Mighty AC

I do see a tiny dip in economic activity in late 07 after large increases, however the federal government did not experience a loss of tax revenue until 2009. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/govt02a-eng.htm Harper had already managed to create a small deficit through billions in new spending, prior to a loss of government revenue.

As it turns out revenue neutral carbon taxes are economic boosters. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/19/1286032/-New-Study-Revenue-Neutral-Carbon-Tax-Would-BOOST-the-Economy-While-Slashing-CO2-Emissions I'd say we didn't dodge an economic bullet but rather took one right in the chest. http://www.boomerwarrior.org/2014/03/lets-put-price-carbon-fee-dividend/?fb_action_ids=10152083845008335&fb_action_types=news.publishes&fb_ref=pub-standard&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582

No he was saying what he needed to in order to win an election, despite the fact that all the big financial institutions were forecasting the impending down turn. The point I was making though is that the Harper government had already blown through the surplus and was running a deficit before the recession started in Canada. This was achieved through runaway spending.

The recession began in Canada in November of 2008. The Harper government had already erased the surplus by that point through record Federal spending. Like I said, he complained about Paul Martin's spending, yet went on to increase it by several times the rate of inflation each of his first few years.

Let's follow the quotes: Oct 10, 2008 - "This country will not go into recession next year and will lead the G7 countries." - Prime Minister Stephen Harper Oct 12, 2008 - "If you don't want a carbon tax and tax increases and a deficit and recession, the only way to ensure that is the case is to vote for the Conservative party." - Prime Minister Stephen Harper Nov 23, 2008 - "We may well be in a technical recession." - Finance Minister Jim Flaherty Nov 23, 2008 - "The most recent private-sector forecasts suggest the strong possibility of a technical recession at the end of this year and beginning of next." - Prime Minister Stephen Harper

Almost everybody uses Facebook. They have over 1.3 billion unique, active monthly users. That number only includes users that log in to their account at least once per month. It amazes me that they went from a basic single university profile site to over a billion users in 10 years. Anyway, I suspect they bought companies like Instagram and Whatsapp because they were amassing a large user base. The purchases did give them some new technology to use and incorporate but mainly they erased a social media rival. They don't want to end up like My Space.

Sort of. We do recycle a tiny portion of our refuse with an after the fact attempt to reclaim some materials. I'm saying the entire life cycle of each component of a product or system should be planned for from the start. Right now many of the containers and materials we put in our recycle bins cannot be adequately recycled because they contain a blend of materials that cannot be feasibly separated. Think of cardboard containers that also have plastic inserts, or multiple different plastics used within the same container. Also think of our sewage system. One stream collects and mixes, human wastes, water run offs, gas, oil, chemicals, medications, detergents, salts, fertilizers, industrial wastes, paints, solvents, make ups, hygiene products, etc. that get sent down the various drains. To this we then waste fresh, clean water to wash it along. At the end of the line some places attempt to clean up this mess of blended substances while others simply pump it directly into rivers. Even when cleaned we are left with a sludge mixture of organic wastes that contain some useful nutrients, but also host of known and unknown chemicals and metals. What if in both cases the system was build with the end in mind? Containers would not contain a mixture of materials. Only the most recyclable packages could be used. Packaging in general would be reduced to the bare requirements. Sewage wastes would have separate streams so that clean disposal is possible. That same idea should used while planning the production of everything. Products need to be engineered so that the manufacturing waste products can be reclaimed and reused, even if by another process or industry.

However, if we were really to compare levels of unreasonable behaviour, we would probably also have to consider the time spent indulging these irrationalities. Starting with the religious, on one hand we have roughly 30% of Canadians that identify themselves as belonging to a religion but also do not hold a belief in gods. I'd say these people are not irrational, but just confused about the terminology. On the other end of the religious spectrum there are extremists, fundamentalists, literalists, creationists, etc. These people are about as irrational as it gets. These are the people pushing for religion in science class, denying evolution, protesting funerals, claiming the earth is less than 10,000 years old and making Pat Robertson an uber wealthy man. Then in the middle there are people that don't try to deny scientific evidence but still turn out semi-regularly at buildings specially designed for communicating with gods. While there they spend an hour or two engaging in rituals designed to please their chosen magic being, like speaking words of praise in unison, singing songs, eating crackers, making wishes and listening to a man tell them how the supernatural entity wants them to behave. Even that average, "normal" religious behaviour is likely still more irrational than the people who spend 5 minutes reading about how today's alignment of the planets will influence their personal lives, based on their birth month. Both practices are irrational, just not equally so.

