Chris.S

While I'm not usually one for joining or creating groups, and I'm a little embarrassed about it, but I thought making one on Facebook was a good way to get my friends some info and a point of view that they definitely aren't getting from any source up here in Canada. I realize it's a bit of an appeal to patriotism, but I thought it was best to keep it sort of regional. The group isn't totally fleshed out yet, but if you want to join, please do. I'd appreciate it. And you don't have to be Canadian. I might change the title... http://www.facebook.com/groups/edit.php?ed...id=171360803137

There are more Canadians who dislike hockey than you might think eh. <---- It's definitely a conversation killer when someone asks what team I cheer for and I say "I don't like hockey", and they stare at me and say ".....oh.".

CV is another term for a resume, but I'm not sure exactly what the letters are for. Softskills sound lame to put on paper, I know, but you need to put something down so that the employer can figure out how you'll fit. Softskills are basically any skill not related to some sort of formal training that can be applied to any job. For example (as in my previous post) communication skills, various abilities with software, researching skills, independent working ability, ability to multitask, etc. Then after that, depending on the job you're applying for, you can write other skills you've gained from other jobs that can apply to the job you're applying for, but not necessarily other jobs. So say you're applying for a dishwasher position. Softskills could be: organizational abilities, ability to multitask, able to stand for long periods, able to lift x pounds repeatedly, even cleaning skills. Hard skills could be stuff like health and safety training, knife handling training, WHMIS certification (Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System - not a skill but good to have), any sort of invoice and order-taking training, food prep training, etc. After that, you could go on to very specific things like Chef certification or Super Duper Dishwasher Degree. That's not really how you'd list your skills on a resume, but just the general order.

Funny, that's almost exactly what I told my wife. Another part to why Maldives is pushing for this is because they're worried about soil erosion, and blaming current increased soil erosion on rising water levels due to global warming. What they don't tell you is that Maldives was formed by the erosion of oceanic volcanoes into coral reefs, which continue to erode over time. This really is just a money grab for these countries.

First, I'm just going to reiterate what John and JASKN said - apply to everything. Secondly - BEEF UP YOUR RESUME MAN! Even without much work experience, everyone has softskills that they can use in every job. Whatever skills you've gained from being on your own (better reasoning skills, better interpersonal communication, typing, reading, skilled with various software, research skills, multitasking, any kind of qualification or skill - even mad juggling skills or nunchuk skills). Highlight your good points, and leave any bad points out until they ask you in the interview (ie what are some of your weaknesses? why did you quit school?) That's when you hit them with all that stuff, but keep it positive. Like, "I realized the program I was in wasn't working for me so I left to pursue other career paths", and then you say what you've learned in that time. Another answer you can use is your hearing impairment and speech impediment, but the positive there is your drive to be better and excel, and that can be applied to your career goals. I can help you more if you need it, just PM me. You really, really need to fix that resume, especially with the labour market in the employers' favour. You're competing with tons of people even for the smallest jobs, so you need to have your resume stick out and look damn good on first glance. If you can't make yourself look presentable on paper, why would they waste their time reading about you, let alone interview you?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8349797.stm My wife has been sending me updates about what her President is doing to combat "climate change" and trying to get the world interested in the imminent danger his country faces. Most of it has been humorous as well as the same tired arguments. But this really made me and my wife angry. Could these small poor countries actually have enough clout to push larger, richer countries into making deals at Copenhagen? I'll admit I'm a bit in the dark about what's going on there, and I haven't had much interest in finding out what this "350" business is all about until this article. (the article is very short so I haven't quoted it)

I think it could happen, but it would take a generation or two, and only if the "bad guys" are taken out. It could happen faster if the general population were shown just how good the West is, because I don't think they have any idea really how much freedom they could have. Who really knows what they value? After 40(?) years of war, it would be tough to value anything other than the protection and safety provided by your tribe and some tough brute, and the only alternative the holy man offers is death. Look at something like how Rome dominated European barbarians and tribes. A few wars over a few years, devastate the local armies and then afterwards people grow into Roman values. And then look at when dictatorships start: dictator moves in, kills any opponents, cows the population, and then after 10 or 20 years people are even afraid to have freedom and are violent towards their liberators (ie Iraq). edit: What I was trying to say is that values can change. Fast for individuals, but very slow for a country, and the person has to know or think of an alternative (or be shown). Even when the leadership is already of that value system it takes time.

