No one is making the claim that you should blindly trust the tribe on the other side of the mountain, but that those who allege that the current chief is the product, or even a pawn, of that other tribe need to have more evidence besides pointing to some wooden signs along the river.
Um no. You don't trust everyone you pick up for sex, even though they me be as disease free as Jeebuz and pure as the driven snow.
You wear that rubber because there are some folks out there who just might have an STD, and you don't say hey Russia hasn't been unequivocally proven beyond a shadow of a doubt in a court of law in every country before you decide that you might want to think about not using Kaspersky's AV software.
I am not even saying you need to or can do anything about it. Just that your bullshit call is not justified at all.
Well, guess we'll just have to disagree. I've had articles written about my research and other activities. If I made a scientific experiment that was written up like that, I'd demand it be removed immediatly because it makes declarations withoout actual support.
tl;dr, you cannot make scientific remarks about studies and articles devoid of scientific content, that only contain suspect declarations.
And for that, "Bullshit" is an adequate response. If the article were any worse, I would call it incompetent. Nowhere to go from there. You may not like that, but hey, life is tough - get more sleep and see if your chagrin goes away... 8^)
That is correct, but it still doesn't mean that your original calling of bullshit is scientifically valid.
It wasn't a science experiment. It was calling bullshit on the statement "Productive on six hours of sleep? You’re deluding yourself, expert says." which is the headline of the article.I don't need that much. 5 is fine for me. I go to sleep, then wake up 5 hours later and it suits me just fine. That isn't science, just experience
>, it all applies to you too. Or it could at least help you realize why your observations aren't rigorously scientific.
If they are not too scientific, you could have those opinions still. But they are useless for others because they would need to borrow your body, mind and thoughts to have similar sleep requirements.
Where did you ever come up with the idea that I was making a scientific claim, and that I was somehow extrapolating it to everyone else? My particular sleep requirements are one data point, which was arrived at by a lifetime of going to sleep, then getting up. No experiments were made measuring my abilities before or after. But I make the claim since that's how I've slept my whole life, the only possible exception to that is my mother told me I didn't sleep much as a young child. She never told me the typical hours I slept though.
Most people need more sleep than me. My wife likes around 9. I wake up refreshed at 5, all by myself with no alarm help. I would need to be drugged to get 8 hours of sleep.
That is all empirical evidence. But it has been going on for a long long time, and it would take extraordinary proof to declare several decades of experience as somehow invalid.
So yeah based on the title of the article "Productive on six hours of sleep? You’re deluding yourself, expert says"
and the statement that:
"The recommendation is seven to nine hours for all adults. The reason that there’s a range is that it’s a little bit like calories. Based on everyone’s unique physiology, that amount will vary from one person to the next.
And the same is true for sleep, although there are somewhat hard boundaries on the lower end. Once you get less than seven hours of sleep, you can measure marked impairments in both brain and body health. And those people who claim they can survive on six hours of sleep or less, unfortunately, are deluding themselves and their health.
I feel quite safe calling Bullshit. I'm not deluding myself - that is for certain. I'm well outside his "hard limits" for sleep. I'm more productive than most people I know, and as noted except for old sports injuries re-appearing as arthritis, which is completely expected, I'm 63 and take no maintenance drugs, unlike almost everyone else my age that I know. And the arthritis is treated mostly by our spa. There might be some delusion here, but I'm pretty certain it isn't on my end.
That being said, I do believe that most people need between 7 and 9 hours of sleep a night. A few healthy people need more, and some of us need less.
There seems to be some confusion. I accept and understand and have no doubts that some folks need more sleep than me. Some a lot more sleep. Others think I am either lying or seriously damaging myself because they cannot comprehend that some might need less. Perhaps my going to bed when I'm tired, and waking up when I'm rested, all by myself with no alarm is part of that delusion? That lack of sleep make you believe you don't need it? I know exactly what sleep deprivation feels like, and my experience at 3 hours jibes with co-workers experience when they get 6. People need what they need, and to lump us in one physical grouping in which no deviation is allowed, and to to declare that anyone who doesn't march in undeviating lockstep with this rigid unbending and hard lined no exceptions allowed dogma is suffering from delusion isn't terribly scientific either.
Pharmaceutical companies and their shareholders has enjoyed a remarkable increase in the quality of their lives, in no small part due to these new drugs.
I'm noting that anyone who demands that people who don't sleep the amount of time that they say is the right amount of time, is of very suspect knowledge of physiology.
I'm saying - and make no mistake, this is a stament, a part of a civil conversation - that that is simply wrong, and incorrect, and that there might be other forces at play that involve pecuniary accumulation on the part of the group making the statement.
Do you have some sort of issue with people having conversations? Chillaxe and consider making positive contributions to the conversation rather than a thinly veiled admonition to me to shut up.
