Y2HH

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 06:24 PM) Oh in a thread where I have been sharing my experiences with people over the course of almost a year and you have contributed almost nothing? Yes, I am a know it all about my routine and what I have experienced, and I've shared my stories with people on this board and hopefully they've found it somewhat useful as I have found their information useful. Funny how nobody put anyone's perspective completely down until you opened the thread a month ago. On a personal note, I like you and like reading your posts on here, but being more active in a specific post doesn't mean you're the president of said post, nor the most knowledgeable. For the record, I have posted here previously, but I do not like giving workout advice to people I've 1) never seen/met, and 2) know nothing about their current state of health or fitness. It's bad practice. From what I see here, you are a P90X super fan, and there is nothing wrong with that, but P90X is not the end all of workouts...it's simply another workout in a long line of workouts. When it comes to P90X, I think some of it was/is absolutely fantastic...and there are other parts I find gimmicky and stupid, because they are gimmicky and stupid. As for putting people down, that's not what I'm doing at all. Like you, I was sharing personal experience and trying to get people to recognize that when it comes to something like physical fitness, there is no one size fits all, no matter how badly we want it to be. In everything I've EVER learned doing this, you have to learn what works best for YOU, NOT what someone else says is best for you, and that applies to P90X, too.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 06:09 PM) Deleting my posts, not even worth stating my opinion when you are going to act like a know it all dickhead. Good luck with your fitness routine. Already saw your post and actually liked it. You should have left it. Edit: And you of all people calling someone else a "know it all" is post of the century. "Hey pot, my name is Kettle, did you know you're black?!" LOL

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 05:39 PM) I completely disagree that workouts and health in general hasnt come a long way in the last 10 years. In fact there is not much in that post that I can agree with. In my 12+ years of training athletically and personally alot has been learned about how the human body reacts to conditioning and strength training. P90x was revolutionary in that it brought basic functional fitness to the home workout crowd with the cost of roughly 2 months of a gym membership. The second version is for those people that have already gotten in shape and can recite each dvd word for word. Most people go to the gym and run on the hamster wheel or push a little weight around over and over isolating single muscles. That is simply a very old and archaic way to work out y if you want optimum results and a well rounded healthy body. First, I knew the RR "I know everything post" was coming, and it'd be a simple short paragraph as to why, in an attempt to refute a very detailed/opinion based post. Second, I never said anything about health. You confuse health and fitness like most people do, and they're not the same in any regard. They're related, but not the same. Workouts, in their base form, have NOT changed much. You're simply performing different moves, or moves you've never seen (but that doesn't mean they didn't previously exist). Bottom line is you're still just performing the same basic function whether you want to admit that or not...and that's expending energy for a specific means. P90X was not revolutionary, it's simply the version of this kind of home workout that became mainstream popular so you credit it as such. It's just another in a long line of these types of workouts that have been happening in small gyms across America for decades. All Horton did was take the idea and put it on video...which was a brilliant move for him, but it wasn't like he came up with it. Also, stop repeating the bolded nonsense above, because going to a gym and working on isolation/single muscles is NOT archaic nor old, nor is it the ONLY kind of workout you can do in a gym. There are MANY compound movements you can use, which is what P90X sold you on inventing. I have some news for you, P90X didn't invent the compound movement/method. Just because "most people" go to a gym and work out incorrectly doesn't mean everyone does. Simply put, what you said in bold is complete and utter nonsense. Again, stop saying "healthy body", because what you actually mean is "fit body", learn the difference between the two. And again, optimum results for you won't = optimum results for someone else. There's not much in my post you don't agree with? What, you don't agree with figuring out what diet/exercise works best for your specific body? If that's the case, then it's because you learned nothing in your 12 years of working out...what you did learn, was simply how to copy someone else. Enjoy.