I believe that would be the FDA and the AMA as, to the best of my knowledge, they have yet to authorize a drug or technique that makes knocking someone out 100% safe. Reactions to anesthetics (the way doctors knock people out for surgery) are one of the most well known ways that people die during, even mundane, surgery. Even when the surgery works, there is an anesthesiologist there the whole time monitoring the patient's condition. This is the real world, not fantasy. Just because the rest of the A-Team gave BA a shot every time they needed to take a flight doesn't mean it's a realistic technique that could be done to every airplane passenger.
This kind of question comes up every time wind turbine farms or ocean thermal electric power generation is discussed. Every answer I've ever seen compares the amount of energy available in the system vs. the total human usage at present and the foreseeable future. The result is that any amount of energy either of those technologies is going to harvest is going to be an infinitesimally small percentage of the amount present, even if we convert 100% over to one of them. Sure, in a couple 100 years we may have to revisit the issue, assuming power consumption keeps growing at the present rate, but we'll have to do that no-matter what form of energy we use.
First of all, as others have pointed out, "hideous" is very subjective and many people, actually, like the way they look (especially in the desolate places that are being targeted for much of these facilities). Acreage means nothing. One of the nice things about wind turbines is that the actual footprint of the turbine is tiny. This means that almost all the land under turbine can be used for other things like park land or farming. There are already places where farmers are being payed rent in order to put turbines in their field. This provides the farmers with extra income while still allowing them to farm, virtually, all the land as usual.
Yes, nuclear isn't a bad idea but that's no reason to crap on other forms. Nuclear isn't perfect. There are still issues of what to do with the waste. Even if you use breeder reactors, nuclear batteries, and RTGs you still will have a significant amount of radioactive material left over that need to be, safely disposed of. Wind turbines don't have that problem. Furthermore, I fail to see anything in this story related to nuclear so why did you bring it up again?
He, if the K stands for thousands then the number is a unit-less quantity, thus making your snarky comment unintelligible. So, where did you go to school?:-p
Well, most of the normal bulbs on the market either have poor color spectrum or have poor efficiency.
Quote: "and bulbs for which you don't have to wait five minutes to reach full brightness"
One of the following is going on here:
* You haven't looked at a CF bulb since they first came out.
* You are abnormally sensitive to the last few % of brightness
* You keep your home at arctic temperatures
* You buy the, absolute, cheapest CF bulbs possible.
Modern CF bulbs still have a little bit of a warm up but it's, almost, not worth mentioning as long as the room is average temperature and they are decent quality bulbs. They are, certainly, not five minutes.
I could be wrong, but I think the issue with CRT TVs/Screens is that many of them, rather than shutting off completely when turned off, have a standby mode that they go into when not being watched. While most electronics devices have standby modes that use, almost, no power, CRTs often have to keep the tube hot so that the image appears instantly when turned on. This means that their standby mode consumes large amounts of power. Assuming that, like most people, your TV is off for a much larger percentage of the day than on (while you're at work, school, sleeping, etc.) then it would end up using much more power than your 42" LCD. Of course, this is only what I've heard and might not be correct.
I used "rich" (parentheses intentional) to draw a comparison between you and the people that actually need the right to ride their bikes on the road. I wasn't trying to compare you to the country as a whole as, obviously, I don't really know your economic condition.
Quote: "I have yet to meet someone in the united states who worked and couldn't afford a car."
Then you either live in the suburbs where this shouldn't be much of an issue, as biking from place to place isn't as realistic when things are further apart, or you've lived a, relatively, sheltered life. I live in Chicago and know lots of 20-something friends who have no car and can't afford to buy one. They all work for a living and pay their bills. This is on the, somewhat more affluent, North Side of the city. Conditions on the South Side are much worse. The same, probably, holds true for any major urban center in this country. While the cost of living is higher (no, my friends aren't going out of their way to spend lots of money on thing like "organic food") there are also many more job opportunities.
