I dont hate Mac's

No really I dont. the Mac is a great computer, powerful, stable. It's getting a larger software base, and by and large is becoming more popular.

What I hate are douchebag pretentious apple users.

Just so we're clear, i'm not saying all Mac users are douchebags, pretentious, etc. Some people buy Mac's for very valid reasons. As a multi media system (photoshop, video editing, etc) they actually are superior (hardware architecture from what i'm told is what the Mac has to thank for this).

The people I do have problems with are the ones that always say the following:
"Mac's never crash, unlike windows!"
- My Windows 7 machine has crashed once or twice since I got it

"Mac's can do anything a PC can do!"
- If you actually believe this you're either stupid or uninformed. Macs have less utility than a PC. This is become less and less the case recently as Mac has realized this and they're trying to remedy it.

"Mac users have a culture!"
- You're NOT ALLOWED to make fun of a person that plays World of Warcraft, only to turn around and join in your online Mac culture. And finally my favorite.

"Mac's aren't as over priced as you think."
- This one makes me want to pull my hair out. So what did I do? I did a price comparison right now. I used the http://www.apple.ca/ store, and I used http://www.memoryexpress.com/ to compare. This is what I came to.
*note* i used exact matches where possible. When I couldn't get an exact match I put down a decent equivalent. I did not cheap out, and I did not use sale prices when pricing out the PC. (feel free to do the same and see for yourself if you dont believe my numbers).

iMac - 27"
2.93GHz Quadcore i7 (only available on the 27", you can't get this on the 21.5" version)
2TB hard drive
8Gb 1333MHz DDR3
ATI Radeon 5750 1Gig (only option available)
CD-DVD drive/Keyboard/mouse (wireless)

PC
2.93GHz Quadcore i7
Asus P7P55 LX motherboard
2TB hard drive from seagate
8Gb 1333Mhz DDR3 Corsair
ATI Radeon 5750 1Gig
700W Gaming Power Supply
Cool Master Storm Scout Case (GOOD case)
CD-DVD drive/Keyboard/mouse (wireless)
Windows 7 OEM
Monitor - 27"



The Final Tally:
iMac - $2909.00
PC - $1554.89


The equivalent iMac is $1364.11 more expensive than the PC. I dont even have words for this.

I also like that the CHEAPEST iMac is $1299. The cheapest PC build I could make you is like... probably around $500. And if you're like 80% of people that just use their computer for e-mail, facebook and youtube, that's really all you need.

In the end here's my point.
A Mac is a computer. Dont lie, talk shit, and kid yourself trying to make yourself feel better about your purchase. If you bought it because you want to do video editing, fine. If you're a photoshop guru, giver. Not smart enough to know how to use a PC, hold your head proud in the fact that you're man enough to admit when you simply dont know. Hell, some people just like Mac's better. NOTHING wrong with ANY of these reasons.
To end this Blog post... there's a running joke that explains very well why PC users hate Mac users.

What the different between a Mac user and a PC user.
A PC user can go 5 minutes without talking about his fucking computer.

Genetically Engineering food - Satan or Savior?

So I hear about genetically engineered foods a lot these days. People seem overly worried about it. I have to admit I dont get the reasoning behind it. This is going to be a bit of a short post as well. Honestly I dont know much about this particular topic, but everything I've read points to nothing really.

I'm going to start this one with a disclaimer as well. The blog name is "Logical Lros". It is only logical that if you're going to dispute anything you show evidence to back up your claims. That's what I'm actually looking for here.

So we're going to go first to people thinking Genetically Engineering food is bad. And in particular, the Salmon that's coming out. So we have this company that has seen a world crisis that is trying to do something to change it. They're made a fish that reaches peak size in about half the time as current fish do. This would allow us to feed a larger amount of people.
There are those who protest this, calling them "Franken-fish" and talking about how unnatural it is. This isn't the way nature intended (comment about this statement further down). People fear that which has been created by man, not nature. This will likely go further on as well. There are companies in the states trying to grow pork; literally JUST pork. Not a pig, no brain, no organs, just growing the meat (would vegetarians be able to eat this?).

For those who think the above isn't safe, I request an answer to this question: why? I haven't read anything, ever, that shows there are any real dangers to this. All I ever hear is that it's unnatural, that we shouldn't be doing this, that we dont know all the dangers, that blah blah blah. When I read news articles about it these people throw out fake numbers that can't be substantiated in anything I can find anywhere, yes people typically believe them because "It's in the news! How can it not be true?!"

So we've determined that there is no evidence showing genetically engineering food poses a danger, just peoples fear (And please, if there is any evidence, correct me. I've never seen any myself). But what about evidence of the positives of genetically engineered food?

I'll try to find an article on it, but the most prevalent thing I know of is corn. If I remember correctly corn is the first thing even to be fully mapped genetically. They're growing corn in some countries that innoculate people against certain viruses and diseases.

So my ask is this. Are there any REAL dangers here? I dont want "we dont know the long term effects" or "it's not natural" because yes... yes it is.

Humans, by defauly, ARE natural. We evolved in nature (or if you're religious made by god... which if everything is made by god... well you know where this is going). So if humans are made by natuire, why in the world would our actions be considered unnatural? Is a gopher hole in which a gopher lives unnatural? Is a bids nest unnatural?

My biggest issue with Genetic Engineering is this. If we shouldn't do it... WHY is it so easy? If we weren't supposed to do it it should be impossible.

Give me your thoughts! I'll be waiting and watching.


Quote of the day:
"Dont believe in me, believe in the you that believes in me!"

Dont hit a woman? Says who?

There is no right or wrong answer to this question outright. Your opinion on one part of this whole topic would affect the entire outcome.

First I want to delve into a side topic.

Equal rights.

This is actually the part that bugs me the most about this whole thing. Allow me to explain... and this doesn't go beyond the main topic either, so I'll try and keep my ranting to a minimum.
A very large hypocritical statement from a number of women is "we deserve equal rights". This statement is ONLY being made to the hypocrits. Don't assume I'm talking about you just because you're a girl and I'm being controversial. Here's what I mean.

Women want equal pay in the workforce. They want equal right in the court system, and *gasp* they want to vote! I completely agree with all of this. What I have is a problem with women who want equal rights one moment, then play the hurt innocent woman role the next. You can't pick and choose, otherwise not only are you degrading your cause, but you're making it worse because people will actually start mocking it.

So here we come to where your opinion changes the outcome.
Are you a pacifist? Do you think that no one deserves to be hit and that there's always another outcome and peace love truth justice and the american way? Would be nice, although it's unrealistic. I do think like this. I've never been in a fight really, I hate the thought of hitting people. If this is you then yes, I agree, women dont deserve to be hit, but you should ALSO think neither do men.

