I've been in one once up here as a passenger. I remember the acceleration being terrible (but expected, given the displacement is measured in cc and it's a diesel), but the shifting was really rough - and it was an auto. It was really noisy too. The fuel economy is nice, and they're so short that you can back them in sideways into the smallest spots instead of parallel parking (saw that done in Paris), but being in one while driving turned me off. I imagine it will have the same effect down south.
The government's job is to work in the public's best interest. If that means interfering with the economy, fine. In fact, in a true democracy every institution would work for the public benefit as well. Why are companies deciding the future of the internet? Nobody voted for them.
I'm sure I'm in the minority here, but I believe that every economic institution in society should be either public - where consumer choice isn't important (like energy, health care, auto insurance...) or regulated. If you have economic institutions that aren't either public or able to be regulated, then you don't have democracy.
Now I don't want the government to tell a bakery what to bake. But they should be able to regulate any issues related to the public good. (ie. trans fat content)
That's just it. Many people who don't use public transit are opposed to paying for it through taxes, believing that only the users should have to sustain it. What they don't see is that without using tax money for transit, ridership would decrease drastically with increased fares and lower quality service. People would then drive their cars instead, adding to overall commute times, requiring road widening, thus increasing everyone's taxes anyway.. not to mention pollution and land use. Everyone benefits from public transit, not just the users.
What's sad is that a car is a necessity for most north americans. Why should each person need their own giant metal frame and complex piston engine just to get from point a to point b?
It just so happens that those two issues have virtually no effect on the economy and labour. When it comes to the non-trivial, both parties are really just factions of the business party.
It's important for the parties to engage in vigorous debate over issues that are divisive, difficult to resolve, and don't threaten the establishment either way. It's the illusion of democracy. Where are the democrats on public health care, the environment, and not starting illegal wars?
I'm with Rogers too, but with a basic mobile plan. I'm moving to Saskatchewan in August, so I decided to check out the plans available there. Basically, the same plan in Sask. costs $20, while I'm paying $30 in Ontario.
Is the difference that Saskatchewan has a public provider: Sasktel? If so, maybe every province should have one. I'm guessing that Rogers and Telus are still profiting in Saskatchewan, they're just gouging the other provinces because they can.
I don't think greens should be expected to 'shed their lefty image'. I think that a leftist way of looking at the world is just a logical extension that comes from being aware of our environmental problems.
I usually begin with the axiom that the first priority of humanity is to survive. It seems like a good place to start anyway. It would seem to make sense to have institutions in society that support that primary goal. They don't. The dominant institutions are actively resisting efforts to slow CO2 emissions because they've been created to pursue short-term wealth rather than sustainability. Once that's accepted, it makes sense to regulate those institutions so that they stop damaging the environment.
But it makes sense to then ask, "how did these institutions come to exist in the first place? Why would we tolerate the existance of something that is willing to destroy us?" Hence, leftist thought.
It's the same with advertisement. We've lived with it for so long that we don't see it for what it is: propaganda. Ads are tools that people use to make you do something that you wouldn't ordinarily do. Their purpose is to stop you from making informed, logical decisions as a consumer. So why do we allow ourselves to be deceived?
An ideal democracy would have a couple more links:
Scientists study, and publish their findings. The media impartially reports the findings based on the quality and the importance of the report. The public considers the findings reported by the media, and elect, impeach, recall, vote in referendums and plebiscites, etc. as necessary. When necessary, elected officials legislate directly on behalf of their constituents to solve the problem. Industry accepts the legislation gracefully.
Here's how I think it actually works:
Scientists are pressured by the government and the corporations to change their findings; most report them anyway. The media gives equal weight to minority positions on the issue because they want to pretend to be 'fair and balanced', and because they might be owned by a corporation that also has interests in the energy industry. If not, they certainly get lots of advertising revenue from said industry. The public, mostly unaware of the problem, don't think they can really do anything anyway. Politicians avoid the issue out of fear of losing campaign financing from oil corporations. Corporations put ads on TV that give people the impression that they care about the issue, and should be trusted to do the right thing.
Try explaining it to them in economic terms. Economists can't tell you what will happen to any given stock on any given day, but they can still predict the overall economic growth of a country over a year.
Next time you're there go to sociable's for sud, spud, and steak night. If nobody tries to skewer you with a broken pool cue in the first 10 minutes, you can enjoy a decent meal for $5.95.
First, I think that in order for a sheet of ice to qualify as a skating rink, people actually have to skate on it. The canal is maintained for skating during the winter, has skate rental shacks, beavertail shops, etc. Lake Michigan would have to have all that before it could take the title, in my view.
If you're choosing between living in Montreal, Toronto, and Ottawa, then yes, Ottawa will probably lose out. I grew up here, and I'm happy to live here now because I'm in the Forces, and my future includes places like Moose Jaw, Portage la Prairie, Cold Lake, and Goose Bay. The weather doesn't seem so bad to me.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the quality of facebook users has been declining ever since they opened the site to non-Harvard students.
I agree. Myspace users wouldn't know vintage port from the turpentine they use to thin the paint on their shanties.
We should do something about piracy.
