Maybe that's because the people you blanket label as "MS apologists" aren't actually apologists, but reasonable & rational people that actually evaluate MS products on their merits. It seems at/. you're deemed an apologist if you ever defend MS on anything.
If you want to see group think in action, look at your own post, and the posts that show up when anyone dare criticize linux.
While I like the efficiency of trains, the US moved freight traffic to the highways because it created more flexibility in placement of factories and retail outlets. We built our houses and our lifestyle in a manner that took advantage of individual transportation vehicles. We don't have the density or the lifestyle desire to move to a hub and spoke system of fast rail.
Well, you're right.. and the cost of the flexibility is exteremly high, both in terms of actual cost and the environment. Personally, I love living IN cities. Its much more convient, a lot going on. If a train could get me to Boston from Burlington in the same time (or less) than it takes to drive, I'd be all over it... and traveling to Boston more often as well.
Well, if the price of a ticket is the same, and its much quicker than it is now, I'd certainly use a train over flying. But the problem is that unless I WANT a sight seeing vacation, the train (and travel to and from it) just takes way too long.
Actually, I absolutely do pay Amazon, just as I would any other hosting provider which I am using bandwidth on. Here, go read.
An edge case, and we're talking about Amazon as they sell products, not hosted services. Replace amazon with newegg if you want, because AWS are a seperate matter.
Again, this is for my connection, to my EC2 nodes, which are hosted on Amazon -- or to my S3 storage, which is also hosted by Amazon -- therefore, it is Amazon's connection, and it is directly relevant. Amazon is somehow managing to spend less than that amount for their connection, because they are reselling it to me at that amount.
If not, they are playing a very risky game -- for instance, they would be making assumptions about how many times a given file on S3 is accessed, and a particularly popular one could end up costing them a fair amount of money.
I apologize if I wasn't clear, but I did mention that this price per gig is something I am paying to Amazon, and I mentioned it several posts up.
It wasn't clear at all. You also don't know if they are underselling AWS by using profits from their product sales to help cover the costs. Don't assume the price you're paying is what they actually pay; it may be a loss leader to get people hooked on AWS.
Ok... so at a national level you have the same complexity that the US has at the state and local levels. In addition to the "meals tax" I discribed (which applies toyou buying three or less donuts in a grocery store), VT also allows local municipalities to adopt an option 1% sales tax. This is just Vt, one of the smallest states... and the problem is that this bill doesn't take any of this into account, because these are the taxes that need to be simplified or they WILL place an undo burnden on out of state businesses.
Sorry... who started the $750 bailout? You really think Bush wouldn't be ramping up spending too? Obama hasn't cut the things Bush allocated to spend on things like the military... he's winding down the war, but it will take time, so it's not like he can cut the budget until he's finishing the wind down.
Bush ended the notion that Rs are the small government party. Or did you miss the TSA, DHS, etc?
Listen, I didn't make up the tax... but it exists. In VT you pay extra for "prepared" food. Which is odd... because I gave the example of donuts specifically, and its soley the number that determines if the tax is applied. It's not that one donut was baked and the other wasn't.
That's besides the point; I was asking if Canada's provences had such a tax... trying to point out that the tax situation here is pretty complex.
You don't avoid tax by preparing your own food either; soda is taxed, as is your range and oven.
So, when an article is listing possible reason you gain weight, and one of the bulleted items says "not taking in enough calories" (which, if you are eating less calories and gain weight, mean you ARE in a period of starvation)... that doesn't count to you? I think you're the one with a reading comprehension problem. But please, talk to any doctor, nutrutionist, or what have you. What do you have to lose? If you're right, post the name of the person you talked to and you've proved your point. Or hell, even post something backing up your point.
Yes, that's the argument... but isn't it odd you don't need to pay to use things you buy in state? Hmm... I really hate the judges that buy these garbage arguments. Use tax should never have flown.
I could give a shit how much other countries are paying in tax. If people feel overtaxed, that means they want no more new taxes, and probably less taxes. As far as deficit goes, I'm all for reducing costs... starting with the joke that is SSI / Medicare and cutting the military to "self defense + some of UN actions" levels.
No... the retailer spent a lot of money on that retail space. They'll say it's simpler, because it will be shipped from the local store to your house, which is why you already pay tax if you buy something at Lowe's, they have a nexus in your state.
Heh... the company I work for sells products. If we send the invoice to CA, but the product anywhere else, we pay CA tax. If we ship the product to CA, we pay CA tax. If the person that made the order is in CA, but it's being billed and shipped elsewhere.. we pay CA.
