Saying CASL applies to any message accessed in Canada is meaningless. Canadian law can't be applied to foreign entities. Reminds me of what happened with the national do-not-call list.
Sure, there are limits to foreign jurisdiction. IANAL, but if you have customers in Canada and you also send email to Canada you may have to care about CASL. Even if the message originates from a US server.
Canadian law can't be applied to foreign entities.
Of course it can. If they do business in Canada or maintain any assets their those transactions can be blocked or the assets frozen. Many developed countries have reciprocal agreements on things like court judgments, asset seizure and so forth. It's not the same as for a firm based in Canada, but it's not toothless either.
Solution #5: The retards in charge of current policy accept that no sane terrorist would joke about smuggling a bomb through a TSA checkpoint while in the queue at said checkpoint, and thus stop arresting people for jokes.
That's exactly what I was thinking when I saw it. I know I have seen it in swf/gif form in the past. While I don't dispute HTML5's canvas(+js) is very cool I was hoping for something straining the limits or doing something new.
I was going to say something along the lines of "...rather than seeing an old idea/concept rehashed in canvas+js" but then I realized that could include people doing things like getting old games (Quake/Doom) running in the browser with canvas+js. The counterpoint would be that this idea could be implemented in gif form (While it would lose the ability to toggle your direction/speed) whereas I don't think anyone would enjoy gifQuake/gifDoom :).
TL;DR - It would appear I'm jaded when it comes to things like this. And that's probably not a good thing.
I'm a bit late, but I think a GBI provides MORE incentive for these kinds of jobs
At the moment, there's no way you could afford to live just from cleaning for 1 or 2 hours a day like many places require. But with a GBI, many more people would be available for occasional work like this, and the costs could be lower (no minimum wage).
If you eat less (below maintenance) and move more, you'll lose weight. That's just biological reality. I did that and have lost 15lbs in the past two months. Any psychological factors don't alter this basic fact.
If you eat less (below maintenance) and move more, you'll lose weight. That's just biological reality. I did that and have lost 15lbs in the past two months. Any psychological factors don't alter this basic fact.
Since when is psychology not part of biology?
Certainly, if you eat enough less and move enough more, you'll lose weight. I'm pretty sure there's a minimum threshold to this.
The problem with this is "eat less and move more" is just physics and not really a complete picture of your physiology. That is - you can be impelled somehow to eat less and move and if you go over threshold, you will lose weight. The problem is you may not reach a state which your body's internal calibration systems consider normal and thus you will wind-up gaining the weight back when the forces impelling you to eat less and move more go away. There's more to a craving for food than "psychology".
This is where the difficult biology of weight stands, as I understand it.
And personally, I'm always underweight no matter my food consumption so it's not hard to imagine other in the opposite situation. Each person's physiological system is different so a thousand antidotes don't prove a generality although they can certainly show the exceptions to the supposed "rule".
On the one hand, you have people who are not trying to sell you anything telling you the simple (but difficult) truth:
Eat less and burn more calories, you'll lose weight.
On the other hand you have people who are trying to sell you something tell you all manner of complicated ways of losing weight that basically amount to being what overweight people want to hear.
In this case, you have a company called Fitocracy telling you:
Willpower will not bring you success.
It's a great statement that absolves overweight people of much of their responsibility for keeping themselves healthy. Fitocracy should sell well with this technique.
I'm just gonna copypasta the end of the article here, since you seemed to angry to actually read (not skim) past the title.
____________________________________________________________________________________
At this point, I know what some people are thinking. “Well, Dick. If you’re so smart and it’s not about willpower, I guess no one is at fault for being fat then, huh?”
On the contrary. If there’s one thing I’ve seen in my decade of talking to thousands of people between forums, clients, Fitocracy, and real life, it’s that people are responsible for their own failures. Most times, it is their fault.
But it’s not for the reasons that most people think. Most don’t fail because they didn’t eat less or move more.
They failed because they could not see beyond the oversimplification of “eat less, move more.”
Many times, this is a problem of hubris; they failed to be curious, introspective, and mindful. These people also beat themselves up for all of their past failures, not realizing those plans had them doomed for the start.
The Biggest Loser will have you believe that fitness success is about being tough, being hardcore – dangerously hardcore. In fact, it’s about the exact opposite.
Fitness success is about humility – realizing you cannot reduce one of the world’s most challenging problems to “eat less, move more,” and then seeking out the knowledge to improve yourself. Success also requires compassion – forgiving yourself for past failures so that you can try again.
Those things are the exact opposite of being “hardcore.”
