Comes down to what makes that mass! Lift weights for 25 years, and you'll be heavy too...:) Add 6cm to my height and I'd be about the size of most defensive linemen in the NFL. 300 pounds - 137kg - isn't unusual at all...
Yeah, well I guess having a 152cm chest and 96cm waist makes me fat? Maybe it's the 48cm neck or biceps? The 90cm thighs? The fact I've been a weightlifter for 25 years? Perhaps the BMI doesn't take into account guys with my build. BP is well within normal limits (117/74 last time it was checked), resting heartrate of 48 BPM, and cholesterol of 177.
BMI means nothing. It means you don't fit some standardized mold. It says nothing about the fitness of you! Using the BMI, most American football players are morbidly obese, yet they are some of the best conditioned athletes out there...
Maybe you should try getting out from behind your keyboard once in a while and actually see real people?
I always figured Russia was in Asia? I mean, at least 10 of its 11 timezones are in Asia. And when I flew over it in February (London to Shanghai) we were over Asia for most of that time. Mainly Russia...
I can't believe someone in Europe would not know where Russia actually existed in terms of continents...
That's nothing... I'm 185 cm tall, weigh in at 137 kg, and my 1963 Mercury Comet has a 254 kW engine!
It's a side-effect of traveling in Europe and Asia for work. You don't have a choice but to be bi-measurement.
And so many people forget just how BIG the US is. You can fly for 6 hours and still be over the same country. Most people in Europe really don't understand the scale of the US...
Having been the Europe many times, I've often been asked by friends and colleagues why we in the US don't have high speed trains everywhere. Well, considering that - if we used the fastest TVGs and ICEs they have in the EU - it would still take about 7 hours to take a train from Seattle (where I live) to San Francisco - the nearest big city (assuming 300 KPH and slowing down for the occasional towns/crossings). Or 30 hours from Seattle to Miami, at the same average speed.
Compare that to under 2 hours for Paris to Brussels. It's just a different scale over here. And that makes telecom also difficult. Distances between big population centers would cover multiple EU countries. It takes a lot of time and a lot of money to pull more fiber from Seattle to Chicago, or Houston to Los Angeles... It's not a small 150-100 kilometer run of fiber; it's literally hundreds - if not thousands - of kilometers to cover.
If I had mod points you'd get them... FINALLY someone thinks about this RATIONALLY. It seems to me we WANT our police to scout, so they can cleanly, efficiently, and safely deal with potential problems before they arise.
I guess if the police plan ahead, here on/. it's considered a breach of the Constitution. Of course, if the police don't plan ahead then they're trashed for not doing their job...
If I can get one of those 30 year, first 5 years interest-only subprime mortgages here? Maybe this is the way to "save" the sub-primes - virtual property! After all, it seems that "virtual" clients didn't work to well...
because a bunch of silicone was cheaper than the stuff needed
See, that's what they WANT you to think. But the bunches of silicone get them noticed, and pretty soon, there's a $25,000 court case, and they're gone along with half your salary for the next umpteen years...
As someone who works with equipment run by compressed air (pneumatic glue guns, running on "only" 100 PSI), I can assure you that dirty air will destroy your pressure seals quicker than you ever thought possible. The higher the pressure, the CLEANER the air required, or impurities will simply destroy your equipment.
Assume an average speed of 20 kph - that translates to ~5.6 meters per second. Pretty slow, overall. But we'll say it's a commuter vehicle in rush hour!
Now assume the vehicle weighs in at 500 kg, loaded (it'll be light!), and that it will run for 250 km (right in the middle of the range provided).
It takes about 9.8 Watts to move one kilogram one meter in one second.
So, we have 9.8 Watts per kg-m/s times 500 kg * 5.6 m/s = 27.4 kW.
Now, we have a range of 250 km, right? So at 20 kph, that is 12.5 hours:
27.4 kW * 12.5 hours = 343 kW-h.
Assuming a cost of USD$3 to run it, that would translate to around (300 cents/343 kW-h) 0.87 pennies per kW-h. Or $0.0087 per kW-h.
Here in the Pacific Northwest, we have pretty cheap electricity, thanks to all the abundant hydro we have. And we pay around 6.5 cents per kW-h. SO that would be around 7.5 times as expensive as the article's rate...
