Let's hear it for Midnight Sun from Waterloo! From their site:
The Team is currently sitting in first place with two meadia[sic] stops behind them. The car has peformed exceptionally well as the team moved from sixth to first during the first day.
Excellent work guys, and good luck to all the teams!
Don't you just love this way of doing business? "We'll set you a client for $50, but we won't tell you how much we charge for server access until after you've bought and installed it."
To be fair, I believe this was because the final box art was approved months ago, and the actual price per month wasn't set until a couple weeks ago. They at least are honest about there being a monthly fee. They don't hide the information, so if someone wants to find out before purchasing, they certainly can. Just because you picked it up off the shelf doesn't mean you can't just put it back down until you're sure you want to buy it.
Plus, it comes with one month free so you never have to actually pay for the subscription if you don't like it. You could then try to sell your copy on E-Bay, and you're only out $20 or so.
Robot vaccuums are pointless. Electrolux spent 10 years developing a product that was poorly conceived of from the start. Any engineer worth his/her salt would realize that the correct solution would be a new floor material with all the good properties of carpet that was self-cleaning!
Don't design a better/faster iron - design wrinkle-proof fabrics!
Don't try to grow more food to feed the world - replace the human stomach with a fuel cell and nobody will need to eat again!
How about common sense? I would expect most points of disagreement would be resolved between the two parties, but ultimately, the courts could decide what qualifies as criticism.
This should definitely be considered in the U.S., especially with the way media conglomerates are starting to conglomerate. If it gets to the point where over 50% of what people watch comes from one huge company, they could conceivably have the ability to completely bad mouth politicians they see as "enemies", and the trusting public would be none the wiser. At least a law like this means that the criticised party is guaranteed airtime to rebut the argument in the same forum that they were attacked in. Sounds like a good idea to me.
It also follows the basic principle that the government exists to protect an individual's security. The media CAN do significant harm to a person by publishing false or questionable information. A law like this helps protect an individual from harm.
Anyway, I do not think that BASIC is a good learning language. BASIC encourages bad programming practices.
While I'm sure Dijkstra would agree with you, I have to say I think this is a myth. I don't think that "bad programming practices" are habits that are difficult to change. I find that usually, as soon as someone is shown a "better" way to do something, they will immediately start using that programming practice and forget all about the way they used to do it.
I don't think you can throw a 10 or 12 year old kid directly into advanced software methodologies before they play around a bit with some really simple programs to get their appetite wet. Some kid who wants to write a program that you can "talk" to in English prose (who hasn't wanted to try that when they were young?) is going to be far too intimidated if they have to learn OO first. Here's what they're going to try in the first 5 minutes:
Answer$ = input("What is your name") Print "It's nice to meet you," + Answer$
RUN
Then they'll add a few more lines, and a few more, and at least they're getting interested. If you're worried about them becoming too dependent on the "build and fix" software development model, then I think you've forgotten the original excitement you felt when you started hacking on a computer.
At this point, I'm think it's easier to simply say "sorry, we don't sell to Europe" than it is to try to figure out "please add 20% for EU shipments."
You think? In case nobody has noticed yet, the U.S. and the EU have been gearing up for a major trade war, and this is just the latest step. This is essentially the EU trying to stop its' citizens from buying U.S. products.
The last big thing was the war with Iraq. Before the war, a significant amount of Iraqi oil was purchased with Euros, and that meant the oil money was probably spent purchasing European products. After the war, the U.S. has control of the oil in Iraq, and most of the oil will be bought with U.S. dollars, meaning more Iraqi GDP will be spent in the U.S. instead of the EU. I'm not saying that was the ONLY reason for the war, but it was an interesting side effect.
Just don't expect economic relations to be too cozy between the U.S. and the EU anytime soon.
Excellent points. The Worldwatch Institute a few years ago estimated it would cost $US196.3 billion to meet urgent environmental and social needs worldwide. The USA spent a similar amount on its war in Iraq. If that money had been spent in the method recommended by Worldwatch, the world's (not just Iraq's or the Arab world's) population would be much better off and hence would be much less likely to retaliate against US interests.
That won't happen ever because if the money is spent on the military, the politicians who decided to spend that money get kickbacks and campaign contributions. The politicians won't get nearly the same return from spending the money on social assistance and foreign aid.
Only 1% of the U.S.'s federal budget is spent on foreign aid, and a lot of that is military aid (particularly to Israel). What percentage does the federal government spend on defence?
Some countries spend up to 10% of their federal budgets on foreign aid. Among western countries, the U.S. is dead last, or very near it.
However, I don't think the U.S. should be obligated to spend more to help others. But I do think the U.S. should stop interfering in the politics of other nations. There are too many cases of the U.S. supporting friendly (to the U.S.) dictators because if they let that country revolt, they might democratically choose a leader that was not friendly to the U.S. This is something that the U.S. needs to quit doing, because it's creating hatred among the people of other countries. Case in point: Saudi Arabia.
Re:Get one for your wife??!
on
Shocking Clothing
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
No, pointing it would often be enough: if you're (say) advancing towards your target with a baseball bat, and when you're 10' away she whips out a gun - are you really going to keep coming?
Sure. Women won't pull the trigger, or rather, it would be very rare. I'd play the odds. I can cover 3 metres and turn her skull into mush before she can muster the courage to pull the trigger. After all, if I'm the one advancing on her with a baseball bad, then she's the one with a conscience, not me.