We also had NY make us pay sales tax because we DROVE THROUGH NY to delivery products ourselves to PA.
How many provinces are there? Can each arbitrarly define what is candy, or junk food, or a meal (that is, 3 or less donuts is taxed as a meal, and 4 or more is bulk and thus food not taxed)?
No, you're not involved because you might or might not ever pay Amazon, and what Amazon does or doesn't pay to their ISP has nothing to do with how much / GB you are charged on your connection.
Apparently yes you are dumb. Only an inbread retard would think they know more than the entire medical community. I hate to fucking break it to you, but YOU DON'T DEFINE STARVATION. Doctors have, and I already have shown you what their definition is.
Are you really that fucking dumb? Your metabolism lowers because your body is shutting down, the definition of starvation: http://www.answers.com/topic/starvation. Your body isn't lowering metabolism magically while it continues on unaffected. That's what too few calories means. Someone getting 1000 / day will gain weight, and is not functioning properly... because the body is storing the energy instead of using it. No laws of physics need be broken for this to happen, and you're still below maintence.
Well, like it or not, we do need it if we want to keep modern society going. So yes, it is a need.. because if we can't figure out better ways to generate energy, our society will collapse.
Now, you may be fine with a return to the Dark Ages, but the rest of us would like to keep moving forward.
But you also have to take the metabolism rate of the individual into consideration.
Is he muscular? Muscle mass is the only variance to metabolism.
I have a friend who eats twice as much as me (he gets hungry every 4 hrs or so) but is shorter AND quite thinner than me.
*sigh* He eats twice as often, not necessarly twice as many calories.
That was the wake up call for me. I exercised a lot (5 days a week + 1 hr swimming on Sat) to bring it to 175 lbs/18% body fat. I then let go (no exercise) and I now hover around 175lbs to 180lbs for 25% bodyfat. The reason I'm around 175-180lbs is because I control my diet very well. But there is no way I could go below 175 with just diet control (heck I couldn't go below that even with exercise). I definitely can't improve my diet further.
When you stopped exercising, did you also reduce your caloric intake by the same amount? That is, if you burned 750 cals a day, did you reduce your diet by 750 cals a day? Probably not. Did you find out how many calories you need to maintain only your lean weight? Probably not.
I definitely can't improve my diet further. I already eat only a 6" sub for lunch, cook at home for dinner and just have a slim fast optima for breakfast. And I'm vegetarian
Oh, maybe you did... and maybe you cut too much. Taking in too few calories can also lead to weight gain, as your body percieves a famine mode and hangs on to fat as much as it can. Being a vegitarian has nothing to do with being healthy and getting a proper diet.
Long story short, for some people even just dieting won't cut it and adding exercise will just improve that a little bit.
Where did I say just diet changes? It's a numbers game, you need to figure out 1) what your body needs to meantain LEAN mass, 2) figure out what you're taking in, and 3) figure out what you're expending during exercise.
May be for some of the very obese people, their metabolism is very bad. Not saying that's an execuse for all obese people. I have certainly seen many obese people stuffing themselves with shitty food. Just saying don't generalize it and say just exercise and dieting would be enough.
But it is, unless you have some medical condition.. which most people don't. How many people on the biggest loser, just by diet and exercise, lose weight? They ALL do... every season. And when they don't, you can see its because they 1) didn't exercise like they needed to and / or 2) didn't eat like they should. Oh... and the millions of others that have done the same.
Your argument is nonsense. Proper diet and exercise will lead to weight loss... but that's the key, you have to do it right.
Trivial maybe, but still essential. Linux skills aren't though. The reason they aren't is because there are more employers looking for Windows.. so it's easier to find a job using Windows. Think of it this way.. if you got laid off, and 100 employers are looking for Windows skillsets and 10 are looking for Linux... which set of skills gives you a better chance to land a job?
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe that's because the people you blanket label as "MS apologists" aren't actually apologists, but reasonable & rational people that actually evaluate MS products on their merits. It seems at /. you're deemed an apologist if you ever defend MS on anything.
If you want to see group think in action, look at your own post, and the posts that show up when anyone dare criticize linux.
While I like the efficiency of trains, the US moved freight traffic to the highways because it created more flexibility in placement of factories and retail outlets. We built our houses and our lifestyle in a manner that took advantage of individual transportation vehicles. We don't have the density or the lifestyle desire to move to a hub and spoke system of fast rail.
