Also, the BMI is fucking ridiculous. I've got friend who did/do body building, and they'll tell you that they're actually obese, based on the BMI that is. It's at this point that people say "but but but there's other measures you use in combination", the looser the legal policy is, the more useless this bill is (in fact, it will just add administrative overhead). The tighter it is, the more you're going to be victimizing these other people.
No, people who complain about being unable to comprehend what BMI means are fucking ridiculous. If you have a high BMI because you have a lot of muscle, OBVIOUSLY it's not going to be useful as a general guideline for being overweight. The BMI applies to average people with average builds (i.e. little to no muscle tone).
If you have a BMI of 35 and aren't able to compete in a Mr. Universe contest, YOU'RE OVERWEIGHT. It's not like there's some fine line of fitness level where suddenly BMI goes out the window -- if you're in good shape, BMI generally DOES NOT APPLY. If you poke your finger into the flab on your stomach and it sinks in 2", BMI APPLIES. This is *not* difficult to understand, is it?
BMI roughly measures your body fat to height ratio. If you have very little body fat, WHY WOULD YOU USE IT? Also, bonus points to ArcherB for giving an anecdote of where you would NOT use BMI.
If there is a demand for non-smoking pubs, they will exist.
Bull shit they will. I have *never* seen a non-smoking bar/club in a jurisdiction where smoking was legal in bars/clubs. Perhaps, in some very large metropolitan areas that can cater to *every* niche there might be something, but in the towns of 100-200k people I've lived in, such a thing does not exist.
To me it seems barbaric that a citizen of a society would be seriously ill/die because they don't have money to access available treatments.
It seems barbaric to a lot of us in the US, too; we just have to deal with a very loud 40% of the population that screams "socialism!" every time we try to organize to do anything about it.
Unfortunately, that openness argument goes right out the window when carriers and/or manufacturers lock down the hardware so that you can't compile really overwrite the firmware without a jailbreak.
Actually, it doesn't. You can jailbreak an iPhone, sure, but good luck finding alternatives to iOS to run on it. But because modders have access to the Android source, there are a ton of other ROMs you can install on your phone with new and improved features. Admittedly, I haven't played with an iPhone or tried to do any modding, but a search for "iPhone ROMs" pretty much gives you a list of how to play old NES/SNES ROMs on your iPhone. Oh, and it looks like you can run a stripped down Linux install on it. Woo. A search for Android ROMs gives you tons of options for alternative Android versions to play with.
Heh, there's some twisted irony; now it's the *non*-Apple owners who are smug.
I guess paying less for more functionality is a reason to be smug, and I can see why someone locked in to the iDevice mindset might think that someone saying, "hey, you're overpaying for that" is being smug. Personally, I just can't stand advertising or fashion, and that's a large chunk of what Apple produces.
Where in the GP post was there any mention about the US economy being totally safe? Where was it mentioned that the dollar is "actually worth something"?
Now, tax reform to simplify tax law, reduce loopholes, etc, I think is something both parties can get behind (though getting the politicians to actually vote for it against the wills of the lobbyists would be more difficult). And that, if done right, would actually help.
Jesus H Christ, fuckwit -- the thread you're responding to implies that we need some sort of tax reform so that the rich will pay more of their share of taxes, and you say, "NO! Don't raise taxes! They'll just dodge it! Instead, we need to reform taxes so that they'll pay more taxes!"
Nobody said anything about "hey, we should add a 10% tax on yachts" or "why don't we add a new Harvard tax?" -- it was just pointed out that the rich generally don't pay their share. Then you come off with this holier-than-thou, I-know-what-you-want-won't-work attitude like you know anything, and offer a suggestion that boils down to the EXACT SAME THING.
Please, fucking LISTEN to people if you're going to try to engage in a discussion with them.
"No really...we are GOOD for you. You should want us. We are an overall net positive effect for the business".
They would be stupid to argue that because unions *aren't* good for business. They force businesses to compensate the labor. In many instances, they force the businesses to ultimately pay for overhead into running the union.
