What don't you understand? What he EATS THAT DAY fuels him. One pound of fat holds 3,500 calories. It's doubtful he even burned that much on his bike ride. His body will use some energy he already had stored, and will use the energy from whatever he eats before AND AFTER the ride.
You freely admit you're overweight and out of shape; I don't think you're qualify to talk about how the body functions on different calorie intakes and expendatures. If your friend wants to maintain, he only needs to add in what he expended on the bike ride. The next day, if he doesn't do any riding, he can eat less.
No, there is never any reason to stay in an abusive relationship. And yes, when one side fails, the other side is free to leave. Under no cirtumstances should anyone ever get back into an abusive relationship. They only get worse.
Just because something is illegal does not make it immoral. The fact that one's right's are infringed does not mean one does not have rights. It means that some are acting immorally. By your logic, and I walk up to you and knock your teeth out and as long as I am never caught, I have acted morally.
Hmm.. wasn't there some kind of international trial a few years ago.. one that didn't buy the excuse of "I was only following orders?" Na, that couldn't have happened. Clearly humans couldn't have such high standards..
Huh.. you really can't figure out what a jail might be like in a country that calls 20% of its citizens "untouchables" and can pretty much throw acid in the face of said people without consequence? Ya.. I guess it's possible they have nice jails where your rights are respected..
I can see how behaving bad against an oldtime hero of the country don't make you popular, thought getting beaten with sticks are a little to much of a punishment for it.
Ok, we'll stop that, but continue the forced shit eating.
Ya, it's not looking good I agree. I just thought I'd ask since I haven't heard mention one way or the other.. that is, I can't find anywhere that said for sure "no, there won't be a Wii port."
No, he doesn't need that many calories to maintain his weight; he needs that many because he biked 60 miles that day. You don't eat the same on heavy exercise days as you do rest days.
As far as building muscle goes, I'm working on that now. My trainer said I need 3,500 per training day. 1,500 - 2,000 on non-training days. I won't need 3,500 to maintain either. Of course, I'm not shooting to look like Arnold in his hayday either, but I think the most I've heard of a bodybuild eating is 6,000.
The average fatty though (100+ lbs overweight) consumes 4,000 - 10,000 a day. My wife worked in a bariatric clinic. This was an average diet for them:
6 scrambled eggs, 1 loaf of toast with butter and jelly. Snack of one large pepperoni pizze. Six BK stackers with bacon, two large fries and a Diet Coke (ya, that always kills me..).
Another snack of a 1lb bag of M&Ms, a huge dinner of fried chicken, a pre-bedtime snack of one bag of chips, and a midnight snack of more chips and diet coke.
I really wish I was making this up. I'm not though, and sadly much of my family is overweight.. and now that I'm aware of how I'm eating, it makes me sad to see how they eat.
Yes. They are eating much much more than they expend. Fat is an energy storage system; you can only have 250 lbs of extra fat if you're storing LOTS more than you're using. One pound of fat in a human has 3500 calories. Someone 250lbs overweight has 875,000 calories they didn't use. The average person needs 1,500 to 2,500 calories JUST TO FUNCTION. No high exertion activies, just to breath and keep the heart going. Do the math.
Your post is a bunch of garbage. Fat people need more calories to stay fat, not just to get fat. There have been studies that show this; for the most part, thin and fat people have about the same metabolic rate. You can influence it to some degree, but it really is just a matter of calories in.
No, a business shouldn't have to be accessible to everyone. I also don't think businesses should be forced to install wheelchair access either.
The worker safety issue I agree with though; employers need to provide a safe environment in which to work. No one has to smoke or allow smokers to run a business.
As far as your rant on smoking goes, that should always be illegal; the building owner can't create an unsafe work environment for his employees. Employees which have to breath in smoke for a good length of time are being harmed, period, directly by other people in said building. Finally, no one HAS to smoke to live. So, smoke all you want in your car or house, but make sure your windows are all closed.
I don't agree that taxes are the way to go, so I'm with you there. I'm all for allowing insurance companies to raise premiums for people that smoke or are overweight, or drop them outright.
Then you should have no more interest in the situation than I do.
Ahh... I guess no white person should have had any interest in the civil rights movement of the 60s then either, since they weren't affected by the discrimination.
