Y2HH

QUOTE (chw42 @ Oct 9, 2013 -> 09:11 AM) No, it's 70-30 now. 70% are on 4.0+ and about 30% are on Gingerbread. If I'm an Android app developer, I wouldn't even worry about the 30% unless I'm Facebook, Twitter, or whatever large company trying to reach the entire Android user base. I've done a few Android UIs now and I've been targeting 4.0+ on all of them. It's a big headache to do backwards compatibility for 2.3 since the UI elements are very different for 2.3 and 4.0+. Yes, but let's be honest about what Google did with Android 4.x. 4.2 is, in reality, 5.0, and 4.3 is potentially 6.0 with the API changes, but to avoid the appearance of further fragmentation, they simply started making point releases major releases. IOS 7.X uses the same the same API's across the board, the same goes for 6.X, etc. Google is introducing new, and often very big API changes with every point release, thus "cheating" the fragmentation system. IE, just because you are on 4.1 doesn't mean you can use most of the API's available to 4.3. So, while it's 70/30, that's still inaccurate as to which phones are on which API level.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Oct 9, 2013 -> 06:44 AM) The unemployment rate isn't a lie, it's just not exactly what people expect it to be. It is a lie. There is nothing accurate about the unemployment rate they throw around. FAR more than 10% of this country is unemployed. All the pseudo rules, loopholes and shortcuts they use to arrive at their number are lies, lies, and damn lies.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 8, 2013 -> 08:49 PM) I was expecting that the link would reference people dropping out of the labor force, a number tracked by the same survey, done by the government, and was not disappointed. There is nothing to be disappointed about. The number they represent as "unemployed" is an outright fallacy, but worse, is accepted by many.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Oct 9, 2013 -> 12:01 AM) I don't know if the reason iOS is easier to program for than Android is because of the languages used. From a programming standpoint, objective C doesn't actually do garbage collection for you, whereas you get that in Java. So in that respect, Java is easier on the programmer. From an efficiency standpoint, that's a very good thing for objective C since there's no overhead for a garbage collector and you, the programmer, get to manage the memory in a possibly more efficient manner. It's almost like comparing C/C++ to Java. You're most likely not going to teach a person who just started programming C/C++ and have them worry about pointers and memory references (although that was the way I was taught), you're probably going to have them learn Java and just focus on basic programming constructs without getting runtime errors telling them they have a segmentation fault. Java is not meant to be a light weight and efficient language, it's meant to be a portable language used to create portable apps that can run on almost any computer. That was Google's goal for Android, which is why Android is the way it is today. It's less efficient than other operating systems because it runs everything in a Java Virtual Machine (Dalvik in this case), while almost every other OS in the world runs code natively. Back on the ease to program for issue...the Android SDK is...well...somewhat poorly done. It's not easy to layout a UI if you don't have the Android UI XML reference sheet in front of you and even when you do have that in front of you, the SDK in Eclipse (or Android Studio) doesn't render everything. You have to actually get on a device and see if the UI looks okay. Then there's the issue with developing for 5 different screen DPIs, etc. It's a harder process, whereas on iOS, you have like 4 resolutions to develop for and the SDK, from what I hear, is much easier on the programmer. But then again, Apple charges you $100 to test out your apps and Google lets you do it for free. Pick your poison I guess. Well, it's not purely because of the languages used, but the languages used have a lot to do with it, as you said, Android is forced to virtualize everything it runs, whereas iOS runs it natively, this in and of itself if a huge boost of efficiency, speed and ability to do things Java just wasn't meant to do. Then, add in the SDK, of which Apple's is FAR superior according to most any developer, including game developers. The simpler, less fragmented landscape, containing less devices also helps this. While Apple charges, it's a yearly 100$ fee, so it's not all that expensive ringing in at less than 9$ a month. Programmers for iOS will program for iOS7 exclusively now, where Android developers often have to crack open 2.x API's for backwards compatibility since a ton of potential users are still using 2.x phones (I think it's almost half still?)

