There is no such thing as a "recreational drug-user" as that implies that somehow there is a group of people with the extreme ability of withstanding the powerful (and hidden) addictive aspects of drugs. This term makes it sound like those people are just nice folks using drugs and having a happy and productive life, without allowing their drug use to cause interference in their own life or in the life of others.
I had to stop reading your comment after this, since the absolute ignorance displayed in it so dumbfounded me. You and people like you are the reason for the War on Drugs and failures far worse than ever happened during Prohibition. You are the reason criminal enterprises make vast sums of money from black market substances. You are the reason that the courts are bogged down with simple possession cases. You are the reason that the prisons are overcrowded with non-violent offenders, while violent offenders are let out early in order to make room.
A recreational drug user is the same thing as a social drinker. Someone who occasionally consumes alcohol, but rarely if ever drinks enough to go over the legal limit, let alone get hammered. There are lots of nice folks leading happy, productive lives who are social drinkers, just as there are lots of nice folks leading happy, productive lives who occasionally use marijuana (typically what people mean when referring to recreational use). Your proclamation that such people don't exist doesn't make it true, it just makes you look like a fool to all the people who know otherwise.
Given your ludicrous statement coupled with the fact that alcohol is a drug the same as any other legal or illegal drug, you must also believe that there is nobody who drinks alcohol who also leads a happy, productive life without letting their use of alcohol interfere. Itching for a return to Prohibition as well?
I believe I already mentioned the 9th amendment, as well as its intended effect. Well aware of what it says. Perhaps reading and understanding my entire comment would have helped obviate the need for you posting something that is not only hostile but also completely irrelevant.
Please point out the section of the Constitution that is not an amendment that is written explicitly to protect an individual right. Unless I'm forgetting something (it has been a couple years since I've read it through completely, so I admit it is entirely possible), no such passage exists, making your statement of "bullshit" well, exactly what your statement was.
My statement is completely true. The Constitution was never written to protect rights. It was written to delegate powers to the federal government and otherwise limit their power over non-delegated issues. Prior to the Bill of Rights, no right was explicitly protected by the Constitution.
Rights were implicitly understood to be anything that the federal government (ignoring delegation of powers to the States for simplicity) was not given explicit authority over. Implicit != explicit. Yes, I understand the issues and controversy surrounding the adoption of the first 10 amendments. It might have been better if there were no rights explicitly protected, though my gut feeling is it would have been much worse. None of that changes the fact that my statement was factually correct.
Minor nitpick: There are no Constitutionally-protected rights except through amendments, making the parenthetical a bit redundant.:)
You most certainly can waive protected rights. You can waive your 4th amendment rights by agreeing to a search of your house or car. You can waive your 5th amendment rights and incriminate yourself. You can waive your 6th and 7th amendment rights and choose to have a bench trial or request summary judgement. I believe you probably meant you cannot be forced to waive your protected rights, which has a bit more truth to it but is still not completely correct (in practice, since theory has never had any bearing on governmental action).
They can even forcibly strip you of rights, such as the right to bear arms and right to vote.
Then of course, there are the infinite rights protected under the 9th and 10th amendments, which are not only completely ignored by the government, but almost seem to be actively singled out for abuse at the very idea that there should be language in the Constitution that so thoroughly and completely limits the legitimate powers of government.
That's the problem with devices built from the ground up without security in mind versus those that are. With the latter, it is unlikely that there is such a thing as "sufficient time" during any point of the device's useable lifespan.
But thanks for the pedantic and incorrect assessment.
You seem to seriously have your back up here. I was mostly just poking the argument, so you probably should have gone with your first instinct. Since you didn't, I have to ask: Which part is incorrect?
It didn't have a plane crash into it. or The article is about Building 7, not either of the twin towers.?
Maybe it was a case of my misunderstanding what you meant due to a serious overuse of pronouns coupled with a lack of information necessary to determine each of their respective targets. Perhaps you were talking about one of the twin towers without ever referring to them by anything other than an undefined pronoun. If that's the case, then I certainly would agree that my first statement was incorrect. Otherwise, I'm still baffled.
Like other hazardous substances, the most common diseases caused by them are not necessarily the only diseases caused by them. Otherwise cigarettes would only cause emphysema, and coal dust would only cause black lung. Chronic asbestos exposure would only cause asbestosis.
Nanoparticles in the lungs can cause lung cancer, whether those are coal dust, asbestos, or silica.
