Obama signs internet over to United Nations

[HalGameGuru]

5 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

LOL WHAT?!?!?

 

You do know the calorie is a fundamental measure of energy that is immutable in the universe right? A calorie inside your body and outside represent the exact same latent energy, and consuming too much of that energy without exception causes the human body to use that excess energy to store fats, END OF STORY.

No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie

 

Do you not know how the human digestive system works?

Your body is not a science lab's furnace, 100 calories of fat and protein are very different things FOR YOUR BODY than 100 calories of sugar.

[Curufinwe_wins]

4 minutes ago, HalGameGuru said:

Your body is not a science lab's furnace, 100 calories of fat and protein are very different things FOR YOUR BODY than 100 calories of sugar.

That both is and isn't true, but supposing you met any and all metabolic and anabolic processes requirement/sets before that additional 100 calories the difference would be minimal.

 

Oh and the calorie count we assign to foods is kinda bs, but it's literally based off of assumptions (arguably outdated) on how the body processes the different materials.

 

Which doesn't invalidate calories (or the limiting effect that enough energy in food and the body has nothing to do other than store it in glycogen and fat), but it means if you really want to bitch about nutritionists and politicians regulating your food intake (which they don't, really....) talk about grams of the things... 

 

[DutchTexan]

5 minutes ago, HalGameGuru said:

Your body is not a science lab's furnace, 100 calories of fat and protein are very different things FOR YOUR BODY than 100 calories of sugar.

and an actual calorie is not the same as a calorie related to a human body. 

[Energycore]

Just now, Curufinwe_wins said:

Lol. Except it really doesn't.. You just choose not to repeat all the previous tests yourself...

We take a lot of leaps of faith as scientists.

 

Einstein's theory of relativity assumes that the speed of light is constant if the medium is given

Experimental physicists assume that experiments that are held in labs here hold true in other parts of the universe

Every scientist puts their faith in logic and mathematics and that they do actually provide for a way to approach the truth

 

5 minutes ago, HalGameGuru said:

Your body is not a science lab's furnace, 100 calories of fat and protein are very different things FOR YOUR BODY than 100 calories of sugar.

That would be because some substances are harder to turn into usable stuff than others?

[Memories4K]

14 minutes ago, AlwaysFSX said:

Except I gave you two very rough examples so you automatically assume my opinion is because of mis-education or a lack of education on the subject. That's not so. Chemical is a very broad term and that's why I made a broad, basic explanation. To boil it down for you, if I'm making a BLT sandwich, the ingredients list should not be a paragraph long. To make bread you only need flour, water, yeast, and a little bit of sugar and salt. The rest of it is just bacon, lettuce, and a tomato.

 

Again, very boiled down and a broad explanation, but if you're making food. You only actually need food that goes in to it. Also, growing is separate from making.

Currently studying cyber security. My point for food quality (and this goes for education perfectly too) is you should not pay for something that's essentially a basic human right. You require food, you should not have to pay extra for something that is healthy for you. It's not hard to grow tomatoes that have the taste and texture that a tomato should, the problem is the majority of Americans are not able to do this in their own backyard. For education, you are almost always required to go through some secondary form of education, you should not have to pay magnitudes more than other countries for the same information that you can get out of an overpriced book.

You have a poor understanding of nutrition my friend and why we label things the way we do.

This is the ingredients list to a package of uncooked bacon strips.

 

[Cured With Water, Salt, Sugar, Sodium Phosphates, Sodium Ascorbate, Sodium Nitrite]

 

We label things this way to get a much more detailed understanding of what exactly is going into our food.

Sodium nitrate, ooooh scary word huh?

Well not so scary. It's just a food preservative. You'll find it in a lot of things like ham or hot dogs "Oh but wait it's also found in rocket propellant!" Yes, but that's because that's just the chemical compound. There's nothing wrong with it. Sodium chloride is regular table salt, nothing wrong with that either.

 

lmao you don't have to pay extra for something that's healthy for you. Again, this is the skewed view that most people who are uneducated about nutrition have. It's not the price of education either, it's really not, it's the quality of education. You need to stop pointing the finger at everything and everyone else and take some responsibility for yourself. Take the initiative to hire a dietitian, ask them your questions and/or concerns, or apply yourself to learn about nutrition on your own. No one is entitled to have free everything. The best quality of products and information is not a right.

