Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Power (Score 1) 125

by brianosaurus (#37682208) Attached to: Cloned Drug-Sniffing Dogs Prove Successful In South Korea

Its math. If calories expended are greater than what you eat, you will lose weight. Track your calories and start exercising. I'll accept that there are probably some people who are genetically challenged at losing weight, just like there are people with crazy metabolisms that can't gain weight no matter how much they eat. But even if you don't get all the way to a 6-pack, you'll still feel good, have more energy, and (most importantly) be healthier.

Difficult weight loss is still weight loss. It will just take longer to achieve the same results. Go to a gym and talk to a nutritionist. Develop a weight loss plan (you should be able to come up with a plan based on your starting weight and you goal in 1 session), then count your calories, and do moderate exercise a few times a week. Replace ramen and TV dinners with better quality food so you're getting the most out of those calories.

Comment: Re:What is the goal? (Score 1) 1799

by brianosaurus (#37671776) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: How Do You View the Wall Street Protests?

Continuing that thought... How many of the protestors vote regularly? And how many of them vote on emotional issues (gay marriage, marijuana, abortion) instead of issues that actually affect them on a daily basis? If it is more important for you and your children to be unemployed, broke, and stupid than for homosexuals to share healthcare benefits, keep it up.

The message to the 1% is falling on deaf ears (to be fair, some of them probably get a good laugh out of it). Instead target the rest of the 99% to pull their heads out of their asses and vote for real changes that will benefit themselves.

Comment: Re:What is the goal? (Score 1) 1799

by brianosaurus (#37671558) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: How Do You View the Wall Street Protests?

Congress is on the payroll because Congress has the wrong people in it. The 99% (or at least 50% of them) voted those corrupt politicians into office to "represent" them. I support these protests as far as raising awareness, but none of their messages will be heard by the 1%. The message should be to the rest of the 99%, to get out and vote and make change happen. Ignore the BS, and vote on what really affects you on a daily basis. Gay marriage and medical marijuana didn't cause the recession.

Comment: Re:So why aren't we doing it? (Score 1) 990

by brianosaurus (#37232650) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Could We Deal With the End of Time Zones?

We still want noon to be when the sun is overhead, and midnight to be the middle of the night.

They would be, they just wouldn't necessarily be at 12:00. Or at 0:00. I'm not saying its a good idea, just that it descriptive time would still work, and would in fact be more useful as you travel around. Midnight and noon. Sunrise and sunset. Dusk and dawn and twilight and all that. Business hours. Hammer time.

Comment: Re:Less than one percent... (Score 2, Interesting) 285

by brianosaurus (#33244564) Attached to: The Fuel Cost of Obesity

All I see in the picture is some grotesquely obese guy with a poor fashion choice. And he looks pretty cramped in that Ford Excursion. ;)

The article actually specifically mentions that issue, at the end of the first paragraph, "Obesity has caused more people to buy larger vehicles..." I'm sure most of the increase in (non-commercial) car size is due to enormously fat people not fitting into normal cars (and bottoming out suspension, etc). That's pretty much common sense, and we've already had the "bigger cars use more gas" discussion. This article is trying to hit closer to home with the message, "your big fat ass uses more gas". Even a big, inefficient gas guzzler uses more gas hauling around a load of 300lb passengers than it does passengers 2/3 or half that size. Other wasteful behavior is pretty much irrelevant to this discussion, and doesn't negate the facts that body weight affects gas mileage. No matter how much unnecessary cargo, or sand bags, or whatever else you might have in the car (that can easily be removed if you wanted), your ass is always with you, putting additional load on the car's engine. No matter how stupid it is to go grocery shopping in a lifted H2 on 44s with a chrome winch, and an ATV on the roof rack, it still uses even more fuel if the driver is 200lb overweight.

Sure the article says its only .7% increase overall, but that increase is heavily weighted towards obese people. Skinny drivers help bring up the average MPG, so the impact doesn't seem as great. The increase in fuel consumption due to obesity affects *my* gas-mileage by about 0 percent. My 300-lb friend probably makes way more than .7% more trips to the gas station than I do, since he's carrying the burden (so to speak). That extra billion gallons of waste isn't evenly distributed across the population (though the environmental impact of burning that extra fuel to drag one's fat ass around town affects us all equally).

I'd be curious to see the study break out the numbers by weight class, or maybe have a test group of various people driving the same car (or same kind of car, and do it for several models) to see how their specific weights affect mileage. If they showed that being 50-100lb overweight actually costs you (just guessing) 10% more annually, that would have way more impact.

Interestingly, the bigger cars will show less of a performance decrease from obese drivers, since an extra 200-lb on the driver's body is a much smaller percentage of the total vehicle weight. Adding a 300-lb passenger to an 8000 SUV won't really affect much; its a drop in the bucket. Add a 300-lb passenger to a Toyota Corolla, and you can immediately tell a difference in the way the car accelerates and handles. As an obese driver of an H2 sheds weight, there will hardly be any increase in gas mileage; a 100-lb weight loss is barely more than a 1% change in total vehicle weight; mileage might increase from 11 mpg to 11.1 mpg. Drop 100-lb from your body and an econobox getting 35+mpg will gain a couple of mpg. The fact that obese people don't fit in efficient cars dilutes the real problem even more.

