Yeah, I know, but it doesn't work well, simply because it appears the poster doesn't understand the phrase "tarred and feathered" (like someone spelling "voila" "walla"... clearly, they don't understand the meaning of the word(s) they're using).
In the end, it's the kind of "joke" which only works well when spoken, as it relies on "tard" and "tarred" being (almost) homophones.
George W. Bush should be tard and feathered...well, one out of two ain't bad...
Umm, nice attempt at a clever sig, but "tard" isn't a word. It's supposed to be "tarred and feathered", as in, covered in tar and feathers. Haven't you seen any old Loony Toons cartoons?:)
Umm, no it's not, dude.:) A lot of processors (including, quite possibly, the CPU you're using right now) allow microcode updates. See here for information about the Linux microcode update driver for IA32. Now, I'm not sure how much can be updated, but it's clearly not completely "burned in", which returns us to the question the grandparent poster originally posited.
Q? WTF, he ran off with the Traveler. Someone needs to brush up on his ST:TNG.:)
Re:One of the reasons I think people hated Wesley:
on
Dancing Barefoot
·
· Score: 1
Naw, I think people disliked the Wesley character because he never became more than a pure-white (as in clean), ultra-good, super-smart boot-lick, making him completely unrealistic, and as a result, incredibly irritating! And that had everything to do with the writers... they never developed the character, and so, in my mind, he always remained two-dimensional. Yes, they could have dealt actual issues using the Wesley character (as Wheaton mentions in the A-V Onion interview he did), they could have made him interesting and multi-faceted, but they didn't, which is unfortunate, both for the audience and for Wheaton himself.
Actually, having booted linux boxes off small disks (and subsequently mounting larger ones), I'm aware that splitting must-have files (ls, chmod) and non-must-have files (cc, emacs) makes sense. However, that doesn't mean/bin vs/usr/bin as a filesystem layout makes sense,
Umm... splitting must-have files and non-must-have-files is EXACTLY why the/bin vs/usr/bin split makes sense. That's the whole point!
IMO/bin and/sbin should just go into/boot -- many people allocate a separate partition for/boot anyway, and/boot/bin makes it crystal clear that its contents are needed by the system to run.
That doesn't make a ton of sense either, though./bin contains plenty of applications that a regular user will need. In particular, the shells, not to mention a TON of other apps (g[un]zip, tar, etc). Whereas/sbin contains apps only necessary for system administration. The name/boot is totally opaque to this, and would be even more confusing, at least IMHO.
There really are good reasons why the UNIX filesystem is organized the way it is.
Keeping only the kernel on a/boot partition is senseless unless you're play with test kernels all day.
Actually, that's not true. On my box, my (older) BIOS doesn't support my 40GB drive. So, I have the kernel on a smaller driver which contains the boot partition, and the boot loader loads it from there. So as you can see, there are any number of reasons to have a/boot partition with the kernel on it. For security, you may put/boot on a read-only device... I'm sure I could think I plenty of other examples.
The problem (well, it's really a feature, not a bug) is that the unix FHS standard comes with a very strong multi-user background. Most *desktop* users (especially those switching from Windows) in fact do just that -- use just one big partition. And these are the people who have the most trouble understanding why the FHS was designed the way it was
Well, part of me thinks that people have trouble with the Unix filesystem simply because they expect it to be organized one way (like Windows) when it's not. So, rather than trying to understand the system, they decry it as poorly designed, and refactor it so it's "easier". The problem is, they're throwing the baby out with the bathwater; they're ignoring all the experience and wisdom that has influenced the development of the Unix filesystem, and hence are, as many others have said, doomed to make mistakes the original designers managed to avoid.
/usr/ and/usr/local/ is indeed reasonably intuitive. But why is there cruft like/bin vs./usr/bin and/sbin vs./usr/sbin in a typical linux FS?
