Slashdot Mirror

It's a poor joke in poor taste. He's already retracted all that, and even critics of the current Canadian government on the opposite side of the house have said that Flanagan was probably joking. He was stupid for putting it that way, of course, but he wasn't serious.

The thing is, some other people have suggested targeting him "like the Taliban" and are apparently serious.

Summary is false. Flanagan does NOT currently openly advocate assassination of Assange. Flanagan recanted.

C'mon guys... I know it's too much to ask to have you guys fact-check the actual submissions... but you should seriously consider fact-checking your editorializations that succede them. Not only would it help ensure a better project, but would also help prevent getting your asses sued.

I certainly hope that we get more details than this teaser (all other news articles seem to point back to Gizmodo). From the sound of this leak I can't tell if the DNA itself is foreign or if it's made of the same Adenine, Thymine, Guanine and Cytosine with similar hydrogen bonds or if the DNA is similar but different in functionality or if it doesn't create proteins and RNA the same way or if phosphorus component is just switched with arsenic (two very similar elements prebiotic chemically) or if the whole bacteria is made of arsenic. At what point in the chain of DNA to organism does this thing seriously differ? The Gizmodo article is painfully weak on detail.

Try this article instead.

It uses phosphorus like the rest of us, it's just capable of substituting arsenic when in an arsenic-rich environment.

A university professor who is the ex-advisor for the Canadian Prime Minister also advocated the assassination of Julian Assange. He later "regretted" the remark.

Quirks and Quarks did a story in 2009 on "Alien life on Earth" about the possibility of life on earth the has independent origins then Life As We Know it. He describes the idea of arsenic based life as "really radical" compared to his other ideas.

Canada naïve about terrorism, CSIS head says in WikiLeaks memo

WASHINGTON—Canadians have an “Alice In Wonderland” attitude toward global terrorism, the former head of Canada’s spy service told a U.S. counterpart in 2008, according to a secret American memo disclosed Monday.

Canadian Security Intelligence Service Director Jim Judd is also quoted as saying that Canadian courts have the security service “tied in knots,” hampering their ability to detect and prevent terror attacks inside Canada and beyond.

Alleged terrorism plot targeted Canada

Toronto terror plot foiled -- Canada

From 2001 - Canada called 'weak link' on terrorism

Mohammed is one of the estimated 350 suspected terrorists living in Canada, taking advantage of the nation's liberal refugee program, which takes in about 60 percent of the people who apply, more than three times the U.S. rate.

"Anybody can apply for refugee status. All you have to do is arrive and say,

'I've been persecuted,' and we give them the benefit of the doubt," said Martin Collacott, former director general for security services at the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs. "Within days of arriving you can get welfare, free dental and medical. And if you need to, you can just disappear in the country."

The Criminal Intelligence Service, Canada's CIA, estimates there are about 50 terrorist organizations spread throughout Canada, including 350 members of Hamas, Hezbollah, the Tamil Tigers and al Qaeda. Among them is Ahmed Ressam, an Algerian with ties to al Qaeda who was caught by U.S. immigration officials attempting to sneak explosives in the trunk of his car, from Canada, in December 1999.

While awaiting approval of his refugee claim in Montreal, Ressam traveled to an al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan, where he learned how to make bombs, the CIS has reported. Ressam later confessed his plot to blow up Los Angeles International Airport at the turn of the millennium.

"Canada is our weak link," said Vincent Cannistraro, retired chief of counterterrorism operations for the CIA. "U.S. security is only as good as Canadian security."

No iPhone has ever had more than a two-year contract.

"Fido, Rogers to offer iPhone with 3-year contracts"

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/06/12/fido-iphone.html

From first hand experience:
3 year contract, or you buy the phone outright.
1 and 2 year contracts were not options.

How would that be different than what you are getting? You already have a few different app stores, including Verizon. Who is to say that in a few years the situation will not be exactly as you describe?

It will never get -THAT- bad. Some manufacturers will surely do some stupid things, but not all of them will.

Right, because the fact this vulnerability will take months to fix for 80% of Android users vs. something like it days to fix for 80% of iOS users, means nothing. Sure, you just keep saying that.

The point is that its a meaningless comparison.
Motorola might have theirs fixed in days, or it might take them months or it might take them months or never to get around to it.
HTC might have theirs fixed in days, or it might take them months or never to get around to it. ...or if the defect were with ios...
Apple might fix theirs in days, or it might take them months or never to get around to it.