I'd expect to see refill costs in the $30 per tank range, not $3. Meaning you're paying around $1 per 10 km of range, or $3 per 30 km of range. Like a typical large vehicle if powered by gas (assuming gas at $3 per gallon, and you get 20 MPG).
And note that the small Aero, or Prius - vehicles that get 45 MPG in the same type of low speed operation - would have even more distance per dollar...
I'd like to see the original authors justify how they came up with $3 for running the car. Even assuming 50% energy recapture (which is HUGE), you'd still be around $15 per tank...
Apparently someone doesn't get the irony in the original post?
An article is posted about how the general public is getting shell-shocked from all the hyperbole and "OMFG WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE TOMORROW IN MASSIVE FLOODING/HEATING/STARVATION!" that most of the AGW supporters shout from the rooftops.
Someone jumps in to say it's all wrong that there have been HUGE ATMOSPHERIC CHANGES! to counter.
Of course, when one LOOKS at the actual data, the changes aren't even remotely close to huge...
I find irony usually lost on the fundamentalists... Now on to the logical fallacy of the strawman you put up:
Are you that stupid? How much is your income compared to the GDP of the united states? If it doubled, would you notice or not?
Personally? Heck yes, I'd notice! I'd love it! Of course, would the GDP of the US actually notice? Not a chance. See, doubling from 0.018% to 0.036% may be significant if you're that 0.018%; but when we're talking about the other 99.982%, it's really not that much at all.
Or to put it correctly (to fix your analogy) - assume you pay $0.18 of every $10,000 in taxes. You take home $100,000 per year, paying $1.80 in taxes. Would you really notice if your taxes doubled, to $3.60? I rather doubt it!
Kind of like the atmosphere doesn't experience HUGE CHANGES in that tiny change... Which the start of this thread addressed. Doubling MY income would be great for me, but it would be unnoticed in the GDP of the US. Which is really the correct analogy, not the strawman you constructed.
Well, I still see a lot of people - and other living things - still living, so we're not at a lethal dose. Knowing that CO2 follows temperature increases (not the other way around), perhaps we're seeing the CO2 increase from the medieval warm period? In other words, we've already experienced the big jump in temperature that is forcing this level of CO2?
Nevertheless, the current double level doesn't seem to be lethal, and there's records showing much higher levels of CO2 in the past, and given the fact that you need 150,000 ppm - yes, 150 thousand parts per million to be lethal, I think we're safely away from that level as well...
There have been huge atmospheric composition changes in the past 40 years, in particular, with the measured amount of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide increasing dramatically.
Ummm, yeah... Assuming the WORST case estimates over the last 40 years that CO2, methane, and NOx have doubled it still accounts for less than 0.036% of the Earth's atmosphere. Which means it went from 0.018% to 0.036%. Equivalent to a $0.18 change in a $1,000 bill.
[The] sun is currently at its lowest output of total solar irradience in its 11 year cycle- and coincidentally the lowest in 30+ years despite a theoretical long term trend towards higher average solar output.
On May 18th, 1980 we had a rather sudden mountain top removal here in Washington when Mt. St. Helens blew. The area beyond the immediate blast zone has actually come back rather nicely, but up close it's still a wasteland... 600 MPH pyroclastic floes tend to wipe everything away...
Pinochet was such a nice guy he was simply invited to rule?
I'd agree with most of your comments except for Chile. Pinochet actually WAS asked to stage the coup, and VOLUNTARILY stepped down when no longer needed. I know it's not a popular position, but if you talk with many Chileans in Chile (and for the record, I actually ran a company and lived in Chile for a few years) and look at the historical record, you'll find this is the truth. If only the news would carry it.
I'd ask that you read Robert Moss' excellent book "Chile's Marxist Experiment" for some additional information:
"(i) the objective evidence that the Allende government had plunged Chile into the worst social and economic crisis in its modern history characterised by a Weimar rate of inflation; (ii) the conviction that the Marxist parties were aiming for nothing less than the seizure of absolute power; (iii) the existence of a clear popular mandate for military intervention, demonstrated by the declarations of the Supreme Court, Congress and opposition and trade union leaders; (iv) the discovery of the efforts of the extreme left to incite rebellion within the armed forces themselves. "
NOTE: The Chilean Congress and Supreme Court ruled "the government is not merely responsible for isolated violations of the law and the constitution; it has made them into a permanent system of conduct." and actually called for a military-based coup. Pinochet was, in fact, invited to rule against a corrupt and unresponsive executive. And then voluntarily stepped down when asked to do so.
