I suppose this is the 'plan'... *All your email are now belong to Google(TLA)*
I doubt it. The biggest source of spam is from botnets of hijacked machines. Most (>99%) of those machines don't have their ducks lined up when it comes to DNS. It's not a surprise that it's harder to start an email server these days. The sheer volume of spam is maddening.
Grade school teacher seems more like a caretaking job, along with nurse, secretary, therapist, flight attendant....you'd almost swear their minds are wired more towards those roles...
I showed the numbers that compare flight energy to vehicle energy, that is substantive and applicable. If you want to ignore it fine. There is a reason a guy can run 100 miles on a bike, but the human power helicopter flight record is 88 seconds. If you don't get it, I can't explain it to you.
First of all, human powered flight requires an external construction that weighs almost as much as the person powering it.
Second of all, you just demonstrated that you don't even have anything even remotely close to resembling reliable mathematical model. Think about it, your first comparison (which isn't a good one, by the way, because the chair is likely designed for being able to still work after long distances rather than speed) shows a 25 fold difference, and now this one is dramatically higher.
Likewise, I imagine that for a very small workload, that relationship will change.
Nintendo for years was like Apple - above reproach and doing it their own way, but now it's having to play everyone else's game for the sole reason that not enough people were playing their games.
Nintendo still very much is that way in the sense that they're control freaks when it comes to their own IP. In fact a lot of Japanese game developers are. If you peruse youtube a bit, you can find a lot of the people who upload their plays always complain about how Japanese companies are so hostile towards the gaming community, whereas game developers located basically anywhere outside of Japan aren't.
Compare that to every other game developer in the world, who actively encourages gamers to upload play videos, etc. It's no wonder Japanese games have really fallen out of favor in every place in the world that isn't Japan. Oh, and this doesn't help either:
"A worrying illness began to affect many of the party, the general symptoms were swelling of the legs, ankles and other body parts, accompanied by acute lethargy"
My first thought was nephrotic syndrome before even reading the second sentence. However I didn't know that could come about from not getting enough lipids in one's diet. That would make sense in this situation though because if you don't consume enough lipids, your liver will convert carbohydrates to make up for it. However the diet there would include protein and lipids, but very little carbohydrates; at least, not enough for your liver to be able to replace the fat. They would have to have been eating just the muscle tissue and not the fat tissue for that to happen, which is typical among westerners.
Are you trying to argue that ICE is less efficient than electric
Yes.
Have you got any quantitative input into this discussion, or are you just going to keep saying "I think this, I think that, he thinks that,.......?".
I'm looking for quantitative input. You meanwhile are saying "I think this, therefore I absolutely 100% confirm that, and I base it on absolutely nothing" and then adding a temper tantrum in the mix.
If you let somebody in (say a babysitter to watch your kids) that doesn't give them permission to peruse through a diary hidden in a drawer in a night stand.
That's true if you're doing some kind of liberal arts program, like studying the development of Modern Ebonics, but beyond that its practical use is somewhat limited.
No, because the latest hip-hop album about "pimpin hoes" and "bein a gangsta" doesn't do that in any appreciable way. However books, particularly ones relating to science and technology, do have that effect. And Google isn't just giving the books away to the public, rather they're offering snippets for the purpose of reference, constituting fair use, whereas MusicMatch gives you the whole song.
And at the same time, you're outright dismissing the much greater energy density of petrol, which is completely consumed when it combusts, and very little of it converts to kinetic energy. At any rate, Jeff Bezos seems pretty confident that it will use less energy. Does that make him right? I don't know, but the points you're making don't seem conclusive.
I haven't heard anything about that, but what I have heard is that this is basically just adaptive cruise with lane assist on steroids. Likewise, the "omg we're losing our skillz" concern in the summary will have to wait until Google's vision comes true.
Umm...you compared an electric scooter with a drone. An electric scooter is invariably going to be more energy efficient than a 6,000lb truck that runs on diesel or petrol for the same reason that an electric car is more energy efficient than a petrol car.
I don't see any details about diet there, other than a few mentions of struggling to find food, and a brief mention of how they would eat any remotely edible part of a seal, including rotten flippers. (Though I only scanned through it.)
Anyways some Inuit ate 100% meat, and didn't seem to have any difficulty. Two people ate 100% meat for an entire year and didn't have any ill effects:
It's fine to speculate, but without a mathematical model, you can't conclude one way or another.
For example, the energy required to lift with batteries probably doesn't produce much heat at all, meanwhile just to turn the truck engine on you're expelling a LOT of energy as heat. Acceleration will produce even more heat.
You're also not taking into account that a drone would likely be able to just rely on its momentum most of the time, expelling minimal energy to keep itself in motion (depending on the drone type, of course.) Meanwhile a truck has to deal with constant stop and go traffic.
