Your numbers assume someone eats the ice whole and exert the energy to melt the ice as well as to heat the ice. That seems a bit wierd to me. I bet most of the conversion from ice to melted water happens outside the body.
When drinking cold water, it takes approximately 1 nutritional calorie to heat 1 ounce of water from just above the melting point of ice to body temperature.
1 calorie per gram per degree, moveing from 0.8C to 36.8C takes 36 degrees, about 28 grams/ounce = 36*28 = 1008,/1000 to get the nutrional calories = approximately 1 calorie to heat 1 ounce of just melted water to body temperature. I rounded a bit, but just melted could be heated a bit more, so it is near the correct number.
So for a 32 ounce drink, you only burn about 32 calories, not 105.
It is called ice cold Dasani (Dasani is Coca-Cola's bottled water).
If it is ice cold then your body must burn calories to warm it up to 98.2 F / or 36.8 C (the REAL average human body temperature - 98.6 is what you get when you round 36.8C upto 37C then convert Farenhiet).
One calorie (phyics) will raise one gram of water one degree. 454 grams = 16 ounces. So to raise 16 ounces of ice cold water from 0.8 C to 36.8 takes 36*454= 16,344 calories. But please note when talking about food, what we call a calorie is actually what a physicist calls a KILOcalorie, so we do the conversion and:
Drinking one nearly ice cold water 16 ounce bottle of water will burn about 16 calories.
Yeah, like the 'upper' class really are naturally tall, with good skin, and perky breasts. It could not POSSIBLY be that they eat better, receive human growth hormone when young, and get plastic surgery.
And apparently, no one has paid any attention to athletes. They must all be from rich families, none of them from poor ones, despite being tall and in good shape.
You are basically accepting that it is OK for 65% of the people to be lazy, foolish SOB's.
Complaining about low voter turn out is in reality complaining about Low Quality Citizens. I wished we lived in a country where people demanded the right to vote and took personal days to be sure they did it. The real way to handle it is to educate citizens more and give them a sense of empowerement - that YES, they CAN change the government, because the government works FOR them, not against them.
Secondly, there are two distinct categories of people that vote even if they are lazy and foolish: A. Unemployed B. Senior Citizens This gives those two groups a disproportionately large affect on elections. Not surprising that a disproportionate amount of money is spent on those groups.
Really, the Republicans should be pushing for more more voter turn-out. They should be trying to make it a federal holiday to ensure that everyone, not just the unemployed and the Senior Citizens have ample time to get to work.
But for some reason, the Democrats, who honestly have more to lose, seem to be behind greater voter turn-out efforts.
(X) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
And your point is? If I have to give up 'mailing lists', or (far more likely) force mailing lists to change so that they are NOT so similar to spam that they get caught by anti-spam stuff that is not a real issue. We do NOT owe Mailing Lists the right to exist if they can't change to deal with the reality of a spam-free world, tough luck. The effect on other legitimate email uses would be minimal, if any.
(X) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
No. The technique listed here increases the actual COSTS to the spammers. It forces them to use more computers to get the same throughput. Every time we double their costs, we get a permanent reduction in the amount of spam. It may not by itself kill spam, but it will have a negative effect.
(X) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
Nope. This is just false. In fact, people that do it by themselves have a GREATER effect than if everyone does it.
(X) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
This is a relatively simple add on. We keep the existing software, we just upgrade it.
(X) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
Not relavent.
(X) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
Again, so what. Here you simply say "They will try to counter us, so we should not even try to counter them? Very Foolish argument.
(X) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
Slow down of 30 seconds per legitimate email is not sabotage. I don't expect my email to be read within one hour.
(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
No. It means that the WorldNetDaily intentionally published a false, inflamatory story in the hopes of getting people to click on the video and watch it.
They definitely managed to get a lot more PR than such a tiny, silly, thing deserved.
The problem is that 1) sales are directly measureable, 2) if the product is good, the job is easy but if the product is bad, the job is hard, and 3) they are the final stage that SEES the money. So they are in a good position to demand a per unit profit that is significant. If they work for a crappy company, then they deserve their huge paychecks. But if they work for a company with a product that literally sells itself, they get WAY overcompensated.
