I was about to point out that produce would not be useable by the poor. By the time you got it to them it would probably be rotted.
But then I realized what should actually be happening is that the government open up a giant cannery, and just throw the surplus into there. Don't worry about flavoring or anything, just throw green beans into a giant bucket-sized tin, seal it up, and slap the label 'green beans' on them.
We build up a giant buffer against famine in a few big warehouses somewhere that we can sell at slightly above cost in years of shortage. (Probably to food companies, who can figure out how to get it to market and how to repackage it for individual use, or perhaps a few families will show up to buy a tin to split...and if we're at that point we're in rather a lot of trouble, so people will be damn grateful for it no matter how they get it.)
Or, in a natural disaster, we hand the giant tins over to the natural guard and let them cook for everyone.
And then, when the warehouses are full, we throw out the oldest stuff by letting charities take it for free to give to the needy.
We can do the same with meat, by making jerky.
Oh, wait. This would be 'socialism' or something. Despite only interfering with the market in the sense that we think perhaps that food should not be priced like a luxury in times of scarcity.
The males are not unfit, the females they produce are unfit. The males they produce are fit.
Basically, females would be defective in proportion to the modified males. No males would be defective, so the modified percentage would hold.
E.g., if we assume the generations stay the same size, and there are 100 males, and 100 females, and you introduce 10 modified males, 'evolution' doesn't effect the modified males, because they're fine and can reproduce fine...so they're constantly at 9% of the population.
However, each generation has 9% less functional females, the female children of those males. This will slowly but surely reduce the population.
The only problem would arise if only a small percentage of females were supposed to mate anyway, and thus removing a portion of them would had no effect on population for the next generation. But I do not think that is true, or someone would have noticed this plan wouldn't work. Usually, in nature, it's the other way around...all females reproduce, but sometimes not all males do. (Which would be fine under this plan.)
I've found that having massively complicated rewrites is just an exercise in annoyance. Especially when you have rules working at both server and directory level.
About the only rewrite rules that makes sense in 99% of the circumstances are things like 'Alias an entire directory into the site so there's a webmail dir or whatever' and 'Send all not-found requests to this specific script'. (And strictly speaking, you can do the first with a symlink, although sometimes that's not workable.)
Yes, I'm sure there are circumstances where more rules are needed. Sometimes there's really weird stuff, and if you're doing a reverse proxy, you quite possibly are faced with such a situation.
And, of course, if you're running a server and letting end users set up such a system, they might insist on the ability to add rules, which requires apache, as nginx doesn't screw around with.htaccess files. (OTOH, you can just ask them what they are running, and if it's any sort of dynamic site, just send all 404s to index.php, and, tada, magically it all works.)
So I suspect, statistically, that something like nine out of ten rewrite rules really aren't needed. In fact, joomla comes with like 12 lines of apache rewrite rules (The actual rules, not the comments, and not counting other stuff in the file)...and really only needs three.
Yes, but if you do that, you can't use PHP compiled in. You have to do fastcgi, just like nginx.
More specifically, if you're planning on tearing down the entire apache config and rebuilding it, and stripping out all the features that apache has, I'm a bit unsure why you'd use apache anyway.
Use apache if you need something that nginx can't do well, like webdav. Otherwise, don't spend the time trying to make it work like nginx, just use nginx.
Yes, it is probably worthwhile for people to drink more water than they do. (Not only because of dehydration, but frankly because it also stops them from eating and drink more unhealthy stuff.) Although not eight glasses of water a day, which is a misunderstanding of the total amount of water needed, most of which we get from food. Just drink a single big glass with each meal and that's probably enough.
However, if people actually notice dehydration, they've either done some moderate sweating and probably should have something more than water, either Gatorade or actual food plus water...or they've got an actual medical problem that caused dehydration, like hypotension or diabetes insipidus, and while fixing the dehydration is a good idea in the short term, they do need to see a doctor. (Unless they're the elderly, who often have a 'dehydration signaling' problem, and just need to learn to drink even when not thirsty. Although doctors obviously know this and will tell them that.)
I'm entirely comfortable with the EU's decision, because in my head, because if people are drinking water because they're constantly moderately dehydrated, that's really wallpapering over their problem.
Meanwhile, while water does help mild dehydration, the most common kind...I suspect no one is running around trying to figure out a trivial medical problem they don't even notice, even if it is incredibly common. And I think if they are trying to figure it out, they already know the solution.;)
This is sorta like a candle snuffer being marketed as 'Can help put out household fires'. Strictly speaking, those will put out the most common types of household fires...but people who are actually purchasing it to solve the problem of household fires are going to be very upset when they try to use it.
I'd be okay if the wording was something like 'It is estimated that mild dehydration is suffered by X% of the population, and drinking more water will prevent that.' or something like that. Just asserting it prevents dehydration in general is wrong.
