Re:Obesity comes from a simple condition...
on
Obesity Contagious?
·
· Score: 1
Apologies for getting short. I'm more frustrated that ironic, off-the-wall scenarios are getting modded up overall, and basic common sense and science (eat well and exercise) is getting modded into oblivion. It's what I would expect to happen to comments about evolution in a religious forum.
"But evolution doesn't explain the spotted wonka monkey!"
That science has not yet explained some conditions does not contradict the validity of general conclusions. And you accurately observed that in your final sentence, which I failed to read proir to posting.
Re:Obesity comes from a simple condition...
on
Obesity Contagious?
·
· Score: 1
If you eat less than your body requires, by definition, you die.
That's a pretty strange definition of death. So people die when they fast? Good thing our medical technology has advanced to the point where we can resuscitate those poor bastards with a simple hamburger.
But there are a number of medical conditions which can interfere with... blah effing blah. "According to my calculations, there is a seven eight point three one percent chance that I cannot see the forest for the trees."
The exceptions in science are too frequently used to justify generalities. Yes, there are some people who have medical conditions. There are some poor bastards who are clinically insane, and they're not really responsible for their actions either. The idea that humanity has evolved such that we are very good at storing energy, but not very good at using that energy is ridiculous.
On the whole weight loss is a very simple process. But simple is not the same as easy. The difficulty (and this should not be underestimated) is that excercising for no reason (no tangible, or especially instant, rewards) on a regular basis, and cutting back on what we eat for no reason (in fact, eating is its own reward, so deliberately denying yourself a reward) is HARD. It's a goddamned pain in the ass, but that doesn't mean it's not worth it. On the contrary, almost nothing worthwhile comes easily.
Re:Obesity comes from a simple condition...
on
Obesity Contagious?
·
· Score: 1
I could introduce you to three from within my own personal circle of close friends. They work out as much as me (if not more) eat healtheir than me (and less of it) and are fatter than me... and I'm no ice-cream eating couch potato myself.
I'd address the rest of your post, but seeing as I just invalidated your whole point, I don't think I'll bother.
Yep.. anecdotes about people who, to your knowledge, eat healthier than you (because they'd definately admit if they were sneaking Twinkies) invalidates his whole point. You sure showed him!
Re:Obesity comes from a simple condition...
on
Obesity Contagious?
·
· Score: 1
Reactionary much?
He never said anything about the morality of eating or exercise, he just made the simple statement that gaining weight is a result of taking in more calories (energy) than you use.
Different people output different amounts of energy.
That's true. The input requirements vary accordingly. His statement is still valid.
Others can work out every day and still just barely keep up with the caloric intake of a healthy diet.
See above statement.
Additionally, that's a shortcoming of your definition of "healthy diet." 2000 calories is a rough guideline, appropriate for maintaining a weight for the average person. Eating less is not "unhealthy," and if the person in question has such a low metabolism that they require even fewer calories, they should adjust their diet accordingly. Although below 1600 calories, supplements may be desired to meet other nutritional demands than energy.
If staying in shape comes relatively easy for you, I find it quite repugnant to ascribe the failure of less-lucky folk to stay skinny to some moral shortcoming.
Nobody made a morality statement about people who are overweight. The poster never even said he was in shape, or mentioned overweight people at all.
Second, staying in shape does not come easy to most people. Yes, this includes the people who are in shape. There is, I think, a basic human tendency to see one's own work/efforts as more difficult/significant than the same work/efforts of those around you. Such beliefs are self-limiting, whether or not they're true (and they often aren't).
Shouldn't we all consider that there may be more treatment required than shouting "stop being so lazy, fatty" at them?
Who said "stop being lazy, fatty?"
"Take responsibility for your actions and change your condition," although the GP neither made nor implied such a remark, is a perfectly legitimate statement. There may be reasons for being overweight, just like there are reasons a light burns out, but that doesn't offset the necessity of doing something about it.
But uncle Politburo, it's so much easier to blame external factors! I'm not responsible for where I live, how much I eat, or anything else. I didn't even make this post voluntarily! The undesired consequences of not posting forced me to do it.
