RawBert
Feb 11, 10:42 AM
NickZac, you my friend are awesome! If you're ever in North Hollywood, I have a briefcase.;)
Charlie Sheen parties too much though. Too much of that stuff can mess you up bad. Just gotta keep it below 3 grams per night and one night per week. It's not fun anymore when you wind up in the hospital.
Charlie Sheen parties too much though. Too much of that stuff can mess you up bad. Just gotta keep it below 3 grams per night and one night per week. It's not fun anymore when you wind up in the hospital.
7on
Nov 23, 11:22 AM
This thing would be perfect for emulators
http://us.codejunkies.com/Images/products/medium/Wireless_Retro_Controller.jpg
http://us.codejunkies.com/Images/products/medium/Wireless_Retro_Controller.jpg
CubusX
Oct 1, 06:11 AM
Dropped calls is a feature of the iphone... enjoy ;)
There's an app for that.:)
There's an app for that.:)
Popeye206
Apr 13, 02:52 PM
Waiting for Apple Microwave Rev B.
LOL! The iWave!
Listen to music while nuking your soup!
LOL! The iWave!
Listen to music while nuking your soup!
KnightWRX
Dec 30, 10:43 PM
Under normal circumstances, you're more or less right.
No, I'm 100% right. Weight control is about calories. End of story. Calories in < Calories out and you lose weight. Opposite and you gain weight. There's no more or less here, that is the very basic premise. You want to discuss specifics that affect calories in/calories out, but that's flawed. Teach people the base first, and let them balance themselves out. You can very easily test your metabolic rate.
However, many supersize people have participated in crash diets, drugs and other questionable regimens over the years in search of quick-fix thinness. Doing so can, after a while, sabotage the body's normal metabolic rate and endocrine output, making it much harder for these people to find the balance in their caloric equation without depriving themselves of needed micronutrients (vitamins, minerals).
So you're saying these people have abnormally low "Calories out". It still comes down to that very simple equation. These people first have to fix their calories out, get their metabolism back straight, then they can fix their calories in.
It is that easy to lose weight. People don't know this very simple and basic concept, they think "Fat/Sugar" has to do with weight, which is completely false. "Low Saturated Fat!" on a box of cookies means squat if the cookies are 170 calories for 3 vs 180 calories for 3 of the same cookies with normal saturated fat. You still can't eat the whole box in one sitting and think "hey, it's low fat, I can't gain weight from this".
You'd be surprised how many people think this way.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but the question that runs through my mind is: if it's so easy, why do people struggle with it? Why are there entire industries built around people that struggle with losing weight on their own?
People struggle because like someone pointed out, they lack willpower and I'll add that they lack education. Calorie control is the only way to lose weight. There's seriously no other way, since weight is based off of calories and calories alone. To lose weight, you need a calorie deficiency. To be more precise, 3500 calories = 1 lbs, each way. So you need to create a calorie deficiency of 3500 calories before you lose 1 lbs. My metabolic rate is around 1740, that's what I burn each day without lifting a finger. Add in my normal routine, and I'm around the magic 2000 calorie diet. Let's not add in my gym routine. So to lose 1 lbs in 7 days, I need to go on a 1500 calorie diet per day. That's going to give me a deficiency of 500 per day, times 7 days, 1 lbs lost.
There's entire industries because they profit from it. Some people like to buy "instant" solutions. 1 lbs in 7 days ? Bah humbug, too long, I have 100 to lose! There's no instant solutions to weight loss, quite the contrary, the entire weight loss industry makes money by keeping people fat and coming back for miracle cures. Their proposed plans of "1 shake/bar for breakfeast, same for lunch and a balanced diner" is awful. First, it should be the opposite, a good breakfeast and then their bars/shakes for lunch and diner. Breakfeast is where you get your day's energy. Second, that's not calorie control since it doesn't explain that it is trying to create a calorie deficit. So people just still overeat, they compensate the calories they didn't eat at breakfeast/lunch with a huge "balanced" diner.
I'm going to just assume you are young and have time on your hands. Because when I was young and had time staying trim was quite easy., Let's talk when you're in your 30's and are a busy professional :rolleyes:
I'm 32, work 35 hours per week in IT (sitting down on my ass), am on call with tons of pages coming in once every 2 weeks. I have a girlfriend, a mortgage and a dog.