Especially as, strictly speaking, it cannot prevent some forms. Not just blood loss...it is entirely possible to sweat faster than your body can intake liquids via the stomach. (In such circumstances you really really really should be drinking something with electrolytes instead of pure water, but even that will not help in the long run.)
'hyponatremia' is indeed 'not enough sodium in the blood', but it's a condition brought on medical problems. It's not the end result of 'not enough sodium', and can't be cured with sodium. Or water. Or anything except treating the actual disease causing it.
Not enough sodium means you as a person are technically hyponatremic, in that you lack sodium, but that, strangely, does not lead to hyponatremia. From what I understand, if you do not have enough sodium in your body, your body stops putting fluids where they need to be and you get hypovolemia. Which has basically the same symptoms as hypovolemia caused by lack of water. (Although you're right in that I was a little confused in my other posts, as I wasn't thinking that isotonic dehydration also leads to hypovolemia, so me talking about hypovolemia was very confusing.)
And 'dehydration' means 'deficiency of fluid' in medical terms, so, hypovolemia does count.
As for the rest of it: Subclinical dehydration may indeed be extraordinarily common, and it's for exactly that reason that I somewhat doubt it's what people think of when they mean 'dehydration'...the reason it is so common is that people don't realize it happens. (And, in fact, I skipped right over it when talking about the 'most common' dehydration, despite the fact I already knew about it.)
If we assume dehydration is not use medically, but colloquially, water can indeed prevent thirst, but it's rather odd that anyone would need this information at all, so I see the logic in banning it so as not to cause confusion with the medical term. If we assume it's meant medically, yes, it does stop mild dehydration, the most common form of actual dehydration...but that isn't what people think of when they think of 'medical dehydration', which is near 'moderate dehydration', so that's confusing there also. (And it's not the right solution for moderate dehydration.)
However, reading the article about this, instead of what I had assumed their objection was, it appears the EU had an objection because of the fact that many forms of dehydration are simply symptoms of an underlying disease that cannot be cured or helped by pure water at all. (And some that can't even be helped by water and electrolytes.)
And thus if you are actually 'suffering' from dehydration to the extent that you wish to purchase something to control it, you need to fricking consult a doctor instead.
And, again, we've got people weirdly assuming that I'm recommending Gatorade or whatever to ward off dehydration.
Uh, no. I'm making the point it should be used to treat dehydration, not water.
And, yes, people who are thirsty can drink water just fine. Being thirsty is not the same as being dehydrated. (Which is sorta my entire fucking point here.)
And people who are suffering from mild dehydration lacking both salt and water due to sweat, can drink water and feel somewhat better...it is certainly better to just be low on just salt than low on both salt and water. But at a certain point, they need to stop drinking, no matter if they still feel thirsty, because their problem is no longer lack of water, their problem is lack of salt. (And drinking is just going to make them piss out more salt!)
I love the fact everyone seems to have magically turned 'thirsty' into 'dehydration', which is exactly what the EU said 'Uh, no' to.
Yes, if you are dehydrated due to drinking heavily the previous night, (aka, hungover) you do need to drink straight water. And I think you're right, that situation is probably more common than drinking salt water. (And, of course, the only actual way to avoid a hangover is to drink a bunch of water before sleep.)
But that doesn't really change what I said. Although it is a good point that 'something' can be alcohol instead of salt. (And as alcohol removes water instead of adding salt, it works slower, hence the whole 'overnight' thing.)
My point was that no one ever reaches 'Too much salt, not enough water' naturally. They have to either have a medical condition or ingest something that does that.
Although, technically speaking, no one reaches the opposite position of 'Too much water, not enough salt' without ingesting things or being sick also. Unless you are ill, your body is smart enough to keep your body in balance, and make liquids leave the body in correct proportion to keep that balance.
However, people very often end up imbalanced by 'My body is indicating I am thirsty due to sweating, thus I must drink some water'. Without the person realizing their body is actually low on salty water, and drinking pure water is just going to make things weirder.
When we sweat, we get 'thirsty'...and we go drink pure water unless we know better. We will continue to this until we pass out from hypovolemia. Our brains are miswired, or possible wired for a world in which water sources had a lot more minerals in them.
Letting water suppliers claim that bottled water keeps from from dehydration is like letting people claim that eating sugar keeps you well-feed. Yes, it appears to do so, and your brain agrees...
...until the point you become confused and disoriented and eventually fall over unconscious because you've gotten no proteins or electrolytes.
Yes, the salt in water (And everything else) is normally enough for people. To maintain their salt balance. No one said people had to run around drinking Gatorade to maintain a balance normally.
And when someone sweats too much losing salt and water, then drinks water and thus imbalances themselves (Which is, by far, the most common form of dehydration.), the solution is to not drink more fucking water, you idiot.
