I'd always wondered about your username, until I saw your signature and realized you were a fan of Michael Moorcock. So, in that context, JC makes perfect sense. Well played, sir.
Didn't you know? Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Sometimes I wish Obama would do really want the right wing is scared about: implement and enforce some sensible gun control laws. Those living in middle of Kansas farms can keep their guns to stave off the zombies (and their sisters). The rest of us living in civilization would like to see some gun control.
People have complained and the market did not fix itself so now government has to step in.
That, indeed, is the idea behind Keynesianism. It assumes that while free market is great, like any system it has its shortcomings, and it is the job of the government to step in and fix any systemic issues (including regulations, helping fix broken institutions such as banks and industries etc).
That's a philosophical argument. Your opinions notwithstanding, the CEO made some confidential information available, the equivalent of a public announcement, to a selective audience. Now whether or not he was right in doing so, he broke the law (or at least some regulations).
On a related (if ironic) note, what are your thoughts on where Apple is headed with their walled garden approach (the merits/demerits of it notwithstanding)?
Also, speaking of Apple, where do you see DRM and content copyright going in the coming years?
And I am not just talking about code, but of all content in general -- publishing industry, music/media industry, user generated content etc. Are we headed in the right direction or are we all well and truly f*cked?
I think people are over-complicating this. At a macro level, your body is not going to care if it gets its carbs and sugar from an apple or from a piece of candy.
As long as your protein intake is sufficiently high to maintain muscle and your fat intake is high enough to support your hormone production, any additional calories -- carbs or protein -- are a bonus.
I follow something called IIFYM -- If It Fits Your Macros. As long as your macros (protein, fat, carbs) meet your requirements (and this changes based on your individual need, how much you workout etc) and as long as you meet your caloric goals (excess for gaining, less for losing), you are good.
I will give you an example. Right now, I am on a bulk, and I try to hit ~1.2g/protein per lb of lean body mass. I have my TDEE calculated from a bunch of formulae, and 30% of it is fat. The rest, after protein and fat, are carbs.
Unlike some people, I actually like having carbs in my diet because they are muscle sparing: if you do not hit your protein numbers, your body is happy to use burn both your fat and your muscle, and it is incredibly hard to build muscle. Secondly, I am also okay with excess (relatively speaking) protein intake because I find that it speeds up recovery incredibly. I used to not consume enough dietary fat until I realized that it was affecting my hormone levels. After working with my doctor on understanding my diet and running more tests, I realized that increased dietary fat actually increased my t. So, now, I have a ratio that works, and one that I follow diligently.
If I am on a bulk or a cut, I make sure that my protein numbers are hit first, and that I get adequate fat second, and carbs last. I find that on a day to day basis, my body doesn't care if I get my protein from processed way or from natural sources, or if I get my carbs from a pack of skittles or from an apple (in fact, I keep a pack of skittles handy when I work out, if I feel my glycogen reserves depleting on particularly heavy workout days).
Now, arguably, I work out pretty diligently 5-6 days a week, so what works for me may not work for someone else (i.e. someone who isn't as active may need to watch their carbs a lot more than someone like me). But it's nevertheless been my experience that your body cares about contents at a macro level than at a micro level. Sure, it's good to eat wholesome, healthy food for other reasons (i.e. making sure you get the right nutrients and reduce crap) but as far as your caloric needs are concerned, your body is largely unconcerned about the sources of protein, fat, and carbs.
Sure. However, my original argument still stands. If you find that you gain at 2500 calories, and lose at 1500 calories, your TDEE (total daily energy expenditure) is somewhere in between. Can the numbers be absolutely accurate and dead-on? Of course not -- they are meant to be directional. But you will need to use them to figure out what the calories are at which you gain, and what are the calories at which you lose.
Unless you disagree that for *you* as an individual, eating below your TDEE will make you lose weight and eating above will gain?
The key to staying in shape is basically calories in vs. calories out. No matter what people's excuse, you cannot violate the laws of thermodynamics. Your body isn't going to magically add "fat" from the air.
