assassin_696

Fantastic ride, both riders an absolute credit to the sport after today's stage. I thought Schlek deserved the stage win, it was a huge effort to keep that pace all the way up.

Go Schlek go!

Not always, statutory rape may be consensual as far as both parties are concerned, but the law says that a 14 year old cannot give "consent" in the same way that a 16 year old can so the sex is still classed as rape. Rape by deception cases have been brought before courts before but they're almost always thrown out. Taken to the extreme, every time you tell a girl you love her to sleep with her would become rape.

Amazing. Surely there's an appeals court in Israel that "Daniel" can have this case referred to where some more sensible judges will overturn this stupid, prejudiced woman's take on the law? The judge's summing up statement is staggering in its high-mindedness and presumption: Anyone who meets a guy and minutes later is riding him in the nearest empty space they can find doesn't have wedding floral arrangements at the front of their mind.

Went to the gym today, standard 5x5 workout (squats, deads, bench and press) with a few supplementary exercises thrown in at the end for good measure. Then went and played a pretty slow game of tennis doubles with some friends, and went rowing tonight in a double scull with my friend. Felt like we'd improved a lot since Saturday which was good.

Schlek seems like such a nice guy seeing him interviewed the day after chain-gate. Good stage yesterday, looks like Armstrong was giving it all to try and get something but unfortunately didn't come off.

Saw it tonight, fantastically slick and clever film. Don't understand quite why there was so much secrecy surrounding the plot, it doesn't really give too much away, but there are still a few good twists. Definitely worth seeing, it really appealed to me.

I'm slightly surprised they disqualified him from the entire Tour. I could maybe have understood the stage, although I also take his his point that he was trying to stay upright, but I can't see the entire tour.

Yep, looks like it's definitely going to be Contador or Schlek after today's stage. Pretty exciting finish too.

I agree, and I don't understand how this is all that revolutionary. The evolution of behaviourally modern humans is controversial but can be dated to around 50,000 years ago, you've got cave paintings, beads and other forms of cultural art that all pre-date this temple so I don't see why this changes much. Of course the best estimate for when certain aspects of culture (tool-making, farming etc.) evolved will change all the time in light of new evidence but this has zero bearing on genetic evolution and fairly minor bearings on cultural evolution.

I really don't see how you can say the Spanish players were diving. Every slow motion close up they showed of the tackles showed pretty clearly that the Dutch players were completely wiping out their feet.

Yeah felt bad for Armstrong yesterday, he had some really bad luck. Brutal peloton pace on the first climb too, looked tough.

I was rooting for the Netherlands going into the match but the way they played wasn't good, dirty dirty dirty. Spain deserved to win, they've been the best team in the tournament and have played some awesome football. Not a great final, but a just outcome. And yeah, go Paul!

Saw most of it, hell of a drive from Button and Vettel to get back to where they did. Solid work from Webber and Hamilton too, Webber's clearly showing he's a serious championship contender.

I'm hoping Cavendish can keep winning stages, he's an awesome sprinter and it's good to see him do well. I think Contador will probably start to shine in the mountains, I'd like to see Armstrong do well but I don't think he can win it any more. He used to be very strong on time trial stages but he doesn't really have the fitness for those like he used to.

Yeah I'd like to see Rod[bleep] do well too, he seems like a very nice guy and can play some great tennis (that serve!). And as a Brit I'd obviously like to see Andy Murray do well too, he's the best chance we've had in ages but will he be enough against Federer/Nadal? Not convinced. I also watched Djokovic play at Queen's fairly recently and wasn't too impressed by his form.

For all the tennis fans. Anyone watching it this year? Predictions? I've been watching the Federer/Falla game, can't believe the game Falla has played, very nearly been close to match points against Fed but it looks like Federer's taking the match back in the final set now (although I might eat my words). Federer obviously not on form this game but rooting for him for the rest of the tournament.

Yeah 5x5 is just that, it's better for strength gain than 3x10 because you can lift much heavier weights for 5 reps and allows you to do more incremental increases with each set than just 3 sets. You can find loads more information about basic 5x5 programs at these two sites: http://startingstrength.wikia.com/wiki/Starting_Strength_Wiki http://stronglifts.com/stronglifts-5x5-beginner-strength-training-program/ Lots of squats, which you're already doing, because they're great for overall strength and mass gain. Bill Starr's program is described here. It's a little more complicated because you split each week into heavy, medium and light day as described, but it's still pretty simple. It allows you to increase your theoretical max lift each week incrementally, and has lots of supplemental stuff. You could possibly even start with Bill Starr. http://www.deepsquatter.com/strength/archives/manrodt4.htm I always do variations of 5x5 now, the only thing I might change is add in a few more supplemental exercises depending on what body-part I feel like working. So a workout might be standard 5x5 squats, deadlifts and bench with a 4x8 bicep curl / french press superset to work biceps and triceps. I kind of just use my imagination with those though, it's only cosmetic. The primary strength and mass gains come from the heavy lifting. Every other day is fine and recommended. Squatting three times a week may seem slightly counter-intuitive if you listen to all the "each body-part once a week" bodybuilder mantra, but you can do it because your recovery time will improve a lot and you're not completely destroying your legs with the squats. Sorry this post is a bit rushed, but the articles I posted should give you lots more info. 5x5 is a lot of a fun because you see yourself getting a lot stronger quicker each week, and the mass gains definitely follow.

