If we decertified everyone that held a view we thought was 'potentially very dangerous' we'll be right back to thinking the world is flat or other now-obviously-false things.
Are you going to say that to doctors who want to use leeches as therapy? Or arsenic solutions? Or any multitude of medical techniques now known to be dangerous?
You are free to question whatever you like, but if you want to practice medicine, you must operate within the framework of established guidelines.
This is no different. This organization certifies members such that they represent persons sufficiently familiar with meteorology that they can serve the public. Those who question the reality of global climate change have no place in a professional organization that serves the public. Let them waste their own time pursuing their fantastic delusions, and not tarnish the name of the the vast number of meteorologists who are working to serve the public.
It's a fact that the planet is heating up. We know that. But correlation is not the same as causation. We can't separate exactly how much the planet heated up because of things humans have done, and if we can't do that, we can't PROVE that 'global warming' is an issue.
You're view is not share by the vast majority of climatology experts. Who are you? You are a nobody.
They want to decertify people over a subject that they can't prove.
Science is not about proving anything, it is about supporting a theory with the preponderance of evidence. Proof is for lawyers and mathematicians, not for scientists. If this is what you believe, you will never be a scientists as the lack of proof will undoubtedly drive in you insane.
So, either admit that the earth is flat and God never intended people to fly, or live with the fact that there are people who don't believe what is 'common sense' and fight the system. I kind of like those people.
This is not "the system", this is a professional organization of scientists who establish standards in their field. Did you even read the article? Or are you just an idiot?
You are forgetting one other piece of data: it is not merely the earth that is warming, but so too is every other planet in the solar system. Polar ice caps on Mars are much smaller than they were just a few years ago.
That said, pollution should be eliminated, but I fear that may not help us anytime soon as we may be unable to control what is really happening.
These services don't carry ads in most of the minority regional languages, instead defaulting to the dominant majority language for the area (Catalan gives way to Spanish, Gaelic gives way to English, Breton gives way to French etc).
Ahh one of those. I hate to inform you, but the Second Republic was extremely proficient at eliminating any native gaelic dialect in France. Breton as a language is for all intents and purposes extinct, although academics infatuated with global balkanization certainly try to revive it.
As well, the Irish refer to their language as Irish, not gaelic. As for Catalonia, I hope the Spanish level that region to the ground.
In the case of vegans, this is almost always due to zinc deficiency. They actually given injections of zinc to cattle to make their skin shine and the meat have a healthier glow. Does the same thing to people.
Zinc is only really abundant in certain nuts - hazelnuts and brazil nuts in particular.
It's slow and a resource hog, and none of their different "levels" fits well enough for me. I don't want the low end, but the level of Vista that has what I want and need has a bunch of crap I don't, and costs too much, and the next level down, has hardly of the stuff I want.
It's funny, people were saying the same thing about XP versus 2000 until MS refused to patch 2000 a few years ago. I've used Vista, and it is faster than my 1 year old installation of XP. XP has a nasty habit of getting fucked over time. My machine is fairly mid-range these days.
As for the software versions - christ, 5 versions aren't enough for you? Whatever.
work with 4 year-old equipment, processors, memory, etc.
MS has NEVER released a major release OS that did this. In 1991, many computers still shipped with 1 or 2 megs of ram. Windows 95 was certainly not designed for this. In 1997, most computers shipped with 32 megs of ram, totally insufficient to run windows XP. Especially when today, there is new stuff that really can change the computing experience - dual core processors make multithreading really functional, hybrid hard drives will revolutionize laptop usage, modern graphics cards can really improve the desktop experience - why would MS give a shit about what was happening 4 years ago?
be compatable with SW from the same time frame
Name one major program released in the last 4 years that will not run on Vista.
come in 2, maybe 3 levels of implementation (excluding servers) Home - Price point under $70 Professional - Price point under $120 Extra (maybe - Price point under $150
MS has kept almost the same pricing structure for ages. You pulled these prices out of your ass.
Upgradeable from one level to the next without a complete reinstall
I'm not quite sure why this would matter.
Beyond basic OS, all extras, funky new desktops, including browser, media player, text pads, etc. are optional installs.
Much of this is optional. You obviously haven't installed it.
And, allow me to virtualize it, dammit!
