I disagree. Follow the progressions of a lot of tools. Struts is a beast. Newer Java web framework ideas like Spring are an improvement. Tapestry and Wicket are arguably even better.
EJB 2 was a nightmare. EJB 3 is much simpler and more logical.
Hibernate has had some growing pains, but is getting easier to configure without losing any of its massive flexibility.
The pgAdmin 3 tool for PostgreSQL is a pretty nice graphical tool.
I don't know that it's as nice as the GUI tools for SQL Server or Oracle, but we've had no problems with it. You can graphically add and remove databases, tables, columns, foreign keys, and constraints. You can view the SQL used to create any table, sequence, view, or whatever. You can also view the database data in a graphical mode, and for any table with a primary key (which of course should be all of them) click into a column, change the value, and click save and the database automatically runs the corresponding update (using a primary key for the 'where').
And of course, you can run your SQL queries and copy and paste from the results or pipe them to a text or CSV file.
There's no convenient graphical tool for click-and-drag graphical generation of SQL queries, though. An experienced DBA doesn't need it, but newbies often get some benefit from tools like that.
I've heard that phpMyAdmin, a web-front end tool for administering MySQL, is at least as feature-full as pgAdmin3. But I've never used it.
From the second wikipedia link in the parent post: " However, investigators discovered the bomb was made from potassium chlorate,aluminum powder and sulfur. For the Sari club bomb with the L300 van, the team assembled 12 plastic filing cabinets filled with explosives. The cabinets, each containing a potassium chlorate, aluminum powder, sulfur mixture with TNT kicker-charges, was connected by 150 meters of PETN-filled detonating cord. Ninety-four RDX electric detonators were fitted to the TNT. The total weight of the van bomb was 1.125 tons.[5] The large, high-temperature blast damage produced by this mixture was similar to a thermobaric explosive[6],although the bombers may not have known this.[7]"
It appears that the first article is incorrect, and was only meant to emphasize that it was a terrorist organization that created this near-fuel air bomb.
My workstation at work is a 2.8 GHz P4 and 1.5 GB of RAM, with a 17 inch monitor.
I spend a lot of time waiting for a CVS update to finish, or a copy of the build tree to move, or a clean rebuild, or a database to start, or a complex database query to run, or the webserver to restart, or Excel to open, or an email search to finish, etc... etc... And the relatively small single monitor setup means I'm constantly swapping windows, minimizing things to desktop, or scrolling my file views to the right to find what I need. We use 50 MB test databases for testing the software, and constantly moving the files around and waiting for them to copy from network shares and even on the disk gets tedious quickly. If I'm working on enough different tasks at the same time, the operating system has to start using the swapfile and things slow to a crawl.
Every time I have to wait, it's a few seconds lost. And in many cases, I get sick of waiting and Alt-Tab over to Slashdot (like now). Even more time is lost.
They pay me better than $30 per hour, it's absurd that they aren't willing to spend maybe $1000 on a new workstation and monitor to let me work much faster.
Depending upon what you're doing on your IDE, your setup may be fine. I love my job and like my boss and coworkers, but my slow workstation drives me crazy.
If the game had little strategy, building a massive force of your best unit was a sure path to victory. But Blizzard designed each unit in the game with at least one effective counter-strategy available.
You need to manage your economy, scout your enemy base locations, scout which units he was building so you could build the appropriate counter units, and then control your army closely for tactical combat, by taking injured units to the back for repairs, drawing enemy forces into geographic bottlenecks so you can focus your firepower, and making effective use of unit special abilities.
It's an extremely deep strategy game, far more than a simple "clickfest". If you don't like how fast it is, set the game speed to the slowest possible. Then you can enjoy the depth of strategy without having to click and hotkey at lightning speed.
Re:Sometimes the correct answer is the simplest
on
Why Corporates Hate Perl
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
A major Perl moto is "There is more than one way to do it".
Flexibility in a language is good. Too much flexibility is a problem. You only need to know one way to do a set of tasks in Perl to write an effective program. I only need to know one way to do a set of tasks in Perl to write an effective program. He only needs to know one way to do a set of tasks in Perl to write an effective program.
But you, he, and I need to know multiple ways to do sets of tasks in Perl to read, fix, and extend each others' code.
