"John Reimer" <jjreimer@telus.net> wrote in message news:bhjs8i$ks7$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Walter wrote:
> > "John Reimer" <jjreimer@telus.net> wrote in message news:bhjd2s$5ob$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> >>I still have trouble believing the volatile concoction called "Coca Cola" can be good for you in any situation.
> > You're stepping awfully close to heresy.
> Ohhh No! Uh... would it help to say that I've acted the part of the hypocrite and do very occasionnally have the ambrosia?

wimp!say what you mean ... anyway Coca Cola's not volatile, its no good for starting a bar-b-que (to fry the creatures to slow to run away), however it is vile.

imho, sugars should only to be consumed once fermented.

"Mike Wynn" <mike.wynn@l8night.co.uk> wrote in message news:bhjs9u$ksp$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> "Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:bhjs4o$khu$2@digitaldaemon.com...
> >
> > "Mike Wynn" <mike.wynn@l8night.co.uk> wrote in message news:bhjqsn$jdo$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > > "Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:bhjp68$htd$3@digitaldaemon.com...
> > > > "Matthew Wilson" <matthew@stlsoft.org> wrote in message news:bhi9p8$27a0$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > > > > I don't eat any dead walking (or flying) things, so cannot say
that I
> > > do. ;)
> > > > I don't eat any of the walking dead zombies, either. I poke 'em with
a fork
> > > > first to make sure they really are truly dead before eating them.
> > Nothing
> > > > like having your dead dinner up and walk away.
> > > poke 'em with a fork, .. never, fry them! then you can be sure!
> >
> > Good idea. I'll stuff them in my deep fat frier. If they try to get out, I'll bash 'em over the head with a goto!
> >
> no! you should continue hitting them until they break, or throw them out
as
> an exception!

I concede defeat! You are the master!

"John Reimer" <jjreimer@telus.net> wrote in message news:bhjsrh$lcu$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> A little over two hours is my current max without any kind of food or drink intake.  I train for half-marathons, hoping to increase that eventually to longer distances (marathon?).  My training routes are off road in the hills with some long climbs. I'd say about 14 to 15 miles.

Pretty brutal!

> > It depends how depleted you are. When you've got to the stage that you
have
> > an exercise headache, you'll likely suck up the 150-200 calories (sorry, being English I can't think in KJ) before your Eyelets react and start releasing insulin. (My step-father is a consultant dialectician, so I'll have to run this by him to check.)
> >
> "dialectician" ? -- lol

diabetician <blush>

Maybe it was a freudian slip

"John Reimer" <jjreimer@telus.net> wrote in message news:bhjm3l$er9$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> >
> > Much truth you say. However, the brain can only metabolyse (for energy
at
> > least) carbohydrates, so when exercising hard it is very important for
the
> > brain (never mind the muscles) to get carbs.
> >
>
> True, carbs are the only brain fuel. I just wish I could turn it off like a computer so it wouldn't need anything.  As an added bonus, I wouldn't feel the pain of steady plodding either.  But I guess I still need a brain to run! :)
>
>
> > The v...ile concoction that is Coca Cola is bad in almost all
situations.
> > But as I said, in that one circumstance, after a 4 hour ride, when one
is
> > very dehydrated, very low on carbs, and oftentimes headachy, it can
provide
> > immediate relief of the headache while you get lots of properly
sustaining
> > and replenishing chemicals down your neck.
> >
>
> A 4 hour ride? Oh, I'd say your body would lap up anything including Coke after that!  In fact, Coke probably never tasted so good after such a long ride.  I know the feeling (but I'd be craving it at 2.5 hours) :).  I must say, after a long hard run (2+ hours), I can't begin to describe how wonderful a sugary sweet drink tastes...of any sort.  It's a crazy experience.

We are indeed brothers. :)

Alas, it's been a long while since I've done a 4-hr one. These days I get about 1hr, 3-5 times a week (plus the odd bit of weights, and yoga once a week.).

>  I'm
> 6'7" and 225 lbs (not the typical runners build),

I feel your pain. I'm 6"1 and 110 kilos (am mixing my metric/imperial, just for laughs), and am not quite in the Richard Armitage league of huge chest and no neck, but am certainly a lot more blockish than the types you'll see climbing mountains in the Pyrenees. Still, you do what you have to do.

