Why would you think that the same diet and exercise is appropriate for all age groups? Quite clearly dietary requirements change over the course of your life (babies are happy drinking just breast milk, but you just try that as an adult male). Also, energy expenditure is very clearly different between children and pensioners.
Although exercise doesn't directly burn that many calories, it is important in maintaining muscle mass which helps with burning fat. However, the best exercise for losing weight is going to be "gentle" exercise over reasonable time periods (e.g. walking for 45 minutes) as that allows your body to burn your fat stores for the energy. Exercise too hard and you can't burn fat quick enough so you end up bruning muscle as well.
I think you're confusing "being homosexual" with "having gay sex". A homosexual finds themselves attracted to the same sex (and may or may not have sex with them) whereas prison populations might just be subscribing to the "any hole is a goal" philosophy and prefer gay sex to no sex.
Remember, sexuality is a continuum and the difference between a straight man and a gay man is generally about 8 pints of beer.
Weight loss does ultimately depend largely on willpower and honesty about what food is being consumed. There are complications, but everyone knows the answer - eat mainly plants and do some exercise.
Most people are not aware of how calorifically dense modern processed foods are and unknowingly can consume a thousand calories in just a few mouthfuls. Cut out the bread, cheese and biscuits and you can suddenly find that you're back to a more sane calorie intake.
It's not going to necessarily be easy for them, but reducing calorific intake WILL lead to weight loss. The difficult bit would be keeping active enough to ensure that your body doesn't start burning muscle mass rather than fat. This is similar to the problem with "crash" dieting - people lose some muscle mass and then consequently put on more fat when they return to their previously bad diet.
Nope, I'm not purposefully misunderstanding you, but I just misinterpreted your post. I do happen to think that the justice system in the US is very unbalanced and a light sentence would be appropriate in my opinion.
Would he necessarily lose his career? I'm not familiar with the sentencing guidelines for felonies nor what his likely punishment would be. Probably giving him a fine would suffice, but it does seem like any kind of "computer" crime attracts incredibly harsh penalties so you've got a point.
I've never considered myself a social darwinist. Maybe bloodthirsty (I do enjoy watching Game of Thrones) and I do get a sense of satisfaction when nasty people are punished for their crimes, but that doesn't apply to this case. He was just greedy and foolish.
I'm sorry, but your post makes you look like an idiot. You're criticising him for using italics (as emphasis) when you seem incapable of using capital letters in the usual fashion.
Formatting issues aside, your argument is somewhat weak if I am understanding it correctly: don't punish people for a lesser crime if there's a greater crime being unpunished. There's so many problems with that idea that it's not really tenable.
In general, if non-desirable behaviour is considered a "felony" then anyone performing that behaviour should be prosecuted with the appropriate law. If there's a problem with the laws being badly written (which is probably what you actually think here), then that's a separate issue.
Also, relax - your post seems to be a little bit on the angry side.
I think most people are more concerned about day-to-day survival than what is going to happen after their lifetime (which is entirely understandable). It falls to those of us who are far-sighted to figure out whether our behaviour is sustainable or not and what we can do about it.
You might be right about us going extinct, but we can at least try to survive. I don't see how terraforming is impossible when it's quite clearly happened in the past (without our involvement, even) and we seem to be in the middle of un-terraforming (if that's a real word) our planet at the moment. I fail to see why it will not ever be possible - if a bunch of bacteria can manage it, why can't we?
I'm not convinced that's what he meant, but that kind of short-term thinking is what got us into this mess in the first place.
Ultimately, we have a binary choice - go extinct or populate other planets/solar systems. You seem to want extinction, but I think it'd be cool to escape our birth-planet.
Average USA-ians seem to be perfectly happy to pay for the NSA to oversee everyone's private lives, so I doubt that the financial meltdown and recession are anything to do with it.
It's a matter of incentive - Joe Six-pack is scared stiff that some "foreign-type" will come and terrorise him and so is happy to be investigated (he's got nothing to hide and it makes everyone more secure) whereas space is far away and not very scary.
This planet might not seem confining to you, but it's most definitely a case of all of our eggs in one basket. There have been extinction level events in the past and there will be in the future. On a long enough time-scale, humans will certainly be in a lot of trouble if we only exist on this one planet.
You're argument seems to be "it's okay to have all your eggs in one basket as it's a really big basket. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mindbogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to the size of the earth, listen...".
Sharing tips amongst the staff makes even less sense. Why not just add extra money to the bill and then pay the staff a sensible wage? I thought that one of the reasons behind tipping was to ensure good service, but by sharing out the tips, you lessen the incentive to the waiting staff.
Personally, I'd prefer to tip the chef as they can make all the difference between a mediocre and a superb meal. The person taking the order and carrying the plates doesn't really have that much effect.