Again, staying trim has nothing to do with having time or being busy or not. If you spend less calories, eat less calories. Balance your calories in to your calories out and you'll stay trim. Sure it means doing a bit more research into what you're eating, but that's not impossible. It also means listening to your body. Feeling "stuffed" means you overate. You should never feel full or stuffed. A donut is not faster to mow down than an Apple. It's not more filling either. It's tons more calories though.
You made an assumption about me and you were wrong. You should look at yourself and what you are or aren't doing that is making you fat, not make up excuses.
look. I'm not trying to make excuses. I'm not THAT out of shape. I do bikram yoga 4 times per week and walk a lot. I just can't be as extensive about it as I was in my youthful years. I'm very healthy but I do need to drop 20ish lbs. per doctors orders. I've completely cut out any sugar drinks other than water and a few organic smoothies and an occaional glass of wine here and there. But at my age and with my busy schedule it's just not as easy as it was when I was 25. Not an excuse, just a simple fact.
But again, it's just because you don't understand your caloric need for a day and you either overeat or eat just the right amount to maintain your weight. You don't even need to exercise to create a calorie deficiency. I think you're the perfect example of what I'm talking about, you don't understand the very basic concept, which has nothing to do with time spent, but rather food ingested.
People need to get it out of their heads that it is about exercise. It's 10% working out, 90% food. Get your nutrition right and you won't need to exercise a day in your life. If you want to get fit however, make sure to balance your nutrition around your added caloric need to not drop weight too fast or at all if your goal is maintaining.
No, I'm 100% right. Weight control is about calories. End of story. Calories in < Calories out and you lose weight. Opposite and you gain weight. There's no more or less here, that is the very basic premise. You want to discuss specifics that affect calories in/calories out, but that's flawed. Teach people the base first, and let them balance themselves out. You can very easily test your metabolic rate.
However, many supersize people have participated in crash diets, drugs and other questionable regimens over the years in search of quick-fix thinness. Doing so can, after a while, sabotage the body's normal metabolic rate and endocrine output, making it much harder for these people to find the balance in their caloric equation without depriving themselves of needed micronutrients (vitamins, minerals).
So you're saying these people have abnormally low "Calories out". It still comes down to that very simple equation. These people first have to fix their calories out, get their metabolism back straight, then they can fix their calories in.
It is that easy to lose weight. People don't know this very simple and basic concept, they think "Fat/Sugar" has to do with weight, which is completely false. "Low Saturated Fat!" on a box of cookies means squat if the cookies are 170 calories for 3 vs 180 calories for 3 of the same cookies with normal saturated fat. You still can't eat the whole box in one sitting and think "hey, it's low fat, I can't gain weight from this".
You'd be surprised how many people think this way.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but the question that runs through my mind is: if it's so easy, why do people struggle with it? Why are there entire industries built around people that struggle with losing weight on their own?
People struggle because like someone pointed out, they lack willpower and I'll add that they lack education. Calorie control is the only way to lose weight. There's seriously no other way, since weight is based off of calories and calories alone. To lose weight, you need a calorie deficiency. To be more precise, 3500 calories = 1 lbs, each way. So you need to create a calorie deficiency of 3500 calories before you lose 1 lbs. My metabolic rate is around 1740, that's what I burn each day without lifting a finger. Add in my normal routine, and I'm around the magic 2000 calorie diet. Let's not add in my gym routine. So to lose 1 lbs in 7 days, I need to go on a 1500 calorie diet per day. That's going to give me a deficiency of 500 per day, times 7 days, 1 lbs lost.
There's entire industries because they profit from it. Some people like to buy "instant" solutions. 1 lbs in 7 days ? Bah humbug, too long, I have 100 to lose! There's no instant solutions to weight loss, quite the contrary, the entire weight loss industry makes money by keeping people fat and coming back for miracle cures. Their proposed plans of "1 shake/bar for breakfeast, same for lunch and a balanced diner" is awful. First, it should be the opposite, a good breakfeast and then their bars/shakes for lunch and diner. Breakfeast is where you get your day's energy. Second, that's not calorie control since it doesn't explain that it is trying to create a calorie deficit. So people just still overeat, they compensate the calories they didn't eat at breakfeast/lunch with a huge "balanced" diner.