That's the thing.. you're categorizing people as either uninformed, or informed. You're not allowing for the idea that people are "willfully uninformed." That they will be faithful in the face of evidence which contradicts events. Each person is different. Some may only use religion to explain things that are inadequately explained otherwise, and some may use it to reject science altogether.
At any rate, the key part of religion for the group you describe is their "personal relationship with God," not, particularly, a literal (or any other) interpretation of the Bible. And conveniently, since the Bible is one of those sources which says almost everything, it works well for almost any purpose. This group will also reject the teachings of the "pope," since the Bible describes no such centralized structure, and it undermines the idea of a direct connection with God.
But as long as "what is my purpose in life?" or "why do bad things happen?" are things that science can't answer, religion will always fill in the blanks. Christianity has been around for 2000 years; not because of science, or the lack thereof, but because it's very compelling as taught. It appeals to people on emotional levels, which is something science will never do (for most people). Trying to use science to counter religion is as pointless as trying to do the opposite. They won't consider points you have to offer if they conflict with "God," any more than you'll listen to points they have to offer if they conflict with "facts."
Anyway, I'm gonna discontinue posting to this discussion in favor of newer and shinier discussions.
Mohammed Atta and the rest of the 9/11 perps were travelling under their own names. They had ID, they had credit cards.
I believe that's the reason for the establishment of the CAPPS program, and by logical inferrance, the requirement to show ID. A better argument would be that while Mohommed Atta et al used authentic idenfitication, future terrorists can probably get fake IDs, just like most teenagers.
Staying up for 48+ hours also throws off your sense of time. Standing watch in the Navy is usually comprised of 2 to 6 hour shifts (four is typical, but manning can dictate otherwise). The dreaded 0000-0400 shift (or balls to four, as it's commonly known) ensures you probably won't get any sleep that night, since you generally have to be up by around 0500. You can sometimes push it to nearly 7 if you sacrifice hygiene and/or food, but if you're living in a common quarters environment, you can be pretty sure that other people getting up in the meantime will make enough noise to prevent any quality sleep. At any rate, after standing the mid watch, you tend to lose track of what day is what. That can be detrimental, especially where time-sensitive matters are concerned. Although, on the upside, the weekend sometimes seems to arrive faster if you've missed a night of sleep.
It's also interesting to note that people suffering from clinical depression tend to have a greater ratio of REM sleep to non-REM sleep.
Interesting.. I can't recall a single time where I've awoken/been awoken that hasn't been in the middle of a dream. IE, I (seem to) dream almost constantly. That could explain a lot.
Ignoring the fact that it was a freakin' joke, it's safe to assume that the earth would expand under increased rotational velocity, moving us farther from earth's gravity well, which means it probably wouldn't require as much acceleration as you predict. Plus you completely ignored the fact that we'd all get dizzy.
Good post. Too bad nobody mods up ACs. I've never done the stuff, but I had friends and one ex who did. They all said hands down that if they had to choose one of the two following, they'd choose meth over sex. If that's not indicative of a dangerous substance, I don't know what is. I'm hardly anti-drug -- I think most drugs should be legalized even though I wouldn't use most, if any -- but meth is just scary.
Although I haven't figured out my sleep schedule, even after ~10 years as an adult, or been bothered by my abnormalities enough to investigate sleep therapy (yet), I find my natural cycle to vary up to 36 hours. Actually, 12 hours of sleep and 24 hours of awake would be my perfect scenario. I'd be tired enough to fall asleep after 24 hours, and feel rested enough to get up naturally after 12 hours.
That said, almost every weekend, regardless of my activity level, I don't go to sleep until I'm actually tired (instead of the routine of going to bed by 1AM on weeknights), which is usually between 3-5AM. I usually won't get up until around 3PM, and on long weekends or vacations I'll repeat that cycle almost involuntarily ad infinitum. It started when I was 13 or so, and I thought it was just an effect of adolescence which would diminish into adulthood, but that hasn't been the case. It can be bad at times. When the weekend is over, I'm usually in the precarious situation of having stayed up all night Sunday night, and then I have to work all day. My attention and performance suffers accordingly, although since most people are sluggish on Monday, I don't think I stand out. I had to have an ID photo taken on one such Monday though. That wasn't pretty, and I'm surprised nobody thought I needed a drug/alcohol test.
