Tomorrow night, I am staying at our church overnight with homeless families as part of IHN (Interfaith Hospitaility Network). Every six weeks or so, the families stay at our church and we bring them food, play with the kids and talk with the parents. Church members regularly bring in clothes and toys for the families to have, and donate furniture when families finally secure their own housing.
How's that working for ya? Has the tiny violin army fixed the homeless problem? I think I'll put more "faith" in improved construction methods and a better understanding of economics any day.
It's too bad that anyone who wants your help, also has to submit to being converted to your religion.
I've heard that we no longer have to murder babies to harvest the stem cells -- something about taking it from umbilical cords. That's a good first step.
You also need to realize that it was scientists who came up with this procedure, not religious nuts. What have religions done for us other than caused death? Not to say scientists are off the hook on that one (given the rapid advances in military technology), but I'd say science is about even on the moral scale. Religion has a major deficit.
Life expectancy is up around 80 years. Quality of life is also much better. Productivity is through the roof. Our understanding of the universe has increased substantially. Science did that, while religions were trying to hold us back.
Has religion succeeded in saving our souls? Give me proof that it has saved even one. Scratch that... start by proving that a soul exists.
These cars typically achieve their best mileage using a 'coast and burn' strategy. They run the engine full throttle until they reach ~20mph, then cut the engine. This way the engine is always operating at peak efficiency (no throttling losses). This driving technique could be a little impractical in stop-and-go traffic...
I don't know about you, but this sounds exactly like my morning commute. That is, stop, go, stop, go... forever.
Here's my take on it... if two people say exactly the same thing, but they have different biases or motives, then I still think the arguments should both be taken the same. The logic doesn't change based on who states it.
I think what you're referring to is when someone is trying to use an argument based on authority, and you have to look at whether or not they're really trustworthy. However, in that case, the argument by authority is itself a logical falacy, so there's no need to check their motives, as you can disregard their logic on principle.
Richard Dreyfuss' statements concerning the FCC should be evaluated carefully in the context of the pressure to promote his show and increase viewership.
Think about what you're saying. Everybody's statements should be evaluated carefully, not based on their personal bias, but based on the logic of the statements themselves. If you disregard a person's statements because of who they are, then you're not listening to them.
During the recent Canadian federal election it saddened me to note that this is becoming rather prevalent in Canadian politics.
It makes me feel a bit better that in Canadian elections, the voters generally punish the party that does the most name-calling. I also find that the elderly, who are the most prolific voters, are also the ones most turned off by politicians not sticking to the issues (with age comes wisdom?).
I watched the recent federal debate in Canada (the english one), and other than the one incident where Martin lashed out at what's-his-name's "handlers", I really felt that they stuck to the issues. If you don't believe me, watch a U.S. debate and do a comparison. The American politicians almost NEVER talk about what they're going to do. Everything is attacking the other person, usually dragging up some obscure reference from their past.
The few times I've thought about what it would be like to run for some local office, I've always figured I'd never survive the character assasination phase of the campaign, and would rather not have my old drunk usenet posts dragged up and placed in front of my parents' eyes. Gotta love groups.google.com.
I suspect that the star and producer have no higher goal than propping up their show's ratings.
I agree with you that they're taking advantage of the free publicity, but if you attack their argument on that basis, what you have in an "ad hominem" falacy, which means YOUR argument holds no water.
One person might be motivated to make an argument for any given reason (it does take time and effort to think things through), but you still have to evaluate the argument based on the content, not on perceived motives. Who cares what their goal was? Is the argument consistent or not? That's all that matters.
A workable alternative is that the recording industry find a business model that makes money without government involvement or legislation. For example, the good old days of selling media only at the performance venue.
In this ingenious business model of yours, wouldn't the song still get copied and distributed on the internet? All that does is make the supply of legal copies artificially lower, so anyone who doesn't want to go to the show to buy a CD will just download the song off the internet.
The only workable alternative I can see is if the recording industry embraces the electronic distribution of songs, and adds some value in the process.
