I've been thinking along these lines, as I've got a diesel truck. I'm kinda curious if any meaningful amount of fuel could be easily harvested.
As far as I know, municipal waste facilities already bleed off (and use) methane for internal processes (cooking the stuff, basically), but there's still some excess, which they burn (and usually sell back to the grid). That's not a trivial amount of methane.
Do you have any more information on exactly what kinda setup would be required to 'harvest' methane in your own back yard? I do believe that it's somewhat more difficult to harness for vehicle use than you're proposing (certainly not as easy as, say, a greasel engine).
As far as shipping and delivery, most people have a methane ('natural gas') line to their house. The problem here, of course, is that it'd be somewhat 'risky' to do your fueling.
What's more, since methane is supposedly a Greenhouse Gas, you will be reducing global warming by burning it when you drive! Win/win!
The "biofuel industry", and ethanol in particular, is a huge sham hoisted on Americans. It's cost us $huge_lumps_of_cash, and it's something we'll never be able to get back.
The early biofuel 'pioneers' were promising to investors for over 10 years that they'd be "as economical as petroleum based fuels in a year or two". Even with gas at $4/gallon, this wouldn't be true, for a number of reasons: They use substantial petroleum during the production of biofuels - all along the production chain. When considering the fuel required to plant, harvest, etc. biofuel, it's not a net gain, it's a net loss. And then, they blend it with diesel.
2) Ethanol is even worse. It is horribly destructive to vehicle injection systems (clogging the injectors and lines), and will erode the feed lines and pumps.
Honestly, between all the shit the US gov't has done in the automotive industry and American automotive travel in general, I have a strong suspicion of either supreme incompetence (the best gov't example of efficiency, yet) or the actual intent to destroy American transit/the economy/etc.:
* In respect to GM, the "Cash For Clunkers" auto industry payday - which was neither green nor provided any actual value to the consumer, more often than not. If it had been green, those 'junk' vehicles, many with less than 100k miles on them and good body/exterior - wouldn't have had their engines destroyed outright. "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle." * Ethanol, and the mess it's caused to many gas-based vehicles. * Requirements on engine oil zinc content (the newer stuff, which will quickly kill an older vehicle, contains insufficient zinc) * restrictions (moratorium!) on domestic drilling and refineries * the coastal drilling wells going to Chinese companies * the cost hikes on diesel caused by regulation requiring ultra low sulfer (more processing required, less cetane, etc.) * Now, the OTR truck requirements for basically injecting piss (urea) into the engines. Yeah, like pushing the trucks' engines lives to half their current distance and reducing MPG is going to really make the trucking industry survive. (Hint: provide a superior alternative before you kill the status quo, it'll result in less pain and suffering.)
I'm sure there are a couple more. The gov't just needs to push off, as it regards these things.
Ok, so a pianist is the rough equivalent of a pretentious, literate data entry clerk who wears a beret. (The original point is still valid: a pianist is a poor analogy for a programmer.)
It does help a little to have some typing speed, but haste makes waste.
The most important factor in programming is not speed, but solid code. If you write lots of code, but the code is buggy, the time to track the bugs will easily eat any time savings gained by speed.
Unfortunately, you're not talking about the topic at hand: we're talking about slow typists vs. fast typists, not slow typists vs. overly hasty programmers - those two aren't mutually exclusive.
The fact is, in order for a slow typist to actually produce something similar to a fast typist, he must also be substantially smarter.
The faster typist can make up for his lack of cleverness with thorough comments. He can also get the code out faster into a useful form, allowing for him to test its validity and assumptions - and then go back to fix it later.
Unless you're going to form it all in your head, you've got to write -something- down first, whether on a napkin, prototyping, or bad code. It might as well be semi-useful code (and then come back and clean it up).
As a fast typist who's a self-admittedly bad programmer (well, OK, mediocre) who writes good documentation, I'm proud to say that I've had people tell me that my code is easy to read and they were able to make modifications quickly. Finding what you want, where you want it in a timely fashion, goes a long, long way over digging through half as much code that has no comments.
