Sotomayor's order applies to a group of nuns, the Little Sisters of the Poor, and other Roman Catholic nonprofit groups
They don't pay taxes
That's great, because the guy you replied to never said that they do. He said that the way you and I cannot opt out of paying for things that go against our beliefs (such as taxes that fund pointless wars) is not so different from the way religious organizations were being asked to pay for things that go against _their_ beliefs (such as insurance that covers contraceptives). The difference is, the Catholic Church has clout and most of the rest of us don't.
You're absolutely right about how and why (government overstepping its bounds) health insurance and employment were ever coupled in the first place.
I just wanted to add, there is another factor compounding the problem. A corporate employer can buy health insurance wholesale. They can go to health insurers and say "we have 50,000 employees and want to buy insurance, what can you do for us?" That's bargaining power that an individual buying their own coverage simply doesn't have. That's why the prices for individual health insurance are so ridiculously expensive. That lack of alternative is why employees don't resist the current system.
Nonetheless, let's rip on the conservatives, because you don't like what they think.
Understand, I think the whole "conservative vs. liberal" program of thought is a narrow self-limitation designed to make sure that who can get on the ballot and actually win an important election is easily controlled by monied interests. A spectrum of this type is illustrated by two points and a line because it is literally one-dimensional thinking. The fact that there are additional points between the two extreme points is supposed to lend the appearance of depth and give people something to argue about while their nation goes down the shitter.
Having said that, I notice that most (key word: "most" - for you reactive types) of the "I don't like what you think, therefore you are EVIL and I am so much better and smarter than you!" sort of behavior comes from those who identify themselves as liberals. Many (key word: many) of them seem eager to make everything into a personal matter rather than debating the principles behind their beliefs. They really do seem insecure and childish at times. I suppose that's why the emotional "we mean well but never really define what that means because fairness!" rhetoric of what Americans call liberalism appeals to them.
That's in addition to the naive and sometimes stupid perspective of anyone who thinks "left vs. right" has any real meaning.
A simple request: if you are functionally illiterate, emotionally volatile, or for any other reason have difficulty comprehending what words like "most" and "many" mean and why I might use them instead of using words like "all" and "every", do me a favor: fuck off and grow up. It's really tiresome.
Religious people are not legislating anything, which is exactly the point. They don't want to be forced to buy contraceptives
Religious people need to broaden their horizons and realize that no one likes to be forced to do anything. When the thing you want to do does not impose a burden on anyone else and involves only consenting adults, it is wrong to apply force. Period.
To say that this issue is a religious one and this other issue isn't, that's exactly the kind of division that enables so many shitty laws of all kinds, not just within the realm of health insurance.
I'm waiting for the moment when the Quakers get a refund on the portion of their taxes that pay for war.
Until we give them their rebate, the nuns should just cope with the fact that none of their employees will wind up using contraception even though their insurance covers it.
The difference between the Roman Catholic Church and the Quakers is that the Catholics are an extremely powerful, politically well-connected, multinational, ridiculously wealthy and well-funded organization (you know, just like Jesus advocated! oh, wait...). They used to make or break kings and to this day, they have more wealth and influence than many nations.
It's not surprising the Catholics can create a big controversy that government actually listens to, while the Quakers cannot.
These church organizations only "pay for abortions" if their members CHOOSE to go get them. Why don't they just TRUST their members not to get abortions?
As someone uselessly pointed out, it's about contraception but your point stands. It's a worthy question and it has an answer that is not difficult to verify. They don't trust their own people because large organizations, all large organizations, are run by control freaks. It doesn't matter if the control is delivered in the name of an article of faith, in the name of king and country, in the name of making money, etc.
Control freaks are not people who are content to put forth their own views. They have no true confidence in the power of their own message. They certainly have no respect for your natural right to make decisions for yourself and then reap the consequences (separating the former from the latter causes insanity). What they prefer is to remove as many alternatives as possible to _make_ you conform to their vision of How It Should Be.
Health insurance is weird and not traditional insurance in that sense. Health insurance also covers things like routine medical checkups and dental cleanings with little or no out-of-pocket cost to you, even though those too are completely knowable, predictable, and inexpensive. But of course you realize that.
I've heard it explained thusly: if car insurance worked like health insurance, then every time you put gas in your tank, got an oil change, bought tires, etc., you would file a claim.
And if it worked that way, car insurance would be ridiculously expensive.
BBS were cool, well not really i nthe general sense. Then AOL was cool, you saw a aol keyword on everything, on all commercials etc. Than it was myspace, everyone had to be on myspace. then it was FB, everyone had to have a FB, then twitter, you see #this and #that everywhere. Looks like snapchat is next.
