Let's say hypothetical person exercises 4 hours a day. During that time that person won't even burn 1/3 or their resting caloric usage per day. It helps but one cheesecake or buttered popcorn will set you back days.
But they're burning whatever they burn during those 4 hours of exercise in addition to the resting burn rate they are doing all day. So if they burn 1/3 of their resting rate, they are increasing their caloric burn by 33%. That seems significant.
People are overweight because they consume more calories than they burn. It is that simple. Almost no amount of exercise will change that. Your body will burn more calories doing nothing all day than you running a mile. Exercise will improve your health but it's affect on your weight are minimal.
How did this get modded Insightful? Almost no amount of exercise will change the amount of calories burned? That's ridiculous.
Well this is what happens when you elect a Republican congress to try to overturn Obamacare, you get all the duplicitous shit that comes along with it.. Your fault American people! Next time vote differently if you don't like having the American dream turned into a police state!
So you're saying they should have voted for Kang instead of Kodos?
Repeated from upthread. It applies to you and sib poster.
If you find yourself declaring that the lack of evidence of wrongdoing is, in fact, evidence of wrongdoing, it's time to take a break and realize that you've become trapped in a self-referential delusion loop.
It's not like Occam's Razor is a physical law or something. It's a guide for evaluating competing scientific hypotheses. People often try to apply it to real-world scenarios, where the number of assumptions are difficult to measure, often to hilarious effect.
AWOL Bush pushing his military service in Texas versus a war hero getting swift boated.
'AWOL Bush'? Are you referring to the infamous Dan Rather documents that proved Bush was AWOL?
Funny thing about those documents. I saw them years before Dan Rather did. They are in a book by Greg Palast called "The Best Democracy Money Can buy", and were verified for that publication. So I am confident they are authentic. What I suspect happened with Dan Rather was that he got fake versions of real documents.
It's a brilliant ratfuck. Karl Rove, or someone of his ilk, leaked fake versions of real documents so they could then expose the forgery and make people think they documents were fake. They were, but the information in them was correct. As I said, brilliant.
As always, I was simply trying to raise the level of discourse here on Slashdot by taking lemons - two lemons to be exact - and dipping them into the gaping mouths of a couple of goofballs, to make what I like to call "AC lemonade".
Colin Powell did the same thing.
You people should go after Hillary for the Pfizer bribes instead of wasting time with this.
I don't think Colin Powell kept his own private server. He did use an external email account, which I also disagree with. But Clinton set up a separate server, without authorization or buy-in from State.
Hillary on the other hand may have mishandled her email set-up, but she did it in a way that was commonplace in previous administrations and was common practice at the time, even if the State Department computer security office was trying to change that.
Really? Other Secretaries of State have set up private servers, in their own home, without permission? Have they also refused to hand over those servers until after they had a chance to delete anything they didn't want discovered? Do you have a citation for that?
Time only "goes from" the past to the future because we define those terms by the way that time "goes", and time "goes" the way it does, from less-entropic to more-entropic states, because the process of memory formation, like all processes, necessitates an increase in entropy. Time isn't actually "going" anywhere, there are just different possible states of the universe, and the ones we we remember (or are otherwise recorded for us to gather information from) are necessarily more entropic, and we call the states we already remember (or otherwise has record of) "past" and the opposite direction in the configuration space "future".
What the hell could pear-shaped nuclei possible have to do with any of that?
The only time that actually exists is Now; the constantly changing, eternal moment of Now. Now is the only time anything can happen. So everything that ever has happened or ever will happen, happen Now. Past and future are only illusions created by our perception.
Having the government point a gun in the face of law abiding citizens and demand cash so they can turn around and give it to lazy, addicted, incompetent baby factories in return for their vote is not compassion. The politicians have a vested interest in keeping the poor poor so their voting block continues and grows larger.
Compassion is charity and is just what it sounds like, giving out of care for others voluntarily. I give over 10% of my income to charities that turn around and help people out of poverty. Until you give a sizable chunk of your income and/or volunteer at a charity, you have no clue what you are talking about, and conflating state run welfare with compassion is a huge mistake, and one of the reasons why we have a permanent poor class... There will always bee poor people, the key is are their basic needs met and how long do the able bodied ones stay poor. Charities have always been orders of magnitude better at this than government, and they don't put a gun in your face demanding your money.
By the way, most poor people fall into a few simple categories based on my many years of experience:
- Those who have made bad life choices, typically having children out of wedlock/single parent households.
- Those who are mentally incompetent or mentally ill (these people should be rounded up and provided for either in group homes or mental hospitals, but we "solved" the mental health problem in the 70s and kicked them all out on the street to fend for themselves...
- Those who are addicted, either to alcohol or drugs. The solution here is to round up homeless addicts and drug test anyone getting assistance. Anyone found to be on drugs gets 6 months in a minimum security drug rehab center (other countries do this with pretty good success rates).
- Those who are temporarily poor because of unavoidable life events. These people with a little help usually get out of poverty within 1-2 years or less.
