Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 6, 2016 at 11:36 PM in reply to: OT: Does anyone have a list of local politicians that are endorsing Trump? #798457June 6, 2016 at 9:01 PM in reply to: OT: Does anyone have a list of local politicians that are endorsing Trump? #798446
ocrenter
Participant[img_assist|nid=25864|title=Feel the Bern|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=320|height=240]
Participant[quote=flu]Weight loss also has huge benefits to your joints and feet. I use to have really bad joint and feet pain. Now it’s gone. Not carrying around an extra 25 lbs helps a lot.
Start small and aim for small goals you know you can stick to. If you don’t have the discipline to do it yourself, find someone that will hold you accountable to it, just like any other project.
You’ll be happy you did. I am so cheap I had to drill new holes in my old belts that I refuse to give up.[/quote]
1 lb of weight loss remove 4 lbs of pressure on your knees.
hey, there’s nothing wrong with drilling new holes in old belts, as long as you are drilling holes in the right direction!
Participant[quote=XBoxBoy]It’s probably worth noting that there is very little if any evidence that working out leads to weight loss.
http://www.vox.com/2016/4/28/11518804/weight-loss-exercise-myth-burn-calories%5B/quote%5D
Excessive work out is actually stress inducing, which leads to more cravings and hunger.
Modest exercise on daily basis yields the best.
Somebody said something about the middle path under a tree a few thousand years ago, we keep getting back to that…
Participant[quote=flu]Since last August (when I switched my employer), I’ve focusing more time to taking care of my health, and initially it was not easy to motivate after being more or less idle for the prior 12-14 years. Today, I run about 3 miles each day, and do about 1/2 hours weights every other day at home. I’v never exercised as much as I do today, even when as far back as high school.
It hasn’t been easy to get into this routine, particularly in the first 2-3 months. Part of what helped was peer pressure at work, being surrounded by many late 20ies to early 30ies that are extremely fit and active. I won’t give you advice on what you should do, but I’ll tell you what I did. I threw money at the problem for the first 2-3 months and got myself a personal trainer 2-3 times a week for the first two months, so that she would kick the crap out of me and make me stick to a routine, no matter how busy I said I was. Also,, spending good money on it, I took it more serious. After about 2 months, I got into my routine, and I haven’ looked back.
My goal was not weight loss, but to build up my cardio, to be able to run a reasonable distance, and to get toned up. Weight loss was a side benefit. I’m about 25 lbs less than I was in August of last year, and most of my pants are way too big now, and I had to change some of my belts because they were too big. I’m wearig pants back when I had them since my college freshman year.
I found out that once I started to get into this routine, surprisingly I felt less hungry, and don’t eat as much. Diet is a very important thing. I wouldn’t do a crash diet since those don’t work. But you should consider eating healthier, and eatting less for dinner (for example).
No soda, no beer, no cakes, no sugar, no high carb foods.
I haven’t had any problems maintaining my weight. My biggest problem is i trying to undo years of neglect around my abdomen.[/quote]
+1
Most people don’t realize how stressful it is to sit all day. The stress hormone built up then leads to excess cravings. This is why most people crave the junk food at night time. Daily exercise counters the stress hormone build up and leads to reduced intake, and hence the weight loss.
Great job, FLU!
Participant[quote=Balboa]Not completely on point, but this was an interesting article in the NYT today: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/02/health/biggest-loser-weight-loss.html?_r=0
Kettle bells seem all the rage, though form is key. My husband plays badminton. A couple of my friends love boxing. I feel like those things have the added bonus of requiring us to learn something new. We all know generally what running is like and whether we want to do several hours of it a week.
I’ve given up trying to workout after work. My workday spans at least 9 hours and my commute home is 45-55 minutes and is so stultifying (punctuated by moments of sheer terror, as the saying goes) that I have no momentum after it. I just started seeing a personal trainer last month and do it on my lunch hour. I do intervals on the treadmill at the office gym once a week and usually one weekend workout. I work a desk job — I doubt I’d want to use a break from manual labor to run on a tread mill (which is terribly boring on top of everything else).[/quote]
The article is proof that the diet industry and the fitness industry are creating endless cycles of failures that ultimately leads to completely broken self esteem and self worth as well as an ultra slow metabolism.
Participant[quote=AN][quote=ocrenter][quote=AN][quote=ocrenter]I’m arguing renewables are cleaner than gasoline. Coal companies are going bankrupt as we speak.[/quote]Coal companies are going bankrupt because of natural gas, not because of renewables.[/quote]
I don’t believe I said coal’s departure is due to renewables. Merely that coal is on its way out.
Natural gas is much cleaner as a source of electricity generation, but the entrenched powers will continue to use coal generated electricity as the standard to prove their point that EVs are dirty.
Yet they use the same dirty coal generated electricity to refine gasoline.[/quote] and I never said think gasoline is clean. My objection is against front capitalism and not for gasoline. Again, pro EV camp seem to overlook the dirty coal.[/quote]
I don’t think they do.