I'm going to just assume you are young and have time on your hands. Because when I was young and had time staying trim was quite easy., Let's talk when you're in your 30's and are a busy professional :rolleyes:
I'm 32, work 35 hours per week in IT (sitting down on my ass), am on call with tons of pages coming in once every 2 weeks. I have a girlfriend, a mortgage and a dog.
Again, staying trim has nothing to do with having time or being busy or not. If you spend less calories, eat less calories. Balance your calories in to your calories out and you'll stay trim. Sure it means doing a bit more research into what you're eating, but that's not impossible. It also means listening to your body. Feeling "stuffed" means you overate. You should never feel full or stuffed. A donut is not faster to mow down than an Apple. It's not more filling either. It's tons more calories though.
You made an assumption about me and you were wrong. You should look at yourself and what you are or aren't doing that is making you fat, not make up excuses.
look. I'm not trying to make excuses. I'm not THAT out of shape. I do bikram yoga 4 times per week and walk a lot. I just can't be as extensive about it as I was in my youthful years. I'm very healthy but I do need to drop 20ish lbs. per doctors orders. I've completely cut out any sugar drinks other than water and a few organic smoothies and an occaional glass of wine here and there. But at my age and with my busy schedule it's just not as easy as it was when I was 25. Not an excuse, just a simple fact.
But again, it's just because you don't understand your caloric need for a day and you either overeat or eat just the right amount to maintain your weight. You don't even need to exercise to create a calorie deficiency. I think you're the perfect example of what I'm talking about, you don't understand the very basic concept, which has nothing to do with time spent, but rather food ingested.
People need to get it out of their heads that it is about exercise. It's 10% working out, 90% food. Get your nutrition right and you won't need to exercise a day in your life. If you want to get fit however, make sure to balance your nutrition around your added caloric need to not drop weight too fast or at all if your goal is maintaining.
maclaptop
Apr 22, 10:09 AM
Okay THAT is just total BS. There are other phones that do not look like iPhone clones out there.
It's only BS to you, I don't obsess over appearances, I buy functionality. My self image is not tied to a phone.
Yet it's Apples brilliance, that realizes the average persons low self esteem and need to be seen with cool toys.
They know that great styling causes the consumer to ignore many faults or shortcomings in the product.
That said I'm noticing an interesting trend, it's the feminization of the iPhone.
With its diminutive size and proliferation of jeweled cases, I see more women with iPhones.
Next, with Verizons excellent Droid campaign, its become the mans phone of choice.
Larger, masculine, great new apps for men, not fart apps for juveniles, the rise in Droid X phones is remarkable and highly visible here in Los Angeles and Orange County.
I know at 6'2" the larger phone is far more comfortable to hold, especially for longer calls and such.
I'm enjoying my Android phones immensely.
My Antennagate 4, not so much.
It's only BS to you, I don't obsess over appearances, I buy functionality. My self image is not tied to a phone.
Yet it's Apples brilliance, that realizes the average persons low self esteem and need to be seen with cool toys.
They know that great styling causes the consumer to ignore many faults or shortcomings in the product.
That said I'm noticing an interesting trend, it's the feminization of the iPhone.
With its diminutive size and proliferation of jeweled cases, I see more women with iPhones.
Next, with Verizons excellent Droid campaign, its become the mans phone of choice.
Larger, masculine, great new apps for men, not fart apps for juveniles, the rise in Droid X phones is remarkable and highly visible here in Los Angeles and Orange County.
I know at 6'2" the larger phone is far more comfortable to hold, especially for longer calls and such.
I'm enjoying my Android phones immensely.
My Antennagate 4, not so much.
coder12
Apr 22, 07:19 PM
I just want to say that when the iPhone 4 pics first leaked, there was a huge howl about how ugly it was.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=900333
I remember reading all those comments... we as people just don't like changes... :rolleyes:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=900333
I remember reading all those comments... we as people just don't like changes... :rolleyes:
Carlson-online
Apr 28, 04:11 PM
iphone 4 white is so yesterdays news . i want to know when the humancentipad is coming out!!!!!
spencers
Jan 31, 05:19 PM
4gb iPod
I remember owning one of those when it first came out. Survived a trip to Philmont quite well!
