Um, and aside from Wii sports (which gets boring) and Zelda (which ends), there's really nothing worth playing atm on the Wii imo. The XBox 360 has an excellent game library, with solid titles that are pretty *and* fun. If you want to rate systems regardless of graphics in terms of a fun game library, the XBox 360 certainly takes that crown from this generation, and while that is opinion, rating on metacritic will certainly bear it out.
Yeah, I like Nintendo too, but c'mon. That's totally misrepresenting the reality of the market.
That's good news if they fixed it, but there's still the issues of A) diminished lumen output on startup (making the light always too dim if it's not on for long... I once had CFLs in 100% of the sockets of my house... very annoying) and B) heat output in incandescent sockets-- because there is little radiant heat emitted (IR), you can see heat damage to a 60w enclosed incandescent socket with a 20w CFL. This heat also damages the CFL and accelerates failure.
Finally, there are cold temperature issues if you live in such an environment, but this is California so it's less of an issue.
Basically, if the light is on for less than 3 minutes, it will be better and more efficiently served by an incandescent. Fluorescents have horrible turn-on efficiency, and each time they are turned on burns away some of the phosphor coating. If it's something like a hall light, where you turn it on for 2 minutes while vacuuming once a week and turn it off, the incandescent will put out more lumens with less power usage. Same thing is true with fridge lights, etc. Fluorescents MUST have a certain minimum operating time to see benefits.
This is why letting politicians invent science isn't a good thing.
I'm not sure this is a good thing. According to Bowlby and Ainsworth's attachment theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachment_theory), excessive intrusive parenting will actually make the child withdrawn and non-responsive. To be sure, protecting children online is important, but there's a point where it can actually harm them, by undermining the "secure base" of the right amount of nurturing and attention in a parent-child relationship. Some data suggested the total amount of time this happens in the case of secure attachment was approximately 30%; if the needed psychological "apart" time began to disappear with tools like this, it may instead result in a shift towards a less secure attachment that also carries over to anxious or avoidant social problems in adulthood.
No kidding. All cows are already created "prion free" naturally... it is our feeding them unnatural shit they should never eat that's the problem. You don't need to have a pharma company engineer a fucking cow to fix that problem. I like my steak as much as the next guy, but it's pretty messed up what we do to farm animals.
Naw, you're right. The season started off strongly and the last episode was ok, but the eps in between were crap. It was like "Black Market" from season 2. Total crap. Anything showing the cylons inside their basestars shows too much, they did indeed kill Baltar's character, the ep that was a 1 hour excuse to kill off Kat was pathetic, the Apollo/Starbuck romance? Please. Oh, and then there was ep with the old pilot or something. Zzzz. Boxing? Fucking boxing? Apparently RDM is off working on the spinoff now, and they have new writers working on things.
Well, it shows. Eps like the return to Caprica arc, the Pegasus arc, New Caprica, etc are what made the show great... and instead of continuing what was great, they took the weakest elements and used them over and over. It's going downhill fast, in an X-Files kind of way, and the writing is killing it without RDM.
It's a damned tragedy it seems headed the way of Stargate SG-1 with no renewal, but if they cannot maintain the quality of BSG in the past, maybe that's for the best. Most of this season has been all but unwatchable.
If the parasite works by increasing dopamine levels in the brain, that would most certainly not decrease attention span or reaction time, it would in fact improve them, as can be seen when you take any dopaminergic drug. Higher dopamine doesn't hinder academic achievement, nor will it lower your IQ. That is ridiculous-- most of the mental benefits from cardiovascular exercise come from increased DA levels. Further, the effects of dopamine are not so sexually dimorphic in humans, the only real difference is that estrogen increases DA sensitivity. The archetypal drugs for increasing DA levels? Ritalin and Adderall.
These are low quality studies and an abomination of science to conclude that correlation = causation. Nothing is further from the truth! The main way toxoplasma is spread in humans is in eating undercooked meat. Considering the actual effects of dopamine on the brain, doesn't it seem more likely that perhaps a low IQ, low educational achievement, and risk taking/promiscuous behavior predispose one to eat or undercook meat? But even that is untested.
Actually if you look on PubMed you'll find a number of experiments that do demonstrate quantum aspects to microtubules and the brain; no, it doesn't prove consciousness is causal from them, but there's something to this; I think at the very least it partly explains memory in the brain. And regarding Libet, well, I'm not sure the arising of the urge to mash a button is really indicative of anything on a grander scale.
Introspection is consciousness. And someone who is conscious of thoughts, urges, as they arise will note they arise for a reason, and that something caused them. So what then is will? Will is acting upon a choice. But who chooses the choices we are presented with, the "good/bad" judgments made about them, the evaluation of the course of action? Who chooses the physical limitations upon actually carrying them out? Who chooses the train of thought and experience even leading up to that choice? Can such a thing really be called a choice at all? Who chooses to have a choice? Certainly things beyond our "will", our control.
And what then is freedom? Freedom from what, for who? There was never any "freedom" in this path to begin with, rather, only bondage to things arising from causes. Freedom can't even truly be used to describe a "go/no go" decision, the meeting of the frontal lobe and limbic system. So what then is freedom? Freedom is in being uncaused, beyond causality, which neither thought nor emotion is. Yet, consciousness remains above both, above causes, conscious not only of the body, but of the mind, and of itself. So truly, who are "you" to have free will at all? Wandering thoughts arising from external events and the structure of the brain? Or consciousness of that happening?
If so, then as Ram Dass said, we don't have free will-- we are free will. Why then, do people consider things they have never controlled, and say "this is me, I am this"?
And that's great, except the chandelier-style compact fluorescents are dim and generally useless. Seriously... been there, wasted money on that. Fluorescents aren't the answer to everything, such as smaller bulbs or cases when the light gets used for less than 3 minutes at a time. Full-sized CFLs are ok now for continuous-on lights, but the mini ones are less than impressive. You'd have to replace the entire fixture or use an alternate light to really make fluorescents an option for this writer. Finally, suggesting someone "dismiss their dryer" is a bit pointless, and the world will be destroyed with or without humans. Everything dies. Nothing stays. Entropy always wins. The planet, the sun, photons themselves... all doomed to oblivion. You can't save anything, or even really destroy anything for that matter. Have a well-illuminated day.
