Sunday, June 28, 2009
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Friday, June 26, 2009
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Peakonomics and the end of innovation
Peak water, peak fish and the end of everything - Andrew Potter Features - Macleans.ca
Mr. Potter of Macleans makes some really good points about yet another addition to Peak Oil Economics.
Favourite line: "The stone age didn't end because they reached peak rocks."
Mr. Potter of Macleans makes some really good points about yet another addition to Peak Oil Economics.
Favourite line: "The stone age didn't end because they reached peak rocks."
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Menu Idea #3 - Media Bias
It certainly seems as if the CBC is eating crow,
As a public broadcaster we have an added responsibility to provide an array of opinions and voices to complement our journalism. But we must do so carefully. And you should be able to trust us to provide you with work that’s based on solid reporting and free from the passionate excesses of partisanship.
We failed you in this case. And as a result we have put new editing procedures in place to ensure that in the future, work that is not appropriate for our platforms, will not appear. We are open to contentious reasoned argument but not to partisan attack. It’s a fine line.
Ombudsman Carlin makes another significant observation in his response to complainants: when it does choose to print opinion, CBCNews.ca displays a very narrow range on its pages.
In this, Carlin is also correct.
Menu Idea #2 - Your political rivals
Stephane Dion tries to eat Jack Layton before he eats the rich,
Liberal Leader Stephane Dion appeared determined on Sunday to stave off a potential shift of Grit voters to the New Democratic Party, branding Jack Layton an "old-fashioned socialist" with a "job killing" electoral platform.If they keep dividing pieces of the left wing, the Conservatives will win a majority.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Menu Idea #1 - Inferiority and Germans
If the American economy collapses we can always eat our inferiority complex;
Has one nation even hinted that it might help bail the US out of its financial crisis?Perhaps the German Finance Minister will dine on his schadenfreude.
Just one?
This is a country that has always been among the first... in fact, it’s been expected to bail out other countries when they get in trouble.
Look it up. Go down the list of countries that Americans have bailed out with their hard earned cash when the time came.
You’ll find many of them.
Bill Clinton just the other day on Larry King bragging about how Mexico actually paid its money back early. Well where’s Mexico today?
Where’s Canada today?
Where’s Germany?
Well don’t count on Germany they can barely contain themselves they’re so excited about Americas troubles these days. Did you hear their finance minister? “Well its American greed, the blind drive for higher profits”. Because Germany’s been giving Mercedes away in the US out of the goodness of their heart all these years!!
Why Labradoodle Soup?
In the months before the collapse of Wall Street, people were willing to leverage the equity on their houses so that they could by a $3000 mixed breed mutt. This egregious use of credit lead directly to the collapse which has left so many of my neighbours wondering if they'll be able to afford food during the recession.
Fortunately there is always a silver lining on every cloud, and practical advice in every post.
Fortunately there is always a silver lining on every cloud, and practical advice in every post.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Because Everyone Deserves to Know
... their odds of dying.
From the National Safety Council;
You odds of dying because of a streetcar are 1/27 of those due to a train. Over the course of your lifetime you have a 1:5,552 chance of dying in a plane or spacecraft accident. This year you have a 1:20,975,489 chance of being cooked or frozen to death at the hands of man. 30 Americans died last year as a result of hot tap water. You are more likely to die as a result of inhaling gastric contents than alcohol poisoning. 6 more people were executed by the state than were struck by lightning.
Are there any statistics nerds who could determine the odds of being struck by lightning while flying a spacecraft while being cooked alive by another person?
From the National Safety Council;
You odds of dying because of a streetcar are 1/27 of those due to a train. Over the course of your lifetime you have a 1:5,552 chance of dying in a plane or spacecraft accident. This year you have a 1:20,975,489 chance of being cooked or frozen to death at the hands of man. 30 Americans died last year as a result of hot tap water. You are more likely to die as a result of inhaling gastric contents than alcohol poisoning. 6 more people were executed by the state than were struck by lightning.
