Then they don't pay attention to economics, or they'd know that paying more won't work for 99% of the world's population not only because they can;t afford it, but because if they could there simply won't be anywhere near enough to go around.
Also what do you consider an "environmentally friendly" source of electricity? While there are definately many small scale forms of truely envoronmentally beneign forms of power (e.g. gass leakage, thermal, etc.) potentially large-scale forms like wind and solar aren't environemtally friendly at all, as both are so ineffecient that they rarely pay for their manufacture. Hydro, OTOH, while clearly being "clean" in the sense of not releasing carbon and polutants, has the most destructive impact of all (by a factor of a million I would conservatively estimate).
The only truely clean form of power available today is nuclear, yet every self-describes "environmentalist" I know is dead-set against it for reason I can't understand.
Secondly, a car that burns fossil fuels directly will always have to burn fossil fuels, but a car that runs on electricity, even if it currently pollutes indirectly via fossil fuel burning power plants, will immediately be able to take advantage of more environmentally-friendly produced electricity as soon as it becomes available.
The average car is on the road what? 10 years? It will be decades (and perhapse centuries) untill we will be able to convert a large part of electricity production over to clean sources, and even then it won't be solar, wind, or whatever other pipe-deam the enviro's think up (both being incredibly ineffecient and incredly polluting in all kinds of ways).
The "hydrogen economy" (of which electric cars are part) only makes sense with an abundant source of cheap clean energy, which right now means nuclear and in the distant future potentially fusion. Untill then pretending that our electricicity could come from clean sources does nobody any good.
The only electric car I can think of to be put into serious production in recent times was the (Ford owned) Th!nk, and it was canned a few years ago. Batteries are simply too heavy/expensive and charging takes too much time.
Also FYI hydrogen cars make even less sense and will untill we have an abundant source of cheap, clean energy (see: fission, fusion). What many so-called environmentalists fail to grasp is that the greater part of our electricity does and will come from fossil fuels (especially so long as they oppose nuclear energy) and the many conversions involved in hydrogen powered vehicles make them incredibly ineffecient and not worth the effort. There is a huge loss in effeciency turning fossil fuels into electricity at the generating plant, another signifigant loss transmitting it over power lines to the fueling station, another huge loss using that electricity to extract hydrogen from water, and finally another huge loss turning that hydrogen back into electricity with a fuel cell to power the car. Just burn the damn' fuel in the damn' car in the first place!!!
On the upside hybrid cars, even if they don't make sense now in terms of costs (all are sold at a loss by manufacturers, and even still at a price that outweighs any potential fuel savings for most people), they will in the future as costs come down. That in addition to the fact that there are will be be performance gains as well (electric motors make maximum torque at 1 rpm, while small gas motors tend to be peaky). Hybrids can also get by with much smaller/lighter batteries which are cheaper and less of an environmental concern (batteries are very toxic, but again don't tell the "environmentalists").
Finally, I have to wonder what Hydro Quebec (a public utility) is doing getting into the car business? Last I heard they were building a huge gas fired plant near Montreal since their hydro production cannot keep up with demand just in the provice of Quebec (in the short term they say). Of course there was a huge public ooutcry over the fact that they would be building a "dirty" gas plant (and opposed, I guess, to destroying another few million square kilimetres of pristine winderness for "clean" hydro... another example of envoronmentalists reasoning I can't get my head around...)
Actually the Zetec wasn't that great and is dead. They've been replaced by a brand new generation of Mazda-designed i4s that are arguably the best among a field of great i4 families (Toyota, Honda, and even GM all have great i4s).
The Duratec family similarily is almost certainly the best in the industry, serving all the way from the Taurus (in SOHC form) to the Aston Martin Vanquish. Especially in higher turn Mazda, Lincoln, and Jaguar form the 3.0 Duratec leads the industry in refinement, output, and price, and will soon be joined by a 3.5.
It's also worth noting that the latest generation of Ford cars have dominated in the much more demanding European market (while Opel and VW have been hemoraging marketshare), and all the new Ford cars are deritives of either European Fords (Focus), Mazdas (Futura), or Volvos (500). Ford North America realized a while ago they're only really good at trucks and decided to specilize at that.