Well, one thing I learned.. Lack of sleep contributes to arthritis. Two separate occasions with two different doctors though the years said the same thing. Plus I also read it on the Web. And yes, regarding injuries: an old man told me once when I was young, the injuries that you incur when you are young, will haunt you later. My grandfather warned me when I mowed the lawn. (I whipped around the lawnmower like it was a rag doll in my 20's. To get the job done fast) to take it easy on my body. I didn't listen. And I wish I did now. I used to think I was indestructible. Too late now.
I have a long litany of Ice Hockey injuries, and the generalized wear and tear that that involves, especially since I played long past the age when most people have stopped. Sleep or no sleep, I was a prime candidate. I still get a lot of exercise, since that's a drug-free way to keep mobile and oddly, avoid some of the pain. But I wouldn't change any of that. But oh yeah, The old injuries do come back to haunt us.
What you should do is read the fine article, which actually answers your question.
I believe I answered the article's litmus test. I don't use an alarm to wake up, with the rare exceptions of when a travel schedule requires a very short night of sleep. That's maybe 2 times a year.
Caffeine use stops at noon, and I even tried one of those programs that adjusts your monitor intensity and color since the wife heard how bad using monitors at night was. Alcohol use is minimal at an estimated six-pack equivalent per year. None of that makes a difference. No difference in sleep pattern
And I know exactly what sleep deprivation feels like, because if I get less than my 5, I do feel sleep deprived. And I hate the feeling. I just go to sleep when I feel tired, wake up when I wake up, and live my life without worry that I'm getting too lhow bad using a computer at night is.ittle.
I find it difficult to accept the idea that a creature as varied in physiological attributes as humans shares the exact same need for sleep. I do find it easy to accept the idea that a lot of people might be sleep deprived, a lot of people might be a little hypochondriacal, and that there are pharmaceutical companies that are more than willing to step into the breach and provide chemical means to force them to sleep their mandatory 8 hours.
Here we go!
"If you don't get the sleep that nature intended for you to get, you'll die a horrible and painful death at a very young age. Snoozika will correct for the stresses that a busy person like you has, and gently forces you into a proper and healthy sleep cycle, so that when you wake up, you'll feel healthy, refreshed, and ready to take on the world - on your terms!
So ask your doctor if Snoozika is right for you!"
(cue really fast talk......)
Snoozika can sometimes affect your judgement, cause gambling addictions and other side effects. Do not take Snoozika if you are allergic to Snoozika or any of it's ingredients. If you are pregnant or planning on starting a family consult your physician first. If you have been to an area where certain fungal conditions are common, alert your physician. Alert your physician if you experience muscle weakness and shaking, as these may become a permanent condition. Alert your physician If you become confused, encounter mood changes or suicidal thoughts. Regular blood monitoring is needed with Snoozika to monitor liver function, Do not start Snoozika if you have an infection.
(Back to happy talk...)
So remember, take Snoozika, for the healthy life you deserve!
The Snoozika commercial is immediately followed by one of those lawyer firms that want you to file a lawsuit against the manufacturers of Snoozika, as you may be eligible for substantial compensation.
To me it is amazing that there are people out there who insist that a group with as much physical variety as humans shares this one trait - that 100 percent of humanity needs exactly 8 hours of sleep a night - and that there are no exceptions to that rule.
People are different. They have different needs for sleep. If I sleep for more than 6, I feel like utter shit. Headaches and lethargy all day. I work best on about 6, and am function on down to 4. Above that I'm less productive.
Exactly. My number is 5 hours, and I also get the headache issue if I've had too much. And with less than 5, I really notice a falloff in prerformance.
You need so many hours to reset/repair your brain. And your body needs repair in the additional sleep. If you short yourself you might get away with the brain for a while, but they are both tied together so your thinking will eventually get cloudy. Not to mention the eventual breakdown of the body and/or brain.. Or you can deny all of this and wait till you get older.
What you say is true, but it really depends on the individual, despite what this guy says. I've alawys done 5 hours, and unless I have a cold, I'm awake without an alarm, and feel good with 5. I go to sleep when I'm tired, and wake up when I've had enough sleep. I'm old enough, and except for nagging old sports injuries that come back to haunt me as arthritis pain, Im doing just fine.
I've always slept arounf 5 hours a night, unless I was sick - which happens about once every 5 years.
I go to bed, fall asleep, and then 5 hours later I wake up feeling refreshed and rested. So should I drug myself in order to get the "correct" and healthy amount of sleep? Or do I go to a doctor and tell him that some expert told me I was killing myself. so I need treated for insomnia. I really don't want to just lie in bed for three extra hours.
I call Bullshit. I know what I feel like when I'm tired, I know what I feel like when I have had enough sleep.
