Is there a study that shows the full environmental cost over the decades it takes for the cars pollution to be handled by the world?

This would be a lifesaver in Germany. Currently you have to put up 25.000 Euro in a cash account to start a business here. That's intended to ensure a business has both commitment by the founders and seed funding for operations. The goal seems to be to make government approval of a business venture a more solid beginning for everyone, but a serious side effect is that small businesses are very expensive to begin. All too many ventures in Germany are under the legal radar due to complex and expensive incorporation rules, which also means workers often lack protections and the ventures don't pay taxes like they should.

Germany is currently faced with a lack of small businesses starting up, and having something like EU Inc. could make the barrier lower, which would hopefully help get more small (legal) ventures underway.

Alan Lightman's book Einstein's Dreams. It uses stories to explore how time moves, or could move if the laws of the Universe were different.

Gas leaf blowers genate a fuckton of pollution. The stats are horrific for their outsoded carbon footprint. Like on the order of 30 minutes of a leaf blower is about the same as a truck driving from texas to Alaska. They should be banned for both noise and airborne gas pollutions.

The stats sound about right, based on general world experience.

What those don't address is quantity per category. There's way more cars than motorbikes on the roads (in Switzerland and most EU/North America areas).

The loudest part of a car is usually (assuming it's got a legal muffler) the wheels in contact while rolling at speed. So, while few cars might be breaking a sound law individually, the sheer quantity of cars driving fast makes for the general cacophony you hear in the city. It's then punctuated with motorbikes, car horns, and leaf blowers. That basic rumble you can never escape is just the tires of the cars rolling along.

Also assholes playing loud music. The only reason for that is because you're attention starved. Turn the music down and go get a hug you dicks.

The labor class finally going to fight in the class war they're losing.

Socialism is the long term solution, but you don't get that without first dethroning the wealthy one way or the other.

I can feel the web rings rising from the shea of history. Their time has come one again!

I have a small home server that I occasionally push through huge batch processing jobs. During the pushes, I might collide with other projects that use a pretty big chunk of the RAM. So, to make sure it's never a killer (just a major slow down), I made a 32GB swap file. If I need it, it's there and disk is hella cheap.

This machine has never had a GUI installed. No browsers to complain about, just plain old data processing, stats models, and old skool computing.

Now, my worst case scenario was building a C++ program on a raspberry pi gen 1. That has 256MB of RAM. g++ ran out building, so I NFS mounted a huge disk from my desktop machine and made the swap file there. The build took a while... but the program ran fine after the week long build, no swap needed.

This is a discussion I have in my ethics classes. I like to use Kohlberg's Model of moral development (one of many options) as the framework for the discussion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development

Under than model, all too many people (upwards of 40% in one study) get stuck at level 4, which means they see the law as the moral system. Dangerous thinking that's often how bullies, political evils, and Authoritarians gain power over the public. Once they can control the laws, those people will just follow along because they can't even envision how challenging the law for humanity's well-being is even possible.

It's already banned? If it's a legal system, then it cannot operate where the land is governed by the Constitution.

Unless, of course, you don't believe the Constitution applies in your state.

It's one of those foundational "where do our rights come from" debates.

Are rights: A) Granted by a government B) Derived from nature and recognized by the People

I'd it's (A), then they can be taken away by a change in the law. They're just you're because some monarch or bureaucrat decides you no longer should have it.

If it's (B) then you always have the right and the monarchs or bureaucrats denying it to you is an assault on your human rights.

While a trousers in school debate isn't exactly life or death, I see the title's wording as suspect. It says the girls are now "granted" the right, which means the government decides if you have rights. That's (A), while I would hope an article writer would want (B), and say the girls' right to wear trousers has been "recognized" by the courts, which means it should never be taken away without the removal being an act of supppression of human rights.

Language and fraking matters here.

How much is he able to donate (bribe) the administration with? It's the only thing that determines guilt in the US anymore.