Boiling the water first evaporates off the chlorine, otherwise, you're disinfecting yourself everytime you drink it, an accumulative effect.,
Speaking as a former water scientist, this is complete BS.
Not to mention that you can't "boil off" chlorine; boiling is only to kill harmful bacteria in the water. Nothing actually leaves the water when you boil it, except for some steam.
Actually, I recall a Canadian [Supreme?] court case that said that this blank media levy effectively makes music-downloading legal. They can't claim that the "artists" (nudge nudge) aren't getting paid, because they are, through the levy.
The really evil thing is how the exception to the levy works. Some types of groups (follow link for full list) are excempted from the levy paid to the CPCC.
However in order to be exempt from paying a levy to the CPCC, you have to fill out an application and pay an "administrative fee" to the CPCC ($60 for commercial users, $15 for non-commercial).
Methinks that musicians don't see a whole lot of this, however, following that court case and before this law is passed (hopefully it won't be, or it will be similarly struck down), this levy is the CCCP's (did I just say that?) achilles heel.
It isn't any coincidence that the Gates foundation, with new funding from Warren Buffett, tends to donate money to those countries which purchase expensive AIDS drugs, instead of those which dismiss the drug companies' claims to intellectual property rights and produce it themselves.
Gates foundation: follow the money. Go to the source. It's closed.
I could almost see someone trying to iron out a crumpled ticket.
I have done this with receipts once. Thankfully, they weren't important ones.
While I was aware of what thermal paper does (from the fax machine), and I was aware that the iron was hot (duh), it did not occur to me at the time that the receipts were printed on thermal paper, and even so, I would not have made the logical connection.
The purpose of the iron is to flatten something, and therefore this is the task that people think about. Neither the heat used in this task, nor the latent consequences of applying heat, is inherent to the thought process.
Wouldn't it be better to just make it impossible to turn on the machine while you're inside it? In fact, I don't think any machine I've seen would allow that.
1. Turn on machine with door open. 2. Get inside. 3. Close door.
I said, HOW DO YOU CLEAN YEARS? Hello? Can you hear me?
You don't have to. They clean themselves, or at least in theory.
The skin in your ears gradually grows outwards, taking the ear gunk with it.
However, I find that when I use earplugs or if my ears are covered for long periods (like with a fleece hat or with headphones), the resulting warmer environment will cause my ears to get full of ear gunk. I go through Q-tips (and yes, the branded version) like crazy, and coincidentally have a container with some in front of me at my office desk right now!
Will we now have to worry about laptop use on the Interstate?
I think you meant to say "Internet use."
What still baffles me is how ingrained it is in North American culture that you have to drive alone, and that passengers don't exist. (Well, actually cars altogether...)
Honestly, don't come to Canada if you believe that it is a more democratic or free country than the US...
Though you gotta admit that recent campaign finance reforms limits the influence of the corporations/rich.
But also, it's not what powers your government has, it's how they use it. I think Americans vote for more officials than any other country, but look at where it got them!
Really, though, if you want to whack some sense into people who compare Canada with the US on most measures, try comparing it with western/northern Europe.
I think GP was refering to how distribution of representation largely represents historical figures. For example, PEI has 140,000 people, yet four MPs and senators, whereas the national average is roughly 1:100,000 MP:Population and 1:300,000 Senator:Population.
Could Britain, rather than the US, be the main front of the battle against censorship in 2007?
I'm currently reading the book "Not in front of the children" by Marjorie Heins, a very informative book on the history of censorship and censorship law (mainly in the US, but with UK roots and occasinoal references).
In the US, the Constitution's First Amendment allows for a strong defense to censorship. However, censorship of "obscenity" and/or "indecency" (in their varying and sometmies contradictory definitions) is allowed is a common-law exception to the First Amendment (see First Amendment/Obscenity). The exact nature, power, extent, and constitutionality of the exception tends to be at the centre of any legal/judicial or legislative debate on censorship, and has gone back and forth (as documented in the book).
Britain has no such explicit, written right to free speech as the First Amendment, and thus censorship has a better legal footing (I suspect CCTV is in a similar situation). While censorship in Britain may be more easily applied, the "battle" would be more one-sided than in the US, if censorship (i.e. of obscenity) were to have such a strong following as it has in the US.
Wal-Mart seems determined to use its marketing prowess to do what hasn't successfully been done in the CFL's 25-year history: to convince consumers to pay more upfront for large savings over the product's lifetime.
Doesn't this go entirely against Wal-Mart's business model?
People buy shit there for the price, not for the value.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, sure. It's a study. That's nice. What does it say?
I'm not going to read a 1.8 mb PDF TFA unless I know whether or not its conclusions agree with my predisposed bias!
- RG>
You mean vote for themselves (as opposed to deciding what your vote will be).
- RG>
Less government observation of its people?
Libertarians, rejoice!
- RG>
He hasn't gotten rich and has fallen to the margins? Yeah, that's what he wants you to think...
