Are you trying to say that all the great artists weren't weirdos, that the most innovative music doesn't come from marginalized cultures? It's the "abnormal" stuff that makes life and the universe interesting, the foam on the beer, the pepper on the pasta, yadda yadda.
I like thinking that the visible universe is just a kind of interesting foam clinging to the more mundane stuff.
...head hair is good for preventing sun burn on our heads.
I'm bald, you insensitive clod!
Sorry, couldn't resist. Anyway, my question about evolutionary advantage was mostly rhetorical. I was trying to make the point that our natural selection is directed by culture and technology (another one is the shape of our jaw: cooking has made it weak and smaller), and I wonder if in fact the lice themselves haven't had more evolutionary effect than we suspect on the kind of hair we grow on our heads (i.e. less elliptical, longer).
Chicks with nice hair (listen to them talk amongst themselves sometime you might learn something)
Ah, you presumptuous, arrogant, snide little whippersnapper! Since it's humourous flamebait, I'll let it slide this time.
You're paraphrasing the dominant theories. I'm not unaware of them, and I don't disagree with them, but I don't trust them entirely either. The runaway sexual selection this idea relies on doesn't adress all ethnicities (e.g. the !Kung keep short hair, and it's wiry enough that they can just break it off), and there's the possibility that it signifies youth in an exaggerated manner (neoteny, IIRC). I also think you're grossly oversimplifying lesbian fashion, probably from unfamiliarity (maybe you should hang out with them more--oops, did I say that?). As with most things organic, and even more so, cultural, it's complicated and likely overdetermined by various causes.
In this case, I think there's detail in the relationship between hair parasites and hair growth that will also prove to be an evolutionary influence, in ways we haven't even guessed at yet.
Think of a woman with long hair. When she is wadding through a river trying to catch fish, she has her hands free while the baby is hanging onto her hair. Instead of leaving the baby by the riverside where it could get eaten.
So, you're suggesting that [citation lost but we trust you] once we lost our somatic hair, the hair on our head grew to compensate so the babies can cling to it.
Maybe, but I have children of my own. Unless head-hair pain thresholds have changed considerably, the concept of a woman letting an infant swing from her hair while she works is, well, worthy of Monty Python, and I had a good LOL at your theory. Tell me your address, I'll come over and demonstrate why it's unlikely!
On a more serious note, the question of when innovations like baby slings came into use is an interesting one, in relation to our development of our current hair patterns. I'll bet they were as early an invention as, say, the water gourd.
Hair lasts between 2 to 6 years. Hair grows at about 1/4 inch to 1/2 inch a month. This does result in a terminal hair length. Hair is not forever.
Granted, I was exaggerating. Only a few people manage hair longer than their body. Many millions, however, have hair past their butt. Terminal hair length is potentially very long.
It still seems even more absurd to me than extreme sexual signalling like the tail feathers of Birds of Paradise.
It's there to show we have been healthy for a reasonable amount of time... To counteract the parasite threat, have to develop strategies to keep hair clean...a bit of insulation...
Thanks for the theories, with undoubtedly some truth to some of them. Still, I don't see why hair grows so long, and suspect it's more than just the sexual signals it sends, and caused by more than runaway sexual selection.
In my opinion this is one of the most interesting aspects of this research - being able to date when we started becoming hairless. It's always been a puzzle why we are relatively hairless compared to the other great apes, and I would guess that being able to put some time constraints on it is a step toward understanding how this happened.
And how about that head-hair, eh? In most straight-haired people, it grows to indeterminate length, until it gets cut or strangles its bearer. Where's the evolutionary advantage of that? What a weird design. I wonder if it's a product of culture working through evolution: the the need for hair grooming is part of the social pact, keeps us in the troupe. A deep syntax of the body?
Maybe head lice elicited the long, straight round hair in our genome. They certainly are specialized, can't survive anywhere else, and they're damn good at it. We coevolved somehow? Ever since I've read Lynn Margulis and learned about creepy crawlies like Toxoplasmosis, I don't put it past parasites to work changes on our genes, as part of a tendency by successful parasites towards symbiosis.
