Y2HH

QUOTE (SexiAlexei @ Oct 11, 2012 -> 02:32 PM) Does anyone know of a good program to use that will help plan out meals? I'm trying to follow the 1.5g protein per lb for strength training, but I have a real hard time finding semi easy to make meals/snacks ahead of time. I've found quite a few places online that will give you like a weeks worth of meal plans, and the shopping list to go with it, but nothing that you can actually tailor to what i'm looking for. They seem just to be weight loss or family meal plans. I guess the short of this is I suck at planning, and am looking for a way to help me improve my weekly meal planning to make sure i'm getting enough protein in my diet. Any suggestions would be appreciated. The issue with these types of restrictive diets, as with most any diet plan, is they require *time*, especially if you want taste. Anyone can boil chicken breasts and refrigerate them -- they're a great near fat free protein source -- but boiled chicken is mostly tasteless. Eating fresh takes a lot of time, because it means constant grocery shopping, as things only stay fresh for a few days at best, meaning constant return trips to the store to continue on. It also tends to be expensive if you're looking for variety. The idea, as with any diet or diet specific to what you are trying to accomplish, is finding a way to do it WITHOUT upsetting your usual life, while taking time restrictions into account. There will be days when you just don't have the time to do things in your usual way, and that's that. Take Rock for example, creating a workout program he can do in his hotel room in a very small amount of time because of his situation/time restrictions. It's about creating contingency for when everything doesn't fit a schedule. Unfortunately, the easiest way to do what you're attempting to do is with protein shakes/water, which, for the most part, taste terrible...and it can also be expensive. But, when on the go, they'll do exactly what you're looking to do.

I can't really speak for anyone else...but if you posed me the following question, "Are you doing better now than you were four years ago?", the answer is yes, with a few 'strings' attached. If it wasn't for the ever rising local taxes, fees, stickers, etc...I'd be doing better, but with them, I'm not. I don't blame the Obama administration for this, either.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 12, 2012 -> 08:31 AM) The second-best part was the sweet, sweet tears of sadness from the Fox commentators afterwards. Hannity still couldn't let it go that Obama attended the moderator's wedding 21 years ago. Why does anyone care what Hannity says?

