213374U

Pretty much. The idea that "educational efforts don't really work" is absurd and easily disproven by the fact that you have savage apes elevated to the status of neurosurgeons because of educational efforts. The whole of human civilization is based on the transmission of knowledge so claiming it doesn't work is... not very well grounded in reality. But one does not need to find such grand examples—the awareness raising and educational approach to sexual health in the last few decades has worked pretty well in reducing the impact of STDs, especially HIV. But hey, let's tax sex outside of marriage! Because those dirty pigs must pay! smh edit: seriously what's with font size changes? Education; while being important is useless nonetheless when there isn't a healthy alternative to high calorie foods. You could have people go to schools and try to educate in proper eating but as long as the vending machine in the corner is still choke full of candy and other crap it is all moot. The problem isn't just education and the public but the hold that the Food industry has over society. I've been working an office job for the last two years, I am familiar with the vending machines you are talking about. Instead, I took a peanut butter+banana sandwich (the sandwich that killed Elvis!) to work, plus a whey shake that I chugged down with full fat milk to take me through the morning, in addition to whatever I brought for lunch. I'm sitting at ~10% bf. Please tell me what is in your vending machine that has more calories than that. People need to learn how and what to eat, and most importantly, they need to understand that the human body has evolved to move, not to spend 8-12 hours hunching in front of a computer screen. But you are right, that's not all. Some other stuff such as discounting healthy food (raw veggies, fresh fruits, unprocessed meats and cereals, etc) are also probably good ideas. Not a lot of evidence on the potential effects of that, though.

Pretty much. The idea that "educational efforts don't really work" is absurd and easily disproven by the fact that you have savage apes elevated to the status of neurosurgeons because of educational efforts. The whole of human civilization is based on the transmission of knowledge so claiming it doesn't work is... not very well grounded in reality. But one does not need to find such grand examples—the awareness raising and educational approach to sexual health in the last few decades has worked pretty well in reducing the impact of STDs, especially HIV. But hey, let's tax sex outside of marriage! Because those dirty pigs must pay! smh edit: seriously what's with font size changes?

I know you pointed it out, but I just want to focus on the idea that reporting a post is definitely not indifference. It may not seem, outwardly, like you're doing anything about it (though some people will respond to other posters to not engage), but I don't think it needs to be an outward thing. Even if a 3rd party observer could not tell if anything happened, that doesn't mean that nothing did. [citation needed] Case study example Well played, sir. Well played. (I am taking my meds now, OK?) That kind of back and forth with users you are familiar with can only be considered trolling if the prospective troll knows beforehand that the recipient's reaction will be one of RAGE!!! and the sole intent behind this action is to get a rise out of them. So a troll is only as good as his audience. Context also very much makes trolling. The above joke is really tame by RPGCodex standards, but is probably unacceptable and likely a bannable offense at physorg. As a result, I don't think a universal definition of troll can be agreed upon, unlike definitions of mental disorders. I think that may be a fundamental flaw of the study. People are questioning whether there are actually "good" trolls, but as with comedians, opinions are going to differ; in my experience, facing the business end of a troll's antics is going to paint the troll negatively in the eyes of the recipient, as is usually the case with being made the butt of a joke. But as others have said, that's more an issue with people taking everything and especially themselves too seriously. Personal preferences notwithstanding, a troll's trollish net contributions can be evaluated and if the outcome is positive then you have a good troll, regardless of the quality of their "regular" contributions, if any. Take lof, for instance. His threads were always popular, and encouraged interesting discussion for a while yet devolved into poo-slinging contests almost without fail. I think the community is less interesting without him around, yet most regulars would agree that he was actively trolling most of the time.

You should be grateful. Unlike dogs, they will not hire thugs to make you pay for your transgressions.

