Yea the humble Calorie is obviously not a totally accurate measuring stick, but it is a useful tool to gauge the energy content of similar foods that is simple and fast. Are their times when the vagaries of digestion and preparation techniques might cloud the accuracy of what it measures? Yep. However I think anybody who understood what it was actually measuring would quickly understand it's limitations and why they exist.
So, for the person watching their weight, it's a good tool to start on, but you are going to have to fine tune the solution based on *your* situation anyway. So long as you understand this, I don't see much of a need to ditch the Calorie, Especially if the tool proposed to replace it is more complex to use for the average consumer.
Well, the problem is we are all unique and we are constantly changing. I used to eat like a horse and never gain weight, even when I tried. However, after middle age set in, I find that keeping the weight off takes a bit more thought. My body is changing.
So, science isn't going to easily come up with a solution that is unique to me and if they did it would be different next month as I age more. Why bother with the scientific rigor? All I need to do is learn what I can eat while staying a healthy weight and adjust (less food, more exercise) if I gain too much.
Now if you want to perform a thermodynamic analysis on my body's processing of various foods to three decimal places, the Calorie isn't likely to be your measuring stick of choice. However, if you want to loose 5 lbs., it will serve it's purpose in giving you a relative measure of what you might choose to eat.
Still, using calories to measure and "eat less" works as well as anything else out there. Assuming you don't change your diet content or buy different foods, eating less calories will lower the available energy going into your body and lower your weight gain. Further, if you do change the mix of your diet, using the calorie to evaluate what it might do to your weight is a good place to start (Atkins followers aside) in that it generally captures the most important metric about food's energy content available to your body and is thus useful as a tool...
The humble calorie has the advantage of being simple and generally effective as a measuring tool in every day life. Now if you want to start into a thermodynamic analysis of an operating human to 3 decimal places or make radical changes to your diet like the Adkins folks do, yea it's got issues. But we have known that for a long time..
Wait a min, the Calorie is NOT useless here, in fact it's served its purpose for decades.
What has really changed (and it didn't really change, everybody should have known it was an estimate to start with) is how our culture defines nutrition, how we generally diet and why we think we gain or loose weight.
Where your 1200 calorie diet and mine may have totally different results based on how well we can digest what goes into our mouths, the FACT remains that if I'm gaining weight at 1200 calories and I drop to 1000 calories a day, chances are I will gain less weight and maybe even loose some. Calories are a comparative measure, not an absolute measure. So doubling the calories means you are getting more energy in comparison than you did before. Or if you eat half the calories you are getting less. It's sort of like measuring long distances with a yard stick and a protractor...
Aw come on... This is not hard...Exercise a couple of times a week and try to eat a variety of things in your diet.
If you are gaining weight, exercise more and/or eat less calories.
Have any questions, hit up the "food pyramid" on Google and/or ask your doctor for information. After they drop dead from shock, I'm sure they will happily load you down with materials on nutrition and exercise.
As a lab manager I had to institute a rule that ANY cable that didn't have a label was going to be removed when found with no warning. Any cable which was incorrectly labeled, was subject to be connected to what the label said, or if that wasn't possible, the label would be removed and then the cable was pulled for not being labeled. Label content was defined and all where trained on how to make proper labels, and retrained when they came to ask why their system suddenly stopped working.
Maintaining a lab is a daily discipline, like cleaning house. You have to pick up after yourself as you go along or at the end of the day the mess is huge. Hey, where you born in a barn? Your Mom doesn't work here, clean up your mess!
A wise man once told me, in the midst of the fallout from the 2000 tech bubble bursting, that it was a buyer's market because supply of skilled labor was bigger than demand, but not to worry, eventually it would be a seller's market. Be ready to take advantage of the market when you can. We where happy to be employed and getting a paycheck though those dark times, knowing it would change. Change is here...
Personally, I just switched jobs and got a nice 12% raise and a 5% signing bonus, I'm working 30 min closer to home with a better situation for advancement. It's a seller's market out there in a lot of places folks. Time to take advantage and ask for a better wage. For your direct benefit as well as the benefit of the rest of us, drive the price of labor up, please! I'm doing what I can here...
