Slashdot Mirror

She wasn't corrupt, sure people donated to her charitable foundation with the hopes of gaining some favour. But would you prefer they donated to her campaign or PAC instead? Or hosted a fundraiser? That kind of stuff was literally standard operating procedure in Washington.

Are you serious? Check the donations. They skyrocketed when she ran for President - and fell like a stone when she failed. Then boomed again when she was suddenly in charge of all US International relations (Sec State). And you're telling me people are not buying her?

Uhhh, you're confusing things.

Like I said, people were donating to gain favour. Obviously they did so more when she was in a position of power or potential power. But that's absolutely Washington SOP.

It's not a bribe as much as a "I'll do something nice for me and I'll hear you out... but I won't actually do something I think is wrong". I mean it's pretty much standard that if you want to meet with a politician you don't have to be a donor.. but it would really help if you were.

It's highly problematic, but it's how the system works, Clinton was entirely normal in that regard.

Like the way her foundation and husband received millions of dollars after choosing not to deny the Russian buyout of Uranium One?

You mean the acquisition that was completely normal and uncontroversial acquisition and H. Clinton had almost nothing to do with anyway?

The multiple ties between Hillary and Russia,

People with international dealings having a few connections to a major country is fine. The problem with Trump is there's a ton of people with big connections to incredibly shady people.

including secret meetings in 2016

as she was candidate Clinton?

The problem with the Trump orbit meetings is:
1) A few of them seem directly related to the stolen emails.
2) Many of the Trump people in question repeatedly lied about the meetings. Either leaving them off official forms or denying they took place under oath.

Funding fake dossiers against candidate Trump?

Sigh. The dossier was opposition research, not "fake". Somethings have been proven wrong, and some have been verified.

Colluding with personal friends in the media to get advance information about campaign questions and the like?

Wasn't corrupt? I guess the Sahara is a frigid, sodden wasteland in your world...

Campaigns do sketching things sometimes. Hell, this guy signed up a fake candidate to launch an attack campaign against his rival then drop out of the race.

Oh, and here's a fun question where I'm really interested to hear the answer.

So lets assume you're right and the dossier really was a "fake dossier".

So... what was the point?

Because it didn't come out before the election, and as you pointed out she certainly had enough friends in the media to put it out.

Hell, they could even "anonymously leak" it somewhere, yet they obviously didn't.

So why get a fake dossier to slander Trump if you don't actually release it till after you already lost the election?

I feel like you w

Look, you can try the "but look...people funding" it's EEEEVVVVVVIIIIILLLLL. On the other hand, I can look from my own damn backyard and see the gigantic clusterfuck that "renewables" did to Ontario.

Right wing news? Sure. Centerist? That's not a problem either. How about far-left wing? Oh well what the fuck. How about the CBC? Well damn this is just great. This "unbiased assessment" from multiple media outlets here in Canada is pretty good at explaining just how much the entire thing "broke" Ontario's electrical system. This is the same bullshit now going on in multiple US states, the exact same shit. FiT(Feed in Tariff) programs, paying extremely high rates, with very specific companies who have/had an interest, causing the electricity price to go right through the roof. Oh and those "green energy jobs" that progressives, environmentalists and leftist cow on about? They don't appear. But boy oh boy do businesses flee. And of course Ontario isn't a on-off either, there's Germany, and Greece, and Spain, and Italy, and, and, and, and...

~10 years years ago, if you lived in the most populous place in Canada(between Windsor and Ottawa), you payed between 0.045 and 0.085kWh. Today you pay between 0.085 and 0.185kWh. Businesses fled. People fled. The electricity rate is so out of reach for the poor that they had to mandate under law no winter electrical disconnection just to make sure people wouldn't freeze to death. These rates for electricity hit the poor so bad, that a few years ago that charities ran out of money in December to cover heating costs. The winter period in Southern Ontario is generally late-October to as late as the end of May, you'll find that most people don't consider spring starting until the May 24 weekend, even then seeing 4C daytime highs happens often enough.

Look. Believe whatever you want about useful idiots, "because oil." Then dig your head out of your ass and then look to British Columbia. Same bullshit. Then look to Alberta under the NDP, same bullshit. Then look back to Ontario. 'Hey boys what happened to the Liberal Party of Ontario that held a majority status from 2003 to 2017?' Oh, they are no longer a recognized political party, and can fit in a 1986 Dodge Minivan? Well hot shit.

