Except instead of transporting your electricity through wires and storing it in a battery, you now need to transport it in (new) pipelines and store it in pressurized containers, all of which it will leak out of because it passes through solids. Hooray!
That would be true for cars running off of hydrogen as the primary fuel (just like propane powered vehicles). For a fuel cell powered vehicle, it could be as simple as driving to the refill station and swapping out the fuel cell for a new one, assuming it was self contained or swapping out a fuel tank for a new one (like they do with BBQ grills).
Hydrogen is the exact same story, actually. Somebody has to produce the hydrogen for your fuel cells, that takes energy.
I agree with that, however, solar and wind are quite capable of generating enough power to extract hydrogen from sea water instead of using fossil fuels to do it.
I've looked into it before. It's complex, but the "big four" are: 1. Diesel engines are heavier and more expensive. So sure you can buy a diesel that performs similarly to a gasoline engine, but it will cost about $5000 more and probably still be a bit heavier. Any technology that you can apply to diesels to make them rev faster or be constructed lighter can also be used in gasoline engines - so there will always be a cost and weight differential. 2. Diesel engines have more particulate emissions. In Europe, they do not regulate these as heavily as in the US. Meeting the US standard means more cost, complexity, and weight. 3. In Europe, diesel tends to be taxed at a lower rate than gasoline. 4. In Europe, they get high-quality crude and the refineries make diesel as a natural byproduct. In the US, we import a lot of really low-quality crude from Venezuela and Canada that needs to be "cracked". Once you are taking that additional step in the refining process, you can adjust the proportion of diesel and gasoline to suit the market... diesel is no longer a natural byproduct of the refining process. Diesel uses more crude than gasoline (it contains more energy - more carbon, per gallon), so there is little incentive for the refiners to produce it unless it is priced higher than gasoline.
Your data must be old. Diesel engines, horsepower for horsepower are not heavier than a gasoline engine. It is true though that a four cylinder diesel ways more than a four cylinder gasoline engine. However, the diesel provides over twice, if not more, horsepower in the same sized package.
Particulate matter in diesel exhaust is dependent on the quality of the fuel. It is true that Europe refines their fuel to a higher standard, both gas and diesel, which is also why they don't need all of the emission devices on their cars. It is not true that the US uses low quality crude which makes low quality fuel. Well, we do refine low quality crude, but the fuel being low quality is because we haven't built a modern refinery in decades. Diesel is not a by product of the refining product because it is an actual component product (intentionally manufactured).
Finally, the pricing of diesel or gas has nothing to do with the cost of manufacture or even supply and demand. The cost is based on what the market will bear and then supply is created to match that demand. In this way, oil companies maximize their profit per barrel produced. People driving diesel vehicles and commercial drivers are willing to pay more per gallon because of the other benefits (higher mpg, lower maintenance, etc.). The industry then produces enough diesel at a price point that maximizes their profits. Sure, disruptions to the demand or supply impact the pump price, but that is temporary. Overall, it is a business decision and not a market decision that sets the price.
"I'm asking. Someone here knows, I bet." For starters, everyone who read the article.
That's not true anymore. In the old days, diesel didn't have to be refined as cleanly as it is today (same with gasoline). A diesel engine in good working order is less polluting than a comparable powered gasoline engine. And, if you use bio-diesel, it's cleaner, yet.
Don't forget that, when considering the extra mining and transportation of rare earth metals required to build a hybrid car, its overall environmental impact might not be any better than a conventional gasoline engine. My choice would be to buy a gasoline powered car with 50% improved efficiency over hybrid--at least until battery technology (and China's environmental policies!) improve.
By a VW (or any other brand) with the TDI diesel and you get that improved efficiency today. While people were buying their hybrid hoping to get 50mpg in their Prius, I was happily driving along at a measly 47mpg with my VW. Plus, I got better performance and the car cost less to purchase.
Yet another improvement on an outdated concept. The owners of cars with this type of engine will still be stuck in a the cycle of ever increasing gas prices. These days the only cars that impress me are the ones that offer an affordable escape out of this trap, even if the range is somewhat limited.
