There's at least one area where good ol' stuff doesn't suck, which many people discovered during the big ice storm last month. An acquaintance related how the power went out at her office building. They had a generator, but it only powered the phones and the computers, which left them trying to work in the dark. But that wasn't the problem. A disaster of a sorts quickly became apparent as they discovered that their automatic, electrically-operated flush toilets no longer functioned.
The main difference between Chinese and American moon missions: 30 minutes after the Chinese have explored the moon, they feel like exploring it again.
I don't know if your post was meant to be funny or not, but the humor escapes me. I think a typical, insulin-dependent, diabetic would welcome such technology. I don't think one becomes a "pussy" just because one would rather not suffer through multiple injections on a daily basis.
I'm sorry, but there's more to it than your simple equation. I was working out at the time. The nutritionist I was seeing (who followed the same philosophy you do) calculated that I could eat nearly 3000 calories per day and still lose weight. I would never exceed 2500 calories per day taken in, but I managed to gain weight for years anyway.
The laws of physics do apply to everyone, but your assumptions as to how the body burns fuel is wrong. I, and others like me, are living proof of it. There needs to be much more research into metabolism. Individuals can vary dramatically in how their bodies use fuel. They must be treated individually.
I failed to add in my OP that it wasn't until I was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes that I started monitoring my blood glucose and noticing what foods tended to spike it the most. At one time rice made up a big portion of my diet. It turns out that is the very worst thing I can eat. One big serving of rice spikes my BG to very high levels. I suspect this habit was causing my body to send my insulin to very high levels to compensate, and it's insulin that makes it possible to take those excessive sugars and convert them to fat.
Removing high glycemic foods makes it much easier to keep my glucose within acceptable levels.
The other thing about pastas to remember is what a healthy serving constitutes. It's rather small, like 1/2 a cup. Go out to a restaurant though, and they'll serve you about four cups of the stuff.
I wish that were universally true. I don't believe it is. In 2004 I spent about two months on an 800 calorie a day diet, and still did not lose any weight. It's not just a matter of calories. Not for everyone.
I don't have time to LTTFP, but I know what worked for me. I was morbidly overweight, and I tried a number of things to get rid of it, including the traditional low-fat + exercise regimen. What finally worked was to eliminate or drastically cut high-glycemic carbs from my diet (rice, pasta, potatoes, bread, sugar, and the like). That, coupled with moderate exercise (walking 1 or 2 miles) helped me to drop 90 pounds in about a year.
I believe there is a relationship between high glycemic carbs, blood glucose spikes, and insulin, which will cause certain body chemistries to convert and store much of that intake as fat.
All I see is a political rant. I see nothing to indicate that the FBI has banned chemistry sets. I think it's far more likely that manufacturers don't want to make chemistry sets because of liability issues. If you're going to post such an article, let's have some decent sources to back up the "facts".
RL "evil", especially of the corporate kind,.. It's not only found in the corporate world, but in politics too. Your description of sociopathic behavior fits many politicians perfectly. Especially the bit about reinventing their past to draw sympathy.
There's a reason why Dilbert is funny, and it's not because it is some sort of fantasy world dreamed up by Scott Adams. Dilbert is funny because it pretty accurately represents today's corporate America. So the answer to your question is, unfortunately, "No".
So what? My wife had an emotional bond with our '92 Stanza. She almost cried when we gave it up three years ago. Just because these machines are robots doesn't make them more subject to anthropomorphization by their users. Soldiers and airmen have always named their tanks and planes and treated them like family.
Since only those who classify information, are the only ones who know that it is classified, how is the journalist supposed to know what is classified information, and what isn't?
Slashdot Mirror
"Sperm Powered Nanobots" would be a great name for a rock band...
There's at least one area where good ol' stuff doesn't suck, which many people discovered during the big ice storm last month. An acquaintance related how the power went out at her office building. They had a generator, but it only powered the phones and the computers, which left them trying to work in the dark. But that wasn't the problem. A disaster of a sorts quickly became apparent as they discovered that their automatic, electrically-operated flush toilets no longer functioned.
