You guess very much incorrectly. The article is quite clear, it's not physically possible to hydrate yourself with alcoholic drinks. Even drinking water simultaneously is largely pointless. I've no idea why I'm having to spell it out for you, unless you aren't arguing in good faith, which seems entirely likely.
Honestly, this rubbish about beer replacing water when simple boiling alone is easier and cheaper by far, not to mention the fact that you can't hydrate yourself with alcohol.
The desperately poor drank water, they didn't have any choice, but anyone who didn't want to be shitting their pants or puking in the street paid the penny or two per day to drink something safe.
Warranty and liability void if breached, nothing a simple change in licences can't achieve. There are already similar notices on lots of consumer electronics and white goods. Really, if someone puts acid in a squirt gun and their hand melts off, I've no idea how a judge could find the company liable for that.
Politics, make it a policy issue. Get voters to tell politicians that it matters to them. Not as impossible as it seems, take for example the proliferation of Pirate Parties across Europe and the efforts of groups like the FFII, which have been highly effective in stopping software patents and other silliness in the EU to date. I don't think a dedicated technology party is going to be of much use in the US mind you, try an effective lobbying group instead. Lobbying works because lobbyists confine the knowledge of politicians to what they want them to know. Presenting a different view is often all it takes to shake things up a bit.
90% of your post is sheer conjecture. Consider the practicalities of trying to replace the potable water of an entire population with beer for starters - you'd need major industrial factories in every population centre, like half the city would be a brewery, long before the idea of mass production ever appeared. And were infants weaned onto beer or did they just take water? Economically everyone had to pay for beer, and probably quite a lot - are you saying that even the poorest (of which there were likely a great many) could afford their daily beer?
It's nonsense any way you look at it, and yes even 2% alcohol will result in a net loss of fluids, I linked to an article discussing it earlier. I've no doubt it was popular but a replacement for water it really wasn't.
I know a guy that didn't eat food on the weekends for years. His only calories from Friday lunch to Monday breakfast were from beer. For years.
Big difference between a couple of days and living on the stuff. Feel free to try it and get back to us though, calories do not equal nutrition and alcohol does not equal good for you.
What did your friend drink? Was it American lite beer? Or something like Guinness?
The kind you buy in a shop? I've no idea, it was cheap whatever it was.
From the article: "Qanats are also called krz (or krz from Persian: ) (Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Central Asia, derived from Persian: ), kahan (from Persian: ), kahriz/khriz (Azerbaijan); khettara (Morocco); galería (Spain); falaj (United Arab Emirates and Oman); Kahn (Baloch) or foggara/fughara (North Africa).[1] Alternative terms for qanats in Asia and North Africa are kakuriz, chin-avulz, and mayun. Common variants of qanat in English include kanat, khanat, kunut, kona, konait, ghanat, ghundat.
The qanat technology is known to have been developed by the Persian people sometime in the early 1st millennium BC and to have spread from there slowly west- and eastward.[2][3][4][5][6]
The value of a qanat is directly related to the quality, volume and regularity of the water flow. Much of the population of Iran and other arid countries in Asia and North Africa historically depended upon the water from qanats; the areas of population corresponded closely to the areas where qanats are possible."
For my money substituting beer for water is a non runner.
Although 98% water, beer is a diuretic because it contains alcohol. That means you should not drink too much and never replace water with beer. To avoid headaches and hangovers caused by dehydration you should always have a glass of water between each glass of alcohol you drink.
As to the health effects of drinking nothing but beer, you are aware that early travelers had nothing but beer to drink for the majority of their sea voyages, right?
Utter bullshit. Even in the rum days a shot of 'grog', heavily watered rum, was a treat.
It wasn't until the Roman period that people bothered to provide large masses of population with water that was actually safe to drink, and even then, the conditions in the Middle East never allowed for that with contemporary level of technology. (Romans at least had hills, clean mountain streams, and lots of building stone for aqueducts.)
The only citation in that article is a recipe to make the stuff. Not to mention that our early ancestors would have needed industrial brewing facilities to produce the amount of beer they would have needed to survive, even if that were possible.
Ever tried to drink nothing but beer for a week? I know a guy that did, by the end of it his teeth were loose, gums bleeding, regular blackouts, sallow skin, he was a mess. If the alcohol is strong enough to kill germs, it won't do you any good, plus as another poster pointed out it is a diuretic, you'll be thirstier by the end than when you started. So I'm going to go ahead and call bullshit on that particular theory.
And from a quick glance at the story, this theory doesn't seem that far behind it.
Wouldn't that also have a chilling effect since small companies wouldn't risk court cases on the chance that they might have to pay the legal bills of some megacorp? No, the answer is to regulate the legal fees charged by lawyers down to something resembling sanity, or set up a mandatory five year period where lawyers have to work at a fixed public rate or something. That's unlikely to happen of course since politicians, the lawmakers, tend to be lawyers themselves.
