And one last time: there is no "too much greenhouse gasses". I have presented the arguments why. Just because you say "I don't agree" isn't going to make it go away any more than its going to make the current ongoing extinction event go away.
Metal is not present in such highly refined form in the woods. Therefore it is in fact polluting it.
I recommend looking at the whole aluminium refining process to see just how much is needed to produce that can of beer of yours, and how many millenia of progress in metallurgy we had to go through to get there.
And one more time. There is no such thing as "too much greenhouse gasses". Our planet has gone through cycles where their amount was FAR higher than it currently is, and FAR higher than the "scariest scenarios" considered feasible in a few centuries. These cycles are completely natural.
The problem is that the speed at which we emit them is so great that natural cycle of adaptation in ecology appears to be unable to keep up with it, causing a massive extinction event which will eventually hit us as species.
Again, greenhouse effect is NOT pollution. It's a part of normal planetary cycle. Our only problem is that we accelerate it too much.
When you argue something this patently false, you do nothing but hamstring the entire movement that is trying to push for wide consensus among populace as to why global warming we have is dangerous and needs to be slowed down at the very least. It does nothing but give ammunition to opposition punditry who use such patently false claims to paint entire movement as alarmist, untrustworthy and downright malicious.
You also forget that CO2 is just one of the greenhouse gasses. Methane for example is far more potent greenhouse gas, approximately 20 times more than CO2. And that is what cattle releases as part of the production cycle in large amounts and it's estimated that cattle production produces a large slice of human caused portion of greenhouse effect.
This is why it's very important to understand that CO2 is NOT pollution. It's a greenhouse gas and greenhouse effect is not like what pollution does - localized, generally repairable damage with time. It's the exact opposite, it's an accelerating effect on global level that is only going to get worse.
Except that it doesn't meet your criteria because it can be recycled. It's the greenhouse effect that it causes that is dangerous, and that occurs on planetary level and is caused by a sum of all greenhouse gasses rather than only CO2.
If you ask our plants for example, they would love to have even higher concentration of CO2. They can certainly recycle it even further. That is why we have high concentrations of CO2 in greenhouses and why we call this phenomenon "greenhouse effect". The problem here is the fact that it causes changes on global scale we as species may not be able to adapt to.
Approximately 5-10% of world's total oil consumption goes towards making fertilizers, specifically because we need to enrich soil at a rapid pace to keep up with population numbers.
You also appear to ignore that carbon cycle itself takes decades, and that CO2 pool in atmosphere is shared and not segregated, meaning it's utterly irrelevant where CO2 is produced. It's the totality of the pool that matters.
"Dumping human crap in highly concentrated amounts into spots we are naturally extremely reluctant to do for reasons of survival" = natural part of just living daily lives?
Sorry, but even in those amounts, mercury is still a bioaccumulating neurotoxin. Just because our bodies can handle a certain amounts of it through natural repairs before they get overloaded does not make it any less of a bioaccumulating neurotoxin.
Global warming is caused by a greenhouse effect, which is cumulative effect of emission of various greenhouse gasses into atmosphere. You would have to argue that items like methane emissions from seabed and so on are also polluting the air if you want to go that route.
At which point, you can make an argument that anything from people and animals to seabed, to bacteria is a polluting entity.
Of course global warning is a major problem. But it's not a problem of pollution, it's a problem of global warming.
This study focuses on pollution rather than CO2 emissions, for quite obvious reasons. CO2 emission is directly correlated to amount of fuel burned, whereas pollutant emission is related to other things like how optimal of a burn it is, how good is the catalytic filter on the exhaust is and so on.
In space vehicle rescue systems, goal is typically to direct both lift and ejection acceleration force to the horizontal rather than vertical vector in relation to the human body. We have a far greater tolerance of such short term high G loads, one of the reasons being that it doesn't stress the spine in the way you describe.
Correct. Like all EU directives, it sets the common limits and each country decides how to implement the directive within the limits of the directive.
However the fact remains that copyright directive that synchronised copyright laws has already been passed and implemented in member state legislatures. The problem presented by OP does not exist.
That has already been done in the copyright directive that was pushed through the European Parliament and implemented into law in all member countries many years ago.
Typically EU rules in cases like these have harmonized the common market by making it illegal to attempt to block these sales on commercial grounds. For example someone ordering the product from another common market member country cannot be blocked for commercial reasons from making the purchase on grounds of "this is a different country and therefore different market for which we want different rules (i.e. price) enforced".
You may obviously charge different sum for delivery in case of physical items with different countries inside common market area, but with digital items this would land you in court for obvious reasons.
This is a story about specific form of content blocking: geoblocking for commercial reasons. What you are asking about is a completely different kind of blocking: blocking because of legal reasons. Therefore it's safe to say that this will not impact it in any shape or form.
You cannot blame people who have a significant incentive not to upgrade their hardware for fighting it. What you can do is put pressure from the other side to force it regardless as has been done across most of the Western countries now.
Considering that this forced many older plants to either go for full renovation of the boiler or closure, it's been a pretty hard fight for understandable reasons.
"The "far more capacity" you cite is roughly double, which is pretty close to the difference in deep discharge capability between lead-acid and Li-ion"
Slashdot Mirror
Wait what? No massive extinction event?
What do you think is ongoing right now as we speak?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And one last time: there is no "too much greenhouse gasses". I have presented the arguments why. Just because you say "I don't agree" isn't going to make it go away any more than its going to make the current ongoing extinction event go away.
Metal is not present in such highly refined form in the woods. Therefore it is in fact polluting it.
I recommend looking at the whole aluminium refining process to see just how much is needed to produce that can of beer of yours, and how many millenia of progress in metallurgy we had to go through to get there.
