Oh, come on. This bears no resemblance to zoning at all. Zoning establishes areas by use (e.g. commercial, residential, industrial...we've all played SimCity), not by company name on the sign out front.
Then it is just like many recent zoning battles. When the company name is 'Walmart' people come out of the woodwork to try to rezone/add limiting land use overlays/etc to try to stop one from being built.
NONE of them are reliably going to be 25mbps down.
If they can't get that rate reliably, then why don't you just use an old 56k modem? If you do get that rate, my goodness, you must go through an entire case of floppies a year storing all the stuff you've downloaded. Do you know you can punch a hole and turn those single sided ones into double?
it is due to them having enjoyed a government-created monopoly.
It is not a government-created monopoly when the economics of doing business means no return on investment for the second party to enter a market. It costs a lot of money to overbuild an existing cable system with another. Money that won't be recouped anytime soon because you'll be splitting a fixed customer base and everyone's profits go down (or away) when that happens.
If you want to drop a few million on building a cable system and operating at a loss, go for it.
And even if your local city has chosen to grant an exclusive franchise for some reason, it is not an exclusive franchise for broadband internet, it's for cable.
i think you are over glamorizing ma bell and not remembering clearly. there was almost zero innovation in the phone world while ma bell had everything.
On the other hand, everything just worked. When something broke you called repair service. They didn't try claiming that it was the long distance carrier's fault. They didn't threaten a huge fee if they came out and discovered the problem was in CPE. You didn't open your bill to find out that you'd been slammed and had a huge long distance bill from a company you'd never heard of. You didn't have to remember five digit access codes to select a long distance carrier.
Yes, the rates for Bell long distance helped subsidize the local service, but so what? Today my local service subsidizes long distance. Why is one ok but the other not?
Great, another ACH debit mechanism, which means that when a fraudster empties a bank account, it stays emptied because there is nowhere the protection present that a credit card has in place.
In the US, this. VISA talks about Zero Liability, with restrictions. That's zero compared to the legal $50 liability.
The only difference I've found is that your bank account will be zero until the money is put back, and I don't know what happens to bounce fees that occur in the meantime.
Well Duh. In Windows, the browser must be (squeaky Ballmer voice) "an Integral part of the Windows Operating System".
The problem is that the "web browser" has become more than that. It's now a convenient, handy GUI for everything. The last GUI application I programed (last two, actually) were supposed to be in Perl/Tk but I realized from early on that a web-browser/javascript solution would be easier -- despite the issues of "security" that makes reading local files hard and writing them worse.
What do you do when you've created lots of GUI interfaces for novice users based on your web browser and that web browser isn't there anymore? And the one that is there doesn't have the same, ummm, additions or extensions that you've put into yours? GUIs don't work/look right anymore.
That's a much more simple explanation than a vast conspiracy by a vast company to try to kill babies and stuff. Not that they aren't, but Occam's Razor would point to the simple.
You missed the implied parallelism in that comment. We don't have an illegal emigrant problem like we have an illegal immigrant problem. That doesn't mean that people who want to dump their citizenship for tax purposes don't have trouble doing that.
It means that we don't see huge numbers of people fleeing the US because it is such a horrible place to be like we have huge numbers of people coming to the US because it is better than where they are now. Those that do are free to go. The only thing stopping them is the immigration law of their destination. For example, those celebrities who claimed they would leave if their preferred candidate didn't win the election have nothing stopping them from actually doing what they promised.
The OP was commenting on how our refugees flee to Russia despite their horrible human rights and freedoms history as if this proved something about conditions in the US, and I pointed out that they were seeking someplace that wouldn't extradite them back to face the legal music even if it isn't their personal heaven.
the current US system WILL NOT ALLOW FOR 3RD PARTY CANDIDATES
It may not allow for 3rd party presidential candidates,
For a system that will not allow third party candidates, there sure are an awful lot of them. True, many of them were not qualified for all 50 state ballots, but they were still candidates.
What's amazing about our system that doesn't allow third party candidates is that it allows candidates to run that are not constitutionally qualified to serve if elected (PSL and Socialist Workers Party).
We literally have political dissidents seeking asylum in Russia - Really think about that for a minute. Russia.