I know im getting old because I am behind the curve with snapchat, Ive heard of it, have no idea what it is, dont really care, every thing prior listed I remember being involved with in some way shape or form
I did enjoy BBSes but at the time I didn't know anyone who had heard of them (other than those I introduced). I suppose "obscure" is the word I would use, rather than gauging how cool they were. I never used AOL or any other "online service" beyond a "dumb pipe" ISP, and I thought AOL sucked back when they vigorously competed with the likes of Compuserve and Prodigy (I think that was its name) for dial-up users. I have a learned disdain of anything that needs to be promoted so hard that I run out of files to put on their floppies and pieces of furniture that needed their CDs as coasters. I simply never cared for fads. I'm not anti-fad, because they aren't important enough to me to justify my active opposition of them. I simply don't care for them.
I was aware of the problems with MySpace and then Facebook when they came around because I had tried to give Google a hard time tracking me before that. Other than a few of their web bugs that I saw before I blocked those, no machine I own has ever sent a packet to or received a packet from any Facebook-owned domain. I'm less hostile to Twitter but I have no use for it and I also recognize its own faddish nature. I simply don't care what random strangers ate for breakfast last week and there are better news feeds for anything important.
The difference is, BBSes were something I discovered on my own. I didn't need a marketer or a mob of people to try to shove them down my throat. It was, in a word, organic. That made them easy for me to appreciate. At the time I was something of a newbie in terms of technical skill, and it was like a new little world full of things I could discover. I just don't find that kind of sense of wonder with the modern fads. There's nothing technically interesting there and no real meaning to be found in them, just a whole lot of empty banter and attempts to make sales.
Let's say I probably sound a lot older than I actually am (get off my lawn!), but at any rate, I agree with you about Snapchat and I wonder how many fads we have to witness before the average user starts questioning why they bother with the hype. This is the main thing I have never fully understood about most people: how can they experience so many instances and iterations of an abstract theme and still fail to grasp the principle, let alone even realize that there is, in fact, a theme or a template?
but I do not like what people do there --- they TELL EVERYBODY EVERYTHING ABOUT THEMSELVES.
Facebook exists to fill the need in narcissists. Nothing more, nothing less.
The opposite of a narcissist is an attention whore who is desperate to feel important to someone for a whole few minutes (likely because of some failure in their upbringing). Facebook merrily caters to both!
No, your friends of family post about EVERYTHING, not everyone. Of course your post just screams of the old "I don't even have a TV".
Is there something wrong with not owning a device for which you have little or no use? Should those people buy a TV just to earn your goodwill? Are you really that important? If they buy one just for you, can they send you the bill?
Now if someone says or unambiguously implies ("I feel really emotional about it!" does not satisfy "unambiguously") something along the lines of "I don't own a TV, and that makes me so much better than you!", well, that would be one thing. In the absence of such objective evidence, the simple fact is this: people like you who get upset at a simple statement of fact are guilty of what you think you're accusing the other guy of.
Incidentally I do have a TV. I just can't understand this need some people have to invent imaginary fault in other human beings who, for the most part, intend to leave you alone. About this, drugs, alcohol, porn, political viewpoints, religions, pretty much anything: not everyone shares your tastes, this is okay, and it's time to get over it. For fuck's sake. Find some meaning and purpose within yourself in a truly satisfying way and *poof*, like magic, these "problems" disappear. Suddenly you're much less concerned with how others want to live.
Sure it is not as flashy as creating an Immanuel Goldstein out of a nation that's not really such a threat to us, that we often armed and trained first, then spending many times the resources in order to go overseas to shoot up and blow up some brown people with unfamiliar names to keep the military industrial complex satiated, but to say our miniscule, neglected, space program (that no longer inspires the nation) is dead is just simply wrong
Fixed that for you. It must have really been something to have heard Kennedy declare that we choose to go to the moon, not because it is easy but because it is hard. A sense of purpose and a sort of pride that came from technical achievement and engineering marvels rather than the comparatively simple matter of sending the world's strongest military against some of the world's weakest militaries. This generation has nothing quite like that.
Our food changed sometime in the '70s or '80s. When I was a kid, overweight people were rather rare. Has the "modern" diet gotten us addicted when we're kids -- and still very active -- to foods that we should be eating very sparingly which then cause huge weight gains when we continue to eat them after we reach our early twenties and our post education lifestyle
The other problem is that people of prior generations were expected to be able to deal with their own emotions in a mature manner and generally weren't as stressed-out as Americans today are.
(Did you know that a 12oz can of coke does as much liver damage as a 12oz can of beer?)
So almost none at all? Heh.
