Myweponsg00d

A protein supplement is a dietary supplement. I would not call it an exercise supplement. When I hear the word "supplements" I think of stuff like Purple Wrath, White Flood, N.O. Ex-plode!, and other such stuff. While it is true that most protein powders contain added stuff like vitamins and amino acids, the major point of the product is just to provide protein. Whey protein powder is just dehydrated whey. Think of it as dehydrated milk. If someone was drinking dehydrated milk instead of regular milk, would you say they were using "unnatural" methods? Bodybuilders like to use whey because it has a high biological value, which basically means that it is available to your muscles really quickly. This is why you should always take whey post workout, and possibly in the morning aswell. Both of these times, your body has depleted a lot of its available energy and you need to feed your muscles some quick protein before they start to eat themselves. How much protein DO you eat per day? If you are wanting to build muscle you might need more than you think...If you wanna have an in depth discussion about this you can shoot me a PM so that we dont flood the thread with this. @tortoise: are you still doing the same routine? And how often do you do that routine? I noticed that it is somewhat lacking in the back department. The only thing you really have is chinups. If you have acess to free weights I would probably be doing some deadlifts. Theres some other back stuff you could add too.

Natural Light (natty) or Keystone are the cheapest where I live. I live near a college campus too so the beer distributers can get pretty competitive. I've seen as low as 10 bucks a case.

Canada? Beaches? I thought you lived in-land. Do you know what a lake is? Lakes don't have beaches, as far as I know ... :| EDIT: Well, long and wide beaches with warm sand, anyway. The Great Lakes do, they even have decent sized waves I think. Some areas also suffer some quite bad erosion, ocs of the waves and currents. I could be wrong but I think the beaches on the Great Lakes are man made. I live in PA so I've been up to lake Erie many times in my life. You are right, there are 2-3 foot waves sometimes. But I think any beaches there (as in sandy beaches) are artificial. Though, there ARE a lot of them...However there is also a TON of coastline that has absolutely no sand.

I think the OP is right. Special banners and such serve a purpose: to get people excited about new stuff. The hype of Dung is largely dying down, and theres no reason why we can't just go back to the normal RS screens. I actually think that if we change the banner back, a lot of people who STILL find reasons to complain about Dung will be more likely to stop their complaints and let it become part of the game.

I pick them up because I have gotten to where I am today by playing very casually over many years (I played classic for about 1-2 years). I play the game and whether or not something is efficient timewise doesn't really bother me. I take a sense of enjoyment in picking up most/all of my drops.

Well, as a physics graduate, I'll share my enlightenment on the subject. First I'll comment on the speed of light. The speed of light is constant in every frame of reference. Suppose I was in a space ship that was traveling at 50% of the speed of light (which is unrealistically fast btw). If I shot a laser beam out in front of me, I would see it leaving at the speed of light. Now suppose I was shining that light at someone who was stationary. Conventional wisdom might suggest that he will observe my laser beam travelling at 150% the speed of light. However, it does not. The stationary observer will see the light coming toward him at the speed of light. Even light cannot travel faster than light. (at least, by our definition of what it means to travel through space). Even if you are traveling at 99% the speed of light, light would STILL appear to travel FASTER than you by the speed of light. It is impossible to catch. Or, let me say, that if you DID catch it or "go faster" than it, then you would not even exist or travel in the sense that we understand existence in the 3 dimensional world. Secondly, time dilation. There are two different meanings to this term. One referrs to time dilation due to motion, and the other referrs to time dilation due to mass/gravity/acceleration. The first is usually referred to as "special relativity" and the second is usually referred to as "general relativity." Special relativity arises because there is nothing you can do to determine if you are stationary or moving at a constant velocity. If time did not dilate, I could conduct an experiment with laser beams on a space ship, and I would be able to tell that I was moving. But, since time dilates and length contracts, it is impossible to determine if you are moving or if the entire universe is moving past you. General relativity is similar. In a nutshell, there should be no way to tell if you are being pulled by gravity or if you are being accelerated by motion. If gravitational time dilation did not occur, one would be able to conduct an experiment where can determine if he is being held down by gravity or if he is being held down by being accelerated upward. Honestly, the best way to explain these phenomenon to people is basically "There are things about our universe that are fundamental properties. Time dilation must occur according to our perceptions of the laws of nature."

