Esq

http://ingunowners.com/forums/ammunition_and_reloading/55235-ammo_cost_per_round_price_chart_inside.html That is actually suprising I wouldn't expect a population of under 40 million to buy one new gun per 20 people per year. "5 MILLION GUNS IMPORTED BETWEEN 1970-1998 – JUSTICE DEPT." Yet you are saying now each year half the number of guns imported in 30 years, is bought every year? Where are you getting your numbers from? or in 55 years 8 MILLION GUNS IMPORTED BETWEEN 1945-2000 – CSSA 1974 – 10 MILLION FIREARMS IN CANADA WITH ¼ MILLION GUNS The number of guns bought is just stagering for you to say a couple million. Why are there so many guns. In a decade with your numbers everyone in Canada would have got a gun between 2000 and 2010. "long-term average net annual importation of firearms into Canada (imports minus exports) was 190,000 per year." This means that I'm guessing new gun purchases must sit somewhere around 190000 guns. There seems to be about 20 million longguns already owned? How many more guns are needed? This stuff is like pennies a shot http://www.ammunitiongalore.com.au/index_files/Federal_Ammunition.htm This was priced as low as about 4 cents per round.. on the federal .22 http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/hot-deals/965872/?fwcs=ta377461 http://www.natchezss.com/product.cfm?contentID=productDetail&prodID=FA510

and what do SAMs use for targetting? Why can't this be avoided with the new plane. and what technologies allow that? Yet a half ton plane could probably just glide home if it floated, like a hot air balloon. Apparently this is what some old british aircraft did - they just kept on flying even without even the pilot.

Police forces have "volunteer civil staff" that cost the tax payer $0. I don't see why this has to be such a costly issue of 15 cents per Canadian. (my gosh I bet bullets cost less than that-- you could have every Canadian fire one bullet for that cost) How many guns are bought a year in canada? Surely some zealot gun registry activists can volunteer to register and track these things and save the tax payer a few dollars as a result. I'm sure there must be one in every community.

Hey Saipan what do Asians like you need unregistered guns for anyway? What? Isn't that how it's suppose to work? Of course I don't mean that, it is a multicultural country these days. The cost the cost right... a few million in unneeded federal policing funds. So why not run it without any costs and just make people do the things without fees? You know have gun store owners required to send in their sales to the local police forces, and the local police forces to look at who bought the guns and send it off to the central databank.. all for free? Is that so hard?

Also they have kings over there not "termed rulers" so stuff like this is lifelong not between governments.

On a more personal basis, for me feeling unsafe while traveling in the middle east - on a much higher level, is something that isn't very welcome, and UAE just isn't some back water Arabian blip - it is a major political unit of the whole Arab World one that stretches from the African Atlantic to the Indian Ocean.

I read an article on McGuinty's statements also today. It seems that the UAE makes billions of dollars for Ontario and Canada, and is a gateway to the rest of the middle east. So having that door and the upwards of a billion dollars jepordized over the governments inability to resolve the problems, you know not make an enemy of a former ally, is what all these politicians are in part concerned with. Not just landing rights but the fallout for Ontarians and Canadians from bad blood with the UAE. I would be upset if my people were loosing more than 1 Billion dollars over perhaps a few million. -

... ..... ...... ........ *loaded* Well it sounds like you might be liberal, cause that is partly what they did. What type of technology grants have the Conservative Party of Canada given? I think it is needed to address how climate change will effect Canada, and concrete steps taken to deaden the impact. From the reports I have read, there are many dangers to climate change in Canada.

I was actually literlaly refering to creating a cushion underneath. Example filter gases dump lower gases away, tunnel lighter gases to underneath trap said gases from being released picture a dish underwater.. it collects the air it traps and it goes to the top of the fliped bowl. Air is the same you just need to keep funneling the air to the top and it will cause an air cushion. Ballons are totally encased. While this could be used with a balloon or "derigible - that is gases kept inside the shell" of the aircraft. The idea of cushion is one that allows lift by controlling gas flow. The micron filter for instance sends heavy gasses one way and send light gases into the "pocket" Bear in mind two things. Things stay in motion in air... you only need to add more energy to go faster or to counter act resistence. Air contains energy so you can aquire energy from the air - including gases that can be used for more energy. Kinetic energy is transfered to the object, it doesn't disapear. Heat energy from friction can also be transfered into kinetic or potential energy. the f35 is 27000 kg But it has to lift almost all its own weight. A much more intelligent model would be to build a lighter aircraft that required less energy becuase it lifted its own weight, then only energy for momentum and stoping would be required. Why is it so heavy? Like this is still a jet.. and look how light it is.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bede_BD-5 I bet that would be hard to detect on radar too. It probably costs a lot less to make too. I bet for a fraction of the cost you could get 10x the number of these things. Throw in some Lighter than air techs and micron filters and they'd probably fuel themselves. That was 50 years ago, I bet people can do even better these days especially with micronization and nanotechnology. 27000KG to 300 KG means 100x less energy.. how much lighter is carbon nano fibre than aluminum?

