Mods, I apologize for continuing this OT discussion but....
Any reasonable definition of self defense (legal or otherwise) means exactly what you are saying it does not. Even if your definition of defense were correct, guns in general (which was the original statement) are not the act of shooting people , much the same way as a bodyguard is not the same as having people beaten. The utility of guns and bodyguards come more from their threat of reprisal than the actual usage of them.
A weapon is just as responsible as the person using it -- its sole purpose is to harm, and that is all it does. If you want to defend yourself, learn to run fast or something.
Run fast? Brilliant! Do you have a newsletter, your solutions are fantastic! I can't help but think they can be applied to a broader spectrum of worldwide issues. Just think of where the late Libyan protesters might be had your insight been available to them.
Not here. We're on a hiring freeze so we won't be letting go of folks unless we are forced, because even a replacement has to be signed off by the president. Also, nobody wants to go through the process of hiring and training to replace folks that were doing a good job. Especially when we are already so spread so thin doing the jobs of the previous ones that have been let go.
Telling the truth is, in some instances, completely wrong. Just think about it for two seconds and you'll know it's true. Same for keeping promises, especially bad ones. Do I really need to enumerate examples or can you go one step past what you learned in elementary school with this thought experiment?
But you eat more of what, presumably, doesn't taste good? So you've "moderated" your life by doing something unpleasant? If anyone here actually knew how metabolism works actually put "health" into an evolutionary context, you'd realize the absurdity of low fat diets, of invoking thermodynamics as the basis for weight loss or gain, and the attempts to exogenously control built in regulatory systems for energy storage, cholesterol concentrations, protein maintenance, and etc.
What you can only do it set yourself up in a position that is not promoting inflammation and pathology. You can only provide the internal and external environment in which your regulatory systems work (read: entire body). You can't do the regulation for them.
It's funny that you are trying to say "fat is still unhealthy" and then in your example of foods that may be considered "unhealthy" you mention baked potato and beer, which are pure carbohydrates. What exactly is it that you people are arguing? Do you even know? haha!
The extreme diet that doesn't work is the one that cuts out fat and replaces it with carbohydrates or reduces calories, typically by cutting fat since fat is calorically dense. This doesn't work for good reason, and bears really no resemblance to the notion that the extremes are bad or wrong. Low fat (high carb) diets do not work because carbohydrates shut off the satiation pathway in your brain, induce excessive insulin, and drive nutrients into your fat cells while telling your brain and organ tissue that you are not nourished, so your brain keeps telling you that you need to eat (more).
I see the argument for moderation as a half-assed attempt at a rebuttal and a sign that you either A. don't want to try something new and unknown to you, B. didn't do a lick of research beyond wikipedia, or C. both.
By the way, the low carb studies that are in print are mostly studies done on not so low carb diets. They've compared diets of say 60% carb with diets of 30% carb. Thirty percent carbs is NOT a low carb diet. Low carb dieters (or lifestylists) seek to achieve anywhere from 5-15% carbohydrate, and usually no more than 20. The studies that say they show no difference between "low carb" and "high carb" really aren't making valid comparisons and serve only to further validate the original basis of this entire thread. If you would like to learn about this and other similar studies yourself- here is a breakdown of one such "low carb" vs "high carb" study: http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/09/08/brand-spankin-new-study-are-low-carb-meat-eaters-in-trouble/
I think you missed my point. You stated that by increasing the protein or fat in our diet we categorically "will develop cardiovascular illness" and "will destroy your liver". I provided an example of where this has not happened and further pointed out that in the last hundred thousand years that our (homo-sapiens) diet has been low in carbs. You did not adress this, and provided a red herring with the life expectancy vs the outcomes you predicted (cardio and liver damage).
The notion that thermodynamics works as simply as you and many others suggest is completely wrong. To say that it's calories in calories out is an obvious misunderstanding of human metabolism and a clear sign that you don't know what you're talking about. Period.
