So...wouldn't Prince of Persia: Sand of Time/Warrior Within/Two Thrones count as 4D? 3D game, plus you manipulate time by slowing it down, speeding it up, or reversing it (having extreme effects on the environment; in WW reversing time resulted in the Dahaka's speech making sense, for example). That's three games all well before this that required smooth control over time in order to solve puzzles and defeat enemies.
People in government typically don't care about their job. Unless you're IT, people in front of a computer have the priority of porn followed by youtube followed by facebook followed by twitter with actual work at the very, very bottom. Combine these two and you get half of your local government preferring to dick around than actually do what they're paid to do.
I left the site. Well, I tried to. At first, they told me that I could only "suspend" the account; ie, people could still send me stuff and FB kept ALL of my data. Outraged, I tried to find an alternative.
Surprise, surprise. After digging through their FAQ I found an obscure part of it that said you could permanently delete. Here's the problem with it. After you agree to permanently delete, it stays up for two weeks. If you log in even once, it undoes the delete option. Furthermore, there is no guarantee anywhere that your data is actually gone.
I'm never one to scream "sue"...but if I can't confirm that my data is off of their useless website, I am fucking suing.
We could probably even argue that Eversion is a 4D game (even though it's a 2D platformer). Technically you're "everting", but you're ending up in the same exact place with the entire world looking significantly different as if time passed.
There's a bunch of games that have used time control already, so what's the big deal now? (I know that Eversion probably isn't a great example, but OP's is). Time's always been a fun addition to a game, especially when you manipulate it. Would Sonic Adventure 2: Battle count, considering that they use Chaos Emeralds to slow down time?
Please; don't throw around Fox News memes. I mean, if I wanted to believe that the majority of the world was killing itself because of health care it's had, I'd go ahead and let Glenn Beck talk for me too.
Stupid people should die. But if that were true, Fox News would be out of business, wouldn't it?
Besides, it's not my job to demand people die. Are you saying that you want people to die just so you don't have to pay the same goddamn premiums you already pay for private healthcare?
I smell sarcasm; in my school 90% of the kids firmly believed that abstinence was the best preventive measure, but decided that meant having boatloads of oral sex without condoms. 8% thought that they didn't need condoms, and the remaining 2% were split up by reasonable people and virginal nerds...
Oddly enough, he never mentions who they actually are: he just swings away to claiming that his company wins back the rights of copyright stuff to the actual owners and not the producers. Cute.
I did some sniffing on their site, but short of infiltrating their company or calling them, I didn't see a list anywhere. Considering their tactics are probably about as kindly as the Mafia, I don't dare use my phone to call them. Mebbe if I can find a public phone to call them from I'll see if I can get a list from them.
Either way, you should probably just avoid all movies. As a general rule, the MPAA has a hand in just about all of them, and if these guys are taking stock in the Indie world...well, movies were starting to recycle old stuff years ago anyway, I'm content with just watching local stuff and listening to local bands.
I remember being 10 years old when I pirated music. I was using Napster, back when it was free. I was finding all sorts of little gems; remixes of Zelda songs, and rare pieces of music that searching couldn't find (this was pre-google, when searching was tedius business). When they took away Napster, I remembered being really pissed off. I found obscure music that way, songs ripped out of video games, yadda yadda.
Even with the option to have free copies of music, I still ordered the two-disk Majora's Mask soundtrack from Nintendo. I could have gotten it free, but that wasn't my reason for using the free service. I wanted obscure stuff, stuff that I would literally -never- get. Once music sharing was obliterated, I didn't know what to do. I got a few disks here and there, but my collection of obscure music started to dwindle. I was a little kid, I had no clue that CDs wore down, that I should have saved those files. I figured a physical copy was more tangible.
Cut to now, and I have a weird way of looking at copyright. If I reeeaaallly love a band, I try to buy directly from them. Otherwise, I don't buy. I just don't want the RIAA getting a cut of my money. Do I pirate stuff? Yeah. It almost feels like vengeance really; I had no desire to pirate back when I had a safe and easy way to get music. Now that there's the danger of being sued into oblivion, I do it because they took away something great. It'd be like if libraries sued the internet for having information and forced people to either use flash-laden, graphic-heavy websites to find their info or go underground to get to the data they wanted. Am I the only kid that just wants the file and none of this gimmicky crap?