As for interior design you need to check out one of the latest gen' Euro' Fords or the new F-150. Ford passed VW a while ago for best interior quality - the models just haven't made it to North America yet.
I'm not saying buy a Taurus or a Ranger or crap like that - just that the latest generation of cars (F-150, 500, Futura, Freestyle) look set to dominate the industry in all respects.
IIRC in Canada at least it is ILLEGAL for a company operatng in Canada to follow any but Canadian laws (i.e. the foreign parent can't make the Canadian subsidiary do something because the parent's government passed some law or issued some directive).
I beleive this came about because of some dispute with the US, where the US told its companies to do something or other and Canada saw this as a threat to its sovregnity.
They don't have the internet in North Korea. They don't even have a TLD as far as I know.
Their "news" service is registered in Japan: http://www.kcna.co.jp
Their homepage (which was completely insane - I hope somebody has a backup) used to be at http://www.korea-dpr.com
And their "trade" website is at http://www.dprkorea-trade.com - like their former homepage it's more-or-less them selling nicknacks for foreign currency.
Because -a- nuclear power plant wouldn't produce more than a few per cent of the power output of this dam?
MANY nuclear plants (on the order of a hundred or so) could, and for MUCH less money, with essentially no environmental or human cost.
Because nuclear fuel recycling still produces radioactive waste no one wants?
So what? Modern plants use fuel so effeciently that very little waste is created (compared to the past), and it can be easily stored.
Because nuclear power might not be economically viable?
Nuclear power IS economically viable. If you live in the US, Canada, or Europe there's a very good chance your power if from a nuclear plant. While plant construction has slowed down in developed nations because of people's irrational fears of anything nuclear, many developing nations are investing heavily.
A modern CANDU heavy-water nuclear power plant, for instance, has among the lowest cost-per-output of any generation technology, and will run on just about anything. Other nuclear plant types aren't quite as effecient, but cost less to build.
Even if it isn't chemically addictive, Marijuana is still "habbit forming" with a lot of people.
I'm a lazy person by nature: REALLY lazy. I have no motivation or goals or desire to do anything. Despite this, I still somehow managed to graduate from high school (grade 13 even:) and am currently in university doing something with myself.
I don't smoke pot or drink alcohol: if I had a KNOW I wouldn't be where I am today.
My brother's friends (who are ~3 years younger than me and still in high school) all smoke pot all day long. They get up, go to one kids house (who's a 'foreign exchange' sudent from Korea who is failing ALL his classes because he smokes pot all day long), and get high. At lunch they get high again. All evening they get high.
They each have a ~$100 a week habbit - some for a few years strait now. They each have crappy jobs solely to support their drug habbits. And they're all doing horrible in school (when they're not kicked out for being high, or skipping to get high).
Also, I knew these kids when they were younger and sober and I SWEAR they've all smoked themselves retarded. When even not high they're too dumb to have a conversation with.
The point: even if marijuana doesn't physically damage you and the people around you the way alcohol does (I'm much more strongly against alcohol than I am marijuana), it can still mess up your life. The fact that pot heads are a drag on society (especially in a country with a comprehensive social safety net like Canada) must also be considered.
Oh yah, I forgot to mention that by brrother and his friends are not getting jobs this summer, and are instead growing pot with the intention of becoming drug dealers. I for one hope they get caught and go to jail if that's what sets them strait (I fear the Korean kid will just be deported:)
The US likes to import Middle East crude (unprocessed) oil because it can process it itself (value added). Canada, not being a third-world country, much prefers to do the rifining itself and ship the end product to the US.
This is why you won't see George Bush or any of his set suggest the US make an effort to buy more stable Canadian oil: the oil refiners along the coasts (especially on South-East coast) would go ballistic.
There's more oil in Canada than all of the Middle East combined. Most of it, however, is in the tar sands and expensive to recover (there's still a profit to be made by effecient opperators, but it's not like the Middle East where you just stick a hole in the ground and oil comes rushing out).
Still, even without counting natural gas, Canada is the US's largest fuel supplier. Lets also not forget about hydro-electricity imported into the US from Canada.
Related to this is that if the northwest passage opens up and Canada claims it, then many nations will expect Canada to put up the maintanaince. i.e. having something like the US coast guard in quantities to handle the new traffic.
