Assume Nothing

Have you ever seen what it's like in the UK?

Jimmy is being dominated by powerful women

$round(2($pi),0)/10

A majority of RuneScape players are Americans.

Okay - I've sent my application for an author position. I felt a little anxious as I wrote the guest article though, because I had a short deadline to write it in and it was difficult to think of a topic, so the article could still be further editted and improved. :( Goodluck to everyone I suppose...

Let's assume a 40/40/20 split of calories, and 3k calories in general is good for putting on weight. I'm disagreeing that their bodies are burning calories at a faster rate (the posters in this thread), because I highly doubt they actually have a high metabolism. Perhaps not the people on this thread, but I'm discussing people in general. I'm unsure by what you mean with 40/40/10 split of calories either.

Get any skinny person who says they can't put on weight even if they try, and get them to eat 3000 calories a day. I can guarantee you they will put on weight 9 times out of 10. Like I said, lots of skinny people overestimate how much they eat and figure they eat a normal amount, so they blame it on a fast metabolism. Or they'll eat a lot of crap that doesn't have any nutritional value, not gain weight, and blame it on metabolism. If they actually counted how many calories they ate in a day regularly, I'm willing to bet you'd see around 1500 calories a day. It's like the skinny person version of "I'm not fat, I just have big bones". They've never actually put the serious effort to track and eat in, so they'll just keep blaming it on metabolism. Hell, even with a high metabolism you can gain weight. It's difficult for me to judge whether they will gain weight or not, as I haven't seen it in action, but it mainly depends on what the 3,000 calories are, and how much they exercise. If they're eating extremely high amounts of carbohydrates, it's no doubt that they would put on weight, as it would convert to sugar and fat as it enters the body. I'm sure they can gain weight, but that's not what my point was. My point was that they 'would have more difficulty in doing so, as their bodies were burning calories at a faster rate'. Slightly less offtopic: I think I do care about my weight, but if I'm eating healthy and taking enough exercise for my build, then it isn't a significant issue unless I'm quite significantly overweight/underweight, which I'm not. I think I would be slightly above average, at 70kg 5ft 11"

The people who claim they can't gain weight and blame it on high metabolism just don't eat enough. People can have high metabolism, but people who say they can't gain weight because they have high metabolism never actually eat enough (and likely don't have high metabolism). I know that's what you're asserting, but why is it that it's not high metabolism? Has there been any known studies that show/prove this?

No, if everyone were underestimating how much they eat then everyone would be obese. If you're eating less than (minimum) 2000 calories a day, you aren't eating a healthy amount. It's simple, fuel in -> growth/weight gain, not enough fuel in -> no weight gain/growth. Subjective argument. A 250lb bodybuilder won't do very well on 2,000 calories, and 2,000 calories would make most toddlers fat. The figure varies quite a lot for varying body shapes and sizes You are talking extremes. For an average person around 20, I'm assuming about 5'8", 2000 MINIMUM just to maintain. Of course, if you want to put on weight then you'd have to eat more. The general rule is bodyweight x 14 = calories you should eat a day to maintain. Of course, this doesn't work if you are very underweight (then 3k+ cals to put on weight in decent time), or very overweight. I know I'm using more extreme figures, but I'm using them because they are more illustrative in demonstrating what I mean. Most humans don't vary that widely in terms of height, so it's mainly the ratio of muscle:fat that would determine metabolism. It's proven that men in general burn more calories doing nothing than women, simply because men have a higher ratio of muscle in general. Believe it or not, a lot of people could indeed have 'high metabolism', but not to the extent which some people try and lead us to believe. EDIT - I do agree that the BMI figure is misleading. 'Fitness' in general has a lot of criteria, such as weight/blood pressure/body fat percentage/height/diseases/infections etc. BMI alone means very little

No, if everyone were underestimating how much they eat then everyone would be obese. If you're eating less than (minimum) 2000 calories a day, you aren't eating a healthy amount. It's simple, fuel in -> growth/weight gain, not enough fuel in -> no weight gain/growth. Subjective argument. A 250lb bodybuilder won't do very well on 2,000 calories, and 2,000 calories would make most toddlers fat. The figure varies quite a lot for varying body shapes and sizes EDIT - Responding to the above quotes: Your assumptions aren't very well founded, and the statistics you present don't seem very plausible. How do you know that 9 times out of 10, someone claiming that they have high metabolism/genetic disorders related to eating are really just 'underestimating/overestimating how much they eat'?