Well, you're right.. and the cost of the flexibility is exteremly high, both in terms of actual cost and the environment. Personally, I love living IN cities. Its much more convient, a lot going on. If a train could get me to Boston from Burlington in the same time (or less) than it takes to drive, I'd be all over it... and traveling to Boston more often as well.
Well, if the price of a ticket is the same, and its much quicker than it is now, I'd certainly use a train over flying. But the problem is that unless I WANT a sight seeing vacation, the train (and travel to and from it) just takes way too long.
Actually, I absolutely do pay Amazon, just as I would any other hosting provider which I am using bandwidth on. Here, go read.
An edge case, and we're talking about Amazon as they sell products, not hosted services. Replace amazon with newegg if you want, because AWS are a seperate matter.
Again, this is for my connection, to my EC2 nodes, which are hosted on Amazon -- or to my S3 storage, which is also hosted by Amazon -- therefore, it is Amazon's connection, and it is directly relevant. Amazon is somehow managing to spend less than that amount for their connection, because they are reselling it to me at that amount.
If not, they are playing a very risky game -- for instance, they would be making assumptions about how many times a given file on S3 is accessed, and a particularly popular one could end up costing them a fair amount of money.
I apologize if I wasn't clear, but I did mention that this price per gig is something I am paying to Amazon, and I mentioned it several posts up.
It wasn't clear at all. You also don't know if they are underselling AWS by using profits from their product sales to help cover the costs. Don't assume the price you're paying is what they actually pay; it may be a loss leader to get people hooked on AWS.
I already did. Go back an re-read my posts.
Ok... so at a national level you have the same complexity that the US has at the state and local levels. In addition to the "meals tax" I discribed (which applies toyou buying three or less donuts in a grocery store), VT also allows local municipalities to adopt an option 1% sales tax. This is just Vt, one of the smallest states... and the problem is that this bill doesn't take any of this into account, because these are the taxes that need to be simplified or they WILL place an undo burnden on out of state businesses.
Sorry... who started the $750 bailout? You really think Bush wouldn't be ramping up spending too? Obama hasn't cut the things Bush allocated to spend on things like the military... he's winding down the war, but it will take time, so it's not like he can cut the budget until he's finishing the wind down.
Bush ended the notion that Rs are the small government party. Or did you miss the TSA, DHS, etc?
The company is in VT...
Why tax unprepared food but not prepared food?
Listen, I didn't make up the tax... but it exists. In VT you pay extra for "prepared" food. Which is odd... because I gave the example of donuts specifically, and its soley the number that determines if the tax is applied. It's not that one donut was baked and the other wasn't.
That's besides the point; I was asking if Canada's provences had such a tax... trying to point out that the tax situation here is pretty complex.
You don't avoid tax by preparing your own food either; soda is taxed, as is your range and oven.
So, when an article is listing possible reason you gain weight, and one of the bulleted items says "not taking in enough calories" (which, if you are eating less calories and gain weight, mean you ARE in a period of starvation)... that doesn't count to you? I think you're the one with a reading comprehension problem. But please, talk to any doctor, nutrutionist, or what have you. What do you have to lose? If you're right, post the name of the person you talked to and you've proved your point. Or hell, even post something backing up your point.
You mean as opposed to Bush's "Spend Money We Don't Have?"
Yes, that's the argument... but isn't it odd you don't need to pay to use things you buy in state? Hmm... I really hate the judges that buy these garbage arguments. Use tax should never have flown.
I could give a shit how much other countries are paying in tax. If people feel overtaxed, that means they want no more new taxes, and probably less taxes. As far as deficit goes, I'm all for reducing costs... starting with the joke that is SSI / Medicare and cutting the military to "self defense + some of UN actions" levels.
No... the retailer spent a lot of money on that retail space. They'll say it's simpler, because it will be shipped from the local store to your house, which is why you already pay tax if you buy something at Lowe's, they have a nexus in your state.
Heh... the company I work for sells products. If we send the invoice to CA, but the product anywhere else, we pay CA tax. If we ship the product to CA, we pay CA tax. If the person that made the order is in CA, but it's being billed and shipped elsewhere.. we pay CA.
We also had NY make us pay sales tax because we DROVE THROUGH NY to delivery products ourselves to PA.
How many provinces are there? Can each arbitrarly define what is candy, or junk food, or a meal (that is, 3 or less donuts is taxed as a meal, and 4 or more is bulk and thus food not taxed)?