Err, this is common sense, I think./bin and/sbin contain system-critical applications that belong in the root filesystem. Things that are necessary to boot./usr/bin and/usr/sbin contain other stuff that isn't so necessary (eg, pppd, etc). So, I can place/usr on a different partition from / and have everything just work. If I were to take your suggestion, I wouldn't be able to mount/usr because the "mount" binary would be in/usr/sbin instead of/sbin!
But why would you use multiple partitions, you ask? Why not just use one big one? Well, let's see... stability... multiple partitions means fewer single points of failure. Faster fsck times (for those not using a journalled filesystem). Oh, not to mention you might be splitting these partitions across multiple disks (for many reasons... speed, stability as mentioned previously, etc).
A programmers value is determined by experience and ability to learn. Since someone new to the IT field has little experience, being hired is determined mostly by their ability to learn. Since young minds are better suited for learning, they are going to be hired more often. This is the trend I have seen at my company.
Oh please. Anyone who is capable of earning a University degree, old or young, is quite clearly capable of learning... after all, at least when I went through Uni, we had to learn to get the damn degree in the first place! What you describe is just a prejudice... the "old dogs can't learn new tricks" mentality which is, unfortunately, prevalent in our society.
I*M*HO, there is no specific reason to assume older people make poorer techies. In fact, the manager I work for is in his late forties, and he's probably one of the smartest men I've come across. He's constantly learning new things... hell, he seems to have an easier time keeping up with trends than I do!
Err, you do realize there's another option here... maybe there WERE NO WMDs! I know, hard to believe... after all, Powell has proof! Well, sorta. Well, grainy satellite photos that kinda look like mobile chem labs and such. A little.
Yes, but in all the examples you gave. They all are done in part because there's a "natural high". That's why I said a well-adjusted healthy human. Your body if properly cared for (all around, not just physically), will take care of you.[1]
Artificial stimulents are "Bungee jumping","Hand gliding","Parachuting","Racing", without the accompanying physical danger. Although one shouldn't think drugs are totally risk-free.
Sounds like a *better* deal to me... all the fun, without the inherent physical risk. Sounds great to me!;) Although, I'd question the comparison between this "natural high" and what, for example, THC induces. They really are vastly different effects, and are enjoyable for different reasons... risk-taking behaviour triggers an endorphine release in the body, which is connected with pleasure. THC (and other chemicals) produce much different (and often pleasurable) effects. So, no, I don't think a "well-adjusted" human body "will take care of you", because it's simply not the same thing.
"Now, I'm sure you'll jump all over this and say "why can't you have a good time without [insert substance here]?" And I would respond with "I can!". That doesn't mean it isn't fun to consume a little weed, for example, from time to time... it's just another way to enjoy life. After all, we have THC receptors in the brain, why not use them?"
I'm sorry but the "If we can, we should" argument has been shown to be a weak one. There's a lot of receptors in the brain. They didn't evolve for the purposes of supporting a drug industry. Nature isn't that vain.
Yes, it was probably a bad choice of wording on my part. The point is that, generally speaking, many recreational drugs are relatively harmless (weed being an excellent example of this), so what's wrong with enjoying them on occasion? I happen to think the "if we can and it's fun and harmless, why not?" argument to be very powerful... the same can be said for basically any pleasureable activity which isn't necessary for human survival. Heck, why bother making music? Dancing? Singing? We don't *need* to do those things, so why bother? Because it's enjoyable! And again, not everyone likes to sing, or dance, which is why it's always a personal decision.
[1] I suspect most aren't aware what a well-adjusted body is. Considering how we physically and mentally abuse (eat wrong, I'm worthless), and allow to be abused (advertisizing, you're a bad person). A lack of reference is understandable.
Well, I'll completely agree with that... although I would argue that, even if you had a perfectly well adjusted mind and body, that doesn't preclude the participation in pleasurable activies. (ooh, how alliterate:)
Anyway, the gist of my argument is 1) drugs aren't inherently evil. 2) People who use drugs aren't necessarily using it as a "crutch", although some do. 3) Humans naturally partake in pleasure-seeking activities, and the use (and abuse) of drugs is no different, which is why we do it in the first place (to answer your original question, and bring us back on topic:).
