More like: IE was included in the OS and Opera cost money / had ads, firefox didn't.
Opera would have been a bigger player than firefox if it wasn't that you had to see the fucking ads in Opera back in the day. Of course people prefer something free over adware/shareware if they the later one aren't much better.
Speed difference: Are there any large speed difference in Safari, Opera and Firefox? I would expect all of them to claim to be fastest or very fast in whatever comparisions they would deside to do. All of them works for me.
Ease of use: Opera wins, awesome undo.
% of pages rendered ok: I guess Firefox wins, Safari 3.x and Opera 9.x both do a great job.
Safety: I doubt there are many evil pages for either of them. I know Opera had least advisories, but then I guess firefox have more eyes watching and more users which makes it riskier, but I'd just update the application as often as possible and not worry.
Safari are shit because it's so bloated and leak ram all the time which makes it crash in an instant, sure it may have better standards support than IE but personally I'd rather run IE than Safari.
Opera are way better than both.
I stoped using Firefox during 1.0.7 when Ubuntu refused to upgrade even thought it leaked ram, but I was only affect by that ONCE and I'm each day in Safari so.. Anyway I switched to Opera back then and never looked back. Now I have Firefox 3 RC1 on my mac because it works with the password manager, Opera doesn't. I occasionally fire up Safari because I don't want to load all the tabs in firefox but then after a day when I've filled Safari with tabs and have it crash on me I always regret that I once again ran that piece of shit.
May be true for late adopters of Linux, but I guess for those people they already knew about firefox and know that they are indeed using that browser. Most LinuxUSERS are probably well aware that they have a lot of options in the browser front.
On topic: I use a mac, the problem with Safari is that if your machine "only" have 2GB of ram it will use 600-1000MB within a days use and thereafter crash because you don't have enough free ram. Also afaik there aren't to many ad/flash blockers, pithelmet is a nice easy to use one but it's "never" updated to the latest version of Safari since there come new ones all the time, or so it seems, so it doesn't work. I tried privoxy but it seems like it blocked a bunch of cookies, or my Safari is fucked up beyond normal.
I use to use Opera but my password manager doesn't work with Opera since it don't have a good plugin system for that, so I would prefer firefox 3 rc on a mac atm.
Off topic / rant about other Apple apps: Mail doesn't work good for me either, iPhotos image "enhancements" really suck compared to Aperture and Lightroom and you can't have the same album for Aperture and iPhoto, iMovie are rather simple, still requires to much twiddling with fonts and times (I don't think you can change default values for the fonts) and it adds exact path names to music files for instance even if they are added in iTunes, so if you move them (that is don't use iTunes libraryshit) it won't find your music files longer, and you can't change the path somehow so you have to add the music file again and cut it the way you wanted it and so on. iChat suck since noone else use it (and have multiple userlists (fixable with thirdpart addon, no msn support, are never updated between OS revisions I guess.)
I like some things, but much could be better, a good step would be to remove all the things there they try to decide how you want.. or well, should want, to have things. Why can't I for instance have my photos in a dir, use the same tags/album names in both iPhoto and Apple Aperture so I can easily find and view photos in iPhoto instead, and have iPhoto eventually fetch the pre-rendered resulting image from Aperture or ask Aperture to make the image on the spot? Or the effects in iPhoto need to work better / have a similair quality as the ones in Aperture. Why can't a file from iTunes be identified thru id3 tag? Why do I HAVE to copy my movie files into the project when music aren't? (Because they already are forced into iTunes I guess..), I don't want two copies, I guess I could leave it in iMovie thought since its file layout are rather decent. Why doesn't copy of a sequence in iMovie copy the text content aswell? Just the "time part". (You type a text which will be shown for 5 seconds, copy that square and paste it in and all you get is a black screen for 5 seconds, you have to set and add the text again yourself.) Why came up with the brilliant idea of one userlist for.mac users, one for aim, one for jabber,.. Or those ugly comic bubbles in the message windows? Mail doesn't seem to work good with google imap for me, or the smart folders doesn't or something. Slow as fuck and I get multiple hits for the same mail in the smart folders.
The worst part with OS X are that their own apps expect to find your photos in say iPhoto, so if you use Pages you can easily browse photos in iPhoto, but what use is that when iPhoto suck and you use Aperture instead? Sure you could export all your photos and have them taking up twice the space, but meh.
And since Apple release their own applications for each task nowadays the third party market for those apps gets even smaller so you won't have an alternative if you don't prefer it the way Apple wanted you to do things.
