feed

Faking it and maintaining that lie is probably harder than actually sending the rover.

That’s sort of my point, If you believe we have the tech to go today, why haven’t we. Standing on a body that isn’t Earth is a big deal. Yet no one cares anymore and it’s the moon for resource exploitation.

Well Wiki tells me there was no soft landings happening between 22 August 1976 and 14 December 2013. And obviously Chang'e 4 is there now. What I find hard to believe is that if we didn’t go in the ‘70’s, then we also didn’t go in the 80’s, 90’s and early 2000’s. All the way through the Reagan and Space Shuttle era, nothing. And today the only people with any real interest are the Chinese.

We can go to the moon today. So the question is, when did we first have the technology to go to the moon. The fact, that nobody bothered to go for such a long time between the first moon landings and more recently, is a compelling argument. We went, it was dull and there was absolutely no point to go again. Whether it was the first one was in 69 or 72, I’m not sure really makes all that much difference.

Lets assume it's Mays deal. Central office goes into overdrive - Boris delivered a Brexit. Now what. BP aren't going to get a WTO deal, they'll not get the traction or enough support. Liberals aren't going to get it overturned and a return to full membership. And their paymasters aren't going to fund any further challenges. So what do they campaign on. Sure there will be some voters that punish the tories for it, but most voters will drift back to party lines. And enough damage has probably been done to labour (mostly by labour) to give the Tories the advantage overall.

What's a true Brexit? Leaving bad deal or not, is going to be seen by most voters as having left.

Which election? If Brexit is done then BP and the liberals in their current incarnation, raison d'etre evaporates. Are those voters suddenly going to turn around and vote for Corbyn. Liberals in particular are going to have to find some policies, because reversing Brexit isn’t going to be one and they’re going to need to differentiate themselves. Brexit done it becomes another personally battle between Boris and Corbyn.

Stolen from off topic. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/09/13/army-could-phase-fossil-fuels-attract-ecofriendly-recruits-senior/ I’ve an interest in EV’s in general as I work automotive. But interesting from a infrastructure perspective. Electrification of the Military / Government assets. And quote form the Frankfurt motorshow With electrification fast becoming the mainstream, we are substantially increasing the number of electrified models and powertrain options for our customers to choose from to suit their needs,” said Stuart Rowley, president, Ford of Europe. “By making it easier than ever to seamlessly shift into an electrified vehicle, we expect the majority of our passenger vehicle sales to be electrified by the end of 2022.” Someone is going to make a big pile of money building the EV infrastructure.

They will if they don't own a car. https://www.driving.co.uk/news/britain-may-hit-peak-car-young-driver-numbers-fall-sharply/ https://www.verdict.co.uk/shared-mobility-cars/

Decl: own wmh Online already huge and there has been a couple of waves of consolidation. See Betfair/Paddy 2015. Probably one of the more mature online industries. There is a long history to online books, from when the Vegas casinos thought they wanted an online presence. So some mainstream have a presence near 20 years and they’re got very good at it, but as always it’s mobile/apps that expanded online business more recently. Particularly in-play. They (industry in general) are in a position with a lot of high street stores from past consolidation that aren’t worth the rents now that the money laundering business has gone away. My opinion – they’re beaten down because of this. I think Democorruptcy worked in a shop, he maybe able to indicates how profitable they are without the machines. DB’s opinion on further consolidation maybe right. But either way number of high street stores will fall markedly. There has been a lot of talk recently about the US opening up, but there has been that for 20 years as well, so I wouldn’t put too much in it.

All of the sups I’ve tried over the years. ZMA is the only one you’d have to pry from my cold dead hands. Others have functional use, but ZMA, all round, from mood to sleep quality to recovery speed. Now different bodies require different things in different quantities, but hands down I’d recommend it above anything else. Inconsistent training is probably one of the biggest killers. Yes it hurts. Embrace it.

The key is that supplements, supplement a good diet. Not replace. And the nutritional needs for athletes requires either considered management at the macro level or supplementation. Nominally if you break it down into Food supplements and Nutritional supplements. Whey is a food supplement and absolutely you can and should get the majority of your protein from diet. But whey adds the flexibility to add that post workout meal quickly, get that decent macro split when you’ve been travelling all day or when you’re at an event and the only options are in a snack machine. Your family meal is 80% carb that day or your partner is a vegetarian. And you can play around with the amino acids profile as well, see the role glutamine plays. But that really depends on the sport/activity. Then the nutritional supplements, my personal favourite ZMA. Without eating acres of spinach, there is just no way I’m going to get the amount of zinc I find beneficial. Now, if I had a personal chef, then not another supplement I would take. But I don’t. And you still have to do the training.

From the late ‘90’s. But then again, the guys I see doing terrible exercises / terrible splits. 80% of the people in a gym haven’t a scooby and don’t want to pay for any coaching or advise. But need? For whom? Regular Jo, sure probably not. Nutritional requirement is a couple thousand calories with a reasonable macro split. That’s all you need. But maximising potential in athletes. If you’re putting in 14hrs+ training a week and unless there is some serious attention paid to general diet, then quality supplementation will make a difference. And if someone is putting in 14hrs+ plus then I’m assuming they want to win.

For a 13 year old, doing 14+ hrs a week, that's about the best advise you're going to get. Exercise, well, that should be down to his coach.

Well politics has always been show business for ugly people.