bah to Civ... Canada perfected the culture bomb decades ago.

Celine Dione

Nickleback

Bieber

And unlike civs wussie "culture bombs" ours actually behave like bombs. Victims caught in their radius are often left disoriented and traumatized. All we need to do is eliminate collateral and then the fun can really start.

On a serious note though. While the CRTC is many things I have been impressed with the MAPL quotient effects in the Canadian music industry. Ignoring for a second the term culture the MAPL program has been fantastically successful at promoting regional talent in the mainstream. Certainly without the quotient system some talented bands from our regions would have seen success. But to reach the level of exposure we currently experience without MAPL would have required a lot of monetary investment. In other words MAPL is cost effective. If we do not classify them as a "cultural asset" but just as local music then the system does in fact work if the goal is to develop a robust music community across Canada. If you are a fan of music then MAPL should be a success story for you. Forget country boundaries just having more artists means more diversity in music.

Should this be forced down peoples throat? I need to ask what is the cost to the individual radio listener that would counter the benefits overall. All I see is some lack of control for the listener. True if you are dead set against hearing Canadian content then you were out of luck pre-internet. But radio is passive content, it is chosen for you anyways. Free market thinkers would argue that if there was a demand for it a place in system would arise for it but music is a funny thing there can be no demand if no one knows it exists. In the meanwhile I am glad I had no choice but to listen to Broken Social Scene, Metric, Mother Mother, Hawksley, The New Pornographers, Fiest, Final Fantasy, Matthew Good, Tegan and Sera, Tokyo Police Club, Reverie Sound Revue, Arkelles, Said the Whale, City and Colour, Sloan, Rural Alberta Advantage, Hot Hot Heat, Sam Roberts, Ubiquitous Synergy Seeker, Pilot Speed, Bedouin Soundclash and a hell of a lot more. (And yes I know who these are and yes if you are Canadian and you don't then you are old)

But from the engineering perspective. If the officer from the parent post gives you evidence that putting a red light camera in will:

1) not decrease red light violations and

2) will increase the incidences of rear ended collisions

Why would you install it?

Yes you can always say that the person in the rear is at fault, but being able to place fault doesn't help much when you have injuries occurring, vehicles getting damaged and traffic being delayed. Just because there are idiots on the road doesn't mean you should give them the opportunity to be one.

There is a difference between conversation by cell phone and those with passengers. Passengers are in the same vehicle as you, on the side that more often gets smooshed.

Also, when I was sitting in on the public talks that our province held while they were considering the banning of cell phones one of the "experts" brought up an interesting point. The person on the other side of the phone has no visual context of what you are doing. A passenger is more likely to pause during periods where you are concentrating on a specific action such as left hand turns or merging. We just do not notice it as much because its rather natural.

Here's a study to back it up.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369847805000057

For fun here's a study that doesn't

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369847805000471 (mind you, they were instructed to talk in monotone and a constant pace)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - Civil Engineering undergrad, PhD in Transportation Engineering. I am surprised I do not readily see his name yet. Though his actual level of power in Iran may be disputed he is certainly one of the most high profile engineers in politics that I know of.

Though the article is real the cover is too good to be true. If you think you remembered that specifically then your suffering from some implanted memories.

Nearest Time cover to the one you linked is April 11th 1977 and features air travel safety concerns. http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19770411,00.html

For the date of the article you linked to (24th 1974) the Times cover features Nixon in a cavalcade in Egypt. So neither case has this "how to survive blah blah" going on.

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19740624,00.html

Kudos on remembering the article though. It is rather dwarfed by the story of Nixons travels to Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Israel. Frankly the Nixon story is a much better read. I'm born in 1980 so I am way too young for this stuff but man that takes some guts landing in Syria after the October war. Apparently they had a run in with Russian jets! Evasive maneuvers were taken! haha. I can see why the USA was so into this cold war deal, it makes for good stories. Anyways this is smack dab in the middle of Nixons Watergate scandal and was hardly news by comparison, though the alarmist tone has some parallels worth considering. I think this is more appropriate as a case study for how the media can not properly represent climate science as opposed to a "the scientists are wrong now" argument.

Relevant case title is: Seidel v. TELUS Communications Inc.

I think you are right but I am also not a lawyer. So instead of trying to interpret the summary, I will simply post the final concluding remarks and leave it to the readers own judgement.

From the summary for Seidel v. Telus:

Per McLachlin C.J. and Binnie, Fish, Rothstein and Cromwell JJ.: The purpose of the BPCPA is consumer protection. [page533] As such, its terms should be interpreted generously in favour of consumers. Section 172 of the BPCPA contains a statutory remedy whereby a person other than a supplier may bring an action in the Supreme Court of British Columbia to enforce the statute's consumer protection standards whether or not the person bringing the action has a special interest or is affected by the consumer transaction that gives rise to the action. Such a plaintiff is properly characterized as a public interest plaintiff. This conclusion is reinforced by s. 3 of the BPCPA which provides that any agreement between parties that would waive or release "rights, benefits or protections" conferred by the BPCPA is void. To the extent S's claim in the Supreme Court invokes s. 172 remedies in respect of rights, benefits or protections conferred by the BPCPA, her court action must be allowed to proceed notwithstanding the mediation/arbitration clause.

The choice to restrict or not restrict arbitration clauses in consumer contracts is a matter for the legislature. Absent legislative intervention, the courts will generally give effect to the terms of a commercial contract freely entered into, even a contract of adhesion, including an arbitration clause. Section 172 is clearly designed to encourage private enforcement in the public interest. It was open to the legislature to prefer the vindication and denunciation available through a well-publicized court action to promote adherence to consumer standards. The legislature understood that the policy objectives of s. 172 would not be well served by a series of isolated low-profile, private and confidential arbitrations.

A proper interpretation of s. 172 of the BPCPA must be approached textually, contextually and purposively. Whether characterized as procedural or substantive, a s. 172 right is indubitably a "right" conferred by the statute and cannot be waived by contract. S therefore possesses a statutory "right" to take her action invoking s. 172 remedies to the Supreme Court.

You sir or madam, are a disgrace as an engineer.

Unlike non professionals, there are certain opinions that you are not allowed to carry. The opinion that you can abandon ethical obligations as a matter of convenience is one of them. That you try to justify yourself disgusts me.

For any actual engineering students who read into these posts; I would like to correct the misconceptions presented in the parent post. For the author to believe that oneâ(TM)s effort is better spent studying calculus, thermodynamics, finite methods etc⦠as opposed to completing written responses in liberal arts suggests that he has either not graduated or has not been given a position of any great responsibility. Anyone in the industry would recognize at least two distinct advantages of the inclusion of an external elective. First it will challenge you to learn, study and research in an unfamiliar environment. Being thrown into a third year history class represents an extreme that likely isnâ(TM)t repeated in your career, however some level of unfamiliarity is a given. The coping skills are critical. Secondly, those courses push the limits of our communication skills. Anyone who thinks engineering is primarily about math is a fool. Engineering requires a lot of skills but communication is probably the most important. Think of all the math work completed in your undergrad then imagine all that time spent instead on writing, reviewing and accepting reports; that is your engineering career. The most successful engineers Iâ(TM)ve ever met are masters of the written language.

I personally struggle in both areas and gained substantial benefit from arts electives in my undergrad. But even if the benefit is not apparent to yourself as an upcoming professional you have an obligation to maintain a high level of ethical conduct in those you âoedonâ(TM)t care aboutâ.