Civilization is not a realistic representation of the real world. Primarily due to the fact that computer players are not "irrational" the way people are nor are they aware of all aspects of the "game" the way people are. The same reason prisoner's dilemma doesn't work in real life - you don't get shanked for ratting out in a game.
You don't seem to understand how representative democracy works.
See... People vote for REPRESENTATIVES to do the the law making and governing for them. Then, people and corporations with money BUY THOSE REPRESENTATIVES. Regardless for whom the people voted.
You wouldn't go around the world buying grain and sugar cane and cocoa plants and all other basic sources for ingredients for a cake every time you want one, right? You just go down to a bakery and pay the baker. Regardless of where the resources that allow him to work as a baker came from.
In global thermoclimatic war, the only way to win is not to play.
That is a hidden false dichotomy. Which sets up things as if countries and people are either 100% polluters or 100% green (or blue) cat people, living in harmony with nature.
When the reality is many shades of green and gray, many levels and kinds of pollution and conservation and cleanup. E.g. That same polluting China is producing a lot of the world's solar and wind power generators while taking the brunt of most of the pollution.
No matter which country did the final pollution/greenhouse emission/etc, what matters is that there is only world for all of us, lose it, and lose all.
Again... no. A ton of coal burnt in a 1950's powerplant in North Korea and in a modern plant in Germany will not produce neither the same pollution NOR will that power be used in remotely the same way.
US coal is being exported to China BECAUSE it is not the same where you burn it. "Cleaner" and cheaper natural gas has pushed it out in the USA, while China can't yet afford to be as picky about its energy sources.
U.S. coal exports have made steady inroads into the Asian market since 2007. Almost all the U.S. coal exported to Asia went to the world's top four coal importers: China, Japan, India, and South Korea. Asia's share of total U.S. coal exports increased from 2% in 2007 to 25% in 2012. While U.S. coal has also been gaining market share in Asia, it provided less than 4% of Asia's coal imports in 2012, and less than 1% of total coal consumed by the four large Asian importers.
And as natural gas pushes out coal in the US, that only means even more coal gets to be exported to Asia. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...
Hey, look at it this way. USA gets cheap labor and ONLY a tiny fraction of pollution from its own coal. Meanwhile, China pays USA for coal, keeps nearly all of the pollution from said coal, and exports cheap labor to USA.
USA gets cleaner air, cheap products and profit - while China gets cheap energy, much lesser profit and air and other pollution. It's a win-win. Mostly for USA, but it's a win-win.
Like a year or so in advance. Planting stories tangentially related to the product in order to slowly build up awareness and interest among the general population.
Hey! Did you know they are making a new Star Wars movie?! And it's done by that guy who made that last Star Trek movie everyone loved?! And it has all the old actors from the original movies, not the new ones from those prequels! And OH MY GAWD! Did you know that they're gonna put Sherlock the Smaug the Khaaaaaan Cumberbatch in it?! He's soooo cooool/sexxxy!
They've ALWAYS had a draft like that. And any excuse will do to try to push it through. If there is no excuse, try to push it through anyway.
It's not a conspiracy. It's not a coincidence. They are not waiting for or furnishing events. They see such events as INEVITABLE. It is a part of their view of reality. It is their life philosophy. Their BELIEF SYSTEM. They think they're the good guys.
And once you look around, you'll notice that in other groups of people as well. Gun nuts really do believe that government is after their guns. Rich people really do believe that poor people are all lazy. Hippies really do believe that all people are good, just misunderstood. Justin Bieber fans really believe that he can sing.
Three segments launched and assembled in orbit to form an H with the comm dish in the middle bar.
That's not much of a joke. It needs at least six more segments like that, plus seven more to even get a "HA-HA". Maybe less if there are two comm antennae so it's all arranged into a "H@-H@".
No. Men "simply" are bigger on average than women.
Put men and a woman of similar height, weight and age next to each other, have them do the same physical work and watch what happens to their calorie intake and the size of their muscles.