That is so stupid I cannot even comprehend what you are saying. It's like they're on fire and the prescription is to pour room-temperature gasoline on them, because, hey, it's room temperature, it should cool them down, right? I mean, it's not like losing salt and water and replacing just the water isn't what got them into the problem in the first place.
I don't care if they fucking drink Poweraide or whatever. Hell, they can eat a goddamn tablespoon of salt, I don't care.(1) Although I have to suggest the drinks designed to supply electrolytes are a bit more tasty than salt, or even salt water.
And I have to suggest that quite possibly you are suffering from mild dehydration, as you are presenting the symptom of 'confusion'.
1) Actually, people should not eat plain salt. It is likely to make them throw up, which makes dehydration worse. And you run the risk of going too far. If you don't have a drink designed to replace salts, drink water and eat pretzels(2) or something.
Oh, I probably should mention: It's nearly impossible for you to have lose too much water (and no salt) to become dehydrated without something medically wrong with you, but you can easily gain too much salt, and hence not have enough water.
So it is possible to have not enough water, and too much salt, without a underlying medical condition...if, and only if, you've simply been eating salt. Like half a cup of salt. Do not do that. (Duh. There's a reason your body says 'Ugh' to that idea.)
Or, as the most common real world situation it comes up in, inadvertently drinking salt water because you've been swimming in it.
If you do that and become dehydrated, you should drink straight water.
Otherwise, you're either missing just salt, or salt and water, and you should drink 'salty water', aka, water with some electrolytes, aka, Gatorade or other such drinks, which gives you both water and salt in the correct ratio, and your body can fix your salt vs. water balance using that.
I dunno, if we can lock up everyone who smokes pot, I don't really see why it would be so hard to lock up everyone who runs around blatantly lying in order to rip people off.
If we run out of room, we can always let the pot smokers out to fit the scammers in. I mean, in any objective sense, the scammers probably deserve it more.
You do know that there are three types of dehydration and water alone will not help two of them, right? Dehydration, despite the name, does not mean 'lack of water'. Dehydration is the word for homeostasis imbalance, which is when your body does not have enough salt water.
The most common type of dehydration is actually hypovolemia, which is not having enough sodium. So when people are dehydrated, they almost always need electrolytes (It's what plants crave!) and water, not just water alone. Drinking water alone can, in fact, make such problems worse.
The type of dehydration where people are just 'out of water', and thus can be solved by just adding water, is actually pretty rare for people to have. And it's usually a sign of an actual medical condition (As opposed to sweating out salt that needs replacing, which is perfectly normal.), so just drinking water is hardly a 'solution' there. You really need to see a doctor if you find yourself 'lacking water' for some inexplicably reason.
I love how idiots are running around laughing 'Ha ha, the EFSA is so stupid, of course water stops dehydration, herp derp.'. Uh, no, it doesn't. If you're actually getting dehydrated in the actual medical sense (As opposed to using to hyperbolically mean 'thirsty'.), no, you shouldn't drink fucking water, it can screw you up even more. Drink some Gaterade or something like that.
Dude, if you want to make chorine gas, that's a silly way.
Go look under your kitchen sink. Remember how you're not supposed to mix bleach and ammonia?
Guess why.
Fun fact: Doing it the 'right' way, with the correct amount of each, is perfectly safe if you don't mind getting killed with chlorine gas. Doing it the 'wrong' way with too much ammonia will produce hydrazine, aka, rocket fuel, which will explode in your face if you do, well, anything, like move around or breath.
And, because God wanted to make sure we won't try this in any form at all, doing it the 'wrong' way by adding too much bleach will poison you in an entirely different way with nitrogen trichloride, which will also heat up so much it, uh, explodes. Also, there's going to be a bunch of spare hydrochloric acid in that explosion, although I'm not sure having that in an explosion is going to be more painful than just a normal explosion. (We must now blow up a control group, and then blow up another group with explosive made out of hydrochloric acid.)
There are some warning labels they are kid ding about, or that won't really cause problems. And there are some things they really aren't screwing around when they tell you not to do it.
Admittedly for your point, it technically would be possible to ban bleach and/or ammonia.
I hadn't read the research (In fact, I didn't realize there was any.), but I suspected something like that.
In fact, I suspected the routing normally goes:
Person A in community X
X Community hub person
Person in X who knows someone in community Y
Person in Y who knows someone in community X
Y community hub person
Person B in community Y
And that is five degrees of routing. With manual inefficiencies, you'd get a bit more.
And sometimes, sometimes, the community hub in Y knows the community hub in X, essentially making a direct call.
As others here have pointed out, on Facebook, often people 'Friend' people they literally do not know at all. Facebook recommends them because they share a group of friends, but that does not actually mean they ever met.
And thus, with people doing that sort of things, we end up with an average of 4.74.
In meatspace, where we do not overhear friends of ours taking about friends of theirs that we have not met and inexplicably decide they are 'friends' or even 'acquaintances' without ever interacting with them, the number is a bit higher. Studies say about 6.