Only the home edition doesn't allow virtualization. 99% of people using virtualization use it for development or business purposes, so this does sort of make sense. By the business or ultimate edition.
Oh, and give it a name that doesn't blow, or suck.
It doesn't suck as much as you! Vista is a cool name. I like it!
There is no right or wrong in this world. The question for you is whose belief will raise sufficient military might to enforce the law? Your belief, in a small way, will make the lives of future generations more difficult and perhaps hasten a world wide war over scarce natural resources. You may not understand why this is, but it will happen.
Enjoy your pitiful life while you still have it. As energy becomes more scarce, so too does food production. Will you be amongst those who starve? Or will you die defending your energy and food supplies?
Small minded libertarians like yourself really have no idea what is in store for you. The moment your happy little world collapses, you will be utterly lost and will die a quick death when anarchy reigns supreme.
The game has just begun! Now, practice more of your pathetic rhetorical skills with me, you mindless peon.
I think you'll find most people disagree with you. Promoting the general welfare implies not merely caring for the present population, but ensuring future generations will have a future.
Your logic is based upon the fundamentally flawed belief that people act rationally - they do not. Most people do not make purchasing decisions based upon the needs of their children, but on those needs that immediately face them.
Conserving energy resources for the future is of paramount importance, and no free market has ever demonstrated that "the people" have any understanding of this crucial public policy.
See Johnny, the problem here is there are several billion other people out there doing nothing wrong at all whose lives suck and no one gives a fuck about them.
There are too many people on this planet, we don't have time to save the wretches who have nothing to offer our future generations. Your duty is for the FUTURE, not the present.
Well, this is still generally true. People die every day. Why do we make such a big deal about the few who are murdered when billions of people are living like animals on this planet?
It seems to me that the problem in this world is there are too many people, not that a few are murdered.
The problem in this world is there is not enough death, and soon enough this reality will destroy us all.
Dude, that is about 4 hours of work post-tax for most people based on US census figures. For an entertainment device that provides hours of entertainment (1.5 to 2 hours per day of commuting) that is a small price to pay. If you figure the average person takes the train 5 days a week, for 50 weeks a year, for 2 hours a day, that's 500 hours a year.
$70 means those 500 hours will be that much more enjoyable. What does it cost to better enjoy those 500 hours? A mere $0.14 per day.
The DS is still outselling the PSP. Many stores around here either have discounted old stock DS and are out of the DSLite which is the current model. Yet they still have plenty of PSP's.
Glad to see them sell a bit faster, considering now they are reasonably priced at $199.00 new..
The PSP is a cool device, it feels nicer than the PSP, It simply does not have the games or the game prices to entice parents to buy them.
That's hard to believe. Here in New York City, public transportation is big as you might know. People do all sorts of stuff on trains, reading is still the #1 activity as our many tabloid newspapers will indicate to you.
I almost NEVER see anyone play a DS on the subway. Not a day goes by I don't see someone with a PSP.
You obviously have no idea how an atomic bomb works. Do you really think the 50 megaton hydrogen bomb required 50 megatons of energy to break the bonds of that hydrogen?
What do people think--that scientists are just making it all up as a big joke? That the entire scientific community is so blinkered by environmental dogma that they're ignoring all the evidence? How can such a large number of people embrace all these fruits of the scientific method, but then reject one or two ideas (global warming and evolution, usually) out of the blue, as if these two subjects were magic, and undermined science's routinely successful methods of analysis?
What you are witnessing is the ultimate fullfillment of the egalitarian-democratic ideal. By preaching the religion that all people should have a say in the direction of society, as well as the belief that all people are inherently equal, you've ended up with a lot of people who just don't understand. And they never will.
The world is too complicated for any one person to understand all the issues - and thus democracy is a failure. Political power must divided amongst experts who can wisely make decisions within their field of expertise. A cashier at wal-mar is not qualified to decide who should make environmental policy - but perhaps everyone with a graduate degree or higher in related scientific disciplines could easily elect the right man for the job.
Democracy is finished, and the egalitarian myth is dead. We no longer have the time to play these ridiculous games - the survival of our species demands immediate action.
As for that long string of tangential straw-man attacking [When did cholesterol enter into the discussion?], I have nothing to say.
