Sure, that's an audiogram. It tells you what your threshold of hearing is at a certain set of frequencies. Additionally, sometimes they'll do bone conduction, which can characterize whether your loss is conductive (for example, trouble with the bones in your inner ear) or sensorineural (for example, cochlear damage from noise exposure). But that's just a starting point for fitting a hearing aid -- it's not like a glasses prescription that tells the optometrist exactly how to cut the lens.
I have - so what you're trying to get across is that the only difference between culture (driving or otherwise) in first and third world countries is in lack of necessary regulations in third world (traffic signs included)?
I call bullshit on this.
What does make a difference IMHO is having as few rules as necessary - BUT making sure that those few are sensible and respected.
Thus - "Don't be a jackass" is a worthy and sufficient rule - if enforced thoroughly.
Moscow is as full of signs as it was 10 years ago, but nowadays people drive better because the fines have skyrocketed and the overall culture kind of increased.
I don't know enough about the chemisty and ecosystem impacts of this but from what I do know I can think of one possible reason, at least, while the EPA's position makes sense. If a certain volume of oiled water is processed by a machine that has reduced filtering standards -- essentially, only removing the bigger or easier to capture materials suspended in the water -- it may make it harder for later cleanup operations to further address the remaining pollutants that were released back into the water. Either because they become much harder to detect (harder to see/smell/taste, or react to chemical sensors) or become harder to "bind" with cleaning agents. In other words, while at a logic-only level the EPA position may appear stupid, it's possible that from a chemical & logistical standpoint it may not be.
Regardless, I think it's reasonable to expect BP to be moving heaven & earth to clean this shit up as fast as they possibly can, since they made the mess in the first place.
I think the author's 'rant' contains an answer to your post:
"I’m obviously not in favor of replacing anyone’s daily fluid intake with soft drinks, but I can already see a number of straw man arguments headed my way. This is because people have a tendency to think in either-or terms that strictly involve extremes."
I think the main point of his post is that fructose is being demonized. He points out that we're taking in more calories while spending less. If anything is to be taken from the article is that moderation is the way.
It would be very difficult to evaluate Toyota stock. This kind of media events can warp public opinion about a company for a long time. I think it would be very hard to put number to this. I would bet that even if tomorrow the government comes out and says "oops, my bad, everything is fine" you wouldn't see a sudden reversal.
How do subsidies for stadiums, roads and public works 'overwhelmingly' benefit the affluent. A poor person with no car benefits from roads, unless they never leave the house and somehow grow all their food and produce all their goods.
Because they are less likely to use them. They tend to be more likely clustered in urban areas, less likely to own vehicles (and less vehicles on average) and served by public transportation (trains & subways supported by fares and charged with being self-sufficient) that receives far less in subsidies than roads which are built on the federal dime.
On food delivery and utilities, more externalities imposed by exurban users (more affluent) than urban users. New York City residents are much "greener" and use far less energy than country/exurban dwellers, despite paying for the same Kw at a much more exorbitant price.
Stadiums and public recreation areas are frequented by the affluent, not those living paycheck to paycheck (on average).
I will cite one that he begins one of his books with — the burglar alarm subsidy — each time police respond to an alarm (95% being false alarms), it costs the public $50 or more ($2-3B per year), in essence a subsidy, and a diverting of police resources away from other areas (that either go unmet or result in additional costs and increased crime).
Note: edited because for some reason, keep thinking this forum supports Markup…
