You misread that chart. It says that about two thirds of GHG emissions were due to human uses of energy, with "transportation" and "industry" being two of the large chunks. Electricity and heat generation is only 25% of the total.
Once someone is driving on a road, it stops being empty. Throughput is completions per unit time; if you are talking about cases of extremely low congestion, increasing speed increases throughput by reducing the unit time. Moreover, doing so reduces latency, which is the real concern for the travelers (and their employers, and so forth) -- subject to the accident rate being approximately constant.
At the levels of use that people are talking about in Bengaluru, cars are turning on and off the streets far too often for traffic to flow at 70-80 (or even 45) mph, and increasing speed limits will not improve either throughput or latency.
This was talked about in 1984. East Germany did as much as they could given their limited tech. China is doing a much more comprehensive job with modern tech.
The GPL does not require any "giving back". It says that if you change the software, and give the changed version to somebody else, you must give them (a) the source code and (b) a GPL-compatible license for the combined/modified software. You could call that obligatory giving forward, but not obligatory giving back.
We don't have good evidence about genetic heritability of IQ, but we do know it is quite heritable. Studies on the genetic basis of intelligence usually don't reproduce precisely, and we don't even know how much heritability is generic rather than environmental (nature vs nurture, respectively).
However, we can say that studies trying to produce widespread, durable changes in intelligence through environmental interventions consistently failed: the studies that show results cannot scale beyond a small group, or the results fade within a few years, or both.
So because we know intelligence is heritable, and that we don't know how to improve it, it's not as easy as you would like to dismiss policy changes relating to child raising. It's obviously immoral to outright ban it, or even to punish it through heavy taxes or the like, but we can ask whether tax subsidies and benefits programs encourage bad behaviors.
You can challenge a contractual clause that requires binding arbitration, but the defendant will immediately file a motion to dismiss on that basis, and you'll have a hard time winning that fight.
That's false in general. There are a lot of dual-income couples where only one needs to work -- people married to surgeons, biglaw partners, etc. But even to the extent that working class people find it easier to live with two incomes, that's still just a particular (tendentious) restatement of what I said: people work outside the house rather than gardening, sewing, and so forth to provide the things they want or need to live. They buy rather than build.
Labor supply is anything but fixed. People take a gap year or go to law/grad school instead of getting a job, they retire early (possibly very early on disability), they work fewer shifts or less overtime or whatever, they work one job instead of two, they stretch their unemployment benefits out, they marry and raise kids at home rather than work. In the long run, they have more children or fewer.
One of the biggest changes in the workforce since 1970 or so is the increase in the number of women working full time, which happened almost entirely because they could specialize and improve their lives more by working outside the home than by working in the home.
Any economic study will have limitations. You can't do repeatable experiments, and any controlled experiments are usually in toy environments (like undergrad economics classrooms). All else is never equal, many relevant measures are unknown, and the fact that we have way more variables than data points means any model is terribly underconstrained.
As Arnold Kling often points out, most social science has a level of "casual density" that gives a lot of room to explain things the way you like, so economics (as an example) tends to have a lot of frameworks of interpretation -- ways to look at the world, usually with the effect of reaching desired conclusions -- rather than well-understood, solidly supported models.
What agreement are you supposing existed about building the house?
Closed groups of only a few people seldom use money, because there is not enough specialization and standardization to make it useful. They barter instead, sometimes with IOUs for out-of-season goods; the supply of any given good is usually too variable to establish a price that lasts more than one transaction. The most sensible reason for two shipwrecked people to use paper currency between themselves is if the recipient expects they will be rescued soon, in which case building a house is probably going to be worth more than $200.
The person who gives you money seldom provides you with anything later. The money is the thing of value that they give you. You calling money an "IOU" does not make it a debt: A debt is when an identifiable entity owes a specific thing (or amount of value) to another identifiable entity.
An IOU is debt because the issuer has not provided all of the value they agreed to provide in an exchange. Money is one way to store value, so it's not debt.
For each of the $20 bills in my wallet, who owes me what?
That 55 minutes is not lumped at the start of the night. It's when the person gets up and does to the bathroom, or tosses and turns for a few minutes at 3 AM, or -- judging from how the Fitbit app shows my data, and Fitbit's description of what to expect -- some tens of seconds every time you roll over.
I'm not sure I'd count that last as really waking up, but perhaps there is scientific consensus that it should be.
Even cheap entertainment is much more costly than going outside or to a public library, especially when you consider the benefits you can get from those alternatives.
I have no idea about the CIA, but most federal offices do not get an appropriation for "staff snacks", so it would be unconstitutional (under the Appropriations Clause) and illegal (under various statutes) and against policy (depending on branch of government) for them to buy snacks for employees or contractors.
The same is true of coffee, creamer, sugar, etc. -- the government facilities I have seen have "coffee messes" where any consumables are bought by the employees, with a jar or something similar for others to chip in their dollar per week or whatever it is.
