murraysovereign

As soon as MEC does it , in other words - don't hold your breath. We'd be happy to offer all kinds of discounts on gear for all sorts of groups (and we do for some, such as local Search & Rescue volunteers) but the economic fact is that we are already matching prices with a mega-co-op that is legally required to not make a profit. So we're already selling climbing gear at break-even prices, and there's simply no room left for extra discounts. Simply put, you're already getting a pretty good discount just because you're buying in Canada, in a market that is thoroughly distorted by the dominance of a non-profit retailer. US-based retailers, on the other hand, are able to offer more discounts because they're generally starting from stronger margins to begin with.

And just to add a blatantly self-interested comment - prices are the same at either of the locally-owned shops in Squamish, so if you're heading up for the weekend anyhow, don't waste your time stopping in Vancouver.

Think of Dru as the cc.com equivalent of a "sponsored athlete" - kinda like Michael Jordan getting free Nikes, or Chris Sharma getting Five-Tens. He gets a free ride because his sponsors figure they can make it back - and then some - by selling stuff to all the little idol-worshipping kids who want to grow up to be just like him.

They're just not seeing the big picture : smoking pot = the munchies = increased chewing gum sales. Once they realize that connection, they'll be leaning on countries to make marijuana a mandatory part of school lunch programs.

Any pics of the upstairs neighbour?

It's called "The Bugaboos", by Chris Atkinson and Marc Piche, published by Elaho right here in Squamish.

'cept Peder has stopped making them , and Valhalla Pure is sold out, so another supplier is needed. Yates is an obvious choice, but does anyone have any other favourites they'd recommend?

Our domestic needs are already being met, with significant capacity to spare. In fact, we are a major exporter of Hydro-electric power to the U.S., most notably California. New generation plants currently being built in B.C. are almost entirely aimed at this export market, rather than meeting domestic needs. The problem here isn't the type of facility: in fact, B.C. Hydro is currently looking at plans to build an identical plant on Vancouver Island. The problem is the location of the plant in an air-shed that is already choking on airborne pollutants. Sure, it would only pump out a few tonnes of nitrogen oxides, but it would do it in a valley that is already absorbing all the emissions of Greater Vancouver, and that has poor venting most of the year. Add to that the fact that the valley would be asked to absorb all the negative consequences while deriving no direct benefit (and only miniscule indirect benefit - if any), and it becomes pretty much impossible to justify. No Shit. And then what? Sit back and wait for the Cruise Missiles to arrive? Seriously, there's no way in Hell the current U.S. government is going to sign anything that allows any outside agency to shut off any taps. You're quite right that there's nothing to stop the proponents from going ahead and building the plant without access to Canadian transmission lines, in which case we'll still have to absorb the emissions. But there's no compelling reason why we should help them do it, hence the NEB's decision.

There was an accident at a music festival in Winnipeg a few years back - a lightning storm blew in during a "big band" concert, and the band-leader took a direct hit. He survived unharmed because, fortunately, he wasn't a very good conductor.

Whatsamatter, Lummox? No-one in your family got teeth?

Who says you have to be gay? All that's being talked about is "same-sex" marriages. If two hetero guys are living together, and one wants to get onto the other's dental plan, they can get married. Then they can save on income taxes by transferring unused deductions back and forth, and it's easier to get bank loans, and so on, just like male-female married couples. How do we like the sound of that?

Took some digging, but I found one here. There's nothing like a bit of meaningless research to help pass the time on a slow day at work... God, I'm bored.

The theme music from "Hockey Night in Canada" works well for expunging unwanted soundtracks, too. My sister learned that one when she went to Australia, of all places. How would Australians get to be that familiar with the theme from "Hockey Night in Canada"? My worst experience was during Expo 86, I spent three days accompanied by that infernal whistling theme from the Andy Griffiths Show - "Down by the Fishing Hole", I think it's called.

They shut down the main subway line in Toronto for a few hours because someone noticed a fine white powdery substance in one of the bathrooms - specifically at the "Baby Changing" station. After shutting down the whole subway line and evacuating the surrounding area, they brought in the HazMat squad to contain the threat, at which time it was determined to be... talcum powder, just like you would expect to find scattered around at a Baby-Changing station. Runaway paranoia knows no national boundaries.