There are more successful male vegans because women require significantly more cholesterol than do men. Actually, women store cholesterol as part of the uteran wall to aid the rapid growth of a new fetus, as every single cell requires cholesterol to be manufactured. Given our large brains, humans are composed of more cholesterol than any other mammal. Much depression is caused as a negative feedback mechanism to further additional cholesterol consumption. Nearly 25% of American women will be on an antidepressant at some point in their life. Low blood plasma levels of cholesterol are currently the only known biological indicator of suicidal depression. Children fed formula instead of breastmilk, with the only substantive difference being one contains cholesterol and one does not, have an appalling rate of development disorders.
The point here is that obviously eating meat has nothing to do with gaining muscle. A horse is a lot stronger than you and eats nothing but grass. It is our brains that make us special, and it should be no surprise that the dumbest animals are the ones that are strict vegans.
Every ethical choice is not without it's consequences. You should be more concerned with your own kind, than Bambi. There isn't a single vegetarian primate, what the fuck makes you so special?
Really, as long as we are not out there farming, foraging, and hunting and trapping our own food, we are all sons of bitches.
I don't think so. I purchase all of my food from an organic food co-op. We have many excellent relationships with local farmers. It is much easier than you think.
One wonders, too, about the level of "manufactured crap" in your own diet, friend benzapp.
Actually, none, unless I'm travelling and don't have a choice. But when I do eat manufactured crap, I don't suggest it is the most ethical course of action possible. There is a difference.
Meanwhile, I'm going to go home and drink the blood of a nice fawn I slaughtered this weekend. I'll be thinking of you.
It's funny, you're the one promoting anecdotal evidence. See my previous post in this thread. Orientals have a lower than average testosterone level, and a correspondingly low intake of meat. That is an valid argument.
As well, especially for women, there is a strong correlation between insufficient dietary intake of cholesterol and a variety of mental illnesses. Your limited understanding of human biology probably leaves you believing consuming cholesterol is bad (it's necessary for humans, and all primates). You probably don't even know that cholesterol is the second largest component of your brain after water, or that it is fundamentally what differentiates cell membranes in animal cells from cell walls in plants. You probably didn't even know that human breast milk is over 20% cholesterol for many months after pregnancy.
And there is the honest to goodness argument you can't ignore: being a vegan bodybuilder is absolutely impossible without modern technology. These people are taking vitamin B12 supplements and are taking free-form amino acids.
If you want to fill your body with industrially manufactured crap, be my guest.
No, but it does lead to intellectual laziness and a propensity for moral superiority, a feminine trait necessary for the indoctrination of small children.
You can look up the statistics yourself, you lazy bastard.
"Yeap.. tell that to the People of Darfur, the US administration has known about this on going genocide for years and still Bush is unable or unwilling to do anything about it. "
You know, you could volunteer with the French Foreign Legion or something. No one is stopping you from buying a nice rifle and taking a trip to Africa. Have you ever considered the possibility that the average American doesn't really feel that Darfur or it's people are worth spilling any blood?
I haven't met a single person who want to fight over there. And chances are, you're another pussy liberal who has never shot a gun in his life, let alone actually killed someone or had someone try and kill you. Iraq is fucked up, but it doesn't mean it's time for WWIII to stop every injustice known to man.
Let's secure Baghdad, the capital city of a country we conquered 3.5 years ago. Then we can talk about other military adventures.
Oh yeah, all those vegan pussies are just so ripped and sexually potent... Not to mention them chinese who eat nothing but rice and a few pinches of fish.
All the BMI measures is your risk for a variety of heart related ailments. The theory is that the more massive you are, the harder your heart has to work.
The issue is most people lack the ability, the financial resources, and the discipline to gain an extraordinary amount of muscle mass. So, in the vast majority of cases, the BMI does measure body fat. But, it has nothing to do with the percentage of your body that is fat or how toned you are.
Just thought I would add that to what you are saying.
Slashdot Mirror
If we decertified everyone that held a view we thought was 'potentially very dangerous' we'll be right back to thinking the world is flat or other now-obviously-false things.
Are you going to say that to doctors who want to use leeches as therapy? Or arsenic solutions? Or any multitude of medical techniques now known to be dangerous?
You are free to question whatever you like, but if you want to practice medicine, you must operate within the framework of established guidelines.
This is no different. This organization certifies members such that they represent persons sufficiently familiar with meteorology that they can serve the public. Those who question the reality of global climate change have no place in a professional organization that serves the public. Let them waste their own time pursuing their fantastic delusions, and not tarnish the name of the the vast number of meteorologists who are working to serve the public.
