I had the same problem with AT&T. My solution was to just take my router and a laptop outside and plug it in directly to the 'outside' wiring. That pretty well shut them up about it being my inside wiring.
That must be why your name is "Your Master". You are the first person in this chunk of thread to have mastered the English language well enough to understand what was clearly written.
don't confuse carbs with sugars, they are similar, but not the same.
This is the number one reason that obese people are obese. They believe this statement. Carbohydrate and sugar are synonyms. They are the same word with the exact same definition. The medical, health, and government into thinking exactly what this poor sap believes.
Nice false dichotomy. My response would be:
C) Feel sympathetic for them because they have been conned by the health industry, medical industry, and government into thinking that an all sugar diet and starvation are the keys to being fit.
"I hope you're stuck between 175 kilos of hypothyroidism and 200 kilos of big bones."
I'm not even sure what you are trying to say by that. Are you just wishing bad health on me because I don't believe that the human body is a perfect heat engine? Or would you want me that big because you think fat people are evil, you believe I am evil, and you want an easy way to identify me as evil? Or is there some reason you would want me to be that big that doesn't point make you a scum bag?
Bzzt...You may have read "it hard", but you didn't understand it. I never said that they had to be fat. I just pointed out that the solution is different than what people too stupid to get past the moronic "eat less, exercise" more mantra think it is. Calling people names, and telling them that to solve their problems they should do something that has proven over the last 30 years to be exactly the opposite of what they need, isn't helpful.
Thinking that telling people to work WITH their bodies instead of against it is certainly not a disservice, and is in no way marginalizing them. But then, you don't seem to be able to read well, so you might not know what 'disservice' and 'marginalize' mean.
You are wrong. Most overweight people are not obsessed with eating. The ones that are tend to be that way not because they want food that much, but because everybody around them is constantly telling them, or implying that they are bad people because they eat too much. It doesn't matter if they eat half as much as the skinny guy sitting next to them.
Of every single fat person I have ever met that has become fit (including myself), not one of them has become fit by ignoring food. Obsessing about food produces MUCH better results. 30 years of "eat less, exercise more" not only failing to make people thinner, but in fact increasing the average weights seems to have also caused the population to lose the ability to make logical connections.
Honestly, of all the people I have ever personally met that were the type that would agonize over missing a meal, maybe one or two were fat. I have known many dozens that were skinny. I suspect if you really thought about it, you would find the same applies to you.
Of course not. That wouldn't fit into your "fat people are fat because they are bad people" world view. Let me guess, you probably think that being 6'2" and 260lbs make you obese too....
What part of what I say endorses sugar? I explicitly state that the wholesale pushing of a primarily sugar diet by the medical and health industry is a major part of the problem most people have with losing weight. A simple reading of my post would make that extremely clear.
In case you are confused, bread is sweet EVERYWHERE. It is a big ball of sugar. The only reason you didn't notice that it was sweet where you came from was because you had already gotten used to that level of sweetness. I don't know where you are getting meat, but there are very few places I have been that sweeten their meat. Sure if you get pasta with meat sauce it, the pasta is all sugar, and there is generally sugar in the sauce.
If you had read my post instead of guessing as to what it said, you would have realized that it said the genetics of most of the population doesn't match the eating that is done by most of the population. I point out that our health and medical industries (really, the government too) have pushed a primarily sugar diet. Just look at the 'food pyramid' it is almost entirely sugar. So, while a small portion of the population stays thin by eating this way because they happen to win the genetic lottery on that point, the vast majority of the population is going to get fatter and fatter. Why have these problems gotten worse over the last few decades? Because the all sugar diet became what the government, health, medical, and food industry has been pushing for...wait for it...the last few decades. Go back to the 50's and you will find a very different view on what was considered healthy eating than what is considered today.
A great food experiment has been conducted on the American population. Unfortunately, no one wants to look at the results. Everyone want to just claim that we must not be eat enough sugar. Heck, 'experts' have gotten to the point that they are even trying to redefine what the word sugar means. I have literally heard doctors claim that 'it's not sugar, it's carbohydrates'.