The OP was being sarcastic but you are correct nonetheless. The comments from facebook and google about "privacy being a thing of the past" are hilarious. Guess what they're selling? Your information, your privacy, the details of your life. Of course they want privacy gone, they'll have a field day. Both groups are marketing companies, they sell adverts.
Get your legal system in order Americans, if the government was doing this you'd be out on the streets rioting. And don't for one second think that the government won't have full access to all of this data.
Google is a marketing company. That they've gotten the traditionally anti-marketing geek contingent on side just means they are a very good marketing company.
I also have a couple of slices of brown bread and an apple, plus oatmeal with honey, nuts and raisins. Sometimes a feta and spinach omelette if I've a heavy day ahead too. No, my breakfast and lunch aren't entirely liquid.:)
I normally have a shot of espresso (straight back) and orange juice for breakfast, sip on water throughout the day, and have one cup of green tea and one of black coffee for lunch and in the afternoon.
The way that programming culture treats stimulants, narcotics and relaxants is nothing short of physical self abuse. One guy I read a while back was talking about sucking down strong coffee all day then drinking himself to sleep. That is a) a classic addictive cycle and b) ruinous for your body, not to mention that the effects of both the caffeine and alcohol reduce over time. And don't start with the sugary sodas and other drinks. This stuff doesn't help you program, causing sugar highs and lows all day, breaking concentration, and the same for the rest of it.
At least microsoft is an actual software company. Google is a marketing company. That it's managed to covert the normally marketing averse geeky masses into followers just means it's a very good marketing company.
I mean... what are the odds... unless every single catholic is a nasty piece of work... nah... that couldn't be the case could it? Or could it be that if the milk is spoiled, that which rises to the top is not the cream? That any person who makes it into a position of being elected ruler has had to swim in the cesspool for so long, they can't help but got tainted?
Really, you're painting a billion odd people with the same brush? As with politicians there's a big difference between the leadership and the average individual. And unlike voters Catholics have exactly zero say in church policy or elections. I'm not defending the religion, just pointing out the reality.
Slashdot Mirror
Just make sure you're in a free speech zone when you exercise your rights.
You must be new here.
You guess very much incorrectly. The article is quite clear, it's not physically possible to hydrate yourself with alcoholic drinks. Even drinking water simultaneously is largely pointless. I've no idea why I'm having to spell it out for you, unless you aren't arguing in good faith, which seems entirely likely.
Honestly, this rubbish about beer replacing water when simple boiling alone is easier and cheaper by far, not to mention the fact that you can't hydrate yourself with alcohol.
The desperately poor drank water, they didn't have any choice, but anyone who didn't want to be shitting their pants or puking in the street paid the penny or two per day to drink something safe.
Utter nonsense. And here comes the science: http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/02/28/3441707.htm
Warranty and liability void if breached, nothing a simple change in licences can't achieve. There are already similar notices on lots of consumer electronics and white goods. Really, if someone puts acid in a squirt gun and their hand melts off, I've no idea how a judge could find the company liable for that.
Politics, make it a policy issue. Get voters to tell politicians that it matters to them. Not as impossible as it seems, take for example the proliferation of Pirate Parties across Europe and the efforts of groups like the FFII, which have been highly effective in stopping software patents and other silliness in the EU to date. I don't think a dedicated technology party is going to be of much use in the US mind you, try an effective lobbying group instead. Lobbying works because lobbyists confine the knowledge of politicians to what they want them to know. Presenting a different view is often all it takes to shake things up a bit.
Bullshit, and here comes the science: http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/02/28/3441707.htm
90% of your post is sheer conjecture. Consider the practicalities of trying to replace the potable water of an entire population with beer for starters - you'd need major industrial factories in every population centre, like half the city would be a brewery, long before the idea of mass production ever appeared. And were infants weaned onto beer or did they just take water? Economically everyone had to pay for beer, and probably quite a lot - are you saying that even the poorest (of which there were likely a great many) could afford their daily beer?
It's nonsense any way you look at it, and yes even 2% alcohol will result in a net loss of fluids, I linked to an article discussing it earlier. I've no doubt it was popular but a replacement for water it really wasn't.
Don't take my word for it champ, by all means try it for yourself. Take before and after photos, that should be entertaining.
I know a guy that didn't eat food on the weekends for years. His only calories from Friday lunch to Monday breakfast were from beer. For years.
Big difference between a couple of days and living on the stuff. Feel free to try it and get back to us though, calories do not equal nutrition and alcohol does not equal good for you.
What did your friend drink? Was it American lite beer? Or something like Guinness?
The kind you buy in a shop? I've no idea, it was cheap whatever it was.
From the article: "Qanats are also called krz (or krz from Persian: ) (Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Central Asia, derived from Persian: ), kahan (from Persian: ), kahriz/khriz (Azerbaijan); khettara (Morocco); galería (Spain); falaj (United Arab Emirates and Oman); Kahn (Baloch) or foggara/fughara (North Africa).[1] Alternative terms for qanats in Asia and North Africa are kakuriz, chin-avulz, and mayun. Common variants of qanat in English include kanat, khanat, kunut, kona, konait, ghanat, ghundat.
