What is "starvation mode"? It's clear you don't know the answer.
"Most people fail at losing weight because of lack of discipline."
Ah yes, the old "obesity is a character issue" argument. In other words, I've never been fat so you're fat because you're not as good as me.
Try educating yourself. Obesity is a condition where the body believes it needs to gain weight despite having adequate energy reserves. By definition, the body operates at some level in "starvation mode".
"I can't count the number of times when I read something in the media,..."
Not sure whether this is commentary on your poor arithmetic skills or poor reading comprehension. I would assume both considering your other comments,, but that leads nowhere.
"I've watched a number of Trump speeches only to find the media has spun the meaning 180 degrees."
For most people this would be the dumbest thing they ever said, but for SuperKendall it's a daily occurrence.
What is color but a characteristic of appearance? What other means is there to influence color for anything that transparent to light? If blue is the resultant color of light passing through water, then what other color can water possibly be?
It takes a special intellect to be wrong about so much while saying so little, and by special I mean short bus special.
Yes, hills don't matter regarding value, they only make the difference between seriously beneficial and absolutely mandatory.
I commute by e-bike 6 days a week and 12 miles a day. Electric saves me 3 hours a week of time and costs about $6 a year, far less than the maintenance costs of the bicycle itself. Electric assist on a delivery bicycle is an absolute no-brainer anywhere, doubly so in hills.
In most places in the US they are "supposed to be" on sidewalks. Ignoring traffic laws is only a modest contributor and only a fraction of cyclists behave that way.
Messengers can finish a job in the time that a car would require leaving a spot and finding parking, which it may need to do twice. That why they are faster, not for any ignorant reason you imagine.
"...being orders of magnitude wider than a bicycle."
You clearly do not understand what an order of magnitude is. A car is not even one order of magnitude wider than a bicycle. It takes a double wide trailer to make that. A bicycle takes at least two feet of width, a tricycle maybe twice that.
Also, bicycles are faster around town also because they are trivial to park. Tricycles share that advantage. Fact is, you're wrong.
Citation needed. Lethal bicycle/pedestrian collisions are not a problem worth solving and bicycles are legally allowed on sidewalks in many places. Far more dangerous are bicycle/car collisions.
It would appear you don't understand what the numbers mean. The first two numbers indicate that the additional investment holds its value. There's still an opportunity cost. The lowered energy costs needs to overcome the opportunity cost before they represent a benefit. Also, increased property value may result in additional costs.
Gateway was never a quality product, it was a low cost one. Gateway designed absolutely nothing. They were eliminated when high quality manufacturers collapsed the price umbrella that eliminated parasites like them.
Dell had a mix of in-house products (Optiplex) and co-developed ones (Dimension). In fact, Gateway's boxes, effectively rebranded Dimensions, had a lot of Dell engineering in them. Dell was the leader in collapsing the profit model and causing Gateway's extinction. By then, Dell wasn't "gaining ground", it was a tier 1 supplier. Dell, though, was never a brand where you paid a premium for quality, it only appeared so when compared to the lowest cost boxes. Dell offered high quality PCs at lower cost than other tier 1 suppliers.
Dell never cared in the slightest about eMachines. Dell cared about Gateway who was essentially selling Dell machines at lower cost. We know how that turned out.
The cause of quality issues in the industry is not as you describe. Intel moved to monopolize every aspect of the PC (including the mindshare aspect with the "Intel Inside" campaign). PC manufacturers could not fight this and it led to a loss of differentiation on quality. When the core PC is always the same, it's a commodity. Reversion to the mean was inevitable and it was caused by Intel, not by anything you describe.
Apple, throughout the bulk of their resurgence, sold Intel PCs with Intel chipsets and Intel quality. Apple merely restricted compatibility deliberately. Curious that a move like that would lead to an image of superior quality, eh?
Apple does not have to lower quality to "make their products cheaper". In the end of a long-winded and largely incorrect exposition, you make quite an ignorant claim. In fact, the whole point of this article is Apple's remarkably high margins.
