Wild Bill

Just thought folks might be interested to know that 'freon' is a registered trademark of Dupont Corp.

Glad to, MM! There's an interesting story behind the new freon. It seems that the company that held the patent rights to freon had finally run out of extensions and legal tricks to protect their patent. Freon was about to become public domain, where anybody could make and sell it. Odds are the price would immediately have fallen with all the competition. No more patent-protected monopoly. Suddenly, CFCs become a big environmental issue. Everybody is talking about how they attack the ozone layer. NASA pictures of the Ozone Hole in the Arctic hit the media, claiming the hole is shrinking and it's all the fault of CFCs from freon that escaped from car and building airconditioning, refrigerators and BO killer spray cans. Some of us had a little trouble wrapping our heads around some contradictions in the story. Those NASA pictures of the ozone hole were brand new. We never had satellites before. So how did we know the hole was shrinking? Also, one volcano erupting would shoot a zillion times more CFCs into the atmosphere than Man had ever produced. The contribution from freon seemed insignificant. Of course, voices like us were quickly shouted down. We were told to stop asking ridiculous questions. Obviously, we were trying to kill the planet. So the old freon that had worked very well for generations became illegal. A new 'freon' is created, BY THE SAME COMPANY THAT PRODUCED THE OLD ONE! Complete with brand new patent protections! Makes you wonder who's REALLY in the pay of big corporations! Well, to be fair, more likely it was just 'useful idiots" poli-sci majors easily fooled 'cuz they are so 'science challenged'.

Didn't Alfred Nobel say after he had invented dynamite that it would make war obsolete? Wasn't WWI called "the war to end all wars?" Didn't someone say that the Bomb had made wars obsolete? Didn't Diefenbaker justify canceling the Avro Arrow by claiming that Bomarc interceptors had made fighter aircraft obsolete? There were a lot of Frenchmen at the start of Hitler's invasion that were shocked to discover that the Maginot Line was NOT a perfect defense! It just seems that every time someone claims that war or some type of weapon is obsolete history soon proves them wrong. In order to be accurate with such claims one would have to be a seer capable of seeing the changes in war measures and countermeasures. The only thing we can hold true today is that the rate of change is such that we no longer have the luxury of taking a year or two to develop troops and resources if the balloon goes up. Today's wars are "come as you are" wars. In a few months, weeks or even days it's all over. Canada wouldn't have a hope in such a situation. It makes sense from a political perspective. Cut the budgets today and use the money for vote-grabbing social programs. Odds are that by the time you ever need your military you'll be long retired from office, perhaps even dead. You won't have to accept any blame. It will be someone else's problem.

There have always been problems to overcome. If the green movement can ban anything that strikes their fancy and take it for granted that the techies will find an alternative that will still work (like the new freon that doesn't work as well for air conditioning, or that PITA lead free solder!) then surely we can be confident that biosphere problems can be solved. Besides, if I'm remembering the same project as you wasn't that an attempt at a closed system? When you're smelting an asteroid or mining the moon you have access to oxygen and a lot more elements. You're no longer in a closed system. Here's just a few links: http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2007/...rd-way-is-.html http://library.isunet.edu/Thesaurus.htm?nu...051967635914940 http://phoenix8.physics.miami.edu/resonanc...1-31msonter.pdf http://www.jstor.org/pss/2600196 Over the last few years I'm beginning to formulate a theory as to why the green movement is so hostile to the idea of space development. It's not so much that they can't see the potential as that they view that potential as competition for resources and attention to fixing the problems with this planet! At all costs space development must not be supported. It's so sad when you consider that space offers the solutions to virtually all of our ecological and economic problems here on earth. Ah well, some country will eventually make it if our own vision proves too small.

Well, the Americans have committed to a manned moon base within 20 years. Richard Branson is obviously no slouch of a business man! He backed SpaceshipOne to win the Ansari X-prize and the ship is booked solid with those millionaire passengers you mentioned. He clearly intends to make a profit! If America loses its drive, the Chinese may do it. Whatever, it will be human beings from whatever country hasn't grown too old in its thinking. You might be happier about the carbon from space flights if you considered it an investment. How much CO2 would be saved if we did all smelting in earth orbit? For the few flights necessary to set up asteroid mining surely it would be worth it to eliminate steel factories and the like here on the ground. It's going to happen no matter how some feel about it. A few decades too late for old guys like myself but my children might have a chance to get off this ball of rock. Once Man is self-sustaining in space who cares what happens to the Luddites left behind. While they get lessons from Mother Nature as to what actually works and what doesn't, humanity will survive and prosper. Whatever. Time will tell who's right and who's wrong.