Just as useful to the topic as "first post" or people posting anonymously to yell at people for doing whatever they are sick and tired of, I'd imagine. It's more along the lines of "I used up my mod points but want to try and draw attention to the post that I saw to be good-moddable/bad-moddable". But uh, yeah, dick and fuck and bitch and all that too.
Nah; I don't need to sully any of that. He resigned (we obviously do not have all of the information, because I honestly doubt that the conversation went "you said pussy twice!" and the guy went "GAH oh noes I quit! D:") because "concerned citizen" noticed that this was coming from a local school IP address. Now, this could have two variations: if it was an elementary school, it would seem strange. If it was either a middle or high school, well, it could have easily been from any student who felt like trolling.
So, Mr. concerned citizen forwarded a message along the lines of "this e-mail address from your IP address said "pussy" twice on my website". If it had been any student e-mail, that would be the end of it because the teachers just do not have student e-mail addresses on file (usually). If it had been the headmasters e-mail address, Mr. concerned citizen would have been duly ignored.
And then Mr. concerned citizen writes an article celebrating his ability to turn someone in for saying "pussy" twice. It's slightly difficult (and disturbing) to believe that Mr. concerned citizen had the local school IP address memorized to the point where a brief glance at the e-mail alert tipped him off that this was a serious issue.
It will be a delight to see if this becomes a normal thing. You know, adults posting on a not-child oriented website and being punished for using naughty words. I'm sure the teacher wasn't on a lunch break, or wasn't waiting for 1200 copies to print, or wasn't waiting for his students to finish a test, etc. Almost as atrocious as someone replying to slashdot on the clock, with their employers computer assets.
But maybe I just find the idea of being tracked to your job by a hypersensitive journalist a little off putting. Suppose he decides that he should moderate out disagreeable posts? He's well within his rights to do so, as a moderator.
I just find it ridiculous that the adults have greater difficulty coping with foul language than the kids. Seriously, it's a word. Delete it and warn him if you really feel threatened by it; you don't contact the organization it came from. How comical it would have been if he had called them instead..."Hello Mr. Rumples, I have a serious issue to address. You see, someone from within your school said pussy....twice. On the internet."
Except by every means, The Daily Show covers more news than the typical mouth-breathing news casters, and does so in a funny way. They don't lie, make shit up, or spend thirty minutes covering Madonna's booger incident via twitter: they show news footage, give a quick 60 second real news blurb, then make a joke.
Watch Fox News, the real Fox News and not their commentators, and then watch The Daily Show. Report back with which one gave you more information.
Fox & Friends, something that I am forced to watch nearly every morning by my companions, spits that out maybe once every two weeks, O'Reilly mentions it in a huff on occasion, Beck flies through it when he's on one of his crazy speeches, and I'm pretty sure the actual news side of Fox News pulled the whole "some sources say..." routine at some point over it. If you want, I can go digging for some video proof...
"Ok, no offense, and I know white guys. I like white guys. I've been to white churches. I really don't believe that white guys are racist...what I feel like saying is, "Sir, prove to me that you are not a member of the KKK."
The hyper-paranoid aggressive minorities might agree that every white man could theoretically be in the KKK, but is it not outrageous? Or maybe you're missing something.
It's perfectly rational to offhandedly state that you have a gut feeling that someone is a terrorist because they are in the same religion as the terrorists. According to you and Beck, anyway. Furthermore, if you justify it by stating how much you like that particular group, it's not even offensive. But you are a Beck-apologist, and I'm certain that if every guest to go on his show opened with how silly it is that they believe Beck is a Nazi member of the KKK you'd be foaming at the mouth over the liberal-intellectual-Kenyan-socialists taking over our country.
I'm sorry, let me look up examples for you, since you apparently forgot how the INTERNET (I have caps lock too, it's rather sensationalist, non?) works. It's cute that you get green under the gills when I don't instantly respond to you in the middle of my own post, like you're expecting a chat log or something.
I'll give you one example. For now. I'm sure one is not enough because you are a Beck-fanatic, which means that you'll require an example from every day out of the year since he first touched television to prove that he's fucknut insane.
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200611150004
"I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.' " Beck added: "I'm not accusing you of being an enemy, but that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way."