Are you a person that thinks it's ok to hit someone, depending on the circumstances? If so then yes you should be able to hit a girl. If a guy spits in your face and you'd smash him one, I see nothing wrong with doing the same to a girl. If a girl hits you you should be able to hit her back. I've NEVER understood some of these people where a guy gets slapped in the face over and over again by a woman, and the guy finally hits her once, and everyone freaks out because "you should never hit a girl". That actually angers me that people think women should be able to get away with stuff like that, but still treated equally in other ways.

Equality isn't a grey area, it's pretty black and white. You either want it or you don't. So pick which before the next time you treat someone horribly. If you think your actions would get you punched out if you were a guy doing the same thing... maybe avoid doing that.


P.S. Perez Hilton isn't human... feel free to hit him as much as you want. Anyone who makes a career our of hurting and belittling others for others enjoyment should be caned.

Burning the Qur'an - Mosque at ground zero

1 blog post, 2 topics, obviously both related.

To start with, so everyone knows, I'm pretty Aethist. I think there might be a *something* out there, but there's no proof. (and no... there's no proof, at all, period. If anyone argue's this I'll make it my next blog post).


We're going to start with the burning of the Qur'an.
Basically my opinion on this can be summed up by saying "Terry Jones, you're a fucking doucheclown". We have this guy, this fake pastor, with his tiny cult following that claim they're god fairing, loving christians, who prepare to perform this act that will endanged people. This guy is putting the lives of people at risk. The US embassy is already under protest in Jakarta, and at risk of possibly being attacked.
Another problem with this, and it's unfortunate that a lot of Muslims can't differentiate this, is that the entire US isn't at fault for the actions of a small group of invalid psychopaths. Best case scenario these people would be causing rioting, mass anger, and people will get hurt. Worse case scenario is extremists will start killing to protest these people.
Terry Jones, as a "Christian", how can you continue this act knowing you're risking the lives of people by your actions? You disgust me. At best, you should be thrown in jail, at worst you should be flown to Jakarta and left outside the gates of the US embassy with a letter of apology tied around your neck from President Obama for allowing you to do what you're doing for longer than it takes to send a group of soldiers to take you out.


Next up, the Mosque at ground Zero. This is a tough one.
We have the people who want the mosque not thinking they're doing anything wrong, and we have the people opposed to it who feel threatened by a symbol of what happened becoming a permanent fixture.
Basically you're both wrong.
The group that is building the Mosque, I understand you're not doing this as a slap in the face, but a lot of people take it that way. You need to be understanding about peoples feelings in this. If anything else needs to be explained thent here's really nothing else I can say in this that would help you understand.
At the same time, everyone that's protesting this Mosque is showing the same level of intolerance and hate that led to the attacks on 9-11 in the first place. By saying they're not welcome there you're lumping them into the same group of people, just like if they were to lump all white people into the same group as some of the people that we hear about, military people raping others, murder, etc. Yes I realize this is a poor example but my point is the same.
Both groups should concede in this. The protestors should apologize for their bigoted intolerance, and the mosque should understand peoples hurt and relocate to a place that others wont be upset about. And neither group should do this because their opinion is right, or better, but just out of understanding.

My last point... expecting people to be caring and understanding about others is the biggest joke that exists. No wars have killed more people on this planet than those causes by religious beliefs. Christians who "love thy neighbour" only do so when convenient it seems. When it actually comes to something serious their whole belief structure is thrown out the window. I'm pretty sure the same kind of stuff can be said about some muslim people, but I dont really know enough about it to say either way. (not being mean or insulting, but every religion is full of loopholes... and humans are too flawed to do good all the time).

This situation, both of them, will end badly. I desperately hope they dont, but hoping that religious people act in a caring understanding way is like hoping bullies will suddenty realize one day that nerds have feelings too.

Generic Calculation - the cold truth

If you dont believe in science and evolution please leave now, this post is not for you.
Get! Shoo!

What we now know is humans began evolving at the time of the dinosaurs. Millions of years of slight genetic mutations shifting over and over and over again to bring us to where we are now. There are a few things we have to thank for this. This main thing is survival of the fittest. This works alongside evolution by the following method:
2 tribes of proto-humans (ooga booga tribe and booga ooga tribe).
1 tribe starts evolving with longer legs.
1 tribe starts evolving with stronger arms.
*insert Startrek music here where Spock and Kirk fight on Vulcan, and a large group of fighing neanderthals*
stronger arm tribe wins.

The genetic code that would have continued with the long legged tribe is now destroyed, and the strong armed genetic code continues. The concept is that the idea behind longer legs isn't as advantageous as having stronger arms.

Now what ended up happening later on is physical characteristics were beaten by the mental part of the body... or, the brain. Survival of the fittest no longer means physically strong, but mentally too. And this strength is actually becoming a genetic weakness.

With intelligence we gave birth to individual thought, love, hate, anger, remorse, pity.
With these we create laws, morality, and ethics.
And with these we gave birth to Survival of the weak.

Now try to keep in perspective, this is all about genetics, evolution, and the strengthening of the human race. I'm not being mean, this isn't hateful, and there are no racist undertones here.

Child born. Child has downsyndrome. (testing now can detect this in the first trimester, giving the parents the option of aborting or not). What to do with child? Does this child deserve to be love and nurtured? Be a part of a family, a life, a home. Most definitely. But their genetic structure is compromised, and by default, there will typically be a genetic proneness to the mother or the father.
"But Kris, are you saying we should sterilize new borns because of genetics defects?"
Yes I am. Im not going to sugar coat it. I'm not going to pretend this isn't as bad as it sounds either. It's a cold thought, but one that has meaning, and purpose.

Now keep in mind also, i'm not saying to steralize children that have minor issues, most people do. But serious genetic abnormalities should not be allowed to continue.

Why would we want to give onto our children major genetic risks, so that they can continue to pass it on, and so on, and so forth.

Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you want to look at it) we allow this to continue. Left unchecked it risks becoming so wide spread that it will affect the entire polulace. Most people dont see the risks yet because of the same reason that most people didn't see the risks about the environment at first.
How can you polute the air? It's Air! There's way too much air to be able to polute it all. 50-70-100 years later now look at us. People see the polution in the air, the water, even the earth. This is the same basic thing. If wont make a difference, there's too many people. Then in one hundred years where 1 of every 2 people are both with genetic dispositions people will see how widespread this is capable of becoming. (realistically speaking we're probably talking a thousand years, but i'm not totally sure).

My viewpoint is actually shared with quite a few people, and not even necessarily bad people either. We've even see entire civilizations share a much harsher version of this. The Spartans would sterilize your child... they would take your baby from your womb. The mother would bathe the child in wine. If it didn't die from that the child was inspected. If it was "puny or deformed" they would throw it into the chasm of Mount Taygetos. Hell i'm just saying make it so they dont spread their defective genetics.

