Nitack

It's actually really as simple as Calories-in vs. Calories-out. The laws of physics win... shocker! http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120221125020.htm

Thanks for the input! Although, in the time between when this was dreamed up and now I have had two children and finding the time to tinker with this design and build a prototype has disappeared. Maybe when they are a little older :(

Interesting study on the Placebo effect. Apparently the patient doesn't even need to be deceived about being given a placebo to experience beneficial results. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0015591

Here is the thing. It is important for there to be candid, brutally blunt evaluations of foreign actors. Diplomats need to record these impressions because they help establish a profile on the person so that other diplomats, or future diplomats to work with that person walk into any situation with as much knowledge as possible. At the same time, it only makes things volatile to make those candid evaluations public. Prince Andrew may be rude, cocky, unmannered and uncouth; and knowing that will help you handle him more effectively, but making that assessment public will only insult him and make him more difficult to work with. So, lets get away from those specific situations and focus more broadly on why things that may seem innocuous are classified. Do you know that military MRE (meal ready to eat) purchase records are classified? Why would you ever classify food purchases? The reason being is that food purchases, when combined with other information, can foreshadow military action. Lets say given the current situation that the US is preparing for the possibility of a renewed war in Korea. MREs are purchased, numerous marines are transferred to units located at Camp Pendleton (pacific staging point), equipment is moved, fuel is requisitioned, Marines not scheduled to deploy start filing wills (all deploying marines are required to do this), etc, etc, etc. All of these seemingly innocuous events can be added together to signal a major unscheduled deployment is in the works. Silly little things that may not seem like valuable information alone can add up to important information.

A whole lot of conjecture and "what if" talk going on here about organisms that we currently have no proof even exist. Shall we spend billions of dollars to shoot carbon dioxide to the moon just on the off chance that an organism might live below the moons surface and might find said carbon dioxide beneficial?

Yes, and the staple crops that we feed ourselves with may not be able to cope, leading to wide spread starvation of our species. So, your premise of sending CO2 to the moon will likely have a detrimental effect to the life you believe may exist there.

Significantly changing the environment of any living organism almost always ends badly.

I agree with you whole heartedly. Although I made the same arguments a while ago in this thread and was told that I was "oversimplifying" and lacked an understanding for the nuances of weight gain and loss. I think that in a lot of ways obesity research has been perverted and people grasp at it for a "not my fault" answer. If obese individuals can tell themselves that there is a genetic, viral, or specific food responsible for their weight gain, then they don't have to feel responsible for their own misery, and also don't have to put in the effort to fix it. As long as they can take some science out of context and make it fit their chosen reality then it makes them feel better. A study may say that XYZ gene has been shown to be related to obesity people can tell themselves that "it's not my fault, I must have that gene and I'm just destined to be fat". When in reality XYZ gene may actually mean that individuals with that gene have a lower BMR and therefore do not need to eat as many Calories to satisfy their daily Calorie needs.

You are kind of arguing in circles here. Your original premise was that we would colonize the moon with plant life from earth, which is not possible for MANY reasons, just a few of which were listed. Now you jumped the argument to the possibility of life already on the moon and evolved to that environment. Sticking to one premise at a time would be helpful.