Or, in simpler terms: Beck considered this man to be a terrorist assisting Osama Bin Laden...because he was Muslim. And he worded it in that sleazy way that he always words such blatant comments. If you'd like I can find some more from your network darling, though. I'm sure you do need me to, as you are fucknut insane. And I do hate this man, because he delivers his opinions at the same rate as fact, and he leads his fans to relentlessly pursue anyone who disagrees with him.
Which still isn't a lie. When you watch Fox News, you aren't watching it for the raw news. You're watching it for their perspective, and their perspective is that this White House is run by a Socialist Kenyan, that they are not the mainstream media, and that they speak for America.
Possibly one reason why the White House doesn't chase down NBC (besides the obvious fact that NBC isn't spouting random bullshit about the White House, like "Obama isn't even an American citizen!!!11") is that NBC doesn't have every single headline rest as sensational on the screen. They may be opinionated, but they manage to do it in a way that isn't entirely grade school in its professionalism.
No, the White House was quoted as saying that Fox News produces biased news. That being said, Stewart also caught them with their hand in their pants when they quoted "some sources" on their official news hours when the sources were their non-news shows!
Is Fox News news? No. Am I in the White House? No. Was Fox News bashing Bush for favoring conservative viewpoints? No. Is Fox News a bunch of hypocritical winded douchebags shouting at a camera? Yes. Deal with it.
And when you catch someone stuttering, it makes for great comedy. Actually, it makes up a good 90% of Jon Stewart's jokes; nearly out of context comments. Except Stewart is trying to be funny. Beck is doing the same thing, and then touting it as fact. And I have watched his full-of-shit show, where he preaches dogmatic lies and words things in such a way that you wonder if he even likes America. Hell, if you watch a straight week of his show, you'd honestly believe that he wants to send all of the liberals, all of the college educated, and all of the non-Republicans to little camps. His oratory style is terrifying, because it is only suited to satire and comedy. You're fucknut insane if you believe otherwise, and since your name has been peppered all over this topic religiously defending Beck, I feel 100% confident in saying that.
Basically, Glenn Beck is on Fox News as one of the many opinion guys they have. He throws out wild accusations but gets away with it by saying "I'm not saying it's true, but isn't it odd that I'm the only one asking these questions?" He's done so many crazy things (comparing Jesus to Hitler back when he was on CNN, for example). He's so batshit crazy that he makes Bill O'Reilly appear to be a sensible man. It's absolutely terrifying, moreso when you realize how many people religiously watch his show and consider it to be 100% fact.
The controversy is just someone parodying him by making a wild accusation and then covering it with a batshit crazy question.
Except that you're falling into the same sensationalist things that OP fell into. T2 diabetes = you need a different specialized diet to begin with, else you gain weight.
Every human has a different body setup. When I change my diet, I gain weight. I eat mostly the kind of crap that makes doctors pass out in horror, but I eat in moderation. My same diet could probably kill someone else.
What the arrogant "here's my success story" need to understand is that it's really, really cool that you and 10% of the population had this work for you, but that it will never work for everybody. No amount of caps lock emphasis will change the fact that there is no successful diet for everyone on this planet. The initial reason that I posted was not to say "well here's my success story". My reason was to say "that's great that such a method works for you, but it's not the One True Method and there is no method that works for everyone".
But feel free to fly by that nuanced meaning and scream about how the devil carbs are the reason why people are so fat. Maybe instead of hating the skinny people, you should understand that they found a method that works for them but don't understand that it won't work for everybody. Hell, you're one of them now, correct? Skinny, shouting that your way is the right way and everyone else is wrong...just sayin'.
I eat 40% less than my parents do because I eat a moderate breakfast, a very light lunch, and a very light dinner. They eat a big breakfast, a light lunch, and then an obscenely huge dinner. They go for seconds and thirds, I have leftover dinner for lunch the next day on my first serving.
There. Is. No. Miracle. Cure. Just eat less, and your weight will shockingly be low. I'll give you a hint: that slice of steak that is 16 ounces larger than the serving amount you should be eating is harming you a lot more than that potato. By every means, you can argue that cutting out certain elements of the meals will make you lose weight for all sorts of scientific reasons, but the main problem that the bulk of Americans have is that their meals are far too big. You can stop eating carbs, but if you ever make the mistake of eating any carbs, your body bloats back up again. It'd be easier to shrink your meals. And smarter.
