As a Canadian who has watched the current minority Government exploit the Opposition's weaknesses to an extent that no one thought possible, I feel a Minority Government can work. However, they don't work as well as a Majority. In order to keep the Commons honest, I would rather see the electoral reform be directed to the Upper House (Senate). An EEE senate would do this:
Elected - not appointed
Equal - meaning each Province would get the same number regardless of population.
Effective, right now they have shown that they can delay legislation, but not stop it.
If we could take the Parties out of it even better.
Sadly, this will most likely never happen, as several Provinces would feel they would be disadvantaged by such a system.
I second this. I worked within the Aviation Community several years ago. We were replacing non-rugged laptops almost every 3 or 4 months, we then went to the Panasonic CF27 series, and they were only replaced 5 years later with the next generation of Toughbooks. Saved us an incredible amount of money, even though they were $8000 each (CDN)
I'm in the same boat. I called, waited for 40 minutes, then was berated by a Rogers Service Desk Employee for not having a Windows XP machine. I have Win 7 running on a desktop and netbook, and Linux on another desktop. After haranguing me for a few minutes he sent me an email with download instructions for a file that need to be put on the SD card. I booted up and voila, 1/2 hour later I was upgraded.
Of course I still had to wait the rest of the 24 hrs before I got my network services back. And when I did, imagine my surprise when the battery life was significantly shortened.
I have to charge it all night, and by 4pm the phone is shutdown for lack of power. GPS, Wifi, 3g all turned off. Near as I can figure, my weather app is draining the life out of it. Before the update, I could get 36 hours before worrying about the charge.
So, I guess I'm going to leave Android and go to something else. I just want my phone to work.
If you look at the official Canadian Government Site: "http://www.ec.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=FD9B0E51-1" really looks nothing like the parody sites. Any one with experience with Cdn Gov Websites would know that it does not reflect the Treasury Board's CLF2 (Common Look and Feel 2) Website directives.
These Parodies don't use any of the official insignia
I've been using Linux Mint for the past year. I'm hard pressed to say that I've had to go into the command line in the last 6 months. I last used it to get wifi running in my laptop. But then in the last couple of versions it's just worked.
In a delicious bit of irony, I use the CLI more often in windows, especially when I'm trouble shooting networking. Nothing beats ipconfig!!!
As far as Linux goes, if you choose your distro well, you won't be forced into the Command Line.
Because that is where their easiest chance of success is?
Patent Trolls are not defined where they sue, but as a business whose main source of income is enforcing patents that they bought up for that purpose:
Patent troll is a pejorative term used for a person or company that enforces its patents against one or more alleged infringers in a manner considered unduly aggressive or opportunistic, often with no intention to manufacture or market the patented invention.(Wikipedia)
I was only trying to comment on the motives of the two camps. One trying to disprove a problem, the other trying to prove it.
For the record I am not either anti-science or anti-evolutionary. I want the guy doing the study to be interested in the truth. Not a preconceived version of it.
You are correct, maybe. I should have said I'm looking for some Independent Scientists. One's who's motives are not determined by who is funding their research. Would you trust the Cigarette funded researchers to tell you that smoking is safe. Me either. By the same token, If someone is starting out with a pre-conceived notion that something is dangerous, and then is willing to fudge their data to prove their point?
Of course the problem is who to trust? In searching online, I found a couple of studies that claim Cell phones are dangerous. I found one that says "conclusively" that they are not, and a bunch that state there is no evidence either way.
In this day and age, "The sky is falling" receives more press. Does that mean it's right?
It seems that you need to be first with many things, such as warnings on consumer items. It's a race to keep your citizens safe, or is it? With this stuff, we seem to be living in a culture of fear. So it's a mad race for the politicians to be the first to react, so that they can claim to be the first, and of course that means their chances of re-election is that much better.
I looked at various articles on this subject yesterday, and their are indeed two camps, the first who say that there are no statistically significant studies on this subject, and the second who claim otherwise.
I am all for safety, but lets get real here. How long have cell phones been around? Not that long, In the past I've worked in the vicinity of high powered RADAR units. If I were to place paper clips on the cabinet where I used to sit for hours at a time, they would dance. I think the potential for cancer causing agents in our world is significant, but to be able to narrow it down will take a really well designed study.
Personally, I don't trust the motives of any of the current scientists. The industry wants to downplay any threat, and there is a growing group of folks who just see danger around every corner. If we listened to this second set we would end up back in the 1800s in terms of technology. If we listen exclusively to the first, well, then we may be in trouble.
There has to be some middle ground somewhere, where reasonable folks are just looking for the truth.
I'm not so sure.....the tone is pretty much one of indignation. If one was reading the comments, looking to be offended, and then she missed the cataracts point before posting. It makes sense. And this also being an AC, so who knows.
According to the wikipedia article, the main drawback deals with discharging Brackish water back into the ecosystem. If large amounts are produced, which seems to be the case it could change local salinity levels causing a change in the local aquatic life.
