Archanfel

It's an opinion, not meant as insult. For example, I am ignorant of quantum physics, that's a fact, I don't consider that as an insult. Why do you think my analogy is "ridiculous"? I hope you didn't meant that as an insult. The facts are pretty simple and you didn't really deny it although you chose to ignore them in your arguments 1. Wind power is unreliable and needs backup power generation, just like a electric car needs a gas car as a backup. Sure, you said wind power is not suppose to be a standalone system, but that doesn't change the fact. 2. The backup power generation cost money even if it's never run and does not use fuel just like the gas car has a fixed cost. You denied either, yet you said I don't understand the power grids, accused me of not reading the article you linked and said my analogy is "ridiculous". So I can only conclude you are ignorant of how power grids work in Ontario. I'd rather think you were not being argumentative. If you do understand how power grid work and acknowledge that wind power does have significant cost issues for both the utility and the end users, then I apologize and take it back. Then the argument becomes whether the benefits of wind power is worth the additional costs. That's for the ordinary users to decide.

Depends. For a truely mentally illed person, no he shouldn't. Do you think a 3 years old should be held responsible for his actions? However, just like a 3 years old, a mentally illed person should have a guardian who is responsbile for his/her actions.

The title of the story is still "Concerns raised over safety of email records". What's the "concern" if you can't physically do it? Even if the story was purely about Ford's order (which was denied by the city), I would think that's relevant information, instead of raising "concerns". For a newspaper to be credible, it needs to do the due diligence checks. Now, I understand that headline sells newpapers regardless the truth. Since the only responsibility of a private company is to its shareholders, I understand why they did it. Star readers wouldn't care one way or the other. But it does hurt Star's credibility to a more neutral audience, which again the Star pobably doesn't care anyway. I laugh everytime I eat at my local Burger King reading the free Toronto Sun, but I am sure they know it's laughable too, they just don't care as long as it sells.

The problem with mental illness in the justice system is that nobody is taking responsibility, which creates moral hazard. Let's say a doctor said Mr. Li is not a threat anymore and Mr. Li killed somebody again because the doctor was mistaken, then the doctor would need to be charged. Maybe not for murder, but at least for negligent. It's a great power to assess the mental condition of somebody and with great power comes great responsibilities.

Since we do not know the source, it has no credibility. The only credibility on the line is the Toronto Star's. In this particular case, the story was proven to be false. Assuming the Star didn't lie intentionally, we know that 1. The source is not reliable. 2. The Star didn't do enough investigation before they publish the story. Of course, it's also possible that the city lied. However, the Star seems to quote new sources now: "Two people familiar with the system said the emails of specific political staffers cannot be permanently erased from the system." Why didn't they check with these two people before they publish the story?

Really, you are not doing wind power any good by being ignorant. What you wrote proved that.

Haha. Privacy issue aside, that's actualy not a bad idea. However, pedestrian and cyclists need to do the same and the tax should be dedicated to that particular section of the road. All other taxes for the road should be abolished.

I suspect it's you who don't understand electrical grids. Let me put it in a way you will understand. Let's say you got an electric car. Yes, it can potentially cut down your fuel usage. However, since it can only run 40 km, you can't use it on long drives. Therefore, you still need the gas car, which means you have to maintain it, buy insurance, change oil, have depreciation, pay stickers. Therefore, you have to have a carrying cost for both cars. Not only that, since both cars have to be built, you are not doing the environment any good either. Same thing with wind turbine, the natural gas and goal plants still have to be maintained and staffed even if it's only running half of the time. And that's assuming you are not using nuclear (which Germans don't, but Ontario does). Nuclear stations can't be shutdown easily. You have to run it all the time because you never know when the wind will die down. There's also no easy ways to store energy, so all the excess power generated are wasted. Really, you are not doing wind power any good by being ignorant.

A source told me that Justin Trudeau is a Nazi, Olivia Chow is really a man and Stephen Harper was castrated. You mean like this? If a new organization does no investigation and rely on unreliable sources, then it's no more trustworthy than the above statement.

As I said, people like to do this. If you think $40 is nothing, let's assume you invest this $477 a year for 40 years with a moderate 6% return. You will have $78,250 more in your retirement fund. Pretty noticable if you ask me. See, we can play this both ways. p.s. I love how financial planners like to do this, they will assume you invest it for 100 years at 12% return, that would be $3.72 million. You would be very well off to not notice that.

If you noticed, it says "average". And that's the problem with wind power, it's not stable. Let's say you are provided with 3 meals a day on average. However, if all those meals came between July and Dec, you would probably be dead by then. You article even mentioned that "natural gas or coal plants are required to offset shortfalls", so you still have to have the capacity on standby. I am not against wind power, just saying that it has its disadvantages.

Don't we already have a number, which is $477/year on average. That's certainly not nickels and dimes. I love how certain people frame it as $1.30 per day. Used car people do that with bi-weekly payment rather than monthly. Who are they trying to trick?

Agreed.

The Star is a private company, they can do whatever they want within the limit of the laws. Rob Ford can sue them if he wants although I wouldn't advice that. I am sure the lawyers at the Star read every article they publish. You are not advocating government interfering with private company operations, are you? BTW, I suspect the Star couldn't care less about the little vendetta, not the bosses at least. They are doing it for the money since their readers like to read it. The Toronto Sun does the same thing for the right wing readers. It's all about profits. You remember that the Star laid off a whole bunch of workers while they were complaining about public sector lay offs?

That's between them and me, nothing to do with the company. I can buy a wind turbine from Canadian Tire, would Canadian Tire be liable for any damages to my neighbours? Only I am liable. Maybe I can reach a settlement with them, if not, then the court can decide.

