Maybe because you are framing the question as a bigot would? Al-Qaeda and ISIL are terror groups using Islam to try and justify their actions. There are approximately 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. If it wasn't a religion of peace then there would be a lot more violence in the world. Also groups in Ireland, Africa, and the KKK have all used Christianity as a reason for their violence but you don't group all Christians in together with them. Why not? You have no problem grouping all 1.6 billion Muslims together with a few groups of extremists.
Oh, one part of the Bible may say to love your enemy. Try reading the Old Testament and you will find some lovely stuff that is definitely not about loving your enemy.
I don't know about the American system but under the Canadian system the additional system the extra income would be taxed at whatever marginal rate your income bracket is, which gets higher as your income goes up. Charitable donations get a credit (or deduction - I'm not a tax accountant) equal to a fixed percentage of the donations no matter what your income is. I think it's about 15%. So unless you have almost no income to begin with taking the income and claiming the charitable deduction would still have you end up paying some additional taxes.
And Harvard will develop a robot to remove the robot that Stanford developed to remove the robot that MIT developed to remove the battery that kids swallow.
That's assuming that the drivers don't game the system and when they hear of a possible rise in demand coming up a bunch of them go on a coffee break to create an artificial drop in supply which would cause the surge pricing to be higher than what it would have been normally.
There are a number of cycles in the oceans, like the Gulf stream, which are essential for providing nutrients to the oceans. The warm waters travel along the coasts to the poles where they quickly cool down and sink travelling back down along the coast towards the equator. The water picks up nutrients along the way and at some point the stream will come across an island or other barrier and rise to the surface completing the cycle. However if the surface water is too warm then it won't cool down fast enough to sink in time and the cycle will break. Then the nutrients that are brought to the surface are left below. The same thing happens if the poles warm up too much.
The problem is that the impact of the cure happens now while the impact of doing nothing mostly happens in a few generations and people in general are not very good at making decisions where one has to suffer in the present even if it means a much improved future.
We have to stop selling things in terms of climate change. For example electric cars. Most people are not going to buy them because they can be better for the environment (depends on the source of the electricity). But if you focus on the fact that they are less expensive to operate and that they will clean up the polluted air in cities now then you have a better chance. It's known that people living close to major roads and highways have health problems due to the pollution given off from vehicles. Electric cars and trucks could solve this problem. Tackling climate change in the long term is a freebie thrown in. But almost everyone concentrates on climate change which won't motivate the majority of people to buy electric vehicles.
How about getting Trump and a couple of other politicians to blow into that straw? Only problem might be raising the ocean temperature with all of that hot air.
And a turbine just above it so the bubbles will turn the blades to generate electricity that run the pump that creates the bubbles that turn the blades to...
It's for two fission reactors to feed electricity into the grid. The $35B cost in the article is $26B for the reactors plus finance charges for caring the debt.
That's what reactors cost now. A few years ago the province of Ontario put out a request for two new reactors and the cheapest they got was $26B Canadian and they didn't go through with it because of the cost.
That's not fair! The Republicans did consider the problem of filling the vacancy on the Supreme Court and said that they weren't going to do anything about until the next president was elected.
I'd prefer Trump over Cruz because a Republican Congress and Senate probably wouldn't work with Trump very well. There's enough animosity between the two that I could see them fighting over almost everything where Cruz would work well. Plus I don't like how Cruz's first instinct is to carpet bomb foreign countries.
What would be really interesting is if Trump doesn't get enough delegates to win in the first round and they give the nomination to Cruz so Trump runs as an independent and Sanders decides to do the same. I hope that not just one side doesn't split and run as an independent.
Actually I just really feel sorry for the lack of choice the voters have.
Before they go expanding into new markets they need to get back to their roots and fix some of their problems. They have gotten away from a simple UI on the iPhone that let you worked your way. Instead it forces you to go with their workflow. For example if you want to change the volume while inside the Music app you could just use a slider before but now you have to take some extra steps. For some reason you can't set the rating of songs or podcasts on the iPhone anymore. There are lot of things that they have done to make the interface of the iPhone less user friendly.
Apple really needs to work on the Mac App store. It's a forgotten child and that is driving developers from it. They aren't leaving the Mac platform but the store could be a great resource. It seems like every time they come out with some new tool for developers on the iOS App store it's not available for the Mac App store.
Apple needs to find out a way to address the needs of developers for the two stores, especially for handling upgrades and to contact customers who have complaints.
They really need to come out with a new Mac Pro. The laptops and the iMacs have fairly regular updates but the Mac Pro seems to have been forgotten about.
