Kiame

Something certainly changed with Chris' voice after A Rush of Blood to the Head. I always thought it was throat surgery or something because all of a sudden he sounded completely different when they performed live. Maybe it was just training. I'd say the reason Chris can sing higher than you is: 1. He is naturally able to do so. 2. He would have access to the best vocal coaches in the world.

haha I love the way they say that. God they are so perfect!

Funny thing is, I didn't go to that party...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__HeE6NWmDE]Hot Problems (official single) - Double Take - YouTube[/ame] that is all.

"med students" is a really broad term. It could mean anything to doing actual medicine to doing medical science degrees. It's a huge field and is pretty common.

Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww :dazzled:

I prefer short hair on guys nearly all the time. I like it really short. But every now and then some guys look so cute with long hair. Brent is one.

:dazzled:

No. Stupid idea. All you need at your age is a savings account and a debit card. There is no need spending money you don't already have when you are only 17. You have a huge chance of screwing up your credit history through it and may not be able to get loans or do things with a credit card when you are older and actually need it. I don't want to offend you at all but handling a credit card efficiently is hard enough for adults who have experience and knowledge with handling money.

Brent you look adorable with longer hair.

I think reacting like this is counter productive. Coldplay should be encouraged to play with their setlists a little more and to bring some life into it. One of my main problems with Coldplay is how static their setlists can be. Politik is certainly one of their best songs, but you can't expect them to play it every time. Leaving it out probably made room for some other songs that we haven't heard in a while.

And going mental and claiming some hooker could have blackmailed a secret service agent and end up destroying America's leaders isn't? 1000%? Heh, no way. Of course the Secret Service follow him around and I wouldn't be surprised to learn that they even go as far to have snipers situated around entrance and exit ways into the buildings he goes in and out of. But of course that depends on the local police force in the area he is in and what country he is in. Many places Obama goes would not allow this. But the reality is they can't stop random dangerous strangers. The Secret Service wouldn't even begin to have the amount of man power needed to actually prevent chaotic attacks. All they can do is reduce risk. Obama is around very large groups of people very often who have not been searched, screened or surveyed. Obama in situations like this: Is at more risk than when he is hundreds of miles away whilst his agents have sex with prostitutes. In that image, it would only take three strong men armed with knives to take Obama down. They'd have a slim to none chance of getting away with it - but you never know. Look at the Reagan assassination attempt. That has just as much chance of happening today. I'm sorry, but I think this whole issue is just a shit storm. I completely agree that this issue should be looked into and some people outta lose their jobs over it because it is a silly thing to do. But most of the reactions towards this has been completely over blown and the majority of the details are details that shouldn't concern any of us. The sad thing is that it appears many of the power US figureheads are more concerned and show more passion over this than some of the hundreds more serious issues inside the country. Oh well.

Not necessarily to the degree you are implying though. Telling someone to eat more vegetables and fruit and cut out extra carbohydrates and excess amounts of sugar is different to suggesting a ketogenic diet. They involve the raising of LDL levels that can cause severe problems to those unlucky few who have outstanding cardiology concerns.

The only person this news pertains to is the president. It is none of our business how some men want to express their sexuality. The only thing people have to criticise this is by saying what could have happened. Who knows the ins and outs of the process and whether or not this was actually dangerous? I can assure you no one on this forum does and the secret service themselves are very confident that this wasn't a security risk to the president. I don't think saying "ohhh but they could have been BLACKMAILED!" is anything other than vague ranting. The fact of the matter is no one except the president and his staff know the reality behind the situation. If this was an issue and Obama feels it is an issue, fire them. Fairly simple. I hate the way we have to hear about things like this - if someone isn't doing their job right just fire them or shut up. Don't kid yourself, the only reason this is so popular on the news right now because the story involves sex. Whenever someone important is caught up in a sex scandal, everyone goes fucking mental. Also, this story involves prostitutes - something that the USA sees as a taboo. Mix sex and prostitution scandals that are involved with important people and you have an inane news story on your hands. The Secret Service probably do a million things that compromise the President's safety to some degree all the time. Hell, Obama was in a pub in Ireland last year and was necking a pint of Guinness. There are a million things that could go wrong in a situation like that - yet we didn't hear politicians and journalists screaming "Some drunk irishman could have BLACKMAILED one of the agents!!!! SOMEONE COULD HAVE BOMBED THE PUB!". I'd actually wager that taking the President out in public where he is surrounded by strangers is far more of a security risk than a few of his special agents banging hookers in their free time when their boss is hundreds of miles away.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7bC5-zJcyw]Black girl threatens professor at FAU - YouTube[/ame]

Why is this an issue? It shouldn't be anyone's business what these agents do unless it actually affects their job and their duties. There is nothing, apart from the opinion of some Republican senator (who clearly has an agenda) to suggest that this was a security breach at all.

