Moonbox

Probably eats babies too, right?

Was I dreaming this? http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/snc-lavalin-bribery-case-threatens-billions-in-federal-contracts-1.2964018

What reason do we have to believe it would be Derek? You've shown us nothing. We're six weeks into this thread and you've still provided literally nothing to support these claims. Seeing you petulantly demand citations is beyond ridiculous considering you've provided virtually none throughout the entire thread, and when you have they haven't even supported what you're saying. Your persistent, desperate attempts to misrepresent what I'm saying (by selectively bolding )? Yeah. Definitely priceless. but you did, sorry. My quote: Your response, quoting the above: Again, well done! Go for it. What was actually written differed greatly from what your grasping imagination decided was written. More of your petty semantics. If I'd have said relatively flat, or flatter, what would your response have been? No doubt you'd give us another 5-10 line paragraph uselessly paraphrasing wikipedia science, but the central point remains. You're trying to compare direct line-of-sight rifle fire at ranges <2km with indirect artillery fire over 50km. That's ridiculous. I'm not claiming that at all. I'm baffled by how you came to that conclusion. You really do have reading/comprehension problems. Either that or (as I suspect) you're deliberately misrepresenting my posts. If you can't read properly, or if you refuse to demonstrate even a small amount of intellectual integrity, there's no point in continuing the discussion with you.

No, your choice of status quo is crud. Permitting immigrants into the country is a disruption of the status-quo in itself. The 250,000/year number was a decision that was made 20+ years ago (IIRC) and the rational and support for it was flimsy. Regardless, it's not hard to show how changes to the current levels would be positive in a purely economic sense. You need only demonstrate the unemployment rates for various groups within the refugee or family reunification class.

The burden of proof in this case has to be on the positive side of the debate. If people are saying that immigration is necessary for a functional/strong/growing economy, and someone says it is not, the burden of proof is on the first party. That's fundamental logic, as I'm sure you understand. If you're capable of providing evidence to support the initial claim, then the burden of proof shifts to the negative side. As far as I can tell, however, this hasn't happened in this thread.

You've made a great many (100% unsubstantiated) claims about the effectiveness of North Korean artillery and its accuracy. You, in fact, compared what it could accomplish with what the RAF and USAF managed in WW2 against Japan/Germany. I'm contesting that it can't. Your demand for proof of this is a ridiculous flaw of logic. You're essentially saying that "X is true because there's no proof that X isn't true." That's so dumb it hurts. Sure. This is one example (among a great many others) that are all suggesting the same thing: North Korea's manufacturing capabilities are piss-poor. Your claims on North Korea's positive capabilities are, as usual, based on nothing. Certainly. The problem with your train of thought is that I never presented this one case, all by itself, as definitive proof of North Korea's shoddy capabilities. Keep trying. Another profoundly thought-provoking post. You specifically said they don't need to account for weather conditions for their ~35-50km firing solutions. Unless they've developed some sort of artillery that's not affected by weather, I don't know wtf you would say that. No I didn't. You really need to read more carefully. You're so eager to show off your fake expertise and correct people that you can't even make sense of what you're reading. More chest-thumping gobbledygook. Your commercial range-finder is a pointless addition to the debate and served as nothing more than an opportunity for you to natter uselessly. Comparing a 2km rifle shot over a flat trajectory with an arcing 50km artillery shot is moronic. We always have been. Unfortunately your claim was that: and this is something you've 100% failed to substantiate....as usual. No. Go back and read our previous (month-old) exchange if you need to rehash.