Do you know what they call orthodox medicine that kills?

Medicine.

If I want to go to a hotel in Montreal, every establishment has a sign on the door with the number of stars telling me what to expect and I can look up customer reviews.

I go to a doctor and I know ... nothing. The most clueless four-fingered cartoon ogre with the deductive skills of Inspector Clouseau and the awareness of Mr Magoo is the same as a world-class innovator...

https://yro.slashdot.org/story...
https://www.theglobeandmail.co...
etc

"Polar Bear Population on the Rise" according to new study by the University of Bad Math, Ontario.

And to think, that article is over 6 years old~ And the numbers are still increasing...and they've actually increased the kill quotas a couple of times for inuits because they've become a problem.

It's like people believe whatever bullshit is fed to them, and take it for gospel truth.

in first world countries!

https://www.theglobeandmail.co...

Fix your shit here first, dummies!

https://www.theglobeandmail.co...

https://www.theglobeandmail.co...

The important thing to take away here is that increasing equality benefits everyone.

What the fuck? No it doesn't..

Equality of OPPORTUNITY benefits everyone. Equality of OUTCOME benefits only the most unproductive and lazy members of society.

Equality of opportunity exists in Sweden (and most of the Nordic countries), yet the outcome is nearly the same as in the rest of the western world.. Women and Men self segregate. Women are going into the "social" jobs, while men prefer the "physical/mental" jobs. The only way you can possibly remedy this is to force people into jobs they do not want. This isn't speculation, it's observed reality.

When you give men & women the maximum freedom to choose what they want to do for a living, it turns out that they do not want to do the same things..

I'd like to suggest you read this article: https://www.theglobeandmail.co...
Here's a snippet:

The trouble is that the world's most liberated women aren't leaning in – in fact, many are leaning back. They work fewer hours and make less money than men, just as Canadian women do. In fact, Swedish women are much more likely to have part-time jobs and far less likely to hold top managerial positions or be CEOs. On top of that, Scandinavian labour markets are the most gender-segregated in the developed world.

Women do make up 25 per cent of Swedish corporate boards, but only because of quotas. The greatest concentration of senior managers, CEOs and other highly paid power women isn't in Scandinavia. It's here in North America, where working women's lives are much tougher.

It turns out that all these family-friendly policies have an unintended impact on the gender gap, as Kay Hymowitz and many others have noted. By making it easy for women to drop out of the work force and work shorter hours, they make it harder for women to progress in their careers. Swedish men have these options too, but they don't take them. So women don't advance as far as men. And they are also considered less desirable by corporate employers who need people on the job 24/7.

i.e. when you remove all the legal and fiscal barriers, women don't want to work outside the home.. Sweden proves it...

Don't forget those sweet, sweet tailored ads, popping up on every screen you lay your eyes upon!

Funny thing about that, Bell Canada was busted by the CRTC for illegally manipulating and throttling traffic(of their and TPIA's) among other things by using Sandvine boxes back in 2008/2009. Don't trust them, not at any point. Especially since they also manipulated the news for their own benefit(2015), and were caught doing it.

Archive, because Globe and Mail is paywalled for old articles.

Original link here if you're a G&M subscriber.

Statistics show that trains spill oil 34 times more than pipelines, resulting in 7 times the amount of oil spilled. Pipelines are safer you twit. All it will take is one train in the Thompson or Fraser Rivers and goodbye one big salmon ecosystem. Bitumen in trains is still diluted too, just not quite as much as for pipelines.
https://www.theglobeandmail.co...
There are too many idiots who are know it all environmentalists because they watch a radical Suzuki who only cries about the sky falling (so get rid of people's jobs) with no solutions. And if it's not them, it's paid American 'environmentalists' who come up to protest Canadian pipelines. Sometimes I wonder if the Koch brothers pay them to keep their American interests in front of the Canadian oil interests. The irony is that Canada won't be able to afford to develop green alternatives if it isn't making any money (selling oil).