As for the $200 bike, now you're beginning to make me wonder whether you might really wealthy. Even new bikes can be had for a fraction of that price. Used bikes can be had for even less and can sometimes be gotten for free from people looking to clear out their basement/garage.
The $800 car is just as big a myth. Sure you can buy a car for $800 but, as rhsandborn pointed out, that doesn't take into account registration fees, insurance, maintenance, and fuel. Maintenance is one of the big ones there as any car that can be had $800 is likely to be a junker that needs for more frequent repairs than a newer car. Poor people don't just, magically, become master mechanics capable of keeping a junker in working order without paying large amounts for part/labor and they usually, don't even have a place to do the work even if they could). Also, people that work in lower paying jobs often have employers that are much less forgiving of their employees being late because their car keeps breaking down.
Quote: "Yea its good exercise so are treadmills, but I don't make a bunch of people late for work because I use a treadmill."
Face it, you (and those other people) aren't late to work because of the bikers, you're late to work because you didn't leave early enough. I'm late to work on occasion too, but I take responsibility for it. The fact that you're here making long, drawn out, arguments about the issue tells us that you were just "surprised" to find out that there are bicycle rider on the road. If you refuse to take them into account when you plan your commute then that would be an example of you spiting yourself because of your irrational hatred of bike riders.
Quote: "You could walk and save the $200. Then you don't have to worry about gravel or bumps in the road as much either."
That has to be one of the most condescending things I've seen you write. As I suggested, apparently you don't think anyone that makes less than you should be able to look for employment any further than walking distance from their home. Especially in this job market, you have to take what jobs come your way and that isn't guaranteed to be close to home. Bikes give people who were already at the bottom of the ladder (and closest to starving) a much better chance at improving their place in life. There are places on the South Side of Chicago that are, virtual, employment dead zones. Without some way to travel further than walking distance, the people there have close to zero hope of getting ANY job much less one that will pay their bills.
Oh, and btw, I have a car and drive to work. In fact, in the ~4 years I've lived here I haven't gotten around to buying a bike yet. I just hate to see people pissing on others just because they're lower on the income ladder and they can't imagine the idea that there are people in this world that can't afford things like cars.
Actually, this is addressed by someone in another thread as well. He/she pointed out that, unlike most urban bike lanes, car lanes are usually designed so that any parallel parking spots are far enough to the side that the car door can be opened without sticking out into traffic.
Also, the responsibility of the person driving the moving car isn't absolute (of course this, probably, varies state-by-state). Remember, by opening the door, the person in the parked car is moving too and is responsible for that action. A car door can be opened so fast that it is, literally, impossible for even the most conservative/observant driver to respond in time to avoid hitting it. Most state laws are written to be able to take that into account. Of course, even in those states, much of that kind of stuff is defendant on the attitude/personal opinions of the officer that shows up to deal with the accident. Here in Illinois, I had an officer explain to me that the law doesn't protect you from responsibility if you put part if your car in the way of oncoming traffic, assuming that the traffic has right of way.
Most of those tests aren't as impressive as they sound.
The Beer/Mud tests are, effectively, the same thing. The phone's waterproofing gaskets will either hold the moisture out or they won't, much like a water proof watch. This gets even easier to accomplish if they installed an iPhone style "permanent" battery, eliminated the headset jack in favor of Bluetooth, and installed an inductive charging system like a cordless toothbrush.
The test where it's being run over by a Land Rover is easier than it sounds because the flexibility of the tires serves to spread out the weight of the vehicle. As long as they don't over-inflate the tires or use ultra-high efficiency/low rolling resistance tires then the actual PSI on the phone should be relatively low. Coincidental, they featured a stunt just like this last night on that Billy Mays show "Pitchmen". In the show they were trying to sell a gel pad designed to absorb force so they ran over one of the salesmen's hands with an SUV. As for the elephant, I don't know enough about the forces at the bottom of an elephant's foot but it might be the same issue. Another thing to consider is how soft the surface was under the tire or the elephants foot. If either was done on earth instead of pavement/concrete then that will play a factor too.