[citation needed] A lot see it as just noise rather than something outrageous and horrifying, or whatever the proper response we are to have to it is these days. This. This is the only real problem I see with trolling. This activity can seriously affect the signal to noise ratio in communities and discourage participation if any possibly valuable contribution is going to be buried under a ton of inane drivel. However, as others have noted, quality trolling can actually be a way to foster discussion and so is a potential asset in an online community. That's rare nowadays, though. Other than that, trollin' is just goofing around. If you don't feel like playing along... just keep walking. Grow a thicker skin and there will be no need to call (I also eat babies, btw) edit: I'm a formatting whore

That was a rebut, as much as my previous post was an attempt to engage in discussion on that topic with you. As oppose too a topic I don't care about. And feeling that explaining my initial comment and what I do and don't care about, might be better than ignore you for the third time. That didn't work, so we will have to agree to disagree. I still think exactly what I said in that initial post concerning your link/conclusio and you can think whatever you want about me or the topic. What I am interested in discussing, is (1) anything related to the bigger picture i.e. notion that the need to address obesity is some kind of prosecution as implied in the title, as oppose to being common sense (2) people who can answer the three basic points I noted at the bottom of post #146 and are willing to discuss what is the best possible solution, as oppose to looking for ways to discredit the solution they don't like. Hang on, let me get this straight. You are not interested in the topic, but you keep posting nonetheless. Explaining why you disagree with my link and "conclusion"—even before you actually understood what the paper was about—is also not working because you have not actually done so, despite your repeat references to a non-existent explanation. The initial post concerning my link contended that it was random and that it did not contradict the WHO report. Turns out that following the URL shows that the former is simply false and the latter not only is irrelevant but also cannot be verified unless you can produce a copy of the report. But you stand your ground anyway. O...kay. What you are interested in is just having the last word and pushing your pov while ignoring all counterpoints to your poorly researched "proposals". And I am using these blunt terms because it is abundantly clear that you do not really read what others post—skimming may be too generous—and yet you have the audacity to quote yourself and suggest that others read your posts (when not even you read what you post!). If you want a discussion of (1), start by reading up on the links I posted in response to your lazy delivery of WP nth-hand content. They actually contain analyses of the issue and references to other research on, for instance, the effect of discounts on healthy food. For (2), the points have already been discussed, but you either derailed or simply ignored the different arguments made. We could agree to disagree... if you had actually made any points and bothered to defend them down to a matter of opinion. Instead all I see is a string of drive-by posts and demands that others address points already treated.

Amazing, you needed an article for that.. As for the rest, I'll just leave this link for you, which include several more recent studies on the topic, which directly address the issue of "soft drink tax", Have fun. Yes, you actually need evidence to support any assertion that you expect other people to take seriously. I don't expect anyone to meekly nod in agreement with anything I post, just like I'm not buying anything you say just because you or the WHO say it. Shocking, I know. Regardless, I'm glad we are making progress, at least we have established that sugar consumption is not the cause of obesity. With that in mind, let's re-examine how it can be a basis for justifying a tax aimed at fixing obesity. (hint: it cannot) I find it particularly perplexing that your rebuttal consists of a link to the WP page containing references to studies that examine the predicted effects of soft drink taxes, because it in fact points to studies that chiefly reinforce what has already been said in this thread (i.e. not your stance): ineffective at directly reducing calorie intake (~56 cal less per day with a 18% tax? Really? Dieting will usually aim to put you at a deficit of 500 cal per day) great for increasing state revenues (at the tune of ~$885M estimated in 2014 for the state of Florida alone) ineffective at changing the calorie bottom line, and I quote: "Research from Duke University and the National University of Singapore released in December 2010 tested larger taxes and determined that a 20 percent and 40 percent taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages would largely not affect calorie intake because people switch to untaxed, but equally caloric, beverages" for a much more informed and articulate discussion than I'm capable of of the two studies there that somewhat (1.3% decrease in obesity) support your position, check here and here. Of particular interest are the points raised about the low sensitivity of high consumers to price increases—a point noted by the authors themselves—and the lack of empirical evidence to justify implementing these taxes, not to mention their political feasibility. As a result of the above, I can only conclude that not only you did not follow up on the WP citations—a healthy habit, to be sure—but you didn't even bother reading what you were linking to! Boy, linking randomly sure is fun! Here, I can do it too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority ( ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_logic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrelevant_conclusion