First, people on starvation diets all over the world (impoverished, socioeconomically poor, etc) are often enough still obese. Second, this fails to account for the signals and reactions produced by the body in response to reduction in incoming calories. Third, there is a caloric advantage from low-carb diets of about 3-400 calories, where you can actually eat more calories and still lose weight than you could on a high carb diet.
The reason calories in and calories out does not hold is because as you reduce your caloric intake, your body actually slows down. Body temp lowers, enzyme reactions slow, metabolic rate decreases as your body diverts energy to only necessary processes, making you lethargic and tired. This thermodynamic assumption is also your assumption that, if you are lean, you are allowed to remain lean on presumably normal caloric intake, while the obese person next to you cannot be lean unless he/she eats less than normal caloric intake. Simply no.
Here's a little number representation since you computer types seem to cling to this assumption because you like numbers. Assume you eat 2700 cal/day on average: = 1,000,000 cal/year = 10,000,000 cal/decade = 12 tons of food/decade then maintaining your weight to within 10 lbs over the course of a decade requires an accuracy of counting calories in to calories out to better than.4 percent. Your theory maintains that if you err by 11 calories/day, you will become obese as you add 10 lbs/year.
Why are we all not obese or anorexic because we certainly cannot possibly maintain this degree of accuracy of caloric intake over the course of our lives?
deltaE = E(in) - E(out) tells us nothing about causality. You can't assume that E(in) and E(out) are independent variables that respond only directly to changes upon them alone. In other words, you can't change E(in) without expecting a change in E(out). You can't tell someone to eat less and not expect their energy out, what they expend, to compensate. An animal who's food is restricted responds by being less active, reducing energy use in cells, and therefore losing less weight. Reminder: we are animals. As soon as you lift the calorie restriction, you will eat more to regain the weight you may have lost during energy restriction.
Calorie restriction is an abysmal failure in the health science and dietary industry. It's an invalid hypothesis. Stop spewing nonsense and educate yourself or open your eyes to contradictions to the conventional wisdom.
If you eat less carbs and more fat to the point that daily calories stay the same, You Will Not Lose Weight (but in the long run you will develop cardiovascular illness). If you eat less carbs and more proteins to the point that daily calories stay the same, You Will Not Lose Weight (but in the long run you will destroy your liver).
what is your baseline for fat/protien/carb percentage to postulate such a thing?
How do your baseline percentages compare to our diets of the last hundred thousand years(IE, low carb)?
How do you reconcile the fact that populations with high fat/protein diets (IE, Inuits) traditionally do not have these problems you mention?
That's a gross oversimplification of a complicated process. The 1st law of thermodynamics isn't useful when considering factors like hunger, satiation, fat mobilization and storage, basal metabolic rate. Yes, you can override the internal wiring that regulates energy intake and use that simple equation, but it's kind of like telling someone building an airplane that all that matters is F=M*A. It's not all that helpful.
I agree with your sentiment on the off-topic comments, but a flamebait response is hardly the way to combat it. I'm having to try very hard not to argue with your characterization of libertarians and even your stereotyping accusations.
What does your rant have to do with cursing? There are scores of intelligent, articulate, educated people that curse. Listen to that inarticulate fuckwit Christpher Hitchens for example. Then your rant goes off on some sort of entitlement society, nevermind that our hardest working folks are working low paying jobs like construction and fruit picking. Meanwhile, in the "real world", the money is made by people who have money.
Pro-tip, using "hehehe" in a comment doesn't really bolster your diatribe against "dumbing down" of America. It is slightly depressing that your comment made it to a +5 rating.
You are, of course, nearly completely correct in your statement. I would argue that Katrina should not count towards the travesty that will be Bush's legacy, however, because from what I could tell the state government, particularly the governor, refused federal intervention at their own peril.
You insinuate that all the racists went to the GOP, in part because "any serious racist would obviously not remain a member of a party that is led by a black man"...how do you explain chairman Steele? Also, are you differentiating between black and African-American? Why?
No one is arguing that the freedom of gun ownership does not have a price. I suggest you think hard about what freedoms you have and what you are willing to do or sacrifice to keep them before you condemn our gun rights.
