(8:42:26 AM) balls: economics is like beer
(8:42:35 AM) aussie_b: lol... how so?
(8:42:44 AM) balls: take enuf in a short time and start talkig loud and ranting and doing stupid things
(8:42:52 AM) balls: then later you hung over
Saturday, May 30, 2009
lucid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucid_(programming_language)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connection_Machine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connection_Machine
Friday, May 29, 2009
fitness course ripped abs hard firm body
http://rockthebody.blogspot.com/2009/02/send-me-secrets-required-email-address.html
Disclaimer: Please consult with a physician before starting any new exercise
routine or diet.
INTRODUCTION & OVERVIEW
Congratulations!
If you are reading this it means you have taken the
first step towards transformation. Not to sound too cheesy, but
you should really be proud of yourself. The key to any kind of
success requires you to take action, and you've already done that
by downloading this course... so you are on your way to a new and
improved you! By the way, this course is totally free and there
are no products or affiliate links here and nothing is being sold…
so… whew! You can relax and enjoy.
Just a little warning before we get started. Don't expect this to
be like any other fitness program you've tried before. I'm not
really a conventional guy and I'd say I have some pretty
unconventional ideas.
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the World; the unreasonable
one persists in trying to adapt the World to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man."
George Bernard Shaw,
Maxims for Revolutionists
Some of the topics that I cover might seem odd to you, but hang
with me 'cause I promise there's a method to my madness. Besides,
if you are anything like me, you've tried a bunch of the
"conventional" methods before and perhaps they didn't end up giving
you the results that were promised or that you expected. So,
what's the harm in trying something a little different? You have
nothing to lose (except fat) and only an opportunity to gain
(strength!)
Okay, that being said, let's start to get into the meat of this.
First of all, I should tell you a little bit about my philosophies
and how they will relate to this course on shaping up your body and
your mind. For me, to be successful at anything, I've needed to be
CONSISTENT at whatever I was doing until I reached my objective.
So, to make any kind of transformation or change in your life,
you've got to make a choice and stick with it and be CONSISTENT and
UNSTOPPABLE in your determination to reach your goal. If you have
no idea how to do this, don't worry, we'll dig deeper into finding
your motivation in the upcoming days and YOU WILL find your
MOTIVATION. We all have a motivation and I'll help you find yours.
To be consistent at something, you need to start with a SIMPLE
plan. If you make something SIMPLE and EFFECTIVE then you are WAY
more likely to stick with it. I've read all these other fitness
plans that say... Day One do 3 sets of these 5 sets of those, eat
this, eat that... Day Two, do 10 sets of these, 4 sets of those,
rest, eat, repeat..... aghhhhhhhhh... I mean really! Who in their
right mind can keep up with all that? I can barely remember to pay
my phone bill.
I'm here to tell you that you don't need some crazy elaborate
work-out program to transform your body. Complicated and elaborate
DOES NOT equal EFFECTIVE. I repeat COMPLICATED DOES NOT EQUAL
EFFECTIVE.
That brings us to a very important principle that I will describe
to you briefly: THE 80/20 PRINCIPLE. According to Vilfredo
Pareto, a well-known economist and sociologist who lived from the
mid 1800's to early 1900's, approximately 20% of the population
owned 80% of the wealth. Okay, now you are probably wondering:
What does that have to do with fitness? Well, as it turns out,
this principle, also dubbed "Pareto's Law," can be applied to
almost anything.
For example, using this principle, you could say that 20% of your
activities at work are accounting for approximately 80% of your
income. Or, 20% of your customers are accounting for 80% of your
income. The rest of them are basically wasting your time.
When you apply this to your fitness/workout regimen, you could say
that 20% of the exercises you do are giving you 80% of your
results: muscle growth, weight loss, etc. So, if you can figure
out which 20% is giving you most of your results and minimize or
eliminate the other 80%, you've automatically trimmed down your
workout time by 80% and you'll likely get the same or better
results. See where I'm going with this? This is an extremely
powerful concept to really GET, because once you see how this
applies to your life, you can make some dramatic changes.
Okay, I could go on and on, but I don't want to bog you down with
too much information on the first day. I get REALLY excited about
this stuff and I'm really happy to be sharing this information with
you. I'm sure you are eager to get started... but be patient over
these next 7 days because we are going to be laying out a really
solid foundation for you to start on. You can't build a strong
house on a weak foundation.
Tomorrow I'm going to start delving into your psychology and then
we'll move on to getting your body healthy from the inside out.
Together, we are going to find your motivation which is going to be
the PSYCHOLOGICAL FUEL that you will need to transform your body.
This is all about PERMENANT and LASTING CHANGE, not temporary
fixes, so get ready!
Your First Assignment:
Get out your digital camera, Polaroid, or
find a sketch artist (not recommended) and snap a couple of
"Before" pictures of yourself. I don't care much about taking
measurements and all that stuff, but if it floats your boat... go
ahead. I have no idea what mine are all I know is that I like what
I see what I look in the mirror and more importantly, I like the
way I feel. Remember, simplicity here is the key and the objective
is to get results that you can see with your own eyes. Plus it
will be fun to show people your "Before" pictures later or just
keep them for yourself to see how far you've come. If you don't
like the way you look in your pictures, don't worry... hang on to
that feeling.. it's a GOOD THING!
PSYCHOLOGY OF THE MIND - Finding your motivation & drive.
You are your biggest enemy.
Breaking through your own psychological barriers and limiting
beliefs will likely be much harder than the physical part of this
transformation so I'm going to address this subject right out of
the gates.
A limiting belief or psychological barrier is anything that you
believe about yourself, your environment, or the world at large
that stands in the way of your reaching your TRUE POTENTIAL.
Remember the story about the first guy that ran a mile under
4-minutes? Prior to him breaking through that 4-minute mark, most
people thought it was impossible. This was a "psychological
barrier" of the population at large. Well, after he broke through
that 4-minute mark, all of the sudden it became possible and
shortly after that, several other people broke through the same
barrier and since then hundreds if not thousands have followed.
We all have these self-imposed barriers. The self-help gurus like
to call them limiting beliefs, but whatever you call them, they
have an enormous effect on you. They may be beliefs that you have
about yourself or beliefs that you have about the world at large.
The problem is that most of them are playing out in your
subconscious without you being overly aware of them. The mind is a
tricky thing!
There are hundreds of self-help books and 7-day seminars on this
subject, so I'm not going into any great detail here but I do want
to touch on the subject because it's important to your success.
I'll use a personal example to illustrate this concept. I've
always had friends that were older than me and I always remember
them saying that once you turn 30 your body starts going downhill
and it gets harder and harder to stay fit.
So, guess what happened? I turned 30 and it was almost as if a
switch went off in my brain and I started getting fat. I had
always been relatively thin and fit with little effort, but I
turned 30 and all seemed to go to hell in a hand basket and I
couldn't seem to lose the gut no matter how hard I tried.
Then, I became friends with this guy who was almost 50 years old
and he literally had the body of a 22 year old. In fact, he still
got carded when buying alcohol. I originally thought that he must
have won the genetic lottery, but when I saw pictures of his family
and his younger brother who looked 20 years older than him I
realized that his genetics probably only played a small part in his
"Cocoon" like preservation. I had to know his secret, so I asked
him and he gave me this simple answer:
"I don't believe in aging."
That seemed really stupid to me at first and it wasn't until much
later that I realized how profound of a statement it actually was.
Now, I'm not saying that you can just convince yourself that you
don't believe in aging and expect to always look 22 for the rest of
your life. I used that example to illustrate how powerful our
thoughts are and how they can actually affect your body and your
health.
I realized that perhaps my belief that "my body would start falling
apart at 30" was actually a psychological barrier that was
preventing me from reaching my fitness goals. So, by meeting my
older yet-seemingly ageless friend, I realized that my belief that
I had adopted from my other peers was TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY FALSE.
They can go ahead and go on downhill after 30, but I decided not
to subscribe to that belief. Once made that distinction in my
mind, everything changed and my body started responding almost
overnight!
The point that I want to make here and really drive home is that
YOUR PSYCHOLOGY WILL PLAY A CRUCIAL ROLE in your physical
transformation. The first thing that you can do is to start
identifying some of the limiting beliefs that have been holding you
back from reaching your highest potential. The good news is that
SIMPLY by making these things CONSCIOUS they will no longer have
the same power over you. You don't need to go through some 7-day
seminar or read 20 self-help books to get this. I'll save you
thousands of dollars and tell you they will all say about the same
thing. IT'S YOUR BELIEFS THAT DEFINE YOUR LIMITS. Change your
beliefs and change your limits.
Some common examples:
I don't have athletic ability.
I'm too fat to get into shape.
I'm too old.
I don't have the genetics for this.
Etc.
These are just some examples to help you figure out what's holding
you back. This is the time to get really honest with yourself.
The more honest you can be, the better your results are going to
be. Again, once you identify these beliefs, they will no longer
have the same power over you and you will begin to experience your
life differently. Also, don't be surprised when your body starts
responding differently!
The mind is a POWERFUL tool and when you start using it instead of
it using you, I bet you'll see some dramatic changes in all areas
of your life.
That's it for today. Tomorrow I'm going to dig a little bit deeper
into this and help you to really uncover your drive and motivation
which, as I said yesterday, is going to give you the psychological
fuel to make this transformation and change your way of life all
together.
Are you getting excited yet??? I am!
Tonight's assignment:
Sit down and write down 5 or 10 beliefs that
you feel have been holding you back from reaching your potential.
What are some of the thoughts that go through your head on a daily
basis that DO NOT serve your highest purpose? You can apply this
to any part of your life, but for the sake of this course, ask
yourself the question:
"What are common beliefs/thoughts that I have been having about
myself that have held me back from reaching my physical goals
(strength/fitness/health, etc)?
Try to write as fast as possible and write the first things that
come to your mind (don't edit and don't hold back.) Then, look at
your list and pick out the top 3 or 4 things that seem the most
relevant. Expand on those 3 or 4 things and write down how they
have been affecting you up to this point and how they will continue
to affect you if you choose to hang on to them. (Again, I'm saving
you thousands of dollars in self-help seminar fees.) As I said,
just by simply making these things conscious, they will no longer
have the same power over you. IT'S TIME FOR YOU TO STEP BACK INTO
THE DRIVER'S SEAT AND TAKE YOUR POWER BACK!
Imagine how good it will feel when you have stepped back into your
TRUE POWER! It will change EVERYTHING in your life, not just your
body.
PSYCHOLOGY OF THE BODY - DEFINING YOUR NEW BELIEFS
"Get Rich Quick" schemes don't work and neither do "Get Fit Quick"
schemes. I don't advocate some kind of
take-this-pill-and-you'll-have-a-six-pack in the morning routine.
What you are embarking on is real transformation and it's going to
take real energy, real sweat, real determination, and the reward at
the end of the rainbow is WELL WORTH IT my friend! Stick with me,
and you'll see!
I'm going to help you find the psychological fuel that's going to
keep YOU GOING... and GOING... and GOING. You are making some big
changes and they will seem difficult at first, so it's important
that you uncover what your motivation is so that you can always tap
into that. Now that you've hopefully identified some of your
limiting beliefs and realized that they are TOTAL B*LLSH*T, it's
time to define some of your new beliefs. You have a blank canvas
and YOU decide what to believe. No one else. The possibilities
are endless!
When setting the objective to achieve any goal, fitness/health or
otherwise, it's extremely important to know WHY you want to achieve
the goal. The WHY is going to always point you to the source of
your motivation and drive. We all have a reason WHY and a
motivation. You have a motivation to transform your body, get in
shape, or something similar, otherwise you would have never signed
up for this course. Am I right?
So, it's time to be honest with yourself again. Why do you want
this? What are the potential upsides and rewards to following
through? What are the potential downsides to not following through
and staying on the same path that you're on now? Where does that
path lead ultimately in 5, 10, 20 years? Do you like how that
looks? If you stay on the same path how will it affect the people
you love? If you make a transformation to an improved version of
yourself, how will THAT change your life? How will you feel when
you look down and see that you are fitting into the same jeans you
wore 10 years ago? How proud will that make you feel that you
sacrificed your sweat to get healthy? How good will it feel when
all "the doubters" start saying things like "hey, you are looking
pretty good, what are you doing?"
It's time to regain your vitality and I'm going to help you. As
you are probably starting to realize, this goes a lot deeper than
just getting a six-pack. This is about improving the quality of
your life and becoming a source of inspiration for those around you.
I'll tell you briefly about how I found my motivation and drive and
perhaps this illustration will help you find yours. I really let
myself go between age 30-32. I was smoking a lot of pot, drinking
a fair amount of alcohol, spending too many hours in front of a
computer screen, and it really started to do a number on my
emotional state, body, and overall health. I started feeling
depressed all the time and just lost the lust for life. Although
there were always exciting things happening around me, I had this
feeling of mediocrity floating around inside me most of the time.
In September of 2008, about 6 months ago (at the time I'm writing
this) the person that I thought was the "love of my life" dumped me
totally out of the blue. Although it seemed traumatic at the time,
looking back, it was absolutely the best thing that could have
happened to me. It was like a big slap in the face caused me to
wake up and really look at my current life situation with open
eyes.
Sometimes in life, we need those slaps. I believe that's the
(Universe/higher self/God/insert whatever works for you) way of
waking you up (at least briefly) so that you have a window of
opportunity to change. It's easy to go back to sleep, but if you
don't, there is BIG transformation to be had.
For me, I decided to use the break-up as my motivation to make some
drastic improvements in my life. Originally, my motivations were a
bit manipulative because I thought that if I got back in shape and
looking better than ever, I would win back the affection of my ex.
Well, that wasn't in the cards, but what did happen was that I DID
get into the best shape that I've ever been in and ultimately I DID
IT FOR MYSELF, NOT FOR MY EX OR ANYONE ELSE.
In the beginning, I used the break-up as MY MOTIVATION because it
helped me to push myself just a little bit further when I was ready
to give up. That's what you are looking for here: something that
has a STRONG EMOTIONAL CHARGE that will help to keep you going when
you are ready to give up. I use the simple mantra: "keep going...
keep going... keep going." These little mind tricks work, seriously!
Hopefully you've determined some of your limiting beliefs, so it's
time to start deciding what will be on your new canvas. Having
clearly defined goals are essential to your success and having
VISUAL GOALS are even more powerful. So, since we are keeping
things in the general context of the body, it's time to define your
physical goals. Be specific. Do you want to lose/gain weight? If
so, exactly how much? Do you want to get more lean? Do you want
to build muscle? I'm going to guess YES to these. Write them down.
Okay, enough for today. Tomorrow we are going to start getting
into the practical part of this course: what you'll be eating,
workouts, etc.
For now, tonight's assignment:
1. Answer this question: Why are you doing this? What is your
motivation? (refer to the list of questions in this email to
further expand on this) Remember, your finding the source of your
psychological fuel by uncovering your WHY. You want to feel that
your current path and your current state of being is NO LONGER
ACCEPTABLE to you. Remember that picture that you took before... if
you don't like what you see, it's okay to feel angry that you've
let yourself go and use that anger as your motivation. The point
is not to be self-deprecating but to be honest with yourself.
Sometimes a little pain can be the best catalyst for change. Don't
be afraid of it.
2. Define your goals and be clear. For me, I'm extremely visual,
so I found a couple of pictures of athletes that had physiques that
reflected the type of body that I wanted to obtain. I posted them
on my bathroom mirror so that I would constantly be reminded of
what I was aiming for.
STARTING FROM THE INSIDE - DETOX - GETTING YOUR CELLS HEALTHY
So, hopefully by now, I've jumbled up your mind a little bit and
now it's time to get into the nuts and bolts of how you are going
to transform your body and improve your quality of life
drastically.
Tony Robbin's says "Confusion means you are about to have a
break-through." So, if you are feeling a little confused about
now, it's a good thing. Again, I'm saving you thousands of dollars
here. And again, you're welcome.
Continuing with the theme of starting from the inside-out, it's
time to get your cells healthy. We've started getting your mind
into better shape, so now we need to make sure that we are working
with top-notch equipment if we are going to continue building a
body that's going to last.
Your body is only as healthy as your cells. If your cells aren't
happy, then your body is not going to respond the way you want it
too.. at least not for the long term. Remember, I advocate
permanent change, not temporary fixes.
I don't think many people would argue that we live in a toxic world
that is getting more toxic by the day. In addition to that, we
consciously choose to fill our body with more toxins. Luckily, the
body is a pretty amazing machine and has the ability to cope with a
lot of ABUSE. But, over time, just like a car, it will start to
break down if you don't service it properly.
Your body expends and enormous amount of energy in detoxification
efforts to keep you alive and hopefully kicking. Now, imagine that
you can relieve some of that stress from your body by helping it
along a little bit. Once you lighten the load on your body, it
will have excess energy left over to start doing things, such as:
renewing cells, growing muscle, producing collagen for the skin, etc.
Since you are going to be adding more physical stress to your body
by starting this program, it's important to do some simple things
to help your body detox and get your cells healthier. This is not
some crazy 21-day lemon juice and syrup fast, which I personally
think is totally unnecessary and too extreme. These are some
simple things that you can do to get your cells back on the right
track. Remember, SIMPLICITY is one of the keys to your success.
Water:
Go out and buy a non-disposable water bottle that you can carry
with you everywhere. It can be plastic or for tree-hugging hippies
(love you all) you can opt for the Nylaprene (non-plastic.) If you
have filtered water at home, great! If not, when buying bottled
water, buy the biggest jug possible and use this to refill your
portable bottle. This will reduce your plastic consumption.
Supercharge your water buy adding fresh-squeezed lemon juice. Not
only will this make your water taste better, lemon juice has a long
list of benefits and they are inexpensive.
Some Lemon Benefits:
-blood purification
-natural antiseptic to help fight infections
-natural mosquito and fly repellant
-high potassium, good for heart!
Your cells need lots of water to purge out toxins. If your urine
is darker than light yellow, you are not drinking enough. Ideally,
it should be almost clear.
Alcohol:
Use in moderation, or consider taking a break from this tasty adult
beverage for a while. Give your liver a chance to recover. Most
drinks have lots of calories and almost zero benefits besides
making certain people more attractive. If you do want to keep
drinking, make better choices. Stick with red wine or if you want
to have a cocktail, I like Bacardi & diet coke (try to keep it to
one)
Mary Jane:
If you are a fan of this lovely lady, I don't blame you. There are
many good times to be had when she's in town. However, there are
some benefits to lying off the bong for a while. Marijuana does
have the tendency to zap your energy and supposedly, it's also
sometimes associated with lowering testosterone levels in men. Not
the best thing when you are embarking on a journey of physical
transformation. Use your best judgment and figure out what works
for you.
Processed Foods & Beverages
Try to stay away from things that have a list of ingredients longer
than your arm. At least, use them in moderation. This goes out to
all those Twinkie lovers out there. You don't have to go all crazy
Whole-foods organic, but the key here is to make better choices.
This is common sense. When you buy foods that are in the most
natural state possible, they will be better accepted and used by
your body. No one really knows what all those chemicals and
preservatives are doing to you. Choose not to be a lab rat.
