Sounds about right for me as well, thankfully not to quite the same degree as you. I overheat easily, like for instance riding my bicycle even in winter weather with just a regular jacket on. Forget about bicycling for long distances in summer, even in shorts and a t-shirt, I'm sweating like mad in minutes.
I have a theory that this is related to my inability to get below ~95kg. I work out hard 3-4 times per week (hard ~1 hour crossfit workouts), I always take the stairs, I've all but eliminated white rice, white bread and other simple carbs from my diet, I've cut down severely on my serving sizes, I've pretty much cut out all snacks completely (apart from the occasional piece of dark chocolate, one is human after all), I hardly ever touch alcohol and never in large amounts, and yet my weight stays right where it is.
I know my weight will balloon upwards if I start eating badly again (I was over 120kg at one point), but my current body fat percentage is ~30%, my BMI is ~30 and I just can't get rid of my belly etc. seemingly no matter what I do.
I live in Europe, and my first two cars both had around 70hp. One was a Corolla that weighed around 800kg, the other a Nuevo Panda at around 950kg. I had lots of fun, ran rings around bigger cars in city traffic and got speeding tickets in both.
My current car is a Peugeot 406 with 160hp and it's just objectively better in every way. It's roomier, faster, quieter, much more fun to drive and a lot more comfortable to boot. I absolutely wouldn't mind if it had 200hp (which the V6 model has), but I make do with 160.
Yeah, if it's anything like their currently diesel/electric hybrid drivetrain, you can only go couple of miles on a "charge". The zero-emissions bit is a nice little bonus for short distances, but the real meat lies in the ability to recover braking energy, which is a huge deal when it comes to increasing fuel mileage and decreasing brake wear.
It works in a different way to the Prius and other gasoline hybrids. In essence you have a normal FWD car with a diesel engine and an automatic gearbox, to which is added a RWD electric drivetrain and electronics to make things work in harmony. The idea is to use the road as a transmission between the two powertrains, while still letting you drive in pure electric mode for a short distance in town. The additional electric drivetrain means that you effectively have 4WD as well.
I hope you are aware that Citroen have had world-beating expertise in hydropneumatic suspension, brakes and power steering since they introduced the technology to the car market in the 1950s?
If it involves hydraulic oil and/or compressed nitrogen, they know better than anyone else what they're doing.
VW has a history of making bold claims about fuel economy and failing to meet them. An acquaintance of mine drives a Seat Ibiza Ecomotive, a 1.2L 3-cylinder turbodiesel super-economobile, basically the same as a VW Polo Bluemotion. Its fuel consumption is 69 US MPG on paper, but it's rare that he even gets above 50 US MPG, driving normally.
Meanwhile, I drive a 12-year-old Peugeot 406 with a 2.2L gasoline engine and no particular fuel-saving initiatives. Fuel consumption on paper is 26.5 US MPG, I average 26.3 US MPG with a mix of both normal and 'spirited' driving. My parents drive a 12-year-old CitroÃn C5 with a 2.0L engine, their consumption figures pretty much match mine (it's a heavier car).
So there you have it, anectdotal evidence show us that Peugeot CitroÃn are much more truthful in their mileage estimates than VW is.
Yeah, I was talking about the glowplugs (I used to drive a diesel car). Realistically, you only need to heat the fuel cell to the point where it can run itself, at that point you don't need the battery for the heater anymore, since the fuel cell provides its own power.
It'll run at lower efficiency until it heats up, but as long as you can get it to the point of "thermal self-sufficiency", it's really no different than having a combustion engine that needs to heat up before it runs at optimal efficiency. The fuel cell will probably heat up faster, too.
As for the CO2 issue, a methanol/propane/whatever will still emit CO2, but it'll emit a lot less for the same distance covered compared to a combustion engine vehicle, and it's more flexible in regards to finding a CO2-neutral fuel to power it.
