You know there is a word for that. It's called racism. I guess I am lucky that while I have met some people like that, most of the people I don't care, don't know, or both.
I don't know about KDE, but Gnome, the default version of Ubuntu, and the most likely version that a newbie will use, does in fact just give you a dialog with a yes or no for the install. At the point that someone is skilled enough to start changing the default desktop, they are skilled enough to install samba. No doubt, that the Kubuntu group should follow the example of the Ubuntu group, but certainly, what you ask for IS there in Ubuntu.
Or, you could treat it the way simple file sharing under windows works, and just allow login with no passwords. Just do like you would in Windows, and set the acess to allow delete and remove files. Yes, Linux is a bit more secure in that it defaults to no access while Windows defaults to read only access, but is it really that much harder to select "Create and Delete" than it is to select "Allow network users to change my files"? I know that I don't have accounts on my server for my X-Boxes that read music from it.
Um, Ubuntu has the exact same kind of networking that Windows has. You can right click on a folder, and select "Share Folder". It pops up a box asking if you want SMB or NSF. SMB IS windows networking. Select it, and one of two things will happen. If you already have Samba installed, it you will have a "Windows" share. If you don't have it installed, Ubuntu will install it, and THEN you will have a "Windows" share. For the client, all you have to do is go to the "Places" pulldown that is always on your task bar, and select "Network". You will see the "Windows" shares, just like on an actual Windows machine.
Seriously, the process to share files under Ubuntu is almost exactly the same as in Windows. You clearly just don't WANT to be able to share files under it.
3. SUPPORT. If a vendor preloads Linux you can call them up and get warranty support without having to worry about reloading Windows before shipping it off or ensuring the drive is yanked out.
This is the biggest one for me. I don't really care what version of Linux they ship with, as I have always had the practice of wiping the disk and reinstalling clean any computer I have bought anyway. Personally, the biggest thing I want to see with PC shipped with Linux is for each one to come with a LiveCD that is configured to use every piece of hardware in the computer. That way, if I need to call because of bad hardware, there is no question about whether it is the hardware or the software. I will be booting not only with the OS that they are expecting, but a clean install of the OS they are expecting. If it doesn't run with that, then obviously the hardware is bad. Heck, I would want to see this no matter what OS is the machine is being shipped with.
I would think that this has the potential to massively reduce support costs. Customer calls with a complaint that the computer is broken. Tech Support asks them to boot with the clean LiveCD. Things work? It's your software. Things don't work? It's the hardware. Problem solved.
Have you considered that the died and reborn story far predates the gospel story, and is in fact an easy way to add shock value to a story? Stories of magical characters rising from the dead were not even close to new at the time that Jesus was supposed to have climbed from his grave. So, while I will say, who am I to know the minds of the creators of Friday the 13th? Given the information available, a rational person is going to say "No, Friday the 13th is unlikely to be extremely influenced by the gospel story, and if the writers were intending to write a parallel with Jason as Jesus, they did a crappy job of it.".
Hey! That's the same thing I said about Narnia! Go figure.
On the plus side, from now on, you get to live with the stigma that your the guy who thinks Friday the 13th is a retelling of the story of Jesus.
Funny, that is the same argument (with the colors reversed) that we hear from black supremacists. Go figure, people of diffent races behaving in the same way. My only problem is that one group is allowed to publicly push their agenda and anyone that calls them on it is ironically called a racist.
In Friday the 13th: The New Beginning Jason is gone for most of the movie and most people stopped believing that he still exists. He has become a "myth". In Friday the 13th: Jason goes to Hell, Jason, as the title says, goes to hell, yet after travelling through hell, returns in Friday the 13th X. Friday the 13th seems to be easily as much a parallel to the bible as Narnia. The biggest problem with the "It's the bible!" line is that Aslan is a killer who installs kings and queens, where as the very premise of the Jesus of the bible is that he is not.
Like I said, if the author said that he was trying to parallel the bible, then I can't really argue with that, but I can say that he did a really crappy job of it. I have to say that I have not read or seen any other Narnia stories beyond The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, but your descriptions still make Friday the 13th a closer parallel than Narnia. This leads me to wonder whether the author REALLY did try to make a parallel that failed, or if the idea was an after thought that he thought could sell more books.
