Why is watching TV so bad for you?

There's no shortage of research showing links between watching too much television and early death. But what is it about vegging in front of the box that is so bad for you?

Sometimes it seems as though everything that's enjoyable in life is bad for your health, and television is no exception.

A number of studies have found links between watching television and premature death, and the more you watch, the more it reduces your lifespan.

It's been estimated that once you're over 25, every hour of television you watch reduces your life expectancy by close to 22 minutes.

But it isn't terrible scripts, bad acting or excruciating reality TV programs that are shaving years off our lives; it's what we do, or rather don't do, when we're zoning out in front of the box.

For most us, watching television means sprawling on the couch for extended periods. And extended inactivity is known to increase your risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes, some types of cancers and premature death.

Physical activity researcher from Baker IDI Heart and Diabetes Institute Dr Brigid Lynch says one reason sedentary behaviour has such a significant impact on your health is because you expend less energy when you're sitting or lying down than when you're on your feet, just standing or walking around.

"Over hours of the day, days of the week and weeks of the year that is all going to add up and contribute to weight gain and a shift in how much energy you are expending," she says.

But there's also evidence that when our muscles are idle, it slows down the release of enzymes that help to control the level of fats and sugars in your blood.

"When you are sitting down, particularly if you're sitting on the couch and really reclining, you're not actually engaging those [skeletal] muscle groups [in your core, legs and spine]. They are all relaxed.

"And we know that skeletal muscle plays a really important role in metabolic function. So even though you aren't running or using weights, those skeletal muscles play a really important role in glucose regulation and helping to regulate the lipid levels in our blood."

Something else?

But a recent study from Spain suggests that there might be something else happening when we watch TV. The researchers found people who watched more than three hours of television a day had double the risk of premature death when compared to those who watched less than one hour per day. But when they looked at other sedentary behaviours – driving a car and using a computer – they didn't find the same links with early death. They say more research is needed to help figure out whether there are links between computer use or driving and death rate.

But why might TV be linked with premature death when other types of sedentary or inactive behaviour aren't?

Lynch says it might just be that TV watching is more easily measured, giving clearer and therefore more reliable results.

"When we're doing studies and we're asking people to actually recall how long they are spending doing these types of sedentary behaviours – people are pretty good at remembering the amount of time they watch TV for."

But it's also possible some of the behaviours that go hand in hand with watching telly might be contributing to its unhealthy effects, Lynch says.

You don't get off the couch: When you watch TV it's possible you may not stand up for several hours, and research shows even standing up for a minute or two every 20 minutes helps your body regulate important substances such as glucose, fuel for all the body's cells, and the hormone insulin, which enables cells to access and use glucose. "It's fairly unlikely you are going to be sitting at your desk looking at email for several hours without popping up to go and do something else."

TV's affect on food choices: "We know people tend to snack when they are watching TV in the evening, and usually their snack of choice is not particularly healthy. So it's a bit hard to disentangle." There's also the possibility that when you're watching TV, you are being exposed to advertising of unhealthy food choices. If this ends up influencing what you buy and eat, it adds to the poor health effects of TV watching.

TV may be linked with social isolation: "We know there are a lot of health benefits to having that social interaction and maybe missing out on that, and spending a lot of time in front of the TV is taking that social interaction away from people and that's also contributing to their poor health outcomes." It's also the case that TV watching may be a result of social isolation, with people turning to the box because they have no social interactions to distract them.

While you don't need to give up TV, the Spanish researchers (and other experts) say you should limit the amount of time you spend watching TV to less than one to two hours a day. And when you are watching try to:

• Get up and move around every now and again, rather than remain entirely motionless. Consider standing for short periods of watching or do a standing chore like ironing for some of the time.
• Put your remote control away so you are forced to get up to use manual controls.
• Don't make your favourite TV show an excuse to eat junk food.

As for those excruciating reality TV shows? Health experts warn you watch them at your own risk...

Can You Boost Your Pet's Immune System? Maybe, Maybe Not

Owners often ask me what can be done to help “strengthen” their pet’s immune system following a diagnosis of cancer.  Whether it’s a result of clever Internet advertising, heeding the advice of friends or family members, or any number of personal motivations, I find this often posed question both challenging and humbling.

