Epic context menu
-
@Lorne Kates said:
Duly noted. You can break the law and steal from creators when it's convenient for you. If they don't like it, it's their fault for not chasing after you and telling you to behave. Even though it violates actual codified law, it doesn't upset the fantasy ethic code you made up for yourself.
You do know that's pretty much a textbook definition of a sociopath, right?
We live in a society where it's literally impossible to be familiar with every law on the books, and the only sane way to go about your day-to-day business is to create an internalized code of ethics and hope that it aligns closely with what's written down in the law. That's what I'm doing.
Call it sociopathy if you want.
@Lorne Kates said:
And I'm going to chalk it up to you having brain damage from when I fucked your mom with a purple dildo while you were in utero. Note that this is actually a high compliment to you. I'm finally admitting that you are a human being-- or at least a mammal-- instead of a hatched pod thing like everyone always assumes. You're welcome. Also, you're mom's an open source whore who gives it away for free. Share and share alike. Y'know.
Don't do Morbs, we already got a Morbs to do Morbs. And you're awful at it.
-
@Lorne Kates said:
Duly noted. You can break the law and steal from creators when it's convenient for you. If they don't like it, it's their fault for not chasing after you and telling you to behave. Even though it violates actual codified law, it doesn't upset the fantasy ethic code you made up for yourself.
It doesn't violate actual codified law, actually. It's called fair use and is provided for in 17 U.S.C. § 107. Blakeyrat actually did a pretty good job of explaining how his use passes the four-factor "test".You do know that's pretty much a textbook definition of a sociopath, right?
-
@blakeyrat said:
words@Lorne Kates said:
words
ITT: Blakeyrat works for DoubleClick or another similar sleazy ad outfit, and Lorne is what a major IT news publication calls a "freetard". Neither is right. You know what the right model to monetize websites is? Paid subscriptions. I'd pay [img]http://forums.myg0t.com/tren_z/smilies1/emot-10bux.gif[/img] for the insanity here.
-
Chromium, Mozilla, IE, Opera, they are all terrible. (I am currently using a very old version of Mozilla, with many of my own changes such as relative URI entry, but it is still terrible.) (Many of my own things are available over gopher protocol for this reason, and I use other things too when I can avoid the use of HTTP/HTML/CSS/Flash/Java/100000000 other stupid stuff/etc.)
-
I block ads because of the reasons mentioned (fake download buttons, drive-by-viruses, obnoxious flashing/popups, interstitial ads, ads that linkify random words in the content, ugh - it's a real shithole out there). However, a few sites have politely asked me to disable adblock (they put a non-ad in the space reserved for ads asking me), and guess what, I turned adblock off for those sites; and any site I regularly frequent that does not do scummy things. (Unfortunately, one of the sites I do frequent and would support actually does have these bad-ads, and has even issued a public apology for inadvertently infecting a good number of their users.)
However, I do this out of a desire to show support for the authors of content I consume, not out of any moral or ethical obligation. I don't believe I am "stealing" content or doing anything wrong when I block ads, and no amount of persuasion will convince me otherwise. I'd be a fan of microtransactions except I don't think it would gain the necessary traction to create any substantial payouts. There are other ways to monetize on content, such as merchandising.
Alex's Sponsor Appreciation Day is fairly tasteful, as it is his personal endorsement of products, and part of the content. I have noticed his advertisers dwindling in number though.
-
@joe.edwards said:
Alex's Sponsor Appreciation Day is fairly tasteful, as it is his personal endorsement of products, and part of the content. I have noticed his advertisers dwindling in number though.
The funny thing is, TDWTF is an example of "ads" that work. You can easily view the ENTIRE website as nothing more than a way to advertise BuildMaster. Good content is produced, people in BM's demographic are attracted to the site, and it gives Alex a platform to talk to them directly about a product he produces that they might be interested in.
No popups, intersecionals, etc, etc. In fact, even if every user blocked every ad they saw, it is literally impossible to be a regular member of this site and not know about Indedo, BuildMaster, etc.
THAT is advertisement that works for everyone involved.
-
@joe.edwards said:
and any site I regularly frequent that does not do scummy things.
How do you know whether or not they do "scummy things" if you block ads?
@joe.edwards said:
and no amount of persuasion will convince me otherwise.
We haf vays of making you talk!
@joe.edwards said:
There are other ways to monetize on content, such as merchandising.
Merchandising doesn't work until the site has 50,000 fans. What is the content creator supposed to do while building a fanbase?
-
@Lorne Kates said:
The funny thing is, TDWTF is an example of "ads" that work. You can easily view the ENTIRE website as nothing more than a way to advertise BuildMaster. Good content is produced, people in BM's demographic are attracted to the site, and it gives Alex a platform to talk to them directly about a product he produces that they might be interested in.
No popups, intersecionals, etc, etc. In fact, even if every user blocked every ad they saw, it is literally impossible to be a regular member of this site and not know about Indedo, BuildMaster, etc.
THAT is advertisement that works for everyone involved.
Yes but according to you (at least yesterday-you, maybe not today-you) it's EVIL AND MUST BE ELIMINATED! PURIFY IT WITH FLAMES!
Remember everyone in marketing is evil horrible monsters. Therefore, so is Alex. NEVER FORGET!