QUOTE (chw42 @ Oct 9, 2013 -> 12:06 AM) Yeah I don't know if they're better, but they're more or less on par. Google Maps for iOS was far better than the Android version for a while (mostly because Google decided to give priority to iOS in that case), but now they're pretty much the same. iOS also got Google Now, although not in the same way Android has it, and they're getting Google Play Music soon. I use Google Now, and the next version coming hooks into iOS7's notification center, background processes, etc. I've been experimenting with it and I'm trying to decide if it's actually useful or not...shows me stuff I want to see, but it's stuff I already see elsewhere. Any good uses you know for it?

QUOTE (sircaffey @ Oct 8, 2013 -> 11:37 PM) If you are trying to add muscle to your frame, then you are a bodybuilder. That's the definition. Anyways, I am just looking for science behind the protein needs of someone who is looking to add muscle by lifting heavy weight vs someone who is just active. Maybe I missed it in the articles, but the amount of muscle tissue breakdown between a jogger and a heavy weight lifter is much different. Thus, they have different protein needs. Just curious how much that is. Not trying to argue. We're all friends here. Agree to disagree. Well, this depends on a LOT of factors...some people don't need as much as others even when doing the same workouts, as their metabolism and genetics can cope with far less, while bringing equal or even better results. This is the issue with average recommendations, and people tend to simply err on the side of way too much, just to avoid giving advice of too little. 1gram+ per pound of lean bodyweight is more realistic than 1gram+ per pound. That's a lot of damn protein to be taking each day, even for me.

QUOTE (Jake @ Oct 8, 2013 -> 10:49 PM) Tis true. For example: http://www.idownloadblog.com/2012/12/13/go...iphone-android/ "Google admits that it’s even better than Google Maps for Android phones…" They eventually caught Android's app up to iOS's from what I've heard...but the same rings true for many of their other apps...iOS is easier to program for, Objective-C vs Java, thus, it has better apps.

QUOTE (sircaffey @ Oct 8, 2013 -> 08:40 PM) Those aren't the same things. Those are recommendations for normal healthy adults, not adults trying to add muscle mass, which SoxFan1 appears to want to do. The last link you gave suggested .85 per lb for "light bodybuilding", but fails to define light bodybuilding. Up from 0.6g per lb for just active people. So what's throw around heavy weight 4 days a week? Probably close to 1. http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=156380183 An informative post on calculating macros in bodybuilding. It suggests a range of 0.9g - 1.35g given different factors. There's a big difference in building mass vs just staying fit. Aside from the fact you cherry picked data from the weakest and least scientific link I posted, I like that you ignored "light bodybuilding" is ranked higher than "competitive athlete". Nobody here is a professional athlete, a bodybuilder, or even a light bodybuilder...so any recommendations you give should be tailored properly to the audience in question. I'm adding mass with ~0.60 grams per kg, but of course genetics has something to do with that. Reading between the lines, you asked for science, I delivered science, complete with authors and references in the other links provided. I read that post you linked, and her recommendations for most people fall exactly in line with the research I posted, and her recommendations for "bodybuilders" were way over the top...but you seem to forget that nobody here is a professional or even an amateur bodybuilder. Also, keep in mind that person may have a bit of education on this (bachelors, I looked her up), but PHD's with far more experience, backed by clinical studies disagree with her, as cited in the links I posted (not to mention the thousands on Google I didn't post), which aren't just random posts, but backed by the scientific evidence you requested.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 8, 2013 -> 03:32 PM) I had a Creative mp3 player and it was a drag and drop system - download music off napster, drag the file to the Creative folder and drop. Very easy. Itunes was the game changer. No other competitor had a ready made store to get music - individual songs especially - for cheap. All at a time when the whole Napster thing was dying and people were getting sued for ungodly amounts of money for downloading uploading music. Plus, they brilliantly made it difficult (and impossible for a while) to transfer your purchases, so if you spent enough money you were "stuck" with Apple products. Some continue to be that way because it's not worth the hassle of trying to get your content onto another device. Minor yet major correction here, as nobody has ever been successfully sued for just downloading anything. Where they get you is for uploading/sharing, which is usually what makes Torrents so dangerous, as most force you to share, even a small part of the download. Any piece you've uploaded makes you accountable for the whole. Simply downloading something that's out there on the Internet would be a VERY hard case to press on anyone in a court of law...which is why nobody bothers. All the big cases are brought up against uploading. But, the rest of what you said is true. As for Apple purchases, again, easy to mass convert and strip DRM out of them. Very easy. Can be done with music and movies...you may have to pay a small price for the programs that do it, but it's a one time expense to rid yourself of Apple/iTunes if you so desire.