In veterinary school, we learn the immune system exists akin to a seesaw in perfect balance. Disease exists when one end of the seesaw transfers too far towards either extreme.

If the balance falls towards the ground, the immune system is depressed, leaving pets susceptible to infection, and disease is an inevitable consequence. If the balance rises towards the sky, the immune system essentially operates in overdrive, attacking healthy cells; this is known as immune-mediated diseases.

A “boosted” immune system (if such a thing existed) could therefore be just as harmful as a depressed one. The goal should be for patients to maintain a perfect balance rather than tipping too far toward either extreme.

The expression “immune booster” suggests the immune system is akin to any other muscle of the body that can be worked out and supplemented in such a way as to strengthen it with conditioning and time. Unfortunately, such a view of this complicated body system is not only overly simplistic, but also completely inaccurate.

The immune system consists of innate protection, which is something organisms are born with. This consists of physical barriers to pathogens (e.g., the skin or mucous membranes). Signs of a healthy innate immune system include the itchy red bump you develop in your skin following a bee sting, or the annoying runny nose you have during a cold. I’m not sure that boosting either of those reactions will result in anything beneficial. In fact, an overzealous allergic reaction to a bee sting causes what is known as an anaphylactic reaction, which in its most aggressive form, can be fatal.

The other major components of the immune system include passive immunity and adaptive immunity. Passive immunity includes the transference of antibodies to a newborn from its mother during nursing. Passive immunity tends to be temporary, lasting only a few short weeks to months in duration. Therefore, it’s impossible to “boost” passive immunity in an adult organism.

Adaptive immunity occurs when antibodies are generated following vaccination or natural exposure to pathogens. I imagine this would be the “sole target” for enhancement in an adult organism. But when we delve deeper into the design and organization of the adaptive immune system, we find it is so incredibly complicated and so difficult to understand that the first question we must consider is what part exactly are we trying to boost?

Are we trying to enhance the efficacy of B-lymphocytes as they produce immunoglobulins to attack pathogens? Are we working towards making T-lymphocytes work more efficiently to lyse foreign particles? Are we attempting to create more effective cytokines to stimulate immune reactions? Do we want to fight intracellular or extracellular pathogens?

These are just a handful of the multitude of cellular and chemical reactions comprising the adaptive immune system. I would venture it’s impossible to simultaneously target all of these reactions and components with simple herbs and vitamins. Even if we could, would this be something beneficial for our cancer patients?

An “over boostered” immune system would be more likely to attack the body’s own healthy cells (i.e., what occurs in auto-immune disorders). So, if it truly is possible to stimulate immunity, is it really something desirable for a cancer patient?

Special consideration should be given to patients battling cancers of the immune system (e.g., lymphomas, leukemias, etc.).  If we were truly successful in making a patient’s immune system work harder and more efficiently, could we somehow be compromising our patients’ health in the long run? Could we be working towards making cancers of the immune system “stronger” and more resistant to our therapies?

We must also consider how one of the hallmarks of cancer biology is that tumor cells develop, proliferate, and spread as a result of their ability to evade their hosts’ immune system. Cells committed to a cancerous lineage develop clever ways to avoid being detected by their hosts’ immune cells. Regardless of how much training and stimulation the immune system engages in, it remains unable to detect the “wolfish” cancer cells existing amongst the “sheepish” healthy cells.

I’m not suggesting cancer develops as a result of an inherent problem with the host’s immune system. Rather, disease occurs because cancer cells discover ways to avoid the immune cells designed to survey for their existence. Yes, certain cancers are more common in immunocompromised individuals; however, these tend to be the exceptions rather than the rules for most tumors. In many cases, once cancer develops, the immune system has already lost a battle it never even knew it was supposed to fight.

I’ve said it before, but I think it’s worth repeating my advice to owners to heed the proverbial “buyer beware” when it comes to those companies claiming their products will “boost” your pet’s immune system. They may only serve to weaken your wallets in the long run.