Labatt's is owned by Interbrew, a Belgian transnational.
The only Canadian beer these days is the regional mid-sized breweries (being scooped up like candy by the transnats) and the microbrews that are springing up everywhere.
I sincerely hope the entire agricultural industry, and others, really comprehend what it is they should be learning from this and change their priorities a bit before the same thing hits say, the entire corn supply.
Don't hold your breath. Agriculture has been so heavily swayed by the siren song of progress that it is liquidating all the natural assets it can in a big techno-cash-grab: squandering soil tilth, water reserves, forests, biodiversity, economic diversity, traditional knowledge, and youth (yes, youth, they're all leaving the farm don'cha know).
The worst part of this is the worsening mad rush to reductionism and economies of scale, in the face of contrary evidence. Sure, simplifying things to monocrops and one-man combine operations seems cheaper and hugely productive. But it's on biological credit, and if the pests and low fertility don't get you, the bank will when you have to buy more equipment and inputs, and there are market fluctuations and resource shortages and environmental regulations coming down the pipe. You could say that the externalities are coming home to roost, and we're losing the family farm to multinational vertical integration operations like Cargill. Why is that a problem? Well, does your financial advisor suggest you put all your savings into one stock?
Here's the thing about efficiency in a system: you have to look at all the inputs. The problem with Taylorizing a natural system is that you can't really take all the inputs and products into account properly, so it's easier to ignore or cut them out. A modern operation is unable to put soil biodiversity loss or volunteer cover crop (good weeds) on a spreadsheet, or handle 150 varieties of potatoes to avoid loss to pests or unseasonal weather. The long-term costs are not factored in, though traditionalists and family farmers might try at least.
If it's Frederick "Speedy" Taylor vs. Mother Nature, guess who's going to win? Scientific management doesn't grok that complex natural systems are more productive over the long term.
Next time you have two Word documents open, try hitting apple+` (the key above tab).
Oh, it's better than that. You can cmd-` to cycle through windows within an application, but also through expose's 'show only current app windows' F10 mode, so that you can call up one app after another, useful if you have 15 apps open at once as I usually do. Also, that key combo works for cycling through application switcher (the command-tab interface) and in some other places as well.
Add the shift key in there and you're cycling in the other direction.
You need to ask why people leave home and don't look back? What, are you sheltered?
"You are NOT marrying that girl, you hear me? Come here and I will whup your ass, I don't care how old you are. You do this and you are OUT on your own, mister! And I don't EVER want to see you again!"
If that's the case then make a point of asking all the people of american descent that you know if they have any native american blood in them. You'll be surprised how many do.
You don't get it. Genocide isn't necessarily about eliminating bloodlines, though that can be part of it. It's about destroying a people, and as long as there's no remaining language, culture, economy, or territory, it's pretty much successful. Some in the various governments and populace of N.A. clearly expressed the intent and followed through, with more success in some places than others.
Yes, though the percentage of dead through disease is hard to estimate, 95% might be high. It doesn't matter, there was a plan being developed for the survivors. Since elsewhere in the discussion there are those who deny there was a genocide, here's the legal definition of genocide, as adopted by the UN:
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
* (a) Killing members of the group;
* (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
* (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
* (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
* (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Now if one knows much about indigenous-settler relations in N.A., then you know that: wars and disease took care of (a), alcohol and linguistic-cultural suppression took care of (b), forced migration and enclosure and ecodisaster took care of (c), it's coming to light that the mid-20C saw forced sterilizations in many parts of the continent(d), and the residential schools (e) are currently costing taxpayers a fortune in Canada due to massive restitution. The deliberate destruction of hundreds of languages can be laid at the feet of the residential schools, as well as a sorry history of rape, murder, and destroyed families for generations. The last ones closed in Canada in the '70's (not 500 years ago as some of the ideologues are stating in other threads).