So no, silicosis is not cancer. It's also an asinine response, since it completely ignores that fact that silica causes ailments other than silicosis.
There's a difference between what the industry pays its workers and what the industry is worth. In an industry where costs and wages are so low, it's probably a difference significantly larger than that of more traditional businesses. Who knows though, the article is far too light on details to make even marginal guesses.
Without nagging, you then have a repeat of tons of people continuing to use grossly insecure software long after they should be as a result of their ignorance. Mozilla may be about choice, but it's not about every single choice possible unless you plan to recode and recompile. They give you choice based on their decision about how their fork is going to be developed. If you don't like it, change it. That's your choice.
The only people who really complain about this are a very small percentage of users whose opinions, frankly, don't matter all that much in the grand scheme of things. The vast majority of users benefit, as well as the rest of the users on the internet who don't use Firefox. The small minority of complainers can go sit in a corner and complain to themselves for all anyone else should care about them.
Misrepresenting your identity in order to make a claim to large sums of money that you have no legitimate claim to is considered fraud in most countries, and hence illegal. Most 419 scams involve such misrepresentation.
There are many circumstances where victims are the first who should be blamed for their victimisation.
Did you miss or misunderstand the above intentionally or unintentionally? "Many" is not "all." Is is not even "most."
Your comment underscores my point perfectly, though. Yes, you are a victim of a tasering. The victimisation is your fault, and is completely justifiable.
When you poke a rattlesnake with a stick and it bites you, you are the victim of a rattlesnake bite. Is it your fault? You bet. There are many circumstances where victims are the first who should be blamed for their victimisation. In regards to the devolution of rights protection, the blame is spread so thinly over each individual person that it almost ceases to exist. The only meaningful way to cast blame then, is to encompass the entirety of the populace.
Yes, in this case, the victim should be blamed for the victimisation. Not that it particularly matters in the end, however correct it may be. The only potential benefit will be for whatever future generation which is able to look back and take insight from the mistakes of today.
The post seemed straightforward and logical to me. You can't be charged for incoming text if text messaging is disabled on an account. Some providers make it easier than others to disable text service on a phone. Sprint is mildly annoying to disable, T-Mobile is no-thought-required easy. No experience with other providers, but it's still possible. Non-chargeable system texts still come through.
The people who get screwed are those who use texting but don't have unlimited plans.
This reminds me of a story my mom related to me some time ago. She encountered a couple of German tourists who happened to ask her if she could tell them how long it would likely take them to drive to... Nebraska? (some midwestern state, anyway)... from Eastern Washington. She told them it would likely take at least a couple days, and more if they didn't push it. The couple was noticeably shocked at the length of time required. She had to point out to them that the drive would be akin to traveling from Berlin to Moscow.
A lot of the disconnect in comparative discussions between what occurs in Europe vs. what occurs in the US stems from the fact that perspectives are so different between natives of each particular locale. Simple comparisons don't take into account all the complex assumptions and biases that would truly make for an accurate apples-to-apples picture.
Why isn't the Navajo nation using profits from the casinos to put in public works projects, develop their own wells and infrastructure and then quit depending on the repressions that claim comes from the federal government?
You apparently know nothing about the Navajo. The Navajo people rejected state gaming compacts for years because they tend to undermine what little national sovereignty native nations have. The financing for the first casinos ever built on Navajo lands was not secured until October of last year, and the first casino was scheduled to be opened last month. Not much time to accumulate profit for public works. But then you seem to be an expert on how the Navajo should fix things, so you'd have known all that already, right?
The Navajo have never really depended on the federal government for anything, if only for the simple fact that the federal government has not fully lived up to a single one of its obligations stemming from treaties with the Navajo Nation.
If you really knew that much about it, you'd know that in the particular environment that encompasses nearly all of the Navajo Nation, even deep wells can run dry seasonally. With no rights to surface water, there is not enough water to provide piped service.
I mean all the towns in my county put in electric service, public water and so on without any money from the state or federal governments.
I can almost guarantee that's not true, at least in regard to the electrical service. As for water, you again have to realize that the Navajo Nation does not have rights to most of the water that is within their borders.
Hell, for getting internet there, it wouldn't be that hard to get a couple of fiber runs coming in from different directions and use 802.11n to feed houses within a 50 mile radius and then lease a commercial or civil frequency with repeaters to move it from town to town. Piggyback telecoms services onto the fiber and they have covered a lot of the costs with existing payments. Overall, it will cost a lot but if you cover the most densely populations first, then spread it out to others over a timespan, of 5-10 years, it would likely pay itself off as it is being implemented.