No car offers an escape out of that trap. Electric cars will be stuck in the cycle of ever increasing electricity prices. There is no such thing as free energy.
I'll ask the obvious question "Wouldn't it be simpler to just use diesel engines powered by diesel fuel instead of trying to make diesel engines powered by gasoline?"
It's probably inevitable-- it's just a question of when. Battery cost per kWh has been decreasing at around 10% per year, and gasoline is getting consistently more expensive. It seems incredibly unlikely that both of these would stop moving toward the crossover point.
Gasoline engines have been keeping up with that 10% though. In 1998 the Ford Mustang GT with a 4.6L V8 had about 215hp. In 2011 the Mustang GT 5.0L V8 packed in 412hp. That's about 7% a year increase in power and a slight increase in mileage. It stands to reason if that extra efficiency was put towards more mpg instead of more power, that crossover point could be farther out than you think.
It is easy to get more horsepower. The hardpart is to get better mileage. The most fuel efficient vehicles on the planet are race cars. They squeeze every bit of energy out of the fuel they can. Their mpg sucks, though.
So, yes, your 5L V8 is burning fuel more efficiently as evidenced by the increased horsepower, but it still isn't getting better mileage. It is easy to design to maximize horsepower. The difficult part is maximizing mpg while maintaining acceptable performance. The only real way to do that is build smaller and lighter vehicles. A 78 Honda got 38mpg back in the day. Of course, it wasn't much bigger than today's mini-cooper, which gets significantly less.
The good news is it's getting better on both fronts and fast!
I don't think it's much of a moving target... electric needs to reach a 600 mile range and charge in 10 minutes. That will make it an effective transportation alternative for all current automotive travel. It really doesn't need to get any better than that.
It's hard to see how electric can be beat in the long run. Even a 50% decrease in fuel use won't make gasoline fueling the cheaper choice.
How much will it cost to purchase the electricity to recharge that battery pack? It is naive to assume that electricity to recharge cars will be cheaper than gasoline to power cars once the electricity is the primary fuel source. Gasoline is not priced by supply and demand, it is priced by what the market will bear. Why would you expect electric recharging to be any different?
I mean everything is moving over the next two decades to electric anyway.
Electric has a moving target to hit, just as it has for the last 100+ years. Batteries are not the only technology that can improve in the next two decades.
But electric is not free energy. Somebody (ie powerplant) has to produce the electricity to recharge the batteries. Now a hiydrogen fuel cell powered electric, that would be a different story, but then, they are not usually consumer friendly devices.
Because one day you looked around and wondered why all the hard drives and RAM were being made elsewhere and no-one could or would make them at home again?
That point would be valid if the US companies hadn't first moved their manufacturing to Southeast Asia, long before Japan started their dumping practices.
Nobody seemed to mind when Japan was dumping hard drives and RAM chips at below cost and we all could get really cheap computers. Some would even argue that what made consumer electronics so successful is that Japan did this. Stores run loss-leaders all the time. Why is it okay for Walmart to sell something below cost to get your business? Why is it okay for the US Government to subsidize corporate farmers to sell products overseas?
Whether China gives cheap loans to its businesses or the US gives tax breaks to its businesses, aren't both governments essentially doing the same thing?
I'm not sure what market share they have, but at least the company mentioned in this article, SolarWorld, manufactures its panels in the U.S. and Germany.
Solarworld is a German company with a US manufacturing subsidiary. They're upset because they chose to build a plant where they can't compete with one built in a country that has 1/10th the standard of living. Go figure!
China engages in all kinds of economic protectionism including artificially manipulating its currency not to mention import tariffs. So, by leveling these accusations at the United States, they sound awfully stale and hollow.
Some would argue that the US continuously printing out more and more money is also artificially manipulating its currency. So the pot should be careful about calling the kettle black.