Thought I think iPhoto and iMovie are ok considering they come with the machine (one can't argue they are "free" thought.), if you don't have anything better atleast they are something.
I don't know if it's 100% proved and fact to say that raised metabolism makes the cells die faster, but looking at free radicals and what happens to rats if you starve them it seems likely.
But then people do die for other reasons when cells not being able to split any more aswell. (Thought cancer risks may raise aswell I guess.)
The question is if exercise makes you live longer or not, I guess it depends on the intensity and volume (and drugs..), also if you eat more chances are you consume more antioxidants.
All valid responses, a few questios thought: 1) how? 3) I doubt it will make such a difference, 13.6 kg of body fat would hold approximately 95.200 kcal, so you would need to raise your metabolism by 20.000 kcal / day to reach that goal.. Also with treating food like something we need to eat to survive and not something we eat because it's fun those people would probably not need to take such drastic measurements.
Why is what? Why they should move themself? To consume more energy of course. Thought it's more effecient to just eat less, but I had that covered aswell.
Extra fat weight don't use much extra energy at all, even extra muscle doesn't use that much extra energy while resting. The fat will be like say 1-2 kcal / kg or something, it won't help you in a way which matters in rest. Sure it will use more energy to move all that weight, so if the fat person starts moving it will makes a difference, but then really fat people often don't move that much or fast or explosive so I don't know how much difference it makes. The amount of muscle and cardiovascular condition probably set the limit for how much energy you can consume in an amount of time. Not how much you weight.
Food are less suitable for someone who are already fat because it will make them even fatter, that was really hard to see was it? If they consume the energy I have no problem whatsoever with it. (Except it wastes planetary resources, but I don't care that much about it.)
I know there are lots of food, and possible to make more, but imho the less the affect the planet the better. So if we would consume less food, areal, water, energy and so on the better. Even if we can do it or not.
Exception being people who really have some form of medical condition which make their metabolism or body not work as intended, but those people are probably very rare, if there even are any
Wow. Publicly doubting that there are medical conditions that could make someone fat. What a great, insightful comment you make; you're very rational. Next time you make a comment like this, you might as well just scream about how much you hate fat people and leave the environmentalism and poor people out of it. I know there are some medical conditions which probably actually makes your body a problem, and not your mind, but for most people it's probably not a medicial condition, if it was how come so many more people have gotten it the last years? There are just to easy to get lots of cheap, good, energy dense food. And the problem with possible medical conditions are that many people will probably find an excuse in them.
I thought about that part aswell, but in another subject. But since I didn't knew how the drug worked I didn't mentioned anything about it.
But if it raises mitochondia activity they will burn more fuel, but that will probably end up with more free radicals, more oxidizing damage and eventually earlier cell/person death. So this drug may eventually kill you prematurely.
May help them, may not. For explosive work you use ATP and not carbohydrates, for less explosive work the acidity may stop you instead, depending on of there is enough oxygen available or not. And so on.
What says it will be impossible to measure? Most drugs used for cheating gets possible to detect by time, and many of them are quite "biological", just look for really high concentration of the enzymes in question. Sure it may not stop everyone, but most.
Quite close. I used to be beat up as child, have always been small, am 28, has the mentality of someone much young, live alone, have thought that I was "fat" even thought I wasn't (went down to 54 kg at 173 cm as worst), and kind of still does.
Still valid points thought.
I know how I still feel if I have chocolate nearby, I could easily eat the whole bar but I don't because I know it's a bad idea. Some people don't think so it seems. Most of my food is very boring and I don't feel an urge to eat lots of it, but I try to eat enough because I know I need it.
If I would just eat what I feelt like eating I would lose weight. But as I said most people don't eat because they need to, they eat because.. well.. they have nothing else to do atm and the food is available.
Cats are supposed to regulate their food intake well, atleast that's what the food bags says, thought mine is fat. I've tested to not give her that much food but her complaints are annoying so she just tend to always have food in her bowl.
Anyway I think one of the biggest problem are that people don't see and eat food for functionality, but rather for pleasure. They don't eat to get the nutrition and energy they need for the day, they eat because they like it, it tastes good and makes them feel good.
But to take coffee and some snack because you have a break at work, that cola you have beside your desk just because you like it, serve and eat food for hours when the family meet, eat up everything in your lunchbox because it happened to be there, take a treat because you wanted it, eat because you are bored, and so on suck. Fluid foods are even worse because it's so easy to consume vast amounts of them and they are normally just consumed for taste alone, to add juice and soda to your meal just raise the energy consumtion even further but it doesn't feel like you are eating something.
