Depends on who you'd ask, actually. I know you're trolling, but it makes for an interesting question. I'm six-four and about 230. I do NOT have a six pack. Am I costing more in gas because of it? Probably not.
Does the government label me as 'fat', almost certainly.
Increased demand for fuel =>; Increased cost at the pump for everyone.
That part's not necessarily true. It depends on a lot of factors, and there are certainly situations where lower demand leads to higher cost, e.g. racing fuel.
One key finding was that almost 1 billion gallons of gasoline per year can be attributed to passenger weight gain in non-commercial vehicles between 1960 and 2002
So, what about the increased fuel usage in commercial vehicles. More fatties means more food being transported around the country.
Ah, but that's the rub!
You're absolutely correct, of course. Cargo trucks use a LOT more 'gas' than cars, and our eventual independence on foreign oil relies entirely on refitting/replacing the trucking industry with something non-oil.
The thing is, there seems to be a growing wave of 'fat is bad' in America today. My pet suspicion is that it is part of the back room deals made to sell Obamacare to the healthcare sector. Just a hunch. Anyway, these are the psychological journeys, side by side:
A) You are too fat, and you're costing yourself more in gas, so lose weight, fatty.
B) You are too fat, and you're making the trucks that haul food to your fat, waiting face use more gas.
In 'A' you might lose weight to gain better fuel economy. In 'B', less so.
There was a study a while back which said that if people could purchase junk food when they purchased their groceries or gas or whatever other reason they needed to be at a store, we could cut something like 15% of our annual fuel usage. Of course I can't find a link to the article on it, but it was about consolidating trips to the store to save on fuel expenses.
What luck! This is what I'm always doing on grocery day. And I thought I was being lazy. Now I know I'm being GREEN!:D
One key finding was that almost 1 billion gallons of gasoline per year can be attributed to passenger weight gain in non-commercial vehicles between 1960 and 2002--this translates to.7 percent of the total fuel used by passenger vehicles annually.
So they found it had nearly nothing to do with it. Spiffy.
You're biased from your point of view (that religion should always take a back seat to science.) There's nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't exactly represent a 'problem' with that other group, outside of them believing in a religion.
You could take as an opposing example the insistence from certain liberal camps that abortion not be barred Federal funding. Despite your personal belief on the matter, can we not all agree that since a huge portion of the taxes collected come from people opposed to this behavior that we might not want to allow it?
Liberals garner a great deal of support from those who would otherwise be unable to afford the procedures, though, so their politics leads them down irrational paths as well.
That's just one example - there are more, on both sides of the aisle.
I remember when the government tried this tactic, too. It is still absurd.
So we really knew, for example, that Pakistan was taking part of the money we gave them and funneling it directly into the Taliban for use against our allies?
Ask any North Vietnamese Army officer if he thought the North was defeated after Tet '68 and he will say yes.
If the media in the US hadn't spun that as a defeat, Johnson could have pushed the North to the peace talks in 1968 and we could have hammered out a peace then.
So not only is the North Vietnamese Army officer highly susceptible to propaganda, but especially to the US media's propaganda?
How many of them even spoke English?
This seems rather absurd. Let alone the fact that these officers would have also had to contend with their own, native, propaganda.
Julian Assange is acting a spy really, getting stolen documents about operations and publishing them.
I'll say again, this is simply a case of assassinating the messenger to disguise the message. Assange didn't collect these documents nor release them to anyone outside their zone of secrecy. Someone else did that. After the first time these were divulged, confidence no longer existed to be broken.
You're not alone in this opinion. The US government has come out and said basically the same thing, for likely the same reason. If we can make the man into a monster, we'll forget the good being done. Remember all the Scientology 'tech' they posted? Was that spying as well? Were they not exactly as monstrous on that day as on this one?
That's where we'd disagree, then. I'd object strenuously to people bringing guns into my home and asserting their individual authorities upon me. Further, I'd expect my government to prevent it.
Not really, if the warlords have all the power and guns. My point is that differentiating between nations, aggressors, and other factors is silly. One world, one sky - if someone does evil or destructive things, and you could prevent them from doing so, why hesitate? Even if it's only the lesser of two evils?
Does this mean that I, personally, can do so with equivalent authority?
And as for only using it against governments, what about warlords and armed militias raising hell? There's nothing that can stand against that except for a military organization.
That would probably fall within the responsibilities of the host government. For places without one, as unfortunate as it may be, that means civil war.
You're clearly a 'camp B resident', but the way you're blurring things here is uncannily bizarre.