Your right that an android defect might take longer before all the 'other' manufacturers fix, but how is that relevant?

If you have brand-x it doesn't really matter what brand-y does, regardless of what platform the handset is.

If you have a Motorola all that matters is how long motorola does it. If you have an apple all that matters is how long apple takes...

There's no shortage of proven interrogation techniques that work, and they're very easy to learn. I learned the Reid Technique in the span of about a month.

Elicit any false confessions with it yet? Funny example to use to make a point about "proven" interrogation techniques, as Reid as proven to in fact not work (assuming you goal is to learn the truth, and not just to "break" a suspect).

This isn't the first mystery missile that has been launched near a coast that has baffled military and intelligence experts. It happened 12 months ago off the coast of Canada where THREE missiles were seen. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/05/28/ufo-newfoundland-dnd.html http://youtube.com/watch?v=Jjl6k8NB7mE

There was a 'mystery missile' that was launched off the coast of Newfoundland back in January. It seems our DND doesn't want to talk about that either. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/05/28/ufo-newfoundland-dnd.html

A reader by the name of DigitEL on the CBC's "MarketPlace" tv show blog on this subject posted a very insightful comment:

Strikes me as sort of double taxation. ISPs already set speed governors on upload/download speeds and charge tier level fees based on speed, broadband, T1, T3, etc. Typical residential broadband is something like 1,500 download and 500 megabits per second upload. So if they want to take the speed governors off and charge by volume maybe that would be better service because the internet is always slow around here!

You do know that here in Canada we have free health care, including mental-health, right?

So the fact are:
- the police admitted putting "undercover" agents in the civilian crowd.
- the agents were concealing their identities
- they were holding rocks

These are all far more intimidating actions than blowing bubbles into the air which a civilian was punished for.

Perhaps your police buddy can beat some sense into c6gunner.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/08/23/police-montebello.html

"Police said the three undercover officers were only at the protest to locate and identify non-peaceful protesters in order to prevent any incidents.

Police came under fire Tuesday, when a video surfaced on YouTube that appeared to show three plainclothes police officers at the protest with bandanas across their faces. One of the men was carrying a rock.

In the video, protest organizers in suits order the men to put the rock down, call them police instigators and try unsuccessfully to unmask them."

When I was a kid KTTV in LA broadcast the 1989 Rose Parade on New Years Day in 3D. All you needed was a cheap pair of glasses from 7-11 with one shaded lens (not colored.) They weren't electronic, they didn't have shutters, but the 3D worked. Whatever happened with that technology?

It went to Canada: Incorporating spectacular footage from Royal Review and through the magic of 3D you will be transported back in time and space to re-live the Coronation experience. You will see the Queen as the young, beautiful woman she was – so real and so close, it’s almost like being there.

As well as the spectacular 3D Coronation footage, our 3D camera crew was invited to film Her Majesty at a very exclusive garden party at Buckingham Palace. Our 3D cameras were also there with Her Majesty to capture the magical moments on the recent royal tour. We were there as she reviewed an international flotilla in Bedford Basin to commemorate the centennial of the Canadian Navy.

We were there on Parliament Hill for Canada Day celebrations. And we were there for the glamour and excitement of the running of the Queen’s Plate at Woodbine Racetrack - all in fabulous 3D.

I notice viruses don't cross over into Canada. The border guard is doing a great job not allowing export of a military grade infections. That, or the mounties and socialized medicine are doing great jobs at protecting computers.

And that is amazing since MS is so prevalent in Canada.

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2008/09/18/f-multiple-sclerosis.html

http://www.cbc.ca/spark/2008/04/we-heart-creative-commons/

I will post you the reply I made in the CBC comment section. This effectively nullifies his argument and shows him for what he is: a spin doctor. You should also note that many people (in the CBC forum) pointed out that excluding competition by self-interested unions is (likely) illegal, and that these "collective agreements" were never made public as they should be, seeing as how the CBC is a tax-payer funded Corporation.

# Aces Wild Says:
October 9th, 2010 at 1:08 am

"The issue with our use of Creative Commons music is that a lot of our content is readily available on a multitude of platforms, SOME of which are deemed to be "commercial" in nature (e.g. streaming with pre-roll ads, or pay for download on iTunes) and currently the vast majority of the music available under a Creative Commons license prohibits commercial use."
- Chris Boyce

Reply:
I emphasized the word "SOME", because CBC radio is (or used to be) completely non-commercial. Doing deals with record companies, talent agencies, and iTunes isn't what the CBC is supposed to be about (according to its official mandate). The mandate of the 1991 Broadcasting Act doesn't mention anything about how the CBC is supposed to be commercial nor about how CBC broadcasts can allow banner ads, nor does it mention how iTunes is supposed to profit from this. In fact, the CBC more intelligently reflects the attitude and expectations of Canada and Canadians when it's broadcasts are not used to exploit financial gain.

