For instance, I wouldn't call stopping food with Melamine in it a restriction on free trade. The Americans would. If a Melamine laced food has been sold once in Canada, the Canadian government can not stop it from being sold. This was played out when MMT ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methylcyclopentadienyl_Manganese_Tricarbonyl ) was banned in the States, Canada attempted to ban the importation of MMT. We were sued by an American company under chapter 11 of NAFTA and forced to settle and allow importation. While whether MMT is hazardous to health is still in dispute, at the time it was considered to be hazardous. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement#Canadian_disputes
I'm about 40 miles by road east of Vancouver and maybe 15 miles north of the border. Just that it is fairly mountainous terrain. The flooding comes from a couple of feet of snow then warming up and 4 to 6+ inches of rain. No one remembers anything like it.
For old people, they usually lived with extended family and had useful household jobs to do. For younger people, worked 12+ hours a day so were to tired to do much after work. Also of course there is the question whether this is an advancement. While going digital in small countries is a no brainer it is more questionable in large countries with spread out populations.
Libraries are good and definitely should have funding. Unluckily not everyone is a book reader. My wife for example does not enjoy reading and uses the TV for entertainment. When the power goes out she gets quite stressed out whereas I just light a candle and grab a book. She is not going to be happy when we lose a third of our TV stations when America switches over to digital. Unluckily we are one of the households who have no choice about over the air signals, no cable and a mountain to the south so no satellite. Also reception is bad enough with analog that I can't imagine getting any reception with digital. Also though I just about never watch regular TV, I just found myself doing so due to all the flooding happening around here. The radio just does not have enough info compared to the TV news. While the switch here in Canada was supposed to be not mandated, being left to the market, the Conservatives gained power and mandated switch over for Aug 31, 2011
When you're poor there are not many options for entertainment and TV is fairly cheap and always there. Lots of pensioners who can't get out need something to pass the time besides cooking for themselves.
Here in BC I believe if it is the tenants fault, like not paying the rent, they get 30 days from when delivered notice. If it is the landlords fault, like selling the property, they get 60 days. Seems fair considering the severe shortage of renting around here.
The local terrorists around here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedomites , used nudity, arson (often there own possessions), and bombs. Being pacifists they just about never targeted human life (exception being a leader who was blown up). It's amazing how a bunch of old Russian peasants burning their possessions in the nude could terrorize the average 1950's Canadian.
* ABS significantly reduced the involvements of passenger cars in multivehicle crashes on wet roads. ABS reduced police-reported crash involvements by an estimated 14 percent, and fatal involvements by 24 percent. The finding is consistent with the outstanding performance of ABS in stopping tests on wet roads.
* Certain types of collision involvements on wet roads, such as striking another vehicle in the rear, or striking a stopped vehicle, were reduced by 40 percent or more. This benefit, however, was partially offset by an increased likelihood of being struck in the rear by another vehicle. The better your own braking capabilities, the more likely that a following vehicle with average braking capabilities will hit you.
* ABS had little effect on multivehicle crashes on dry roads. The contrast in the results for wet roads and dry roads is consistent with findings in stopping tests, where ABS improved stopping distances and directional control substantially on wet surfaces, but much less so on dry surfaces.
* The risk of fatal collisions with pedestrians and bicyclists was reduced by a statistically significant 27 percent in passenger cars with ABS. Unlike the effects for multivehicle crashes, this reduction was about equally large on wet and dry roads.
* All types of run-off-road crashes - rollovers, side impacts with fixed objects and frontal impacts with fixed objects - increased significantly with ABS. Nonfatal run-off-road crashes increased by an estimated 19 percent, and fatal crashes by 28 percent.
* Rollovers and side impacts with fixed objects - crashes that typically follow a complete loss of directional control - had the highest increases with ABS. Nonfatal crashes increased by 28 percent, and fatal crashes by 40 percent.
* Frontal impacts with fixed objects, where the driver is more likely to have retained at least some directional control prior to impact, increased by about 15-20 percent, both nonfatal and fatal.
* The negative effects of ABS on run-off-road crashes were about the same under wet and dry road conditions.