I managed to (luckily?) win the Amazon.com promotion for a $90 Zune, and couldn't pass one up at that price.
The hardware of the unit is ok, but the sound quality is pretty sad. It's worse than my Dell DJ gen 1, which is based off the Creative Zen line. There's no customizable EQ. The interface is decent, but they really dropped the ball with the SQ. How do you mess that up? I'm no audiophile and my best canalphones aren't even that expensive relatively, and I can hear the sound difference vs. the Creative Zen hardware in my Dell DJ. Plus, the unit is a little fat relative to an iPod, and only 30GB of capacity. I dunno about you guys, but I have more than 30GB of music. The lack of an in-line optional remote is also annoying. The RDS feature for FM was interesting, but it seems to take a while to populate the text and it often gets corrupted. I don't know if this is an RDS issue or a problem with the Zune implementation. The Wifi, is of course a DRM'd useless joke that just makes the player weigh more. Bluetooth stereo headphone support would've been far more useful.
The software on the PC is the real killer. It's not iTunes. In fact, it sucks. It crashes quite often, has poor format support, is slow (seriously, just scrolling through music chugs). I don't like iTunes much, in fact I'm a folder/WinAmp man, but iTunes is pretty good compared to the suck that is the Zune software. The features to get missing song tag info also don't work very well. Seriously, if a file is named "Artist - Song.mp3" it doesn't take Hal 9000 to deduce that might be a good place to start looking for MP3 tag information. Speaking of which, the lack of support for a folder-based navigation system bothers me in general. That aside, the software is a bloated, slow, buggy mess.
Is it worth $90? Maybe. Is it worth $250? Not even close. The software sucks, the player's a fatty with mediocre sound quality, and even if the iPod did not exist I'd rather have a Creative or Samsung player. Bad design, and bad implementation. It's aggravating and annoying to use, and doesn't play the formats I use. Rio once had a player called "Karma". I think that's a more fitting title than "Zune" for what's happening here. Supposedly the odds of getting one on Amazon.com for $90 were 122:1 or something. In my crystal ball I see those odds decreasing in the future, unless Microsoft learns how to write efficient, stable, interoperable code. (hah)
I would recommend purchasing a lamp with a small (5W or so) bulb to simulate the "dusk" lighting prior to darkness (for about an hour), and avoiding doing anything particularly engaging / entertaining during this period so as to not increase cortisol and catecholamine levels. Reading, listening to music (perhaps more Enya than Slayer - Reign of Blood), meditation etc are good to do during this period.
After about a week of such practice myself I noticed around that time, before I even would meditate or try to relax, I would automatically do so-- my hands had pronounced vasodilation, and I felt a feeling of warmth, limb heaviness, and relaxation. Doing nothing doesn't sound terribly appealing, but it has its benefits. I also tend to wake up consistently without an alarm now.
Alternatively, you can truly be in sync with the sun during the winter months and sleep a lot -- but I try to emulate summer lighting year round.
As a follow-up, pretty much anything is entrainable as a rhythm -- especially food/eating. And exercise. Do those things consistently, and you'll have low hunger outside of regular meals (if they're sufficient) and higher energy levels around exercise times. In addition to central circadian rhythms, peripheral systems and tissues also have adaptive oscillations in response to external stimuli. Primitive, yet something that benefits us if we plan around it.
Exactly. Sleep-cheating drugs are nothing new-- look at methamphetamine. It's about 100 years old and is very effective, moreso than modafinil, for treating narcolepsy. People stay up for over two weeks with it (nevermind 48 hours!) but after a point an interesting thing happens where the brain hemispheres start taking turns shutting down and going into REM sleep. To the user, half their brain is dreaming and the other half awake, leading to an odd fused state of hallucinations that cannot be distinguished from reality. It's interesting to note this same behavior happens in some mammal (I don't recall which) that naturally does not sleep.
Beyond the acute effects though most mammals pushed through drugs like meth to avoid sleep simply die in studies after a month. The circadian cycle is needed for proper homeostasis. Sleep deprivation causes symptoms of ADHD (ironically, treated with stimulants), obesity via lower leptin and higher ghrelin levels, and a very nasty cycle of altered immune, inflammatory and glial response.
One other interesting thing to note is that the human circadian cycle specifically tracks dawn and dusk, via the CLOCK genes mPer1 and mPer2 -- mPer1 being dawn and mPer2 being dusk. If there is no gradual "dusk" period before sleep, direct changes in gene expression -- outside of sleep deprivation -- result in a persistently lowered level of tyrosine hydroxylase, interfering with dopamine levels. Dopamine is of course a neurotransmitter associated with motivation, goal seeking behavior, wakefulness, attention, etc. So therefore perish the dusk, perish the dopamine. And yet this commonly happens -- artificial lighting, computer / TV screens, etc right up to the moment of sleep destroy melatonin production and any sort of proper expression of mPer2 activity. Over time this results in low cortisol and catecholamine levels during the day (fatigue), higher levels at night (as the melatonin/hormonal peaks become disturbed), and increased hunger/activity during the missing dusk period, as you in essence train the natural oscillation to favor alertness at that time -- when it cannot be sustained.
Taking stimulants, be they modafinil, the neurotoxic ampakines, or amphetamine, only partially reverses some of these things. They increase neurotransmitter and cortisol levels -- but also do this when their levels should be lower! Chronic levels of cortisol alters body composition to favor muscle catabolism (breakdown), fat retention, annihilation of the thyroid hormone T3 into reverse T3 thus fucking up thermogenesis and the metabolism, and causing atrophy of the hippocampus and disruption of memory. This also results in suppression of the immune system, increased inflammatory response, increased stress/anxiety, etc etc.
Do any of these things sound like "happiness" you would take a pill for? Shut down the computer and TV, and artificial lighting sources at least an hour before bed. Relax, in dim light. Train yourself with a normal schedule in sync with the sun. You'll have greater alertness during the day, lower hunger, higher energy, better memory, and sleep better.
We are a nation of stimulus junkies, always wanting to be entertained by something novel, with no thought for relaxation, rest, or recovery. When our novelty seeking behaviors disrupts our normal diurnal behaviors, the answer isn't to take drugs and start the cycle anew, but to perform these behaviors in moderation and balance.
