Usage of Shins

Graph by: Mulonkey via Graph Jam Builder

[Submitted by J.D.]

Canada: Water, Water Everywhere – But Did You Get Permission To Take It?

15 December 2009

Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP / Article by Jan-Martin LeBlanc and Pierre Langlois

Québec had a wet summer this past year. While washing out many picnics, the steady rains also replenished our ground and surface water reserves. Although Québec is blessed with abundant water resources, there is wide consensus on the necessity to protect such a critical resource. The Québec legislature has adopted over the past few months new water legislation which will potentially have an impact on businesses. The following summarizes the new regulatory scheme introduced by the Water Act and the Regulation respecting the declaration of water withdrawals.

A New Water Regulatory Regime

The unanimously adopted Act to affirm the collective nature of water resources and provide for increased water resources protection, or Water Act, introduces several mechanisms for protecting and managing water resources. The Québec National Assembly adopted the law June 11, 2009, but had not yet announced the law’s effective date at the time of writing. The Act’s highlights include:

• civil recourse for the Attorney General to order reparation of any damages to water resources,
• a new regime for authorizing water withdrawals,
• acknowledgment that water is a collective resource and part of Québec’s common heritage,
• water governance rules based on integrated and concerted management of designated hydrographical units,
• a new water knowledge office, and
• prohibitions against transferring water outside of Québec that only the government may waive and only for public interest after public consultation.

The Act’s broad civil recourse provisions will have a substantial impact on potential civil liability of companies whose activities are likely to alter the quality of surface or ground water. Basically, in addition to any penal environmental recourse, the Attorney General may commence proceedings for repairs to any water damage caused by or through a person’s fault or illegal act. Under the new law, a company that causes damage to water is liable regardless of intention, carelessness or negligence. Rather, the simple fact that the company caused the damage is enough to establish liability. The Act’s no-fault regime departs from the general civil liability scheme that requires proof of fault. Moreover, unlike cases of environmental regulatory violations, offenders will not be able to raise a due diligence defense to escape liability.

All kinds of water damage are subject to civil recourse under the Act’s broad language. Damage covered includes any degradation of water resources’ physical, chemical, or biological features or ecological functions as well as change in quantity. Offenders may be ordered to restore the resources to their original state, repair through compensatory measures, or pay a lump sum as compensation.

In contrast to other recourse under the civil code that requires complaints be lodged within three years, the new water law only requires the Minister to take action within ten years of the date when the Minister first knew of the damages.

So, to avoid liability under these new provisions, companies will need to pay close attention to the consequences their water activities cause, avoid altering the quantity, and keep from damaging the quality of surface and ground water.

Read the whole article

Camera looking at a reference plane

You can use Ref mode to quickly set up the camera so that it is looking straight down at a reference plane.

1. Set the current reference plane.
2. Activate the Ref transform mode (in Ref mode, values are relative to the active reference plane).
3. Select the camera interest, and in the Transform panel enter X=0, Y=0, Z=0.
4. Select the camera and set X=0 and Z=0. You can also set the Y, or just go to the viewport and use the mouse scroll wheel to pull back from the reference plane.

Here’s a script that does this for you. The script works with a default Softimage camera rig: just select some part of the camera rig and the script will figure out the rest.

var o = ( Selection(0).IsClassOf( siX3DObjectID ) ? Selection(0) : Selection(0).Parent3DObject );

var c = null;
var ci = null;
switch ( o.type ) {
	case "camera" :
		c = o;
		ci = c.Interest;
		break;
	case "CameraInterest" :
		c = o.Parent3DObject.Camera;
		ci = o;
		break;
	case "CameraRoot" :
		c = o.Camera;
		ci = c.Interest;
		break;
	default :
		LogMessage( "Cannot find the camera and camera interest. Please select part of a camera rig." );
} 

if ( c != null & ci != null )
{
	// Translate Camera Interest
	Translate(ci, 0, 0, 0, siAbsolute, siObjCtr, siObj, siX, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, 0, null);
	Translate(ci, 0, 0, 0, siAbsolute, siObjCtr, siObj, siY, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, 0, null);
	Translate(ci, 0, 0, 0, siAbsolute, siObjCtr, siObj, siZ, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, 0, null);