Yeah. People who are lauding complex/verbose languages are insane. The only thing I can think is, "OMG I'd go crazy trying to read code like that, how can they stand it?"
Apparently it's write-once and someone else takes care of the hard work for them.
Sell products without permission? You mean like what newspapers do, when they sell ad space next to someone's picture? Or how about the papers they sell to subscribers, with said faces?
You're right: a single line is much more efficient. More people go through the hole, faster.
But I don't give a shit about that. I want to get in and out fast, so I'll walk all the lanes and quickly pick the one that looks like it's got an effective cashier with non-fat people in line. End result: I'm almost always out of the grocery lines in a couple minutes.
And if they have self checkout, it's even faster, because those never have a line.
And that is the appeal, to many: sure, it may be overall less efficient, but self determination and half a brain allows me to get through faster than the queuing method would, so it's preferential to me. My time is worth a hell of a lot more than other people's time - to me. If they felt similarly, maybe they'd move faster.
Yet, bragging rights don't apply unless you prove it. Where's the link describing how? The radio range for something like that, never mind the range for video, is daunting. Granted, he's operating above the horizon, but still!
I, for one, want to know the specifics of that side of the setup. I could care less about the other components of the event (no interest in flight); the radio communications holding out over that distance, on minimal power, is notable, however.
But Windows' main (and practically lone) selling point is that it works with all your old software.
Maybe to you. To many others, the new Microsoft software - Sharepoint, Exchange, etc. - looks pretty appealing, too. "I can't get Exchange to work on my Blackberry" isn't exactly an uncommon complaint.
Silent install is nice, but so is an intelligent install, or a well thought-out, correctable upgrade process.
These systems do it well:
Debian and RedHat derived; Windows, post-2003. OS install is still a bit of a bitch with Windows. The upgrade process for MediaWiki is also stupid easy and effective (basically: untar new tree and run db alter scripts).
Poorly:
FreeBSD, and, really, most BSDs, are horrible for upgrading. I suspect OS X is similarly stupid when it comes to "promptless installs". Cacti, likewise, is awful.
2. DON'T make the administrative interface a GUI.
A useful amendment to this is: don't make the administrative interface shitty. GUI is fine, as long as I can leverage it progmatically. CLI tool is great, as long as it's fucking documented and not obtuse.
Case in point (in opposition): MegaCLI, for MegaRAID cards. Absolute. Shit.
3. DO create an API so that the system can be remotely administered.
An API is great, and allows for programmers to dig in and extend the product. I'm thinking of VMWare, XenServer, and Virtualbox right now. The latest Windows versions with PowerShell and the management consoles are not a bad combination of usability/power/utility.
Most sysadmins don't have the time to dig into the API, though, so a good initial tool that isn't terribly dense or limited in functionality is a must (XenServer, please improve your shitty-useless UI on xsconsole and XenCenter; I'd like a little more access to my VM disks without digging into lv/pv commands, too).
4. DO have a configuration file that is an ASCII file, not a binary blob.
No argument here. Likewise, configuration should be human-readable and not have vague incantations.
Good: samba, and all tools which use similar configuration syntax.
Bad: sendmail is the worst offender I can think of at the moment. I'm sure all the djb* stuff, too.
5. DO include a clearly defined method to restore all user data, a single user's data, and individual items (for example, one e-mail message). The method to make backups is a prerequisite, obviously, but we care primarily about the restore procedures.
Good: any UNIX system and it's $HOME; modern Unix MTAs like Courier.
Bad: Cyrus IMAP. Pretty much any tape archive system comes close to frustrating as hell. Windows still has a long way to improve until it's capable of Unix-style $HOME utility.
6. DO instrument the system so that we can monitor more than just, "Is it up or down?"
WMI is great. SNMP on Unix/Linux hosts, not so much, due to the configuration and divergence involved. Most OEM Linux/Unix based machines or systems (XenServer) are relatively shitty in this regard, too.
7. DO tell us about security issues.
Telling us about them is great, but upgrading these things are the most important, time-sensitive upgrades we need to make, so they should also be the easiest. We should not have to break two-three different things just to get the upgrade done.
