Cube Global Storage: Fill & Download for Free

Throughout the ages, gold has been a universal currency and a great store of value.It hasn’t really been an investment until recent times, in the same way the US$ isn’t really an investment today.But the reason why gold isn’t a great investment today is as follows…All the gold in the world is worth around US$7,500Bn. And it'd fit in a cube of 20m length.Now, gold has uses, but none that are significant except jewellery, so, big picture, it’s pretty useless.If you bought all the gold in the world for $7.5Tn after, say, 20 years, it’d be worth a little more than $7.5Tn (inflation and the global economy would push up the price).Now sure, I'm ignoring the speculative element, but you don't invest long-term in the expectation you will sell in a speculative bubble - you look at fundamentals.Note, you would get no dividend or yield on gold - in fact, you’d need to pay for storage.What could you buy instead of that $7.5Tn worth of gold?You could buy Apple ($900Bn), Facebook ($500Bn), Alibaba ($450Bn), Google ($750Bn), Amazon ($550Bn), Microsoft ($650Bn), Netflix ($80Bn), Uber ($50Bn), and Tesla ($55Bn).That’d cost you $4Tn.You could then buy all the property in London for $1.5Tn. Add New York for $1Tn. You would benefit from all the rent and still own it all after 20 years.And with the $1Tn change, you could buy 250 million acres of income-producing farmland in the US. You would not only make money on the crop produced but own the land at the end.So, 20 years down the line, which investment do you think would have been the better one?This line of argument is exactly why the world’s best investor, Warren Buffett, doesn’t own gold.And it’s why you shouldn’t either…

Anti-global warming stances. Let’s take a look at some:This is Ted Cruz’s graph about global temperature, however, if we don’t use the starting point that he did, and we look more long term, the trend becomes quite clear:Puts the graph into a bit more of a perspective doesn’t it? Here is another one:The trend has not changed, yet you can still cherry pick points and get the results you want to see, to show up. I’m not even going to get into how Cruz’s graph uses an outlier study in overestimating how hot the 1998 year was. Here’s a more in-depth thing than just showing a few graphs: Ted Cruz’s crazy climate theories, debunkedBut there is still more! I’m just going to run down some of the points brought up in this article: Climate change is an obvious myth – how much more evidence do you need? | Dean Burnett“Take changes in sea level. They keep banging on about how the warming of the atmosphere causes rising sea levels, but if that was happening we’d have seen it by now!”Except, Dean, we are seeing it. Rising Ocean tides are caused by 2 things, as acclaimed, so let’s look into them. Rising temperatures, and melting glaciers.I already discussed rising temperatures, so let’s move on to melting glaciers.Glaciers Rapidly Shrinking and Disappearing: 50 Years of Glacier Change in MontanaOkay, but that’s just Montana right? Maybe it’s an outlier, so let’s dig a little further, let’s look at the South Pole and the North Pole. Here is the South Pole:Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record MaximumWHAT?! You read that right! Antarctic Sea ice is growing, that must mean that this is debunked and Montana is a simple outlier right?“Since the late 1970s, the Arctic has lost an average of 20,800 square miles (53,900 square kilometers) of ice a year; the Antarctic has gained an average of 7,300 square miles (18,900 sq km).”Oh, yeah. Read the article, don’t trust the title. So yeah, we are losing Sea ice, and that means that there is more water in the ocean, which causes rising tides.I should mention that heat plays into this too, because the warmer water is, the more room it takes up. When you heat something, the particles move around more, making it take up more space. This also contributes to Ocean levels rising, not because there is more water in this case, but because the water takes up more room, if that makes sense.“And where does this rise in sea level supposedly come from – melting glacial ice?”Yeah… it does. Ice takes up less space than water, which takes up less space than water vapor. When things are hotter (water is hotter than ice), they simply take up more room.“You ever leave an ice cube in your drink last longer than five minutes? It melts, and yet we’re meant to believe these “ice caps” lasted millions of years.”That’s the same argument flat earthers make when their action figure doesn’t stick to a basketball, it’s the same fallacy of expecting things that work on a large scale to work on a smaller scale.