While I have to agree about the lack of hard data or valid methods in the article, I've got to point out that your characterization of metal is somewhat shallow. I would compare it to saying "irony is merely a variant of language that puts extreme focus on confusion."
Metal has nothing to do with volume - most bands who use extreme volume as a gimmick are alternative or experimental rock.
Metal focuses on a quality I can only think to call "aggression," in the same way that an action movie or a Viking legend does. Metal is a fitting musical accompaniment to aggressive feelings. Some people (especially young men) like to think about war, battle, and anger as a vessel of positive action. That's not to say we're all violent - but we like to hear stories of great men, defending ourselves from enemies and changing the world.
I'm replying to this because I think its a valid criticism of my claim.
You're correct inpart: I occaisionally eat more, and I might eat up to, say, 2000 calories when I go to a restaurant or christmas dinner. But 1000 is my low limit. I don't go grocery shopping. I eat my lunch meal at work every day. Today it was chicken and rice. I often have 2 or 3 cans of pop or iced tea. That's it; there's no "little snacks," I simply don't buy them. I have been this way since I was a kid.
My question is: where'd did you get the numbers, and how do you know they're true for everyone? Did you know that things like body temperature, and muscle density vary from person to person?
Any possibility that the conventional wisdom of calorie burning is just "wrong"?
I'm a 6' tall adult male, and I eat about 1000 calories a day, and I'm 170 lbs - slim but not skinny. I eat one meal a day, usually a pasta dish or a burger. I've always eaten ridiculously small amounts - in fact when I was younger the doctors were worried about me, but as I got older I filled out.
-Thomas
One hypothesis that could support this study is that our calorie-burning estimates are wildly wrong. Given that people generate so much heat, its not surprising to me that some people can easily consume more calories while staying less active. If that is the case, then those people who burn more or less calories naturally would have little control over. There are, for instance, studies that show "fidgeters" are generally skinnier, and fidgeting is not an easy habit to form, I'm sure.
I would tend to agree with your nutritionist friend. I definitely believe people are more overweight that say, cavemen, but that's hardly comparable. Early human and human ancestors' diets were probably limited by how much they could hunt, not how hungry they were. So its not illogical that genetic pre-disposition to obesity would never have been weeded out.
Thus my thesis is that if this study has any basis, then the major factor in weight gain would be the amount eaten, for at least some people. According to this thesis, some people might be able to gain or lose weight through exercise, but others can't (significantly).
My analysis: big deal. People are obsessed with eating "enough". People are confusing "limiting food intake" with "starving". Sadly, I had a cousin who went from obese to athletic, and was accused by the entire family of being "anorexic". I can remember 2 of my (mildly) obese friends whose parents would accuse them of not eating enough.
That's my suggestion, anyhow.
IANA nutritionist, but I've got a reasonable amount of education in nutrition and biology in school.
By analyzing existing trends and statistics, the software can predict and identify trends, but I would imagine its a much harder (or possibly impossible) task to predict 1st or 2nd order derivatives, IE, the new directions musical trends will take.
On a personal level, I think we're going to head into an era where experimentation and unique sounds will be cherished. We've been listening to this sort of tin-pan alley redux for about 10-20 years now, and a lot of people sense discomfort with the existing pop music trends. Look at the 40s-70s and I think you'll see the same sort of musical revolution in the next 30 years.
This is a close minded and silly comment. You don't have to hire anyone you don't want to, but I personally have not had any problems getting hired with my dyed mohawk and my (now defunct) long goatee.
Furthermore, the last time I worked for a company that enforced any sort of dress code was when I worked at McDonald's in high school, and they only asked me to trim my goatee to keep it out of the food. I've worked various tech support jobs when I was younger and computer programming jobs later, and I've never had it come up once. At my current job I have business relations with various high schools and science programs (traditionally run by fuddy-duddies) and I have not had my mohawk impede any part of our business.
The sad fact is that you have the legal right to repress people based on appearance. But I don't have to work for someone like that, and I probably wouldn't enjoy it either. If I may offer a simple analogy, would you be interested in working for an employer who didn't hire blacks?
The enforcement of arbitrary rules is a good way to enforce authority in, say, a prison environment. The effects are well researched and its known that arbitrary rule enforcement dulls the will to defy and subdues people. It just doesn't make sense in an IT environment where you want to attract the brightest and most creative minds.