What I suggested is that (1) you should read what the WHO report actually says about "sugar", or at least looked up for secondary source before you jumped to dismiss it. Because the WHO was almost certainly familiar with your single 1997 article(assuming that it is actually notable) and other like it on the subject before they made their recommendation. (2) Since you are not an expert, making statements about a report you don't know about based on a single article from 1997, titled as "Metabolic and behavioral effects of a highsucrose diet during weight 1oss" claiming that it disprove the WHO recommendation or rather the two words about it that you picked from the bbc article, that you might want to look for secondary source. (3) That IMO your conclusion concerning this specific recommendation wasn't supported by that article. Btw, note that your article speaks about dietary fat, in fixed cal diet. While reduce soft drinks consumption will lower your cal intake(among other things). (4) Most importantly in your attempt to win, you quoted out the important part i.e. This basically one of the reason why I am against indirect taxes on food. Leave the food industry to their own devices and they will bury us in lobbying, bureaucracy and loopholes (i.e. through donations, sponsored researches or simply reclassifying their food products like nothing has changed) Which is why I am concerned with the bottom line, and leave the specifics to the medical experts... So while I don't mind discussing possible implementation and their cons/pros, we shouldn't let the trees get in the way of the forest... as I noted in my post above, first we make sure our basis are covered i.e. answer: 1. Is obesity a. preventable b. most serious public health problems? 2. Is the Government should address the most serious public health problem? 3. What is the most effective way to address this preventable issue and Who should pay for it? (1) Appeal to authority, appeal to authority, appeal to authority. Seriously, look it up. Stop banking on the WHO "almost certainly" knowing jack squat about anything and either produce the evidence yourself (the full report) or drop the matter. Note that I haven't dismissed the report outright because I have not read it, but continuing a discussion on what a document may or may not contain is pointless. I could, just as easily, assume that the report is wrong because the WHO has been wrong in the past, and you could not disprove this fallacious argument either. You clearly do not understand how the burden of proof works. (2) Again, appeal to authority, though this is formulated differently—simply an attack on my credentials, which you do not know anything about, in contraposition to the tacitly accepted authority of the WHO wise men. Accepted by you, that is. It is also grounded on misrepresenting my point as a rebuke of the WHO report, which it is not. It is only tangentially related, unless the report specifically claims that sugar is the cause of obesity. Impossible to know without a copy of the report. (3) Re-read the paper. I'm not going to hold your hand and explain to you how experiments work, but the stuff you are referring to is irrelevant to the findings because the only variable that is modified between the experiment and control groups is the proportion of calories that is ingested as sugar, with both groups being in a caloric deficit throughout the experiment. Less sugary drinks are irrelevant if you are compensating with chips, peanut butter or anything else that messes with your caloric bottom line and puts you in a surplus. (4) I quoted that part out because it is unrelated to this particular contention point (i.e. the taxation of sugar). I (and others) have already written enough about that in previous posts. ("attempt to win", if you say so. These days I'd rather learn something than "win", whatever that means)

I made a post last page addressing this point. TL;DR: That's not exactly how it works. Also, why no off days? That's pretty hardcore. Just my opinion, I know better than to offer unsolicited advice. And, hey, if you are in good health and making steady gains, who am I to say anything.

I'll take squirming under pressure for $200, Alex. So, I have no idea what the report actually recommends (by my own admission) but you repeatedly suggest that reading it will make all pieces fit together. Until you can provide a full copy of the report, this is an article of faith, and therefore a non-argument. Sugar consumption and obesity are linked because of, among other things, what Zoraptor suggested a few pages ago, look his post up—he also broke down the link to poverty. Sugar consumption is not a cause of obesity, as per the paper I linked to (which, by your own admission and reinforced by your own comments, you do not understand). It is a factor, much like poverty. ITT you have consistently displayed an inability to differentiate between these two concepts. The cause of obesity is net calorie surplus. This isn't rocket science. Taxing sugary ("X") is as random as taxing bacon, bananas or baked potatoes. It's great that you agree that hypocaloric diets resulting in improved body fat % will also net improvements in "blood pressure, mood and vigilance", even in diets where up to 43% of overall caloric intake is ingested as sugar, because that is precisely the point I was making. So yeah, sorry bro, but science does back me on this. Your jimmies seem awfully rustled about this, but you haven't really made any effort to explain how it actually isn't so, first dismissing it as a "random link" and then switching to attack my "synthesis" with off-hand remarks without explaining what it is that you disagree with. So yeah, I'm going to defer to those who opine that you aren't interested in discussion other than to flatten all opposition to your point of view, regardless of reasons or evidence. Well, have fun being "right".

