Linky Friday #19

68 Comments

1. C2- Yeah bloomberg sucks, but so does Nugent but i don’t see that hurting the pro-gun side. Messengers are important, but to much talk about them is just making the issue about personal dislike, not the actual issue. See Al Gore is fat.

   C5- I don’t know. There is so much talk about fat and contrarian analysis. BMI is a bad measure, i don’t anyone who thinks it is really good. Its certainly a tangled subject with some of the fuss more about people afraid of getting fat cooties from fat people. But i don’t think there is anyway around the fact that weight problems can be a significant health problem.

   T1- i think there is something a little bit creepy about Google Glasses. I don’t quite get banning them but i will guarantee some creeps will be recording every woman they see and putting it up on the web as they gaze down their tops. Well of course no one could suggest using GG’s while driving is okay. I mean its like texting while driving, an obviously stupid and dangerous action that nobody should do and it will be fine to ban. Right?

   • C2 – Bloomberg doesn’t affect the merits of the anti-gun case. But he does affect the politics. Letting him take the lead isn’t an ideological error, but it is a tactical one.

     C5 – It goes beyond that, though. Everybody may know it can be a significant health problem. But we so often act like it is one. Full stop.

     T1 – The only argument I’ve really heard against banning texting while driving is that it is ineffective. I have heard some arguments against GG. I wish I could find it, but one person suggested it was actually a safety plus if people switch from fiddling with their phone to using their GG’s. My main concern with banning GG’s is that it prevents people from using them as actual glasses, which is one of the things I would want to do (even if I wouldn’t use it to read texts on the road).

     • I’ve heard the “FREEEEDOM” argument for not banning texting while driving.

       I’ll be curious to learn more about GG’s. I can see ( ha ha, thats like a funny pun, except not actually funny) how they could be useful if there was a driving mode with limited stimulus and just driving info. It could be no different from HUD that pilots use. GG’s will be interesting. With any interesting tech some people will inevitably rush towards the creepiest uses and to the most ad based uses. I would assume in 10 years they will be fairly common. The most common injury from GG’s will be people walking into walls from not paying attention.

       • They’ve got this feature called “voice texting”. It involves using a code that contacts another person and plays, in real time, an electronic transfer of your voice to them. At the same time, it allows them to transfer their voice to you. It’s more or less hands-free as well. Perhaps people should explore that?

         • Except talking while driving is verboten.

         • hmmm interesting idea, is that different from seeing things displayed visually?

       • The only time I’ve heard the freedom argument is when it’s tied into the larger issue of the war on distracted driving. An area of constant disagreement between us, but the slippery slope argument does hold truck with me here. I have in my lifetime seen one action be used to justify another.

         Not that I think we will see a slide to the bottom, where everything is banned. Some things, such as listening to sports on the radio or eating while driving will always be allowed because too many people want to do it. That takes us to the other thing, which is that bans will be imposed based on how many people want to do it and the appearance of danger (we know when the guy who cut us off is on his cell, we don’t know if he’s listening to the radio and may not know if he’s eating) and not how dangerous a particular behavior is. Selective legislation.

2. [C3] You’re correct that his idea isn’t half-bad, it’s all bad. Maybe this is because I’m a former smoker, but when I smoked the purchases was driven by desire rather than impulse. The nature of cigarettes is a bit different than other products.

   • But what’s the downside? My purchases are driven primarily by desire, but when I quit, I think keeping them out of sight would ultimately be helpful. Unlike, say, banning smoking in public view, which would be an infringement of liberty, keeping them out of sight doesn’t strike me as a real problem.

     I think there’s also an argument to be made for preventing smoking in the first place. I’m still feeling that one out, though.

     • The closest thing to a downside that I can see is that more smokers will be buying Marlboro reds and fewer will be buying more obscure brands or varieties. And especially fewer people buying cigars.

