I’ve been hunting for this specific thread for ages; I know I stumbled upon an old version of it once, but now it’s vanished without a trace. If this topic is already considered redundant, feel free to move it elsewhere.
To get to the point, I recently underwent surgery for a deviated septum, and tomorrow is the day they finally remove the packing. However, my nasal mucosa is in a truly miserable state. Between the medicated drops and the bone-dry air, sleep has been non-existent since Monday because breathing through my mouth is impossible—everything dries out within seconds. I am counting down the hours until tomorrow.
I’m looking to pick up a humidifier for my bedroom.
It looks to be around $45 at local shops. It sounds like a solid Best Buy option, but I can't find a single decent review online.
On the other hand, I just happened upon this one: The Spanx New Vapo, which seems to be on sale for slightly less than the GE.$167 They are functionally quite similar, though the GE features an essential oil reservoir, which isn't a dealbreaker for me. https://www.amazon.com/humidifiers/reviews I noticed a fair amount of praise on some international sites, along with this particular video: , where water leaked out, though apparently only because the unit was tilted. From what I can gather, the water tank on the other model tilts downward in a similar fashion.
Does anyone here own either of these? Specifically, how noisy are they, and which would be the superior choice for roughly $167? Since this is for a bedroom, I assume I'll need a fairly powerful unit.
So, what exactly is the logic here? They let my laptop survive for three years only to have it die on me now, and then they have the audacity to claim they won't even attempt a repair? I happened to notice a listing for Dell over in the States claiming that their annual warranty coverage includes complimentary service sessions. We shall have to wait until the contract actually arrives to see what they have written; I haven't been able to secure any specific terms regarding the fulfillment of the warranty.
It is the same old story from everyone involved. They all claim the exact same thing: a standard two to three percent markup from the manufacturers and retailers, coupled with an additional two to three percent taken by the insurance companies. It is a predictable cycle.
I just placed an order for this latest Lenovo model from Best Buy for $1017. It comes with a 5-year warranty, an Intel Core i3 6100, 8GB of DDR4, a 1TB hard drive, and a Full HD display. The odd thing is, when I stopped by the physical store, they claimed they couldn't order it from anywhere, yet the website shows it as available. I went ahead and pulled the trigger anyway; now we'll just have to see if they actually have it in stock to ship out.
An SSD wasn't really an option for this specific deal. For context, I’m running an Intel Core i7 with a 128GB SSD, but I also juggle a 256GB external drive, a 128GB microSD card, and an additional 2TB hard drive. However, she isn't interested in managing a fleet of external drives and cables; she’ll likely keep all her photos and movies directly on the laptop, so 1TB should suffice given she doesn't do much else. She can always upgrade to a higher-capacity SSD later once prices drop. In my estimation, this Lenovo is a legitimate best buy at this price point, provided they actually have it in their warehouse as advertised online and get it shipped.
That said, if I were spending this exact amount, I would personally opt for an HP equipped with a 256GB SSD. It’s a solid choice; if it turns out they don't have the Lenovo in stock, I'll recommend the HP, assuming she's willing to plug in an external drive for her media.
Then again, I am looking closely at the warranty terms. She mentioned it's a standard manufacturer's warranty. I asked twice if there were any hidden stipulations—like being forced to take it in for mandatory routine servicing—and she said no. This means if the motherboard fails four years from now, they should repair it; even if I have to pay some labor costs, it's still better than nothing. It beats the alternative. I've seen people toss perfectly good machines after two years, only for them to fail right after the warranty expires.
My sister’s laptop finally gave up the ghost. It was running some single-core nightmare that was painfully slow.
Now she’s looking for a replacement, ideally something with an extended warranty. Essentially, her usage is quite basic: streaming movies to the TV, browsing Facebook, and scrolling through photos. She just needs something reliable enough to handle Full HD video playback without lagging and, according to her, plenty of storage space.🙂
I noticed Dell offers a 5-year warranty through certain retailers, and Best Buy seems to have several models with a 5-year coverage plan (a 2-year base plus a 3-year extension). I am trying to determine which warranty structure is actually superior; I read somewhere regarding overseas retailers that Dell’s 5-year terms required an annual trip to a service center for maintenance. I certainly hope the American system isn't structured that way, or if the third-party providers used by places like Best Buy operate under similar terms.
From the various options available, I have narrowed it down to these:
$967, this appears to be a very respectable option, provided that 5-year warranty is legitimate.
This one seems decent given the price point, $833 featuring an i3 5005, 4GB of RAM, and a 1TB drive.