I do find sleep to be a horrible waste of time, but I enjoy it enough that I wouldn't want to experiment with 30 minute naps. I have found Einstein's practice of taking 15-30 minute naps during the day to effectively offset afternoon fatigue, but, ironically, I've found vigorous excercise to have the same effect. I think the 28 hour day is an interesting concept that might better fit my (un)natural sleep cycle, but I don't think it would be effective unless an entire community adopted it, and even then you'd have to contend with the fact that the middle of the day for you would, at times, be the middle of the night for everyone in adjacent time zones. I suspect that any proposal that an entire country adopt such a system would be met with, if not laughs, outright anger and protests. (Perhaps especially from the ID community who would suggest that being awake during the Witching Hours is a form of devil worship).
I have no problem with companies doing business in China, or upholding Chinese law, however I think this particular venture is a catch-22. If Google, MSN, and Yahoo can censor content according to Chinese standards, they may very well be expected to do the same in the US, and possibly sued for not doing so. (Think piracy, pedophilia, libel, etc). They're demonstrating both the technical aptitude for censorship, and the legal liability for failure to censor, which just doesn't sound like a good business plan overall, whether they succeed and are mandated to censor material elsewhere, or fail and are held liable.
IceCube? I think xXx: State of the Union proved we should all be a little skeptical of IceCube's work. At best, his encouraging refrain of "Put yo ass into it!" might motivate the scientists to work a little harder. Ice T, on the other hand, through his work on Law and Order: SVU, has shown himself to be a much more competent scientist than Mr. Cube. If they get Ice T on the staff, I think we can all rest assured that we're getting some real science done.
Additionally, it seems unlikely that anyone would try to censor him directly as doing so only brings more attention to his cause. "Anonymous phone calls," coincidentally, only serve the interest of Mr. Hansen, since he can claim the "government" is trying to censor him and drum up more coverage without anyone in particular to blame. I'm not saying that it's not happening -- people do stupid things -- but I think it could just as easily be a publicity stunt as anything else.
I think you're confusing consensus with presumption. But if you're not, perhaps a redefinition is in order. "Consensus," can be defined as "found to be most likely as determined by an overwhelming majority of experts who have directly reviewed methods and evidence." "Presumption," obviously, would be "accepting as fact based on the testimony of others."
The issue with ulcers was that there was a high correlation between stress and ulcers, both empirically and anecdotally. Additionally, reducing stress was shown to be an effective treatment. People presumed that adequate and extensive exploration of causes had been performed in the area of ulcers when, in fact, they had not.
Responding to consensus is really humanity's only choice, aside from waiting indefinately until "adequate" data has been collected, whatever that is. (How many times do you have to drop a ball before you can say with certainty that it will always fall?) What we need to be wary of is when presumption starts to affect future research.
I'm no rocket scientist, or even engineer, so I'm sure the engineers considered this, but why wasn't welding used instead? Is there some twisting involved at this joint? Also, if it's a simple o-ring, why wasn't a more sophisticated coupling seal used, or two rings, perhaps designed for different, but overlapping, temperature ranges? From my understanding, submarines typically use double seals as part of their L1/SS program. (Although it's worth mentioning that L1/SS was directly affected by the Challenger disaster, it had its origins in previous submarine engineering failures.) At the very least, using two identical rings eliminates a single point of failure.
Well, you have to remember that ACPI was developed in response to the orders-of-magnitude larger waste of electricity as a result of equipment being left on indiscriminately, compared to standby or hibernation (ACPI G1 S3/S4). The chief power drain was (and is) obviously the CRT. Whether deliberately or inadvertantly, these things weren't getting turned off when not in use. Of course, ACPI can also spin down the hard drives and send the system into standby or the more efficient (and less reliable) hibernation mode, but those power sinks were almost insignificant when compared to the monitor, especially back when CPUs actually used far less power than a lightbulb. Even so, hibernation shuts off power to almost every component.
