Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK Council To Send Obese People 'Motivational' Texts Telling Them To Use Stairs

Posted by Soulskill on from the because-it's-hard-to-ignore-the-occasional-text-message dept.

Qedward writes "Stoke-on-Trent City Council is sending texts to obese people in the area to help motivate them to lose weight. Examples of the texts sent include 'aim to eat a variety of fruit and vegetables each day,' 'aim to eat regular meals and keep a check on snacks and drinks' and 'maybe walk to the shops or use the stairs more often.' Over 100,000 people in the region are overweight or obese, the council said, and the texts are for those who are aged at least 18, have a body mass index of 25 or over and who have proactively signed up to receive the motivational messages."

147 of 225 comments (clear)

  1. correlation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Between these txts and increase in suicides.

    1. Re:correlation by s.petry · · Score: 3, Informative

      Duh, that is the secondary purpose for the texts.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    2. Re:correlation by davester666 · · Score: 1

      hey, whatever you need to do to stop eating...

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    3. Re:correlation by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      Ok, just wondering...how does the 'council' know which people are obese??

      Do they require everyone to come into city hall and get weighed? Does this only go out to people that register for this..etc?

      I'm just curious how the govt. gets the stats on everyone's weight or BMI to know if they should be on the list for text messages?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    4. Re:correlation by digitrev · · Score: 2

      "and who have proactively signed up to receive the motivational messages". Read the freaking summary at least, dude.

      --
      Cynical Idealist
    5. Re:correlation by digsbo · · Score: 1

      National Healthcare Service, I would think. Could be wrong, but it's pretty likely. A big reason people in the USA oppose the ACA; diagnosed with anxiety disorder (which 1 in 3 people are believed to have at some point)? Lose your 2nd amendment rights. Handy.

    6. Re:correlation by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Well, my comment was sarcasm more than reality but it would not be hard for them to tell who is obese. The UK has way more cameras watching the public than the US, complete with facial recognition. It would not be hard to also have a "body" recognition where you could have the computer label someone "fatty".

      Of course that does not match what we were told in TFA, which is that people will volunteer to receive these texts. I'm just pointing out that it would not be hard based on the current UK government hardware, software, and methods to at least guess someone was obese and automatically sign them up for these texts..

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    7. Re:correlation by hazah · · Score: 1

      News flash, it's expensive to die, no matter the reason. Smokers aren't adding to that bill any more than you are. Not a smoker.

    8. Re:correlation by gnasher719 · · Score: 2

      News flash, it's expensive to die, no matter the reason. Smokers aren't adding to that bill any more than you are. Not a smoker.

      I can tell you most definitely that dying is a very cheap affair. Digging a grave and putting you inside a coffin costs a lot less than keeping you in hospital for a week.

    9. Re:correlation by LinuxIsGarbage · · Score: 1

      It would not be hard to also have a "body" recognition where you could have the computer label someone "fatty".

      Use the pornoscanners at the airport.

    10. Re:correlation by hazah · · Score: 1

      You may have missed the fine print...Most people will go through that week(s) ordeal before their death.

  2. Misleading headline again. by sconeu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But then I read the last line of TFS.

    This is OPT-IN. You only get them if you sign up for them.

    Of course, at some point, they will tap into NHS (I'm assuming that this is UK), and send to everyone, regardless of whether they had opted-in or not.

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    1. Re:Misleading headline again. by pla · · Score: 1

      Of course, at some point, they will tap into NHS (I'm assuming that this is UK), and send to everyone, regardless of whether they had opted-in or not.

      If they ever make it anything but opt-in, the "victims" of these messages have a pretty simple way to fight back: Respond with pictures. Big ones.

      No, you can't bankrupt your own government, but just watch the NHS try to justify a billion pounds a year in data overages to support a single unpopular program. "Next up on the budget chopping block..."

    2. Re:Misleading headline again. by rmstar · · Score: 1

      This is OPT-IN. You only get them if you sign up for them.

      Ah, thanks. With this piece of information, the UK seems only a tiny little bit less creepy than before I read your comment. It speaks volumes that the idea that in the UK something like this isn't opt-in seems entirely plausible.

    3. Re:Misleading headline again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It speaks volumes that the idea that in the UK something like this isn't opt-in seems entirely plausible.

      It does, but it speaks volumes about Slashdot, not about the UK.

    4. Re:Misleading headline again. by N1AK · · Score: 1

      Of course, at some point, they will tap into NHS (I'm assuming that this is UK), and send to everyone, regardless of whether they had opted-in or not.

      If that led to less people being dangerously overweight without causing other negative side-effects (depression, self-esteem issues etc) then so what if they do? Is it really more abusive to send someone a text encouraging them to eat more healthily or to continue to support their self-harm by providing the benefits that prop it up and leave them to it?

    5. Re:Misleading headline again. by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      #whatcouldpossiblygowrong

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    6. Re:Misleading headline again. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      What insurance company would that be? The UK has the NHS, which we all know is communist and unchristian and causes gay marriage.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    7. Re:Misleading headline again. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      By about 1% of the population. You really don't know what you're talking about, so just STFU.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    8. Re:Misleading headline again. by cupantae · · Score: 1

      Hmm. The day after I wrote this comment, it was only voted "Funny", and reached +5 pretty quickly. Now a week later, suddenly it's voted down to -1 and marked "Flamebait" each time. I'm calling shenanigans. This was clearly the act of one person or one colluding group.

      Sorry if I offended you, tubby.

      --
      --
  3. BMI by TranquilVoid · · Score: 4, Informative

    BMI is designed as a measure of population weight, not individual. Mine is over 30, making me technically obese, yet I have so little body fat I cannot float in swimming pools, and only just in the ocean.

    1. Re:BMI by ZenMatrix · · Score: 2

      Yeah BMI isn't a hard number to go by, there are many factors that can affect it. Generally speaking if your overweight you know it... you don't need some number to tell you. I'd rather see labels disappear and just focus on what you need to do to stay healthy. http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/dow...

    2. Re:BMI by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 2

      That's called the "bodybuilder problem". The vast, vast majority of people with BMIs over 30 are obese.

    3. Re:BMI by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      That's called the "bodybuilder problem". The vast, vast majority of people with BMIs over 30 are obese.

      It's also called "bullshit", because everyone and their dog on the internet claims to run afoul of the BMI due to their extremely athletic builds.
      Pics or it didn't happen. Internet Claims 101.

      Are you calling bullshit on me or the parent post? Bodybuilders never miss a chance to mention their body mass.

      Here's an experiment for you-

      This week, take note of everyone you see that appears to weigh 250 pounds or more. Keep track of how many of them have huge rippling biceps, and how many have a big gut and/or ass.