False choice. You don't have to choose between the environment and "giving the middle finger to the poor", and how is trashing the environment NOT giving everyone, including the poor, the middle finger?
Having the poor drive our most polluting cars hardly seems like the right way to go about it. Cars are an arbitrary solution anyway, not clear why we need to figure out how keep the poor in cars, or anyone else for that matter. Need to see the bigger picture.
"But if they refuse help and instead do stupid shit like misguided body acceptance campaigns (for those who are obese but are well capable of doing something against it), you don't get to mooch off my health insurance."
This statement demonstrates exactly what's wrong with this line of thinking. Placing blame on "misguided body acceptance campaigns" and the lazy while assuming that you're qualified to determine who can and can't "do something against it" is exactly wrong. Also, it's not "your health insurance" they would be "mooching" off of.
A government taking responsibility by providing universal healthcare for all, including those who are obese that you think deserve it, will quickly lead the government to actually find root causes of obesity and end them. Things like government education of bad eating habits and subsidies of unhealthy foods. Nothing like having a financial stake in good health to cause good health to happen.
No one wants to be obese and encouraging people to not feel stigmatized is not the problem. Grow up.
In that case, DanDD, why not chip everyone for mandatory monitoring and execute a death sentence to anyone who violates the rules. This could be carried out easily and inexpensively by a simple poison capsule triggered by the monitoring software locally. No expensive data collection and no burden to society. Think of all that precious money of yours saved from the waste of those deadbeats!
I guess it's easy to be a philosopher on/. Perhaps you should spend more time thinking about the real problem and less about your own selfishness and petty jealousy.
The whole point of insurance is to share the risk, not to find ways to NOT share it. That's what's fundamentally broken with what we have.
Yes, I realize that's what you said. Definitely seconding it.
Also, health care should not be treated like insurance because it requires use. That we accept health care as being received through insurance, and worse yet by corporations with a profit motive, is why we are so f*cked. It is at the core of literally everything wrong with what we have.
DanDD believes the answer isn't to focus on health but rather for DanDD to decide who gets healthcare and who doesn't. What could go wrong?
Who decides if the cancer was a result of choice? The only proper answer is no one. Step 1 is everyone gets covered. Step 2 is finding the best ways for people to live healthy lives, including avoid cancer-causing circumstances. DanDD is simply proposing "death panels".
"Is this socialist, bordering on fascist? Yep. But trying to get universal healthcare for a population that doesn't care about their own health is pulling money out of my pocket to keep some twinkie eating lard-ass alive for a few extra years, and that's just as wrong."
What a load. Many first world countries have universal healthcare without submitting to mandatory monitoring and government-ordered exercise programs. Did you think at all before posting this tripe?
Universal health care is the solution to the wellness/sickness problem anyway. Profit-driven healthcare rewards companies when people get sick, not when they exercise. You have literally gotten nothing right.
"And in every State in the US, riding on the shoulder is illegal."
What a moron. In my state, riding on the shoulder is not only legal, it is required. That is almost certainly true in every state. Obeying the "rules of the road" doesn't mean that cyclists obey rules for cars, it means they obey rules for bicycles. Those are different rules.
By "lane sharing" you mean "lane splitting", only legal in California. Should not apply to bicycles since they shouldn't generally be in the lane at all. Bicycles passing cars on the shoulder is just fine everywhere.
Slashdot Mirror
What is "starvation mode"? It's clear you don't know the answer.
"Most people fail at losing weight because of lack of discipline."
Ah yes, the old "obesity is a character issue" argument. In other words, I've never been fat so you're fat because you're not as good as me.
Try educating yourself. Obesity is a condition where the body believes it needs to gain weight despite having adequate energy reserves. By definition, the body operates at some level in "starvation mode".
"...higher rates of cancer due to increased oxidative stress."
Source with actual measurements ?
"Trying to get the body to burn more calories is the wrong way to solve the obesity problem."
And that's not what's being done here.
Advocating solutions known not to work is also "the wrong way to solve the obesity problem."
