Well, I was thinking of Canadian cities;) Ottawa in particular. Which, while it has nothing on Toronto, Montreal, or New York, really isn't that bad. It's the the $400k/$500K houses anywhere other than out in the suburbs that make it crazy.
Granted, I'm in teaching not tech. Well, I used to be a programmer but switched over. There aren't as many good job opportunities outside the city, but if you find one you're golden.
By big city I mean about 1 million. It's the arts and culture I like about the big city. Housing pricing are getting obscene in the city, and even in better paying tech job (let alone teaching) it'd be a while before I buying a house is realistic. But in the place I'm living now, a 2-bedroom apartment, hydro/cable/internet/phone, and car costs and insurance are about what I was paying for a 1-bedroom in the city.
Live economically, and save all the extra money you're making (or invest in realty, etc.). After a while, you'll have saved up a nice wad, so you can afford to get the fuck out of the city and move/semi-retire to someplace smaller,
See, that's funny. I just took a job in a small (35K) city so that I could save for a couple years to get a nice house in a big city. The pay here is very to the city pay, but the cost of living is much, much cheaper.
But pulling them out doesn't even necessarily mean they're going to get a better education. Just because a certain sub-section of the school population doesn't continually improve year after year doesn't mean the school isn't doing it's job. You stick that poorly performing sub-section of kids in any school and they'd likely do just as well.
I am once again stuck with obsolete material?
Your 3.5 books are obsolete? You and your friends can't still sit around and play 3.5? Even if there's no further 3.5 content, you've got all of the materials you need to play for decades.
But, wait, there is still more content being published for 3.5. At least some companies plan to keep publishing 3.5 based materials.
They do it in schools, universities
Schools and universities usually have one or both of i) certain exceptions in the copyright law (depending on jurisdiction) or ii) licensing agreements with copyright boards.
Most people who have partners aren't in it for just getting off. I mean, I do want to jump my girlfriend, but that isn't the only reason why we're together.
Have you read the Canadian Copyright Act? The following section says, clear as daylight, that making copies is legal:
Where no infringement of copyright
80. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of
(a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording,
(b) a performer's performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or
(c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer's performance of a musical work, is embodied
onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording.
It wasn't the only reason, but it was the one that broke the camel's back. Carter making speeches praising the Shah prior to the incident probably didn't help either. Plus, Jimmy Carter could've ended the hostage crisis a whole sooner.
What did the hostage takers want?
1) The Shah back so that he could be tried. Seems reasonable.
2) US admission of guilt for meddling in Irans internal affairs the previous 25 years. Again, seems reasonable.
3) A promise from the US to not meddle in Iranian internal affairs in the future. More than reasonable.
Errr, what? Are you blaming Carter for the Iran hostage crisis?
Considering that what finally led to the hostage crisis was that Carter gave refuge to the Shah and there fears the US might try to insert him back in as leader.
Sure, there are planes and ships. How many nations have the capacity to use offensive aircraft against Canada? About 10, mostly Western democracies. How many nations have tranport capacities (and navies capable of defending them) to land a significant force on Canadian soil. Probably the same 10 or so who operate aircraft carriers; maybe a few more. The US, Russia, Britain, France, Spain, Germany, Italy, China, India spring to mind.
How many of those countries are realistic threats? I'd be comfortable saying nil.
The Western European countries with large forces (e.g. Britain, France, Spain, Germany, Italy) really don't pose a threat. There militaries are larger, but fighting over seas is more difficult and expensive, so that probably helps narrow the gap a little. Besides to believe they could attack you'd have to A) imagine some extremely improbably reason for them to attack, and B) take into account that there would likely be a significant build-up to the attack. French vessel aren't going to mysteriously appear off the coast of Nova Scotia. It took over a year for the US government to get the population to buy into the war in an already disliked Iraq. Do you really think a European country is going to suddenly go to war against friendly little Canada. I'm reasonably confident that if a war with a European becomes even remotely possible that Canada will have plenty of time to bulk up.