I think if left alone and allowed to flourish the Afghan people would figure something out, even if it's not as good as we'd like. Although definitely not a model for individual rights or political freedom, Maldives is an Islamic country that is trying to evolve. The problem there is conflict between 3 sets of values: the traditional Maldivian culture (pre-Islamic), imported Islamic political and Arab cultural values and a push for modernization. Having said that, the main problems come from a minority of Islamic political figures with big voices and a lot of power trying to dominate the majority who are more moderate in their religious and political views. And every year their population of foreign-educated professionals increases, further destabilizing the Islamic hold. This all started because the people of Maldives found that they had some value internationally and were able to develop their tourism industry. So a slow, steady push for modernization started, even while they had a dictator as head of state. It would take a lot of time for Afghanistan to do this, but it has to start with the people, not with outside protectors and foreign armies. I agree with Zip in that the best thing NATO could have and should have done was blast the shit out of the baddies and call it a day, to eliminate the threat to us and to let the Afghan people sort things out themselves. But if you're going to set up some kind of government, ensure it's one based on Western values, and not the same old bullshit they've been doing for the past 3000 years. Anything less will just drag on until the foreigners give up.

I had a positive view on GQ before this article (without having read it ever, serves me right eh). Is the magazine in the habit of printing garbage like this? How is this properly considered an article and not some emo journal entry from a guy with a grudge?

Funny vid. I have a feeling a lot of comedians are gonna get some jokes out of it.

Couldn't you also ask, "in what way does heroin help an upstanding businessman do business?" If it doesn't contribute to his virtues, shouldn't it then be considered a vice, and therefore immoral? Even though he is spending his wealth on something he wants (which is proper), the usage of that item contributes to destruction of his consciousness and body, so selling him heroin is indeed immoral. Is that correct? Why doesn't the degree to which an illegal drug affects mind and/or body matter in the morality of it's usage (marijuana vs heroin vs meth)? In degrees of effects, isn't something like morphine similar to marijuana besides it's addictiveness? Is addictiveness a factor in it's morality of using and selling?

I wish I could do that with a straight face - I'd end up laughing while saying it.

That's why I asked if it counts as graffiti still. If it does, then it violates property rights, unless these students asked whoever has the authority beforehand if they could chalk the campus. It's a cool idea and might get some people interested, but I think flyers and posters in designated areas would be more proper. Just large white posters with big block, black coloured letters. And then I think there's the issue of copyrights on the phrase...

Ok, so I do understand the point of preparing arguments for and against some proposition, but what if the proposition for just isn't defensible? You would have to do some sort of rationalization to defend it. Specifically, my debate topic is: "be it resolved that [school] should serve only organic and local foods" Arguing against that is easy - the school should do whatever is in the best interests of itself in making a profit and providing education (my actual proposition against is more detailed). Arguing for it, I had to come up with this: "As an educational institution labeled and marketed specifically for Toronto as "The City College", [school] should rent its food retail space to local and organic food vendors to promote the health and well-being of its students and local economy." Is this the standard for debates? I ask because this is my first ever real debate. DO, we do have to come up with evidence and facts and derive our propositions from there. But in this case, and in the other debate topics, it just seems that the "for" position can be demolished by sticking to individual rights and LFC. But I'm not quite sure what you mean by "dogmatically guided polemic exercises". But anyways, I've gone over my previous arguments (which were outside of class anyway) and I think it's just that people are evading or just not understanding where I'm coming from with Oist ethics. I'm going to continue my normal thing and see what happens during the in-class debate and after that see how to get better if needed. Thanks for the tips, everybody

Does graffiti with chalk still count as graffiti?