I didn't watch this debate, but based on reading the posts about it, it seems split as to who "won". The more biased of you obviously feel one or the other mopped the floor with their opponent, and the rest of you seem to think it was a tie. So which is it? Did Biden crush Ryan, did Ryan crush Biden, was it a tie -- or was it more or less, dumb debaters debate in a debate and their "fans" eat it up, despite the fact it was mostly lies and bs?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 11, 2012 -> 01:05 PM) Where's Balta? When did SS replace him as SS2k5's arch-nemesis? SS and Balta are the same person.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 11, 2012 -> 12:07 PM) I agree, I have no idea why you were ever arguing with me. All ive said is that it should be up to local govt to dictate the restrictions and penalties. So if Chicago wants to ban hand guns and say its a 5 year sentence, so be it. I still dont see what the point of this argument was. I argued as I misconstrued your view the same as you misconstrued mine. I thought you wanted, like many other anti-gun crazies, an outright ban on all guns. I was obviously wrong from lumping you into that crowd.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 11, 2012 -> 12:01 PM) No I used hyperbole to show that restrictions on weapons do work. That its well established that if you restrict weaponry they wont proliferate as quickly. Now guns are slightly different because they are already in mass circulation. But your point that gun restrictions dont work was an over-generalization. Sorry for calling you on that, guess it makes me retarded. We don't disagree that restrictions work depending on what item we're talking about. It's a lot easier to restrict a helicopter that cost a billion dollars than it is to restrict a gun that costs 200 and can be mass produced. My point is, restrictions aren't enough. The laws protecting those restrictions are weak. That's where the fix is. The laws we have now are enough to stop a law abiding citizen from breaking gun restriction laws, which are essentially a fine/possibly very short jail sentence, but they do nothing to deter the criminal element. That, and then we have the argument of locking up "non violent" criminals that had a gun, but never actually used it. I bet we'd start hearing that argument real quick.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 11, 2012 -> 11:59 AM) /points up Still waiting. I kind of made that clear in a previous post, which you didn't read. Which is expected, since you don't read what people say before replying. Restrictions are necessary, on guns, drugs, etc...all of which should be legal, but the penalties are far too weak to prompt the criminal element to care. We don't need more restrictions. We need heavier penalties. So heavy that the message is sent once and for all. You don't f*** with this. But putting more red tape in the way of the law abiding citizen, which is what they do when they talk about gun restrictions/laws, does nothing. And even when they did mark the penalties harsher they hardly did much in the way of harsh. Our current penalty is a "felony", but it's a weak felony with a weak outcome. Now you know my stance. ...and yes, I was sooo afraid to post that.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 11, 2012 -> 11:57 AM) Haha When you have no argument attack the person. Classic! Like I said, the day you are brave enough to state your own position, is the day your argument gets taken seriously. If you want a seat at the table, stand up and own your position. Is the reason you should suggest I go back to school because you want to debate like its junior high? Because if thats the case why not just call each other names and see who wins the popularity contest. Seriously. I'm attacking the person because in this instance they deserved to be attacked. You implied that gun laws are why criminals don't have nukes and comanche helicopters. You deserved the response you got.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 11, 2012 -> 11:52 AM) If I dont know what your position is, its because you arent brave enough to say it. No, actually, it's because you never asked.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 11, 2012 -> 10:14 AM) I love how restricting guns on the street is an outright ban on guns. Its a disingenuous argument. Farmteam, I agree on legalizing most things. But unlike Y2hh, even if I think marijuana, LSD, mushrooms should be legal, I would be willing to agree to some restrictions to prevent innocent people from being hurt. Things like, its illegal to use heavy machinery and take acid, would seem reasonable to me. Its illegal to fly a plane while on mushrooms, seems reasonable to me. Its only the Y2hh's of the world who want to make the fake argument that restriction is banning. He quoted me, so I have to assume that he is disagreeing with my position which is simply: Its well established that gun ownership can be restricted. I believe that it should be up to the local govt to decide what type of restrictions they want on gun ownership. As y2hh said that makes me part of the "disconnected anti-gun crowd." Even though my position would support towns who want to allow c&c while supporting towns who didnt want c&c. Unlike y2hh I am not so bold as to believe that I know what is best for everyone in the US. I am very willing to let them make their own rules, even if it means allowing more gun ownership. Because its their choice. I just dont understand why he cant allow others to have their choice. From this thread it seems the only people who understand guns, are the ones who want 0 restrictions. See my point about rocket launcher tank and how not 1 pro-gun person would even admit that reasonable restrictions make sense. What's disingenuous is this entire rant, since you have no idea what my stance on this matter is, which is apparent, since you got it all wrong. We already have well established restrictions on guns, and they don't prevent criminals from getting guns. That's the problem. They're bad restrictions. The only thing these restrictions do is penalize the law abiding citizen, in the form of fees, taxes, wait lists, etc...while doing nothing to keep them out of the hands of criminals. What I'm not for, however, is 0 restrictions on guns, but thank you very much for trying. The issue with these drug restrictions you mentioned, just like gun restrictions comes down to the IF/THEN/ELSE statement. IF you get caught taking acid AND operating heavy machinery...THEN what? Or ELSE what? IF you get caught with an illegal gun, THEN what? Or ELSE what? These are the problems with the gun laws...the penalties are often a slap on the wrist DESPITE being called a felony, especially to people who are willing to tote illegal guns around...they're probably not the type of person that cares about going to jail for a month, etc...IF that even happens.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 11, 2012 -> 11:15 AM) Out of curiosity, replace everything in that paragraph with gay marriage instead of guns. Would you still agree with it? Also, I guess I don't get why it needs to be decided on a town by town basis especially if you're so concerned about being shot by someone carrying a gun. I mean, in a metro area you go through 10 towns in a 15 minute drive. Wouldn't that bother you since you're still at risk? He also assumes he knows my stances on things like guns/drugs, and based on his post, he has absolutely no clue whatsoever.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 11, 2012 -> 08:17 AM) Oh ok. Strange that you and jenks got so defensive about it! I'm not defensive about anything...I just find it interesting that you repeatedly post things that tend to paint a specific picture of one party, while ignoring the other party altogether, especially when they share the same traits in most of those cases.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 11, 2012 -> 08:09 AM) I don't think that was said or implied? I think that graphic you posted implied it quite clearly.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 11, 2012 -> 08:11 AM) I thought the bolded was wrong so I googled it and found this: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...rocon/guns.html I figured it would be in the 10-20% range. Most of them buy their guns black market...you know, the same place they buy their drugs, still not legal, but they still get them just the same.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 10, 2012 -> 09:22 AM) Not to derail this thread, but I am a huge fan of Emanuel promising no tax/fee increases with a 5 billion budget deficit that will grow even more next year. If he can "find" or shift around 5 billion dollars in the budget this City is more f***ed up than I thought. I think Emanuel realizes they're gone to the tax well one too many times and the people of Chicago are starting to get hurt by it. I know I am. My tax burden living here has more than DOUBLED in the span of two years. You can't tell me that didn't crush some people. And when I say doubled, I mean to the tune of thousands of dollars, not hundreds.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 10, 2012 -> 08:06 PM) But again, that's assuming there's an issue with legal gun owners/buyers getting robbed of their guns. I've never heard of that before. I mean, how would gangs know which person to rob? And really, what's the percentage of a theft of a gun versus the number of guns out there? This seems like a lame tax with a lame ass justification ("won't someone think of the children!") Because it's another bulls*** argument from reality disconnected anti-gun crowd. I'm sure some guns are stolen during home break-ins, etc...but there is no mass targeted gun theft conspiracy. Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws int he nation, and probably the highest gun related crime. As Tuna said above, you aren't getting rid of guns by banning them, just like they didn't get rid of Alcohol by banning it, or drugs for that matter. But, let's stick our heads in the sand and ignore that, after all, repeating past mistakes over and over again at the expense of the taxpayer is what we do. So long as we fool them into think they're safer, even if they aren't, is all that matters. Look, the only way to "ban" guns, is to un-invent them and then, somehow, ban their invention from that point forward. In other words, not happening. I've said this before, and I'll say it again -- (hopefully someone reads it this time, and actually takes a moment to contemplate it) -- banning guns, much like banning drugs, will do nothing but create a violent, highly profitable and dangerous underground black market. The same cartels that deal in drugs would just add guns to their list of goods.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 11, 2012 -> 06:07 AM) Some of them really are! Yes, but apparently only republicans.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Oct 9, 2012 -> 08:36 PM) http://gizmodo.com/5950391/apple-maps-acci...t-military-base Now Apple should do this for all United States military bases as well. I want to see what's actually in Area 51. http://www.businessinsider.com/the-secret-...acility-2012-10 Bing did something similar with the Bin Laden training facility at one point. I'm not sure I like the fact that we're removing or blurring buildings from satellite photos because some government deems them 'secret'. If they're so secret, the building image shouldn't matter...what goes on in the building should matter, and nobody should know that from a random image. Google supposedly provides only low-resolution images in these circumstances, but I'm not sure how much I like that. I consider my house top secret, will they blur that?