When the performance of these things starts to drop off and they all need to be replaced, are people going to get sticker shock when they not only have to pay more to replace them but have to pay to dispose of the old ones because of "toxic" materials?
Who's talking about a deep emotional connection. For a lot of those "not always good boys", a huge part of the pleasure is the hunt and challenge, feeling a visceral victory. In Brave New World, that kind of sex is also lost.
is a novel, it makes some assumptions that it guides you through to the conclusion he wants you to have. The part you say will be lost is sexualized teasing. It is certainly fun. But in a world that isn't in a novel, you aren't going to have what is described as the "zipless fuck". No games, no emotional content, just "Screw?" "Sure. "and that is that.
150 years ago, seeing a little flash of a woman's ankle was on the same tier as we would put full nudity today. So, last time a girl showed you her ankle, how thrilling was it for you?
Allow me to give a modern day example. a modern day woman wearing a hijab can melt you with her eyes. She might be covered from head to to otherwise. Covering a woman's body is often something that spurs interest. But we didn't evolve clothed, so if your logic holds, we should have died out long before clothing was developed, because no one would be interested.
As something becomes commonplace and easy, it loses value. I'm sure you'd enjoy being handed a large gold bar right now. If all the sand in the world were turned into gold, then how much would you like that gold bar? You'd probably toss it in the garbage.
So sex should be as absolutely difficult to obtain and rare as possible in order to generate interest? Ugh. Aside from the physiological and instinctual problems that would create, it sounds like a recipe for extreme sexual repression, sexual assault, and control. Dreary indeed, and seriously unnatural.
Sex is more than two people deciding they want to stick parts somewhere because its the halftime show and they are bored and no one thought of this before. It is an instinctual drive, and even without education, people can figure out how to do it without much help.
And if you were such a great pick up artist in your teens and 20's, why did you stop.
What an odd question. But okay, I'll answer. There is a learning process that young people go through with regards to sex and emotional attachments. To say I didn't like the young ladies I consorted with would be untrue. But it was all completely consensual, all fun, "wanna go get breakfast?"and there were no victims. Going out on the town, meeting young ladies who are also looking for an enjoyable evening out is not by definition and end game in itself. Men age and become more discriminating and the first blush of virility and lust dies down, women start to think about having children, and obtaining a support structure which enables raising them. There is nothing inconsistent with the concept of settling down after the so called sowing wild oats.
As for why I stopped PUC, well I met a woman who I was very compatible with, and yes had the physical characteristics I found alluring. That was 40 years ago, so it appears we chose well.
Try it now, you won't enjoy it nearly as much, not because the sex is less good, but because it has become too mundane for you.
My SO might have something to say about that! But I'll tell her you suggested it as an experiment., and as a man of science I must do my duty....8^)
Their obsession with the internet is actually making them blind to the real threats. There was a BBC investigation broadcast just yesterday that revealed newspapers and leaflets openly praising jihadis were being widely distributed. No-one noticed because they were written in Urdu, and they are too focused on the internet.
Exactly. There seems to be a stupid fixation on the internet, as if terrorism didn't exist before web browsers. It did, and your example is one way that such things can be driven far enough underground that you lose a really good tracking tool that the internet provides
Do you know your claims are false, or do you not care?
The fact is that similar numbers of people die from both.
Everyone dies of something
Prostate cancer is diagnosed far more often, and men suffer from a larger number of life-impacting operations to remove their prostate than for breast cancer.
Then they aren't too bright. While you like to accuse me of lying, this is not news at all, I knew this stuff long ago. And now I'll give you all the fake news you care to call fake. http://healthland.time.com/201... If you are past 60, and get a diagnosis, you should forgo treatment. Why? Becaue unless it is an aggressive case, you'll die of old age first.
For women with stage II breast cancer, the 5-year relative survival rate is about 93%.
The 5-year relative survival rate for stage III breast cancers is around 72%.
Metastatic, or stage IV breast cancers, have a 5-year relative survival rate of around 22%.
Satege 0 or 1 has a 5 year survival similar to all stages except aggressive prostate.
Which is why, exactly why, I said that given an either or case, you will work pretty hard at curing breast cancer, which does tend to kill pretty quickly if you take the same approach as you would with prostate cancer.
Undiagnosed mortality rates from both are quite similar, although higher for prostate cancer.
Umm uhh, get ready for it here it comes. don't blink!
Do you know your claims are false, or do you not care?
Simply brilliant! me hearty. I am fully aware of the sometimes wildly different ways that women are treated compared to men, and encourage men to even consider that they might live a fuller and less stress filled life by avoiding entanglements with women, because society and the legal system are not conducive to good outcomes for men.
But I don't hate them, and wish all women long and happy lives.