Notice for example that Spinach is permitted up to 1mg of mammalian excrement (read: cow shit) per pound as per fda regulations. Tomatoes are permitted up to ten fly eggs per 500 grams, or five fly eggs and one maggot, or two maggots. Wheat is permitted up to 9mg of rat shit per kilogram. Ground oregano (a common additive in salads and salad dressings) can have up to 1250 insect fragments per 10 grams, in addition to 5 rodent hairs per 10 grams.
Meanwhile there are no allowed defects for meat, other than the meat product is allowed to be 65% of some other substance, aka fillers, such as cornstarch, or the "pink slime". While that's bad IMO from a food quality perspective, it isn't unhealthy. Unlike with plants, meat is easy to avoid contaminants because the slaughter and processing occurs in a very clean environment. I know because I once did routine IT work at a food distributor that had a meat plant. I've seen how clean the environment has to be if they want to comply with FDA regulations and ISO standards. It's just not possible to achieve that for veggies however as they inevitably have to be grown and harvested outside.
FWIW, there are many contradictory studies made in this area that correlate read-meat consumption with higher mortality.
I haven't seen any that indicate this except for two, one of which was The China Study, which has been debunked pretty well. In fact it's widely suspected that the The China Study was released in book form so that it wouldn't be subject to peer review, but we don't know for sure. What we do known is that somebody actually gathered the author's raw data and found that he cherry picked it to make it favor his ideology:
In fact if you look over the data, you might notice that there's a county that he pulled data from that consumes meat twice as much as the typical American, and you know what? It happened to be one among those counties with the lowest mortality rates. The author of the book responded to the criticism I linked there, and his refutation effectively amounted to "I'm a scientist, so that means I'm right here."
There was also a Princeton study that just asked people what they ate, (a really terrible way to understand nutrition, by the way) and they found the meat eaters had a higher incidents of all kinds of issues like heart disease and other whatnots. The problem is they made a huge mistake in gathering their data: They made about zero attempt to create a control. The meat eating group also had much more smokers, much more drinkers, much more drug users, people with poor exercise habits, etc. The vegetarian group had less of these problems simply because they were following some kind of diet, which is beneficial regardless of whether or not it includes meat.
In addition to all of the above, google the Inuit Paradox. Essentially the Inuit consumed mostly meat (somewhere north of 90% of their diet was meat) and, aside from deaths from war, accidents, virulent/bacterial disease, and other non-nutrition related natural causes, they actually lived longer than Europeans of that era. Some people suggested it was due to them as a people being adapted to that, until a few scientists tried that diet upon themselves, and they had no health problems associated with it. In fact, they didn't even get scurvy.
Now, all of this isn't to say that eating meat is healthier, rather it does say that eating meat isn't unhealthy, even if your diet is mostly meat (in the case of the inuit, over 90%.)
Actually veggies are more likely to have feces in them, a LOT more. Namely because they're often grown with cow shit, especially organic ones which are exclusively grown with cow shit or worm shit as synthetic fertilizer can't be used. This has actually lead to a lot of e. coli and salmonella outbreaks.
In fact, the leading cause of food poising is from plant matter, not meat:
Even taking the cow shit out of the equation entirely, if you actually read the FDA guidelines on allowable contaminants in vegetables, they can include insect body parts, insect shit, insect eggs, and even whole larva.
So yeah if you want to argue that meat is bad, you're seriously barking up the wrong tree here.
A truck only uses about 16% of its energy for forward motion, the rest is released as heat.
A drone gets to take advantage of alternating current to provide motion, which is a LOT more energy efficient.
I can understand that the truck carries more, therefore using scale to increase its energy efficiency, but unless we've got a good mathematical model we can't really rule out drones as being less energy efficient.
Cheaper is about the only justification I could see for it. As the FDA has been getting more and more of a clue lately, it's basically been found that red meat isn't actually bad for you after all. The original belief in that (as well as the belief that meat causes high cholesterol) originated from some poorly done studies in the early 60's and late 70's.
Which is exactly why I asked (and OP still hasn't answered) why you would just assume that your technology is foolproof and captured the plate information anyways. Seriously only a moron would do that.
I don't think most people would go for that, especially people who do target shooting competitively. The harder you have to squeeze the trigger, the more it fucks up your aim.
Slashdot Mirror
I suppose this is the 'plan'... *All your email are now belong to Google(TLA)*
I doubt it. The biggest source of spam is from botnets of hijacked machines. Most (>99%) of those machines don't have their ducks lined up when it comes to DNS. It's not a surprise that it's harder to start an email server these days. The sheer volume of spam is maddening.