I don't suppose there's any way to use this on ME3 DLC, is there? Indirectly, you have to buy the bioware points from origin first using the love promo code, then use those to buy the ME3 dlc. Are you sure that works? It did not let me input any codes during the checkout—it seems buying fake internet currency is handled differently as purchasing actual games.

Well, consider the context, man. This was originally posted in WoT, and they regularly discuss heavy ordnance over there. Redundancy may have been necessary to make it clear that OP was not referring to mishaps with shoulder-fired missiles. (does that make you feel better?)

But... but...

What are the upsides of Oblivion, if I may ask? The exploitable retard AI that made the game fun for all the wrong reasons? I swear, I've had way more fun watching Oblivion Gamer Poop vids than playing the game itself. For me the worst would be DA2. At least the worst of the ones I've played through and whose memory I haven't repressed for my own protection.

Give her a pump, slap some oil on her and get the right lighting, and see if you still believe that. edit: she's smoking hot, but girls don't get much more muscular than that without the magic stack. Look at those shoulders.

Maybe you should try them, if you get all your info on the games from here, you're bound to be positively surprised Yeah, I'm going to agree with Nep on this one. They should be pretty cheap by now and if you enjoy neat sci-fi games with enough testosterone to make your PC grow a dong, you'll get a few hours of good fun. They are not the be all and end all of RPGs, but they weren't meant to be anyway. Opinions on combat are varied so YMMV.

I'd recommend giving it a read. I wouldn't consider it to be written at too high of a level. I'd recommend paying attention to the context. It wasn't about the content of the link, but the cheap synthesis to the half assed quote from the opening post, make it seem like an attempt to say 'Hey science is behind me'... What, I implied is that further reading about what WHO recommendation actually were and understand their implication would be advisable. Also assuming that the world health organization are not made of bunch of clueless idiots, whose conclusion can be disproved by googling an article from 1997 is always a good idea... Again, it is not possible to read what the WHO recommendations really are because the report is for subscribers only. You would have figured this out if you had tried to follow up on the article or, heh, even read the post where I commented on this fact. Sorry, but I'm not going to take your word for it that reading the WHO report would change my mind about whether government intervention in regulating sugar consumption is "advisable". Furthermore, I am willing to concede that the paper may have been rendered obsolete by subsequent research. I have not been able to find any such research, but if you can provide evidence otherwise, I'd be more than happy to examine it. But as it stands, the burden of proof is on you. If you wish to discuss any specific part of the paper you don't agree with, please, go right ahead. Hand waving and whining about how you don't like my tone isn't going to make it go away, however. Finally, I suggest you look up "appeal to authority". Simply because something carries an official seal it does not mean it's not utter hogwash. I'm not saying the WHO are a bunch of idiots (that is a red herring and a strawman, look those up too), but I don't trust them any more than I trust you, the Pope, or my mother, in matters scientific. Nothing personal. *edited because read fail

Why, of course I'm not a robot, sir!

Just finished Shadowrun Returns. Fun, but it's a bit of a barebones game. Most skills offer nothing other than plain damage increases over rank 5 or so, the party and inventory management is really limited, and the campaign offers very little in the way of actual roleplaying. I've also read that a common complaint is the graphics, but they are serviceable and I love the hand-drawn feel of the sets. Well worth the 15€. Time to check the user made content, I guess.

I used to read the BSN regularly for over a year until moderation was taken over by BioWareBot# and I can say that it was much more "lol, noobson" than <Tali romance rant>. Of course, I kept mostly to the MP forum, but there were no fanboys to speak of. Notably, the MP forum has almost 2x as many threads as the story discussion forum. How many of those were actually glorious troll threads, I cannot say. Mostly the same thing with the SWTOR boards (BW + SW fanboys). A few of the regulars here would feel right at home over there, methinks (moderation notwithstanding).