Now, I agree that Perl's biggest problem is really just the marketing war. But this too-much-flexibility problem also exists. I understand Perl6 addresses that somewhat, but I haven't heard whether any of the compilers has a final release yet.
The present solution, as imperfect as it is, is preferable to the alternatives for three reasons:
1. Olympic athletes are supposed to serve as an inspiration to others, especially children. Legalizing the chemical supplementation simply encourages kids to pursue chemical supplements, not training and especially not realistic goals.
2. Research done with athletes and athletic programs is often used to establish fitness and diet guidelines for everyone else. There's a good bet that a successful bodybuilding exercise program for a 19th century bodybuilder would help most healthy adults today gain muscle. When you read Arnold Schwarzennegger's Encyclopedia of Bodybuilding, you have to question whether the exercise routine only works for people on an impressive cocktail of steroids. Legalizing chemical supplementation destroys any useful fitness information people who don't use chemical supplements can derive from studies of Olympic athletes. ( I personally had far better luck gaining muscle mass following old simple calisthenic routines than I did trying to follow the recommended workouts in Arnold's book as written. )
3. Last and perhaps most important, Olympic competition and training has always been about tremendous strength of will as much as it is about incredible fitness and skill. One of the most admirable traits of elite natural athletes is their ability to push themselves through pain. Boxers withstand punches and keep fighting. Runners have lactic acid buildup in their legs, but keep moving. Swimmers' lungs are burning as they push themselves as quickly as possible while taking as little time to breathe as they can. If we allow any drugs in competition, willpower becomes irrelevant. The drugs hone the concentration, the drugs hide the fatigue, the drugs build the muscle so weakness is no longer an issue, and most importantly the drugs block the pain. Strength of will becomes irrelevant.
Testing has problems, but the alternatives are far worse.
A lot of people want to eliminate petroleum imports, and consider environmental protection a lesser priority or no priority at all.
I know plenty of conservatives that scoff at the idea of environmental protection and global warming but who still have a strong interest in electric cars, alternative fuel vehicles, and hybrids as a means of cutting the trade deficit and reducing the leverage that OPEC has over our foreign policy.
When I speak of yo-yo weight gain and fat loss, I'm not necessarily speaking of rapid changes. You can certainly crash diet, lose a ton of weight rapidly, and then start bingeing and regain it just as quickly. But both my wife and myself have lost 15 pounds or more at a rate of one pound per week or so. You plan for a permanent lifestyle change in eating habits and adjust your eating appropriately. However, after a few months the cumulative calorie deficit starts to catch up with you, and eventually you usually revert to you old habits. Then the weight you lost comes back on at the same pound or so per week, and a year later you're back where you started.
Both of us have experienced this exact cycle more than once over the past decade.
I enjoy strength resistance training and had been doing a home workout with weights consistently for years, but I hurt my back doing dumbbell deadlifts (with a relatively modest 150 pounds total) in mid June, and have decided to give weighted leg exercises a long break since I still have periodic pain from the injury. Instead, I've been doing calisthenics. I prefer the weights, but since (knock on wood) the calisthenics don't make my joints ache, that's the way I'm going.
Obviously the logic is true. Burning 500 more calories per day than you consume causes fat loss.
But if the calorie deficit causes your appetite to increase and your energy level and possibly your mood to decrease day after day you eventually reach the point where you overeat, stop exercising, or both. Hence the tendency of most people to yo-yo in their diets.
The difficult part is finding a combination of foods and appropriate exercises that maintain the calorie deficit without having your appetite, mood, or energy level spiral out of control. Millions of people succeed at it. Millions more don't. Sometimes the difference is raw willpower, and my hat is off to people whose will is stronger than mine. Sometimes it's knowing how to properly structure your diet and exercise, and my hat is also off to people who have done better research or gone through trial and error to figure out what works.
Again, your basic statement is true but not helpful. The specifics are more helpful. I had a far easier time maintaining a healthy weight when I was in college and had the opportunity to walk everywhere I needed to go and exercise an hour or more per day. Now I have a job, a long commute, and a family, extremely convenient opportunity for hours of exercise per day is gone.
