where does the article say that *ALL* conservatives are would vote for this and *all* NDP, Bloc, Green and Liberals would vote against ?
I don't think you understand how Canadian politics works. Unlike in the USA, the Prime Minister is a member of the house and has direct control over the party stance. This, coupled with extremely strong party discipline (you vote with the party EVERY time or you get kicked out, ruining your career), means that the P.M. is far more powerful than the President (within the political system; not in terms of overall world power) because in a majority government, the P.M. can pass basically any law he wants, as long as it satisfies the constitution.
That's not the case though, since he only has a minority of seats. Unfortunately, if a law fails to pass and it's an important one (read: whatever they want, so basically all of them), then the government fails and we have an election. But the Liberals won't allow this because they are very weak and would likely lose more in another election. If they go to the polls, it'll be about the budget or the Afghan war, not a copyright bill.
TL;DR:
The bill will pass because the opposition Liberals have too much to lose in the election that will be called if it fails. End of Story.
People with whom I communicate mostly use web-based clients like the GMail client, the Hotmail client, or some university's email site, all of which don't support encryption in an easy-to-use way. Also, at the moment (for several reasons) I happen to be using one of those clients.
Most of the same people don't see why encrypting their emails is neccessary in light of the previous point. Given that it takes a great deal of work do do it, why bother?
Whether I'd like to use encryption or not is irrelevant if those with whom I am communicating do not.
<sarcasm>
Why? Because some governments don't care about the law.
Well, I'm sure you could write them a nice letter asking them if they are illegally syping on you to find out. I see no reason why you wouldn't get an honest answer....
I guess it's a troll, otherwise he wouldn't have implied that the "kde free qt organization" is something about freeing kde from qt
Actually, I wasn't making that point at all. I was using Qt as an example of a situation where things started in a non-ideal situation, with a non-free license, but over time, TT first licensed it under their QPL (better, but not actually very good, because it's not GPL-compatible), then they licensed it under the GPL, but only for Linux, and then, finally, they released Qt4 under the GPL for all platforms.
And now that the KDE free Qt organization is there, it means that it goes under the BSD licence if they stop developing. The only reason I brought it up is as an example of a good end of a bad situation.
So next time, don't assume a person is trolling based on what you feel is a possible implication. Besides, KDE Free QT Foundation is what it's called! How is that ambiguous?
Instead of updating every computer in the office with a new version of some data management app, it is deployed once.
Or you could have a sensible package system which does updates (eg, one of the Linux package managers), or have the program itself do the updates (eg, Firefox). Your problem is solved.
A commonly mentioned benefit of web apps is portability, but this isn't really true either because of the variety (and inconsistency) of web browsers. What I think is a better approach is something like the solution we see with Qt, where you write your program once, then compile it for different platforms, and it looks native every time. You get the speed and the portability and the UI consistency and the tech support only needs to support one program.
I agree with you, however, that web apps are the new Visual Basic. They're slow, crappy, and often insecure.
Right, I got that. My point was that it's not really a very good idea to build open-source programs which are dependent on some proprietary library/toolkit/framework/etc, especially when the proprietary part is very large and complex (eg Java), or when a free alternative exists but the original remains patent-encumbered (Mono).
If the underlying framework is proprietary, the freedom of the other software is made irrelevant by the fact that the owners of the framework have total control over it.
Things can resolve themselves, however; see the KDE free Qt foundation as an example.
Wow! who would have thought!
Of course they did. I don't like it, and I'd like to see it stop, but the reality is that the Feds are watching you. Use encryption.
Assuming that this is a real cure for AIDS, will it be patented away and made prohibitively expensive, or will it be made available at low cost to those who need it?
A zealous ISP ignorantly decides the best way to comply with the decree is to re-route all of YouTube's IP addresses to whatever site they thought was more appropriate. The first repercussion was that YouTube disappeared from the Internet for almost an hour. I suspect the second repercussion was that Pakistan's Internet access crawled to a halt as all of a sudden they were handling IP requests for one of the busiest sites in the world. So I suspect that they do have an AS number that allows them to upload global routes. I agree they should lose it though; censoring your own country is bad enough, but screwing up the rest of the world is absolutely unacceptable. I need my dancing cats!
Or Maxis. The SimCity 4 Rush Hour expansion had a stupid thing where you could unlock buildings by doing "U-Drive it" missions or whatever, and now they've made some shitty "sim city societies" game that's not about building up and cities any more, and EA's to blame. Fucking assholes.
No, they'd be the same price, you just wouldn't have as many morons going to the doctor and demanding Fooviroflex(TM) instead of what was actually best.
Downside is that then drug companies can't boost consumption (& therefore profits) via ads.
Actually, I was helping my neighbour with their new computer the other day, and when I pointed out that you didn't need to pay $150 for Office 2007 Home&Student to write letters, they were very open to the idea of trying out OOo. I think they'll be very happy with it, mostly because they saved $150.
You must be new here. Convince the technologically-illiterate judge that they *do* exist, and then punish people for not providing them. Convincing technologically-illiterate judges of things that are simply not true has been going on for a while now.
Thanks for reading my post. I can see you clearly have a lucid understanding of what I said by the fact that you replied on a completely different topic. My point, if you'd bothered to try to comprehend it, is that the universities/colleges/etc are interested not in teaching, but in producing "coding fodder" for the IT industry.
Slashdot Mirror
i can almost guarantee I wont get a +5 insightful.
