The good part is that I don't know anyone who's ever had something go missing.
That is an interesting point. My wife sells Regal products, although I don't think I'd understand why someone would want to steal that junk, in three years we've never had a monthly order stolen. I also have never known anyone who's had something taken from their doorstep.
I had the same thought until I realized my wife's Xmas order was left on our front step last week by Canada Post. Normally they just leave a door hanger telling us where and when we can pick up the package.
The drone would be a neat idea if I could have it drop the package in the backyard instead of out front. 30-60 minutes isn't really a bad amount of time to wait for a delivery, on par with Pizza. The major issue being you'd have to be near a deployment center, I imagine the only Amazon deployment centers in Canada are in Toronto and Ottawa.
I don't really understand why this is so hard for some people. It has nothing to do with this specific scenario I concocted based on events I've read multiple times in various news sources. Yes, parents should be responsible and not let "snowflakes" play with expensive toys, but this is about the end results of the scenario.
**WHEN** someone's device is bricked because of a download in a distributors store the distributor will be held accountable for damages. So the same people saying "Well, I don't want to have to jump through series of pointless hoops" are the people who will be wagging the finger at the distributor for allowing that to happen in the first place. A distributor knowing an app is "potentially dangerous" to a device sounds like a good class action argument to me. Should Google be putting themselves in a position where they *can* be sued because they allowed a "potentially dangerous" app to be distributed through their official channel! It's rhetorical, the answer is no. Especially when there are other ways for that app to be distributed anyway.
I found your comment very insightful up to this point:
people have been updating hardware drivers (firmware) on PCs for decades
It seems to me the difference is hardware drivers tell one device how to interact with another device, where as firmware tells a device how to work with itself. Screwing up firmware means the device might not work properly period making it very hard for a non-technical person to fix, screwing up hardware drivers means you can't connect or use another device like a printer, sound or video card, which is pretty easily remedied because the primary controlling device still works and updating the driver is trivial.
I don't disagree with the rest of what you posted and it pretty much matches my earlier post:
Well, the CM team is free to distribute their app in other ways.
I like the idea of distributing FOSS applications through Git or sourceforge and being able to compile the code myself. I also feel that would be an appropriate place for Cyanogen app, out of the reach of tweens who are just messing around with their parents phones and somewhere where a more technical person looking for that kind of functionality is apt to look, if that type of stuff was available there to begin with.
I agree with you, taking personal responsibility is important. The problem being those like us who willingly admit when they've done something wrong rather than pointing the figure are in the minority. And the Media loves to pick up stories that cause outrage because some yokel didn't lock their phone or let their 12 year old play with it and ended up with a $5000+ phone bill. Who gets blamed for that?I'm pretty sure the finger is normally pointed at the service provider because they didn't make it hard enough to do.
Now in some cases I can clearly see the service provider is intentionally creating a confusing scenario or just being a jerk, like the person that had a huge cell bill in BC because their phone was connecting to an American cell network that was over powering the service providers, but for the most part your right on the button.
Modifying device firmware should never be a one click download from an app store. If you want to modify your devices firmware than you should know how to "download from a site into sd card, tick a box in some settings, get a file manager to navigate to app and tap click to install it" otherwise there are going to be a lot of spoiled teens out there with broken phones and tablets and parents blaming Google for messing up their kids $400+ device.
I really want to say just getting their story on/. is a good way to gain traction with the people that actually have the expertise to use this product, but I'm absolute miffed by the number of comments, already, on this story where the commented doesn't know the difference between software and firmware and doesn't understand why that would void a devices warranty.
Well, the CM team is free to distribute their app in other ways. Apple is a little more strict about only allowing apps from their store to be installed. I know jail breaking and all that, but if you're going to jail break your apple device you should already understand the risks and be technically savvy enough to do it.
Google shouldn't have to allowed a known "potentially" dangerous app in their store. Anyone with the expertise required to use this firmware can go and get it from the Cyanogen website. It doesn't need to be advertised in the app store for non-technical people to download. Without researching it I'm sure a laymen would think firmware is some kind of a game and could mess up their device without knowing it. Then who's going to take the blame. I suspect it would be Google for distributing it, a laymen will never take responsibility for using something they didn't understand.
Except they won't and you only get one chance to make a first impression. They had their chance and screwed it up, on just about every conceivable level. They can't compete with Apple for the high end / status symbol market or with Androids for the techy geek / cheap tablet market and windows 8 is a joke MS sold their primary market out for to try and get into the "me too" market.