My own experience was that nearly all Chileans basically summed up Pinochet as follows: He'll answer to God for his crimes, but he was good for Chile.
No more so than seeing the success of any American business. Vice President Cheney does not currently hold any shares of Halliburton.
On the other hand, Mr. George Soros - principal financier behind MoveOn.org, friend and financier of Bill and Hillary Clinton, and a major backer of John Kerry - IS a major shareholder of Halliburton, with a roughly $62 MILLION dollar stake in the company. Even Michael Moore owned 2,000 shares of Halliburton when his Farenheit 9/11 movie came out. That's 2,000 more shares than Vice President Cheney owned, even though Mr. Moore's movie slammed the Vice President for his "ties" to the company...
In Washington politics, it's nearly ALWAYS true that those who scream the loudest about some "wrong" usually are guilty of it themself...
Can you name one climatologist who disagrees with that statement? If they're not in almost complete agreement, that should be an easy request. Just name one, and provide an article they've written which backs up your assertion.
There are literally hundreds if not thousands of scientists who are still skeptical of man's influence as the predominant cause of climate change. Most don't discount we may be having an impact but are skeptical of the amount of our effect.
I guess I just have a different perspective, then... I looked up Washington (the state I live in), and there are 10 cases going back to 1988. That's 1 every two years. Considering the hundreds of thousands of police activities (millions?) over those 19 years, I think my point is very strongly reinforced by your map.
Contrary to the typical anti-establishment bent found here on/. I think this map confirms that the police are extremely careful and restrained.
You yourself said a cop pulled you over for being drunk when you were stone cold sober. Stop being a tool.
I was pulled over on suspicion of drunk driving because MY LIGHTS WEREN'T ON! Was that a violation of my rights? No! Did he hassle me, run me to the tank? No. I was courteous, got out of my car, took one part of a field sobriety test, told to turn my lights on and that was that.
Now, if I showed the attitude you do, I'd probably had the whole 9 yards shot at me. See, it's called attitude...
Slashdot Mirror
Comes down to what makes that mass! Lift weights for 25 years, and you'll be heavy too...:) Add 6cm to my height and I'd be about the size of most defensive linemen in the NFL. 300 pounds - 137kg - isn't unusual at all...
BMI means nothing. It means you don't fit some standardized mold. It says nothing about the fitness of you! Using the BMI, most American football players are morbidly obese, yet they are some of the best conditioned athletes out there...
Maybe you should try getting out from behind your keyboard once in a while and actually see real people?
I always figured Russia was in Asia? I mean, at least 10 of its 11 timezones are in Asia. And when I flew over it in February (London to Shanghai) we were over Asia for most of that time. Mainly Russia... I can't believe someone in Europe would not know where Russia actually existed in terms of continents...
That's nothing... I'm 185 cm tall, weigh in at 137 kg, and my 1963 Mercury Comet has a 254 kW engine! It's a side-effect of traveling in Europe and Asia for work. You don't have a choice but to be bi-measurement.
Having been the Europe many times, I've often been asked by friends and colleagues why we in the US don't have high speed trains everywhere. Well, considering that - if we used the fastest TVGs and ICEs they have in the EU - it would still take about 7 hours to take a train from Seattle (where I live) to San Francisco - the nearest big city (assuming 300 KPH and slowing down for the occasional towns/crossings). Or 30 hours from Seattle to Miami, at the same average speed.
Compare that to under 2 hours for Paris to Brussels. It's just a different scale over here. And that makes telecom also difficult. Distances between big population centers would cover multiple EU countries. It takes a lot of time and a lot of money to pull more fiber from Seattle to Chicago, or Houston to Los Angeles... It's not a small 150-100 kilometer run of fiber; it's literally hundreds - if not thousands - of kilometers to cover.