That’s the ultimate irony. It’s why people are ultimately responsible for their failures – not because they failed to shrink their waist, but because they failed to expand their horizons."
____________________________________________________________________
Hth! ^_^ gl with your reading comprehension goals in 2013
>Hth! ^_^ gl with your reading comprehension goals in 2013
It isn't constructive to add this kind of barb to the end of your comment. From the top of the HN commenting guidlines:
Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face to face conversation.
When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is an idiotic thing to say; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
I'm not angry, but I have noticed you have a certain axe to grind and that you have a tendency to cherry-pick citations to support it, make sweeping comments that go against the bulk of current research and that you're extremely hostile to those who disagree with you. I was only reminding you of the guidelines since belligerence wins over nobody and makes HN a less pleasant place to be.
>good luck with your suggestion of 1 hr of cardio/day to people new to fitness... lmk how that pans out!
Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were asking in earnest... can only assume you're referring to what I shared earlier on HN—pretty much everyone who joined my high school swim team team made tremendous improvements in their fitness levels. Ditto for sedentary students joining cross-country. It already "panned out" years ago and it was a huge success!
Here's the statement I have the biggest problem with:
That’s because willpower is a finite resource. No amount of willpower alone will make you get up every morning to run if you hate running.
You're just making excuses for your potential customers. Your willpower may be finite but you can choose to spend it on the things that matter the most to you. You can also improve your willpower, and you can place yourself in environments where you have to use less willpower to achieve your goals.
So, yes, if you're healthy enough to do it and you want to get up every morning and run, you can build up enough willpower to do it. Period.
I have to admit that after I read that statement, I just skimmed the rest of your article. You can't just make a bunch of fallacious statements earlier in the article then expect a few qualifications in the ending paragraphs to make it all okay.
I promised myself I wouldn't read the hacker news comments on this because HN comments are always a cesspool of people trying to prove they're smarter than the author of the post, but I just have to respond to this one.
It's very clear that you didn't read the article. Dick, the author, is my best friend and comparing him to a fat apologist is the funniest thing I've ever heard in my life.
He's a fat-kid-turned-competitive-bodybuilder and has helped a very large amount of people lose a lot of weight by cutting out the crap diets and mentality that try to confuse people into eating less than their TDEE every week. Dick's simplified diets for me and explained to me that fucking up every once in a while is ok, and I went from failing Atkins 2 times to losing 65lb in 8 months, and as I'm writing this I'm currently eating ice cream and waffles.
I understand that the fitness industry has a lot of negative stereotypes around it, for good reason, but please dear god read the article before you try to convince yourself that this person is just like the rest.
"HN comments are always a cesspool of people trying to prove they're smarter than the author of the post..."
They frequently are smarter or better-informed. Just because someone writes a post on a blog doesn't mean they're smart or have deep knowledge about their subject matter.
And referring to peoples' comments as a "cesspool" is not particularly civil.
On the topic of health, diet and fitness, HN is particularly bad. It is a war between favourite self-promoting authors by proxy. Nary a dietitian to be seen. Everyone has their pet secret history and by god they will proselytise it.
Eat less and burn more calories, you'll lose weight.
If you put less gasoline in your car, you will produce less pollution. Simple as that. It's just basic conservation of mass. Just don't put as much in at the pump! Easy peasey. Problem solved. Get better mileage and pollute less just by buying less gasoline! Right?
Perhaps instead of focusing on the "moral inferiority" [those are scare quotes, I'm not saying you actually wrote those words] of the obese for their inability to accept basic thermodynamics, we should ask the question of what actually works in the big picture; what will actually produce the motivational or metabolic changes necessary to ensure a positive outcome. Asking what people do who have been thin their whole lives is probably not going to help.
The article is not the obesity apologetic you'd expect from the title. He's arguing that creating a positive feedback loop is a more powerful motivational tool than willpower. It doesn't seem like you read the article.
absolves overweight people of much of their responsibility...
So our object, scientific explanation for obesity is ... lack of personal responsibility!
I suspect Fitocracy is selling their explanation rather than your "explanation" because at least their explanation seems to offer a rational way of changing the situation rather being a mere gesture blaming people (not to say that their system would work for everyone, everyone's different and some people might even find shame and guilt useful for losing weight - still it's unlikely to be an appealing marketing campaign).
If it said 'willpower alone ...' I might have disagreed with you, there was definitely a bit of a tone of selling something in the midst of condemning Biggest Loser.
In spite of that, it's true that willpower is a limited resource and if you push too hard you'll burn out (just like with programming but exercise gives you more immediate physical pain and high risk of injury from overuse)
Yes, but what the article really criticizes is you'll do that by willpower only (I was also very confused by the title and introduction of the article).
