Um, where did I say that? Because, unless I'm blacking out and my other personality is posting, I DIDN'T SAY THAT.
And I asked you a question, which you conveniently ignored. We both know why.
Re:Do you have any idea what's wrong with you post
on
Treadmill Workstation
·
· Score: 1
"Yes, it always obeys the laws of thermodynamics, but there is plenty of play in the way it obeys those laws, and your ignoring them is not doing you any favors."
I didn't ignore them, and claiming I did makes you seem like you have poor reading comprehension.
You body uses an amount of calories. If you take IN more than you USE, you gain weight. If you USE more than you TAKE IN, you lose weight.
Read that until you get it. And if you think giving the kids an extra 30 minutes at the expense of long term health is a good idea, then you just don't get parenthood at all.
Says the guy who thinks his magic diet violates the laws of physics., and that his energy intake magically vanishes.
Don't get pissy with me because you're too fat to see your dick, fatty.
Listen, you're fat and stupid. Don't take it out on me.
I wonder if my testosterone level is too high, cause I'm sure enjoying watching you made a big fat idiot of yourself, fat man.
Do you have any idea what's wrong with you post?
on
Treadmill Workstation
·
· Score: 1
"Actually, I did not significantly lower my caloric intake, or at least, did not bring it down anywhere near what I "should" be eating."
Yes, you did. Had you taken a simple physics class you'd know that, or perhaps you've found some way to overcome conservation of energy?. Frankly, there are many examples of what I am talking about regarding Atkins that are freely available, read them and you'll see.
"reakfast: 4 eggs, 4-8 link sausages. 4 eggs fried in fat (butter in this case): 105*4=420kcal. 4 link sausages (farmer john's maple, my favorite) have 300 kcal. Lunch: Gigantic salad smothered in bleu cheese dressing, usu. with a hardboiled egg. Salad greens have negligible calories. Assuming I had 4 tbsp of salad dressing (probably a quite conservative estimate) that's 340 kcal alone. A hardboiled egg is 78 kcal. A half-cup of grated cheese (pretty typical) is 228 kcal. Dinner: Very large steak (over 1lb) carved from a tri-tip roast, not defatted at all. Over 1000 kcal. Usually fried in butter, add a few more. Typically associated with some broccoli."
Completely irrelevant. You cannot lose weight without decreasing your caloric intake. And honestly, given your tone, I'm fairly certain you'll make up whatever numbers you need to in order to "prove" you are right.
"Add to that the fact that I was sitting on my ass for those nine months, and there is simply no way to explain my weight loss by reduction of calories."
Um, no, since you got no exercise by your own admission, there is no OTHER way to explain it.
"Perhaps you should learn something about ketosis before you make ignorant statements like this again. During ketosis, the rate of lean muscle loss is reduced; normally you lose one pound of muscle for every three pounds of fat. Not so on the Atkins diet."
Perhaps you should learn about glycolysis, and the body's inability to burn fat in the absence of carbohydrates. Muscle is burned instead. Coupled with your own admission of no exercise, I stand by my assertion.
"Your willful ignorance impresses no one."
Listen dick, you are the one claiming that your diet violates the law of conservation of energy, while ALSO claiming you lost weight without exercising, but that COULD NOT have been a reduction of calories (what was it, the fat fairy?). So save that stupid "I'm a big fat internet bully" shit for someone else, all you did was show off how easy it is for one person to be stupid several times in a post.
"Well, let me just piss you off then. When I was on the Atkins diet I lose 90 lb in 9 mo, 10 lb/mo, without exercising."
That's because you lowered your caloric intake, a fairly common misunderstanding about the Atkins diet. Had you measured it, you'd notice your total caloric intake was less on Atkins. People think otherwise because of the common fat=high calorie meme.
And all that weight you lost? Mostly muscle. So you may weigh less, but you're fatter overall.
"Being fat is very unpleasant in our world, and if it was easy to stop, a lot more people would be doing it."
It is easy to stop being fat, but it's not quite as easy as staying fat. The same behaviors that cause an individual to get fat are responsible for their staying fat. People who are fat attempt to avoid the stereotypes, but if you're honest you'll admit that a large percentage eat crap because it's easy, and fail to exercise because it's easy to do so. Do you see a pattern there?
But you can achieve a reasonable level of fitness with 30 minutes of moderately strenuous exercise every day. Barring a serious medical condition (heart problems, joints problems, etc.) 30 minutes a day is easily doable.
Stop making excuses.