Tons of stories have characters that sacrifice themselves and then are raised from the dead. Besides, in the Jesus story there was no sacrifice. The Aslan gave himself up in exchange for a single individual. Jesus shed his mortal body for all humanity. Jesus rose from the dead to remind his followers to keep spreading his word. Aslan rose from from the dead to lead his mortal army into battle to kill his enemies. Jason Voorhees rises from the dead to his enemies. Obviously Friday the 13th was a parallel to the bible, and Jason is Jesus. Don't you see it? Jason. Jesus. How can anyone miss it!
Seriously, you need a lot more than two point to say they are a parallel. I can find two points in common between MOST stories.
They have no control over the shit quality of apps loaded by OEMs.
I disagree. The hardware vendors are allowed to sell modified "OEM" Windows disks because MS chooses to let them. While technically, they might not be able to stop the loading of other software, they certainly could require that a pristine off the shelf copy of windows be included with the system, and all other software come on a different disk instead of encouraging vendors to ship heavily modified versions of their software so that the end consumer has no way of doing a clean install.
Your right. The high resolution photo is much clearer. I do understand why the OP might have thought the low res picture looked photo-shopped. The low res picture DID look photo-shopped.
I took your advice, and looked it up. I wasn't very impressed with what I found. There were references that Lewis himself claimed he intended Aslan to be Jesus, but if that is the case, he did a pretty crappy job of it. The claims of similarities read like UFO conspiracy theorist ramblings. You could just as easily make comparisons between Freddie Krueger.
Obviously if an author says that he was trying to rewrite someone else's character into his book, you generally have to take their word for it, but if that is the case, as I said earlier, he did a crappy job of it.
I know you are joking, but Super Size Me WAS a fake.
I heard Morgan Spurlock, the creator on the radio ( I believe it was the Adam Corrolla Show, but it was a while ago ). The guy from one of his TV show (30 days) episodes called in to the show and accused him of editing the footage to show things that didn't actually happen. Morgans response was that it was his show and he can do what ever he wants. If the caller didn't like the way he edited it, he should do his own tv show and edit it how he wants. This made it clear that Morgan Spurlock is happy to lie to 'prove' his point, and loses all credibility.
Then there is the fact that Super Size Me claimed that his liver was failing do to eating McDonalds for a month. Very simply, if eating McDonalds for a month is going to make your liver fail, you started out with massive medical problems before you ever walked into a McDonalds. So, either the guy was on the verge of death before he started, or the whole thing was a fake.
Understand, that I do realize that you were going for funny.
He taught his students more about science, real science, than any of the other teachers. He got them to think, got them doing experiments, and got them to learn, using the scientific method.
Your posts speak to the contrary.
Of course he did, just like Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein did.
You are honestly claiming that he gave gravity and the structure of the atom, the same treatment as the origin of life? Because all things being held down on earth by the sheer will of a magic sky god holds the same scientific weight as life being created by a magic sky god. And, unless you went to a VERY wealthy school, high school students simply do not have the resources to prove the structure of an atom. Even then, the nutball creationist excuse that devil is just tricking you can always be thrown in.
How is posing a question 'tricking' anybody?
You have never heard of leading questions? As the saying goes, if you don't know who the mark is, then it is probably you.
If the scientific method really does work ( and I believe that it does ), then you *can't* trick anybody who's learned it.
If you believe that, then you clearly do not understand the scientific method and are an easy mark for exactly the kind of trick your teacher pulled on you.
I don't know who're you're railing against, but it isn't good old Mr. D.
That comment just reeks of authority worship. Just the kind of thing that creepy religious wackos use to help con the nieve. The creep had no business dragging "theories" about invisible supernatural beings into a science class, and trying to pass it off as science.
Your teacher was NOT a good teacher. He was an ass who was abusing his position to try and push his religion. Did he ask you to question gravity? Did he ask you to question whether the earth was round or flat? Did he ask you to question if electrons really orbit protons? Unlikely. Instead, he tried to trick you and his other students. When the term "creation" is used as the origin of life, it is universally meant "creation by magic". He tried to twist the term to confuse that with the creation of one life form by another life form. Being in a position of authority, and using that authority to try and indoctrinate a bunch of naive kids into your cult through deception is not what I would call 'good'.
