Most of that energy comes in horizontally (if it's not moving horizontally, then any not radiated from near the house cannot make it inside) and so most of it bounces right back out again if whatever is on the wall behind it is light in color.
Depending on how the low-e coating is applied (either 2nd or 3rd pane), it can either block solar radiation or enhance the ability of glass to trap solar radiation significantly. It has no middle option. If you're in a climate that gets cool in the winter and hot in the summer, you either want no low-e and overhangs or low-e on the second pane (to block solar radiation). Such climates typically don't have long, intense winters, so the lack of solar radiation trapping is not your major cost consideration.
If you're in a cool climate, you want low-e on the third pane to trap the radiation. If you're in a hot climate you want low-e on the second pane, to block it, and overhangs.
A hot, humid climate is going to need every trick in the book to get the place as cool as possible, and then you're almost certainly going to need to add active cooling on top of it. In both you want to control the air flow, so you want it well insulated and sealed pretty well. The very last thing you want is an unplanned air exchange somewhere in the house. That will kill your AC/heating bill.
I don't know how your swamp cooler works, but any halfway decent one won't be pumping any extra water into your air. They use heat exchangers to get the cold into the building, and evaporate out the water to the open air to cool off the heated piping.
I'm sure sodium chloride could be used though. I'm not sure what it's efficacy is compared to these other salts, but any sort of brine solution is a liquid desiccant.
They want to be able to say "Don't pirate music or you'll have to pay 90 thousand dollars a song!"
$2500 a song (I think that's about what it came out to, I don't remember exactly how many songs it was) doesn't have nearly the same punch. They want the high judgment; they don't care if Jammie Thomas pays a dime of it.
If they wanted the money, they'd stick with the low judgment, because that's something they are actually likely to get.
This will go really badly if the Special Master decides to bring it down even lower. If ends up being something like $500 a pop, that's a very weak deterrent. And remember that she had hundreds of songs on her machine, and only got hit for about 20 I think, so it really works poorly as a deterrent when people stop to consider the potential consequences.
Actually, since there is no addition operator, rules of operation dictate that a multiplication operator be assumed.
In other words, it's an ass^2hole. I'm not sure why the hole was not squared as well, perhaps these guys are not any bigger assholes than ordinary asshole lawyers, but are significantly bigger asses than ordinary asshole lawyers?
I don't know, douchebag mathematics stretch my reasoning abilities to the limit. I'm not even sure that what I just said is douchebagically possible.
That' funny because we just upgraded a bunch of Alpha VMS servers to... faster Alpha VMS servers.
We have some hot Dell servers that do the same job at about half the speed (obviously entirely different OS and software packages though, so it's a tough comparison to make). It seems you lose an awful lot just in the GUI, and in Windows at least virtually everything has to have a GUI. The net result is lesser hardware that is not expected to look pretty can perform much better for the same task than hardware that is. It should be obvious, but sometimes it isn't, and the effect of adding all the visual goodies is significant.
Basically, all the mobile market needs is further miniaturization, which is hard. As they get better, though, you see big jumps because they are able to take advantage of more advanced technologies.
Also, more money in the market always, always helps innovation, and right now the mobile market is absolutely brimming with cash, thanks in no small part to the iPhone.
What computers still aren't so good at is: automagically making models/simulations of the world, to the extent of including "others" and "self", and use those models to help decide what to do.
It's a difference in complexity, really, and it's because at the core, computers really can't do what humans can do. If you can truly accept that something is probably right, and not definitely right, then you can build on that to create these models. The best computer science has come up with so far are very poor imitations of what the human brain does, and at the core a computer must be absolutely correct, at least with regards with its programming logic. That's why they can't deal with bugs. They can't run into a bit of code that's off by just a smidge and say "this is close enough". Computer Science relies on tricks (compared to a natural brain) to make it all work somewhat similar to what people do, but it's still so far behind it's laughable.
Is it? I'm hearing stories coming-out where engineers wrote e-mails warning this blowout would happen.
If they did, then either they or the people they told, or both, are personally responsible for the deaths of the 11 men who died in the accident.
BP gives everyone the authority to stop a job for safety concerns, and they make damn well sure everyone knows it. It's one of their "Eight Golden Rules", and following these rules is a condition of employment for both employees and contractors.