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 05:17 PM) Jesus. I don't really give a s*** why or how it works, honestly...I just like that it works. I was always relatively athletic, but I hated working out. I hated gyms. I hated weights. I hated running. I did, however, love to play sports, and so I was in relatively good shape most of my life and relatively close to a healthy weight. Then I hit my 30's and started working jobs that required me to work at a desk all day. My friends got married and started families, and didn't have the time to play basketball or football or even golf anymore. I realized I was gaining unwanted weight for the first time in my life, and I started having to buy new clothes. I moved to Vegas and we had a corporate discount at a gym franchise. I joined. I started hitting the eliptical for an hour a day, maybe 3-4 times a week. I lost probably 20 pounds, and looked better in clothes, but I still looked really blah. In this town, a major social event is going to the pool. I looked like a lazy thirtysomething white guy, and I wanted to improve. One day on my way into work, I heard the commercial for P90X on espn radio, and thought, "you fat ass, you should give that a try." Then I walk into work that same morning, and my co-worker says he has a burned copy of P90X. So I say hey, can I borrow that? I took it home and tried the first few workouts. I thought I was going to die. I was flopping around like a beached whale and couldn't finish them or do anywhere near as many reps as the people in the video. But I stuck with it, because I am very competitive. After a week I could tell I was already losing weight, because my clothes started fitting even better. I pulled out some shirts that I hadn't worn in 5 years and they fit great. At that point I was hooked. I also went and bought the program from Beachbody at that point, because I was so happy with the product I thought I owed it to them to pay them for it. So I finished the program, and I was honestly very much addicted to it. It's a great feeling to get that kind of a workout in almost every day. It makes you feel better, eat healthier, have a more positive frame of mind, and that's not even getting into how good you start to look. Well that was almost 2 years ago now, and while I still do P90X, I am a bit tired of the same people in the videos, the same routines, the same exercises, the same commentary, etc. I know the exercises so well I could certainly do them without even watching the videos, but I enjoy structure. I enjoy someone telling me "this is what needs to be done" and then doing it. So I ordered P90X2 when it came out, not so much because I think it's going to revolutionize my fitness, or even get me into better shape than P90X did. But because it is different. Different exercises. Different people. Different routines. And that is enough to get me working out consistently for the next few years. If that costs me a couple hundred bucks, so be it. It's worth it X 100. I'll be in better health, both mentally, physically, and even emotionally. I'll feel great, look great, eat well, drink less, etc, etc. So yes, could I have just stuck with the original workout? Sure. But is it worth it to me to buy P90X2? Absolutely. It's one of the easiest purchases I'll ever make, honestly. Where you don't care why something works, I care very much to know and understand why. I'm pretty passionate about this, as you can tell. And if this is what it takes to motivate you, then all the power to you. Enjoy your workouts...

Oh, and don't get me wrong -- I'm not saying don't work out in any regard -- I was simply giving my opinion, and as you know, I'm quite opinionated. I don't know much about a lot, but about working out and computers, I know quite a bit. Oh, and camping/fishing, too.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 03:17 PM) Ok...so when you were working out for 6 days a week for years and years, did you enjoy doing the same routines over and over again? Do you believe that science can improve the workouts we do so that we get more out of the time we spend and injure our bodies less? It's been almost 8 years since P90X was released. I think it is perfectly reasonable to design a new program in that timeframe. The new program is A LOT different, from what I can tell thus far...it does not seem to be just a repackaging like P90X Plus was. This is a loaded question to the extent that I'm not sure you understand how loaded it is. Depending on how long you've been doing this, and if you've actually learned anything over that time you will understand how loaded of a question this is. There is a difference between paying for lessons and learning something, and paying for lessons, such as P90X, and simply copying what you see. That said, I will attempt to answer this. First, let me touch on a few necessary key points about working out in general. 