Even before the buyout, the CM team refused patches to basically integrate pdroid into the mod, for fear of "angering developers." So even if something like this works, all the bad guys have to do is hit up the app market for the data it's sucking up anyway.
FSVO "usable" depending on what game and how popular it is. (Disclaimer: This information is ~ 1.5 years old. YMMV)
The big problem with PCSX2 is that it was written with only two threads, and then cpu growth went horizontal (more cores) instead of keeping vertical (faster cores), so if it's not a popular game that gets its own tweaks (Final Fantasy anything, Persona, etc) you can be using a major beefy box that could run Skyrim on "ultra" while running a Xubuntu VM, and you're still going to have a bad time trying to play the original Ratchet and Clank.
Of course, rewriting the thing would be a massive undertaking, so I kind of gave up on watching it. Sad, really, considering the awesome library of PS2 games out there.
You still maintain weight if you take in less calories than you're burning.
And how, exactly, do you determine that with any accuracy? Sure, you've got the BMR formula that's essentially worked from averages, but we don't come born with a gauge that tells us what we've burned, or that when we drop caloric intake 33%, whether our body is thriving, or has dropped its BMR by 30% to compensate.
And no, I'm not being snarky here. This is exactly the problem I've run into recently. I changed my diet and dropped my caloric intake, sharply. According to the smug "calories in < calories out, simple as that" philosophy, I should have been melting weight off like a mo-fo. Instead, I just felt like I had to sleep for 13 hours a day - and I don't mean I felt lazy. I mean I came home from a normal work day feeling like I did when I used to do a 24-hours straight crunch session.
Protein (and it takes more calories to burn protein than any other calorie)
Is this right? I seem to remember (admittedly, this was nearly 20 years ago now) that fat and protein were about equal, and that carbs burned much easier. IIRC, the ratio was about 4:9:9.
It is funny how for every fad diet there are tons of people who say it worked for them. That seems to be proof right there that whatever it is that works must be common to all of the diets.
There are also tons of people who say it didn't. Of course, the response from the proponents of the diet in question (be it Atkins, South Beach, Banana Splits, whatever) is just like Agile development: if it didn't work, you didn't do it right.
I wouldn't say that's 'proof' that there needs to be a common factor, so much as evidence that there's quite a bit of variation in individual metabolisms.
No. Calories in, calories burned, calories stored, calories "lost" (to excretion). Human metabolism is not a closed system. Biology.
I've never been able to wrap my brain around it, probably because of the aforementioned "absolutist" mindset.
I can see how an event being outside of any real sphere of effect makes it irrelevant to us for 3.8 billion years, but saying it didn't happen until it's been observed happening just sounds like an internet troll to me.
That's rather solipsistic, isn't it?
He said CC and he meant it. Part of the logic (he even said it explicitly) is that the boss sees "Oh crap, now all these other people in the company know what's going on, and will be watching to see what I do about it."
Until a third grader eats his pop tart in the wrong sequence of bites.
I'd be content with a very satisfying "thump."
That's where the "up to" comes in.
To alter the old aphorism:
Sane, personable, capable: Select up to two.
However there is nothing about this that changes the fact that you still have expenses such as those that I have listed.
Nothing but fact was even relevant. I didn't say anything about your personal views or charitable donations. I said that the implication in your original post, that it's inevitable because of "laws of economics" mean that every "free" service is going to find some way to be monetized -- probably abusively -- is flawed.
The end is likely correct, that they will be, but that's not because of laws of economics, but because of a pervasive culture of greed. For some reason, we can't seem to come to terms with letting something exist without slapping dollar signs all over it.