[DutchTexan]

16 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

Actually no. I unlike these politicians that are so quick to decry this, fundamentally know how the internet works on a technical level.

 

Ted Cruz:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/timothy-karr/truth-testing-ted-cruzs-l_b_9052846.html

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2016/07/21/ted_cruz_blasts_icann_transition_at_republican_national_convention.html

 

Donald Trump:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2015/12/16/donald-trump-doesnt-know-how-the-internet-works/?utm_term=.b4cc9cf79fa3

 

 

And this isn't only GOP people... Jill Stein for example has repeatedly shown she has no idea how the internet actually functions...

 

http://www.cnet.com/news/trump-not-the-first-politician-to-say-dumb-things-about-the-net/

 

In general, US politicians have consistently shown themselves to be complete idiots when it comes to the internet, net neutrality (and many other individual issues). The farther we get their greedy palms away from it the better.

Cool you win, congratulations. 

 

I just really don’t think we should ‘hand over’ the internet to the UN. Just because I don’t understand the internet to your degree, or our political leader either for that point, doesn’t mean the UN does either.

 

The biggest thing I want to stress is that ‘handing over’ the internet to the UN is actually Obama handing the internet over to himself. Obama wants to head the UN when he leaves his presidency. Please look into that. If it is true, maybe it is not, would you not see that as a red flag?

[HalGameGuru]

8 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

That both is and isn't true, but supposing you met any and all metabolic and anabolic processes requirement/sets before that additional 100 calories the difference would be minimal.

 

Oh and the calorie count we assign to foods is kinda bs, but it's literally based off of assumptions (arguably outdated) on how the body processes the different materials.

 

Which doesn't invalidate calories (or the limiting effect that enough energy in food and the body has nothing to do other than store it in glycogen and fat), but it means if you really want to bitch about nutritionists and politicians regulating your food intake (which they don't, really....) talk about grams of the things... 

 

Food calorie content is almost ENTIRELY laboratory oriented. It only really makes allowance for things that cannot be digested at all.

 

http://nypost.com/2013/07/28/the-greatest-food-in-human-history/

 

America has MANY problems, most of which stem from state control and influence, often at the behest of their corporate creations. 

 

The USDA currently prescribes the Atwater process for such calculations, it used to be even less precise, just setting it on fire in a lab furnace and seeing how much energy was released. But, its still not accurate for real nutrition.

 

Grams is a much better criteria, "Does it fit my macro" memes notwithstanding

[AlwaysFSX]

Just now, Memories4K said:

You have a poor understanding of nutrition my friend and why we label things the way we do.

This is the ingredients list to a package of uncooked bacon strips.

 

[Cured With Water, Salt, Sugar, Sodium Phosphates, Sodium Ascorbate, Sodium Nitrite]

 

We label things this way to get a much more detailed understanding of what exactly is going into our food.

Sodium nitrate, ooooh scary word huh?

Well not so scary. It's just a food preservative. You'll find it in a lot of things like ham or hot dogs "Oh but wait it's also found in rocket propellant!" Yes, but that's because that's just the chemical compound. There's nothing wrong with it. Sodium chloride is regular table salt, nothing wrong with that either.

 

lmao you don't have to pay extra for something that's healthy for you. Again, this is the skewed view that most people who are uneducated about nutrition have. It's not the price of education either, it's really not, it's the quality of education. You need to stop pointing the finger at everything and everyone else and take some responsibility for yourself. Take the initiative to hire a dietitian, ask them your questions and.or concerns, or apply yourself to learn about nutrition on your own. No one is entitled to have free everything. The best quality of products and information is not a right.

1. I've actually taken classes on what's in food because of science, I know what this shit means so get off your high horse. I'm not anti-chemical, I'm anti-whythefuckisthischemical in food because there's no real point of it.
2. I'm saying food that is better quality. Not necessarily that it has more nutrition in it. Which if you would go back to my original post I have nothing against modified food which essentially everything is. I know all food has the required nutrients your body requires, that's not what I'm talking about.