It is incredibly ignorant to assume that the majority of gun use is bad guys and vigilantes shooting at people. There are a number of ways to legally shoot a firearm (hunting, target practice, sport shooting) that dwarf the use for nefarious purposes if you want to compare rounds fired. Regardless, the reason Americans allow gun ownership is enumerated in our constition:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
You don't put "faith" into the report. science is not about faith, it's about evidence and reason. faith is belief despite evidence or even despite the evidence.
That's a nice platitude, but in practice we plebes have to go on some things by "faith". It just isn't practical to be an expert on everything. That said, I still have some faith in this report, as the supposed problems don't seem overly damning.:)
The students are taught very little theory, avoiding computer science altogether. Instead students practice solving problems and doing real work. They learn programming, English (many only know Tamil), and math. None of the students really like math and they learn just enough. Sridhar made a comment that might shock educators and employers: "Math is the new Sanskrit, the new Latin." He believes we overestimate the value of math as a tool to assess a student's ability.
With almost no computer science and a disdain for math, these guys will fit right in with the majority of the programming workforce, probably on par with a technical college grad (and perhaps myself) in coding ability. However, in my experience, I have seen very little correlation between raw ability to code and the success of projects. Zoho better have some kickass business analysts and project managers for these coders.
Perhaps the original reply should have qualifed that. Handguns are not "typically" used for shooting people either (far more rounds are shot at inanimate objects and animals than humans), but that's apparently irrelevant, because guns are bad (except for the police, of course.)
"The first is that 70% of all health-care costs are the direct result of behavior" link
so your quote "What selfish libertarians like yourself don't realise is that a persons health is mostly unrelated to their choices." is completely wrong. now that is funny.
I'm no Fox apologist, but honestly, the reporting from Fox seems accurate enough. What should they do differently? How fair is it to color an entire movement based on the actions of some fringe elements? Who cares if some of the tea-partiers are red necks and call people names? Look I just did it. Quick Fox, report!
Slashdot Mirror
Mods, I apologize for continuing this OT discussion but....
Any reasonable definition of self defense (legal or otherwise) means exactly what you are saying it does not. Even if your definition of defense were correct, guns in general (which was the original statement) are not the act of shooting people , much the same way as a bodyguard is not the same as having people beaten. The utility of guns and bodyguards come more from their threat of reprisal than the actual usage of them.
A weapon is just as responsible as the person using it -- its sole purpose is to harm, and that is all it does. If you want to defend yourself, learn to run fast or something.
Run fast? Brilliant! Do you have a newsletter, your solutions are fantastic! I can't help but think they can be applied to a broader spectrum of worldwide issues. Just think of where the late Libyan protesters might be had your insight been available to them.
Acknowledging the irony of the situation does not equate to supporting copyright infringement. Why make that blanket assertion on all of Slashdot?
Not here. We're on a hiring freeze so we won't be letting go of folks unless we are forced, because even a replacement has to be signed off by the president. Also, nobody wants to go through the process of hiring and training to replace folks that were doing a good job. Especially when we are already so spread so thin doing the jobs of the previous ones that have been let go.
Telling the truth is never wrong.
Telling the truth is, in some instances, completely wrong. Just think about it for two seconds and you'll know it's true. Same for keeping promises, especially bad ones. Do I really need to enumerate examples or can you go one step past what you learned in elementary school with this thought experiment?
But you eat more of what, presumably, doesn't taste good? So you've "moderated" your life by doing something unpleasant? If anyone here actually knew how metabolism works actually put "health" into an evolutionary context, you'd realize the absurdity of low fat diets, of invoking thermodynamics as the basis for weight loss or gain, and the attempts to exogenously control built in regulatory systems for energy storage, cholesterol concentrations, protein maintenance, and etc.
What you can only do it set yourself up in a position that is not promoting inflammation and pathology. You can only provide the internal and external environment in which your regulatory systems work (read: entire body). You can't do the regulation for them.
