Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Check your email for a verification code and enter it below.Don't close this box or you must fill out this form again.
Already signed up?
Log in now.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Remember your password?
Log in now.
Disturbed - The Sound of Silence
Holy shit. This is Disturbed? They done good.
The Case for the 32-Hour Workweek
I'll take your word for it.
I can have that much confidence because I don't talk about every single job, I talk about the vast majority. Big difference.
The Case for the 32-Hour Workweek
I don't understand how you can say that with confidence. I would love to have that much insight into every single job...
It's just that for the vast majority of jobs, a 32 hour week can't work unless you have more employees.
Whoopi Goldberg Defends 10 Surprising Things
I've seen the video, I know what the context is. She's speaking in general.
The context was talking about the Ray Rice incident. By saying that you can expect to get hit back if you hit someone, she's defending Rice's actions.
Whoopi Goldberg Defends 10 Surprising Things
I think the Ray Rice one was taken a bit out of context. In that clip she's not directly referring to Rice. Just saying in general that if you hit someone, regardless of gender you can't expect to not be hit back.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2ntfQ3u2Mo
Bill Nye makes fun of Neil deGrasse Tyson's reply to Dawkins
In saying that it's possible the 'answer of consciousness' could come from somewhere completely unexpected, or unrelated, to what people are thinking now. Like the example he gave where it took something completely new (General Relativity) to explain Mercury.
It seemed pretty self-explanatory in the video.
Why is Tyson correct? What's the line of reasoning?
Star Wars the Force awakens official teaser
I'm not sure what I think of them rebooting the canon yet. I was pretty stoked on them exploring the expanded universe.
The briefest explanation, seeing stormtroopers doesn't mean they're clones. They're still the foremost troops for the empire. The lore is a lot differnet now since disney took the rights, all post ROTJ canon has changed now, or basically not canon anymore.
And for the Falcon, freighters have atmospheric maneuverability, though the Falcon is highly modified anyway.
How to not completely suck at bass guitar
Geddy Lee probably wouldn't have a problem with anything he said.
Geddy Lee is not impressed.
Cops using unexpected level of force to arrest girl
Now that's commitment.
Never use either-I detest the "sarcasm" invocation here as well as the "ignore" function. I figure people should be able to detect sarcasm as well as face their detractors, head-on.
Cops using unexpected level of force to arrest girl
@chingalera
There, actually, is a sarcasm tag. You don't have to risk pulling some Kaufman-esque maneuver by keeping it off if you don't want to.
Stephen Colbert Dances to Daft Punk's "Get Lucky"
Hyundai Executives. This Comment is brought to you by Hyundai.
This is hilarious: @0:24 - who are the five, stone-faced Japanese guests in the front row?
Atheist in the Bible Belt outs herself because she is MORAL
100th comment! Congratulations everybody!
Ever See A Bear Fly? How About 25,000
That's the one from last year.
Looks identical to http://videosift.com/video/25-003-teddy-bears but from a different angle. Dupe?
News Anchor Responds to Viewer Email Calling Her "Fat"
@bmacs27 You're using every cliche in the book. Basal Metabolic Rates vary in negligible amounts between people of the same gender, age, height, and weight. If your body doesn't get the energy it needs from an outside source, it will break down itself for fuel. And your anecdotal evidence means very little. Argue all you want about how body fat has little to do with health, but don't go saying some people can't lose it (genetic conditions notwithstanding).
News Anchor Responds to Viewer Email Calling Her "Fat"
You keep using the word diet as something you can just go on and off of. That's the problem; 'Going on a diet' implies that it's temporary. What's needed to eat and live healthy is a permanent lifetstyle change. In other words, you don't stop the diet. The previous diet is what led to getting overweight in the first place, so of course they gain the weight back if they start eating like that again. Exercise all you want, if you take in more calories than you expend, you will gain weight. If you expend more calories than you take in, you will lose weight. It doesn't matter if you have a problem with that, or if people get depressed, or if you just straight up don't think it's a health issue (it is), that's how it works. That's why this argument takes place when this issue is brought up. It really is just a matter of will power and education on nutrition. How much will power's needed depends on the person, along with their knowledge on nutrition and eating well. Breaking these long standing habits can be incredibly tough, but not impossible.
There's a lot of grey area in the discussion of being overweight and healthy/fit/etc. If you have terrible eating habits, exercise will only make things a bit better; it wont magically counteract all the negative aspects of your body composition, or of the food you eat. The effect food can have on a person astronomically outweighs the potential effects of exercise. That's in no way saying exercise is pointless, but if you're diet's not in check, the exercise alone is like ordering a diet coke with your ten cheeseburgers.
>> ^bmacs27:
You guys aren't listening to what I'm saying. There is nothing wrong with eating right and exercising. I have a problem with caloric restriction, or as it is commonly called "dieting." Further, I have a problem with judging health from weight or BMI. There is very little data to back that up, and in fact the data suggest that a low BMI is actually more problematic than a moderately high 30ish BMI in terms of life expectancy. My issue is that it's been so ingrained in people to associate weight loss (an aesthetic issue) with fitness (a health issue). There are plenty of people that are fit, and no matter what they do, will carry extra weight.
To me "eating right" means eating healthy foods, e.g. whole foods, fruits, vegetables, proteins as your primary nutrition rather than fatty and heavily sweetened foods. Exercise is the most important part of the equation. The data shows that so long as you are not sedentary you can pretty much eat and weigh whatever with little to no health consequence.
The depression does not come simply from the lack of eating, and thus the cessation of a rewarding activity. It comes from the diversion of energy away from active use (e.g. in the nervous system) and towards the restocking of fat stores. In other words, you'll never lose weight, and instead will just be bummed out all the time.
You talk of "millions of people" that have successfully lost weight. I'd like to see a data that shows a diet emphasizing caloric restriction leading to long term reductions in weight. Every study I've seen shows that diets of that sort yield short term weight loss although subjects generally reacquire the weight within a year of stopping the diet, and report depression during the diet. Prove me wrong.