Either the engineers were just passing emails to each other, and nobody was speaking up, or they sent it to someone who was unconnected with the operation, or they sent it to a manager/supervisor and that person did not do his job.
Obviously if you aren't physically there, you can't go waiving your arms and tell everyone to stop, but generally the engineers are on the rig, so they actually can go waiving their arms and telling everyone to stop. There is absolutely no excuse for not stopping a job if you have a reason to believe it is unsafe. Period. This is almost certainly not a case of the engineers being ignored, but a case of the engineers not doing their duty to protect their coworkers, and 11 men died because of it.
If they stayed quiet, instead of raising hell, in spite of serious safety concerns, then the engineers are personally responsible for not preventing the accident. They are the ones who would know if the mud is insufficient, and it's their duty to stop the job if it's unsafe. If that is the case, and I really don't see how it could not be, then I'm not sure how they can live with themselves right now. Perhaps its only by blaming others for their own failures, eh?
Any suitably intelligent person already knows that failures are as much a part of learning as always being "right".
Unfortunately, that all goes out the window when you're looking for someone to blame, and doubly so when you believe you can benefit by making sure everyone knows how much you blame a certain entity.
Actually, had they told anybody, the job would stop. Every employee has the authority to stop a job - any job. There aren't some jobs that some people can stop and some jobs that other people can stop, anybody can stop a job for safety on a BP rig (or any BP facility). That gets pounded into your head day from day 1 - if you see something that you think is unsafe, you stop it, and everybody gets together and double-checks the plan and makes sure they haven't missed anything that would make it unsafe.
There are practical limits, of course. For example, if I'm not involved in a job and I have no idea if it's safe or not because I'm not qualified enough to know the difference, then I have no business stopping a job. I still have the authority to stop it, but I won't stop a job because I have no idea what's involved. However if I'm involved in a job and I feel unsafe, I will absolutely stop the job.
By the same token, management may be pushing to get a job done a certain way (they always want to use the low cost option), but if they aren't qualified to know what is safe and what isn't they obviously aren't going to stop the job for safety. However, if you are qualified to know if it's safe, and you think it is not safe, you MUST stop the job. If you're working on a job and you feel unsafe, you MUST stop the job.
All it took was for one person to say "This doesn't seem safe, we need to stop the job" and the job would have stopped right then and there. The fact that it didn't means either nobody said to stop the job, or there was a serious breach of BP policy.
In other words, all of this "If they had just listened to the engineers" stuff is either complete bullshit (as in, never happened), or criminal mis-management at the rig level. This is not the kind of decision that happens further up the chain. There is a very real possibility that there was a local culture to ignore safety concerns in spite of BP policy, in which case the ones responsible actually are the people on the rig. Not Tony Hayward, not the President of BP Americas, but the rig management and possibly one level above them (if only for putting such people in a position of authority).
I do think there is a real problem with BP's management culture which makes accidents more likely. They have a tendancy to move managers around from position to position, and they tend to stay at one place for no more than two years. The idea is to get a "broad understanding" of oil field operations as well as the corporate side. This means if they are ever going to get a top-level manager, they can't keep them in one place for very long. This leads to serious inconsistencies in management of a particular facility/rig. They also tie bonuses directly to how much of your budget was left over each year. This creates a perfect storm for accidents due to poor maintenance, as the easiest place to cut is the maintenance budget (safety & compliance and production always gets funded). I believe this is why BP has the worst record for environmental accidents in the industry by a huge margin. How that directly relates to this spill is going to be subtle, though. I would definitely name it as a contributing factor.
Or deliberately ignoring your own engineers saying, "This is a bad idea. The wellhead will blow out."
Nobody said that, and if they thought it they had the authority and the duty to stop the operation. I work as a contractor for BP, and they pound it into your head over and over that everyone has the authority and obligation to stop a job if they think it is unsafe. It is one of BP's eight "Golden Rules" of safety. Everyone on-site - BP employee or not - has this authority and duty, it is a condition of employment for BP and all its contractors. If there were engineers who believed the wellhead would blow out because of the course they were taking, they should be held liable for the deaths of their coworkers, because it was their job to stop it, especially if management thought the job was safe.
To be clear, blow outs happen. They are a fact of life in the oil industry, and to think you will be able to prevent them 100% of the time is idiotic. From what I've heard so far, most everything that happened on that rig was within industry standards, and while hindsight makes it clear there were some serious mistakes there, those mistakes were not at all obvious at the time.
