Our government (Supreme Master Overlord Harper) asked the GG because it was the "polite" thing to do. If the GG didn't go along with him then it would have been the crown preventing what ruling party had asked for, in which case there would have been a problem. The Crown will never go against what our government asks. They have the option, but the first time the exercise it will be the last time.
I'm not a conservative supporter, and have never voted for them at a federal level, but they are the ruling party voted in by the people of Canada.
Canada here. The Queen is really "in title" only here. She technically has some power to try and influence our government and we ask permission of the Governor General for somethings, but it's really only a tradition thing. If she interfered... well, we wouldn't like her very much anymore. At the moment we're on good speaking terms and she's an ok old bird. Skips a generation though, I don't think anyone likes Charles, but William gets the ok.
After reading your post I was wondering if you're correct, however a ten second Google for "subsidies for the oil industry" shows there's all kinds of material explaining how subsidies work and how much the oil industry is actually getting. I understand your need to ask the question though I find a lot of the time people start posting something then it just snowballs and becomes generally accepted. Although I have to say there's one particular side of politics this seems to be worse for, and it's not the side of the road they drive on in England.
Several implies more than three, so yes a minimum of 3,000 would fit in there, but I was implying it would take an arbitrarily long time. I don't exactly have the time or resources to work out to the second how much time it would take to terraform a planet. Kudos for making something out of nothing and still proving my point.
I see you're doing your part to contribute by hyperventilating...
This is exactly the reason we can't have nice things. I say, "hay, you know if we switched to solar or wind power we could save money in the long run and as a bonus it would be good for the environment" and I'm accused of hyperventilating. What was one of the first things I said in my post? Oh yeah:
We can't even get *one* generation of humans to agree to anything about climate on Earth without it degrading into a massive conspiracy name calling argument.
So thanks again for proving my point.
Let us not forget the third strategy for "climate change", adaptation.
You mean like switching to sustainable energy sources?
or perhaps cutting down on air pollution that's causing smog in large cities leading to increases in lung diseases like cancer and asthma?
or perhaps reducing the number of accidents while extracting and transporting dangerous toxic liquid (oil) that's lead to huge issues in fishing and agricultural industries?
How are things going down there in the Gulf of Mexico by the way?
Got that BP oil cleaned up yet?
We don't even need to bring climate change in to the argument to say it would be better for everyone to move away from fossil fuels. Yet even mentioning the thought brings people out of the wood work frothing at the mouth to start a "climate change" argument, as you've clearly proven.
I don't want to start a huge global warming debate, but the problem is you're talking huge expense and several hundred human generations before the desired effect would take place, and probably several hundred more generations before the planet could sustain any kind of life. We can't even get *one* generation of humans to agree to anything about climate on Earth without it degrading into a massive conspiracy name calling argument. Even if it means saving money in just twenty years by switching to renewable fuel sources like wind, solar and tidal power.
Reading comments on any CBC news story even remotely related to climate change has made me lose all hope for humanity. We're doomed whether we do something or not. Even if we did manage to reverse, or mitigate, climate change there's just too much stupid to believe we'd continue on as a species for much longer. I give it maybe two more generations before we forget how to breath and people start dying of asphyxiation syndrome.
Are you sure that's not just happening in your head? Because, unless you're talking about Big Bang Theory, I don't see Physicists making fools of themselves.
On the other hand, I always see and hear about MBA's who jump into a business, throw out buzz words like "streamline" and "synergy", whirl around like a tornado, weak havoc on business processes they don't understand and move on to the next project to give someone else a headache while leaving all the underlings to figure out where the cow ended up and how to get back to some sense of normal back into their work.
Except in the case of Office switching to 2007, it'd be more like being forced to switch from US English to Middle English. It's still English, just considerable different. Whereas switching to OpenOffice would have been more like switching from US English to UK English. Just learn to spell colour correctly and you're good.
BTW, I'm Canadian. Ever notice how the French is known as the language of love and not the language of engineering and science. It takes twice as much French to express half as much content because you're busy trying to indicate how you feel rather than what you know. That being said it's a nice language if you're trying to court a girl. Italian also works well, but stay away from German, that sh*t's scary.
