The USA is a unique society, well, it WAS before, now Switzerland looks more like what USA tried to be than USA does.
Anyone who has actually lived in both Switzerland and the US will know how laughable this comparison is.
If you want the government out of your life and no regulation, then Switzerland is not the place for you. Everything from mandatory military service and healthcare, through government IDs, to having to inform the local authorities when you move house - and that's just the Federal government. There's even more fun stuff at the "State" and "local" levels of Government.
Raw materials are not the problem, at least not for the next few thousands of years, there is Canada and Russia and Africa and probably the Arctic, those have more materials than we can use for now.
Please tell us all about the raw materials available in the Arctic.
Heck, even if you meant the Antarctic, the practicalities of extraction means anything there may as well not exist.
From personal experience, I have to say that German drivers drive more aggressively than US drivers and have less following distance, which would tend to increase accidents.
My experience is the complete opposite. Of the countries I've driven in (Australia, New Zealand, USA (AZ, CA, ID, WA), UK, Switzerland, Germany, France and Italy) German drivers were by far the least aggressive and most considerate. In particular, their lane discipline is exceptional.
The most aggressive drivers I've experienced (by far) were in Sydney. Australian drivers also have the worst lane discipline I've ever seen, with the USA running a very close second. Surprisingly, lane discipline in the UK was pretty good.
From personal experience (on UK roads) I've witnessed a cars fuel consumption go from 15l/100km to 13l/100km at the speed limit, to about 6l/100km around 220kph. Once we hit 250kph the consumption went up to about 10l/100km, but that was because that was the cars top speed, and the engine was at it's top end (where it was less efficient).
The original article states that a car inspection would be required before permits could be issued. There is logic to this. There is a wide range of differing vehicle types on the road today, and the best are *easily* able to drive 100mph, and stop in 1/3 of the distance than the worst available.
A driver inspection would be a vastly more useful thing to do, since no competent driver is going to drive a car faster than it can safely go anyway.
There is very little data for what happens above that speed, but there was one episode of Mythbusters where they crashed a car at a very high speed (around 80-90, I think), and the car was shortened to 1/2 its original length, while at the lower speed, the accident would have been survivable.
How realistic was the crash scenario ? Because if they just drove it into a brick wall, that's not even a remotely convincing example.
While libertarians tend to get all outraged about things like this, there's no evidence that it's as safe to go 90mph on those roads as it is 70mph or whatever the current limit is.
There's generally no evidence that going 90 instead of 70 is any more dangerous, either.
If you've ever actually been to Germany, you'll know that most of the unlimited sections of the Autobahn are no better engineered than the average American freeway, and many of them are noticably worse. The reason the Autobahn is so much safer is because a) vehicle safety standards are higher and b) licensing standards are higher. No-one builds a freeway today that you couldn't safely travel at least 90mph on, and quite a bit more in a good car with a good driver.
That's true, but the point being made is that "cardio" is simply inefficient strength training. We're not talking about lifting weights for reps, or weight maximums, we're talking about using weights to exhaust your slow, medium and fast twitch muscles within about 60-90 seconds.
Ie: strength training. You're basically arguing that someone who does nothing more than strength training (ie: practically never gets onto a bike, into the pool, onto the soccer field, etc) could compete with an athlete who does so regularly.
Do you have any examples of this being true ?
There are lots of areas where our "experts" have gotten it wrong, and continue to get it wrong due to plain old social inertia. Although you're entitled to your confidence, I think it's misplaced. If anything, the best sports trainers have found the most "efficient" path to be doping and other performance enhancing drugs, and you know, that might be even better than what I'm advocating, but I don't see sports team trainers as particularly dedicated to the proposition that they should be using the scientific method to critically examine their hypotheses.
Given the vast amounts of money involved in many sports, I'm sure that trainers and players would be chomping at the bit if there were dramatically better methods they could use.
Not to mention the Olympics, which may not involve such large amounts of money (at least for the athletes and trainers) but is certainly all about being the best. Do you have some examples of medal-winning athletes (in cardio-heavy events, obviously) who only do strength training and never do cardio ?
My point here is that his training by cycling is training a skill, and that the improvement to his cardiovascular health as a result of it is not an efficient result. It takes more time, involves more danger, and in the end, improves physical condition by the same mechanism as strength training.
And I'm asking for some proof of that. Examples of athletes competing at a high level in these sorts of fields who basically only use weights a gym would be a good start.
