I can make 300 gals of RO water a day. That’s what I do, though I rarely make the 300 max. More like 100.
I don’t like those plastic bottles at all.
I don’t like those plastic bottles at all.
Official Off Topic Discussion Thread #1
- Thread starter Chrisplosion
- Start date
Hello; I also use tap water. I run it thru a filter in which there is a replaceable canister. As the tap water comes out of the Powell River I do not for a minute think it is contaminate free.
Back in the mid 1960's I was old enough to travel some. had family in Cincinnati OH & Indianapolis IN. The tap water in those two places had a bad taste. The family in OH used the five-gallon jugs in a dispenser. Not sure if taste drove the move to bottled water.
I live in a limestone karst type area. Lots of limestone caves of which I spelunked when young. There are also springs formed in these formations. There is one nearby to my home which comes out of the Cumberland Gap National Park below the Pinnacle overlook in the park. The local Coca-Cola bottling company has an 18-wheeler stainless steel tanker which picks up the spring water and hauls it around 5 to 8 miles to be put in plastic bottles. May be one of the few bottled waters actually coming from a spring. I keep some on hand for visitors who will not drink the filtered tap water and for the lady who delivers my mail. In the summer I keep a few bottles frozen and when it is 90 degrees F or above, I stick a frozen bottle in my mailbox on the highway for her.
Most bottled water is simply filtered tap water is my understanding. Even with the best of the stuff there is the plastic bottle. We get microplastics from the bottles when we drink it. The bottles wind up as trash or in a landfill. As trash they either make it into waterways and eventually the oceans or get broken down to smaller and smaller bits and then even smaller dots and even smaller microplastics.
Brings up an interesting question. Petroleum is not new stuff. Been around for millions of years. In some places has been at the surface. In otherplaces has been something like oil shales. Point being long before people started using the stuff is was weathered into the environment and became a portion of the environment.
That said the natural stuff was not the refined plastics and plastic compounds we humans can make. So, a some different thing. Back in the late 80's and thru the 90's I use to keep track of new manmade and previously unknown chemical compounds. There were some years 2000 or more such new, often put into the environment in some bulk. Some were tested for their individual properties and got warning labels if known to be even mildly toxic. A thing is I do not know that these various new to the world compounds were tested as groups interacting with each other out in the world. I think of this when I see big events such as a house or building burn or a neighborhood becomes flooded. Of course, we are constantly dumping all sorts of stuff down a drain as a slow but steady thing.
It seems to me that when gas ticks up 10 cents a gallon a lot of people grumble about it, but it only raises my weekly fuel cost may $1.20 to $1.50. These same people are the ones who think paying 10% more for everything due to tarrifs is tolerable because it's "good for the country" or "making it fair again." But this raises my family's weekly grocery bill by $25- $30. It would take 4 to 6 months for the 10 cent gas rise to impact my budget that much... isn't math fun?
Hello; I do not have a firm take on tariffs yet. In some ways a paticular tariff can cost me extra providing there is no alternative. An example back in around 2018 or so I needed a roof on my house. Due to metal tariffs a metal roof cost more than a shingle roof. I shopped around and got good quality shingles for my house and carport for the same as only my house in metal.
A way I have seen tariffs explained is as a tool to get better trade agreements than what existed in the past. We long knew of countries which had high tariffs on our products going into their countries while having very low to no tariffs on their products coming into my country. Could work out "better" for the country as a whole but not necessarily for some individuals.
A second thing about tariffs is the impact gets to individuals and small businesses in many cases before it affects another countries government bosses. Was listening to Washington Journal or was it Haystack News while making breakfast today. A small business owner was telling how some items formerly imported had more than doubled in cost. He turned to a local supplier to find that supplier had taken advantage of demand to raise the price of that product. That may be greed, but in a way shows how tariffs can help some and hurt others.
The ideal situation would be to have a balance which works for most. From what I have been seeing since the tariff "wars" started some months ago is some countries are playing financial chicken and not acting in the best interest of their citizens. I do question tariffs used for other than economic reasons.
Hello; Happened on a Greek island. The thing which got my attention is the law which applies. The two year old was attacked by a stray dog the family had found and had taken in and were feeding and all. The child died. Under the law the parents were arrested. I guess for having a clearly dangerous situation at the home.
Here in TN it is my understanding that if I begin feeding a stray dog and allowing it to hang around, I then become responsible for the actions of the dog. Never tested that so cannot say.
"better" for the country as a whole but not necessarily for some individuals."
Thats the key in phrasing, it's not "the country as a whole" that it benefits, it is U.S, manufacturers selling overseas. This in theory trickles down to the rest of the economy if you subscribe to the Reagan theory, but all that is really known is it benefits these manufacturers,(who typically support the republican party) not the whole country, while not just some individuals as you say, but every individual in the country pays the higher cost of goods until the chicken match is negotiated.
Thats the key in phrasing, it's not "the country as a whole" that it benefits, it is U.S, manufacturers selling overseas. This in theory trickles down to the rest of the economy if you subscribe to the Reagan theory, but all that is really known is it benefits these manufacturers,(who typically support the republican party) not the whole country, while not just some individuals as you say, but every individual in the country pays the higher cost of goods until the chicken match is negotiated.
Hello; videos of agile robots have been on the news the last day or few. This one shows a robot fighting a human. Actually, knocking him down. Looks like Asimov's three laws of robotics were not applied to the software. Seems curious that fighting is among the first skills worked into autonomous robots. looks like we are headed more for a terminator future than a three laws future. For an easy reference to the three laws, you can watch the Will Smith film I ROBOT which was adapted for a book of the same name. There are several three laws short stories & books for those who read.
Goes to show my expectations do not match the reality. I wonder what they were thinking when they programed a robot to fight people. If my understanding of programming is on track the programmers can add layers of safety lines of code to protect people. Ther was a 1st generation STAR TREK episode in which a giant robot figured a way to override such safety programing an attacked Kirk (Shatner).
We go to the greek island of Zakynthos every year so this piqued my interest. A further report I read from an English newspaper named the small village the attack took place in as "Agios Leon".
This name rang a bell and when I checked the map of Zakynthos I found that it's a little village I've cycled through many times on my many jaunts around the island.
It just goes to show you that these dog attacks can happen absolutely anywhere, even on small picturesque idyllic islands.
Very sad, the little boy had just turned 2. It was his birthday only a few days ago.
Asimov's "three laws of robotics" were/are a staple in science fiction, either central to the story or at least an important background element. In this case, all they needed to do was point a gun at the human in question, and then tell the robot that the man would be killed if he didn't go prone. Presto! Prone human.
In any case, aren't the Three Laws simply a fictional creation? Do the designers and builders of modern robots actually believe in them and follow them? I'd be amazed if so.
Nothing curious about it, IMHO. If there's one thing that drives technological advance faster than greed...and I'm not certain there is, but "if"...then that thing would be the military applications of the new tech.
I remember that scene from Star Trek. "Existence! Survival cancels programming!", spoken by Ted Cassidy, who I guess was on leave from working as Lurch in The Addams Family.
Yeah, I have a ridiculous memory for utterly useless crap...but I can't remember anything that's actually important...