That's why they invented Blow-Out Preventors, they are specifically designed to prevent exactly this type of catastrophe, and they are installed on every single well in the gulf (and any other off-shore rig). This is where the real problem happened. It seems that the combination of pipe and BOP were not conducive to actually sealing the leak, and this is a serious error. The cost issue is somewhat of a red herring. The three easiest ways to get funding at BP for a project are safety and compliance issues, environmental issues, and production issues, in that order. Among these, BP will try to get the most "bang for their buck" on any given project. This usually means completing the task at the lowest possible cost. That's where it bit them this time - the low cost option is normally fine, but obviously under 5,000 feet it is not acceptable. That was not known before hand (though most companies do go with the more expensive option in this case, just to be safe), and in fact the US Government signed off on everything BP, Anadarko, Haliburton, and TransOcean did every step of the way. BP did nothing without approval from regulators, which is how all oil fields operate. Everything must be in compliance, and everything at the DeepWater rig was (at least according to MMS at the time).
As always happens after a catastrophe, industry standards will be changed, and the initial blow out will be less likely. This will always be their though, and the BOP's are designed to stop that.
Well they did, until Apple decided to put it in (from the complete lack of a user outcry since the iPhone's inception, I'm sure - this is another brilliant concept from the mind of the great Steve Jobs).
Now it's the greatest thing ever, and no "modern" phone lacks it.
Precisely. Isn't the #1 problem in "developing 3rd world countries" there being enough food to go around, not electricity?
Nope.
We already produce enough food to go around, the #1 problem in developing countries is their political system. It tends to be tyrannical, and they tend to intentionally keep their people starving.
This is why these home-grown operations are being attempted - if the people don't have to rely on their government to make the tools to increase their production, then it becomes harder to oppress them.
Just think about what we do with electricity - it was a major revolution when it came about, and we use it for everything now. For one simple example, if they can make small amounts of electricity they can separate hydrogen and oxygen from water. If they can do that, they can build fuel cells. This gives them a much more potent source of electricity, with which they can begin to power tools to build larger apparatus which will increase their local ability to produce food. You look at the US today, 100 years ago almost everyone was a farmer. Today, about 5% of people cover that job (and subsidies are keeping that number artificially high) and we produce so much food it's actually the #1 health problem.
If we can teach them to produce food at 1/10th our efficiency, their food problem is solved and it will be difficult for their government to use food as an oppressive tool (though not impossible - look at North Korea). Once the food problem is solved, the people can turn their efforts to industry, and before too long graduate to a "first world" country (first world and third world are really more political labels than anything).
Also note that most of the subsidies are in the form of the gov. paying companies for not growing corn, or anything else for that matter, specifically to keep prices up. Without the subsidies corn would be significantly cheaper, though small operations would probably not survive given the inherent efficiency of large-scale farming.
It's no problem though (though it definitely sucks for individuals in the short term), a little over 100 years ago around 90% of Americans were farmers. Today it's 5% or less, and we're better off for it.
Current methods of making corn into ethanol require more fuel than they produce. It's a "burn two gallons of gas to get 1 and a half gallons of ethanol" situation - a net-loss energy producer, which is why it's so absurd that it's mandated for energy efficiency.
It's nothing more than yet another subsidy for the agriculture industry, and corn is about the worst thing in the world to subsidize (there are other crops that could potentially made viable, but corn is profitable because of government subsidies).
Corn itself is probably one of the worst things that ever happened to the US, though it's definitely been good for the agriculture industry (not necessarily for everybody else in the mid-west), thanks to lobbying power and subsequent government subsidies.
Slashdot Mirror
Most of that energy comes in horizontally (if it's not moving horizontally, then any not radiated from near the house cannot make it inside) and so most of it bounces right back out again if whatever is on the wall behind it is light in color.
Depending on how the low-e coating is applied (either 2nd or 3rd pane), it can either block solar radiation or enhance the ability of glass to trap solar radiation significantly. It has no middle option. If you're in a climate that gets cool in the winter and hot in the summer, you either want no low-e and overhangs or low-e on the second pane (to block solar radiation). Such climates typically don't have long, intense winters, so the lack of solar radiation trapping is not your major cost consideration.
If you're in a cool climate, you want low-e on the third pane to trap the radiation. If you're in a hot climate you want low-e on the second pane, to block it, and overhangs.