There are considerations to made in every war
When does hiding the truth from the people paying the bills enter into this equation?
putting peoples lives at risk
Could it not be argued that perpetuating the secret, and thereby the false pretenses about the war, puts even MORE lives at risk?
for self glorification
Are you a spook? This is simply intended to smear Assange, as if that matters in the slightest. When Wikileaks published all that Scientology 'tech' was that ALSO just to promote the growth of a certain ego? I don't recall seeing that claim then.
You're seeking to shoot the messenger, and that's not only irrelevant but also sad.
...they ignored sane advice as to the troop strength required to hold and secure the regions.
If anything, I think the Wikileaks stuff teaches us that no amount of troop strength would have mattered. The Afghan region is a gigantic mess, and unless we're ready to resolve the conflicts between India and Pakistan AND Radical Islam vs the rest of the world, we had no business losing even a single life over there.
I'm with you, mostly. I support wars and occupations, but only when leveraged against enemy governments. Our military machine is a government tool, and is largely inappropriate for civil uses.
My favorite feature of this round of Wikileaks is how it divides us. We now have the privilege of mostly being sorted into two rather neat piles:
A) This stuff should never have been secret, and anyone who would hide it is un-American
or
B) These secrets are property of the government, and anyone who would divulge them is un-American
The framing is succinct, and I doubt there will be another issue of this type within my lifetime. No matter which camp you're in, from a certain point of view, you're right. Personally, I hold that nothing need remain secret for very long, and that our government should be in the business of printing this material itself. Others are calling for Pvt Manning's execution.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me guess, you're fat, right?
Depends on who you'd ask, actually. I know you're trolling, but it makes for an interesting question. I'm six-four and about 230. I do NOT have a six pack. Am I costing more in gas because of it? Probably not.
Does the government label me as 'fat', almost certainly.
Well, you'd be wrong. For humans and monkeys both, it seems.
(See 'Loss Aversion')
First, I specifically said, 'nearly nothing'. Second, do the math:
1,000,000,000 = .7%
100% = 142,857,142,857.14
Big numbers are fun.
Increased demand for fuel =>; Increased cost at the pump for everyone.
That part's not necessarily true. It depends on a lot of factors, and there are certainly situations where lower demand leads to higher cost, e.g. racing fuel.
One key finding was that almost 1 billion gallons of gasoline per year can be attributed to passenger weight gain in non-commercial vehicles between 1960 and 2002
So, what about the increased fuel usage in commercial vehicles. More fatties means more food being transported around the country.
Ah, but that's the rub!
You're absolutely correct, of course. Cargo trucks use a LOT more 'gas' than cars, and our eventual independence on foreign oil relies entirely on refitting/replacing the trucking industry with something non-oil.
The thing is, there seems to be a growing wave of 'fat is bad' in America today. My pet suspicion is that it is part of the back room deals made to sell Obamacare to the healthcare sector. Just a hunch. Anyway, these are the psychological journeys, side by side:
A) You are too fat, and you're costing yourself more in gas, so lose weight, fatty.
B) You are too fat, and you're making the trucks that haul food to your fat, waiting face use more gas.
In 'A' you might lose weight to gain better fuel economy. In 'B', less so.
There was a study a while back which said that if people could purchase junk food when they purchased their groceries or gas or whatever other reason they needed to be at a store, we could cut something like 15% of our annual fuel usage. Of course I can't find a link to the article on it, but it was about consolidating trips to the store to save on fuel expenses.
What luck! This is what I'm always doing on grocery day. And I thought I was being lazy. Now I know I'm being GREEN! :D
One key finding was that almost 1 billion gallons of gasoline per year can be attributed to passenger weight gain in non-commercial vehicles between 1960 and 2002--this translates to .7 percent of the total fuel used by passenger vehicles annually.
So they found it had nearly nothing to do with it. Spiffy.
You're biased from your point of view (that religion should always take a back seat to science.) There's nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't exactly represent a 'problem' with that other group, outside of them believing in a religion.
You could take as an opposing example the insistence from certain liberal camps that abortion not be barred Federal funding. Despite your personal belief on the matter, can we not all agree that since a huge portion of the taxes collected come from people opposed to this behavior that we might not want to allow it?
Liberals garner a great deal of support from those who would otherwise be unable to afford the procedures, though, so their politics leads them down irrational paths as well.
That's just one example - there are more, on both sides of the aisle.
Nope, I do not notice what does not exist. Calling someone out for being an asshole does not make one an assole.
You're better than that, spun. You and I both know you can locate examples of anti-intellectualism amongst each and every group of humans.