BSDs are bad about this; horrible, even. The time consumed by a simple upgrade is enormous.
Linux is mediocre, but better than most.
Windows, in this case, "just works". Except when it doesn't (though I'd argue the degree is no greater than, say, the Linux upgrade process). Your biggest cost will be when it installs something you've explicitly told it not to (*cough* new IE versions) or in bandwidth and/or uptime requirements.
8. DO use the built-in system logging mechanism (Unix syslog or Windows Event Logs).
Something which doesn't do this isn't even worth looking at. It's yet one more thing to manage and uses exponential
Addition: make your logging sensible, please. I don't want to see a full trace of everything in the logs and not be able to configura
You just couldn't use it, because the real money would be tracked. A 'not real' bill shows up on the system that isn't in the database, or a duplicate real bill shows up 100 miles away from the last time it was used, 5 minutes prior, and the alarm goes off.
More than once I've had to side step quickly to avoid a Prius in a store parking lot - I'm used to audio cues of my environment, and they just weren't paying attention while backing out.
I call bullshit on this.
In a busy parking lot, someone backing up quickly is going to be mostly inaudible regardless of the vehicle involved - and either way, your ability to respond is roughly the same. (And with a Prius, at least you'd probably survive the impact.)
I hardly see how it being a Prius makes any difference. I've seen people back up into others walking behind their vehicle - hop in, quickly turn the ignition and then quickly throw into reverse. There's no consideration for others; people go myopic.
It's not going to do shit if you're in the vehicle, driving. You can sometimes not hear the large truck next to you due to road noise, never mind a Prius.
The fact is, Prius drivers (apparently) have little to no respect for the others who share their environment. (This goes for SUV drivers, too, btw.) "Oh, we'll just zip out quickly because we can, and I looked in my rear view mirror about 10 seconds ago when i got in the vehicle" is demonstrative of their mentality.
I've said it once and I'll say it again, because it still (mostly) applies: there's a reason we've only got one 'reverse' gear. GO SLOW. The same applies to the asinine regulations requiring reverse cameras in newly made vehicles (to the tune of another $200 to the purchaser).
I wonder how much it'd cost to buy a vehicle if we could get one with "just the road safety features invented in the past 50 years, please". I would not be surprised if stripping all the extraneous stuff out (dangerous-to-children air bags, ass heaters, electric windows, thermostats, etc.) resulted in a $25k vehicle costing less than $20k, and a $45k one less than 35k (assuming it's not $45k simply due to said luxury items).
Imagine what that would save the environment. (Here's an idea: "Imagine" what a city without automotive sounds would be like.)
Which diet is "this diet" that you're referring to?
I am significantly healthier than I was when I took in significant carbs. Now, I'm eating primarily meats and veggies. If I do get sick, it's usually a sniffle. I should note I've got 3 children, and I think they have a total of maybe 5 colds a year on the same diet.
I'd argue that about 60% of my diet (by calories) consists of fatty meats and dairy; 30% would be vegetibles, with 10% being non-grain starches.
I am on the upper end of "underweight". Sure, I'm still young, but you will be hard pressed to find someone getting fat and unhealthy eating well prepared, wholesome meats and veggies as their primary source of food intake. It's the processed, irradiated, and 'enhanced' foods which cause problems, as well as excessive grain intake.
There, fixed it for you. There's little that the Orwellian "public educator" curriculum prepares public educators for except indoctrination and standardized testing.
CS and its subset, IT, are "advanced application use" (cases).
What the writer fails to acknowledge is that the activities described aren't "advanced application use" - they're idiocy. You can do this shit by the time you're 12 on Facebook.
If anything, people taking these courses are going to be grossly disillusioned when they find out that what they learned is actually just commonplace. They'll be grossly out of their league if they do decide to be in a technical field, as it provides them with not even enough skills to work a helpdesk.
I could not agree more. "Vegetable" oils are not terribly good for you.
There are some vegetable oils which are good for you, but these tend to be incredibly fresh, low-sulfur, and not from a grain or legume (see: olive oil).
one thing I have to ask (because I do not know) is: what kind of calories are we talking about, here?
