By one measure of intelligence. I've done pretty well in most standardized and IQ tests, and yet, in many instances, my intelligence is more analytical than anything else. When it comes to other areas, I know I am sorely lacking.
In contrast, I know people (e.g. musicians) who intuitively process music theory (or even math), people whose reflexes in sports are miles ahead of my own (to predict where a ball may be and how quickly you can intercept it is also a form of intelligence), and people who can read emotions extremely well and manipulate them.
So, yeah, while people who belong to Mensa may be smart in some areas, I would question the blanket statement that they are "smarter than you" (i.e. the general populace).
Most professors are hired not for their ability to teach but rather their ability to do research. In fact, some of the "best" professors are horrible teachers -- they may be experts in their fields, but aren't necessarily the best teachers. As such, I would guess that the role of professors will remain unchanged. If anything, it will free up the professors from teaching responsibilities and they will merely provide "support".
Plus, I think that is the way it should be -- some of my best professors have been those who've encouraged my interest in the subject and with whom I've taken classes for research credit. They haven't been great at teaching me, but they've been great to collaborate with on research and just give me a broader perspective on their fields of expertise.
I have since sold my soul to the corporate world, but I am looking forward to going back to school one of these days.
What I would really like universities to do is provide opportunities for part-time PhD programs for those of us who are interested in research, but cannot leave our jobs and relinquish family commitments and responsibilities.
So, here is my question for Professor Anant:
I would absolutely love to do a PhD part-time, but why is it that universities deter this practice? I have found that I accomplish more when I love something and do it out of passion, my other commitments and responsibilities notwithstanding. In many subjects, hobbyists and amateurs have made significant contributions -- so why isn't there an increased focus on encouraging more "virtual research"?
From an academic perspective, you get sufficient education in most master's programs anyway, a lot of which can be completed part-time (and increasingly online). So, why not support research that can be done remotely?
As an erstwhile grad student who decided to not complete the PhD route, I met with my advisor perhaps once a week, and the only time he really cared was during conference deadlines. So, why can't PhD programs be made available part-time and online? With the exception of some subjects (e.g. chemistry, experimental physics, or biology), there are a lot more that can be pursued virtually (e.g. computer science, math, economics, theoretical physics etc).
Wouldn't there be increased enrollment of students in doctoral programs if there were the case? You do not even need to lower the standards -- you can still keep the same standard of admissions, qualifiers, and research criteria. You can provide residency requirements, but support doing the doctoral research at your own leisure. Why is this not the case?
It almost seems like an entrenchment of academic elites to keep the vicious cycle of "doctorate --> post doctorate --> professor --> tenure" going, and minimizing the number of doctoral candidates.
There are any number of factors that could contribute to weight gain, but the most important of them all is poor diet.
As long as your diet is in order and you are active, your body cannot magically consume more than what you're putting into it. Calories in vs. calories out.
Ultimately, no matter what the other factors are, you are not going to gain weight by eating less. Sure, how your weight loss occurs, the distribution etc may vary based on genetics and other factors. But that it will occur is indisputable.
I went from extremely active (i.e. rowing and rock climbing almost every single day) to being lethargic (desk job, lots of drinking) and gained ~35 extra lbs. This happened in my mid-late twenties, and I found that it significantly affected my metabolism.
Getting my diet in checking and getting back into an active lifestyle (back to rock climbing, rowing, lifting, and running 3-4 days a week), I have noticed an increase in my own metabolism, and a change in terms of what I crave.
Given my level of activity, I sometimes go into a buffet and pile on food because otherwise, I won't recover well enough, and risk injury (not to mention, I actually lose weight). Of course, people who do not know me well enough make fun of me and ask if I am "not on a diet anymore".
I am always on a diet, but I like to think of it as a lifestyle -- because no matter what I eat, I watch my macros and track every morsel. And when I go over or under, I compensate. Eat too many carbs today? Eat less carbs tomorrow and more fat and protein. Go over my calories for the day? Run an extra few miles to compensate. Not enough protein this week? Make myself a few extra protein shakes. Drop in my squats or bench? Eat more. Drop in the size of my arms? Eat more, lift heavier.
