Actually, it isn't the best idea. You're diluting the enzymes & acids in the digestive tract, making your food harder to digest. What is a good idea, is to drink more fluids throughout the day, up to about half an hour before each meal. People can have a weak thirst response and confuse it with hunger.
To be honest, I don't think that has anything to do with it being the military per se. What it IS, is that it is an organisation (the military in this case) with a sustained strategic interest that is longer than a few years. Civilian endeavours come and go, funding is given to pet projects and withdrawn, etc. If something is earmarked by the Pentagon as being in the national interest, it gets done. It is not a success of the military, rather a failure of politics, that this is the case. Anyhow, that is all kind of tangential to my previous assertion that cost should be a factor in spending decisions only after a cost benefit analysis is done. A failure costing $200M that generates $300M in the economy is a success.
Imagine the military throwing 150 million dollars to create the transistor today, people would go ape shit crazy and call it a total waste of money, the members of Congress would try to make sure that the money was spent in their interests regardless if their locations was not ideal, due to manpower knowledge or otherwise. And in the end the transistor would be another wasted experiment to the tune of a few times the initial 150 million outlay.
At the end of the day, government spending amount is almost irrelevant if you balance both the budget and international trade. As long as you are not building up government debt, and don't have a huge trade deficit, then all the money you are spending is merely being recycled through the economy. One of the things that pisses me off about our economic system, although I don't have an easy fix for it, is that it creates a large pool of people who are either unemployed or under-employed. They still need to be fed, clothed, housed, etc. but do not work. George Carlin described the system as having been deliberately set up that way, to have people the rest of us can have pointed out to us to frighten us into working harder so that we don't fall into the same position. It seems an awful waste of talent/manpower, and we could achieve a lot more as a society if we strove to provide worthwhile work for everyone. Don't ask me how it could be done.
Well yes, obviously. I was pointing out that you can use their free products and still not leave any meaningful trace on their servers. But yes, you can always just not use their products. I was replying to what I perceived as a "I want their free stuff and I don't want them to know I'm using it" post, probably my bad.
Depends on the ISP. Peronally, I'd prefer a static address, but you usually have to pay extra to get one and I don't really need it. As for how they do it, could be based on the line, the MAC address, PPPoE/PPPoA logon, etc. If you are really paranoid, just use Tor and switch exit node every few minutes. I really don't care all that much, I'm not downloading CP or songs/movies (how fucked up is it that those are even in the same sentence?) and I don't care if google know what I like watching on youtube. If you DO care, you'll find a way to hide yourself.
Does a Jurassic swamp full of farty sauropods produce more methane than the same swamp full of uneaten rotting vegetation?
Probably not.
Actually, it all boils down to the microbial life in the biosphere, and what form it takes. All the coal beds that we mine were formed in a time when it was more efficient for microbes to eat things other than dead plant matter; hence, dead plant stuff just stacked up until it got buried. If the gut fauna in sauropods was more likely to produce methane than the microbes in the soil would consuming the same dead plant matter, then yes you get more methane that way. And it is quite likely that said microbes would be be different, since they live in different environments. Soil bacteria do not live in the anaerobic environment of a large herbivore's digestive tract.
Vegetation can grow very quickly under some circumstances; we all know the denier line that "CO2 is plant food". Which, of course, is absolutely true and wonderful, as long as you overlook the fact that it is also poison to animals adapted to current atmospheric conditions.
Not to mention, there are simply fewer square kilometers of vegetation now than there were back then due to human settlement. The idea that modern elephant population densities can be compared to ancient sauropod densities is short-sighted at best.
I've also read that there was a thicker, more CO2 laden atmospherein ancient times, before all the coal beds, oil fields and carbonate rocks locked away much of the carbon. That was mostly before the dinosaurs, but it was still somewhat different to today. With a more even surface temperature distribution across the earth, there would have been a much larger area capable of tropical type plant growth. How much plant life there was would really be dependent on rainfall patterns; I do know that there was a period of extended global drought around the time of the Permian–Triassic extinction event, but you would need to ask a geologist about how things have been since then.