The UK wants to divorce from Europe partly because those pesky European Human Rights keep getting in the way if their oppression.
I don't think the situation is going to turn out like they think it will. The biggest problem is when the list of "illegal sites" grows. Things never stand still, and people are experts at the idea that if a solution doesn't work - and this one won't - you have to try the solution harder.
Then you missed the point of the book.
Wasting your life away on soma because life sucks so bad. And the point Huxley tried to make is that when sex is more casual than saying "hi" it loses all meaning and pleasure.
No, it loses romance. Romance is highly over-rated as a sexual stimulant. I was not always a good boy while in my teens and early 20's, but even the casual sex was quite pleasurable. If you need deep emotional attachment to enjoy sex, yer doin it wrong.
Yeah, he won the clown car race with 16 (or was it 17) candidates by a healthy margin by differentiating himself. But polling throughout the race had him at unprecedented unfavorability ratings, with only Clinton able to even remotely complete. He polled worse than lice and Nickelback.
Also, among the groups of independents, Democrats, and Republicans, Republicans are the smallest group, and only a small subset of them voted in the primaries.
This is not fake news, this is not remotely deniable. I knew that the voting manchines were Internet of things easy to hack almost 15 years ago. http://euro.ecom.cmu.edu/peopl...
There have been some strange happenings like in the 2012 election where Carl Rove had a public meltdown when he refused to concede the Ohio vote, expecting some districts to come through and push the Republican candidate over the edge and win Ohio. It was interesting in the aspect that Ohio had a strange even in a previous election where the exit polls gave the state to a Democrat, but the vote tally did not. The Republican response was the typical Good Republican Voters screwing with the Media. But that's just a side story, and I digress.
The big question is - with the machines having terrible security, why the hell would a tech-savvy nation not hack and alter the results to mess with an adversary nation or to put in a person they had sway with?
And the less aggressive approach is taking Proscar, which is basically being chemically neutered. Not much fun, either.
Someone in the know told me that it's not a matter of if you'll get prostate cancer, but how bad you'll get it.
One of the interesting issues of civilization is that men get a hellava lot less sex than they used to in days of yore. After marriage and children, the nookie time drops way off. Now with a lot of evidence that the more use of old Willie the better, http://www.medscape.com/viewar... it doesn't jibe with modern society.
Stop with the bullshit responses meant to attack others rather than discuss the facts. You sound hysterical.
Damn right I'm hysterical. I keep 'em in stitches. I'd be remiss if I didn't credit people like you for providing material for me.
Show us one iota of actual evidence that proves anything that you believe about the Russians, just one single thing.
I believe that they have a lot of really good looking women, and I love their accents when they speak English. I believe they drive around with dashcams a lot. Did you see the one where some poor dude has an accident and he's carrying propane canisters and they go off in the resulting fire.
The only limit is that you can't use the press/media reports as evidence.
You can't do it. You have no idea what happened. You haven't been given a spec of evidence from the justice system nor has anything been proven through a prosecution.
Oh, now you are just making maudlin. Your demands are only possible to meet in a post-legal process situation. To use a presidential situation, this is like Dick Nixon wasn't guilty of anything because he was never put on trial. Or that Slick Willy never got his knob polished by Monica Lewinsky because his impeachment wasn't sucessful in the end.
Spare me your silly lawyer's tricks Boris.
What we do know is that the senior advisor to the Present Administration attempted to open a secure communications facility using Russian embassy equipment. This in itself is quite disturbing, perhaps yu can go to the American Embassy in Moscow and ask them to do the same, then go tell Putin you did it. No problem eh, tovarish? We also know other things.
But since we do get our information from the media, why would you even accept a media report of the results of th ecoming court actions? The utmost denial is strong in you comrade, much vodka, and perhaps we can exchange sat and bread some day, I have to respect convictions so strong they can withstand nuclear powered truth.
Meanwhile rant on. I'm no leftist, my cock-a-whoop friend, I do however do like the truth, something you have left behind a long time ago....
You do know that you lose points every time you trot out the tired old tactic of claiming everyone that doesn't walk in lockstep with you as a leftist don't you? Probbly not.
Slashdot Mirror
No one is making the claim that you should blindly trust the tribe on the other side of the mountain, but that those who allege that the current chief is the product, or even a pawn, of that other tribe need to have more evidence besides pointing to some wooden signs along the river.
Um no. You don't trust everyone you pick up for sex, even though they me be as disease free as Jeebuz and pure as the driven snow.
You wear that rubber because there are some folks out there who just might have an STD, and you don't say hey Russia hasn't been unequivocally proven beyond a shadow of a doubt in a court of law in every country before you decide that you might want to think about not using Kaspersky's AV software.