I ask, because I know that societies with low-carb/starch diets tend to eat a LOT more calories, but at the same time live longer than surrounding tribes/etc. Without knowing too much abotu the studies I'd argue the type of calories consumed have a lot to do with the end result. Meat and dairy have a much higher nutritional density, for instance.
There are diets which, adjusted for other significant factors, do tend to make people live better and longer. Certain people have noticed.
The basic rundown is this: * High in fat and protein * Low in carbohydrates and/or un-fermented carbohydrates * Absent of manufactured or modern cured foods
There are many indigenous tribes throughout the world still which have diets such as this. They'll ferment their grain mashes, they'll eat mostly meats, dairy, and the like, and they'll live to be 80+ years old with few degenerative diseases.
No/few cavities, no obesity or high blood pressure, and certainly no diabetes.
Of course, they also lead active lifestyles: they don't sit at an office cubicle all day. In fact, they mostly lead fairly active lifestyles, spending a great amount of time running and doing other cardio (if not out of lifestyle necessity, then for recreation - think "native American ceremonies and sports").
There are, of course, a couple exceptions which defy these rules (I recall reading about a South American tribe that ate mostly fried/high-fat corn meal and drank corn mash, with little else - but they ran like crazy in rugged terrain), and we're still trying to figure them out.
Slashdot Mirror
Wish I had mod points, but I've already posted.
+1 this guy, please.
I've been thinking along these lines, as I've got a diesel truck. I'm kinda curious if any meaningful amount of fuel could be easily harvested.
As far as I know, municipal waste facilities already bleed off (and use) methane for internal processes (cooking the stuff, basically), but there's still some excess, which they burn (and usually sell back to the grid). That's not a trivial amount of methane.
Do you have any more information on exactly what kinda setup would be required to 'harvest' methane in your own back yard? I do believe that it's somewhat more difficult to harness for vehicle use than you're proposing (certainly not as easy as, say, a greasel engine).
As far as shipping and delivery, most people have a methane ('natural gas') line to their house. The problem here, of course, is that it'd be somewhat 'risky' to do your fueling.
What's more, since methane is supposedly a Greenhouse Gas, you will be reducing global warming by burning it when you drive! Win/win!
The "biofuel industry", and ethanol in particular, is a huge sham hoisted on Americans. It's cost us $huge_lumps_of_cash, and it's something we'll never be able to get back.
The early biofuel 'pioneers' were promising to investors for over 10 years that they'd be "as economical as petroleum based fuels in a year or two". Even with gas at $4/gallon, this wouldn't be true, for a number of reasons: They use substantial petroleum during the production of biofuels - all along the production chain. When considering the fuel required to plant, harvest, etc. biofuel, it's not a net gain, it's a net loss. And then, they blend it with diesel.
2) Ethanol is even worse. It is horribly destructive to vehicle injection systems (clogging the injectors and lines), and will erode the feed lines and pumps.
Honestly, between all the shit the US gov't has done in the automotive industry and American automotive travel in general, I have a strong suspicion of either supreme incompetence (the best gov't example of efficiency, yet) or the actual intent to destroy American transit/the economy/etc.:
* In respect to GM, the "Cash For Clunkers" auto industry payday - which was neither green nor provided any actual value to the consumer, more often than not. If it had been green, those 'junk' vehicles, many with less than 100k miles on them and good body/exterior - wouldn't have had their engines destroyed outright. "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle."
* Ethanol, and the mess it's caused to many gas-based vehicles.
* Requirements on engine oil zinc content (the newer stuff, which will quickly kill an older vehicle, contains insufficient zinc)
* restrictions (moratorium!) on domestic drilling and refineries
* the coastal drilling wells going to Chinese companies
* the cost hikes on diesel caused by regulation requiring ultra low sulfer (more processing required, less cetane, etc.)
* Now, the OTR truck requirements for basically injecting piss (urea) into the engines. Yeah, like pushing the trucks' engines lives to half their current distance and reducing MPG is going to really make the trucking industry survive. (Hint: provide a superior alternative before you kill the status quo, it'll result in less pain and suffering.)