Inversely, the above explanation serves to explain why the phone, finally, broke under the forklift. The tires on most forklifts I've ever seen tend to be made of a very hard rubber-like material (possibly just pure natural rubber). I'm sure that this manages to eliminate the need to replace tires over the life of the forklift and forklifts don't need the shock absorbing effects of a pneumatic tire since they move so slow and are only designed to be used over very flat surfaces. The hard tires transmit a much higher percentage of the forklift's weight to a much smaller patch of ground and the 3 ton forklift is, probably, as heavy or heavier than the Land Rover.
As for being dropped from a second story window, I would want to know what kind of surface it was dropped on. It would be much more impressive if it were dropped onto concrete. It would be less impressive if it were dropped onto thick grass and much less impressive if it were dropped onto a mattress (I doubt that one but, as it wasn't mentioned, I wouldn't put it past some marketing agencies).
As for the oven test, I would want to know how long it was left in. 150C is a pretty high temperature but people have been walking over 1000+ degree Fahrenheit coals for a long time and I've seen Shaolin monks lick red hot pokers. The trick is how long your body part is in contact with the hot stuff. In both cases, you move your foot/tough away from the contact immediately and don't give enough time for most of the heat to transfer. In the case of licking the red hot poker, they also have a thick layer of spit on their tough that absorbs much of the heat and evaporates away protecting the tongue.
Maybe they put an oversize battery in it and got rid of any features other than basic phone service. Even so, I, also, find that number to be hard to believe even if it just assumes 62.5 days in sleep mode.
Well, she may have to fight it out with Russel Crow to see who gets it first. I'm sure he goes through lots of phones when he bounces them off other peoples' heads.
Mainstream medicine doctors, specifically, are often not aware of all the most recent research in medicine. It's almost impossible for someone trying to practice basic medicine on a daily basis to stay up-to-date on the massive number of findings coming in from researchers all the time.
One of the reasons they might not ride in the designated bike lanes is, as mentioned in another thread, that those lanes are, often, drawn right up against parallel parking spots. Often enough, car drivers will open their doors oblivious to whether or not a bike is passing them. People have been killed going head first off their bikes when some prick in a parallel parked car close-lined them by opening their door a split second before they passed by.
Bikes don't pay road use tax because they produce no measurable damage to the roads they drive on. The amount of wear and tear a vehicle causes on the road goes up exponentially based on the weight of the vehicle. Consequently, the amount of fuel a vehicle consumes tends to go up the same way. That is why the gas tax has been such a good way to pay for the roads up until now (with the development of electric vehicles). Also, they are, specifically, not required to keep up with the flow of traffic because the law respects, whether you like it or not, the fact that they can't go that fast. Some people aren't "rich" like you and can't afford a car. The poor need to have a way to get around and public trans. doesn't always fit the bill (and it may be cheaper, but it isn't free). Apparently, you think that people that don't make as much money as you shouldn't have that whole "freedom of mobility" thing? We, as a society, don't make exceptions for bike riding just because it's good exercise/good for the environment.
Driving 25 in a 55 will earn you a ticket because it's possible for you to, easily, speed up. Bikes don't have the same ability (unless Lance Armstrong is pushing the pedals). That's why it's legal for them to ride on the same road at 25mph. Sure, it's annoying but we have to share the road with everyone which is why the laws are written to accommodate the lowest common denominator. You could argue that the bike rider should be riding on side roads with lower speed limits, but there are lots of parts of every state where there is no way to get from point A to point B without going on a 55mph road. The point here is that, whether you like it or not, society has decided that what they're doing is legal and the right way to do it. The only one in the wrong here are the drivers that get abusive/aggressive because they're impatient.
On the other hand, I agree 100% with you when it comes to bike riders that ignore the traffic rules. Some of them are a menace.