Give your head a shake. It needs to be diluted to get into the tankers, 17% diluent vs 30% for pipeline. WP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... And they do use tankers, not box cars. I.e. it is NOT a solid mass. It will still flow into rivers if it derails. The number of spills from trains is 34 times the number of spills from pipelines, and the total amount spilled is 7 times higher from trains than from pipelines. G&M https://www.theglobeandmail.co...

Not a lot goes over rail and what does is not diluted with chemicals that make it much more dangerous. See this https://altex-energy.com/econo... This isn't like Lac-Mégantic where there is a bunch of flammable liquid fuel. Instead the rail cars are filled with a solid mass, bitumen if you will. If it spills it's totally not good, but won't run into streams and creeks in the same way a tanker spill would of piped product, it would be like a coal spill. But compared to what bitumen with a spill with heavy bitumen in a diluting agent in a marine environment it's not even close to the same risk. We don't even know what it would take to clean up a bitumen spill in a ocean marine environment https://www.theglobeandmail.co... Yet the Canadian government and Alberta government are willing to put all this risk on BC. And people form BC are supposed to be cool with that?

Apparently, some are convinced there is...
https://www.theglobeandmail.co...

The CFO in question was on the board of Skycom. That's publicly available information. "At least 13 pages of the Skycom proposal were marked “Huawei confidential” and carried Huawei’s logo." according to the Canadian Globe and Mail. This isn't difficult detective work.

How about:

Another director of Skycom, Ms Hu Mei, appeared to have a Huawei e-mail address and was listed in that company's employee directory, Reuters reported.

Former employees of Skycom have stated that it was not distinct from Huawei, and that Skycom employees had Huawei e-mail addresses and badges, according to a Canadian court filing.
[...]
Documents obtained through an investigation by the US authorities show that multiple Skycom bank accounts were controlled by Huawei employees, the filing said.

Just because you haven't paid attention to what's going on doesn't mean that there is no information out there about it.

I'm going to assume her crimes were all third-party stuff, i.e. deals between China and Iran, which international law doesn't give the US a right to have any say in. [...] and I'm guessing here-- they may be claiming that Huawei did transactions in US dollars and therefore became subject to some kind of American law.

Your guesses and assumption would be wrong. Skycom is a subsidiary of Huawei. Because of that, she's on the board of Skycom and was directly involved in the prohibited transactions reselling HP equipment to Iran.

Reuters reported in 2013 that Ms. Meng served on the board of Hong Kong-based Skycom Tech Co. Ltd. that later attempted to sell embargoed Hewlett Packard computer equipment to Iran’s largest mobile-phone operator.

At least 13 pages of the Skycom proposal were marked “Huawei confidential” and carried Huawei’s logo. Huawei has said neither it nor Skycom provided the HP equipment; HP said it prohibits the sale of its products to Iran.

From the various details which are available publicly, Huawei bought prohibited products from a U.S. company and then resold them to Iran as a way around the U.S. sanctions prohibiting a direct sale. Their CFO (the arrestee) used her control of a subsidiary (Skycom) to try and hide the transactions.

When prohibited technology equipment made by a U.S. company magically showed up in use in Iran, it probably didn't take a rocket scientist at the FBI to realize something was wrong and start tracking the equipment back through how it got there, which resulted in the arrest warrant for one of the people directly responsible for circumventing the sanctions.

Want to know how cunning the American government is, https://www.theglobeandmail.co... and then they sucked in Canada to fucked it all up. What, Canada, you think you can pick up all the lost US exports to China, fuck you Canada, US then ponders let's see what stupid thing we can get Canada to do, as punishment for stealing those exports to China, ohh, I know we will exploit this treaty and get them to fuck themselves up, the US doesn't get the trade, that means Canada the sock puppet doesn't get the trade. Canada should still cop stick, even though it was sucked in, there never ever is a reward for stupidity, just in American movies, not ever in real life.

and, at least in the US, few have any sympathy for them. They like to play the victim card over how terrible they're treated but, the reality is, they have few to blame other than themselves.

It's like this in Canada as well. Roughly 4 companies control 90% of the media here, that's everything from radio and TV to print publications. It's actually bad enough that the "controlling company" for one media organization(CTV owner Bell), was using the news org, to push propaganda and directly meddled in news coverage. A reporter lies? It's sexist, racist, you're a nazi. The media company they work for? Circle the wagons, drag out the personal attacks. It's very rare that reporters are canned up here for egregious abuse of the public trust.