And we had people hijacking planes to Cuba because they thought they would get welcomed with open arms and treated better than the normal Cuban.
Where do you expect people who make themselves the enemy of a government to go? They can't go anyplace that's friendly to their ex-residence. There's nothing significant about them going to Russia as far as Russia's human rights record goes, it's all about Russia being unlikely to send them back. They may or may not have some idealized view of how they'll be welcomed there, but when you burn enough bridges eventually you are stuck in one place -- even if that place isn't the nicest island on the planet.
And our political refugees flee there?
And theirs flee here. That's part of the definition of the word "refugee". And a lot of other country's "refugees" flee to here, even when they aren't truly refugees, just because this place is better. People keep forgetting that when it comes to talking about how awful the US is. The US doesn't have an illegal emigration problem, for a reason.
turns out my key worked on *every* upper back unit in each building.
That's just lazy on the part of your landlord. It's easier for him if all his units share the same lock so he has only one key to carry around.
But common house keys? Yes, relatively few "combinations". I'm looking at mine, bought from a big-box home outlet store. Five lands -- that's the flat areas where the pins rest when the key is inserted. I didn't count them when I rekeyed my locks, but it's about five pin lengths. Let's see, 5^5 is 3125 different keys. Six pin lengths would be only about 15,000 different sets.
My work keys have 6 or 7 lands, but the security of those is reduced because each pin has at least two valid lengths. There is actually a published method for taking a bunch of key blanks and a valid key and figuring out the master.
If you want to know how locks work, go buy a new lock for a house and the rekey kit for it. It's fun. While each kit is "different" (or is supposed to be), with a bit of looking you can find two kits with the same pin lengths just in a different order so you can rekey two locks the same. (The kits I bought had colors for the pins.)
For cars, I heard a long time ago that Toyotas were prime theft targets not because of the value but because there were a limited number of dealer master keys and the crooks had copies.
This type of solution seeks equality, but in reality would have a difficult time achieving it. $100,000 a year allows one to live a relatively deluxe lifestyle if you are in upstate New York and own a house outright with no dependents. But someone making $100,000 a year with 5 kids in New York city has very little cash to spare.
That's why TFA talks about basing it on "spending money", not income. If you have no "spending money", your fine is low.
Of course, this moves the "taxation" inherent in this solution into the same social engineering that the current income tax system is burdened with. I just bought a "correct" car and had some "correct" modifications to my house, so my "spending money" is pretty low right now. Also, I just now donated money to the Red Cross so my "spending money" is even lower.
Whatever the "correct" things to spend money on that get tax credits will carry over into the determination of "spending money", too, since you have to start with income and then make the right deductions to determine how much is left over to "spend".
How is it fair to vote on a tax that you don't have to pay ?
OMG, brother from another mother!
The most obvious and perhaps egregious example of this is property tax levies voted on by college students who aren't going to be in town in three months anyway. "Yeah, this podunk city needs a new library and a swimming pool, I'll vote for that. Doesn't matter to me, I'll never pay a dime for it, but I think they ought to have one..."
Not like there aren't competitors, who I avail myself of at all times.
The car rental universe is going the way of broadband internet, don't you know? There are three major companies now operating under several names each. Like:
- Avis owns Budget and Zipcar
- Hertz owns Advantage, Dollar and Thrifty
- Enterprise owns Alamo and National
All told, these three companies own 94% of the car rental industry in America.
If you want to avoid one company, you need to know all the players and who they play for.
This is 2015. "Centuries" would mean it was proven by 1815. Sure you want to make that claim?
Do you recognize "AIP"? American Institute of Physics. They say here:
In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the planet's temperature. These scientists were interested chiefly in the possibility that a lower level of carbon dioxide gas might explain the ice ages of the distant past.
So in the 1800's, scientists were not talking about global warming but that CO2 levels might have been responsible for the ice ages. Then:
At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that emissions from human industry might someday bring a global warming. Other scientists dismissed his idea as faulty.
Eight-five years after you claim AGW was proven, it was still a theory that wasn't close to universally accepted, much less proven.
In 1938, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of carbon dioxide was climbing and raising global temperature, but most scientists found his arguments implausible.
