J.C.MacSwell

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

How? It would make you warmer than no blanket, because it would prevent convection, catch radiation and raise humidity. 

I guess you could make a case for a cooling blanket in direct sunlight, but really, it's action would be as a shade, not a blanket.

Same way a colder one would. Conduction primarily. Until at least the inside of it approaches body surface temperature it's a heat sink.

Sit on a metal chair at room temperature. It's immediately cooling in a way that a cushioned one would not be, at least not to the same extent. 

On 11/19/2023 at 6:28 PM, mistermack said:

The term "cooling blanket" is a bit scammy. But it seems to be an accepted scam, since there are so many using it, and such high prices. 

In reality, no blanket can be a "cooling blanket" unless it comes out of a fridge or freezer. Any blanket will restrict convection, and raise humidity next to the skin.  A justification might be "well, it's cooling compared to a standard blanket" which might well be true, but a truthful description would be a "less warming blanket". 

You might reasonably argue that anyone with half a brain would work that out, and that the title was just acceptable marketing hype, and the people who buy it would just expect a blanket that was less warming than an ordinary one. But I would disagree, there are plenty of people out there so gullible, that they would take it literally. 

I like something covering me, even when it's too hot at night. Hot clear nights can cool quite quickly, and you fall asleep needing nothing, but wake up cold. Also, some sort of covering might keep insects off, it's an instinct that we might be born with. An old cotton sheet is my favourite when it's hot. As cotton gets older, and more washed, it becomes more absorbent and softer. 

A room temperature blanket can be one, even if it would last longer coming out of a fridge or freezer. Unless your body temperature is room temperature...

One would hope that the Truce gets extended. The current price seems to be 10 Israeli hostages per day, which I think includes release of 30 Palestinian prisoners if the 3 to 1 ratio they've used holds.

The longer the Truce lasts the more potential likely exists for some long term agreement, I would expect. Though I would also expect Israel would stay determined to eliminate Hamas, short of Hamas clearly accepting the right to existence for the state of Israel, and abandoning their stated goal of Israel's elimination.

Unlikely, but maybe some other temporary semi-peaceful coexistence can result, as it seemed but clearly wasn't before the Hamas atrocities of October 7.

14 hours ago, TheVat said:

As it is, North Gaza is essentially destroyed, over a million are homeless and facing a grim future in refugee camps, and....this is ridding the world of Hamas how?  This is just insuring a robust version of Hamas 2.0 that will regroup in sympathetic nations, raise money from donors whose hatred of Israel has only been ratcheted up, and prepare for the next stage of war.  

 

Right. Which is what Hamas and those that backed them in their latest terror attack on Israel wanted. Maybe not the completeness of the violent retaliation, but certainly the re-igniting of the hatred toward Israel.

I agree both sides have blood on their hands. I just don't see what other options either side has available given the hatred of Israel by all those that have suffered from it's creation and existence, historically and recently. Certainly Israel cannot trust terrorists with clearly stated objectives to eliminate their existence, yet there seems to be little they can do to eliminate the threat without using means that would perpetuate it.

Both sides, for the most part, were born with the problem.

9 hours ago, CharonY said:

IIRC Argentine pegged their Pesos against USD in the 90s (because of hyperinflation). One could look at the outcomes then.

Not the same thing though. That would require a central bank actively working to peg the currency and/or guaranteeing the value of the Peso to the USD.

13 hours ago, toucana said:

Popularly known as ‘El Loco’ (the madman), his economic  objectives include replacing the peso with the US dollar and “blowing up” the central bank.

One salient factor that probably influenced many voters was a deep economic crisis that had seen the annual inflation rate rise to 143%, with around 40% of Argentines living below the poverty line.

 

Replacing the Argentinian Peso with the USD could certainly tame the mess of the 143% inflation...though of course they abdicate control of any monetary policy and make their Central bank redundant

Be interesting to see how that works out.

I use one. It's a poor insulator, or maybe also understood as a good conductor compared to other blankets and has a bit of weight to it. So when you cover yourself with it at room temperature it it cools you at least toward equilibrium being reached.

But the main purpose I think is having the weight of a "security" blanket without the insulation. 

I'm a baby at heart...

1 minute ago, Bufofrog said:

I (like every other sane person) feel 100% that I make my own decisions for one.  

So a predetermined sense of free will for all sane individuals?

59 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

I put our free will at 100%.  By that I mean the future is not predetermined.  I can choose to do anything that is physically possible, the result of my choice may have dire consequences, but I am certainly free to make that choice.

You seem to have convinced yourself. How have you managed to do that?

That's pretty funny!

3 minutes ago, mistermack said:

But when I'm talking about population levels and targets etc I'm not discussing killing people to reduce the total, I'm talking about measures to reduce birth rates. 

When you put it like "trading a human life for one" you are mis-representing the entire argument, or talking about something entirely different.

But if you want to go to that extreme, then killing 9,000 innocent Palestinians is ok by the governments of the world, in order to kill a few Hamas fighters. Human life isn't so precious to the people we elect, when it comes to tribal matters. 

Or in the US, human life isn't sacred enough to necessitate a free health service. Rich human lives are more important than poor ones. And for people convicted of a capital crime, their lives don't count at all, even though there's a very real possibility that they are innocent. 

Sorry. I didn't mean to do that. I rather agree with you. I was surprised your post had gotten a neg rep and +1ed it. (went back to 0 with my +1)

I then just added my bit. I can see how it might have seemed directed at you but that wasn't intended.

On 8/28/2023 at 11:49 AM, mistermack said:

Well I think it most certainly is . But if you think the only important species is humans, then maybe it's not. 

