The system obtains its energy by foraging – engaging in biologically-inspired, organism-like, energy-harvesting behavior which is the equivalent of eating. It can find, ingest, and extract energy from biomass in the environment (and other organically-based energy sources), as well as use conventional and alternative fuels (such as gasoline, heavy fuel, kerosene, diesel, propane, coal, cooking oil, and solar) when suitable.

Trust Fox News to put a neat twist to the story: Upcoming Military Robot Could Feed On Dead Bodies.

In more important news, Stephen Harper said in an interview with the Globe And Mail:

You know, there’s two schools in economics on this. One is that there are some good taxes and the other is that no taxes are good taxes. I’m in the latter category. I don’t believe that any taxes are good taxes.

The author of the article, Jeffery Simpson, proceeds to vilify the PM for what he said. Even making the link that only “libertarian anarchists” think that way:

Only libertarian anarchists believe that all taxes are bad, and that society can get along without them. But who will pay, if not citizens, for the military on which the Harper government is lavishing billions of dollars? Who will pay for the police, the courts?

[...]

Indeed, the comment hearkens back to Mr. Harper’s days shilling for the National Citizens Coalition and early years with the Reform Party, when he believed that just about everything governments were doing was bad and wasteful and led to huge deficits. Since then, and especially as Prime Minister, Mr. Harper has shelved many of those views, since a distinguishing characteristic of his government has been a reluctance to cut government spending.

It didn’t take long for The National Post’s Terence Corcoran to respond:

But what is really going on here is a mounting Liberal campaign to set the state for tax increases to cover future deficits. Liberals cannot officially plant this idea, and they would much rather have Mr. Harper bear the burden by forcing him to raise taxes. As Rev. Simpson says, donning his economic hat, “economic growth alone will not restore Canada’s balanced budget.”

If that’s true, then the real alternative is is to cut spending. Now that, in Rev. Simpson’s Liberal church, is really, really scary, scary.

Can you guess what do the articles have in common? It’s just as much about ad homiem attacks as policy debate. I want to see an intelligent discussion on taxation, it’s benefits and shortcomings.

(More below the fold)


My current assumptions on taxation are:

• Being taxed sucks. Tax is bad for business.

• Business is good for the people

• I’m not a doctor, nor an accountant, nor a construction worker, nor a policy maker. To make this country as great as we want it to be, we need professionals and experts in these fields work for society, I need to pay tax.

• You get what you pay for; you have more money to work on government programs, the better off society is. This applies to the Armed Forces as much as education.

• The government wastes a lot of money

• The private sector is greedy (it needs to be in order to work best)

• Every human is created equal and should have access to the same resources to achieve wealth

Questions I’d like to see debated:

• To what extent should the individual contribute to the whole, as opposed to relying solely on themselves? What are our goals as citizens?

• Which economic policy work to achieve our goals? Trickle down?

• What is the best balance between business and taxation to achieve our goals?

I don’t see debate as much as people sticking to whatever ideas their peers support. I do not think it is a coincidence that most political divides are geographic, it is living proof that we see things subjectively. I do not claim to be much different, however.

I wish more journalists would try to see things objectively. The problem, however, is that once a conclusion is reached, the other side of the debate will decry the author ad homiem style. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Speaking as a nearly graduated Canadian mechanical engineer, I am a staunch supporter of an American conversion to SI. At first, I was bewildered at the headline. “What?! Jeeze, I’ll do the conversion for only $100 million! How hard can it be to just keep the same parts and re-label them?” The answer is that, frankly, it really is rocket science.

First off, the Ares boosters that will be used for Constellation are derivatives of the Shuttle program. Every bit of design and testing has been conducted for these machines in Imperial units. Redesigning the connectors to the ship alone is a tough task: try training every machinist to properly measure 30.22 mm with their calipers, as they weld. Same goes for ordering parts from the hundreds, if not thousands of contracted US parts manufacturers.

Change to metric, now every bolt must be metric pitch thread, every nut must be changed to accommodate. Every calculation of mass and structural integrity has to be re-examined and re-calculated for new components. You don’t just magically say “Ok, our 3/8″ bolts are now to be called 9.525mm bolts” and call it a day.

As a Slashdot user so eloquently put it:

We’re just talking about units of measure. If it is easier to use imperial units because previous design and drawings were done in imperial, then that’s the smart choice. I would be upset if NASA was wasting taxpayer money just so that the design could be done in metric. I actually applaud NASA for making a smart, cost/benefit engineering decision.

If there’s one thing I do know, is that NASA is so underfunded that needs any bit of cash it can get.

First off, Marc Garneau delivers the Liberals’ favorable position on Net Neutrality.

(link to video)

Second, Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore (Conservative) gave a speech that I applaud wholeheartedly:

(link to video)

Today, we have Wikipedia, Google, YouTube and a new competitor, Microsoft’s Bing. Has anyone used Google Earth lately? Before my trip to Cuba, I had not an idea of the layout of Havana, but I saw photos of nearly every landmark from every angle, submitted by users.

I write this because Wikipedia is set to launch what will be, in my opinion, what takes us closest to the idea of life as The Jetsons: They will be adding video to their encyclopedia. Instead of just seeing a still photo of Rick Astley, you can watch him comment on the viral RickRolling sensation, started by the infamous 4chan (nsfw) community. I can’t wait for the buggy stage to pass and for this to really work out.

I am probably the biggest proponent of an open internet, without any censorship whatsoever. I think this is a step closer to making that information even more complete.

…

When I asked my mom that very question she gave the most popular reply: “They drive on the wrong side of the road! Heehee!”. But how many of you said that Brits drive on the opposite side, as opposed to the wrong one? Just a thought.

I thought of that when I saw this Guardian journalist review Tata Group’s new car, The Nano, the cheapest one in the world. Which goes for about $2500 CAD. Tata owns a lot of companies, from book publishers to Tetley tea to Land Rover—but it’s going through a bit of a rough time in the latest financial circumstances, due to the loan it needs to repay for recent acquisitions (which it cannot afford, so far). One of the factories set to produce the car had to be shut down. But I think this is a fantastic way to get families in India off a single moped and into an actual car.

See http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displaystory.cfm?subjectid=348990&story_id=13381522