1) What works for one person does not work for everyone, and you have to keep this in mind over time and adapt to understand what does work for you. This is one of the key "sciences" behind P90X, is that it involves so many moves/muscle confusion (which is a myth, btw), it's sure to touch on 10 or so things that work REALLY well for you, and those 10 things will render you, in specific, better results than all of the other moves involved, regardless of how many. 2) P90X already contains SO many moves (too many moves, to be frank), that adding even more at this point is totally unnecessary. However, there is nothing wrong with using or learning different moves and incorporating them into your workout in place of other moves that didn't work so well for you. If you took what I said in #1, and applied it to actual use, you'd need to learn/accept from what you've done over time from various routines and use what rendered the best results to your own custom workout. There are a LOT of moves in P90X that will not work for you as well as others, so don't just copy what you see, but learn from what you see. If you can figure out what moves aren't working, stop doing them, and do moves that DO work for you. 3) People love to talk about science and working out/exercising, and how "science" has improved. In reality, it hasn't changed much at all, if anything, it's regressed into gimmickry in many ways. People often toss the word "science" around when talking about this to make themselves sound smarter. In reality, people injure themselves working out because they're doing it wrong, not because what they're doing is bad (although sometimes it is). People get in a hurry, rush through something, grab a weight while off balance, etc...these types of mistakes are what injuries come from. Workouts from the 1960's are just as safe as workouts from 2011, so long as you execute them properly, and "age accept", something most people WANT to ignore. What adding the word "science" into workout discussions actually does is justify why people will allow themselves to spend more money on something you've already been sold them multiple times. With a little experience, they could have just done it on their own, but spending money in this arena seems to gratify people for some odd reason, like they do it for incentive so they'll actually work out. Ok, now that we've got that out of the way, a few things about what I just said. Muscle confusion is bulls***. Plain and simple. Any "science" behind it is not science, it's absolute new-age garbage that was created to sell stuff. The body does NOT work that way, and it never has. It's like a computer program, when you break it down all the way, it's still 0's and 1's. You overload a muscle, you eat properly to fuel recuperation, and the muscle grows/becomes denser/stronger. Period. That is simply the way the body works, and it does not need to be "tricked or confused" into doing so. Just like you don't need to find new ways to breath air into your lungs...they already know how, and they don't need to be tricked into doing it better. Ok, the second point you made is a fair point, but this goes back to what I touched on a few times. Over the time you've been working out, have you learned anything of use that you can't adapt and change on your own and just work out yourself, without repaying for knowledge you already posses? When I worked out, I did change my routine when I found better moves/methods that resulted in greater success for the goal I had in mind. I'd often try a new move, perhaps something I thought of on my own or saw someone else doing and incorporated it into my workout to see if I noticed any sort of real improvement, and if I did over time, I'd keep it, if not, it got left on the scrap heap of moves. This includes various diets, etc...I tried them all, and I'm not talking about dabbling, but total immersion. Like not eating beef for 4 months, etc. I touched on what I called "age acceptance" earlier, and this is the one area where most people, myself included, have a hard time accepting. I'm 36 now, not 26...but it's hard to accept that. At 26, I cared about muscle size, how much I could lift, having the V shape, etc...today, I care about maintaining a healthy weight and improved quality of life more-so than I care about what my muscles look like to other people. Believe me, it took a few years to accept this one. So while I sound like I'm preaching here about what I've learned over time, the fact is, while I was doing it, I did so much wrong it's not even funny. Even now I'm still learning, but I also understand what works and what doesn't. I can spot gimmicks from a mile away, and believe me, it's because I've tried them all...thrice. There was a time I was tempted to use steroids, as they were readily available to me, and others I knew who used them saw gains I could only dream of in terms of size/strength. It can become a competition if you have a crew that you work out with...thankfully I never made a bad decision like that.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 03:00 PM) Have you ever done P90X? Or any workout program, for that matter? Yes, I've done certain aspects of P90X for the last few years, and it's a great work out, I just don't see a new version improving on what should have taught basic moves by now. Prior to that, I was a gym rat for over 12 years, too. 5 years ago I weighed 146 lbs and was able to bench over 265 free weight (I'm only 5'7"). I'd work out over 1 hour a day 6 days a week at that time, going through all the motions throughout that time you could think of. I did all the gimmicks, proteins, vitamins, all the styles of workout, all the machines, free weights, lifestyles, etc. you could think of. I learned over that time what constituted a total gimmick and what actually worked. Oh, and I took ephedrine for a few years when it was legal -- I can tell you with certainty it wasn't a gimmick, it worked...too well, hence why it was so damn dangerous. I didn't know how bad it was for me until years after I had already quit taking it, however. I have about 15 years of experience in this realm now. And over that time, precisely ZERO injuries.