Luckily, you aren't making the cars as you'd make a particularly useless one. Google are trying to do this and they don't do things the way you would (because that would be retarded).
Autonomous cars will be so much safer than human drivers that it's not even funny. I'd welcome having an unimpaired, conscious, qualified human being to take over from most vehicle drivers when the need arises or if the driver does something dumb.
Most vehicle accidents are caused by driver distraction and autonomous cars don't suffer from that.
I don't get the whole tipping business (but then I do live in England). Why do you tip a water/waitress but not the chef? Or the dish-washer or the cleaners? In fact, why not tip the builders who made the establishment as well?
Autonomous cars can hardly be more dangerous than human drivers, so I'd imagine that insurance costs will plummet for them. Once the number of human driven cars declines, I reckon there'll be a lot less traffic jams as traffic flows become more predictable and "laminar", so fuel costs should decrease as well.
The majority of vehicles spend a lot of time being parked and not used, so if the autonomous cars are shared like taxis, they can be used almost 24 hours a day which should reduce the factor of initial cost although the maintenance might increase.
Is there an easy way to determine if the same formula is filled/copied to a whole column? I've hit problems in the past where an incorrect formula appeared in the middle of a column and threw off the results.
Those articles also indicate that pedestrian safety is a "new" consideration, largely brought about due to European and Asian legislation. Anyhow, it's good that these kinds of things are now being considered in car design - better late than never.
My words in no way implied malice. If I used words like "maim" or "murder" then you might have a point. There's a world of difference between lack of caring and malice.
I don't see why I need to talk to automotive engineers just because you've failed to produce evidence that cars are typically built with pedestrian safety features.
You are misconstruing my statement about car drivers. Malicious intent is when you actively go out to injure people, whereas the vast majority of collisions are "accidental" (i.e. someone may not have been following traffic rules, but did not intend someone getting hurt as the outcome). However, you are correct in that "protecting other people" is not high on car purchasers priorities, but that's just human nature.
That wikipedia page starts off by declaring "Despite the magnitude of the problem, most attempts at reducing pedestrian deaths have focused solely on education and traffic regulation", so I still think that car design does not have a strong pedestrian safety aspect.
Straw-man - I never attributed malicious intent to car drivers. Just lack of caring and thinking "I never crash into people, why would I need that?".
Slashdot Mirror
Why would you think that the same diet and exercise is appropriate for all age groups? Quite clearly dietary requirements change over the course of your life (babies are happy drinking just breast milk, but you just try that as an adult male). Also, energy expenditure is very clearly different between children and pensioners.
That's a fine straw man you're building there.
Although exercise doesn't directly burn that many calories, it is important in maintaining muscle mass which helps with burning fat. However, the best exercise for losing weight is going to be "gentle" exercise over reasonable time periods (e.g. walking for 45 minutes) as that allows your body to burn your fat stores for the energy. Exercise too hard and you can't burn fat quick enough so you end up bruning muscle as well.
I think you're confusing "being homosexual" with "having gay sex". A homosexual finds themselves attracted to the same sex (and may or may not have sex with them) whereas prison populations might just be subscribing to the "any hole is a goal" philosophy and prefer gay sex to no sex.
Remember, sexuality is a continuum and the difference between a straight man and a gay man is generally about 8 pints of beer.
Yes and no.
Weight loss does ultimately depend largely on willpower and honesty about what food is being consumed. There are complications, but everyone knows the answer - eat mainly plants and do some exercise.
Most people are not aware of how calorifically dense modern processed foods are and unknowingly can consume a thousand calories in just a few mouthfuls. Cut out the bread, cheese and biscuits and you can suddenly find that you're back to a more sane calorie intake.
It's not going to necessarily be easy for them, but reducing calorific intake WILL lead to weight loss. The difficult bit would be keeping active enough to ensure that your body doesn't start burning muscle mass rather than fat. This is similar to the problem with "crash" dieting - people lose some muscle mass and then consequently put on more fat when they return to their previously bad diet.
Nope, I'm not purposefully misunderstanding you, but I just misinterpreted your post. I do happen to think that the justice system in the US is very unbalanced and a light sentence would be appropriate in my opinion.
Would he necessarily lose his career? I'm not familiar with the sentencing guidelines for felonies nor what his likely punishment would be. Probably giving him a fine would suffice, but it does seem like any kind of "computer" crime attracts incredibly harsh penalties so you've got a point.
I've never considered myself a social darwinist. Maybe bloodthirsty (I do enjoy watching Game of Thrones) and I do get a sense of satisfaction when nasty people are punished for their crimes, but that doesn't apply to this case. He was just greedy and foolish.
I'm sorry, but your post makes you look like an idiot. You're criticising him for using italics (as emphasis) when you seem incapable of using capital letters in the usual fashion.