My claim is still based on more than yours. Mine is based on the actual evidence of brutally effective RAF bombing raids. Your is based on nothing (as usual). This is just more of your rubbish and incompetent reasoning. YOU made the claim that North Korean artillery would be pinpoint accurate. I contested that claim. Your defense is to now demand evidence that it's NOT accurate!? That's a fundamental failure in logic. If you told me you could outrun a cheetah, and I said that you couldn't, it's up to you to prove that you can. There's no way for me to prove that you can't until we see you run. It's hard to take you seriously when you don't seem capable of anything more than arguing by dumb question. You should try something else. In this case, failed torpedo designs (among other mistakes) certainly raised doubts of American design and manufacturing expertise. Fortunately, the number of effective designs they demonstrated erased any overall doubts. Not so with the North Koreans, with their third-world economy and history of technical embarrassments. Nobody said that. The problem is that there's not a lot of reliable information about the North Korean military. What little information we do have gives us every reason to believe their technical and manufacturing capabilities are suspect. No, I specifically answered it. Read it again. So North Korea has developed artillery that's not affected by weather!? WOW!! No, you're just having reading/comprehension problems again. You quoted (in bold) me saying the external phase starts almost immediately after the projectile leaves the barrel. I didn't say almost for no reason. Spare us the technical natter please. I know you like to puff your chest and act like an expert, but you goof up way too often to take it seriously. Why would you go on about the weather not affecting the accuracy of a projectile in the terminal phase? That makes absolutely no sense, since the projectile is no longer in flight at that point. Maybe you misspoke again? I'm stunned that you don't realize how stupid that question is. Unless I'm mistaken, you're not hunting with artillery guns or firing your shells into the sky trying to hit targets up to 50km away. Does your G7 rangefinder account for winds-aloft? Do your weather conditions vary a great deal over 1-2km (vs 30-50)? Did I ever say it didn't? No? Okay then. My contention was always that you exaggerate the scale of the threat. I believe your words were "flatten Seoul" or "make it resemble the surface of the Moon". Yes, you went back to a argument we were having about 2 months ago. I'm pretty sure that qualifies as a change of subject.

You're at a serious disadvantage. Any other questions?

No, I mean anywhere. Nobody does business in Halloween masks. Go to a bank wearing a Frankenstein mask and ask for a loan. Tell us how that goes, okay?

You calling my claim baseless is hilarious, since you have literally NOTHING to support your insistence on the accuracy of North Korean artillery. We saw the effectiveness of RAF bombing. It's in the books. We have nothing to show us how effective or accurate North Korean artillery would be. We have plenty of reasons to believe it wouldn't be, but obviously no definitive proof. Either way, your logic sucks. Use your brain Derek. If North Korea lacks the technical/practical expertise to build reliably exploding ordnance (with WW1-WW2 dud rates), their expertise in more complicated areas is extremely doubtful. Umm...no. The Mark 14 torpedo was faulty on both accounts. It had accuracy problems and high failure rates (duds or premature detonation). They contended with it largely by trial and error. They fired on a best guess, observed the splashes of their (expected) missed shots, and then adjusted aim accordingly. It was rinse and repeat until they finally acquired the proper solution. For long range battles, it could take 10+ minutes before a ship landed its first hit. Yes. I'm sure even you could calculate the distance and vectors of two stationary targets. I highly doubt, however, that you could make the proper mathematical adjustments for pressure, humidity, wind etc over a 50km arcing flight. The North Koreans probably aren't good at it either. Your understanding of terminology is what's laughable. The terminal phase is when the projectile hits the target, genius. The external phase starts almost immediately once the projectile leaves the barrel, and continues all the way through until it lands. So umm...yes. The weather effects are most significant while the shell is in flight. Thanks for clearing that up. THAT'S what you think supports your argument!?! Holy crap Derek! I asked you specifically for some sort of citation testifying to the accuracy of North Korean artillery. Your proof is to show its range -- something that was never in question!? Aww...You got caught in another citation goof-up and now you're trying to change the subject!?

I show up to vote with my ID. Nobody has to vouch for me. I believe it should be mandatory. Not showing your face isn't acceptable much of anywhere for +99% of the population. 'Vouching' doesn't usually cut it either. That counts for very little most places. There was and still is. What are you talking about? If they wanted to do serious business with me, absolutely. I'd certainly not sign a contract with someone I just met who was wearing a pumpkin mask. I wouldn't be surprised if you did though!

Yeah I read the article. I get that. Regardless of whether or not someone has confirmed the person's identity in a closed room, it's still not unreasonable to expect someone to say an oath with their face uncovered. Sure, one or two people may have seen the person's face in a closed room, but there's something to be said about hearing an oath and being able to look a person in the face. Looking someone in the face is just about the most fundamental measure of trustworthiness there is. When you really get to the heart of the matter, the most unreasonable position of all is that of a person who refuses to show their face at a citizenship ceremony. Putting together a rational explanation for that is just about impossible, it being little more than "Waah, culture, blah blah religion." The more detail you get into on the subject, the more unreasonable and silly it gets.

That's fine. As far as I know we're not talking about a ban on veils etc. We're talking about not allowing them for the purpose of photo-identification and for earning citizenship or PR status. Confirming identity is an extremely important part of operating a fair and safe society. It's EXTREMELY reasonable to suggest that someone's unique or specific cultural desires do not take precedence over that, nor should they. It's also not unreasonable for people to be suspicious of someone wearing a face-veil. That's basic human nature, though for a lot of people it's certainly grown into additional stereotypes and cultural judgments.