I eat a lot. However, I monitor whatever I eat very closely -- tracking every morsel and every calorie (I personally use LiveStrong MyPlate, but MyFitnessPal is also good). As long as I am within my calorie intake on a weekly basis and hit macros (ratio of protein, fat, and carbs), I am happy.
I also work out regularly -- on average, lift 3 days a week and do some kind of cardio the 3 days a week (running, rowing, climbing etc). If I eat more, I burn more. If I eat less, well, I make it a point to eat more.
My body fat percentage fluctuates, anywhere from 12% to 18%, depending on the time of the year and if I am trying to add muscle or cut fat. But ultimately, gaining weight comes down to eating more and losing it comes down to eating less. There's a reason people say that six pack abs are made in the kitchen.
Given that I can squat and bench almost 1.5x my body weight and rock climb, row, and run long distance regularly, I will have to say that's false as well. The last time I checked using bodpod, I had about 14.33% body fat (no six pack though, only the beginnings of a four pack -- I think I will need to go down much lower for that).
Never been anti-social in my life, either. If anything, I am as extroverted as they come (and it's a pre-req for what I do for living). Never had trouble picking up a girl at a bar, either.
I am, however, certainly opinionated Mac using Slashdot reader.:-)
You think bigotry and prejudice evolves in a vacuum? A good many of those kids probably live in households where their parents, relatives, and friends tout those views.
I did not use professional venture capitalists, but a host of loans, and the equity in my home and summer house for capital. I did not give up any equity in the company.
That's like Mitt Romney saying, if you do not have money for college, get it from your parents.
When I had my first startup as a graduate student, I was eking a living making ~$700 a month. A home and a summer house? Yeah right.
If you think most entrepreneurs have that kind of capital at their disposal, either in actuality or in illiquid assets that can be leveraged, you must be smoking.
While I am happy for your success, as someone who's started several companies in the past decade (with no house to leverage for a loan, btw -- so banks will not just lend you money), your thinking only works for those who already have something tangible to bargain with.
I'm guessing that we're in better shape to do without them than they are to do without us. Fuck 'em.
Have you ever genuinely tried started a company, and tried to ramp it up? Ever run into a situation where you need capital, and the only way you can succeed is either by taking loans or getting investors? Ever been in a situation where you've sold a lot of what you own for an idea you believe in, and really hope someone out there is willing to pitch in? Ever put in so much of your life into an idea that you're willing to do anything it takes to keep it going forward? Ever look desperately to get out of the red before the money in your account dies out? Ever sold your favorite things so that you would have enough money for one more week? Didn't think so.
Anyone who has ever really been an entrepreneur and has gone balls to the wall will realize the value of investors, angel or VC. I've been on both sides of the fence, and if you really think that, you are an idiot.
My biggest problem with using Windows products is not the software but rather the hardware. The problem is that most laptops out there are pretty shoddily made, and fall apart. The ones that don't (e.g. Thinkpad) are clunky at best.
Apple's biggest advantage is integrated hardware and software. That results in a pretty consistent user experience -- my keys don't switch positions when I use a different keyboard.
Yes, I paid $1700 for my MacBook Air, but at least it works well. It is well designed and well made, super light, and the OS and the hardware integrate well. There simply isn't a comparable competitor -- I looked at Dell XPS, and it was a joke.
Plus, the fact that OSX comes with *nix under the hood is a big plus. I can switch to terminal mode and run apps just like I would on any *nix system. You don't have that with Windows. Put both together and you have a winning combination.
Faith is essentially firm belief in your worldview -- you think ideologists foam at the mouth any less or demonstrate any less adhesion to their worldview than those who proselytize faith in the supernatural?
Slashdot Mirror
The video of that entire exchange is hilarious.
That woman is a hate monger and a bigot, and all I can say is that it couldn't have happened to anyone worse.
Sorry, I meant home page... /brainfart
I'd always wondered about your username, until I saw your signature and realized you were a fan of Michael Moorcock. So, in that context, JC makes perfect sense. Well played, sir.