One hundred and twenty three years after you claim AGW was proven, most scientists didn't accept the arguments that unattributed CO2 sources were causing a warming. "Proof by consensus" is a double-edged sword, not to mention bad science.
In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling measured the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: it was rising fast.
One hundred and forty-five years after the theory was proven, the first measurements of atmospheric CO2 were made.
Ironing the oceans might help eat some CO2, but even if all CO2 was converted into Cx + O2 the O2 level would not even increas by half a percent.
It would, however, prove fatal to a large amount of the flora on the planet. Starvation is as much a means of death as hyperoxygenation. Dead is dead.
Where a Senator from a farm in the middle of a swamp in a state that rightfully has few citizens, has the same say as the one I voted for.... Do I sound mad? You bet. Because we all know that this didn't happen by accident.
Yep. Designed by the founders of the country and enshrined in the Constitution. They developed a two-tier legislative system where one is based on representing the people and the other representing the interests of the states themselves. In one, the number of members allocated to each state is based on population (or is supposed to be). In the other, each state gets the same amount of say.
This is why taxation and budget bills are supposed to be originated in the House, since such bills have an impact on the citizens of the country as a whole and not so much on the states themselves.
Unfortunately, the public education system has failed to teach the citizens the difference, and many of them now expect the two bodies to perform the same function, with one being just a smaller version of the other.
This confusion is also exacerbated by the decision of states to allow the residents to elect the members of the smaller body instead of them being appointed by the governor or other system.
When picking Senators is the same process as picking Representatives it is harder to realize that they are intended to perform different functions and serve different masters.
Atmospheric CO2 measurements do not use simple commercial CO2 sensors like this. Here's a description of the process used in the Mauna Loa observatory.
One place on the planet, on the surface. Using a method that does not differentiate between CO2 and anything else that might absorb IR (except by using a cold trap to remove water.)
Yes, there are highly accurate ways to measure CO2. Unless you want to argue that ALL of the ways used to measure it are as accurate, then you need to accept that there is an error in measuring it. And again, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is not a direct measurement of emission, which is what the article talks about.
Compared to massive production of coal, oil and gas, a few trees aren't going to make a noticeable difference.
It was one trivial example of how tallying up the sales of fuels does not yield an accurate calculation of CO2 emission worldwide. It wasn't intended by itself as proof that the calculations are an estimate.
As for another comment that claimed this was carbon-neutral, I'm sorry, but no. Trees do not, by themselves, regrow from the stumps left after they are cut down. I have the stumps to prove it.
But we can very accurately measure CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.
This study shows the best sensor tested had an accuracy of 30ppm plus 2% of the reading. That means if the reading is 500ppm, you can be reasonably sure that the actual value is between 460 and 540 ppm. That's a range of 80ppm, and an error of 8%.
Second, while there is a correlation between atmospheric concentration and emission, it is not a 1:1 correlation. There are other processes involved.
We can also measure fossil fuel extraction and storage, and from that calculate consumption.
Nobody asked me how many trees I cut down to feed the fireplace this winter. You can get approximate numbers for some fuel supplies, but those numbers don't equate to CO2 emissions. Spills and evaporation will consume gasoline but not produce CO2, for example. Wood used for heating may be sold but not consumed, or it may deteriorate (rot or pestilence) such that it cannot be used.
The emissions numbers are estimates. They have an error associated with them. If the error is as large or larger than the measurement of economic growth, then it is quite possible that the emissions did go up at the same rate as the economic growth. This failure to acknowledge errors in making statements that allegedly prove things is not uncommon when one wants to prove that very thing.
Here's another scenario... if the original owner accidentally allows the domain to expire, can the proxy site choose to register the name itself, and only sell it back to the owner at whatever price they want to ask?
Why not? If private individuals can do that, why not a company? I let a domain I wasn't using expire. It was snapped up by a speculator who sent me a couple of emails or letters (I forget) offering me the name back for a fee. I ignored him and he eventually went away.
More importantly, this strains the argument that green technologies threaten economic growth.
No, what it does is require an answer to the question: what is the margin of error on the CO2 emission data? It's not a direct measurement, it has to be an estimate. If the error in the estimate is more than the 3% of the economic growth number, then this data proves nothing at all. The CO2 levels could have actually gone up 3% to match the economy.
