Do they actually delete the account and black list the user name? So no one else could use it? I got the impression they just delete your data, but if I were to come by and try to take your username I could. What if there was some sensitive info still being sent to your yahoo account?
I'm not a libertarian, but at least in the US I believe they hate the idea of corporate personhood as much as anyone else. I'm fairly sure Ron Paul (outspoken libertarian and republican representative from Texas) is against corporate personhood.
The first hit of a google search for "ron paul corporate personhood" turns up a blog with this video
It's concerning how unpopular this idea is and yet it still remains policy. Is it political suicide to speak out against corporate personhood, or would a law limiting personhood to individual citizens be unconstitutional?
I have to disagree with you the food at McDonalds is disgusting, save the grilled chicken sandwich(not great but not bad), the fruit and yogurt salad(damn good actually), and the Egg McMuffin. The rest is nasty tasting processed junk and the after taste of McNuggets ech... it's like gasoline. I have to be honest with you I can't remember the last time I ate a burger there it was at least 5 years ago. So things may have changed, since then, but I'm not interested in trying.
we'll do it our way: Freely (and with flame wars, separations, bad blood, complaining, forks etc). I have contributed nothing (save a few $ in donations here and there) to the open source movement what-so-ever. Yet I've reaped all the benefits of it. OpenVPN, Open Office, inkscape, Ubuntu, and god help me even The GIMP in all its gimpy-ness. The above quote is why I say "I love nerds" to myself daily.
For all the flustered hubbub, and sticking to their(as in each ones own unique) perception of the moral high-ground. At the end of the day them doing their own thing for the sake of doing it, has benefited me and from what I understand, many others tremendously. And they do it in such a cute nerd way, with the yelling and the "flame wars, separations, bad blood, complaining, forks etc". It's hard not to get the warm fuzzies thinking about it.
So for the few Open Source nerds that come across this post, I'd just like to say thanks, and a platonic co-ed I love you.
The Windows install is flawless that's what I'm comparing Ubuntu to. It's a laptop I have 2 removable drives the factory one that's small and I use only when I have to for my day job, and then there's my 2nd larger drive I use for Ubuntu.
I was thinking in terms of the hardware's Linux compatibility since I'm using an ATI card, and ATI's closed proprietary driver. In Windows the laptop works fine. Never had mouse(technically it's a touchpad) problems Windows runs everything fine.
Ubuntu is buggy, and again I still think people look at it through rose colored glasses.
ever gotten the error message about the registry size being too small No, I can honestly say in all my time of using windows computers, and working on them(far to many MSPC's to count) I have never seen that message. For the most part Windows isn't that bad, and I find it a lot more polished, and easier to use that Ubuntu that's for sure.
I use Ubuntu, exclusively at home now, I have been for a year. I get caught on snags in it EVERYWHERE. For some reason every so often after logging in it doesn't detect mouse clicks, unless I reboot. Synaptic is buggy I still have "pending updates" that refuse to update, and don't go away after they have failed to install over 10 times now. Programs constantly crash on me, Firefox seemingly does so on an hourly basis. Maybe it's my hardware, I don't know, I'm not going back to Windows, but I think some people look at Linux through rose colored glasses.
Yeah MS Works, and the other cheap alternative Dell flirted with, Word Perfect Suite, were both more than capable enough "to type letters". Yet I know people that still pirated/purchased MS Office because it was "the industry standard".
Is OO.o any different?
Including OO.o on Dell systems will cost Dell money, either in kickbacks, or in support. They may "hide" the cost, or offer it as a selection with a $10-$20 premium, but any way you dice it, the cost will be passed onto the consumer. If they hide it, it may cost Dell customers, if they offer it as a $10-$20 option it's in the same boat as MS Works/Word Perfect Suite. People wont select it because they either want "the industry standard", or they can get MS Office for "free".
Isn't Dell allowed to charge people for the support? Can't they charge people like $10, or $20 bucks for "preloaded OO.o", option? I would think MS was crazy if they are paying anywhere near $1 per system, but I could be wrong. I say this because I'd think that the number of people that get the 60 day trial, and then pirate MS Office greatly outnumber the people that get the 60 day trial, and then buy MS Office.