Like I said, I can't prove a negative. I can't prove North Korean artillery that nobody's seen in action is inaccurate any more than I can prove aliens don't exist or that you didn't invent a hover-board. A little reading and comprehension, along with some intellectual integrity, would go a long way for you. If you strain yourself and read my last post again, you'll see I said: Oops again Derek! At any rate, the fact that the North Korean manufacturing doesn't appear capable of reliably producing exploding ordnance raises significant doubts of their capabilities elsewhere.... Your question is misleading, as usual. All other things being equal (range, visibility, weather etc), naval artillery calculations are going to be very slightly more complicated. It's too bad that none of these things are equal in the context of our debate. Calculating the relative distance and vectors of two moving objects is child's play compared to calculating the effects of weather on an artillery shell over a 50km flight. Check out what your friends at globalsecurity.org say about that, and maybe give us an idea on how advanced North Korea's weather science and satellites are... http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/policy/army/fm/34-81-1/appd.htm Citing something isn't the same thing as actually proving your point or verifying your claim. You've listed a 20-page report to Congress and not pulled a single excerpt from it to explain how or where it supports what you're saying. Umm...great. Now pull a quote from it telling us how North Korean artillery could destroy we can safely conclude that this is yet another of your citation goof-ups.

Right, so you were categorically wrong - and the +3 week argument we had over that was just because you erred in your wording... So smaller bombs are better then? Sorry Derek. It does work like that. We saw the effects of the WW2 Allied bombing. We have not seen the effects or capabilities of North Korean artillery (quite the opposite). You're asking me to prove a negative (totally illogical), but that's how you roll. We've seen nothing to indicate that North Korean artillery would be accurate and we have virtually no reason to believe that it would be from 50km away. I really got a laugh out of that! From 50km away, with a mostly pre-industrial economy, with primitive capability to analyze and adjust for weather etc, among a great many other things? I'm saying it wouldn't even be close to accurate. Fortunately for them Seoul is huge, so at least they should be able to hit things within the general area. The fact that 25% of their shells turned out to be duds in the Yeongpeong skirmish also raises doubts as to their capabilities, don't you think? The only thing that's laughable is your juvenile logic and your inability to compare apples to apples. Victorian-era naval battles were fought within (assisted) line-of-sight visual range and firing solutions were determined by watching the splashes of the (many) missed shots. The fact that targets were moving didn't matter much either, as speed could easily be accounted for once the proper range was determined. Are those the assessments that you never provided or cited? Great...Either way, I gave you several other sources earlier. You provided squat (as usual). If you have something showing how accurate North Korean artillery is, by all means provide it. I can't find it!

Kungfu I don't think anyone is going to give you a useful answer as for who you should vote for. They might try, but that's going to be more their personal bias than anything. As for your wish list, the unfortunate reality is that there isn't a party that's going to meet all of them, or even most of them. Politics are a balancing act of priorities, and rarely are these priorities strictly for the 'greater good'. Different people have different ideas of what things like "government wastage" are, so you can never please everyone. Worse, however, is that things like nepotism, corruption or just pure incompetence can frequently can turn government programs/projects into complete and utter disasters, regardless of whether the original intention were good. Realistically, you have to do a lot of reading and research to figure out what you want out of a government, and not just from one or a few sources. You're going to get a lot different 'look' on things from the Calgary Herald than you will from the Toronto Star, so you have to keep that in mind when you're trying to make decisions.

That's fine, but they're all demolition bombs, aren't they? If your revision is actually truthful, then you were contesting something I never said. That was another false argument. A continuous attack like an artillery bombardment... No, but you were the one who told us Allied bombings were an effective gauge of North Korea's threat to Seoul. We can probably agree (I hope) that North Korea isn't capable of starting a Hamburg-style firestorm in Seoul short of nuclear detonation, right? You're the one claiming the North Koreans can land their shells within yards/meters. Give us the evidence that suggests they can. From what we know of North Korean technical expertise, this is beyond doubtful. as are yours... The Soviets were never firing from 50km away, and no, the North Koreans aren't really any more capable than them. They're barely an industrial nation, unable to provide electricity to their cities or even feed their people. Suggesting that, despite this, they have sufficiently advanced precision industry is almost certainly untrue. Just look at their rocket tests. Anyways, here's a new article worth a look. It's also highly subjective, but it does make you think: http://www.nknews.org/2015/01/n-korean-artillery-has-little-value-high-profile-defector/

probably more to do with that he's a cynical jerk, isn't doing a particularly good job and just generally unpopular.

