As a Mustachian I can tell you that this is the myth. It's not just choosing to live downtown but choosing to live close to work. I used to drive 30 miles through horrible traffic which took 1.5 hours. Now I moved to within a 5 mile radius of WinCo (groceries), Costco, Home Depot, the library, and, most important of all, work. I bike 3 miles in less time than it would take me to go by car.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
My main mode of transportation is my bicycle, as could have been inferred from my statement of a tank lasting a month and a half it basically gets driven only on the weekend. I'd like to switch to a more fuel efficient model but haven't gotten up to bothering with that.
I agree, it would be nice to have the underbody down better to increase aerodynamics. There's a guy who drives an old Ford F250 Diesel which gets something like 30+MPG because he's done those kinds of modifications.
I'm sort of the same way, not an environmentalist, just a really cheap mustachian. My average usage each month is about 200kwh and I live lasciviously, I know if I watched my usage a bit more I could greatly decrease this. As I write this I have a fan in my window blowing in and another in the window down the hallway blowing out and can get my house down to 66F at night, and then reach about 72F by the time I get home from work, but grant it we live in the Pacific Northwest where AC is hardly ever needed. We don't use our dryer but sparingly, and I ride a bike to work instead of driving because it seems insane to pay $300+ a month in gas PLUS the $1200+ a year in maintenance to maintain a residence 30 miles away. All of this is done not for the environment but because it's cheaper.
When I do drive a car I hypermile it. My 2002 BMW 525i gets 32+MPG which usually elicits a wide eyed "really?" from people when I tell them. A single tank of gas lasts me about a month and a half. We buy a lot of things used because I figure that buying it second hand will retain the value more than buying it brand new. My wife's wedding ring and her Longine watch were both bought that way, same as my trumpet and my car. Buying used keeps one from going to the dump and lowers demand on new ones to be made. (Of course the ring would have been melted down and formed into new rings, but it still applies to everything else.)
I also happen to be one who believes the scientific research and consensus that climate change is happening, and I wish it had more effect on my decision making, but for now being cheap seems to generally coincide with environmentally friendly. Most of this is from learning to want less shit that doesn't matter and to be perfectly happy living the very luxurious middle class life.
This is why Neil deGrasse Tyson prefers the term astro physics.
No, that was Joseph Smith.
I believe we are all terminally ill
Yeah, the real hog is the System Idle Process, I see that taking up to 99% of my systems processing power when I'm not even doing anything. Find a way to get rid of that and you'll be golden.
It doesn't seem to be any different than traveling 250 miles per week, I get 25 Miles per gallon, therefore I'll use 250mi/(25mi/gal), 10 gallons of gas. I think it's more of whichever system we are used to using, once you figure out the equation is simply x miles traveled / mpg it's quite simple, I'd assume the same when you figure out x miles traveled * liters, then move decimal two places over.
I drove 250 miles, used 10 gallons, therefore 25 mpg. You drove 350 km, used 32.9L, therefore 32.9/350*100 = 9.4. Depending on the numbers I'd say the difficulty is about the same, pull out a calculator and there is no difference except you still have to account for the two decimal places.
Does this mean that all cloned embryos would grow up to be gingers?
I pay about $32.50 a month each for me and my wife at LA Fitness. We take Zumba classes there four times a week. If we wanted classes like that outside the gym it is about $3/person/lesson, which would cost around $48 a month. I have also paid for the membership to access any of their clubs so sometimes I can hit the one near work, other times we alternate between the two near our home.
Treadmills might fine for some people, but there is something to be said about group fitness.
Because when bacteria and viruses keep getting better at killing us we need the random genetic mutations to help us survive. Look at banana colonies that have collapsed due to cloning of banana trees when a new disease came by and wiped out all the trees.
But the "." is way on the other side of the keyboard.
Thanks for pointing that out, polygamy and Mormons was an example of social pressures forcing change, which they fought against until their temples and other property were threatened to be confiscated by the US government. It was a poor choice on my part and should not have been used given the context of the point I was trying to make was new evidence being brought forth in conjunction with social pressures and not just social pressures itself.
And the Bible's purpose is moral, not to "advance medicine".
You mean how it is moral to stone woman for adultery? Or how it is moral to commit genocide and keep the woman as spoils? Or how it is moral to mutilate the genitalia of newborns? Or how it is moral to kill witches? Or how it is moral to stone a man for collecting sticks on the Sabbath? Perhaps you meant the story of Lot, not Lot's wife, but how he thought it more moral to give his daughters to a narcissistic mob rather than let them have sex with his male guest. Or maybe it's the rest of Lot's story where his daughters get him drunk and rape him.
Maybe I'm just blind, but I don't quite see what the bible has to do with morality.
In Dawkins' book, "The God Delusion", he actually addresses this point at the beginning of the book and describes it as Einstein's god. Einstein didn't believe in a personal god, but his use of god was pretty much synonymous with the universe. This isn't the god that he argues against. Another author worth reading is Christopher Hitchens, especially his book "God Is Not Good: How Religion Poisons Everything", to understand how any religion, whether monotheistic or polytheistic, poisons the good that it does, especially when in power.
The biggest difference between Science and Religion is how easy Science is able to discard previous ideas when new evidence is brought forward whereas Religion will fight tooth and nail until it is impractical for it to not adjust, e.g. Mormons and polygamy, or Mormons and blacks. We have seen this recently with some sects of Christianity starting to embrace evolution, yet others are still outright against its teachings.