No, but FAA regulations govern aircraft operation from the time they leave the ground until they land. Local regulations CAN NOT over-ride FAA regulations for flying aircraft. That's the issue here.
You may have a civil case, but you are going to have to take me to court and that will take months. By then, the little shindig I'm flying too will be over and I won't be bothering you anymore..
In the USA, Federal law trumps local law. If there is a Federal regulation and a local regulation that are in conflict, the Federal regulation is considered to be "superior" (i.e. is what governs) if the Federal regulators wish it. Sometimes Federal regulators will, by choice, defer to local regulations, and not pre-empt them, but they have the right (and generally the inclination) to over-ride local regulations.
In the case of the FAA, they are a federal level organization which governs ALL airspace, starting from the ground on up. They do NOT allow local (city, state or county) regulations to pre-empt their rules, but have made it clear that the FAA reserves ALL authority in their area of responsibility.
So in this case, the city, county or state have zero authority to regulate the operation of aircraft when they are flying, even 1 inch off the ground. The FAA does not allow local authorities to do this and will actively pre-empt any attempts by local regulators to regulate aircraft operations. They've done so in the past, and I have no doubt they will actively protect their authority to regulate the nation's airspace in the future.
Are you making a "public safety" argument or a noise/nuisance argument here?
Look, the issue here is the operation of aircraft is the FAA's responsibility. They are a Federal agency and their regulations supersede local regulations in their area of authority, which in this case involves everything in the nation's airspace, defined as from the ground up. And before you try and get smart with me, yes, they DO have a say about your house or the trees or that softball you threw into the air if they wanted to. They regulate radio towers, they regulate building heights and all sorts of things directly related to stuff that flies.
So, given the FAA governs aircraft in flight, the only time local regulations *might* come into play is when they are NOT flying (i.e. when they are on the ground). In order to do so, local authorities will need to show cause (show they have a good reason) and have standing to create ordinances that govern the operations of aircraft ON THE GROUND.
So, I ask you, if you are making a safety argument, what's unsafe about having a helicopter on the ground?
If you are making a noise/nascence argument, how is this a problem with the aircraft on the ground?
Because flying over your house and making noise doing so is regulated by the FAA (or possibly the EPA) and not your city, county or state.
Local residents complained about the noise.... Where I feel for them, I don't think the county has standing to regulate this. The FAA reserves total authority over all airspace (basically from the ground up). They write the regulations, enforce the regulations, and are solely responsible for all the airspace over the nation. The state cannot regulate it's airspace, the county has no authority and the city has even less over it's airspace. All local regulations can really do here is claim a health and safety issue, which is tenuous at best when it involves federally allowed and regulated activities like flying aircraft for hire.
The only conceivable time local regulations could come into play is when the aircraft are actually ON THE GROUND and not flying. Otherwise, they are the FAA's problem to regulate.
However, I believe that this operation is actually still running. They are using a helipad provided by the Sheriff's office now and not the disputed private land. I imagine they still are causing noise issues for the locals, but there is no "land use" regulation issues they can use to stop this.
Sure, that's a noise problem. IF you have land use restrictions (deed restrictions or local ordinances) that deal with that, get the restrictions enforced using the civil courts. If it's a local law, apply the relevant citations and fines for violating the noise ordinances. However, you don't go and obtain a court order to enforce the law before they break it, or threaten to arrest pilots and impound the aircraft without clearly showing a violation of law. Further, in this case, the county and city must show they have a valid reason for the law they are enforcing because the FAA is where the law that controls aircraft operations above the ground come from, and the FAA reserves the authority to regulate anything that flies, so states, cities and counties may NOT regulate aircraft. In fact, the only time a city, county or state could conceivably regulate aircraft is whey they are NOT flying (I,e. when they are on the ground) and then, only to the extent they can show reasonable cause for the public good (Health, safety etc.)
So in this case, any land use deed restrictions or local ordinances can ONLY apply to an aircraft which is currently ON THE GROUND. The noise produced while the aircraft is flying is not subject to local or state regulations but FAA rules. So FLYING over the neighbors house in accordance with FAA rules does not fall under the jurisdiction of the state, county or city and only a small portion of the aircraft operation (time wise) is spent on the ground where it is even possible that local ordinances could apply.