People's definition of "healthy" varies just far too much. I would be fine with just leaving people on their own, but I live in Canada: I'll be paying through the nose every single time someone decides to buy a "low-fat" alternative, or to choose the Western Diet over others. But you have to agree that there are people out there who HAVE had sucess on these things. Case in point, my sister. She doesn't really even LIKE meat very much. Much less fatty meat like a cheeseburger or bacon. And she is skinny; thin enough to see muscular definition in many places on her body. It isn't because certain foods work for every person, its because she tried the atkins diet, failed, and then went on her own diet and listened to her body, which craves buttloads of grains, fruits, and veggies. I mean, I'm not really sure what you are trying to say exactly? Are you saying that "low fat" products will never help anyone lose weight? I think that is false for sure. The only reason they are so popular is that they work for many people. Are you saying that "low fat" isnt right for EVERYBODY? I would agree with that. Are you saying it isnt right for MOST people? I'd also probably agree. But to ignore low fat (or low-er fat) diets is silly because there is just so much sucess with them.

Haha, thats a very good observation, and probably one of the reasons I hate the current phone trend. The concept of a cell is pretty great: possibly save your life? Accomplish more work? Sounds like good things. Now, I'd say the devices are used more for procrastination than for accomplishing anything useful.

Can we all agree that there is at least a degree of individuality in the way our bodies responds to things? I eat bacon, dark meat chicken, ground beef, etc all the time and don't ever have problems with it. But when it comes to carbs, even if I eat too much FRUIT I will put on too much fat. Let alone things like pastries... But my sister is completely different. She eats tons of fruits and white breads and never has a problem with it. But if she eats some of the higher-fat things that I do, she tends to add weight. Everybody's body is different, to some extent. The best thing to do is really just play around trying different diets until you find the one that leaves you feeling the healthiest.

The analogy is to the discussion, not to the specifics. I proposed a discussion where we talk about the ethics of "stealing 100 dollars". The analogy was meant to be towards our discussion of the ethics of "using the cellphone". Talking only about what you can DO WITH 100 dollars would be like talking about what you DO WITH a cell phone. I've ignored all of the things about how the specific device of a cellphone is "useful" because it is off topic. If we wanted to talk about the ethics of stealing 100 dollars, you wouldnt just say "100 dollars is good, 100 dollars buys things, 100 dollars is money" because that would be irrelevant. Your argument for the morality of stealing 100 dollars would not just focus on what you can do with 100 dollars, because the product you are stealing is pretty irrelevant. The discussion is whether you think it is good or bad to steal something. You are talking about the benefits that the end object has, while I am questioning the means by which we achieve that end object. The analogy is to our discussion. I see a problem with THE WAY THE THINGS ARE USED. I dont see a problem with instantly contacting people. I dont see a problem with saving peoples lives. I'm not saying that these things are definitively good ("good" is quite in the eyes of the beholder) but there is certainly nothing bad with being able to contact someone to save your life. You continue to talk about the benefits of the specific invention, when the points I raised have little to do with it. If there was some other imaginary invention that had the same social stigma as a cell phone, this thread could discuss that. But, the cell phone is the first electronic invention to hold such a "position" in our society. I've also said time and time again that I dont want to achieve a definitive answer if cells are or arent "good" but rather to discuss the philosophical meaning behind their use.

