If you don't mind my asking, how old are you? I used to be 115 lbs, and I'm 6'1". But I was 15... I was under 125 for a couple of years, trying to gain weight, but as an adult, I accidentally hit the 230's...
Also, if you don't mind my asking, just how skinny are you?
Farmers who work 16hrs a day/7 days a week eat diets filled with bacon, sausage, eggs, and corn. All of it cooked in real animal lard. They live long lives. They are usually physically powerful individuals without any substantial physical definition. Even changes in cholesterol theory don't explain this. The kind of excercise we get in a gym doesn't replicate the results. Just ask all the bodybuilders and runners dying at 65. What is the difference? Hell if I know but it certainly seems to be there.
That all sounds nice, but I don't know if it is true... I do know that runners have longer life expectancies than "average people", and (aneqdotaly) many of them that do die in their 60's come from families were making it past 50 is good (for instance jim fixx). If you have hard numbers on what you assert I would be very interested in seeing them. (see http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10039577/ for info on exercize and life expectancy).
Also, looking at nature I haven't found animals watching their diets. Other animals don't have any magic diet regulator switch instinct built in that the human animal does not. The natural habitat of most animals is certainly pretty sprawling. lol. I know of some predators that seem to dine almost exclusively on red meat and are quite healthy. The diets of animals in nature are diverse but they seem to have a few things in common. They all get quite a bit of natural, varied, excercise. Animals in nature are capable of storing fat (even if the vegetarians) for winter but otherwise aren't obese.
They keep breading until competition for the food keeps them thin... Capture a few squirrels, put them in enclosures with lots of easily reached food, and give vasectimies to all the males, they will get quite fat...
For all execpt for the severly obese losing 5 pounds a week is not that healthy, and as you discovered, is unsustainable. Aim for a pound or two a week. That is 50-100 pound in a year! What you need to focus on is the long term. Planning on being a certain weight in x weeks is a recipe for disaster. Plan on being $healthyweight in a year or 2; that is the way to long term sucess. So for your case, don't go below 2000 calories a day, find the intake level that results in 1-2 pounds per week (or per month really, as long as you are moving in the right direction), and stick to that...
Also, if you are exersizing, that is like negative calories... Just view the human body as a control volume for thermodynamic analysis... It really is that simple, all the same laws apply.
-Tamman2000 (6'1" and dropped from over 230 to under 170 over the last 6 years, eating more than ever, running more than ever)
You turn out as a "jack of all trades, master of none." This renders the Computer Engineering degree somewhat worthless
I couldn't disagree more. I have a jack of all trades degree, Theoretical and Applied Mechanics... Do one good internship during your undergrad, and you will be able to get a good job. Once you are at the good job, you will be very valuable because you will be surrounded by specialists who don't even know how to comunicate outside of their specialty. You will be the glue that binds everyone together.
Also you will be able to very quickly learn new things to the point of proficiency. I have been out of school for 6 years, and I have worked in aerospace R&D, aerospace design, civil structures, and supercomputing applications.
The skill you need to develop is a jack of all trades is the ability to see commonalities between appearantly different tasks (there is a lot more out there that is similar to other things than most people recognize). Once you realize that one task is very similar to another one you have already done, it becomes very easy...
I am a computational scientist/aerospace engineer/mechanical engineer. I grew up in a small midwestern city that is the world headquarters of a major company that designs and builds earth moving equipment, so I knew several engineers there (parents of my peers). I spoke to an HR person representing them at a job fair in my senior year of college. I told the HR folks that I wanted to do computational fluid dynamics, preferably application/model development or verification/validation related to engine componants, but I was flexible. They told me they didn't do their own CFD development, but they had a group that developed mechanical linkage design software. I intereviewed with them, and was offered a job, but turned it down because another company offered me a job doing what I wanted to do.
months pass... A friend of my little brother becomes a co-op at the company I worked for. I hang out with him a few times, because he is 800 miles from home/college and doesn't know anyone there. Turns out his dad was the lead engineer for a group that did exactly what I wanted to do, and was activly looking for someone to hire at the time I interviewed, but HR was incompetant...