I remember owning one of those when it first came out. Survived a trip to Philmont quite well!
neonzebra
Apr 13, 02:51 PM
Makes more sense to me that Apple would work to standardize AirPlay as a built-in feature of all new HDTV's, blu-ray players, and other set top boxes like Apple TV. In addition to AirPlay input to the HDTV, the HDTV would do AirPlay output from a TV connected webcam/microphone (if any). I don't see Apple trying to sell actual HDTVs, but the iPad would make a great SmartTV content controller that would replace the need for an Apple TV module.
The existing Apple TV could just evolve into an iOS app.
Nobody is going to replace their $1000 TV with one that will be obsolete in 2 years. But a $99 box that hooks up to your TV is a no-brainer.
Also, how funny is the article image here? The analysts who are making this prediction should have a big L stamped on their forehead.
The existing Apple TV could just evolve into an iOS app.
Nobody is going to replace their $1000 TV with one that will be obsolete in 2 years. But a $99 box that hooks up to your TV is a no-brainer.
Also, how funny is the article image here? The analysts who are making this prediction should have a big L stamped on their forehead.
Legion93
May 2, 03:26 AM
Great news! Shame its taken so long but at least we got him eventually! :D
Now lets hope this is declared a national holiday and Apple releases the new iMac with a discount to celebrate :D
Will you keep Apple outta this? :d
Now lets hope this is declared a national holiday and Apple releases the new iMac with a discount to celebrate :D
Will you keep Apple outta this? :d
Tastannin
Apr 11, 05:00 PM
Why no Thunderbolt cards for MacPro users?
Your answer is found in MR's story on TB (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/02/25/notes-of-interest-on-thunderbolt-and-macbook-pro/) when it first came out on the MBP's:
- CNet's live coverage reveals that there are no plans to offer Thunderbolt PCIe cards. In fact, Intel says that you will need a new computer/motherboard to get Thunderbolt. That means Mac Pro owners won't be able to add it on to their systems.
10:25 a.m. (Dong Ngo) : There won't be TB PCIe cards it seems. You'll need a new computer.
10:34 a.m. (Dong Ngo) : There won't be add-in TB adapters, you'll need a new computer/motherboard that supports TB.
Since it's PCIe related, my guess is that its integration goes deeper than just a "PCIe socket" on the logic board. Just slapping a TB PCIe card in a MacPro won't do it, apparently. Bummer, yeah.
I'm glad I sold my 2008 Mac Pro and picked up one of those new MBP's. I love being able to take my Mac(Book) Pro anywhere with me. Couldn't have done that very easily/conveniently with the Mac Pro. Now hurry up TB dock/RAID. :)
Your answer is found in MR's story on TB (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/02/25/notes-of-interest-on-thunderbolt-and-macbook-pro/) when it first came out on the MBP's:
- CNet's live coverage reveals that there are no plans to offer Thunderbolt PCIe cards. In fact, Intel says that you will need a new computer/motherboard to get Thunderbolt. That means Mac Pro owners won't be able to add it on to their systems.
10:25 a.m. (Dong Ngo) : There won't be TB PCIe cards it seems. You'll need a new computer.
10:34 a.m. (Dong Ngo) : There won't be add-in TB adapters, you'll need a new computer/motherboard that supports TB.
Since it's PCIe related, my guess is that its integration goes deeper than just a "PCIe socket" on the logic board. Just slapping a TB PCIe card in a MacPro won't do it, apparently. Bummer, yeah.
I'm glad I sold my 2008 Mac Pro and picked up one of those new MBP's. I love being able to take my Mac(Book) Pro anywhere with me. Couldn't have done that very easily/conveniently with the Mac Pro. Now hurry up TB dock/RAID. :)
NutsNGum
Apr 26, 11:13 AM
I bought a 21.5 imac last summer three days before they launched the new one, so sent it back.