    4. Re:BMI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You are correct; it is indeed designed for populations as a whole and not individuals - however many individuals (like me) who have an average build and don't do a lot of weight training get decent info from it. However the TFS says "obese" and "over 25". I know different regions are using different values based on body type (in Singapore the cut off for obese and overweight are different, etc.), but my gosh - 25 isn't obese even for an average body type. In the US you have to get to 30 to be considered obese (as you mentioned). I'm currently hanging out at 27.5 and working my way down towards 25 - which is the UPPER END OF NORMAL. Not sure why they would send the texts to someone who is at the high end of normal...

    5. Re:BMI by TranquilVoid · · Score: 1

      You are probably right. I considered mentioning this in the original post - I don't do any gym work at all. However I do have a solid 'V' shape and am of average height, hence the BMI. Weight 95kg, could afford to lose 5 of those. I cycle 40km per day, eat way too much chocolate.

      There was a story this week where Israel has banned ads using models with a BMI under 8.5, which is astounding that they felt the need to do this. I can maybe understand it for World Vision sponsor children, but regular products?

    6. Re:BMI by jxander · · Score: 1

      True. BMI is hardly perfect... but it's a good first step. Kinda like "Did you reboot it?"

      Not going to solve every problem or answer every question, but a good start, and most importantly, doesn't require any in-depth knowledge or fancy equipment.

      --
      This signature is false.
    7. Re:BMI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nope, the problem is that BMI does fuck all to predict anything. The hips to waist ratio is somewhat more meaningful as it takes into consideration the distribution of fat on the body. It's still not a great measure, but two people with the same height, build and BMI could be carrying the weight in very different ways, and as a result have very different health risks.

    8. Re:BMI by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 5, Informative

      True. BMI is hardly perfect... but it's a good first step. Kinda like "Did you reboot it?"

      Actually, no it's NOT a "good first step." It's a fair to poor "first step." It's more like a troubleshooting procedure that's guaranteed to give bogus results in a significant percentage of cases -- i.e., where it's wrong or off so often that asking the question is almost more likely to lead you down the wrong path for many cases, rather than giving you useful information.

      The BMI formula assumes that adiposity relates to height squared. It does not. This is a simple fact. When people get taller, their bodies scale in three dimensions, not two. So, for really tall people, it's guaranteed to say they are more fat than they really are, and for really short people, it's guaranteed to say people are at a healthy weight when their fat or even obese.

      The only reason the BMI formula appears to work at all is because women are both shorter and tend to have higher "healthy" bodyfat percentages. The BMI ranges are more-or-less supposed to be the same for men and women -- that should be a major red flag to anyone who knows anything about bodyfat, since healthy bodyfat ranges for men and women are clearly known to be different.

      So, the mean female height is less than the mean male height, but the mean healthy female bodyfat amount is higher. Thus, to have a formula that works for both sexes, you need something that doesn't accurately reflect a "normal" body being scaled up or down. BMI fits the bill, and thus it has been used for population studies to compare mean statistics for overall populations. For individuals -- which it was never designed for -- it's TERRIBLE.

      You can immediately see that from the men vs. women problem. BMI says a short man who is in the middle of the height range for women should have the same weight as an average woman. Given what we know about bodyfat, that doesn't make sense. Or, a tall woman who's over 6' or something -- to have a "healthy" BMI she'd often have to look like a waifish model.

      "But," you say, "it's still a good first step. It's a simple formula."

      Nope -- doesn't excuse it. There are a number of studies that have shown that a number of even simpler measures are actually more accurate at predicting health problems, propensity for disease, etc. For example, simply measuring the waist circumference for men -- regardless of height -- has been shown to be a better predictor of health problems than BMI. Think about that for a moment. Clearly a guy who is 5' tall should not have a waist size the same as a 7' tall guy. But studies have shown that even measuring the waist and saying, "Is it bigger than X inches?" without knowing anything about height, weight, or anything else is a better predictor than BMI.

      Yeah, BMI sucks that bad.

      But could a simple formula do that much harm? Well, why not just modify that "simple formula" to make it more accurate? In the days when you had to calculations by hand or with a slide rule, a formula involving only an exponent of 2 and a division might make sense. But most people don't calculate BMI by hand anymore -- they plug things into some sort of web calculator or look at a chart.

      We can easily fix BMI to make it much more accurate. First, just change the exponent. Logically, as I mentioned at the outside, squaring the height makes NO SENSE. You might think that cubing the height would be better, since the body expands in three dimensions, but it turns out that the male/female factor and other things that don't quite scale precisely with the cube of the height makes an exponent of 3 bad too.

      Various empirical studies have suggested an exponent of somewhere in the 2.3 to 2.7 range would be better. But really, to get any accuracy at all, you'd have to at least consider separating the sexes. At that point, you could narrow the range of the exponent for males an

    9. Re:BMI by Arker · · Score: 1

      Excellent post, completely right. BMI is a useful proxy in population statistics but worse than useless when applied to individuals.

      To get something usable for individuals you would not only need to correct for gender but also for skeletal proportions (body shape,) by the way. Imagine two people, the same height, but the pelvic girdle and shoulders of the one is twice as wide as the other. Their healthy weights are NOT going to be the same.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    10. Re:BMI by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      To get something usable for individuals you would not only need to correct for gender but also for skeletal proportions (body shape,) by the way. Imagine two people, the same height, but the pelvic girdle and shoulders of the one is twice as wide as the other. Their healthy weights are NOT going to be the same.

      Yes, of course. This is a great point. I was trying to point out that we could still make significant improvements to the "simple" BMI formula without requiring additional information or measurements.

      But yes, if you want even more accuracy for individuals, you'd be better off with a model that takes frame into account. People who are older may still remember the tables many physicians used to use before BMI took over almost everything in the 1980s or so. I distinctly recall tables like that which were separated by sex and by frame: "small frame," "medium frame," and "large frame." Obviously even those 3 categories wouldn't reflect every individual, but it would still be a better approximation when coupled with a slightly modified BMI.

    11. Re:BMI by zippthorne · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      kg isn't a weight. You're ruining the metric system.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    12. Re:BMI by TranquilVoid · · Score: 3, Funny

      But if I used "mass" I could never lose it, just convert it into energy.

    13. Re:BMI by The+Snowman · · Score: 1

      The BMI ranges are more-or-less supposed to be the same for men and women

      Breasts are mostly fat tissue, the rest is not muscle. Women have fat tissue in the hips that is healthy weight compared to men. Other than that, we are equal. BMI is NOT supposed to be the same between genders. We may be equal in many areas including software engineering and whatever else the government calls "illegal discrimination," but "child gestation," "child birth," and "breastfeeding" area areas in which we are most definitely NOT equal and in which extra fat gives females a distinct advantage comparing female to male BMI. Remember, we have different roles in reproduction and evolution.

      When I was active duty U.S. Air Force, they gave females an extra 4% body fat in any given age group to account for that. Seemed to be fair and accurate given the women in my age group at the time.

