That would be great except that the human body doesn't work that way. It is a 6 year olds approach to weight loss. The kind of approach one takes when they think that the human body is a simple machine that converts all fuel to mechanical energy, and does not adjust output based on input.
Yeah, because last summer when I was working from the back of our car during a nation wide road trip with my wife and son was SOOOO dangerous. That and It is definitely safer for people to try and read paper maps while driving than it is for them to have turn by turn directions coming out of their phone. After all, it's a phone. It must be dangerous. Right?
I have seen people swerving from lane to lane while not talking or texting. I will agree that trying to read, whether that is a phone, a book, or a newspaper is a bad idea. The phone rage is just a symptom of neo-ludditism though.
I have carefully counted my calories. The whole "Eat all sugar because it is good for you." garbage is total BS.
I have heard it all before "You will absolutely gain weight.", "It's your imagination", "Your going to die", "Your a liar". On and on. The nations obsession with a sugar diet brings all sorts of rationalization why physical evidence that contradicts their advice doesn't count.
I didn't say that the caloric intake difference between the two had no effect. I said I LOST weight with the fat diet, and GAINED weight with the lower calorie sugar diet. Although, the calories are not what was making a difference. I use those numbers because it has won me more than one bet against ELEM faithful, as well as the "It's not sugar. It's carbohydrate!" faithful. In fact, no matter how many calories I eat, my body settles at about 200lbs if I eat all protein and fat. If I eat all carbohydrates, no matter how many calories I eat, my body settles at about 260 lbs. The quantity of sugars I eat place me at a weight between the two at a consistent ratio to the amount of carbohydrates I eat.
It is the "ELEM" theory that requires a malfunctioning colon. Not a diet of eating what your body uses.
It is more like first grade physics. Sure, when you drop a ball, it falls to the Earth, but as soon as you get past the simplest, and most isolated examples, the whole thing falls apart and you start explaining how Santa Claus can travel around the world in one night.
Eating less is just as likely to reduce the amount of energy supplied to your muscles as it is to make you lose weight.
No, it wouldn't. The human body is not that predictable. Eating less is just as likely to produce a situation where the body can do less work, leaving you just as fat, but adding the problem of appearing lazy to boot.
If the human body released it's calories as mechanical energy as easily as the "Eat Less. Exercise More" crowd likes to suggest, it should be possible to run 10000m at the same m/s as a 200m dash. The "ELEM" crowd should be totally on board with the Olympics cutting out every race except the 200m dash, since any runner that cannot keep the top speed of a 200m dash though the entire race of a 10000m race is just "lazy".
It only makes a neat diet if your body uses the same amount of energy for other tasks. There is this misconception that most people have even in the face of huge amounts of daily evidence. The body does not use energy based on how much goes in. We have anuses. We poop. The body stores fat. The body burns fat.
If a person is fat, the sound bite suggestion is "Eat Less. Exercise More." This is a pointless suggestion. If all energy that was consumed could just simply be converted to mechanical energy, the people making that suggestion should be able to run 10,000K marathons simply by having enough Twinkies fed to them at a rate where the calories consumed equaled the calories spent.
It is just as likely that instead of losing weight, you would just get tired sooner.
Most of the food from Whole Foods is garbage. Whole foods schtick is "Natural". "Natural" and healthy are not synonymous. High fat is not bad for you. High sugar is. Whole Foods could easily be renamed to Sugar Foods. High salt is only a problem if you have the pre-existing condition of high blood pressure. I have personally know more people with health problems caused by too little salt than I have from too much salt.
The biggest problem with the American diet is that people are using quack medicine to determine what is healthy and what isn't, they don't critically look at what effects their food choices have on their bodies, and they allow snake oil salesmen to convince them that if their snake oil doesn't work, they must be a bad person and should take even more.
The current "Natural" = Healthy mantra is no better than Astrology or Phrenology.
Even more interesting is the fact that the start of the "obesity epidemic" in the US coincides very closely with the date that the US started pushing sugar as it's primary calorie intake instead of fat. As well as the push to convince people that complex sugars (carbohydrates) are not sugar.
My personal experimentation shows that I can eat a 3500 calorie/day diet of fat and protein will keep me at 60 lbs lighter than a 2000 calorie/day diet of sugar.
Trying to talk like a robot and pause between each word will make Android far less accurate in detecting your speech. Google's voice recognition works far better if you speak naturally.
My point is that when you point out "extremely violent and immoral acts" in the Americas, and specifically limit it to specific racial groups when those actions predate the group you want to villainize as much as they happened after the group arrived, you show your racism and bigotry. When you call your racist story "the most honest perspective" you tell a lie. Vietnam has no more to do with Columbus than the actions that Indians took against each other prior to his landing. You only see it as more relevant because you are a racist.
