>> ^RhesusMonk:

copyright claim dead


Fixed

When you get finished the climb, and your arms warm up, all of the by-products of muscle effort finally leave your arms. Painful. Called the "Screaming Barfies", and why I don't climb anymore. =)

>> ^Auger8:

Wow just wow, greed wins again, seriously did he really have to make sure he could fit every last drop of gas in his tank. This is why topping off isn't a good idea. Those pumps stop at a certain point for a reason.
LOL and really what did he think would happen?


I think greed is the wrong term. It's not like squeezing those extra drops are free, you still pay for it. The reason topping off a gas tank is a bad idea is because gasoline expands and contracts with temperature. If you could fill your your tank up completely on a cold night and let it sit, when the temp warms up in the day the gas would expand and spill out. To prevent this, gas tanks have an expansion area in the top. When you remove the gas cap, there should be a little spring loaded thing that closes a valve to this bubble preventing you from completely filling the tank. When you put the gas cap back on, it presses the valve and re-opens the vent letting the gas expand into the bubble if needed. Some cars even have a sensor on that valve that will trigger a check engine light if you don't fully tighten your gas cap.

My car runs on diesel, but to save money on installing a different fuel tank for the diesel version it still has the same tank as the gasoline version (except it has a wider opening to fit diesel nozzles). Diesel doesn't expand like gasoline, so you can safely fill a diesel tank up to the rim. There's a little trick you can do on my car to remove the spring that leaves the vent open and fit an extra 2 gallons in the tank. People like riding with me on trips because I don't have to stop and fill up so often. Most of the places I regularly have to go I can make the round trip without a fuel stop.

For the last 20 or so years, my family has owned a yellow-naped Green Amazon parrot. He's finicky, and very territorial around his cage. He's quite a bit larger than these Caiques, but smaller than a Macaw. When we let him out of his cage, he's not nearly this... playful. He usually just wants to hide in a corner until he feels safe enough to explore. If you handle while they're still very young, then they can be this playful. It really depends on how their raised.

In general, social animals, that is to say, animals that flock or group with animals from the same or even similar species (the birds on Telegraph Hill in SF come to mind, they're not a homogeneous flock) tend to make better pets than animals that lead solitary lives in the wild (cats, reptiles, etc). They tend to have a more defined personality, and have more capability to read social cues and take training.

The things is, birds know they're fragile - most of their bones are only paper-thin. So they posture up, get defensive and territorial around their cages. To train them, you usually have to take them out of their place of power, that is, their cage, to another space that they don't have as much familiarity or control.

The Amazon my family has kept for 20 years, as I said, is very finicky. But 20 years of trust built up has made him a little more friendly to me, at least. He tolerates my mom, and used to be outright hostile to my dad (the bird would kick grit from the bottom of his cage at him, lunge to bite at him if he got close to his cage. But I'm the only one he'll let pet him on a consistent basis, and even then, if he's in a mood he might lunge at me. He also hasn't had much training at all, and to handle him by hand is to risk getting bit HARD. No one else in the family has attempted it, and I usually get bit in the process His jaws put out a LOT of force. Usually he tries to play with my earrings or hair, but winds up chomping my ear or scalp. I don't hold it against him, he's probably trying to figure out how to climb to the top of my head. If you want to handle animals, you have to accept that getting bit or scratched will be an inevitability.

My wife's family took care of a Grey Amazon that found his way to their home about 20 years ago. You could say the bird adopted them. One of his legs was busted - he likely broke it himself to break free of what chained him down, and he still managed to fly away with clipped wings. Most birds keep their beak ground and well-kept, but he let his beak over-grow, curving to one side of his upper beak and hooking upwards in a manner that looked threatening. His cage was left open frequently so he could bop around, but usually he'd just want to climb up someone's leg all the way up to their shoulders. He was very rough around the edges, likely because of the constant pain of a disfigured leg, but eventually warmed up to me and let me scratch his head. He passed away a couple years ago, around Christmas time. He is missed.

Neither of those descriptions above really describe what happens in terms of heating/cooling.

You put a cold stone in a warmer drink. The cold stone will take energy away from the drink until they have reached the same energy level, or temperature.

Then they'll both warm up based on the air temperature.