3/10 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jf5kQLmlOs Unce unce unce

Same. I can't gain weight if I wanted to. Translation: You overestimate how much you eat. Not necessary, but sufficient. Sometimes it's due to having very high metabolism - even eating 3,000 calories a day for a 6ft male with little exercise would not gain weight for them as they burn it at such a fast rate.

For western economies, the problem isn't really recession or boom and bust - it's stagflation. Imported cost-push inflation where the costs of production rise, thus average price levels rise, thus workers (a cost of production) demands more pay, creating a perpetual cycle of inflation until the government intervenes. This isn't usually a significant problem, but coupled with high unemployment, you get the worst of both worlds. Stimulating demand will cause inflation, and stimulating supply will cause no growth in real output - neither desirable effects. The UK and the US has also amounted very large debts with very high budget deficits - as theory would suggest they should be easing fiscal policy, it appears as though the government is forced to tighten fiscal policy in order to get a balanced budget. Governments are no longer able to spend it's way out of recessions, and we're left hanging as consumer confidence is at an all time low. Rapid, large reductions in government expenditure could have devastating effects because there is a negative multiplier effect associated with reducing government expenditure, and if the size of our skilled workforce is decreased, then economic growth will be difficult to achieve as we have less resources available to produce goods/services for the world. Correcting problems like would mainly depend on how the government prioritizes the four main macroeconomic objectives - What's worse, inflation or unemployment? It's a trade-off, as they typically have an inverse correlation, and that's where the government has to decide. Although some policies may meet all objectives - usually it doesn't do it to a high enough extent. Supply side policies/reforms could correct the problems too, by making firms more competitive, but there's a significant up front cost with large opportunity costs - where is the money going to come from? Defence? It may not be politically possible or practical either, as there would be issues with environmentalists and politicians if it's about improving infrastructure by building new roads/improving old ones, or arguably, building new schools (although less politically restrictive). Quantitative easing may be effective, but very dangerous in terms of the potential inflationary effects - within a few years, the money supply will have washed through the economy and it's likely that average price levels could rise a significant extent (depending on the size of the QE) as a result. I haven't learnt enough about Economics to know how to prevent a recession, but to recover from it - it would be great if the government has some money in order to spend it's way out. Reducing government spending to reduce the budget deficit makes little sense to me - if the economy is unable to grow and actually contracts, surely it more difficult collect the taxes in the first place? I seem to be talking on a tangent now, I'll post when someone replies to this

Log into youtube Watch a video "DON'T READ THIS CUZ IT ACTUALLY WORKS. YOU WILL GET KISSED ON THE NEAREST POSSIBLE FRIDAY FROM THE LOVE OF YOUR LIFE, TOMORROW WILL BE THE BEST DAY OF YOUR LIFE; HOWEVER, IF YOU DON'T POST THIS TO OVER THREE VIDEOS YOU WILL DIE WITHIN TWO DAYS. NOW THAT YOU STARTED READING THIS DON'T STOP. THIS IS SO SCARY! POST THIS TO OVER FIVE VIDEOS IN 143 MINUTES. WHEN YOU'RE DONE PRESS F6 AND YOUR CRUSH'S NAME WILL APPEAR ON SCREEN IN BIG LETTERS. THIS IS SO SCARY BUT IT REALLY WORKS."

So domineering

I'll post in a few hours. I've just had a macroeconomics exam

actually I balk at discussing sex with my mom... [hide]especially after finding her condoms[/hide] even up to a few days ago, she's talking with her work friends about going to a MALE strip club, and knowing that she doesn't need to ask my dad, that he wouldn't mind going with her. [hide] no I didn't need to scrub my mind.. i've been scarred ever since I found condoms[/hide] I'm one of those kids that have parents that are still together and happy with each other. which is disgusting. [hide]they were [bleep]ing ribbed man[/hide] We're only human.