I'm sure there are a couple more. The gov't just needs to push off, as it regards these things.
Ok, so a pianist is the rough equivalent of a pretentious, literate data entry clerk who wears a beret. (The original point is still valid: a pianist is a poor analogy for a programmer.)
It does help a little to have some typing speed, but haste makes waste.
The most important factor in programming is not speed, but solid code. If you write lots of code, but the code is buggy, the time to track the bugs will easily eat any time savings gained by speed.
Unfortunately, you're not talking about the topic at hand: we're talking about slow typists vs. fast typists, not slow typists vs. overly hasty programmers - those two aren't mutually exclusive.
The fact is, in order for a slow typist to actually produce something similar to a fast typist, he must also be substantially smarter.
The faster typist can make up for his lack of cleverness with thorough comments. He can also get the code out faster into a useful form, allowing for him to test its validity and assumptions - and then go back to fix it later.
Unless you're going to form it all in your head, you've got to write -something- down first, whether on a napkin, prototyping, or bad code. It might as well be semi-useful code (and then come back and clean it up).
As a fast typist who's a self-admittedly bad programmer (well, OK, mediocre) who writes good documentation, I'm proud to say that I've had people tell me that my code is easy to read and they were able to make modifications quickly. Finding what you want, where you want it in a timely fashion, goes a long, long way over digging through half as much code that has no comments.
Yeah. People who are lauding complex/verbose languages are insane. The only thing I can think is, "OMG I'd go crazy trying to read code like that, how can they stand it?"
Apparently it's write-once and someone else takes care of the hard work for them.
Please explain why someone should be able to make money off the likeness of another person without said second person's knowledge and/or permission.
That's not what's happening here, though.
What I see is a bobblehead doll - a parody, even. I'm pretty sure that'd fall under 'artistic license'.
Sell products without permission? You mean like what newspapers do, when they sell ad space next to someone's picture? Or how about the papers they sell to subscribers, with said faces?
I don't have much faith in this benchmark, or the company/their programmers, for that matter.
My browser gets identified as:
Browser Family: safari Browser Version: 534.6
Oddly in contrast, the "About Chromium" has a somewhat different version and "Browser Family". (A later build, not sure which at this point.)
Interestingly, my browser didn't perform all that well on any of the tests.
Walmart does this (or something similar). They've got 30 odd registers, with 3 columns of 10.
You're right: a single line is much more efficient. More people go through the hole, faster.
But I don't give a shit about that. I want to get in and out fast, so I'll walk all the lanes and quickly pick the one that looks like it's got an effective cashier with non-fat people in line. End result: I'm almost always out of the grocery lines in a couple minutes.
And if they have self checkout, it's even faster, because those never have a line.
And that is the appeal, to many: sure, it may be overall less efficient, but self determination and half a brain allows me to get through faster than the queuing method would, so it's preferential to me. My time is worth a hell of a lot more than other people's time - to me. If they felt similarly, maybe they'd move faster.
Yet, bragging rights don't apply unless you prove it. Where's the link describing how? The radio range for something like that, never mind the range for video, is daunting. Granted, he's operating above the horizon, but still!
I, for one, want to know the specifics of that side of the setup. I could care less about the other components of the event (no interest in flight); the radio communications holding out over that distance, on minimal power, is notable, however.
But Windows' main (and practically lone) selling point is that it works with all your old software.
Maybe to you. To many others, the new Microsoft software - Sharepoint, Exchange, etc. - looks pretty appealing, too. "I can't get Exchange to work on my Blackberry" isn't exactly an uncommon complaint.
The demand is there.
1. DO have a "silent install" option.
Silent install is nice, but so is an intelligent install, or a well thought-out, correctable upgrade process.
These systems do it well:
Debian and RedHat derived; Windows, post-2003. OS install is still a bit of a bitch with Windows. The upgrade process for MediaWiki is also stupid easy and effective (basically: untar new tree and run db alter scripts).
Poorly:
FreeBSD, and, really, most BSDs, are horrible for upgrading. I suspect OS X is similarly stupid when it comes to "promptless installs". Cacti, likewise, is awful.