I am not even saying you need to or can do anything about it. Just that your bullshit call is not justified at all.
Well, guess we'll just have to disagree. I've had articles written about my research and other activities. If I made a scientific experiment that was written up like that, I'd demand it be removed immediatly because it makes declarations withoout actual support.
tl;dr, you cannot make scientific remarks about studies and articles devoid of scientific content, that only contain suspect declarations.
And for that, "Bullshit" is an adequate response. If the article were any worse, I would call it incompetent. Nowhere to go from there. You may not like that, but hey, life is tough - get more sleep and see if your chagrin goes away... 8^)
That is correct, but it still doesn't mean that your original calling of bullshit is scientifically valid.
It wasn't a science experiment. It was calling bullshit on the statement "Productive on six hours of sleep? You’re deluding yourself, expert says." which is the headline of the article.I don't need that much. 5 is fine for me. I go to sleep, then wake up 5 hours later and it suits me just fine. That isn't science, just experience
>, it all applies to you too. Or it could at least help you realize why your observations aren't rigorously scientific.
If they are not too scientific, you could have those opinions still. But they are useless for others because they would need to borrow your body, mind and thoughts to have similar sleep requirements.
Where did you ever come up with the idea that I was making a scientific claim, and that I was somehow extrapolating it to everyone else? My particular sleep requirements are one data point, which was arrived at by a lifetime of going to sleep, then getting up. No experiments were made measuring my abilities before or after. But I make the claim since that's how I've slept my whole life, the only possible exception to that is my mother told me I didn't sleep much as a young child. She never told me the typical hours I slept though.
Most people need more sleep than me. My wife likes around 9. I wake up refreshed at 5, all by myself with no alarm help. I would need to be drugged to get 8 hours of sleep.
That is all empirical evidence. But it has been going on for a long long time, and it would take extraordinary proof to declare several decades of experience as somehow invalid.
So yeah based on the title of the article "Productive on six hours of sleep? You’re deluding yourself, expert says"
and the statement that:
"The recommendation is seven to nine hours for all adults. The reason that there’s a range is that it’s a little bit like calories. Based on everyone’s unique physiology, that amount will vary from one person to the next.
And the same is true for sleep, although there are somewhat hard boundaries on the lower end. Once you get less than seven hours of sleep, you can measure marked impairments in both brain and body health. And those people who claim they can survive on six hours of sleep or less, unfortunately, are deluding themselves and their health.
I feel quite safe calling Bullshit. I'm not deluding myself - that is for certain. I'm well outside his "hard limits" for sleep. I'm more productive than most people I know, and as noted except for old sports injuries re-appearing as arthritis, which is completely expected, I'm 63 and take no maintenance drugs, unlike almost everyone else my age that I know. And the arthritis is treated mostly by our spa. There might be some delusion here, but I'm pretty certain it isn't on my end.
That being said, I do believe that most people need between 7 and 9 hours of sleep a night. A few healthy people need more, and some of us need less.
There seems to be some confusion. I accept and understand and have no doubts that some folks need more sleep than me. Some a lot more sleep. Others think I am either lying or seriously damaging myself because they cannot comprehend that some might need less. Perhaps my going to bed when I'm tired, and waking up when I'm rested, all by myself with no alarm is part of that delusion? That lack of sleep make you believe you don't need it? I know exactly what sleep deprivation feels like, and my experience at 3 hours jibes with co-workers experience when they get 6. People need what they need, and to lump us in one physical grouping in which no deviation is allowed, and to to declare that anyone who doesn't march in undeviating lockstep with this rigid unbending and hard lined no exceptions allowed dogma is suffering from delusion isn't terribly scientific either.
So I'll still call bullshit.
Pharmaceutical companies and their shareholders has enjoyed a remarkable increase in the quality of their lives, in no small part due to these new drugs.
Exactly, so what are you complaining about?
I'm noting that anyone who demands that people who don't sleep the amount of time that they say is the right amount of time, is of very suspect knowledge of physiology.
I'm saying - and make no mistake, this is a stament, a part of a civil conversation - that that is simply wrong, and incorrect, and that there might be other forces at play that involve pecuniary accumulation on the part of the group making the statement.
Do you have some sort of issue with people having conversations? Chillaxe and consider making positive contributions to the conversation rather than a thinly veiled admonition to me to shut up.
Well, one thing I learned.. Lack of sleep contributes to arthritis. Two separate occasions with two different doctors though the years said the same thing. Plus I also read it on the Web. And yes, regarding injuries: an old man told me once when I was young, the injuries that you incur when you are young, will haunt you later. My grandfather warned me when I mowed the lawn. (I whipped around the lawnmower like it was a rag doll in my 20's. To get the job done fast) to take it easy on my body. I didn't listen. And I wish I did now. I used to think I was indestructible. Too late now.