This isn't about helping US companies. The company that filed the complaint is SolarWorld, a German company operating in the US. They accuse China of subsidizing their solar industry with cheap loans, cheap land and cheap labor. Well, that is probably true, but then any industry in China gets the benefit of cheap loans, cheap land and cheap labor.
The fact that loans, land and labor in the US are higher than in undeveloped countries should not come as a surprise to anybody. What will happen from this, though, is to benefit the bottom line of a few companies, the prices of solar technology will increase, driving down demand. What this means is that the fabrication/assembly plants in the US (where the Chinese cells are assembled into actual panels) and the solar installers and contractors will lose jobs. If demand goes down, then even US based cell manufacturers will have less demand. It is a lose - lose proposition.
So, if the higher tariffs aren't to actually help the solar industry, then who benefits, by making solar or any other alternative energy more costly?
Further proof that we need the government to assure all of our online identities and stop those that would deceive us!
Truth-telling, I have found, is the key to responsible citizenship. The thousands of criminals I have seen in 40 years of law enforcement have had one thing in common: Every single one was a liar. J. Edgar Hoover
Would it be inappropriate to say "It takes one to know one?"
Adaptation doesn't take very long, particularly during an ice age, to cause genetic differentiation.
Sure it does. In fact, the genetic differentiation between the so called "races" is infinitesimal.
Humans cannot exist only on animal protein (eat only lean meat and you will starve).
Humans can, and have existed only on animal protein and fat. See the Inuit and the Masai.
So while there is not an essential carbohydrate, there are essential vitamins and minerals that only come from certain types of carbohydrates.
Name a single essential vitamin or mineral you can't get from eating an animal.
Unless you are eating your meat raw, most vitamins, like B and C are destroyed by cooking. Vitamin A is in very low quantities in meat, but is found in fat, so you could get it there. Likewise, if you eat enough liver you could get your Vitamin B and A. However, the question would be could a family eat enough liver from what a hunter would gather to supply all of their vitamin A and B from the liver (assuming early man)? Wild meat, unlike fattened cattle contain little fat and there fore little vitamin stores. But it would not be impossible to essential vitamins from meat, the question is would you get enough, particularly for growing children? Minerals would be found in meat, but again, would the right quantity be there?
As for there being very little differentiation between the so called "races," I would hope that would be the case. We all are human, after all. However, since a chimpanzee and a human share 96% of our genetic material, I would hope that an Asian and African and European would share all but an infinitesimal amount. The point is, it only takes an infinitesimal difference to make a difference.
Yes, humans can exist on animal protein AND fat, that is not in doubt. But unless they are eating the organs and blubber, like the Inuit and Masai, they aren't getting all the nutrition they need. Likewise, the Inuit and Masai go through feast and famine periods in the diets, which further emphasizes the reason humans store fat, whether generated from excess carbs, protein or fat.
The vast majority of human evolution has occurred in the tropics. Our venturing out of the tropics into the rest of the world is actually quite recent in evolutionary terms.
Now, we can test your hypothesis by asserting that nordic folk should be more obese than african folks. Of course, we don't see this kind of relationship.
Humans are adapted to eating animal protein and fat, and while we have essential proteins and fatty acids, there is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate.
The US, the population in question, is predominantly European in makeup. Adaptation doesn't take very long, particularly during an ice age, to cause genetic differentiation. Since all humans came from the tropics, and only recently migrated from there, then all the various "races" occurred in that same short time frame that we are talking about, too. In the same amount of time for Europeans to lose melanin, or Asians to develop their charecteristics, could they not also adapt to different diets?
I do accept that humans are adapted to eating animal protein and fat, but looking at the human jaw, it also includes molars for grinding, which would imply an adaptation for vegetable matter, too. Humans are not carnivores, they are omnivores. Humans cannot exist only on animal protein (eat only lean meat and you will starve). In addition, some essential vitamins and minerals only come from plant sources. So while there is not an essential carbohydrate, there are essential vitamins and minerals that only come from certain types of carbohydrates.
Besides, people in the tropics are not immune to the feast vs famine cycle, just ask the people in the Sudan or Ethiopia. It is more than likely that the ability to store excess calories as fat for lean times occurred before the exodus out of Africa.