I'm not supporting the levy, but I am pointing out that at least it's a non-intrusive way to do it. If I have to sign onto some server on the internet to make a copy of my music, and there's a database keeping track of how many and which songs I've copied, I'd say that's too intrusive for my taste.
This is simply unfair to non-infringing users. In fact, it is a direct theft of fees unrelated to the intent of the levy.
Do I have to go over with you what constitutes theft? Since we're not forced to buy the media, and thus are not forced to pay the levy, it's not theft, any more than copying songs is theft of an artist's work.
There are ways to get out of paying the levy. Order the media from a different country. Since you're the one importing it, and it's not for resale, you don't have to charge yourself the levy.
At least in Canada, there is Taxed gas, and Untaxed gas. The untaxed gas (used for all marine engines, lawnmowers, farm equipment, etc.) has a red dye in it; if you get caught with red dye in your car's gas tank (a car licensed to drive on public roadways), you can face serious fines. Only gas used for vehicles that are used on public roads is taxed.
I did not know that. Where would one buy this "untaxed gas"? I don't see a Red Dye pump at my local gas station.
How then, does the logic follow, that maintaining a "levy" is a reasonable? Why do recording artists deserve a pay-back for my disk imaging activity?
You could argue that the government shouldn't tax gas to pay for the roads, because then they're unfairly taxing people who have gas lawn mowers, snowmobiles, jet ski's etc.
However, both of these methods of taxation are based on the idea that your privacy is more important than 100% fair taxation. For instance, I heard that in some northern U.S. state they were discussing installing GPS tracking units in vehicles to charge people based on how far they drive their vehicles, because that was a fairer way to charge a usage tax. But, who wants the government tracking their movements?
Similarly, the idea with the CD levy is to allow copying for personal use, but charge a fee to copiers of copyrighted work, and use that to pay the artists. To fairly implement this tax, it would mean you'd have to track each person and what they're copying. You run into the same issue - privacy. There is obviously a tradeoff, and I'm glad that the Canadian government seems to continually place privacy as a higher priority. I'm willing to pay a price to keep my privacy.
The other alternative is to ban all copying, even for personal use, remove the levy, and try to get the police to enforce an unenforceable law. That doesn't look to sweet either.
If you're going to complain about the levy, then at least come up with a workable alternative that doesn't screw somebody else.
When you fill up, the pump will tell you how many gallons you just pumped into your car. When I get back into my car, I reset the tripmeter (the "second" odometer which can be reset) after noting the number of miles I've driven since the last fuel stop. Then it's just a matter of spending the next minute or so trying to do the division as accurately as possible without getting into an accident.
Heh. I perform a similar ritual, but since I drive a Canadian pickup truck (a Sierra), but gas up in the U.S. because I work there, I have to convert the trip-o-meter from km to miles first (divide by 1.6), and then divide by the gallons. That takes a few more stoplights for the calculation.:-) Actually, in Canada, the metric measurement would be litres per 100km, but I haven't gotten used to that scale yet.
However, I've noticed I get around 19 mpg, mostly highway. It's not great, but for a full sized pickup, I was pretty happy with that. Recently I've been driving my wife's Sentra, and it gets around 31 mpg.
I also noticed, when I rented a Ford Taurus recently, that it calculates the mileage for you, and it got around 20.5 mpg, mostly on the highway. I thought that was pretty bad for any kind of car. I figured it would be closer to 25. I've rented 2 recently, and both were about the same. Anyone own a 2005 Taurus, and can compare?
And they have the infrastructure sitting there, people to run it, etc, it all costs money and energy and it could be made more efficient by staggering loads. the industry itself is going in that direction, you can see it on their websites. if it wasn't real, they wouldn't be doing that, would they?
True. It saves money because it's saving overhead costs, but not all of that overhead is energy. Sure, if you charge your car with electricity from a nuclear plant, then you're saving fossil fuel, which helps the environment and reduces the use of an increasingly scarce resource.
They are still burning fuel when the demand for the juice isn't there. They DO produce more than what is needed because they need to be up and running when that persky ole peak demand hits, or we get big problems. Nukes don't shut down at night, do they? Big coal plants? Oilburners? The fuel is getting burnt in most cases, even when it's not needed, because it's just so hard for them to turn them big plants on and off. They don't (in most cases)shut the plants down.
