I know you aren't supposed to follow-up to yourself but I've now seen other posts that say data only is available in Canada contrary to what I said above - just wanted to point that out.
The other day I decided that this was exactly what I needed - e.g. a Galaxy Nexus with data only. But afaik none of the carriers in Canada will offer the Nexus that way - or any phone plan for normal people that doesn't require voice with data just an add-on - even though at least some will sell you a data only plan to use on your laptop.
As long as I'm griping why is it (I know - greed) that I can get a pay as you go phone that includes caller id and voicemail for less per month than adding those features to a normal cell plan?
ok so it seems that they did not in fact close down NYC soup kitchens over that issue. I think it would be a mistake for either side of this issue to use homeless, hungry people as bargaining chips.
My only other comment is that the article you last linked to recommends some alternatives and strictly from the point of view of what happens to your money I wouldn't donate to the Red Cross. I've never seen anything negative about the other three, OTOH none of them deal with the kind of homelessness I see on my city's streets - single men sleeping under bridges, in parks etc. with no food and inadequate clothing for the weather.
That article is all about an employer-employee dispute it doesn't say "They explicitly refuse service to gays." as you have said. And the article is about what the gay paper reported they might do - back in May 2004 - almost 8 years ago. Perhaps something a little more recent about what they do now as far as service to gays? That's what you were saying - that they denied services to gays which, even from that old article, sounds like it isn't the case.
On the benefits to partners of gay employees I am surprised that isn't something controlled by state law - I think it would be controlled by Provincial and Federal law here. It seems to me that if gays are allowed to legally marry in NY then wouldn't the law there require their spouses to be given the same treatment as straight spouses?
I am not aware of any such policy here. But it's not just a different city but a different country so it's possible that its varies from place to place.
On refusing service to gay in NYC... you mean they have some sort of sexuality text or oath before the soup kitchen will feed someone?
They are my usual choice. Some people don't like it because they are religion based (Christian) but what I see is this:
the people who work there live very austere lives, low income, few luxuries, which is a) a good attitude and b) it is efficient with the money you donate
they genuinely want to help people
they provide basic needed assistance such as shelters, soup kitchens, donated clothing, help to find work
they help people without regard to whether the person is religious or not
they don't require the people they help to listen to a spiel on religion etc.
Where I live these are the people who stand on street corners or in front of stores (the ones that will let them) doing nothing but standing there with a donation pot - no hassles, no pressure, just there if you feel like giving.
It is the date that the last report was made - sorry I'm not going to cherry pick data to make things look better for you. It is hardly a "Poor year for comparison" as stated the population and the GDP increased while emissions decreased.
Really? There's nothing major that happened near the end of 2008 and continued into 2009? Nothing say world wide. That we're still dealing with the repercussions of? Nothing at all?
What part of "the population went up and the gdp went up and emissions went down" don't you understand? Under the conservatives there was more industrial activity, more people... yet there were fewer emissions. The fact of the global economy doesn't change that at all. Do you get it now?
but I see you ducked the question of what
I ducked nothing - the fact is you have not presented a single fact in all your posts while I have presented many facts and pieces of data. When you start backing up your wild claims with some actual facts then maybe you can try to make demands, but hand waving doesn't get you there.
You have nothing to support your assertions except that you want them to be true while I have provided actual statistics to support mine. You make all sorts of claims without a single shred of evidence to back them up. I shoot large gaping holes in what you say and you blithely ignore it and just keep asserting the same old unsubstantiated stuff.
You don't even apply the same standards of evaluation to the Conservatives that you do to the Liberals. You invent wild conspiracies and make ad hominem attacks on the Prime Minister based on ZERO evidence. You have no credibility - just your obvious political partisanship and a rather sad need to try and slag the Conservatives. The kind of polarized views you present, and the manner in which you present them, are part of the problem not part of the solution.
Your ending date, 2009 would obviously be an atypical year because of the global recession, which makes it a very poor year to use for comparison.
It is the date that the last report was made - sorry I'm not going to cherry pick data to make things look better for you. It is hardly a "Poor year for comparison" as stated the population and the GDP increased while emissions decreased.