OTOH, there's plenty of people I know in real life that are not friends on facebook, either because we share no interests at all or they are not actually my 'friend'. Sometimes they are, in fact, an enemy. (This does not exclude them from the chain of people, which just requires that two people 'know' each other.)
It is also entirely possible that the difference isn't 'Facebook' per se...it's people who are active on the internet, which lets people know people all over the world. It's possible that just starting and ending with such a person lowers the average, because otherwise one of the steps 'finding a person who knows people living far away'.
Regardless, the number appears to be much smaller than anyone would assume.
Except that the idea of degrees of separation isn't 'friends', it's 'People who know each other'. No one ever said those people had to be 'friends'. No one's ever bothered to try to define exactly what that means, although at minimum you probably have to have exchanged words with them at some point, and have a way of contacting them.
Granted, on Facebook, it's probably slightly too loose even with that requirement. Apparently, some people on Facebook go around friending anyone who shows up as a likely friend, regardless of whether or not they actually know the person. And sometimes the other person accepts that request. Clicking on someone's picture and sending a request is probably not actually 'knowing' someone.
So assuming, on average, one of those bogus 'knowing people' per chain of '4.74' people, which caused the calculation to skip a number that really should be there (They aren't X's friend but they are the friend of the friend of X)...it comes out to essentially what people have been saying all along.
Which is weird, because as far as I know, 'six degrees' isn't based on any scientific information...it's from playing a game with Kevin Bacon. (Which is not about who 'knows' each other, it's about who's been in movies and TV shows with each other.)
What interferes with sleeping patterns is, supposedly, laying around in bed with the lights off when you're not trying to sleep. Which is something you can't do with eInk, but can do with a backlit device.
Of course, almost all 'interferes with sleeping pattern' stuff is bogus. Sleep studies are only done on people who have trouble sleeping. (Duh.) They don't magically mean that everyone should do those things.
If you have trouble getting to sleep, one of the ways to try to fix it is to keep 'your bed' and 'in darkness', and especially those things together, as things you do solely when you're trying to sleep, so they act as natural triggers for you. Do not lay in bed for any purpose other than sleep, and if you can avoid it do not hang out in darkness for any purpose other than sleep, and see if it helps after a week. Or you can do 'in bed' and 'darkness' tests individually.
If you're not having trouble getting to sleep, don't worry about it at all.
Yes, that's what causing the clicking in speakers, the wiring is picking up interference.
Please note this has nothing to do with the receiving being a radio, and is simply due to magnetism from your phone hitting the wires. Which, if the wires are not straight (And they never are), will cause an electric current. Which is then amplified by the amplifier. (Duh, that's what it's for.)
But if your cell phone can cause magnetism in wiring twenty feet away, you should probably go and have yourself treated for radiation burns. Also, I don't know why you didn't noticing something was wrong when sending a text message fired nearby computer hard drives.
I mean, at that level, you're walking about with something about as strong as an MRI machine.
I think it would be pretty funny to make my Nook's lock screen into a copy of the 'Your Nook has been powered down' screen. (And sometimes I want to replace the actual message during power-off with a screen of text, so it looks like it's on.)
Of course, with pretty much every electronic device with a power button, the power button actually works by...electronics. It's not some sort of switch that disconnects the battery and reconnects it. (Those exist, those are the things on old stereos, the 'pen top' switches, that one push puts them all the way in, and another lets them pop out.)
No, the switch in any modern device, from an iphone to a Nook to a laptop, is attached to an always powered bit of circuitry.
Which, of course cannot be turned off. At least not without physically removing or draining the battery...and often you can't do that.
The entire idea of 'on' and 'off' needs to be redefined. People need to not be operating radios during takeoff and landing, and they need to not be having big heavy things in their laps during that time either, due to the possibility of being thrown around. That's what the rules should be.
By "more American" I'm thinking employed more US workers.
More workers, or more work?
What if a vehicle was built in two locations, one in the US and one outside, and required 2 workers in one location and 4 in the other, but the 2 workers each spent an hour working, and the 4 workers each spent five minutes?
Which would we rather have in the US if it was either/or? The one with 2 workers. Because that is actually providing more jobs per car. Or, rather, less cars per job, so obviously they're going to hire more people to keep up with the other location.
What I think might be interesting is some sort of time estimate. Not how many workers, but how many man-hours of time was spent in each country.
The real problem with 'percentage' is that car companies basically just assemble parts provided by other companies.
But if we were talking man-hours, those can just be directly added up. Instead of trying to figure out what percentage of a car the fuel injection system is, so we know what 'percentage' of a car was made where.
Slashdot Mirror
I was about to point out that produce would not be useable by the poor. By the time you got it to them it would probably be rotted.