I guess the question here is: Is it worth it? And is this change significant enough to really worry about it. Everything we do on the Planet changes it. I can't believe all change is bad. The earth's ecosystem is in constant flux anyway. I guess it is a question for the slashdot philosophers.
sure, if they had a good Defence Secretary, and a willing President, and a Congress who were willing to play......Anything is possible, unless the item you want is out of production and happens to have long lead time critical components.
Lets face it, I don't even see a realistic opponent for the States right now, not in the US's domestic area anyways.
The trend towards more and more complex systems means that you can only afford fewer items. This really removes a lot of flexibility. Even if they could ramp up F22 production because of an external threat, it takes years to train the aircrew to operate it effectively. So, it does not matter if you can ramp up production if you can't ramp up production of the operators to match.
So I guess the short answer is: it doesn't matter.
Ahh, but platforms and weapons are getting so expensive that it really helps to have someone to share the development costs with.
If you can get the unit cost down, then you can buy more, and that will make a difference. You can have the best tank/ship/fighter in the world, but if you don't have enough of them, they really will not make much a difference in the end. (WWII)
Lets take a look at Australia. This website: http://www.ausairpower.net/ is pretty much devoted to the argument that F-35s will not be effective against the crop of Russian Imports that are appearing in their part of the world.
Australia will be flying F-35s after their A model '18s are replaced. I think it is safe to say that the latest Sukhoi product is at least a match to the earlier generation F-15 which was put into production in the 70s (First Flight 1972) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-15_Eagle)
Well, the US won't sell to just anybody. In fact even some of their closest allies can't even get the F22 (Israel/Australia), which may be the best Air Sup fighter in the world, but won't be avail in sufficient numbers to make a real difference.
Here's a case where the US may lose business to an ally because of politics.
This is why the French were so successful for so long, they didn't care who they sold to.
In fact with the restrictions that the US demands now, it becomes much easier to buy elsewhere, and there is great incentive to produce weapons/platforms capable of taking on the second tier US stuff which they are exporting.
I agree completely. Perhaps start with a 2 or 5 year suspension, but if they are caught driving while suspended, drunk or not the punishment should be escalated.
The problem here is we keep reading about serial drunk drivers. Drivers that have multiple convictions, for driving drunk, for driving without a valid license, for driving drunk without a valid license.
Driving is not a right. As far as I am concerned driving under the influence is pretty much the same as attempted murder. But it's a random murder.
I could even live with:
first offence=5 years
second offence=10 years
third offence=20 years
The other posters are quite correct, stiff sentences do not bring back our loved ones. But they keep the idiots who keep driving under the influence off of the roads and keep those who matter safer.
Within the commonwealth it IS legendary. As a member of the Canadian Air Force, I can assure you this action is well known, and considered most extraordinary.
-Flexibility is the key to Air Power. The key to flexibility? Indecision!
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, people tend to only arrive at this point of view when their favoured party loses.
Sir, You have found the critical point.
Bravo!
Elected - not appointed
Equal - meaning each Province would get the same number regardless of population.
Effective, right now they have shown that they can delay legislation, but not stop it.
If we could take the Parties out of it even better.
Sadly, this will most likely never happen, as several Provinces would feel they would be disadvantaged by such a system.
I second this. I worked within the Aviation Community several years ago. We were replacing non-rugged laptops almost every 3 or 4 months, we then went to the Panasonic CF27 series, and they were only replaced 5 years later with the next generation of Toughbooks. Saved us an incredible amount of money, even though they were $8000 each (CDN)
Of course I still had to wait the rest of the 24 hrs before I got my network services back. And when I did, imagine my surprise when the battery life was significantly shortened.
I have to charge it all night, and by 4pm the phone is shutdown for lack of power. GPS, Wifi, 3g all turned off. Near as I can figure, my weather app is draining the life out of it. Before the update, I could get 36 hours before worrying about the charge.
So, I guess I'm going to leave Android and go to something else. I just want my phone to work.
Not much to ask, eh?
If you look at the official Canadian Government Site: "http://www.ec.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=FD9B0E51-1" really looks nothing like the parody sites. Any one with experience with Cdn Gov Websites would know that it does not reflect the Treasury Board's CLF2 (Common Look and Feel 2) Website directives.
These Parodies don't use any of the official insignia
I suspect a hoax
In a delicious bit of irony, I use the CLI more often in windows, especially when I'm trouble shooting networking. Nothing beats ipconfig!!!
As far as Linux goes, if you choose your distro well, you won't be forced into the Command Line.
Because that is where their easiest chance of success is?
Patent Trolls are not defined where they sue, but as a business whose main source of income is enforcing patents that they bought up for that purpose:
Patent troll is a pejorative term used for a person or company that enforces its patents against one or more alleged infringers in a manner considered unduly aggressive or opportunistic, often with no intention to manufacture or market the patented invention.(Wikipedia)
I was only trying to comment on the motives of the two camps. One trying to disprove a problem, the other trying to prove it.
For the record I am not either anti-science or anti-evolutionary. I want the guy doing the study to be interested in the truth. Not a preconceived version of it.
