GostHacked

Blame marketing departments to make us want to buy something that we obviously do not need. This is why reusable/recycleable plastic, glass and metal bottles are the key. Not only that, some companies make the plastic bottles with a type of plastic that most cities recycling programs will not accept. So you now have garbage if you never plan to reuse it again. Are you really too busy to grab some bottle from your cupboard, fill it with some tap water to take with you? It is about the laziness that is projected upon us buy those who want to sell bottled water. Now they are adding all sorts of crap to bottled water for flavour. I very much despise sugar substitutes like Splenda, Nutrisweet. Ingredients like potassium sorbate and aspratame absolutely ruin the taste of any sugar/glucose-fructose based drink out there. Give me real sugar. Blame Marketing.

Shady Violence against homosexuals and bombed abortion clinics were happening long before the so called Islamofacism terrors. There were many abortion clinics in the US and Canada that were bombed, trashed, targeted in some way. Muslims had nothing to do with it. It was the Fundamentalist Catholics/Christians that were against homos and abortions. Claiming Family Values as their reason and justification. So this is why you don't hear it.

It is just a book as I see it. Like any other book. Shoot away. Line up some of your other faves like the Bible, old and new testament, ect. A nice .50 cal maching gun should rip those suckers apart like nothing. But I am of the non religious type. So they are all just books to me. But anyways, mission accomplished in 2003 when Bush hit the carrier deck. There is no war. The US is establishing a permanent presence in Iraq. The troops are not comming home anytime soon. The shock and awe of 2003 and the quick mission accomplished shows us in clarity that this war on terror and especially in Iraq, will not end. Remember McCains quote of 'why not 100 years' when asked about his thoughts about Bush's comments that the US could be there for 10 to 20 years. That is more than enough for me.

About the time the stock dropped, there was a major restructuring program just put into place prior to the sell off. Lots of staff changes happened. Yeah, you are right, Loblaws was in some trouble last year. The turn around really wont be noticed for a couple more years. But comparing Loblaws stock which is a Canadian local, to an international oil producer does not seem like a good comparison when you are talking about sell offs. The sheer volume that an oil producer's trades creates on a daily basis far outnumbers anything we do here at Loblaws. The oil companies have more volume than we have stocks out there in existence. So it would take a lot more people when trading to affect oil markets. Other factors here that you could mention are Size of the company compared to stock price and how many people can influence it. So the people that wanted out, got out. Sold off their stocks which in turn affected the overall stock price. The capitol gained from the high stock price was eaten up because of the payout the company had to do to those shareholders who wanted out. And yes, a company's performance will have an affect on the decision to trade. http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/column...db-b2c10ce2bc77 Imagine 1.9 billion just dissapearing. Blows my mind. Grocery chains are having a major problem with transportation costs. Fuel is expensive (diesle is even mroe expensive). 99% of our stock is moved by tractor-trailer. Food prices rise becuuse of it. ok digressing....

Pliny It is the same way large corporations offer stocks. Sell more stocks to invest in the company. When the company makes money, you can find people cashing in those stocks for the higher value that they are worth. When you have more people wanting to cash in a total amount that is higher than what the company can offer back, they end up looing big time. Same thing with currency. China has invested in the American dollar. At this point, it might be good to actually invest in the US dollar, for it is at a very low price compared to other world currencies. Let's say that dollar goes up in value. If I invested in it, I would be making a nice profit because of the increase in the dollar's value. When you have a huge sell off, it can really affect the whole company/country to the core. I work for Loblaws. I have seen two huge sell offs of our stock that drove the price down from 65CND/share to 28CND/share in a matter of days. The stock price will fluctuate greaty when there is a huge sell off or buy in. ---- Iraq, Iran, and other countries have plenty of oil to sell. By giving the world another alternative to the US Petro dollar, a new Oil Bourse was to be set up by Iraq/Iran and other Gulf states. When they do that, they control their own price of oil, and can sell it cheaper than what is currently the OPEC/World standard. Yeah this is more of the North American Union talk I hear going on all the time. This a good way to surmise it, this makes a lot of sense to me. I never really thought of it that way before, but it is correct.