Maybe you're just on a roll, but to assert that you cannot locate asinine liberal behavior on, say, HuffPo is just intellectually dishonest.
I remember when the government tried this tactic, too. It is still absurd.
So we really knew, for example, that Pakistan was taking part of the money we gave them and funneling it directly into the Taliban for use against our allies?
We knew that?
Really?
Really??
Ask any North Vietnamese Army officer if he thought the North was defeated after Tet '68 and he will say yes.
If the media in the US hadn't spun that as a defeat, Johnson could have pushed the North to the peace talks in 1968 and we could have hammered out a peace then.
So not only is the North Vietnamese Army officer highly susceptible to propaganda, but especially to the US media's propaganda?
How many of them even spoke English?
This seems rather absurd. Let alone the fact that these officers would have also had to contend with their own, native, propaganda.
Citations, please.
Julian Assange is acting a spy really, getting stolen documents about operations and publishing them.
I'll say again, this is simply a case of assassinating the messenger to disguise the message. Assange didn't collect these documents nor release them to anyone outside their zone of secrecy. Someone else did that. After the first time these were divulged, confidence no longer existed to be broken.
You're not alone in this opinion. The US government has come out and said basically the same thing, for likely the same reason. If we can make the man into a monster, we'll forget the good being done. Remember all the Scientology 'tech' they posted? Was that spying as well? Were they not exactly as monstrous on that day as on this one?
This is not the vocabulary of a free country.
So you'd go so far as to say that it is un-American to use such a word?
I specifically referenced the scenario in this way for a reason. The contrast between the two extremes is crucial to the point I'm trying to make.
Do we,
A) Stand up for the principles we hold as 'American'
or
B) Stand up for the government itself as the embodiment of 'America'
Not an easy choice.
Cool, thanks!
That's where we'd disagree, then. I'd object strenuously to people bringing guns into my home and asserting their individual authorities upon me. Further, I'd expect my government to prevent it.
Rotation FTW
Not really, if the warlords have all the power and guns. My point is that differentiating between nations, aggressors, and other factors is silly. One world, one sky - if someone does evil or destructive things, and you could prevent them from doing so, why hesitate? Even if it's only the lesser of two evils?
Does this mean that I, personally, can do so with equivalent authority?
Everything you're seeing is spin control - it's not like making a big fuss over this is going to make it be un-leaked.
While I actually agree, it is amazing to watch the government behave as if this weren't true...
And as for only using it against governments, what about warlords and armed militias raising hell? There's nothing that can stand against that except for a military organization.
That would probably fall within the responsibilities of the host government. For places without one, as unfortunate as it may be, that means civil war.
What does that have to do with anything?
You're clearly a 'camp B resident', but the way you're blurring things here is uncannily bizarre.
There are considerations to made in every war
When does hiding the truth from the people paying the bills enter into this equation?
putting peoples lives at risk
Could it not be argued that perpetuating the secret, and thereby the false pretenses about the war, puts even MORE lives at risk?
for self glorification
Are you a spook? This is simply intended to smear Assange, as if that matters in the slightest. When Wikileaks published all that Scientology 'tech' was that ALSO just to promote the growth of a certain ego? I don't recall seeing that claim then.
You're seeking to shoot the messenger, and that's not only irrelevant but also sad.
That's still B, I'm afraid.
Any truth to the claim that Wikileaks asked the Whitehouse was asked for this very thing?
I still contend that operating with the knowledge that nothing is secret for very long is workable.
...they ignored sane advice as to the troop strength required to hold and secure the regions.
If anything, I think the Wikileaks stuff teaches us that no amount of troop strength would have mattered. The Afghan region is a gigantic mess, and unless we're ready to resolve the conflicts between India and Pakistan AND Radical Islam vs the rest of the world, we had no business losing even a single life over there.
I'm with you, mostly. I support wars and occupations, but only when leveraged against enemy governments. Our military machine is a government tool, and is largely inappropriate for civil uses.
My favorite feature of this round of Wikileaks is how it divides us. We now have the privilege of mostly being sorted into two rather neat piles:
A) This stuff should never have been secret, and anyone who would hide it is un-American
or
B) These secrets are property of the government, and anyone who would divulge them is un-American
The framing is succinct, and I doubt there will be another issue of this type within my lifetime. No matter which camp you're in, from a certain point of view, you're right. Personally, I hold that nothing need remain secret for very long, and that our government should be in the business of printing this material itself. Others are calling for Pvt Manning's execution.
Amazing times to live in...