213374U

Because no strategic country between two superpowers can sit on the fence? What other choice does an impoverished Ukraine plagued by rampant corruption have? Standing on its own against an aggressive Russian Federation is not going to cut it. Yes, Europe isn't ideal. So? The report itself is based on assumptions that poverty will continue to rise. Trying to say what Europe will look in 2025 is pure speculation. If you want statistics, Eurostat is a good place to start. The number of people endangered by poverty was actually reduced by 10 million between 2006 and 2010. For reference, 2009 was the pitch black hole of the crisis. To reiterate, just because Oxfam warns it could happen doesn't mean it will happen. Many people prophesied a breakup of the Eurozone and yet it didn't come to pass. Eurostat is actually a very good lecture and helps get your head around Europe. Did you talk to a Swede lately? From my experience, they bitch and whine that everything is going to the dogs just like everyone else, despite living in, well, near-paradise. Doesn't mean they are right. (1) What do you mean it's "not going to cut it"? Suddenly nation-states are obsolete and I didn't get the memo? Now only supranational polar organizations are valid as a means to prosperity? That looks like a self-fulfilling prophecy to me, more than anything else. Reminder that Yugoslavia fared pretty well between two superpowers until internal pressures tore her up (with NATO help). (2) Nah, I didn't link the Oxfam article with the intention that it's taken as statistics, it's just one of the many worst-case scenarios circulating around. The OECD link is srs bsns though, and that's not exactly news—going on since the 80's—nor disputed by Eurostat data. You don't have to fast forward to 2025 to see that **** is bad in some parts of the EU (periphery, as they like to call it). (3) What? Take a look and compare the figures for poverty and unemployment in Greece and compare them to Sweden's. I rest my case.

I think you'd have to clearly identify what you mean by running fitness first. Do you mean endurance, as in running for 2 hours instead of 1 as a goal? Or you want to run for greater distances in that hour? You want to get better at sprinting? Simply a better VO2max? Body fat changes? I'm not a fan of running, myself, but in general clear (and sensible) goals are the first step before designing or making changes to a training plan.

I still think that visiting a country is essential for considering whether or not it would be a suitable place to migrate to, but eh. To answer your question, I'd probably choose to live in Monaco. Nah, just kidding, it's not even a real country anyway. But seriously, I'd probably choose Sweden. Insane taxes but great living standards and public services. Now, what does this have to do with anything?

Huh? Why is "the alternative" anything but whatever course Ukraine decides to follow? Why must they go back to being Russia's breadbasket or become the latest addition to the EU bureaucratic bankocracy? Yeah, so a report from a neoliberal think-tank is now proof of... stuff. Did you actually read it or just linked it to appear to be "in the know"? I tried to but had to stop when stuff such (1) and (2) started to seriously threaten my ability to keep my lunch down. Quick as you are to demand that others "do research", I'm going to suggest that you take your own advice. How about you take a look at this, instead. And for an even more terrifying perspective, check this out. Is that Ukraine's "best shot"? Really? (1) "the German Constitutional Court needs to let the ECB to do its job" (2) "[...]slashed its unit labour costs, partly through the relentless shedding of its least productive workers" (~25% general unemployment, ~57% youth unemployment)

A much better investment? For whom? The Germans? Some elite in Ukraine? I'm a bit tired of hearing all these buzz words and given assumptions thrown around when this sort of topic turns up. It's meaningless and repeating it over and over serves no purpose other than, perhaps, achieving the relaxing and mind-numbing effect that mantras have. And why must it be either Russia or the EU? You'd think the Ukrainians would be a bit more reluctant to give up their sovereignty again so shortly after reclaiming it. If it's such an obvious choice, why don't you dial back on the snark and explain why? Should be easy right? edit: herp derp I want to ask you a simple question so I can understand your perspective. If language wasn't a problem and you could choose between living in Russia ( or Belarus or Kazakhstan) and a country in the EU where would you choose? So basically this boils down to factors like the social conditions and where you feel most comfortable. Please don't provide any information expect for what's relevant to the question, we can get to everything else later. Anybody else can also respond to this question if they are interested Can I choose "neither"? If not, can I choose which EU country in particular? This question also seems to imply that joining the EU is magically going to turn Ukraine into, say, the Netherlands. If only it worked that way... Also, not having been to Russia, I feel I lack necessary judgment elements. Maybe I'd like Russian women better, or maybe I'd hate -50º C winters. Why is this relevant, again?