Plus there is the fact that dinosaurs are believed to have nearly all been cold blooded (officially all, though again I do remember reading stuff postulating that some species may not have been).
Personally, I rather not use any of Google's products because they have time and time again shown that they cannot be trusted and they just try to violate your privacy.
Only if you let them. They provide free services that you can easily use anonymously if you really want to.
I would never use Google Docs for business as that means housing my private company data on Google. Microsoft's Office is far better for that. At least I know that Microsoft gets their money when I buy their software and has no reason to snoop on my data after that. Likewise, I would never trust Google for my private personal communication. If you don't care about your privacy, you are free to use Google. I just must say that it may come hunt you later.
Why do you single out Microsoft at being oh-so-good at providing email or document editors? I'm going to assume you mean Exchange & MS Office. Don't get me wrong, I quite like Exchange. But comparing externally hosted solutions versus your own server has nothing to do with Microsoft Vs. Google. I'd feel no safer using Hotmail than I would using Gmail.
They are in the business to sell advertising. If you do not buy advertising, then you have probably never paid a dime directly to Google. I hate to say it, but invading privacy is just part of the business. How MUCH a part of the business is definitely open for debate, however.
I presonally, would rather pay money to a company, than have them invade my privacy. Of course, I'd like to not have to pay money to them in order to have them not invade my privay –that would be a protection racket.
You can choose not to let them have your private details in any meaningful way. Don't subscribe to any of their services, delete your cookies, and hit the reset button on your router every now and then. They will have search history from you that is only attributable to your local ISP DHCP pool. They should not be able to identify you in any way, unless law enforcement get involved and force the ISP to match the IP address you had at any given time to a real world address.
How soon before we see the headline "Geothermal energy production prematurely cooling earths core"?
I don't really care to be honest. When the earth's core cools, it will primarily be because it has run out of fissile materials in densities capable of sustaining nuclear reactions. When that happens, the atmosphere being stripped away by the solar wind due to the lack of a buffering global magnetic field will be slightly more worrisome than a drop in temperature.
Second Windmills will probably alter rainfall patterns greatly, my guess is that they will cause rainfall changes ahead of the windfarm with increases and behind will get drier. This is typical of mountains.
The density at which windmills would need to be placed to provide a significant portion of the US electricity generation would not be anything like a mountain range for altering airflow. More like the effect of some trees planted across the continent a few miles apart from each other.
Third Wind Farms derive their power from a really odd source. It is primarily tidal power. As a result the effect will include increasing winds in other locations and laterations of overall atmospheric patterns some. (Not a lot but some)
Winds are not tidal. They are convection currents normalising air pressure between areas of the earths surface that are not equally heated by the sun, due to local differences such as reflectivity, heat absorbtion capability of the surface, cloud cover, angle of surface to sunshine, etc.
You have some slightly dodgy math there. At 0.46MW production, your turbine provides 0.46*24*365MWh per year, or 4029.6MWh. To produce 4000000000MWh you need 992655 of them, not 1365000. Even if your 37% extra were needed, you'd still be talking about 1 turbine per 7 square kilometres, or 1 per 230 population. Not exactly an impossible task. Besides, nobody is going to advocate relying completely on something as unpredictable as wind power. There will always be a need for reliable base load production. This can be provided by nuclear, geothermal, and even solar if you are using molten salt generators. Bio-fuels have their place too; I wouldn't suggest that arable land should be diverted to energy production, but there are agricultural by-products that can be used for old fashioned combustion power generation, like corn husks, methane from slurry, etc. Dismissing wind power as PR is silly though. People have been using wind power for centuries, and efficiencies are getting better.
I'm having a little difficulty with the idea that cooperation required same-handedness to the degree that it largely influenced evolution in pre-literate societies. Tool use is cited; I have never seen an axe, hammer, knife or shovel that was not largely symetric in design.
