Sure, but you won't like the meat that results. Cows feed only grass take longer to get to slaughter weight. The beef produced is leaner, tougher and most folks strongly prefer grain fed beef as a result.
So nearly 100% of the beef consumed is from animals which are initially raised on grass, then spend the last few months of their lives being finished in feed lots. You have to slowly transition them to grain because the increased methane production of grain will kill them if you go too fast and to make the most efficient use of the grain it takes a little time to get their digestive system working on grain. Once on grain, you feed them to add fat and keep them from exercise as much as possible. Once they hit the target weight, you want to get them to the slaughter house ASAP.
Yes, I know first hand about most of this, having been a farm boy from way back, who enjoyed eating beef we raised ourselves.
Problem with that idea is that any animal that dies outside of the slaughter house is *not* allowed to be sold for human consumption. You can eat it yourself, but you cannot sell it to somebody. Which is a law that makes a lot of sense for food safety.
So you can sell the carcass for dog food or for rendering, but it's not legal to sell it for use in hamburger.
Three is an "Ease of collection" angle to be considered though. If you can get 5% plus additional gas from a digester system when you scoop all the poop into it, why bother with having to perform surgery on each cow?
I got to wonder how expensive the surgery is and what the mortality rate is? Surely that's not insignificant cost. This whole thing seems very non-cost effective to me, even if I've not been on a farm working with cows for 30+ years..
No, they are just taking it from the stomach of the cow though surgically installed tube in the cow's left side. Methane produced in the intestines would not be collected though this system, nor would the methane produced from what exits the cow.
Ah come on... Cow BURPS? There are a whole lot of ways to get methane from the things cows expel, mostly from the OTHER end, that are a whole lot easier and effective than what they burp up. But hey... Who wants to shovel the stuff into the tank where we can easily capture the methane it generates?
Sad but true. Our media culture tells us that you have to have certain characteristics to be attractive, and it's easy to see that we don't measure up. Few people can live up to the ideal appearance anyway so why buy into the lie?
In the mean time, we are enticed to spend time and money in a vain attempt to meet some impossible goal, and when we fail we are unhappy. I say, keep your money and be happy with what you have. At least for the 99.9% of us who are really just "normal" anyway.
What ever floats your boat. I'm just advising that one should learn to be happy with their appearance. You will be happier, because we all are destine to get older.
Fabio and I are relieved! We've been pulling our hair out worrying over this..
Seriously, are we not past this, I got to have hair to be a man thing yet? I guess in today's plastic surgery, photo shop and fake tan world this is par for the course. Vanity of vanities, all is vanity. Folks, generally you are as attractive as you THINK you are (with some notable exceptions who have egos which are too big). Personally I prefer the company of folks who take care of themselves but are not preoccupied with appearance. Be comfortable with who you are, you will be happier in the long run.
So you always land on the longest runway the wind allows,
And then comes the day when you have your first real emergency and the only airport you can reach has a 1500' runway. You've never practiced on anything shorter than the 10,000' runway at your home airport. Wrong time to learn short field landings, I'd say.
I routinely practice short field landing techniques using long runways. I can usually get the C-150 stopped in less than 300' ground roll and usually get wheels on the ground with 10' of the threshold. I use a 4,000 foot runway for practice this all the time. I practice short field departures from the same runway. So when I did happen to fly into the 2,000 ft field, I knew what to do. There's no need to go hit the 1500 ft runway and crash a few times learning how.
But you seem to get my point. Flying is about safety. Anything you can easily do to improve your margins, you should do. That means keeping as much altitude below you, as much gas as you can in the tank, and as much runway in front of you as possible. So staying 3,000 ft AGL isn't a bad idea when the airspace and weather allows it. It has the added bonus that you don't have to avoid all the foot ball games...
Part of me wants to send Obama a copy of, "The Mythical Man-Month". Another part of me wants to just sit back and watch.
I'll do both. I'm sure there is nobody who in the administration that would actually take the time to read that. After all, It's full of OLD ideas that have been discussed before. They are only into "new" ideas...
There are exceptions to the rules... I've seen EOL operating systems in use where the cost of re-implementation was too high to warrant replacement, so the risks are documented and accepted.
Just stay above 3,000 AGL and you are golden.. Assuming you are not into Controlled Airspace, I would consider buzzing around under 3,000 to be somewhat dangerous over urban areas anyway unless it is a really short trip. That extra altitude could save your life should a problem develop. Like my flight instructor was fond of saying.. "Nothing is more useless than the runway behind you, the gas you left in the truck, or the altitude above you." So you always land on the longest runway the wind allows, carry as much fuel as possible and prefer higher altitudes when possible.
OK. OK.. Controlled airspace around airports, not restricted... Sorry, I wasn't technically correct.
Oh no! That stuff is really expensive and awful tasting. They have some good herbal teas, but their black teas are usually horrid. I buy a bulk tea imported by Metropolitan Tea Company from various retail outlets. It's the best Earl Grey I've found and most of their other varieties are great too.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, but you won't like the meat that results. Cows feed only grass take longer to get to slaughter weight. The beef produced is leaner, tougher and most folks strongly prefer grain fed beef as a result.
So nearly 100% of the beef consumed is from animals which are initially raised on grass, then spend the last few months of their lives being finished in feed lots. You have to slowly transition them to grain because the increased methane production of grain will kill them if you go too fast and to make the most efficient use of the grain it takes a little time to get their digestive system working on grain. Once on grain, you feed them to add fat and keep them from exercise as much as possible. Once they hit the target weight, you want to get them to the slaughter house ASAP.