Trust me, women relate to others more easily, therefore women have a harder time defending themselves than men do. There is a valid reason behind the stereotypical woman frozen with fear and screaming in a horror movie. Sorry, but the truth hurts. A woman will probably not act until it's too late. Giving her a gun won't help. Besides, how long do you think it would take her to find that little gun in her purse? Let's be realistic here: many women are attacked every day, and many of them carry mace, pepperspray, or even guns, and they don't stand a chance. Many have black belts in martial arts, and that barely helps them.
Why not just live in a place where violence is 3 to 5 (or even 10) times lower? I guess that wouldn't occur to you. Why not try to actually REDUCE violence where you live?
Unfortunately, we're about to have Canadian Idol. It depresses me so...
I did the math, and figured that I would make quite a bit more money living and working in canada, even with your higher tax rates. it's not about the tax, it's about what I get for my taxes- universal health care, low cost provincial auto insurance, etc.
It's very difficult to "do the math" because you have to take purchasing power into effect. Even though a U.S. dollar will buy $1.37 CND right now, it only costs about $1.25 CND to buy in Canada what would have cost $1 USD to buy in the U.S.
You also have to make the decision whether or not the universal health care is all you will ever want to have. It's excellent, but you can't choose to buy "better" coverage, unless you want to go to the U.S. and spend a fortune. I don't know any Americans who actually take advantage of this extra freedom of choice, but many feel they would rather have the freedom to buy better health care even though they can't afford it.
As for low cost provincial auto insurance, that depends on what province you live in.
Best of luck to you when the federal government is building the "character" portion of their terrorism/communism/whateverism case against you.
Which federal government would that be? The Canadian government has better things to do with my money than track my porn buying habits. If you're afraid of your government, maybe you're living in the wrong country.
In general, go to RFID.org for some good introductory stuff, and they have links to other resources.
RFID tags are cool, and they're definitely the future, though I understand why some people are worried, and we do have to deal with those issues. We got our dog from the humane society, and she was RFID'd with a chip that they can use to identify her if she ever gets lost. It's implanted under her skin, and it's only about the size of a grain of rice. There's no reason why it couldn't be implanted into human flesh.
Wonderful. Now how am I supposed to buy porn? Can't use credit card, it gets tracked. Can't use cash, it gets tracked. And with the price of porn these days, who's strong enough to haul around that much change?
Why are you buying something that you're ashamed to admit you buy?
I guess it's just me, but I have no problem going into an Adults Only Video and renting a porn in broad daylight, or buying a porno mag off the magazine rack at my local store. I also have no problem walking into a drug store to buy condoms, pregnancy tests, etc. If the clerk gives me a strange look, I just wink at her.
Don't get me wrong, I don't parade it around the store for all the little kids to see, but I'm certainly not ashamed to buy it.
Having travelled various parts of Europe, I also don't think most Europeans would be that worried about being "tracked" buying porn either. They're a lot more open with the idea of sexuality over there.
Now people in the EU will know who to sue when they get testicular cancer from all the Euros in their front pockets.
RFID chips are passive devices that respond when a reader transmits a certain RF code. The RFID chip uses the energy from the "ether" to respond. If anything, an RFID will absorb a small amount of radiation and convert it to heat, not the other way around.
You'll probably get cancer from having a cell phone strapped to your waist long before you get it from an RFID chip.
What this means is that for me - if a client asks me to program in VB, Java, etc. my answer is that I will NOT take on the job.
That's funny. Please tell these customers of yours to contact me, and I'll use whatever language they want.
In my 4 year career, I've used C, C++, Java, VB, ASP (VBScript and JavaScript), Perl, PHP, SQL, Basic, Assembly, Citect, Ladder Logic, and Flow charting (Steeplechase). Not to mention a couple other "proprietary" vendor specific languages that I can't even remember the names of.
Having done all that, let me tell you, I can write ANY task in ANY language, and I can do it modularly, with logical and meaningful data structures (or structured tag names, if user defined types are not included in the language), and maintainable (if that's a word). I can do this because my university education taught me the theory I needed to abstract every problem into concepts that could easily be implemented in any language.
The best language to teach in is whatever best suits the material of the course. For data structures, use C, for object oriented, use Modula, C++, or Java. For operating systems, use C or assembly. For automation, use ladder logic or flowcharts.
Trust me, when your customer asks you to provide a windows based user interface to display a flashing light indicating the status of your equipment, and you choose to write this in Visual C++ instead of Visual Basic, you're wasting your time. Choose whatever gets the job done fastest.
I'm just saying, don't be a one trick pony. The person who got a hammer for Christmas will see every problem as a nail.
So, basicly, because some guy pulled a magic trick on you, the anyone who disagrees with you is insane? Interesting logic.
Oh, come on! You're not seriously that dense, are you? Are you one of those guys who has to have everything explained to them? You completely missed the point of my post. When you get a little older, maybe you'll understand.
What we need IMO is an NRA equivalent to represent the interests of computer users, of people who are interested in fair-use issues, reasonable intellectual property laws and accountability of elected representatives.
I would like to like to thank you for my mental picture of Wil Wheaton holding a laptop over his head, screaming at the top of his lungs, "FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS!" I'll be grinning the rest of the day. LOL
The problem you have to face is that the evidence is all historical, and while history can use the implements and techniques of science, the data itself is not scientific. After all, you cannot very well repeat the experiment now can you?