"I have an elliptical machine in my house and a bicycle which I barely ride, but I find I don't ever have enough time. I -want- to lose the weight, but life tends to get in the way."
No, honestly it doesn't. You've prioritized, which is fine, but don't pretend this overbearing thing called "life" keeps hammering away at you and preventing you from exercising. You can find 30 minutes a day if you really want to.
"Do you have any idea how hard it is to diet and keep your energy level up for work? Probably not, as you're skinny enough to call people 'lardasses'."
Not to be a nit, but do you fail because you're too busy, or because it's too hard? And if you were hoping to defeat the "lardasses are lazy, that's why they're lardasses" argument, well this is probably a non-starter.
The truth is, like anything else, if you really wanted it, you'd find a way.
"Get a mountain bike and find a good local trail. That's much more fun"
I live in Florida, so no, no it's not fun at all (except for the two months or so when the weather is perfect). In fact, I'm pretty sure it's one of the rings of hell, maybe the one where lawyers go.
You're only saying that because you don't like the party in power. Fundamentally, there is no difference. No one can competently argue the firings were illegal.
If you want to argue about "lying under oath" you can, but I can see a very easy out, claiming that the "poor performance" was the fired attorney's failure to prosecute politically important cases. Performance has many metrics, with that one being as viable as any other.
In other words, this is a nothing story, seemingly motivated by political opportunism. It saddens me that you've allowed yourself to be duped so easily.
Quoting an antiquated definition that was created before the current situation arose is in now way definitive. Claiming that i's not stealing because a definition you like says so proves nothing.
"Stealing, by definition, removes the item from possession of the original possessor."
No, it doesn't It removes property from the original possessor with intent to deprive the owner of its use or benefit. This is not the same as taking an item as you claim. More importantly, it is the taking of the property that is the crime, whether or not the individual is deprived of its use is completely irrelevant, as in this case they could be deprived of its benefit and still meet your definition.
You are wrong. Now instead of composing a long winded but factually incorrect response, examine your position so you can realize where your mistakes are and correct them.
"Lol! Your version of "equality" sure sounds like the man is in control."
Perhaps you'd like to point out exactly what you're referring to, as I can't see anything remotely approaching your assessment.
"And who can blame them? Men have been doing exactly that."
Bullshit. Some men have been doing that, and you're accepting that the poor decisions made by a small minority justify paiting the whole sex with the same brush.
Why not just admit you're a misandrist and stop pretending you have justification for your bigoted views.
"But there's a difference between burning fuel for a bonafide purpose and just for the heck of it!"
And that, ultimately is the point you fail to grasp. Entertainment IS a bona fide purpose.
And because of your inability to understand that, you make pointless pronouncements of what other people "should" do because you think it's acceptable, while completely failing to comprehend how insane your pronouncements are.
By the way, didn't we already establish that your opinion is no longer allowed to be expressed? Why am I not surprised that you're willing to dictate to others what they are allowed to do while totally ignoring your own harmful activities...
"The same thing that's wrong about wanting to club baby seals."
Wait, so burning some fuel is equivalent to thoughtlessly mangling defenseless animals. Yeah I can see that you've spent some time thinking about this one...
"Some distorted minds may consider it fun, but that doesn't mean that it needs to be supported or even legal."
Well, based on your previous comment, you're a pretty piss-poor judge. I think equating clubbing baby seals with burning fuel to be far more of a sign of a "distorted mind", therefore, you should not share your opinion ever again.
"Why does Joe need to get his kicks on the back of everyone else, including the environment? Can't he go to a gym and punch a bag for a while?"
No. Why should he have to? Because irrational trolls like you are so disconnected from reality that hey equate driving a car with CLUBBING BABY SEALS?
"I'll just point out that the problem at hand is not change, but man-made change that will hurt. A lot."
How do you know this? You seem to be missing the point that you CAN'T know this, as it hasn't happened yet. The data is not sufficient to make his sort of hyperbolic claim, yet there you are making it.
The reality is exactly what GP said, somewhere in the middle. You seem somewhat attached to the idea that it will be catastrophic, and completely averse to admitting that it may not be.
"The problem is that this is akin to talking about the positive effects of smoking: weightloss, fewer old people to draw down retirement benefits, etc. It's disingenuous and generally only used to mask the drawbacks."
This is nothing like that at all. In the case of smoking we have years of data that directly speaks to the negative effects of smoking. We have seen them. As yet, we have nothing but speculation as to them long term negative effects of global climate change.
