rwh86

Other than the ones that have been mentioned already, I also use Maverick, which has a free and a paid version.

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.codesector...

I like its ability to show the different map layers, and it has great information screens that show things like GPS coordinates and such, great for geohashing or geocaching. Also has a cool display of how many satellites are visible and whether they're GPS or GLONASS or whatever.

The track recording feature is also nice, saving as a gpx file that can be easily uploaded to the openstreetmap online iD editor with drag-and-drop.

My phone was affected by this, and I can confirm I had the original barcode scanner app in your first link installed, and I'd had it installed for years.

I now use Google Lens through the default phone app.

Hard cheeses contain almost no lactose; it's consumed by bacteria during the maturation process.

Batteries are now a viable option. They can pull power from the overhead lines or third rail when available and run on batteries when power isn't available. The LiFePO4 batteries are a drop-in replacement for existing diesel generators, so producing them is easy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9s4heZe7ChM

TLA is actually an initialism. :/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acronym#Nomenclature

s/Richter scale/moment magnitude scale/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moment_magnitude_scale

I think the more relevant videos are:

Pad abort test: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_FXVjf46T8 Pad abort test (POV): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcHD9AmkxA0 Stream of the same test: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpH684lNUB8

Such a thing does exist[1], though it's a custom build. Incidentally, "shooting brake" is yet another British-ism for station wagon.

[1] http://www.fullychargedshow.co.uk/tesla-model-s-shooting-bra...

"Server users now have their network devices managed via systemd-networkd on new installs. This only applies to new installations."

Have you read the book?

That Wikipedia article doesn't really support your contention that vegetable oils are healthy and animal fats are unhealthy. That is, at the very least, a gross simplification. In my opinion, the research is not yet good enough to draw any such definitive conclusion.

Vegetable oils have been a large part of the human diet for less than 100 years, but have been progressively increasingly consumed by western populations, especially in the U.S. In that time overall cardiovascular health has trended in what direction?

Anyway, this might all be a sideshow to the general reduction in calories being derived from fat in general. The replacement of calories from fat with calories from carbohydrates seems particularly harmful when taken to an extreme, especially for women.

But, again, my main contention is that the evidence is at best preliminary, based on observational studies which cannot show cause and effect, and often poorly controlled and based on small numbers of participants. The largest, best controlled studies often don't support the mainstream view. It's simply not scientifically settled.

There is an excellent book written by a science journalist who spent 10 years doing a deep dive on the best available scientific evidence surrounding dietary fats. It explains why it is so difficult to find high-quality evidence for anything in nutrition science and, having been written by a journalist, it also does a decent job of investigating the history and politics that have coloured diet advice over the last century or so.

https://thebigfatsurprise.com

She has also done a TED talk that gives a very quick summary of the book:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CHGiid6N9Q

Actually, cancer treatment has made huge progress in the last decade or so. Melanoma, in particular, has gone from a virtual death sentence to being one of the more treatable forms.

The idea that we haven't found "the cure" to cancer is silly because cancer isn't one disease, it's many, down to the point of everyone's cancer being genetically different, and in fact different cancer cells being genetically different within an individual.

Cancer is all statistics. You slowly accumulate mutations in your tissues over your life time and if you accumulate enough mutations (especially in oncogenes[1]) you will get cancer. The only way to avoid it is to die of something else first.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oncogene

Only in the case where the government is compromised by, say, regulatory capture [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

Part of the reason is gravitational effects. When a large amount of ice melts, the Earth's gravity is shifted away from that region.

This gives you a sense of the absolutely huge amount of ice we're talking about. For example, if the West Antarctic Ice Shelf collapses we'll see about 10 metres of sea level rise, but mostly in the northern hemisphere. To underline just how much ice this is, this effect will slowly be counteracted as the ground below slowly rebounds (as it no longer has a huge amount of ice crushing it down from above).

It's an open source tool. If you'd like support to be added for your camera, take a look at this page:

https://www.darktable.org/2012/10/whats-involved-with-adding...

The lens correction comes from the lensfun project, which is also open source. They even run a lens calibration service if you submit the necessary images:

http://lensfun.sourceforge.net/

A lot of distributions have ancient versions of lensfun for some reason, so upgrading can make a big difference. They're currently working on splitting the lens definition file into a separate package from the software so that it can be updated more frequently.

