gr8whtd0pe
Jan 26, 10:33 PM
No sure what you are talking about lol
Guess not then. Look at your mentions... Wait nm contest...
Guess not then. Look at your mentions... Wait nm contest...
Clix Pix
Jan 10, 08:27 PM
I stumbled on to this discussion and continued reading the thread out of fascination.....
This woman clearly has some mental health issues. Aside from the obvious obesity, she clearly may have some physical issues, too, which are only contributing to this overall situation. That is most unfortunate and I really do hope that she is receiving both medical and psychological help, as she certainly is demonstrating that she is very needy, very in need of help outside of herself and her own little world.
It's interesting, isn't it? Onlookers recoil in horror at the sight of a very obese, morbidly obese, beyond-morbidly obese, individual and shudder. Someone who is 400, 500, 600 pounds or more just isn't a lovely sight.
On the opposite end of the spectrum onlookers also recoil in horror at the sight of a very emaciated individual, someone who is skeletal, skin-and-bones..... Someone who is an adult, even a short one, weighing in at 40, 50 or 60 pounds just isn't a lovely sight, either.
Funny how very often the emaciated ones (those suffering from anorexia nervosa, which is a clinical diagnosis outlined and fully described in the psychiatric literature and the DSM -- Diagnostic and Statistical Manual -- issued on a periodic basis by psychiatrists) -- do wind up in a clinical setting, either a medical floor or a psychiatric floor...... It's pretty clear to even the most naive of laypersons that there is something wrong when a person seems to be starving him/herself to death and is presenting as skeletal.
Funny that when someone is going to the opposite extreme and stuffing him/herself to death that it isn't acknowledged in the same way and that very often it is only when someone has really gone to extremes such as weighing several hundred pounds over mere "overweight" status that anyone really takes notice. When someone presents weighing 600, 700, 800 pounds, yes, that is suggestive of the need for clinical intervention, both medical and psychological, isn't it?
On both ends of that spectrum, people die. Anorexics weighing 30 or 40 or 50 pounds die -- they also can die at much higher weights, closer to "normal" weights, too, actually, if the refeeding process and clinical treatment isn't handled carefully. Yes, they can die at so-called "normal" weights due to some underlying psychological issues never being addressed at all or not being addressed successfully even as the weight is seemingly restored.
Undoubtedly many people who have gotten to the point of morbid obesity or beyond that also have died, even during the process of attempting to restore weight to a healthier or more normal level....and again, chances are that this is due to the underlying psychological issues never being addressed or being inadequately addressed.
Sad, isn't it? Going to extremes in any direction is not a good thing and when this occurs it usually is pointing to significant underlying issues in an individual's life which really need to be addressed along with the particular weight situation.
Don't be repelled by the severely obese person you meet or the severely emaciated person you meet; these are real people with real feelings, real issues hiding in there somewhere and the bottom line is that these are people who need help.
This woman clearly has some mental health issues. Aside from the obvious obesity, she clearly may have some physical issues, too, which are only contributing to this overall situation. That is most unfortunate and I really do hope that she is receiving both medical and psychological help, as she certainly is demonstrating that she is very needy, very in need of help outside of herself and her own little world.
It's interesting, isn't it? Onlookers recoil in horror at the sight of a very obese, morbidly obese, beyond-morbidly obese, individual and shudder. Someone who is 400, 500, 600 pounds or more just isn't a lovely sight.
On the opposite end of the spectrum onlookers also recoil in horror at the sight of a very emaciated individual, someone who is skeletal, skin-and-bones..... Someone who is an adult, even a short one, weighing in at 40, 50 or 60 pounds just isn't a lovely sight, either.
Funny how very often the emaciated ones (those suffering from anorexia nervosa, which is a clinical diagnosis outlined and fully described in the psychiatric literature and the DSM -- Diagnostic and Statistical Manual -- issued on a periodic basis by psychiatrists) -- do wind up in a clinical setting, either a medical floor or a psychiatric floor...... It's pretty clear to even the most naive of laypersons that there is something wrong when a person seems to be starving him/herself to death and is presenting as skeletal.
