-1=e^ipi

Do you have any evidence to back up your claim? Furthermore, how is spoiling one's ballot considered not supporting the democratic system?

The above situations are not democracies and they require a very clear chain of command to function properly in the various scenarios and situations they may encounter. Poor comparisons.

Shouldn't the government have a responsibility to protect its citizens from crime? Including political leaders?

Or maybe it is time to rethink the necessity of these leaders to begin with. Why does a country or political party need a leader to function?

How does this make sense? The hypothetical was that those were the only two choices available in the first place... Or are you saying that if people spoil their ballot because they do not like their current options that overtime the only two options left will be Stalin and Hitler? I have a limited amount of time and other priorities. But in a way I am involved since I discuss politics with other people such as on this forum.

Clearly the cause is the patriarchy! Look at all these patriarchal countries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_differences_in_suicide The privileged male social position some how causes them to have shorter life spawns and makes them more likely to commit suicide due to stress. Btw, I'm poking fun at 'feminists' who attribute various problem to 'the patriarchy'.

Yes, there are differing degrees of bad. But if one feels so completely alienated by all of the parties then spoiling one's ballot can be the best option. Maybe it would help if I gave you an extreme hypothetical. Let's say you had 2 options on the ballot: Stalin & Hitler. Would you vote for one of them? Or would you spoil your ballot?

"I bet you are financially independent, wives who do not work and probably didn't work while your children were being raised." The verb is 'are'. There is no other verb that is using the subject 'I'. That is why I asked if there was a typo. But yes, not matter how you look at it, the comma usage is bad. It could be: "I bet you are financially independent wives who do not work and probably didn't work while your children were being raised." or "I bet you are financially independent and have wives who do not work and probably didn't work while your children were being raised." or "I bet you have financially independent wives who do not work and probably didn't work while your children were being raised."

No... I was asking you to name a physical phenomenon on Earth that acts like a refrigerator.

Sigh, the scientific illiteracy... Please name a physical phenomenon on Earth that acts as a reverse carnot engine (i.e. refrigerator). The Earth is not remotely like a refrigerator. This may be difficult for you to understand, but other people cannot read your mind and they cannot see your facial expression or other body language that may indicate sarcasm when you are on an online forum. When I use sarcasm, I usually follow it by *sarcasm* on and online forum for clarity. If you do not wish to make it clear that you are using sarcasm on an online forum then please do not be surprised when people misinterpret you and take what you say literally.

Seems like some people have more money than they know what to do with. Think of the energy footprint of this sport compared to surf boarding.

And? That doesn't somehow make your 'prediction' not absurd. Even If I assume that you were to live for 100 more years, and that your house is only 2 meters above sea level, you claim is still absurd and outside any reasonable projection models.

Because it's not like variations in Antarctic sea ice distribution has occurred before or anything. *sarcasm* Could you please explain how long you expect to live and how tall your building is? Because this claim seems absurd.

Still waiting for an explanation as to how I am a wife...

How does the conservatives having a bad policy stance on marijuana justify voting for the Liberal Party? All the major parties suck and are unworthy of governing. Why not spoil your ballot?

You think that men on this forum are wives? What? Is this a typo?

Now it is. In 20 or 30 years, things will change. Actually that is a problem the west will likely face. The population is aging, becoming more apathetic, becoming less willing to die for their cause, and becoming less homogenous due to immigration (which can make it harder for a western country to obtain sufficient resolve to fight a conflict; of course this depends on what types of immigration the country is having). What if there is a future war with North Korea or some sort of Islamic Caliphate? The enemy side would be more than willing to die for their side; the west, not so much.

Clearly we have very different definitions of 'any difference'. Yes. I do not deny that the Russian Government has contributed to making the situation in Ukraine worse. As expected, you are stuck in this post-WW2 mentality. WW2 was 70 years ago, get over it. The world we live in now is very different. No. Where did I mention civilian pilots? You can train the pilots during peace time. You just don't need to produce all the expensive airplanes during peace time. It is very practical and very realistic. Plants are indeed specialized, as they should be, but how does that imply that incentivizing firms to keep extra equipment around to quickly change production in case of war. What is impractical is having a useless war material plant not doing anything during peace time. Why not? Perhaps we need new politicians and different political parties then.