From what I have read, the North was less suitable for large, settled-down civilizations, in terms of food sources and climate. This led to the nomadic lifestyle of the population in the North. Since in general nomadic cultures produce less in the way of technological advances (less free time, basically), this would account for much of the difference.
Assumption: nomadic lifestyle = less time. Not necessarily true, moving around frees people from the drudgery that is agriculture, and nomads tend to work on elaborate ceremony and narrative. How would you like to work only 26 hours per week? It does mean they're less materialistic, since stuff is a liability. That outlook means that advanced camping gear is good enough technologically, and pretty comfortable. Development occurs in other ways.
Assumption: unified population and cultures. Not true, considerable linguistic and cultural variety in N.A., including sedentary cultures in the Pacific Northwest and some desert regions (one tied to abundant food outside the front door, the other tied to marginal agriculture). Blame the difference in development on the horse, flux of empires, and specialization derived from large city societies.
Face it, European culture is currently the most advanced. As a result, for people raised in European-descended cultures, only cultures directly linked to their current position actually matter.
Measured by what metric? Sustainability, balance, restraint? Fail. Compassion? Near-fail. Peacefulness? Serious failure. Equality? Fail. Pattern and systems literacy? Fail. Leisure time? Fail. Indigenous low-tech cultures of N.A. had the Euros beat on those metrics of advancement, including the political system that eventually heavily influenced the American Revolution--the Haudenosaunee, a democratic system with better checks and balances than the French system.
The agriculture of the Americas, in particular, was in places fairly advanced. Many of your staple foodstuff were developed in the Americas. The Inca, for instance, were cultivating over 3000 distinct varieties of potato at the time of invasion, now reduced to 5 machine-friendly less-nutritious varieties in the supermarket.
The metric that equates technical advancement with cultural virtue, that confuses complexity with development, that lauds aggression over diplomacy, that values power over honour, and rewards personal greed over multigenerational-foresight... well, it seems like a primitive metric to me.
The parent post demonstrates that in a settler State (e.g. Canada, USA, ANZA, formerly South Africa, Israel) there is a huge blind spot that is used ideologically to obscure the nature of the genocide that underpins the new state. A big part of that blind spot is used to zero out the original cultures, to deprecate and suppress their achievements, to suppress claims of sovereignty and continuity, to disrupt the propagation of the original cultures, and to prop up notions of superiority in a 'might-makes-right without actually saying so' framework.
Your explanation of racism and ethnocentrism is bizarre and tautological. It's obvious that your education, particularly in History, was oriented towards this settler state ideology. You are confusing power and ambition with advancement--but that confusion is part of your cultural heritage.
You can do precisely the same thing in VISTA, i.e. click the start button and start typing the application name.
It is not the same, you're missing the point. Cmd-space--p-h-return happens instantly, without peering at the screen or even thinking about it for a touch typist. It certainly isn't the same as moving from the keyboard to the mouse, fidgeting, clicking, and then moving back to the keyboard and typing. Quicksilver/Spotlight as a combo saves stress from the worst part of a GUI--finding stuff and clicking. Used dozens of times in a day, it's a giddy relief.
Even if a lot of power is concentrated into a few hands doesn't make royalty. It's not hereditary, institutionalized, or concomitant with any claim of inherent superiority. Likewise if you want to argue that the USA is an empire, then please do so within the confines of the actual definition of the term.
It's true that 'empire' is a deprecated term, in the dustbin of history for now. So what has replaced it? How does one describe a state that has over 700 military bases in over 100 nations, and a corresponding international web of commerce and espionage? That considers the other side of the globe its own backyard? The term begs redefinition, because while the label 'empire' has gone away with the power of the royals, the urge to make one sure hasn't. American patriotism strives to overlook the implications of its territorial spread across the planet, because "it isn't an empire."