1. Calculate what your TDEE is (not just your BMR), based on your level of activity. As you lose or gain weight, make sure you calculate your TDEE.accordingly.
2. If you eat more, burn more. As simple as that. It comes down to how anal you are (e.g. even if it's 2 am at night, I try and run off my excess calories for the day), but basically ~3500 calories = 1 lb.
3. So, now, if you're gaining weight, then, cut your calories until your weight is stable. Then decrease by ~500 calories a day (either by eating less or by burning more) and you will see a drop.
4. You won't see your weight drop instantly -- what typically happens is that you'll see a "whoosh". Your weight will remain unchanged for 3-4 weeks, and then it suddenly drops by a lot.
5. Staying active -- i.e. lifting regularly, doing cardio, and generally being not lethargic -- helps raise your TDEE.
6. Consuming enough protein to make sure your body can heal itself and can keep the muscle mass (~1g/lbm) will mean that when your weight drop, it's mostly fat loss and not fat and muscle loss.
Math doesn't argue, you're taking in what you burn in Calories. You are not keeping that weight on by inhaling too much air.
This. As long as you're in a caloric deficit, get enough protein (~1g/lb of lean body mass), and engage your muscles (I prefer to lift + rock climb + row), then you will shed the fat.
As long as you're engaging your muscles and giving them enough protein to recover, your body will simply burn the fat.
Even if I didn't agree with it all, the Slate article was pretty well written and had some pretty insightful points to make.
In comparison, I found Larry Correia (who is he anyway, some no-name pulp fiction author?) to be someone with an axe to grind against liberals, and nothing more than corny rebuttals.
His comments lacked much, nay, any insight, and just sounded like an angry diatribe. I hadn't read the original article, but after reading Larry's idiotic rebuttal, I went back and read it, and if anything, the rebuttal made me feel more sympathetic to Allison's position.
Maybe he should stick to writing crappy monster novels and leave the real writing to those with talent.
I'm with the Quarter Horse Association on this one. They're not the government. They have no "fairness" obligation to everyone. I don't see how they can be accused of holding a monopoly when "no other horse breeding registry allows cloned animals..." indicates that they ain't the only game in town. Start your own damned registry if you don't like the current offerings. If the incumbents run you out of Dodge on a rail, then you have an actionable claim based on anti-competitive business practices. But I don't see how you can claim "monopoly" simply because you don't like a private organization's rules.
Hey, I just started the "No Clones Alllowed Horse Registry." Can these two horse breeders sue me and force my no-clones registry to accept their cloned animals?
"I'm with the Quarter Horse Restaurant on this one. They're not the government. They have no "fairness" obligation to everyone. I don't see how they can be accused of holding a monopoly when "no other horse restaurants allow blacks..." indicates that they ain't the only game in town. Start your own damned restaurant if you don't like the current offerings. If the incumbents run you out of Dodge on a rail, then you have an actionable claim based on anti-competitive business practices. But I don't see how you can claim "monopoly" simply because you don't like a private organization's rules.
Hey, I just started the "No Blacks Allowed Restaurant." Can these two blacks sue me and force my no-blacks restaurant to accept other black people?"
Arguing against government intervention for the sake of arguing is silly -- regulations exist because people make choices based on outdated values and judgments, and no private enterprise is completely isolated from its social setting.
I drink protein shakes as one or more of my meals on a regular basis. I keep a tub of protein handy, and I am more likely to have a whey shake for breakfast or dinner than an actual meal.
Sometimes, I have an actual meal but limit the portions substantially so that I can meet my macros by having a few scoops of whey instead. Pretty healthy and easy to meet your goals.
To the OP who remarked that people don't eat meal sticks, MREs are extremely common -- people who spend any extended amount of time outdoors or in inhospitable climes (ever been on a long and arduous climb or hike?), military personnel on the field, and folks who have traveled to exotic locales all eat MREs, which are nothing more than glorified "meal sticks".
