fatdogs12

Yes that is the daily requirement for a human... not a fat human. A fat human has ample stores of calories that the body will burn. When I was taking in 800 calories a day I wasn't even close to risking my health because I had 140,000 extra calories that my body could run off of. The only reason I took in any calories at all is for nutrients which of course you body cannot get from fat. A person who is a healthy weight could fast for more than a month without taking in a single calorie and be just fine. A fat person can go longer. I mean sure if you take a petite model or a concentration camp victim and deprive them of less than 800 or so calories a day they will die BUT they have no fat stores to use up.

If there are 3500 calories in a pound (which there are) and you would assume that you burn around 1800-2000 a day why not simply shave off 500 calories a day? At that rate you would lose a pound a week. In a year that is almost 50 pounds. I was too impatient to be on a strict diet that long though so instead I cut my diet down to 800 calories a day and would do that for 2 or 3 weeks at a time. I assume I was burning around 2200 calories a day by default without excercising. Assuming that's true that was a 1400 calorie loss a day. So I would lose a pound every 2 and a half days or almost 3 pound a week. You already got the energy stored up you just need to make sure you get the things your body needs to funtion. Yes I was hungry for a while but it is possible and 12 pound a month is plenty of motivation to continue.

I like VB the best for it's quick app development, esp for simple stuff. I wouldn't touch anything else if I had a choice however I doubled my salary swtiching to Java so that kinda makes this a toss up for me.

I agree though, I am annoyed with all those groups of people (pro-fat being a good example) that wish than rather deal with something difficult like losing weight, they instead act in order to get people to view it as good. Kinda like rap music with violence. PS. I lost 40 pounds myself and I exercised maybe 10 or 12 times... Just cut back on bad food, I should also mention that I work at my computer nearly 16 hours a day 6 days a week, so most of my exercise comes from punching keys.

I do understand that the US wage is mixed and not at all a complete laissez-faire system. While I do agree you have a point I don't think that the irradication of a minimum wage would eliminate jobs going overseas. This comes back to my original point that it is the other goverments which have caused the avg. wage in thier country to be in the toilet which causes companies to go overseas. If there was no minimum wage in this country can you see anyone working for 50 cents an hour? I don't, because we don't need to. Workers in this country can provide real value and get paid for it. I in no way intended to imply that America was a perfect specimen. I also never said it was an ideal country. However compared to pretty much every other country it is an amazing and utterly exciting place. Slavery has been around for many millenium, it's far from new. The only thing that is new IS freedom, as Thomas Sowell says "People shouldn't ask 'when did slavery end', they should ask 'when did freedom begin'"? At least the US is moving (generally) in the right direction. I think you are seeing all that is wrong with the US rather than what is right arn't you? As to my point, I was just thinking, "geez if the US and a few other countries had adopted out policies a few houndred years earlier, things would be so much further along".

I don't know if I agree with this conclusion though. I don't think the reason things are outsourced has much to do with any goverment policy of the United States but rather the policies of the countries that are getting the jobs. India is a terrific example, they have been socialist for a long time and therefore nessasarily poor and unproductive until the Internet came around. Now because they are poor and the average wage is so low there, US companies can come in a get 10 very hard working employees for that it would cost for 1 in the US. If the US ruled every nation or if every nation followed the same capitalistic system the US does we wouldn't have outsourcing on nearly the level it's at. The children who make that the stuff we buy under "slave" labor conditions for .50 cents or less an hour wouldn't have to work, thier parents could earn more than enough to provide for them. Unforunately most of those countries are where we were 150 years ago. The only option that the US would have to stop outsourcing is pass legistation banning it as well as putting very high teriffs on imported products so that most of the jobs would stay here. Of course that would be very unproductive and very morally wrong. My girlfriend has this issue at her current company. They are constantly sending jobs at her company overseas (she works for the company that owns Holiday Inn and bunch of other hotels) to India because it's cheaper. Well of course it is and eventually I think as more jobs go over there and other places there will be something of a reach toward equillibrium as the extra supply of jobs over there meets demand from here. That I think will bring down the average salary in the US (at least in theory, there are obviously a lot of other factors that could come into it). At the same time since these countries are becomming more productive in and of themselves the boost world productivity and create more values, which in turn will create more values and create more jobs. However of course because these other countries have such a supply of labor I thnk it could take a while for the demand to catch up with the supply. Either way the more capitalism the better as eventually it will be better for us. Even India has had such an impact from outsourcing. Even the really poor are getting paid higher wages as more and more jobs are being created there. I think it's a really exciting thing, the world has never been at such a point where so many countries are set to become super productive. Even if there were 2 or 3 more countries (of a decent size) that got the same princples to act on that we did 200 years ago I can only imagine where we would be today productivity wise. I can also only imagine what awesome technology will be created in the next few years as more than just a few houndred million people are building toward the future. Never has existed such an exciting time in my opinion.