I have myself lost 10kg in the last year, albeit that was not especially my prime objective. I can clearly see that if it was all pain and no fun, I wouldn't have done it - I wasn't even overweight, but clearly a bit out of shape.
Mostly exercising made me feel really good about myself. As did eating less, especially when you start not to get hungry as much anymore. I still love to eat, but I try to be more mindful of my eating.
I've lost 30lb in four months without eating less or moving more. The biological reality is a lot more complicated than the "calories in/calories out" people insist it is. How accurately are you really measuring your calories out, and how your diet and exercise impacts that? Or how the composition and combination and timing of the foods you eat impacts your digestion (calories in)? If calorie restriction works for you, that's great. The times I've tried it, I was constantly tired, hungry, and cranky, and the results were really mediocre, no matter if I cut a little or a lot, or exercised a little or a lot alongside the diet.
Plus, if you actually care about whether people are healthy or not, the psychological factors are hugely relevant. All the "calories in/calories out" mantra seems to do is give people a soapbox to talk about how they're just intrinsically superior to fat people.
"I've lost 30lb in four months without eating less or moving more."
- That's not impossible. However you've probably used drugs affecting your metabolism to increase your expenditure.
"How accurately are you really measuring your calories out, and how your diet and exercise impacts that?"
- Why would measuring anything affect how physiology and physics work? (And yes, energy expenditure and consumption can be measured extremely precisely in labs.)
"Or how the composition and combination and timing of the foods you eat impacts your digestion (calories in)?"
- In healthy people it doesn't.
I'm sorry to tell you but you were eating less than you we're burning. I know it hurts.
No drugs. I just stopped eating certain types of foods, and started eating more of other types of foods. For a couple weeks I added up my calories consumed for kicks, and I'm eating just as much, calorie-wise, as when I was gaining weight, and some days more. Haven't changed my exercise. No real health problems either, so unless you want to make a circular argument, where you claim I'm unhealthy because the composition of my diet affects my metabolism, you are just wrong.
Composition of food (amount of protein, carbohydrates and fat) can affect energy expenditure through TEF (thermic effect of food) but it's practically insignificant (+/- 5% of consumed energy).
I agree your metabolism is not a static thing. When starving it can adapt to as much as 30%, yet this only means you're burning less energy and you need to adjust your intake (or modulate your expenditure somehow - by exercising, not having too big of a caloric deficit etc.).
Stopping to eat certain kinds of food and/or starting to eat other kinds of food will not make you lose weight. Eating at a different time will not make you lose weight. Combining foods differently will not make you lose weight.
Weight loss is a result of a negative energy balance. Now, all these things you listed can impact your energy intake (and thus energy balance), especially if you eat calorie less dense food. But you're losing weight because you're eating less. All the things you listed are (more or less successful) ways to modulate your hunger. You're not necessarily eating less by volume, but certainly less by energy value.
Physics is clear - psychology and hunger management not so much. But I'm strictly speaking of physics and the fact that you stated that you lost weight without increasing energy expenditure or decreasing energy intake.
As I've mentioned, I spent a few weeks counting my calories to see whether that was actually true or not. The fact is, I lose more weight with no exercise and a 1700-2100 calorie diet of a controlled composition, than I did running 3 days a week on a 1200-1400 calorie diet of uncontrolled composition. Nutritional science is not nearly as nailed down as you seem to think it is, and frankly the claim that our metabolic systems are magically inaffected by the types of food we choose to eat (unlike every other part of our body) comes off as more than a bit silly when you simultaneously admit that other substances can affect metabolism. I won't claim to have all the answers, but you sure as heck don't have them either.
Calories in - calories out is often substituted for calories on food label - calories on treadmill display.
This is a categorical error that leads to people thinking that thermodynamics and the conservation of matter and energy are wrong.
The labels on food are estimates. The exercise databases are estimates. Therefore when you perform the equation with those inputs, it is approximate only.
This is a hard problem, as the article states. One of the biggest problems is that the "maintenance" level is a) extremely difficult to pin down on a good day, b) is different for everyone, and c) it moves every day. Let alone people who have other confounding medical issues like hypo- or hyper-thyroidism, diabetes, etc. Throw all that in and yes, the biological fact of "eat less move more" is true, it's also almost completely worthless for a very large percentage of the population.
I am 41 years old. I have been thin my entire life. I don't try to "pin down" my "maintenance level" and frankly don't even know what would be involved in that.
