smashweights

^^^THIS^^^ I've been with Sprint for 2 years now, plan to re-up this summer and have had perfectly good service. The only place I have trouble catching 3g is out deer hunting in BFE Iowa. This is the only place I've seen a difference between Sprint and Verizon, my previous carrier. My family and I got in a plan for $40/mo. with unlimited data on my EVO. They give out a lot of different company discounts, IIRC. Not to mention keeping business away from Verizon/ATT keeps the competition up. Minor, but noteworthy bit was Verizon blocks my friends from installing tethering apps on Android like FreeTether and PDA Net. Sprint does not, so if you tether and don't root you may have more options. This could just be my own observation.

Good, glad you're finding it worthwhile. It's a bit basic at first and gets a little more in-depth later but overall is mostly to help you figure the basics out and get started.

Ditto, if it were any other family I'd disagree with you, but homicide runs in this family...

Didn't Ted Kennedy "kill" his girlfriend back in the day too? http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/16/us/mary-kennedy-dead/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Page 22 of 22 « First < 122021 22

How is this thread 22 pages long!?

*savvy But in all seriousness, check out that book, it's a good place to start.

Here's my advice: you have 17 years to figure out your plan. If you haven't worked out a comprehensive financial plan: retirement, loans, kids college, etc. Take a few months, read good investment books, get involved in an investment forum, and nail down exactly how you're going to tackle your total financial picture over the long haul. There's a lot to consider with tax implications that you'll want to be aware of and plan ahead to cover. For instance, do you know if the 529 tax deduction will be better off than the untaxed Roth growth (if that was part of the plan)? Should you even consider using your limited Roth space to hold future college money? How risky of an investment approach should you take with the funds? Stocks or bonds or both and what ratio and how to change it as your time horizon approaches. How to take expenses into account. Consider picking this book up, it's a great place to start for someone with minimal investment experience and does a great job explaining types of investments, tax implications, and even a short chapter on college savings: http://www.amazon.com/Bogleheads-Guide-Investing-Taylor-Larimore/dp/0471730335 There's also an associated forum at www.bogleheads.org that has some incredibly good information on topics just like this. Anyway, the point is still don't rush into anything just yet. Take the time to figure out your financial plan so you're comfortable in any market situation. Your total financial picture is bigger than just a potential 529 savings plan and only you have all the information to figure this out successfully. It's a long journey! Good luck!

I think he will. You remember a few years before Obama ran, you already could tell they were grooming up their new young candidate before he ran as he was starting to get just enough media attention to get him noticed but not enough to make him a target, not unlike Rand. IMO, giving Romney the nomination, aka last election's republican reject, is essentially a strategy to hold out their best candidate, whoever that may be, for an election year when a non-incumbent is running against them. I think it's pretty obvious this is what they're doing as you can just listen to Romney in the debates and since then: his position is basically "you don't like Obama, right? Tada!" Not unlike the platform John Kerry ran on against GWB when he was up for re-election and Obama was waiting in the wing. BUT the bottom line is still what George Washington warned us about: the political party concept (especially a two-party system) is horrendous for our country.