That was most likely because of the hydrogen they use and not because of the fuel cells. Hydrogen is ridiculously hard to store in liquid form. It needs to be cooled to an extreme degree, kept under high pressure and it tends to escape through even the smallest cracks. Which is especially bad considering how it embrittles metal over time.
Gasoline, (bio)diesel, ethanol, methanol, this new biofuel, propane etc. don't have this problem. We have well-proven storage methods that are both portable, dependable and durable. Everyone talks about fuel cells an hydrogen as if that's the only viable combination, but any fuel source that can react with oxygen (ie. all of them) are technically viable alternatives.
If fuel cells operate at lower efficiency when cold, all you need is a battery-powered pre-heater, just like on diesel engines.
Combustion has pretty much reached a dead end in efficiency, we need to find a better way to use our liquid hydrocarbons.
Electric cars are great to drive. They're smooth, quiet, have very few moving parts and are "energy agnostic". They don't care where the electricity comes from, as long as it's there. But they also have issues with energy storage, current battery tech just isn't ready yet.
What I propose is to use fuel cells to provide the electricity. Not hydrogen fuel cells, as hydrogen has way too many problems regarding energy density, storage (embrittlement of metal etc.) and so on, but the University of Maryland had a working prototype of a gasoline-powered fuel cell in 2011. With minor changes that fuel cell tech could be powered by any liquid or gaseous hydrocarbon, such as ethanol or this new fermented biofuel, or even methanol or propane or natural gas. This would allow us the massive advantages of electric powertrains, with the convenience of fast refueling, just like an internal combustion engine-powered car.
The way I see it, the future lies in fuel cell-powered electric cars.
And you heard this from your mother's uncle's girlfriend's hairdresser, right?
It's fake fake fake. Think of the massive risk of STDs and AIDS and the legal ramifications of effectively engaging in prostitution in areas where it's highly illegal, not to mention filming the evidence themselves.
And just watch the videos. The acting is hilariously bad.
The discussion was about actual relatively well-known porn companies and whether they did actual rape porn. They don't, and it would be monumentally stupid of them if they ever did. The porn business is all about selling you a fantasy, they'll fake anything to sell their products. Everything they do is faked.
HOWEVER, there are plenty of lowlife scumbags who run their own little amateurish porn sites where they have sex with more or less willing girls on camera, with little regard to legal requirements etc. as well as plenty of sites where peoples' amateur porn is posted indiscriminately. Those aren't in the established porn business as such, though. And most of them are a phone call or email away from being shut down for non-compliance, at least if they're hosted in the US or EU.
These are also the people who get sued massively for breach of contract and become pariahs in the business.
Filthy scumbags exist everywhere, they're not unique to porn and they certainly don't work for the well-respected companies, with a handful of few high-profile exceptions. In a business like porn, reputation is everything. If people hear bad shit about a producer or his productions, they'll stay far away from him. It's in his own self-interest to behave nicely or his career will be extremely short.
Contrary to popular belief, it really is the women who run the show in mainstream porn, and even more so in fetish porn. Low-budget porn is a different kettle of fish altogether, and that's where you tend to find the scumbags.
Do you know how much porn is online from what counts as respectable pornographic film companies doing exactly that? I don't mean staged content; I mean a couple 40 year old guys slip into a college party and fuck a completely drunk, barely awake (if even) college girl.
You probably believe those Dancing Bear videos where a male stripper shows up to a bachelorette party and ends up fucking the bride-to-be and all the bridesmaids aren't staged either.
No, those bangbus guys don't just pick up random girls on the street and fuck them in the back of a van for cash, either.
Repeat after me: all porn is fake. Yes, ALL of it.
Do you have any idea how much pressure is on porn producers to verify and document the legal age of every single performer in their productions? They will get shut down if records are missing or tampered with. All performers are required to submit to regular health and STD checks. Stringent records and contracts are kept.
Why take a gigantic risk and have your male talent (which is in severely limited supply) rape some random girl on camera, provided they would even agree to do so and not just hand you over to the cops immediately? They would basically be filming their own confession.