      --
      24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
    14. Re: BMI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      From the NHS (UK):

      if your BMI is between 25 and 29, you would be considered overweight
      if your BMI is between 30 and 40, you would be considered obese
      if your BMI is over 40, you would be considered very obese (known as "morbidly obese")

    15. Re:BMI by u38cg · · Score: 1

      So what? Anyone with a BMI over 30 with a healthy level of body fat knows far more about their health than the people that obesity campaigns need to target.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    16. Re:BMI by fatphil · · Score: 1

      Stop repeating that tired new bullshit.

      Kilograms have been weight since forever. This is because weight does mean mass. The words were both coined before there was any distinction between the concepts.

      Citation needed? How about *standards bodies*? http://fatphil.org/weight.html

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    17. Re:BMI by Tom · · Score: 1

      BMI works for many people, but not all. As in so many general statistical measures, you need to know where the limits are and if you're an exception or not.

      Most people aren't. While I don't doubt that you are truthful, for everyone one of you there are twenty actually obese people who'll use a line like that as an excuse.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    18. Re:BMI by fatphil · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No. BMI is designed for naive people two hundred years ago who just want a number, no matter how meaningless it is.

      Weight does not and should not scale with the square of height unless you imagine that taller people are taller and wider, but not thicker. It's not a cubic relation either in reality, but there would have been more logic supporting that than square, even if it's a no better fit to common-sense results wise.

      Everything to do with exponent-2 BMI should just be totally ignored. It's total bullshit. It says no more, and plenty less, than a whole range of other measures that aren't bullshit. It should have been thrown into the toxic waste bin of stupid medical superstitions that's of no use to anyone decades ago.

      We do some work in the field, in governmental contexts. We've come up with phrase "policy-based evidence-making" for such bogostats.

      What's your BMI using a 2.5 exponent, as proposed here?
      http://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/trefethen/bmi.html
      (And no, sorry, I'm not volunteering mine on either scale, given where on the bell-curve I sit. (yes, the flat bit.))

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    19. Re:BMI by N1AK · · Score: 1

      yet I have so little body fat I cannot float in swimming pools

      Or it might be that you're full of so much hot air ;)

    20. Re:BMI by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      BMI is just a rule of thumb that fits 90% of the population. No-one should be using it as an absolute rule, but for most people it is a useful number that is easy to measure.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    21. Re:BMI by Bacon+Bits · · Score: 2

      The problem with BMI is that the formula is bad. A first year physics major should notice the issue.

      BMI = mass / (height^2)

      so:

      BMI * (height ^ 2) = mass

      So it says that mass is directly proportional to the square of the height. That's not right at all. Mass is directly proportional to the volume of an object, which is a cubic value, not the area of one of the facings. Therefore BMI should be mass / (height^3). The formula as presented inflates BMI for the very tall and deflates BMI for the very short.

      --
      The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
    22. Re:BMI by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Weight and mass are patently *not* the same thing. In zero g, you have no weight, but you still have all your mass.

      In physics, mass (from Greek "barley cake, lump [of dough]") is a property of a physical body which determines the body's resistance to being accelerated by a force and the strength of its mutual gravitational attraction with other bodies. The SI unit of mass is the kilogram (kg). As mass is difficult to measure directly, usually balances or scales are used to measure the weight of an object, and the weight is used to calculate the object's mass. For everyday objects and energies well-described by Newtonian physics, mass describes the amount of matter in an object

      In science and engineering, the weight of an object is usually taken to be the force on the object due to gravity.
      [...]
      The term weight and mass are often confused with each other in everyday discourse but they are distinct quantities.[4] There is also a rival tradition within Newtonian physics and engineering which sees weight as that which is measured when one uses scales. There the weight is a measure of the magnitude of the reaction force exerted on a body. Typically, in measuring someone's weight, the person is placed on scales at rest with respect to the earth but the definition can be extended to other states of motion. Thus in a state of free fall, the weight would be zero. In this second sense of weight, terrestrial objects can be weightless. Ignoring air resistance, the famous apple on its way to meet Newton's head is weightless.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    23. Re:BMI by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      In a population the BMI does predict things. Such as heart disease. In individuals it often works poorly. Hip to waist ratio works a bit better in populations and quite a bit better in individuals. A CT scan combined with a displacement body volume measure is about the best thing we've got for individuals, and would also work wonderfully in a population except for the expense and radiation exposure.

      BMI isn't a great metric to use here, but it's not hopelessly wrong. Waist to hip ratio would give better data except that more people are probably familiar with their height and weight than waist and hip measurements. Realistically, since it's an opt in program, the BMI is really only protecting them from claims that they're nagging anorexics to lose weight.

    24. Re:BMI by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      You're aware that people aren't spherical, right?

      (Okay, I guess some people approach spherical.)

      The volume of a cylinder is linear with height and square with radius. The average person's radius doesn't (or isn't supposed to) scale proportionally with their height, so weight shouldn't follow a cubic formula. Yes, BMI is a very simplified rule of thumb that unfortunately gets treated like a highly prognostic measurement, but on average it works reasonably well. There are better metrics, although they're slightly to a lot more complicated.

    25. Re:BMI by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Bathroom scales actually would make more sense being in Newtons; milk, not so much.

      Another example of how metric is ruining my life ;)

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    26. Re:BMI by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      The volume of a cylinder is linear with height and square with radius. The average person's radius doesn't (or isn't supposed to) scale proportionally with their height, so weight shouldn't follow a cubic formula.

      Yes, but people are NOT cylindrical, anymore than they are spherical. Are you seriously claiming that a 7'-tall man should have the same shoulder, chest, waist, and hip size as a 5'-tall man? (Not to mention same head circumference, same arm and leg circumference, etc.)

      That's why BMI is ridiculously idiotic.

      There are better metrics, although they're slightly to a lot more complicated.

      Look -- the exponent of 2 is dumb, as GP said. As you point out, the exponent of 3 isn't right either. There actually have been plenty of empirical studies that show where that exponent should lie (somewhere between 2.3 and 2.7 -- if you want more precision, you need to take into account sex and general frame size, as I posted on below).

      So, why exactly are you so eager to defend a measurement that is both theoretically AND empirically stupid?

      There are even better (and as you point out -- more complicated) metrics, but we could make a significantly better one by simply choosing a more reasonable exponent. To me, that doesn't even qualify as "slightly more complicated." Few people calculate their BMI by hand, and those that do are probably able to use a calculator or spreadsheet or even freakin' Google to plug in an exponent other than 2.

    27. Re:BMI by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      They used to be. Eventually we learned the difference. One of the problems with standard measurements is the use of pounds for both, which became pounds-force and pounds-mass, and then slugs were grafted on for some reason.

      SI has deliberately has separate terms for both to keep the concepts distinct.

