Naga

It was actually .gc.ca, since I'm in Canada, but still.

I've been waiting for an email from a company that I'm in the recruitment process with and your comment inspired me to check my spam folder. If it wasn't for that, I wouldn't have seen an email from a government agency looking to recruit me. So thanks!

Honestly, I was quite disappointed with it. I thought the ending was really lacking and didn't fulfill the expectations the rest of the book set up.

I loved the Baroque Cycle, but I am also a history fan so a lot of the names were already familiar to me.

Tax is included in receipts in Canada, especially since the tax usually isn't in the price listed on the shelf.

For something completely different, Amelia Rauser, "The Butcher-Kissing Dutchess of Devonshire: Between Caricature and Allegory in 1784." Eighteenth-Century Studies 36 (Fall 2002): 23-47.

If you think working on Thanksgiving is bad, the crummy retail store I work at (bookstore in Canada) is open New Years Day. Its actually open every day of the year except Christmas Day.

He means that India is a large (as in population, which is an indicator of possible industrial and economic power, military, etc) country that is a democratic country as well. That's important because democratic countries tend to align together, since public opinion matters and public opinion generally favours peace, especially against other countries that also generally want peace. So, the importance of India is that it could act as a counterweight to China in Asia. China obviously is an economic giant, but as a military power it is largely regional and has little ability to project force. A powerful India limits its abilities in Asia.

Somehow, my Galaxy Note 2 has survived the rigors of my front pocket for close to two years without bending or cracking. Phablets really aren't that big.

I think, at least where I live, that role is filled mostly by local speciality stores. I can think of a few in the Toronto area, and they don't exist outside Southern Ontario.

I've actually never had a problem fitting my Note 2 in any pair of pants I own. And I wear skinny-ish pants.

There was an book by Graham Hancock, who is known mostly for very fringe theories on aliens and history, called Underworld where he argued that flood myths, which appear all over the world, were caused by an actual great flood caused by the melting of the ice sheets over North America during the last ice age. The reason it happened instantaneously as a flood and not a gradual rise in sea levels is because, or so he argues, the ice sheet melted and pooled in the middle (as ice does) and eventually broke through the ice walls.

Then, he claims that the water didn't go anywhere and argues that we have little evidence of human civilization and agriculture before the end of the last ice age is because the cities of humanity now currently exist under the sea, in areas which were once coastline before the sea level rose. He also argues that the greatest trove of new information about humanity is underwater, which on a whole has had very little archaeological research done.

Benign in the sense that it has zero effect on the political situation of the country. The monarch plays no political role. Yes, it is a position destined for people born into it, but I see it as a symbol of both our history and the stability of our system. It's also a symbol of our shared heritage across the Commonwealth. I consider my country (Canada) to be a proud standard-bearer of our British heritage through upholding the Westminster tradition that we inherited. In some ways I feel like we are more British than the British are, when it comes to the realization of ideals. The Crown is what binds us to both our past and to our brothers and sisters around the world.

Sure, its fundamentally also a symbol of inequality and it is the ultimate anachronism today, but the role it plays in daily life is so low that I don't think it even matters. Do I feel strange being reigned over by an elderly German lady from across the ocean? Perhaps. But the alternative is radical and unpredictable change, and that I am not so excited about. I like the idea that ultimate power in the country is invested in someone who is fundamentally disinterested in politics. The Crown has no political side, only what is best for the country. I understand why people are so uncomfortable with the notion of the monarchy, but I believe it is in the best interest of our country to maintain it.

Well, besides the fact that Elizabeth II is queen of a number of independent and sovereign countries around the world, I don't think anyone would expect a non-Brit (or non-Canadian, non-Australian, etc) person to care about the way we choose to govern ourselves. Also it doesn't really matter to us what you think about it either.

Exactly. Whatever flaws can be said to exist within the Westminster system (be it in Britain, Canada, Australia, etc), without the moral cause of not being ruled by a monarch, none of them are derived from the continued existence of the monarchy. It is so benign that its existence doesn't matter. Change for change's sake is a dangerous game.

Pinterest is an extremely popular site for doing just that.

They are still legal tender actually, and stores still accept them. They are just uncommon now.