This is exactly why Canada can't allow anyone to sail through and set a precedent to that effect (not only does Canada get nothing from an open passage - but it will cost huge amounts in security, environmental costs, etc.).
I would suspect that Canada's current policy is "turn around or we shoot" - which isn't a bad one at all. Canada is too geographically isolated for any country but the US to attack in any serious way (and I doubt the US would go to war over this issue).
This isn't good news as far as Canada is concerned. The following is from an E2 w/u I did a while back (http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=Canadian %20Arctic%20Sovereignty):
Arctic sovereignty has long been a pressing issue in Canada. While ownership of the Arctic Archipelago islands is no longer disputed seriously by any nation (and the inhabitants of this region are professed Canadians), control over the surrounding ocean is still a contentious issue.
Canada claims full ownership of all the seas in the area up to its usual (and accepted) 200-mile limit, as well as full ownership of any sea ice extending northward from it's cost to the North Pole (since, in its opinion, sea ice is effectively land). Many countries, including the United States, refuse to recognise its sea ice claim - and while allowing that the open waters in the area are a Canadian possession, claim that the Northwest Passage (an indeterminate rout through the maze of the Arctic Archipelago) is an international strait that that they cannot be denied passage. This is despite the fact that the Northwest Passage is perhaps the least navigated waterway in the world (the number of ships which pass through it in a year can be counted on one hand, and most of these are government icebreakers).
The United States has, on a number of occasions, attempted to flout Canada's sovereignty by sailing both civilian and military vessels through the passage unannounced. Matters came to a head in the 70's when the United States attempted to navigate a reinforced oil tanker through the passage (an oil tanker break-up in the high arctic would have unimaginably disastrous effects), but public outcry forced it to concede to at least giving notice to the Canadian government before attempting any further navigation.
Also, Russia and the United States have both challenged Canadian sovereignty by sailing submarines under the ice and seas claimed by Canada. During the Cold War they would often conduct cat and mouse games in the area, much to the chagrin of the Canadian government. Canada currently does not have submarines capable of conducting under ice patrols, and does not expect to have this capability until around 2010.
To counter the moves of other countries and to assert its sovereignty, Canada has taken a number of steps. First, it has invested large amounts of money in the people of the area. The Inuit people of the region are provided with full health insurance and welfare (as are all Canadians), and recently efforts have been made to maintain as much of the traditional culture and economy as possible. Recently, the Inuit were even granted their own territory, Nunavut, where they comprise the majority of the population and Inuktitut (the tongue of the Inuit) is an official language. Recently, youth unemployment and lack of housing (because of the high birth rate and rapidly rising population) have both become a cause for concern.
Additionally, the government operates a fleet of icebreakers and aircraft used to supply far northern settlements and outposts. These have presented something of a Catch-22 for the government, since an arctic presence (largely by way of military vessels) must be maintained to assert sovereignty, yet these vessels breaking up the sea ice has a negative effect on local hunting activities (something the government would like to support).
The native people have also been employed directly to assert sovereignty by way of the Canadian Rangers, a program that employs Inuit hunters on the sea ice to patrol for foreign craft and assert Canadian sovereignty (the fact that many Inuit live a large part of the year on the sea ice also gives credence to Canada's claims).
Another aggravating factor in maintaining sovereignty is global warming. The Arctic has been disproportionately affected by warming, and it's expected that commercial navigation of the Northwest Passage will become feasible in the next 10 to 15 years. Many nations (including immerging Asian powers) would have an interest in opening up the passage to free navigation. Not only would such a scenario threaten Canadian sovereignty, but it would also cause immense harm to the lifestyle of the people of the region - and would contribute massive amounts of pollution in an incredibly fragile environment.
As many people know certain forms of 'hate speech' targeting people on the basis of race, religion, etc. are banned in Canada. Currently (openly gay) MP Svend Robinson is trying to pass a private members bill that would add anti-homosexual propaganda to the section of the Criminal Code pertaining to hate literature.
While I'm all against gay bashing, the repercussions of this going through are very broad - going so far as to ban certain passages of the bible, prevent certain religions (e.g. Catholics) from distributing certain of their teachings, outlawing political party platforms that call for un-equal rights for gays (such as pertaining to marriage), etc. Again, while I'm not religious, and don't object to any of these possibilities personally, they are by most people's definition extreme.