"In order to ensure that we continue to be in line with current Canadian copyright laws, and given the lack of a wide range of music that has a Creative Commons license allowing for commercial use, we made a decision to use music from our production library in our pod-casts as this music has the proper usage rights attached."
- Chris Boyce

The Creative Commons license is a legal copyright license. In fact, it's easier to get permission to use something with a Creative Commons license than it is with a corporate license derived from the RIAA and its CRIAA derivatives.
In fact, even if you wanted to extend the mandate of the CBC by commercializing its content then you could, of course, always contact those Creative Commons license holders that don't have a commercial clause, and negotiate the commercial exploitation of their music for the benefit of the CBC. It seems bizarre that you would think that artists would object to be paid for their music just because they aren't using an RIAA-compatible license.

The funny thing is, that CBC radio has always been non-commercial. And it still is. I'm not sure when or why you decided to commercialize CBC radio. And yes, you are COMPLETELY changing the nature and character of the CBC by bringing corporate entities into it. It's just like when all the OTHER news networks noticed and pointed out the biase of CBC news broadcasts the moment that they started to allow advertisors to exploit the tax-payer audience.

"Everyone can rest easy- there are no "groups" setting out to stop the use of Creative Commons music at the CBC, and we will continue to use Creative Commons licensed music, pictures etc. across a number of our non-commercial platforms."
- Chris Boyce

There was already a group that had CC music banned from Spark. It wasn't the Creative Commons community members who wanted their music banned from the CBC, it was a union of commercial artists.

Shame shame on the spin!

"We hope this helps clarify things."
- Chris Boyce

Your explanation speaks volumes. And your comments are very apropos (Ref: http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/05/23/social-media-government-monitoring.html

Here is the reference: http://www.cbc.ca/spark/2010/10/spark-122-october-3-6-2010/#comment-26788. I can't seem to be able to see my own comment in Internet Explorer, but I can access it in Firefox is all the Web 2.0 and 3.0 technologies turned off (like Flash, JavaScript, etc).

I will post you the reply I made in the CBC comment section. This effectively nullifies his argument and shows him for what he is: a spin doctor. You should also note that many people (in the CBC forum) pointed out that excluding competition by self-interested unions is (likely) illegal, and that these "collective agreements" were never made public as they should be, seeing as how the CBC is a tax-payer funded Corporation.

# Aces Wild Says:
October 9th, 2010 at 1:08 am

"The issue with our use of Creative Commons music is that a lot of our content is readily available on a multitude of platforms, SOME of which are deemed to be "commercial" in nature (e.g. streaming with pre-roll ads, or pay for download on iTunes) and currently the vast majority of the music available under a Creative Commons license prohibits commercial use."
- Chris Boyce

Reply:
I emphasized the word "SOME", because CBC radio is (or used to be) completely non-commercial. Doing deals with record companies, talent agencies, and iTunes isn't what the CBC is supposed to be about (according to its official mandate). The mandate of the 1991 Broadcasting Act doesn't mention anything about how the CBC is supposed to be commercial nor about how CBC broadcasts can allow banner ads, nor does it mention how iTunes is supposed to profit from this. In fact, the CBC more intelligently reflects the attitude and expectations of Canada and Canadians when it's broadcasts are not used to exploit financial gain.

"In order to ensure that we continue to be in line with current Canadian copyright laws, and given the lack of a wide range of music that has a Creative Commons license allowing for commercial use, we made a decision to use music from our production library in our pod-casts as this music has the proper usage rights attached."
- Chris Boyce

The Creative Commons license is a legal copyright license. In fact, it's easier to get permission to use something with a Creative Commons license than it is with a corporate license derived from the RIAA and its CRIAA derivatives.
In fact, even if you wanted to extend the mandate of the CBC by commercializing its content then you could, of course, always contact those Creative Commons license holders that don't have a commercial clause, and negotiate the commercial exploitation of their music for the benefit of the CBC. It seems bizarre that you would think that artists would object to be paid for their music just because they aren't using an RIAA-compatible license.

