I was still active. I gradually dropped from hiking ten to fifteen miles in the mountains every weekend (hooray for living close to a national park) to barely being able to finish a two mile hike over a period of about two years. I knew something was wrong and it wasn't a sedentary lifestyle. Unfortunately, there was no way for me to figure out what the problem was on my own and the doctor I was seeing at the time was an idiot.
I wouldn't think it wise to assume that just because you've felt "OK" being overweight in the past you wouldn't ever experience extremely common symptoms of being overweight in the future.
You're seriously suggesting that someone who felt okay in the past should dismiss new symptoms that they're feeling and not bother trying to find out if they have a life threatening illness?
That's the absolute dumbest response I've seen on here so far.
Much like my former doctor, you're dismissing a genetic condition as being caused by weight. It's an idiotic thing to do and it shows that you have the same bias which blinds you to the actual facts. The moment you found something that suggested that weight had an effect, you completely dismissed the genetic aspect of the disease. Your response is exactly why doctors need to be able to recognize their own biases.
You clearly don't understand the article you linked. At best, losing weight might slow down the destruction of the glomeruli, but the destruction is inevitable. It's a genetic disorder which cannot be fixed by losing weight.
My doctor dismissed them my symptoms saying "just lose weight and you'll feel better", which was absolutely wrong. Losing weight would have reversed the damage that was causing my symptoms.
In fact, the one thing that would have helped more than anything else would have been going on a protein restricted diet. No such advice was offered, however, because protein restriction isn't something you would prescribe unless you'd diagnosed a condition that called for it and my doctor was too much of an asshat to do any testing. I wasn't diagnosed properly until I was in full renal failure and then it was too late to do anything other than go on dialysis.
I'm not surprised that you have no sympathy for what happened to me. Frankly, you're a lot like my former doctor; an asshole who jumps to the conclusion that any problem a fat person has must be due to their weight. God forbid you should actually look beyond that and search for underlying causes.
I explained it in simple terms and offered a real life example and you still can't figure out why a doctor that doesn't recognize his biases is a bad thing?
Well, you completely missed the point. Doctors who don't recognize their biases are more likely to misdiagnose patients that they're biased against.
Take me, for example. My kidneys failed due to IGA nephropathy, which has absolutely nothing to do with weight. I'm overweight, however, so for the first year of me feeling run down, getting sick often and having other health isuses my doctor insisted that I just needed to lose weight. He never bothered looking for other potential causes because, in his mind, the problem had to be that I was too fat and therefore didn't deserve any further attention.
Why offer an all you can eat buffet and then complain when somebody tries to stay at a table for days on end?
The guy was using his connection to provide internet connections to a bunch of friends and family. That would be like bringing twenty people with you to an all you can eat buffet, paying for one person and having that one person bring twenty plates of food back to distribute to everyone. There's no way that's going to be allowed.
I'm not going to debate idiotic claims like "yeah, the houses are more expensive than anywhere else but that makes the cost of living lower than everywhere else!" It's an idiotic claim. Almost as idiotic as the claim that $30/hour is below minimum wage.
Good thing they manage to put up those towers without disturbing the established plants, otherwise there'd be huge dead patches.
Oh, wait, my bad. Construction doesn't work that way. They tend to bulldoze the area to make it more level and remove trees and other large plants that would interfere with putting up the tower, leaving bare patches of soil that only fill in after the tower is completed.
Or, you know, they could have observed the fact that vegetation growing near cell towers (which radiate far, far more energy than a cell phone or wireless router) isn't dead or mutated and they're simply calling bullshit on something that's obviously bullshit.
But no.. it must be cognitive dissonance. If it were anything else, you wouldn't be able to sneer at everyone whose opinion differs from your own.
Someone making $90k in Alberta would pay $16,866 in federal taxes and $9,000 in provincial taxes, so they'd have $64,134 left after taxes. That's $30.84 per hour for a full time job.
Below minimum wage my ass.
The average house price in Calgary, one of the more expensive markets, is about $315k. After financing, insurance, property tax and everything else, you'd have a mortgage payment of about $1800 a month (assuming you don't get a better than average deal on any of that stuff), so your housing cost takes $21,600 of the $64,134, leaving you with $41,534.
If you can't live on $40k after paying taxes and mortgage payments, you need to pay someone else to manage your money and give you an allowance because you're too goddamn incompetent to survive on your own in the real world.