Funny that when someone is going to the opposite extreme and stuffing him/herself to death that it isn't acknowledged in the same way and that very often it is only when someone has really gone to extremes such as weighing several hundred pounds over mere "overweight" status that anyone really takes notice. When someone presents weighing 600, 700, 800 pounds, yes, that is suggestive of the need for clinical intervention, both medical and psychological, isn't it?
On both ends of that spectrum, people die. Anorexics weighing 30 or 40 or 50 pounds die -- they also can die at much higher weights, closer to "normal" weights, too, actually, if the refeeding process and clinical treatment isn't handled carefully. Yes, they can die at so-called "normal" weights due to some underlying psychological issues never being addressed at all or not being addressed successfully even as the weight is seemingly restored.
Undoubtedly many people who have gotten to the point of morbid obesity or beyond that also have died, even during the process of attempting to restore weight to a healthier or more normal level....and again, chances are that this is due to the underlying psychological issues never being addressed or being inadequately addressed.
Sad, isn't it? Going to extremes in any direction is not a good thing and when this occurs it usually is pointing to significant underlying issues in an individual's life which really need to be addressed along with the particular weight situation.
Don't be repelled by the severely obese person you meet or the severely emaciated person you meet; these are real people with real feelings, real issues hiding in there somewhere and the bottom line is that these are people who need help.
cleanup
Sep 12, 06:44 PM
I think it's fitting that peapody opened this new thread. She bought SO much stuff in the last one. :p Yeesh.
Anyways, my last purchases:
iPad CCK (no, not cholecystokinin!)
http://storeimages.apple.com/1741/as-images.apple.com/is/image/AppleInc/MC531?wid=185&hei=185&fmt=jpeg&qlt=95&op_sharpen=0&resMode=bicub&op_usm=0.5,0.5,0,0&iccEmbed=0&layer=comp
And iMovie for iPhone (though I just found that it won't work until I upgrade to 4.1 and I can't upgrade until there's a jailbreak! D'oh!)
http://db.tidbits.com/resources/2010-06/imovie_iphone_wwdc.png
Anyways, my last purchases:
iPad CCK (no, not cholecystokinin!)
http://storeimages.apple.com/1741/as-images.apple.com/is/image/AppleInc/MC531?wid=185&hei=185&fmt=jpeg&qlt=95&op_sharpen=0&resMode=bicub&op_usm=0.5,0.5,0,0&iccEmbed=0&layer=comp
And iMovie for iPhone (though I just found that it won't work until I upgrade to 4.1 and I can't upgrade until there's a jailbreak! D'oh!)
http://db.tidbits.com/resources/2010-06/imovie_iphone_wwdc.png
Stella
Jul 24, 03:58 PM
Its about time. As much as I like BT, I wouldn't buy one - not unless about sort out the ergonomic issues.. the current mighty mouse is horrid.
Lesser Evets
Apr 29, 02:52 PM
CDs are generally around $10-$13 in stores. Downloads at roughly the same price are a rip(10+ songs per CD). $.69 is right for me. Hello, Amazon.
Dagless
Nov 1, 01:52 PM
I just bought myself 2 early Christmas gifts, a Wacom (first real graphics tablet I've had) and an iPod Touch (first iOS device I've ever had!).
Figured I could do with both for work and could do with the Wacom to draw out cards for this year.
But for the day itself I know I'm getting the X-Files boxset and a couple of rare PSP games.
Everyone else is getting the same - DVDs and games.
Figured I could do with both for work and could do with the Wacom to draw out cards for this year.
But for the day itself I know I'm getting the X-Files boxset and a couple of rare PSP games.
Everyone else is getting the same - DVDs and games.
twoodcc
Nov 30, 07:25 PM
Hey twoodcc, You are putting up a boatload of wu's, 41 for today, that is impressive and loads of points too. When I get home tonight I'm ordering 2 psu's and another windows 7 so I can get all 4 of my gpu's folding.