An important question is this, how many people are going to stick with the OO.o instal, and not switch to a pirated/legit coppy of MS Office? I'm sure some portion of the people that get OO.o installed on their PC's will stick with it, but I'm also fairly sure from personal, all be it anecdotal, experience that far and away the vast majority of people will see that it's not MS Office, and just get a "free" copy of MS Office from a friend.
The answer to the above question leads to more questions. 1. At the end of the day is the $0.00 preloaded OO.o option worth it to Dell? If most people just pirate/purchase MSO after tooling around with OO.o, it really isn't worth it for Dell to preload it for free.
2. Is it worth $10-$20 for the consumer to have OO.o preloaded? This is the same situation as the previous question. If most people just pirate/purchase MSO after tooling around with OO.o, it really isn't worth paying $10-$20 to have Dell install it.
No matter what, preloaded OO.o is going to cost Dell money in kickbacks, and support. 3. With that in mind, if Dell hid the OO.o preload premium from customers would customers see the inclusion of OO.o, as an excuse for Dell systems being slightly more expensive than their competitors? This last one is very complicated, because Dell has a number of different types of customers, let's just talk about the Home/HOSO, and "bulk" customers. For a single home user, chances are Dell might be able to get away with a "fuzzy" $10-$20 premium, per PC. However a customer that buys multiple systems at a time, and has an MSO license it isn't this worth it, any premium no mater how small multiplied over a large number of systems adds up to real cash. Dell ships its Bulk PC's with MS Windows installed, and the MSO 60 day trials, so for each and every one of those 60 day trials Dell gets an MS kickback. Lets say MS hears about Dell shipping OO.o on any part of its line, and all of the sudden Dell stops getting, or gets a reduced kickback for the 60 day trials. I really should say that calling them kickbacks isn't fair to Dell, or MS. Dell's testing, and installation of the trials should be compensable, and it should be assumed that they(Dell) will get support calls about it. Either on how to remover the software, or how to purchase the upgrade to full MS Office. So With all that in mind Dell's plane non OO.o Bulk PC's would be more expensive than their previous MS subsidized systems, because now MS has eliminated, or reduced the 60 day trial subsidy. This would be a handicap for Dell against its competitors like HP for instance.
There's a lot of players, and a lot of money at stake. It will be interesting to see if anything comes of all the talk.
I think that's what I'm going to tell people about OpenOffice.org. I'm just going to say it's a super premium software package that costs upwards of $1000, and that I'm giving them a pirated version.
When I tell people that I refuse to install a pirated version of MS office on their PC's they get peeved at me, and when I install a free alternative they give it 5 seconds, don't try to learn it, and get a pirated version of MS Office from someone else. Furthering Microsoft's hegemony.
Maybe if I tried to sell OO.o, with a pitch like.
"I don't even have a copy of that piece of junk(MS Office) I use a more robust office package for the business, I got it for a song at $1,100 per seat. I can let you bum a license off me for free."
But these are friends mostly, and I hate being dishonest particularly with people I choose to do favors for. If only I had the soul of a MS marketing director...
"the judge was a scientologist" Is that true? Cause that's kind of scary. That still doesn't change the fact that he could have won on appeal though. Of course if his fears of being in mortal danger are real, that unfortunately may not enter into the equation. Tis kind of thing scares me.
Because it was done in a very impolite way. He could have take the opportunity to politely explain what it means to build PS3 support into the kernel, to some one who's obviously ignorant about it. Instead he decided to fly off the handle....I wonder why Linux hacks get labeled elitist snobs?...
I didn't mean to come off as hey it's easy! Everybody's doing it! I was responding to the great great great great great grandparent's comments on not being able to lose weight due to lack of exercise. And the idea that if you're "eating healthy" you're doing all you can do to lose weight. I was trying to get the point across to that if someone doesn't exercise, they are going to have to eat less if they want to lose weight.
I'm appologise if this came off mean, cold, or making it sound easy.
"I'm confused about your post. You act as if all anyone has to do is count calories. I'm not "act as if"ing that's exactly what I'm stating. Obviously I can only speak about my limited experience. Is it easy?... Not particularly, but who said it was supposed to be? Has it gotten easier? Absolutely.
If you want help, check out something like OA http://www.oa.org/index.htm I've heard good things about them.