Eat because you need it and nothing else. Find something else to make you happy and feel good for doing. Do some workouts, have sex, give someone a hug, watch a good movie, do your hobbies, whatever suits you.
Also haven't the population of planet earth raised from like 1 billion to over 6 billion in 100 years? Even if there are food for everyone or possible to make it while using even more space there will indeed be a problem if and when the population keeps expanding at this rate, 36 billion people 2100? We already have a fish fleet 5 times to large and all the fish people eat now will be exterminated by 2040 if I remember correctly. Thinks like our european eels have droped in numbers a lot and they live long, I think they got sexually mature late and the amount of them reaching europe have accordingly to wikipedia droped 90, maybe even 98% since the 70s! How long will it take for all those fishes to come back to the old volumes? Is it even likely? Will we really stop fish them? I doubt it... Especially since the fleet are just so big and many people will refused to stop and people want food.
Which btw gives me the right to say that omnivore humans suck;D, vegan as I am;D (Cattle meat lets out lots of greenhouse gases during the whole production line/live aswell. Chicken are much better, but I think it's very cruel with chicken production. Eat your tofu instead;D, or even better beans and lentils.)
Anyway, considering how fast the population grow, how fat people already are, how much food are probably wasted thought refining into more precious food and animal products, do we really need something which let people eat even more?!!?! We are already affecting all other life on the planet way to much, please don't let us spread and invade it even more. It would be so much better if we where only 500 million or something, that's a lot of humans anyway, just compare it to the amounts of all other primates:/
We need to die, fast! Maybe we can let out some chemicals which makes most of us infertile, to bad it will probably affect other animals aswell.
So? It will raise peoples metabolism? For what purpose? To waste even more resources on producing food? Waste more land area, water, energy, artificial fertilizers, greenhouse gases, kill more oceans? Yeah, great! And in the end that will probably mean less food for the poor and higher food prices aswell.
And what say the fat people won't eat even more when they use this? And you don't get the benefits of cardiovascular training or weight lifting either.
Simply useless, not to say really stupid!
What are needed aren't more stimulants or excuses, eat for performance not for pleasure and lift your fucking ass!
(Exception being people who really have some form of medical condition which make their metabolism or body not work as intended, but those people are probably very rare, if there even are any.)
No, I think the whole point is that there are already some functionality which name I don't know about which let the torrent client spread information about what files they are working with already, and this plugin makes it easier to search this information. So if everyone used a client which spread that + have this I think all you need to do is open up a torrent file and the other people will know about it, no tracker needed.
But I can be wrong and someone will probably explain it much better:)
That won't save you when you don't really know if it's alt-4 or command-4 to make a dollar sign and you press say command-4 and it takes you to bookmark 4 thereby removing your post. Or the one time backspace for some reason took me back, or when I've pressed command-w a couple of times to close a bunch of tabs and well.. fuck.. one to many =P, to late to save it:)
1 joule is required to heat 1 gram water 1/4 degree, does anyone know what it may be for moon soil? If it's similair to heat up 5 billion tones of moon soil to 1400 degrees (C or F, the article says both... but uses tones, so I'd go with C), I don't know the middle temp on the moon but say 0 degrees.
5000000000000000*4*1400=2.8 * 10^19 joule
Is this how to make it into mwh? (5 000 000 000 000 000 * 4 * 1 400) / ((10^6) * 3 600) = 7.77777778 * 10^9
Here in Sweden electricity prices for the consumer are something like 1 sek / kwh so that equals 7.8*10^12 sek = 1.3 trillion us dollars just for heating up the rock. I do understand that the us electricity bill for one year are huge aswell, but how huge compared to that? Does anyone know the energy consumtion of whole USA?
Slashdot Mirror
I like that functionality in OS X a lot when watching pimp my ride for instance on MTVs webpage. Flash video on fullscreen.
More like: IE was included in the OS and Opera cost money / had ads, firefox didn't.
Opera would have been a bigger player than firefox if it wasn't that you had to see the fucking ads in Opera back in the day. Of course people prefer something free over adware/shareware if they the later one aren't much better.
It's nowhere near a tie.
Safari: Leaks RAM as there is no tomorrow, probably late security fixes, less alternatives for ad blockers, probably way less plugins.
What disadvantage does Firefox have vs Safari? No resizable textareas and no drag&drop of files into filechoosers, but then nothing more afaik.