The correct answer to his question would simply be that it would prove that abiogenesis is a valid theory, and lends 0 credence to magic creatures forming life from mere will alone. Since the question is not, "how did a single life form start". It is "How did life start".
Unfortunatly, IT often isn't logical, and often doesn't have all that much knowledge. While I have know many superstars, and think very highly of myself, I have also seen very large numbers of IT folks that are clueless. There is a reason that Saturday Night Live had a skit called 'Nick Burns: The company computer guy'.
Eat less, exercise more IS an extreme diet. As well as the high sugar low fat diet that the government and food industry pushes. Your link is to a study of people who already have kidney disease. That is no better than linking to a study of people with severe diabetes and saying that people should start shooting themselves up with insulin.
Except that they DID NOT ask the subjects "what will a professional stand up comic think is funny". They asked "how funny is this joke"? The study does not have just too small of a set data points. The very premise and methodology was wrong, even if they would have had a large enough sampling group. The massive failure to even be able to come up with a logical methodology for the humor part of the paper shows that the 'researchers' were NOT COMPETENT at formulating tests for research purposes or even understand the simple answers given by the subjects. Given that, their whole paper was an exercise in irony, and must be dismissed as having no redeeming value. If they can make the mistake of confusing "What is funny" with "What does a professional stand-up comedian think is funny", then who knows how much of their "data" is completely wrong because they misstated the results. I could argue about their poor understanding of the word "competent", or they didn't account for finite sets of knowledge vs. infinite sets of knowledge, but that is all besides the point. They showed that they were incompetent at research, and published a paper that quite literally could be taken as a joke. The kind of joke that would be pulled by Andy Kaufman. But a joke none the less.
You seem to be confused about how the stock market works, and what causes a stock to have value. Your description of the stock market is the naive description given to school children. Even then, Yes, if you give me money to start a business in hopes of getting more money back, you are gambling. Many people have lost money that way, just as many have lost money playing blackjack. In fact Casino's have had to change the rules of blackjack because a good player could consistently make money playing single deck blackjack. Do you not call blackjack gambling? Even if it is single deck, no special rules, blackjack?
Your link is totally unhelpful, as the first "Myth" is totally wrong, both in it's description of the stock market, as well as it's description of more recognized forms of gambling. It uses the same simplistic, false description of stocks that you did. It makes the statement "As companies compete, they increase productivity and develop products that can make our lives better.". We know that in very many cases, this is simply false. The whole premise of it's argument relies that that false statement to be true. It also states that "Gambling, on the contrary, is a zero-sum game. It merely takes money from a loser and gives it to a winner. No value is ever created.". This is also false in practice. Since most 'gambling' is done in casinos, there are thousands of jobs created. People get paid to be there. Those people take that money and buy goods and services from companies and other people. That gives those companies and people more capital to produce more goods and services. It just does it without borrowing money.
The housing crash is a perfect example of what happens when people forget that 'investments' are often gambling. The stock market is no different, and while there might not be as many people losing their shirts in the stock market, there are certainly a lot of people who have lost money. The primary difference between the stock market and multi-deck blackjack is that the stock market has traditionally had a greater than 100% payout. I say multi-deck because, again, in single deck, no special rules blackjack, a skilled player is going to do better than in the stock market.
there is another way to look at this. Calories in > Calories out == weight gain. Calories in = calories out == maintenance and the last one calories in calories out == weight loss."
Bottom line is that its not really the diet that you choose to lose weight, but the reduction in calories.
So, now your back peddling and saying that what you eat IS important. The fact is that the 'eat less, exercise more' advice is simplistic to the point of being false, not helpful, and dangerous. It is well know, and verifiable that WHAT you eat affects how your body burns calories. It also affects how many calories your body needs to burn. That's right. WHAT you eat affects how much your body has to burn. Why? Because some foods don't end up being food at all. Your body ends up passing them through your system without doing much or any digestion. Telling someone that they can lose weight by just reducing calories, no matter what they eat will lead people to things like the chocolate and vodka diet. It is dangerous, and their body is likely to start shutting down before they get any worthwhile results. Even when eating normal food, there are plenty of people who's bodies will put them to sleep for 12 hours a day before releasing the fat out of their thighs.