Try turning off your electronic shit a bit early tonight and relaxing before sleep at a normal, consistent time. In a week, you'll be surprised at the huge difference it makes.
First of all, I never suggested violence, nor did I suggest the latter part of your argument, by suggestion box. I suggested personal will, charity, and determination- which you can find in many studies are quite effective. You need not straw man my argument. It's pretty simple-- take Mexico for an example. It's a shithole so people want to illegally immigrate to the US. We can A) build a fence and spend billions deporting them or B) spend the same amount of money, and save money long term, by helping to make Mexico not, in fact, a shithole. Now despite what you may think about Canada, there's somewhat less of an economic incentive for illegal immigration from them for a reason.
Secondly, the US is not capable of being independent without sacrifices. We do not have the natural resources to sustain our current standard of living. Nor we do have the cheap labor to maintain current pricing models of many goods. We can be independent, but it will massively and fundamentally impact your way of life in a negative fashion. That's why denying the connectedness to the rest of the world makes little sense. Furthermore, they would quick eclipse us in such a situation, for they are no less human than we are.
"Before his confirmation, Cresanti served as Vice President of Public Policy at the Business Software Alliance (BSA). Prior to this, he was Senior Vice President and General Counsel for the Information Technology Association of America (ITAA). Earlier in his career, he served as Staff Director for the Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem. He was also Staff Director for the Subcommittee on Financial Services and Technology for the Senate Banking Committee. Mr. Cresanti received his B.A. degree from Austin College and his Juris Doctor degree from Baylor University."
"The Under Secretary is focused on carrying forward President Bush's vision to grow the economy... the Under Secretary's priorities are to: foster an environment conducive to private sector investment in innovation, by identifying ways to facilitate knowledge exchange between scientists and investors, which will boost our country's economic performance"
He's a republican from big business, charged with carrying forth a republican agenda "conductive to private sector investment". And what is a way in which this is accomplished? Lower labor costs. See, most people on Slashdot see America's IT performance as the number/quality of native workers. Cresanti sees it as how attractive each company's stocks are. And in this case, what's good for the goose is not so good for the gander.
Of course, in all fairness, that is a valid perspective, and isolating our market's cost structure from the rest of the world is not sustainable long-term. Thus, this results in a more short term decrease in the American standard of living, and increase in the third world's standard of living-- which no one here likes. There is of course an alternative; 97% of the wealth in the US is controlled by 3% of the population, or something like that. As Mahatma Gandhi said, "The earth has enough to satisfy every man's need, but not any man's greed."
So the bigger picture here is that we are not an island, and our standard of living is also dependent upon the standard of living of the rest of the world. But the earth is very rich in resources, and there certainly exists enough for all to enjoy a reasonable standard of living. The question then becomes, how do you redistribute the ultra-concentrated wealth in such a manner it is to the benefit of all, without the detriments of communism and forced labor, without killing incentive, risk, and drive that led to its creation? I think the happy medium is displayed in many European countries, with a more reasonable redistribution of wealth that encompasses rewarding the people who create it and taking care of the rest of society. Hell, the wealthy should be wealthy. Just perhaps to not such a large degree. How many gold shark minibars does one truly need for their 4th vacation mansion?
The core attitude that is an immediate reaction to stories like this though creates the problem. We immediately think of us, our lifestyle, etc. But we fail to acknowledge the connectedness to others; by hoarding ourselves, either individually or as a nation, we let our neighbors fall into poverty, which comes full circle when they labor for much cheaper wages and are no less human or capable. So I think the true solution is to raise the standard of living in countries we so fear for taking our jobs, for a reasonable redistribution of some of the wealth in the hands of so few, with the intent of providing a livable baseline for all and still room and reason for success and risk taking. And that is very much within our power-- our nation already has the wealth, as evidenced by massive spending in Iraq, and the concentrated wealth at the hands of so few in the population. We simply lack the will to use it to help ourselves and our neighbors. And every time the response is one of selfishness instead of compassion, at any level of society, even for us... the problem perpetuates itself. For if the vast majority of society is committed to any particular economic policy, chances
Quite probably, yes. Adipose cells make an enzyme called aromatase, which converts testosterone into estrogen for the fat cell's use. (estrogen actually makes fat more metabolically active, so it's not really a bad thing per se) This, however, has the effect of lowering free testosterone in the body as a whole. If you lose fat, your testosterone levels WILL increase.
However, keep in mind humans are the only animal species that actually get overall, most of their testosterone from DHEA rather than free testosterone in the blood. In addition to stimulating androgen receptors directly, DHEA is also metabolized by local tissues into testosterone (and estrogen) as needed. So free testosterone is one part of the picture. Androgen receptor sensitivity and density also matter, but I'm uncertain as to what factors dynamically affect those in adults.
This drink has 0 calories, and provides modest thermogenesis (and perhaps other effects not immediately measurable) of 33 calories per drink in the Coke funded study. Other studies have shown about a 10% increase in metabolism for moderate consumption of "real" green tea.
It well fits within thermodynamics. Caffeine causes lipolysis of adipose tissue, and increased cAMP levels within cells via adenosine antagonism and phosphordiatese inhibition. EGCG, among other things, is also a COMT inhibitor, preventing the breakdown of epinephrine and norepinephrine to a limited extent. Epi and NE act on alpha and beta adrenergic receptors in a synergistic fashion with the effects of caffeine to increase the rate at which mitochondria use energy. This is shown in CO2 breath analysis and temperature measurements, as well as long term studies of weight loss. So yes, quite literally, the person runs a little hotter.
And you can expect to consume more calories than you burn and not gain weight, to a certain extent. Carbohydrates are absorbed with less than 50% efficiency, and the body is very reluctant to metabolize protein at all. And here is where another property of EGCG comes in-- it interferes with an enzyme involved in carbohydrate digestion, and further lowers the efficiency of which you metabolize carbohydrates. To a significant degree? No, not really, but it's a few less calories.
The human body is a very complex, dynamic system. Only at the mitochondrial level does thermodynamics make sense. Psychological eating factors, nutrient partitioning, storage, excretion, and absorption all play major roles.
Again, this drink does in fact burn calories. Hell, ice water burns calories. In neither case though, is it a significant amount of calories.
Still, there's a good reason to believe that Coke's new Enviga drink, advertised as "The Calorie Burner," is a total scam, and Mouseprint has finely combed the small print to showcase the absurdity.