“It’s the same with these hypothetical mass extinctions, as if that’s anything to do with climate change. It’s just opportunistic cherry picking by these cynical and manipulative scientists. Harsh fact is, a lot of species go extinct, but that’s just nature.”So let’s look at this.How many species are we losing?Oh… we… don’t even know everything that is out there. So, who is claiming again that there is mass extinctions? Let’s look at the article Dean links:“Contrary to expectations given global warming, researchers from Stony Brook University found little evidence that many species have gone locally extinct or declined due to direct effects of higher temperatures. Instead, climate change was found to typically lead to local extinctions and declines by influencing interactions between species, such as reducing prey populations for predators.”Straight from their source. Nobody is claiming some mass extinction crisis. However, let’s look at the last part of the second sentence:“such as reducing prey populations for predators.”For those of you who understand how the food chain works, this will slowly work its way up, and possibly cause bigger problems. Will it happen? How long will it take? That’s speculation. Anyone claiming to have an answer is clearly wrong, as far as I can see, there is no reliable data.“They obviously got rid of all cattle to ensure their current global dominance. Just think; if they hadn’t killed all the cows, we’d still be slaughtering them today!”I’m sorry, what?Counting chickensThere are still cows in the world today.“Then there’s this “extreme weather” nonsense. I’ve not noticed any changes in the weather outside of the norm. Clueless clime change believers keep telling me it’s a global change so that doesn’t mean anything, but I LIVE ON THE GLOBE, so I’d notice any changes wouldn’t I? Duh! But there haven’t been any changes, obviously. There are no more storms now than there was when I was a kid.”I found some research supporting extreme weather: https://library.wmo.int/pmb_ged/wmo_1119_en.pdf“The period 2001–2010 was the warmest d e c a d e o n r e c o r d s i n c e m o d e r n meteorological records began around the year 1850. The global average temperature of the air above the Earth’s surface over the 10-year period is estimated to have been 14.47°C ± 0.1°C. This is 0.47°C ± 0.1°C above the 1961–1990 global average of +14.0°C and +0.21 ± 0.1°C above the 1991–2000 global average. It is 0.88°C higher than the average temperature of the first decade of the 20th century (1901–1910).”Where did I find this, you may ask? https://friendsoftheearth.uk/sites/default/files/downloads/extreme_weather_cc.pdf The extreme weather link posted right there! I literally clicked the first link provided in the source put out by the guy who denies this exists!Oh, and the “more storms” link, is a phony. There is nothing there. If you don’t believe me on any of this, check it out for yourselves, it literally took me 1 minute to get all of this.“But it’s with these weather worries that these manipulative scientists really give the game away. Urging us to use more wind power but complaining about all the hurricanes we keep having? They got us all to convert to solar power decades ago but keep whining about prolonged sunny spells? MAKE YOUR MINDS UP!”Hurricanes?“Recent analyses conclude that the strongest hurricanes occurring in some regions including the North Atlantic have increased in intensity over the past two to three decades. For the continental United States in the Atlantic Basin, models project a 45-87 percent increase in the frequency of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes despite a possible decrease in the frequency of storms.”and“Frequency and intensity vary from basin to basin. In the North Atlantic Basin, the long-term (1966-2009) average number of tropical storms is about 11 annually, with about six becoming hurricanes. More recently (2000-2013), the average is about 16 tropical storms per year, including about eight hurricanes. This increase in frequency is correlated with the rise in North Atlantic sea surface temperatures, which could be partially related to global warming.”Where did I find this information? Hurricanes and Climate Change — Center for Climate and Energy SolutionsIt’s the article you linked! That took all of 15 seconds.Anyway, onto solar power, Solar power is inconsistent. We do not have a good way of storing power (Some problems in storing renewable energy or if you don’t have access, When Relying On The Sun, Energy Storage Remains Out Of Reach) so you really only have power when the sun is out, and a little afterwards. Not much, but some. So the problem isn’t “making our minds up” it’s better implementing, which takes time. Things like providing energy for the world in a new way, don’t happen overnight.“Nobody should have to put up with that crap.”I agree, nobody should have to put up with your crap of blatant and obvious disregard for facts.