If a property owner wants to allow helicopters to land on their property, why is the government denying them permission? If the FAA allows the flight, how can the county or the city deny the landings?
Personally, I think the operators doing this should be allowed to continue unless there is some EPA or FAA objection. Local, County and State law should NOT be allowed to prohibit this activity unless they can prove they have standing on public safety grounds. I don't think they have shown that yet.
No, we live on this thing called Earth which has a really deep and dense atmosphere which shields us from the really bad stuff that makes it though the magnetic shielding which naturally exists...
No, no, no... You ABSTRACT away the mess by making sweeping generalizations which with introspection leads you to a way to implement the mess. Remember, there is a METHOD in the madness.....
I was reading thermostat reviews online and ran across this one.... Thinking about a Nest? Read this:
My former wife loves to take expensive vacations. We live in Ohio, which doesn’t exactly have extravagant places to see unless you like to watch grass growing or interstate construction. While we make OK money, I’m convinced she felt the need to single handedly improve the US economy by taking elaborate vacations: Broadway shows in New York City, gambling in Las Vegas, Spa’s in Arizona, sightseeing in San Francisco. The airlines know me so well they ask about my dog when I call to make reservations. His name is Fred.
In my attempt to try and save whatever I could so the princess could have her nice things I bought this Nest Wi-Fi enabled device so I could adjust the HVAC while we were away piling up massive amounts of debt on Mickey Mouse watches. I thought we could save a few bucks by keeping the temp cool in the winter and warm in the summer. The device was easy to install. I did not have the “blue” connector so I had to re-purpose the green one - this required an adjustment to the actual HVAC unit in our home. There are plenty of videos on Youtube to demonstrate how to do this. Within an hour I was up and running.
The device works flawlessly. You can adjust the temp from anywhere you have a Wi-Fi or cellular signal. Little did I know that my ex had found someone that had a bit more money than I did and decided to make other travel plans. Those plans included her no longer being my wife and finding a new travel partner (Carl, a banker). She took the house, the dog and a good chunk of my 401k, but didn’t mess with the wireless access point or the Wi-Fi enabled thermostat.
Since this past Ohio winter has been so cold I’ve been messing with the temp while the new love birds are sleeping. Doesn’t everyone want to wake up at 7 AM to a 40 degree house? When they are away on their weekend getaways, I crank the heat up to 80 degrees and back down to 40 before they arrive home. I can only imagine what their electricity bills might be. It makes me smile. I know this won’t last forever, but I can’t help but smile every time I log in and see that it still works. I also can’t wait for warmer weather when I can crank the heat up to 80 degrees while the love birds are sleeping. After all, who doesn’t want to wake up to an 80 degree home in the middle of June?
And after laughing myself sick, decided I'm not going to have a thermostat that goes 'online' in my home..
You must be referring to electric baseboard heating. In the USA HVAC is usually 24V for the control system, with some of the individually controlled base board heaters being 220/240V wiring. If you have one or two thermostats in your house or they control both AC and Heating with forced air, they are likely 24V. If you have one in each room and only have heat, chances are it's 220/240V wiring to a base board heater.
In the UK, few have AC, so baseboard heating is a lot more common and 24 V control systems are not used as often. In the UK forced air systems with blowers and such are not as common. Here in the USA, forced air and air-conditioning is nearly universal in some areas so 24V is used.
Who keeps that junk laying around? Plus, most folks are going to struggle trying to figure out how the old one gets wired up and may have paid somebody to install the new shiny NEST device anyway..
There was no reason for the summary to mention a risk of pipes bursting, that's just fear-mongering to try and sensationalize the issue.
You must be south of the Mason Dixon line or something....
It's winter time up north and that means the temperature routinely goes below freezing... Heating is not an optional part of a home that has plumbing unless it's been specifically prepared for the temperatures.
Slashdot Mirror
Yea the humble Calorie is obviously not a totally accurate measuring stick, but it is a useful tool to gauge the energy content of similar foods that is simple and fast. Are their times when the vagaries of digestion and preparation techniques might cloud the accuracy of what it measures? Yep. However I think anybody who understood what it was actually measuring would quickly understand it's limitations and why they exist.