Small firms have it so rough and they deserve our pity, even though they have lobbyist groups like Confederation of British Industry who will make sure that small firms don't have to make up for the loss in tax revenue.
Fuck the people who lose out on services and have to pay higher taxes to make up for the lack of revenue, though. Those people clearly don't deserve pity because they aren't a business or corporation. Only businesses deserve our pity.
Nationalized healthcare may indeed be morally and practically the best solution to health care, but it can't take a gigantic burden off everybody and make it magically go away.
Nobody is saying that it would. What nationalized healthcare would do is take the gigantic burden off of individuals who are unlucky enough to have serious health problems and distributes it among everyone.
In 2011, three trillion dollars was spent on health care in the US. Divided among the 313 million people in the country, that's less than $10 per person per year. It's simple math and there's no magic, but I'll bet that reducing everyone's health care costs to $10.year would feel pretty fucking magical to most people.
Have you seen what how the idiots in Florida behave? Terrorists don't need to file false reports of suspicious activity. The people living there will file a ton of real reports of suspicious activity which will almost all turn out to crazy people with no intentions of committing terrorism.
State Police say there were no warrants or advisories on any of the individuals and "there was no evidence that the seven were committing any crime beyond the trespassing."
How does that justify a tip line for people to report suspected terrorist activity?
Even if those people were trying to poison the water, that reservoir holds 412 billion gallons of water. You would have to dump tanker truck loads of poison it before you'd have any chance of making anyone sick.
There's simply no way that seven people trespassing can carry enough of anything to have any real effect, yet that's exactly the sort of thing that would get reported to the tip line (along with crazy people reporting their neighbors and all the people reporting Florida Man).
Apparently you are so stupid that you somehow forgot that I'd stated that very fact in the last line of my post and felt the need to parrot this back to me as if it were some huge revelation.
Please kill yourself for the good of all humanity. Idiocracy is seeming all too realistic these days and we really don't need idiots like you you adding more retarded fuckwads to the next generation.
The person I responded to said it had never happened, not that it hadn't happened in the last X years. If a number of years had been specified that excluded the Kyshtym accident, I wouldn't have pointed it out.
"a plume containing 2 MCi (80 PBq) of radionuclides spread out over hundreds of kilometers"
"In the next 10 to 11 hours, the radioactive cloud moved towards the north-east, reaching 300â"350 kilometers from the accident. The fallout of the cloud resulted in a long-term contamination of an area of more than 800 to 20,000 square kilometers, (depending on what contamination level is considered significant,)"
That sounds rather a lot like nuclear material being blown sky high to me.
Now let's all sit back and enjoy watching you desperately try to use technicalities like it being a government owned reactor rather than a civilian one to "prove" that you're right.
The problem with your example is that it doesn't reflect real-world situations. A situation where someone would decide which of two vehicles they're going to upgrade based only upon increase in fuel efficiency is so rare as to be non-existent.
The vast majority of people will choose which vehicle to upgrade before they start shopping. The choice is generally based on a combination of how old the vehicles are, how much mileage they have, how many mechanical problems.they've had and how much they like one or the other. When they finally start looking for a replacement, they'll have exactly one starting figure to compare to the rest that they see.
And I didn't complain about dumb people. I said you were used to a particular way of looking at fuel efficiency and had practiced those calculations to the point where you could do them easily. I also said you find it harder to do calculations you haven't practiced. If that wasn't true, you wouldn't find either system to be easier or harder than the other and wouldn't be claiming that L/km was better.
why not give consumers numbers that will easily show things useful to them (i.e., both MPG and gal./mi).
I didn't say that shouldn't be done. In fact, my post suggests that it should be done because my entire point is that people are comfortable with the fuel efficiency ratings they've always seen. Trying to force them to abandon what they're used to and focing them use a different system (which is exactly what your original post said should be done) is what I was arguing against.
Slashdot Mirror
I was still active. I gradually dropped from hiking ten to fifteen miles in the mountains every weekend (hooray for living close to a national park) to barely being able to finish a two mile hike over a period of about two years. I knew something was wrong and it wasn't a sedentary lifestyle. Unfortunately, there was no way for me to figure out what the problem was on my own and the doctor I was seeing at the time was an idiot.
I wouldn't think it wise to assume that just because you've felt "OK" being overweight in the past you wouldn't ever experience extremely common symptoms of being overweight in the future.