There is a specification to actually turn off the monitor through ACPI, as opposed to putting it in standby (soft off), although just how much power that saves is almost exclusively dependant on the manufacturer's implementation. It is possible to design a monitor so that it draws no power when set to soft off, aside from losses inherent to the transformer in the power supply, and a VGA signal switch on the monitor would then switch it back on. I'm not sure how many (if any) manufacturers actually do that, and I suspect more than a few leave some circuitry powered, as opposed to using the voltage from the "power on" VGA signal itself. Even so, I doubt the power consumption is worth fretting over.
Of course, it's been a few years since ACPI was first implemented, and the vast majority of systems in use today comply with the specifications. LCDs have also replaced CRTs in many workplaces, so the benefits of further power management are decreasing rapidly. At some point, it simply costs more money to implement stricter power management than can be gained through energy cost savings. The point of diminishing returns. I think the current ACPI spec has already surpassed that point and, if properly configured by administrators, the gains from completely removing power outweigh the potential benefits. This is especially true in an organization which typically performs updates after hours.
Could hardware be designed to be even more energy efficient? As long as the current load is somewhere between zero and infinity, the answer is always yes, however real-world circumstances will always dictate design. Unless we see energy prices skyrocket, I wouldn't hold my breath (or advocate) hardware (principally motherboard and power supply) manufacturers pursuing more efficient ACPI compliance.
That's why they've developed barriers to help increase the survivability of high speed collisions. SAFER is a (relatively) new type of wall which adds a layer of foam sandwiched between concrete blocks and steel bars or plates. The new barrier decreases the rate of deceleration, and should make most previously fatal collisions now survivable.
As far as Shuttle safety, that's pretty much what's being addressed by reverting to a single launch stack. Hypothetically, if they stuck to the same parallel stack, it would probably be more feasible to simply make the flight control section capable of separation and re-entry on its own. It could be something similar to an Apollo re-entry capsule, waterproof, semi-submersible, and with chutes instead of wings. Additionally, it could be designed to facilitate ejection seats in the event that ejection is possible. I hate to use the phrase escape pod, but that's probably the closest approximation of what I mean. It would likely add a significant amount of weight, which would directly reduce cargo capactiy, so it's all about balancing mission requirements with safety. Personally, I think safety is, and should be, secondary to mission requirements. A close second, but second nonetheless.
Slashdot Mirror
Apologies for getting short. I'm more frustrated that ironic, off-the-wall scenarios are getting modded up overall, and basic common sense and science (eat well and exercise) is getting modded into oblivion. It's what I would expect to happen to comments about evolution in a religious forum.
"But evolution doesn't explain the spotted wonka monkey!"
That science has not yet explained some conditions does not contradict the validity of general conclusions. And you accurately observed that in your final sentence, which I failed to read proir to posting.
If you eat less than your body requires, by definition, you die.
That's a pretty strange definition of death. So people die when they fast? Good thing our medical technology has advanced to the point where we can resuscitate those poor bastards with a simple hamburger.
But there are a number of medical conditions which can interfere with... blah effing blah. "According to my calculations, there is a seven eight point three one percent chance that I cannot see the forest for the trees."
The exceptions in science are too frequently used to justify generalities. Yes, there are some people who have medical conditions. There are some poor bastards who are clinically insane, and they're not really responsible for their actions either. The idea that humanity has evolved such that we are very good at storing energy, but not very good at using that energy is ridiculous.
On the whole weight loss is a very simple process. But simple is not the same as easy. The difficulty (and this should not be underestimated) is that excercising for no reason (no tangible, or especially instant, rewards) on a regular basis, and cutting back on what we eat for no reason (in fact, eating is its own reward, so deliberately denying yourself a reward) is HARD. It's a goddamned pain in the ass, but that doesn't mean it's not worth it. On the contrary, almost nothing worthwhile comes easily.
I could introduce you to three from within my own personal circle of close friends. They work out as much as me (if not more) eat healtheir than me (and less of it) and are fatter than me... and I'm no ice-cream eating couch potato myself.
I'd address the rest of your post, but seeing as I just invalidated your whole point, I don't think I'll bother.
Yep.. anecdotes about people who, to your knowledge, eat healthier than you (because they'd definately admit if they were sneaking Twinkies) invalidates his whole point. You sure showed him!
Reactionary much?
He never said anything about the morality of eating or exercise, he just made the simple statement that gaining weight is a result of taking in more calories (energy) than you use.