A much better investment? For whom? The Germans? Some elite in Ukraine? I'm a bit tired of hearing all these buzz words and given assumptions thrown around when this sort of topic turns up. It's meaningless and repeating it over and over serves no purpose other than, perhaps, achieving the relaxing and mind-numbing effect that mantras have. And why must it be either Russia or the EU? You'd think the Ukrainians would be a bit more reluctant to give up their sovereignty again so shortly after reclaiming it. If it's such an obvious choice, why don't you dial back on the snark and explain why? Should be easy right? edit: herp derp

How do you figure that?

Yes, as far as finding a definition that is consistently applicable to trolling goes, sticking to intent alone is probably a good idea. The intent generally being to piss off as many people as possible with the least amount of effort, yes? But if we take that approach, you can only have people who troll on occasion as opposed to people who are trolls, because nobody has the same goals in all situations, under all circumstances. "Stupid is as stupid does"? Yeah... not really. Well, a community is only as good as its members, that's pretty much a given, but you are right—I may have underplayed the role other posters had in lof's threads. However, the choice of topics and rebuttals as well as just the right dose of sarcasm (and over the top humor) made his threads irresistible for many to participate in, so he was undeniably good at it. Whether "it" was trolling or genuinely attempting to engage in historic and socioeconomic discussions is up for debate, however. And while maybe the world is a better place after Hitler, it's difficult to establish what the world would be like if he had never been and commies had taken over in Germany in the 1930's—a distinct possibility. Also, and I believe this is the key difference, the mere act of engaging others in conversation frames them as equals (albeit tacitly), while the opposite was not merely prevalent in Hitler's policy but arguably the cornerstone of his thought in the form of untermenschen. I know you were more or less tongue-in-cheek with the reference, but it's this distinction what allows me to consider that contributions form one user, regardless of general opinion among the community on the poster himself, and despite the user's own intent, can be positive overall. And yes, I agree that there's definitely the risk of alienating your audience if your trolling becomes too repetitive or uninteresting (or obvious, for that matter).

Huh. I wouldn't be so quick to say that natural selection doesn't apply to humans anymore, even though I used to believe that myself not too long ago. There are certainly indications that this is not the case; read up on studies looking at correlations between physical factors (good looks, height) and success and intelligence, for instance. Turns out success is an important factor in mating and being able to provide for one's offspring. While the conditions we live in may not be as harsh and unforgiving as used to be in the wilderness, there may not be as much "genetic mobility" as we may have been led to believe by the feel-good equality propaganda and so certain genetic traits may well be favored over others. Consider also that natural selection is something that works in evolutionary time scales... the welfare state is less than a hundred years old. "Look, everybody always figures the time they live in is the most epic, most important age to end all ages. But tyrants and heroes rise and fall, and historians sort out the pieces" That's a quote from a Bio game but the idea is not original by any means (can't for the life of me remember where I read it first). Something to think about.

Why is that a juxtaposition? Maybe one of the results of a lack of general life skills is increased stress. A serious skill I see many people my age lack is the ability to cope with frustration. The actual decrease in purchasing power experienced by everyone except the super-rich sure doesn't help people feel less frustrated, though. Funny. More and more focus and pressure on being successful and productive, and people can afford less and less...

At the risk of turning Monte's beer-inspired, mid-life crisis thread into one of my pretentious faux-intellectual debates, I'm going to suggest that it is in fact the opposite. What is (or was) considered counter-culture has actually won the battle vs actual culture and subtly but surely replaced it. Democratization and the tearing down of barriers between cultured and uncultured, between superior and inferior, between masculine and femenine have resulted in a status quo where conformity with being an object dedicated to feeding the consumerist engine is the only "culture" we have. If, on the other hand, you were simply referring to the availability of non-mainstream and contrarian intellectual produce... well. Just dig deeper, because it's there. Considering the suicide rates among vets, you can count me out. Besides, Monte, old boy, advances in drone tech mean that in ten, twenty years wars will be fought 100% from a desk in 9-to-5 shifts. I have nothing but good things to say about universal compulsory military service, however, the more I consider it. Among other things because it would make people more conscious and less willing to support capricious wars.

Both of those options seem the same. You really need to post more. @BruceVC: Not sure how that relates to what I said. Homeboy is a homophobic douche and doesn't mind being vocal about it. That's the only difference between him and other politicians at home and abroad that are also homophobic/xenophobic/elitist capitalist douches but simply coat their words (and their legislative initiatives) with a layer of politically correct vaseline before ramming them up society's ass. Case in point, the Kansas bill I linked in the other post. Fun times, man.

Looks that way. I'd say calling Fry an idol is a bit of a stretch, though—but there are other examples. There's an interesting book by Vargas Llosa, "La civilización del espectáculo" ("The showbiz civilization") that goes at length about this. Not sure it's been translated, though. I wonder, however. Why is Fry going to Russia when there's plenty of fun to be had at home, with, for instance, the anti-gay segregation bill in Kansas?

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?)