-1=e^ipi

There shouldn't be a voting age; it is ageist anyway. The requirement should be to have a high school diploma (which is about 18 anyway). This would be a small incentive for people to finish high school.

Which ice? Where have I made any claim regarding ice in the arctic in any of my posts in this thread? Wtf are you talking about?

The problem is that you refuse to reference or provide a quote for what you keep referring to. Solution: provide me a reference. What do you mean by cut teeth. I don't cut people's teeth, I'm not a dentist... Wrong verb? And your claim about utility being maximized at maximum risk (if that is what you mean; your sentence structure is poor and has no subject) is nonsense and can be easily disproven with a simple counter example: The only restriction on utility is that it be a positive monotonic transformation of the consumption set. Though usually utility has a negative second derivative / is concave to represent risk aversion and preference for diversity. For example, suppose we have two options, build a house on a fault line, build a house somewhere else. Suppose consumer as $10000. The house on the fault line costs $5000. The house not on the fault line costs $5005. Suppose that there is a 1% chance of an earthquake near the fault line which will cause $1000 in repairs. Suppose the Utility function is the square root of income after buying the house and the earthquake (if it occurs). Expected Utility for house on fault line = 0.99*sqrt(5000) + 0.01*sqrt(4000) = 70.64. Expected Utility for house not on fault line = 1*sqrt(4995) = 70.68. The expected utility for buying the house not on the fault line is greatest. Therefore you choose the option with the lowest risk. Your claim has been disproven.

You just strawmaned me two posts ago and I explained why... And I provided a lot of evidence explaining why increasing atmospheric CO2 increases plant growth, including: references to greenhouse studies that verify that increasing CO2 increases plant growth (up to about 1500 ppm), references to guides that explain the optimal conditions to grow plants like marijuana in greenhouses, references to plant growth in the past few thousand or tens of thousands of years and it's relationship to CO2 levels and how that was inferred based on tree ring data and fossilized pollen data, references & citations to many scientific articles (even ones that you provided) that state this well known fact, references to the recent evolution of the C4 cycle in plants and why it evolved recently due to historically low CO2 levels compared to the majority of the past 600 million years during which multi-cellular life on earth has flourished, etc. And if you had even a high school level education you would freakin know the reason for this has to do with the basic chemistry of the photosynthesis reaction: 6C02 + 6H20 -> C6H12O6 + 6O2. I am for all pipelines that can be shown to be of net benefit to Canada through the methodology of a cost benefit analysis, yes. And yes I also think, and have explained why in great detail, that global warming alarmism is nonsense and such beliefs result in harmful decisions. What is your point here?

It's not 'gambling'. It is making a rational decision that maximizes expected utility. Maybe we shouldn't send satellites into space because they might cause green aliens from mars to come and invade us. I'm sure you can find some tin-foil hat people that believe this. Does that mean we shouldn't send satellites into space?

I'm not overthinking it. Many other posters in other threads agree with me and see the discrepancy. Want me to provide links to those threads? There is a discrepancy. I don't really care, but there is a discrepancy. Also, the author tries to make the 'realistic' (or at least internally consistent) so this is an unfortunate oversight.

How can I search for a comment when I do not even know what it is because you will not tell me? Also, when you asked for evidence or references in the past I provided them for you (even if it was for something that was well known or easy to find with a single google search) I generally provided them. The double standard you have between how much supporting evidence you think you require for your claims vs how much supporting evidence you think other posters require for their claims is very interesting.

I never claimed this. You however kept strawmaning me and continue to strawman me even when I clearly explain my position page after page after page. Even now you strawman me. I did however say that the CO2 fertilization effect of increasing atmospheric CO2 is clearly positive. Your response to this was denialism and claims that performing studies of the effects of CO2 on plant growth in enclosed green houses were meaningless (I forget your exact phrasing) because the real world isn't a greenhouse. Well in that case I guess the particle accelerator experiments at the Large Hadron Collider are not valid since they take place in enclosed environments (sarcasm). You also continually called me a 'concern troll' because you couldn't handle the concept of a person with a background in science disagreeing with your dogma. Also your post has nothing to do with my comment you were replying to, nor this thread.

The precautionary principle is not the only way to deal with risk. In fact the precautionary principle is probably one of the most retarded ways. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_assessment Whether I will build or buy a house on a fault line depends on many factors, such as the cost of the land, the location of the land, the price of building materials, the probability of earthquakes, the risk of earthquakes, the availability of alternatives, etc.