Personally, I feel if something simular to this isn't created soon, the long term consequences of the human race will be disasterous.

Idiots are not heros!

Todays blog revolves around this JetBlue flight attendant who in "the peoples hero" by freaking out on some people, pulling an emergency slide with 2 beers in hand, and fluttering away like a giant douche-canoe.

Here's a recent story about it:
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/846995--the-anti-slater-how-one-flight-attendant-handled-an-on-board-free-for-all?bn=1

Ok so the jist is as he accounts:
2 passengers were fighting. Slater steps in, gets hit in the head with a piece of luggage and absolutely looses it. Grabs 2 beers, pulls the emergency slide, slides down to the tarmac, drives home. At this point he's arrested for multiple charges.

What makes him even more of a douchebag is that reports are coming out that show that he might have been lying. That he was in fact the one that started the fight.


That aside, assuming he was telling the truth, he's not a hero, and doesn't deserve anyone's pity or cheer.

Imagine if you may; You call TELUS because your long distance has been suspended and you're told it's because you didn't pay your bill. A system error caused us to not send a bill for a few months so you weren't getting it. As a customer this is still your fault. You didn't receive a bill, didn't call us to let us know you weren't getting them, and didn't answer when we called to let you know your bill wasn't paid (you seriosuly dont have a voicemail?).
You call in pissed because you think it's not fair, you were going to call your mother today because she's not feeling well and now you can't. You get angry at the agent on the other end of the phone.

1) You're in customer service. You know you are... you know you're going to get yelled at from time to time. It happens. Don't act like "this isn't what i signed up for" because yes, it is.
2) Your job is to help this customer. Let him rant and then do your job. Take a payment and get his service back up. Come on, yes this is partially our fault, but the customer did have a responsibility here as well. He still has a right to be mad... he misses his mom.
3) Stressful call? Take a breather, short walk, talk to your manager, then take the next call.

But no, the TELUS rep calls you an idiot for not calling us when you didn't get your bill, a fuck tart for thinking it's our fault, and ends the call by telling you to go die in a fire! After hanging up on you, the rep goes into the systems and cancels phone/internet/tv JUST to spite you. (to my knowledge this has never happened, just a made up scenario)

This is something that reps with ALL telecommunication companies would just LOVE to do with some people that call in. Do we? NO! Because this is horrible! Doing something like this wouldn't make you awesome, or a hero, it would make you the biggest dick to grace the company you're with.


Now lets return this back to this idiot. After all that's happened with airplane security, 9-11, homeland security, etc. he still has the odacity to pull something like this. Was it worth it? Was getting hit in the head by a piece of luggage worth going to jail?

The sad thing is this guy is going to have massive amounts of support by people who think what he did was commendable. If you can't handle the job you're doing, quit. This is just pathetic.

Also, if the new information coming out about him being the one who started the fight turns out to be true... Fired, fined, jail time should be mandatory... and if anyone on that plane wants to sue him to undue stress (after all, they were on a plane, omg is it a terrorist? I haven't been able to sleep since then)... i wouldn't blame you.

What do you guys think?

Young Fat and Fabulous... or...

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/SciTech/20100729/young-fat-fabulous-100729/


Ok so as I said on facebook, this one might generate some hate towards me. There are a couple things to remember before going into this:

1) I dont hate plus sized girls/people.
2) This blog is actually about something. Take it at face value and dont read into it.
3) Umm... i think that's it actually. And yes, please feel free to respond.

Basically the story above is discussing how there is clothing made for plus sized girls. Totally fine. Bigger people need bigger clothes, the market exists, so make it. But i'm worried that articles like these are relaying a dangerous message.

As I see it (and please correct me if i'm wrong) there are two types of plus sized people. There are people with legitimate medical problems (thyroid issues, glandular, disabled, etc) and there are people who are lazy and eat horribly (and i guess there's a hybrid as well, someone with a mild medical problem who eats sorta-bad).

The first group of people aren't who I'm going to concentrate on here. It's still important to eat as well as you can and exercise and etc, and some of you do and it's very hard to manage. Please don't ever feel negative about this as sometimes you just can't control this.

This is about the second group. North America (specifically the USA more than Canada) is basically considered a Haven for "fat people" the world over, and is a giant joke. Even people that go to the States from Canada come back and one of the things they take away from their trip is "it's a fat Country" (thats a quote from a friend of mine who recently came back).


So lets come right out and say it... it's not ok to be fat! And this isn't just a Kris opinion either, this is a pretty common opinion in many important facets of society, like Doctors and health professionals, schools, etc. Now here's where some of the distinctions are in this post.

I'm not talking about people who are a bit over weight. No one's perfect right?

So... I always put in both sides of the coin in my arguments, so time for the flip.

Recent studies have shown that eating for some people is literally as addictive as herroine. The brain produces simular reactions in some people while eating as it produces while shooting herroine. Their bodies even produce withdrawl reactions when food taken from them. For someone like this eating healthier and eating less is no longer a matter of "just do it" but it's now a situation where they need help to in many cases.


Here's my main issue. It seems that being overweight these days is becoming a social norm, acceptable, and in some rare cases encouraged! (See Maury Povich and the woman TRYING to become the worlds largest). Overweight people are a drag on the medical system as they typically get sicker more often (heart attacks, breathing issues, sleep apnea, etc.). Stories like these almost seem to be trying to tell people "you're overweight? dont worry about getting healthy again, just think about how good we can make you look in these new pants!!" which is a horrible message to be sending people. Is this just a matter of because it's food that causes the issue it's acceptable? If it is about an addictive nature does that mean we should start showing drug addicts and alcoholics how it's ok to be like that?

In closing, if you are one of these plus sized people and i've insulted you, I really am sorry. The intent or what I've written today is meant to show this is something we need to change, and not in a way that seems to be happening. I know it's hard, and I do sympathize as I know people who struggle with their weight.

Let me know what you think. Obviously I dont think i'm wrong, but if you do, let me know, and tell me why.

Just ask yourself this. Would you rather work hard and be healthy? Or dont and risk dying young?

The G8/G20 summit cost - Canada vs US

This is going to be a very VERY short blog posting, but I would like to ask a quick question.

Firstly, i'm not a person who complains about politics a lot. Ohhhh! I'll talk about why in a blog soon and get some opinions about that.

Anyways, not into politics, but I'm really dissapointed in how Canada budgeted the G8 Summit costs. In a news article I read:

News agency Ria Novosti notes that the 2009 U.S. G20 summit cost US$18 million, while Canada's pricetag for the meetings was well over $1.1 billion.
"Thus Canada will spend 51 times more than the US did just a year ago to protect G8 leaders from Canadians," the agency writes.