Well, I know a guy named Steve. I, and 50 other people, once saw Steve take an ordinary ball point pen and stick it right through the center of his hand and pull it out the other side, and afterwards, there was no damage to his hand. Steve told me that he's actually half descended from an alien race known as the Pikars, who have discovered the true origin of the universe, and he knows what it is. He told me that Jesus was a real guy, but he was full of sh!t.
I find Steve's argument has no less merit than yours, since it's all based on rumor.
The reason you choose Jesus' story over Steve's is that you WANT Jesus to give you the easy way out, and if you suspend your disbelief long enough, you can make yourself believe the bible's tall tale.
I consider myself a Crea-Evolutionist. A little bit of "Creation" at the start, a lot of "Evolution" after. Big Bang had to happen for some reason...
Blasphemy! Read yer Bible!
Seriously, though, modern science only says that no "higher being" meddles with the universe after the big bang. It says nothing about the universe BEFORE than point in time (if there was any before...) Science does not preclude the existence of God, but it does try to explain what happens without any Gods' interference in the universe.
I've yet to figure out why something that Jesus said long ago proves anything. Is it because it was said a long time ago that it becomes a fact? Is it because you've already accepted as an axiom that Jesus is the son of God that you take it as a fact? You would have to prove the axiom before I would even consider your argument. As it stands, there are a lot of Jews somewhere out there who would disagree with that assertation.
Proof comes after belief, not before.
I believe that you are insane, and now I have the proof of it.
Seriously, is life so horrific for you that you must ignore all basic logic to wrap yourself in the comfort of a lie?
I've got news for you. A lot of people look at the religious problem like this: if there is a heaven and hell, I want to be on the right side, so I'll do what religion "x" tells me. But guess what... it's quite possible that what your religion is telling you to do is leading you straight to hell! After all, none of you need any proof - you're accepting it all on faith. What if there is a Satan and he really is more charismatic than God? Wouldn't that imply the God you're following could be Satan? How do you know? Thinking something true doesn't make it true. You really could be following the dark one into the midst of eternal hellfire.
Until I see credible evidence one way or the other, I'm just going to stay agnostic. The way I see it, either I go to hell, I go to heaven, or I cease to exist when I'm dead. Given a teaspoon of logic, I'm betting on door number 3. I'll takes my chances.
Being "born into" a society does not make one indebted to it without consent any more than a woman owes her date sex just because he bought her dinner.
I agree with that, which is why I propose this: nobody should be a citizen until age 18. At that age, each person is given a choice... either take the oath and become a citizen with all the priviledges and responsibilities, or we'll give you a one way ticket anywhere in the world. Then people would realize that it is a choice.
Back to health care: why, if I fund the public system, but do not wish to use it, do I not have that choice? Who does it harm?
You can't just choose not to take part in certain social services, but take part in others. The deal with the social contract is that you accept all of it, or none of it. You don't get a sheet of paper with checkboxes on it when you become a citizen. If you want the benefit of living in Canada, you have to pay your taxes. Those taxes support a public health care system, which is part of what makes Canada a great place to live. Even if you didn't use the system, you get a benefit from the Canadian health care system, because it does a better job of maintaining public health than the U.S. system, and public health is good for everyone. If you don't contribute to the system, then you're freeloading off of the other taxpayers, who are taking care of the poor people without you helping.
I pick on health care because it is the one issue
Previously, you said: Having lived and worked, legally, in the U.S. for five years, it is hell coming back to a country that is effectively run by petty (and not so petty) criminals.
Sounds to me like you just don't like Canadians. Canada's a democracy, and the majority of Canadians like our health care system. A democracy means that the will of the majority is imposed on the minority. The only way you can fight that is to change people's views. Trust me, I've been listening, and you've made some good points, but you haven't even come close to convincing me that I'm better off with U.S. style health care. I work in the U.S. and live in Canada, and I deal with both systems. Anecdotal evidence is irrelevant, but I've got enough personal experience to convince me that the Canadian system is far better.
Plus, while I used to be a big fan of Dr. Narveson's simplistic views, and I think capitalism is a powerful tool for harnessing human energy, if we followed those lines of logic too far, we'd end up without roads, telecommunications, and education, and I'm not willing to live without those modern conveniences.
Oh, and I'm not a socialist, like you claim. If the NDP ever made it to power, I'd consider moving. I currently don't swing too far in any political direction, and I think most Canadians are that way too. That's why the liberals are so appealing right now, because in Canada, they have positioned themselves at the political middle, but ever so slightly left. However, I would certainly vote conservative (or libertarian) if the right candidate came along, and their ideas were realistic within the global perspective.
I'm sorry to see you've given up on Canada after how far we've come. I've decided to stick it out, and try to make Canada a better place for all of us.
In fact, I do not agree that people have these rights. A right one has, is an obligation that another must fulfil.
Ooops, you are correct. I misused the term "right" in my above statement. Let me rephrase:
The fact is, capitalism works great if we are all brought into the world as healthy, law abiding, and fully educated adults. This is not the case. If you agree that every person should be offered an education paid for by society because they are a burden to society without one, then you must agree that government funded education makes sense.
In Canada, particularly, social services benefit those who administer them far more than the society they are supposed to improve: this creates an incentive to keep the system as inefficient as possible, and thus grow the bureaucracy around it even more.