So, for the person watching their weight, it's a good tool to start on, but you are going to have to fine tune the solution based on *your* situation anyway. So long as you understand this, I don't see much of a need to ditch the Calorie, Especially if the tool proposed to replace it is more complex to use for the average consumer.
Well, the problem is we are all unique and we are constantly changing. I used to eat like a horse and never gain weight, even when I tried. However, after middle age set in, I find that keeping the weight off takes a bit more thought. My body is changing.
So, science isn't going to easily come up with a solution that is unique to me and if they did it would be different next month as I age more. Why bother with the scientific rigor? All I need to do is learn what I can eat while staying a healthy weight and adjust (less food, more exercise) if I gain too much.
Now if you want to perform a thermodynamic analysis on my body's processing of various foods to three decimal places, the Calorie isn't likely to be your measuring stick of choice. However, if you want to loose 5 lbs., it will serve it's purpose in giving you a relative measure of what you might choose to eat.
My doctor said I needed to add more plants to my diet, but I cannot find any bacon seeds...
Still, using calories to measure and "eat less" works as well as anything else out there. Assuming you don't change your diet content or buy different foods, eating less calories will lower the available energy going into your body and lower your weight gain. Further, if you do change the mix of your diet, using the calorie to evaluate what it might do to your weight is a good place to start (Atkins followers aside) in that it generally captures the most important metric about food's energy content available to your body and is thus useful as a tool...
The humble calorie has the advantage of being simple and generally effective as a measuring tool in every day life. Now if you want to start into a thermodynamic analysis of an operating human to 3 decimal places or make radical changes to your diet like the Adkins folks do, yea it's got issues. But we have known that for a long time..
Wait a min, the Calorie is NOT useless here, in fact it's served its purpose for decades.
What has really changed (and it didn't really change, everybody should have known it was an estimate to start with) is how our culture defines nutrition, how we generally diet and why we think we gain or loose weight.
Where your 1200 calorie diet and mine may have totally different results based on how well we can digest what goes into our mouths, the FACT remains that if I'm gaining weight at 1200 calories and I drop to 1000 calories a day, chances are I will gain less weight and maybe even loose some. Calories are a comparative measure, not an absolute measure. So doubling the calories means you are getting more energy in comparison than you did before. Or if you eat half the calories you are getting less. It's sort of like measuring long distances with a yard stick and a protractor...
Aw come on... This is not hard...Exercise a couple of times a week and try to eat a variety of things in your diet.
If you are gaining weight, exercise more and/or eat less calories.
Have any questions, hit up the "food pyramid" on Google and/or ask your doctor for information. After they drop dead from shock, I'm sure they will happily load you down with materials on nutrition and exercise.
9000 cable... and no labeling
Sadly this is common...
As a lab manager I had to institute a rule that ANY cable that didn't have a label was going to be removed when found with no warning. Any cable which was incorrectly labeled, was subject to be connected to what the label said, or if that wasn't possible, the label would be removed and then the cable was pulled for not being labeled. Label content was defined and all where trained on how to make proper labels, and retrained when they came to ask why their system suddenly stopped working.
Maintaining a lab is a daily discipline, like cleaning house. You have to pick up after yourself as you go along or at the end of the day the mess is huge. Hey, where you born in a barn? Your Mom doesn't work here, clean up your mess!
They where checking if they could skew the accuracy of GPS and if anybody would notice when they did. Oops, somebody noticed.
Well, that's my theory.. Don't ask me who "they" are because I left my tinfoil hat at home today.
This was NOT helpful...
What a waste of money. If you don't like the rating system, distribute your material in other ways..
A wise man once told me, in the midst of the fallout from the 2000 tech bubble bursting, that it was a buyer's market because supply of skilled labor was bigger than demand, but not to worry, eventually it would be a seller's market. Be ready to take advantage of the market when you can. We where happy to be employed and getting a paycheck though those dark times, knowing it would change. Change is here...
Personally, I just switched jobs and got a nice 12% raise and a 5% signing bonus, I'm working 30 min closer to home with a better situation for advancement. It's a seller's market out there in a lot of places folks. Time to take advantage and ask for a better wage. For your direct benefit as well as the benefit of the rest of us, drive the price of labor up, please! I'm doing what I can here...