# The reason for these negative effects is unknown. One possibility is that average drivers may at times steer improperly in panic situations. Because ABS preserves steering control under hard braking, cars may be swerving or heading off the road.
# The observed effects of ABS on snowy or icy roads, while not statistically significant, were all similar to the effects on wet roads - i.e., positive for multivehicle collisions, negative for run-off-road crashes.
# The overall, net effect of ABS on police-reported crashes (including multivehicle, pedestrian and run-off-road crashes) was close to zero.
# The overall, net effect of ABS on fatal crashes was close to zero.
So the type of accident changes and the fatality rate seems close to the same. Also this page shows various studies where decreasing one type of risk raises another also resulting in close to zero change. http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Risk-homeostasis
Well obviously if a restaurant has a policy about no shirt and shoes which I believe may even be a government regulation, then a woman should not be allowed to remove her shirt. Luckily breast feeding usually just means lifting up part of the shirt. As for businesses being told they have to allow it, it's much like how they can't segregate black folks. Businesses exist due to the government allowing them to (if only by protecting their right to not have their business taken away by someone stronger or better armed) so the government does have a say.
I think it is more like those black people who insisted on sitting at the front of the bus. They want equality. There's only laws against woman removing their shirts and these woman feel that feeding their child is a good reason to expose themselves. And really requiring woman to cover up parts that men don't isn't much different then some countries that require woman to cover their faces. Even the arguments are the same. People might get turned on by a face. Who wants to see an ugly old face and so on.
Equal rights. Men are allowed to remove their shirts in public so women are as well. Neither men or woman are allowed to show their genitals in public so it is fair. It is called freedom and in most of the free world men and women have the same rights.
Actually I think that in a case where HRH had the overwhelming support of the people she could exercise her power. Think of a very unpopular government refusing to step down. The Queen could and should fire the government and call new elections no matter what parliament says. The key is that she has to have the support of the people.
You make a good argument. Since people who drink might drive after drinking and hit my son obviously we should ban anything to do with alcohol. If someone has a magazine with alcohol ads, lock them up as it would be much safer. They might get the urge to drink and drive and hit a child.
I remember reading about a case like this in Canada. Guy picked up girl at the bar when the drinking age was still 21. Went back to her place for sex. Got caught by the parents and charged. The judge was very apologetic as he sentenced the poor guy to 5 years. Afterwards the law was actually changed so that honestly believing that someone was of age was a valid defense for statuary rape.
For national security, the States does have a law where you can be served papers and not allowed to talk about it, though I think that part of the Patriot act is in the process of being thrown out. Protection of health and morals, you could say the child porn laws fall under this. One of the main reasons to ban it is it is (emotionally) unhealthy for the children who are used in the production of it. Maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary, I think of how here in Canada there can be publication bans on high profile court cases to try to assure getting an impartial jury so the defendant can get a fair trial. eg a recent case involving a serial killing pig farmer where the press wasn't allowed to publish details about the case until after the jury was chosen and sequestered. The idea being that a fair trial is more important then freedom of the press. This is seldom used here.
The context was the 2nd amendment. In this case the American Government got a bigger army together then the revolutionary army and put down the insurrection. Now civil disobedience, general strikes, etc do work very well. In this case just refusing to pay the tax was enough to repeal the tax. I'm a firm believer that the populace is better of just sitting down and saying fuck you then pulling out the arms and shooting. Even G.W.Bush might listen when most of the country sits down and says NO whereas pulling out the arms leads to the leaders screaming terrorist and mobilizing the better armed minority to put down the insurrection.
Slashdot Mirror
Before NAFTA chronic homelessness was unheard of here in Canada. Now at night the Apple Store's entrance way is packed with homeless people.
For instance, I wouldn't call stopping food with Melamine in it a restriction on free trade.
The Americans would. If a Melamine laced food has been sold once in Canada, the Canadian government can not stop it from being sold. This was played out when MMT ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methylcyclopentadienyl_Manganese_Tricarbonyl ) was banned in the States, Canada attempted to ban the importation of MMT. We were sued by an American company under chapter 11 of NAFTA and forced to settle and allow importation.