Except that the religious believe in one or more supernatural beings without evidence. Many then go on to carry out rituals to honour or please these magical entities. I'd say that religious people are about as irrational as non-religious people who also hold a strong belief in beings or concepts that cannot be demonstrated. Like people who believe in faeries or astrology.

The Libs made cuts but also benefited from the new revenue generated by the Mulroney created GST. It was a hated tax but it was necessary at the time. Despite complaining about the level of Paul Martin's spending the Harper government upped that level by multiple times the rate of inflation for several years during the start of their reign. At the same time he increased the size of his cabinet. Harper had blown the surplus before the recession hit, all in an attempt to buy a majority. If the phrase "Tax and spend Liberals" can be used, I guess the phrase "Borrow and spend Conservatives" also fits.

It's big problem with politics, leadership and the world in general. I think we would advance much faster if we had more women at the helm.

They are irrational and unreasonable. That's not a stereotype. I've explained several times that I view people that strongly hold on to any belief without evidence as irrational and unreasonable. That behaviour is generally harmful to society and in that I don't make a special case for the religious or "spiritual". In that regard I view the religious no different than those that believe in homeopathy, astrology or feng shui. I have a friend/teammate who is an atheist that totally believes in the healing powers of reiki. I call him irrational and unreasonable all the time but I usually phrase it more like "You're an effn' wing nut!" "I'm like not religious, but l'm like totally spiritual." "Oh yeah? I'm not honest but you're interesting."

I don't think I am stereotyping the religious. Many very large religious sects are blatantly misogynistic. I simply said that those bullied by their religion, like women and homosexuals are by many sects, should leave religion behind at a greater rate than those who are favoured by those same sects. The only possible stereotype that I can detect was that women are less likely to seek confrontation than men.

The OP covers this issue well but here is an article on the topic. http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/economy/Budget+watchdog+says+Harper+government+wrong+labour/9659286/story.html The report does suggest the Finance Department has been deliberately dishonest.

No, a new gadget doesn't have to replace everything a previous device does to catch on. For example tablets are less useful than laptops at many tasks, but better at others. If smart glasses and watches are more convenient for some common tasks they may still become widely used.

I think there may be something to the hygiene hypothesis as well as increased chemical exposure. " In short, our "developed" lifestyles have eliminated the natural variation in the types and quantity of germs our immune systems needs for it to develop into a less allergic, better regulated state of being." - Why are allergies increasing The hypothesis suggests that now widely used practice of delaying the introduction of common food allergens, like peanuts and shellfish, to toddlers may actually create more food allergies.

Considering current phones were considered something akin to a Star Trek device 30 years ago, the prospect of wearable tech is easily imaginable.

It's phenomenal now and getting better all the time...but that's partly why I see them being wirelessly tethered to smart watches and traditional smart phones. Lol...that's a feature not a problem. Though the watch still handles that.

I get that you're saying the Leafs are not a valid contender. I don't think that anyone except the most deluded members of Leafs Nation think they are. The Leafs are a mediocre middle team, but being in a solid playoff position all year only to blow it at the end is still choking.

No, I think you're wrong here. I think most religious people believe in the supernatural and feel the Bible is the word of god, sent through men. Right. People as well as large religious groups do use religious arguments to mistreat, discriminate and even violate human rights. That is what I referred to as bullying. Of course it is just a correlation. Religiosity is inversely proportional to most "good" societal statistics like education, health, crime and income distribution. When people's needs are being met they don't need a religious crutch. It was a stat cited in response to your comment that somehow "atheistic" societies are problematic.

Sweet!

With the XBox, I am annoyed by the requirement of a membership to use features like Netflix, Skype, YouTube, etc. Though, I do prefer using Skype on a big screen from my couch. YouTube and Netflix integration on the Roku is also great. The advantage being a phone or tab is not required but can still be used to improve the experience. The disadvantage being they cost just over twice as much. I don't have my Chromecast yet, but I expect I can't leave the room with my tab or phone and still have the show continue.

Bigger phones offer better screens but can worsen ergonomics. Plus, they don't fit as well into pockets, hand bags, etc. Glasses solve the screen size problem. That's something that wearable tech like glasses and watches can handle. Currently, smart watches allow you to interact with your phone without taking it out. I expect that soon the phone will be unnecessary and watches will work in tandem with glasses.

Google is currently working with Oakley and Ray Ban to do just that.

Natural systems are cyclical and thus sustainable. Think about the water, carbon and nitrogen cycles as examples. Resources are continually recycled. Human processes tend to be linear. Raw materials are mined, processed, shaped, packaged, used and discarded. If we want to create a long term sustainable future for humans on earth, all of our production processes need to become cyclical. Plans for the reuse of each component and waste product involved during the entire life cycle of a product or system must be planned for during the design and approval phase.