Interesting questions: The short answer is that western society was heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian philosophy. Think Adam and Eve, tree of knowledge, fig leaves. Although we also find clothing in non-western society as well, so that explanation only really explains why western society finds nakedness wrong, not why humans in general do. Is there anything inherently wrong with a naked body... nope. We are the only animal that sees fit to cover our bodies out of modesty (that I know of). How this translates to your freedom of expression is that societies develop a communal standard of morality that transcends guaranteed freedoms. Now we get into a lot more complicated grounds. The thing is, you live in a community. Everyone in this community is connected and works together (directly or indirectly) for the common good. So, when you choose to express yourself by painting your house with pink polka-dots that will have an impact on your neighbors and the larger community. Your neighbors homes will lose value because of that choice. By allowing you to paint your house in such a way others must be allowed to as well. This can drive down home prices across the community, reducing the value of many people's property, reducing property taxes, reducing employment of local workers, etc, etc, etc. So, in this case, the community has made rules and regulations about home color that are designed to prevent anyone from having their property lose value based on actions of another individual. Your freedom of expression can have a measurable negative impact on another individual. If you truly want to express yourself, you can move out of that community, or move out of all communities and live in an isolated area. You have to decide which is more important to you. You are not forced to live in that community. So you must weigh the benefits of living in a community against the loss of personal freedom in home color choice. Um... we killed them dude. Greatest genocide in the history of man kind. We killed them, we took their land, we destroyed their way of life and their culture... There is no "fairness" or equality here, and to be clear, they are the ones that got/get the raw end of the deal. There is no way for Canadian or US governments to undo the damage that was done, so these people are given special exemptions that try to mimic the national autonomy that we stole/destroyed. The systems in place suck, and the culture of these people is disappearing faster than we can record it. Yeah, tough subject here. The argument against illegal/controlled substances is that these drugs have the ability to impact more than just the person taking them, that they have a negative impact on society, and that part of the role of government is to determine if the people need to be protected from themselves or their own judgment/lack of judgment. You may agree or disagree, but that is the justification for restricting access to those substances. Once again, do the benefits of living in a community (in this case one that restricts drug use) outweigh the loss of personal freedom that comes with it? These are very good questions, and all relate to the eternal question of Freedom vs. Order. You always sacrifice one to gain more of the other. There are benefits to both, and generally government tries to strike a balance. Perhaps you believe that you should have the right to live your life any way you choose, paint your house any color you choose, etc. However, your neighbor does not want the way your freedom to negatively impact him. So a balance is struck, and the community decides collectively what that balance is.

This is true. But what you are suggesting is to transplant life that has evolved for the conditions here on earth to a much different environment. Constant variables on earth that we don't necessarily think of as relevant to life have a profound impact if changed. To name a few: Gravity impacts many facets of how a life form operates. Solar radiation levels will be much higher on the moon than on the earth because the moon's magnetic field is only 1/100th the strength of earth's. Surface temperature on the moon is also way outside hospitable levels. That might change a bit with an appreciable atmosphere, but we can not shoot enough CO2 at the moon to bring the temperature into hospitable ranges. Nice thought, but I'm not sure any life that developed on earth would be able to thrive or even survive on the lunar surface, even with a CO2 atmosphere.

Just a thought. The capsaicin that gives hot peppers their kick is a pretty hostile chemical... would it have a detrimental effect on the yeast?

Seriously wet down the charcoal before you feed it into any chipper. Charcoal dust can react similarly to coal dust, it doesn't have the same energy potential as coal so should not explode, but you could find yourself with a flaming cloud and set fire to anything near by.

He actually explained a very good point to this whole debate. This very thread is indicative of the problem. Science has provided us with a wealth of data that suggests that there are mitigating factors which can explain why some people burn less calories or might be prone to eat more than they need. The problem is that people in general tend to rationalize in order to protect their fragile egos. Science has provided a way for obese people to rationalize out that it must not be their fault because they heard on the radio, or read a blurb in a newspaper that says that some people are prone to weight gain. Those people do not hear "prone" or even "more likely", all they hear is "causes weight gain" and rationalize out that they must be one of those people. They did not understand what was being said, nor did they even confirm that they are part of the affected group. But it is far easier to believe that you are a victim of a biological conspiracy to make you fat, than to own up to your own actions (or lack of) and admit that you made yourself fat through poor choices.

Can Wind Power Get Up to Speed? - TIME Just read this article. Very nice mention of a scientific report that says that there is enough wind energy swirling around our planet to meet our current energy needs 40 times over. The article also does a very nice job of laying out the challenges to a wind powered future. It sparked a new question for me though. Wind turbines siphon off the energy that carries air as wind. This is all driven by a very complex system of thermal fronts and such well beyond my comprehension because I have not yet read up on them. But, here is the part I do get, we are siphoning off energy, which means there is less energy in the wind. Could this have an adverse environmental effect that is not yet anticipated? We use such a minor amount of wind power now that we would not notice anything, but surely if we were to move to a completely wind driven energy future we would end up siphoning off enough wind energy to actually see noticeable effects wouldn't we? Given my limited understand of the complicated atmospheric process that creates wind, I may be wrong, but converting energy from that system, to be used as electricity must have some measurable effect. Will some one enlighten me?

Dannie, Not all of us think that there is some voodoo cause for obesity. Some of us (like myself) do think that the root cause is not enough movement and too much food intake. I feel that all of the other stuff posted here like viruses, bacteria, processing food, etc, do have a real effect, but they only influence one side of the energy equation (energy in vs. energy out) and do not hold the ultimate answer. Others here feel that there must be some explanation beyond just the energy in vs. energy out theory. Be warned, some people here will call you "simplistic" for daring to state that you feel that this is a problem of lifestyle and there is not some underlying cause that can be scientifically investigated and solved. And for full disclosure, I too am well overweight and got that way through my own choices and maintaining an intake of food that exceeded my daily energy needs.