Do you deny that the Europeans did not introduce "extremely violent and immoral acts" to the Americas, and in fact were late to the game?
We are under no obligation whatsoever to let corporations exist at all.
This is a point that is usually missed, and hopefully the OWS will bring to the forefront. The existence of corporations is not a right. It is a privilege.
No. Your post implies that it was the Europeans that brought atrocity to the Americas. That is what is called a half truth, and what honest people call an whole lie. I don't contradict myself at all. I acknowledged the true facts you stated, but pointed out that how you put it out of context to produce an end result that is just as distorted as the stories that you complain about.
Do you deny that the European did not introduce "extremely violent and immoral acts" to the Americas, and in fact were late to the game?
It should also be noted that the percentage of games that are pirated has plummeted over the years. So, both the number of games paid for in absolute numbers, as well as the percentage of games paid for has increased.
It is a lot more complicated than that though. With digital you can have multiple copies of the the media, update the format to current standards, and change the mechanical playback device that is needed.
With analog, no matter how much foresight you have, time will take it's toll on your media. With digital, it is pretty much only neglect or lack of foresight that takes it's toll.
The question is whether we have learned our lessons from the past. Will we have the foresight to keep perfect copies, or won't we.
Which is better is the wrong argument in digital vs. analog. They could both be made better than anything that has currently been made. No one has, or likely ever will top out the quality that either one could produce.
The real question is which one is cheaper to produce at the "good enough", or maybe even "a little better than good enough" quality. Analog get real close to the "good enough' range real fast with cheap manufacturing. I can build an analog audio system in my home out stuff pulled from my kid's craft bucket. Digital is much more expensive to get going. To match the audio fidelity of my 'craft' analog system in digital, you are going to need a billion dollar chip foundry. Ok, you could probably do it with discreet components with only a million dollar factory, but the point remains that there was a lot of infrestructure that needed to be built to get digital off the ground.
The thing is, once you get the infrastructure in place, digital gets real cheap. It would take $1000s of dollars in analog gear to match the audio quality of a $20 CD player. Very few people care to try, as the digital player is "good enough". If the masses decided that they had to have better than CD quality, digital equipment could easily be produced that was dramatically better at a much cheaper price than analog equipment. What we have found is that not only do people not care about better than CD audio quality (see DVDA and SACD), but in fact have chosen lower quality in MP3. They did this fully informed of the choice they were making. Cost was the deciding factor.
Your analysis seems pretty reasonable. The big problem I see with this approach is that Apple has always been a boom and bust company. Their popularity goes in waves. With their old system, they had a group of people that had invested huge amounts of money in their infrastructure, and would have had a huge problem moving away from their Macs. Consumers are more fickle. If Apple goes out of style again, they won't have a locked in user base to get them through the lean times. Given the size of their current profits, it seem short sighted for them to kick their safety net to the curb.
That is the funny thing about Apple. I got a Mac to try out some iOS development, and was truly suprised at just how bad the UI was. Macs were supposed to be good at UI, and it turns out that they are pretty darn bad at it. Yet the Apple fans keep instisting that "I'm holding it wrong". I agree, and have stated myself many times, that the single menu at the top made perfectly fine sense when we were running on a single 640 x480 screen. Back then, pixels were precious. Today it is just bad UI.
The fact that the X button sometimes closes the application, and sometimes leaves the application running without a UI is also bad. The green + shrinking the screen is a poor UI choice. The list goes on and on.
It is just strange that the UI gets held up as Apples triumph, when the UI is sub par and the good parts of a OSX are under the hood.
Why are people not up in arms about anyone being called a Czar in our government. A Czar is royalty. We should all be screaming about anyone in our government being declared royalty.
Funny how you list the "most honest" perspective that is as distorted as all the rest. The history of The Americas is consistently punctuated with extremely violent and immoral acts that are glossed over and downplayed in any history that was taught in public schools(k-12) as well as in colleges. Your comment shows that it is also glossed over in colleges by the fact that you seem to think that violent and immoral actions started with the Europeans coming to the Americas.
Violent and immoral acts have been happening in the Americas for as long as resources have been limited. It WAY predates the Europeans. The only thing that changed with the Europeans in that regard is that there was a new player in the killing, raping and enslaving. A new player that was better equipped, immune to various deadly diseases, and could be identified by the color of their skin.
Slashdot Mirror
That would be great except that the human body doesn't work that way. It is a 6 year olds approach to weight loss. The kind of approach one takes when they think that the human body is a simple machine that converts all fuel to mechanical energy, and does not adjust output based on input.