I think the much better question is why humans feel the need to take drugs period? Does a healthy well-adjusted body (mental and physical), really need drugs? Will one live longer, have keener eyesight, gain the ability to calculate PI to the n'th place in one's head, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound? It seems that drugs exist to avoid (mask?) our deficiencies. Can't deal with society? Go smoke something. Can't deal with the train wreck that is one's life? Go drink something. People are dying somewere in the world? Go inhale something. Someone said they didn't love you? Go shoot up?
Hmm... clearly you haven't experienced weed or other substances (nothing wrong with that, BTW, it's a personal decision), and hence don't understand the drive behind its (and many other substances) use. Why do people feel the need to jump out of airplanes? Climb mountains? Hangglide? Drive fast cars? Bungee jump? People do things, sometimes, just because they enjoy it. And the same can be said of the various substances people use. The stigma that people who use substances (weed, alcohol, etc) are doing it as an escape is mostly fiction. Yes, *some* people do it for that reason, but from personal experience, I can say that most people consume various substances because it's *enjoyable*.
Now, I'm sure you'll jump all over this and say "why can't you have a good time without [insert substance here]?" And I would respond with "I can!". That doesn't mean it isn't fun to consume a little weed, for example, from time to time... it's just another way to enjoy life. After all, we have THC receptors in the brain, why not use them?
I don't consider staying within a REASONABLE range of the speed limit breaking the law
You are honestly trying to justify yourself by claiming that, because you don't believe the law is right, you can behave in whatever manner you see fit? Really? Am I the only one that thinks that's just plain insane? If you don't like the law, get a bunch of people together who agree and attempt to change the law! You can't simply disobey it, just 'cuz you think it's dumb!
Okay, granted, this ignores "passive resistance"-style protesting, but I highly doubt that's what you're doing. You seem to be simply disregarding the law (driving over the posted speed limit) 'cuz you don't feel you should have to. Well, sorry Neo, but just because you feel the rules don't apply to you, doesn't make you right.
Just face it... you're breaking the law. Quit trying to rationalize it to yourself.
Kinda like how the US provides massive farm subsidies to it's wheat farmers, and tries to levy tariffs on Canadian wheat to prop up it's own failing farming industry?
Yup, I know.:) I probably should have mentioned that in my post. Of course, the reason this didn't exist in the first place is due to the historical autonomy of the provinces in Canada. Unlike the United States, provinces in Canada are given a great deal of license to govern the people in their jurisdictions (much greater than states in the US). In particular, health care has always been an area where the provinces have traditionally had a great deal of autonomy. But, with the SARS outbreak, it's become clear that there needs to be some sort of federal body to handle national health care situations and to coordinate the actions of the various health ministries.
Of course, IMHO, this has been a long time coming, and just needed a nation-wide medical incident like this to set things in motion. After all, Canada is a nation, and the feds can play a valuable and important role in facilitating cooperation between the provinces so we can better react to similar outbreaks in the future.
You know, calling the Iraqi people "stupid" because they might elect a form of government that they know and understand is more than a little closed minded and condescending. Trying to force democracy on a culture which isn't ready for it is not, necessarily, a good thing. Look how it turned out in Russia... there is a certain social mindset necessary to make a democracy work, without which it becomes a total disaster. And the change to this mindset is not a rapid one, as it requires social reform. So get down off your high horse. You look like an idiot up there.
Err, why would BC think they had to? They're separate health ministries, and it's up to Toronto to keep themselves informed. I'm sure if the BC health ministry knew Toronto was in the dark, they would have warned them, but they were privy to the same information. The difference is that BC heeded the various warnings that were coming out of Asia, whereas Toronto either didn't notice or didn't heed those warnings.