If you are clocking in below average... you are below average.
I.e. That is either not an average woman, or she is not eating all calories she needs cause she's on a diet, or she is getting her calories elsewhere, OR, and here's a radical thought... The author of that article is not as scientifically literate and/or diligent as she thinks she is. And either those men and women were doing radically different things or it is simply not even bad science but bad and inaccurate measurement.
1475 calories per day is VERY low for any adult. Those are Auschwitz and Mauthausen portions. Only difference being that these would-be astronauts don't have to do backbreaking work for 12 hours each day. At least those doing just fine on 6 powerbars a day are not. Regardless, if you can eat that much and not lose weight, you are FAR below the average, bordering on malnourished.
Food Prisoners in the camp received three meals daily - in the morning, at midday and in the evening. In the morning the prisoners received only a half litre of black coffee or of a herbal brew known as tea. These liquids were generally unsweetened. The midday meal consisted of one portion of soup measuring about three quarters of a litre, with a value of 350 - 400 calories. The soup was foul tasting and watery, with 'meat' four times a week and the rest with vegetables. For supper the prisoners were given about 300 grams of bread and something extra in the shape of about 25 grams of sausage or margarine, or a spoonful of jam or cheese. The food value of supper came to about 900 - 1000 calories
Given such hunger rations most prisoners after a few weeks in the camp began to develop symptoms of exhaustion, which led in consequence to people being reduced to the state of 'Moslems'.
The work in the quarries - often in unbearable heat or in temperatures as low as -30 C (-22 F)[20] - led to exceptionally high mortality rates.[40][note 6] The food rations were limited, and during the 1940-1942 period, an average inmate weighed 40 kilograms,[41] roughly 88 pounds. It is estimated that the average energy content of food rations dropped from about 1,750 calories a day during the 1940-1942 period, to between 1,150 and 1,460 during the next period. In 1945, the energy content was even lower and did not exceed 600 to 1,000 calories a day; that is less than a third of the energy needed by an average worker in heavy industry.[1] This led to the starvation of thousands of inmates.
There's a big difference between "a suggestion to send an all female crew cause they eat less and have smaller muscles" and "as long as men are around to open doors for them, women can do almost everything a man can".
No. That's the exact same thing. Only phrased differently.
Both those lines define women as weak, small and incapable to perform physical work. Only difference is that the "men to open doors" line is more direct with the backhandedness, while "eat less small muscles" would be more sinister - cause it does not criticize (in)directly, but "sparks debate". Like this whole slashdot topic.
Women of the same weight as men have a 5-10% lower basal metabolic rate (and that bmr typically accounts for 60-70% of your total energy expended - source).
Read your source again.
Women in general, have a metabolic rate about 5-10% lower than men even when of the same weight and height. Men generally burn more calories at rest than women because they naturally have more muscle.
Exercise builds muscle. Have them doing the same muscle-maintaining exercises during their trip and see how men and women of same weight and build fare then.
The whole article only indicates that maybe men were doing more exercise. Meanwhile, that 1475 calories per day woman was chasing an Auschwitz diet. Which was designed to, combined with hard labor, exterminate people. If she was not losing weight, only component missing is hard labor.
OR... Bad science. Badly measured or misreported measurements. Or that woman is beyond petite and more like a midget. http://www.holocaustresearchpr...
Food Prisoners in the camp received three meals daily - in the morning, at midday and in the evening. In the morning the prisoners received only a half litre of black coffee or of a herbal brew known as tea. These liquids were generally unsweetened. The midday meal consisted of one portion of soup measuring about three quarters of a litre, with a value of 350 - 400 calories. The soup was foul tasting and watery, with 'meat' four times a week and the rest with vegetables. For supper the prisoners were given about 300 grams of bread and something extra in the shape of about 25 grams of sausage or margarine, or a spoonful of jam or cheese. The food value of supper came to about 900 - 1000 calories
Given such hunger rations most prisoners after a few weeks in the camp began to develop symptoms of exhaustion, which led in consequence to people being reduced to the state of 'Moslems'.