	// Translate Camera
	Translate(c, 0, 0, 0, siAbsolute, siObjCtr, siObj, siX, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, 0, null);
	Translate(c, 0, 20, 0, siAbsolute, siObjCtr, siObj, siY, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, 0, null);
	Translate(c, 0, 0, 0, siAbsolute, siObjCtr, siObj, siZ, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, 0, null);
}

.

Are you serious? You don't know the difference?

Whose. Who’s. Which do you use and when?

The most common error in this regard is to use who’s as a possessive. Why? Because that’s the rule we learned in school: in order to make a noun possessive, you take out the Elmer’s Glue and stick ’s to the end of it, like so:

That’s Vladimir’s baby-blue Pacer. (That baby-blue Pacer belongs to Vladimir.)

But you must erase this from your mind. Who’s only means who is or who has. It never means anything else. Ever. Okay? Who’s is a contraction in which the apostrophe replaces the i in is or the ha in has. Examples:

Who’s your daddy? (Who is your daddy?) Who’s got head lice? (Who has got head lice?)

Whose is the possessive form of who and sometimes which. Definition: “belonging to whom or which.” Examples:

Zerubabel, whose last name is O’Reilly, did the Safety Dance. (Zerubabel, to whom belongs the surname of O’Reilly, did the Safety Dance.)

Whose Village People eight-track is that? (To whom does that Village People eight-track tape belong?)

So in the words of Brad in Fast Times at Ridgemont High: Learn it. Know it. Live it.

E.B. White

Well, not really grammar books, but books on English language usage, which can not only be invaluable but also (I swear to God) fun. A fine essay on H.W. Fowler in The New York Times inspires me to ask: What usage books have you found most, er, useful?

This is not a trivial question, even  as we race heedless into a bookless, paperless world. Until we’re all fitted with microchips that allow direct mind-to-mind communication (which Cormac McCarthy, in a rare chat with the Wall Street Journal, thinks will be less than 100 years), language will remain the fundamental medium between one person and another — or a billion.

And Mark Twain’s famous remark will still be relevant: “The difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter — ’tis the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.”

And most of us as writers want to bring down lightning with our prose, right? But usage is more than writing. We think in words, too, we conceptualize our feelings (which is where the human being actually resides) in words, string those words together into sentences, and use those sentences to mediate not only with other people, but with ourselves.

Trying to find the right word, and cast our thoughts and feelings into good, strong language, is therefore also a way to teach ourselves how to think clearly.

The spark igniting this discussion is The Times essay by Jim Holt on H.W. Fowler, author of A Dictionary of Modern English Usage, for many writers the most sacred of books and known to devotees as Fowler’s.  Holt gives the story of how Fowler–not a trained grammarian or lexicographer — came to write the book and why it holds such a place of imminence.

Fowler’s has not, however, been one of my principle usage guides, and no doubt I am the poorer for it. But I do have my few indispensable favorites. In fact, they are arrayed on the desk before me this very minute.

Roget’s International Thesaurus has by far been the volume to which I’ve turned most often and most profitably. The version I have is so old — I purchased it new in 1977 — that the publisher is “Harper & Row.”

Roget’s is much more than a synonym dictionary. In fact, any “Roget’s” that’s arranged alphabetically is spurious and to be avoided at all costs.

This book instead collates knowledge and the words relating to them in categories. I cannot tell you how many times I’ve gone searching for a synonym for a common term, only to find the original word did not mean quite what I thought it did. No book has challenged me the way this one has.

My second most valuable resource is The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (Houghton Mifflin, 1979). I have in my possession a number of newer dictionaries, but this is the one I return to again and again.