Likewise with 'royalty.' The queen has little actual provenance over my life (give me starchy hapless 'Liz over Darth Cheney any day). However, the captains of industry and finance do. Many of the most powerful are grafted into vast institutional networks and their power is hereditary.
Institutions adapt or die. The power and method of the elites has changed over time, but blood still matters, and the old ways of heredity are intertwined with the new ways of industry.
What compelled you to post? Did you actually disagree with me, or was it just unacceptable to you that someone might have presented a case where the USA wasn't totally wrong?
Now now, no need to sneer. Who could disagree with you (other than some confederate moderator)? Rejecting royalty is a great foundation for a state. It's just that it didn't work, they came back in another form, and that revolution is spent. Your original post (an american railing at the depravities of the elites of rival systems) seemed unselfconsciously ironic, and needed help.
The concept of "Royalty" is a history-encompassing scam where brigand families who murdered and backstabbed their way to political dominance, then established the fiction that they were fundamentally superior by the grace of genetics and edict of God, and used that fiction to claim right to subjugate and torture their "subjects" when not embroiling them in self-enriching wars.
I wholeheartedly agree! Off with their heads! That's what's so great about the land of the brave: Americans don't have royalty, the same way they don't have an Empire.
The GG (as the representative of the head of state) and the head of state (currently the Queen, but will be a King) are the only ones allowed to dissolve parliament and call an election.
The optics of the Canadian parliament are very interesting, given that so much of politics is managed optics. The vast majority are white, a large majority are male; out of proportion with the population and a picture of late colonial chauvinism. Then up there at the head, literally and figuratively, is this statuesque black woman of humble origins and high esteem, with her hand on the plug.
While the Klan and its kin are quiescent and underground, and people generally maintain an air of politeness, the thread of racism runs pretty strongly through the canadian multicultural tapestry. Polite, but still virulent and systematic. So, it's a very interesting balance of power illuminated by those optics (and you know they've been manufactured: she's an appointee). The head of state is a socially progressive black woman, so there.
"I'm waiting on tenderhooks for those 300GB notebook drives"
For Logistic's sake, get an mid-large external 7200 2.5in HD in a rugged USB/1394-powered case, and an 18" cable. The data is safer (carry it in a pocket) and you save on the penalty for bleeding-edge prices. Smaller than a paperback, so a tolerable addition to the package, with the benefits of providing backup and added security.
BTW, it's "Tenterhooks" -- used to strech wool for drying, nothing tender about them.
I am Canadian. I received a notice from my ISP because my wife downloaded an MP3, something she rarely does because I subscribe to Napster.
We altered our behavior by not doing it again. Piracy is theft.
Well, if you're canadian, and you've paid for cassette tapes or blank CD's, then you've paid a levy that goes back to artists (in theory and law). You can download mp3's, it ISN'T piracy, it's just like borrowing a CD from a friend to copy a song--it's allowed, and you're paying for it. You cannot, however, upload or redistribute that copy (which some software does by default). And even if you were engaging in copyright infringement, it certainly wouldn't be theft, since you are not claiming to be the author.
If you're curious, here's the relevant section from section 8 of the copyright act:
80. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of
(a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording,
(b) a performer's performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or
(c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer's performance of a musical work, is embodied
onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you trying to say that all the great artists weren't weirdos, that the most innovative music doesn't come from marginalized cultures? It's the "abnormal" stuff that makes life and the universe interesting, the foam on the beer, the pepper on the pasta, yadda yadda.
I like thinking that the visible universe is just a kind of interesting foam clinging to the more mundane stuff.
...head hair is good for preventing sun burn on our heads.I'm bald, you insensitive clod!
Sorry, couldn't resist. Anyway, my question about evolutionary advantage was mostly rhetorical. I was trying to make the point that our natural selection is directed by culture and technology (another one is the shape of our jaw: cooking has made it weak and smaller), and I wonder if in fact the lice themselves haven't had more evolutionary effect than we suspect on the kind of hair we grow on our heads (i.e. less elliptical, longer).