If you actually cared to inform yourself, it would be fairly easy to do some geographical research to find out why you are so completely off-base here. I'm not going to take the time to correct you though. Suffice to say, this entire quoted paragraph is so misinformed as to be barely worth the attention I've paid to it.
The problem with Indian nations isn't the repression from the governments. It is the idea that the leaders of the nations had about keeping it real and not adapting to these white man ways. It has effectively put them behind the rest of the country in terms of what the rest of the country is capable of. I would actually like to see them built up and become a "state" and a full member of the US with a republic form of government and all. But then they would loose their tax breaks.
I would expect this from someone who has no knowledge whatsoever of the past and current events that have caused these situations to develop, and that keep them there today. The reservations exist where they are specifically because those lands were perceived to have no intrinsic resource value by the government. The various nations had their cultures and languages forcibly stripped from them through the "Indian" schools. They've had the money from tribal trusts that were derived from the few natural resources found after their reservations were created embezzled and wasted on "administrative fees" by the Department of the Interior.
You actually have the audacity to blame the problems on an effort to grasp onto what little culture is left? "It's the fault of the leadership for not seeing the light and abandoning their culture to join the whites!" You blame the people who have consistently held up their end of treaties while the various governments and governmental agencies in the US st
The Navajo Nation is independent by treaty. Like those treaties that also say the US Government is responsible for providing infrastructure as a result of the things they took from the Navajo (like all the rights to the massive amounts of running water that are diverted to provide power, water, and recreation to Las Vegas and Southern California).
Yeah, they're independent, except that the application of US treaties has left them so impoverished that there's little they can do with that independence (assuming the US government didn't bring out a big damn hammer to squash them for their trouble). Very little power infrastructure, even if they could afford to pay for the power provided by that infrastructure. Few locales with running water, requiring most people to haul water daily from community wells on a first-come, first-serve basis.
The lowest-paying entry-level police jobs I could find on the West Coast start around $40k per year. Make it a career and you can become one of the highest-paid public employees around.
You mention San Diego, which was in the zero percentile (absolute bottom) for police pay in California as of 2006. The minimum recruit base pay was right around $30k compared to a median of roughly $47k. Not a lot of money in this day and age, but certainly more than being "lucky" to get $20k per year.
Unless you're a customer who likes quality and service. Those are two victims of a race-to-the-bottom price war.
Unfortunately, there are too few people in the US who care about quality and service while also being able to afford them in the few cases where they exist as a value-added option among several competitors.
I don't think I'd agree. As far as I can find, oxygen efficiency can vary greatly from metabolic efficiency, and it doesn't seem like the factors that contribute to the latter are very well understood. That makes correlating it to a metric (heart rate) that is highly variable within even the same individual a bit tenuous.
The amount of oxygen needed to undertake a given task doesn't decrease with increased cardiovascular efficiency. It remains about the same. It just means more oxygenated blood is pumped per heartbeat, and as muscle mass increases a higher percentage of oxygen available in the blood is extracted by the muscles. The Olympic runner and fridge-guy are both having the same amount of oxygen delivered to their muscles to do the work. Fridge-guy's heart just has to work faster because its stroke volume is not as high as the Olympic runner.
Even if heart rate did correlate directly with metabolic rate, the more fit individual is going to have a higher muscle mass. That mass burns calories 24/7 which means even if a given workload required fewer input calories the overall rate of calories burned is probably a wash due to the overall higher metabolic rate of the fit individual.
While I don't have external citations to back this up, logically it doesn't follow that heart rate is a good indicator of calorie consumption. Over a period of time, a person's heart rate will lower with the same amount of work as the body's oxygen efficiency rises.
I reiterate, you haven't looked at a map of Northern Canada, have you?
You don't have to be in the high arctic to be in an area with no roads, or where roads are impassable much (or most) of the year. Look at a map. There are very few medium-sized towns period, so most areas are certainly not within 30km of one.
i get the impression from the original article that they're in a mildly populated area, not some remote outpost...
From the summary: Our company works in remote locations in Northern Canada.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no such thing as a "recreational drug-user" as that implies that somehow there is a group of people with the extreme ability of withstanding the powerful (and hidden) addictive aspects of drugs. This term makes it sound like those people are just nice folks using drugs and having a happy and productive life, without allowing their drug use to cause interference in their own life or in the life of others.