Its definitions are beautifully concise yet thorough, but its boon lies in the etymolgies–brief descriptions of the history and development of each word. Do not waste your money on any dictionary that does not include word origins. Once I understand how a word arose and came to mean what it means today, it is much harder to misuse it (though not impossible, as regular readers of this blog no doubt can attest).

Finally, no writer — and I believe no speaker — of English should be without that charming little classic, The Elements of Style, by William Strunk and E.B. White. It is very much a grammar usage guide, but not merely for the sake of propriety. Its true subject, as the title says, is “style.”

Strunk, who drafted the prescriptive grammar section, can be reduced to a single, timeless dictum: “Omit needless words!”

White, the great essayist and children’s author (Charlotte’s Web, among others), and a student of Strunk’s at Cornell, revised the text and added “An Approach to Style.” Among his many graceful recommendations, I am always most heartened by this simple one: “Write with nouns and verbs.”

I am certain many other great and handy books on English usage exist in this big world. If you have a favorite I’ve overlooked, by all means let me know.

And I’m not kidding about giving these and similar volumes as Christmas gifts. They may initially be met with a sneer, the way I used to receive the presents from a particularly practical aunt. But long after I was sated with the novelty of flashing ray guns or walkie-talkies, I still wore the underwear and socks.

Which of the sentences below are correct?

1. The contract was signed by the devil, Daniel Webster and myself.
2. She gave the Chia Pet to Grace and I.
3. I myself prefer liverwurst.
4. Joan and I made a suspension bridge out of Popsicle sticks.
5. Me and Craig rode the bus to the Hannah Montana concert.
6. Contact Vladimir or myself if you have any questions.
7. I gave myself an appendectomy.

E=mc2

Admit it: your order of preference for these words goes like this: myself stands at the top, I is a close second and you’d rather stick a fork in a light socket than stoop to using me. You think myself sounds more serious somehow. It seems more authoritative than little old me. It makes you, as a writer writing about yourself, sound like a detached observer. Right? Um, no.  Unless by detached you mean pompous and confused.

I can’t tell you how often I have to beat business writers over the head with my Red Pen of Righteousness about this one.  They seem to view me as too short and humble-looking to be taken seriously, and that I appears cultured and patrician. Or is it conversely because it feels egomaniacal to use me? The problem typically arises when you’re referring to yourself along with other people. (See the above examples.)

Now, I’m not going to go into some long-winded academic explanation of reflexives, objects, subjects and personal pronouns, because you’re not going to pay attention anyway. And I’m just sick of that glazed-over look you get when I try to teach you something. So instead, I’m going to give you two simple tests to determine when to use each of these.

• Since myself is the favorite, let’s start there. Usually, the only time you would use myself is when you’ve used I somewhere earlier in the sentence:

4. I gave myself an appendectomy.

7. I myself prefer liverwurst.

Stop using it elsewhere. Now.

• To find out whether you need to use me or I in a sentence, remove the other person from that sentence and see how it reads:

2. She gave the Chia Pet to (Grace and) I.

4. (Joan and) I made a suspension bridge out of Popsicle sticks.

5. Me (and Craig) rode the bus to the Hannah Montana concert.

See how easy it is? Use these simple tests to spare yourself (and me) embarrassments galore.

Dan Lyons of ‘Fake Steve Jobs’ wants to offer some pay back for Ralph De La Vega’s proposal to impose his will on Data heavy iPhone users. Last week Ralph De La Vega stated he wanted to do something about data abusers who are apparently abusing their right to the “unlimited” data plan which they are over charged for every month. Ralph says we need to educate users on what a Megabyte actually is. So Dan Lyons wants all AT&T subscribers this Friday, December 18th at 12:00 PM Pacific time (3:00 PM Eastern) to open a data intensive app or browser and try to use the network data as much as possible for one full hour (My suggestion is PDANET with a Jailbroken iPhone and download a a Movie or watch YouTube in HD. This is in hopes to bring down AT&T’s network to help bring to light that the users aren’t the problem, rather the poor network foundation. So let’s all be apart of this extravaganza! Spread the word on Facebook and Myspace, Re-Tweet it on Twitter, or do whatever you can to get the word out there. AT&T needs to make changes, not the paying customers.