I must admit, I love Coke Zero, but I try not to drink it too much
because I know that the artificial sweeteners have been proven to
be a neurotoxin and all sodas are extremely acidic which contribute
to weakening your cell walls. Also, not good when you are trying
to build muscle. I limit my intake to one or two cans per week. I
feel that I drink enough water to counter-act the negative effects.
Breathing:
When you are born, the first and most painful thing that you do, is
take a breath of air. This is quite a shock to the system
considering you've been floating around in amniotic heaven for
9-months. From that point forward, most people become very shallow
breathers.
Getting oxygen into your system on a daily basis has enormous
benefits. Like water, the cells need oxygen to purge toxins. You
can oxygenate your blood by starting a simple daily breathing
routine. Take a couple of minutes out of every day and take 20
deep breaths.
Oxygenating your blood will not only help to detoxify you, but it
will also give you energy and give a boost to your metabolism.
It's like adding Nitrate to your automobile fuel. And, it's FREE!
Tonight's assignment: Take a look at where you can decrease the
toxins that are going into your body and decide what you are
willing to change or modify slightly to take some pressure off of
your body. Most importantly, START DRINKING WATER. If you don't
do anything else, this will counteract A LOT of the negative
effects that other things are causing.
YOU ARE WHAT YOU EAT
This is so true! There was this girl that I went to college with
and you could say that she had an eating disorder because all she
could be seen eating in the cafeteria was carrots. By the middle
of our first semester, she literally started turning orange! True
story! She must have gotten tired of carrots (or being orange) and
by the next semester she switched to cabbage. You can imagine what
happened.
This is obviously an extreme example to make light of and
illustrate a very important point that plays true in all of us. If
you put a bunch of over-processed nutrition deficient food in your
body, your body is going to start reflecting that at some point.
If you put natural nutrition-rich foods in your body, your body
will reflect that over time. Common sense, right?
Then why do we choose to put over-processed foods in our body that
aren't doing us any good? There are all kinds of diet and food
myths floating around out there and it can be difficult to sort
through it all to uncover what WORKS FOR YOU. Most fad diets are
just that, fads. They go in and out of style when people realize
that they are too hard to follow or they don't create lasting and
sustainable change. Or perhaps, it's discovered that they aren't
overly healthy for you.
Over the years, I've researched and experimented with different
ways of eating and I've found something that works very well for
me. I don't like to call it a "diet" because that implies
restriction and that's not a word I like to use in my vocabulary or
a philosophy that I live by.
Every body and every metabolism is slightly different and what
works for me, may or may not work as well for you. However, it's a
good starting point and will probably be an improvement over what
you are eating now. For example, some people do really well with
being vegan. I've tried that and I feel good, but I get way too
skinny and don't like the way I look. So, for me, it doesn't work
in the long-term. When you start to really tune into your body and
listen to what it needs, you can begin to make adjustments along
the way to develop a way of eating that serves your body's highest
potential.
To get a lean, muscular, and ripped body, it's essential to start
from the inside out. .
Every meal that you eat should contain the following components:
A source of LEAN PROTEIN
Chicken Breast (Grilled or Baked)
Tuna (in water)
Pork Chops (Grilled or Baked)
Egg Whites
Other Fish (Grilled or Baked)
A source of GOOD FAT
Avocado (My Favorite)
Olive Oil
Nuts/Seeds (pumpkin seeds, almonds, walnuts, etc)
A source of Carbohydrates
Raw Veggies - Combine multiple colors
Raw Whole Fruits -Organic w/High Fiber are Best
Apples, Blueberries, Goji Berries, etc.
Whole Grains/Beans
Brown Rice, Black Beans, Garbanzo Beans, Lentils, Oatmeal,
Sprouted Wheat
High Fiber Cereal
ALL BRAN or something similar
Contrary to popular belief, you actually NEED FAT TO LOOSE FAT. If
you don't have enough good fat in your diet that your body can
utilize (Omega 3-6-9, unsaturated & unprocessed, etc), your cells
will hang onto body fat because of the deficiency. When you start
adding good fat into your diet by adding avocados, olive oil, etc,
your cells will start releasing body fat since you are no longer
deficient. Your cell walls are made of liposomes (fat), so your
body needs this essential component to build healthy and strong
cells. Remember, your body is only as healthy as your cells.
Plan your meals by simply choosing one portion/serving from each
category per meal. Between meals, snack on nuts, seeds, and fruits
and/or a protein smoothie.
A typical day will look like this:
BREAKFAST
2-3 egg whites with one yolk
Bowl of ALL BRAN cereal with ACTIVE CULTURE yogurt instead of milk.
(This is absolutely the best way to kick start your digestive system
for the day. The fiber will act like a broom sweeping through
your system allowing you to shed all kinds of blockages and the
yogurt will replace and give you your daily dose of good bacteria
to aid in digestion.)
LUNCH
Grilled Chicken Breast
Tri-color salad (spinach, tomato, carrots)
½ avocado with olive oil and lemon dressing
MID-AFTERNOON SNACK
½ Protein Shake or Piece of Fruit and handful of nuts
DINNER
Baked Pork Chop
Raw Fruit Salad
½ Avocado
POST WORKOUT/SNACK
½ Protein Shake or serving of fruit & nuts
I eat this way about 80% of the time and the other 20%, I eat
whatever I want: Ice cream, pizza, cookies, etc. This equates to
one free day per week and one free meal per week, approximately.
I usually take Sunday completely off and give myself one free meal
during the week. This is great if you want to go out and enjoy
Mexican Food with friends or some other splurging. Remember, the
key here is not to feel that you are restricting yourself. You
still want to live and enjoy life and reward yourself for your hard
work and dedication.
BUILDING CARDIOVASCULAR STRENGTH AND ENDURANCE
The workout portion of this course is broken into two parts:
Building Cardiovascular Strength & Endurance and Building Muscular
Strength and Endurance. I advocate building FUNCTIONAL and
PRACTICAL strength that you will be able to use in your daily life,
as opposed to the strength that you build in a gym, which really
only serves you well when you are AT THE GYM. Today we are going
to briefly cover the cardiovascular portion of your training and
tomorrow we will close with the muscular portion of your training.
When Matthew McConaughey was asked how he stays fit, he replied "I
break a sweat every day." I love the simplicity of his philosophy
because it really works. If you do something every day to break a
sweat, chances are you'll be much better off than you are now.
Moving your body has multiple benefits that transcend just getting
ripped and looking better. When you move your body you engage your
circulatory system and assist the body in eliminating dangerous
toxins through your lymphatic system. Your lymphatic system does
not have a pump (like the heart) so the only way your lymphatic
fluid moves is when YOU MOVE. YOU ARE THE PUMP. When you are
stationary for long periods of time, the lymphatic fluid becomes
thick and toxic. Not good!
So, to start moving your body, find an activity that you enjoy
doing or that you can learn to enjoy doing multiple times per week.
For me, I use running as my main cardiovascular activity. I like
running because: I can do it anywhere, I don't need any special
equipment, besides shoes, and there is no special preparation
required. I can be out the door in 5 minutes.
You want to choose an activity that you will be most likely to
stick too. For example, if you choose swimming as your activity,
you will need to have easy access to a pool regularly, have
favorable weather, proper equipment etc. The more variables that
are required, the more likely you will have conflicts and you might
not stick with it.
Whatever you choose, for the first month or so, you want to make
sure you do this activity for at least 30 minutes and a minimum of
3x/week. Also, make sure that you do this activity at a brisk
enough pace to break a sweat during each workout.
Tip: If you are running, at the end of each run pretend you are
getting chased by a rabid pit-bull for 30-60 seconds and sprint
accordingly. This will activate your nervous system and will pump
a nice dose of testosterone into your blood.
Simple, right?
30 minutes - 3x/week - Break a sweat every time.
Your Assignment: Decide on a sweat-breaking activity and make a
schedule that you can stick too. Pick a time of the day that you
are most likely to stick too and make a routine of it. I have the
most energy in the early evening, so I always do my workouts before
dinner time at around 7pm. Routines become habits. Habits become
change. Change becomes Transformation.
BUILDING MUSCULAR STRENGTH & ENDURANCE
To build muscle, it's necessary to expose your muscles to
resistance. When your muscles get stronger, you increase the
resistance and they grow. At the gym, resistance is typically
provided by weights. Outside of the gym, resistance can be
provided by using your own body weight.
When you work out using your own body weight as resistance, you are
much less likely to injure yourself. You intuitively know when to
stop, as opposed to working out with weights. When you work out
with weights, you are much more likely to push yourself to far and
expose yourself to possible injury.
I'm here to tell you that YOU DO NOT NEED A GYM OR WEIGHTS TO GET
RIPPED. I haven't been to a gym in over 2 years and I'm more
ripped than I've ever been in my life. I used to go to the gym
6-days/week for 2 hours at a time. Now I work out about ½ hour/day
and have increased my results 10-fold.
The core and fundamental exercise that I use in my workouts is
pushups or some variation thereof. When you do a push-up, you
engage every major muscle group in your body. There are a
seemingly infinite amount of variations that you can do to target
specific muscle groups and muscles.
These are JUST the basics.
For the first 30 days, focus only on doing the standard/basic
pushup. At a minimum, do a pushup workout at least 3x/week. I
like to alternate my pushup days with my running days. That way,
I'm working out every day (except Sunday) and it helps me to stay
in a daily routine. Also, you'll give your body a day to rest
between cardio exercises and muscle exercises.
Remember, CONSISTENCY is another important key to your success. Daily
routines equal consistency.
For your pushup workouts, do at least three sets of basic pushups
and do as many as you can with proper form. Rest a minute or so
between sets. When you can no longer do a pushup with the proper
form, you are done.
When you are getting started, your workouts may look like this:
Set One - 17 Pushups
2 Minute Rest
Set Two - 13 Pushups
2 Minute Rest
Set Three - 9 Pushups
If you stick with this simple cardiovascular and muscle building
routine, you are going to be in much better shape than 90% of the
population.
I hope that this course has provided you with some knowledge that
will assist you in your own journey. I've simply shared with you
some of the principles that have worked for me and improved the
quality of my life and it's my wish that they will do the same for
you!
Thank you for playing! Be proud of yourself and STEP INTO YOUR
POWER!
Joel Gabriel
Disclaimer: Please consult with a physician before starting any new exercise
routine or diet.
INTRODUCTION & OVERVIEW
Congratulations!
If you are reading this it means you have taken the
first step towards transformation. Not to sound too cheesy, but
you should really be proud of yourself. The key to any kind of
success requires you to take action, and you've already done that
by downloading this course... so you are on your way to a new and
improved you! By the way, this course is totally free and there
are no products or affiliate links here and nothing is being sold…
so… whew! You can relax and enjoy.
Just a little warning before we get started. Don't expect this to
be like any other fitness program you've tried before. I'm not
really a conventional guy and I'd say I have some pretty
unconventional ideas.
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the World; the unreasonable
one persists in trying to adapt the World to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man."
George Bernard Shaw,
Maxims for Revolutionists
Some of the topics that I cover might seem odd to you, but hang
with me 'cause I promise there's a method to my madness. Besides,
if you are anything like me, you've tried a bunch of the
"conventional" methods before and perhaps they didn't end up giving
you the results that were promised or that you expected. So,
what's the harm in trying something a little different? You have
nothing to lose (except fat) and only an opportunity to gain
(strength!)
Okay, that being said, let's start to get into the meat of this.
First of all, I should tell you a little bit about my philosophies
and how they will relate to this course on shaping up your body and
your mind. For me, to be successful at anything, I've needed to be
CONSISTENT at whatever I was doing until I reached my objective.
So, to make any kind of transformation or change in your life,
you've got to make a choice and stick with it and be CONSISTENT and
UNSTOPPABLE in your determination to reach your goal. If you have
no idea how to do this, don't worry, we'll dig deeper into finding
your motivation in the upcoming days and YOU WILL find your
MOTIVATION. We all have a motivation and I'll help you find yours.
To be consistent at something, you need to start with a SIMPLE
plan. If you make something SIMPLE and EFFECTIVE then you are WAY
more likely to stick with it. I've read all these other fitness
plans that say... Day One do 3 sets of these 5 sets of those, eat
this, eat that... Day Two, do 10 sets of these, 4 sets of those,
rest, eat, repeat..... aghhhhhhhhh... I mean really! Who in their
right mind can keep up with all that? I can barely remember to pay
my phone bill.
I'm here to tell you that you don't need some crazy elaborate
work-out program to transform your body. Complicated and elaborate
DOES NOT equal EFFECTIVE. I repeat COMPLICATED DOES NOT EQUAL
EFFECTIVE.
That brings us to a very important principle that I will describe
to you briefly: THE 80/20 PRINCIPLE. According to Vilfredo
Pareto, a well-known economist and sociologist who lived from the
mid 1800's to early 1900's, approximately 20% of the population
owned 80% of the wealth. Okay, now you are probably wondering:
What does that have to do with fitness? Well, as it turns out,
this principle, also dubbed "Pareto's Law," can be applied to
almost anything.
For example, using this principle, you could say that 20% of your
activities at work are accounting for approximately 80% of your
income. Or, 20% of your customers are accounting for 80% of your
income. The rest of them are basically wasting your time.
When you apply this to your fitness/workout regimen, you could say
that 20% of the exercises you do are giving you 80% of your
results: muscle growth, weight loss, etc. So, if you can figure
out which 20% is giving you most of your results and minimize or
eliminate the other 80%, you've automatically trimmed down your
workout time by 80% and you'll likely get the same or better
results. See where I'm going with this? This is an extremely
powerful concept to really GET, because once you see how this
applies to your life, you can make some dramatic changes.
Okay, I could go on and on, but I don't want to bog you down with
too much information on the first day. I get REALLY excited about
this stuff and I'm really happy to be sharing this information with
you. I'm sure you are eager to get started... but be patient over
these next 7 days because we are going to be laying out a really
solid foundation for you to start on. You can't build a strong
house on a weak foundation.
Tomorrow I'm going to start delving into your psychology and then
we'll move on to getting your body healthy from the inside out.
Together, we are going to find your motivation which is going to be
the PSYCHOLOGICAL FUEL that you will need to transform your body.
This is all about PERMENANT and LASTING CHANGE, not temporary
fixes, so get ready!
Your First Assignment:
Get out your digital camera, Polaroid, or
find a sketch artist (not recommended) and snap a couple of
"Before" pictures of yourself. I don't care much about taking
measurements and all that stuff, but if it floats your boat... go
ahead. I have no idea what mine are all I know is that I like what
I see what I look in the mirror and more importantly, I like the
way I feel. Remember, simplicity here is the key and the objective
is to get results that you can see with your own eyes. Plus it
will be fun to show people your "Before" pictures later or just
keep them for yourself to see how far you've come. If you don't
like the way you look in your pictures, don't worry... hang on to
that feeling.. it's a GOOD THING!
PSYCHOLOGY OF THE MIND - Finding your motivation & drive.
You are your biggest enemy.
Breaking through your own psychological barriers and limiting
beliefs will likely be much harder than the physical part of this
transformation so I'm going to address this subject right out of
the gates.
A limiting belief or psychological barrier is anything that you
believe about yourself, your environment, or the world at large
that stands in the way of your reaching your TRUE POTENTIAL.
Remember the story about the first guy that ran a mile under
4-minutes? Prior to him breaking through that 4-minute mark, most
people thought it was impossible. This was a "psychological
barrier" of the population at large. Well, after he broke through
that 4-minute mark, all of the sudden it became possible and
shortly after that, several other people broke through the same
barrier and since then hundreds if not thousands have followed.
We all have these self-imposed barriers. The self-help gurus like
to call them limiting beliefs, but whatever you call them, they
have an enormous effect on you. They may be beliefs that you have
about yourself or beliefs that you have about the world at large.
The problem is that most of them are playing out in your
subconscious without you being overly aware of them. The mind is a
tricky thing!
There are hundreds of self-help books and 7-day seminars on this
subject, so I'm not going into any great detail here but I do want
to touch on the subject because it's important to your success.
I'll use a personal example to illustrate this concept. I've
always had friends that were older than me and I always remember
them saying that once you turn 30 your body starts going downhill
and it gets harder and harder to stay fit.
So, guess what happened? I turned 30 and it was almost as if a
switch went off in my brain and I started getting fat. I had
always been relatively thin and fit with little effort, but I
turned 30 and all seemed to go to hell in a hand basket and I
couldn't seem to lose the gut no matter how hard I tried.
Then, I became friends with this guy who was almost 50 years old
and he literally had the body of a 22 year old. In fact, he still
got carded when buying alcohol. I originally thought that he must
have won the genetic lottery, but when I saw pictures of his family
and his younger brother who looked 20 years older than him I
realized that his genetics probably only played a small part in his
"Cocoon" like preservation. I had to know his secret, so I asked
him and he gave me this simple answer:
"I don't believe in aging."
That seemed really stupid to me at first and it wasn't until much
later that I realized how profound of a statement it actually was.
Now, I'm not saying that you can just convince yourself that you
don't believe in aging and expect to always look 22 for the rest of
your life. I used that example to illustrate how powerful our
thoughts are and how they can actually affect your body and your
health.
I realized that perhaps my belief that "my body would start falling
apart at 30" was actually a psychological barrier that was
preventing me from reaching my fitness goals. So, by meeting my
older yet-seemingly ageless friend, I realized that my belief that
I had adopted from my other peers was TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY FALSE.
They can go ahead and go on downhill after 30, but I decided not
to subscribe to that belief. Once made that distinction in my
mind, everything changed and my body started responding almost
overnight!
The point that I want to make here and really drive home is that
YOUR PSYCHOLOGY WILL PLAY A CRUCIAL ROLE in your physical
transformation. The first thing that you can do is to start
identifying some of the limiting beliefs that have been holding you
back from reaching your highest potential. The good news is that
SIMPLY by making these things CONSCIOUS they will no longer have
the same power over you. You don't need to go through some 7-day
seminar or read 20 self-help books to get this. I'll save you
thousands of dollars and tell you they will all say about the same
thing. IT'S YOUR BELIEFS THAT DEFINE YOUR LIMITS. Change your
beliefs and change your limits.
Some common examples:
I don't have athletic ability.
I'm too fat to get into shape.
I'm too old.
I don't have the genetics for this.
Etc.
These are just some examples to help you figure out what's holding
you back. This is the time to get really honest with yourself.
The more honest you can be, the better your results are going to
be. Again, once you identify these beliefs, they will no longer
have the same power over you and you will begin to experience your
life differently. Also, don't be surprised when your body starts
responding differently!
The mind is a POWERFUL tool and when you start using it instead of
it using you, I bet you'll see some dramatic changes in all areas
of your life.
That's it for today. Tomorrow I'm going to dig a little bit deeper
into this and help you to really uncover your drive and motivation
which, as I said yesterday, is going to give you the psychological
fuel to make this transformation and change your way of life all
together.
Are you getting excited yet??? I am!
Tonight's assignment:
Sit down and write down 5 or 10 beliefs that
you feel have been holding you back from reaching your potential.
What are some of the thoughts that go through your head on a daily
basis that DO NOT serve your highest purpose? You can apply this
to any part of your life, but for the sake of this course, ask
yourself the question:
"What are common beliefs/thoughts that I have been having about
myself that have held me back from reaching my physical goals
(strength/fitness/health, etc)?
