Wouldn't it make more sense to fine £50,000 *plus* 10x the financial gain from those calls? If 1,500,000 calls generate more than £50,000 in profit (over say 2 years), there is no incentive to obey the law. Make it hurt to defraud the public, make it financially debilitating to commit financial crimes, and tadaa, you will see a decline. When companies get slapped on the wrist for lying, destroying the environment, scamming the elderly, or stealing money from the poor, they will continue doing so. This isn't rocket surgery.
How does riling up people to cause harm differ from riling up people for a laugh? Can a prosecutor tell the difference? How many 14-year olds will get sent to youth care because an angry SJW decided that "someone had to take a stand against racism, bigotry, and transphobia"? What happens when the "right to be offended" finally overturns the "intent matters" clause?
You see the lunacy of the "anti-religious" point. I think all the points are the same, and just as easy to twist when you want to condemn someone. For those that care about the slippery slope stuff, this new ruling opens up a highway to the SocJus nation.
Come on, at least read the article first. Not even Buzzfeed would maul the scientific contents that hard.
1. The muscle gain is only skeletal muscle. 2. The muscle gain is only compared to very low estrogen levels (and not in relation to testosterone at all) *in post-menopausal women*. We won't be seeing estrogen doping in our OS athletes.
I would say that you're being disingenuous here, but I think you're closer to outright lying. Second, estrogen treatment for post-menopausal women is on the rise due to the many positive results, including the reductions you mentioned as well as overall cancer risk and other things.
Note that they never say that being obese is healthy, they say that simplistic solutions like "stop binging" and "eat less" tend not to be very helpful and that they instead advocate a more positive approach to weight management. Of course you can argue that their approach is ineffective, but not that they are suggesting being obese is healthy.
No, I'm arguing that they are indeed saying that being morbidly obese is healthy, that is the foundation of the Healthy at Every Size program. The argument is that health is not connected to weight.
Here is the "manifesto" of the HAES book. I found it through www.bodypositive.com via the author's webpage. https://lindabacon.org/HAESboo...
While I shall leave the more crazy attempts at debunking all of biology and medicine unquoted, here is the step by step list -
What Can You Do?
Refuse to fight in an unjust war. Join the new peace movement: “Health at Every Size” (HAES). HAES acknowledges that well-being and healthy habits are more important than any number on the scale. Participating is simple:
1. Accept your size. Love and appreciate the body you have. Self-acceptance empowers you to move on and make positive changes.
2. Trust yourself. We all have internal systems designed to keep us healthy—and at a healthy weight. Support your body in natu- rally finding its appropriate weight by honoring its signals of hunger, fullness, and appetite.
3. Adopt healthy lifestyle habits. Develop and nurture connections with others and look for pur- pose and meaning in your life. Fulfilling your social, emotional, and spiritual needs restores food to its rightful place as a source of nour- ishment and pleasure. Find the joy in moving your body and becoming more phys- ically vital in your everyday life. Eat when you’re hungry, stop when you’re full, and seek out pleasurable and satisfying foods. Tailor your tastes so that you enjoy more nutritious foods, staying mindful that there is plenty of room for less nutri- tious choices in the context of an overall healthy diet and lifestyle.
4. Embrace size diversity. Humans come in a variety of sizes and shapes. Open to the beauty found across the spectrum and sup- port others in recognizing their unique attractiveness.
The only thing that isn't explicitly "be proud of being overweight and keep on eating" is one point in step 3 - "Find the joy in moving your body and becoming more physically vital in your everyday life." That is the only reference to what can in very generous terms be considered a suggestion to not keep on binging.
Building on previous movements for equal rights, the size acceptance movement is gaining strength. In this two-part interview with Dr. Deb Burgard, noted eating disorders specialist and Health at Every Size advocate, Veronica Cook-Euell explores fat and feminism, and fat civil rights.
How does this not count as body positivity == fat acceptance?
'Around 1 in 100' is the expected number of people that actually have a deficiency or disease that might cause them to get fat. So it seems they have the same genetic problems as America.