Here is exactly what Dan Lyons had to say:

“On Friday, December 18, at noon Pacific time, we will attempt to overwhelm the AT&T data network and bring it to its knees. The goal is to have every iPhone user (or as many as we can) turn on a data intensive app and run that app for one solid hour. Send the message to AT&T that we are sick of their substandard network and sick of their abusive comments. THe idea is we’ll create a digital flash mob. We’re calling it in Operation Chokehold. Join us and speak truth to power”!

[Via Macrumors]

Lexical Vexations

medal n. an award, especially one composed of a stamped, coin-like piece of metal.

meddle v. to interfere in others’ plans.

metal n. an opaque and often shiny material that is composed of one or more of the metallic elements in the periodic table of elements.

mettle n. the quality of strength or stamina in a person or thing.

Words in the Wild: After reading an impressive stack of Superman comics, young Hans decided that he should test his mettle by bending metal with his bare hands. He waited until his meddlesome sister left the room before trying to bend the medal he’d won in last summer’s badminton tournament, but it was to no avail. Dejected, he decided to see if he could jump over a dog house in a single bound.

Still vexed? You can find a complete list of the Word Blog’s lexical vexations here.

Author : KUSUMA, GRACE

Preferensi pelanggan disebabkan adanya berbagai pilihan yang harus ditetapkan oleh konsumen dalam memilih suatu produk. Beragamnya produk membuat konsumen harus menentukan pilihannya dengan tepat sesuai dengan kebutuhan dan keingginannya. Oleh karena itu produk yang baik adalah yang mempunyai nilai tersendiri di mata konsumennya. Preferensi ditunjang oleh usage, attitude dan image. Dari sinilah dapat diketahui kriteria yang diinginkan oleh pelanggan dalam menggunakan atau membeli produk. Didasarkan oleh marketing mix,dapat dipakai sebagai acuan utama bagi konsumen. Dengan salah satu analisanya yaitu korelasi dan regresi, diharapkan dapat mengetahui hubungan antara preferensi dengan usage, attitude dan image.

Keyword : consumer preference, usage, attitude, image, marketing mix, correlation analysis, regression analysis

Sumber : http://repository.petra.ac.id/1612/

In Las Vegas this week, there was a great holiday party invitation which included the following:

 … come join us for toasted marshmallows and carolers …

What comes to your mind?

Here’s what came to ours:

Yum … toasted carolers!

Overheard at a local restaurant, young man to young woman:

If you do that, then you’ve deprecated yourself from being a consultant; you’re just an order-taker.

Unfortunately, I missed the preceding context, so I don’t know what “do that” referred to, but deprecate oneself from struck me as odd (I entertained the possibility that deprecated was an error for demoted). I can, however, interpret the expression if the action in question involved self-deprecation, so that the expression conveyed something like ‘ceased to be a consultant as a result of self-deprecation’.

(An even more puzzling use, this time from a blog:

I’m sure that all of you have been exposed to those inane Ice Breakers commercials. You know the ones I’m talking about. If you don’t because you’ve been self deprecating yourself from television, here’s a recap of the two commercials I’m talking about. (link)

This is surely some sort of error, but what should the writer have said instead of self-deprecating?)

A non-error, but entertaining: a Frank Cotham New Yorker cartoon of 6/12/2000, executive interviewing a job candidate: “You just self-deprecated yourself right out of a job.”

Self-deprecation came up in later New Yorker cartoons. A Leo Cullum cartoon of 12/18/2000, chairman of the board to another executive: “You’re a partner now, Cosgrove. Partners don’t do self-deprecation.” And an Alex Gregory cartoon of 4/17/2006, patient on operating table talking to the surgeon: “You know, doctor, right now I’d really prefer if your sense of humor were a tad less self-deprecating.”

