Self-writing article.
The only thing which can make driving in a car worse is ... when you aren't driving it. We all hate being in the Death Seat in a car and, in a self-driving car, all of them are Death Seats.
The premise, seemingly, is one gets into this self-driving vehicle and then pushes the color-coded buttons to direct it to drive somewhere. The car then begins that task and you sit there. Perhaps you may choose to look out the windows, play with the radio, or read a book. Whatever you choose will be as exciting as a mayonnaise sandwich because really you're just killing time and pretending not to second-guess what the self-driving car is doing.
(Ed: have sex in the car!)
Well, that would sure fulfill a dream, wouldn't it. If it's your purpose to bone, why not do it someplace comfortable rather than all scrunched-up in your self-driving deathmobile. That would be romantic like dating Ted Cruz in which he gives a political speech all night and at the end says, "So ... wanna fuck?"
You won't do it so then he whines and says it's because you don't like Christians.
Self-driving cars are worthless in their own way and the real tingle comes with self-driving aircraft. Drones already do it but not with passengers. That will be one glory day when they introduce aircraft with no pilots, huh. Can't wait for that.
The self-watching television is the best part because the TV programs are so fucking boring and now the TV will take care of that itself. In the morning it can give you a report, hey, the shows were really fucking boring last night and they were just the same as the night before. You just say, yah, I know and then your self-driving car will take you to work while your self-cleaning house takes care of business back home.
Since you're a journo, you can use the self-writing machine for generating articles and it's already been shown well to work for sports ... but we find most potatoes can substitute for sportscasters with relatively little loss in functionality. The day is not far in which journos who currently don't do much won't need to do anything at all.
Today your journo article may be "What Do We Do When There's Nothing Left To Do?"
It will so tragic with a faster plunge into bathos than Donald Trump when he disrobes. It's just not something you ever want to see.
The only thing which can make driving in a car worse is ... when you aren't driving it. We all hate being in the Death Seat in a car and, in a self-driving car, all of them are Death Seats.
The premise, seemingly, is one gets into this self-driving vehicle and then pushes the color-coded buttons to direct it to drive somewhere. The car then begins that task and you sit there. Perhaps you may choose to look out the windows, play with the radio, or read a book. Whatever you choose will be as exciting as a mayonnaise sandwich because really you're just killing time and pretending not to second-guess what the self-driving car is doing.
(Ed: have sex in the car!)
Well, that would sure fulfill a dream, wouldn't it. If it's your purpose to bone, why not do it someplace comfortable rather than all scrunched-up in your self-driving deathmobile. That would be romantic like dating Ted Cruz in which he gives a political speech all night and at the end says, "So ... wanna fuck?"
You won't do it so then he whines and says it's because you don't like Christians.
Self-driving cars are worthless in their own way and the real tingle comes with self-driving aircraft. Drones already do it but not with passengers. That will be one glory day when they introduce aircraft with no pilots, huh. Can't wait for that.
The self-watching television is the best part because the TV programs are so fucking boring and now the TV will take care of that itself. In the morning it can give you a report, hey, the shows were really fucking boring last night and they were just the same as the night before. You just say, yah, I know and then your self-driving car will take you to work while your self-cleaning house takes care of business back home.
Since you're a journo, you can use the self-writing machine for generating articles and it's already been shown well to work for sports ... but we find most potatoes can substitute for sportscasters with relatively little loss in functionality. The day is not far in which journos who currently don't do much won't need to do anything at all.
Today your journo article may be "What Do We Do When There's Nothing Left To Do?"
It will so tragic with a faster plunge into bathos than Donald Trump when he disrobes. It's just not something you ever want to see.
9 comments:
I've never understood the allure of the self-driving car. First of all, I enjoy driving but I hate being driven. Second of all, there's no way the self-driving car is going to drive as fast as I want to drive. Let's face it - speed limits are interesting suggestions, and I tend to obey them twice: once during positive acceleration and once during negative acceleration. They are not, however, cruising velocities! That brings me to my third point. I don't want to be surrounded by a bunch of pokey self-driving road blocks when I'm trying to go from Point A to Point B as quickly as possible! (No, I'm not impatient, I just really like the feeling of centripetal acceleration as I'm rounding a turn.) So to all you car companies out there working on the self-drive car, KNOCK IT OFF! Do something productive with your research dollars!
For me, this is a case study in technology run amok. They use high-tech to build something for which there is little or no demand, which offers nothing particularly interesting, and has a high risk of hacks in a number of different ways. I see one high-risk vehicle.
