It's possible it could come down to choice, and that we could make the penalties for taking away the woman's right to choose for herself (causing her to miscarry by beating her, or whatever) equivalent to the penalties for killing an infant, while keeping the laws separate so there isn't an open path to play with it.
I acknowledge that it's pretty much the beginning of a new life, but I don't think I or the government have any say over that life or are responsible for any sort of protection of it until it is naturally detached from the mother. Until then, it's her call.
I doubt it - with some hybrids getting 50mpg+ (the Civic claiming 60 next year), it'd be somewhere near 12,000 miles for you to offset the construction energy costs.
If it's biodiesel, absolutely. Even regular ultra low sulfur diesel has lower greenhouse emissions than gasoline, and you burn less of it to get the same amount of motive power. Particulates fall to earth - they don't sit around in the atmosphere.
Only for the first few thousand miles. Then your increased energy use and pollution from the used car make up for the manufacturing energy.
It's always better to use a bicycle, though.
Say you're running away. Really, what other time do you desperately need to be able to use your cell phone?
Presumably these phones would be able to dial 911 without any kind of login.
Oh, sorry - I wasn't even talking about climate change at that point. I was talking about energy and sustainability. Um... did I confuse this with another discussion? I'm replying from e-mail, so it's sometimes hard to keep the threads together.
It's a sequel to the original "Limits to Growth" from 1972, which was largely a set of predictive computer models for resource use.
Part of sustainability is something that most people don't want to hear: Yes, it will cost more to live. We will have to live more simply as non-renewables are exhausted. That's because right now we leverage (in the US, anyway) more resources than our share by population of the world's renewables.
Being "sick of" the high prices of renewables really is something you'll get over when the nonrenewables become more expensive - which, mathematically speaking, they have to.
Yep. And that's driving suburbia right now. But it's going to be a lot more expensive to live in suburbia when gas is $10/gallon - the density of the downtown will make it easier to combine shipments and save energy to get food to you, as well.
And suburbs are based on a presupposition of cheap oil. What happens to suburbs when the people living in them can't afford to drive? Remember, using public transit *instead* of a car is much cheaper, and that gulf gets wider as oil prices go up (especially if we're talking about electric trains you can power from a non-oil source).
Yeah, it sucks. I'm recommending to everyone I know that they move to public transit as gas prices get higher. It's not worth driving 20 miles (or 100) for things when you can do it for much cheaper on shared transportation.
People who are willing to admit that they use P2P software are also more likely to admit that they may/have shoplifted or cheated.
What's interesting is that someone paid money for this study - it's actually rather disturbing that it's assumed by the industry that people aren't being taught basic logic. This is probably much scarier than we know - at what point do we see businesses trying to influence what we're taught to make us better consumers?
Things I can't get in stores:
Carnivale season 2 (and I have HBO, so it's not as if I couldn't have recorded it)
Battlestar Galactica season 2 (I have Sci-fi...)
Of course, I'm getting HD versions, but they're not significantly different than what my HDTV already shows me - I just don't have a PVR.
There is no significant difference in the abilities of monorail or elevated light rail - except that monorail is louder (even according to the Seattle Monorail Project compared to the Sound Transit light rail!), more expensive per mile of track, and higher maintenance cost (because of proprietary hardware). The reason the Seattle Monorail Porject says it's cheaper is because much of their line is largely single-track, severely limiting the number of trains that can operate at a time and future expansion because they can only pass each other in particular places.
Slashdot Mirror
It's possible it could come down to choice, and that we could make the penalties for taking away the woman's right to choose for herself (causing her to miscarry by beating her, or whatever) equivalent to the penalties for killing an infant, while keeping the laws separate so there isn't an open path to play with it.
I acknowledge that it's pretty much the beginning of a new life, but I don't think I or the government have any say over that life or are responsible for any sort of protection of it until it is naturally detached from the mother. Until then, it's her call.