But then I realized what should actually be happening is that the government open up a giant cannery, and just throw the surplus into there. Don't worry about flavoring or anything, just throw green beans into a giant bucket-sized tin, seal it up, and slap the label 'green beans' on them.
We build up a giant buffer against famine in a few big warehouses somewhere that we can sell at slightly above cost in years of shortage. (Probably to food companies, who can figure out how to get it to market and how to repackage it for individual use, or perhaps a few families will show up to buy a tin to split...and if we're at that point we're in rather a lot of trouble, so people will be damn grateful for it no matter how they get it.)
Or, in a natural disaster, we hand the giant tins over to the natural guard and let them cook for everyone.
And then, when the warehouses are full, we throw out the oldest stuff by letting charities take it for free to give to the needy.
We can do the same with meat, by making jerky.
Oh, wait. This would be 'socialism' or something. Despite only interfering with the market in the sense that we think perhaps that food should not be priced like a luxury in times of scarcity.
The males are not unfit, the females they produce are unfit. The males they produce are fit.
Basically, females would be defective in proportion to the modified males. No males would be defective, so the modified percentage would hold.
E.g., if we assume the generations stay the same size, and there are 100 males, and 100 females, and you introduce 10 modified males, 'evolution' doesn't effect the modified males, because they're fine and can reproduce fine...so they're constantly at 9% of the population.
However, each generation has 9% less functional females, the female children of those males. This will slowly but surely reduce the population.
The only problem would arise if only a small percentage of females were supposed to mate anyway, and thus removing a portion of them would had no effect on population for the next generation. But I do not think that is true, or someone would have noticed this plan wouldn't work. Usually, in nature, it's the other way around...all females reproduce, but sometimes not all males do. (Which would be fine under this plan.)
Nothing is stopping you from simply killing one child yourself if that's what you want to happen.
My theory is that nature wanted someone around to theorized about what nature wanted.
Even if it's replaced with other mosquitoes, only a few species of those actually drink blood and thus spread disease.
I've found that having massively complicated rewrites is just an exercise in annoyance. Especially when you have rules working at both server and directory level.
About the only rewrite rules that makes sense in 99% of the circumstances are things like 'Alias an entire directory into the site so there's a webmail dir or whatever' and 'Send all not-found requests to this specific script'. (And strictly speaking, you can do the first with a symlink, although sometimes that's not workable.)
Yes, I'm sure there are circumstances where more rules are needed. Sometimes there's really weird stuff, and if you're doing a reverse proxy, you quite possibly are faced with such a situation.
And, of course, if you're running a server and letting end users set up such a system, they might insist on the ability to add rules, which requires apache, as nginx doesn't screw around with .htaccess files. (OTOH, you can just ask them what they are running, and if it's any sort of dynamic site, just send all 404s to index.php, and, tada, magically it all works.)
So I suspect, statistically, that something like nine out of ten rewrite rules really aren't needed. In fact, joomla comes with like 12 lines of apache rewrite rules (The actual rules, not the comments, and not counting other stuff in the file)...and really only needs three.
Yes, but if you do that, you can't use PHP compiled in. You have to do fastcgi, just like nginx.
More specifically, if you're planning on tearing down the entire apache config and rebuilding it, and stripping out all the features that apache has, I'm a bit unsure why you'd use apache anyway.
Use apache if you need something that nginx can't do well, like webdav. Otherwise, don't spend the time trying to make it work like nginx, just use nginx.
Yes, it is probably worthwhile for people to drink more water than they do. (Not only because of dehydration, but frankly because it also stops them from eating and drink more unhealthy stuff.) Although not eight glasses of water a day, which is a misunderstanding of the total amount of water needed, most of which we get from food. Just drink a single big glass with each meal and that's probably enough.
However, if people actually notice dehydration, they've either done some moderate sweating and probably should have something more than water, either Gatorade or actual food plus water...or they've got an actual medical problem that caused dehydration, like hypotension or diabetes insipidus, and while fixing the dehydration is a good idea in the short term, they do need to see a doctor. (Unless they're the elderly, who often have a 'dehydration signaling' problem, and just need to learn to drink even when not thirsty. Although doctors obviously know this and will tell them that.)
I'm entirely comfortable with the EU's decision, because in my head, because if people are drinking water because they're constantly moderately dehydrated, that's really wallpapering over their problem.
Meanwhile, while water does help mild dehydration, the most common kind...I suspect no one is running around trying to figure out a trivial medical problem they don't even notice, even if it is incredibly common. And I think if they are trying to figure it out, they already know the solution. ;)
This is sorta like a candle snuffer being marketed as 'Can help put out household fires'. Strictly speaking, those will put out the most common types of household fires...but people who are actually purchasing it to solve the problem of household fires are going to be very upset when they try to use it.
I'd be okay if the wording was something like 'It is estimated that mild dehydration is suffered by X% of the population, and drinking more water will prevent that.' or something like that. Just asserting it prevents dehydration in general is wrong.