It's common knowledge what that one is used for. It's not some... I don't know... breakthrough discovery that you'd have to keep repeating "Soda is 55-42 HFCS! Soda is 55-42 HFCS!"
If you're eating for taste rather than an energy boost or a sugar buzz, fructose has the advantage that less is needed
You eat to satisfy a craving. Be it taste, sugar buzz, energy boost, feeling happy like the people on tv eating the same food...
You STOP eating when you reach "an energy boost or a sugar buzz". Trouble is, when it's all mostly for taste... and it's loaded with calories... and there's no "STOP!" signal...
If women are eating half a portion and men are losing weight despite eating double portions - that's not BMR.
For a 30 year old woman, 160 cm in height, with a weight of 50 kg, with little to no activity BMR is 1547 calories. Makes you wonder if that "least metabolically active female [who] expended 1,475 calories per day" was a midget or anorexic.
Power tools. Everything from screwdrivers to come-alongs to chain blocks to robotic arms.
Thing is, none of that provides additional benefit to a all female crew that an all male or mixed crew of humans of similar size would not experience as well. BUT... it does provide another single point of failure if the only way an astronaut (male or female) is able to lift or haul cargo via some power tool for which the nearest replacement is only available back on Earth.
And the whole premise of the article is a fallacy. The author even points out why, but then ignores it.
so there's no reason to choose larger people for a flight crew when it's brain power you want
During one week, the most metabolically active male burned an average of 3,450 calories per day, while the least metabolically active female expended 1,475 calories per day. It was rare for a woman on crew to burn 2,000 calories in a day and common for male crew members to exceed 3,000.
The data certainly fit with my other observations. At mealtime, the women took smaller portions than the men, who often went back for seconds. One crew member complained how hard it was to maintain his weight, despite all the calories he was taking in.
There's a hint there. If half of your "crew" is eating half a portion while the other is spending so many calories they are losing weight despite eating more - they are not doing the same work. You don't lose weight exercising "brain power" alone.
And while all that additional testosterone might come in handy for a quick muscle boost, at the expense of more calories should the crew be all male... In the long run both male and female astronauts being forced to work their ass off will spend all calories allotted to them and ask for more.
Women are perfectly capable of building muscles and doing hard work. You don't have to wait for Olympics to find female weight lifters or marathon runners or rock climbers... But they don't do that by taking "smaller portions".
In fact... the whole premise is borderline insulting. Coming from a male a suggestion to send an all female crew cause they "eat less" and have smaller muscles would smack of "as long as men are around to open doors for them, women can do almost everything a man can" veiled misogyny.
And ignoring factual isn't even rational. That's called delusional.
Also, you're the one engaging in intellectual sophistry, still hiding behind "It is all just opinions. I know nothing and neither do you, for what can be truly known..."
It's simple math, on top of other, less simple metabolic processes, such as human body actually producing an enzyme for breaking down sucrose instead of chugging both as a syrup, laced with CO2.
That part of math is simple. The whole process of digestion is far more complex.
And ultimately not that relevant as I am postulating that the delivery system (HFCS) of the components is at fault - not the body itself.
Slashdot Mirror
Civilization is not a realistic representation of the real world.
Primarily due to the fact that computer players are not "irrational" the way people are nor are they aware of all aspects of the "game" the way people are.
The same reason prisoner's dilemma doesn't work in real life - you don't get shanked for ratting out in a game.
You don't seem to understand how representative democracy works.
See... People vote for REPRESENTATIVES to do the the law making and governing for them.
Then, people and corporations with money BUY THOSE REPRESENTATIVES.
Regardless for whom the people voted.
You wouldn't go around the world buying grain and sugar cane and cocoa plants and all other basic sources for ingredients for a cake every time you want one, right?
You just go down to a bakery and pay the baker.
