Charles Anthony

From the Popular Mechanics article... http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology...842.html?page=5If you think in terms of building codes, this National Institute of Standards and Technology account becomes the definition of ridiculous. What Fire Marshal would approve of such construction?????? Either the building codes permit such outrageously dangerous construction or these reports of "tenants used to run emergency generators" are distractionary lies. I believe they are lies. Otherwise, every single fire-fighter in New York would never go into a building of such absurd construction for fear of it imploding upon them. How ridiculous can these non-conspiracy-theories get?

What do you think is an appropriate punishment for your transgressions? if you get caught after the authorities deem it is worth their while to target their investigation upon you.

I am curious to learn more about your perspective of the law vis-a-vis right and wrong. Please answer my follow-up question: If you do not get caught nor punished, why would that be? I think it would be because it is not worth the effort nor the money to catch or punish you -- regardless of any concept of right or wrong. Unless, maybe, if we accept the pursuit of wealth or power to be a baseline for right and wrong.

The laws are there to make order and to balance competing interests. The fact that some laws are based on right and wrong is incidental. If enough people want a law, we will write something down in our "law books" regardless of whether it is right or wrong. How else would you have it?

How subtle....You have it all wrong, dude. It is racism and oil that are connected. There is also a connection between racism and stampedes.

If all of the land mass in Canada was divided equally among all Canadians, not everybody would have equal land. Unfortunately, it is not possible for all Canadians to live as you do even if they wanted so. Globally, Canadians might be considered lucky. Some people live in the desert and spend a lot of time transporting water daily. Our gift from God is the freedom to trade and take advantage of industrialization. Without those freedoms, the imbalances in wealth throughout the world would be more severe and the plight of many people would be more desparate. It is foolish to condemn the affluent without understanding everybody. I think you are very rich too.

Hijacking a thread??? I hate to draw your attention to THIS VERY thread but as of now, the results of this poll are: Is so-called 'signal piracy' wrong? Yes [ 2 ] [22.22%] No [ 5 ] [55.56%] My vast intellect perceives other choices than mere dichotomy [ 2 ] [22.22%] Total Votes: 9 That would make a democratic majority that does NOT "consider breaking the law to be wrong" in signal piracy. Therefore, what difference does my opinion make? If you want my answer, here it is: legality has nothing to do with whether it is morally wrong, in my opinion.

That is completely absurd. Landing in ones footprint is geometric balance of the highest order possible. If this illusionary cascade started on one side of the support, you mean to say that all of the other sides will equally collapse simultaneous without one degree of tipping???? That is a leap of faith. I would sooner believe the Earth was flat. It is completely nonsense particularly in the case of the Twin Towers and makes barely any sense if you believe that Tower7 fell because of falling debris. Here is why: Twin Towers: The video footage shows the communications mast-beacon-thingie at the top of the tower falling perfectly downwards along the axial length of the tower IMMEDIATELY upon its descent. It did not tip one degree. That is physically impossible unless all four corners are taken out at the same time. Tower 7: falling debris?? Did all of the debris strike the exact center of the roof? Do you have any links for this "cascading failure" theory?

This poll is the most difficult multiple choice question that I have ever encountered.

Actually, the person who understands that the very definition of cooperation involves non-coersion looks at the world from this viewpoint. The mores and norms that are the most universal in any given area.I am at a loss of what to say. The only thing I can think of is to be sarcastic and thank you for the circular clarification.

Morally, in my opinion, YES, I consider you guilty. I would say YES again for practical purposes. The difference is that I do not think your "fraud" in the case of de-scrambling a radio signal is morally wrong even if today's law-books say it is a crime.

Well how strategic for them to have rigged it up so fast on the exact same day, is it not? I guess amid all of the frantic running around, they had their thinking caps on and were able to maintain their composure!

Yes and some of those official causes are as stupid as "fire". The most you will give is "nothing definitive"? How many buildings have fires? Lots! How many buildings have fires and collapse in 10 seconds? One! It may be a large window for the conspiracy theorist but it is a small window for theorizing the physical cause of why it fell. WTC7 tower looks exactly like a demolition and it was not hit by anything. By the way, if it looks like a duck and smells like a duck, what do you think it might be?

Excellent! I am now convinced! Since you mention bombings, let us move on to World Trade Tower 7 that was not hit by anything. From where did it get its kinetic energy?

What is "social consensus" anyway? What do YOU think is "best for society" and what is "best for society" when members of "society" have differing opinions?