The sports bit is interesting, but probably a red herring. Cooperative sports like football etc. were not played by professionals hundreds of years ago, and they didn't have every detail of the game worked out and practised beforehand. They just kicked the ball about. On the flip side, sports like boxing are cited as examples where being left-handed provides an advantage. I am going to assume the same would be true for a real blood and gore, swinging swords and spilling guts fight a thousand years ago. We know warfare has shaped genetic makeup; it is estimated that about 0.5% of all men in the world are direct patrilineal descendents of Genghis Khan. If left-handedness provides obvious advantages in something that has been an important evolutionary pressure for at least the past 100 generations, why then is it not more widespread?
I think we could be back to correlation vs causation here. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I've read in the past that the left and right hemispheres of the brain are slightly different, and that whichever of them is dominant decides the handedness of the person (left hemisphere for right handed & vice versa). I would guess then, from my position of having no education whatsoever in psychology or biology, that the primary evolutionary pressures deciding for or against lefthandedness are mental in nature, and that things like possibly being better at boxing are merely a side effect.
Nuns are the spawn of satan. As an ex-catholic atheist, I have to say that I have never really had a problem with priests I have met, except for the obvious arguments a teenager migh have when confronted with a teacher who was obviously spouting pure garbage. However, I have met nuns who I am convinced were evil. Particularly the one who terrified me as a 4 year old who had just started school and bullied me into eating foul concoctions the school had deemed "nourishing", and the evil bitch from hell who used to cane me when I was 7 and went to music lessons.
I noticed they had to shoehorn in the "It's just like Wikileaks, only with parchment and quills — probably." to at least vaguely attempt to make it have a point on the site.
Said attempt failed horrendously.
Stupendously incorrect too. The vatican has been collecting tribute from its vassel peoples for almost two millenia. It is incredibly wealthy, and I'm sure that when it feels like bringing the wratch of its dubious god into full force, it will have technology slightly more sophisticated than goose feathers and dried sheeps arses at its disposal.
Not just jail time. Make them pay for the cost. All of it. Re-run the election in constituencies where this happened, and make the culprits pay the cost. And time & travel expenses for those who spent time driving about to the wrong places. $60 an hour and $0.50 per mile sounds fair to me.
Solving the problem of climate change is really an economic growth opportunity. Really. Re-read. Don't dismiss. Think. We have a huge R&D investment opportunity, and new high-tech industries and products... and guess what... Europe and Asia may take it all.
Economic growth is utter bullshit. Economists and politicians keep feeding us this rubbish about how much better off we are now than in the past, and how much better it can get. Sure, we have it better than people before the 60s. People in the 60s and 70s had it better than we do now, barring some minor quality of life improvements from better technology. But we have longer working hours, in families where 2 instead of 1 parent works full time. We have a degrading environment. We have inflation and massive public debt that, when you trace it back, is owed to people who rape the economy and pay our politicians to allow them to continue doing so. We have a world full of people who think CYA instead of thinking about getting shit done. Screw economic growth. I'd be much happier in a world without rip-off merchants, where people work for a decent living, and government spending was about the kind of cool shit they did before I was born, like going to the moon. Not wars designed to further line the pockets of already obscenely wealthy people, boosting population wide "economic growth" while having no effect on 99% of us barring a few extra coffins being shipped home.
'Proper people' would use French-descended terms brought into English. Essentially it was a form of 'class war' in which the elites may have adopted English but they rendered older English vocabulary of the lower classes into something unacceptable.
And of course, a lot of the time those "proper" words are in fact themselves slang imported from other languages. Eg. penis. This is a latin word meaning tail. What makes it any more acceptable than saying bollocks is a mystery to me.
He was not trolling. He is however guilt of feeding a troll. Correlating freedom and religion is a massive troll, particularly humourous when you consider that most of religion is about is telling you what you can and can't do.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it isn't the best idea. You're diluting the enzymes & acids in the digestive tract, making your food harder to digest. What is a good idea, is to drink more fluids throughout the day, up to about half an hour before each meal. People can have a weak thirst response and confuse it with hunger.