If you are eating more than your body needs you need to change things, or you will become obese. Exercise, or no exercise, you have to eat fewer calories than you burn. For me, and I'd assume other people who are in my situation, dieting(watching what I eat) is a way of life. It's not a fad just to "lose a couple pounds". If left to my own devices I'd be 400lbs and on the fast track to adult onset diabetes, and heart disease. I can sit there upset that I have to watch what I eat, or I can take control of the situation, and make lifestyle changes to make sure I stay healthy.
As for the part about you not feeling tip-top when you drop below 2000 Calories... I can sympathize I'm on a 1,400/day load, right now I'm trying to get as lean as I can for a ski trip next month. I eat 6, or 8 times a day. I ration out what I eat depending, if I go to long with out eating I get cranky. If I've got dinner plans I know anything on a menu is going to be at least 600-800 calories, and I'll clear my plate without even thinking about it. So I set aside that many calories for that meal. leaving me with 800-600 calories over the rest of the day. I mean what do you want me to say? Here's a pill it will make you thin? I don't have one, and if there was one I would use it anyway. The problem isn't my weight, it's me, and a pill wouldn't fix that.
DISCLAIMER: I AM NOT A DOCTOR, OR AN AUTHORITY IN THIS FIELD. I SPEAK ONLY FROM MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. I HIGHLY RECOMMEND YOU SEEK A DOCTOR'S HELP IF YOU ARE SERIOUS ABOUT LOSING WEIGHT I'm not trying to be argumentative, but just saying that I tried to choose what I said as carefully as possible. No matter how fast, or slow your metabolism is if you are gaining weight it's because you are eating to much. just because there's a guy out there that can eat 4,500 calories a day sit on his but and not gain an ounce, doesn't mean that a 310lb. and climbing guy that consumes 2,200 calories a day isn't over eating. Yes they obviously have different metabolisms, yes one guy can eat more than the other without gaining weight, but that doesn't mean that the guy that's consuming fewer calories isn't over eating, he's just consuming fewer calories than someone with a different "body chemistry" than himself.
I kept talk of metabolism out of my post because the simple fact is regardless of your metabolism if you're overweight, genuinely overweight you are consuming too many calories. It's a simple proven fact:
If you want to loose weight cut calories.
Call it whatever you want use what ever excuses you wish to justify some one gaining weight, but the simple fact is if they're gaining weight they're over eating. Regardless of how much they eat in comparison to someone else.
All of that isn't even taking into account that a lot of the CO(chronically obese of which I am still one of) do things like hide their eating from other people they consume less in public, and then eat more in secret. So while they say they eat X the really ate X+whatever they ate after they got home, and locked the door. There are few people with hyper-metabolisms out there just like there are few people with hypo-metabolisms. by definition the average person has an average metabolism. This included myself even when I was close to 400lbs. My problem wasn't a slow metabolism it was overeating. I could have sat on my ass and said "woe is me I eat as much as Bob and I gain weight while he stays thin." Or I could come to grips with the fact that the amount of food Bob ate, and the amount of food I needed were totally unrelated.
Stop worrying about the quantity of the food you consume comparatively and worry more about how much you need to consume actually. Like I said most people with a healthy weight aren't so because they exercise, hell most people with a healthy weight aren't so because they have faster metabolisms. They're of a healthy weight because they consume as many calories as they need and no more. A good portion of the population bulks-up around the holiday season regardless of how they look the rest of the year, because they consume a lot more calories during the holiday season. Again regardless of how fast their metabolism is. It happens to fat, and thin people alike.
"There are differences in metabolisms which can impact the effectiveness of weight loss attempts"
To the extent that one person will need to consume fewer calories than another to loose weight yes of course. But if you're not losing weight at a fast enough pace for you satisfaction then consume fewer calories(within reason). We all know that if your body needs extra energy, and it's not getting it from food it will have to get it from its own stores.