Observing vs. Inferring is a big difference, so no, they're nothing alike.
"From the other end, another result fo this is that any joker call him/herself a scientist and claim to be providing scientific information, with no penalty if s/he's not."
That's simply not true. The most important thing a research scientist has is his credibility, which will suffer if he continually forwards crackpot ideas.
"Changes include flooding in areas unused to flooding, causing landslides, and drought in areas unused to drought, causing wildfires and failed crops."
And yet, you completely ignore the possibility that on the whole, these changes could be offset by other positive changes. You don't even mention the possibility.
And that's why you're not credible. You're focusing solely on the "bad" changes while not even admitting that "good" changes are possible.
Because paper costs money and space is limited. Both of these explanations are superior to yours.
"Poetry regularly follows such patterns, using them to express a certain spoken "tone" within the meter."
Poetry is not a legitimate comparison. Poetry is frequently formatted with no regard whatsoever to how easy it is to read. Often, the formatting is done to preserve tings which actually make it harder to read, on purpose.
"So why can't we transfer it to regular text? There must be an overriding reason?"
Because paper costs money and space is limited. Both of these explanations are superior to yours.
"When you introduce a solution to a problem, you need to make sure that it's easily adoptable."
No actually you don't.
"Is the new solution truly superior if the supposedly superior solution is more difficult to use than the solution it replaces?"
Did you really say this? How many things did you learn as a child that you found a better way to do later, but had to learn first? If it's difficult at first, but then becomes more efficient after learning, then yes it is better.
It seems that ultimately your only real objection is that this is "inelegant", which has caused you to manufacture other spurious objections in order to justify your dislike of this methods aesthetics.
Slashdot Mirror
Because the theater won't have a phone...
Answer MY question and I'll answer yours.
It's highly meaningful, as it speaks to a behavioral motives, and behavior is much easier to change than genetics.
"Everything we humans do we do because we perceive it to be easier than the alternatives."
Funny, but I don't think going to work, school, doing chores, or exercising to be easier than that alternative. Oh right, it's not.
"And your use of "take in" here is highly nonstandard."
I NEVER SPECIFIED WHAT "TAKE IN" meant, so how can it possibly be "nonstandard" since I never defined it?
"How does it feel to be a tired old joke?"
How does it feel to have a total lack of reading comprehension?
Um, where did I say that? Because, unless I'm blacking out and my other personality is posting, I DIDN'T SAY THAT.
And I asked you a question, which you conveniently ignored. We both know why.
"Yes, it always obeys the laws of thermodynamics, but there is plenty of play in the way it obeys those laws, and your ignoring them is not doing you any favors."
I didn't ignore them, and claiming I did makes you seem like you have poor reading comprehension.
You body uses an amount of calories. If you take IN more than you USE, you gain weight. If you USE more than you TAKE IN, you lose weight.
Nothing else you said matters.
"Do you have kids? I do. Hell..."
"You've prioritized..."
Read that until you get it. And if you think giving the kids an extra 30 minutes at the expense of long term health is a good idea, then you just don't get parenthood at all.
"You are a fucking idiot."
Says the guy who thinks his magic diet violates the laws of physics., and that his energy intake magically vanishes.
Don't get pissy with me because you're too fat to see your dick, fatty.
Listen, you're fat and stupid. Don't take it out on me.
I wonder if my testosterone level is too high, cause I'm sure enjoying watching you made a big fat idiot of yourself, fat man.
"Actually, I did not significantly lower my caloric intake, or at least, did not bring it down anywhere near what I "should" be eating."
Yes, you did. Had you taken a simple physics class you'd know that, or perhaps you've found some way to overcome conservation of energy?. Frankly, there are many examples of what I am talking about regarding Atkins that are freely available, read them and you'll see.
"reakfast: 4 eggs, 4-8 link sausages. 4 eggs fried in fat (butter in this case): 105*4=420kcal. 4 link sausages (farmer john's maple, my favorite) have 300 kcal.
Lunch: Gigantic salad smothered in bleu cheese dressing, usu. with a hardboiled egg. Salad greens have negligible calories. Assuming I had 4 tbsp of salad dressing (probably a quite conservative estimate) that's 340 kcal alone. A hardboiled egg is 78 kcal. A half-cup of grated cheese (pretty typical) is 228 kcal.
Dinner: Very large steak (over 1lb) carved from a tri-tip roast, not defatted at all. Over 1000 kcal. Usually fried in butter, add a few more. Typically associated with some broccoli."
