Yeah, I hardly ate breakfast for a decade just because I didn't have the time between crunching sleep and getting to work, then my metabolism just evolved.

I think this is the reason that eggs. sausage, hash browns, bacon & toast make me excited since rarely have the time to eat em.

I just had a cinnamon toast crunch macaroon with cinnamon toast crunch on top. It was delectable. MASTER RACE.

Cinnamon Toast Crunch master race.

Agreed.

And @newtboy is right. In the media, men are being pushed into unnatural representations of men's physiques now, in a way they haven't been in the past.

It is the comic book, super hero, action hero thing.

Again selling to men but the sexual aspect of it is skewed differently. More like -- men want to LOOK like them, not penetrate them. Ha. But the destructive message is the same to men as it is to women -- you are not worthy enough if you don't look like this.

Hence my comment said that the makeup of the future would enhance their masculinity, not make them sexually desirable. More manly, to be attractive to women, not to men.

Did you know that all that ab action in the movies is not "natural"? That right before a movie scene is going to filmed, the actor works with his nutritionist and personal trainer for at least a couple of days beforehand? They work to minimize body fat for just that day. Makeup is also used to enhance the ab definition. And that right before the camera rolls, the men do crunches to make the muscles stand out even more?

I say this because I read an interview/article about a man who was working hard to look like those guys in the movies. He was so relieved to learn that his failure to exercise his way into looking like those movie images wasn't his fault.

He didn't know. HE DIDN'T KNOW.

This is not good for men's psyches, goldurn it.

@newtboy

That is pretty much correct. I've met with the Starbucks people a few times and know people who have worked there or with them.

It is similar to the restaurant discussion above. Everyone wants their coffee at the same time and they can only turn them out so fast.

In addition they want you going to Starbucks, not the Dunkin that is closer to your office.

They may also be in transition in that market - a corner spot may have opened up so they leased that in addition to their two other stores.

Every major retailer crunches a lot of data when picking stores. The metrics are usually very good at predicting sales / market share.

It's officially known as a report on the "Measurement of the Duration of a Trendless Subsample in a Global Climate Time Series." In lay-speak, it's a study of just how long the current pause in global warming has lasted. And the results are profound:

According to Canadian Ross McKitrick, a professor of environmental economics who wrote the paper for the Open Journal of Statistics, "I make the duration out to be 19 years at the surface and 16 to 26 years in the lower troposphere depending on the data set used."

In still plainer English, McKitrick has crunched the numbers from all the major weather organizations in the world and has found that there has been no overall warming at the Earth's surface since 1995 - that's 19 years in all.

During the past two decades, there have been hotter years and colder years, but on the whole the world's temperatures have not been rising. Despite a 13 per cent rise in carbon dioxide levels over the period, the average global temperature is the same today as it was almost 20 years ago.

In the lower atmosphere, there has been no warming for somewhere between 16 and 26 years, depending on which weather organization's records are used.

Not a single one of the world's major meteorological organizations - including the ones the United Nations relies on for its hysterical, the-skies-are-on-fire predictions of environmental apocalypse - shows atmospheric warming for at least the last 16 years. And some show no warming for the past quarter century.

This might be less significant if some of the major temperature records showed warming and some did not. But they all show no warming.

Even the records maintained by devoted eco-alarmists, such as the United Kingdom's Hadley Centre, show no appreciable warming since the mid-1990s.

Despite continued cymbal-crashing propaganda from environmentalists and politicians who insist humankind is approaching a critical climate-change tipping point, there is no real evidence this is true.

There are no more hurricanes than usual, no more typhoons or tornadoes, floods or droughts. What there is, is more media coverage more often.

Forty years ago when a tropical storm wiped out villages on a South Pacific Island there might have been pictures in the newspaper days or weeks later, then nothing more. Now there is live television coverage hours after the fact and for weeks afterwards.

That creates the impression storms are worse than they used to be, even though statistically they are not.