Especially as, strictly speaking, it cannot prevent some forms. Not just blood loss...it is entirely possible to sweat faster than your body can intake liquids via the stomach. (In such circumstances you really really really should be drinking something with electrolytes instead of pure water, but even that will not help in the long run.)
'hyponatremia' is indeed 'not enough sodium in the blood', but it's a condition brought on medical problems. It's not the end result of 'not enough sodium', and can't be cured with sodium. Or water. Or anything except treating the actual disease causing it.
Not enough sodium means you as a person are technically hyponatremic, in that you lack sodium, but that, strangely, does not lead to hyponatremia. From what I understand, if you do not have enough sodium in your body, your body stops putting fluids where they need to be and you get hypovolemia. Which has basically the same symptoms as hypovolemia caused by lack of water. (Although you're right in that I was a little confused in my other posts, as I wasn't thinking that isotonic dehydration also leads to hypovolemia, so me talking about hypovolemia was very confusing.)
And 'dehydration' means 'deficiency of fluid' in medical terms, so, hypovolemia does count.
As for the rest of it: Subclinical dehydration may indeed be extraordinarily common, and it's for exactly that reason that I somewhat doubt it's what people think of when they mean 'dehydration'...the reason it is so common is that people don't realize it happens. (And, in fact, I skipped right over it when talking about the 'most common' dehydration, despite the fact I already knew about it.)
If we assume dehydration is not use medically, but colloquially, water can indeed prevent thirst, but it's rather odd that anyone would need this information at all, so I see the logic in banning it so as not to cause confusion with the medical term. If we assume it's meant medically, yes, it does stop mild dehydration, the most common form of actual dehydration...but that isn't what people think of when they think of 'medical dehydration', which is near 'moderate dehydration', so that's confusing there also. (And it's not the right solution for moderate dehydration.)
However, reading the article about this, instead of what I had assumed their objection was, it appears the EU had an objection because of the fact that many forms of dehydration are simply symptoms of an underlying disease that cannot be cured or helped by pure water at all. (And some that can't even be helped by water and electrolytes.)
And thus if you are actually 'suffering' from dehydration to the extent that you wish to purchase something to control it, you need to fricking consult a doctor instead.
And, again, we've got people weirdly assuming that I'm recommending Gatorade or whatever to ward off dehydration.
Uh, no. I'm making the point it should be used to treat dehydration, not water.
And, yes, people who are thirsty can drink water just fine. Being thirsty is not the same as being dehydrated. (Which is sorta my entire fucking point here.)
And people who are suffering from mild dehydration lacking both salt and water due to sweat, can drink water and feel somewhat better...it is certainly better to just be low on just salt than low on both salt and water. But at a certain point, they need to stop drinking, no matter if they still feel thirsty, because their problem is no longer lack of water, their problem is lack of salt. (And drinking is just going to make them piss out more salt!)
I love the fact everyone seems to have magically turned 'thirsty' into 'dehydration', which is exactly what the EU said 'Uh, no' to.
Yes, if you are dehydrated due to drinking heavily the previous night, (aka, hungover) you do need to drink straight water. And I think you're right, that situation is probably more common than drinking salt water. (And, of course, the only actual way to avoid a hangover is to drink a bunch of water before sleep.)
But that doesn't really change what I said. Although it is a good point that 'something' can be alcohol instead of salt. (And as alcohol removes water instead of adding salt, it works slower, hence the whole 'overnight' thing.)
My point was that no one ever reaches 'Too much salt, not enough water' naturally. They have to either have a medical condition or ingest something that does that.
Although, technically speaking, no one reaches the opposite position of 'Too much water, not enough salt' without ingesting things or being sick also. Unless you are ill, your body is smart enough to keep your body in balance, and make liquids leave the body in correct proportion to keep that balance.
However, people very often end up imbalanced by 'My body is indicating I am thirsty due to sweating, thus I must drink some water'. Without the person realizing their body is actually low on salty water, and drinking pure water is just going to make things weirder.
Exactly.
When we sweat, we get 'thirsty'...and we go drink pure water unless we know better. We will continue to this until we pass out from hypovolemia. Our brains are miswired, or possible wired for a world in which water sources had a lot more minerals in them.
Letting water suppliers claim that bottled water keeps from from dehydration is like letting people claim that eating sugar keeps you well-feed. Yes, it appears to do so, and your brain agrees...
What, are you stupid?
Yes, the salt in water (And everything else) is normally enough for people. To maintain their salt balance. No one said people had to run around drinking Gatorade to maintain a balance normally.
And when someone sweats too much losing salt and water, then drinks water and thus imbalances themselves (Which is, by far, the most common form of dehydration.), the solution is to not drink more fucking water, you idiot.