You seem to be pretty angry about the Liberal government,
No, I'm not angry. Although I do dislike attempts to discredit someone's statements by claiming they are angry. It's a pretty cheap, but all too common, ploy used in lieu of actual rational argument and facts to back it up.
The Conservatives have made it clear time and again
I guess you can read whatever you want into just aboutanything if you try hard enough. It won't change the fact that GHG emissions rose drastically under the Liberals while on the Conservative watch emissions went down even though population and GDP increased.
You don't seem to understand the difficulties inherent in stopping a rising trend.
I see... is that the excuse now? The better part of decade as a majority government wasn't enough for the Liberals because there was a rising trend. But less than one year as a majority government for the Conservatives facing the disaster left by the previous majority government and you're blaming the Conservatives. Bit of a double standard there.
I'm just going to conclude that you're angry and irrational.
Of course you will since you can't refute the facts and figures that I provided in my post.
Mostly, it's a self-inflicted blow to our credibility as a country
I see.... so then you consider it better to make promises and not keep them (Liberals) than to be up front about things and say you aren't going to make promises you can't keep (Conservatives). Yeah, no bias there.... lol.
Mostly, it's a self-inflicted blow to our credibility as a country.
Another shit all stupid fucktard spewing forth shit from ignorance instead of commenting on the topic. When your ignorant of both it is best to shut the fuck up.
Having a bad day? Oh and it's "you're" not "your"... gotta watch that when you're [see?] ranting about dictionary definitions, the ignorance of others, calling people names and telling them to shut the fuck up.
Let's see... the Liberals signed the treaty April 29, 1998 and ratified it December 17, 2002 almost 5 years later... yes a real priority with them.
If the Liberals really believed in the global warming problem nothing was preventing them from taking steps to reduce GHG emissions starting the day they signed onto Kyoto. But in those first 5 years emissions rose 5%.
From 2002 until 2004 emissions rose another 3.5%.
From the time the Liberals signed onto Kyoto until the 2004 election, where they became a minority government, they let emissions rise 9%. That's not "didn't do much" it's "let the problem get much much worse." But I guess when they weren't doing so well in the polls the Liberals didn't want to do things that cost jobs and increase taxes.
You excuse their performance after that by saying they "only had a minority government." Seems to me if they really believed the future of the planet was on the line they could have taken a principled stand and put the necessary legislation forward as a confidence vote - to be defeated as government or not according to the results. But they didn't.
So
the Liberals failed to live up to the challenge
is really glossing over the truth - the Liberals made things much worse.
Since you are excusing minority governments we shouldn't judge the Conservatives until 2011 when they had their first majority government - except that by 2009 they had reduced GHG emissions to just above the levels in 1998 - the year the Liberals signed on to Kyoto - despite the fact that population had risen and the economy had grown about 30% during that time. In fact during the Liberals tenure GHG per capita rose and during the Conservatives tenure it has fallen - as of 2008 it had fallen to below the 1998 levels when the Liberals signed onto the accord.
So when you say
"the Conservatives failed to even try"
it is untrue - not only did they try but the Conservatives succeeded where the Liberals failed. So I'll stand by my point, anyone criticsing the performance of the Conservatives who doesn't criticise the Liberals to an even greater extent is just trying to score political points.
The mere fact that you would insist that I must do so, indicates that you are, in fact, the one focused on scoring political points.
Walk around saying "I'm rubber, you're glue.." much?
Now as to the main point of all this - that the Conservatives withdrew from Kyoto. First, yes they did - the Liberals signed on to it and made things worse, the Conservatives made things better but not enough to meet the targets. What is the point of saying you are going to meet targets that you don't believe you can meet? Better the truth than the hypocrisy of the Liberals. Second, so what? Is signing on to Kyoto some magic wand? The US reduced per capita emissions far more than Canada. Canada was in Kyoto. The US wasn't. Tell me again the tragedy of not being in Kyoto?
All this is available at the Environment Canada website www.ec.gc.ca
In fact the Liberals did the exact opposite - after signing on to Kyoto the Liberal Government let the problem worsen dramatically so that by the time the Conservatives took power it was a hugely worse problem that would be fantastically more expensive to fix (as in meet Kyoto targets). It's an old political tactic - make big promises that your successor will have to pay for.
