I have a love-hate relationship with Norton.

It is THE program which slows down my older computers, driving me to upgrade computers. However, it seems to work pretty well. I know a fellow whose laptop was constantly getting virii. He kept calling me to help him fix it. He had a free or inexpensive virus scanner, I don't remember which. After the computer was reset-to-factory spec yet again, I told him to try getting Norton's consumer product. He hasn't gotten a virus in like two years, by far the longest he's gone.

But wow, it is a resource hog.

What we have now is totally different. There's no rebellion, secession, martial law, etc. Just a government that's decided they don't feel like following a rule of law and would rather just assassinate anyone they find inconvenient.

If by "inconvenient" you mean they are "enemy combatants attempting to harm or destroy the USA", then I guess that's true. However, my only point is that such individuals have in the past, also been targeted and killed. In large numbers, actually. The Civil War is such an example.

The United States of America did not accept the secession, so in the eyes of the USA, the Confederate States of America was not a recognized country. See the "Emancipation Proclamation" which the USA issued to free the slaves in the entire USA, which also covered the breakaway southern states. The secession was a contested issue. So the killing of people in the states attempting to secede, in the eyes of the USA, was still the killing of Americans, in an attempt to stop the secession from completing successfully.

If you're talking about the US, I fail to see where the difference is. The current President of the US authorized the assassination of a US citizen overseas without due process: http://www.salon.com/2010/04/07/assassinations_2/ [salon.com] and now he's dead. [1]

Not without precedent. The American South seceded and the president ordered lots of Americans killed to stop it.

That light-dark cycle has been going on for billions of years, ceaselessly, perfectly. An amazing machine.

The importance of perspective is underscored as well. From the geostationary satellite, it looks as though the earth is still. And it is - from that perspective. From the perspective of other universal bodies however, the earth is moving.

Kudos to the Russkies for capturing this perspective and to James Drake for creating the video.

The basic problem with public transportation is that it's not flexible enough for us. It doesn't stop at our front door and let us off in front of our destination. If it manages to do that, then it will become much, much more popular. Currently, public transportation is like a circulatory system without the capillaries.

If this threatens the insurance companies, they will launch a massive lobbying campaign to stop it.

Or maybe we went to war, because some of our politicians have actually read history, and don't want a repeat of WWII. You know the one where Hitler damn near conquered all of Europe, and was on his way to conquering Asia, until the Japanese did something stupid and pissed off the American people?

Hitler raced through his surrounding countries like a knife through butter. Saddam fought an ineffectual multi-year, very bloody war with Iran which ground to a stalemate. He couldn't even fly an airplane in his own airspace due to the no-fly zone after Gulf War I. World War III was not an issue here. And ascribing to politicians any great wisdom is truly a mistake.

Saddam was an insane sadistic bastard.

Quite true. But he was the only one brutal enough to keep the peace in that country. You saw what happened with sectarian violence after he was unseated.

It's funny how no one ever complains about the first war against Iraq? You know the one where the UN told us to go and bomb the fuck out of him, for invading Kuwait and killing untolds thousands of people?

The UN does not tell the United States to do anything.

The UN is a bureaucratic formality.

But you're right, the Democrats blame everything on Bush, so it must be his fault.

Politics never stops.

I am on-board with calories in/calories out. If one maintains a calorie deficit such that after several days, the deficit adds up to 3500 calories, he will have lost a pound. I don't question this.

HOWEVER - the study noted that composition of food intake had an effect on the body. Namely, that body mass increased and daily caloric burn increased with higher protein, within the context of taking in excess calories than the body burns. An effect that was not seen with a low protein intake.

Now, here is my speculation, based on the report results: That the increased body mass and daily caloric burn effect might also be seen in the context of taking in fewer calories than the daily caloric burn level. So, as weight loss involves maintaining a calorie deficit, if the body is burning more calories, it will be easier to maintain a deficit with more food taken in. Which leads to the conclusion that eating predominantly Twinkies is going to lead to a more difficult weight loss than eating predominantly higher protein foods. I admit, this is my speculation, but the study provides some intriguing hints.

One has to be careful with calorie restriction and be sure to get all the necessary nutrients. A longer term deficit of something important can come back to bite you. Hard. Be sure to get enough:

1) Potassium
2) Fat
3) Protein
4) The vitamins and minerals found in a good multivitamin/mineral (like Centrum or One A Day maximum).

Before going on a calorie-restricted regimen, I would strongly urge people to spend some time figuring out what nutrients the body needs, and from where they plan to get these nutrients.