First, someone decided to blame the Scaled Composites explosion on Bush and now this? I don't like Bush, either, but there are (still) limits to his power, you know.
I've been married for 14 years. I did gain a little weight after we got married, but most of my extra weight was already in place by then. We've both lost weight while training for marathons. Although she didn't need to lose any weight in the first place, she still looks great.
It could also be your thyroid (leading to both fatigue and, frequently, a higher "set" point for your weight). Not to get too personal, but have you had your blood levels tested? That said, if your doctor agrees that you're at a healthy weight, then I'd think that's more important than what the media or public think.
It's high fructose corn syrup that's really the problem, IMO, and not regular fructose. AFAIK, fruitarians don't have a problem with obesity (although they might have other problems).
My favorite one (which I don't have a link for right now) involved two groups (or maybe it was three) of rats. One group had sugar water and all the food they could eat. The other group had artificially sweetened water and all the food they could eat. The latter group gained more weight than the former, because they ate even more food than what was simply required to compensate for the difference between the sugar water and artificially sweetened water. (Both groups gained weight, of course.)
I've known several people who gradually lost a desire for cigarettes as their weekly mileage went up. The cigarettes got in the way of their running, so they chose to give up the cigarettes. It's really hard to quit by focusing on not doing something (like trying to not think of a pink elephant right now). It's easier to quit by focusing on doing an incompatible behavior. Just a thought. I know, I know, you have bad knees.:) (I hear that a lot, but a proper stretching regimen can help with that.)
Now you've made me hungry for deep-fried twinkies! (I usually eat healthy foods, but I've definitely not lost the taste for unhealthy foods, as many of my similarly-minded friends say has happened to them.)
No doubt. I'm actually borderline overweight (i.e., on the border of healthy and overweight), according to the standard BMI. My fat content is about 11-12%, IIRC, which puts me squarely in the middle of healthy. OTOH, I think there are a lot more people who make excuses about how BMI is flawed and argue that they're actually a healthy weight than there are people whose BMI suggests they're fat when they're not. Like you said, all you really have to do it look around to see the truth in the statement that the majority of Americans are overweight. If want a really depressing experience (and who doesn't?), try going to an IHOP. I did a few years back and was deeply saddened by not just the percentage of overweight people, but just how overweight they were. Since I'm at a university with a lot of runners (UVA), I'm not really exposed to the typical American that frequently. When I'm not at the university, I'm often running with a marathon training group - surprisingly, also not very representative.:)
I suspect you might have been omitting something from your diet, and/or you lost weight too quickly. I lost a little less than a pound a week, and I always felt great. Of course, my main method for losing weight was increased exercise and not calorie reduction, although I did reduce my calories slightly as I found I was actually slightly less hungry. Perhaps I was becoming more in tune with my body, I don't know. Anyways, I never intended to get down below 180 (I was originally about 225), as I hadn't been less than 200 since my last year of high school. (For reference, I'm a little over 6'2". If you're close to that height, above or below, you probably realize how easy it is to hide 40-50 pounds.) I've gained a little weight back and currently weight 185. Over the last several years, my weight has tended to fluctuate between 175 and 190, depending on whether I'm training for a marathon or not.
I guess you're one of those rare people where the environment has no impact on their behavior, huh? The thing is, us mere mortals find that the choices we make are influenced by a wide variety of environmental factors. That doesn't mean that we can't fight those influences, but to ignore those influences is to set yourself up for failure.
Obese is average in America (and many other places). I didn't know how much weight I really need to lose until I lost about 40-50 pounds. If you'd asked me before I lost that weight, I would've told you that I probably only needed to lose 10 pounds or so, and used some stock large frame excuse. I'm not "rail thin skinny" now, either. I lifted weights while losing weight and so didn't lose any muscle.
What if the ISP is simply putting the web-page in its own frame, and the advertisement in a second frame? Unless you add the ability for web-pages to dictate that they should not be in frames, this one can't really be trapped for like that. The ISP could create its own hash for the served web-page that holds the frames.
Provide more information than simply "evil". Yes, evil has a meaning. I'm not trying to argue that it doesn't. I'm saying that it's not very helpful. It provides less information than all of those other adjectives you provided. It doesn't really help guide you in how to deal with the problem. It allows you to treat the problem as "other" or "unfathomable". (Why do the terrorists hate us? They're evil and hate our freedoms!)