Different people output different amounts of energy.
That's true. The input requirements vary accordingly. His statement is still valid.
Others can work out every day and still just barely keep up with the caloric intake of a healthy diet.
See above statement.
Additionally, that's a shortcoming of your definition of "healthy diet." 2000 calories is a rough guideline, appropriate for maintaining a weight for the average person. Eating less is not "unhealthy," and if the person in question has such a low metabolism that they require even fewer calories, they should adjust their diet accordingly. Although below 1600 calories, supplements may be desired to meet other nutritional demands than energy.
If staying in shape comes relatively easy for you, I find it quite repugnant to ascribe the failure of less-lucky folk to stay skinny to some moral shortcoming.
Nobody made a morality statement about people who are overweight. The poster never even said he was in shape, or mentioned overweight people at all.
Second, staying in shape does not come easy to most people. Yes, this includes the people who are in shape. There is, I think, a basic human tendency to see one's own work/efforts as more difficult/significant than the same work/efforts of those around you. Such beliefs are self-limiting, whether or not they're true (and they often aren't).
Shouldn't we all consider that there may be more treatment required than shouting "stop being so lazy, fatty" at them?
Who said "stop being lazy, fatty?"
"Take responsibility for your actions and change your condition," although the GP neither made nor implied such a remark, is a perfectly legitimate statement. There may be reasons for being overweight, just like there are reasons a light burns out, but that doesn't offset the necessity of doing something about it.
Indeed, we should take a cue from the British. They've cleverly designed their food so as to discourage its consumption.
But uncle Politburo, it's so much easier to blame external factors! I'm not responsible for where I live, how much I eat, or anything else. I didn't even make this post voluntarily! The undesired consequences of not posting forced me to do it.
That's the thing.. you're categorizing people as either uninformed, or informed. You're not allowing for the idea that people are "willfully uninformed." That they will be faithful in the face of evidence which contradicts events. Each person is different. Some may only use religion to explain things that are inadequately explained otherwise, and some may use it to reject science altogether.
At any rate, the key part of religion for the group you describe is their "personal relationship with God," not, particularly, a literal (or any other) interpretation of the Bible. And conveniently, since the Bible is one of those sources which says almost everything, it works well for almost any purpose. This group will also reject the teachings of the "pope," since the Bible describes no such centralized structure, and it undermines the idea of a direct connection with God.
But as long as "what is my purpose in life?" or "why do bad things happen?" are things that science can't answer, religion will always fill in the blanks. Christianity has been around for 2000 years; not because of science, or the lack thereof, but because it's very compelling as taught. It appeals to people on emotional levels, which is something science will never do (for most people). Trying to use science to counter religion is as pointless as trying to do the opposite. They won't consider points you have to offer if they conflict with "God," any more than you'll listen to points they have to offer if they conflict with "facts."
Anyway, I'm gonna discontinue posting to this discussion in favor of newer and shinier discussions.
Mohammed Atta and the rest of the 9/11 perps were travelling under their own names. They had ID, they had credit cards.
I believe that's the reason for the establishment of the CAPPS program, and by logical inferrance, the requirement to show ID. A better argument would be that while Mohommed Atta et al used authentic idenfitication, future terrorists can probably get fake IDs, just like most teenagers.
I HATE SONY!
Man, I can't wait for the PS3 though.
Staying up for 48+ hours also throws off your sense of time. Standing watch in the Navy is usually comprised of 2 to 6 hour shifts (four is typical, but manning can dictate otherwise). The dreaded 0000-0400 shift (or balls to four, as it's commonly known) ensures you probably won't get any sleep that night, since you generally have to be up by around 0500. You can sometimes push it to nearly 7 if you sacrifice hygiene and/or food, but if you're living in a common quarters environment, you can be pretty sure that other people getting up in the meantime will make enough noise to prevent any quality sleep. At any rate, after standing the mid watch, you tend to lose track of what day is what. That can be detrimental, especially where time-sensitive matters are concerned. Although, on the upside, the weekend sometimes seems to arrive faster if you've missed a night of sleep.
It's also interesting to note that people suffering from clinical depression tend to have a greater ratio of REM sleep to non-REM sleep.