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 02:55 PM) I can agree with that. As for the multi-touch screen you mentioned earlier, that technology was purchased by Apple from a company called FingerWorks, along with all their patents, the entire company, and the founders were hired to work for Apple. It's not like they stole it from the dufus at Microsoft. So tell me this...since you are obviously far more knowledgeable about this industry than me...if I come up with something like "slide to unlock", how difficult would it be for someone at say, HTC, to figure that out once he saw how it worked on my device? Not hard. With touchscreens it depends on the type, ie, resistive vs capacitive. At that point, all you have to do is see the idea and then program the competing device to accept input in that method, and that specific action would point to code that says "unlock", or whatever the case may be. It's a generalized idea in that it's all going to point to unlock code, however, the patentable part of this is the why/how you implemented it. The real question isn't really in the code, that's easy to replicate...it's in the WHY did they implement it in the way they did? Swiping from left to right, instead of say down to up is where the genius of the patent lies. Because, if you stick your phone in your pocket with the screen on, your leg is capacitive and could potentially unlock it if implemented with a up/down method. Because you don't put your phone in your pocket horizontally in practice, the horizontal swipe is what makes the idea/implementation smart/unique. Actually coding the response to the command it is the simple part, why you would want to implement it in the way Apple did is where the true engineering/thought comes in.

Why would anyone buy P90x2? What was wrong with P90X? Seems like people are just falling for a typical refresh scam here...there was nothing wrong with P90X to the point that spending money on a "new version" is simply silly. If all it is, is a short/faster version, just speed up and jump higher. People waste so much money in this arena of life it's absurd to me. Ohh, a new protein drink came out, its 5X more expensive than this other one,but it's better because it's brand new and and shiny blue packaging. Oh well, not my money.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 02:42 PM) I've conceded three or four times now the point about the hyperlink. Why don't you actually read my posts instead of turning into the Incredible Hulk and spazzing out? And I am not trolling. I am asking all three of you what is patentable and what is not. I'm also asking what changes would you implement to the patent system. What you are doing is getting angry and swearing like you usually do. In about two hours you will probably berate me and get suspended for a week. You keep giving these broad examples as to what isn't patentable, but you are not saying what is patentable. You also are not mentioning how discontinuing software patents will or may stifle innovation. All I am trying to do is point out that this case you and SS and BMags are making is not as clear-cut as you might like to make it seem. But since I disagree with you, as usual, you are getting angry, which is par for the course with you. I'll have you know I swear in RL, so that's just how I talk. Also, I haven't been suspended in a long time. We've already made some key points on patents and what should be valid, such as specific implementations of a generalized idea. You're just ignoring them because you're a patent troll. I made a perfectly clear example of something that's patentable -- I.E. touch method of using swipe to unlock -- and you ignored it. So I re-posted what you ignored multiple times now, which will probably just get ignored again. Patenting that specific method of unlocking a touch based device and patenting ANY method of unlocking a touch based device are galaxies of difference.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 02:11 PM) I'm sure Albert Pujols likes playing baseball, too. Should he do it for peanuts because it's fun? Again, I am willing to concede that the job and goods markets have changed, i.e., inventors/innovators get rewarded more consistently and immediately these days. However, should there be no protection for someone who invents something innovative that truly revolutionizes an industry? Nobody. I repeat, NOBODY here is saying that. You won't accept it, but everyone here is saying generalized broad based patents are BAD, and they are. Here are some examples of what we all consider generalized board based and bad patents: (which you obviously like because it seems you get paid defending this kind of bulls***) * apparatus used to move from one point to another in a box (tires) * apparatus used to open/close a slab of wood (doorknobs) This is the absurdity you CONTINUE to defend, over and over. You are literally defending the fact that some jackass awarded someone a patent on a f***ing hyperlink. Look, swipe to unlock, that's a good idea -- it's a LOCK -- but it's a new never thought of method of opening a touch based device...and it should be patentable. We aren't denying that. Note that's a VERY specific use patent, not