If an interviewer asked me this then sat back grinning all over themselves like they'd just knocked it out of the park with this ingenious keyhole to my soul, it'd definitely make my decisions on whether or not I wanted to work there easier. Still lol'ing at using the word "imagine" to knock someone off script.
In what way is it bad advice? To me it makes complete sense. Much of the time when we feel "hunger" we are really just thirsty, so taking a sip of water can be all it takes to satisfy a craving, and stave off snacking. Likewise fruit and nuts are much more healthy than junkfood. So if eating fruit or nuts prevents him from eating junkfood then it is a benefit.
My body fat % is extremely low, but I can't remember the exact number. When I do those electric handheld fat % tests, they error out. I'm an archetypal tall and skinny nerd, basically.
The system works for me because I end up satisfying the craving on healthy stuff before I can get to the unhealthy a lot of the time. That said, everything I write about is based on personal experience and I just try to distill some of the general tips that anyone could use.
I think another subtle thing some might overlook is that you specifically said "serving." That is something like 2 oreo cookies or a handful of baby carrots. It would be a different story if you ate two baby carrots and then half a package of oreos.
Most people would probably make themselves sick before getting too many calories under a reasonable interpretation of this hierarchy.
While I'm sorry this happened to you, and I'm as anti-SOPA as anyone (have called my congress(wo)man, called Boehner and Canter when it looked like they were going to sneak the vote through last week), this has nothing to do with SOPA, and trying to invoke the name for something that you should've been better prepared for is kind of a discredit to the cause.
I disagree, using this as an example of what can happen under SOPA is useful. It shows a real-world example NOW of what can happen in the future. The situation is different but close enough, a third-party decided they didn't like his content and somebody took steps to remove his domain from the Internet, even though no one involved had absolutely anything to do with the content on the domain in the first place.
I agree. It's good to have real world examples so people can see what can happen under SOPA, but I feel with or without SOPA, DNS providers and hosts are going to make stupid mistakes. I do feel that this sort of blanket "we're shutting you down without contacting you" approach is very scary and frustrating, and I think we all fear it could be very common place with SOPA. Bluehost should not have done anything to his domains without contacting him.
I also feel that maybe real-world examples of servers and domains being seized by the government, justified or not, might be more appropriate. Especially when the domains and hardware seized were due to potential copyright infringements and not overly-stringent spam rules.
The difference is that there is a recourse from this. You can call people and get it reversed. If SOPA goes through, you would have to go to court get it fixed.
This exactly the point I was trying to make -- this was a nightmare, but at least I could do something about it. The same exact thing could happen with SOPA, but instead of jumping registrars and getting things fixed, the situation would require court, and potentially fines and jail.
If SOPA passes, and this happened, we would be dead. Users won't wait around for months while the courts slog through a case, they'll just move to the next app.
I agree. I am anti-SOPA, but this is not censorship so much as an overzealous attempt to stop spam, executed poorly. Did they do a wildcard block/hold/whatever on a top level domain of yours *.mydomain.com so all your sub domains got blocked? I'm guessing some goober at bluehost just went one step farther than he should have in just removing the one DNS entry, and they definitely should have contacted you. Sounds like poor customer service.
And if SOPA passes you will see suspiciously simil overzealuos attempts to stop piracy. Same song, different verse but this time you get the federal government involved which is a whole new level of fun.
This is true, and it makes me thing of all of the private sector solutions that are already available. The market creates the solutions and does not need government interference slowing it down or making dispute resolutions more complicated.
In the U.S., censorship will very likely travel under the guise of some "overzealous attempt" to stop this, that or the other.
SOPA's censorship problem is not the explicit endorsement of censorship but the precedent of mechanisms and principles that will make censorship far easier to implement and "justify".
I'm not seeing why this is rated so highly, its just some android blogger making snarky comments about an iOS blogger and reposting a bunch of hyperbole from a google+ comment.