Read labels add it up figure out how many calories you consume a day let's say you consume 3000 calories/day and weigh 300 lbs. Week one cut that down to 2500 what happened gain/lose/constant? Gained 302 Week two cut that down to 2200 what happened gain/lose/constant? Gained 303 Week two cut that down to 2000 what happened gain/lose/constant? Constant 303 Week two cut that down to 1800 what happened gain/lose/constant? Lost 302
So now you have a baseline for where you are in terms of intake. If you're not losing weight fast enough cut calories(within reason) I've done a lot of personal experimentation on myself I've go
I'm not doing this to be rude, or mean, but the simple fact is that if you're overweight you're eating to much. You don't need to exercise to loose weight you need to cut your calorie intake if you're overweight it's because you eat to much. You can do a few things to lose weight.
1 eat less 2 exercise off the difference 3 do both
Most people with a healthy weight aren't that way because they exercise they're that way because they eat as many calories as their body needs to sustain itself, and no more. Exercise is great for increasing cardiovascular health(probably the most important benefit), building muscle mass, increasing bone density, increasing stamina, and in the case of a lot of cardiovascular sports like soccer, or basketball increase spacial awareness, and balance. Other benefits like learning how to take falls help reduce injury in day-to-day life. Study after study shows that regular cardiovascular exercise is great for your health. but for weight loss it's a double edged sword.
Exercising can help you loose weight, but I've seen people that start an exercise routine, increase their stamina. They go from running 20 minutes at a time to running an hour straight. Maybe drop 5 to 10 lbs. but after that don't go down any further. Why? Because they consume more calories to make up for the number of calories they're burning off. Why do they do this? I don't know, I myself have experienced this, and it wasn't until I logged how much I ate(caloricly) when in a steady exercise routine, and how much I ate off of it that I realized I ate a lot more when I worked out regularly. I lowered my calorie intake, and bam started to loose weight again.
I hope I'm not coming off condescending, mean, or pitying I'm just say that if you want to loose weight consume fewer calories there's no need to exercise. You won't starve, trust me, that's what fat is there for. I have no clue how overweight you are, but if you are healthy enough to do so I would recommend exercise not for weight loss but for all the other health benefits. Trust me being healthy(not necessarily thin, but healthy) is part of the "being happy" equation.
I hate web-posted personal anecdotes, but I was close to 400 lbs at one point and I changed my diet, and started swimming. I've dropped close to 120 lbs. and I'm still losing weight. Every 3 months or so I'll plateau because I'm eating to much despite working out 4 times a week, I'll look at how I've been eating and low and behold I've been eating to much. For about 3 months I stopped working out because I broke my foot, couldn't run and no longer had access to a pool. So all the while I was sitting on my fat ass, and still lost 10 lbs, during the ordeal. I'd count 2-3 of those lbs to muscle atrophy, but the rest was fat. I took the weight off by eating less, because I knew I wasn't going to be exercising. Funny thing is after I healed up I put back on 5-6 lbs because I started eating more. I hope I'm not coming off as a jerk. But there is another way at looking at your situation.
I think you're missing his argument, he's saying that putting a Concrete +30% product on your buildings exterior would cheaper than putting a marble/granite/ect. finish on the building. He's not advocating that you make your concrete footings/pylons/columns/slabs out of it, but the finished exterior. I'm a construction consultant, and I do estimating, and when I read "is only 30% over that of normal concrete" I started laughing so hard I nearly spit coffee all over my monitor. but the grandparent has a good point. If you use this material, just for the exterior, and not the structural shell I could see a lot of companies doing it. It would also be a good idea to make a stucco like product with the same properties that could be sprayed on to a finished exterior as well. It's a good idea.
Hey personality can go a long way my friend. I've been a life long MS Windows user, through the good (Windows 2k), and the bad (Windows everything not based on NT). I love Windows. I know it inside, and out, I'm more than comfortable with it, looks-shmooks. This Vista DRMing/Resource hogging thing is starting to get me worried however. How about Macs they're great computers too, I recently helped a friend purchase and set one up. A mini to be exact. Great system beautiful, and it has some cool functionality built right in. But it has a lot of the same DRM issues MS Windows has... I'm thinking looks aren't doing it for me anymore. I'm looking for something with substance that I can trust won't stab me in the back, and hold any, and all media I own hostage for whatever reason it wishes. I'm looking at the new Ubuntu so hard it hurts my eyes. I'm tired of being at some corporations whim. My only issue with Linux is it's a PITA to get completely set up plain and simple. Yes I can get 80%-90% of the functionality I want from it right off the install, but that last 10% is oh so crucial, and so difficult to get working. I'm going to have to use WINE, as we have to use a strictly windows only program here per our industry's specs.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't mongoDB supposed to be similar to hadoop? Do the same pitfalls for hadoop apply to mongoDB?