There’s a reason why states that have robust EV sales also “just happen” to have much cleaner electricity and lower dependency on dirty coal.
Participant[quote=AN][quote=ocrenter]I’m arguing renewables are cleaner than gasoline. Coal companies are going bankrupt as we speak.[/quote]Coal companies are going bankrupt because of natural gas, not because of renewables.[/quote]
I don’t believe I said coal’s departure is due to renewables. Merely that coal is on its way out.
Natural gas is much cleaner as a source of electricity generation, but the entrenched powers will continue to use coal generated electricity as the standard to prove their point that EVs are dirty.
Yet they use the same dirty coal generated electricity to refine gasoline.
Participant[quote=AN]You guys are also concentrating solely on cars. While completely ignoring planes, tractors, big rigs, busses, work trucks, etc. EV is not suitable for any of that. To truly solve this problem, we need to find the next fuel source that can completely replace oil and coal in all applications, not just cars. Unless you can prove to me that BEV can be applied to all of those usage, I would say it’s a stop gap solution. I want a real solution, not a stop gap solution. Especially when my tax $ is being spent to subsidize it.
Not to mention China is producing about 1/3 of the world pollution. Mainly because of their coal burning power plants. This is with their current growth of demand for electricity (their cars are still powered by gas). If they don’t drastically change their energy source but replace their gas powered car with EV, I can see the world’s total CO2 emission will be much worse than it is today without EV in China. This is why I’m pushing for a holistic and long term solution.[/quote]
As EVs gain traction, gasoline prices will fall due to reduced demands, you’ll actually see cheaper fuels for airplanes and other large transport vehicles.
Battery density is increasing at dramatic speed. At the same time, $/kWh is dropping on yearly basis. Eventually, we will see a much wider variety of BEV vehicles, including trucks.
As for China, as their population move into middle class status, demand for cleaner environment is already forcing changes.
You complaint about the coal produced electricity, but you don’t complaint about the multi-step pollution from gasoline, especially the mere fact that just refining that gallon of gasoline uses 6 kWh of electricity. instead of using that 6 kWh to refine gasoline, just use that 6 kWh to power cars directly and eliminate the middle man.
The real problem here is there’s a lot of middle men within the current gasoline dominated status quo and they will do everything possible to maintain that status quo.
Participant[quote=AN][quote=ocrenter][quote=AN][quote=Escoguy]Another side affect, as EVs have zero emissions and are quieter, prices around freeways may eventually rise as the spillover effects of cars is lessened. It may take more than a decade to see the full impact.
But in general we should all welcome having cleaner air.[/quote]Depend on where you live. Here’s an article on Bloomberg today: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-14/hong-kong-teslas-linked-to-more-co2-emissions-than-gasoline-cars.
In China, it’s even worse. If all of Hong Kong and China drive EV instead of gasoline powered cars today, our CO2 problem would be much worse.[/quote]
But you are not counting the 6 kWh of electricity and a gallon of water needed to refine a gallon of gasoline.
In the 1920’s it took energy from 1 barrel of oil to generate 100 barrels of oil.
Now that barrel yields 20 barrels, and for the tar sand, it is a 1:5 ratio.[/quote]are you trying to argue that coal is cleaner than gasoline?[/quote]
I’m arguing renewables are cleaner than gasoline. Coal companies are going bankrupt as we speak.
Participant[quote=afx114][quote=AN]Depend on where you live. Here’s an article on Bloomberg today: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-14/hong-kong-teslas-linked-to-more-co2-emissions-than-gasoline-cars.
In China, it’s even worse. If all of Hong Kong and China drive EV instead of gasoline powered cars today, our CO2 problem would be much worse.[/quote]
The argument ignores one of the main benefits of EV: it centralizes power generation at the plant. It is much easier to replace a single CO2 plant (or install carbon scrubbers/storage on them) than it is to replace millions of cars.
It also ignores the efficiency of EVs. Electric motors are about 80% efficient, compared to about 20% for combustion engines. So even if EVs are burning CO2 at the plant, they’re burning a *lot* less of it.
The equation only improves with time as CO2 plants get replaced with renewables. Meanwhile, those combustion engines will just continue to spew CO2.[/quote]
Did not know ICE is only 20% efficient.
So essentially we arelooking at the following:
–energy is used to explore and extract oil.
–energy is used to transport the oil.
–energy is used to refine the oil.
–energy is used to transport the refined product.
–refined final product is burnt at 20% efficiency.Not to mention energy used to support authoritarian regimes with horrid human rights record to allow this extremely ineffective system to continue without disruption.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]
And Escoguy is right, quieter cars will result in rising real estate near thoroughfares.
We’ve seen this happen along rail lines already.[/quote]I don’t know about that… Teslas traveling at 70 mph is still pretty loud.
You do eliminate cooridors of excess pollutants, that’s for sure.