If your daily burn is 5000 kcal, eating 4,500 kcal means you're under-nourished. If your daily burn is 1000 kcal, then 1,100 kcal would be overeating. The buff Hollywood hunk puts a lot of work into building those muscles (usually consuming an extra 500 kcal over the daily burn every day), and then starves himself to get rid of the bodyfat he doesn't want afterwards. So yes, he would be starving himself for a long time (around 1 month per 4 pounds of weight to be lost) for those well-defined muscles. That's why the starving period is called a "deff".
Truly? Because when I go http://www.bodypositive.com/ right there on the first page I find a link to the book "Healthy at Every Size". If I check http://www.bodypositive.com/ar... The first line that pops up includes "you may find yourself fielding questions about how you can be trying to just accept your body size rather than lose weight. ".
Does "managing" your weight mean the same as not doing anything at all?
I was thinking of the latter part - "we don't stop and gawk at people with injuries or deformities for the most part.". Walking about town and shopping hardly counts as "on display for shock value", does it?
We have come a long way when you think about it, we don't have freak shows any more and we don't stop and gawk at people with injuries or deformities for the most part.
What way have we come? Instead of respecting the deformed while being curious, we now peek a glance when we think they aren't watching? We have only gone backwards, hiding our interest behind a veneer, not respecting those that are different enough to treat them honestly. Do you really think it helps when we pretend like they aren't deformed? Do you really think they don't know what's going on?
The body positive movement is saying that people are not ugly, they are just people. Human beings come in all shapes and sizes, and we shouldn't hold people to arbitrary and artificial standards of beauty or health.
Some people are ugly, some are not. Some are born that way, some work to make it that way. I get it, they don't want to put in the effort to compete. But even if we removed the outside qualifications of beauty, they would still be ugly. Look at it - they complain rather than fix, they lack discipline, they lack any kind of long-term planning ability (a sign of intelligence btw), they clearly lack an understanding of cause and effect, and they have no drive to do anything. What person would ever find these qualities attractive? Both men and women want the opposite in their partners.
That's not to say that they reject medical science, merely that you shouldn't judge them on your perception of their health. It's a bit like how calling someone an idiot is often less helpful than being supportive and non-judgemental when they try to learn.
Yes they do. HAES is a large part of the body-positive movement, and that is most vigorously rejecting modern science. And yes, we damn well should judge people on their health, it is an excellent marker for determining personality and quality as a partner as well as future qualities of any children. To do anything else is idiotic.
No, you're trying to be happy with yourself because you don't want to work for it. It's like drugs or alcohol or any other abuse. You want to feel good, but you don't want to actually put in any effort to feel good.
Instead of making an effort to create longterm change and impact your life in a 'positive' way you just blame everyone else for "shaming you" to avoid having to do anything. It's laziness, pure and simple.
The body-positive movement is a study in entitlement. It works on the premise that no-one can affect their weight, it's all genetic, and morbidly obese women have the *right* to be beautiful. It's a desperate attempt to shake off all responsibility for that weight, and to move the weight-standard to a point where the morbidly obese aren't considered outliers of the distribution. None of that is positive.
Hell, I'm overweight right now, which is why I'm on a 3-month cutting period. See how easy it is to take responsibility when you skip the delusions that bp wants to convince you of?
If this was about personality, the body-positive movement would advocate the right to be appreciated and loved for being an absolute dick to everyone, because hey, it's all genetics.
Hollywood sees it as they should - beauty is something you work for, it is something extraordinary. Pretending that everyone is beautiful is cute and works great in motivational Disney movies, but it doesn't sell (to an adult audience), and it doesn't appeal to those that actually want to see something extraordinary.
The obese are unappealing, partly because they smell of disease, partly because they reek of poor discipline and long-term planning. And those last two are considered just as much signs of strength as bulging muscles.
That certainly shows the other side in a less forgiving light. But let's not pretend that all those who wish to keep the statues around are angels that only care about honoring their ancestors. And let's not pretend that this video is the standard chain of events. The whole reason we have this news post from the beginning is that someone decided those protests were worth killing over.
Does WordPress have anything in their terms of service about inciting violence, committing crimes, or breaking the law in general?