New Evidence That Vinegar May Be Natural Fat-fighter I'm trying to think of a way to work more vinegar into my diet and the only thing I could come up with is by eating more salad, which would explain any resulting weight loss on it's own. It would also diminish the coolness of this information as I am a firm believer that salad is what food eats.

I fail so see the relevance.

I just had an interesting constitutional question come up in my head. Can voters in one state impose term limits for congressional seats for that state? On the surface the answer is no, these are federal level positions. But think about the fact that elections for congress are an internal state process. Could voters in a state like California not have a referendum that would not allow a candidate to represent the state in Congress for more than a set number of years? Could they simply set it up in such a way that after a certain number of years the politician could no longer be on the ballot? This line of thinking stems from the line of reasoning that one of our biggest problems in Washington DC is the concept of a Career politician. People who have very good reason not to make the hard choices that are best for the country and instead keep pandering to special interest groups in order to keep getting elected. At the federal level, the only people with the ability to make term limits happen are the ones who have every reason to oppose them. So I just thought of a way to get it done with out them. Thoughts?

Scientists Create Metal That Pumps Liquid Uphill I read through this article, some of it was over my head, some of it not. However, the article notes that this new technology/methodology can create a surface on metal that can wick water in a set direction, even against gravity. My question, could this be used in such a way to lift water, energy free, and allow gravity to pull it down through a turbine causing electrical generation? :hihi: It would take a very large scale implementation to do and a lot of time an energy to set it up (article notes that the process for changing the surface of the metal takes 30 minutes for the area the size of a quarter). Before some one yells at me about perpetual motion being impossible (I already know this) read the full damn article to know what they are talking about first. It apparently has to do with very small etching on the surface of metal using very high powered lasers for femtoseconds. The interplay between molecular attraction, gravity, and evaporation seem to power the movement, but that is the part beyond my comprehension.

Interesting how scientific studies that don't conform to certain peoples pet theories never make it here. Increased Food Intake Alone Explains Rise In Obesity In United States, Study Finds I seem to remember saying the same exact thing and being accused of being prejudice against obese people and also being called over simplistic.

Weight Loss Weapon -- Carb-cutting Enzyme Stopped By Bean Extract, Endocrinologists Say

Ah, this I may actually be able to help with. You bottled too soon. Beer you bottle when fermentation is still happening and that provides your carbonation as the pressure builds. With mead you have a few considerations. Honey has a lot more available sugar than malted grains do. Even if it looks like your fermentation is done racking your mead will normally restart fermentation that will go just as strong as the primary fermentation. At gotmead.com some of the more experienced meaders talk about racking 5-7 times per batch. That allows fermentation to completely finish (either due to all sugar being exhausted for a dry mead or a high enough alcohol ratio to kill the yeast for a semi-sweet or sweet mead). If you bottle too early the fermentation will continue and push the cork out of the bottle. Let fermentation go, rack it, let it go some more and rack it again, as fermentation slows down just rack and let it wind down again. The exception is if you want a sparkling mead and then you need to use a thicker bottle and a wire secured cork like you find for champagne.

OK, so the apple jack was not so good. I was really digging the taste, but after having a small glass of the not so distilled stuff I got a headache and figured there was bad juju at work, down the drain the rest went. On a better note I just bottled a batch of mead. A little sweeter than I had hoped, but it was damn good stuff. A slight slight edge to it that I am sure will mellow out with a few months of aging. Hoping for my birthday to get some proper brewing and bottling equipment.

Well the brand is fleishman's, but I am pretty sure it is a bottom fermenting yeast. I know there are more specialized strains out there specifically for brewing. For the apple-jack I am not looking to make anything above 80 proof. The idea is just to get something with a wee bit more kick as a sipping drink. I don't have a hydrometer so I can't say what the proof of my mead or apple juice is. I know, I am working with archaic methods here. Although some quick research reveals that I could distill out the methanol with out losing the ethanol if I keep a pretty tight control on the temperature. Methanol boils at 148.4 F and Ethanol at 173. Perhaps this is not worth the trouble considering that it really is illegal and an judge having a bad day might throw the book at me for it. Or worse, the ATF gets pissy with me.