Sorry I offended you by assuming you were gay just because you vehemently and insultingly insist that we not just be tolerant of homosexuals, but accepting of homosexuality as well. Bring on the politically correct thought police!
I was offended that you use gay as if it's some kind of insult. Your true bigotry shines here. I could easily replace homosexuals in your statement with blacks or Catholics. You can think that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry each other as much as you want; your rights end though when you try to enforce that idea through law or other force.
I've known more than one gay that was. Like I said, it isn't illegal for gays to marry.
It's illegal for them to marry each other. It's easy to say "who cares" when you don't want to marry another man. I'm glad our country wasn't founded by people like you though.
Not letting men marry men tramples nobody's rights, but you sure aren't showing that you support the right to think how one pleases.
It tramples their rights to marry, to be treated fairly by society and possibly their freedom of religion, if marriage also has a religous component to them. And I never said you couldn't think as you please, I said you can't enforce your beliefs by law becausey they violate the rights of others. The KKK can think whatever they please; they can't actively discriminate for certain activities, nor can they kill blacks because they think they are inferiour.
You have something against the mentally ill?
Nice try at a red herring.
A dog will hump your leg. You supprt the right to have sex with other species? Humans aren't different. Humans are animals.
Let me know when a dog builds a car, a home, or some form of art. Humans are more than animals.
All animals have sex for the same reasons: it is a biological imperitive, a necessity, like eating and sleeping. However, sometimes brain circutry gets wierded out sometimes in any species. Do you support the right of an anorexic to starve himself? Of a bulemic to gorge and puke?
Not for humans, and if you read some other research, that's not even true for some other animals. As far as anorexics or bulemics go, yeah, their behavior is self destructive. It's also their right, since they are master of their own lives.
That's a good thing, evolutionarily speaking. Some choose to have sex with members of their immediate families, do you support the right of two consenting adult siblings to marry?
As gross as I think that would be, yes. I don't have any basis to interfere.
Look whoise talking, mr. "open-minded" politically correct herd follower.
There's a difference between being open minded and forcing your will on others. You can think whatver you like; you're not allowed to force others to live the life you think is moral or proper.
Where in any of this did I mention the bible? I didn't. Not once. I said homosexuality is counter-evolution, not couner-bible. In fact, I often chastise people for bringing the bible into the argument, because first, not everybody follows the same bible and second, because the Christian, Muslim, and Jewish bibles have these ten commandments that are the primary laws of their respective religions, and not one of them says "thou shalt not buttfuck another man, nor shall thou suck another man's dick." As sins go, homosexuality itself isn't at all, and homosexual acts aren't even in the Big ten.
Like most zealots, you'll pick your position and try to distort reality to make your point. You don't bring the bible in because you know it's a losing position, so you try and take science and twist it to your needs. Regarding the "big ten," those aren't the only rules of t
Well, I'd argue that MySpace is then setting up an unsafe situation. There's no good solution for sites that do this that a normal user will understand anyway. A broken site is better than a compromised workstation.
I don't agree you're rights are being "as restricted as the gay man's." Besides the legal definitions of marriage, there's also an emotional part to it. You are mearly prevented from entering a financial contract which happens to be reconized by the state, and if you WERE to have sex with someone other than your spouse, the state could punish you in divorce preceedings. For gay people, it's a bit more than that. It's symbolic, and possible religous. Finally, the state doesn't have the privledge of denying rights (including the right to enter into a legal contract) equally. It simply can't deny rights, except in extereme circumstances (i.e., one is commited to kiling others, but that is a group of individuals exercising their right to protect themselves).
Well, now you're just talking common sense and Liberty. That's a whole other subject.
I disagree; it's all the same topic, since this is supposed to be a country that reconizes the Liberty we all inherit, and which does not needlessly trample on said Liberty. Since this is about what the state may or may not do, and our state is supposed to be bound to rules that ENSURE Liberty, it is very much at the heart of this matter.
Ya, I'm bigoted. Nevermind that I'm not even gay, and I'm happily married to a woman. What was that you said about jumping to conclusions? See, I support the rights of others, even if it's not my rights aren't being trampled upon.