They have such a bad wrap now from screwing up win 8 that just mentioning win 8 is installed is enough to send most people screaming from the stores. Botched RT, write off on surface, terrible reviews, no apps, screwing over desktop users and the list goes on. 8.1 isn't much better and only served to mock users that wanted a proper start menu back in the OS. The horn they'd be tooting would be more like a badly tuned kazoo.
Actually there was a municipal regulation to charge for bags, but it was dropped pretty quickly. Just like it was in Toronto apparently. Some stores just decided to be "ecofriendly" and continue to charge for the bags even though they didn't have to. Sobey's opted to sell reusable bags and *not* charge for plastic so they ended up pulling in a ton of Superstore customers for awhile.
I didn't think you were, in case that's what my response seemed to imply I thought.
I seriously doubt they're paying $0.05 per bag. They order them by the tens of thousands I doubt they even pay a full $0.01 per bag. Sure they're saving money if I'm using a reusable bag, but like I said when the option is I pay $2 for a reusable or $0.05 for a disposable I'm saving money too.
Like Toronto there was a municipal law here in Halifax at one point that stores had to charge for bags, which is how the whole reusable bag thing got started here. That lasted all of a couple weeks, but some retailers used "ecofriendly" as an excuse to continue charging after the law was repealed, but offered no alternative to plastic bags. Had they really been concerned about being "ecofriendly" they would have offered an alternative. If Sobey's had gone along with Superstore and charged for bags we wouldn't have a choice except to pay for them.
I would have liked to see the proceeds from plastic bags go to charity rather than the store making profit off them. They buy those cheap plastic bags by the tens of thousands you can't tell me they're paying even one cent a bag let alone the five cents they were charging for them. I'm sure it's part of the reason people around here had such a hate on for Superstore. They didn't offer an alternative and practically sawed off a leg for something that's been free for as long as I can remember. Then Sobey's started selling reusables and *still* didn't charge for plastic.
It's pretty well the same here now, most people use the reusable bags even though no one's charging for plastic anymore. As I said, I also pick up some cheapy plastic ones every now and then to use for garbage and recycling.
Better still if they could develop plastic bag alternatives that degrade. That would be very useful.
Paper bags, and they suck. I go to the liquor store and buy a couple bottles of wine and they put them in the paper bags, I can't count the number of times the bottoms ripped out just from picking the bag up off the counter.
I'm in Toronto, and we also had the 5c bad thing. I think it was repealed, but our grocery store still has charges it (loblaws).
Odd, isn't Sobey's owned by Loblaws? or is superstore owned by them?
I/my wife spend about $100 a week on groceries, for us that's between five to ten bags so $0.25 to $0.50 a week on bags. As I pointed out in another post that's about $19.50 a year, or $78 for four years. Since I've had my reusable bags (one time $12 fee) for four years I've saved about $75. It's not a lot when you think about it as $0.20 a week, but that adds up. five weeks is a dollar, a year (52 weeks) is $10.40. Maybe some people don't care about that, but if I was earning $10.40 a year in interest on a bank account I'd be ecstatic.
It goes even beyond that. As I pointed out in another post I may have paid $12 for the original 6 bags, but the longer I have the bags the more spread out the cost is. Sobey's still offers free plastic bags, it's a customers choice to buy reusable ones. But it works out well for the eco-conscious that realize five to ten plastic bags a week are being tossed out. Opposed to the strategy of the other store, which was to charge you $0.05 per plastic bag and not offer a chose for reusable bags. So as I pointed out, I've actually saved around $75 over the last four years by buying the reusable, which are durable and useful for all kinds of other things, and not having to pay for plastic bags.
You complain about lagers stores charging for plastic bags and paid 12 bux to a small store for "reusable bags"
I wasn't complaining, just stating when given the option people willingly paid for reusable bags, rather than being suckered into paying $0.05 for a throw away bag and no other option. That basically works out to be between $0.25 to $0.50 rough estimate $0.375 a week or $19.50 a year for my house hold, just for groceries. I bought six reusable bags for $2 a piece and have had them for at least four years. So I would have spent around $78.00 over the last four years on plastic bags instead I can average the cost of the reusables over four years ($3/year for 12 bags). Total savings so far $75 over four years.
