No, per capita is absolutely meaningful. The US needs to reduce, and it needs to reduce MORE because it puts out so darned much. The biggest international sticking point is that we can't use this to hold down international competition by imposing the same carbon reduction limits on everyone. We need to come down to them, and in some cases, allow other countries to come up a bit.
The US doesn't have to do any such thing. Each nation is responsible for its own emissions, and the US emissions have decreased significantly.
An elitist comment from someone who won the lottery of where a nation border was placed and profited from it. Thank you for your opinion privileged man.
You're welcome, judgmental man. Now explain what that nonsense means in the context of national percentage of CO2 annual emissions reduction.
The targets make some allowances for the fact that that US emits more CO2 per capita than anybody except some middle eastern oil nations, a few Caribbean islands and Luxembourg (for some reason), and many times as much as many.
Per capita is meaningless. The goal was overall reduction, and the US is achieving it. China and India are increasing a lot.
Your salary will go up with each change You will meet new people and expand your professional network You will see new ways of doing things You will see a lot of broken stuff too You will take on new challenges You will learn new technologies
Or stay put and become an underpaid fossil in no time, afraid to change jobs for fear of looking incompetent or of having your incompetence discovered. And then when your company goes under you or lays you off will have no network to reach out to and no experience at interviewing.
I haven't listened to much of what AOC has to say but she did bring up a valid point. Amazon wants to locate in NYC partly because of the infrastructure. But then Amazon gets a tax break using money that would be better spent on the infrastructure that helps everybody.
I don't know the full terms of the deal but Amazon getting a tax break is not the same as the city writing them a check.
Amazon coming to NYC has already boosted city tax revenues due to the booming real estate market in Long Island City. When the 25,000 employees show up for work the tax revenues will boom some more. The tax break just means Amazon itself is paying less in some way. This is still a much better deal than building some stadium that costs a lot and contributes very little.
I've watched Rudy do interviews lately. The guy has turned into a nut job. If he acted that way while he was mayor, I don't know how NYC survived. Bloomberg still seems to have his wits.
He's 74 and seems to have lost some of his mental sharpness. I saw Ruth Bader Ginsberg in a recent interview and I thought she too seemed very frail and also mentally diminished. She's 85.
NYC was run well by Rudy Giuliani and then Mike Bloomberg. The city changed for the better dramatically under their management.
Then in 2014 New Yorkers elected Bill "Don't bother me, I'm napping" De Blasio. It's not all De Blasio's fault but he and Governor Andrew "I Inherited this job from my father" Cuomo can't play nice and the MTA is run and funded by Albany.
They were both just re-elected because they are doing such a great job.
"Technology workers saw a median wage increase of 32 percent over the past 20 years, the study found. But Silicon Valley workers in virtually all other areas lost ground during that time. Across all jobs, wages for even the highest-paid 10 percent increased just under 1 percent, the study found."
to incite violence yes and it is. What matters is intent. How do you prove intent? With a jury.
Meant to say, I disagree with this. Freedom of speech means the right to say unpopular things. Your right to call Muhammad a pedophile should not be constrained because some people are violent.
And I don't think I could have been much clearer, but here's trying: I'm afraid we're going to start killing Jews. Or Muslims. Or Blacks. Or some other minority when the economy gets bad enough. It's not just about normalizing violence and racial hatred, it's about the economy. The Germans were ready to turn on the Jews because they didn't have food security. Give us 50,60% unemployment and you'll see that here. With automation + wealth inequality that's a real possibility. Eventually those 60% unemployed not eating will find themselves a strong man to organize them into not just a mob, but an actual army. Then he'll point them at some minority or another. The Germans were by no means the first to do this and there's no reason why they have to be the last.
Your fear starts with a premise of 50%-60% unemployment. The great depression had an unemployment rate of 25%. For us to hit 50% would require a major catastrophe unlike any we've ever seen. Society has broken down and the result is unpredictable.
On a more realistic level, yesterday I was at a Kristallnacht event. The speaker said it is important to not try to equate the events of 1938 with the events of Pittsburgh in 2018. There is just no comparison at all. It's not that there are no haters in the world, but the scope and reaction and the political climate are very different.