I have a long litany of Ice Hockey injuries, and the generalized wear and tear that that involves, especially since I played long past the age when most people have stopped. Sleep or no sleep, I was a prime candidate. I still get a lot of exercise, since that's a drug-free way to keep mobile and oddly, avoid some of the pain. But I wouldn't change any of that. But oh yeah, The old injuries do come back to haunt us.
What you should do is read the fine article, which actually answers your question.
I believe I answered the article's litmus test. I don't use an alarm to wake up, with the rare exceptions of when a travel schedule requires a very short night of sleep. That's maybe 2 times a year.
Caffeine use stops at noon, and I even tried one of those programs that adjusts your monitor intensity and color since the wife heard how bad using monitors at night was. Alcohol use is minimal at an estimated six-pack equivalent per year. None of that makes a difference. No difference in sleep pattern
And I know exactly what sleep deprivation feels like, because if I get less than my 5, I do feel sleep deprived. And I hate the feeling. I just go to sleep when I feel tired, wake up when I wake up, and live my life without worry that I'm getting too lhow bad using a computer at night is.ittle.
I find it difficult to accept the idea that a creature as varied in physiological attributes as humans shares the exact same need for sleep. I do find it easy to accept the idea that a lot of people might be sleep deprived, a lot of people might be a little hypochondriacal, and that there are pharmaceutical companies that are more than willing to step into the breach and provide chemical means to force them to sleep their mandatory 8 hours.
Here we go!
"If you don't get the sleep that nature intended for you to get, you'll die a horrible and painful death at a very young age. Snoozika will correct for the stresses that a busy person like you has, and gently forces you into a proper and healthy sleep cycle, so that when you wake up, you'll feel healthy, refreshed, and ready to take on the world - on your terms!
So ask your doctor if Snoozika is right for you!"
(cue really fast talk......) Snoozika can sometimes affect your judgement, cause gambling addictions and other side effects. Do not take Snoozika if you are allergic to Snoozika or any of it's ingredients. If you are pregnant or planning on starting a family consult your physician first. If you have been to an area where certain fungal conditions are common, alert your physician. Alert your physician if you experience muscle weakness and shaking, as these may become a permanent condition. Alert your physician If you become confused, encounter mood changes or suicidal thoughts. Regular blood monitoring is needed with Snoozika to monitor liver function, Do not start Snoozika if you have an infection.
(Back to happy talk...) So remember, take Snoozika, for the healthy life you deserve!
The Snoozika commercial is immediately followed by one of those lawyer firms that want you to file a lawsuit against the manufacturers of Snoozika, as you may be eligible for substantial compensation.
And you've never known anything else.
True - just like breathing or taking a crap.
To me it is amazing that there are people out there who insist that a group with as much physical variety as humans shares this one trait - that 100 percent of humanity needs exactly 8 hours of sleep a night - and that there are no exceptions to that rule.
I think you are phenomenally lucky. I’m currently (temporarily) getting around six hours of sleep on weekdays and it’s nowhere near enough.
It can be handy when the workload is high.
People are different. They have different needs for sleep. If I sleep for more than 6, I feel like utter shit. Headaches and lethargy all day. I work best on about 6, and am function on down to 4. Above that I'm less productive.
Exactly. My number is 5 hours, and I also get the headache issue if I've had too much. And with less than 5, I really notice a falloff in prerformance.
You need so many hours to reset/repair your brain. And your body needs repair in the additional sleep. If you short yourself you might get away with the brain for a while, but they are both tied together so your thinking will eventually get cloudy. Not to mention the eventual breakdown of the body and/or brain.. Or you can deny all of this and wait till you get older.
What you say is true, but it really depends on the individual, despite what this guy says. I've alawys done 5 hours, and unless I have a cold, I'm awake without an alarm, and feel good with 5. I go to sleep when I'm tired, and wake up when I've had enough sleep. I'm old enough, and except for nagging old sports injuries that come back to haunt me as arthritis pain, Im doing just fine.
I go to bed, fall asleep, and then 5 hours later I wake up feeling refreshed and rested. So should I drug myself in order to get the "correct" and healthy amount of sleep? Or do I go to a doctor and tell him that some expert told me I was killing myself. so I need treated for insomnia. I really don't want to just lie in bed for three extra hours.
I call Bullshit. I know what I feel like when I'm tired, I know what I feel like when I have had enough sleep.
When the performance of these things starts to drop off and they all need to be replaced, are people going to get sticker shock when they not only have to pay more to replace them but have to pay to dispose of the old ones because of "toxic" materials?
We'll always have whale oil.
States Rights baby! Being protected by the Republican majorities in the House and senate.