So my questions... why? Why did our government feel the need to spend this kind of money. Why did we decide that we needed to spend well over a Billion dollars more than the states did just last year? Do you not realize what you could have done with that money? How many lives you could have saved, hungry mouths you could have fed, scholarships you could have set up? The economic stimulus you could have created with that money, hell even put it into Canada's small but decent space program, scientific research.

Question for people that read this. Why? Does anyone have the SLIGHTEST idea why we wasted an extra billion dollars on something the states was able to do with 1/51 less money?

So a swiss man walks into a train station...

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20100625/singapore-caning-sentence-100625/

Thanks Oliver Fricker for the story, I'm now going to ridicule you.

So a swiss man walks into a train station... sounds like the beginning of a bad joke, and in part it kind of is. This man goes to Singapore with a friend and proceeds to vandalise a subway car. Here are a few snippets from the news article I need to post before proceeding.

"Singapore sentenced a Swiss man to three strokes of a cane and five months in prison..."

"...reinforcing the city-state's reputation for severely punishing minor crimes. "

"He feels the sentence is too high, and so do I," Kang told reporters."


Ok so my big problem with this situation is this. We have a guy that goes to a country. He either did 1 of 2 REALLY stupid things. He didn't check to see what the punishment for breaking a law like this is before performing the crime, OR he knew that Singapore is extremely hard on crime and decided to do it anyways.

Now my assumption in this situation is that we're dealing with the latter portion of this. He knew the country was hard of criminals, and just thought he'd ninja-grafiti a subway car and not get caught. But since he did, now he's whining that the laws are too strict and wants leniency.

No. This is ridiculous. First of all, you committed a crime, something which you knew was a crime, as I'm pretty sure there's no where on the planet that this would actually be legal. Second of all you did it in a country that's know for it's strict penaties on crime. Not only known for being strict, they're also knows for flipping other countries the bird when they ask them to play nice.

Singapore is it's own country, with it's own political system, and it's own set of laws. We should either respect how they handle affairs within their country, or dont visit. Another fairly obvious option would be if you dont want to get in trouble, dont break the law.

In closing, I completely agree with the punishment, those are their laws. The country worked hard to get where they are, so if you go and visit them, show them the respect they deserve.

What does law and punishment even mean?

Hi, I'm *insert criminal name here*. I have committed a crime. The court system has declared me guilty of, lets say assault. They have deemed that an appropriate punishment for this crime is 8 months in prison, community service. During my incarceration I have been told I need to take anger management classes to control my violent tendencies and see a counselor.

6 months later I have been released on good behavior. The counselor says I am able to control myself better now. I am a model citizen, caring, responsible. Yet there are still people who believe I am a bad person, deserving to stay in prison, rot, or maybe even die.

The Justice system has been designed so that a certain punishment fits a certain crime. If I speed I get a ticket. If I punch you in the nose, I get an assault charge and community service. If I sell drugs I go to jail for a year, rape or murder your friend I go to jail for life. So why when people are done their terms do people still think poorly of them? How can you tell the difference between the good and the bad?


Karla Homolka. Oh Noes!! Kris is going to say something horrible now!!!

Ok so Karla Homolka did a lot of horrible things... no one denies this. Did she deserve the death penalty for it? I don't know enough about what happened to say either way, but she probably did. But I do have a problem with what the government is doing about her right now.

The government, by proxy of a judge, sentenced this woman to a punishment that "fit the crime"... atleast that's the idea behind the whole system right? So when she tried to get a pardon why does the government freak out? Because the public wants it? So if the government didn't believe her punishment was enough, why did they let her out?

Now please don't confuse this statement with me saying I believe she should be let off and allowed to do as she pleases. But really, why shouldn't she? She was in jail for the amount of time the government said was an appropriate punishment for her crime. This doesn't just go for her, it goes for every criminal that has this happen to them. If you're going to give these people special "fuck you" privileges, maybe the system doesn't work. Maybe you fucked up in the first place and you didn't give these criminals the appropriate punishment, not enough jail time, etc etc etc.

So my question to all the people that read my blog is this. What's wrong with this picture?
Are we not penalizing criminals enough?
Are we not rehabilitating them enough?
Are we being too hard of them?

And finally... what's more broken? The Criminals we incarcerate, the Justice system that can't seem to get it right, or Society for not seeing any of this for its truth?

Why aliens would only be a threat if they were dicks...

So with Hawkings releasing recently about why we shouldn't broadcast our presense, I felt the need the weigh in on this topic. You know, because a part of me thinks I know more about Stephen-the-man-Hawkings right?

Really the only reason aliens would be a threat is because they were dicks. BUT, this is actually pretty viable. Lets look at some of the reasons we've seen in the past as to why aliens have come to be a problem.

1) Colonization
Other than being jerks this is actually somewhat of a valid threat, which is why i'm touching on it first. An overful planet of oxygen breathing life forms then starts to spread out looking for habitable planets. This is definitely a possibility. But there are a LOT of holes in this idea.
a) The air we breathe consists of 0.03% Carbon Dioxide, 0.93% argon, 20.95% oxygen and 78.09% Nitrogen. Followed by trace amount of all other kinds of fun stuff. Too much oxygen would be lethal to humans as i'm sure it would be to aliens if there was too much or not enough. At different atmospheric pressures the percentages of there different airs we need change to allow them to absorb into our system. There's a LOT of factors that make the air we breathe specific to earth life.
b) Gravity is a bitch! So is air pressure. If any of these are off by even say... 50% higher? That's a HUGE different, and not difficult to have happen on a planetary level.
c) Pre-existing life could be lethal. If a planet is perfect for human life, what does that mean? It means there's already life on the planet. This isn't a "maybe" scenario either. Our planet filtered itself because of the life in it, plants slowly filtering the air, evolving it to evolve. What if one of the microbes on the planet we go to think certain parts of our brain taste like candy, or LOVE bonding to the cells of our lungs? yup, D...E...D... ded.

2) Gold!
Ok the most people probably dont get the reference because the movie was sooooooooooo bad. In Battlefield Earth the race of giant aliens (played by Scientologists) wants earth gold.
So imagine this scenario if you will. You're a gold farmer... you're positive there's 20 pounds of gold 100 feet deep, so you get your shovel out and start shoveling. At the 10 foot mark, you slam into a gold vein containing tens of thousands of pounds of gold... but nope, you completely ignore it because you want the 20 pounds of gold much further down. That giant vein of gold you first hit is known as the Kuiper Belt. It's a giant asteroid field orbiting the solar system slightly past Pluto. It's full, FULL of asteroids that have all the metals you can possibly imagine. There are also giant chunks of methane and ammonia which can be used as fuels, water for drinking etc etc. Also, to reach the Kuiper belt, you have to fly past the Oort cloud, which is, again, a MASSIVE space of asteroids. Now yes, the Oort cloud has never been directly observed, but mehh, lets pretend.