QUOTE (Jake @ Oct 8, 2013 -> 08:03 PM) I've never been fond of iTunes. I still prefer Mac to Windows, though I really dislike iOS. Believe it or not, one company might be better at one thing and not another While true, it's still opinion. I prefer OSX over Windows, and I prefer iOS over Android, but that doesn't mean you have to agree ... nor does that doesn't even matter to me. All that matters is what YOU like using. And whatever it is, use it. There was a time I wouldn't have EVER said that, about preferring Apple to anything. I've been doing this since the early 80's, and through that time, Commodore gave way to Microsoft (I even tried OS/2 and various forms of Linux through the years), which eventually gave way to Apple OSX... and I know from the fact I've already switched 3+ times in my life, that I won't have a problem doing it again when I truly believe someone is doing something I NEED to be a part of. Also, as it stands now, iOS gets the best of both worlds. I get all of Google's apps, and use quite a few of them, and they're often/usually better than their native Android variants. So using Android has little appeal to me, since I already get all of their best apps on iOS, and I get the best of what iOS has to offer, too. Giving that up for an additional half/full inch of screen space just isn't in the cards for me.

QUOTE (sircaffey @ Oct 8, 2013 -> 07:42 PM) Where does science prove that 1g per lb when attempting to build mass is way in excess? I am genuinely interested in reading it. All over the place... http://www.webmd.com/diet/healthy-kitchen-...ow-much-protein http://www.cdc.gov/nutrition/everyone/basics/protein.html And note, from bodybuilding.com -- it's 1.4-2.0 grams per kilogram, not pound. So no matter where in that 1.4-2.0 you land, it's still less than 1g per pound. http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/how-much-p...sition-issn.htm As noted, the RDA for 97% of healthy adults, is 0.8grams per kg. The 1.4-2.0g per kg is a bodybuilders website recommendation in comparison...which is STILL less than 1g per lb. http://www.health.com/health/article/0,,20410520,00.html

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Oct 8, 2013 -> 06:46 PM) That would increase the unemployment rate--if the people calculating the unemployment rate weren't also furloughed. Since the unemployment rate is nothing but a lie anyway, who f***ing cares.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Oct 8, 2013 -> 06:09 PM) Enslaved by the apple ecosystem, lol I don't find it all that bad, though I use a mac, and people have told me iTunes on the mac is far superior...I still don't get the hate. It really sucks that I have to deal with a central repository for all of my media. Oh, wait, no ... it really doesn't. This is the part of the argument I don't 'get', because there is nothing to get. Could iTunes be better, more efficient, etc? Sure. But besides that, ALL of my media is MP3/MP4. I can easily port it anywhere I want. The only thing I cannot port is my apps...and big...f***ing...deal. And anything that's not MP3/MP4...there are freeware converters readily available that will make your music portable anywhere you'd like.

QUOTE (sircaffey @ Oct 8, 2013 -> 06:28 PM) Sorry, I didn't mean to make it sound like I was talking about Vinny the meat head. I meant people that actually understand the industry. There's definitely a lot of bro-science out there. You didn't, I was merely commenting...I wasn't saying you were wrong, though 1gram of protein per pound is way in excess, 1 gram per lean pound is more realistic, but still overshoots the mark for most, by a lot..

