The phrase "I live in the US" would have been a fine substitute for your example.
Not especially. Internet access is generally quite good where I'm at now, but I can drive for 15-30 minutes and be out in the boonies with minimal access.
Even in Europe this is true, even if it's generally less severe because of the higher median density.
The American pilot version - cut down bolt action in 22 Hornet. Since it has a barrel less than 16" and an OAL of less than 26" it falls under NFA purview, so there is a tax stamp associated (and several months wait).
Given that NASA is a government agency, they just use official letterhead when ordering one and there's no problem.
Also, while it'd end up costing 100x just paying the $200 would, I'm sure they have machine shops that can turn one out quickly and easily enough...
A boy scout a few years back did that with a.410 shotgun loaded with birdshot.
The game warden noted that the only damage was to the upper palette of the mouth, right into the brain, that there were substantial powder burns in the mouth, and that the pellets didn't penetrate the skull even at that range.
After deliberating all this, he came to the conclusion that the boy had acted in self defense in shooting the bear and was not to be charged.
Bottom line it makes much more sense to switch to a low carb/sugar diet, which makes everything more easy and drop the bean counting of calories.
Very true. Which is why I originally mentioned it. A diet that's low in sugars, but high in protein & fat, will tend to satiate you to the point that you'll actually eat fewer calories.
Go Atkins level of carbohydrate reduction and even though you're eating relatively huge portions of fat&protein, if you add up everything you eat - and with you eating whenever you're hungry, you'll find that you're naturally eating fewer calories.
If you truly restrict yourself to the calories eaten=calories burned paradigm, you won't gain weight even with a diet that causes large blood sugar spikes.
What WILL happen though is that you'll be miserable and often feel extreme hunger pangs, making sticking with the allowable calories extremely difficult.
I kind of figured phrases like "hunger suppression", "less likely to cheat", "satiate you for longer", "hankering for a snack" would indicated that, yes, you do actually have to eat fewer calories.
Heck, even the Atkins type diets will, if followed properly, lead to a person naturally eating fewer calories, even if ketosis will result in more calories leaving the body.
I agree with you on the 'marginal' part. The body is really good at demanding a certain number of calories a day.
Magic, pills, voodoo, fad diets, resonant crystals, homeopathy... ANYTHING but having to exercise self-restraint.
Okay, I'll try to keep this simple. The idea behind most diets is that different foods, of the same calories, 'satiate' better - more hunger suppression for longer, than others. Ergo, if you eat more of those foods, you're less likely to cheat on your diet. It's all a mental game.
Trick is, carbohydrates, unless you stick to the really complex ones, tend to result in a blood sugar spike that leaves you feeling hungry again in a relatively short period of time. Fats, proteins, and the most complex carbs tend to stick around longer, don't spike your blood sugar, and therefore satiate you for longer - you're less likely to get a hankering for a snack a short period later.
Think of it like the difference between quitting smoking with the patch and dead turkey.
Now if you care so much about people dying from cancer, you might better campaign against smoking. That might cause some positive effect, railing against nuclear energy will not.
That's the cause of my grandmother's cancer, most likely. Only smoker in the family. The lung cancer had gone systematic, including to the brain, before they found it. That's not something that happens in 3 months.
Indeed, with dropping smoking rates, pollution from coal power(air pollution), is becoming a greater proportional source of lung cancers.
I can't think of a reason ANYONE would want the nuclear power generation industry to be less safe than it possibly could be,
How about this one: where the increased 'safety' would mostly be theater and cost so much that it would raise the expense of the already known to be far safer nuclear power plants to the point that people burn more coal, which is known to kill hundreds of thousands a year from mining accidents and pollution. That's before you get into global warming.
Germany's building coal power plants to replace their nuclear and satisfy additional demand(presumably at night).
Many terminals in the USA are actually chip capable, but many aren't. It's what happens when you 'build to last' and have readers that last over a decade. The new 'cheap' ones intended to be used with cell phones aren't, but again, cheap.
Using mostly off the shelf components and some hand made components, a trucking company has increased the fuel efficiency of a tractor trailer rig from ~5 to ~15 mpg.
Do you happen to have a link? I'm not arguing, but it's an interesting subject. I know, for example, that simply adding a fairing that turns the flat back of most trailers into a curved one saves a measurable amount of fuel, and I'm surprised that the truckers aren't using them - it's my understanding that they don't even need to be hugely structural.
