Remiel

Is it really though? I mean, the United States, one of the only countries that can actually threaten our territory in the North, claims territory in Antartica. And what they do down there is far, FAR less than we do up in the North.

While I am, or was, inclined to think this way, I am not sure it is a very good argument. I would moderate it to say that it is the sort of question that should not be asked more than once in a generation. That way, the " you " has actually changed enough for it to count as " someone else " having made the decision.

Besides the experience thing, I seriously doubt that any Middle Eastern country could field enough of them to make them effective against the U.S. The U.S. would be able to reasonable facsimile of a swarm of locusts with the number of F-35s they will have, let alone their F-22s.

Talk about a stunning failure of negotiations and sense... You know, I wonder how much everyone else is paying per plane.

Perhaps I phrased things somewhat poorly before. I am not suggesting that I do not think quantum mechanics is correctly describes something that is happening. What I am suggesting is that I do not buy the " out of existence " part. I am guessing when a particle pops " out of existence " it is going somewhere; just nowhere we can so far detect.

I think this part is actually where the heart of the debate lies. If we recall, the reason further procurement of the F-22 Raptor was halted by the U.S. was not because fighter aircraft were no longer going to be needed, but because the F-22 was beyond the capabilities of what would be needed. The question of whether we need fighter aircraft is a red herring. The real question is, " What do we need our fighter aircraft to do? " and the F-35 procurement program should be measured versus that goal, not versus the brute abilities of the F-35 vis-a-vis other aircraft alone. I guess my opinion as of this moment is that I would like to have a squadron of F-35s as an elite unit, but I have to wonder whether there is a workhorse out there that would be a better value for the rest of the dollars we are spending.

As much as I would like an election, I think forcing one *during* the G20 would be a mistake; contributing to the waste. Better to let the debacle play itself out first. A motion of non-confidence could be introduced later. Particularly, if the meeting goes badly, it may make itself into the acceptable reason to call the election afterwards.

Generally, perhaps, but not entirely true. Sometimes the process of elimination is a valuable tool in trying to determine what one should be trying to demonstrate. According to that Wikipedia article, the Null Hypothesis says nothing about assuming something does not exist. It is about positing no relatinship between two phenomena. And it also says that it is usually accompanied by n Alternative Hypothesis, that does posit a relationship. I am guessing that one is supposed to with-hold judegement as to which is right until one has done the experiment. Maybe I was mistaken in this part but I guess I was basing it on the thought that you were the sort of person who in their admiration of science confused what is an inductive exercise for a deductive proof. I have at least one friend in science who places too much faith into science without really caring about the philosophy that measures its value.

I think you are confused. If you have proven something exists, you have also proven the non-existence of its negation; and vice versa. That aside, two things: 1) The default position is not that something does not exist. The default position is to with-hold judgement. At least, that is if you are a good little skeptic. 2) Very little is truly proven. This does not mean that logical implication and probability cannot lead to good decision making, but " proof " occurs in much smaller quantities than most people think. On another note, I am skeptical of this quantum mechanical business where things supposedely pop in and out of existence. I believe there is a better scientific explanation of what is really going on. The fact that there is any order at all in how it works at that level indicates to me that it cannot be truly random/uncaused. Arguments for why to suggest it could be is absurd are as old as the Greeks. I have to cut this post short for now though, I must leave.

The idea of the Liberals forming a coalition with the scum that currently runs this government turns my stomach.

Anyone who thinks that the Liberal Party would become part of the NDP needs to get their head checked. There may be a coalition (I rather hope so at this point), and the NDP may even wield a lot of influence in it. But never would the institution of the Liberal Party be abandoned to the NDP.

I have heard Seth Shostak of the SETI Institute say that he expects we will detect transmissions of some sort from other civilizations sometime within the next 10 to 20 years, depending on how numerous they are. Currently our ability to scan the night sky for signals is actually rather limited, but it will only increase by leaps and bounds, and as we can look at more at a time, the chance of finding something greatly increases.

While it may not necessarily be your own practice, I hope you realize how ironic it sounds for an American to lecture anyone on countries not of their concern.

The sum certainly is ridiculous. If you consider it cost $200 million in 2002, when the threat of terrorism was fresh in our minds and it was relatively unknown what big threat could be lying around the corner, to now, where all recent terrorist incidents have been pretty much small scale and incompetently carried out... And yet somehow the cost of protecting them from less perceived danger is 5x higher?

*chuckle* You know that was not what I meant, though.

Anyway, I found this link to the Guardian while looking at a few images of baby harp seals, to remind myself of exactly how cute and adorable they are: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/19/seals-hunting-russia-ban Two things to note: the article mentions that when Russia banned hunting of seals under a year old, it was on the end of a decade that had seen their population decline by more than a third; the Canadian population, in contrast, has risen. Also, if you look at the blood soaked picture, it seems to me that there is too little of the seal left for the hunters to have only taken the fur. I doubt that Canadian hunters do things much differently than their Russian counterparts in that regard.

Come on, if one person says to you, " kitten, " and another says to you, " baby cat, " is the image created in your mind really any different?

Well, I was not really thinking in terms of badgers when I made that comment. I can say though that a) baby badgers are also cute, though maybe not quite as cute as baby harp seals; and if people did not think badgers, or seals, were cute, it would not change the questions of the debate necessarily, but it would change the intensity of the debate, and the disgust of the opponents. Cuteness biases. Whether or not a person tries to ignore the bias that is created, does not change that it exists. I would bet you even someone like Argus would care even less about the plight of baby harp seals if they were not cute. For the record, I have no idea what the person thinks of the seal hunt. I just know that they love baby seals, presumably because they are really cute. Thinking seals are cute and hunting them are not mutually exclusive.

If you think that people in rural areas and provinces would object to being able to tell people in Toronto and Montreal what to do, you are seriously deluded.

Does it really matter? If the Prime Minister tried to use the Notwithstanding Clause to become a dictator, and was succesful, the relevant problem would not be with the what the Constitution said, but with the people of Canada. The Constitution is merely a piece of paper; it is the people of this country who give it authority, and are thus responsible for what comes of it.

I am confused as to why you would reply to my defense of the word " baby " with the suggestion that I would prefer not to use it. Or had you forgotten that we are more or less on opposing sides in this debate? Even if it were not a reason, per se, you should not deny that it is a factor. Anecdotally, I have known at least one person who was obsessed with harp seals; it was not because they liked fur coats.

While I agree it is emotionally-laden, I would never have thought, and still do not, that " baby " was not a useful descriptive term. Also, I fail to see what comparing seals to badgers accomplish. Surely we would be having this same conversation if it was the annual " Badger Hunt " , with all the other details basically the same.

When I first read this, I thought, " What does any of this have to do with nuclear bombs? "

No love for Fallout 3, ? Of course, the beauty of that game lies more in its exquisite dreariness and ruin; though Fallout: New Vegas will be much more colourful and " pretty " rather than being just a washed out deadland. If you can play Oblivion, I am sure your computer can take Fallout 3, though with the settings turned down.

If it were career civil servants carrying out this propaganda exercise, I think it would be less problematic. The beaurocracy has its own opinions, and is the sort of creature goverments can wrestle with but not defeat. It would be less problematic for people who are supposed to be non-partisan carrying out an information campaign. Contractors, however, only have loyalty to the money, and would be far more like to disseminate misinformation of the party in powers choosing.