-
@blakeyrat said:
Merchandising doesn't work until the site has 50,000 fans. What is the content creator supposed to do while building a fanbase?
Starve like every other artist trying to make it big?
If they don't have any fans or readers, then they are not in a position to demand they make a living off of it. Ask any successful creative person-- by that I mean that their income is 100% from their creative endevours and they can fully support themselves in the lifestyle they are accustomed to. They'll tell you the rule of thumb is to not quit your dayjob until you are making 2.5x the salary you would have made. That will allow you to build up a large enough support buffer for downswings AND cover things you won't get like benefits, time off, etc.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@Lorne Kates said:
Duly noted. You can break the law and steal from creators when it's convenient for you. If they don't like it, it's their fault for not chasing after you and telling you to behave. Even though it violates actual codified law, it doesn't upset the fantasy ethic code you made up for yourself.
You do know that's pretty much a textbook definition of a sociopath, right?
We live in a society where it's literally impossible to be familiar with every law on the books, and the only sane way to go about your day-to-day business is to create an internalized code of ethics and hope that it aligns closely with what's written down in the law. That's what I'm doing.
Call it sociopathy if you want.
We aren't arguing every law. We're arguing this law. And I'm arguing that you are stealing the copyrighted image and impacting Toho's ability to market signatures.
(And yes I'm fully aware of fair use. That is up to the lawyers to decide if Blakey's stealing of Godzilla's content is fair use or not. Even if it is, he's being a freetard by violating the social contract Godzilla's owners might have.)
Oh, that reminds me:
@morbiuswilters said:
@Lorne Kates said:
Do you have express written consent to use his
copyrighted, creative images for your own purposes?He's out nothing. He's got no ads anyway and I'm linking to his site so
I'm probably giving him more traffic than he's seen in a long time.
So it's okay to steal from him because he doesn't run ads? It's okay to
steal from his hobby? You do know he is a content creator. He publishes
books. He sells his services as a consultant. By stealing his
copyrighted material, you've impacted his ability to market himself, or
even market a print edition of his book.But hey, you made a judgement call on his behalf. He should be grateful to you. Much like sites should be grateful to people who visit with adblockers on, because they incrase site traffic? Wait, no, that was wrong. Much like he shouldn't complain because it's a hobby site and making money. Wait, no, you called that argument bullshit when I tried to differentiate between hobby sites and businesses. Hmm, help me out here, Morbs. You're okay with stealing his content and breaking copyright law and he should be grateful to you?
@Morbs said:
@Lorne Kates said:
Or are you just stealing his bandwidth? You do know that it is socially unacceptable to hotlink to images, right?
Did you actually bother checking the img tag before you said that? It's
hosted on my server. It's also down-scaled because the original was
massive.So you are not only making an unlawful reproduction of his work-- worse you're making a derrivative of it? Holy shit, you fucking leech on society.
-
@Lorne Kates said:
Starve like every other artist trying to make it big?
That sucks. We as a society can't do any better than that?
-
@Lorne Kates said:
No, there isn't. I should clarify that there is no such thing as a diet that works, and absolutely no such thing as a miracle fad diet that works as sold by ad networks.
I agreed with you for a good portion of this argument, but I weighed 130 pounds more than I do today (go ahead and laugh) before I found Dr Atkins' New Diet Revolution. (I heard about it on an Infomercial while it was still relatively obscure.) It literally did change my life, despite being seen as a "fad" diet. I only regret not being able to thank the good doctor Atkins while he was still alive.
(Oh, and a special fuck-you to anyone who tries to say "Atkins' own diet killed him." He slipped on ice on a sidewalk, cause of death was blunt force trauma to the head. Yes, I've heard that urban legend a couple times.)
-
@blakeyrat said:
Yes but according to you (at least yesterday-you, maybe not today-you) it's EVIL AND MUST BE ELIMINATED! PURIFY IT WITH FLAMES!
Remember everyone in marketing is evil horrible monsters. Therefore, so is Alex. NEVER FORGET!
Even yestertroll-me said that 3rd party marketers were evil, but 1st party ones (agreeing with joe.edwards) are just fine, and expected. I know your industry loves to muddy the truth to hide their evilness, though, so I'll let this one slide.
But there's tons of examples of first parties trying out lots of new marketing ideas beyond ads that are non-intrusive, productive and work really well. Wanna know a dirty secret? There's a reality show that on its surface is a competition, but underneath is unabashedly a marketing campaign for the brand behind the show. Not only did I try out for it, but if you look hard enough, there's footage out there of me and my entry being rejected-- by name-- on national TV.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@Lorne Kates said:
Starve like every other artist trying to make it big?
That sucks. We as a society can't do any better than that?What would we do? Like any other endeavor, if you can't convince anyone to give you money for something, why should we be forced to do so? The cure is worse than the disease. So much of what is called "art" is something the average person would throw into the garbage and never think twice. So how do you filter out the scammers looking for a free ride from the genuinely talented? How do you even define the genuinely talented?
Artistic freeloading already happens way too much. If you disagree, take it up with the titty whale, paid for by unfortunate Australian tax payers.
The only good answer is to have them convince others by virtue of their output. Like everyone else.
-
@Lorne Kates said:
THIS THREAD IS NOW ABOUT DIETS!
You had a social contract with OP not to derail the derailment! Wait, I'm the OP? OK then.
