Plan B is significantly less storage, not much more than what's needed to keep the grid up, and prices set at market equilibrium. This will prevent blackouts even at night when the wind isn't blowing, unless you think that demand for electricity is perfectly inelastic?
"Crash effects detected were consistent in direction with those found in many previous studies: decreased right-angle crashes and increased rear end ones."
(Right-angle crashes are much more dangerous to the occupants than rear end crashes, so exchanging the former for the latter results in a net improvement in safety.)
To further improve the safety of red-light cameras, consider that almost all rear-end collisions are caused by people tailgating. If each red-light camera were turned into a combination red-light and speed camera, people would slow down when approaching intersections, so someone slamming on their brakes at the last minute would be less likely to be hit from behind.
We just need the courage to admit that traffic congestion is a type of shortage, and that chronic shortages are caused by price ceilings. Is holding prices below market equilibrium ever a wise long-term strategy?
I'm just saying that if you make a bunch of projections to prove something, and the one that proves it the least is 20% off, you can't claim your projections are good.
Is it reasonable to expect a model that fits the data perfectly?
A revenue-neutral carbon tax would be quite progressive. If the tax were $1 per gallon of gasoline, and if the average person used 500 gallons of gasoline in a year, everyone would receive a $500 tax rebate every year. For a poor person, that's a lot of money. And since the truly poor don't drive, they won't be the ones paying the tax in the first place.
And if it's wrong to use a natural resource for transportation when that same resource can also be used to produce food, then why are we using fossil fuels for transportation?
And is it wrong to use land to produce biofuels if the biofuel is used to produce or transport food?
For these reasons, the "no food for fuels" argument doesn't make perfect sense to me.
Reaction time isn't a problem if you drive at a speed and keep a following distance appropriate for your reaction time. This is why elderly people drive slowly.
Yet the number of pedestrian fatalities has been rising. Could it be that drivers haven't become more adept, only that we're getting better at making cars safer for their occupants and the roads safer for (and only for) cars?
the cost of improving brakes is likely to be far, far less than the economic cost of excluding millions of people from driving, in a society where driving is nearly essential for daily life.
Or taking bad drivers off the road would create better drivers and help free ourselves from an overdependence on a single mode of travel (a single point of failure), one that consumes massive amounts of land for roads and parking, drains similarly massive amounts of money to overseas oil and car companies, and creates respiratory problems, up to $1,600 per person per year.
Slashdot Mirror
Your link says "the rate may be increasing," and "possible sea level rise over the 21st century of between 56 and 200 cm."
Plan B is significantly less storage, not much more than what's needed to keep the grid up, and prices set at market equilibrium. This will prevent blackouts even at night when the wind isn't blowing, unless you think that demand for electricity is perfectly inelastic?
That's an unsafe lane change.
And the opposite has also been proven:
(Right-angle crashes are much more dangerous to the occupants than rear end crashes, so exchanging the former for the latter results in a net improvement in safety.)
To further improve the safety of red-light cameras, consider that almost all rear-end collisions are caused by people tailgating. If each red-light camera were turned into a combination red-light and speed camera, people would slow down when approaching intersections, so someone slamming on their brakes at the last minute would be less likely to be hit from behind.
What do you do differently when your internal combustion engine vehicle runs out of fuel?
I wonder if there's a 12-step program for that?
We just need the courage to admit that traffic congestion is a type of shortage, and that chronic shortages are caused by price ceilings. Is holding prices below market equilibrium ever a wise long-term strategy?
But isn't our inability to maintain our existing infrastructure a sign that we're living beyond our means?
Why did you stop reading after the first sentence?
Is it reasonable to expect a model that fits the data perfectly?
A revenue-neutral carbon tax would be quite progressive. If the tax were $1 per gallon of gasoline, and if the average person used 500 gallons of gasoline in a year, everyone would receive a $500 tax rebate every year. For a poor person, that's a lot of money. And since the truly poor don't drive, they won't be the ones paying the tax in the first place.
False.
That makes bicycles, which get 48 miles per gallon of orange juice, sound bad.
And if it's wrong to use a natural resource for transportation when that same resource can also be used to produce food, then why are we using fossil fuels for transportation?
And is it wrong to use land to produce biofuels if the biofuel is used to produce or transport food?
For these reasons, the "no food for fuels" argument doesn't make perfect sense to me.
...using a fingerprint database to show that cash isn't anonymous.
A 767 once landed safely with 0 of 2 engines.
As for takeoff, the weight limits are set so that the aircraft is capable of climbing at an adequate gradient...with one engine inoperative.
Are you a car? I know that cars are getting smarter, but this is ridiculous!
But that's what we're paying them to do. That's why it's called a "cash cow." If we don't like it, we should stop paying them to do it.
Reaction time isn't a problem if you drive at a speed and keep a following distance appropriate for your reaction time. This is why elderly people drive slowly.
Yet drivers violate the right-of-way of pedestrians more often than the other way around.
Yet the number of pedestrian fatalities has been rising. Could it be that drivers haven't become more adept, only that we're getting better at making cars safer for their occupants and the roads safer for (and only for) cars?
Or taking bad drivers off the road would create better drivers and help free ourselves from an overdependence on a single mode of travel (a single point of failure), one that consumes massive amounts of land for roads and parking, drains similarly massive amounts of money to overseas oil and car companies, and creates respiratory problems, up to $1,600 per person per year.
[citation needed]
Having insurance through an insurance company doesn't guarantee that you won't be sued.
In California, the minimum liability requirement is:
So all you need is $35,000 in a separate account to fulfill the worst case.
I could take out a $35,000 surety bond, but that money would do more work for me if it were invested in a nice index fund.
We would save a lot of money if a retirement account could be used as evidence of self-insurance in place of paying an insurance company.