I have seen the opposite to be true. People who think "fruit and veg" are the answer to all of peoples weight issues just declare anyone who is obese and eats only "fruits and veg" to be lying irrelevant to the facts.
That is one of the biggest problem with the entire weight topic. Even though we see it first hand everywhere, as a society, we are in complete denial that there are different metabolisms. It is completely accepted that genetics plays a roll in a persons height, the size of their nose, the color of their skin, and the color of their eyes, but it is blasphemous to suggest that it could have any role in their width, or what their body needs to maintain itself.
It's exactly the opposite. The obsession with calories is most peoples problems. The "Calories Eaten Calories burned" mantra is only useful for people without an anus. There is also a huge cognitive disassociation between people believing that feeding a kid a bunch of sugar will make them hyper while at the same time believing that the ability to use the energy consumed is not effected by what you eat.
Either way, you are doing work. You can either do the work for money, and pay cash for your results, or you can do the manual labor yourself. It becomes a question of whether it is more profitable to be employed by someone else, or be self employed for the task of extending life. Depending on the cost of the procedure and the earning capabilities of the individual, the implication that exercise is the better choice is misguided.
Their children average out to a negative number when the nation as a whole is counted. If you are going to extrapolate from single individuals, any people that don't have kids are even worse, as their breeding practices would end the human race with their generation.
I would disagree. Touch would be a fine ADDITION to the television if it were extremely cheap to add. Virtually all televisions still have buttons to control them built onto the TV itself. TVs are getting thinner and thinner with ever smaller bezels. We are rapidly approaching the point that there will be no place to mount physical buttons. Not everyone has the use case of sitting still on the couch, giving their full attention to the television when they watch TV. Many people are up and about doing other activities. This means that sometimes, they are closer to the TV than they are the remote control. When many people play games on their TVs, they are often right up at the TV gathering controllers, putting in disks, etc. where being able to change inputs would be more convenient with a touch screen. There is also the possibility of making configuration easier with a touch screen.
I'm not saying that touch makes sense as a replacement. I am also not suggesting that it adds enough value to warrant a large price increase. But, if I was buying an ultra flat TV and all other features being equal, at the same price, I would definitely choose a TV with a decent touch interface included over one that did not have the touch interface included.
Complete BS. Every one of those article links is a perfect example of "TV is evil. Let make a study that shows it." style studies. All of them start with a bad premise, and do nothing to actually prove their point. If you actually believed that TV caused brain damage, you wouldn't let your kids watch it at their friends place. Saying that you give your child brain damage brain damage because "It's social" is claiming that you are committing child abuse.
For instnace, the "right to bear arms" was originally not an individual right, but it has subsequently been interpreted as such by the courts because that's how the document reads.
That frequently used interpretation is clearly wrong. It makes no sense. There has never in the history of all humanity been a single nation that used "government military is illegal" to be the default in their laws. There HAVE been countries where the government has taken away individuals rights to bear arms. Also to put this in historical context, the US was a nation that was forming after arms born by private citizens were used to fight a war of independence against an armed government.
It takes great leaps of logic to interpret the constitution to be referring to the right for the government to bear arms.
It is insightful because your excuse for the students is invalid. The students absolutely ARE able to decide where most of their power comes from. They also get to decide how much power they use. It is trivial today to produce more power via photovoltaic panels than you use. There are 3 of the eleven houses on my city block produce more electricity via solar panels than they consume. The fact that these students choose to have coal burned so that they can watch the Jersey Shore means that they are absolutely culpable.
If you have to "and watch everyone like a hawk." then you are incompetent at "tell people what to do, make sure they are doing their jobs, make sure they follow through, ferret out incompetence"
Those are the words of incompetent management. Don't feel bad. Middle management in America is massively loaded with incompetent managers. Of course, incompetent middle management is ultimately upper managements fault.
That is $53.67 a day. That is a lot of money when you consider that there are 15 (those that argue schools are poor will deny this number) to 30 students per teacher. Then add the federal funding, and you can see that money is not the issue.
One thing that seems to be missed is that we are talking about 22 vs 31. The 31 is an average, so their are probably some 23s, 24,s as well as some 50s and 60s. It may suck to be at the bottom, but if the test is what we decide is the bar to for competency, we are failing as a nation. It's like an argument at the Special Olympics where the kids are calling each other retarded.