Nice try disguising the same old "obesity is a character issue" claim.
"I can't count the number of times when I read something in the media, ..."
Not sure whether this is commentary on your poor arithmetic skills or poor reading comprehension. I would assume both considering your other comments,, but that leads nowhere.
"I've watched a number of Trump speeches only to find the media has spun the meaning 180 degrees."
That's no doubt true since zero is a number.
For most people this would be the dumbest thing they ever said, but for SuperKendall it's a daily occurrence.
What is color but a characteristic of appearance? What other means is there to influence color for anything that transparent to light? If blue is the resultant color of light passing through water, then what other color can water possibly be?
It takes a special intellect to be wrong about so much while saying so little, and by special I mean short bus special.
Sounds a whole lot like what cars do. How dare bikes want to get around other bikes, don't they know the world is a no passing zone?
Yes, hills don't matter regarding value, they only make the difference between seriously beneficial and absolutely mandatory.
I commute by e-bike 6 days a week and 12 miles a day. Electric saves me 3 hours a week of time and costs about $6 a year, far less than the maintenance costs of the bicycle itself. Electric assist on a delivery bicycle is an absolute no-brainer anywhere, doubly so in hills.
"comes in handy" != requires. I bet you've never seen a guy on a bike in India deliver a package the size of a school bus either.
It's not about manhood, the electricity costs far less than the delivery person's time.
Nice try though, not that you had anything remotely interesting to say.
In most places in the US they are "supposed to be" on sidewalks. Ignoring traffic laws is only a modest contributor and only a fraction of cyclists behave that way.
Messengers can finish a job in the time that a car would require leaving a spot and finding parking, which it may need to do twice. That why they are faster, not for any ignorant reason you imagine.
"...people won't dare blame the cyclist ..."
LOL you do live in a fantasy world. Sober up.
Ooooh, 4 feet wide, that is indeed "orders of magnitude" wider than a bike!
Yeah, with width like that how could it possibly work on pavement? If only they made lanes that wide.
"...being orders of magnitude wider than a bicycle."
You clearly do not understand what an order of magnitude is. A car is not even one order of magnitude wider than a bicycle. It takes a double wide trailer to make that. A bicycle takes at least two feet of width, a tricycle maybe twice that.
Also, bicycles are faster around town also because they are trivial to park. Tricycles share that advantage. Fact is, you're wrong.
"It's dangerous, and kills people."
Citation needed. Lethal bicycle/pedestrian collisions are not a problem worth solving and bicycles are legally allowed on sidewalks in many places. Far more dangerous are bicycle/car collisions.
If you don't already know the answer, then you aren't "actually designing a house to build in California Desert."
It would appear you don't understand what the numbers mean. The first two numbers indicate that the additional investment holds its value. There's still an opportunity cost. The lowered energy costs needs to overcome the opportunity cost before they represent a benefit. Also, increased property value may result in additional costs.
You are a terrible historian.
Gateway was never a quality product, it was a low cost one. Gateway designed absolutely nothing. They were eliminated when high quality manufacturers collapsed the price umbrella that eliminated parasites like them.
Dell had a mix of in-house products (Optiplex) and co-developed ones (Dimension). In fact, Gateway's boxes, effectively rebranded Dimensions, had a lot of Dell engineering in them. Dell was the leader in collapsing the profit model and causing Gateway's extinction. By then, Dell wasn't "gaining ground", it was a tier 1 supplier. Dell, though, was never a brand where you paid a premium for quality, it only appeared so when compared to the lowest cost boxes. Dell offered high quality PCs at lower cost than other tier 1 suppliers.
Dell never cared in the slightest about eMachines. Dell cared about Gateway who was essentially selling Dell machines at lower cost. We know how that turned out.
The cause of quality issues in the industry is not as you describe. Intel moved to monopolize every aspect of the PC (including the mindshare aspect with the "Intel Inside" campaign). PC manufacturers could not fight this and it led to a loss of differentiation on quality. When the core PC is always the same, it's a commodity. Reversion to the mean was inevitable and it was caused by Intel, not by anything you describe.