      If you insist on using kilograms as a weight, please turn in your "making fun of the US system of measurements" card.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    28. Re:BMI by fatphil · · Score: 1

      > Weight and mass are patently *not* the same thing. In zero g, you have no weight

      Nonsense. Read my links. In space, you weigh 80kg, just like you do on earth. Weight and mass have meant the same thing for far longer than any modern distinction, and nowadays the vast majority still do not draw that distinction. Weight means mass. Sorry, but it does. No matter what number of quotes using weight to mean force can counter an argument that weight means mass. The fact that you think otherwise implies that you think that the existence of black sheep denies the existence of white sheep, as it's precisely the same illogic.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    29. Re:BMI by fatphil · · Score: 1

      Do you have standards/laws regarding "weights and measurements"?
      Do you have laws that permit selling different amounts of matter to people in different locations, yet claiming the same transaction has occured? What are the permitted units those "weights" may be measured/presented in? Does the w/w concentration of your drug suddently become a NaN when you take it into outer space?

      You need to open your eyes more - weight meaning mass is *everywhere*. That's mostly because it always has beem and there's never been any reason for it to go away.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    30. Re:BMI by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Oh, I'm so terribly sorry that I actually provided links from a halfway scientific source; you must obviously be correct because "everybody knows" that your way is the right one.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    31. Re:BMI by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      P.S: If you want me to take you citing *your own website* seriously, maybe you should have a link to wherever you got that info from.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    32. Re:BMI by fatphil · · Score: 1

      My own web page which identifies the primary sources *precisely*, you fucking dipshit. How can you be too stupid to even read? Don't answer that, your answer would almost certainly be stupid, as I've started to detect a pattern.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    33. Re:BMI by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Think and read carefully. I said that using a spherical approximation, which gives a cube rule, and is the basis for the OPs attack on BMI, was not a good approximation of a human being. I used a cylinder, which has a linear relationship to height, as a counter example. This is also not a particularly good approximation. I didn't say it was. It IS better than a sphere.

      The square function that BMI follows is a reasonable approximation across the normal height range of human beings. No, it doesn't work particularly well near the edges of that range. No approximation does. BMI is supposed to be used for aggregate statistics, where it works reasonably well. It also does a fair job when applied to individuals, provided those individuals aren't too far away from the mean. Yes, you can pick ridiculous examples that are far from the mean.

      So we've established that people aren't spherical (a cube law) and they're not fixed radius cylinders (a linear law). What exponent would you suggest? Something in the middle maybe? Like 2? Do you have any actual evidence for using anything else?

      Why are you getting so worked up about a simple approximation?

    34. Re:BMI by Bacon+Bits · · Score: 1

      You're aware that people aren't spherical, right?

      The volume of a cylinder is linear with height and square with radius. The average person's radius doesn't (or isn't supposed to) scale proportionally with their height, so weight shouldn't follow a cubic formula.

      If that's your argument, then it should be BMI * height = mass, not BMI * (height ^ 2) = mass. You're still off by a degree of polynomial. Now you're inflating BMI for the short, and deflating it for the tall.

      However, I'd argue that the human skeleton is roughly proportional. As height increases, width and depth increase at the same proportion, and the skeleton is the major determining factor in the dimensions of a human being. Therefore, width and depth are each directly proportional to height. Thus, height is an analog for width and depth. Remember, we're not actually calculating volume. It's not important that we end up with cubes. We're calculating a rough approximation of volume that we can compare to mass. This comparison will *only* be useful when comparing our ratio to others.

      --
      The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
  4. i hate fuck fat guys as much as the next... by sexconker · · Score: 3, Funny

    that butt's uncalled for!

    1. Re:i hate fuck fat guys as much as the next... by William-Ely · · Score: 1

      I don't get the point of this at all.

      "My doctor, family, friends, conscience, and co-workers tell me to lose weight and I haven't listened to them but maybe if I have the government nag me about it I'll turn my life around".
      Who thinks like this? (Other than people without doctors, family, friends, conscience, and co-workers)

      --
      Mod me down with all of your hatred, and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
  5. they need an incentive by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't think it's a surprised that people in Cambridge, for example, are quite healthy and fit and people in Stoke are not. It's not just a case of wealth but people in Cambridge are better educated and probably feel they have more to live for. The UK government has drained a lot of the country's ability to compete in favour of advancing London. It's no surprise people in poorer areas probably simply don't care. What's the incentive to lead a healthy life when you live in one of the more economically depressed areas of the country and the government makes it clear you don't matter because you're not a banker?

    1. Re:they need an incentive by postbigbang · · Score: 2

      That's a rationalization. You can be happy anywhere. Certainly the affluent are perceived to be happy, but mostly it's because they're drunk, or stoned, and trying to get a grip like everyone else. Happiness is what you make of it.

      There's no magic about one place or another, it's all your own attitude. It's very personal, and carbs are horribly addictive. Take out the carbs, and life is much better. Less sugar means your insulin doesn't kick in and store everything to your tissues. This takes place in London, Bath, Stokes, Leicester, Wales, wherever. It's how we're put together. Depression causes people to carb-load. That's a personal problem, not a regional one. Carb loading to increase serotinine is a well-honoured pass-time.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    2. Re:they need an incentive by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I have to chuckle at your post, because as I read it I was just demolishing this tray of jelly beans.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    3. Re:they need an incentive by mjwx · · Score: 2

      Yes but the difference is, in Oxford it's much easier for your butler to make a healthy meal where as in Stokes, you have to go to McD's yourself.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    4. Re:they need an incentive by Alioth · · Score: 1

      No, it's because virtually everyone in Cambridge rides a bicycle, whereas virtually everyone in Stoke drives or goes by bus.

      --
      Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
    5. Re:they need an incentive by gnasher719 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Take out the carbs, and life is much better. Less sugar means your insulin doesn't kick in and store everything to your tissues. This takes place in London, Bath, Stokes, Leicester, Wales, wherever. It's how we're put together. Depression causes people to carb-load. That's a personal problem, not a regional one. Carb loading to increase serotinine is a well-honoured pass-time.

      For the last thirty years, people have been hammered with messages to avoid fat. Coke is full of sugar and fat free. Companies put sugar into food when they remove fat, because removing fat without replacing it with sugar makes things taste bad and people don't buy them. So for the last thirty years people have been stuffing themselves with carbohydrates, making them fat and diabetic. And the more you try to avoid fat, the worse it gets.

      And then they start dieting. Those with plenty of will power are the unlucky ones: They actually lose lots of weight. The body thinks it's starving. And all the weight comes back, with some more, because all the will power in the world cannot overcome a starving body in the long run.

      The best advice: Ignore all the advice that tells you to avoid fat. _Do_ avoid sugar and other carbohydrates. Do _not_ try to lose weight. Ignore your weight, because being obsessed with your weight will make you unhappy which bad in itself, but will make you eat more as well.

      And, if someone calls you "fatty", hit them in the face as hard as you can, knock them out, and kick the shit out of them when they are on the ground.