Hehe, actually I went to RIT. Also, I was more referring more to the Buffalo area where this data center is being built. In my experience, Rochester's location directly south of the lake gives it a little cover from the worst of the lake effect snow. In my time there, I can remember the NY State Thruway authority shutting down the thruway west of Rochester on a, reasonably, regular basis while east of Rochester tended to stay open much more.
A true geek would know that anything like BMR (such as BMI) is based on a statistically calculated average value. In this case, the BMR is based on the 3500 kcal value which is calculated based on what experimental results show to be the metabolism of the average person. The problem is that not everyone is even close to that average value. There will always be people that stray towards the extremes of humanly possible values. People with hypoglycemia can eat like crazy and never gain weight. People that make it to being among the world's fattest people, most likely, have the other extreme for a metabolism (it's one thing to get fat, but most normal people would have a hard time reaching 1000 lbs even if they tried). As I alluded to above, this is similar to how many muscular people have horrible BMI values even though they have minuscule percentages of body fat. They break the scale because it's designed to assume that the person has "average" musculature. Specifically, the military is known to make exceptions for this, specific, problem when muscle-bound applicants fail the BMI requirements for entry into the service.
Also, the feeling of "starving" may have more to do with the quantity of food he's conditioned his body to expect rather than any feeling of stress.
Feel free to get behind the OP in the line to turn in your geek card...
Hrm, you seem to have missed something in the wikipedia article you linked to:
Quote: "Practitioners of alternative medicine claim that Candida overgrowth can cause various health problems, from fatigue to weight gain, but this is rejected by most doctors and there is no evidence to support the theory.[5][6]"
There is another, more detailed, explanation further down in the article that re-enforces the same point.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe that would be the FDA and the AMA as, to the best of my knowledge, they have yet to authorize a drug or technique that makes knocking someone out 100% safe. Reactions to anesthetics (the way doctors knock people out for surgery) are one of the most well known ways that people die during, even mundane, surgery. Even when the surgery works, there is an anesthesiologist there the whole time monitoring the patient's condition. This is the real world, not fantasy. Just because the rest of the A-Team gave BA a shot every time they needed to take a flight doesn't mean it's a realistic technique that could be done to every airplane passenger.
This kind of question comes up every time wind turbine farms or ocean thermal electric power generation is discussed. Every answer I've ever seen compares the amount of energy available in the system vs. the total human usage at present and the foreseeable future. The result is that any amount of energy either of those technologies is going to harvest is going to be an infinitesimally small percentage of the amount present, even if we convert 100% over to one of them. Sure, in a couple 100 years we may have to revisit the issue, assuming power consumption keeps growing at the present rate, but we'll have to do that no-matter what form of energy we use.
Yea, the full list should read:
Ballot, Soap, Jury, Ammo, Soap on a Rope
First of all, as others have pointed out, "hideous" is very subjective and many people, actually, like the way they look (especially in the desolate places that are being targeted for much of these facilities). Acreage means nothing. One of the nice things about wind turbines is that the actual footprint of the turbine is tiny. This means that almost all the land under turbine can be used for other things like park land or farming. There are already places where farmers are being payed rent in order to put turbines in their field. This provides the farmers with extra income while still allowing them to farm, virtually, all the land as usual.
Yes, nuclear isn't a bad idea but that's no reason to crap on other forms. Nuclear isn't perfect. There are still issues of what to do with the waste. Even if you use breeder reactors, nuclear batteries, and RTGs you still will have a significant amount of radioactive material left over that need to be, safely disposed of. Wind turbines don't have that problem. Furthermore, I fail to see anything in this story related to nuclear so why did you bring it up again?
He, if the K stands for thousands then the number is a unit-less quantity, thus making your snarky comment unintelligible. So, where did you go to school? :-p
Netcraft has confirmed: Internet Explorer is dying.
Well, most of the normal bulbs on the market either have poor color spectrum or have poor efficiency.