Speed difference: Are there any large speed difference in Safari, Opera and Firefox? I would expect all of them to claim to be fastest or very fast in whatever comparisions they would deside to do. All of them works for me.
Ease of use: Opera wins, awesome undo.
% of pages rendered ok: I guess Firefox wins, Safari 3.x and Opera 9.x both do a great job.
Safety: I doubt there are many evil pages for either of them. I know Opera had least advisories, but then I guess firefox have more eyes watching and more users which makes it riskier, but I'd just update the application as often as possible and not worry.
When was the last time you used Opera?
.. Anyway I switched to Opera back then and never looked back. Now I have Firefox 3 RC1 on my mac because it works with the password manager, Opera doesn't. I occasionally fire up Safari because I don't want to load all the tabs in firefox but then after a day when I've filled Safari with tabs and have it crash on me I always regret that I once again ran that piece of shit.
Safari are shit because it's so bloated and leak ram all the time which makes it crash in an instant, sure it may have better standards support than IE but personally I'd rather run IE than Safari.
Opera are way better than both.
I stoped using Firefox during 1.0.7 when Ubuntu refused to upgrade even thought it leaked ram, but I was only affect by that ONCE and I'm each day in Safari so
May be true for late adopters of Linux, but I guess for those people they already knew about firefox and know that they are indeed using that browser. Most LinuxUSERS are probably well aware that they have a lot of options in the browser front.
On topic:
.mac users, one for aim, one for jabber, .. Or those ugly comic bubbles in the message windows?
I use a mac, the problem with Safari is that if your machine "only" have 2GB of ram it will use 600-1000MB within a days use and thereafter crash because you don't have enough free ram. Also afaik there aren't to many ad/flash blockers, pithelmet is a nice easy to use one but it's "never" updated to the latest version of Safari since there come new ones all the time, or so it seems, so it doesn't work. I tried privoxy but it seems like it blocked a bunch of cookies, or my Safari is fucked up beyond normal.
I use to use Opera but my password manager doesn't work with Opera since it don't have a good plugin system for that, so I would prefer firefox 3 rc on a mac atm.
Off topic / rant about other Apple apps:
Mail doesn't work good for me either, iPhotos image "enhancements" really suck compared to Aperture and Lightroom and you can't have the same album for Aperture and iPhoto, iMovie are rather simple, still requires to much twiddling with fonts and times (I don't think you can change default values for the fonts) and it adds exact path names to music files for instance even if they are added in iTunes, so if you move them (that is don't use iTunes libraryshit) it won't find your music files longer, and you can't change the path somehow so you have to add the music file again and cut it the way you wanted it and so on. iChat suck since noone else use it (and have multiple userlists (fixable with thirdpart addon, no msn support, are never updated between OS revisions I guess.)
I like some things, but much could be better, a good step would be to remove all the things there they try to decide how you want.. or well, should want, to have things. Why can't I for instance have my photos in a dir, use the same tags/album names in both iPhoto and Apple Aperture so I can easily find and view photos in iPhoto instead, and have iPhoto eventually fetch the pre-rendered resulting image from Aperture or ask Aperture to make the image on the spot? Or the effects in iPhoto need to work better / have a similair quality as the ones in Aperture.
Why can't a file from iTunes be identified thru id3 tag? Why do I HAVE to copy my movie files into the project when music aren't? (Because they already are forced into iTunes I guess..), I don't want two copies, I guess I could leave it in iMovie thought since its file layout are rather decent.
Why doesn't copy of a sequence in iMovie copy the text content aswell? Just the "time part". (You type a text which will be shown for 5 seconds, copy that square and paste it in and all you get is a black screen for 5 seconds, you have to set and add the text again yourself.)
Why came up with the brilliant idea of one userlist for
Mail doesn't seem to work good with google imap for me, or the smart folders doesn't or something. Slow as fuck and I get multiple hits for the same mail in the smart folders.
The worst part with OS X are that their own apps expect to find your photos in say iPhoto, so if you use Pages you can easily browse photos in iPhoto, but what use is that when iPhoto suck and you use Aperture instead? Sure you could export all your photos and have them taking up twice the space, but meh.
And since Apple release their own applications for each task nowadays the third party market for those apps gets even smaller so you won't have an alternative if you don't prefer it the way Apple wanted you to do things.
Thought I think iPhoto and iMovie are ok considering they come with the machine (one can't argue they are "free" thought.), if you don't have anything better atleast they are something.
any...
I haven't eaten yet.
Or that they have no drivers?