Keep in mind, the other major factor to BC's relative success in the SARS outbreak was it's response. They chose to be highly proactive about any potential outbreaks. They ensured that doctors were warned ahead of time, and dictated a strict policy for how to handle potential cases (immediate quarantine). The Ontario health ministry didn't take these measures. Why, I don't know. Maybe they didn't know what was going on. Maybe they just didn't take it seriously enough. Either way, Ontario's initial failure was their own responsibility. Hopefully they've learned a lesson from all of this.
Good point, its not like we are not allocating resources elseware though. So, -1 for thinking we can only do one thing at a time.
Umm, I think you're missing the point that the US spends an unbelievable amount of money on it's military, and military research, each year. On the order of hundreds of billions! Can you imagine the good that money could do if it was re-directed toward, say, researching AIDS or cancer, or providing aid to other nations? Hell, forget other nations, how 'bout providing decent schools for it's own population? Or assistance for the homeless... okay, my liberal streak is coming out, but you get the idea.:)
You probably also think we should send food and humanitarian supplies to Iraq and not give work on setting up phone systems and training folks there to be self sufficient. Well, we are sending humanitarian supplies and also working on setting up phone systems along with a ton of other infrastructure.
This is just silly. The point is that you could provide even more aid (to Iraq and other nations, including the US) if so much money wasn't blown each year on researching new ways of turning humans into piles of smoldering carbon.
Tell me does not this ROI also level off with money spent in other research areas? So, as you argue that ROI in military spending you also get the same thing in other research areas.
No, because the point is that weaponry has reached such a point in the US that it's pointless to waste more resources developing even more advanced ways of destroying other people. What they have now is already FAR more than sufficient to utterly obliterate any upcoming enemies for decades to come.
I would compare this, to, say, spending billions a year trying to develop a new, more advanced zipper. Yes, we already have excellent, well-functioning zippers that get the job done. But we need to come up with an even MORE advanced zipper! That's the attitude of the US weapons industry, IMHO.
There is no such thing as a invincible military. As more countries gain nuclear arsenals the better we need to be prepared against it. The problem with research is that once the original is done, copying it is considerabley easier. When we were the only country to have nukes, it didn't take russia long to have them. Especially with weapons that have a low acuracey requirement and relatively high yeild (nukes and other wmd) that can be build for relatively low costs there is no such thing currently as overpowering force.
Yeah, except that a super-powerful military is still relatively powerless to nuclear weapons, simply because they are so devastating, and there's no decent defense against them (and don't start on Bush's revived Star Wars program, which is a load of crap).
The best defense against nuclear arms is preventing nations from WANTING to use them in the first place. This usually starts with a decent foreign policy (oops, the US is already screwed). After that, your best line of defense (much like with terrorism) is good intelligence. If you can discover that a nation is developing nuclear weapons, or is attempting to acquire them, you can approach them and try to deter them. If that doesn't work, you can threaten them with the already formiddable might of the US.
Notice how none of this requires blowing ridiculous amounts of cash on researching new weapons?
And, yes, until you can prove that N. Korea wouldn't try to go to war with S. Korea or anyone; Prove that China wouldn't want to go to war with Tiawan to reintegrate them into China; Prove that Jordan/Lybia/Egypt/etc wouldn't want to exterminate Isreal just cause they exist; Prove that every country would not go to war for any reason, military spending makes sense.
Until you realize that the US military is suffiently powerful to handle all those cases, and so spending more cash to develop new, more deadly weapons, or to enlarge an already ridiculously large military, is pointless.
Actually, I believe the US administration already said something to the effect of "You are free! Elect your government, people of Iraq! Oh, but don't elect an islamic goverment, 'cuz we won't like that very much". Although, what the consequences are if they do elect such a government is an interesting question...
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I know, but it doesn't work well, simply because it appears the poster doesn't understand the phrase "tarred and feathered" (like someone spelling "voila" "walla"... clearly, they don't understand the meaning of the word(s) they're using).
In the end, it's the kind of "joke" which only works well when spoken, as it relies on "tard" and "tarred" being (almost) homophones.
George W. Bush should be tard and feathered...well, one out of two ain't bad...