In addition, any reasonably fit athlete will consume some pretty tasteless food in the form of protein shakes and other healthy "meals". Sure, they have flavor, but that's only to mask what would otherwise be absolutely unpalatable. And after a while, you even start associating some flavors negatively (after 4 years of having a vanilla whey shake with peanut butter and banana, I am staying far, far away from the combination for a long time to come).
I would chalk that up to cultural conditioning more than anything else. As someone who was raised a vegetarian, I feel the same way about pretty much any and all meat -- it's absolutely disgusting and even looking at it turns my stomach.
However, over the years, my tolerance and reactions to the presence of meat has improved significantly -- while I still do not consume any, I certainly don't gag when I see someone eating meat.
I suspect your reactions to insects are quite similar.
I am by no means a militant vegetarian -- I do not like the thought of animal cruelty or killing another animal when there are other options available.
However, I certainly do consume many things with animal products in them, including fish oil and gelatin, as well as the occasional leather item.
As someone who is extremely active, I also tend to get some pretty severe protein cravings which I indulge in by getting myself a steak or the occasional fish once a month or so.
I mostly try to adhere to my values, but I also realize that I'm by no means perfect, and I do give in to temptation every once in a while. That said, I am doing it for my own conscience, and not to assuage any others. At the end of the day, c'est la vie and all that.
No, I don't eat fish, but I do make an exception for fish oil (and for things with gelatin -- e.g. gummy vitamins or Altoids). I am a vegetarian, but not a militant one at that.
I am a vegetarian for mostly moral/ethical and environmental reasons. I do not like the idea of killing an animal that can experience pain when there are vegetarian alternatives. That said, there are times when I absolutely crave a steak or some fish because I've been pushing myself too hard, and I usually cheat and give in (this happens about once a month).
The problem with beans and lentils is that they are also high in carbs, and while I do like my carbs before my workouts, I try to keep them pretty low for the most part (i.e. results in more protein, good fats for hormones, and carbs to give me the extra boost during my workouts).
I just prefer Greek yogurt for my snacks because it's high in protein and fat, and the fruit flavored ones are delicious.
Usually, I follow the dictum IIFYM -- If It Fits Your Macros. I usually try and hit my calorie goals, and my macro ratios are 45% carbs, 20% fat, and 35% protein. For instance, for a 2000 calorie diet, it would be 900 carbs, 400 fat, and 700 protein. Given that carbs have 4 cals, fat 9 cals, and protein 4 cals, that comes down to 225g carbs, 45g fat, 175g protein. So, as long as I hit these numbers broadly on a weekly basis, I am happy.
There are some days when I go and have a few drinks or desserts, and my carbs are through the roof while my protein and fat are lagging. There are other days when I just have a protein shake for breakfast, lunch, and dinner and maybe a salad. There are days when I find that my numbers are too high for the week, and then I spend the weekend at the local rock climbing gym burning away my excess calories or go rowing or just run the excess calories off.
Typically, I try to lift 3 days a week, do some running once a week, and climb two days a week. And of course, one day a week to just rest, recover, and recuperate. My cardio days tend to be high in protein while my lift days tend to be high in carbs (I would rather have enough muscle in my glycogen to lift heavy and safe; less carbs when I do cardio means my body burns the fat instead).
I take four types of supplements, mostly because I'm pretty athletic and active:
1. Omega 3-6-9/fish oil because as a vegetarian with a family history of poor cholesterol, it helps
2. Creatine because you don't get much creatine as a vegetarian, and it's only water weight and significantly improves my lifts
3. Multivitamins twice a week because being athletic means that I don't get all my nutrition from just food -- my annual physicals have consistently shown lower levels of Vitamin D and B12
4. And of course, whey protein because I can't hit my protein numbers as a vegetarian -- I aim for 1.2g/lbm, and whey is a simple and easy way to meet your macros.
Apple Maps led me to a wrong route from Oakland to SFO during rush hour as I was headed to the airport, and ended up having to double back through the tolls twice. I almost missed my flight and it was a nightmare of an experience. Not the mention some of the crazy UX problems that I had.