Lose the bias, sensationalism, personal agendas and personal attacks against political parties and / or people they dislike and just report the damn news.
Returning to their professional roots will go a long way in re-establishing some credibility as journalists and "news" as a whole.

Well that would be a really hard thing for some media organizations like the Toronto Star(affectionately known in Canada as The Red Star for it's communist bent), and the CBC which has been repeatedly hit for sensationalism, personal agendas, personal attacks against anyone who doesn't toe a left-wing line. Under the previous government, they were at least held to account on this in parliament, even when the ombudsman refused to take the issue on, or simply stated that "the CBC's fact were accurate and true" when it was the exact opposite. The sad thing is, the Toronto Star has some really good reporters and one of them is a top-notch person in terms of getting things done. But the general slant of the articles itself(everything from sexist air conditioning to protesting bike lanes is racist), is one of the reasons it's a failing news paper. And the further it goes with stories like that, the harder it's circulation numbers drop.

Don't forget Canada have submarines to blast the US from behind! https://www.theglobeandmail.co...

Just like this!

https://beta.theglobeandmail.c...

Or like this?

Just like this!
https://beta.theglobeandmail.c...

I know here in Northern Ontario you used to be able to drive out on a fishing trip and have bugs splattered all over the windshield by the time you got home. Now you hardly hit any bugs.
You could go and regularly see birds flying around and even swooping down at you to protect their nest but now, you might see a few birds but not many. I've gone a whole trip and not seen a single animal on occasion.
A lot of forest has signs about pesticides in use - probably to control the forestry-threatening insects. I heard there were warnings not to hunt there because the meat is contaminated.
I wonder how much of the ecosystem has been destroyed by this spraying of pesticide.

I came across this article as well:

When Raymond Owl hunts and forages for medicines in woodlands around his Northern Ontario First Nation, he routinely finds blistering, withered plants and seldom sees game. The forest is part of a tract of land sprayed with glyphosate, the active ingredient in an herbicide used to expedite the growth of coniferous trees after clear-cutting.

... money has been decoupled from productive activity and investment seeking the highest returns and so gone largely into speculation and basically sophisticated forms of rent seeking and fraud. Let's be honest, technology just speeds this along by enabling big compaies to engage in labour arbitrage. Taking advantage of the huge wage differences of people across the globe thanks to the internet and most people don't have the money or are incapable of moving from where they are at from different reasons. This naive idea that human beings are fungible widgets has put a serious strain on society.

Let's not forget the concept of dead money, corporations are sitting on billions they are not investing in anyone or anything. We're experiecing total failure of capitalism and nobody noticed. AKA money is pooling in the hands of ceo's and the ceo's are just sitting on it, at sane society woud intervene and just start investing in people, tools and jobs if the corporate fatcats won't do it. So it's pure politics and mass political ignorance that's at the root of our problems. Basically people are rotting on the sidelines because our corporate leadership is an emporer with no clothes.

https://www.theglobeandmail.co...

And in my case, on that page of "Food Sources of Vitamin D", I consume a grand total of one of the items -- eggs.

Well eggs are good in several ways.

I'm vegetarian, so the meat sources are out.

By choice. Don't pretend that it's healthy.

I'm allergic to fish, so all those are out.

You have a leaky gut. Stop eatings grains.

I minimize my consumption of dairy, so those are out.

You have a leaky gut. Stop eatings grains.

Surprise, surprise, I had bone issues until I took Vitamin D.

Then you were deficient. For measurable results in other areas (like sleep), take it on waking, never in the evening. Take it with A and K2. A, D and K2 work together to regulate calcium deposition and mitigate their individual toxicities. You are probably deficient in K2 with your diet. Most people in the West are.

I wonder if this "article" is trying to move the U.S. to the Canadian model where the government controls the selling of Vitamin D. [I was told this by a frustrated Canadian nutritionist, and it may have been more true in the past.]

A far better article is here.

