213374U

OK, I know I'm going to get burned for asking, but... who is "he"? You're talking about your wife... or are you referring to yourself in the third person now like Julius Caesar?

Might I suggest that then, perhaps, you are listening to the wrong people and news outlets? From an outsider's perspective, it looks like Americans are afraid of even listening to "underdog" candidates, and that's even before some "clever" pundit tags them as communists, radical leftists, or whatever. They couldn't possibly win, so what's the point, right? This is a sort of sad self-fulfilling prophecy. Do you expect the people who implemented and consolidated the attacks on your freedom to reverse the process of their own volition?

"Well your story is very compelling. So I'll just type it up on my invisible typewriter."

FDA is supposed to handle that. Certain products slipping through the cracks isn't unheard of, though. And "acceptable" thresholds for contaminants in foods are also questionable, such as heavy metals in fish, which being liposoluble, accumulate in the body without remedy. The more the environment is poisoned, the harder it'll be to avoid stuff like that.

I think he understands it well enough. In fact, it seems it's you who doesn't understand the danger of nuclear escalation, the reason why succumbing to the temptation to fire a few itty-bitty tactical nukes at an enemy force with equivalent nuclear capabilities when things turn against you, has a very high chance of resulting in all-out nuclear warfare. With the end of the Cold War and the unlikelihood of seeing massed Soviet tank armies rolling over the Rhine, deployment of tactical nukes in Europe makes very little sense beyond saber rattling. Yep, us westlings are scared... of somebody doing something monumentally stupid. There is no defeating stupidity, you know.

Perversion is my middle name, homeboy.

Yeah, I don't know if it's the best, but it's the simplest. That one sure is a bitch. Boy am I glad I was born with a **** and will never have to make that call. The notion of at what point a random set of chemical structures and processes become "human" is at the crux and is, ultimately, arbitrary; it's a problem often encountered in informal discourse, arising from vague definitions and nebulous terms. If we follow your logic strictly, sperm cells are also part of that process and whenever you waste those, you are very much arbitrarily deciding that they don't constitute life, as previously mentioned. We know that human embryos are simply incapable of perception. Can they experience pain? Can plants? Science can only provide facts — it's moral interpretations of those facts that are a misuse of science.

Nah, you're cool man. I'd vote for you — provided you never ran for office. That's more than I can say for any candidate I can think of. Does that make any sense?

Tell us how you really feel. (much better than talking about what some old bag in Oklahoma may or may not have said, anyway)

Depends on the country, in my opinion those societies who pay for a working health care system should have a little say in that matter, our health care system is overburdened with taking care of people with self-inflicted ailments. A delicate matter, but something has to change. I used to think that way, but then I found out that the say in the matter governments have isn't exercised rationally or consistently. For instance, studies show that if you lift hard, odds (82% !) are that you'll injure yourself, the most likely injuries occurring in the back or shoulders, which may require expensive surgery and/or rehab to fix. Then you have low back pain which is, according to the WHO, the leading cause of work absence; the direct and indirect costs of LBP are measured in hundreds of billions in the US alone. We know that an adequate fitness level, proper weight and good posture often help with that... but governments don't do jack about it because LBP isn't a blip on people's radars. And let's not even touch sugary drinks, candy bars etc. You get the picture. Imagine if the EC tomorrow decided to draft a law to ban sitting for more than 30 minutes straight at work, establish fines for obese people, and declared powerlifting and strongman illegal across the EU. Lol much? But it gets better. It turns out that keeping people in jail is expensive as hell (to the tune of €1,950/mo and inmate in my country), while at the same time, we know that prohibition doesn't really end consumption... it simply makes it part of the untaxable submerged economy which is the lifeblood of unofficial crime syndicates. The sensible and morally legitimate way to go about it is the same as with alcohol and tobacco: tax the hell out of them on account of the burden they are to public healthcare, regulate their distribution, and do away with the social stigma so the causes and effects of abuse can be discussed and treated in a mature way. OT: and now I'm off to increase my likelihood of suffering a shoulder or back injury

... I don't know about "beneficial effects" but in an open society the state has no business telling you what you can and cannot do to yourself. Prohibition also precludes any mature discussion on the subject and essentially dumbs debate down to "drugs are bad m'kay?". And for the record, I don't do drugs. I don't even drink. OT: The best thing about 15-hour shifts? That they aren't 16-hour shifts. FML

Huh. If that's correct, then it's a bugged feature. As people appearing in italics is uncommon, whereas people posting is common, and I've never seen myself in italics. No, it works fine, it's mostly just outdated. The thing is, it's a feature from before the quick reply option was implemented. Back then, people had to go into full reply mode to type up a post. Nowadays I guess everyone just uses the quick reply window unless they are involved in a full-on quote war, or need to embed a ton of images or whatever. The quick reply mode isn't recognized by the forum as an "action" like, say, starting a new thread or browsing someone's profile. If you hover your mouse over a user name, you get a popup window with the latest info the forum software has on that user's activity. I used to avoid appearing in italics when in the aforementioned quote wars by opening a new tab and browsing the forum main page. stalker level = John Hinckley Jr.