It's who is demanding the oil. And who is supplying the oil. Going to the highest bidder. Shifting the selling to a booming China. Europe, North America has to compete with the growing of China. China can right now, probably buy more oil than the US and Europe because of all the technology the west has invested in China. To make cheap stuff for us. Because the west has invested manufacturing in China to make stuff so cheap for us, they benefited largely, and a middle class it seems emerged out of nowhere and took hold in China. And with that, they wanted the creature comforts that new money could afford. China is using more oil than they ever were, and it is continualy growing very fast, outpacing everyones expectations. Now how will this play with the Petro American dollar? Oil is only traded in US dollars correct? If so, you can now see how much China has actually invested in the US and it's currency. If China ever wanted to trade in those dollars, the US economy would crash hard.

We can have all the spare capacity we want. But to refine the product through a static number of facilities, you still have the bottleneck of production. You simply cannot refine more oil than what the current number of refineries can deal with. Demand and use is going up, refinement cannot keep up with the ever growing demand unless new refineries are built. Since they are not getting built, we will have a static amount of oil that can be refined to meet the demand. The refinement of oil has been static for 30 years. It is not hard to see that since demand is going up, and you have a limited static output for the last 20 to 30 years, it is not hard to see that a cruch is going to happen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPEC Any doubt about them influencing price?

Ahh more of the philysophical debate. Religion was not mentioned when I asked the questions of making a mistake and learning from them. The context is, did you make a mistake, any mistake, and did you learn from it? Religion may have a sole, and it has made mistakes as well. Since religion is a beleif system, I would say, actually a preconceived belief system. One instilled upon you to make you better spiritualy. Or that you hope it does. It has played an important role in peoples lives, that is not the debate here. Science does not have spirituality, nor does it have a soul. That is something I never claimed. I doubt anyone else has ever claimed that either. Science is not about to explain nor can it ever seem to explain spirituality, or maybe our science is not advanced enough to know it. Simply put, science does not have enough data to conclude that it is true or false. This is where we can try to do experiments to see if A is actually A or not. Trial and error. Science is full of it. That defines science, trial and error. Again, most of you fail to understand that religion and science are not compatible. Simple as that. So to explain anything in terms of religion through science will not give you the results that can be duplicated through the same process. Ever talk to a two year old? They have all sorts of questions... why why why why??? Then when you get sick of it enough, you just say 'that is the way it is' and be done with it. But the kid presses on, why why why. Sensing you do not have the answer, and possibly sensing that you are not giving the right answer, they continue with the questioning. So I guess that people who are tired of looking for answers will settle on the first one they think closely represents them. Remember, life is a life long journey of exploration of without, and within. Only if you could live one way for the rest of your life. But as you all know, things change in life. Things happen in our lives that sometimes call for drastic decisions. Sometimes those decisions are wrong. So you need to think of another way to accomplish your goal. Or you find out that one goal is no longer attainable. Religion is subject to change as well, but that process takes much longer than science. Religion and creationism cannot be explained through science. Incompatible. Again, this is where all of you fail in trying to match the two up. This is where you fail that our ever evolving science can explain everything right at this very moment. We will never know everything, there is too much to know. But we can come as close as possible. Religion is a nice little scapegoat into one thinks and really believes 'god did it', which warrents no further explanation. Nor can it get further explanation. Settle on this answer for now, but be prepared that it can change, if more evidence presents itself as such. I can't tell you what to beleive. But I can present all the facts so you can make up your own mind. I have made up mine long ago, which is, I have no use for religion in my life. The only religion that comes close to my views would be Bhuddism. As far as I know, Bhuddism never puts a claim into an ever omnipotant entity which created everything. It does talk about karma and different realms of existence. But no mention of creationism or an all seeing god. Maybe we should be talking about knowledge vs spirituality. But does not ones spirituality grow with more knowledge?

I might be a rare human in which I think spirituality must come from within one's own being through life experiences. Ones spirituality has to come from within because science will never give you spirituality. Science does give you mechanical understanding of what happens in your world around you. It describes it as best as it can given the tools and information currently available. This is part of the reason I see science and religion incompatible. Nor god, nor Jesus, nor any religion will ever bring you a true sense of spirituality. Only you will be able to. Only you will open your mind to something more than what you see on the surface. If you choose not to have an open mind, then this philosophical discussion can be moved to another part of the board, and I will gladly carry it on there. since we are way off topic anyways here as it is. Have any of you ever gotten things wrong? Now did you learn from those mistakes?