And if anything, I consider myself an Apple fanboy, but that whole experience threw me off Apple maps completely.
Add with turn-by-turn navigation, Google maps continues to dominate as my go-to choice for navigation. YMMV and all that.
Are you an idiot? This has less to do with what Google wants than what's mandated by SEC and is simply the norm to protect confidential information from being leaked.
Things that happen at a shareholder meeting could involve confidential information and votes on future moves, acquisitions, and other market strategies that someone could leverage and make a boat load of money. If I knew that Google was interested in buying company X, then Microsoft could pre-empt the bid, or someone else could buy a whole lot of company X shares and profit at the time of the purchase etc. Plus, pretty much all of what's being discussed would be of interest to competitors, and Google would be acting against the best interests of their shareholders if they did not take steps to prevent this information from leaking out.
But go on with your tinfoil hat and your sheer idiocy. How about you learn how corporations work before trolling us?
For someone at risk of descending into irrelevancy, any PR is good PR. There's a reason actresses of a certain age and caliber (or the lack thereof) start doing stupid sh*t.
I found this comment on the RTFA to be of particular interest. It offers a lot more insight into what may have driven Harvard to shut down the center.
This article only touches the surface on what happened. It wasn't about Harvard wanting to destroy a "vibrant" center (and I'm very curious as to who the "most well-funded faculty members" who left are and when did they leave?). It may not have even been the most recent horrible press that the primate center gave Harvard, because as in sports, bad behavior and bad press would have been forgiven by Harvard if the science at the primate center was stellar. But the primate center decidedly wasn't stellar.
It has been almost 20 years since anyone currently working at the primate center and directly working with monkeys had a first author publication (other than a review article) in a top tier science journal. For a Harvard department, that was a pitiful track record. Even in the rather limited world of primate research, Harvard's primate center was second tier. That was why when IAVI (the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative) wanted to figure out how attenuated SIV worked (the attenuated SIV was long considered the domain of Harvard's primate center) it ended up giving the vast majority of its money to other primate centers. Moreover, even at HMS, the best primate research was coming from researchers NOT associated with Harvard's own primate center, those researchers were outsourcing their needs to other primate centers.
This made Harvard's own primate center expendable and a potential net liability for Harvard especially given all its recent negative press. To make matters worse, the primate center's prior director, a man largely responsible for the center's recent decline, sluggish scientific output, and at least some of the mismanagement at the primate center, was tone deaf to the negative publicity, acting like he had nothing to apologize for, and must have further antagonized the center's position at Harvard. Even after he was forced to resign, Harvard never attracted a first rate primate researcher to take over and energize the place. In the end, Harvard must have decided it was better to just outsource its primate needs and reduce its negative publicity.
The more interesting question is whether this will turn out to be an isolated event or really a nod to the increasing power of animal rights activists.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed. OP needs to watch this video, Silence.
It is important to distinguish between equality in opportunity versus equality in accomplishment.
By one measure of intelligence. I've done pretty well in most standardized and IQ tests, and yet, in many instances, my intelligence is more analytical than anything else. When it comes to other areas, I know I am sorely lacking.
In contrast, I know people (e.g. musicians) who intuitively process music theory (or even math), people whose reflexes in sports are miles ahead of my own (to predict where a ball may be and how quickly you can intercept it is also a form of intelligence), and people who can read emotions extremely well and manipulate them.
So, yeah, while people who belong to Mensa may be smart in some areas, I would question the blanket statement that they are "smarter than you" (i.e. the general populace).
Most professors are hired not for their ability to teach but rather their ability to do research. In fact, some of the "best" professors are horrible teachers -- they may be experts in their fields, but aren't necessarily the best teachers. As such, I would guess that the role of professors will remain unchanged. If anything, it will free up the professors from teaching responsibilities and they will merely provide "support".
Plus, I think that is the way it should be -- some of my best professors have been those who've encouraged my interest in the subject and with whom I've taken classes for research credit. They haven't been great at teaching me, but they've been great to collaborate with on research and just give me a broader perspective on their fields of expertise.
