In the nordic countries politicians have to make public their income statements and they quite often ride public transportation to work every day. There are also dedicated government institutions to prosecute graft and corruption.
I've owned a home for 6 years and the price has doubled. I put 20% down originally, so as an investment, I have literally tripled my money in 6 years.
So how does that work? And how about compound interest? I only makes sense to buy a house on a loan when you plan to live there for 20 years. Or whatever the period is to pay back the loan. And one thing is alleged value and another is the actual money you get for selling a used house. If anything, by looking at people who actually managed to save to buy a house, the best way is to live on the minimum amount of space you can, rent, or like a lot of people I know who worked in California live in with someone else in their couch or whatever. Then save to buy your own house. Preferably not in California.
We both have really fantastic jobs, but can only afford a 1 bedroom here, a two or even three bedroom apartment would bankrupt us.
This is exactly the problem. Property prices are way too high so people can't get enough living space to raise a family. This is due in a great degree to zoning restrictions and the lack of vertical residential all across California. Because of the zoning restrictions people have to move out into the suburbs instead.
The report basically says that increased CO2 increases vegetation and, in addition, the more CO2 is in the air the less H2O plants will need to grow. So having more CO2 reduces desertification. So I don't get your BS.
If there was more CO2 there would be more vegetation. In addition,. like the links I posted here before claim, the more CO2 is available the less H2O is required for a plant to grow. To a point.
Renewable energy isn't cheaper (all the countries which use it have the highest priced energy in the world and prices rose substantially after the buildup), sometimes isn't cleaner either (e.g. biomass burning is considered as a renewable energy source and consists of burning forest residues).
Do you have any critical thinking skills whatsoever? Plants consume CO2 and H2O so of course you'll have more plants. Fuck this "citation needed" Wonkypedia shit. I still remember when people used to be able to have critical thinking skills without being spoon fed all the time. https://phys.org/news/2013-07-... https://www.nasa.gov/feature/g...
The fact is increased CO2 levels lead to increased vegetation cover and a reversal of desertification.
I'm still to hear one big negative factor of increased CO2 levels and global warming... It would green the planet, make more areas available for manned settlement. Even if the sea levels increase a bit it would be largely offset by the extra available land area in arid and tundra regions. Plus the sea levels have been increasing even back when the human population was a lot smaller than it was today. Also other than with massive geoengineering efforts, which are pointless to begin with taking into consideration what I said before, the CO2 levels won't go back. Nor should they. In fact the present CO2 levels are way too low.
Because it's patent BS. Increased CO2 levels usually lead to a growth in vegetation... the opposite of desertification. But sure, please continue to believe the idiocy of the global warmist scare mongering.
It also shows why Zika got a cure toot sweet in the west: the wealthy bastards didn't want to see themselves dead.
There's more to it than that. If the laboratory and the researchers are far away from the disease you can hardly expect a viable cure to be developed quickly. There's only so much you can do with a field laboratory.
Of course, DDT hasn't been BANNED banned, just the idiotic use for widespread copspraying has been banned, which it had never been authorised for in the first place, though that didn't stop idiots doing it that way anyway.
I don't know about that. DDT basically eliminated malaria from southern Europe, including Italy. The cure was basically to drain the swamps and spray DDT everywhere. But good luck try to implement that in 3rd world countries. You would get Greenpeace and other greenie envir-wackos saying that you need to preserve the swamp to the detriment of the human population. Why don't they just go live there... I suspect they would change their tune rather quickly.
I avoid 3rd world cesspools like India. It still needs a lot of basic sanitation improvements and it's ridden with malaria and other tropical diseases. Even things like dysentery and cholera.
Deliver a letter of resignation and leave. Agreed. If the environment is that toxic to begin with the leadership in the company isn't worth serving under.
Neither were purely man-made. They were mostly due to poor (murderous) policies, in particular the Soviet one, but both had climate issues behind the agricultural production collapse as well.
Slashdot Mirror
You would be wrong. "Word" wasn't trademarkeable, they had to name it "Microsoft Word". Same thing for Microsoft Windows.
In the nordic countries politicians have to make public their income statements and they quite often ride public transportation to work every day. There are also dedicated government institutions to prosecute graft and corruption.
If you worked at hardware or software at Sun you can start sending resumes to NVIDIA and Intel. I think they have some HQ in Santa Clara.
I've owned a home for 6 years and the price has doubled. I put 20% down originally, so as an investment, I have literally tripled my money in 6 years.