How to Increase Router Bandwidth

The bandwidth of a router refers to many different things. A router’s bandwidth is measured by your connection to the router, the router’s ability to handle and forward requests, and the outbound bandwidth provided to the router. Depending on your router, options available to increase bandwidth include using wired connections when possible, removing optional services such as SPI, and aggregating ports. If your goal is merely to increase network speed, then you need to consider more factors than just the router.

Understanding Bandwidth

Your maximum bandwidth is limited by the slowest part between you and your intended destination. It’s important to understand how bandwidth works with your router. Many routers are integrated deviceswhich include a switch and a wireless antenna. The switch enables you to wire multiple device to a single router, manifesting itself as additional "LAN" ports, while the wireless does the same thing without the use of wireless. Your connection to the router has a significant impact on your perceived routerbandwidth. The actual bandwidth include IP-based headers and other overhead which consumes bandwidth but is virtually invisible to your online experience. Increasing your bandwidth usually involves changing how you and others connect to the router. Routers are also limited by your Internet ServiceProvider – no matter how much bandwidth you have to the router, you’ll never access the Internet faster than what’s allowed by your ISP. Transferring a file to another PC on your LAN happens much faster than downloading a file from the Internet.

Adjusting the MTU Size

The most direct way to increase a router’s throughput is to make sure less of its bandwidth is used for overhead. Overhead includes the bits of information attached to every data packet that informs other routers what type of packet it is, where it’s coming from and where it’s going. When sending or receiving a large amount of data, the router breaks the data into packets. The fewer individual packets there are, the less overall bandwidth is wasted on overhead. A more efficient packet is one that uses the Maximum Transmission Unit, or MTU. The MTU tells the router how large a piece of data can be before breaking it into another packet. Modifying the MTU to a larger size only increases your router performance when transferring large files – small transactions are virtually unaffected.

Disabling the Firewall and Other Services

Routers often include services for security, compatibility or ease of use. Each of these functions consumes resources on the router, a resource which could affect its overall throughput. Many routers, for example, include a stateful packet inspection function, or SPI, for security. This is a function that analyzes every packet transmitted through your router to help protect your network from hacking. If you have a separate firewall, disabling SPI increases the bandwidth available to your router. However, it's not recommended to disable this service without having another security measure in place, such as a Firewall. Microsoft Windows includes a software firewall.

Other Tricks

Depending on your router, there are many bandwidth-increasing options. Channel bonding, for example, allows you to make two or more ports act as if they were one, effectively offering double the bandwidth or more. Channel bonding is used by ISPs to offer speeds beyond what a telephone line or single cable channel normally offers. This is also called “link aggregation” by some equipment manufacturers. If you run a wireless “g” router, eliminating compatibility for 802.11b-based devicesspeeds up the connection for all 802.11g-based devices that are connected to your router. This same trick does not apply to 802.11n-based routers, which are backwards compatible with 802.11g devices. When possible, connect via a wired port instead of wireless. Wired ports provide an unshared, 100Mbps or 1000Mbps of bandwidth from your PC to the router. By contrast, the maximum bandwidth of your wireless is shared by every other wireless device. Furthermore, securing your wireless frequency ensures that your wireless bandwidth is shared only with authorized users, and not hogged by neighbors or "snoopers."

The Future of Networking: 8 Amazing Technologies Being Researched Right Now

Software-defined networking (SDN), network functions virtualization (NFV), and massively distributed computing dominate the thinking of today’s network engineers as they plan “next-generation” infrastructure.

But what’s in the pipeline for next next-generation networks? Read on for a look at some of the coolest network research projects taking place right now — projects that could have a bSoftware-defined networking (SDN), network functions virtualization (NFV), and massively distributed computing dominate the thinking of today’s network engineers as they plan “next-generation” infrastructure.

But what’s in the pipeline for next next-generation networks? Read on for a look at some of the coolest network research projects taking place right now — projects that could have a big impact on the network designs and careers of tomorrow.

Wireless datalinks for dronesig impact on the network designs and careers of tomorrow.