OED2 has cites for self-deprecation from 1924 and 1977. Its entry for deprecate supplies, among other senses, this one:

To plead earnestly against; to express an earnest wish against (a proceeding); to express earnest disapproval of (a course, plan, purpose, etc.).

(with citations from 1641 on). A 1993 addition expands on this:

more generally, to express disapproval of (a person, quality, etc.); to disparage or belittle. (Sometimes confused with depreciate.)

(with citations beginning in 1897). A note follows:

Widely regarded as incorrect, though found in the work of established writers.

MWDEU has a long and complex entry on deprecate and depreciate, which begins:

Contrary to the views of thirty or forty guardians of the language, deprecate and depreciate are seldom confused. Most of the confusion as exists has been introduced by those who have sought to illuminate, but have only befogged. Among the befoggers must be counted lexicographers, for our attempts to define and discriminate have not been notably successful.

Somewhat overshadowed by the deprecate/depreciate controversy is a tradition, going back to the 19th century, of complaints about innovative senses of deprecate: ‘disapprove, condemn, disparage, belittle’ (as in the 1993 OED entry above and in the uses of self-deprecate ‘belittle oneself modestly’ in the New Yorker cartoons). MWDEU sees no reason to treat these uses as anything but standard — good news for me, since I fairly often use deprecate in these ways.

Another pronunciation poem … attributed to both Richard Krough and T.S.Watt.

Recovering Sounds from Orthography
Brush up Your English

I take it you already know
Of tough and bough and cough and dough.
Others may stumble but not you,
On hiccough, through, lough and through.
Well done! And now you wish, perhaps,
To learn of less familiar traps.

Beware of heard, a dreadful word
That looks like beard and sounds like bird,
And dead–it’s said like bed, not bead.
For goodness’s sake, don’t call it deed!
Watch out for meat and great and threat:
They rhyme with suite and straight and debt.

A moth is not a moth in mother,
Nor both in bother, broth in brother,
And here is not a match for there,
Nor dear and fear for bear and pear,
And then there’s dose and rose and lose–
Just look them up–and goose and choose,
And cork and work and card and ward,
And font and front and word and sword,
And do and go and thwart and cart.
Come, come, I’ve hardly made a start.

A dreadful language? Man alive,
I’d mastered it when I was five.