Apple, throughout the bulk of their resurgence, sold Intel PCs with Intel chipsets and Intel quality. Apple merely restricted compatibility deliberately. Curious that a move like that would lead to an image of superior quality, eh?
Apple does not have to lower quality to "make their products cheaper". In the end of a long-winded and largely incorrect exposition, you make quite an ignorant claim. In fact, the whole point of this article is Apple's remarkably high margins.
He implied it, however. He's comparing a job "coming out" of school to one he could get without school. These would be relatively entry level.
Why should that have been done? You realize this was done to save the lives of the children, right?
False choice. You don't have to choose between the environment and "giving the middle finger to the poor", and how is trashing the environment NOT giving everyone, including the poor, the middle finger?
Having the poor drive our most polluting cars hardly seems like the right way to go about it. Cars are an arbitrary solution anyway, not clear why we need to figure out how keep the poor in cars, or anyone else for that matter. Need to see the bigger picture.
"But if they refuse help and instead do stupid shit like misguided body acceptance campaigns (for those who are obese but are well capable of doing something against it), you don't get to mooch off my health insurance."
This statement demonstrates exactly what's wrong with this line of thinking. Placing blame on "misguided body acceptance campaigns" and the lazy while assuming that you're qualified to determine who can and can't "do something against it" is exactly wrong. Also, it's not "your health insurance" they would be "mooching" off of.
A government taking responsibility by providing universal healthcare for all, including those who are obese that you think deserve it, will quickly lead the government to actually find root causes of obesity and end them. Things like government education of bad eating habits and subsidies of unhealthy foods. Nothing like having a financial stake in good health to cause good health to happen.
No one wants to be obese and encouraging people to not feel stigmatized is not the problem. Grow up.
In that case, DanDD, why not chip everyone for mandatory monitoring and execute a death sentence to anyone who violates the rules. This could be carried out easily and inexpensively by a simple poison capsule triggered by the monitoring software locally. No expensive data collection and no burden to society. Think of all that precious money of yours saved from the waste of those deadbeats!
I guess it's easy to be a philosopher on /. Perhaps you should spend more time thinking about the real problem and less about your own selfishness and petty jealousy.
The whole point of insurance is to share the risk, not to find ways to NOT share it. That's what's fundamentally broken with what we have.
Yes, I realize that's what you said. Definitely seconding it.
Also, health care should not be treated like insurance because it requires use. That we accept health care as being received through insurance, and worse yet by corporations with a profit motive, is why we are so f*cked. It is at the core of literally everything wrong with what we have.
DanDD believes the answer isn't to focus on health but rather for DanDD to decide who gets healthcare and who doesn't. What could go wrong?
Who decides if the cancer was a result of choice? The only proper answer is no one. Step 1 is everyone gets covered. Step 2 is finding the best ways for people to live healthy lives, including avoid cancer-causing circumstances. DanDD is simply proposing "death panels".
"Is this socialist, bordering on fascist? Yep. But trying to get universal healthcare for a population that doesn't care about their own health is pulling money out of my pocket to keep some twinkie eating lard-ass alive for a few extra years, and that's just as wrong."
What a load. Many first world countries have universal healthcare without submitting to mandatory monitoring and government-ordered exercise programs. Did you think at all before posting this tripe?
Universal health care is the solution to the wellness/sickness problem anyway. Profit-driven healthcare rewards companies when people get sick, not when they exercise. You have literally gotten nothing right.
"And in every State in the US, riding on the shoulder is illegal."
What a moron. In my state, riding on the shoulder is not only legal, it is required. That is almost certainly true in every state. Obeying the "rules of the road" doesn't mean that cyclists obey rules for cars, it means they obey rules for bicycles. Those are different rules.
By "lane sharing" you mean "lane splitting", only legal in California. Should not apply to bicycles since they shouldn't generally be in the lane at all. Bicycles passing cars on the shoulder is just fine everywhere.