"what makes the US labor force one of the world's most productive. is permanently in the country's rearview mirror."
Bullshit might get you at the top, but it won't keep you there. And here's the next fortune teller that can explain exactly what went wrong.....for just $3.99
Agreed, although these numbers should be taken with a bit of a margin, I think. After all, they are assumptions, based on how materials react or are deposited under current environmental circumstances.
So the conclusion that temperatures in January have never been higher, is a bit of a stretch, in my opinion. That being said: I do think were burning through our resources in a very high pace and that should change, if we plan to live on this planet for a million years to come.
Or we just tell the last ones to turn off the light, so to speak
Stop discussing numbers and who's a scientist and who's a denier, or even who causes what, and start thinking about solutions, for our own sake. I'm not worried about the planet, that will survive, I'm worried about humanity.
I think the solution is rather simple: 1. have the planet breakdown more CO2 and 2. make our footprint more efficient. or just carry on as usual and let nature find it's way. Which will undoubtedly work, just not to everyones liking.
take a piece of paper or go to the nearest whiteboard and draw a line, that represents 4.5 billion years, so lets say 45 cm (or inches, if you prefer) now mark where we started to make records of temperatures. Note: the thermometer was invented in the early 1600's It doesn't even matter if these records were accurate or not. You know what? assume that the Early egyptians had a thermometer they got form the aliens and make it 2000 years b.c.
Now draw your conclusions if last January was actually the warmest month in the history of the earth.
I hope you agree that it would be the same as to predict the outcome of a marathon, 2 meters after the start.
To make roads more dangerous, in order to make them safer. We wouldn't set a runway at an airport in the dark, to make for safer landing, would we?
My 2 cents: put reflective material in the dangerous spots, and use some kind of optical illusion to make situations look more dangerous than they are. e.g. narrower using bigger lines on the road's sides.
On the other hand, maybe this is just a budget cut, and someone found some statistics to back it up.
"Monitoring sites in European cities.. have reported high levels of the nitrogen oxides and particulate matter, or soot, that help to create menacing smogs"
- Since the creation of new clean diesels? Or for a longer period?
- Was there an increase or decrease, since the new diesel tech came out?
- Were all old diesels replaced by new diesels? (if not, aren't we blaming new tech that hasn't been widely adopted?)
"In London, Mayor Boris Johnson last year called for a national program to pay some drivers to scrap their diesel vehicles."
- They're scrapping brand spanking new cars? (spoiler: no, just old, thundercloud brewing ones)
"It tends to burn dirty, particularly at low speeds and temperatures. In cities, where so much driving is stop and start, incomplete diesel combustion produces pollution that is devastating for human health. "
- And outside the cities, where people tend to drive longer distances?
- Isn't the real problem that people take their car for these short-distance trips? (e.g. Diesel engines, aren't the issue, people are)
- Which vehicles make for the largest percentage of diesel vehicles in a city, cars or delivery trucks & vans?
Besides, in many European countries, diesel cars are more expensive, in terms of road tax, and are only economically viable when you drive more than 30K km a year (give or take) So it wouldn't make sense buying one, if you only drive in the city.
This article raises more questions than it answers, in my humble opinion.
So, basically, your government gave up the right of way and private entities, without setting boundaries or demands for usage.
Then I ask you: who is the idiot here?
You can't kill someone else with _just_ whiskey.
And if they are only protected by keeping track of their every movement and thought, you better prepare to outlive your children.
You want to keep them safe? Talk to them and prepare them for the world.
I guess it all boils down to the intended use. But I agree, it's a slippery slope indeed.
I mean you can argue about the intended use of a baseball bat or a knife, and I think that depends mostly on the user.
But the intended use for a gun is, well, throwing a projectile at a target, you can only argue about the intended target.
Slashdot Mirror
In the old days, they had to hide their data in their cat's collar, now they can store it in the cat itself!
Donate a fish, and the poor will eat for a day. Giving them proper access to the pond however, seems to be a different thing.
That way, whenever I forget my password, I just type something random, to which the computer responds..."Your password is..."
if anyone is tracking you on the toilet
"what makes the US labor force one of the world's most productive. is permanently in the country's rearview mirror."