It's not just about saving the life of the person who is not paying attention. If they walk out into traffic other people may be hurt such as the driver of the car or passengers or the car may hit other people if the driver swerves. Then there is the psychological trauma, especially for the driver of the vehicle. But it's also for other passengers, the bystanders, and the emergency response crews. Plus you have the impact on the family and friends. Not just for the person who wasn't looking but for anyone else who was hurt physically and/or mentally. And finally you have any damage that needs to be repaired. It's not as important as the rest but it still needs to be taken into account.
So no, it's not just the government trying to protect a single person from every possible calamity. In this case it's the government trying to protect a whole bunch of us from someone being an idiot.
Since one of the key points of science is that there isn't a special point for your observations (for example the Earth isn't a special case) then we should be seeing information entering our universe from other ones. So what does this information look like after it passes through a black hole and how does it appear to the other universe? If we could look for that then it would be a good test for the theory. Or does the information just pass into a corresponding black hole in the other universe and isn't able to escape from that? If that's the case then it's a pretty useless idea.
There are many areas of the world that depend on glaciers to feed rivers in order to supply them with water during the dry season. For example India, Pakistan, and California (though this could just be snow packs and not glaciers). As the glaciers and snow cover has been shrinking there has been water shortages causing people to tap into underground aquifers at an unsustainable rate. Once the glaciers are gone the rivers will dry up except for the rainy season (the monsoon season in India which due to climate change is becoming unpredictable itself) and unless some way is found to capture a massive amount of water then there will be a great humanitarian crisis.
Of course there is the fact that some crops are not as nutritious when grown in an environment with an elevated CO2 level. This study tested certain crops with the expected CO2 level at the middle of the century and found:
"Wheat grown in high CO2 levels had 9% less zinc and 5% less iron, as well as 6% less protein, while rice had 3% less iron, 5% less iron and 8% less protein. Maize saw similar falls while soybeans lost similar levels of zinc and iron but, being a legume not a grass, did not see lower protein."
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe because you are framing the question as a bigot would? Al-Qaeda and ISIL are terror groups using Islam to try and justify their actions. There are approximately 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. If it wasn't a religion of peace then there would be a lot more violence in the world. Also groups in Ireland, Africa, and the KKK have all used Christianity as a reason for their violence but you don't group all Christians in together with them. Why not? You have no problem grouping all 1.6 billion Muslims together with a few groups of extremists.
Oh, one part of the Bible may say to love your enemy. Try reading the Old Testament and you will find some lovely stuff that is definitely not about loving your enemy.
I don't know about the American system but under the Canadian system the additional system the extra income would be taxed at whatever marginal rate your income bracket is, which gets higher as your income goes up. Charitable donations get a credit (or deduction - I'm not a tax accountant) equal to a fixed percentage of the donations no matter what your income is. I think it's about 15%. So unless you have almost no income to begin with taking the income and claiming the charitable deduction would still have you end up paying some additional taxes.
And Harvard will develop a robot to remove the robot that Stanford developed to remove the robot that MIT developed to remove the battery that kids swallow.
And Oxford will develop a robot ....
It'll be robots all the way down.
Or get rid of Adobe for open software alternatives such as GIMP which is available for most operating systems.
"Between 365 million and 988 million birds die from crashing into windows in the United States each year, according to the latest estimate."
https://www.sciencenews.org/ar...
Maybe the local city government thinks it works for the federal government so why not give it a go?
Maybe because it's duct tape?
That's assuming that the drivers don't game the system and when they hear of a possible rise in demand coming up a bunch of them go on a coffee break to create an artificial drop in supply which would cause the surge pricing to be higher than what it would have been normally.
Only if they have an app.
There are a number of cycles in the oceans, like the Gulf stream, which are essential for providing nutrients to the oceans. The warm waters travel along the coasts to the poles where they quickly cool down and sink travelling back down along the coast towards the equator. The water picks up nutrients along the way and at some point the stream will come across an island or other barrier and rise to the surface completing the cycle. However if the surface water is too warm then it won't cool down fast enough to sink in time and the cycle will break. Then the nutrients that are brought to the surface are left below. The same thing happens if the poles warm up too much.
The problem is that the impact of the cure happens now while the impact of doing nothing mostly happens in a few generations and people in general are not very good at making decisions where one has to suffer in the present even if it means a much improved future.
We have to stop selling things in terms of climate change. For example electric cars. Most people are not going to buy them because they can be better for the environment (depends on the source of the electricity). But if you focus on the fact that they are less expensive to operate and that they will clean up the polluted air in cities now then you have a better chance. It's known that people living close to major roads and highways have health problems due to the pollution given off from vehicles. Electric cars and trucks could solve this problem. Tackling climate change in the long term is a freebie thrown in. But almost everyone concentrates on climate change which won't motivate the majority of people to buy electric vehicles.