Thing is, sodas are typically sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup. Only the liver can metabolize fructose. Personally, I drink water and only occasionally have a carbonated drink. There are lots of good reasons to avoid sodas; sugar is only one of them. Once you get used to drinking water, you'll wonder how you were ever satisfied drinking what is basically syrup.
Maybe so, but that doesn't mean your weight loss will be 100% FAT loss. On the contrary, consuming less calories can also cause your body to store up MORE fat, to compensate for the food shortage. Numerous studies have shown this effect... you just end up with a smaller "fat" rat than the control subject.
If you gradually switch from "eating more calories than I would have ever needed" to "eating about the right amount, give or take" I strongly doubt you'll have this problem. At least that wasn't my experience. The studies I have seen were all concerning unsustainable fad diets that you could not continue using for the rest of your life.
Yes - and it can also make you very sick at the same time. People have starved themselves to death whilst remaining obese.
To simply say "eat less, you'll lose weight!" makes as much sense as saying "just remove all the microorganisms from your blood stream, and you'll be cured!" Simple, right? Whilst technically correct, unfortunately it is not at all a useful suggestion. The sooner people stop deluding themselves with trivial knee-jerk responses that tacitly blame the patient, the sooner we can make progress to finding an actual solution for a real problem. Remember: if it was that easy, nobody would be fat.
"Eat less" isn't the same thing as saying "eat nothing or nearly nothing while failing to obtain the nutrients you need".
"Blame" is also a small-minded concern. When I personally needed to lose some weight, there was no concern with fault or blame. I (get this) *took responsibility* for my own condition and made some adjustments to it. Some sustainable, permanent adjustments that did not involve neglecting the nutrition I needed. It was never a problem after that. In fact it was one of the easiest things I've ever done. That's because I took responsibility and accepted that the power to change it was within myself, the exact opposite of victimhood. This is exactly what I never see from fat people. They're victims and they are hostile to the idea that they don't need to be. That's because they don't understand the difference between fault/blame and responsibility/power. That's the part that is "not that easy" for so many because we have such a shallow, small-minded culture that doesn't like to think too deeply about much of anything no matter how much better life can be.
All you are saying is that doing something the stupid and careless way won't yield a good result. This was already known.
What's the point of mentioning this? You said these were 30 healthy men. "Healthy" implies they were not obese. They had already balanced their calorie intake against the rate of burning calories. Naturally, adjusting an already healthy balance is going to create problems.
This says nothing whatsoever about what happens when obese people reduce their calorie intake. Obese people got that way because they were consuming more calories than they burned. For them, reducing caloric intake sounds like a good idea (although an instant 50% cut sounds drastic - if that were me I'd make more gradual adjustments).
But your Starvation Experiment doesn't address this at all. Again what was the point of posting it?
I've always found it both disgusting and a bit amusing, the way people get so angry and upset when you dare to suggest that maybe they are not victims, maybe they actually could assert some control over the problem they're having. The earlier posts in this thread did not deserve a "-1, Troll" moderation. Stating what you actually believe in a sincere manner is not trolling. It's not a "-1, MakesMyDenialUncomfortable" mod for fuck's sake.
Everyone I know who successfully lost weight and kept it off for years did it by making permanent, sustainable, healthy changes in their lives. A few of them learned to like veggies and other healthy foods. Others did that and also formed the habit of regular exercise. The point is to consume fewer calories than you burn until you reach a new equilibrium. Like so many other things that upset people, this works every time it's properly tried.
Two weeks ago my Persian friend asked me if I knew of any schools that can teach him to be a pilot in a short period of time. I told him that if there were, they'd be nervous about having an Arab as a student.
A few months before that my Indian (as in from India) friend had to move out of his house, and asked if he could stay at my place for a while until he finds a permanent residence. I told him sure, there are lots of Indian reservations around here (Phoenix.)
Am I a racist?
I can't judge that without knowing what's in your heart, what your intentions were and why you held them.
All I can say for certain is: if I rushed to make a judgment without that information, I would become what my previous post was so clearly against. That was my point.
Yeah, because it's something that everyone should be buying, despite the fact that:
so many are struggling financially
people want to live better and feel better
Right? It's got to be because of online shopping.
Yeah. We should definitely control it. That works out well for alcohol and marijuana and 32 oz cups of soda.
In American legislation, you're not supposed to grasp the principle. You're supposed to keep trying many different iterations on it, until there's a War on Everything. How else are we going to dictate to people how they shall live?!
Lest anyone thing that a backhand, racist statement, it's not.