It's hard for me to relate to hating people because they have different ideas and beliefs. I don't think racism (other than what might be called casual human-nature biases) is rampant. Yes, there are haters, and there always will be, but they are a small minority, and the violent ones are an even smaller minority. I am more concerned about the rise of the modern day thought police, ever on the lookout for someone who thinks differently, no matter how slightly, and must be destroyed. The escalation of uncivilized behavior where people think it acceptable to attack people in public, in their homes, at their jobs, wherever, will end very badly. Bring a war to the wrong persons door and they will shoot to kill.
post a threat to kill the president of the United States and see how long until you get a visit from Uncle Sam and his G-Men.
There's nothing wrong with censoring threats of violence, and I saw nothing in the articles to indicate anything more was being proposed. Now, to be fair both articles were lite on substance but we could do with a bit more of a swing in the other direction. Where I am (America) we've got bi-weekly mass shootings and daily shootings, many of which are racially motivated.
Because it is the start of an HTML tag, and/. allows them in comments to a degree. Typically, you overcome this with the use of an HTML entity by typing out the HTML Entity Name. So typing ">" will result in the site displaying a <
Thanks! Guess my markup is out of practice. I have to read more carefully before pressing 'submit'
Why is it that everything has to be broken down to the level of a 5 year old for you leftist fuckers? Why do you see cultural appropriation and identity politics wherever you look? blah blah blah
Like talking to a goddamn wall...
Wow. Just wow. I didn't think that comment needed a trigger warning or maybe some tags but you sure proved me wrong with that rant.
It appears I should have broken it down to the level of a 5 year old for you, so here goes:
Humans since the beginning of time have been sadistic torturers of other human beings. They employed the technology of their time, no matter how simple or sophisticated (to them), to inflict the most awful, painful, slow, tortured deaths on their victims. Five minutes of searching for "Native American torture methods" would prove it to you.
Europeans may or may not have copied some of the techniques of other cultures. Who knows. But I thought it was funny to call it "cultural appropriation" and a product of "Eurocentric revisionist history" to give them the credit.
I guess I did consider the remote possibility that some crazy humorless SJW snowflake could have been triggered by that. Instead it was you! Go figure.
Humans are brutal in general, regardless of tribal identity or history.
And like everything, there are degrees. Europeans invented some of the most fucked-up torture devices ever constructed. Yeah, it's the past and I'm not condemning any living European for this bit of history (they weren't there). But to even imply that there aren't LEVELS of brutality is bullshit.
Our technology has given us the ability to kill more efficiently, torture more effectively, and destroy more completely. In the 20th century, Europeans were responsible for... perhaps 95 out of every 100 deaths by war, worldwide? Our ability to exceed our previous achievements in the craft of death/torture is.. impressive.
Don't give the Europeans so much credit. Sadistic ritual torture where the victim was tortured to death in the most gruesome ways imaginable was invented by the native American and African tribes long before the Europeans culturally appropriated it. Only through Eurocentric revisionist history can you give the Europeans the credit for inventing it. The Europeans may have made some devices of their own, but they were standing on the shoulders of giants.
They must be projecting significantly cheaper operational costs to make regional airport service profitable.
The operational costs will be dramatically reduced, because the electric motor is heroically simpler than any of the other propulsion options except maybe solid rocket boosters — fine for takeoff assist, but impractical for other purposes. And then there's all the up/downstream stuff you don't have to check, like for water in the fuel, etc.
For a full electric aircraft I think the new tech will eliminate some things and create some new challenges, like Lengthy recharge time will increase aircraft turnaround time Unlike conventional fuel, battery weight will be the same on landing as it is on takeoff. This will affect landing gear and tires. Battery replacement costs depending on how many cycles they can handle (and the FAA will allow)
Hybrid tech will probably be more complex and costly but save money on cruising fuel cost..
I saw one study where they concluded electric planes would be cost competitive but not significantly cheaper overall. It was more about emissions reduction. If fuel costs go up though the math could be very different.
Reading the web site, I think the/. summary is misleading.