It's a fact that the planet is heating up. We know that. But correlation is not the same as causation. We can't separate exactly how much the planet heated up because of things humans have done, and if we can't do that, we can't PROVE that 'global warming' is an issue.
You're view is not share by the vast majority of climatology experts. Who are you? You are a nobody.
They want to decertify people over a subject that they can't prove.
Science is not about proving anything, it is about supporting a theory with the preponderance of evidence. Proof is for lawyers and mathematicians, not for scientists. If this is what you believe, you will never be a scientists as the lack of proof will undoubtedly drive in you insane.
So, either admit that the earth is flat and God never intended people to fly, or live with the fact that there are people who don't believe what is 'common sense' and fight the system. I kind of like those people.
This is not "the system", this is a professional organization of scientists who establish standards in their field. Did you even read the article? Or are you just an idiot?
Christ, you lazy bastard... do a fucking google search.
n g_021009.html
This turned up on the first page.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warmi
You are forgetting one other piece of data: it is not merely the earth that is warming, but so too is every other planet in the solar system. Polar ice caps on Mars are much smaller than they were just a few years ago.
That said, pollution should be eliminated, but I fear that may not help us anytime soon as we may be unable to control what is really happening.
Is a kilometer 1024 meters?
Is a kilogram 1024 grams?
It is the software makers who do not understand these historic terms. Fight the redefining of words!
These services don't carry ads in most of the minority regional languages, instead defaulting to the dominant majority language for the area (Catalan gives way to Spanish, Gaelic gives way to English, Breton gives way to French etc).
Ahh one of those. I hate to inform you, but the Second Republic was extremely proficient at eliminating any native gaelic dialect in France. Breton as a language is for all intents and purposes extinct, although academics infatuated with global balkanization certainly try to revive it.
As well, the Irish refer to their language as Irish, not gaelic. As for Catalonia, I hope the Spanish level that region to the ground.
In the case of vegans, this is almost always due to zinc deficiency. They actually given injections of zinc to cattle to make their skin shine and the meat have a healthier glow. Does the same thing to people.
Zinc is only really abundant in certain nuts - hazelnuts and brazil nuts in particular.
So if you're a vegan, eat them nuts.
It's slow and a resource hog, and none of their different "levels" fits well enough for me. I don't want the low end, but the level of Vista that has what I want and need has a bunch of crap I don't, and costs too much, and the next level down, has hardly of the stuff I want.
It's funny, people were saying the same thing about XP versus 2000 until MS refused to patch 2000 a few years ago. I've used Vista, and it is faster than my 1 year old installation of XP. XP has a nasty habit of getting fucked over time. My machine is fairly mid-range these days.
As for the software versions - christ, 5 versions aren't enough for you? Whatever.
work with 4 year-old equipment, processors, memory, etc.
MS has NEVER released a major release OS that did this. In 1991, many computers still shipped with 1 or 2 megs of ram. Windows 95 was certainly not designed for this. In 1997, most computers shipped with 32 megs of ram, totally insufficient to run windows XP. Especially when today, there is new stuff that really can change the computing experience - dual core processors make multithreading really functional, hybrid hard drives will revolutionize laptop usage, modern graphics cards can really improve the desktop experience - why would MS give a shit about what was happening 4 years ago?
be compatable with SW from the same time frame
Name one major program released in the last 4 years that will not run on Vista.
come in 2, maybe 3 levels of implementation (excluding servers)
Home - Price point under $70
Professional - Price point under $120
Extra (maybe - Price point under $150
MS has kept almost the same pricing structure for ages. You pulled these prices out of your ass.
Upgradeable from one level to the next without a complete reinstall
I'm not quite sure why this would matter.
Beyond basic OS, all extras, funky new desktops, including browser, media player, text pads, etc. are optional installs.
Much of this is optional. You obviously haven't installed it.
And, allow me to virtualize it, dammit!
Only the home edition doesn't allow virtualization. 99% of people using virtualization use it for development or business purposes, so this does sort of make sense. By the business or ultimate edition.
Oh, and give it a name that doesn't blow, or suck.
It doesn't suck as much as you! Vista is a cool name. I like it!
