rhett7660
Dec 30, 01:13 PM
Creative positioning + bed with a good bit of "give", e.g. Memory Foam = enjoyment without that "crushing" feeling. This has served me well, and that's the best way I can explain it without going into TMI territory.
This is a great post!!! And good lord, 30K calorie supper! UGHGHG... Well at least she has goals and is planning on getting to those goals even if it kills her!
This is a great post!!! And good lord, 30K calorie supper! UGHGHG... Well at least she has goals and is planning on getting to those goals even if it kills her!
mikerr
May 3, 08:11 AM
Is it easy for us to install an SSD by ourselves? (I'm not a geek)
Previous iMac HD upgrades have involved removing the screen - yes, really.
Hope these are better in that respect.
UK prices start at �999 for the 21.5" with 2.5GHz quad-core i5, vs $1,199
that's a really poor exchange rate dollar to pound !
Previous iMac HD upgrades have involved removing the screen - yes, really.
Hope these are better in that respect.
UK prices start at �999 for the 21.5" with 2.5GHz quad-core i5, vs $1,199
that's a really poor exchange rate dollar to pound !
JLL
Mar 31, 04:12 PM
So how about a to-do list, hey Apple?
What do you mean? There is and always has been a To Do list in iCal.
What do you mean? There is and always has been a To Do list in iCal.
wordoflife
May 3, 11:29 PM
I can wait, but if I seriously need to buy a phone, I'd just go ahead and plunge for the 4.
Waybo
Apr 4, 03:02 PM
ISO 200, 92mm, 0 ev, f/6.3, 1/640
hob
Oct 23, 08:17 AM
oh great. so those mac users who are possibly interested in actually getting a legitimate version now have to pay a lot...
...kinda puts one of getting a legitimate version...
...kinda puts one of getting a legitimate version...
Buschmaster
Apr 23, 06:29 PM
Is it possible that they would make a phone that would cover both AT&T's and T-Mobile's bands? AT&T could really combat the coverage problems they've had on the west coast with that, correct?
KnightWRX
Dec 30, 10:43 PM
Under normal circumstances, you're more or less right.
No, I'm 100% right. Weight control is about calories. End of story. Calories in < Calories out and you lose weight. Opposite and you gain weight. There's no more or less here, that is the very basic premise. You want to discuss specifics that affect calories in/calories out, but that's flawed. Teach people the base first, and let them balance themselves out. You can very easily test your metabolic rate.
However, many supersize people have participated in crash diets, drugs and other questionable regimens over the years in search of quick-fix thinness. Doing so can, after a while, sabotage the body's normal metabolic rate and endocrine output, making it much harder for these people to find the balance in their caloric equation without depriving themselves of needed micronutrients (vitamins, minerals).
So you're saying these people have abnormally low "Calories out". It still comes down to that very simple equation. These people first have to fix their calories out, get their metabolism back straight, then they can fix their calories in.
It is that easy to lose weight. People don't know this very simple and basic concept, they think "Fat/Sugar" has to do with weight, which is completely false. "Low Saturated Fat!" on a box of cookies means squat if the cookies are 170 calories for 3 vs 180 calories for 3 of the same cookies with normal saturated fat. You still can't eat the whole box in one sitting and think "hey, it's low fat, I can't gain weight from this".
You'd be surprised how many people think this way.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but the question that runs through my mind is: if it's so easy, why do people struggle with it? Why are there entire industries built around people that struggle with losing weight on their own?
People struggle because like someone pointed out, they lack willpower and I'll add that they lack education. Calorie control is the only way to lose weight. There's seriously no other way, since weight is based off of calories and calories alone. To lose weight, you need a calorie deficiency. To be more precise, 3500 calories = 1 lbs, each way. So you need to create a calorie deficiency of 3500 calories before you lose 1 lbs. My metabolic rate is around 1740, that's what I burn each day without lifting a finger. Add in my normal routine, and I'm around the magic 2000 calorie diet. Let's not add in my gym routine. So to lose 1 lbs in 7 days, I need to go on a 1500 calorie diet per day. That's going to give me a deficiency of 500 per day, times 7 days, 1 lbs lost.