So how does that work? And how about compound interest? I only makes sense to buy a house on a loan when you plan to live there for 20 years. Or whatever the period is to pay back the loan. And one thing is alleged value and another is the actual money you get for selling a used house. If anything, by looking at people who actually managed to save to buy a house, the best way is to live on the minimum amount of space you can, rent, or like a lot of people I know who worked in California live in with someone else in their couch or whatever. Then save to buy your own house. Preferably not in California.
There are also zero children born in the Vatican but its probably harder to get permission to live there...
http://www.vox.com/2016/3/7/11...
Try searching for what happened last time Google attempted to build residential buildings for its workers in Mountain View....
We both have really fantastic jobs, but can only afford a 1 bedroom here, a two or even three bedroom apartment would bankrupt us.
This is exactly the problem. Property prices are way too high so people can't get enough living space to raise a family. This is due in a great degree to zoning restrictions and the lack of vertical residential all across California. Because of the zoning restrictions people have to move out into the suburbs instead.
The report basically says that increased CO2 increases vegetation and, in addition, the more CO2 is in the air the less H2O plants will need to grow. So having more CO2 reduces desertification. So I don't get your BS.
If there was more CO2 there would be more vegetation. In addition,. like the links I posted here before claim, the more CO2 is available the less H2O is required for a plant to grow. To a point.
I also add that it's a religion that wants to implement a global Caliphate under Sharia Law. Which is contrary to the US Constitution.
Asking for a ban on Muslims isn't racism. It isn't a race, it's a religion.
Renewable energy isn't cheaper (all the countries which use it have the highest priced energy in the world and prices rose substantially after the buildup), sometimes isn't cleaner either (e.g. biomass burning is considered as a renewable energy source and consists of burning forest residues).
What it doesn't say is if he let go of his claim on the land or not. He probably just wants it all to himself.
...is to intubate Scottish sheep to collect their methane emissions.
Emission cuts are the XXIst century equivalent of self-flagellation in the Middle-Ages to cure the Black Plague. Pointless.
Do you have any critical thinking skills whatsoever? Plants consume CO2 and H2O so of course you'll have more plants. Fuck this "citation needed" Wonkypedia shit. I still remember when people used to be able to have critical thinking skills without being spoon fed all the time.
https://phys.org/news/2013-07-...
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/g...
The fact is increased CO2 levels lead to increased vegetation cover and a reversal of desertification.
I'm still to hear one big negative factor of increased CO2 levels and global warming... It would green the planet, make more areas available for manned settlement. Even if the sea levels increase a bit it would be largely offset by the extra available land area in arid and tundra regions. Plus the sea levels have been increasing even back when the human population was a lot smaller than it was today. Also other than with massive geoengineering efforts, which are pointless to begin with taking into consideration what I said before, the CO2 levels won't go back. Nor should they. In fact the present CO2 levels are way too low.
Because it's patent BS. Increased CO2 levels usually lead to a growth in vegetation... the opposite of desertification. But sure, please continue to believe the idiocy of the global warmist scare mongering.
That must explain how the Jurassic was full with infinite drought then...
It also shows why Zika got a cure toot sweet in the west: the wealthy bastards didn't want to see themselves dead.
There's more to it than that. If the laboratory and the researchers are far away from the disease you can hardly expect a viable cure to be developed quickly. There's only so much you can do with a field laboratory.
Of course, DDT hasn't been BANNED banned, just the idiotic use for widespread copspraying has been banned, which it had never been authorised for in the first place, though that didn't stop idiots doing it that way anyway.
I don't know about that. DDT basically eliminated malaria from southern Europe, including Italy. The cure was basically to drain the swamps and spray DDT everywhere. But good luck try to implement that in 3rd world countries. You would get Greenpeace and other greenie envir-wackos saying that you need to preserve the swamp to the detriment of the human population. Why don't they just go live there... I suspect they would change their tune rather quickly.
I avoid 3rd world cesspools like India. It still needs a lot of basic sanitation improvements and it's ridden with malaria and other tropical diseases. Even things like dysentery and cholera.
Basically like the Spacers in Asimov's series.
Deliver a letter of resignation and leave. Agreed. If the environment is that toxic to begin with the leadership in the company isn't worth serving under.
Neither were purely man-made. They were mostly due to poor (murderous) policies, in particular the Soviet one, but both had climate issues behind the agricultural production collapse as well.
Well if you guys would rather stick to the 'No True Scotsman's Fallacy' I guess that's fine too...
Rather unsurprisingly both Ballmer and Cook came from the financial side of the company. When you put bean counters in charge, that's what happens.
Wait, you said ThinkPad, that's IBM...