Try to write as fast as possible and write the first things that
come to your mind (don't edit and don't hold back.) Then, look at
your list and pick out the top 3 or 4 things that seem the most
relevant. Expand on those 3 or 4 things and write down how they
have been affecting you up to this point and how they will continue
to affect you if you choose to hang on to them. (Again, I'm saving
you thousands of dollars in self-help seminar fees.) As I said,
just by simply making these things conscious, they will no longer
have the same power over you. IT'S TIME FOR YOU TO STEP BACK INTO
THE DRIVER'S SEAT AND TAKE YOUR POWER BACK!
Imagine how good it will feel when you have stepped back into your
TRUE POWER! It will change EVERYTHING in your life, not just your
body.
PSYCHOLOGY OF THE BODY - DEFINING YOUR NEW BELIEFS
"Get Rich Quick" schemes don't work and neither do "Get Fit Quick"
schemes. I don't advocate some kind of
take-this-pill-and-you'll-have-a-six-pack in the morning routine.
What you are embarking on is real transformation and it's going to
take real energy, real sweat, real determination, and the reward at
the end of the rainbow is WELL WORTH IT my friend! Stick with me,
and you'll see!
I'm going to help you find the psychological fuel that's going to
keep YOU GOING... and GOING... and GOING. You are making some big
changes and they will seem difficult at first, so it's important
that you uncover what your motivation is so that you can always tap
into that. Now that you've hopefully identified some of your
limiting beliefs and realized that they are TOTAL B*LLSH*T, it's
time to define some of your new beliefs. You have a blank canvas
and YOU decide what to believe. No one else. The possibilities
are endless!
When setting the objective to achieve any goal, fitness/health or
otherwise, it's extremely important to know WHY you want to achieve
the goal. The WHY is going to always point you to the source of
your motivation and drive. We all have a reason WHY and a
motivation. You have a motivation to transform your body, get in
shape, or something similar, otherwise you would have never signed
up for this course. Am I right?
So, it's time to be honest with yourself again. Why do you want
this? What are the potential upsides and rewards to following
through? What are the potential downsides to not following through
and staying on the same path that you're on now? Where does that
path lead ultimately in 5, 10, 20 years? Do you like how that
looks? If you stay on the same path how will it affect the people
you love? If you make a transformation to an improved version of
yourself, how will THAT change your life? How will you feel when
you look down and see that you are fitting into the same jeans you
wore 10 years ago? How proud will that make you feel that you
sacrificed your sweat to get healthy? How good will it feel when
all "the doubters" start saying things like "hey, you are looking
pretty good, what are you doing?"
It's time to regain your vitality and I'm going to help you. As
you are probably starting to realize, this goes a lot deeper than
just getting a six-pack. This is about improving the quality of
your life and becoming a source of inspiration for those around you.
I'll tell you briefly about how I found my motivation and drive and
perhaps this illustration will help you find yours. I really let
myself go between age 30-32. I was smoking a lot of pot, drinking
a fair amount of alcohol, spending too many hours in front of a
computer screen, and it really started to do a number on my
emotional state, body, and overall health. I started feeling
depressed all the time and just lost the lust for life. Although
there were always exciting things happening around me, I had this
feeling of mediocrity floating around inside me most of the time.
In September of 2008, about 6 months ago (at the time I'm writing
this) the person that I thought was the "love of my life" dumped me
totally out of the blue. Although it seemed traumatic at the time,
looking back, it was absolutely the best thing that could have
happened to me. It was like a big slap in the face caused me to
wake up and really look at my current life situation with open
eyes.
Sometimes in life, we need those slaps. I believe that's the
(Universe/higher self/God/insert whatever works for you) way of
waking you up (at least briefly) so that you have a window of
opportunity to change. It's easy to go back to sleep, but if you
don't, there is BIG transformation to be had.
For me, I decided to use the break-up as my motivation to make some
drastic improvements in my life. Originally, my motivations were a
bit manipulative because I thought that if I got back in shape and
looking better than ever, I would win back the affection of my ex.
Well, that wasn't in the cards, but what did happen was that I DID
get into the best shape that I've ever been in and ultimately I DID
IT FOR MYSELF, NOT FOR MY EX OR ANYONE ELSE.
In the beginning, I used the break-up as MY MOTIVATION because it
helped me to push myself just a little bit further when I was ready
to give up. That's what you are looking for here: something that
has a STRONG EMOTIONAL CHARGE that will help to keep you going when
you are ready to give up. I use the simple mantra: "keep going...
keep going... keep going." These little mind tricks work, seriously!
Hopefully you've determined some of your limiting beliefs, so it's
time to start deciding what will be on your new canvas. Having
clearly defined goals are essential to your success and having
VISUAL GOALS are even more powerful. So, since we are keeping
things in the general context of the body, it's time to define your
physical goals. Be specific. Do you want to lose/gain weight? If
so, exactly how much? Do you want to get more lean? Do you want
to build muscle? I'm going to guess YES to these. Write them down.
Okay, enough for today. Tomorrow we are going to start getting
into the practical part of this course: what you'll be eating,
workouts, etc.
For now, tonight's assignment:
1. Answer this question: Why are you doing this? What is your
motivation? (refer to the list of questions in this email to
further expand on this) Remember, your finding the source of your
psychological fuel by uncovering your WHY. You want to feel that
your current path and your current state of being is NO LONGER
ACCEPTABLE to you. Remember that picture that you took before... if
you don't like what you see, it's okay to feel angry that you've
let yourself go and use that anger as your motivation. The point
is not to be self-deprecating but to be honest with yourself.
Sometimes a little pain can be the best catalyst for change. Don't
be afraid of it.
2. Define your goals and be clear. For me, I'm extremely visual,
so I found a couple of pictures of athletes that had physiques that
reflected the type of body that I wanted to obtain. I posted them
on my bathroom mirror so that I would constantly be reminded of
what I was aiming for.
STARTING FROM THE INSIDE - DETOX - GETTING YOUR CELLS HEALTHY
So, hopefully by now, I've jumbled up your mind a little bit and
now it's time to get into the nuts and bolts of how you are going
to transform your body and improve your quality of life
drastically.
Tony Robbin's says "Confusion means you are about to have a
break-through." So, if you are feeling a little confused about
now, it's a good thing. Again, I'm saving you thousands of dollars
here. And again, you're welcome.
Continuing with the theme of starting from the inside-out, it's
time to get your cells healthy. We've started getting your mind
into better shape, so now we need to make sure that we are working
with top-notch equipment if we are going to continue building a
body that's going to last.
Your body is only as healthy as your cells. If your cells aren't
happy, then your body is not going to respond the way you want it
too.. at least not for the long term. Remember, I advocate
permanent change, not temporary fixes.
I don't think many people would argue that we live in a toxic world
that is getting more toxic by the day. In addition to that, we
consciously choose to fill our body with more toxins. Luckily, the
body is a pretty amazing machine and has the ability to cope with a
lot of ABUSE. But, over time, just like a car, it will start to
break down if you don't service it properly.
Your body expends and enormous amount of energy in detoxification
efforts to keep you alive and hopefully kicking. Now, imagine that
you can relieve some of that stress from your body by helping it
along a little bit. Once you lighten the load on your body, it
will have excess energy left over to start doing things, such as:
renewing cells, growing muscle, producing collagen for the skin, etc.
Since you are going to be adding more physical stress to your body
by starting this program, it's important to do some simple things
to help your body detox and get your cells healthier. This is not
some crazy 21-day lemon juice and syrup fast, which I personally
think is totally unnecessary and too extreme. These are some
simple things that you can do to get your cells back on the right
track. Remember, SIMPLICITY is one of the keys to your success.
Water:
Go out and buy a non-disposable water bottle that you can carry
with you everywhere. It can be plastic or for tree-hugging hippies
(love you all) you can opt for the Nylaprene (non-plastic.) If you
have filtered water at home, great! If not, when buying bottled
water, buy the biggest jug possible and use this to refill your
portable bottle. This will reduce your plastic consumption.
Supercharge your water buy adding fresh-squeezed lemon juice. Not
only will this make your water taste better, lemon juice has a long
list of benefits and they are inexpensive.
Some Lemon Benefits:
-blood purification
-natural antiseptic to help fight infections
-natural mosquito and fly repellant
-high potassium, good for heart!
Your cells need lots of water to purge out toxins. If your urine
is darker than light yellow, you are not drinking enough. Ideally,
it should be almost clear.
Alcohol:
Use in moderation, or consider taking a break from this tasty adult
beverage for a while. Give your liver a chance to recover. Most
drinks have lots of calories and almost zero benefits besides
making certain people more attractive. If you do want to keep
drinking, make better choices. Stick with red wine or if you want
to have a cocktail, I like Bacardi & diet coke (try to keep it to
one)
Mary Jane:
If you are a fan of this lovely lady, I don't blame you. There are
many good times to be had when she's in town. However, there are
some benefits to lying off the bong for a while. Marijuana does
have the tendency to zap your energy and supposedly, it's also
sometimes associated with lowering testosterone levels in men. Not
the best thing when you are embarking on a journey of physical
transformation. Use your best judgment and figure out what works
for you.
Processed Foods & Beverages
Try to stay away from things that have a list of ingredients longer
than your arm. At least, use them in moderation. This goes out to
all those Twinkie lovers out there. You don't have to go all crazy
Whole-foods organic, but the key here is to make better choices.
This is common sense. When you buy foods that are in the most
natural state possible, they will be better accepted and used by
your body. No one really knows what all those chemicals and
preservatives are doing to you. Choose not to be a lab rat.
I must admit, I love Coke Zero, but I try not to drink it too much
because I know that the artificial sweeteners have been proven to
be a neurotoxin and all sodas are extremely acidic which contribute
to weakening your cell walls. Also, not good when you are trying
to build muscle. I limit my intake to one or two cans per week. I
feel that I drink enough water to counter-act the negative effects.
Breathing:
When you are born, the first and most painful thing that you do, is
take a breath of air. This is quite a shock to the system
considering you've been floating around in amniotic heaven for
9-months. From that point forward, most people become very shallow
breathers.
Getting oxygen into your system on a daily basis has enormous
benefits. Like water, the cells need oxygen to purge toxins. You
can oxygenate your blood by starting a simple daily breathing
routine. Take a couple of minutes out of every day and take 20
deep breaths.
Oxygenating your blood will not only help to detoxify you, but it
will also give you energy and give a boost to your metabolism.
It's like adding Nitrate to your automobile fuel. And, it's FREE!
Tonight's assignment: Take a look at where you can decrease the
toxins that are going into your body and decide what you are
willing to change or modify slightly to take some pressure off of
your body. Most importantly, START DRINKING WATER. If you don't
do anything else, this will counteract A LOT of the negative
effects that other things are causing.
YOU ARE WHAT YOU EAT
This is so true! There was this girl that I went to college with
and you could say that she had an eating disorder because all she
could be seen eating in the cafeteria was carrots. By the middle
of our first semester, she literally started turning orange! True
story! She must have gotten tired of carrots (or being orange) and
by the next semester she switched to cabbage. You can imagine what
happened.
This is obviously an extreme example to make light of and
illustrate a very important point that plays true in all of us. If
you put a bunch of over-processed nutrition deficient food in your
body, your body is going to start reflecting that at some point.
If you put natural nutrition-rich foods in your body, your body
will reflect that over time. Common sense, right?
Then why do we choose to put over-processed foods in our body that
aren't doing us any good? There are all kinds of diet and food
myths floating around out there and it can be difficult to sort
through it all to uncover what WORKS FOR YOU. Most fad diets are
just that, fads. They go in and out of style when people realize
that they are too hard to follow or they don't create lasting and
sustainable change. Or perhaps, it's discovered that they aren't
overly healthy for you.
Over the years, I've researched and experimented with different
ways of eating and I've found something that works very well for
me. I don't like to call it a "diet" because that implies
restriction and that's not a word I like to use in my vocabulary or
a philosophy that I live by.
Every body and every metabolism is slightly different and what
works for me, may or may not work as well for you. However, it's a
good starting point and will probably be an improvement over what
you are eating now. For example, some people do really well with
being vegan. I've tried that and I feel good, but I get way too
skinny and don't like the way I look. So, for me, it doesn't work
in the long-term. When you start to really tune into your body and
listen to what it needs, you can begin to make adjustments along
the way to develop a way of eating that serves your body's highest
potential.
To get a lean, muscular, and ripped body, it's essential to start
from the inside out. .
Every meal that you eat should contain the following components:
A source of LEAN PROTEIN
Chicken Breast (Grilled or Baked)
Tuna (in water)
Pork Chops (Grilled or Baked)
Egg Whites
Other Fish (Grilled or Baked)
A source of GOOD FAT
Avocado (My Favorite)
Olive Oil
Nuts/Seeds (pumpkin seeds, almonds, walnuts, etc)
A source of Carbohydrates
Raw Veggies - Combine multiple colors
Raw Whole Fruits -Organic w/High Fiber are Best
Apples, Blueberries, Goji Berries, etc.
Whole Grains/Beans
Brown Rice, Black Beans, Garbanzo Beans, Lentils, Oatmeal,
Sprouted Wheat
High Fiber Cereal
ALL BRAN or something similar
Contrary to popular belief, you actually NEED FAT TO LOOSE FAT. If
you don't have enough good fat in your diet that your body can
utilize (Omega 3-6-9, unsaturated & unprocessed, etc), your cells
will hang onto body fat because of the deficiency. When you start
adding good fat into your diet by adding avocados, olive oil, etc,
your cells will start releasing body fat since you are no longer
deficient. Your cell walls are made of liposomes (fat), so your
body needs this essential component to build healthy and strong
cells. Remember, your body is only as healthy as your cells.
Plan your meals by simply choosing one portion/serving from each
category per meal. Between meals, snack on nuts, seeds, and fruits
and/or a protein smoothie.
A typical day will look like this:
BREAKFAST
2-3 egg whites with one yolk
Bowl of ALL BRAN cereal with ACTIVE CULTURE yogurt instead of milk.
(This is absolutely the best way to kick start your digestive system
for the day. The fiber will act like a broom sweeping through
your system allowing you to shed all kinds of blockages and the
yogurt will replace and give you your daily dose of good bacteria
to aid in digestion.)
LUNCH
Grilled Chicken Breast
Tri-color salad (spinach, tomato, carrots)
½ avocado with olive oil and lemon dressing
MID-AFTERNOON SNACK
½ Protein Shake or Piece of Fruit and handful of nuts
DINNER
Baked Pork Chop
Raw Fruit Salad
½ Avocado
POST WORKOUT/SNACK
½ Protein Shake or serving of fruit & nuts
I eat this way about 80% of the time and the other 20%, I eat
whatever I want: Ice cream, pizza, cookies, etc. This equates to
one free day per week and one free meal per week, approximately.
I usually take Sunday completely off and give myself one free meal
during the week. This is great if you want to go out and enjoy
Mexican Food with friends or some other splurging. Remember, the
key here is not to feel that you are restricting yourself. You
still want to live and enjoy life and reward yourself for your hard
work and dedication.
BUILDING CARDIOVASCULAR STRENGTH AND ENDURANCE
The workout portion of this course is broken into two parts:
Building Cardiovascular Strength & Endurance and Building Muscular
Strength and Endurance. I advocate building FUNCTIONAL and
PRACTICAL strength that you will be able to use in your daily life,
as opposed to the strength that you build in a gym, which really
only serves you well when you are AT THE GYM. Today we are going
to briefly cover the cardiovascular portion of your training and
tomorrow we will close with the muscular portion of your training.
When Matthew McConaughey was asked how he stays fit, he replied "I
break a sweat every day." I love the simplicity of his philosophy
because it really works. If you do something every day to break a
sweat, chances are you'll be much better off than you are now.
Moving your body has multiple benefits that transcend just getting
ripped and looking better. When you move your body you engage your
circulatory system and assist the body in eliminating dangerous
toxins through your lymphatic system. Your lymphatic system does
not have a pump (like the heart) so the only way your lymphatic
fluid moves is when YOU MOVE. YOU ARE THE PUMP. When you are
stationary for long periods of time, the lymphatic fluid becomes
thick and toxic. Not good!
So, to start moving your body, find an activity that you enjoy
doing or that you can learn to enjoy doing multiple times per week.
For me, I use running as my main cardiovascular activity. I like
running because: I can do it anywhere, I don't need any special
equipment, besides shoes, and there is no special preparation
required. I can be out the door in 5 minutes.
You want to choose an activity that you will be most likely to
stick too. For example, if you choose swimming as your activity,
you will need to have easy access to a pool regularly, have
favorable weather, proper equipment etc. The more variables that
are required, the more likely you will have conflicts and you might
not stick with it.
Whatever you choose, for the first month or so, you want to make
sure you do this activity for at least 30 minutes and a minimum of
3x/week. Also, make sure that you do this activity at a brisk
enough pace to break a sweat during each workout.
Tip: If you are running, at the end of each run pretend you are
getting chased by a rabid pit-bull for 30-60 seconds and sprint
accordingly. This will activate your nervous system and will pump
a nice dose of testosterone into your blood.
Simple, right?
30 minutes - 3x/week - Break a sweat every time.
Your Assignment: Decide on a sweat-breaking activity and make a
schedule that you can stick too. Pick a time of the day that you
are most likely to stick too and make a routine of it. I have the
most energy in the early evening, so I always do my workouts before
dinner time at around 7pm. Routines become habits. Habits become
change. Change becomes Transformation.
BUILDING MUSCULAR STRENGTH & ENDURANCE
To build muscle, it's necessary to expose your muscles to
resistance. When your muscles get stronger, you increase the
resistance and they grow. At the gym, resistance is typically
provided by weights. Outside of the gym, resistance can be
provided by using your own body weight.
When you work out using your own body weight as resistance, you are
much less likely to injure yourself. You intuitively know when to
stop, as opposed to working out with weights. When you work out
with weights, you are much more likely to push yourself to far and
expose yourself to possible injury.
I'm here to tell you that YOU DO NOT NEED A GYM OR WEIGHTS TO GET
RIPPED. I haven't been to a gym in over 2 years and I'm more
ripped than I've ever been in my life. I used to go to the gym
6-days/week for 2 hours at a time. Now I work out about ½ hour/day
and have increased my results 10-fold.
The core and fundamental exercise that I use in my workouts is
pushups or some variation thereof. When you do a push-up, you
engage every major muscle group in your body. There are a
seemingly infinite amount of variations that you can do to target
specific muscle groups and muscles.
These are JUST the basics.
For the first 30 days, focus only on doing the standard/basic
pushup. At a minimum, do a pushup workout at least 3x/week. I
like to alternate my pushup days with my running days. That way,
I'm working out every day (except Sunday) and it helps me to stay
in a daily routine. Also, you'll give your body a day to rest
between cardio exercises and muscle exercises.
Remember, CONSISTENCY is another important key to your success. Daily
routines equal consistency.
For your pushup workouts, do at least three sets of basic pushups
and do as many as you can with proper form. Rest a minute or so
between sets. When you can no longer do a pushup with the proper
form, you are done.
When you are getting started, your workouts may look like this:
Set One - 17 Pushups
2 Minute Rest
Set Two - 13 Pushups
2 Minute Rest
Set Three - 9 Pushups
If you stick with this simple cardiovascular and muscle building
routine, you are going to be in much better shape than 90% of the
population.