:)
Umm, nice attempt at a clever sig, but "tard" isn't a word. It's supposed to be "tarred and feathered", as in, covered in tar and feathers. Haven't you seen any old Loony Toons cartoons?
Umm, no it's not, dude. :) A lot of processors (including, quite possibly, the CPU you're using right now) allow microcode updates. See here for information about the Linux microcode update driver for IA32. Now, I'm not sure how much can be updated, but it's clearly not completely "burned in", which returns us to the question the grandparent poster originally posited.
And, for those using mplayer, (rudimentary) Theora support made it into the mplayer CVS tree recently...
Q? WTF, he ran off with the Traveler. Someone needs to brush up on his ST:TNG. :)
Naw, I think people disliked the Wesley character because he never became more than a pure-white (as in clean), ultra-good, super-smart boot-lick, making him completely unrealistic, and as a result, incredibly irritating! And that had everything to do with the writers... they never developed the character, and so, in my mind, he always remained two-dimensional. Yes, they could have dealt actual issues using the Wesley character (as Wheaton mentions in the A-V Onion interview he did), they could have made him interesting and multi-faceted, but they didn't, which is unfortunate, both for the audience and for Wheaton himself.
Actually, having booted linux boxes off small disks (and subsequently mounting larger ones), I'm aware that splitting must-have files (ls, chmod) and non-must-have files (cc, emacs) makes sense. However, that doesn't mean /bin vs /usr/bin as a filesystem layout makes sense,
/bin vs /usr/bin split makes sense. That's the whole point!
/bin and /sbin should just go into /boot -- many people allocate a separate partition for /boot anyway, and /boot/bin makes it crystal clear that its contents are needed by the system to run.
/bin contains plenty of applications that a regular user will need. In particular, the shells, not to mention a TON of other apps (g[un]zip, tar, etc). Whereas /sbin contains apps only necessary for system administration. The name /boot is totally opaque to this, and would be even more confusing, at least IMHO.
/boot partition is senseless unless you're play with test kernels all day.
/boot partition with the kernel on it. For security, you may put /boot on a read-only device... I'm sure I could think I plenty of other examples.
Umm... splitting must-have files and non-must-have-files is EXACTLY why the
IMO
That doesn't make a ton of sense either, though.
There really are good reasons why the UNIX filesystem is organized the way it is.
Keeping only the kernel on a
Actually, that's not true. On my box, my (older) BIOS doesn't support my 40GB drive. So, I have the kernel on a smaller driver which contains the boot partition, and the boot loader loads it from there. So as you can see, there are any number of reasons to have a
The problem (well, it's really a feature, not a bug) is that the unix FHS standard comes with a very strong multi-user background. Most *desktop* users (especially those switching from Windows) in fact do just that -- use just one big partition. And these are the people who have the most trouble understanding why the FHS was designed the way it was
Well, part of me thinks that people have trouble with the Unix filesystem simply because they expect it to be organized one way (like Windows) when it's not. So, rather than trying to understand the system, they decry it as poorly designed, and refactor it so it's "easier". The problem is, they're throwing the baby out with the bathwater; they're ignoring all the experience and wisdom that has influenced the development of the Unix filesystem, and hence are, as many others have said, doomed to make mistakes the original designers managed to avoid.
/usr/ and /usr/local/ is indeed reasonably intuitive. But why is there cruft like /bin vs. /usr/bin and /sbin vs. /usr/sbin in a typical linux FS?
/bin and /sbin contain system-critical applications that belong in the root filesystem. Things that are necessary to boot. /usr/bin and /usr/sbin contain other stuff that isn't so necessary (eg, pppd, etc). So, I can place /usr on a different partition from / and have everything just work. If I were to take your suggestion, I wouldn't be able to mount /usr because the "mount" binary would be in /usr/sbin instead of /sbin!
Err, this is common sense, I think.
