So if I want to sue someone who has harmed me, I should try to win an election and get legislation passed as my remedy?
No, it's too late. Your new legislation applied to old action is "ex post facto" and explicitly forbidden (although Bill Clinton got away with it for a tax increase.)
The point is that there is no logical limitation to regulations on CO2 emission. If it's absurd to regulate exhaling CO2, it's absurd to regulate mechanical emission of CO2.
The rest of the government doesn't always act in a manner that makes social change feasible.
The idea that social change is always a good idea is wrong. This is particularly the case in the U.S.A., where social change generally means making the country more like worse places.
I doubt that Bayer to stacked pixel is reversible for most algorithms, and lens correction is certainly not. Distortion correction unrecoverably loses resolution, and vignetting correction loses dynamic range.
Many small businesses are started by people who don't get along well with others. Always mouth off to the boss? You'll get fired, and after a few repetitions nobody will hire you and you have to work for yourself. Same for people who are rude to customers or co-workers, or people who are grouchy or always complaining.
Similarly, some businesses are started by people who think they know how to run a particular type of business than anyone else. A few of them are correct.
So instead of buying a sixpack of cola, the caffeine in which might stimulate his brain enough to find a better income, he buys a sixpack of beer which will dull his brain and make him oblivious to opportunity.
Democrats draw mostly from those who don't finish high school and those with advanced degrees; Republicans from high school and college graduates; Democrats from the young, Republicans from the old.
Restated: Democrats consist mostly of the stupid and those who succumb to years of college indoctination; Republicans are mostly those with moderate amounts of education. Democrats tend to be inexperienced, Republicans are those who've learned something from life.
It does immediately cast doubt on all other convictions in which these officials were involved, and in those cases the convictions should be re-examined and (if appropriate) further action taken.
If you believe AGW is real, then we need a solution.
On its own, that doesn't even begin to make sense.
__Believing AGW is real does not make it real, and thus does not imply that "we need a solution."
__Even if AGW is real, that does not make it significant. If the amount of anthropogenic warming is insignificant, no necessary action is implied.
__To need a solution, AGW would have to be a bad thing. You have not made that claim, and in my opinion it's untrue.
It is not always possible to cover the short by buying shares of the shorted stock. Historically, there have been cases of short interest several times the number of issued shares, and not all issued shares can be shorted.
Brokers should have some liability here; they should not allow shorting of stocks in excess of the number of stocks available for purchase.
The question is not the strength of the windows, or for that matter the strength of the body. Every time you change materials (plastic windows to aluminum body, etc.), an interface between the two has to be engineered, adding another expense and another potential failure area. Also, bracing structures must be designed to not go through a window opening: that's a design constraint, which necessarily leads to compromise (greater expense and weaker structure).
That said, I still want a window seat and I'm willing to pay for it.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's too late. Your new legislation applied to old action is "ex post facto" and explicitly forbidden (although Bill Clinton got away with it for a tax increase.)
There is still no evidence that CO2 is harmful. Conflating CO2 with lead is dishonest.
The point is that there is no logical limitation to regulations on CO2 emission. If it's absurd to regulate exhaling CO2, it's absurd to regulate mechanical emission of CO2.
Answer the question. Resorting to nothing but an insult is equivalent to admitting you're wrong.
The idea that social change is always a good idea is wrong. This is particularly the case in the U.S.A., where social change generally means making the country more like worse places.
You're claiming that if a person consumes sodium bicarbonate, the carbon therein was necessarily once part of a plant. Not true.
Have you ever seen a wild animal killed and eaten by a wild predator? Torn apart while not necessarily yet dead?
And then there are the wild animals that die of starvation, freezing, disease, etc..
In comparison, most domestic food animals live good lives and die quick deaths.
I doubt that Bayer to stacked pixel is reversible for most algorithms, and lens correction is certainly not. Distortion correction unrecoverably loses resolution, and vignetting correction loses dynamic range.
Many small businesses are started by people who don't get along well with others. Always mouth off to the boss? You'll get fired, and after a few repetitions nobody will hire you and you have to work for yourself. Same for people who are rude to customers or co-workers, or people who are grouchy or always complaining.
Similarly, some businesses are started by people who think they know how to run a particular type of business than anyone else. A few of them are correct.
It looks like the unstated conclusion of "the vastly more likely case that it does not rescue you" is that you die. That is not a better result.
Your numbers don't add up.
So instead of buying a sixpack of cola, the caffeine in which might stimulate his brain enough to find a better income, he buys a sixpack of beer which will dull his brain and make him oblivious to opportunity.
Brilliant!
You are part of the problem.
Democrats draw mostly from those who don't finish high school and those with advanced degrees; Republicans from high school and college graduates; Democrats from the young, Republicans from the old.
Restated: Democrats consist mostly of the stupid and those who succumb to years of college indoctination; Republicans are mostly those with moderate amounts of education. Democrats tend to be inexperienced, Republicans are those who've learned something from life.
Not everyone lies under oath.
It does immediately cast doubt on all other convictions in which these officials were involved, and in those cases the convictions should be re-examined and (if appropriate) further action taken.
It appears that it has indeed been invalidated.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/freedom-learn/201310/why-zimbardo-s-prison-experiment-isn-t-in-my-textbook
Summary: the players knew the expected results and acted to achieve them.
Charity has no relation to proper morality.
The immoral ones are the Africans, who don't control their reproduction and spread the vicious Islam religion.
Stupid high level officers are deadly to the army that employs them.
Why don't the homeless stop being a burden on the rest of humanity?
Of value to whom? In order to reach what goal?
We are human beings, and the proper purpose of all human action is to make things better for humans.
Muster, not mustard.
On its own, that doesn't even begin to make sense.
__Believing AGW is real does not make it real, and thus does not imply that "we need a solution."
__Even if AGW is real, that does not make it significant. If the amount of anthropogenic warming is insignificant, no necessary action is implied.
__To need a solution, AGW would have to be a bad thing. You have not made that claim, and in my opinion it's untrue.
It is not always possible to cover the short by buying shares of the shorted stock. Historically, there have been cases of short interest several times the number of issued shares, and not all issued shares can be shorted.
Brokers should have some liability here; they should not allow shorting of stocks in excess of the number of stocks available for purchase.
We're sharing this program with the Kingdom of Oxymoronia.
The question is not the strength of the windows, or for that matter the strength of the body. Every time you change materials (plastic windows to aluminum body, etc.), an interface between the two has to be engineered, adding another expense and another potential failure area. Also, bracing structures must be designed to not go through a window opening: that's a design constraint, which necessarily leads to compromise (greater expense and weaker structure).
That said, I still want a window seat and I'm willing to pay for it.