Showing posts with label Computer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Computer. Show all posts

Long commutes cause obesity, neck pain, loneliness, divorce, stress, and insomnia.

Long commutes cause obesity, neck pain, loneliness, divorce, stress, and insomnia - This week, researchers at Umea University in Sweden released a startling finding: Couples in which one partner commutes for longer than 45 minutes are 40 percent likelier to divorce.

The Swedes could not say why. Perhaps long-distance commuters tend to be poorer or less educated, both conditions that make divorce more common. Perhaps long transit times exacerbate corrosive marital inequalities, with one partner overburdened by child care and the other overburdened by work. But perhaps the Swedes are just telling us something we all already know, which is that commuting is bad for you. Awful, in fact.

Commuting is a migraine-inducing life-suck—a mundane task about as pleasurable as assembling flat-pack furniture or getting your license renewed, and you have to do it every day. If you are commuting, you are not spending quality time with your loved ones. You are not exercising, doing challenging work, having sex, petting your dog, or playing with your kids (or your Wii). You are not doing any of the things that make human beings happy. Instead, you are getting nauseous on a bus, jostled on a train, or cut off in traffic.

In the past decade or so, researchers have produced a significant body of research measuring the dreadfulness of a long commute. People with long transit times suffer from disproportionate pain, stress, obesity, and dissatisfaction. The joy of living in a big, exurban house, or that extra income leftover from your cheap rent? It is almost certainly not worth it.


http://img.slate.com/media/1/123125/123051/2279756/2292807/110526_$BOX_Commute_TN.jpg


First, the research proves the most obvious point: We dislike commuting itself, finding it unpleasant and stressful. In 2006, Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman and Princeton economist Alan Krueger surveyed 900 Texan women, asking them how much they enjoyed a number of common activities. Having sex came in first. Socializing after work came second. Commuting came in dead last. "Commuting in the morning appears particularly unpleasant," the researchers noted.

That unpleasantness seems to have a spillover effect: making us less happy in general. A survey conducted last year for the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index, for instance, found that 40 percent of employees who spend more than 90 minutes getting home from work "experienced worry for much of the previous day." That number falls to 28 percent for those with "negligible" commutes of 10 minutes or less. Workers with very long commutes feel less rested and experience less "enjoyment," as well.

Long commutes also make us feel lonely. Robert Putnam, the famed Harvard political scientist and author of Bowling Alone, names long commuting times as one of the most robust predictors of social isolation. He posits that every 10 minutes spent commuting results in 10 percent fewer "social connections." Those social connections tend to make us feel happy and fulfilled.

Those stressful hours spent listening to drive-time radio do not merely make us less happy. They also make us less healthy. The Gallup survey, for instance, found that one in three workers with a 90-minute daily commute has recurrent neck or back problems. Our behaviors change as well, conspiring to make us less fit: When we spend more time commuting, we spend less time exercising and fixing ourselves meals at home.

According to research from Thomas James Christian of Brown University, each minute you commute is associated with "a 0.0257 minute exercise time reduction, a 0.0387 minute food preparation time reduction, and a 0.2205 minute sleep time reduction." It does not sound like much, but it adds up. Long commutes also tend to increase the chance that a worker will make "non-grocery food purchases"—buying things like fast food—and will shift into "lower-intensity" exercise.

It is commuting, not the total length of the workday, that matters, he found. Take a worker with a negligible commute and a 12-hour workday and a worker with an hourlong commute and a 10-hour workday. The former will have healthier habits than the latter, even though total time spent on the relatively stressful, unpleasant tasks is equal.

Plus, overall, people with long commutes are fatter, and national increases in commuting time are posited as one contributor to the obesity epidemic. Researchers at the University of California–Los Angeles, and Cal State–Long Beach, for instance, looked at the relationship between obesity and a number of lifestyle factors, such as physical activity. Vehicle-miles traveled had a stronger correlation with obesity than any other factor.

So, in summary: We hate commuting. It correlates with an increased risk of obesity, divorce, neck pain, stress, worry, and sleeplessness. It makes us eat worse and exercise less. Yet, we keep on doing it.

Indeed, average one-way commuting time has steadily crept up over the course of the past five decades, and now sits at 24 minutes (although we routinely under-report the time it really takes us to get to work). About one in six workers commutes for more than 45 minutes, each way. And about 3.5 million Americans commute a whopping 90 minutes each way—the so-called "extreme commuters," whose number has doubled since 1990, according to the Census Bureau. They collectively spend 164 billion minutes per year shuttling to and from work.

