Megan Long96 said:Maybe do a little more homework on creatine... then you won't be talking such nonsense.
Creatine isn't some "magic potion" that's going to instantly grant you massive muscle mass. Even if you're dumping tons of it into your system.🙄
Look, I actually put in the work and read everything I could find online about creatine. I didn't say anything wrong. Creatine is essentially just a catalyst. On its own, it won't do squat. But when you combine it with protein and a solid workout routine? It works. Big time. There.
George Bailey2 said:Do you honestly believe they look like that because of creatine? Besides, you’re talking about creatine as if it’s in the same league as steroids.
Look, I don't know what else you'd call it. But they lack definition. They just look soft, like they're made of rubber. That’s how you look when you try to pack on a massive amount of muscle overnight. If it isn't creatine, then what is it? And let's be clear—that isn't real muscle. Real muscle takes work. It takes a long, long time to actually shape and refine it.
Furthermore, I have no intention of abandoning a standard diet. Just like Matthew Morris28, I rarely have the luxury of thinking about food, usually grabbing one or two meals a day at most. It’s a bad habit. That's a guaranteed way to pack on the pounds. Your metabolism slows down significantly between those long gaps, which naturally means you're burning less energy. This is why nutritionists swear by eating small amounts every three hours. The only rule is nothing after 6 PM. Obviously, your metabolism is going to drop while you sleep, but that's perfectly fine.
But there is a difference between what works in theory and what is actually practical. Ha. 🙂
And let's get one thing straight: hitting the gym doesn't automatically turn you into a bodybuilder. Look at construction workers; they toil away all day like beasts, yet they aren't hulking, bulging monsters. You have to distinguish between training for definition and training for mass. There's a massive difference!
That depends entirely on what your goals are. But let's be clear: if you're looking at any workout under 20 minutes and actually expecting results, it has to be high intensity. We aren't talking about just posing in front of the mirror or sipping on a Red Bull.
Frank Lee6 said:By the way, spending two hours at the gym is overkill. If you're lifting for more than an hour or ninety minutes, you're actually working against yourself, especially if muscle growth is the goal. And don't even get me started on weight loss—that won't happen unless you're actually hitting the cardio.
It’s honestly pathetic how some gyms don't even have trainers on staff to guide people, ask about their goals, or show them the ropes.
Instead, people just flip through some little pamphlet and then wander around having no clue what they're doing. They end up wrecking their spines because they aren't even performing half the movements correctly. Then you've got these self-proclaimed "experts" trying to teach them. They'll demonstrate a tricep extension and tell someone it's for their back. 🙄
Then there are those meatheads who choke down tons of creatine just to bench press 220 pounds for a few minutes and call it a workout. They look like they were inflated with a bicycle pump. You poke one and they'd probably fly off with a *pssssssssszzzzz* sound.
I've stuck to cardio because I need actual mobility. Cycling, various dynamic stretches, high-rep sets with light weights—about 4 sets of 15 to 20 reps. An hour and a half is plenty of time to get everything done. By the time I'm finished, I'm properly worked and sweating. Believe me, I sleep like a baby after that. 🙂
Hey Jelda, I finally started hitting the weights recently. I’ve officially survived the first month. It was pretty rough at first—lots of soreness and constant muscle aches—but things are finally starting to level out.
But I have to point something out. At least 80% of the people there are just showing up to pose. They show up, spend maybe 20 minutes working one single muscle group, then spend the rest of the time standing around sipping some overpriced energy drink, acting like they own the place, and then they just head out. You can barely tell if they even worked out.
And then everyone acts surprised when they don't see any results. They just want to sweat for the sake of sweating. The truth is, just walking into a gym won't magically give you muscle mass, definition, vascularity (since apparently that's *so* sexy to women), or help you drop weight.
I actually asked a buddy of mine who goes there what he expects to get out of waving weights around for 15 minutes. He told me, "Well, I go there every single day." I told him, "Look, you can go every day or even twice a day, but if you aren't putting in an hour and a half to two hours of actual solid training, you're just wasting your time."