Also FYI, Sobey's isn't a small store, it's as large a chain in Canada as Superstore and their stores are of comparably equal size, which is why it was shocking to not be able to get into the store after Superstore started charging for their bags.
Now I have bought reusable bags but there built very poorly and cheap, forcing you to either watch how much weight you put into the bags, or buy new ones because there going to wear out fairly quickly anyway, depending on how often you use them
No, the bags are very well constructed and significantly more durable than cheap plastic bags. I've only had to have three replaced over the last four years because my cat ate a hole in two of them and I accidentally banged one into into a draw handle while carrying two 4L (~1 gallon) jugs of milk, also punching a hole through a jug of milk. Definitely not a defect in the bag.
If they made them out of hemp fiber there's no doubt they would last probably for the rest of your life (the others maybe as well if they're put together the right way). I have clothing made from hemp that has yet to even wear out, 20 years later.
I fully support, and agree, that hemp would be a superior material.
What should be passed in this country is allowing reusable bags in superstores or any store (I'm living in the US), I not sure which "commercial" stores will and will not allow you to use them but I have heard of some refusing to allow you to use them, and I do know some stores have a policy that charge you for using plastic bags. ALDI's I think has such a policy here in Pennsylvania, but they also sell reusable bags, or will allow you to use any bags you bring into the store.
I honestly can't wrap my mind around why a store wouldn't want you to bring your own reusable bags. Their options are to offer plastics at the stores expense, charge a consumer for the plastics, which doesn't normally go over well when customers are use to free bags, or allow reusable bags. If I walked into a store with my own bag, backpack or otherwise, and was told upon checking out I couldn't put the products I purchased into my personally supplied bags I'd demand a refund, if I'd already paid, or just walk out and leave the products on there for someone else to put away.
They tried that here in Nova Scotia, at one point. Home Depot, Superstore and Walmart were charging 5 cents for each plastic bag. Sobey's, a competing grocery store with Superstore, opted not to charge for bags. Superstore lost BIG because people saw charging for bags as a cash grab, passing the buck, and making a profit, for something that's been free for a long time off to the consumer. People started going to Sobey's in droves, I remember not even being able to get in a store at one point. It wasn't long before Superstore stopped charging for bags. Not long after that so did Home Depot. I speculate because Kent, Home Depot's competition, didn't charge. Warlmart gave up shortly there after when Costco moved into town.
What Sobey's did do right was start selling cheap reusable nylon and canvas bags, which they would replace if ever the bag was damaged. I paid around $12 for six bags and some how ended up with ten somewhere along the way. I've had three replaced over the last four years with no issues. People still use plastic bags, I get them every now and then to clean the cat box and for kitchen catchers, but I see a lot more people using the reusable bags instead.
I think it might be partly due to all the Albertans who lost their computers in last years big flood. Don't worry once they dry out they'll be back on.
For anyone that can't see I'm being facetious, one flood isn't proof of global warming, but this was an extreme event, which we seem to be getting more and more of lately.
Science at work, let's observer the new price to see if my hypothesis is correct. I'll gladly admit in 20 years I was wrong if it turns out he's a pretty stand up guy.
How exactly could you revoke the Queen decision...
Simple, you'd just ignore her. It might not be polite and I'm sure you'd get a stern talking to, but I highly doubt anyone's going to start a war over it. Like I said we allow her to be Queen as long as she doesn't actually force us to do anything. If she told our government to bomb our own the country on fire, do you really think anyone's actually going to listen to her?
For God(s) sake play some D&D. No contest. Undead Zombie/Vampire/Lich King with an army is worse.
I'd say it's much worse, one women throwing a sword vs. hordes of undead zombies, skeleton or vampires trying to eat/kill you to turning you into an undying eternal servant of evil?
And how is waiting for someone to pull a sword out of a block of stone dangerous? Well other than the inevitable anarchy, or worse "democracy", there'd be while you waited for the one true king to show up. You could just refuse to follow the guy that succeed in pulling the sword out you know. I highly doubt the person that wrote that original prophesy thought about what would happen if the guy that succeed was a douche from the Jersey Shore and he'd probably forgive you for not blindly following him.
