I think you have some good points and I wanted to respond to each of your comments but it's lunch time so I'll pick the one you were a bit of a dick about;) Just looking at point 1, do people really believe that if the EU did not exist today that Germany, France, Spain etc. would be invading its neighbors? If anything NATO and specifically American military might was the driving force for peace in the earlier part of the 20th century. The EU by contrast seems to be a source of constant turmoil. Think about it. Which nation and under what circumstances would this first world European nation invade another and go up against the US? Few of them even have but a token military when compared to America.
Well I intended my original post to be in support of the EU's action but after the down-mod and your question, this is going to be viewed as just another attack I suppose... Keep in mind that I'm an American and I admit I may not be as educated as the average European on this. Anyway, my impressions of the EU: 1) contributes to instability in the region (just the opposite of its purpose) 2) will in the long-term result cultural homogeneity in Europe and I like the tapestry of cultures that Europe currently represents 3) its bureaucracy of between 100k - 200k employees is yet another layer of abstraction between the citizens and those who should represent them 4) you would think one body would mean less regulatory overhead but this is turning out not to be the case so you have more regulation. 5) There doesn't seem to be enough separation/balance of powers within the EU itself like for example our congress and executive branch. It is one body and if it continues to accrue more and more power this seems inevitably to be a recipe for authoritarianism. -I admit this is me suggesting more bureaucracy right after I complain about it in point '3' above.
Nah, combustible fake packages sitting at your front door with a timer that starts counting after it is jostled. They won't know which is which. Nothing crazy. Just some old motor oil or something.
You can't allow your member states to shelter the companies and allow them to pay some 0.001% or whatever of their taxable income. Personally, I think the EU needs to die as soon as possible but they absolutely are in the right if you say they should exist that this isn't something that can be allowed.
Robin Williams had multiple ex-wives that were siphoning all of his wealth. He kept working because he could have gone to jail if he failed in his support payments. This was a major contributor to his depression.
This is why I farm even though it isn't super profitable. When you have a lot of land there is always something to do and you get plenty of daily exercise. You can setup experiments for different fields, work on optimizing breeds of livestock for your climate and needs, decide you need a new pond or you try out new direct marketing strategies... you're never bored.
Wait, would you then classify the former soviet union as right wing as well then? What is the point in even having words for these things if we are just going to move anything we feel is "bad" over to the column we've decided we don't agree with?
I doubt Trump has a huge problem with the legal visa process. The visa system just need to be restructured to give all the power to the worker allowing them to easily move from one company to another without fear of getting kicked out of the country. It seems to me that it is the power the company has over the foreign worker that allows them to drive wages down.
Clinton was no "shittier" than any other politician
If you do a bit of googling you'll see that most (all?) of the secret service agents assigned to Hillary had a poor opinion of her. Agents were instructed to avoid making eye contact for example lest they feel her wrath... Most politicians can at least put on a jovial and endearing affect -this is what makes them successful politicians. Even given that we are talking about a very low bar, that she failed to endear those around her to her, that she instead tended to alienate and offend those who spent time with her does in fact at least in my view make her "shittier" than the average politician in my view.
Yes but in this case the democrat governor tried to do an end run around the legislature of the state. He essentially interpreted his power to pardon to nullify the law preventing felons from voting. Just in time for the election: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/virginia-felon-disenfranchisement-mcauliffe/496898/
Trump swept the Republican party into majorities but don't make the mistake of placing them together. The "establishment" is still fully entrenched. It remains to be seen whether Trump and his administration will make much headway in dismantling the infrastructure of cronyism and blackmail (carrot and stick) that pervades Washington.
It is simply a marketing tactic. Canada is not exactly an ideal spot to locate such a backup in any case given their hate speech legislation and tactic of slapping very heavy fines on people who might have offended one of an infinite number of gender pronoun protected groups.
I don't see how anything I wrote contradicts this study. Any particular person no matter how efficient they are at converting dietary fat to energy has a certain amount of food they need to eat to maintain their weight. In addition to a) the energy dense foods, they should be consuming b) leafy greens and other nutrient dense foods.
You have so much of food 'a' you can consume whatever that value happens to be for you. Don't consume more than that and fill in the rest with category 'b' foods.
While we might still disagree I appreciate that all your responses are thought out and measured. I have another post further up where I mention my current strategy of crowding out the calorie dense nutrient deficient foot with calorie lacking nutrient dense food... I'm not quite arrogant enough to say it will absolutely work for everyone but maybe this is the best middle ground.
I was overweight and it was a shameful thing. I believe you that it was difficult but in the end what you did strikes me as entirely the result of willpower. I went from 220 to 150 lbs myself, so a similar range. What I found eventually is the following and I don't see why it wouldn't work for anyone else: a good blender (not a juicer) and a ton of frozen leafy greens along with some frozen blackberry, blueberry type fruit helps enormously. Fills you up with nutrient dense calorie lacking food. That along with sardines and canned salmon to balance out all the red meat (omega 3/6 ratio) I eat and then occational body weight and barbell exercises mostly just to keep testosterone up. I try to avoid bread and absolutely any drinks that are sweetened artificial or otherwise. Pretty much just coffee and water. It is easier to crowd out bad food than simply stop eating it but in the end I still needed to re-learn that hunger isn't a bad thing.