FitBit is another mystifier and my sister is enamored with hers since it monitors heart rate but can't you feel that yourself. It also tells you when to exercise but I know when to exercise without a FitBit, I just don't do it.
I made the mistake of buying a Fitbit. A number of friends have them and I thought it would be fun to engage in the steps competitions with them. Turns out it wasn't for several reasons. First, I'm highly competitive and so is one of the other folks that was involved. We were both on vacation the week of one of the challenges, and we both ended up spending our entire vacation walking 12 to 15 miles each day trying to outdo the other. When you're pushing the 40,000 step mark in a day, you know you've gone overboard.
Second, the steps are meaningless. Thanks to the dynamics of the human stride, the faster you walk the less steps you take per mile. If I ran, I'd end up recording almost 1/2 the steps than if I walked a 20-minute mile and since the competition is based on steps, not distance, there was no incentive to exercise harder (which would have burnt more calories.)
Third, the concept of using heart rate to monitor calorie burn and exercise levels is also popular but as mythical as the unicorn. I was a national class runner in College at a time when colleges were doing all sorts of studies on how to improve training and the overall performance of their athletes. I was poked and prodded on treadmills more times than I care to remember. The bottom line: the average person going for a walk or a run cannot possibly approach their maximum heart rates. They also cannot possibly approach the 80% level which is where they will start to improve their max VO2. As to the myth that there's an exercise zone that will burn fat, well, that's just plain laughable. Ask any marathoner what it fields like to exhaust their glycogen stores (aka "hit the wall") - which is when you'll actually start to burn fat during exercise - and you'll know that nobody in the gym is doing it.
It seems people would have become inured to all of that electronic snake oil. Most of these devices provide more amusement than actual service and that strikes as the biggest problem of all. Looks like a whole lot of people have too much time on their hands or they would just get cracking on whatever they need to do without adoring themselves in ludicrous machines.
I am not sure I agree on not achieving MHR. Maybe it is the calculation of ones MHR. The tradition measure of 200 - age is a decent ballpark. At that mine would be 140 so mine 80% level would be 112. My sitting rate is about 65. But a decent workout will put me in the 140-150 range.
The longer I workout The longer I can workout as cardio endurance is the easiest of training to impacr quickly but also the first to go away.
But the only way to lose weight is to burn more calories than you consume.
Everyone likes to quantify. It helps them let everyone else know what they are doing. I bet those fitbit people also post thier numbers on FB.
I only workout so I can keep up with the Fairy Princess.
Losing weight isn't likely something which will ever be a problem down here but keeping up with the Fairy Princess would take a jetpack in any case!
Anon, one of the studies in which I participated (i.e. played the role of lab rat) was to determine how close people could gauge their effort as compared to their actual maximum capacity. It was stunning. They used runners of all levels from the average jogger to the world class athlete. (One of the guys in the study had just won an Olympic medal in the marathon.) What they found was that the average jogger thought they were at their maximum when they were really at only 45-50% of maximum. The regional class athlete - the person that wins local races - was better but not by much. They thought they were at max when they hit the 60% mark. The national class athlete (my group) thought we were at maximum when our tank was at 75-80%. (That's a problem for us since you don't improve Max VO2 - and that determines the efficiency with which your body utilizes the oxygen you inhale - until you are working over 80% of max.) The world class athlete was near perfect. What separated that class is they knew precisely what their effort was compared to their maximum, and that is what gives them the competitive edge. They know how much more they have in the tank when the rest of us think we've exhausted it.
As to the maximum heart rate concept, the cardiologists involved in the study dismissed out of hand the concept of 220 - your age. None of them had found any benefit in using a heart rate measure to gauge either effort nor maximum potential effort. As the cardiologist that trained me for several years told me, the true maximum is well above that number and is more a factor of level of conditioning and Max VO2 than anything else.
Your statement on calories and losing weight is accurate, with one slight twist. When you consume food, you must burn those calories before the food is fully digested (i.e. all calories converted) or any excess will be stored in our fat cells. So the time it takes to digest the food is important, which is why it's tougher to lose weight when eating carbs (under 2-hours to digest) than when eating a lot of fat (upwards of 14-hours to digest.) It's the calorie delta over time that matters, not just the calorie delta.
I think Anonymous has jetted off to the Keys so a response may be delayed. Down there suffering with Jimmy Buffett in that south Florida sun. Ain't that a bitch! I think he has so many frequent flier miles from work he could probably fly to the Moon and the line would pay him to do it.
LOL Well, partying with parrot-heads isn't high on my to-do list, but spending time in the Keys sounds promising! Here's to a safe and relaxing trip.
Post a Comment