Grade school teacher seems more like a caretaking job, along with nurse, secretary, therapist, flight attendant....you'd almost swear their minds are wired more towards those roles...
I showed the numbers that compare flight energy to vehicle energy, that is substantive and applicable. If you want to ignore it fine. There is a reason a guy can run 100 miles on a bike, but the human power helicopter flight record is 88 seconds. If you don't get it, I can't explain it to you.
First of all, human powered flight requires an external construction that weighs almost as much as the person powering it.
Second of all, you just demonstrated that you don't even have anything even remotely close to resembling reliable mathematical model. Think about it, your first comparison (which isn't a good one, by the way, because the chair is likely designed for being able to still work after long distances rather than speed) shows a 25 fold difference, and now this one is dramatically higher.
Likewise, I imagine that for a very small workload, that relationship will change.
Nintendo for years was like Apple - above reproach and doing it their own way, but now it's having to play everyone else's game for the sole reason that not enough people were playing their games.
Nintendo still very much is that way in the sense that they're control freaks when it comes to their own IP. In fact a lot of Japanese game developers are. If you peruse youtube a bit, you can find a lot of the people who upload their plays always complain about how Japanese companies are so hostile towards the gaming community, whereas game developers located basically anywhere outside of Japan aren't.
Example: (pardon the voice)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Compare that to every other game developer in the world, who actively encourages gamers to upload play videos, etc. It's no wonder Japanese games have really fallen out of favor in every place in the world that isn't Japan. Oh, and this doesn't help either:
http://www.tofugu.com/2014/03/...
"A worrying illness began to affect many of the party, the general symptoms were swelling of the legs, ankles and other body parts, accompanied by acute lethargy"
My first thought was nephrotic syndrome before even reading the second sentence. However I didn't know that could come about from not getting enough lipids in one's diet. That would make sense in this situation though because if you don't consume enough lipids, your liver will convert carbohydrates to make up for it. However the diet there would include protein and lipids, but very little carbohydrates; at least, not enough for your liver to be able to replace the fat. They would have to have been eating just the muscle tissue and not the fat tissue for that to happen, which is typical among westerners.
Are you trying to argue that ICE is less efficient than electric
Yes.
Have you got any quantitative input into this discussion, or are you just going to keep saying "I think this, I think that, he thinks that,.......?".
I'm looking for quantitative input. You meanwhile are saying "I think this, therefore I absolutely 100% confirm that, and I base it on absolutely nothing" and then adding a temper tantrum in the mix.
It means that sometimes swype inputs the wrong word and I didn't properly proofread.
There's quite a difference between plain site and digging. That concept is actually pretty well established in case law as well.
If you let somebody in (say a babysitter to watch your kids) that doesn't give them permission to peruse through a diary hidden in a drawer in a night stand.
That's true if you're doing some kind of liberal arts program, like studying the development of Modern Ebonics, but beyond that its practical use is somewhat limited.
No, because the latest hip-hop album about "pimpin hoes" and "bein a gangsta" doesn't do that in any appreciable way. However books, particularly ones relating to science and technology, do have that effect. And Google isn't just giving the books away to the public, rather they're offering snippets for the purpose of reference, constituting fair use, whereas MusicMatch gives you the whole song.
And at the same time, you're outright dismissing the much greater energy density of petrol, which is completely consumed when it combusts, and very little of it converts to kinetic energy. At any rate, Jeff Bezos seems pretty confident that it will use less energy. Does that make him right? I don't know, but the points you're making don't seem conclusive.
I read the article, just I initially missed the part about the cost.
I haven't heard anything about that, but what I have heard is that this is basically just adaptive cruise with lane assist on steroids. Likewise, the "omg we're losing our skillz" concern in the summary will have to wait until Google's vision comes true.
Umm...you compared an electric scooter with a drone. An electric scooter is invariably going to be more energy efficient than a 6,000lb truck that runs on diesel or petrol for the same reason that an electric car is more energy efficient than a petrol car.
I don't see any details about diet there, other than a few mentions of struggling to find food, and a brief mention of how they would eat any remotely edible part of a seal, including rotten flippers. (Though I only scanned through it.)
Anyways some Inuit ate 100% meat, and didn't seem to have any difficulty. Two people ate 100% meat for an entire year and didn't have any ill effects:
http://inhumanexperiment.blogs...
It's fine to speculate, but without a mathematical model, you can't conclude one way or another.
For example, the energy required to lift with batteries probably doesn't produce much heat at all, meanwhile just to turn the truck engine on you're expelling a LOT of energy as heat. Acceleration will produce even more heat.
You're also not taking into account that a drone would likely be able to just rely on its momentum most of the time, expelling minimal energy to keep itself in motion (depending on the drone type, of course.) Meanwhile a truck has to deal with constant stop and go traffic.