This claim makes sense until you realize one very important fact about Canadian health care: those who administer health care in Canada must use that very health care system. So must their wives and children. They can't even go to the U.S. for treatment, because the newspapers would be all over it. The fact is, money spent on health care administration in Canada is one third of the amount, per capita, in the U.S. Canadian health care administration is much more lean than its U.S. counterpart.
Now, the administrative costs of, for example, U.S. healthcare, are astronimical, what with the different physician networks, insurers, secondary service providers, etc.: everyone administers things a different way, so if you need surgery, you have to make sure the (a) hospital, (b) labs, (c) primary surgeon, (d) assisting surgeon, (e) anastheseologist, etc. are all "in network" -- often this is not the case and one has to read the fine print on one's health insurance policy. That IS maddening and inefficient.
Ok, I would claim, then, that in the U.S., the reason HMO's are so inefficient and frustrating is precisely because the people who administrate HMO's probably have healthcare plans outside of their own HMO!
What you endorse adds an element of force to coerce those who do not wish to go along.
Wow, that's right out of a Jan Narveson class I took!
Ok, then to truly "opt out" as you suggest, we are talking about returning to a "state of nature", or as it is more commonly referred to, anarchy. Now, you may be an advocate of anarchy, but the thing is, you were born into a social contract, which I realize you are now trying to get out of. I agree that you should have the right to leave that contract, but how is it done?
The social-contract-that-is-Canada controls all Canadian land. It belongs to the country, not to individuals (you only own title, not actual land, whether in Canada or the U.S.), so you would be forced to leave the country. Where would you go on Earth that you wouldn't have to join another similar social contract to reside on their land? The U.S. is clearly no different than Canada in this regard, so you're thinking Afghanistan?
Actually, here are your choices:
1) Become a bum. Homeless people don't pay property or income taxes, and can't receive health care in Ontario because you need a fixed address (AFAIK). You would still be allowed to vote, but you don't have to. You would be free to wander the vast wilderness of Canada, offering your services for cash, and buying only what you need or want. To avoid sales tax, you'd have to do mostly personal (under the table) purchases, but the government won't know, and they really don't care because you're small potatos. Large vendors like Wal-mart have agreed to the social contract, so they will charge you sales tax. Sorry. However, you can't own land if you're a bum, so see #2.
2) Go to a part of Canada that nobody lives on (there's lots), build a fence and declare yoursel
Such is the reasoning of a corrupt criminal mind and, I find, pervasive among Canadians, or at least promulgated by the representatives they elect.
I find that this rhetoric you keep spewing undermines the point you are trying to make. It may dazzle the people down south, but I think you'll find that most Canadians would see it for what it is: an attempt to deter a rational argument against you by implying that anyone who disagrees with your ideas falls into the category of "criminal". However, I will attempt to dissect the rational part of your argument...
Let me be clear: I am willing to fund the public system as well as personal insurance, and not use the public one, to avoid a tax tie if I leave Canada.
I was not aware of the tax-tie situation, and I must admit that I'm not 100% clear on how it works. However, if you're right, then I would agree that it's a needlessly restrictive policy, and should be fixed.
The counter argument is that it is "unfair" for some to be able to afford "better" health care than others, and perhaps you intend to raise this objection. I reject this: if it is accepted that I earned my money via legal means, I should be able to spend it as I wish.
The problem is that health care seems to lie on the edge of what some people say should be covered by social programs, and others say should be privately funded.
The fact is, capitalism works great if we are all brought into the world as healthy, law abiding, and fully educated adults. This is not the case. If you agree that every person has the right to an education because they are a burden to society without one, then you must agree that government funded education makes sense. If you agree that sick people are a burden to society (because they can't work, require care, etc.), then you might think that government funded health care makes sense too. You can't expect a person to be born into this world and immediately be given the responsibility to educate and care for themselves when they are sick. We also shouldn't punish a child if their parents are unable to provide these services. That's why the system exists the way it does.
I would be willing to consider a health care system that only supported people until they were 18, or 21, or something, and after that, they had to buy their own health insurance. I'm not saying it's better, but I would at least consider the pros and cons of it.
So what I'm hearing from you is, you would only want poor people to have to pay for the public health insurance, and people who can afford it should be able to opt out of supporting the public health care system and go entirely with a third party source. Of course you realize that the system would go broke if that were the case.
You do realize that even if you don't use the health care system, that you personally benefit from everyone being covered, right? You want that benefit without paying for it? So, OK, you can do this by moving to the U.S. Why are you complaining, again? Isn't it nice to have a choice of the two alternatives?
That, sir, makes you a petty thief at best, and a would-be murderer at worst. I, for one, support the notion of treating murderers in kind, and killing them.
Whoa, so society should kill me? That's an interesting one. Perhaps you might try seeking some therapy there, boyo.
it is hell coming back to a country that is effectively run by petty (and not so petty) criminals
Oh, please! Spare me the drama.
I say this from the perpective of someone unfortunate enough to have been born north of the Canada/U.S. border
Well, let me say from the perspective of someone fortunate enough to have been born in Canada, that you are so full of sh!t, you're a blond turned brunette.
It's still horrible here.
Ok, Dude... do a reality check and compare the U.S. and Canada. Canada could do better, but still does better than the U.S. in almost every area, except perhaps purchasing power (which is obviously your primary focus).
Slashdot Mirror
Let's hear it for Midnight Sun from Waterloo! From their site:
The Team is currently sitting in first place with two meadia[sic] stops behind them. The car has peformed exceptionally well as the team moved from sixth to first during the first day.