No, but FAA regulations govern aircraft operation from the time they leave the ground until they land. Local regulations CAN NOT over-ride FAA regulations for flying aircraft. That's the issue here.
You may have a civil case, but you are going to have to take me to court and that will take months. By then, the little shindig I'm flying too will be over and I won't be bothering you anymore..
Yes there is a reason.
In the USA, Federal law trumps local law. If there is a Federal regulation and a local regulation that are in conflict, the Federal regulation is considered to be "superior" (i.e. is what governs) if the Federal regulators wish it. Sometimes Federal regulators will, by choice, defer to local regulations, and not pre-empt them, but they have the right (and generally the inclination) to over-ride local regulations.
In the case of the FAA, they are a federal level organization which governs ALL airspace, starting from the ground on up. They do NOT allow local (city, state or county) regulations to pre-empt their rules, but have made it clear that the FAA reserves ALL authority in their area of responsibility.
So in this case, the city, county or state have zero authority to regulate the operation of aircraft when they are flying, even 1 inch off the ground. The FAA does not allow local authorities to do this and will actively pre-empt any attempts by local regulators to regulate aircraft operations. They've done so in the past, and I have no doubt they will actively protect their authority to regulate the nation's airspace in the future.
Are you making a "public safety" argument or a noise/nuisance argument here?
Look, the issue here is the operation of aircraft is the FAA's responsibility. They are a Federal agency and their regulations supersede local regulations in their area of authority, which in this case involves everything in the nation's airspace, defined as from the ground up. And before you try and get smart with me, yes, they DO have a say about your house or the trees or that softball you threw into the air if they wanted to. They regulate radio towers, they regulate building heights and all sorts of things directly related to stuff that flies.
So, given the FAA governs aircraft in flight, the only time local regulations *might* come into play is when they are NOT flying (i.e. when they are on the ground). In order to do so, local authorities will need to show cause (show they have a good reason) and have standing to create ordinances that govern the operations of aircraft ON THE GROUND.
So, I ask you, if you are making a safety argument, what's unsafe about having a helicopter on the ground?
If you are making a noise/nascence argument, how is this a problem with the aircraft on the ground?
Because flying over your house and making noise doing so is regulated by the FAA (or possibly the EPA) and not your city, county or state.
Local residents complained about the noise.... Where I feel for them, I don't think the county has standing to regulate this. The FAA reserves total authority over all airspace (basically from the ground up). They write the regulations, enforce the regulations, and are solely responsible for all the airspace over the nation. The state cannot regulate it's airspace, the county has no authority and the city has even less over it's airspace. All local regulations can really do here is claim a health and safety issue, which is tenuous at best when it involves federally allowed and regulated activities like flying aircraft for hire.
The only conceivable time local regulations could come into play is when the aircraft are actually ON THE GROUND and not flying. Otherwise, they are the FAA's problem to regulate.
However, I believe that this operation is actually still running. They are using a helipad provided by the Sheriff's office now and not the disputed private land. I imagine they still are causing noise issues for the locals, but there is no "land use" regulation issues they can use to stop this.
Sure, that's a noise problem. IF you have land use restrictions (deed restrictions or local ordinances) that deal with that, get the restrictions enforced using the civil courts. If it's a local law, apply the relevant citations and fines for violating the noise ordinances. However, you don't go and obtain a court order to enforce the law before they break it, or threaten to arrest pilots and impound the aircraft without clearly showing a violation of law. Further, in this case, the county and city must show they have a valid reason for the law they are enforcing because the FAA is where the law that controls aircraft operations above the ground come from, and the FAA reserves the authority to regulate anything that flies, so states, cities and counties may NOT regulate aircraft. In fact, the only time a city, county or state could conceivably regulate aircraft is whey they are NOT flying (I,e. when they are on the ground) and then, only to the extent they can show reasonable cause for the public good (Health, safety etc.)
So in this case, any land use deed restrictions or local ordinances can ONLY apply to an aircraft which is currently ON THE GROUND. The noise produced while the aircraft is flying is not subject to local or state regulations but FAA rules. So FLYING over the neighbors house in accordance with FAA rules does not fall under the jurisdiction of the state, county or city and only a small portion of the aircraft operation (time wise) is spent on the ground where it is even possible that local ordinances could apply.