That's a fair bit of revisionism you're indulging in. Aggressive expansionism was an integral part of Nazism as outlined in Mein Kampf. It was this expansionism that landed Germany in a war it couldn't possibly win. In this sense, Nazism was, as a guiding ideology for post-WWI Germany, self-defeating, because ideologies don't exist in a vacuum — if they fail to incorporate the circumstances and particularities in their scope of application, they are useless generalities at best, and a recipe for disaster at worst. This idea is well illustrated by the different configurations of "socialism" resulting from trying to apply Marxist principles in wildly different situations. As for doing well, I'm genuinely interested to know what measuring standards are you are basing your conclusions on. From what I've read, the only macroeconomic indicator that improved between 1933 and 1939 was unemployment, which was drastically reduced as a result of the massive public works and rearmament programs. On the other hand, living standards for just about everyone in Germany worsened, with real wages declining (an oft-cited figure is a 25% decrease, but I can't find the original source for the claim) and a negative trade balance, which is bad news for an industrial economy. At the same time, you have the removal of collective bargaining as a result of independent unions being disbanded and strikes being verboten, rationing, army conscription, etc. In short, a plethora of generally unpleasant stuff needed to sustain Hitler's massive re-militarization aims. As an upside, it's suggested that German industry vastly expanded in the interwar years, but that seems to be under scrutiny as well. That's the "accepted" narrative, anyway. What are you basing your disagreement with it on?

That's one of the points the Economist article author makes (if I understand you correctly). The interview however was prompted, apparently, by some messages that had appeared in the London subway, that quote prof. Graeber. I'm guessing that people who have pointless jobs but feel engaged or otherwise believe they serve some purpose wouldn't complain thus, demand work day reductions, etc... I don't know how I'd make it through the day without self-deceit, tbh.

Did you watch the interview? He does say that the world would be a "lesser place" without artists. Now, admittedly my experience with this is fairly limited, but I've never met anyone in an artistic profession who believed their work was utterly pointless. People in finance, admin, clerks, etc? Yeah... Seriously, I was kidding when I wrote that watching it would rot your brain.

Watch it, old boy. That could be construed as a counterrevolutionary subversive iconoclastic not fully reverent attitude regarding the empyreal profanity filter. A most un-mod-like trait, to be sure! As for the phallus transplant, I think the dude who suffered a botched circumcision (ouch) would agree that, despite the fact that any tech can can be used frivolously, that doesn't diminish its value to mankind at large. Hee hee. Still, there's rejection to worry about, and I'm thinking the psychological sort. There's a lot of potential for things going seriously wrong. Still, I know what choice I'd make if I, uh, had a botched circumcision.

Well, by definition, if you don't consider it to be BS, it's not. That's kind of the point. The worth of your job isn't for others to decide, regardless of what you are being paid to do it, because it's not them doing it — it's you. It's your time and effort. It can be argued that, in an objective sense, making videogames is a creative activity, so the job'd be right up there with the examples the professor mentions, sci-fi writers and ska musicians. The problem that's being discussed, as I understand it, and what caused those messages to appear in the subway trains, is that some people[who?] subjectively feel that their jobs are pointless, and it's difficult to discern, in objective terms, what is it they produce. The problem is that they take up a considerable amount of time and waste it, quite literally. Wasting time on one's own terms may be fun for a while, but having one's time wasted systematically can be tough. On top of this, many of these jobs are done in high-stress environments; if you know somebody who works in financial services for example you know what I'm talking about. Also, I'm not sure what olden days you're referring to, but regular unemployment today is very much a thing.

WARNING: the following is an interview in RT. Watching it may turn you into a conspiracy theorist, a neo-soviet fifth columnist, a dirty hippie and/or possibly rot your brain. For the non TL:DR crowd, here's The Economist's take on the original piece. Even if we accept today's BS jobs as essential to the maintenance of this wonderful materialist utopia we've built, there's a good chance that eventually some bot will outcompete you — if you are lucky enough to currently have a job, that is. Ironically enough, you may have helped design, build, market or sell the bot that takes your job. This issue ties in with others such as the growing inequality gap and the long-term unsustainability of current economic models which were thought up under a paradigm of "growth" at all costs. Solutions have been proposed such as a reduction in work days, a universal basic income, etc, which invariably receive criticism as unfeasible or even as couterproductive and resulting in huge numbers of parasites suckling from the state's teat, people becoming unproductive slobs, a generalized moral decay as a result of not having to work to earn your keep etc, despite a lack of a sufficient body of empirical evidence, and even against the promising results of certain trials. Personally, it sounds too good to be true and I doubt our reptilian overlords would endorse it either. So, do YOU work a BS job? (being comrade Putin's shill in the OE boards is most definitely not a BS job, I'll have you know)

Really, commander?