Slashdot Mirror
So...wouldn't Prince of Persia: Sand of Time/Warrior Within/Two Thrones count as 4D? 3D game, plus you manipulate time by slowing it down, speeding it up, or reversing it (having extreme effects on the environment; in WW reversing time resulted in the Dahaka's speech making sense, for example). That's three games all well before this that required smooth control over time in order to solve puzzles and defeat enemies.
Three different reasons given:
1. I have nothing to hide, so why not share everything with everyone?
2. My privacy settings are on, so it's okay.
3. I don't care, I want to keep in touch with my friends that live in the same dorm that I also text obsessively and eat every meal with.
My generation is as anti-privacy as they are anti-copyright; they hate the establishment but love giving said establishment all of their data.
People in government typically don't care about their job. Unless you're IT, people in front of a computer have the priority of porn followed by youtube followed by facebook followed by twitter with actual work at the very, very bottom. Combine these two and you get half of your local government preferring to dick around than actually do what they're paid to do.
Surprise, surprise. After digging through their FAQ I found an obscure part of it that said you could permanently delete. Here's the problem with it. After you agree to permanently delete, it stays up for two weeks. If you log in even once, it undoes the delete option. Furthermore, there is no guarantee anywhere that your data is actually gone.
I'm never one to scream "sue"...but if I can't confirm that my data is off of their useless website, I am fucking suing.
There's a bunch of games that have used time control already, so what's the big deal now? (I know that Eversion probably isn't a great example, but OP's is). Time's always been a fun addition to a game, especially when you manipulate it. Would Sonic Adventure 2: Battle count, considering that they use Chaos Emeralds to slow down time?
Stupid people should die. But if that were true, Fox News would be out of business, wouldn't it?
Besides, it's not my job to demand people die. Are you saying that you want people to die just so you don't have to pay the same goddamn premiums you already pay for private healthcare?
Maybe we can get some well needed crowd thinning.
Oddly enough, he never mentions who they actually are: he just swings away to claiming that his company wins back the rights of copyright stuff to the actual owners and not the producers. Cute.
I did some sniffing on their site, but short of infiltrating their company or calling them, I didn't see a list anywhere. Considering their tactics are probably about as kindly as the Mafia, I don't dare use my phone to call them. Mebbe if I can find a public phone to call them from I'll see if I can get a list from them.
Either way, you should probably just avoid all movies. As a general rule, the MPAA has a hand in just about all of them, and if these guys are taking stock in the Indie world...well, movies were starting to recycle old stuff years ago anyway, I'm content with just watching local stuff and listening to local bands.
Even with the option to have free copies of music, I still ordered the two-disk Majora's Mask soundtrack from Nintendo. I could have gotten it free, but that wasn't my reason for using the free service. I wanted obscure stuff, stuff that I would literally -never- get. Once music sharing was obliterated, I didn't know what to do. I got a few disks here and there, but my collection of obscure music started to dwindle. I was a little kid, I had no clue that CDs wore down, that I should have saved those files. I figured a physical copy was more tangible.
Cut to now, and I have a weird way of looking at copyright. If I reeeaaallly love a band, I try to buy directly from them. Otherwise, I don't buy. I just don't want the RIAA getting a cut of my money. Do I pirate stuff? Yeah. It almost feels like vengeance really; I had no desire to pirate back when I had a safe and easy way to get music. Now that there's the danger of being sued into oblivion, I do it because they took away something great. It'd be like if libraries sued the internet for having information and forced people to either use flash-laden, graphic-heavy websites to find their info or go underground to get to the data they wanted. Am I the only kid that just wants the file and none of this gimmicky crap?
Just as useful to the topic as "first post" or people posting anonymously to yell at people for doing whatever they are sick and tired of, I'd imagine. It's more along the lines of "I used up my mod points but want to try and draw attention to the post that I saw to be good-moddable/bad-moddable". But uh, yeah, dick and fuck and bitch and all that too.
-patpat- I find their comment being modded insightful to be grossly ironic given the situation.
Woe to the poor soul who has double-post issues...?
According to TFA, it happened...twice.