Why do people suffer through it? The answer mostly lies in a phrase forced on us by real-estate agents: "Drive until you qualify." Many of us work in towns or cities where houses are expensive. The further we move from work, the more house we can afford. Given the choice between a cramped two-bedroom apartment 10 minutes from work and a spacious four-bedroom house 45 minutes from it, we often elect the latter.

For decades, economists have been warning us that when we buy at a distance, we do not tend to take the cost of our own time into account. All the way back in 1965, for instance, the economist John Kain wrote, it is "crucial that, in making longer journeys to work, households incur larger costs in both time and money. Since time is a scarce commodity, workers should demand some compensation for the time they spend in commuting." But we tend not to, only taking the tradeoff between housing costs and transportation costs into question.

How much would we need to be compensated to make up for the hellish experience of a long commute? Two economists at the University of Zurich, Bruno Frey and Alois Stutzer, actually went about quantifying it, in a now famous 2004 paper entitled "Stress That Doesn't Pay: The Commuting Paradox." They found that for an extra hour of commuting time, you would need to be compensated with a massive 40 percent increase in salary to make it worthwhile.

But wait: Isn't the big house and the time to listen to the whole Dylan catalog worth something as well? Sure, researchers say, but not enough when it comes to the elusive metric of happiness. Given the choice between that cramped apartment and the big house, we focus on the tangible gains offered by the latter. We can see that extra bedroom. We want that extra bathtub. But we do not often use them. And we forget that additional time in the car is a constant, persistent, daily burden—if a relatively invisible one.

Do not take it lightly. People who say, "My commute is killing me!" are not exaggerators. They are realists. ( salte.com )


READ MORE - Long commutes cause obesity, neck pain, loneliness, divorce, stress, and insomnia.

Facebook and MySpace in content talks

Facebook and MySpace in content talks. The social network wars may be over as traditional rivals Facebook and MySpace reveal they're in talks about sharing content.

Facebook says it'd be happy to feature content from MySpace now that the two are moving in different directions, according to the UK's Telegraph.


MySpace / AP
Facebook and MySpace consider deal / AP


"Facebook is focussing on building the best technology which helps people share content, while at MySpace they are focussing on more a content-led strategy," Facebook's chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg told the newspaper.

"We would like to have their content, as we already do with many other sites, shared across our network because it is good for our users."

MySpace boss Owen Van Natta – who left Facebook in April to lead News Corp's social network - confirmed the talks.

“Facebook is about core communications with your friendship network, whereas MySpace is about congregating around popular content with people who share your interests," he said, adding that partnerships would be a large part of MySpace's future.

Ms Sandberg said Facebook could use its Connect feature for users to share MySpace content, although "nothing has been formally arranged yet".

Connect allows Facebook users to discuss and share content as they are viewing it on a partner website.

MySpace recently launched a new music service in Australia – the second country to get it after the US – adding a raft of music tracks from major labels and independent aggregators.

The audio tracks – which stream in full and can be playlisted on profiles - are linked to Apple's iTunes for purchase.

A spokesperson for MySpace Australia said they couldn't comment on the Facebook talks "at this stage". / news.com.au



READ MORE - Facebook and MySpace in content talks

Satanist uses MySpace to feed desire for teen girls

Satanist uses MySpace to feed desire for teen girls. A Satanist obsessed with teenage schoolgirls invented a fake gothic society online to groom them for sex in the grounds of Sydney's Rookwood Cemetery.

Daniel William Peckham, 24, lured at least three girls, aged from 13 to 17, into the cemetery on his MySpace blog, "Rookwood Gothic Society".

A message on the site read: "If you have hang-ups about getting naked ... you are not welcome."


Pentagram


Peckham pleaded guilty yesterday to the aggravated sexual assault of a 15-year-old girl and to using the internet to solicit and transmit naked pictures of young girls between 2005 and 2007.

The opening day of his sentencing hearing in the District Court heard after he was charged he continued to send letters from jail to girls he met through the blog.

Extracts from the letters and journals Peckham has kept in prison were read to the court by Crown Prosecutor Bruce Levet to show his preoccupation with young girls had not changed.

"I like schoolgirls, they excite me," he wrote in one journal entry. "I'm going to turn Sydney into a big underage gang bang."