Quote:
"and bulbs for which you don't have to wait five minutes to reach full brightness"
One of the following is going on here:
* You haven't looked at a CF bulb since they first came out.
* You are abnormally sensitive to the last few % of brightness
* You keep your home at arctic temperatures
* You buy the, absolute, cheapest CF bulbs possible.
Modern CF bulbs still have a little bit of a warm up but it's, almost, not worth mentioning as long as the room is average temperature and they are decent quality bulbs. They are, certainly, not five minutes.
I could be wrong, but I think the issue with CRT TVs/Screens is that many of them, rather than shutting off completely when turned off, have a standby mode that they go into when not being watched. While most electronics devices have standby modes that use, almost, no power, CRTs often have to keep the tube hot so that the image appears instantly when turned on. This means that their standby mode consumes large amounts of power. Assuming that, like most people, your TV is off for a much larger percentage of the day than on (while you're at work, school, sleeping, etc.) then it would end up using much more power than your 42" LCD. Of course, this is only what I've heard and might not be correct.
He, while that may be fast for a fork truck, I think the Land Rover can, probably, double it's speed easily.
I used "rich" (parentheses intentional) to draw a comparison between you and the people that actually need the right to ride their bikes on the road. I wasn't trying to compare you to the country as a whole as, obviously, I don't really know your economic condition.
Quote:
"I have yet to meet someone in the united states who worked and couldn't afford a car."
Then you either live in the suburbs where this shouldn't be much of an issue, as biking from place to place isn't as realistic when things are further apart, or you've lived a, relatively, sheltered life. I live in Chicago and know lots of 20-something friends who have no car and can't afford to buy one. They all work for a living and pay their bills. This is on the, somewhat more affluent, North Side of the city. Conditions on the South Side are much worse. The same, probably, holds true for any major urban center in this country. While the cost of living is higher (no, my friends aren't going out of their way to spend lots of money on thing like "organic food") there are also many more job opportunities.
As for the $200 bike, now you're beginning to make me wonder whether you might really wealthy. Even new bikes can be had for a fraction of that price. Used bikes can be had for even less and can sometimes be gotten for free from people looking to clear out their basement/garage.
The $800 car is just as big a myth. Sure you can buy a car for $800 but, as rhsandborn pointed out, that doesn't take into account registration fees, insurance, maintenance, and fuel. Maintenance is one of the big ones there as any car that can be had $800 is likely to be a junker that needs for more frequent repairs than a newer car. Poor people don't just, magically, become master mechanics capable of keeping a junker in working order without paying large amounts for part/labor and they usually, don't even have a place to do the work even if they could). Also, people that work in lower paying jobs often have employers that are much less forgiving of their employees being late because their car keeps breaking down.
Quote:
"Yea its good exercise so are treadmills, but I don't make a bunch of people late for work because I use a treadmill."
Face it, you (and those other people) aren't late to work because of the bikers, you're late to work because you didn't leave early enough. I'm late to work on occasion too, but I take responsibility for it. The fact that you're here making long, drawn out, arguments about the issue tells us that you were just "surprised" to find out that there are bicycle rider on the road. If you refuse to take them into account when you plan your commute then that would be an example of you spiting yourself because of your irrational hatred of bike riders.
Quote:
"You could walk and save the $200. Then you don't have to worry about gravel or bumps in the road as much either."
That has to be one of the most condescending things I've seen you write. As I suggested, apparently you don't think anyone that makes less than you should be able to look for employment any further than walking distance from their home. Especially in this job market, you have to take what jobs come your way and that isn't guaranteed to be close to home. Bikes give people who were already at the bottom of the ladder (and closest to starving) a much better chance at improving their place in life. There are places on the South Side of Chicago that are, virtual, employment dead zones. Without some way to travel further than walking distance, the people there have close to zero hope of getting ANY job much less one that will pay their bills.
