You misread your graph there, buddy, They say 10 billion by 2050, not 2010. And that doesn't take in to account the trend of developed countries to have lower birth rates, so if some countries start to develop, their birth rates will fall, as well.
As for your "only solution," I find that world wars tend to have a real good impact as a means of population control.
Only in the developed world. In areas like South America, you're constantly needing more foraging ground, which includes slashing forests for pasturage.
Um... I don't think I've ever seen anyone agree the takedown system is a good thing. ISPs don't bother to check if they're for real, and neither do sites like YouTube check for fair use/dealing, or anything else. A DMCA takedown order is a blank cheque to fucking up anyone, because once it's taken down, it's damned near impossible to get it put back up.
Keep in mind, if an election was forced, whoever was seen to have forced it would be completely destroyed. Polls show that something on the order of 70% of Canadians are against another election any time soon.
Also Albertan, and yes, I think Stelmach was a bad choice. He's basically treading water. He's almost acting like a placeholder. Someone just to kill time between the dynasties of "King Ralph" and whoever comes next, and he's afraid to do anything that'll make their job difficult. Harper, eh, he's doing a fine enough job. Nothing I really disagree with, nothing I'm wildly enthusiastic about (other than the lower GST, that was nice).
Keep in mind, "left-leaning" is also a relative term. From what I can tell, our Conservatives are about as left as Obama, and maybe a bit further. Now that the Reform party's gone, there furthest-right party is arguably as left as the "Leftist" President.
After all, once a newspaper commits to print, it can't effectively be changed. It was said and published, for better or for worse, whatever it was it will always be.
Yep, after all, "Dewey Defeats Truman" will always be!
And hey, not like there's ever been forgeries of ancient documents. Got access to a printing press? Whip up your own version of history, and leave it some place safe to age, and hundreds of years from now, you'll mindfuck some archaeologists!
what they're really doing is sending the message "we have an overabundance of resources and personnel which is why we can afford to worry about these things -- please reduce our size and power immediately."
Holy shit. You're right. I've never thought of it that way. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
No.. Technologies are not value neutral. You can brush your teeth with a pistol, and you can kill someone with a toothbrush, but each is clearly better suited to the other task.
I think the very fact that one can use either for both shows it is user intent that gives the values to the tech. There isn't a technology without a constructive and destructive use. Even nuclear power can be used in reactors or in bombs.
Creation isn't a "theory." To be a theory, it has to make predictions. Evolution does make predictions. And cross-species hasn't been observed because it takes thousands+ of years, which is why we use the fossil record.
What's more, techincally, scientists admit a theory can never empirically be proven 100%, only disproven. A proper experiment is geared towards saying "if this is true, then this should happen. But if it isn't, then this should." Then they look at the results to see if the "isn't" results happened.
Creation theory, however, cannot be proven or disproven, because it's based on "belief." You can't prove belief, or it stops being belief.
Since there's no "religion" class in school, where do you propose creationism is taught in school? Because it fails the most basic scientific theory test-it fails to make any predictions about the future. It has one concept with no application to anything. Evolution at least not only explains where we came from, but what happens under certain circumstances, and why things like "superbugs" (bacterial infections that are resistant to antibiotics) arise. Thus, while there is evidence to support evolution, and none present to refute it, there is not only none to support creationism, by its very proponents, there cannot be. After all, once you prove it, you don't need faith, because you have evidence of God. Evidence of God goes completely against religion.
Talk to anyone 30 years of age, or so, and the NEP is still a fucking HUGE deal in Alberta. It's the #1 reason that people here refuse to vote Liberal. They remember how they were viciously fucked over. Alberta's economy now is only a fluke, because the NEP damned near killed the province. Dismissing something that's recent enough to be in the memories of a significant amount of the voting public is the height of denial. The Liberals have done absolutely nothing to distance themselves from that incident, and the PM who instituted it is often considered "one of the greatest Liberal PMs ever."
Any Canadian referred to as American is usually damned quick with a correction. You'll notice basically no one refers to themselves by what *continent* they live on. Only when you're talking about the Other do you generalize in such a fashion. "He is European. She is Asian. They are African." By labelling himself American, he's just about shot his chances of being PM in the face, because it's a constant worry about how much US-ian Ass our government kisses, and most Canadians would rather not be "the 51st state."
So basically, they're getting a random sample of their user base to beta test updates in the wild for them. I hope there's some kind of warning about this while using it.
Slashdot Mirror
You probably wondered why your cat died on that vegan diet, too, didn't you?
You misread your graph there, buddy, They say 10 billion by 2050, not 2010. And that doesn't take in to account the trend of developed countries to have lower birth rates, so if some countries start to develop, their birth rates will fall, as well.
As for your "only solution," I find that world wars tend to have a real good impact as a means of population control.
Only in the developed world. In areas like South America, you're constantly needing more foraging ground, which includes slashing forests for pasturage.
