La partie intéressante de ce dernier article, ce sont les 87 (à date) commentaires.

Et pourquoi ce ne serait pas la (tendance à la) dépression qui causerait le tabagisme ? ?

Sur un autre sujet, le même journaliste du G&M, traçais récemment un portrait très intéressant : le poids des Finlandais dans le monde des forestières et papetières. Comparant le dossier canadien à celui de cette petite nation innovatrice, il mettait en lumière certaines pratiques qui permettent à ce petit pays se tailler une place disproportionnée dans ce marché : investissements et recherche; coopératives dans le domaine de la gestion forestière; concertation nationale des efforts…

But our forest companies have frittered away every competitive advantage they once enjoyed—mostly, it seems, out of laziness. (…) Canada’s forest industry, once the envy of the world, is now a laughingstock.

(…) The average Canadian pulp mill has a capacity of about 200,000 tonnes; our newsprint mills average 280,000 tonnes. Compare that with the one million-tonne Finnish-owned mills that are either already operating or are being built in Latin America.

(…) Metso, one of only three large-scale manufacturers of paper­­making machines left in the world, is also based in Finland. Canada has no paper machine makers. The world’s biggest man­ufacturer of the chemicals used in papermaking, Kemira, is also Finnish. Canadian-based chemical makers? None.

(…) They drew on their so-called small-country advantage—characterized by a homogeneous, highly educated population with a unique language (practically unlearnable, for a foreigner) and culture—and took their place in a rapidly globalizing market.

(…) Technically speaking, Canadians own their woods, too, but through their provincial and federal governments, which possess 93% of this country’s forests. (…) In Finland, however, almost 60% of forest land is owned by about 400,000 families. Their plots are small, averaging about 35 hectares, compared to the hundreds of thousands of hectares typically covered by a single forest tenure licence in this country.

Finalement, peut-être qu’il y aurait autre chose que la claquette ?

Profitez-en pendant que l’article est encore accessible…

Bonjour,

I have been an enthusiastic reader (and online subscriber) of BMJ since… years. I don’t have any moral or aesthetic objection to the presence of graphic publicities on the pages of BMJ. But lately I noticed some more aggressive (flashing white on dark green « click here » on the side bar – notably from plumicort.com) messages that are so disturbing to the eye that I have difficulties to read what I want to read. This kind of visual aggression is enough to stop me coming to your site… and subscribe your journal. Or at least to lose a part of the enjoyment I had to ccome to your site.

In one word : publicity, yes. To the detriment of the readability of your site : no !

Thanks, G.B.