For one thing, the study that 'proved' that Enviga burned calories was only 32 people of normal weight. No one actually burned any fat, even when they were on placebos, but heck... "energy expenditure" was higher for Enviga drinkers. Whatever the hell that means.
Yes, I wonder what "energy expenditure" in humans could possibly have to do with calories...
Look, it's no marketing lie. EGCG/caffeine is the cornerstone of green tea's thermogenic effect, and alters many slight parameters to increase fat loss over time, and many studies have proven this. Search for green tea and obesity in PubMed. The data's all there.
This may have the "sounds too good to be true" feeling, but here's the thing: the effect is very slight. It was slight in green tea, and it's even more slight in this.
No drug, with the possible exception of large amounts of DNP, is going to "treat obesity". But choosing functional foods is very important. Most all natural foods (fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, etc) are more satiating than processed food, and all have these slight indirect effects in improving health, fighting cancer, and fighting obesity.
This product indeed burns calories, and this shouldn't be surprising, because what Coke did here is basically steal the most active ingredients from green tea, which most certainly do burn calories. Personally, I'd recommend you just drink green tea instead. It's more powerful, healthier, and cheaper. In fact, I'd recommend you eat more functional, natural, healthy food in general. You'll get these slightly beneficial effects from many sources then.
Yes. Methamphetamine can increase the metabolism by about 10% in a sane dose, but the main reason it's still allowed as a treatment for obesity (as the schedule II drug Desoxyn) is the appetite suppression, which only lasts for about a month. I take Adderall for ADHD which is somewhat similar, and it's no miracle weight loss drug. And then you start running into the effects of stimulants on sleep... which is to say, they disrupt it, and disrupted sleep isn't very conductive to weight loss.
Caffeine increases the metabolism slightly as well. Really, anything with 0 calories is "negative calories" in a sense, because it takes energy to digest it.
It's not really "bogus", it's just that the true effect of some caffeine, EGCG and calcium isn't very significant in weight loss. If they used a lot of EGCG, it might be 5-10% faster on a good day. But I doubt they're going to dump 500mg of EGCG in there. -5 calories or whatever isn't that meaningful.
If you want functional food that helps fight obesity, eat more natural stuff. Fruits, vegetables, and the green tea EGCG comes from, whole grains, even nuts in moderation all have documented effects in fighting obesity which you can look up on PubMed, with polyphenols and enzymes from foods directly acting in your body and altering gene expression. They also tend to be higher satiety per calorie than most processed foods.
If you're going to debunk someone on medical grounds, can't you at least search PubMed first?
There have been many, many studies about green tea (which contains a lot of EGCG) and obesity. This data is years old too... EGCG being useful in obesity isn't even news. Magic? Not hardly. Yes, 2,4-DNP is still the king of obesity drugs, but it hasn't been legal since 1930 in humans for a reason.
There are many ways to fight obesity, upregulating the metabolism is one of them. Decreasing the effeciency of processing/storing food, which results in more calories excreted in feces, is another. (think leptin signalling, hypothalamic setpoint, PPARalpha agonists, Xenical/chitosan... oh and EGCG does this with carbs) Changing behavior underlying emotional eating (low serotonin), food compulsions (neuropeptide Y), or lack of energy/desire to exercise is another. (antidepressants, stimulants) Changing hunger/fed signalling by improving leptin sensitivity/transport, insulin sensitivity, etc makes a difference too. (omega-3 fatty acids, oh and EGCG improves insulin sensitivity...)
Not really. Google wound ballistics and see the science for yourself, not to mention 9mm is trivial to stop with soft body armor (IIIA for MP5 barrel length). Pain rarely stops anyone in combat, the only thing that's guaranteed to stop someone is severe blood loss or destruction of the central nervous system. Even after destruction of the heart, a person has about 30 seconds of conscious control of their body, in which they can most certainly kill you. Think pain will stop them? Willpower, adrenaline, drug use, and combat statistics disagree.
Now, that's not to say I want to get shot 9 times, or that more often than not, it wouldn't kill someone. But to imply some sort of reliance on a wound, pain, or psychological trauma effect is a gross mistake, and not at all as realistic as you claim.
... except any good quality study you can easily find on Google has shown that "religious fr^H^H supporters" have by a very large majority supported federal funding of embryonic stem cell research for quite some time.
The problem isn't religious people, Christians, or even Evangelical Christians... no matter how you define the demographic, studies show they support it. So then, who is truly in opposition to it, and why? May it involve factors other than religion, ie: political infighting over the distribution of research money to certain organizations that don't do this research? Just a thought.
You mean "threat to a particular interpretation of one religion". That may indeed be a wrong view, but science is no threat to faith. The Qur'an has passages affirming evolution from the sea and abiogenesis, and how many Buddhists do you see protesting Darwin?
As Niels Bohr said, "Einstein, stop telling God what to do with his dice." They view it as a threat because of how they define God. And you believe them, and apply this to all. Is this not faith? And why should you take their word for God, religion, and faith? Do you assume they are all guided upon the same path, and they represent all?
"I believe that Gandhi's views were the most enlightened of all the political men in our time. We should strive to do things in his spirit: not to use violence in fighting for our cause, but by non-participation in anything you believe is evil." "Generations to come will scarcely believe that such a one as this walked the earth in flesh and blood." -Albert Einstein
Do you truly think the best option is further conflict? Getting legal authorities involved? Going to court?
Why don't you try talking to the guy-- listen to him-- this simple act will make him more comfortable with you. Apologize to him. Buy him a gift. Show kindness.
Which is of more value to you-- an empty, hollow sense of victory that will bring you no satisfaction, even if it does occur, or peace?
"Whenever you are confronted with an opponent, conquer him with love." -Mahatma Gandhi
"Suppose someone, to annoy, Provokes you to do some evil act. Why allow anger to arise and thus Do exactly as he wants you to do? If you get angry Then maybe he will suffer, maybe not. But by feeling anger yourself You certainly do suffer." "For in this world, Hatred is never appeased by more hatred; It is love that conquers hatred. This is an eternal law." -The Buddha
My Honda CR-V SUV gets excellent fuel economy, surpassing not only all trucks, but most SUVs and many sedans. And this is due to the design, not even using a diesel engine or hybrid drive. Why would I buy a sedan that gets *marginally* better fuel economy using the same technology (as the CR-V will go hybrid eventually), and lose versatility and safety? There are times when money isnt everything. Is repeating the party line as you have done really the pinnacle of objective thought?
