I don't think you can truly have free speech without anonymity ie -- The chilling effect of self censorship. You may not *like* what they say, but the fact that people are able to speak whatever is on their mind, anonymously is a good thing.
This is kind of a corollary to something that's always bothered me.. people tend to get so uptight over an individual bilking the system for 80 bucks or a couple packs of smokes/booze -- but do not seem to have the same level disdain for the amount of bilking that raytheon or boeing engage in.
Similarly, if someone is worried about the small potatoes tax evasion that someone like ms hilton is able to do -- shouldn't you be rioting in the streets over what MS, Apple, Cisco etc are pulling?
and every single parent I've ever met who has these loosey-goosey standards, and tries to reason with a fucking 3 year old -- has unmanageable, entitled little monsters for children.
also, sensationalist news stories. A fluke child abduction occurs*, and is blasted on the news -- and suddenly the mommy brigade is convinced that monsters are lurking behind every corner waiting to snatch little kids.
*IE: a instance of abduction that is NOT perpetrated by a family member.
My parenting approach does not include use of force or abuse of my authority, (where safety or law is not directly concerned), so I can't in good consciousness prohibit it outright.
My god, i'd hate to behind you in line at the grocery store.
Totally agree with you. Grew up playing RPG's on Sega (not to mention PTO, heh -- which spawned a lot of interest in geography and history, but i digress) Then Everquest, which again, a lot of reading -- and typing, since you had to actually read an NPC's dialog in order to know what to say to progress quests.
Compared with the past couple of years: The last two RPG type games i've played (skyrim, and now Elder Scrolls Online) have characters that are entirely voice acted. I find myself clicking through the prompts before listening/reading what the characters are saying. Which granted is my fault for not immersing myself in what's going on -- but I can read a heck of a lot faster than a non-auctioneer speaks.
The net result is a game-world that feels much shallower due to reading dialog forcing you to actually mentally process what's going on.
Implying that i was referring to 'da club' or whatever the term is these days..:( i live in a college town, so there's plenty of amateur bands playing bars here.. so shrug.
Yes, and if you look at what food items constitute 100 calories, it should become plainly obvious that human beings lack the consistency and precision in choosing food and/or exercise in order to maintain weight like we do.
The average is to gain about 10 pounds a decade, 1 pound a year. Using the math you just listed, you honestly believe that people maintain this rate of weight gain purely through the difference in consumption vs output? Do Zucker rats become monstrously obese (at the expense of organs and muscle) on a calorie restricted diet because of ??? (Do they lack the willpower to resist food like other rats? and if not, why wouldn't their genetic make up have some corollary to human obesity?)
Calories in/calories out is at best a proxy for what's really going on under the covers (ie, insulin, hormonal reasons) -- at worst it's been the defacto 'yardstick' simply because it's easy to measure. Like the drunk looking for his keys under the street light because the 'lighting is better'. It's simple, and easy to reduce to an arithmetic problem -- but that doesn't mean it's correct.
they're unpopulated for a reason. the logistics behind supporting any reasonable habitat for a dense population aren't so workable. namely water. mostly water. Which, according to the UN and a few other NGO's, will be sort of a big deal during this time frame.
Well the other wrinkle is the effect that insulin has on the body storing or burning fat. When insulin levels spike, the fat cells are unable to release fatty acids back into the blood stream for consumption.
So, if a person eats fruit, sure the fructose is converted into 'fat' by the liver, but the body is able to use it for fuel immediately. When glucose (and insulin) levels spike, the fat cells in effect take up the nutrients, but don't release anything back into the blood stream to meet the body's energy needs. If a person is gorging themselves on high carb food; it's completely understandable why they'd continually feel hungry, despite putting on fat. =/
Personally I think this explains why fat people are always hungry, and why high carbohydrate meals lead to hunger so quickly after eating. The difference between individuals isn't in willpower, or that trope 'calories in vs calories out', but in how sensitive different tissues are to insulin.
(Also why exercise leads to weight loss, since training makes muscle tissue more sensitive to insulin, and fat cells less so. Seriously the amount of calories burned through exercise is laughable.)
Slashdot Mirror
problem is, most of the folks interested in doing such a study would have such confirmation bias to begin with, you wouldn't get a reliable study. :)
I don't think you can truly have free speech without anonymity ie -- The chilling effect of self censorship. You may not *like* what they say, but the fact that people are able to speak whatever is on their mind, anonymously is a good thing.
Or the fact that it doesn't have millions upon millions of rural, subsistence farmers to goose the average.
That sounds a lot like the plot to Wall Street.
Blue horseshoe loves endicott steel.
This is kind of a corollary to something that's always bothered me.. people tend to get so uptight over an individual bilking the system for 80 bucks or a couple packs of smokes/booze -- but do not seem to have the same level disdain for the amount of bilking that raytheon or boeing engage in.
