Huh. And here I thought electricity was being pushed all around the country, with many companies supporting production and transmission.
and electricity is ridiculously hard to manage in battery form.
Ya. My cell phone has a real problem with that.
Did you know batteries lose capacity when you use them to store electricity in them, they have to be very specific types of batteries that are ridiculously expensive and complicated.
According to most EV companies, the battery for the car will last about 5 years or 100,000 charges.
There is no infrastructure to support the additional load on the power grid, nor will there ever be one.
Load varies greatly by time of day; electricity use plummits at night. Seems like we have additional capacity right now.
Can you imagine the cost of replacing every gas pump with an electric recharging station, every gasoline and oil tank with a lithium-ion battery?
Why would you need to do that? Just plug the car in at home. Electricity is already distributed just about everywhere.
Battery electric cars are a great dream, but will never actually function until breakthroughs are made in battery capacity and lifespan. Give up this dream and focus on what is possible now.
Tesla Motors has a battery that will last for over 200 miles on a single charge. Sounds pretty possible right now to me.
The number one obstacle in hydrogen-based vehicles is working with hydrogen. Full stop. And there has been so much work put into hydrogen storage technology in the last 5 years, that the time of the hydrogen car is here, and it's here to stay. Stop poopooing the technology that is proving itself to work (notice the fleets of hydrogen buses out there), and wishing for castles in the sky. Work with what's here and now.
No, the number one obstacle is how to produce the hyrogen. Even if it becomes easy to work with, how do you create it now?
In other news, zealots are blinded by their own views, to the exclusion of all others.
Indeed.
The problems you mention with hydrogen are either very similar to those with batteries, or have already been solved.
Really? They figured out how to keep stored hydrogen safely so it won't explode? Tesla Motors tested their battery by lighting one of the cells in it on fire. Nothing happened to the other cells. It seems much more difficult to keep hydrogen as safe.
Does the hydrogen engine claim 80% efficency like the Tesla Roadster?
I invite you to read up on the FCX clarity, which has similar price and range compared to the Tesla Roadster. Also you may wish to check out home hydrogen generators.
Huh? Unless I'm missing something, you'd need electricity to run such a generator. At that point, why bother with hydrogen? Plug in a generator to create hydrogen for your car, or just plug in the car to use elecricity directly? Especially considering the energy lost creating the hydrogen to begin with. I'd also hate to think what would happen should my neighbor's home generator explode..
Last time this came up here someone posted articles about the newest reactors who's waste would only last tens or hundreds of years. I wish I could find it now.
DST is so not set by local governments. It's set by some idiots in far-away places, and everybody follows like sheep.
Witness the fact that whatever the US does to their DST rules, Europe follows.
You're not from the US, are you? Here, it IS local goverments that decide. I believe half of Indiana NEVER uses DST, because they choose not to. The federal government can't force the issue, but for covience pretty much everyone goes along. If Europe CHOOSES to mimic what America does, that's their business, but it wasn't the US' decision.
There's quite a leap from "having some kind of effect" to "playing violent games WILL cause you to become a violent person."
At any rate, does Die Hard have an effect on your life (other than being entertaining)? I highly doubt it. OTOH movies like Fight Club or Terminator 2 can make you think about things a bit deeper besides being entertainment. I'm sure there are better examples, they just aren't coming to mind at the moment.
Its the same for all media; people said the same thing about "romance" novels when the printing press was first invented. Some books were just entertaining, others had deeper meaning. None turned anyone into a psychopathic killer or huge stud.
Thanks for admitting you never had a point. You instantly got defensive when I suggest you be soley responsible for yourself, a sign that you realize what you did was wrong, but rationalizing so that you don't feel bad.
As far as crying goes "waaahh a judge saw through my attempt to screw the state's taxpayers, waahhah!" Die of cancer.
Ha. Yes, I remember that from a stupid thing my biology teacher said. He told the class to take the insult "fat head" as a complement, because your brain is largely fat.