What a ridiculous troll. I love how you attempt to conceal your trollish ways with the quick cover of "But I generally like MS".
Please, oh scheming troll, tell us how Vista will be like Windows ME!
There is no right or wrong in this world. The question for you is whose belief will raise sufficient military might to enforce the law? Your belief, in a small way, will make the lives of future generations more difficult and perhaps hasten a world wide war over scarce natural resources. You may not understand why this is, but it will happen.
Enjoy your pitiful life while you still have it. As energy becomes more scarce, so too does food production. Will you be amongst those who starve? Or will you die defending your energy and food supplies?
Small minded libertarians like yourself really have no idea what is in store for you. The moment your happy little world collapses, you will be utterly lost and will die a quick death when anarchy reigns supreme.
The game has just begun! Now, practice more of your pathetic rhetorical skills with me, you mindless peon.
I think you'll find most people disagree with you. Promoting the general welfare implies not merely caring for the present population, but ensuring future generations will have a future.
Your logic is based upon the fundamentally flawed belief that people act rationally - they do not. Most people do not make purchasing decisions based upon the needs of their children, but on those needs that immediately face them.
Conserving energy resources for the future is of paramount importance, and no free market has ever demonstrated that "the people" have any understanding of this crucial public policy.
See Johnny, the problem here is there are several billion other people out there doing nothing wrong at all whose lives suck and no one gives a fuck about them.
There are too many people on this planet, we don't have time to save the wretches who have nothing to offer our future generations. Your duty is for the FUTURE, not the present.
Well, this is still generally true. People die every day. Why do we make such a big deal about the few who are murdered when billions of people are living like animals on this planet?
It seems to me that the problem in this world is there are too many people, not that a few are murdered.
The problem in this world is there is not enough death, and soon enough this reality will destroy us all.
It sounds like a high pitched whine - like the kind from high capacitance devices like televisions.
It is kind of annoying, but if I were a desperate freedom fighter with nothing to lose and everything to gain, I don't think that sound would stop me.
Dude, that is about 4 hours of work post-tax for most people based on US census figures. For an entertainment device that provides hours of entertainment (1.5 to 2 hours per day of commuting) that is a small price to pay. If you figure the average person takes the train 5 days a week, for 50 weeks a year, for 2 hours a day, that's 500 hours a year.
$70 means those 500 hours will be that much more enjoyable. What does it cost to better enjoy those 500 hours? A mere $0.14 per day.
You are clearly a college student.
Umm, I don't think anyone with a job finds $70 to be that important unless they are dirt poor.
Poorer socioeconomic folks use PSP's. Rich white kids use ipods and read the new yorker.
The DS is still outselling the PSP. Many stores around here either have discounted old stock DS and are out of the DSLite which is the current model. Yet they still have plenty of PSP's.
Glad to see them sell a bit faster, considering now they are reasonably priced at $199.00 new..
The PSP is a cool device, it feels nicer than the PSP, It simply does not have the games or the game prices to entice parents to buy them.
That's hard to believe. Here in New York City, public transportation is big as you might know. People do all sorts of stuff on trains, reading is still the #1 activity as our many tabloid newspapers will indicate to you.
I almost NEVER see anyone play a DS on the subway. Not a day goes by I don't see someone with a PSP.
That's the only statistic I need.
You obviously have no idea how an atomic bomb works. Do you really think the 50 megaton hydrogen bomb required 50 megatons of energy to break the bonds of that hydrogen?
What do people think--that scientists are just making it all up as a big joke? That the entire scientific community is so blinkered by environmental dogma that they're ignoring all the evidence? How can such a large number of people embrace all these fruits of the scientific method, but then reject one or two ideas (global warming and evolution, usually) out of the blue, as if these two subjects were magic, and undermined science's routinely successful methods of analysis?
What you are witnessing is the ultimate fullfillment of the egalitarian-democratic ideal. By preaching the religion that all people should have a say in the direction of society, as well as the belief that all people are inherently equal, you've ended up with a lot of people who just don't understand. And they never will.
The world is too complicated for any one person to understand all the issues - and thus democracy is a failure. Political power must divided amongst experts who can wisely make decisions within their field of expertise. A cashier at wal-mar is not qualified to decide who should make environmental policy - but perhaps everyone with a graduate degree or higher in related scientific disciplines could easily elect the right man for the job.