The funny thing is, that CBC radio has always been non-commercial. And it still is. I'm not sure when or why you decided to commercialize CBC radio. And yes, you are COMPLETELY changing the nature and character of the CBC by bringing corporate entities into it. It's just like when all the OTHER news networks noticed and pointed out the biase of CBC news broadcasts the moment that they started to allow advertisors to exploit the tax-payer audience.

"Everyone can rest easy- there are no "groups" setting out to stop the use of Creative Commons music at the CBC, and we will continue to use Creative Commons licensed music, pictures etc. across a number of our non-commercial platforms."
- Chris Boyce

There was already a group that had CC music banned from Spark. It wasn't the Creative Commons community members who wanted their music banned from the CBC, it was a union of commercial artists.

Shame shame on the spin!

"We hope this helps clarify things."
- Chris Boyce

Your explanation speaks volumes. And your comments are very apropos (Ref: http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/05/23/social-media-government-monitoring.html

Here is the reference: http://www.cbc.ca/spark/2010/10/spark-122-october-3-6-2010/#comment-26788. I can't seem to be able to see my own comment in Internet Explorer, but I can access it in Firefox is all the Web 2.0 and 3.0 technologies turned off (like Flash, JavaScript, etc).

I feel compelled to mention that the CBC Radio is a public broadcaster and is not commercial. It carries no ads and is financed with tax dollars. (CBC TV on the other hand does sell ads).

CBC is also the best radio in Canada IMHO. Of course the no ads part helps a lot but it also has some very high quality programing such as Ideas, Writers and Company, Dispatches, Quirks and Quarks.

I feel compelled to mention that the CBC Radio is a public broadcaster and is not commercial. It carries no ads and is financed with tax dollars. (CBC TV on the other hand does sell ads).

CBC is also the best radio in Canada IMHO. Of course the no ads part helps a lot but it also has some very high quality programing such as Ideas, Writers and Company, Dispatches, Quirks and Quarks.

I feel compelled to mention that the CBC Radio is a public broadcaster and is not commercial. It carries no ads and is financed with tax dollars. (CBC TV on the other hand does sell ads).

CBC is also the best radio in Canada IMHO. Of course the no ads part helps a lot but it also has some very high quality programing such as Ideas, Writers and Company, Dispatches, Quirks and Quarks.

I feel compelled to mention that the CBC Radio is a public broadcaster and is not commercial. It carries no ads and is financed with tax dollars. (CBC TV on the other hand does sell ads).

CBC is also the best radio in Canada IMHO. Of course the no ads part helps a lot but it also has some very high quality programing such as Ideas, Writers and Company, Dispatches, Quirks and Quarks.

Here is what the CBC as to say about this:

Chris Boyce the Programming Director at CBC Radio just issued a statement on the tread located:

http://www.cbc.ca/spark/2010/10/spark-122-october-3-6-2010/#IDComment102867146

It reads:

"We’ve been listening to the conversations today regarding a “ban” on the use of Creative Commons music in our podcasts and want to take the opportunity to clarify some of the misconceptions that are floating out there.

The CBC has always embraced new ways of creating and sharing the content we make (in fact, shows like Spark and previously Search Engine were some of the first in Canada to use this type of music license in their programming), however, just like you, we must do so in a way which respects the limits put on that use by the music's creators.

The issue with our use of Creative Commons music is that a lot of our content is readily available on a multitude of platforms, some of which are deemed to be “commercial” in nature (e.g. streaming with pre-roll ads, or pay for download on iTunes) and currently the vast majority of the music available under a Creative Commons license prohibits commercial use.

In order to ensure that we continue to be in line with current Canadian copyright laws, and given the lack of a wide range of music that has a Creative Commons license allowing for commercial use, we made a decision to use music from our production library in our podcasts as this music has the proper usage rights attached.

Everyone can rest easy-- there are no “groups” setting out to stop the use of Creative Commons music at the CBC, and we will continue to use Creative Commons licensed music, pictures etc. across a number of our non-commercial platforms.

We hope this helps clarify things.

Sincerely,

Chris Boyce
Programming Director.
CBC Radio. "

Well in one case you're paying for a service where you're already using a pseudonym, and in the other case you're not. Blizz's idea was that outting everyone is a great idea(minus the downside that doing such is well, illegal in several countries like Canada, and Germany) along with several states in the US. In this case, they've simply said no more anon comments. Not that it makes much of a difference, since most people who are interested in commenting, don't read and post via wirefeeds. But rather to select forums where they can debate the topic.