Regardless of where the resources that allow him to work as a baker came from.
In global thermoclimatic war, the only way to win is not to play.
That is a hidden false dichotomy.
Which sets up things as if countries and people are either 100% polluters or 100% green (or blue) cat people, living in harmony with nature.
When the reality is many shades of green and gray, many levels and kinds of pollution and conservation and cleanup.
E.g. That same polluting China is producing a lot of the world's solar and wind power generators while taking the brunt of most of the pollution.
No matter which country did the final pollution/greenhouse emission/etc, what matters is that there is only world for all of us, lose it, and lose all.
Again... no.
A ton of coal burnt in a 1950's powerplant in North Korea and in a modern plant in Germany will not produce neither the same pollution NOR will that power be used in remotely the same way.
US coal is being exported to China BECAUSE it is not the same where you burn it.
"Cleaner" and cheaper natural gas has pushed it out in the USA, while China can't yet afford to be as picky about its energy sources.
(Did you know ~30% of San Francisco's air pollution was emitted in China?)
Well... 25% of US coal exports goes to Asia.
http://www.eia.gov/todayinener...
U.S. coal exports have made steady inroads into the Asian market since 2007. Almost all the U.S. coal exported to Asia went to the world's top four coal importers: China, Japan, India, and South Korea. Asia's share of total U.S. coal exports increased from 2% in 2007 to 25% in 2012. While U.S. coal has also been gaining market share in Asia, it provided less than 4% of Asia's coal imports in 2012, and less than 1% of total coal consumed by the four large Asian importers.
And as natural gas pushes out coal in the US, that only means even more coal gets to be exported to Asia.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...
Hey, look at it this way.
USA gets cheap labor and ONLY a tiny fraction of pollution from its own coal.
Meanwhile, China pays USA for coal, keeps nearly all of the pollution from said coal, and exports cheap labor to USA.
USA gets cleaner air, cheap products and profit - while China gets cheap energy, much lesser profit and air and other pollution.
It's a win-win.
Mostly for USA, but it's a win-win.
Attaching a printed and laminated diagram on how to hold it RIGHT might help.
But it would have to have rounded corners.
...advertising campaigns start off soft.
Like a year or so in advance.
Planting stories tangentially related to the product in order to slowly build up awareness and interest among the general population.
Hey! Did you know they are making a new Star Wars movie?!
And it's done by that guy who made that last Star Trek movie everyone loved?!
And it has all the old actors from the original movies, not the new ones from those prequels!
And OH MY GAWD! Did you know that they're gonna put Sherlock the Smaug the Khaaaaaan Cumberbatch in it?! He's soooo cooool/sexxxy!
IT'S GONNA BE GREAT!
But a lot of government really is after their guns. Why do you see this as an unrealistic concern? Forgot Waco already?
See?
They've ALWAYS had a draft like that. And any excuse will do to try to push it through.
If there is no excuse, try to push it through anyway.
It's not a conspiracy. It's not a coincidence. They are not waiting for or furnishing events.
They see such events as INEVITABLE. It is a part of their view of reality. It is their life philosophy.
Their BELIEF SYSTEM.
They think they're the good guys.
And once you look around, you'll notice that in other groups of people as well.
Gun nuts really do believe that government is after their guns.
Rich people really do believe that poor people are all lazy.
Hippies really do believe that all people are good, just misunderstood.
Justin Bieber fans really believe that he can sing.
Anyone, no matter their station in society, has the God-given right to be violent.
Wouldn't that eventually make everyone less violet and more black and blue?
Bruce Willis lied to us?!
Three segments launched and assembled in orbit to form an H with the comm dish in the middle bar.
That's not much of a joke.
It needs at least six more segments like that, plus seven more to even get a "HA-HA".
Maybe less if there are two comm antennae so it's all arranged into a "H@-H@".
Men simply burn more calories.
No.
Men "simply" are bigger on average than women.