Are there any statistics nerds who could determine the odds of being struck by lightning while flying a spacecraft while being cooked alive by another person?
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Predictable Consequences
George Jonas at the National Post points out the predictable consequences of using NATO air strikes as a peacekeeping tool.
Wait a minute, someone might say. Canada didn't go to war in 1999 as a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to help Kosovo secede from Serbia. That would have been like Germany dismantling Czechoslovakia in 1938 to liberate the Sudetenland. We only participated to prevent what we believed was an attempt at ethnic cleansing in Kosovo.
Yes, well, so much for the best-laid plans of mice and men. The forces of Western liberalism that went into Kosovo to prevent ethnic cleansing ended up presiding over it.
It was exactly four years ago, during the last week of March, that nearly 1,000 Serbs fled their homes after Albanian Muslims attacked Serb Christians in their churches and villages. News agencies quoted Admiral Gregory Johnson, U.S. Commander of NATO forces for Southern Europe at the time, saying: "This kind of activity almost amounts to ethnic cleansing." Almost? By the spring of 2004, an estimated 200,000 Serbs had been driven from the province.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Queen's buys Women's Prison
Kingston - In a move that will likely bring a weary sigh from most Queen's alumni, Kingston's venerable academic institution (founded 1841) has announced that it will be taking over the site of the former Kingston Penitentiary for Women, located across the street from Queen's West Campus.
The Crown Lands Corporation - the present owner of the prison site - has agreed to demolish three of the four walls surrounding the former prison, as well as all 'non-heritage' structures on the property. The fourth wall will remain to keep law-abiding Portsmouth residents safe from Queen's undergraduates.
The university has pledged to respect the heritage designation of the historic stone structures which make up the prison. No word yet on how it plans to put hundreds of cell-sized rooms to academic use. The prison will be turned over to the school in 2008.
The Crown Lands Corporation - the present owner of the prison site - has agreed to demolish three of the four walls surrounding the former prison, as well as all 'non-heritage' structures on the property. The fourth wall will remain to keep law-abiding Portsmouth residents safe from Queen's undergraduates.
The university has pledged to respect the heritage designation of the historic stone structures which make up the prison. No word yet on how it plans to put hundreds of cell-sized rooms to academic use. The prison will be turned over to the school in 2008.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Vancouver pictures
I love this city:
The Library
The Skybridge from the Surrey shore.
West End Tower View.
The Library
The Skybridge from the Surrey shore.
West End Tower View.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Alarming News!
Remember when I used to write about global warming, then stopped? Well I did, check the archives... Today I feel vindicated because experts are starting to question whether or not the Goracle tells the truth.
First Richard S. Lindzen:
Of course Laurie Goldstein from the Toronto Sun has an opinion too:
First Richard S. Lindzen:
Judging from the media in recent months, the debate over global warming is now over. There has been a net warming of the earth over the last century and a half, and our greenhouse gas emissions are contributing at some level. Both of these statements are almost certainly true. What of it? Recently many people have said that the earth is facing a crisis requiring urgent action. This statement has nothing to do with science. There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we've seen will amount to anything close to catastrophe. What most commentators—and many scientists—seem to miss is that the only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes. [...]Yes, that Richard S. Lindzen - the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
one overlooked mystery is why temperatures are not already higher. Various models predict that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will raise the world's average temperature by as little as 1.5 degrees Celsius or as much as 4.5 degrees. The important thing about doubled CO2 (or any other greenhouse gas) is its "forcing"—its contribution to warming. At present, the greenhouse forcing is already about three-quarters of what one would get from a doubling of CO2. But average temperatures rose only about 0.6 degrees since the beginning of the industrial era, and the change hasn't been uniform—warming has largely occurred during the periods from 1919 to 1940 and from 1976 to 1998, with cooling in between. Researchers have been unable to explain this discrepancy.