Ah, you presumptuous, arrogant, snide little whippersnapper! Since it's humourous flamebait, I'll let it slide this time.
You're paraphrasing the dominant theories. I'm not unaware of them, and I don't disagree with them, but I don't trust them entirely either. The runaway sexual selection this idea relies on doesn't adress all ethnicities (e.g. the !Kung keep short hair, and it's wiry enough that they can just break it off), and there's the possibility that it signifies youth in an exaggerated manner (neoteny, IIRC). I also think you're grossly oversimplifying lesbian fashion, probably from unfamiliarity (maybe you should hang out with them more--oops, did I say that?). As with most things organic, and even more so, cultural, it's complicated and likely overdetermined by various causes.
In this case, I think there's detail in the relationship between hair parasites and hair growth that will also prove to be an evolutionary influence, in ways we haven't even guessed at yet.
So, you're suggesting that [citation lost but we trust you] once we lost our somatic hair, the hair on our head grew to compensate so the babies can cling to it.
Maybe, but I have children of my own. Unless head-hair pain thresholds have changed considerably, the concept of a woman letting an infant swing from her hair while she works is, well, worthy of Monty Python, and I had a good LOL at your theory. Tell me your address, I'll come over and demonstrate why it's unlikely!
On a more serious note, the question of when innovations like baby slings came into use is an interesting one, in relation to our development of our current hair patterns. I'll bet they were as early an invention as, say, the water gourd.
PS: course=route; coarse=rough
Granted, I was exaggerating. Only a few people manage hair longer than their body. Many millions, however, have hair past their butt. Terminal hair length is potentially very long.
It still seems even more absurd to me than extreme sexual signalling like the tail feathers of Birds of Paradise.
Thanks for the theories, with undoubtedly some truth to some of them. Still, I don't see why hair grows so long, and suspect it's more than just the sexual signals it sends, and caused by more than runaway sexual selection.
And how about that head-hair, eh? In most straight-haired people, it grows to indeterminate length, until it gets cut or strangles its bearer. Where's the evolutionary advantage of that? What a weird design. I wonder if it's a product of culture working through evolution: the the need for hair grooming is part of the social pact, keeps us in the troupe. A deep syntax of the body?
Maybe head lice elicited the long, straight round hair in our genome. They certainly are specialized, can't survive anywhere else, and they're damn good at it. We coevolved somehow? Ever since I've read Lynn Margulis and learned about creepy crawlies like Toxoplasmosis, I don't put it past parasites to work changes on our genes, as part of a tendency by successful parasites towards symbiosis.
Mod parent up for accuracy. Polite and profane, that's us, eh?
No, started using that term in the late '80's when studying political economy... besides, I think you mean "Metanats" ;-)
Labatt's is owned by Interbrew, a Belgian transnational.
The only Canadian beer these days is the regional mid-sized breweries (being scooped up like candy by the transnats) and the microbrews that are springing up everywhere.
Don't hold your breath. Agriculture has been so heavily swayed by the siren song of progress that it is liquidating all the natural assets it can in a big techno-cash-grab: squandering soil tilth, water reserves, forests, biodiversity, economic diversity, traditional knowledge, and youth (yes, youth, they're all leaving the farm don'cha know).
The worst part of this is the worsening mad rush to reductionism and economies of scale, in the face of contrary evidence. Sure, simplifying things to monocrops and one-man combine operations seems cheaper and hugely productive. But it's on biological credit, and if the pests and low fertility don't get you, the bank will when you have to buy more equipment and inputs, and there are market fluctuations and resource shortages and environmental regulations coming down the pipe. You could say that the externalities are coming home to roost, and we're losing the family farm to multinational vertical integration operations like Cargill. Why is that a problem? Well, does your financial advisor suggest you put all your savings into one stock?