I don't really follow Joe Oliver so could your provide the statements you are referring to? I doubt these statements label all opponents as eco-terrorists. If it is just that eco-terrorists exist, they certainly do. I even have family members that are eco-terrorist supporters (not that they would do the terrorism themselves). Though Vic Toews did call all those that oppose his anti-internet privacy bill 'child pornographers', so that wouldn't surprise me. In any cause, I was talking primarily about how buy middle-eastern oil indirectly or directly funds Islamic terrorists. So maybe you have misread me?

You snuck the word 'likely' in there, which I never agreed to nor have I seen evidence for, so I will ignore it. Why build a house if you know it might break? Why build a car if you know it might break? Why build anything if there is a chance something might go wrong? The precautionary principle is retarded, defies occum's razor and makes policy decision-making impossible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle

You mean the terrorists that Harper funded such as the ISIS? How are they not terrorists? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_in_Iraq_and_Syria He never had my vote, nor does he have it now. Still more tempting to spoil my ballot. I am also surprised that you managed to write 1 post in coherent English rather than Waldo-speak. Congrats.

You mean treat the oil industry as a common good and regulate harvesting of it in order to prevent underpopulation? Yeah that wouldn't make sense since oil isn't a common good.... I face-palmed so many times reading this. What threat to they pose to the Arctic? They have zero territorial claim to the Arctic. Are you referring to Russia? Also how are we spending hand over fist on military? We barely spend over 1% on military which is low compared to most other countries (not that we should spend that much). Nor do we really have a need to spend much on military. We are probably one of the few countries in the world that could get away with having 0 military.

And what is wrong with that? Just because the green party doesn't appeal to the majority of the province it should have 0 representation in parliament? Why shouldn't extremists be represented? You'd rather alienate them and make the extremists more likely to resort to terrorism to get their views heard? Your premise is false. If the PC government is just two seats shy of majority under proportional representation, that means they obtained over 48% of the vote in the previous election. Certainly that is much higher than the 38% that majority governments under Harper, Chretien, Trudeau, etc. have. By no reasonable definition is 48% 'unpopular'. Secondly, if you have proportional representation, then there will be more parties (cause the system allows for more parties based on how it changes voter incentives). And since there will be more parties, it is less likely that you will have a single party with 48% of the vote. Thirdly, if this extremist party is so extreme, then the PC government can always work with the liberals instead of the Tea Party. So your 'example' is complete nonsense. Right... Let's review the main 'reasons' that pro-FPTP'ers or pro-STV'ers gave in support of their positions. - Only moderate or centrist positions should be represented. We can't have extremists having a voice in parliament and having a say in the political process. - We need the MPs to represent specific ridings so that all the regions of Canada are represented. We can't have any non-regionalists having any representation in parliament. - Proportional Representation favours left-wingism and therefore it is bad. All those left-wingers are whiners. And of course the unite-the-right thing never happened and had nothing to do with FPTP... I've debunked all this nonsense and it sounds to me that the supporters of FPTP or STV primarily want their political views to have a monopoly on representation in parliament. Where as people that support proportional representation want EVERYONE to have support in parliament (be they liberal, conservative, communist, green, libertarian, sharia-law advocates, marijuana party, etc.). Who are you to decide what criteria people should use to determine who to vote for? Some people might vote altruistically rather than selfishly. Some people might prefer to spoil their ballot. Some people might want to flip a coin. Some people might vote for the party rather than the mp. Different people have different preferences and the system should try to represent them as much as possible. Actually, you might under a proportional representation system because it allows for more parties, thus more options to choose from. Plus you won't have to worry about the strategic voting nonsense.

What prevents regionalists from being elected under PR? I don't have a problem with regionalists being elected, I just have a problem with them having 100% of the political power. To be elected you have to explain to the constituents in a specific riding why you are the best candidate to represent that riding. But what if you have a candidate that is not so good at representing a single riding, but good at representing the entire country? What if this candidate has support across the entire country (like the green party) but does not have it localized enough to get a seat? You think they should get ZERO representation in parliament? Why not mixed member proportional at least? You would still have the riding system, but it would at least allow non-regionalists to get elected and represented. And is moderation necessarily a good thing? Sometimes the best position is an extremist position. Before the American Civil War, support for the abolishment of slavery was an extremist position. With the current parties represented in Parliament or Congress, opposing the finance of Islamist terrorists in Syria is an extremist position. In the Ontario Legislature, supporting the abolishment of the Catholic School System is an extremist position. In Iraq, being non-Shia Muslim is an extremist position (and as a result Sunni Terrorism has become rampant because the Sunnis do not feel sufficiently represented). If a segment of a population doesn't feel represented by the political system then they are more likely to resort to other means to get that representation. I'd rather that there be a Sharia party, an Eco-Radicalist party, etc. represented in parliament then have Islamic Militants blowing up buildings and Eco-terrorists blowing up pipelines in Canada. A party that is too far out of line won't get sufficient representation under proportional representation to have a monopoly on power; and without other parties to negotiate with, they cannot implement their policies. On the other hand, with retarded systems like FPTP or the electoral college you get situations like in the USA where it is possible for people like Mike Huckabee to be elected and turn the USA into a Christian Theocracy. Of course moderation is required. Parties need to negotiate with other parties and form coalitions in order to pass laws.