If Vanguard America hasn't distanced themselves from the actions of this alleged member, perhaps they could be classified as a terrorist organization? This isn't necessarily an issue of free speech any more than breaking the law is.
- Threadripper repeats the same pattern. Intel's HPDT was overrun. 1950X has 60% more cores than 7900X (16x/32t vs 10c/20t). It is a small miracle that 7900X is putting up the fight it does. 7900X is much more competitive with 1920X. Also, Intel has not yet managed to make price corrections in HPDT (nor bring out the reactionary 12/14/16 core CPUs).
How is it competitive against a 1920X? The 7900X costs a lot more and is outperformed in almost all tests. It requires a significantly more expensive platform, and doesn't even provide additional PCIe lanes. How is that competitive?
It seems far more ethical to respect that you should not have the power to decide whom is and whom isn't allowed on the internet. I also like how you put it all down on the money, pretending like Google would care in the slightest if they didn't need some positive PR to take eyes and ears off the Damore storm.
Oh, and Cloudflare also noted they are cooperating with law enforcement, assuming there was anything they could do. You know, that stuff that isn't just virtue signalling. Seems like a respectable line to walk.
Keeping hands off also seems far more practical since Google and others now have shown that they can be freely petitioned for moral arbitration. Because they will be getting many a petition from now on, and social pressure to act upon them too. First the easy targets that no-one likes...
Didn't like the thinking part, eh? Fair enough, it's not for everyone.
You still haven't addressed the scientific consensus pointing out the strong correlation between poor-neighborhood upbringing and obesity. The only information you are trying to convey in your post is "plenty of doughy suburbanite kids eat hamburgers and coke." which, while formulated in a way I find charming and prosaic, doesn't hold. If you want to use suburban as a proxy for "not-poor-neighborhood upbringing", then the scientific consensus is the opposite of your feelings. And it unfortunately seems that all you are willing to contribute to this discussion is a cornucopia of feelings, most of which are no doubt harmful to your longterm health.
Ah yes. I'm guessing the PR hit could no longer be considered worth the private venue to Trump's ear. Good to know that even the 1% are starting recalculate the cost vs profit of Trump.
(Don't get me wrong, I think it is the CEO's responsibility to take every opportunity to increase the company's chances at success, I just think they should stick to legal and "honest" means - and whispering in Trump's ear like Grima worm-tongue seems like neither of those)
You seem to have some anger-related issues. That's not good for your heart.
You make it very easy for me when you call me alt-right, since it takes a very particular kind of person to skip the thinking part and jump straight to calling others alt-right. Especially when the data on obesity and its correlation to low income (hint: crap food costs less than healthy food) has been so well documented for so many years. Even the simplest form of due diligence, a google search, reveals a results page filled with studies and articles talking about the connection between obesity and low income families. Go on, try it.
You really should try the thinking part, its amazing for continuing discussions and you might even earn some respect from your colleagues.
Yes, I know that he has done some great things, such as exterminating polio. But he does have an Achilles-heel when it comes to coding. Reducing the footprint of malaria across Africa is a great endeavor sure to help the world, sending some special group to summer camp where they can be told what to appreciate not so much.
While Bill Gates (not to be confused with Billy Gates, a frequent/. commenter) is free to spend *his* money however he wants, I hope that it will go to something real like eradicating disease, preventing deforestation, or perhaps additional funding for protecting nearly extinct species.
I truly hope it's not yet another pointless money sink like sending girls to coding camps (have to challenge that patriarchy) or funding organic school lunches for poor-neighborhood children (that will still eat hamburgers and coke for dinner and breakfast). I know the latter two makes you feel all righteous and morally superior (it's an instant gratification), but it doesn't help anyone and may even harm the affected down the line.
Slashdot Mirror
Wouldn't it make more sense to fine £50,000 *plus* 10x the financial gain from those calls? If 1,500,000 calls generate more than £50,000 in profit (over say 2 years), there is no incentive to obey the law. Make it hurt to defraud the public, make it financially debilitating to commit financial crimes, and tadaa, you will see a decline. When companies get slapped on the wrist for lying, destroying the environment, scamming the elderly, or stealing money from the poor, they will continue doing so. This isn't rocket surgery.