Believe it or not, "calories in/calories out" is actually a vast oversimplification of the metabolic processes involved. It's really not that simple.
My current diet has minimums for calories, fat, protein, etc but no maximums*! I eat more calories than when I was gaining weight, but now I either lose or stay the same. Exercise certainly helps, but I lost around the first 70 pounds while my lifestyle was still basically sedentary (I was too heavy for strenuous exercise at that point). Nowadays I spend 2 hours a day at the gym, but that's for overall fitness not weight control - I could still stay thin without it.
*The exception is net carbohydrates, which have a sliding maximum that depends on my physical activity level.
-
I don't see why fourth party content blocking is more unethical then uninstalling Flash/Java/Adobe Reader/etc.
For names, I pulled up a page on Wikia. Wikia loads ads from Google, who here loads ads from atdmt.com (Microsoft). Microsoft loads the ads from flite.com (Widgetbox, Inc.) Widgetbox serves up an ad bought by the video game publisher Deep Silver.
As I describe it, I'd allow Google ads. If Deep Silver wants to buy an ad from Google, they can, and it would display.
If Microsoft wants to buy an ad from Google, they can do it too, and let the ad display. However, since, instead of actually advertising anything, all Microsoft puts in their ad is another ad, so that ad is blocked.
I really do think the only real problem in online advertising is ad syndication. I don't understand why this is a thing even. In order to turn a profit, Microsoft would have to charge more per ad the Google, then Widgetbox would have to charge more then Microsoft, so it should save Deep Silver money to actually buy their ad straight from Google.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@joe.edwards said:
and any site I regularly frequent that does not do scummy things.
How do you know whether or not they do "scummy things" if you block ads?
Easy. I turn the ad blocker off, and if the googles do nothing, I turn it back on.
My current aggravation is sites that act as though I clicked an ad when I didn't - I basically get kidnapped and sent to an unrelated website. I don't know how exactly they're getting away with this (technically easy but won't the ad network catch on?), but they're simultaneously defrauding the advertising network AND making my life a little more stressful.
Edit: I suppose it's possible that a syndicated ad somewhere in the chain is doing this, but doesn't that just increase their own cost? Unless they deem additional traffic to be worth-it.
-
@blakeyrat said:
"lose weight in 30 days!" - offensive, block
Of course those weight loss adverts are offensive - they're fucking lying. Why ad networks permit them is the reason that perhaps there should be regulation on ad networks banning them before they even hit an ad blocker.
Oh - hang on - didn't you say earlier that they do self-regulate?
-
@Lorne Kates said:
But there's tons of examples of first parties trying out lots of new marketing ideas beyond ads that are non-intrusive, productive and work really well. Wanna know a dirty secret? There's a reality show that on its surface is a competition, but underneath is unabashedly a marketing campaign for the brand behind the show. Not only did I try out for it, but if you look hard enough, there's footage out there of me and my entry being rejected-- by name-- on national TV.
Is it the one where you compete to be a Sony game tester by wearing a fishbowl on your head? Because that one was awesome.
The best part is that apparently nobody running the contest explained what a shitty horrible job game tester (much less Sony game tester) actually is. So they're competing for a prize worse than "free job at McDonalds!"
-
@MiffTheFox said:
I don't see why fourth party content blocking is more unethical then uninstalling Flash/Java/Adobe Reader/etc.
Uninstalling Java is unethical? This... this is a new one. Even for this crazy thread, that's CRAZY.
@MiffTheFox said:
Wikia loads ads from Google, who here loads ads from atdmt.com (Microsoft).
Not anymore, Microsoft sold Atlas to Facebook. But they bought it for a fucking stupid reason in the first place. (Basically, Microsoft wanted to keep Atlas' customer-base and swap-out the software for something they wrote in-house. Not realizing, apparently, that running software that does millions of impressions a second for thousands of customers and retains all the impression data and reports it in real-time +/- 5 minutes is... actually pretty damned hard. Not to mention the problems importing the data from Atlas, in some cases a decade's worth, into their new system. One of the dumber decisions Microsoft has made recently.
@MiffTheFox said:
If Microsoft wants to buy an ad from Google, they can do it too, and let the ad display.
So web advertising is ok, only so long as Google retains a monopoly on it?
You're really bringing the crazy today, Miff. This shit is awesome.
@MiffTheFox said:
However, since, instead of actually advertising anything, all Microsoft puts in their ad is another ad, so that ad is blocked.
I could actually get behind that sentiment. You're basically opting-out of ad retargeting, when you implement it that way. The only problem is that unlike uninstalling Flash, the ad server can't detect that situation and serve an alternative. Well, and it's unfair to enforce those rules for Atlas and not Google/DoubleClick.
@MiffTheFox said:
I really do think the only real problem in online advertising is ad syndication. I don't understand why this is a thing even. In order to turn a profit, Microsoft would have to charge more per ad the Google, then Widgetbox would have to charge more then Microsoft, so it should save Deep Silver money to actually buy their ad straight from Google.
The targeting service that Widgetbox offers:
1) Is too technically sophisticated for most customers to set up (remember, we're talking big big big data served in real-time here)
2) Makes the ad placements so much more valuable that they can skim a decent percentage off the topSo there's a natural business-case for Widgetbox to exist.