Excellent work guys, and good luck to all the teams!
Don't you just love this way of doing business? "We'll set you a client for $50, but we won't tell you how much we charge for server access until after you've bought and installed it."
To be fair, I believe this was because the final box art was approved months ago, and the actual price per month wasn't set until a couple weeks ago. They at least are honest about there being a monthly fee. They don't hide the information, so if someone wants to find out before purchasing, they certainly can. Just because you picked it up off the shelf doesn't mean you can't just put it back down until you're sure you want to buy it.
Plus, it comes with one month free so you never have to actually pay for the subscription if you don't like it. You could then try to sell your copy on E-Bay, and you're only out $20 or so.
Robot vaccuums are pointless. Electrolux spent 10 years developing a product that was poorly conceived of from the start. Any engineer worth his/her salt would realize that the correct solution would be a new floor material with all the good properties of carpet that was self-cleaning!
Don't design a better/faster iron - design wrinkle-proof fabrics!
Don't try to grow more food to feed the world - replace the human stomach with a fuel cell and nobody will need to eat again!
Who decides what qualifies as "criticism?"
How about common sense? I would expect most points of disagreement would be resolved between the two parties, but ultimately, the courts could decide what qualifies as criticism.
This should definitely be considered in the U.S., especially with the way media conglomerates are starting to conglomerate. If it gets to the point where over 50% of what people watch comes from one huge company, they could conceivably have the ability to completely bad mouth politicians they see as "enemies", and the trusting public would be none the wiser. At least a law like this means that the criticised party is guaranteed airtime to rebut the argument in the same forum that they were attacked in. Sounds like a good idea to me.
It also follows the basic principle that the government exists to protect an individual's security. The media CAN do significant harm to a person by publishing false or questionable information. A law like this helps protect an individual from harm.
Anyway, I do not think that BASIC is a good learning language. BASIC encourages bad programming practices.
While I'm sure Dijkstra would agree with you, I have to say I think this is a myth. I don't think that "bad programming practices" are habits that are difficult to change. I find that usually, as soon as someone is shown a "better" way to do something, they will immediately start using that programming practice and forget all about the way they used to do it.
I don't think you can throw a 10 or 12 year old kid directly into advanced software methodologies before they play around a bit with some really simple programs to get their appetite wet. Some kid who wants to write a program that you can "talk" to in English prose (who hasn't wanted to try that when they were young?) is going to be far too intimidated if they have to learn OO first. Here's what they're going to try in the first 5 minutes:
Answer$ = input("What is your name")
Print "It's nice to meet you," + Answer$
RUN
Then they'll add a few more lines, and a few more, and at least they're getting interested. If you're worried about them becoming too dependent on the "build and fix" software development model, then I think you've forgotten the original excitement you felt when you started hacking on a computer.
At this point, I'm think it's easier to simply say "sorry, we don't sell to Europe" than it is to try to figure out "please add 20% for EU shipments."
You think? In case nobody has noticed yet, the U.S. and the EU have been gearing up for a major trade war, and this is just the latest step. This is essentially the EU trying to stop its' citizens from buying U.S. products.
The last big thing was the war with Iraq. Before the war, a significant amount of Iraqi oil was purchased with Euros, and that meant the oil money was probably spent purchasing European products. After the war, the U.S. has control of the oil in Iraq, and most of the oil will be bought with U.S. dollars, meaning more Iraqi GDP will be spent in the U.S. instead of the EU. I'm not saying that was the ONLY reason for the war, but it was an interesting side effect.
Just don't expect economic relations to be too cozy between the U.S. and the EU anytime soon.
According to whitehouse.gov in 2002, national defense was 3.4% of the GDP
Hmmm, that would mean the U.S. spends about 34% of its' federal budget on defence, then. That's a lot.
Excellent points. The Worldwatch Institute a few years ago estimated it would cost $US196.3 billion to meet urgent environmental and social needs worldwide. The USA spent a similar amount on its war in Iraq. If that money had been spent in the method recommended by Worldwatch, the world's (not just Iraq's or the Arab world's) population would be much better off and hence would be much less likely to retaliate against US interests.
That won't happen ever because if the money is spent on the military, the politicians who decided to spend that money get kickbacks and campaign contributions. The politicians won't get nearly the same return from spending the money on social assistance and foreign aid.
Only 1% of the U.S.'s federal budget is spent on foreign aid, and a lot of that is military aid (particularly to Israel). What percentage does the federal government spend on defence?
Some countries spend up to 10% of their federal budgets on foreign aid. Among western countries, the U.S. is dead last, or very near it.
However, I don't think the U.S. should be obligated to spend more to help others. But I do think the U.S. should stop interfering in the politics of other nations. There are too many cases of the U.S. supporting friendly (to the U.S.) dictators because if they let that country revolt, they might democratically choose a leader that was not friendly to the U.S. This is something that the U.S. needs to quit doing, because it's creating hatred among the people of other countries. Case in point: Saudi Arabia.
No, pointing it would often be enough: if you're (say) advancing towards your target with a baseball bat, and when you're 10' away she whips out a gun - are you really going to keep coming?
Sure. Women won't pull the trigger, or rather, it would be very rare. I'd play the odds. I can cover 3 metres and turn her skull into mush before she can muster the courage to pull the trigger. After all, if I'm the one advancing on her with a baseball bad, then she's the one with a conscience, not me.