How about getting Trump and a couple of other politicians to blow into that straw? Only problem might be raising the ocean temperature with all of that hot air.
And a turbine just above it so the bubbles will turn the blades to generate electricity that run the pump that creates the bubbles that turn the blades to ...
Bah, that's easy. Just set up a series of trailer parks.
They have a pretty good selection of crime dramas such as Lewis and Grantchester. Midsomer Murders has been playing for 15 or 16 years on there.
They probably get most of their money from Coronation Street though. I don't watch that but I do like the crime dramas.
It's for two fission reactors to feed electricity into the grid. The $35B cost in the article is $26B for the reactors plus finance charges for caring the debt.
That's what reactors cost now. A few years ago the province of Ontario put out a request for two new reactors and the cheapest they got was $26B Canadian and they didn't go through with it because of the cost.
That's not fair! The Republicans did consider the problem of filling the vacancy on the Supreme Court and said that they weren't going to do anything about until the next president was elected.
I thought that since politicians were reptiles that the president was the national reptile by default.
I'd prefer Trump over Cruz because a Republican Congress and Senate probably wouldn't work with Trump very well. There's enough animosity between the two that I could see them fighting over almost everything where Cruz would work well. Plus I don't like how Cruz's first instinct is to carpet bomb foreign countries.
What would be really interesting is if Trump doesn't get enough delegates to win in the first round and they give the nomination to Cruz so Trump runs as an independent and Sanders decides to do the same. I hope that not just one side doesn't split and run as an independent.
Actually I just really feel sorry for the lack of choice the voters have.
Before they go expanding into new markets they need to get back to their roots and fix some of their problems. They have gotten away from a simple UI on the iPhone that let you worked your way. Instead it forces you to go with their workflow. For example if you want to change the volume while inside the Music app you could just use a slider before but now you have to take some extra steps. For some reason you can't set the rating of songs or podcasts on the iPhone anymore. There are lot of things that they have done to make the interface of the iPhone less user friendly.
Apple really needs to work on the Mac App store. It's a forgotten child and that is driving developers from it. They aren't leaving the Mac platform but the store could be a great resource. It seems like every time they come out with some new tool for developers on the iOS App store it's not available for the Mac App store.
Apple needs to find out a way to address the needs of developers for the two stores, especially for handling upgrades and to contact customers who have complaints.
They really need to come out with a new Mac Pro. The laptops and the iMacs have fairly regular updates but the Mac Pro seems to have been forgotten about.
It's not just about saving the life of the person who is not paying attention. If they walk out into traffic other people may be hurt such as the driver of the car or passengers or the car may hit other people if the driver swerves. Then there is the psychological trauma, especially for the driver of the vehicle. But it's also for other passengers, the bystanders, and the emergency response crews. Plus you have the impact on the family and friends. Not just for the person who wasn't looking but for anyone else who was hurt physically and/or mentally. And finally you have any damage that needs to be repaired. It's not as important as the rest but it still needs to be taken into account.
So no, it's not just the government trying to protect a single person from every possible calamity. In this case it's the government trying to protect a whole bunch of us from someone being an idiot.
Since one of the key points of science is that there isn't a special point for your observations (for example the Earth isn't a special case) then we should be seeing information entering our universe from other ones. So what does this information look like after it passes through a black hole and how does it appear to the other universe? If we could look for that then it would be a good test for the theory. Or does the information just pass into a corresponding black hole in the other universe and isn't able to escape from that? If that's the case then it's a pretty useless idea.
But it lowers nutrition of some food.
http://www.theguardian.com/env...
There are many areas of the world that depend on glaciers to feed rivers in order to supply them with water during the dry season. For example India, Pakistan, and California (though this could just be snow packs and not glaciers). As the glaciers and snow cover has been shrinking there has been water shortages causing people to tap into underground aquifers at an unsustainable rate. Once the glaciers are gone the rivers will dry up except for the rainy season (the monsoon season in India which due to climate change is becoming unpredictable itself) and unless some way is found to capture a massive amount of water then there will be a great humanitarian crisis.
Of course there is the fact that some crops are not as nutritious when grown in an environment with an elevated CO2 level. This study tested certain crops with the expected CO2 level at the middle of the century and found:
"Wheat grown in high CO2 levels had 9% less zinc and 5% less iron, as well as 6% less protein, while rice had 3% less iron, 5% less iron and 8% less protein. Maize saw similar falls while soybeans lost similar levels of zinc and iron but, being a legume not a grass, did not see lower protein."
http://www.theguardian.com/env...