At any rate, I am storing fat in the middle, and that's what I'm trying to remove. I assume its not needed in my skull.:-) My trainer is also a nutritionist, so I think he'll steer me right.
No, my body is not a furnace. There are no flames inside of me.
You don't need fire to burn; freezer burn and chemical burn comes to mind.
Just because iron gives off X calories of energy when its burned at a gazillion degrees, doesn't mean that I can get X calories when I swallow an equivalent quantity of iron powder. The biological mechanism of enzymes may or may not be able to extract the same amount of energy from food that was obtained in a lab top furnace.
No, no one was claiming that either. Iron in food wouldn't be counted as a calorie, because you cannot burn (oxidize) it. But your body does burn fuel, so saying the body burns fat is accurate, and its not a stretch to call the body a furnace (a device which oxides a fuel that usually produces heat as waste).
Even before it gets to the cell's power production, it has to be digested, absorbed and transported there. At each transition there is the potential for inefficiencies ( and I'm referring to efficiency e = amount_of_energy_released_from_food/amount_of_energy_measured_by_calorie_count not energy lost due to heat.)
No one disputes it takes energy to digest either; even an iron melting furnace requires energy to start it and keep it going.
At any rate, a calorie is a measure of energy as I said, and you can convert calories to joules if you like. Its not measuring the heat given off by the body; its a measure of the amount of energy required to heat 1 CC of water 1 degree (IIRC).
Yes; I'm down to the last few extra places where fat is hiding. I'm not sure if my trainer came up with these numbers knowing losing the last bit of fat is one of my goals, or if its a standard thing.
I have been warned that I had too few calories a few days (1160, 1240), but I just started this part of the program so I'm still adjusting my diet. I think I can do chicken + another meat (buffalo or turkey) for lunch / dinner, and then my standard breakfast of shredded wheat with oatmeal between meals.
Well, that's the thing. If you added exercise, you could have lost 2-4 lbs a week. 12 pounds a month is pretty damn good. I've lost 63 pounds since April... but I've taken to lifting weights so I'm at the gym six out of seven days.
I agree completely. Its also true that the whole idea of a calorie is crazy to me. They measure the heat given off of the food as its burned. My body is not a furnace.
Yes it is. Burning is oxidation; to get the energy you need to move or think, you oxidate amino acids and other things. Some of that reaction is inefficent, which is why your body is warm. A calorie is a measure of energy; 1 calorie ~= 4 joules.
I think I owe my sleek physique to my body's inefficient usage of the energy stored in food.
On average, your muscles are about 10% efficent. You may be less efficent than that.;-)
But, yeah eat less, exercise more = weight loss. I experiences that unwittingly in my time as an overseas volunteer.
Hopefully your weight loss wasn't due to malnutrition.
What you say is true, but you're not burning as many calories as you think. You can burn 400 - 700 calories doing 30 minutes on the treadmill in your target heart rate. You're not going to burn anything like that thinking or twitching. I twitch and think alot, and I still got fat:-)
Perhaps protein doesn't contribute as much to you gaining weight as carbohydrates.
It doesn't contribute at all; your body can break down and use protien, but it cannot store it.
However, protein contains amino acid groups which break down into ammonia and have to be removed by your kidneys. Eating too much protein leads to kidney damage.
This is true; the rule I've heard from a nutritionist is keep it below 1g per pound of body weight.
Let's assume the good doctor is right that eating fewer carbohydrates is primary.
The doctor is wrong. There are many studies proving you NEED carbs to live. Cutting them out will impair your brains ability to function. You also need them for quick energy and good digestion (fiber is a carb). What you don't need is lots of sugar, which I've found to be almost everywhere, even in milk. One bagel is equivolent of eating one cup of sugar.
Well, if you eat fewer calories overall, you'll probably consume fewer carbohydrates, too--especially if you maintain a healthy diet while doing so.
No, you can get the same calories from fat. Ground beef is high in fat and calories, while containing no carbs.
No, you can't. You still can't have a high fat intake, because any fat not burned will be stored. Likewise with sugar and other carbs, although sugar specifically moreso.