Yeah, we respect the heritage, Canada was a British colony at one point and we made a reasonable agreement to voluntarily respect the crowns authority in exchange for not having to take our independence forcefully. Only *once* in the last 150+ years has the GG *not* done what a Prime Minister asked. See the The 1926 King-Byng Affair
So sure the Queen, or Crown, could interfere in Canadian politics, but *we* allow them that ability and could revoke it at anytime, especially if it was abused. What do you think the crown would do if we decided we weren't going to let them "rule" us anymore? As if we're so incredibly oppressed...
She's our Queen in title only. No one here is going to do what she says unless they want to.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree, you can never have too many winter socks.
The good part is that I don't know anyone who's ever had something go missing.
That is an interesting point. My wife sells Regal products, although I don't think I'd understand why someone would want to steal that junk, in three years we've never had a monthly order stolen. I also have never known anyone who's had something taken from their doorstep.
I had the same thought until I realized my wife's Xmas order was left on our front step last week by Canada Post. Normally they just leave a door hanger telling us where and when we can pick up the package.
The drone would be a neat idea if I could have it drop the package in the backyard instead of out front. 30-60 minutes isn't really a bad amount of time to wait for a delivery, on par with Pizza. The major issue being you'd have to be near a deployment center, I imagine the only Amazon deployment centers in Canada are in Toronto and Ottawa.
Thanks, I knew Loblaws owned one of them.
I don't really understand why this is so hard for some people. It has nothing to do with this specific scenario I concocted based on events I've read multiple times in various news sources. Yes, parents should be responsible and not let "snowflakes" play with expensive toys, but this is about the end results of the scenario.
**WHEN** someone's device is bricked because of a download in a distributors store the distributor will be held accountable for damages. So the same people saying "Well, I don't want to have to jump through series of pointless hoops" are the people who will be wagging the finger at the distributor for allowing that to happen in the first place. A distributor knowing an app is "potentially dangerous" to a device sounds like a good class action argument to me. Should Google be putting themselves in a position where they *can* be sued because they allowed a "potentially dangerous" app to be distributed through their official channel! It's rhetorical, the answer is no. Especially when there are other ways for that app to be distributed anyway.
people have been updating hardware drivers (firmware) on PCs for decades
It seems to me the difference is hardware drivers tell one device how to interact with another device, where as firmware tells a device how to work with itself. Screwing up firmware means the device might not work properly period making it very hard for a non-technical person to fix, screwing up hardware drivers means you can't connect or use another device like a printer, sound or video card, which is pretty easily remedied because the primary controlling device still works and updating the driver is trivial.
I don't disagree with the rest of what you posted and it pretty much matches my earlier post:
Well, the CM team is free to distribute their app in other ways.
I like the idea of distributing FOSS applications through Git or sourceforge and being able to compile the code myself. I also feel that would be an appropriate place for Cyanogen app, out of the reach of tweens who are just messing around with their parents phones and somewhere where a more technical person looking for that kind of functionality is apt to look, if that type of stuff was available there to begin with.
I agree with you, taking personal responsibility is important. The problem being those like us who willingly admit when they've done something wrong rather than pointing the figure are in the minority. And the Media loves to pick up stories that cause outrage because some yokel didn't lock their phone or let their 12 year old play with it and ended up with a $5000+ phone bill. Who gets blamed for that?I'm pretty sure the finger is normally pointed at the service provider because they didn't make it hard enough to do.
Now in some cases I can clearly see the service provider is intentionally creating a confusing scenario or just being a jerk, like the person that had a huge cell bill in BC because their phone was connecting to an American cell network that was over powering the service providers, but for the most part your right on the button.
Modifying device firmware should never be a one click download from an app store. If you want to modify your devices firmware than you should know how to "download from a site into sd card, tick a box in some settings, get a file manager to navigate to app and tap click to install it" otherwise there are going to be a lot of spoiled teens out there with broken phones and tablets and parents blaming Google for messing up their kids $400+ device.
/. is a good way to gain traction with the people that actually have the expertise to use this product, but I'm absolute miffed by the number of comments, already, on this story where the commented doesn't know the difference between software and firmware and doesn't understand why that would void a devices warranty.
I really want to say just getting their story on
Well, the CM team is free to distribute their app in other ways. Apple is a little more strict about only allowing apps from their store to be installed. I know jail breaking and all that, but if you're going to jail break your apple device you should already understand the risks and be technically savvy enough to do it.