Do they actually delete the account and black list the user name? So no one else could use it? I got the impression they just delete your data, but if I were to come by and try to take your username I could. What if there was some sensitive info still being sent to your yahoo account?
I'm not a libertarian, but at least in the US I believe they hate the idea of corporate personhood as much as anyone else. I'm fairly sure Ron Paul (outspoken libertarian and republican representative from Texas) is against corporate personhood.
The first hit of a google search for "ron paul corporate personhood" turns up a blog with this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ds7-1Nemrng&feature=player_embedded
It's concerning how unpopular this idea is and yet it still remains policy. Is it political suicide to speak out against corporate personhood, or would a law limiting personhood to individual citizens be unconstitutional?
Have you tried that over a low bandwidth connection, say something like a DSL line with say 128kB up? Over a VPN?
mod parent up
I have to disagree with you the food at McDonalds is disgusting, save the grilled chicken sandwich(not great but not bad), the fruit and yogurt salad(damn good actually), and the Egg McMuffin. The rest is nasty tasting processed junk and the after taste of McNuggets ech... it's like gasoline. I have to be honest with you I can't remember the last time I ate a burger there it was at least 5 years ago. So things may have changed, since then, but I'm not interested in trying.
my 2c,
-manno
OOOOHHHHHHH....
in heaven there is no beer
that's why we drink it here
and when we're away from here
our friends will be drinking all our beer!
-manno
For all the flustered hubbub, and sticking to their(as in each ones own unique) perception of the moral high-ground. At the end of the day them doing their own thing for the sake of doing it, has benefited me and from what I understand, many others tremendously. And they do it in such a cute nerd way, with the yelling and the "flame wars, separations, bad blood, complaining, forks etc". It's hard not to get the warm fuzzies thinking about it.
So for the few Open Source nerds that come across this post, I'd just like to say thanks, and a platonic co-ed I love you.
peace
-manno
The Windows install is flawless that's what I'm comparing Ubuntu to. It's a laptop I have 2 removable drives the factory one that's small and I use only when I have to for my day job, and then there's my 2nd larger drive I use for Ubuntu.
I was thinking in terms of the hardware's Linux compatibility since I'm using an ATI card, and ATI's closed proprietary driver. In Windows the laptop works fine. Never had mouse(technically it's a touchpad) problems Windows runs everything fine.
Ubuntu is buggy, and again I still think people look at it through rose colored glasses.
-manno
I use Ubuntu, exclusively at home now, I have been for a year. I get caught on snags in it EVERYWHERE. For some reason every so often after logging in it doesn't detect mouse clicks, unless I reboot. Synaptic is buggy I still have "pending updates" that refuse to update, and don't go away after they have failed to install over 10 times now. Programs constantly crash on me, Firefox seemingly does so on an hourly basis. Maybe it's my hardware, I don't know, I'm not going back to Windows, but I think some people look at Linux through rose colored glasses.
$0.02,
-manno
Yeah MS Works, and the other cheap alternative Dell flirted with, Word Perfect Suite, were both more than capable enough "to type letters". Yet I know people that still pirated/purchased MS Office because it was "the industry standard".
Is OO.o any different?
Including OO.o on Dell systems will cost Dell money, either in kickbacks, or in support. They may "hide" the cost, or offer it as a selection with a $10-$20 premium, but any way you dice it, the cost will be passed onto the consumer. If they hide it, it may cost Dell customers, if they offer it as a $10-$20 option it's in the same boat as MS Works/Word Perfect Suite. People wont select it because they either want "the industry standard", or they can get MS Office for "free".
-manno
Isn't Dell allowed to charge people for the support? Can't they charge people like $10, or $20 bucks for "preloaded OO.o", option? I would think MS was crazy if they are paying anywhere near $1 per system, but I could be wrong. I say this because I'd think that the number of people that get the 60 day trial, and then pirate MS Office greatly outnumber the people that get the 60 day trial, and then buy MS Office.