I didn't intend to come off as dismissive, it is just that he is the only person of any credibility I have heard with this opinion, and one opinion is not enough to sway me. If I hear more along these lines, I will start considering it more, but at this point, it is a trickle against a rushing river...
Also, I think that operatives are often overinvested in their work, and can fail to look at intelligence objectively (usually this shows up in the form of overconfidence).
Micheal Scheuer and Richard Clark in a he said he said... Obviosly the one I have never heard of before who goes against the majority of reports is the one to believe. The fact that his work is published in the bastion of non-partisen reporting that is the washington times gives him more weight...
If this opinion was some kind of consensus, rather than a lone voice in the wilderness, you would have something. But you can find one nutjob, even a nut job with relavent credentials, who supports every opinion out there.
That's Clintons legacy. He bribed North Korea into pretending to be nice
Do you have a better idea? Do you propose restarting the war? What stick could be wielded (as opposed to the carrot)?
he bombed Iraq without accomplishing anything other than expending the US cruise missile arsenal and killing lots of innocent people
Are you kidding? He kept Saddam nuetered. The Clinton enforced no fly zones (enforced by the bombings you speak of) allowed the formation of an independant kurdish government, the very same kurds that were slaughtered by Saddam... Saddam's military was worthless (see pre-insurgency military results in spring of 2003) largely because of Desert Fox and the sanctions.
he ignored the terrorism problem which became apparent after the 1993 WTC attack and the USS Cole bombing
He was far from ignoring the problem, he just understands (as everyone should now, after the WMD fiasco) that intelligence is not infoulable, and he therefor set the bar high for evidence deemed necissary to justify a military responce. Not striking at Bin Laden was the result of lack of appropriote opportunity, rather than ignorance. And while I realize that you are not supportin gBush in your post, I feel I should point out that prior to 9/11 Bush was doind far less about terrorism than Clinton was doing.
he destroyed Serbia while aiding a well known terrorist organization (the KLA)
I am no fan of this.
In other words, he wielded both military and economic might in a totally incompetent fashion, accomplishing nothing other than wasting money and lives in an attempt to appear competent. I'm not a huge fan of Bush, but the guy has been demonized beyond any semblance of reality, while Clinton gets a free pass for his total incompetence. It's sad. At least the right wing in the US can laugh at Bush and point out his mistakes. I've yet to hear a democrat say anything bad about Clinton.
Overall, I think you are being far too critical, and for the record, I am a democrat, and though I was too young to vote at the time of the Serbia action, I opposed it.
Last summer my wife and I were going through security in Syracuse, and she was on crutches, recovering from knee surgury, at the time. The guy at the metal detector got pissed at her when she said that she couldn't walk through without the crutches.
If that isn't being an ass for no good reason, please tell me what qualifies in your book.
You hit the nail on the head with your comment. I did design work on the F-22 and the F-35 at my last job. Both of which are capible of this manuver, but that is not really relavent, because there will probably never be another dog fight... The fighter aircraft has really been a dead genre since the end of the vietnam war, we still call them fighters, but they are really intercepters.
I have never smoked marijauna, but I can see that it's illigality is stupid, anti-freedom, and causes far more problems than it solves. Don't you think there were those like me in the 1930's advocating the repeal of alchohol prohibition?
is the knowledge that one of them was wrong, and you can begin your investigation there. While if you only have one system, the odds of knowing that something went wrong go down quite drastically...
1. I never said fraud on paper was imposible, or didn't exist, in fact I explicitly stated that fraud using paper ballots is possible. I said it is harder to pull off than purly electronic fraud.
2. As Megaditto pointed out. The idea is the voter sees the paper ballot before it gets put into the locked box. Through your assertion that the voter would get to keep a reciept you have made it abundantly clear that you do not understand the idea being discussed. I suggest you read up on it, you could start here or here. Then you could come back and have an informed discussion on the mater if you still feel as you currently do.