By calling Bush evil, you are calling his supporters evil as well, and that strengthens their resolve instead of weakening it.
And that, too, of course. (Axis of evil, anyone?) This problem (of over-simplifying our "enemies") is not unique to the right or the left, IMO.
My point wasn't that they believed in an ideology, but rather that it might not be completely clear from their actions which ideology they believe in, if they also believe that the ends justify the means. I don't feel like I'm communicating very well here (because I really should be asleep right now), so let me say again that it might be difficult to deduce from their actions (or speech) what exactly their ideology is, when it's clear that part of their strategy involves misdirection.
And to be fair (as much as it pains me), many people on any part of the political spectrum will allow that, in at least some cases, misdirection is not always an evil thing. (Extreme example: if I'm a kindergarten teacher and I've hidden my students in a secret room, telling gunmen that the children have left for the day is not evil.) Gah! I can't help myself - the harder it is to defend these people, the more I find myself wanting to do it!
It's the left that's overusing the word evil. Sure it is.
My point is, whether or not you think someone is evil (e.g., terrorists), labeling them as such really hasn't provided you with any useful information. You need to understand what motivates them. If you don't, you won't really be able to destroy them any more than you could kill Hydra by chopping off one of its heads.
Evil is rarely a useful adjective. I think they believe in a certain ideology and believe that the ends justify the means. Their particular priorities do not line up with yours (or mine), but to describe them as evil is probably not productive. What are their priorities? Well, other than their selfish priorities (which everyone has to a certain degree), they value, um, well, OK, I'm having a hard time here. But seriously, I'm sure they do have at least some priorities that could be considered good by a large group of people (e.g., protecting blastocytes), and I suspect that others whose priorities line up more closely with theirs could more easily identify them.
The Kuhnians started doing this shortly after Kuhn wrote "On the Structure of Scientific Revolutions". (It should be pointed out that Kuhn pointedly stated that he was not a Kuhnian.)
OTOH, the ones doing it now don't actually think facts are relative. They just think the facts are what they say they are. That's not the same at all as saying that my facts are as good as yours. They clearly want everyone to believe in only their "facts".
A look at all of the long-lived episode guides (for other proprietary work) on Wikipedia would suggest that the decision with respect to Deal or No Deal (with which I am completely unfamiliar) was arbitrary.
Slashdot Mirror
Just let me pull out my dictionary and look up "money laundering".
First, someone decided to blame the Scaled Composites explosion on Bush and now this? I don't like Bush, either, but there are (still) limits to his power, you know.
That link shows exactly how it can be done and still look clean and polished. I don't say this often, but mod parent up!
I've been married for 14 years. I did gain a little weight after we got married, but most of my extra weight was already in place by then. We've both lost weight while training for marathons. Although she didn't need to lose any weight in the first place, she still looks great.
It could also be your thyroid (leading to both fatigue and, frequently, a higher "set" point for your weight). Not to get too personal, but have you had your blood levels tested? That said, if your doctor agrees that you're at a healthy weight, then I'd think that's more important than what the media or public think.
It's high fructose corn syrup that's really the problem, IMO, and not regular fructose. AFAIK, fruitarians don't have a problem with obesity (although they might have other problems).
My favorite one (which I don't have a link for right now) involved two groups (or maybe it was three) of rats. One group had sugar water and all the food they could eat. The other group had artificially sweetened water and all the food they could eat. The latter group gained more weight than the former, because they ate even more food than what was simply required to compensate for the difference between the sugar water and artificially sweetened water. (Both groups gained weight, of course.)
I've known several people who gradually lost a desire for cigarettes as their weekly mileage went up. The cigarettes got in the way of their running, so they chose to give up the cigarettes. It's really hard to quit by focusing on not doing something (like trying to not think of a pink elephant right now). It's easier to quit by focusing on doing an incompatible behavior. Just a thought. I know, I know, you have bad knees. :) (I hear that a lot, but a proper stretching regimen can help with that.)
Now you've made me hungry for deep-fried twinkies! (I usually eat healthy foods, but I've definitely not lost the taste for unhealthy foods, as many of my similarly-minded friends say has happened to them.)