I know we've been discussing about this before but saturated fat has got a bad name for no reason at all. except for as good as all research on the subject, i guess there is no reason. If you choose to deny science, few things have reason. If you choose to apply scientific principles only in some cases, they're not science at all. if all nutritional information is wrong, why would our governments all over the world still have the same advice? the lobbies in one country aren't the same as another. the money to be made in one country (if you believe the conspiracies) isn't the same as another. sorry, you're argument makes little rational sense. it makes no scientific sense, it makes no statistical sense (in terms of survivability and heart disease). you cannot deny science What the hell are you rambling on about now? NorthernHero was agreeing with you...

Thank you for coming in and giving a different view that is similar to my own, so that people can understand I'm not crazy. Cells are destroying (or changing) what we know as normal human social behavior. This post never intended to encourage people to lose their cells and go "behind the times." But I did at least want to discuss what many people seem to either ignore or never consider.

And you don't think you're doing that at least as much yourself? I think most of the folks here have listened. They just don't agree. I don't think many HAVE listened though. People defend the cells by saying how "useful" they are. I have basically continually been told over and over again the reasons why the cell was invented. What a lot of my viewpoint was about was to ask people to assess why these things are necessary. Many people just buy into things without even thinking about their meaning, and thats what I was asking people to do: think. I still don't think many viewers have even understood yet. Imagine we are asessing a different object: a 100 dollar bill. I ask "why is it a good thing that you stole $100?" and people just say "Well $100 dollars is useful...100 bucks can buy this and that and this..." I'm not asking what is good about the 100...hell it could be any object...50 bucks, a baseball, a TV. What I am asking is why the means to achieving this goal are good, or at least irrelevant. So when we talk about cells...people like the power because you can link in with anyone anywhere...BUT if you want this to happen, they also have to own a cell. You can call in an emergency BUT you must take it with you everywhere. You can recieve unexpected calls, BUT you dont know when something unexpected will happen, so you carry it more often than not. The things a cell can achieve are nice things. If we all had some kind of mental power equivilent to cell phones, I wouldn't ignore it. But the fact that we are all buying this silly little hunk of plastic just to be "caught up" with society seems silly to me. I'd like to hear why the means to achieving this communication are philosophically good, or at least philosophically unimportant. For example, I don't think that anyone would argue that it is a good thing to put a new liver into somebody who needs a new liver. But what if we forcibly extract these organs from prisoners? If I asked you to asess this situation, you wouldn't repeatedly say "Livers are good for living, so if our guy wants to live he needs a liver!" You would assess the philosophy behind the means to which that end is achieved. Thats what I would like to hear. The side of the argument that thinks the philosophical impact of a device such as the cell is positive. All I have heard is the specific superficial reasons why the cell phone DOES good things. But I want you to look at the MEANING of the way that we treat the device. I mean, it could be ANY device really. If we started carrying the energy our body needs in a little electronic cube (like a cell) and thus no longer needed to eat, this hypothetical device would be quite similar to what I'd like to discuss about cell phones.

No, it is Ancel Keys' work that I am criticizing. Yes, some of those studies are older. Sorry, I didn't know that scientific inquiry had an expiry date. Let's go back and dig up some of the initial research that was done on cigarettes then, shall we? Scientific methods improve with time. The researchers you are citing have probably made an error. Either that, or their old science is somehow more accurate than our new science. I mean, it isnt impossible I suppose. Also I would be interested in knowing what country the study was done in. I have heard rumors that some of this stuff is different for americans vs. europeans. I read an article somewhere that talked about how the French eat pastries nearly every day, yet they have no obesity problems. Unlike americans who will usually eat things like eggs or meat for breakfast. No idea what the cause of that was though...