First, if you read my post, it does not say that it is all genetic. It simply points out that the skinny people in the use are not generally skinny because they are superior. It isn't because they eat 'right' and exercise more. It is because their genetics match the way that Americans eat.
Second, The "you can't violate the conservation of energy" argument is stupid. It is only used by the people to simple minded to understand that humans have an anus. That's right. If a person has a butt hole, huge amounts of the energy the person takes in gets passed right through. Yes, even by skinny people. In fact, generally MORE is just passed through by skinny people, and that is why they are skinny. There are exactly 0 people on the planet whose body is balanced via calories eaten vs. calories burned. The argument is simply absurd.
I have challenged many people to put their money where their mouth is concerning the brain dead "eat less, exercise more" argument. I can gain weight at 1500 calories a day, and it will all be fat. I can lose weight at 4000 calories a day and it will all be fat.
As for your 1500 calories, 10 miles a day challenge... What you miss is that many peoples bodies will not only not burn fat at 1500 calories a day, their bodies will think that food is in short supply and hang on to that fat even more. What WILL happen though is that since their bodies are not releasing energy to their muscles, it becomes more and more difficult to function physically.
Can you run forever without stopping? Can you do an infinite number of pull ups? Not likely. When you have tried to do as many pull ups as possible, was it reaching 0% body fat that caused you to stop? not likely. Why? Because calories consumed vs. calories burned isn't even a 1/4 of the story.
No, you cannot violate conservation of energy, but you can starve to death while still being obese. Both obese by the absurd BMI standard, or by the 'Holy Crap man, your wider than you are tall' standard.
Yes, I saw my weight as too much. So, I solved the problem. I did it by ignoring all the advice that is considered 'common sense' like 'Eat less, exercise more'. I tend to be a lot more sympathetic to people about it because being a geek, I understand that the vast majority of people believe what 'experts' tell them. Even when it flys in the face of all empirical evidence.
Contrary to what simple minded people think, eating more doesn't not directly link to being fatter, and eating less does not directly link to being thinner. In fact, it is quite often the case that eating less will make you gain weight.
Genetics is the biggest factor in peoples weight. Their genes will make them hover to some genetically determined weight. People who's genes push them to a reletively small weight, are not doing anybody any good, and just being an ass when they complain that the person who's genes push them to a 300lb weight eat too much. Having genes that will put you 10 pounds over weight if you don't exercise, and eat total crap, is in no way the same thing as having genes that will put you 100 or more pounds over weight.
Of course, when the answer is "Yes" to the genetic/environment question (which is generally the case), that does mean that environment is a factor. One of the big problems people have is that our health/medical/food industry has decided that everyone should eat a low calorie and primarily sugar diet. This is fine for some people, as that is what their genetics has determined their body needs. This is not what MOST people need. They take a few people who's body work under the low calorie and sugar diet, and hold them up as proof that that is a good diet. Many MANY people will be thinner and healthier with a higher calorie, high fat/protein, low sugar diet.
Now, I don't know if you've ever tried to actually cut most of the sugar out of your diet (I assume you have not based on your post), but unless you live in your mother's basement and are never actually away from home during meal times, it is very difficult to keep away from the sugar. Very few restaurants have low or no sugar menu items. It is also rare to have low or no suger food served during lunch breaks at meetings, at parties, or at other people's homes.
Exercise is the another myth. Many people will not burn any significant amount of fat from exercise. For the many peole who's bodies decide to release fat as energy based on diet, and not on activity, exercising, while likely to make them healthier, will not make them smaller. It will make them larger and more tired. When you exercise, you muscles grow. This means you get bigger. Now, for the lucky, their bodies do not aggressively hold on to energy by storing it as fat. These people will lose fat by exercising. For others, their bodies react to the extra exercise as an indication that their bodies energy needs are going up, and thus become even more aggressive at storing any spare energy consumed as fat.
So, the answer isn't "Hey fatty, eat less, exercise more.", as that is just as likely to make him FATTER.
