Phaedrus

I wouldn't be too inclined to get hung up on exact numbers at the moment. What's really being debated at this stage is the principle of replacing the current welfare system with a flat payment made to everyone, no matter what. You can pick the numbers to suit any particular budget later on; the concept is the important thing here. You'd have to keep Revenue Canada as the government would still require income, obviously. The savings would be in the elimination of most of the vast bureaucracy that exists to hand money out again, and try and get it to the people that need it. I have no clue where you managed to get that idea from. The government could end up dishing out more money, or less, or about the same... depending on what figure you choose for the per-capita allowance. And as with government expenditures today, they can be funded by more or less taxation and borrowing. The spectre of runaway inflation has nothing to do with this conversation whatsoever. It's an interesting and innovative proposal, and a lot of sensible economists are giving it very serious thought. What's ridiculous is rejecting it out-of-hand without serious consideration. In fact, one of the things I've really liked about debates I've seen on this topic is that politicians and pundits are being forced to actually think about it, which is quite rare. On most issues there are well-established party lines and talking points for the left and the right to follow, but this issue has aspects that will appeal to both sides (and be unpopular with both sides). That makes the conversation rather more interesting than most conversations about welfare.

Never mind the draw for Brazil... what's important today is that they've just unveiled one of the new stadiums they're going to build in Qatar. Apparently it's supposed to resemble "the sails of the Arabian pearl fishing boat, the Dhow". Any resemblance to genitalia is clearly wide of the mark. Got that? Good. Glad we cleared that up.

Get well soon, OD! I bought you some flowers....

A couple of interesting articles, and an interesting take on the history of online porn Part 1 Part 2

If Old Dog wearing a dress fooled you, you must have been REALLY drunk!

Sorry to see you go... and hope to see you again, somewhere, someday.

One thing I've just found that I think is fantastic.... you can set up a watch list with the ads for all your favourite ladies in it. That means that if you tend to repeat with the same providers, or if you want to keep an eye out for someone in particular, you have your own customized list containing only the ads you're interested in.

This is kinda cool. (original source)

It really depends on the client and the SP, and the relationship between them. I'd consider an unsolicited communication from someone I'd never had any interaction with to be a bit out of order. But it's great to keep in touch with people I've seen before, and I love getting mails from them even if it's just to say hi. For the ladies who visit occasionally, it's great to know that they're coming to visit. It doesn't always mean I'll be able to see them, but at least there's a chance. The method of communication matters too. A PM here isn't the same as an email, which isn't the same as a text or a phone call. Different methods of communication may well be associated with different levels of discretion, or risk of discovery, or likelihood of being seen in a reasonable timeframe (you can text me if you like, but I won't see it until I next turn my phone on). Which method of communication is preferred will vary for different guys, too, just as it does for the ladies.

Here is a picture of a dam in Italy. Why is this interesting or amazing, I hear you ask? Zoom in... Yes, they're goats. Apparently they like to lick off the salt and other minerals in the dam wall. What could possibly go wrong? Original page here, with a couple more pics.

And what of the interests of the spa's owner, who loses the entire business if it's shut down by LE? What of all the other MAs who are suddenly out of a job through no fault of their own? What of the unfortunate client who, despite never having asked for or received anything more than a normal MA session, happened to be there when the place was raided? The MA at a spa who offers BJ/FS puts all these people at risk every time she does so, whether or not she stops for a moment to think about it. I have no doubt that the spa owners explain this to their MAs; I have equally little doubt that some MAs are more concerned with their own short-term financial gain than the long-term viability of the spa they work at. So an owner who can't control this is incompetent? I really don't get that. What controls do you think a competent owner should put in place? Do you want to be supervised during your massage? Would you prefer cameras in the rooms? If neither of these, what do you suggest?

Welcome, Anna! Enjoy your time here...

Parking in Seattle: could be made easier.

I can't help but notice that the more complimentary descriptions are in the middle of the bell curve, just where most of us are likely to end up. And I didn't see "horribly cynical" in any of them!

Or to generalize: how come the universe is the way it is? Why is it that way? I'm inclined to think the best answer to that is the weak anthropic principle: if the universe had turned out even slightly different, we wouldn't be here to ask questions like that :) It wasn't inevitable that things would turn out this way... they just did. Well... things are actually swinging back a bit, somewhat. While classical (Newtonian) physics provides definite answers to everything (in principle), quantum mechanics contains a serious loophole that you can fit a god into if you like. Rather than predicting events, quantum theory predicts probabilities of events. That means that for everything that happens at the subatomic level, you can't predict any particular result, any more than you can predict the result of a coin toss or a roll of the dice. And that leaves a lot of scope for Lady Luck, or any other deity you care to mention. Well... not yet. But I think from their posts that both Christy and Katherine would tend to disagree with the thrust of the majority of the posts in this thread, and I daresay that there are others who have chosen to say nothing but probably disagree vehemently with some of us. I'm painfully aware that some of the arguments I'm making are very much along the lines of, "This set of beliefs is just wrong", and that people who hold those beliefs are probably not going to like this very much, even if they choose to refrain from escalation. Ah, but as the gaps get ever smaller... :) Your motive are indeed irrelevant to the discussion. But since we're being scientific, your reasoning is very relevant indeed. I simply don't understand the basis for your assertion that a lack of overarching purpose to the universe precludes the existence of science. Absolutely: but that's why science has done so well over the last couple of centuries. Dissent from the current orthodoxy (provided it's backed by evidence and reason) is positively welcomed, and indeed is what leads to progress. Nothing needs to be taken on trust; everything that is asserted can be, and has been, proven - and the proof is there to be challenged by anyone who wishes to have a go. And that's precisely the opposite of how organized religion works. So what do you consider "the real motives behind science" to be? And why? Yes, this is what I'm getting at. Actually, re-reading my previous post... it's definitely suffering from having been written at stupid-o'-clock in the morning. I can only plead jetlag. Yes, I think we do.

I think that's a good question, but not of much practical use. If we're going to make sure we end up where we want to be, then the whole conversation is an exercise in futility and an utter waste of time. If you have a predetermined outcome, regardless of the evidence, then how can you possibly learn or discover anything? I think most people know this, on a gut level, and so they'll claim that they're following the first option. But as you say... Yup. Sure, it's possible. But this is where Occam's Razor comes in: given that we don't know, and have no evidence either way; it is not merely unnecessary to make stuff up; it's positively obstructive to future progress, especially when new evidence arises that contradicts the things that were previously invented without evidence but are now believed by some to be true, and people are unwilling to let go of their previous belief in the face of even compelling evidence against it. What's much better - but people seem unwilling to do - is to simply say, "I don't know." We don't have to have an explanation for everything, right now. It's OK to leave questions open. This is not to say that we can't speculate and come up with hypotheses that fit the available evidence... but we have to be prepared to ditch those hypotheses in the light of new evidence, and to be useful a hypothesis has to make predictions that can then be tested to see how correct it turns out to be. Yes. And this is where ID comes from; it's an attempt to reconcile current belief and identity with thus-far-unrefuted evidence. Alas, it doesn't work. Why on earth would you say that? We can work out how things like gravity and evolution and electromagnetism and chemistry work (and everything else, for that matter) without making assumptions or even caring about the motive or reason, if any, behind them. Now if you'd said "philosophy" then I may or may not have agreed, and if you'd said "religion" then I definitely would have done, but "science"? Not only does it carry on regardless, it's what creates this debate in the first place by challenging what had been assumed to be true for millennia.