This is not true, a hamburger for example is a experience of its parts. The toppings on a burger define it as much as the meat used, which is why we have burger joints littering the US with each having its own unique take on the burger.

Sushi is an experience of the fish, it is defined at its core by the delicate preparation and the art that goes into creating it. Each piece is created to stimulate the palate, and slopping on soy and wasabi would be the equivalent of saying the Mona Lisa would look better touched up with finger paints.

Eat it however you "like it", but don't begin to argue that its the right way to eat sushi.

Also Hipster implies that sushi is not mainstream, which isn't true, its very common in any areas with an ounce of culture and is easier to find that foods of other cultures (turkish and indian food are actually harder to find in my neck of the woods).

I served in the Army. I had a top secret clearance. Anyone with half an ounce of brain matter knows you do not release classified information. And especially not to some foreign muckraker. If you have a story, you give it to Woodward and Bernstein, maybe. But unless you want to reap the whirlwind, you don't sow the wind. Manning is reaping what he sowed.

Also, I have nothing against social programs as long as it is a small percentage of what is being spent by the gov't. You can't have unlimited spending with limited income. It's irresponsible and detrimental to the economy on the whole.

Oh if any of you are hot sauce fans take a look at this - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004DJN39O Its four 5 ounce bottles Cholula Original, Cholula Chili Garlic, Cholula Chipotle and Cholula Chili Lime
I bought it for my girlfriend and she was very happy. I never knew they offered so many flavors

I hate cyclists and no man in LEGGINGS will ever get an ounce of respect from me.

Altogether? given the chance I'd stop my car, get out and physically run into his stupid road hogging bike which couldn't stop.

If he had a cheeseburger for every ounce of talent he has...oh wait.

Not silly at all, if you've never been involved. Electric planes like this one tend to be extremely light...most of them under a couple of pounds, and some as little as a couple of ounces. At those weights, they don't have to move very fast to generate plenty of lift. [edit: looks like they're even lighter now, some are less than 1.25 oz]

The guy that got me into the hobby had an electric Cessna that couldn't be flown in winds faster than 6-7 mph, because the plane would have had a negative groundspeed when flying into the wind (that makes it awful hard to get back to the airfield).

Uhhh, No-Your snide comment is completely moronic-Read the title and plug your fucking brain in maybe???

Why would anyone have an ounce of respect for Chris Rock jumping on this train for toddlers? I consider your remark a fucking insult to all consciousness in the galaxy.

Nobody measures volume by weight. When measuring liquids you are using fluid ounces which are a measure of volume not weight. Not saying it's a good system, just thought you should have your facts straight.

@lucky760

ROUND these parts we call it fronting.

I didnt want to go to the bank ealier today so I just got fronted a quarter of an ounce and i'll pay later. No interest, just "pay me later " ... FRONTING

I wish sesame street would do a bit on that scenario:

EFF !


ARE!!

OH!

N!

TEE!!

I

N

GEE !

)(()_____))))))_____)((((

FRONTING !

ugh.... (facepalm) So... just like Fox News, they never bothered to even do an ounce of research.

If there's a stupidity meter, would Fox News continuously break it?

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Trancecoach:
bring on the corporate take-over of the industry and watch the quality diminish.

Well that's probably not true. A large corporation isn't going to risk their money with takeover from the federal government. I imagine what you'll have is something like wine. Small operations and small businesses who have been growing weed before but now can do it out in the open. Hopefully that won't force the product to dip drastically, and also it will inspire competition between growers due to more public and allowable advertising. You can try different peoples stuff and maybe it'll be your thing.


i never thought about it like that, with the whole "free economy competition" aspect of it. or advertising. very good point.

also i chuckle every time the guy at :48 says "one ounce of marijuana" and holds two fingers an inch apart. obviously has never seen an ounce of weed in his life.

I disagree with the entire conception of a liberal "bias". There definitely seem to be more liberal-minded people here, and liberal political videos fare much better than conservative ones, but that doesn't make Videosift "biased", it just means it's a community that's largely populated with liberals.

As far as your response on #2, that's a pretty flimsy justification for trying to assert that the entirety of liberals don't work and are dependent on government, and refuse to take responsibility for their lives.

As far as having a sense of humor, I can most certainly take a joke, but conservatives say this kind of deeply insulting, ridiculously bigoted and prejudicial shit all the time, and then try pass it off as some sort of joke. They seem happy enough to say it without an ounce of mirth when they think they're safely ensconced in a conservatives-only setting.

>> ^deedub81:

#1 is true "on videosift" as I asserted. I stand behind that statement. Nothing wrong with it, just the way it is. Do you disagree?
#2 The reason why this stereotype exists is because lower-income voters (those with a household income of fewer than $30,000 per year) lean HEAVILY to the left and favor the democrat party by a margin of 17 points.
My original comment was completely tongue-in-cheek, playing on the stereotypes about a liberal bias and lazy welfare loafers but you looked right past it and accused me of being shortsighted myself. You obviously don't have a sense of humor when it comes to politics. I'll be more careful in the future.