Deadlift heavy for back, a 5x5 routine or something like that, add weight every workout while you can then switch to a Bill Starr style micro-periodisation once you start plateauing. Pullups and hyper-extensions are good supplementary back exercises. In my experience a 5x5 program doesn't build the chest quite as well, I'd still recommend 5x5 on the bench press but place more emphasis on the supplementary stuff, specifically incline and flat bench flyes which are great for chest mass growth. Everyone's different, but for me I've had a bit more success when I vary things a bit with the chest, alternate between dumbbells and bars, do different numbers of sets/reps, do drop sets, sets to failure etc. Experiment and see what works for you. And of course, lots of protein with a good diet.

Did I say they were? Artists don't have to be ground-breaking to define a decade. You can define previous decades easily because of the invention of genres like pop, punk, prog etc. in those decades. Yeah there's been a lot of ground-breaking stuff this decade but I don't think that's what it'll be remembered for in the same way that the 60's was for pop and folk. In some ways you could argue the Arctic Monkeys were fairly ground-breaking in the way they spread their music on their own without the traditional record label publicity stuff, and that's more what I meant, instead of their music. All the other bands I mentioned just happened to release some very good music this decade that influenced their peers and the sound of their contemporaries. And it was really just bands off the top of my head, there have been countless more.

They very nearly did in that final minute! Good game though, nothing spectacular but Holland did just enough. Japan played pretty well though, although I thought they lost the ball a little easily.

Sorry I think you slightly misunderstood my point. I mean you class yourself as bisexual but still be more straight than gay or gay than straight. Degrees of attraction are therefore highly relevant because it shows it's not a clear cut thing. Okay I see what you're trying to say but I'm not going to prove or refute your theory for you. If you think that naturally socially [developmentally delayed]ed people are less likely to be gay, show me the evidence. Other people have refuted this. Animals at large certainly don't hump everything, some dogs occasionally do and some insects do because flowers imitate the shape of a female mate in order to transfer pollen to the confused male. Homosexual behaviour in animals isn't just animals being tricked by similar looking objects, it's entirely equivalent to human homosexual behaviour. I believe one of your opening lines was that you felt homosexuality was wrong because it was against the laws of nature. If you interpret the laws of nature as what you observe other species doing in nature then that statement is wrong because animals show homosexual behaviour. If you consider the laws of nature as to what fundamentally happens (genes trying to maximise their phenotypic advantage to maximise reproductive success) then I agree that exclusively homosexual behaviour seems "wrong" because that leads to zero reproductive gain for the individual. But then so is anyone who is infertile or sterile or chooses not to have children. We don't decide what's right and wrong based on the wishes of our genes because that would lead to social eugenics. I think that's a fair summary because I don't see what else you can mean by saying it's "against the laws of nature" ?

Yes, the Kinsey scale, which many psychologists now even see as simplistic itself. The fact that we have bisexual people that have varying degrees of attraction to either sex should surely be a clue that it's not black and white. Well, here's one.... But as other people have pointed out, since autism affects ~0.1% of the population, and gay people 10% of the population it's no wonder that you haven't come across many. No, my point was that it indicates that homosexuality isn't a human choice. "Nature is red in tooth and claw". Saying a human action is wrong because it goes against the "laws of nature" (which are what exactly?) isn't a good argument. And conversely we don't make moral judgements based on what we observe animals doing (the laws of nature?) because nature is selfish.

Well, that was pretty damn poor from England.

Sorry, but you have quite a poor understanding of evolutionary biology if you think scientists are going to isolate a "gay gene". Behavioural patterns as complex as social interaction are mediated by a lot of genes acting together in different ways, it's not necessarily like it's a gene that either works and makes you straight or doesn't and makes you gay. The fact that you have degrees of gayness should also make this obvious. It may well be a combination of nature and nurture, but to say it's only nurture because of your pet theory is silly. And there's no reason why it being controlled by upbringing would make it any more of a choice anyway, upbringing (nurture) can strongly maths ability at a later stage of life, but it's not like that's a choice that you make to have the ability or not. There are homosexual people with mental disabilities, including autism, so your theory isn't much good. And there are also animals that display homosexual behaviour, I'm not sure how an animal would raise it's young in such a way that would make them gay. Either way, what the heck are the "laws of nature" anyway and what do they matter in deciding what's right and wrong? For almost every "law" in biology you can find an exception. Pretty much the only thing in biology that can be considered a fundamental theory or law is the theory of evolution, which describes the differential survival of alleles in a population. If you're going to base your morality on the "laws of nature" then roll out the eugenics camps....