Conflating them in a non-relativistic way is just plain wrong.
Okay, I'll try once again for you, professor Nitpick:
A piece of living flesh form a human body, the said piece consisting of bones, fat, muscle, skin, etc. in the proportions in which they are regularly found in such body; and having a rest mass of 1 kg in the coordinate system attached to the Earth will, when metabolized in the body of a healthy, average human, release approximately as much energy as will metabolizing, by the same organism, of food with energy content of 7700 kCal, as calculated in the database I mentioned further up.
In MKS units, these 7700 kCal will be about 32 megajoules.
How is it 'pretty evident' that a combination of exercise and food that keeps a person fit doesn't exist? On the contrary, as long as your metabolism doesn't differ from that of most people, science has not only established that there is such a combination, they even provide you with the formulas to calculate it yourself.
A body is a very complex system, so the formula isn't an exact law, but that's no limitation of the science behind it. It is hard because of the complexity, not because of lack of understanding of the laws at the base of the process.
Your body's 'hoarding mechanism' is only triggered if you lose more than (roughly) 5% of your body weight over a month or so. If you stay safely within this limit and you're okay.
First? In 2007? Even my gym coach in 1986 knew this, and he had read it somewhere when he got his diploma in whatever school of nutrition 20 years before that.
The hard part is not eating too much, and that is not a scientific problem, but a problem of preference and habit.
No science can help you here, but if it provides means to make measurements easy (which it does), and if you're willing to put a bit of effort over the period of a year or so to create reasonable eating and food-buying habits, you can keep your weight in norm easily later on.
Utter bullshit. The easiest way to control weight is to exactly follow the scientific advice. I lost a lot of weight (about 25 kg over 6 months) by a simple system:
(Change in Weight (kg))/7700 = Calories I ate - Calories I used
The calculation is really simple and entirely based on nutrition science. For "Calories I ate", I used the free USDA nutrition database from, I think, Dept. of Agriculture (yep, here. http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/). For "Calories I used", I used the standard age-adjusted formulas you can find at the back of any nutrition text. For detection activity I used the android phone, Tasker and a small timesheet app.
Just for the kicks I kept a graph of the loss weight, and the fit to the "theoretical" weight loss has an R-squared upwards of 0.87 over more than a year. The body response is so precise, that even the occasional heavy meal registered the next day. No magic, no voodoo, just sticking to the 'scientific rules'.
7700 is the kCal in a kg body weight, if you're curious.
As for the nutrition, I stick to the good ole food pyramid. My (slightly high) cholesterol went to norm in the first year, and no problems whatsoever in 5 consecutive yearly checkups since I started the routine.
Within the chosen margin of error of measurement, it works, bitches.
It is quite clear what the OP's point is, unless you're very obtuse. Also, the 'failed state' reference is obviously about 'democratic' Iraq, and not the superpower in question.
This is all just word games, really. Their construction process was on-time, they just got an unplanned interrupt.
Yes, yours are playing word games here, because you invent a new definition of 'schedule' and 'delay'. However, in the real world a 'schedule' is 'a plan of intended events and times' and a 'delay' is 'a period of time by which something is late or postponed'. We measure the 'delay' by comparing it to the 'intended times' that appear in the 'schedule'. According to these definitions we can observe the following two facts:
1. The Tianshan plant is two years behind its original schedule
The Sanmen NPP, where a different type of reactor is being built, is also more than a year behind its original schedule.
I.e. you're wrong, and the Chinese experience the same problems building nuclear reactors as anyone else does. And the problems are massive delays and massive cost overruns. Incidentally, this has been a typical feature of the nuclear industry throughout its existence.
all it says is that the articles you linked had the wrong estimate in them
Like I said already, I do not refer to articles, but to the original plans of the Chinese operator and the contractors at the time of the start of the construction. For some reason, you keep denying the fact that Tianshan was supposed to enter service in 2013 and believe that it is still 'on schedule' although it isn't. Normally, this mental state is referred to as 'delusion'.
Once they have a few units built, you'll see the estimates stabilize.