@Duncan And yet this is the commonly suggested course of action for those overweight. Eat 1000-1200 calories a day, and exercise. That's a recipe for disaster. Further, your claim that if you intake fewer calories than you expend you will lose weight. This is not necessarily true. Your body is not a bunsen burner. That's why we have terms like "metabolism" as in so and so has a high metabolism or a low metabolism. In other words, some people can eat and eat and eat, and their body will simply convert the excess energy into heat. For others, that energy is stored as fat. My claim is that there are people for whom prolonged caloric restriction will not result in continued weight loss. Instead the body will continue to store the energy it receives as fat and your brain will be deprived of the energy it needs to allow activity levels necessary to burn anything off. Even with continued restriction. There are cases (e.g. with OCD patients) that prolonged weight loss can be achieved, but often it's simply impossible.

With regards to "life-style change," I agree. It's necessary. However, losing weight isn't. Much more success has been reported encouraging an active lifestyle. Eat until you are sated. That's okay (assuming you don't have a broken sensory system in that regard). People that pursue this approach will usually not lose weight, but they will become healthy. All of their bio-markers (e.g. cholesterol) often come into check. They are active, happy, and healthy. Yet still, people would somehow feel justified sending them a letter telling fatty to get off their ass.

I'll give an example. I watched my girl eat 1200 calories a day for six months. She's 5'2" at 180. The first month of this brought her down to 165/170, but the following five brought her no further. I watched her. She measured every meal with a measuring cup. She's also a geneticist, so she knows a thing or two about the relevant biochem. She was depressed as hell, and her activity level dropped. She was miserable and didn't even really lose substantial weight.

Now, she bikes at least 10-12 hilly miles a day, swims a couple miles three times a week, and does yoga. She eats when she's hungry and stops when she's full. She eats healthily for the most part, but rewards herself with a sweet now and again. Every measure known to correlate with health shows that she is healthy despite her weight. People call her fat all the time. There's just no need. Her doctor doesn't, because many doctors these days know BMI is a bullshit measure. She's not a weird case. I mentioned by buddy the pullup champ in a previous post. The dude was vegetarian in boot camp. He doesn't have an ounce of fat on him, and can do effectively perpetual pushups. He's technically "obese." For a medical term, it's about as useful as "idiot."

The fact is evidence is mounting that your disposition towards retaining fat probably has more to do with what was eaten by your mother during pregnancy than anything you do in your lifetime (other than maybe early childhood). Your body has a weight it would like to keep, and it will succeed in keeping it. If people would just change the societal pressure towards becoming healthy rather than losing weight people doomed to carry extra pounds wouldn't have to feel like outcasts, and would probably be more likely to pursue the correct goal. Instead, most people here seem to think it's okay to berate strangers about their weight. Let them talk to their doctor. If their doctor is good with it, you probably should be too.

@scannex Dude... are you really citing a marketing campaign for weight loss pushers? I bet you I could find data that shows the effectiveness of penis enhancement pills too. If you took a few you might find you like 'em thick ;-). Try some primary literature, and I'll respond in kind.

Try to refute this claim: "Overweight or mildly obese individuals with otherwise normal bio-markers show no decrease in life expectancy from normal."

If you can't, then tell me why it is okay to berate someone about their weight knowing nothing about their health overall?

Sad, isn't it? You feel not only informed enough to vote, but informed enough to push your opinions on others, and yet you're less informed about American politics than foreigners.

Either that or you were intentionally lying to mislead people, which I suppose these days just makes you a Republican.

>> ^bobknight33:

Ok you got me. Obama has been office for 3 years 6 months. Your too smart for me.
The Democrats still have full control of the senate and lost control of the House.
Quick sucking Obama juice. Its going to you head.
>> ^Drachen_Jager:
>> ^bobknight33:
Why did he not do this the first 4 years? He had full control of the house and senate.

Your math is pretty far off the mark. Maybe you'd have benefited from those extra math and science teachers?
Democrats had control for the first two years of his term, but he does not control all Democrats, they can choose their own vote, and they often fought him on issues. After the first two years Republicans controlled house and senate and chose to spend every ounce of their political muscle fighting every one of his initiatives instead of trying to forge some kind of middle ground.

Ok you got me. Obama has been office for 3 years 6 months. Your too smart for me.

The Democrats still have full control of the senate and lost control of the House.

Quick sucking Obama juice. Its going to you head.

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

>> ^bobknight33:
Why did he not do this the first 4 years? He had full control of the house and senate.

Your math is pretty far off the mark. Maybe you'd have benefited from those extra math and science teachers?
Democrats had control for the first two years of his term, but he does not control all Democrats, they can choose their own vote, and they often fought him on issues. After the first two years Republicans controlled house and senate and chose to spend every ounce of their political muscle fighting every one of his initiatives instead of trying to forge some kind of middle ground.