-Brains, send more brain, I mean paramedics.
Of course the problem is who to trust? In searching online, I found a couple of studies that claim Cell phones are dangerous. I found one that says "conclusively" that they are not, and a bunch that state there is no evidence either way.
In this day and age, "The sky is falling" receives more press. Does that mean it's right?
I looked at various articles on this subject yesterday, and their are indeed two camps, the first who say that there are no statistically significant studies on this subject, and the second who claim otherwise.
I am all for safety, but lets get real here. How long have cell phones been around? Not that long, In the past I've worked in the vicinity of high powered RADAR units. If I were to place paper clips on the cabinet where I used to sit for hours at a time, they would dance. I think the potential for cancer causing agents in our world is significant, but to be able to narrow it down will take a really well designed study.
Personally, I don't trust the motives of any of the current scientists. The industry wants to downplay any threat, and there is a growing group of folks who just see danger around every corner. If we listened to this second set we would end up back in the 1800s in terms of technology. If we listen exclusively to the first, well, then we may be in trouble.
There has to be some middle ground somewhere, where reasonable folks are just looking for the truth.
I'm not so sure.....the tone is pretty much one of indignation. If one was reading the comments, looking to be offended, and then she missed the cataracts point before posting. It makes sense. And this also being an AC, so who knows.
How about Larry Niven's "Protector" which featured dueling Bussard Ramjets if memory serves?
But you still have a choice in the end. If you don't like the license, then don't use the code.
According to the wikipedia article, the main drawback deals with discharging Brackish water back into the ecosystem. If large amounts are produced, which seems to be the case it could change local salinity levels causing a change in the local aquatic life. I guess the question here is: Is it worth it? And is this change significant enough to really worry about it. Everything we do on the Planet changes it. I can't believe all change is bad. The earth's ecosystem is in constant flux anyway. I guess it is a question for the slashdot philosophers.
sure, if they had a good Defence Secretary, and a willing President, and a Congress who were willing to play......Anything is possible, unless the item you want is out of production and happens to have long lead time critical components.
Lets face it, I don't even see a realistic opponent for the States right now, not in the US's domestic area anyways.
The trend towards more and more complex systems means that you can only afford fewer items. This really removes a lot of flexibility. Even if they could ramp up F22 production because of an external threat, it takes years to train the aircrew to operate it effectively. So, it does not matter if you can ramp up production if you can't ramp up production of the operators to match.
So I guess the short answer is: it doesn't matter.
Ahh, but platforms and weapons are getting so expensive that it really helps to have someone to share the development costs with.
If you can get the unit cost down, then you can buy more, and that will make a difference. You can have the best tank/ship/fighter in the world, but if you don't have enough of them, they really will not make much a difference in the end. (WWII)
Lets take a look at Australia. This website: http://www.ausairpower.net/ is pretty much devoted to the argument that F-35s will not be effective against the crop of Russian Imports that are appearing in their part of the world.
Australia will be flying F-35s after their A model '18s are replaced. I think it is safe to say that the latest Sukhoi product is at least a match to the earlier generation F-15 which was put into production in the 70s (First Flight 1972) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-15_Eagle)
Well, the US won't sell to just anybody. In fact even some of their closest allies can't even get the F22 (Israel/Australia), which may be the best Air Sup fighter in the world, but won't be avail in sufficient numbers to make a real difference.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/US-State-Dept-Throws-A-Wrench-Into-Exports-Allied-Shipbuilding-05321/
Here's a case where the US may lose business to an ally because of politics.
This is why the French were so successful for so long, they didn't care who they sold to.
In fact with the restrictions that the US demands now, it becomes much easier to buy elsewhere, and there is great incentive to produce weapons/platforms capable of taking on the second tier US stuff which they are exporting.
I agree completely. Perhaps start with a 2 or 5 year suspension, but if they are caught driving while suspended, drunk or not the punishment should be escalated.
Nobody except Microsoft.
This was a company that was actually using their patent. I don't belive they fall into the "patent troll" definition.
Microsoft stole their idea, and then competed with them.
Lets face it, MS likes to play fast and free with the rules and this time they got caught.
Actually, we are now allowed to discount some bids, because they are not suitable. (not good enough!)
Canadian Treasury Board Rules
The problem here is we keep reading about serial drunk drivers. Drivers that have multiple convictions, for driving drunk, for driving without a valid license, for driving drunk without a valid license.
Driving is not a right. As far as I am concerned driving under the influence is pretty much the same as attempted murder. But it's a random murder.
I could even live with:
first offence=5 years
second offence=10 years
third offence=20 years
The other posters are quite correct, stiff sentences do not bring back our loved ones. But they keep the idiots who keep driving under the influence off of the roads and keep those who matter safer.
My 2 cents
Almost?
Within the commonwealth it IS legendary. As a member of the Canadian Air Force, I can assure you this action is well known, and considered most extraordinary.
-Flexibility is the key to Air Power. The key to flexibility? Indecision!
In my world, Britney Spears has never been featured on a Classic Rock Radio Station.
Dave