Final_metroid

Hey all, This is my first time posting in this thread and I have a question for you guys. I'm constantly busy and I tend to exercise around the evening. I'm trying to put on weight, as I'm a scrawny (but improving) 110+ lbs at 5'1". My question is, my hunger always seems to coincide with when I have time to exercise, and most times I'll just excercise through the hunger and wolf something down afterward. At times though (like now) I'll get so damn hungry, even after spacing my meals apart at lunch to try and distribute energy, but I have an incredibly fast metabolism and end up burning it all up by 7pm anyway. So I get pissed off that I can't have a strong workout because I'm running on partly empty. So do you guys think working through the hunger is what I should continue doing? Would you say that eating a hearty dinner and working out after I've digested would be the best option? An additional point is that I excercise for about an hour maybe 3 times a week on average. If I'm going to make any appreciable gains, how much more would be recommended?

I want to be less angry and more thoughtful

Haven't all scientific endeavors began at anecdotal evidence? Yes, personal stories by themselves are extremely flimsy especially when using them to argue against mathematical and logic-based evidence. But the point of introducing anecdote to me is to at least show there is exception to a scientific rule or accepted generalization to open up more inquiry to it. Nascent scientific discoveries are nothing more than anecdote until they get researched and discussed by more people. To avoid another quote storm, I agree with djp that I have derived the point that science cannot be objective from science itself. But again, I'm not insisting that the idea of science is bad. I'm just saying that the institution definitely has it's own agenda and that we ought to be mindful of that. You can say that all these things about gender roles and the like have scientific basis and that we shouldn't discount years of research in favor of some new wave social phenomenon, but the very fact that the institution and their findings can be heavily influenced by these changes in the political climate shows that we shouldn't discount every argument counter to the established as nutty. With specific reference to the existence of gender roles, I wholeheartedly agree with their existence. But having said that, why should this affect us in any way? Science has also supported the fact that human intellect and social patterns are incredibly plastic, so why burden ourselves with the labels? There's tribes in Africa where the men nurse their children. Females are usually larger than the male in many animal lineages. And humans seem to be one of the few species where the females must be garish and put on colorful displays to attract mates. In line with what was said with regards to Hobbes, men are selfish. And so are women. So understandably, they'd get pissed off if they were told what they could and could not do.

So what would your suggestion be? There really is no way to have any kind of argument without it being co-opted to make strawmen or be used to make ad-hominem arguments. For example, right now I construe that you taking up the banner of science shields you from criticism because you monopolize it's objectivity to further your own arguments, which may actually not be very objective at all. Social darwinism attempted to do the same thing, and we know how that turned out. Now before you go ahead yelling that "OF COURSE OBJECTIVITY IS THE GOAL OF REACHING A GOOD CONCLUSION." I'm not talking about the very concept of objectivity, but for what seems to pass as objectivity. The scientific method prides itself on reproducibility of results, but there are always exceptions to every rule and theory which gets created. How does testosterone affect behavior? Does it explain why there's female kickboxers and male interior designers? No doubt there is some kind of an effect and that I may be nitpicking with these exceptions, but why keep a generalizing theory when it is clearly wrong in some ways? Additions to the theory to explain everything fully can only be elucidated with further study. This is why I actually take some offense at your dismissal of white privilege and your attitudes towards anecdotal evidence as fallacy. There's a reason why a wealth of information hasn't been built up around certain subjects (See: old boys club) so the only way to introduce it into the discussion may be by anecdote. Is this ideal at all? Not in the slightest. But until these areas start getting more recognition we really are at an impasse of teasing apart the emotional with the factual. Why do we necessarily have to narrow definitions or reduce the scope of inequality to include this? Would you like me to dig up some statistics on the glass ceiling for women or the under-enrollment of poorer minority students (who are just as qualified as their wealthy, white counterparts) at Ivy League schools? It is definitely pervasive and a phenomenon worth discussing in itself. That is true, but how do you suggest separating the two? To me that's akin to the argument that since communism is perfect in theory, we must whole-heartedly embrace the models of communism that have come before us to emulate the model better. Science is ever-evolving, and there are techniques and theories which quickly become obsolete in the pursuit of objectivity. The institution always fails to get that gold standard of objectivity simply due to human nature. The "Sperm and the Egg" article is one. And you see this kind of thing happening all the time with scientists butting heads over whose theory is right. I don't have any citations on hand at the moment, but scientists are still arguing over why gravity exists or how certain features evolved. By common sense, wouldn't you say that their preexisting views, education, and the like influences how they research and what they believe? I really don't know why you feel like I'm anti-science. I for one just say that there are more experiences and arguments aside from what has been published in scientific journals. It's impossible to divorce the institution from the principle in this case, so bias and the like will always be present in the sciences one way or the other. I'm not arguing that all scientists should bend-over backwards for any sociologist or activist making sweeping claims and trying to place their own agenda over the interests of real objectivity, I'm just saying that science as an institution can be looked at in a variety of different ways. Going back to the topic, I want to just say that Sarkeesian may be poorly researched and inflammatory. But that's all it is. Why do people even feel so threatened by her anyway? Criticism is criticism, and you can take it or leave it. In all, it is the consumers, whether they be stridently socially-conscious feminists or basement-dwelling chauvinists who ultimately dictate what gets made and what succeeds. Please don't