Bullshit might get you at the top, but it won't keep you there. And here's the next fortune teller that can explain exactly what went wrong.....for just $3.99
Looks like we're going to need a regexp doorsign. or more toilets.
I think the action that pornhub intends to distribute, generally happens in one area.
Or is that my lack of imagination?
Agreed, although these numbers should be taken with a bit of a margin, I think.
After all, they are assumptions, based on how materials react or are deposited under current environmental circumstances.
So the conclusion that temperatures in January have never been higher, is a bit of a stretch, in my opinion.
That being said: I do think were burning through our resources in a very high pace and that should change, if we plan to live on this planet for a million years to come.
Or we just tell the last ones to turn off the light, so to speak
Stop discussing numbers and who's a scientist and who's a denier, or even who causes what, and start thinking about solutions, for our own sake.
I'm not worried about the planet, that will survive, I'm worried about humanity.
I think the solution is rather simple: 1. have the planet breakdown more CO2 and 2. make our footprint more efficient.
or just carry on as usual and let nature find it's way. Which will undoubtedly work, just not to everyones liking.
calm down, the planet is warm enough as it is.
And for the sake of argument:
take a piece of paper or go to the nearest whiteboard and draw a line, that represents 4.5 billion years, so lets say 45 cm (or inches, if you prefer)
now mark where we started to make records of temperatures. Note: the thermometer was invented in the early 1600's
It doesn't even matter if these records were accurate or not. You know what? assume that the Early egyptians had a thermometer they got form the aliens
and make it 2000 years b.c.
Now draw your conclusions if last January was actually the warmest month in the history of the earth.
I hope you agree that it would be the same as to predict the outcome of a marathon, 2 meters after the start.
get some liquid courage and enlist with the AA
One A less, no more fear and meet interesting people!
To make roads more dangerous, in order to make them safer.
We wouldn't set a runway at an airport in the dark, to make for safer landing, would we?
My 2 cents: put reflective material in the dangerous spots, and use some kind of optical illusion to make situations look more dangerous than they are.
e.g. narrower using bigger lines on the road's sides.
On the other hand, maybe this is just a budget cut, and someone found some statistics to back it up.
"Monitoring sites in European cities .. have reported high levels of the nitrogen oxides and particulate matter, or soot, that help to create menacing smogs"
- Since the creation of new clean diesels? Or for a longer period?
- Was there an increase or decrease, since the new diesel tech came out?
- Were all old diesels replaced by new diesels? (if not, aren't we blaming new tech that hasn't been widely adopted?)
"In London, Mayor Boris Johnson last year called for a national program to pay some drivers to scrap their diesel vehicles."
- They're scrapping brand spanking new cars? (spoiler: no, just old, thundercloud brewing ones)
"It tends to burn dirty, particularly at low speeds and temperatures. In cities, where so much driving is stop and start, incomplete diesel combustion produces pollution that is devastating for human health. "
- And outside the cities, where people tend to drive longer distances?
- Isn't the real problem that people take their car for these short-distance trips? (e.g. Diesel engines, aren't the issue, people are)
- Which vehicles make for the largest percentage of diesel vehicles in a city, cars or delivery trucks & vans?
Besides, in many European countries, diesel cars are more expensive, in terms of road tax, and are only economically viable when you drive more than 30K km a year (give or take) So it wouldn't make sense buying one, if you only drive in the city.
This article raises more questions than it answers, in my humble opinion.
Showing clips of lady products, detergent and chocolate, every 10 minutes or so
So, basically, your government gave up the right of way and private entities, without setting boundaries or demands for usage. Then I ask you: who is the idiot here?
You can't kill someone else with _just_ whiskey. And if they are only protected by keeping track of their every movement and thought, you better prepare to outlive your children. You want to keep them safe? Talk to them and prepare them for the world.
I guess it all boils down to the intended use. But I agree, it's a slippery slope indeed. I mean you can argue about the intended use of a baseball bat or a knife, and I think that depends mostly on the user. But the intended use for a gun is, well, throwing a projectile at a target, you can only argue about the intended target.