Like-wise, the non-European countries are really even less of a threat. First off, they're even further away. A lot of them have much larger militaries in terms of number of troops, but only a few of them have the capicity to get those troops half-way around the world. But even assuming that wasn't an issue, they'd still be relative non-threats. Most of those countries have large militaries for a couple reasons; they either face very real threats from countries in their own area, or the militaries are a key element of domestic control. Transfer troops to a needless over-seas war, and the country either faces assault by its neighbours or sever domestic instability. You think that if India puts troops in Canada that Pakistan or China won't take advantage of that?
The way I see things, there is simply no credible military threat to Canadian at moment. That may change, but then we adapt as things change.
Australia is also a geographically isolated country with a military roughly comparable to Canada's. Yet Australia manages to survive just fine without having the US as a neighbour.
Sure, there are planes and ships. How many nations have the capacity to use offensive aircraft against Canada? About 10, mostly Western democracies. How many nations have tranport capacities (and navies capable of defending them) to land a significant force on Canadian soil. Probably the same 10 or so who operate aircraft carriers; maybe a few more. The US, Russia, Britain, France, Spain, Germany, Italy, China, India spring to mind.
How many of those countries are realistic threats? I'd be comfortable saying nil.
The Western European countries with large forces (e.g. Britain, France, Spain, Germany, Italy) really don't pose a threat. There militaries are larger, but fighting over seas is more difficult and expensive, so that probably helps narrow the gap a little. Besides to believe they could attack you'd have to A) imagine some extremely improbably reason for them to attack, and B) take into account that there would likely be a significant build-up to the attack. French vessel aren't going to mysteriously appear off the coast of Nova Scotia. It took over a year for the US government to get the population to buy into the war in an already disliked Iraq. Do you really think a European country is going to suddenly go to war against friendly little Canada. I'm reasonably confident that if a war with a European becomes even remotely possible that Canada will have plenty of time to bulk up.
Like-wise, the non-European countries are really even less of a threat. First off, they're even further away. A lot of them have much larger militaries in terms of number of troops, but only a few of them have the capicity to get those troops half-way around the world. But even assuming that wasn't an issue, they'd still be relative non-threats. Most of those countries have large militaries for a couple reasons; they either face very real threats from countries in their own area, or the militaries are a key element of domestic control. Transfer troops to a needless over-seas war, and the country either faces assault by its neighbours or sever domestic instability. You think that if India puts troops in Canada that Pakistan or China won't take advantage of that?
The way I see things, there is simply no credible military threat to Canadian at moment. That may change, but then we adapt as things change.
Australia is also a geographically isolated country with a military roughly comparable to Canada's. Yet Australia manages to survive just fine without having the US as a neighbour.
Canada has been able to ignore our defence responsibilities because we don't need to defend ourselves militarily. Really, I mean who would we ever have to defend ourselves against? The the only really credible threat to Canadian defence is the US itself (maybe the old USSR), and no matter how much we invest in the military we'd never be able to counter them anyway.
Any use of the Canadian military over the past 50 years has been over-seas and not directly related to Canadian defence.
We don't need a strong military because the US is protecting us. We don't need it because we're geograpically isolated from anyone who might be threat.
Rainforest trees basically aren't renewable; the soil is typically almost void of nutrients. You can't just plant new trees. Most of the farmland claimed by clearing the forests soon stops being productive.
The volcanos.und.edu is administered by Department of Geosciences at Oregon State University.
At least the guy had half a page of cites in his article. More than I've seen from you.
Same sort of thing happened to me. The thief broke into my car and stole the stereo but didn't even touch pile of the CDs I had in the car. I actually felt kind of insulted.
Why does only the woman get to decide on abortion?
Because it's in her body. It's not that hard a concept.
Forcing her carry the baby to term is unreasonable. Threatening no child support if she doesn't have one is basically saying that you're in favour of forced abortions.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I was thinking of Canadian cities ;) Ottawa in particular. Which, while it has nothing on Toronto, Montreal, or New York, really isn't that bad. It's the the $400k/$500K houses anywhere other than out in the suburbs that make it crazy.
Wow. That was positively atrocious grammar and spelling. Note to self: Don't post at 2:30am.