3. Only a fool would assert that you can make any system completely fraud proof, but likewise only a fool would suggest that all systems susseptable to fraud are of equal usefulness. The goal is to make fraud as hard as posible to pull off.
Paper trails are just as susceptible to fraud as electronic systems.
Do you actually believe that or are you just playing devils advocate?
The only measure in which that can be accurate is the binary "Is fraud possible?" measure, any measure which takes into account degree of susceptibility, paper is the hands down winner.. Just for starters, we have experience investigating paper trails. There is physical evidence left behind when a paper trail is tampered with. Tampering with the paper trial necessarily require physical access. The list of ways in which paper is demonstrably superior goes on, and on...
That masking didn't work out to well for Tyler, did it?
Besides, the guys that got kicked this year didn't get it due to a positive test (bad masking), but rather an investigation into the doctors they were seeing...
stupid juveninle story telling, as you put it... And I happen to think that it should be protected for all citizens, not just those old enough to vote (and though I don't remember the case, I think the Supreme Court agrees with me)
If a 16 year old post that he commited some crime, and he did commit the crime, and gets busted (which better take more evidance than online ramblings which may or may not have actually been written by the student in question) for that crime, he is a dipshit. But if he is writing fiction, or writing about legal but objectionable activities he partakes in on his own time, that is his, and his parents business, keep the schools out of it.
which secular country are you talking about. Turkey? oh you meant iraq take a look at what saddam added to the flag in the 90s. It has some writing on it. Some thing about allah. Might secular of him.
I stuck your name in google while I was bored...
your comment: you do know that iraq is the most secular of all the arab countries and they have had all of that for a very long time right? you can already go get shitfaced in a bar there.
1. The phillipenes... I am not familiar enough with this part of history, I will have to read more about that...
2. The Germans and Japanese were not opressed in WWII, they were agressors. Being forced to give up your goals is not being opressed, being forced to give up your self determination, dignity, religion... those are oppression. The Axis powers were put back in their place, and if we were still lording over them as we were in the short term post war period, you better believe that there would be masive insurgencies...
3. The rest of your examples. The measures that were taken were so extreme that they would be unallowable by a current western power. In fact I would argue that these groups were more destroyed than defeated (an important difference). Are you advocating the systematic killing of mulims? Genocide? That was the central tactic in these "sucesses". Is your goal to not see any muslims around in 100 years (as you said in your examples of south and central american indians)?
Those are the extremists you are talking about. Two things about extremists... One is they are a small fraction of all muslims. Second they need, at the very least, support from larger numbers of normal muslims to operate. The reason they have the support from normal muslims is decades of western foreign policy that shits all over the middle east, that normal muslims want ended. Normal muslims do not care if you drink wine while eating pork. You seem to think we can make normal muslims give up on improving western policies toward the middle east by shitting on them more.
Can you name one instance in history where a large oppressed group gave up (long term) due to force? Are you brazen enough to think that the US could be the first to make such a group give up? What do you hope to accomplish by starting wars in the middle east?
I suppose the US isn't a secular nation by your standards either...
The fact is, Iraq was far more secular than it is today. And how has attacking Iraq (regardless of it's degree of regigiousity) made you more free to express your feelings about mohammad?
1. I disagree. I think getting killed over it would be unlikely. Was Salmon Rushdie killed?
2. Do you think going to war with a secular nation in the middle east somehow makes you less likely to get killed for T-bagging mohammad? What if anything can we (as a nation, or as individuals) do to make comedy about muslims safer?
Slashdot Mirror
Cages are fairly sprawl resistant as well.
I did neglect to mention that I intended the enclosure to be quite large (on the order of squirrel territory size).
That would tell you what happens when you put a squirrel in a cage and disrupt its natural diet and excercise pattern.
yeah... The point is to figure out what happens if they no longer have to work (exercise) to get food.
"They keep breading until competition for the food keeps them thin..."
And humans don't?
not in the west... Starvation in the 1st world is very uncommon...