While I do agree strongly with djpretzel that no trope should be discredited from media simply because it is offensive, and to honestly question whether "gender stereotypes" have a biological basis and thus be explored and approached in such a way. (Arguably, to find the best ways of subverting them if needed), I still have some questions While I do not contest that "white straight males" do not experience oppression in the form of classism/ableism/etc. A white straight male still cannot be said to fully conceptualize the effect of racism/sexism/homophobia on their lives IN ADDITION to any problems that may already experience as a consequence of being human. A straight white male has many privileges that can cater to the problems that he experiences. A white child born to drug-using parents? Tragic. Call child protective services. A black child born to drug-using parents? The status-quo, throw him into juvie and the world keeps turning. I realize I am making a generalization and these may not apply to many parts of how society operates, they are still larger "social tropes" that illustrate the inequality (and at least, radical difference) in the problems that each "group" experiences. I am not arguing for a pissing contest of who suffered more, but I am saying that the worst thing that anyone can do is to deny that suffering and injustice has occurred. The pissing contest, is at it's heart a clamor to get one's problems solved first and given the most attention. If anything, all human love martyrdom. This is a very human problem and honestly, I don't see anyone being "mature" enough to put down their plate to assist others. (Although by no means am I saying that struggles against oppression are futile, just that everyone loses) What is this evidence? Science itself is not infallible and can lead to social ideas being codified into hard science without question. For example, for many decades scientists thought that the egg did nothing as sperm penetrated into the nucleus. However, recent evidence suggests that the egg actually does assist in bringing sperm in using filamentous protein fibers. The relevance of this becomes clear when you see how this process is described differently by scientists. Some will say the sperm is "harpooned" by these fibers and dragged in (Trope: femme fatale, consuming mother), while others maintain that the fibers play a more passive role and the primary energy is provided by the "complex and powerful" machinery contained within the sperm. (Tropes: DiD and powerful rescuing male). Even in describing the language, the social tropes show. tl;dr Science is still an old boys club, and it's descriptions and findings would be radically different depending on the composition of it's scientists. Also, all scientists are humans, and thus still falliable. (Not saying science is a bunk, just that this is why peer-review and criticism is paramount) Further reading: http://www.math.jussieu.fr/~daubin/cours/Textes/Martin_EggSperm.pdf

Hey, thanks for the replies. Given that I'm probably going to be on the move a lot, maybe a laptop would be a better move. I don't necessarily think it's too much of a burden to lug around something big, but if it can be helped (isn't too expensive) I would like something lighter. My price range is around $1000, possibly a bit over There's a nagging voice at the back of my head that says I should at least be prepared to build a PC when I get into a more stable situation. What pathways do you know of?

So my HP Envy 14 (originally bought in that new-fangled "get a free xbox" sale) is getting a bit old (IE, getting pissed I couldn't run FEZ from the steam sale) and I'm starting to think about at least starting to look for something new. I'm not too sure what exactly I want...but I anticipate that since I'm starting to play games less and less that I won't need anything designed to run triple-A games to maximum efficiency. On a semi-unrelated note, I notice that people keep espousing the virtues of building your own desktop. I'm still wondering up to what point that would be cost-effective? Or whether that's still viable given that most industry resources have shifted towards tablets and the like. Finally, something strange: I was able to run Fez after I updated the driver for my graphics card. It ran pretty smoothly save for the fact I could hear my fan crying out in agony. Yet, when I came to open it after a restart it would just CTD... Sorry for rambling, and thanks for any help

Bah! I bought Fez last night during the flash sale and to my dismay I find that it CTDs upon open... I'll never understand how I can run Fallout and Half-life but this manages to overload my laptop.

No ones going to mention the enormous 12 year old fanbase of Halo and COD?

... Fuck it, I could stand to make some international friends. There's a hostel nearby where I live if that works.

thats what i was thinking, my monitor that i had did possess an analogue input. But in this case maybe i should hold off on it in order to get a cheaper monitor. The only downside would be that id like to play games when i go the to dorm having a monitor that can double as a tv saves space and perhaps money if i consider buying a small tv...

Hey all, I think my Dell 2007fpb monitor has gone kaput. I was playing psychonauts last night when my monitor suddenly went black and the power light shut off. After letting it cool for a bit, the monitor did not turn back on when i plugged it into a different outlet. Im guessing its a hardware problem beyond my own capabilities (I dont know whether i should try to open it up, although itd be no loss because i have no warranty...) What are your guys suggestions for a new monitor? I preferably still want something widescreen but am unwilling to spend much on it. Also, prior to this incident, I liked to connect my ps2 to the monitor to play off of that, could it have burned out this fast because it wasnt optimized for that? If so?, am I just better off getting a TV as a monitor instead?

I was always too worried about leveling to enjoy it