While whether MMT is hazardous to health is still in dispute, at the time it was considered to be hazardous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement#Canadian_disputes
I'm about 40 miles by road east of Vancouver and maybe 15 miles north of the border. Just that it is fairly mountainous terrain.
The flooding comes from a couple of feet of snow then warming up and 4 to 6+ inches of rain. No one remembers anything like it.
For old people, they usually lived with extended family and had useful household jobs to do.
For younger people, worked 12+ hours a day so were to tired to do much after work.
Also of course there is the question whether this is an advancement. While going digital in small countries is a no brainer it is more questionable in large countries with spread out populations.
Libraries are good and definitely should have funding. Unluckily not everyone is a book reader.
My wife for example does not enjoy reading and uses the TV for entertainment. When the power goes out she gets quite stressed out whereas I just light a candle and grab a book.
She is not going to be happy when we lose a third of our TV stations when America switches over to digital.
Unluckily we are one of the households who have no choice about over the air signals, no cable and a mountain to the south so no satellite. Also reception is bad enough with analog that I can't imagine getting any reception with digital.
Also though I just about never watch regular TV, I just found myself doing so due to all the flooding happening around here. The radio just does not have enough info compared to the TV news.
While the switch here in Canada was supposed to be not mandated, being left to the market, the Conservatives gained power and mandated switch over for Aug 31, 2011
When you're poor there are not many options for entertainment and TV is fairly cheap and always there. Lots of pensioners who can't get out need something to pass the time besides cooking for themselves.
Here in BC I believe if it is the tenants fault, like not paying the rent, they get 30 days from when delivered notice. If it is the landlords fault, like selling the property, they get 60 days. Seems fair considering the severe shortage of renting around here.
Actually there was a 32 bit version of the 16 bit installer so all you had to do was replace the executable IIRC (might of been a DLL as well)
The local terrorists around here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedomites , used nudity, arson (often there own possessions), and bombs. Being pacifists they just about never targeted human life (exception being a leader who was blown up).
It's amazing how a bunch of old Russian peasants burning their possessions in the nude could terrorize the average 1950's Canadian.
Power attracts the corruptible.
From one study ( http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/808206.html )
The principal findings and conclusions from the statistical analyses of accident data are the following:
* ABS significantly reduced the involvements of passenger cars in multivehicle crashes on wet roads. ABS reduced police-reported crash involvements by an estimated 14 percent, and fatal involvements by 24 percent. The finding is consistent with the outstanding performance of ABS in stopping tests on wet roads.
* Certain types of collision involvements on wet roads, such as striking another vehicle in the rear, or striking a stopped vehicle, were reduced by 40 percent or more. This benefit, however, was partially offset by an increased likelihood of being struck in the rear by another vehicle. The better your own braking capabilities, the more likely that a following vehicle with average braking capabilities will hit you.
* ABS had little effect on multivehicle crashes on dry roads. The contrast in the results for wet roads and dry roads is consistent with findings in stopping tests, where ABS improved stopping distances and directional control substantially on wet surfaces, but much less so on dry surfaces.
* The risk of fatal collisions with pedestrians and bicyclists was reduced by a statistically significant 27 percent in passenger cars with ABS. Unlike the effects for multivehicle crashes, this reduction was about equally large on wet and dry roads.
* All types of run-off-road crashes - rollovers, side impacts with fixed objects and frontal impacts with fixed objects - increased significantly with ABS. Nonfatal run-off-road crashes increased by an estimated 19 percent, and fatal crashes by 28 percent.
* Rollovers and side impacts with fixed objects - crashes that typically follow a complete loss of directional control - had the highest increases with ABS. Nonfatal crashes increased by 28 percent, and fatal crashes by 40 percent.
* Frontal impacts with fixed objects, where the driver is more likely to have retained at least some directional control prior to impact, increased by about 15-20 percent, both nonfatal and fatal.
* The negative effects of ABS on run-off-road crashes were about the same under wet and dry road conditions.
