iNow

Thank you for the kind words, Theo. It really seems so obvious in retrospect, doesn't it?

That's not a belief, that's a fact.

You might consider checking your waist-to-hip ratio if you haven't already. One of my old professors, Dev Singh, came up with the idea, and it's a pretty reliable measure of attractiveness and health. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waist-hip_ratio As a male, you should strive for a ~0.9 (incidentally, this is the exact ratio of Michaelangelo's David IIRC). Females would want to be around 0.7.

Ah... good call. You're right. I was posting in a hurry and messed that up. One thing I like about the changes they made is that they are basically mandating all of August for review/reading of the entire bill. That might help. I also agree with Bascule... without single payer, this thing might be a band-aid on a heart-attack. Then again, maybe it's a "foot in the door" and we can make it better later, although, I'm not optimistic about that considering the recent history of our congress.

Actually, those conservative democrats found $1B in cost reductions, bringing the cost of the plan below a trillion. I'd say that your suggestion that they "took away the only cost saving portion of the bill" is a bit misrepresentative. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111322055

Yes. It's far too common in our country for nationalism to overtake rationalism.

Like this?

I'm sorry, relativist... but that's just wrong. Light is constant in all frames. Sometimes it seems to slow as a result of absorption and re-emission, but the stuff you are saying is false. If you wish to continue saying that the speed of light is not constant, then you need a reputable source supporting your claim. Until then, all readers should disregard your posts and recall that the speed of light is constant in all frames.

It sounds like you're already doing everything right, Severian. You have a solid understanding of what is important, and you're doing it. Just stick with it, and you should be fine. You mentioned martial arts. I'm somewhat biased, but I always loved the workout I got with kung fu. Lots of cardio and strength training, and I was in the best shape of my life. I coupled it with Tai Chi, which helped me to develop the smaller muscles involved in balance, and it strangely added a tremendous amount of power to my strikes (even more so than weight training). You'll likely want something with more cadio than grappling if you're doing it primarily for fitness reasons. Anyway, have fun with it, and do what you can to work out with people whose company you enjoy. If you enjoy what you're doing, it's much more likely to become a lifestyle than just get left behind as a temporary fad/faze. Cheers.

I'm 6'2", about 180, so ~23 is my BMI. (1.9m and 82.1kg, so 22.7 BMI). The short answer? If you want to lose mass, burn off more energy than you ingest and keep doing so until you find the equilibrium you want.

Interesting point, recently addressed in this short vid: sTPsFIsxM3w Via PZ

I think he said it was purple.

We'd really want to drop our contributions of CO2 to zero, and even then it would still take millenia for plants to process everything we've input to the atmosphere already. Relative to human time scales, environmental equilibrium takes a very long time to achieve. As for number of plants, I think they need fresh water, not sea (salt) water. The reason preventing them from absorbing more carbon dioxide is the same reason that you would likely not have as many total plants. If there's not enough water, I have a hard time imagining that plant density is going to increase by any significant number, but I'm guessing with that. I also remember reading an article recently that suggested the pores on the leafs of plants get smaller as a result of higher CO2. This seems related to my comment about metabolism above.

It's about metabolism. Plants can only process so much CO2 based on their size and structure (much like we can only breath a given volume of air... the processing of CO2 is essentially a plant "breathing," and they can only "breath" a given volume). Further, their ability to process CO2 DECREASES as temperatures increase and rain decreases (drought) since they are trying to slow their metabolism to maximize their available water (sipping instead of binge drinking). http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=27638 Currently, the land and oceans absorb about half of the carbon dioxide produced by human activity, most of it resulting from the burning of fossil fuels, Fung said. Some scientists have suggested that the land and oceans will continue to absorb more and more CO2 as fossil fuel emissions increase, making plants flourish and the oceans bloom. Fung’s computer model, however, indicates that the “breathing biosphere” can absorb carbon only so fast. Beyond a certain point, the planet will not be able to keep up with carbon dioxide emissions. “The reason is very simple,” Fung said. “Plants are happy growing at a certain rate, and though they can accelerate to a certain extent with more CO2, the rate is limited by metabolic reactions in the plant, by water and nutrient availability, et cetera.” In addition, increasing temperatures and drought frequencies lower plant uptake of CO2 as plants breathe in less to conserve water.

Most Helpful Member: UC Most Knowledgeable Member: Atheist Most Interesting Member: Janus Best Debater: JohnB Most Enjoyable Member: john5746 Most Improved Member: jimmydasaint Honorable mention to ajb, john5746, snail, and padren who fit many of these.

Pangloss - Please note that I was not referring to the tangent of Paul Krugman with my comments, but was instead referencing the topic of the thread and the OP in general.

I think Bob Scheiffer nailed it this morning in his "final word." He gave a great deal of credit to Obama for having the leadership and integrity to admit he made an error by commenting, and then went on to share some really simple truths which apply to all sides. http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5189421n

Good call, John. Look for a region-free DVD player.

The abundance of evidence across research modalities all pointing to the same consensus of a human cause.

+1. I also wonder why we always assume by default that everything in the US must make a profit... It's silly, and there clearly are some enterprises where profit driven motives are directly counter to the needs being discussed. Healthcare is a clear example. If the right-wingers get to call it "socialized medicine," then I get to call private insurers "repugnant vultures who live off of the corpses of america and get rich by preventing us from receiving care and ultimately making us sicker."

Yet, that's precisely what our government does already for our veterans, our military, our congressmen and women, as well as our elderly. Your comment suggests that the government should no longer provide benefits to veterans, to the elderly, or to our military personnel. Is that what you intended, or perhaps you can clarify?

I think "thoroughly embarrassed" is a bit of a stretch, as we already know it won't happen before the August deadline (in fact, Obama already commented about it). http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE56M0HE20090723 The day after Obama held a prime-time news conference to sell his top domestic priority, congressional leaders struggled to ease doubts about the healthcare plan and Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid said the full chamber would not take it up until September. "I think that it's better to have a product that is one that's based on quality and thoughtfulness rather than trying to jam something through," Reid told reporters. Obama conceded the bills would be delayed but said he still wanted to see the Democratic-controlled Congress make some progress. While I like talking about healthcare, and feel it to be a more appropriate subject on which to spend time, it is not the topic of this thread. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Politically, it was a mistake to respond the way he did, yes. However, as I mentioned on the previous page, I respect the fact that he's genuine and shares his thoughts with us as if we're adults and capable of handling his sincerity. Perhaps a better question is whether or not we, as a culture, truly are mature enough to handle such unrestrained authenticity, or if we need to be coddled like spoiled tantrum throwing toddlers. In my mind, the answer to that question is really open for debate.

Interesting question. It's certainly a combination of a) those who wish to delay healthcare reform, b) those who seek news stories which are sexier and edgier, and c) those in our populace who reinforce this choice of the media by tuning in all the more closely when issues like this present. It appears that I'm a bit guilty of that last one, myself.

Excessively "colorful" example removed by Mod EDIT: It would not be hard to think of requests from police with which you do not have to comply. I think you're trying to make a point that I ultimately tend to agree with, but that you are doing so in an extreme manner which ruins your argument. [/EDIT] Further... You, being a relatively well-off white male, seem to have a very rosy view of the authority of police and how far we should allow that authority to extend.

Yeah, that's what I use on mine.