I'm sorry, but you don't seem to understand the basics of the power system. You're right that the nuclear reactors are not shut down completely because they take days or weeks to restart, but the fact is, they can change the power output of these plants by simply raising and lowering the control rods in the reactor. The plant does not have to operate at peak output all the time, and when it's not at full production, a proportionately less amount of fuel is being consumed.
The same is true of any fossil fuel power plant. Each generator will produce electrical power proportional to the amount of fuel that it is burning at that time. When the demand drops, there is less resistance in the generator itself, so what happens is that the prime mover begins to speed up. Then, the speed regulator immediately reduces the fuel input to compensate, and thus the system stays in balance. Also, since they can predict the demand at any point during the day fairly accurately, they can be prepared to bring other generators online before their full output is required. Otherwise, they can leave them powered down.
When you plug a generator into your house during a power outage, it will use a little gas just to idle the engine, but the more things you turn on in your house, the more gas it will use, even though the speed of the motor is fairly constant (it's the load that varies). You will definitely use less fuel in the generator if you turn off your appliances... the generator does not consume it's peak amount of fuel all the time, no matter how much you're using it.
Your argument is like saying I'm wasting the gas in my car's gas tank if I'm not driving it full speed all the time. Well, that's simply not true... if I drive slower, I'm using less fuel, unless I stop and idle, in which case I can save even more fuel by turning off the engine.
The technical idea behind what I was talking about with purchaisng at night, say to charge an electric car, is called "time sensitive pricing", that's what the industry calls it.
That has more to do with jacking up the prices during the peak hours to keep people from using power during those times. That's because the infrastructure you have to maintain is only proportional to the peak demand. They can supply you more power during the night without a capital cost expenditure, so it's cheaper per kWh for off peak electricity. You still use the same amount of power no matter when you use it, but the cost per kWh changes. That has nothing to do with total energy consumption though, which is what drives crude oil and gas prices.
Every night, electrical demand goes down, but the plants keep running. That electricty is just wasted. It is a HUGE number of megawatts.
I'm not sure if this is what you meant to write, but it is what you wrote, so I'm going to respond to it as though you meant it.
When the electrical demand goes down at night, the power plants produce LESS electricity to compensate. They don't continue producing the same amount of electricity as during the peak hours and just burn it off as heat or something.
Many grids have plants specifically designed to operate only during peak hours. Some places, like the power plant in the Smokey Mountains in TN, use power from the other plants during the night to pump water up to a reservoir on top of the mountain, and then the plant turns into a generator station during peak hours to use that stored energy.
Whether you use the electricity in the daytime or at night, you're going to use the same amount. It's true that there needs to be more capacity - enough to meet your peak demand, but they only generate enough to meet the demand, and it's not wasting energy per se. Maybe it's a waste of resources to have idle equipment sitting around most of the day, but while it's turned off, it's not consuming energy. The only way to conserve energy is to USE LESS. WHEN you use energy is only a concern for the engineers of system, and manifests itself in varying infrastructure costs.
I think any democracy can be perverted into a dictatorship if the governing powers wish it.
First of all, neither the U.S. nor Canada have a democratic government. The U.S. has a republic, and Canada is, strictly speaking, a constitutional monarchy, but if you ignored the nominal connection to the British Monarchy, it would be a parliamentary republic (I think).
In a republic, you elect representatives for a specific term, and during that time, they can do anything within the bounds of the law and the constitution, but that includes amending those laws and the constitution, so yes, a republic _could become_ a dictatorship. However, in the U.S. system, the president would need the support of the house and the senate to pass any kind of legislation that would give dictator-like control to him/her. I suppose that could happen if the house/senate did not read the legislation that was put in front of them, but it's not likely. In the Canadian system, the prime minister would again need the support of the house of commons, and it would have to be approved by the senate, to pass any legislation, so it's still not a single person calling the shots. The term for this is "checks and balances". In any case, they would have to change the length of an elected term for it to be meaningful, or else they'll be voted out in the next 4 or 5 years.