The statement "to lose weight, calories in must be less than calories out." is either going to be taken as it is almost always meant, which is "eat less, exercise more", which is wrong, as that does not work because of how different bodies process and uses different foods. Or you are being literal, and have made a statement no better than "To make a cake from scratch, you must first create the universe". Basically made a comment that has no relevance to any kind of practical weight loss.
I suspect that you are doing what most people who make your claim are doing. You are trying to use a play on words, where you will argue the literal wording when called to back up your claims, but will argue the lame "eat less, exercise more" when trying to put it into anything usable for weight control.
I know that you were going for funny, but there was no overestimation. a third of their study was 100% off base. Their base hypothesis was wrong. Their methodology was wrong. Their analysis of the data was wrong and their conclusion was wrong. When a third of a study is wrong, and it is wrong on every level, a well reasoned person tosses the whole thing. The 'researchers' have lost all credibility. Throwing in 'open to interpretation' is just a poor excuse. There is no 'interpretation' in the stated goal. I can give you the answer right here an now. All people are always 100% accurate in determining what is funny. This is by definition, as funny is an opinion. The humor part does not in any way apply to social skills. Their test is no more valid that if they had asked 8 house painters, via email, what are the best colors. Then dismissed 12.5% of the answers. Finally asking the study subjects to judge what colors are the best. The very premise that you can get any kind of 'correct' answer is absurd.
Again, at least one third of the entire study is complete and utter BS. That leaves no credibility for the other two thirds. The 'researchers' were very simply incompetent.
Slashdot Mirror
You know there is a word for that. It's called racism. I guess I am lucky that while I have met some people like that, most of the people I don't care, don't know, or both.
Sure it should. If there is a law that makes what the city government is doing illegal, the legislature can repeal the law.
I don't know about KDE, but Gnome, the default version of Ubuntu, and the most likely version that a newbie will use, does in fact just give you a dialog with a yes or no for the install. At the point that someone is skilled enough to start changing the default desktop, they are skilled enough to install samba. No doubt, that the Kubuntu group should follow the example of the Ubuntu group, but certainly, what you ask for IS there in Ubuntu.
Or, you could treat it the way simple file sharing under windows works, and just allow login with no passwords. Just do like you would in Windows, and set the acess to allow delete and remove files. Yes, Linux is a bit more secure in that it defaults to no access while Windows defaults to read only access, but is it really that much harder to select "Create and Delete" than it is to select "Allow network users to change my files"? I know that I don't have accounts on my server for my X-Boxes that read music from it.
Um, Ubuntu has the exact same kind of networking that Windows has. You can right click on a folder, and select "Share Folder". It pops up a box asking if you want SMB or NSF. SMB IS windows networking. Select it, and one of two things will happen. If you already have Samba installed, it you will have a "Windows" share. If you don't have it installed, Ubuntu will install it, and THEN you will have a "Windows" share. For the client, all you have to do is go to the "Places" pulldown that is always on your task bar, and select "Network". You will see the "Windows" shares, just like on an actual Windows machine.
Seriously, the process to share files under Ubuntu is almost exactly the same as in Windows. You clearly just don't WANT to be able to share files under it.
Well, to be fair, Safari crashes on Apple hardware. I've had at least a half dozen times that safari has crashed my iPhone and required a hard reset.
3. SUPPORT. If a vendor preloads Linux you can call them up and get warranty support without having to worry about reloading Windows before shipping it off or ensuring the drive is yanked out.
This is the biggest one for me. I don't really care what version of Linux they ship with, as I have always had the practice of wiping the disk and reinstalling clean any computer I have bought anyway. Personally, the biggest thing I want to see with PC shipped with Linux is for each one to come with a LiveCD that is configured to use every piece of hardware in the computer. That way, if I need to call because of bad hardware, there is no question about whether it is the hardware or the software. I will be booting not only with the OS that they are expecting, but a clean install of the OS they are expecting. If it doesn't run with that, then obviously the hardware is bad. Heck, I would want to see this no matter what OS is the machine is being shipped with.