to mention very well implemented. Yes, by all means, that specific implementation of it was great, so let them patent it. It's quite different from them patenting ANY/ALL method(s) of locking/unlocking a touch based device. This is the part you don't seem to get. What we are saying is don't extend that very specific implementation to the generalized version of "method of unlocking a touch screen device", period. Which would mean that NOBODY else could lock/unlock a touchscreen device regardless of how different their implementation is. We are against patenting general IDEAS, not specific implementations of ideas. It's like patenting the idea of a key, but no specific key, regardless of the fact that hundreds of different implementations/styles/kinds of keys exist. I think I've made enough perfectly clear examples for you to understand the difference now. You're trolling at this point.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 12:27 PM) Apple is one player, do not focus on them. Like I said, they are also sued for infringement and buy millions upon millions of dollars worth of patents and licenses. Everything wrong with the software patent system doesn't revolve around Apple. Apple paid Nokia about 600 million dollars this past year because it settled out of court for stealing Nokia's patents...so you're right, it's not just about Apple, because they're just as guilty of stealing other peoples patented ideas, too... EDIT: And note, I'm an Apple fan. I have 2 iMac's, 2 iPhones (a 4 for my wife and a 4s for me), and an iPad2. I've had every iPhone at release from the very first release, which I still have (and it still works!)

http://www.wyff4.com/r/30037563/detail.html

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 11:04 AM) The problem is in the way software or software innovations are created versus how more tangible inventions are created, would be my guess. I am not a software writer or anything, but my guess is I could write a code for something like this that is just slightly different than the way someone else wrote it to accomplish the same goal. You mean just like you could design a cranking system on a car slightly differently and have it start? It's the same. The issue is that many of these patent holders are not coding anything, they're not writing any software...they're just patenting unimplemented ideas that may someday be of use and suing people for it. General use stuff aside, it's such a mess that there are patent holders out there and their company exists ONLY to get patents, but never actually attempt to do anything with them other than strong arm people or litigate. That's insane.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 10:52 AM) I don't disagree. Am I allowed to do that? But there has to be some protection. When I see something designed that is head over heels better than any product that has come to market, and then suddenly a year later, all the products on the market are basically mimicking that product because all the other companies reverse engineered it, I think that is wrong. We don't disagree on the fact that IMO, a lot of people are copying off of Apple, but of course they are. That happens when you gain a ton of momentum. Just like in the 80's a lot of people started trying to copy Nike's idea of putting air in shoes. Ideas that get big attention will get copied in some form or another. The issue isn't in defending design rights, or ideas that aren't general use such as slide to unlock. But they're getting patents awarded (not just Apple) on broad general use function, including ideas that have been out in the open for years, such as clicking a link and having it open another program...something that's been working across all operating systems for over a decade now. Note that when you click a video link in your web browser, regardless of it running on OSX, Windows, Linux, etc...and regardless of which browser you use, be it Safari, Opera, Chrome, Firefox, IE, etc...they all open another video window and display the video in some form or fashion. That's the SAME basic idea that Apple was granted a patent of...and it's a bulls*** software patent. The patent office does NOT understand software patents, so they're just handing them out arbitrarily, including to people that have never even attempted to implement it.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 10:47 AM) I'm not going to disagree that it is antiquated. It's beyond antiquated. It wasn't written with software in mind, because it was enacted BEFORE anyone thought of patenting software based ideas. It has to be rewritten completely in light of the newer technologies and realities that exist. Applying an out of date method of law to a modern idea does not and cannot work...hence why the lawsuits we are seeing are as absurd as they are.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 10:45 AM) In the case of software patents, it's broken! If it wasn't broken, as he seems to believe, then why are organizations and governments around the world (including our own) attempting to reform the patent system in regard to software patents? I mean, if nothings wrong, why the hell are they trying to fix it? Software patents, as the law currently applies, are simply bad...due to their extreme vagueness. Look at some of the lawsuits being thrown around out there...how he's defending this is just f***ing absurd.