Who's talking about a deep emotional connection. For a lot of those "not always good boys", a huge part of the pleasure is the hunt and challenge, feeling a visceral victory. In Brave New World, that kind of sex is also lost.
is a novel, it makes some assumptions that it guides you through to the conclusion he wants you to have. The part you say will be lost is sexualized teasing. It is certainly fun. But in a world that isn't in a novel, you aren't going to have what is described as the "zipless fuck". No games, no emotional content, just "Screw?" "Sure. "and that is that.
150 years ago, seeing a little flash of a woman's ankle was on the same tier as we would put full nudity today. So, last time a girl showed you her ankle, how thrilling was it for you?
Allow me to give a modern day example. a modern day woman wearing a hijab can melt you with her eyes. She might be covered from head to to otherwise. Covering a woman's body is often something that spurs interest. But we didn't evolve clothed, so if your logic holds, we should have died out long before clothing was developed, because no one would be interested.
As something becomes commonplace and easy, it loses value. I'm sure you'd enjoy being handed a large gold bar right now. If all the sand in the world were turned into gold, then how much would you like that gold bar? You'd probably toss it in the garbage.
So sex should be as absolutely difficult to obtain and rare as possible in order to generate interest? Ugh. Aside from the physiological and instinctual problems that would create, it sounds like a recipe for extreme sexual repression, sexual assault, and control. Dreary indeed, and seriously unnatural.
Sex is more than two people deciding they want to stick parts somewhere because its the halftime show and they are bored and no one thought of this before. It is an instinctual drive, and even without education, people can figure out how to do it without much help.
And if you were such a great pick up artist in your teens and 20's, why did you stop.
What an odd question. But okay, I'll answer. There is a learning process that young people go through with regards to sex and emotional attachments. To say I didn't like the young ladies I consorted with would be untrue. But it was all completely consensual, all fun, "wanna go get breakfast?"and there were no victims. Going out on the town, meeting young ladies who are also looking for an enjoyable evening out is not by definition and end game in itself. Men age and become more discriminating and the first blush of virility and lust dies down, women start to think about having children, and obtaining a support structure which enables raising them. There is nothing inconsistent with the concept of settling down after the so called sowing wild oats.
As for why I stopped PUC, well I met a woman who I was very compatible with, and yes had the physical characteristics I found alluring. That was 40 years ago, so it appears we chose well.
Try it now, you won't enjoy it nearly as much, not because the sex is less good, but because it has become too mundane for you.
My SO might have something to say about that! But I'll tell her you suggested it as an experiment., and as a man of science I must do my duty....8^)
Their obsession with the internet is actually making them blind to the real threats. There was a BBC investigation broadcast just yesterday that revealed newspapers and leaflets openly praising jihadis were being widely distributed. No-one noticed because they were written in Urdu, and they are too focused on the internet.
Exactly. There seems to be a stupid fixation on the internet, as if terrorism didn't exist before web browsers. It did, and your example is one way that such things can be driven far enough underground that you lose a really good tracking tool that the internet provides
Do you know your claims are false, or do you not care?
The fact is that similar numbers of people die from both.
Everyone dies of something
Prostate cancer is diagnosed far more often, and men suffer from a larger number of life-impacting operations to remove their prostate than for breast cancer.
Then they aren't too bright. While you like to accuse me of lying, this is not news at all, I knew this stuff long ago. And now I'll give you all the fake news you care to call fake. http://healthland.time.com/201... If you are past 60, and get a diagnosis, you should forgo treatment. Why? Becaue unless it is an aggressive case, you'll die of old age first.
In fact, surgery is often the last thing you want http://healthland.time.com/201...
The PSA test is the source of many false positives. http://www.prweb.com/releases/...
The 5 year survival rate for Prostate cancer is is 99 percent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Breast cancer?:
For women with stage II breast cancer, the 5-year relative survival rate is about 93%.
The 5-year relative survival rate for stage III breast cancers is around 72%.
Metastatic, or stage IV breast cancers, have a 5-year relative survival rate of around 22%.
Satege 0 or 1 has a 5 year survival similar to all stages except aggressive prostate.
Which is why, exactly why, I said that given an either or case, you will work pretty hard at curing breast cancer, which does tend to kill pretty quickly if you take the same approach as you would with prostate cancer.
Undiagnosed mortality rates from both are quite similar, although higher for prostate cancer.
Umm uhh, get ready for it here it comes. don't blink!
Do you know your claims are false, or do you not care?
Simply brilliant! me hearty. I am fully aware of the sometimes wildly different ways that women are treated compared to men, and encourage men to even consider that they might live a fuller and less stress filled life by avoiding entanglements with women, because society and the legal system are not conducive to good outcomes for men.
But I don't hate them, and wish all women long and happy lives.