If you don't mind my asking, how old are you? I used to be 115 lbs, and I'm 6'1". But I was 15... I was under 125 for a couple of years, trying to gain weight, but as an adult, I accidentally hit the 230's...
Also, if you don't mind my asking, just how skinny are you?
Farmers who work 16hrs a day/7 days a week eat diets filled with bacon, sausage, eggs, and corn. All of it cooked in real animal lard. They live long lives. They are usually physically powerful individuals without any substantial physical definition. Even changes in cholesterol theory don't explain this. The kind of excercise we get in a gym doesn't replicate the results. Just ask all the bodybuilders and runners dying at 65. What is the difference? Hell if I know but it certainly seems to be there.
That all sounds nice, but I don't know if it is true... I do know that runners have longer life expectancies than "average people", and (aneqdotaly) many of them that do die in their 60's come from families were making it past 50 is good (for instance jim fixx). If you have hard numbers on what you assert I would be very interested in seeing them. (see http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10039577/ for info on exercize and life expectancy).
Also, looking at nature I haven't found animals watching their diets. Other animals don't have any magic diet regulator switch instinct built in that the human animal does not. The natural habitat of most animals is certainly pretty sprawling. lol. I know of some predators that seem to dine almost exclusively on red meat and are quite healthy. The diets of animals in nature are diverse but they seem to have a few things in common. They all get quite a bit of natural, varied, excercise. Animals in nature are capable of storing fat (even if the vegetarians) for winter but otherwise aren't obese.
They keep breading until competition for the food keeps them thin... Capture a few squirrels, put them in enclosures with lots of easily reached food, and give vasectimies to all the males, they will get quite fat...
For all execpt for the severly obese losing 5 pounds a week is not that healthy, and as you discovered, is unsustainable. Aim for a pound or two a week. That is 50-100 pound in a year! What you need to focus on is the long term. Planning on being a certain weight in x weeks is a recipe for disaster. Plan on being $healthyweight in a year or 2; that is the way to long term sucess. So for your case, don't go below 2000 calories a day, find the intake level that results in 1-2 pounds per week (or per month really, as long as you are moving in the right direction), and stick to that...
Also, if you are exersizing, that is like negative calories... Just view the human body as a control volume for thermodynamic analysis... It really is that simple, all the same laws apply.
-Tamman2000 (6'1" and dropped from over 230 to under 170 over the last 6 years, eating more than ever, running more than ever)
I think the smart people acting on the spam emails are shorting the stocks being pumped...
You turn out as a "jack of all trades, master of none." This renders the Computer Engineering degree somewhat worthless
I couldn't disagree more. I have a jack of all trades degree, Theoretical and Applied Mechanics... Do one good internship during your undergrad, and you will be able to get a good job. Once you are at the good job, you will be very valuable because you will be surrounded by specialists who don't even know how to comunicate outside of their specialty. You will be the glue that binds everyone together.
Also you will be able to very quickly learn new things to the point of proficiency. I have been out of school for 6 years, and I have worked in aerospace R&D, aerospace design, civil structures, and supercomputing applications.
The skill you need to develop is a jack of all trades is the ability to see commonalities between appearantly different tasks (there is a lot more out there that is similar to other things than most people recognize). Once you realize that one task is very similar to another one you have already done, it becomes very easy...
I am a computational scientist/aerospace engineer/mechanical engineer. I grew up in a small midwestern city that is the world headquarters of a major company that designs and builds earth moving equipment, so I knew several engineers there (parents of my peers). I spoke to an HR person representing them at a job fair in my senior year of college. I told the HR folks that I wanted to do computational fluid dynamics, preferably application/model development or verification/validation related to engine componants, but I was flexible. They told me they didn't do their own CFD development, but they had a group that developed mechanical linkage design software. I intereviewed with them, and was offered a job, but turned it down because another company offered me a job doing what I wanted to do.
months pass... A friend of my little brother becomes a co-op at the company I worked for. I hang out with him a few times, because he is 800 miles from home/college and doesn't know anyone there. Turns out his dad was the lead engineer for a group that did exactly what I wanted to do, and was activly looking for someone to hire at the time I interviewed, but HR was incompetant...