But when I tried to make the transition to low carb, I lasted two months before the inability to eat a regular sandwich or bowl of cereal drove me crazy and I stopped. Atkins (chicken, beef, eggs, and 3+ cups of green vegetables per day) was the first eating plan I ever tried that let me cut some fat without feeling hungy. However, instead of being hungry all of the time I was bored silly by my food choices.
The amount of calories burned by muscle mass at rest has been greatly exaggerated. The best evidence indicates the muscle burns an extra 6 calories per day, per pound. That can't hurt, but a few more spoonfuls of Wheaties completely offsets the advantage.
The workouts can burn lots of calories, the muscles at rest cannot.
The 100 extra calories burned per day per pound of muscle is a myth, a more accurate picture is 6 calories per pound. 20 extra pounds of muscle burn 120 calories per day, not counting the energy you burn building and maintaining the muscle by exercise.
My weight doesn't stay constant. If I don't keep militant control of my diet, I gain fat, period. So my life is a constant cycle of bulking up to 235 to 240 pounds and experiencing slight to mild pain just buttoning my pants, and then watching my eating careful until everything is comfortable. Then I stop paying attention, revert to my bad habits, and repeat the cycle.
I think many people are gradually gaining or losing weight, it just isn't obvious to them or anyone else unless the change is very rapid.
Well, I did mention that in what I wrote. If you have huge muscles, they hinder your aerobic capacity because the extra weight often adds more work than the extra strength can help you handle.
And I still maintain that within reason (i.e. below the threshold where the extra mass hurts more than the extra strength), additional muscle helps tremendously in aerobic exercise. Aerobic exercise is not purely about lung and heart capacity/efficiency.
Oops, I see from the web pages linked off the wikipedia article that HIIT is recommended with an exercise bike or jumping rope. I will have to try that, thanks for the excellent suggestion!
I had started out reading the original Muscle Media article on the topic (the first link from the wikipedia page), and it suggested sprints. I had been jogging without joint pain, and figured a move to sprints wasn't a big deal even at my obese size. That was emphatically not the case.
The problem with HIIT is that if you're already fat, it's rough on the joints.
I tried HIIT about ten years ago. I started with just 4 minutes of 30 second sprint followed by a thirty second walk. I nearly vomited at the end - which probably meant I wasn't working hard enough. I went home with sweat pouring out of my body for the next half hour and a tremendous sense of accomplishment. I woke up the next day with my ankles and knees in incredible pain. I also had tremendous muscle soreness, but that's normal after an unfamiliar high intensity exercise.
I couldn't run again for a month. If I had access to a pool, HIIT would work. Otherwise, not so much.
That's good. But I doubt any amount of natural bodybuilding will make 99.9% of the population as muscular as the rejects - let alone the competitors - from a major bodybuilding competition.
When you move, you only use some fraction of the fibers in each muscle at a given time. Your body constantly alternates which muscle fibers it uses to give them time to rest and recharge between uses.
Consistent aerobic exercise strengthens the muscles involved enough so that the individual fibers can do a lot more work. That gives the resting fibers more time to relax before they're called upon again for effort, which makes it easier for your heart, lungs, and blood system to remove wastes and provide additional energy and oxygen.
Serious strength training hinders aerobic performance because you add so much mass to the muscles that the improved fiber strength is offset in long duration exercise by the extra work of moving more muscle weight. But moderate strength training will make you dramatically better at aerobic activities than a sedentary person, even if you don't workout for long periods. Your body may not have the improved aerobic efficiency of an endurance athlete, but it can rotate among the muscle fibers more slowly like one.
The sedentary individual gets hit from both sides. They lack the aerobic efficiency to recharge the fatigued muscles quickly, and they lack the muscle strength to give individual fibers long breaks between use. The individual muscle fibers are called upon often and poorly rested between uses.
I'm a fat guy who neglected aerobic exercises for many years, but I did squats as a routine part of my strength training. I can walk up five flights of stairs without taking a break or gasping for air or even run a mile (with effort) despite my bulk, because what I lack in aerobic capacity is mildly offset by leg muscle strength. ( But I've been punished for my obesity with a back injury, and now weighted squats are off the schedule and aerobics are back on it. That's just as well, since I find it easier to control my constant overeating after aerobic workouts versus resistance workouts. )
But in my experience, the strength training will make you dramatically hungrier than the aerobic training. If you have a will of iron, the difference is irrelevant. But if you have a will of iron, staying thin is easy regardless of your choice of exercise.