    6. Re:they need an incentive by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      No. Your information is absolutely incorrect. Kick your insulin and you store. Don't kick the insulin, you'll nourish from your body's stores. Every nephrologist will give you that answer. Read Taube's "Good Calories Bad Calories"-- horrificly long as it is, and you'll know this answer. It's undeniable.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    7. Re:they need an incentive by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Maybe you can be happy anywhere, but it is rather difficult if there are no jobs and a high crime rate. Not impossible, but much harder.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re:they need an incentive by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      Where possible, migrate if that will feed your happiness. I'm happy because I'm alive, warm, have the love of family, and food in the fridge. I have bills, some sadnesses, but happiness tips the bad stuff, just by a bit. Happiness is where you find it, in small things. TV and media wants us to find it in big things, but that's not really where it rests. It's mostly in the small, day-to-day things.

      Joblessness is very difficult. One does what one can-- nothing else is tenable. Chop wood, carry water.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    9. Re: they need an incentive by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      That's right but I'd say the reason they ride bikes is at least partially because it's healthier because dodging stagecoach buses isn't exactly fun.

    10. Re:they need an incentive by digsbo · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily socialist. There are radical libertarians who might say something similar.

  6. Hello Citizen - U Look GRate! Today! by the_skywise · · Score: 4, Funny

    "I don't know... lately I just don't feel like there's anything special about me."

    "You are an incredibly sensitive man, who inspires joy-joy feelings in all those around you."

    1. Re:Hello Citizen - U Look GRate! Today! by sexconker · · Score: 1

      "I don't know... lately I just don't feel like there's anything special about me."

      "You are an incredibly sensitive man, who inspires joy-joy feelings in all those around you."

      What seems to be your boggle?

  7. Sample Texts by simonbp · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Get off your arse and walk, fatso!"
    "Put down the fork, you slob!"
    "You're disgusting! No one will ever love you!"

    "Be sure to vote in Council elections next Tuesday!"

    1. Re:Sample Texts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Oy you Essex slapper, lay off the pies n' pasties."
      "Listen ya swamp donkey. Get the bangers outta yer pie hole Or I'll give ya a right trunky in the tradesman's entrance and make ya lick me yarbles!"

    2. Re:Sample Texts by TheloniousToady · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the advertising opportunity: "Time to drink four more Diet Cokes!"

    3. Re:Sample Texts by mjwx · · Score: 1

      But this is in England so it'll be:

      "Oi Tubby, who ate ALL the pies"

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    4. Re:Sample Texts by Splab · · Score: 1

      Actually, Diet cokes will most likely cause you to gain weight - the coke itself has no calories, the sweet sensation will however trigger your body to believe sugar is incoming and since none is, it will cause you to sugar feel hungry, which will trigger cravings for your sugary drugs.

    5. Re:Sample Texts by chewy_fruit_loop · · Score: 1

      stoke is nowhere near essex.... ....or scotland....

    6. Re:Sample Texts by timdingo · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see some objective research backing this theory, please.

    7. Re:Sample Texts by Splab · · Score: 1

      I know google is a tough one to use, but searching around will yield stuff like this: http://articles.mercola.com/si...

      Note, research have shown that insulin levels are unaffected by aspertame.

      Personal experience, I used to drink a lot of sugary soda, was overweight, but nothing compared to when I switched to artificial sweeteners; also I find it much harder to keep a diet if I drink any form of "diet" soda.

    8. Re:Sample Texts by timdingo · · Score: 1

      I know google is a tough one to use, but searching around will yield stuff like this: http://articles.mercola.com/si...

      I know it's difficult to actually take the time to think about what you're replying to, but I'd like to see some _objective_ _research_ backing this theory, please. See? Two things you didn't consider: objective & research. mercola.com hardly qualifies as an objective research organization, in fact, I'm pretty sure they're only interested in selling stuff.

    9. Re:Sample Texts by TheloniousToady · · Score: 1

      Diet Cokes also reportedly can make you respond seriously to a joke, though I don't have any objective research to back that.

    10. Re:Sample Texts by TheloniousToady · · Score: 1

      This isn't exactly objective research, but I've noticed that overweight people *always* seem to be drinking diet drinks - you never see them drinking regular drinks. Can it be mere coincidence?...

    11. Re:Sample Texts by idontgno · · Score: 1

      It's the British Isles. Nowhere is any significant distance from anywhere else.

      "In England, 100 miles is a long distance. In America, 100 years is a long time."

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    12. Re:Sample Texts by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

      It's the British Isles.

      The Irish Isles.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
  8. In otherwords... by Sable+Drakon · · Score: 1

    Nobody. Nobody is going to get the messages.

    --
    The Amarri pray for god, the Caldari pray for profit. the Gallente pray for peace, but the Minmatar pray their ships hol
  9. Re:BMI is Flawed and Incorrect by rmdingler · · Score: 1

    However, as mentioned earlier, the measurement is flawed, especially if the person carries a lot of muscle.

    News for nerds?

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  10. Immediate reply: by Zanadou · · Score: 1

    "Help, I've fallen and can't get up!!"

  11. Council Money Well Spent by tuppe666 · · Score: 1

    Council Gyms are not just on the decline but over twice the cost of private ones, due to subsiding public sector employees, and the unemployed. How about the focus should be on something obvious; cheap; without lock-in(long contracts - single visits expensive) sporting/exercise activities for everyone.

    1. Re:Council Money Well Spent by dreamchaser · · Score: 2

      You make it sound like people need gyms to exercise. They don't. You don't even need any special gear at all.

    2. Re:Council Money Well Spent by pspahn · · Score: 3, Funny

      Are you the naked guy I saw running with no shoes on during the blizzard?

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    3. Re:Council Money Well Spent by dreamchaser · · Score: 3, Funny

      Why, yes. Yes I am.

    4. Re:Council Money Well Spent by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

      Funny, that's not what your wife said.

  12. Run, Fatboy, Run by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 2

    Motivational messages voiced by Dylan Moran:

    Hey, maybe there's a little man in there who looks just like you but he's really good at running.

    Well... yeah... you put one leg in front of the other over and over again really really fast.

  13. Too many puddings by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 2

    If you don't know, the UK's obesity rate is right behind the US's and increasing. Since the government provides their health insurance, it's very much in the government's interest to get their people healthier.

    1. Re:Too many puddings by d33tah · · Score: 1

      ...or just stop treating the obese. It might turn out to be a cheaper option.

    2. Re:Too many puddings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A part of being a member of a society is that you care for your fellow citizens. Some even take it so far that they are willing to risk their lives for their society, while others simply dedicate their entire lives and entire mental capacity to create ways to make you and other citizens safe. If you're a sociopath, at least consider that their death would mean that you would no longer get the benefits of their respective lines of work. A lot of geeks are too fat, and if you kill all fat geeks then the world would be a much scarier place.