Just wanting to say that this is turning into a philisophical debate now. As I kind if thought it would.

Ahh, but you admit that the nesting robin is highly evolved. Science can explain that. Religion cannot. The universe is not a god, and it is not god. I don't know if the world was created by some magical being, or it simply evolved that way. Science can at least explain and attempt to explain most things so we can understand. Saying God did it, really leaves no room for debate, no room for growth and understanding. I have noticed that most of you won't budge on this at all. I can admit that there MIGHT be a god. Who knows, I really do not have any solid prood of that god ever existing. And at the same time I have no evidence that says he does not exist. But since I do have a lack of scientific analytical data on god, I can no more make a conclusion as to his existence than scientists or creationists can. You cannot show me anything that says he is for real. At least I am enlightened enough to say that I do not know everything and my question of the existence of god, I doubt it will get answered in my lifetime. Here is the problem with creationists and religion. It is this way, or no way. Science says, well it is this way for now, because the evidence we have discovered so far adequetly defines that it is this way. But science also reserves the right to change the answer when the evidence now proves otherwise. Science has not been exact in the past, and that is due to what we understand about our world around us. The more we discover the more we understand. Religion and creationism is this nice little box you can stuff it all into and present it as fact and everything that ever was. I think the answer is more complex than a so called god doing everything.

Science is not above changing it's answer when more evidence is presented to change that answer. That is exactly what science is. Religion and creationism have only one answer. God did it. No room for growth. No room for an alternative. And besides, if we don't get it wrong now and then, we learn nothing. Science will continue to bring me all these wonderful products I can use to make my life more comfortable. If you do not have confidence in science, then you have no confidence in technology. That is the way I see it. Look around you as to what science has brought you. If you do not have confidence in it, throw it all away. Get rid of it. If you don't, then you have more faith and confidence in science than you thought. One would think religion has been embarasingly wrong in the past as well. but I cannot really anymore than that, for I am not a religious person.

Well it may not be a matter of what you 'want', it is more of a matter of what 'is'. I cannot see how creationism can be discussed objectively. They might even discover that God had nothing to do with any of it. God did it, and now you try to find out how god did it? Should we not find out what God is before we find out how he has done things? Everytime I get to this, it is a philosophical debate about god and creationism, for there is no science to back it up. Don't need to show me that most scientists are religious. Since there is a majority of religious people as opposed to agnostic/athiests. So just by the numbers, you will have more scientists believing in a God than not. I also think it is a noble cause, finding out how it was done. Was it majic? Or was it something else? And I take it you have no real evidence to prove otherwise? If you do have some evidence and proof, like real proof, not just pure uneducated speculation, I'd like to see it. Angus, your statement about a human being a single cell during conception, could be the strongest evidence about evolving from a single cell. If a human can develope out of a single cell, and all other animals on this planet use the same process of egg/sperm, creating one cell that divides itself many times to become something more than it was. back off topic again, but who cares right??? The best minds are about making those new discoveries. The best minds will change their answer when they are confronted with irrefulatble proof. They thought it was flat, they have solid evidence that proved the world was round. They took the boat and sailed, and sailed, and they did not fall of the earth. They also discovered that the world was round by noticing the ships were disapearing over the horizon. If the world was flat, they should be able to see the ships from anywhere in the ocean. What if that mentality was still around today, that the world was flat? What if we just now discovered that the world was round. It would challenge your belief system to the core. Through observation, calculations, experiments, they have discovered that the world is actually round. Religion may have been a catalyst for the discovery, but it was science and experiments that showed us that the discovery is 100% fact or fiction. Religion and creationism has not done this at all, nothing can be scientifcaly proven 100% by using religion. Eventhough science is not 100% much of the time, we are slowly getting to that 100%. Religion and creationism are still at the starting line.