Granted, I'm in teaching not tech. Well, I used to be a programmer but switched over. There aren't as many good job opportunities outside the city, but if you find one you're golden. By big city I mean about 1 million. It's the arts and culture I like about the big city. Housing pricing are getting obscene in the city, and even in better paying tech job (let alone teaching) it'd be a while before I buying a house is realistic. But in the place I'm living now, a 2-bedroom apartment, hydro/cable/internet/phone, and car costs and insurance are about what I was paying for a 1-bedroom in the city.
Live economically, and save all the extra money you're making (or invest in realty, etc.). After a while, you'll have saved up a nice wad, so you can afford to get the fuck out of the city and move/semi-retire to someplace smaller, See, that's funny. I just took a job in a small (35K) city so that I could save for a couple years to get a nice house in a big city. The pay here is very to the city pay, but the cost of living is much, much cheaper.
The syllabus is cram full with lots of irrelevant crap which they'll never use again.
And calculus isn't irrelevant crap? I enjoy calculus, but it's very low down on the list of subjects that are directly relevant to student's lives.
You playing in Ptolus?
But pulling them out doesn't even necessarily mean they're going to get a better education. Just because a certain sub-section of the school population doesn't continually improve year after year doesn't mean the school isn't doing it's job. You stick that poorly performing sub-section of kids in any school and they'd likely do just as well.
I am once again stuck with obsolete material? Your 3.5 books are obsolete? You and your friends can't still sit around and play 3.5? Even if there's no further 3.5 content, you've got all of the materials you need to play for decades. But, wait, there is still more content being published for 3.5. At least some companies plan to keep publishing 3.5 based materials.
They do it in schools, universities Schools and universities usually have one or both of i) certain exceptions in the copyright law (depending on jurisdiction) or ii) licensing agreements with copyright boards.
Most people who have partners aren't in it for just getting off. I mean, I do want to jump my girlfriend, but that isn't the only reason why we're together.
Just because the physical act isn't done in public, doesn't mean it can't be discussed in public.
I don't have sex in front of people, but I sure talk about it with people.
I don't talk generally about my bowel movements in public, because, well, people just don't need to know. But it shouldn't be offensive to talk about.
That's not true. All of the 'bad' words or swear words refer to taboo subjects -- stuff we don't physically deal with in every day life.
If you don't physically deal with dirty body functions on a daily basis, please tell what sort of a diet you're on.
If you don't physically deal with sex or genitals on a daily basis, well, sucks to be you.
Have you read the Canadian Copyright Act? The following section says, clear as daylight, that making copies is legal: Where no infringement of copyright 80. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of (a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording, (b) a performer's performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or (c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer's performance of a musical work, is embodied onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording.
Yes. 49th parallel. A large part of the US-Canadian border is along the 49th parallel; from BC to Manitoba (a couple thousand kilometres).
Considering that the US helped hold the entire Iranian population hostage to the Shah for 25-odd years, I don't think that's really a valid point.
It wasn't the only reason, but it was the one that broke the camel's back. Carter making speeches praising the Shah prior to the incident probably didn't help either. Plus, Jimmy Carter could've ended the hostage crisis a whole sooner. What did the hostage takers want? 1) The Shah back so that he could be tried. Seems reasonable. 2) US admission of guilt for meddling in Irans internal affairs the previous 25 years. Again, seems reasonable. 3) A promise from the US to not meddle in Iranian internal affairs in the future. More than reasonable.
Errr, what? Are you blaming Carter for the Iran hostage crisis? Considering that what finally led to the hostage crisis was that Carter gave refuge to the Shah and there fears the US might try to insert him back in as leader.
Sure, there are planes and ships. How many nations have the capacity to use offensive aircraft against Canada? About 10, mostly Western democracies. How many nations have tranport capacities (and navies capable of defending them) to land a significant force on Canadian soil. Probably the same 10 or so who operate aircraft carriers; maybe a few more. The US, Russia, Britain, France, Spain, Germany, Italy, China, India spring to mind.
How many of those countries are realistic threats? I'd be comfortable saying nil.
The Western European countries with large forces (e.g. Britain, France, Spain, Germany, Italy) really don't pose a threat. There militaries are larger, but fighting over seas is more difficult and expensive, so that probably helps narrow the gap a little. Besides to believe they could attack you'd have to A) imagine some extremely improbably reason for them to attack, and B) take into account that there would likely be a significant build-up to the attack. French vessel aren't going to mysteriously appear off the coast of Nova Scotia. It took over a year for the US government to get the population to buy into the war in an already disliked Iraq. Do you really think a European country is going to suddenly go to war against friendly little Canada. I'm reasonably confident that if a war with a European becomes even remotely possible that Canada will have plenty of time to bulk up.