I had to stop reading your comment after this, since the absolute ignorance displayed in it so dumbfounded me. You and people like you are the reason for the War on Drugs and failures far worse than ever happened during Prohibition. You are the reason criminal enterprises make vast sums of money from black market substances. You are the reason that the courts are bogged down with simple possession cases. You are the reason that the prisons are overcrowded with non-violent offenders, while violent offenders are let out early in order to make room.
A recreational drug user is the same thing as a social drinker. Someone who occasionally consumes alcohol, but rarely if ever drinks enough to go over the legal limit, let alone get hammered. There are lots of nice folks leading happy, productive lives who are social drinkers, just as there are lots of nice folks leading happy, productive lives who occasionally use marijuana (typically what people mean when referring to recreational use). Your proclamation that such people don't exist doesn't make it true, it just makes you look like a fool to all the people who know otherwise.
Given your ludicrous statement coupled with the fact that alcohol is a drug the same as any other legal or illegal drug, you must also believe that there is nobody who drinks alcohol who also leads a happy, productive life without letting their use of alcohol interfere. Itching for a return to Prohibition as well?
It's called time-of-use metering, and is offered a lot of places in the US. Contact your power company to see if it's available where you live.
I believe I already mentioned the 9th amendment, as well as its intended effect. Well aware of what it says. Perhaps reading and understanding my entire comment would have helped obviate the need for you posting something that is not only hostile but also completely irrelevant.
Please point out the section of the Constitution that is not an amendment that is written explicitly to protect an individual right. Unless I'm forgetting something (it has been a couple years since I've read it through completely, so I admit it is entirely possible), no such passage exists, making your statement of "bullshit" well, exactly what your statement was.
My statement is completely true. The Constitution was never written to protect rights. It was written to delegate powers to the federal government and otherwise limit their power over non-delegated issues. Prior to the Bill of Rights, no right was explicitly protected by the Constitution.
Rights were implicitly understood to be anything that the federal government (ignoring delegation of powers to the States for simplicity) was not given explicit authority over. Implicit != explicit. Yes, I understand the issues and controversy surrounding the adoption of the first 10 amendments. It might have been better if there were no rights explicitly protected, though my gut feeling is it would have been much worse. None of that changes the fact that my statement was factually correct.
Minor nitpick: There are no Constitutionally-protected rights except through amendments, making the parenthetical a bit redundant. :)
You most certainly can waive protected rights. You can waive your 4th amendment rights by agreeing to a search of your house or car. You can waive your 5th amendment rights and incriminate yourself. You can waive your 6th and 7th amendment rights and choose to have a bench trial or request summary judgement. I believe you probably meant you cannot be forced to waive your protected rights, which has a bit more truth to it but is still not completely correct (in practice, since theory has never had any bearing on governmental action).
They can even forcibly strip you of rights, such as the right to bear arms and right to vote.
Then of course, there are the infinite rights protected under the 9th and 10th amendments, which are not only completely ignored by the government, but almost seem to be actively singled out for abuse at the very idea that there should be language in the Constitution that so thoroughly and completely limits the legitimate powers of government.
I'd hazard to guess that California's stance on this issue far predates the Governator's time in office.
Given sufficient [...] time
That's the problem with devices built from the ground up without security in mind versus those that are. With the latter, it is unlikely that there is such a thing as "sufficient time" during any point of the device's useable lifespan.
You're baffled that misunderstandings happen and people might respond based on a misunderstanding?
But thanks for the pedantic and incorrect assessment.
You seem to seriously have your back up here. I was mostly just poking the argument, so you probably should have gone with your first instinct. Since you didn't, I have to ask: Which part is incorrect?
It didn't have a plane crash into it. or The article is about Building 7, not either of the twin towers.?
Maybe it was a case of my misunderstanding what you meant due to a serious overuse of pronouns coupled with a lack of information necessary to determine each of their respective targets. Perhaps you were talking about one of the twin towers without ever referring to them by anything other than an undefined pronoun. If that's the case, then I certainly would agree that my first statement was incorrect. Otherwise, I'm still baffled.
It didn't have a plane crash into it. The article is about Building 7, not either of the twin towers.
Like other hazardous substances, the most common diseases caused by them are not necessarily the only diseases caused by them. Otherwise cigarettes would only cause emphysema, and coal dust would only cause black lung. Chronic asbestos exposure would only cause asbestosis.
Nanoparticles in the lungs can cause lung cancer, whether those are coal dust, asbestos, or silica.