I don't see how melting tons of ice is really an acheivement, especially if it means more forest fires in the south. You can think this but the Canadian military is barely a handful of divisions compared to the US military. Canada can't even credibly defend its own infrastructure at home. It is mostly undefended, then you say we can go wage wars? Against who? Has anyone attacked Canada? We don't even know who blew up the world trade centre - no one has gone to justice that wasn't an American Citizen or Resident. The only links are US and British Intelligence assets. Canada lost billions. It could have invested in production of the technologies needed to implement Kyoto and exported it, the "better technology" movement is catching steam, it is just who leads it. Now Canada has to buy foreign patents for technology it could have secured for itself. Instead now you have a despoiled environment in places like Alberta where wildlife and humans are at increased risk of disease and ill health. Daycare would have been good by opt in/opt out. that is if there was enough interest in an area. Now in places like Ontario we have the provincial governments doing it, so in those areas like Ontario, they are loosing out on the federal support. Daycare is really important for Urban areas where both parents work. Organized day care is an efficient economic sollution. While it doesn't work everywhere, it would have helped a lot in some places, improving productivity - something that is badly lacking in Canada. How is improving the education, employment, and living conditions for Aboriginal peoples not a good thing? Some aboriginal communities are living in second world conditions or worse. We should address poverty in Canada whether it is in the cities or in reserves. The quality of life of Canadians should matter. I find your basis for saying a success in enhancing poverty in Canada is a false premise. nonsense talk. They didn't want to force an election, they were for saving Canadians 250 million dollars, not getting 2$ votes. By speeding up the process, and appealing to violent immigrants who support militarism? According to you, how was their spending on throw away projects that caused massive debt load to municipalities on unneeded projects "responsible"? Canada can't afford to spend all that money to begin with. It was borrowed money. It was unearned money. Making enemies isn't "good" foereign policy. It is damaging Canada's future and limiting freeness of travel. Its nice not to have enemies you don't need. No they cost billions many many billions. But no grand plan, just lost money.

Where are the acheivements?

