So you are saying that nutritionists are not able to calculate the nutritionally available calories with any semblance of accuracy? The unavailable calories don't seem to have many implications for weight gain.
So in fact the body has to get the calories it uses from the nutritionally available calories in food, it isn't a trope.
Of course it isn't always simple, but "The Biggest Loser" does a pretty good job demonstrating that a normalized diet and heap of exercise have a big impact.
I don't even mean the items they provided you, I mean exactly what costs the room revenue goes towards covering.
I put in the couple thousand because I didn't want to argue with people who would point out that it would be expensive to keep such detailed track of spending.
It isn't that tired, most people that invoke it are making the point that calories in are equal to the max calories in (it's physics!), not some argument that calories are exactly nutritionally equivalent regardless of the source.
Hey, I'm not opposed to some sort of universal health system in the U.S., a wealthy society has to be a little insane to let people go without medical treatment.
But people really do avoid going to the doctor, and people that don't have insurance would be a lot smarter to freak out about the quarter sized abscess, it will cost them less in every way.
For $15,000 we should just tack on another couple thousand and require that they provide you a detailed itemized list of what costs they are using to justify that bill.
Sure. I only go to the doctor when I think I need it. I can see the value in doing more routine checkups, but I would have to pay for them directly, so I don't.
I'm talking about the people that, for example, wait until their abscess reaches grapefruit size, or ignore their persistent hacking cough, or ignore the loss of feeling in their feet.
HFCS, is, literally, the components of sucrose. The ratio of glucose to fructose in HFCS isn't 1:1 like it is in sucrose, but it is something like 55:45. Chemically, it is maybe a little simpler, but probably better described as the same.
When humans eat sucrose, it is rapidly converted to free glucose and free fructose, which are individually absorbed by the small intestine. HFCS is already composed of free glucose and free fructose and is absorbed by the small intestine.
So any theories about the evils of high fructose corn syrup have to rely on some sort of signal being disrupted by not requiring the first step of digestion, or perhaps by the slightly higher amount of fructose. There is also the remote possibility that some impurity does something medical.
Right, because people aren't at all inclined to be morons or to dislike going to the doctor, so they never-ever put off a visit until things have reached the point of horror.
The only explanation for a care provider doing anything ever is that they are trying to screw their patients (the company running this contest really is one of the ones that sends bills to the insurance industry).
Well, I'm not particularly opposed to using nuclear power.
As far as cities, there are already reasons they aren't self sufficient (usually water and food), I don't see much reason to include such a border in the analysis. I suppose the more interesting lack of self sufficiency would be that they probably nearly universally import energy.
I don't see any need to rush into solar, the hope for it is that costs reach the point where people install it because it quickly saves them money, not that society mandates it and accidentally throws away a bunch of energy. As long as there isn't too much subsidization, solar panels that cheap should have a decent EROI.
You said high-efficiency. That's lithium batteries.
And I don't understand why you would encourage me to drink it, I alluded to the fact that consuming them directly was not a great idea. The point is more that while they are toxic, they are not toxic in the way that "toxic" conjures up for most people, where some moderate amount of exposure is enough that you are done-zo. Some wackier scientists have even proposed adding lithium to drinking water (moderate exposure is correlated with lower suicide rates, not with neurological defects).
As far as lead-acid batteries, the systems set up to manage car batteries and such seem to be working pretty well, and lead acid batteries sitting in a relatively temperature stable room are going to need a lot less replacement than car batteries that are exposed to cold cycles and whatnot.
If you did that math, you got something wrong. Insolation is petawatts, human power use is less than 20 terawatts.
The sun striking the atmosphere is on the order of 100 petawatts. Less than that is available on the ground, but it is still something like 1/1000 of the surface of the Earth to meet all current energy needs.
And they had re-licensed at least 1 of the other 3 (I haven't investigated why, but it would make sense that they would bring it online during maintenance of 4, 5 or 6)
I wouldn't be terribly surprised to see per capita American energy consumption decrease, or at least level off. We (as a country) eat too much and have little need to continue the up-sizing of new construction far away from our jobs.