While the UN's official climate-scare mouthpiece, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has acknowledged the lack of warming over the past two decades, it has done so very quietly. What's more, it has not permitted the facts to get in the way of its continued insistence that the world is going to hell in a hand basket soon unless modern economies are crippled and more decision-making power is turned over to the UN and to national bureaucrats and environmental activists.

Later this month in New York, the UN will hold a climate summit including many of the world's leaders. So frantic are UN bureaucrats to keep the climate scare alive they have begun a worldwide search for what they themselves call a climate-change "Malala."

That's a reference to Malala Yousafzai, the Pakistani schoolgirl who was shot in the head by the Taliban after demanding an education. Her wounding sparked a renewed, worldwide concern for women's rights.

The new climate spokeswoman must be a female under 30, come from a poor country and have been the victim of a natural disaster.

If the facts surrounding climate-disaster predictions weren't falling apart, the UN wouldn't such need a sympathetic new face of fear.

Simply by having the same education level does not grant you equal pay (unless you're working in government). You're paid for the supply and demand of your skills. There are by far MANY more men than women in engineering and physical sciences, and those fields pay rather well. There are by far MANY more women than men in veterinary and educational fields, and those fields pay atrociously.

It is indeed unfortunate if any discrimination occurs, and even if women achieve 99% of men, it is still not nice. However, recognize that nobody is particularly certain about these numbers. I see numbers ranging from 87% to 103% in this video, so our certainty is horrible. Inequality is bad, but if you're going to get particularly opinionated about it, crunch the numbers for yourself instead of letting other boneheads skew the numbers for you.

The statistics can be pulled either way by horrible analyses, and trying to compare 'equal jobs' can be hard...particularly when you factor in cost of living differences, seniority, relative success of different companies, etc. The most compelling evidence was the Yale study where identical resumes with different names were awarded different amounts of speculative money. That was the only real telling evidence that, at least among the people in that study, there is a bias towards paying women less for exactly the same job. However, the statistics can be pulled either way in a study like that as well; what is the uncertainty of the pay level for that poll? Is it random chance and statistical noise happened to end up with the woman paid less in that study? If they surveyed an order of magnitude more people, would the average salaries converge to the same value? In most polls and studies like this, the sampling size is usually quite poor, and getting such an exact dollar figure difference with high certainty is nearly impossible. It would be great to see that study to make an assessment of how much uncertainty was present for myself.

And here I thought my crunches were hard . . .

Skeptical until I see why it's un-tippable.

Also, if it gets t-boned by a car, I'm betting that graphic is a little less than accurate, as it's not the tipping that's the problem, it's the whole crunch factor.

http://bigthink.com/dr-kakus-universe/the-paradox-of-multiple-goldilocks-zones-or-did-the-universe-know-we-were-coming

"But today, I can view my second grade teacher's statement from a different point of view. Today, astronomers have identified over 500 planets orbiting other stars, and they are all too close or too far from their mother star. Most of them, we think, cannot support life as we know it. So it is unnecessary to invoke God.

But now, cosmologists are facing this paradox again, but from a cosmic perspective. It turns out that the fundamental parameters of the universe appear to be perfectly "fine-tuned." For example, if the nuclear force were any stronger, the sun would have simply burned out billions of years ago, and if it were any weaker the sun wouldn't have ignited to begin with. The Nuclear Force is tuned Just Right. Similarly, if gravity were any stronger, the Universe would have most likely collapsed in on itself in a big crunch; and if it were any weaker, everything would have simply frozen over in a big freeze. The Gravitational Force is Just Right."

The evidence shows the Universe is not an accident; the observation of fine-tuning leads naturally to the conclusion that there must be a FineTuner, much in the same way that the evidence of a painting leads us to the conclusion that there must be a painter. The favorable circumstances of the laws that allow life to flourish on planet Earth are by design.

Applying the principle of Occams Razor, postulating the existence of multiple unobserved universes to try to account for our favorable circumstances should be ruled out in favor of a theory of a Creator because there are fewer assumptions needed and there is greater explanatory power. Once the existence of even "apparent" fine-tuning has been observed, ruling out the theory of a Creator is illogical and contrary to reason according to the principle of parsimony.