-
@joe.edwards said:
My current aggravation is sites that act as though I clicked an ad when I didn't - I basically get kidnapped and sent to an unrelated website. I don't know how exactly they're getting away with this (technically easy but won't the ad network catch on?), but they're simultaneously defrauding the advertising network AND making my life a little more stressful.
Idiot JavaScript developers who are moron idiot shitheads can do this on accident by using document.write().
But I've never seen that happen... ever, I think. Except once on a Windows Phone 7. I don't doubt you saw it happen, but it could hardly be called "common".
-
@PJH said:
Of course those weight loss adverts are offensive - they're fucking lying. Why ad networks permit them is the reason that perhaps there should be regulation on ad networks banning them before they even hit an ad blocker.
Oh - hang on - didn't you say earlier that they do self-regulate?The US has very few truth-in-advertising laws. If you want them to remove those ads, get the government to pass a law saying they're illegal. Right now they ain't.
The industry does self-regulate. But it doesn't go above and beyond what the law requires.
-
@blakeyrat said:
You're basically opting-out of ad retargeting, when you implement it that way. The only problem is that unlike uninstalling Flash, the ad server can't detect that situation and serve an alternative.
Technically it's probably feasible to detect, but such an unusual configuration it wouldn't be worthwhile to handle.
-
Whoa, four posts in a row. Blakey's writing a novel. About advertisements.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@MiffTheFox said:
If Microsoft wants to buy an ad from Google, they can do it too, and let the ad display.
So web advertising is ok, only so long as Google retains a monopoly on it?
You're really bringing the crazy today, Miff. This shit is awesome.
Web advertising is OK as long as the company who the ad space is sold to is the one doing the actual advertising. If Atlas buys ad space with Google and just sells it to Widgetbox, that's bad. If Google buys ad space with Atlas and just sells it to Widgetbox, that's bad. If a site had Atlas ads that embedded a Google ad, the Atlas ad should show but the Google ad should be blocked. That's why I said specifically fourth-party content instead of naming any specific advertiser, outside of the example I gave.
And they can detect when ad syndication isn't being done when the content from the ad syndication site refuses to load. Blip does it and they're the first party. Who says that third, fourth, and fifth parties can't either?
-
@blakeyrat said:
Because I r so dum!!!
That's not what I meant at all. You don't strike me as the artistic type, if I'm wrong, I apologize.
@blakeyrat said:So am I, but the vast majority of sites don't ask for "throw a few bucks", they ask for "view ad placements". Like I said above about Ars, you're welcome to do whatever the fuck you want with your own site. But your site doesn't speak for the rest of the Internet. And saying, "I block ads because the 1% of sites I visit that have tip jars, I might someday tip them", that's fucking ridiculous.
And they are welcome to do that, but as I recall, I bought this monitor and this PC, not them. Ergo, I decide what runs on it and what doesn't.But of course you understand that far better than I do, because I'm so dumb.
-
@Master Chief said:
I bought this monitor and this PC, not them. Ergo, I decide what runs on it and what doesn't.
Go buy an iPad then let's revisit this statement...
-
@Ben L. said:
Whoa, four posts in a row. Blakey's writing a novel. About advertisements.
He makes "six figures" (probably with 2 leading 0s) at an Internet advertising company.
Doing what? God knows.
-
@drurowin said:
@Ben L. said:
Whoa, four posts in a row. Blakey's writing a novel. About advertisements.
He makes "six figures" (probably with 2 leading 0s) at an Internet advertising company.
Doing what? God knows.
Is the fourth digit a decimal point?
$005.00
-
@drurowin said:
@Ben L. said:
Whoa, four posts in a row. Blakey's writing a novel. About advertisements.
He makes "six figures" (probably with 2 leading 0s) at an Internet advertising company.
Uh, what? Wrong and wrong.
It's kind of hard to have conversations with people when they make shit up and claim they "know" it about me. Drurowin would know that, being a circus strongman with an Iranian wife and 5 parrots.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@PJH said:
They're illegal in my country. Quite why they aren't in your's is perhaps something you could address.@blakeyrat said:Of course those weight loss adverts are offensive - they're fucking lying. Why ad networks permit them is the reason that perhaps there should be regulation on ad networks banning them before they even hit an ad blocker.
Oh - hang on - didn't you say earlier that they do self-regulate?The US has very few truth-in-advertising laws. If you want them to remove those ads, get the government to pass a law saying they're illegal. Right now they ain't.
The industry does self-regulate. But it doesn't go above and beyond what the law requires.
That is not self-regulation. Courts do the regulation if all they're doing is going by the letter of the law. "Self-regulation" is:The regulatory authority could be applied in addition to some form of government regulation, or it could fill the vacuum of an absence of government oversight and regulation.
i.e. they're aiming for a higher standard than merely the letter of the law (where there even is one, which you seem to indicate that there isn't.)
-
@PJH said:
They're illegal in my country. Quite why they aren't in your's is perhaps something you could address.
I like my country just fine the way it is.