# The reason for these negative effects is unknown. One possibility is that average drivers may at times steer improperly in panic situations. Because ABS preserves steering control under hard braking, cars may be swerving or heading off the road.
# The observed effects of ABS on snowy or icy roads, while not statistically significant, were all similar to the effects on wet roads - i.e., positive for multivehicle collisions, negative for run-off-road crashes.
# The overall, net effect of ABS on police-reported crashes (including multivehicle, pedestrian and run-off-road crashes) was close to zero.
# The overall, net effect of ABS on fatal crashes was close to zero.
So the type of accident changes and the fatality rate seems close to the same.
Also this page shows various studies where decreasing one type of risk raises another also resulting in close to zero change. http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Risk-homeostasis
Well obviously if a restaurant has a policy about no shirt and shoes which I believe may even be a government regulation, then a woman should not be allowed to remove her shirt.
Luckily breast feeding usually just means lifting up part of the shirt.
As for businesses being told they have to allow it, it's much like how they can't segregate black folks.
Businesses exist due to the government allowing them to (if only by protecting their right to not have their business taken away by someone stronger or better armed) so the government does have a say.
I think it is more like those black people who insisted on sitting at the front of the bus. They want equality. There's only laws against woman removing their shirts and these woman feel that feeding their child is a good reason to expose themselves. And really requiring woman to cover up parts that men don't isn't much different then some countries that require woman to cover their faces.
Even the arguments are the same. People might get turned on by a face. Who wants to see an ugly old face and so on.
Why shouldn't a woman be allowed to take her shirt off in public?
It's the same here in BC though there is at least one local woman who makes a point of going shirtless.
Equal rights. Men are allowed to remove their shirts in public so women are as well.
Neither men or woman are allowed to show their genitals in public so it is fair.
It is called freedom and in most of the free world men and women have the same rights.
Actually I think that in a case where HRH had the overwhelming support of the people she could exercise her power. Think of a very unpopular government refusing to step down. The Queen could and should fire the government and call new elections no matter what parliament says.
The key is that she has to have the support of the people.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Westminster_1931#Implications_for_succession_to_the_throne All the parliaments of the commonwealth have to agree to changing the succession of the crown.
This is why Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom had to agree to Edward VIII abdicating.
You make a good argument. Since people who drink might drive after drinking and hit my son obviously we should ban anything to do with alcohol. If someone has a magazine with alcohol ads, lock them up as it would be much safer. They might get the urge to drink and drive and hit a child.
I remember reading about a case like this in Canada. Guy picked up girl at the bar when the drinking age was still 21. Went back to her place for sex. Got caught by the parents and charged.
The judge was very apologetic as he sentenced the poor guy to 5 years.
Afterwards the law was actually changed so that honestly believing that someone was of age was a valid defense for statuary rape.
I'm on Fido pay as you go. Costs 20 cents a message, sending or receiving.
For national security, the States does have a law where you can be served papers and not allowed to talk about it, though I think that part of the Patriot act is in the process of being thrown out.
Protection of health and morals, you could say the child porn laws fall under this. One of the main reasons to ban it is it is (emotionally) unhealthy for the children who are used in the production of it.
Maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary, I think of how here in Canada there can be publication bans on high profile court cases to try to assure getting an impartial jury so the defendant can get a fair trial. eg a recent case involving a serial killing pig farmer where the press wasn't allowed to publish details about the case until after the jury was chosen and sequestered. The idea being that a fair trial is more important then freedom of the press. This is seldom used here.
The context was the 2nd amendment. In this case the American Government got a bigger army together then the revolutionary army and put down the insurrection.
Now civil disobedience, general strikes, etc do work very well. In this case just refusing to pay the tax was enough to repeal the tax.
I'm a firm believer that the populace is better of just sitting down and saying fuck you then pulling out the arms and shooting. Even G.W.Bush might listen when most of the country sits down and says NO whereas pulling out the arms leads to the leaders screaming terrorist and mobilizing the better armed minority to put down the insurrection.
Depends on the RAM. For my box I'd be lucky to get half a gigabyte for $60
They probably clicked goatse and don't want anyone else to suffer