The only thing we have in Canada is CleanFeed it's it's optional for any ISP, they can use it, or not use it. Large ISP's like Bell and Rogers use it, or have used it in the past. Not sure if they still do. Smaller ISP's like distributel, teksavvy, execulink, etc., don't use it.
Sounds a lot like the meaning of "wage slave."
We're not so honest with our labels these days.
Well, this method comes from physicists. So one can assume that whatever they used, it was perfectly spherical.
Problem solved.
'Simple'
You keep using that word. I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Nuke'em from orbit.
It's the only way to be sure.
And we have a winner, folks!
It does nothing to address global warming's ugly twin brother, ocean acidification. And by presenting the world's public with an apparent techno-fix, it could deflate the movement to reduce carbon emissions.
"For me, my main concern is that we would start doing solar geoengineering while we're still building things with smokestacks and tailpipes," he tells me. "And in that framing, I think the solar geoengineering is just facilitating continued greenhouse gas emissions."
Very well, as long as you know. No point having a nicer climate for a little while as we set the stage for an oceanic mass extinction.
Alternatively we could all be driving 10 liter W-16s, just to save the planet.
At some point in the future, we probably will, but for now we've created for ourselves plenty of margin for error between the current conditions and triggering an ice age.
Furry future? O_O
Well bad news, we've been fucking with it heavily for a couple hundred years with no plan whatsoever, and we're still mostly acting like it's no big deal.
Marxism is probably preferable to the feudal society these guys are promoting.
That's an interesting comparison. Ignoring the question of whether "these guys" are promoting feudalism, I find it interesting to think about which actually is better, Marxism or feudalism, as an economic system.
From an ideological perspective, Marxism is better, in theory at least, because placing all ownership of property in the hands of a few lords is blatantly unfair. From a practical perspective, though, I'm not sure there's a difference, because every attempt to implement Marxism on any scale larger than a small commune ends up putting control of all property in the hands of a few committee members. I don't think there is any real difference between ownership and control that looks just like ownership but isn't.
In both cases, what you have is central planning, normally organized on multiple tiers to address the fact that no one person or committee can understand and manage it all. However, feudal systems tend to create stronger demarcations between the tiers, and very strong separation of control between the fiefs. This allows for the development of a market economy between fiefs, plus whatever internal markets the feudal lords choose to allow. And those who allow greater economic freedom will find their fiefs generating greater wealth, and feudalism is, er, not much constrained by ideological considerations.
I suppose a Marxist nation that organized itself as a collection of small communes who engaged in market transactions between one another could do that as well, but I think the ideology tends to squash that idea, because if communal ownership works at the small scale, why not expand it?
All in all, though neither is a very effective economic structure, I suspect that feudalism would be better than Marxism given comparable levels of technology and education. Marx obviously thought his system would be an improvement, since his whole focus was transitioning from feudalism to the "improved" world of communal ownership. But I think history has proved that he was simply wrong.
I can find plenty of astroturfing groups that are soros backed and do the same thing, but that doesn't make it "front page news."
Energy costs make up a small part of a family's budget compared to health care, education, etc etc.
Really? Last study I saw on this done by the frasier institute here in canada put energy costs right up around 46% of where yearly expenses go. I'd go hunt for it but far too lazy at the moment.
I know that someone was beheaded. It is clear that this is an horrible and cruel act, that nobody and nobody's family should experience. What information does it add to watch the video? You can convey the relevant information in text.
No, you can't. The fact you think so is the entire problem.
I think so, too, and I don't think it's a problem. Rather than just telling people they're talking out of their ass, why don't you explain what value is gained by watching it? Obviously there's no factual information in the video that can't be expressed in a few sentences of text, so the only think I can suppose is that you're of the opinion that the greater emotional impact of seeing it has value.
What, precisely, is that value? For me, personally, I can't imagine what it would be. I don't think anything could make me more strongly opposed to the act of beheading an innocent journalist. Seeing it would make that opposition more visceral -- perhaps in an almost literal sense -- but it wouldn't increase my opposition. It wouldn't lower my opinion of the terrorists, either, since it's not possible to hold a lower opinion of them than I do.
So what is the value of seeing it?
If all else fails, lower your standards.