I hope that this course has provided you with some knowledge that
will assist you in your own journey. I've simply shared with you
some of the principles that have worked for me and improved the
quality of my life and it's my wish that they will do the same for
you!
Thank you for playing! Be proud of yourself and STEP INTO YOUR
POWER!
Joel Gabriel
see what happens when you help people
http://www.newsmax.com/us/us_good_samaritan_beheaded/2009/05/29/219563.html
see what happens when you help people
see what happens when you help people
Bush Defends Harsh Interrogation Tactics
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/us_bush_speech/2009/05/28/219312.html
Bush Defends Harsh Interrogation Tactics
Thursday, May 28, 2009 10:54 PM
Article Font Size
Former President George W. Bush today defended his decision to use harsh interrogation Thursday, saying it was cleared by his lawyers to prevent what his advisors believed was another, imminent attack.
“I made a decision within the law to get information so I can say, I’ve done what it takes to do my duty to protect the American people,” he said. “I can tell you, the information gained saved lives," according to the Detroit Free Press.
In wide-ranging remarks and answers to the Economic Club of Southwestern Michigan, Bush poured out thoughts about his presidency, his retirement and the decisions he made – some of which he said will appear in a book he’s writing about his eight years in the White House.
The often-tearful meetings he had with relatives of fallen soldiers were "in some ways... very hard and in some ways, it was very uplifting," the Texas Republican said.
About eight people protested Bush's appearance outside the venue, carrying signs that called him a murderer and a traitor. The speech Thursday was one of the first made by the former president since leaving office in January.
Bush, the nation's 43rd president, spoke to 2,500 people about "the fog of war" that followed the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the economic downturn and his return to life as a regular citizen.
"It was a roller coaster of emotions, it really was," Bush said of the terror attacks, according to the Associated Press. "I think about it now at times but I definitely thought about it every day as president."
He talked about the economy, blaming "a lack of responsible regulation" in the lending industry for the recession and said that the Federal National Mortgage Association, known as Fannie Mae, and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., or Freddie Mac, shouldn't have engaged in certain financial practices.
"I don't want to sound like a self-serving guy, but we did try to rein them in," Bush said.
He also said he believes he was right to depose Iraq president Saddam Hussein and that it may lead to the spread of democracy throughout the Middle East.
The audience, which gave Bush a warm welcome at his arrival, cheered when he said he wanted to be remembered as a president who "showed up in office with a set of principles and he was unwilling to sacrifice his soul for the sake of popularity."
Bush Defends Harsh Interrogation Tactics
Thursday, May 28, 2009 10:54 PM
Article Font Size
Former President George W. Bush today defended his decision to use harsh interrogation Thursday, saying it was cleared by his lawyers to prevent what his advisors believed was another, imminent attack.
“I made a decision within the law to get information so I can say, I’ve done what it takes to do my duty to protect the American people,” he said. “I can tell you, the information gained saved lives," according to the Detroit Free Press.
In wide-ranging remarks and answers to the Economic Club of Southwestern Michigan, Bush poured out thoughts about his presidency, his retirement and the decisions he made – some of which he said will appear in a book he’s writing about his eight years in the White House.
The often-tearful meetings he had with relatives of fallen soldiers were "in some ways... very hard and in some ways, it was very uplifting," the Texas Republican said.
About eight people protested Bush's appearance outside the venue, carrying signs that called him a murderer and a traitor. The speech Thursday was one of the first made by the former president since leaving office in January.
Bush, the nation's 43rd president, spoke to 2,500 people about "the fog of war" that followed the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the economic downturn and his return to life as a regular citizen.
"It was a roller coaster of emotions, it really was," Bush said of the terror attacks, according to the Associated Press. "I think about it now at times but I definitely thought about it every day as president."
He talked about the economy, blaming "a lack of responsible regulation" in the lending industry for the recession and said that the Federal National Mortgage Association, known as Fannie Mae, and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., or Freddie Mac, shouldn't have engaged in certain financial practices.
"I don't want to sound like a self-serving guy, but we did try to rein them in," Bush said.
He also said he believes he was right to depose Iraq president Saddam Hussein and that it may lead to the spread of democracy throughout the Middle East.
The audience, which gave Bush a warm welcome at his arrival, cheered when he said he wanted to be remembered as a president who "showed up in office with a set of principles and he was unwilling to sacrifice his soul for the sake of popularity."
http://doc.cat-v.org/plan_9/programming/c_programming_in_plan_9
http://doc.cat-v.org/plan_9/programming/c_programming_in_plan_9
Thursday, May 28, 2009
bing woz ballmer microsoft
http://d7.allthingsd.com/20090528/d7-interview-steve-ballmer/
http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/255750/Woz-Bing!-Apple-Co-Founder-a-%22Big-Fan%22-of-Microsofts-New-Search-Engine
http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/255750/Woz-Bing!-Apple-Co-Founder-a-%22Big-Fan%22-of-Microsofts-New-Search-Engine
netbsd ssh be careful
Riastradh Please be careful with disabling password authentication in NetBSD's sshd.
10:58 Riastradh If you simply put `PasswordAuthentication no' in /etc/ssh/sshd_config, that *won't* disable password authentication.
10:58 Riastradh That is, if you change the default configuration file to add that line, it won't disable password authentication.
10:58 Riastradh The reason is that elsewhere in the default /etc/ssh/sshd_config is the line `UsePam yes', which enables authentication by PAM, which by default accepts password authentication.
10:59 Riastradh So you must both add `PasswordAuthentication no' *and* either comment out `UsePam yes' or change it to `UsePam no'. (The default, in the sshd program that comes with NetBSD, is to disable it, but the default configuration file enables it.)
10:59 Riastradh If you think this state of affairs is absurd, please complain on the netbsd-users mailing list.
10:59 Riastradh Or on the tech-security mailing list.
10:59 Riastradh Or both.
10:58 Riastradh If you simply put `PasswordAuthentication no' in /etc/ssh/sshd_config, that *won't* disable password authentication.
10:58 Riastradh That is, if you change the default configuration file to add that line, it won't disable password authentication.
10:58 Riastradh The reason is that elsewhere in the default /etc/ssh/sshd_config is the line `UsePam yes', which enables authentication by PAM, which by default accepts password authentication.
10:59 Riastradh So you must both add `PasswordAuthentication no' *and* either comment out `UsePam yes' or change it to `UsePam no'. (The default, in the sshd program that comes with NetBSD, is to disable it, but the default configuration file enables it.)
10:59 Riastradh If you think this state of affairs is absurd, please complain on the netbsd-users mailing list.
10:59 Riastradh Or on the tech-security mailing list.
10:59 Riastradh Or both.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Sonia Sotomayor...
Sonia Sotomayor...
Reply to:pers-mnq6w-1192550763@craigslist.org [Errors when replying to ads?]
Date: 2009-05-27, 8:50PM PDT
Obamas Pet Judicial Activist Passes La Raza Litmus Test Among Others
Obama names appeals court judge Sonia Sotomayor as his first Supreme Court nominee, and like his first hundred days in office, the so-called “centrist” president has once again chosen the most far left option on the table as a replacement for the very disappointing Justice Souter.
High on the list of Obamas Marxist agenda is “amnesty” for millions of illegal aliens currently bilking American taxpayers out of their future, via countless “free government services” and a laundry list of left-wing “affirmative action” initiatives that place race ahead of all other considerations.
In keeping with his rush into unbridled Marxism, Obamas need for several million new DNC voters before the 2010 mid-term election requires a pro-amnesty Justice on the Supreme Court who believes that pro-Latina activism and “policy making” is her primary responsibility on the court.
In 2001, Sonia Sotomayor, an appeals court judge, gave a speech declaring that the ethnicity and sex of a judge “may and will make a difference in our judging.” - “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” said Judge Sotomayor.
A video recently surfaced of Judge Sotomayor asserting in 2005 that a “court of appeals is where policy is made.” She then immediately adds: “And I know --I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it. I’m --you know.” [Court is Where Policy is Made]
The Perfect Leftist Pick
Judge Sotomayor is the perfect pick for leftists seeking a high court policy maker. She passes every leftist ideological litmus test under the sun. She is…
* female
* ethnic-American
* a Princeton and Yale Ivy League elitist
* a New York liberal friendly to Berkley Communists
* a La Raza icon
* pro-minority rule
* pro-abortion
* pro-illegal immigration
* pro-amnesty for illegals
* pro-Obamessiah affirmative action Marxism
* pro-judicial activism
A review of some past judicial decisions can be read here - http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-sotomayors-appellate-opinions-in-civil-cases/
Justice is blind to race, creed or color? Or are some men more equal than others, in the eyes of the court?
Judge Sotomayor sees the judicial branch as an official “policy making” oligarchy, in line with the leftist notion that the nine member oligarchy is the final ideologically driven arbiter of truth, justice and the American way, and she has been overtly outspoken about it.
Dictator-in-Chief Obama was a very moderate sounding candidate, but he has ruled like a third world dictator since mid-November 2008, before he was even inaugurated. Staying true to his anti-Constitution Marxist roots, he has chosen a Supreme Court nominee who sees the Constitution as only an obstacle to change that must be overcome by activist judges willing to use their gavel as a hammer.
Seven Republicans Can Stop Her!
Leftists have the congressional votes they need to ram anything they want down American throats. But in the case of court appointments, the nominee will have to make it out of the Senate Judiciary Committee before they can receive a full congressional nod.
Under judicial activism, justice can be neither equal nor blind. The Constitution is bastardized for purposes of political favor. Justice becomes nothing more than a permanent political extension of a temporary resident of the White House.
Seven Republicans sit on that committee…
* Jeff Sessions (AL)
* Orrin G. Hatch (UT)
* Charles E. Grassley (IA)
* Jon Kyl (AZ)
* Lindsey Graham (SC)
* John Cornyn (TX)
* Tom Coburn (OK)
All seven Republicans will have to stand opposed in order to block the appointment of the most far left jurist to be named to the Supreme Court since Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
Like Justice Souter, Sotomayor is another disappointing court appointment of George H.W. Bush, which is now a hammer used by the Obama administration to beat congressional Republicans over the head, in demanding they support a far left nominee that a Republican once appointed to the court.
Despite the fact that Obama supported the Democrat blockade of Justice Alito, Obama seeks to establish that any opposition to Sotomayor on the basis of her far left views towards judicial activism will be labeled yet another act of “racism” by conservatives, who should prefer a justice willing to uphold and defend the written law of the land, rather than support a nominee who promises to use her robe to pursue a political agenda.
Liberals scream foul when they think “the right” uses a court appointment to advance their political agenda. But they demand that their elected representatives appoint only ideologically aligned activists to the court.
California’s Prop 8 battle provides a perfect example of the real issue at hand in court appointments. Like other states, California courts tried to redefine the time honored definition of marriage for benefit of those seeking marital financial benefit, otherwise excluded by law.
The people of California reacted by holding a statewide referendum on the matter, overruling the judicial oligarchy with the democratic power of the people’s vote, which overwhelmingly supported upholding traditional family values and the ancient definition of marriage.
The California high court to rule on Prop. 8 today - likely overruling the vast will of California citizens, once again proving that California is not a free democratic self-governed state wherein the will of the people has more power than an activist judicial system.
Obamas Supreme Court pick sends a signal that the US Supreme Court will function in similar fashion, becoming a full-tilt leftist political oligarchy free to run roughshod over the will of Americans from sea to shining sea.
Seven Republicans stand between Obamas La Raza activist appointee and decades of left-wing judicial activism on the high court.
I predict that not one of these seven Republicans will be returned to their Senate seat if they fail to take a firm stand against leftist judicial activism by blocking the appointment of Judge Sotomayor in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Denying Sotomayor a full congressional vote is the only tool available for blocking this left-wing lurch in the high court. Contact these seven Republicans immediately and demand that they stand for the rule of law, against the current dictates of left-wing activism advanced by the Obama administration.
Act now, or don’t bother complaining later!
Reply to:pers-mnq6w-1192550763@craigslist.org [Errors when replying to ads?]
Date: 2009-05-27, 8:50PM PDT
Obamas Pet Judicial Activist Passes La Raza Litmus Test Among Others
Obama names appeals court judge Sonia Sotomayor as his first Supreme Court nominee, and like his first hundred days in office, the so-called “centrist” president has once again chosen the most far left option on the table as a replacement for the very disappointing Justice Souter.
High on the list of Obamas Marxist agenda is “amnesty” for millions of illegal aliens currently bilking American taxpayers out of their future, via countless “free government services” and a laundry list of left-wing “affirmative action” initiatives that place race ahead of all other considerations.
In keeping with his rush into unbridled Marxism, Obamas need for several million new DNC voters before the 2010 mid-term election requires a pro-amnesty Justice on the Supreme Court who believes that pro-Latina activism and “policy making” is her primary responsibility on the court.
In 2001, Sonia Sotomayor, an appeals court judge, gave a speech declaring that the ethnicity and sex of a judge “may and will make a difference in our judging.” - “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” said Judge Sotomayor.
A video recently surfaced of Judge Sotomayor asserting in 2005 that a “court of appeals is where policy is made.” She then immediately adds: “And I know --I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it. I’m --you know.” [Court is Where Policy is Made]
The Perfect Leftist Pick
Judge Sotomayor is the perfect pick for leftists seeking a high court policy maker. She passes every leftist ideological litmus test under the sun. She is…
* female
* ethnic-American
* a Princeton and Yale Ivy League elitist
* a New York liberal friendly to Berkley Communists
* a La Raza icon
* pro-minority rule
* pro-abortion
* pro-illegal immigration
* pro-amnesty for illegals
* pro-Obamessiah affirmative action Marxism
* pro-judicial activism
A review of some past judicial decisions can be read here - http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-sotomayors-appellate-opinions-in-civil-cases/
Justice is blind to race, creed or color? Or are some men more equal than others, in the eyes of the court?
Judge Sotomayor sees the judicial branch as an official “policy making” oligarchy, in line with the leftist notion that the nine member oligarchy is the final ideologically driven arbiter of truth, justice and the American way, and she has been overtly outspoken about it.
Dictator-in-Chief Obama was a very moderate sounding candidate, but he has ruled like a third world dictator since mid-November 2008, before he was even inaugurated. Staying true to his anti-Constitution Marxist roots, he has chosen a Supreme Court nominee who sees the Constitution as only an obstacle to change that must be overcome by activist judges willing to use their gavel as a hammer.
Seven Republicans Can Stop Her!
Leftists have the congressional votes they need to ram anything they want down American throats. But in the case of court appointments, the nominee will have to make it out of the Senate Judiciary Committee before they can receive a full congressional nod.
Under judicial activism, justice can be neither equal nor blind. The Constitution is bastardized for purposes of political favor. Justice becomes nothing more than a permanent political extension of a temporary resident of the White House.
Seven Republicans sit on that committee…
* Jeff Sessions (AL)
* Orrin G. Hatch (UT)
* Charles E. Grassley (IA)
* Jon Kyl (AZ)
* Lindsey Graham (SC)
* John Cornyn (TX)
* Tom Coburn (OK)
All seven Republicans will have to stand opposed in order to block the appointment of the most far left jurist to be named to the Supreme Court since Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
Like Justice Souter, Sotomayor is another disappointing court appointment of George H.W. Bush, which is now a hammer used by the Obama administration to beat congressional Republicans over the head, in demanding they support a far left nominee that a Republican once appointed to the court.
Despite the fact that Obama supported the Democrat blockade of Justice Alito, Obama seeks to establish that any opposition to Sotomayor on the basis of her far left views towards judicial activism will be labeled yet another act of “racism” by conservatives, who should prefer a justice willing to uphold and defend the written law of the land, rather than support a nominee who promises to use her robe to pursue a political agenda.
Liberals scream foul when they think “the right” uses a court appointment to advance their political agenda. But they demand that their elected representatives appoint only ideologically aligned activists to the court.
California’s Prop 8 battle provides a perfect example of the real issue at hand in court appointments. Like other states, California courts tried to redefine the time honored definition of marriage for benefit of those seeking marital financial benefit, otherwise excluded by law.
The people of California reacted by holding a statewide referendum on the matter, overruling the judicial oligarchy with the democratic power of the people’s vote, which overwhelmingly supported upholding traditional family values and the ancient definition of marriage.
The California high court to rule on Prop. 8 today - likely overruling the vast will of California citizens, once again proving that California is not a free democratic self-governed state wherein the will of the people has more power than an activist judicial system.
Obamas Supreme Court pick sends a signal that the US Supreme Court will function in similar fashion, becoming a full-tilt leftist political oligarchy free to run roughshod over the will of Americans from sea to shining sea.
Seven Republicans stand between Obamas La Raza activist appointee and decades of left-wing judicial activism on the high court.
I predict that not one of these seven Republicans will be returned to their Senate seat if they fail to take a firm stand against leftist judicial activism by blocking the appointment of Judge Sotomayor in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Denying Sotomayor a full congressional vote is the only tool available for blocking this left-wing lurch in the high court. Contact these seven Republicans immediately and demand that they stand for the rule of law, against the current dictates of left-wing activism advanced by the Obama administration.
Act now, or don’t bother complaining later!
WTF Banks earned $7.6B in 1Q after record loss in 4Q
Banks earned $7.6B in 1Q after record loss in 4Q
FDIC: banks earned $7.6 billion profit in first quarter, but 'problem' banks rose to over 300
Marcy Gordon, AP Business Writer
On Wednesday May 27, 2009, 11:43 am EDT
Buzz up! Print
Related:
Bank of America Corporation, Citigroup, Inc., Fifth Third Bancorp
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The nation's banks turned a profit in the first quarter, but the number of problem banks jumped to more than 300, the government said Wednesday.
Related QuotesSymbol Price Change
BAC 11.10 +0.12
C 3.78 +0.01
FITB 6.97 -0.04
JPM 36.41 -0.13
MS 29.79 +0.77
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. said higher trading revenues at big banks helped the industry earn a $7.6 billion profit in the January-March period, compared with a record loss of $36.9 billion in the fourth quarter. The profit was 61 percent below the $19.3 billion earned in the year-ago period and followed the first quarterly loss in 18 years.
U.S. banks and thrifts set aside $60.9 billion in the first quarter to cover potential loan losses, up from $36.2 billion a year earlier.
The number of troubled banks jumped to 305, the highest number since 1994 during the savings and loan crisis, from 252 in the fourth quarter, according to the FDIC.
Thirty-six federally-insured institutions already have failed and been shut down by regulators this year, extending a wave of collapses that began in 2008. This year's tally compares with 25 in all of 2008 and three in 2007.
The failures sliced the amount in the deposit insurance fund to $13 billion in the first quarter, the lowest level since 1993. That compares with $17.3 billion a year earlier.
"Troubled loans continue to accumulate" and the costs to banks from soured loans "are weighing heavily on the industry's performance," FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair said. "Nevertheless, compared to a year ago, we see some positives."
Those include the increase in banks' net interest income and revenue from sources other than interest such as trading, she said.
The first-quarter results "are telling us that the banking industry still faces tremendous challenges," Bair said.
The FDIC believes U.S. bank failures will cost the deposit insurance fund around $70 billion through 2013.