Please reconsider doing this. The infantile, emotionally reactive, spiteful imbeciles who would make serious accusations against your character while feeling no real burden of proof don't deserve this sort of concession or accommodation. It validates them and lets them know they have influence; they deserve neither. Let them live their miserable lives of vocal desperation. Let their appetite for someone else to be "wrong" so they can feel superior for a whole moment be starved. They were never interested in constructive criticism, but not feeding them this way is a constructive act you can perform for them.
Besides, these days absolutely everything and anything can be branded "racist". Soon the word will have no meaning and everyone will be so used to hearing it thrown around that it will gather no attention at all. Right now it's about halfway there. It once meant a belief that one group of people is genetically and inherently superior to another group, some time ago. Now it means "I don't like what that guy says but I lack the sophistication, intelligence, and patience to be an individual who can explain what is wrong with, it so I'd rather act like a spoiled child and focus on group identity".
It's a shame that real instances of actual injustice that deserve to become known are probably getting lost in the noise produced by misuse of this epithet. Anyway, I respectfully urge you to reconsider catering to a bunch of puerile, broken individuals in the hope that they may yet reach emotional adulthood.
Yes, of course, it's always clueless management ignoring the brave developer who warns of catastrophe.
If management wants the power in the form of the final decisions (which they have), and the ability to take most of the credit (which is often the case), then they also get to keep the responsibility.
Sounds fair to me. Power and responsibility should never be separated. Ever.
The sad part is there are people out there that think this very thing. That you're "playing with god's will" if you use antibiotics in such manners.
It's amazing the way someone can believe in an absolutely omniscient, allmighty God Who completely knows the past, present, and future, Who endowed mankind with intellect and reason... and then think this God had no idea mankind might use and apply that intellect and reason. How do people rationalize such beliefs?
I can imagine a situation where someone who can't exert any impulse control gets on a mobile phone while the rest of the cabin is trying to sleep, a very real risk of on-board assaults from tired and frustrated travelers.
If I were on the jury I'd refuse to convict those guilty of assault, provided they used no (improvised) weapons and stopped once their point had been made.
It's a shitty sign of the times that, so often, you can no longer politely ask someone to stop being annoying. They'll get "offended" and belligerent instead of being enough of a person to recognize that you had cause. Accepting a legitimate and polite correction is now viewed as a sign of weakness or submission. That's the cause of a great deal of violence, in fact nearly all violence that is not state-sponsored.
The social fabric is currently as unsustainable as the financial edifice of society. It makes me wonder if it will change course. What you said about impulse control has everything to do with having a little discipline and personal responsibility (it wouldn't take much). These things aren't "fun" or "entertaining" to acquire so more and more people can't be bothered. Am I alone in witnessing how tragic this is? Assholes with phones here, idiots gathering to chat and blocking doorways there, someone running off the road (or over the median) because their call or burger or makeup is more important to them elsewhere -- these little things are merely symptoms.
For High School and early College degrees, knowing the basics helps later work when working with the more advanced tools. After learning (and being able to know) the basics then move into the more advanced tools. Both are needed. Generally when working on complex systems it's easiest to understand when it can be broken down into clear, demarcated segments. Overall it's complex but each individual segment is made up of basic understandable ideas. That way you don't need to look at everything all at once. This is the way much of networking works using the ISO reference model. Knowing the basics helps when you need to fall back
It's the difference between knowledge and understanding. Our society often fails to value the latter, since it is not immediately useful in the short-term and requires a wise long-view to appreciate. This is very much to our collective detriment.
This.
And with that in mind, I'd suggest a #2 pencil.
If that's too much work, I;d suggest a slide rule.
Someone has to build the calculators.
The part that bothered me back in high school is that they were never satisfied I had learned the fundamentals. Long after I had those down, years afterwards, I was forbidden from using advanced calculators for various tests and exams. I was treated as an imbecile who had no personal stake in his own education and betterment, to be trained and drilled rather than taught and instructed. Make no mistake, this is conditioning for subservience. I wish more people saw this for what it was and rejected it as I have done. I do not wish to be anomalous or unique or special in this regard. It is not a status symbol for myself. It is a lament for the masses.
For High School and early College degrees, knowing the basics helps later work when working with the more advanced tools. After learning (and being able to know) the basics then move into the more advanced tools. Both are needed. Generally when working on complex systems it's easiest to understand when it can be broken down into clear, demarcated segments. Overall it's complex but each individual segment is made up of basic understandable ideas. That way you don't need to look at everything all at once. This is the way much of networking works using the ISO reference model. Knowing the basics helps when you need to fall back
It's the difference between knowledge and understanding. Our society often fails to value the latter, since it is not immediately useful in the short-term and requires a wise long-view to appreciate. This is very much to our collective detriment.