I think I will add another 2 gpu's (to make 6) and forget about another whole machine for now, that 12 core mac pro (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/11/28/mac-pro-to-get-6-core-xeon-gulftown-processor-in-2010/)they are talking about on the front page looks mighty tempting to wait for.
thanks! yeah the bigadv units are nice, but i'm starting to think the gpus is where it's at. i'm already thinking of putting another gpu in my i7 machine (the one i've been running bigadv units on).
which 2 gpus are you thinking about adding?
yeah that 12 core mac pro will be tempting, but i bet the price won't be though
I think I will add another 2 gpu's (to make 6) and forget about another whole machine for now, that 12 core mac pro (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/11/28/mac-pro-to-get-6-core-xeon-gulftown-processor-in-2010/)they are talking about on the front page looks mighty tempting to wait for.
thanks! yeah the bigadv units are nice, but i'm starting to think the gpus is where it's at. i'm already thinking of putting another gpu in my i7 machine (the one i've been running bigadv units on).
which 2 gpus are you thinking about adding?
yeah that 12 core mac pro will be tempting, but i bet the price won't be though
Yellowstone2012
Apr 22, 05:48 PM
There is no way it could be that thin.
iPad 2 is thinner than the iPhone 4...
Uhh no. Rounded off edges are a big no-no.
iPad 2 has rounded off edges.
iPad 2 is thinner than the iPhone 4...
Uhh no. Rounded off edges are a big no-no.
iPad 2 has rounded off edges.
ZoomZoomZoom
Oct 24, 09:08 AM
Good thing I picked up a graphics card upgraded iMac instead of waiting :p
A bit disappointing in my opinion. If this happened a few weeks ago, it'd be nice but such a long delay - for what? I would also like to see those MBPs benchmarked.
Much as I like how the MBP looks, and know that it's a good performer, the lack of a good (gaming) graphics card won't tempt me towards saving money for one of these. x1600's all right, but not really enough, especially for the next couple of years.
A bit disappointing in my opinion. If this happened a few weeks ago, it'd be nice but such a long delay - for what? I would also like to see those MBPs benchmarked.
Much as I like how the MBP looks, and know that it's a good performer, the lack of a good (gaming) graphics card won't tempt me towards saving money for one of these. x1600's all right, but not really enough, especially for the next couple of years.
NT1440
May 1, 10:57 PM
you do that :rolleyes: ... your textbook on terrorism now needs to be updated with Osama dead
http://www.amazon.com/Inside-Al-Qaeda-Global-Network/dp/0425191141
Why don't you do some thought provoking reading when your done with your anti-intellectual knee jerk reaction?
http://www.amazon.com/Inside-Al-Qaeda-Global-Network/dp/0425191141
Why don't you do some thought provoking reading when your done with your anti-intellectual knee jerk reaction?
NoExpectations
Sep 30, 02:33 PM
The two biggest complaint areas are NY and San Fran. I bet if you took any phone, on any network, and drove around town thru hills and valleys (San Fran) and steel/concrete structures (San Fran and NY), you would have the same drop rate.
Physics is physics. Wireless signals do not like to propagate through steel, concrete, tinted windows, passing Semi's, etc.
Physics is physics. Wireless signals do not like to propagate through steel, concrete, tinted windows, passing Semi's, etc.
rebby
Apr 1, 07:21 PM
My 1 year-old a couple of days before his first birthday (click for larger).
http://gallery.me.com/crebelein/100053/IMG_5637/web.jpg
http://gallery.me.com/crebelein/100053/IMG_5637/web.jpg
gkarris
Apr 13, 03:43 PM
Great. A 4K magical TV.
Actually...
http://themacswitch.net/2011/03/25/will-people-start-lining-up-for-macs/
http://themacswitch.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/iPad_line.jpg
Actually...
http://themacswitch.net/2011/03/25/will-people-start-lining-up-for-macs/
http://themacswitch.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/iPad_line.jpg
einmusiker
Dec 31, 12:25 AM
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
ok, I'm sorry but how the hell do you know what I do or don't understand about nutrition?? your presumptions are offensive
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.
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 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.
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.
ok, I'm sorry but how the hell do you know what I do or don't understand about nutrition?? your presumptions are offensive
MattInOz
Aug 15, 09:38 PM
Making the entire computer experience simple, easy and fun is what Apple has always been about, and this is a natural continuation of those ideals. In fact, I hope they expand this functionality to include upgrading ram and hard disks (as long as they don't go overboard with the prices like in the b.t.o. options at the apple store).
