Normally I listen the FM radio with my cellphone. first of all there are some news and interview programmes thar are quite interesting or *gasp* I like in the summer afternoon listen at the football and basket radio description while jogging or walking the dog.
I could surely use the streaming service from the radio but: normally I jog in the countryside so it's possible to have poor cellular coverage or only 2G coverage, but more importantly FM radio battery consumption is way lower than having to leave the 3G/4G data transfer on, not to mention to save the data cap.
Of course I have always the solution to take back my old MP3 player+FM radio and the smartphone and solve my problem, but actually the deal maker for my current cellphone was the FM Radio Option
Which is why I wish type II had a different name. There is no "cure" for type I - there is no magic combination of exercise and diet that can make it better. Diet control and exercise are required to manage type I, but the fact is the body is damaged and cannot regulate it's insulin levels (and as a result, cannot regulate blood glucose levels). People spreading misinformation like that is one of my biggest pet peeves (that, and all of the "oh, but you're not fat!" type of remarks that I get).
Actually even in Type II diabetes and MODY there's acually no cure: you have to manage it with diet and lifestyle and if you're lucky the medication you've to take are pills and not insuline shots. But the body is indeed damaged. In type II diabetes normally you've a reduced insulin production so you're going to have blood glucose swings if you don't take medications and start to eat badly.
I know some people with type II diabetes that are quite skinny and have an athletic body, due dieting and exercises, so I suppose that comment is made also with type II guys.
I agree that public works is a good alternative to GBI. It also help people feel like they are contributing. There are plenty of jobs that could be invented from making trails, to picking up trash, to tutoring. Even something as simple as paying people to volunteer at the 501c3 of their choice. Another option though (or maybe in combination) would be to start reducing the work week in sync with the job loss. If the maximum work week was 40 hours and the government mandated 39 this should in theory lower unemployment by approximately 2.5% when companies hire to replace all that lost work.
The problem with reducing working hours it that by most employer is perceived as "bad" so they'll push for mandate overtime, possibly without pay for it. Especially for things that aren't easily automated: the classic factory forker is already automated but say the maintenance operator is not and its job isn't so easily automatable
The private sector tries to automate some jobs that are not so easily automatable with automation anyway when for instance the work week is well defined and requested, for instance because worker unions are strong and a treacherous or untrained employeee could make big damages.
One example are the banks, where the clerks oprating with cash are replaced with ATM and clerks not operating on cash: this is a big disservice for customers, that if they have to make a special operation or have a problem, or simply the advanced ATM are out of order and they need a cashier' check, they have to wait in long queues or worse find the bank open, but nobody is authorized to make the transaction.
There are many industrial processes and machines running ancient hardware. Also common in the medical field.
A local radio station I service (IT) finally replaced an audio editing computer last year. This computer was running Windows 95. Why? A 'bespoke' audio editing card, which required an EISA bus. So why not some other software solution? Because this software did EXACTLY what they wanted to do, was very easy to use, and very easy to train new users on.
I think also that the fast pace of hardware innovations and ditching older interface in the IT industry in respect other field of technology and manufacturing makes different vision of what ancient is. Add to this that the older equipment still in use today after 20 or 30 years of use self demonstrates its reliability and fitting for the job in most cases. Unfortunately in the nineties the most cost effective and flexible option at the time was to use an off-the-shelf PC running a DOS-based software instead of a custom hardware solution, or a fully custom one. Unfortunately the idea "get rid of old trusty interfaces, serial, parallel, vga, audio out, whathever because there's the new fancy gimmick" and "throw away backward compatibility on software" mantra of these years if making a lot of damage because of this. Older systems using custom hardware aren't affeccted so hard with this problem
You could see what happens on TV sets. Now almost all models are "smart". Finding a "dumb" TV is harder and harder, and normally the firmware and the SoC are using is the same of the smarter models, only the extra features aren't enabled when on the boot the harware is not found. Being normally the "dumb" TV with smaller panel they're considered low end models are priced less. but when the "smart" and "dumb" models with the same screen size are sold, the price difference is small.
Slowing down the traffic is a method to make a road safer, not the target to achieve when managing roads. To put thing at an extreme, people on a narrow dirt road are driving slower or not driving at all, than on a motorway but the latter one in a raining day is way safer.
You know, I don't know why Apple or some other tech company with vast amounts of idle cash doesn't just buy Comcast. I think that customers would be thrilled.
Maybe it's because they know well that there are too many nails in the coffin to make Comcast a good and profitable company. If Google prefers to put a new fiber network I think it's because it's far cheaper to start from scratch on a new technology than to have to deal with legacy thechnology that will have to be mantained for existing users and the new technology that has to be deployed.
That approach generally works, but it can be hard to maintain a healthy balance if you treat 100 Calories of Coke the same as 100 Calories of steak.
Exactly, this is because in my experience asking and advice to an expert is useful.
A dietician will make a customized diet to mantain an healthy balance, and give you advices.
If someone likes say pizza or risotto, hone has to know that are high calories food and mustn't eaten everyday. If someone likes grilled fennel, way to go, but be aware of dressings, because are low calories food and so on.
Even wine and beer could be a part of an healty diet...
The other important thin is that the bare calories counting isn't useful due the variance on food composition. The calorie consumption is also a very rough estimate and depends on the daily chores. Add to this that the human body react differently on changes of calories intake, so a feedback loop is mandatory. If someone sees the weight going up, one should limit the food intake, otherwise one should increase. Unfortunately the daily body weight has a lot of noise, so one has to mahe at least a weekly mobile mean to extract the trend
Following the diet at the letter was meaning weigh as much I could all the food I was eating and estimate when I couldn't, say wen I was eating outside, and having one and only one meal per week where I eated a bit more, like pizza or sushi, but without overeating.
Of course some foods were banned, like carbonated dink with sugar or industrial snacks. The doctor said to me that if I wanted to eat say some chocolate, having to eat less was way better to eat the high quality one.
When last week I meet him for the control visit, he complimented me with the result and gave me the maintenance diet, that was similar to the one I was following for loss weight but with some more daily food to eat.
I think that self made diets or read on newspapers aren't going to work. Ask an expert..
With your bare hands?!?