Yes, gasoline doesn't explode, it burns (except in the case of engine knock, IIRC) but that is partly my point: I don't spout off engineering advice because it's not what I know. -You have claimed this is all coming from scientists, yet haven't cited a single scientific paper. While I'm not claiming you're making it up, you're possibly getting your information from bad sources and likely non-scientists masquerading opinion and anecdotes as science. -If you'd like to argue over AIDS vs. immunosuppression terminology go ahead. But it doesn't change the fact that HIV causes AIDS. -"There’s never been a single study that proves saturated fat causes heart disease." And there never will be. There will never be PROOF that a single risk factor absolutely causes a disease in ALL cases. Just like you can smoke your whole life without getting lung cancer, you can eat shitty your whole life and never have a heart attack. Doesn't mean smoking doesn't cause lung cancer, it means it's a risk factor. Here's just one study published in the journal of preventive medicine that shows a correlation: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091743585710493 "Of the individual saturated fatty acids, the average population intake of lauric and myristic acid was most strongly related to the average serum cholesterol level (r > 0.8, P < 0.001). Strong positive associations were observed between 25-year death rates from coronary heartdisease and average intake of the four major saturated fatty acids, lauric, myristic, palmitic, and stearic acid (r > 0.8, P < 0.001); the trans fatty acid elaidic acid (r = 0.78, P < 0.001); and dietary cholesterol (r = 0.55, P < 0.05). Conclusions. Interpreted in the light of experimental and clinical studies, the results of these cross-cultural analyses suggest that dietary saturated and trans fatty acids and dietary cholesterol are important determinants of differences in population rates of coronary heartdisease death." -Your next 3 points about the 1900's, autopsies, and Indians are just affirming the fact that a risk factor is not an absolute cause of a disease. These are very loose generalizations and prove absolutely nothing. -No one cares what Morgan Spurlock says, period. -The brain is made up of "fat." That is true, just like every other cell in your body. Please cite the research associated with this ADD claim, however. ADD is also a psychological condition and, again, likely multifactorial. No one is claiming you should have a zero saturated fat diet. -Again, please cite your data on epileptics and sugar's link to cancer, primary research or an article with citations to primary research please. -To your point about fat and behaviors is kind of circular reasoning. You generally don't get fat without behaviors that get you fat. Again, being overweight is a risk factor, not a definitive cause. Can you be healthy and fat? Sure, because healthy is a subjective term. There are a plethora of conditions associated with higher risk in being purely overweight regardless of other risk factors like cholesterol or diet. -Last bullet point: again, no one said saturated fat and cholesterol have no positive role in your body. Cholesterol is made into all sorts of hormones in your body: testosterone, estrogen, cortisol, aldosterone, for example. It's excessive amounts that are related to poor health conditions. Likewise, excess vitamins can cause diseases in excess. Finally your article, the lone citation. Your resource, after you told us "people listen to doctors all too often. and what the doc says is the word of the land. the problem with that is a doctor that you go to isn't any more aware of anything that you are. they're only repeating what they've been taught. they're not doing any of the research" your source of information is... a doctor, and what appears to be one who does not do primary research to boot. A bit problematic for your logic eh? Not to mention an article with the disclaimer "Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author" and contains ZERO citations to current research literature. Not to mention significant conflicts of interest in being hosted by a "natural health product website" that's trying to make money off of people who distrust the current medical industry. Dr. Rosedale, the author, is also selling a diet book claiming to have a simple "21-day diet plan." I haven't read the book, and it may be good advice, but again it's a potential conflict of interests. That's not to say there isn't some truth anywhere to be found, but it's not a reliable source and not worth basing health decisions on. HOWEVER, YOU ARE CORRECT in that heart disease and inflammation are very strongly associated! Would it surprise you that this is currently being taught in medical schools across the country? Look, science and health are a constantly evolving subject and new answers are coming out every day AND the average human is changing every day. So even if something is true today, it may not continue be true in 40-50 years, either because the data was wrong or because people have simply changed. You are right to be skeptical and question things, but ensure that your information comes real scientific work and not unproven observation and anecdotes. PS- my head is still intact :-P

No Paul wont Perot. He wont run independent. He knows his campaign is all about getting his ideas out and starting to impact the minds of the American people. That and possibly to set the stage for Rand Paul to run in 4 years when Obo finishes his 2nd. People know Ron is too old and he's not a fresh face on the scene. Rand has a shot of being that "new young guy" like Obama was 4 years ago. Libertarian party this year will put out Bob Barr or someone else and I'll throw my vote that way like I've done since GW. GOP will wise up eventually. Unless they're really all in cahoots and that's their plan to get the Democrat way: make the republican party ever more idiotic each election cycle and keep driving the masses to the Dem side.

Where's the part where Julia puts away 20%+ of her income into expanded IRA limits to ensure she can pay for her expenses after 65? Where is Julia when she joins the Army, risking her life for her country, and doesn't even get retirement contribution matching like every other federal employee? And it's hilarious to think that someone in grade school now will have Social Security at 67. I'll be shocked if Medicare is even still there. Also forgot that under Obama, in an era when we're trying to drastically increase the number of people with healthcare coverage, he CUT subsidized Stafford loans for graduate students, this includes medical students. How are you gonna entice people to get on the bandwagon while cutting programs that make it easier to manage being a physician?