The city council could pass an ordinance, which APD could then enforce, but as it stands, unless the ordinance has been passed recently, no such ordinance exists.
August 30, 2014 -- Austin, TX -- UT Police detain operators of two drones flying over stadium during football game. Possible charges include reckless conduct. Texas law Sec. A 423.003. Illegal use of unmanned aircraft to capture image may also apply.
You will find reckless endangerment statutes all over the place, not just in the FAA regs. If you taxi an airplane off the taxiway and head for a group of people on the ramp you don't need to wait for the FAA to arrest you, the local cops will be happy to do that for breaking local laws. Even if the group of people are standing on the taxiway.
I already pointed out the jurisdiction that would be involved, more than just the FAA. I also pointed out two FAA regs that were relevant, which would provide support for the local statutes. If the FAA regs prohibit an action on the basis of safety, then doing that would be prima facie evidence of reckless endangerment under local laws.
I'll never forget the first time we turned it on, hearing KEEP ROLLIN ROLLIN ROLLIN *bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz* from next door. It was a glorious day.
Why would you want to interfere with his Blues Brothers CD?
For the millionth time, nobody disallowed these assholes their freedom of speech.
"Infringed" means more than just proactive prohibition.
However, freedom of speech doesn't mean "I get to say whatever I want and not face any consequences from society after I say it."
Please stop. Your straw man is too easy to rip apart. Nobody said anything close to that. "Society" is one thing; government is another. As I already said, and you completely ignored, if the home office for this frat, as a private organization, wants to yank the charter for the group, fine. But when the government acts to punish them for exercising a right, not so much.
If you're a racist asshole, and you make your racist assholery public, expect the public to treat you like a racist asshole. There's a reason these guys are only chanting that bullshit on a bus, and not out in the open in the quad.
So the public nature of the offense is in doubt. Thanks.
The point is, the university is a state-run institution. It has different limits put on it BY THE PEOPLE than private groups do.
Shouldn't we make sure that the Black fraternity was punished instead of defending the other intolerant fraternities?
Perhaps we should make sure that people are not punished for speech or thoughts and instead punish actions that harm others? That's the other side of the coin when comparing two cases of the same kind of speech resulting in two different results.
As an example of maybe how things should be handled, refer to the case of a popular rap artist who made a name calling for the death of cops, who now makes a tidy sum of money as a regular on a TV show about cops playing a cop.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, come on. This bears no resemblance to zoning at all. Zoning establishes areas by use (e.g. commercial, residential, industrial...we've all played SimCity), not by company name on the sign out front.
Then it is just like many recent zoning battles. When the company name is 'Walmart' people come out of the woodwork to try to rezone/add limiting land use overlays/etc to try to stop one from being built.
NONE of them are reliably going to be 25mbps down.
If they can't get that rate reliably, then why don't you just use an old 56k modem? If you do get that rate, my goodness, you must go through an entire case of floppies a year storing all the stuff you've downloaded. Do you know you can punch a hole and turn those single sided ones into double?
it is due to them having enjoyed a government-created monopoly.
It is not a government-created monopoly when the economics of doing business means no return on investment for the second party to enter a market. It costs a lot of money to overbuild an existing cable system with another. Money that won't be recouped anytime soon because you'll be splitting a fixed customer base and everyone's profits go down (or away) when that happens.
If you want to drop a few million on building a cable system and operating at a loss, go for it.
And even if your local city has chosen to grant an exclusive franchise for some reason, it is not an exclusive franchise for broadband internet, it's for cable.
i think you are over glamorizing ma bell and not remembering clearly. there was almost zero innovation in the phone world while ma bell had everything.
On the other hand, everything just worked. When something broke you called repair service. They didn't try claiming that it was the long distance carrier's fault. They didn't threaten a huge fee if they came out and discovered the problem was in CPE. You didn't open your bill to find out that you'd been slammed and had a huge long distance bill from a company you'd never heard of. You didn't have to remember five digit access codes to select a long distance carrier.
Yes, the rates for Bell long distance helped subsidize the local service, but so what? Today my local service subsidizes long distance. Why is one ok but the other not?