I'm not convinced on AGW, but please don't use the "the weatherman can't predict the weather a week in advance, why on earth would I believe they can predict it for a century from now..." argument in this debate. It isn't helpful to either side of the argument. It just comes off as plugging your ears and saying "na na na na na...".
If you want a future prediction on weather that is falsifiable, I hereby predict that it will be hotter on July 12th in Tucson Arizona at 12:00 Noon, than on Febuary 15th at 12:00 Noon. Weathermen are actually pretty good at predicting the weather. If the weatherman says to take a jacket on vacation because it will be cold by the end of the week, you would be wise to take their advice. That being said, the methods they use to predict next weeks weather are vastly more verifiable than the ones they use to predict weather 100 years from now.
Your making a false dichotomy. The choice isn't between engaging the kids and sedating them. The choice is between ignoring them in a lord of the flies situation, or giving them a tool that they can use for fun or education. No doubt, many of them will choose fun, but that is no worse than the alternative.
We have the entire history of public education to show us that "doing the tough thing of disciplining kids who are acting bad and maybe trying to build up kids' confidence and sense of ownership of their actions and respect for their peers" is simply an option that is not even on the table for discussion.
Sending bulky documents by email isn't a problem, and setting up a public document repository is a crappy hack at best. People will simply not use it. The correct thing to do is use a decent email system like Lotus Notes. I know this will bring out the trolls who will blame Notes for shitty admins and not being as shiny as Apple and MS products in the past. Lotus Notes will take your in coming email, and store the attachments in a separate repository. It will then seamlessly deliver the files back to the user as if they were part of the email. For over a decade it had the ability to keep one copy of an email that was sent to multiple users and present it to the users as individual copies.
And if a shiny web ui is what you want, they have that too.
Slashdot Mirror
If you honestly believe that, then there is no common ground to have a discussion. You will simply blame people's weight on steroids.
I would go one step farther and say that if the poster is not an idiot, then they have committed premeditated child abuse.
I had the same problem with AT&T. My solution was to just take my router and a laptop outside and plug it in directly to the 'outside' wiring. That pretty well shut them up about it being my inside wiring.
That must be why your name is "Your Master". You are the first person in this chunk of thread to have mastered the English language well enough to understand what was clearly written.
You were, but is everybody?
don't confuse carbs with sugars, they are similar, but not the same.
This is the number one reason that obese people are obese. They believe this statement. Carbohydrate and sugar are synonyms. They are the same word with the exact same definition. The medical, health, and government into thinking exactly what this poor sap believes.
http://www.google.com/search?&q=define:Carbohydrates
Nice false dichotomy. My response would be: C) Feel sympathetic for them because they have been conned by the health industry, medical industry, and government into thinking that an all sugar diet and starvation are the keys to being fit.
"I hope you're stuck between 175 kilos of hypothyroidism and 200 kilos of big bones."
I'm not even sure what you are trying to say by that. Are you just wishing bad health on me because I don't believe that the human body is a perfect heat engine? Or would you want me that big because you think fat people are evil, you believe I am evil, and you want an easy way to identify me as evil? Or is there some reason you would want me to be that big that doesn't point make you a scum bag?
Bzzt...You may have read "it hard", but you didn't understand it. I never said that they had to be fat. I just pointed out that the solution is different than what people too stupid to get past the moronic "eat less, exercise" more mantra think it is. Calling people names, and telling them that to solve their problems they should do something that has proven over the last 30 years to be exactly the opposite of what they need, isn't helpful.
Thinking that telling people to work WITH their bodies instead of against it is certainly not a disservice, and is in no way marginalizing them. But then, you don't seem to be able to read well, so you might not know what 'disservice' and 'marginalize' mean.
It applies to you was referring to the number of people you now that obsess over food, not that you obsess over food.
Spoken like a moron with poor reading skills. Try reading it again and maybe you won't sound so stupid.
You are wrong. Most overweight people are not obsessed with eating. The ones that are tend to be that way not because they want food that much, but because everybody around them is constantly telling them, or implying that they are bad people because they eat too much. It doesn't matter if they eat half as much as the skinny guy sitting next to them.