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Oct 8, 2013 -> 01:50 PM) You and I may know that, but the typical consumer does not. You may be surprised how many people I know think Apple invented smart phones, mp3 players (except they typically say things like "Apple INVENTED the iPod!" which is painfully stupid to hear), and tablets. I find most iPhone users to be completely oblivious to technology, which mostly consists of college girls. Seems in college that most of the girls have iOS phones and most of the guys have Android phones. But who cares what the typical consumer thinks...even if you told them the truth, you'd not get them to believe you.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 8, 2013 -> 10:41 AM) Nah, stylus was useless. This was my favorite phone for texting/emailing. If they could incorporate a thin slide keyboard to a phone today i'd buy it.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 8, 2013 -> 10:18 AM) To be honest, I miss the hard keyboard on my phone. I despise the touchscreen and swipe nonsense. You'd say that unless you had to go back and actually use one. I still have my BlackBerry Bold from work, with it's physical keyboard...it's only advantage is that it has tactile response for doing something you shouldn't be doing in the first place, texting or emailing while driving. But when I'm sitting still and able to actually type...I can type WAY faster on a virtual keyboard.

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Oct 7, 2013 -> 07:35 PM) But if they do make the touch screen computer, people will credit them for inventing it and praise Steve Jobs for some reason. That's not why people praise Apple. Nobody credits for Apple inventing smartphones or tablets, or even all-in-one desktop PCs. They praise them because they take something others are already doing, but make it really GOOD and practical/usable. Apple didn't invent smartphones. Microsoft had them for eons, and I owned multiple versions of WM4.x to 6.x phones from Samsung ... and if you've ever used one, you'd know how bad they were. Apple took the smartphone and made it a device people wanted to use. Tablets were much the same, existed for years will full on desktop OS's clogging them up, and Apple took the idea and made it a device people would WANT to use. Others have then taken Apple's design cues, and practicality, and arguably made even better devices than they did, too. People credit Apple for great design, because they actually have great design.

QUOTE (sircaffey @ Oct 7, 2013 -> 08:11 PM) I've used and seen others have success using a guesstimate for maintenance level calories as 16x body weight (for men) given that the person is in decent shape (~17ish% body fat) w/ moderate daily activity. Adjusting around this, +/- 3 to add/lose weight. Using this, a 200 lbs man would maintain weight with around 3200 calories, lose weight starting at 2600, and add weight at 3800. At least when starting on a regimen. Just an estimate, but I have found people seem to find it reasonably accurate. I think you'll see most advanced male gymers go with at least 1g per lb for protein even though some claim you don't need that much. I think you may be a little low on carbs and high on fats personally, but this is no exact science. A lot of advanced gym goers do and say a lot of things, and despite scientific evidence proving their beliefs and opinions wrong, they hold onto these beliefs and opinions as if they were a religion. I was guilty of this first hand, for a long time. Using science, we can determine that certain basic supplements help...such as protein. There is no argument that protein works, and science backs this claim. Of course, too much will always be bad, or useless, but the same can be said of too little. Now, that said, science has repeatedly shown that vitamins and mineral supplements don't do much of anything at all, except fill in the gaps from a poor diet, and anything extra is discarded. In a healthy eaters diet, that would probably mean upwards of 99.9% of it is wasted, and unnecessary, or even bad for you. The best part is, you can take that same search, change it to "vitamins are good for you", and the results remain negative, because of reasons ... like science. But, that won't stop the multi-billion dollar vitamin industry from convincing you that you need to OD on vitamins, and further, despite the evidence, it won't stop many of you from taking them anyway. The only time they're necessary/good for you, is if you have a deficiency of some sort, which should be solved with a better diet, or with supplements in the event of a medical condition.