I'm on a weight lifting program now, and I'm looking at food more than I ever have before (even on the fat burn program I was on previously). Look at a serving size of everything you're eating, and figure out how much you're taking in. First, you may be suprised you're having 3+ servings. Second, you'd be suprised how much sugar is in everything.
Hell, even 1 cup of skim milk has 12g of sugar! I'm suposed to keep my fat and sugar below 20g, and carbs and protien under 180 (my body weight). Its quite challenging.
Are you drunk or just very, very young? No one, and I mean no one, is discussing anything having to do with 'rights' here. The rating system has zero impact on the 'right' to do anything. It isn't even a First Amendment issue, as these companies could simply opt out of using this rating system and release their product anyway. If we were debating some kind of a ban or something, you'd have a point. But we're not, and in the context of the topic, you really don't
Perhaps you need to read up the thread a bit more; the OP was talking about not letting someone play a game based on age. He said "not mature enough" and then went to say we should reclassify "adulthood" age, so that minors can be kept from harming themselves.
In that light, I hesitate to follow you down this path, but it could be pointed out that no child IN ANY CULTURE has complete freedom. Arguing in favor of allowing 'anyone of any age' to do whatever they want is lunacy. It is so far removed from my own world-view that I don't feel I can benefit you in any way by sharing my point of view. My train of thought is firmly grounded in the concept of limits for children. The younger, the stricter the controls. You should introduce them to responsibility slowly, guiding them each step of the way. Total freedom is never, ever an option for a child. That is strictly adult territory, and even then if a child of mine wants my input, I'd expect them to at least weigh my opinion.
I never said either that we should let children have complete freedom; on the other hand, I don't think we should be pushing "childhood" out beyond its traditional meaning. That is what I am arguing against (although I think we should be pushing the other direction). That's beside the point though, because as I said the OP was advocating re-defining adulthood to pervent people from doing some action.
Whether or not Manhunt 2 receives an 'AO' rating from the ESRB is a 'nanny state' issue? Are you sure?
When an AO rating would effectively ban the game, and when we have Senators trying to push the rating back to AO, yes, that's a nanny state issue. The government should have zero say in content created by one party and consumed by another. This is an issue for parents. Lets be real here, I grew up when video games first came under fire. We only have the ESRB as a result of government threatening to censor, much like it did with movies and music. So to me, yes, it is a rights issue.
I'd reserve that argument for things like warrant-less wiretapping, email snooping, purchase tracking, and the like. Again, this isn't a story about the Feds running a background check on everyone who purchases a copy of this game. Not by a long shot. Save that argument for THAT day, because it is likely coming, and in the meantime you're wearing it out...
That's far beyond a nanny state; that's a fascist state. Those are different rights being infringed, but it doesn't mean that censorship is less important because these other issues exist. Logical arguments don't "wear out" as you say though. They aren't any less valid simply because people close their ears or minds because they've heard them alot.
I think somewhere along the line you mistook civil liberties for age-equality. There is nothing, whatsoever, in our body of law that suggests that all age groups should be treated equally. There are VOLUMES of law to the contrary. Even the very Constitution itself has age-based distinctions. Go back and read it again...
Yes, that wasn't my point when discussing age. The OP wanted to push "adulthood" back because he didn't think 18 was approprate to do anything. Even our founders said 18 was old enough, and if you read their writings, you can see coming up with that age was not something they did lightly.
Not that any of that matters, in the least, because again, we're NOT TALKING ABOUT A BAN.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, its called a "bus" or another alternative, "subway."
There is no electric economy
Huh. And here I thought electricity was being pushed all around the country, with many companies supporting production and transmission.
and electricity is ridiculously hard to manage in battery form.
Ya. My cell phone has a real problem with that.
Did you know batteries lose capacity when you use them to store electricity in them, they have to be very specific types of batteries that are ridiculously expensive and complicated.
According to most EV companies, the battery for the car will last about 5 years or 100,000 charges.