Did you forget that I already gave a lot of benefit of the doubt in all of the earlier estimates I used for land size, population, population density of Medieval Europe, etc.? I could easily chose values that give a difference much greater than a factor of 2. It's like this: - the population of Westeros used might be within a reasonable confidence interval - the size of Westeros used might be within a reasonable confidence interval - the population density of Europe used might be within a reasonable confidence interval - the difference in percentage of arable land between Westeros and Europe used might be within a reasonable confidence interval - the estimated effect of seasonal variation on population might be within a reasonable confidence interval But that does not imply that the resulting factor of 2 is within a reasonable confidence interval... let alone that a factor of 1 is. Like if each of the above 5 factors had a p-value of 0.05, the resulting factor 2 would have a p-value of 0.226. Does that make sense?

How is having China grow economically bad? The entire world will benefit from the additional technological spillover effects that come from china once they develop.

Pipelines can survive earthquakes. They can also be repaired.

Anyway, I'll answer the original poster's question. This is a very good idea. It will increase Canada's GDP giving us more resources to do whatever we want with, diversify our markets, reduce global dependance on middle eastern oil, etc. Something I wanted to point out: "ISIS also draws as much as $1 million per day in profit from each oil well under its control in Syria. Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/how-isis-became-the-richest-terrorist-group-in-the-world-1.1872634#ixzz34xlCEstg" By giving increasing global oil supply, we will reduce global prices and displace some middle eastern oil supply that indirectly or directly funds terrorists. Thanks to the idiots Obama, Harper & Cameron and their idiotic policy of funding Al Queda in Syria, these same terrorists have now taken over the northern half of Iraq. In addition, most funding from terrorists often comes from zakat (Islamic 'Charity') from oil rich nations like Saudi Arabia. To all the eco-extremists, I ask you this: When looking at the CO2 footprint of difference sources of oil, do you take into consideration the CO2 footprint of terrorism that is funded directly or indirectly from buying middle-eastern oil? What was the CO2 footprint of the Iraq war? And the fact that Trudeau said this: "Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau also said the pipeline “will not be built” if he becomes the next prime minister. Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/federal-gov-t-approves-northern-gateway-pipeline-1.1873279#ixzz34xmjG8uI" Makes me very concerned; the idea that he liberal leader would without question reject a project that is so clearly to the net benefit of the nation is concerning. It almost makes me tempted to vote for Harper, as much I despise him, especially his foreign policy.

Why the false trichotomy between a pipeline east, northern gateway and keystone XL? Why not build all 3 and diversify our markets? There is more than enough oil in Alberta for all 3 options.

Yes, let's try something realistic like pixie dust or solar roadways.

Can you provide a definition by what you mean by 'undermine the entire province' as well as proof of this claim?

Yes, like pixie dust or unicorn tears.

I want to see justification for this claim because it makes 0 sense to me. Why would the fringe parties hold the 'balance of power' as opposed to the centrist or main-stream parties? You think that the communists, greens and libertarians will work together very easily? If you have proportional representation, there will be more parties, which means that each party will have less negotiation power since there are many other parties to negotiate with. This reduces the ability of a single party to 'hold the balance of power' and dictate policy. In much the same way as a free market with many consumers and producers, everyone becomes a price taker rather than a price setter.

Having every single representative only try to promote the interests of their ridings leads to regionalism and leads to a system that cannot effectively deal with issues of externalities, public goods, common goods or lack of property rights (something which government needs to solve because the free market cannot as these issues lead to market failure). It also overly favors regionalism and regionalist parties like the Bloc Quebecois. Also, aren't you contradicting yourself a bit by saying that representatives need to promote the interests of their ridings but then saying that having parties that promote regional interests is bad?