The Chaos
by G. Nolst Trenite’ a.k.a. “Charivarius” 1870 – 1946

Dearest creature in creation
Studying English pronunciation,
I will teach you in my verse
Sounds like corpse, corps, horse and worse
I will keep you, Susy, busy,
Make your head with heat grow dizzy.
Tear in eye your dress you’ll tear,
So shall I! Oh, hear my prayer,
Pray, console your loving poet,
Make my coat look new, dear, sew it!
Just compare heart, beard and heard,
Dies and diet, lord and word,
Sword and sward, retain and Britain.
(Mind the latter, how it’s written).
Made has not the sound of bade,
Say said, pay-paid, laid, but plaid.
Now I surely will not plague you
With such words as vague and ague,
But be careful how you speak,
Say break, steak, but bleak and streak.
Previous, precious, fuchsia, via,
Pipe, snipe, recipe and choir,
Cloven, oven, how and low,
Script, receipt, shoe, poem, toe.
Hear me say, devoid of trickery:
Daughter, laughter and Terpsichore,
Typhoid, measles, topsails, aisles.
Exiles, similes, reviles.
Wholly, holly, signal, signing.
Thames, examining, combining
Scholar, vicar, and cigar,
Solar, mica, war, and far.
From “desire”: desirable–admirable from “admire.”
Lumber, plumber, bier, but brier.
Chatham, brougham, renown, but known.
Knowledge, done, but gone and tone,
One, anemone. Balmoral.
Kitchen, lichen, laundry, laurel,
Gertrude, German, wind, and mind.
Scene, Melpomene, mankind,
Tortoise, turquoise, chamois-leather,
Reading, reading, heathen, heather.
This phonetic labyrinth
Gives moss, gross, brook, brooch, ninth, plinth.
Billet does not end like ballet;
Bouquet, wallet, mallet, chalet;
Blood and flood are not like food,
Nor is mould like should and would.
Banquet is not nearly parquet,
Which is said to rime with “darky.”
Viscous, Viscount, load, and broad.
Toward, to forward, to reward.
And your pronunciation’s O.K.,
When you say correctly: croquet.
Rounded, wounded, grieve, and sieve,
Friend and fiend, alive, and live,
Liberty, library, heave, and heaven,
Rachel, ache, moustache, eleven,
We say hallowed, but allowed,
People, leopard, towed, but vowed.
Mark the difference, moreover,
Between mover, plover, Dover,
Leeches, breeches, wise, precise,
Chalice, but police, and lice.
Camel, constable, unstable,
Principle, disciple, label,
Petal, penal, and canal,
Wait, surmise, plait, promise, pal.
Suit, suite, ruin, circuit, conduit,
Rime with “shirk it” and “beyond it.”
But it is not hard to tell,
Why it’s pall, mall, but Pall Mall.
Muscle, muscular, gaol, iron,
Timber, climber, bullion, lion,
Worm and storm, chaise, chaos, and chair,
Senator, spectator, mayor,
Ivy, privy, famous, clamour
And enamour rime with hammer.
Pussy, hussy, and possess,
Desert, but dessert, address.
Golf, wolf, countenance, lieutenants.
Hoist, in lieu of flags, left pennants.
River, rival, tomb, bomb, comb,
Doll and roll and some and home.
Stranger does not rime with anger.
Neither does devour with clangour.
Soul, but foul and gaunt but aunt.
Font, front, won’t, want, grand, and grant.
Shoes, goes, does. Now first say: finger.
And then: singer, ginger, linger,
Real, zeal, mauve, gauze, and gauge,
Marriage, foliage, mirage, age.
Query does not rime with very,
Nor does fury sound like bury.
Dost, lost, post; and doth, cloth, loth;
Job, Job; blossom, bosom, oath.
Though the difference seems little,
We say actual, but victual.
Seat, sweat; chaste, caste.; Leigh, eight, height;
Put, nut; granite, and unite.
Reefer does not rime with deafer,
Feoffer does, and zephyr, heifer.
Dull, bull, Geoffrey, George, ate, late,
Hint, pint, Senate, but sedate.
Scenic, Arabic, Pacific,
Science, conscience, scientific,
Tour, but our and succour, four,
Gas, alas, and Arkansas.
Sea, idea, guinea, area,
Psalm, Maria, but malaria,
Youth, south, southern, cleanse and clean,
Doctrine, turpentine, marine.
Compare alien with Italian,
Dandelion with battalion.
Sally with ally, yea, ye,
Eye, I, ay, aye, whey, key, quay.
Say aver, but ever, fever.
Neither, leisure, skein, receiver.
Never guess–it is not safe:
We say calves, valves, half, but Ralph.
Heron, granary, canary,
Crevice and device, and eyrie,
Face but preface, but efface,
Phlegm, phlegmatic, ass, glass, bass.
Large, but target, gin, give, verging,
Ought, out, joust, and scour, but scourging,
Ear but earn, and wear and bear
Do not rime with here, but ere.
Seven is right, but so is even,
Hyphen, roughen, nephew, Stephen,
Monkey, donkey, clerk, and jerk,
Asp, grasp, wasp, and cork and work.
Pronunciation–think of psyche–!
Is a paling, stout and spikey,
Won’t it make you lose your wits,
Writing “groats” and saying “grits”?
It’s a dark abyss or tunnel,
Strewn with stones, like rowlock, gunwale,
Islington and Isle of Wight,
Housewife, verdict, and indict!
Don’t you think so, reader, rather,
Saying lather, bather, father?
Finally: which rimes with “enough”
Though, through, plough, cough, hough, or tough?
Hiccough has the sound of “cup.”
My advice is–give it up!