      Fortunately for you, geeks will keep protecting your networks against information warfare, keep improving the medical devices your will need when you get older and keep improving collision avoidance in the cars you drive. They will keep doing that even if they know that you despise them.

      You're welcome...

    3. Re:Too many puddings by shabble · · Score: 1

      Since the government provides their health insurance....

      Actually the taxpayers pay for the NHS - where do you think the government steals the money from (when they're not running the country in deficit that is)? Ostensibly the item marked "National Insurance" on our payslips pays for (among other things) this.

      Not that it actually gets ring-fenced, and most people recognise it for what it is - another form of income tax.

      --
      http://harridanic.com
    4. Re: Too many puddings by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      All of the top countries are tiny islands with like 8000 people on them. About 34% of American adults are obese and about 30% of British adults. That's "right behind" statistically speaking.

  14. Re:Weight-ist, and HIPAA violation by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 1

    Wow. Bigoted and illegal in the US. And everyone says the USA is privacy invasive. If someone did that in the USA they would be sued for violation of medical privacy law.

    What part of opt-in didn't you understand?

  15. You're doing it wrong by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 2

    Instead of being lazy and sending texts - those obese public servants should ride a bike, or walk, to deliver the message. (or tax the hell out of sugar and fund health programs?)

    Oh wait (weight?).... maybe it's only people who are not public servants who are morbidly obese.

  16. Re:i hate fat fucks as much as the next guy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually, if you RTFS, they signed up to receive the messages. So it's called for.

  17. Re:i hate fat fucks as much as the next guy... by c0lo · · Score: 1

    but that's uncalled for!

    What exactly from

    the texts are for those ... who have proactively signed up to receive the motivational messages.

    is unclear?
    Or... did I miss the yesterday evening memo and the semantic of "signed up to receive" no longer cover the meaning of "called for"?

    --
    Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  18. Re:BMI is Flawed and Incorrect by beelsebob · · Score: 2

    Worse than that, the locations of the "normal", "overweight" etc bands on the BMI scale were decided at a very similar time with no scientific backing to them.

    Recent studies have demonstrated that they're actually located one whole position too low. That is, mortality rates are lowest in people in the "overweight" category, they're second lowest in the "obese" category, third lowest in "normal". Finally, "underweight" is less healthy even than "morbidly obese".

  19. Aanndd this is why you don't give your phonenuber by Noishkel · · Score: 1

    Of course... I wouldn't live in the UK either.

  20. Re:Weight-ist, and HIPAA violation by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 2

    Wow. Bigoted and illegal in the US. And everyone says the USA is privacy invasive. If someone did that in the USA they would be sued for violation of medical privacy law.

    What part of opt-in didn't you understand?

    The bit that where it's likely to motivate fat lazy people - to make the effort required to request someone (else) motivate them.).

    How about - compulsory weight checks outside fast food stores and supermarkets, in concert with compulsory liposuction? You could require fast food deliverers to have portable units - and make it part of a re-employment plan for TSA and NSA staff (they already have the necessary skills and motivations). Reduce health and public transport costs and create a viable biofuel program.

    Just musing on my keyboard....

  21. Re:i hate fat fucks as much as the next guy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    and exactly what about "fat fucks" makes you hate them. Is it the way that they can't do their jobs, oh, that's right, it has no effect on that. I guess its the fact that they take up your parking spot, but of course, that to the car. Perhaps its the fact that they use 2 airplace seats, but then again, they pay for that. I guess its just that you can't get your favorite Chocolate Hostess snack cake when you go to the supermarket, figuring that it must be the "fat fucks", no, it was probably some chick who just broke up with her boyfriend. I guess its how it affects their personality and makes them assholes, oh, you're not fat, and you are a classic example of an asshole. So what exactly is it that makes you and the next guy hate "fat fucks" you stupid ass, undereducated, bigotted piece of shit? (and no, I'm not a fat fuck, just ashamed to be lumped in the same category as a fucktard like you)

  22. Re:Weight-ist, and HIPAA violation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Hahaha! I love the way you say 'someone would be sued' like it is some sort of badge of honour. Out here, if someone says something that we don't like, we tell them to go fuck themselves and get on with our lives, but yeah, go ahead and cry to mummy if it makes you feel better.

  23. medical care by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 1

    Will the council pay the doctor's bills and lost wages for obese people who blow their knees when climbing stairs?

    Walking is definitely good exercise, especially for obses people, but not necessarily with stairs.

  24. iNag by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    iNag

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  25. TMI by s.petry · · Score: 1

    As long as you have a TMI in the average range you should be happy no matter what your BMI.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  26. Re:i hate fat fucks as much as the next guy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    and exactly what about "fat fucks" makes you hate them.

    Well for starters any time the company buys us lunch, it's two pizzas or two whole chickens per Fatass, and one slice or one bony wing for each of the rest of us.

    Is it the way that they can't do their jobs, oh, that's right, it has no effect on that.

    Depends on the job. In my case, in an office, they get to have a $800 office chair while the rest of us have to deal with the $70 crappy models... because the normal max weight on a regular office chair is 250 pounds and you have to buy a really NICE one to support a 450 pound individual.

    I guess its the fact that they take up your parking spot, but of course, that to the car.

    Not my spot, because I can't park in the handicapped/disabled parking section. But it DOES take one of those spots away from the guy who has to use a walker due to advancing MS, the lady in the next cube over with a severe chronic Asthma condition, and the guy down the hall who busted both his legs when a drunk hit his car, and has a temporary permit while's he's in physical therapy.

    Perhaps its the fact that they use 2 airplace seats, but then again, they pay for that.

    That's only on large commercial jets. On smaller craft, one fat fuck weighs as much as three normal people, so they buy two tickets and then the airline has to leave one seat empty due to total cargo weight on the craft, so everyone pays more per ticket.

    So what exactly is it that makes you and the next guy hate "fat fucks" you stupid ass, undereducated, bigotted piece of shit?

    The smell is a big part of it. The constant complaining about being fat or not feeling good, even as they consume a meal that should feed a family of five. The laziness. The extra long break times taken. What they do to the toilet in the bathroom.

    The thing which bothers me most about fat people is when they try to act like they're some kind of victim. You're not a victim, you're just too lazy/unmotivated to DO anything about it. I have little sympathy for people with problems which are entirely of their own making, and yes that includes Fatass Mutherfuckers alongside drug users, alcoholics, and other assorted low-life scum.

  27. Spam to not eat spam? by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Interesting idea but likely to be a counterproductive annoyance if used too much.

  28. Re:i hate fat fucks as much as the next guy... by dreamchaser · · Score: 4, Funny

    You should stop feeding the trolls. It's making them fat.

  29. There are similar commercial apps by as.kdjrfh+sxcjvs · · Score: 1

    There are similar commercial apps in a bunch of styles -- some friendly and upbeat, some with foul language, some with scary imagery. Some of them seem to work well for some people, and it seems cheap to run, so a plausible worthwhile opt-in experiment.