Every time this argument comes up it seems like my viewpoint is under-represented. I can't fathom why people want to control their children to such a degree! My parents were pretty middle of the road as far as controls on violent and sexual content, but I snuck in my fair share of whatever I wanted at friends' houses. The whole experience left me kind with only one positive attribute, and that was the ability to analyze authority.
Young boys, historically, have taken delight in watching hangings, beheadings, floggings, and visiting battlefields. They play war games. In Germany during the 1800s they had to make laws to curb young boys from cutting schools to visit the brothels. Violent video games are simply the logical extension.
I'll admit that children do do a lot of imitative behaviour. I'm sure everyone remembers >50% of the lines from star wars. But is that so bad? I used to imitate Mortal Kombat as a child. However I have peacefully ignored the 3 fight situation that have happened in my memory as an adult. Ever looked at ogrish.com and been truly disturbed? Doesn't that throw a wrench into the whole "De-sensitization" argument?
Does anyone remember what they did when they turned 18 and left their parents house? My guess is: got a computer, bought some porn, got a girlfriend to have lots of sex, and bought any violent videogames they weren't allowed to have before.
Same story here, except I had a Tandy 1000 and Osbourne's Guide To BASIC Games For Kids (or something similar). It was an old series of books, and every library in the galaxy seemed to have a different one. My earliest real program was a (bad) text-based clone of the arcade game "1942" when I was 7.
I moved to a 386 in the mid 90s (when 486s were popular), but i couldn't run games like Dark Forces or Warcraft II like my freinds could. So I wrote my own renditions of them in QBasic.
Now I'm in 4th year comp sci;)
I was not allowed to play video games or watch tv for more than an hour a day when I was under my parents care. I was not allowed to go to concerts or parties, and my parents were strict about what I did with my time. They did encourage schoolwork, and I did very well. But at the same time I had aggression issues and social problems. I was unable to understand the "average" kids and as a result I was socially inept all through high school. I fought the kids who picked on me. Also, a large part of my behaviour problem was that I would "sneak" video games and movies that I wasn't allowed to see.
University, and seperation from these rules, have made me better. I have more friends, less stress, and I am still getting excellent grades. I'm a computer programmer, interning at a computer game company. The stupid thing is, I can see my mother is doing the same thing to my brother, and I can't do a damn thing about it.
-Thomas
Slashdot Mirror
This is exactly what I think, also.
While I have to agree about the lack of hard data or valid methods in the article, I've got to point out that your characterization of metal is somewhat shallow. I would compare it to saying "irony is merely a variant of language that puts extreme focus on confusion." Metal has nothing to do with volume - most bands who use extreme volume as a gimmick are alternative or experimental rock. Metal focuses on a quality I can only think to call "aggression," in the same way that an action movie or a Viking legend does. Metal is a fitting musical accompaniment to aggressive feelings. Some people (especially young men) like to think about war, battle, and anger as a vessel of positive action. That's not to say we're all violent - but we like to hear stories of great men, defending ourselves from enemies and changing the world.
You're correct inpart: I occaisionally eat more, and I might eat up to, say, 2000 calories when I go to a restaurant or christmas dinner. But 1000 is my low limit. I don't go grocery shopping. I eat my lunch meal at work every day. Today it was chicken and rice. I often have 2 or 3 cans of pop or iced tea. That's it; there's no "little snacks," I simply don't buy them. I have been this way since I was a kid.
My question is: where'd did you get the numbers, and how do you know they're true for everyone? Did you know that things like body temperature, and muscle density vary from person to person?
It critically misreads the article, and also critically misunderstands that humans can burn calories in other ways.
Any possibility that the conventional wisdom of calorie burning is just "wrong"? I'm a 6' tall adult male, and I eat about 1000 calories a day, and I'm 170 lbs - slim but not skinny. I eat one meal a day, usually a pasta dish or a burger. I've always eaten ridiculously small amounts - in fact when I was younger the doctors were worried about me, but as I got older I filled out. -Thomas
There were 4 or 5 obese kids out of every 30 kid class I was ever in. I can remember a couple with less, but none with more.