Furthermore, a democracy (a la Switzerland) would mean the people vote on every issue, and the administrative branch of the government carries out those directives of the people. In that case, I fail to see how a democracy could really be anything like a dictatorship.
Moore showcases the left-wing pessimism that's eating its way through the Democratic party by telling people in the U.K. and Canada that we're a bunch of obnoxious idiots.
I'm Canadian, and having spent a lot of time in the U.S., I knew you were "a bunch of obnoxious idiots" long before I ever heard about Michael Moore. Not all of you are obnoxious idiots, but Bush and Moore are two of the biggest. Moore is quite funny though, and I appreciate humour.
My 100+ year old houses uses 2 x 4s that measure a full 2" x 4". The "new" 1 1/2 x 2 1/2's don't fit.
True, mine too. I guess you can buy 1/2" spacers and actually you can still buy rough cut lumber which is the true dimensions. I suppose if it switched to metric, you would still be able to purchase both kinds for a couple decades. That would create a headache for the lumber yards though.
The metric system is French, and many Canadians are French. Metrication was an attempt to throw a bone to Quebec; a concession to stop them breaking up the country. So if it wasn't for Quebec, Canada would be stuck on the old Britsh colonial system in the same way that the US is.
That's a new one...
What I was told was that Canada switched in the late 70's, around the time that the U.S. said it was going to switch. The U.S. being our largest trading partner, and also acknowledging that almost every other country used metric, it made sense to go ahead with the switch.
However, Canada "ripped off the bandaid fast", so to speak, and pretty much changed overnight. I'm amazed that my parents have pretty much switched over completely. The U.S., on the other hand, made only a half hearted attempt, and no politician since has been willing to go near the issue.
Note that building supplies and architecture is still specified completely in imperial measurement in Canada. I still buy 2x4's and 4x8 sheets of plywood at the building store. That would probably be the hardest industry to switch over to metric, in either country, because it would be a bitch to extend an existing wall, or repair a roof on your house if all the lumber sizes changed. If they keep the sizes the same and just switch to specifying the sizes in metric, then people will still call them by the imperial names.
I remember we were talking to a German exchange student one time, and for some reason referred to a "two by four", and he had absolutely no clue what we were talking about. That got us into an interesting discussion about lumber sizes in Europe.
So, as for the French making Canada change, I think we can chalk that up to their over-inflated sense of self importance in Canada.
Not to mention that France only has ONE active aircraft carrier (Charles de Gaulle) which is about 1/4th the size of a standard US carrier. How pathetic is that? At least they used Nuclear instead of Diesel.
The French one may be smaller, but it's common knowledge that they can keep it up longer. [ducks!]
The best office environment was a small company where we had around 3 to 4 people per room with a full corner desk each. Also, everyone in the same room was in the same work group, project team. Plus, every room had nice big windows. There was free bottled water and coffee. People brought in plants for their desks.
The worst office is probably the one I'm in right now at a customer's site. Nobody in the whole company can see a window, except the receptionist by the front door. The colors are so bland I want to scream. The cubes are half height, and I can clearly hear a person's conversation on the other side of the 100 person cube room I'm sitting in right now. There are no plants (since there's no natural light). You need a special pass code to dial out so they can track your usage. Nobody even bothers with pictures of family or personal items.
That's it... I'm going back to the hotel... I miss my old job!
WHen will broadband companies truly serve the populace by providing broadband capability to all, not just the city folk?
Probably when they won't have to lose excessive amounts of money to lay the cable to do it. I think your only realistic hope way out of town is to go with satellite or long range WiFi service.
If you want all the services of the city, why don't you move to the city? I grew up in a rural area, and we just understood that it's a tradeoff. You don't get curbs and gutters, sewers, city water supplies, cable, etc., but you do get lower crime rates, less pollution, and a better sense of community.
Slashdot Mirror
I did notice that all the alien planets look very much like Colorado. Maybe they really look like British Columbia instead?
:-)
They look just like all the locations in the X-Files, if you ask me.