Trust me, women relate to others more easily, therefore women have a harder time defending themselves than men do. There is a valid reason behind the stereotypical woman frozen with fear and screaming in a horror movie. Sorry, but the truth hurts. A woman will probably not act until it's too late. Giving her a gun won't help. Besides, how long do you think it would take her to find that little gun in her purse? Let's be realistic here: many women are attacked every day, and many of them carry mace, pepperspray, or even guns, and they don't stand a chance. Many have black belts in martial arts, and that barely helps them.
Why not just live in a place where violence is 3 to 5 (or even 10) times lower? I guess that wouldn't occur to you. Why not try to actually REDUCE violence where you live?
and no "American Idol".
Unfortunately, we're about to have Canadian Idol. It depresses me so...
I did the math, and figured that I would make quite a bit more money living and working in canada, even with your higher tax rates. it's not about the tax, it's about what I get for my taxes- universal health care, low cost provincial auto insurance, etc.
It's very difficult to "do the math" because you have to take purchasing power into effect. Even though a U.S. dollar will buy $1.37 CND right now, it only costs about $1.25 CND to buy in Canada what would have cost $1 USD to buy in the U.S.
You also have to make the decision whether or not the universal health care is all you will ever want to have. It's excellent, but you can't choose to buy "better" coverage, unless you want to go to the U.S. and spend a fortune. I don't know any Americans who actually take advantage of this extra freedom of choice, but many feel they would rather have the freedom to buy better health care even though they can't afford it.
As for low cost provincial auto insurance, that depends on what province you live in.
Best of luck to you when the federal government is building the "character" portion of their terrorism/communism/whateverism case against you.
Which federal government would that be? The Canadian government has better things to do with my money than track my porn buying habits. If you're afraid of your government, maybe you're living in the wrong country.
Speaking of, do you have any good info on how they work? Some tech docs or something?
Here's a good primer, if you can read a PDF.
In general, go to RFID.org for some good introductory stuff, and they have links to other resources.
RFID tags are cool, and they're definitely the future, though I understand why some people are worried, and we do have to deal with those issues. We got our dog from the humane society, and she was RFID'd with a chip that they can use to identify her if she ever gets lost. It's implanted under her skin, and it's only about the size of a grain of rice. There's no reason why it couldn't be implanted into human flesh.
Wonderful. Now how am I supposed to buy porn? Can't use credit card, it gets tracked. Can't use cash, it gets tracked. And with the price of porn these days, who's strong enough to haul around that much change?
Why are you buying something that you're ashamed to admit you buy?
I guess it's just me, but I have no problem going into an Adults Only Video and renting a porn in broad daylight, or buying a porno mag off the magazine rack at my local store. I also have no problem walking into a drug store to buy condoms, pregnancy tests, etc. If the clerk gives me a strange look, I just wink at her.
Don't get me wrong, I don't parade it around the store for all the little kids to see, but I'm certainly not ashamed to buy it.
Having travelled various parts of Europe, I also don't think most Europeans would be that worried about being "tracked" buying porn either. They're a lot more open with the idea of sexuality over there.
Now people in the EU will know who to sue when they get testicular cancer from all the Euros in their front pockets.
RFID chips are passive devices that respond when a reader transmits a certain RF code. The RFID chip uses the energy from the "ether" to respond. If anything, an RFID will absorb a small amount of radiation and convert it to heat, not the other way around.
You'll probably get cancer from having a cell phone strapped to your waist long before you get it from an RFID chip.
What this means is that for me - if a client asks me to program in VB, Java, etc. my answer is that I will NOT take on the job.
That's funny. Please tell these customers of yours to contact me, and I'll use whatever language they want.
In my 4 year career, I've used C, C++, Java, VB, ASP (VBScript and JavaScript), Perl, PHP, SQL, Basic, Assembly, Citect, Ladder Logic, and Flow charting (Steeplechase). Not to mention a couple other "proprietary" vendor specific languages that I can't even remember the names of.
Having done all that, let me tell you, I can write ANY task in ANY language, and I can do it modularly, with logical and meaningful data structures (or structured tag names, if user defined types are not included in the language), and maintainable (if that's a word). I can do this because my university education taught me the theory I needed to abstract every problem into concepts that could easily be implemented in any language.
The best language to teach in is whatever best suits the material of the course. For data structures, use C, for object oriented, use Modula, C++, or Java. For operating systems, use C or assembly. For automation, use ladder logic or flowcharts.
Trust me, when your customer asks you to provide a windows based user interface to display a flashing light indicating the status of your equipment, and you choose to write this in Visual C++ instead of Visual Basic, you're wasting your time. Choose whatever gets the job done fastest.
I'm just saying, don't be a one trick pony. The person who got a hammer for Christmas will see every problem as a nail.
So, basicly, because some guy pulled a magic trick on you, the anyone who disagrees with you is insane? Interesting logic.
Oh, come on! You're not seriously that dense, are you? Are you one of those guys who has to have everything explained to them? You completely missed the point of my post. When you get a little older, maybe you'll understand.
What we need IMO is an NRA equivalent to represent the interests of computer users, of people who are interested in fair-use issues, reasonable intellectual property laws and accountability of elected representatives.
I would like to like to thank you for my mental picture of Wil Wheaton holding a laptop over his head, screaming at the top of his lungs, "FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS!" I'll be grinning the rest of the day. LOL
The problem you have to face is that the evidence is all historical, and while history can use the implements and techniques of science, the data itself is not scientific. After all, you cannot very well repeat the experiment now can you?