I think you'd be surprised just how much gets used overnight just on street lights, let alone all the use for heating water when the cost is cheap.
Yeah, we need to do something about our light pollution.
As for heating water, if we seriously transitioned towards solar electricity I'd imagine that the 'cheap' time for using power would flip to the day and people would adjust their timers appropriately.
I think that jandrese was addressing the specific point of 'last significant famine was in '92' with 'there's one right now in NK'.
If anything, he's saying the link is stronger - the 400 year remark means that it's not just the 20th century, but dating back to the 16th that 'all' famines are politically based. Of course 'politically created' means that it could be engineered by an outside polity, rather than being of the government of the area itself.
For example, I remember reading somewhere that the potato famine was caused due to import/export regulations. It is indeed scary. One I remember from back in school is that the US shot a lot of the Buffalo with the intent of denying them to the Native Americans, a policy of starving them out.
Bio Diesel I actually like, sulfur is all but forgotten, and the increased lubricity actually makes it easier on your engine. But the idea of trying to convert a soy crop to BD100 is going to be dumb. Recycling waste vegitable oil from the food processing industry on the other hand, reduces waste and taps into an existing supply.
There's not enough waste oil for the demand for bio-diesel NOW. It used to be that restaurants had to pay to get their old grease hauled away, so they were more than happy to give it to the 'wierdos' who wanted to turn it into bio-diesel. Today it's a valuable commodity that the bio-diesel types have to pay money to get.
Personally, I'm for algae farms located in desert areas using seawater as a feedstock. Some solar panels to provide the energy needed to run the pumps.
Most can drive electric cars, but for lubrication and long-haul where electricity isn't practical, biodiesel and ethanol(or butanol, etc...) from algae for the bulk demand.
At current rates, with no reprocessing or advances in technology.
Don't forget: No additional exploration and no price increases as well. After WWII we went on an exploration binge, but since then we haven't really even looked.
With Thorium we'd have enough for tens of thousands of years.
In times of great danger, people band together and agree to be slaves in order to survive.
If you're comparing living under martial law to slavery, I think you do a disservice to slavery. It's bad if martial law lasted for a long time, but the goal of martial law should be to compensate for a failed/destroyed civil system. In which case you have martial law just long enough to rebuild the civilian structures.
It's more along the lines of 'things are bad right now, we all need to buckle down to survive'.
And 10% savings with no changes to technology (apart from the platooning system of course) or driving is pretty good, isn't it?
Only on a closed track, and remember that my assertion isn't that the gas savings aren't there, it's that even with self-driving cars 8 meters isn't safe once you start trying to move it to production, especially when you'd have cars of different makes, and maintenance levels in the 'platoons'. It'd also be limited(mostly) to the highway systems, which doesn't do much for most commutes.
Just a nitpick, but most of the UTVs I'm talking about could easily be considered a "Mini Truck - (44)“Mini truck” means any four-wheeled, reduced-dimension truck that does not have a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration truck classification, with a top speed of 55 miles per hour, and which is equipped with headlamps, stop lamps, turn signal lamps, taillamps, reflex reflectors, parking brakes, rearview mirrors, windshields, and seat belts."
For example, one can point out that this does indeed have 4 wheels, isn't NTSA truck classified, I don't know about top speed, but with 22.8 hp it's probably NOT hitting 55, and it has lights & turn signals. All you'd need to do is mount mirrors.
Slashdot Mirror
The phrase "I live in the US" would have been a fine substitute for your example.
Not especially. Internet access is generally quite good where I'm at now, but I can drive for 15-30 minutes and be out in the boonies with minimal access.
Even in Europe this is true, even if it's generally less severe because of the higher median density.
Primary reason for not taking an AK would primarily be weight and ease of storage.
Plus, an AK isn't suitable for hunting birds if it's going to be a week before they can get to you for a rescue.
Why do they fight so hard against it?
Because they sometimes also select against the survival of people around them as well.
Of course, self-driving cars would save far more lives...
The American pilot version - cut down bolt action in 22 Hornet. Since it has a barrel less than 16" and an OAL of less than 26" it falls under NFA purview, so there is a tax stamp associated (and several months wait).