I have since sold my soul to the corporate world, but I am looking forward to going back to school one of these days.
What I would really like universities to do is provide opportunities for part-time PhD programs for those of us who are interested in research, but cannot leave our jobs and relinquish family commitments and responsibilities.
So, here is my question for Professor Anant:
I would absolutely love to do a PhD part-time, but why is it that universities deter this practice? I have found that I accomplish more when I love something and do it out of passion, my other commitments and responsibilities notwithstanding. In many subjects, hobbyists and amateurs have made significant contributions -- so why isn't there an increased focus on encouraging more "virtual research"?
From an academic perspective, you get sufficient education in most master's programs anyway, a lot of which can be completed part-time (and increasingly online). So, why not support research that can be done remotely?
As an erstwhile grad student who decided to not complete the PhD route, I met with my advisor perhaps once a week, and the only time he really cared was during conference deadlines. So, why can't PhD programs be made available part-time and online? With the exception of some subjects (e.g. chemistry, experimental physics, or biology), there are a lot more that can be pursued virtually (e.g. computer science, math, economics, theoretical physics etc).
Wouldn't there be increased enrollment of students in doctoral programs if there were the case? You do not even need to lower the standards -- you can still keep the same standard of admissions, qualifiers, and research criteria. You can provide residency requirements, but support doing the doctoral research at your own leisure. Why is this not the case?
It almost seems like an entrenchment of academic elites to keep the vicious cycle of "doctorate --> post doctorate --> professor --> tenure" going, and minimizing the number of doctoral candidates.
Not on mobile devices.
There are any number of factors that could contribute to weight gain, but the most important of them all is poor diet.
As long as your diet is in order and you are active, your body cannot magically consume more than what you're putting into it. Calories in vs. calories out.
Ultimately, no matter what the other factors are, you are not going to gain weight by eating less. Sure, how your weight loss occurs, the distribution etc may vary based on genetics and other factors. But that it will occur is indisputable.
I went from extremely active (i.e. rowing and rock climbing almost every single day) to being lethargic (desk job, lots of drinking) and gained ~35 extra lbs. This happened in my mid-late twenties, and I found that it significantly affected my metabolism.
Getting my diet in checking and getting back into an active lifestyle (back to rock climbing, rowing, lifting, and running 3-4 days a week), I have noticed an increase in my own metabolism, and a change in terms of what I crave.
Given my level of activity, I sometimes go into a buffet and pile on food because otherwise, I won't recover well enough, and risk injury (not to mention, I actually lose weight). Of course, people who do not know me well enough make fun of me and ask if I am "not on a diet anymore".
I am always on a diet, but I like to think of it as a lifestyle -- because no matter what I eat, I watch my macros and track every morsel. And when I go over or under, I compensate. Eat too many carbs today? Eat less carbs tomorrow and more fat and protein. Go over my calories for the day? Run an extra few miles to compensate. Not enough protein this week? Make myself a few extra protein shakes. Drop in my squats or bench? Eat more. Drop in the size of my arms? Eat more, lift heavier.
Here is the simple solution:
1. Calculate what your TDEE is (not just your BMR), based on your level of activity. As you lose or gain weight, make sure you calculate your TDEE.accordingly.
2. If you eat more, burn more. As simple as that. It comes down to how anal you are (e.g. even if it's 2 am at night, I try and run off my excess calories for the day), but basically ~3500 calories = 1 lb.
3. So, now, if you're gaining weight, then, cut your calories until your weight is stable. Then decrease by ~500 calories a day (either by eating less or by burning more) and you will see a drop.
4. You won't see your weight drop instantly -- what typically happens is that you'll see a "whoosh". Your weight will remain unchanged for 3-4 weeks, and then it suddenly drops by a lot.
5. Staying active -- i.e. lifting regularly, doing cardio, and generally being not lethargic -- helps raise your TDEE.
6. Consuming enough protein to make sure your body can heal itself and can keep the muscle mass (~1g/lbm) will mean that when your weight drop, it's mostly fat loss and not fat and muscle loss.