       If you can’t see American Spirit or Benson and Hedges on the shelf in front of you, you’re less likely to ask for it. I don’t know if that’s a good think, but any bad is probably outweighed by the good the law would do in keeping former smokers from relapsing.

   • Ontario has had this rule now for many many years (maybe 10 or 15). I believe it’s to try to prevent people from starting to smoke, not induce current smokers to quit.

     I have no idea if it has had any success.

3. W2: But you can’t pirate Linux. What fun is that?

   C6: She should definitely have said “light beer marriage”.

   T2: Anything, no matter how irrational, that cuts down on cell phone usage in airplanes is good with me.

   • I would be in favorofmaintaining a ban oncell phone chatter.

     • To me, cell phone ban laws on planes that aren’t justified for safety reasons are just an attempt to codify one’s personal preferences into law. You don’t like chatter on your plane ride… I don’t like 6 hours of unproductive time when I could be conducting business. Why should one preference get special treatment under the law?

       • I should clarify… I think that the airlines should ban it. Not the law. I am pretty sure the airlines would.

         • Got it. 100% agreement. Airlines should have every right to ban them if they see fit, too.

       • As long as the justifiable homicide laws apply, we’re cool.

   • Yeah, but then everyone will just want to talk to me, and I can’t have that.

   • “Light beer marriage” would have been a much better example. “Ultra-lite cigarette marriage” would have gotten her into a lot of trouble, though. And not because cigarettes can’t call themselves ultra-lite anymore. (This has wreaked havoc on tobacco consumerism. Not in the intended way, but I’m sure anything helps.)

   • “light beer marriage”

     People that go on their honeymoon to a beach resort?

4. several problems with tracking/grouping:
   1) ignores the possibility for someone to become a “wrong fit” for the group they’re in (particularly bad when the kid ought to be shifted DOWN).
   2) puts all the rowdy kids in places where they don’t get as good role models.
   3) Very much ignores the ability of fast learners to learn from slow learners.
   4) Ability grouping has been going on since the one room schoolhouse???!? Not to hear Buchanan talk!
   5) It’s hard for someone to transfer up, particularly when teachers DELIBERATELY make their courses hard enough that one can’t “double up” to essentially skip a grade.

   • p.s. Buchanan was actually taught in a one room schoolhouse.

   • These are all reasonable concerns, but I still consider it better than the alternative. I say this as someone who was actually shafted by tracking (I was slow on math, but by the time I caught up and was in the top of my regular math class, it was considered too late to make the transition.).

   • 1.) Implementation problem.
     2.) Based on a number of assumptions, most of which I can’t tackle right now but… no.
     3.) A fair point, but this is only going to happen in meaningful ways in classrooms that embrace a certain amount of socio-constructivist thought, which most don’t (especially as you move up in age). Though I am a believer in the socio-construvist approach, I’ve seen recent research regarding outcomes that has given me great pause (follow up essay to come… maybe).
     4.) Don’t really know what that’s about.
     5.) Um, what?

     There are some legitimate arguments against grouping or tracking that I could make, but most of them are predicated on educational models or theories that typically aren’t employed, so they’re not really relevant. Most other objections would be implementation ones, of which there are plenty, but we’d need to see a model in order to critique. Otherwise, we risk really just tilting at strawmen.

     • Kazzy, I would *love* to see you write a post on this topic.

       • I hope to (time allowing) write the post on socio-construvist, in part because it will serve as much of a “What does a professional do when good research runs counter to his professional opinion*” exploration as it will an actual look at the merits or lack thereof of the theory.

         I could talk more broadly and abstractly on grouping, but given that I’d probably still argue it inappropriate for the ages I teach, I couldn’t give the sort of firsthand knowledge and experience I’ve offered in other pieces. Which doesn’t mean I can’t write the piece, it just might not be what either you or I would ideally want it to be. But suffice it to say that my nutshell take is that grouping (I much prefer that term to “tracking”) could be a great boon to our education system IF done the right way, which I unfortunately have limited confidence in actually happening.