And one more time. There is no such thing as "too much greenhouse gasses". Our planet has gone through cycles where their amount was FAR higher than it currently is, and FAR higher than the "scariest scenarios" considered feasible in a few centuries. These cycles are completely natural.
The problem is that the speed at which we emit them is so great that natural cycle of adaptation in ecology appears to be unable to keep up with it, causing a massive extinction event which will eventually hit us as species.
Again, greenhouse effect is NOT pollution. It's a part of normal planetary cycle. Our only problem is that we accelerate it too much.
When you argue something this patently false, you do nothing but hamstring the entire movement that is trying to push for wide consensus among populace as to why global warming we have is dangerous and needs to be slowed down at the very least. It does nothing but give ammunition to opposition punditry who use such patently false claims to paint entire movement as alarmist, untrustworthy and downright malicious.
That is patently incorrect. Things like mercury and so on have no natural "recycling" mechanism. Instead they bioaccumulate.
You also forget that CO2 is just one of the greenhouse gasses. Methane for example is far more potent greenhouse gas, approximately 20 times more than CO2. And that is what cattle releases as part of the production cycle in large amounts and it's estimated that cattle production produces a large slice of human caused portion of greenhouse effect.
This is why it's very important to understand that CO2 is NOT pollution. It's a greenhouse gas and greenhouse effect is not like what pollution does - localized, generally repairable damage with time. It's the exact opposite, it's an accelerating effect on global level that is only going to get worse.
Except that it doesn't meet your criteria because it can be recycled. It's the greenhouse effect that it causes that is dangerous, and that occurs on planetary level and is caused by a sum of all greenhouse gasses rather than only CO2.
If you ask our plants for example, they would love to have even higher concentration of CO2. They can certainly recycle it even further. That is why we have high concentrations of CO2 in greenhouses and why we call this phenomenon "greenhouse effect". The problem here is the fact that it causes changes on global scale we as species may not be able to adapt to.
That would be for reasons of land price and land situation.
It doesn't change the safety issue. Strong gusting winds that commonly exist over large oceans are heavily dampened overland by vertical objects.
It's more hazardous because of the winds. Surrounding vertical objects like trees or building serve as wind dampers.
Approximately 5-10% of world's total oil consumption goes towards making fertilizers, specifically because we need to enrich soil at a rapid pace to keep up with population numbers.
You also appear to ignore that carbon cycle itself takes decades, and that CO2 pool in atmosphere is shared and not segregated, meaning it's utterly irrelevant where CO2 is produced. It's the totality of the pool that matters.
"Dumping human crap in highly concentrated amounts into spots we are naturally extremely reluctant to do for reasons of survival" = natural part of just living daily lives?
Are you aware of what "analogy" even means?
Sorry, but even in those amounts, mercury is still a bioaccumulating neurotoxin. Just because our bodies can handle a certain amounts of it through natural repairs before they get overloaded does not make it any less of a bioaccumulating neurotoxin.
Would you mind explaining the logic behind your absurd attempt at analogy?
A lot of people do that. They just get drowned under the punditry.
You know, just like people that want to talk about specific issue of global warming.
Global warming is caused by a greenhouse effect, which is cumulative effect of emission of various greenhouse gasses into atmosphere. You would have to argue that items like methane emissions from seabed and so on are also polluting the air if you want to go that route.
At which point, you can make an argument that anything from people and animals to seabed, to bacteria is a polluting entity.
There is no such thing. Mercury is a highly potent bioaccumulating neurotoxin.
Of course global warning is a major problem. But it's not a problem of pollution, it's a problem of global warming.
This study focuses on pollution rather than CO2 emissions, for quite obvious reasons. CO2 emission is directly correlated to amount of fuel burned, whereas pollutant emission is related to other things like how optimal of a burn it is, how good is the catalytic filter on the exhaust is and so on.
CO2 is not a pollutant but a greenhouse gas.
Otherwise you're making an argument that every time you exhale, you're polluting the air.
In space vehicle rescue systems, goal is typically to direct both lift and ejection acceleration force to the horizontal rather than vertical vector in relation to the human body. We have a far greater tolerance of such short term high G loads, one of the reasons being that it doesn't stress the spine in the way you describe.
Correct. Like all EU directives, it sets the common limits and each country decides how to implement the directive within the limits of the directive.
However the fact remains that copyright directive that synchronised copyright laws has already been passed and implemented in member state legislatures. The problem presented by OP does not exist.
That has already been done in the copyright directive that was pushed through the European Parliament and implemented into law in all member countries many years ago.
Typically EU rules in cases like these have harmonized the common market by making it illegal to attempt to block these sales on commercial grounds. For example someone ordering the product from another common market member country cannot be blocked for commercial reasons from making the purchase on grounds of "this is a different country and therefore different market for which we want different rules (i.e. price) enforced".
You may obviously charge different sum for delivery in case of physical items with different countries inside common market area, but with digital items this would land you in court for obvious reasons.
This is a story about specific form of content blocking: geoblocking for commercial reasons. What you are asking about is a completely different kind of blocking: blocking because of legal reasons. Therefore it's safe to say that this will not impact it in any shape or form.
The example you cite contradicts the claim I asked you to a citation for.
You cannot blame people who have a significant incentive not to upgrade their hardware for fighting it. What you can do is put pressure from the other side to force it regardless as has been done across most of the Western countries now.
Considering that this forced many older plants to either go for full renovation of the boiler or closure, it's been a pretty hard fight for understandable reasons.
Citation for your claim:
"The "far more capacity" you cite is roughly double, which is pretty close to the difference in deep discharge capability between lead-acid and Li-ion"