When I am doing more physical work, I make sure I eat a bit more. When I am doing less physical work, I make sure I eat a bit less. It's not easy but it's really not as difficult as you are trying to make it seem. Further, I don't believe that people with legitimately diagnosed medical conditions make up a significant portion of the overweight population.
I'm happy for you. People have different metabolisms, and there wouldn't be an entire multi billion dollar industry and worldwide government initiatives to help people if there wasn't a legitimate problem. Your beliefs don't enter into the equation. At all.
there wouldn't be an entire multi billion dollar industry and worldwide government initiatives to help people if there wasn't a legitimate problem
That's your belief.
Your beliefs don't enter into the equation. At all.
Allow me to turn this one right back around to you. You have a series of old wives tales that you believe and then tell people that their beliefs don't matter. I'm frankly surprised you didn't yank out the "I'm big boned" defense which has been as disproven as a person's intrinsically "faster metabolism".
The funny thing is that I'm usually lectured about how to be thin by people that have struggled with their weight their entire life. These people have had years and years of being overweight, have no idea how to truly eat and their weight has see-sawed their entire life. All the while, I have maintained the same thin weight. For 41 years. But they insist on how wrong I am and how right they are.
Really? Responding to a thread that you apparently didn't read. It was the person I was responding to that started the "your beliefs don't mean anything" point. And I demonstrated how silly it was to him which led you to accuse me of doing it.
Oh and your link even agreed with me so you're apparently batting a thousand here.
The AMA recently recognized obesity as a disease. Of course, that does not end the argument about whether it is a legitimate medical condition.
And plenty of the 35% of adults that are obese have problems like insulin resistance and high blood pressure (both of which are certainly medical problems). They are also generally at higher risk for cardiovascular problems.
There are probably many people who are told they have metabolic syndrome but fail to understand that this may be (at least partially) a result of their weight problems, not simply a cause of it.
Lucky you. Lucky me, too, since I'm basically the same way. But we're just lucky; there are millions of other people out there who aren't like us, whose metabolism, instincts, and upbringing betray them. There's no reason to believe that willpower, hunger, appetite, or satiety feel even remotely the same across the population.
Sorry but your perception of laws of thermodynamics is wrong. No one needs to eat the same amount of calories every day - your metabolism does not simply reset at midnight. It's a difference in energy consumption vs. expenditure that builds in a longer period of time that affects energy balance (positive or negative) and finally your weight change.
Eating less doesn't interfere with having diabetes or hypothyroidism. And 90% of people don't have these conditions.
joe_the_user above states it much better than I can. The body is not a static science experiment in a lab. For people who's bodies don't naturally regulate themselves properly, the body is an active agent that is fighting tooth and nail against what the person knows to be best. For someone who's body is physiologically normal I'm sure it's really difficult to conceive this situation
What I did was stop eating until I'm full, and start eating just enough to feel not hungry. Found it to be a pretty good rough guideline. Never bothered counting calories or anything like that. Nice thing about this method (I figure) is that it solves the problem of not knowing quantitatively where that maintenance level lies on any given day.
I've noticed a lot of people disagree with this idea. I lost about 25 pounds over one and a half years counting my calories. I used an app called Lose It! and set it up so I would lose half a pound a week. During that time I worked out on an elliptical machine three times a week for 30 mins. Later on I lifted weights every other day for 30 mins. I was probably in the best shape of my life after I lost the weight.
It wasn't easy counting calories, it takes time to do it, and it can be frustrating, especially when you're hungry.
I found it was also hard, at first, to turn down food. About a six months into the program though, I started to realize just how many calories were in certain foods. I would think to myself, are those calories really worth the taste? Most of the time, the answer was no. Although, with beer, it was usually yes.
Perhaps it doesn't work for everyone, but has it ever caused someone to gain more weight? Not just a few pounds, but tens of pounds?
I get the sense that the people who don't like the idea of "move more/eat less" don't want to deal with the hassle of counting calories and working out.
the article seems a bit muddled in what it's complaining about but I think the main point is that taking it easy and setting small, realistic goals works better in the long term than trying to make yourself bleed in every workout because it's more sustainable. 15 pounds in 2 months is within healthy limits but this seems more directed at people who try to go from the couch to full bore exercise & diet maniacs overnight, or people who make money from sensationalizing that kind of behavior.
Yeah, that sort of mentality is awful. Extreme exercise just isn't sustainable. People who are really overweight need to accept that it may take a few years to reach their goals.
I'm willing to bet that's just a theoretical upper limit, and will be tossed out at soon as its in front of a judge. But still. The fact he was arrested at all is just friggin stupid.