I would fight it non stop till I got a fair resolution. First I would talk to the teacher and explain why it is unfair and see if she agree's or not and why not. If that doesn't work I would go to a guidance counseler or it's equivilent, if that still doesn't work I would request a meeting with whoever is next in the chain of command. If they refused to meet I would write a letter a day to them till it gets resolved. I had to do this numerous times in high school for a variety of issues (such as an entire class getting detention because of a few kids causing trouble which I was not one of). I have found that just arguing rationally with them is usually enough. Sometimes it's not though so then I just tried to annoy them till they gave in. On a couple issues I went to the Parent Teacher Conference about a situation very similar to yours and told all the parents about my issue and how it is probably hurting thier kids too, after that they were upset and took up the fight for me. Same thing with college, except it's more difficult. When the professor gave me an unfair grade I took it up with the head of the department, with ample evidence to show what type of student I was. Usually they relented only twice did I have to go to the dean (it was a small college) but I got it fixed. Never give up I say, unless it benefits you more that way. FIGHT THE POWER!!! lol

I don't know, I have a pretty strict diet. Other than an occasional piece of chicken (once every two months) I never eat meat. I don't miss it and I don't think that meat tastes any better than vegtables. Other than that chicken I eat pretty much vegan. I don't drink milk or eat eggs or anything. Ever since I went off meat/dairy/sugar I have felt fantastic. When I was eating them I was much more sluggish. On an average night before I would sleep about 9 hours. Now I rarely sleep more than 6 and generally when I wake up I don't feel grogy. I don't do any of this stuff for moral reasons (which kinda makes it hard to talk to other vegitarians because most of them are doing it for moral reasons) but I love the effects I have got from it. Allows me to be more productive and have a lot more "mental clarity". I'm not saying people shouldn't eat meat, that is everyone's choice, I'm just mentioning my experiance. Really once you go without those things for a month or so you really dont miss them anymore. Now when I eat that occasional piece of meat I can just feel it sit in my stomach. I'd much rather eat some vegtables which can pass through my system in 18-24 hours rather than 80-100.

This is the type of post I was trying to avoid getting. Whether he did or not is not relevant and I stated that in the original post. Everything I was asking had nothing to do with the actual facts but rather a question of "assuming these facts are true would this be moral".

I AM saying that in this specific situation I was not clear on what the moral choice is. So then in business would any tactic that would be without force be considered moral?

To me that would seem to be a conflict of interest first of all but even if I am wrong about that I still don't see how that is moral. Then again I have no evidence to the contrary. I would really like some more input on this issue.

I don't really see that as similar though. The move by Porsche is designed to keep ownership of thier company where as the move by standard oil was to stop a company from utilizing thier capital investment.

This is something that has stuck in my mind and I was wondering if according to objectivism this would be considered wrong: (note that the facts of the actual situation are in dispute but that is irrelevant for this discussion, just assume they are true) Back in the 1800's when John D. Rockafeller owned Standard oil and have over 85% of the market 'cornered' another company (I forget the name) came along and decided to build an oil pipeline to distribute oil to the east coast of the United States. Now it is said that Standard Oil amoung other things bought up land as the pipeline was being built in order to make it so they had no way for the pipeline to reach it's destination. What I am wondering is if this would be considered a moral act. Assuming they were only buying the land in order to stop the pipeline would that be immoral? Why or why not? I mean they certainly are not shoving a gun down anyone's throat but they are trying to stop thier progress. This one has me confused :-)