Yes. Did the Star lose anything because they falsely said that emails were deleted? No, they didn't. So what's stopping them from making another lie? Now, I do believe Rob Ford use drugs, but that's besides the point. Newspapers invent things all the time for profits. That shouldn't be news to you.

Because he thinks so. What you think have nothing to do with him.

So what? I never quite understand why people argue about the benefits of a certain product. The market can decide what's best on its own. Of course, the problem is that we do not have a free market. If the government really cares about pollution, then tax pollution and let the market sort it out. As for the health issue, it's between the company and the land owners. I will be more than happy to have a wind turbine in my very small backyard, as long as they pay me $10,000 a month.

Wrong. Cross breeding within a species is NOT genetic manipulation. Nature and genetic mutations happen all the time. Due to environmental changes that prompts them to evolve or change as a species. Sure it does. If it was not beneficial in some way, it would not be pushed out like it is.(which is not defined anyway), what matters is whether it survives in the market. So money is a driving factor here when you bring markets into the equation. I have no problem with you eating GMO foods if you want to. I simply want a label that says that a product or what ingredients are GMO. You nor I can have that choice if neither of us do not know the difference.BK is not good for you as is with most fast food which is heavily processed. And we are told to stay away from processed foods that contain High fat, high caloric and high salt intake and low nutritional value. I am all for choices, when we have clearly labels products tat inform us of the difference. If you chose to eat BK all day every day, that is your choice. But in the end, your body knows the real deal. Ah, I was going to ask you how you broke my quotes into pieces, looks like you haven't perfected the technique either. Yes, my body knows and I know too. However, I choose not to care too much. Life is short, I do what I want, not what's best. There's also no evidence that natural foods are necessarily better. The best way to eat is to take pure nutritional pills for everything, but who would do that? According to my doctor, I am perfectly healthy. I am not sure why you want GMO labeled. All so called organic ones are proudly labeled, therefore, if you see an unlabelled one, you know it's GMO. Other than increasing the cost of GMO, what are you trying to achieve? It would be fairly stupid to label the detailed nutritional values too. First of all, it's near impossible. Secondly, they are useless. Thirdly, the vast majority of the people don't understand them anyway. Do you read the labels on your bread? I don't. I buy whichever is on sale that day. If you want it labeled, it should be a simple label saying it's GMO, maybe with a unique product ID. The experts can publish papers on the detail benefits/harm these products have. Do we want all fruits to be labeled with detailed nutritional values and/or grafting history? I am not against labeling as long as it's does not increase the cost significantly. Really, if people care, the market would have caused them to be labelled already since nobody would buy unlabelled food. The reality is people don't care enough.

Once you manipulate the gene through a breeding program, you are manipulating the eggs and sperms in a way since the producer of that egg was manipuated to begin with. The egg always have the same DNA as the mother (aside from mutations) and you created the mother through generic manipulation, how can you say you didn't generic manipulate the egg before fertilization. Yes, you will need maybe 20 generations to get the result you desired and it's somewhat random, so you need a big breeding pool to begin with and have to kill a lot of babies (hopefully not human babies) that didn't work. However, the end result is the same. Does mother nature really understand the cascading effect of a mutation? No. The rule is simple,the survival of the fittest. I suspect the market understand it far better than mother nature due to expert reports. However, the process is the same. It doesn't matter whether GMO is benefitial (which is not defined anyway), what matters is whether it survives in the market. I am all for educating consumers to make informed decisions. However, you will need to respect their decisions. For example, I like to eat Whopper. Are they healthy? Probably not. However, it's my decision what I eat, not yours or anybody else's. You can tell me why Whopper is not healthy, but you can't dictate my choice.

Actually, it's not. When you breed with your wife, your kids will inherit both of your traits. That's also at gene/DNA level. Nothing fancy about it. What's different is the current technology is much faster and bring genes from different specifies. 500 hundreds years of mutation and cross breeding can happen in a single day. However, fundamentally, it's still the same thing. Remember that all species evolved from some single cell organism. Nature can do wonderous things as well, it just takes longer. It's also not safer since natural mutation are less controlled. For example, some worms can be perfectly safe to eat, but certain mutations will give them toxins over time. In nature, natural selection determines which mutations survive. In society, free market should determine which mutations are welcomed.

Let's be truthful, he wasn't elected by a majority. Very few leaders are elected by a majority anymore, people simply don't vote. And this is not a witch hunt, I have no doubt Rob Ford takes drugs, I just don't care since I believe that's personal freedom, which oddly enough is what liberalism all about. Of course, the star and their followers don't care either, they just want Rob Ford gone. Do you see Bubber, or the Star for that matter, apologize now that the city has denied their mindless accusation? Of course not. I don't think the people of Toronto is stupid enough to believe either side. At least not truely. People say they believe things because they want to believe things, not that those things are believable. In the end, this is just a side show that nobody cares. Would Bubble support Rob Ford if it was proven false? Of course not. Would you oppose Rob Ford if it's proven true? Probably not either. Rob Ford is not going to be re-elected because he did a bad job running the city (still better than a lot of other politicians mind you), not because he took some drugs. For example, he could have cut funding to affordable housing (and fight the province in court) when he had the chance, but he chickened out. He has only himself to blame. Let's be entertained by this circus at least.

You are entitled to your opinion and you are welcome to donate money to public transit, just don't force it onto the rest of us.

I am sure there are studies showing kids get sicks in day cares. Let's ban them. You know, there's a direct link between the sales of ice cream and murder reate. Let's ban ice cream as well.

What's the big deal? According to wikipedia "Human directed genetic modification has been occurring since we first domesticated organisms in 12 000 BC." There's no such thing as natural domesticated plants. The so called organic plants are probaby the results of thousands of years of cross breeding.