And I don't say that out of some notion that I should be the lifestyle police, I just don't see people spending more time commuting to their even more inconveniently located shoddy mansion that is on a medium sized plot of land next to other shoddy mansions. At a minimum, I don't see those trends continuing to increase forever.
That doesn't address increased travel or some new energy consuming whatever, but people already have pretty great lifestyles, and as the cost of energy goes up, people conserve because it is cheaper (buy more insulation, a more efficient vehicle, etc).
Lithium batteries are not especially toxic. They aren't nice food to eat, but some accidental exposure (like getting some on your skin, or breathing a small amount of smoke) is unlikely to have medical consequences (unless say, it burns you).
And the majority of the toxic materials used in batteries can be recycled, so the material only runs out very slowly as various inefficiencies in recovery and manufacturing take their toll, it is not 'used up' each time a battery is made.
It is nicely located, with 1 free reservoir and a decent hill. It has a peak capacity of ~1.8 GW and has payed for itself (it is used for peaking so offsets the need for natural gas plants)
Building more such things in Michigan would be doable, but there would be lots of politics and such to go through, and the one that exists is on a pretty great location. Even with Lake Michigan as a reservoir, it still takes up more than a square mile.
So it is large scale and very practical, even as a one off, but people wouldn't put up with building a bunch more of them.
Something like that only makes a small difference. A researcher might need $3000 of software, but they can use that software for 5 years, a period of time over which they will cost a lot more than $100,000 to employ.
Slashdot Mirror
So you are saying that nutritionists are not able to calculate the nutritionally available calories with any semblance of accuracy? The unavailable calories don't seem to have many implications for weight gain.
So in fact the body has to get the calories it uses from the nutritionally available calories in food, it isn't a trope.
Of course it isn't always simple, but "The Biggest Loser" does a pretty good job demonstrating that a normalized diet and heap of exercise have a big impact.
I don't even mean the items they provided you, I mean exactly what costs the room revenue goes towards covering.
I put in the couple thousand because I didn't want to argue with people who would point out that it would be expensive to keep such detailed track of spending.
You think it is an honest list, or do you think the room charge includes a nice mark up to cover costs that they can't recover elsewhere?
It isn't that tired, most people that invoke it are making the point that calories in are equal to the max calories in (it's physics!), not some argument that calories are exactly nutritionally equivalent regardless of the source.
Hey, I'm not opposed to some sort of universal health system in the U.S., a wealthy society has to be a little insane to let people go without medical treatment.
But people really do avoid going to the doctor, and people that don't have insurance would be a lot smarter to freak out about the quarter sized abscess, it will cost them less in every way.
Insurance still seems like a terrible way to socialize medicine.
(Mandatory insurance does apparently work a great deal better than mandatory treatment without mandatory insurance)
For $15,000 we should just tack on another couple thousand and require that they provide you a detailed itemized list of what costs they are using to justify that bill.
Sure. I only go to the doctor when I think I need it. I can see the value in doing more routine checkups, but I would have to pay for them directly, so I don't.
I'm talking about the people that, for example, wait until their abscess reaches grapefruit size, or ignore their persistent hacking cough, or ignore the loss of feeling in their feet.
HFCS, is, literally, the components of sucrose. The ratio of glucose to fructose in HFCS isn't 1:1 like it is in sucrose, but it is something like 55:45. Chemically, it is maybe a little simpler, but probably better described as the same.
When humans eat sucrose, it is rapidly converted to free glucose and free fructose, which are individually absorbed by the small intestine. HFCS is already composed of free glucose and free fructose and is absorbed by the small intestine.
So any theories about the evils of high fructose corn syrup have to rely on some sort of signal being disrupted by not requiring the first step of digestion, or perhaps by the slightly higher amount of fructose. There is also the remote possibility that some impurity does something medical.
Despite all the yelling, "employer" is a much better predictor of the level of insurance a person in the U.S. has than "medical history".
That medical history has an impact can be much more emotionally offensive so it isn't that shocking.