BC Looks like they got it right without religion as well. But you can say they started the science. The speculated about what it is, and then tried to figure it out. Again, religion just says God did it. The pagens and ancient religions most likely had no concept of a religion, or what a god is. Why would I be a fool to wait for the right answer when only fools rush in? You are a fool if you take the first answer if the answer cannot be duplicated using the same methods. What if the answer changes? Are you to still take the first one now that the answer has changed? Who looks like a fool? If the first answer has been tested to be true, then you can take the first answer. But in reality you are waiting for the next result to be the same. The 3rd time is the same as well. So by now you have waited for the 3rd answer and by now all 3 give the same result. So you are a fool to take the first right answer. Imagine if businesses were run like this. ....... So anyways back on topic. Seems like Spurlock never managed to find Osama while filming.

Bush_Cheney Yes but even blind lucking the end result can be scientific, and yes accidents do happen in science. If one can create the same end result with exactly the blind luck method (following the exact same steps you took to get to the result garnering the same result), then you have science. Religion seems more of a blind luck, blind faith concept to me. You don't come off as a pagan, that is for sure. But since you claim to be a pagan, Zeitgeist would be the perfect movie for you then. Seriously. Talks about that big fireball in the sky in terms of religion. Where as religion has helped to explain none of it. So it is very easy for me to put my faith into something that is tried tested and true. As we said, science is ever evolving and growing. Science even has to change because we discover new rules, laws that we could just not understand before. Religion, stagnant, stale with no room for growth has not given us a better understanding of how the universe works. The phrase 'God did it' is all that many need as an explanation. See that is where you seem to be misguided. Science is not a social system. Religion is a social system. You would be a fool if you expect to get the right answer the first time. You would also be a fool to take the first answer it gave. You would be a fool not to try the experiment again to see if you got the same results. You would be a fool to take everything at face value and not find out if it really is fact or fiction.

So science does not bring us anything then? Man can think of a way for something to happen, and without science (seeing if it can work or not, what is needed to make it work) it goes nowhere. Science is applied in order for man to create things to make life easier for him. I don't see religion doing that for humanity. Why does the apple fall straigt down from the tree? Science says it is due to gravity. We have managed to calculate the speed and acceleration of said apple as it falls, we can determine through science, that the earth's rotation causes a gravitational effect that pulls other object to it's surface. Religion tells us god did it. Is this the simplest explanation? Yes. Is it the right explanation? No. This science 'religion' has showed me time and time again, that it can reproduce an end result time and time again, using the same methods. You cannot say that about religion. Science brought all it's proof to the table. Science brought books, with math, physics, years and years of testing which garners the same results time and time again. Tried, tested and true. Religion has brought us a few books that contain stories about how people should live. Creationists brough their proof to the table as well. Which is just a couple more books about philosophy. Religion did not bring us the wheel Religion did not bring us the vehicle Religion did not bring us the atom bomb. Religion did not bring us more fuel effeicent cars. Religion did not bring us vaccines and medicine. Since this is the case, it now challenges what your idea of what God really is. Smart people that have a basic understanding, realize that science is an ever growing process. Scientists understand that their theories can and will be challenged. If you try to get anything but 4 when you add two and two together. If your theory of 2+2= anything but 4, you are doing it wrong. Two + two = 4. Always has, always will. Tried, tested, proven to be true. Solid empirical undeniable evidence. It's laid out there in all it's parts for you to understand. Simple is it not? They do this for their own gain. Period. Like those who put forth the lies about global warming. Like those who tell us that drugs are bad, but put forth pharmecuticles as a substitute. OH science brought us all our modern drugs as well. If creationism can be applied to scientific analysys, then we can have a shot at determining if creationism is in fact true. If we have no tests to prove this as fact or fiction, then we can assume that there is no pre-factual basis for the mindset one has with religion. Religion and science as far as I can see it, are totaly incompatible. Which brings me to what Angus had said. Angus, you definately have me at that statement, and I am enlightened with the following. Note on Google.ca .com today. Today is the 60th anniversary of the invention and discovery of the laser beam. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser But ignore that, God said ......