The aviation industry isn’t exactly known for being a wireless networking trendsetter. When we fly a commercial airline, we’re lucky if we can check email in-flight. Even if we can do that, bandwidth is usually pretty limited.

But Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) — or drones, as they’re more popularly known — stand to help change that. Academic and industry researchers are now working to make long-distance, high-speed wireless networking feasible. Their research is geared toward streamlining communication between UAVs and manned aircraft, which will no doubt be a hot topic as drones continue to explode in popularity, and take on a greater presence in the skies.

The work has broader implications in the aviation industry and beyond, however. For instance, it’s easy to imagine trains and cars (including those headless ones Google now has roving around), also benefitting from wireless networks that can sustain high bandwidth, across wide distances, at high speeds.

Ambient backscatter

On the topic of major advances in wireless communications, researchers at the University of Washington are working to open new doors in the Wi-Fi world by “backscattering” wireless signals. That means re-using existing radio frequency signals instead of generating new ones. Because the devices don’t generate their own radio signals, they also don’t need any energy to operate.

Imagine being able to use wireless signals for networking where access to power is limited or non-existent and you get a sense of the tremendous possibilities for this new technology.

Please visit and you may want to bookmark this one.

Do You Really Know What Your Kid's Doing on That Smartphone?

Rich Wistocki, a retired cybercrime detective who now consults with and trains educators, parents, kids and law enforcement on digital safety, demonstrates a parental monitoring app at his webcasting studio in Lockport, Illinois, on Tuesday, June 5, 2018. Wistocki, now head of Be Sure Consulting, says all parents should put monitoring apps on their kids' phones. The apps allow parents to monitor activity, approve apps and track their kids' location. (AP Photo/Martha Irvine) The Associated Press

By MARTHA IRVINE, AP National Writer

CHICAGO (AP) — Ayrial Miller is clearly annoyed. Her mother is sitting with her on the couch in their Chicago apartment, scrolling through the teen's contacts on social media.

"Who's this?" asks Jennea Bivens, aka Mom.

It's a friend of a friend, Ayrial says. They haven't talked in a while.

"Delete it," her mom says.


The 13-year-old's eyes narrow to a surly squint. "I hate this! I hate this! I hate this!" she shouts.

Yes, Bivens is one of "those moms," she says. She makes no apology.

Nor should she, says a retired cybercrimes detective who spoke to her and other parents in early June at Nathan Hale Elementary School, a K-8 public school in Chicago.

"There is no such thing as privacy for children," Rich Wistocki told them.

Other tech experts might disagree. But even they worry about the secret digital lives many teens are leading, and the dreadful array of consequences — including harassment and occasional suicides — that can result.

Today's kids are meeting strangers, some of them adults, on a variety of apps. Teens are storing risqué photos in disguised vault apps, and then trading those photos like baseball cards.

Some even have spare "burner" phones to avoid parental monitoring, or share passwords with friends who can post on their accounts when privileges are taken away.

David Coffey, a dad and tech expert from Cadillac, Michigan, said he was floored when his two teens told him about some of the sneaky things their peers are doing, even in their small rural town.

"I gotta hand it to their creativity, but it's only enabled through technology," says Coffey, chief digital officer at IDShield, a company that helps customers fend off identity theft.

It's difficult to say how many kids are pushing digital boundaries this way. But academics, experts like Wistocki and Coffey, and many teens themselves say it's surprisingly common for kids to live online lives that are all but invisible to most parents.

Exposed to tablets and smartphones at an increasingly early age, kids are correspondingly savvier about using them and easily share tips with friends. Parents, by contrast, are both overwhelmed and often naive about what kids can do with sophisticated devices.

Wistocki often holds up a mobile phone and tells wide-eyed parents that giving a kid this "ominous device" is like handing over the keys to a new Mercedes and saying, "Sweetheart you can go to Vegas. You can drive to Texas, Florida, New York, wherever you want to go."

Such journeys can lead to ugly incidents, sometimes involving surprisingly young participants.

In January, two 12-year-olds were arrested in Panama City Beach, Florida, for cyberstalking that police said led to the suicide of a classmate named Gabriella Green, who'd been repeatedly bullied.