Of every single fat person I have ever met that has become fit (including myself), not one of them has become fit by ignoring food. Obsessing about food produces MUCH better results. 30 years of "eat less, exercise more" not only failing to make people thinner, but in fact increasing the average weights seems to have also caused the population to lose the ability to make logical connections.
Honestly, of all the people I have ever personally met that were the type that would agonize over missing a meal, maybe one or two were fat. I have known many dozens that were skinny. I suspect if you really thought about it, you would find the same applies to you.
Of course not. That wouldn't fit into your "fat people are fat because they are bad people" world view. Let me guess, you probably think that being 6'2" and 260lbs make you obese too....
What part of what I say endorses sugar? I explicitly state that the wholesale pushing of a primarily sugar diet by the medical and health industry is a major part of the problem most people have with losing weight. A simple reading of my post would make that extremely clear.
In case you are confused, bread is sweet EVERYWHERE. It is a big ball of sugar. The only reason you didn't notice that it was sweet where you came from was because you had already gotten used to that level of sweetness. I don't know where you are getting meat, but there are very few places I have been that sweeten their meat. Sure if you get pasta with meat sauce it, the pasta is all sugar, and there is generally sugar in the sauce.
If you had read my post instead of guessing as to what it said, you would have realized that it said the genetics of most of the population doesn't match the eating that is done by most of the population. I point out that our health and medical industries (really, the government too) have pushed a primarily sugar diet. Just look at the 'food pyramid' it is almost entirely sugar. So, while a small portion of the population stays thin by eating this way because they happen to win the genetic lottery on that point, the vast majority of the population is going to get fatter and fatter. Why have these problems gotten worse over the last few decades? Because the all sugar diet became what the government, health, medical, and food industry has been pushing for...wait for it...the last few decades. Go back to the 50's and you will find a very different view on what was considered healthy eating than what is considered today.
A great food experiment has been conducted on the American population. Unfortunately, no one wants to look at the results. Everyone want to just claim that we must not be eat enough sugar. Heck, 'experts' have gotten to the point that they are even trying to redefine what the word sugar means. I have literally heard doctors claim that 'it's not sugar, it's carbohydrates'.
First, if you read my post, it does not say that it is all genetic. It simply points out that the skinny people in the use are not generally skinny because they are superior. It isn't because they eat 'right' and exercise more. It is because their genetics match the way that Americans eat. Second, The "you can't violate the conservation of energy" argument is stupid. It is only used by the people to simple minded to understand that humans have an anus. That's right. If a person has a butt hole, huge amounts of the energy the person takes in gets passed right through. Yes, even by skinny people. In fact, generally MORE is just passed through by skinny people, and that is why they are skinny. There are exactly 0 people on the planet whose body is balanced via calories eaten vs. calories burned. The argument is simply absurd.
I have challenged many people to put their money where their mouth is concerning the brain dead "eat less, exercise more" argument. I can gain weight at 1500 calories a day, and it will all be fat. I can lose weight at 4000 calories a day and it will all be fat.
As for your 1500 calories, 10 miles a day challenge... What you miss is that many peoples bodies will not only not burn fat at 1500 calories a day, their bodies will think that food is in short supply and hang on to that fat even more. What WILL happen though is that since their bodies are not releasing energy to their muscles, it becomes more and more difficult to function physically.
Can you run forever without stopping? Can you do an infinite number of pull ups? Not likely. When you have tried to do as many pull ups as possible, was it reaching 0% body fat that caused you to stop? not likely. Why? Because calories consumed vs. calories burned isn't even a 1/4 of the story.
No, you cannot violate conservation of energy, but you can starve to death while still being obese. Both obese by the absurd BMI standard, or by the 'Holy Crap man, your wider than you are tall' standard.
Yes, I saw my weight as too much. So, I solved the problem. I did it by ignoring all the advice that is considered 'common sense' like 'Eat less, exercise more'. I tend to be a lot more sympathetic to people about it because being a geek, I understand that the vast majority of people believe what 'experts' tell them. Even when it flys in the face of all empirical evidence.
Here is my favorite example of an 'Obese' lardass per the BMI.