I would think that this has the potential to massively reduce support costs. Customer calls with a complaint that the computer is broken. Tech Support asks them to boot with the clean LiveCD. Things work? It's your software. Things don't work? It's the hardware. Problem solved.
Have you considered that the died and reborn story far predates the gospel story, and is in fact an easy way to add shock value to a story? Stories of magical characters rising from the dead were not even close to new at the time that Jesus was supposed to have climbed from his grave. So, while I will say, who am I to know the minds of the creators of Friday the 13th? Given the information available, a rational person is going to say "No, Friday the 13th is unlikely to be extremely influenced by the gospel story, and if the writers were intending to write a parallel with Jason as Jesus, they did a crappy job of it.".
Hey! That's the same thing I said about Narnia! Go figure.
On the plus side, from now on, you get to live with the stigma that your the guy who thinks Friday the 13th is a retelling of the story of Jesus.
Funny, that is the same argument (with the colors reversed) that we hear from black supremacists. Go figure, people of diffent races behaving in the same way. My only problem is that one group is allowed to publicly push their agenda and anyone that calls them on it is ironically called a racist.
In Friday the 13th: The New Beginning Jason is gone for most of the movie and most people stopped believing that he still exists. He has become a "myth". In Friday the 13th: Jason goes to Hell, Jason, as the title says, goes to hell, yet after travelling through hell, returns in Friday the 13th X. Friday the 13th seems to be easily as much a parallel to the bible as Narnia. The biggest problem with the "It's the bible!" line is that Aslan is a killer who installs kings and queens, where as the very premise of the Jesus of the bible is that he is not.
Like I said, if the author said that he was trying to parallel the bible, then I can't really argue with that, but I can say that he did a really crappy job of it. I have to say that I have not read or seen any other Narnia stories beyond The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, but your descriptions still make Friday the 13th a closer parallel than Narnia. This leads me to wonder whether the author REALLY did try to make a parallel that failed, or if the idea was an after thought that he thought could sell more books.
Tons of stories have characters that sacrifice themselves and then are raised from the dead. Besides, in the Jesus story there was no sacrifice. The Aslan gave himself up in exchange for a single individual. Jesus shed his mortal body for all humanity. Jesus rose from the dead to remind his followers to keep spreading his word. Aslan rose from from the dead to lead his mortal army into battle to kill his enemies. Jason Voorhees rises from the dead to his enemies. Obviously Friday the 13th was a parallel to the bible, and Jason is Jesus. Don't you see it? Jason. Jesus. How can anyone miss it!
Seriously, you need a lot more than two point to say they are a parallel. I can find two points in common between MOST stories.
They have no control over the shit quality of apps loaded by OEMs.
I disagree. The hardware vendors are allowed to sell modified "OEM" Windows disks because MS chooses to let them. While technically, they might not be able to stop the loading of other software, they certainly could require that a pristine off the shelf copy of windows be included with the system, and all other software come on a different disk instead of encouraging vendors to ship heavily modified versions of their software so that the end consumer has no way of doing a clean install.
Your right. The high resolution photo is much clearer. I do understand why the OP might have thought the low res picture looked photo-shopped. The low res picture DID look photo-shopped.
I took your advice, and looked it up. I wasn't very impressed with what I found. There were references that Lewis himself claimed he intended Aslan to be Jesus, but if that is the case, he did a pretty crappy job of it. The claims of similarities read like UFO conspiracy theorist ramblings. You could just as easily make comparisons between Freddie Krueger.
Obviously if an author says that he was trying to rewrite someone else's character into his book, you generally have to take their word for it, but if that is the case, as I said earlier, he did a crappy job of it.
I know you are joking, but Super Size Me WAS a fake.
