myata

We have already addressed that concern in another thread though, and I'm somewhat surprised you're bringing it back again, unless as a part of never-failing strategy "keep playing the tune no matter anything" in which case please feel free but please don't count on another response. See, it's simply a matter of statistical probabilities, that of all the thousands of qualified professionals who spent decades of their lives in studies and work in schools around the globe, all of them or great majority of them being wrong, unable to understand the truth, or complicit in a global conspiracy, all that against somebody with unknown qualifications and/or professional record writing something in a general access Web forum because they couldn't be bothered with publishing their findings in the professional forum, or perhaps couldn't get to. If we admit that possibility, then my muonic wave-riding should also be as good a mean of transportation as a space rocket or even your car (please feel free). We'll have a new age of science where our achievements would be limited only by our imaginations, with only minor occasional upsets in our absolutely exciting lives (like missing muonic wave on the way to that important job interview).

Not if you take into account supermuonic space-time hypercompression (which we could discuss at length in our very own super-muonic Web forum). To M.-H.: general public can discuss the interpretations of science, its implications for the society (as e.g. some still discuss the existence of evolution, while biologists actually observe it in experiments with thousands of generations of insects). It cannot meaningfully contribute to scientific process for the simple reason that it has not learned the language to formulate meaningful phrases, anymore than someone with no knowledge of a foreign language could make meaningful contribution to a discussion in that language.

No, but I'm simply trying see the whole picture, while all you want to say is that abuses and atrocities by one side (faction) somehow excuse or justify those by the other. Creating an endless chain of violence in which these episodes are bound to happen over and again. While selective vision would go a long way helping us to see and condemn some, and conveniently ignore and discard the others. Confirming the foregone conclusion that we we absolutely rightful and justified in whatever we were doing from the start. P.S. obviously, authenticity of this or any other Web material cannot be assumed without verfication as is not implied in any way.

The problem with general Web forums vs "science" though is that anybody can write absolutely anything with no consequence - whatsoever. Here's couple of examples: 1) I successfully completed a controlled thermonuclear reaction (with a contraption in my basement) that will provide eternal source of energy for this humankind, and make billions for me and my family. 2) I just returned from a galactic blueplanet radiation emissions conference in the Orion nebula travelling 3.7889 times faster than speed of light by super quanta muonic waves. Please feel free to use either (or both) as a groundbreaking foundation for a new branch of (Web) science, my complements.

It's not about worked-up descriptions though. Is somebody firing a gun into an apartment building any better? Obviously we have two sides (to be precise, factions on one side, and the current government on the other), that are bent on perpetrating acts of aggression against each other. We can demand of both sides to stop their acts. Or we can keep on with the policy of double speak (say one thing; do the opposite), with the obvious conclusion that we became (or maybe were, from the start?) a part of the problem.

Good stuff! You're certainly making great strides in "science" already! I'm not sure how much point would be to have them given to general public ("So you think you can math", anybody?), but it is certainly an obligation of a professional scientist to present any claims they make to the critical consideration of qualified peers. If / when it is not done, or done improperly, it'll be discovered, just as it had been in this and many other cases. Which only proves why and how scientific process works, sorting out research with merit from unsubstantiated or even deliberately false claims, not to mention gibberish from media / general Web forum.

As said, it can't be denied any longer that Israel's government has been involved in their own fair (or more than?) share of aggressive act. Allusions to Nazis or aliens or whatever will do nothing to diminish or distract from that obvious fact. The business of anybody genuinely interested in resolution of the conflict should be to promote deescalation of hostilities, and discorage, by act if necessary, aggression in any form and by any one side. If not, their involvement in itself would be contributing to the problem, rather than solution, just as we see over and again, in this very example.

