Slashdot Mirror

Personally,, just between us chickens, I would like to see an awards show that is not based on the white hot hatred of men. One based on a television show being entertaining. One not based on Lecturing us with no humor at all, merely hate. One where every female winner is not announced with playing the old song "You don't own me"

So I have the same amount of intellectual interest in the Emmy's as a slutwalk, or that woman Milo Moiré, who invites people to fingerbang her in public as a strike against the patriarchy. https://www.cosmopolitan.com/s... Just insane people trying to tell us that their insanity is the best.

Which is why I consider third wave feminists merely the opposite side of the coin from Trump. Neither are sane. Then again, that's the state of television.

It's been done -- nail polish that changes color in the form of Rohypnol...

https://www.cosmopolitan.com/s...

Who would want to go through surgery if they didn't have to, and then go through a year long period of recovery?

Apparently, at least 3%...that's just the number that were granted, not the number who requested it.
http://www.cosmopolitan.com/he...

Correction: we both stumbled over a wrong web page. One hour running burns 150 kcal, not 550. No idea why my first hit confirmed your number more or less. There is basically no human activity you can do to burn 550 kcal in one hour.

One mile of running burns 150ish kcal. One hour of running burns over 500 kcal
ashttp://www.nutristrategy.com/activitylist3.htm/ seen http://www.runnersworld.com/fitness-calculators/calories-burned-calculator/ on http://www.cosmopolitan.com/health-fitness/advice/a29580/workouts-that-burn-more-calories-than-jogging// websites http://running.competitor.com/2015/03/training/many-calories-running-burn_123951/
You're the one mixed up here.

Because a slice of bread is not a sandwich?! If you want to argue about how much calories or kcals a slice of bread has then say so. It is difference if I imagine a real sandwich that was 400 - 600 kcals and you simply talk about a slice of bread that indeed only has 110 - 130. Anyway, probably you are american and a slice of bread is a synonym for a sandwich :D

Now you change to an 1700 kcal diet. What you think is happening? The layman would say: the body burns 200kcal fat, or muscles if he has no fat.
Truth is: the body starts saving! Nothing is happening, for a week or two weeks minimum. In other words the body prefers to adapt to the reduced kcals instead of attacking its reserves.

Drop your diet to 1700 kcal and your body go into saving mode and burn 1800 kcal per day.
see https://www.caloriecount.com/forums/weight-loss/truth-starvation-mode//

To forth your body to switch you need healthy food, and have to reduce kcal intake by about 1/3 below your burn rate. In other words: it is very difficult to eat less than you burn, because the body adjusts its burn and "waste" rate extremely heavy.

Except there is no peer reviewed scientific paper out there that says that. In every single study the body reduces its burn by less than the caloric reduction. Once again see https://www.caloriecount.com/forums/weight-loss/truth-starvation-mode//

Big Deal. I want to know what Cosmo says about it.

That's the irony of it all: women shame women into suppressing their own desires and conforming to predefined female roles. Men have very little (or nothing at all) to do with it. Subtle reinforcements by women for what women should be are everywhere. Where were the men to ruin everything when this all-female business consumed itself in cattiness? "The venomous women were supposedly the talented employees I had headhunted to achieve my utopian dream - a female-only company with happy, harmonious workers benefiting from an absence of men."

[OP] I, along with my twenty million or so neighbors, help New York City use more energy, suck down more water, and spew out more solid waste than any other mega-metropolitan area.

It is difficult to tell from your description whether you regret it all or are boasting about this amazing human accomplishment.

The real question might be Is New York City worth it? On the positive side, you cannot easily disentangle its worth from that of the people who emerge from it. Could there be such people if if not for their environment, be it one of splendor (and/or) squalor? Some of the world's finest bartenders come from the ranks of burned-out New Yorkers.

Bad examples have merit too. In an era where science was convinced cholera was carried by miasma, during the 1858 Great Stink of London John Snow, a physician, mapped mortality rates to discover a geographical waterworks explanation as described in The Sewer King. NYC has excellent waste water treatment --- but it is also home to some modern cesspool-like conditions, such as the economic parasites who skim the world's financial system with High Frequency Trades, creating global dysentery via a false liquidity. Some future John Snow might manage to isolate and trace this scourge back to individual boroughs or even buildings, so these may be torn down or isolated from the rest of the world by shutting them and sealing the cracks with expanding foam.

Imagine if my specific silly examples were all that could be said of New York. Overgeneralization is just as silly. Since New York is exactly what it is, having nothing to do with good or evil, acceptance or rejection, one may well burst out in laughter.

Really? Have you ever flipped through Cosmo? There's no nudity, and no explicit stories.

Really?

Obviously you've never played http://games.cosmopolitan.com/games/boy-toy/
/Haven't either, don't worry.

"And being a little underweight is defiantly better for you than being a little overweight."

For more on this, read Cosmopolitan.

Aha! So that's why Paris, Britney, and Jessica are featured so prominently.

Seriously. From the current netscape.com front page, at least a third of the content is of the form...

* Men Have Biological Baby Clocks, Too * These Questions Can Freak a Man Out * 10 Things You Never Want Her to Say * You Want to Be Sexy? Don't Do This * See Soccer's Hottest Young Stars * Dating's Best and Worst Moments--Ever * First Kisses: The New Rules * 5 Ways to Let Her Know She's Hot # 64% of Men Have Done THIS by Age 29 # Brutal Breakup Lines: Heard These? Solutions: 5 Sex Problems That Aren't

That's not a brand. It's a cheap rehash of Cosmo.

It is, however, unsurprising, considering the demographics of AOL's customer base.

One aspect of marketing/advertising/design is ergonomics and human factors, which helps advertisers structure their materials in the most logical fashion for the way people process information. Just look at any cover of Cosmopolitan and you'll see the end result of years of studies of the scanning people do when they see a document. Important elements seem to jump out at you without you even realizing it, and if you have time you can read the smaller text under each element to find out more. Cosmo, ironically, probably has one of the best-designed magazine covers. Color, layout, subject matter ("SEX" or related words are the lead/top priority item on every cover) and other design elements are used to great effect. The end result is that you look at the magazine, your eye traverses multiple times across the impossibly beautiful woman whose style (if you're a woman) you want to emulate and you then want to buy it, or you don't want to buy it because you don't really read Cosmo. This is why they sell them in checkout lines-- they're an impulse item for non-subscribers. Same thing with Maxim, Playboy, and other glossy magazines.

Compare a well-designed magazine cover like Cosmo with an ugly or poorly designed cover like TV Guide or Hot Rod magazine and you'll see who has the best understanding of human factors. Cosmo is pleasant to look at, "Guns" magazine really isn't, even if you are an enthusiast.

I for one welcome our new human factor-embracing overlords-- as long as they don't beam ads into my head.