. Actually you didn't mention run levels at all, at least in the post I replied to are any that I remember.

Run levels strictly were a concept in sys V init. Most distributions don't even use that init any more, so 2 out of 3 distributions using run level 2 is laughable. Clearly you have no clue what you're talking about.

Comment: Re:not the point (Score 1) 370

by bingoUV (#48930405) Attached to: Why Screen Lockers On X11 Cannot Be Secure

So where resume from hibernate is set to appear with a locked screen, closing the lid means hibernate + lock screen. Closing the lid, to be not "defeated by if it's function is complex / unreliable from an end user point of view"[sic] needs to make sure that hibernate + lock screen "reigns supreme" once lid is closed. But it doesn't. So MS windows isn't any better from your own perspective.

Same is the case where closing the lid means suspend+lock. Or someone going away from the system after Start -> shutdown, or Start -> shutdown -> restart assuming autologin is not enabled. A short lived bug which you lived with for a long time doesn't make it the expected behaviour rather than a bug.

And you are wrong about ctrl-alt-backspace not logging out the user from X. In run level 3 + startx, it doesn't log out from the text terminal which started startx, but that is a well known security reason to run in run level 5, where user X session is always logged out unless auto-login is enabled.

Ever since run-levels stopped being that important, ctrl-alt-backspace has been by default disabled by most distributions. Still *DM login has this security advantage over text login + startx as is well known.

Comment: Re:Again, why? (Score 1) 169

by bingoUV (#48902089) Attached to: Google Just Made It Easier To Run Linux On Your Chromebook

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?

Comment: Re:Just give the option to turn it off... (Score 1) 820

by bingoUV (#48882621) Attached to: Fake Engine Noise Is the Auto Industry's Dirty Little Secret

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.

Comment: Re:Limited power to change working situation... (Score 1) 348

by bingoUV (#48872333) Attached to: Regular Exercise Not Enough To Make Up For Sitting All Day

So where exactly is the part where they establish that standing desks DO correlate with good health???

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

Uhm, yeah, I never made the claim you're stating above. Your claim about what I said is pure 100% unadulterated bullshit

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

Comment: Re:Limited power to change working situation... (Score 1) 348

by bingoUV (#48866583) Attached to: Regular Exercise Not Enough To Make Up For Sitting All Day

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.

Comment: Re:Limited power to change working situation... (Score 1) 348

by bingoUV (#48865887) Attached to: Regular Exercise Not Enough To Make Up For Sitting All Day

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.

Comment: Re:Limited power to change working situation... (Score 1) 348

by bingoUV (#48865795) Attached to: Regular Exercise Not Enough To Make Up For Sitting All Day

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.

Comment: Re:Limited power to change working situation... (Score 1) 348

by bingoUV (#48865459) Attached to: Regular Exercise Not Enough To Make Up For Sitting All Day

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.

Comment: Re:Limited power to change working situation... (Score 1) 348

by bingoUV (#48864337) Attached to: Regular Exercise Not Enough To Make Up For Sitting All Day

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 :

The metabolic cost of standing is about 50% greater than the metabolic cost of sitting, but in both cases the absolute load is very small so the incremental increase in benefit is infinitesimal

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.

Comment: Re:Really? Theory of Mind (Score 1) 219

by bingoUV (#48858397) Attached to: Why Some Teams Are Smarter Than Others

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.

Comment: Re:Really? Theory of Mind (Score 1) 219

by bingoUV (#48855215) Attached to: Why Some Teams Are Smarter Than Others

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.

Comment: Re:Really? Theory of Mind (Score 1) 219

by bingoUV (#48855195) Attached to: Why Some Teams Are Smarter Than Others

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.

"Well hello there Charlie Brown, you blockhead." -- Lucy Van Pelt

Working...