This. As long as you're in a caloric deficit, get enough protein (~1g/lb of lean body mass), and engage your muscles (I prefer to lift + rock climb + row), then you will shed the fat.
As long as you're engaging your muscles and giving them enough protein to recover, your body will simply burn the fat.
Even if I didn't agree with it all, the Slate article was pretty well written and had some pretty insightful points to make.
In comparison, I found Larry Correia (who is he anyway, some no-name pulp fiction author?) to be someone with an axe to grind against liberals, and nothing more than corny rebuttals.
His comments lacked much, nay, any insight, and just sounded like an angry diatribe. I hadn't read the original article, but after reading Larry's idiotic rebuttal, I went back and read it, and if anything, the rebuttal made me feel more sympathetic to Allison's position.
Maybe he should stick to writing crappy monster novels and leave the real writing to those with talent.
"I'm with the Quarter Horse Restaurant on this one. They're not the government. They have no "fairness" obligation to everyone. I don't see how they can be accused of holding a monopoly when "no other horse restaurants allow blacks ..." indicates that they ain't the only game in town. Start your own damned restaurant if you don't like the current offerings. If the incumbents run you out of Dodge on a rail, then you have an actionable claim based on anti-competitive business practices. But I don't see how you can claim "monopoly" simply because you don't like a private organization's rules.
Hey, I just started the "No Blacks Allowed Restaurant." Can these two blacks sue me and force my no-blacks restaurant to accept other black people?"
Arguing against government intervention for the sake of arguing is silly -- regulations exist because people make choices based on outdated values and judgments, and no private enterprise is completely isolated from its social setting.
I drink protein shakes as one or more of my meals on a regular basis. I keep a tub of protein handy, and I am more likely to have a whey shake for breakfast or dinner than an actual meal.
Sometimes, I have an actual meal but limit the portions substantially so that I can meet my macros by having a few scoops of whey instead. Pretty healthy and easy to meet your goals.
To the OP who remarked that people don't eat meal sticks, MREs are extremely common -- people who spend any extended amount of time outdoors or in inhospitable climes (ever been on a long and arduous climb or hike?), military personnel on the field, and folks who have traveled to exotic locales all eat MREs, which are nothing more than glorified "meal sticks".
In addition, any reasonably fit athlete will consume some pretty tasteless food in the form of protein shakes and other healthy "meals". Sure, they have flavor, but that's only to mask what would otherwise be absolutely unpalatable. And after a while, you even start associating some flavors negatively (after 4 years of having a vanilla whey shake with peanut butter and banana, I am staying far, far away from the combination for a long time to come).
I would chalk that up to cultural conditioning more than anything else. As someone who was raised a vegetarian, I feel the same way about pretty much any and all meat -- it's absolutely disgusting and even looking at it turns my stomach.
However, over the years, my tolerance and reactions to the presence of meat has improved significantly -- while I still do not consume any, I certainly don't gag when I see someone eating meat.
I suspect your reactions to insects are quite similar.
Dude, are you serious? All creatine does is add water retention to your muscles. And if it helps me lift more, then my muscles grow better.
It's not harmful, it's not bad, and as long as you don't overdo it, it's perfectly acceptable.
Plus, most people who eat meat get creatine from red meat anyway. I'm just making up for it.
Please read up on creatine before making unfounded statements.
I am by no means a militant vegetarian -- I do not like the thought of animal cruelty or killing another animal when there are other options available.
However, I certainly do consume many things with animal products in them, including fish oil and gelatin, as well as the occasional leather item.
As someone who is extremely active, I also tend to get some pretty severe protein cravings which I indulge in by getting myself a steak or the occasional fish once a month or so.
I mostly try to adhere to my values, but I also realize that I'm by no means perfect, and I do give in to temptation every once in a while. That said, I am doing it for my own conscience, and not to assuage any others. At the end of the day, c'est la vie and all that.
Far from it, not patronizing at all! :-)
No, I don't eat fish, but I do make an exception for fish oil (and for things with gelatin -- e.g. gummy vitamins or Altoids). I am a vegetarian, but not a militant one at that.