Glad to see fewer and fewer 'NRA bad (cue chimpanzee sounds)' comments here as well VoodooV. I would also point-out that the 'new west, cops and robbers' scenario is much more frightening a prospect considering that it's the intentional breeding grounds for absurd levels of criminal activity that is the systemic result of the insanity of a once prosperous country's hijacking by political/totalitarian criminals since the 60's 'hippies' sold-out and became corporate lackeys and lawyers of and for, the criminally insane.

"NRA soundbite of "buy a gun! pew pew pew! bad guys dead, live happily ever after!" would be one interpretation of the NRA's message, another would be, "Hey dumbass? Arm yourselves against being one of the first to go when the government fails you and the future you thought you had disappears overnight."

@Sundamx-He won, he's alive and the bad guys are dead. Five people dead IS a win if those 5 people still walked the planet the broken, unrepentant, criminal thugs that they were destined to remain.

You're ill-informed if you think that 'no amount of training will stop a bullet' besides, that sounds like a sound bite from an idiot and all-to-vocal fringe of semi-conscious do-nothings.

Not so much dumb luck in this scenario when you crunch the outcome and consider the body count.

Milo is primarily consumed hot, its essentially hot chocolate so Im guessing perhaps it didn't actually survive the trip.

Shapes are best when crunched up and rolled into a ball.... yeah, you heard me. They're just crackers tho.

Vegemite.... its death in a jar.

Actually I'm about as English as they come but crucially I spent my advanced academic career studying Philosophy and rhetoric (lamentably only to Hons. due to laziness) and consequently have an ingrained habit of arguing around a problem rather than relying on established parameters (not always entirely helpful when discussing more day to day matters as I'm sure you've by now gathered but it is essential to working with advanced epistemological problems and so serves me well none the less). I'm also prone to poor punctuation and odd patterns of grammar when I'm not going back over everything I write with a fine tooth comb which has likely not helped. (A consequence of learning to describe tangent after tangent when trying to thoroughly encapsulate some conceptual problems with language alone)

That said, while I may have gone around the houses so to speak I think my conclusion is entirely compatible with what I now understand your own to be.

I didn't want to describe my original counter-point by simply working with the idea that weight is lower on the moon relative to the earth (though I did not try to refute this either) because that would not illustrate why a 2-300kg man in a space suit still takes some shifting (relatively speaking) even if there were no gravity at all. (Would have been faster to just crunch some numbers but that's not what I specialise in)

Sure you could move anything with any force in 0G (which I do understand is technically relative as every object in the universe with mass exerts gravitational forces proportionately (and inversely proportional to the distance between)) but the resulting velocity is directly proportional to mass vs force applied. Weight here then, can be seen as another competing force in the equation rather than the whole thing which it can be convenient to treat it as for a simple calculation (which is what I think you are doing).

To put that another way I was applying a different/deeper linguistic/descriptive paradigm to the same objective facts because that's what we philosophers do. Single paradigm approaches to any subject have a dangerous habit of making one believe one possess such a thing as truly objective facts rather than interpretations only (which are all that truly exist).


In other terms weight alone isn't the whole story (as I assume you well know). Overcoming inertia due to mass scales up all by itself, then gravity comes along and complicates matters. This is why rocket scientists measure potential thrust in DeltaV rather than Watts, Joules etc. right? The mass of the object dictates how much velocity a given input/output of energy would equal.

Gravity and thus the force in newtons it induces (weight) in these terms is an additional force which depending upon the direction in which it is acting multiplies the required DeltaV to achieve the same effect. Moreover when concerning a force of inconstant nature (such as pushing up/jumping or a brief burn of an engine) brings duration into play also. (the foundations of why rocket science gets its fearsome reputation for complexity in its calculations)


Man on the moon lies on the ground and pushes off to try and stand back up.
This push must impart enough DeltaV to his body to produce a sufficient velocity and duration to travel the 2 meters or so needed to get upright so he can then balance the downward gravitational force with his legs&back and successfully convert the chemical/kinetic energy from his arms into potential energy as weight (the energy he uses to stand up is the same energy that would drag him down again right?).