OTOH, saying gay people are really mentally ill is pretty bigoted. Oh, and other animials do have sex with members of their same sex. Humans are different, because we don't just have sex to reproduce, and some even choose not to reproduce at all. Hopefully you'll make such a choice as well, so that we can be rid of the closed minded bible banger morons that are holding back our progress to a peaceful civialization.
But you don't need to see a specific implmenetation to see how something works.
The original goal of the OLPC, as I understood it when the project started, was to give children a laptop that they could maintain, modify, and inspect in every way possible. Every application was supposed to have a "View Source" button so they could see how it worked, could change how it worked, and could share their changes with others. You couldn't do that with Windows.
The goal as I understood it was to be a learning tool. Do you have something from archive.org that says otherwise? You can maintain software without seeing the source.
It's not just about the educational software, it's about software education. It's "teach a man to fish" combined with "teach a man how to make a fishing pole". Windows is "teach a man to fish only with a pole he can't make or modify himself".
Can you make a 100% exact duplicate? Actually with software you likely can, given enough time. But I learned "how to fish" without ever seeing the source code for Windows or Unix, Unix being my primary development platform in college.
Where is knowing Windows a requirement? Poor kids in the Congo aren't going to become paper-pushing cube-dwellers in rural America. For the vast majority of the world, knowing Windows is _not_ a requirement. Just because the US and Canada are too deeply invested in Microsoft to even think of using anything else, doesn't mean the rest of the world is the same way.
Well, you're just showing how out of touch you are. Given that the countries which this product was aimed at sited "doesn't run Windows" as a reason they weren't interested, I'd say it is a requirement. More people work on the Windows platform than anything else.
If you're ratcheting down the zone settings for one site, you're NOT using zones correctly. What you'd want to do is add MySpace to your Trusted Sites zone. Now MySpace has the permissions it needs, but the rest of the internet still is kept on higher guard.
So you're argument is that some complex code is inherently less secure than other complex code? Sorry, I don't buy it.
As far as security being an after-thought in Windows, that's not true. DOS and the Win9x line weren't designed to be networked, certainly not on an untrusted network. To some extent that was true of the earlier NT line as well; although security was needed and built in, it likely made the assumption that the network was at least somewhat safe.
Modern Windows (I'd say Win2000 and higher) have been designed with networking on an untrusted network in mind, and exploits have been fewer and fewer. It may have taken MS a bit to learn, but it seems they have learned it, especially starting with anything 2003 and higher.
How does having Windows mean that children won't learn? Do you really need to see the source of EVERYTHING to learn? I learned the principals of how OSes work, without ever seeing the source to Windows.
Also, the goal is education, not necessarly teaching children to program. If Windows runs all the educational software that was planned, what's the problem? Especially given that, whether you like it or not, knowing Windows is almost a requirement.
This is an issue of the government doing paperwork and recognizing a legal arrangements which has far reaching consequences, affecting other people (e.g. employers).
This is also an issue of said government violating the Fourteen Amendment. As far as affecting employers, what really changes for them? They already deal with marriage issues, how does it change based on the sex of the married?
"Either let any human being marry any other human being." Can an adult marry an infant? Can siblings marry?
An infant can't consent, so no. Both parties being married must consent. As gross as I would find it for siblings to marry, in the end I don't see any basis for me to interfere. I think there are a few states that actually do allow such marriges by the way... as long as they would be of the opposite sex.
A fine idea. Many of those against removing the opposite sex restriction from the definition of marriage are against it because their religious beliefs hold marriage to be a sacred issue contingent upon that restriction. Why should the government be involved at all (excepting the cases of religious governments, which we thankfully do not have.)?
Well I think we found some common ground. The government shouldn't be involved; it's not even the governments place to "promote a strong family," which is what the religous people say. The governments job is to allow us to come to together to protect ourselves from outside threats, to ensure people's right's are not infringed, and to provide a minimum framework so soverign people can live together in peace.
Given that I find religous people are also usually biggoted, maybe it's time remove the legal definition of marriage. But until then, the government needs to stop being discriminatory.
Slashdot Mirror
What don't you understand? What he EATS THAT DAY fuels him. One pound of fat holds 3,500 calories. It's doubtful he even burned that much on his bike ride. His body will use some energy he already had stored, and will use the energy from whatever he eats before AND AFTER the ride.