Now, this particular model is quite intriguing. While it slightly exceeds the $300 budget, look at the specifications. I have never been a particularly large proponent of AMD, as they historically suffered from thermal issues and overheating, though I am uncertain if that remains the case with this specific architecture. It features an A10 9600p processor, supports Full HD resolution, and should theoretically outperform the i3 5005 or 6100u. It also boasts 12GB of DDR4 RAM, a 1TB drive, and a 4GB dedicated graphics card. That GPU is somewhat redundant for her needs, as her most demanding task is simply watching high-definition films. My concern lies in whether this chassis will run excessively hot, but for the price, it sounds like a bargain—even if they are currently listed as floor models with that long warranty.
Is it truly worth the premium compared to the sub-$300 options featuring the i3 5005/6100u processors?
This one is priced at $2800 with an i3 5005 and is currently in stock.
Everything is on the table except for the Acer; the graphics card is irrelevant here. The primary deciding factors will be the quality of the warranty, overall reliability, and ensuring it doesn't fail prematurely.
Edit: I found this model that was previously sold out at Best Buy. This was my preferred choice. If I recall correctly, it has an i3 6100, 8GB of RAM, a 1TB drive, and Full HD capability. It also includes the 5-year warranty. I might head out to pick it up today, assuming the Dell or HP models aren't more reliable alternatives.
A friend of mine is searching for someone capable of salvaging a portable hard drive. It took a tumble from a height of about eight inches, and now the computer fails to recognize it entirely. The indicator light still functions, and it's a standard 2.5'' drive. A local repair shop gave him a quote for $100 the repair, but I was wondering if anyone here possesses the technical expertise to fix this for a more reasonable fee and successfully recover the data.
There is a certain satisfaction in watching the Klitschko brothers systematically dismantle their opponents. What else is there to say? They are simply the best. As far as I am concerned, they can afford to lean against the ropes, jab away at an opponent here and there, and simply wait for the match to conclude (once any legitimate competition has dried up). It is the challengers who are obligated to come forward and try to break them. Like you mentioned, why would one of the Klitschkos chase someone around the ring? He is the champion; he has a tactical plan and executes his boxing flawlessly. If that isn't considered "exciting" by some—those who prefer the chaos of MMA or the prime days of Tyson, Holly Holm, or Evander Holyfield—then that is their prerogative. It is much like suggesting the NBA is mediocre just because it lacks constant high-flying dunks or aggressive drives to the hoop; if you have a tactically perfect team that simply crushes everything in its path, it might not be flashy to the masses, but it certainly wins games, which is what actually matters.
Attractiveness requires taking risks, but why would anyone risk opening themselves up when facing a "dead donkey" who refuses to take a single hit?
I find it unfortunate that Holly Holm didn't get to face a powerhouse after her comeback, as she was clearly the superior fighter. Conversely, I find it rather amusing, if slightly irritating, how commentators always seem to take the side of the brothers. Fortunately, I watched Klitschko vs. David Haye without the sound on, and it was evident that Klitschko was significantly better, a fact confirmed by the judges. There is no argument to be made that the fight was even close. Tomasz Adamek can certainly take a beating, but what does it matter? The only real question was whether Vitali Klitschko would continue to pick him apart and pummel him until the end. As Wladimir might put it, he could either "turn his face into a pizza face" or finish the job early to avoid the risk of a lucky punch. When someone arrives along the lines of Evander Holyfield and pressures him aggressively for the entire duration—rather than pulling a few attempts like David Haye did—that is when the Klitschko fights will become entertaining. A fight becomes compelling when you are forced to defend yourself. But before that happens, the brothers will likely have already retired. 😁
Personally, I found the film to be quite excellent. I just downloaded the first installment to refresh my memory, but I have to say, the sequel actually left a stronger impression on me. If you find yourself bothered by movies that follow a specific formula, then by all means, feel free to skip it. The primary criticism I hear is that it follows the same template, but frankly, so what? If they released a third one using the exact same premise but with fresh comedic setups, I would watch it in a heartbeat. I simply have a weakness for those absurdly stupid scenes—like when the heavy-set guy is overdosing on his friend's stash and it's priceless, or when he finds out he was rolled by a prostitute and decides to strip right in front of them, haha. It doesn't quite sit in the same comedic league as a Will Ferrell movie, but it is certainly a solid piece of cinema.
Yes, plasma can indeed be donated on a weekly basis; I know several people from the university medical center who go quite regularly. $50 Look, the way they do it is by extracting the plasma and then returning your red blood cells back to you, so it isn't nearly as taxing as a full donation. You don't require an extensive recovery period, which makes a weekly schedule perfectly feasible... My primary curiosity lies in how the body adapts to this cycle over time—specifically, whether the system begins to ramp up production to such a degree that one becomes effectively dependent on the process.