I'm not knocking resistance training. I greatly prefer it. But I've never been able to lose fat while doing serious strength training several times per week. My shoulders, biceps, and other muscles got bigger, but at best my waist stayed the same size as when I started.
Read the description. The plant uses the solar power as heat storage, and the stored heat generates power 24 hours per day.
Night isn't the problem. A few overcast days are the problem. Hailstorms are a problem. Not night.
That's why the parent wrote "Additionally, since they operate on top of a heat sink with several days of thermal mass, they could easily be used as a 24x7 "base load" alternative energy power plant."
Consumer's memories don't extend that far. The domestic automakers screwed the pooch from about 1980 until 2000, and all of the work Chrysler, Ford, and especially General Motors have done since then to improve products is ignored by most people.
Public relations is hugely important, especially for companies battling back from two decades of inferior products. The Hummer H2 is a public relations stake in GM's heart.
The Nevada Solar One solar tower plant generates 134 million kwh per year, cost $266 million to build, and covers 400 acres (roughly 0.6 square miles or 1.6 square km).
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat1p1.html The 2006 US energy use was about 4,060,000 thousand mwh. So to generate all of that with plants like the Nevada Solar One, we need 4,060,000,000,000 kwh / 134,000,000 kwh = roughly 30,300 copies of Nevada Solar One.
That's $8 trillion in expenses and 0.5% the surface area of the United States. Petty cash. (Obviously, shifting our entire energy generation to solar tomorrow is impossible. But gradually ramping up this kind of energy production looks good to me. Eventually economies of scale will bring the energy generation costs down below coal.)
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree. Follow the progressions of a lot of tools. Struts is a beast. Newer Java web framework ideas like Spring are an improvement. Tapestry and Wicket are arguably even better.
EJB 2 was a nightmare. EJB 3 is much simpler and more logical.
Hibernate has had some growing pains, but is getting easier to configure without losing any of its massive flexibility.
The community is learning.
The pgAdmin 3 tool for PostgreSQL is a pretty nice graphical tool.
I don't know that it's as nice as the GUI tools for SQL Server or Oracle, but we've had no problems with it. You can graphically add and remove databases, tables, columns, foreign keys, and constraints. You can view the SQL used to create any table, sequence, view, or whatever. You can also view the database data in a graphical mode, and for any table with a primary key (which of course should be all of them) click into a column, change the value, and click save and the database automatically runs the corresponding update (using a primary key for the 'where').
And of course, you can run your SQL queries and copy and paste from the results or pipe them to a text or CSV file.
There's no convenient graphical tool for click-and-drag graphical generation of SQL queries, though. An experienced DBA doesn't need it, but newbies often get some benefit from tools like that.
I've heard that phpMyAdmin, a web-front end tool for administering MySQL, is at least as feature-full as pgAdmin3. But I've never used it.
From the second wikipedia link in the parent post: " However, investigators discovered the bomb was made from potassium chlorate,aluminum powder and sulfur. For the Sari club bomb with the L300 van, the team assembled 12 plastic filing cabinets filled with explosives. The cabinets, each containing a potassium chlorate, aluminum powder, sulfur mixture with TNT kicker-charges, was connected by 150 meters of PETN-filled detonating cord. Ninety-four RDX electric detonators were fitted to the TNT. The total weight of the van bomb was 1.125 tons.[5] The large, high-temperature blast damage produced by this mixture was similar to a thermobaric explosive[6],although the bombers may not have known this.[7]"
It appears that the first article is incorrect, and was only meant to emphasize that it was a terrorist organization that created this near-fuel air bomb.
My workstation at work is a 2.8 GHz P4 and 1.5 GB of RAM, with a 17 inch monitor.
I spend a lot of time waiting for a CVS update to finish, or a copy of the build tree to move, or a clean rebuild, or a database to start, or a complex database query to run, or the webserver to restart, or Excel to open, or an email search to finish, etc... etc... And the relatively small single monitor setup means I'm constantly swapping windows, minimizing things to desktop, or scrolling my file views to the right to find what I need. We use 50 MB test databases for testing the software, and constantly moving the files around and waiting for them to copy from network shares and even on the disk gets tedious quickly. If I'm working on enough different tasks at the same time, the operating system has to start using the swapfile and things slow to a crawl.