In a letter, he wrote he would "do the Devil's work until the day I die" and "keep luring young girls into Satan's loving embrace of carnal delights".

Psychiatrist Michael Diamond said Peckham's drive to obtain access to young girls had been "the core of his existence". / news.com.au



READ MORE - Satanist uses MySpace to feed desire for teen girls

What happens to your email when you die?

What happens to your email when you die?. IN a digital world your deepest secrets no longer die with you. Andrew Ramadge reports on what happens to your private emails when you pass away.

Remember that time you poured your heart out in an email to your best friend after one too many glasses of wine?

Or that sexy message from an old lover that made you blush at work?

Well, if you die, your family and others could end up reading them.

Web email services owned by internet giants Google and Microsoft have a policy of keeping your data after you die and letting your next of kin or the executor of your estate access it.

There is no way for users to flag that they don't want this to happen and no recourse under Australia's existing privacy laws.

What happens to your email when you die?

Web email services like Hotmail and Gmail won't let users specify what should happen to their messages when they die.

More than one in four Australians uses webmail, with around six and a half million people logging on to one or more of the top three providers Hotmail, Gmail or Yahoo! in September, according to Nielsen Online NetView.

So, if Hotmail will keep your emails and allow access to others when you die, why can't they retrieve emails that have been lost while I am stillalive?????

Unlike a shoebox in the attic, these services can hold tens of thousands of messages. Accounts with Google's Gmail can hold up to 7GB – or roughly 70,000 emails with a small to medium picture attached to each.

And they archive the messages you've written as well as received.

When it comes to deleting the data, Microsoft's Hotmail will remove an account if it is inactive for 270 days, while Gmail leaves the responsibility to the next of kin.

Of the top three providers, only Yahoo! refuses to supply emails to anyone after a user has died. The user's next of kin can ask for the account to be closed, but cannot gain access to it.

A Yahoo! spokesperson said the only exception to this rule would be if the user specified otherwise in their will.

Australian privacy laws do not cover the emerging problem of what happens to your web-based data when you die. The Privacy Act only refers to people who are alive.

On top of that, many of the most popular web services are not covered by local privacy laws because they are based in the US.

The subject has also proved problematic for social networking sites Facebook and MySpace. More than eight million Australians visited one or both of those sites in September, according to Nielsen's figures.

Facebook has recently publicised a feature called memorialisation that lets the family of deceased users keep their profile page online as a virtual tribute.

Turning a profile into a memorial will remove sensitive information from the page and restrict access to the deceased's friends. The family will not be allowed to log in to the account or access private messages, but can request that it be taken down.

MySpace on the other hand says it addresses the issue of family access to sensitive data on a "case by case basis".

A spokesperson for MySpace could not rule out letting a user's next of kin log into their profile – potentially giving them access to private messages.

There is no way for users to tell MySpace that they don't want this to happen, however the site said it was "a good idea that we are exploring".

Read on for a summary of the policies of popular email and social networking sites:

Hotmail

Hotmail has a policy of deleting email accounts if they are not touched for 270 days. If you die, your next of kin would be able to access your account within that period by proving their identity and supplying a death certificate.

A spokesperson said: "Microsoft's policy allows next of kin to gain access to the content of the account of the deceased upon proving their own identity and relationship. Hotmail does not have an option to specify in advance that they do not want the contents of their email accessed by a next of kin."

Gmail

Gmail will also allow the next of kin or executor of estate to apply for access to a deceased user's email account. However, they need more identification than Hotmail. The person would have to prove their own identity and supply a death certificate as well as proof of an email conversation between them and the deceased.

If the deceased user was underage, the next of kin would also have to provide a copy of their birth certificate.

Gmail does not delete the deceased user's account, but says the next of kin could choose to do so after gaining access to it.

Yahoo!

Yahoo! has the strictest policy when it comes to the data of deceased users. The company will let the user's next of kin ask for the account to be closed, but will not give them access to it. It says users who want their emails to be inherited should make arrangements in their will.

A spokesperson said: "The commitment Yahoo! makes to every person who signs up for a Yahoo! Mail account is to treat their email as a private communication and to treat the content of their messages as confidential.

"Internet users who want to be sure their email and other online accounts are accessible to their legal heirs may want to work with their attorneys to plan an offline process for such access as part of their estate planning process."

