To cut it, we have to look at where it's easiest to cut. It's probably easier to cut from high per capita emissions than low per capita emissions.
And, right now, it's not about stopping or reversing temperature rises. It's about limiting them as much as we can, because every tenth of a degree warmer is likely to make adaptation much more expensive. We've almost certainly lost the struggle to keep warming below 2C, but 2.5C will be a lot better than 3C.
Leftists are globalists in a sense, but we don't take the same approach. To make a very sweeping generalization, our reaction to poor people abroad ts to want to help them, not exploit them.
until China has a way to generate energy which is cheaper than coal and doesn't emit CO2.
They're working hard on that, it would appear.
Until then it doesn't matter what the US, UK and EU do.
Sure it does. If we cut CO2 emissions further, then there will be less CO2 in the atmosphere. The total amount matters, not whee it came from. The US and EU have higher per-capita emissions, and those are going to be easier to reduce.
It really doesn't matter why the storm surge was of a certain height. It was a certain height above sea level. If sea level had been lower, the surge would have been lower.
And, contrary to your statement, the water did stop. It was stopped by higher ground, which had to be maybe a foot higher to stop it because of CO2 emissions. Depending on the ground slope, this covered a lot more area than just one foot farther.
The last time Russians came over your borders, they won. You attempted to reverse that in the Continuation War, but when your German co-belligerents were losing you were forced to sign an unfavorable peace treaty that resulted in fighting with the Germans in northern Finland. Not long before that, you were a semi-independent Russian province or something. History doesn't really make me confident in your ability to repel Russians.
We had a wave of Somali refugees come in quite a few years ago. Three-quarters of them settled in the Minneapolis-Saint Paul metro area. Don't count on the weather to keep desperate people from your land.
Money represents a valid claim on existing goods and newly produced goods and services. (The GOP remembers that these are just bits every time a Republican President is elected and forgets it when a Democrat is elected. This has been true since the "voodoo economics" introduced by Reagan in 1981.) If my government bonds become useless because the government has renounced them, then they've destroyed my claim on some goods and services. People, especially people of my age, who vote, take a very dim view of being made arbitrarily poorer by government action.
First, who told us we'd all be underwater? I don't remember reading that. Second, the US produces a lot of CO2, not much behind China, and it's probably easier to reduce CO2 emissions from a society with very high per capita emissions.
Exactly what the supply-demand constraints are doesn't matter. The rules work just fine with artificial scarcity through copyright, which is not particularly related to physics.
The Internet has complete freedom of speech. You're complaining about private companies that run free services that you disagree with. No such service will ever have total free speech, because it would become useless and unprofitable. The trolls would drive away enough users so that selling their eyeballs wouldn't make enough money.
Um, no. Finding evidence on people who broke the law and convicting them is normally considered a good thing. Nobody's talking about censoring the press.
You don't know what Mueller is finding out. Neither do I. The fact that some top Republicans are bad-mouthing the investigation and trying to make it look illegitimate is suspicious. The fact that you're already predicting what Mueller will find with certainty is also suspicious.
If the President needs to be investigated, by all means let's investigate him or her. It's possible to do that without interfering with the duties of the office. If anybody is above the law, we need to fix that as fast as possible.
Um, the US is in much the same demographic boat, but we get more immigrants and that masks the effects.
Moreover, if per capita health care in the US cost only as much as the second highest per capita cost in the world, we'd save over nine hundred billion dollars a year. That's the whole F-35 project paid off in less than two years.
Particularly with the Republicans in charge, US debt is mounting up fast.
The Germans overengineered everything. I had a Mechanical Engineer friend who looked at a tank museum.
Soviet tanks were built cheap. The mantlet (piece of armor the gun is bolted into) was cut jagged with a cutting torch, since that's what they had. The WWII ones were really vulnerable to the weather. The idea seems to be that, if a tank lasted six months, it may as well be replaced anyway. Soviet military cars had fenders made out of bent steel.
US tanks were built efficiently. The mantlet was cut with a bandsaw, which is the way to go if you've got enough industrial infrastructure (and the US had). Jeep fenders were curved, which is fast and easy if you've got the metalworking equipment.
German tanks were built to last. The mantlet was cut with a bandsaw, and ground down to give a nice smooth finish without sharp edges. Their car fenders were stamped with complex curves. A lot of extra effort went into making German military hardware look finished rather than stopping at being functional.
