jughead

Can't we all just enjoy the magnificent Sens and throw our collective Canadian support behind them? (sits back with coffe and awaits the barrage of choker jokes, euro captain jokes, etc. etc. etc.)

Oh, I don't believe we are the only little round ball floating around. My world and life view isn't that myopic. But I also don't believe little grey men are descending upon us constantly and that over the course of the last 60 years the many tens of thousands of people who would have had to keep the secret have managed to keep their mouth shut. Like global warming, just because I don't buy into one extreme doesn't mean i throw the baby out with the bath water. I'm sure there is life out there. I am also sure they aren't constantly mutilating cows, doing odd things with people bottoms, etc.

As near as I can figure if two guys are in a burning house they can either spend their time arguing about who started the fire or they can spend their time trying to put the fire out. As for the counter global warming science, I can also find you a 1/2 library full of scientific reports by highly respected and highly accredited scientists from some of the most hallowed halls of academia who once signed their names to studies saying that smoking cigarettes wasn't harmful. I watched a news report the other night featuring a world renowned PHD in anthropology who fully believes there is a large bredding population of sasquatches in North America. I have met Stanton Friedman a former NASA employee with a PhD in Nuclear Physics who genuinely believes space aliens visit earth all the time and that there is a vast multi-government conspiracy to deny it. Both these men are highly educated and accredited scientists. Both are also so very, very wrong.

Man, the last thing I thought I would read on a message board dedicated to those who enjoy the outdoors is a whiny diatribe espousing the right to pollute. Gold star for you! With all things such as the global warming debate, both sides have some valid points, both sides trade in levels of hyperbole and the truth, as always, lies somewhere in the middle. I am not 100% sure what is the root cause of global warming. Anyone who says they are is incorrect. It is happening however. My motto is simply that pollution, emissions, eradication of greenspace, et al probably aren't helping matters so if I have the opportunity to cut back, modify my behavior and be a little proactive personally to cut down my impact on the world I do so. This winter I kept my house a couple of degrees lower than I had in the past. It saved me a few bucks, not a lot, and I used a little less energy. Did I save the world? Nope. But if everyone did it it would help quite a bit. I try to plan a little better so over the course of the week I take a couple of trips to the store instead of three. I don't cut as many corners on recycling as I used to. I car pool a bit more with my kids to hockey, swimming etc. It probably works out to one less car driving a few miles a week. Last year I rowed my little fishing boat a few more times instead of starting the motor up to go 100 feet down shore. People can whine and moan and spend their time defending their right to have it all and damn the consequences. They are selfish and wrong. At the end of the day, my life is pretty much the same as it was in the past but I pollute a little less and I am more energy conscious. About the worst impact was that insetad of wearing a T-shirt around the house in the winter I also had to wear a sweater some days. The reality is you can cut back 10-20 % of your energy use, waste, etc. without doing anything more than adding a little bit of thought and planning to your life and buying a sweater. It doesn't even have to be a nice or expensive sweater since you are likely only going to wear it around the hosue. Heck, you probably already own a sweater. It isn't terribly difficult and it had next to no impact on my ability to still do the things I like to do and enjoy life. I just do those things a little more effciently from an enviromentally conscious stand point. I ain't saving the world but I am harming it a little less than I used to.

My sister in law has been driving her honda daily since 1991 and outside of routine maintanence has never had an issue. I had a 1989 Tercel that I drove until 2000 and sold to a friend who is still driving it. It has over 500,000 K on it and again, just routine maintainence. I have owned 2 fords - an expedition and a leased Focus for work. Both were bad on gas and rife with problems. The Focus had 16 recalls in 13 months, some quite major. I would never go near a Ford again, especially a new line. I now have a 2003 Corolla. Runs like a charm, never a problem and it gets great mileage. I commute from Ottawa to Toronto about twice a month and it takes just over 3/4 of a tank. For value, resale, fuel economy, etc. go with a Honda or a toyota. Both great cars so pick whicever one has the style you like.

Thanks all for offering the opinions and clarity. I think it is important to remember that the % of people who hunt and regularily use weapons isn't a large part of the country. Much like fishing, we tend to gravitate towards like minded people and end up with lots of friends who share the interest but that doesn't mean that those numbers reflect the typical views of canadians with respect to going out and fishing. For most Canadians, our views on firearms and weapons don't include much distinction beyond thinking there are three basic types - handguns, rifles and automatic weapons. Maybe with more time by both sides rationally explaining their positions for and against guns the issue would be less clouded. I have learned things from this thread I didn't know. It hasn't radicallty changed my opinion on guns much but it has given me a bit more understanding on the position of hunters.