You freely admit you're overweight and out of shape; I don't think you're qualify to talk about how the body functions on different calorie intakes and expendatures. If your friend wants to maintain, he only needs to add in what he expended on the bike ride. The next day, if he doesn't do any riding, he can eat less.
No, there is never any reason to stay in an abusive relationship. And yes, when one side fails, the other side is free to leave. Under no cirtumstances should anyone ever get back into an abusive relationship. They only get worse.
Just because something is illegal does not make it immoral. The fact that one's right's are infringed does not mean one does not have rights. It means that some are acting immorally. By your logic, and I walk up to you and knock your teeth out and as long as I am never caught, I have acted morally.
Hmm.. wasn't there some kind of international trial a few years ago.. one that didn't buy the excuse of "I was only following orders?" Na, that couldn't have happened. Clearly humans couldn't have such high standards..
Huh.. you really can't figure out what a jail might be like in a country that calls 20% of its citizens "untouchables" and can pretty much throw acid in the face of said people without consequence? Ya.. I guess it's possible they have nice jails where your rights are respected..
I can see how behaving bad against an oldtime hero of the country don't make you popular, thought getting beaten with sticks are a little to much of a punishment for it.
Ok, we'll stop that, but continue the forced shit eating.
Ya, it's not looking good I agree. I just thought I'd ask since I haven't heard mention one way or the other.. that is, I can't find anywhere that said for sure "no, there won't be a Wii port."
No, he doesn't need that many calories to maintain his weight; he needs that many because he biked 60 miles that day. You don't eat the same on heavy exercise days as you do rest days.
I'm not sure that's true.
As far as building muscle goes, I'm working on that now. My trainer said I need 3,500 per training day. 1,500 - 2,000 on non-training days. I won't need 3,500 to maintain either. Of course, I'm not shooting to look like Arnold in his hayday either, but I think the most I've heard of a bodybuild eating is 6,000.
The average fatty though (100+ lbs overweight) consumes 4,000 - 10,000 a day. My wife worked in a bariatric clinic. This was an average diet for them:
6 scrambled eggs, 1 loaf of toast with butter and jelly. Snack of one large pepperoni pizze. Six BK stackers with bacon, two large fries and a Diet Coke (ya, that always kills me..).
Another snack of a 1lb bag of M&Ms, a huge dinner of fried chicken, a pre-bedtime snack of one bag of chips, and a midnight snack of more chips and diet coke.
I really wish I was making this up. I'm not though, and sadly much of my family is overweight.. and now that I'm aware of how I'm eating, it makes me sad to see how they eat.
I lost ~100lbs over the past year+.
Yes. They are eating much much more than they expend. Fat is an energy storage system; you can only have 250 lbs of extra fat if you're storing LOTS more than you're using. One pound of fat in a human has 3500 calories. Someone 250lbs overweight has 875,000 calories they didn't use. The average person needs 1,500 to 2,500 calories JUST TO FUNCTION. No high exertion activies, just to breath and keep the heart going. Do the math.
Your post is a bunch of garbage. Fat people need more calories to stay fat, not just to get fat. There have been studies that show this; for the most part, thin and fat people have about the same metabolic rate. You can influence it to some degree, but it really is just a matter of calories in.
No, a business shouldn't have to be accessible to everyone. I also don't think businesses should be forced to install wheelchair access either.
The worker safety issue I agree with though; employers need to provide a safe environment in which to work. No one has to smoke or allow smokers to run a business.
As far as your rant on smoking goes, that should always be illegal; the building owner can't create an unsafe work environment for his employees. Employees which have to breath in smoke for a good length of time are being harmed, period, directly by other people in said building. Finally, no one HAS to smoke to live. So, smoke all you want in your car or house, but make sure your windows are all closed.
I don't agree that taxes are the way to go, so I'm with you there. I'm all for allowing insurance companies to raise premiums for people that smoke or are overweight, or drop them outright.
Then you should have no more interest in the situation than I do.
Ahh... I guess no white person should have had any interest in the civil rights movement of the 60s then either, since they weren't affected by the discrimination.