         * I will confess that my initial reaction was, “Of course this is wrong,” but then realized I was risking being one of those people that the Good Doctor has to fend off so damn man.

         • My understanding is that grouping and tracking are two different things. At least I have always thought of them as such. Grouping occurring within a class or classes*, while tracking being a more formal process of separating them out into different classes altogether (Honors vs. Regular vs. Remedial).

           * – In Redstone, they have Red Team and Blue Team where the former is typically the more gifted students and the latter less so. The differences are slight, though, and they will also put kids in one group or another for social reason (“Tommy and Billy need to be separated” or “Oliver and Olin are identical twins and both equally bright, but we don’t want to put identical twins in the same group.”)

         • The social domain adds an interesting wrinkle, which can really complicate things in smaller districts/schools. When I was in public school, we had at least 4 and sometimes as many as 8 sections per grade. In each school. And there were multiple schools up until high school. So if Johnny and Jimmy really shouldn’t be in class together because they’re twins or don’t get along or are super close and need a “break” from each other, both could still be put in Advanced Math but without being in the same room at the same time. But we were a big public district.

           My current (private) school has just one section per grade up through third. I often see social dynamics where both kids would greatly benefit from being in different classes. But they can’t be. And even if we had multiple sections, if they were grouped on ability level, you’d end up having to either deal with the social issue or separate them and possibly put one in a suboptimal grouping. However, I think this remains an implementation issue, which would be felt more intensely in some schools than others.

           An important thing to remember (for both proponents and critics) is that grouping need not and should not evolve as a process of elimination, where kids simply trickle down into the groups that are no longer too challenging for them but the bulk of the effort is put into the top performing groups. Unfortunately, this often happens in practice: advanced classes get great teachers, regular classes get good ones, and low classes get bad teachers. Avoid that pratfall and you’ll have a much better program.

     • 1) Not really. This is a standard “We call Your Kid Better” problem. If it’s just “well, suzie takes physics, and jimmy takes spanish” that’s way different than “suzie is in honors class” and “jimmy is in regular science”. It’s, if anything, a labeling issue. Which is compounded by the removal of choice where it’s not warranted. (I want biology, Jimmy wants physics, Carol wants Chemistry… they’re all classes you can by in large take in any order, if you have the right math chops).
       2) Okay. you’re right on this. Perhaps i’d have made a better point by talking about demotivated students getting grouped together.
       5)I was never able to essentially “skip a grade” in english because they said that taking two english courses would be “too tough” for a high schooler. (as if writing two 5paragraph essays a week is all that bad…)

5. W2: Hee hee. Let the Chinese figure out just how bad Gnome 3 is for themselves.

   • It’s a capitalist plot to undermine their economy. All the more clever because it’s using that communist thing, open source.

     • This fork of Ubuntu will go precisely nowhere. Gnome 3 won’t run on all those XP boxes. Most of PRC is still using IE6 if this is any guide to the matter.

6. C3- Not a half bad idea, though I think you’d still need to allow at least certain forms of advertising so customers know which stores sell cigs and which don’t. Though this quote makes me want to fully oppose it on principle of stupid logic… “New York City has dramatically lowered our smoking rate, but even one new smoker is one too many…”

   • Places where I’ve lived, it’s not really been an issue. It’s pretty uniform. Convenience stores and smoke shops will have them, without fail. The only “sometimes” is liquor stores.

     (If we really want to make a dent in smoking, what we would really want to do is take them out of convenience stores.)

7. C4: I am skeptical of the befits of the crative class but I am not sure Kolkin’s surbuban sprawl is the solution either. Though we might be moving to a more Continental/Paris system where rich people live in the City center and suburbs are more modest.

   I don’t think suburban office parks are the way to go for employment.