Last year in Naperville, a 16-year-old killed himself after police discovered that he'd recorded himself having sex with a classmate and then shared the recording with his hockey teammates. While searching his phone, they also found photos of other partially nude girls in a secret photo vault app disguised as a calculator.

And yet, Wistocki says, too often parents remain in denial with what he calls "NMK — not my kid."

Bivens, Ayrial's mom uses an app called MMGuardian, one of several available, to manage and monitor her 13-year-old daughter's phone use. She turns off certain apps, sometimes as punishment, and monitors texts.

"It's a full-time job," Bivens concedes. "People laugh at me because I monitor her stuff. But I don't have the same problems as other people do."

A 2016 Pew Research Center survey found that only about half of parents said they had ever checked their children's phone calls and text messages or even friended their kids on social media.

Tech experts agree that monitoring makes sense for younger kids. But Pam Wisniewski, a computer-science professor at the University of Central Florida, suggests a gradual loosening of the strings as teens prove they can be trusted.

"I'm almost to the point where I feel like the world would be better off without social media," says Wisniewski, who studies human computer interaction and adolescent online safety. "But I'm also a pragmatist."

Wistocki tells parents to offer their children the "Golden Ticket" — no punishment when they come to them about mistakes they've made online or help they need with a social media problem.

Ayrial's mom is all for that. Recently, Ayrial started a live videostream on Twitter and encountered a stranger who asked her to show her bare feet. It was a "creepy" request, the teen said, that caused her to end the connection quickly.

She had sidestepped a block on social media by using a tablet. But she did tell Mom what happened soon after.

Ayrial still isn't happy that her mom is going through her contacts with her. The soon-to-be eighth-grader appreciates that "she cares about me," but hopes Mom will eventually "back up" a bit.

"When I'm in high school, that might get embarrassing sometimes, you know?" she says. "You need to learn your own — how do I put this? — discipline. . You need to learn from your own mistakes."

If Mom doesn't give her that space, she says, she's always coming up with new tricks to get online secretly, just as her friends do.


And no, she won't share how.

Most people come home to a family

 And I guess I do to, I come home to 105 pound, 15 month old Akita named "Nietzsche"/my baby boy. He still hasn't raised his leg to pee so he doesn't realize he's a boy...yet!
 Akita's are not two owner dogs and many are put down. As puppies they're a big soft ball of fur and as they grow people tend to leave them in yards or homes "alone" which is thee worst thing that an owner could ever do.
As they grow alone they establish their dominance over a piece of dirt, furniture, space in a home, etc. At around 10 months they will challenge you for that space. At first it may seem playful yet the intent is not. Gooo right ahead and let the puppy have his/her way and within months they will "take" their way.
 These are professional or at least "well seasoned" dog owner's dogs! I'd gather you can you have a sense of how others are, yep, they go out and see something cute and the next thing you know it's 100 pounds and has taken over daring you to challenge it. Why? People don't read.
 Think about it, these dogs were bred to hunt panda bears and large game in northern Japan. Excuse my language but what do you think he gives a shit about confronting you?
 "Nietzsche" is only trained in the "basics", he doesn't need to do anything else but be a dog. When people ask does he sit, I say yes but I bet he'll make you sit first.

Ehh, take that as the briefest of intro's and read at least two books before you purchase one. (They're not cheap) If you decide to purchase one, place a collar and leash on the puppy and never take it off, ever. 
They don't like other male dogs or anything that challenges them and they tend to be runners. "Nietzsche" may come back if I call for him but I guarantee you, it will be when he damn well pleases.

Enjoy your weekend

I dance around it yet haven't addressed, "Death".

 In my "belief" there is only the death of the body as the spirit continues on. In "my" belief the body is actually a negative to universal life. Somehow I got strapped into a body with all it's limitations of travel, thought, discipline, quirks, aging, desires and shortcomings just to name a few.

 Fearing death is not that "bright" to me. I may as well fear rain, grass, food or darkness. They are all coming and I also look to those who have died before me, they did and so can I.

 Let's face it, I will become a memory to all things or all things will become a memory to me".