Just like bears who put on fat before they hibernate, humans would store fat (although nothing like the obesity today) to help them get through the lean winter months.
You do realize that humanity evolved in the tropics, where there aren't "lean winter months" to speak of, right?
But humanity didn't stay in the tropics and one has to assume that the process on natural selection was at work as humanity moved to northern latitudes. Those that could sustain the lean times are the ones that past the genes on to succeeding generations.
I've emailed Richard last year by the way and he's still the weight he achieved in that article 9 years later.
FWIW: I'm an endomorph who DOES believe that some people hold weight easier, crave carbs and sugar more than others and have a lower BMR. However science is science - these things only make up a small fraction of the work. 95%+ is simply putting in the effort.
I can also confirm that adjusting diet is far, far far more rewarding than excercise for weight loss, despite other health benefits. Just as his article says.
I agree with what you post, but research now shows that very often, it's not a craving for carbs, but an actual addiction to them in terms of the way they effect brain chemistry. As such, just like quitting smoking or giving up drugs and alcohol, since there is a chemical dependency, it is not as easy as one would think. Obviously, just as many people can drink and not become alcoholics. Many can overeat and not become addicted to carbs. But for many, they do, and for them, will power often is not enough.
Instead of a low carb, high fat diet like the one you mention, even a moderately based one like the Mediterranean Diet (or derivatives), does wonders for one's health, both heart wise and general. The US food pyramid was designed to help farmers, not the health of the population.
Actually, the reason fat is stored is because prior to refrigeration, calories in most diets were seasonal. Just like bears who put on fat before they hibernate, humans would store fat (although nothing like the obesity today) to help them get through the lean winter months. It is how the body is designed.
However, the real problem with the high carbohydrate (and no, I am not an Atkins fan), is that not only does the insulin break down the sugars to be used by the body, it also signals the body to store an excess fat floating around for later use, because it is easier to store fat than it is to convert excess sugar to fat (although it can do that, too).
In short, high carbohydrate diets, particularly those with empty calories (no nutritional value) accompanied by high fat diets lead to overweight people by overloading the carefully balanced system the body depended on during evolution to deal with the feast and famine cycle the people had to deal with.
Ultimately, though, whether fat calories or carbohydrate calories, if you consume more calories than you burn, you are going to get fat. High fat diets just make it easier because they are higher calorie to start with and fat is easier to store as fat than sugar is.
The mathematics of obesity is simple. If calories burned is less than calories consumed, then people will gain weight. Doesn't matter if there is an abundance of food or not, although a lack of food tends to make it more difficult.
It's not just the consumption side of the equation, but also the burn side, too. In 1970, people walked to the local store. Today, there are few local stores, replaced by mega shopping centers which have to be driven to. In 1970, to put your car in the garage, you got out of the car, bent over and lifted a heavy garage door to open it. Today, you push a button. In 1970, agriculture and heavy manufacturing were the mainstay of the economy (meaning physical labor), today it is information and what manufacturing is left is heavily dominated by computer controlled robotics. In 1970, most areas of the country were limited to a handful of tv stations and they went off the air at midnight, as such, we spent much more time outdoors doing stuff. Today, we have 100s of stations 24/7 and can plant ourselves on the couch without the need to go outdoors (there is also a vitamin D deficiency epidemic in this country, too). The list goes on and on.
The reality is that not only do we live in a society that has unlimited access to calories to consume, but we also live in a society that has eliminated much physical work, so much so, that today, exercise is the main way to burn calories.
While the summary it technically correct, Linux is not included in the initial release, it is very misleading as it implies that Mozilla is ignoring linux. However, reading the thread that is mentioned in the summary, it appears heavy development work is being done to get things working with linux. So, in effect, what is happening is that the initial release is not being delayed because of problems with linux. But it definitely appears that the developers are working on making it work with linux and will release it when it does.
