As a Canadian, I doubt the part about our "net benefit". As extreme weather becomes more common, it will become less comfortable for everyone. Maybe Canadians will be better off than Mexicans, but the farther out from the Goldilocks zone we go, the worse it's going to be, globally.

As for countries, I have doubts they can ever achieve anything. Real change is done at the community level.

Very clever, had a hard time with showering and dressing. Obnoxious, loud, and full of unpleasant remarks, but mostly very productive at our small start-up.

We didn't have to deal with him - he got dealt with by the police. Turns out his drug habit got him involved with not nice people, and in order to repay the money he owed them, he stole all the computers and monitors from our office once night. Some of my office mates got to see him arrested, as they left work after him one night.

Brilliant, but impulsive, with no long-term thinking. He was like a 13-year-old boy in many regards.

He got off on all charges, as he was coerced into committing his crime.

I think something is either impossible, or possible. It's binary, and like a binary system, you can't have something between 0 and 1.

You could argue that maybe the possibility is unknown (tri-state logic), but then the value is null, to indicate unknown.

You might also have the opportunity to run over your boss in a future time.

EI (Employment Insurance, for those outside of Canada) is designed to make sure you can get by, but not comfortably; the government wants you working. And it's being changed to reduce the benefits for frequent (ab)users. I've known plumbers that work during the spring, summer and fall, and then go on EI for the winter (and spend it in Mexico).

I've been paying into for about 25 years, and have never once used it. And more than a couple of months at the ridiculously low rate would put us in a huge financial hole. It would be nice if at least a portion was based on how much you contributed - maybe salary matching for a month between jobs - and then to the much lower rate.

Those farms produce a lot of empty calories for processed foods. They don't really feed people; I highly doubt I could survive on a diet of corn. And feeding it to cows is wrong; it makes the meat less healthy (more omega-6 fats, fewer omega-3), and it acidifies their stomachs which in turn creates an strain of e.coli that is trained to survive in more acidic environments, and thus makes us sick.

But those mid-west farms won't be producing for very long, they are losing topsoil at 18 tonnes per hectare per year according to World Agriculture and Soil Erosion, by the University of California Press

Being a farmer used to be about being a custodian of the land, not a shill for big agribusiness, planting round-up ready GMO crops.

Small diverse farms produce a huge and diverse array of food - more calories per acre that the midwest monoliths. See Elliot Coleman, and Joel Salatin, or read the chapter on Polyface Farms in the Omnivores Dilemna.

But you won't, because it's so ingrained that there are no other options or ways of doing things.

The Rodale Institute did a 30 year side-by-side study. They found that,

- initially, organic farms created less, as fertilizers and pesticide initially gave a conventional farms a boost. This disappeared over time, as conventional farming damages and degrades the soil, reducing yeilds.

- organic outperforms conventional in years of drought.

- organic farming systems build rather than deplete soil organic matter, making it a more sustainable system.

- organic farming uses 45% less energy and is more efficient.

- conventional systems produce 40% more greenhouse gases.

- organic farming systems are more profitable than conventional.

I am not sure where that last one came from (I haven't read the final report)

As in, there is no prior art for giving software away for free (or for a reduced price) based on forcing the user to view the occasional advertisement?

I am surprised Apple isn't using this "patent" to go after the ad-supported Kindle in an effort to get the upper hand in content (especially after Apple's smack-down on price fixing for e-books)....

Just don't let Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization patent this, or we'll be paying royalties for turning on our lights.

I posted this because the /. population has such power over hardware purchasing decisions. This was a travesty. I am going to write my Member of Parliament to ask that a committee be set up to investigate, and possibly lay charges.

Just watching this, and I've never heard of this school, course or professor.

If all the papers I currently read for free are behind paywalls, I'll need to make some tough choices.

I browse the NY Times once a day, read the Globe and Mail, and scan the Vancouver Sun.

If all suddenly required me to pay (and the NY Times is going this route, I believe), and it wasn't too onerous, I would stick with the latter two, but if the cost per paper per month was greater than $10, I would just read the G&M.

I suspect there are just a few paywalls, then people will just move to the free sites. But if all the high quality journalism is behind a paywall, I suspect people will read less, and pay for it.

I am sure that's what R. Murdoch is hoping.

So if you think you can just jump to another free online newspaper, what would you do if they all charged for access?

All asshole, no brains.

I guess insecure people need a position of authority to be able to go on a power trip.

Unfort, in Canada we've also had cops that have Tasered immigrants to death (and then lied about it in their official statement), shot unarmed prisoners in the back of the head, beaten up delivery drivers, and beaten people to death in the back of their squad cars.