So no, silicosis is not cancer. It's also an asinine response, since it completely ignores that fact that silica causes ailments other than silicosis.
There's a difference between what the industry pays its workers and what the industry is worth. In an industry where costs and wages are so low, it's probably a difference significantly larger than that of more traditional businesses. Who knows though, the article is far too light on details to make even marginal guesses.
Without nagging, you then have a repeat of tons of people continuing to use grossly insecure software long after they should be as a result of their ignorance. Mozilla may be about choice, but it's not about every single choice possible unless you plan to recode and recompile. They give you choice based on their decision about how their fork is going to be developed. If you don't like it, change it. That's your choice.
The only people who really complain about this are a very small percentage of users whose opinions, frankly, don't matter all that much in the grand scheme of things. The vast majority of users benefit, as well as the rest of the users on the internet who don't use Firefox. The small minority of complainers can go sit in a corner and complain to themselves for all anyone else should care about them.
Misrepresenting your identity in order to make a claim to large sums of money that you have no legitimate claim to is considered fraud in most countries, and hence illegal. Most 419 scams involve such misrepresentation.
There are many circumstances where victims are the first who should be blamed for their victimisation.
Did you miss or misunderstand the above intentionally or unintentionally? "Many" is not "all." Is is not even "most."
Your comment underscores my point perfectly, though. Yes, you are a victim of a tasering. The victimisation is your fault, and is completely justifiable.
When you poke a rattlesnake with a stick and it bites you, you are the victim of a rattlesnake bite. Is it your fault? You bet. There are many circumstances where victims are the first who should be blamed for their victimisation. In regards to the devolution of rights protection, the blame is spread so thinly over each individual person that it almost ceases to exist. The only meaningful way to cast blame then, is to encompass the entirety of the populace.
Yes, in this case, the victim should be blamed for the victimisation. Not that it particularly matters in the end, however correct it may be. The only potential benefit will be for whatever future generation which is able to look back and take insight from the mistakes of today.
No, it's not unreasonable. I completely agree that incoming unsolicited, non-ignorable items should not be chargeable to the receiver.
I was simply pointing out that the post in question was a logical and straightforward method of dealing with a bad situation.
The post seemed straightforward and logical to me. You can't be charged for incoming text if text messaging is disabled on an account. Some providers make it easier than others to disable text service on a phone. Sprint is mildly annoying to disable, T-Mobile is no-thought-required easy. No experience with other providers, but it's still possible. Non-chargeable system texts still come through.
The people who get screwed are those who use texting but don't have unlimited plans.
This reminds me of a story my mom related to me some time ago. She encountered a couple of German tourists who happened to ask her if she could tell them how long it would likely take them to drive to ... Nebraska? (some midwestern state, anyway) ... from Eastern Washington. She told them it would likely take at least a couple days, and more if they didn't push it. The couple was noticeably shocked at the length of time required. She had to point out to them that the drive would be akin to traveling from Berlin to Moscow.
A lot of the disconnect in comparative discussions between what occurs in Europe vs. what occurs in the US stems from the fact that perspectives are so different between natives of each particular locale. Simple comparisons don't take into account all the complex assumptions and biases that would truly make for an accurate apples-to-apples picture.
Why isn't the Navajo nation using profits from the casinos to put in public works projects, develop their own wells and infrastructure and then quit depending on the repressions that claim comes from the federal government?
You apparently know nothing about the Navajo. The Navajo people rejected state gaming compacts for years because they tend to undermine what little national sovereignty native nations have. The financing for the first casinos ever built on Navajo lands was not secured until October of last year, and the first casino was scheduled to be opened last month. Not much time to accumulate profit for public works. But then you seem to be an expert on how the Navajo should fix things, so you'd have known all that already, right?
The Navajo have never really depended on the federal government for anything, if only for the simple fact that the federal government has not fully lived up to a single one of its obligations stemming from treaties with the Navajo Nation.
If you really knew that much about it, you'd know that in the particular environment that encompasses nearly all of the Navajo Nation, even deep wells can run dry seasonally. With no rights to surface water, there is not enough water to provide piped service.
I mean all the towns in my county put in electric service, public water and so on without any money from the state or federal governments.
I can almost guarantee that's not true, at least in regard to the electrical service. As for water, you again have to realize that the Navajo Nation does not have rights to most of the water that is within their borders.