Apple already use TPM for some binaries, which would make it impossible to run OS X on non-macs, if it wasn't because they key are known ..
I have no idea how it was spread thought, if it was cracked or not.
We are already killing the life in the oceans. Higher metabolism = require more food = even less fish in the oceans. Not very hard to understand?
.. If at all existing.
The steps from butterfly to hurricane are probably bigger
I know it will, but he said 13.6 kg bodyfat in 5 days. 100 kcal reduction won't make that happen.
And I didn't said 20.000 kcal was a good idea, but it is what is needed to lose all that fat.
I don't know what the butterfly effect is.
..), also if you eat more chances are you consume more antioxidants.
I don't know if it's 100% proved and fact to say that raised metabolism makes the cells die faster, but looking at free radicals and what happens to rats if you starve them it seems likely.
But then people do die for other reasons when cells not being able to split any more aswell. (Thought cancer risks may raise aswell I guess.)
The question is if exercise makes you live longer or not, I guess it depends on the intensity and volume (and drugs
And the easiest way to get into a negative energy balance are to just consume less energy.
A reasonable weight loss are 0.5 kg / week so 26 kg in a year. Fast weight loss suck because it makes you lose more muscle.
Intresting that my post have fallen from +4 insightful to 0 flamebait.
All valid responses, a few questios thought: .. Also with treating food like something we need to eat to survive and not something we eat because it's fun those people would probably not need to take such drastic measurements.
1) how?
3) I doubt it will make such a difference, 13.6 kg of body fat would hold approximately 95.200 kcal, so you would need to raise your metabolism by 20.000 kcal / day to reach that goal
Extra fat weight don't use much extra energy at all, even extra muscle doesn't use that much extra energy while resting. The fat will be like say 1-2 kcal / kg or something, it won't help you in a way which matters in rest. Sure it will use more energy to move all that weight, so if the fat person starts moving it will makes a difference, but then really fat people often don't move that much or fast or explosive so I don't know how much difference it makes. The amount of muscle and cardiovascular condition probably set the limit for how much energy you can consume in an amount of time. Not how much you weight.
Food are less suitable for someone who are already fat because it will make them even fatter, that was really hard to see was it? If they consume the energy I have no problem whatsoever with it. (Except it wastes planetary resources, but I don't care that much about it.)
I know there are lots of food, and possible to make more, but imho the less the affect the planet the better. So if we would consume less food, areal, water, energy and so on the better. Even if we can do it or not.
Exception being people who really have some form of medical condition which make their metabolism or body not work as intended, but those people are probably very rare, if there even are any Wow. Publicly doubting that there are medical conditions that could make someone fat. What a great, insightful comment you make; you're very rational. Next time you make a comment like this, you might as well just scream about how much you hate fat people and leave the environmentalism and poor people out of it. I know there are some medical conditions which probably actually makes your body a problem, and not your mind, but for most people it's probably not a medicial condition, if it was how come so many more people have gotten it the last years? There are just to easy to get lots of cheap, good, energy dense food. And the problem with possible medical conditions are that many people will probably find an excuse in them.
I thought about that part aswell, but in another subject. But since I didn't knew how the drug worked I didn't mentioned anything about it.
But if it raises mitochondia activity they will burn more fuel, but that will probably end up with more free radicals, more oxidizing damage and eventually earlier cell/person death. So this drug may eventually kill you prematurely.
May help them, may not. For explosive work you use ATP and not carbohydrates, for less explosive work the acidity may stop you instead, depending on of there is enough oxygen available or not. And so on.
What says it will be impossible to measure? Most drugs used for cheating gets possible to detect by time, and many of them are quite "biological", just look for really high concentration of the enzymes in question. Sure it may not stop everyone, but most.
Quite close. I used to be beat up as child, have always been small, am 28, has the mentality of someone much young, live alone, have thought that I was "fat" even thought I wasn't (went down to 54 kg at 173 cm as worst), and kind of still does.
Still valid points thought.
I know how I still feel if I have chocolate nearby, I could easily eat the whole bar but I don't because I know it's a bad idea. Some people don't think so it seems. Most of my food is very boring and I don't feel an urge to eat lots of it, but I try to eat enough because I know I need it.
If I would just eat what I feelt like eating I would lose weight. But as I said most people don't eat because they need to, they eat because.. well.. they have nothing else to do atm and the food is available.
Cats are supposed to regulate their food intake well, atleast that's what the food bags says, thought mine is fat. I've tested to not give her that much food but her complaints are annoying so she just tend to always have food in her bowl.