Nah; I don't need to sully any of that. He resigned (we obviously do not have all of the information, because I honestly doubt that the conversation went "you said pussy twice!" and the guy went "GAH oh noes I quit! D:") because "concerned citizen" noticed that this was coming from a local school IP address. Now, this could have two variations: if it was an elementary school, it would seem strange. If it was either a middle or high school, well, it could have easily been from any student who felt like trolling.
So, Mr. concerned citizen forwarded a message along the lines of "this e-mail address from your IP address said "pussy" twice on my website". If it had been any student e-mail, that would be the end of it because the teachers just do not have student e-mail addresses on file (usually). If it had been the headmasters e-mail address, Mr. concerned citizen would have been duly ignored.
And then Mr. concerned citizen writes an article celebrating his ability to turn someone in for saying "pussy" twice. It's slightly difficult (and disturbing) to believe that Mr. concerned citizen had the local school IP address memorized to the point where a brief glance at the e-mail alert tipped him off that this was a serious issue.
It will be a delight to see if this becomes a normal thing. You know, adults posting on a not-child oriented website and being punished for using naughty words. I'm sure the teacher wasn't on a lunch break, or wasn't waiting for 1200 copies to print, or wasn't waiting for his students to finish a test, etc. Almost as atrocious as someone replying to slashdot on the clock, with their employers computer assets.
But maybe I just find the idea of being tracked to your job by a hypersensitive journalist a little off putting. Suppose he decides that he should moderate out disagreeable posts? He's well within his rights to do so, as a moderator.
I just find it ridiculous that the adults have greater difficulty coping with foul language than the kids. Seriously, it's a word. Delete it and warn him if you really feel threatened by it; you don't contact the organization it came from. How comical it would have been if he had called them instead..."Hello Mr. Rumples, I have a serious issue to address. You see, someone from within your school said pussy....twice. On the internet."
Except by every means, The Daily Show covers more news than the typical mouth-breathing news casters, and does so in a funny way. They don't lie, make shit up, or spend thirty minutes covering Madonna's booger incident via twitter: they show news footage, give a quick 60 second real news blurb, then make a joke.
Watch Fox News, the real Fox News and not their commentators, and then watch The Daily Show. Report back with which one gave you more information.
Fox & Friends, something that I am forced to watch nearly every morning by my companions, spits that out maybe once every two weeks, O'Reilly mentions it in a huff on occasion, Beck flies through it when he's on one of his crazy speeches, and I'm pretty sure the actual news side of Fox News pulled the whole "some sources say..." routine at some point over it. If you want, I can go digging for some video proof...
Or, to rationalize this even better:
"Ok, no offense, and I know white guys. I like white guys. I've been to white churches. I really don't believe that white guys are racist...what I feel like saying is, "Sir, prove to me that you are not a member of the KKK."
The hyper-paranoid aggressive minorities might agree that every white man could theoretically be in the KKK, but is it not outrageous? Or maybe you're missing something.
It's perfectly rational to offhandedly state that you have a gut feeling that someone is a terrorist because they are in the same religion as the terrorists. According to you and Beck, anyway. Furthermore, if you justify it by stating how much you like that particular group, it's not even offensive. But you are a Beck-apologist, and I'm certain that if every guest to go on his show opened with how silly it is that they believe Beck is a Nazi member of the KKK you'd be foaming at the mouth over the liberal-intellectual-Kenyan-socialists taking over our country.
I'm sorry, let me look up examples for you, since you apparently forgot how the INTERNET (I have caps lock too, it's rather sensationalist, non?) works. It's cute that you get green under the gills when I don't instantly respond to you in the middle of my own post, like you're expecting a chat log or something.
I'll give you one example. For now. I'm sure one is not enough because you are a Beck-fanatic, which means that you'll require an example from every day out of the year since he first touched television to prove that he's fucknut insane.
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200611150004
"I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.' " Beck added: "I'm not accusing you of being an enemy, but that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way."
Or, in simpler terms: Beck considered this man to be a terrorist assisting Osama Bin Laden...because he was Muslim. And he worded it in that sleazy way that he always words such blatant comments. If you'd like I can find some more from your network darling, though. I'm sure you do need me to, as you are fucknut insane. And I do hate this man, because he delivers his opinions at the same rate as fact, and he leads his fans to relentlessly pursue anyone who disagrees with him.
