Spiderfish

I don't have much experience with Windows 8, but I feel that Win8RT is a mistake by MS. The majority of the touch screen interfaces currently being sold are running Win8RT, which is NOT Windows 8. It is completely incompatible with Win8 and all Windows legacy software, a real disappointment in my opinion. I still don't get the point of rolling out an OS that is incompatible with every other version of Windows OS ever created, including full versions of Windows 8.

Do you? Because it sure does sound like you think you do. Thank you for the inuendo. If he had only squeaked out another minority government, your comment may have a modicum of relevance. Securing a healthy majority victory is not what I would call "clinging" to power...the election outcome was pretty definitive.

I just picked up an Asus transformer tablet a couple of weeks ago. I was seriously considering a Microsoft Surface, but when I started to look into Windows 8 RT, I quickly realized that i would be better off going with android OS. Without being able to run x86 software or drivers, what's the point? I'm not quite ready to spend $1000 on a tablet that runs the full version of Win8. I don't think Win 8 RT will survive the tablet battle unless they make it more compatible with Windows 8 full version. they certainly won't be competing heavily in this market until they start offering more apps.

Not to metion the infrastructure and electicity production in North America is already being pushed to it's max. With all the environmental resistance to any new high-voltage lines being erected (no pun intended), and the requirement for enormous amounts of additional low-cost electricity that would be required to make a plan like this feasible, it would end up being more of a environmental hot-potato than the status quo. It sounds like a good idea until people start seeing the new coal or gas fired power plants or nuclear plants being constructed.

I don't believe I made such an implication. I understand the concern over nuclear waste containment and the difficluties it presents. I also share some of your concerns with the NGP. Moving oil by rail is not without some significant risks, same with ships. Windmills are useless and the maintenance they require makes them expensive and unreliable, solar is making gains, but is prohibitavely expensive up front, and the sun doesnt always shine, hydro dams do every bit as much damage to fish habitat than any oil spill ever will. Yet the demaand for energy increases exponentially year after year. It's a tricky problem, for sure. New technology and development of new energy sources in the future will certainly play a part in the solution to this problem, but it's only one part of the equation. We have made huge gains in safe and clean extraction, movement, and consumption of current energy sources thanks to technology, but this too is not enough. Conservation and efficient use of energy we currently create is a large part of the equation, and technology is helping with this as well. No single approach is going to solve this problem, and it's not going to happen over night. It's too simplistic to say we have to stop moving oil around, or we have to stop consuming fossil fuels immediately, unless we're prepared to destroy our economy, watch people starve and freeze to death, and end our very way of life. I don't see a lot of evidence suggesting people are ready to take that step.

So we're in agreement then...it would be a hard-sell.

Growing plants underground hydroponically would take an enormous amount of energy. "Green" roofs are becoming popular, however what most people might not know is that you still have to install a waterproof roof membrane under the vegetation to protect the building. this is typically a 2-ply modified bituminous membrane applied with hot asphalt over rigid polyiso or EPS insulation...both made from petroleum products.

I don't think it comes as a surprise to anyone that new reactors are much safer than reactors of the past. the issue environmentalists have with nuclear technology mainly comes from the waste they produce. I don't care how small you make a nuclear reactor, producing energy from fissionalble materials generates waste. there's no way you would sell this idea to the enviro crowd... not a chance. I agree. this goes for clean coal technology, increase in natural gas as an energy source, and responsible fossil fuel exploration, development, and consumption as well. Progress is going to have to be a synergy of improving current technology and energy sources, with exploring and developing new ideas into the future. Some of the ideas you have put forth appear to have some potential, and it will be exciting going into the future to see the progress we make. But we can't just flip the switch on current energy sources, and it will take decades to develop new technology.

Whatever...

Klein was truly a people's premier...very down to earth.

How is answering a question risky?? Seems straightforward to me...a question was raised, a question was answered. I would say it helps a great deal in furthering the debate. I'm a little baffled by what you feel there might be to report.

I thought this one was quite direct and to the point.

I don't know, seems to me someone around here did...

That's your opinion, and I respectfully disagree. Actually, it's a difference in opinion. You think it's good form to turn an awards ceremony into a partisan gong show, and I don't. Again, I respectfully disagree with you.

I never said that the Star reporter didn't have the right to harass Mr.Chuvalo, only that it was in poor taste and pathetic. I have no interest in trying to control what the media does, but their actions do reflect back on them. As for the notion that Jessica Hume was unfriendly media that needed to be booted out of Suzuki's media event, she never even got the chance to ask a question before she was removed from the premises. Incidentally, I thought it was cool that Elizabeth May was the one who came to defend Sun. Apparently, Suzuki was the one being unfriendly. I personally see a difference between a reporter that is invited to, and attends an open media forum to discuss environmental issues (which Sun went to participate in), and a reporter that is invited to a media event to honour a local legend, only to sidetrack the ceremony to harass and offend both the host and the guest of honour.

Did you hold these journalistic views when handlers for David Suzuki had Sun reporter Jessica Hume kicked out of an open media forum and called 911 for asking a question last month?

I'm not sure what point you're even trying to make with this goofy presumption. It doesn't matter what I think, I don't live in Toronto. The point I am trying to get at, which you don't seem to be getting, is that regardless of what Ford may or may not be dealing with personally, this was no place to grill him, and certainly no place to grill the guest of honour. Insulting an implied political view that you presume I hold doesn't change that. You should work for the Star, it seems you'd fit right in.

Hey, it's up to them if they want to put their sales over their journalistic integrity. There's always room for another player in the tabloid market.

It does seem like these scandals are being cultivated, but not sure by whom.

Questioning and harassing a boxing legend about unrelated garbage during an award presentation intended to honor him does not fit the description of sound journalistic practice in my opinion. It's disrespectful and sad, and it only serves to make the Star look bad.

I was thinking the same sentiments about the Toronto Star, particularly after the display they put on yesterday at the ceremony honouring George Cheuvalo. http://www.nowtoronto.com/news/story.cfm?content=191768 Instead of honoring a boxing legend, the Star turned the ceremony into a circus. Instead of talking about his boxing career, Chuvalo stood at the podium and talked about his support for Ford and vouch for his character. This ongoing display by the Star is pathetic and unprofessional.

Maybe so, but it's not thinking advocates that are driving the debate. There are many who advocate shutting down oil production and punitively taxing and fining people for driving their cars to work. This is not constructive.

I guess I must have. Wait a minute...

Wow Waldo, I actually agree with you on something. Scientific understanding does indeed change as evidence changes. I guess that means that empirical data used for supporting evidence is never irrefutable. I do, that's why I brought it up. There are however, many supporters of the human induced global warming hypothesis who don't.

I totally agree, but many environmentalists wouldn't. I'm not sure what a broad fact-based consensus is. I would agree with you that there is a general scientific consensus at the moment that the evidence gathered and quantified suggests human influence. I'm not sure this would equate to fact, however. General scientific consensus has a history of being revised and rewritten based on more thorough examination and collection of data. I'm certainly not suggesting nothing should be done. I would love to see cleaner energy solutions in the future and cleaner and more efficient ways to sustain ourselves. I believe the environmental movement has made great strides in the last 20 years in influencing progress in this area and changing attitudes. But we can't simply turn off the oil pipelines and natural gas plants. Parts of the prairies saw windchill temperatures of -28c last night, windmills and solar panels just aren't going to cut it in our climate. I believe things are being done, but it takes time to develop new technology...and it doesn't come cheap.