A hot, humid climate is going to need every trick in the book to get the place as cool as possible, and then you're almost certainly going to need to add active cooling on top of it. In both you want to control the air flow, so you want it well insulated and sealed pretty well. The very last thing you want is an unplanned air exchange somewhere in the house. That will kill your AC/heating bill.
I don't know how your swamp cooler works, but any halfway decent one won't be pumping any extra water into your air. They use heat exchangers to get the cold into the building, and evaporate out the water to the open air to cool off the heated piping.
If yours is indoors, you're doing it wrong.
I'm sure sodium chloride could be used though. I'm not sure what it's efficacy is compared to these other salts, but any sort of brine solution is a liquid desiccant.
They don't want the money, they want an example.
They want to be able to say "Don't pirate music or you'll have to pay 90 thousand dollars a song!"
$2500 a song (I think that's about what it came out to, I don't remember exactly how many songs it was) doesn't have nearly the same punch. They want the high judgment; they don't care if Jammie Thomas pays a dime of it.
If they wanted the money, they'd stick with the low judgment, because that's something they are actually likely to get.
This will go really badly if the Special Master decides to bring it down even lower. If ends up being something like $500 a pop, that's a very weak deterrent. And remember that she had hundreds of songs on her machine, and only got hit for about 20 I think, so it really works poorly as a deterrent when people stop to consider the potential consequences.
Nah, being ugly isn't a crime, so it gets dismissed every time.
It doesn't matter if it's true or not.
Actually, since there is no addition operator, rules of operation dictate that a multiplication operator be assumed.
In other words, it's an ass^2hole. I'm not sure why the hole was not squared as well, perhaps these guys are not any bigger assholes than ordinary asshole lawyers, but are significantly bigger asses than ordinary asshole lawyers?
I don't know, douchebag mathematics stretch my reasoning abilities to the limit. I'm not even sure that what I just said is douchebagically possible.
That' funny because we just upgraded a bunch of Alpha VMS servers to... faster Alpha VMS servers.
We have some hot Dell servers that do the same job at about half the speed (obviously entirely different OS and software packages though, so it's a tough comparison to make). It seems you lose an awful lot just in the GUI, and in Windows at least virtually everything has to have a GUI. The net result is lesser hardware that is not expected to look pretty can perform much better for the same task than hardware that is. It should be obvious, but sometimes it isn't, and the effect of adding all the visual goodies is significant.
Basically, all the mobile market needs is further miniaturization, which is hard. As they get better, though, you see big jumps because they are able to take advantage of more advanced technologies.
Also, more money in the market always, always helps innovation, and right now the mobile market is absolutely brimming with cash, thanks in no small part to the iPhone.
The obviously weren't truly smarter, then, were they? Obviously the one who failed is the greater achiever in his own personal station, in that case.
Exactly, that's why I'm not prejudiced: I hate everyone equally!
What computers still aren't so good at is: automagically making models/simulations of the world, to the extent of including "others" and "self", and use those models to help decide what to do.
It's a difference in complexity, really, and it's because at the core, computers really can't do what humans can do. If you can truly accept that something is probably right, and not definitely right, then you can build on that to create these models. The best computer science has come up with so far are very poor imitations of what the human brain does, and at the core a computer must be absolutely correct, at least with regards with its programming logic. That's why they can't deal with bugs. They can't run into a bit of code that's off by just a smidge and say "this is close enough". Computer Science relies on tricks (compared to a natural brain) to make it all work somewhat similar to what people do, but it's still so far behind it's laughable.
Yeah yeah, but what humans do and what computers do are miles apart.
A simple attempt to search Google for something should tell you that pretty quickly.
Is it? I'm hearing stories coming-out where engineers wrote e-mails warning this blowout would happen.
If they did, then either they or the people they told, or both, are personally responsible for the deaths of the 11 men who died in the accident.
BP gives everyone the authority to stop a job for safety concerns, and they make damn well sure everyone knows it. It's one of their "Eight Golden Rules", and following these rules is a condition of employment for both employees and contractors.
Either the engineers were just passing emails to each other, and nobody was speaking up, or they sent it to someone who was unconnected with the operation, or they sent it to a manager/supervisor and that person did not do his job.