Another update. This situation is significantly more serious than anything else discussed in this thread.
So, I’m running a VM on RHEL 9 with Windows XP SP1. It shouldn't be necessary, but I need to run certain legacy programs that just don't exist on Linux—specifically Microsoft software used by some designers.
XP SP1 was properly registered and activated. I install SP2, and everything seems fine. Then, out of nowhere today, right before login, it starts throwing an error saying I have 7 days left to activate Windows. Wtf!!!??? No big deal, I just hit the activation prompt and register/activate it just like I did the first time. It tells me it successfully registered and activated. I go about my business for a while, until I finally shut down the VM.
After leaving it off for a bit, I boot the VM back up, and there it is again, nagging me about activation. But this time, the "7 days remaining" grace period is gone. Now it's basically: "Activate now or you can't work!!!"
The thing is, during the initial activation process, there was an option to "Activate later." So, I decided to jump into Windows and uninstall SP2. The uninstall finishes without any issues, but after the restart, the OS is still being stubborn. Activate or you can't work. Clearly, it uninstalls plenty of things, but apparently not everything!🙄 😠
Nothing works. I try to just select "Activate later" every single time. Eventually, I actually go into the activation menu, and suddenly the "Activate later" option has vanished entirely.
There you have it. That’s my experience with licensed Windows and SP2. I just opened the terminal, typed "rm -rf /vm/XP1", and sent the entire VM to the trash. Yeah! That worked.🙄 😠
Look, melloweagle26, you aren't crazy. The java SDK is being temperamental on SP2, just as I expected. Refreshing isn't behaving right on my end either; I’m getting those annoying visual artifacts where pieces of the old screen just hang around under the arrow...
WebSphere Business Integration Workbench 4.1. x. is also failing me. It's an outdated piece of software anyway—it really ought to be replaced by WBI Modeler (I gave the version based on Eclipse 3.0. a shot, and it runs fine on SP2). The thing works perfectly on SP1, but once you hit SP2, it starts throwing errors related to regional settings.
Look, folks, this just tells me the monitor isn't the culprit here. It sounds like your vision is already taking a hit, regardless of what screen you're staring at. That stinging and itching? That’s eye strain talking. I’d suggest seeing an eye doctor.
I felt like I had finally woken up once I made the switch to TFT LCD. It takes a little while to adjust to the difference, but after a couple of weeks, I completely forgot what it was even like before.
Larry Castillo66 said:Alright, I just ran the test. I fired up both Opera and Mozilla. I loaded the exact same page in both browsers. First, I clicked the link in Mozilla. Then, I switched over to Opera and hit the same link. Once the page finished loading in Opera, I hopped back to Mozilla, which was still struggling to finish the job.
Give me a break. If you were actually a CS major, you'd realize your testing method is completely flawed.
Yeah, I gave Chrome a shot on Windows, and WordPress.com is completely broken!!! The homepage looks fine, but once you get into the editor, everything is a total mess.
Larry Castillo66 said:Is this an improvement or a step backward?
It’s definitely better. On my screen, it looks like something a toddler would doodle—just messy. I’ll grab a screenshot when I get a chance so you can see how hideous it actually is.
Dana Ortiz67, I’d bet anything you’re running Internet Explorer 5 on Windows. I can't speak to how it behaves over there, but from what I see on Unix, they aren't even using NTFS, so the whole thing looks pathetic. It feels like a massive step backward. You can't even get the fonts to render properly—especially those special American characters!
And let’s be real, gentlemen: I have no idea who claimed that Blogger looks good on Google Chrome. It doesn't. The issue is identical to what we see in Internet Explorer, which proves two things: - They are using the exact same engine. - The problem isn't the browser; it's just lazy web developers who don't know how to build a decent website.
I actually offered a solution to the problem, but nobody gave me the time of day.