Let me tell you what I think of people who have "calling of national service", they are power hungry, control freak beehive drones, which is not a contradiction of terms, this actually complements itself. The people that want to do any gov't activity are the very last ones that should be allowed anywhere near it. Gov't is a system disease, like cancer, hiv and leprosy combined. Its willing agents are the poison that is kills the host.
Dear kids from the future,
Well, we went nuclear so we wouldn't cook the entire planet (and thus allowing you to live).
On the other hand, there is a one small cave in Nevada with some nasty stuff. Seems to me like you guys should be able to handle it with your quantum teleportation technology or whatever you come up with. Or just keep an eye on it.
of-course the only real we have today to cover our energy needs while destroying the environment the least is by using nuclear energy.
Of-course the governments of the world stand in the way of the free market experimenting with nuclear energy, AFAIC that's the reason I don't have a flying car yet, it's because we are not yet powering cars with tiny nuclear reactors and that will not change until we get gov't out of energy business (and if you want progress in any field that is useful, get government out of it).
On the other hand, what has the West done to Iran anyway?
Only deposed democratically elected Iranian government in order to give Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, otherwise known as BP, cheaper access to Iranian oil, but that's ancient history too, isn't it?
Our food changed sometime in the '70s or '80s. When I was a kid, overweight people were rather rare. Has the "modern" diet gotten us addicted when we're kids -- and still very active -- to foods that we should be eating very sparingly which then cause huge weight gains when we continue to eat them after we reach our early twenties and our post education lifestyle
The other problem is that people of prior generations were expected to be able to deal with their own emotions in a mature manner and generally weren't as stressed-out as Americans today are.
(Did you know that a 12oz can of coke does as much liver damage as a 12oz can of beer?)
So almost none at all? Heh.
Thing is, sodas are typically sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup. Only the liver can metabolize fructose. Personally, I drink water and only occasionally have a carbonated drink. There are lots of good reasons to avoid sodas; sugar is only one of them. Once you get used to drinking water, you'll wonder how you were ever satisfied drinking what is basically syrup.
if you eat less, you will lose weight.
Maybe so, but that doesn't mean your weight loss will be 100% FAT loss. On the contrary, consuming less calories can also cause your body to store up MORE fat, to compensate for the food shortage. Numerous studies have shown this effect... you just end up with a smaller "fat" rat than the control subject.
If you gradually switch from "eating more calories than I would have ever needed" to "eating about the right amount, give or take" I strongly doubt you'll have this problem. At least that wasn't my experience. The studies I have seen were all concerning unsustainable fad diets that you could not continue using for the rest of your life.
Yes - and it can also make you very sick at the same time. People have starved themselves to death whilst remaining obese. To simply say "eat less, you'll lose weight!" makes as much sense as saying "just remove all the microorganisms from your blood stream, and you'll be cured!" Simple, right? Whilst technically correct, unfortunately it is not at all a useful suggestion. The sooner people stop deluding themselves with trivial knee-jerk responses that tacitly blame the patient, the sooner we can make progress to finding an actual solution for a real problem. Remember: if it was that easy, nobody would be fat.
"Eat less" isn't the same thing as saying "eat nothing or nearly nothing while failing to obtain the nutrients you need".
"Blame" is also a small-minded concern. When I personally needed to lose some weight, there was no concern with fault or blame. I (get this) *took responsibility* for my own condition and made some adjustments to it. Some sustainable, permanent adjustments that did not involve neglecting the nutrition I needed. It was never a problem after that. In fact it was one of the easiest things I've ever done. That's because I took responsibility and accepted that the power to change it was within myself, the exact opposite of victimhood. This is exactly what I never see from fat people. They're victims and they are hostile to the idea that they don't need to be. That's because they don't understand the difference between fault/blame and responsibility/power. That's the part that is "not that easy" for so many because we have such a shallow, small-minded culture that doesn't like to think too deeply about much of anything no matter how much better life can be.
All you are saying is that doing something the stupid and careless way won't yield a good result. This was already known.
This says nothing whatsoever about what happens when obese people reduce their calorie intake. Obese people got that way because they were consuming more calories than they burned. For them, reducing caloric intake sounds like a good idea (although an instant 50% cut sounds drastic - if that were me I'd make more gradual adjustments).
But your Starvation Experiment doesn't address this at all. Again what was the point of posting it?
Everyone I know who successfully lost weight and kept it off for years did it by making permanent, sustainable, healthy changes in their lives. A few of them learned to like veggies and other healthy foods. Others did that and also formed the habit of regular exercise. The point is to consume fewer calories than you burn until you reach a new equilibrium. Like so many other things that upset people, this works every time it's properly tried.
Useless people are useless, and the problem is?
Eventually most jobs become useless, as the cost of producing manufacturing tools approach 0, it is possible to buy more and more manufacturing tools for any particular individual, so while the 'basic income' is complete nonsense and obviously a murderous, oppressive, armed robbery, the free market capitalism IS going to provide something like that through NORMAL market operations.
If you can buy a machine that does 20% of the work you do on a daily basis and you have to pay 2 years of your salary for it, would you buy it and if not, why not? Would you save the income you collect over time to buy more advanced versions of the machine? Say a machine is built that can do 50% of your daily activities, would you yourself buy the machine?
If you can buy a machine that provides you with some basic necessities and you have spend 10 years of your income on it, would you buy it? What if eventually the same machine only costs 5 years of your income? 6 months?
Do you get the point? It looks like you are asking for armed robbery, theft, murder, why can't you actually not be that violent and understand that the end result is the same, but your goals are immoral and also economically stupid?
In America, you have Ferengi style capitalism and call it "freedom".
- capitalism does not equal free market capitalism, which is the most proven system of capital management to produce the best outcomes in terms of wealth generation and raising overall standard of living for everybody in known human history.
capitalism, but with a social conscience, because we understand that in the long run, our way of doing things leads to more freedom for a greater number of people
- I think you are confusing the concept of being free with a concept of being subsidised or getting free stuff on the backs of the productive minority of the population.
next sentence: "It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary."
As you said, some people who cite Smith haven't actually read Smith.
ODS-D77U specs are 780 Mbps write once and 1.15 Gbps read. This is in the same neighborhood as LTO-6. But yeah, the ODA drive price is 3 times higher.
The other speed issue to look at is seek time to recover files, which is going to be much longer on tape (often a minute for LTO-6) than disk. The value of low seek time will depend on use case.
I'm not sure where you get 35-50 Mbps from - you may be confusing ODA with Sony XDCAM, which is an older, single disk system.
Sony now has a new Optical Disk Archive (ODA) at up to 1.5 TB per disk and they claim they are good for 50 years.
I still lean LTO myself due to it being a more widely-used format with far more vendors participating.