   • Conceptually, or aesthetically, I’m not a big fan of most suburban office parks. The trend towards sprawling, single-story structures just sits wrong with me. I like it more when there is at least some attempt at compactness.

     But whatever one thinks about it, the economics work out for it.

     • Suburban sprawl has nothing to do with the creative class or lack there of. The reason we have suburban sprawl is that the federal, state, and local governments implemented policies after WWII that benefited suburban sprawl. Strict zoning laws that prevent mixed use development, favoring cars over public transit whenever possible including destruction of most transit in the United States shortly after WWII, and policies that favor ownership over renting and single-family homes over apartments.

       Interesting fact: After WWII, planners in Los Angeles advocated for turning the Pacific Electric system into a mass transit system that would run along freeway medians. The Los Angeles government rejected this and tore up the entire Pacific Electric system by the early 1960s. Now LA is rebuilding its rail transit and at great cost. It would have been a lot cheaper and much better for LA overall if the Pacific Electric wasn’t scrapped.

       • The Creative Class argument arose primarily to combat sprawl. An argument that cities would be more successful if they’d just become core-centric and try to appeal to people who want more core-centric cities.

         I tend to prefer more free and open development. I am not a big fan of zoning and land-use regulations, be they “smart growth” policies which discourage sprawl or parking requirements that encourage auto-centrism. However we got here, though, I don’t think we’re going back without government intervention geared towards that outcome (as opposed to simply reversing certain policies). Some might argue that we should so intervene to counteract previous intervention, though I am generally albeit not uniformly skeptical.

         There are sound environmental arguments in favor of things like carbon taxes (which I go back and forth on). I support some public transportation initiatives (though am more skeptical of rail than I am of bus). Beyond that, come what may. The current arrangement has proven satisfactory to a whole, whole lot of folks. Kotkin has done a lot of heavy lifting debunking suggestions to the contrary.

         • Why are you skpetical of rail based transit? This argument keeps poping up all the time but it never makes sense. Evidence and experience points to the fact that more people are willing to use their cars less in favor of transit if that transit is rail based. Thats why the most succesful of the new public transit systems, those built from 1960 onward, have been rail-based rather than bus based. The old cities that survived the suburban boom the best were the ones that kept their rail based transit in tack.

           Rail transit is more expensive to build than bus transit but it has several advantages. The main advantage is that it doesn’t get stuck in traffic because it has its own right of way. That makes it a better alternative to the car than the bus becuase people in busses experience the down side of transit, lack of privacy, and the downside of cars, traffic, at the same time. They usually reject busses in favor of cars for this reason. Rail based transit makes transit oriented development easier to.

         • Lee,
           I like gondolas.
           better than rails.

         • I know that the current suburban model is satisfactory arrangement for most people. The question in what came first preference for suburbs or policies favoring suburbs is largely a chicken-egg one. Certainly, Americans favored lawns and single-family homes over apartments since the 19th century. There were suburb like places in the 19th century.

           IMO, the probably isn’t suburbs per se but how they are designed. It would be better if suburbs were more like traditional towns/small cities or street car suburbs with a sort of downtown area and greater walkability rather than strip malls, malls, and near zero walkabiltiy.

         • Rail lacks versatility. The go from point a to point b and places in between. Buses can get you anywhere because the infrastructure is already there. Doesn’t save time, though there is more we could do about that, but saves money and let’s you work and play in the trip.

         • trum,
           the infrastructure isn’t already there. you pay more and more over time for roads.
           and our infrastructure is falling apart.

         • The streets may not be glorious but they’re there and we will continue to maintain them to some extent or another regardless of busses or no busses. Real requires is own infrastructure. And can’t really replace roads anyway (though they can limit the need for expansion).

         • Will, this argument is frequently used in favor of buses but experience indicates that the results are different. The most succesful transit based initiative in the past few decades have been rail based. People prefer trams, trains, metros, and light rail over buses. The bus based transit thats been most succesful were those systems designed to mimic rail based systems as much as possible.