There is no infrastructure to support the additional load on the power grid, nor will there ever be one.
Load varies greatly by time of day; electricity use plummits at night. Seems like we have additional capacity right now.
Can you imagine the cost of replacing every gas pump with an electric recharging station, every gasoline and oil tank with a lithium-ion battery?
Why would you need to do that? Just plug the car in at home. Electricity is already distributed just about everywhere.
Battery electric cars are a great dream, but will never actually function until breakthroughs are made in battery capacity and lifespan. Give up this dream and focus on what is possible now.
Tesla Motors has a battery that will last for over 200 miles on a single charge. Sounds pretty possible right now to me.
The number one obstacle in hydrogen-based vehicles is working with hydrogen. Full stop. And there has been so much work put into hydrogen storage technology in the last 5 years, that the time of the hydrogen car is here, and it's here to stay. Stop poopooing the technology that is proving itself to work (notice the fleets of hydrogen buses out there), and wishing for castles in the sky. Work with what's here and now.
No, the number one obstacle is how to produce the hyrogen. Even if it becomes easy to work with, how do you create it now?
In other news, zealots are blinded by their own views, to the exclusion of all others.
Indeed.
The problems you mention with hydrogen are either very similar to those with batteries, or have already been solved.
Really? They figured out how to keep stored hydrogen safely so it won't explode? Tesla Motors tested their battery by lighting one of the cells in it on fire. Nothing happened to the other cells. It seems much more difficult to keep hydrogen as safe.
Does the hydrogen engine claim 80% efficency like the Tesla Roadster?
I invite you to read up on the FCX clarity, which has similar price and range compared to the Tesla Roadster. Also you may wish to check out home hydrogen generators.
Huh? Unless I'm missing something, you'd need electricity to run such a generator. At that point, why bother with hydrogen? Plug in a generator to create hydrogen for your car, or just plug in the car to use elecricity directly? Especially considering the energy lost creating the hydrogen to begin with. I'd also hate to think what would happen should my neighbor's home generator explode..
Tesla Motors claims their motor to be 80% efficent.
The simple solution there is more nuclear plants.
Last time this came up here someone posted articles about the newest reactors who's waste would only last tens or hundreds of years. I wish I could find it now.
DST is so not set by local governments. It's set by some idiots in far-away places, and everybody follows like sheep.
Witness the fact that whatever the US does to their DST rules, Europe follows.
You're not from the US, are you? Here, it IS local goverments that decide. I believe half of Indiana NEVER uses DST, because they choose not to. The federal government can't force the issue, but for covience pretty much everyone goes along. If Europe CHOOSES to mimic what America does, that's their business, but it wasn't the US' decision.
I tend to think that if you're not smart enough to comprehend negative numbers, you're probably not smart enough to be raising a child.
I hardly think we'd be better of living in caves and throwing rocks around either.
Or because it clearly says (Unix) after Apache.
So you know you're paying to remove trash, even if not directly.
If you ever buy a house, you'll pay directly. Will that issue stop you from owning a house?
Whats the difference in putting trash out today and paying next week versus paying at the time of removal?
There's quite a leap from "having some kind of effect" to "playing violent games WILL cause you to become a violent person."
At any rate, does Die Hard have an effect on your life (other than being entertaining)? I highly doubt it. OTOH movies like Fight Club or Terminator 2 can make you think about things a bit deeper besides being entertainment. I'm sure there are better examples, they just aren't coming to mind at the moment.
Its the same for all media; people said the same thing about "romance" novels when the printing press was first invented. Some books were just entertaining, others had deeper meaning. None turned anyone into a psychopathic killer or huge stud.
Which is why our goverment is running out of control.
Thanks for admitting you never had a point. You instantly got defensive when I suggest you be soley responsible for yourself, a sign that you realize what you did was wrong, but rationalizing so that you don't feel bad.
As far as crying goes "waaahh a judge saw through my attempt to screw the state's taxpayers, waahhah!" Die of cancer.
In what way do you think its flawed? Do you have evidence to show why it might be?