I think it depends on the parents.

Not only that, but 20 years from now, most other nations will have larger and younger populations. Canada and other developed countries (except maybe the US) are simply not going to be able to win a war in the conventional way (vs a medium powered nation state) like in the past.

Idk, 2% of CO2 output is significant to me. Maybe we have different definitions of significant. Again, military isn't needed to deal with these domestic affairs, especially not a 1.2% of GDP military. They weren't our friends, nor are they our enemies. The same is still true. Of course having many politicians stuck in the cold war mentality and creating avoidable situations like in Eastern Ukraine does not help. At any time? That is a bit of a stretch. The Chinese Communist party acts in the best interest of preserving their own power, they won't risk that anytime soon. Also, aren't you changing the nature of the question? The Chinese are a potential threat to our allies (Taiwan, South Korea & Japan), not to us. Thus our military expenditure is charity to our allies. Yes, except it is not the Chinese warring states period. And which enemy are we taking about here? Sun Tzu also said 'know your enemies', so perhaps you should identify these enemies you wish to prepare against and explain why you think they are going to invade Canada. Sounds like the European precautionary principle. This statement is very true for the majority of people. I agree. A pilot. I recognize labour expenditure is inflexible. But you don't need multiple UAVs (or even any) to train multiple UAV pilots. At the same time, in a war scenario, a UAV pilot can consecutively fly multiple UAVs. So if capital expenditure on UAVs can be made flexible, then military expenditure can be made flexible. One way you could make capital expenditure more flexible is to give tax credits to various companies such that these tax credits incentivize them to keep assets that can enable them to quickly change production to something with greater military application. For example (as a hypothetical), suppose you have a nail factory, that could potentially use their equipment to produce bullet casings if they keep around some molds that would allow them to do so. Of course, the nail factory would have no incentive to do so, except during war time, so they would not keep around the additional equipment to produce bullet casings instead of nails. Now the government could give a tax credit to the nail factory to keep that equipment around. Such a tax credit would make military expenditure more flexible and may be cheaper than building an entirely new factory, or importing bullets from foreign markets. It's called going into debt.

No, but the net effect is still negative to Canada, which is the point. Sure we do. Taxing CO2 emissions will reduce economic output and at the same time reduce CO2 emissions, which will have an impact on CO2 levels in the future. What reason is this? And you don't suddenly need a military overnight either. And what are you implying with respect to 'human nature'? The military labour input is relatively inflexible, I agree. But the physical capital input into military is relatively flexible. And given that military is becoming more capital intensive and less labour intensive over time, it will become more flexible. It is much easier to divert resources to produce a UAV than it is to recruit a soldier. Or... you could just build a bunch of robots, and have them fight. Clearly you did not understand what I meant by more capital intensive. Mass train soldiers? This isn't the first world war. Military is far more capital intensive than that. Why are fighter bombers necessary for law enforcement to deal with domestic crime?

And your position seems pretty similar to the climate alarmists: 'Because we don't have perfect information, the government should implement policies that waste economic resources needlessly'. Every little bit matters. If you don't agree with me, then why don't you advocate increasing foreign aid to 1.2% of GDP as well? Actually you do get a notice, it's called political warning signs. The spread of ISIS in Iraq has been years in the making, the Nazi's were in power for years spewing their militaristic propaganda before war took place, etc. Also, today and in the future, military is a lot more capital intensive and less labour intensive. Training soldiers for years isn't as relevant as in the past compared to having the best technology and the infrastructure to use it. Therefore, our military expenditure should be capable of being more flexible than in the past. Or the police were underequiped and incompetent. The military shouldn't be necessary for this stuff; law enforcement should deal with these issues.

If a person is too young to be criminally charged as an adult, then why should they be out between 12 am and 6 am? If they are out at that time, their guardians are irresponsible and they are likely up to no good.

To be honest, a curfew would be somewhat effective. For example, I was mugged and assaulted over a month ago by some youths in Ottawa around midnight. Suffered a concussion for a month, and the same people went on a mugging spree for several nights in different parts of Ottawa.