Well, I know a guy named Steve. I, and 50 other people, once saw Steve take an ordinary ball point pen and stick it right through the center of his hand and pull it out the other side, and afterwards, there was no damage to his hand. Steve told me that he's actually half descended from an alien race known as the Pikars, who have discovered the true origin of the universe, and he knows what it is. He told me that Jesus was a real guy, but he was full of sh!t.
I find Steve's argument has no less merit than yours, since it's all based on rumor.
The reason you choose Jesus' story over Steve's is that you WANT Jesus to give you the easy way out, and if you suspend your disbelief long enough, you can make yourself believe the bible's tall tale.
I consider myself a Crea-Evolutionist. A little bit of "Creation" at the start, a lot of "Evolution" after. Big Bang had to happen for some reason...
Blasphemy! Read yer Bible!
Seriously, though, modern science only says that no "higher being" meddles with the universe after the big bang. It says nothing about the universe BEFORE than point in time (if there was any before...) Science does not preclude the existence of God, but it does try to explain what happens without any Gods' interference in the universe.
As Jesus said long ago, ...
I've yet to figure out why something that Jesus said long ago proves anything. Is it because it was said a long time ago that it becomes a fact? Is it because you've already accepted as an axiom that Jesus is the son of God that you take it as a fact? You would have to prove the axiom before I would even consider your argument. As it stands, there are a lot of Jews somewhere out there who would disagree with that assertation.
Proof comes after belief, not before.
I believe that you are insane, and now I have the proof of it.
Seriously, is life so horrific for you that you must ignore all basic logic to wrap yourself in the comfort of a lie?
I've got news for you. A lot of people look at the religious problem like this: if there is a heaven and hell, I want to be on the right side, so I'll do what religion "x" tells me. But guess what... it's quite possible that what your religion is telling you to do is leading you straight to hell! After all, none of you need any proof - you're accepting it all on faith. What if there is a Satan and he really is more charismatic than God? Wouldn't that imply the God you're following could be Satan? How do you know? Thinking something true doesn't make it true. You really could be following the dark one into the midst of eternal hellfire.
Until I see credible evidence one way or the other, I'm just going to stay agnostic. The way I see it, either I go to hell, I go to heaven, or I cease to exist when I'm dead. Given a teaspoon of logic, I'm betting on door number 3. I'll takes my chances.
Being "born into" a society does not make one indebted to it without consent any more than a woman owes her date sex just because he bought her dinner.
I agree with that, which is why I propose this: nobody should be a citizen until age 18. At that age, each person is given a choice... either take the oath and become a citizen with all the priviledges and responsibilities, or we'll give you a one way ticket anywhere in the world. Then people would realize that it is a choice.
Back to health care: why, if I fund the public system, but do not wish to use it, do I not have that choice? Who does it harm?
You can't just choose not to take part in certain social services, but take part in others. The deal with the social contract is that you accept all of it, or none of it. You don't get a sheet of paper with checkboxes on it when you become a citizen. If you want the benefit of living in Canada, you have to pay your taxes. Those taxes support a public health care system, which is part of what makes Canada a great place to live. Even if you didn't use the system, you get a benefit from the Canadian health care system, because it does a better job of maintaining public health than the U.S. system, and public health is good for everyone. If you don't contribute to the system, then you're freeloading off of the other taxpayers, who are taking care of the poor people without you helping.
I pick on health care because it is the one issue
Previously, you said:
Having lived and worked, legally, in the U.S. for five years, it is hell coming back to a country that is effectively run by petty (and not so petty) criminals.
Sounds to me like you just don't like Canadians. Canada's a democracy, and the majority of Canadians like our health care system. A democracy means that the will of the majority is imposed on the minority. The only way you can fight that is to change people's views. Trust me, I've been listening, and you've made some good points, but you haven't even come close to convincing me that I'm better off with U.S. style health care. I work in the U.S. and live in Canada, and I deal with both systems. Anecdotal evidence is irrelevant, but I've got enough personal experience to convince me that the Canadian system is far better.
Plus, while I used to be a big fan of Dr. Narveson's simplistic views, and I think capitalism is a powerful tool for harnessing human energy, if we followed those lines of logic too far, we'd end up without roads, telecommunications, and education, and I'm not willing to live without those modern conveniences.
Oh, and I'm not a socialist, like you claim. If the NDP ever made it to power, I'd consider moving. I currently don't swing too far in any political direction, and I think most Canadians are that way too. That's why the liberals are so appealing right now, because in Canada, they have positioned themselves at the political middle, but ever so slightly left. However, I would certainly vote conservative (or libertarian) if the right candidate came along, and their ideas were realistic within the global perspective.
I'm sorry to see you've given up on Canada after how far we've come. I've decided to stick it out, and try to make Canada a better place for all of us.
In fact, I do not agree that people have these rights. A right one has, is an obligation that another must fulfil.
Ooops, you are correct. I misused the term "right" in my above statement. Let me rephrase:
The fact is, capitalism works great if we are all brought into the world as healthy, law abiding, and fully educated adults. This is not the case. If you agree that every person should be offered an education paid for by society because they are a burden to society without one, then you must agree that government funded education makes sense.
In Canada, particularly, social services benefit those who administer them far more than the society they are supposed to improve: this creates an incentive to keep the system as inefficient as possible, and thus grow the bureaucracy around it even more.