The point to take away here is that a cyclist is a good cyclist because he cycles, not because he has done a cardiovascular workout. Similarly with the other sports you mentioned. The question you have to ask yourself is whether or not "cardio" is a singular skill which can be trained on that crosses over to skill in those multiple sports - can a cyclist be a great runner simply because they cycle? Can a runner be a great soccer player simply because they run?
I'm sure a good swimmer would be a much better runner than, say, a bodybuilder would be. Though an example to the contrary would go a long way to supporting your argument.
Well, for starters, we're not just talking about lifting weights - we're really talking about a specific, safe way to lift weights in order to have the most efficient exercise.
You are explicitly ruling out "cardio". That doesn't leave much else other than strength training, which ultimately boils down to either lifting (/pulling/whatever) weights, or some substitution for weights, be it an immovable object or your own body.
Second, just because people who excel in sports don't necessarily go about training in the most efficient way isn't a point against finding an efficient way to exercise.
I feel reasonably confident that people whose entire lives revolve around some form of physical activity, are training for said activity in the most efficient manner possible, and have whole teams of other people making sure of that.
Third, for all your other examples, swimming, cycling, and soccer, you'll note that they spend the bulk of their training time *doing their sport*. Swimmers don't improve their cardio by doing aerobics classes, and cyclists aren't out there running marathons, and soccer players aren't just spending hours on treadmills. There is a difference between *sport* and *exercise*.
Whoa there, tiger. You can't argue that "cardio" doesn't matter, then turn around and argue that people *doing exactly that* are somehow doing something different. No, a cyclist doesn't train by running marathons - but he does improve by cycling, which is almost entirely a cardiovascular workout. Similarly for swimming, running, and pretty much ever other cardio-intensive sport. You can't argue they're not doing cardio because they're doing their sport, when their sport is, itself, a cardio.
The trick here is that running is a skill - having good cardiovascular health may be trainable by slow strength training, but the skills of running require practice, not just muscle.
Running was an example. The point is that people who excel in sports that require excellent cardiovascular fitness (eg: swimming, cycling, soccer, to pick a few more) aren't spending the bulk of their training time in a gym lifting weights
I am a late teenaged person, I eat only fast and junk food, don't exercise, and drink at least 3 cans of regular soda a day. I am underweight, and have several friends with similar operating scenarios. Please explain.
I was like that as well. A decade and a half later I struggle to stay under "obese" (6'2", 250lb) even though I ride ~9 miles to and from work every day, plus another 20-40 each weekend, only eat out maybe once a week and avoid processed food as much as possible.
In short, your age and possibly genetics are on your side. If it's just your age, you'll be obese by your early 20s. If it's genetics, you're exceptionally lucky and will probably be skinny your whole life - though you'll never be fit and healthy with those habits.
Then they should be warned of the consequences of their actions, not forced. That will do no good.
One day, when you have to actually interact with children, you'll discover that a) they have very little capacity to plan for a future more than an hour or two away and b) their grasp of reason is usually flawed (in no small part due to (a)).
That would be the part where you try and conflate children not getting out of the house with gun control and "more rights to criminals" (whatever that's supposed to mean, but I assume you're implying that crime is higher now that it used to be when everyone was wandering around with a six-shooter on his hip).
Crime - particularly violent crime - is at pretty much the lowest point in recorded history, despite what Fox News might be telling you. Even ignoring that, all those other countries out there with much, much stronger gun laws and "criminal rights" have nothing close to the obesity problems the US does, *and* their children get outside more (generally walking/riding/bussing/taking public transport to school, rather than being dropped off by mum driving her small tank).
This is changing, however, as the sensationalist news reporting pioneered in the US becomes common everywhere, and helicopter parenting starting to take hold across the world[0].
Just listing reasons why kids don't get out anymore as they once did.
Your reasons are bogus, as even a moment's thought demonstrates. Further, if you think the typical parent would be _more_ likely to let their kids out of their sight if every random Joe was walking around with a gun on him, you're delusional.
That being said, true "exercise" is strength training, pure and simple. The myth of "cardio" is silly on its face - no matter how many laps you run around the track, your lungs don't grow additional alveoli, and your heart doesn't hypertrophy. The only things we have control over are our consciously controlled muscles, and as we improve their strength, they process O2 more efficiently and place less load on the lungs and heart. Running, aerobics, and other "cardio" exercises can help improve your muscle strength, but they're very inefficient.
Right. I guess that's why all the best runners spend most of their time in the gym and not on the track.