It's fake. All of it. Yes, even that video you just found that looks really authentic. Fake.
Well obviously, since you live in a culture of fear. Don't you think your history of widely available firearms has escalated your culture to a level where people just don't feel safe any more unless they have a gun in their hand?
I am anti-guns, specifically anti-easily-available-guns. Not because I am a "nut", but because guns are specifically made for hurting and killing. Rifles, shotguns etc. should only ever be in the hands of licensed hunters, and everything else only ever in the hands of trained professionals with proper oversight and regulations.
The fact that I am unarmed makes me *very* uncomfortable and edgy
That is a tell-tale sign of having been immersed in a society fuelled by paranoia and fear for far too long. You're literally afraid of being without a gun. In effect, a firearm has become your pacifier.
In other parts of the world, things work a little differently. Outside of TV and games etc., I have never seen a gun brandished in anger. I haven't even seen a gun in real life unless they were at shooting ranges or in the hands of a hunter.
It. Just. Doesn't. Happen. Around. Here.
In fact, we have so few shooting incidents that it's a major media event when ever one happens. In my country in 2012 we had less than 10 shootings. Ten. All of them involving gang-on-gang violence. No home invasions, no attacks on random civilians, no mass shootings at schools or theaters or whatever.
You know why? Because we're not obsessed with firearms, because we have proper gun control in place and because we realize that by putting tools specifically made for hurting and killing other people in the hands of every man too easily, we would only be creating a culture of escalated violence and ensuring the deaths of far too many innocent people.
And you know what? We feel safe. In the countryside, people don't even lock their front doors! It simply isn't necessary.
Based on the aggressive confrontational tone and personal insults in your posts, I'd wager that you'd be more likely to use a gun in a heated situation than the average man on the street.
You shouldn't base your idea of what happens in a home invasion on what's reported in the media. You've found 6 cases where a kid successfully scared the criminal away or at least hurt them enough that they were no longer a threat.
That is a tiny tiny drop in the ocean compared to the total number of home invasions. As I said, exceptional cases.
That depends on your definition of "old car". There aren't a lot of genuinely old cars (say anything pre-90s) driving around anymore, which means that the vast majority of cars driving around these days have catalytic convertors and various other anti-pollution devices.
I drive a 12 year-old car that gets around 25mpg. I keep it well-maintained, it's almost completely rust-free and in mechanically great condition. I figure that the environmental impact of producing a new car is much larger than the impact of me driving a car with less-than-modern gas mileage.
They piss me off as well. Apparently they're very popular in Sweden, so here in Copenhagen we get tons of cars with Swedish plates tearing up the (completely salted and devoid of any snow) roads all winter. Add to that the racket they make, the greatly increased braking distance and possibly carcinogenic and car paint destroying iron dust from the rapidly wearing studs.
I wish they would just put on a set of studless winter tires instead. They handle better, make less noise and last longer.
Even more important, when the apocalypse hits and civilization is reduced to rag-tag groups scraping out a meager living in a bartering economy, what use are you going to get out of being a kick-ass C# programmer? What use will you be to other people, in order to trade your skills for food and shelter?
Tradesmen, on the other hand, will be able to make tools, build shelter, grow food and jerry-rig the remnants of western civilization (cars etc.) into useful objects for survival.
It's never to late to learn a trade or physical skill, even if it may not end up being your primary occupation.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds about right for me as well, thankfully not to quite the same degree as you. I overheat easily, like for instance riding my bicycle even in winter weather with just a regular jacket on. Forget about bicycling for long distances in summer, even in shorts and a t-shirt, I'm sweating like mad in minutes.
I have a theory that this is related to my inability to get below ~95kg. I work out hard 3-4 times per week (hard ~1 hour crossfit workouts), I always take the stairs, I've all but eliminated white rice, white bread and other simple carbs from my diet, I've cut down severely on my serving sizes, I've pretty much cut out all snacks completely (apart from the occasional piece of dark chocolate, one is human after all), I hardly ever touch alcohol and never in large amounts, and yet my weight stays right where it is.