Of course Laurie Goldstein from the Toronto Sun has an opinion too:
But well-fed, First World, Kyoto fanatics, awash is their naive, pastoral fantasies, don't want the Third World building coal, oil or natural gas-fired energy plants to supply electricity. They also object to nuclear power, which emits no greenhouse gases. They would deny the Third World any realistic means of modernizing itself. Instead, they insanely demonize industrialization and development, the only things that can lift poor nations out of poverty, while lecturing the world's poorest to use wind and solar power, a farce given how impractical and expensive this would be.Meanwhile, the IPCC and its cheerleaders give us ever-more-hysterical "climate porn" updates -- theoretical predictions of the additional deaths that may occur due to man-made global warming, that ignore the real deaths happening right now because of the Third World's lack of electricity.
Here's African economist and author James Shikwati, interviewed by Channel 4 in Great Britain for its documentary, The Great Global Warming Swindle: "One clear thing that emerges from the whole environmental debate is the point that somebody came to kill the African dream, and the African dream is to develop. We are being told 'don't touch your resources. Don't touch your oil. Don't touch your coal.' That is suicide."
Monday, April 2, 2007
On Outrage
So,
My brother is a prominent blogger. He is pretty clearly conservative in his views, but that's not surprising because he started BloggingTories.ca. He is one of best read bloggers in the country because of the quality of his posts and his ability to cut though the MSM bullshit.
This is why I'm outraged. My brother was asked to leave the press scrum on parliment hill 2 weeks ago. Why? Because the MSM decided that he was not allowed to be there. Unfortunately for the MSM, they do not have this right. My brother has a parliment pass and can therefore go where he pleases on the hill.
I'm outraged because members of the press decided to muzzle someone who was out to get a story. They acted as sensorship of the new media, and in the process managed to discredit themselves further in the minds of most of his, and I hope, my, readers.
I hope that the Speaker of the House, who granted Stephen the right to be on the hill, will address this issue. Please check this developing story out at stephentaylor.ca, bloggingtories.ca, and nationalnewswatch.com; the future of honest journalism is at stake.
My brother is a prominent blogger. He is pretty clearly conservative in his views, but that's not surprising because he started BloggingTories.ca. He is one of best read bloggers in the country because of the quality of his posts and his ability to cut though the MSM bullshit.
This is why I'm outraged. My brother was asked to leave the press scrum on parliment hill 2 weeks ago. Why? Because the MSM decided that he was not allowed to be there. Unfortunately for the MSM, they do not have this right. My brother has a parliment pass and can therefore go where he pleases on the hill.
I'm outraged because members of the press decided to muzzle someone who was out to get a story. They acted as sensorship of the new media, and in the process managed to discredit themselves further in the minds of most of his, and I hope, my, readers.
I hope that the Speaker of the House, who granted Stephen the right to be on the hill, will address this issue. Please check this developing story out at stephentaylor.ca, bloggingtories.ca, and nationalnewswatch.com; the future of honest journalism is at stake.
Sunday, April 1, 2007
On Sleep
This being my first post here at JonTaylor.Ca, I've spent an inordinate amount of time in paralysis, trying to come up with something worthy of the gig. Sadly, great wit and memorable wisdom are not things that I spout on cue. They are things that I produce slowly, organically, and through the rigorous application of ambitious substance abuse.
Instead, I have decided to be useful. Here, then, is a executive summary on sleeping effectively.
A. We sleep in cycles. These cycles last approximately 90 minutes. We sleep lightest at the beginning of the cycle; we sleep heaviest at its end. In between two cycles there are a few minutes where we are not actually asleep; if we wake up during the middle of the night, it is usually during those instances.
B. In order to feel most refreshed upon waking, it is important to wake up in between two cycles, or at the beginning of a new cycle. Thus, it is better to sleep six hours (four complete cycles), than seven hours (waking up near the end of a sleep cycle).