This claim makes sense until you realize one very important fact about Canadian health care: those who administer health care in Canada must use that very health care system. So must their wives and children. They can't even go to the U.S. for treatment, because the newspapers would be all over it. The fact is, money spent on health care administration in Canada is one third of the amount, per capita, in the U.S. Canadian health care administration is much more lean than its U.S. counterpart.
Now, the administrative costs of, for example, U.S. healthcare, are astronimical, what with the different physician networks, insurers, secondary service providers, etc.: everyone administers things a different way, so if you need surgery, you have to make sure the (a) hospital, (b) labs, (c) primary surgeon, (d) assisting surgeon, (e) anastheseologist, etc. are all "in network" -- often this is not the case and one has to read the fine print on one's health insurance policy. That IS maddening and inefficient.
Ok, I would claim, then, that in the U.S., the reason HMO's are so inefficient and frustrating is precisely because the people who administrate HMO's probably have healthcare plans outside of their own HMO!
What you endorse adds an element of force to coerce those who do not wish to go along.
Wow, that's right out of a Jan Narveson class I took!
Ok, then to truly "opt out" as you suggest, we are talking about returning to a "state of nature", or as it is more commonly referred to, anarchy. Now, you may be an advocate of anarchy, but the thing is, you were born into a social contract, which I realize you are now trying to get out of. I agree that you should have the right to leave that contract, but how is it done?
The social-contract-that-is-Canada controls all Canadian land. It belongs to the country, not to individuals (you only own title, not actual land, whether in Canada or the U.S.), so you would be forced to leave the country. Where would you go on Earth that you wouldn't have to join another similar social contract to reside on their land? The U.S. is clearly no different than Canada in this regard, so you're thinking Afghanistan?
Actually, here are your choices:
1) Become a bum. Homeless people don't pay property or income taxes, and can't receive health care in Ontario because you need a fixed address (AFAIK). You would still be allowed to vote, but you don't have to. You would be free to wander the vast wilderness of Canada, offering your services for cash, and buying only what you need or want. To avoid sales tax, you'd have to do mostly personal (under the table) purchases, but the government won't know, and they really don't care because you're small potatos. Large vendors like Wal-mart have agreed to the social contract, so they will charge you sales tax. Sorry. However, you can't own land if you're a bum, so see #2.
2) Go to a part of Canada that nobody lives on (there's lots), build a fence and declare yoursel
Such is the reasoning of a corrupt criminal mind and, I find, pervasive among Canadians, or at least promulgated by the representatives they elect.
I find that this rhetoric you keep spewing undermines the point you are trying to make. It may dazzle the people down south, but I think you'll find that most Canadians would see it for what it is: an attempt to deter a rational argument against you by implying that anyone who disagrees with your ideas falls into the category of "criminal". However, I will attempt to dissect the rational part of your argument...
Let me be clear: I am willing to fund the public system as well as personal insurance, and not use the public one, to avoid a tax tie if I leave Canada.
I was not aware of the tax-tie situation, and I must admit that I'm not 100% clear on how it works. However, if you're right, then I would agree that it's a needlessly restrictive policy, and should be fixed.
The counter argument is that it is "unfair" for some to be able to afford "better" health care than others, and perhaps you intend to raise this objection. I reject this: if it is accepted that I earned my money via legal means, I should be able to spend it as I wish.
The problem is that health care seems to lie on the edge of what some people say should be covered by social programs, and others say should be privately funded.
The fact is, capitalism works great if we are all brought into the world as healthy, law abiding, and fully educated adults. This is not the case. If you agree that every person has the right to an education because they are a burden to society without one, then you must agree that government funded education makes sense. If you agree that sick people are a burden to society (because they can't work, require care, etc.), then you might think that government funded health care makes sense too. You can't expect a person to be born into this world and immediately be given the responsibility to educate and care for themselves when they are sick. We also shouldn't punish a child if their parents are unable to provide these services. That's why the system exists the way it does.
I would be willing to consider a health care system that only supported people until they were 18, or 21, or something, and after that, they had to buy their own health insurance. I'm not saying it's better, but I would at least consider the pros and cons of it.
But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
So what I'm hearing from you is, you would only want poor people to have to pay for the public health insurance, and people who can afford it should be able to opt out of supporting the public health care system and go entirely with a third party source. Of course you realize that the system would go broke if that were the case.
You do realize that even if you don't use the health care system, that you personally benefit from everyone being covered, right? You want that benefit without paying for it? So, OK, you can do this by moving to the U.S. Why are you complaining, again? Isn't it nice to have a choice of the two alternatives?
That, sir, makes you a petty thief at best, and a would-be murderer at worst. I, for one, support the notion of treating murderers in kind, and killing them.
Whoa, so society should kill me? That's an interesting one. Perhaps you might try seeking some therapy there, boyo.
it is hell coming back to a country that is effectively run by petty (and not so petty) criminals
Oh, please! Spare me the drama.
I say this from the perpective of someone unfortunate enough to have been born north of the Canada/U.S. border
Well, let me say from the perspective of someone fortunate enough to have been born in Canada, that you are so full of sh!t, you're a blond turned brunette.
It's still horrible here.
Ok, Dude... do a reality check and compare the U.S. and Canada. Canada could do better, but still does better than the U.S. in almost every area, except perhaps purchasing power (which is obviously your primary focus).