I'm not sure what chance he has of getting this through (I certainly wouldn't call it impossible), but he certainly got a leg up yesterday when the leader of the opposition Stephen Harper (from a very right-wing party that would certainly oppose such an amendment) made a homophobic slight against Mr. Robinson in an unrelated debate. Stephen Harper and his party are very sensitive to being labelled as homophobic, so they might now just keep their mouths shut and let the proposed amendment go through rather than draw more negative attention to themselves.
The rights of US citizens under their constitution are subject to "justifiable limitations" just as in other open, democratic countries - these limitations just aren't laid out as clearly as those in more recent constitutions (the US Bill of Rights was written about 200 years before the current Canadian Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms). Canadians, in fact, are probably better protected, as there is a comparable standard (what other democratic societies do), unlike in the US where it's almost entirely up to a judge's discretion.
It's easy to tell when you look at the side of the coin - it seems the US Mint "paints" their coins with shiny metal (looks very cheap, at least for someone used to Canadian coinage), while Canadian coins are the same colour all over.
WTF? Crosses in the school? Religious class? Maybe in a CATHOLIC school or something, but in public primary and secondary schools in Ontario (which I have attended) there's no such thing. I'm 99% sure you're thinking catholic schools (which may or may not be funded by the gov. depending on province) because no public (i.e. secular) schools in Canada have such things, that's just insane.
Besides, having 'crosses' in a CANADIAN public school makes NO sense, since 1. Christianity is not dominant like in the US and 2. Canadians are MUCH MORE secularized than Americans (less than 1/2 as many Canadians attend a house of worship as Americans), and the level of atheism/non-affiliation is many times higher.
Little separation of Church & State with things like religious lessons in schools.
Being a Canadian, I have no idea what your talking about:) While some provinces fund part (or as in Ontario, nearly all) of religious schools (better than the 'classims' of US private schools), there are still an abundance of public schools that are just as secular as anything you'll find in the US. While religion is discussed as a topic, it isn't in the "christianity is the one and only" sense I get that it is in the US. And I don't think things like evolution, are are hot topis in the US, are even an issue here.
MS isn't totally out in the cold with Sega. They are getting (exclusively I think) Jet Set/Grind Radio 2, which will probably be the game that 'forces me' to get an X-box (It's the only game I ever 'bought' for my Dreamcast).
this is one-dimensional crap
on
Globalization
·
· Score: 0
How is globalization always on the side of 'cosmopolitism' plurality and modernity? Globalization, in many ways, is just another word for 'Americanization'. Here in Canada for instance, globalization has meant (and/or is leading to) privatization and inequity in or healthcare system, gutting of welfare, loss of control over our own industries, etc... all in the name of striving for the lowest common denominator (e.g. the American way). Maybe if you're at the bottom of the barrel, no-holds-bared capitalism and greed if a good way to work your way up... but for those of us already there it's a big step backwards...
Despite what you may have been told, the US is NOT the most modern, advanced, accepting, equitable, etc. society in the world... and we dpn't all want to be like you.
This isn't true. XP has shown a big speed improvement on all the machines I've put it on (they were all running ME before). It's running perfectly well on a P2 233 with 160 mb ram. The UI functions (sliding out menu's, navigating the file system, etc.) look just as good and run just as fast as on my P4 (it has less ram tho.. 128... DAMN' YOU RAMBUS!)
My copy of Super Mario Brothers 3 crashed every time after you beat it (so you couldn't see the end of the story and the credits and stuff.. I never have). Lots of other NES games also crashed constiantly (Ninja Turtles comes very much to mind)... not to mention the fact that they wore out after a few years and you had to keep buying them (blowing would only work for so long)... still my all-time favorite console.
Also, strangely enough, I've never had an NES game crash on me while emulating them on my Dreamcast (score one for Sega I guess:)
Slashdot Mirror
Then they don't pay attention to economics, or they'd know that paying more won't work for 99% of the world's population not only because they can;t afford it, but because if they could there simply won't be anywhere near enough to go around.