I didn't intend to come off as dismissive, it is just that he is the only person of any credibility I have heard with this opinion, and one opinion is not enough to sway me. If I hear more along these lines, I will start considering it more, but at this point, it is a trickle against a rushing river...
Also, I think that operatives are often overinvested in their work, and can fail to look at intelligence objectively (usually this shows up in the form of overconfidence).
So...
Micheal Scheuer and Richard Clark in a he said he said... Obviosly the one I have never heard of before who goes against the majority of reports is the one to believe. The fact that his work is published in the bastion of non-partisen reporting that is the washington times gives him more weight...
If this opinion was some kind of consensus, rather than a lone voice in the wilderness, you would have something. But you can find one nutjob, even a nut job with relavent credentials, who supports every opinion out there.
It has been modded to -1 as overrated, but it clearly deserves an informative, at least for the first part...
That's Clintons legacy. He bribed North Korea into pretending to be nice
Do you have a better idea? Do you propose restarting the war? What stick could be wielded (as opposed to the carrot)?
he bombed Iraq without accomplishing anything other than expending the US cruise missile arsenal and killing lots of innocent people
Are you kidding? He kept Saddam nuetered. The Clinton enforced no fly zones (enforced by the bombings you speak of) allowed the formation of an independant kurdish government, the very same kurds that were slaughtered by Saddam... Saddam's military was worthless (see pre-insurgency military results in spring of 2003) largely because of Desert Fox and the sanctions.
he ignored the terrorism problem which became apparent after the 1993 WTC attack and the USS Cole bombing
He was far from ignoring the problem, he just understands (as everyone should now, after the WMD fiasco) that intelligence is not infoulable, and he therefor set the bar high for evidence deemed necissary to justify a military responce. Not striking at Bin Laden was the result of lack of appropriote opportunity, rather than ignorance. And while I realize that you are not supportin gBush in your post, I feel I should point out that prior to 9/11 Bush was doind far less about terrorism than Clinton was doing.
he destroyed Serbia while aiding a well known terrorist organization (the KLA)
I am no fan of this.
In other words, he wielded both military and economic might in a totally incompetent fashion, accomplishing nothing other than wasting money and lives in an attempt to appear competent. I'm not a huge fan of Bush, but the guy has been demonized beyond any semblance of reality, while Clinton gets a free pass for his total incompetence. It's sad. At least the right wing in the US can laugh at Bush and point out his mistakes. I've yet to hear a democrat say anything bad about Clinton.
Overall, I think you are being far too critical, and for the record, I am a democrat, and though I was too young to vote at the time of the Serbia action, I opposed it.
Last summer my wife and I were going through security in Syracuse, and she was on crutches, recovering from knee surgury, at the time. The guy at the metal detector got pissed at her when she said that she couldn't walk through without the crutches.
If that isn't being an ass for no good reason, please tell me what qualifies in your book.
Long live the dog fight!
You hit the nail on the head with your comment. I did design work on the F-22 and the F-35 at my last job. Both of which are capible of this manuver, but that is not really relavent, because there will probably never be another dog fight... The fighter aircraft has really been a dead genre since the end of the vietnam war, we still call them fighters, but they are really intercepters.
I have never smoked marijauna, but I can see that it's illigality is stupid, anti-freedom, and causes far more problems than it solves. Don't you think there were those like me in the 1930's advocating the repeal of alchohol prohibition?
is the knowledge that one of them was wrong, and you can begin your investigation there. While if you only have one system, the odds of knowing that something went wrong go down quite drastically...
Or do you propose that ignorance is bliss?
1. I never said fraud on paper was imposible, or didn't exist, in fact I explicitly stated that fraud using paper ballots is possible. I said it is harder to pull off than purly electronic fraud.