Funny how all the people blaming the government for pulling out of an obviously failed process aren't pointing the finger at the government that made it so much harder to make the process work. Shame!
Sorry but you can't avoid the facts, anyone criticising the Conservative government for not renewing Kyoto but not also pillorying the Liberal government, who signed onto Kyoto and then ignored the agreement they had just signed and allowed the problem to become vastly worse, is just here to score political points not because of any actual concern about global warming.
When was the last Canadian federal government elected that had > 50% of the vote? Did you complain about all the other government since then, or just the ones you don't like?
And your entire post is off-topic except for the first sentence which is just a me too. That your post got a +5 insightful instead of being moderated down to 0 is a good demonstration of why/. is less and less relevant every day.
Allow me to predict that my post which provides an actual critique of what was said will now be modded down as flamebait, off topic or something else.
I think you should be saving that "Fuck You" for the Liberal government who signed Kyoto and then allowed emissions to grow year after year after year.
Had the Liberal governments actually "put their money where their mouth is" it would have been both a lot harder for the next government to argue against Kyoto and a lot easier to comply with it. But signing on to Kyoto then silently allowing emissions to grow for a decade and then, after being kicked out of office, complaining that the next government a) won't clean up the mess they left and b) isn't as hypocritical... nahhh I think the FU goes to the Liberals.
To talk to someone you have to pay attention to them. That's attention not focused on driving. It's not like music which can simply be background noise and it's not like talking to someone in the car who can observe you and shut up when they see you are becoming distracted.
You're talking about two different kinds of waves.
I was pointing out that saying you get wave effects everywhere - without describing the effects and how they are particular to photons at radio astronomy wavelengths - is kind of content free since everything exhibits wave effects.
And my main point was that in my understanding it is not true that "you can't really say it's photons. The wavelengths are centimeters to meters (a pretty large photon)", i.e., having a long wavelength doesn't make a photon not a photon - the observer see that that photon either hits the detector or doesn't, which essentially was what Feynman was pointing out.
But maybe I'm just misinterpreting and should instead have asked for clarification of the vague statement.
you can't really say it's photons. The wavelengths are centimeters to meters (a pretty large photon), and you get wave-effects everywhere
Well if it's not photons carrying that electromagnetic energy then what is is it? You get wave effects with solid matter too... in fact you get wave effects with everything... so?
As Feynman said in one of his Auckland lectures, to the best of my recollection (so throw in some salt) - "We may talk about [it] as waves because that's convenient for certain problems but never forget it's really a particle."
These figures generally mean executable statements so yes comments, blank lines, lines with just a brace are not included.
Also, IIRC and I may not, being "debugged" means that it doesn't obviously fail when you try running it - but it doesn't mean "tested". Yes, there is a continuum.
I don't think it has to be an either-or situation. The classic professions - doctors, lawyers, architects, engineers (other than "software engineers") etc. - have managed to structure things so that they gain most or all of the benefits of unions with few of the drawbacks.
On the last moderate sized project I worked on where I had full control of development IIRC I ended up with about 70,000 lines of code, i.e., all comments etc stripped out. There would have been more code but (sigh...) about half way through the process the client changed course and about 30% of the code had to be ripped out as they no longer wanted that functionality - that code isn't included in the figure of 70,000 lines of code.
Total time for the entire development process was about 1,800 hours - which included the above activities and, of course, understanding the pre-existing system, meetings, designing the solution, removing the code for the discarded functionality, more meetings, full documentation - source comments, system documents and substantial (>100 pages) user manuals, email with stakeholders, more meetings.
It is in use by governments, businesses and universities and it took over two years before anyone found (what they thought was) a bug.
However most people/businesses don't want to pay what it costs for that kind of result.