It is... From that link it doesn't appear that the term demolition bomb describes anything more than a bomb meant to demolish things. I'm glad we spent three weeks straightening that out... That's pretty much a 100% total overhaul of what you originally said, and it's a rather curious position to take. Seeing as though I never made any mention of large general purpose bombs of the same makeup as artillery shells, I'm not sure why you felt that was a point worth refuting. Regardless, we're moving on now. Not nearly as effective as least. Either way, I never said that they would be. I merely explained why they were exceedingly effective against old German cities in comparison to conventional artillery bombardment. but that's not correct. Go back and read your Arthur Harris citation. He speaks at length about why heavily concentrated aerial bombardment was so effective compared to less concentrated attacks. Not if it's the North Koreans firing from 50km away, in which case the exact opposite would be true...by a large margin. If you're talking about a modern military - something North Korea most certainly is not. The accuracy of North Korea's artillery is in serious question, especially from 50km away - with recent claims by an (apparently) high-level defector saying it's nearly useless. Of course we can't really be sure of anything until we specifically see it in use, it's doubtful that North Korea has the capabilities to deliver highly accurate long range artillery.

Is that why the democrats lost the House a little while ago?

Except they were, and we'll see you finally coming around to that point shortly... I had just finished explaining how many of the pieces there were capable of hitting Seoul I and even posted a picture of the Koksan gun in my post. You responded with a link showing the estimated technical specs of that weapon system. It didn't make sense why you linked it because you made no commentary on it and because I'd just provided most of that information myself. For about the 10th time, I am not criticizing the blogs. I'm criticizing the conclusions you attempted to draw from them. That's fine, but that doesn't mean it's not a demolition bomb, nor did Arthur Harris say it wasn't. As far as I can tell, he never made any mention of the term demolition bomb. I didn't obscure any definitions Derek. My original point was that the RAF and USAF were dropping huge bombs on German cities, that they were considered more effective for wide area bombing, and that heavily concentrated aerial bombardment produced results that couldn't be matched by prolonged artillery attack. You contested virtually all of that. You contested that these huge bombs were dropped on German cities (and confused the discussion further with terminology for them), you contested that they were more effective for wide-area bombing and you contested that the aerial bombardments delivered greater concentrations of munitions (and destruction) than artillery attacks could. On all above accounts, we have evidence you didn't have things straight. The big bombs were dropped on soft German cities and Arthur Harris (from your own link) speaks at length about the effectiveness of the Cookie bomb and the critical importance of concentration (in time and space) for bombing attacks. We could, but I never made any claim that they would be effective against Seoul. As I've already explained, that whole long giant tangent came about because you said Allied aerial bombardments were good examples of what the North Koreans could do to Seoul. I explained why the Allied bombing was so effective against Germany cities and how these results could not be duplicated by the North Koreans - the size and robust construction of Seoul being one of many factors. Regardless, at least now we have some clarity and are slowly inching back to the original topic.

On that I'll agree with you 100%. It's a rather minor issue, all things said. It's just a decision that made very little sense, particularly given his already weak reputation in the scientific/academic community. The statisticians and academics (the people who know best) are the ones complaining the loudest about the change. Technically possible, yes. Realistically? The problem with voluntary surveys (vs mandatory) is that you're not getting statistically representative data. That's a huge problem.

No doubt, but I think a lot of that support comes from residual anti-Republican (thanks to George W), the fact that Obama's black and that he supports some form of universal health care. The average Canadian, I would suspect, has literally no idea what his administration has accomplished (or failed to).

While this is definitely true, it's not just the "left" that would like to see the mandatory long-form census back. It may indeed be a tempest in a teapot, but its one of those things that didn't need abolishing in the first place and there didn't appear strong justification for the move.

I don't think the census makes any expectation that people are going to accurately calculate their income and work days down to the dollar/hour. A best guess is usually good enough. The census isn't a tax return. The amount of time saved is negligible. If you're already making a point of filling it out, you might as well take the extra couple of minutes to fill it out properly. It's common sense Tim. People generally lie for a reason. If it doesn't get you anywhere, why would you bother? Are you that spiteful? Yes, under the right circumstances. What are you getting at?