         • It’s easy to make rail look successful. Lay tracks from point a to point b and people going that way will ride it. Which is great, unless you need to go to point c.

         • “The Creative Class argument arose primarily to combat sprawl. An argument that cities would be more successful if they’d just become core-centric and try to appeal to people who want more core-centric cities.:

           This is not how I interpret the rise of the creative class argument. I thought Richard Florida created it as a way for former Industrial cities like Cleveland, Buffalo, Elmira, and other rust belt locations to attract young people instead of losing them. The argument seemed to be about fighting over resources of professionals by turning old factories into new and cool lofts, young people would stay instead of fleeing to greener pastures.

           I am sure that Richard Florida is against suburban sprawl but it was not the drive behind the creative class.

           The reason the creative class fails is that there are not enough good paying jobs for every city to become the next Portland or Brooklyn. And most companies are going to want to stay in areas where there is already built in entertainment for young and highly educated workers. Build it and they will come is much harder than building where there was already stuff. Portland might be a rare creative class success story.

         • Yeah, I think you’re right. It wasn’t an attempt to combat sprawl. It just kind of worked out that way. I think your criticisms of it are apt. I do think there is a less nuts-and-bolts aspect to it, all. I think it’s a good case study in how people convince themselves that government policies that benefit them and people like them are objectively good policies.

         • The streets may not be glorious but they’re there and we will continue to maintain them to some extent or another regardless of busses or no busses. Real requires is own infrastructure.

           Done properly, light rail and buses ought to be compliments, not substitutes. Light rail is what gets you the eight or ten miles from the suburbs to downtown with minimal hassle regardless of the weather or most traffic problems. Buses get you to and from the train stations, or cover more localized routes. Or small electric vehicles like the MIT CityCar. Join the Hertz Club for $20/month plus $2/mile and take the clean charged car at the front of the line a block from the train station. Drop it off at the end of the line when you’re done.

         • That’s a model I could get behind.

         • That’s a model I could get behind.

           It’s going to get tried in a lot of the West. Every major metro area but Las Vegas has operating light rail, with a bunch of substantial expansions planned (the station two miles from my house is scheduled to open in 2016, with construction on that line running slightly ahead of schedule). Wikipedia lists 30 light-rail/tram operations in the US; 14 of those are from Denver west. When one of the rail lines opens, RTD makes significant adjustments in the way it operates buses in that area.

         • MC, the models I’ve seen (which is not many, admittedly, living in the sticks) are more along the lines of one part of the core to another. I’m more partial to commuter rail than rail-as-urban-transit.

           (The place where we are likely moving – announcement to come – does have commuter rail. Which kinda excites me in a way. Except that I don’t know what I’m supposed to do when I get to the other side. I guess they have some sort of transit in there. It’d be more exciting if I didn’t have a little one. I suspect when I go to The City, it’ll still be by car.)

8. C6- I dunno. I just saw research indicating that children who consume primarily fat-free or low-fat milk have greater rates of obesity than children who consume high- or full-fat milks. Apparently the reasoning is that milks with less fat do not trigger the “full feeling” as quickly as milks with more, leading to overconsumption. This is consistent with other research I’ve read about the value of starting meals with some healthy fats to limit overall consumption. This isn’t really germane to your point, but I thought I’d point it out.