The FDIC on Friday adopted a new system of emergency fees paid by U.S. financial institutions that will shift more of the burden to bigger banks to help replenish the insurance fund. The move by the agency cut by about two-thirds the amount of special fees to be levied on banks and thrifts compared with an earlier plan, which had prompted a wave of protests by small and community banks.
The new system is intended to raise about $5.6 billion. Additional emergency assessments could come later in the year, the FDIC said.
Congress last week more than tripled the amount the FDIC could borrow from the Treasury Department if needed to restore the insurance fund, to $100 billion from $30 billion. Bair had earlier promised a reduction in fees charged to banks if that credit line could be expanded.
The FDIC also recently levied a surcharge on banks issuing debt under the agency's temporary rescue program. Under it, the FDIC guarantees hundreds of billions of dollars in debt in the event of payment defaults by the issuing banks. Those surcharges, nearly $8 billion collected already, will help compensate for the reduction in insurance premiums, the agency said.
Government "stress tests" of the 19 biggest U.S. banks early this month showed that nine of them have enough capital to withstand a deeper recession. The remaining 10 must raise a total of $75 billion in new capital to withstand possible future losses. Of those, Bank of America Corp. needs the most by far -- $33.9 billion. Wells Fargo & Co. needs $13.7 billion, auto lender GMAC LLC $11.5 billion, Citigroup Inc. $5.5 billion and Morgan Stanley $1.8 billion.
The five other banks found to need more of a capital cushion are regional institutions: Regions Financial Corp. based in Birmingham, Ala.; SunTrust Banks Inc. of Atlanta; KeyCorp of Cleveland; Fifth Third Bancorp of Cincinnati; and PNC Financial Services Group Inc. of Pittsburgh.
The tests were a key part of the Obama administration's plan to fortify the financial system. The banks have until June 8 to develop a plan and have it approved by their regulators. If they can't raise the money on their own, the government said it is prepared to dip further into its bailout fund.
The closing last week of struggling Florida thrift BankUnited FSB is expected to cost the insurance fund $4.9 billion, the second-largest hit since the financial crisis began. The costliest was the July 2008 seizure of California lender IndyMac Bank, on which the insurance fund is estimated to have lost $10.7 billion.
The largest U.S. bank failure ever also came last year: Seattle-based thrift Washington Mutual Inc. fell in September, with about $307 billion in assets, and was acquired by JPMorgan Chase & Co. for $1.9 billion in a deal brokered by the FDIC.
FDIC: banks earned $7.6 billion profit in first quarter, but 'problem' banks rose to over 300
Marcy Gordon, AP Business Writer
On Wednesday May 27, 2009, 11:43 am EDT
Buzz up! Print
Related:
Bank of America Corporation, Citigroup, Inc., Fifth Third Bancorp
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The nation's banks turned a profit in the first quarter, but the number of problem banks jumped to more than 300, the government said Wednesday.
Related QuotesSymbol Price Change
BAC 11.10 +0.12
C 3.78 +0.01
FITB 6.97 -0.04
JPM 36.41 -0.13
MS 29.79 +0.77
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. said higher trading revenues at big banks helped the industry earn a $7.6 billion profit in the January-March period, compared with a record loss of $36.9 billion in the fourth quarter. The profit was 61 percent below the $19.3 billion earned in the year-ago period and followed the first quarterly loss in 18 years.
U.S. banks and thrifts set aside $60.9 billion in the first quarter to cover potential loan losses, up from $36.2 billion a year earlier.
The number of troubled banks jumped to 305, the highest number since 1994 during the savings and loan crisis, from 252 in the fourth quarter, according to the FDIC.
Thirty-six federally-insured institutions already have failed and been shut down by regulators this year, extending a wave of collapses that began in 2008. This year's tally compares with 25 in all of 2008 and three in 2007.
The failures sliced the amount in the deposit insurance fund to $13 billion in the first quarter, the lowest level since 1993. That compares with $17.3 billion a year earlier.
"Troubled loans continue to accumulate" and the costs to banks from soured loans "are weighing heavily on the industry's performance," FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair said. "Nevertheless, compared to a year ago, we see some positives."
Those include the increase in banks' net interest income and revenue from sources other than interest such as trading, she said.
The first-quarter results "are telling us that the banking industry still faces tremendous challenges," Bair said.
The FDIC believes U.S. bank failures will cost the deposit insurance fund around $70 billion through 2013.
The FDIC on Friday adopted a new system of emergency fees paid by U.S. financial institutions that will shift more of the burden to bigger banks to help replenish the insurance fund. The move by the agency cut by about two-thirds the amount of special fees to be levied on banks and thrifts compared with an earlier plan, which had prompted a wave of protests by small and community banks.
The new system is intended to raise about $5.6 billion. Additional emergency assessments could come later in the year, the FDIC said.
Congress last week more than tripled the amount the FDIC could borrow from the Treasury Department if needed to restore the insurance fund, to $100 billion from $30 billion. Bair had earlier promised a reduction in fees charged to banks if that credit line could be expanded.
The FDIC also recently levied a surcharge on banks issuing debt under the agency's temporary rescue program. Under it, the FDIC guarantees hundreds of billions of dollars in debt in the event of payment defaults by the issuing banks. Those surcharges, nearly $8 billion collected already, will help compensate for the reduction in insurance premiums, the agency said.
Government "stress tests" of the 19 biggest U.S. banks early this month showed that nine of them have enough capital to withstand a deeper recession. The remaining 10 must raise a total of $75 billion in new capital to withstand possible future losses. Of those, Bank of America Corp. needs the most by far -- $33.9 billion. Wells Fargo & Co. needs $13.7 billion, auto lender GMAC LLC $11.5 billion, Citigroup Inc. $5.5 billion and Morgan Stanley $1.8 billion.
The five other banks found to need more of a capital cushion are regional institutions: Regions Financial Corp. based in Birmingham, Ala.; SunTrust Banks Inc. of Atlanta; KeyCorp of Cleveland; Fifth Third Bancorp of Cincinnati; and PNC Financial Services Group Inc. of Pittsburgh.
The tests were a key part of the Obama administration's plan to fortify the financial system. The banks have until June 8 to develop a plan and have it approved by their regulators. If they can't raise the money on their own, the government said it is prepared to dip further into its bailout fund.
The closing last week of struggling Florida thrift BankUnited FSB is expected to cost the insurance fund $4.9 billion, the second-largest hit since the financial crisis began. The costliest was the July 2008 seizure of California lender IndyMac Bank, on which the insurance fund is estimated to have lost $10.7 billion.
The largest U.S. bank failure ever also came last year: Seattle-based thrift Washington Mutual Inc. fell in September, with about $307 billion in assets, and was acquired by JPMorgan Chase & Co. for $1.9 billion in a deal brokered by the FDIC.
http://doc.cat-v.org/henry_spencer/ifdef_considered_harmful
http://doc.cat-v.org/henry_spencer/ifdef_considered_harmful
http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2009/04/cia_confirms_that_waterboardin.php
http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2009/04/cia_confirms_that_waterboardin.php
When chemistry is outlawed, only outlaws will do chemistry
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/06/when_chemistry_is_outlawed_onl.php
Something else I'm getting tired of in this country is all this stupid talk I have to listen to about children.
By George Carlin:
Something else I'm getting tired of in this country is all this stupid talk
I have to listen to about children. That's all you hear about anymore,
children: "Help the children, save the children, protect the children." You
know what I say? Fuck the children!
They're getting entirely too much attention. And I know what some of you are
thinking: " Jesus, he's not going to attack children, is he?" Yes he is!
He's going to attack children. And remember, this is Mr. Conductor talking;
I know what I'm talking about.
And I also know that all you boring single dads and working moms, who think
you're such fucking heros, aren't gonna like this, but somebody's gotta tell
you for your own good: your children are overrated and overvalued, and
you've turned them into little cult objects. You have a child fetish, and
it's not healthy. And don't give me all that weak shit, "Well, I love my
children." Fuck you! Everybody loves their children; it doesn't make you
special. : : : John Wayne Gacy loved his children. Yes, he did. That's not
what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is this constant, mindless
yammering in the media, this neurotic fixation that suggests that somehow
everything--everything--has to revolve around the lives of children. Ist's
completely out of balance.
Listen, there are a couple of things about kids you have to remember. First
of all, they're not all cute. In fact, if you look at 'em real close, most
of them are rather unpleasant looking. And a lot of them don't smell too
good either. The little ones in particular seem to have a kind of urine and
sour-milk combination that I don't care for at all. Stay with me on this
folks, the sooner you face it the better off your going to be.
Second, premise: not all chidren are smart and clever. Got that? Kids are
like any other group of people: a few winners, a whole lot of losers! This
country is filled with loser kids who simply...aren't...going anywhere! And
there's nothing you can do about it, folks. Nothing! You can't save them
all. You can't do it. You gotta let 'em go; you gotta cut 'em loose; you
gotta stop over-protecting them, because your making 'em too soft.
Today's kids are way too soft. : : : For one thing, there's too much
emphasis on safety and safety equipment: childproof medicine bottles,
fireproof pajamas, child restraints, car seats. And helmets! Bicycle,
baseball, skateboard, scooter helmets. Kids have to wear helmets now for
everything but jerking off. Grown-ups have taken all the fun out of being a
kid. : : : What's happened is, these baby boomers, these soft, fruity baby
boomers, have raised an entire generation of soft, fruity kids who aren't
even allowed hazardous toys, for Chrissakes! What ever happened to natural
selection? Survival of the fittest? The kid who swallows too many marbles
doesn't grow up to have kids of his own. Simple stuff. Nature knows best!
Another bunch of ignorant bullshit about your children: school uniforms. Bad
theory! The idea that if kids wear uniforms to school, it helps keep order.
Hey! Don't these schools do enough damage makin' all these children think
alike? Now they're gonna get 'em to look alike, too? : : : And it's not even
a new idea; I first saw it in old newsreels from the 1930s, but it was hard
to understand, because the narration was in German! But the uniforms looked
beautiful. And the children did everything they were told and never
questioned authority. Gee, I wonder why someone would want to put our
children in uniforms. Can't imagine.
And one more item about children: this superstitous nonsense of blaming
tobacco companies for kids who smoke. Listem! Kids don't smoke because a
camel in sunglasses tells them to. They smoke for the same reasons adults
do, because it's an enjoyable activity that relieves anxiety and depression.
And you'd be anxious and depressed too if you had to put up with these
pathetic, insecure, yuppie parents who enroll you in college before you've
figured out which side of the playpen smells the worst and then fill you
with Ritalin to get you in a mood they approve of, and drag you all over
town in search of empty, meaningless structure: Little League, Cub Scouts,
swimming, soccer, karate, piano, bagpipes, watercolors, witchcraft, glass
blowing, and dildo practice. It's absurd. : : : They even have "play dates",
for Christ sake! Playing is now done by appointment! But it's true. A lot of
these striving, and parents are burning their kids out on structure. I think
what every child needs and ought to have every day is two hours of
daydreaming. Plain old daydreaming.
Turn off the internet, the CD-ROMS, and the computer games and let them
stare at a tree for a couple of hours. Every now and then they actually come
up with one of their own ideas. You want to know how to help your kids?
Leave them the fuck alone.
Something else I'm getting tired of in this country is all this stupid talk
I have to listen to about children. That's all you hear about anymore,
children: "Help the children, save the children, protect the children." You
know what I say? Fuck the children!
They're getting entirely too much attention. And I know what some of you are
thinking: " Jesus, he's not going to attack children, is he?" Yes he is!
He's going to attack children. And remember, this is Mr. Conductor talking;
I know what I'm talking about.
And I also know that all you boring single dads and working moms, who think
you're such fucking heros, aren't gonna like this, but somebody's gotta tell
you for your own good: your children are overrated and overvalued, and
you've turned them into little cult objects. You have a child fetish, and
it's not healthy. And don't give me all that weak shit, "Well, I love my
children." Fuck you! Everybody loves their children; it doesn't make you
special. : : : John Wayne Gacy loved his children. Yes, he did. That's not
what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is this constant, mindless
yammering in the media, this neurotic fixation that suggests that somehow
everything--everything--has to revolve around the lives of children. Ist's
completely out of balance.
Listen, there are a couple of things about kids you have to remember. First
of all, they're not all cute. In fact, if you look at 'em real close, most
of them are rather unpleasant looking. And a lot of them don't smell too
good either. The little ones in particular seem to have a kind of urine and
sour-milk combination that I don't care for at all. Stay with me on this
folks, the sooner you face it the better off your going to be.
Second, premise: not all chidren are smart and clever. Got that? Kids are
like any other group of people: a few winners, a whole lot of losers! This
country is filled with loser kids who simply...aren't...going anywhere! And
there's nothing you can do about it, folks. Nothing! You can't save them
all. You can't do it. You gotta let 'em go; you gotta cut 'em loose; you
gotta stop over-protecting them, because your making 'em too soft.
Today's kids are way too soft. : : : For one thing, there's too much
emphasis on safety and safety equipment: childproof medicine bottles,
fireproof pajamas, child restraints, car seats. And helmets! Bicycle,
baseball, skateboard, scooter helmets. Kids have to wear helmets now for
everything but jerking off. Grown-ups have taken all the fun out of being a
kid. : : : What's happened is, these baby boomers, these soft, fruity baby
boomers, have raised an entire generation of soft, fruity kids who aren't
even allowed hazardous toys, for Chrissakes! What ever happened to natural
selection? Survival of the fittest? The kid who swallows too many marbles
doesn't grow up to have kids of his own. Simple stuff. Nature knows best!
Another bunch of ignorant bullshit about your children: school uniforms. Bad
theory! The idea that if kids wear uniforms to school, it helps keep order.
Hey! Don't these schools do enough damage makin' all these children think
alike? Now they're gonna get 'em to look alike, too? : : : And it's not even
a new idea; I first saw it in old newsreels from the 1930s, but it was hard
to understand, because the narration was in German! But the uniforms looked
beautiful. And the children did everything they were told and never
questioned authority. Gee, I wonder why someone would want to put our
children in uniforms. Can't imagine.
And one more item about children: this superstitous nonsense of blaming
tobacco companies for kids who smoke. Listem! Kids don't smoke because a
camel in sunglasses tells them to. They smoke for the same reasons adults
do, because it's an enjoyable activity that relieves anxiety and depression.
And you'd be anxious and depressed too if you had to put up with these
pathetic, insecure, yuppie parents who enroll you in college before you've
figured out which side of the playpen smells the worst and then fill you
with Ritalin to get you in a mood they approve of, and drag you all over
town in search of empty, meaningless structure: Little League, Cub Scouts,
swimming, soccer, karate, piano, bagpipes, watercolors, witchcraft, glass
blowing, and dildo practice. It's absurd. : : : They even have "play dates",
for Christ sake! Playing is now done by appointment! But it's true. A lot of
these striving, and parents are burning their kids out on structure. I think
what every child needs and ought to have every day is two hours of
daydreaming. Plain old daydreaming.
Turn off the internet, the CD-ROMS, and the computer games and let them
stare at a tree for a couple of hours. Every now and then they actually come
up with one of their own ideas. You want to know how to help your kids?
Leave them the fuck alone.
California Supreme Court upholds gay-marriage ban
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/nation/stories/DN-gaymarriage_27nat.ART.State.Edition1.50cab89.html
waterboarding aint torture
http://www.mahalo.com/answers/world-war-two/during-world-war-ii-where-the-japanese-tried-and-executed-for-waterboarding
http://isiria.wordpress.com/2009/04/25/us-executed-japanese-for-waterboarding/
http://isiria.wordpress.com/2009/04/25/us-executed-japanese-for-waterboarding/
Sotomayor
Sotomayor Ruling Could Have Cost Consumers Billions
A decision rendered by Obama Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, fortunately reversed by the Supreme Court on April 1, 2009, could have been extravagantly costly to American consumers, according to the Steve Milloy's authoritative Junkscience.Com.
Charging that her nomination represents a potential threat to U.S. Consumers and to the economy in terms of energy and the environment, Milloy reported on her 2007 Second Circuit decision in Riverkeeper, Inc. V. EPA 475 F. 3d 83'
Milloy wrote that in her ruling Judge Sotomayor sided with "extreme green groups" who had sued the Environmental Protection Agency because the agency permitted cost-benefit analysis to be used in the determination of environmental protection technology for power plant cooling water intake structures.
Cost benefit analysis involves the balancing of the total expected costs of a proposal or project against its total expected benefits in order to determine its economic feasibility. Do the benefits outweigh or justify the cost?
According to Milloy, had the EPA been required to abide by Judge Sotomayor’s decision, U.S. Consumers would have been forced to pay billions of dollars more in energy costs every year as power plants producing more than one-half of the nation’s electricity would have had to undertake expensive retrofits."
Noting that President Obama said he wanted somebody "who has the intellectual firepower but also a little bit of a common touch and a practical sense of how the world works,” Milloy said that in the Riverkeeper case Sotomayor didn’t display too much of a “common touch” and “practical sense” when it came to the cost-benefit analysis.
Senators, Milloy advised, should probe whether Judge Sotomayor "lacks the common-sense realization that the benefits of environmental regulation ought to outweigh its costs — a worldview with ominous implications given the nation’s present rush toward cap-and-tax global warming regulation and other green mindlessness."
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
A decision rendered by Obama Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, fortunately reversed by the Supreme Court on April 1, 2009, could have been extravagantly costly to American consumers, according to the Steve Milloy's authoritative Junkscience.Com.
Charging that her nomination represents a potential threat to U.S. Consumers and to the economy in terms of energy and the environment, Milloy reported on her 2007 Second Circuit decision in Riverkeeper, Inc. V. EPA 475 F. 3d 83'
Milloy wrote that in her ruling Judge Sotomayor sided with "extreme green groups" who had sued the Environmental Protection Agency because the agency permitted cost-benefit analysis to be used in the determination of environmental protection technology for power plant cooling water intake structures.
Cost benefit analysis involves the balancing of the total expected costs of a proposal or project against its total expected benefits in order to determine its economic feasibility. Do the benefits outweigh or justify the cost?
According to Milloy, had the EPA been required to abide by Judge Sotomayor’s decision, U.S. Consumers would have been forced to pay billions of dollars more in energy costs every year as power plants producing more than one-half of the nation’s electricity would have had to undertake expensive retrofits."
Noting that President Obama said he wanted somebody "who has the intellectual firepower but also a little bit of a common touch and a practical sense of how the world works,” Milloy said that in the Riverkeeper case Sotomayor didn’t display too much of a “common touch” and “practical sense” when it came to the cost-benefit analysis.
Senators, Milloy advised, should probe whether Judge Sotomayor "lacks the common-sense realization that the benefits of environmental regulation ought to outweigh its costs — a worldview with ominous implications given the nation’s present rush toward cap-and-tax global warming regulation and other green mindlessness."
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Limbaugh: Sotomayor Reverse Racist, Hack
Inside Cover RSS ARCHIVE
Print Page | Forward Page | E-mail Us
Limbaugh: Sotomayor 'Reverse Racist, Hack'
Tuesday, May 26, 2009 6:36 PM
Article Font Size
Rush Limbaugh blasted President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court pick Tuesday, calling Judge Sonia Sotomayor a “reverse racist” and a “hack.”