That is so stupid I cannot even comprehend what you are saying. It's like they're on fire and the prescription is to pour room-temperature gasoline on them, because, hey, it's room temperature, it should cool them down, right? I mean, it's not like losing salt and water and replacing just the water isn't what got them into the problem in the first place.
I don't care if they fucking drink Poweraide or whatever. Hell, they can eat a goddamn tablespoon of salt, I don't care.(1) Although I have to suggest the drinks designed to supply electrolytes are a bit more tasty than salt, or even salt water.
And I have to suggest that quite possibly you are suffering from mild dehydration, as you are presenting the symptom of 'confusion'.
1) Actually, people should not eat plain salt. It is likely to make them throw up, which makes dehydration worse. And you run the risk of going too far. If you don't have a drink designed to replace salts, drink water and eat pretzels(2) or something.
2) And now I will be called a pretzel shill.
Oh, I probably should mention: It's nearly impossible for you to have lose too much water (and no salt) to become dehydrated without something medically wrong with you, but you can easily gain too much salt, and hence not have enough water.
So it is possible to have not enough water, and too much salt, without a underlying medical condition...if, and only if, you've simply been eating salt. Like half a cup of salt. Do not do that. (Duh. There's a reason your body says 'Ugh' to that idea.)
Or, as the most common real world situation it comes up in, inadvertently drinking salt water because you've been swimming in it.
If you do that and become dehydrated, you should drink straight water.
Otherwise, you're either missing just salt, or salt and water, and you should drink 'salty water', aka, water with some electrolytes, aka, Gatorade or other such drinks, which gives you both water and salt in the correct ratio, and your body can fix your salt vs. water balance using that.
I dunno, if we can lock up everyone who smokes pot, I don't really see why it would be so hard to lock up everyone who runs around blatantly lying in order to rip people off.
If we run out of room, we can always let the pot smokers out to fit the scammers in. I mean, in any objective sense, the scammers probably deserve it more.
You do know that there are three types of dehydration and water alone will not help two of them, right? Dehydration, despite the name, does not mean 'lack of water'. Dehydration is the word for homeostasis imbalance, which is when your body does not have enough salt water.
The most common type of dehydration is actually hypovolemia, which is not having enough sodium. So when people are dehydrated, they almost always need electrolytes (It's what plants crave!) and water, not just water alone. Drinking water alone can, in fact, make such problems worse.
The type of dehydration where people are just 'out of water', and thus can be solved by just adding water, is actually pretty rare for people to have. And it's usually a sign of an actual medical condition (As opposed to sweating out salt that needs replacing, which is perfectly normal.), so just drinking water is hardly a 'solution' there. You really need to see a doctor if you find yourself 'lacking water' for some inexplicably reason.
I love how idiots are running around laughing 'Ha ha, the EFSA is so stupid, of course water stops dehydration, herp derp.'. Uh, no, it doesn't. If you're actually getting dehydrated in the actual medical sense (As opposed to using to hyperbolically mean 'thirsty'.), no, you shouldn't drink fucking water, it can screw you up even more. Drink some Gaterade or something like that.
Dude, if you want to make chorine gas, that's a silly way.
Go look under your kitchen sink. Remember how you're not supposed to mix bleach and ammonia?
Guess why.
Fun fact: Doing it the 'right' way, with the correct amount of each, is perfectly safe if you don't mind getting killed with chlorine gas. Doing it the 'wrong' way with too much ammonia will produce hydrazine, aka, rocket fuel, which will explode in your face if you do, well, anything, like move around or breath.
And, because God wanted to make sure we won't try this in any form at all, doing it the 'wrong' way by adding too much bleach will poison you in an entirely different way with nitrogen trichloride, which will also heat up so much it, uh, explodes. Also, there's going to be a bunch of spare hydrochloric acid in that explosion, although I'm not sure having that in an explosion is going to be more painful than just a normal explosion. (We must now blow up a control group, and then blow up another group with explosive made out of hydrochloric acid.)
There are some warning labels they are kid ding about, or that won't really cause problems. And there are some things they really aren't screwing around when they tell you not to do it.
Admittedly for your point, it technically would be possible to ban bleach and/or ammonia.
I hadn't read the research (In fact, I didn't realize there was any.), but I suspected something like that.
In fact, I suspected the routing normally goes:
Person A in community X
X Community hub person
Person in X who knows someone in community Y
Person in Y who knows someone in community X
Y community hub person
Person B in community Y
And that is five degrees of routing. With manual inefficiencies, you'd get a bit more.
And sometimes, sometimes, the community hub in Y knows the community hub in X, essentially making a direct call.
That depends on what you mean by 'link'.
As others here have pointed out, on Facebook, often people 'Friend' people they literally do not know at all. Facebook recommends them because they share a group of friends, but that does not actually mean they ever met.
And thus, with people doing that sort of things, we end up with an average of 4.74.