No. The "fatness" problem is due to the USDA suddenly telling everyone they should have an inherently UNBALANCED diet that favors BREAD.
Bread (in its numerous forms) has been a staple of the human diet since the freakin' Neolithic period, and is far more commonly and frequently eaten in many cultures outside the USA, that do not have the same problems with obesity.
The real problem - from an "energy in" perspective - is that portion sizes in the US are huge (because food is so incredibly cheap here) and humans are genetically programmed not to waste food since we've spent the majority of our existence living barely above a starvation level.
Being paid for your own work over a period of about 15-20 years, with reasonable allowance for other work inspired by it, is a completely fair expectation.
How is being paid multiple times for a single piece of work fair ? Should a janitor get paid every day, even though he only cleans on Mondays ?
How are your children being paid for your work fair ? Should a janitor's children be paid his salary for 20 years after he dies, even though they're not mopping any floors ?
How is being paid because someone else's work was "inspired" by yours fair ? Should a janitor get paid even after he's quit because the excellent job he did "inspired" his replacement to do as well ?
So basically he pointed out to people that all they needed to do was vote for Democrats so they could suck at the federal teat rather than become self-reliant.
Right. Because clearly the best way to make people "self reliant" is to starve them and make sure they have no recourse when they or their family get sick - with the extra bonus of being able to pay them next to nothing and really exploit their desperation.
The only thing in that list of 4 items that could be even vaguely considered "sucking the federal teat" is "increasing unemployment benefits", and even that's a stretch since they're funded by specific taxes and
not granted to just anyone.
The proper solution here is to get hardware that does properly support spindown, rather than spend days/weeks of time trying to hack around broken components.
Slashdot Mirror
The USA is a unique society, well, it WAS before, now Switzerland looks more like what USA tried to be than USA does.
Anyone who has actually lived in both Switzerland and the US will know how laughable this comparison is.
If you want the government out of your life and no regulation, then Switzerland is not the place for you. Everything from mandatory military service and healthcare, through government IDs, to having to inform the local authorities when you move house - and that's just the Federal government. There's even more fun stuff at the "State" and "local" levels of Government.
Raw materials are not the problem, at least not for the next few thousands of years, there is Canada and Russia and Africa and probably the Arctic, those have more materials than we can use for now.
Please tell us all about the raw materials available in the Arctic.
Heck, even if you meant the Antarctic, the practicalities of extraction means anything there may as well not exist.
Awesome. With your plan we should be back to Lords and Serfs in only a few generations. I can hardly wait !
Technology can fly a plane from JFK to Heathrow. What it can't do is take off from JFK and land at Heathrow.
Autopilots have been able to land planes for years. Probably better than a human as well.
There's no marked lanes, no speed limits, no brake lights, and no turn signals.
Sure you don't mean no headlights ? No brake lights would be phenomenally dangerous.
From personal experience, I have to say that German drivers drive more aggressively than US drivers and have less following distance, which would tend to increase accidents.
My experience is the complete opposite. Of the countries I've driven in (Australia, New Zealand, USA (AZ, CA, ID, WA), UK, Switzerland, Germany, France and Italy) German drivers were by far the least aggressive and most considerate. In particular, their lane discipline is exceptional.
The most aggressive drivers I've experienced (by far) were in Sydney. Australian drivers also have the worst lane discipline I've ever seen, with the USA running a very close second. Surprisingly, lane discipline in the UK was pretty good.
I call bullshit. When accidents do happen on the autobahn, the consequences tend to be horrific.
When planes crash the consequences are horrific as well. Flying is still safer than driving.
From personal experience (on UK roads) I've witnessed a cars fuel consumption go from 15l/100km to 13l/100km at the speed limit, to about 6l/100km around 220kph. Once we hit 250kph the consumption went up to about 10l/100km, but that was because that was the cars top speed, and the engine was at it's top end (where it was less efficient).
What vehicle ?
The original article states that a car inspection would be required before permits could be issued. There is logic to this. There is a wide range of differing vehicle types on the road today, and the best are *easily* able to drive 100mph, and stop in 1/3 of the distance than the worst available.
A driver inspection would be a vastly more useful thing to do, since no competent driver is going to drive a car faster than it can safely go anyway.
There is very little data for what happens above that speed, but there was one episode of Mythbusters where they crashed a car at a very high speed (around 80-90, I think), and the car was shortened to 1/2 its original length, while at the lower speed, the accident would have been survivable.