“Here you have a racist — you might want to soften that, and you might want to say a reverse racist,” Limbaugh said on his show. He was referring to a now notorious statement of Sotomayor’s in which she said that a “wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.”
Liberals, "of course, say that minorities cannot be racists because they don't have the power to implement their racism,” said Limbaugh, whose remarks were later reported by Politico. “Well, those days are gone, because reverse racists certainly do have the power. ... Obama is the greatest living example of a reverse racist, and now he's appointed one.”
Limbaugh was not optimistic that Republicans would muster the will to back a filibuster of the candidate.
“The odds that she could be stopped are long,” Limbaugh said. He called moderate Republicans like former Secretary of State Colin Powell “completely useless” in the fight against Obama’s pick.
“When the rubber hits the road, such as in this nomination, where are these moderate Republican groups on the nomination? Where are the moderate senators? Where is Colin Powell? Where is Tom Ridge?” Limbaugh asked.
“I'm the one doing the heavy lifting. Colin Powell panders to moderate Republicans,” he said. “If the moderates in the Republican Party offer no way to address this danger, then they are useless.”
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Print Page | Forward Page | E-mail Us
Limbaugh: Sotomayor 'Reverse Racist, Hack'
Tuesday, May 26, 2009 6:36 PM
Article Font Size
Rush Limbaugh blasted President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court pick Tuesday, calling Judge Sonia Sotomayor a “reverse racist” and a “hack.”
“Here you have a racist — you might want to soften that, and you might want to say a reverse racist,” Limbaugh said on his show. He was referring to a now notorious statement of Sotomayor’s in which she said that a “wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.”
Liberals, "of course, say that minorities cannot be racists because they don't have the power to implement their racism,” said Limbaugh, whose remarks were later reported by Politico. “Well, those days are gone, because reverse racists certainly do have the power. ... Obama is the greatest living example of a reverse racist, and now he's appointed one.”
Limbaugh was not optimistic that Republicans would muster the will to back a filibuster of the candidate.
“The odds that she could be stopped are long,” Limbaugh said. He called moderate Republicans like former Secretary of State Colin Powell “completely useless” in the fight against Obama’s pick.
“When the rubber hits the road, such as in this nomination, where are these moderate Republican groups on the nomination? Where are the moderate senators? Where is Colin Powell? Where is Tom Ridge?” Limbaugh asked.
“I'm the one doing the heavy lifting. Colin Powell panders to moderate Republicans,” he said. “If the moderates in the Republican Party offer no way to address this danger, then they are useless.”
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
http://www.cracked.com/article_17019_5-real-life-soldiers-who-make-rambo-look-like-pussy.html
http://www.cracked.com/article_17019_5-real-life-soldiers-who-make-rambo-look-like-pussy.html
Monday, May 25, 2009
Guys: Body language Basics For Seducing Women
http://www.scribd.com/doc/2665430/Guys-Body-language-Basics-For-Seducing-Women
why oo programming sucks
http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/OO_programming/why_oo_sucks
gsoc | doc archive | software repo | ninetimes | harmful | 9P | cat-v.org
| site updates | site map |
cat -v harmful stuff
› Blog/
› cat-v/
› economics/
› science/
› society/
» software/
› GCC
» OO programming/
» why oo sucks
› andy tanenbaum
› c++/
› firefox
› gnome
› java
› xml/
› standards/
Why OO Sucks by Joe Armstrong
(Note: This is a copy of the original that used to live at http://www.bluetail.com/~joe/vol1/v1_oo.html)
When I was first introduced to the idea of OOP I was skeptical but didn't know why - it just felt "wrong". After its introduction OOP became very popular (I will explain why later) and criticising OOP was rather like "swearing in church". OOness became something that every respectable language just had to have.
As Erlang became popular we were often asked "Is Erlang OO" - well, of course the true answer was "No of course not" - but we didn't to say this out loud - so we invented a serious of ingenious ways of answering the question that were designed to give the impression that Erlang was (sort of) OO (If you waved your hands a lot) but not really (If you listened to what we actually said, and read the small print carefully).
At this point I am reminded of the keynote speech of the then boss of IBM in France who addressed the audience at the 7th IEEE Logic programming conference in Paris. IBM prolog had added a lot of OO extensions, when asked why he replied:
"Our customers wanted OO prolog so we made OO prolog"
I remember thinking "how simple, no qualms of conscience, no soul-searching, no asking "Is this the right thing to do" ...
Why OO sucks
My principle objection to OOP goes back to the basic ideas involved, I will outline some of these ideas and my objections to them.
Objection 1 - Data structure and functions should not be bound together
Objects bind functions and data structures together in indivisible units. I think this is a fundamental error since functions and data structures belong in totally different worlds. Why is this?
*Functions do things. They have inputs and outputs. The inputs and outputs are data structures, which get changed by the functions. In most languages functions are built from sequences of imperatives: "Do this and then that ..." to understand functions you have to understand the order in which things get done (In lazy FPLs and logical languages this restriction is relaxed).
Data structures just are. They don't do anything. They are intrinsically declarative. "Understanding" a data structure is a lot easier than "understanding" a function.
Functions are understood as black boxes that transform inputs to outputs. If I understand the input and the output then I have understood the function. This does not mean to say that I could have written the function.
Functions are usually "understood" by observing that they are the things in a computational system whose job is to transfer data structures of type T1 into data structure of type T2.
Since functions and data structures are completely different types of animal it is fundamentally incorrect to lock them up in the same cage.
Objection 2 - Everything has to be an object
Consider "time". In an OO language "time" has to be an object. But in a non OO language a "time" is a instance of a data type. For example, in Erlang there are lots of different varieties of time, these can be clearly and unambiguously specified using type declarations, as follows:
-deftype day() = 1..31.
-deftype month() = 1..12.
-deftype year() = int().
-deftype hour() = 1..24.
-deftype minute() = 1..60.
-deftype second() = 1..60.
-deftype abstime() = {abstime, year(), month(), day(), hour(), min(), sec()}.
-deftype hms() = {hms, hour(), min(), sec()}.
...
Note that these definitions do not belong to any particular object. they are ubiquitous and data structures representing times can be manipulated by any function in the system.
There are no associated methods.
Objection 3 - In an OOPL data type definitions are spread out all over the place
In an OOPL data type definitions belong to objects. So I can't find all the data type definition in one place. In Erlang or C I can define all my data types in a single include file or data dictionary. In an OOPL I can't - the data type definitions are spread out all over the place.
Let me give an example of this. Suppose I want to define a ubiquitous data structure. ubiquitous data type is a data type that occurs "all over the place" in a system.
As lisp programmers have know for a long time it is better to have a smallish number of ubiquitous data types and a large number of small functions that work on them, than to have a large number of data types and a small number of functions that work on them.
A ubiquitous data structure is something like a linked list, or an array or a hash table or a more advanced object like a time or date or filename.
In an OOPL I have to choose some base object in which I will define the ubiquitous data structure, all other objects that want to use this data structure must inherit this object. Suppose now I want to create some "time" object, where does this belong and in which object...
Objection 4 - Objects have private state
State is the root of all evil. In particular functions with side effects should be avoided.
While state in programming languages is undesirable, in the real world state abounds. I am highly interested in the state of my bank account, and when I deposit or withdraw money from my bank I expect the state of my bank account to be correctly updated.
Given that state exists in the real world what facilities should programming language provide for dealing with state?
OOPLs say "hide the state from the programmer". The states is hidden and visible only through access functions.
Conventional programming languages (C, Pascal) say that the visibility of state variables is controlled by the scope rules of the language.
Pure declarative languages say that there is no state.
The global state of the system is carried into all functions and comes out from all functions. Mechanisms like monads (for FPLs) and DCGs (logic languages) are used to hide state from the programmer so they can program "as if state didn't matter" but have full access to the state of the system should this be necessary.
The "hide the state from the programmer" option chosen by OOPLs is the worse possible choice. Instead of revealing the state and trying to find ways to minimise the nuisance of state, they hide it away.
Why OO was popular?
Reason 1 - It was thought to be easy to learn.
Reason 2 - It was thought to make code reuse easier.
Reason 3 - It was hyped.
Reason 4 - It created a new software industry.
I see no evidence of 1 and 2. Reasons seem to be the driving force behind the technology. If a language technology is so bad that it creates a new industry to solve problems of its own making then it must be a good idea for the guys who want to make money.
This is is the real driving force behind OOPs.
Powered by werc
gsoc | doc archive | software repo | ninetimes | harmful | 9P | cat-v.org
| site updates | site map |
cat -v harmful stuff
› Blog/
› cat-v/
› economics/
› science/
› society/
» software/
› GCC
» OO programming/
» why oo sucks
› andy tanenbaum
› c++/
› firefox
› gnome
› java
› xml/
› standards/
Why OO Sucks by Joe Armstrong
(Note: This is a copy of the original that used to live at http://www.bluetail.com/~joe/vol1/v1_oo.html)
When I was first introduced to the idea of OOP I was skeptical but didn't know why - it just felt "wrong". After its introduction OOP became very popular (I will explain why later) and criticising OOP was rather like "swearing in church". OOness became something that every respectable language just had to have.
As Erlang became popular we were often asked "Is Erlang OO" - well, of course the true answer was "No of course not" - but we didn't to say this out loud - so we invented a serious of ingenious ways of answering the question that were designed to give the impression that Erlang was (sort of) OO (If you waved your hands a lot) but not really (If you listened to what we actually said, and read the small print carefully).
At this point I am reminded of the keynote speech of the then boss of IBM in France who addressed the audience at the 7th IEEE Logic programming conference in Paris. IBM prolog had added a lot of OO extensions, when asked why he replied:
"Our customers wanted OO prolog so we made OO prolog"
I remember thinking "how simple, no qualms of conscience, no soul-searching, no asking "Is this the right thing to do" ...
Why OO sucks
My principle objection to OOP goes back to the basic ideas involved, I will outline some of these ideas and my objections to them.
Objection 1 - Data structure and functions should not be bound together
Objects bind functions and data structures together in indivisible units. I think this is a fundamental error since functions and data structures belong in totally different worlds. Why is this?
*Functions do things. They have inputs and outputs. The inputs and outputs are data structures, which get changed by the functions. In most languages functions are built from sequences of imperatives: "Do this and then that ..." to understand functions you have to understand the order in which things get done (In lazy FPLs and logical languages this restriction is relaxed).
Data structures just are. They don't do anything. They are intrinsically declarative. "Understanding" a data structure is a lot easier than "understanding" a function.
Functions are understood as black boxes that transform inputs to outputs. If I understand the input and the output then I have understood the function. This does not mean to say that I could have written the function.
Functions are usually "understood" by observing that they are the things in a computational system whose job is to transfer data structures of type T1 into data structure of type T2.
Since functions and data structures are completely different types of animal it is fundamentally incorrect to lock them up in the same cage.
Objection 2 - Everything has to be an object
Consider "time". In an OO language "time" has to be an object. But in a non OO language a "time" is a instance of a data type. For example, in Erlang there are lots of different varieties of time, these can be clearly and unambiguously specified using type declarations, as follows:
-deftype day() = 1..31.
-deftype month() = 1..12.
-deftype year() = int().
-deftype hour() = 1..24.
-deftype minute() = 1..60.
-deftype second() = 1..60.
-deftype abstime() = {abstime, year(), month(), day(), hour(), min(), sec()}.
-deftype hms() = {hms, hour(), min(), sec()}.
...
Note that these definitions do not belong to any particular object. they are ubiquitous and data structures representing times can be manipulated by any function in the system.
There are no associated methods.
Objection 3 - In an OOPL data type definitions are spread out all over the place
In an OOPL data type definitions belong to objects. So I can't find all the data type definition in one place. In Erlang or C I can define all my data types in a single include file or data dictionary. In an OOPL I can't - the data type definitions are spread out all over the place.
Let me give an example of this. Suppose I want to define a ubiquitous data structure. ubiquitous data type is a data type that occurs "all over the place" in a system.
As lisp programmers have know for a long time it is better to have a smallish number of ubiquitous data types and a large number of small functions that work on them, than to have a large number of data types and a small number of functions that work on them.
A ubiquitous data structure is something like a linked list, or an array or a hash table or a more advanced object like a time or date or filename.
In an OOPL I have to choose some base object in which I will define the ubiquitous data structure, all other objects that want to use this data structure must inherit this object. Suppose now I want to create some "time" object, where does this belong and in which object...
Objection 4 - Objects have private state
State is the root of all evil. In particular functions with side effects should be avoided.
While state in programming languages is undesirable, in the real world state abounds. I am highly interested in the state of my bank account, and when I deposit or withdraw money from my bank I expect the state of my bank account to be correctly updated.
Given that state exists in the real world what facilities should programming language provide for dealing with state?
OOPLs say "hide the state from the programmer". The states is hidden and visible only through access functions.
Conventional programming languages (C, Pascal) say that the visibility of state variables is controlled by the scope rules of the language.
Pure declarative languages say that there is no state.
The global state of the system is carried into all functions and comes out from all functions. Mechanisms like monads (for FPLs) and DCGs (logic languages) are used to hide state from the programmer so they can program "as if state didn't matter" but have full access to the state of the system should this be necessary.
The "hide the state from the programmer" option chosen by OOPLs is the worse possible choice. Instead of revealing the state and trying to find ways to minimise the nuisance of state, they hide it away.
Why OO was popular?
Reason 1 - It was thought to be easy to learn.
Reason 2 - It was thought to make code reuse easier.
Reason 3 - It was hyped.
Reason 4 - It created a new software industry.
I see no evidence of 1 and 2. Reasons seem to be the driving force behind the technology. If a language technology is so bad that it creates a new industry to solve problems of its own making then it must be a good idea for the guys who want to make money.
This is is the real driving force behind OOPs.
Powered by werc
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Saturday, May 23, 2009
postgresql replication
http://slony.info/documentation/
http://pgfoundry.org/projects/skytools/
http://bucardo.org/overview.html
http://people.freebsd.org/~seanc/postgresql/pitr-2005-02-15.pdf
http://pgfoundry.org/projects/pgpitrha/
https://projects.commandprompt.com/public/pitrtools/
http://pgfoundry.org/projects/skytools/
http://bucardo.org/overview.html
http://people.freebsd.org/~seanc/postgresql/pitr-2005-02-15.pdf
http://pgfoundry.org/projects/pgpitrha/
https://projects.commandprompt.com/public/pitrtools/
Friday, May 22, 2009
over 35 CL rant awesome comedy
If you are over 35
Reply to:pers-cxz2f-1183015001@craigslist.org [Errors when replying to ads?]
Date: 2009-05-21, 8:08PM PDT
I will not even give you the time of day. I get so tired of you old trolls checking me out wherever I go. Sit there like a nasty dog with your tongue hanging drooling and wishing you could have a hottie like me, but you know what? You are much too old, too fat, too bald, and you guys just gross me out. I bet you can't remember the last itme you had a 19 yo. I walked into Starbucks today and there you were, actually 3 of you just staring, hoping, wishing, salivating like the disgustin dogs you are.
It's no wonder LA girls get a little jaded. Too many nasty guys, out of shape, old, broke but want something young and pretty. Don't bother staring because you aint going to get any!!
----------------------------------------
Re: If you are over 35 (LA)
Reply to:pers-mdxcs-1183869145@craigslist.org [Errors when replying to ads?]
Date: 2009-05-22, 11:05AM PDT
Hmmmm. Well, I'm a white professional guy, late 40s. Reasonably in shape, reasonably good lucking, but I'm old enough to know I'm no Adonis. But I'm financially stable, have a good sense of humor, no addictions, no restraining orders, etc. I've been divorced for ten years and loving the single life since then. When I lived in Denver I dated women my age, because I'm not foolish enough to think a young "hottie" would be interested in me there. Then I moved to LA five years ago, and whoa! Women in their early 30s were/are constantly throwing themselves at me. Which has been fun, but, to me, very strange. I asked an LA friend of mine what was going on. He explained to me that LA women all think they are super hot, and spend their 20s turning up their noses at every good guy who comes their way. They always assume they can "do better". Then they wake up one morning, find themselves to be age 34, they notice the first lines/wrinkles/sags around their eyes - then they FREAK FUCKING OUT. They begin to panic, realizing that, in the LA dating ecosystem, they can't compete with the 18 year olds flooding the market. They become desperate to find a man - almost any man. The pendulum swings in the opposite direction.
My friend pointed out that because I was white, single, with a job a car and no warrants, and not secretly gay, I needed no other qualifications to find a younger woman in LA. That's all they were looking for at this point.
So I have to tip my hat to all the stuck-up young "hotties" out there who are turning down every good, sweet guy who crosses their path. You'll be dating guys like me in seven or eight years, so get ready!
Reply to:pers-cxz2f-1183015001@craigslist.org [Errors when replying to ads?]
Date: 2009-05-21, 8:08PM PDT
I will not even give you the time of day. I get so tired of you old trolls checking me out wherever I go. Sit there like a nasty dog with your tongue hanging drooling and wishing you could have a hottie like me, but you know what? You are much too old, too fat, too bald, and you guys just gross me out. I bet you can't remember the last itme you had a 19 yo. I walked into Starbucks today and there you were, actually 3 of you just staring, hoping, wishing, salivating like the disgustin dogs you are.
It's no wonder LA girls get a little jaded. Too many nasty guys, out of shape, old, broke but want something young and pretty. Don't bother staring because you aint going to get any!!
----------------------------------------
Re: If you are over 35 (LA)
Reply to:pers-mdxcs-1183869145@craigslist.org [Errors when replying to ads?]
Date: 2009-05-22, 11:05AM PDT
Hmmmm. Well, I'm a white professional guy, late 40s. Reasonably in shape, reasonably good lucking, but I'm old enough to know I'm no Adonis. But I'm financially stable, have a good sense of humor, no addictions, no restraining orders, etc. I've been divorced for ten years and loving the single life since then. When I lived in Denver I dated women my age, because I'm not foolish enough to think a young "hottie" would be interested in me there. Then I moved to LA five years ago, and whoa! Women in their early 30s were/are constantly throwing themselves at me. Which has been fun, but, to me, very strange. I asked an LA friend of mine what was going on. He explained to me that LA women all think they are super hot, and spend their 20s turning up their noses at every good guy who comes their way. They always assume they can "do better". Then they wake up one morning, find themselves to be age 34, they notice the first lines/wrinkles/sags around their eyes - then they FREAK FUCKING OUT. They begin to panic, realizing that, in the LA dating ecosystem, they can't compete with the 18 year olds flooding the market. They become desperate to find a man - almost any man. The pendulum swings in the opposite direction.
My friend pointed out that because I was white, single, with a job a car and no warrants, and not secretly gay, I needed no other qualifications to find a younger woman in LA. That's all they were looking for at this point.
So I have to tip my hat to all the stuck-up young "hotties" out there who are turning down every good, sweet guy who crosses their path. You'll be dating guys like me in seven or eight years, so get ready!
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Even asshats can get it right Cory Doctorow a shithead
http://harmful.cat-v.org/Blog/
Even asshats can get it right (2008/02/22)
Cory Doctorow is one of the most obnoxiously abhorrent 'personality' of the 'blogsphere', but even he can see something is very wrong with the so called 'intellectual property'. He has written a short article for The Gurdiang(sic) titled: "Intellectual property" is a silly euphemism.