Slashdot Mirror
Sotomayor's order applies to a group of nuns, the Little Sisters of the Poor, and other Roman Catholic nonprofit groups
They don't pay taxes
That's great, because the guy you replied to never said that they do. He said that the way you and I cannot opt out of paying for things that go against our beliefs (such as taxes that fund pointless wars) is not so different from the way religious organizations were being asked to pay for things that go against _their_ beliefs (such as insurance that covers contraceptives). The difference is, the Catholic Church has clout and most of the rest of us don't.
Please sharpen your reading comprehension skills.
You're absolutely right about how and why (government overstepping its bounds) health insurance and employment were ever coupled in the first place.
I just wanted to add, there is another factor compounding the problem. A corporate employer can buy health insurance wholesale. They can go to health insurers and say "we have 50,000 employees and want to buy insurance, what can you do for us?" That's bargaining power that an individual buying their own coverage simply doesn't have. That's why the prices for individual health insurance are so ridiculously expensive. That lack of alternative is why employees don't resist the current system.
Nonetheless, let's rip on the conservatives, because you don't like what they think.
Understand, I think the whole "conservative vs. liberal" program of thought is a narrow self-limitation designed to make sure that who can get on the ballot and actually win an important election is easily controlled by monied interests. A spectrum of this type is illustrated by two points and a line because it is literally one-dimensional thinking. The fact that there are additional points between the two extreme points is supposed to lend the appearance of depth and give people something to argue about while their nation goes down the shitter.
Having said that, I notice that most (key word: "most" - for you reactive types) of the "I don't like what you think, therefore you are EVIL and I am so much better and smarter than you!" sort of behavior comes from those who identify themselves as liberals. Many (key word: many) of them seem eager to make everything into a personal matter rather than debating the principles behind their beliefs. They really do seem insecure and childish at times. I suppose that's why the emotional "we mean well but never really define what that means because fairness!" rhetoric of what Americans call liberalism appeals to them.
That's in addition to the naive and sometimes stupid perspective of anyone who thinks "left vs. right" has any real meaning.
A simple request: if you are functionally illiterate, emotionally volatile, or for any other reason have difficulty comprehending what words like "most" and "many" mean and why I might use them instead of using words like "all" and "every", do me a favor: fuck off and grow up. It's really tiresome.
Religious people are not legislating anything, which is exactly the point. They don't want to be forced to buy contraceptives
Religious people need to broaden their horizons and realize that no one likes to be forced to do anything. When the thing you want to do does not impose a burden on anyone else and involves only consenting adults, it is wrong to apply force. Period.
To say that this issue is a religious one and this other issue isn't, that's exactly the kind of division that enables so many shitty laws of all kinds, not just within the realm of health insurance.
I'm waiting for the moment when the Quakers get a refund on the portion of their taxes that pay for war.
Until we give them their rebate, the nuns should just cope with the fact that none of their employees will wind up using contraception even though their insurance covers it.
The difference between the Roman Catholic Church and the Quakers is that the Catholics are an extremely powerful, politically well-connected, multinational, ridiculously wealthy and well-funded organization (you know, just like Jesus advocated! oh, wait...). They used to make or break kings and to this day, they have more wealth and influence than many nations.
It's not surprising the Catholics can create a big controversy that government actually listens to, while the Quakers cannot.
These church organizations only "pay for abortions" if their members CHOOSE to go get them. Why don't they just TRUST their members not to get abortions?
As someone uselessly pointed out, it's about contraception but your point stands. It's a worthy question and it has an answer that is not difficult to verify. They don't trust their own people because large organizations, all large organizations, are run by control freaks. It doesn't matter if the control is delivered in the name of an article of faith, in the name of king and country, in the name of making money, etc.
Control freaks are not people who are content to put forth their own views. They have no true confidence in the power of their own message. They certainly have no respect for your natural right to make decisions for yourself and then reap the consequences (separating the former from the latter causes insanity). What they prefer is to remove as many alternatives as possible to _make_ you conform to their vision of How It Should Be.
Health insurance is weird and not traditional insurance in that sense. Health insurance also covers things like routine medical checkups and dental cleanings with little or no out-of-pocket cost to you, even though those too are completely knowable, predictable, and inexpensive. But of course you realize that.
I've heard it explained thusly: if car insurance worked like health insurance, then every time you put gas in your tank, got an oil change, bought tires, etc., you would file a claim.
And if it worked that way, car insurance would be ridiculously expensive.