I am a vegetarian for mostly moral/ethical and environmental reasons. I do not like the idea of killing an animal that can experience pain when there are vegetarian alternatives. That said, there are times when I absolutely crave a steak or some fish because I've been pushing myself too hard, and I usually cheat and give in (this happens about once a month).
The problem with beans and lentils is that they are also high in carbs, and while I do like my carbs before my workouts, I try to keep them pretty low for the most part (i.e. results in more protein, good fats for hormones, and carbs to give me the extra boost during my workouts).
I just prefer Greek yogurt for my snacks because it's high in protein and fat, and the fruit flavored ones are delicious.
Usually, I follow the dictum IIFYM -- If It Fits Your Macros. I usually try and hit my calorie goals, and my macro ratios are 45% carbs, 20% fat, and 35% protein. For instance, for a 2000 calorie diet, it would be 900 carbs, 400 fat, and 700 protein. Given that carbs have 4 cals, fat 9 cals, and protein 4 cals, that comes down to 225g carbs, 45g fat, 175g protein. So, as long as I hit these numbers broadly on a weekly basis, I am happy.
There are some days when I go and have a few drinks or desserts, and my carbs are through the roof while my protein and fat are lagging. There are other days when I just have a protein shake for breakfast, lunch, and dinner and maybe a salad. There are days when I find that my numbers are too high for the week, and then I spend the weekend at the local rock climbing gym burning away my excess calories or go rowing or just run the excess calories off.
Typically, I try to lift 3 days a week, do some running once a week, and climb two days a week. And of course, one day a week to just rest, recover, and recuperate. My cardio days tend to be high in protein while my lift days tend to be high in carbs (I would rather have enough muscle in my glycogen to lift heavy and safe; less carbs when I do cardio means my body burns the fat instead).
You mean, his work on politics and the middle eastern conflict, for which he's particularly famous?
Chomsky? Now that's surprising.
What in particular are you referring to?
I take four types of supplements, mostly because I'm pretty athletic and active:
1. Omega 3-6-9/fish oil because as a vegetarian with a family history of poor cholesterol, it helps
2. Creatine because you don't get much creatine as a vegetarian, and it's only water weight and significantly improves my lifts
3. Multivitamins twice a week because being athletic means that I don't get all my nutrition from just food -- my annual physicals have consistently shown lower levels of Vitamin D and B12
4. And of course, whey protein because I can't hit my protein numbers as a vegetarian -- I aim for 1.2g/lbm, and whey is a simple and easy way to meet your macros.
30 pieces of silver.
Apple Maps led me to a wrong route from Oakland to SFO during rush hour as I was headed to the airport, and ended up having to double back through the tolls twice. I almost missed my flight and it was a nightmare of an experience. Not the mention some of the crazy UX problems that I had.
And if anything, I consider myself an Apple fanboy, but that whole experience threw me off Apple maps completely.
Add with turn-by-turn navigation, Google maps continues to dominate as my go-to choice for navigation. YMMV and all that.
Are you an idiot? This has less to do with what Google wants than what's mandated by SEC and is simply the norm to protect confidential information from being leaked.
Things that happen at a shareholder meeting could involve confidential information and votes on future moves, acquisitions, and other market strategies that someone could leverage and make a boat load of money. If I knew that Google was interested in buying company X, then Microsoft could pre-empt the bid, or someone else could buy a whole lot of company X shares and profit at the time of the purchase etc. Plus, pretty much all of what's being discussed would be of interest to competitors, and Google would be acting against the best interests of their shareholders if they did not take steps to prevent this information from leaking out.
But go on with your tinfoil hat and your sheer idiocy. How about you learn how corporations work before trolling us?
For someone at risk of descending into irrelevancy, any PR is good PR. There's a reason actresses of a certain age and caliber (or the lack thereof) start doing stupid sh*t.
Simple: It's a PR stunt.
I found this comment on the RTFA to be of particular interest. It offers a lot more insight into what may have driven Harvard to shut down the center.
Props for the Wayne Gretzky reference, eh.