Of course he still thinks government should regulate information and knowledge (for our own good, as usual), to save ourselves from our own wicked thoughts Oh, no wait, I bet my hat it is to save us from the abuse of those evil corporations! because we all know special interests could never manipulate government regulation to further their... well, special interests. Again the lack of understanding of the most basic economic principles (regulatory capture in particular) shows.
Still, it is a positive development when more people come to realize the 'property' paradigm becomes a pathetic caricature of itself when applied to information and knowledge.
Even asshats can get it right (2008/02/22)
Cory Doctorow is one of the most obnoxiously abhorrent 'personality' of the 'blogsphere', but even he can see something is very wrong with the so called 'intellectual property'. He has written a short article for The Gurdiang(sic) titled: "Intellectual property" is a silly euphemism.
Of course he still thinks government should regulate information and knowledge (for our own good, as usual), to save ourselves from our own wicked thoughts Oh, no wait, I bet my hat it is to save us from the abuse of those evil corporations! because we all know special interests could never manipulate government regulation to further their... well, special interests. Again the lack of understanding of the most basic economic principles (regulatory capture in particular) shows.
Still, it is a positive development when more people come to realize the 'property' paradigm becomes a pathetic caricature of itself when applied to information and knowledge.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Monday, May 18, 2009
beating the averages
http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html
Want to start a startup? Apply for funding by March 18.
April 2001, rev. April 2003
(This article is derived from a talk given at the 2001 Franz Developer Symposium.)
In the summer of 1995, my friend Robert Morris and I started a startup called Viaweb. Our plan was to write software that would let end users build online stores. What was novel about this software, at the time, was that it ran on our server, using ordinary Web pages as the interface.
A lot of people could have been having this idea at the same time, of course, but as far as I know, Viaweb was the first Web-based application. It seemed such a novel idea to us that we named the company after it: Viaweb, because our software worked via the Web, instead of running on your desktop computer.
Another unusual thing about this software was that it was written primarily in a programming language called Lisp. It was one of the first big end-user applications to be written in Lisp, which up till then had been used mostly in universities and research labs. [1]
The Secret Weapon
Eric Raymond has written an essay called "How to Become a Hacker," and in it, among other things, he tells would-be hackers what languages they should learn. He suggests starting with Python and Java, because they are easy to learn. The serious hacker will also want to learn C, in order to hack Unix, and Perl for system administration and cgi scripts. Finally, the truly serious hacker should consider learning Lisp:
Lisp is worth learning for the profound enlightenment experience you will have when you finally get it; that experience will make you a better programmer for the rest of your days, even if you never actually use Lisp itself a lot.
This is the same argument you tend to hear for learning Latin. It won't get you a job, except perhaps as a classics professor, but it will improve your mind, and make you a better writer in languages you do want to use, like English.
But wait a minute. This metaphor doesn't stretch that far. The reason Latin won't get you a job is that no one speaks it. If you write in Latin, no one can understand you. But Lisp is a computer language, and computers speak whatever language you, the programmer, tell them to.
So if Lisp makes you a better programmer, like he says, why wouldn't you want to use it? If a painter were offered a brush that would make him a better painter, it seems to me that he would want to use it in all his paintings, wouldn't he? I'm not trying to make fun of Eric Raymond here. On the whole, his advice is good. What he says about Lisp is pretty much the conventional wisdom. But there is a contradiction in the conventional wisdom: Lisp will make you a better programmer, and yet you won't use it.
Why not? Programming languages are just tools, after all. If Lisp really does yield better programs, you should use it. And if it doesn't, then who needs it?
This is not just a theoretical question. Software is a very competitive business, prone to natural monopolies. A company that gets software written faster and better will, all other things being equal, put its competitors out of business. And when you're starting a startup, you feel this very keenly. Startups tend to be an all or nothing proposition. You either get rich, or you get nothing. In a startup, if you bet on the wrong technology, your competitors will crush you.
Robert and I both knew Lisp well, and we couldn't see any reason not to trust our instincts and go with Lisp. We knew that everyone else was writing their software in C++ or Perl. But we also knew that that didn't mean anything. If you chose technology that way, you'd be running Windows. When you choose technology, you have to ignore what other people are doing, and consider only what will work the best.
This is especially true in a startup. In a big company, you can do what all the other big companies are doing. But a startup can't do what all the other startups do. I don't think a lot of people realize this, even in startups.
The average big company grows at about ten percent a year. So if you're running a big company and you do everything the way the average big company does it, you can expect to do as well as the average big company-- that is, to grow about ten percent a year.
The same thing will happen if you're running a startup, of course. If you do everything the way the average startup does it, you should expect average performance. The problem here is, average performance means that you'll go out of business. The survival rate for startups is way less than fifty percent. So if you're running a startup, you had better be doing something odd. If not, you're in trouble.
Back in 1995, we knew something that I don't think our competitors understood, and few understand even now: when you're writing software that only has to run on your own servers, you can use any language you want. When you're writing desktop software, there's a strong bias toward writing applications in the same language as the operating system. Ten years ago, writing applications meant writing applications in C. But with Web-based software, especially when you have the source code of both the language and the operating system, you can use whatever language you want.
This new freedom is a double-edged sword, however. Now that you can use any language, you have to think about which one to use. Companies that try to pretend nothing has changed risk finding that their competitors do not.
If you can use any language, which do you use? We chose Lisp. For one thing, it was obvious that rapid development would be important in this market. We were all starting from scratch, so a company that could get new features done before its competitors would have a big advantage. We knew Lisp was a really good language for writing software quickly, and server-based applications magnify the effect of rapid development, because you can release software the minute it's done.
If other companies didn't want to use Lisp, so much the better. It might give us a technological edge, and we needed all the help we could get. When we started Viaweb, we had no experience in business. We didn't know anything about marketing, or hiring people, or raising money, or getting customers. Neither of us had ever even had what you would call a real job. The only thing we were good at was writing software. We hoped that would save us. Any advantage we could get in the software department, we would take.
So you could say that using Lisp was an experiment. Our hypothesis was that if we wrote our software in Lisp, we'd be able to get features done faster than our competitors, and also to do things in our software that they couldn't do. And because Lisp was so high-level, we wouldn't need a big development team, so our costs would be lower. If this were so, we could offer a better product for less money, and still make a profit. We would end up getting all the users, and our competitors would get none, and eventually go out of business. That was what we hoped would happen, anyway.
What were the results of this experiment? Somewhat surprisingly, it worked. We eventually had many competitors, on the order of twenty to thirty of them, but none of their software could compete with ours. We had a wysiwyg online store builder that ran on the server and yet felt like a desktop application. Our competitors had cgi scripts. And we were always far ahead of them in features. Sometimes, in desperation, competitors would try to introduce features that we didn't have. But with Lisp our development cycle was so fast that we could sometimes duplicate a new feature within a day or two of a competitor announcing it in a press release. By the time journalists covering the press release got round to calling us, we would have the new feature too.
It must have seemed to our competitors that we had some kind of secret weapon-- that we were decoding their Enigma traffic or something. In fact we did have a secret weapon, but it was simpler than they realized. No one was leaking news of their features to us. We were just able to develop software faster than anyone thought possible.
When I was about nine I happened to get hold of a copy of The Day of the Jackal, by Frederick Forsyth. The main character is an assassin who is hired to kill the president of France. The assassin has to get past the police to get up to an apartment that overlooks the president's route. He walks right by them, dressed up as an old man on crutches, and they never suspect him.
Our secret weapon was similar. We wrote our software in a weird AI language, with a bizarre syntax full of parentheses. For years it had annoyed me to hear Lisp described that way. But now it worked to our advantage. In business, there is nothing more valuable than a technical advantage your competitors don't understand. In business, as in war, surprise is worth as much as force.
And so, I'm a little embarrassed to say, I never said anything publicly about Lisp while we were working on Viaweb. We never mentioned it to the press, and if you searched for Lisp on our Web site, all you'd find were the titles of two books in my bio. This was no accident. A startup should give its competitors as little information as possible. If they didn't know what language our software was written in, or didn't care, I wanted to keep it that way.[2]
The people who understood our technology best were the customers. They didn't care what language Viaweb was written in either, but they noticed that it worked really well. It let them build great looking online stores literally in minutes. And so, by word of mouth mostly, we got more and more users. By the end of 1996 we had about 70 stores online. At the end of 1997 we had 500. Six months later, when Yahoo bought us, we had 1070 users. Today, as Yahoo Store, this software continues to dominate its market. It's one of the more profitable pieces of Yahoo, and the stores built with it are the foundation of Yahoo Shopping. I left Yahoo in 1999, so I don't know exactly how many users they have now, but the last I heard there were about 20,000.
The Blub Paradox
What's so great about Lisp? And if Lisp is so great, why doesn't everyone use it? These sound like rhetorical questions, but actually they have straightforward answers. Lisp is so great not because of some magic quality visible only to devotees, but because it is simply the most powerful language available. And the reason everyone doesn't use it is that programming languages are not merely technologies, but habits of mind as well, and nothing changes slower. Of course, both these answers need explaining.
I'll begin with a shockingly controversial statement: programming languages vary in power.
Few would dispute, at least, that high level languages are more powerful than machine language. Most programmers today would agree that you do not, ordinarily, want to program in machine language. Instead, you should program in a high-level language, and have a compiler translate it into machine language for you. This idea is even built into the hardware now: since the 1980s, instruction sets have been designed for compilers rather than human programmers.
Everyone knows it's a mistake to write your whole program by hand in machine language. What's less often understood is that there is a more general principle here: that if you have a choice of several languages, it is, all other things being equal, a mistake to program in anything but the most powerful one. [3]
There are many exceptions to this rule. If you're writing a program that has to work very closely with a program written in a certain language, it might be a good idea to write the new program in the same language. If you're writing a program that only has to do something very simple, like number crunching or bit manipulation, you may as well use a less abstract language, especially since it may be slightly faster. And if you're writing a short, throwaway program, you may be better off just using whatever language has the best library functions for the task. But in general, for application software, you want to be using the most powerful (reasonably efficient) language you can get, and using anything else is a mistake, of exactly the same kind, though possibly in a lesser degree, as programming in machine language.
You can see that machine language is very low level. But, at least as a kind of social convention, high-level languages are often all treated as equivalent. They're not. Technically the term "high-level language" doesn't mean anything very definite. There's no dividing line with machine languages on one side and all the high-level languages on the other. Languages fall along a continuum [4] of abstractness, from the most powerful all the way down to machine languages, which themselves vary in power.
Consider Cobol. Cobol is a high-level language, in the sense that it gets compiled into machine language. Would anyone seriously argue that Cobol is equivalent in power to, say, Python? It's probably closer to machine language than Python.
Or how about Perl 4? Between Perl 4 and Perl 5, lexical closures got added to the language. Most Perl hackers would agree that Perl 5 is more powerful than Perl 4. But once you've admitted that, you've admitted that one high level language can be more powerful than another. And it follows inexorably that, except in special cases, you ought to use the most powerful you can get.
This idea is rarely followed to its conclusion, though. After a certain age, programmers rarely switch languages voluntarily. Whatever language people happen to be used to, they tend to consider just good enough.
Programmers get very attached to their favorite languages, and I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, so to explain this point I'm going to use a hypothetical language called Blub. Blub falls right in the middle of the abstractness continuum. It is not the most powerful language, but it is more powerful than Cobol or machine language.
And in fact, our hypothetical Blub programmer wouldn't use either of them. Of course he wouldn't program in machine language. That's what compilers are for. And as for Cobol, he doesn't know how anyone can get anything done with it. It doesn't even have x (Blub feature of your choice).
As long as our hypothetical Blub programmer is looking down the power continuum, he knows he's looking down. Languages less powerful than Blub are obviously less powerful, because they're missing some feature he's used to. But when our hypothetical Blub programmer looks in the other direction, up the power continuum, he doesn't realize he's looking up. What he sees are merely weird languages. He probably considers them about equivalent in power to Blub, but with all this other hairy stuff thrown in as well. Blub is good enough for him, because he thinks in Blub.
When we switch to the point of view of a programmer using any of the languages higher up the power continuum, however, we find that he in turn looks down upon Blub. How can you get anything done in Blub? It doesn't even have y.
By induction, the only programmers in a position to see all the differences in power between the various languages are those who understand the most powerful one. (This is probably what Eric Raymond meant about Lisp making you a better programmer.) You can't trust the opinions of the others, because of the Blub paradox: they're satisfied with whatever language they happen to use, because it dictates the way they think about programs.
I know this from my own experience, as a high school kid writing programs in Basic. That language didn't even support recursion. It's hard to imagine writing programs without using recursion, but I didn't miss it at the time. I thought in Basic. And I was a whiz at it. Master of all I surveyed.
The five languages that Eric Raymond recommends to hackers fall at various points on the power continuum. Where they fall relative to one another is a sensitive topic. What I will say is that I think Lisp is at the top. And to support this claim I'll tell you about one of the things I find missing when I look at the other four languages. How can you get anything done in them, I think, without macros? [5]
Many languages have something called a macro. But Lisp macros are unique. And believe it or not, what they do is related to the parentheses. The designers of Lisp didn't put all those parentheses in the language just to be different. To the Blub programmer, Lisp code looks weird. But those parentheses are there for a reason. They are the outward evidence of a fundamental difference between Lisp and other languages.
Lisp code is made out of Lisp data objects. And not in the trivial sense that the source files contain characters, and strings are one of the data types supported by the language. Lisp code, after it's read by the parser, is made of data structures that you can traverse.
If you understand how compilers work, what's really going on is not so much that Lisp has a strange syntax as that Lisp has no syntax. You write programs in the parse trees that get generated within the compiler when other languages are parsed. But these parse trees are fully accessible to your programs. You can write programs that manipulate them. In Lisp, these programs are called macros. They are programs that write programs.
Programs that write programs? When would you ever want to do that? Not very often, if you think in Cobol. All the time, if you think in Lisp. It would be convenient here if I could give an example of a powerful macro, and say there! how about that? But if I did, it would just look like gibberish to someone who didn't know Lisp; there isn't room here to explain everything you'd need to know to understand what it meant. In Ansi Common Lisp I tried to move things along as fast as I could, and even so I didn't get to macros until page 160.
But I think I can give a kind of argument that might be convincing. The source code of the Viaweb editor was probably about 20-25% macros. Macros are harder to write than ordinary Lisp functions, and it's considered to be bad style to use them when they're not necessary. So every macro in that code is there because it has to be. What that means is that at least 20-25% of the code in this program is doing things that you can't easily do in any other language. However skeptical the Blub programmer might be about my claims for the mysterious powers of Lisp, this ought to make him curious. We weren't writing this code for our own amusement. We were a tiny startup, programming as hard as we could in order to put technical barriers between us and our competitors.
A suspicious person might begin to wonder if there was some correlation here. A big chunk of our code was doing things that are very hard to do in other languages. The resulting software did things our competitors' software couldn't do. Maybe there was some kind of connection. I encourage you to follow that thread. There may be more to that old man hobbling along on his crutches than meets the eye.
Aikido for Startups
But I don't expect to convince anyone (over 25) to go out and learn Lisp. The purpose of this article is not to change anyone's mind, but to reassure people already interested in using Lisp-- people who know that Lisp is a powerful language, but worry because it isn't widely used. In a competitive situation, that's an advantage. Lisp's power is multiplied by the fact that your competitors don't get it.
If you think of using Lisp in a startup, you shouldn't worry that it isn't widely understood. You should hope that it stays that way. And it's likely to. It's the nature of programming languages to make most people satisfied with whatever they currently use. Computer hardware changes so much faster than personal habits that programming practice is usually ten to twenty years behind the processor. At places like MIT they were writing programs in high-level languages in the early 1960s, but many companies continued to write code in machine language well into the 1980s. I bet a lot of people continued to write machine language until the processor, like a bartender eager to close up and go home, finally kicked them out by switching to a risc instruction set.
Ordinarily technology changes fast. But programming languages are different: programming languages are not just technology, but what programmers think in. They're half technology and half religion.[6] And so the median language, meaning whatever language the median programmer uses, moves as slow as an iceberg. Garbage collection, introduced by Lisp in about 1960, is now widely considered to be a good thing. Runtime typing, ditto, is growing in popularity. Lexical closures, introduced by Lisp in the early 1970s, are now, just barely, on the radar screen. Macros, introduced by Lisp in the mid 1960s, are still terra incognita.
Obviously, the median language has enormous momentum. I'm not proposing that you can fight this powerful force. What I'm proposing is exactly the opposite: that, like a practitioner of Aikido, you can use it against your opponents.
If you work for a big company, this may not be easy. You will have a hard time convincing the pointy-haired boss to let you build things in Lisp, when he has just read in the paper that some other language is poised, like Ada was twenty years ago, to take over the world. But if you work for a startup that doesn't have pointy-haired bosses yet, you can, like we did, turn the Blub paradox to your advantage: you can use technology that your competitors, glued immovably to the median language, will never be able to match.
If you ever do find yourself working for a startup, here's a handy tip for evaluating competitors. Read their job listings. Everything else on their site may be stock photos or the prose equivalent, but the job listings have to be specific about what they want, or they'll get the wrong candidates.
During the years we worked on Viaweb I read a lot of job descriptions. A new competitor seemed to emerge out of the woodwork every month or so. The first thing I would do, after checking to see if they had a live online demo, was look at their job listings. After a couple years of this I could tell which companies to worry about and which not to. The more of an IT flavor the job descriptions had, the less dangerous the company was. The safest kind were the ones that wanted Oracle experience. You never had to worry about those. You were also safe if they said they wanted C++ or Java developers. If they wanted Perl or Python programmers, that would be a bit frightening-- that's starting to sound like a company where the technical side, at least, is run by real hackers. If I had ever seen a job posting looking for Lisp hackers, I would have been really worried.
Notes
[1] Viaweb at first had two parts: the editor, written in Lisp, which people used to build their sites, and the ordering system, written in C, which handled orders. The first version was mostly Lisp, because the ordering system was small. Later we added two more modules, an image generator written in C, and a back-office manager written mostly in Perl.
In January 2003, Yahoo released a new version of the editor written in C++ and Perl. It's hard to say whether the program is no longer written in Lisp, though, because to translate this program into C++ they literally had to write a Lisp interpreter: the source files of all the page-generating templates are still, as far as I know, Lisp code. (See Greenspun's Tenth Rule.)
[2] Robert Morris says that I didn't need to be secretive, because even if our competitors had known we were using Lisp, they wouldn't have understood why: "If they were that smart they'd already be programming in Lisp."
[3] All languages are equally powerful in the sense of being Turing equivalent, but that's not the sense of the word programmers care about. (No one wants to program a Turing machine.) The kind of power programmers care about may not be formally definable, but one way to explain it would be to say that it refers to features you could only get in the less powerful language by writing an interpreter for the more powerful language in it. If language A has an operator for removing spaces from strings and language B doesn't, that probably doesn't make A more powerful, because you can probably write a subroutine to do it in B. But if A supports, say, recursion, and B doesn't, that's not likely to be something you can fix by writing library functions.
