What happens when you boil water inside an sealed container?

Nothing at all if you completely fail to boil the water because the container you used shields the contents from the energy you were hoping to use to boil it.

Per the youtube video, the beer stayed cold. The metal can shields the water from heating, so it doesn't even heat it up, nevermind boil.

uh... no you couldn't, the angular resolution of even the largest telescopes coupled with elementary physics would prove that.

And even if we could, say via a flyby with a satellite or some futuristic hubble 2.0... the only people who could afford such a 'telescope' would clearly be in on the hoax, so you can't trust them.

The only solution is to take the hoaxers and send them to the moon to see it first hand with their own eyes. Something I am entirely in favor of.

If that doesn't convince them, fine, this wasn't really for them, it was for me. And I was satisfied the minute they were out of earths orbit and don't see any reason why we should bring them back.

The idea of a very gradual decline, such that finally losing one's grandfather comes when one's opinion of that grandfather is at least somewhat "feeble, ineffectual, even pathetic" is a comfort. It makes the loss easier, understandable, and acceptable.

Think about what you just said from the perspective of the person who has to live out those years.

Do you think they all don't know they are "feeble, ineffectual, and pathetic"? Do you think they enjoy that feeling? How many years should they have to live where they can't eat solid food, need someone else to change their diapers and bathe them, bereft of any dignity, suffering alternating panic and embarrassment when realize they've forgotten their daughter's name, or realize they can't remember where the coffee shop they visit every morning is located, living alone, or perhaps with strangers who take care of them but don't really care about them. Terrified that they'll wake up and not know their own childs face, while their friends die around them.

How long should they live like that and just how bad should it get for them just so you can feel less distressed when they die?

Sure in a perfect world, you get old, you slow down, you have tea with your friends, and play cards, your son comes to visit you share a simple meal, you say your feeling tired tell them you love them, go to bed, and pass away in your sleep.

Most of us don't get that death. Some us go a bit before our time and its a tragic loss.

But many of us live beyond our time, taken down for example, by age onset diabetes, bedridden, with our feet amputated, blind, deaf and alone, and its a "tragic life". And our death comes as a relief to our loved ones.

If I can't have the perfect death, I would choose the tragic quick one as preferable over living for years in a prolonged hell as my final chapter.

Killing a non-competitive industry

What's non-competitive about it? You think other tax jurisdictions aren't playing the same game?

But in the long-term, a more competitive and stronger industry will emerge.

Or it will nestle somewhere else where it can squeeze the local government for some concessions. I'd rather the jobs be in Canada than elsewhere. The candian content regulations provide some unique leverage over the industry. The tax breaks are the carrot... and the canadian content regulations (that they qualify under if its produced significantly within canada) is the stick.

Just as the US and Canada should never have rescued the auto-makers when they imploded

I agree they handled it pretty poorly, but letting it collapse would have been stupid too. The country would not be better if all those jobs, and supply chains, and the service industries supported by that industry had all collapsed like a string of dominoes. Sure the market would have corrected itself and sorted itself out after a 'great depression', but millions of people still have to eat in the meantime. That's a huge drain on the economy, and an incubator for crime and even real civil unrest. Far better to prop up the industry up with bridge financing then to put them all on various welfare programs.

They handled it poorly though. Those who were responsible for manufacturing the crisis should have been reduced to poverty.

but don't try anything too clever. Otherwise some cop will get a gut feeling or a hunch and the minute he's officially taken off the case you're toast.

You know it. And from watching things like Bones and CSI:Miami I know that not only do they investigate every case like its the only thing they have to do with their time, but that money is also generally no object. And if you are really unlucky, the laws of physics will turn out to be fairly flexible to.

There's no place any more for cultural protectionism.

Canadian content laws combined with tax incentives are what created and sustains hollywood north, a significant film and TV production industry within Canada that would otherwise not exist, that generates jobs and incomes in Canada.

Kill the laws, and you kill an industry. How does Canada win that way exactly?

Protecting Canadian content is far more than just protecting Canadian "culture", its a very real protection of a whole industry that pretty clearly and objectively benefits the country overall.

. Is forcing someone's finger onto their iPhone's sensor forcing them to reveal information under duress?