There's no lack of extremely genial people (aka crackpots) claiming anything, from eternal motion to unlimited communication to aliens in the parallel Universe, if only one cares to look closely around the Net. The only difference between those and the climate sceptics seeking outlet in the popular media or on the Web forums, is that unlike the other forementioned captivating subjects, this one happens to be in the focus of media and public attention, resulting in all valuable opinions being duly reported and discussed at length by people who have about as much (or little) clue about that they're talking about as some of the opinions being reported. Is climate science is perfect and without flaws? There's no reason to expect that, no human knowledge being eternal and flawless. Problems, mistakes and even intentional falcifications have been known, and will happen, as is the nature of our path to knowledge. What we know for certain though, what's been tested and proven by science's progress over many centuries is that any opinion, claim or theory must be tested in the forum of qualified peers; and once tested, an established conclusion can always be reproduced by repeating identified steps of experiment, or sequence of logical reasoning. That is why any novel idea or claim does not necessarily (actually, ever) cause complete negation of all knowledge obtained previously, unlike e.g popular art or fashion. The validity of established research is confirmed by fact and logical reasoning that can be repeated by anybody (who has a clue) any time. That is why the real science, unlike media / Web emanations around it, has nothing to fear from qualified, expert critical analysis. Any result that can be confirmed within the community of qualified, dedicated peers is a positive result and another stepping stone to revealing greater knowledge. And that is exactly why political and ideological exercises around science are worthless (and potentially dangerous, as any case of illiteracy guiding the course of society) waste of time. One can accept the established opinion of science and act on it; or one can challenge it with an argument of equal quality in forum of qualified peers. If none of the above, it must be just another attempt at stalling the progress of knowledge for who cares what reason (ideology, laziness, etc), like it happened so many times before that it isn't even worth mentioning. Interestingly, in that respect, things also work in the scientific, i.e natural selection's way: those interested and willing to learn, explore new opportunities and horizons, advance and reap rewards. Those who'd rather sit back and ignore the change, are eventually discarded as useless ballast. Not to judge or cheer for any one of the options, it's simply the way things appear to be in this, current reality.

It's hard to argue these days that Israel's government isn't responsible for its own fair share of hostile and aggressive acts, label it what you want. The Sweden's solution is simple and achieves practical result rather than endless rhethorics: you'll be held to the standard, one way (through cessation of hostilities and peaceful negotiation) or the other (through international recognition of occupied territories and subsequent measures to end the illegal occupation; as well as, obviously, measures to cease militant activity against Israel proper).

You forgot to mention how Canadian's electing a so-so GG would be any better than them electing the same kind of PM. If Canadians won't look forward, but remain absorbed squarely in preservation of status quo and self gratification, then reluctant to act, obscure, arrogant (through lack of transparency and effective independent checks and balances) government is what they'll get because it'd most closely relate to their aspirations.

It's becoming increasingly obvious that US style "friendly (to one side) mediation" isn't going to move matters anywhere. Israel's government would continue to receive "friendly" billions in aid, and ignore less friendly rhetorics, perhaps made for the sole purpose of making things look more balanced (like real and practical billions in aid vs empty rhetorics of "concern"). No incentive whatsoever to stop their aggressive policies that at this time turn out to be the most serious obstacle to the peace dialogue. Dead end. Sweden's approach appear to be one realistic way out. Give sides a deadline to stop hostilities (of all kinds) and begin honest in good faith peace negotiations. Or recognise the two states in the 1967 borders and let the future generations sort out the details.

Welcome to MLW - the world's new & ripe with ideas expert forum on macro economics and climate models!

Of course. Whitewashing a friendly installed regime, closing eyes on its little cute problems and ways of doing things, is nothing the public should know nor be interested about. The price of beer is a totally different story. As said, the taste of democracy to come...

And this is the new face of our democracy: "The documents are so heavily redacted by government censors, it's difficult to know what Covin was actually reporting or what his bosses in Ottawa thought of those reports. " (from CBC: http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/cbc-article.aspx?cp-documentid=22782231) Perhaps, we shouldn't be so rush condemning others' records on democracy and human rights, etc as nobody knows where will this path take us a few years down the road.

And here we are, arguing about whether some scribble in some book would justify a totally unnecessary, hugely destructive war that's taken lives of thousands of innocents? * Question: how, why and in what way does it appear to be more "civilised" than somebody blasting a hand made bomb because his family's patch of land has been taken away, or because they don't like foreigners running their country? * and for that reason, exonerate its direct initiators

Facilitate direct military involvement in other people's conflicts under whatever guise? I'm not aware of that mission, nor would support it.

Right, right, if three is too many ("confusing!") and two is "corrupt", the holy Monarchy would be our only salvation. Back to the future! Understand that the problem is with Canadians themselves, the way they relate, know and show interest in their political system. The parties are only a symptom of the problem, and they'll never be any better than the public they are expected to lead or represent.