Sorry I offended you by assuming you were gay just because you vehemently and insultingly insist that we not just be tolerant of homosexuals, but accepting of homosexuality as well. Bring on the politically correct thought police!
I was offended that you use gay as if it's some kind of insult. Your true bigotry shines here. I could easily replace homosexuals in your statement with blacks or Catholics. You can think that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry each other as much as you want; your rights end though when you try to enforce that idea through law or other force.
I've known more than one gay that was. Like I said, it isn't illegal for gays to marry.
It's illegal for them to marry each other. It's easy to say "who cares" when you don't want to marry another man. I'm glad our country wasn't founded by people like you though.
Not letting men marry men tramples nobody's rights, but you sure aren't showing that you support the right to think how one pleases.
It tramples their rights to marry, to be treated fairly by society and possibly their freedom of religion, if marriage also has a religous component to them. And I never said you couldn't think as you please, I said you can't enforce your beliefs by law becausey they violate the rights of others. The KKK can think whatever they please; they can't actively discriminate for certain activities, nor can they kill blacks because they think they are inferiour.
You have something against the mentally ill?
Nice try at a red herring.
A dog will hump your leg. You supprt the right to have sex with other species? Humans aren't different. Humans are animals.
Let me know when a dog builds a car, a home, or some form of art. Humans are more than animals.
All animals have sex for the same reasons: it is a biological imperitive, a necessity, like eating and sleeping. However, sometimes brain circutry gets wierded out sometimes in any species. Do you support the right of an anorexic to starve himself? Of a bulemic to gorge and puke?
Not for humans, and if you read some other research, that's not even true for some other animals. As far as anorexics or bulemics go, yeah, their behavior is self destructive. It's also their right, since they are master of their own lives.
That's a good thing, evolutionarily speaking. Some choose to have sex with members of their immediate families, do you support the right of two consenting adult siblings to marry?
As gross as I think that would be, yes. I don't have any basis to interfere.
Look whoise talking, mr. "open-minded" politically correct herd follower.
There's a difference between being open minded and forcing your will on others. You can think whatver you like; you're not allowed to force others to live the life you think is moral or proper.
Where in any of this did I mention the bible? I didn't. Not once. I said homosexuality is counter-evolution, not couner-bible. In fact, I often chastise people for bringing the bible into the argument, because first, not everybody follows the same bible and second, because the Christian, Muslim, and Jewish bibles have these ten commandments that are the primary laws of their respective religions, and not one of them says "thou shalt not buttfuck another man, nor shall thou suck another man's dick." As sins go, homosexuality itself isn't at all, and homosexual acts aren't even in the Big ten.
Like most zealots, you'll pick your position and try to distort reality to make your point. You don't bring the bible in because you know it's a losing position, so you try and take science and twist it to your needs. Regarding the "big ten," those aren't the only rules of t
That only shows you're incompetent for not setting their security rights and timeouts appropriately.
Will it come out for the Wii as well as 360 and PS3?
Well, I'd argue that MySpace is then setting up an unsafe situation. There's no good solution for sites that do this that a normal user will understand anyway. A broken site is better than a compromised workstation.
I don't agree you're rights are being "as restricted as the gay man's." Besides the legal definitions of marriage, there's also an emotional part to it. You are mearly prevented from entering a financial contract which happens to be reconized by the state, and if you WERE to have sex with someone other than your spouse, the state could punish you in divorce preceedings. For gay people, it's a bit more than that. It's symbolic, and possible religous. Finally, the state doesn't have the privledge of denying rights (including the right to enter into a legal contract) equally. It simply can't deny rights, except in extereme circumstances (i.e., one is commited to kiling others, but that is a group of individuals exercising their right to protect themselves).
Well, now you're just talking common sense and Liberty. That's a whole other subject.
I disagree; it's all the same topic, since this is supposed to be a country that reconizes the Liberty we all inherit, and which does not needlessly trample on said Liberty. Since this is about what the state may or may not do, and our state is supposed to be bound to rules that ENSURE Liberty, it is very much at the heart of this matter.
Ya, I'm bigoted. Nevermind that I'm not even gay, and I'm happily married to a woman. What was that you said about jumping to conclusions? See, I support the rights of others, even if it's not my rights aren't being trampled upon.