Also what do you consider an "environmentally friendly" source of electricity? While there are definately many small scale forms of truely envoronmentally beneign forms of power (e.g. gass leakage, thermal, etc.) potentially large-scale forms like wind and solar aren't environemtally friendly at all, as both are so ineffecient that they rarely pay for their manufacture. Hydro, OTOH, while clearly being "clean" in the sense of not releasing carbon and polutants, has the most destructive impact of all (by a factor of a million I would conservatively estimate).
The only truely clean form of power available today is nuclear, yet every self-describes "environmentalist" I know is dead-set against it for reason I can't understand.
Secondly, a car that burns fossil fuels directly will always have to burn fossil fuels, but a car that runs on electricity, even if it currently pollutes indirectly via fossil fuel burning power plants, will immediately be able to take advantage of more environmentally-friendly produced electricity as soon as it becomes available. The average car is on the road what? 10 years? It will be decades (and perhapse centuries) untill we will be able to convert a large part of electricity production over to clean sources, and even then it won't be solar, wind, or whatever other pipe-deam the enviro's think up (both being incredibly ineffecient and incredly polluting in all kinds of ways). The "hydrogen economy" (of which electric cars are part) only makes sense with an abundant source of cheap clean energy, which right now means nuclear and in the distant future potentially fusion. Untill then pretending that our electricicity could come from clean sources does nobody any good.
The only electric car I can think of to be put into serious production in recent times was the (Ford owned) Th!nk, and it was canned a few years ago. Batteries are simply too heavy/expensive and charging takes too much time.
Also FYI hydrogen cars make even less sense and will untill we have an abundant source of cheap, clean energy (see: fission, fusion). What many so-called environmentalists fail to grasp is that the greater part of our electricity does and will come from fossil fuels (especially so long as they oppose nuclear energy) and the many conversions involved in hydrogen powered vehicles make them incredibly ineffecient and not worth the effort. There is a huge loss in effeciency turning fossil fuels into electricity at the generating plant, another signifigant loss transmitting it over power lines to the fueling station, another huge loss using that electricity to extract hydrogen from water, and finally another huge loss turning that hydrogen back into electricity with a fuel cell to power the car. Just burn the damn' fuel in the damn' car in the first place!!!
On the upside hybrid cars, even if they don't make sense now in terms of costs (all are sold at a loss by manufacturers, and even still at a price that outweighs any potential fuel savings for most people), they will in the future as costs come down. That in addition to the fact that there are will be be performance gains as well (electric motors make maximum torque at 1 rpm, while small gas motors tend to be peaky). Hybrids can also get by with much smaller/lighter batteries which are cheaper and less of an environmental concern (batteries are very toxic, but again don't tell the "environmentalists").
Finally, I have to wonder what Hydro Quebec (a public utility) is doing getting into the car business? Last I heard they were building a huge gas fired plant near Montreal since their hydro production cannot keep up with demand just in the provice of Quebec (in the short term they say). Of course there was a huge public ooutcry over the fact that they would be building a "dirty" gas plant (and opposed, I guess, to destroying another few million square kilimetres of pristine winderness for "clean" hydro... another example of envoronmentalists reasoning I can't get my head around...)
Actually the Zetec wasn't that great and is dead. They've been replaced by a brand new generation of Mazda-designed i4s that are arguably the best among a field of great i4 families (Toyota, Honda, and even GM all have great i4s).
The Duratec family similarily is almost certainly the best in the industry, serving all the way from the Taurus (in SOHC form) to the Aston Martin Vanquish. Especially in higher turn Mazda, Lincoln, and Jaguar form the 3.0 Duratec leads the industry in refinement, output, and price, and will soon be joined by a 3.5.
It's also worth noting that the latest generation of Ford cars have dominated in the much more demanding European market (while Opel and VW have been hemoraging marketshare), and all the new Ford cars are deritives of either European Fords (Focus), Mazdas (Futura), or Volvos (500). Ford North America realized a while ago they're only really good at trucks and decided to specilize at that.
As for interior design you need to check out one of the latest gen' Euro' Fords or the new F-150. Ford passed VW a while ago for best interior quality - the models just haven't made it to North America yet.