To be honest, I don't think that has anything to do with it being the military per se. What it IS, is that it is an organisation (the military in this case) with a sustained strategic interest that is longer than a few years. Civilian endeavours come and go, funding is given to pet projects and withdrawn, etc. If something is earmarked by the Pentagon as being in the national interest, it gets done. It is not a success of the military, rather a failure of politics, that this is the case. Anyhow, that is all kind of tangential to my previous assertion that cost should be a factor in spending decisions only after a cost benefit analysis is done. A failure costing $200M that generates $300M in the economy is a success.
Imagine the military throwing 150 million dollars to create the transistor today, people would go ape shit crazy and call it a total waste of money, the members of Congress would try to make sure that the money was spent in their interests regardless if their locations was not ideal, due to manpower knowledge or otherwise. And in the end the transistor would be another wasted experiment to the tune of a few times the initial 150 million outlay.
At the end of the day, government spending amount is almost irrelevant if you balance both the budget and international trade. As long as you are not building up government debt, and don't have a huge trade deficit, then all the money you are spending is merely being recycled through the economy. One of the things that pisses me off about our economic system, although I don't have an easy fix for it, is that it creates a large pool of people who are either unemployed or under-employed. They still need to be fed, clothed, housed, etc. but do not work. George Carlin described the system as having been deliberately set up that way, to have people the rest of us can have pointed out to us to frighten us into working harder so that we don't fall into the same position. It seems an awful waste of talent/manpower, and we could achieve a lot more as a society if we strove to provide worthwhile work for everyone.
Don't ask me how it could be done.
Well yes, obviously. I was pointing out that you can use their free products and still not leave any meaningful trace on their servers. But yes, you can always just not use their products. I was replying to what I perceived as a "I want their free stuff and I don't want them to know I'm using it" post, probably my bad.
Depends on the ISP. Peronally, I'd prefer a static address, but you usually have to pay extra to get one and I don't really need it. As for how they do it, could be based on the line, the MAC address, PPPoE/PPPoA logon, etc. If you are really paranoid, just use Tor and switch exit node every few minutes. I really don't care all that much, I'm not downloading CP or songs/movies (how fucked up is it that those are even in the same sentence?) and I don't care if google know what I like watching on youtube. If you DO care, you'll find a way to hide yourself.
Does a Jurassic swamp full of farty sauropods produce more methane than the same swamp full of uneaten rotting vegetation?
Probably not.
Actually, it all boils down to the microbial life in the biosphere, and what form it takes. All the coal beds that we mine were formed in a time when it was more efficient for microbes to eat things other than dead plant matter; hence, dead plant stuff just stacked up until it got buried. If the gut fauna in sauropods was more likely to produce methane than the microbes in the soil would consuming the same dead plant matter, then yes you get more methane that way. And it is quite likely that said microbes would be be different, since they live in different environments. Soil bacteria do not live in the anaerobic environment of a large herbivore's digestive tract.
Vegetation can grow very quickly under some circumstances; we all know the denier line that "CO2 is plant food". Which, of course, is absolutely true and wonderful, as long as you overlook the fact that it is also poison to animals adapted to current atmospheric conditions.
Not to mention, there are simply fewer square kilometers of vegetation now than there were back then due to human settlement. The idea that modern elephant population densities can be compared to ancient sauropod densities is short-sighted at best.
I've also read that there was a thicker, more CO2 laden atmospherein ancient times, before all the coal beds, oil fields and carbonate rocks locked away much of the carbon. That was mostly before the dinosaurs, but it was still somewhat different to today. With a more even surface temperature distribution across the earth, there would have been a much larger area capable of tropical type plant growth. How much plant life there was would really be dependent on rainfall patterns; I do know that there was a period of extended global drought around the time of the Permian–Triassic extinction event, but you would need to ask a geologist about how things have been since then.