3) The hassle vs the technology.
There are only like... 3 ways an alien civilization could get here, and only one of those ways in which things would really be an issue.
a) FTL (faster than light travel)
b) spacial travel (worm holes, teleportation, etc)
c) Generation ships
FTL ships I dont think would be a bother. Oh there's a planet, oh there's life on it, the next habitable planet on sensors is 3 days that way... off we go.
Spacial travel same thing, they'd just warp to the next place on the map.
Generation ships might be anxious. But even then, a generation ship that makes it all the way here without killing one another, i would think, would be a tight knit community. This, to me, would be a situation of a group of people who have strong loving ties, some would want to stay (assuming our gravity, air pressure and composition, and microbes wouldn't be letal to them) some would ask for help and leave.

In the end, I could easily see civilizations living in places like the kuiper belt. Effectively umlimited resources, you could spread out as far as you wanted. The technology that a civilization would attain by this time I would think would allow for super fast terraforming so like... Come here, terraform Mars, and we have buddies we can borrow sugar from.

Like I said, the only people that would have any reason to be a threat would be a civilization full of dicks. This being said though, a civiliation that does have the technology to make it all the way here wouldn't be defeated by a high pitched country folk song, or water, or anything really. We would just either wake up one day and they'd have won, or we wouldn't wake up.

So to Hawkings, I do agree. The risk of total anhilation, although seemingly low, isn't worth that risk. It's a shame though, first contact with a species of good willed people who just want to know they're not alone in the universe, would be spectacular.

I'd like a Seal sandwich... and can you club that for me?

You know, because when you club a sandwich you get tomato and lettuce and... yeah i'm going to hell...

Ok so this is the primary focus of todays Blog, which was going to start out to be just sealing, but will now be primarily about protestors. And I promise i'll enrage someone soon so keep reading.

This year there is a quota of 330,000 seals to be killed. Sealing-protestors (and not all) dont want any killed.

But this is a debate right? There are pro and cons, reasons why they should and shouldn't be killed. That's how a debate is supposed to go. Measure the pro's and the con's, and meticulously determine which is the right step to take. But the sealing-protestors dont see why it's needed, they just see white snuggly soft seals on their snow white snow with hellish red blood spilled everywhere. And baby seals are totally super cute for the record.

Now this isn't just a jab at sealing-protestors either... it's a jab at all protestors. Abortion protestors for example, stating their causes for pro-life... by blowing up clinics and killing people (again, not all do this). When they're told that there isn't even brain activity until th 4th tri-mester their main argument is "you're killing the potential of life". So does this mean you're abhorently against condoms and masturbating? Becuase you're killing the potential?

Now not all protesting is bad either. Infact I'd probably say that all non-violent, well thought out protesting is good. To be so passionate about something that you would dedicate so much time and energy into it, in some cases dedicating your very life to it is amazing, and quite honestly something I've never had the grace to experience. An old old friend, next door neighbour is very much like this. She has so much passion, so much drive. I might not agree with her all the time, but she does it in a way that actually makes her credible and that people would listen to what she says.

Ok so why is sealing good? Well for starters, the basic need to hunt seals stems directly from man. We both have a common food source, fish. Salmon to be specific if i remember correctly. So what happens if we just leave the seals alone? Well, the 330,000 seals that are alive eat more fish, depleting our own food source. They reproduce, next year there's more, etc etc etc. It's at a point that the seals would actually eat themselves out of food. Not to mention they would eat a lot of food that people would also eat. And a large percentage of the world depends on the food from these areas. Not to mention the food that we actually get from the seals.

However...

Running up to a seal, smashing it's skull, taking it on the boat while it's still alive, skinning it alive, and throwing it's still moving body into the freezing water so it can freeze to death while it drowns is absolutely horrendous. Realistically speaking how sealing should work is simular to how other slaughter-type areas are "supposed" to work. And I say "supposed" because we all know the actual conditions of some of these chicken coops and cattle farms.

If we're going to keep doing this (which really we have to) it should be done humainly and as pain free as possible. We should use all the seal meat, there should be VERY strict guidelines to how this works. Spiked clubs though? Really come on!

Stopping all sealing is impossible the way things are now. You'll never get the government to do it. So the faster you realize this, the faster you can make the changes that actually can (and should) happen.

A Final Message:
To the protestors. Your passion is admirable, and your drive is inspiring, but you need to use enough thought to realize which battles can be won, and which ones can't. There are a lot of people that do this already, but there are alot (like PETA) who dont, and just attack anyone who does something even remotely wrong. Take this fantastic drive that you have and start using it towards actual achievable goals. If you do this, the good and amazing changes you could do would be world changing. Yes we know you want more, and there's nothing wrong with you message, but when it comes to the fight, fight for what you can change, and change it what you will see.

Stupidity breeds stupidity

So to start off with, this blog isn't going to be as long as I would normally like something about this to be. Why you might ask? Because if I go too out of control my head will explode after attempting to clean the earth of the plague know as "the dumb".

So lets start with point one. The Law.
WAY TOO BROAD! So i'm going to give some good examples of things just to get the ball rolling, and then your brain can fill in the rest.

So here's a good example of stupidity. Saw a post recently about someone talking about jay walking and how they do it all the time. This actually I think is fine if you're a smart individual (the person who jay walks I do believe is smart).

Laws are basically created for 3 reasons.
1) To protect nice people from bad people.
2) To protect stupid people.
3) To make money.

Protecting nice people from bad people is a given. Making money is kinda show by stuff like... in canada the fastest speed you can travel is 110km/h, but there isn't even a car made today that can't go faster than that... because like... if you can't give people tickets for speeding, the cops bring in a LOT LESS money.

Protecting stupid people. When that person made the post about jay walking, someone actually commented "this law didn't exist with horse and buggies, why does it need to now?" REALLY? whens the last time you saw a steady group of horses travelling at 100km/h? Like, this is ridiculous. Laws like no jaywalking are made to protect people too stupid to see the actual dangers that exist in society. Smart people know to look both ways, make sure it's safe, and cross. If a cop sees something like this and you're being safe about it, great! But for everyone that's careful about it, there's someone else that tries to run across Deerfoot during rushhour, or bolting across the street and cars are slamming on their brakes. People die from jaywalking all the time remember... because they're too stupid to look both ways, hence the need for the law. Laws like no texting and driving is a good example too. People need to learn to use their brains more.