It would be no different then forcing a suspect to provide fingerprints or dna samples. They'd need a warrant for it, but they could absolutely do it.

I agree if they just forced you without a warrant, that you'd probably get it all ruled inadmissible.

they'd need to get every ISP and VPN provider in the country to block access to it,

You make that sound hard.

If they block it from about 5 companies that'll cover most of the countries reasonable choices, and most of the remainder are just resellers of bandwidth from the big ones.

And blocking VPN providers? Why bother? Only a small fraction will bother using one. Just because people -can- get around it, doesn't mean most of them will bother trying.

Meanwhile the cable and dsl providers would probably jump for joy at at a government ordered netflix ban. It eliminates a significant competitor, and a huge source of bandwidth usage all in one fell swoop, and if anyone complains its the governments fault.

So no, your full of it, if you think netflix can just 'laugh in their faces'. It would be pretty easy for Canada to toss them out if they wanted to. Blocking access at the cross-border links, and seizing any netflix equipment in the country. I'm not in favor of any such draconian action, don't for a second think it isn't both possible and easy.

then continued on happily taking credit card payments and sending traffic to Canada.

Given they have to license content separately specifically to send it to Canada this would not make the slightest bit of sense. The ONLY content they can turn a 'blind eye' to, would be Canadian's paying from a US address/US card and funnelling traffic through a VPN. And they can only do THAT as long as its not a big enough issue to get them in trouble with the rights owners -- who will start demanding netflix blacklist VPN providers etc.

It's not Netflix fault that Canada doesn't produce any noteworthy cultural exports. Lots of other good stuff, sure, but TV and movies not so much.

Two words: "Hollywoord North" I mean seriously, Canada may not produce much worthwhile truly independent content but its been very successful at using Canadian content requirements coupled with tax incentives to create a pretty substantial tv/movie production industry where one would otherwise not exist, creating jobs, and funneling some money into Canada in the process.

Bingo. The president is not a king.

I mean seriously read the freaking constitution people, or the wikipedia article about it. The powers of the president interms of actually DOING things is pretty light.

pardons and receive ambassadors are about all he can really do at will

veto bills (but can be overridden by congress)

make political appointments (subject to congress/senate approving them)

commander in cheif of the armed forces -- but even this is heavily restricted by congress, and something like closing a base isn't something he can do with the stroke of a pen.

etc... its really FAR more important who is in congress than who sits in the whitehouse. The only difference being that the president is one person so he makes a good figure head, while congress and the senate are shifting blobs of largely faceless politicos who despite being actually responsible for everything take almost no responsibility for their actions.

Takes me like fifteen minutes to buy a $5 wrench. Tops.

That requires:
a) you know who to hit with it
b) the person you decide to hit with it knows the password

So if you shoot a "terr'ist" and retreive his encrypted smart phone... what are you going to do exactly with a wrench?

You think if someone is better than you they must be 'hard core' and play all the time.

Not at all.

but that hand eye co-ordination to play video games well? Not everyone has it, a lot of people don't really.

Again making the 'average' player pretty mediocre.

The game sales, isn't from casual / occasional gamers. It's from average gamers.

Average gamers don't master games. They play them, and move on. Half Live 2 was a pretty easy game, and pretty top rated... according to steam ~14% have finished it, meaning 86% of players did not.

Even if we filter out the people who barely tried it (got it free or bundled and played for 15 minutes then moved on) we can look at the people who got halfwaty through vs the ones that finished it, and again its approximately half. Or duke nukem forever ... 25% completed the single player game on EASY. 1% completed the game on 'insane'. Sure, around 25% didn't get much past the title screen... but even filtering that out, a shockinly low number of people who played it beat it. Spelunky ... same thing... most owners haven't beaten the first stage. But even of the ones who have, only a fraction of those have gotten very much further.

That 1% who beat duke nukem on insane. Those are the type of people who dominate in multiplayer games. They are the ones who memorize all the maps, master all the weapons, and plug away at the SAME game for days and weeks on end. They are not 'average' they are the 1%.