Too much D/A = kidney stones. White people with baywatch jobs get kidney stones due to ODing on D from sitting in the sun with their tops off all summer. Too little = diseases of the West. Chris Masterjohn did a lit review a few years ago and concluded that the safe range was between 1:1 and 1:10. I take 1:2 in the morning to improve sleep.

And in my case, on that page of "Food Sources of Vitamin D", I consume a grand total of one of the items -- eggs.

I'm vegetarian, so the meat sources are out.

I'm allergic to fish, so all those are out.

I minimize my consumption of dairy, so those are out.

Surprise, surprise, I had bone issues until I took Vitamin D.

I wonder if this "article" is trying to move the U.S. to the Canadian model where the government controls the selling of Vitamin D. [I was told this by a frustrated Canadian nutritionist, and it may have been more true in the past.]

A far better article is here.

https://www.theglobeandmail.co...

https://www.theglobeandmail.co...

http://thehill.com/opinion/nat...

https://www.theglobeandmail.co...

https://www.theglobeandmail.co...

http://thehill.com/opinion/nat...

First, I'd like to address the notion that this is "my concept." I don't know whether or not UBI is the way forward, all I was doing is pointing to what an advocate would say in response and some of the reasoning behind it. These ideas are important to discuss. Next, I'd like to swat down the things that are completely irrelevant to the discussion, like how cynical I am or am not and whether your assessment is accurate as well as what kinds of people are talking about these ideas. All completely immaterial to the discussion.

That out of the way, I'd like to address the substance here.

I don't understand why you handwave replacing existing welfare systems for "obvious political reasons." It's not obvious to me why that would be, especially because the people on the many disparate welfare systems would probably be better off under a UBI. A lot of them require status checks, paperwork, etc. so unless the resources granted by the many disparate programs are significantly greater, the time-efficiency is rewarding enough to offset the switch alone. And because they don't generally get you many resources, covering the basic costs of living is probably an improvement in resource terms as well. It would also remove a lot of the perverse incentives to stay out of work or things like that. You dismiss the idea out of hand and proceed to attempt to demoralize the position without actually arguing any points here. Even if we assume that you're correct and the welfare state is deeply entrenched, you still need to go further and demonstrate that UBI conflicts with that.

I also don't care if people see it as an addition to the welfare state instead of a replacement. I would argue with them that this is stupid as well. You can't lump me in with them for no reason because that's not what I'm saying. This is what we call a strawman.

I can't help but notice that you ignored the part about machines in the bit about specialization. Wonder why that might be?

In any case, there are doubtless productivity improvements that come from specialization. I don't care at all about your strawman argument which casts all specialization as doctors that are also lawyers that are also farmers. You should know this is an absurd argument. Those are all immensely deep fields of study that can be adequately broken down into smaller subfields. We would be talking about things like flat semi-truck drivers vs van semi-truck drivers. Or maybe drivers that go from Ohio to Pennsylvania and drivers that go from Ohio to Michigan. Either arbitrary distinctions or nearly arbitrary distinctions simply to fill the job guarantee. There is some degree of specialization in everything that yields benefits but everything also has a point beyond which meaningful specialization isn't possible. There's some point - which may or may not be the same - where you divide up jobs into boring, fungible, high-turnover positions.

The relationship between specialization and job satisfaction isn't well-understood and there aren't a lot of research materials related. There is some evidence for both sides. Or in this case, it appears that both are useful but on different scales - focusing within a single day is beneficial and having variety over the

This isn't a "Google" problem, this is an industry-wide problem. What larger tech company ISNT doing this?

This goes beyond even the tech industry to an ongoing global problem . Whether in the United States, Canada, Europe, or East Asia, you have more and more companies opting to use more and more contract labor. It's many of the same reasons: easy to hire and fire / surge, cheaper, etc.

Multiple sources say that Facebook confirmed that the message is real.

http://thehill.com/policy/tech...

http://nymag.com/selectall/201...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/...

https://www.theglobeandmail.co...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/wor...

I guess you have a Pastebin or a blog or something that says otherwise... But rather than argue, it might be easier to wait until his trial to see what evidence is presented. Doubtless Facebook will have provided logs etc.

Norway's Sovereign Wealth Fund was actually inspired by the Alberta Heritage Fund. Norwegians learned from us. The difference is that they were much more disciplined when it came to managing the fund.

