The tube is steel, shouldn't be a problem. The electronics are only a small fraction of the cost. It is mostly just the cost of the tube, pylons, and land.
During the bush years "conservatives" [republicans] tended to be more in favour of government surveillance, while "liberals"[democrats] tended to be more opposed. Now that Obama is in power conservatives are more opposed while liberals are less opposed. The switch would suggest that at least some of these individuals (on both sides) are motivated by politics and not principle.
>Now that Obama is in power conservatives are more opposed while liberals are less opposed. The switch would suggest that at least some of these individuals (on both sides) are motivated by politics and not principle.
But you're not talking about the same thing. The idea that you can support warrantless tapping of international calls when the other end of the line is a suspected terrorist and oppose the dragnet of all call records and emails doesn't indicate a lack of principle. We're talking about policies with a much different scope.
from the article:
"The government repeatedly made accusations of terrorism against Anwar — who was also an American citizen — but never charged him with a crime. No court ever reviewed the government’s claims nor was any evidence of criminal wrongdoing ever presented to a court. "
No court ever reviewed the government’s claims nor was any evidence of criminal wrongdoing ever presented to a court.
The Yemeni government began trying him in absentia in November 2010, for plotting to kill foreigners and being a member of al-Qaeda. A Yemeni judge ordered that he be captured "dead or alive.
This is a very well-written piece, but the (clearly intelligent and well-spoken) author's characterization of his son makes me suspicious of the rest of the content.
Of course there are details to work out but it is fundamentally a solvable problem. A tax on any coal natural gas or oil should cover most of the bases (per ton of carbon contained). If it is being purchased for a use that won't end up in the atmosphere (IE carbon capture and storage), the burden is on the purchaser to prove the case for a tax write-off.
I don't think there's a reason to couple a CO2 tax to basic income. You can create a CO2 tax separately from basic income, as it has enough opponents as it is.
I suggested coupling them because I was looking for something that fits, "Solve as many problems with one go as possible, getting rid of as much legislation as possible."
If you create a significant CO2 tax separately from some specific program, like basic income, the fear is that it will be (and will seen to be) just a general supplement on government spending. Which has a tendency to grow until it cannot, so you're just putting off an inevitable crunch that we're already bumping up against.
But if you tie them together, the pain of the tax is balanced by the pleasure of the income. And people have been shown to enjoy that sort of thing. Witness the popularity of tax refunds, even though getting one is strictly worse for you than not getting one.
I guess the take away is that you should keep your essentials on your person while flying. Those items list are all small enough to fit in pockets or unobtrusive bag. Having them ready sure make things go a lot smoother in an emergency situation.
I suppose the emergency info should mention that anything you absolutely can't leave needs to be kept on your person.
Of course most people will thing "aw it will never happen", but if they hear the same message every time they take off people will probably get in the habit of not leaving their wallets in their luggage.
I the united states, studies have indicated that food stamps produce an economic return of $1.85 for every dollar spent. I would imagine additional cash spending could have a similar effect.
Lets see, amongst the poor, blue collar workers (doing manual labour) tend to be more conservative. Amongst the wealthy, feelings of entitlement are correlated with time to go to the gym. Evolutionary psychologist: if you keep publishing nonsense like no one will take your field seriously.
The headline was "Men's Biceps Predict Their Political Ideologies" you can't rule out political idealogical in a study about political Ideology. There is a spectrum of belief within political parties which explains why the association remained.
Evolutionary psychology is a collection of these "just-so" stories, they apparently don't have anything else to publish, and no one ~should~ take them seriously.
The rebuttals seem pretty weak. The only substantive criticisms made were already addressed or changed. Most of the "point made" basically amount to name calling.
Plenty do, and there are questions about the efficacy of those techniques as well.