Unions *are* good for employees. Many would argue that being good for employees is also tangentially good for the business, but certainly not necessarily good for the bottom line.
Except that he is *also* willing to completely accept the narrative that everyone *else* who gets any form of welfare is some sort of leech; something that would be easily disproven by a few hours on Google.
You quote that definition, then say that "liberalism" means "corporate control?" Either you're really deluded, or I'm misunderstanding your intent. Are you trying to imply that liberals *don't* believe in that definition? Because if you are, you must be in an alternate reality where libertarians are fighting for equality for gays, repeal of failed drug laws, and other civil liberties.
The only libertarians I ever hear about or run into are the ones that think people arguing for better working conditions or fairer pay should just suck it up and let the free market sort it out.
If he can't afford to do his job, maybe he shouldn't have run for office? I know there are several people in my company who are carpooling or doing furloughs to save money on gas -- maybe he can bunk with another fellow struggling congressman and share an apartment?
At least back in the XP days, all you had to do was get your hands on a generic OEM install disc. It would work with any of the license keys from any of the OEMs. Go ask any (real) PC repair or custom builder for a copy of the install media. Hell, you could probably even download it straight from Microsoft.
In fairness, New York State is also home to Wall Street, who "makes" vast sums of money without making anything of value. Only seems fair that New York should put some of that value-from-thin-air back into the economy.
This might be true if you count "don't persecute that person because they're different than you" as "controlling morality." In that broadest sense, yes, they are the same.
But in reality, conservatives tend to want to dictate to everyone else what is allowable, while liberals tend to just want everyone to be tolerated, regardless of their choices, so long as it's not hurting anyone else.
If you outlaw all employers employing illegal aliens, only illegal employers will employ illegal aliens - and suddenly you get a large illegal sector in your economy, not paying any taxes, not obeying any laws. If this is your goal, then proceed.
You've just described the system that WE ALREADY HAVE.
Slashdot Mirror
No, people who complain about being unable to comprehend what BMI means are fucking ridiculous. If you have a high BMI because you have a lot of muscle, OBVIOUSLY it's not going to be useful as a general guideline for being overweight. The BMI applies to average people with average builds (i.e. little to no muscle tone).
If you have a BMI of 35 and aren't able to compete in a Mr. Universe contest, YOU'RE OVERWEIGHT. It's not like there's some fine line of fitness level where suddenly BMI goes out the window -- if you're in good shape, BMI generally DOES NOT APPLY. If you poke your finger into the flab on your stomach and it sinks in 2", BMI APPLIES. This is *not* difficult to understand, is it?
BMI roughly measures your body fat to height ratio. If you have very little body fat, WHY WOULD YOU USE IT? Also, bonus points to ArcherB for giving an anecdote of where you would NOT use BMI.
--Jeremy
Yeah! And I only drive a few times per year, why should I have to pay the full registration costs on my vehicle?
--Jeremy
Bull shit they will. I have *never* seen a non-smoking bar/club in a jurisdiction where smoking was legal in bars/clubs. Perhaps, in some very large metropolitan areas that can cater to *every* niche there might be something, but in the towns of 100-200k people I've lived in, such a thing does not exist.
--Jeremy
It seems barbaric to a lot of us in the US, too; we just have to deal with a very loud 40% of the population that screams "socialism!" every time we try to organize to do anything about it.
--Jeremy
Actually, it doesn't. You can jailbreak an iPhone, sure, but good luck finding alternatives to iOS to run on it. But because modders have access to the Android source, there are a ton of other ROMs you can install on your phone with new and improved features. Admittedly, I haven't played with an iPhone or tried to do any modding, but a search for "iPhone ROMs" pretty much gives you a list of how to play old NES/SNES ROMs on your iPhone. Oh, and it looks like you can run a stripped down Linux install on it. Woo. A search for Android ROMs gives you tons of options for alternative Android versions to play with.
--Jeremy
Heh, there's some twisted irony; now it's the *non*-Apple owners who are smug.