Just gon' take a look inside ya ass-whole!

A big part of each Paul campaign the last few elections has been getting his supporters registered to be delegates to the convention. If it plays out, it would be great, but I just don't see it, sadly. Romney will not beat Obama, period. He's running on essentially the same platform that John Kerry did against Bush: "You know you don't like the incumbent, and I'm not the incumbent! Vote for me!" Which is why this country needs a change in political structure. It's no longer about good ideas.

There is so much stupidity in this post I don't even know where to begin. It's on par with someone saying there's a conspiracy hiding the fact that exploding gasoline doesn't really power your motorcycle. -Google "HIV Electron Microscopy" there's your picture of the HIV virus. The idea that "drugs can give you AIDS" is also absurd. While some drugs can cause immunosuppression, chemotherapeutics and glucocorticoids for instance, they do not cause Acquired ImmunoDeficiency Syndrome the same way that HIV does. -The idea that "doctors are only repeating what they've been taught" is true, but that applies for everyone in every specialty ever. Your bike mechanic is just repeating what he's been taught, he never did the research to determine how to build an internal combustion engine from a sheet of steel or the physics that goes into it. There are lots of doctors actually doing research, thousands in fact. They typically have dual degrees, MD/PhDs, and are actually doing the research themselves, who then write papers about their discoveries that clinicians read and then apply to how they practice medicine. Hell, even medical students are doing the research. So you're actually completely wrong. -You must have meant ask anyone with an art degree about the CDC and Big Pharm lying to you because I have spent the last 8 years of my life working with both university scientists and biologists as well as hospital-based researchers and physicians, some of which have been doing disease research since before the double-helix structure of DNA was discovered, and not one of them has ever said the CDC or "Big Pharm" flat out fabricates what the public hears. In fact, many of them are doing research on the very vaccines and medicines that will be coming out over the next decade that the CDC and "Big Pharm" will be passing along to you thanks to their work. -Cholesterol doesn't cause heart disease... now you're really drinking the kool-aid. Research the Framingham Heart Study or spend a day on PubMed reading the original research on correlations between cholesterol levels and heart disease instead of spouting off dangerous health advice on the internet. Here's just one of MANY such articles from the Journal of the American Medical Association: http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/256/20/2835.short and just in case you're too lazy to actually read some journals, here's a quote from the abstract "nonfasting HDL-C and total cholesterol levels are related to development of CHD [Coronary Heart Disease] in both men and women aged 49 years and older." It took me about 10 seconds to find that so there's no excuse for not knowing this. -Cereal has a higher glycemic index than pop. This is about the closest you come to something truthful. SOME cereals do have higher glycemic indexes than SOME pop. Not surprisingly, these are primarily your heavily processed, non-whole grain, sugar-coated cereals. Cereals, however, have the added benefit of vitamins, minerals, fiber, etc. giving them other factors to consider than simply carbohydrate loads, making them a better recommendation than soda. -The CDC, USDA, and your doctor DO NOT all tell you to go load up on sugar. Most are working to curb excessive sugar intake, get soda out of schools, and encourage healthier eating so we can reduce the ever-climbing incidence of diabetes in America. Your brain only functions on glucose (sugar) and, in instances of starvation, ketone bodies so you do actually need to eat carbohydrates and a decent amount of them. Lower glycemic index carbohydrates, whole grains, and the like are what is actually recommended. Please go get your facts straight before you post this shit.

You're right I am. The point is that without controlled studies, there's no way to indicate what caused someone to go into remission. If I happened to be one of the lucky ones who did so naturally but happened to run around a light pole outside everyday since my diagnosis, how can we distinguish between spontaneous remission and running around light poles as a cure without controlled studies? But there's no, to my knowledge, any scientific literature to point to plant-strong diets CURING cancer. If there is ample evidence in the journals, I would love to see it. While there is data to suggest that higher fruit and veggie diets may reduce the occurrence of particular cancers (namely colon and prostate), there's nothing to indicate that these findings aren't simply the summation of the healthier lifestyles people who tend to eat more fruits and veggies typically have, ie: more exercise, less booze/smoking, etc. http://www.cancer.org/Treatment/TreatmentsandSideEffects/ComplementaryandAlternativeMedicine/DietandNutrition/vegetarianism There ARE significant studies showing modern "poisons" do improve outcomes for people who already have cancer. Are cancer treatments poison? Absolutely! Cancer is simply a normal cell in your body that won't stop growing because it's either lost the ability to stop itself from growing or is making it's own signal to keep growing. Therefore, to kill these cells one has to use something that kills human cells: aka poison. So broadly labeling chemotherapeutics as bad simply because they are toxic is a bit of an ignorant rush to judgment as is the idea that finding a cure for a disease is not in the best interests of a company, as we can clearly see with the number of cheaply curable diseases. And sorry about your father, I'm sure that wasn't easy to go through. Many people have lost loved ones to cancer. I lost my grandmother to pancreatic cancer and my grandfather to lung cancer.