Really this is a wonderful new breakthrough in Apple's quest for computing easiness.
While their at it, the same feature could not only order the ram or hard drive for you, but using the the new iCal server features could have at look at the nearest Apple Store and give you list of free booking times to drop in and have the upgrade done for you.
Really this is a wonderful new breakthrough in Apple's quest for computing easiness.
While their at it, the same feature could not only order the ram or hard drive for you, but using the the new iCal server features could have at look at the nearest Apple Store and give you list of free booking times to drop in and have the upgrade done for you.
MacRumors
Apr 25, 11:22 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/25/apple-delaying-imac-orders-refresh-due-next-tuesday/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/25/122155-imacs_2010.jpg
I love finding a new webcomic
Emo Love Theme
skip to main | skip to sidebar
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/25/122155-imacs_2010.jpg
mc68k
Nov 30, 12:08 PM
i recently got a ps3 slim, does ps3 folding rely on ps3 linux?
Popeye206
Apr 13, 02:00 PM
Will it support Flash???? :p
macrumormonger
Apr 7, 11:38 PM
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5222/5594130162_e210b78de6_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/22077805@N07/5594130162/)
Nice sky and perspective!
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3388/3624046313_8273c206fb_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dailymatador/3624046313/)
Nice sky and perspective!
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3388/3624046313_8273c206fb_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dailymatador/3624046313/)
aristotle
Apr 28, 05:01 PM
Surely by now there is someone out there with a White iPhone, a messuring tape or calipers that can just tell us these photos are nonsense? Please? Pretty please? Xxx
Yes, everyone carries calipers or measuring tape with them everywhere. Get a grip already.
Yes, everyone carries calipers or measuring tape with them everywhere. Get a grip already.
twoodcc
Oct 21, 06:25 PM
You just leave the computers on 24/7 just folding. Not everyone does though. Also trying to fold more might influence your farm or purchases. Also trying beta programs is a way to compete. Also being on a team gives you more satisfaction than just your personal crunching.
i agree. the only reason i could see having your own team is if you had a different user for each computer, so that you knew the stats for each system
i agree. the only reason i could see having your own team is if you had a different user for each computer, so that you knew the stats for each system
ten-oak-druid
May 4, 12:22 AM
They'll likely time it to match the release of the sprint iphone.
aegisdesign
Jul 10, 01:08 PM
I use pages exclusively as do all of the workers who are testing Apple at my business. After a short learning curve, everyone likes it and it is more than capable right now. You are really coming off as an Apple ball-buster. All I read from you is negative Apple. Are you collecting your checks from Redmond???
Yep. That's what I get too. People who actually take the time to use Pages and explore it's features, leaving their Microsoft Word prejudices behind, enjoy using it.
I find it amazing that someone would argue that Apple updating it's software every year is a bad thing as opposed to Microsoft's upgrade every 3-4 years. Come on, we're at v2 for Pages as opposed to v12 for Word. You've got to expect a v2 product has a little growing room yet.
Yep. That's what I get too. People who actually take the time to use Pages and explore it's features, leaving their Microsoft Word prejudices behind, enjoy using it.
I find it amazing that someone would argue that Apple updating it's software every year is a bad thing as opposed to Microsoft's upgrade every 3-4 years. Come on, we're at v2 for Pages as opposed to v12 for Word. You've got to expect a v2 product has a little growing room yet.
ArtOfWarfare
Apr 12, 08:04 PM
Question:
Where is the new FCP?
Did Apple take the stage at this event or didn't they? I find it odd MR hasn't reported on it yet... or... IDK, when would Apple take the stage? It seems like it's an early morning company to me, not an evening-going-into-night company.
But like, if Apple never took the stage, I'd say it's newsworthy given there were a good deal of rumors saying that they would.
Where is the new FCP?
Did Apple take the stage at this event or didn't they? I find it odd MR hasn't reported on it yet... or... IDK, when would Apple take the stage? It seems like it's an early morning company to me, not an evening-going-into-night company.
But like, if Apple never took the stage, I'd say it's newsworthy given there were a good deal of rumors saying that they would.