And how many millions of people worked towards developing coal engines? Yet now we are feeling remorse for the damage we have done to the climate, the rainforests, and the polar ice caps. How many millions of people worked towards developing a faster way to raise and breed farm animals and produce? And now we have a slew of health problems linked to pesticides, growth hormones, and artificial ingredients. Hell, the entire "green" movement is counter productive to what man has always strived to do. We cut down forests without remorse, we polluted freely, and we hunted animals to extinction. I just like to point out that when we appear to be dominating something, often times it ends up that we bite off more than we can chew. I won't deny the good things that cell phones do, but do you expect me to just assume that the things have no downside? Unlike basically every other "major invention" that has come along. I mean its just ridiculous. <_< I've read some articles saying "But the waves coming out of cells are just electro-magnetic radiation. Its not any different from sitting in your room with a lamp on!" I mean come on. Light from the sun is EM radiation, and we know that it causes skin cancer...Radiation from nuclear waste is EM waves too...I don't think theres any harm in having a healthy skepticism about the darn things. I mean we can't even decide how much WATER is good for us. They used to say you need to drink a gallon per day minimum. Then people started developing heart+brain conditions because they were peeing out all their electrolytyes. Theres just no reason yet to assume that this is a step forward for humanity. I'm sure that people who were around when they started mass producing cigarettes were pretty pumped about that technology too. If we see a brain tumor epidemic in the next 10-20 years, a lot of people are going to look back and ask themselves "Was this silly little phone REALLY worth it?". I'm asking myself that NOW, BEFORE I have any mental or physical problems from using cells.

I have already stated that the original post is an attempt at creative writing. I wanted it to be interesting to read. However it appears it was misleading. I thought the disclaimer at the bottom would be enough for people to understand. Along with the tons of posts of me saying that I am not trying to dismiss the invention itself as entirely "good" or "bad". People just love to make themselves "right" too much to listen, though. Oh well, I guess they have to entertain themselves somehow seeing the quality of RS updates lately. :lol:

If we can't agree that you can feel a sense of morality about an invention then theres no point in even talking anymore. I thought this was a discussion board, not a board where we write a doctoral thesis and prove something correct or not. I wanted to hear peoples thoughts on something, but apparently you guys are too stuck up to expand your minds and discuss philosophical impacts of things. I raise an idea and instead of giving me your ideas, you guys start to poison it with tearing it apart like I am trying to either prove or disprove a theory. I have my reasons for my thoughts, and instead of discussing your thoughts and the reasons behind them, you continually misinterpret the post and just try to prove me wrong. When I am not even trying to prove anything. My adventure into the realm of aggriculture was an attempt to show you that not everything is as it seems from a scientific point of view. I cited these examples because you guys are trying to tear down my philosophical ideas because they have no scientific merit. Well there was no scientific merit for a long time to feed beed with natural grass instead of cheap feed that was grown with tons of pesticides. Now we are figuring out that it is creating obesity and other disorders. I cited this in an effort to show you guys that accepting nothing but current scientific "facts" can lead to situations that aren't really what they seemed to be. I wanted to make this connection so that we could let go of the pointless "claim and support" crap that has been plaguing this thread. But alas. We can't. So I'm just going to let this thread die since we cant discuss our points of view on a philosophical problem. I'm sorry you guys see things so superficially. Not everything is right or wrong. Its okay to tell me what you think, without trying to prove some kind of point. I did not set out to prove a point. I did not set out to convice you that the phone itself was good or bad. For 6 pages I have been trying to get people on track and open your mind to the possibility that things might be wrong even if there is no evidence to prove so. Some of you have given decent replies, and to those people, I thank you. Thank you for giving me something interesting: an opinion. And stating it as something that is your opinion. I wish you would elaborate on why you feel that way (why technophobia is bad to you, what you feel society is working towards) but nonetheless, I feel you have added more to this thread in your brief, honest, opinionated post than many others have added in lines and lines of over-analytic material that is completely off-mark.