I heard Morgan Spurlock, the creator on the radio ( I believe it was the Adam Corrolla Show, but it was a while ago ). The guy from one of his TV show (30 days) episodes called in to the show and accused him of editing the footage to show things that didn't actually happen. Morgans response was that it was his show and he can do what ever he wants. If the caller didn't like the way he edited it, he should do his own tv show and edit it how he wants. This made it clear that Morgan Spurlock is happy to lie to 'prove' his point, and loses all credibility.
Then there is the fact that Super Size Me claimed that his liver was failing do to eating McDonalds for a month. Very simply, if eating McDonalds for a month is going to make your liver fail, you started out with massive medical problems before you ever walked into a McDonalds. So, either the guy was on the verge of death before he started, or the whole thing was a fake.
Understand, that I do realize that you were going for funny.
He was the best science teacher there.
That's very sad.
He taught his students more about science, real science, than any of the other teachers. He got them to think, got them doing experiments, and got them to learn, using the scientific method.
Your posts speak to the contrary.
Of course he did, just like Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein did.
You are honestly claiming that he gave gravity and the structure of the atom, the same treatment as the origin of life? Because all things being held down on earth by the sheer will of a magic sky god holds the same scientific weight as life being created by a magic sky god. And, unless you went to a VERY wealthy school, high school students simply do not have the resources to prove the structure of an atom. Even then, the nutball creationist excuse that devil is just tricking you can always be thrown in.
How is posing a question 'tricking' anybody?
You have never heard of leading questions? As the saying goes, if you don't know who the mark is, then it is probably you.
If the scientific method really does work ( and I believe that it does ), then you *can't* trick anybody who's learned it.
If you believe that, then you clearly do not understand the scientific method and are an easy mark for exactly the kind of trick your teacher pulled on you.
I don't know who're you're railing against, but it isn't good old Mr. D.
That comment just reeks of authority worship. Just the kind of thing that creepy religious wackos use to help con the nieve. The creep had no business dragging "theories" about invisible supernatural beings into a science class, and trying to pass it off as science.
Your teacher was NOT a good teacher. He was an ass who was abusing his position to try and push his religion. Did he ask you to question gravity? Did he ask you to question whether the earth was round or flat? Did he ask you to question if electrons really orbit protons? Unlikely. Instead, he tried to trick you and his other students. When the term "creation" is used as the origin of life, it is universally meant "creation by magic". He tried to twist the term to confuse that with the creation of one life form by another life form. Being in a position of authority, and using that authority to try and indoctrinate a bunch of naive kids into your cult through deception is not what I would call 'good'.
The correct answer to his question would simply be that it would prove that abiogenesis is a valid theory, and lends 0 credence to magic creatures forming life from mere will alone. Since the question is not, "how did a single life form start". It is "How did life start".
Unfortunatly, IT often isn't logical, and often doesn't have all that much knowledge. While I have know many superstars, and think very highly of myself, I have also seen very large numbers of IT folks that are clueless. There is a reason that Saturday Night Live had a skit called 'Nick Burns: The company computer guy'.
No problem. Just post your email address here, and I'm sure someone will be happy to let you know...
Eat less, exercise more IS an extreme diet. As well as the high sugar low fat diet that the government and food industry pushes. Your link is to a study of people who already have kidney disease. That is no better than linking to a study of people with severe diabetes and saying that people should start shooting themselves up with insulin.
Except that they DID NOT ask the subjects "what will a professional stand up comic think is funny". They asked "how funny is this joke"? The study does not have just too small of a set data points. The very premise and methodology was wrong, even if they would have had a large enough sampling group. The massive failure to even be able to come up with a logical methodology for the humor part of the paper shows that the 'researchers' were NOT COMPETENT at formulating tests for research purposes or even understand the simple answers given by the subjects. Given that, their whole paper was an exercise in irony, and must be dismissed as having no redeeming value. If they can make the mistake of confusing "What is funny" with "What does a professional stand-up comedian think is funny", then who knows how much of their "data" is completely wrong because they misstated the results. I could argue about their poor understanding of the word "competent", or they didn't account for finite sets of knowledge vs. infinite sets of knowledge, but that is all besides the point. They showed that they were incompetent at research, and published a paper that quite literally could be taken as a joke. The kind of joke that would be pulled by Andy Kaufman. But a joke none the less.