BBS were cool, well not really i nthe general sense. Then AOL was cool, you saw a aol keyword on everything, on all commercials etc. Than it was myspace, everyone had to be on myspace. then it was FB, everyone had to have a FB, then twitter, you see #this and #that everywhere. Looks like snapchat is next. I know im getting old because I am behind the curve with snapchat, Ive heard of it, have no idea what it is, dont really care, every thing prior listed I remember being involved with in some way shape or form
I did enjoy BBSes but at the time I didn't know anyone who had heard of them (other than those I introduced). I suppose "obscure" is the word I would use, rather than gauging how cool they were. I never used AOL or any other "online service" beyond a "dumb pipe" ISP, and I thought AOL sucked back when they vigorously competed with the likes of Compuserve and Prodigy (I think that was its name) for dial-up users. I have a learned disdain of anything that needs to be promoted so hard that I run out of files to put on their floppies and pieces of furniture that needed their CDs as coasters. I simply never cared for fads. I'm not anti-fad, because they aren't important enough to me to justify my active opposition of them. I simply don't care for them.
I was aware of the problems with MySpace and then Facebook when they came around because I had tried to give Google a hard time tracking me before that. Other than a few of their web bugs that I saw before I blocked those, no machine I own has ever sent a packet to or received a packet from any Facebook-owned domain. I'm less hostile to Twitter but I have no use for it and I also recognize its own faddish nature. I simply don't care what random strangers ate for breakfast last week and there are better news feeds for anything important.
The difference is, BBSes were something I discovered on my own. I didn't need a marketer or a mob of people to try to shove them down my throat. It was, in a word, organic. That made them easy for me to appreciate. At the time I was something of a newbie in terms of technical skill, and it was like a new little world full of things I could discover. I just don't find that kind of sense of wonder with the modern fads. There's nothing technically interesting there and no real meaning to be found in them, just a whole lot of empty banter and attempts to make sales.
Let's say I probably sound a lot older than I actually am (get off my lawn!), but at any rate, I agree with you about Snapchat and I wonder how many fads we have to witness before the average user starts questioning why they bother with the hype. This is the main thing I have never fully understood about most people: how can they experience so many instances and iterations of an abstract theme and still fail to grasp the principle, let alone even realize that there is, in fact, a theme or a template?
but I do not like what people do there --- they TELL EVERYBODY EVERYTHING ABOUT THEMSELVES.
Facebook exists to fill the need in narcissists. Nothing more, nothing less.
The opposite of a narcissist is an attention whore who is desperate to feel important to someone for a whole few minutes (likely because of some failure in their upbringing). Facebook merrily caters to both!
No, your friends of family post about EVERYTHING, not everyone. Of course your post just screams of the old "I don't even have a TV".
Is there something wrong with not owning a device for which you have little or no use? Should those people buy a TV just to earn your goodwill? Are you really that important? If they buy one just for you, can they send you the bill?
Now if someone says or unambiguously implies ("I feel really emotional about it!" does not satisfy "unambiguously") something along the lines of "I don't own a TV, and that makes me so much better than you!", well, that would be one thing. In the absence of such objective evidence, the simple fact is this: people like you who get upset at a simple statement of fact are guilty of what you think you're accusing the other guy of.
Incidentally I do have a TV. I just can't understand this need some people have to invent imaginary fault in other human beings who, for the most part, intend to leave you alone. About this, drugs, alcohol, porn, political viewpoints, religions, pretty much anything: not everyone shares your tastes, this is okay, and it's time to get over it. For fuck's sake. Find some meaning and purpose within yourself in a truly satisfying way and *poof*, like magic, these "problems" disappear. Suddenly you're much less concerned with how others want to live.
Sure it is not as flashy as creating an Immanuel Goldstein out of a nation that's not really such a threat to us, that we often armed and trained first, then spending many times the resources in order to go overseas to shoot up and blow up some brown people with unfamiliar names to keep the military industrial complex satiated, but to say our miniscule, neglected, space program (that no longer inspires the nation) is dead is just simply wrong
Fixed that for you. It must have really been something to have heard Kennedy declare that we choose to go to the moon, not because it is easy but because it is hard. A sense of purpose and a sort of pride that came from technical achievement and engineering marvels rather than the comparatively simple matter of sending the world's strongest military against some of the world's weakest militaries. This generation has nothing quite like that.
Our food changed sometime in the '70s or '80s. When I was a kid, overweight people were rather rare. Has the "modern" diet gotten us addicted when we're kids -- and still very active -- to foods that we should be eating very sparingly which then cause huge weight gains when we continue to eat them after we reach our early twenties and our post education lifestyle
The other problem is that people of prior generations were expected to be able to deal with their own emotions in a mature manner and generally weren't as stressed-out as Americans today are.
(Did you know that a 12oz can of coke does as much liver damage as a 12oz can of beer?)
So almost none at all? Heh.