@PJH said:
"Self-regulation" is:
The regulatory authority could be applied in addition to some form of government regulation, or it could fill the vacuum of an absence of government oversight and regulation.
i.e. they're aiming for a higher standard than merely the letter of the law (where there even is one, which you seem to indicate that there isn't.)Your interpretation of the definition doesn't match the definition you've provided. Note the second clause.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@PJH said:
You're violently agreeing with me. There's no government oversight, and your advertising is something of the wild west where they can advertise lies and get away with it. Thus there is no self-regulation."Self-regulation" is:
The regulatory authority could be applied in addition to some form of government regulation, or it could fill the vacuum of an absence of government oversight and regulation.
i.e. they're aiming for a higher standard than merely the letter of the law (where there even is one, which you seem to indicate that there isn't.)Your interpretation of the definition doesn't match the definition you've provided. Note the second clause.
-
@PJH said:
You're violently agreeing with me.
No.
@PJH said:
There's no government oversight, and your advertising is something of the wild west where they can advertise lies and get away with it. Thus there is no self-regulation.
Look, let me ask you a question: is there government regulation on what pharmaceuticals are distributed? (Note: the answer is yes.) Is there a government agent present at all times pharmaceuticals are delivered? (Note: the answer is no.) So while there is regulation, there is no oversight. Do you understand one can exist without the other? Do you understand those words you so condescendingly copied-and-pasted into this thread?
The pharmaceutical industry self-regulates, so does the ad serving industry. Or would you disagree and say the pharmaceutical industry *doesn't* self-regulate, thus being wrong in the eyes of... everybody ever? Pick an option.
And please, develop 5th grade reading comprehension skills. It'd save me from having to write these tedious explanations of how much of an idiot you are.
-
@boomzilla said:
What would we do? Like any other endeavor, if you can't convince anyone to give you money for something, why should we be forced to do so? The cure is worse than the disease. So much of what is called "art" is something the average person would throw into the garbage and never think twice. So how do you filter out the scammers looking for a free ride from the genuinely talented? How do you even define the genuinely talented?
Thank you. I was going to respond the same way. Except my response didn't have a titwalrus. I'm not sure if that supported or destroyed your argument though.
Titwalrus.
-
@Ronald said:
@Master Chief said:
I bought this monitor and this PC, not them. Ergo, I decide what runs on it and what doesn't.
Go buy an iPad then let's revisit this statement...
I've had an iPad for months, and fail to see what you're talking about.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@PJH said:
Yes.You're violently agreeing with me.
No.
@blakeyrat said:
The pharmaceutical industry self-regulates
Uh-huh...@blakeyrat said:so does the ad serving industry
It demonstrably does not. Why else would it allow, for example, the advertising of fake diets that don't fucking work? Like I've already pointed out?
And you have the cheek to call me on my reading comprehension skills? Perhaps you need to get some yourself. You prove time and time again on here that you either cannot comprehend the simplest of views and misconstrue them (let alone the more complicated ones when people try to correct you,) or you're deliberately sitting there doing whatever the visual equivalent is of sitting there with your fingers in your ears going "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" simply to troll.
I simply haven't been able to work out which it is yet. Not that they need be mutually exclusive...
-
@PJH said:
It demonstrably does not.
Don't use the word "demonstrably", that's my word.
Especially don't use it when you're wrong.
@PJH said:
Why else would it allow, for example, the advertising of fake diets that don't fucking work? Like I've already pointed out?
Because they don't agree with you that diet ads are 1) fake or 2) something that should be banned even if they are fake.
"Self-regulate" doesn't mean, "shares all my opinions." It means... well you defined it like 4 posts up, so look.
@PJH said:
And you have the cheek to call me on my reading comprehension skills? Perhaps you need to get some yourself.
You didn't even fucking read the fucking definition you fucking pasted here for us to fucking read you fucking wanker!
-
@blakeyrat said:
It means... well you defined it like 4 posts up, so look.
Yup. I did when I posted it - you are clearly misreading it to.. what was it? Ah, that was it:
@blakeyrat said:shares all my[blakeyrat's] opinions
Self-regulation happens to either enhance regulation that already exists (there isn't any), or provide regulation when there isn't any (they don't). Since no regulation happens at all there cannot, therefore, be any self-regulation happening.
-
@joe.edwards said:
I agreed with you for a good portion of this argument, but I weighed 130 pounds more than I do today (go ahead and laugh) before I found Dr Atkins' New Diet Revolution. (I heard about it on an Infomercial while it was still relatively obscure.) It literally did change my life, despite being seen as a "fad" diet. I only regret not being able to thank the good doctor Atkins while he was still alive.
Okay, so first, good work losing weight and getting healthy. Now I'm going to give you a biology lesson to show you how lucky you are to be alive and healthy.
Here's the very basics of how the human body works. When you eat, your body uses carbs for power. One of the main thing it powers is breaking down protiens into amino acids, which are uses to do just about everything else (grow hair, repair tissue, etc, etc).
Anything your eat that is either too much for your body to process, or that your body cannot process, it will eliminate. That's why you can measure protien levels in pee, and it explains cornshit.
Anything your body can't eliminate is toxic and will harm you. This is the literal definition of a poison. So it wraps it in fat and stores it away for later. This includes anything that can't be digested and would be harmful if it stuck around, like, say, trace amounts of heavy metals in fish. Really horrific, nasty stuff. But just tiny, tiny amounts, so it's okay.
Also, when you eat more carbohydrates than are needed at the moment, your body ALSO wraps them in fat and stores them for later. This is why people get fat.