The UK wants to divorce from Europe partly because those pesky European Human Rights keep getting in the way if their oppression.
I don't think the situation is going to turn out like they think it will. The biggest problem is when the list of "illegal sites" grows. Things never stand still, and people are experts at the idea that if a solution doesn't work - and this one won't - you have to try the solution harder.
Then you missed the point of the book. Wasting your life away on soma because life sucks so bad. And the point Huxley tried to make is that when sex is more casual than saying "hi" it loses all meaning and pleasure.
No, it loses romance. Romance is highly over-rated as a sexual stimulant. I was not always a good boy while in my teens and early 20's, but even the casual sex was quite pleasurable. If you need deep emotional attachment to enjoy sex, yer doin it wrong.
Yeah, he won the clown car race with 16 (or was it 17) candidates by a healthy margin by differentiating himself. But polling throughout the race had him at unprecedented unfavorability ratings, with only Clinton able to even remotely complete. He polled worse than lice and Nickelback.
Also, among the groups of independents, Democrats, and Republicans, Republicans are the smallest group, and only a small subset of them voted in the primaries.
Which is why there are many questions yet unanswered. Without any mention of any other nations, American voting machines are notoriously easy to hack https://fossbytes.com/defcon-2... http://thehill.com/policy/cybe... 2012 - https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/... 2011 - https://www.salon.com/2011/09/...
2005 - https://arstechnica.com/uncate...
This is not fake news, this is not remotely deniable. I knew that the voting manchines were Internet of things easy to hack almost 15 years ago. http://euro.ecom.cmu.edu/peopl...
There have been some strange happenings like in the 2012 election where Carl Rove had a public meltdown when he refused to concede the Ohio vote, expecting some districts to come through and push the Republican candidate over the edge and win Ohio. It was interesting in the aspect that Ohio had a strange even in a previous election where the exit polls gave the state to a Democrat, but the vote tally did not. The Republican response was the typical Good Republican Voters screwing with the Media. But that's just a side story, and I digress.
The big question is - with the machines having terrible security, why the hell would a tech-savvy nation not hack and alter the results to mess with an adversary nation or to put in a person they had sway with?
And the less aggressive approach is taking Proscar, which is basically being chemically neutered. Not much fun, either.
Someone in the know told me that it's not a matter of if you'll get prostate cancer, but how bad you'll get it.
One of the interesting issues of civilization is that men get a hellava lot less sex than they used to in days of yore. After marriage and children, the nookie time drops way off. Now with a lot of evidence that the more use of old Willie the better, http://www.medscape.com/viewar... it doesn't jibe with modern society.
Well I'm certainly glad he's at least wearing adult diapers, and not the other kind.
He probably shouldn't have had the operation done by the famous Russian Rabbi, Boris Kutchyakockoff either.
You sound like a terrorist. I'm reporting you to the Ministry, comrade!
But we have T-Shirts!
Stop with the bullshit responses meant to attack others rather than discuss the facts. You sound hysterical.
Damn right I'm hysterical. I keep 'em in stitches. I'd be remiss if I didn't credit people like you for providing material for me.
Show us one iota of actual evidence that proves anything that you believe about the Russians, just one single thing.
I believe that they have a lot of really good looking women, and I love their accents when they speak English. I believe they drive around with dashcams a lot. Did you see the one where some poor dude has an accident and he's carrying propane canisters and they go off in the resulting fire.
The only limit is that you can't use the press/media reports as evidence.
You can't do it. You have no idea what happened. You haven't been given a spec of evidence from the justice system nor has anything been proven through a prosecution.
Oh, now you are just making maudlin. Your demands are only possible to meet in a post-legal process situation. To use a presidential situation, this is like Dick Nixon wasn't guilty of anything because he was never put on trial. Or that Slick Willy never got his knob polished by Monica Lewinsky because his impeachment wasn't sucessful in the end.
Spare me your silly lawyer's tricks Boris.
What we do know is that the senior advisor to the Present Administration attempted to open a secure communications facility using Russian embassy equipment. This in itself is quite disturbing, perhaps yu can go to the American Embassy in Moscow and ask them to do the same, then go tell Putin you did it. No problem eh, tovarish? We also know other things.
But since we do get our information from the media, why would you even accept a media report of the results of th ecoming court actions? The utmost denial is strong in you comrade, much vodka, and perhaps we can exchange sat and bread some day, I have to respect convictions so strong they can withstand nuclear powered truth. Meanwhile rant on. I'm no leftist, my cock-a-whoop friend, I do however do like the truth, something you have left behind a long time ago....
You do know that you lose points every time you trot out the tired old tactic of claiming everyone that doesn't walk in lockstep with you as a leftist don't you? Probbly not.
I thought Russia was the Hypnotoad.
I've been told they were the Slurm.