Minimum dayFine is 6 euros. So if you speed and get 10 dayfines that's 60 euros.
Max(6, (Net monthly income-255)/60-3*numberOfUnderAgeChildren));
Minimum dayFine is 6 euros. So if you speed and get 10 dayfines that's 60 euros.
1) The police officer determines the penalty in terms of days and then you loose half your daily net income for that many days. There is minimum of 6€ per dayfine.
Such fines are convertible for prison sentences if perp doesn't pay, for one prisonday per three dayfines.
2) There are constant fines for ultra low end offences so that no-one needs to check your income.
My bike just isn't stable enough to handle well on Ice so I skip the winter cycling, however plenty of other Finns have better equipment and cycle through winter.
It wasn't me, Cowboy Neal did it!
Only way you can hammer it to them its bad idea to simply dip shrapnells to pig blood in when bombing them and declaring that every western hostage they kill the air force will use pig blood in shrapnells for hundred bomb that is deployed against them.
I've heard rumors that they have a nice tea party in Boston.
YEH. I think England and NATO would definitely ignore and not come to help if any third party capable of conquering Scotland would do so.
It serves them right, let them be Russian when being British wasn't good enough for them.
On same note USA would also Ignore if Russia would send short range nukes to some independent Island in Americas.
I7 still has bigger last level cache and slightly higher clockspeed tp overcome the negative side of hyperthreading especially since they have pretty much removed causes of slowdown with hyperthreading and single thread by dynamic partition of resources between threads instead of static partition.
Japan knew it has lost and All it could hope was make cost of victory high enough for US agree to reasonable peace terms through soviet mediation. And keep some of its empire on continent. However as soon as soviet declared war on Japan there was imminent risk of loosing Japanese Nuclear weapons program to soviet hands AND invasion and annexation of more Japanese territory by soviets who Japanese knew where willing to sacrifice lots of men in order to achieve their goals.
Nuclear bombs where not decisive but they came about time in which situation changed for Japanese from poor to terrible. And for effect of nuclear bombs there where not many targets available anymore to use them, conventional bombing had dealt with cities already.
Now here's a question IF soviets would of kept their non-aggression pact, then could Japan hold out for a year so that their Manhattan project in North Korea could of resulted some real counter bomb, especially with combined with V2 rockets Japanese got From Germans before their surrender. Lets say Japanese puts one V2 with fatman sized bomb in middle of invasion fleet, and then asks USA for status quo ante bellum, I think they could of gotten that. They could bluff that they have nuclear V2:s on submarines Waiting to revenge Nagasakin on continental USA.
Actually from year to year trend in CO2 increase is HALF the amount of carbon ATOMS in atmosphere compared to carbon atoms mankind burns from fossil fuels. Now for natural processes. In spring trees take CO2 from atmosphere and put it in leaves in autumn those leaves fall and start decomposing slowly releasing the CO2 in it. The natural CO2 cycle is pretty much like that you have 3-4 (depends on how you wish to count them) things that exchange carbon atoms, but total carbon atoms between them stays the same, until we started pumping more atoms there. Then the oceans BOTH release and take CO2 from atmosphere and the solubility of CO2 on seawater depends on temperature which means as currents move water from cold places to hotter environment it releases CO2 and other direction it takes away CO2. Right now seas are absorbing half of our emissions but if climate change is large enough it will cause that CO2 that we have forced in to the system move back from sea to atmosphere.
So its almost closed 3-4 storage places system in which things move between those storages in large quantities, and its pretty much people who contribute over 90% of what carbon atoms to that system. But biggest proof that CO2 increase is man made is that year to year trend is half the number of atoms of carbon compared to our fossil fuel consumption.