Charity is one of the Five Pillars of Islam, and ISIS wasn't going to violate those. I suspect getting really hungry or thirsty during the day in Ramadan was a real bad idea there.
The British Mosquito was one of the fastest aircraft in the WW2 sky
An exaggeration, although it was very fast. I don't know of a version that went faster than about 415mph, meaning that most late-war fighters could outrun it. However, an interceptor had to be significantly faster than its target to work well, and most fighters weren't enough faster than it to catch it reliably.
The US P-61 was something of a takeoff on it, but wasn't nearly as successful. The "Mossy" was truly one of the great aircraft of WWII.
Junkers did some experimentation with metal monoplanes in WWI, with the J-1
flying in 1915. The Junkers D.I was a fighter introduced in 1918, although it lacked the performance of a first rate aircraft. 12 were used by the German Navy.
Considering your.sig, it seems ironic to me that you're reading meanings into a Federal law that I don't see. You seem to assume that the law applies to payments after the good or service, which it doesn't explicitly say.
You haven't shown that a ban on AirBnB in residential neighborhoods is the wrong solution. It's simple zoning laws: having commercial property in a residential neighborhood can cause problems. If you want to argue against zoning laws, I think you'd do better doing that, rather than picking out a case like this.
We're not in general talking about guests and hosts here. We're talking about residential property being used as small hotels. If I have someone as a guest in my house, I'm usually there, or at least I'll be back soon. The excesses come with landlords and short-term tenants.
Typically, landlords are not responsible for the behavior of their tenants. There's good reasons for that. We've made it difficult for landlords to evict tenants, for reasons I can get into but won't here and now. Therefore, a tenant could continue bad behavior for months. This works differently when the tenant is transient, which is why we treat hotels differently from apartment houses. Apartment houses are appropriate for residential zoning, and hotels generally aren't.
So, what you appear to be proposing is to apply some hotel rules to AirBnB rentals, without zoning them the same. I don't see the distinction.
Slashdot Mirror
All CO2 matters.
To cut it, we have to look at where it's easiest to cut. It's probably easier to cut from high per capita emissions than low per capita emissions.
And, right now, it's not about stopping or reversing temperature rises. It's about limiting them as much as we can, because every tenth of a degree warmer is likely to make adaptation much more expensive. We've almost certainly lost the struggle to keep warming below 2C, but 2.5C will be a lot better than 3C.
Leftists are globalists in a sense, but we don't take the same approach. To make a very sweeping generalization, our reaction to poor people abroad ts to want to help them, not exploit them.
They're working hard on that, it would appear.
Sure it does. If we cut CO2 emissions further, then there will be less CO2 in the atmosphere. The total amount matters, not whee it came from. The US and EU have higher per-capita emissions, and those are going to be easier to reduce.
It really doesn't matter why the storm surge was of a certain height. It was a certain height above sea level. If sea level had been lower, the surge would have been lower.
And, contrary to your statement, the water did stop. It was stopped by higher ground, which had to be maybe a foot higher to stop it because of CO2 emissions. Depending on the ground slope, this covered a lot more area than just one foot farther.
You're Finnish, right?
The last time Russians came over your borders, they won. You attempted to reverse that in the Continuation War, but when your German co-belligerents were losing you were forced to sign an unfavorable peace treaty that resulted in fighting with the Germans in northern Finland. Not long before that, you were a semi-independent Russian province or something. History doesn't really make me confident in your ability to repel Russians.
We had a wave of Somali refugees come in quite a few years ago. Three-quarters of them settled in the Minneapolis-Saint Paul metro area. Don't count on the weather to keep desperate people from your land.
I understand English isn't your first language, but I fail to understand what you wrote.
Um, I've got a long line here of historical emperors who'd like to have a word with you.
Money represents a valid claim on existing goods and newly produced goods and services. (The GOP remembers that these are just bits every time a Republican President is elected and forgets it when a Democrat is elected. This has been true since the "voodoo economics" introduced by Reagan in 1981.) If my government bonds become useless because the government has renounced them, then they've destroyed my claim on some goods and services. People, especially people of my age, who vote, take a very dim view of being made arbitrarily poorer by government action.
First, who told us we'd all be underwater? I don't remember reading that. Second, the US produces a lot of CO2, not much behind China, and it's probably easier to reduce CO2 emissions from a society with very high per capita emissions.