For example, if I see something interesting and want to comment I'm more likely to go read the The Globe and Mail, National Post or the CBC and comment/debate/etc.

Since the guy's canadian and lives in canada.. And this is a US court ruling..
He went with the "I don't live in that country and they can fuck off" defence...

Ask Mark Emery how well that defense works.

"Judge Lucie Fournier ordered Guerbuez to pay $100 US in damages and $100 US in punitive damages for each of the 4,366,386 spam messages he sent..."
4,366,386 * 200 USD = $873 million USD, not quite 1 billion

http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/episode/2010/10/02/october-2-2010/

As several key prostitution laws were struck down recently.
However, I doubt that they'd setup a station in space to become an overprice brothel. It's still readily available on Earth (and legal in various places), and a ticket to another country is likely to be a whole lot cheaper than a trip to space for the visible future.

That being said, I wish that they could get past the "put a station in low orbit" concept and get on to building something on the moon. Having a semi-stable land-mass would eliminate a lot of issues that would crop up, and the moon at least has *some* gravity (if only a fraction of Earth's). Perhaps from there, they could figure out a way to deal with the raw materials issues, start some factories, and thus have a much more convenient launch location than from within Earth's gravity-well.

yeah I think both news agencies lean to a single side. What bothers me greatly is the quality of media in general. I know both sides do it but I've blatantly seen Fox news edit a quote a politician has said during a speech to the point that they cut part of the sentence out to make an insane argument. The worst was when Fox news was touting that the funding for the ground zero mosque(which isn't a mosque) was coming from a terrorist. The terrorist by descriptions(Rudolph Giuliani was described as not accepting funding from him because of his ties to terrorism) was one of the owners of Fox news(largest outside of the Murdoch family which still isn't controlling share). They weren't quick to disclose his name on air. It's the lack of ethical standards that has been a slippery slope over the years long before Fox showed up. The news before fox typically had a left line political stance. This didn't seem as intentional as the current news media. CBC(canadian broadcast company) has a good documentry on this as well(being Canada it might seem to have a more liberal point of view but it does try very hard to be unbiased in my opinion) http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/sticksandstones.html It's a great documentary on the left and right leanings of popular media. it's getting a little dated from when I first watched it but it still drives a lot of the points across. Most of the people in the documentary are still around.

There is, at the same time, a recent article on the CBC website saying that Mounties are asking people (especially youths) to please not text messages to 911.

If the RCMP can prove that what he claims is false, and for criminal charges the burden surely lies with them (but IANAL), then he deserves what he gets

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Chief admits 5-metre G20 security rule didn't exist
When asked Tuesday if there actually was a five-metre rule given the ministry's clarification, Chief Bill Blair smiled and said, "No, but I was trying to keep the criminals out."

Please tell us your version of the G20 summit. All I heard was that a bunch of protesters were sitting our doing there thing when a tiny percentage of them went anarchist and started burning and smashing everything in sight. Then the police stepped in with an iron boot and arrested a few hundred. No?

No. And it was well over a thousand citizens, most totally innocent, some even just on their way home from work or wherever, rounded up and held in unheated cages for two days and longer while the cops either laughed at them or felt so much shame they couldn't make eye-contact.

Also, look up the term, "Agent Provocateur". THAT was the big story which the media refuses to look at. It's huge. It was a big, big part of the events which unfolded. Canada has a history with that kind of manipulation going back to previous fiascos. In one instance in Quebec, cops pretending to be anarchists dressed in the same basic get-up as the G20 'anarchists', were captured on film and proven to be police agents. The police, after several attempted lies, were forced to admit it, (though no real measures were taken or penalties paid in the end by the police. Business as usual). After all their lies up to that point, it was hard to believe their protestations that their agents were not there to incite violence, but simply to monitor and keep people safe. -They told us this even when one of their thugs was holding a nice weaponized rock on camera and refused to put it down when asked by a legitimate protester. Such bullshit. The government cannot ever be trusted.

Anyway, in this latest instance, the threads on the official account when pulled come apart very quickly for anybody with the stomach and spine for it. (Most aren't. The number of people who bury their heads in the sand is sadly quite large in Canada.) The cops even ponied up some sacrificial squad cars for a nice photo-op public burning in order to justify the 1.4 billion dollars poured into summit security. But the media refused to explore that angle, which of course is to be expected by a media bought and paid for. The only real story here was that of a giant manipulation in order to bring Canada up to speed with modern population control tactics, and by "brought up to speed", I mean two things; installing hardware and procedures for corralling humans into cages in large numbers, and installing the mind-programming to make sure the population knows that this is the new "normal".