Interesting.. I can't recall a single time where I've awoken/been awoken that hasn't been in the middle of a dream. IE, I (seem to) dream almost constantly. That could explain a lot.
Ignoring the fact that it was a freakin' joke, it's safe to assume that the earth would expand under increased rotational velocity, moving us farther from earth's gravity well, which means it probably wouldn't require as much acceleration as you predict. Plus you completely ignored the fact that we'd all get dizzy.
Good post. Too bad nobody mods up ACs. I've never done the stuff, but I had friends and one ex who did. They all said hands down that if they had to choose one of the two following, they'd choose meth over sex. If that's not indicative of a dangerous substance, I don't know what is. I'm hardly anti-drug -- I think most drugs should be legalized even though I wouldn't use most, if any -- but meth is just scary.
Although I haven't figured out my sleep schedule, even after ~10 years as an adult, or been bothered by my abnormalities enough to investigate sleep therapy (yet), I find my natural cycle to vary up to 36 hours. Actually, 12 hours of sleep and 24 hours of awake would be my perfect scenario. I'd be tired enough to fall asleep after 24 hours, and feel rested enough to get up naturally after 12 hours.
That said, almost every weekend, regardless of my activity level, I don't go to sleep until I'm actually tired (instead of the routine of going to bed by 1AM on weeknights), which is usually between 3-5AM. I usually won't get up until around 3PM, and on long weekends or vacations I'll repeat that cycle almost involuntarily ad infinitum. It started when I was 13 or so, and I thought it was just an effect of adolescence which would diminish into adulthood, but that hasn't been the case. It can be bad at times. When the weekend is over, I'm usually in the precarious situation of having stayed up all night Sunday night, and then I have to work all day. My attention and performance suffers accordingly, although since most people are sluggish on Monday, I don't think I stand out. I had to have an ID photo taken on one such Monday though. That wasn't pretty, and I'm surprised nobody thought I needed a drug/alcohol test.
I do find sleep to be a horrible waste of time, but I enjoy it enough that I wouldn't want to experiment with 30 minute naps. I have found Einstein's practice of taking 15-30 minute naps during the day to effectively offset afternoon fatigue, but, ironically, I've found vigorous excercise to have the same effect. I think the 28 hour day is an interesting concept that might better fit my (un)natural sleep cycle, but I don't think it would be effective unless an entire community adopted it, and even then you'd have to contend with the fact that the middle of the day for you would, at times, be the middle of the night for everyone in adjacent time zones. I suspect that any proposal that an entire country adopt such a system would be met with, if not laughs, outright anger and protests. (Perhaps especially from the ID community who would suggest that being awake during the Witching Hours is a form of devil worship).
We might as well live in a despotic empire with token popular elections for feel-good purposes.
Hey, now you're catching on!
Terrorist!
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=175251&cid =14571469
I have no problem with companies doing business in China, or upholding Chinese law, however I think this particular venture is a catch-22. If Google, MSN, and Yahoo can censor content according to Chinese standards, they may very well be expected to do the same in the US, and possibly sued for not doing so. (Think piracy, pedophilia, libel, etc). They're demonstrating both the technical aptitude for censorship, and the legal liability for failure to censor, which just doesn't sound like a good business plan overall, whether they succeed and are mandated to censor material elsewhere, or fail and are held liable.
Or maybe mentally undressing him?
IceCube? I think xXx: State of the Union proved we should all be a little skeptical of IceCube's work. At best, his encouraging refrain of "Put yo ass into it!" might motivate the scientists to work a little harder. Ice T, on the other hand, through his work on Law and Order: SVU, has shown himself to be a much more competent scientist than Mr. Cube. If they get Ice T on the staff, I think we can all rest assured that we're getting some real science done.
Additionally, it seems unlikely that anyone would try to censor him directly as doing so only brings more attention to his cause. "Anonymous phone calls," coincidentally, only serve the interest of Mr. Hansen, since he can claim the "government" is trying to censor him and drum up more coverage without anyone in particular to blame. I'm not saying that it's not happening -- people do stupid things -- but I think it could just as easily be a publicity stunt as anything else.