I know my weight will balloon upwards if I start eating badly again (I was over 120kg at one point), but my current body fat percentage is ~30%, my BMI is ~30 and I just can't get rid of my belly etc. seemingly no matter what I do.
But at least I'm never cold, I guess.
Why the assumption that I live in the US?
I live in Europe, and my first two cars both had around 70hp. One was a Corolla that weighed around 800kg, the other a Nuevo Panda at around 950kg. I had lots of fun, ran rings around bigger cars in city traffic and got speeding tickets in both.
My current car is a Peugeot 406 with 160hp and it's just objectively better in every way. It's roomier, faster, quieter, much more fun to drive and a lot more comfortable to boot. I absolutely wouldn't mind if it had 200hp (which the V6 model has), but I make do with 160.
Yeah, if it's anything like their currently diesel/electric hybrid drivetrain, you can only go couple of miles on a "charge". The zero-emissions bit is a nice little bonus for short distances, but the real meat lies in the ability to recover braking energy, which is a huge deal when it comes to increasing fuel mileage and decreasing brake wear.
Where do you live that a C-segment car with a ~110hp engine is high-powered? I'd place it as midrange at best.
I only know of diesel hybrid drivetrain currently on sale, coincidentally, it's built by Peugeot Citroen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSA_HYbrid4
It works in a different way to the Prius and other gasoline hybrids. In essence you have a normal FWD car with a diesel engine and an automatic gearbox, to which is added a RWD electric drivetrain and electronics to make things work in harmony. The idea is to use the road as a transmission between the two powertrains, while still letting you drive in pure electric mode for a short distance in town. The additional electric drivetrain means that you effectively have 4WD as well.
I hope you are aware that Citroen have had world-beating expertise in hydropneumatic suspension, brakes and power steering since they introduced the technology to the car market in the 1950s?
If it involves hydraulic oil and/or compressed nitrogen, they know better than anyone else what they're doing.
VW has a history of making bold claims about fuel economy and failing to meet them. An acquaintance of mine drives a Seat Ibiza Ecomotive, a 1.2L 3-cylinder turbodiesel super-economobile, basically the same as a VW Polo Bluemotion. Its fuel consumption is 69 US MPG on paper, but it's rare that he even gets above 50 US MPG, driving normally.
Meanwhile, I drive a 12-year-old Peugeot 406 with a 2.2L gasoline engine and no particular fuel-saving initiatives. Fuel consumption on paper is 26.5 US MPG, I average 26.3 US MPG with a mix of both normal and 'spirited' driving. My parents drive a 12-year-old CitroÃn C5 with a 2.0L engine, their consumption figures pretty much match mine (it's a heavier car).
So there you have it, anectdotal evidence show us that Peugeot CitroÃn are much more truthful in their mileage estimates than VW is.
Yeah, I was talking about the glowplugs (I used to drive a diesel car). Realistically, you only need to heat the fuel cell to the point where it can run itself, at that point you don't need the battery for the heater anymore, since the fuel cell provides its own power.
It'll run at lower efficiency until it heats up, but as long as you can get it to the point of "thermal self-sufficiency", it's really no different than having a combustion engine that needs to heat up before it runs at optimal efficiency. The fuel cell will probably heat up faster, too.
As for the CO2 issue, a methanol/propane/whatever will still emit CO2, but it'll emit a lot less for the same distance covered compared to a combustion engine vehicle, and it's more flexible in regards to finding a CO2-neutral fuel to power it.
That was most likely because of the hydrogen they use and not because of the fuel cells. Hydrogen is ridiculously hard to store in liquid form. It needs to be cooled to an extreme degree, kept under high pressure and it tends to escape through even the smallest cracks. Which is especially bad considering how it embrittles metal over time.