The qanat technology is known to have been developed by the Persian people sometime in the early 1st millennium BC and to have spread from there slowly west- and eastward.[2][3][4][5][6]
The value of a qanat is directly related to the quality, volume and regularity of the water flow. Much of the population of Iran and other arid countries in Asia and North Africa historically depended upon the water from qanats; the areas of population corresponded closely to the areas where qanats are possible."
For my money substituting beer for water is a non runner.
And I'm going to go ahead and call bullshit on your anecdote, sorry.
The whole "x is a diuretic and makes you thirstier than before you drank it" is patent nonsense.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Beer:-Pros-and-Cons&id=240782
Beer is 98% Water, but Still a Diuretic
Although 98% water, beer is a diuretic because it contains alcohol. That means you should not drink too much and never replace water with beer. To avoid headaches and hangovers caused by dehydration you should always have a glass of water between each glass of alcohol you drink.
As to the health effects of drinking nothing but beer, you are aware that early travelers had nothing but beer to drink for the majority of their sea voyages, right?
Utter bullshit. Even in the rum days a shot of 'grog', heavily watered rum, was a treat.
It wasn't until the Roman period that people bothered to provide large masses of population with water that was actually safe to drink, and even then, the conditions in the Middle East never allowed for that with contemporary level of technology. (Romans at least had hills, clean mountain streams, and lots of building stone for aqueducts.)
You mean except for things like the Persian qanats: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qanat
The only citation in that article is a recipe to make the stuff. Not to mention that our early ancestors would have needed industrial brewing facilities to produce the amount of beer they would have needed to survive, even if that were possible.
Ever tried to drink nothing but beer for a week? I know a guy that did, by the end of it his teeth were loose, gums bleeding, regular blackouts, sallow skin, he was a mess. If the alcohol is strong enough to kill germs, it won't do you any good, plus as another poster pointed out it is a diuretic, you'll be thirstier by the end than when you started. So I'm going to go ahead and call bullshit on that particular theory.
And from a quick glance at the story, this theory doesn't seem that far behind it.
Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.
Never has a truism been more applicable.
Watch "Things to do in Denver when you're dead" for a business plan, this around 4:00
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyUwxSO2GnQ
Wouldn't that also have a chilling effect since small companies wouldn't risk court cases on the chance that they might have to pay the legal bills of some megacorp? No, the answer is to regulate the legal fees charged by lawyers down to something resembling sanity, or set up a mandatory five year period where lawyers have to work at a fixed public rate or something. That's unlikely to happen of course since politicians, the lawmakers, tend to be lawyers themselves.
The OP was being sarcastic but you are correct nonetheless. The comments from facebook and google about "privacy being a thing of the past" are hilarious. Guess what they're selling? Your information, your privacy, the details of your life. Of course they want privacy gone, they'll have a field day. Both groups are marketing companies, they sell adverts.
Get your legal system in order Americans, if the government was doing this you'd be out on the streets rioting. And don't for one second think that the government won't have full access to all of this data.
Google is a marketing company. That they've gotten the traditionally anti-marketing geek contingent on side just means they are a very good marketing company.
I also have a couple of slices of brown bread and an apple, plus oatmeal with honey, nuts and raisins. Sometimes a feta and spinach omelette if I've a heavy day ahead too. No, my breakfast and lunch aren't entirely liquid. :)
I normally have a shot of espresso (straight back) and orange juice for breakfast, sip on water throughout the day, and have one cup of green tea and one of black coffee for lunch and in the afternoon.
The way that programming culture treats stimulants, narcotics and relaxants is nothing short of physical self abuse. One guy I read a while back was talking about sucking down strong coffee all day then drinking himself to sleep. That is a) a classic addictive cycle and b) ruinous for your body, not to mention that the effects of both the caffeine and alcohol reduce over time. And don't start with the sugary sodas and other drinks. This stuff doesn't help you program, causing sugar highs and lows all day, breaking concentration, and the same for the rest of it.
At least microsoft is an actual software company. Google is a marketing company. That it's managed to covert the normally marketing averse geeky masses into followers just means it's a very good marketing company.
I used Thunderbird's inbuilt reader and I'm very happy with it to be honest.
I mean... what are the odds... unless every single catholic is a nasty piece of work... nah... that couldn't be the case could it? Or could it be that if the milk is spoiled, that which rises to the top is not the cream? That any person who makes it into a position of being elected ruler has had to swim in the cesspool for so long, they can't help but got tainted?
Really, you're painting a billion odd people with the same brush? As with politicians there's a big difference between the leadership and the average individual. And unlike voters Catholics have exactly zero say in church policy or elections. I'm not defending the religion, just pointing out the reality.