There's entire industries because they profit from it. Some people like to buy "instant" solutions. 1 lbs in 7 days ? Bah humbug, too long, I have 100 to lose! There's no instant solutions to weight loss, quite the contrary, the entire weight loss industry makes money by keeping people fat and coming back for miracle cures. Their proposed plans of "1 shake/bar for breakfeast, same for lunch and a balanced diner" is awful. First, it should be the opposite, a good breakfeast and then their bars/shakes for lunch and diner. Breakfeast is where you get your day's energy. Second, that's not calorie control since it doesn't explain that it is trying to create a calorie deficit. So people just still overeat, they compensate the calories they didn't eat at breakfeast/lunch with a huge "balanced" diner.
I'm going to just assume you are young and have time on your hands. Because when I was young and had time staying trim was quite easy., Let's talk when you're in your 30's and are a busy professional :rolleyes:
I'm 32, work 35 hours per week in IT (sitting down on my ass), am on call with tons of pages coming in once every 2 weeks. I have a girlfriend, a mortgage and a dog.
Again, staying trim has nothing to do with having time or being busy or not. If you spend less calories, eat less calories. Balance your calories in to your calories out and you'll stay trim. Sure it means doing a bit more research into what you're eating, but that's not impossible. It also means listening to your body. Feeling "stuffed" means you overate. You should never feel full or stuffed. A donut is not faster to mow down than an Apple. It's not more filling either. It's tons more calories though.
You made an assumption about me and you were wrong. You should look at yourself and what you are or aren't doing that is making you fat, not make up excuses.
look. I'm not trying to make excuses. I'm not THAT out of shape. I do bikram yoga 4 times per week and walk a lot. I just can't be as extensive about it as I was in my youthful years. I'm very healthy but I do need to drop 20ish lbs. per doctors orders. I've completely cut out any sugar drinks other than water and a few organic smoothies and an occaional glass of wine here and there. But at my age and with my busy schedule it's just not as easy as it was when I was 25. Not an excuse, just a simple fact.
But again, it's just because you don't understand your caloric need for a day and you either overeat or eat just the right amount to maintain your weight. You don't even need to exercise to create a calorie deficiency. I think you're the perfect example of what I'm talking about, you don't understand the very basic concept, which has nothing to do with time spent, but rather food ingested.
People need to get it out of their heads that it is about exercise. It's 10% working out, 90% food. Get your nutrition right and you won't need to exercise a day in your life. If you want to get fit however, make sure to balance your nutrition around your added caloric need to not drop weight too fast or at all if your goal is maintaining.
No, I'm 100% right. Weight control is about calories. End of story. Calories in < Calories out and you lose weight. Opposite and you gain weight. There's no more or less here, that is the very basic premise. You want to discuss specifics that affect calories in/calories out, but that's flawed. Teach people the base first, and let them balance themselves out. You can very easily test your metabolic rate.
However, many supersize people have participated in crash diets, drugs and other questionable regimens over the years in search of quick-fix thinness. Doing so can, after a while, sabotage the body's normal metabolic rate and endocrine output, making it much harder for these people to find the balance in their caloric equation without depriving themselves of needed micronutrients (vitamins, minerals).
So you're saying these people have abnormally low "Calories out". It still comes down to that very simple equation. These people first have to fix their calories out, get their metabolism back straight, then they can fix their calories in.
It is that easy to lose weight. People don't know this very simple and basic concept, they think "Fat/Sugar" has to do with weight, which is completely false. "Low Saturated Fat!" on a box of cookies means squat if the cookies are 170 calories for 3 vs 180 calories for 3 of the same cookies with normal saturated fat. You still can't eat the whole box in one sitting and think "hey, it's low fat, I can't gain weight from this".
You'd be surprised how many people think this way.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but the question that runs through my mind is: if it's so easy, why do people struggle with it? Why are there entire industries built around people that struggle with losing weight on their own?