I think this thread could do with a bump. It's amusing what you get to see on the news - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13537084 <- I don't imagine that to be particularly pleasant. EDIT - For those not wishing to click on the link; [hide]A New Zealand truck driver who fell on a compressed air hose that pierced his buttock has survived being blown up like a balloon. Steven McCormack had fallen between the cab and the trailer of his truck, breaking the air hose. The nozzle pierced his buttock and began pumping air into his body, which expanded dramatically. As he screamed, Mr McCormack's colleagues turned the air off and laid him on his side, saving his life. The accident happened at Opotiki on the North Island on Saturday. Mr McCormack, who is 48, is still in hospital in the nearest town, Whakatane. He said that doctors had told him they were surprised that his skin had not burst, as the compressed air - pumping into his body at 100lb/sq in - had separated fat from muscle. Continue reading the main story “ Start Quote I was blowing up like a football... I had no choice but just to lay there, blowing up like a balloon” Steven McCormack "I felt the air rush into my body and I felt like it was going to explode from my foot. "I was blowing up like a football... it felt like I had the bends, like in diving. I had no choice but just to lay there, blowing up like a balloon," he told the local newspaper, the Whakatane Beacon. He said his skin feels "like a pork roast", hard and crackly on the outside but soft underneath. He credits his colleagues, especially Jason Wenham who put him on his side, with saving his life. Mr Wenham, Ross Hustler and Robbie Petersen had lifted Mr McCormack off the brass nozzle which was still stuck in his body, and packed ice around his swollen neck until an ambulance arrived. Doctors inserted a tube into his lungs to drain the fluid and cleared the wound in his buttock using what felt to him like a drill. "That was the most painful part," he said. "It's fair to say he's lucky to be alive, it was a potentially life-threatening situation," a hospital spokeswoman told AFP on Wednesday. Mr McCormack confided that the air was gradually escaping his body in the way that air usually does.[/hide]

Everyone who has ever posted on this thread will have been retconned by sundown. Goodluck

4/10

When I think of you, I think of

Yes it does have to be a minimum of 600 (and that's a minimum for a reason otherwise we won't have enough to see your writing abilities). And if successful, I don't see why you wouldn't be allowed to use it as your real article. That sounds quite interesting. I think I ought to write an article soon in order to apply though. As a question of curiousity - How many positions are currently vacant? I think it would be optimal for applicants to compete for a position if the amount of vacancies were within the 5-10 range, as it would encourage a diversity in ideas and concepts whilst keeping the applications competitive.

A question to those who manage the applications: If I am applying to be an author, does the 'guest article' submission have to be a minimum of 600 words? Also, as a hypothetical situation: If my application is successful and I manage to get the position, am I allowed to use the submission as my real article?

Still around 4/10. I don't count seeing people in this topic >.>

I think this was pointed out previously, but I shall restate it: The burden of proof should apply for those who make dubious claims, whilst common sense need not require full justification. The highest DPS weapons outside Dungeoneering is usually the Chaotic Rapier, unless a monster is exclusively resistant to stab, or have very high defence in general. This should be common sense - It shouldn't be necessary to conduct a test of thousands of hits to prove it in Metagaming. A claim like 'Chaotic Crossbow with Rune Bolts is faster dps than using the Chaotic Rapier' should be treated as somewhat dubious as it's illogical that it is indeed the case, unless the monster in question has very high melee defense, or is difficult to fight with melee (Zilyana, Nex). The growing use of poor analogies such as rape/abortion analogies may be likely to cause offense, and they're usually irrelevant to the topic at hand. I think this should be against the rules too, assuming that it isn't the case currently. Last but not least, I shall restate what Das has said in previous pages: A user admitting whether they have broken the RS rules in the past shouldn't be used as something to remove posts for - It should be reserved for players who are actively endorsing/supporting the use of bots. Posts that go somewhat on the lines of "Botting is a bad idea, as it is likely that you will get banned for it. I've botted before, and I've gotten banned for it." shouldn't be removed simply because the author/poster has admitted to breaking RS rules as it's not encouraging the use of bots, but the example illustrates the reasoning (thus strengthening the reason). However, posts which go along the lines of "I have used bots before, they're great and I will continue to use them" should obviously be removed for actively endorsing the use of bots. The ambiguous and subjective nature of some of the Tip.It rules are also a problem - There were disagreement to what constitutes 'unacceptable/obscene images' posted. Eg: Das may be more lax with such images (possibly somewhat risque), whereas tripsis may be more strict on the enforcement of the policy. Gray areas exist in the said rules - There is a fine line between 'hot girl at the beach' and 'showing too much', which is why there may be disagreement on the interpretation of the rules. If rules like these were well defined, then it's likely that we'll see better consistency in terms of moderation and the use of the report system. Speaking of (in)consistency - Why do moderators sometimes post in a 'spammish/trollish' manner when it is allegedly unacceptable for normal users to do so?