Put men and a woman of similar height, weight and age next to each other, have them do the same physical work and watch what happens to their calorie intake and the size of their muscles.
You said it yourself.
an average estimate
If you are clocking in below average... you are below average.
I.e. That is either not an average woman, or she is not eating all calories she needs cause she's on a diet, or she is getting her calories elsewhere, OR, and here's a radical thought...
The author of that article is not as scientifically literate and/or diligent as she thinks she is.
And either those men and women were doing radically different things or it is simply not even bad science but bad and inaccurate measurement.
1475 calories per day is VERY low for any adult.
Those are Auschwitz and Mauthausen portions.
Only difference being that these would-be astronauts don't have to do backbreaking work for 12 hours each day.
At least those doing just fine on 6 powerbars a day are not.
Regardless, if you can eat that much and not lose weight, you are FAR below the average, bordering on malnourished.
http://www.holocaustresearchpr...
Food
Prisoners in the camp received three meals daily - in the morning, at midday and in the evening.
In the morning the prisoners received only a half litre of black coffee or of a herbal brew known as tea. These liquids were generally unsweetened.
The midday meal consisted of one portion of soup measuring about three quarters of a litre, with a value of 350 - 400 calories. The soup was foul tasting and watery, with 'meat' four times a week and the rest with vegetables.
For supper the prisoners were given about 300 grams of bread and something extra in the shape of about 25 grams of sausage or margarine, or a spoonful of jam or cheese. The food value of supper came to about 900 - 1000 calories
Given such hunger rations most prisoners after a few weeks in the camp began to develop symptoms of exhaustion, which led in consequence to people being reduced to the state of 'Moslems'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
The work in the quarries - often in unbearable heat or in temperatures as low as -30 C (-22 F)[20] - led to exceptionally high mortality rates.[40][note 6]
The food rations were limited, and during the 1940-1942 period, an average inmate weighed 40 kilograms,[41] roughly 88 pounds.
It is estimated that the average energy content of food rations dropped from about 1,750 calories a day during the 1940-1942 period, to between 1,150 and 1,460 during the next period.
In 1945, the energy content was even lower and did not exceed 600 to 1,000 calories a day; that is less than a third of the energy needed by an average worker in heavy industry.[1]
This led to the starvation of thousands of inmates.
There's a big difference between "a suggestion to send an all female crew cause they eat less and have smaller muscles" and "as long as men are around to open doors for them, women can do almost everything a man can".
No. That's the exact same thing. Only phrased differently.
Both those lines define women as weak, small and incapable to perform physical work.
Only difference is that the "men to open doors" line is more direct with the backhandedness, while "eat less small muscles" would be more sinister - cause it does not criticize (in)directly, but "sparks debate".
Like this whole slashdot topic.
Women of the same weight as men have a 5-10% lower basal metabolic rate (and that bmr typically accounts for 60-70% of your total energy expended - source).
Read your source again.
Women in general, have a metabolic rate about 5-10% lower than men even when of the same weight and height. Men generally burn more calories at rest than women because they naturally have more muscle.
Exercise builds muscle.
Have them doing the same muscle-maintaining exercises during their trip and see how men and women of same weight and build fare then.
The whole article only indicates that maybe men were doing more exercise.
Meanwhile, that 1475 calories per day woman was chasing an Auschwitz diet. Which was designed to, combined with hard labor, exterminate people.
If she was not losing weight, only component missing is hard labor.
OR... Bad science. Badly measured or misreported measurements.
Or that woman is beyond petite and more like a midget.
http://www.holocaustresearchpr...
Food
Prisoners in the camp received three meals daily - in the morning, at midday and in the evening.
In the morning the prisoners received only a half litre of black coffee or of a herbal brew known as tea. These liquids were generally unsweetened.
The midday meal consisted of one portion of soup measuring about three quarters of a litre, with a value of 350 - 400 calories. The soup was foul tasting and watery, with 'meat' four times a week and the rest with vegetables.