Now along comes the high protein diet. Suddenly, there aren't enough carbohydrates to break down the proteins you have ingested. Even though there is a sufficient amount of protein in your stomach, your body cannot process them. It starts to literally freak the fuck out. It goes into what is called "starvation mode". It begins to feed off itself. It starts to rip apart fat cells like a motherfucker looking for those carbs it put away for later. Because as far as your body is concerned, right at this moment it is starving to death and SHIT IS DIRE!
It puts a huge amount of stress on your body. But worse, remember all those toxic shit and heavy metal from a couple paragraphs back? Remember how they were stored in fat cells. Well, your body has no way of knowing which fat cells contain carbs, and which contain poison. It just opens them all.
So you have a massive and sudden flood of all the bad shit your body's been putting away. A trace amount of heavy metal, no problem. A couple decade's worth of stored "trace amounts". Uh-oh. (This isn't even touching upon what all those ripped upon fat cells are doing to your digestive and elimination system).
So the quick, non-exhaustive laundry list of risks you're currently exposed to at that point:
- Kidney damage from excess protein
- Heavy metal poisoning, which could shut down your gall bladder
- Fucked up sugar levels may lead to a diabetic coma
- Starvation mode feeds off the tissue of your organs, damaging heart, kidney, lungs
- Some real fun vitamin and mineral deficiencies, my favorite being osteoporosis (oh snap!)
Not to mention risk of heart attack from eating too much of the wrong type of protein (high fat diet), and increased risk of cancer.
Most people will go on the crash "miracle| diet, lose weight, then go right back to their regular eating and gain it all back.
And to top it all off, this "diet' isn't a new thing. It isn't a secret. It's basic biology that's been know for roughly ever.
So yeah, Atkiens is a scam. Goddamn, the very name: "New Revoluotion". It uses loaded words to make it seem like Atkins discovered and invented a new magic cure. He just repackaged a well known medical procedure in a fancy name, then sold you information that your doctor could have given you for free. None of these health risks were on the informercial, because after all, the industry is self-regulating. The program has all the other hallmarks of a scam too: flashy marketing, high-pressure sales, over-reliance on expensive procedures&supplements, ignorance of health risks.
And yes, some legitimate medical doctors will prescribe this crash diet. One of my wife's co-workers had to go one one to lose a large chunk of weight quickly so he wouldn't die when he went into emergency hip surgery. But the key word there is "prescribed". It's used in narrow circumstances, by trained medical professionals, for the benefit of the patient, and under EXTREME medical supervision.
And let me cut the whole "but Atkiens is medically supervised" bit off at the pass. You literally placed your life in the hands of people whose only goals was to make some commission off of you. Of course it's medically supervised, though. Too many people dying is bad for business. (Not ANY dying-- just too many).
So again, good job getting healthy and staying that way. But don't hero worship Atkins. If you could meet him, maybe you can thank him, then punch him in the throat for risking your life for his gain. And then feel bad for all the death, organ failure, weight rebound and misery he left in his wake from all the failed diets.
-
A good example of actual self-regulation is the Hays Code adopted by the then-MPPDA (now MPAA), though it was mostly an attempt to prevent government regulation from being enacted.
-
@joe.edwards said:
Believe it or not, "calories in/calories out" is actually a vast oversimplification of the metabolic processes involved. It's really not that simple.
My current diet has minimums for calories, fat, protein, etc but no maximums*! I eat more calories than when I was gaining weight, but now I either lose or stay the same. Exercise certainly helps, but I lost around the first 70 pounds while my lifestyle was still basically sedentary (I was too heavy for strenuous exercise at that point). Nowadays I spend 2 hours a day at the gym, but that's for overall fitness not weight control - I could still stay thin without it.
It's a vast oversimplicifcation because it's the number 1 thing that people don't understand and they get fat because of. Your average person should eat 1800-2000 calories per day. Roughly 600 calories per meal. And yet people don't realize that the tin of pop is 200 calories, the bag of chips is another 200-- on top of the 600+ calorie meal they eat. That doesn't even account for snacks. Calories pile up REAL quick.
Knowing where your daily calories come from is the #1 thing everyone should learn. Hell, just using a site like Fit Day for a month is fucking enlightening.
As for your maximum-- well, I just covered some basic biology above. Of course you can eat tons of excess calories from protein. Your kidneys will hate you. This is why nutritional guidelines put out by Health Canada or whatever your American equiv is note what percentage of calories per day you SHOULD get from sugar, protein, fat, etc.
Having calories under control is the first big battle. Balancing your sugar, protein, fat, cholesterol, sodium and vitamins is the next part. Knowing how to balance and modify that with exercise is the last leg.
I mean, for fuck's sake, with the information and support available these days, even someone with type 2 diabetes can control it 100% with carefully crafted diet and exercise plan, and completely eliminate the reliance on insulin injections.
-
@blakeyrat said:
"Self-regulate"
And speaking of which-- David Willis, highly successful content creators, just [url="http://www.dumbingofage.com/2013/comic/book-3/03-answers-in-hennessy/altercation-2/"]is in the process of switching ad networks[/url]. Scroll past the comic and see the newspost.