Slashdot Mirror
Except instead of transporting your electricity through wires and storing it in a battery, you now need to transport it in (new) pipelines and store it in pressurized containers, all of which it will leak out of because it passes through solids. Hooray!
That would be true for cars running off of hydrogen as the primary fuel (just like propane powered vehicles). For a fuel cell powered vehicle, it could be as simple as driving to the refill station and swapping out the fuel cell for a new one, assuming it was self contained or swapping out a fuel tank for a new one (like they do with BBQ grills).
Hydrogen is the exact same story, actually. Somebody has to produce the hydrogen for your fuel cells, that takes energy.
I agree with that, however, solar and wind are quite capable of generating enough power to extract hydrogen from sea water instead of using fossil fuels to do it.
Someone here knows, I bet.
I've looked into it before. It's complex, but the "big four" are:
1. Diesel engines are heavier and more expensive. So sure you can buy a diesel that performs similarly to a gasoline engine, but it will cost about $5000 more and probably still be a bit heavier. Any technology that you can apply to diesels to make them rev faster or be constructed lighter can also be used in gasoline engines - so there will always be a cost and weight differential.
2. Diesel engines have more particulate emissions. In Europe, they do not regulate these as heavily as in the US. Meeting the US standard means more cost, complexity, and weight.
3. In Europe, diesel tends to be taxed at a lower rate than gasoline.
4. In Europe, they get high-quality crude and the refineries make diesel as a natural byproduct. In the US, we import a lot of really low-quality crude from Venezuela and Canada that needs to be "cracked". Once you are taking that additional step in the refining process, you can adjust the proportion of diesel and gasoline to suit the market... diesel is no longer a natural byproduct of the refining process. Diesel uses more crude than gasoline (it contains more energy - more carbon, per gallon), so there is little incentive for the refiners to produce it unless it is priced higher than gasoline.
Your data must be old. Diesel engines, horsepower for horsepower are not heavier than a gasoline engine. It is true though that a four cylinder diesel ways more than a four cylinder gasoline engine. However, the diesel provides over twice, if not more, horsepower in the same sized package.
Particulate matter in diesel exhaust is dependent on the quality of the fuel. It is true that Europe refines their fuel to a higher standard, both gas and diesel, which is also why they don't need all of the emission devices on their cars. It is not true that the US uses low quality crude which makes low quality fuel. Well, we do refine low quality crude, but the fuel being low quality is because we haven't built a modern refinery in decades. Diesel is not a by product of the refining product because it is an actual component product (intentionally manufactured).
Finally, the pricing of diesel or gas has nothing to do with the cost of manufacture or even supply and demand. The cost is based on what the market will bear and then supply is created to match that demand. In this way, oil companies maximize their profit per barrel produced. People driving diesel vehicles and commercial drivers are willing to pay more per gallon because of the other benefits (higher mpg, lower maintenance, etc.). The industry then produces enough diesel at a price point that maximizes their profits. Sure, disruptions to the demand or supply impact the pump price, but that is temporary. Overall, it is a business decision and not a market decision that sets the price.
diesel has nasty byproducts, worse then gasoline.
"I'm asking. Someone here knows, I bet."
For starters, everyone who read the article.
That's not true anymore. In the old days, diesel didn't have to be refined as cleanly as it is today (same with gasoline). A diesel engine in good working order is less polluting than a comparable powered gasoline engine. And, if you use bio-diesel, it's cleaner, yet.
Don't forget that, when considering the extra mining and transportation of rare earth metals required to build a hybrid car, its overall environmental impact might not be any better than a conventional gasoline engine. My choice would be to buy a gasoline powered car with 50% improved efficiency over hybrid--at least until battery technology (and China's environmental policies!) improve.
By a VW (or any other brand) with the TDI diesel and you get that improved efficiency today. While people were buying their hybrid hoping to get 50mpg in their Prius, I was happily driving along at a measly 47mpg with my VW. Plus, I got better performance and the car cost less to purchase.
Yet another improvement on an outdated concept. The owners of cars with this type of engine will still be stuck in a the cycle of ever increasing gas prices. These days the only cars that impress me are the ones that offer an affordable escape out of this trap, even if the range is somewhat limited.