If a property owner wants to allow helicopters to land on their property, why is the government denying them permission? If the FAA allows the flight, how can the county or the city deny the landings?
Personally, I think the operators doing this should be allowed to continue unless there is some EPA or FAA objection. Local, County and State law should NOT be allowed to prohibit this activity unless they can prove they have standing on public safety grounds. I don't think they have shown that yet.
Just curious... Where did you find the published API? I've been looking and I must be blind or something...
No, we live on this thing called Earth which has a really deep and dense atmosphere which shields us from the really bad stuff that makes it though the magnetic shielding which naturally exists...
She got the dog, Fred, remember? Here's hoping he's at the kennel on those long weekends..
Actually, I'm pretty sure this whole thing is a work of fiction... Funny, but fiction...
Just finished "Hello World" then eh? Good for you, time for the next example in the tutorial...
No, no, no... You ABSTRACT away the mess by making sweeping generalizations which with introspection leads you to a way to implement the mess. Remember, there is a METHOD in the madness.....
I was reading thermostat reviews online and ran across this one.... Thinking about a Nest? Read this:
My former wife loves to take expensive vacations. We live in Ohio, which doesn’t exactly have extravagant places to see unless you like to watch grass growing or interstate construction. While we make OK money, I’m convinced she felt the need to single handedly improve the US economy by taking elaborate vacations: Broadway shows in New York City, gambling in Las Vegas, Spa’s in Arizona, sightseeing in San Francisco. The airlines know me so well they ask about my dog when I call to make reservations. His name is Fred.
In my attempt to try and save whatever I could so the princess could have her nice things I bought this Nest Wi-Fi enabled device so I could adjust the HVAC while we were away piling up massive amounts of debt on Mickey Mouse watches. I thought we could save a few bucks by keeping the temp cool in the winter and warm in the summer. The device was easy to install. I did not have the “blue” connector so I had to re-purpose the green one - this required an adjustment to the actual HVAC unit in our home. There are plenty of videos on Youtube to demonstrate how to do this. Within an hour I was up and running.
The device works flawlessly. You can adjust the temp from anywhere you have a Wi-Fi or cellular signal. Little did I know that my ex had found someone that had a bit more money than I did and decided to make other travel plans. Those plans included her no longer being my wife and finding a new travel partner (Carl, a banker). She took the house, the dog and a good chunk of my 401k, but didn’t mess with the wireless access point or the Wi-Fi enabled thermostat.
Since this past Ohio winter has been so cold I’ve been messing with the temp while the new love birds are sleeping. Doesn’t everyone want to wake up at 7 AM to a 40 degree house? When they are away on their weekend getaways, I crank the heat up to 80 degrees and back down to 40 before they arrive home. I can only imagine what their electricity bills might be. It makes me smile. I know this won’t last forever, but I can’t help but smile every time I log in and see that it still works. I also can’t wait for warmer weather when I can crank the heat up to 80 degrees while the love birds are sleeping. After all, who doesn’t want to wake up to an 80 degree home in the middle of June?
And after laughing myself sick, decided I'm not going to have a thermostat that goes 'online' in my home..
You must be referring to electric baseboard heating. In the USA HVAC is usually 24V for the control system, with some of the individually controlled base board heaters being 220/240V wiring. If you have one or two thermostats in your house or they control both AC and Heating with forced air, they are likely 24V. If you have one in each room and only have heat, chances are it's 220/240V wiring to a base board heater.
In the UK, few have AC, so baseboard heating is a lot more common and 24 V control systems are not used as often. In the UK forced air systems with blowers and such are not as common. Here in the USA, forced air and air-conditioning is nearly universal in some areas so 24V is used.
Who keeps that junk laying around? Plus, most folks are going to struggle trying to figure out how the old one gets wired up and may have paid somebody to install the new shiny NEST device anyway..
There was no reason for the summary to mention a risk of pipes bursting, that's just fear-mongering to try and sensationalize the issue.
You must be south of the Mason Dixon line or something....
It's winter time up north and that means the temperature routinely goes below freezing... Heating is not an optional part of a home that has plumbing unless it's been specifically prepared for the temperatures.