Right, because people aren't at all inclined to be morons or to dislike going to the doctor, so they never-ever put off a visit until things have reached the point of horror.
The only explanation for a care provider doing anything ever is that they are trying to screw their patients (the company running this contest really is one of the ones that sends bills to the insurance industry).
Well, I'm not particularly opposed to using nuclear power.
As far as cities, there are already reasons they aren't self sufficient (usually water and food), I don't see much reason to include such a border in the analysis. I suppose the more interesting lack of self sufficiency would be that they probably nearly universally import energy.
I don't see any need to rush into solar, the hope for it is that costs reach the point where people install it because it quickly saves them money, not that society mandates it and accidentally throws away a bunch of energy. As long as there isn't too much subsidization, solar panels that cheap should have a decent EROI.
Big hydro is flood control and irrigation.
The electricity is just something you do because it would be stupid not to.
Troll light artillery.
You said high-efficiency. That's lithium batteries.
And I don't understand why you would encourage me to drink it, I alluded to the fact that consuming them directly was not a great idea. The point is more that while they are toxic, they are not toxic in the way that "toxic" conjures up for most people, where some moderate amount of exposure is enough that you are done-zo. Some wackier scientists have even proposed adding lithium to drinking water (moderate exposure is correlated with lower suicide rates, not with neurological defects).
As far as lead-acid batteries, the systems set up to manage car batteries and such seem to be working pretty well, and lead acid batteries sitting in a relatively temperature stable room are going to need a lot less replacement than car batteries that are exposed to cold cycles and whatnot.
If you did that math, you got something wrong. Insolation is petawatts, human power use is less than 20 terawatts.
The sun striking the atmosphere is on the order of 100 petawatts. Less than that is available on the ground, but it is still something like 1/1000 of the surface of the Earth to meet all current energy needs.
Well, except for those guys that got burned.
4,5 and 6 weren't going to be shutdown.
And they had re-licensed at least 1 of the other 3 (I haven't investigated why, but it would make sense that they would bring it online during maintenance of 4, 5 or 6)
I wouldn't be terribly surprised to see per capita American energy consumption decrease, or at least level off. We (as a country) eat too much and have little need to continue the up-sizing of new construction far away from our jobs.
And I don't say that out of some notion that I should be the lifestyle police, I just don't see people spending more time commuting to their even more inconveniently located shoddy mansion that is on a medium sized plot of land next to other shoddy mansions. At a minimum, I don't see those trends continuing to increase forever.
That doesn't address increased travel or some new energy consuming whatever, but people already have pretty great lifestyles, and as the cost of energy goes up, people conserve because it is cheaper (buy more insulation, a more efficient vehicle, etc).
Doesn't beat the government not spending it at all.
So for a few trillion dollars we could have a toy lunar base and make some pretty bootprints on Mars?
Lithium batteries are not especially toxic. They aren't nice food to eat, but some accidental exposure (like getting some on your skin, or breathing a small amount of smoke) is unlikely to have medical consequences (unless say, it burns you).
And the majority of the toxic materials used in batteries can be recycled, so the material only runs out very slowly as various inefficiencies in recovery and manufacturing take their toll, it is not 'used up' each time a battery is made.
You should look at the pumped storage plant in Ludington, MI:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludington_Pumped_Storage_Power_Plant
It is nicely located, with 1 free reservoir and a decent hill. It has a peak capacity of ~1.8 GW and has payed for itself (it is used for peaking so offsets the need for natural gas plants)
Building more such things in Michigan would be doable, but there would be lots of politics and such to go through, and the one that exists is on a pretty great location. Even with Lake Michigan as a reservoir, it still takes up more than a square mile.
So it is large scale and very practical, even as a one off, but people wouldn't put up with building a bunch more of them.
Something like that only makes a small difference. A researcher might need $3000 of software, but they can use that software for 5 years, a period of time over which they will cost a lot more than $100,000 to employ.
Human power use is about 1/10000 of the power of the sunlight hitting the Earth.
So you could build 5 or 20 or 30 percent of the array and see if anything scary happened.