Tomorrow night, I am staying at our church overnight with homeless families as part of IHN (Interfaith Hospitaility Network). Every six weeks or so, the families stay at our church and we bring them food, play with the kids and talk with the parents. Church members regularly bring in clothes and toys for the families to have, and donate furniture when families finally secure their own housing.
How's that working for ya? Has the tiny violin army fixed the homeless problem? I think I'll put more "faith" in improved construction methods and a better understanding of economics any day.
It's too bad that anyone who wants your help, also has to submit to being converted to your religion.
You guys DO know that Stargate SG1 is filmed in Canada, right? Are you all anti-American or something?
I've heard that we no longer have to murder babies to harvest the stem cells -- something about taking it from umbilical cords. That's a good first step.
You also need to realize that it was scientists who came up with this procedure, not religious nuts. What have religions done for us other than caused death? Not to say scientists are off the hook on that one (given the rapid advances in military technology), but I'd say science is about even on the moral scale. Religion has a major deficit.
Life expectancy is up around 80 years. Quality of life is also much better. Productivity is through the roof. Our understanding of the universe has increased substantially. Science did that, while religions were trying to hold us back.
Has religion succeeded in saving our souls? Give me proof that it has saved even one. Scratch that... start by proving that a soul exists.
These cars typically achieve their best mileage using a 'coast and burn' strategy. They run the engine full throttle until they reach ~20mph, then cut the engine. This way the engine is always operating at peak efficiency (no throttling losses). This driving technique could be a little impractical in stop-and-go traffic...
I don't know about you, but this sounds exactly like my morning commute. That is, stop, go, stop, go... forever.
Here's my take on it... if two people say exactly the same thing, but they have different biases or motives, then I still think the arguments should both be taken the same. The logic doesn't change based on who states it.
I think what you're referring to is when someone is trying to use an argument based on authority, and you have to look at whether or not they're really trustworthy. However, in that case, the argument by authority is itself a logical falacy, so there's no need to check their motives, as you can disregard their logic on principle.
Richard Dreyfuss' statements concerning the FCC should be evaluated carefully in the context of the pressure to promote his show and increase viewership.
Think about what you're saying. Everybody's statements should be evaluated carefully, not based on their personal bias, but based on the logic of the statements themselves. If you disregard a person's statements because of who they are, then you're not listening to them.
During the recent Canadian federal election it saddened me to note that this is becoming rather prevalent in Canadian politics.
It makes me feel a bit better that in Canadian elections, the voters generally punish the party that does the most name-calling. I also find that the elderly, who are the most prolific voters, are also the ones most turned off by politicians not sticking to the issues (with age comes wisdom?).
I watched the recent federal debate in Canada (the english one), and other than the one incident where Martin lashed out at what's-his-name's "handlers", I really felt that they stuck to the issues. If you don't believe me, watch a U.S. debate and do a comparison. The American politicians almost NEVER talk about what they're going to do. Everything is attacking the other person, usually dragging up some obscure reference from their past.
The few times I've thought about what it would be like to run for some local office, I've always figured I'd never survive the character assasination phase of the campaign, and would rather not have my old drunk usenet posts dragged up and placed in front of my parents' eyes. Gotta love groups.google.com.
I suspect that the star and producer have no higher goal than propping up their show's ratings.
I agree with you that they're taking advantage of the free publicity, but if you attack their argument on that basis, what you have in an "ad hominem" falacy, which means YOUR argument holds no water.
One person might be motivated to make an argument for any given reason (it does take time and effort to think things through), but you still have to evaluate the argument based on the content, not on perceived motives. Who cares what their goal was? Is the argument consistent or not? That's all that matters.
A workable alternative is that the recording industry find a business model that makes money without government involvement or legislation. For example, the good old days of selling media only at the performance venue.
In this ingenious business model of yours, wouldn't the song still get copied and distributed on the internet? All that does is make the supply of legal copies artificially lower, so anyone who doesn't want to go to the show to buy a CD will just download the song off the internet.
The only workable alternative I can see is if the recording industry embraces the electronic distribution of songs, and adds some value in the process.
I'm not supporting the levy, but I am pointing out that at least it's a non-intrusive way to do it. If I have to sign onto some server on the internet to make a copy of my music, and there's a database keeping track of how many and which songs I've copied, I'd say that's too intrusive for my taste.