People struggle because like someone pointed out, they lack willpower and I'll add that they lack education. Calorie control is the only way to lose weight. There's seriously no other way, since weight is based off of calories and calories alone. To lose weight, you need a calorie deficiency. To be more precise, 3500 calories = 1 lbs, each way. So you need to create a calorie deficiency of 3500 calories before you lose 1 lbs. My metabolic rate is around 1740, that's what I burn each day without lifting a finger. Add in my normal routine, and I'm around the magic 2000 calorie diet. Let's not add in my gym routine. So to lose 1 lbs in 7 days, I need to go on a 1500 calorie diet per day. That's going to give me a deficiency of 500 per day, times 7 days, 1 lbs lost.
There's entire industries because they profit from it. Some people like to buy "instant" solutions. 1 lbs in 7 days ? Bah humbug, too long, I have 100 to lose! There's no instant solutions to weight loss, quite the contrary, the entire weight loss industry makes money by keeping people fat and coming back for miracle cures. Their proposed plans of "1 shake/bar for breakfeast, same for lunch and a balanced diner" is awful. First, it should be the opposite, a good breakfeast and then their bars/shakes for lunch and diner. Breakfeast is where you get your day's energy. Second, that's not calorie control since it doesn't explain that it is trying to create a calorie deficit. So people just still overeat, they compensate the calories they didn't eat at breakfeast/lunch with a huge "balanced" diner.
I'm going to just assume you are young and have time on your hands. Because when I was young and had time staying trim was quite easy., Let's talk when you're in your 30's and are a busy professional :rolleyes:
I'm 32, work 35 hours per week in IT (sitting down on my ass), am on call with tons of pages coming in once every 2 weeks. I have a girlfriend, a mortgage and a dog.
Again, staying trim has nothing to do with having time or being busy or not. If you spend less calories, eat less calories. Balance your calories in to your calories out and you'll stay trim. Sure it means doing a bit more research into what you're eating, but that's not impossible. It also means listening to your body. Feeling "stuffed" means you overate. You should never feel full or stuffed. A donut is not faster to mow down than an Apple. It's not more filling either. It's tons more calories though.
You made an assumption about me and you were wrong. You should look at yourself and what you are or aren't doing that is making you fat, not make up excuses.
look. I'm not trying to make excuses. I'm not THAT out of shape. I do bikram yoga 4 times per week and walk a lot. I just can't be as extensive about it as I was in my youthful years. I'm very healthy but I do need to drop 20ish lbs. per doctors orders. I've completely cut out any sugar drinks other than water and a few organic smoothies and an occaional glass of wine here and there. But at my age and with my busy schedule it's just not as easy as it was when I was 25. Not an excuse, just a simple fact.
But again, it's just because you don't understand your caloric need for a day and you either overeat or eat just the right amount to maintain your weight. You don't even need to exercise to create a calorie deficiency. I think you're the perfect example of what I'm talking about, you don't understand the very basic concept, which has nothing to do with time spent, but rather food ingested.
People need to get it out of their heads that it is about exercise. It's 10% working out, 90% food. Get your nutrition right and you won't need to exercise a day in your life. If you want to get fit however, make sure to balance your nutrition around your added caloric need to not drop weight too fast or at all if your goal is maintaining.
NT1440
May 1, 11:54 PM
are you suggesting we give him a pass? :rolleyes:
Where the **** did I ever suggest anything of the sort?
Because I'm not jumping for joy and mindlessly chanting it means I didn't want justice done for a mass murderer?
Who was talking about stretches earlier? :mad:
Where the **** did I ever suggest anything of the sort?
Because I'm not jumping for joy and mindlessly chanting it means I didn't want justice done for a mass murderer?
Who was talking about stretches earlier? :mad:
bella92108
Jun 6, 08:38 PM
Let me guess: you're not a racist, but...
:rolleyes:
Sorry, Shaniqwa was the first name I could think of when I thought of 8 kids and irresponsible parenting. My apologies.