How are you calculating this? It doesn't take that much energy to make a car.
I doubt it - with some hybrids getting 50mpg+ (the Civic claiming 60 next year), it'd be somewhere near 12,000 miles for you to offset the construction energy costs.
Unless your 4cyl gets 40mpg or better, it's just a matter of mileage. Sorry.
Did you even read what I responded to? OLD AND FUEL INEFFICIENT compared to a hybrid. Not your '82 Civic.
If it's biodiesel, absolutely. Even regular ultra low sulfur diesel has lower greenhouse emissions than gasoline, and you burn less of it to get the same amount of motive power. Particulates fall to earth - they don't sit around in the atmosphere.
Too bad they won't build, say, 70mpg diesel vehicles like the latest VWs they're selling in the UK.
Only for the first few thousand miles. Then your increased energy use and pollution from the used car make up for the manufacturing energy. It's always better to use a bicycle, though.
Okay. Now do that without oxygen.
Say you're running away. Really, what other time do you desperately need to be able to use your cell phone? Presumably these phones would be able to dial 911 without any kind of login.
I don't think you see the impact of $10 a gallon. Food triples in price - in fact, everything does.
Oh, sorry - I wasn't even talking about climate change at that point. I was talking about energy and sustainability. Um... did I confuse this with another discussion? I'm replying from e-mail, so it's sometimes hard to keep the threads together.
It's your funeral. A number of components of those "extremely complex" systems are quite simple.
It's a sequel to the original "Limits to Growth" from 1972, which was largely a set of predictive computer models for resource use. Part of sustainability is something that most people don't want to hear: Yes, it will cost more to live. We will have to live more simply as non-renewables are exhausted. That's because right now we leverage (in the US, anyway) more resources than our share by population of the world's renewables. Being "sick of" the high prices of renewables really is something you'll get over when the nonrenewables become more expensive - which, mathematically speaking, they have to.
Crichton's logic has been widely discredited - a good place to see where his argument is taken apart is RealClimate.org.
I recommend a book called "Limits to Growth: The 30 Year Update". The way we live is already unsustainable.
Yep. And that's driving suburbia right now. But it's going to be a lot more expensive to live in suburbia when gas is $10/gallon - the density of the downtown will make it easier to combine shipments and save energy to get food to you, as well.
And suburbs are based on a presupposition of cheap oil. What happens to suburbs when the people living in them can't afford to drive? Remember, using public transit *instead* of a car is much cheaper, and that gulf gets wider as oil prices go up (especially if we're talking about electric trains you can power from a non-oil source).
That's because you live in a suburb. They'll go away as it becomes too expensive to live there.
Yeah, it sucks. I'm recommending to everyone I know that they move to public transit as gas prices get higher. It's not worth driving 20 miles (or 100) for things when you can do it for much cheaper on shared transportation.
So take the train there, or walk, or bus.
People who are willing to admit that they use P2P software are also more likely to admit that they may/have shoplifted or cheated. What's interesting is that someone paid money for this study - it's actually rather disturbing that it's assumed by the industry that people aren't being taught basic logic. This is probably much scarier than we know - at what point do we see businesses trying to influence what we're taught to make us better consumers?
Things I can't get in stores: Carnivale season 2 (and I have HBO, so it's not as if I couldn't have recorded it) Battlestar Galactica season 2 (I have Sci-fi...) Of course, I'm getting HD versions, but they're not significantly different than what my HDTV already shows me - I just don't have a PVR.
Excuse me:
There is no significant difference in the abilities of monorail or elevated light rail - except that monorail is louder (even according to the Seattle Monorail Project compared to the Sound Transit light rail!), more expensive per mile of track, and higher maintenance cost (because of proprietary hardware). The reason the Seattle Monorail Porject says it's cheaper is because much of their line is largely single-track, severely limiting the number of trains that can operate at a time and future expansion because they can only pass each other in particular places.