2. DON'T make the administrative interface a GUI.
A useful amendment to this is: don't make the administrative interface shitty. GUI is fine, as long as I can leverage it progmatically. CLI tool is great, as long as it's fucking documented and not obtuse.
Case in point (in opposition): MegaCLI, for MegaRAID cards. Absolute. Shit.
3. DO create an API so that the system can be remotely administered.
An API is great, and allows for programmers to dig in and extend the product. I'm thinking of VMWare, XenServer, and Virtualbox right now. The latest Windows versions with PowerShell and the management consoles are not a bad combination of usability/power/utility.
Most sysadmins don't have the time to dig into the API, though, so a good initial tool that isn't terribly dense or limited in functionality is a must (XenServer, please improve your shitty-useless UI on xsconsole and XenCenter; I'd like a little more access to my VM disks without digging into lv/pv commands, too).
4. DO have a configuration file that is an ASCII file, not a binary blob.
No argument here. Likewise, configuration should be human-readable and not have vague incantations.
Good: samba, and all tools which use similar configuration syntax.
Bad: sendmail is the worst offender I can think of at the moment. I'm sure all the djb* stuff, too.
5. DO include a clearly defined method to restore all user data, a single user's data, and individual items (for example, one e-mail message). The method to make backups is a prerequisite, obviously, but we care primarily about the restore procedures.
Good: any UNIX system and it's $HOME; modern Unix MTAs like Courier.
Bad: Cyrus IMAP. Pretty much any tape archive system comes close to frustrating as hell. Windows still has a long way to improve until it's capable of Unix-style $HOME utility.
6. DO instrument the system so that we can monitor more than just, "Is it up or down?"
WMI is great. SNMP on Unix/Linux hosts, not so much, due to the configuration and divergence involved. Most OEM Linux/Unix based machines or systems (XenServer) are relatively shitty in this regard, too.
7. DO tell us about security issues.
Telling us about them is great, but upgrading these things are the most important, time-sensitive upgrades we need to make, so they should also be the easiest. We should not have to break two-three different things just to get the upgrade done.
BSDs are bad about this; horrible, even. The time consumed by a simple upgrade is enormous.
Linux is mediocre, but better than most.
Windows, in this case, "just works". Except when it doesn't (though I'd argue the degree is no greater than, say, the Linux upgrade process). Your biggest cost will be when it installs something you've explicitly told it not to (*cough* new IE versions) or in bandwidth and/or uptime requirements.
8. DO use the built-in system logging mechanism (Unix syslog or Windows Event Logs).
Something which doesn't do this isn't even worth looking at. It's yet one more thing to manage and uses exponential
Addition: make your logging sensible, please. I don't want to see a full trace of everything in the logs and not be able to configura
You're right... Democrats won't be able to fake this level of intellect, so there will be nobody to spin it, confusing the matter.
Sure, you could counterfit it, I'm sure.
You just couldn't use it, because the real money would be tracked. A 'not real' bill shows up on the system that isn't in the database, or a duplicate real bill shows up 100 miles away from the last time it was used, 5 minutes prior, and the alarm goes off.
More than once I've had to side step quickly to avoid a Prius in a store parking lot - I'm used to audio cues of my environment, and they just weren't paying attention while backing out.
I call bullshit on this.
In a busy parking lot, someone backing up quickly is going to be mostly inaudible regardless of the vehicle involved - and either way, your ability to respond is roughly the same. (And with a Prius, at least you'd probably survive the impact.)
I hardly see how it being a Prius makes any difference. I've seen people back up into others walking behind their vehicle - hop in, quickly turn the ignition and then quickly throw into reverse. There's no consideration for others; people go myopic.
It's not going to do shit if you're in the vehicle, driving. You can sometimes not hear the large truck next to you due to road noise, never mind a Prius.
The fact is, Prius drivers (apparently) have little to no respect for the others who share their environment. (This goes for SUV drivers, too, btw.) "Oh, we'll just zip out quickly because we can, and I looked in my rear view mirror about 10 seconds ago when i got in the vehicle" is demonstrative of their mentality.