Democracy is finished, and the egalitarian myth is dead. We no longer have the time to play these ridiculous games - the survival of our species demands immediate action.
I hate you.
As for that long string of tangential straw-man attacking [When did cholesterol enter into the discussion?], I have nothing to say.
There are more successful male vegans because women require significantly more cholesterol than do men. Actually, women store cholesterol as part of the uteran wall to aid the rapid growth of a new fetus, as every single cell requires cholesterol to be manufactured. Given our large brains, humans are composed of more cholesterol than any other mammal. Much depression is caused as a negative feedback mechanism to further additional cholesterol consumption. Nearly 25% of American women will be on an antidepressant at some point in their life. Low blood plasma levels of cholesterol are currently the only known biological indicator of suicidal depression. Children fed formula instead of breastmilk, with the only substantive difference being one contains cholesterol and one does not, have an appalling rate of development disorders.
The point here is that obviously eating meat has nothing to do with gaining muscle. A horse is a lot stronger than you and eats nothing but grass. It is our brains that make us special, and it should be no surprise that the dumbest animals are the ones that are strict vegans.
Every ethical choice is not without it's consequences. You should be more concerned with your own kind, than Bambi. There isn't a single vegetarian primate, what the fuck makes you so special?
Really, as long as we are not out there farming, foraging, and hunting and trapping our own food, we are all sons of bitches.
I don't think so. I purchase all of my food from an organic food co-op. We have many excellent relationships with local farmers. It is much easier than you think.
One wonders, too, about the level of "manufactured crap" in your own diet, friend benzapp.
Actually, none, unless I'm travelling and don't have a choice. But when I do eat manufactured crap, I don't suggest it is the most ethical course of action possible. There is a difference.
Meanwhile, I'm going to go home and drink the blood of a nice fawn I slaughtered this weekend. I'll be thinking of you.
It's funny, you're the one promoting anecdotal evidence. See my previous post in this thread. Orientals have a lower than average testosterone level, and a correspondingly low intake of meat. That is an valid argument.
As well, especially for women, there is a strong correlation between insufficient dietary intake of cholesterol and a variety of mental illnesses. Your limited understanding of human biology probably leaves you believing consuming cholesterol is bad (it's necessary for humans, and all primates). You probably don't even know that cholesterol is the second largest component of your brain after water, or that it is fundamentally what differentiates cell membranes in animal cells from cell walls in plants. You probably didn't even know that human breast milk is over 20% cholesterol for many months after pregnancy.
And there is the honest to goodness argument you can't ignore: being a vegan bodybuilder is absolutely impossible without modern technology. These people are taking vitamin B12 supplements and are taking free-form amino acids.
If you want to fill your body with industrially manufactured crap, be my guest.
No, but it does lead to intellectual laziness and a propensity for moral superiority, a feminine trait necessary for the indoctrination of small children.
p ?theme=8&variable_ID=193&action=select_countries
You can look up the statistics yourself, you lazy bastard.
http://earthtrends.wri.org/searchable_db/index.ph
"Yeap.. tell that to the People of Darfur, the US administration has known about this on going genocide for years and still Bush is unable or unwilling to do anything about it. "
You know, you could volunteer with the French Foreign Legion or something. No one is stopping you from buying a nice rifle and taking a trip to Africa. Have you ever considered the possibility that the average American doesn't really feel that Darfur or it's people are worth spilling any blood?
I haven't met a single person who want to fight over there. And chances are, you're another pussy liberal who has never shot a gun in his life, let alone actually killed someone or had someone try and kill you. Iraq is fucked up, but it doesn't mean it's time for WWIII to stop every injustice known to man.
Let's secure Baghdad, the capital city of a country we conquered 3.5 years ago. Then we can talk about other military adventures.
Oh yeah, all those vegan pussies are just so ripped and sexually potent... Not to mention them chinese who eat nothing but rice and a few pinches of fish.
It's Body Mass Index, not Body Fat Index.
All the BMI measures is your risk for a variety of heart related ailments. The theory is that the more massive you are, the harder your heart has to work.
The issue is most people lack the ability, the financial resources, and the discipline to gain an extraordinary amount of muscle mass. So, in the vast majority of cases, the BMI does measure body fat. But, it has nothing to do with the percentage of your body that is fat or how toned you are.
Just thought I would add that to what you are saying.