Anyway, I can sprint pretty damn well on a bike, so as long as we're on the flat it's fine. And as for downhill ... !!!

That's one of the reasons I keep trying to persuade me (Australian) wife that we should move to Colorado. I've just got to suss out whether there any good IT companies there, looking for a disarmingly frank C++ guy.

Bruce Banner

> I'm not much a sportsman myself. I like playing basketball, but I don't
play
> much often. Anyway, if you really want to feel tired, exhausted and ... (whatever other word like those that is available) like you would never imagine, exercise at 2800 meters above the sea (that'd be over 9000 feet). Believe me, that sweet drink tastes much better up here.

I know what you mean. In 1994 I carried my hulking carcass up various Le-Tour famous mountains in the Alps - L'Alpe D'Huex, Lauteret, Vars - mostly on ambition than on talent. I could hardly see the last 500 meters of the ascent of L'Alpe D'Huez, and kept asking my greyhound-build friend "are we there yet?". When he finally said yes, I simply fell sideways and the world went black. Ambition satisfied, we descended straight (well, once my eyes, ears and sense of balance returned) back into D'ourg D'oisans, where I sat and ate cakes for four hours while he rode solo the 70 miles back to the car. (I wasn't going any further that day!)

I plan to do it all again, minus the collapse, in a couple of years, once I've stopped sitting in a chair writing a book, and am back to a modicum of fitness.

> I don't care if people want to use goto. I don't think
> it's the best of choices.

I don't think anyone's saying it is.

As I said, I may use it once or twice a year. Given the amount of code I write, this would have to be at most 0.01% of all conditional statements. That hardly represents my best choice, does it?

Anyway, if you think that C++, or C, or D, or any other language in which goto is a construct would represent the absolute zenith of language design and implementation if only goto was dropped, then I can't help you, or usefully debate the point further.

"Frank D. Wills" <fdwills@sandarh.com> wrote in message news:bhiq1s$2m35$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Matthew Wilson wrote:
> >>>I know, but still, "goto" is part of the language.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Yes, but that neither compels you to use it, or to make it a part of
your
> >>'language'.
> >
> >
> > If it's in, then its use should make sense.
> Alcohol and cigaretts are legal. Does that make
> their use sensible? Teenage pregnacy is legal. Does
> that also make teenage pregnacy legal? A lack of
> education beyond highschool is legal. Does that
> make a lack of further education sensible?
> Really, what is allowed and what is wise and good
> are not the same thing, and only the ignorant
> think otherwise.
> Oh, by the way, I don't mean to offend by calling
> you ignorant.

How can I be offended, when you've extrapolated what I said beyond reason, sense, or indeed comprehension. You should go into politics

> >
> > (Not that I'm coming down on any side of the goto debate here.)
> >
> >
> Not coming down on any side of the goto debate? Even when you say that it's "terribly naive" to wishing that modern languages did not implement goto? And that you defend your use of goto as appropriate?

That was in another thread. In the post we're referencing I simply said that if something is in the language, then it should make sense.

>  Teenage pregnacy is legal. Does
> that also make teenage pregnacy legal?

I presume you mistyped and meant to say "also make teenage pregnacy sensible?"

It depends on your point of view. From a physical perspective it's probably the case that late-teen/early-20s pregnancy (and birth - I presume we're not talking about the sense of pregnancy+termination as a birth control, which indeed seems to make no sense to me) is probably the ideal. The fact that our (by which I mean western) society deems it inappropriate is more a manifestation of our so-called morals (career, materialism, diminshing importance of the wider family group, etc.) than an absolute moral question, so I think you'd have to qualify your statement.

In so far as it relates to the goto question, though, you appear to have picked the perfect analogy. In most conceivable cases, teenage pregnancy is to be avoided, and in many many instances would be harmful. However, to say that it is wrong in _all_ cases is tantamount to saying that you have omniscience, which I presume you do not. For the religious, this would mean you are (G/g)od, which I further presume you are not.