    Seems like it could be more adaptive; let people choose the style they prefer, and maybe have an 'Okay I did!' or 'Not this time!' response to see which messages when are most useful.

  30. Re:Stairs by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

    Years ago I worked at a job where my workspace was two flights up. Unlike most of my co-workers (who were mostly half my age, at best) I parked well out in the lot and always used the stairs, not the elevator. I knew that I wasn't getting as much exercise as I should, so this was my way of getting a little more, twice every work day.

    --
    Good, inexpensive web hosting
  31. One possible problem by techno-vampire · · Score: 2

    I can just see an obese person chowing down on fish and chips, looking at a text message about eating more vegetables and commenting, "Potatoes are vegetables, aren't they?"

    --
    Good, inexpensive web hosting
  32. Not flawed but misapplied by Arker · · Score: 1

    BMI was designed for population studies and it is actually appropriate there. The flaws in the calculation in regards to individuals can be severe, but in a study of a large population they cancel out and you get a fairly accurate estimate of the status of the population as a whole.

    But of course when applied to a single individual, there is no opportunity for the errors to average out and the results are worse than useless.

    --
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
  33. Re:i hate fat fucks as much as the next guy... by realityimpaired · · Score: 2

    *mutters something about feeding trolls*

    Well for starters any time the company buys us lunch, it's two pizzas or two whole chickens per Fatass, and one slice or one bony wing for each of the rest of us.

    I've known some pretty fat people in my life (people > 600lbs), but never known somebody who could finish off two x-large pizzas in a single sitting, let alone 2 whole chickens. Either way, it's a pretty dick move of your company to allow somebody to walk away with 2 whole pizzas before everybody else has had a chance to get some.

    Depends on the job. In my case, in an office, they get to have a $800 office chair while the rest of us have to deal with the $70 crappy models... because the normal max weight on a regular office chair is 250 pounds and you have to buy a really NICE one to support a 450 pound individual.

    Get a doctor's note. I'm not even close to the 250lb limit you cite (which, btw, is *way* less than most office chairs are designed to handle), and I have the nice $1000 office chair, because of a bad back. If your chair is making you uncomfortable or causing medical/ergonomic problems, then get the appropriate documentation and fix it, don't come here to bitch about it.

    Not my spot, because I can't park in the handicapped/disabled parking section. But it DOES take one of those spots away from the guy who has to use a walker due to advancing MS, the lady in the next cube over with a severe chronic Asthma condition, and the guy down the hall who busted both his legs when a drunk hit his car, and has a temporary permit while's he's in physical therapy.

    So, being morbidly obese (which may have a medical cause that you don't know about) has magically given a person the ability to drive 3 cars at once? Or do you live in an area that lets people drive 18 foot wide cars on the street? Being grossly overweight causes all kinds of medical issues, and for most people who are that large, there's usually a medical problem that is causing the issue, or at least making it difficult to correct the issue without getting a procedure like a gastric bypass. And even that is not a guaranteed thing, as a lot of hospitals won't perform surgeries on bariatric patients because of liability issues.

    The thing which bothers me most about fat people is when they try to act like they're some kind of victim. You're not a victim, you're just too lazy/unmotivated to DO anything about it. I have little sympathy for people with problems which are entirely of their own making, and yes that includes Fatass Mutherfuckers alongside drug users, alcoholics, and other assorted low-life scum.

    If you've never been obese, you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. If you have been obese, then you're either supremely lucky in how easy it was to lose weight, an asshole. Losing weight is almost never a question of pure willpower. Here's a hint to get you started: the food guide that the educators have been stuffing down the throats of Americans for 40 years? Complete bullshit. Fad diet courtesy of the grain lobby, and a recipe for heart failure, obesity, and depression.

  34. Re:i hate fat fucks as much as the next guy... by Dodgy+G33za · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Wish I had some mod points today.

    Being fat is not a condition.It is a lifestyle choice that has impacts on others.Just the same as someone who smokes, doesn't shower, or doesn't clean their teeth.

    I have sat next to quite a few fat people in my time on long haul flights.

  35. Re:Stairs by MightyYar · · Score: 1

    Yup, I did the same thing when I lived in Manhattan. I lived on the 14th floor and I took the stairs as much as I could. After the first week it was no longer tiring at all - just boring.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  36. If you didn't want it, you shouldn't have opted in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Really? Really? I don't blame you for not RTFA... but damnnn... not even reading the crappy summary to the end?

    It is 100% opt-in only... you don't want it, don't opt-in.... Has the collective IQ quotient on /. dropped 50 points somewhere in the last 6 months?? Or was it just Chas's IQ that dropped 50 points (when it apparently started @ 35 to begin with)

  37. Trolling Target: by Hartree · · Score: 1

    You know that someone will try to break into the system running this and alter the messages.

    This thing has a giant "Kick me!" sign pinned on it..

  38. "Touch your toes, Winston!" by Nova+Express · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Smith!" screamed the shrewish voice from the telescreen. "6079 Smith W.! Yes, YOU! Bend lower, please! You can do better than that. You’re not trying. Lower, please! THAT’S better, comrade."

    --
    Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)

    http://www.lawrenceperson.com/

  39. Oblig Mark Twain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "Nothing so needs reforming as other people’s habits. Fanatics will never learn that, though it be written in letters of gold across the sky. It is the prohibition that makes anything precious."

  40. not all places let you take the Stairs day to day by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    and in some places I like to take them.

  41. Eating is the new smoking by Evtim · · Score: 2

    I cannot help but feel somewhat satisfied about this news. As a smoker, I have no issue with the reasonable demands of non-smokers [I hated smoking on the working place or in trains even though I smoke, for instance].

    But the hysterical propaganda that still rages on, the ever increasing "financial incentives" to quit [ever higher taxes and license fees - do you notice they always do it to things we are "addicted" too , like energy, housing, food, drinks...treats to increase medical premiums....] has left me bitterly disappointed by the gullibility of the human race and its pettiness. The lies about secondary smoking, the "cost" of smokers to society [all damn lies, but let's not digress] all these hatred [remember, it made enough impression so that Rockstar to include in GTA 4 an "interview" on the chat radio with hysterical mom that was advocating shooting smokers on site] - I felt and still feel very upset...

    And all the time when having discussions with those people I was saying "Beware, next they'd come after you - for your beer, for your food, for your car, for your sex life, for your opinions [if they make difference - freedom of speech applies as long as the speech has no detectable political impact]"

    Enjoy now, idiots!

  42. Re:not all places let you take the Stairs day to d by RuffMasterD · · Score: 1

    Can I have then back please?

    --
    Human Rights, Article 12: Freedom from Interference with Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence
  43. Re:i hate fat fucks as much as the next guy... by mwvdlee · · Score: 2

    The thing which bothers me most about fat people is when they try to act like they're some kind of victim.