Facebook

Facebook has a policy called memorialisation that applies to the profiles of deceased users. Once the user's death is confirmed, their profile can be turned into a sort of virtual shrine. When that happens, the profile is locked so no one can log into it and sensitive information (including status updates) is removed.

Family members can determine how the memorial looks and behaves – for example if other people can continue to write on the user's page – but can't log into the profile themselves.

From Facebook's Help page: "Please note that in order to protect the privacy of the deceased user, we cannot provide login information for the account to anyone. We do honour requests from close family members to close the account completely."

MySpace

MySpace has no set policy when it comes to the profiles of deceased users. A spokesperson said: "Given the sensitive nature of deceased member profiles, MySpace handles each incident on a case-by-case basis when notified and will work with families to respect their wishes."

The site says it will not allow anyone to "assume control" of the user's profile, however it won't rule out giving families access to the user's private data. MySpace does not delete profiles after periods of inactivity, but will remove a deceased user's profile at the family's request. A spokesperson said giving users a choice about who can access their data "sounds like a good idea". / news.com.au



READ MORE - What happens to your email when you die?

Things to Know About Windows 7

Things to Know About Windows 7. The latest version of Microsoft Windows — Windows 7 — is now on the market. So if you're like the average PC user, it's fated to become a factor in your life. Here are seven things to keep in mind about it.

1. It's really a "maintenance release."

Basically, it's Microsoft Vista with accumulated fixes and performance enhancements. That's a good thing, since there's no dramatic break with the past to cause festering compatibility issues, and no steep learning curve for the users. Compared to Vista, Windows 7 does better running on low-performance machines like netbooks. It boots and shuts down faster — but that's less of an issue since its sleep mode is reliable, letting you shut down in two seconds and restart in two seconds. With Vista, desktops often refused to go into sleep mode, or would restart randomly from sleep mode, noted PC industry watcher Rob Enderle, principal analyst the Enderle Group in San Jose, CA.

2. It's more secure.

A new release always is, since the malware writers haven't had time to pick at it for weaknesses, and there are too few installations to amount to a worthwhile target. They'll get around to Windows 7, although its built-in antivirus facility has been well-reviewed. In the meantime, malware's favorite target is the older Windows XP. Anyway, the bad guys are turning more and more to phishing, where they dupe users into spilling their personal information on the pretext of "restoring" their "suspended" online bank accounts. Technology is not much help there.

3. There is new stuff.

While most of the news concerns performance, the desktop and taskbar have been given enhancements that should make it easer to invoke specific applications and documents. The reviled User Account Control, which warned Vista users any time any application did anything to the system, has been given settings to make it less annoying. And, yes, Internet Spades, Backgammon, and Checkers, which had been dropped in Vista, are back. The enhanced Search facility, meanwhile, is now actually useful. For future expansion, Windows 7 makes better use of multiple cores, and includes handwriting recognition.

4. Pick the right version.

There are two retail versions: Home and Professional. The Pro version has a feature called Active Directory, which lets it be assigned an address and privileges in a corporate network. It is of no interest to a home or small business user. The Home version can also be found in a family pack that can upgrade three PCs. (Strictly speaking, there is also a third version called Ultimate, of interest only to software developers.)

5. If it ain't broke, don’t fix it.

If you are happy with Vista, there is little reason to upgrade to Windows 7, cautioned Enderle. If you are annoyed with Vista, Windows 7 should help. If you are running Windows XP, upgrading may make sense if your hardware is less than two years old. Otherwise, you are better off getting a new machine, with Windows 7 pre-installed, he advised.

6. If it's broke, do fix it — correctly.

If you're upgrading with the retail package, you can use either the clean (also called custom) or the in-place installation method. The first will wipe the disk clean and you'll need to re-install your applications. (It keeps your data intact. You did back up, of course.) The second performs the installation with your applications in place. The second is easier, but the first will remove any malware, broken drivers, and other evidence of the hard life your computer's been living, Enderle said. It's also the only method available when upgrading from Windows XP. Even easier is to buy a new machine with Windows 7 pre-installed.

7. Resistance is irrelevant.

Among Internet users, 93 percent use some version of Microsoft Windows, and that is not going to change dramatically in the near future. You can assume that all future PC software worth mentioning will be written for Windows 7, and new PCs will be shipped with it. The alternative is to go with the Apple Mac, Linux, or something esoteric. / livescience.com



READ MORE - Things to Know About Windows 7