It's not quite as bad as in Snow Crash, though: US government employees don't -- as far as I know -- have to provide their own toilet paper.
It would also be impractical for the contractor to supply snacks for their employees in a customer facility: They probably couldn't bill for the time their administrative staff spend restocking, they'd have a hell of a time keeping other people from grabbing goodies, and letting anyone except their own employees take goodies would violate federal acquisition regulations (meant to prohibit bribery, kickbacks, and other forms of graft).
If somebody is willing to steal a $1 candy bar, do you really want to trust them with information if unauthorized disclosure of that information can cause exceptionally grave damage to the nation's security?
Your only evidence that he was gay is statements by anonymous people and people who may have mistaken him for someone else. You have only your own conjecture that self-hatred then made him kill all those people.
On the other hand, we do have the man's own statements to the contrary about his reasons, along with findings that he self-radicalized on the Internet.
There are reasons to doubt that the Orlando nightclub shooting was Islamic terror. They're just bad reasons, on par with reasons to doubt that President Obama was born in the US. Being in contact with ISIS is not a prerequisite for conducting an Islamist terror attack, and as far as I know the attacker didn't claim (at least at the time of the attack) that he had been in such contact. Do you require that "right-wing terror" people have been in recent contact with members of the RNC?
Keep motivating the fuck out of that cognition. Meanwhile, us members of the reality-based community will be discounting your "alternative facts".
You "explained" that the death toll sure to Islamic terror attacks was 90 largely because of the Orlando attack, but the study said it was because of the Fort Hood shooting (13 deaths). Either they were wrong about what drive their count, or they omitted both the Orlando shooting (50 deaths) and the San Bernardino shooting (14 deaths).
You also "explained" that it wasn't clear that the Orlando attack was Islamic terrorism, even though the shooter called 911 to pledge allegiance to an ISIS leader and say his actions were because the US killed an ISIS member the week before.
So, given that the study omitted the two highest-fatality attacks in its scope, it is pretty clearly biased. Because they didn't release their full tagged data set, we can only speculate how poorly they categorized the smaller attacks that drove their headline numbers.
Slashdot Mirror
You misread that chart. It says that about two thirds of GHG emissions were due to human uses of energy, with "transportation" and "industry" being two of the large chunks. Electricity and heat generation is only 25% of the total.
Once someone is driving on a road, it stops being empty. Throughput is completions per unit time; if you are talking about cases of extremely low congestion, increasing speed increases throughput by reducing the unit time. Moreover, doing so reduces latency, which is the real concern for the travelers (and their employers, and so forth) -- subject to the accident rate being approximately constant.
At the levels of use that people are talking about in Bengaluru, cars are turning on and off the streets far too often for traffic to flow at 70-80 (or even 45) mph, and increasing speed limits will not improve either throughput or latency.
This was talked about in 1984. East Germany did as much as they could given their limited tech. China is doing a much more comprehensive job with modern tech.
The GPL does not require any "giving back". It says that if you change the software, and give the changed version to somebody else, you must give them (a) the source code and (b) a GPL-compatible license for the combined/modified software. You could call that obligatory giving forward, but not obligatory giving back.
We don't have good evidence about genetic heritability of IQ, but we do know it is quite heritable. Studies on the genetic basis of intelligence usually don't reproduce precisely, and we don't even know how much heritability is generic rather than environmental (nature vs nurture, respectively).
However, we can say that studies trying to produce widespread, durable changes in intelligence through environmental interventions consistently failed: the studies that show results cannot scale beyond a small group, or the results fade within a few years, or both.
So because we know intelligence is heritable, and that we don't know how to improve it, it's not as easy as you would like to dismiss policy changes relating to child raising. It's obviously immoral to outright ban it, or even to punish it through heavy taxes or the like, but we can ask whether tax subsidies and benefits programs encourage bad behaviors.
You can challenge a contractual clause that requires binding arbitration, but the defendant will immediately file a motion to dismiss on that basis, and you'll have a hard time winning that fight.
That's false in general. There are a lot of dual-income couples where only one needs to work -- people married to surgeons, biglaw partners, etc. But even to the extent that working class people find it easier to live with two incomes, that's still just a particular (tendentious) restatement of what I said: people work outside the house rather than gardening, sewing, and so forth to provide the things they want or need to live. They buy rather than build.
Higher than the minimum wage for useful idiot, I hear.
How cute, somebody thinks it is remotely possible to statistically correct for all the relevant confounders in economics.
Labor supply is anything but fixed. People take a gap year or go to law/grad school instead of getting a job, they retire early (possibly very early on disability), they work fewer shifts or less overtime or whatever, they work one job instead of two, they stretch their unemployment benefits out, they marry and raise kids at home rather than work. In the long run, they have more children or fewer.