An important question is this, how many people are going to stick with the OO.o instal, and not switch to a pirated/legit coppy of MS Office? I'm sure some portion of the people that get OO.o installed on their PC's will stick with it, but I'm also fairly sure from personal, all be it anecdotal, experience that far and away the vast majority of people will see that it's not MS Office, and just get a "free" copy of MS Office from a friend.
The answer to the above question leads to more questions.
1. At the end of the day is the $0.00 preloaded OO.o option worth it to Dell?
If most people just pirate/purchase MSO after tooling around with OO.o, it really isn't worth it for Dell to preload it for free.
2. Is it worth $10-$20 for the consumer to have OO.o preloaded?
This is the same situation as the previous question. If most people just pirate/purchase MSO after tooling around with OO.o, it really isn't worth paying $10-$20 to have Dell install it.
No matter what, preloaded OO.o is going to cost Dell money in kickbacks, and support.
3. With that in mind, if Dell hid the OO.o preload premium from customers would customers see the inclusion of OO.o, as an excuse for Dell systems being slightly more expensive than their competitors?
This last one is very complicated, because Dell has a number of different types of customers, let's just talk about the Home/HOSO, and "bulk" customers. For a single home user, chances are Dell might be able to get away with a "fuzzy" $10-$20 premium, per PC. However a customer that buys multiple systems at a time, and has an MSO license it isn't this worth it, any premium no mater how small multiplied over a large number of systems adds up to real cash. Dell ships its Bulk PC's with MS Windows installed, and the MSO 60 day trials, so for each and every one of those 60 day trials Dell gets an MS kickback. Lets say MS hears about Dell shipping OO.o on any part of its line, and all of the sudden Dell stops getting, or gets a reduced kickback for the 60 day trials. I really should say that calling them kickbacks isn't fair to Dell, or MS. Dell's testing, and installation of the trials should be compensable, and it should be assumed that they(Dell) will get support calls about it. Either on how to remover the software, or how to purchase the upgrade to full MS Office. So With all that in mind Dell's plane non OO.o Bulk PC's would be more expensive than their previous MS subsidized systems, because now MS has eliminated, or reduced the 60 day trial subsidy. This would be a handicap for Dell against its competitors like HP for instance.
There's a lot of players, and a lot of money at stake. It will be interesting to see if anything comes of all the talk.
-manno
I think that's what I'm going to tell people about OpenOffice.org. I'm just going to say it's a super premium software package that costs upwards of $1000, and that I'm giving them a pirated version.
When I tell people that I refuse to install a pirated version of MS office on their PC's they get peeved at me, and when I install a free alternative they give it 5 seconds, don't try to learn it, and get a pirated version of MS Office from someone else. Furthering Microsoft's hegemony.
Maybe if I tried to sell OO.o, with a pitch like.
"I don't even have a copy of that piece of junk(MS Office) I use a more robust office package for the business, I got it for a song at $1,100 per seat. I can let you bum a license off me for free."
But these are friends mostly, and I hate being dishonest particularly with people I choose to do favors for. If only I had the soul of a MS marketing director...
-manno
"the judge was a scientologist"
Is that true? Cause that's kind of scary.
That still doesn't change the fact that he could have won on appeal though. Of course if his fears of being in mortal danger are real, that unfortunately may not enter into the equation. Tis kind of thing scares me.
Because it was done in a very impolite way. He could have take the opportunity to politely explain what it means to build PS3 support into the kernel, to some one who's obviously ignorant about it. Instead he decided to fly off the handle. ...I wonder why Linux hacks get labeled elitist snobs?...
-manno
I didn't mean to come off as hey it's easy! Everybody's doing it! I was responding to the great great great great great grandparent's comments on not being able to lose weight due to lack of exercise. And the idea that if you're "eating healthy" you're doing all you can do to lose weight. I was trying to get the point across to that if someone doesn't exercise, they are going to have to eat less if they want to lose weight.
I'm appologise if this came off mean, cold, or making it sound easy.
peace,
-manno
If you want help, check out something like OA
http://www.oa.org/index.htm
I've heard good things about them.