The Use of the Name Einstein

Graph by: Lutranereis via Graph Jam Builder

Does this hat make me look fat?

Farther. Further. Some of the confusion here must surely originate from various American regional dialects: “Yup, that there cement pond is a fur piece down the road.” But we shall overcome, with help.

FARTHER denotes physical advancement in distance. Farther is literal. It exists in space.

FURTHER denotes advancement to a greater degree, as in time. Further is figurative.

Here’s how to remember the difference. Lop “ther” off and see what you’re left with: an object is far in the distance. It is not fur in the distance — unless you’re talking about roadkill.

Or whip out the adverb “furthermore” (which means “besides” or “in addition,” regarding ideas, not distance). Furthermore, “farthermore” isn’t a word, which will also help you keep them straight.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/10/technology/companies/10iphone.html?_r=1&partner=yahoofinance

The following excerpt is from a commentary by Atmospheric Scientist and Hurricane forecasting specialist Dr. William Gray. Gray is the renowned hurricane forecaster and Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University (CSU). He originally published this article on Climate Depot.

There has been an unrelenting quarter century of one-sided indoctrination of the Western world by the media and by various scientists and governments concerning a coming carbon dioxide (CO2) induced global warming disaster. These warming scenarios have been orchestrated by a combination of environmentalists, vested interest scientists wanting larger federal grants and publicity, the media which profits from doomsday scenario reporting, governmental bureaucrats who want more power over our lives, and socialists who want to level-out global living standards. These many alarmist groups appear to have little concern over whether their global warming prognostications are accurate, however. And they most certainly are not. The alarmists believe they will be able to scare enough of our citizens into believing their propaganda that the public will be willing to follow their advice on future energy usage and agree to a lowering of their standard of living in the name of climate salvation.

I am a skeptic that has heard this bull from back in 1976 to date. Prior to that in 74 and 75 we was inundated with the global ice age that was upon us and how the ice was about to push down our back door. When this did not seem to phase anyone, the same bunch of cracker heads came up with this global warming, and how by 2012 the globe would be devastated and we would all be starving to death from the lack of food and over population, I mean they painted a dooms day scenario that would make Al Gore look like a rank amateur.

Well 2010 is just around the corner and it would appear they only way these cracker heads are going to see their projections come true is if they make it happen themselves, therefore the tax and trade bill. We get taxed into poverty, and trade our freedom for their man made hell. They have two more years left to make it happen.

The recent "Climategate" revelations coming out of the University of East Anglia are but the tip of a giant iceberg of a well organized international climate warming conspiracy that has been gathering momentum for the last 25 years. This conspiracy would become much more manifest if all the e-mails of the publically funded climate research groups of the US and of foreign governments were ever made public.

That my friend is what Copenhagen is all about and the reason for the urgency.

Think I’m wrong?

Think again. If these cracker heads really believed their spew, do you think they would create more of a carbon footprint in two weeks than six small nations can in a years time just to declare the urgency of it?

No, the cost is the cost of war, the war to overthrow the prosperity of everyone but themselves. It is our money they are after in the form of government grants. They are not satisfied with the amount they have already swindled us out of. Read their email, they are not scientist, they are just mere politicians spinning their crap just like all politicians do to get elected.

The disastrous economic consequences of restricting CO2 emissions from the present by as much as 20 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050 (as being proposed in Copenhagen) have yet to be digested by the general public. Such CO2 output decreases would cause very large increases in our energy costs, a lowering of our standard of living, and do nothing of significance to improve our climate.

The cap-and-trade bill presently before Congress, the likely climate agreements coming out of the Copenhagen Conference, and the EPA’s just announced decision to treat CO2 as a pollutant represents a grave threat to the industrial world’s continued economic development. We should not allow these proposals to restrict our economic growth. Any United Nations climate bill our country might sign would act as an infringement on our country’s sovereignty.