Creationism is based on a theory and cannot be proven or disproven through scientific analysis. Actually it cannot be proven or disproven through any type of real analysis. Science is. The thing is science is an ever evolving process, the more we know, the better we understand and the more solid the evidence is, the more 'faith' one can place on the scientific method. Science has changed over the years, we can think and theorize about Concept A. Through scienctific methods, we find out that Concept A is flawed and needs to be trashed or remodeled to match the scientific data. Then it becomes Concept A REV 2.0. Our understanding of sience is constantly growing. Our understanding of religion has been static for hundreds if not thousands of years. In the last 150 years science has brough us, electricity, EMCsquared, nuclear energy, motorized vehicular motion. streamlined manufacturing processes, space exploration/travel. Even this system we use called the Internet, all based on science and fact and proven methods. Almost everything you use today has science involved. Religion has no science involved in it at all. Religion and sience are 100% incompatible. Interesting thought here. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7399661.stm Recently the Vatican said it is ok to beleive in aliens, for god made them as well. Hopefully those aliens are homo sapiens. For god made them in his image, so they should be exactly like us... correct? So by that, I cannot really buy the line from the article that states, since god made all the creatures on earth he made all the aliens. From what we know of in the Bible is that God created man in his own image. If god creates other intelligent creatues, were they made in his own image as well? Or are they physically and phisiologically different than humans? If they are not the same, then god did not create them in his own image, and humans are the only ones he did that for. Even an older species of intelligen races that are space faring that could have visited earth, could not have been made in gods own image. But this is pure speculation and has no scientific evidence at all. So this must be conflicting for many. I will put my 'faith' in the scientific method. I found out I had no use for religion before the age of 10. Bush_Cheney Well the onus is on religion now isn't it? Science has handed over the proof of everything that is has done for us. Religion has brought us several ancient books that have been 'purple-monkey-dishwasher'd' through the ages and do not reflect the origional words of religion. Science cannot back up everything it investigates, because we are still evolving in our understanding of our world and universe around us. Creationists just tells us God did it, and that is that. Whithout any evidence to back it up. I put my faith in tried, tested and true. I do not put any faith in speculation about a subject that can garner no empirical evidence. There is an interesting bit on youtube to check out, (cannot do it from work here). It shows a metal locked box at the start, asks you to guess what is in the box. Then it goes on about how man discovered that the earth is in fact round, how to triangulate stars and planets to understand the size, mass and make up of the celestial body. After about 10 minutes of this, they go to the box and ask you 'have you found out what is in the box?' Nope. We still do not what is in the box. Untill scientific method is applied to finding out what is in the box, it is pure speculation and a leap of faith. No real proof to back up what is in the box. Sure air is in the box, but what type of air? Do you really know 100% for sure? Are you guessing? Do you think that can stand up to scientific analysis? Religon is pure guesswork. Science is guesswork at the start, then refined, and even reDEfined, tweaked untill we can recreate the end result consistantly using science. 2+2=4. Pretty solid evidence there. No speculation involved here right? And no matter how you approach this 2+2 will always =4. Tried, tested, proven and factual truth. I am not knocking religion, but I am knocking how they are going about claiming Creationism as a science. When in fact it is a philosophy.

Linked from another forum.... this shows how nasty things can get .... mostly how the visuals show another story altogether. http://www.shacknews.com/laryn.x?id=169454...anchor_16945471 This kind of crap may work in the US..... and people are idiots to even think that this is acceptable at all. Lies, deceit. Shameful. Have more integrity than that, or at least have SOME to begin with.

Disneyland in Iraq can wait. It can wait a long time. I get the impression that is not part of the plan to actually rebuild Iraq. Basic needs like clean water and electricity, food, clothing, a home are ignored in order to have an amusement park built? Someone needs to take a look at their priorities. Yes we can say it was in the plan from the start, a circle jerkfest of a plan.

Yeah a Diet Coke is going to help with that. And I think you are missing the point. He may have been drastic about it, but at least it gets a point across. Not only was he eating alot, and not exercising, his results at the doctor showed more of the danger. Most people will gradually get there over a couple years. He seemed to have proven that eating McDonalds or any fast food place exclusively can and will cause you health problems long term if one does not check it, or exercise. Considering the girth of many of north american citizens, it seems like many of them do not know what exercise is. I guess they do not even know what self restraint is. Lethargic fast food eating whales. Most people do not have the attention span to realize they are on the way to fatdome. I want to see that movie myself. Always up for a good laugh from the creationists. For more of that check out online through youtube a series called 'Why do people laugh at creationists'.