How does riling up people to cause harm differ from riling up people for a laugh? Can a prosecutor tell the difference? How many 14-year olds will get sent to youth care because an angry SJW decided that "someone had to take a stand against racism, bigotry, and transphobia"? What happens when the "right to be offended" finally overturns the "intent matters" clause?
You see the lunacy of the "anti-religious" point. I think all the points are the same, and just as easy to twist when you want to condemn someone. For those that care about the slippery slope stuff, this new ruling opens up a highway to the SocJus nation.
Come on, at least read the article first. Not even Buzzfeed would maul the scientific contents that hard.
1. The muscle gain is only skeletal muscle.
2. The muscle gain is only compared to very low estrogen levels (and not in relation to testosterone at all) *in post-menopausal women*. We won't be seeing estrogen doping in our OS athletes.
I would say that you're being disingenuous here, but I think you're closer to outright lying. Second, estrogen treatment for post-menopausal women is on the rise due to the many positive results, including the reductions you mentioned as well as overall cancer risk and other things.
Note that they never say that being obese is healthy, they say that simplistic solutions like "stop binging" and "eat less" tend not to be very helpful and that they instead advocate a more positive approach to weight management. Of course you can argue that their approach is ineffective, but not that they are suggesting being obese is healthy.
No, I'm arguing that they are indeed saying that being morbidly obese is healthy, that is the foundation of the Healthy at Every Size program. The argument is that health is not connected to weight.
Here is the "manifesto" of the HAES book. I found it through www.bodypositive.com via the author's webpage.
https://lindabacon.org/HAESboo...
While I shall leave the more crazy attempts at debunking all of biology and medicine unquoted, here is the step by step list -
What Can You Do?
Refuse to fight in an unjust war. Join the new peace movement:
“Health at Every Size” (HAES). HAES acknowledges that well-being
and healthy habits are more important than any number on the
scale. Participating is simple:
1. Accept your size.
Love and appreciate the body you have.
Self-acceptance empowers you to move on and make positive
changes.
2. Trust yourself.
We all have internal systems designed to keep
us healthy—and at a healthy weight. Support your body in natu-
rally finding its appropriate weight by honoring its signals of hunger,
fullness, and appetite.
3. Adopt healthy lifestyle habits.
Develop and nurture connections with others and look for pur-
pose and meaning in your life. Fulfilling your social, emotional, and
spiritual needs restores food to its rightful place as a source of nour-
ishment and pleasure.
Find the joy in moving your body and becoming more phys-
ically vital in your everyday life.
Eat when you’re hungry, stop when you’re full, and seek out
pleasurable and satisfying foods.
Tailor your tastes so that you enjoy more nutritious foods,
staying mindful that there is plenty of room for less nutri-
tious choices in the context of an overall healthy diet and
lifestyle.
4. Embrace size diversity.
Humans come in a variety of sizes
and shapes. Open to the beauty found across the spectrum and sup-
port others in recognizing their unique attractiveness.
The only thing that isn't explicitly "be proud of being overweight and keep on eating" is one point in step 3 - "Find the joy in moving your body and becoming more physically vital in your everyday life." That is the only reference to what can in very generous terms be considered a suggestion to not keep on binging.
Ooh, and here's what we get when we follow the first link on the main page - http://www.prweb.com/releases/... -
Building on previous movements for equal rights, the size acceptance movement is gaining strength. In this two-part interview with Dr. Deb Burgard, noted eating disorders specialist and Health at Every Size advocate, Veronica Cook-Euell explores fat and feminism, and fat civil rights.
How does this not count as body positivity == fat acceptance?
'Around 1 in 100' is the expected number of people that actually have a deficiency or disease that might cause them to get fat. So it seems they have the same genetic problems as America.
It's a relative measure you dongleberry...