   M5- This is something that the libertarian in me has been thinking about for a while, largely in terms of how the government can regulate things that are hard to define.
   Basically, when does X become Y, when X is something that is not regulated but Y is. Complicating the answer to this question is that a great many folk have incentives one way or the other that have little to do with the question at hand.
   For instance, if I give my buddy Will a ride to the airport, surely the government shouldn’t regulate that.
   If I give my buddy Will a ride to the airport in exchange for $20, most of us would argue the government shouldn’t get involved there, either.
   But what if I give four friends a ride to the airport for $20 each? What if I give two friends and their two friends, whom I don’t know, a ride to the airport for $20 each? What if I give anyone who wants one a lift to the airport for $20 each? And what if I give anyone who wants one a lift to the airport for free?
   Now, an easy line to draw would be the exchange of money; there’d be enforcement problems but there always are, and these might be reduced because of formal systems like apps. And that line would make a great deal of sense in many ways… a taxi is a service you hire; a friend is just a friend. Yet that line would cause government involvement in situations we’d likely prefer it be absent (e.g., a friend offering a small payment for the ride) and would not require it for those which we might like to see (e.g., free rides for anyone).
   So… it quickly becomes problematic. Especially with all of the vested interests of the different groups. Existing taxi drivers are going to argue against free rides because that hurts their business. But should the government be involved in protecting their business interests in such a way?

   I realize this broader line of thinking can take us to weird places. Income tax is another one. What happens if instead of getting paid $X for work, I volunteer my time and my supervisor gives me a gift of $X, or 52 gifts of $X/52, one each week.

   • Crap… hit reply to early.

     To finish that last point… what if instead of gifts, I simply find $X in a bag in my backyard, which my supervisor lost but gave up looking for and which I find but cannot locate the owner. I mean, we’d all pretty quickly realize what is going on, but how would the IRS prove it in court?

     And then I realize this would make down damn near any form of government regulation which I’m not necessarily on board with so I decide to just quietly sneak out of the room and hope no one notices.

     • A big example is estate taxes. My parents have reached the point where they have more money than they have life left to spend it. A product of being thrifty all of their lives, as well as good income and a generous government pension. So if I need money, they’re more than happy to help me out.

       So let’s say that I need $5,000. He’s happy to give it to me. Why not? If he doesn’t now, it’ll be a part of our inheritance anyway. He treats it as such, too. If he gives me the $5,000 I need, he’ll give my brothers $5,000 they don’t need. It’s only fair.

       What he doesn’t do is give the government their cut. Now, my father is an FDR Democrat and not an FYIGM libertarian. He’s not tax evading in a selfish or ideological sense. And I’m not sure most people who support an estate tax (I do) are outraged that a gift from a living parent to a living child is something the government should really get involved in. But there are laws on the books to try to account for these things because, if they aren’t, people will do what my parents are doing very intentionally to dodge taxes.

       It’s not an easy thing to address.

     • I’m pretty sure “I found a bag full of money in my backyard” counts as taxable income. Just in case anyone is dealing with that issue this tax season.

       • What if you found a dollar bill? And then another… and then another…

         As a teacher, I can say that this is a real problem with rule making.

         “Don’t hit.”
         “I didn’t. I kicked.”
         “Fine. Don’t hit or kick. Hey! What’d I just say?”
         “I pinched. It’s different.”
         “Fine. No kicking, hitting, or pinching. Argh! Get your mouth off him!”
         “But you said…”
         “JUST DON’T TOUCH HIM! Now give him a hug and apologize.”
         “But you said not to…”

         You’ll never create an exhaustive list of things not to do. So you’d have to basically resort to simply taxing all money acquired via any form as income and accept that you are going to have major enforcement and consistency issues.

   • C6 – That makes a certain amount of sense to me, at least as far as kids go. Fattiness in foods in and of itself is not the issue for kids that it can be for adults. There is also increasing research suggesting that sugar-free drinks are counterproductive, along similar lines. Except also with adults.

     I drink Skim because I prefer to use my fat calories elsewhere. Also, because it doesn’t taste as rich as 2% or or Whole, I am less likely to drink as much of it.

     • I’ve started going for 1% (over skim) for a few reasons: I don’t drink a ton of milk to begin with; I learned that skim contains weird dyes to avoid an even more pronounced blue-gray coloring that it already has; related to the previous one, I try to take a “more food, less stuff” approach to diet and as a general rule avoid ingredients with words I can’t pronounce; because of my high activity level and what I’ve gone to understand about food/nutrition in general and for my particular body, I find I tend to do better when I have a good balance of healthy fats in my diet than when I try to avoid fats entirely and end up filling with fat-free but less healthful options, which usually end up being carb-based.