Hey! That was the solution Al Gore suggested at the end of "An Inconvenient Truth"!
You seem to be confused about how the stock market works, and what causes a stock to have value. Your description of the stock market is the naive description given to school children. Even then, Yes, if you give me money to start a business in hopes of getting more money back, you are gambling. Many people have lost money that way, just as many have lost money playing blackjack. In fact Casino's have had to change the rules of blackjack because a good player could consistently make money playing single deck blackjack. Do you not call blackjack gambling? Even if it is single deck, no special rules, blackjack?
Your link is totally unhelpful, as the first "Myth" is totally wrong, both in it's description of the stock market, as well as it's description of more recognized forms of gambling. It uses the same simplistic, false description of stocks that you did. It makes the statement "As companies compete, they increase productivity and develop products that can make our lives better.". We know that in very many cases, this is simply false. The whole premise of it's argument relies that that false statement to be true. It also states that "Gambling, on the contrary, is a zero-sum game. It merely takes money from a loser and gives it to a winner. No value is ever created.". This is also false in practice. Since most 'gambling' is done in casinos, there are thousands of jobs created. People get paid to be there. Those people take that money and buy goods and services from companies and other people. That gives those companies and people more capital to produce more goods and services. It just does it without borrowing money.
The housing crash is a perfect example of what happens when people forget that 'investments' are often gambling. The stock market is no different, and while there might not be as many people losing their shirts in the stock market, there are certainly a lot of people who have lost money. The primary difference between the stock market and multi-deck blackjack is that the stock market has traditionally had a greater than 100% payout. I say multi-deck because, again, in single deck, no special rules blackjack, a skilled player is going to do better than in the stock market.
there is another way to look at this. Calories in > Calories out == weight gain. Calories in = calories out == maintenance and the last one calories in calories out == weight loss."
Bottom line is that its not really the diet that you choose to lose weight, but the reduction in calories.
So, now your back peddling and saying that what you eat IS important. The fact is that the 'eat less, exercise more' advice is simplistic to the point of being false, not helpful, and dangerous. It is well know, and verifiable that WHAT you eat affects how your body burns calories. It also affects how many calories your body needs to burn. That's right. WHAT you eat affects how much your body has to burn. Why? Because some foods don't end up being food at all. Your body ends up passing them through your system without doing much or any digestion. Telling someone that they can lose weight by just reducing calories, no matter what they eat will lead people to things like the chocolate and vodka diet. It is dangerous, and their body is likely to start shutting down before they get any worthwhile results. Even when eating normal food, there are plenty of people who's bodies will put them to sleep for 12 hours a day before releasing the fat out of their thighs.
The statement "to lose weight, calories in must be less than calories out." is either going to be taken as it is almost always meant, which is "eat less, exercise more", which is wrong, as that does not work because of how different bodies process and uses different foods. Or you are being literal, and have made a statement no better than "To make a cake from scratch, you must first create the universe". Basically made a comment that has no relevance to any kind of practical weight loss.
I suspect that you are doing what most people who make your claim are doing. You are trying to use a play on words, where you will argue the literal wording when called to back up your claims, but will argue the lame "eat less, exercise more" when trying to put it into anything usable for weight control.
I know that you were going for funny, but there was no overestimation. a third of their study was 100% off base. Their base hypothesis was wrong. Their methodology was wrong. Their analysis of the data was wrong and their conclusion was wrong. When a third of a study is wrong, and it is wrong on every level, a well reasoned person tosses the whole thing. The 'researchers' have lost all credibility. Throwing in 'open to interpretation' is just a poor excuse. There is no 'interpretation' in the stated goal. I can give you the answer right here an now. All people are always 100% accurate in determining what is funny. This is by definition, as funny is an opinion. The humor part does not in any way apply to social skills. Their test is no more valid that if they had asked 8 house painters, via email, what are the best colors. Then dismissed 12.5% of the answers. Finally asking the study subjects to judge what colors are the best. The very premise that you can get any kind of 'correct' answer is absurd.
Again, at least one third of the entire study is complete and utter BS. That leaves no credibility for the other two thirds. The 'researchers' were very simply incompetent.