The only shocking revelation here is that this guy is actually flaunting his beliefs, and at the same time is not articulate enough—in English—to assemble anything but a paper-thin defense of his stance ("scientific figures published by, uh... scientists!" LOL). Most elected officials are simply a tad smarter—just about enough to make nice and pretend they care about the peasants they tread on.

If you feel like training (as opposed to feeling obligated to train), that's the best sign that you are fit for duty. Go hit the weights, but pay attention. If you insist on using the same loads as you did before you were sick, you are probably going to hit failure much sooner than usual, this is normal. I remember you said you had had a fainting incident caused by lack of nutrients, which means low blood sugar levels. That means low liver and intramuscular glycogen levels leading to poor comparative performance, especially if you haven't been eating normally the last few days. Do not try to push beyond failure or get the same results as you were before. I'd say a good approach to see how you react is taking a compound exercise and doing 3-4 warm-up sets with increasing weights to see how it goes. If by the end of the warm-up you're not feeling good (excessive panting, shaking, nausea, cold sweat, etc), just give it up. Otherwise continue, but a good strategy to consider while you recover completely would be deloading. Remember that a workout is considered an aggression by the system and strains the immune system—intense bouts can give you a fever, as I'm sure you know. However, you train alone, and that is a serious risk if something goes wrong. So consider finding a partner to train with for a few days or just laying it off completely. Two weeks without training isn't going to kill your gains. Your call. Good luck, and play it safe.

I was frankly surprised he would allow himself to be recorded having a conversation in these terms with a foreign journalist (or whatever Fry is). "Let's discuss how retarded your political program is" is not exactly the kind of interview format I'm used to seeing, that's for sure. But I'm going to assume that if he was elected, his ideas must resonate with some people, at least. Disclaimer: I have no idea how elections work in Russia.

Random link on the internet that I don't understand, thank god! I knew that World Health Organization was full of ****, my mama didn't raise no fool You understand that the linked BBC article about the WORLD health organization report was not written for medical professionals, it almost certainly focused on undeveloped countries that discover cancer as their life standards/expectancy go up(so no reason to get your panties in a bunch, The Man has bigger issue to worry about) and if it recommended anything concerning sugar it is very likely was the standard recommendation about surgery drinks(not news). Which is why I spoke in terms of general policy, after all there people who are far more qualified than me to define what exactly effects obesity.. Surely WHO has couple of them on staff.. Hold up. That's not a "random link" by any stretch of the word. It's a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal, the American Journal for Clinical Nutrition. The business of these people is science—you know, the stuff that supposedly supports the "findings" and "recommendations" issued by organizations such as the WHO. If you are not used to reading scientfic papers, you can skip the part dealing with the methodology (only of real interest if you are a scientist yourself and are reviewing the paper) and stick to the abstract, results and discussion. About the link in the OP, I cannot really comment—apparently you can only access the actual WHO report if you are a subscriber. Funny, considering that a) it is a non-profit organization, and b) their work can influence the policy of governments (i.e. it can affect me). Regardless, what I can say about the BBC article is that it's based on a "predicted" cancer rate increase by the WHO, and then a list of risk factors, only one of which is obesity; special note is made of cervical and breast cancer. The latter is weakly related to obesity, and the former is caused by a virus, but the article goes on a tirade about healthy habits and nutrition nonetheless. I have long ago stopped paying attention to mainstream news outlets, and this is a good example of why. Make no mistake, obesity is unhealthy. But the article is one big non sequitur; maybe the whole WHO report is too, but I can't tell because I'm poor and therefore unworthy of perusing such wisdom.

Hmm. We have some special taxation on tobacco and alcohol over here (IIRC ~9.5€/L for booze), and that doesn't prevent clubs and bars from being chock full after work hours. And boy, there are a lot of watering holes in this country. I don't know how taxing works in Sweden, but you have to account for the fact that the average income for Spain is just a bit over half that of Sweden's. People who can't afford that much hard liquor just get drunk on cheap wine. Rather, it's a cultural thing, I think. Even within the same country, people may not be so inclined to spend time that way in some regions as in others. In other news, sugar does not really lead to obesity. Or rather, not by itself. So yeah, taxing sugar is just a random cash grab by The Man.