If you have any questions for the developers you can always jump on to #darktable on freenode IRC. darktable 2.0 has just entered feature freeze.

There's a bunch of resources on the darktable website:

http://www.darktable.org/resources/

The screencasts might be a good place to start, and the user manual is quite comprehensive. Disclaimer: I did some of the screencasts. Riley's course is a more-complete overview, but it's not free.

Also keep in mind that darktable just entered feature freeze for 2.0, should be released around the end of the year.

By "things" I assume you mean this stuff:

ARPA: miw%uk.ac.man.cs.ux@cs.ucl.ac.uk USENET: mcvax!ukc!man.cs.ux!miw JANET: miw@uk.ac.man.cs.ux

miw is clearly Mario Wolczko's username.

Those will be his email address in different formats. The first would route email to him at miw@uk.ac.man.cs.ux using cs.ucl.ac.uk first as a gateway. The second address format is what's called a bang path, for UUCP email. The final one is a modern IETF standard email address. JANET is a network provider for UK academic institutions, similar to an ISP but structured differently.

You might find these references interesting:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_address http://www.faqs.org/docs/linux_network/x-087-2-mail.address.... http://www.livinginternet.com/e/ew_addr.htm

Here's the study, despite the fact that the article didn't bother to cite it:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26101624

Seems to me that this study is almost entirely useless for forming the basis of any kind of diet or lifestyle advice because:

It was done over 4 weeks. Almost all controlled diet studies are conducted over short periods of time and are therefore useless as the basis of any long term lifestyle advice (if you want to make any difference to your long-term weight you need to make changes that span years, if not the rest of your life). This is almost inherent in diet studies, because most participants won't accept these kinds of things (skipping breakfast) or even eating a particular diet for long enough periods of time. Imagine as a participant being asked to skip breakfast for 2 years in order to give a decent study length. They're either going to refuse to participate, or have a significant chance of failing to comply with the requirements. This is the reason that so many long-term diet studies are observational (i.e. uncontrolled, just looking at what people do naturally). And observational studies can't be used to determine causality (did people who skipped breakfast lose weight, or were lighter people more likely to skip breakfast, for example).

The study is tiny. n=36 is right on the cusp of being so small as to not have any kind of statistical significance. Further, statistical significance is not the same as a significant effect. The effect size in this study is small. The n is small. So how can you use this as the basis for refuting an existing body of evidence? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This study does not qualify to invalidate the existing scientific consensus.

They did indeed collect body composition data. Have a look at the following table:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4473164/table/ta...

Now it might just be me, but it looks like what the no-breakfast group lost was fat-free mass. But then I would have thought the mean for fat-free mass and fat mass should add up to the overall mean for body weight, which it doesn't. So either I'm missing something or there's an error in the table.

Finally, check out "researcher degrees of freedom":

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/publishing-fals...

Overall, a tiny, weak study, with a single slightly statistically significant result being blown out of all proportion. Such is the state of science reporting these days.

s/coy/cute?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coy

First hit on Google:

"Both controversy and confusion exist concerning fructose, sucrose, and high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) with respect to their metabolism and health effects. These concerns have often been fueled by speculation based on limited data or animal studies. In retrospect, recent controversies arose when a scientific commentary was published suggesting a possible unique link between HFCS consumption and obesity. Since then, a broad scientific consensus has emerged that there are no metabolic or endocrine response differences between HFCS and sucrose related to obesity or any other adverse health outcome."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23493540

Sounds like a bluetooth keyboard might be helpful.

That's not what I see from searching Intel's ARK:

http://ark.intel.com/search/advanced

Here's a list of Intel's latest CPU series, and how many have VT-d support:

* 5th gen i7: 5/5

* 5th gen i5: 6/6

* 5th gen i3: 5/5

* 4th gen i7 extreme: 2/2

* 4th gen i7: 42/49

* 4th gen i5: 46/55

* 4th gen i3: 5/37

So the summary: all but the slowest gen 4 i5 and i7 chips have it, and all gen 5 chips currently released have it.

edit: formatting