Contrary to what simple minded people think, eating more doesn't not directly link to being fatter, and eating less does not directly link to being thinner. In fact, it is quite often the case that eating less will make you gain weight.
Genetics is the biggest factor in peoples weight. Their genes will make them hover to some genetically determined weight. People who's genes push them to a reletively small weight, are not doing anybody any good, and just being an ass when they complain that the person who's genes push them to a 300lb weight eat too much. Having genes that will put you 10 pounds over weight if you don't exercise, and eat total crap, is in no way the same thing as having genes that will put you 100 or more pounds over weight.
Of course, when the answer is "Yes" to the genetic/environment question (which is generally the case), that does mean that environment is a factor. One of the big problems people have is that our health/medical/food industry has decided that everyone should eat a low calorie and primarily sugar diet. This is fine for some people, as that is what their genetics has determined their body needs. This is not what MOST people need. They take a few people who's body work under the low calorie and sugar diet, and hold them up as proof that that is a good diet. Many MANY people will be thinner and healthier with a higher calorie, high fat/protein, low sugar diet.
Now, I don't know if you've ever tried to actually cut most of the sugar out of your diet (I assume you have not based on your post), but unless you live in your mother's basement and are never actually away from home during meal times, it is very difficult to keep away from the sugar. Very few restaurants have low or no sugar menu items. It is also rare to have low or no suger food served during lunch breaks at meetings, at parties, or at other people's homes.
Exercise is the another myth. Many people will not burn any significant amount of fat from exercise. For the many peole who's bodies decide to release fat as energy based on diet, and not on activity, exercising, while likely to make them healthier, will not make them smaller. It will make them larger and more tired. When you exercise, you muscles grow. This means you get bigger. Now, for the lucky, their bodies do not aggressively hold on to energy by storing it as fat. These people will lose fat by exercising. For others, their bodies react to the extra exercise as an indication that their bodies energy needs are going up, and thus become even more aggressive at storing any spare energy consumed as fat.
So, the answer isn't "Hey fatty, eat less, exercise more.", as that is just as likely to make him FATTER.
I'm not convinced on AGW, but please don't use the "the weatherman can't predict the weather a week in advance, why on earth would I believe they can predict it for a century from now..." argument in this debate. It isn't helpful to either side of the argument. It just comes off as plugging your ears and saying "na na na na na...".
If you want a future prediction on weather that is falsifiable, I hereby predict that it will be hotter on July 12th in Tucson Arizona at 12:00 Noon, than on Febuary 15th at 12:00 Noon. Weathermen are actually pretty good at predicting the weather. If the weatherman says to take a jacket on vacation because it will be cold by the end of the week, you would be wise to take their advice. That being said, the methods they use to predict next weeks weather are vastly more verifiable than the ones they use to predict weather 100 years from now.
That was my point.
Which is why Lotus Notes/Domino is still huge, even when it is less shiny than Outlook. It is simple to administer, and it actually works.
And that sums up the state of our public education nicely.
Your making a false dichotomy. The choice isn't between engaging the kids and sedating them. The choice is between ignoring them in a lord of the flies situation, or giving them a tool that they can use for fun or education. No doubt, many of them will choose fun, but that is no worse than the alternative.
We have the entire history of public education to show us that "doing the tough thing of disciplining kids who are acting bad and maybe trying to build up kids' confidence and sense of ownership of their actions and respect for their peers" is simply an option that is not even on the table for discussion.
Obviously you have never watched a comedian that isn't white, or watched any tv comedies that have non-whites as their main character.
Sending bulky documents by email isn't a problem, and setting up a public document repository is a crappy hack at best. People will simply not use it. The correct thing to do is use a decent email system like Lotus Notes. I know this will bring out the trolls who will blame Notes for shitty admins and not being as shiny as Apple and MS products in the past. Lotus Notes will take your in coming email, and store the attachments in a separate repository. It will then seamlessly deliver the files back to the user as if they were part of the email. For over a decade it had the ability to keep one copy of an email that was sent to multiple users and present it to the users as individual copies.
And if a shiny web ui is what you want, they have that too.
Then watch it!