I'm not saying buy a Taurus or a Ranger or crap like that - just that the latest generation of cars (F-150, 500, Futura, Freestyle) look set to dominate the industry in all respects.
IIRC in Canada at least it is ILLEGAL for a company operatng in Canada to follow any but Canadian laws (i.e. the foreign parent can't make the Canadian subsidiary do something because the parent's government passed some law or issued some directive).
I beleive this came about because of some dispute with the US, where the US told its companies to do something or other and Canada saw this as a threat to its sovregnity.
Anyone remember the exact circumstance?
They don't have the internet in North Korea. They don't even have a TLD as far as I know.
Their "news" service is registered in Japan: http://www.kcna.co.jp
Their homepage (which was completely insane - I hope somebody has a backup) used to be at http://www.korea-dpr.com
And their "trade" website is at http://www.dprkorea-trade.com - like their former homepage it's more-or-less them selling nicknacks for foreign currency.
Because -a- nuclear power plant wouldn't produce more than a few per cent of the power output of this dam?
MANY nuclear plants (on the order of a hundred or so) could, and for MUCH less money, with essentially no environmental or human cost.
Because nuclear fuel recycling still produces radioactive waste no one wants?
So what? Modern plants use fuel so effeciently that very little waste is created (compared to the past), and it can be easily stored.
Because nuclear power might not be economically viable?
Nuclear power IS economically viable. If you live in the US, Canada, or Europe there's a very good chance your power if from a nuclear plant. While plant construction has slowed down in developed nations because of people's irrational fears of anything nuclear, many developing nations are investing heavily.
A modern CANDU heavy-water nuclear power plant, for instance, has among the lowest cost-per-output of any generation technology, and will run on just about anything. Other nuclear plant types aren't quite as effecient, but cost less to build.
Even if it isn't chemically addictive, Marijuana is still "habbit forming" with a lot of people.
:) and am currently in university doing something with myself.
:)
I'm a lazy person by nature: REALLY lazy. I have no motivation or goals or desire to do anything. Despite this, I still somehow managed to graduate from high school (grade 13 even
I don't smoke pot or drink alcohol: if I had a KNOW I wouldn't be where I am today.
My brother's friends (who are ~3 years younger than me and still in high school) all smoke pot all day long. They get up, go to one kids house (who's a 'foreign exchange' sudent from Korea who is failing ALL his classes because he smokes pot all day long), and get high. At lunch they get high again. All evening they get high.
They each have a ~$100 a week habbit - some for a few years strait now. They each have crappy jobs solely to support their drug habbits. And they're all doing horrible in school (when they're not kicked out for being high, or skipping to get high).
Also, I knew these kids when they were younger and sober and I SWEAR they've all smoked themselves retarded. When even not high they're too dumb to have a conversation with.
The point: even if marijuana doesn't physically damage you and the people around you the way alcohol does (I'm much more strongly against alcohol than I am marijuana), it can still mess up your life. The fact that pot heads are a drag on society (especially in a country with a comprehensive social safety net like Canada) must also be considered.
Oh yah, I forgot to mention that by brrother and his friends are not getting jobs this summer, and are instead growing pot with the intention of becoming drug dealers. I for one hope they get caught and go to jail if that's what sets them strait (I fear the Korean kid will just be deported
Notice that is for CRUDE oil.
The US likes to import Middle East crude (unprocessed) oil because it can process it itself (value added). Canada, not being a third-world country, much prefers to do the rifining itself and ship the end product to the US.
This is why you won't see George Bush or any of his set suggest the US make an effort to buy more stable Canadian oil: the oil refiners along the coasts (especially on South-East coast) would go ballistic.
There's more oil in Canada than all of the Middle East combined. Most of it, however, is in the tar sands and expensive to recover (there's still a profit to be made by effecient opperators, but it's not like the Middle East where you just stick a hole in the ground and oil comes rushing out).
Still, even without counting natural gas, Canada is the US's largest fuel supplier. Lets also not forget about hydro-electricity imported into the US from Canada.
...aren't they the same thing?