2. As Megaditto pointed out. The idea is the voter sees the paper ballot before it gets put into the locked box. Through your assertion that the voter would get to keep a reciept you have made it abundantly clear that you do not understand the idea being discussed. I suggest you read up on it, you could start here or here. Then you could come back and have an informed discussion on the mater if you still feel as you currently do.
3. Only a fool would assert that you can make any system completely fraud proof, but likewise only a fool would suggest that all systems susseptable to fraud are of equal usefulness. The goal is to make fraud as hard as posible to pull off.
Paper trails are just as susceptible to fraud as electronic systems.
Do you actually believe that or are you just playing devils advocate?
The only measure in which that can be accurate is the binary "Is fraud possible?" measure, any measure which takes into account degree of susceptibility, paper is the hands down winner.. Just for starters, we have experience investigating paper trails. There is physical evidence left behind when a paper trail is tampered with. Tampering with the paper trial necessarily require physical access. The list of ways in which paper is demonstrably superior goes on, and on...
Big Mig was no Eddy Merckx...
Eddy won the Tour 5 time, the Giro 5 times, and the Vuelta A Espana once, not to mention having more than 20 career wins in the classics...
That masking didn't work out to well for Tyler, did it?
Besides, the guys that got kicked this year didn't get it due to a positive test (bad masking), but rather an investigation into the doctors they were seeing...
stupid juveninle story telling, as you put it... And I happen to think that it should be protected for all citizens, not just those old enough to vote (and though I don't remember the case, I think the Supreme Court agrees with me)
If a 16 year old post that he commited some crime, and he did commit the crime, and gets busted (which better take more evidance than online ramblings which may or may not have actually been written by the student in question) for that crime, he is a dipshit. But if he is writing fiction, or writing about legal but objectionable activities he partakes in on his own time, that is his, and his parents business, keep the schools out of it.
which secular country are you talking about. Turkey? oh you meant iraq take a look at what saddam added to the flag in the 90s. It has some writing on it. Some thing about allah. Might secular of him.
I stuck your name in google while I was bored...
your comment:
you do know that iraq is the most secular of all the arab countries and they have had all of that for a very long time right? you can already go get shitfaced in a bar there.
these fall into 3 catagories.
1. The phillipenes... I am not familiar enough with this part of history, I will have to read more about that...
2. The Germans and Japanese were not opressed in WWII, they were agressors. Being forced to give up your goals is not being opressed, being forced to give up your self determination, dignity, religion... those are oppression. The Axis powers were put back in their place, and if we were still lording over them as we were in the short term post war period, you better believe that there would be masive insurgencies...
3. The rest of your examples. The measures that were taken were so extreme that they would be unallowable by a current western power. In fact I would argue that these groups were more destroyed than defeated (an important difference). Are you advocating the systematic killing of mulims? Genocide? That was the central tactic in these "sucesses". Is your goal to not see any muslims around in 100 years (as you said in your examples of south and central american indians)?
"Bull. That's not their goal. "
you're joking right?
Those are the extremists you are talking about. Two things about extremists... One is they are a small fraction of all muslims. Second they need, at the very least, support from larger numbers of normal muslims to operate. The reason they have the support from normal muslims is decades of western foreign policy that shits all over the middle east, that normal muslims want ended. Normal muslims do not care if you drink wine while eating pork. You seem to think we can make normal muslims give up on improving western policies toward the middle east by shitting on them more.
Can you name one instance in history where a large oppressed group gave up (long term) due to force? Are you brazen enough to think that the US could be the first to make such a group give up? What do you hope to accomplish by starting wars in the middle east?
I suppose the US isn't a secular nation by your standards either...
The fact is, Iraq was far more secular than it is today. And how has attacking Iraq (regardless of it's degree of regigiousity) made you more free to express your feelings about mohammad?
1. I disagree. I think getting killed over it would be unlikely. Was Salmon Rushdie killed?
2. Do you think going to war with a secular nation in the middle east somehow makes you less likely to get killed for T-bagging mohammad? What if anything can we (as a nation, or as individuals) do to make comedy about muslims safer?