So he's sort of the Bill Gates of the 19th century.
The main difference between Chinese and American moon missions: 30 minutes after the Chinese have explored the moon, they feel like exploring it again.
I don't know if your post was meant to be funny or not, but the humor escapes me. I think a typical, insulin-dependent, diabetic would welcome such technology. I don't think one becomes a "pussy" just because one would rather not suffer through multiple injections on a daily basis.
...rouge terrorist extremist... Overly-made-up transvestites, with bombs, was the first picture that popped into my head...I'm sorry, but there's more to it than your simple equation. I was working out at the time. The nutritionist I was seeing (who followed the same philosophy you do) calculated that I could eat nearly 3000 calories per day and still lose weight. I would never exceed 2500 calories per day taken in, but I managed to gain weight for years anyway.
The laws of physics do apply to everyone, but your assumptions as to how the body burns fuel is wrong. I, and others like me, are living proof of it. There needs to be much more research into metabolism. Individuals can vary dramatically in how their bodies use fuel. They must be treated individually.
I failed to add in my OP that it wasn't until I was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes that I started monitoring my blood glucose and noticing what foods tended to spike it the most. At one time rice made up a big portion of my diet. It turns out that is the very worst thing I can eat. One big serving of rice spikes my BG to very high levels. I suspect this habit was causing my body to send my insulin to very high levels to compensate, and it's insulin that makes it possible to take those excessive sugars and convert them to fat.
Removing high glycemic foods makes it much easier to keep my glucose within acceptable levels.
The other thing about pastas to remember is what a healthy serving constitutes. It's rather small, like 1/2 a cup. Go out to a restaurant though, and they'll serve you about four cups of the stuff.
I wish that were universally true. I don't believe it is. In 2004 I spent about two months on an 800 calorie a day diet, and still did not lose any weight. It's not just a matter of calories. Not for everyone.
I don't have time to LTTFP, but I know what worked for me. I was morbidly overweight, and I tried a number of things to get rid of it, including the traditional low-fat + exercise regimen. What finally worked was to eliminate or drastically cut high-glycemic carbs from my diet (rice, pasta, potatoes, bread, sugar, and the like). That, coupled with moderate exercise (walking 1 or 2 miles) helped me to drop 90 pounds in about a year.
I believe there is a relationship between high glycemic carbs, blood glucose spikes, and insulin, which will cause certain body chemistries to convert and store much of that intake as fat.
Wish I had discovered this 15 years ago.
They could have achieved the same result by giving the mouse a tiny shot of tequila.
(Insert favorite pussy joke here)
All I see is a political rant. I see nothing to indicate that the FBI has banned chemistry sets. I think it's far more likely that manufacturers don't want to make chemistry sets because of liability issues. If you're going to post such an article, let's have some decent sources to back up the "facts".
Really? That's great! One would think they could make a fortune on t-shirt sales.
Well, I'd buy one.
Yet another post illustrating the need for a "Dumbass" moderation choice.
Finally, we can now answer that age-old question which has plagued mankind since the dawn of time: "Who farted?"
Can't argue with that one. The wife liked my iMac so much, she took it in the divorce.
There are two fatal blunders a man can make:
1. Never start a land war in Asia
2. Never try to divorce a divorce lawyer
I don't care to go into details right now, but the "global economy" is destroying our food supply.
I dunno, guess that depends on your definition of "food supply"...
"Soylent Green is people!"
Oh Belize stop it!
There's a reason why Dilbert is funny, and it's not because it is some sort of fantasy world dreamed up by Scott Adams. Dilbert is funny because it pretty accurately represents today's corporate America. So the answer to your question is, unfortunately, "No".
And it was good sarcasm too. I'd mod it funny. (Never have mod points when I need them)
So what? My wife had an emotional bond with our '92 Stanza. She almost cried when we gave it up three years ago. Just because these machines are robots doesn't make them more subject to anthropomorphization by their users. Soldiers and airmen have always named their tanks and planes and treated them like family.
Since only those who classify information, are the only ones who know that it is classified, how is the journalist supposed to know what is classified information, and what isn't?