It has been a lot of years since I was in school, but back then in CA it was pretty common for teacher to declare on the first day of class that if you tried, they would not fail you.
Actually FOX as a whole is just shock television. It just so happens that they generally get more viewers by making crazy right political statements in their 'news' shows. Conversely, they get more views by making crazy left political statement in their adult cartoons.
This may because crazy right tends to think that direct confrontation means you are correct, and crazy left tends to think that snarky 'jokes' means you are correct.
More accurately, Twinkies are a pastry that, due to their popularity over such a long time, have become a household name in the US. Thus, hipsters like make up urban myths about them. Things like their longevity ( actually 25 days ) . Their 'artificial' status. And, the idea that they are not extremely delicious. I don't usually reference Snopes, but their writeup on Twinkies is pretty good. http://www.snopes.com/food/ingredient/twinkies.asp
The 'facts are open to interpretation seems to run like this:
1) Statements are either facts or opinions.
2) Facts are statements that are correct.
3) Thus all other statements are opinions.
4) Opinions can't be 'wrong' because they are not facts, and are inherently subjective.
5) Thus all Opinions are correct.
6) Statements that are correct are Facts.
7) Opinions are facts.
This leads to:
1) Red is blue.
2) Red is blue is incorrect.
3) Since red is not blue, "Red is blue" is an opinion.
4) "Red is blue" can't be wrong because it is an opinion.
5) Thus "Red is blue" is correct.
6) Since "Red is blue" is correct, it is a fact.
7) Red is blue is a correct fact.
Slashdot Mirror
I have seen the opposite to be true. People who think "fruit and veg" are the answer to all of peoples weight issues just declare anyone who is obese and eats only "fruits and veg" to be lying irrelevant to the facts.
That is one of the biggest problem with the entire weight topic. Even though we see it first hand everywhere, as a society, we are in complete denial that there are different metabolisms. It is completely accepted that genetics plays a roll in a persons height, the size of their nose, the color of their skin, and the color of their eyes, but it is blasphemous to suggest that it could have any role in their width, or what their body needs to maintain itself.
It's exactly the opposite. The obsession with calories is most peoples problems. The "Calories Eaten Calories burned" mantra is only useful for people without an anus. There is also a huge cognitive disassociation between people believing that feeding a kid a bunch of sugar will make them hyper while at the same time believing that the ability to use the energy consumed is not effected by what you eat.
Either way, you are doing work. You can either do the work for money, and pay cash for your results, or you can do the manual labor yourself. It becomes a question of whether it is more profitable to be employed by someone else, or be self employed for the task of extending life. Depending on the cost of the procedure and the earning capabilities of the individual, the implication that exercise is the better choice is misguided.
Duggars and the Octomom and Kate Gosselian prove
Their children average out to a negative number when the nation as a whole is counted. If you are going to extrapolate from single individuals, any people that don't have kids are even worse, as their breeding practices would end the human race with their generation.
Not to mention...
(20 Minutes * 365 days * 63 employable years) = 459900 minutes / 60 minutes per hour = 7665 hours of exercise.
7665 hours * $8 (minimum wage) = $61320. If the treatment costs less than $61000, it is cheaper to have the treatment than it is to exercise.
If you make even $25/hour, a $150000 procedure is cost effective.
I would disagree. Touch would be a fine ADDITION to the television if it were extremely cheap to add. Virtually all televisions still have buttons to control them built onto the TV itself. TVs are getting thinner and thinner with ever smaller bezels. We are rapidly approaching the point that there will be no place to mount physical buttons. Not everyone has the use case of sitting still on the couch, giving their full attention to the television when they watch TV. Many people are up and about doing other activities. This means that sometimes, they are closer to the TV than they are the remote control. When many people play games on their TVs, they are often right up at the TV gathering controllers, putting in disks, etc. where being able to change inputs would be more convenient with a touch screen. There is also the possibility of making configuration easier with a touch screen.
I'm not saying that touch makes sense as a replacement. I am also not suggesting that it adds enough value to warrant a large price increase. But, if I was buying an ultra flat TV and all other features being equal, at the same price, I would definitely choose a TV with a decent touch interface included over one that did not have the touch interface included.