Finally bought its replacement three days ago. Now they're doing it again.
Can't be bothered this time.
:eek:
You don't need to keep taking computers back you know. You could try and be happy with what you already own. Also why did you buy it if you knew there were new ones on the horizon anyway?
Finally bought its replacement three days ago. Now they're doing it again.
Can't be bothered this time.
:eek:
You don't need to keep taking computers back you know. You could try and be happy with what you already own. Also why did you buy it if you knew there were new ones on the horizon anyway?
solvs
Jul 22, 12:37 AM
looks like he's love'n the bunny:D
No, that's this guy (http://www.lebonze.co.uk/playground/bunnylove.htm).
No, that's this guy (http://www.lebonze.co.uk/playground/bunnylove.htm).
Atlasland
Jul 24, 10:47 PM
Well, I'm still glad I bought the Logitech S530 mouse to replace my Apple BT mouse. Why?...
is osama bin laden dead or
is osama bin laden dead or
osama bin laden dead or alive.
osama bin laden dead or alive
jmor
Sep 12, 07:50 PM
Those look really slick, how do you like them so far?
hexor
Apr 21, 10:38 PM
Not sure why people think Apple is the bully here. Have you not seen the comparison between the Samsung phone and the iPhone? We even have sales people telling customers the Samsung phone is "like an iPhone"..
jessica.
Jan 25, 08:24 PM
Post Your Last Purchase XV...WOWEEE! (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1053646) at 57 pages and 2265 posts later, it was time.
Last purchase was all grown up stuff, groceries, auto fuel, and my mortgage payment. :eek:
http://www.insidesocal.com/bargain/Groceries.jpg
http://mortgagenomoneydown.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/minimum-down-payment-on-a-house.jpg
Last purchase was all grown up stuff, groceries, auto fuel, and my mortgage payment. :eek:
http://www.insidesocal.com/bargain/Groceries.jpg
http://mortgagenomoneydown.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/minimum-down-payment-on-a-house.jpg
twoodcc
Nov 24, 08:42 PM
yeah team lexus should be in the rearview mirror soon
i hope so.
i hope so.
deyorew
Mar 16, 11:12 AM
Are stores open at 9am today instead of the usual 10am?
Zonz
Dec 31, 05:29 PM
And yours about me weren't ? Look, I made my presumptions based on some facts you posted :
- Too busy to work out (which isn't an issue for weight control)
- Having to lose weight (Doctor's orders)
- Thinking Yoga is an effective weight control.
- No mention of food.
I made a presumption that you don't understand the basic premise of weight control. I hope my post at least opened up your eyes and you can go from there to learn what works for you, with your busy schedule, instead of thinking a busy schedule is a reason to stay the way you are.
It's her choice up to a point. There's nothing wrong with 20 lbs overweight, give or take a few. Doctors will always tell you to be in the "zone" (healthy weight with a BMI between 18-25) but mostly there isn't much harm until later in life. Just like there's nothing wrong with taking fast food in reasonable quantities, or smoking if done occasionally.
However, what she is doing is not just affecting her and her family. Morbid obesity affects all of society, be it through requiring services reserved for the disabled (she's not really disabled, she just chooses to be). The problem, like in all things bad for you (fast food, alcohol, smoking, drugs, whatever) is not occasional use, it's abuse. This woman has an abusive food consumption. Your examples are wrong because they try to equate what she is doing with what people are doing within reason. Your list should have been more :
- Alcoholics should be able to stay that way! There's nothing wrong with 2 glasses of gin to wake up
- 3 packs a day of smokes is perfectly fine!
- Gambling all your money away and then borrowing some to gamble more is a person's choice!
- You can never have enough Crystal Meth.
The fact is, these are abusive tendencies which stem from deeper problems or addictions.
BTW, I run about 5 km, 5 days a week. I ski (doing mostly Park, so climbing uphill on foot dragging my equipment), I do weight lifting too. I think I can sit and post on Macrumors a few times :D
Thank you for presenting a reasonable argument, it seems very few people on blogging websites can actually respond without feeling personal injustice. So yes, I pretty much agree with you. My comment was more directed to the tone of this forum and not the information.