It's like warning labels. There was a food processor a while back that actually had a warning on it to not insert your penis into it. why did this warning label exist? Because someone actually did it and the company that made them added it to prevent a lawsuit. Oh and dont even GET ME STARTED about law suits! Suing a company for making your coffee actually hot? Suing a home owner because you broke your leg when you slipped on some ice when running away from them because you were caught robbing their house? The Legal system enables criminals to be criminals, and protects stupid people so much that it shows them they dont need to actually think and use their brains, because if something is made so that a 3yr old can't understand it, just sue. *thumbs up* pricks...



Point number two: Fox News.

What in the hell is this crap? (as you can see i'm getting agitated already, hehehe). This is a station that has just about as much merit as the National Enquirer. A News organization is supposed to be something that directs people to what the actual news is. When you give a half assed story, and then have some moronic Idiot like Nancy Grace or that other douche-canoe Bill Reiley ranting for 20 minutes about their own moronic half assed opinion that all it does it feed the fire of baseline human stupidity for the inbred clowns from the southern states who actually eat this crap like sugar coated cheerios laced with speed, all you're doing is forcing idiot behaviour and thoughts into the general populous. These are people that have pushed their own opinions onto the public mind so hard and so harshly that people have killed themselves, and they're too ignorant and self absorbed to realize it. The Darwin awards exist for a reason and I hope very much that these two manage to win themselves this award. Unfortunately since the law tends to protect stupid people...



Point number three: The internet

This one is pretty self explanatory. If you want to see a group of people that are just completely stupid, just read the comments section of any news site. It's full of people so obsessed with blowing out their own opinions that they simply dont want to even attempt to understand what the actual point is. If this isn't the fact with some of these people their ridiculous opinions are actually real, making me shocked to the point of wondering how these people have survived into adulthood remember simple concepts like eating during the day. It's a good thing that breathing is an bodliy, involuntary act otherwise these people would have suffocated a LONG time ago.

I wish I had some examples of this, but seriously it's not needed. Go to www.ctv.ca and check out the comments section of any news article that's been around long enough for a good spread of comments if you want to see what i'm talking about.


I'm going to leave it here. Feel free to input in any way you'd like. I'd really like to have some people give their opinions on some of these things.

Give me your thoughts!

Damn you have a sexy genome!

Ok so there's 4 things i'm going to go over in this post.

1) Genetic attraction.

So this is something I've actually thought about for many years now. There might be scientific merit, there may be studies on it (i honestly haven't read it there are) but i'm going to state my opinion, and then flow into my next topic.

So why do I find blonde girls hotter than brown but my friend doesn't. Tall girls or short girls? Skinny or chubby? Freckles, pale, lips, eyes etc etc etc. If you actually ask a person why they like blondes over brunettes, they probably can't even tell you themselves why.
So what if it's caused by your genetics? So instinctually my body determines that a blonde girl has a certain gene that would would increase the chances of strengthening my offspring over someone who has brown hair, for example.

In this theory, genetic diversity plays a factor in this as well. Now this isn't meant to be bad or anything, so if I use any politically incorrect terminology it's not intended. I'm probably one of the least racist people you'll ever meet so I dont even know the correct things to say some time (or what's sometimes incorrect to say).

Usually I notice that women that have that incredibly attractive "exotic" look come from a mixing of cultures, known by some people as "half breeds". Now I dont have any good examples off the top of my head, but this usually falls into the realm of black/white, asian/white, black/asian, etc. Also keep in mind this isn't a stead fast rule, just an observation i've noticed (and had people agree with). The reason I think this is is because our instincts recognize this as a wide genetic variance, something that can help with strong genetic offspring.

Essentially... it's all about making babies.
*disclaimer* this isn't always going to be the case, but it's an interesting theory i think?

2) Genetic manipulation

Ma n Pa are about to have a brand new baby boy. But they wanted a girl. And *gasp* it's going to be a red head!! That's unacceptable (ps. i like red heads, hehehe). So they go to the doctor, and after a couple treatements while in the womb, their potential red-headed boy, is now going to be a much taller brown haired girl (with green eyes).

Now... just to get this out right now, I honestly dont know what to think of this. I'd like to say I dont think it's an issue, but at the same time, I dont know if it is. Like for stuff like you wanted your child to have a different hair color, mehh, whatever. But making your child a different sex, or more intelligent, or more outgoing... these are personallity traits that shouldn't be controlled by science (unless you're correcting for a genetic abnormality).
Now i'm not saying we should stop genetic manipulation of fetal development either. Advancement in this field is still an amazing idea. Imagine getting pregnant after trying to so long, being so happy about it, and then find out your child has Down Syndrome. Very sad day. Now imagine the same situation, and by simply giving you a retro-virus injection, they can correct the issue. Sad day turns back into happy day.

There are always "good and bad" about scientific advancements. The Nuclear bomb brought us nuclear power (good). Coal power brought us global warming (bad). Hair spray makes girls look pretty but causes holes in the ozone layer. Genetic manipulation is no different.


3) Stem cell research

Why... in the world... is this bad?
So there's an argument about this stating that stem cell research is morally wrong because it requires the destruction of a "living" fetus. And since that's the main issue, a lot of people just DONT WANT TO HEAR ABOUT IT ANYMORE.

Now, something that really has always bothered me about people and their argument of ethics is that they make their primary argument, and that's that, they dont want to hear anymore about it.

In the United states, there are clinics that specialize in Invitro Fertalization. This means you take a bunch of sperm, a bunches of eggs, mix them, watch them, and then you implant the ones that start successfully fertilize to the Uteral walls, and wait for babies. If I remember my numbers correctly, these clinics throw out as many as 300 eggs a day that are successfully fertilized. Of these 300 per day, at the stage they dispose of them in, they're almost entirely stem cells. So instead of using them for life saving research, they are throwing them away because it's illegal due to moral reasons... I'm sorry, but I dont see the issue here.

The main group of people opposed to stem cell research? Religious groups... Thanks Religion!!! You complain about the implications of stem cell research for life saving procedures while at the same time completely ignoring your constantly riddled past of mass murder and large scale population control, not to mention all the wars religion has started, and all the people that have been murdered in "His" name. (Budhists, you're exempt in this).

4) Genetic manipulation against Gods will.

So again i'm just going to start this one by mentioning something of myself so you understand my mindset. I'm not the most religious person in the world. I think i'm agnostic? Essentially I believe that there is, or may be, something that's all powerful. But I dont claim to be smart enough to know what it is, where it is, how it works, etc.

"If man were meant to fly he would have been born with wings"
Milton Wright.
So what did the Wright brothers do? Gave their dad the finger and proved him wrong. Now people the world over fly. Why do we fly? Because it's sooooooooooooo easy to do.