Somehow I don't think that's because you use a multitasking operating system...
where does the article say that *ALL* conservatives are would vote for this and *all* NDP, Bloc, Green and Liberals would vote against ?
I don't think you understand how Canadian politics works. Unlike in the USA, the Prime Minister is a member of the house and has direct control over the party stance. This, coupled with extremely strong party discipline (you vote with the party EVERY time or you get kicked out, ruining your career), means that the P.M. is far more powerful than the President (within the political system; not in terms of overall world power) because in a majority government, the P.M. can pass basically any law he wants, as long as it satisfies the constitution.
That's not the case though, since he only has a minority of seats. Unfortunately, if a law fails to pass and it's an important one (read: whatever they want, so basically all of them), then the government fails and we have an election. But the Liberals won't allow this because they are very weak and would likely lose more in another election. If they go to the polls, it'll be about the budget or the Afghan war, not a copyright bill. TL;DR:
The bill will pass because the opposition Liberals have too much to lose in the election that will be called if it fails. End of Story.
Whether I'd like to use encryption or not is irrelevant if those with whom I am communicating do not.
<sarcasm>
Why? Because some governments don't care about the law.
Well, I'm sure you could write them a nice letter asking them if they are illegally syping on you to find out. I see no reason why you wouldn't get an honest answer....
</sarcasm>
How about a link to both?
I guess it's a troll, otherwise he wouldn't have implied that the "kde free qt organization" is something about freeing kde from qt
Actually, I wasn't making that point at all. I was using Qt as an example of a situation where things started in a non-ideal situation, with a non-free license, but over time, TT first licensed it under their QPL (better, but not actually very good, because it's not GPL-compatible), then they licensed it under the GPL, but only for Linux, and then, finally, they released Qt4 under the GPL for all platforms.
And now that the KDE free Qt organization is there, it means that it goes under the BSD licence if they stop developing. The only reason I brought it up is as an example of a good end of a bad situation.
So next time, don't assume a person is trolling based on what you feel is a possible implication. Besides, KDE Free QT Foundation is what it's called! How is that ambiguous?
Instead of updating every computer in the office with a new version of some data management app, it is deployed once.
Or you could have a sensible package system which does updates (eg, one of the Linux package managers), or have the program itself do the updates (eg, Firefox). Your problem is solved.
A commonly mentioned benefit of web apps is portability, but this isn't really true either because of the variety (and inconsistency) of web browsers. What I think is a better approach is something like the solution we see with Qt, where you write your program once, then compile it for different platforms, and it looks native every time. You get the speed and the portability and the UI consistency and the tech support only needs to support one program.
I agree with you, however, that web apps are the new Visual Basic. They're slow, crappy, and often insecure.
Right, I got that. My point was that it's not really a very good idea to build open-source programs which are dependent on some proprietary library/toolkit/framework/etc, especially when the proprietary part is very large and complex (eg Java), or when a free alternative exists but the original remains patent-encumbered (Mono). If the underlying framework is proprietary, the freedom of the other software is made irrelevant by the fact that the owners of the framework have total control over it. Things can resolve themselves, however; see the KDE free Qt foundation as an example.
Er, disregard that, I was wrong
well, it says it's going to be "open-sourced" but it's not clear that that even means anything because afaik it's based on flash.
Now we can finally get this "web operating system" thing I've heard so much about...
At the time of this posting it's at 76 000 members, actually.
Did they fix the bug where Safari installs as an iTunes update? I'd say that that is a fairly severe bug right there.
Well, actually our government's about to screw us over too
Looks like you'll have to pick a different country.
If people hadn't jumped to conclusions and had done a more thorough investigation, this man would not have lost his job and reputation.
Wow! who would have thought!
Of course they did. I don't like it, and I'd like to see it stop, but the reality is that the Feds are watching you.
Use encryption.
Assuming that this is a real cure for AIDS, will it be patented away and made prohibitively expensive, or will it be made available at low cost to those who need it?
Nope. The "long scale" you're thinking of goes roughly as follows: million = 10^6 milliard = 10^9 billion = 10^12 billiard = 10^15 etc etc
Or Maxis. The SimCity 4 Rush Hour expansion had a stupid thing where you could unlock buildings by doing "U-Drive it" missions or whatever, and now they've made some shitty "sim city societies" game that's not about building up and cities any more, and EA's to blame. Fucking assholes.
Fuck you. Banning Youtube is stupid, but that doesn't mean that Islam itself is bad. There are lots of tolerant Muslim people out there.
No, they'd be the same price, you just wouldn't have as many morons going to the doctor and demanding Fooviroflex(TM) instead of what was actually best.
Downside is that then drug companies can't boost consumption (& therefore profits) via ads.
Actually, I was helping my neighbour with their new computer the other day, and when I pointed out that you didn't need to pay $150 for Office 2007 Home&Student to write letters, they were very open to the idea of trying out OOo. I think they'll be very happy with it, mostly because they saved $150.
You must be new here. Convince the technologically-illiterate judge that they *do* exist, and then punish people for not providing them. Convincing technologically-illiterate judges of things that are simply not true has been going on for a while now.
Thanks for reading my post. I can see you clearly have a lucid understanding of what I said by the fact that you replied on a completely different topic. My point, if you'd bothered to try to comprehend it, is that the universities/colleges/etc are interested not in teaching, but in producing "coding fodder" for the IT industry.