One hypothesis that could support this study is that our calorie-burning estimates are wildly wrong. Given that people generate so much heat, its not surprising to me that some people can easily consume more calories while staying less active. If that is the case, then those people who burn more or less calories naturally would have little control over. There are, for instance, studies that show "fidgeters" are generally skinnier, and fidgeting is not an easy habit to form, I'm sure. I would tend to agree with your nutritionist friend. I definitely believe people are more overweight that say, cavemen, but that's hardly comparable. Early human and human ancestors' diets were probably limited by how much they could hunt, not how hungry they were. So its not illogical that genetic pre-disposition to obesity would never have been weeded out. Thus my thesis is that if this study has any basis, then the major factor in weight gain would be the amount eaten, for at least some people. According to this thesis, some people might be able to gain or lose weight through exercise, but others can't (significantly). My analysis: big deal. People are obsessed with eating "enough". People are confusing "limiting food intake" with "starving". Sadly, I had a cousin who went from obese to athletic, and was accused by the entire family of being "anorexic". I can remember 2 of my (mildly) obese friends whose parents would accuse them of not eating enough. That's my suggestion, anyhow. IANA nutritionist, but I've got a reasonable amount of education in nutrition and biology in school.
On a personal level, I think we're going to head into an era where experimentation and unique sounds will be cherished. We've been listening to this sort of tin-pan alley redux for about 10-20 years now, and a lot of people sense discomfort with the existing pop music trends. Look at the 40s-70s and I think you'll see the same sort of musical revolution in the next 30 years.
Furthermore, the last time I worked for a company that enforced any sort of dress code was when I worked at McDonald's in high school, and they only asked me to trim my goatee to keep it out of the food. I've worked various tech support jobs when I was younger and computer programming jobs later, and I've never had it come up once. At my current job I have business relations with various high schools and science programs (traditionally run by fuddy-duddies) and I have not had my mohawk impede any part of our business.
The sad fact is that you have the legal right to repress people based on appearance. But I don't have to work for someone like that, and I probably wouldn't enjoy it either. If I may offer a simple analogy, would you be interested in working for an employer who didn't hire blacks?
The enforcement of arbitrary rules is a good way to enforce authority in, say, a prison environment. The effects are well researched and its known that arbitrary rule enforcement dulls the will to defy and subdues people. It just doesn't make sense in an IT environment where you want to attract the brightest and most creative minds.
-Thomas
Young boys, historically, have taken delight in watching hangings, beheadings, floggings, and visiting battlefields. They play war games. In Germany during the 1800s they had to make laws to curb young boys from cutting schools to visit the brothels. Violent video games are simply the logical extension.
I'll admit that children do do a lot of imitative behaviour. I'm sure everyone remembers >50% of the lines from star wars. But is that so bad? I used to imitate Mortal Kombat as a child. However I have peacefully ignored the 3 fight situation that have happened in my memory as an adult. Ever looked at ogrish.com and been truly disturbed? Doesn't that throw a wrench into the whole "De-sensitization" argument?
Does anyone remember what they did when they turned 18 and left their parents house? My guess is: got a computer, bought some porn, got a girlfriend to have lots of sex, and bought any violent videogames they weren't allowed to have before.
-Thomas
Same story here, except I had a Tandy 1000 and Osbourne's Guide To BASIC Games For Kids (or something similar). It was an old series of books, and every library in the galaxy seemed to have a different one. My earliest real program was a (bad) text-based clone of the arcade game "1942" when I was 7. I moved to a 386 in the mid 90s (when 486s were popular), but i couldn't run games like Dark Forces or Warcraft II like my freinds could. So I wrote my own renditions of them in QBasic. Now I'm in 4th year comp sci ;)
I haven't done HTML in a while and I forgot to use my tags ;)
I was not allowed to play video games or watch tv for more than an hour a day when I was under my parents care. I was not allowed to go to concerts or parties, and my parents were strict about what I did with my time. They did encourage schoolwork, and I did very well. But at the same time I had aggression issues and social problems. I was unable to understand the "average" kids and as a result I was socially inept all through high school. I fought the kids who picked on me. Also, a large part of my behaviour problem was that I would "sneak" video games and movies that I wasn't allowed to see. University, and seperation from these rules, have made me better. I have more friends, less stress, and I am still getting excellent grades. I'm a computer programmer, interning at a computer game company. The stupid thing is, I can see my mother is doing the same thing to my brother, and I can't do a damn thing about it. -Thomas