-FL

I'm starting to see a slippery slope of citizen's rights being ignored in Canada. Look at the number of peaceful protesters at the G20 meeting in Toronto this summer that were arrested without cause.

Some were held for a day without being told why. All the police had to do is walk up to them and ask for ID. By law if you are walking in a public place you don't need to produce identification, but for some strange reason the week of the G20 meeting in downtown Toronto you did. If not, off you went to a holding area with no further explanation.

There are at least two class action lawsuits underway against the police and various levels of government over the treatment.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/09/02/g20-class-action-lawsuit.html

It should be criminal because accusing the saints also known as police of illegal activity, abuse of power or bullying is unheard of in Canada!

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/city/story.html?id=68d7e7bd-f65c-4e7e-9964-812b43f31172

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/06/28/g20-rosenfeld-police.html

http://www.canada.com/news/Bubbles+exchange+between+protester+police+blows+online/3291512/story.html

Canada *may* be in the midst of a housing bubble. It hasn't happened yet, and opinions are mixed. Personally, I think the prices are going to flatten out, but I'm no expert. Anyway, if it does happen you won't see the same kind of banking catastrophe as in the U.S. because the mortgage rules are stricter, and the banks have stricter rules regarding capital on-hand. In other words, if the housing bubble happens it won't be a big deal that will undermine the entire economy. Slow it, yes. As other people have pointed out, it isn't simply a matter of "more regulation", it's a matter of regulations that give a useful result -- in this case, stricter rules against wild financial speculation.

The reality is, the main reason a housing bubble might happen is that, unlike the U.S., there was only a slight and temporary wiggle in house prices at the time of the economic crisis, and then prices kept on rising. The rate of rise isn't sustainable long-term because housing prices are increasing faster than people's incomes, although at a lower rate than the crazy rates in the U.S. before the collapse. It's a worrisome trend that will have to change eventually.

Ironically, our benevolent Conservative government were the ones that changed to rules to allow riskier zero-money-down, 40-year mortgages (i.e. relax Canadian mortgage regulations to be more like the U.S.) when the crisis hit, and they quickly reversed the decision and hoped it wouldn't be noticed who was responsible for the risky change. Read that article. Our government almost blew it.

The Senate election cost Lewis County approximately $22,000

State regulations require each precinct to have at least four workers on election day. Workers in Lewis County receive $115 for their work, including mileage and training costs, according to Lewis County Clerk Glenda Himes. That salary varies from county to county. The state mandates a minimum pay of a $60 salary for election workers. In addition to the four required workers per precinct, two additional people work in Lewis County's Tollesboro precinct because it is the largest precinct in the county, according to Himes. That adds up to approximately $6,670 just to pay workers the day of the election in Lewis County. Carter County is required to have 92 workers for its 23 precincts but also hires a few extras. Each worker receives $25 for attending the mandatory training session as well as $125 for working election day, totaling $150 per worker. That's a minimum cost of $13,800 for the county.

Now apply those kinds of figures on a larger scale - perhaps to NY or even on the federal level. Being able to cut the staff requirements in half by using computers is a tempting goal for cash-strapped areas. Throw in an obsession with the appearance of relevence, a need to differentiate the current administration from those previous, the desire to appear at the front of the technological wave, a lack of transparency from the involved companies, budgetary pressure, and some genuine well-meaners and you have your reason right there.

In Canada the cost of their 2004 election included

Election delivery activities, including fees to election workers and poll officials, printing lists of electors, and renting offices of returning officers and polling sites:$108 million

. Then you've got the expensive of printing the ballots, packaging, delivery, counting...it adds up.

Actually, if you listen to the comments of some DFO (Department of Fisheries and Oceans) scientists when asked about their thoughts on the (many years) raging 'controversy' over whether or not sea lice and other contaminants have been (drastically) affecting salmon runs their answers (or lack thereof) seem to make it pretty clear that they're not allowed to even think about the answers to those questions.

A few weeks ago, the Canadian Government decided that filling out 'long form' census questions would no longer be mandatory. They declared that Stats Canada scientists had assured them that this would not affect the quality of the data collected. The head scientist of Statistics Canada had to quit his job in order to counter the lies spoken by the Prime minister and his Cabinet.

Given the kind of control that they've taken over what government scientists can say, I have little question that some political hack is going to declare that submitting a paper to a scientific journal about a contentious issue is going to fall under this new policy.