       “That makes a certain amount of sense to me, at least as far as kids go. Fattiness in foods in and of itself is not the issue for kids that it can be for adults.”

       This point, though, can’t be stressed enough. Kids *need* fat… good fats… healthy fats. The role out of the food pyramid coincides with the great rise in obesity. It is not the only cause, but I highly doubt it is coincidental. Telling people that fats should be enjoyed sparingly and that grains and carbs should be the foundation of diet was wrong, exceptionally so for children. Whole milk cheese and yogurts, unsaturated fats from meat, and naturally occurring fats in plant-based foods (including peanut butter) are really important for kids. Give them more of this stuff, fewer processed carbs (even if the label has a dancing wheat plant telling you about all the whole grains), and more time outdoors and you’d start to make some progress.

       Instead, we put kids on the Atkins diet because it works for post-menopausal women from Southern California.

9. E1: I’m leery of such attempts, at least until the computer models get much better at predicting what the outcomes might be. The North American monsoon (NAM), while not as well known as some of the other monsoon flows, is an important part of the annual precipitation for a sizable chunk of the US Rocky Mountains and Great Plains. “What happens to the NAM?” is something that the models are only now beginning to estimate. It’s entirely possible that geo-engineering might accomplish a particular goal “on average”, while screwing up regional patterns.

   • geoengineering is the “bad” solution. Aka “might wipe out life as we know it”.
     But hell, we already did something that had a 10% chance of doing that… just a couple of years ago.
     [Moral: mess with the oceans at your peril.]

     Global warming is going to screw up patterns. I don’t plan on geoengineering, I plan on global warming. It affects many things I do.

   • And since the shock caused by screwing up existing patterns is the main cause of harm from global warming the first place…

     • Of course, we don’t know what many of the regional changes will be. I mentioned the NAM. In 2011, the Great Plains summer high pressure system set up in a somewhat different location. As a result, Texas got a crushing drought; Denver got well above average precipitation. In some cities along the Front Range, July water consumption was down 50% because no one had to water the plants that month that year. If 2011 was an early preview of global warming — which a lot of people said — then the current global models are obviously missing a lot of stuff. Today’s models say that Denver summers should be warmer, but with about the same amount of precipitation. But if the extra heat energy drives more moisture off the Sea of California, and increases instability over the mountains — both plausible occurrences — then Denver is likely to see wetter summers, not drier ones.

       Geo-engineering to scrub CO2 from the atmosphere — probably doesn’t complicate things. Fertilizing to get plankton blooms, massive aerosol spraying to do cloud formation — who the hell knows?

   • Geo-engineering is a real challenge for the top down vs. bottom up argument. Is the model that there’s an international body that tries to find global optima, or does everyone with enough technology adjust their own climate? (So what if that breaks the Gulf Stream? What did Europe ever do for us?)

10. Burt: “Since I don’t expect government action to provide a solution, I am hoping that geoengineering might. There’s a lot of debate about geoengineering going on.”

    Geoengineering is very likely to be governmental, since it involves spending a lot of money for widely distributed gains.

    • That was me and not Burt. You are right. I was sloppy with my wording. I should have said that I don’t expect the government to be able to prevent it. They will likely have a hand in Geoengineering if that is a cure.

11. If some one desires to be updated with most recent technologies after
    that he must be visit this website and be up to date all the time.

12. The device is also very light, weighing slightly less than 3 oz.
    The mini spy pen camera is available in 4GB, 8GB and 16 GB for regular use as per requirement of the customer.
    Waiting until the park is about to close is one way to get some privacy, as is
    visiting the park during Disneyland’s less busy times.

Comments are closed.