Man that video was terrible man, I didn't even start to think that he hadn't killed the guy. On the issue of illegal immigrants in america, it's kinda funny to me. I know a lot of caucasions in construction here in Atlanta and they always complain about how 'wrong' it is that Mexicans come and take 'thier' jobs. As if they had some kind of right to it. While Mexicans do benefit from our roads and what not without paying taxes they also add to american productivity by working for less than minimum wage. I think mexicans in general are great. They come and are extremely hard working, what could be better? (yes that is a generalization but that is the point)

I'm not sure how much this applies but I spend a lot of time at FutureProducers.com just asking stupid questions about music production and what not. I have found it to be almost the exact opposite of this site. I recently mentioned that I happen to be a white guy and am not attracted to caucasian females even though I am caucasian and was told without any reasons what so ever that, that was because I was a self-hating person. They said I was wrong to abandom my "people" and that I had some kind of inferriority complex related to it. I was also told I should have pride for my race and that I didn't at all understand the idea of human commonality and blah blah blah. FutureProducers.com the forum of unreason. Geez

I can't comment on how possible this is but it looks really interesting...

The Government's job is to protect the rights of the citizen in it's country. A government should not have any claim to the property of it's citizens ever. What you are suggesting is that the money you have in your bank account belongs to the government. That supposes a misunderstanding of a goverments job. What you are suggesting is socialist in nature, in that you are saying that the goverment should decide how investments are made by it's citizens. The goverment's function is not to be some entity which lords over people and makes broad abstract decisions (or concrete ones for that matter) on economic policy, it is to make sure that people are safe and that people's rights are not violated. What you are suggesting is the exact opposite of the whole point of government. I'm sure others will explain the rest.

My dad complains to me that Bush isn't capping the prices on gas prices... lol "Yeah that's a real crime that the government doesn't control what other people can do with thier own property". [Edited to remove large, unnecessary quote. Matt]

Unnessasary government sucks. That pretty much says it all

After hearing the news about how much money insurance companies have to spend (they are saying about 25 billion) I kinda wonder if maybe it would have shown the insurance companies larger profits if they were to pay a few billion to shore up levy's and stuff like that ahead of time. Maybe not but it just seems that would have been much more profitable. What do you guys think?

Man this is one of the most interesting threads that I have read here since I have been comming. I have been saying this for a while now esp. since Bush has been lumping in the Chechen rebels in the same category as Al Qaida. This point specifically though I would really like to understand because assuming for a second that the Chechen rebels took the theater hostage for freedom purposes why is that wrong? To me it seems like the exact same thing as Hiroshima. I mean in a way I view it as a good thing for them to attack civialins (though I admit I could be wrong on this) because if thier continued to attack the russian military they won't get anything. Russia (as pathetic a country as it is) out numbers the Chechens in pretty much every category (guns, funding, troops). To me I agree with GreedyCap. as well, Russia is going back down the road it came from, taking away rights and just making itself a totalitarian regime. I just don't see how the Chechens shoulder anything immoral for those hostages. Maybe thier only mistake was actually assuming that Russia actually cared about it's citizens. I mean the US could have dropped nukes on Japans military targets right? So considering that does that mean that the US commited murder? I can't see how and ditto for the Chechens.

I would be interested in hearing what he said in general. What were his differences in opinion verses OISM

A few years ago (okay about 10) I saw a documentary on Chechnia and it's history... Then in 2000 I had the opportunity to meet some people from there. They said the reality is that little has changed for people in Chechnia. Russia is still brutal, they slaughter young men all the time like it's nothing. Most of thier families have been raped, killed, tortured or maimed. I just couldn't believe how bad the Russians were, I never really thought that the new "Democratic" Russia would do this stuff, but I was a real eye opener for me. In general I agree that Islam is awful but these are people who were and still are (I don't know about 2005 but I these people I knew left Chechnia in 1999) being brutalized and murdered. Fighting back is the least they can do and I think very morally justified. Even suicide bombings in this case would be okay to me (the only reason not would be that maybe you could live and do more damage just placing the bombs and leaving to return to do it again). On multiple occassions I have heard Bush support the Anti-Terrorism efforts of Russia in Chechnia as if there was no difference. The difference between Chechnia and Israel is about as wide as the Atlantic.

I just posted it because that is what it said. Just thought it was interesting...

This was such a strange article that I thought I just had to post the link: http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,6...w=wn_11techhead