 I only have a limited amount of time/"nows" on earth and fearing the inevitable makes no sense.

The Hilarious History of 'OK'

 I've been caught with my pants down, yes, I read dictionaries.

The English language's most successful export is a joke

Here's a quiz: let's say you're setting off to see the world and aside from please and thank you in a smattering of languages you pretty much only know English. What is the one word that most of the people you encounter will also know?

That's right. It's OK.

Yep. It's very probably the most widely recognized word in the world. And its origin story is literally a joke.

The definitive text on the subject is by professor Allan Metcalf, whose OK: The Improbable Story of America's Greatest Word, based on the research of historian Allen Walker Read, was published in 2010. Metcalf traces the word's birth to a bit of jocular text in an 1839 article in the Boston Morning Post—a little jab from one newspaper editor to another, suggesting that his cohort in Providence, Rhode Island, should sponsor a party for some boisterous Boston lads who might be stopping by his town:

... he of the [Providence] Journal, and his train-band, would have the 'contributions box,' et ceteras, o.k.—all correct—and cause the corks to fly…"

But let's back up for a minute and establish our setting. Newspapers in the 19th century existed before the advent of wire services, and American newspapers got most of their out-of-town news from other newspapers they exchanged copies with. The papers weren't cramped for space, and they'd also print humor, poetry, fiction, and jabs at other newspapers. The quote above is part of a humorous reply to an item reprinted from the Providence paper.

Despite plenty of space, there was an abbreviation fad in newspapers of the time that might remind one of our own time. Perhaps a friend has sent you an electronic message containing brb, for "be right back"? Or maybe you've assessed an article as TL;DR? Let us present for comparison the 1839 New York newspaper report of a fashionable young woman remarking to her male friend "O.K.K.B.W.P.": her alphabetic litany was answered with a kiss and reported to translate as "one kind kiss before we part." Take that, Internet.

The 1820s and 1830s shared another linguistic fad with today: an appreciation for deliberate misspellings. (Kewl, rite?) This trend, which had humorists adopting now-cringey bumpkin personas with ignorance manifested in uneducated spellings, turned no go into know go and no use into know yuse (lol). Abbreviations were not immune, and no go became K.G.. So too all right became O.W., as an abbreviation for oll wright. And all correct became o.k., as an abbreviation for oll korrect.

Although OK became one of the more commonly used initialisms, it might have passed into oblivion when the linguistic fad had passed if not for the presidential election of 1840, when Martin Van Buren was given the nickname of "Old Kinderhook" because of his hometown of Kinderhook, NY. The Van Buren stans who joined "OK Clubs" nationwide were themselves, they proclaimed, "OK." Their campaign was memorable enough to have both popularized the word and to have hijacked the story of its origin: there are today still those who believe that "Old Kinderhook" is the original meaning of OK.

As OK spread (helped along by the advent of the telegraph), its origin story was a topic of much speculation. "Old Kinderhook" persisted, and various linguistic ancestors from various languages were also proposed, with forebears from Latin, Greek, Scottish, French, Finnish, Anglo-Saxon via Swedish, Mandingo, and Wolof all being offered. The most persistent of these ancestors was the Choctaw word okeh. This etymon was suggested in 1885, with Andrew Jackson supposedly having borrowed the word from members of the Choctaw tribe. Woodrow Wilson was a believer: he wrote okeh on papers he approved. He was asked why he did not use O.K. "Because it is wrong," he replied.

O.K. is of course not wrong. And speaking of "wrong," OK and okay aren't wrong either; they are the dominant forms, though the lowercase ok is also fully established.

Although the longer okay may look like the more reputable member of the language, it's not, as we've seen, justified by etymology. It has its supporters, though, with Louisa May Alcott being among the early adopters:

One of us must marry well. Meg didn't, Jo won't, Beth can't yet, so I shall, and make everything okay all round. 
— Little Women, 1868-9

As Professor Metcalf notes in an illuminating blog post all about the okay spelling, the 1880 edition of Little Women included neither okay nor OK, opting instead for the word cozy. Um, OK.