You act as if you're the only one with information on the matter. Specifically because I've taken courses on food science that's why I'm against some things that are in food.

[Curufinwe_wins]

7 minutes ago, Energycore said:

We take a lot of leaps of faith as scientists.

 

Einstein's theory of relativity assumes that the speed of light is constant if the medium is given

Experimental physicists assume that experiments that are held in labs here hold true in other parts of the universe

Every scientist puts their faith in logic and mathematics and that they do actually provide for a way to approach the truth

 

That would be because some substances are harder to turn into usable stuff than others?

You can do proofs of every single "leap of faith" with experimentation.. In fact you really should if you ever doubt it.

 

I have done quite a few.

[Memories4K]

13 minutes ago, HalGameGuru said:

Your body metabolizes many things, in many different ways, carbs can only really become blood sugar and have very little use other than that or turning into fat. Proteins, fats, vitamins, go thru MANY processes filling niches LONG BEFORE they are even CONSIDERED for use as energy or storage as fat. The calories you eat does not equate to the energy your body has available. I can find some of the papers if you would like to read them. Your body is not one of the furnaces they use to burn food to figure out how many calories they contain.

 

Nutritionists and dietitians I use interchangeably, I know I shouldn't but whichever the ones were that we dealt with at MD Anderson when dealing with my grandmother's cancer are who I am referring to. The ones that knew what foods and nutrition you actually need versus what the agencies that be tried to convince you you needed.

 

There are studies of people eating 5000 calories a day, merely changing what those calories were made up of and weight gain and weight LOSS being evident based on those changes. If you wish to read up on it I am happy to find you some of the papers, otherwise I'd suggest you back off on things you apparently haven't read up on since the government decided to start dictating human biology 5 years ago.

 

EDIT: They must have been dietitians, they were MD's at MDAnderson.

CARBS DO NOT AUTOMATICALLY TURN INTO FAT.

CARBOHYDRATES SERVE AN ACTUAL PURPOSE, MOST IMPORTANTLY BEING PROVIDING GLUCOSE FOR YOUR BODY AND BRAIN. (Not gonna get into the gluceogenesis of ketogenic diets)

CARBS GET SUCH A BAD WRAP FOR NO REASON BUT MEDIA BULLSHIT.

 

WHAT DO YOU MEAN VITAMINS. WHAT VITAMINS? FAT-SOLUBLE? WATER-SOLUBLE?

 

Ok it sounds like you're talking about the calories we burn just by eating/digesting food, yes? your thermic effect of food, which doesn't mean that you're still not consuming calories.

 

I'm being memed here, i know i am.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to be at a caloric surplus and lose weight.

This isn't even up for debate or discussion. It is IMPOSSIBLE for you to be losing weight at a caloric surplus.

[Curufinwe_wins]

4 minutes ago, HalGameGuru said:

Food calorie content is almost ENTIRELY laboratory oriented. It only really makes allowance for things that cannot be digested at all.

 

http://nypost.com/2013/07/28/the-greatest-food-in-human-history/

 

America has MANY problems, most of which stem from state control and influence, often at the behest of their corporate creations. 

That article says nothing on how the FDA decides food calorie count (which is literally based on the semi-empirical semi-arbitrary 4/9/4 Cal per gram system.)

 

But I don't necessarily disagree the rest of the way around.

[Energycore]

1 minute ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

You can do proofs of every single "leap of faith" with experimentation.. In fact you really should if you ever doubt it.

 

I have done quite a few.

You have experimentally proven that experiments done 2 light years away have the same results (given all other variables) as experiments here?!

How do you prove that the logic that proves science is correct using science itself? That would be reasoning in a circle.

[DutchTexan]

16 minutes ago, AlwaysFSX said:

Currently studying cyber security. My point for food quality (and this goes for education perfectly too) is you should not pay for something that's essentially a basic human right. You require food, you should not have to pay extra for something that is healthy for you. It's not hard to grow tomatoes that have the taste and texture that a tomato should, the problem is the majority of Americans are not able to do this in their own backyard. For education, you are almost always required to go through some secondary form of education, you should not have to pay magnitudes more than other countries for the same information that you can get out of an overpriced book.