Great, another ACH debit mechanism, which means that when a fraudster empties a bank account, it stays emptied because there is nowhere the protection present that a credit card has in place.
In the US, this. VISA talks about Zero Liability, with restrictions. That's zero compared to the legal $50 liability.
The only difference I've found is that your bank account will be zero until the money is put back, and I don't know what happens to bounce fees that occur in the meantime.
Well Duh. In Windows, the browser must be (squeaky Ballmer voice) "an Integral part of the Windows Operating System".
The problem is that the "web browser" has become more than that. It's now a convenient, handy GUI for everything. The last GUI application I programed (last two, actually) were supposed to be in Perl/Tk but I realized from early on that a web-browser/javascript solution would be easier -- despite the issues of "security" that makes reading local files hard and writing them worse.
What do you do when you've created lots of GUI interfaces for novice users based on your web browser and that web browser isn't there anymore? And the one that is there doesn't have the same, ummm, additions or extensions that you've put into yours? GUIs don't work/look right anymore.
That's a much more simple explanation than a vast conspiracy by a vast company to try to kill babies and stuff. Not that they aren't, but Occam's Razor would point to the simple.
It means that we don't see huge numbers of people fleeing the US because it is such a horrible place to be like we have huge numbers of people coming to the US because it is better than where they are now. Those that do are free to go. The only thing stopping them is the immigration law of their destination. For example, those celebrities who claimed they would leave if their preferred candidate didn't win the election have nothing stopping them from actually doing what they promised.
The OP was commenting on how our refugees flee to Russia despite their horrible human rights and freedoms history as if this proved something about conditions in the US, and I pointed out that they were seeking someplace that wouldn't extradite them back to face the legal music even if it isn't their personal heaven.
the current US system WILL NOT ALLOW FOR 3RD PARTY CANDIDATES
It may not allow for 3rd party presidential candidates,
For a system that will not allow third party candidates, there sure are an awful lot of them. True, many of them were not qualified for all 50 state ballots, but they were still candidates.
What's amazing about our system that doesn't allow third party candidates is that it allows candidates to run that are not constitutionally qualified to serve if elected (PSL and Socialist Workers Party).
We literally have political dissidents seeking asylum in Russia - Really think about that for a minute. Russia.
And we had people hijacking planes to Cuba because they thought they would get welcomed with open arms and treated better than the normal Cuban.
Where do you expect people who make themselves the enemy of a government to go? They can't go anyplace that's friendly to their ex-residence. There's nothing significant about them going to Russia as far as Russia's human rights record goes, it's all about Russia being unlikely to send them back. They may or may not have some idealized view of how they'll be welcomed there, but when you burn enough bridges eventually you are stuck in one place -- even if that place isn't the nicest island on the planet.
And our political refugees flee there?
And theirs flee here. That's part of the definition of the word "refugee". And a lot of other country's "refugees" flee to here, even when they aren't truly refugees, just because this place is better. People keep forgetting that when it comes to talking about how awful the US is. The US doesn't have an illegal emigration problem, for a reason.
turns out my key worked on *every* upper back unit in each building.
That's just lazy on the part of your landlord. It's easier for him if all his units share the same lock so he has only one key to carry around.
But common house keys? Yes, relatively few "combinations". I'm looking at mine, bought from a big-box home outlet store. Five lands -- that's the flat areas where the pins rest when the key is inserted. I didn't count them when I rekeyed my locks, but it's about five pin lengths. Let's see, 5^5 is 3125 different keys. Six pin lengths would be only about 15,000 different sets.
My work keys have 6 or 7 lands, but the security of those is reduced because each pin has at least two valid lengths. There is actually a published method for taking a bunch of key blanks and a valid key and figuring out the master.
If you want to know how locks work, go buy a new lock for a house and the rekey kit for it. It's fun. While each kit is "different" (or is supposed to be), with a bit of looking you can find two kits with the same pin lengths just in a different order so you can rekey two locks the same. (The kits I bought had colors for the pins.)
For cars, I heard a long time ago that Toyotas were prime theft targets not because of the value but because there were a limited number of dealer master keys and the crooks had copies.