Plus there is the fact that dinosaurs are believed to have nearly all been cold blooded (officially all, though again I do remember reading stuff postulating that some species may not have been).
So how far in debt is he?
Personally, I rather not use any of Google's products because they have time and time again shown that they cannot be trusted and they just try to violate your privacy.
Only if you let them. They provide free services that you can easily use anonymously if you really want to.
I would never use Google Docs for business as that means housing my private company data on Google. Microsoft's Office is far better for that. At least I know that Microsoft gets their money when I buy their software and has no reason to snoop on my data after that. Likewise, I would never trust Google for my private personal communication. If you don't care about your privacy, you are free to use Google. I just must say that it may come hunt you later.
Why do you single out Microsoft at being oh-so-good at providing email or document editors? I'm going to assume you mean Exchange & MS Office. Don't get me wrong, I quite like Exchange. But comparing externally hosted solutions versus your own server has nothing to do with Microsoft Vs. Google. I'd feel no safer using Hotmail than I would using Gmail.
They are in the business to sell advertising. If you do not buy advertising, then you have probably never paid a dime directly to Google. I hate to say it, but invading privacy is just part of the business. How MUCH a part of the business is definitely open for debate, however.
I presonally, would rather pay money to a company, than have them invade my privacy. Of course, I'd like to not have to pay money to them in order to have them not invade my privay –that would be a protection racket.
You can choose not to let them have your private details in any meaningful way. Don't subscribe to any of their services, delete your cookies, and hit the reset button on your router every now and then. They will have search history from you that is only attributable to your local ISP DHCP pool. They should not be able to identify you in any way, unless law enforcement get involved and force the ISP to match the IP address you had at any given time to a real world address.
Did he write it? It looks like a transcript from an interview that he gave.
How soon before we see the headline "Geothermal energy production prematurely cooling earths core"?
I don't really care to be honest. When the earth's core cools, it will primarily be because it has run out of fissile materials in densities capable of sustaining nuclear reactions. When that happens, the atmosphere being stripped away by the solar wind due to the lack of a buffering global magnetic field will be slightly more worrisome than a drop in temperature.
Second Windmills will probably alter rainfall patterns greatly, my guess is that they will cause rainfall changes ahead of the windfarm with increases and behind will get drier. This is typical of mountains.
The density at which windmills would need to be placed to provide a significant portion of the US electricity generation would not be anything like a mountain range for altering airflow. More like the effect of some trees planted across the continent a few miles apart from each other.
Third Wind Farms derive their power from a really odd source. It is primarily tidal power. As a result the effect will include increasing winds in other locations and laterations of overall atmospheric patterns some. (Not a lot but some)
Winds are not tidal. They are convection currents normalising air pressure between areas of the earths surface that are not equally heated by the sun, due to local differences such as reflectivity, heat absorbtion capability of the surface, cloud cover, angle of surface to sunshine, etc.
You have some slightly dodgy math there. At 0.46MW production, your turbine provides 0.46*24*365MWh per year, or 4029.6MWh. To produce 4000000000MWh you need 992655 of them, not 1365000. Even if your 37% extra were needed, you'd still be talking about 1 turbine per 7 square kilometres, or 1 per 230 population. Not exactly an impossible task. Besides, nobody is going to advocate relying completely on something as unpredictable as wind power. There will always be a need for reliable base load production. This can be provided by nuclear, geothermal, and even solar if you are using molten salt generators. Bio-fuels have their place too; I wouldn't suggest that arable land should be diverted to energy production, but there are agricultural by-products that can be used for old fashioned combustion power generation, like corn husks, methane from slurry, etc. Dismissing wind power as PR is silly though. People have been using wind power for centuries, and efficiencies are getting better.
I'm having a little difficulty with the idea that cooperation required same-handedness to the degree that it largely influenced evolution in pre-literate societies. Tool use is cited; I have never seen an axe, hammer, knife or shovel that was not largely symetric in design.