Can you guys give some justification and explanation. I don't hunt and never have. I am not against hunting and let a neighbor hunt on my land for deer. I disagree with sport hunting but have no issue with people who hunt and eat what they kill. This isn't to say I'm right and you are wrong, just letting you know what my personal opinions are and where I stand on things before I ask some questions. In general, I think hunters have to realize that the general population is likely less educated about hunting than I am and I pretty much know jack squat about guns. When I hear phrases such as automatic and semi-automatic weapons my only real frame of reference makes me think of machine guns or similiar things. This strikes me as having no real use for hunters. The general public likely has the same impressions as I do. I can respect the opinion that people might think that if they take away this then what will they take away next but I don't think government necessarily works that way. To make the issue more clearer, I think those that do hunt need to better explain their position because at times it just comes across as the same posturing and rhetoric that you get with guys like Charleton Heston waving a weapon and saying from my cold dead hands. This makes me, and a good deal of others associate gun owners with some of the more distastful elements of the right. I get that hunters aren't the issue when it comes to crime and that criminals will likely get guns irregardless of legislation. But, for the hunters on the board, can you clarify your position on not just weapons but what purpose/need there is for automatic and semi-automatic weapons. For someone who knows little about guns the idea that hunters don't need semi-automatic and automatic weapons makes sense. I am not trying to be contentious or start a war or words but most of the rebuttals I have seen don't justify the need or the right to own these guns. Admittedly, part of that opinion is probably due to not fully understanding what they are and why they may be of use.

Mike Pike is right. It isn't that the Leafs are primarily motivated by money. If that was the case they wouldn't have spent money like they did the last 15 years. I agree during the Ballard years it may have been true but since then they have had one of the higher pay rolls in the league. They have the highest paid blueline in the league right now which isn't providing good return for the investment. They are a horribly managed team that spent years getting into the cycle of trading away youth trying to get a quick fix with a veteran, usually well past their prime. It's not a case of the Leafs not being willing to spend money. It's a case of them spending money on the wrong people.

There is a difference, it isn't semantics and the law has many provisions, particularily civil law, where the spirit or intended purpose of the law provides latitude. If I purchase a CD or movie and make a copy for my own personal use I am not redistributing the work given that it is a very easy argument to make that you can't redistribute something you legally own to yourself. Technically, if I use a PVR to record a football game and the next night gather with my buddies to watch it I have broken the law. The spirit of the law however protects me from legal action because it can be proven that I did not profit and did not hinder the NFL's ability to profit. It should also be noted that not all artists receive a piece of the pie that results from surcharges. The person who downloads is breaking the law. They aren't pursued criminally because copyright law is murky and it is very difficult for someone in one country to sue someone in another for downloading from a server that may be in a third country. It would also be prohibatively costly to try and charge individuals on a per case basis which is the only way they could do it. The go after those who offer the downloads because it is the only logical and reasonable route.

I've heard this argument before and it is very flawed. The difference is there is only one car, ever. File sharing creates multi-duplicates that can go on endlessly. If you can magically duplicate your car so that thousands of people everywhere in the world can simultaneously use your car at the same time then your argument has merit. Otherwise, it doesn't apply. As for citing bands like the Barenaked Ladies and Britney spears, that too is a flawed argument. The vast majority of people in the arts aren't that succesful. That logic is like saying because Prince William is rich all teenagers in England are millionaires. You are right when you say downloading for personal use contravenes the same law but there is also the legal concept of what constitutes the spirit of the law. I have ripped most of my CD's for use on computers and my iPod but I don't post them and give access for others to take songs from my library. There is a difference. Some bands and filmmakers support file sharing and make their stuff available. By all means, if the artist has given consent, download away. For those that haven't, you are violating their copyright status and that is illegal. You do not have to be charging money to violate copyright law. If a person can demonstrate that your acts have hurt their business and had a negative financial impact then they do have grounds to file charges whether you made money of doing it or not.

No I'm not talking about black market trade. I'm not talking about people ripping my stuff and reselling it. I am talking about people file sharing and the fact that it decreases the value of my product. I'm not trying to be a jerk here but I have sat in a meeting where the price per episode of a show I was selling was negotiate down and the specific point of the negotiation was the fact that the show had been ripped and the episodes were now obtainable for free. As for the marketing comment, there is merit to that for the parent company but it still hurts the revenue stream for the artist. As for the technology to prevent piracy completely it may be there for now but it wouldn't be there the week after they implemented it. There is nothing out there that can stop someone from ripping a product. If it can be played it can be ripped.