How realistic was the crash scenario ? Because if they just drove it into a brick wall, that's not even a remotely convincing example.
While libertarians tend to get all outraged about things like this, there's no evidence that it's as safe to go 90mph on those roads as it is 70mph or whatever the current limit is.
There's generally no evidence that going 90 instead of 70 is any more dangerous, either.
If you've ever actually been to Germany, you'll know that most of the unlimited sections of the Autobahn are no better engineered than the average American freeway, and many of them are noticably worse. The reason the Autobahn is so much safer is because a) vehicle safety standards are higher and b) licensing standards are higher. No-one builds a freeway today that you couldn't safely travel at least 90mph on, and quite a bit more in a good car with a good driver.
That's true, but the point being made is that "cardio" is simply inefficient strength training. We're not talking about lifting weights for reps, or weight maximums, we're talking about using weights to exhaust your slow, medium and fast twitch muscles within about 60-90 seconds.
Ie: strength training. You're basically arguing that someone who does nothing more than strength training (ie: practically never gets onto a bike, into the pool, onto the soccer field, etc) could compete with an athlete who does so regularly.
Do you have any examples of this being true ?
There are lots of areas where our "experts" have gotten it wrong, and continue to get it wrong due to plain old social inertia. Although you're entitled to your confidence, I think it's misplaced. If anything, the best sports trainers have found the most "efficient" path to be doping and other performance enhancing drugs, and you know, that might be even better than what I'm advocating, but I don't see sports team trainers as particularly dedicated to the proposition that they should be using the scientific method to critically examine their hypotheses.
Given the vast amounts of money involved in many sports, I'm sure that trainers and players would be chomping at the bit if there were dramatically better methods they could use.
Not to mention the Olympics, which may not involve such large amounts of money (at least for the athletes and trainers) but is certainly all about being the best. Do you have some examples of medal-winning athletes (in cardio-heavy events, obviously) who only do strength training and never do cardio ?
My point here is that his training by cycling is training a skill, and that the improvement to his cardiovascular health as a result of it is not an efficient result. It takes more time, involves more danger, and in the end, improves physical condition by the same mechanism as strength training.
And I'm asking for some proof of that. Examples of athletes competing at a high level in these sorts of fields who basically only use weights a gym would be a good start.
The point to take away here is that a cyclist is a good cyclist because he cycles, not because he has done a cardiovascular workout. Similarly with the other sports you mentioned. The question you have to ask yourself is whether or not "cardio" is a singular skill which can be trained on that crosses over to skill in those multiple sports - can a cyclist be a great runner simply because they cycle? Can a runner be a great soccer player simply because they run?
I'm sure a good swimmer would be a much better runner than, say, a bodybuilder would be. Though an example to the contrary would go a long way to supporting your argument.
Well, for starters, we're not just talking about lifting weights - we're really talking about a specific, safe way to lift weights in order to have the most efficient exercise.
You are explicitly ruling out "cardio". That doesn't leave much else other than strength training, which ultimately boils down to either lifting (/pulling/whatever) weights, or some substitution for weights, be it an immovable object or your own body.
Second, just because people who excel in sports don't necessarily go about training in the most efficient way isn't a point against finding an efficient way to exercise.
I feel reasonably confident that people whose entire lives revolve around some form of physical activity, are training for said activity in the most efficient manner possible, and have whole teams of other people making sure of that.
Third, for all your other examples, swimming, cycling, and soccer, you'll note that they spend the bulk of their training time *doing their sport*. Swimmers don't improve their cardio by doing aerobics classes, and cyclists aren't out there running marathons, and soccer players aren't just spending hours on treadmills. There is a difference between *sport* and *exercise*.
Whoa there, tiger. You can't argue that "cardio" doesn't matter, then turn around and argue that people *doing exactly that* are somehow doing something different. No, a cyclist doesn't train by running marathons - but he does improve by cycling, which is almost entirely a cardiovascular workout. Similarly for swimming, running, and pretty much ever other cardio-intensive sport. You can't argue they're not doing cardio because they're doing their sport, when their sport is, itself, a cardio.
The trick here is that running is a skill - having good cardiovascular health may be trainable by slow strength training, but the skills of running require practice, not just muscle.
Running was an example. The point is that people who excel in sports that require excellent cardiovascular fitness (eg: swimming, cycling, soccer, to pick a few more) aren't spending the bulk of their training time in a gym lifting weights
I am a late teenaged person, I eat only fast and junk food, don't exercise, and drink at least 3 cans of regular soda a day. I am underweight, and have several friends with similar operating scenarios. Please explain.