But why would you use multiple partitions, you ask? Why not just use one big one? Well, let's see... stability... multiple partitions means fewer single points of failure. Faster fsck times (for those not using a journalled filesystem). Oh, not to mention you might be splitting these partitions across multiple disks (for many reasons... speed, stability as mentioned previously, etc).
I can't get the 2.4 series kernels in debian without doing everything myself
Umm... what? The stock Debian kernel is, AFAICT, 2.4.18.
A programmers value is determined by experience and ability to learn. Since someone new to the IT field has little experience, being hired is determined mostly by their ability to learn. Since young minds are better suited for learning, they are going to be hired more often. This is the trend I have seen at my company.
Oh please. Anyone who is capable of earning a University degree, old or young, is quite clearly capable of learning... after all, at least when I went through Uni, we had to learn to get the damn degree in the first place! What you describe is just a prejudice... the "old dogs can't learn new tricks" mentality which is, unfortunately, prevalent in our society.
I*M*HO, there is no specific reason to assume older people make poorer techies. In fact, the manager I work for is in his late forties, and he's probably one of the smartest men I've come across. He's constantly learning new things... hell, he seems to have an easier time keeping up with trends than I do!
Hehe, now if I could only remember what movie that was from... :)
Err, you do realize there's another option here... maybe there WERE NO WMDs! I know, hard to believe... after all, Powell has proof! Well, sorta. Well, grainy satellite photos that kinda look like mobile chem labs and such. A little.
Yes, but in all the examples you gave. They all are done in part because there's a "natural high". That's why I said a well-adjusted healthy human. Your body if properly cared for (all around, not just physically), will take care of you.[1]
;) Although, I'd question the comparison between this "natural high" and what, for example, THC induces. They really are vastly different effects, and are enjoyable for different reasons... risk-taking behaviour triggers an endorphine release in the body, which is connected with pleasure. THC (and other chemicals) produce much different (and often pleasurable) effects. So, no, I don't think a "well-adjusted" human body "will take care of you", because it's simply not the same thing.
:)
:).
Artificial stimulents are "Bungee jumping","Hand gliding","Parachuting","Racing", without the accompanying physical danger. Although one shouldn't think drugs are totally risk-free.
Sounds like a *better* deal to me... all the fun, without the inherent physical risk. Sounds great to me!
"Now, I'm sure you'll jump all over this and say "why can't you have a good time without [insert substance here]?" And I would respond with "I can!". That doesn't mean it isn't fun to consume a little weed, for example, from time to time... it's just another way to enjoy life. After all, we have THC receptors in the brain, why not use them?"
I'm sorry but the "If we can, we should" argument has been shown to be a weak one. There's a lot of receptors in the brain. They didn't evolve for the purposes of supporting a drug industry. Nature isn't that vain.
Yes, it was probably a bad choice of wording on my part. The point is that, generally speaking, many recreational drugs are relatively harmless (weed being an excellent example of this), so what's wrong with enjoying them on occasion? I happen to think the "if we can and it's fun and harmless, why not?" argument to be very powerful... the same can be said for basically any pleasureable activity which isn't necessary for human survival. Heck, why bother making music? Dancing? Singing? We don't *need* to do those things, so why bother? Because it's enjoyable! And again, not everyone likes to sing, or dance, which is why it's always a personal decision.
[1] I suspect most aren't aware what a well-adjusted body is. Considering how we physically and mentally abuse (eat wrong, I'm worthless), and allow to be abused (advertisizing, you're a bad person). A lack of reference is understandable.
Well, I'll completely agree with that... although I would argue that, even if you had a perfectly well adjusted mind and body, that doesn't preclude the participation in pleasurable activies. (ooh, how alliterate
Anyway, the gist of my argument is 1) drugs aren't inherently evil. 2) People who use drugs aren't necessarily using it as a "crutch", although some do. 3) Humans naturally partake in pleasure-seeking activities, and the use (and abuse) of drugs is no different, which is why we do it in the first place (to answer your original question, and bring us back on topic
I think the much better question is why humans feel the need to take drugs period? Does a healthy well-adjusted body (mental and physical), really need drugs? Will one live longer, have keener eyesight, gain the ability to calculate PI to the n'th place in one's head, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound? It seems that drugs exist to avoid (mask?) our deficiencies. Can't deal with society? Go smoke something. Can't deal with the train wreck that is one's life? Go drink something. People are dying somewere in the world? Go inhale something. Someone said they didn't love you? Go shoot up?