Related to this is that if the northwest passage opens up and Canada claims it, then many nations will expect Canada to put up the maintanaince. i.e. having something like the US coast guard in quantities to handle the new traffic. This is exactly why Canada can't allow anyone to sail through and set a precedent to that effect (not only does Canada get nothing from an open passage - but it will cost huge amounts in security, environmental costs, etc.). I would suspect that Canada's current policy is "turn around or we shoot" - which isn't a bad one at all. Canada is too geographically isolated for any country but the US to attack in any serious way (and I doubt the US would go to war over this issue).
This isn't good news as far as Canada is concerned. The following is from an E2 w/u I did a while back (http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=Canadian %20Arctic%20Sovereignty):
Arctic sovereignty has long been a pressing issue in Canada. While ownership of the Arctic Archipelago islands is no longer disputed seriously by any nation (and the inhabitants of this region are professed Canadians), control over the surrounding ocean is still a contentious issue.
Canada claims full ownership of all the seas in the area up to its usual (and accepted) 200-mile limit, as well as full ownership of any sea ice extending northward from it's cost to the North Pole (since, in its opinion, sea ice is effectively land). Many countries, including the United States, refuse to recognise its sea ice claim - and while allowing that the open waters in the area are a Canadian possession, claim that the Northwest Passage (an indeterminate rout through the maze of the Arctic Archipelago) is an international strait that that they cannot be denied passage. This is despite the fact that the Northwest Passage is perhaps the least navigated waterway in the world (the number of ships which pass through it in a year can be counted on one hand, and most of these are government icebreakers).
The United States has, on a number of occasions, attempted to flout Canada's sovereignty by sailing both civilian and military vessels through the passage unannounced. Matters came to a head in the 70's when the United States attempted to navigate a reinforced oil tanker through the passage (an oil tanker break-up in the high arctic would have unimaginably disastrous effects), but public outcry forced it to concede to at least giving notice to the Canadian government before attempting any further navigation.
Also, Russia and the United States have both challenged Canadian sovereignty by sailing submarines under the ice and seas claimed by Canada. During the Cold War they would often conduct cat and mouse games in the area, much to the chagrin of the Canadian government. Canada currently does not have submarines capable of conducting under ice patrols, and does not expect to have this capability until around 2010.
To counter the moves of other countries and to assert its sovereignty, Canada has taken a number of steps. First, it has invested large amounts of money in the people of the area. The Inuit people of the region are provided with full health insurance and welfare (as are all Canadians), and recently efforts have been made to maintain as much of the traditional culture and economy as possible. Recently, the Inuit were even granted their own territory, Nunavut, where they comprise the majority of the population and Inuktitut (the tongue of the Inuit) is an official language. Recently, youth unemployment and lack of housing (because of the high birth rate and rapidly rising population) have both become a cause for concern.
Additionally, the government operates a fleet of icebreakers and aircraft used to supply far northern settlements and outposts. These have presented something of a Catch-22 for the government, since an arctic presence (largely by way of military vessels) must be maintained to assert sovereignty, yet these vessels breaking up the sea ice has a negative effect on local hunting activities (something the government would like to support).
The native people have also been employed directly to assert sovereignty by way of the Canadian Rangers, a program that employs Inuit hunters on the sea ice to patrol for foreign craft and assert Canadian sovereignty (the fact that many Inuit live a large part of the year on the sea ice also gives credence to Canada's claims).
Another aggravating factor in maintaining sovereignty is global warming. The Arctic has been disproportionately affected by warming, and it's expected that commercial navigation of the Northwest Passage will become feasible in the next 10 to 15 years. Many nations (including immerging Asian powers) would have an interest in opening up the passage to free navigation. Not only would such a scenario threaten Canadian sovereignty, but it would also cause immense harm to the lifestyle of the people of the region - and would contribute massive amounts of pollution in an incredibly fragile environment.
As many people know certain forms of 'hate speech' targeting people on the basis of race, religion, etc. are banned in Canada. Currently (openly gay) MP Svend Robinson is trying to pass a private members bill that would add anti-homosexual propaganda to the section of the Criminal Code pertaining to hate literature.
While I'm all against gay bashing, the repercussions of this going through are very broad - going so far as to ban certain passages of the bible, prevent certain religions (e.g. Catholics) from distributing certain of their teachings, outlawing political party platforms that call for un-equal rights for gays (such as pertaining to marriage), etc. Again, while I'm not religious, and don't object to any of these possibilities personally, they are by most people's definition extreme.