Religion, many of them, if not all, are against mans attempted to manipulate our own genetics. "Who are we to play god" and so on. The primary argument for this is that man shouldn't play God.
To all the religious people who believe this. I have a single question for you.

If God never intended us to manipulate our own genes, then why did he make it so incredibly easy to do so?

Like... it's not only easy, he practically gave us a map. He created the Universe in a way that he felt was the best, he created man in his image, so why didn't he make genetic manipulation impossible if we were never intended to play with it? How do you infact know that he didn't make it this simple intentionally, so that we can better ourselves.

Now I know a lot of religiuos people dont believe in evolution (seriously, how can you NOT believe in evolution? Pick up a book, research some evidence... wow...) but for all we know, maybe Gods intent is for us to use this to allow us to evolve to the next level.


After all, how esle are you going to figure out how to grow an army of genetically engineering super soldiers to held us fight of the upcoming alien invasion? Duhhh!

RIAA - Music Fines and taking over the world

So as everyone knows the RIAA are a bunch of drunk lawyers that like to mash random numbers into a keyboard to come up with how to fine someone for copywrite infingement. There is no sensibility, no justification other than the fabricated reality that these incompitent morons seem to live in.

To show what I'm taking about, I have a special guest today to help me work this out, his name is Basic Math. (this entire concept went through my head while i was taking a pee break... i know i didn't have to tell you this, but i wanted to).

A fellow coworker I know was bragging to me some time ago how he has a 500GB hard drive, completely full of ripped music. And, as ridiculous as this sounds, yes he actually did manage to fill a 500GB drive, and had another external drive that was nearing capacity.

So i'm going to use an average of 4minutes per song to derive my numbers here to show you what i'm talking about.

Your typical MP3 runs at about 1MB/minute
A 4 minute song with be 4MB
There are (approx) 500,000MB on this hard drive
This brings us to approximately 125,000 songs on this drive
Fine this person $150,000 for each infringement

Total damage done to the music industry by ONE PERSON!

$18 750 000 000
or
18.75 trillion dollars

How much is that exactly?
well...

The music industry, globally, is worth approx $130 billion.

So the RIAA is trying to tell the public, that this one person, did damages that total over 144 times the total worth of the entire music industry? And this is supposed to be realistic?

How are they even allowed to make these ridiculous claims to anyone is beyond me.

That's really all I wanted to get out on this one. Anyone have any thoughts they'd like to add?

Diseases. Good or Bad? Well....

Lets start off with an important fact that really is the basis for this entire posting.

There is no such thing as "Dying of old age". If anyone tell you otherwise, slap them in the mouth and say "That's from Kris".

"But Kris, if you can't die from old age, what do you do die from?"

Well there's lots of ways. You can get in a car accident, slip on some ice, get shot or stabbed, drink yourself too death, infections, viruses, drown, fire, become exploded (yes i know that's not gramatically correct, it just sounds funner that way) you get the point though. Then there's the way you usually die when you get old: The Dreaded Disease.

So what kinds of Diseases are there? That's a loaded question. There are many forms and types of diseases. There are Infectious Diseases (black plague). Genetic Diseases (some types of Heart Disease), Circulatory disease (Raynauds Disease, I have this). Mainly we're looking though at some of the big ones, starting with the ticker.

So they say Heart Disease kills 1 in 4 people. This means according to this statistic that 25% of the populations deaths can be accounted for by a failing heart. This doesn't specify what type of hearth disease as there are many types, but there we have it.

I'm *pretty sure* this is the big one. Kidney disease is pretty high up there from what I understand. Lung disease such as pheumonia is common is older people.

So lets break this down. Pretty much every method of dying has a cause to prevent or stop it. If you can die from it, there's a group that wants to protect you from it. Which is great. Scientific advancements lead to longer lives, higher quality of life, etc. But how far does it go?

Eventually it breaks down to you simply can't cure all diseases. You can't stop every way that we die. If you do, people start becoming immortal.

Now this is probably a point where a lot of people go "what's so bad about that, dont you want to live forever Kris?" SURE I DO!! I'd love to live until the first FTL drives becomes active. Watch Mars get colonized. Hopefully Alien encouters. See what technology does in the future. But that's not what life does. The day that we create a system that allows for immortality is the day that we halt mandkinds evolution in this universe. A living being can not evolve. Evolution takes place over millions of years because death is allowed to occur, because Evolution takes place by people growing up, having children, having your children become slightly better than you, and then your genetic code dying off, allowing for the species to advance.

That's the problem with diseases. We cant "cure" all diseaeses. We can't stop death. It's required unfortunately.

Now, DONT take this as me saying that we should stop all research. I might be saying death is needed, but seeing a 7yr old girl dying of Kidney failure if there's a way to prevent that is not needed. A 40yr old dying of a heart attack should be something preventable. And Diseases like MS and Alzheimers are just dumb.

In the end, you're going to Die. No matter how rich or poor, famous or unknown, awesome or not. What's important isn't that we find ways to fight disease to cure them all, but at the least to give people the lives they deserve to live.

Gay Marriage, California, and everywhere

Gay Marriage.
Another way to describe this is "Two people who love each other promising to devote themselves to each other for the rest of their lives" (or until divorce).

As you can probably guess i'm for Gay marriage. Even that's too restrictive though. I'm really just for two people who love each other wanting to express it in this way.
Now, everyone's heard the arguments. Marriage is man and woman. Marriage is blah blah bible. And my favoriate... you shouldn't sully the sanctity of marriage by allowing same sex couples bond in this way (yet it's ok for America to vote on who gets married on reality TV?????).

So in California, we have a very specific situation. The courts decided, much to the approval of many people, that same sex marriages should be legalized. Fantastic right? 6 months later we have a vote that goes through that shows that the majority of people who live in the state of California dont want same sex marriage to be legalized.
So last week i'm watching some TV show, honestly can't remember which one it was, but there was an advocate for same sex marriage speaking about that very situation. In it she mentions the typical arguments. We've all heard them. And then the one that really irritated me was this: (obviosuly this isn't going to be an exact quote, but the point is the same).
"...very upset about this decision. California shouldn't be bullied and pushed into 'Mob Rule' just because the majority of people want something"

shocking...

So i'm going to take this on a bit of a related tangent before continuing. Ethics and morality are not defined. They are not specific. Infact, with a good enough argument, you may even be able to say they aren't even real. The morality of a populace is determined, in large part, by the thoughts of the majority living in a specified area. Lets list some examples:

In China, people eat dogs... it's like their chicken (except, chicken is actually their chicken). People in North America probably find this immoral.
In tribes that practice cannibalism, to them, it's not immoral to do so. It's accepted in their populace.
Are these examples too harsh?
What about child sex laws? A few hundred years ago it was totally acceptable to be a 14yr old mother (or younger). In certain countries it's immoral, based on reasons such as religion, to expose your face in public. Kissing someone on the lips in public is considered immoral in some countries. Striking your wife is considered morally acceptable in places.
It comes down to the fact that no single thing is actually moral or immoral as these are concepts that are constantly changing, based on flawed human perception, based on culture, upbringing, religion, etc.