This is simply unfair to non-infringing users. In fact, it is a direct theft of fees unrelated to the intent of the levy.
Do I have to go over with you what constitutes theft? Since we're not forced to buy the media, and thus are not forced to pay the levy, it's not theft, any more than copying songs is theft of an artist's work.
There are ways to get out of paying the levy. Order the media from a different country. Since you're the one importing it, and it's not for resale, you don't have to charge yourself the levy.
At least in Canada, there is Taxed gas, and Untaxed gas. The untaxed gas (used for all marine engines, lawnmowers, farm equipment, etc.) has a red dye in it; if you get caught with red dye in your car's gas tank (a car licensed to drive on public roadways), you can face serious fines. Only gas used for vehicles that are used on public roads is taxed.
I did not know that. Where would one buy this "untaxed gas"? I don't see a Red Dye pump at my local gas station.
How then, does the logic follow, that maintaining a "levy" is a reasonable? Why do recording artists deserve a pay-back for my disk imaging activity?
You could argue that the government shouldn't tax gas to pay for the roads, because then they're unfairly taxing people who have gas lawn mowers, snowmobiles, jet ski's etc.
However, both of these methods of taxation are based on the idea that your privacy is more important than 100% fair taxation. For instance, I heard that in some northern U.S. state they were discussing installing GPS tracking units in vehicles to charge people based on how far they drive their vehicles, because that was a fairer way to charge a usage tax. But, who wants the government tracking their movements?
Similarly, the idea with the CD levy is to allow copying for personal use, but charge a fee to copiers of copyrighted work, and use that to pay the artists. To fairly implement this tax, it would mean you'd have to track each person and what they're copying. You run into the same issue - privacy. There is obviously a tradeoff, and I'm glad that the Canadian government seems to continually place privacy as a higher priority. I'm willing to pay a price to keep my privacy.
The other alternative is to ban all copying, even for personal use, remove the levy, and try to get the police to enforce an unenforceable law. That doesn't look to sweet either.
If you're going to complain about the levy, then at least come up with a workable alternative that doesn't screw somebody else.
When you fill up, the pump will tell you how many gallons you just pumped into your car. When I get back into my car, I reset the tripmeter (the "second" odometer which can be reset) after noting the number of miles I've driven since the last fuel stop. Then it's just a matter of spending the next minute or so trying to do the division as accurately as possible without getting into an accident.
:-) Actually, in Canada, the metric measurement would be litres per 100km, but I haven't gotten used to that scale yet.
Heh. I perform a similar ritual, but since I drive a Canadian pickup truck (a Sierra), but gas up in the U.S. because I work there, I have to convert the trip-o-meter from km to miles first (divide by 1.6), and then divide by the gallons. That takes a few more stoplights for the calculation.
However, I've noticed I get around 19 mpg, mostly highway. It's not great, but for a full sized pickup, I was pretty happy with that. Recently I've been driving my wife's Sentra, and it gets around 31 mpg.
I also noticed, when I rented a Ford Taurus recently, that it calculates the mileage for you, and it got around 20.5 mpg, mostly on the highway. I thought that was pretty bad for any kind of car. I figured it would be closer to 25. I've rented 2 recently, and both were about the same. Anyone own a 2005 Taurus, and can compare?
People in just about ANY country can be pretty nice, so long as neither one of you is a prejudiced asshole.
I guess that's why Americans don't get along with anyone.
And they have the infrastructure sitting there, people to run it, etc, it all costs money and energy and it could be made more efficient by staggering loads. the industry itself is going in that direction, you can see it on their websites. if it wasn't real, they wouldn't be doing that, would they?
True. It saves money because it's saving overhead costs, but not all of that overhead is energy. Sure, if you charge your car with electricity from a nuclear plant, then you're saving fossil fuel, which helps the environment and reduces the use of an increasingly scarce resource.
Just remember, energy isn't the only resource.