Those solutions sound like they might work. How will they be paid for? By a government pointing a gun at you, I assume?
Where do you get this "criminalization" of the poor from exactly? Nobody is being prosecuted and thrown in jail for being poor. People are just saying that if you are getting something for free (money in this case) that it won't be used to encourage illegal behavior.
No, you aren't thrown in jail for being poor. But you can certainly be thrown in jail for the side-effects of being poor, e.g. the inability to pay a bill or fine. And people on public assistance don't get money. They get vouchers to buy certain necessity items. They can't buy liquor, for example. So I don't think they're buying heroin with it either.
Your property and your money is not yours. It belongs to the government. The government takes your wealth at the barrel of a gun and the decides how you get it back.
Public assistance recipients haven't earned that money. That money was taken from those who earned it and was distributed to those who did not.
A tax break is government taking less of your money. Assistance programs are government distributing the wealth of others.
Why should the government test anyone for anything when the government is taking property that is rightfully yours?
Do you think the only measure and worth of a person is in their ability to work? Is that whey they were born, to work? If a person cannot work, should they simply be left to die? If something were to happen that left you impoverished (ridiculous, I know) would you not ask for help? Or would you take it as a just punishment for being such a worthless human being?
You think poor people are poor because they're lazy, but that's not borne out by reality. Poor people actually work harder than most others.
The bar for getting in the top 1% still usually leaves you in the W2 arena. I'll pay over 50% of my income this year in income taxes (not to mention all the other taxes). To not be a W2 employee (carried interest, etc), you are probably in the top 0.1% or top 0.01%.
50%? You must live in New York, but work in New Jersey and have a really bad accountant.
Slashdot Mirror
Blah blah blah, it's somebody else's fault (greedy people as you called them.)
It's NOT YOUR MONEY. Stop thinking you're entitled to use it or dictate how it should be used.
It's not your money either. It belongs to the Federal Reserve; we are just borrowing it.
Let's say hypothetical person exercises 4 hours a day. During that time that person won't even burn 1/3 or their resting caloric usage per day. It helps but one cheesecake or buttered popcorn will set you back days.
But they're burning whatever they burn during those 4 hours of exercise in addition to the resting burn rate they are doing all day. So if they burn 1/3 of their resting rate, they are increasing their caloric burn by 33%. That seems significant.
People are overweight because they consume more calories than they burn. It is that simple. Almost no amount of exercise will change that. Your body will burn more calories doing nothing all day than you running a mile. Exercise will improve your health but it's affect on your weight are minimal.
How did this get modded Insightful? Almost no amount of exercise will change the amount of calories burned? That's ridiculous.
Jonah Hill?
And remember next time you are about to call a Trump supporter an idiot, this is the sort of crap that Hillary has absolutely no problem with.
Sorry, but Trump supporters are idiots, regardless of whatever else is true. The man is unfit to be President.
Well this is what happens when you elect a Republican congress to try to overturn Obamacare, you get all the duplicitous shit that comes along with it.. Your fault American people! Next time vote differently if you don't like having the American dream turned into a police state!
So you're saying they should have voted for Kang instead of Kodos?
Repeated from upthread. It applies to you and sib poster.
If you find yourself declaring that the lack of evidence of wrongdoing is, in fact, evidence of wrongdoing, it's time to take a break and realize that you've become trapped in a self-referential delusion loop.
Fair enough, but I'm snot sure where I said that.
/me watches Occam's razor soar overhead.
It's not like Occam's Razor is a physical law or something. It's a guide for evaluating competing scientific hypotheses. People often try to apply it to real-world scenarios, where the number of assumptions are difficult to measure, often to hilarious effect.
'AWOL Bush'? Are you referring to the infamous Dan Rather documents that proved Bush was AWOL?
Funny thing about those documents. I saw them years before Dan Rather did. They are in a book by Greg Palast called "The Best Democracy Money Can buy", and were verified for that publication. So I am confident they are authentic. What I suspect happened with Dan Rather was that he got fake versions of real documents.
It's a brilliant ratfuck. Karl Rove, or someone of his ilk, leaked fake versions of real documents so they could then expose the forgery and make people think they documents were fake. They were, but the information in them was correct. As I said, brilliant.
It's more like a visual pun.
As always, I was simply trying to raise the level of discourse here on Slashdot by taking lemons - two lemons to be exact - and dipping them into the gaping mouths of a couple of goofballs, to make what I like to call "AC lemonade".
So, you're in the Balls In Your Mouth camp.
Anyone with a favorable view of Bernie Sanders needs to explain, how his proposals differ from those of Hugo Chavez.
I'm not sure why that would be the case. Isn't Hugo Chavez dead? Regardless, I'm not too familiar with Chavez's proposals. Can you be more specific?
Colin Powell did the same thing. You people should go after Hillary for the Pfizer bribes instead of wasting time with this.
I don't think Colin Powell kept his own private server. He did use an external email account, which I also disagree with. But Clinton set up a separate server, without authorization or buy-in from State.