"D" no wait F changed it at 10. Reasons: 1. Funneling resources out of Canada in military aquisitions where Canadian companies should have been used for these Billion Dollar deals. Remember Canada gets atleast a 30% rebate when it buys domestic. 2. Failure to manage the government books - this is the #1 responsibility of the government after public safety has been taken care of. - Debt increased by 25% of its previous value aquired over the last 100 years or more in 5 short years. 3. Wasted funds such as the G summits. 4. Horrible dead end 50 billion stimulus program that could have gone to small business starts ups or creation of long term industries or upgrading industries for no emissions robotics. 5. Ruined Canada's International Image in multiple diplomatic gaffs. (Shelving Kyoto to US mirrordome for instance) 6. Lied to Canadians about things like Afghanistan withdrawal. Censored war crimes from the public. 7. Shut down parliament multiple times to save his government, while killing democracy - all while spouting rhetoric over how "they" weren't democratic - yet "they" were the majority of the vote. 8. Was open to turning Canadian sovereignty over to the US by allowing the US military and Police to include Canada within its area of responsibility. This while giving all intelligence on Canadians criminal and otherwise to the Americans, even if just suspected but no credible evidence for a response. This is still on the table but you know how those cards will fall for the party of Canada as the 52nd state with no rights. 9. A program that funneled over $150 billion to the banks from the public tax purse - this was killed but only after more than $50 billion was funneled. 10. Fudging the books - statistics canada - "statistics don't matter", and "just who got all that stimulus money?" - how much of the money came back as taxes and government fees? --- Also shifting of "employment" to part time - and an unemployment rate that only counts people that are still looking for work at government employment centers - meaning Canada's unemployment rate as represented by full time jobs is MUCH higher than it actually appears. 11. Lower Health Standards ("Canadians don't need to exercise to be fit --- no wait we just need to be healthy or atleast not unhealthy - not being unhealthy is the goal not fitness." 12. 100 billion in defence spending tentative (but 50 Billion or more is all going to American companies - that is 1/5th of Canadian tax revenues in a year going to US companies as a type of tribute - since Canada only ever uses that equipment to help a US war) 13. Asset drain and foreign intervention - previously secure Canadian companies are now open to competition from foreign competitors, meaning although only a few internationals are in the field for things such as communication companies like mobile and satalite providers - this now makes Canadas com open to US mega com takeover. The top 10% of Canadian companies are now vunerable to takeover. 14. A willingness to give away strategic assets (potash corp for instance, US steel etc..) with only money as a deal cruncher. Canadians deserve more than just monetary protection, they need social protection, and a concrete deal on responsibilities that results in a TOTAL loss for the company if they breach that social contract. 15. The only federal departments to not be reduced for service provision have been security related. And billions more are going for prisons for unreported crimes. "4000 new employees" to deal with how many non reported criminals? How many gaurd per prisoner ratio is there ? Occupied Germany had something like a 1 to 10 ratio so are there 40,000 more prisoners? The size of a small town? If so, how much is that going to cost? With each prisoner costing $40,000 or more a year that works out to 40,000 low middle income government employees instead of unreported criminals. that is $1.6 billion bear in mind yes the G summits could have provided 40,000 people $40,000 jobs for a year, and these prisons could do the same. Yet a chunk of this unreported crime is probably caused by poverty that could be alleviated with 40,000 new jobs. Rather than 40,000 new prisoners. 16. Hasn't delivered on "electoral reform" lies and more lies -- oh no we won't put any non elected senator in the senate. LIE. Harper could have called elections for each appointment to the senate, but he didn't, why? Because he wants his people in there, senate reform is just a lie to fool people who actually want it. He doesn't want it, he wants his man. His elected senate is the senate he elects with his 1 vote. 17. The Canadian government hasn't done anything noteworthy or special or exceptional under the goverment. They are good at rule lawyering to their advantage, using archaic non democratic principles of government. Canada has fell back to be a back water mediocrity under the administration, a US lapdog at best. Summary: More debt more lies, delivering nothing to Canadians, but lower taxes for an absence of services. Money shifting to militant organizations to assist US wars, all while giving less to Canadians. That is the last 5 years.

http://gizmodo.com/5734996/carbon-nanotube-aerogel-takes-crown-as-worlds-lightest-material

The issues in say Quebec of this sort of exercise is problematic if say a Bloc Quebecois provincial government opted to suspend constitutional rights by an executive council order of the province of Quebec.

It is problematic to beleive that the government of Ontario can suspend Canadian constitutional rights in Canada - that require a majority of provinces and the federal government to agree on.

That was via law made in parliament - the War Measures Act. The law the police supposedly were execising under was an executive council order of Ontario.

You are never going to get anywhere with that premise. The first steps needs to be 1. Transparent laws and honesty about those laws. You don't go around saying - you are protected.. then say... well atleast you are covered for around $500 if we totally walk all over your supposed rights. The problem is people think they have rights, what they have is a 5 year long court process and maybe some legal costs and a few hundred dollars for hundreds of hours of wasted time, and knowing you have made enemies of the people who are suppose to help you when the 'bad guys' come after you. The only rights people have are the ones they make for themselves and uphold for themselves. Cops are just part of a political process that protects their own. All the fancy smansy illusion of rights is just to facilate willingness in an otherwise powerless and enslaved population subjugated by a police state. The first step as stated is for people to wake up and realize this.