Like-wise, the non-European countries are really even less of a threat. First off, they're even further away. A lot of them have much larger militaries in terms of number of troops, but only a few of them have the capicity to get those troops half-way around the world. But even assuming that wasn't an issue, they'd still be relative non-threats. Most of those countries have large militaries for a couple reasons; they either face very real threats from countries in their own area, or the militaries are a key element of domestic control. Transfer troops to a needless over-seas war, and the country either faces assault by its neighbours or sever domestic instability. You think that if India puts troops in Canada that Pakistan or China won't take advantage of that?
The way I see things, there is simply no credible military threat to Canadian at moment. That may change, but then we adapt as things change.
Australia is also a geographically isolated country with a military roughly comparable to Canada's. Yet Australia manages to survive just fine without having the US as a neighbour.
Sure, there are planes and ships. How many nations have the capacity to use offensive aircraft against Canada? About 10, mostly Western democracies. How many nations have tranport capacities (and navies capable of defending them) to land a significant force on Canadian soil. Probably the same 10 or so who operate aircraft carriers; maybe a few more. The US, Russia, Britain, France, Spain, Germany, Italy, China, India spring to mind. How many of those countries are realistic threats? I'd be comfortable saying nil. The Western European countries with large forces (e.g. Britain, France, Spain, Germany, Italy) really don't pose a threat. There militaries are larger, but fighting over seas is more difficult and expensive, so that probably helps narrow the gap a little. Besides to believe they could attack you'd have to A) imagine some extremely improbably reason for them to attack, and B) take into account that there would likely be a significant build-up to the attack. French vessel aren't going to mysteriously appear off the coast of Nova Scotia. It took over a year for the US government to get the population to buy into the war in an already disliked Iraq. Do you really think a European country is going to suddenly go to war against friendly little Canada. I'm reasonably confident that if a war with a European becomes even remotely possible that Canada will have plenty of time to bulk up. Like-wise, the non-European countries are really even less of a threat. First off, they're even further away. A lot of them have much larger militaries in terms of number of troops, but only a few of them have the capicity to get those troops half-way around the world. But even assuming that wasn't an issue, they'd still be relative non-threats. Most of those countries have large militaries for a couple reasons; they either face very real threats from countries in their own area, or the militaries are a key element of domestic control. Transfer troops to a needless over-seas war, and the country either faces assault by its neighbours or sever domestic instability. You think that if India puts troops in Canada that Pakistan or China won't take advantage of that? The way I see things, there is simply no credible military threat to Canadian at moment. That may change, but then we adapt as things change. Australia is also a geographically isolated country with a military roughly comparable to Canada's. Yet Australia manages to survive just fine without having the US as a neighbour.
Oops, that should should have read "We don't not need a strong military because the US is protecting us
Canada has been able to ignore our defence responsibilities because we don't need to defend ourselves militarily. Really, I mean who would we ever have to defend ourselves against? The the only really credible threat to Canadian defence is the US itself (maybe the old USSR), and no matter how much we invest in the military we'd never be able to counter them anyway. Any use of the Canadian military over the past 50 years has been over-seas and not directly related to Canadian defence. We don't need a strong military because the US is protecting us. We don't need it because we're geograpically isolated from anyone who might be threat.
Rainforest trees basically aren't renewable; the soil is typically almost void of nutrients. You can't just plant new trees. Most of the farmland claimed by clearing the forests soon stops being productive.
The volcanos.und.edu is administered by Department of Geosciences at Oregon State University. At least the guy had half a page of cites in his article. More than I've seen from you.
Same sort of thing happened to me. The thief broke into my car and stole the stereo but didn't even touch pile of the CDs I had in the car. I actually felt kind of insulted.
Why does only the woman get to decide on abortion? Because it's in her body. It's not that hard a concept. Forcing her carry the baby to term is unreasonable. Threatening no child support if she doesn't have one is basically saying that you're in favour of forced abortions.