You’re saying the average person does not benefit from the highest levels of quality available, I agree. To me, you are arguing that a Titan X should not cost more than a gtx 1060. Or actually, are you saying, within this context, that if everyone on earth was a PC gamer the millisecond they a born, then we should all get a free high quality graphics card? 

 

I agree it is not hard to grow food, I do that. But if I were to grow more than I could eat and it costs a lot of money, then I would sell it. If mine was the highest quality in all the land then I should be making good money growing tomatoes. If I buy a really nice tomato for a certain amount of money then I expect it to be of quality relating to that price I paid. 

 

You are not getting the 100%, exact same education at every single school. I would rather hire a chemical engineer from UT @ Austin than a chemical engineer from some whatever-tech college, assuming all other factors are the same. If you want the BEST education then you are going to pay for it. If you want some basic education, then you know, some community colleges offer bachelor degrees? 

 

You pay for what you get for. When that is no longer true, move to another market supplier. Customer is king, always will be. Without the weight of a customers option via what they buy and don’t buy, quality cannot be assured; without competition, excellence will not present itself.

[Memories4K]

3 minutes ago, AlwaysFSX said:

1. I've actually taken classes on what's in food because of science, I know what this shit means so get off your high horse. I'm not anti-chemical, I'm anti-whythefuckisthischemical in food because there's no real point of it.
2. I'm saying food that is better quality. Not necessarily that it has more nutrition in it. Which if you would go back to my original post I have nothing against modified food which essentially everything is. I know all food has the required nutrients your body requires, that's not what I'm talking about.

You act as if you're the only one with information on the matter. Specifically because I've taken courses on food science that's why I'm against some things that are in food.

Define better quality.

 

I mean, yeah. I am hahaha i'm not trying to be an asshole with the whole "i have a degree in food and nutrition so shut up" i'm telling you what's right. If you don't believe me or feel like you know better than i do because of those few courses in food science you took, then hey that's fine. I won't challenge your convictions.

[Curufinwe_wins]

4 minutes ago, Energycore said:

You have experimentally proven that experiments done 2 light years away have the same results (given all other variables) as experiments here?!

How do you prove that the logic that proves science is correct using science itself? That would be reasoning in a circle.

Logic (in the true Aristotelian sense) cannot tell you things you do not already know. It is the definition of circular reasoning.

 

But you can prove doppler effect, pair-production, photo-electric effect, literally all the basal ways the world works.

 

Science isn't a set of rules... it's a method towards determining the rules... If scientists woke up tomorrow and found out all the rules had changed, we could figure out the new ones... That is the true point of being a scientist.

[HalGameGuru]

2 minutes ago, Memories4K said:

CARBS DO NOT AUTOMATICALLY TURN INTO FAT.

CARBOHYDRATES SERVE AN ACTUAL PURPOSE, MOST IMPORTANTLY BEING PROVIDING GLUCOSE FOR YOUR BODY AND BRAIN. (Not gonna get into the gluceogenesis of ketogenic diets)

CARBS GET SUCH A BAD WRAP FOR NO REASON BUT MEDIA BULLSHIT.

 

WHAT DO YOU MEAN VITAMINS. WHAT VITAMINS? FAT-SOLUBLE? WATER-SOLUBLE?

 

Ok it sounds like you're talking about the calories we burn just by eating/digesting food, yes? your thermic effect of food, which doesn't mean that you're still not consuming calories.

 

I'm being memed here, i know i am.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to be at a caloric surplus and lose weight.

This isn't even up for debate or discussion. It is IMPOSSIBLE for you to be losing weight at a caloric surplus.

Your body can turn almost anything into blood sugar, (glucose), carbs can ONLY be turned into glucose, and if not used, fat. I did not say they would only become fat, they merely have the most direct route to it compared to other things we have metered to us in calories.

 

Seriously, if you want me to bring yu the papers I will link them. The one about the people eating 5000 calories a day surprised the heck out of me. Your body can handle huge swings in "calories" it has trouble with being deluged by useless nutrients. 