Participant[quote=AN][quote=Escoguy]Another side affect, as EVs have zero emissions and are quieter, prices around freeways may eventually rise as the spillover effects of cars is lessened. It may take more than a decade to see the full impact.
But in general we should all welcome having cleaner air.[/quote]Depend on where you live. Here’s an article on Bloomberg today: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-14/hong-kong-teslas-linked-to-more-co2-emissions-than-gasoline-cars.
In China, it’s even worse. If all of Hong Kong and China drive EV instead of gasoline powered cars today, our CO2 problem would be much worse.[/quote]
But you are not counting the 6 kWh of electricity and a gallon of water needed to refine a gallon of gasoline.
In the 1920’s it took energy from 1 barrel of oil to generate 100 barrels of oil.
Now that barrel yields 20 barrels, and for the tar sand, it is a 1:5 ratio.
Participant[quote=AN][quote=ocrenter]Your first paragraph is contradicted by your second paragraph. Again, who doesn’t love the banner of fighting crony capitalism? But under that exact banner, the end result is the status quo and solidifying of the established entrenched energy monopoly. You mentioned you want to roll back subsidies, I agree with you, but the billionaires have a bigger voice in government and they will make sure government will bend to their will. Why do you think congress agreed french fries and kitchup are vegetables?
I don’t want to stop drilling. I want enough market place support for nascent tech until they become self sustainable and they will bring the current energy monopolies to their knees.
Solar is a great example. Prices have come down just absolutely dramatically. Solar use to be President Carter’s pet project in the White House. Reagan ripped that thing out and ridiculed it. Now solar makes so much sense that even red blooded republicans are for solar energy. How did this happen? By not having any subsidies and allowing the electric companies to run the show while telling the public we are protecting them from crony capitalism?[/quote]
Not contradicting at all. Just because I don’t want government to spend more of our tax dollar on helping companies doesn’t mean I want your tax dollar to go fighting against billionaires. Why not let Bill Gates, Elon Musk, etc do the fighting? Why does the government have to get involved? Especially when that money is coming from the middle class.
I’m not arguing for status quo at all. But you have to realize that there are many competing technology. I don’t want tax $ going directly into companies. If we want to support fledgling tech, give that money to universities. Once the tech mature in the academic environment, the professors and researcher can then partner up with private capital. We already have Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Bank, I don’t think we need another “Big…”. If you create “Big Solar” then that will impede the next tech advancement just as Big Oil as you say is impeding on the advancement of solar/BEV.
Funny you say that you want nascent tech to bring the energy monopolies to their knees. Why do we need to spend tax dollar to do that? Especially when I don’t believe our government will know which tech is the right nascent tech. I rather have the free market do that. As for breaking up monopolies, it’s pretty easy to do and government do it all the time. Think Ma Bell, Microsoft, and now even Google is under their microscope. As for Big Oil, all the government have to do is increase the CAFE and maybe the best tech win. No need to spend tax $ on companies like Solyndra. I rather have that $ go toward the poor and needy in our society, not to another rich Millionaire/Billionaire.
Solar price have came down because of the Chinese, not because of the government subsidies to companies like Solyndra. Again, you prove my point, I don’t think solar is the be all end all of energy. I was a lot more excited about Bloom Energy than solar before I got my solar. But because government poured a lot more subsidies into solar, it make it more affordable. If they pour the same amount of incentives into Bloom Energy and other Fuel Cell companies, I would have not gotten solar. I’m still excited about companies like Bloom Energy and probably will probably go Fuel Cell when they’re available. I have solar for a few years now and I’m fully aware of the advantage/disadvantage. I can’t go off grid unless I spend a lot more $. Last night, I went without power for over 8 hours. If I have Fuel Cell, I can be completely off the grid and wouldn’t have that problem.[/quote]remember the Chinese subsidized their solar industry, which then led to dumping into the US market.
if the US government unilaterally decide to cut off all subsidies to alternative energy, plenty of other governments will continue that effort and we’ll end up as importer of alternative energy tech, instead of being innovators.
meanwhile, the elephant in the room is still the ginormous oil and gas subsidies stifling new tech.
as for Solyndra. Solyndra is that minor league player that we drafted and payed a hefty signing bonus for but ended up with a torn rotator cuff. all of the old veteran players now point to Solyndra and say, “see, should just keep playing us the big bucks instead of trying to discover new talent, you see how much of a waste that was, don’t you?”
Participant[quote=AN]
This is exactly what I’m talking about. All of these subsidies have been around for a long time and it only get bigger. Now, people are complaining we need to add more for the next industry. 50 years from now, we will need to give even more to the next industry. When will it end? We don’t even have money to help our homeless. Why not start with that first. I don’t want to continue to feed this beast called crony capitalism. You say you’re against crony capitalism but you’re advocating to keep on feeding the beast.[/quote]we are kinda going around in circle.
I don’t mind not having any subsidies for new alternative energy sources at all.
but how do you achieve a level playing field when gas subsidies are valued at $2 per gallon. how do we remove these subsidies tomorrow?
-
AuthorPosts