Formatting issues aside, your argument is somewhat weak if I am understanding it correctly: don't punish people for a lesser crime if there's a greater crime being unpunished. There's so many problems with that idea that it's not really tenable.
In general, if non-desirable behaviour is considered a "felony" then anyone performing that behaviour should be prosecuted with the appropriate law. If there's a problem with the laws being badly written (which is probably what you actually think here), then that's a separate issue.
Also, relax - your post seems to be a little bit on the angry side.
I know, but it just seems so unfair to include Mexicans, Canadians and South-Americans in with the USA.
Thanks very much.
I think most people are more concerned about day-to-day survival than what is going to happen after their lifetime (which is entirely understandable). It falls to those of us who are far-sighted to figure out whether our behaviour is sustainable or not and what we can do about it.
You might be right about us going extinct, but we can at least try to survive. I don't see how terraforming is impossible when it's quite clearly happened in the past (without our involvement, even) and we seem to be in the middle of un-terraforming (if that's a real word) our planet at the moment. I fail to see why it will not ever be possible - if a bunch of bacteria can manage it, why can't we?
I'm not convinced that's what he meant, but that kind of short-term thinking is what got us into this mess in the first place.
Ultimately, we have a binary choice - go extinct or populate other planets/solar systems. You seem to want extinction, but I think it'd be cool to escape our birth-planet.
Average USA-ians seem to be perfectly happy to pay for the NSA to oversee everyone's private lives, so I doubt that the financial meltdown and recession are anything to do with it.
It's a matter of incentive - Joe Six-pack is scared stiff that some "foreign-type" will come and terrorise him and so is happy to be investigated (he's got nothing to hide and it makes everyone more secure) whereas space is far away and not very scary.
This planet might not seem confining to you, but it's most definitely a case of all of our eggs in one basket. There have been extinction level events in the past and there will be in the future. On a long enough time-scale, humans will certainly be in a lot of trouble if we only exist on this one planet.
You're argument seems to be "it's okay to have all your eggs in one basket as it's a really big basket. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mindbogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to the size of the earth, listen...".
The first 3d film tests were in 1915.
Sharing tips amongst the staff makes even less sense. Why not just add extra money to the bill and then pay the staff a sensible wage? I thought that one of the reasons behind tipping was to ensure good service, but by sharing out the tips, you lessen the incentive to the waiting staff.
Personally, I'd prefer to tip the chef as they can make all the difference between a mediocre and a superb meal. The person taking the order and carrying the plates doesn't really have that much effect.
Luckily, you aren't making the cars as you'd make a particularly useless one. Google are trying to do this and they don't do things the way you would (because that would be retarded).
Autonomous cars will be so much safer than human drivers that it's not even funny. I'd welcome having an unimpaired, conscious, qualified human being to take over from most vehicle drivers when the need arises or if the driver does something dumb.
Most vehicle accidents are caused by driver distraction and autonomous cars don't suffer from that.
I don't get the whole tipping business (but then I do live in England). Why do you tip a water/waitress but not the chef? Or the dish-washer or the cleaners? In fact, why not tip the builders who made the establishment as well?
Autonomous cars can hardly be more dangerous than human drivers, so I'd imagine that insurance costs will plummet for them. Once the number of human driven cars declines, I reckon there'll be a lot less traffic jams as traffic flows become more predictable and "laminar", so fuel costs should decrease as well.
The majority of vehicles spend a lot of time being parked and not used, so if the autonomous cars are shared like taxis, they can be used almost 24 hours a day which should reduce the factor of initial cost although the maintenance might increase.
Yes, and 22+7 is exactly equal to the number of days in a month (+ or - 2 days).
Is there an easy way to determine if the same formula is filled/copied to a whole column? I've hit problems in the past where an incorrect formula appeared in the middle of a column and threw off the results.
That's interesting - can you post an example of one of these laws?
Those articles also indicate that pedestrian safety is a "new" consideration, largely brought about due to European and Asian legislation. Anyhow, it's good that these kinds of things are now being considered in car design - better late than never.
My words in no way implied malice. If I used words like "maim" or "murder" then you might have a point. There's a world of difference between lack of caring and malice.
I don't see why I need to talk to automotive engineers just because you've failed to produce evidence that cars are typically built with pedestrian safety features.
You are misconstruing my statement about car drivers. Malicious intent is when you actively go out to injure people, whereas the vast majority of collisions are "accidental" (i.e. someone may not have been following traffic rules, but did not intend someone getting hurt as the outcome). However, you are correct in that "protecting other people" is not high on car purchasers priorities, but that's just human nature.
That wikipedia page starts off by declaring "Despite the magnitude of the problem, most attempts at reducing pedestrian deaths have focused solely on education and traffic regulation", so I still think that car design does not have a strong pedestrian safety aspect.
Straw-man - I never attributed malicious intent to car drivers. Just lack of caring and thinking "I never crash into people, why would I need that?".