Such a terrible, glaring injustice, really! In another thread I was questioning what idea, event could inspire us here, collectively, to the daring feats of political Interest, Knowledge, and who knows, maybe even Action? You may be on to something here.

Nobody can tell what will or will not happen, but if "monopoly network owner" regulation is chosen as the way to go it'd only apply to monopolistic distributor (= cable operator) and shouldn't affect their competition (air or satellite or telecom providers) until it can be shown that competition is sufficient to address the monopoly issue.

I'm disappointed that the UN is involved in this project, that is very obviously becoming a foreign involvement into the country's civil war. However after proclaiming the first elections legitimate while under foreign occupation, and the fiasco of the second ones I'm not sure how much credibility remains in their position. I guess all hope is now vested in the sheer military might, and should it fail to bring solution, it may very well end up being another nail in the coffin of UN as we know it.

That would be my diagnosis too. And it's a pretty damning one, for all I could think of. Because if people are too busy entertaining and gratifying themselves, to stop and think about things that matter to their and their posterity well being and survival, it's going to end only one way, in decay and apathy, as it happened so many times before us. If may be the sad reality of things. Shows us how far we really evolved from e.g. those bizons that roamed these plains millions years back. Nah, don't believe you here. As soon as those same people see a possibility (real or imaginary) of a few extra cents dropping from their pocket, they'll vote for somebody who'll promise them no change. And they'll keep doing it (pushing the pleasure button) all the way till the fate strikes, and there's absolutely no way avoiding it.

It is there, you only have to try better. It was different reality 50 years back, and ad revenue may have been sufficient to run the business without directly charging the consumer. Now the reality has changed, cable has a near monopoly for delivering the signal, and the fair way to fund the creation of content has to be renegotiated. Without it, signal, content, there would be no advertising, nothing to distribute and no business for anybody involved. A lapse of logic? Why would those adverstisers want to pay their hard earned $$ to content providers if they could as easily access those viewers directly? Ad / shopping channel, anybody? Are they missing something? Guess what? Wrong again. One cannot "sell advertising" if they first haven't created the content that consumers want to see (and are ready to pay for, in the cable / satellite setting). The core business is creation of content, and it creator of content certainly has the right for a fair share of revenue it generates. The ad revenue is a distraction used by monopolistic distributors, it really has no relevance to the issue. The point is that content provider has a product consumer wants, and an agreement, voluntary or regulated has to be found as to how to deliver it to consumer, compensating content creator, and distributor fairly. The fact that distributor is monopolistic, makes voluntary part less likely, and perhaps, the regulated one - necessary. Good that you know. Some do, and whatever works for them, as long as it works. In other places they charge mandatory license fee on TVs. Nothing of it is really relevant here, because at issue is compensation of content provider for signal delivered over distributor's network. Point taken. More competition could certainly help in the long run, but in the meanwhile, the question of compensation may need to go to regulation. Wrong yet again, ownership per se has very little to nothing to do with monopoly, competition does though. Even if all ten stations were ultimately owned by the same entity, they'd still all compete for my viewing time which I'll choose only if I like the content they provide. Granted, there would be guards against non-competitive behaviour (price fixing, cross subsidy) that apply to all businesses.

I'm glad that somebody is finally at least discussing the first real step in the right direction. Too bad this country has nothing to do with it. For a while now, we'll have to get used to our essential role as a second range barker in the big boy's pack.

And how would we know that he wouldn't turn up a flip flopper like somebody else before him? Same old, same old people: start thinking for a change of what new and different and better you have to offer, apart from a new face.

It's been explained, please take time to read carefully. No, which becomes instantly obvious if considering that neither distribution networks, nor advertising would have any use per se, without content provided by "stations". Without that content, nobody will be paying subscription fees, or watching ads, and therefore it's the content, or "signal" that is the primary product that drives this market. Indeed "stations" can make additional revenue from advertising, but it's their business. The business of signal distributors is to operate their networks profitably and fairly, and business model of content provider shouldn't have anything to do with that. Web content providers actually have ways to charge customers directly for content they provide. ISP's fee is to cover the cost of operating the network to carry the signal from provider to consumer. Just as it is with the telephony services and as it should be with cable TV. No, I don't see that in practice, there's usually one cable operator per geographic area (now with the recent advances of telecom technology phone network operators may start delivering TV signals as well - as was mentioned by another poster), while I can count some ten or so stations avalable in my area that all compete for my viewing time.