They wouldn't go from SFO to LAX. They would go SQL to SMO. From their site:
Today Route SFO to LAX Door-to-door time H:MM 4:40 Fare $130
Zunum Route: SQL to SMO Door-to-door time H:MM: 2:16 Fare $121
They must be projecting significantly cheaper operational costs to make regional airport service profitable. I like the smaller regional airports but they may not have the connectivity you need to get where you want to go.
Another thing they mention: possibly flying without a pilot on board. That will be interesting.
This could be slightly more significant than one might think. While these small planes aren't the main type most people think of when they think of "airplanes", they happen to be roughly the least efficient transportation available. Less efficient per passenger than large airliners.
To give one well-known example, when Al Gore and his wife go to dinner, his G-11 B burns 578 gallons per hour. ( 0.8 mpg).
Replacing transportation that gets 0.8 MPG with potentially renewable energy is an easy win.
How did you convert "gallons per hour" to "miles per gallon"?
Slashdot Mirror
No, per capita is absolutely meaningful. The US needs to reduce, and it needs to reduce MORE because it puts out so darned much. The biggest international sticking point is that we can't use this to hold down international competition by imposing the same carbon reduction limits on everyone. We need to come down to them, and in some cases, allow other countries to come up a bit.
The US doesn't have to do any such thing.
Each nation is responsible for its own emissions, and the US emissions have decreased significantly.
Per capita is meaningless.
An elitist comment from someone who won the lottery of where a nation border was placed and profited from it. Thank you for your opinion privileged man.
You're welcome, judgmental man.
Now explain what that nonsense means in the context of national percentage of CO2 annual emissions reduction.
The targets make some allowances for the fact that that US emits more CO2 per capita than anybody except some middle eastern oil nations, a few Caribbean islands and Luxembourg (for some reason), and many times as much as many.
Per capita is meaningless.
The goal was overall reduction, and the US is achieving it. China and India are increasing a lot.
According to the chart on page 9 the US is doing pretty well.
Yet somehow China which has 27% of global emissions and went up 17% is marked as "on track to meet the targets under current policies".
Those targets must not be very serious
"So Ohio, and its treasurer Josh Mandel, see embracing them as a way to signal that the state is tech-savvy and forward-thinking."
Like Orange County California, I bet
https://www.investopedia.com/a...
Just like Robert Citron, Josh is playing with other people's money. He should get smacked down fast.
Your salary will go up with each change
You will meet new people and expand your professional network
You will see new ways of doing things
You will see a lot of broken stuff too
You will take on new challenges
You will learn new technologies
Or stay put and become an underpaid fossil in no time, afraid to change jobs for fear of looking incompetent or of having your incompetence discovered.
And then when your company goes under you or lays you off will have no network to reach out to and no experience at interviewing.
The MTA is a state agency. The politicians you need to complain about are located in Albany.
You must have missed the part about " the MTA is run and funded by Albany" and that I mentioned Cuomo.
I haven't listened to much of what AOC has to say but she did bring up a valid point. Amazon wants to locate in NYC partly because of the infrastructure. But then Amazon gets a tax break using money that would be better spent on the infrastructure that helps everybody.
I don't know the full terms of the deal but Amazon getting a tax break is not the same as the city writing them a check.
Amazon coming to NYC has already boosted city tax revenues due to the booming real estate market in Long Island City. When the 25,000 employees show up for work the tax revenues will boom some more. The tax break just means Amazon itself is paying less in some way. This is still a much better deal than building some stadium that costs a lot and contributes very little.
I've watched Rudy do interviews lately. The guy has turned into a nut job. If he acted that way while he was mayor, I don't know how NYC survived. Bloomberg still seems to have his wits.
He's 74 and seems to have lost some of his mental sharpness.
I saw Ruth Bader Ginsberg in a recent interview and I thought she too seemed very frail and also mentally diminished. She's 85.
Getting old sucks, and I'm getting there fast.
NYC was run well by Rudy Giuliani and then Mike Bloomberg. The city changed for the better dramatically under their management.
Then in 2014 New Yorkers elected Bill "Don't bother me, I'm napping" De Blasio. It's not all De Blasio's fault but he and Governor Andrew "I Inherited this job from my father" Cuomo can't play nice and the MTA is run and funded by Albany.
