I do not support the anti-homosexual argument, but I'd just like to point out that there can be consensual pedophilia too, and it's no less illegal. If you convince an 8-year old boy or girl to suck your dick, it's still paedophilia even if you didn't force him.
I think the thin line is, sadly, that blurry one of "age of consent", ie that completely arbitrary age that we've made up to decide who can have sex and who cannot. It's very imperfect, but it's the best we have so far. Paedophilia/statutory rape occurs any time someone from one side of the line has sex with someone from the other side... whether they've both agreed to it or not.
I see what you mean, but... the thing is, if I don't eat much, I'll still maintain roughly the same weight, and I haven't had the impression that I fidget less when I eat less. That's the other edge of the blade, though. It takes insane efforts for me to get under 67kg, just like it would take insane efforts for me to get above about 74. Even if I don't eat much and do plenty of sport, the lowest I've managed was 66.8kg and I still had a bit of a beer gut left to get rid of - it just won't go. On the other hand, if I do fuck all and eat a lot, the max I can take is up to 74ish (usually it stopped at 73.8... it's only after two months of sitting on my ass at work and eating regularly that I got up to 74).
Anyway... we won't find the answer by talking about it.
Actually, as myself one of those metabolically skinny people, I think there is a point there. Though I do tend to walk very fast and move quite a bit - when I'm moving - I have occasionally gone through fairly long periods of being a total lazy fucker and moving very little while still eating large amounts of food, and barely gained any weight. Hell, I started work two and half months ago, haven't done any sport since, and gained... about 1kg. I'm 1m83 weighing 74kg atm - the heaviest I've been in a while.
However I am unhappy with sporting a (small but not inexistant) beer gut and doing something about it - for the last few days I've been going to the gym every morning. And from experience, now that I've started, given that I'm also going with someone else, I'll be going to the gym for a good long time. And I do believe that if I did really nothing for a very long period, I would probably get fat like anyone else.
But I think that otherwise, under normal conditions, my body is very good at maintaining what it believes to be its ideal weight. I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't digest all that it takes in when there's too much (and I do occasionally stuff myself). That may be a differentiating factor between me and someone who has a lot of trouble keeping slim: if I eat too much, I will get fat, very slowly, because my body will absorb a little bit too much of the food i eat. Someone less lucky might have a very efficient stomach which absorbs everything you put in it, rather than something close to what it feels it needs...
Maybe I mis-expressed myself. I meant that the modern "balanced" diet is based on what little knowledge we have. The "american" diet, whatever it is (I don't live in the US), obviously is not:-P
That's alright, the GNU Diet Licence allows you to make any changes you want to your diet so long as you don't make a proprietary Slim-Fast type milkshake out of it.
It's a hack based on the little bit of knowledge about the human body which we DO have. The Atkins diet is more like a script a skiddie downloaded. "Oh, when I press this button, I think this happens - so I'm going to do this without actually caring about the consequences".
Fact is, the true hacker respects the limitations of his knowledge, and doesn't do the equivalent of downloading a closed source script to run on his body without any idea how it works inside.
Daniel
Re:What about the dangers?
on
Hackers On Atkins
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
Oh, and there's a difference between "getting thin" and "reducing your weight" for a lot of people -- for many, the risk of kidney damage from an Atkins-like diet is far lower than the risks of not losing that weight (high blood pressure, cardiovascular damage, heart disease, back and knee problems from the extra weight, etc, etc).
I fully appreciate that some people definitely need to reduce their weight simply for health reasons. But if you're so weak-willed that you'd rather damage your body than make an effort then you're setting yourself up for having to stay on that diet forever, aren't you? And that can't be good...
I agree. Hacking sounds like a great idea when you're dealing with a finite system like a computer, a system which you actually stand some sort of chance of understanding. But the body is an incredibly complex machine that is way beyond the best "hackers" of this time.
The best scientists will admit that they can but barely scratch the surface of all there is to know about the human body, and you want to try to hack it? Sounds like a very stupid idea to me.
The only thing you can and should do is try to treat the body in as "healthy" a way as possible. That includes serious amounts of exercise (much more than the 'recommended' half hour per day or so). Remember, our bodies are designed to go running about all day hunting, not sit on our asses moving just our fingers. Add onto that as balanced a diet as possible, including plenty of fruit, veggies, some meat, and some fat, without eating too much nor too little, and you've hit jackpot. Nothing else works in the long term.
Daniel
Re:Three word's on Atkins that says it all:
on
Hackers On Atkins
·
· Score: 1
What about the dangers?
on
Hackers On Atkins
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
From what I've heard, Atkins is extremely harsh on your kidneys, with some seriously bad side-effects when you use it for prolonged periods. Surely getting thin is not worth dying or having permanent renal damage for...