C. Waking up before the end of a sleep cycle is what gives you that 'I-just-got-punched-by-a-brick' feeling that makes putting on your pants a task of herculean proportions.
d. To figure out exactly how long your sleep cycle is, keep an eye out the next few times you sleep without an alarm clock. Figure out what the common multiple is between those sleep sessions. That is the length of your sleep cycle.
e. Finally, don't waste your time trying to enlighten someone in the throes of fanaticism. This has nothing to do with sleep. It's just good advice.
[source: The Owner's Manual for the Brain, Third Ed.]
Instead, I have decided to be useful. Here, then, is a executive summary on sleeping effectively.
A. We sleep in cycles. These cycles last approximately 90 minutes. We sleep lightest at the beginning of the cycle; we sleep heaviest at its end. In between two cycles there are a few minutes where we are not actually asleep; if we wake up during the middle of the night, it is usually during those instances.
B. In order to feel most refreshed upon waking, it is important to wake up in between two cycles, or at the beginning of a new cycle. Thus, it is better to sleep six hours (four complete cycles), than seven hours (waking up near the end of a sleep cycle).
C. Waking up before the end of a sleep cycle is what gives you that 'I-just-got-punched-by-a-brick' feeling that makes putting on your pants a task of herculean proportions.
d. To figure out exactly how long your sleep cycle is, keep an eye out the next few times you sleep without an alarm clock. Figure out what the common multiple is between those sleep sessions. That is the length of your sleep cycle.
e. Finally, don't waste your time trying to enlighten someone in the throes of fanaticism. This has nothing to do with sleep. It's just good advice.
[source: The Owner's Manual for the Brain, Third Ed.]
Saturday, March 31, 2007
New York to Paris: Google Maps Style
Let me suggest that you appreciate the sense of humour over at google.
maps.google.com will give you directions from New York to Paris.
I've used google maps to get lost many times before in my life. Sometimes it helps to get me unlost as well, but no. 23 is beyond funny.
maps.google.com will give you directions from New York to Paris.
I've used google maps to get lost many times before in my life. Sometimes it helps to get me unlost as well, but no. 23 is beyond funny.
I believe the consensus: April Fools!
Just joking, still March,
I'm just wondering about the number of scientists who have sullied the name of science by believing that consensus equals truth.
Einstein faced some notable political descent to his science in Germany, before he moved to the USA. During that time 200 scientists stated that by consensus they believed he was wrong. To this he said, 200 beliefs mean nothing, all they needed to do was to prove. He was, of course, right.
The scientific method is not well understood by politicians. I believe this to be because to become a politician you will most likely be a lawyer. If you are a lawyer, there's probably a good chance that you did your undergrad degree (at least in Canada) in history or politics or sociology, and therefore had little time for science.
So, a primer for those who are being primed:
When a scientist comes across a problem, he or she will state a hypothesis (an educated guess) as to what the problem is and how that problem manifests itself.
At this point the hypothesis is a theory. (this is important)
A scientist will then create an experiment. During this process she or he will create a list of constant measures that will be enforced to assure that the test can be repeated.
The hypothesis is then tested using the materials and methods listed as constant measures.
Should the data observed in the test be in support of the hypothesis, the scientist can report that his or her first test positively reinforced the hypothesis and therefore the theory.
The test must then be repeated using the same control. Should the results be repeatable then the theory can be reported as verified.
A scientific theory can only become truth in the case that all possible reasonable detractions from the theory are proven to be false (also with scientific hypothesis testing).
So, as always, I will link this with global warming.
Firstly AGW (warming caused by people) is a theory.
Secondly, consensus does not replace the scientific method.
Thirdly, the models used to simulate the effects of different GHGs on our atmosphere are not repeatable and therefore invalid.
Fourthly, those models did not take into account various levels of solar radiation change.
So, in conclusion, please remember that if a scientist relies on funding she or he will probably report that his experiment is unproven, but there is consensus that could be true.
I don't think that people without science degrees should decide on matters of science. I don't think that people without law degrees should decide on matters of law.