Hmm... clearly you haven't experienced weed or other substances (nothing wrong with that, BTW, it's a personal decision), and hence don't understand the drive behind its (and many other substances) use. Why do people feel the need to jump out of airplanes? Climb mountains? Hangglide? Drive fast cars? Bungee jump? People do things, sometimes, just because they enjoy it. And the same can be said of the various substances people use. The stigma that people who use substances (weed, alcohol, etc) are doing it as an escape is mostly fiction. Yes, *some* people do it for that reason, but from personal experience, I can say that most people consume various substances because it's *enjoyable*.
Now, I'm sure you'll jump all over this and say "why can't you have a good time without [insert substance here]?" And I would respond with "I can!". That doesn't mean it isn't fun to consume a little weed, for example, from time to time... it's just another way to enjoy life. After all, we have THC receptors in the brain, why not use them?
Heh, coming from a Canadian, I consider this statement truly insightful... after all, it's snowing outside my office window right now. :)
That fuzzy feeling is probably all that salted meat. :-P
;)
No, it's the beer, silly.
And exactly opposite to handguns which are legal in the US and not in Canada [guncontrol.ca].
:)
Where the hell are you getting that from? Your very first link proves you wrong! Did you even read it? Excerpt:
"In Canada, handguns have been licensed and registered since the 1930's"
Doesn't sound illegal to me. Man, read your references...
LOL!
I don't consider staying within a REASONABLE range of the speed limit breaking the law
You are honestly trying to justify yourself by claiming that, because you don't believe the law is right, you can behave in whatever manner you see fit? Really? Am I the only one that thinks that's just plain insane? If you don't like the law, get a bunch of people together who agree and attempt to change the law! You can't simply disobey it, just 'cuz you think it's dumb!
Okay, granted, this ignores "passive resistance"-style protesting, but I highly doubt that's what you're doing. You seem to be simply disregarding the law (driving over the posted speed limit) 'cuz you don't feel you should have to. Well, sorry Neo, but just because you feel the rules don't apply to you, doesn't make you right.
Just face it... you're breaking the law. Quit trying to rationalize it to yourself.
Kinda like how the US provides massive farm subsidies to it's wheat farmers, and tries to levy tariffs on Canadian wheat to prop up it's own failing farming industry?
Proof? I've never heard of such a thing...
Yup, I know. :) I probably should have mentioned that in my post. Of course, the reason this didn't exist in the first place is due to the historical autonomy of the provinces in Canada. Unlike the United States, provinces in Canada are given a great deal of license to govern the people in their jurisdictions (much greater than states in the US). In particular, health care has always been an area where the provinces have traditionally had a great deal of autonomy. But, with the SARS outbreak, it's become clear that there needs to be some sort of federal body to handle national health care situations and to coordinate the actions of the various health ministries.
Of course, IMHO, this has been a long time coming, and just needed a nation-wide medical incident like this to set things in motion. After all, Canada is a nation, and the feds can play a valuable and important role in facilitating cooperation between the provinces so we can better react to similar outbreaks in the future.
You know, calling the Iraqi people "stupid" because they might elect a form of government that they know and understand is more than a little closed minded and condescending. Trying to force democracy on a culture which isn't ready for it is not, necessarily, a good thing. Look how it turned out in Russia... there is a certain social mindset necessary to make a democracy work, without which it becomes a total disaster. And the change to this mindset is not a rapid one, as it requires social reform. So get down off your high horse. You look like an idiot up there.