Exactly what the supply-demand constraints are doesn't matter. The rules work just fine with artificial scarcity through copyright, which is not particularly related to physics.
The Internet has complete freedom of speech. You're complaining about private companies that run free services that you disagree with. No such service will ever have total free speech, because it would become useless and unprofitable. The trolls would drive away enough users so that selling their eyeballs wouldn't make enough money.
Um, no. Finding evidence on people who broke the law and convicting them is normally considered a good thing. Nobody's talking about censoring the press.
You don't know what Mueller is finding out. Neither do I. The fact that some top Republicans are bad-mouthing the investigation and trying to make it look illegitimate is suspicious. The fact that you're already predicting what Mueller will find with certainty is also suspicious.
If the President needs to be investigated, by all means let's investigate him or her. It's possible to do that without interfering with the duties of the office. If anybody is above the law, we need to fix that as fast as possible.
Last time I had the flu, there were certain activities I didn't even think of trying.
Either the hospitalization did nothing, or the poor and uninsured are going to die in larger numbers than those of us who are better off.
Um, the US is in much the same demographic boat, but we get more immigrants and that masks the effects.
Moreover, if per capita health care in the US cost only as much as the second highest per capita cost in the world, we'd save over nine hundred billion dollars a year. That's the whole F-35 project paid off in less than two years.
Particularly with the Republicans in charge, US debt is mounting up fast.
So that's the only reason you can imagine people buying iPhones? I'm glad I don't live inside your skull.
You don't know how to use the three seashells?
If they're doing it wrong, they still may want to keep on what they are doing. It may be too much work to change at this point.
Alternately, "When all has been said and done, much more has been said than done."
The Germans overengineered everything. I had a Mechanical Engineer friend who looked at a tank museum.
Soviet tanks were built cheap. The mantlet (piece of armor the gun is bolted into) was cut jagged with a cutting torch, since that's what they had. The WWII ones were really vulnerable to the weather. The idea seems to be that, if a tank lasted six months, it may as well be replaced anyway. Soviet military cars had fenders made out of bent steel.
US tanks were built efficiently. The mantlet was cut with a bandsaw, which is the way to go if you've got enough industrial infrastructure (and the US had). Jeep fenders were curved, which is fast and easy if you've got the metalworking equipment.
German tanks were built to last. The mantlet was cut with a bandsaw, and ground down to give a nice smooth finish without sharp edges. Their car fenders were stamped with complex curves. A lot of extra effort went into making German military hardware look finished rather than stopping at being functional.
Charity is one of the Five Pillars of Islam, and ISIS wasn't going to violate those. I suspect getting really hungry or thirsty during the day in Ramadan was a real bad idea there.
An exaggeration, although it was very fast. I don't know of a version that went faster than about 415mph, meaning that most late-war fighters could outrun it. However, an interceptor had to be significantly faster than its target to work well, and most fighters weren't enough faster than it to catch it reliably.
The US P-61 was something of a takeoff on it, but wasn't nearly as successful. The "Mossy" was truly one of the great aircraft of WWII.
Junkers did some experimentation with metal monoplanes in WWI, with the J-1 flying in 1915. The Junkers D.I was a fighter introduced in 1918, although it lacked the performance of a first rate aircraft. 12 were used by the German Navy.
Considering your .sig, it seems ironic to me that you're reading meanings into a Federal law that I don't see. You seem to assume that the law applies to payments after the good or service, which it doesn't explicitly say.
You haven't shown that a ban on AirBnB in residential neighborhoods is the wrong solution. It's simple zoning laws: having commercial property in a residential neighborhood can cause problems. If you want to argue against zoning laws, I think you'd do better doing that, rather than picking out a case like this.
We're not in general talking about guests and hosts here. We're talking about residential property being used as small hotels. If I have someone as a guest in my house, I'm usually there, or at least I'll be back soon. The excesses come with landlords and short-term tenants.
Typically, landlords are not responsible for the behavior of their tenants. There's good reasons for that. We've made it difficult for landlords to evict tenants, for reasons I can get into but won't here and now. Therefore, a tenant could continue bad behavior for months. This works differently when the tenant is transient, which is why we treat hotels differently from apartment houses. Apartment houses are appropriate for residential zoning, and hotels generally aren't.
So, what you appear to be proposing is to apply some hotel rules to AirBnB rentals, without zoning them the same. I don't see the distinction.