@David Willis said:
Hey, guys! Now that I’m with Hiveworks, they’re gonna be testing new ads with me — y’know, going through different ad networks, seeing what is good and what isn’t. Since there’s a lot of trial and error involved, there might be some bad ads! You know, stuff with sounds or pop-ups. If you see anything like that, here’s something you could do that would help us make sure they don’t pop up again:
E-mail antares@thehiveworks.com with as many of the following as you can manage:
- the ad image
- image URL
- source code of the tag (right click>inspect element)
- screenshot if possible
- your location
So the industry is SO self regulated that one of the top webcomic content producers, using what seems to be one of the top ad networks-- is stil SO vulnerable to shit, scam, annoying ads that he has to warn his readers, apologize, and have them report the offensive ads directly to the ad network itself along with technical details beyond the kin of the average user. Inspect element? Screenshot?
How do these ads even get on ad networks? Sound? Pop-up? "Bad ads". Direct from the mouth of one of the most successful content creators on the Internet.
-
You could at least read his book before you start saying it's wrong. The fact that I've been on this diet for over a quarter of my life so far and am in the best physical shape of my life not withstanding...
@Lorne Kates said:
- Kidney damage from excess protein
- Heavy metal poisoning, which could shut down your gall bladder
I haven't seen any evidence of either of these problems, but I'll look into getting it checked out.
@Lorne Kates said:- Fucked up sugar levels may lead to a diabetic coma
Actually, if anything my blood sugar levels have been stabilizing. In the book you won't read he explains that part of the reason obesity is hard to fight is because of spiking blood sugar levels and the corresponding insulin spike that follows. Leveling out carbohydrates causes blood sugar/insulin levels to stay relatively consistent.
@Lorne Kates said:Starvation mode feeds off the tissue of your organs, damaging heart, kidney, lungs
I'm not in starvation mode, remember I said I had minimums for things like calories? My lean muscle mass is increasing while fat has been decreasing.
@Lorne Kates said:Some real fun vitamin and mineral deficiencies, my favorite being osteoporosis (oh snap!)
I actually take several supplements for this purpose, just like the doctor advises in the book you're quick to criticize but not read. Also, I take into consideration things like whether the vitamin is water- or fat- soluble, and modify the method of intake appropriately.
@Lorne Kates said:Not to mention risk of heart attack from eating too much of the wrong type of protein (high fat diet), and increased risk of cancer.
My blood pressure, triglycerides, cholesterol, etc levels have actually been getting consistently better with time, my at-rest and exercising heart rates have both dropped from the red zone into the green. The book also explains why this happens.
The basic metabolic process in play with this diet is known as ketosis, and I monitor my ketone levels with urinalysis reagent strips; too low, and I'm either not exercising enough or eating too many carbs, too high and I need to scale it back a bit to prevent ketoacidosis [a harmful process often conflated with ketosis].
He actually does cover the risks and ways to mitigate them in his book, it's not just "stop eating carbs you guys;" he also addresses many of the myths. The actual real Atkins diet as described in the book is a dynamic one that adjusts over time and responds to observation and feedback of your own body's responses. I suppose I am successful because I've actually researched the pitfalls and tradeoffs involved, and I have a good understanding of when adjustments need to be made.
-
I'm not going to have a semantics debate with you. All the sane people on this board are aware that the concept of self-regulation is separate from the set of things that are regulated.
@Lorne Kates said:
So the industry is SO self regulated that one of the top webcomic content producers, using what seems to be one of the top ad networks--
"Hiveworks?" I've never heard of them.
@Lorne Kates said:
How do these ads even get on ad networks? Sound? Pop-up? "Bad ads".
They don't get on reputable ad networks. Only sleazy ones.
-
@joe.edwards said:
You could at least read his book before you start saying it's wrong. The fact that I've been on this diet for over a quarter of my life so far and am in the best physical shape of my life not withstanding...
I'll stick to the medical journals and publications. You have to know that when you say "read his book" when arguing the facts, you're presenting an obviously biased viewpoint.
Again, I'm not disagreeing that YOU are in great physical shape, and that there is no doubt that changes in your lifestyle including the diet have contributed to that. But you're one anecdote, and the plural of anecdote isn't data.
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/High-Protein-Diets_UCM_305989_Article.jsp
@joe.edwards said:
@Lorne Kates said:
- Kidney damage from excess protein
- Heavy metal poisoning, which could shut down your gall bladder
I haven't seen any evidence of either of these problems, but I'll look into getting it checked out.
The kidney should be your main worry. The gall bladder would tend to get damaged during Phase I of the diet when you have your sudden massive weight loss. The kidney damage is an ongoing risk. And obviously "it hasn't happened yet" shouldn't be a reason to dismiss the risk, as all of us in IT know. =)@joe.edwards said:
I actually take several supplements for this purpose, just like the doctor advises in the book you're quick to criticize but not read. Also, I take into consideration things like whether the vitamin is water- or fat- soluble, and modify the method of intake appropriately.
Please prove I haven't read it.
You're just echoing what I said. When you're on this diet, you're exposed to the risk of vitamin and mineral deficiency. The fact that you have to take a carefully regulated regiment of "several supplements" should be a hint. I don't know where you get the supplements from, but this is also one of my points against "fad" diets. They'll gladly sell you those supplements, at an inflated price, with "magic" branding, often claiming they're magically "better" than the exact same thing you can get at a fraction of the cost from Walgreens.