I guess if the police plan ahead, here on /. it's considered a breach of the Constitution. Of course, if the police don't plan ahead then they're trashed for not doing their job...
Of course. The Amish are so industrious, not like those shiftless Mennonites...
If I can get one of those 30 year, first 5 years interest-only subprime mortgages here? Maybe this is the way to "save" the sub-primes - virtual property! After all, it seems that "virtual" clients didn't work to well...
See, that's what they WANT you to think. But the bunches of silicone get them noticed, and pretty soon, there's a $25,000 court case, and they're gone along with half your salary for the next umpteen years...
I see they finally studied the mating habits of the married American male...
As someone who works with equipment run by compressed air (pneumatic glue guns, running on "only" 100 PSI), I can assure you that dirty air will destroy your pressure seals quicker than you ever thought possible. The higher the pressure, the CLEANER the air required, or impurities will simply destroy your equipment.
Assume an average speed of 20 kph - that translates to ~5.6 meters per second. Pretty slow, overall. But we'll say it's a commuter vehicle in rush hour!
Now assume the vehicle weighs in at 500 kg, loaded (it'll be light!), and that it will run for 250 km (right in the middle of the range provided).
It takes about 9.8 Watts to move one kilogram one meter in one second.
So, we have 9.8 Watts per kg-m/s times 500 kg * 5.6 m/s = 27.4 kW.
Now, we have a range of 250 km, right? So at 20 kph, that is 12.5 hours:
27.4 kW * 12.5 hours = 343 kW-h.
Assuming a cost of USD$3 to run it, that would translate to around (300 cents /343 kW-h) 0.87 pennies per kW-h. Or $0.0087 per kW-h.
Here in the Pacific Northwest, we have pretty cheap electricity, thanks to all the abundant hydro we have. And we pay around 6.5 cents per kW-h. SO that would be around 7.5 times as expensive as the article's rate...
I'd expect to see refill costs in the $30 per tank range, not $3. Meaning you're paying around $1 per 10 km of range, or $3 per 30 km of range. Like a typical large vehicle if powered by gas (assuming gas at $3 per gallon, and you get 20 MPG).
And note that the small Aero, or Prius - vehicles that get 45 MPG in the same type of low speed operation - would have even more distance per dollar...
I'd like to see the original authors justify how they came up with $3 for running the car. Even assuming 50% energy recapture (which is HUGE), you'd still be around $15 per tank...
But I guess I now see the light! I mean, this morning I weighed myself and I've added 22 grams to my 127 kg frame...
OMG! I NEED TO SCHEDULE A TRIPLE BYPASS AND A LAP-BAND RIGHT NOW BECAUSE I'M CLEARLY GONNA DIE!
Never mind that in the past I've weighed more and weighed less...
Oh, and about that "FUCKING CLIMATE" changing? Can you point to a time in history that it DIDN'T change?
Thank you!
An article is posted about how the general public is getting shell-shocked from all the hyperbole and "OMFG WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE TOMORROW IN MASSIVE FLOODING/HEATING/STARVATION!" that most of the AGW supporters shout from the rooftops.
Someone jumps in to say it's all wrong that there have been HUGE ATMOSPHERIC CHANGES! to counter.
Of course, when one LOOKS at the actual data, the changes aren't even remotely close to huge...
I find irony usually lost on the fundamentalists... Now on to the logical fallacy of the strawman you put up:
Are you that stupid? How much is your income compared to the GDP of the united states? If it doubled, would you notice or not?
Personally? Heck yes, I'd notice! I'd love it! Of course, would the GDP of the US actually notice? Not a chance. See, doubling from 0.018% to 0.036% may be significant if you're that 0.018%; but when we're talking about the other 99.982%, it's really not that much at all.
Or to put it correctly (to fix your analogy) - assume you pay $0.18 of every $10,000 in taxes. You take home $100,000 per year, paying $1.80 in taxes. Would you really notice if your taxes doubled, to $3.60? I rather doubt it!
Kind of like the atmosphere doesn't experience HUGE CHANGES in that tiny change... Which the start of this thread addressed. Doubling MY income would be great for me, but it would be unnoticed in the GDP of the US. Which is really the correct analogy, not the strawman you constructed.
Follow?