No car offers an escape out of that trap. Electric cars will be stuck in the cycle of ever increasing electricity prices. There is no such thing as free energy.
I'll ask the obvious question "Wouldn't it be simpler to just use diesel engines powered by diesel fuel instead of trying to make diesel engines powered by gasoline?"
It's probably inevitable-- it's just a question of when. Battery cost per kWh has been decreasing at around 10% per year, and gasoline is getting consistently more expensive. It seems incredibly unlikely that both of these would stop moving toward the crossover point.
Gasoline engines have been keeping up with that 10% though. In 1998 the Ford Mustang GT with a 4.6L V8 had about 215hp. In 2011 the Mustang GT 5.0L V8 packed in 412hp. That's about 7% a year increase in power and a slight increase in mileage. It stands to reason if that extra efficiency was put towards more mpg instead of more power, that crossover point could be farther out than you think.
It is easy to get more horsepower. The hardpart is to get better mileage. The most fuel efficient vehicles on the planet are race cars. They squeeze every bit of energy out of the fuel they can. Their mpg sucks, though.
So, yes, your 5L V8 is burning fuel more efficiently as evidenced by the increased horsepower, but it still isn't getting better mileage. It is easy to design to maximize horsepower. The difficult part is maximizing mpg while maintaining acceptable performance. The only real way to do that is build smaller and lighter vehicles. A 78 Honda got 38mpg back in the day. Of course, it wasn't much bigger than today's mini-cooper, which gets significantly less.
The good news is it's getting better on both fronts and fast!
I don't think it's much of a moving target ... electric needs to reach a 600 mile range and charge in 10 minutes. That will make it an effective transportation alternative for all current automotive travel. It really doesn't need to get any better than that.
It's hard to see how electric can be beat in the long run. Even a 50% decrease in fuel use won't make gasoline fueling the cheaper choice.
How much will it cost to purchase the electricity to recharge that battery pack? It is naive to assume that electricity to recharge cars will be cheaper than gasoline to power cars once the electricity is the primary fuel source. Gasoline is not priced by supply and demand, it is priced by what the market will bear. Why would you expect electric recharging to be any different?
I mean everything is moving over the next two decades to electric anyway.
Electric has a moving target to hit, just as it has for the last 100+ years. Batteries are not the only technology that can improve in the next two decades.
But electric is not free energy. Somebody (ie powerplant) has to produce the electricity to recharge the batteries. Now a hiydrogen fuel cell powered electric, that would be a different story, but then, they are not usually consumer friendly devices.
Because one day you looked around and wondered why all the hard drives and RAM were being made elsewhere and no-one could or would make them at home again?
That point would be valid if the US companies hadn't first moved their manufacturing to Southeast Asia, long before Japan started their dumping practices.
No.
When a country sells a product below their cost specifically to corner a market, it's bad.
Oh, and it's working:
http://asianbusinessdaily.com/2011/11/solar-wars-china-to-investigate-us-of-dumping-cheap-solar-panels/
Nobody seemed to mind when Japan was dumping hard drives and RAM chips at below cost and we all could get really cheap computers. Some would even argue that what made consumer electronics so successful is that Japan did this. Stores run loss-leaders all the time. Why is it okay for Walmart to sell something below cost to get your business? Why is it okay for the US Government to subsidize corporate farmers to sell products overseas?
Whether China gives cheap loans to its businesses or the US gives tax breaks to its businesses, aren't both governments essentially doing the same thing?
I'm not sure what market share they have, but at least the company mentioned in this article, SolarWorld, manufactures its panels in the U.S. and Germany.
Solarworld is a German company with a US manufacturing subsidiary. They're upset because they chose to build a plant where they can't compete with one built in a country that has 1/10th the standard of living. Go figure!
China engages in all kinds of economic protectionism including artificially manipulating its currency not to mention import tariffs. So, by leveling these accusations at the United States, they sound awfully stale and hollow.