QUOTE (Tex @ Oct 5, 2013 -> 09:38 AM) I forgot who said it, we have the party of bad ideas versus the party of no ideas.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 4, 2013 -> 04:13 PM) Coincidentally, neither was anyone else, beyond some silly one-liner inserted into NSS's purposefully silly story. I already tempered it myself. I'm not accepting your claim that there aren't millions of people that go without adequate health care in this country because they lack health insurance, though. You're aware of some free programs and clinics in a major metropolitan area. Great. Are there no people in the Chicagoland area that would like medical care but have to go without? I am doubtful. I am even more doubtful that your limited knowledge of some programs in a major urban center are applicable to millions of people who don't live in these areas. We see what happens when Doctors Without Borders hold one of their yearly free clinics in Appalachia. That means sick people will be paying hugely expensive premiums. If you're already sick, then the insurance company knows exactly what it's going to cost them. The entire point of insurance is that everyone else who is healthy subsidies those who are sick. Essentially, if you want to guarantee coverage, you can either have an individual mandate if you insist on a private for-profit insurance model or you can have a single-payer system if you want it to be a public service. I suppose you could enact significant taxes elsewhere and use those funds to subsidize these expensive pre-existing condition plans, but that inserts a pretty unnecessary step. Insurance, insurance, insurance. They're the bad guys. When will you people wake up and realize the insurance companies aren't the ones writing out and sending the bills? When will you finally ask the right questions, such as, why does an an American hospital charge 5,000$ for a procedure that costs 300$ in Canada, or elsewhere, instead? I know, attacking the big bad insurance companies is convenient to a bad argument...but it doesn't, and DIDN'T solve the problem, which I called way back when this all started. All that happened here was premiums skyrocketed for some, namely younger people regardless of income, and dropped for older people, again, regardless of income. The goalposts were moved right along with the line of scrimmage. ...and nothing actually changed. The same doctors, hospitals and pharmacies are still charging the same amount of money as they were before, only now they have more guaranteed business. And we did what we ALWAYS do in this country, we shifted the burden to the younger, less rich, less experienced section of the populous. This is the same as giving the elderly 80% discounts at National Parks, and charging younger people full price. Let's think about that a second and ask a rather simple question...who has more money, the elderly who had a lifetime to work and save, or a youngster that just graduated college and is struggling to build a productive life and a family? Exactly. So, let's give the senior a discount and f*** the younger guy...he has time! Rinse, repeat. I'm like a broken record now, I said this at the very start, and I'm still saying it now. The problem isn't your insurance premiums. Ohhhh, I'm sure they have a hand in this racket, just like the rest of them, but they're not the ones setting the prices. They aren't the ones charging 5000$ for a procedure that took 3 minutes, done by a machine that's been paid for for over a decade, by a person making 18$ an hour, and a doctor that glanced at the image for all of 3 seconds who makes 300k+ a year. They were in the right arena...they simply attacked the wrong enemy. This is like tackling the refs in an football game, because they're there, but letting the RB skate through, who makes 90x what the refs make...and then blaming the refs for the prices of everything in the arena.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 4, 2013 -> 04:53 PM) they should have just shot her ankle so she could push the gas pedal This was all kinds of awesome.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Oct 4, 2013 -> 04:02 PM) Rock when do you work out? The last 2 months, I've switched to working out in the morning before work and I've never had better work outs. Not saying that's for everybody but I just seem to have more energy that way. This is all very personal. What works for you, or me, will not work for others in most cases. I work out at 11am, myself, and I find it great. Others, like your, prefer it earlier...the only thing I'd recommend against is really late night workouts...such as 8pm or later, unless it's the only time you can do it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 4, 2013 -> 01:11 PM) Ok, but that doesn't change the reality that an awful lot of people actually do go without care, which leads to chronic illness, untreated illness or worse complications down the road. how do you pay for these things without the mandate? You don't. I think people need to give this time to play out a bit before declaring it a total failure or a total success. I think, in time, it will emerge as something with good and bad ideas, and most of these issues can (and should) be fixed. I say, and should, because knowing our government, they'll find a way to fix the things that were working fine, and break the things that were broken even more...given enough time.

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Oct 4, 2013 -> 12:23 PM) A question for you then: I rarely weigh myself. A number isn't nearly as important to me as what I actually look like. With that said, my weight has consistently gone down over the last week or two, despite regular strength training. Am I being too short-sighted? I woke up today at 202.5 and I want to be at about 215. When did you start working out that your weight suddenly started dropping? Is this recent? Two weeks ago, what did you weigh, and what do you weigh now? Did you just start working out/strength training in this manner within the last few weeks? Did you change anything in your diet? IE, were you drinking 5 beers a day, and suddenly stopped?