Letters posted here are associated with the following Salon Premium Member:

Chernobyl Kid

Published Letters: 196
Editor's Choice: 19

Sunday, March 1, 2009 05:18 AM
Original article: Scenes from a housing boom

@Crumb

"I looked up some of your numbers, and I'm seeing that walking at a moderate pace can be expected to burn about 4 joules / sec / kg of body mass. So a 220-pound person walking normally is burning 400 watts, not 75."

400W is over half a horsepower (1HP = about 750W.) So this strikes me as unlikely.

Not sure where you got your numbers but they don't match with my experience. (I don't need to tell you that there's a lot of mis/disinformation on the internet, especially with regards to how many calories you can burn by doing various things.)

I'm in pretty good shape (not an athlete by any stretch, but as I've subtly implied elsewhere on this thread I tend to walk everywhere.) In other words, I'm an average healthy human for the purposes of this discussion.

And I recall that when I used to go to the gym to use the fancy cardio equipment, one readout showed watts (it took into account my mass which I had to input at the beginning of the session.) When I was really working--I'm talking about the "hills" on the "hill climb" program, grunting, wheezing, sweating--it was showing on the order of 200W. I could keep that up for about three minutes before the program mercifully dropped the resistance. I was running the program at a level 10 or 12 (out of 20) resistance setting.

When it was showing 60-80W I could keep that up all day, if not for the boredom.

I appreciate your checking the numbers--I sometimes worry that I've made a mistake somewhere, giga'd where I shoulda kilo'd, that sort of thing--but I think I'm on pretty solid ground here.

Monday, March 2, 2009 11:05 AM

Said it before, will say it again...

It took 25 years for the Dow to get back to its 1929 peak.

That's because the 1929 peak was driven by asset inflation and speculation. It took until 1954 for the actual wealth to catch up to what it had been perceived to be in 1929.

The Dow is not going to "recover" to its 14,000-point high anytime soon, no matter what Obama does. That 14,000 didn't represent real wealth. Now everyone knows it didn't represent real wealth. Get over it.

Friday, March 6, 2009 08:35 AM

Well, I'm glad that after sixteen years

Americans can see what's right in front of their faces: that the current system doesn't work, and calling other countries' systems names based on a half-baked understanding of how they provide health care (rather than sedulously failing to provide it) isn't a good starting point.

You may be shocked--shocked!--to find in the coming years that other crazy, kooky, nutty Un-American ideas (like not letting everyone carry handguns around, and having public schools be funded by state or federal governments rather than local taxation districts, or taxing fossil fuels to encourage people to become less reliant on same) are actually *good ideas*, not fast-tracks to totalitarianism, and would keep your lives from being the miserable, desperate scrambling for money that you have left yourselves as the only choice.

Congratulations! The bottom of the class has finally graduated kindergarten. Jesus Christ...

Monday, March 9, 2009 09:31 AM

Good grief!

You don't get to be part of the party that sedulously ensured that banks would get too big to fail, and then say let them fail. You can take one stance or the other but not both.

Wednesday, March 18, 2009 12:42 PM

double standard

Let's all give Obama at least one-tenth the trust extended to George W. Bush.

Georgie boy got everything he wanted, no one was allowed to criticize anything he did lest they give care and comfort to, you know, terrorists and stuff. You all allowed him to be judged by a very low standard and when he exceeded those rock-bottom expectations he got a shiny gold star.

Obama is not a moron and that is more than we can say for the last guy. Frankly, I think Americans deserve whatever happens to them after letting Bush run rampant for eight years. I have been watching and you did this to yourselves, you stupid fucks. If you come out of this with two pennies to rub together it will be thanks to Obama and you will all be luckier than you deserve.

Monday, March 23, 2009 09:09 AM

Here's a thought...

and just try it on for a moment...

Obama knows what he has to do is nationalize the banks, at least temporarily. But he can't do that until he has really obviously tried the Wall Street-friendly way and it has really obviously not worked and everybody is FURIOUS.

He is building the political capital it will take to accomplish the necessary nationalization, and preemptively fending off the smear campaign that Wall Street will unleash when he does.

Barack Obama is a smart guy.

Wednesday, March 25, 2009 04:55 AM

I thought Obama's response to Ed Henry

was perfectly legitimate and not at all "angry" as some have indicated.

Maybe it was a bit more heated than baseline Obama but good grief...

I kind of like the idea that the President will shoot down people who ask stupid questions. Maybe if he embarrasses them enough, they'll start coming up with intelligent questions and start doing their jobs.

Friday, March 27, 2009 08:20 AM

Try

"The Party of No Clue."

Most Active Letters Threads

426

A key British official reminds us of the forgotten anthrax attack

A vast array of establishment and expert sources do not believe this episode was really resolved.
397

The crazy, irrational beliefs of Muslims

Tom Friedman explains the real problem: stupid Muslims think the U.S. is about war and aggression.
210

Is Obama's civil liberties record understandable?

Was it unreasonable to expect him to adhere to his commitments regarding the Constitution?
111

How dare you criticize wasteful defense spending!

So you think it's only terrorist-appeasing lefties who are down on Pentagon profligacy? Think again
59

Police to talk to Woods

Early morning crash raises questions, and revives tabloid speculation

View all »

Letters Help

Currently in Salon