Given that NASA is a government agency, they just use official letterhead when ordering one and there's no problem.
Also, while it'd end up costing 100x just paying the $200 would, I'm sure they have machine shops that can turn one out quickly and easily enough...
A boy scout a few years back did that with a .410 shotgun loaded with birdshot.
The game warden noted that the only damage was to the upper palette of the mouth, right into the brain, that there were substantial powder burns in the mouth, and that the pellets didn't penetrate the skull even at that range.
After deliberating all this, he came to the conclusion that the boy had acted in self defense in shooting the bear and was not to be charged.
Bottom line it makes much more sense to switch to a low carb/sugar diet, which makes everything more easy and drop the bean counting of calories.
Very true. Which is why I originally mentioned it. A diet that's low in sugars, but high in protein & fat, will tend to satiate you to the point that you'll actually eat fewer calories.
Go Atkins level of carbohydrate reduction and even though you're eating relatively huge portions of fat&protein, if you add up everything you eat - and with you eating whenever you're hungry, you'll find that you're naturally eating fewer calories.
Wild turkeys can. As a hunter I've seen them do it quite frequently.
It's still hilarious to see them do it.
Hint guys: Wild turkeys are still pretty dumb, but they're orders of magnitude smarter than the domestics.
If you truly restrict yourself to the calories eaten=calories burned paradigm, you won't gain weight even with a diet that causes large blood sugar spikes.
What WILL happen though is that you'll be miserable and often feel extreme hunger pangs, making sticking with the allowable calories extremely difficult.
I kind of figured phrases like "hunger suppression", "less likely to cheat", "satiate you for longer", "hankering for a snack" would indicated that, yes, you do actually have to eat fewer calories.
Heck, even the Atkins type diets will, if followed properly, lead to a person naturally eating fewer calories, even if ketosis will result in more calories leaving the body.
I agree with you on the 'marginal' part. The body is really good at demanding a certain number of calories a day.
Magic, pills, voodoo, fad diets, resonant crystals, homeopathy... ANYTHING but having to exercise self-restraint.
Okay, I'll try to keep this simple. The idea behind most diets is that different foods, of the same calories, 'satiate' better - more hunger suppression for longer, than others. Ergo, if you eat more of those foods, you're less likely to cheat on your diet. It's all a mental game.
Trick is, carbohydrates, unless you stick to the really complex ones, tend to result in a blood sugar spike that leaves you feeling hungry again in a relatively short period of time. Fats, proteins, and the most complex carbs tend to stick around longer, don't spike your blood sugar, and therefore satiate you for longer - you're less likely to get a hankering for a snack a short period later.
Think of it like the difference between quitting smoking with the patch and dead turkey.
Now if you care so much about people dying from cancer, you might better campaign against smoking. That might cause some positive effect, railing against nuclear energy will not.
That's the cause of my grandmother's cancer, most likely. Only smoker in the family. The lung cancer had gone systematic, including to the brain, before they found it. That's not something that happens in 3 months.
Indeed, with dropping smoking rates, pollution from coal power(air pollution), is becoming a greater proportional source of lung cancers.
I can't think of a reason ANYONE would want the nuclear power generation industry to be less safe than it possibly could be,
How about this one: where the increased 'safety' would mostly be theater and cost so much that it would raise the expense of the already known to be far safer nuclear power plants to the point that people burn more coal, which is known to kill hundreds of thousands a year from mining accidents and pollution. That's before you get into global warming.
Germany's building coal power plants to replace their nuclear and satisfy additional demand(presumably at night).
You do realize that it takes a while for cancer to be fatal, right? Generally years.
From the time my grandmother was diagnosed with cancer until her death was less than a month. She had had it for far longer, of course.
Most high level officials/employees in Japan are incredibly old.
Many terminals in the USA are actually chip capable, but many aren't. It's what happens when you 'build to last' and have readers that last over a decade. The new 'cheap' ones intended to be used with cell phones aren't, but again, cheap.
In the developing world, I'd add on 'easy access to banking, information', etc...
Much of the developing world has skipped the traditional computer.
Using mostly off the shelf components and some hand made components, a trucking company has increased the fuel efficiency of a tractor trailer rig from ~5 to ~15 mpg.