I'm just wondering about the number of scientists who have sullied the name of science by believing that consensus equals truth.
Einstein faced some notable political descent to his science in Germany, before he moved to the USA. During that time 200 scientists stated that by consensus they believed he was wrong. To this he said, 200 beliefs mean nothing, all they needed to do was to prove. He was, of course, right.
The scientific method is not well understood by politicians. I believe this to be because to become a politician you will most likely be a lawyer. If you are a lawyer, there's probably a good chance that you did your undergrad degree (at least in Canada) in history or politics or sociology, and therefore had little time for science.
So, a primer for those who are being primed:
When a scientist comes across a problem, he or she will state a hypothesis (an educated guess) as to what the problem is and how that problem manifests itself.
At this point the hypothesis is a theory. (this is important)
A scientist will then create an experiment. During this process she or he will create a list of constant measures that will be enforced to assure that the test can be repeated.
The hypothesis is then tested using the materials and methods listed as constant measures.
Should the data observed in the test be in support of the hypothesis, the scientist can report that his or her first test positively reinforced the hypothesis and therefore the theory.
The test must then be repeated using the same control. Should the results be repeatable then the theory can be reported as verified.
A scientific theory can only become truth in the case that all possible reasonable detractions from the theory are proven to be false (also with scientific hypothesis testing).
So, as always, I will link this with global warming.
Firstly AGW (warming caused by people) is a theory.
Secondly, consensus does not replace the scientific method.
Thirdly, the models used to simulate the effects of different GHGs on our atmosphere are not repeatable and therefore invalid.
Fourthly, those models did not take into account various levels of solar radiation change.
So, in conclusion, please remember that if a scientist relies on funding she or he will probably report that his experiment is unproven, but there is consensus that could be true.
I don't think that people without science degrees should decide on matters of science. I don't think that people without law degrees should decide on matters of law.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
On Work
Today I went to the Sunshine Coast (rather ironic name I think) and helped map a possible penstock route.
I can't believe that I get paid to do this job.
I can't believe that I get paid to do this job.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
On Seals
Just some simple personal background on myself.
I am a vegetarian and I think that people who oppose the seal hunt are sad and misguided people.
Firstly, the thought that seals are more important to you and your fascist organizations than Newfoundland and Inuit hunters is appalling; you should be ashamed. Furthermore, preferring that the seals (and hunters) starve is abhorrent.
Secondly the seals will die anyhow. If you don't believe me correct my logic. I'll be waiting in the comments for you.
These baby seals live on icebergs.
The icebergs melt as they move south from the Arctic.
These seals will be eaten by whales.
If they are not eaten by whales and not hunted, they will starve to death.
They will starve to death because there are only so many fish and the fish population on the east coast has waned.
So in conclusion, if you don't like seal skin don't buy it. I certainly won't. If this causes less demand for seal skin, there will be fewer hunters. If there are fewer hunters you will accomplish your goals of stopping the hunt without demanding that the government intervene for an issue which is about your fascist morals.
Remember, not all activism is good activism.
I am a vegetarian and I think that people who oppose the seal hunt are sad and misguided people.
Firstly, the thought that seals are more important to you and your fascist organizations than Newfoundland and Inuit hunters is appalling; you should be ashamed. Furthermore, preferring that the seals (and hunters) starve is abhorrent.
Secondly the seals will die anyhow. If you don't believe me correct my logic. I'll be waiting in the comments for you.
These baby seals live on icebergs.
The icebergs melt as they move south from the Arctic.
These seals will be eaten by whales.
If they are not eaten by whales and not hunted, they will starve to death.
They will starve to death because there are only so many fish and the fish population on the east coast has waned.
So in conclusion, if you don't like seal skin don't buy it. I certainly won't. If this causes less demand for seal skin, there will be fewer hunters. If there are fewer hunters you will accomplish your goals of stopping the hunt without demanding that the government intervene for an issue which is about your fascist morals.
Remember, not all activism is good activism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)