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 10:42 AM) Maybe you should learn how the law works. Maybe you should learn that Patent law is totally f***ing broken in this country and just admit it's broken versus defending the absurd s*** you're defending.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 10:40 AM) Conceptualizing something gets you no protection under the law. This is not copyright law. This is patent law. They also patented it.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 10:37 AM) I disagree. You have no clue how frustrated I used to become when I was finding a number on one screen and trying to go back to my dialing screen and type in the number from memory, realizing I forgot some numbers and going back to the number, then going back to the dialing screen, etc. In patent law, there is a concept where if there is really only one good way to do something, than that is not really something that is patentable. For instance, you can't patent the idea for a chair. You can patent an idea for a chair that massages your back, or a chair that rocks, or a chair that has a cooler for your beer in it, but you cannot patent a simple chair. In this instance, Apple is improving about the idea of web browsing. They are allowing you to access information from the screen you are browsing directly with the functionality of the phone. I think that is a design improvement that deserves recognition under the law. You can't disagree...it's not an opinion that clicking links that lead you elsewhere, or launch services are basic use. Web browsers have been doing that SAME thing for years. And so have phones.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 10:31 AM) And the problem is there's many valid patents out there that are akin to a patent on a web browser link. Amazon owns a patent on "online cart checkouts" which virtually every website where you can buy something is in violation. I made a pretty big edit to my post, but again, we agree. Many of these patents are -- get ready for it -- patently absurd.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 10:24 AM) I disagree. In reading Jobs' biography, it was little innovations that were turning points in the design of a phone. And while some of these innovations may seem unimportant now, at the time, they were critical. For instance, when the iPhone was being developed, they couldn't get by the issue of the touchscreen being activated in someone's pocket. It took them a while to come up with the "slide to unlock" feature. While that seems obvious now, why is it then that almost ALL of these innovations were created by Apple? If they are so obvious and unimportant, why is it that these innovations aren't spread across the spectrum of all the developers? Instead, we've got basically all the best touchscreen technology and features coming out of one company, and I don't blame them one bit for patenting that technology. Bolded part: Because they weren't. Touchscreens with such features have existed for years, Apple was simply the first to go to mass market with them, and some of them Apple did indeed think of/create, but not all. Slide to unlock is one thing...touching a phone number on a touch screen to dial it is something else entirely. To make a better example for you, that's like patenting the idea of a LINK in a web browser. Since Netscape did it first, no other web browsers should ever be able to do it again without paying them! One is an idea/specific method used to unlock a touch screen, the other is a basic fundamental use of the internet. There is a pretty huge difference between the two. * Citation of Apple not being the first: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Surface Microsoft first conceptualized surface touch in 2001, years before Apple even began hatching the idea of the iPhone/touch/multitouch which didn't go to market until 2007. Just because they were the first to go mass market/consumer electronics does not mean they were the first to use, employ or even think of some of these ideas.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Dec 17, 2011 -> 09:50 AM) 1.2 Million on TLC is not a bad number. Mad Men averages under 3 million viewers a night and that show is a hit. Actual ratings don't mean much, it depends on the demographic more than anything else. So, for example, let's say your show gets 3.2 million viewers, but these are all older people, 50+ age range. My show only gets 1.1 million, but my 1.1 million are all 18-21 year olds...my show would be considered the success. I doubt the ratings of the demographic advertisers are interested in watch that.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 10:03 AM) I am not sure what is wrong with this? Can you elaborate further? It's akin to having a patent on a round steering wheel. It's literally a patent on being able to touch a phone number in an e-mail on a touch screen device and you're phone calling that number. It's absurd.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 08:39 AM) Actually, it looks liek they've already started testing some changes to their network. They can say what they want, but they weren't spending any money on an infrastructure that was going to be bought by someone else, so don't believe it for a second.