    You mean like you're doing right now?

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  44. Re: Stairs by xaxa · · Score: 1

    The worrying this is you don't consider what you describe normal.

    I've been unable to even find the stairs in American buildings sometimes, which is particularly annoying if my hotel room is on the first or second floor.

    My office is on the first floor, the kitchen and toilets in the basement. No one grumbles...

  45. Re:i hate fat fucks as much as the next guy... by tsotha · · Score: 1

    Yeah, reading the title I was all ready to gin up some outrage, but if they have to sign up it falls more under the category of a service than government harassment.

  46. Re:You're too drunk no Liquor! by Chrisq · · Score: 1

    I looked forward to the day Fast Food won't server you because your too fat!

    Or they bring you a portion of fries instead of a salad because you look anorexic.

  47. Re:Stairs by Alioth · · Score: 1

    Well, not really. I've found in hotels that are a few floors tall, if the elevator isn't already at my floor and open I can beat it by using the stairs.

    --
    Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
  48. Re:Dear Government by Chrisq · · Score: 1

    Please aim to be a little bit less corrupt than usual today.

    followed by:
    How about reviewing that planning application on merit today?
    Try to cut down on small back-handers between meetings with rich industrialists

  49. Re:Fat shaming via text! by adnonsense · · Score: 1

    The USA seem to be the only major country I know of where you pay to *receive* texts. Everywhere else (i.e. those heathen regions which use metric, including the country mentioned in this article) only pays to send them.

  50. Re:Why do healthy people use the lift for a few fl by Chrisq · · Score: 1

    I have never undsterstood why healthy people use the lift for going up or down a few floors. In very tall buildings, it makes sense, but even in a typical 3-5 storey building, the majority of people seem to use the lift, even though it is usually slower and the stairs give you a light exercise for free.

    I usually use the stairs unless carrying things - and it amazes me when the lift has to stop twice for someone to get on at one floor and off at the next - when they aren't carrying anything! Once someone who had worked for the company for six months was surprised when following me to a meeting and said "I didn't know there were stairs here"; he had been walking to the centre of the building, going down one floor in the lift, and walking back again to go to a meeting room almost directly below where his desk was.

  51. Re:i hate fat fucks as much as the next guy... by camg188 · · Score: 1

    Government... taking bloat and crapware to a whole new level.

  52. About time by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

    Something needs to be done to get them to lose weight and stop leeching off everyone else who has to pay for their high medical expenses.

    Unfortunately we can't force them to lose weight, only make "suggestions", unlike being forced to hand over your money to a private company or have the government reach into your bank account and forcibly extract the money.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  53. Re:Weight-ist, and HIPAA violation by EngineeringStudent · · Score: 1

    You have lots of faith in politicians, it seems. While they believe they are qualified to make the best decisions for you, decisions in your best interests, they are not actually working in your best interests. They are working in their best interests.

    There are some consistent political agendas. If you watch the news, nationwide, across nations, then you can see it. Immunization. Stopping population growth. They are common. What are the common trends in weight? What is on the horizon?

    Politicians are great at addressing root causes behind why fat people become obese, right? They are qualified to provide help, to change the fundamentals, right? No. It isn't their area of expertise. It isn't their expertise, but it is their interest. What makes it the area of their interest? Why are they putting tax money into solving that particular problem? If it were an actual solution, there would be a company that makes money from doing it. Texts are so cheap they are nearly free. Imagine a business that was paid real money for something that was effectively free. It is a great business model if it worked. There is a fundamental economic reality behind why it isn't a business - it doesn't work. Fat people (and I'm overweight, I'm the target audience) pay millions a year because they don't want to be fat - go ask Jenny Craig. It is a huge industry, taking money from fat people after convincing them that you can make them human again.

    It is weight-ist. Opt in or not, it is a stupid politician being weight-ist.

    How secure are text messages? How about the vendor? Are they securing the information? This is medical information. This associates particular medical conditions with a phone number and a persons identity. Is it secure? No way. It is broadcast unencrypted publicly. People are unable to get jobs because of weight. They are considered higher medical risk, and so get less pay for the same job. If you sign up for that list, it is going to go into a HR database somewhere and, God-forbid you ever lose the weight, it is going to be considered against you in the future. It has legal and ethical implications, career spanning implications, that the politicians likely didn't consider.

    I'm sure you didn't consider those either.

  54. Please... by slapout · · Score: 1

    No one tell Michelle Obama about this!

    --
    Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
  55. Re:i hate fat fucks as much as the next guy... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

    So your attitude towards other people is contingent on your taxes to pay for their problems, a system you forced on them withot choice?

    "Here's medical care which we force on you. Oh, by the way, I hate you because you are a fat fuck using it."

    So you what? Think their use of it authorizes micromanagement of their lives? Fuck you. You can't give people something unasked then lord over them on it.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  56. Re:i hate fat fucks as much as the next guy... by jd2112 · · Score: 1

    You should stop feeding the trolls. It's making them fat.

    Keep feeding them, Perhaps they will have a heart attack and die.

    --
    Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
  57. Re:Stairs by TangoMargarine · · Score: 2

    Please tell us more about how you managed to take one whole flight of stairs.

    CondescendingWonka.jpg

    --
    Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
  58. Re:i hate fat fucks as much as the next guy... by pr0fessor · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Being fat is not a condition.It is a lifestyle choice

    That is not true and my wife will gladly tell you how she was injured, unable to walk more than a few feet for three years, given steroid based treatments that's side effects included weight gain, went from size 12 to 24 and now that she is able to exercise again, is back to size 18 and still loosing weight.

    If you would like she can also tell you about worthless over priced treatments and tests and how insurance companies try to get out of paying.

  59. The disturbing thing... by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 1

    The disturbing thing is that this council is tracking who is obese and who isn't.

    --

    Technoli
  60. Re:Why do healthy people use the lift for a few fl by neminem · · Score: 1

    Because I don't have a choice - the ground-floor stairwell door is locked so you can only go out that door, not in - I guess because it used to not be, and hobos liked to sleep in it?

  61. Re:Weight-ist, and HIPAA violation by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 1

    Only if I get to decide what compulsory medical procedures you undergo.

    Feel free to waddle on over, with the anonymous coward paper bag on your head, and assert your right. You'll have to waddle because your couch won't teleport.

  62. Re:i hate fat fucks as much as the next guy... by Dodgy+G33za · · Score: 1

    Dunno where you dug up the straw man from. I never mentioned taxes. Or health care. Or micromanagement of their lives.

    I just said they were fat because they want to be, and that impacts other people. I don't want to lord it over them. I just want them to keep their lard arses out of my space, stop blaming society for a problem of their own making and stop expecting other people to feel sorry for them or give them special consideration.

  63. This is a great idea by ToddInSF · · Score: 1

    They take up WAY too much room in the elevators and escalators...