Err, why would BC think they had to? They're separate health ministries, and it's up to Toronto to keep themselves informed. I'm sure if the BC health ministry knew Toronto was in the dark, they would have warned them, but they were privy to the same information. The difference is that BC heeded the various warnings that were coming out of Asia, whereas Toronto either didn't notice or didn't heed those warnings.
Keep in mind, the other major factor to BC's relative success in the SARS outbreak was it's response. They chose to be highly proactive about any potential outbreaks. They ensured that doctors were warned ahead of time, and dictated a strict policy for how to handle potential cases (immediate quarantine). The Ontario health ministry didn't take these measures. Why, I don't know. Maybe they didn't know what was going on. Maybe they just didn't take it seriously enough. Either way, Ontario's initial failure was their own responsibility. Hopefully they've learned a lesson from all of this.
Good point, its not like we are not allocating resources elseware though. So, -1 for thinking we can only do one thing at a time.
Umm, I think you're missing the point that the US spends an unbelievable amount of money on it's military, and military research, each year. On the order of hundreds of billions! Can you imagine the good that money could do if it was re-directed toward, say, researching AIDS or cancer, or providing aid to other nations? Hell, forget other nations, how 'bout providing decent schools for it's own population? Or assistance for the homeless... okay, my liberal streak is coming out, but you get the idea.
You probably also think we should send food and humanitarian supplies to Iraq and not give work on setting up phone systems and training folks there to be self sufficient. Well, we are sending humanitarian supplies and also working on setting up phone systems along with a ton of other infrastructure.
This is just silly. The point is that you could provide even more aid (to Iraq and other nations, including the US) if so much money wasn't blown each year on researching new ways of turning humans into piles of smoldering carbon.
Tell me does not this ROI also level off with money spent in other research areas? So, as you argue that ROI in military spending you also get the same thing in other research areas.
No, because the point is that weaponry has reached such a point in the US that it's pointless to waste more resources developing even more advanced ways of destroying other people. What they have now is already FAR more than sufficient to utterly obliterate any upcoming enemies for decades to come.
I would compare this, to, say, spending billions a year trying to develop a new, more advanced zipper. Yes, we already have excellent, well-functioning zippers that get the job done. But we need to come up with an even MORE advanced zipper! That's the attitude of the US weapons industry, IMHO.
There is no such thing as a invincible military. As more countries gain nuclear arsenals the better we need to be prepared against it. The problem with research is that once the original is done, copying it is considerabley easier. When we were the only country to have nukes, it didn't take russia long to have them. Especially with weapons that have a low acuracey requirement and relatively high yeild (nukes and other wmd) that can be build for relatively low costs there is no such thing currently as overpowering force.
Yeah, except that a super-powerful military is still relatively powerless to nuclear weapons, simply because they are so devastating, and there's no decent defense against them (and don't start on Bush's revived Star Wars program, which is a load of crap).
The best defense against nuclear arms is preventing nations from WANTING to use them in the first place. This usually starts with a decent foreign policy (oops, the US is already screwed). After that, your best line of defense (much like with terrorism) is good intelligence. If you can discover that a nation is developing nuclear weapons, or is attempting to acquire them, you can approach them and try to deter them. If that doesn't work, you can threaten them with the already formiddable might of the US.
Notice how none of this requires blowing ridiculous amounts of cash on researching new weapons?
And, yes, until you can prove that N. Korea wouldn't try to go to war with S. Korea or anyone; Prove that China wouldn't want to go to war with Tiawan to reintegrate them into China; Prove that Jordan/Lybia/Egypt/etc wouldn't want to exterminate Isreal just cause they exist; Prove that every country would not go to war for any reason, military spending makes sense.
Until you realize that the US military is suffiently powerful to handle all those cases, and so spending more cash to develop new, more deadly weapons, or to enlarge an already ridiculously large military, is pointless.
Actually, I believe the US administration already said something to the effect of "You are free! Elect your government, people of Iraq! Oh, but don't elect an islamic goverment, 'cuz we won't like that very much". Although, what the consequences are if they do elect such a government is an interesting question...