It's funny that you are trying to say "fat is still unhealthy" and then in your example of foods that may be considered "unhealthy" you mention baked potato and beer, which are pure carbohydrates. What exactly is it that you people are arguing? Do you even know? haha!
The extreme diet that doesn't work is the one that cuts out fat and replaces it with carbohydrates or reduces calories, typically by cutting fat since fat is calorically dense. This doesn't work for good reason, and bears really no resemblance to the notion that the extremes are bad or wrong. Low fat (high carb) diets do not work because carbohydrates shut off the satiation pathway in your brain, induce excessive insulin, and drive nutrients into your fat cells while telling your brain and organ tissue that you are not nourished, so your brain keeps telling you that you need to eat (more).
I see the argument for moderation as a half-assed attempt at a rebuttal and a sign that you either A. don't want to try something new and unknown to you, B. didn't do a lick of research beyond wikipedia, or C. both.
By the way, the low carb studies that are in print are mostly studies done on not so low carb diets. They've compared diets of say 60% carb with diets of 30% carb. Thirty percent carbs is NOT a low carb diet. Low carb dieters (or lifestylists) seek to achieve anywhere from 5-15% carbohydrate, and usually no more than 20. The studies that say they show no difference between "low carb" and "high carb" really aren't making valid comparisons and serve only to further validate the original basis of this entire thread. If you would like to learn about this and other similar studies yourself- here is a breakdown of one such "low carb" vs "high carb" study: http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/09/08/brand-spankin-new-study-are-low-carb-meat-eaters-in-trouble/
I think you missed my point. You stated that by increasing the protein or fat in our diet we categorically "will develop cardiovascular illness" and "will destroy your liver". I provided an example of where this has not happened and further pointed out that in the last hundred thousand years that our (homo-sapiens) diet has been low in carbs. You did not adress this, and provided a red herring with the life expectancy vs the outcomes you predicted (cardio and liver damage).
The notion that thermodynamics works as simply as you and many others suggest is completely wrong. To say that it's calories in calories out is an obvious misunderstanding of human metabolism and a clear sign that you don't know what you're talking about. Period.
First, people on starvation diets all over the world (impoverished, socioeconomically poor, etc) are often enough still obese. Second, this fails to account for the signals and reactions produced by the body in response to reduction in incoming calories. Third, there is a caloric advantage from low-carb diets of about 3-400 calories, where you can actually eat more calories and still lose weight than you could on a high carb diet.
The reason calories in and calories out does not hold is because as you reduce your caloric intake, your body actually slows down. Body temp lowers, enzyme reactions slow, metabolic rate decreases as your body diverts energy to only necessary processes, making you lethargic and tired. This thermodynamic assumption is also your assumption that, if you are lean, you are allowed to remain lean on presumably normal caloric intake, while the obese person next to you cannot be lean unless he/she eats less than normal caloric intake. Simply no.
Here's a little number representation since you computer types seem to cling to this assumption because you like numbers. .4 percent. Your theory maintains that if you err by 11 calories/day, you will become obese as you add 10 lbs /year.
Assume you eat 2700 cal/day on average:
= 1,000,000 cal/year
= 10,000,000 cal/decade
= 12 tons of food/decade
then maintaining your weight to within 10 lbs over the course of a decade requires an accuracy of counting calories in to calories out to better than
Why are we all not obese or anorexic because we certainly cannot possibly maintain this degree of accuracy of caloric intake over the course of our lives?
deltaE = E(in) - E(out) tells us nothing about causality. You can't assume that E(in) and E(out) are independent variables that respond only directly to changes upon them alone. In other words, you can't change E(in) without expecting a change in E(out). You can't tell someone to eat less and not expect their energy out, what they expend, to compensate. An animal who's food is restricted responds by being less active, reducing energy use in cells, and therefore losing less weight. Reminder: we are animals. As soon as you lift the calorie restriction, you will eat more to regain the weight you may have lost during energy restriction.
Calorie restriction is an abysmal failure in the health science and dietary industry. It's an invalid hypothesis. Stop spewing nonsense and educate yourself or open your eyes to contradictions to the conventional wisdom.