Which "The Mask" are you talking about then? Please feel free to provide a link to imdb so we know which of the 20 or so that came out in the last 30 years you're talking about (now that's a cliched title...).
I didn't say that indie films are the only source of original movies. Good directors/script-writers still manage to squeeze some pretty good movie through the holliwood grinder, which is a credit to them. I just said that there are a lot of indie films out there which are worth watching which we don't even begin to hear about. And I'm not talking about utter pieces of shit like the Blair Witch project. On the other hand, there are plenty of utter pieces of shit produced by the big studios that we hear about plenty, even though they're about as worth watching as melting ice.
Well, Life is Beautiful and Amelie Poulain were pretty excellent. If you're calling either cliched, either you live far in the future where everything of this era is cliched, or you are talking out of your arse.
if it weren't for the mass-market movie producers, you wouldn't be seeing any sci-fi films with multi-hojillion dollar f/x budgets, even the good ones, like the Star Wars films (original), the Matrix, Aliens, even the LotR movies
Hah, good riddance. I'll take one low-budget "Life is Beautiful" any time in exchange of all these crappy blockbusters... and god only knows how many quality but smaller independent movies we miss out on because they never make it to a larger audience...
The trailer definitely supports the idea that the script is a pile of shite given its absolute and utter lack of any sort of information on the movie that you couldn't have gotten from the title. In fact, after watching the trailer, I am even less likely to watch alien vs. predator (though watching it in the cinema was already not on my list of things to do, now i might even skip it if it comes on in a few years - got better things to do).
Certainly as long as the american-dominated mass-market movie production aims all its movies at dumb-of-the-mill average americans, we're not going to be seeing better scripts from them.
Gotta have respect for a country which managed to take the best of both worlds. They got totalitarianism from communism, and greedy corporations from capitalism. w00t! Well done!
Amazing! Thanks, I had never heard of findstr. Being forced to develop under windows at work, this will help me quite a bit I expect. grep for windows, woohoo!:-D
Don't cry to the polititions, they are mere puppets for the corporations.
HOLD ON!!! Do you really mean that politicians in the US are not the representatives of the people, elected by the people, to serve the people? OH MY GOD! What an outrageous claim! You unpatriotic scum! Arrest him! He's a terrorist! Quick, before he spreads his disease!
Plenty of people are psychologically addicted to marijuana. Mistaking that for physical addiction is stupid. The psychosis affects something like 3 people in a million. A higher percentage of people are lactose-intolerant. Should we ban milk too?
PS: You're right, I've never met, nor even hear of, anyone physically addicted to marijuana. Some of my friends who smoke a lot more than me have had minor withdrawal symptoms (a bit irritable/bad sleep for a couple of days) but that was nothing compared to those who stopped smoking cigarettes.
Then get a job where you don't have to deal with rich white lazy bastards who get everything from daddy, including the money to buy weed if they feel so inclined. That's got nothing to do with weed, more with where you're working.
And people dying from exhaustion because they dont register the dangersignals from their body that an undrugged person would, isnt good enough reason?
No. The solution to that is better drug education, just like kids are educated to look when they cross the road. People die run over by cars all year round, but we don't ban cars for that.
People being violent to other random people is also a bad reason?(Not the case in all drugs though)
No. People do that whether or not drugs are involved. And one of the most violence-inducing drug (alcohol) is legal, so there is definitely a lack of consistence in this argument.
Having a negative effect on learning is a bad reason as well?
No. To say that kids, who are in a period when they need to learn a lot, should not smoke joints is perfectly reasonable, just like they should not drink alcohol, which certainly doesn't help learning either. But we're talking about responsible adults here. Drinking alcohol hurts your liver. Smoking cigarettes destroys your lungs. Eating too much causes health problems. Are those illegal? No, because it's up to you what you do with your body, once you're an adult.
In a 100% liberal(anarchistic) society, I could follow your point, but only extremists believes in that!:o)
No. 100% Liberalism and anarchy are very different things. They're at extremes of two different axes: the liberal-conservative axis, and the authoritarian-libertarian axis. Liberal != Libertarian.
In short, wrong on every single line of your post.
Which doesn't event factor in the fact that there are plenty of drugs which are not addictive and greatly entertaining, such as weed, E, shrooms and LSD, which doesn't stop them from being illegal for reasons which the various governments can't seem to explain in any sort of way.
"Make no mistake, it is without any misunderestimation that I have decided that the great country that is America needs a new name. We need a name that will better symbolise the warmth and happiness that we spread throughout the world. After much thinking, we have come up with the name 'Cuddles'. Starting on January 1st, the United States of America shall simply be known as 'Cuddles'."
Slashdot Mirror
I do not support the anti-homosexual argument, but I'd just like to point out that there can be consensual pedophilia too, and it's no less illegal. If you convince an 8-year old boy or girl to suck your dick, it's still paedophilia even if you didn't force him.