Yes, I know first hand about most of this, having been a farm boy from way back, who enjoyed eating beef we raised ourselves.
Problem with that idea is that any animal that dies outside of the slaughter house is *not* allowed to be sold for human consumption. You can eat it yourself, but you cannot sell it to somebody. Which is a law that makes a lot of sense for food safety.
So you can sell the carcass for dog food or for rendering, but it's not legal to sell it for use in hamburger.
Three is an "Ease of collection" angle to be considered though. If you can get 5% plus additional gas from a digester system when you scoop all the poop into it, why bother with having to perform surgery on each cow?
I got to wonder how expensive the surgery is and what the mortality rate is? Surely that's not insignificant cost. This whole thing seems very non-cost effective to me, even if I've not been on a farm working with cows for 30+ years..
No, they are just taking it from the stomach of the cow though surgically installed tube in the cow's left side. Methane produced in the intestines would not be collected though this system, nor would the methane produced from what exits the cow.
Not always... Politicians seem to have the ability to produce a LOT of BS but I KNOW they are NOT bulls. Steers maybe, but NOT bulls!
And then you have to "insert tubes" into the poor cows to do this? PETA is going to have a COW! Uh.. Wait...
Ah come on... Cow BURPS? There are a whole lot of ways to get methane from the things cows expel, mostly from the OTHER end, that are a whole lot easier and effective than what they burp up. But hey... Who wants to shovel the stuff into the tank where we can easily capture the methane it generates?
I'm calling BS on this.. (grin)
Sad but true. Our media culture tells us that you have to have certain characteristics to be attractive, and it's easy to see that we don't measure up. Few people can live up to the ideal appearance anyway so why buy into the lie?
In the mean time, we are enticed to spend time and money in a vain attempt to meet some impossible goal, and when we fail we are unhappy. I say, keep your money and be happy with what you have. At least for the 99.9% of us who are really just "normal" anyway.
What ever floats your boat. I'm just advising that one should learn to be happy with their appearance. You will be happier, because we all are destine to get older.
Fabio and I are relieved! We've been pulling our hair out worrying over this..
Seriously, are we not past this, I got to have hair to be a man thing yet? I guess in today's plastic surgery, photo shop and fake tan world this is par for the course. Vanity of vanities, all is vanity. Folks, generally you are as attractive as you THINK you are (with some notable exceptions who have egos which are too big). Personally I prefer the company of folks who take care of themselves but are not preoccupied with appearance. Be comfortable with who you are, you will be happier in the long run.
(That goes for you ladies too..)
Sure it can. If it believes that staying out of the trash requires doing what you want, it can decide where it goes.
So, before make the obvious statement to come, I'm going to ask "How do you know?"
The automated model eh? Time to get out the user's guide and "program" a new reality for it.
Depends on your perspective. Sometimes you can be penny wise and pound foolish by not paying enough up front.
In this case, I think we will over pay in general, but that's not what this was about.
So you always land on the longest runway the wind allows,
And then comes the day when you have your first real emergency and the only airport you can reach has a 1500' runway. You've never practiced on anything shorter than the 10,000' runway at your home airport. Wrong time to learn short field landings, I'd say.
I routinely practice short field landing techniques using long runways. I can usually get the C-150 stopped in less than 300' ground roll and usually get wheels on the ground with 10' of the threshold. I use a 4,000 foot runway for practice this all the time. I practice short field departures from the same runway. So when I did happen to fly into the 2,000 ft field, I knew what to do. There's no need to go hit the 1500 ft runway and crash a few times learning how.
But you seem to get my point. Flying is about safety. Anything you can easily do to improve your margins, you should do. That means keeping as much altitude below you, as much gas as you can in the tank, and as much runway in front of you as possible. So staying 3,000 ft AGL isn't a bad idea when the airspace and weather allows it. It has the added bonus that you don't have to avoid all the foot ball games...
10 times as long, so we are looking at 2 years or so..
But the *real* question is how much will it cost?
Lowest bidder won the contract..
Nope, It won't. It's going to take four times as long and cost ten times as much.
Part of me wants to send Obama a copy of, "The Mythical Man-Month". Another part of me wants to just sit back and watch.
I'll do both. I'm sure there is nobody who in the administration that would actually take the time to read that. After all, It's full of OLD ideas that have been discussed before. They are only into "new" ideas...
Mod this up.. Mythical Man-Month logic says this too shall fail and will do so by spending HUGE sums of money to get the software later.
No, Just the low bidder..
There are exceptions to the rules... I've seen EOL operating systems in use where the cost of re-implementation was too high to warrant replacement, so the risks are documented and accepted.
guess not...
They are all over at Healthcare.gov trying to get that working before the HHS secretary looses her job.
I guess we will find out how well the best and brightest can handle multiple outages.. Not looking good so far.
Just stay above 3,000 AGL and you are golden.. Assuming you are not into Controlled Airspace, I would consider buzzing around under 3,000 to be somewhat dangerous over urban areas anyway unless it is a really short trip. That extra altitude could save your life should a problem develop. Like my flight instructor was fond of saying.. "Nothing is more useless than the runway behind you, the gas you left in the truck, or the altitude above you." So you always land on the longest runway the wind allows, carry as much fuel as possible and prefer higher altitudes when possible.
OK. OK.. Controlled airspace around airports, not restricted... Sorry, I wasn't technically correct.
I figure you are buying Twinnings?
Oh no! That stuff is really expensive and awful tasting. They have some good herbal teas, but their black teas are usually horrid. I buy a bulk tea imported by Metropolitan Tea Company from various retail outlets. It's the best Earl Grey I've found and most of their other varieties are great too.