Gasoline, (bio)diesel, ethanol, methanol, this new biofuel, propane etc. don't have this problem. We have well-proven storage methods that are both portable, dependable and durable. Everyone talks about fuel cells an hydrogen as if that's the only viable combination, but any fuel source that can react with oxygen (ie. all of them) are technically viable alternatives.
If fuel cells operate at lower efficiency when cold, all you need is a battery-powered pre-heater, just like on diesel engines.
The issues you mention are precisely why battery tech is still not mature enough, and why we need non-hydrogen fuel cells instead.
The electric motor is not the problem in cold weather, in fact it actually works better in those conditions!
Electric propulsion is the future, we just need the right energy storage solution.
Combustion has pretty much reached a dead end in efficiency, we need to find a better way to use our liquid hydrocarbons.
Electric cars are great to drive. They're smooth, quiet, have very few moving parts and are "energy agnostic". They don't care where the electricity comes from, as long as it's there. But they also have issues with energy storage, current battery tech just isn't ready yet.
What I propose is to use fuel cells to provide the electricity. Not hydrogen fuel cells, as hydrogen has way too many problems regarding energy density, storage (embrittlement of metal etc.) and so on, but the University of Maryland had a working prototype of a gasoline-powered fuel cell in 2011. With minor changes that fuel cell tech could be powered by any liquid or gaseous hydrocarbon, such as ethanol or this new fermented biofuel, or even methanol or propane or natural gas. This would allow us the massive advantages of electric powertrains, with the convenience of fast refueling, just like an internal combustion engine-powered car.
The way I see it, the future lies in fuel cell-powered electric cars.
And you heard this from your mother's uncle's girlfriend's hairdresser, right?
It's fake fake fake. Think of the massive risk of STDs and AIDS and the legal ramifications of effectively engaging in prostitution in areas where it's highly illegal, not to mention filming the evidence themselves.
And just watch the videos. The acting is hilariously bad.
The discussion was about actual relatively well-known porn companies and whether they did actual rape porn. They don't, and it would be monumentally stupid of them if they ever did. The porn business is all about selling you a fantasy, they'll fake anything to sell their products. Everything they do is faked.
HOWEVER, there are plenty of lowlife scumbags who run their own little amateurish porn sites where they have sex with more or less willing girls on camera, with little regard to legal requirements etc. as well as plenty of sites where peoples' amateur porn is posted indiscriminately. Those aren't in the established porn business as such, though. And most of them are a phone call or email away from being shut down for non-compliance, at least if they're hosted in the US or EU.
These are also the people who get sued massively for breach of contract and become pariahs in the business.
Filthy scumbags exist everywhere, they're not unique to porn and they certainly don't work for the well-respected companies, with a handful of few high-profile exceptions. In a business like porn, reputation is everything. If people hear bad shit about a producer or his productions, they'll stay far away from him. It's in his own self-interest to behave nicely or his career will be extremely short.
Contrary to popular belief, it really is the women who run the show in mainstream porn, and even more so in fetish porn. Low-budget porn is a different kettle of fish altogether, and that's where you tend to find the scumbags.
Do you know how much porn is online from what counts as respectable pornographic film companies doing exactly that? I don't mean staged content; I mean a couple 40 year old guys slip into a college party and fuck a completely drunk, barely awake (if even) college girl.
You probably believe those Dancing Bear videos where a male stripper shows up to a bachelorette party and ends up fucking the bride-to-be and all the bridesmaids aren't staged either.
No, those bangbus guys don't just pick up random girls on the street and fuck them in the back of a van for cash, either.
Repeat after me: all porn is fake. Yes, ALL of it.
Do you have any idea how much pressure is on porn producers to verify and document the legal age of every single performer in their productions? They will get shut down if records are missing or tampered with. All performers are required to submit to regular health and STD checks. Stringent records and contracts are kept.
Why take a gigantic risk and have your male talent (which is in severely limited supply) rape some random girl on camera, provided they would even agree to do so and not just hand you over to the cops immediately? They would basically be filming their own confession.