Some would argue that the US continuously printing out more and more money is also artificially manipulating its currency. So the pot should be careful about calling the kettle black.
This isn't about helping US companies. The company that filed the complaint is SolarWorld, a German company operating in the US. They accuse China of subsidizing their solar industry with cheap loans, cheap land and cheap labor. Well, that is probably true, but then any industry in China gets the benefit of cheap loans, cheap land and cheap labor.
The fact that loans, land and labor in the US are higher than in undeveloped countries should not come as a surprise to anybody. What will happen from this, though, is to benefit the bottom line of a few companies, the prices of solar technology will increase, driving down demand. What this means is that the fabrication/assembly plants in the US (where the Chinese cells are assembled into actual panels) and the solar installers and contractors will lose jobs. If demand goes down, then even US based cell manufacturers will have less demand. It is a lose - lose proposition.
So, if the higher tariffs aren't to actually help the solar industry, then who benefits, by making solar or any other alternative energy more costly?
Further proof that we need the government to assure all of our online identities and stop those that would deceive us!
Truth-telling, I have found, is the key to responsible citizenship. The thousands of criminals I have seen in 40 years of law enforcement have had one thing in common: Every single one was a liar.
J. Edgar Hoover
Would it be inappropriate to say "It takes one to know one?"
Sure it does. In fact, the genetic differentiation between the so called "races" is infinitesimal.
Humans can, and have existed only on animal protein and fat. See the Inuit and the Masai.
Name a single essential vitamin or mineral you can't get from eating an animal.
Unless you are eating your meat raw, most vitamins, like B and C are destroyed by cooking. Vitamin A is in very low quantities in meat, but is found in fat, so you could get it there. Likewise, if you eat enough liver you could get your Vitamin B and A. However, the question would be could a family eat enough liver from what a hunter would gather to supply all of their vitamin A and B from the liver (assuming early man)? Wild meat, unlike fattened cattle contain little fat and there fore little vitamin stores. But it would not be impossible to essential vitamins from meat, the question is would you get enough, particularly for growing children? Minerals would be found in meat, but again, would the right quantity be there?
As for there being very little differentiation between the so called "races," I would hope that would be the case. We all are human, after all. However, since a chimpanzee and a human share 96% of our genetic material, I would hope that an Asian and African and European would share all but an infinitesimal amount. The point is, it only takes an infinitesimal difference to make a difference.
Yes, humans can exist on animal protein AND fat, that is not in doubt. But unless they are eating the organs and blubber, like the Inuit and Masai, they aren't getting all the nutrition they need. Likewise, the Inuit and Masai go through feast and famine periods in the diets, which further emphasizes the reason humans store fat, whether generated from excess carbs, protein or fat.
So what other things has Siri been programmed to lie about that unsuspecting users don't know about?
The vast majority of human evolution has occurred in the tropics. Our venturing out of the tropics into the rest of the world is actually quite recent in evolutionary terms.
Now, we can test your hypothesis by asserting that nordic folk should be more obese than african folks. Of course, we don't see this kind of relationship.
Humans are adapted to eating animal protein and fat, and while we have essential proteins and fatty acids, there is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate.
The US, the population in question, is predominantly European in makeup. Adaptation doesn't take very long, particularly during an ice age, to cause genetic differentiation. Since all humans came from the tropics, and only recently migrated from there, then all the various "races" occurred in that same short time frame that we are talking about, too. In the same amount of time for Europeans to lose melanin, or Asians to develop their charecteristics, could they not also adapt to different diets?
I do accept that humans are adapted to eating animal protein and fat, but looking at the human jaw, it also includes molars for grinding, which would imply an adaptation for vegetable matter, too. Humans are not carnivores, they are omnivores. Humans cannot exist only on animal protein (eat only lean meat and you will starve). In addition, some essential vitamins and minerals only come from plant sources. So while there is not an essential carbohydrate, there are essential vitamins and minerals that only come from certain types of carbohydrates.