In other words, they won't be able to do it "on-time" and "on-budget" until "estimates stabilize". Like I said, if you accept that delays are a part of the schedule, you'll always be on schedule. This is not how schedules work, though.
so you can be pretty sure they're watching the project with a microscope.
Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.
Yep. As I said above, you're wrong to think Chinese don't do things on-time and on-budget. As a matter of fact, you're even wronger, as they can't even make proper estimates. I don't want to contemplate how safe their plants will end up being. Of course, in the environmental mess that is China, a Chernobyl or two should not make much difference.
Chinese aren't building the very same reactors on-time and on-budget. The Taishan NPP your article is talking about is already two years behind the original schedule -- it was supposed to go online in 2013, but it won't at least until 2015. If that's the last word.
The "gas that mixes with the air" is not that much of a problem nowadays, the concrete will mostly cover that. What's leaking from below, on the other hand...
Effects will depend on the differences of acceleration of different parts of the cluster. Because the speed has probably increased over many millenia, and because it is still a cluster, they were most likely very hard to observe.
2 mil miles per hour is something like 1000 km/s. Considering that the escape velocity on the surface of the Sun is something like 600km/s that's not pedestrian at all.
Probably because the original scifi concept is that gray goo is not lifelike -- it is very simple, and won't evolve, just dissolve everything into ever more gray goo. Or somesuch.The nanodes that can only be killed by the Martian defense systems, on the other hand...
Slashdot Mirror
Conflating them in a non-relativistic way is just plain wrong.
Okay, I'll try once again for you, professor Nitpick:
A piece of living flesh form a human body, the said piece consisting of bones, fat, muscle, skin, etc. in the proportions in which they are regularly found in such body; and having a rest mass of 1 kg in the coordinate system attached to the Earth will, when metabolized in the body of a healthy, average human, release approximately as much energy as will metabolizing, by the same organism, of food with energy content of 7700 kCal, as calculated in the database I mentioned further up.
In MKS units, these 7700 kCal will be about 32 megajoules.
Good enough?
How is it 'pretty evident' that a combination of exercise and food that keeps a person fit doesn't exist? On the contrary, as long as your metabolism doesn't differ from that of most people, science has not only established that there is such a combination, they even provide you with the formulas to calculate it yourself.
A body is a very complex system, so the formula isn't an exact law, but that's no limitation of the science behind it. It is hard because of the complexity, not because of lack of understanding of the laws at the base of the process.
You probably could do even better, but what's the point if the rounded versions give you a good enough approximation?
Your body's 'hoarding mechanism' is only triggered if you lose more than (roughly) 5% of your body weight over a month or so. If you stay safely within this limit and you're okay.
First? In 2007? Even my gym coach in 1986 knew this, and he had read it somewhere when he got his diploma in whatever school of nutrition 20 years before that.
The hard part is not eating too much, and that is not a scientific problem, but a problem of preference and habit.
No science can help you here, but if it provides means to make measurements easy (which it does), and if you're willing to put a bit of effort over the period of a year or so to create reasonable eating and food-buying habits, you can keep your weight in norm easily later on.
Utter bullshit. The easiest way to control weight is to exactly follow the scientific advice. I lost a lot of weight (about 25 kg over 6 months) by a simple system:
(Change in Weight (kg))/7700 = Calories I ate - Calories I used
The calculation is really simple and entirely based on nutrition science. For "Calories I ate", I used the free USDA nutrition database from, I think, Dept. of Agriculture (yep, here. http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/). For "Calories I used", I used the standard age-adjusted formulas you can find at the back of any nutrition text. For detection activity I used the android phone, Tasker and a small timesheet app.
Just for the kicks I kept a graph of the loss weight, and the fit to the "theoretical" weight loss has an R-squared upwards of 0.87 over more than a year. The body response is so precise, that even the occasional heavy meal registered the next day. No magic, no voodoo, just sticking to the 'scientific rules'.
7700 is the kCal in a kg body weight, if you're curious.