Greetings... I have been contemplating transitioning my betting activities to online platforms for quite some time now. My primary motivation is the ability to engage in live betting and hedging; frankly, I see little reason to continue visiting a physical sportsbook when the odds offered locally are consistently inferior to what can be found online.
I am currently evaluating which platform would be the most suitable choice, Bwin strikes me as the most aesthetically pleasing site, offering a streamlined user interface and an expansive selection of markets. The live match tracking is seamless and intuitive. While I am curious if others share this sentiment, I find their odds to be somewhat underwhelming—in many cases, they are quite disastrous.
To conduct a proper comparison, I selected six heavy favorites from tomorrow's schedule just to test the variance in pricing. Chelsea, Liverpool FC, Manchester United, Real Madrid, Barcelona, and Dinamo... My objective was to observe the discrepancy in total odds between different providers.
At the local SuperSport sportsbook, the combined odds for these six selections sit at 3.91!!
However, upon navigating to Bwin and constructing the exact same parlay, the coefficient drops significantly to 2.83, The disparity is staggering. It seems only a fool would remain seated in a lounge, placing bets through a physical window, when one could simply handle this slip online. Regarding the $30 bonus mentioned elsewhere, is that considered "clean" cash, or am I correct in assuming there are wagering requirements necessitating several rounds of turnover?
I also noted that Bet-at-Home is running a promotion involving a $100 plus $100 bonus, though it requires three rounds of wagering on odds exceeding 2.00. This implies a requirement to wager $100 at 2.00, then another $100 at 2.00, totaling $300 in turnover (assuming $100 increments). Does one need to wager the entire winnings to satisfy the requirement, or just the initial stake? On that platform, the odds for my six picks are 3.07 ...
Expekt receives a fair amount of praise, and indeed, they offer 3.38... Does their $50 bonus follow the same mathematical principle regarding turnover?
Then we arrive at Unibet. A friend recommended Unibet specifically for Texas Hold'em, so I decided to inspect their sportsbook odds. I was genuinely surprised; for instance, Dinamo is priced at 1.20 here, whereas the local shop offers much higher. The total multiplier for the slip is 3.62 !! There is a truly massive difference compared to, say, Bwin... Do they offer any promotional bonuses, and how robust is their live betting inventory?
As it stands, Unibet appears to be the superior option due to both the competitive odds and the poker offerings...
My only lingering concern involves hedging. If I am betting on heavy favorites and intend to hedge my position, and Unibet sets a favorite at 1.12 when the local bookmaker had them at 1.20, I certainly hope they compensate by offering appropriately high odds on the underdog to make the math work.
I am interested to know if anyone else here utilizes Unibet, and what your personal experiences have been regarding the quality of their live betting markets... Regards.
Sugar immediately halts the breakdown of fat stores, so I wouldn't dream of consuming it right before or even during a training session. If you're looking at protein intake, perhaps two shakes containing 50g each would be acceptable, but trying to cram 50g into a single serving is pushing it just a bit too far.
Nicholas Kern90 said:Take 50 grams of protein from whey and split it into two separate shakes—one during your session and one immediately following it.
I fail to see the logic in splitting that up. Why not simply consume the full 50g alongside 70 to 100g of glucose once the workout is finished? That isn't even an excessive amount; I've seen plenty of people doubling that dose without issue. There is really no reason to bother with two separate shakes and the added complexity of introducing sugar if you can just consolidate everything into one efficient post-workout meal.
And what exactly is the purpose of it then? 😕 Since I have already purchased... 😳
Honestly, ignore them; people simply live in a state of constant fear, and those proteins aren't going to cause you any harm 😉... naturally, one will ask questions when they have doubts regarding certain ingredients, which are clearly listed on the packaging... In any case, liquid whey has a lower protein percentage because it consists largely of water, yet whey proteins remain the superior choice... Whey Protein Isolate (WPI) – 159 Whey Protein Concentrate (WPC) – 104 Egg – 100 Milk – 91 Egg white – 88 Chicken – 79 Casein – 77 Soy – 74
goldenfox24 said:At my local gym, the 😁 is slightly cheaper. And you claim the isolate is superior, yet I see no significant price gap, though 5 kg certainly outweighs 4 kg. For me, 500g lasts about a month.