The problem with change is that both nature and us are adapted to CURRENT situation and all the land human has claimed acts as barrier for nature to adapt. And some things are slow to adapt. There is order of magnitude difference between negative and positive effects partially because all things previously mentioned. Humans have buildings and roads and all kinds of infrastructure in places which are optimal for current climate. Also too much heat is inherently bad. Too much cold is inherently bad, unless you had thousands of years adaptation for it. Alaska maybe better off once adaptation has happened in 300 years or so, while continental United States is inherently worser place, PEOPLE have adapted to current optimums and live and have build things based on that, 99% are worse and 1% are better, and that 1% is only better after they have survived immediate effects of change like permafrost melting caused problems.
Subject an open plains farmland in area to once a decade rains of rainforest and top soils moves away while having same thing in rainforest is not a problem. Now you got the real picture. Its all about mismatch between situation on the ground and whats in climate. On planetary scale it probably increases deserts and makes certain cold climates more habitable EVENTUALLY, while extincting things that depend on extreme cold. Maybe Greenland becomes agricultural paradise eventually once they have build soil there. But before that has happened you would of lost huge amounts of agricultural land elsewhere. And all that ice melting would mean New York would be below sea level long before Greenland would become agcricultural land. Of course if New York would be tens of miles inland then there would be no problem, but it is there right besides sea. The time difference between gaining and loosing is big problem. You cannot move food from future to present.
So yes, Canada, Alaska and Siberia might become more habitable. On the other hand most of the world would become either worse or LOT worse.
And in WORST case climate change we would get another habitable continent, while loosing bigger area to sea level rise AND deserts BEFORE it becomes habitable.
It matters because it means that we are heading even higher temperatures, because atmospheric concentration of CO2 doesn't go down but up. And because it takes time to heat a planet it also means that we have already emitted a higher temperature increase than that. Same models predict a 2.6-4.8 degree increase by the end of century if we continue emitting current amounts of CO2 to atmosphere. 0.3-1.7 degree if greens take over the world this year and we eliminate all emissions faster than reasonably possible. [Those are IPCC ranges for two different scenarios often used by skeptics as 0.3-4.8 range for saying scientist don't know at all.] . The high scenario goes higher than that next century even if it stops emissions late in century.
It also leads a slight increase in violence, and extreme weather events. Paradoxically it may cause part of a year somewhere in the world being much colder than it has used to by changing wind patterns, while making other places much hotter.
This is below current inter year variation caused by oceans either storing or releasing heat. But don't forget its just a battery for the energy and not affect the total accumulation of energy in the system. But its increasing the baseline which the variation occurs, so high's will be higher.
Big impact is more extreme weather phenomenon happening more frequently, so once in a decade storms become once a year storm, once in a decade heatwaves happen every other year.
As for this year, middle east stole Scandinavian winter weather. They got snow that normally ends up here instead, and all we got was rain for Christmas.
I'm not a lawyer, but I just read the law in question and my native language is Finnish.
That law doesn't apply between religious organisations and their congregation.
Also the law was put in a place to get rid of scammers trying to scam people their money for a "good cause", by requiring them to have registered in Finland and telling the police what they actually are going to use that money for so that they can actually verify if donations go where they promise and with random checks that they ask for the cause they told in the permission application. That is OLD law, not updated to current situation.
As what the police could potentially do is flag website as scamming site and put it on ISP blocking list and bring criminal charges that leaders of Wikipedia face if they ever travel to Europe. (Which may happen because there are opensource conferences here too). If this escalates and Wikimedia ignores them.
But more than likely someone just wants Wikimedia to act through Finnish intermediary organisation and obey the letter of law.
Now for more of a conspiracy theory option for the situation. Someone is pissed of the old law and wants the judges make precedence for new situation or lawmakers change the law, and target someone who they know is going to make enough noise for politicians to collect brownie points by fixing the law to fit for current situation.
There is no cowboyneal option. The administrators should be judged by Judge cowboyneal and his law giver.
What does count as having read a book? Does it count that I've read portions of it that is recurring topic in college exam of books subject or do I have to read it entirely or almost entirely. If its latter I think literacy is overrated. I assumed literacy is overrated.