I am not a musician. I work in film and television and I have a distribution arm for the company that oversees the sales of series and films. The impact of file sharing affects the company in two areas. dvd sales and second window sales. One of the more lucrative revenue avenues used to be second window sales. If I am paid to make a show for one country and retain the rights i then have the ability to distribute that show to another country without violating the first countries right to air the show. If and when people copy the shows and file share them I lose a % of sales for DVd and I also lose a big % of second window profits because people are less willing to pay for a show that can be downloaded for free.

One of the reasons I take it seriously is because I lose about 60-80k a year in profits because of illegal duplication and file sharing distribution of stuff I have copyright over, wrote and created. It ain't Robin hood stealing from me and I'm not a huge media conglomerate. If it's just a matter of you having the ethics to look the other way because you figure it's just a rich company then fine. Banks make a lot of money, is it Ok for me to steal a few bucks from them. Rapella and bass Pro do OK, is it all right for me to pocket a few lures next time I'm in there? The guy who broke into my cottage probably figured hey if he can afford a cottage he probably has insurance so taking a TV is no big deal. I guess that's where his ethics lie, which at the end of the day are pretty much in line with yours.

Then you're a thief John, no different than the people who broke into my cottage and stole my tv and no different than any other shoplifter.

Ahhh the coffee case ..... here are the facts. I agree common sense seems waning some days but in this case I don't think so. This case has become iconic of frivolous and outrageous lawsuits for many people, and is often used as an example of the need for tort reform in the United States legal system by those who support such reform. Opponents of tort reform argue, however, that Liebeck's recovery was just, and that the common summary omits significant, relevant information. The accident itself The person driving the vehicle was Liebeck's grandson Chris (not Stella Liebeck herself, as some sources would indicate), who had parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. She placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap. Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin as she sat in the puddle of hot liquid for over 90 seconds. Injuries suffered Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin (some sources say sixteen percent). She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. Two years of treatment followed. Attempt to settle and litigation Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for US$20,000 to cover her medical costs, but the company offered only US$800. When McDonald's refused to raise its offer, Liebeck filed suit, accusing McDonald's of "gross negligence" for selling coffee that was "unreasonably dangerous" and "defectively manufactured." McDonald's refused to settle perhaps because, though there had been numerous lawsuits alleging that hot coffee was "defectively manufactured," courts had consistently dismissed the cases before trial on the grounds that coffee burns were an open and obvious danger. During the case, it was discovered that McDonald's required franchises to serve coffee at 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit (82-88 degrees Celsius). At that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds. Stella Liebeck's attorney argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140 degrees Fahrenheit (60 degrees Celsius), and that a number of other establishments served coffee at a substantially lower temperature than McDonald's. Despite this claim, home and commercial coffee makers often reach comparable temperatures. For example, Bunn [1] mentions "the ideal brewing temperature of approximately 200°", and [2] mentions "water at 200° Fahrenheit (the ideal temperature)". Cuisinart mentions for at least one of their coffeemakers [3] that "After brewing, the heater plate will keep the coffee at about 180°-185°F". The National Coffee Association instructs that coffee be brewed "between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction" and consumed "immediately". If not consumed immediately, the coffee is to be "maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit." [4] Liebeck's attorney claims that McDonald's quality control manager testified that foods hotter than 140 degrees constituted a burn hazard, and that McDonald's coffee would burn the mouth and throat. Testimony by witnesses for McDonald's revealed that McDonald's did not intend to reduce the temperature of its coffee. Documents obtained from McDonald's also showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burnt by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000 [5]. This represents about one complaint per 24 million cups of coffee sold by McDonald's. Some of these incidents resulted in legal claims, some of which McDonald's settled. Settlement Applying the principles of comparative negligence, the jury found that McDonald's was 80% responsible for the incident and Liebeck was 20% at fault. Though there was a warning on the coffee cup, the jury decided that the warning was neither large enough nor sufficient. They awarded Liebeck US$200,000 in compensatory damages, which was then reduced by 20% to US$160,000. In addition, they awarded her US$2.7 million in punitive damages. However, the judge reduced punitive damages to US$480,000; thus Liebeck was awarded US$640,000 in total. Both McDonald's and Liebeck appealed, and in December 1994, the two came to a confidential settlement, the amount of which is secret, but is believed to be approximately equal to the amount of the final judgment.

Well that's just perfect, I mean sure it all sounds good in theory but what if you are wrong? Then any stranger can come on here and find out I like fishing and some other things and that I have picked for my nickname my dog's name so I would remember it. If that gets out I'm doomed. DOOMED!