No doubt. I'm actually borderline overweight (i.e., on the border of healthy and overweight), according to the standard BMI. My fat content is about 11-12%, IIRC, which puts me squarely in the middle of healthy. OTOH, I think there are a lot more people who make excuses about how BMI is flawed and argue that they're actually a healthy weight than there are people whose BMI suggests they're fat when they're not. Like you said, all you really have to do it look around to see the truth in the statement that the majority of Americans are overweight. If want a really depressing experience (and who doesn't?), try going to an IHOP. I did a few years back and was deeply saddened by not just the percentage of overweight people, but just how overweight they were. Since I'm at a university with a lot of runners (UVA), I'm not really exposed to the typical American that frequently. When I'm not at the university, I'm often running with a marathon training group - surprisingly, also not very representative. :)
I suspect you might have been omitting something from your diet, and/or you lost weight too quickly. I lost a little less than a pound a week, and I always felt great. Of course, my main method for losing weight was increased exercise and not calorie reduction, although I did reduce my calories slightly as I found I was actually slightly less hungry. Perhaps I was becoming more in tune with my body, I don't know. Anyways, I never intended to get down below 180 (I was originally about 225), as I hadn't been less than 200 since my last year of high school. (For reference, I'm a little over 6'2". If you're close to that height, above or below, you probably realize how easy it is to hide 40-50 pounds.) I've gained a little weight back and currently weight 185. Over the last several years, my weight has tended to fluctuate between 175 and 190, depending on whether I'm training for a marathon or not.
I guess you're one of those rare people where the environment has no impact on their behavior, huh? The thing is, us mere mortals find that the choices we make are influenced by a wide variety of environmental factors. That doesn't mean that we can't fight those influences, but to ignore those influences is to set yourself up for failure.
Obese is average in America (and many other places). I didn't know how much weight I really need to lose until I lost about 40-50 pounds. If you'd asked me before I lost that weight, I would've told you that I probably only needed to lose 10 pounds or so, and used some stock large frame excuse. I'm not "rail thin skinny" now, either. I lifted weights while losing weight and so didn't lose any muscle.
What if the ISP is simply putting the web-page in its own frame, and the advertisement in a second frame? Unless you add the ability for web-pages to dictate that they should not be in frames, this one can't really be trapped for like that. The ISP could create its own hash for the served web-page that holds the frames.
My point wasn't that they believed in an ideology, but rather that it might not be completely clear from their actions which ideology they believe in, if they also believe that the ends justify the means. I don't feel like I'm communicating very well here (because I really should be asleep right now), so let me say again that it might be difficult to deduce from their actions (or speech) what exactly their ideology is, when it's clear that part of their strategy involves misdirection.
And to be fair (as much as it pains me), many people on any part of the political spectrum will allow that, in at least some cases, misdirection is not always an evil thing. (Extreme example: if I'm a kindergarten teacher and I've hidden my students in a secret room, telling gunmen that the children have left for the day is not evil.) Gah! I can't help myself - the harder it is to defend these people, the more I find myself wanting to do it!
It's the left that's overusing the word evil. Sure it is.
My point is, whether or not you think someone is evil (e.g., terrorists), labeling them as such really hasn't provided you with any useful information. You need to understand what motivates them. If you don't, you won't really be able to destroy them any more than you could kill Hydra by chopping off one of its heads.
Evil is rarely a useful adjective. I think they believe in a certain ideology and believe that the ends justify the means. Their particular priorities do not line up with yours (or mine), but to describe them as evil is probably not productive. What are their priorities? Well, other than their selfish priorities (which everyone has to a certain degree), they value, um, well, OK, I'm having a hard time here. But seriously, I'm sure they do have at least some priorities that could be considered good by a large group of people (e.g., protecting blastocytes), and I suspect that others whose priorities line up more closely with theirs could more easily identify them.
The Kuhnians started doing this shortly after Kuhn wrote "On the Structure of Scientific Revolutions". (It should be pointed out that Kuhn pointedly stated that he was not a Kuhnian.)
OTOH, the ones doing it now don't actually think facts are relative. They just think the facts are what they say they are. That's not the same at all as saying that my facts are as good as yours. They clearly want everyone to believe in only their "facts".
If I should book my next flight from Charlottesville, Virginia to Atlanta, Georgia through Australia to take advantage of this...
There's even a category of categories dealing with television episode guides.
A look at all of the long-lived episode guides (for other proprietary work) on Wikipedia would suggest that the decision with respect to Deal or No Deal (with which I am completely unfamiliar) was arbitrary.
The price is £1,786.38 or (£2,099.00 as reviewed).