Yes, I very much remember that argument. A few years ago we were evaluating Office 2007, my boss at the time thought we should switch us over to Open Office, but was shotdown with the "training is too expensive, it'll be easier to stay wtih office" argument. Not six months later we had an Office 2007 upgrade crammed down our throats and all hell broke loose, but it wasn't all bad. It was funny the managers that advocated staing with MS Office and wouldn't even entertain the idea of using something else were the ones that had the hardest time adjusting. It was pretty sweet to watch them sweat when they had to ask for help from the people they right out refused to hear out because the adjustment would have been too hard to make. We're on office 2010 now, but some of the same mangers *still* haven't figured out the ribbion interface. Karma is awesome.
Actually this is a good point. My wife works for an insurance company. People there are just expected to know how to use a computer and MS Office by extension. They never receive training and the results are half can barely turn their machines on, the other half spend all day running around doing everyone else's work. We seem to expect people need training with FLOSS products, but expect them to just know what they're doing with MS products.
It's shameful really, I've spent many an afternoon banging my head on my desk while trying to talk someone through the ribbon interface because they were just expected to know what to do when Office 2007 first came out.
I don't think a battery rupturing has a 100% chance of catching fire. I've seen a Lithium Ion laptop battery explode, because someone shot it, but not catch fire so l doubt it's a 100% chance of catching fire. Conversely every time I've seen a gas can shot there was fire after. Just my take, but it only takes one instance where something that happens 100% of the time didn't happen to prove it doesn't happen 100% of the time.
I have that argument with my wife all the time over dry ingredient (flour, baking soda, sugar, salt), once she claimed our dish detergent had gone bad, and yet she insist on keeping spinach in the plastic container in the fridge until it's just a puddle of green ooze and gets mad at me if I throw it away when it starts to turn.
Re:Dart2JS is faster than JS?! whatever
on
Dart 1.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
I think he was being facetious and the point was to show how poorly Bing actually works. That was my take on reading the returned results anyway.
Seems on awful lot like entrapment to me and could also give some people a defence, ie. "I thought she was one of those fake girls, I'd never think of asking a real child to do that!''
Well, thank you for starting such a hilarious chain of events. And thank you to @mark-t for sharing that brilliant thread. You each owe me a coffee because I have to wipe mine off my monitor now XD
Got you beat, 100% of the home schooled kids I know are completely normal well adjusted people with no wacky parents. I have a decent sampling, five from one family, three of which are attending university now, belong to the guy in the cubical next to me who insisted on home schooling because of the public school systems race to the bottom in terms of increasing class sizes combined with the no-one left behind mentality. He wanted to make sure his kids weren't getting pulled down because teachers in public school have to cater to the lowest common detonator. Which by the way is a huge issue because if you're stuck in a class with a bunch of morons, in most cases, you're stuck with them until you graduate high school, meaning they will always be pulling you and the rest of the class down.
I've also mentored thirteen students, four of which were home schooled, as part of the co-op program my company participates in with two separate universities. In all four cases I couldn't tell the students were home schooled until they, or I, specifically brought it up. In most cases they were much brighter and better adjusted socially then the other nine public school students I've mentored.
The first time I had a co-op student tell me they were home schooled I was shocked because they were such a polar opposite to what I had always thought a home schooled person to be. This is a case where a harmful stereotype is wrong and can have very negative implications to anyone willing to admit they were home schooled. Before mentoring in a co-op interview if someone mentioned they were home schooled I would have put a mental black mark on them and if it came down to them and someone equally qualified, I would have gone with the other candidate.
I suspect there are several reasons the stereotype is propagated the least of which is because the majority of the population attended public school and
a) doesn't want to admit they didn't receive top quality education making them not perfect so it's easy to spread the rumor about the guy you've never met who isn't as good as you and,
b) is ignorant of what is actually required to be allowed to home school your kids.
The program, at least where I live, is very rigorous, regulated and takes a lot of dedication and discipline on the part of the parents and involves groups of parents that get together with a common goal to educate their kids, rather than what is commonly believed where one set of parents isolates their kid in a dark room brain washing them with religious/political doctrine. The truth is the process heavily involves several families, and requires the participation of the parents as much as the students.