Besides, people in the tropics are not immune to the feast vs famine cycle, just ask the people in the Sudan or Ethiopia. It is more than likely that the ability to store excess calories as fat for lean times occurred before the exodus out of Africa.
You do realize that humanity evolved in the tropics, where there aren't "lean winter months" to speak of, right?
But humanity didn't stay in the tropics and one has to assume that the process on natural selection was at work as humanity moved to northern latitudes. Those that could sustain the lean times are the ones that past the genes on to succeeding generations.
I think I found this here like 5 years ago and I've kept it since.
http://muller.lbl.gov/TRessays/22-ThePhysicsDiet.htm
I've emailed Richard last year by the way and he's still the weight he achieved in that article 9 years later.
FWIW: I'm an endomorph who DOES believe that some people hold weight easier, crave carbs and sugar more than others and have a lower BMR. However science is science - these things only make up a small fraction of the work. 95%+ is simply putting in the effort.
I can also confirm that adjusting diet is far, far far more rewarding than excercise for weight loss, despite other health benefits. Just as his article says.
I agree with what you post, but research now shows that very often, it's not a craving for carbs, but an actual addiction to them in terms of the way they effect brain chemistry. As such, just like quitting smoking or giving up drugs and alcohol, since there is a chemical dependency, it is not as easy as one would think. Obviously, just as many people can drink and not become alcoholics. Many can overeat and not become addicted to carbs. But for many, they do, and for them, will power often is not enough.
Instead of a low carb, high fat diet like the one you mention, even a moderately based one like the Mediterranean Diet (or derivatives), does wonders for one's health, both heart wise and general. The US food pyramid was designed to help farmers, not the health of the population.
Actually, the reason fat is stored is because prior to refrigeration, calories in most diets were seasonal. Just like bears who put on fat before they hibernate, humans would store fat (although nothing like the obesity today) to help them get through the lean winter months. It is how the body is designed.
However, the real problem with the high carbohydrate (and no, I am not an Atkins fan), is that not only does the insulin break down the sugars to be used by the body, it also signals the body to store an excess fat floating around for later use, because it is easier to store fat than it is to convert excess sugar to fat (although it can do that, too).
In short, high carbohydrate diets, particularly those with empty calories (no nutritional value) accompanied by high fat diets lead to overweight people by overloading the carefully balanced system the body depended on during evolution to deal with the feast and famine cycle the people had to deal with.
Ultimately, though, whether fat calories or carbohydrate calories, if you consume more calories than you burn, you are going to get fat. High fat diets just make it easier because they are higher calorie to start with and fat is easier to store as fat than sugar is.
The mathematics of obesity is simple. If calories burned is less than calories consumed, then people will gain weight. Doesn't matter if there is an abundance of food or not, although a lack of food tends to make it more difficult.
It's not just the consumption side of the equation, but also the burn side, too. In 1970, people walked to the local store. Today, there are few local stores, replaced by mega shopping centers which have to be driven to. In 1970, to put your car in the garage, you got out of the car, bent over and lifted a heavy garage door to open it. Today, you push a button. In 1970, agriculture and heavy manufacturing were the mainstay of the economy (meaning physical labor), today it is information and what manufacturing is left is heavily dominated by computer controlled robotics. In 1970, most areas of the country were limited to a handful of tv stations and they went off the air at midnight, as such, we spent much more time outdoors doing stuff. Today, we have 100s of stations 24/7 and can plant ourselves on the couch without the need to go outdoors (there is also a vitamin D deficiency epidemic in this country, too). The list goes on and on.
The reality is that not only do we live in a society that has unlimited access to calories to consume, but we also live in a society that has eliminated much physical work, so much so, that today, exercise is the main way to burn calories.
While the summary it technically correct, Linux is not included in the initial release, it is very misleading as it implies that Mozilla is ignoring linux. However, reading the thread that is mentioned in the summary, it appears heavy development work is being done to get things working with linux. So, in effect, what is happening is that the initial release is not being delayed because of problems with linux. But it definitely appears that the developers are working on making it work with linux and will release it when it does.