OTOH, saying gay people are really mentally ill is pretty bigoted. Oh, and other animials do have sex with members of their same sex. Humans are different, because we don't just have sex to reproduce, and some even choose not to reproduce at all. Hopefully you'll make such a choice as well, so that we can be rid of the closed minded bible banger morons that are holding back our progress to a peaceful civialization.
You do if you want to learn about EVERYTHING.
But you don't need to see a specific implmenetation to see how something works.
The original goal of the OLPC, as I understood it when the project started, was to give children a laptop that they could maintain, modify, and inspect in every way possible. Every application was supposed to have a "View Source" button so they could see how it worked, could change how it worked, and could share their changes with others. You couldn't do that with Windows.
The goal as I understood it was to be a learning tool. Do you have something from archive.org that says otherwise? You can maintain software without seeing the source.
It's not just about the educational software, it's about software education. It's "teach a man to fish" combined with "teach a man how to make a fishing pole". Windows is "teach a man to fish only with a pole he can't make or modify himself".
Can you make a 100% exact duplicate? Actually with software you likely can, given enough time. But I learned "how to fish" without ever seeing the source code for Windows or Unix, Unix being my primary development platform in college.
Where is knowing Windows a requirement? Poor kids in the Congo aren't going to become paper-pushing cube-dwellers in rural America. For the vast majority of the world, knowing Windows is _not_ a requirement. Just because the US and Canada are too deeply invested in Microsoft to even think of using anything else, doesn't mean the rest of the world is the same way.
Well, you're just showing how out of touch you are. Given that the countries which this product was aimed at sited "doesn't run Windows" as a reason they weren't interested, I'd say it is a requirement. More people work on the Windows platform than anything else.
If you're ratcheting down the zone settings for one site, you're NOT using zones correctly. What you'd want to do is add MySpace to your Trusted Sites zone. Now MySpace has the permissions it needs, but the rest of the internet still is kept on higher guard.
So you're argument is that some complex code is inherently less secure than other complex code? Sorry, I don't buy it.
As far as security being an after-thought in Windows, that's not true. DOS and the Win9x line weren't designed to be networked, certainly not on an untrusted network. To some extent that was true of the earlier NT line as well; although security was needed and built in, it likely made the assumption that the network was at least somewhat safe.
Modern Windows (I'd say Win2000 and higher) have been designed with networking on an untrusted network in mind, and exploits have been fewer and fewer. It may have taken MS a bit to learn, but it seems they have learned it, especially starting with anything 2003 and higher.
I thought it was the time between the exploit was known and the time an exploit was discovered in the while.
How does having Windows mean that children won't learn? Do you really need to see the source of EVERYTHING to learn? I learned the principals of how OSes work, without ever seeing the source to Windows.
Also, the goal is education, not necessarly teaching children to program. If Windows runs all the educational software that was planned, what's the problem? Especially given that, whether you like it or not, knowing Windows is almost a requirement.
This is an issue of the government doing paperwork and recognizing a legal arrangements which has far reaching consequences, affecting other people (e.g. employers).
This is also an issue of said government violating the Fourteen Amendment. As far as affecting employers, what really changes for them? They already deal with marriage issues, how does it change based on the sex of the married?
"Either let any human being marry any other human being." Can an adult marry an infant? Can siblings marry?
An infant can't consent, so no. Both parties being married must consent. As gross as I would find it for siblings to marry, in the end I don't see any basis for me to interfere. I think there are a few states that actually do allow such marriges by the way... as long as they would be of the opposite sex.
A fine idea. Many of those against removing the opposite sex restriction from the definition of marriage are against it because their religious beliefs hold marriage to be a sacred issue contingent upon that restriction. Why should the government be involved at all (excepting the cases of religious governments, which we thankfully do not have.)?
Well I think we found some common ground. The government shouldn't be involved; it's not even the governments place to "promote a strong family," which is what the religous people say. The governments job is to allow us to come to together to protect ourselves from outside threats, to ensure people's right's are not infringed, and to provide a minimum framework so soverign people can live together in peace.
Given that I find religous people are also usually biggoted, maybe it's time remove the legal definition of marriage. But until then, the government needs to stop being discriminatory.