Excellent choice of end-point. Fucking morons.

Nortel market cap rivals IBM — 29 June 2000

With about 2.9 billion common shares outstanding, Brampton, Ont.-based Nortel is now being valued at $200.6-billion. That fell just short of IBM's total valuation of $201.7-billion at the end of the day yesterday.

The story is about an issue that is completely irrelevant.

It doesn't matter whether the "RND" function is ideally random in a mathematical sense. It only matters whether the "random" number generated is independent of the identities of the people applying to be admitted.

With no intention of diminishing the importance of your statement; that is blindingly obvious. There are two other excellent points raised by others in the comments here: that imperfect randomness does not make the process manipulable by immigration candidates and that sort order of assigned imperfect random numbers can itself be perfectly random.

The story is mis-reported as a scandal; there is in fact no scandal whatsoever. So who made up the fake news? Tom Cordoso is the author of the original story at the Globe and Mail which the Gizmodo article linked in the Slashdot summary cites. Cordoso quotes Université de Montréal computer-science professor Pierre L’Ecuyer as saying “Anything would be better” [Than the Excel random number generator] but, crucially, Cordoso omits the context of that comment. Was L’Ecuyer referring to its suitability for this particular method and application, or was he commenting on its suitability for general use, including, for example cryptography? In neither the Gizmodo nor Globe and Mail articles can I find any mention of an expert unambiguously expressing judgment on the immigration randomization method specifically. A close reading suggests that the criticism originates with the journalist, and that he deceptively implies it to be the opinion of experts.

Some enterprising citizen journalist should contact the cited experts and ask them 1) Did their comments refer to general usage of the Excel random number generator or specifically to the immigration randomization methodology. 2) What is their opinion of the immigration randomization methodology 3) Do they agree with the points made here about it being a nothingburger 4) Have they read the Globe and Mail article, if so do they believe that their comments were wrongly contextualized.

If anyone does that, it would be nice to see a followup article here on Slashdot.

What you miss is that USA too subsidize massively the dairy product

So does Canada, on top of supply management. Most provinces have massive subsidies allocated to any farm entreprise, such as paid for protections in case of harmful disease of cattle and weather phenomenoms.

And then have supply management thrown on top. Let's face, this is "Never Trump" syndrome when the media fail to report on it properly. Before Trump, Canadian media had no qualm pointing out the double protection of Subsidies AND supply management :

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/taxpayers-oblivious-to-the-cost-of-farm-subsidies/article13055078/

Hurting an economy is better then killing civilization.

Not everything is about economy, some problems are worth hurting the economy for in order to fix a foundation.

Which is why environmentalists are lining up for nuclear power right? Right? Oh, I guess not. Looks like they're just brushing off their inner malthus and waiting for everyone else to die for their perfect society.

Now I couldn't find any reference about $9.00/L Canada prices, so I am going to place that under fake news to scare us Hard Working Americans about those dangerous LiBeRaLs. Or it was a passing phrase in a brain storming idea taken out of context.

Your jumping off point is right there. Now go finish reading the linked articles about how they'd really like the cabon tax to be $350-900/tonne. By the way, if you want to see all about those "dangerous LiBeRaLs" why not look at Ontario, which has a population of 1/3 the state of California and equal debt. Energy prices so high that 600k people are in arrears, 60k people have been cut off. And the largest electricity provider in the province(Ontario Hydro) only has 1.35m customers. Those "dangerous LiBeRaLs" ideas are sure doing a bang up job if you live here. It's been pretty close to a non-stop decade of food banks begging for anything and everything since 2008 because things are well...really that bad here.

... So a carbon tax, will not cause people to leave the US in droves (Because where will they go, the US is behind most other countries in terms of environmental regulation, other countries will be worse) but will change their habits, towards better usage of the expensive fuel, or switch to a less expensive fuel source.

No? So tell me something, how long do you think people will hang out when they're making $450/week(that's $15/30h aka min.wage) but a loaf of bread is $6? Cause you obviously don't live in Canada, and have no idea how far or long distribution lines are. Now remember, your monthly appt. rental is around $1k/mo. You're also unable to afford a car, or insurance. You also now live in a city of 30k people. You're paying another $300/mo for supplemental health insurance. Now don't forget your electricity(inc. water heater costs), and maybe internet(if you're lucky $70).