Similarly, if someone is worried about the small potatoes tax evasion that someone like ms hilton is able to do -- shouldn't you be rioting in the streets over what MS, Apple, Cisco etc are pulling?
yes, you summoned *him*
you completely, and utterly missed the point about the zucker rats.
and every single parent I've ever met who has these loosey-goosey standards, and tries to reason with a fucking 3 year old -- has unmanageable, entitled little monsters for children.
blame mommy culture for this :(
also, sensationalist news stories. A fluke child abduction occurs*, and is blasted on the news -- and suddenly the mommy brigade is convinced that monsters are lurking behind every corner waiting to snatch little kids.
*IE: a instance of abduction that is NOT perpetrated by a family member.
My parenting approach does not include use of force or abuse of my authority, (where safety or law is not directly concerned), so I can't in good consciousness prohibit it outright.
My god, i'd hate to behind you in line at the grocery store.
Totally agree with you. Grew up playing RPG's on Sega (not to mention PTO, heh -- which spawned a lot of interest in geography and history, but i digress)
Then Everquest, which again, a lot of reading -- and typing, since you had to actually read an NPC's dialog in order to know what to say to progress quests.
Compared with the past couple of years: The last two RPG type games i've played (skyrim, and now Elder Scrolls Online) have characters that are entirely voice acted. I find myself clicking through the prompts before listening/reading what the characters are saying. Which granted is my fault for not immersing myself in what's going on -- but I can read a heck of a lot faster than a non-auctioneer speaks.
The net result is a game-world that feels much shallower due to reading dialog forcing you to actually mentally process what's going on.
Implying that i was referring to 'da club' or whatever the term is these days.. :(
i live in a college town, so there's plenty of amateur bands playing bars here.. so shrug.
bars don't have live music? Huh. My tinnitus begs to differ with that one.
Also, have you ever heard the phrase "work up an appetite" what do you suppose the body's very first reaction to burning those 100 calories is?
Yes, and if you look at what food items constitute 100 calories, it should become plainly obvious that human beings lack the consistency and precision in choosing food and/or exercise in order to maintain weight like we do.
The average is to gain about 10 pounds a decade, 1 pound a year. Using the math you just listed, you honestly believe that people maintain this rate of weight gain purely through the difference in consumption vs output? Do Zucker rats become monstrously obese (at the expense of organs and muscle) on a calorie restricted diet because of ??? (Do they lack the willpower to resist food like other rats? and if not, why wouldn't their genetic make up have some corollary to human obesity?)
Calories in/calories out is at best a proxy for what's really going on under the covers (ie, insulin, hormonal reasons) -- at worst it's been the defacto 'yardstick' simply because it's easy to measure. Like the drunk looking for his keys under the street light because the 'lighting is better'. It's simple, and easy to reduce to an arithmetic problem -- but that doesn't mean it's correct.
Fossil water aquifers are not perpetual, dolt.
they're unpopulated for a reason. the logistics behind supporting any reasonable habitat for a dense population aren't so workable. namely water. mostly water. Which, according to the UN and a few other NGO's, will be sort of a big deal during this time frame.
Well the other wrinkle is the effect that insulin has on the body storing or burning fat. When insulin levels spike, the fat cells are unable to release fatty acids back into the blood stream for consumption.
So, if a person eats fruit, sure the fructose is converted into 'fat' by the liver, but the body is able to use it for fuel immediately. When glucose (and insulin) levels spike, the fat cells in effect take up the nutrients, but don't release anything back into the blood stream to meet the body's energy needs. If a person is gorging themselves on high carb food; it's completely understandable why they'd continually feel hungry, despite putting on fat. =/
Personally I think this explains why fat people are always hungry, and why high carbohydrate meals lead to hunger so quickly after eating. The difference between individuals isn't in willpower, or that trope 'calories in vs calories out', but in how sensitive different tissues are to insulin.
(Also why exercise leads to weight loss, since training makes muscle tissue more sensitive to insulin, and fat cells less so. Seriously the amount of calories burned through exercise is laughable.)
starchy foods break down into pure glucose no? (a potato or shredded wheat for example.)
sugar: 50% fructose, 50% glucose
HFCS: 55% fructose, 45% glucose
zomg, clearly hfcs is the reason people are getting so much fatter.
couldn't it be attached to the dampeners/shock absorbers and function much the way regenerative braking systems work?
While I agree that keeping the auto industry alive is a vital thing for the US, your argument lends itself to something like this :
Would giving handouts to buggy whip manufacturers be good or bad in the long run?
insert morpheus meme -- "What if i told you the rich run both parties, and neither has the middle/lower classes interests at heart?"
Tis okay, the UK will keep the banks, and Scotland will keep London's police force.
Considering they're a pretty high income country, with tastes similar to the rest of the 'Dominion', it doesn't make sense at all.
But, what's the peering arrangement that Netflix would need to operate in Australia? Would it be something they could afford to do realistically?