Ha. Yes, I remember that from a stupid thing my biology teacher said. He told the class to take the insult "fat head" as a complement, because your brain is largely fat.
:-) My trainer is also a nutritionist, so I think he'll steer me right.
At any rate, I am storing fat in the middle, and that's what I'm trying to remove. I assume its not needed in my skull.
No, my body is not a furnace. There are no flames inside of me.
You don't need fire to burn; freezer burn and chemical burn comes to mind.
Just because iron gives off X calories of energy when its burned at a gazillion degrees, doesn't mean that I can get X calories when I swallow an equivalent quantity of iron powder. The biological mechanism of enzymes may or may not be able to extract the same amount of energy from food that was obtained in a lab top furnace.
No, no one was claiming that either. Iron in food wouldn't be counted as a calorie, because you cannot burn (oxidize) it. But your body does burn fuel, so saying the body burns fat is accurate, and its not a stretch to call the body a furnace (a device which oxides a fuel that usually produces heat as waste).
Even before it gets to the cell's power production, it has to be digested, absorbed and transported there. At each transition there is the potential for inefficiencies ( and I'm referring to efficiency e = amount_of_energy_released_from_food/amount_of_energy_measured_by_calorie_count not energy lost due to heat.)
No one disputes it takes energy to digest either; even an iron melting furnace requires energy to start it and keep it going.
At any rate, a calorie is a measure of energy as I said, and you can convert calories to joules if you like. Its not measuring the heat given off by the body; its a measure of the amount of energy required to heat 1 CC of water 1 degree (IIRC).
Yes; I'm down to the last few extra places where fat is hiding. I'm not sure if my trainer came up with these numbers knowing losing the last bit of fat is one of my goals, or if its a standard thing.
I have been warned that I had too few calories a few days (1160, 1240), but I just started this part of the program so I'm still adjusting my diet. I think I can do chicken + another meat (buffalo or turkey) for lunch / dinner, and then my standard breakfast of shredded wheat with oatmeal between meals.
Yes, that's exactly it.
No, its considered polite, but nothing more.
Well, that's the thing. If you added exercise, you could have lost 2-4 lbs a week. 12 pounds a month is pretty damn good. I've lost 63 pounds since April... but I've taken to lifting weights so I'm at the gym six out of seven days.
I think the only constant I have heard is that exercise is good for you and that eating things in moderation is probably a good thing.
I personally vouch that this is what works. I feel better, physically and mentally, and I've lost 60lbs to date.
I agree completely. Its also true that the whole idea of a calorie is crazy to me. They measure the heat given off of the food as its burned. My body is not a furnace.
;-)
Yes it is. Burning is oxidation; to get the energy you need to move or think, you oxidate amino acids and other things. Some of that reaction is inefficent, which is why your body is warm. A calorie is a measure of energy; 1 calorie ~= 4 joules.
I think I owe my sleek physique to my body's inefficient usage of the energy stored in food.
On average, your muscles are about 10% efficent. You may be less efficent than that.
But, yeah eat less, exercise more = weight loss. I experiences that unwittingly in my time as an overseas volunteer.
Hopefully your weight loss wasn't due to malnutrition.
What you say is true, but you're not burning as many calories as you think. You can burn 400 - 700 calories doing 30 minutes on the treadmill in your target heart rate. You're not going to burn anything like that thinking or twitching. I twitch and think alot, and I still got fat :-)
Perhaps protein doesn't contribute as much to you gaining weight as carbohydrates.
It doesn't contribute at all; your body can break down and use protien, but it cannot store it.
However, protein contains amino acid groups which break down into ammonia and have to be removed by your kidneys. Eating too much protein leads to kidney damage.
This is true; the rule I've heard from a nutritionist is keep it below 1g per pound of body weight.
Let's assume the good doctor is right that eating fewer carbohydrates is primary.
The doctor is wrong. There are many studies proving you NEED carbs to live. Cutting them out will impair your brains ability to function. You also need them for quick energy and good digestion (fiber is a carb). What you don't need is lots of sugar, which I've found to be almost everywhere, even in milk. One bagel is equivolent of eating one cup of sugar.