This struck me. All religions have been invented by man. Stop blaming 'god'. Blame those who do deeds in his name. Michele Eventhough the 'book' was written by man. The 'book' was handed down generation to generation in the early years by word of mouth. All story tellers tweak the story a bit for their purposes. So the bible has been 'purple monkey dishwasher'd' through the eras. Then when it finnaly got to be written down, the story has changed enough that it is no longer the original story or message. Man is the reason why religion exists. Not god. I find astrology just as tangeble as a bible. To me it is all guesswork and speculations. Carbon dating is flawed, but so far it is the best tool science has come up with to test the age of something. For the most part it is accurate and the technique is sound. It is not perfect, like much science, as we expand our knowledge, we continue to grow and understand our world and universe around us. Science is exploration and is never 100%. The more we find out, the more questions we have. And those questions are too complext to have a simple answer like 'god wills it that way'. We can prove easily with science how things work in this universe. Science and math are universal. We can compare the simple belief in god and the bible, to Refining the sciences throughout the years. Science can be proven wrong. It has happened. But at least the evidence was there to prove a science wrong. Our understanding of it grows because we investigate and compare and see if it holds up to the current model. There is no evidence of anykind to prove or disprove a god. Science may one day prove that a god does or does not exists, but as it stands, there is not enough scientific evidence to even consider for an experiment of that form. Consider our understanding of science in the last 150 years. Electricity. Magnetism. Gravity. Constant of the speed of light. Nuclear energy Atoms, electrons, quarks, ect ect. Computers, networking, ect ect. God has given none of this to us. We found out about it for ourselves. I personally do not seen religion and science mixing together properly anytime soon. Both religion and creationism are philosophies and should be taught as such. Religion and creationism can be speculated and debated endlessly without ever proving things concretly. Science is the process of ultimately proving or dissproving a concept. You will come to a conclusion in due time. Experiments take place to see what the results are. We can pitch science against almost everything in this universe, except 'god'. At an early age I called out to god. Wondered if he was there. I was unsure of how he would manifest for me. He never did. I prayers, inquiries went unanswered. At that point I knew I had to find out everything on my own. I found comfort in that, because no one else is going to make things happen for me, but me. So at that time I started to put faith in myself, not a god. I believed in myself for that is all I have, and all I need.

There have been an increase of attacks in Aghanistans military zone. There have been increased attacks in the Green Zone in Bahgdad as well. Daily shellings and attacks. If your green zone is not safe, then you gotta ask yourself, is it much more dangerous away from the green zones?

It is the oil companies that will open up new refineries. And what I am saying is that opening up ANWR will not solve the current problem of oil refinement production. You still have a max output because of the number of refineries out there cannot keep up with the demand of more oil. That is the problem. There is plenty of oil being pumped out of the ground right now as we speak. Lots of it. A surplus even if you will. But to covnert it into useable fuel, the refineries are the key for more production. Since you have many countries using more oil and constantly using more oil at an increasing rate, then it is given that the current max production cannot keep up with demand. Sucking up refined reserves/surplus. Shady said From my limted knowledge of oil and production, but if you look at just the numbers, only opening up new refineries will increase the total output of oil refinement into useable fuel. Tapping into 10 extra fields still won't help you if you are still planning on running on 2 refineries. Think about it. One more time, it is about refinement capabilities, not how many feilds you have tapped.

Your attitude is realistic and defeatists at the same time. Only will you cry foul when the situation involves you or someone you love. Stop being a mouthpeice for the current state of messed up, and change things. You actually make things worse by saying 'whatever, it has always been this way and I am happy about it'. Things need to change and it is as simple as that. It starts or dies with you. "The hopefull depend on a world without end. Whatever the hopeless may say." Rush - Manhattan Project

Correct. However what I was saying is that it makes about as much sense as outsourcing does. It does not help the local economy. And if we have an exess of grain, should'nt some foods be cheaper because of it? Outsourcing is not expansion. If it was, then after the outsourcing, the company would not need to layoff people. This is happening with two companies that came here to Ottawa. Dell and Convergys. Congvergys is an outsoursing comany. Recently the contract they had (Time Warner and Road Runner) that got moved to another cheaper country. It was fortunate that they got a contract with Bell and will be able to keep their doors open. Dell is laying off over a thousand people here. They just built the new call center about 3-4 years ago. Moving it off to another cheaper country. I really don't get eccnomics. I know this is not much of a comparison.