The producers on the other hand are far down the pipe, have no idea exactly how much their contribution is getting for the company and the real stuff they do is quality, not quantity, so they can not easily measure and prove their value added. I
End Result: Sales gets compensated for significantly more than their value in any company with a good product and too little in any company that is just an 'also ran'.
It's the other way around. The product sold in cans, called 'coke' was originally called coke because it had cocaine in it.
So techinically, the Cocaine producers should be able to sue Coca-cola for stepping on their trademark 'coke'.
Although I guess coal processors could sue both of them for using the same word that originally meant "solid carbonaceous residue derived from low-ash, low-sulfur bituminous coal"
No. The judge has to follow the law. The law says that they have no jurisdiction. The judge does not need a defendant's presence to say "No, someone that is not american and not an american corproation can not use the US courts to sue a non-american organization that has minimal (if any) presence in the US."
I work in a law firm. Originally we held all our data here. Now we outsorce it to a vendor.
The reason is that while our data capacities doubled every year, our data needs tripled every year.
And I don't see it changing. As soon as people make data storage cheaper, we decide we can now afford to store more of it, for longer periods of time.
So no, I don't think data centers are going away. But I do seem them as becoming less of a vital, growing industry and instead turning into a slow growth business.
They lacked restraint when they showed up and asked it be moved to federal court from a state court. Doing that was an acknowledgement that federal courts had jurisdiction. They should have either not shown up at all, or showed up and said what you did.
Air conditioning is strange. Mythbusters did a couple shows, showing that depending on the speed you are traveling and the outside air temperature, sometime turning on the airconditioner uses up less fuel than opening the window to cool yourself off. (reduced aerodynamis.)
For example, what did they consider "working hours". There is a HUGE difference between doing things during 9am-12pm and from 1PM-5PM as opposed to things being done during 12-1PM or from 5PM-10PM.
I know LOTS of people that use their lunch hour to surf the net or stay late and play video games after 5PM. I don't consider that unethical.
Similarly, I don't think it is wrong to spend 15 minutes checking out an ebay auction or reading your personal email, while some addict goes outside and smokes a ciggarette/takes a coffee break.
Without more information, this looks like a rabble rousing report instead of something usefull.
You might have a point. You might even convince someone.
Someone that has not actually SEEN the Daily Show and what passes for for News.
But those of us that have ourselves seen both shows now that:
News 'shows' fill themselves up with:
1) Junk 'human interest' stories
2) TONS of promos for news storeis they are going to show later.
3) Sports (there is nothing wrong with sports. I like sports. But it is NOT news. If I want to find out about sports, I change the channell to ESPN)
4) Made up scare stories.
5) Incessent, time wasting, stupid patter between the anchors, etc.
6) Weather (again, not really news unless it is a storm). And the Weather Channell does it better)
7) Entertainment news (again, not really news. If E! would show it, it does not belong on the news. I can get my gossip on E! etc.)
Look, when there were three channels, I could see putting Sports, weather, entertainment in news. We have better outlets for that kind of information, and there is STILL lots of real, hard news out there.
The Daily Show is a far more substantive news show than the crap the networks put on the air. I think the clear truth agrees with with the professor. And as you personally did not examine his methodology, you have not made a convincing argument.
This is definitely NOT a solution looking for a problem. The problem of the huge expense to get into orbit is very very real.
There are many many scientific experiments and Industrial businesses plans that would become financially viable if we reduced the cost to orbit even by 1/2.
Funny, the US has guided missiles that travel at 10 the speed of sound. I don't think merely doubling the speed is going to cause the kind of issues you think will occure.
This should be marked as off topic. I know everything you wrote, did not deny it, but it is irrelevant. You just put it down to argue with my PERSPECTIVE.
Gasoline is NOT "a safe product". Neither is vodka, paint thinner, lamp oil, propane, the radioactive particle in most smoke detectors (If you swallow it will kill you), ciggarettes, lead-acid car batteries, etc. etc.
The kind of wattage we are talking about here can easily and simply be made safe. You listed something yourself. I am sorry if I did not take the extra minutes to put in the few MINOR extra details you put in.
Please don't insult my answer then say "While you are totally wrong, here is how I would do exactly what you said we could and I said could not be done."