Air Guitar Hero already exists. http://www.ign.com/videos/2011/09/09/raving-rabbids-alive-kicking-guitars
Complete BS. Every one of those article links is a perfect example of "TV is evil. Let make a study that shows it." style studies. All of them start with a bad premise, and do nothing to actually prove their point. If you actually believed that TV caused brain damage, you wouldn't let your kids watch it at their friends place. Saying that you give your child brain damage brain damage because "It's social" is claiming that you are committing child abuse.
If you can regrow the body part, there shouldn't be any reason that you couldn't regrow it better.
I kept hoping for a sequel to Highlander. At least they had the TV show....
For instnace, the "right to bear arms" was originally not an individual right, but it has subsequently been interpreted as such by the courts because that's how the document reads.
That frequently used interpretation is clearly wrong. It makes no sense. There has never in the history of all humanity been a single nation that used "government military is illegal" to be the default in their laws. There HAVE been countries where the government has taken away individuals rights to bear arms. Also to put this in historical context, the US was a nation that was forming after arms born by private citizens were used to fight a war of independence against an armed government.
It takes great leaps of logic to interpret the constitution to be referring to the right for the government to bear arms.
It is insightful because your excuse for the students is invalid. The students absolutely ARE able to decide where most of their power comes from. They also get to decide how much power they use. It is trivial today to produce more power via photovoltaic panels than you use. There are 3 of the eleven houses on my city block produce more electricity via solar panels than they consume. The fact that these students choose to have coal burned so that they can watch the Jersey Shore means that they are absolutely culpable.
If you have to "and watch everyone like a hawk." then you are incompetent at "tell people what to do, make sure they are doing their jobs, make sure they follow through, ferret out incompetence"
Those are the words of incompetent management. Don't feel bad. Middle management in America is massively loaded with incompetent managers. Of course, incompetent middle management is ultimately upper managements fault.
That is $53.67 a day. That is a lot of money when you consider that there are 15 (those that argue schools are poor will deny this number) to 30 students per teacher. Then add the federal funding, and you can see that money is not the issue.
One thing that seems to be missed is that we are talking about 22 vs 31. The 31 is an average, so their are probably some 23s, 24,s as well as some 50s and 60s. It may suck to be at the bottom, but if the test is what we decide is the bar to for competency, we are failing as a nation. It's like an argument at the Special Olympics where the kids are calling each other retarded.
Certainly for any geek household, this test is likely to be viewed as a very low bar not to be flunked for any reason.
It has been a lot of years since I was in school, but back then in CA it was pretty common for teacher to declare on the first day of class that if you tried, they would not fail you.
It is only a terrible thing to say because the truth is terrible.
Well, historically, tea companies have been pretty well know to be aggressive in the transportation field.
Actually FOX as a whole is just shock television. It just so happens that they generally get more viewers by making crazy right political statements in their 'news' shows. Conversely, they get more views by making crazy left political statement in their adult cartoons.
This may because crazy right tends to think that direct confrontation means you are correct, and crazy left tends to think that snarky 'jokes' means you are correct.
More accurately, Twinkies are a pastry that, due to their popularity over such a long time, have become a household name in the US. Thus, hipsters like make up urban myths about them. Things like their longevity ( actually 25 days ) . Their 'artificial' status. And, the idea that they are not extremely delicious. I don't usually reference Snopes, but their writeup on Twinkies is pretty good. http://www.snopes.com/food/ingredient/twinkies.asp
The 'facts are open to interpretation seems to run like this: 1) Statements are either facts or opinions. 2) Facts are statements that are correct. 3) Thus all other statements are opinions. 4) Opinions can't be 'wrong' because they are not facts, and are inherently subjective. 5) Thus all Opinions are correct. 6) Statements that are correct are Facts. 7) Opinions are facts. This leads to: 1) Red is blue. 2) Red is blue is incorrect. 3) Since red is not blue, "Red is blue" is an opinion. 4) "Red is blue" can't be wrong because it is an opinion. 5) Thus "Red is blue" is correct. 6) Since "Red is blue" is correct, it is a fact. 7) Red is blue is a correct fact.
Bad "journalism" started WAY before blogs.