This is 1.6 Mw Hours... so, would 10 KG be 16 Mw Hours? or 100kg be 160 Mw hours? Also if a lighter than air gas is used to create a cusion would the Nforce be lower? Also if the energy is being "catapulted" it would provide "propulsion" thus vectored thrust. For instance a filter that only allowed lighter than air gasses (that happen to be smaller) to pass through it and be collected in a cushion. It would effecitvely "pocket" thrust AIR >>>> FILTER >>> LIGHTER THAN AIR GASES PASS>>> LIGHTER THAN AIR CUSHION THRUST ------- OH AND THEN YOU CAN ACTUALLY FUEL WITH THE COMBUSTABLE GASES IN A JET STREAM This would clearly counter act your Nforce requirement In the atmosphere I don't see why a simple Energy field / micron specific sieve couldn't yeild a lighter than air cushion to offset atomospheric gravity downward force. Most of air is Nitrogen Atomic weight: 14.0067 (2) .. simply filtering the nitrogen would likely make air lighter than air. actually it appears If you are asking whether nitrogen is less dense than air and will float on top of it, then yes, nitrogen is "lighter," albeit only slightly. More accurately, nitrogen, which is a constituent gas of air, is less dense than air, not lighter. The density of air at standard temperature and pressure is 1.292 kg/m3. The density of nitrogen is 1.251 kg/m3. But surely the "HEAVY elements could be filtered. A floating plane doesn't need gravity to be offset.. it floats. Funny thing is "the burnable element is heavier than air Oxygen o2 only is slighty heavyer than air. o3(ozone) is arond the same weight as o2 ,but the ozone layer is at a higher altitude because it is created when o2 come in contact with high amounts of UV rays. What is stoping lithuim filters from being made to filter helium and hydrogen into an air cushion or something of the sort. Once you have the cushion I would think the Nforce required as you stated would be completely nullified or drasticlaly reduced. Depending on the weight of the object being lifted. The "energy is then used for acceleration/thrust) to increase the velocity of the object and offset friction and drag. can the filter actually be used for energy transfer? Example striping the particles from the air.. ionizing via the diamond ozone machine... into a combined WHAMY of flight capacity! and with less energy required. Ask yourself why not, because we already have the ability to. This is 1999 http://focus.aps.org/story/v3/st6

It sounds like it would be a crazy missle too..

It was interesting to see this: http://www.allcarselectric.com/blog/1048662_tomorrows-power-today-new-battery-is-most-powerful-ever New more powerful batteries. This isn't exactly the lightening bolts William Ashley was talking about, but it seems to be a very powerful battery. -----

I think forced socialism is "unfree" That is why I strongly support the Social Party's "pay for" funding system. Where people vote (with their money) on what they would like to fund. Anyone can propose programs. Those programs are moderated into priority by an advisory council - a council formed on a 1 vote = 1 vote basis, everyone can either keep or give their 1 vote, and that vote always counts as 1 vote. The council is just ranked on a basis of individuals who accumulate the most votes. Votes that can change by registering the vote with yourself or someone else. The programs themselves are managed by the government or whatever directing agency or organization is outlined in the payfor. The Federal Government raises funds for essential personnel through mechanisms such as licenses, royalties, and leases. That is through land, trade, and residual income. Any shortfalls are equally adjusted by supply at source. Capitalism is allowed to flurish by material assets and foreign exchange. People only require Canadian money if they have tax deeded property, need to pay fees to the government, or owe royalties. This is a perfect free and democratic socialism, that is production and employment tax free. No one pays for what they create, only what they hold - example if they own property, if they gain rights to access for extraction of communal resources. 0% income taxes. 0% goods and services taxes In that place self funded programs. Poverty protection. Governmental programs for creation of social housing, food cooperatives, and support for manufacture of essential goods. Voluntary participation - and the right to work! Forget about all the political programs, all the partisan programs. You only pay for what you would like to support. You can ask why pay? Well what do you need? We can critically look at the few government programs out there, and you got to ask yourself what exactly is $300+ billion a year going to.... Sadly most is just political diversions. Unneeded. Let business manage itself. Let the government set the limits, let people do the work. ------------ High taxes are slavery!!!! Who cares about start ups what we need are finishers!

We should start posting up anyone else who thinks he has done a bad job add to the number 2. who has #3? Lets see if this polling is representative.

I really hope Canadians arn't dumb enough to based their votes on ads made by the opposing party.

If you didn't know that is part of your source of wealth.

My take on this: 1. It is likely in part a deterent against divorce or throw away sex partners. Those you knock up and abandon. (This is why people who don't want children should be careful about who they sleep with, because it is not only sexual gratification but also an economic responsibility if you get someone pregnant. 2. As for the amounts: Taxes are based on earnings so why not child support? Of course it should be considered a "net loss" since you don't control the resources and are like a payment - thus should be deducted from gross income. Also it should be counted as "income" for the person with custody. Other than this that is it. You don't want to pay don't knock the person up. Raising a family shouldn't be seen as a passtime, it is serious business. If you can't live with the person don't inseminate them.