I guess paying less for more functionality is a reason to be smug, and I can see why someone locked in to the iDevice mindset might think that someone saying, "hey, you're overpaying for that" is being smug. Personally, I just can't stand advertising or fashion, and that's a large chunk of what Apple produces.
--Jeremy
"For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, clear, and wrong."
--Jeremy
Where in the GP post was there any mention about the US economy being totally safe? Where was it mentioned that the dollar is "actually worth something"?
Or do you just like to argue with strawmen?
--Jeremy
Jesus H Christ, fuckwit -- the thread you're responding to implies that we need some sort of tax reform so that the rich will pay more of their share of taxes, and you say, "NO! Don't raise taxes! They'll just dodge it! Instead, we need to reform taxes so that they'll pay more taxes!"
Nobody said anything about "hey, we should add a 10% tax on yachts" or "why don't we add a new Harvard tax?" -- it was just pointed out that the rich generally don't pay their share. Then you come off with this holier-than-thou, I-know-what-you-want-won't-work attitude like you know anything, and offer a suggestion that boils down to the EXACT SAME THING.
Please, fucking LISTEN to people if you're going to try to engage in a discussion with them.
--Jeremy
They would be stupid to argue that because unions *aren't* good for business. They force businesses to compensate the labor. In many instances, they force the businesses to ultimately pay for overhead into running the union.
Unions *are* good for employees. Many would argue that being good for employees is also tangentially good for the business, but certainly not necessarily good for the bottom line.
--Jeremy
Except that he is *also* willing to completely accept the narrative that everyone *else* who gets any form of welfare is some sort of leech; something that would be easily disproven by a few hours on Google.
--Jeremy
You quote that definition, then say that "liberalism" means "corporate control?" Either you're really deluded, or I'm misunderstanding your intent. Are you trying to imply that liberals *don't* believe in that definition? Because if you are, you must be in an alternate reality where libertarians are fighting for equality for gays, repeal of failed drug laws, and other civil liberties.
The only libertarians I ever hear about or run into are the ones that think people arguing for better working conditions or fairer pay should just suck it up and let the free market sort it out.
--Jeremy
If he can't afford to do his job, maybe he shouldn't have run for office? I know there are several people in my company who are carpooling or doing furloughs to save money on gas -- maybe he can bunk with another fellow struggling congressman and share an apartment?
--Jeremy
A union member, a tea party member, and a CEO are all sitting around a table with a dozen cookies.
The CEO takes 11 of the cookies. He turns to the tea party member and says, "look out for that union guy. He's trying to take your cookie."
--Jeremy
At least back in the XP days, all you had to do was get your hands on a generic OEM install disc. It would work with any of the license keys from any of the OEMs. Go ask any (real) PC repair or custom builder for a copy of the install media. Hell, you could probably even download it straight from Microsoft.
--Jeremy
Except the "nuanced" Tea Partiers don't seem to realize that it was Bush that signed the fucking TARP.
--Jeremy
Yup. He won't be as bad as the idiot that the Republicans run.
--Jeremy
You know what? You'd be surprised at how easy it is to live with missing a game here and there.
--Jeremy
I wish I had access to your rose-tinted glasses.
--Jeremy
When was this?
Wait, what? When did this happen?
--Jeremy
In fairness, New York State is also home to Wall Street, who "makes" vast sums of money without making anything of value. Only seems fair that New York should put some of that value-from-thin-air back into the economy.
--Jeremy
It's called context; learn it.
--Jeremy
This might be true if you count "don't persecute that person because they're different than you" as "controlling morality." In that broadest sense, yes, they are the same.
But in reality, conservatives tend to want to dictate to everyone else what is allowable, while liberals tend to just want everyone to be tolerated, regardless of their choices, so long as it's not hurting anyone else.
--Jeremy
Hopefully you did your duty as a child and heckled her for getting a far more expensive, far less functional device.
--Jeremy
You've just described the system that WE ALREADY HAVE.
--Jeremy