Now that's talent!
- RG>
*unusual
- RG>
Not to mention that you can't "boil off" chlorine; boiling is only to kill harmful bacteria in the water. Nothing actually leaves the water when you boil it, except for some steam.
- RG>
As a non-USian, I feel like congress keeps helping me be (relatively) more competitive with each passing day.
- RG>
You can find your member of parliament's e-mail address here.
I have already e-mailed mine.
- RG>
s/RIAA/CPCC, but yes.
Actually, I recall a Canadian [Supreme?] court case that said that this blank media levy effectively makes music-downloading legal. They can't claim that the "artists" (nudge nudge) aren't getting paid, because they are, through the levy.
The really evil thing is how the exception to the levy works. Some types of groups (follow link for full list) are excempted from the levy paid to the CPCC.
However in order to be exempt from paying a levy to the CPCC, you have to fill out an application and pay an "administrative fee" to the CPCC ($60 for commercial users, $15 for non-commercial).
Methinks that musicians don't see a whole lot of this, however, following that court case and before this law is passed (hopefully it won't be, or it will be similarly struck down), this levy is the CCCP's (did I just say that?) achilles heel.
- RG>
I'm still holding out for an iPod Shuffle with a parallel port.
- RG>
It isn't any coincidence that the Gates foundation, with new funding from Warren Buffett, tends to donate money to those countries which purchase expensive AIDS drugs, instead of those which dismiss the drug companies' claims to intellectual property rights and produce it themselves.
Gates foundation: follow the money. Go to the source. It's closed.
- RG>
I don't think that's possible. WHOIS reports that it has been reserved by some guy named "William Clinton"...
- RG>
Shit. Based on those terms, I'd hate to see what "federal, state or local law" require.
- RG>
I have done this with receipts once. Thankfully, they weren't important ones.
While I was aware of what thermal paper does (from the fax machine), and I was aware that the iron was hot (duh), it did not occur to me at the time that the receipts were printed on thermal paper, and even so, I would not have made the logical connection.
The purpose of the iron is to flatten something, and therefore this is the task that people think about. Neither the heat used in this task, nor the latent consequences of applying heat, is inherent to the thought process.
Of course, neither is reading a label.
- RG>
1. Turn on machine with door open.
2. Get inside.
3. Close door.
- RG>
You don't have to. They clean themselves, or at least in theory.
The skin in your ears gradually grows outwards, taking the ear gunk with it.
However, I find that when I use earplugs or if my ears are covered for long periods (like with a fleece hat or with headphones), the resulting warmer environment will cause my ears to get full of ear gunk. I go through Q-tips (and yes, the branded version) like crazy, and coincidentally have a container with some in front of me at my office desk right now!
- RG>
I think you meant to say "Internet use."
What still baffles me is how ingrained it is in North American culture that you have to drive alone, and that passengers don't exist. (Well, actually cars altogether...)
- RG>
Though you gotta admit that recent campaign finance reforms limits the influence of the corporations/rich.
But also, it's not what powers your government has, it's how they use it. I think Americans vote for more officials than any other country, but look at where it got them!
Really, though, if you want to whack some sense into people who compare Canada with the US on most measures, try comparing it with western/northern Europe.
- RG>
I think GP was refering to how distribution of representation largely represents historical figures. For example, PEI has 140,000 people, yet four MPs and senators, whereas the national average is roughly 1:100,000 MP:Population and 1:300,000 Senator:Population.
- RG>
Yes, and you're commenting on that trend.
And I'm commenting on your comment! Oh noes!
- RG>
It does when coupled with that ironic sig!
- RG>
Well, keep in mind that the definition of "person" was a lot more limited back then. You had to be a man, presumably white, a landowner, etc.
Given all these definitional limitations and restrictions, maybe it was only these folks who were "the American people"!
- RG>
I'm currently reading the book "Not in front of the children" by Marjorie Heins, a very informative book on the history of censorship and censorship law (mainly in the US, but with UK roots and occasinoal references).
In the US, the Constitution's First Amendment allows for a strong defense to censorship. However, censorship of "obscenity" and/or "indecency" (in their varying and sometmies contradictory definitions) is allowed is a common-law exception to the First Amendment (see First Amendment/Obscenity). The exact nature, power, extent, and constitutionality of the exception tends to be at the centre of any legal/judicial or legislative debate on censorship, and has gone back and forth (as documented in the book).
Britain has no such explicit, written right to free speech as the First Amendment, and thus censorship has a better legal footing (I suspect CCTV is in a similar situation). While censorship in Britain may be more easily applied, the "battle" would be more one-sided than in the US, if censorship (i.e. of obscenity) were to have such a strong following as it has in the US.
- RG>
Doesn't this go entirely against Wal-Mart's business model?
People buy shit there for the price, not for the value.
- RG>
And what, exactly, stops them from doing this now? (viz. [[Primerica]])
- RG>