I was like that as well. A decade and a half later I struggle to stay under "obese" (6'2", 250lb) even though I ride ~9 miles to and from work every day, plus another 20-40 each weekend, only eat out maybe once a week and avoid processed food as much as possible.
In short, your age and possibly genetics are on your side. If it's just your age, you'll be obese by your early 20s. If it's genetics, you're exceptionally lucky and will probably be skinny your whole life - though you'll never be fit and healthy with those habits.
Then they should be warned of the consequences of their actions, not forced. That will do no good.
One day, when you have to actually interact with children, you'll discover that a) they have very little capacity to plan for a future more than an hour or two away and b) their grasp of reason is usually flawed (in no small part due to (a)).
What chip?
That would be the part where you try and conflate children not getting out of the house with gun control and "more rights to criminals" (whatever that's supposed to mean, but I assume you're implying that crime is higher now that it used to be when everyone was wandering around with a six-shooter on his hip).
Crime - particularly violent crime - is at pretty much the lowest point in recorded history, despite what Fox News might be telling you. Even ignoring that, all those other countries out there with much, much stronger gun laws and "criminal rights" have nothing close to the obesity problems the US does, *and* their children get outside more (generally walking/riding/bussing/taking public transport to school, rather than being dropped off by mum driving her small tank).
This is changing, however, as the sensationalist news reporting pioneered in the US becomes common everywhere, and helicopter parenting starting to take hold across the world[0].
Just listing reasons why kids don't get out anymore as they once did.
Your reasons are bogus, as even a moment's thought demonstrates. Further, if you think the typical parent would be _more_ likely to let their kids out of their sight if every random Joe was walking around with a gun on him, you're delusional.
That being said, true "exercise" is strength training, pure and simple. The myth of "cardio" is silly on its face - no matter how many laps you run around the track, your lungs don't grow additional alveoli, and your heart doesn't hypertrophy. The only things we have control over are our consciously controlled muscles, and as we improve their strength, they process O2 more efficiently and place less load on the lungs and heart. Running, aerobics, and other "cardio" exercises can help improve your muscle strength, but they're very inefficient.
Right. I guess that's why all the best runners spend most of their time in the gym and not on the track.
No. The "fatness" problem is due to the USDA suddenly telling everyone they should have an inherently UNBALANCED diet that favors BREAD.
Bread (in its numerous forms) has been a staple of the human diet since the freakin' Neolithic period, and is far more commonly and frequently eaten in many cultures outside the USA, that do not have the same problems with obesity.
The real problem - from an "energy in" perspective - is that portion sizes in the US are huge (because food is so incredibly cheap here) and humans are genetically programmed not to waste food since we've spent the majority of our existence living barely above a starvation level.
The Xboxes, our society giving more rights to criminals, gun control laws that embolden said criminals [...]
Wow. How do you walk around with that chip on your shoulder ?
While I was down there, it took me a while to understand that kepsev (pronounced with nasal Texan accent) means Cabernet Sauvignon ...
You may have been in Australia, but you were clearly being served by people from New Zealand or South Africa.
There's only about 3 different Australian accents, and none of them make "Cab Sav" sound like that.
Being paid for your own work over a period of about 15-20 years, with reasonable allowance for other work inspired by it, is a completely fair expectation.
How is being paid multiple times for a single piece of work fair ? Should a janitor get paid every day, even though he only cleans on Mondays ?
How are your children being paid for your work fair ? Should a janitor's children be paid his salary for 20 years after he dies, even though they're not mopping any floors ?
How is being paid because someone else's work was "inspired" by yours fair ? Should a janitor get paid even after he's quit because the excellent job he did "inspired" his replacement to do as well ?
So basically he pointed out to people that all they needed to do was vote for Democrats so they could suck at the federal teat rather than become self-reliant.
Right. Because clearly the best way to make people "self reliant" is to starve them and make sure they have no recourse when they or their family get sick - with the extra bonus of being able to pay them next to nothing and really exploit their desperation.
The only thing in that list of 4 items that could be even vaguely considered "sucking the federal teat" is "increasing unemployment benefits", and even that's a stretch since they're funded by specific taxes and not granted to just anyone.
Yeah, that was, y'know, kind of my original point.
The proper solution here is to get hardware that does properly support spindown, rather than spend days/weeks of time trying to hack around broken components.