Every time I have to wait, it's a few seconds lost. And in many cases, I get sick of waiting and Alt-Tab over to Slashdot (like now). Even more time is lost.
They pay me better than $30 per hour, it's absurd that they aren't willing to spend maybe $1000 on a new workstation and monitor to let me work much faster.
Depending upon what you're doing on your IDE, your setup may be fine. I love my job and like my boss and coworkers, but my slow workstation drives me crazy.
If the game had little strategy, building a massive force of your best unit was a sure path to victory. But Blizzard designed each unit in the game with at least one effective counter-strategy available.
You need to manage your economy, scout your enemy base locations, scout which units he was building so you could build the appropriate counter units, and then control your army closely for tactical combat, by taking injured units to the back for repairs, drawing enemy forces into geographic bottlenecks so you can focus your firepower, and making effective use of unit special abilities.
It's an extremely deep strategy game, far more than a simple "clickfest". If you don't like how fast it is, set the game speed to the slowest possible. Then you can enjoy the depth of strategy without having to click and hotkey at lightning speed.
A major Perl moto is "There is more than one way to do it".
Flexibility in a language is good. Too much flexibility is a problem. You only need to know one way to do a set of tasks in Perl to write an effective program. I only need to know one way to do a set of tasks in Perl to write an effective program. He only needs to know one way to do a set of tasks in Perl to write an effective program.
But you, he, and I need to know multiple ways to do sets of tasks in Perl to read, fix, and extend each others' code.
Now, I agree that Perl's biggest problem is really just the marketing war. But this too-much-flexibility problem also exists. I understand Perl6 addresses that somewhat, but I haven't heard whether any of the compilers has a final release yet.
You're describing what the Olympics are. My idea of Olympic athletes as models is the way I think it should be.
The present solution, as imperfect as it is, is preferable to the alternatives for three reasons:
1. Olympic athletes are supposed to serve as an inspiration to others, especially children. Legalizing the chemical supplementation simply encourages kids to pursue chemical supplements, not training and especially not realistic goals.
2. Research done with athletes and athletic programs is often used to establish fitness and diet guidelines for everyone else. There's a good bet that a successful bodybuilding exercise program for a 19th century bodybuilder would help most healthy adults today gain muscle. When you read Arnold Schwarzennegger's Encyclopedia of Bodybuilding, you have to question whether the exercise routine only works for people on an impressive cocktail of steroids. Legalizing chemical supplementation destroys any useful fitness information people who don't use chemical supplements can derive from studies of Olympic athletes. ( I personally had far better luck gaining muscle mass following old simple calisthenic routines than I did trying to follow the recommended workouts in Arnold's book as written. )
3. Last and perhaps most important, Olympic competition and training has always been about tremendous strength of will as much as it is about incredible fitness and skill. One of the most admirable traits of elite natural athletes is their ability to push themselves through pain. Boxers withstand punches and keep fighting. Runners have lactic acid buildup in their legs, but keep moving. Swimmers' lungs are burning as they push themselves as quickly as possible while taking as little time to breathe as they can. If we allow any drugs in competition, willpower becomes irrelevant. The drugs hone the concentration, the drugs hide the fatigue, the drugs build the muscle so weakness is no longer an issue, and most importantly the drugs block the pain. Strength of will becomes irrelevant.
Testing has problems, but the alternatives are far worse.
Read the article.
A lot of people want to eliminate petroleum imports, and consider environmental protection a lesser priority or no priority at all.
I know plenty of conservatives that scoff at the idea of environmental protection and global warming but who still have a strong interest in electric cars, alternative fuel vehicles, and hybrids as a means of cutting the trade deficit and reducing the leverage that OPEC has over our foreign policy.