They were both just re-elected because they are doing such a great job.
No point in thrashing about H1-B's. From TFA
"Technology workers saw a median wage increase of 32 percent over the past 20 years, the study found. But Silicon Valley workers in virtually all other areas lost ground during that time. Across all jobs, wages for even the highest-paid 10 percent increased just under 1 percent, the study found."
... "I'm having trouble with the connection"
That drives me insane. Siri should at least handle voice calls when not connected.
to incite violence yes and it is. What matters is intent. How do you prove intent? With a jury.
Meant to say, I disagree with this. Freedom of speech means the right to say unpopular things.
Your right to call Muhammad a pedophile should not be constrained because some people are violent.
You may not remember this event. The attacker was acquitted. I thought the judge's reasoning was insane.
https://friendlyatheist.patheo...
https://abovethelaw.com/2012/0...
And I don't think I could have been much clearer, but here's trying: I'm afraid we're going to start killing Jews. Or Muslims. Or Blacks. Or some other minority when the economy gets bad enough. It's not just about normalizing violence and racial hatred, it's about the economy. The Germans were ready to turn on the Jews because they didn't have food security. Give us 50,60% unemployment and you'll see that here. With automation + wealth inequality that's a real possibility. Eventually those 60% unemployed not eating will find themselves a strong man to organize them into not just a mob, but an actual army. Then he'll point them at some minority or another. The Germans were by no means the first to do this and there's no reason why they have to be the last.
Your fear starts with a premise of 50%-60% unemployment. The great depression had an unemployment rate of 25%. For us to hit 50% would require a major catastrophe unlike any we've ever seen. Society has broken down and the result is unpredictable.
On a more realistic level, yesterday I was at a Kristallnacht event. The speaker said it is important to not try to equate the events of 1938 with the events of Pittsburgh in 2018. There is just no comparison at all. It's not that there are no haters in the world, but the scope and reaction and the political climate are very different.
It's hard for me to relate to hating people because they have different ideas and beliefs. I don't think racism (other than what might be called casual human-nature biases) is rampant. Yes, there are haters, and there always will be, but they are a small minority, and the violent ones are an even smaller minority. I am more concerned about the rise of the modern day thought police, ever on the lookout for someone who thinks differently, no matter how slightly, and must be destroyed. The escalation of uncivilized behavior where people think it acceptable to attack people in public, in their homes, at their jobs, wherever, will end very badly. Bring a war to the wrong persons door and they will shoot to kill.
post a threat to kill the president of the United States and see how long until you get a visit from Uncle Sam and his G-Men.
There's nothing wrong with censoring threats of violence, and I saw nothing in the articles to indicate anything more was being proposed. Now, to be fair both articles were lite on substance but we could do with a bit more of a swing in the other direction. Where I am (America) we've got bi-weekly mass shootings and daily shootings, many of which are racially motivated.
Should criticizing Muhammad be a criminal act in the USA too?
https://www.newsweek.com/calli...
I'm getting more than a bit nervous and I'm a white guy. I don't want us being the next Reich
No idea what this is supposed to mean.
They can call it whatever they like that sounds noble.
The end result will be legally enforced censorship.
Nice.. 7 paragraphs of rebuttal along with explanations and reasoning and you cherry pick a couple of sentences.. Well done Frosty.
You responded to a joke about "cultural appropriation" with 7 paragraphs of rebuttal, explanations, and reasoning.
And then YOU call ME a snowflake.
Is it really so hard to just say "Oops, my bad"? You probably have no problem doing that in person.
ugh, Why does a LESS_THAN symbol disappear?
Because it is the start of an HTML tag, and /. allows them in comments to a degree. Typically, you overcome this with the use of an HTML entity by typing out the HTML Entity Name. So typing ">" will result in the site displaying a <
Thanks! Guess my markup is out of practice.
I have to read more carefully before pressing 'submit'
ugh, Why does a LESS_THAN symbol disappear?
"Our study shows average_vacation_time IS_LESS_THAN average_commute_time".
How is this significant? Does anyone commuting think like this? I just view commuting as part of a typical work day.