The average gamer ('gamer' IS 'casual' for any given title. They just churn through a lot more games. Where a truly casual player will only play games a few times month AT ALL. The average GAMER only puts 10-40 hours into a game, if that, before moving onto the next one. They are 'gamers' because they spend a lot of time playing games, they are much better than a truly casual player at most games, but they are still just noobs compared to the the hardcore players in any given game.. The hardcore players have racked up 100s even 1000s of hours in their chosen mastered titles. Me, I've got 75 hours in left 4 dead 2, I more than hold my own and am an above average player. But compared to a hard core player, I don't know squat. And for left 4 dead... I'm pretty casual... even if I play games 30-40 hours a week... I only put in a session of left 4 dead once or twice a month when the right friends are online and mood takes us.

But my brother in law, with nearly 800 hours in the game, knows where every short cut is, every possible item spawn point, every respawn closet, every wall that breaks during a horde, routes to kite tanks on every map, proven tactics on where to set up for every finale. I've got another friend with a similar number of hours in both of Payday 2 and Infestation, he's another very good FPS player, and yet he's almost a liability in Left4Dead with only 5 or so hours in it. and he's got a group he plays with regularly and that takes it to a whole other level. To get thrown up against him and his friends in a multiplayer battle (even if there's just 2 of them) ... the average gamer has absolutely no chance at all.

Let's flash back 20 years...

Ok... 20 years ago? I got an AOL CD in the mail about once a week, and it went straight into the trash. I was also signed up to Columbia house 11-cds-for-a-penny-deals and routinely got their unsolicited discs because i wasn't always great about sending in the go-away postcards.

The AOL disks went in the trash, the Columbia house discs, if they weren't explicitly ordered were returned to sender. And the stuff I actually ordered, naturally I kept.

If I'd had a maid, that's what she'd have been instructed to do with any CDs that arrived in the mail too. Assuming she wouldn't be able to tell unsolicited from solicited purchases, she'd have been instructed to set them aside.

Apparently if this had been your house, once a week the maid would have dutifully installed a new 30 day impossible to cancel AOL trial on your laptop for you, and once a month you would have found unbelievably crappy CDs on your rack coupled with collection notices from columbia house (or maybe your maid just paid those for you to)?

No... 20 years ago, the maid would definitely not have put anything that just showed up at the house away like you seem to think.

I guess a better example would be the nearly exclusively Catholic IRA fighting against a protestestant majority. Bombings, torture, murder, rape... yep all present. Sympathetic Catholics in other countries providing them support, aid, even joining them, etc... yep that happened too.

Didn't get as bad as Iraq/Afghanistan mind you, but that's not on the merits of Islam vs Catholicism, that simply because the UK was never a failed state the way Iraq and Afghanistan have been. The UK even at its "worst", still overall had very well functioning national and regional governments, military, and police forces. Its impoverished were still "first world poor" not "3rd world poor". Had a 3rd party, primarily interested its its own exploitative resource extraction concerns toppled the UK government and bombed out the nations infrastructure, creating widespread issues and a power vacuum; had it been reduced to 3rd world poverty levels -- is it really unreasonable to imagine things getting a whole lot uglier?

My point is its not "Islam". Its just "people". That we have a problem with Muslim terrorism right now, is simply some people who happen to be muslim have been oppressed and driven to terrorism to fight back. If Afghanistan had been predominantly westboro baptist... we'd have westboro baptist terrorist groups causing problems right now. Its really that simple.

You can interpret it that way. That's not the only way to interpret it.

You took a structure like:

"You aren't allowed to prepare, eat, or serve sticky or messy foods while sitting in the car. Some examples of prohibited foods include donuts, chocolate fondue, ."

And then claimed that it said you aren't allowed to ever eat donuts.

Its plainly wrong.

Except in reality for every player that plays regularly and shows up to practice daily, there are 10 players that drop in once in a while. Lets say the local league has 110 players in it. 10 guys that are obsessive about showing up, and 100 that drop in once a week or so to a game or practice.

Which pool is the "average" player? Is it the 100? or the 10? I'd say common sense is going to put the average a lot nearer the mean ability of the 100 than of the 10.

At any given match, 15 people will show up from the regular once a week pool. But at least 9 of the 10 obsessives will be there. And those 9 players will dominate the match.

Your argument speculates that 'hard core players' somehow outnumber 'casuals', and that the hard-core therefore ARE the average, and that's incorrect. The casuals out number the hard core players 10 to 1. But it doesn't matter, the hardcores are still there dominating every match.