For supper the prisoners were given about 300 grams of bread and something extra in the shape of about 25 grams of sausage or margarine, or a spoonful of jam or cheese. The food value of supper came to about 900 - 1000 calories
Given such hunger rations most prisoners after a few weeks in the camp began to develop symptoms of exhaustion, which led in consequence to people being reduced to the state of 'Moslems'.
Well, I'm talking about 55-42 mix the whole time.
It's common knowledge what that one is used for.
It's not some... I don't know... breakthrough discovery that you'd have to keep repeating "Soda is 55-42 HFCS! Soda is 55-42 HFCS!"
If you're eating for taste rather than an energy boost or a sugar buzz, fructose has the advantage that less is needed
You eat to satisfy a craving.
Be it taste, sugar buzz, energy boost, feeling happy like the people on tv eating the same food...
You STOP eating when you reach "an energy boost or a sugar buzz".
Trouble is, when it's all mostly for taste... and it's loaded with calories... and there's no "STOP!" signal...
I like Chinese.
Except both men and women will be forced to exercise and thus spend MORE calories than needed in order to stave off muscle loss due to lower gravity.
Making the whole "women eat less" premise ridiculous if they are forced to pump up and then to try to keep up the calorie burning mass.
Waiting for someone to make that joke... You all know which one.
If women are eating half a portion and men are losing weight despite eating double portions - that's not BMR.
For a 30 year old woman, 160 cm in height, with a weight of 50 kg, with little to no activity BMR is 1547 calories.
Makes you wonder if that "least metabolically active female [who] expended 1,475 calories per day" was a midget or anorexic.
Hello! It's a mission to Mars.
Power tools. Everything from screwdrivers to come-alongs to chain blocks to robotic arms.
Thing is, none of that provides additional benefit to a all female crew that an all male or mixed crew of humans of similar size would not experience as well.
BUT... it does provide another single point of failure if the only way an astronaut (male or female) is able to lift or haul cargo via some power tool for which the nearest replacement is only available back on Earth.
And the whole premise of the article is a fallacy. The author even points out why, but then ignores it.
so there's no reason to choose larger people for a flight crew when it's brain power you want
During one week, the most metabolically active male burned an average of 3,450 calories per day, while the least metabolically active female expended 1,475 calories per day. It was rare for a woman on crew to burn 2,000 calories in a day and common for male crew members to exceed 3,000.
The data certainly fit with my other observations. At mealtime, the women took smaller portions than the men, who often went back for seconds. One crew member complained how hard it was to maintain his weight, despite all the calories he was taking in.
There's a hint there.
If half of your "crew" is eating half a portion while the other is spending so many calories they are losing weight despite eating more - they are not doing the same work.
You don't lose weight exercising "brain power" alone.
And while all that additional testosterone might come in handy for a quick muscle boost, at the expense of more calories should the crew be all male...
In the long run both male and female astronauts being forced to work their ass off will spend all calories allotted to them and ask for more.
Women are perfectly capable of building muscles and doing hard work.
You don't have to wait for Olympics to find female weight lifters or marathon runners or rock climbers...
But they don't do that by taking "smaller portions".
In fact... the whole premise is borderline insulting.
Coming from a male a suggestion to send an all female crew cause they "eat less" and have smaller muscles would smack of "as long as men are around to open doors for them, women can do almost everything a man can" veiled misogyny.
It's how will he pick up the phone with no arms or legs.
And ignoring factual isn't even rational. That's called delusional.
Also, you're the one engaging in intellectual sophistry, still hiding behind "It is all just opinions. I know nothing and neither do you, for what can be truly known..."
It's simple math, on top of other, less simple metabolic processes, such as human body actually producing an enzyme for breaking down sucrose instead of chugging both as a syrup, laced with CO2.
That part of math is simple.
The whole process of digestion is far more complex.
And ultimately not that relevant as I am postulating that the delivery system (HFCS) of the components is at fault - not the body itself.