Phi for All

So, you don't see any of this as subversion of the US constitution, even where it's been pointed out?

You know who else was proud of trying to subvert the US constitution? The Communists of the Soviet Union.

Learn to distinguish between someone showing an idea to be wrong and someone attacking you personally. If this is the way you choose to learn, fine. But you need to stop confusing ideas with the person who has them. As I said before, the vast majority of ideas people have are wrong, but they can often lead to successful ideas. Neither successful nor unsuccessful ideas make the person who has them brilliant or stupid. Take your "self" out of the equation, and realize that criticism of your ideas is not criticism of you.

You're trying to convert a logical argument into a reality-based one. Energy transfer is negated by market demand (if raising livestock for consumption was inefficient enough to upset cost-effectiveness, it wouldn't be a viable business model). Usable space for raising livestock can be (and is most often) done in areas people don't find attractive to live. And it's simply easier (and more efficient and economical) to improve inefficiencies than to prohibit consumption. So you think we could eventually develop the technology to feed the world on plants alone, but you conclude that bioengineering of animal protein sources will never reach similar technological levels? Again, that doesn't seem like it's based in reality.

Mining companies have to use some kind of oil or grease for equipment. That might come in 55 gallon drums.

I'm not calling you a crackpot, and I'm not belittling you. I'm saying you have to figure out how to make your arguments more cogent. You can't fall back on crackpot arguments.

Gilded, where you been, buddy? That's so cool that you knew we were talking about you before I sent the PM. Was this part of that time travel thing you will eventually not be having told me about?

This argument assumes that livestock eat plants that could have been eaten by humans, and that's not the case in most instances. It also assumes that all land currently grazed by livestock is suitable for farming, which is obviously not the case without a great deal of expense. And I'm not denying the antecedent, you're proposing a false dilemma. Just because current methods of factory farming are inefficient doesn't mean we need to stop eating meat to fix the problem. In that case, they aren't valid since improving the process to be more humane and efficient is hugely preferable. It doesn't involve giving up several species which have become domesticated and wouldn't survive in the wild, and are our only naturally occurring sources of vitamin B12. You'd also have to prove that there is enough arable land to provide enough of a plant-only diet for the entire world. Extreme measures like completely giving up meat on a voluntary basis are completely untenable. The amount of resources we'd have to expend selling such an idea would be cost-prohibitive, and quite frankly, I think would work about as well as any other kind of prohibition has worked with humans, especially omnivorous humans. Methane from livestock doesn't contribute to the net gain in greenhouse gases because the CO2 obtained from methanogenesis is from sources that used up atmospheric CO2 in the first place. I can search for a paper which shows this, but what you're suggesting is killing off the world's livestock in order to prevent them from burping. How is this a viable solution?

MOST ideas don't work, so this isn't a rational argument. You HAVE to do better than this in explaining your concepts, because "People laughed at Galileo" is the crackpot motto.

Ebay or a local feed store, perhaps.

! Moderator Note illuusio, while we very much appreciate the opportunity to re-open your thread in order to test the math you were able to give, the results of the test show your idea to be false. Now you're simply falling back into the behavior that got the thread closed in the first place. It's clear you are not considering reality when you continue to defend ideas that have been tested and shown false. You have been shown ample evidence why the idea is wrong, and have not been able to provide any evidence to support it. Our rules call for evidence, and it would be a disservice to the rest of the membership to spend more pages of discussion without it. Thread closed. Again.

Go to the section you want first, then click Start a New Topic. As I said, Gilded was simply sick of everything in his part of the world being made from pine. It's simply his opinion. Or maybe "table" just fit with his rhyming scheme better than "chair" or "furniture".

! Moderator Note A very dangerous precedent for anyone serious about learning through discussion.

! Moderator Note Upon staff review, no hazmat rules were breached. No deletion is necessary.

If you were wearing lace-up tennis shoes, it could be stuck in the laces. We often don't consider that something lost might have hitched a ride on the person looking for it. When I was in high school, half a dozen of us looked for a girl's car keys for half an hour before she found them in the cuffs of her, um, trousers.

1 -3 are reasons to change the way meat is processed, not reasons to stop eating meat. And methane's CO2 is quickly reabsorbed by plants and doesn't really add much to net greenhouse gases.

! Moderator Note illuusio, please stop opening other threads to advertise this one, or you will be suspended or banned from the forum.

The acid is so this thread can be in the Chemistry section. If you're out my way, Moon, bring along some pine with you. If you want to make it into 1x4s and 1x6s for easy travel, that's OK by me. Just make 'em straight, and no acid.

Gilded is from Finland, and they have more forests than any other country in Europe (like 86% of the country is trees), and about half of that is pine. He can't see the forests for the pine trees, I'm guessing.

Another good idea, in a more commercial, non-chemical way. Depending on the type of wood, I might rent a chipper and reduce the thousands of kilos of wood to wood chips, load them in my truck and make the rounds in upscale neighborhoods offering to replenish people's gardens or landscaping. Chippers have their own danger, in a Fargo kind of way, but are more reliable than homemade boilers.

I suppose if you went with a simple classic design, and hooked it up to a generator, you could minimize the danger of high-pressure steam. I wonder if something along these lines would work: Replacing the Sterno with a wood fire, of course.

To be fair, John Cuthber, people don't expect their own quotes to be tampered with in a reply. To insist that chilled_flourine should pay more attention in this instance is like telling someone you've hidden something in the room they're in, and then chastising them when they fail to check their own pockets.

I thought of that first, tbh, but was a bit leery of someone making a steam engine. Of the two methods, the steam engine seemed the most dangerous for a do-it-yourselfer.

If you're taking it just to keep platelets from clumping, there are low-dose coated tablets you can take that reduce the stomach irritation and are aimed more at heart risk/stroke situations than pain management. I would always advise checking with your doctor first, though, since no one here knows your medical history.