Yeah, because last summer when I was working from the back of our car during a nation wide road trip with my wife and son was SOOOO dangerous. That and It is definitely safer for people to try and read paper maps while driving than it is for them to have turn by turn directions coming out of their phone. After all, it's a phone. It must be dangerous. Right?
I have seen people swerving from lane to lane while not talking or texting. I will agree that trying to read, whether that is a phone, a book, or a newspaper is a bad idea. The phone rage is just a symptom of neo-ludditism though.
I have carefully counted my calories. The whole "Eat all sugar because it is good for you." garbage is total BS.
I have heard it all before "You will absolutely gain weight.", "It's your imagination", "Your going to die", "Your a liar". On and on. The nations obsession with a sugar diet brings all sorts of rationalization why physical evidence that contradicts their advice doesn't count.
I didn't say that the caloric intake difference between the two had no effect. I said I LOST weight with the fat diet, and GAINED weight with the lower calorie sugar diet. Although, the calories are not what was making a difference. I use those numbers because it has won me more than one bet against ELEM faithful, as well as the "It's not sugar. It's carbohydrate!" faithful. In fact, no matter how many calories I eat, my body settles at about 200lbs if I eat all protein and fat. If I eat all carbohydrates, no matter how many calories I eat, my body settles at about 260 lbs. The quantity of sugars I eat place me at a weight between the two at a consistent ratio to the amount of carbohydrates I eat.
It is the "ELEM" theory that requires a malfunctioning colon. Not a diet of eating what your body uses.
It is more like first grade physics. Sure, when you drop a ball, it falls to the Earth, but as soon as you get past the simplest, and most isolated examples, the whole thing falls apart and you start explaining how Santa Claus can travel around the world in one night.
Eating less is just as likely to reduce the amount of energy supplied to your muscles as it is to make you lose weight.
No, it wouldn't. The human body is not that predictable. Eating less is just as likely to produce a situation where the body can do less work, leaving you just as fat, but adding the problem of appearing lazy to boot.
If the human body released it's calories as mechanical energy as easily as the "Eat Less. Exercise More" crowd likes to suggest, it should be possible to run 10000m at the same m/s as a 200m dash. The "ELEM" crowd should be totally on board with the Olympics cutting out every race except the 200m dash, since any runner that cannot keep the top speed of a 200m dash though the entire race of a 10000m race is just "lazy".
It only makes a neat diet if your body uses the same amount of energy for other tasks. There is this misconception that most people have even in the face of huge amounts of daily evidence. The body does not use energy based on how much goes in. We have anuses. We poop. The body stores fat. The body burns fat.
If a person is fat, the sound bite suggestion is "Eat Less. Exercise More." This is a pointless suggestion. If all energy that was consumed could just simply be converted to mechanical energy, the people making that suggestion should be able to run 10,000K marathons simply by having enough Twinkies fed to them at a rate where the calories consumed equaled the calories spent.
It is just as likely that instead of losing weight, you would just get tired sooner.
Most of the food from Whole Foods is garbage. Whole foods schtick is "Natural". "Natural" and healthy are not synonymous. High fat is not bad for you. High sugar is. Whole Foods could easily be renamed to Sugar Foods. High salt is only a problem if you have the pre-existing condition of high blood pressure. I have personally know more people with health problems caused by too little salt than I have from too much salt.
The biggest problem with the American diet is that people are using quack medicine to determine what is healthy and what isn't, they don't critically look at what effects their food choices have on their bodies, and they allow snake oil salesmen to convince them that if their snake oil doesn't work, they must be a bad person and should take even more.
The current "Natural" = Healthy mantra is no better than Astrology or Phrenology.
Even more interesting is the fact that the start of the "obesity epidemic" in the US coincides very closely with the date that the US started pushing sugar as it's primary calorie intake instead of fat. As well as the push to convince people that complex sugars (carbohydrates) are not sugar.
My personal experimentation shows that I can eat a 3500 calorie/day diet of fat and protein will keep me at 60 lbs lighter than a 2000 calorie/day diet of sugar.
Trying to talk like a robot and pause between each word will make Android far less accurate in detecting your speech. Google's voice recognition works far better if you speak naturally.
I'm thinking that most of the domestic disputes are not due to a lack of understanding, but instead are because the meaning is clearly understood.
My point is that when you point out "extremely violent and immoral acts" in the Americas, and specifically limit it to specific racial groups when those actions predate the group you want to villainize as much as they happened after the group arrived, you show your racism and bigotry. When you call your racist story "the most honest perspective" you tell a lie. Vietnam has no more to do with Columbus than the actions that Indians took against each other prior to his landing. You only see it as more relevant because you are a racist.