To be fair I think figures like 10 lines/day usually mean that at the end of the entire process 10 lines that survived and are documented and survive testing account for a day of time. But still you really have to wonder about the people at the low end who managed to get the average down to 10 lines a day... were they producing code that was simply discarded wholesale? Were they producing negative lines of code, i.e., somehow intentionally or unintentionally sabotaging the efforts of others?
ok this may be slightly off topic but I'm curious... we (a couple) are considering to dump Primus VOIP and go with just cell phones (already have them) but will miss the call screening function Primus provided like specifying individual call treatments for different incoming numbers, which afaik aren't available on cell phones and what functions are available cost way too much on the available cell plans here.
It sounds like what you have done would be interesting... what functions is asterisk providing that your in-laws needed?
Any recommendations for cell phones that also provide wifi voip? I've been planning on waiting to upgrade my cell a bit until IceCreamSandwich is generally available early in 2012.
Slashdot Mirror
I know you aren't supposed to follow-up to yourself but I've now seen other posts that say data only is available in Canada contrary to what I said above - just wanted to point that out.
The other day I decided that this was exactly what I needed - e.g. a Galaxy Nexus with data only. But afaik none of the carriers in Canada will offer the Nexus that way - or any phone plan for normal people that doesn't require voice with data just an add-on - even though at least some will sell you a data only plan to use on your laptop.
As long as I'm griping why is it (I know - greed) that I can get a pay as you go phone that includes caller id and voicemail for less per month than adding those features to a normal cell plan?
ok so it seems that they did not in fact close down NYC soup kitchens over that issue. I think it would be a mistake for either side of this issue to use homeless, hungry people as bargaining chips.
My only other comment is that the article you last linked to recommends some alternatives and strictly from the point of view of what happens to your money I wouldn't donate to the Red Cross. I've never seen anything negative about the other three, OTOH none of them deal with the kind of homelessness I see on my city's streets - single men sleeping under bridges, in parks etc. with no food and inadequate clothing for the weather.
That article is all about an employer-employee dispute it doesn't say "They explicitly refuse service to gays." as you have said. And the article is about what the gay paper reported they might do - back in May 2004 - almost 8 years ago. Perhaps something a little more recent about what they do now as far as service to gays? That's what you were saying - that they denied services to gays which, even from that old article, sounds like it isn't the case.
On the benefits to partners of gay employees I am surprised that isn't something controlled by state law - I think it would be controlled by Provincial and Federal law here. It seems to me that if gays are allowed to legally marry in NY then wouldn't the law there require their spouses to be given the same treatment as straight spouses?
I am not aware of any such policy here. But it's not just a different city but a different country so it's possible that its varies from place to place.
On refusing service to gay in NYC... you mean they have some sort of sexuality text or oath before the soup kitchen will feed someone?
Where I live these are the people who stand on street corners or in front of stores (the ones that will let them) doing nothing but standing there with a donation pot - no hassles, no pressure, just there if you feel like giving.
What part of "the population went up and the gdp went up and emissions went down" don't you understand? Under the conservatives there was more industrial activity, more people... yet there were fewer emissions. The fact of the global economy doesn't change that at all. Do you get it now?
I ducked nothing - the fact is you have not presented a single fact in all your posts while I have presented many facts and pieces of data. When you start backing up your wild claims with some actual facts then maybe you can try to make demands, but hand waving doesn't get you there.
You have nothing to support your assertions except that you want them to be true while I have provided actual statistics to support mine. You make all sorts of claims without a single shred of evidence to back them up. I shoot large gaping holes in what you say and you blithely ignore it and just keep asserting the same old unsubstantiated stuff.
You don't even apply the same standards of evaluation to the Conservatives that you do to the Liberals. You invent wild conspiracies and make ad hominem attacks on the Prime Minister based on ZERO evidence. You have no credibility - just your obvious political partisanship and a rather sad need to try and slag the Conservatives. The kind of polarized views you present, and the manner in which you present them, are part of the problem not part of the solution.
Bad edit on my part, of course the last "Mostly, it's a self-inflicted blow to our credibility as a country." should not have been there.
It is the date that the last report was made - sorry I'm not going to cherry pick data to make things look better for you. It is hardly a "Poor year for comparison" as stated the population and the GDP increased while emissions decreased.
No, I'm not angry. Although I do dislike attempts to discredit someone's statements by claiming they are angry. It's a pretty cheap, but all too common, ploy used in lieu of actual rational argument and facts to back it up.