One of the biggest changes in the workforce since 1970 or so is the increase in the number of women working full time, which happened almost entirely because they could specialize and improve their lives more by working outside the home than by working in the home.
Any economic study will have limitations. You can't do repeatable experiments, and any controlled experiments are usually in toy environments (like undergrad economics classrooms). All else is never equal, many relevant measures are unknown, and the fact that we have way more variables than data points means any model is terribly underconstrained.
As Arnold Kling often points out, most social science has a level of "casual density" that gives a lot of room to explain things the way you like, so economics (as an example) tends to have a lot of frameworks of interpretation -- ways to look at the world, usually with the effect of reaching desired conclusions -- rather than well-understood, solidly supported models.
What agreement are you supposing existed about building the house?
Closed groups of only a few people seldom use money, because there is not enough specialization and standardization to make it useful. They barter instead, sometimes with IOUs for out-of-season goods; the supply of any given good is usually too variable to establish a price that lasts more than one transaction. The most sensible reason for two shipwrecked people to use paper currency between themselves is if the recipient expects they will be rescued soon, in which case building a house is probably going to be worth more than $200.
The person who gives you money seldom provides you with anything later. The money is the thing of value that they give you. You calling money an "IOU" does not make it a debt: A debt is when an identifiable entity owes a specific thing (or amount of value) to another identifiable entity.
An IOU is debt because the issuer has not provided all of the value they agreed to provide in an exchange. Money is one way to store value, so it's not debt.
For each of the $20 bills in my wallet, who owes me what?
That 55 minutes is not lumped at the start of the night. It's when the person gets up and does to the bathroom, or tosses and turns for a few minutes at 3 AM, or -- judging from how the Fitbit app shows my data, and Fitbit's description of what to expect -- some tens of seconds every time you roll over.
I'm not sure I'd count that last as really waking up, but perhaps there is scientific consensus that it should be.
The decision granting certoriari and lifting parts of the stays was published "per curiam", which means the court was unanimous.
Even cheap entertainment is much more costly than going outside or to a public library, especially when you consider the benefits you can get from those alternatives.
I have no idea about the CIA, but most federal offices do not get an appropriation for "staff snacks", so it would be unconstitutional (under the Appropriations Clause) and illegal (under various statutes) and against policy (depending on branch of government) for them to buy snacks for employees or contractors.
The same is true of coffee, creamer, sugar, etc. -- the government facilities I have seen have "coffee messes" where any consumables are bought by the employees, with a jar or something similar for others to chip in their dollar per week or whatever it is.
It's not quite as bad as in Snow Crash, though: US government employees don't -- as far as I know -- have to provide their own toilet paper.
It would also be impractical for the contractor to supply snacks for their employees in a customer facility: They probably couldn't bill for the time their administrative staff spend restocking, they'd have a hell of a time keeping other people from grabbing goodies, and letting anyone except their own employees take goodies would violate federal acquisition regulations (meant to prohibit bribery, kickbacks, and other forms of graft).
If somebody is willing to steal a $1 candy bar, do you really want to trust them with information if unauthorized disclosure of that information can cause exceptionally grave damage to the nation's security?
Or possibly a HACKsaw.
On the other hand, even with all of Amazon Prime bundled in, the one-year subscription is slightly less than a year of Netflix.
My household has both, mostly because Netflix has more of what we want to watch.
Your only evidence that he was gay is statements by anonymous people and people who may have mistaken him for someone else. You have only your own conjecture that self-hatred then made him kill all those people.
On the other hand, we do have the man's own statements to the contrary about his reasons, along with findings that he self-radicalized on the Internet.
Also: http://www.latimes.com/nation/...
There are reasons to doubt that the Orlando nightclub shooting was Islamic terror. They're just bad reasons, on par with reasons to doubt that President Obama was born in the US. Being in contact with ISIS is not a prerequisite for conducting an Islamist terror attack, and as far as I know the attacker didn't claim (at least at the time of the attack) that he had been in such contact. Do you require that "right-wing terror" people have been in recent contact with members of the RNC?
Keep motivating the fuck out of that cognition. Meanwhile, us members of the reality-based community will be discounting your "alternative facts".
You "explained" that the death toll sure to Islamic terror attacks was 90 largely because of the Orlando attack, but the study said it was because of the Fort Hood shooting (13 deaths). Either they were wrong about what drive their count, or they omitted both the Orlando shooting (50 deaths) and the San Bernardino shooting (14 deaths).
You also "explained" that it wasn't clear that the Orlando attack was Islamic terrorism, even though the shooter called 911 to pledge allegiance to an ISIS leader and say his actions were because the US killed an ISIS member the week before.
So, given that the study omitted the two highest-fatality attacks in its scope, it is pretty clearly biased. Because they didn't release their full tagged data set, we can only speculate how poorly they categorized the smaller attacks that drove their headline numbers.