Further, we can simply use breeder reactors producing hydrogen and get cheap, clean power for nearly eternity. 98% of "nuclear waste" is recyclable. (store it in Yucca mountain? What a waste!) Conserve energy? Perhaps. But energy isnt really a limited thing with nuclear power. So the whole "energy crisis" and the huge impact of energy costs on the lower and middle class is more or less an artificial creation of restrictions on safe, clean, recyclable nuclear energy. Not only can nuclear energy meet our primary energy needs for more or less ever, but it can also replace all gasoline for automotive use with clean hydrogen fuel (hydrogen is a battery, more or less-- not a power source per se).
SUVs? Gas prices? Ah, but the bigger picture is not so grim.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, and aside from Wii sports (which gets boring) and Zelda (which ends), there's really nothing worth playing atm on the Wii imo. The XBox 360 has an excellent game library, with solid titles that are pretty *and* fun. If you want to rate systems regardless of graphics in terms of a fun game library, the XBox 360 certainly takes that crown from this generation, and while that is opinion, rating on metacritic will certainly bear it out.
Yeah, I like Nintendo too, but c'mon. That's totally misrepresenting the reality of the market.
That's good news if they fixed it, but there's still the issues of A) diminished lumen output on startup (making the light always too dim if it's not on for long... I once had CFLs in 100% of the sockets of my house... very annoying) and B) heat output in incandescent sockets-- because there is little radiant heat emitted (IR), you can see heat damage to a 60w enclosed incandescent socket with a 20w CFL. This heat also damages the CFL and accelerates failure.
Finally, there are cold temperature issues if you live in such an environment, but this is California so it's less of an issue.
This is why letting politicians invent science isn't a good thing.
I'm not sure this is a good thing. According to Bowlby and Ainsworth's attachment theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachment_theory), excessive intrusive parenting will actually make the child withdrawn and non-responsive. To be sure, protecting children online is important, but there's a point where it can actually harm them, by undermining the "secure base" of the right amount of nurturing and attention in a parent-child relationship. Some data suggested the total amount of time this happens in the case of secure attachment was approximately 30%; if the needed psychological "apart" time began to disappear with tools like this, it may instead result in a shift towards a less secure attachment that also carries over to anxious or avoidant social problems in adulthood.
No kidding. All cows are already created "prion free" naturally... it is our feeding them unnatural shit they should never eat that's the problem. You don't need to have a pharma company engineer a fucking cow to fix that problem. I like my steak as much as the next guy, but it's pretty messed up what we do to farm animals.
Naw, you're right. The season started off strongly and the last episode was ok, but the eps in between were crap. It was like "Black Market" from season 2. Total crap. Anything showing the cylons inside their basestars shows too much, they did indeed kill Baltar's character, the ep that was a 1 hour excuse to kill off Kat was pathetic, the Apollo/Starbuck romance? Please. Oh, and then there was ep with the old pilot or something. Zzzz. Boxing? Fucking boxing? Apparently RDM is off working on the spinoff now, and they have new writers working on things.
Well, it shows. Eps like the return to Caprica arc, the Pegasus arc, New Caprica, etc are what made the show great... and instead of continuing what was great, they took the weakest elements and used them over and over. It's going downhill fast, in an X-Files kind of way, and the writing is killing it without RDM.
It's a damned tragedy it seems headed the way of Stargate SG-1 with no renewal, but if they cannot maintain the quality of BSG in the past, maybe that's for the best. Most of this season has been all but unwatchable.
If the parasite works by increasing dopamine levels in the brain, that would most certainly not decrease attention span or reaction time, it would in fact improve them, as can be seen when you take any dopaminergic drug. Higher dopamine doesn't hinder academic achievement, nor will it lower your IQ. That is ridiculous-- most of the mental benefits from cardiovascular exercise come from increased DA levels. Further, the effects of dopamine are not so sexually dimorphic in humans, the only real difference is that estrogen increases DA sensitivity. The archetypal drugs for increasing DA levels? Ritalin and Adderall.
These are low quality studies and an abomination of science to conclude that correlation = causation. Nothing is further from the truth! The main way toxoplasma is spread in humans is in eating undercooked meat. Considering the actual effects of dopamine on the brain, doesn't it seem more likely that perhaps a low IQ, low educational achievement, and risk taking/promiscuous behavior predispose one to eat or undercook meat? But even that is untested.
Actually if you look on PubMed you'll find a number of experiments that do demonstrate quantum aspects to microtubules and the brain; no, it doesn't prove consciousness is causal from them, but there's something to this; I think at the very least it partly explains memory in the brain. And regarding Libet, well, I'm not sure the arising of the urge to mash a button is really indicative of anything on a grander scale.
Introspection is consciousness. And someone who is conscious of thoughts, urges, as they arise will note they arise for a reason, and that something caused them. So what then is will? Will is acting upon a choice. But who chooses the choices we are presented with, the "good/bad" judgments made about them, the evaluation of the course of action? Who chooses the physical limitations upon actually carrying them out? Who chooses the train of thought and experience even leading up to that choice? Can such a thing really be called a choice at all? Who chooses to have a choice? Certainly things beyond our "will", our control.
And what then is freedom? Freedom from what, for who? There was never any "freedom" in this path to begin with, rather, only bondage to things arising from causes. Freedom can't even truly be used to describe a "go/no go" decision, the meeting of the frontal lobe and limbic system. So what then is freedom? Freedom is in being uncaused, beyond causality, which neither thought nor emotion is. Yet, consciousness remains above both, above causes, conscious not only of the body, but of the mind, and of itself. So truly, who are "you" to have free will at all? Wandering thoughts arising from external events and the structure of the brain? Or consciousness of that happening?
If so, then as Ram Dass said, we don't have free will-- we are free will. Why then, do people consider things they have never controlled, and say "this is me, I am this"?