Nevertheless, the current double level doesn't seem to be lethal, and there's records showing much higher levels of CO2 in the past, and given the fact that you need 150,000 ppm - yes, 150 thousand parts per million to be lethal, I think we're safely away from that level as well...
I'm not a big fan of laws for law's sake, especially with something that is so tenuous as AGW...
Ummm, yeah... Assuming the WORST case estimates over the last 40 years that CO2, methane, and NOx have doubled it still accounts for less than 0.036% of the Earth's atmosphere. Which means it went from 0.018% to 0.036%. Equivalent to a $0.18 change in a $1,000 bill.
[The] sun is currently at its lowest output of total solar irradience in its 11 year cycle- and coincidentally the lowest in 30+ years despite a theoretical long term trend towards higher average solar output.
While it is true that the sun is now at a minimum, it was at a MAXIMUM by 2001. Coincidentally, the temperatures peaked during the 1990s, and are starting to decline. Maybe that Mr. Fusion in the sky does have a significant impact?
"Huge atmospheric composition changes" - this is the EXACT hyperbole the original article was talking about...
And wouldn't you know it, they're sagging too!
On May 18th, 1980 we had a rather sudden mountain top removal here in Washington when Mt. St. Helens blew. The area beyond the immediate blast zone has actually come back rather nicely, but up close it's still a wasteland... 600 MPH pyroclastic floes tend to wipe everything away...
I'd agree with most of your comments except for Chile. Pinochet actually WAS asked to stage the coup, and VOLUNTARILY stepped down when no longer needed. I know it's not a popular position, but if you talk with many Chileans in Chile (and for the record, I actually ran a company and lived in Chile for a few years) and look at the historical record, you'll find this is the truth. If only the news would carry it.
I'd ask that you read Robert Moss' excellent book "Chile's Marxist Experiment" for some additional information:
"(i) the objective evidence that the Allende government had plunged Chile into the worst social and economic crisis in its modern history characterised by a Weimar rate of inflation; (ii) the conviction that the Marxist parties were aiming for nothing less than the seizure of absolute power; (iii) the existence of a clear popular mandate for military intervention, demonstrated by the declarations of the Supreme Court, Congress and opposition and trade union leaders; (iv) the discovery of the efforts of the extreme left to incite rebellion within the armed forces themselves. "
NOTE: The Chilean Congress and Supreme Court ruled "the government is not merely responsible for isolated violations of the law and the constitution; it has made them into a permanent system of conduct." and actually called for a military-based coup. Pinochet was, in fact, invited to rule against a corrupt and unresponsive executive. And then voluntarily stepped down when asked to do so.
My own experience was that nearly all Chileans basically summed up Pinochet as follows: He'll answer to God for his crimes, but he was good for Chile.
Yeah, I guess I am cynical...
----- Wishing I could own $62 million of Halliburton Stock like that Democratic financier, George Soros...
On the other hand, Mr. George Soros - principal financier behind MoveOn.org, friend and financier of Bill and Hillary Clinton, and a major backer of John Kerry - IS a major shareholder of Halliburton, with a roughly $62 MILLION dollar stake in the company. Even Michael Moore owned 2,000 shares of Halliburton when his Farenheit 9/11 movie came out. That's 2,000 more shares than Vice President Cheney owned, even though Mr. Moore's movie slammed the Vice President for his "ties" to the company...
In Washington politics, it's nearly ALWAYS true that those who scream the loudest about some "wrong" usually are guilty of it themself...
Dr. Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor of Geography and Environmental Science, University of Auckland - is that good enough?
There are literally hundreds if not thousands of scientists who are still skeptical of man's influence as the predominant cause of climate change. Most don't discount we may be having an impact but are skeptical of the amount of our effect.
Contrary to the typical anti-establishment bent found here on /. I think this map confirms that the police are extremely careful and restrained.
I was pulled over on suspicion of drunk driving because MY LIGHTS WEREN'T ON! Was that a violation of my rights? No! Did he hassle me, run me to the tank? No. I was courteous, got out of my car, took one part of a field sobriety test, told to turn my lights on and that was that.
Now, if I showed the attitude you do, I'd probably had the whole 9 yards shot at me. See, it's called attitude...