I've had 16 different responses from people telling me that I'm wrong. That it isn't calories in vs. calories out. They then go to list things that affect the total number of calories the body spend.

I hate to tell you this, but I already knew that things could have an effect on the number of calories your body spends. That's what I meant by "calories out." It's not a fixed amount. Sleep, exercise, diet, genetics, environment, your childhood, your mood, and a number of other factors can change "calories out." Your best bet is to manage your "calories in." You have 100% control over that. Let me present you with a simple logic exercise:

Weigh yourself. Wait one month. Weigh yourself again. Did you lose weight? If yes, keep doing what you're doing. If no, reduce calories. Repeat until desired weight.

Yes, I read what it's trying to tell me.

"We're not going to give you any hard data, and because the scientific article is behind a paywall, you're shit out of luck. What we WILL give you instead is one more excuse that you can use to rationalize how fat you are. We realize that anything that shifts the blame off of your bad diet and worse exercise routine will make you feel better about yourself. We're going to pass up this opportunity to tell you that that calorie difference between a well rested individual and a tired one is probably only a few hundred calories, and instead make it seem like there's nothing you can do about it."

I wish I could see these numbers myself instead of getting a vague: "This may affect obesity" in the summary.

Much more useful would be: "We have determined with 95% certainty that this behavior is responsible for a 20% higher BMI when other factors are ruled out."

Your weight is a result of calories in vs. calories out.

Nothing else.

Yes, disrupting your sleep patterns may affect the "calories out" department slightly, but that is not what is making you fat. It is food that is making you fat. If you have some kind of magical body that violates the law of conservation of energy, please let the scientific community know immediately, otherwise it's time to put down the sandwich.

I work as IT in a school district. The reasons we don't have those things is lawyers, and parents who have them.

Dear Representative:

We should not go to war over a cyber crime that does not cost the lives of American Citizens. We should not go to war over drugs, we should not go to war over oil prices, we should not go to war over a conflict that is unlikely to cost American lives. We are not the world police, we do not have a morally superior nation, our way is not the only correct way.

We should go to war to save American lives. Including the lives of our soldiers. I understand that it is not always easy to determine when a situation is going to result in the deaths of Americans, and in those cases I'd like you to pursue diplomatic means until you determine that there is a clear and present danger to American lives that outweighs the risk of death you intend to inflict upon our soldiers.

Thank you,
-Daryen.

Well, I'm not sure how many plants we could put in the desert, as nuclear energy usually requires a large amount of water.

I know it's just one botnet of many, but stories like this make me smile anyway.

Want to get back at the RIAA? Support an indie artist. Tettix releases all of his music online for free, and you can donate to him if you like it (I have). Here's a link to his site: http://www.tettix.net/

The entire advertising system in general makes me a bit sick. I'm paying extra on every product that I buy so that the company that sells it can spend that extra money on advertising. I don't feel even the slightest bit guilty turning on ad-blockers. ESPECIALLY with many ads containing virus payloads these days. How about you charge less for the product, and I spend my money to support websites I actually care about.