And that's great, except the chandelier-style compact fluorescents are dim and generally useless. Seriously... been there, wasted money on that. Fluorescents aren't the answer to everything, such as smaller bulbs or cases when the light gets used for less than 3 minutes at a time. Full-sized CFLs are ok now for continuous-on lights, but the mini ones are less than impressive. You'd have to replace the entire fixture or use an alternate light to really make fluorescents an option for this writer. Finally, suggesting someone "dismiss their dryer" is a bit pointless, and the world will be destroyed with or without humans. Everything dies. Nothing stays. Entropy always wins. The planet, the sun, photons themselves... all doomed to oblivion. You can't save anything, or even really destroy anything for that matter. Have a well-illuminated day.
The hardware of the unit is ok, but the sound quality is pretty sad. It's worse than my Dell DJ gen 1, which is based off the Creative Zen line. There's no customizable EQ. The interface is decent, but they really dropped the ball with the SQ. How do you mess that up? I'm no audiophile and my best canalphones aren't even that expensive relatively, and I can hear the sound difference vs. the Creative Zen hardware in my Dell DJ. Plus, the unit is a little fat relative to an iPod, and only 30GB of capacity. I dunno about you guys, but I have more than 30GB of music. The lack of an in-line optional remote is also annoying. The RDS feature for FM was interesting, but it seems to take a while to populate the text and it often gets corrupted. I don't know if this is an RDS issue or a problem with the Zune implementation. The Wifi, is of course a DRM'd useless joke that just makes the player weigh more. Bluetooth stereo headphone support would've been far more useful.
The software on the PC is the real killer. It's not iTunes. In fact, it sucks. It crashes quite often, has poor format support, is slow (seriously, just scrolling through music chugs). I don't like iTunes much, in fact I'm a folder/WinAmp man, but iTunes is pretty good compared to the suck that is the Zune software. The features to get missing song tag info also don't work very well. Seriously, if a file is named "Artist - Song.mp3" it doesn't take Hal 9000 to deduce that might be a good place to start looking for MP3 tag information. Speaking of which, the lack of support for a folder-based navigation system bothers me in general. That aside, the software is a bloated, slow, buggy mess.
Is it worth $90? Maybe. Is it worth $250? Not even close. The software sucks, the player's a fatty with mediocre sound quality, and even if the iPod did not exist I'd rather have a Creative or Samsung player. Bad design, and bad implementation. It's aggravating and annoying to use, and doesn't play the formats I use. Rio once had a player called "Karma". I think that's a more fitting title than "Zune" for what's happening here. Supposedly the odds of getting one on Amazon.com for $90 were 122:1 or something. In my crystal ball I see those odds decreasing in the future, unless Microsoft learns how to write efficient, stable, interoperable code. (hah)
I would recommend purchasing a lamp with a small (5W or so) bulb to simulate the "dusk" lighting prior to darkness (for about an hour), and avoiding doing anything particularly engaging / entertaining during this period so as to not increase cortisol and catecholamine levels. Reading, listening to music (perhaps more Enya than Slayer - Reign of Blood), meditation etc are good to do during this period.
After about a week of such practice myself I noticed around that time, before I even would meditate or try to relax, I would automatically do so-- my hands had pronounced vasodilation, and I felt a feeling of warmth, limb heaviness, and relaxation. Doing nothing doesn't sound terribly appealing, but it has its benefits. I also tend to wake up consistently without an alarm now.
Alternatively, you can truly be in sync with the sun during the winter months and sleep a lot -- but I try to emulate summer lighting year round.
As a follow-up, pretty much anything is entrainable as a rhythm -- especially food/eating. And exercise. Do those things consistently, and you'll have low hunger outside of regular meals (if they're sufficient) and higher energy levels around exercise times. In addition to central circadian rhythms, peripheral systems and tissues also have adaptive oscillations in response to external stimuli. Primitive, yet something that benefits us if we plan around it.
Exactly. Sleep-cheating drugs are nothing new-- look at methamphetamine. It's about 100 years old and is very effective, moreso than modafinil, for treating narcolepsy. People stay up for over two weeks with it (nevermind 48 hours!) but after a point an interesting thing happens where the brain hemispheres start taking turns shutting down and going into REM sleep. To the user, half their brain is dreaming and the other half awake, leading to an odd fused state of hallucinations that cannot be distinguished from reality. It's interesting to note this same behavior happens in some mammal (I don't recall which) that naturally does not sleep.
Beyond the acute effects though most mammals pushed through drugs like meth to avoid sleep simply die in studies after a month. The circadian cycle is needed for proper homeostasis. Sleep deprivation causes symptoms of ADHD (ironically, treated with stimulants), obesity via lower leptin and higher ghrelin levels, and a very nasty cycle of altered immune, inflammatory and glial response.
One other interesting thing to note is that the human circadian cycle specifically tracks dawn and dusk, via the CLOCK genes mPer1 and mPer2 -- mPer1 being dawn and mPer2 being dusk. If there is no gradual "dusk" period before sleep, direct changes in gene expression -- outside of sleep deprivation -- result in a persistently lowered level of tyrosine hydroxylase, interfering with dopamine levels. Dopamine is of course a neurotransmitter associated with motivation, goal seeking behavior, wakefulness, attention, etc. So therefore perish the dusk, perish the dopamine. And yet this commonly happens -- artificial lighting, computer / TV screens, etc right up to the moment of sleep destroy melatonin production and any sort of proper expression of mPer2 activity. Over time this results in low cortisol and catecholamine levels during the day (fatigue), higher levels at night (as the melatonin/hormonal peaks become disturbed), and increased hunger/activity during the missing dusk period, as you in essence train the natural oscillation to favor alertness at that time -- when it cannot be sustained.
Taking stimulants, be they modafinil, the neurotoxic ampakines, or amphetamine, only partially reverses some of these things. They increase neurotransmitter and cortisol levels -- but also do this when their levels should be lower! Chronic levels of cortisol alters body composition to favor muscle catabolism (breakdown), fat retention, annihilation of the thyroid hormone T3 into reverse T3 thus fucking up thermogenesis and the metabolism, and causing atrophy of the hippocampus and disruption of memory. This also results in suppression of the immune system, increased inflammatory response, increased stress/anxiety, etc etc.
Do any of these things sound like "happiness" you would take a pill for? Shut down the computer and TV, and artificial lighting sources at least an hour before bed. Relax, in dim light. Train yourself with a normal schedule in sync with the sun. You'll have greater alertness during the day, lower hunger, higher energy, better memory, and sleep better.
