I have to agree with what others have said about #3. It's totally out of place with the others. If you're going to include that, why not include other foods that are harvested where people are in conflict with each other. Why not list grapes, almonds, and apricots grown in the Helmand Valley of Afghanistan? Saffron in Kashmir? Or sesame and okra in South Kordofan, Sudan? None of these foods are particularly out-of-the-ordinary, but then neither are olives.
Land area is also a potential issue. This plant is supposedly on 185 hectares (1.85 km^2). To generate the average yearly energy output equal to the Hoover Dam (4.2 TWh/year), the plant would need to be 38.2 times larger in area or 70.6 km^2 = 27.3 square miles. That may only be a tenth the surface area of Lake Mead, but you can fish in and go for a boat ride on a lake.
@Sparky: The appeal is that it's fresh and tastes good. Are you saying that it's okay as long as you don't fantasize about the animal still being alive? That doesn't make much sense logically.
As far as the eating the live shrimp that others have mentioned, how is this different from eating live oysters, or live mealworms, etc.? And if the animals die instantly when you bite them, how is that different from using a knife to chop off their little heads or throwing them in pot of boiling water?
This animal is dead. The entire mantle (the long part of the body that the fins are attached to) has been cut off. The mantle contains most of the animal's vital organs, including the heart. The "brain," i.e., cerebral ganglia is likely in head part remaining, but won't be getting any oxygen so the animal is dead or is unconscious and on it way to being dead. The fact that brain and parts of the nervous are still present is a red herring in terms of the muscles exhibiting this twitching phenomenon. Completely isolated muscle can do exactly the same thing. Of course isolated muscle is not nearly as cool as many different muscles all attached to a hydrostatic body all twitching.
Here's more info than you'll ever need on squid anatomy:
This is junk statistics if I've ever seen it. There may be something to the automated trading idea, but these data are proof of nothing. How about the hundreds of other times Ms. Hathaway was in the news and the stock didn't rise so dramatically? How volatile is this stock normally? Are these percentage increases anything out of the ordinary?
Exasperated, I decided to d a quick test. I downloaded the BRK.A data from Jan. 1, 2008 to Mar. 18, 2011 from YAHOO Finance and did a trivial analysis of it in Matlab. Just looking at the difference between open and close prices, the stock was up 0.25% or more 308 times over this period. The stock was up 2.61% or more 47 times over this period. Those two percentages are the lowest and highest in Mr. Mirvish's "data."
As a scientist and math lover I've disappointed to see this story making the rounds with so little skepticism. It's a statement for the level of understanding of statistics and probability by the general public.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enercon_E-126
Sure, you'd still need a battery storage system to match the molten salt. Pumped-storage hydroelectricity is one option:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity#Potential_technologies
Land area is also a potential issue. This plant is supposedly on 185 hectares (1.85 km^2). To generate the average yearly energy output equal to the Hoover Dam (4.2 TWh/year), the plant would need to be 38.2 times larger in area or 70.6 km^2 = 27.3 square miles. That may only be a tenth the surface area of Lake Mead, but you can fish in and go for a boat ride on a lake.
As far as the eating the live shrimp that others have mentioned, how is this different from eating live oysters, or live mealworms, etc.? And if the animals die instantly when you bite them, how is that different from using a knife to chop off their little heads or throwing them in pot of boiling water?
Here's more info than you'll ever need on squid anatomy:
http://webs.lander.edu/rsfox/invertebrates/lolliguncula.html
Exasperated, I decided to d a quick test. I downloaded the BRK.A data from Jan. 1, 2008 to Mar. 18, 2011 from YAHOO Finance and did a trivial analysis of it in Matlab. Just looking at the difference between open and close prices, the stock was up 0.25% or more 308 times over this period. The stock was up 2.61% or more 47 times over this period. Those two percentages are the lowest and highest in Mr. Mirvish's "data."
As a scientist and math lover I've disappointed to see this story making the rounds with so little skepticism. It's a statement for the level of understanding of statistics and probability by the general public.