They are still burning fuel when the demand for the juice isn't there. They DO produce more than what is needed because they need to be up and running when that persky ole peak demand hits, or we get big problems. Nukes don't shut down at night, do they? Big coal plants? Oilburners? The fuel is getting burnt in most cases, even when it's not needed, because it's just so hard for them to turn them big plants on and off. They don't (in most cases)shut the plants down.
I'm sorry, but you don't seem to understand the basics of the power system. You're right that the nuclear reactors are not shut down completely because they take days or weeks to restart, but the fact is, they can change the power output of these plants by simply raising and lowering the control rods in the reactor. The plant does not have to operate at peak output all the time, and when it's not at full production, a proportionately less amount of fuel is being consumed.
The same is true of any fossil fuel power plant. Each generator will produce electrical power proportional to the amount of fuel that it is burning at that time. When the demand drops, there is less resistance in the generator itself, so what happens is that the prime mover begins to speed up. Then, the speed regulator immediately reduces the fuel input to compensate, and thus the system stays in balance. Also, since they can predict the demand at any point during the day fairly accurately, they can be prepared to bring other generators online before their full output is required. Otherwise, they can leave them powered down.
When you plug a generator into your house during a power outage, it will use a little gas just to idle the engine, but the more things you turn on in your house, the more gas it will use, even though the speed of the motor is fairly constant (it's the load that varies). You will definitely use less fuel in the generator if you turn off your appliances... the generator does not consume it's peak amount of fuel all the time, no matter how much you're using it.
Your argument is like saying I'm wasting the gas in my car's gas tank if I'm not driving it full speed all the time. Well, that's simply not true... if I drive slower, I'm using less fuel, unless I stop and idle, in which case I can save even more fuel by turning off the engine.
The technical idea behind what I was talking about with purchaisng at night, say to charge an electric car, is called "time sensitive pricing", that's what the industry calls it.
That has more to do with jacking up the prices during the peak hours to keep people from using power during those times. That's because the infrastructure you have to maintain is only proportional to the peak demand. They can supply you more power during the night without a capital cost expenditure, so it's cheaper per kWh for off peak electricity. You still use the same amount of power no matter when you use it, but the cost per kWh changes. That has nothing to do with total energy consumption though, which is what drives crude oil and gas prices.
Every night, electrical demand goes down, but the plants keep running. That electricty is just wasted. It is a HUGE number of megawatts.
I'm not sure if this is what you meant to write, but it is what you wrote, so I'm going to respond to it as though you meant it.
When the electrical demand goes down at night, the power plants produce LESS electricity to compensate. They don't continue producing the same amount of electricity as during the peak hours and just burn it off as heat or something.
Many grids have plants specifically designed to operate only during peak hours. Some places, like the power plant in the Smokey Mountains in TN, use power from the other plants during the night to pump water up to a reservoir on top of the mountain, and then the plant turns into a generator station during peak hours to use that stored energy.
Whether you use the electricity in the daytime or at night, you're going to use the same amount. It's true that there needs to be more capacity - enough to meet your peak demand, but they only generate enough to meet the demand, and it's not wasting energy per se. Maybe it's a waste of resources to have idle equipment sitting around most of the day, but while it's turned off, it's not consuming energy. The only way to conserve energy is to USE LESS. WHEN you use energy is only a concern for the engineers of system, and manifests itself in varying infrastructure costs.
I think any democracy can be perverted into a dictatorship if the governing powers wish it.
First of all, neither the U.S. nor Canada have a democratic government. The U.S. has a republic, and Canada is, strictly speaking, a constitutional monarchy, but if you ignored the nominal connection to the British Monarchy, it would be a parliamentary republic (I think).
In a republic, you elect representatives for a specific term, and during that time, they can do anything within the bounds of the law and the constitution, but that includes amending those laws and the constitution, so yes, a republic _could become_ a dictatorship. However, in the U.S. system, the president would need the support of the house and the senate to pass any kind of legislation that would give dictator-like control to him/her. I suppose that could happen if the house/senate did not read the legislation that was put in front of them, but it's not likely. In the Canadian system, the prime minister would again need the support of the house of commons, and it would have to be approved by the senate, to pass any legislation, so it's still not a single person calling the shots. The term for this is "checks and balances". In any case, they would have to change the length of an elected term for it to be meaningful, or else they'll be voted out in the next 4 or 5 years.