This type of solution seeks equality, but in reality would have a difficult time achieving it. $100,000 a year allows one to live a relatively deluxe lifestyle if you are in upstate New York and own a house outright with no dependents. But someone making $100,000 a year with 5 kids in New York city has very little cash to spare.
That's why TFA talks about basing it on "spending money", not income. If you have no "spending money", your fine is low.
Of course, this moves the "taxation" inherent in this solution into the same social engineering that the current income tax system is burdened with. I just bought a "correct" car and had some "correct" modifications to my house, so my "spending money" is pretty low right now. Also, I just now donated money to the Red Cross so my "spending money" is even lower.
Whatever the "correct" things to spend money on that get tax credits will carry over into the determination of "spending money", too, since you have to start with income and then make the right deductions to determine how much is left over to "spend".
How is it fair to vote on a tax that you don't have to pay ?
OMG, brother from another mother!
The most obvious and perhaps egregious example of this is property tax levies voted on by college students who aren't going to be in town in three months anyway. "Yeah, this podunk city needs a new library and a swimming pool, I'll vote for that. Doesn't matter to me, I'll never pay a dime for it, but I think they ought to have one..."
Not like there aren't competitors, who I avail myself of at all times.
The car rental universe is going the way of broadband internet, don't you know? There are three major companies now operating under several names each. Like:
If you want to avoid one company, you need to know all the players and who they play for.
AGW is proven since centuries.
This is 2015. "Centuries" would mean it was proven by 1815. Sure you want to make that claim?
Do you recognize "AIP"? American Institute of Physics. They say here:
So in the 1800's, scientists were not talking about global warming but that CO2 levels might have been responsible for the ice ages. Then:
Eight-five years after you claim AGW was proven, it was still a theory that wasn't close to universally accepted, much less proven.
One hundred and twenty three years after you claim AGW was proven, most scientists didn't accept the arguments that unattributed CO2 sources were causing a warming. "Proof by consensus" is a double-edged sword, not to mention bad science.
One hundred and forty-five years after the theory was proven, the first measurements of atmospheric CO2 were made.
Ironing the oceans might help eat some CO2, but even if all CO2 was converted into Cx + O2 the O2 level would not even increas by half a percent.
It would, however, prove fatal to a large amount of the flora on the planet. Starvation is as much a means of death as hyperoxygenation. Dead is dead.
Where a Senator from a farm in the middle of a swamp in a state that rightfully has few citizens, has the same say as the one I voted for. ... Do I sound mad? You bet. Because we all know that this didn't happen by accident.
Yep. Designed by the founders of the country and enshrined in the Constitution. They developed a two-tier legislative system where one is based on representing the people and the other representing the interests of the states themselves. In one, the number of members allocated to each state is based on population (or is supposed to be). In the other, each state gets the same amount of say.
This is why taxation and budget bills are supposed to be originated in the House, since such bills have an impact on the citizens of the country as a whole and not so much on the states themselves.
Unfortunately, the public education system has failed to teach the citizens the difference, and many of them now expect the two bodies to perform the same function, with one being just a smaller version of the other.
This confusion is also exacerbated by the decision of states to allow the residents to elect the members of the smaller body instead of them being appointed by the governor or other system. When picking Senators is the same process as picking Representatives it is harder to realize that they are intended to perform different functions and serve different masters.
Atmospheric CO2 measurements do not use simple commercial CO2 sensors like this. Here's a description of the process used in the Mauna Loa observatory.
One place on the planet, on the surface. Using a method that does not differentiate between CO2 and anything else that might absorb IR (except by using a cold trap to remove water.)
Yes, there are highly accurate ways to measure CO2. Unless you want to argue that ALL of the ways used to measure it are as accurate, then you need to accept that there is an error in measuring it. And again, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is not a direct measurement of emission, which is what the article talks about.
Compared to massive production of coal, oil and gas, a few trees aren't going to make a noticeable difference.
It was one trivial example of how tallying up the sales of fuels does not yield an accurate calculation of CO2 emission worldwide. It wasn't intended by itself as proof that the calculations are an estimate.
As for another comment that claimed this was carbon-neutral, I'm sorry, but no. Trees do not, by themselves, regrow from the stumps left after they are cut down. I have the stumps to prove it.