I do not give a damn about their morals. Making money is a great motivator. They will get to the bottom of it without using tax dollars. Furthermore, their success depends on something dear: freedom (press, speech and markets). [by the way, is it not odd that we spell "speech" with a double-E while we spell "speak" with an E-A diphthong? Not very intuitive.] Who cares about justice?? You will never get justice -- there are dead victims. I would rather get information and prevent things from getting brushed under the rug.

So what? Even if the new leader tries to pull a Copps-Valeri dirty game, the loser still has the opportunity to stay in their party. Are you kidding? What do you think Chretien did? What do you think Martin did? They all waited extensively long periods of time for power. They also put up a front to the public.

They are all related to rights (legal and moral) to person and property. For some people, the minutia of "music" or "land" or "digital" is missing the bigger picture.

I disagree. I hope the media hounds everybody down. Otherwise, who will get to the bottom of it? the government?

I agree. That is a real possibility. People outside of Ontario do not care about what Rae did in Ontario. Also, people can be forgiving. Has anybody considered how a Rae/Ignatieff or Ignatieff/Rae team could challenge the Conservatives? Regardless of who wins the leadership, the two might likely continue in federal politics a la Cretino-Martino style.

Has it always been affordable for you AND everybody you know to make their own clothes? I tried to make clothes once. They fell apart very quickly. The only ones that did not fall apart were the ones that I DID NOT wear.

It could be that Kinsella can not deal with the fact that Bob Rae represents part of a mirror into which Liberals must look. Here we have a leadership race whereby the front-runner is practically American and the runner-up is an ex-NDPer. Is that the best the Liberal party can do? What does it mean to be a federal Liberal in Canada now? or is it really just a power-game? The development of the Reform Party was a result of similar disillusionment with the direction of the Conservative Party of the time. We may see a deliberate or de facto merger of the Liberals and NDP federally --- before a long-drawn out vote-split. If I was a Liberal, I would dread that.

Reflexively, I will agree that the RCMP should be broken up and stripped of trivial local law enforcement. If we need a police force to enforce federal law, the RCMP could be assigned to do that exclusively. If smaller jurisdictions want to hire the RCMP as law enforcement / security guards, forget it. If we think the RCMP can do ALL jurisdictional levels of law enforcement, why not hire them to rescue my cat from the tree or help me cross the street or direct traffic in Wing Ding, Sasketchewan or mow the lawn at City Hall if they have the free time. Inefficient. One screw up?? They raided a journalist's home too! The Shawinigate investigation. Raiding former Business Development Bank of Canada president François Beaudoin's home. The Air India crock. That is a realistic possibility. I believe restricting the mandate of the RCMP will help in the future. Ever work at a job where your job description was vague or all-encompassing? You are expected to do everything and you get blamed for everything. As morbid as it might sound, it is certainly possible. Now there is a conspiracy theory that I like! Nevertheless, it would also be a justification for breaking up the RCMP's duties. Yes...... and the rest-of-Canadians are so welcoming to immigrants! Where did this turban-RCMP issue arise anyway? If tthere is a staffing issue (or any other local triviality) in Wing Ding, the Commissioner must ultimately be answerable. Simultaneously, it can be used as an excuse by the Commissioner or somebody else. In my opinion, what Aug91 is pointing out in this thread is important. This is a no-brainer and part of the "big government is bad and small government is better" deal. The smaller administration is closer to its constituents and more accountable. Period. Furthermore, it is part of the jack-of-all-trades problem: if you expect somebody to be able to do everything, certain things (if not everything) will be either be done: 1) poorly, or 2) more costly compared to a scenario whereby their tasks are specialized. Point-final.

Honestly, I believe that is not an adequate example. You should properly say : it was not "property" in their eyes as we see property. Also, does any part of you consider the possibility that "collectively" the natives truly were not fully understanding the implications of what they were trading? Nevertheless, they defend their land NOW exactly as if it was property regardless of their culture in the past and as anybody else would who believes their land-ownership rights are being violated. How? The way I see it is that the usefulness of digital rights management is a function of technology and free markets. If the DRM technology does not work, we will see continued pirating. Period. That is side-stepping the argument by only looking at our current legal system and the power it has to control us or over-rule morality. What dictates our sense of morality independent of the confines of modern legal systems?

In simple terms: Canada's economy depends on Canadians working and domestic wealth creation. Canada needs more Canadians to meet its future demands because we tax each other to meet our demands. Immigration is the cheapest way to increase the population and keep the economy from stagnating. Tourist resort countries are lucky. They have foreigners come in routinely and pour wealth into the domestic economy. Similarly, countries with neverending sources of oil do not need immigration.