Completely irrelevant. You cannot lose weight without decreasing your caloric intake. And honestly, given your tone, I'm fairly certain you'll make up whatever numbers you need to in order to "prove" you are right.
"Add to that the fact that I was sitting on my ass for those nine months, and there is simply no way to explain my weight loss by reduction of calories."
Um, no, since you got no exercise by your own admission, there is no OTHER way to explain it.
"Perhaps you should learn something about ketosis before you make ignorant statements like this again. During ketosis, the rate of lean muscle loss is reduced; normally you lose one pound of muscle for every three pounds of fat. Not so on the Atkins diet."
Perhaps you should learn about glycolysis, and the body's inability to burn fat in the absence of carbohydrates. Muscle is burned instead. Coupled with your own admission of no exercise, I stand by my assertion.
"Your willful ignorance impresses no one."
Listen dick, you are the one claiming that your diet violates the law of conservation of energy, while ALSO claiming you lost weight without exercising, but that COULD NOT have been a reduction of calories (what was it, the fat fairy?). So save that stupid "I'm a big fat internet bully" shit for someone else, all you did was show off how easy it is for one person to be stupid several times in a post.
"Until the danger is gone, there will still be work to be done." What danger are you speaking of? Are you automatically assuming warming=danger here?
"Well, let me just piss you off then. When I was on the Atkins diet I lose 90 lb in 9 mo, 10 lb/mo, without exercising."
That's because you lowered your caloric intake, a fairly common misunderstanding about the Atkins diet. Had you measured it, you'd notice your total caloric intake was less on Atkins. People think otherwise because of the common fat=high calorie meme.
And all that weight you lost? Mostly muscle. So you may weigh less, but you're fatter overall.
"Being fat is very unpleasant in our world, and if it was easy to stop, a lot more people would be doing it." It is easy to stop being fat, but it's not quite as easy as staying fat. The same behaviors that cause an individual to get fat are responsible for their staying fat. People who are fat attempt to avoid the stereotypes, but if you're honest you'll admit that a large percentage eat crap because it's easy, and fail to exercise because it's easy to do so. Do you see a pattern there? But you can achieve a reasonable level of fitness with 30 minutes of moderately strenuous exercise every day. Barring a serious medical condition (heart problems, joints problems, etc.) 30 minutes a day is easily doable. Stop making excuses.
"I have an elliptical machine in my house and a bicycle which I barely ride, but I find I don't ever have enough time. I -want- to lose the weight, but life tends to get in the way."
No, honestly it doesn't. You've prioritized, which is fine, but don't pretend this overbearing thing called "life" keeps hammering away at you and preventing you from exercising. You can find 30 minutes a day if you really want to.
"Do you have any idea how hard it is to diet and keep your energy level up for work? Probably not, as you're skinny enough to call people 'lardasses'."
Not to be a nit, but do you fail because you're too busy, or because it's too hard? And if you were hoping to defeat the "lardasses are lazy, that's why they're lardasses" argument, well this is probably a non-starter.
The truth is, like anything else, if you really wanted it, you'd find a way.
"Get a mountain bike and find a good local trail. That's much more fun"
I live in Florida, so no, no it's not fun at all (except for the two months or so when the weather is perfect). In fact, I'm pretty sure it's one of the rings of hell, maybe the one where lawyers go.
"Apples and oranges."
You're only saying that because you don't like the party in power. Fundamentally, there is no difference. No one can competently argue the firings were illegal.
If you want to argue about "lying under oath" you can, but I can see a very easy out, claiming that the "poor performance" was the fired attorney's failure to prosecute politically important cases. Performance has many metrics, with that one being as viable as any other.
In other words, this is a nothing story, seemingly motivated by political opportunism. It saddens me that you've allowed yourself to be duped so easily.
Quoting an antiquated definition that was created before the current situation arose is in now way definitive. Claiming that i's not stealing because a definition you like says so proves nothing.
"Stealing, by definition, removes the item from possession of the original possessor."
No, it doesn't It removes property from the original possessor with intent to deprive the owner of its use or benefit. This is not the same as taking an item as you claim. More importantly, it is the taking of the property that is the crime, whether or not the individual is deprived of its use is completely irrelevant, as in this case they could be deprived of its benefit and still meet your definition.
You are wrong. Now instead of composing a long winded but factually incorrect response, examine your position so you can realize where your mistakes are and correct them.
"Lol! Your version of "equality" sure sounds like the man is in control."