Personally, I think that this is a flagrant violation of scientists' rights to free speech, but that's a matter for the courts to decide.

Actually, if you listen to the comments of some DFO (Department of Fisheries and Oceans) scientists when asked about their thoughts on the (many years) raging 'controversy' over whether or not sea lice and other contaminants have been (drastically) affecting salmon runs their answers (or lack thereof) seem to make it pretty clear that they're not allowed to even think about the answers to those questions.

A few weeks ago, the Canadian Government decided that filling out 'long form' census questions would no longer be mandatory. They declared that Stats Canada scientists had assured them that this would not affect the quality of the data collected. The head scientist of Statistics Canada had to quit his job in order to counter the lies spoken by the Prime minister and his Cabinet.

Given the kind of control that they've taken over what government scientists can say, I have little question that some political hack is going to declare that submitting a paper to a scientific journal about a contentious issue is going to fall under this new policy.

Personally, I think that this is a flagrant violation of scientists' rights to free speech, but that's a matter for the courts to decide.

No, the Canadian government has been following the US policies regarding this kind of thing pretty closely. They're even trying to put forward the same kind of copyright legislation as the US has through Bill C-32, which used to be similar to a bill previously proposed as Bill C-18 which ran its course because of the proroguing of parliament last year. Bill C-32 is another attempt at the same copyright http://www.zeropaid.com/news/89303/a-detailed-look-at-bill-c-32-canadas-copyright-reform-bill-part-1/ .

In my limited understanding of legal mumble jumble I believe it says in short:

        * The express legalization of format shifting, or the copying of content from one device to another, such as a CD to a computer or an iPod.
        * The express legalization of time shifting, or recording television programs for later viewing but not for the purposes of building up a library.
        * Allowing consumers to make a back-up copy of content to protect against loss or damage.
        * A YouTube clause that allows people to mash up media under certain circumstances, as long as it's not for commercial gain.
        * A "notice-and-notice" system where copyright holders will inform internet providers of possible piracy from their customers. The ISP would then be required to notify the customer that he or she was violating the law. The violator's personal information could then be released to the copyright holder with a court order.
        * ISPs and search engines would be immune from the copyright violations of their users.
        * A differentiation of commercial copyright violation versus individual violation. Individuals found violating copyright law could be liable for penalties between $100 and $5,000, which is below the current $20,000 maximum.
        * New exceptions to fair dealing that will allow copyright violations for the purposes of parody, satire and education.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/06/02/copyright-bill-clement-montreal.html#ixzz0yxLUq6jO

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2010/09/02/northwest-passage-oil-tanker-spill.html

fuck this shit

My question is, if I find a device on one of my motorcycles or car, is it legal for me to remove said strange device. One of those times I like being in Canada

Then you must be just as ignorant and as Right Wing as most other Canadians are. If the U.S. is doing something oppressive, then Canada almost always follows suit.

Right now, while Canada's crime rate is decreasing (and we've NEVER had crime like in the U.S., with its prison economy), the Right Wing conservative government of Stephen Harper wants to spend $10 BILLION dollars to build new prisons. I will repeat: crime is decreasing but the Conservatives want to build more prisons. Well, this is because they don't think enough people are in jail. One of their earliest mandates was to make jail sentences longer and put more people into prison.

The present Right Wing Conservative government of Stephen Harper has also said they will introduce DMCA-style legislation, have warrantless wiretapping, etc etc. I'm not sure what type of delusion you are having by implying that Canada is somehow safe from oppression.

I've did a quick Google to back up my claims. But as a person who only occasionally reads/listens/watches the political news in Canada, these are well known facts to me because they are so ubiquitous to the type of society that we live in. Next time you say something so ignorant (or deceptive?) you should Google to see what political party is in office in Canada.

References:
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/845272--ottawa-s-prison-plan-won-t-work-critics-say
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/06/26/police-emergency-wiretaps.html
http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9639/warrentless_wiretapping_comes_to_canada__canadian_media_censored/ ... etc and so on...

FTFA:
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/08/23/cannabis-hemp-electric-car-kestrel-motive.html
"a range of 40 to 160 kilometres before needing to be recharged, depending on the type of battery....with a capacity ranging from 4.5 to 17.3 kilowatt hours of energy."

40 km range? 24 miles? That's a golf cart, not a car, will they at least give me a spot to throw a dozen D cells in so I can get home?

Even 160km is only 100 miles, so it's equivalent to the Nissan Leaf but without the big Nissan name behind it.

These cars better at least be cheap.