I was mostly speaking about her specific context in Syria. I don't think she can really change anything. But women in general have a much lower chance of influencing politics. The only first lady who seriously impacted the world was Eleanor Roosevelt. They are rare. Most of them certainly influence and do their part - but stopping a whole campaign of bloodshed? Nah, I don't think she has the power to do that at all. Even if she did try to do something Assad's thugs would get rid of her and she'd have no where to hide because everyone knows her history, who she is and who her family is. I truly think she is next to powerless here.

Nice to meet you :) That's an interesting view point, and it is similar to the view some expressed during the war I grew up in. I certainly don't agree with it. I think too many people insist on creating excuses and explanations for evil. We always try to think that people are doing these bad things for actually valid reasons. I don't think in this case, or in most cases, this is true. I think the reason the Syrian Government is doing this is 100% motivated by issues of control and power. They may very well believe they are in the right and believe they have a right to the power and without them everything would be worst - but no matter how you dress it up it's still a case of power. As for my personal feelings, I don't take sides in things like this. The actions of the government have been completely disgusting and they certainly need to be removed - but I don't think violent religion based uprisings are the way to do it. That is what it will come down too though. The UN really can't do much and no foreign nations want to get involved in another war in the Middle East over it. She acts the way she does because she is married to the man who is doing it. We really have no idea what her personal interpretation of the situation is - but whatever it is, she clearly doesn't care too much about it. But maybe she does care? It is a not a woman's place to control and influence these matters. Besides, if she actually spoke out and tried to stop it - wouldn't Assad put her down? I assume he would. But I do agree the general rhetoric behind this petition is fantastic. But the only way this letter would be truly effective is if she wasn't aware. Because she already is aware - no matter how many appeals to emotion this letter contains, she won't care. She ignores the screams of dying children shot by sniper fire. Why wouldn't she ignore this too?

North Korea remind me of that asshole everyone went to school with. He's a wimpy kid, slightly slow, but he has a huge ego complex. He constantly talks rubbish, incites violence but when it comes down to it he backs away. North Korea have been doing this for such a long time it's starting to not mean anything to me. I'm sure the powers that be have to take every incident seriously, but come on North Korea. Put up or shut up. Either accept aid and see reality or be quiet and face your poverty and human rights abuses in your pathetic nation for what it is. No one believes you when you put on a song and dance and act macho. Everyone knows that you'll be crushed in a matter of hours if you ever actually do anything. /rant.

I'm Algerian. Whilst I have a few cultural and familial ties to the region, I can't identify very closely with Syria specifically. My thoughts on this petition are the same as my thoughts on most internet campaigns against the al-Assad regime. The time for this has long passed. Asma al-Assad knows the situation. This isn't a case of her being ignorant or unaware. I think despite the warm intentions, stuff like this is largely pointless. But I guess it is a way for people to get their voice heard which does matter in some capacity, however small it may be.

I would not recommend going on a ketogenic diet without thorough discussions with your doctor first. A ketogenic diet increases your energy because it forces your body to use its preferred source of fuel: free form carboxylic acids. Glucose and carbohydrates are fuels that are the easiest for the body to use but aren't really the premium type of fuel. It certainly has its benefits; but to recommend it to someone without a knowledge of both their personal and their familial cardiovascular health is irresponsible. Whilst ketogenic diets are different from other high fat diets (i.e: eating fast food all the time) there is still more than enough science behind the increased cholesterol that it brings about. The problem is that ketogenic diets don't increase HDL cholesterol levels but do increase LDL. There is some conflicting evidence that shows LDL levels do return to normal after completion of the diet - which for most people, makes ketogenic diets fairly risk free and acceptable. The problem comes when someone's heart, whether through previous diet habits or from hereditary sources is already faltering due to abnormal cholesterol levels - many of which may be undetected and therefore unknown. We do not know enough about Brent's familial medical history to make recommendations towards diets that have not been thoroughly declared safe and often result in a temporary raise to LDL levels. Some people are not in a position to raise their LDL levels so dramatically. It doesn't matter if it's only temporary or not - it can still cause damage. Don't get me wrong, 95% of the time nothing bad will come from a ketogenic diet. But it's not a good idea to get into the practice of recommending health strategies that can cause problems for some people.

Well depth is completely subjective and is measured by emotional responses to certain things. Everyone responds differently. I took more out of MX and thought it had more meaning than AROBTTH did; it's just a matter of individual perspective. Nothing to roll your eyes at.