It's fake. All of it. Yes, even that video you just found that looks really authentic. Fake.
The white lines do glow in the dark when your headlights hit them, that's why they're reflective.
Unfortunately, this reflectivity is the first thing to wear off, long before the line itself becomes hard to see in daylight.
So they issue here isn't that we need a brand-new glowing material, it's that we need bigger budgets for road maintenance.
Well obviously, since you live in a culture of fear. Don't you think your history of widely available firearms has escalated your culture to a level where people just don't feel safe any more unless they have a gun in their hand?
I am anti-guns, specifically anti-easily-available-guns. Not because I am a "nut", but because guns are specifically made for hurting and killing. Rifles, shotguns etc. should only ever be in the hands of licensed hunters, and everything else only ever in the hands of trained professionals with proper oversight and regulations.
The fact that I am unarmed makes me *very* uncomfortable and edgy
That is a tell-tale sign of having been immersed in a society fuelled by paranoia and fear for far too long. You're literally afraid of being without a gun. In effect, a firearm has become your pacifier.
In other parts of the world, things work a little differently. Outside of TV and games etc., I have never seen a gun brandished in anger. I haven't even seen a gun in real life unless they were at shooting ranges or in the hands of a hunter.
It. Just. Doesn't. Happen. Around. Here.
In fact, we have so few shooting incidents that it's a major media event when ever one happens. In my country in 2012 we had less than 10 shootings. Ten. All of them involving gang-on-gang violence. No home invasions, no attacks on random civilians, no mass shootings at schools or theaters or whatever.
You know why? Because we're not obsessed with firearms, because we have proper gun control in place and because we realize that by putting tools specifically made for hurting and killing other people in the hands of every man too easily, we would only be creating a culture of escalated violence and ensuring the deaths of far too many innocent people.
And you know what? We feel safe. In the countryside, people don't even lock their front doors! It simply isn't necessary.
Based on the aggressive confrontational tone and personal insults in your posts, I'd wager that you'd be more likely to use a gun in a heated situation than the average man on the street.
It's called anger management, look into it.
You shouldn't base your idea of what happens in a home invasion on what's reported in the media. You've found 6 cases where a kid successfully scared the criminal away or at least hurt them enough that they were no longer a threat.
That is a tiny tiny drop in the ocean compared to the total number of home invasions. As I said, exceptional cases.
"When" seems more and more likely, though.
That depends on your definition of "old car". There aren't a lot of genuinely old cars (say anything pre-90s) driving around anymore, which means that the vast majority of cars driving around these days have catalytic convertors and various other anti-pollution devices.
I drive a 12 year-old car that gets around 25mpg. I keep it well-maintained, it's almost completely rust-free and in mechanically great condition. I figure that the environmental impact of producing a new car is much larger than the impact of me driving a car with less-than-modern gas mileage.
They piss me off as well. Apparently they're very popular in Sweden, so here in Copenhagen we get tons of cars with Swedish plates tearing up the (completely salted and devoid of any snow) roads all winter. Add to that the racket they make, the greatly increased braking distance and possibly carcinogenic and car paint destroying iron dust from the rapidly wearing studs.
I wish they would just put on a set of studless winter tires instead. They handle better, make less noise and last longer.
Even more important, when the apocalypse hits and civilization is reduced to rag-tag groups scraping out a meager living in a bartering economy, what use are you going to get out of being a kick-ass C# programmer? What use will you be to other people, in order to trade your skills for food and shelter?
Tradesmen, on the other hand, will be able to make tools, build shelter, grow food and jerry-rig the remnants of western civilization (cars etc.) into useful objects for survival.
It's never to late to learn a trade or physical skill, even if it may not end up being your primary occupation.
That's a one-in-a-million case, which is why it's being reported like that.
What would usually happen if a child with a gun threatens a violent criminal is extremely likely to be fatal to the child.