And the examples I gave were to point out that no one can truly draw that line between reasonable and abusive behavior. When does a casual drinker become an alcoholic? When does a gambler have a gambling problem? The definitions given by professionals change consistently, and people on this forum with absolutely no qualifications whatsoever feel so sure they know the answers that they need to berate a persons lifestyle. I'm not usually such a prude, but it really pissed me off.
Your a park skier. I used to be too. I could easily argue that the benefits of the entertainment of park skiing under-weigh the injuries sustained and the cost in medical bills. In fact I could say the same thing about any extreme sport. I'm paying for it in my taxes aren't I? So couldn't I berate you about what a menace to society you are?
(FYI I'm not attacking you, don't take offense, it's just an example.)
- Too busy to work out (which isn't an issue for weight control)
- Having to lose weight (Doctor's orders)
- Thinking Yoga is an effective weight control.
- No mention of food.
I made a presumption that you don't understand the basic premise of weight control. I hope my post at least opened up your eyes and you can go from there to learn what works for you, with your busy schedule, instead of thinking a busy schedule is a reason to stay the way you are.
It's her choice up to a point. There's nothing wrong with 20 lbs overweight, give or take a few. Doctors will always tell you to be in the "zone" (healthy weight with a BMI between 18-25) but mostly there isn't much harm until later in life. Just like there's nothing wrong with taking fast food in reasonable quantities, or smoking if done occasionally.
However, what she is doing is not just affecting her and her family. Morbid obesity affects all of society, be it through requiring services reserved for the disabled (she's not really disabled, she just chooses to be). The problem, like in all things bad for you (fast food, alcohol, smoking, drugs, whatever) is not occasional use, it's abuse. This woman has an abusive food consumption. Your examples are wrong because they try to equate what she is doing with what people are doing within reason. Your list should have been more :
- Alcoholics should be able to stay that way! There's nothing wrong with 2 glasses of gin to wake up
- 3 packs a day of smokes is perfectly fine!
- Gambling all your money away and then borrowing some to gamble more is a person's choice!
- You can never have enough Crystal Meth.
The fact is, these are abusive tendencies which stem from deeper problems or addictions.
BTW, I run about 5 km, 5 days a week. I ski (doing mostly Park, so climbing uphill on foot dragging my equipment), I do weight lifting too. I think I can sit and post on Macrumors a few times :D
Thank you for presenting a reasonable argument, it seems very few people on blogging websites can actually respond without feeling personal injustice. So yes, I pretty much agree with you. My comment was more directed to the tone of this forum and not the information.
And the examples I gave were to point out that no one can truly draw that line between reasonable and abusive behavior. When does a casual drinker become an alcoholic? When does a gambler have a gambling problem? The definitions given by professionals change consistently, and people on this forum with absolutely no qualifications whatsoever feel so sure they know the answers that they need to berate a persons lifestyle. I'm not usually such a prude, but it really pissed me off.
Your a park skier. I used to be too. I could easily argue that the benefits of the entertainment of park skiing under-weigh the injuries sustained and the cost in medical bills. In fact I could say the same thing about any extreme sport. I'm paying for it in my taxes aren't I? So couldn't I berate you about what a menace to society you are?
(FYI I'm not attacking you, don't take offense, it's just an example.)
michaelrjohnson
Jul 21, 10:38 AM
3 GHZ BY NEXT YEAR
oh wait... ;)
LOL... But this time it might actually happen! (No thanks to IBM)
oh wait... ;)
LOL... But this time it might actually happen! (No thanks to IBM)
asleitz
Mar 31, 09:48 PM
Next the Pinto is going to make a come back with the wood trim
Detektiv-Pinky
Oct 24, 09:25 AM
Wouldn't you know it, my Sister-in-Law's MBP just arrived Yesterday!
CD or C2D?
If CD I would return in immediately, preferably unopened...
Thats what I hate about this update policy. Yesterdays investment is losing suddenly 30% of its value. Apple should really address this by lowering prices before such an update...
CD or C2D?
If CD I would return in immediately, preferably unopened...
Thats what I hate about this update policy. Yesterdays investment is losing suddenly 30% of its value. Apple should really address this by lowering prices before such an update...