Hell, for getting internet there, it wouldn't be that hard to get a couple of fiber runs coming in from different directions and use 802.11n to feed houses within a 50 mile radius and then lease a commercial or civil frequency with repeaters to move it from town to town. Piggyback telecoms services onto the fiber and they have covered a lot of the costs with existing payments. Overall, it will cost a lot but if you cover the most densely populations first, then spread it out to others over a timespan, of 5-10 years, it would likely pay itself off as it is being implemented.
If you actually cared to inform yourself, it would be fairly easy to do some geographical research to find out why you are so completely off-base here. I'm not going to take the time to correct you though. Suffice to say, this entire quoted paragraph is so misinformed as to be barely worth the attention I've paid to it.
The problem with Indian nations isn't the repression from the governments. It is the idea that the leaders of the nations had about keeping it real and not adapting to these white man ways. It has effectively put them behind the rest of the country in terms of what the rest of the country is capable of. I would actually like to see them built up and become a "state" and a full member of the US with a republic form of government and all. But then they would loose their tax breaks.
I would expect this from someone who has no knowledge whatsoever of the past and current events that have caused these situations to develop, and that keep them there today. The reservations exist where they are specifically because those lands were perceived to have no intrinsic resource value by the government. The various nations had their cultures and languages forcibly stripped from them through the "Indian" schools. They've had the money from tribal trusts that were derived from the few natural resources found after their reservations were created embezzled and wasted on "administrative fees" by the Department of the Interior.
You actually have the audacity to blame the problems on an effort to grasp onto what little culture is left? "It's the fault of the leadership for not seeing the light and abandoning their culture to join the whites!" You blame the people who have consistently held up their end of treaties while the various governments and governmental agencies in the US st
The Navajo Nation is independent by treaty. Like those treaties that also say the US Government is responsible for providing infrastructure as a result of the things they took from the Navajo (like all the rights to the massive amounts of running water that are diverted to provide power, water, and recreation to Las Vegas and Southern California).
Yeah, they're independent, except that the application of US treaties has left them so impoverished that there's little they can do with that independence (assuming the US government didn't bring out a big damn hammer to squash them for their trouble). Very little power infrastructure, even if they could afford to pay for the power provided by that infrastructure. Few locales with running water, requiring most people to haul water daily from community wells on a first-come, first-serve basis.
The lowest-paying entry-level police jobs I could find on the West Coast start around $40k per year. Make it a career and you can become one of the highest-paid public employees around.
http://www.sfgate.com/webdb/citypay/
You mention San Diego, which was in the zero percentile (absolute bottom) for police pay in California as of 2006. The minimum recruit base pay was right around $30k compared to a median of roughly $47k. Not a lot of money in this day and age, but certainly more than being "lucky" to get $20k per year.
http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/articles/2006/12/21/news/01buck.txt
Unless you're a customer who likes quality and service. Those are two victims of a race-to-the-bottom price war.
Unfortunately, there are too few people in the US who care about quality and service while also being able to afford them in the few cases where they exist as a value-added option among several competitors.
I don't think I'd agree. As far as I can find, oxygen efficiency can vary greatly from metabolic efficiency, and it doesn't seem like the factors that contribute to the latter are very well understood. That makes correlating it to a metric (heart rate) that is highly variable within even the same individual a bit tenuous.
The amount of oxygen needed to undertake a given task doesn't decrease with increased cardiovascular efficiency. It remains about the same. It just means more oxygenated blood is pumped per heartbeat, and as muscle mass increases a higher percentage of oxygen available in the blood is extracted by the muscles. The Olympic runner and fridge-guy are both having the same amount of oxygen delivered to their muscles to do the work. Fridge-guy's heart just has to work faster because its stroke volume is not as high as the Olympic runner.
Even if heart rate did correlate directly with metabolic rate, the more fit individual is going to have a higher muscle mass. That mass burns calories 24/7 which means even if a given workload required fewer input calories the overall rate of calories burned is probably a wash due to the overall higher metabolic rate of the fit individual.
While I don't have external citations to back this up, logically it doesn't follow that heart rate is a good indicator of calorie consumption. Over a period of time, a person's heart rate will lower with the same amount of work as the body's oxygen efficiency rises.
I reiterate, you haven't looked at a map of Northern Canada, have you?
You don't have to be in the high arctic to be in an area with no roads, or where roads are impassable much (or most) of the year. Look at a map. There are very few medium-sized towns period, so most areas are certainly not within 30km of one.
i get the impression from the original article that they're in a mildly populated area, not some remote outpost...
From the summary: Our company works in remote locations in Northern Canada.