I think you're confusing consensus with presumption. But if you're not, perhaps a redefinition is in order. "Consensus," can be defined as "found to be most likely as determined by an overwhelming majority of experts who have directly reviewed methods and evidence." "Presumption," obviously, would be "accepting as fact based on the testimony of others."
The issue with ulcers was that there was a high correlation between stress and ulcers, both empirically and anecdotally. Additionally, reducing stress was shown to be an effective treatment. People presumed that adequate and extensive exploration of causes had been performed in the area of ulcers when, in fact, they had not.
Responding to consensus is really humanity's only choice, aside from waiting indefinately until "adequate" data has been collected, whatever that is. (How many times do you have to drop a ball before you can say with certainty that it will always fall?) What we need to be wary of is when presumption starts to affect future research.
I'm no rocket scientist, or even engineer, so I'm sure the engineers considered this, but why wasn't welding used instead? Is there some twisting involved at this joint? Also, if it's a simple o-ring, why wasn't a more sophisticated coupling seal used, or two rings, perhaps designed for different, but overlapping, temperature ranges? From my understanding, submarines typically use double seals as part of their L1/SS program. (Although it's worth mentioning that L1/SS was directly affected by the Challenger disaster, it had its origins in previous submarine engineering failures.) At the very least, using two identical rings eliminates a single point of failure.
Well, you have to remember that ACPI was developed in response to the orders-of-magnitude larger waste of electricity as a result of equipment being left on indiscriminately, compared to standby or hibernation (ACPI G1 S3/S4). The chief power drain was (and is) obviously the CRT. Whether deliberately or inadvertantly, these things weren't getting turned off when not in use. Of course, ACPI can also spin down the hard drives and send the system into standby or the more efficient (and less reliable) hibernation mode, but those power sinks were almost insignificant when compared to the monitor, especially back when CPUs actually used far less power than a lightbulb. Even so, hibernation shuts off power to almost every component.
There is a specification to actually turn off the monitor through ACPI, as opposed to putting it in standby (soft off), although just how much power that saves is almost exclusively dependant on the manufacturer's implementation. It is possible to design a monitor so that it draws no power when set to soft off, aside from losses inherent to the transformer in the power supply, and a VGA signal switch on the monitor would then switch it back on. I'm not sure how many (if any) manufacturers actually do that, and I suspect more than a few leave some circuitry powered, as opposed to using the voltage from the "power on" VGA signal itself. Even so, I doubt the power consumption is worth fretting over.
Of course, it's been a few years since ACPI was first implemented, and the vast majority of systems in use today comply with the specifications. LCDs have also replaced CRTs in many workplaces, so the benefits of further power management are decreasing rapidly. At some point, it simply costs more money to implement stricter power management than can be gained through energy cost savings. The point of diminishing returns. I think the current ACPI spec has already surpassed that point and, if properly configured by administrators, the gains from completely removing power outweigh the potential benefits. This is especially true in an organization which typically performs updates after hours.
Could hardware be designed to be even more energy efficient? As long as the current load is somewhere between zero and infinity, the answer is always yes, however real-world circumstances will always dictate design. Unless we see energy prices skyrocket, I wouldn't hold my breath (or advocate) hardware (principally motherboard and power supply) manufacturers pursuing more efficient ACPI compliance.
No, I think he just meant that Sputnik was not an international event. We still pwn the m00n though.
That's why they've developed barriers to help increase the survivability of high speed collisions. SAFER is a (relatively) new type of wall which adds a layer of foam sandwiched between concrete blocks and steel bars or plates. The new barrier decreases the rate of deceleration, and should make most previously fatal collisions now survivable.
As far as Shuttle safety, that's pretty much what's being addressed by reverting to a single launch stack. Hypothetically, if they stuck to the same parallel stack, it would probably be more feasible to simply make the flight control section capable of separation and re-entry on its own. It could be something similar to an Apollo re-entry capsule, waterproof, semi-submersible, and with chutes instead of wings. Additionally, it could be designed to facilitate ejection seats in the event that ejection is possible. I hate to use the phrase escape pod, but that's probably the closest approximation of what I mean. It would likely add a significant amount of weight, which would directly reduce cargo capactiy, so it's all about balancing mission requirements with safety. Personally, I think safety is, and should be, secondary to mission requirements. A close second, but second nonetheless.