Which still isn't a lie. When you watch Fox News, you aren't watching it for the raw news. You're watching it for their perspective, and their perspective is that this White House is run by a Socialist Kenyan, that they are not the mainstream media, and that they speak for America.
Possibly one reason why the White House doesn't chase down NBC (besides the obvious fact that NBC isn't spouting random bullshit about the White House, like "Obama isn't even an American citizen!!!11") is that NBC doesn't have every single headline rest as sensational on the screen. They may be opinionated, but they manage to do it in a way that isn't entirely grade school in its professionalism.
No, the White House was quoted as saying that Fox News produces biased news. That being said, Stewart also caught them with their hand in their pants when they quoted "some sources" on their official news hours when the sources were their non-news shows!
Is Fox News news? No. Am I in the White House? No. Was Fox News bashing Bush for favoring conservative viewpoints? No. Is Fox News a bunch of hypocritical winded douchebags shouting at a camera? Yes. Deal with it.
And when you catch someone stuttering, it makes for great comedy. Actually, it makes up a good 90% of Jon Stewart's jokes; nearly out of context comments. Except Stewart is trying to be funny. Beck is doing the same thing, and then touting it as fact. And I have watched his full-of-shit show, where he preaches dogmatic lies and words things in such a way that you wonder if he even likes America. Hell, if you watch a straight week of his show, you'd honestly believe that he wants to send all of the liberals, all of the college educated, and all of the non-Republicans to little camps. His oratory style is terrifying, because it is only suited to satire and comedy. You're fucknut insane if you believe otherwise, and since your name has been peppered all over this topic religiously defending Beck, I feel 100% confident in saying that.
Actually, it wasn't the White House that said he wasn't news: it was Fox News that said he wasn't news. Because he isn't.
Basically, Glenn Beck is on Fox News as one of the many opinion guys they have. He throws out wild accusations but gets away with it by saying "I'm not saying it's true, but isn't it odd that I'm the only one asking these questions?" He's done so many crazy things (comparing Jesus to Hitler back when he was on CNN, for example). He's so batshit crazy that he makes Bill O'Reilly appear to be a sensible man. It's absolutely terrifying, moreso when you realize how many people religiously watch his show and consider it to be 100% fact.
The controversy is just someone parodying him by making a wild accusation and then covering it with a batshit crazy question.
...He also cries loudly at random intervals on his show. I highly advise you try and find some Glenn Beck vids. http://vodpod.com/watch/1409182-colbert-mocks-crazy-eyes-beck-with-doom-bunker-segment There's one off of the Colbert Report that gives you an excellent example, in fact.
Except that you're falling into the same sensationalist things that OP fell into. T2 diabetes = you need a different specialized diet to begin with, else you gain weight.
Every human has a different body setup. When I change my diet, I gain weight. I eat mostly the kind of crap that makes doctors pass out in horror, but I eat in moderation. My same diet could probably kill someone else.
What the arrogant "here's my success story" need to understand is that it's really, really cool that you and 10% of the population had this work for you, but that it will never work for everybody. No amount of caps lock emphasis will change the fact that there is no successful diet for everyone on this planet. The initial reason that I posted was not to say "well here's my success story". My reason was to say "that's great that such a method works for you, but it's not the One True Method and there is no method that works for everyone".
But feel free to fly by that nuanced meaning and scream about how the devil carbs are the reason why people are so fat. Maybe instead of hating the skinny people, you should understand that they found a method that works for them but don't understand that it won't work for everybody. Hell, you're one of them now, correct? Skinny, shouting that your way is the right way and everyone else is wrong...just sayin'.
Or cut the extra meals...
I eat 40% less than my parents do because I eat a moderate breakfast, a very light lunch, and a very light dinner. They eat a big breakfast, a light lunch, and then an obscenely huge dinner. They go for seconds and thirds, I have leftover dinner for lunch the next day on my first serving.
There. Is. No. Miracle. Cure. Just eat less, and your weight will shockingly be low. I'll give you a hint: that slice of steak that is 16 ounces larger than the serving amount you should be eating is harming you a lot more than that potato. By every means, you can argue that cutting out certain elements of the meals will make you lose weight for all sorts of scientific reasons, but the main problem that the bulk of Americans have is that their meals are far too big. You can stop eating carbs, but if you ever make the mistake of eating any carbs, your body bloats back up again. It'd be easier to shrink your meals. And smarter.