I think the thin line is, sadly, that blurry one of "age of consent", ie that completely arbitrary age that we've made up to decide who can have sex and who cannot. It's very imperfect, but it's the best we have so far. Paedophilia/statutory rape occurs any time someone from one side of the line has sex with someone from the other side... whether they've both agreed to it or not.
Daniel
I see what you mean, but... the thing is, if I don't eat much, I'll still maintain roughly the same weight, and I haven't had the impression that I fidget less when I eat less. That's the other edge of the blade, though. It takes insane efforts for me to get under 67kg, just like it would take insane efforts for me to get above about 74. Even if I don't eat much and do plenty of sport, the lowest I've managed was 66.8kg and I still had a bit of a beer gut left to get rid of - it just won't go. On the other hand, if I do fuck all and eat a lot, the max I can take is up to 74ish (usually it stopped at 73.8... it's only after two months of sitting on my ass at work and eating regularly that I got up to 74).
Anyway... we won't find the answer by talking about it.
Daniel
Actually, as myself one of those metabolically skinny people, I think there is a point there. Though I do tend to walk very fast and move quite a bit - when I'm moving - I have occasionally gone through fairly long periods of being a total lazy fucker and moving very little while still eating large amounts of food, and barely gained any weight. Hell, I started work two and half months ago, haven't done any sport since, and gained... about 1kg. I'm 1m83 weighing 74kg atm - the heaviest I've been in a while.
However I am unhappy with sporting a (small but not inexistant) beer gut and doing something about it - for the last few days I've been going to the gym every morning. And from experience, now that I've started, given that I'm also going with someone else, I'll be going to the gym for a good long time. And I do believe that if I did really nothing for a very long period, I would probably get fat like anyone else.
But I think that otherwise, under normal conditions, my body is very good at maintaining what it believes to be its ideal weight. I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't digest all that it takes in when there's too much (and I do occasionally stuff myself). That may be a differentiating factor between me and someone who has a lot of trouble keeping slim: if I eat too much, I will get fat, very slowly, because my body will absorb a little bit too much of the food i eat. Someone less lucky might have a very efficient stomach which absorbs everything you put in it, rather than something close to what it feels it needs...
Daniel
Maybe I mis-expressed myself. I meant that the modern "balanced" diet is based on what little knowledge we have. The "american" diet, whatever it is (I don't live in the US), obviously is not :-P
Daniel
That's alright, the GNU Diet Licence allows you to make any changes you want to your diet so long as you don't make a proprietary Slim-Fast type milkshake out of it.
Daniel
It's a hack based on the little bit of knowledge about the human body which we DO have. The Atkins diet is more like a script a skiddie downloaded. "Oh, when I press this button, I think this happens - so I'm going to do this without actually caring about the consequences".
Fact is, the true hacker respects the limitations of his knowledge, and doesn't do the equivalent of downloading a closed source script to run on his body without any idea how it works inside.
Daniel
Oh, and there's a difference between "getting thin" and "reducing your weight" for a lot of people -- for many, the risk of kidney damage from an Atkins-like diet is far lower than the risks of not losing that weight (high blood pressure, cardiovascular damage, heart disease, back and knee problems from the extra weight, etc, etc).
I fully appreciate that some people definitely need to reduce their weight simply for health reasons. But if you're so weak-willed that you'd rather damage your body than make an effort then you're setting yourself up for having to stay on that diet forever, aren't you? And that can't be good...
Daniel
Yes, it does. And if your toe is hurting after you've knocked it against something, do you cut it off?
Daniel
I agree. Hacking sounds like a great idea when you're dealing with a finite system like a computer, a system which you actually stand some sort of chance of understanding. But the body is an incredibly complex machine that is way beyond the best "hackers" of this time.
The best scientists will admit that they can but barely scratch the surface of all there is to know about the human body, and you want to try to hack it? Sounds like a very stupid idea to me.
The only thing you can and should do is try to treat the body in as "healthy" a way as possible. That includes serious amounts of exercise (much more than the 'recommended' half hour per day or so). Remember, our bodies are designed to go running about all day hunting, not sit on our asses moving just our fingers. Add onto that as balanced a diet as possible, including plenty of fruit, veggies, some meat, and some fat, without eating too much nor too little, and you've hit jackpot. Nothing else works in the long term.
Daniel
Stephen King's not dead you doofus.
Daniel
From what I've heard, Atkins is extremely harsh on your kidneys, with some seriously bad side-effects when you use it for prolonged periods. Surely getting thin is not worth dying or having permanent renal damage for...
Daniel
Which "The Mask" are you talking about then? Please feel free to provide a link to imdb so we know which of the 20 or so that came out in the last 30 years you're talking about (now that's a cliched title...).