 

If you think you cannot lose weight at a caloric surplus you have missed out on the last few DECADES of research and studies. Caloric Reduction as Primary (CRaP) plateaus because your body's basal metabolic rate drops. Calories in, Calories Out, (CICO) falls apart simply because of the fact that your body does not use "calories" it uses nutrients for whatever they are useful for and eventually, if there is enough left over and its needed, they are turned into caloric energy. Except for carbs, which can only be broken down into and used as sugars.

[Energycore]

1 minute ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

Logic (in the true Aristotelian sense) cannot tell you things you do not already know. It is the definition of circular reasoning.

 

But you can prove doppler effect, pair-production, photo-electric effect, literally all the basal ways the world works.

Does the doppler effect still happen when you're not observing it?

You can't prove that. You can only believe that it does.

[HalGameGuru]

10 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

That article says nothing on how the FDA decides food calorie count (which is literally based on the semi-empirical semi-arbitrary 4/9/4 Cal per gram system.)

 

But I don't necessarily disagree the rest of the way around.

That was just an interesting article, the calorie content calculation is elsewhere, you can just google Atwater Process and it should make mention of the USDA edicts from the 90's that led to it being used

 

EDIT: Or here, this goes over it.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-do-food-manufacturers/

[Curufinwe_wins]

2 minutes ago, Energycore said:

Does the doppler effect still happen when you're not observing it?

You can't prove that. You can only believe that it does.

See the edit...

 

And yes you can prove it happens when any one person (or when no human is observing it) is not observing it. That is trivial. In fact you can prove it occurred when you haven't been observing it at all during the process by the mean value theorem (which itself is provable in numerous layers of recursion).

 

Absence of evidence is weak evidence of absence, and the mantra of falsification is patently wrong.

[Energycore]

3 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

See the edit...

 

And yes you can prove it happens when any one person (or when no human is observing it) is not observing it. That is trivial. In fact you can prove it occurred when you haven't been observing it at all during the process by the mean value theorem (which itself is provable in numerous layers of recursion).

 

Absence of evidence is weak evidence of absence, and the mantra of falsification is patently wrong.

I'm not saying the Doppler effect isn't true

 

I AM saying that you have to take leaps of faith (mathematical axioms, metaphysical axioms) to conclude that it is

[Curufinwe_wins]

Just now, Energycore said:

I'm not saying the Doppler effect isn't true

 

I AM saying that you have to take leaps of faith (mathematical axioms, metaphysical axioms) to conclude that it is

I am saying that if you don't want to take those leaps of faith, you can ACTUALLY PROVE EVERY SINGLE AXIOM is true. You can do that (well maybe a specific person can't, but in general theory it is provable.)

 

You can read the Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica and redo every experiment and proof therein. If you want to go back even farther, you can duplicate all the ones done by Francis Bacon, and Galileo and all those before him as well, progressing into the modern age.

[Energycore]

1 minute ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

I am saying that if you don't want to take those leaps of faith, you can ACTUALLY PROVE EVERY SINGLE AXIOM is true. You can do that (well maybe a specific person can't, but in general theory it is provable.)

 

You can read the Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica and redo every experiment and proof therein. If you want to go back even farther, you can duplicate all the ones done by Francis Bacon, and Galileo and all those before him as well, progressing into the modern age.

Trying to prove an axiom is impossible. Proof is the process of going from some bits of knowledge to some other bit of knowledge. This process has to have a starting point, bits of knowledge that don't come from other bits of knowledge. This is what axioms are.

[Curufinwe_wins]

Just now, Energycore said:

Trying to prove an axiom is impossible. Proof is the process of going from some bits of knowledge to some other bit of knowledge. This process has to have a starting point, bits of knowledge that don't come from other bits of knowledge. This is what axioms are.

Then stop calling what scientists rely on "axioms" because you can go all the way back to the starting point. We choose not to. For obvious reasons, but it is doable.

[Energycore]

7 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

Then stop calling what scientists rely on "axioms" because you can go all the way back to the starting point. We choose not to. For obvious reasons, but it is doable.

I like to think that as a mathematician, I am doing science, or at the very least laying the groundworks for it. And maths would be literal nothing without its axioms

[nicholasfd]

Well, this topic changed a little bit...