Comment: Re:I Am Shocked! (Score 1) 362

by brianosaurus (#31541996) Attached to: UMG To Price New CDs Under $10

Amen!

While it is conceivable that some super-hearing audiophiles can detect a difference when listening in their acoustically perfect sound-proof rooms, that's hardly "regular listening" for most people. In any other place where there is actual ambient noise, decent mp3s are probably indistinguishable from CDs (especially newer CDs where they over-process and compress everything so it seems "louder").

CDs will continue to be the primary choice as soon as music stores stop closing down.

Digital downloads are the primary choice for the younger generations, and the rest of the population is trending that way. Convenience is king. Physical media is becoming a niche market, much in the way vinyl records and tapes gave way to CDs (even though many people continue to claim that CDs "fail on decent audio equipment for regular listening" compared to dragging a small chunk of polished rock through grooves on a plastic disc).

Comment: Re:Compact Disks, or "Compact Disks" (Score 1) 362

by brianosaurus (#31541720) Attached to: UMG To Price New CDs Under $10

I would hope we're past that already. It has been tried and failed many times. Trying it again as "customer abuse with a better price point" would fail just as badly. I expect its the same product as now, just priced to sell, instead of priced to sit on shelves and boost pageviews for The Pirate Bay.

Comment: Re:Hunters.. (Score 1) 1010

by brianosaurus (#31275014) Attached to: iPad Will Beat Netbooks With "Magic"

Apple chooses their price point. They don't choose what people are willing to pay for an item.

If Apple had brought it out at $1000, I doubt many people would buy them. At $500 I'm still not interested in it. If I'm in their target market (and I think I should be) then it is overpriced by at least a couple hundred dollars.

If they want me to pay more for it, then it needs to do more. A camera would be nice. Multitasking is a necessity. I hate the constant starting and stopping of apps on the iPhone (and if the next iPhone OS doesn't support backgrounding third party apps, I'm bailing on the iPhone, too). Also multiple apps sharing the big screen (instead of the lame 2x blurrification of the iPhone apps, run 4 of them on screen at a time!).

Comment: Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... (Score 4, Interesting) 533

by brianosaurus (#30991988) Attached to: Electric Bicycles Surging In Popularity

I have a "hybrid" electric bike. It has an electric motor in the hub, and regular pedals for the human powerplant. The motor works best as an assist, particularly nice on steep hills. I mainly use the electric motor to get up to speed, then can pedal to maintain. Using both at the same time gives a good quick launch from a standstill. The electric motor on mine tops out at about 15mph, which is decent. I can go faster on a normal bike, but I break a sweat. :)

Comment: Re:They're artificial limitations. That's the prob (Score 3, Insightful) 1634

by brianosaurus (#30936588) Attached to: iPad Is a "Huge Step Backward"

It still works, just slower. There is always alternative product.

I'm not quite ready to dump my iPhone over this, but I won't be buying an iPad. I can accept these limitations on my mobile phone, since I mostly just use the stock set of apps anyway. If these sorts of limits start showing up in MacOSX, then I'll "upgrade" my MacBook Pro (and my 3 other Macs) to linux instead of the next great feline. That's not a huge ding to Apple, but once I'm off their OS, I'll stop buying their hardware. I'll stop suggesting it to my family and friends.

Comment: Re:Oh Apple, let the Apps through already! (Score 1) 249

by brianosaurus (#30914366) Attached to: Google Gets Its iPhone Voice

While it's true that data packages are expensive, I use the hell out of my data package. I'd guess the margin on data usage is nowhere near the insane margins on text messages. And I still have to pay for text messages on top of my data plan. It's not a choice of one or the other. If I could text for free via the data channel, then AT&T would lose $5/month (or whatever my text plan costs me now).

Comment: Re:You don't need to yell into your phone. (Score 1) 585

by brianosaurus (#30899446) Attached to: The Cell Phone Has Changed — New Etiquette Needed

I like having a unique ringtone on my phone, but it is solely for my own benefit. When I hear my ringtone, I absolutely know that it is my phone ringing. I don't play the musical snippet as a "favor" to you. Neither do I give a crap who else hears it. Its my signal that my cellphone has a call.

Cell phones are so prevalent that using any of the default sounds ends up with too many false alarms. Go to a construction site and play the "Nextel chirp". Then watch everyone within earshot check their phone. Its pretty funny, and demonstrates a failure of the alert tone.

I agree with you that the "ringtone industry" is a huge scam, exploiting teenagers and poor people. Ringtones are not status symbols. But if you seriously have an issue with someone's choice of ringtone, get over yourself.

It's time to boot, do your boot ROMs know where your disk controllers are?

Working...