There is a lot of misinformation that gets flung around about cardiovascular activity and weight loss. Even more so about dietary habits. First things first Brent - you need to become aware of the nutrition information of every single piece of food or drink you consume on a regular basis. This is vital and I can guarantee that you will not maintain a lower weight limit without doing this. You are someone who is naturally a larger built person. You're tall, you've got big shoulders and you put on weight fairly easily. That much you can't change and people who are built like you, if they wish to control their weight, have a tougher time than others. So first thing: pay attention to what you are eating. Create meal plans and stick to them. This is vastly more important than going to the gym and doing some vague cardio exercises occasionally. Cardiovascular activity (when done properly) can be pretty effective in burning fat calories, but it can also increase appetite and burn carbohydrates instead. Then you are at square one because and you won't get anywhere without changing your diet. However, do not stress over it. Stress hormones will ruin progress. Create an interest out of it. I can say much because I don't know the ins and out of your situation or your diet, but I will list a few vague pointers: - Don't just "eat less". Eat smarter. Eating less can actually be counter productive. Some women in particular, when wanting to lose weight, will cut down their meals from 3 times a day to 2 times a day. This is a huge mistake to make because eating rarely increases fat content. In laymen's terms, what happens is your body gets used to only being fed twice a day and turns the majority of your consumed food into fat stores because it can't expect to be fed until the next day. The body operates on a "worst case scenario" situation all the time, and this is a survival trait that we have picked up through thousands of years of evolution. If people are in harsh environments and can only find food to eat occasionally - the body will store those chemicals in fat. In short: Eating rarely (as in, only twice a day) isn't a good place to start and it is a mistake a lot of people (especially women) make. - Don't completely cut carbs Yes, people lose weight by not eating carbs. I guarentee you, if you go two weeks without eating any carbohydrates you'll lose surprising amounts of weight. But don't do this, because carbohydrates work by filling out and absorbing liquid in the body. When someone cuts carbs, they aren't really losing their fat content - they are just losing the ability to absorb and retain moisture in their muscle. Having said that - the first piece of advice I'd give is to cut your carbohydrates down to healthier levels. I don't know the ins and outs of what you eat Brent - but nearly everyone I've dealt with who struggles with their weight is eating way too many carbohydrates. -Portion control! This is the most important thing to be aware of. Men in the USA (and the West in general) eat far too large portions. Especially red meat and especially carbohydrates. There is no need for a university student to be eating large amounts of red meat and carbs. No need at all. I can't talk specifics because I don't know your diet, but I would make these recommendations: - Limit your soft drink intake. When you do drink soft drinks, drink the smaller sizes. Even a drop from a large cup of soft drink to a medium will save you anywhere between 100 - 180 calories. However, soft drinks are something I'd recommend you to avoid. Period. Drink juice or water instead. Not only will you lose weight, you will live longer. - Limit your red meat intake. One serving of red meat should be no bigger than three ounces. To put it in perspective, that's the size of a deck of cards. You ideal should be getting two servings a day of this, so in total: six ounces. Stay the fuck away from fast food. - Limit dairy intake. Between three to four servings of things like cheese is okay. A correct serving of cheese is one ounce. That's the size of your thumbs. Stay the fuck away from fast food. - Limit carbohydrates. Any more than two cups of pasta or white bread is completely unnecessary for people who don't lead an active lifestyle. One cup is about the size of a tennis ball. Doing little things like buying wholemeal bread instead of white do drastic amounts of good. These limitations aren't meant to be taken as gospel - but they are meant to show you the correct healthy eating services so you can compare them to what you are eating now. My guess is that you are completely over doing it. ----- Okay, on to exercise. I mentioned earlier about misinformation in regards to cardiovascular activity. For weight loss, doing the right type of cardio is important. Remember: all cardio is fantastic for you and does great things for your heart and your joints, but if we are talking about weight loss then the optimum types of cardio includes things like: Bicycling at a speed between 13-20 MPH. Any slower is too gentle, any faster is too intense. Running a mile in between 7-10 minutes. As you can see, these are fairly fiddly and are tricky to measure. This is why I don't believe cardio should be your automatic response to weight loss. Cardio is amazing, but it's hard to do right if you are solely trying to lose weight. I'd recommend weight circuit training. It is easy to do, it doesn't require micro management and it is going to burn the right type of calories. Look at military circuit workouts. They include both resistance, aerobic, cardio and strength work outs. Forget reps, focus on time. With weights: work on squats, presses, planks, lunges and raises. Without weights: push ups, sit ups, leg cycles. Use google to find specific routines and adapt them to suit your body. Move from one to another with as little as rest as possible in between. If you want to burn fat, doing this is going to be better for you than running or walking occasionally. -- Hope that helps a little bit. The important thing is creating goals and sticking to them; general willpower. You and I are both on our way to becoming doctors and it is imperative that we understand and practise the importance of healthy diet and exercise in order to truly become a part of the field. Without doing this, we cannot expect to set an example or for our patients to care. It would be akin to taking advice from a mechanic with a broken vehicle.

Was there ever confirmation that the pretty instrumental we all heard actually was Famous Old Painters?

It makes me a sad panda when I see Radiohead comparisons creep into Coldplay discussion. The two aren't even tangible to begin with, so I don't understand how they can be compared. They are apples and oranges and not at all alike. OK Computer and The Bends are kind of similar to some of the stuff Coldplay has done. But Kid A, Amnesiac, In Rainbows, The King Of Limbs and Hail to the Thief are records that are completely and utterly alien to Coldplay. Coldplay never have done and never will make anything that sounds like that because its not their style. Coldplay tend to create music that is easy to swallow and I can't see them ever doing something as abstract as some things Radiohead do. And this isn't a diss towards Coldplay, I certainly prefer the way they do things. Coldplay certainly will continue to evolve, but I think trying to compare their musical evolution to Radiohead is insane.