When I speak of yo-yo weight gain and fat loss, I'm not necessarily speaking of rapid changes. You can certainly crash diet, lose a ton of weight rapidly, and then start bingeing and regain it just as quickly. But both my wife and myself have lost 15 pounds or more at a rate of one pound per week or so. You plan for a permanent lifestyle change in eating habits and adjust your eating appropriately. However, after a few months the cumulative calorie deficit starts to catch up with you, and eventually you usually revert to you old habits. Then the weight you lost comes back on at the same pound or so per week, and a year later you're back where you started.
Both of us have experienced this exact cycle more than once over the past decade.
I enjoy strength resistance training and had been doing a home workout with weights consistently for years, but I hurt my back doing dumbbell deadlifts (with a relatively modest 150 pounds total) in mid June, and have decided to give weighted leg exercises a long break since I still have periodic pain from the injury. Instead, I've been doing calisthenics. I prefer the weights, but since (knock on wood) the calisthenics don't make my joints ache, that's the way I'm going.
Obviously the logic is true. Burning 500 more calories per day than you consume causes fat loss.
But if the calorie deficit causes your appetite to increase and your energy level and possibly your mood to decrease day after day you eventually reach the point where you overeat, stop exercising, or both. Hence the tendency of most people to yo-yo in their diets.
The difficult part is finding a combination of foods and appropriate exercises that maintain the calorie deficit without having your appetite, mood, or energy level spiral out of control. Millions of people succeed at it. Millions more don't. Sometimes the difference is raw willpower, and my hat is off to people whose will is stronger than mine. Sometimes it's knowing how to properly structure your diet and exercise, and my hat is also off to people who have done better research or gone through trial and error to figure out what works.
Again, your basic statement is true but not helpful. The specifics are more helpful. I had a far easier time maintaining a healthy weight when I was in college and had the opportunity to walk everywhere I needed to go and exercise an hour or more per day. Now I have a job, a long commute, and a family, extremely convenient opportunity for hours of exercise per day is gone.
I think you're absolutely right, actually.
But when I tried to make the transition to low carb, I lasted two months before the inability to eat a regular sandwich or bowl of cereal drove me crazy and I stopped. Atkins (chicken, beef, eggs, and 3+ cups of green vegetables per day) was the first eating plan I ever tried that let me cut some fat without feeling hungy. However, instead of being hungry all of the time I was bored silly by my food choices.
http://www.thefactsaboutfitness.com/news/cals.htm
The amount of calories burned by muscle mass at rest has been greatly exaggerated. The best evidence indicates the muscle burns an extra 6 calories per day, per pound. That can't hurt, but a few more spoonfuls of Wheaties completely offsets the advantage.
The workouts can burn lots of calories, the muscles at rest cannot.
7 kcal per hour is 168 calories per day per pound of muscle. I've never read anything to back that up. Check: http://www.thefactsaboutfitness.com/news/cals.htm
The 100 extra calories burned per day per pound of muscle is a myth, a more accurate picture is 6 calories per pound. 20 extra pounds of muscle burn 120 calories per day, not counting the energy you burn building and maintaining the muscle by exercise.
But how much energy you burn doesn't matter. The only thing which matters are how much you burn vs how much you eat.
And making more money than you earn is the secret to becoming wealthy, and avoiding death is the secret to eternal life.
Just because a statement is true, does not mean it contains any useful information. The devil is in the details.
Nice theory, but I disagree.
My weight doesn't stay constant. If I don't keep militant control of my diet, I gain fat, period. So my life is a constant cycle of bulking up to 235 to 240 pounds and experiencing slight to mild pain just buttoning my pants, and then watching my eating careful until everything is comfortable. Then I stop paying attention, revert to my bad habits, and repeat the cycle.
I think many people are gradually gaining or losing weight, it just isn't obvious to them or anyone else unless the change is very rapid.
Well, I did mention that in what I wrote. If you have huge muscles, they hinder your aerobic capacity because the extra weight often adds more work than the extra strength can help you handle.
And I still maintain that within reason (i.e. below the threshold where the extra mass hurts more than the extra strength), additional muscle helps tremendously in aerobic exercise. Aerobic exercise is not purely about lung and heart capacity/efficiency.
Oops, I see from the web pages linked off the wikipedia article that HIIT is recommended with an exercise bike or jumping rope. I will have to try that, thanks for the excellent suggestion!