Same as ice... it absorbs the energy from the drink, making it colder, until it (now water) has reached an equilibrium with the alcohol.... then it too will just warm up to air temperature over time.

So, yeah, the only difference is that you have diluted alcohol vs non diluted.

>> ^shole:

yea, these have been around for a while now; teraforma
It's a fun idea but it's not a replacement.
Ice doesn't absorb heat, so the drink stays the same temperature the entire time any ice exists, but the rock starts warming up immediately, slowly warming the drink with it.
The user has to choose if he wants to keep his drink cold or undiluted.
Also, cheap imitations give out dust, so get the real deal or check user reviews.


I think I get what you were going for here but this isn't strictly true. Ice does absorb heat and it does change temperature. It warms to 0 C and stays there as it melts - but the melt water warms from there. The stone on the other hand warms continuously up to room temperature but it will remain colder than the drink and never 'warm' it. The only real difference between the two is that the melted ice dilutes the drink and has an added heat capacity in the enthalpy of fusion required to change it from ice to liquid.

Yep, answering questions no one asked...

yea, these have been around for a while now; teraforma

It's a fun idea but it's not a replacement.
Ice doesn't absorb heat, so the drink stays the same temperature the entire time any ice exists, but the rock starts warming up immediately, slowly warming the drink with it.
The user has to choose if he wants to keep his drink cold or undiluted.
Also, cheap imitations give out dust, so get the real deal or check user reviews.

In Toronto, Canada - perhaps it was a little over a year..
Actually, I almost missed it! The show started with a warm-up band. We assumed it was the warm-up band from the ticket and the next band (the real warm-up) was the Weakerthans. The second warm-up band was terrible. They said nothing, the set was short and the sound was almost incomprehensible. Everyone seemed to split directly after the last number. So, standing in an empty hall with the lights on watching people hauling gear away, we thought, 'oh, well.. win some, you lose some' and we left the venue. Flagging a cab we had second thoughts... That REALLy didn't sound like the Weakerthans from their albums .. what if...

So we went back and lo and behold -- they were in the process of resetting the stage for the real Weakerthans! After a very long break they came on and played an awesome show with great sound -- we nearly missed it! One of the best shows I've seen.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Definitely could use a bit of moog or some Steely Dan Chords. http://www.hakwright.co.uk/steelydan/mu-major.html
In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
I'm going to do a techno remix of it. Do you separate guitar and voice tracks? I know my dagsong is going to be epic!
In reply to this comment by dag:
DFT, Killer bees, Martin Scorsese, melted cheese, hopping fleas. (I'm warming up for galaxy)

I'm going to do a techno remix of it. Do you separate guitar and voice tracks? I know my dagsong is going to be epic!
In reply to this comment by dag:
DFT, Killer bees, Martin Scorsese, melted cheese, hopping fleas. (I'm warming up for galaxy)

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

DFT, Killer bees, Martin Scorsese, melted cheese, hopping fleas. (I'm warming up for galaxy)

>> ^residue:

@bcglorf would you trust someone with a doctorate in geology?
Here are some data:
Air:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.php
Ocean:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7296/fig_tab/nature09043
_F1.html
(From: Lyman, J.M., Good, S.A., Gouretski, V.V., Ishii, M., Johnson, G.C., Palmer, M.D.,
Smith, D.M., and Willis, J.K., Robust warming of the global upper ocean: Nature,
v. 465, p. 334-337.)
The only real thing debated (or that should be debated) is why it's warming up. we've got 2 basic reasons: it's because of human interaction or it's because of natural processes (hey the earth has been WAY warmer than it is now several times - http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm)
In reference to your statement about the relative contributions of water vapor and CO2, there are 2 things you need to realize. First of all, the residence time of water vapor in the atmosphere is 9 days, the residence time of CO2 among other greenhouse gases can be as much as 100 years with other greenhouse gases (aerosols for example) much longer. Most aerosols were outlawed in the late 70s but graphs of their concentration in the atmosphere show no relative decrease since the cessation of their use. The second point here is that water vapor's place in the atmosphere is natural, greenhouse gas emission is not. Water vapor contributes to the amount of greenhouse effect that we need to survive on the planet (if we didn't have the greenhouse effect at all, earth could not sustain life - too cold). Humans contribute to greenhouse effect by adding in greenhouse gases and warming the planet. To specify the relative contributions of each and say "well water vapor is the biggest culprit! We only release tiny amounts of CO2 relative to water vapor, so it's really not our fault!" is irresponsible.
You might, however, find this interesting:
http://onlin
e.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970204257504577150812451167538-lMyQjAxMTAyMDIwNDEyNDQyWj.html?mod=wsj_share_email
Definitely a different take on the issue at large, but again, the argument here isn't whether or not global warming is happening (it is) but rather what it all means.