We are a nation of stimulus junkies, always wanting to be entertained by something novel, with no thought for relaxation, rest, or recovery. When our novelty seeking behaviors disrupts our normal diurnal behaviors, the answer isn't to take drugs and start the cycle anew, but to perform these behaviors in moderation and balance.
Try turning off your electronic shit a bit early tonight and relaxing before sleep at a normal, consistent time. In a week, you'll be surprised at the huge difference it makes.
First of all, I never suggested violence, nor did I suggest the latter part of your argument, by suggestion box. I suggested personal will, charity, and determination- which you can find in many studies are quite effective. You need not straw man my argument. It's pretty simple-- take Mexico for an example. It's a shithole so people want to illegally immigrate to the US. We can A) build a fence and spend billions deporting them or B) spend the same amount of money, and save money long term, by helping to make Mexico not, in fact, a shithole. Now despite what you may think about Canada, there's somewhat less of an economic incentive for illegal immigration from them for a reason.
Secondly, the US is not capable of being independent without sacrifices. We do not have the natural resources to sustain our current standard of living. Nor we do have the cheap labor to maintain current pricing models of many goods. We can be independent, but it will massively and fundamentally impact your way of life in a negative fashion. That's why denying the connectedness to the rest of the world makes little sense. Furthermore, they would quick eclipse us in such a situation, for they are no less human than we are.
"Before his confirmation, Cresanti served as Vice President of Public Policy at the Business Software Alliance (BSA). Prior to this, he was Senior Vice President and General Counsel for the Information Technology Association of America (ITAA). Earlier in his career, he served as Staff Director for the Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem. He was also Staff Director for the Subcommittee on Financial Services and Technology for the Senate Banking Committee. Mr. Cresanti received his B.A. degree from Austin College and his Juris Doctor degree from Baylor University."
"The Under Secretary is focused on carrying forward President Bush's vision to grow the economy... the Under Secretary's priorities are to: foster an environment conducive to private sector investment in innovation, by identifying ways to facilitate knowledge exchange between scientists and investors, which will boost our country's economic performance"
He's a republican from big business, charged with carrying forth a republican agenda "conductive to private sector investment". And what is a way in which this is accomplished? Lower labor costs. See, most people on Slashdot see America's IT performance as the number/quality of native workers. Cresanti sees it as how attractive each company's stocks are. And in this case, what's good for the goose is not so good for the gander.
Of course, in all fairness, that is a valid perspective, and isolating our market's cost structure from the rest of the world is not sustainable long-term. Thus, this results in a more short term decrease in the American standard of living, and increase in the third world's standard of living-- which no one here likes. There is of course an alternative; 97% of the wealth in the US is controlled by 3% of the population, or something like that. As Mahatma Gandhi said, "The earth has enough to satisfy every man's need, but not any man's greed."
So the bigger picture here is that we are not an island, and our standard of living is also dependent upon the standard of living of the rest of the world. But the earth is very rich in resources, and there certainly exists enough for all to enjoy a reasonable standard of living. The question then becomes, how do you redistribute the ultra-concentrated wealth in such a manner it is to the benefit of all, without the detriments of communism and forced labor, without killing incentive, risk, and drive that led to its creation? I think the happy medium is displayed in many European countries, with a more reasonable redistribution of wealth that encompasses rewarding the people who create it and taking care of the rest of society. Hell, the wealthy should be wealthy. Just perhaps to not such a large degree. How many gold shark minibars does one truly need for their 4th vacation mansion?
The core attitude that is an immediate reaction to stories like this though creates the problem. We immediately think of us, our lifestyle, etc. But we fail to acknowledge the connectedness to others; by hoarding ourselves, either individually or as a nation, we let our neighbors fall into poverty, which comes full circle when they labor for much cheaper wages and are no less human or capable. So I think the true solution is to raise the standard of living in countries we so fear for taking our jobs, for a reasonable redistribution of some of the wealth in the hands of so few, with the intent of providing a livable baseline for all and still room and reason for success and risk taking. And that is very much within our power-- our nation already has the wealth, as evidenced by massive spending in Iraq, and the concentrated wealth at the hands of so few in the population. We simply lack the will to use it to help ourselves and our neighbors. And every time the response is one of selfishness instead of compassion, at any level of society, even for us... the problem perpetuates itself. For if the vast majority of society is committed to any particular economic policy, chances
Quite probably, yes. Adipose cells make an enzyme called aromatase, which converts testosterone into estrogen for the fat cell's use. (estrogen actually makes fat more metabolically active, so it's not really a bad thing per se) This, however, has the effect of lowering free testosterone in the body as a whole. If you lose fat, your testosterone levels WILL increase.
However, keep in mind humans are the only animal species that actually get overall, most of their testosterone from DHEA rather than free testosterone in the blood. In addition to stimulating androgen receptors directly, DHEA is also metabolized by local tissues into testosterone (and estrogen) as needed. So free testosterone is one part of the picture. Androgen receptor sensitivity and density also matter, but I'm uncertain as to what factors dynamically affect those in adults.
It well fits within thermodynamics. Caffeine causes lipolysis of adipose tissue, and increased cAMP levels within cells via adenosine antagonism and phosphordiatese inhibition. EGCG, among other things, is also a COMT inhibitor, preventing the breakdown of epinephrine and norepinephrine to a limited extent. Epi and NE act on alpha and beta adrenergic receptors in a synergistic fashion with the effects of caffeine to increase the rate at which mitochondria use energy. This is shown in CO2 breath analysis and temperature measurements, as well as long term studies of weight loss. So yes, quite literally, the person runs a little hotter.
And you can expect to consume more calories than you burn and not gain weight, to a certain extent. Carbohydrates are absorbed with less than 50% efficiency, and the body is very reluctant to metabolize protein at all. And here is where another property of EGCG comes in-- it interferes with an enzyme involved in carbohydrate digestion, and further lowers the efficiency of which you metabolize carbohydrates. To a significant degree? No, not really, but it's a few less calories.
The human body is a very complex, dynamic system. Only at the mitochondrial level does thermodynamics make sense. Psychological eating factors, nutrient partitioning, storage, excretion, and absorption all play major roles.
Again, this drink does in fact burn calories. Hell, ice water burns calories. In neither case though, is it a significant amount of calories.