If you are eating more than your body needs you need to change things, or you will become obese. Exercise, or no exercise, you have to eat fewer calories than you burn. For me, and I'd assume other people who are in my situation, dieting(watching what I eat) is a way of life. It's not a fad just to "lose a couple pounds". If left to my own devices I'd be 400lbs and on the fast track to adult onset diabetes, and heart disease. I can sit there upset that I have to watch what I eat, or I can take control of the situation, and make lifestyle changes to make sure I stay healthy.
As for the part about you not feeling tip-top when you drop below 2000 Calories... I can sympathize I'm on a 1,400/day load, right now I'm trying to get as lean as I can for a ski trip next month. I eat 6, or 8 times a day. I ration out what I eat depending, if I go to long with out eating I get cranky. If I've got dinner plans I know anything on a menu is going to be at least 600-800 calories, and I'll clear my plate without even thinking about it. So I set aside that many calories for that meal. leaving me with 800-600 calories over the rest of the day. I mean what do you want me to say? Here's a pill it will make you thin? I don't have one, and if there was one I would use it anyway. The problem isn't my weight, it's me, and a pill wouldn't fix that.
peace,
-manno
I'm not trying to be argumentative, but just saying that I tried to choose what I said as carefully as possible. No matter how fast, or slow your metabolism is if you are gaining weight it's because you are eating to much. just because there's a guy out there that can eat 4,500 calories a day sit on his but and not gain an ounce, doesn't mean that a 310lb. and climbing guy that consumes 2,200 calories a day isn't over eating. Yes they obviously have different metabolisms, yes one guy can eat more than the other without gaining weight, but that doesn't mean that the guy that's consuming fewer calories isn't over eating, he's just consuming fewer calories than someone with a different "body chemistry" than himself.
I kept talk of metabolism out of my post because the simple fact is regardless of your metabolism if you're overweight, genuinely overweight you are consuming too many calories. It's a simple proven fact:
If you want to loose weight cut calories.
Call it whatever you want use what ever excuses you wish to justify some one gaining weight, but the simple fact is if they're gaining weight they're over eating. Regardless of how much they eat in comparison to someone else.
All of that isn't even taking into account that a lot of the CO(chronically obese of which I am still one of) do things like hide their eating from other people they consume less in public, and then eat more in secret. So while they say they eat X the really ate X+whatever they ate after they got home, and locked the door. There are few people with hyper-metabolisms out there just like there are few people with hypo-metabolisms. by definition the average person has an average metabolism. This included myself even when I was close to 400lbs. My problem wasn't a slow metabolism it was overeating. I could have sat on my ass and said "woe is me I eat as much as Bob and I gain weight while he stays thin." Or I could come to grips with the fact that the amount of food Bob ate, and the amount of food I needed were totally unrelated.
Stop worrying about the quantity of the food you consume comparatively and worry more about how much you need to consume actually. Like I said most people with a healthy weight aren't so because they exercise, hell most people with a healthy weight aren't so because they have faster metabolisms. They're of a healthy weight because they consume as many calories as they need and no more. A good portion of the population bulks-up around the holiday season regardless of how they look the rest of the year, because they consume a lot more calories during the holiday season. Again regardless of how fast their metabolism is. It happens to fat, and thin people alike.
"There are differences in metabolisms which can impact the effectiveness of weight loss attempts"
To the extent that one person will need to consume fewer calories than another to loose weight yes of course. But if you're not losing weight at a fast enough pace for you satisfaction then consume fewer calories(within reason). We all know that if your body needs extra energy, and it's not getting it from food it will have to get it from its own stores.
Read labels add it up figure out how many calories you consume a day let's say you consume 3000 calories/day and weigh 300 lbs.
Week one cut that down to 2500 what happened gain/lose/constant? Gained 302
Week two cut that down to 2200 what happened gain/lose/constant? Gained 303
Week two cut that down to 2000 what happened gain/lose/constant? Constant 303
Week two cut that down to 1800 what happened gain/lose/constant? Lost 302
So now you have a baseline for where you are in terms of intake. If you're not losing weight fast enough cut calories(within reason) I've done a lot of personal experimentation on myself I've go
I'm not doing this to be rude, or mean, but the simple fact is that if you're overweight you're eating to much. You don't need to exercise to loose weight you need to cut your calorie intake if you're overweight it's because you eat to much. You can do a few things to lose weight.