Um... I don't think I've ever seen anyone agree the takedown system is a good thing. ISPs don't bother to check if they're for real, and neither do sites like YouTube check for fair use/dealing, or anything else. A DMCA takedown order is a blank cheque to fucking up anyone, because once it's taken down, it's damned near impossible to get it put back up.
Keep in mind, if an election was forced, whoever was seen to have forced it would be completely destroyed. Polls show that something on the order of 70% of Canadians are against another election any time soon.
Also Albertan, and yes, I think Stelmach was a bad choice. He's basically treading water. He's almost acting like a placeholder. Someone just to kill time between the dynasties of "King Ralph" and whoever comes next, and he's afraid to do anything that'll make their job difficult. Harper, eh, he's doing a fine enough job. Nothing I really disagree with, nothing I'm wildly enthusiastic about (other than the lower GST, that was nice).
Keep in mind, "left-leaning" is also a relative term. From what I can tell, our Conservatives are about as left as Obama, and maybe a bit further. Now that the Reform party's gone, there furthest-right party is arguably as left as the "Leftist" President.
After all, once a newspaper commits to print, it can't effectively be changed. It was said and published, for better or for worse, whatever it was it will always be.
Yep, after all, "Dewey Defeats Truman" will always be!
And hey, not like there's ever been forgeries of ancient documents. Got access to a printing press? Whip up your own version of history, and leave it some place safe to age, and hundreds of years from now, you'll mindfuck some archaeologists!
what they're really doing is sending the message "we have an overabundance of resources and personnel which is why we can afford to worry about these things -- please reduce our size and power immediately."
Holy shit. You're right. I've never thought of it that way. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
I dunno. Lining up works. After all, there's likely a large number of people who'd say that. You'd hardly want them all running amok.
Yoeu're reight, juest onee 'e'e ande thee whoele tehing chaenges.
I stand by my online comments too. Which is why I want you to think long and hard about this: That's the stupidest idea this century.
No.. Technologies are not value neutral. You can brush your teeth with a pistol, and you can kill someone with a toothbrush, but each is clearly better suited to the other task.
I think the very fact that one can use either for both shows it is user intent that gives the values to the tech. There isn't a technology without a constructive and destructive use. Even nuclear power can be used in reactors or in bombs.
No, it's the same Liberals who tried to introduce that legislation in the first place in 2005.
Creation isn't a "theory." To be a theory, it has to make predictions. Evolution does make predictions. And cross-species hasn't been observed because it takes thousands+ of years, which is why we use the fossil record.
http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=discovered+missing+links&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 for some missing links found to support.
What's more, techincally, scientists admit a theory can never empirically be proven 100%, only disproven. A proper experiment is geared towards saying "if this is true, then this should happen. But if it isn't, then this should." Then they look at the results to see if the "isn't" results happened.
Creation theory, however, cannot be proven or disproven, because it's based on "belief." You can't prove belief, or it stops being belief.
That's because, after they find it, it's not MISSING.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/may/19/ida-fossil-missing-link
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/10/071002-dinosaur-fossil.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7150627.stm
All from the first page of a google search for "discovered missing links."
Since there's no "religion" class in school, where do you propose creationism is taught in school? Because it fails the most basic scientific theory test-it fails to make any predictions about the future. It has one concept with no application to anything. Evolution at least not only explains where we came from, but what happens under certain circumstances, and why things like "superbugs" (bacterial infections that are resistant to antibiotics) arise. Thus, while there is evidence to support evolution, and none present to refute it, there is not only none to support creationism, by its very proponents, there cannot be. After all, once you prove it, you don't need faith, because you have evidence of God. Evidence of God goes completely against religion.
Talk to anyone 30 years of age, or so, and the NEP is still a fucking HUGE deal in Alberta. It's the #1 reason that people here refuse to vote Liberal. They remember how they were viciously fucked over. Alberta's economy now is only a fluke, because the NEP damned near killed the province. Dismissing something that's recent enough to be in the memories of a significant amount of the voting public is the height of denial. The Liberals have done absolutely nothing to distance themselves from that incident, and the PM who instituted it is often considered "one of the greatest Liberal PMs ever."
Any Canadian referred to as American is usually damned quick with a correction. You'll notice basically no one refers to themselves by what *continent* they live on. Only when you're talking about the Other do you generalize in such a fashion. "He is European. She is Asian. They are African." By labelling himself American, he's just about shot his chances of being PM in the face, because it's a constant worry about how much US-ian Ass our government kisses, and most Canadians would rather not be "the 51st state."
So basically, they're getting a random sample of their user base to beta test updates in the wild for them. I hope there's some kind of warning about this while using it.
As it says in my sig, I'm Canadian, so I neither drink tea nor use Fahrenheit. I do believe I've now learned something about teas.
Except the guy with the CDs in his trunk is actually making profit. Shouldn't they be going after the ones making money, first?
Except they're not punitive, they're statutory. that might be enough for the courts to shrug and say "Not our business, talk to the legislators."
If the artists themselves did a tacit protest of the entity "protecting their interests," I think that would help.
Until I can download a song at CD quality, and use it on any device, in any format I choose. That is how long the horse shall be beaten.