No, you're not involved because you might or might not ever pay Amazon, and what Amazon does or doesn't pay to their ISP has nothing to do with how much / GB you are charged on your connection.
Apparently yes you are dumb. Only an inbread retard would think they know more than the entire medical community. I hate to fucking break it to you, but YOU DON'T DEFINE STARVATION. Doctors have, and I already have shown you what their definition is.
By all means.. please stop eating completely.
Are you really that fucking dumb? Your metabolism lowers because your body is shutting down, the definition of starvation: http://www.answers.com/topic/starvation. Your body isn't lowering metabolism magically while it continues on unaffected. That's what too few calories means. Someone getting 1000 / day will gain weight, and is not functioning properly... because the body is storing the energy instead of using it. No laws of physics need be broken for this to happen, and you're still below maintence.
Global temps are falling. They have been for as long as you have been aware of the so-called issue.
That must explain the growth of the ice caps at both poles! Why, I hear there are ice flows off the cost of FL now too!
Well, like it or not, we do need it if we want to keep modern society going. So yes, it is a need.. because if we can't figure out better ways to generate energy, our society will collapse.
Now, you may be fine with a return to the Dark Ages, but the rest of us would like to keep moving forward.
Really, go talk to your doctor. It is possible to eat too little calories and gain weight. Read #4 as to why you can gain weight when you eat too few calories: http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/worst-diets-ever-diets-that-dont-work?page=2
It's written by a doctor... is that enough to convince you? Starvation begins long before you start looking like you're from Ethiopia.
But you also have to take the metabolism rate of the individual into consideration.
Is he muscular? Muscle mass is the only variance to metabolism.
I have a friend who eats twice as much as me (he gets hungry every 4 hrs or so) but is shorter AND quite thinner than me.
*sigh* He eats twice as often, not necessarly twice as many calories.
That was the wake up call for me. I exercised a lot (5 days a week + 1 hr swimming on Sat) to bring it to 175 lbs/18% body fat. I then let go (no exercise) and I now hover around 175lbs to 180lbs for 25% bodyfat. The reason I'm around 175-180lbs is because I control my diet very well. But there is no way I could go below 175 with just diet control (heck I couldn't go below that even with exercise). I definitely can't improve my diet further.
When you stopped exercising, did you also reduce your caloric intake by the same amount? That is, if you burned 750 cals a day, did you reduce your diet by 750 cals a day? Probably not. Did you find out how many calories you need to maintain only your lean weight? Probably not.
I definitely can't improve my diet further. I already eat only a 6" sub for lunch, cook at home for dinner and just have a slim fast optima for breakfast. And I'm vegetarian
Oh, maybe you did... and maybe you cut too much. Taking in too few calories can also lead to weight gain, as your body percieves a famine mode and hangs on to fat as much as it can. Being a vegitarian has nothing to do with being healthy and getting a proper diet.
Long story short, for some people even just dieting won't cut it and adding exercise will just improve that a little bit.
Where did I say just diet changes? It's a numbers game, you need to figure out 1) what your body needs to meantain LEAN mass, 2) figure out what you're taking in, and 3) figure out what you're expending during exercise.
May be for some of the very obese people, their metabolism is very bad. Not saying that's an execuse for all obese people. I have certainly seen many obese people stuffing themselves with shitty food. Just saying don't generalize it and say just exercise and dieting would be enough.
But it is, unless you have some medical condition.. which most people don't. How many people on the biggest loser, just by diet and exercise, lose weight? They ALL do... every season. And when they don't, you can see its because they 1) didn't exercise like they needed to and / or 2) didn't eat like they should. Oh... and the millions of others that have done the same.
Your argument is nonsense. Proper diet and exercise will lead to weight loss... but that's the key, you have to do it right.
Sorry, is this what you mean by "defending" and "respect?"
Why do you think having fallen so deep at some point in your life to have to sell your body to earn for living
Some of them might, but most of them hate it. Trust me on that one.
You just assume most girls MUST hate being hookers... I would think you assume that because you feel its a low profession.
Whatever dude, I really don't care what you think, but you're coming off as "hey, give those scum some credit, and we should pity them."
Trivial maybe, but still essential. Linux skills aren't though. The reason they aren't is because there are more employers looking for Windows.. so it's easier to find a job using Windows. Think of it this way.. if you got laid off, and 100 employers are looking for Windows skillsets and 10 are looking for Linux... which set of skills gives you a better chance to land a job?