I dropped the weight taking the more extreme approach initially, eating almost all hamburger and steak for a few years and doing barbell exercises like crazy but... I think I almost gave myself scurvy so while it worked great I wouldn't recommend that.
Some people can't exercise because they have a physical health condition that prevents them from doing so.
I believe his and/or condition controls for this scenario. For the average person diet is the main factor in any case. You need to build up quite a bit of muscle to raise your resting metabolic rate to the point where exercise has become the primary factor in your waistline.
The only thing this says is that the mice whose gut bacteria had evolved to eat a high fat diet, when exposed to that diet again more efficiently processed the food into energy than mice not previously exposed to that diet. It isn't really about the diet being crap or healthy.
What this study seems to say is the opposite of the conclusion many are taking away from it. If you are more efficient at metabolizing certain foods you need to eat less of them. Period.
I regularly fast a few times a year but I breathe constantly so I'm not the the two are comparable. If someone is overweight and they've never gone a few days without eating my only question to them would be... why?
Actually, it just as easily could be. Why assume if there is a disparity between paper and electronic results that the paper results are the valid ones? I know my aunt (a very honorable and trustworthy person) that volunteers for elections wouldn't have the first clue how to rig an electronic voting booth but she could pad or lose paper ballots.
The alternate explanation if someone insists on pushing the fraud storyline is just the inverse, that paper ballots are easier to game for non-technical on the ground election staff. You just "lose" a certain number of ballots or mistakenly don't feed them in to be counted.
The point of the electoral college is not to decide anything. The point is to give smaller states a minimum say in who gets to be president. They should vote according to the results of their state though there is.. technically some wiggle room there. You get a popular vote decision state by state but the small states get a minimum of 3 voters in the college. They are still dwarfed by Cali or New York but they are at the table. This was one of their requirements before agreeing to join the union.
Trump voters are not the riot type. You would get instead some very organized resistance. The consequences of something like that... I don't even want to think about.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you have some good points and I wanted to respond to each of your comments but it's lunch time so I'll pick the one you were a bit of a dick about ;) Just looking at point 1, do people really believe that if the EU did not exist today that Germany, France, Spain etc. would be invading its neighbors? If anything NATO and specifically American military might was the driving force for peace in the earlier part of the 20th century. The EU by contrast seems to be a source of constant turmoil.
Think about it. Which nation and under what circumstances would this first world European nation invade another and go up against the US? Few of them even have but a token military when compared to America.
Well I intended my original post to be in support of the EU's action but after the down-mod and your question, this is going to be viewed as just another attack I suppose... Keep in mind that I'm an American and I admit I may not be as educated as the average European on this. Anyway, my impressions of the EU:
1) contributes to instability in the region (just the opposite of its purpose)
2) will in the long-term result cultural homogeneity in Europe and I like the tapestry of cultures that Europe currently represents
3) its bureaucracy of between 100k - 200k employees is yet another layer of abstraction between the citizens and those who should represent them
4) you would think one body would mean less regulatory overhead but this is turning out not to be the case so you have more regulation.
5) There doesn't seem to be enough separation/balance of powers within the EU itself like for example our congress and executive branch. It is one body and if it continues to accrue more and more power this seems inevitably to be a recipe for authoritarianism. -I admit this is me suggesting more bureaucracy right after I complain about it in point '3' above.
But again... I'm on the EU's side on this one.
Nah, combustible fake packages sitting at your front door with a timer that starts counting after it is jostled. They won't know which is which. Nothing crazy. Just some old motor oil or something.
You can't allow your member states to shelter the companies and allow them to pay some 0.001% or whatever of their taxable income. Personally, I think the EU needs to die as soon as possible but they absolutely are in the right if you say they should exist that this isn't something that can be allowed.
Robin Williams had multiple ex-wives that were siphoning all of his wealth. He kept working because he could have gone to jail if he failed in his support payments. This was a major contributor to his depression.
This is why I farm even though it isn't super profitable. When you have a lot of land there is always something to do and you get plenty of daily exercise. You can setup experiments for different fields, work on optimizing breeds of livestock for your climate and needs, decide you need a new pond or you try out new direct marketing strategies... you're never bored.
Wait, would you then classify the former soviet union as right wing as well then? What is the point in even having words for these things if we are just going to move anything we feel is "bad" over to the column we've decided we don't agree with?
I doubt Trump has a huge problem with the legal visa process. The visa system just need to be restructured to give all the power to the worker allowing them to easily move from one company to another without fear of getting kicked out of the country. It seems to me that it is the power the company has over the foreign worker that allows them to drive wages down.