One could practically speaking reduce this to a simple calculation of weight and thrust if all one wanted was a number. Weight would be the only number we need here as it incorporates the mass in it's own calculation (weight = mass x gravity)

But where's the fun in that? My way let's one go round all the houses see how the other bits of the paradigm that support this basic isolated equation function and inter-relate.

Plus (and probably more accurately) I've been playing loads of Kerbal Space Programme lately and have ended up conditioning myself to think in terms of rocketry and thus massively overcomplicated everything here for basically my own amusement/fascination.


Basically few things are more verbose and self indulgent than a bored Philosopher, sorry .


Re: Your challenge. (And I'm just guessing here) something to do with your leg muscles not being able to deliver the energy fast/efficiently enough? (as your feet would leave the ground faster/at a lower level of force?). This is the only thing I can think of as it's easier to push away from things underwater and it certainly looks difficult to push away hard from things when people are floating in 0g.

So lower resistance from gravity = less force to push against the floor with?

Warm? Even in the Ballpark? (Regardless I'm really pleased to discover you weren't the nut I originally thought you to be! (though I imagine you now have some idea what a nut I am))


If I got any of that wrong I'd be happy for you to explain to me why and where (assuming you can keep up with my slightly mad approach to syntax in the 1st place). I'm an armchair physicist (not that I haven't studied it in my time but I'm far from PHD) I'm always happy to learn and improve.

May we suggest the most glaring (common sense with a view trumping the most gracious of mortality odds) 'security flaw' inherent in ANY similar device (including off-brand/hype models) with functionality requiring two thumbs, a pair of eyes, and a challenge to their users of navigating the useless shit whilst performing mundane tasks such as saaay, crossing a street, waiting in line for groceries, operating a motor vehicle much less, operating your legs while not looking at the GROUND? Who needs any of this engineered obsolescence garbage anyway?...The cunts who want you under their thumbs, that's who and if they are LUCKY(all indications point to this a inevitable)-you or someone you just texted die crossing a street using some ineffectual device, car wreck while the manufacturer staffs lobbyists while crunching quarterly loss numbers.

Incorporating distraction into large populations who can afford these ancillary toys is KEY to these cunts who compete to make available these consumer grey-matter-killers and it has been the goal of providing you with the convenience of your own self-importance and slow death from the OUTSET.

Use less of the shit (civil and economic disobedience), stop fawning-over it and selling it without compensation to your friends (because after all, you have nothing else to communicate about of substance or meaning since yer skills have fallen-off a bit after the in-crowd hi-jack feeds on trashing or band-wagoning the latest devices every week..(gotta have one gotgaotta have the best)) HINT: THEY ALL HOBBLE YOUR MIND, THEY ALL SUCK-

EVERYONE do the experiment collectively (don't use their services for a month and threaten to drop service altogether) and YO, maybe develop some lasting relationships along the way....remember "eye contact!?"

Watch how miraculously interesting, stress-free and simply satisfying your unnecessarily complicated, dull-fucking life changes overnight and adds 10 more quality years to it when you numb or otherwise mitigate your use of this and all tech connected by satellite or cable. Ssuddenly, the emperor has no billy-club, a birthday suit, and the obvious becomes clear:..He's a FUCK THAT CONTROLS YOU WHO SHOULD BE ON AN INTERNATIONAL SEX-OFFENDERS DATABASE.

Oreos have always been my favorite cookie. Did you know that they've been the best selling cookie in the US since they were first introduced in 1912? Everyone has different tastes but my preference is a sandwich cookie. They're fun to eat. Lift up the top wafer and lick the creamy middle, or dunk them in a glass of milk. I don't find them bland at all, if anything too sweet. What do you mean by dry? Because the wafer part is crunchy? Crunching on them is part of their appeal.