Perhaps you'd like to point out exactly what you're referring to, as I can't see anything remotely approaching your assessment.
"And who can blame them? Men have been doing exactly that."
Bullshit. Some men have been doing that, and you're accepting that the poor decisions made by a small minority justify paiting the whole sex with the same brush.
Why not just admit you're a misandrist and stop pretending you have justification for your bigoted views.
"But there's a difference between burning fuel for a bonafide purpose and just for the heck of it!"
And that, ultimately is the point you fail to grasp. Entertainment IS a bona fide purpose.
And because of your inability to understand that, you make pointless pronouncements of what other people "should" do because you think it's acceptable, while completely failing to comprehend how insane your pronouncements are.
By the way, didn't we already establish that your opinion is no longer allowed to be expressed? Why am I not surprised that you're willing to dictate to others what they are allowed to do while totally ignoring your own harmful activities...
"The same thing that's wrong about wanting to club baby seals."
Wait, so burning some fuel is equivalent to thoughtlessly mangling defenseless animals. Yeah I can see that you've spent some time thinking about this one...
"Some distorted minds may consider it fun, but that doesn't mean that it needs to be supported or even legal."
Well, based on your previous comment, you're a pretty piss-poor judge. I think equating clubbing baby seals with burning fuel to be far more of a sign of a "distorted mind", therefore, you should not share your opinion ever again.
"Why does Joe need to get his kicks on the back of everyone else, including the environment? Can't he go to a gym and punch a bag for a while?"
No. Why should he have to? Because irrational trolls like you are so disconnected from reality that hey equate driving a car with CLUBBING BABY SEALS?
WTF is wrong with you...
"This is merely supposition. In order to claim superiority, you must first prove that supposition true."
Just so I'm clear, what do you want proof of, the fact that paper costs money or that space is limited? And ARE YOU SERIOUS?
"As I see it, screen space is just as limited as paper space."
I said "space" not "paper space"
"It may be cheaper, but modern paper was never expensive to begin with."
Totally irrelevant. More costs more money, that's all that is necessary.
Please, if you respond this time, try to actually address my points.
"I'll just point out that the problem at hand is not change, but man-made change that will hurt. A lot."
How do you know this? You seem to be missing the point that you CAN'T know this, as it hasn't happened yet. The data is not sufficient to make his sort of hyperbolic claim, yet there you are making it.
The reality is exactly what GP said, somewhere in the middle. You seem somewhat attached to the idea that it will be catastrophic, and completely averse to admitting that it may not be.
"The problem is that this is akin to talking about the positive effects of smoking: weightloss, fewer old people to draw down retirement benefits, etc. It's disingenuous and generally only used to mask the drawbacks."
This is nothing like that at all. In the case of smoking we have years of data that directly speaks to the negative effects of smoking. We have seen them. As yet, we have nothing but speculation as to them long term negative effects of global climate change.
Observing vs. Inferring is a big difference, so no, they're nothing alike.
"From the other end, another result fo this is that any joker call him/herself a scientist and claim to be providing scientific information, with no penalty if s/he's not."
That's simply not true. The most important thing a research scientist has is his credibility, which will suffer if he continually forwards crackpot ideas.
"Changes include flooding in areas unused to flooding, causing landslides, and drought in areas unused to drought, causing wildfires and failed crops."
And yet, you completely ignore the possibility that on the whole, these changes could be offset by other positive changes. You don't even mention the possibility.
And that's why you're not credible. You're focusing solely on the "bad" changes while not even admitting that "good" changes are possible.
"Why?"
Because paper costs money and space is limited. Both of these explanations are superior to yours.
"Poetry regularly follows such patterns, using them to express a certain spoken "tone" within the meter."
Poetry is not a legitimate comparison. Poetry is frequently formatted with no regard whatsoever to how easy it is to read. Often, the formatting is done to preserve tings which actually make it harder to read, on purpose.
"So why can't we transfer it to regular text? There must be an overriding reason?"
Because paper costs money and space is limited. Both of these explanations are superior to yours.
"When you introduce a solution to a problem, you need to make sure that it's easily adoptable."
No actually you don't.
"Is the new solution truly superior if the supposedly superior solution is more difficult to use than the solution it replaces?"
Did you really say this? How many things did you learn as a child that you found a better way to do later, but had to learn first? If it's difficult at first, but then becomes more efficient after learning, then yes it is better.
It seems that ultimately your only real objection is that this is "inelegant", which has caused you to manufacture other spurious objections in order to justify your dislike of this methods aesthetics.