Yea that's the problem. your beleifs are not based on facts.
Meh, that's the case with most people.
Hillary on the other hand may have mishandled her email set-up, but she did it in a way that was commonplace in previous administrations and was common practice at the time, even if the State Department computer security office was trying to change that.
Really? Other Secretaries of State have set up private servers, in their own home, without permission? Have they also refused to hand over those servers until after they had a chance to delete anything they didn't want discovered? Do you have a citation for that?
Time only "goes from" the past to the future because we define those terms by the way that time "goes", and time "goes" the way it does, from less-entropic to more-entropic states, because the process of memory formation, like all processes, necessitates an increase in entropy. Time isn't actually "going" anywhere, there are just different possible states of the universe, and the ones we we remember (or are otherwise recorded for us to gather information from) are necessarily more entropic, and we call the states we already remember (or otherwise has record of) "past" and the opposite direction in the configuration space "future".
What the hell could pear-shaped nuclei possible have to do with any of that?
The only time that actually exists is Now; the constantly changing, eternal moment of Now. Now is the only time anything can happen. So everything that ever has happened or ever will happen, happen Now. Past and future are only illusions created by our perception.
Or just leave. They can't try to stop you because it would be considered assault.
Some lawmakers are trying to change that. https://www.schneier.com/blog/...
Bernie Sanders is about to bow out.
All Sanders supporters should shift their support to Jill Stein, not the felon Hillary Clinton.
Beware! You have awaken the Trumpians! (grabs popcorn...)
He's talking about Jill Stein, not Trump. Plenty of people on the Left are no fan of Hillary.
Having the government point a gun in the face of law abiding citizens and demand cash so they can turn around and give it to lazy, addicted, incompetent baby factories in return for their vote is not compassion. The politicians have a vested interest in keeping the poor poor so their voting block continues and grows larger.
Compassion is charity and is just what it sounds like, giving out of care for others voluntarily. I give over 10% of my income to charities that turn around and help people out of poverty. Until you give a sizable chunk of your income and/or volunteer at a charity, you have no clue what you are talking about, and conflating state run welfare with compassion is a huge mistake, and one of the reasons why we have a permanent poor class... There will always bee poor people, the key is are their basic needs met and how long do the able bodied ones stay poor. Charities have always been orders of magnitude better at this than government, and they don't put a gun in your face demanding your money.
By the way, most poor people fall into a few simple categories based on my many years of experience:
- Those who have made bad life choices, typically having children out of wedlock/single parent households.
- Those who are mentally incompetent or mentally ill (these people should be rounded up and provided for either in group homes or mental hospitals, but we "solved" the mental health problem in the 70s and kicked them all out on the street to fend for themselves...
- Those who are addicted, either to alcohol or drugs. The solution here is to round up homeless addicts and drug test anyone getting assistance. Anyone found to be on drugs gets 6 months in a minimum security drug rehab center (other countries do this with pretty good success rates).
- Those who are temporarily poor because of unavoidable life events. These people with a little help usually get out of poverty within 1-2 years or less.
Those solutions sound like they might work. How will they be paid for? By a government pointing a gun at you, I assume?
Yep, and that's basically the system we live under. It's the bank's money, we're just borrowing it.
keeping your own money is not taking advantage of a government program.
Using a particular tax break is.
Where do you get this "criminalization" of the poor from exactly? Nobody is being prosecuted and thrown in jail for being poor. People are just saying that if you are getting something for free (money in this case) that it won't be used to encourage illegal behavior.
No, you aren't thrown in jail for being poor. But you can certainly be thrown in jail for the side-effects of being poor, e.g. the inability to pay a bill or fine. And people on public assistance don't get money. They get vouchers to buy certain necessity items. They can't buy liquor, for example. So I don't think they're buying heroin with it either.
Your property and your money is not yours. It belongs to the government. The government takes your wealth at the barrel of a gun and the decides how you get it back.
Public assistance recipients haven't earned that money. That money was taken from those who earned it and was distributed to those who did not.
A tax break is government taking less of your money. Assistance programs are government distributing the wealth of others.
Why should the government test anyone for anything when the government is taking property that is rightfully yours?
Do you think the only measure and worth of a person is in their ability to work? Is that whey they were born, to work? If a person cannot work, should they simply be left to die? If something were to happen that left you impoverished (ridiculous, I know) would you not ask for help? Or would you take it as a just punishment for being such a worthless human being?
You think poor people are poor because they're lazy, but that's not borne out by reality. Poor people actually work harder than most others.
If you want to get technical, the Federal Reserve owns the money. We're just borrowing it.
The bar for getting in the top 1% still usually leaves you in the W2 arena. I'll pay over 50% of my income this year in income taxes (not to mention all the other taxes). To not be a W2 employee (carried interest, etc), you are probably in the top 0.1% or top 0.01%.
50%? You must live in New York, but work in New Jersey and have a really bad accountant.