Still, there's a good reason to believe that Coke's new Enviga drink, advertised as "The Calorie Burner," is a total scam, and Mouseprint has finely combed the small print to showcase the absurdity. For one thing, the study that 'proved' that Enviga burned calories was only 32 people of normal weight. No one actually burned any fat, even when they were on placebos, but heck... "energy expenditure" was higher for Enviga drinkers. Whatever the hell that means. Yes, I wonder what "energy expenditure" in humans could possibly have to do with calories...
Look, it's no marketing lie. EGCG/caffeine is the cornerstone of green tea's thermogenic effect, and alters many slight parameters to increase fat loss over time, and many studies have proven this. Search for green tea and obesity in PubMed. The data's all there.
This may have the "sounds too good to be true" feeling, but here's the thing: the effect is very slight. It was slight in green tea, and it's even more slight in this.
No drug, with the possible exception of large amounts of DNP, is going to "treat obesity". But choosing functional foods is very important. Most all natural foods (fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, etc) are more satiating than processed food, and all have these slight indirect effects in improving health, fighting cancer, and fighting obesity.
This product indeed burns calories, and this shouldn't be surprising, because what Coke did here is basically steal the most active ingredients from green tea, which most certainly do burn calories. Personally, I'd recommend you just drink green tea instead. It's more powerful, healthier, and cheaper. In fact, I'd recommend you eat more functional, natural, healthy food in general. You'll get these slightly beneficial effects from many sources then.
Caffeine increases the metabolism slightly as well. Really, anything with 0 calories is "negative calories" in a sense, because it takes energy to digest it.
It's not really "bogus", it's just that the true effect of some caffeine, EGCG and calcium isn't very significant in weight loss. If they used a lot of EGCG, it might be 5-10% faster on a good day. But I doubt they're going to dump 500mg of EGCG in there. -5 calories or whatever isn't that meaningful.
If you want functional food that helps fight obesity, eat more natural stuff. Fruits, vegetables, and the green tea EGCG comes from, whole grains, even nuts in moderation all have documented effects in fighting obesity which you can look up on PubMed, with polyphenols and enzymes from foods directly acting in your body and altering gene expression. They also tend to be higher satiety per calorie than most processed foods.
There have been many, many studies about green tea (which contains a lot of EGCG) and obesity. This data is years old too... EGCG being useful in obesity isn't even news. Magic? Not hardly. Yes, 2,4-DNP is still the king of obesity drugs, but it hasn't been legal since 1930 in humans for a reason.
There are many ways to fight obesity, upregulating the metabolism is one of them. Decreasing the effeciency of processing/storing food, which results in more calories excreted in feces, is another. (think leptin signalling, hypothalamic setpoint, PPARalpha agonists, Xenical/chitosan... oh and EGCG does this with carbs) Changing behavior underlying emotional eating (low serotonin), food compulsions (neuropeptide Y), or lack of energy/desire to exercise is another. (antidepressants, stimulants) Changing hunger/fed signalling by improving leptin sensitivity/transport, insulin sensitivity, etc makes a difference too. (omega-3 fatty acids, oh and EGCG improves insulin sensitivity...)
EGCG:
1. Inhibits fatty acid synthase
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=164 04708&query_hl=165&itool=pubmed_DocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=166 11078&query_hl=165&itool=pubmed_docsum
2. Upgrades hypothalamic AMPK to suppress adipogenesis and induce apoptosis of adipocytes
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=162 36247&query_hl=165&itool=pubmed_DocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=159 76140&query_hl=165&itool=pubmed_DocSum
3. Increases fat oxidation, metabolism (likely through COMT inhibition and indirect gene expression)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itoo l=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstrac tplus&list_uids=10584049
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itoo l=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstrac tplus&list_uids=10702779
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=157 38931&query_hl=165&itool=pubmed_DocSum
http://ww
Now, that's not to say I want to get shot 9 times, or that more often than not, it wouldn't kill someone. But to imply some sort of reliance on a wound, pain, or psychological trauma effect is a gross mistake, and not at all as realistic as you claim.
If you want a reference to any of this, start here: http://www.firearmstactical.com/hwfe.htm
The problem isn't religious people, Christians, or even Evangelical Christians... no matter how you define the demographic, studies show they support it. So then, who is truly in opposition to it, and why? May it involve factors other than religion, ie: political infighting over the distribution of research money to certain organizations that don't do this research? Just a thought.
As Niels Bohr said, "Einstein, stop telling God what to do with his dice." They view it as a threat because of how they define God. And you believe them, and apply this to all. Is this not faith? And why should you take their word for God, religion, and faith? Do you assume they are all guided upon the same path, and they represent all?
Where is the science in that?
"I believe that Gandhi's views were the most enlightened of all the political men in our time. We should strive to do things in his spirit: not to use violence in fighting for our cause, but by non-participation in anything you believe is evil." "Generations to come will scarcely believe that such a one as this walked the earth in flesh and blood." -Albert Einstein
Why don't you try talking to the guy-- listen to him-- this simple act will make him more comfortable with you. Apologize to him. Buy him a gift. Show kindness.
Which is of more value to you-- an empty, hollow sense of victory that will bring you no satisfaction, even if it does occur, or peace?
"Whenever you are confronted with an opponent, conquer him with love." -Mahatma Gandhi
"Suppose someone, to annoy, Provokes you to do some evil act. Why allow anger to arise and thus Do exactly as he wants you to do? If you get angry Then maybe he will suffer, maybe not. But by feeling anger yourself You certainly do suffer." "For in this world, Hatred is never appeased by more hatred; It is love that conquers hatred. This is an eternal law." -The Buddha
Further, we can simply use breeder reactors producing hydrogen and get cheap, clean power for nearly eternity. 98% of "nuclear waste" is recyclable. (store it in Yucca mountain? What a waste!) Conserve energy? Perhaps. But energy isnt really a limited thing with nuclear power. So the whole "energy crisis" and the huge impact of energy costs on the lower and middle class is more or less an artificial creation of restrictions on safe, clean, recyclable nuclear energy. Not only can nuclear energy meet our primary energy needs for more or less ever, but it can also replace all gasoline for automotive use with clean hydrogen fuel (hydrogen is a battery, more or less-- not a power source per se).
SUVs? Gas prices? Ah, but the bigger picture is not so grim.