Oh, and btw, I have a car and drive to work. In fact, in the ~4 years I've lived here I haven't gotten around to buying a bike yet. I just hate to see people pissing on others just because they're lower on the income ladder and they can't imagine the idea that there are people in this world that can't afford things like cars.
Actually, this is addressed by someone in another thread as well. He/she pointed out that, unlike most urban bike lanes, car lanes are usually designed so that any parallel parking spots are far enough to the side that the car door can be opened without sticking out into traffic.
Also, the responsibility of the person driving the moving car isn't absolute (of course this, probably, varies state-by-state). Remember, by opening the door, the person in the parked car is moving too and is responsible for that action. A car door can be opened so fast that it is, literally, impossible for even the most conservative/observant driver to respond in time to avoid hitting it. Most state laws are written to be able to take that into account. Of course, even in those states, much of that kind of stuff is defendant on the attitude/personal opinions of the officer that shows up to deal with the accident. Here in Illinois, I had an officer explain to me that the law doesn't protect you from responsibility if you put part if your car in the way of oncoming traffic, assuming that the traffic has right of way.
Most of those tests aren't as impressive as they sound.
The Beer/Mud tests are, effectively, the same thing. The phone's waterproofing gaskets will either hold the moisture out or they won't, much like a water proof watch. This gets even easier to accomplish if they installed an iPhone style "permanent" battery, eliminated the headset jack in favor of Bluetooth, and installed an inductive charging system like a cordless toothbrush.
The test where it's being run over by a Land Rover is easier than it sounds because the flexibility of the tires serves to spread out the weight of the vehicle. As long as they don't over-inflate the tires or use ultra-high efficiency/low rolling resistance tires then the actual PSI on the phone should be relatively low. Coincidental, they featured a stunt just like this last night on that Billy Mays show "Pitchmen". In the show they were trying to sell a gel pad designed to absorb force so they ran over one of the salesmen's hands with an SUV. As for the elephant, I don't know enough about the forces at the bottom of an elephant's foot but it might be the same issue. Another thing to consider is how soft the surface was under the tire or the elephants foot. If either was done on earth instead of pavement/concrete then that will play a factor too.
Inversely, the above explanation serves to explain why the phone, finally, broke under the forklift. The tires on most forklifts I've ever seen tend to be made of a very hard rubber-like material (possibly just pure natural rubber). I'm sure that this manages to eliminate the need to replace tires over the life of the forklift and forklifts don't need the shock absorbing effects of a pneumatic tire since they move so slow and are only designed to be used over very flat surfaces. The hard tires transmit a much higher percentage of the forklift's weight to a much smaller patch of ground and the 3 ton forklift is, probably, as heavy or heavier than the Land Rover.
As for being dropped from a second story window, I would want to know what kind of surface it was dropped on. It would be much more impressive if it were dropped onto concrete. It would be less impressive if it were dropped onto thick grass and much less impressive if it were dropped onto a mattress (I doubt that one but, as it wasn't mentioned, I wouldn't put it past some marketing agencies).
As for the oven test, I would want to know how long it was left in. 150C is a pretty high temperature but people have been walking over 1000+ degree Fahrenheit coals for a long time and I've seen Shaolin monks lick red hot pokers. The trick is how long your body part is in contact with the hot stuff. In both cases, you move your foot/tough away from the contact immediately and don't give enough time for most of the heat to transfer. In the case of licking the red hot poker, they also have a thick layer of spit on their tough that absorbs much of the heat and evaporates away protecting the tongue.
Maybe they put an oversize battery in it and got rid of any features other than basic phone service. Even so, I, also, find that number to be hard to believe even if it just assumes 62.5 days in sleep mode.
Hrm, about your sig. At least, as a photographer, we can be, generally, assured that the camera will be pointed away from you...
Well, she may have to fight it out with Russel Crow to see who gets it first. I'm sure he goes through lots of phones when he bounces them off other peoples' heads.
Oooh, just one minute sooner and you would've gotten in before the guy above you who made the same joke.