It should come to no ones surprise that my vacation_days IS_LESS_THAN my_work_days.
"Our study shows average_vacation_time average_commute_time".
How is this significant? Does anyone commuting think like this? I just view commuting as part of a typical work day.
It should come to no ones surprise that my vacation_days my_work_days.
blah blah blah
Why is it that everything has to be broken down to the level of a 5 year old for you leftist fuckers? Why do you see cultural appropriation and identity politics wherever you look?
blah blah blah
Like talking to a goddamn wall...
Wow. Just wow.
I didn't think that comment needed a trigger warning or maybe some tags but you sure proved me wrong with that rant.
It appears I should have broken it down to the level of a 5 year old for you, so here goes:
Humans since the beginning of time have been sadistic torturers of other human beings. They employed the technology of their time, no matter how simple or sophisticated (to them), to inflict the most awful, painful, slow, tortured deaths on their victims. Five minutes of searching for "Native American torture methods" would prove it to you.
Europeans may or may not have copied some of the techniques of other cultures. Who knows.
But I thought it was funny to call it "cultural appropriation" and a product of "Eurocentric revisionist history" to give them the credit.
I guess I did consider the remote possibility that some crazy humorless SJW snowflake could have been triggered by that.
Instead it was you! Go figure.
Humans are brutal in general, regardless of tribal identity or history.
And like everything, there are degrees. Europeans invented some of the most fucked-up torture devices ever constructed. Yeah, it's the past and I'm not condemning any living European for this bit of history (they weren't there). But to even imply that there aren't LEVELS of brutality is bullshit.
Our technology has given us the ability to kill more efficiently, torture more effectively, and destroy more completely. In the 20th century, Europeans were responsible for... perhaps 95 out of every 100 deaths by war, worldwide? Our ability to exceed our previous achievements in the craft of death/torture is.. impressive.
Don't give the Europeans so much credit. Sadistic ritual torture where the victim was tortured to death in the most gruesome ways imaginable was invented by the native American and African tribes long before the Europeans culturally appropriated it. Only through Eurocentric revisionist history can you give the Europeans the credit for inventing it. The Europeans may have made some devices of their own, but they were standing on the shoulders of giants.
They must be projecting significantly cheaper operational costs to make regional airport service profitable.
The operational costs will be dramatically reduced, because the electric motor is heroically simpler than any of the other propulsion options except maybe solid rocket boosters — fine for takeoff assist, but impractical for other purposes. And then there's all the up/downstream stuff you don't have to check, like for water in the fuel, etc.
For a full electric aircraft I think the new tech will eliminate some things and create some new challenges, like
Lengthy recharge time will increase aircraft turnaround time
Unlike conventional fuel, battery weight will be the same on landing as it is on takeoff. This will affect landing gear and tires.
Battery replacement costs depending on how many cycles they can handle (and the FAA will allow)
Hybrid tech will probably be more complex and costly but save money on cruising fuel cost..
I saw one study where they concluded electric planes would be cost competitive but not significantly cheaper overall. It was more about emissions reduction.
If fuel costs go up though the math could be very different.
Reading the web site, I think the /. summary is misleading.
They wouldn't go from SFO to LAX. They would go SQL to SMO. From their site:
Today
Route SFO to LAX
Door-to-door time H:MM 4:40
Fare $130
Zunum
Route: SQL to SMO
Door-to-door time H:MM: 2:16
Fare $121
They must be projecting significantly cheaper operational costs to make regional airport service profitable.
I like the smaller regional airports but they may not have the connectivity you need to get where you want to go.
Another thing they mention: possibly flying without a pilot on board. That will be interesting.
This could be slightly more significant than one might think. While these small planes aren't the main type most people think of when they think of "airplanes", they happen to be roughly the least efficient transportation available. Less efficient per passenger than large airliners.
To give one well-known example, when Al Gore and his wife go to dinner, his G-11 B burns 578 gallons per hour. ( 0.8 mpg).
Replacing transportation that gets 0.8 MPG with potentially renewable energy is an easy win.
How did you convert "gallons per hour" to "miles per gallon"?