Now that we are searching for evidence of this hologram, and may be close to establishing something approaching 'proof', won't the folks projecting the hologram alter the program to make it more difficult for us to determine if we are living in a hologram and thus negate our findings which will lead us to do more research and in turn cause the hologram to be changed again? Rinse and repeat.
As to the 'continue anyway' button not working, I found the same thing so I did a right-click, Open in new Tab and got in.
If Yahoo keeps pulling this shit, I won't use them any more other than to comment on their stories which say, "Look at [some random star] in her hot dress!" which they insist on sticking in a Flash format.
Don't tell that to some of the people on here who will immediately whine, "But this version fixes bugs and closes vulnerabilities. Don't you think about the children?"
It's the same thing with XP. It's a great OS which satisfies the needs of 80% of the users on the planet, yet people will whine about them not jumping all over W7.
Just because something's new doesn't make it better.
Considering over $1 TRILLION was spent bailing out the banks and Wall Street, that doesn't seem too bad.
Our food changed sometime in the '70s or '80s. When I was a kid, overweight people were rather rare. Has the "modern" diet gotten us addicted when we're kids -- and still very active -- to foods that we should be eating very sparingly which then cause huge weight gains when we continue to eat them after we reach our early twenties and our post education lifestyle
The other problem is that people of prior generations were expected to be able to deal with their own emotions in a mature manner and generally weren't as stressed-out as Americans today are.
(Did you know that a 12oz can of coke does as much liver damage as a 12oz can of beer?)
So almost none at all? Heh.
Thing is, sodas are typically sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup. Only the liver can metabolize fructose. Personally, I drink water and only occasionally have a carbonated drink. There are lots of good reasons to avoid sodas; sugar is only one of them. Once you get used to drinking water, you'll wonder how you were ever satisfied drinking what is basically syrup.
if you eat less, you will lose weight.
Maybe so, but that doesn't mean your weight loss will be 100% FAT loss. On the contrary, consuming less calories can also cause your body to store up MORE fat, to compensate for the food shortage. Numerous studies have shown this effect... you just end up with a smaller "fat" rat than the control subject.
If you gradually switch from "eating more calories than I would have ever needed" to "eating about the right amount, give or take" I strongly doubt you'll have this problem. At least that wasn't my experience. The studies I have seen were all concerning unsustainable fad diets that you could not continue using for the rest of your life.
Yes - and it can also make you very sick at the same time. People have starved themselves to death whilst remaining obese. To simply say "eat less, you'll lose weight!" makes as much sense as saying "just remove all the microorganisms from your blood stream, and you'll be cured!" Simple, right? Whilst technically correct, unfortunately it is not at all a useful suggestion. The sooner people stop deluding themselves with trivial knee-jerk responses that tacitly blame the patient, the sooner we can make progress to finding an actual solution for a real problem. Remember: if it was that easy, nobody would be fat.
"Eat less" isn't the same thing as saying "eat nothing or nearly nothing while failing to obtain the nutrients you need".
"Blame" is also a small-minded concern. When I personally needed to lose some weight, there was no concern with fault or blame. I (get this) *took responsibility* for my own condition and made some adjustments to it. Some sustainable, permanent adjustments that did not involve neglecting the nutrition I needed. It was never a problem after that. In fact it was one of the easiest things I've ever done. That's because I took responsibility and accepted that the power to change it was within myself, the exact opposite of victimhood. This is exactly what I never see from fat people. They're victims and they are hostile to the idea that they don't need to be. That's because they don't understand the difference between fault/blame and responsibility/power. That's the part that is "not that easy" for so many because we have such a shallow, small-minded culture that doesn't like to think too deeply about much of anything no matter how much better life can be.
All you are saying is that doing something the stupid and careless way won't yield a good result. This was already known.
This says nothing whatsoever about what happens when obese people reduce their calorie intake. Obese people got that way because they were consuming more calories than they burned. For them, reducing caloric intake sounds like a good idea (although an instant 50% cut sounds drastic - if that were me I'd make more gradual adjustments).
But your Starvation Experiment doesn't address this at all. Again what was the point of posting it?
Everyone I know who successfully lost weight and kept it off for years did it by making permanent, sustainable, healthy changes in their lives. A few of them learned to like veggies and other healthy foods. Others did that and also formed the habit of regular exercise. The point is to consume fewer calories than you burn until you reach a new equilibrium. Like so many other things that upset people, this works every time it's properly tried.
So this is like, "If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance." Got it.
Explain how it is hyperbole to state one is treated like a criminal when trying to board a plane when:
- You can't walk up to a ticket counter and pay for your ticket with cash
- A background check is run on you by the government when you purchase your ticket
- You have to remove articles of clothing to prove you aren't carrying something dangerous on the plane (leaving out the fact that a stainless steel pen makes a very handy weapon as do hands and fingers)
- You can only bring small quantities of items such as toothpaste, water and other items on board the plane
- The passenger list is sent to the government before the plane leaves to see if you're part of a criminal organization which means your entire history is checked (which is different than the above listed entry)
- You can be placed on a no-fly list for any reason whatsoever without a viable recourse to get off the list AND which the government will deny you are said list but still won't let you fly and won't give a reason why you can't fly
Now it's your turn. Explain how anything I just mentioned is either not a fact or hyperbole as it relates to one being treated like a criminal when attempting to fly.
At which point we go back to the courts and show that the activist Republican Justice John Roberts was wrong in declaring this a tax since it raises no revenue and that the government cannot force people to hand over money to private companies. Problem solved.
This was never about people getting health insurance. This was about making sure those who have chosen not to take personal responsibility for themselves can leech off everyone else without changing their ways. If the President truly wanted to make us all healthier, he would have pushed for higher taxes on tobacco products, forced people to undertake exercise to keep their weight down and would have gone full bore against drug dealers.
But he didn't. Instead, he took the easy way out and made everyone a ward of state by making sure they have to keep paying and paying and pay some more for the above mentioned people without the ability to exercise conscientious objector status like the religious wackos do every time the issue of abortion or contraceptives come up. If they don't want to pay for abortions or contraceptives because of their beliefs, why can't I not pay for the medical costs of smokers, the obese, alcoholics and drug users? Those are just as much choices as a woman taking contraceptives or having an abortion.
to whine about an injustice
Thank you for confirming this is an injustice.
Except it's not a tax since it raises no revenue. It's a government mandate that I hand over my money to a private company. How is that a tax?
Then I guess they shouldn't have tried to steal someone else's property.
It's like when someone tries to steal copper wire and gets electrocuted. It might seem harsh to some (not me), but if they hadn't been trying to steal, they wouldn't be dead.