Interesting fact to begin with-Do you cook?Can you make a strawberry milkshake?Do you know what goes into making it?Strawberries? Milk? Sugar? Ice Cubes?WRONG!!!Apparently, these are the ingredients you'll need according to a tetra pack of 'standard' strawberry milkshake-Milk fat and nonfat milk, sugar, sweet whey, high-fructose corn syrup, guar gum, monoglycerides and diglycerides, cellulose gum, sodium phosphate, carrageenan, citric acid, E129 and artificial strawberry flavour.And what does that "artificial strawberry flavour" contain?Just these few yummy chemicals:amyl acetate, amyl butyrate, amyl valerate,anethol,anisylformate, benzyl acetate, benzyl isobutyrate, butyric acid, cinnamylisobutyrate,cinnamylvalerate, cognac essential oil, diacetyl, dipropyl ketone, ethyl butyrate, ethyl cinnamate, ethyl heptanoate, ethyl heptylate, ethyl lactate, ethyl methylphenylglycidate, ethyl nitrate, ethyl propionate, ethyl valerate,heliotropin,hydroxyphrenyl- 2-butanone (10% solution in alcohol), ionone, isobutyl anthranilate, isobutyl butyrate, lemon essential oil,maltol, 4-methylacetophenone, methyl anthranilate, methyl benzoate, methyl cinnamate, methyl heptinecarbonate, methyl naphthyl ketone, methyl salicylate, mint essential oil, neroli essential oil, nerolin,nerylisobutyrate,orrisbutter, phenethylalcohol, rose, rum ether, undecalactone, vanillin and solvent.Remember that, the next time you decide to pack a box of 'fresh' fruit shake in your child's lunchbox.So much for processed foods!Some facts that you already know-Milk stays a maximum of 7-8 hours in summer (43 degree C) without refrigeration and 1.5 days inside the fridge. In winters (3- 10 degree C) it can stay up to 24 hours without refrigeration and maximum of 3 days inside the fridge. Frozen milk can stay up to 5-6 days depending on the conditions of storage.Berries can stay fresh probably for 3 days (at 20 degree C) without refrigeration and 4-5 days inside the fridgeSo, keep in mind these facts the next time you buy boxed milkshake, and check on the expiry date and the "best before ...... months from manufacturing". Ask yourself- How can it last from 3 weeks to 3 months (depending on the brand) when it's ingredients perish in such a short time?The best part is that these cannot be recognized as dangerous by most people, because they don't have any immediate repercussions. Those chemicals are slow poisons leading to much bigger health issues like Cancer, immunity damage, reproductive problems, endocrine disruption etc.That time, you will be wondering what happened!Have you ever wondered where SUGAR comes from?Sugarcane, right?And what does that look like?​​​And the sugarcane juice we all love, what does that look like?- Greenish Yellow​​And what is the colour of the sugar that we use?- White!​​While it should have been something like this-​​To turn sugarcane into refined table sugar, the stalks are cut then crushed with rollers until juice is extracted. Milk of lime and carbon dioxide are added to help clarify the juice, then it's sent through an evaporator to remove the water and concentrate it into a syrup. The sugar in the syrup is crystallized, and you end up with a big old vat of raw sugar crystals (which will be further refined into white sugar) covered in molasses.​​So, basically we disintegrate the sugarcane juice to-Sugar+ Molassesor, literally translating to-Empty Calories+ NutrientsRead more about- Health Benefits of MolassesSame goes for RICE-​​​Most varieties of rice are brown in their natural form. It goes through a long process of bleaching and refining to look white, 'happy' and 'smiling' for you to purchase at the supermarket. White rice is stripped of iron, vitamins, zinc, magnesium and other nutrients. All that is left is again- Empty CaloriesRead more about it- 10 Reasons Why Brown Rice is the Healthy ChoiceSo, why are we denying these obvious things? Perhaps because people really are unaware/ don't care of what they are eating. We never question anything!One of the biggest FALSE BELIEFS when it comes to food-White = BeautifulIt is not!Same goes for oil, tea, ice-creams etc.And of course then there are GM (Genetically Modified) foods. But that'll take a whole other section (So I am leaving that for another post).Think about it the next time you go groceries shopping. Stop living in denial. Do not for once, think that this is not going to affect you.EDIT: This is post I recently wrote and compiled about GM foods-Space PostPlease go through it for reading further about the global food issues.