Obviously if you aren't physically there, you can't go waiving your arms and tell everyone to stop, but generally the engineers are on the rig, so they actually can go waiving their arms and telling everyone to stop. There is absolutely no excuse for not stopping a job if you have a reason to believe it is unsafe. Period. This is almost certainly not a case of the engineers being ignored, but a case of the engineers not doing their duty to protect their coworkers, and 11 men died because of it.
If they stayed quiet, instead of raising hell, in spite of serious safety concerns, then the engineers are personally responsible for not preventing the accident. They are the ones who would know if the mud is insufficient, and it's their duty to stop the job if it's unsafe. If that is the case, and I really don't see how it could not be, then I'm not sure how they can live with themselves right now. Perhaps its only by blaming others for their own failures, eh?
Any suitably intelligent person already knows that failures are as much a part of learning as always being "right".
Unfortunately, that all goes out the window when you're looking for someone to blame, and doubly so when you believe you can benefit by making sure everyone knows how much you blame a certain entity.
You told me, but you didn't convince me.
Actually, had they told anybody, the job would stop. Every employee has the authority to stop a job - any job. There aren't some jobs that some people can stop and some jobs that other people can stop, anybody can stop a job for safety on a BP rig (or any BP facility). That gets pounded into your head day from day 1 - if you see something that you think is unsafe, you stop it, and everybody gets together and double-checks the plan and makes sure they haven't missed anything that would make it unsafe.
There are practical limits, of course. For example, if I'm not involved in a job and I have no idea if it's safe or not because I'm not qualified enough to know the difference, then I have no business stopping a job. I still have the authority to stop it, but I won't stop a job because I have no idea what's involved. However if I'm involved in a job and I feel unsafe, I will absolutely stop the job.
By the same token, management may be pushing to get a job done a certain way (they always want to use the low cost option), but if they aren't qualified to know what is safe and what isn't they obviously aren't going to stop the job for safety. However, if you are qualified to know if it's safe, and you think it is not safe, you MUST stop the job. If you're working on a job and you feel unsafe, you MUST stop the job.
All it took was for one person to say "This doesn't seem safe, we need to stop the job" and the job would have stopped right then and there. The fact that it didn't means either nobody said to stop the job, or there was a serious breach of BP policy.
In other words, all of this "If they had just listened to the engineers" stuff is either complete bullshit (as in, never happened), or criminal mis-management at the rig level. This is not the kind of decision that happens further up the chain. There is a very real possibility that there was a local culture to ignore safety concerns in spite of BP policy, in which case the ones responsible actually are the people on the rig. Not Tony Hayward, not the President of BP Americas, but the rig management and possibly one level above them (if only for putting such people in a position of authority).
I do think there is a real problem with BP's management culture which makes accidents more likely. They have a tendancy to move managers around from position to position, and they tend to stay at one place for no more than two years. The idea is to get a "broad understanding" of oil field operations as well as the corporate side. This means if they are ever going to get a top-level manager, they can't keep them in one place for very long. This leads to serious inconsistencies in management of a particular facility/rig. They also tie bonuses directly to how much of your budget was left over each year. This creates a perfect storm for accidents due to poor maintenance, as the easiest place to cut is the maintenance budget (safety & compliance and production always gets funded). I believe this is why BP has the worst record for environmental accidents in the industry by a huge margin. How that directly relates to this spill is going to be subtle, though. I would definitely name it as a contributing factor.
Or deliberately ignoring your own engineers saying, "This is a bad idea. The wellhead will blow out."
Nobody said that, and if they thought it they had the authority and the duty to stop the operation. I work as a contractor for BP, and they pound it into your head over and over that everyone has the authority and obligation to stop a job if they think it is unsafe. It is one of BP's eight "Golden Rules" of safety. Everyone on-site - BP employee or not - has this authority and duty, it is a condition of employment for BP and all its contractors. If there were engineers who believed the wellhead would blow out because of the course they were taking, they should be held liable for the deaths of their coworkers, because it was their job to stop it, especially if management thought the job was safe.
To be clear, blow outs happen. They are a fact of life in the oil industry, and to think you will be able to prevent them 100% of the time is idiotic. From what I've heard so far, most everything that happened on that rig was within industry standards, and while hindsight makes it clear there were some serious mistakes there, those mistakes were not at all obvious at the time.