Well, that's your interpretation. It seems to hinge on how YOU define "associating"! There are close associations and remote associations. I could make another joke at how if one Liberal handed out money in Adscam then ALL the caucus is dirty! Guilt by association, n'est-ce pas? Of course, my logic would be just as flawed as yours. The only association we know of is that Bernier chose a woman for a girl friend who years ago hung out with some bikers. Ordinary people can be said to associate with outlaw biker gangs all the time. Have you yourself ever played a pinball machine in a bowling alley? Or even bowled in a few alleys? Ever taken your car to a car wash? Ever gone out with the boys to a "nudie bar" to give a friend who's about to get married a send-off? These are just a few examples of areas often if not usually under biker control. If any fit, would you consider YOURSELF an associate of bikers? No, there may be an association implied in my words but you've stretched it past the point of credulity. Besides, even if I grant for the sake of argument that you're correct (which I DON'T!) you're attacking my model and ignoring my point! My point is, I place far more trust in someone down to earth than one who comes across as elitist, patronizing and condescending at worst or at best, like Ned Flanders, naive. In other words, most Liberals! I cite your own twisting of the meaning of my words as an example of your appropriate category.

Your answer implies that the only route to space is through having the government do it! I agree, that would take forever, if it happened at all. That's not what I'm talking about. Private industry will get us there for a very simple reason - money! There are huge profits being made right now from the satellite industry, with TV, weather and photography to name only a few areas of action. Most people not being technical they have little or no idea of how much profit potential is involved. Little things we take for granted can be made better and cheaper in a space environment. Ball bearings, for instance. In zero g they can be cheaply made far more perfectly than is possible on earth. What could this mean to the gasoline efficiency of your car if they were used in your transmission? Medical drugs, crystals for computer chips, the list is endless. This is NOT fantasy! This is starting to happen RIGHT NOW! Forgive me, but I suspect that your background may not equip you to understand the difference between space industry and the BattleStar Galactica show on television...even the old one from the 70's. That's no shame. Most folks can't either. That's why most folks didn't buy stock in Intel, or MicroSoft, or Research in Motion.

What makes you think we'll have enough military resources to interfere in such situations? $30 billion still won't get us anywhere near as powerful as many of the countries to which you're referring. We're just too small time! Or do you think the warlords that run Burma will be cowed by our "quiet diplomacy"? No, Canada hasn't had the power to lead the way for decades. When people talk about having a UN action they really are talking about an American one. Why? Because they want the Americans to spend the money and blood! Look what happened when they couldn't get the US to take on yet another action and go into Darfur? Nothing happened! No one else stepped up to the plate. Rulers like those in Burma only listen if you've got a big enough stick. Canada can spend it's $30 billion and we'll be lucky if that replaces everything that's presently rusted out. It will help and Lord knows it's necessary but we've slipped so far that it will hardly make us a power house. Talk is cheap.

Just those who vote Liberal! It's a similar situation between having a Liberal MP and a local godfather. If you knew anything about how things were run in Sheila Copps' riding...

Sez who? We are on the verge of finally getting off this ball of rock and expanding into space. There we find virtually infinite resources and room. It's taking longer than it should because after all, it's government doing it! Still, with the help of companies like Virgin Airways it will eventually happen. We've had technology for at least 25 years to go out and snare just one middlin' sized asteroid of nickel-iron ore. We bring it back to a near Earth orbit, use solar power to smelt it cheaply and from that one piece of rock we could sell the entire world's demand for steel for one year, at a discount! Zero pollution by smelting in space inside of on the ground. We could then use the land for growing food. Or we could grow food in space! It's all been worked out for years. We have the potential to banish hunger for everyone, if we'd simply get off our collective asses. Instead of turning that steel mill land over to farming we could make it into a park. Why aren't we already there? First off, it will only come when private enterprise gets more involved. Governments always take forever and cost the most money. Polls have consistently shown that companies are loath to put up the huge initial investment on space development, for fear of the risks. This despite the HUGE payback! Polling shows that while no company cares to be first they also don't care to be THIRD! So they're all waiting for someone else to start things off. Virgin is about to offer trips into near Earth orbit in the next year or so. The heirs to the Hilton fortune have been slowly working on a hotel space station, where they could offer a zero g honeymoon. Virgin is apparently talking $100,000 per ticket. That sounds like a lot but just yesterday I was watching a documentary on the history of flight that showed how in the early 30's when passenger flight was just starting it cost 50 lbs for a hop from London to Paris. At the time that was half the average annual income! Yet there was no shortage of those who could afford tickets! There's still hope, if we'd just stop staring at our feet and thinking we can see the entire universe without looking up!