It is an absolute certainty that the isolate is better; hydroisolate is undeniably the gold standard in terms of quality. However, it is prohibitively expensive, and even a standard isolate tends to cost significantly more than concentrate if you actually bother to compare brands... most options on the market are just concentrates or blends. But frankly, it doesn't matter; as long as you're getting those gains, that's all that counts.
goldenfox24 said:Here is the price list those vultures at my local gym decided to post because of people like you: 4kg 100% whey protein $195 100% whey isolate $217 4000g manufactured by Scitec
You could have easily found those prices online; regardless, the 100% whey protein has climbed from $585 to $250 while the 100% whey isolate has remained at $217 since it is higher quality. Given the current pricing, the isolate is actually the superior choice; in my estimation, it represents the best value-to-performance ratio currently available on the market, especially if you happen to secure a discount..
Honestly, I don't understand why people are constantly dragging Scitec through the mud. It’s all just hearsay and "he said, she said" nonsense. Everyone claims to have seen some groundbreaking research, but in reality, they just glance at the sugar content in one single study, compare it to a handful of others, factor in the price tag, and then confidently declare what the absolute best or most cost-effective option is. It’s ridiculous. This is top-tier protein; I don't know what you're all talking about. I've cycled through plenty of brands over the years—everything from Weider and MusclePharm to brands like Optimum Nutrition (which I drank constantly back in the day simply because I heard Filipović 😉 was using it). I've tried Twinlab, but my go-to has always been the Scitec isolate. At the end of the day, the goal is simply to consume protein. All this philosophical debating over which brand is technically 2% superior is a waste of breath; it all leads to the same physiological result. If I pick a more budget-friendly whey, I have more money left over for chicken. If I happen to have extra cash lying around, I’ll just spend it on amino acids throughout the day instead. When it comes to protein, stop listening to the noise and just buy whatever is the most cost-effective and easy for you to drink.
goldenfox24 said:Perhaps you neglected to consider the most obvious solution: simply consulting a fitness professional, given that they are supposedly the ultimate authorities on these matters.
Half of this forum consists of fitness trainers.👍 What specifically are you seeking to understand? To be blunt, the vast majority of instructors found in local gyms possess remarkably little actual knowledge. I have observed this since my early days; no matter which "trainer" you approach for guidance at a gym, you are met with nothing but inconsistent and misguided nonsense. It is far more efficient to take matters into your own hands and commit to rigorous self-study. One tends to master a subject quite rapidly when one possesses genuine interest.
Roger Richardson61 said:The only detail I am genuinely interested in is how much sugar you typically add to your PWM. My standard practice involves adding one full scoop of whey, which equates to roughly 50 grams of dextrose.
I haven't been particularly active on this forum lately. If you are following this specific protocol, how much sugar are you incorporating into your PWM? Generally, for two scoops of whey, the recommendation suggests about 100 grams of glucose, which feels like a bit of an overkill; therefore, 50 grams seems reasonable. Since you cannot precisely determine exactly how much will be utilized immediately, you simply decide for yourself what you feel is necessary.
Roger Richardson61 said:Aerobic training also triggers catabolism to a similar degree as anaerobic training.
I would absolutely advise against taking > before aerobic work, as you are essentially permitting your body to exhaust everything except your fat stores. I made the mistake of doing exactly that once, and it took me about half an hour to realize, "what nonsense am I doing?"
We all recognize that separating the sessions is ideal, but it is certainly less efficient regarding time management. Many people find themselves running for twenty minutes in vain during an aerobic session, whereas others head straight to the track after hitting the weight room simply to save time—effectively getting two workouts done at once. That is precisely why we are discussing this specific combination.
Your assessment is incorrect; aerobic training does not induce muscle catabolism to any degree comparable to anaerobic training—it isn't even close. Where did you get that notion? During light aerobic activity, you primarily burn glycogen at the start, assuming there was no prior training; eventually, the ratio stabilizes and shifts toward a higher percentage of fat oxidation.
Furthermore, I cannot agree with your second point either... If one were to take > after anaerobic training specifically to combat catabolism—since muscles require protein more urgently then—no issue arises unless we consume excessive glucose, which causes insulin secretion and subsequently blocks fat burning... Therefore, one should essentially trick the body: consume > to facilitate replenishment, while utilizing aerobic exercise to target fat loss. It is a complex process that seems to contradict certain conventional rules, yet the objective is to manipulate the body's response in the most effective manner possible. http://forum.teretana.net/viewtopic....r=asc&start=15 I suggest reading the posts by Professor Vedran Jaksic; read them all, as they contain extensive debates explaining the reasoning behind each approach.
This discussion pertains specifically to that combined method, intended for those who have limited time and wish to complete their training in a single session. Those with ample time and motivation can spend all day walking, let alone performing an aerobic session in the morning followed by an anaerobic session in the evening.