Come explore with me by joining my science community on Google+

Know - Science Brought to Light

From classic and accepted theories to the newly discovered and unbelievable, this community is for sharing facts, theories and ideas unbound by mainstream science.

Abandon Facebook and join me on Google+

Facebook wall = Graffiti; tabloid magazine

Google+ stream = Ideas; critical thinking; problem solving

Create an account and add me to your circles!

See you there!

----

Fatties on TV vs Skinnies on TV

When reports such as Fatties on TV regarding Marie Claire Magazine's blog post and Should Women Over 50 Have Long Hair air on NBC news and/or NBC's web site, you have to wonder why they're not spending time on real news. That said, I have some comments about both issues.

Re: Fatties on TV

Maura Kelly said, ". . . while I think our country's obsession with physical perfection is unhealthy, I also think it's at least equally crazy, albeit in the other direction, to be implicitly promoting obesity!" in Marie Claire Magazine's blog. Yes, she also said, "anorexia is sick." However, she doesn't have any problem with television "implicitly promoting" ultra-thin, size zero women and lanky, skin and bones men. I'll admit that the latter is less prevalent. Maura insultingly said, "So anyway, yes, I think I'd be grossed out if I had to watch two characters with rolls and rolls of fat kissing each other ... because I'd be grossed out if I had to watch them doing anything. To be brutally honest, even in real life, I find it aesthetically displeasing to watch a very, very fat person simply walk across a room . . . ." I'm not grossed out. Overweight, and even obese, people need love too. So what if TV shows are promoting "big is beautiful." Here are two truths: 1) Fat does not mean ugly and 2) skinny does not mean beautiful. I've seen beautiful and ugly people (I pay more attention to women in my case) in both categories. I've seen obese (300+ lb) women with very pretty faces. Am I going to say, "Man, she's got a hot body"? Perhaps not. Along the same line, I've seen "size zero" women with pretty faces, but I'm not going to go gaga over their stick figure. A certain percentage of body fat is healthy. Personally, I'd go for a woman 20, or even 40, pounds over her optimum weight (per standardized health guides) over an ultra thin woman (15+ lbs under optimum weight) any day.

After much public attention, Maura did apologize. However, you know it was just to save face for Marie Claire Magazine. Maura, if you want obese people removed from television because of "implied promotion", I'm going to go to the opposite extreme. I think that ultra thin people should be removed from TV. Their very dangerous too from a "promotional" standpoint; especially to teenage girls. After being bombarded by television shows and magazines promoting ultra thinness, many young women think that they have to be size zero to be attractive. While this might not be as big of an issue as far as health insurance is concerned, it does lead to bad eating habits such as binging and purging and even teen suicide. So, I say either get those ultra thin people, especially women, off the TV and big screen or make them gain a few pounds so that they are either at or slightly over their optimum weight. By the way, there are two main factors in calculating optimum weight: height and build. A person's build can range from small to large. For reference, I'd say that Bill Cosby has a medium build.

Here's the type of woman we should see more of on TV:


Patricia Arquette is "plus-size" and beautiful.

Re: Should Women Over 50 Have Long Hair?

Depends on the type of hair the woman has, but I'd say yes in most cases. After all, they say that 50 is the new 30.


I think Meryl Streep looks great with long hair. Enough said.

Who says you can't beat a computer at chess?

Remember this old electronic chess board? I used to beat it occasionally on some of the mid to upper levels back when I played more often. I also played Chessmaster 2000 back in the 80's and early 90's. The animated chess sets were cool, but I usually lost. Even then, I was far from a pro. I'd never be a match for top notch chess players. However, I could give average or slightly above average players a run for their money!

Having not played chess in a very long time, I recently purchased Chessmaster 10th Edition for $10 at Officemax. I won my first game against a player with a standard rating of roughly 600. So, I decided to choose a computer player that would be more of a challenge. Eddie (standard rating: 949) was that player. After losing to Eddie 23 consecutive times, I was determined to beat him!! I had come extremely close twice and dominated over 50% of the time. However, I'd either make a "doh!" move toward the end of the game or he'd happen to be a step ahead of me and I didn't catch it. I'm not very quick. Some people can easily see 5 or 6 moves ahead. That's not me. After the first 3 or 4 opening moves, it can take me 5+ minutes per move. I think I've taken close to 20 minutes on a couple of occasions! Thus, a human opponent would need a lot of patience. Of course, we'd also have small talk, drink some beverages, etc. Can't do that with a computer player . . . yet. Small talk might come eventually. I'm not sure about the drinking part.

So, anyway, I played my 24th game against Eddie tonight . . . and I whipped his arse!! Check this out:


As you can tell from the Game Status window on the right, I played white. It took me ~46.5 minutes, but I nabbed him good! I couldn't believe that he gave up his queen so early in the game! I thought for sure it was a setup, but I swiped it with a pawn!! And there was no major fallout! I was shocked! Later, Eddie made a few other costly mistakes and it ultimately cost "him" (the computer) the game.