If your daily burn is 5000 kcal, eating 4,500 kcal means you're under-nourished. If your daily burn is 1000 kcal, then 1,100 kcal would be overeating. The buff Hollywood hunk puts a lot of work into building those muscles (usually consuming an extra 500 kcal over the daily burn every day), and then starves himself to get rid of the bodyfat he doesn't want afterwards. So yes, he would be starving himself for a long time (around 1 month per 4 pounds of weight to be lost) for those well-defined muscles. That's why the starving period is called a "deff".
Truly? Because when I go http://www.bodypositive.com/ right there on the first page I find a link to the book "Healthy at Every Size". If I check http://www.bodypositive.com/ar... The first line that pops up includes "you may find yourself fielding questions about how you can be trying to just accept your body size rather than lose weight. ".
Does "managing" your weight mean the same as not doing anything at all?
I was thinking of the latter part - "we don't stop and gawk at people with injuries or deformities for the most part.". Walking about town and shopping hardly counts as "on display for shock value", does it?
Wait...
Have you ever seen Danny DeVito and Ron Jeremy in the same room?
So will men. But that can only compensate for so much. If you're a morbidly obese person, chances are you've passed that line a long time ago.
We have come a long way when you think about it, we don't have freak shows any more and we don't stop and gawk at people with injuries or deformities for the most part.
What way have we come? Instead of respecting the deformed while being curious, we now peek a glance when we think they aren't watching? We have only gone backwards, hiding our interest behind a veneer, not respecting those that are different enough to treat them honestly. Do you really think it helps when we pretend like they aren't deformed? Do you really think they don't know what's going on?
The body positive movement is saying that people are not ugly, they are just people. Human beings come in all shapes and sizes, and we shouldn't hold people to arbitrary and artificial standards of beauty or health.
Some people are ugly, some are not. Some are born that way, some work to make it that way. I get it, they don't want to put in the effort to compete. But even if we removed the outside qualifications of beauty, they would still be ugly. Look at it - they complain rather than fix, they lack discipline, they lack any kind of long-term planning ability (a sign of intelligence btw), they clearly lack an understanding of cause and effect, and they have no drive to do anything.
What person would ever find these qualities attractive? Both men and women want the opposite in their partners.
That's not to say that they reject medical science, merely that you shouldn't judge them on your perception of their health. It's a bit like how calling someone an idiot is often less helpful than being supportive and non-judgemental when they try to learn.
Yes they do. HAES is a large part of the body-positive movement, and that is most vigorously rejecting modern science. And yes, we damn well should judge people on their health, it is an excellent marker for determining personality and quality as a partner as well as future qualities of any children. To do anything else is idiotic.
No, you're trying to be happy with yourself because you don't want to work for it. It's like drugs or alcohol or any other abuse. You want to feel good, but you don't want to actually put in any effort to feel good.
Instead of making an effort to create longterm change and impact your life in a 'positive' way you just blame everyone else for "shaming you" to avoid having to do anything. It's laziness, pure and simple.
I would like to mod you +1+1-1 funny/insightful & concise/now I'm sad.
The body-positive movement is a study in entitlement. It works on the premise that no-one can affect their weight, it's all genetic, and morbidly obese women have the *right* to be beautiful. It's a desperate attempt to shake off all responsibility for that weight, and to move the weight-standard to a point where the morbidly obese aren't considered outliers of the distribution. None of that is positive.
Hell, I'm overweight right now, which is why I'm on a 3-month cutting period. See how easy it is to take responsibility when you skip the delusions that bp wants to convince you of?
If this was about personality, the body-positive movement would advocate the right to be appreciated and loved for being an absolute dick to everyone, because hey, it's all genetics.
Hollywood sees it as they should - beauty is something you work for, it is something extraordinary. Pretending that everyone is beautiful is cute and works great in motivational Disney movies, but it doesn't sell (to an adult audience), and it doesn't appeal to those that actually want to see something extraordinary.
The obese are unappealing, partly because they smell of disease, partly because they reek of poor discipline and long-term planning. And those last two are considered just as much signs of strength as bulging muscles.
That certainly shows the other side in a less forgiving light.
But let's not pretend that all those who wish to keep the statues around are angels that only care about honoring their ancestors.