That's why they invented Blow-Out Preventors, they are specifically designed to prevent exactly this type of catastrophe, and they are installed on every single well in the gulf (and any other off-shore rig). This is where the real problem happened. It seems that the combination of pipe and BOP were not conducive to actually sealing the leak, and this is a serious error. The cost issue is somewhat of a red herring. The three easiest ways to get funding at BP for a project are safety and compliance issues, environmental issues, and production issues, in that order. Among these, BP will try to get the most "bang for their buck" on any given project. This usually means completing the task at the lowest possible cost. That's where it bit them this time - the low cost option is normally fine, but obviously under 5,000 feet it is not acceptable. That was not known before hand (though most companies do go with the more expensive option in this case, just to be safe), and in fact the US Government signed off on everything BP, Anadarko, Haliburton, and TransOcean did every step of the way. BP did nothing without approval from regulators, which is how all oil fields operate. Everything must be in compliance, and everything at the DeepWater rig was (at least according to MMS at the time).
As always happens after a catastrophe, industry standards will be changed, and the initial blow out will be less likely. This will always be their though, and the BOP's are designed to stop that.
Well they did, until Apple decided to put it in (from the complete lack of a user outcry since the iPhone's inception, I'm sure - this is another brilliant concept from the mind of the great Steve Jobs).
Now it's the greatest thing ever, and no "modern" phone lacks it.
I don't see what Windows Mobile can do that Android can't, and Android generally makes it a lot easier to do on the phone form factor.
I'd like to say the same for Apple, but they're so closed I can't, in good conscience.
Furthermore, I don't think you understand the purpose of an operating system, particularly given this comment:
...and close to an actual OS.
Precisely. Isn't the #1 problem in "developing 3rd world countries" there being enough food to go around, not electricity?
Nope.
We already produce enough food to go around, the #1 problem in developing countries is their political system. It tends to be tyrannical, and they tend to intentionally keep their people starving.
This is why these home-grown operations are being attempted - if the people don't have to rely on their government to make the tools to increase their production, then it becomes harder to oppress them.
Just think about what we do with electricity - it was a major revolution when it came about, and we use it for everything now. For one simple example, if they can make small amounts of electricity they can separate hydrogen and oxygen from water. If they can do that, they can build fuel cells. This gives them a much more potent source of electricity, with which they can begin to power tools to build larger apparatus which will increase their local ability to produce food. You look at the US today, 100 years ago almost everyone was a farmer. Today, about 5% of people cover that job (and subsidies are keeping that number artificially high) and we produce so much food it's actually the #1 health problem.
If we can teach them to produce food at 1/10th our efficiency, their food problem is solved and it will be difficult for their government to use food as an oppressive tool (though not impossible - look at North Korea). Once the food problem is solved, the people can turn their efforts to industry, and before too long graduate to a "first world" country (first world and third world are really more political labels than anything).
There should be a Slashdot feature where if enough people flag an article, it gets relocated off the front page.
Slashdot has an even better feature: a fucking filter.
God damn you people are stupid.
Also note that most of the subsidies are in the form of the gov. paying companies for not growing corn, or anything else for that matter, specifically to keep prices up. Without the subsidies corn would be significantly cheaper, though small operations would probably not survive given the inherent efficiency of large-scale farming.
It's no problem though (though it definitely sucks for individuals in the short term), a little over 100 years ago around 90% of Americans were farmers. Today it's 5% or less, and we're better off for it.
Current methods of making corn into ethanol require more fuel than they produce. It's a "burn two gallons of gas to get 1 and a half gallons of ethanol" situation - a net-loss energy producer, which is why it's so absurd that it's mandated for energy efficiency.
It's nothing more than yet another subsidy for the agriculture industry, and corn is about the worst thing in the world to subsidize (there are other crops that could potentially made viable, but corn is profitable because of government subsidies).
Corn itself is probably one of the worst things that ever happened to the US, though it's definitely been good for the agriculture industry (not necessarily for everybody else in the mid-west), thanks to lobbying power and subsequent government subsidies.
3. Potatoes rot and thus any power system would be saddled with ridiculous limitations in terms of maintenance, portability, and time constraints.
Potatoes saturated with salt water don't rot, they pickle.
People knew about these things before refrigeration was available (i.e. the vast majority of human history).
It could just be stupidity. That's always an option.
by ozmanjusri (601766)
Apparently he's been around longer than you or I, perhaps this is one of those "pining for the old days" moments?