I didn't say that indie films are the only source of original movies. Good directors/script-writers still manage to squeeze some pretty good movie through the holliwood grinder, which is a credit to them. I just said that there are a lot of indie films out there which are worth watching which we don't even begin to hear about. And I'm not talking about utter pieces of shit like the Blair Witch project. On the other hand, there are plenty of utter pieces of shit produced by the big studios that we hear about plenty, even though they're about as worth watching as melting ice.
Daniel
Well, Life is Beautiful and Amelie Poulain were pretty excellent. If you're calling either cliched, either you live far in the future where everything of this era is cliched, or you are talking out of your arse.
Daniel
if it weren't for the mass-market movie producers, you wouldn't be seeing any sci-fi films with multi-hojillion dollar f/x budgets, even the good ones, like the Star Wars films (original), the Matrix, Aliens, even the LotR movies
Hah, good riddance. I'll take one low-budget "Life is Beautiful" any time in exchange of all these crappy blockbusters... and god only knows how many quality but smaller independent movies we miss out on because they never make it to a larger audience...
Daniel
The trailer definitely supports the idea that the script is a pile of shite given its absolute and utter lack of any sort of information on the movie that you couldn't have gotten from the title. In fact, after watching the trailer, I am even less likely to watch alien vs. predator (though watching it in the cinema was already not on my list of things to do, now i might even skip it if it comes on in a few years - got better things to do).
Certainly as long as the american-dominated mass-market movie production aims all its movies at dumb-of-the-mill average americans, we're not going to be seeing better scripts from them.
Daniel
Gotta have respect for a country which managed to take the best of both worlds. They got totalitarianism from communism, and greedy corporations from capitalism. w00t! Well done!
Daniel
Amazing! Thanks, I had never heard of findstr. Being forced to develop under windows at work, this will help me quite a bit I expect. grep for windows, woohoo! :-D
Daniel
I was just commenting on the unfortunate choice of name. Stay off the cocaine, dude.
Daniel
Ranks right along SHT as a crappy acronym. The first thing I would think of when seeing MSH is MicroSoft Hell, not Microsoft Shell...
Daniel
Don't cry to the polititions, they are mere puppets for the corporations.
HOLD ON!!! Do you really mean that politicians in the US are not the representatives of the people, elected by the people, to serve the people? OH MY GOD! What an outrageous claim! You unpatriotic scum! Arrest him! He's a terrorist! Quick, before he spreads his disease!
Daniel
Plenty of people are psychologically addicted to marijuana. Mistaking that for physical addiction is stupid. The psychosis affects something like 3 people in a million. A higher percentage of people are lactose-intolerant. Should we ban milk too?
PS: You're right, I've never met, nor even hear of, anyone physically addicted to marijuana. Some of my friends who smoke a lot more than me have had minor withdrawal symptoms (a bit irritable/bad sleep for a couple of days) but that was nothing compared to those who stopped smoking cigarettes.
Daniel
Then get a job where you don't have to deal with rich white lazy bastards who get everything from daddy, including the money to buy weed if they feel so inclined. That's got nothing to do with weed, more with where you're working.
Daniel
And people dying from exhaustion because they dont register the dangersignals from their body that an undrugged person would, isnt good enough reason?
:o)
No. The solution to that is better drug education, just like kids are educated to look when they cross the road. People die run over by cars all year round, but we don't ban cars for that.
People being violent to other random people is also a bad reason?(Not the case in all drugs though)
No. People do that whether or not drugs are involved. And one of the most violence-inducing drug (alcohol) is legal, so there is definitely a lack of consistence in this argument.
Having a negative effect on learning is a bad reason as well?
No. To say that kids, who are in a period when they need to learn a lot, should not smoke joints is perfectly reasonable, just like they should not drink alcohol, which certainly doesn't help learning either. But we're talking about responsible adults here. Drinking alcohol hurts your liver. Smoking cigarettes destroys your lungs. Eating too much causes health problems. Are those illegal? No, because it's up to you what you do with your body, once you're an adult.
In a 100% liberal(anarchistic) society, I could follow your point, but only extremists believes in that!
No. 100% Liberalism and anarchy are very different things. They're at extremes of two different axes: the liberal-conservative axis, and the authoritarian-libertarian axis. Liberal != Libertarian.
In short, wrong on every single line of your post.
Daniel
Which doesn't event factor in the fact that there are plenty of drugs which are not addictive and greatly entertaining, such as weed, E, shrooms and LSD, which doesn't stop them from being illegal for reasons which the various governments can't seem to explain in any sort of way.
Daniel
New Bush initiative:
"Make no mistake, it is without any misunderestimation that I have decided that the great country that is America needs a new name. We need a name that will better symbolise the warmth and happiness that we spread throughout the world. After much thinking, we have come up with the name 'Cuddles'. Starting on January 1st, the United States of America shall simply be known as 'Cuddles'."
Daniel