:rolleyes:
Sorry, Shaniqwa was the first name I could think of when I thought of 8 kids and irresponsible parenting. My apologies.
rjtyork
Apr 22, 04:56 PM
nah. I doubt they would do this. .2 inches is not that much bigger and would cause problems with designing apps to look good on it. I can see a 4 inch screen, and them getting rid of the home button. What they'll do for the home button is make the screen clickable at the bottom where the home button used to be. It would be similar to squeezing a magic trackpad. That would enable them to get rid of the home button and expand the screen to that area, making it a 4 inch screen. I can also see the area above the screen and next to the camera and ear piece become touch sensitive, enabling "drag down" menus that would enable multitasking or enable quick settings. For example, you could drag down from one corner to get multitasking menu and switch back to a different app, (8 instead of 4, I hope) and drag down from the other corner to quickly adjust screen brightness and turn your wifi hotspot on or off. They may also make the back touch sensitive, but I can't imagine a use for that, so I don't know what they'll do with it. But they made a glass back for a reason. I think they have a really good idea of what to do with a touch sensitive back.
kevingaffney
Apr 22, 04:46 PM
Before seeing this, I had more or less decided I would skip the next upgrade but I have to admit I love that design. Stick 64 gigs in it and I'll be at the top of the queue
iMikeT
Apr 22, 06:53 PM
MacRUMORS.
ChrisA
Nov 4, 12:31 PM
Maybe I need more RAM, but I was dissapointed to be reminded of Virtual PC, the way it totally slows the rest of my Mac down...
If you are going to run two operating systems then your computer needs to have the resources for the sum of the two systems. So if Mac OSX needs 1GB to run well and so does Windows XP then you need 2GB of ram. Same for the CPU. If a 2Ghz is needed for Windows and a 2Ghz chip for MacOS then you need either a 4Ghz chip or a two core 2Ghz chip. You don't get anything for free. If you want to run two computers you need twice the hardware.
I'll bet this runs great on a Mac Pro
If you are going to run two operating systems then your computer needs to have the resources for the sum of the two systems. So if Mac OSX needs 1GB to run well and so does Windows XP then you need 2GB of ram. Same for the CPU. If a 2Ghz is needed for Windows and a 2Ghz chip for MacOS then you need either a 4Ghz chip or a two core 2Ghz chip. You don't get anything for free. If you want to run two computers you need twice the hardware.
I'll bet this runs great on a Mac Pro
albarran9
Jan 29, 01:22 AM
I'm currently testing one out :)
Thoughts so far?
Thoughts so far?
mc68k
Oct 20, 07:33 PM
Now I am itching to buy a MP :ptoo bad they dont have a midrange tower with an i5 or i7
spencers
Jan 28, 12:17 PM
To add to my post-workout recovery drink:
creatinepower.jpg
Drink lots and lots of water
creatinepower.jpg
Drink lots and lots of water
Dagless
Nov 11, 07:14 AM
http://www.cheapdvd-boxsets.co.uk/images/frasier-complete-box-set-dvd.jpghttp://www.ukdvdsale.com/images/the%20Xfiles.jpg
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41Ql6PZr0sL._SL500_AA300_.jpghttp://sam.animeblogger.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/zhpcover.jpg
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41Ql6PZr0sL._SL500_AA300_.jpghttp://sam.animeblogger.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/zhpcover.jpg
goobot
Apr 28, 10:38 PM
Using my digital calipers the white is .01" thicker, I am using the same case from my black iPhone and it seems to fit just fine. Didn't notice any difference till I heard about it.