;D, vegan as I am ;D (Cattle meat lets out lots of greenhouse gases during the whole production line/live aswell. Chicken are much better, but I think it's very cruel with chicken production. Eat your tofu instead ;D, or even better beans and lentils.)
:/
Anyway I think one of the biggest problem are that people don't see and eat food for functionality, but rather for pleasure. They don't eat to get the nutrition and energy they need for the day, they eat because they like it, it tastes good and makes them feel good.
But to take coffee and some snack because you have a break at work, that cola you have beside your desk just because you like it, serve and eat food for hours when the family meet, eat up everything in your lunchbox because it happened to be there, take a treat because you wanted it, eat because you are bored, and so on suck. Fluid foods are even worse because it's so easy to consume vast amounts of them and they are normally just consumed for taste alone, to add juice and soda to your meal just raise the energy consumtion even further but it doesn't feel like you are eating something.
Eat because you need it and nothing else. Find something else to make you happy and feel good for doing. Do some workouts, have sex, give someone a hug, watch a good movie, do your hobbies, whatever suits you.
Also haven't the population of planet earth raised from like 1 billion to over 6 billion in 100 years? Even if there are food for everyone or possible to make it while using even more space there will indeed be a problem if and when the population keeps expanding at this rate, 36 billion people 2100? We already have a fish fleet 5 times to large and all the fish people eat now will be exterminated by 2040 if I remember correctly. Thinks like our european eels have droped in numbers a lot and they live long, I think they got sexually mature late and the amount of them reaching europe have accordingly to wikipedia droped 90, maybe even 98% since the 70s! How long will it take for all those fishes to come back to the old volumes? Is it even likely? Will we really stop fish them? I doubt it... Especially since the fleet are just so big and many people will refused to stop and people want food.
Which btw gives me the right to say that omnivore humans suck
Anyway, considering how fast the population grow, how fat people already are, how much food are probably wasted thought refining into more precious food and animal products, do we really need something which let people eat even more?!!?! We are already affecting all other life on the planet way to much, please don't let us spread and invade it even more. It would be so much better if we where only 500 million or something, that's a lot of humans anyway, just compare it to the amounts of all other primates
We need to die, fast! Maybe we can let out some chemicals which makes most of us infertile, to bad it will probably affect other animals aswell.
So? It will raise peoples metabolism? For what purpose? To waste even more resources on producing food? Waste more land area, water, energy, artificial fertilizers, greenhouse gases, kill more oceans? Yeah, great! And in the end that will probably mean less food for the poor and higher food prices aswell.
And what say the fat people won't eat even more when they use this? And you don't get the benefits of cardiovascular training or weight lifting either.
Simply useless, not to say really stupid!
What are needed aren't more stimulants or excuses, eat for performance not for pleasure and lift your fucking ass!
(Exception being people who really have some form of medical condition which make their metabolism or body not work as intended, but those people are probably very rare, if there even are any.)
No, I think the whole point is that there are already some functionality which name I don't know about which let the torrent client spread information about what files they are working with already, and this plugin makes it easier to search this information. So if everyone used a client which spread that + have this I think all you need to do is open up a torrent file and the other people will know about it, no tracker needed.
:)
But I can be wrong and someone will probably explain it much better
I can't if the site in question are the official one for a game, the forum I want to use, the only one which have the photo album, so on.
That won't save you when you don't really know if it's alt-4 or command-4 to make a dollar sign and you press say command-4 and it takes you to bookmark 4 thereby removing your post. Or the one time backspace for some reason took me back, or when I've pressed command-w a couple of times to close a bunch of tabs and well.. fuck.. one to many =P, to late to save it :)
1 joule is required to heat 1 gram water 1/4 degree, does anyone know what it may be for moon soil? If it's similair to heat up 5 billion tones of moon soil to 1400 degrees (C or F, the article says both ... but uses tones, so I'd go with C), I don't know the middle temp on the moon but say 0 degrees.
5000000000000000*4*1400=2.8 * 10^19 joule
Is this how to make it into mwh?
(5 000 000 000 000 000 * 4 * 1 400) / ((10^6) * 3 600) = 7.77777778 * 10^9
Here in Sweden electricity prices for the consumer are something like 1 sek / kwh so that equals 7.8*10^12 sek = 1.3 trillion us dollars just for heating up the rock. I do understand that the us electricity bill for one year are huge aswell, but how huge compared to that? Does anyone know the energy consumtion of whole USA?