Back to gay marriage. The politicians have a job. When a given politician is given power, it's because the majority of people like his beliefs, and want him to be the person to make the tough decisions, for your community, town, city, or country. If the majority of people say "make something illegal", a politicians job is to do that. They held a vote, the majority of people were against it, so that's where it went. How would you feel if the majority of people here in canada wanted drunk driving to be illegal, but the government went "you know what... too bad!". And yes I know this is a ridiculous example but it's set to make a point.

Should Gay marriage be legal? Of course. Marriage doesn't do anything other than provide a ceremony for two people to express their love for one another. No one gets hurts, no one benefits more than they should otherwise (gay couple can still be considered common-law) and two loving people walk away with the same wedding day memories that everyone should be allowed to share.

But if the majority of people in an area say no... i'm sorry, but that's how democratic areas work. It's upsetting to see so many people against something so pure, and I hope that it does some day change and that people stop merely "accepting it" and start realizing that that's just the way things should be.

Love is Love. You dont choose it, you dont force it, it just happens.
But the sad truth is... Majority Rules.



This Post dedicated to Jo, who waited for it with "bated breath".

Starting things heavy - The Burka

Now before I go further, hence forth it's referred to Burqa. Why? Because if you look it up, that's actually what it is. It just doesn't seem the news agencies know how to spell that. (I hope I didn't just put my foot in my mouth, but that's what I read up during my research).

In France, there was a news article about 2 men robbing a bank wearing Burqa's. It doesn't actually state what nationality the two men were, but it doesn't sounds like they were Muslim.
So currently France is talking about banning the Burqa for public wear. They're doing this because, with the face covered, they can't see who the person actually is. Why is this a big deal? Well, really yeah. There have been instances in the past where Muslim men have worn Burqa's for terrorist strikes. I believe I read a story that stated the US believes this is how Osama Bin Laden evaded capture more than once. It's a good way to keep yourself hidden.
On the otherside, the Burqa is a very important part of these people culture and religion. Just because you're a Muslim family living in another country, means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the kind of person you are. We have "at home terrorists" such as the Unabomber and the Oklahoma City Bomber, and then we have people living here from other countries that love it more than these people ever will, and they're outcast as terrorists because of their beliefs.

So there's a VERY general outline of the situation. There idiots who robbed the bank did so, probably because they wanted to rob the bank. They either wanted to also give out a message because they believe in the ban, or they just wanted to use it as a method to get in without being seen. More than likely? Banks have cameras... you throw your Burqa off the instant you get in... I cant imagine these people weren't trying to give a message, but who knows?

The face is used as a means to identify someone. And there are some times when I myself find it shocking that the situation even arises. Should Amish people be allowed to get pictureless ID's? Of course not. Burqa's worn in passport photos and drivers licenses. No. This completely defeats the purpose.

I myself find it upsetting that this has been made an issue. The only reason it has is because people have abused it. But this has been a connection that has been made through-out the ages, many many times. Drugs like Herroine which were once legal were made illegal because people abused them. Speed limits are enforced because people abuse speed. And to bring a demographic into the mix, teenagers pay more for insurance because teenagers abuse their rights to drive more so than adults. Is it fair that 20% of Teenagers that are irresponsible jerks rocket the price for the other 80%? Sure isn't.

Now here's where I stir the mix. France is trying to pass this law and, for whatever the reasons, there are some valid points as to why. No it's not fair, no it's not right, but there ARE safety reasons for it. If you cant at least agree with me on that you're just not paying attention to anything. Would the bank still have been robbed? Yes of course, they just would have used a different method... Balaclavas in the winter time maybe?
Issues like this are very specific to the country you're coming from. You don't go from living in Amsterdam, then start growing pot in Mexico and whine when you get arrested. You don't go to a country like Pakistan as a woman and walk around in a Bikini, and then whine that you get in trouble. You don't move to California as a Lesbian couple, and then bitch when you get there because they wont let you get married. (nice segway into my next blog post right? :).

For safety issues, until something else can be designed, I have to admit I do agree with this law. I understand why. I don't agree with it from a religious aspect, moral aspect, etc, but i do from a safety aspect. Once we come to the point like in Minority Report, where every entrance can be fitted with remote eye scanners, then yeah. Or hey, even if something else can be thought up of. Other than safety, I really see no other reason.
And just in case my opinion hasn't been clear in this, this has nothing to do with the Burqa, or the Muslim religion, it's simply a matter of not being able to identify someone by their faces. This is an incredibly easy way to hide yourself, easily improvised, cheap, and effective if this is the kind of person you are.

Unfortunately it all boils down to the life long adage:
A few rotten apples spoil the bunch.

Sad, unfortunate, but true.

The here and why

Ok so the point of this blog is two fold.

1) I want to talk about science, technology, and everything related. I like this stuff, and I think that we need to harness this a little better. Hawkings recently made a statement saying we aren't truly safe until we get off the planet. This is something I've felt for a long time as well, and in order to reach this, we need to research pretty much every technological field that exists. Which ones?
Biology: To more understand what is needed to exist on an extraterrestrial world.
Chemistry: Way too broad. Chemistry will be needed for terraforming efforts, water creation, water filtration, etc etc.
Botany: How do we terraform an entire planet? Moss, fungus, all different kinds of plant life that do different things. From creating oxygen, to filtering out toxic levels of element and noxious gases. Plants are cool!
Physics: If I have to explain this, get out of my blog! :P Propulsion, radiation shielding to get to the planet we get to, exoplanet detection, and even as far out as asteroid detection to protect ourselves until we can get off planet.

2) Logic. From time to time I see stories on the news, internet, etc. I hear about laws countries are passing, policies organizations are creating, all kinds of things that infuriate people for many different reasons. From time to time these stories are pushed out to the people from the press, and they create a flurry of emotions. Sometimes these decisions are based on emotion. Sometimes they're based on the simple fact of "this is the way something is, this is the way it should be to make it safer".
*disclaimer* I already have a couple couple that will be out, later today, tomorrow, very soon. I am an emotional person as well. There will be times when I start a story with "This is what I believe" and then the story takes a drastic turn based on what I feel logic dictates. If you agree, disagree, etc, DONT do it in an angry or confrontational method. That's not the point here. If I'm wrong, tell me I'm wrong. But do it in a way that this Blog is meant to be written in. Thought out, logical, and intellectual.