So you've met *one* person who was home schooled and they were an asshole. That's probably more because they were just an asshole to begin with. I attended 12 public schools in 13 years in England, Canada and the US, public school is filled with assholes and plenty more people who were/are poorly socialized, how many home school kids do you read about walking in to a school and shooting everyone they see, and yet we apply that label to home schooled people because you met *one* bad egg. How does that even make sense!?
I'd also be willing to bet you know many more home schooled people, but they wouldn't out right tell you they were because of the negative connotations that come along with being labeled "home schooled".
This sounds like something Leonard Hofstadter's family would do for Christmas. The sister's going to have a terrible "Why did you always have to out do me as kids!!?" Complex.
There is the added advantage that if everything is encrypted, and snoopers had to decrypt everything to find something of value, it would be a serious drain on their resources. On the flip side, if everything, except that which absolutely required encryption, was sent in and easily accessible format then encrypted messages are a big red flag that says "Look at me I'm important!!", which allows snoopers to be selective about where they spend their resources. But that's just my take on it.
As mentioned in a thread below, Sociology. They make stuff up, but if you disagree then you're going against what's considered politically correct and you're sexists, and/or racist. Climatology is based on real numbers of things that can be measured.
Like I said it's fine if you don't agree with it, but what ends up happening is people go on message boards and start screaming and making outrageous claims against the popular literature and data, but then have absolutely nothing to back them up other than "Fox news said so!!!"
So what do I believe the lying climatologists that have reproducible facts and figures supporting their claims, or some nobody screaming that I'm an idiot because I'm not outraged that there's evidence to support climate change is real?
Completely agree, I have a friend who's getting a doctor in Sociology with a concentration in women studies. Some of the crap she's made me read is ridiculous. She stopped talking to me for awhile after I said what she does isn't science. She can't even replicate an "experiment" from one group to another let alone across a generational, cultural, or geographic gap, and yet some of these "studies" are used to set employment policies that discriminate against majorities and created the "we don't care if you're qualified to do this if you don't help us meet our quota" environment.
Took 29 minutes to get from the story being posted to "CLIMATE SCIENTIST ARE LIREZ!!11!!1". You know there are a lot of other branches of science, many of which are far more subjective than climate science.
There's also plenty of data and models out there if you wanted to run your own experiments to confirm or disprove a particular paper or claim. I'd be very interested in reading your counter paper.
Slashdot Mirror
Our government (Supreme Master Overlord Harper) asked the GG because it was the "polite" thing to do. If the GG didn't go along with him then it would have been the crown preventing what ruling party had asked for, in which case there would have been a problem. The Crown will never go against what our government asks. They have the option, but the first time the exercise it will be the last time.
I'm not a conservative supporter, and have never voted for them at a federal level, but they are the ruling party voted in by the people of Canada.
Canada here. The Queen is really "in title" only here. She technically has some power to try and influence our government and we ask permission of the Governor General for somethings, but it's really only a tradition thing. If she interfered... well, we wouldn't like her very much anymore. At the moment we're on good speaking terms and she's an ok old bird. Skips a generation though, I don't think anyone likes Charles, but William gets the ok.
Someone mark the parent insightful. Undead don't make good Kings, they often end up eating all of their subjects and that's no way to run a kingdom.
After reading your post I was wondering if you're correct, however a ten second Google for "subsidies for the oil industry" shows there's all kinds of material explaining how subsidies work and how much the oil industry is actually getting. I understand your need to ask the question though I find a lot of the time people start posting something then it just snowballs and becomes generally accepted. Although I have to say there's one particular side of politics this seems to be worse for, and it's not the side of the road they drive on in England.
I like your argument better.
That's the new argument eh? "I litter so the guy that cleans it up will keep his job, not because I'm too lazy to use the trash can."
I see you're doing your part to contribute by hyperventilating...
This is exactly the reason we can't have nice things. I say, "hay, you know if we switched to solar or wind power we could save money in the long run and as a bonus it would be good for the environment" and I'm accused of hyperventilating. What was one of the first things I said in my post? Oh yeah:
We can't even get *one* generation of humans to agree to anything about climate on Earth without it degrading into a massive conspiracy name calling argument.