I will say more when I have time later, but just wanted to drop in and say thanks for the help so far.

I've recently been in a few discussions about Canadian health care and sustainable development. I'm also currently in a philosophy course entitle "Introduction to Critical Thinking". What I've discovered is that I might come off as harsh in arguments, enough that people disregard what I'm saying because of how I say it. I think I'm just very direct, but my wife said that sometimes I can just rub people the wrong way. So what I came here to ask is, how do others regulate their tone of voice or word usage in an argument to increase the effectiveness of their argument? Part of the mark for the Critical Thinking class is a series of group debates where groups are given a topic and have a week to prepare arguments for, against, or alternatives, but we must be prepared to argue either side. Yesterday, I was told that my argument against my school selling only organic food wasn't "politically correct" (it had to do with the school making profit). How do you make an argument easy to understand yet effective without coming off as harsh or something?

Makes me wonder how I can break into exporting and shipping just as the recession turns around. I still find it incredible that some of those comments about the article match exactly stuff written in AS.

Be careful while doing this. Completely ignoring people you live with can make them more hostile to you. I did it while I lived at my previous house. I disliked hanging out or talking to 2 of the roommates, so I stayed in my bedroom most of the time unless I was cooking or rarely watching TV. And while I was courteous when I had to be (in the kitchen for example), they took my (in)actions as hostile and progressively left more and aggressive notes around the house. I thought it was amusing, but these girls have a history of acting similarly to other housemates they had (especially females), and those housemates generally reacted poorly to the situation (yelling sat each other, property destruction, etc). Even in just my situation, eventually I wasn't allowed to change the heat up or down, watch movies, or have space in the fridge (I did all of that anyway, and I think that contributed to their hatred of me - the fact that I didn't care what they were trying to do to me). Anyways, best of luck

Grenade dropped down pants is always good too.

You don't have any other friends or family you can live with until you get on your feet? Even if you can't afford proper rent, you can help with chores and chip in for food and stuff. It sounds like with where you are in your relationship, you should just end it and do whatever is necessary to maintain your own happiness, even if it means relying on family or friends (who are willing to help, obviously). Putting yourself through hell is no good.

Seems she came up with a decent way to stop global warming. Why must you all bash such a great human being???

I thought this was just my silly second cousin. I gave an argument against it, then got jumped on by her friend, but after a few replies each her friend quit the conversation after calling me a big meanie who hates my fellow man. And then 2 of my other cousins copied the original message...

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. I'll have to look up the relevant parts of the Code when I get my books out of storage, but any regulation is only as good as the ministry's ability to enforce it. Inspector's are few and expensive, and are usually only used when people are buying a house. And if I had the money to dish out on an inspection, I wouldn't be renting. Toronto is also large enough that many contractor's can operate without building permits, and even more people are DIY-ers. Families converting a basement into an apartment are probably trying to make some extra money to pay their mortgage, and would want to save as much as they can by hiring clandestine contractors and not getting inspectors. Especially in these 60-100 year old homes where the basements are only around 5ft deep. If they were to really bring them up to the 7'7" Code, they'd have to underpin the walls and dig out the floors, which would require a legit contractor (because the unlicensed contractors aren't stupid enough to attempt that), an engineer and an inspector. I'm not going to rat people out for trying to make a bit more money out of their property. From what I've studied of the Code so far, much of it can be arbitrary (7'7" ceilings, or doorknobs being X minimum height, or percentage of wall composed of windows facing the street) and contradictory or misleading between other parts of itself (can't think of an example right now, but it mostly has to do with wording of clauses governing similar parts of the building in different sections). Some of it is based on "normal" engineering practices (such as strength and placement of beams and columns, or how many screws needed joining 2 boards). I think you can agree that the Code is unjust and unnecessary when it tries to regulate dealings between contractors and owners. Thanks for the advice though, everybody. I will definitely keep it all in mind as my search continues (if it continues) and in the future if I continue to rent.

Craigslist isn't that great anymore. Every other ad is a scam out of Nigeria, and the rest aren't very good anyways.