But the beacon wouldn't be making any decisions. All it would be doing is providing a bit more information for the people on the surface, so they could make better-informed decisions. If the closest signal is from someone whose heart has stopped, and the further signal is from someone whose heart is still beating, wouldn't the rescue party then be able to make the decision to concentrate on the still-living person first, then go back for the other, and wouldn't that be a rational decision if you had access to that information? In Hospital emergency wards, they call it "triage". It's the way they determine which patients to treat first. They don't just take them in the order they come off the ambulance (closest beacon) - they rank them according to severity of injuries and likelihood of survival (heart beat or no heart beat), and then decide which to treat first. Wouldn't an avalanche rescue party be able to make better decisions with the extra information?

Didn't Arthur C. Clarke suggest this very thing in "2001: A Space Odyssey"? As I recall, at the end of the novel Jupiter's core is revealed to consist of a giant diamond. He did the same thing with his descriptions of some of Jupiter's more unusual moons - when NASA and JPL finally got some interplanetary probes making close observations, they found those moons were almost exactly as Clarke had imagined them in "2001". I may have to read it again, just to see what we're going to "discover" next.

The beacon doesn't have to be attached directly to your chest. Heart Rate Monitors for distance runners use a monitoring unit that straps around your chest, under your clothing, and then transmits data to your wrist-watch. Similarly, the monitor could transmit data to your beacon. If the force of the avalanche was sufficient to rip the monitoring unit off your chest through two or three layers of clothing, then you're probably in two or three pieces yourself.

Here's something I've wondered about for a while now. The technology already exists to build a beacon that can monitor your heart rate. If your heart has stopped beating, your beacon would transmit a different signal. That way, in multiple burials, the people on the surface don't waste their time digging up someone who's already dead - they can concentrate on finding the ones that still have a pulse, then locate the corpses later. As it is, you can spend a lot of time digging up one person who was already dead, while someone else who would have had a chance asphyxiates. Thoughts?

We just had one in the store this afternoon who said she hadn't had a chance yet to reset her watch to "Canadian Time" - whatever the Hell that is...

They played the Brew Pub once before - last summer, for the Test of Metal party. It was great! Surprisingly little damage, too, aside from a few broken beer glasses on the dance floor. Couldn't hear too well for the next few days, but neither could anyone else so it didn't really matter. I'll be there on the 19th, for sure.

I saw this bit last night, and wasn't too impressed. If it had been funny I could see it as "biting satire" or some such. But it was utterly unfunny, and revolved around deliberately insulting people simply for the sake of insulting people. I can understand how people are unhappy about it, particularly since NBC used Canadian tax dollars to pay for it.

So this whole business of the U.S. telling the international community to go Fuck themselves, driving huge wedges between Washington and all their erstwhile allies, and totally alienating most of the world's population, was meant to be a "team-building" exercise? Why didn't they just say that at the start? It all makes perfect sense now

This is a MAJOR pet peeve of mine. I've seen five or six at a time coming down in perfect formation like the snowplows on a major highway, leaving no powder untouched and a 30' wide swath of desolation behind them. If you got enough of them together they could wipe out entire runs with a single pass, like they're working on a paving crew or something. Bastards!! And they can't figure out why we hate them so much...

New Squamish International Hostel Much, much better than the old one.

That division you refer to actually has to do with being a Federal state, rather than a Republic. We're a federation also, and have different powers delegated to Ottawa and the provinces. In Canada, it's mainly a division between criminal law and civil law (I'm using very broad brush strokes - it's a bit more convoluted than that), although there's some overlap along the edges. Since the law in question dealt with a clause in the Criminal Code, the Supreme Court of Canada was the appropriate body to hear the appeal. Peter seemed to be questioning whether this should be before any government body at all, judicial or legislative. If it had been before a provincial court, or a state court in the U.S., I think he would have had the same objection - that the government had no business being involved. It's a fair objection, too, but I think there are reasonable grounds to justify society setting some limits.