So thanks again for proving my point.
Let us not forget the third strategy for "climate change", adaptation.
You mean like switching to sustainable energy sources?
or perhaps cutting down on air pollution that's causing smog in large cities leading to increases in lung diseases like cancer and asthma?
or perhaps reducing the number of accidents while extracting and transporting dangerous toxic liquid (oil) that's lead to huge issues in fishing and agricultural industries?
How are things going down there in the Gulf of Mexico by the way?
Got that BP oil cleaned up yet?
We don't even need to bring climate change in to the argument to say it would be better for everyone to move away from fossil fuels. Yet even mentioning the thought brings people out of the wood work frothing at the mouth to start a "climate change" argument, as you've clearly proven.
I don't want to start a huge global warming debate, but the problem is you're talking huge expense and several hundred human generations before the desired effect would take place, and probably several hundred more generations before the planet could sustain any kind of life. We can't even get *one* generation of humans to agree to anything about climate on Earth without it degrading into a massive conspiracy name calling argument. Even if it means saving money in just twenty years by switching to renewable fuel sources like wind, solar and tidal power.
Reading comments on any CBC news story even remotely related to climate change has made me lose all hope for humanity. We're doomed whether we do something or not. Even if we did manage to reverse, or mitigate, climate change there's just too much stupid to believe we'd continue on as a species for much longer. I give it maybe two more generations before we forget how to breath and people start dying of asphyxiation syndrome.
Are you sure that's not just happening in your head? Because, unless you're talking about Big Bang Theory, I don't see Physicists making fools of themselves.
On the other hand, I always see and hear about MBA's who jump into a business, throw out buzz words like "streamline" and "synergy", whirl around like a tornado, weak havoc on business processes they don't understand and move on to the next project to give someone else a headache while leaving all the underlings to figure out where the cow ended up and how to get back to some sense of normal back into their work.
Except in the case of Office switching to 2007, it'd be more like being forced to switch from US English to Middle English. It's still English, just considerable different. Whereas switching to OpenOffice would have been more like switching from US English to UK English. Just learn to spell colour correctly and you're good.
BTW, I'm Canadian. Ever notice how the French is known as the language of love and not the language of engineering and science. It takes twice as much French to express half as much content because you're busy trying to indicate how you feel rather than what you know. That being said it's a nice language if you're trying to court a girl. Italian also works well, but stay away from German, that sh*t's scary.
Yes, I very much remember that argument. A few years ago we were evaluating Office 2007, my boss at the time thought we should switch us over to Open Office, but was shotdown with the "training is too expensive, it'll be easier to stay wtih office" argument. Not six months later we had an Office 2007 upgrade crammed down our throats and all hell broke loose, but it wasn't all bad. It was funny the managers that advocated staing with MS Office and wouldn't even entertain the idea of using something else were the ones that had the hardest time adjusting. It was pretty sweet to watch them sweat when they had to ask for help from the people they right out refused to hear out because the adjustment would have been too hard to make. We're on office 2010 now, but some of the same mangers *still* haven't figured out the ribbion interface. Karma is awesome.
Actually this is a good point. My wife works for an insurance company. People there are just expected to know how to use a computer and MS Office by extension. They never receive training and the results are half can barely turn their machines on, the other half spend all day running around doing everyone else's work. We seem to expect people need training with FLOSS products, but expect them to just know what they're doing with MS products.
It's shameful really, I've spent many an afternoon banging my head on my desk while trying to talk someone through the ribbon interface because they were just expected to know what to do when Office 2007 first came out.
I don't think a battery rupturing has a 100% chance of catching fire. I've seen a Lithium Ion laptop battery explode, because someone shot it, but not catch fire so l doubt it's a 100% chance of catching fire. Conversely every time I've seen a gas can shot there was fire after. Just my take, but it only takes one instance where something that happens 100% of the time didn't happen to prove it doesn't happen 100% of the time.
I have that argument with my wife all the time over dry ingredient (flour, baking soda, sugar, salt), once she claimed our dish detergent had gone bad, and yet she insist on keeping spinach in the plastic container in the fridge until it's just a puddle of green ooze and gets mad at me if I throw it away when it starts to turn.