I guess you can read whatever you want into just aboutanything if you try hard enough. It won't change the fact that GHG emissions rose drastically under the Liberals while on the Conservative watch emissions went down even though population and GDP increased.
I see... is that the excuse now? The better part of decade as a majority government wasn't enough for the Liberals because there was a rising trend. But less than one year as a majority government for the Conservatives facing the disaster left by the previous majority government and you're blaming the Conservatives. Bit of a double standard there.
Of course you will since you can't refute the facts and figures that I provided in my post.
I see.... so then you consider it better to make promises and not keep them (Liberals) than to be up front about things and say you aren't going to make promises you can't keep (Conservatives). Yeah, no bias there.... lol.
Mostly, it's a self-inflicted blow to our credibility as a country.
Having a bad day? Oh and it's "you're" not "your"... gotta watch that when you're [see?] ranting about dictionary definitions, the ignorance of others, calling people names and telling them to shut the fuck up.
If the Liberals really believed in the global warming problem nothing was preventing them from taking steps to reduce GHG emissions starting the day they signed onto Kyoto. But in those first 5 years emissions rose 5%.
From 2002 until 2004 emissions rose another 3.5%.
From the time the Liberals signed onto Kyoto until the 2004 election, where they became a minority government, they let emissions rise 9%. That's not "didn't do much" it's "let the problem get much much worse." But I guess when they weren't doing so well in the polls the Liberals didn't want to do things that cost jobs and increase taxes.
You excuse their performance after that by saying they "only had a minority government." Seems to me if they really believed the future of the planet was on the line they could have taken a principled stand and put the necessary legislation forward as a confidence vote - to be defeated as government or not according to the results. But they didn't.
So
is really glossing over the truth - the Liberals made things much worse.
Since you are excusing minority governments we shouldn't judge the Conservatives until 2011 when they had their first majority government - except that by 2009 they had reduced GHG emissions to just above the levels in 1998 - the year the Liberals signed on to Kyoto - despite the fact that population had risen and the economy had grown about 30% during that time. In fact during the Liberals tenure GHG per capita rose and during the Conservatives tenure it has fallen - as of 2008 it had fallen to below the 1998 levels when the Liberals signed onto the accord.
So when you say
it is untrue - not only did they try but the Conservatives succeeded where the Liberals failed. So I'll stand by my point, anyone criticsing the performance of the Conservatives who doesn't criticise the Liberals to an even greater extent is just trying to score political points.
Walk around saying "I'm rubber, you're glue.." much?
Now as to the main point of all this - that the Conservatives withdrew from Kyoto. First, yes they did - the Liberals signed on to it and made things worse, the Conservatives made things better but not enough to meet the targets. What is the point of saying you are going to meet targets that you don't believe you can meet? Better the truth than the hypocrisy of the Liberals. Second, so what? Is signing on to Kyoto some magic wand? The US reduced per capita emissions far more than Canada. Canada was in Kyoto. The US wasn't. Tell me again the tragedy of not being in Kyoto?
All this is available at the Environment Canada website www.ec.gc.ca
How do you know that?
In fact the Liberals did the exact opposite - after signing on to Kyoto the Liberal Government let the problem worsen dramatically so that by the time the Conservatives took power it was a hugely worse problem that would be fantastically more expensive to fix (as in meet Kyoto targets). It's an old political tactic - make big promises that your successor will have to pay for.
Funny how all the people blaming the government for pulling out of an obviously failed process aren't pointing the finger at the government that made it so much harder to make the process work. Shame!
Sorry but you can't avoid the facts, anyone criticising the Conservative government for not renewing Kyoto but not also pillorying the Liberal government, who signed onto Kyoto and then ignored the agreement they had just signed and allowed the problem to become vastly worse, is just here to score political points not because of any actual concern about global warming.
Did little? Did little??? They promised reductions and instead allowed the problem to get hugely worse. Cynical hypocrisy at its finest.
When was the last Canadian federal government elected that had > 50% of the vote? Did you complain about all the other government since then, or just the ones you don't like?