Now if we can actually weather threw a self proposed recession in order to get our foundations fixed, we may be able to grow a much stronger economy on top of it.

Yes which is why you're lining up to go after China, India, and so on. Where Canada contributes less then 1% of the global carbon count. Brilliant!

you mean like this cop in Toronto?

https://www.theglobeandmail.co...

the guy kept pulling a cell phone at the cop in the way you woudl pull a gun.. the cop did not shoot.

Can you cite any actual real evidence that this is true? Both parents are more likely to work today than in the past, so kids are often left home alone. This means less supervision, the opposite of what you claim.

Well, here in Canada, the Ministry of Children and Family Development got interested in a case where a dad taught his kids how to be independent. Enough so that his eldest (12) can supervise the younger ones to take them to school... using public transit. Now he's under legal threat that if they catch his kids alone, even just to cross the street to go to the store to buy ice cream, they'd be apprehended into foster care.

https://www.theglobeandmail.co...

And yes, our public transit system is very good, and honestly, I took the bus alone as well (and I was even less experienced - the dad taught them the route, they had cellphones and everything, I had none of that).

It's actually sparked quite a bit of controversy - the kids were mature enough to take the bus by themselves, they attended the same school so it wasn't a problem of separation, etc. And now the government demands he hover over his kids - take the bus with them, walk to the store across the road with them to get something, etc.

Hell, I walked to school alone for a good stretch until my mom got a job and I had to go to a neighbour's house until it was time to leave for school. Getting a ride in the car was a small luxury - at the right time it was kicked out the door to walk to school.

That s correct. One of the oddest things about this whole matter though is that in all of the stories about the falling birth rate, the focus is very gynocentric.

Which is a little odd - if you don't consider the other half of the equation, you don't get the whole picture.

That's because the women are the ones who actually give birth. They're also the ones who decide whether or not to have a child the vast majority of the time. It's not like women actually need to be in a long-term relationship to get pregnant. Heck, sperm donors mean she doesn't even have to have sex.

And yet - here we are. Seems like there is absolutely no problem at all, men have not one thing to do with the issue, and women can take care of all of this with no issues whatsoever. http://www.bbc.com/news/health... . Seems some places are having trouble getting donors. Perhaps this low birth rate is fake news.

And as passive avoidance, it is becoming a problem.

Citation required.

Okay, let us start. You can get an inkling of the problem just by DDG'ing "Where have all the good men gone?" one of the best links is http://www.dailymail.co.uk/fem...

https://www.theglobeandmail.co...

And here is where things start getting weird. Men are avoiding relationships with beautiful desireable women, and it is the men's fault. So you start blaming people who are avoiding you for avoiding you. Men her age are too fat, and as she calles them "delusional" There is a certain lack of logic in utilizing shaming tactics on people who largely base their lack of interaction on shaming tactics of the past. THese women are whining about how they can't find a good man, then whining about how awful men are. There is a face slapping clue in there, unless one goes through life with the firm conviction that any and all problems are distinctly the fault of males. these women? I woudn't put up with their whiny misandric ways for a minute.

Next up, we get the red-pill movements. This one is a bit worrying. There are a few different types. One is Men's right's activists, or MRA's. These are sort of like feminists. They are more understandable to feminists, because of similar tactics.

The part of red-pilling that has recently become more concerning to feminists and women in general is MGTOW, or men going their own way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... This is because instead of marching to provoke people or agitating for laws, these men simply use passive avoidance. It is a largely online community with no political aims, even when there are people or groups that try to frame it as such. I was listening to an NPR "On the Media" presentation and interview when the woman host was trying to frame MGTOW as an alt-right movement, who was mystified by a felliow who did an analysis that shoed that overall, except for the passive avoidance, these men could largely be called centrist Democrats.

The large concern is because of this passive avoidance. And almost all are completely immune to shaming tactics. https://www.mgtow.com/ Anyhow, I've provided a few cites - there are thousands out there, and a lot of data that indicates that not all problems are the fault of men.

the traditional nerds and otherwise males unattractive to women come to mind.

What, are you 16?