Clinton was no "shittier" than any other politician
If you do a bit of googling you'll see that most (all?) of the secret service agents assigned to Hillary had a poor opinion of her. Agents were instructed to avoid making eye contact for example lest they feel her wrath... Most politicians can at least put on a jovial and endearing affect -this is what makes them successful politicians. Even given that we are talking about a very low bar, that she failed to endear those around her to her, that she instead tended to alienate and offend those who spent time with her does in fact at least in my view make her "shittier" than the average politician in my view.
Yes but in this case the democrat governor tried to do an end run around the legislature of the state. He essentially interpreted his power to pardon to nullify the law preventing felons from voting. Just in time for the election:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/virginia-felon-disenfranchisement-mcauliffe/496898/
Trump swept the Republican party into majorities but don't make the mistake of placing them together. The "establishment" is still fully entrenched. It remains to be seen whether Trump and his administration will make much headway in dismantling the infrastructure of cronyism and blackmail (carrot and stick) that pervades Washington.
You would think with the 100 billion a year we spend now on intelligence agencies and military intelligence that... this would already be covered.
I just hope they can pass more to protect us from all the other mean things about this world.
It is simply a marketing tactic. Canada is not exactly an ideal spot to locate such a backup in any case given their hate speech legislation and tactic of slapping very heavy fines on people who might have offended one of an infinite number of gender pronoun protected groups.
I don't see how anything I wrote contradicts this study. Any particular person no matter how efficient they are at converting dietary fat to energy has a certain amount of food they need to eat to maintain their weight. In addition to a) the energy dense foods, they should be consuming b) leafy greens and other nutrient dense foods.
You have so much of food 'a' you can consume whatever that value happens to be for you. Don't consume more than that and fill in the rest with category 'b' foods.
While we might still disagree I appreciate that all your responses are thought out and measured. I have another post further up where I mention my current strategy of crowding out the calorie dense nutrient deficient foot with calorie lacking nutrient dense food... I'm not quite arrogant enough to say it will absolutely work for everyone but maybe this is the best middle ground.
I was overweight and it was a shameful thing. I believe you that it was difficult but in the end what you did strikes me as entirely the result of willpower. I went from 220 to 150 lbs myself, so a similar range. What I found eventually is the following and I don't see why it wouldn't work for anyone else: a good blender (not a juicer) and a ton of frozen leafy greens along with some frozen blackberry, blueberry type fruit helps enormously. Fills you up with nutrient dense calorie lacking food. That along with sardines and canned salmon to balance out all the red meat (omega 3/6 ratio) I eat and then occational body weight and barbell exercises mostly just to keep testosterone up. I try to avoid bread and absolutely any drinks that are sweetened artificial or otherwise. Pretty much just coffee and water. It is easier to crowd out bad food than simply stop eating it but in the end I still needed to re-learn that hunger isn't a bad thing.
I dropped the weight taking the more extreme approach initially, eating almost all hamburger and steak for a few years and doing barbell exercises like crazy but... I think I almost gave myself scurvy so while it worked great I wouldn't recommend that.
You can decide whether to eat and what foods to eat. Your argument is akin to claiming that cheating on your wife isn't your fault because -biology.
Some people can't exercise because they have a physical health condition that prevents them from doing so.
I believe his and/or condition controls for this scenario. For the average person diet is the main factor in any case. You need to build up quite a bit of muscle to raise your resting metabolic rate to the point where exercise has become the primary factor in your waistline.
The only thing this says is that the mice whose gut bacteria had evolved to eat a high fat diet, when exposed to that diet again more efficiently processed the food into energy than mice not previously exposed to that diet. It isn't really about the diet being crap or healthy.
What this study seems to say is the opposite of the conclusion many are taking away from it. If you are more efficient at metabolizing certain foods you need to eat less of them. Period.
I regularly fast a few times a year but I breathe constantly so I'm not the the two are comparable. If someone is overweight and they've never gone a few days without eating my only question to them would be... why?
Actually, it just as easily could be. Why assume if there is a disparity between paper and electronic results that the paper results are the valid ones? I know my aunt (a very honorable and trustworthy person) that volunteers for elections wouldn't have the first clue how to rig an electronic voting booth but she could pad or lose paper ballots.
The alternate explanation if someone insists on pushing the fraud storyline is just the inverse, that paper ballots are easier to game for non-technical on the ground election staff. You just "lose" a certain number of ballots or mistakenly don't feed them in to be counted.
The point of the electoral college is not to decide anything. The point is to give smaller states a minimum say in who gets to be president. They should vote according to the results of their state though there is.. technically some wiggle room there. You get a popular vote decision state by state but the small states get a minimum of 3 voters in the college. They are still dwarfed by Cali or New York but they are at the table. This was one of their requirements before agreeing to join the union.
Trump voters are not the riot type. You would get instead some very organized resistance. The consequences of something like that... I don't even want to think about.