Maybe I'm odd, but I value other species, and hate to see animals like Gorillas reduced to a few thousand, while we are nearly 8 billion. 

Agree. But at the same time I wouldn't trade a human life for one (Putin et ilk notwithstanding).

I realize that's contradictory (not the Putin et al part), but there ya go...

On 9/19/2023 at 6:29 AM, John Cuthber said:

I'm still waiting for you to explain why, if you think UPS drivers get such a  great deal, you haven't joined them.
 

 

Hasn't been answered and maybe it's just my opinion but it seems obvious to me that Externet would be far far more interested in his current work than making that switch.

It's not always just about the money...

On 11/1/2023 at 10:10 AM, dimreepr said:

Yes but all they do is cancel each other out, but never to zero.

We wish. The problem is they cancel out too many of the good, too many of the indifferent, and much too many of the innocent.

(not criticizing your point Dim, really just taking up your choice of words to make a different point)

"I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience,"

73 year old Ronald Reagan in 1984 about 56 year old Walter Mondale

Kind of makes you think...God save Kamala Harris...with Biden well over the average age of life expectancy...

OTOH it could get worse...Trump could get re-elected. (not that I think it will happen...but I reassured my sons it wouldn't happen in 2016...such was my trust in the American electorate at that time despite Hilary's obvious shortcomings and foot shooting tendencies...)

Comforting to know Biden and Harris will probably outlast his short weeks or months as speaker...for a few seconds...then you remember there is no reasonable replacement that will get the votes to do so...

Usually if someone is unable to breath through their nose when asleep, somehow they are triggered to breath through their mouth.

Apparently this case was exceptional to that normal occurrence.

5 hours ago, toucana said:

 

Some GOP sources are now attempting to float the idea of Donald Trump becoming an interim Speaker of the House.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFeNmtnxntI

The problem with this was pointed out yesterday by Rep. Sean Casten (D.Ill), who reminded his GOP colleagues that the Republican party’s own House Conference Rules for the 118th Congress (adopted in January of this year) state that:

“(a) A member of the Republican Leadership shall step aside if indicted for a felony for which a sentence of two or more years of imprisonment may be imposed” (Rule 26A)

Donald Trump is currently facing 91 felony indictments, many of which carry potential sentences far above 2 years.

Surely they could make one small exception...

You can of course, detect warmer than expected, even if contacting something cooler than the body.

A recently sat on toilet seat being an example familiar to most.

On 8/15/2023 at 12:29 PM, exchemist said:

Also, carrying a sculling boat on your head, as I used to do in my younger days. And driving open topped sports cars, which I also did..... 

Or maybe it was just the testosterone levels implicit in both activities that is responsible....

 

You spelled complicit wrong!😀

2 minutes ago, exchemist said:

There is research showing the effect of air pollution on health and also research showing the improvement in London air quality since the original central area ULEZ was created. It's probably too soon to have research directly on the impact on health of ULEZ, as these health effects become apparent over a period of many years, but it would seem quite reasonable to infer from the above that ULEZ has a beneficial impact. (I'm in London and the air is still filthy: I can wipe a black film off the glass topped table in the garden after only 24hrs.) 

Good post. There could well be a lag in any case, with many having symptoms developing pre-ULEZ and showing up after.

2 minutes ago, mistermack said:

The original ULEZ area in London was tiny, so the improvement will be tiny. You can't put all improvement down to ULEZ anyway, because cars are getting less polluting constantly, as old ones are scrapped and new ones are bought. You would have to compare the improvement to a non-ULEZ equivalent, to get a truer picture of any effect. There will of course be SOME effect, but it's likely to be tiny, and only in certain weather, because the wind will play a huge part generally. 

Also good.

17 minutes ago, Nevets said:

As I am not a Scientist I can't conduct my own studies, and I am reliant upon reading Scientific literature to form my opinions. Are you aware of any proven Scientific research which supports the requirement for Low Emission Zones that we are seeing pop up all over Europe, and not just in London?

I am not aware of any. No. But I tend to believe that if something is bad for you then the less the better, though I do drive vehicles and contribute to pollution.

The devil is in the details.

3 hours ago, Nevets said:

Summary

The claim is that according to Sadiq Khan's very own Science institution whom he paid nearly one million pound to research the effects of car pollution on people's health, his very own Scentific institution said "there was no evidence of a reduction in the proportion of children with small lungs or Asthma symptoms over this period", and therefor Low Emission Zones have no impact at-all, and are simply a cash cow.

So, what is the opinion of the Scientific community regarding the effects of Low Emission Zones?

Finding no evidence doesn't prove that statement, even if it points in that direction. You have to examine the nature of the research and how it was done.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/05/world/ancient-human-population-collapse-scn/index.html

Not sure how accepted this is, but seems interesting. Especially the 100,000+ years we may have balanced on the edge of the precipice.

4 hours ago, swansont said:

Even before that, for this thread (or perhaps another, since this one is supposed to be about gender), we need to have participants acknowledge the reality that the notion of sex is more complicated than what chromosomes you have, or what your visible genitalia are. 

 

It is about transgenders (in sports of course), not just gender alone...so yes it's certainly complicated but can't be gender alone as transgender means to have changed from your gender assumed from your biological sex (or that assumed at birth)

...and your biological sex, based on your chromosomes, surely aligns with the male advantage.

You can argue that some transgender females may have never had this advantage...but you can't ignore that the ones we need to consider for elite sports all did. Laurel Hubbard, for example, surely had lifts that if female at the time would have been significant World Records (I'll look it up if you don't want to...I'm more than confident that's the case if that's not obvious to you as well)