You're seriously suggesting that someone who felt okay in the past should dismiss new symptoms that they're feeling and not bother trying to find out if they have a life threatening illness?
That's the absolute dumbest response I've seen on here so far.
IgA nephropathy isn't something you recover from. It's a genetic disorder. If you have it, the destruction of your kidneys is inevitable.
Much like my former doctor, you're dismissing a genetic condition as being caused by weight. It's an idiotic thing to do and it shows that you have the same bias which blinds you to the actual facts. The moment you found something that suggested that weight had an effect, you completely dismissed the genetic aspect of the disease. Your response is exactly why doctors need to be able to recognize their own biases.
You clearly don't understand the article you linked. At best, losing weight might slow down the destruction of the glomeruli, but the destruction is inevitable. It's a genetic disorder which cannot be fixed by losing weight.
My doctor dismissed them my symptoms saying "just lose weight and you'll feel better", which was absolutely wrong. Losing weight would have reversed the damage that was causing my symptoms.
In fact, the one thing that would have helped more than anything else would have been going on a protein restricted diet. No such advice was offered, however, because protein restriction isn't something you would prescribe unless you'd diagnosed a condition that called for it and my doctor was too much of an asshat to do any testing. I wasn't diagnosed properly until I was in full renal failure and then it was too late to do anything other than go on dialysis.
I'm not surprised that you have no sympathy for what happened to me. Frankly, you're a lot like my former doctor; an asshole who jumps to the conclusion that any problem a fat person has must be due to their weight. God forbid you should actually look beyond that and search for underlying causes.
I explained it in simple terms and offered a real life example and you still can't figure out why a doctor that doesn't recognize his biases is a bad thing?
Well, you completely missed the point. Doctors who don't recognize their biases are more likely to misdiagnose patients that they're biased against.
Take me, for example. My kidneys failed due to IGA nephropathy, which has absolutely nothing to do with weight. I'm overweight, however, so for the first year of me feeling run down, getting sick often and having other health isuses my doctor insisted that I just needed to lose weight. He never bothered looking for other potential causes because, in his mind, the problem had to be that I was too fat and therefore didn't deserve any further attention.
Why offer an all you can eat buffet and then complain when somebody tries to stay at a table for days on end?
The guy was using his connection to provide internet connections to a bunch of friends and family. That would be like bringing twenty people with you to an all you can eat buffet, paying for one person and having that one person bring twenty plates of food back to distribute to everyone. There's no way that's going to be allowed.
I'm not going to debate idiotic claims like "yeah, the houses are more expensive than anywhere else but that makes the cost of living lower than everywhere else!" It's an idiotic claim. Almost as idiotic as the claim that $30/hour is below minimum wage.
Good thing they manage to put up those towers without disturbing the established plants, otherwise there'd be huge dead patches.
Oh, wait, my bad. Construction doesn't work that way. They tend to bulldoze the area to make it more level and remove trees and other large plants that would interfere with putting up the tower, leaving bare patches of soil that only fill in after the tower is completed.
Or, you know, they could have observed the fact that vegetation growing near cell towers (which radiate far, far more energy than a cell phone or wireless router) isn't dead or mutated and they're simply calling bullshit on something that's obviously bullshit.
But no.. it must be cognitive dissonance. If it were anything else, you wouldn't be able to sneer at everyone whose opinion differs from your own.
Someone making $90k in Alberta would pay $16,866 in federal taxes and $9,000 in provincial taxes, so they'd have $64,134 left after taxes. That's $30.84 per hour for a full time job.
Below minimum wage my ass.
The average house price in Calgary, one of the more expensive markets, is about $315k. After financing, insurance, property tax and everything else, you'd have a mortgage payment of about $1800 a month (assuming you don't get a better than average deal on any of that stuff), so your housing cost takes $21,600 of the $64,134, leaving you with $41,534.
If you can't live on $40k after paying taxes and mortgage payments, you need to pay someone else to manage your money and give you an allowance because you're too goddamn incompetent to survive on your own in the real world.
Small firms have it so rough and they deserve our pity, even though they have lobbyist groups like Confederation of British Industry who will make sure that small firms don't have to make up for the loss in tax revenue.
Fuck the people who lose out on services and have to pay higher taxes to make up for the lack of revenue, though. Those people clearly don't deserve pity because they aren't a business or corporation. Only businesses deserve our pity.