As for the nutrition, I stick to the good ole food pyramid. My (slightly high) cholesterol went to norm in the first year, and no problems whatsoever in 5 consecutive yearly checkups since I started the routine.
Within the chosen margin of error of measurement, it works, bitches.
It is quite clear what the OP's point is, unless you're very obtuse. Also, the 'failed state' reference is obviously about 'democratic' Iraq, and not the superpower in question.
i don't need to see it in my news for nerds stream.
I believe that's what they mean by "vendor lock-in". It isn't "normal" in the normal meaning of the word, although it is the norm.
This is all just word games, really. Their construction process was on-time, they just got an unplanned interrupt.
Yes, yours are playing word games here, because you invent a new definition of 'schedule' and 'delay'. However, in the real world a 'schedule' is 'a plan of intended events and times' and a 'delay' is 'a period of time by which something is late or postponed'. We measure the 'delay' by comparing it to the 'intended times' that appear in the 'schedule'. According to these definitions we can observe the following two facts:
I.e. you're wrong, and the Chinese experience the same problems building nuclear reactors as anyone else does. And the problems are massive delays and massive cost overruns. Incidentally, this has been a typical feature of the nuclear industry throughout its existence.
all it says is that the articles you linked had the wrong estimate in them
Like I said already, I do not refer to articles, but to the original plans of the Chinese operator and the contractors at the time of the start of the construction. For some reason, you keep denying the fact that Tianshan was supposed to enter service in 2013 and believe that it is still 'on schedule' although it isn't. Normally, this mental state is referred to as 'delusion'.
Once they have a few units built, you'll see the estimates stabilize.
In other words, they won't be able to do it "on-time" and "on-budget" until "estimates stabilize". Like I said, if you accept that delays are a part of the schedule, you'll always be on schedule. This is not how schedules work, though.
so you can be pretty sure they're watching the project with a microscope.
Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.
Chinese don't do
I mean to write "can do", obviously.
Then that estimate was quite simply wrong.
Yep. As I said above, you're wrong to think Chinese don't do things on-time and on-budget. As a matter of fact, you're even wronger, as they can't even make proper estimates. I don't want to contemplate how safe their plants will end up being. Of course, in the environmental mess that is China, a Chernobyl or two should not make much difference.
You also need to keep in mind that 46 months was the planned construction time, not when it enters commercial service.
Original Taishan NPP plan schedule called for entering commercial service in 2013, full stop.
So if you consider the ripple that Fukushima sent into the world of nuclear reactor construction projects, Taishan is indeed roughly on schedule.
Yes, if you don't consider the delays, any project will be 'roughly on schedule'.
Chinese aren't building the very same reactors on-time and on-budget. The Taishan NPP your article is talking about is already two years behind the original schedule -- it was supposed to go online in 2013, but it won't at least until 2015. If that's the last word.
In short the position is that if you have freedom you will abuse it.
It is a universally acknowledged government problem. Governments are known to have built 'free speech zones' to deal with the issue.
I have no idea, but I don't care. Now I finally know how they built the Tin Woodman.
The "gas that mixes with the air" is not that much of a problem nowadays, the concrete will mostly cover that. What's leaking from below, on the other hand...
would we notice the effects of such an ejection?
Effects will depend on the differences of acceleration of different parts of the cluster. Because the speed has probably increased over many millenia, and because it is still a cluster, they were most likely very hard to observe.
2 mil miles per hour is something like 1000 km/s. Considering that the escape velocity on the surface of the Sun is something like 600km/s that's not pedestrian at all.
Most of the 'stormtroopers can't hit shit' hate comes from the insignificant number of Ewoks that they killed. And I understand that hate.
s/for many apps/instead of writing many apps/ doh.
Actually, for many apps, you can always use Tasker or one of its free clones. How can you do what Tasker does on iOS?
Probably because the original scifi concept is that gray goo is not lifelike -- it is very simple, and won't evolve, just dissolve everything into ever more gray goo. Or somesuch.The nanodes that can only be killed by the Martian defense systems, on the other hand...