In meatspace, where we do not overhear friends of ours taking about friends of theirs that we have not met and inexplicably decide they are 'friends' or even 'acquaintances' without ever interacting with them, the number is a bit higher. Studies say about 6.
OTOH, there's plenty of people I know in real life that are not friends on facebook, either because we share no interests at all or they are not actually my 'friend'. Sometimes they are, in fact, an enemy. (This does not exclude them from the chain of people, which just requires that two people 'know' each other.)
It is also entirely possible that the difference isn't 'Facebook' per se...it's people who are active on the internet, which lets people know people all over the world. It's possible that just starting and ending with such a person lowers the average, because otherwise one of the steps 'finding a person who knows people living far away'.
Regardless, the number appears to be much smaller than anyone would assume.
Except that the idea of degrees of separation isn't 'friends', it's 'People who know each other'. No one ever said those people had to be 'friends'. No one's ever bothered to try to define exactly what that means, although at minimum you probably have to have exchanged words with them at some point, and have a way of contacting them.
Granted, on Facebook, it's probably slightly too loose even with that requirement. Apparently, some people on Facebook go around friending anyone who shows up as a likely friend, regardless of whether or not they actually know the person. And sometimes the other person accepts that request. Clicking on someone's picture and sending a request is probably not actually 'knowing' someone.
So assuming, on average, one of those bogus 'knowing people' per chain of '4.74' people, which caused the calculation to skip a number that really should be there (They aren't X's friend but they are the friend of the friend of X) ...it comes out to essentially what people have been saying all along.
Which is weird, because as far as I know, 'six degrees' isn't based on any scientific information...it's from playing a game with Kevin Bacon. (Which is not about who 'knows' each other, it's about who's been in movies and TV shows with each other.)
0 is the degree of separation with yourself.
Kevin Bacon is the only actor with a Bacon number of 0.
What interferes with sleeping patterns is, supposedly, laying around in bed with the lights off when you're not trying to sleep. Which is something you can't do with eInk, but can do with a backlit device.
Of course, almost all 'interferes with sleeping pattern' stuff is bogus. Sleep studies are only done on people who have trouble sleeping. (Duh.) They don't magically mean that everyone should do those things.
If you have trouble getting to sleep, one of the ways to try to fix it is to keep 'your bed' and 'in darkness', and especially those things together, as things you do solely when you're trying to sleep, so they act as natural triggers for you. Do not lay in bed for any purpose other than sleep, and if you can avoid it do not hang out in darkness for any purpose other than sleep, and see if it helps after a week. Or you can do 'in bed' and 'darkness' tests individually.
If you're not having trouble getting to sleep, don't worry about it at all.
Uh, no.
Yes, that's what causing the clicking in speakers, the wiring is picking up interference.
Please note this has nothing to do with the receiving being a radio, and is simply due to magnetism from your phone hitting the wires. Which, if the wires are not straight (And they never are), will cause an electric current. Which is then amplified by the amplifier. (Duh, that's what it's for.)
But if your cell phone can cause magnetism in wiring twenty feet away, you should probably go and have yourself treated for radiation burns. Also, I don't know why you didn't noticing something was wrong when sending a text message fired nearby computer hard drives.
I mean, at that level, you're walking about with something about as strong as an MRI machine.
I think it would be pretty funny to make my Nook's lock screen into a copy of the 'Your Nook has been powered down' screen. (And sometimes I want to replace the actual message during power-off with a screen of text, so it looks like it's on.)
Of course, with pretty much every electronic device with a power button, the power button actually works by...electronics. It's not some sort of switch that disconnects the battery and reconnects it. (Those exist, those are the things on old stereos, the 'pen top' switches, that one push puts them all the way in, and another lets them pop out.)
No, the switch in any modern device, from an iphone to a Nook to a laptop, is attached to an always powered bit of circuitry.
Which, of course cannot be turned off. At least not without physically removing or draining the battery...and often you can't do that.
The entire idea of 'on' and 'off' needs to be redefined. People need to not be operating radios during takeoff and landing, and they need to not be having big heavy things in their laps during that time either, due to the possibility of being thrown around. That's what the rules should be.
By "more American" I'm thinking employed more US workers.
More workers, or more work?
What if a vehicle was built in two locations, one in the US and one outside, and required 2 workers in one location and 4 in the other, but the 2 workers each spent an hour working, and the 4 workers each spent five minutes?
Which would we rather have in the US if it was either/or? The one with 2 workers. Because that is actually providing more jobs per car. Or, rather, less cars per job, so obviously they're going to hire more people to keep up with the other location.
What I think might be interesting is some sort of time estimate. Not how many workers, but how many man-hours of time was spent in each country.
The real problem with 'percentage' is that car companies basically just assemble parts provided by other companies.
But if we were talking man-hours, those can just be directly added up. Instead of trying to figure out what percentage of a car the fuel injection system is, so we know what 'percentage' of a car was made where.