Thing is, sodas are typically sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup. Only the liver can metabolize fructose. Personally, I drink water and only occasionally have a carbonated drink. There are lots of good reasons to avoid sodas; sugar is only one of them. Once you get used to drinking water, you'll wonder how you were ever satisfied drinking what is basically syrup.
if you eat less, you will lose weight.
Maybe so, but that doesn't mean your weight loss will be 100% FAT loss. On the contrary, consuming less calories can also cause your body to store up MORE fat, to compensate for the food shortage. Numerous studies have shown this effect... you just end up with a smaller "fat" rat than the control subject.
If you gradually switch from "eating more calories than I would have ever needed" to "eating about the right amount, give or take" I strongly doubt you'll have this problem. At least that wasn't my experience. The studies I have seen were all concerning unsustainable fad diets that you could not continue using for the rest of your life.
Yes - and it can also make you very sick at the same time. People have starved themselves to death whilst remaining obese. To simply say "eat less, you'll lose weight!" makes as much sense as saying "just remove all the microorganisms from your blood stream, and you'll be cured!" Simple, right? Whilst technically correct, unfortunately it is not at all a useful suggestion. The sooner people stop deluding themselves with trivial knee-jerk responses that tacitly blame the patient, the sooner we can make progress to finding an actual solution for a real problem. Remember: if it was that easy, nobody would be fat.
"Eat less" isn't the same thing as saying "eat nothing or nearly nothing while failing to obtain the nutrients you need".
"Blame" is also a small-minded concern. When I personally needed to lose some weight, there was no concern with fault or blame. I (get this) *took responsibility* for my own condition and made some adjustments to it. Some sustainable, permanent adjustments that did not involve neglecting the nutrition I needed. It was never a problem after that. In fact it was one of the easiest things I've ever done. That's because I took responsibility and accepted that the power to change it was within myself, the exact opposite of victimhood. This is exactly what I never see from fat people. They're victims and they are hostile to the idea that they don't need to be. That's because they don't understand the difference between fault/blame and responsibility/power. That's the part that is "not that easy" for so many because we have such a shallow, small-minded culture that doesn't like to think too deeply about much of anything no matter how much better life can be.
All you are saying is that doing something the stupid and careless way won't yield a good result. This was already known.
What's the point of mentioning this? You said these were 30 healthy men. "Healthy" implies they were not obese. They had already balanced their calorie intake against the rate of burning calories. Naturally, adjusting an already healthy balance is going to create problems.
This says nothing whatsoever about what happens when obese people reduce their calorie intake. Obese people got that way because they were consuming more calories than they burned. For them, reducing caloric intake sounds like a good idea (although an instant 50% cut sounds drastic - if that were me I'd make more gradual adjustments).
But your Starvation Experiment doesn't address this at all. Again what was the point of posting it?
I've always found it both disgusting and a bit amusing, the way people get so angry and upset when you dare to suggest that maybe they are not victims, maybe they actually could assert some control over the problem they're having. The earlier posts in this thread did not deserve a "-1, Troll" moderation. Stating what you actually believe in a sincere manner is not trolling. It's not a "-1, MakesMyDenialUncomfortable" mod for fuck's sake.
Everyone I know who successfully lost weight and kept it off for years did it by making permanent, sustainable, healthy changes in their lives. A few of them learned to like veggies and other healthy foods. Others did that and also formed the habit of regular exercise. The point is to consume fewer calories than you burn until you reach a new equilibrium. Like so many other things that upset people, this works every time it's properly tried.
Here are some true stories of things I've done:
Two weeks ago my Persian friend asked me if I knew of any schools that can teach him to be a pilot in a short period of time. I told him that if there were, they'd be nervous about having an Arab as a student.
A few months before that my Indian (as in from India) friend had to move out of his house, and asked if he could stay at my place for a while until he finds a permanent residence. I told him sure, there are lots of Indian reservations around here (Phoenix.)
Am I a racist?
I can't judge that without knowing what's in your heart, what your intentions were and why you held them.
All I can say for certain is: if I rushed to make a judgment without that information, I would become what my previous post was so clearly against. That was my point.
Yeah, because it's something that everyone should be buying, despite the fact that: so many are struggling financially people want to live better and feel better Right? It's got to be because of online shopping.
Yeah. We should definitely control it. That works out well for alcohol and marijuana and 32 oz cups of soda.
In American legislation, you're not supposed to grasp the principle. You're supposed to keep trying many different iterations on it, until there's a War on Everything. How else are we going to dictate to people how they shall live?!
Lest anyone thing that a backhand, racist statement, it's not.