Furthermore, a democracy (a la Switzerland) would mean the people vote on every issue, and the administrative branch of the government carries out those directives of the people. In that case, I fail to see how a democracy could really be anything like a dictatorship.
Moore showcases the left-wing pessimism that's eating its way through the Democratic party by telling people in the U.K. and Canada that we're a bunch of obnoxious idiots.
I'm Canadian, and having spent a lot of time in the U.S., I knew you were "a bunch of obnoxious idiots" long before I ever heard about Michael Moore. Not all of you are obnoxious idiots, but Bush and Moore are two of the biggest. Moore is quite funny though, and I appreciate humour.
My 100+ year old houses uses 2 x 4s that measure a full 2" x 4". The "new" 1 1/2 x 2 1/2's don't fit.
True, mine too. I guess you can buy 1/2" spacers and actually you can still buy rough cut lumber which is the true dimensions. I suppose if it switched to metric, you would still be able to purchase both kinds for a couple decades. That would create a headache for the lumber yards though.
The metric system is French, and many Canadians are French. Metrication was an attempt to throw a bone to Quebec; a concession to stop them breaking up the country. So if it wasn't for Quebec, Canada would be stuck on the old Britsh colonial system in the same way that the US is.
That's a new one...
What I was told was that Canada switched in the late 70's, around the time that the U.S. said it was going to switch. The U.S. being our largest trading partner, and also acknowledging that almost every other country used metric, it made sense to go ahead with the switch.
However, Canada "ripped off the bandaid fast", so to speak, and pretty much changed overnight. I'm amazed that my parents have pretty much switched over completely. The U.S., on the other hand, made only a half hearted attempt, and no politician since has been willing to go near the issue.
Note that building supplies and architecture is still specified completely in imperial measurement in Canada. I still buy 2x4's and 4x8 sheets of plywood at the building store. That would probably be the hardest industry to switch over to metric, in either country, because it would be a bitch to extend an existing wall, or repair a roof on your house if all the lumber sizes changed. If they keep the sizes the same and just switch to specifying the sizes in metric, then people will still call them by the imperial names.
I remember we were talking to a German exchange student one time, and for some reason referred to a "two by four", and he had absolutely no clue what we were talking about. That got us into an interesting discussion about lumber sizes in Europe.
So, as for the French making Canada change, I think we can chalk that up to their over-inflated sense of self importance in Canada.
Not to mention that France only has ONE active aircraft carrier (Charles de Gaulle) which is about 1/4th the size of a standard US carrier. How pathetic is that? At least they used Nuclear instead of Diesel.
The French one may be smaller, but it's common knowledge that they can keep it up longer. [ducks!]
The best office environment was a small company where we had around 3 to 4 people per room with a full corner desk each. Also, everyone in the same room was in the same work group, project team. Plus, every room had nice big windows. There was free bottled water and coffee. People brought in plants for their desks.
The worst office is probably the one I'm in right now at a customer's site. Nobody in the whole company can see a window, except the receptionist by the front door. The colors are so bland I want to scream. The cubes are half height, and I can clearly hear a person's conversation on the other side of the 100 person cube room I'm sitting in right now. There are no plants (since there's no natural light). You need a special pass code to dial out so they can track your usage. Nobody even bothers with pictures of family or personal items.
That's it... I'm going back to the hotel... I miss my old job!
Your Canadian citizenship is therefore revoked, and you shall now be shipped to *elsewhere* (fill in name of country)...
:)
Sheesh, he said he was sorry... Sending him to the U.S. would be cruel and unusual!
WHen will broadband companies truly serve the populace by providing broadband capability to all, not just the city folk?
Probably when they won't have to lose excessive amounts of money to lay the cable to do it. I think your only realistic hope way out of town is to go with satellite or long range WiFi service.
If you want all the services of the city, why don't you move to the city? I grew up in a rural area, and we just understood that it's a tradeoff. You don't get curbs and gutters, sewers, city water supplies, cable, etc., but you do get lower crime rates, less pollution, and a better sense of community.