I think he was being facetious and the point was to show how poorly Bing actually works. That was my take on reading the returned results anyway.
Seems on awful lot like entrapment to me and could also give some people a defence, ie. "I thought she was one of those fake girls, I'd never think of asking a real child to do that!''
Well, thank you for starting such a hilarious chain of events. And thank you to @mark-t for sharing that brilliant thread. You each owe me a coffee because I have to wipe mine off my monitor now XD
I've also mentored thirteen students, four of which were home schooled, as part of the co-op program my company participates in with two separate universities. In all four cases I couldn't tell the students were home schooled until they, or I, specifically brought it up. In most cases they were much brighter and better adjusted socially then the other nine public school students I've mentored.
The first time I had a co-op student tell me they were home schooled I was shocked because they were such a polar opposite to what I had always thought a home schooled person to be. This is a case where a harmful stereotype is wrong and can have very negative implications to anyone willing to admit they were home schooled. Before mentoring in a co-op interview if someone mentioned they were home schooled I would have put a mental black mark on them and if it came down to them and someone equally qualified, I would have gone with the other candidate.
I suspect there are several reasons the stereotype is propagated the least of which is because the majority of the population attended public school and
The program, at least where I live, is very rigorous, regulated and takes a lot of dedication and discipline on the part of the parents and involves groups of parents that get together with a common goal to educate their kids, rather than what is commonly believed where one set of parents isolates their kid in a dark room brain washing them with religious/political doctrine. The truth is the process heavily involves several families, and requires the participation of the parents as much as the students.
So you've met *one* person who was home schooled and they were an asshole. That's probably more because they were just an asshole to begin with. I attended 12 public schools in 13 years in England, Canada and the US, public school is filled with assholes and plenty more people who were/are poorly socialized, how many home school kids do you read about walking in to a school and shooting everyone they see, and yet we apply that label to home schooled people because you met *one* bad egg. How does that even make sense!?
I'd also be willing to bet you know many more home schooled people, but they wouldn't out right tell you they were because of the negative connotations that come along with being labeled "home schooled".
This sounds like something Leonard Hofstadter's family would do for Christmas. The sister's going to have a terrible "Why did you always have to out do me as kids!!?" Complex.
There is the added advantage that if everything is encrypted, and snoopers had to decrypt everything to find something of value, it would be a serious drain on their resources. On the flip side, if everything, except that which absolutely required encryption, was sent in and easily accessible format then encrypted messages are a big red flag that says "Look at me I'm important!!", which allows snoopers to be selective about where they spend their resources. But that's just my take on it.
Kudos, exactly what I was getting at. I couldn't have said it better.
As mentioned in a thread below, Sociology. They make stuff up, but if you disagree then you're going against what's considered politically correct and you're sexists, and/or racist. Climatology is based on real numbers of things that can be measured.
Like I said it's fine if you don't agree with it, but what ends up happening is people go on message boards and start screaming and making outrageous claims against the popular literature and data, but then have absolutely nothing to back them up other than "Fox news said so!!!"
So what do I believe the lying climatologists that have reproducible facts and figures supporting their claims, or some nobody screaming that I'm an idiot because I'm not outraged that there's evidence to support climate change is real?
Completely agree, I have a friend who's getting a doctor in Sociology with a concentration in women studies. Some of the crap she's made me read is ridiculous. She stopped talking to me for awhile after I said what she does isn't science. She can't even replicate an "experiment" from one group to another let alone across a generational, cultural, or geographic gap, and yet some of these "studies" are used to set employment policies that discriminate against majorities and created the "we don't care if you're qualified to do this if you don't help us meet our quota" environment.
Took 29 minutes to get from the story being posted to "CLIMATE SCIENTIST ARE LIREZ!!11!!1". You know there are a lot of other branches of science, many of which are far more subjective than climate science.
There's also plenty of data and models out there if you wanted to run your own experiments to confirm or disprove a particular paper or claim. I'd be very interested in reading your counter paper.
Are you incapable of reading? I specifically said the owner of the box cutter is responsible. Stupidity is only hurting your cause.