Please reconsider doing this. The infantile, emotionally reactive, spiteful imbeciles who would make serious accusations against your character while feeling no real burden of proof don't deserve this sort of concession or accommodation. It validates them and lets them know they have influence; they deserve neither. Let them live their miserable lives of vocal desperation. Let their appetite for someone else to be "wrong" so they can feel superior for a whole moment be starved. They were never interested in constructive criticism, but not feeding them this way is a constructive act you can perform for them.
Besides, these days absolutely everything and anything can be branded "racist". Soon the word will have no meaning and everyone will be so used to hearing it thrown around that it will gather no attention at all. Right now it's about halfway there. It once meant a belief that one group of people is genetically and inherently superior to another group, some time ago. Now it means "I don't like what that guy says but I lack the sophistication, intelligence, and patience to be an individual who can explain what is wrong with, it so I'd rather act like a spoiled child and focus on group identity".
It's a shame that real instances of actual injustice that deserve to become known are probably getting lost in the noise produced by misuse of this epithet. Anyway, I respectfully urge you to reconsider catering to a bunch of puerile, broken individuals in the hope that they may yet reach emotional adulthood.
Yes, of course, it's always clueless management ignoring the brave developer who warns of catastrophe.
If management wants the power in the form of the final decisions (which they have), and the ability to take most of the credit (which is often the case), then they also get to keep the responsibility.
Sounds fair to me. Power and responsibility should never be separated. Ever.
The sad part is there are people out there that think this very thing. That you're "playing with god's will" if you use antibiotics in such manners.
It's amazing the way someone can believe in an absolutely omniscient, allmighty God Who completely knows the past, present, and future, Who endowed mankind with intellect and reason ... and then think this God had no idea mankind might use and apply that intellect and reason. How do people rationalize such beliefs?
I think this would lead to in-flight homicide.
I can imagine a situation where someone who can't exert any impulse control gets on a mobile phone while the rest of the cabin is trying to sleep, a very real risk of on-board assaults from tired and frustrated travelers.
If I were on the jury I'd refuse to convict those guilty of assault, provided they used no (improvised) weapons and stopped once their point had been made.
It's a shitty sign of the times that, so often, you can no longer politely ask someone to stop being annoying. They'll get "offended" and belligerent instead of being enough of a person to recognize that you had cause. Accepting a legitimate and polite correction is now viewed as a sign of weakness or submission. That's the cause of a great deal of violence, in fact nearly all violence that is not state-sponsored.
The social fabric is currently as unsustainable as the financial edifice of society. It makes me wonder if it will change course. What you said about impulse control has everything to do with having a little discipline and personal responsibility (it wouldn't take much). These things aren't "fun" or "entertaining" to acquire so more and more people can't be bothered. Am I alone in witnessing how tragic this is? Assholes with phones here, idiots gathering to chat and blocking doorways there, someone running off the road (or over the median) because their call or burger or makeup is more important to them elsewhere -- these little things are merely symptoms.
For High School and early College degrees, knowing the basics helps later work when working with the more advanced tools. After learning (and being able to know) the basics then move into the more advanced tools. Both are needed. Generally when working on complex systems it's easiest to understand when it can be broken down into clear, demarcated segments. Overall it's complex but each individual segment is made up of basic understandable ideas. That way you don't need to look at everything all at once. This is the way much of networking works using the ISO reference model. Knowing the basics helps when you need to fall back
It's the difference between knowledge and understanding. Our society often fails to value the latter, since it is not immediately useful in the short-term and requires a wise long-view to appreciate. This is very much to our collective detriment.
This.
And with that in mind, I'd suggest a #2 pencil.
If that's too much work, I;d suggest a slide rule.
Someone has to build the calculators.
The part that bothered me back in high school is that they were never satisfied I had learned the fundamentals. Long after I had those down, years afterwards, I was forbidden from using advanced calculators for various tests and exams. I was treated as an imbecile who had no personal stake in his own education and betterment, to be trained and drilled rather than taught and instructed. Make no mistake, this is conditioning for subservience. I wish more people saw this for what it was and rejected it as I have done. I do not wish to be anomalous or unique or special in this regard. It is not a status symbol for myself. It is a lament for the masses.
For High School and early College degrees, knowing the basics helps later work when working with the more advanced tools. After learning (and being able to know) the basics then move into the more advanced tools. Both are needed. Generally when working on complex systems it's easiest to understand when it can be broken down into clear, demarcated segments. Overall it's complex but each individual segment is made up of basic understandable ideas. That way you don't need to look at everything all at once. This is the way much of networking works using the ISO reference model. Knowing the basics helps when you need to fall back
It's the difference between knowledge and understanding. Our society often fails to value the latter, since it is not immediately useful in the short-term and requires a wise long-view to appreciate. This is very much to our collective detriment.