How cute. Something I have written that angers you? Very strange, when I write some non-insulting post, where all you have to do is go down point by point and show me the error of my ways, yet you post this

I've heard of them, but I've never actually seen one in real life, since I live in Alberta, a province free of rats

Alberta is free of rats because they’re scared of the marmots.

I've heard of them, but I've never actually seen one in real life, since I live in Alberta, a province free of rats.

Of course, we're not really a "removal success" since we kept them out in the first place.

[MaRS is an incubator, originally for "Medical and Related Sciences."]

Trump is also currently in the process of renegotiating NAFTA with Canada and is prone to slinging a little mud at his opponents during negotiations (right out of "The Art of the Deal").

foxalopex posited:

I'm going to assume this has something to do with generic drugs? I guess drug companies in the US are more concerned about making a buck than actually helping people. In Canada, most essential drugs have a generic or no-name equivalent which is often cheaper than the brand name drug and works just as well. I sure hope that isn't their complaint because that particular law makes drugs cheaper for the folks who need it.

That's certainly part of it. Their Supreme Court's intolerance of patent abuse, and its willingness to punish it appropriately is, I suspect, also a non-trivial consideration ...

Cruise control maintains your speed extremely well and doesn't ever fail catastrophically.

Actually it can and does. Cruise control in slippery conditions can put a car into a dangerous condition.

Here's one citation, I'm sure anyone can find more:
https://www.theglobeandmail.co...

Early cruise control systems were sometimes quite dangerous, not always to the passengers but could cause damage to the engine or transmission. I remember cars having a hardwired switch on the dash to disable them, in addition to the software button on the steering wheel, because people learned not to trust them. They got "smarter" and today most will detect wheel slippage and not gun the engine if it hits a slippery spot in the road.

Cruise control is especially dangerous with rear wheel drive and powerful engines, like on a sports car or light truck. One wheel on a slick patch will cause the cruise control to open up the throttle and get the wheels spinning, when they finally find traction the vehicle might no longer be pointed in the desired direction of travel and the front wheels could still be on a slick surface which can send the vehicle flying uncontrolled.

Cruise control is very safe, especially newer ones that integrate with a traction control, but a claim that they never fail catastrophically is provably false.

IPCC has declared specific "scientific" meaning for such terms when used in their reports. You may want to align your use of them to that. See https://www.theglobeandmail.co... for an overview.

Why not? As long as we run on capitalism and uphold private property, people are free to buy as many papers or whatever else they please.

In the most capitalistic countries, there's a basic understanding that holding a market monopoly that depresses the ability of newcomers to start up is a bad thing. On top of that, one can look to Canada and other countries where the parent company ownership has turned around and abused their position and directly influenced the news. Kind of like this.

That's why anti-monopoly and anti-trust laws exist, I'm surprised you don't understand this basic fact.

My favorite example of this was a recent article in a major Canadian paper.. it was an essay titled "Well, are you a bad feminist?", which was in response to an original letter from a prominent author titled "Am I a bad feminist?".

A good read if you want something to make you puke. Here's three young twentysomethings calling a woman who actually had to fight for real women's rights a bad feminist. These people have nothing left to fight for and are grasping at straws to maintain their victim status. Smart women (usually the true feminists) aren't having any of the bullshit.

The rise of contract labor versus permanent employment has been an ongoing issue globally, ranging from Canada to France to Japan and even India. There are differences and nuances market by market, but a lot of it comes down to employers demanding workforce flexibility in the face of uncertainty, competition, and plenty of desperate underemployed people. France is a case where labor regulations are so tight, that contract labor is an easy loophole. Maybe the only place that this trend is beginning to reverse is in Japan, but that's simply because their labor force is rapidly shrinking.

The only time I had to sign it's when I'm traveling to US. Never understood why they want a ZIP code at gas stations. Well I'm from Canada so that doesn't work well.

Just use the three numbers and add three zeros - if your postal code is A1B 2C3 you can enter 123000 as the zip code and it probably will work.

Here is a note from back in 2013 - https://www.theglobeandmail.co...

This is why we have a strategic maple syrup reserve in Canada:

https://www.theglobeandmail.co...

Hmmm

Canada’s navy has ‘capability’ to help enforce North Korea sanctions: Vance