QUOTE (flippedoutpunk @ Oct 10, 2012 -> 12:19 AM) So, iphone 5, cool phone, love it. Sprint 4G LTE network isnt up in Chicago 100% though so I'm surfing at 3G speeds. This is very frustrating, its like buying a ferrari and being restricted to driving only on city streets. Supposedly a big portion of Sprints LTE network is going live this year in Chicago, so you won't have to suffer long.

QUOTE (Brian @ Oct 9, 2012 -> 02:35 PM) When my iPhone 5 comes, is there an easy way to wipe my 4 clean of my stuff and give it to my mom? Settings > General > Reset > erase all content/settings

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 9, 2012 -> 10:59 AM) Couldn't you just use bump to do it on an iphone? That was an app you have to add to your phone in order for it to work, which is why it's not very good...it was mostly a gimmick. It's the same reason I find the S3's bump tech to be mostly useless, when better methods of sharing data already exist...if it requires the person to have the same brand/model phone as you, or special software installed on that phone, it makes it far less useful.

This is why people should need to take a simple, basic, multiple choice exam before they're allowed to vote. Without allowing the dumb to vote, we'd have no people like this in office. None. And no, I don't care if you disagree with me on being against "rights" to vote. I think voting should be treated as a privilege, not an inherent right people get just for being a citizen of a certain age regardless of how f***ing stupid they are. It should be something you care about enough that you can pass a basic quiz, which takes less than a minute to complete, which allows you to cast a vote.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Oct 9, 2012 -> 09:12 AM) Thanks, I just figured it was the norm to not have removable batteries, I don't have any friends that have a phone with one or atleast haven't seen one. I get the added benefit of being able to carry a 2nd battery around in case the first one dies, but your phone would still be dead for at least a few seconds, plus you have to remember to bring that battery everywhere. Seems more like a pain that worthwhile, imo. It's useful in very specific circumstances...I haven't had a removable battery in years, but even when I did I never used my secondary batteries, to the point where I just stopped bringing them with. Especially for myself, in the tech field, I'm always around some sort of charger, so as long as I have a device that can last a day with moderate use, I'm good to go. I find this to be true for most people.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Oct 9, 2012 -> 12:27 AM) Google's next Nexus phone has been outed. Word has it that there will be more than just one Nexus phone this time around, but it looks like the LG one will be the first. If Google sells this phone for $400 like they did with the Galaxy Nexus, I'll be be tempted to purchase it. It's a nice upgrade over my Galaxy Nexus (S4 Snapdragon way more power efficient than the TI OMAP AND twice the RAM). It puzzles me that Google purchased Motorola Mobility, but does nothing with them. It's become obvious that was just a patent buy at this point. Motorola still releases what I consider the worst in breed Android models, which makes no sense to me, since Google owns them, it would be the obvious play for Google's flagship Nexus phones to be Motorola branded, maybe with some Google oversight to keep the often overzealous Motorola designers in check. I still have to rate the Samsung GS3 the top tier Android phone, with the HTC OneX or OneX+ coming in a very close second, followed then by the often underpowered Nexus models (underpowered in comparison to the Galaxy's, etc.) I find the Motorola branded phones to feel cheap...but to be sure, I've only messed with them for a short period at phone stores display models. That said, I found their build quality far behind that of the S3 or OneX.