Well, if you eat fewer calories overall, you'll probably consume fewer carbohydrates, too--especially if you maintain a healthy diet while doing so.
No, you can get the same calories from fat. Ground beef is high in fat and calories, while containing no carbs.
No, you can't. You still can't have a high fat intake, because any fat not burned will be stored. Likewise with sugar and other carbs, although sugar specifically moreso.
I'm on a weight lifting program now, and I'm looking at food more than I ever have before (even on the fat burn program I was on previously). Look at a serving size of everything you're eating, and figure out how much you're taking in. First, you may be suprised you're having 3+ servings. Second, you'd be suprised how much sugar is in everything.
Hell, even 1 cup of skim milk has 12g of sugar! I'm suposed to keep my fat and sugar below 20g, and carbs and protien under 180 (my body weight). Its quite challenging.
Are you drunk or just very, very young? No one, and I mean no one, is discussing anything having to do with 'rights' here. The rating system has zero impact on the 'right' to do anything. It isn't even a First Amendment issue, as these companies could simply opt out of using this rating system and release their product anyway. If we were debating some kind of a ban or something, you'd have a point. But we're not, and in the context of the topic, you really don't
Perhaps you need to read up the thread a bit more; the OP was talking about not letting
someone play a game based on age. He said "not mature enough" and then went to say we should reclassify "adulthood" age, so that minors can be kept from harming themselves.
In that light, I hesitate to follow you down this path, but it could be pointed out that no child IN ANY CULTURE has complete freedom. Arguing in favor of allowing 'anyone of any age' to do whatever they want is lunacy. It is so far removed from my own world-view that I don't feel I can benefit you in any way by sharing my point of view. My train of thought is firmly grounded in the concept of limits for children. The younger, the stricter the controls. You should introduce them to responsibility slowly, guiding them each step of the way. Total freedom is never, ever an option for a child. That is strictly adult territory, and even then if a child of mine wants my input, I'd expect them to at least weigh my opinion.
I never said either that we should let children have complete freedom; on the other hand, I don't think we should be pushing "childhood" out beyond its traditional meaning. That is what I am arguing against (although I think we should be pushing the other direction). That's beside the point though, because as I said the OP was advocating re-defining adulthood to pervent people from doing some action.
Whether or not Manhunt 2 receives an 'AO' rating from the ESRB is a 'nanny state' issue? Are you sure?
When an AO rating would effectively ban the game, and when we have Senators trying to push the rating back to AO, yes, that's a nanny state issue. The government should have zero say in content created by one party and consumed by another. This is an issue for parents. Lets be real here, I grew up when video games first came under fire. We only have the ESRB as a result of government threatening to censor, much like it did with movies and music. So to me, yes, it is a rights issue.
I'd reserve that argument for things like warrant-less wiretapping, email snooping, purchase tracking, and the like. Again, this isn't a story about the Feds running a background check on everyone who purchases a copy of this game. Not by a long shot. Save that argument for THAT day, because it is likely coming, and in the meantime you're wearing it out...
That's far beyond a nanny state; that's a fascist state. Those are different rights being infringed, but it doesn't mean that censorship is less important because these other issues exist. Logical arguments don't "wear out" as you say though. They aren't any less valid simply because people close their ears or minds because they've heard them alot.
I think somewhere along the line you mistook civil liberties for age-equality. There is nothing, whatsoever, in our body of law that suggests that all age groups should be treated equally. There are VOLUMES of law to the contrary. Even the very Constitution itself has age-based distinctions. Go back and read it again...
Yes, that wasn't my point when discussing age. The OP wanted to push "adulthood" back because he didn't think 18 was approprate to do anything. Even our founders said 18 was old enough, and if you read their writings, you can see coming up with that age was not something they did lightly.
Not that any of that matters, in the least, because again, we're NOT TALKING ABOUT A BAN.
Questioning the ESRB