nice job
nice job
Reventon
Sep 16, 05:02 PM
Downloaded ***** My Dad Says from iBooks for my iPhone as well as ordered the Big Book of Top Gear 2011 from amazon.co.uk
http://bestbuygoodprice.com/images/Sh_t-My-Dad-Says.jpg
http://images.play.com/bc/15108051x.jpg
and I got an Incase Clear Case for my iPhone 4 from Apple (technically not a purchase)
http://inform.glam.ac.uk/media/files/photos/IMG_0056_2.jpg
http://bestbuygoodprice.com/images/Sh_t-My-Dad-Says.jpg
http://images.play.com/bc/15108051x.jpg
and I got an Incase Clear Case for my iPhone 4 from Apple (technically not a purchase)
http://inform.glam.ac.uk/media/files/photos/IMG_0056_2.jpg
JohnK.O
Jul 24, 03:21 PM
well this is lovely news, but will the new MM solve the continuously gunked up scroll ball??
appleguy123
Apr 28, 02:51 PM
:D
I want to own the strip club.
And didn't you see how upset and disoriented I was by your death? I lost all track of time.
The would be the best narrative EVER.
MRVille is brothel, and 2 girls have stds.
The seer is a health department screener.
The hunter is a condom distributor.
It might have to go to the PRSI, though.
I want to own the strip club.
And didn't you see how upset and disoriented I was by your death? I lost all track of time.
The would be the best narrative EVER.
MRVille is brothel, and 2 girls have stds.
The seer is a health department screener.
The hunter is a condom distributor.
It might have to go to the PRSI, though.
FX4568
Apr 18, 06:22 PM
Okay, I am trying to play a theoretical "game," if we start bringing in factors such as "Apple will work it out," obviously, my whole argument is useless.
We must try to PREDICT what the next MBA will be in terms of WHAT WE HAVE currently.
You are saying that MBA are not meant for gaming and other stuff. I KNOW, i am not saying I will play crysis 2 on max settings, you are placing my argument on the extreme side.
Understand that what im saying is that nearly all of us are casual gamers. we want to play a game here or two, and as High Schooler, I will play more games.
But my point is that even if we get a 40% boost in our CPU, it is near useless.
For example, lets say you have 100/100 in a test. Having a theoretical 40% boost will give you a 140/100. I mean, thats cool. Overkill. That is currently the CPU we have. We have enough to accomplish our tasks, and any more would be an overkill in the things we need our computer to process.
On the other hand, on the GPU side, you have a 80/100 (which is what the NVIDIA 320m is) and we see a 30% performance drop, that will result to a 42.5/100. At lower levels, difference between a 80/100 and 42.5/100 is the difference between a pass and a fail.
Of course, having a better CPU might be fulfilling to you and might give you the sense that you are the "latest in tech," but seriously, it is not about the CPU any more, it is about SSDs, ergonomics, GPU, and ultimately, Software.
We must try to PREDICT what the next MBA will be in terms of WHAT WE HAVE currently.
You are saying that MBA are not meant for gaming and other stuff. I KNOW, i am not saying I will play crysis 2 on max settings, you are placing my argument on the extreme side.
Understand that what im saying is that nearly all of us are casual gamers. we want to play a game here or two, and as High Schooler, I will play more games.
But my point is that even if we get a 40% boost in our CPU, it is near useless.
For example, lets say you have 100/100 in a test. Having a theoretical 40% boost will give you a 140/100. I mean, thats cool. Overkill. That is currently the CPU we have. We have enough to accomplish our tasks, and any more would be an overkill in the things we need our computer to process.
On the other hand, on the GPU side, you have a 80/100 (which is what the NVIDIA 320m is) and we see a 30% performance drop, that will result to a 42.5/100. At lower levels, difference between a 80/100 and 42.5/100 is the difference between a pass and a fail.
Of course, having a better CPU might be fulfilling to you and might give you the sense that you are the "latest in tech," but seriously, it is not about the CPU any more, it is about SSDs, ergonomics, GPU, and ultimately, Software.
mondesi43
Apr 15, 01:39 PM
With the update notice officially stating When Lion ships this summer What are the chances the iMac refresh will happen at the same time? or will it be in the Fall instead?
I think iMac overhaul is in the fall right after the back to school deals are over......
I think iMac overhaul is in the fall right after the back to school deals are over......