Ask Steve Jobs how that therapy worked out. More likely these are people that went into spontaneous remission while foregoing more proven treatments, aka: the lucky ones and they just happened to try out eating veggies every day. By this rationale that "curing is bad for Big Pharma" we should be still be treating, not vaccinating against polio, measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus, influenza, rubeola, pertussis, diptheria, chicken pox, shingles, meningococcal disease, Hepatitis A & B, HPV (which causes cancer, GASP!), pneumonia, typhoid fever... need I go on? Did you know there are people in Africa who have cured AIDS by raping virgins or babies? It's being suppressed because rape isn't good for Big Feminist.

They'll be fine. You can't cure it if you don't know it's there. Preventing cancer is a whole other beast.

You really think a company like GlaxoSmithKline would intentionally ignore the potential to make literally BILLIONS of dollars with a patent-protected cancer medication in the name of making sure all their competing pharm companies in the world could keep raking in the dough? Not to mention that all the independent, academic researchers on the planet are collectively avoiding researching these real cures and chasing down faux treatments like this one at Penn State? Cure for AIDS and cancer make great headlines, but you have to temper what you're actually reading: two viruses that a huge majority of people are already infected with, HPV and AAV-2, when combined in a lab in a petri dish in a specific way that's different than how many people are already infected can kill cancer cells. It's a neat discovery and hopefully amounts to something, but if it dies off as nothing, it's probably not because Big Pharma is suppressing their research lab, but rather that things that kill cells in a lab may not kill them in a person or might also kill the person. Don't forget that fire, gasoline, cyanide, and other deadly things kill cancer cells in the lab too.

Pretty cool research so far, though I doubt infecting breasts with HPV and this virus is anywhere near cleared to be safe enough. This research will probably end up leading to them discovering pathways that can be used to target cancer cells and make better targets for pharmaceuticals. Oh boy... If this were true, we'd see places all over the world with AIDS and cancer virtually eliminated. That's not the case. If you guys really think "Big Pharma" and the gov't are just out to screw you, look no farther than some past medicines that were allowed: -Diethylsilbestrol prevented spontaneous abortions. Oh, but it also made many of the resulting babies get cancers. Could have avoided that. -Thalidomide was used to treat morning sickness in pregnant women. But it also made your baby be born without any limbs. Not ideal. -Prior to 1998, Ex Lax contained an ingredient that caused cancer. Point is that these safety processes really are there for a reason. Along the lines of this article, infecting people with HPV (a virus known to cause cancer) and another virus is far from feasible outside of a petri dish. Though, we do currently use live viruses for medical therapy in attenuated vaccines, but even these have to be limited to certain healthy people.

Spike Lee, and absolutely. The elderly couple who were driven out of their home by the angry mob he unleashed on them wrongfully should sue him too.

"Look at that clean-shaven guy! He looks so manly!" - Said by no one

IMO: If McCain > Romney and Obama > McCain, it should be obvious who will win the election. Paul running and taking votes from the idiotic repub establishment might hopefully wake them up to the fact that more and more of us are wanting that type of conservatism, not Romney pseudoconservatism. I've not seen a better question dodger in debates than Romney and that frightens me. Since GW came around and got the whole nation so polarized on his brand of conservatism we've never even come close to moving towards smaller, fiscally responsible governments.

^ This ^ It's true, movements like light cardio cause your joints to increase the amount of synovial fluid leading to better lubrication and less joint stress and are an excellent way to warm up.