Do you happen to have a link? I'm not arguing, but it's an interesting subject. I know, for example, that simply adding a fairing that turns the flat back of most trailers into a curved one saves a measurable amount of fuel, and I'm surprised that the truckers aren't using them - it's my understanding that they don't even need to be hugely structural.
I think you'd be surprised just how much gets used overnight just on street lights, let alone all the use for heating water when the cost is cheap.
Yeah, we need to do something about our light pollution.
As for heating water, if we seriously transitioned towards solar electricity I'd imagine that the 'cheap' time for using power would flip to the day and people would adjust their timers appropriately.
I think that jandrese was addressing the specific point of 'last significant famine was in '92' with 'there's one right now in NK'.
If anything, he's saying the link is stronger - the 400 year remark means that it's not just the 20th century, but dating back to the 16th that 'all' famines are politically based. Of course 'politically created' means that it could be engineered by an outside polity, rather than being of the government of the area itself.
For example, I remember reading somewhere that the potato famine was caused due to import/export regulations. It is indeed scary. One I remember from back in school is that the US shot a lot of the Buffalo with the intent of denying them to the Native Americans, a policy of starving them out.
Bio Diesel I actually like, sulfur is all but forgotten, and the increased lubricity actually makes it easier on your engine. But the idea of trying to convert a soy crop to BD100 is going to be dumb. Recycling waste vegitable oil from the food processing industry on the other hand, reduces waste and taps into an existing supply.
There's not enough waste oil for the demand for bio-diesel NOW. It used to be that restaurants had to pay to get their old grease hauled away, so they were more than happy to give it to the 'wierdos' who wanted to turn it into bio-diesel. Today it's a valuable commodity that the bio-diesel types have to pay money to get.
Personally, I'm for algae farms located in desert areas using seawater as a feedstock. Some solar panels to provide the energy needed to run the pumps.
Most can drive electric cars, but for lubrication and long-haul where electricity isn't practical, biodiesel and ethanol(or butanol, etc...) from algae for the bulk demand.
At current rates, with no reprocessing or advances in technology.
Don't forget: No additional exploration and no price increases as well. After WWII we went on an exploration binge, but since then we haven't really even looked.
With Thorium we'd have enough for tens of thousands of years.
In times of great danger, people band together and agree to be slaves in order to survive.
If you're comparing living under martial law to slavery, I think you do a disservice to slavery. It's bad if martial law lasted for a long time, but the goal of martial law should be to compensate for a failed/destroyed civil system. In which case you have martial law just long enough to rebuild the civilian structures.
It's more along the lines of 'things are bad right now, we all need to buckle down to survive'.
And 10% savings with no changes to technology (apart from the platooning system of course) or driving is pretty good, isn't it?
Only on a closed track, and remember that my assertion isn't that the gas savings aren't there, it's that even with self-driving cars 8 meters isn't safe once you start trying to move it to production, especially when you'd have cars of different makes, and maintenance levels in the 'platoons'. It'd also be limited(mostly) to the highway systems, which doesn't do much for most commutes.
Just a nitpick, but most of the UTVs I'm talking about could easily be considered a "Mini Truck - (44)“Mini truck” means any four-wheeled, reduced-dimension truck that does not have a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration truck classification, with a top speed of 55 miles per hour, and which is equipped with headlamps, stop lamps, turn signal lamps, taillamps, reflex reflectors, parking brakes, rearview mirrors, windshields, and seat belts."
For example, one can point out that this does indeed have 4 wheels, isn't NTSA truck classified, I don't know about top speed, but with 22.8 hp it's probably NOT hitting 55, and it has lights & turn signals. All you'd need to do is mount mirrors.
You can get electric, as well.
For example, I can't think of any routes that you could safely use to get from downtown Tampa to downtown St. Petersburg.
That's kind of exceeding what I was targeting as well - the old farts in retirement communities moving around the neighborhood.
Yet such measures on a temporary basis would save many lives.
Sometimes its less about the form of government and more that one is present. Through much of history countries weren't democracies.
15 meters is the max they measured, you really need to be within 9 meters to realize 10% fuel savings.
That close you're looking at an impact by following vehicles if something happens to make the lead vehicle abruptly stop or slow.
Also, I wasn't considering dedicated 'lead' vehicles like trucks, but other cars, and computer driven by lots of different companies.
IE I don't trust their communications.