I sincerely hope so! I am so bored with the "Ned Flanders" image portrayed by our so-called political leaders. Totally out of touch with the common man. Give me a Ralph Klein drinking beer in a corner bar or a Chuck Cadman repairing a guitar amplifier for some rock and roller any day. I'll never forget volunteering as a scrutineer one election. You could tell the Liberal guys. They all wore 3 piece suits! What the hell would you do on a night out with Dion? Eat Brie and drink Chablis while listening to him explain how he intends to personally save the planet? I'd rather watch paint dry!

It wasn't that long ago that the Liberals were caught handing out envelopes of money in Italian restaurants in Montreal, for illegal purposes. Don't recall any voices asking to vette all those MPs and all their associates. After all "that doesn't suggest that anything is wrong or out of the ordinary. It is just common sense."

Excuse me, but I thought they never did discover the wheel? Or at least, never made use of it. I've never heard of them using wagons. Perhaps you could cite me a link...

I don't know who runs this Trendlines poll but it doesn't appear to have anything to do with Ipsos-Reid. It appears to have projections for nations all over the world. It appears to take every tiny moment to moment change and project it out to a ridiculous degree. Is this some guy in his parent's basement in Paraguay? I invite everyone to visit the site and try to make sense of their projections. Enjoy the prediction for a Liberal majority in 2009. It may change in the next 5 minutes. Who knows if you'll ever see it again?

Many folks have a chequered past. Not everyone has the courage to leave a bad scene to better themselves. Many in this thread seem perfectly willing to "stone" the poor woman! We've seen nothing to show that she herself is not of good character. Frankly, in the absence of hard evidence that she has maintained her biker connections and has leaked sensitive information it sounds to me like some people are being shrewish and righteous. Perhaps it is a reaction to her obvious good looks. All we know for sure is that here's a woman who made some mistakes when she was younger but fortunately straightened herself out. Unless something comes out that proves her to be evil it would behoove some of the more strident voices in this thread to put aside their zeal to make a partisan attack via a Tory's personal life and practice some basic human charity!

Do you really think that would be useful in this day and age? After all, MAD only works between nations. Today's threats seem to be coming from guerrilla and non-state sanctioned groups like Hamas and Al-Queda. If such a group flattened the CN Tower who do we nuke? Woudn't "feet on the ground" be more useful?

Traditional cultures work only during traditional times. Native traditional culture might still work if natives chose to live a traditional lifestyle along with it. If they want to live a modern lifestyle then their traditional culture is ill-equipped to cope. It won't work. It is not self-sustaining. It requires a perpetual welfare cheque. This saps pride and spawns defensiveness. Natives cannot take pride in contributing to the modern world in any practical sense. They cannot invent a new machine or a cure for cancer. They retreat behind 'spiritual' contributions, which cannot be weighed, measured or defined. Or eaten. We get higher walls to overcome to deal with the problems. The original issue gets clouded - that traditional cultures don't work very well in modern times. It would seem that reserves are usually unsuccessful for trying to apply primitive culture to modern situations. If a man places one foot in a stream going in one direction and his other foot in a stream going in another, is it surprising he falls on his ass?

Swiped this from a musicians' board I frequent. Thought it might be appropriate to this board. A Modern Parable. A Japanese company (Toyota) and an American company (Ford Motors) decided to have a canoe race on the Missouri River Both teams practiced long and hard to reach their peak performance before the race. On the big day, the Japanese won by a mile. The Americans, very discouraged and depressed, decided to investigate the reason for the crushing defeat. A management team made up of senior management was formed to investigate and recommend appropriate action. Their conclusion was the Japanese had 8 people rowing and 1 person steering, while the American team had 7 people steering and 2 people rowing. Feeling a deeper study was in order; American management hired a consulting company and paid them a large amount of money for a second opinion. They advised, of course, that too many people were steering the boat, while not enough people were rowing. Not sure of how to utilize that information, but wanting to prevent another loss to the Japanese, the rowing team's management structure was totally reorganized to 4 steering supervisors, 2 area steering superintendents and 1 assistant superintendent steering manager. They also implemented a new performance system that would give the 2 people rowing the boat greater incentive to work harder. It was called the 'Rowing Team Quality First Program, ' with meetings, dinners and free pens for the rowers. There was discussion of getting new paddles, canoes and other equipment, extra vacation days for practices and bonuses. The pension program was trimmed to "equal the competition" and some of the resultant savings were channeled into morale boosting programs and teamwork posters. The next year the Japanese won by two miles. Humiliated, the American management laid-off one rower, halted development of a new canoe, sold all the paddles, and canceled all capital investments for new equipment. The money saved was distributed to the Senior Executives as bonuses. The next year, try as he might, the lone designated rower was unable to even finish the race (having no paddles,) so he was laid off for unacceptable performance, all canoe equipment was sold and the next year's racing team was out-sourced to India. Sadly, the End. Here's something else to think about: Ford has spent the last thirty years moving all its factories out of the US , Claiming they can't make money paying American wages. TOYOTA has spent the last thirty years Building more than a dozen plants inside the US. The last quarter's results: TOYOTA makes 4 billion in profits While Ford racked up 9 billion in losses. Ford folks are still scratching their heads, and collecting bonuses... IF THIS WEREN'T SO TRUE IT MIGHT BE FUNNY __________________