As I said, they are mere politicians looking to fulfill their political agenda. You and I are the last thing they have on their minds, only our pocket books and bank accounts. There is not a single scientist among them.

Socialism is just a fancy word for slavery.

That is the view from here,

Duane

http://www.tuaw.com/2009/12/09/will-atandt-introduce-usage-based-pricing/

I think this could be a very good thing for Canadian iPhone users.

Rogers and the rest have tiny data limits on their plans, on the order of 500MB-6GB. Because AT&T is unlimited, there is no way we can expect to match that. But if AT&T sets reasonable data caps, like 10GB-25GB, then the Canadian carriers will be pressured to match… especially since starting in 2010 we will have FOUR carrier offering the iPhone.

Paying for usage makes sense; it’s a smart solution. The problem in Canada (and elsewhere) is that the carriers set unreasonable caps that do not keep up with technology, and are geared to maximize their profits.

I simply adore Mr. Fry’s perspective here, especially the analogy between science and software law. take a peek.

Open your herstory texts to page 3...

Ah, pronouns, those pesky, troublemaking, rabble-rousing parts of speech. What would old Strunk have thunk about all the hoo-haw regarding the perceived offensiveness of generic male pronouns?

One thing’s for sure: the use of the plural “they” as a singular generic pronoun accounts for more bad writing than Robert James Waller and L. Ron Hubbard combined, and that’s really saying something. Consider the following:

If you’re getting together with an Internet date for the first time, you may want to meet them in a public place. You also may want to bring a friend for protection — making sure they understand that they should leave if you like them.

What? Who are we talking about here? In an effort to address readers of both genders, we’ve just muddied the linguistic waters to the point of ridiculousness. I understand the whole movement toward inclusiveness — we don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings, after all. But let’s get over it already.

One way around this goofiness is to substitute “he or she” or “him or her.” This, of course, will weigh your prose down like an Acme anvil.

Another tactic is to alternate using masculine and feminine pronouns. This method can add to the convolution, plus you have to go through your document and count all the “he”s and “she”s up to make sure they’re absolutely equal.

Or you could write around it, avoiding pronouns altogether like vinyl car seats on a hot day, like so:

If you’re getting together with an Internet date, set the meeting for a public place. You may also want to bring a friend for protection — making sure the friend knows to leave if you like your date.

You could rewrite it by making the subject plural:

When you get together with your Internet dates for the first time, you may want to meet them in a public place. Bring a friend or two for protection, making sure they understand that they should leave if you like your date.

(None of it’s good writing, but I’m working with what I have, okay?)

I recently edited a client’s nonfiction book about identity theft, in which she used plural pronouns for singular subjects. After batting around several ideas, we came up with a fifth alternative. We included the following paragraph in the foreword:

Throughout this book, I refer to perpetrators using “him,” “he” and “his.” Women commit identity theft too, but in the interest of clarity and brevity, I use generic male pronouns.

Controversial? Certainly. Scandalous? Perhaps. But more importantly, we’re offending female identity thieves in a grammatically correct manner.

I want to be you're lawyer!

Your and you’re.

This one is actually a blessing in disguise, did you know that? It’s the kind of lazy mistake that often is a dead giveaway of spammers, scammers and other unsavory characters. If you’re a criminal, you don’t have the time or inclination to pay attention to silly grammar rules–you’ve got money to steal! (Or, as in my story about the lawyer who sent out a blast email blaring “SOMEDAY YOUR GOING TO NEED A LAWYER!!!”, you’ve got class akshun soots to persoo.)

Let’s start with you’re. You’re is a contraction of you are. If you’re a loyal Conan follower, then you know what that apostrophe means — it means that a letter has ducked out for a smoke break, and Mr. Apostrophe is saving its place in the buffet line. The letter that’s missing is A.

Your, on the other hand, is the possessive form of you, as in

It’s your own fault if you use you’re as the possessive form of you.

Or

Your sloppiness and inattention to detail will make you look foolish or worse if you continue to ignore the difference between your and you’re.