It's repeated, frequent warnings from the manufacturers and industry associations for several years.
Now finally it hit the news media.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't stop him from sticking his head underneath and drowning simply because they painted a carrot at the bottom of the water trough.
Slashdot Mirror
When drinking cold water, it takes approximately 1 nutritional calorie to heat 1 ounce of water from just above the melting point of ice to body temperature.
1 calorie per gram per degree, moveing from 0.8C to 36.8C takes 36 degrees, about 28 grams/ounce = 36*28 = 1008, /1000 to get the nutrional calories = approximately 1 calorie to heat 1 ounce of just melted water to body temperature. I rounded a bit, but just melted could be heated a bit more, so it is near the correct number.
So for a 32 ounce drink, you only burn about 32 calories, not 105.
If it is ice cold then your body must burn calories to warm it up to 98.2 F / or 36.8 C (the REAL average human body temperature - 98.6 is what you get when you round 36.8C upto 37C then convert Farenhiet).
One calorie (phyics) will raise one gram of water one degree. 454 grams = 16 ounces. So to raise 16 ounces of ice cold water from 0.8 C to 36.8 takes 36*454= 16,344 calories. But please note when talking about food, what we call a calorie is actually what a physicist calls a KILOcalorie, so we do the conversion and:
Drinking one nearly ice cold water 16 ounce bottle of water will burn about 16 calories.
Some people will believe anything.
Yeah, like the 'upper' class really are naturally tall, with good skin, and perky breasts. It could not POSSIBLY be that they eat better, receive human growth hormone when young, and get plastic surgery.
And apparently, no one has paid any attention to athletes. They must all be from rich families, none of them from poor ones, despite being tall and in good shape.
But only a mild one.
You are basically accepting that it is OK for 65% of the people to be lazy, foolish SOB's.
Complaining about low voter turn out is in reality complaining about Low Quality Citizens. I wished we lived in a country where people demanded the right to vote and took personal days to be sure they did it. The real way to handle it is to educate citizens more and give them a sense of empowerement - that YES, they CAN change the government, because the government works FOR them, not against them.
Secondly, there are two distinct categories of people that vote even if they are lazy and foolish: A. Unemployed B. Senior Citizens This gives those two groups a disproportionately large affect on elections. Not surprising that a disproportionate amount of money is spent on those groups.
Really, the Republicans should be pushing for more more voter turn-out. They should be trying to make it a federal holiday to ensure that everyone, not just the unemployed and the Senior Citizens have ample time to get to work.
But for some reason, the Democrats, who honestly have more to lose, seem to be behind greater voter turn-out efforts.
(X) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
And your point is? If I have to give up 'mailing lists', or (far more likely) force mailing lists to change so that they are NOT so similar to spam that they get caught by anti-spam stuff that is not a real issue. We do NOT owe Mailing Lists the right to exist if they can't change to deal with the reality of a spam-free world, tough luck. The effect on other legitimate email uses would be minimal, if any.
(X) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
No. The technique listed here increases the actual COSTS to the spammers. It forces them to use more computers to get the same throughput. Every time we double their costs, we get a permanent reduction in the amount of spam. It may not by itself kill spam, but it will have a negative effect. (X) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
Nope. This is just false. In fact, people that do it by themselves have a GREATER effect than if everyone does it. (X) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
This is a relatively simple add on. We keep the existing software, we just upgrade it. (X) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
Not relavent. (X) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
Again, so what. Here you simply say "They will try to counter us, so we should not even try to counter them? Very Foolish argument. (X) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
Slow down of 30 seconds per legitimate email is not sabotage. I don't expect my email to be read within one hour. (X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
Sorry dude, but your reasons suck.
They definitely managed to get a lot more PR than such a tiny, silly, thing deserved.
The producers on the other hand are far down the pipe, have no idea exactly how much their contribution is getting for the company and the real stuff they do is quality, not quantity, so they can not easily measure and prove their value added. I
End Result: Sales gets compensated for significantly more than their value in any company with a good product and too little in any company that is just an 'also ran'.
So techinically, the Cocaine producers should be able to sue Coca-cola for stepping on their trademark 'coke'.