So... Because I like listening to shows like Quirks and Quarks, The Vinyl Cafe, Definitely Not The Opera, and The Ongoing History of New Music, I'm obviously an evolutionary reject with an IQ less than 80? Sure. That's sound logic.

Perhaps the idiot here is the one who doesn't realize that broadcast radio includes channels that aren't owned by Clearchannel, and apparently doesn't realize that outside of the intellectual wasteland that is the USA, it's actually really easy to find educational and interesting shows on the radio?

So... Because I like listening to shows like Quirks and Quarks, The Vinyl Cafe, Definitely Not The Opera, and The Ongoing History of New Music, I'm obviously an evolutionary reject with an IQ less than 80? Sure. That's sound logic.

Perhaps the idiot here is the one who doesn't realize that broadcast radio includes channels that aren't owned by Clearchannel, and apparently doesn't realize that outside of the intellectual wasteland that is the USA, it's actually really easy to find educational and interesting shows on the radio?

So... Because I like listening to shows like Quirks and Quarks, The Vinyl Cafe, Definitely Not The Opera, and The Ongoing History of New Music, I'm obviously an evolutionary reject with an IQ less than 80? Sure. That's sound logic.

Perhaps the idiot here is the one who doesn't realize that broadcast radio includes channels that aren't owned by Clearchannel, and apparently doesn't realize that outside of the intellectual wasteland that is the USA, it's actually really easy to find educational and interesting shows on the radio?

His bragging alone would not have secured a conviction. There was also evidence that on the same car forum the man was claiming that he was smoking pot and driving on a different occasion. This however, could not be confirmed and charges were not pursued.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/08/10/facebook-speeding-conviction658.html#ixzz0wIDKdH3a

Corrected Links:

I know that this is late, and potentially off-topic, but the links I gave yesterday to CBC radio streams were incorrect. Here are the updated links for those of you who are interested:

• http://icy1.abacast.com/cbc-classicalhi-192.m3u (CBC Classical)
• http://icy1.abacast.com/cbc-jazzhi-192.m3u (CBC Jazz)
• http://icy1.abacast.com/cbc-songwriterhi-192.m3u (CBC Canadian Songwriters)
• http://icy1.abacast.com/cbc-canadianclassicalhi-192.m3u (CBC Canadian Composers)

More information and links to additional streams are available at http://www.cbc.ca/listen/ (CBC Radio Streams). Enjoy.

Police misconduct is different in western industrialized nations. I would not call it rare. Only different.

It starts with small things.
For example, police are only allowed to break the speed limits when they have their flashing lights and sirens on.
How many police cars do you see speeding? (I see a lot) How many are ticketed by their peers? (Effectively zero).
Then the team spirit carries over to situations of manhandling suspects, planting evidence, etc. Whether it is an "us against them" mentality or peer pressure, the fact is that cops fall into 3 broad categories: those that are corrupt, those that actively protect the corrupt and those that keep silent about it.

Police are given the power to ruin your day (or even your life) with practically no accountability, especially with new laws that are being passed. Here's an example of something just begging to be abused:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2008/06/09/street-racing.html

"As for truth: little things like hushed up friendly fire that cost allies (Canadians) lives. The canadians are sorta pissed about that, as they should be."

How do the documents constitute proof that friendly fire killed the Canadian soldiers in the incident? The Canadian military still maintains in face of the one document which reports that that it was enemy actions which killed the soldiers. A report which contradicts another report does not mean the latter is wrong: It could also be that the former is wrong. And then where do you get the "hushed up" from at all?

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/07/26/wikileak-afghanistan-canada-soldiers.html
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/07/28/wikileaks-friendly-fire-parents-reaction.html

That last story says a parent is angry at the Wikileaks-supplied report, not at the official story.

"As for truth: little things like hushed up friendly fire that cost allies (Canadians) lives. The canadians are sorta pissed about that, as they should be."

How do the documents constitute proof that friendly fire killed the Canadian soldiers in the incident? The Canadian military still maintains in face of the one document which reports that that it was enemy actions which killed the soldiers. A report which contradicts another report does not mean the latter is wrong: It could also be that the former is wrong. And then where do you get the "hushed up" from at all?

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/07/26/wikileak-afghanistan-canada-soldiers.html
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/07/28/wikileaks-friendly-fire-parents-reaction.html

That last story says a parent is angry at the Wikileaks-supplied report, not at the official story.

hm, I suppose a link might be helpful. http://www.cbc.ca/radio/