Yea, I've heard the damn vampire are tough to stomach in Santa Monica. The last thing they need is Werewolves too.
Also, it was the source you chose to point to on the topic, not me...
Mainstream medicine doctors, specifically, are often not aware of all the most recent research in medicine. It's almost impossible for someone trying to practice basic medicine on a daily basis to stay up-to-date on the massive number of findings coming in from researchers all the time.
One of the reasons they might not ride in the designated bike lanes is, as mentioned in another thread, that those lanes are, often, drawn right up against parallel parking spots. Often enough, car drivers will open their doors oblivious to whether or not a bike is passing them. People have been killed going head first off their bikes when some prick in a parallel parked car close-lined them by opening their door a split second before they passed by.
Bikes don't pay road use tax because they produce no measurable damage to the roads they drive on. The amount of wear and tear a vehicle causes on the road goes up exponentially based on the weight of the vehicle. Consequently, the amount of fuel a vehicle consumes tends to go up the same way. That is why the gas tax has been such a good way to pay for the roads up until now (with the development of electric vehicles). Also, they are, specifically, not required to keep up with the flow of traffic because the law respects, whether you like it or not, the fact that they can't go that fast. Some people aren't "rich" like you and can't afford a car. The poor need to have a way to get around and public trans. doesn't always fit the bill (and it may be cheaper, but it isn't free). Apparently, you think that people that don't make as much money as you shouldn't have that whole "freedom of mobility" thing? We, as a society, don't make exceptions for bike riding just because it's good exercise/good for the environment.
Driving 25 in a 55 will earn you a ticket because it's possible for you to, easily, speed up. Bikes don't have the same ability (unless Lance Armstrong is pushing the pedals). That's why it's legal for them to ride on the same road at 25mph. Sure, it's annoying but we have to share the road with everyone which is why the laws are written to accommodate the lowest common denominator. You could argue that the bike rider should be riding on side roads with lower speed limits, but there are lots of parts of every state where there is no way to get from point A to point B without going on a 55mph road. The point here is that, whether you like it or not, society has decided that what they're doing is legal and the right way to do it. The only one in the wrong here are the drivers that get abusive/aggressive because they're impatient.
On the other hand, I agree 100% with you when it comes to bike riders that ignore the traffic rules. Some of them are a menace.
Hehe, actually I went to RIT. Also, I was more referring more to the Buffalo area where this data center is being built. In my experience, Rochester's location directly south of the lake gives it a little cover from the worst of the lake effect snow. In my time there, I can remember the NY State Thruway authority shutting down the thruway west of Rochester on a, reasonably, regular basis while east of Rochester tended to stay open much more.
A true geek would know that anything like BMR (such as BMI) is based on a statistically calculated average value. In this case, the BMR is based on the 3500 kcal value which is calculated based on what experimental results show to be the metabolism of the average person. The problem is that not everyone is even close to that average value. There will always be people that stray towards the extremes of humanly possible values. People with hypoglycemia can eat like crazy and never gain weight. People that make it to being among the world's fattest people, most likely, have the other extreme for a metabolism (it's one thing to get fat, but most normal people would have a hard time reaching 1000 lbs even if they tried). As I alluded to above, this is similar to how many muscular people have horrible BMI values even though they have minuscule percentages of body fat. They break the scale because it's designed to assume that the person has "average" musculature. Specifically, the military is known to make exceptions for this, specific, problem when muscle-bound applicants fail the BMI requirements for entry into the service.
Also, the feeling of "starving" may have more to do with the quantity of food he's conditioned his body to expect rather than any feeling of stress.
Feel free to get behind the OP in the line to turn in your geek card...
Hrm, you seem to have missed something in the wikipedia article you linked to:
Quote:
"Practitioners of alternative medicine claim that Candida overgrowth can cause various health problems, from fatigue to weight gain, but this is rejected by most doctors and there is no evidence to support the theory.[5][6]"
There is another, more detailed, explanation further down in the article that re-enforces the same point.