When 95% of the food you are eating are not organic. Unless you eat nothing but "organic" food you are eating genetically altered food. I buy organic, actually. You tell me to stop making things up, but you make up things about me that you have no reason to assume. And non-organic food IS killing us. Sorry. Humans evolve through technology, we have been for thousands of years. Guess what, it's not "natural" to do a lot of things. It is not "natural" to use antibiotics or sterilization on equipment before an operation. It is not "natural" to own a car. Point being is that as time goes on Humans come up with new technology that we do in some form or shape take around with us. And I do think that many inventions detriment our work ethic and our morality. you think. You don't know. And guess what, no one really cares what you "think" if it's not backed up. Nobody has to care, and you should probably stop treating me like I am trying to take phones away from everyone. I wanted to know what people thought about the notion of ethics and cell phone use. I didn't want some kind of logical inspection and a consensual agreement/disagreement about why my theory either should or shouldn't be implemented for every human on Earth. Truth is that it ISNT logical. It ISNT scientific. But I will say again, when cigarettes became popular, we didn't have the scientific understanding to know they were cancerous. When we started processing food, we didnt have the scientific understanding that it was dangerous. And now, while cell phone technology is still young (especially the ones such as Blackberries) we DONT have scientific reasons to discourage people from using cell phones. Long before the health food knowledge came around, a man named Jack Lalanne did what many people considered illogical and ate natural foods. Now we see him as a pioneer in the world of health awareness. In the modern age, it is easy to think that we have it all figured out. But the truth of the matter is that scientific logic and reasoning is just not always correct. The only way to have prevented yourself from eating unhealthy food was to illogically believe that natural food was better. Today, there is no scientific evidence that technology like cell phones is ruining our society. But I believe, to a degree, that it is highly possible. Thus, my skepticism.

Because, it is the reason for why I question the morality of them. I think people are being mentally detrimented by the availability of this technology. Lets look at the food market. 50 years ago people were saying "All chickens are the same, so if we can produce the same size chicken, in a faster time, by feeding it things that normal chickens dont eat, we will save money and deliver the same product." And now we know that eating non-organic food can be dangerous. The same goes for technology and cell phones, in my eyes. People think "Oh its just the same communication, but faster." But it is just different. It is different and unnatural. I'm not saying that people 50 years from now will for sure have mental meltdowns because of their cellphone technology. But I think it would be idiotic to completely neglect the effect that something so unnatural could have on our psyche. 50 years ago, the only argument people had against non-organic foods would have been "It isnt natural." Today, my argument against OUR USE of cell technology is basically the same. It just is not natural for a human being (a living, breathing, mammal) to be carrying around some silly little electronic toy so much. It just isn't natural, and if you cant see the merit in the argument against unnatural things (processed foods...global warming...) then I think you are looking at it pretty superficially. I think that constant cell use is a detriment to one's mental health.

I think that if Bobby can get ahold of Timmy whenever he wants to, then Bobby doesn't learn the full lesson that other people live seperate lives and you can't have everything every time that YOU want it. I'm sure you probably will disagree with this, but you should realize that we are disagreeing on it. I see problems with many people, and a lot of the time I blame it on the fact that their head is glued to their cell. Much like my grandparents blamed my disrespectful behavior on TV watching, I blame kids behavior on their unrestricted cell use. Now that I have grown up, I look back at my childhood and see how much of a delusion of reality the TV caused me, and I do feel that my grandparents were correct. I disagree for a few reasons. One reason: if it is easy to contact somebody all the time, then I feel you are less likely to appreciate the time that you actually spend with the person. Because I have had held this discussion with some of my good friends, and we had a lively enjoyable discussion on the effect that technology has had on our social lives. Some of them mentioned when they were dumped via text message, fired over video-conference, and other such things. I thought I would bring this to one of the online communities I frequent. Also, I only refer to a lack of challenge "most/all" of the time. I don't think people should go out and work their hands to the bone and never have any luxury. But I don't think people should spend every day in a mansion and never go out and build a fence with their bare hands, either. A life full of nothing but hardships will probably make you depressed. A life full of nothing but luxury will probably make you spoiled. A fair mix will give you an appreciation for your luxuries and an overall more satisfying experience. Thats how I see it. Similarly, I don't think it is a good idea to give a child a phone at age 10, and then every day for the rest of his life he is going to have a cell by his side. You know what else is human nature? To look purely at the benefits of an idea and ignore the fact that there may be unforeseen negative effects. Lets consider, for a moment, the food industry. As commercialism grew, we started to grow chickens with growth hormones, artificially force cows to produce milk, and feed livestock with grain loaded with pesticides. Now we are beginning to see that this way of producing food is unnatural, and many illnesses (cancer, ADHD) have been linked to incorrect methods of producing food. Now the organic methods of food production are gaining popularity because the unnatural methods caused people to die. Another thing: our eco-system. Humans disturbed the natural balance of life, and now many species are dying off, many plants are dying off, and this is causing a change in global precipitation and climate. I see a trend that might extend to things like cell phones. Humans are animals. We were around for hundreds of thousands of years before cell phones. You MUST agree that cell phones arent natural, right? Well, what I am saying, is that I would not be surprised if things like cell phones caused mental health problems (anxiety, depression, impatientness...etc...SOMETHING)