@joe.edwards said:
ketosis
I'll see your Atkins Book and raise you a Sugeon General:
[url="http://www.shapeup.org/about/arch_pr/122903.php"]"People need to wake up to the reality that diets that restrict the consumption of entire food groups - especially essential carbohydrates like fruits and vegetables - are unhealthy and can be dangerous," says former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop[/url]
Also, the [url="http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/High-Protein-Diets_UCM_305989_Article.jsp"]American Heart Association[/url] isn't too fond of high-protein diets, either.
@AHA said:
The American Heart Association doesn't recommend high-protein diets for weight loss. Some of these diets restrict healthful foods that provide essential nutrients and don't provide the variety of foods needed to adequately meet nutritional needs. People who stay on these diets very long may not get enough vitamins and minerals and face other potential health risks.
Again, it's all about knowledge and risk management. I'd gladly get you some more links, I'm just trying to filter out most of the nuttier anti-Atkins sites that float to the top of Google. They're generally right, but are often written in the same pseudo-science scare language that I'm criticizing, and in most cases don't properly reference the facts. It takes a while to drill down to AHA, the Mayo Clinic, and other reputable health organizations.
Sidenote: I'm married to a biologist. She is a font of neverending fascinating information.
Did you know that with a powerful enough microscope and tools, you can not only fertilize a human egg directly, but actually watch it occur. Holy fucking shit we live in amazing times. Fascinating video with the procedure. Worth watching the whole thing, but I've timejumped it to the good part: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=kcJWPWb2uBs#t=426s
-
@blakeyrat said:
@Lorne Kates said:
No true Scotsman...How do these ads even get on ad networks? Sound? Pop-up? "Bad ads".
They don't get on reputable ad networks. Only sleazy ones.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@Lorne Kates said:
So the industry is SO self regulated that one of the top webcomic content producers, using what seems to be one of the top ad networks--
"Hiveworks?" I've never heard of them.
@Lorne Kates said:
How do these ads even get on ad networks? Sound? Pop-up? "Bad ads".
They don't get on reputable ad networks. Only sleazy ones.
They seem to syndicate ads through Ad Sense and Quantcast? Are those slezy ones? I don't know. There's too many layers of X-party to know.@blakeyrat said:
I'm not going to have a semantics debate with you. All the sane people on this board are aware that the concept of self-regulation is separate from the set of things that are regulated.
I AM WRONG AND CAN'T DEFEND MY POINT!
None of us are arguing the meaning of the word. You're saying that the ad industry isn't full of scummy shit because they make sure it isn't all by themselves. Your opponents are arguing that the ad industry does not do so and instead profits off the scum. At best they'll do everything in their power to toe the line, fine loopholes, or pull a "it's only wrong if you get caught".
Weren't you arguing people shouldn't adblock because even if it isn't technially against the law, it's unethical and immoral? That's the same standard we want to hold the ad industry to. It may not be technically against the law to peddle fake diets, but it's unethical and immoral (except for when it is contrary to law, and then it's also illegal).
-
@Lorne Kates said:
So it's okay to steal from him because he doesn't run ads? It's okay to
steal from his hobby? You do know he is a content creator. He publishes
books. He sells his services as a consultant. By stealing his
copyrighted material, you've impacted his ability to market himself, or
even market a print edition of his book.This thread has become massively brain-damaged, but this is just flat-out dumb. Maybe if I stole his entire comic and reposted it somewhere, you could argue that I was depriving him of something. I have a down-scaled image from one panel of his comic that has a lot of the image cut off. And I'm hosting it on my own server and linking to his comic, so I'm out nothing.
@Lorne Kates said:
Much like sites should be grateful to people who visit with adblockers on, because they incrase site traffic?
Why would anyone be grateful for this? You're just sucking up bandwidth and giving nothing in return. You're a freeloader. A bum.
@Lorne Kates said:
You're okay with stealing his content and breaking copyright law and he should be grateful to you?
Please explain how this violates copyright law? I'm not reproducing any significant portion of the work, I'm simply showing a part of a single panel with a link to his site. I can't think of any courts that would agree with you that this is copyright infringement.
-
@Lorne Kates said:
I'll stick to the medical journals and publications. You have to know that when you say "read his book" when arguing the facts, you're presenting an obviously biased viewpoint.
I just don't think you have any ground to say something is wrong when you're not clear on what it is you're saying is wrong. Your argument becomes a strawman of what you conjecture the book says.
@Lorne Kates said:Please prove I haven't read it.
Well, it seems clear you don't know that most of the issues you raised are already covered by the book. Sure, some people skim it and miss important caveats, but I can't see how it's the fault of the system as-prescribed.
@Lorne Kates said:The fact that you have to take a carefully regulated regiment of "several supplements" should be a hint. I don't know where you get the supplements from, but this is also one of my points against "fad" diets. They'll gladly sell you those supplements, at an inflated price, with "magic" branding, often claiming they're magically "better" than the exact same thing you can get at a fraction of the cost from Walgreens.
I've seen this in other diets, but not this one. There is a line of Atkins products, but these are not misrepresented as either a) necessary for the diet to work, or b) better than the generic/self-cooked alternatives. They are advertised as more convenient; and, well, they often are. I tend to buy their protein bars, but the dietary supplements are from GNC (and for the record, I have never once walked out of that place without feeling fleeced).
I will easily concede that it's easy to approach it carelessly and ignore the necessary supplementation and avoid closely monitoring your body's response. Thank you for the additional information, I will research it and come to my own conclusions (as I've done all along).