Here's the thing about efficiency in a system: you have to look at all the inputs. The problem with Taylorizing a natural system is that you can't really take all the inputs and products into account properly, so it's easier to ignore or cut them out. A modern operation is unable to put soil biodiversity loss or volunteer cover crop (good weeds) on a spreadsheet, or handle 150 varieties of potatoes to avoid loss to pests or unseasonal weather. The long-term costs are not factored in, though traditionalists and family farmers might try at least.
If it's Frederick "Speedy" Taylor vs. Mother Nature, guess who's going to win? Scientific management doesn't grok that complex natural systems are more productive over the long term.
Next time you have two Word documents open, try hitting apple+` (the key above tab).
Oh, it's better than that. You can cmd-` to cycle through windows within an application, but also through expose's 'show only current app windows' F10 mode, so that you can call up one app after another, useful if you have 15 apps open at once as I usually do. Also, that key combo works for cycling through application switcher (the command-tab interface) and in some other places as well.
Add the shift key in there and you're cycling in the other direction.
You need to ask why people leave home and don't look back? What, are you sheltered?
"You are NOT marrying that girl, you hear me? Come here and I will whup your ass, I don't care how old you are. You do this and you are OUT on your own, mister! And I don't EVER want to see you again!"
Yes, though the percentage of dead through disease is hard to estimate, 95% might be high. It doesn't matter, there was a plan being developed for the survivors. Since elsewhere in the discussion there are those who deny there was a genocide, here's the legal definition of genocide, as adopted by the UN:
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:* (a) Killing members of the group;
* (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
* (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
* (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
* (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Now if one knows much about indigenous-settler relations in N.A., then you know that: wars and disease took care of (a), alcohol and linguistic-cultural suppression took care of (b), forced migration and enclosure and ecodisaster took care of (c), it's coming to light that the mid-20C saw forced sterilizations in many parts of the continent(d), and the residential schools (e) are currently costing taxpayers a fortune in Canada due to massive restitution. The deliberate destruction of hundreds of languages can be laid at the feet of the residential schools, as well as a sorry history of rape, murder, and destroyed families for generations. The last ones closed in Canada in the '70's (not 500 years ago as some of the ideologues are stating in other threads).
Assumption: nomadic lifestyle = less time. Not necessarily true, moving around frees people from the drudgery that is agriculture, and nomads tend to work on elaborate ceremony and narrative. How would you like to work only 26 hours per week? It does mean they're less materialistic, since stuff is a liability. That outlook means that advanced camping gear is good enough technologically, and pretty comfortable. Development occurs in other ways.
Assumption: unified population and cultures. Not true, considerable linguistic and cultural variety in N.A., including sedentary cultures in the Pacific Northwest and some desert regions (one tied to abundant food outside the front door, the other tied to marginal agriculture). Blame the difference in development on the horse, flux of empires, and specialization derived from large city societies.
Look. Just call it genocide, OK? Be honest.
The agriculture of the Americas, in particular, was in places fairly advanced. Many of your staple foodstuff were developed in the Americas. The Inca, for instance, were cultivating over 3000 distinct varieties of potato at the time of invasion, now reduced to 5 machine-friendly less-nutritious varieties in the supermarket.
The metric that equates technical advancement with cultural virtue, that confuses complexity with development, that lauds aggression over diplomacy, that values power over honour, and rewards personal greed over multigenerational-foresight... well, it seems like a primitive metric to me.
The parent post demonstrates that in a settler State (e.g. Canada, USA, ANZA, formerly South Africa, Israel) there is a huge blind spot that is used ideologically to obscure the nature of the genocide that underpins the new state. A big part of that blind spot is used to zero out the original cultures, to deprecate and suppress their achievements, to suppress claims of sovereignty and continuity, to disrupt the propagation of the original cultures, and to prop up notions of superiority in a 'might-makes-right without actually saying so' framework.
Your explanation of racism and ethnocentrism is bizarre and tautological. It's obvious that your education, particularly in History, was oriented towards this settler state ideology. You are confusing power and ambition with advancement--but that confusion is part of your cultural heritage.