I just don't think instant gratification is necessarily the best thing. I also wouldn't say that I "hate" cell phones. Well...I know I said that phrase in my OP... :^_^: ...but a lot of the OP was my attempt at a creative/humorous rant. I carry my cell as a gesture to other people who don't feel the same way that I do. And sometimes, I end up feeling "Wow..I'm glad I had this thing on me". But that doesnt mean that, in theory, I see the device creating a lot of laziness. I also would like to remind you yet again that this post is not an argumentative essay trying to convince all humanity that we need to turn back the clocks and disinvent cell phones. It is an invitation to think about the philosophical meaning of the device. I mean, lets look at another invention: guns. Do I agree with anything that could ever be done with a gun? No. Especially now that tasers and such exist. The only good thing a gun could do was to defend yourself, and now we have better means of doing that. Do I want to destroy all the guns on the planet? No. Will people ever stop using guns? No. But that doesn't mean that I can't find the philosophy of the device morally reprehensible.

But it *is* better than everything else, for many people in many situations. There's nothing that really compares with it. Why do you consider it "lazy" to use a cell phone? Have you ever met a rich kid and thought "Now I know he could probably buy everything I own...but man, this kid is a little snot." This type of "spoiling" is what I see happening with social interaction. People are spoiled with cell phones. I have some little cousins who just got their phones for christmas (10 years old....) and they are absolutely spoiled on those things. I know what your defence will be "But many people could have it and not be spoiled on it." Yes I agree. But the same can be true with many things. Do you think everyone should be rich? Many rich people donate a ton of money to charity and make other types of benevolent behavior. But many people also get spoiled and choose to live an inconsiderate life. I dont think cells are "better" than other ways of getting in contact with people. Faster? Yes. Easier? Probably. But I dont think that a list of things words like "fast" and "easy" necessarily make something "good". I think that a lack of a challenge can do terrible things to the human spirit. I don't really have any scientific evidence to show you though, so my point of view is probably moot now, right? :razz:

So if someone is trying to contact you on a social networking site, you only feel the need to check on it once a day. But if someone is trying to contact you on your phone, you'd like to know about it sooner. Maybe you can understand my viewpoint by looking at your own viewpoint. You see nothing wrong with phone communication, but someone who wants to keep tabs on something stupid like Facebook 24/7 is being silly. Now to understand my view (part of my view, at least...) imagine going a step further. I lived happily for many years simply coming home at the end of the day and just checking my answering machine...this is really similar to the way you just check your Facebook. I didn't need to know if anybody called instantly. Checking my calls once a day is plenty. The way you see Facebook culture is just the way that I see mobile culture. Thanks for the way you said your post though. It really let me make a good comparison in my head. People who check their facebook all day are like the people who got the "phone-in" answering machines, where you could call your own machine and check your calls. Its all just new technology that was invented to be more obsessive about something. And each step along the way, theres a group of people who use the technology, and a group of people who feel it is silly. Why does it have to be convenience/inconvenience for people? It is ME choosing whether or not I want to use something. Yet you even admit here that other people would probably feel like I am inconveniencing THEM. Therefore, if I don't want people to think "God...why cant Tom just get a cell phone?" I have to own a cell phone. I know I dont HAVE to, like...I know the phone isn't being stapled to my hand. But the choice is "Do I want my family and friends to think that I am inconveniencing them?". I dont want to use the cell, but I dont want to be a pain to the people I love. Ideally, I wish that the people I know/meet just wouldnt be so lazy and reliant on their technology. To them, cell communication is "better" than everything else. If this weren't the case, I wouldnt have a cell. To me, using such communication all the time is lazy and superficial.