I guess you simply don't want to give me an answer. Never have I indicated that I want to see Quebec divided. Or that I even care, for that matter. Let me try again, one last time. In your opinion, would a separatist government be prepared to deal with the natives to keep Quebec whole, even when the natives are committing armed insurrection against that government to resist having their lands becoming part of an independent Quebec? I'm not asking how anyone 'feels' about it, or what ever demands they would make for 'respect'. The native people have gone on record that in such a situation they WOULD be prepared to wage armed resistance! I'm asking if Quebec separatists understand that. I'm asking if they're prepared to meet blood with blood.

Again, you miss my point. I'm not taking a stand on the feelings of any Quebecois. Or about kicking out a province from Confederation. You said that if Quebec separated they would not allow any partitioning of the province. When I said that the natives would not accept this you implied that the PQ would just stamp their feet and the natives would just have to respect the decision. Again, I disagree. There would be bullets flying. Are you saying that the PQ is prepared for that and are willing to deal with it? That would be the price for insisting that Quebec is indivisible.

I think that your passion for kicking Quebec out of Canada has clouded your objectivity. Natives in Quebec would likely go to actual war to keep their land within Canada. It would make Oka look like a Sunday school picnic! It's one thing to say that "Quebec nationalists quite frankly don't give a damn what natives think". Really? Do you seriously suggest that they would begin to shoot back? Hell, even at Oka the provincial government wussed out and begged the feds to send the soldiers in. If they were separating they'd have to send their own soldiers. No, the choice would be to section some parts of Quebec or spill blood. I don't think any separatist government would want to start out with their boots bloody.

Quelle surprize! Government IS organized crime!

At the time of the last referendum, did you not listen to the words of the First Nations folks in Quebec? They came flat out and said if Quebec separated they would NOT willingly and peacefully allow the native land to separate with it! They considered themselves part of Canada and part of Canada they would stay no matter what the separatists decided. It would have made Oka look like a Sunday picnic. Bouchard and Parizeau were in a panic and flatly refused to comment, to the point of running from any reporter that appeared to want to ask questions about how a separatist government would respond to them. It was actually kinda humerous to watch!

True enough! But also a healthy dollop of NDP folks who were tired of never getting anywhere in Quebec and found a new parade ot get out in front.

Interesting! Not being a bingo player (I'm not THAT old yet!) I never knew. It makes perfect sense, of course. I've always believed that when the official line and what happens in reality are dramatically different you should check the initial premises. I simply don't believe that politicians raise tobacco taxes and impose lifestyle restrictions to "protect us". They do it to APPEAR to be protecting us! Quite a different thing, if you think about it a while. Also, it makes a very popular appeal. A wise man once said that "There is nothing so popular as telling your neighbour what to do, except making him pay for your own big idea!" Too many people see anti-smoking as a chance to feed their own ego. They might be very humble in their own life but as a "nico-nazi" they can feel important! I'm sure I'm not the only one who has worked in an office where there's always someone who harps to management at the slightest infraction by his co-workers. The Smoking War gives these people a perfect opportunity to strut. In Hamilton it's now illegal to smoke at a bus stop streetcorner, amongst all the diesel fumes and the emissions from two major steel companies. Doesn't make sense, you say? Check your initial premise. The goal is not to protect non-smokers from passive smoke. The goal is to take away yet another place for smokers to light up! Eventually they will have nowhere but the folks leading the charge will claim that they haven't taken away a smoker's choice to smoke! It's a side of human nature that frankly I find rather ugly. It helps me understand how concepts like racism and anti-semitism can catch on so easily in a community. Anyhow, politicians just get in front of a parade. They usually are too shallow and/or machiavellian to be bothered by any thought of morality. It's been said that "Democracy is a system where the 'little guy' may think he knows what he wants but he ends up getting it good and hard!"