Here's a few more links for you:
http://www.realclearscience.co...
http://www.fda.gov/Food/Guidan...
Notice for example that Spinach is permitted up to 1mg of mammalian excrement (read: cow shit) per pound as per fda regulations. Tomatoes are permitted up to ten fly eggs per 500 grams, or five fly eggs and one maggot, or two maggots. Wheat is permitted up to 9mg of rat shit per kilogram. Ground oregano (a common additive in salads and salad dressings) can have up to 1250 insect fragments per 10 grams, in addition to 5 rodent hairs per 10 grams.
Meanwhile there are no allowed defects for meat, other than the meat product is allowed to be 65% of some other substance, aka fillers, such as cornstarch, or the "pink slime". While that's bad IMO from a food quality perspective, it isn't unhealthy. Unlike with plants, meat is easy to avoid contaminants because the slaughter and processing occurs in a very clean environment. I know because I once did routine IT work at a food distributor that had a meat plant. I've seen how clean the environment has to be if they want to comply with FDA regulations and ISO standards. It's just not possible to achieve that for veggies however as they inevitably have to be grown and harvested outside.
Have a nice day.
FWIW, there are many contradictory studies made in this area that correlate read-meat consumption with higher mortality.
I haven't seen any that indicate this except for two, one of which was The China Study, which has been debunked pretty well. In fact it's widely suspected that the The China Study was released in book form so that it wouldn't be subject to peer review, but we don't know for sure. What we do known is that somebody actually gathered the author's raw data and found that he cherry picked it to make it favor his ideology:
http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/...
In fact if you look over the data, you might notice that there's a county that he pulled data from that consumes meat twice as much as the typical American, and you know what? It happened to be one among those counties with the lowest mortality rates. The author of the book responded to the criticism I linked there, and his refutation effectively amounted to "I'm a scientist, so that means I'm right here."
You might also want to look at this as well:
http://www.cholesterol-and-hea...
There was also a Princeton study that just asked people what they ate, (a really terrible way to understand nutrition, by the way) and they found the meat eaters had a higher incidents of all kinds of issues like heart disease and other whatnots. The problem is they made a huge mistake in gathering their data: They made about zero attempt to create a control. The meat eating group also had much more smokers, much more drinkers, much more drug users, people with poor exercise habits, etc. The vegetarian group had less of these problems simply because they were following some kind of diet, which is beneficial regardless of whether or not it includes meat.
In addition to all of the above, google the Inuit Paradox. Essentially the Inuit consumed mostly meat (somewhere north of 90% of their diet was meat) and, aside from deaths from war, accidents, virulent/bacterial disease, and other non-nutrition related natural causes, they actually lived longer than Europeans of that era. Some people suggested it was due to them as a people being adapted to that, until a few scientists tried that diet upon themselves, and they had no health problems associated with it. In fact, they didn't even get scurvy.
Now, all of this isn't to say that eating meat is healthier, rather it does say that eating meat isn't unhealthy, even if your diet is mostly meat (in the case of the inuit, over 90%.)
Actually veggies are more likely to have feces in them, a LOT more. Namely because they're often grown with cow shit, especially organic ones which are exclusively grown with cow shit or worm shit as synthetic fertilizer can't be used. This has actually lead to a lot of e. coli and salmonella outbreaks.
In fact, the leading cause of food poising is from plant matter, not meat:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.co...
Even taking the cow shit out of the equation entirely, if you actually read the FDA guidelines on allowable contaminants in vegetables, they can include insect body parts, insect shit, insect eggs, and even whole larva.
So yeah if you want to argue that meat is bad, you're seriously barking up the wrong tree here.
I'd like to see the math on this.
A truck only uses about 16% of its energy for forward motion, the rest is released as heat.
A drone gets to take advantage of alternating current to provide motion, which is a LOT more energy efficient.
I can understand that the truck carries more, therefore using scale to increase its energy efficiency, but unless we've got a good mathematical model we can't really rule out drones as being less energy efficient.
They usually do that if the meat is prepared like crap. I personally think a good marble steak gets ruined by condiments.
Cheaper is about the only justification I could see for it. As the FDA has been getting more and more of a clue lately, it's basically been found that red meat isn't actually bad for you after all. The original belief in that (as well as the belief that meat causes high cholesterol) originated from some poorly done studies in the early 60's and late 70's.
Hindsight is not foresight.
Which is exactly why I asked (and OP still hasn't answered) why you would just assume that your technology is foolproof and captured the plate information anyways. Seriously only a moron would do that.
(make it really hard to squeeze?)
I don't think most people would go for that, especially people who do target shooting competitively. The harder you have to squeeze the trigger, the more it fucks up your aim.