ITT: mod is foiled by stupid-ass language filter. Classic. OP: You misspelled "Beauton Gilbow".

Let's do it in inverse order, I think the explanation is easier to follow that way. As per Newton's universal gravitation law, the gravitational force between two bodies is given by: F = G m1m2 /r2 (1) G is the gravitational constant, m1 and m2 are the masses of the bodies involved and r is the distance between them. In this example, m1 is the mass of a random object and m2 is the mass of the Earth. We also know that, as per Newton's second law, F = ma (2) The force is the same in both equations, as it's the gravitational force an object is subjected to by the Earth. "a" is the acceleration the body experiences as a result of force. So substituting the value of F in the first equation to solve for "a" you get: ma = G m1m2 /r2 Now, divide both sides by "m" (in this case, m = m1), and you get the following expression: a = G m2 /r2 For objects near the surface of the Earth (where r → 6,400 km), that amount is essentially a constant, and it's approximately 9.8 m/s2. This means that even though the force applied on an object by Earth's gravity depends on its mass, the acceleration it experiences in a free fall doesn't and is the same for all. This is a simplification useful for most calculations, but it's not strictly correct because it ignores, as you suspected, the effect of the gravitational force caused by the other body in the system. But consider that even asteroids have a mass that, compared to Earth's, is insignificant. If, for Earth's mass (5.9x1024 kg) we get a value for a of 9.8 m/s2, imagine the ridiculously low values of acceleration Earth experiences for human-scale objects. You wanted to consider the Moon. Yes, in the experiment you suggested, the Earth would in turn accelerate towards by the Moon at ~1/6 the value of g, so they would accelerate towards each other at ~11.4 m/s2. Again, this is only correct for values of separation equal or very similar to Earth's radius; the acceleration would be much lower at distances relevant to objects of planetary mass. -- Now, for parabolic flights. We know that all bodies fall towards the center of the Earth at a rate of 9.8 m/s2 regardless of their mass and, in principle, regardless of their speed as well. That is the rate at which the mars bar inside the cоckpit is accelerating downwards, if you take the center of the Earth as your frame of reference (and not the cоckpit). Now, if the cоckpit is also accelerating downwards at the same rate of 9.8 m/s2 and the initial speed of both items is the same, they won't move relative to each other. This is the same as when you drive next to another car. So long as you are both accelerating at the same rate and moving at the same speed, you will appear not to be moving relative to each other. It's the same for astronauts in orbit, they aren't in an environment without gravity — they are in perpetual free fall. If you give the mars bar in free fall a slight upwards nudge, you momentarily decrease its downwards acceleration, and the cоckpit will, for a slight while, gain downwards speed faster than the bar. Once the bar regains its maximum 9.8 m/s2 acceleration value, it will no longer keep losing speed relative to the cоckpit, but the speed difference will remain, so the bar will, slowly but steadily fall towards the back of the cоckpit. Drag for the bar isn't a factor because it isn't moving relative to the air inside the cоckpit. disclaimer:

A proven method is a method that works for the majority of people through a process of what could be described as evolution. There are time proven and highly successful methods to lose weight, just as there are highly effective and time proven ways to build muscle. There are always exceptions, but there are methods which are described as standards because it works for most people. You cannot deny this. No, I won't deny the effectiveness of proven methods, because disproving a tautology is impossible. I'm challenging the assertion that "proven methods" exist at all. I guess that there are methods that work for the majority (i.e. 50% + 1), but those are still going to be counterproductive for a great many people, whose failure will leave you "endlessly puzzled" (they must be doing something wrong). It all comes down to what constitutes a sufficient effectiveness threshold for you. Is it 50%? 80%? 99%? This is why most commercial gyms are full of fail, and a majority of pre-packaged fitness "programs" are little more than marketing gimmicks that fail to produce significant body composition changes over time. Now, let's talk about "evolution". I guess you are referring to the theory that the knowledge pool of training has, through a process of trial and error, improved to produce a set of guiding principles and specific protocols that work for everyone, or at least for an arbitrary proportion such that you consider it sufficient to declare them "proven". That's your hypothesis, yes? Mine is that these principles and protocols have in fact changed little over time and natural selection hasn't so much applied to the body of knowledge itself as it has to those who try and apply said "knowledge". This means that, for some it works great, and for some others, it doesn't, reflecting that the one-size-fits-all approach is a crapshoot. The second group tend to quit due to lack of progress, frustration and injuries, leaving only the the individuals that respond well to these methods. Therefore, anyone looking only at the end result would conclude that these methods do in fact work, and if they didn't it's because "they did something wrong" or quit, when it's the other way around. I'll admit, I haven't found much research on this matter other than the study I linked back there. Do you have any?

Because you are operating from the premise that since simply picking up weight and putting it down worked for you, it must work for everyone. In reality, it is not so simple. The study for your perusal.