I've been in one once up here as a passenger. I remember the acceleration being terrible (but expected, given the displacement is measured in cc and it's a diesel), but the shifting was really rough - and it was an auto. It was really noisy too. The fuel economy is nice, and they're so short that you can back them in sideways into the smallest spots instead of parallel parking (saw that done in Paris), but being in one while driving turned me off. I imagine it will have the same effect down south.
isn't placing copyrighted material in public folders at least the same as saying "gosh, I sure hope nobody copies this, wink wink"?
Thank God! Literally, I guess.
If so, let's hope there are a lot more Vasily Arkhipovs out there.
The government's job is to work in the public's best interest. If that means interfering with the economy, fine. In fact, in a true democracy every institution would work for the public benefit as well. Why are companies deciding the future of the internet? Nobody voted for them.
I'm sure I'm in the minority here, but I believe that every economic institution in society should be either public - where consumer choice isn't important (like energy, health care, auto insurance...) or regulated. If you have economic institutions that aren't either public or able to be regulated, then you don't have democracy.
Now I don't want the government to tell a bakery what to bake. But they should be able to regulate any issues related to the public good. (ie. trans fat content)
That's just it. Many people who don't use public transit are opposed to paying for it through taxes, believing that only the users should have to sustain it. What they don't see is that without using tax money for transit, ridership would decrease drastically with increased fares and lower quality service. People would then drive their cars instead, adding to overall commute times, requiring road widening, thus increasing everyone's taxes anyway.. not to mention pollution and land use. Everyone benefits from public transit, not just the users.
What's sad is that a car is a necessity for most north americans. Why should each person need their own giant metal frame and complex piston engine just to get from point a to point b?
Wow! I could swear I was really using virtual vista!
It just so happens that those two issues have virtually no effect on the economy and labour. When it comes to the non-trivial, both parties are really just factions of the business party.
It's important for the parties to engage in vigorous debate over issues that are divisive, difficult to resolve, and don't threaten the establishment either way. It's the illusion of democracy. Where are the democrats on public health care, the environment, and not starting illegal wars?
I'm with Rogers too, but with a basic mobile plan. I'm moving to Saskatchewan in August, so I decided to check out the plans available there. Basically, the same plan in Sask. costs $20, while I'm paying $30 in Ontario. Is the difference that Saskatchewan has a public provider: Sasktel? If so, maybe every province should have one. I'm guessing that Rogers and Telus are still profiting in Saskatchewan, they're just gouging the other provinces because they can.
I don't think greens should be expected to 'shed their lefty image'. I think that a leftist way of looking at the world is just a logical extension that comes from being aware of our environmental problems.
I usually begin with the axiom that the first priority of humanity is to survive. It seems like a good place to start anyway. It would seem to make sense to have institutions in society that support that primary goal. They don't. The dominant institutions are actively resisting efforts to slow CO2 emissions because they've been created to pursue short-term wealth rather than sustainability. Once that's accepted, it makes sense to regulate those institutions so that they stop damaging the environment.
But it makes sense to then ask, "how did these institutions come to exist in the first place? Why would we tolerate the existance of something that is willing to destroy us?" Hence, leftist thought.
It's the same with advertisement. We've lived with it for so long that we don't see it for what it is: propaganda. Ads are tools that people use to make you do something that you wouldn't ordinarily do. Their purpose is to stop you from making informed, logical decisions as a consumer. So why do we allow ourselves to be deceived?
An ideal democracy would have a couple more links:
Scientists study, and publish their findings.
The media impartially reports the findings based on the quality and the importance of the report.
The public considers the findings reported by the media, and elect, impeach, recall, vote in referendums and plebiscites, etc. as necessary.
When necessary, elected officials legislate directly on behalf of their constituents to solve the problem.
Industry accepts the legislation gracefully.
Here's how I think it actually works:
Scientists are pressured by the government and the corporations to change their findings; most report them anyway.
The media gives equal weight to minority positions on the issue because they want to pretend to be 'fair and balanced', and because they might be owned by a corporation that also has interests in the energy industry. If not, they certainly get lots of advertising revenue from said industry.
The public, mostly unaware of the problem, don't think they can really do anything anyway.
Politicians avoid the issue out of fear of losing campaign financing from oil corporations.
Corporations put ads on TV that give people the impression that they care about the issue, and should be trusted to do the right thing.
Try explaining it to them in economic terms. Economists can't tell you what will happen to any given stock on any given day, but they can still predict the overall economic growth of a country over a year.
Next time you're there go to sociable's for sud, spud, and steak night. If nobody tries to skewer you with a broken pool cue in the first 10 minutes, you can enjoy a decent meal for $5.95.
First, I think that in order for a sheet of ice to qualify as a skating rink, people actually have to skate on it. The canal is maintained for skating during the winter, has skate rental shacks, beavertail shops, etc. Lake Michigan would have to have all that before it could take the title, in my view.
If you're choosing between living in Montreal, Toronto, and Ottawa, then yes, Ottawa will probably lose out. I grew up here, and I'm happy to live here now because I'm in the Forces, and my future includes places like Moose Jaw, Portage la Prairie, Cold Lake, and Goose Bay. The weather doesn't seem so bad to me.