A lot of companies do this actually. Sure its not perfect, but it gives a good enough estimate.

You assume that sound quality is the only thing that matters in a pair of headphones. A lot of people care more about how they look and the branding then the sound, which is totally fine. I work in a small tech store and I've convinced people to buy better headphones to have them come back a few days later and exchanging them for Beats. Yes, they sound horrible, but different people have different needs and desires. It's not wasted money if they enjoy them, which I believe to a large part people do. Who are we to tell people they should buy headphones they don't want?

Branding and design is a legitimate category for a company to compete in and the people behind the headphones are certainly successful in it. They recognized that most people don't really care how they sound because the vast majority of people are not audiophiles and just want to look cool.

Polymer banknotes are not necessarily better. I find the new Canadian bills to be much harder to count, since they are so slippery. Also there have been reports of them melting in the heat and breaking in the cold.

One thing you come to appreciate through the study of history is that people weren't stupid. Just because they don't have iPads and blogs doesn't mean they were less capable, as individuals or as a group. If you compare the current state of elected officials today to 200 years ago, you'd come to appreciate it too.

It's actually a really interesting question, and to answer it I'll need to give a whirlwind explanation of the Canadian political system, since it is quite intricate and different from the American. It's hard to say really what would happen. The Crown (The Queen of Canada, although for all intents and purposes it really means the Governor-General) is an incredibly powerful position. The royal prerogatives, which are not really written down anywhere, since the Canadian (as well as the British) constitution is partially unwritten and based on convention, include appointing ministers (including the Prime Minister) and dismissing them at will, as well as calling and dissolving Parliament, declaring war, signing bills into law through Royal Assent, etc.

Conventionally, though, these powers are used only through the advice of the Prime Minister, since the Prime Minister has some degree of democratic legitimacy (although interestingly enough, the Prime Minister is not elected directly by the people. The Prime Minister is Prime Minister only because he is the leader of the party that was chosen by the Crown to form government) and the Crown does not, since the Governor-General is appointed by the Monarch, with the advice of the Prime Minister, and the Monarch is obviously a hereditary position. Now, if the Crown were given democratic legitimacy, say through an elected head of state, suddenly the position is empowered and the stability of the system is called into question. Maybe the Crown decides not to sign a bill into law, or dismisses a minister, or dissolves Parliament for no reason, the Crown could say that he (or she) has the mandate of the people to do so, which is obviously bad for the country.

I'm not saying its necessarily bad for the Crown to be empowered like that, just that the system is stable and strong as it is, and it is not broken, so why fix it? It throws a lot of the political system into question and unbalances the delicate balance of our constitution.

I'm actually a monarchist, but not like this. I just believe the current political system of Canada is strong and shouldn't change into a republic. I've never even heard of this movement. I hope I never have to again.

I think this is a fantastic idea. Historical sites, and history in general, are the collective property of everyone, held in trust by the historical community, be it historians in universities or tour guides at museums. We preserve history to keep it alive for subsequent generations, so everyone experience where we came from and who we are. What's the point of preserving history if it is going to be locked up in a stuffy old archive? Public engagement in history is such an important part of keeping history alive, since if no one cares about it, why should it be preserved?

But at the same time, if I give my money to these corporations, then that is X more dollars going to lobby Congress for things like SOPA that take away my freedom. It is a vicious cycle.

Not only that, but they always have a surplus of seeders and the quality of the music (or movie, or TV show, depending on the tracker) is always of the quality it says it is.

I use Wikipedia as basically an extension of my brain. I'm in a history program at university, and so many of the names and dates that are essential to it I don't actually know. I realized this when I was writing something last night. I was writing about the English Civil War, and the Restoration, and I wanted to comment on the relationship between Charles I and Charles II, and I went to Wikipedia...and it was down!I had to go to my shelf and get a book. Who does that?

That is, I think, the most salient part of the original post, one that I had never considered before. Buying anything from those organizations is effectively money going towards lobbying and DRM and all those harmful things. I had never looked at it that way before.

I'm not entirely sure, as I'm not the parent, but I'm pretty sure he meant 200 years old, not 20.

ored