Didn't you know? Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Sometimes I wish Obama would do really want the right wing is scared about: implement and enforce some sensible gun control laws. Those living in middle of Kansas farms can keep their guns to stave off the zombies (and their sisters). The rest of us living in civilization would like to see some gun control.
That, indeed, is the idea behind Keynesianism. It assumes that while free market is great, like any system it has its shortcomings, and it is the job of the government to step in and fix any systemic issues (including regulations, helping fix broken institutions such as banks and industries etc).
One word for all you whiny kids today: MFC.
Jesus H. I'd rather pull out my teeth. With pliers.
That's a philosophical argument. Your opinions notwithstanding, the CEO made some confidential information available, the equivalent of a public announcement, to a selective audience. Now whether or not he was right in doing so, he broke the law (or at least some regulations).
On a related (if ironic) note, what are your thoughts on where Apple is headed with their walled garden approach (the merits/demerits of it notwithstanding)?
Also, speaking of Apple, where do you see DRM and content copyright going in the coming years?
And I am not just talking about code, but of all content in general -- publishing industry, music/media industry, user generated content etc. Are we headed in the right direction or are we all well and truly f*cked?
Yeah right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster
I think people are over-complicating this. At a macro level, your body is not going to care if it gets its carbs and sugar from an apple or from a piece of candy.
As long as your protein intake is sufficiently high to maintain muscle and your fat intake is high enough to support your hormone production, any additional calories -- carbs or protein -- are a bonus.
I follow something called IIFYM -- If It Fits Your Macros. As long as your macros (protein, fat, carbs) meet your requirements (and this changes based on your individual need, how much you workout etc) and as long as you meet your caloric goals (excess for gaining, less for losing), you are good.
I will give you an example. Right now, I am on a bulk, and I try to hit ~1.2g/protein per lb of lean body mass. I have my TDEE calculated from a bunch of formulae, and 30% of it is fat. The rest, after protein and fat, are carbs.
Unlike some people, I actually like having carbs in my diet because they are muscle sparing: if you do not hit your protein numbers, your body is happy to use burn both your fat and your muscle, and it is incredibly hard to build muscle. Secondly, I am also okay with excess (relatively speaking) protein intake because I find that it speeds up recovery incredibly. I used to not consume enough dietary fat until I realized that it was affecting my hormone levels. After working with my doctor on understanding my diet and running more tests, I realized that increased dietary fat actually increased my t. So, now, I have a ratio that works, and one that I follow diligently.
If I am on a bulk or a cut, I make sure that my protein numbers are hit first, and that I get adequate fat second, and carbs last. I find that on a day to day basis, my body doesn't care if I get my protein from processed way or from natural sources, or if I get my carbs from a pack of skittles or from an apple (in fact, I keep a pack of skittles handy when I work out, if I feel my glycogen reserves depleting on particularly heavy workout days).
Now, arguably, I work out pretty diligently 5-6 days a week, so what works for me may not work for someone else (i.e. someone who isn't as active may need to watch their carbs a lot more than someone like me). But it's nevertheless been my experience that your body cares about contents at a macro level than at a micro level. Sure, it's good to eat wholesome, healthy food for other reasons (i.e. making sure you get the right nutrients and reduce crap) but as far as your caloric needs are concerned, your body is largely unconcerned about the sources of protein, fat, and carbs.
Sure. However, my original argument still stands. If you find that you gain at 2500 calories, and lose at 1500 calories, your TDEE (total daily energy expenditure) is somewhere in between. Can the numbers be absolutely accurate and dead-on? Of course not -- they are meant to be directional. But you will need to use them to figure out what the calories are at which you gain, and what are the calories at which you lose.
Unless you disagree that for *you* as an individual, eating below your TDEE will make you lose weight and eating above will gain?
The key to staying in shape is basically calories in vs. calories out. No matter what people's excuse, you cannot violate the laws of thermodynamics. Your body isn't going to magically add "fat" from the air.