The sports bit is interesting, but probably a red herring. Cooperative sports like football etc. were not played by professionals hundreds of years ago, and they didn't have every detail of the game worked out and practised beforehand. They just kicked the ball about. On the flip side, sports like boxing are cited as examples where being left-handed provides an advantage. I am going to assume the same would be true for a real blood and gore, swinging swords and spilling guts fight a thousand years ago. We know warfare has shaped genetic makeup; it is estimated that about 0.5% of all men in the world are direct patrilineal descendents of Genghis Khan. If left-handedness provides obvious advantages in something that has been an important evolutionary pressure for at least the past 100 generations, why then is it not more widespread?
I think we could be back to correlation vs causation here. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I've read in the past that the left and right hemispheres of the brain are slightly different, and that whichever of them is dominant decides the handedness of the person (left hemisphere for right handed & vice versa). I would guess then, from my position of having no education whatsoever in psychology or biology, that the primary evolutionary pressures deciding for or against lefthandedness are mental in nature, and that things like possibly being better at boxing are merely a side effect.
Nuns are the spawn of satan. As an ex-catholic atheist, I have to say that I have never really had a problem with priests I have met, except for the obvious arguments a teenager migh have when confronted with a teacher who was obviously spouting pure garbage. However, I have met nuns who I am convinced were evil. Particularly the one who terrified me as a 4 year old who had just started school and bullied me into eating foul concoctions the school had deemed "nourishing", and the evil bitch from hell who used to cane me when I was 7 and went to music lessons.
What could be more exciting as that!
Tea and cucumber sandwiches?
I noticed they had to shoehorn in the "It's just like Wikileaks, only with parchment and quills — probably." to at least vaguely attempt to make it have a point on the site.
Said attempt failed horrendously.
Stupendously incorrect too. The vatican has been collecting tribute from its vassel peoples for almost two millenia. It is incredibly wealthy, and I'm sure that when it feels like bringing the wratch of its dubious god into full force, it will have technology slightly more sophisticated than goose feathers and dried sheeps arses at its disposal.
dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda sounds like a lot less effort.
Human penetration tester? Sounds interesting...
Not just jail time. Make them pay for the cost. All of it. Re-run the election in constituencies where this happened, and make the culprits pay the cost. And time & travel expenses for those who spent time driving about to the wrong places. $60 an hour and $0.50 per mile sounds fair to me.
Solving the problem of climate change is really an economic growth opportunity. Really. Re-read. Don't dismiss. Think. We have a huge R&D investment opportunity, and new high-tech industries and products... and guess what... Europe and Asia may take it all.
Economic growth is utter bullshit. Economists and politicians keep feeding us this rubbish about how much better off we are now than in the past, and how much better it can get. Sure, we have it better than people before the 60s. People in the 60s and 70s had it better than we do now, barring some minor quality of life improvements from better technology. But we have longer working hours, in families where 2 instead of 1 parent works full time. We have a degrading environment. We have inflation and massive public debt that, when you trace it back, is owed to people who rape the economy and pay our politicians to allow them to continue doing so. We have a world full of people who think CYA instead of thinking about getting shit done. Screw economic growth. I'd be much happier in a world without rip-off merchants, where people work for a decent living, and government spending was about the kind of cool shit they did before I was born, like going to the moon. Not wars designed to further line the pockets of already obscenely wealthy people, boosting population wide "economic growth" while having no effect on 99% of us barring a few extra coffins being shipped home.
'Proper people' would use French-descended terms brought into English. Essentially it was a form of 'class war' in which the elites may have adopted English but they rendered older English vocabulary of the lower classes into something unacceptable.
And of course, a lot of the time those "proper" words are in fact themselves slang imported from other languages. Eg. penis. This is a latin word meaning tail. What makes it any more acceptable than saying bollocks is a mystery to me.
He was not trolling. He is however guilt of feeding a troll. Correlating freedom and religion is a massive troll, particularly humourous when you consider that most of religion is about is telling you what you can and can't do.