But we can very accurately measure CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.
This study shows the best sensor tested had an accuracy of 30ppm plus 2% of the reading. That means if the reading is 500ppm, you can be reasonably sure that the actual value is between 460 and 540 ppm. That's a range of 80ppm, and an error of 8%.
Second, while there is a correlation between atmospheric concentration and emission, it is not a 1:1 correlation. There are other processes involved.
We can also measure fossil fuel extraction and storage, and from that calculate consumption.
Nobody asked me how many trees I cut down to feed the fireplace this winter. You can get approximate numbers for some fuel supplies, but those numbers don't equate to CO2 emissions. Spills and evaporation will consume gasoline but not produce CO2, for example. Wood used for heating may be sold but not consumed, or it may deteriorate (rot or pestilence) such that it cannot be used.
The emissions numbers are estimates. They have an error associated with them. If the error is as large or larger than the measurement of economic growth, then it is quite possible that the emissions did go up at the same rate as the economic growth. This failure to acknowledge errors in making statements that allegedly prove things is not uncommon when one wants to prove that very thing.
Here's another scenario... if the original owner accidentally allows the domain to expire, can the proxy site choose to register the name itself, and only sell it back to the owner at whatever price they want to ask?
Why not? If private individuals can do that, why not a company? I let a domain I wasn't using expire. It was snapped up by a speculator who sent me a couple of emails or letters (I forget) offering me the name back for a fee. I ignored him and he eventually went away.
More importantly, this strains the argument that green technologies threaten economic growth.
No, what it does is require an answer to the question: what is the margin of error on the CO2 emission data? It's not a direct measurement, it has to be an estimate. If the error in the estimate is more than the 3% of the economic growth number, then this data proves nothing at all. The CO2 levels could have actually gone up 3% to match the economy.
The city council could pass an ordinance, which APD could then enforce, but as it stands, unless the ordinance has been passed recently, no such ordinance exists.
From here:
City police can enforce state laws.
I already pointed out the jurisdiction that would be involved, more than just the FAA. I also pointed out two FAA regs that were relevant, which would provide support for the local statutes. If the FAA regs prohibit an action on the basis of safety, then doing that would be prima facie evidence of reckless endangerment under local laws.
Under who's authority?
The city of Austin, the State of Texas, and probably whatever county Austin is in.
I question the police's unilateral authority on this to just up and arrest RC operators willy nilly without a crime having been committed.
Reckless endangerment. But the story doesn't say anyone is being arrested. It says the device will be confiscated.
but if they're not and just fly one overhead and take pics/video, then what?
Operation of an aircraft in a reckless manner, below the minimum altitude over a populated area. Both FAA regulations.
I'll never forget the first time we turned it on, hearing KEEP ROLLIN ROLLIN ROLLIN *bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz* from next door. It was a glorious day.
Why would you want to interfere with his Blues Brothers CD?
For the millionth time, nobody disallowed these assholes their freedom of speech.
"Infringed" means more than just proactive prohibition.
However, freedom of speech doesn't mean "I get to say whatever I want and not face any consequences from society after I say it."
Please stop. Your straw man is too easy to rip apart. Nobody said anything close to that. "Society" is one thing; government is another. As I already said, and you completely ignored, if the home office for this frat, as a private organization, wants to yank the charter for the group, fine. But when the government acts to punish them for exercising a right, not so much.
If you're a racist asshole, and you make your racist assholery public, expect the public to treat you like a racist asshole. There's a reason these guys are only chanting that bullshit on a bus, and not out in the open in the quad.
So the public nature of the offense is in doubt. Thanks.
The point is, the university is a state-run institution. It has different limits put on it BY THE PEOPLE than private groups do.
Shouldn't we make sure that the Black fraternity was punished instead of defending the other intolerant fraternities?
Perhaps we should make sure that people are not punished for speech or thoughts and instead punish actions that harm others? That's the other side of the coin when comparing two cases of the same kind of speech resulting in two different results.
As an example of maybe how things should be handled, refer to the case of a popular rap artist who made a name calling for the death of cops, who now makes a tidy sum of money as a regular on a TV show about cops playing a cop.