And your entire post is off-topic except for the first sentence which is just a me too. That your post got a +5 insightful instead of being moderated down to 0 is a good demonstration of why /. is less and less relevant every day.
Allow me to predict that my post which provides an actual critique of what was said will now be modded down as flamebait, off topic or something else.
Dear poster of one sided political diatribe,
I think you should be saving that "Fuck You" for the Liberal government who signed Kyoto and then allowed emissions to grow year after year after year.
Had the Liberal governments actually "put their money where their mouth is" it would have been both a lot harder for the next government to argue against Kyoto and a lot easier to comply with it. But signing on to Kyoto then silently allowing emissions to grow for a decade and then, after being kicked out of office, complaining that the next government a) won't clean up the mess they left and b) isn't as hypocritical... nahhh I think the FU goes to the Liberals.
To talk to someone you have to pay attention to them. That's attention not focused on driving. It's not like music which can simply be background noise and it's not like talking to someone in the car who can observe you and shut up when they see you are becoming distracted.
I was pointing out that saying you get wave effects everywhere - without describing the effects and how they are particular to photons at radio astronomy wavelengths - is kind of content free since everything exhibits wave effects.
And my main point was that in my understanding it is not true that "you can't really say it's photons. The wavelengths are centimeters to meters (a pretty large photon)", i.e., having a long wavelength doesn't make a photon not a photon - the observer see that that photon either hits the detector or doesn't, which essentially was what Feynman was pointing out.
But maybe I'm just misinterpreting and should instead have asked for clarification of the vague statement.
Well if it's not photons carrying that electromagnetic energy then what is is it? You get wave effects with solid matter too... in fact you get wave effects with everything... so?
As Feynman said in one of his Auckland lectures, to the best of my recollection (so throw in some salt) - "We may talk about [it] as waves because that's convenient for certain problems but never forget it's really a particle."
One of the first things we were taught in undergrad physics was that reporting negative results was a perfectly valid and valuable thing to do.
These figures generally mean executable statements so yes comments, blank lines, lines with just a brace are not included.
Also, IIRC and I may not, being "debugged" means that it doesn't obviously fail when you try running it - but it doesn't mean "tested". Yes, there is a continuum.
I don't think it has to be an either-or situation. The classic professions - doctors, lawyers, architects, engineers (other than "software engineers") etc. - have managed to structure things so that they gain most or all of the benefits of unions with few of the drawbacks.
On the last moderate sized project I worked on where I had full control of development IIRC I ended up with about 70,000 lines of code, i.e., all comments etc stripped out. There would have been more code but (sigh...) about half way through the process the client changed course and about 30% of the code had to be ripped out as they no longer wanted that functionality - that code isn't included in the figure of 70,000 lines of code.
Total time for the entire development process was about 1,800 hours - which included the above activities and, of course, understanding the pre-existing system, meetings, designing the solution, removing the code for the discarded functionality, more meetings, full documentation - source comments, system documents and substantial (>100 pages) user manuals, email with stakeholders, more meetings.
It is in use by governments, businesses and universities and it took over two years before anyone found (what they thought was) a bug.
However most people/businesses don't want to pay what it costs for that kind of result.
To be fair I think figures like 10 lines/day usually mean that at the end of the entire process 10 lines that survived and are documented and survive testing account for a day of time. But still you really have to wonder about the people at the low end who managed to get the average down to 10 lines a day... were they producing code that was simply discarded wholesale? Were they producing negative lines of code, i.e., somehow intentionally or unintentionally sabotaging the efforts of others?
ok this may be slightly off topic but I'm curious... we (a couple) are considering to dump Primus VOIP and go with just cell phones (already have them) but will miss the call screening function Primus provided like specifying individual call treatments for different incoming numbers, which afaik aren't available on cell phones and what functions are available cost way too much on the available cell plans here.
It sounds like what you have done would be interesting... what functions is asterisk providing that your in-laws needed?
Any recommendations for cell phones that also provide wifi voip? I've been planning on waiting to upgrade my cell a bit until IceCreamSandwich is generally available early in 2012.
That's pretty amazing... reminds me of an old SCTV skit about "The Canadian Invasion" a covert attempt to conquer California.