It is not the same, you're missing the point. Cmd-space--p-h-return happens instantly, without peering at the screen or even thinking about it for a touch typist. It certainly isn't the same as moving from the keyboard to the mouse, fidgeting, clicking, and then moving back to the keyboard and typing. Quicksilver/Spotlight as a combo saves stress from the worst part of a GUI--finding stuff and clicking. Used dozens of times in a day, it's a giddy relief.
It's true that 'empire' is a deprecated term, in the dustbin of history for now. So what has replaced it? How does one describe a state that has over 700 military bases in over 100 nations, and a corresponding international web of commerce and espionage? That considers the other side of the globe its own backyard? The term begs redefinition, because while the label 'empire' has gone away with the power of the royals, the urge to make one sure hasn't. American patriotism strives to overlook the implications of its territorial spread across the planet, because "it isn't an empire."
Likewise with 'royalty.' The queen has little actual provenance over my life (give me starchy hapless 'Liz over Darth Cheney any day). However, the captains of industry and finance do. Many of the most powerful are grafted into vast institutional networks and their power is hereditary.
Institutions adapt or die. The power and method of the elites has changed over time, but blood still matters, and the old ways of heredity are intertwined with the new ways of industry.
What compelled you to post? Did you actually disagree with me, or was it just unacceptable to you that someone might have presented a case where the USA wasn't totally wrong?Now now, no need to sneer. Who could disagree with you (other than some confederate moderator)? Rejecting royalty is a great foundation for a state. It's just that it didn't work, they came back in another form, and that revolution is spent. Your original post (an american railing at the depravities of the elites of rival systems) seemed unselfconsciously ironic, and needed help.
I wholeheartedly agree! Off with their heads! That's what's so great about the land of the brave: Americans don't have royalty, the same way they don't have an Empire.
The optics of the Canadian parliament are very interesting, given that so much of politics is managed optics. The vast majority are white, a large majority are male; out of proportion with the population and a picture of late colonial chauvinism. Then up there at the head, literally and figuratively, is this statuesque black woman of humble origins and high esteem, with her hand on the plug.
While the Klan and its kin are quiescent and underground, and people generally maintain an air of politeness, the thread of racism runs pretty strongly through the canadian multicultural tapestry. Polite, but still virulent and systematic. So, it's a very interesting balance of power illuminated by those optics (and you know they've been manufactured: she's an appointee). The head of state is a socially progressive black woman, so there.
"I'm waiting on tenderhooks for those 300GB notebook drives"
For Logistic's sake, get an mid-large external 7200 2.5in HD in a rugged USB/1394-powered case, and an 18" cable. The data is safer (carry it in a pocket) and you save on the penalty for bleeding-edge prices. Smaller than a paperback, so a tolerable addition to the package, with the benefits of providing backup and added security.
BTW, it's "Tenterhooks" -- used to strech wool for drying, nothing tender about them.
I am Canadian. I received a notice from my ISP because my wife downloaded an MP3, something she rarely does because I subscribe to Napster. We altered our behavior by not doing it again. Piracy is theft.
Well, if you're canadian, and you've paid for cassette tapes or blank CD's, then you've paid a levy that goes back to artists (in theory and law). You can download mp3's, it ISN'T piracy, it's just like borrowing a CD from a friend to copy a song--it's allowed, and you're paying for it. You cannot, however, upload or redistribute that copy (which some software does by default). And even if you were engaging in copyright infringement, it certainly wouldn't be theft, since you are not claiming to be the author.
If you're curious, here's the relevant section from section 8 of the copyright act:
80. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of (a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording, (b) a performer's performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or (c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer's performance of a musical work, is embodied onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording.I wonder if there would be much performance increase going to a 7200 rpm drive and using the other in a usb enclosure.
Most emphatically YES, especially booting, loading files, recording and capturing, and for programs with swap files like photoshop.