And yet the news article you link to admits that research is still in progress. And also, it says that heavy use COULD be a factor. SO you dont think that someone who uses their cell heavily over this 20 year period has any indication for light use over a 50 year period? Yet, you use this article as though it says "HEY THERE IS NO CHANCE EVER THAT BRAIN TUMORS WILL BE CAUSED BY CELLS!" All you did was link to an article with positive things to say. In no way does that article extinguish the concern that my article even talked about. What is even more idiotic about your use of this article is that the article I quoted talks about how we really wont know the 40-50 year effects of cell radiation until we reach the 40-50 year mark of cell use. And the article you link to isn't a study of biological response to radiation. Its just looking at the frequency that brain tumors are emerging. Your article does nothing to reject the hypothesis that bad things will start happening after 40+ years of cell use. Whats even more ridiculous is that you still even refer to this as an argument. I ask you, where did I say "Guys, cells need to be put down RIGHT NOW, they are evil. Stop using them, and I am correct"? I'm not arguing anything. I wanted to know what people thought of the issue. You STILL bring in some type of logical arguments as though there is a battle to be won. My post is a philosophy that I hold, and I dont really know what the hell you are even trying to "prove" me "wrong" about. Imagine for a second that, instead of specifically talking about cell phones, I made a thread that just said "So if we live in a society where it is becoming more and more popular to be expected to carry the same electronic device with you all day every day, is that a good or bad thing?" Leave out the cell phones, the specific object of a cell phone is irrelevant to the thread. I wanted to discuss the societal view of the technology. Not the technology. Re read the OP, and all of my comments from the beginning. I did not mean to say if the cell phone itself is "good" or "bad" but whether our attitude toward it is "appropriate". Also, Tripsis said... I hold this statement as further evidence of what I am talking about. And no, Tripsis, I don't have a problem with computers. My computer stays in my house, and has not become an extension of my anatomy. The only similar problem I could see would be e-mail...i.e. "Why havent you responded to my email?!?!" But still, people only expect you to check your email if you have been near a computer (for now...). A tool is technology in it's most simplistic form .We improve our technology to make our lives easier You question the ethics of technology but dismiss everything asides a cell phone. Because cells are the first technology that we carry with us all the time. We might have had keys, wallets, glasses, etc...but I'm sure you understand how these are different from a phone. A phone (especially the increasingly popular web phones) are keeping people plugged into a virtual network 24/7. Something that a key does not do. Whats unethical about it? I simply find it morally reprehensible for such digital technology to become like a part of our body that we carry with us. I am sure you have your own "line". What if we can replace everything but our brains with robotic technology? Or maybe you have no line. If you do, that would be relevant to what the thread was trying to hit at.

Citing some ridiculous study from the early 20th century. Wow. In fat, there is energy. Your body uses fat for energy. Where does that energy come from? It has to come from the things you eat. If something has more energy, your body needs to either use that energy as it digests, or store the energy. You cite a single study from a very long time ago, yet if I Google "What are calories?" there will be thousands of pages of information (modern information) that states otherwise. Yes, eating less food does slow down your metabolism, but there are many important thechniques to boosting it back up. Eat 6 small meals/snacks instead of 2-3 big meals. Drink ice cold water (your body has to turn on the eat to warm your stomach). Do interval training. Do resistance training.