Do you deny that the Europeans did not introduce "extremely violent and immoral acts" to the Americas, and in fact were late to the game?
No. Linux would be John Deere.
We are under no obligation whatsoever to let corporations exist at all.
This is a point that is usually missed, and hopefully the OWS will bring to the forefront. The existence of corporations is not a right. It is a privilege.
No. Your post implies that it was the Europeans that brought atrocity to the Americas. That is what is called a half truth, and what honest people call an whole lie. I don't contradict myself at all. I acknowledged the true facts you stated, but pointed out that how you put it out of context to produce an end result that is just as distorted as the stories that you complain about.
Do you deny that the European did not introduce "extremely violent and immoral acts" to the Americas, and in fact were late to the game?
It should also be noted that the percentage of games that are pirated has plummeted over the years. So, both the number of games paid for in absolute numbers, as well as the percentage of games paid for has increased.
I don't actually think it will go all that well either, but no matter what direction they go Apple has some serious changes ahead.
It is a lot more complicated than that though. With digital you can have multiple copies of the the media, update the format to current standards, and change the mechanical playback device that is needed.
With analog, no matter how much foresight you have, time will take it's toll on your media. With digital, it is pretty much only neglect or lack of foresight that takes it's toll.
The question is whether we have learned our lessons from the past. Will we have the foresight to keep perfect copies, or won't we.
Which is better is the wrong argument in digital vs. analog. They could both be made better than anything that has currently been made. No one has, or likely ever will top out the quality that either one could produce.
The real question is which one is cheaper to produce at the "good enough", or maybe even "a little better than good enough" quality. Analog get real close to the "good enough' range real fast with cheap manufacturing. I can build an analog audio system in my home out stuff pulled from my kid's craft bucket. Digital is much more expensive to get going. To match the audio fidelity of my 'craft' analog system in digital, you are going to need a billion dollar chip foundry. Ok, you could probably do it with discreet components with only a million dollar factory, but the point remains that there was a lot of infrestructure that needed to be built to get digital off the ground.
The thing is, once you get the infrastructure in place, digital gets real cheap. It would take $1000s of dollars in analog gear to match the audio quality of a $20 CD player. Very few people care to try, as the digital player is "good enough". If the masses decided that they had to have better than CD quality, digital equipment could easily be produced that was dramatically better at a much cheaper price than analog equipment. What we have found is that not only do people not care about better than CD audio quality (see DVDA and SACD), but in fact have chosen lower quality in MP3. They did this fully informed of the choice they were making. Cost was the deciding factor.
CEOs change. You make a good point about nothing being etched in stone. Steve Jobs was Apple. We have no idea where the company will go now.
Your analysis seems pretty reasonable. The big problem I see with this approach is that Apple has always been a boom and bust company. Their popularity goes in waves. With their old system, they had a group of people that had invested huge amounts of money in their infrastructure, and would have had a huge problem moving away from their Macs. Consumers are more fickle. If Apple goes out of style again, they won't have a locked in user base to get them through the lean times. Given the size of their current profits, it seem short sighted for them to kick their safety net to the curb.
That is the funny thing about Apple. I got a Mac to try out some iOS development, and was truly suprised at just how bad the UI was. Macs were supposed to be good at UI, and it turns out that they are pretty darn bad at it. Yet the Apple fans keep instisting that "I'm holding it wrong". I agree, and have stated myself many times, that the single menu at the top made perfectly fine sense when we were running on a single 640 x480 screen. Back then, pixels were precious. Today it is just bad UI.
The fact that the X button sometimes closes the application, and sometimes leaves the application running without a UI is also bad. The green + shrinking the screen is a poor UI choice. The list goes on and on.
It is just strange that the UI gets held up as Apples triumph, when the UI is sub par and the good parts of a OSX are under the hood.
Why are people not up in arms about anyone being called a Czar in our government. A Czar is royalty. We should all be screaming about anyone in our government being declared royalty.
Funny how you list the "most honest" perspective that is as distorted as all the rest. The history of The Americas is consistently punctuated with extremely violent and immoral acts that are glossed over and downplayed in any history that was taught in public schools(k-12) as well as in colleges. Your comment shows that it is also glossed over in colleges by the fact that you seem to think that violent and immoral actions started with the Europeans coming to the Americas.
Violent and immoral acts have been happening in the Americas for as long as resources have been limited. It WAY predates the Europeans. The only thing that changed with the Europeans in that regard is that there was a new player in the killing, raping and enslaving. A new player that was better equipped, immune to various deadly diseases, and could be identified by the color of their skin.
Of course, WE are the indigenous people now.