Although I guess coal processors could sue both of them for using the same word that originally meant "solid carbonaceous residue derived from low-ash, low-sulfur bituminous coal"
No. The judge has to follow the law. The law says that they have no jurisdiction. The judge does not need a defendant's presence to say "No, someone that is not american and not an american corproation can not use the US courts to sue a non-american organization that has minimal (if any) presence in the US."
The reason is that while our data capacities doubled every year, our data needs tripled every year.
And I don't see it changing. As soon as people make data storage cheaper, we decide we can now afford to store more of it, for longer periods of time.
So no, I don't think data centers are going away. But I do seem them as becoming less of a vital, growing industry and instead turning into a slow growth business.
They lacked restraint when they showed up and asked it be moved to federal court from a state court. Doing that was an acknowledgement that federal courts had jurisdiction. They should have either not shown up at all, or showed up and said what you did.
By showing up the first time, and requesting a change from state to federal, SPAMHAUS was in effect claiming that federal law did apply.
Their motion to move it to federal was both stupid and reflex (i.e. unrestrained)
Instead they demonstrated an admirable restraint and intelligence, in a situation where both the Judge and Spamhaus have failed to do the same.
Air conditioning is strange. Mythbusters did a couple shows, showing that depending on the speed you are traveling and the outside air temperature, sometime turning on the airconditioner uses up less fuel than opening the window to cool yourself off. (reduced aerodynamis.)
To those of you that did not get it, 40% of the work week is friday or monday.
I know LOTS of people that use their lunch hour to surf the net or stay late and play video games after 5PM. I don't consider that unethical.
Similarly, I don't think it is wrong to spend 15 minutes checking out an ebay auction or reading your personal email, while some addict goes outside and smokes a ciggarette/takes a coffee break.
Without more information, this looks like a rabble rousing report instead of something usefull.
Hook them up to a DVR that cycles through the following:
Pleasant nature scenes.
random shots of other people's cubicles
A shot of the boss's desk.
It gives a wide open feeling, with the power of knowing where your boss is, and the random chance that others will learn you are hard at work.
Someone that has not actually SEEN the Daily Show and what passes for for News.
But those of us that have ourselves seen both shows now that:
News 'shows' fill themselves up with:
1) Junk 'human interest' stories
2) TONS of promos for news storeis they are going to show later.
3) Sports (there is nothing wrong with sports. I like sports. But it is NOT news. If I want to find out about sports, I change the channell to ESPN)
4) Made up scare stories.
5) Incessent, time wasting, stupid patter between the anchors, etc.
6) Weather (again, not really news unless it is a storm). And the Weather Channell does it better)
7) Entertainment news (again, not really news. If E! would show it, it does not belong on the news. I can get my gossip on E! etc.)
Look, when there were three channels, I could see putting Sports, weather, entertainment in news. We have better outlets for that kind of information, and there is STILL lots of real, hard news out there.
The Daily Show is a far more substantive news show than the crap the networks put on the air. I think the clear truth agrees with with the professor. And as you personally did not examine his methodology, you have not made a convincing argument.
Please describe.
The US airforce already has plans for a straight path, it's speed is 10 Mach instead of 23 Mach.
The one at the end to twist it upwards is relatively minor, considering the constant circular one.
There are many many scientific experiments and Industrial businesses plans that would become financially viable if we reduced the cost to orbit even by 1/2.
Funny, the US has guided missiles that travel at 10 the speed of sound. I don't think merely doubling the speed is going to cause the kind of issues you think will occure.
Gasoline is NOT "a safe product". Neither is vodka, paint thinner, lamp oil, propane, the radioactive particle in most smoke detectors (If you swallow it will kill you), ciggarettes, lead-acid car batteries, etc. etc.
The kind of wattage we are talking about here can easily and simply be made safe. You listed something yourself. I am sorry if I did not take the extra minutes to put in the few MINOR extra details you put in.
Please don't insult my answer then say "While you are totally wrong, here is how I would do exactly what you said we could and I said could not be done."
It's repeated, frequent warnings from the manufacturers and industry associations for several years.
Now finally it hit the news media.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't stop him from sticking his head underneath and drowning simply because they painted a carrot at the bottom of the water trough.