(much of the information I presented here was taken from Gary Taubes, you can see his lecture on obesity here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SK5r-T3ccgs)
If you eat less carbs and more fat to the point that daily calories stay the same, You Will Not Lose Weight (but in the long run you will develop cardiovascular illness).
If you eat less carbs and more proteins to the point that daily calories stay the same, You Will Not Lose Weight (but in the long run you will destroy your liver).
what is your baseline for fat/protien/carb percentage to postulate such a thing?
How do your baseline percentages compare to our diets of the last hundred thousand years(IE, low carb)?
How do you reconcile the fact that populations with high fat/protein diets (IE, Inuits) traditionally do not have these problems you mention?
see here (2nd to last paragraph) on why Ketosis doesn't have to be as dangerous as you suggest. Or so I read.
That's a gross oversimplification of a complicated process. The 1st law of thermodynamics isn't useful when considering factors like hunger, satiation, fat mobilization and storage, basal metabolic rate. Yes, you can override the internal wiring that regulates energy intake and use that simple equation, but it's kind of like telling someone building an airplane that all that matters is F=M*A. It's not all that helpful.
I agree with your sentiment on the off-topic comments, but a flamebait response is hardly the way to combat it. I'm having to try very hard not to argue with your characterization of libertarians and even your stereotyping accusations.
so as long as this company takes out an ad on facebook, your profile is completely accessible to this company
I can find no credible links to verify this, please post them if you have them.
What does your rant have to do with cursing? There are scores of intelligent, articulate, educated people that curse. Listen to that inarticulate fuckwit Christpher Hitchens for example. Then your rant goes off on some sort of entitlement society, nevermind that our hardest working folks are working low paying jobs like construction and fruit picking. Meanwhile, in the "real world", the money is made by people who have money.
Pro-tip, using "hehehe" in a comment doesn't really bolster your diatribe against "dumbing down" of America. It is slightly depressing that your comment made it to a +5 rating.
You are, of course, nearly completely correct in your statement. I would argue that Katrina should not count towards the travesty that will be Bush's legacy, however, because from what I could tell the state government, particularly the governor, refused federal intervention at their own peril.
You insinuate that all the racists went to the GOP, in part because "any serious racist would obviously not remain a member of a party that is led by a black man"...how do you explain chairman Steele? Also, are you differentiating between black and African-American? Why?
No one is arguing that the freedom of gun ownership does not have a price. I suggest you think hard about what freedoms you have and what you are willing to do or sacrifice to keep them before you condemn our gun rights.
It is incredibly ignorant to assume that the majority of gun use is bad guys and vigilantes shooting at people. There are a number of ways to legally shoot a firearm (hunting, target practice, sport shooting) that dwarf the use for nefarious purposes if you want to compare rounds fired. Regardless, the reason Americans allow gun ownership is enumerated in our constition:
That's a nice platitude, but in practice we plebes have to go on some things by "faith". It just isn't practical to be an expert on everything. That said, I still have some faith in this report, as the supposed problems don't seem overly damning. :)
With almost no computer science and a disdain for math, these guys will fit right in with the majority of the programming workforce, probably on par with a technical college grad (and perhaps myself) in coding ability. However, in my experience, I have seen very little correlation between raw ability to code and the success of projects. Zoho better have some kickass business analysts and project managers for these coders.
Perhaps the original reply should have qualifed that. Handguns are not "typically" used for shooting people either (far more rounds are shot at inanimate objects and animals than humans), but that's apparently irrelevant, because guns are bad (except for the police, of course.)
Here's something funny:
"The first is that 70% of all health-care costs are the direct result of behavior" link
so your quote "What selfish libertarians like yourself don't realise is that a persons health is mostly unrelated to their choices." is completely wrong. now that is funny.
I'm no Fox apologist, but honestly, the reporting from Fox seems accurate enough. What should they do differently? How fair is it to color an entire movement based on the actions of some fringe elements? Who cares if some of the tea-partiers are red necks and call people names? Look I just did it. Quick Fox, report!