Well shit. I confused confused billions and trillions. This is why I shouldn't post when I'm drunk.
It's $1,000, not $10. Please disregard everything I just posted.
Nationalized healthcare may indeed be morally and practically the best solution to health care, but it can't take a gigantic burden off everybody and make it magically go away.
Nobody is saying that it would. What nationalized healthcare would do is take the gigantic burden off of individuals who are unlucky enough to have serious health problems and distributes it among everyone.
In 2011, three trillion dollars was spent on health care in the US. Divided among the 313 million people in the country, that's less than $10 per person per year. It's simple math and there's no magic, but I'll bet that reducing everyone's health care costs to $10.year would feel pretty fucking magical to most people.
Have you seen what how the idiots in Florida behave? Terrorists don't need to file false reports of suspicious activity. The people living there will file a ton of real reports of suspicious activity which will almost all turn out to crazy people with no intentions of committing terrorism.
State Police say there were no warrants or advisories on any of the individuals and "there was no evidence that the seven were committing any crime beyond the trespassing."
How does that justify a tip line for people to report suspected terrorist activity?
Even if those people were trying to poison the water, that reservoir holds 412 billion gallons of water. You would have to dump tanker truck loads of poison it before you'd have any chance of making anyone sick.
There's simply no way that seven people trespassing can carry enough of anything to have any real effect, yet that's exactly the sort of thing that would get reported to the tip line (along with crazy people reporting their neighbors and all the people reporting Florida Man).
Who says they haven't? Rounding everyone up and decide who to actually arrest later sounds like scorched earth tactics to me.
Apparently you are so stupid that you somehow forgot that I'd stated that very fact in the last line of my post and felt the need to parrot this back to me as if it were some huge revelation.
Please kill yourself for the good of all humanity. Idiocracy is seeming all too realistic these days and we really don't need idiots like you you adding more retarded fuckwads to the next generation.
The person I responded to said it had never happened, not that it hadn't happened in the last X years. If a number of years had been specified that excluded the Kyshtym accident, I wouldn't have pointed it out.
No nuclear accident at a civilian reactor has ever resulted in nuclear fuel being "blown sky high".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyshtym_disaster
"a plume containing 2 MCi (80 PBq) of radionuclides spread out over hundreds of kilometers"
"In the next 10 to 11 hours, the radioactive cloud moved towards the north-east, reaching 300â"350 kilometers from the accident. The fallout of the cloud resulted in a long-term contamination of an area of more than 800 to 20,000 square kilometers, (depending on what contamination level is considered significant,)"
That sounds rather a lot like nuclear material being blown sky high to me.
Now let's all sit back and enjoy watching you desperately try to use technicalities like it being a government owned reactor rather than a civilian one to "prove" that you're right.
"Written completely in Javascript" is the same as "HTML5" and the two can be used interchangeably.
Free is not "less than $0"
Sure. Choose a name that's a series of spaces like " ". Search engines won't return any results at all.
Oh... and the "you suck a math" part? Allow me to quote:
30MPG to 33MPG is *not* 10% better efficiency
Apparently you can't move a decimal point one place to the left and get the correct answer. If that isn't sucking at math, I don't know what is.
The problem with your example is that it doesn't reflect real-world situations. A situation where someone would decide which of two vehicles they're going to upgrade based only upon increase in fuel efficiency is so rare as to be non-existent.
The vast majority of people will choose which vehicle to upgrade before they start shopping. The choice is generally based on a combination of how old the vehicles are, how much mileage they have, how many mechanical problems.they've had and how much they like one or the other. When they finally start looking for a replacement, they'll have exactly one starting figure to compare to the rest that they see.
And I didn't complain about dumb people. I said you were used to a particular way of looking at fuel efficiency and had practiced those calculations to the point where you could do them easily. I also said you find it harder to do calculations you haven't practiced. If that wasn't true, you wouldn't find either system to be easier or harder than the other and wouldn't be claiming that L/km was better.
why not give consumers numbers that will easily show things useful to them (i.e., both MPG and gal./mi).
I didn't say that shouldn't be done. In fact, my post suggests that it should be done because my entire point is that people are comfortable with the fuel efficiency ratings they've always seen. Trying to force them to abandon what they're used to and focing them use a different system (which is exactly what your original post said should be done) is what I was arguing against.