And let's not pretend that this video is the standard chain of events. The whole reason we have this news post from the beginning is that someone decided those protests were worth killing over.
Does WordPress have anything in their terms of service about inciting violence, committing crimes, or breaking the law in general?
If Vanguard America hasn't distanced themselves from the actions of this alleged member, perhaps they could be classified as a terrorist organization? This isn't necessarily an issue of free speech any more than breaking the law is.
- Threadripper repeats the same pattern. Intel's HPDT was overrun. 1950X has 60% more cores than 7900X (16x/32t vs 10c/20t). It is a small miracle that 7900X is putting up the fight it does. 7900X is much more competitive with 1920X. Also, Intel has not yet managed to make price corrections in HPDT (nor bring out the reactionary 12/14/16 core CPUs).
How is it competitive against a 1920X? The 7900X costs a lot more and is outperformed in almost all tests. It requires a significantly more expensive platform, and doesn't even provide additional PCIe lanes. How is that competitive?
Great, now where am I supposed to go for my Pokemon Go updates?
And that should be dealt with via the law, not private companies trying to smooth over their recent bad PR.
It seems far more ethical to respect that you should not have the power to decide whom is and whom isn't allowed on the internet. I also like how you put it all down on the money, pretending like Google would care in the slightest if they didn't need some positive PR to take eyes and ears off the Damore storm.
Oh, and Cloudflare also noted they are cooperating with law enforcement, assuming there was anything they could do. You know, that stuff that isn't just virtue signalling. Seems like a respectable line to walk.
Keeping hands off also seems far more practical since Google and others now have shown that they can be freely petitioned for moral arbitration. Because they will be getting many a petition from now on, and social pressure to act upon them too. First the easy targets that no-one likes...
Didn't like the thinking part, eh? Fair enough, it's not for everyone.
You still haven't addressed the scientific consensus pointing out the strong correlation between poor-neighborhood upbringing and obesity.
The only information you are trying to convey in your post is "plenty of doughy suburbanite kids eat hamburgers and coke." which, while formulated in a way I find charming and prosaic, doesn't hold. If you want to use suburban as a proxy for "not-poor-neighborhood upbringing", then the scientific consensus is the opposite of your feelings.
And it unfortunately seems that all you are willing to contribute to this discussion is a cornucopia of feelings, most of which are no doubt harmful to your longterm health.
Oh, and the suburbanite thing was also wrong :)
Ah yes. I'm guessing the PR hit could no longer be considered worth the private venue to Trump's ear. Good to know that even the 1% are starting recalculate the cost vs profit of Trump.
(Don't get me wrong, I think it is the CEO's responsibility to take every opportunity to increase the company's chances at success, I just think they should stick to legal and "honest" means - and whispering in Trump's ear like Grima worm-tongue seems like neither of those)
You seem to have some anger-related issues. That's not good for your heart.
You make it very easy for me when you call me alt-right, since it takes a very particular kind of person to skip the thinking part and jump straight to calling others alt-right. Especially when the data on obesity and its correlation to low income (hint: crap food costs less than healthy food) has been so well documented for so many years. Even the simplest form of due diligence, a google search, reveals a results page filled with studies and articles talking about the connection between obesity and low income families. Go on, try it.
You really should try the thinking part, its amazing for continuing discussions and you might even earn some respect from your colleagues.
Yes, I know that he has done some great things, such as exterminating polio. But he does have an Achilles-heel when it comes to coding.
Reducing the footprint of malaria across Africa is a great endeavor sure to help the world, sending some special group to summer camp where they can be told what to appreciate not so much.
While Bill Gates (not to be confused with Billy Gates, a frequent /. commenter) is free to spend *his* money however he wants, I hope that it will go to something real like eradicating disease, preventing deforestation, or perhaps additional funding for protecting nearly extinct species.
I truly hope it's not yet another pointless money sink like sending girls to coding camps (have to challenge that patriarchy) or funding organic school lunches for poor-neighborhood children (that will still eat hamburgers and coke for dinner and breakfast). I know the latter two makes you feel all righteous and morally superior (it's an instant gratification), but it doesn't help anyone and may even harm the affected down the line.