Whatever diet/exercise program that actually works for somebody is good, by definition. That being said, I generally am opposed to diet/exercise programs that require you to spend a lot of money. I’m not familiar with the direct costs associated with P90X, but I have heard that the diet prescribed in the program is expensive, which a healthy diet does not have to be.

Also, the program’s trademark “confusion”  system of surprising your muscles is a good idea, but you can get the same results simply by varying the number of reps you do and the amounts you lift.

As for diet- I try to eat healthy, and I keep my weight and my stomach under control, but I’ve never used a diet program. I don’t knock them on principle- spending the money, having the guide, or even just being part of something bigger can be good incentives for people. But they aren’t necessary to lose weight  or keep in good shape, and so I think most people should try to do it on their own first, and save the money. The keys are portion control, eliminating certain problem categories (trans fats, MSG, and high fructose corn syrup are all really bad for you, and I’ve found that after cutting them out of my diet, I don’t even crave them anymore, and I don’t feel good after eating them), and letting yourself indulge once in awhile. If you are craving pizza, eat pizza. Have a slice or two. You can try to satisfy that craving with something healthier, or get healthier toppings on your pizza, or what have you, but if you want one particular thing, rather than make it a giant THING, you should indulge that craving, moderately, and once in awhile. I’ve found I have much more success that way.

OK, off the soapbox now.

What do you think? I think it’s just another factor to take into account- if you play a local multiplayer game, everyone shares the same screen real estate, it’s impossible NOT to notice, and everyone has the same opportunity to utilize it.

Each man has his own moral compass, do what makes you feel warm

that’s a good point, gargantua- morality does not exist independently of an interpretive lens, ethical judgments are made on an individual basis, regardless of whatever society tells us.

the other side of that, though, is that society only functions if the majority of people accept that whatever their personal ethics may entail, there is legitimacy to the creation of a universal, systematic code of ethics imposed on all people subject to a given area’s authoritative body- basically, that a government is allowed to make and enforce laws. I don’t agree with every law that exists, and I might change the exact structure of the systems creating and enforcing the laws, but I accept as legitimate the fundamental existence of a regulatory body enforcing a uniform system of ethics.

without that acceptance, society doesn’t function. we can argue day and night about what is right and wrong within a system, but the real question is whether or not you accept the legitimacy of any system at all. if so, then you can potentially live freely in a world that functions at a societal level. if not, then you will always be an outlaw or deviant.

<shrug>nothing is inherently right or wrong, but i think a strong argument could be made that ANY codified system of ethics is inherently superior to a lack, insofar as it allows for MORE. the only advantage to anarchy is personal freedom, but your freedom to piss on your neighbor for shits and giggles doesn’t mean much if he is then free to tear you apart and roast your corpse for dinner.</shrug>

This would be reinforced by the fact that invariably, the Humans team up with the technologically superior (but warlike) alien race, to defeat the bestial, technologically inferior alien race. Perhaps the supposition is that while we lack the technology and ritual of the higher alien power, they can learn from our cultural mores that arent ENTIRELY based on violence, religion and war.

Then again, the humans in Starcraft are pretty treacherous and back-stabby, while the Protoss are almost universally portrayed as good guys. Generally, it seems that the humans are flawed, but ultimately the good guys, while the zerg/flood/aliens are universally evil. The protoss/predators/covenant are warlike and zealous, but tend to learn and cooperate in the end.

Of course, there are plenty of sci-fi franchises that use a dichotomy, or entirely other system of hierarchies, but this particular system has led to some of the more successful franchises. I wonder if anyone knows of any credit being given by the makers of halo and/or starcraft to the producers of alien and the predator movies…whether consciously or not, they were almost certainly influenced

Has anyone ever noticed that in several of the largest sci-fi/action franchises, there is the same hierarchy of species?

On the bottom, you have the technologically primitive, bestial killing machine (Zerg, Alien, Flood). These are typically present in high number, possess either no technology, or else “organic” technology, and have some kind of queen/overlord/hive mind that controls their actions.

In the middle, there are humans. We are tentatively exploring space, having fairly recently developed some modest technological capabilities. We still utilize projectile weapons, lack energy shields, and may have some limited robotic/AI capabilities.

On top, we have the technologically and physically superior overlords (Protoss, Predators, Elites) that have an advanced, warrior culture, some kind of ritual aspect of their methods, and martial prowess. They possess energy weapons and superior ships.

Why do you suppose that is?

Pundits- Yes, I’m aware that Predator and Predator II take place in the 1980s and 1990s respectively, as do all subsequent Predator films (AVP, Predators, etc.), this is true, but they are set in the same universe as the Alien films, (see Predator II, AVP) and so we can assume the Predators are still around during the Alien timeline when humans are exploring space. Also, I know the Elites are part of the covenant of various types of aliens, but the Elites are the symbolic center of the Covenant.

They seem to be exaggerations of the two extremes of humanity- the bestial and the rational. They also seem to be the two polarities in the spectrum of extraterrestrials-we-dont-want-to-meet. I wonder if there are any other reasons?

Anybody have other examples?

everyone has a story to share- fiction or non.

trilogy of novels, or 2 line tweet.

prideworthy or anonymous.

what’s yours?

such.as.i.am@hotmail.com if you want to share anonymously, or post here to share freely.

Its not that the aim is to glorify the shooters, but that by giving them such attention, they are famous, and probably glorified in their own minds. Keep in mind that to be a shooter of this sort anyway, you must have some slightly off-kilter views on this world. So they don’t think they will be honored as heroes, but thats not what they are after. They get what they want when the media airs their stories in detail and delves into their personal life. Perhaps they feel vindication from that knowledge, before they die. I agree with Jen here. Stop spreading details of the shooter and his life, and only perhaps focus on the tragedy and memorials to the fallen.

If you enjoyed the first two, its worth seeing the third for closure, I like knowing how stories end, but its not that good. Idk, it was OK, but I certainly wouldn’t pay money to see it (I streamed it online).

Does anyone have any comments or questions about the blog?

I will, stuka.

If you like it, share it with others.