1 eat less
2 exercise off the difference
3 do both
Most people with a healthy weight aren't that way because they exercise they're that way because they eat as many calories as their body needs to sustain itself, and no more. Exercise is great for increasing cardiovascular health(probably the most important benefit), building muscle mass, increasing bone density, increasing stamina, and in the case of a lot of cardiovascular sports like soccer, or basketball increase spacial awareness, and balance. Other benefits like learning how to take falls help reduce injury in day-to-day life. Study after study shows that regular cardiovascular exercise is great for your health. but for weight loss it's a double edged sword.
Exercising can help you loose weight, but I've seen people that start an exercise routine, increase their stamina. They go from running 20 minutes at a time to running an hour straight. Maybe drop 5 to 10 lbs. but after that don't go down any further. Why? Because they consume more calories to make up for the number of calories they're burning off. Why do they do this? I don't know, I myself have experienced this, and it wasn't until I logged how much I ate(caloricly) when in a steady exercise routine, and how much I ate off of it that I realized I ate a lot more when I worked out regularly. I lowered my calorie intake, and bam started to loose weight again.
I hope I'm not coming off condescending, mean, or pitying I'm just say that if you want to loose weight consume fewer calories there's no need to exercise. You won't starve, trust me, that's what fat is there for. I have no clue how overweight you are, but if you are healthy enough to do so I would recommend exercise not for weight loss but for all the other health benefits. Trust me being healthy(not necessarily thin, but healthy) is part of the "being happy" equation.
I hate web-posted personal anecdotes, but I was close to 400 lbs at one point and I changed my diet, and started swimming. I've dropped close to 120 lbs. and I'm still losing weight. Every 3 months or so I'll plateau because I'm eating to much despite working out 4 times a week, I'll look at how I've been eating and low and behold I've been eating to much. For about 3 months I stopped working out because I broke my foot, couldn't run and no longer had access to a pool. So all the while I was sitting on my fat ass, and still lost 10 lbs, during the ordeal. I'd count 2-3 of those lbs to muscle atrophy, but the rest was fat. I took the weight off by eating less, because I knew I wasn't going to be exercising. Funny thing is after I healed up I put back on 5-6 lbs because I started eating more. I hope I'm not coming off as a jerk. But there is another way at looking at your situation.
peace,
manno
Where's your Honda dealer?
Dolphins are delicious with some mayonnaise and rye bread.
OMG it'z teh c0rpZorZ they're teh 3v!l3!
I think you're missing his argument, he's saying that putting a Concrete +30% product on your buildings exterior would cheaper than putting a marble/granite/ect. finish on the building. He's not advocating that you make your concrete footings/pylons/columns/slabs out of it, but the finished exterior. I'm a construction consultant, and I do estimating, and when I read "is only 30% over that of normal concrete" I started laughing so hard I nearly spit coffee all over my monitor. but the grandparent has a good point. If you use this material, just for the exterior, and not the structural shell I could see a lot of companies doing it. It would also be a good idea to make a stucco like product with the same properties that could be sprayed on to a finished exterior as well. It's a good idea.
-manno
They can make MS the default search system, Google is just asking MS to allow the user to select other search engines.
Hey personality can go a long way my friend. I've been a life long MS Windows user, through the good (Windows 2k), and the bad (Windows everything not based on NT). I love Windows. I know it inside, and out, I'm more than comfortable with it, looks-shmooks. This Vista DRMing/Resource hogging thing is starting to get me worried however. How about Macs they're great computers too, I recently helped a friend purchase and set one up. A mini to be exact. Great system beautiful, and it has some cool functionality built right in. But it has a lot of the same DRM issues MS Windows has... I'm thinking looks aren't doing it for me anymore. I'm looking for something with substance that I can trust won't stab me in the back, and hold any, and all media I own hostage for whatever reason it wishes. I'm looking at the new Ubuntu so hard it hurts my eyes. I'm tired of being at some corporations whim. My only issue with Linux is it's a PITA to get completely set up plain and simple. Yes I can get 80%-90% of the functionality I want from it right off the install, but that last 10% is oh so crucial, and so difficult to get working. I'm going to have to use WINE, as we have to use a strictly windows only program here per our industry's specs.
I heard it was 74%