Adambomb (118938) writes "In Canada it seems the new Conservative majority is already trying to sneak some radical changes to the legality of anonymity and hyperlinking on the internet. Macleans reports on the details that would extend the powers of existing legislation against misrepresentation to apply to all technology." Link to Original Source top
Adambomb (118938) writes "It would seem that one of the primary satellite TV providers in canada, Bell ExpressVU, is facing a class action lawsuit concerning the legality of service late fee calculations. The focus appears to be on the use of late fees, and the subsequent effective interest that they result in at the bottom line. In canada it is apparently criminal to require effective interest greater than 60% which Toronto lawyer Laura Young claims ExpressVU exceeds.
One thing many forget with regards to disputes with monthly services:
"Even if it's in a contract, if it's illegal, it's not enforceable," said Toronto lawyer Laura Young [...]"
Here's hoping this is the beginning of the de-obfuscation of monthly service billing schemes." top
Adambomb (118938) writes "The International Herald and others have reported that Russia has tested a new ICBM specifically designed to trump anti-missile systems. Perspectives may vary depending on individual political experience, but definitely food for thought." top
Adambomb (118938) writes "A recent story on CTV has brought to light a municipal partnership between the City of Toronto and Hymotion (an Ontario based company recently acquired by A123 Systems Inc. of Watertown, MA) to help ease fuel usage in the metropolis. The pilot project is expected to hit the roads with as many as 200 vehicles with a new Plug-In conversion to allow hybrid cars to be charged directly instead of relying primarily on engine power.
CTV quotes Hymotion President Ricardo Bazzarella stating that the cars will be able to travel 100km of city driving with just 2.4 litres of gasoline (about 2/3rds of a gallon)." top
Adambomb (118938) writes "It seems like spam is becoming less and less noticeable to Americans at large these days. A recent article in iTWire, and many other sources notes that although americans are receiving more spam than ever, but are impacted less (or at least perceive the impact less) than in the past.
Hopefully this will mark a trend towards the devaluing of spam as an advertising medium."
Disclaimer: I am NOT a creationist myself, I do not know if i'd go so far as to label myself 100% atheistic as i'd happen to think fairly similarly the Hume route of probability and philosophy.
I personally feel that Darwin's theory of origins is scientifically accurante. The only thing I despise about the creationism vs evolution debates is the knee jerk reactions from both sides, both the "THE BIBLE SAYS SO, SO IT IS TRUE" crowd as well as the "EXTERNAL CREATION IS AN IMPOSSIBILITY" crowd.
This whole rant is due primarily to having read Terry Pratchett's book Strata concerning incredibly advanced humans building worlds for the sake of redundancy. The humans of the Strata setting are building a wide variety of worlds, of different proportions and influences, to ensure not only redundant places for humans to live but varying evolutionary forces to ensure humanity as a whole is more likely to adapt to a catastrophic galactic event.
Now given a significantly advanced enough race, one can envision things such as matter to energy / energy to matter transmutation. Also given a significantly advanced enough race, one can envision a geneticist who may possibly be able to create some form of precursor life form that would decompress or process to a specific set of organisms, especially if one understood the changes in pressures applied by the environment as it changes over time.
If one can envision these things, who is to say it is a ZERO PROBABILITY situation that someone couldnt create a world, complete with fossil record, radiocarbon signature, etc that denotes an "old" world composed of aged substances that could be made in a short period of time. If one understood the path genetics would take for the organism, one could already have a preset idea as to what would form on this planet.
Not saying that any of this is LIKELY, in fact its probability has to be infinitely small. The only point is that this may be a NON ZERO PROBABILITY.
This isnt my theory of what is, simply what could POSSIBLY be. The only thing is its not IMPOSSIBLE to imagine, even from a scientific standpoint.
Why are people insistent that anything debatable can only have two possible "Sides".
Proposition: There is always going to be a large portion of situations, opinions, or interpretations that do not have a binary set of possible results. More often there is an finite yet very large multidimensional set of possible conclusions or positions involved in any debate.
Given that, why must so many people feel the need to constantly defend their own interpretation without possibility of revision or allow for the introduction of new data?
As the good old monty python crew once mentioned "You are all different! You are all individuals! Don't let anyone tell you what to do!"
Sadly, the unison that follows is no longer as funny as it used to be.