I eat a lot. However, I monitor whatever I eat very closely -- tracking every morsel and every calorie (I personally use LiveStrong MyPlate, but MyFitnessPal is also good). As long as I am within my calorie intake on a weekly basis and hit macros (ratio of protein, fat, and carbs), I am happy.
I also work out regularly -- on average, lift 3 days a week and do some kind of cardio the 3 days a week (running, rowing, climbing etc). If I eat more, I burn more. If I eat less, well, I make it a point to eat more.
My body fat percentage fluctuates, anywhere from 12% to 18%, depending on the time of the year and if I am trying to add muscle or cut fat. But ultimately, gaining weight comes down to eating more and losing it comes down to eating less. There's a reason people say that six pack abs are made in the kitchen.
Given that I can squat and bench almost 1.5x my body weight and rock climb, row, and run long distance regularly, I will have to say that's false as well. The last time I checked using bodpod, I had about 14.33% body fat (no six pack though, only the beginnings of a four pack -- I think I will need to go down much lower for that).
Never been anti-social in my life, either. If anything, I am as extroverted as they come (and it's a pre-req for what I do for living). Never had trouble picking up a girl at a bar, either.
I am, however, certainly opinionated Mac using Slashdot reader. :-)
You think bigotry and prejudice evolves in a vacuum? A good many of those kids probably live in households where their parents, relatives, and friends tout those views.
Wow, I had no idea. That's a crazy story -- who knew Henry Nicholas was that badass? Thank you for posting that.
That's like Mitt Romney saying, if you do not have money for college, get it from your parents.
When I had my first startup as a graduate student, I was eking a living making ~$700 a month. A home and a summer house? Yeah right.
If you think most entrepreneurs have that kind of capital at their disposal, either in actuality or in illiquid assets that can be leveraged, you must be smoking.
While I am happy for your success, as someone who's started several companies in the past decade (with no house to leverage for a loan, btw -- so banks will not just lend you money), your thinking only works for those who already have something tangible to bargain with.
Have you ever genuinely tried started a company, and tried to ramp it up? Ever run into a situation where you need capital, and the only way you can succeed is either by taking loans or getting investors? Ever been in a situation where you've sold a lot of what you own for an idea you believe in, and really hope someone out there is willing to pitch in? Ever put in so much of your life into an idea that you're willing to do anything it takes to keep it going forward? Ever look desperately to get out of the red before the money in your account dies out? Ever sold your favorite things so that you would have enough money for one more week? Didn't think so.
Anyone who has ever really been an entrepreneur and has gone balls to the wall will realize the value of investors, angel or VC. I've been on both sides of the fence, and if you really think that, you are an idiot.
Remember, there are also inflation protected securities out there, such as TIPS bonds. That's a different ballgame altogether.
China.
It's nice that you call that horse a woman.
My biggest problem with using Windows products is not the software but rather the hardware. The problem is that most laptops out there are pretty shoddily made, and fall apart. The ones that don't (e.g. Thinkpad) are clunky at best.
Apple's biggest advantage is integrated hardware and software. That results in a pretty consistent user experience -- my keys don't switch positions when I use a different keyboard.
Yes, I paid $1700 for my MacBook Air, but at least it works well. It is well designed and well made, super light, and the OS and the hardware integrate well. There simply isn't a comparable competitor -- I looked at Dell XPS, and it was a joke.
Plus, the fact that OSX comes with *nix under the hood is a big plus. I can switch to terminal mode and run apps just like I would on any *nix system. You don't have that with Windows. Put both together and you have a winning combination.
Let me introduce you to the British East India Company. Sound familiar?
That's right, the corporations have been calling the shots for over 400 years now. Nothing has changed.
Reminds me of a quote by physicist Steven Weinberg:
"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil â" that takes religion."
The best Slashdot sig I've ever seen: "My dog! It's full of rats: 2001 - A Dyslexic Odyssey".
Faith is essentially firm belief in your worldview -- you think ideologists foam at the mouth any less or demonstrate any less adhesion to their worldview than those who proselytize faith in the supernatural?