I had started out reading the original Muscle Media article on the topic (the first link from the wikipedia page), and it suggested sprints. I had been jogging without joint pain, and figured a move to sprints wasn't a big deal even at my obese size. That was emphatically not the case.
The problem with HIIT is that if you're already fat, it's rough on the joints.
I tried HIIT about ten years ago. I started with just 4 minutes of 30 second sprint followed by a thirty second walk. I nearly vomited at the end - which probably meant I wasn't working hard enough. I went home with sweat pouring out of my body for the next half hour and a tremendous sense of accomplishment. I woke up the next day with my ankles and knees in incredible pain. I also had tremendous muscle soreness, but that's normal after an unfamiliar high intensity exercise.
I couldn't run again for a month. If I had access to a pool, HIIT would work. Otherwise, not so much.
That's good. But I doubt any amount of natural bodybuilding will make 99.9% of the population as muscular as the rejects - let alone the competitors - from a major bodybuilding competition.
That's not entirely true.
When you move, you only use some fraction of the fibers in each muscle at a given time. Your body constantly alternates which muscle fibers it uses to give them time to rest and recharge between uses.
Consistent aerobic exercise strengthens the muscles involved enough so that the individual fibers can do a lot more work. That gives the resting fibers more time to relax before they're called upon again for effort, which makes it easier for your heart, lungs, and blood system to remove wastes and provide additional energy and oxygen.
Serious strength training hinders aerobic performance because you add so much mass to the muscles that the improved fiber strength is offset in long duration exercise by the extra work of moving more muscle weight. But moderate strength training will make you dramatically better at aerobic activities than a sedentary person, even if you don't workout for long periods. Your body may not have the improved aerobic efficiency of an endurance athlete, but it can rotate among the muscle fibers more slowly like one.
The sedentary individual gets hit from both sides. They lack the aerobic efficiency to recharge the fatigued muscles quickly, and they lack the muscle strength to give individual fibers long breaks between use. The individual muscle fibers are called upon often and poorly rested between uses.
I'm a fat guy who neglected aerobic exercises for many years, but I did squats as a routine part of my strength training. I can walk up five flights of stairs without taking a break or gasping for air or even run a mile (with effort) despite my bulk, because what I lack in aerobic capacity is mildly offset by leg muscle strength. ( But I've been punished for my obesity with a back injury, and now weighted squats are off the schedule and aerobics are back on it. That's just as well, since I find it easier to control my constant overeating after aerobic workouts versus resistance workouts. )
Yes, the strength training burns more calories.
But in my experience, the strength training will make you dramatically hungrier than the aerobic training. If you have a will of iron, the difference is irrelevant. But if you have a will of iron, staying thin is easy regardless of your choice of exercise.
I'm not knocking resistance training. I greatly prefer it. But I've never been able to lose fat while doing serious strength training several times per week. My shoulders, biceps, and other muscles got bigger, but at best my waist stayed the same size as when I started.
Read the description. The plant uses the solar power as heat storage, and the stored heat generates power 24 hours per day.
Night isn't the problem. A few overcast days are the problem. Hailstorms are a problem. Not night.
That's why the parent wrote "Additionally, since they operate on top of a heat sink with several days of thermal mass, they could easily be used as a 24x7 "base load" alternative energy power plant."
Consumer's memories don't extend that far. The domestic automakers screwed the pooch from about 1980 until 2000, and all of the work Chrysler, Ford, and especially General Motors have done since then to improve products is ignored by most people.
Public relations is hugely important, especially for companies battling back from two decades of inferior products. The Hummer H2 is a public relations stake in GM's heart.
Right. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_Solar_One
The Nevada Solar One solar tower plant generates 134 million kwh per year, cost $266 million to build, and covers 400 acres (roughly 0.6 square miles or 1.6 square km).
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat1p1.html The 2006 US energy use was about 4,060,000 thousand mwh. So to generate all of that with plants like the Nevada Solar One, we need 4,060,000,000,000 kwh / 134,000,000 kwh = roughly 30,300 copies of Nevada Solar One.
That's $8 trillion in expenses and 0.5% the surface area of the United States. Petty cash. (Obviously, shifting our entire energy generation to solar tomorrow is impossible. But gradually ramping up this kind of energy production looks good to me. Eventually economies of scale will bring the energy generation costs down below coal.)