Well, you and I seem largely agreed. I commented multiple times that the warming is not in question, but rather why and more importantly what it means to us.

The challenge with accurately modelling the contribution of H2O has nothing to do with our own emissions of H2O. For all reasonable purposes we can, again as you seem to agree, ignore the meager contribution humans make to it. H2O is as you say largely short lived in the atmosphere, but it still makes up the overwhelming majority of the greenhouse effect, despite residing in the atmosphere for a fraction of the time of gases like CO2. Obviously that means that H2O replenishes itself into the atmosphere as rapidly as it dissipates. We know that this rate is driven by temperature. What we don't understand well is how that should play out in our models, or more importantly how it plays out in reality. Just how much confidence can we place on future projections of CO2 changes when we aren't even sure which sign to attribute the feedback effect of water vapor?

@bcglorf would you trust someone with a doctorate in geology?

Here are some data:

Air:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.php
Ocean:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7296/fig_tab/nature09043_F1.html
(From: Lyman, J.M., Good, S.A., Gouretski, V.V., Ishii, M., Johnson, G.C., Palmer, M.D.,
Smith, D.M., and Willis, J.K., Robust warming of the global upper ocean: Nature,
v. 465, p. 334-337.)

The only real thing debated (or that should be debated) is why it's warming up. we've got 2 basic reasons: it's because of human interaction or it's because of natural processes (hey the earth has been WAY warmer than it is now several times - http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm)

In reference to your statement about the relative contributions of water vapor and CO2, there are 2 things you need to realize. First of all, the residence time of water vapor in the atmosphere is 9 days, the residence time of CO2 among other greenhouse gases can be as much as 100 years with other greenhouse gases (aerosols for example) much longer. Most aerosols were outlawed in the late 70s but graphs of their concentration in the atmosphere show no relative decrease since the cessation of their use. The second point here is that water vapor's place in the atmosphere is natural, greenhouse gas emission is not. Water vapor contributes to the amount of greenhouse effect that we need to survive on the planet (if we didn't have the greenhouse effect at all, earth could not sustain life - too cold). Humans contribute to greenhouse effect by adding in greenhouse gases and warming the planet. To specify the relative contributions of each and say "well water vapor is the biggest culprit! We only release tiny amounts of CO2 relative to water vapor, so it's really not our fault!" is irresponsible.

You might, however, find this interesting:
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970204257504577150812451167538-lMyQjAxMTAyMDIwNDEyNDQyWj.html?mod=wsj_share_email

Definitely a different take on the issue at large, but again, the argument here isn't whether or not global warming is happening (it is) but rather what it all means.

If Scott Bakula could drop the constant John Wayne impression I woulda warmed up to his captaincy more.

Cripes... Uninterpreted data shows a warming since early 1900s... To say the earth isn't slowly warming is ignoring the data entirely..

Air:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.php
Ocean:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7296/fig_tab/nature09043_F1.html
(From: Lyman, J.M., Good, S.A., Gouretski, V.V., Ishii, M., Johnson, G.C., Palmer, M.D.,
Smith, D.M., and Willis, J.K., Robust warming of the global upper ocean: Nature,
v. 465, p. 334-337.)

The only real thing debated (or that should be debated) is why it's warming up. we've got 2 basic reasons: it's because of human interaction or it's because of natural processes (hey the earth has been WAY warmer than it is now several times - http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm)

Go check out a graph of CO2 emissions sometime, though, and tell me there isn't a correlation between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. Hell of a coincidence, especially considering how gradual natural temperature fluctuations are and how sudden this particular change is.

http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp//Library/nationalassessment/LargerImages/OverviewGraphics/1000YrRecords.jpg