I've said it once and I'll say it again, because it still (mostly) applies: there's a reason we've only got one 'reverse' gear. GO SLOW. The same applies to the asinine regulations requiring reverse cameras in newly made vehicles (to the tune of another $200 to the purchaser).
I wonder how much it'd cost to buy a vehicle if we could get one with "just the road safety features invented in the past 50 years, please". I would not be surprised if stripping all the extraneous stuff out (dangerous-to-children air bags, ass heaters, electric windows, thermostats, etc.) resulted in a $25k vehicle costing less than $20k, and a $45k one less than 35k (assuming it's not $45k simply due to said luxury items).
Imagine what that would save the environment. (Here's an idea: "Imagine" what a city without automotive sounds would be like.)
Just go ahead and complain; there are some of us "old enough" to remember those days who never really even got the point to that kind of gaming.
It amounted to taking turns on the NES or Atari. No thanks.
LAN gaming still happens. Not as often as it once did, I imagine, but it does happen.
Split screen does as well, thanks to CoD. It's a lot of fun to play that with a couple guys in a room...
Which diet is "this diet" that you're referring to?
I am significantly healthier than I was when I took in significant carbs. Now, I'm eating primarily meats and veggies. If I do get sick, it's usually a sniffle. I should note I've got 3 children, and I think they have a total of maybe 5 colds a year on the same diet.
I'd argue that about 60% of my diet (by calories) consists of fatty meats and dairy; 30% would be vegetibles, with 10% being non-grain starches.
I am on the upper end of "underweight". Sure, I'm still young, but you will be hard pressed to find someone getting fat and unhealthy eating well prepared, wholesome meats and veggies as their primary source of food intake. It's the processed, irradiated, and 'enhanced' foods which cause problems, as well as excessive grain intake.
Which did you try to warn, the ones who thought they wanted to do CS, or the poor SOBs who thought MIS would be any 'better'?
Most teachers are incompetent.
There, fixed it for you. There's little that the Orwellian "public educator" curriculum prepares public educators for except indoctrination and standardized testing.
CS and its subset, IT, are "advanced application use" (cases).
What the writer fails to acknowledge is that the activities described aren't "advanced application use" - they're idiocy. You can do this shit by the time you're 12 on Facebook.
If anything, people taking these courses are going to be grossly disillusioned when they find out that what they learned is actually just commonplace. They'll be grossly out of their league if they do decide to be in a technical field, as it provides them with not even enough skills to work a helpdesk.
I could not agree more. "Vegetable" oils are not terribly good for you.
There are some vegetable oils which are good for you, but these tend to be incredibly fresh, low-sulfur, and not from a grain or legume (see: olive oil).
one thing I have to ask (because I do not know) is: what kind of calories are we talking about, here?
I ask, because I know that societies with low-carb/starch diets tend to eat a LOT more calories, but at the same time live longer than surrounding tribes/etc. Without knowing too much abotu the studies I'd argue the type of calories consumed have a lot to do with the end result. Meat and dairy have a much higher nutritional density, for instance.
There are diets which, adjusted for other significant factors, do tend to make people live better and longer. Certain people have noticed.
The basic rundown is this:
* High in fat and protein
* Low in carbohydrates and/or un-fermented carbohydrates
* Absent of manufactured or modern cured foods
There are many indigenous tribes throughout the world still which have diets such as this. They'll ferment their grain mashes, they'll eat mostly meats, dairy, and the like, and they'll live to be 80+ years old with few degenerative diseases.
No/few cavities, no obesity or high blood pressure, and certainly no diabetes.
Of course, they also lead active lifestyles: they don't sit at an office cubicle all day. In fact, they mostly lead fairly active lifestyles, spending a great amount of time running and doing other cardio (if not out of lifestyle necessity, then for recreation - think "native American ceremonies and sports").
There are, of course, a couple exceptions which defy these rules (I recall reading about a South American tribe that ate mostly fried/high-fat corn meal and drank corn mash, with little else - but they ran like crazy in rugged terrain), and we're still trying to figure them out.