[4] Note to nerds: or possibly a lattice, narrowing toward the top; it's not the shape that matters here but the idea that there is at least a partial order.
[5] It is a bit misleading to treat macros as a separate feature. In practice their usefulness is greatly enhanced by other Lisp features like lexical closures and rest parameters.
[6] As a result, comparisons of programming languages either take the form of religious wars or undergraduate textbooks so determinedly neutral that they're really works of anthropology. People who value their peace, or want tenure, avoid the topic. But the question is only half a religious one; there is something there worth studying, especially if you want to design new languages.
More Technical Details
Japanese Translation
Turkish Translation
Uzbek Translation
Orbitz Uses Lisp Too
How To Become A Hacker
A Scheme Story
You'll find this essay and 14 others in Hackers & Painters.
Want to start a startup? Apply for funding by March 18.
April 2001, rev. April 2003
(This article is derived from a talk given at the 2001 Franz Developer Symposium.)
In the summer of 1995, my friend Robert Morris and I started a startup called Viaweb. Our plan was to write software that would let end users build online stores. What was novel about this software, at the time, was that it ran on our server, using ordinary Web pages as the interface.
A lot of people could have been having this idea at the same time, of course, but as far as I know, Viaweb was the first Web-based application. It seemed such a novel idea to us that we named the company after it: Viaweb, because our software worked via the Web, instead of running on your desktop computer.
Another unusual thing about this software was that it was written primarily in a programming language called Lisp. It was one of the first big end-user applications to be written in Lisp, which up till then had been used mostly in universities and research labs. [1]
The Secret Weapon
Eric Raymond has written an essay called "How to Become a Hacker," and in it, among other things, he tells would-be hackers what languages they should learn. He suggests starting with Python and Java, because they are easy to learn. The serious hacker will also want to learn C, in order to hack Unix, and Perl for system administration and cgi scripts. Finally, the truly serious hacker should consider learning Lisp:
Lisp is worth learning for the profound enlightenment experience you will have when you finally get it; that experience will make you a better programmer for the rest of your days, even if you never actually use Lisp itself a lot.
This is the same argument you tend to hear for learning Latin. It won't get you a job, except perhaps as a classics professor, but it will improve your mind, and make you a better writer in languages you do want to use, like English.
But wait a minute. This metaphor doesn't stretch that far. The reason Latin won't get you a job is that no one speaks it. If you write in Latin, no one can understand you. But Lisp is a computer language, and computers speak whatever language you, the programmer, tell them to.
So if Lisp makes you a better programmer, like he says, why wouldn't you want to use it? If a painter were offered a brush that would make him a better painter, it seems to me that he would want to use it in all his paintings, wouldn't he? I'm not trying to make fun of Eric Raymond here. On the whole, his advice is good. What he says about Lisp is pretty much the conventional wisdom. But there is a contradiction in the conventional wisdom: Lisp will make you a better programmer, and yet you won't use it.
Why not? Programming languages are just tools, after all. If Lisp really does yield better programs, you should use it. And if it doesn't, then who needs it?
This is not just a theoretical question. Software is a very competitive business, prone to natural monopolies. A company that gets software written faster and better will, all other things being equal, put its competitors out of business. And when you're starting a startup, you feel this very keenly. Startups tend to be an all or nothing proposition. You either get rich, or you get nothing. In a startup, if you bet on the wrong technology, your competitors will crush you.
Robert and I both knew Lisp well, and we couldn't see any reason not to trust our instincts and go with Lisp. We knew that everyone else was writing their software in C++ or Perl. But we also knew that that didn't mean anything. If you chose technology that way, you'd be running Windows. When you choose technology, you have to ignore what other people are doing, and consider only what will work the best.
This is especially true in a startup. In a big company, you can do what all the other big companies are doing. But a startup can't do what all the other startups do. I don't think a lot of people realize this, even in startups.
The average big company grows at about ten percent a year. So if you're running a big company and you do everything the way the average big company does it, you can expect to do as well as the average big company-- that is, to grow about ten percent a year.
The same thing will happen if you're running a startup, of course. If you do everything the way the average startup does it, you should expect average performance. The problem here is, average performance means that you'll go out of business. The survival rate for startups is way less than fifty percent. So if you're running a startup, you had better be doing something odd. If not, you're in trouble.
Back in 1995, we knew something that I don't think our competitors understood, and few understand even now: when you're writing software that only has to run on your own servers, you can use any language you want. When you're writing desktop software, there's a strong bias toward writing applications in the same language as the operating system. Ten years ago, writing applications meant writing applications in C. But with Web-based software, especially when you have the source code of both the language and the operating system, you can use whatever language you want.
This new freedom is a double-edged sword, however. Now that you can use any language, you have to think about which one to use. Companies that try to pretend nothing has changed risk finding that their competitors do not.
If you can use any language, which do you use? We chose Lisp. For one thing, it was obvious that rapid development would be important in this market. We were all starting from scratch, so a company that could get new features done before its competitors would have a big advantage. We knew Lisp was a really good language for writing software quickly, and server-based applications magnify the effect of rapid development, because you can release software the minute it's done.
If other companies didn't want to use Lisp, so much the better. It might give us a technological edge, and we needed all the help we could get. When we started Viaweb, we had no experience in business. We didn't know anything about marketing, or hiring people, or raising money, or getting customers. Neither of us had ever even had what you would call a real job. The only thing we were good at was writing software. We hoped that would save us. Any advantage we could get in the software department, we would take.
So you could say that using Lisp was an experiment. Our hypothesis was that if we wrote our software in Lisp, we'd be able to get features done faster than our competitors, and also to do things in our software that they couldn't do. And because Lisp was so high-level, we wouldn't need a big development team, so our costs would be lower. If this were so, we could offer a better product for less money, and still make a profit. We would end up getting all the users, and our competitors would get none, and eventually go out of business. That was what we hoped would happen, anyway.
What were the results of this experiment? Somewhat surprisingly, it worked. We eventually had many competitors, on the order of twenty to thirty of them, but none of their software could compete with ours. We had a wysiwyg online store builder that ran on the server and yet felt like a desktop application. Our competitors had cgi scripts. And we were always far ahead of them in features. Sometimes, in desperation, competitors would try to introduce features that we didn't have. But with Lisp our development cycle was so fast that we could sometimes duplicate a new feature within a day or two of a competitor announcing it in a press release. By the time journalists covering the press release got round to calling us, we would have the new feature too.
It must have seemed to our competitors that we had some kind of secret weapon-- that we were decoding their Enigma traffic or something. In fact we did have a secret weapon, but it was simpler than they realized. No one was leaking news of their features to us. We were just able to develop software faster than anyone thought possible.
When I was about nine I happened to get hold of a copy of The Day of the Jackal, by Frederick Forsyth. The main character is an assassin who is hired to kill the president of France. The assassin has to get past the police to get up to an apartment that overlooks the president's route. He walks right by them, dressed up as an old man on crutches, and they never suspect him.
Our secret weapon was similar. We wrote our software in a weird AI language, with a bizarre syntax full of parentheses. For years it had annoyed me to hear Lisp described that way. But now it worked to our advantage. In business, there is nothing more valuable than a technical advantage your competitors don't understand. In business, as in war, surprise is worth as much as force.
And so, I'm a little embarrassed to say, I never said anything publicly about Lisp while we were working on Viaweb. We never mentioned it to the press, and if you searched for Lisp on our Web site, all you'd find were the titles of two books in my bio. This was no accident. A startup should give its competitors as little information as possible. If they didn't know what language our software was written in, or didn't care, I wanted to keep it that way.[2]
The people who understood our technology best were the customers. They didn't care what language Viaweb was written in either, but they noticed that it worked really well. It let them build great looking online stores literally in minutes. And so, by word of mouth mostly, we got more and more users. By the end of 1996 we had about 70 stores online. At the end of 1997 we had 500. Six months later, when Yahoo bought us, we had 1070 users. Today, as Yahoo Store, this software continues to dominate its market. It's one of the more profitable pieces of Yahoo, and the stores built with it are the foundation of Yahoo Shopping. I left Yahoo in 1999, so I don't know exactly how many users they have now, but the last I heard there were about 20,000.
The Blub Paradox
What's so great about Lisp? And if Lisp is so great, why doesn't everyone use it? These sound like rhetorical questions, but actually they have straightforward answers. Lisp is so great not because of some magic quality visible only to devotees, but because it is simply the most powerful language available. And the reason everyone doesn't use it is that programming languages are not merely technologies, but habits of mind as well, and nothing changes slower. Of course, both these answers need explaining.
I'll begin with a shockingly controversial statement: programming languages vary in power.
Few would dispute, at least, that high level languages are more powerful than machine language. Most programmers today would agree that you do not, ordinarily, want to program in machine language. Instead, you should program in a high-level language, and have a compiler translate it into machine language for you. This idea is even built into the hardware now: since the 1980s, instruction sets have been designed for compilers rather than human programmers.
Everyone knows it's a mistake to write your whole program by hand in machine language. What's less often understood is that there is a more general principle here: that if you have a choice of several languages, it is, all other things being equal, a mistake to program in anything but the most powerful one. [3]
There are many exceptions to this rule. If you're writing a program that has to work very closely with a program written in a certain language, it might be a good idea to write the new program in the same language. If you're writing a program that only has to do something very simple, like number crunching or bit manipulation, you may as well use a less abstract language, especially since it may be slightly faster. And if you're writing a short, throwaway program, you may be better off just using whatever language has the best library functions for the task. But in general, for application software, you want to be using the most powerful (reasonably efficient) language you can get, and using anything else is a mistake, of exactly the same kind, though possibly in a lesser degree, as programming in machine language.
You can see that machine language is very low level. But, at least as a kind of social convention, high-level languages are often all treated as equivalent. They're not. Technically the term "high-level language" doesn't mean anything very definite. There's no dividing line with machine languages on one side and all the high-level languages on the other. Languages fall along a continuum [4] of abstractness, from the most powerful all the way down to machine languages, which themselves vary in power.
Consider Cobol. Cobol is a high-level language, in the sense that it gets compiled into machine language. Would anyone seriously argue that Cobol is equivalent in power to, say, Python? It's probably closer to machine language than Python.
Or how about Perl 4? Between Perl 4 and Perl 5, lexical closures got added to the language. Most Perl hackers would agree that Perl 5 is more powerful than Perl 4. But once you've admitted that, you've admitted that one high level language can be more powerful than another. And it follows inexorably that, except in special cases, you ought to use the most powerful you can get.
This idea is rarely followed to its conclusion, though. After a certain age, programmers rarely switch languages voluntarily. Whatever language people happen to be used to, they tend to consider just good enough.
Programmers get very attached to their favorite languages, and I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, so to explain this point I'm going to use a hypothetical language called Blub. Blub falls right in the middle of the abstractness continuum. It is not the most powerful language, but it is more powerful than Cobol or machine language.
And in fact, our hypothetical Blub programmer wouldn't use either of them. Of course he wouldn't program in machine language. That's what compilers are for. And as for Cobol, he doesn't know how anyone can get anything done with it. It doesn't even have x (Blub feature of your choice).
As long as our hypothetical Blub programmer is looking down the power continuum, he knows he's looking down. Languages less powerful than Blub are obviously less powerful, because they're missing some feature he's used to. But when our hypothetical Blub programmer looks in the other direction, up the power continuum, he doesn't realize he's looking up. What he sees are merely weird languages. He probably considers them about equivalent in power to Blub, but with all this other hairy stuff thrown in as well. Blub is good enough for him, because he thinks in Blub.
When we switch to the point of view of a programmer using any of the languages higher up the power continuum, however, we find that he in turn looks down upon Blub. How can you get anything done in Blub? It doesn't even have y.
By induction, the only programmers in a position to see all the differences in power between the various languages are those who understand the most powerful one. (This is probably what Eric Raymond meant about Lisp making you a better programmer.) You can't trust the opinions of the others, because of the Blub paradox: they're satisfied with whatever language they happen to use, because it dictates the way they think about programs.
I know this from my own experience, as a high school kid writing programs in Basic. That language didn't even support recursion. It's hard to imagine writing programs without using recursion, but I didn't miss it at the time. I thought in Basic. And I was a whiz at it. Master of all I surveyed.
The five languages that Eric Raymond recommends to hackers fall at various points on the power continuum. Where they fall relative to one another is a sensitive topic. What I will say is that I think Lisp is at the top. And to support this claim I'll tell you about one of the things I find missing when I look at the other four languages. How can you get anything done in them, I think, without macros? [5]
Many languages have something called a macro. But Lisp macros are unique. And believe it or not, what they do is related to the parentheses. The designers of Lisp didn't put all those parentheses in the language just to be different. To the Blub programmer, Lisp code looks weird. But those parentheses are there for a reason. They are the outward evidence of a fundamental difference between Lisp and other languages.
Lisp code is made out of Lisp data objects. And not in the trivial sense that the source files contain characters, and strings are one of the data types supported by the language. Lisp code, after it's read by the parser, is made of data structures that you can traverse.
If you understand how compilers work, what's really going on is not so much that Lisp has a strange syntax as that Lisp has no syntax. You write programs in the parse trees that get generated within the compiler when other languages are parsed. But these parse trees are fully accessible to your programs. You can write programs that manipulate them. In Lisp, these programs are called macros. They are programs that write programs.
Programs that write programs? When would you ever want to do that? Not very often, if you think in Cobol. All the time, if you think in Lisp. It would be convenient here if I could give an example of a powerful macro, and say there! how about that? But if I did, it would just look like gibberish to someone who didn't know Lisp; there isn't room here to explain everything you'd need to know to understand what it meant. In Ansi Common Lisp I tried to move things along as fast as I could, and even so I didn't get to macros until page 160.
But I think I can give a kind of argument that might be convincing. The source code of the Viaweb editor was probably about 20-25% macros. Macros are harder to write than ordinary Lisp functions, and it's considered to be bad style to use them when they're not necessary. So every macro in that code is there because it has to be. What that means is that at least 20-25% of the code in this program is doing things that you can't easily do in any other language. However skeptical the Blub programmer might be about my claims for the mysterious powers of Lisp, this ought to make him curious. We weren't writing this code for our own amusement. We were a tiny startup, programming as hard as we could in order to put technical barriers between us and our competitors.
A suspicious person might begin to wonder if there was some correlation here. A big chunk of our code was doing things that are very hard to do in other languages. The resulting software did things our competitors' software couldn't do. Maybe there was some kind of connection. I encourage you to follow that thread. There may be more to that old man hobbling along on his crutches than meets the eye.
Aikido for Startups
But I don't expect to convince anyone (over 25) to go out and learn Lisp. The purpose of this article is not to change anyone's mind, but to reassure people already interested in using Lisp-- people who know that Lisp is a powerful language, but worry because it isn't widely used. In a competitive situation, that's an advantage. Lisp's power is multiplied by the fact that your competitors don't get it.
If you think of using Lisp in a startup, you shouldn't worry that it isn't widely understood. You should hope that it stays that way. And it's likely to. It's the nature of programming languages to make most people satisfied with whatever they currently use. Computer hardware changes so much faster than personal habits that programming practice is usually ten to twenty years behind the processor. At places like MIT they were writing programs in high-level languages in the early 1960s, but many companies continued to write code in machine language well into the 1980s. I bet a lot of people continued to write machine language until the processor, like a bartender eager to close up and go home, finally kicked them out by switching to a risc instruction set.
Ordinarily technology changes fast. But programming languages are different: programming languages are not just technology, but what programmers think in. They're half technology and half religion.[6] And so the median language, meaning whatever language the median programmer uses, moves as slow as an iceberg. Garbage collection, introduced by Lisp in about 1960, is now widely considered to be a good thing. Runtime typing, ditto, is growing in popularity. Lexical closures, introduced by Lisp in the early 1970s, are now, just barely, on the radar screen. Macros, introduced by Lisp in the mid 1960s, are still terra incognita.
Obviously, the median language has enormous momentum. I'm not proposing that you can fight this powerful force. What I'm proposing is exactly the opposite: that, like a practitioner of Aikido, you can use it against your opponents.
If you work for a big company, this may not be easy. You will have a hard time convincing the pointy-haired boss to let you build things in Lisp, when he has just read in the paper that some other language is poised, like Ada was twenty years ago, to take over the world. But if you work for a startup that doesn't have pointy-haired bosses yet, you can, like we did, turn the Blub paradox to your advantage: you can use technology that your competitors, glued immovably to the median language, will never be able to match.
If you ever do find yourself working for a startup, here's a handy tip for evaluating competitors. Read their job listings. Everything else on their site may be stock photos or the prose equivalent, but the job listings have to be specific about what they want, or they'll get the wrong candidates.
During the years we worked on Viaweb I read a lot of job descriptions. A new competitor seemed to emerge out of the woodwork every month or so. The first thing I would do, after checking to see if they had a live online demo, was look at their job listings. After a couple years of this I could tell which companies to worry about and which not to. The more of an IT flavor the job descriptions had, the less dangerous the company was. The safest kind were the ones that wanted Oracle experience. You never had to worry about those. You were also safe if they said they wanted C++ or Java developers. If they wanted Perl or Python programmers, that would be a bit frightening-- that's starting to sound like a company where the technical side, at least, is run by real hackers. If I had ever seen a job posting looking for Lisp hackers, I would have been really worried.
Notes
[1] Viaweb at first had two parts: the editor, written in Lisp, which people used to build their sites, and the ordering system, written in C, which handled orders. The first version was mostly Lisp, because the ordering system was small. Later we added two more modules, an image generator written in C, and a back-office manager written mostly in Perl.
In January 2003, Yahoo released a new version of the editor written in C++ and Perl. It's hard to say whether the program is no longer written in Lisp, though, because to translate this program into C++ they literally had to write a Lisp interpreter: the source files of all the page-generating templates are still, as far as I know, Lisp code. (See Greenspun's Tenth Rule.)
[2] Robert Morris says that I didn't need to be secretive, because even if our competitors had known we were using Lisp, they wouldn't have understood why: "If they were that smart they'd already be programming in Lisp."
[3] All languages are equally powerful in the sense of being Turing equivalent, but that's not the sense of the word programmers care about. (No one wants to program a Turing machine.) The kind of power programmers care about may not be formally definable, but one way to explain it would be to say that it refers to features you could only get in the less powerful language by writing an interpreter for the more powerful language in it. If language A has an operator for removing spaces from strings and language B doesn't, that probably doesn't make A more powerful, because you can probably write a subroutine to do it in B. But if A supports, say, recursion, and B doesn't, that's not likely to be something you can fix by writing library functions.
[4] Note to nerds: or possibly a lattice, narrowing toward the top; it's not the shape that matters here but the idea that there is at least a partial order.
[5] It is a bit misleading to treat macros as a separate feature. In practice their usefulness is greatly enhanced by other Lisp features like lexical closures and rest parameters.
[6] As a result, comparisons of programming languages either take the form of religious wars or undergraduate textbooks so determinedly neutral that they're really works of anthropology. People who value their peace, or want tenure, avoid the topic. But the question is only half a religious one; there is something there worth studying, especially if you want to design new languages.
More Technical Details
Japanese Translation
Turkish Translation
Uzbek Translation
Orbitz Uses Lisp Too
How To Become A Hacker
A Scheme Story
You'll find this essay and 14 others in Hackers & Painters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