I'm not sure what chance he has of getting this through (I certainly wouldn't call it impossible), but he certainly got a leg up yesterday when the leader of the opposition Stephen Harper (from a very right-wing party that would certainly oppose such an amendment) made a homophobic slight against Mr. Robinson in an unrelated debate. Stephen Harper and his party are very sensitive to being labelled as homophobic, so they might now just keep their mouths shut and let the proposed amendment go through rather than draw more negative attention to themselves.
The rights of US citizens under their constitution are subject to "justifiable limitations" just as in other open, democratic countries - these limitations just aren't laid out as clearly as those in more recent constitutions (the US Bill of Rights was written about 200 years before the current Canadian Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms). Canadians, in fact, are probably better protected, as there is a comparable standard (what other democratic societies do), unlike in the US where it's almost entirely up to a judge's discretion.
It's easy to tell when you look at the side of the coin - it seems the US Mint "paints" their coins with shiny metal (looks very cheap, at least for someone used to Canadian coinage), while Canadian coins are the same colour all over.
The wonders of multiculturalism: Fundamentalist HINDUISM :)
I think Opera (http://opera.com) invented this feature years ago.
WTF? Crosses in the school? Religious class? Maybe in a CATHOLIC school or something, but in public primary and secondary schools in Ontario (which I have attended) there's no such thing. I'm 99% sure you're thinking catholic schools (which may or may not be funded by the gov. depending on province) because no public (i.e. secular) schools in Canada have such things, that's just insane.
Besides, having 'crosses' in a CANADIAN public school makes NO sense, since 1. Christianity is not dominant like in the US and 2. Canadians are MUCH MORE secularized than Americans (less than 1/2 as many Canadians attend a house of worship as Americans), and the level of atheism/non-affiliation is many times higher.
Little separation of Church & State with things like religious lessons in schools.
Being a Canadian, I have no idea what your talking about :) While some provinces fund part (or as in Ontario, nearly all) of religious schools (better than the 'classims' of US private schools), there are still an abundance of public schools that are just as secular as anything you'll find in the US. While religion is discussed as a topic, it isn't in the "christianity is the one and only" sense I get that it is in the US. And I don't think things like evolution, are are hot topis in the US, are even an issue here.
The X-Box has video IN? I don't think so.
Beyond that and a bigger HD, however, I there anything stopping the X-box from doing what TiVo does now?
...Chip n' Dales MMORPG (http://www.solarisdx.net/features/1CD_mmorpg.html )
MS isn't totally out in the cold with Sega. They are getting (exclusively I think) Jet Set/Grind Radio 2, which will probably be the game that 'forces me' to get an X-box (It's the only game I ever 'bought' for my Dreamcast).
How is globalization always on the side of 'cosmopolitism' plurality and modernity? Globalization, in many ways, is just another word for 'Americanization'. Here in Canada for instance, globalization has meant (and/or is leading to) privatization and inequity in or healthcare system, gutting of welfare, loss of control over our own industries, etc... all in the name of striving for the lowest common denominator (e.g. the American way). Maybe if you're at the bottom of the barrel, no-holds-bared capitalism and greed if a good way to work your way up... but for those of us already there it's a big step backwards...
Despite what you may have been told, the US is NOT the most modern, advanced, accepting, equitable, etc. society in the world... and we dpn't all want to be like you.
This isn't true. XP has shown a big speed improvement on all the machines I've put it on (they were all running ME before). It's running perfectly well on a P2 233 with 160 mb ram. The UI functions (sliding out menu's, navigating the file system, etc.) look just as good and run just as fast as on my P4 (it has less ram tho.. 128... DAMN' YOU RAMBUS!)
this is kind of pointless, but...
My copy of Super Mario Brothers 3 crashed every time after you beat it (so you couldn't see the end of the story and the credits and stuff.. I never have). Lots of other NES games also crashed constiantly (Ninja Turtles comes very much to mind)... not to mention the fact that they wore out after a few years and you had to keep buying them (blowing would only work for so long)... still my all-time favorite console.
Also, strangely enough, I've never had an NES game crash on me while emulating them on my Dreamcast (score one for Sega I guess :)