Google shouldn't have to allowed a known "potentially" dangerous app in their store. Anyone with the expertise required to use this firmware can go and get it from the Cyanogen website. It doesn't need to be advertised in the app store for non-technical people to download. Without researching it I'm sure a laymen would think firmware is some kind of a game and could mess up their device without knowing it. Then who's going to take the blame. I suspect it would be Google for distributing it, a laymen will never take responsibility for using something they didn't understand.
Except they won't and you only get one chance to make a first impression. They had their chance and screwed it up, on just about every conceivable level. They can't compete with Apple for the high end / status symbol market or with Androids for the techy geek / cheap tablet market and windows 8 is a joke MS sold their primary market out for to try and get into the "me too" market.
They have such a bad wrap now from screwing up win 8 that just mentioning win 8 is installed is enough to send most people screaming from the stores. Botched RT, write off on surface, terrible reviews, no apps, screwing over desktop users and the list goes on. 8.1 isn't much better and only served to mock users that wanted a proper start menu back in the OS. The horn they'd be tooting would be more like a badly tuned kazoo.
Actually there was a municipal regulation to charge for bags, but it was dropped pretty quickly. Just like it was in Toronto apparently. Some stores just decided to be "ecofriendly" and continue to charge for the bags even though they didn't have to. Sobey's opted to sell reusable bags and *not* charge for plastic so they ended up pulling in a ton of Superstore customers for awhile.
I really wasn't being snarky in my post
I didn't think you were, in case that's what my response seemed to imply I thought.
I seriously doubt they're paying $0.05 per bag. They order them by the tens of thousands I doubt they even pay a full $0.01 per bag. Sure they're saving money if I'm using a reusable bag, but like I said when the option is I pay $2 for a reusable or $0.05 for a disposable I'm saving money too.
Like Toronto there was a municipal law here in Halifax at one point that stores had to charge for bags, which is how the whole reusable bag thing got started here. That lasted all of a couple weeks, but some retailers used "ecofriendly" as an excuse to continue charging after the law was repealed, but offered no alternative to plastic bags. Had they really been concerned about being "ecofriendly" they would have offered an alternative. If Sobey's had gone along with Superstore and charged for bags we wouldn't have a choice except to pay for them.
I would have liked to see the proceeds from plastic bags go to charity rather than the store making profit off them. They buy those cheap plastic bags by the tens of thousands you can't tell me they're paying even one cent a bag let alone the five cents they were charging for them. I'm sure it's part of the reason people around here had such a hate on for Superstore. They didn't offer an alternative and practically sawed off a leg for something that's been free for as long as I can remember. Then Sobey's started selling reusables and *still* didn't charge for plastic.
It's pretty well the same here now, most people use the reusable bags even though no one's charging for plastic anymore. As I said, I also pick up some cheapy plastic ones every now and then to use for garbage and recycling.
Better still if they could develop plastic bag alternatives that degrade. That would be very useful.
Paper bags, and they suck. I go to the liquor store and buy a couple bottles of wine and they put them in the paper bags, I can't count the number of times the bottoms ripped out just from picking the bag up off the counter.
I'm in Toronto, and we also had the 5c bad thing. I think it was repealed, but our grocery store still has charges it (loblaws).
Odd, isn't Sobey's owned by Loblaws? or is superstore owned by them? I/my wife spend about $100 a week on groceries, for us that's between five to ten bags so $0.25 to $0.50 a week on bags. As I pointed out in another post that's about $19.50 a year, or $78 for four years. Since I've had my reusable bags (one time $12 fee) for four years I've saved about $75. It's not a lot when you think about it as $0.20 a week, but that adds up. five weeks is a dollar, a year (52 weeks) is $10.40. Maybe some people don't care about that, but if I was earning $10.40 a year in interest on a bank account I'd be ecstatic.
It goes even beyond that. As I pointed out in another post I may have paid $12 for the original 6 bags, but the longer I have the bags the more spread out the cost is. Sobey's still offers free plastic bags, it's a customers choice to buy reusable ones. But it works out well for the eco-conscious that realize five to ten plastic bags a week are being tossed out. Opposed to the strategy of the other store, which was to charge you $0.05 per plastic bag and not offer a chose for reusable bags. So as I pointed out, I've actually saved around $75 over the last four years by buying the reusable, which are durable and useful for all kinds of other things, and not having to pay for plastic bags.
You complain about lagers stores charging for plastic bags and paid 12 bux to a small store for "reusable bags"
I wasn't complaining, just stating when given the option people willingly paid for reusable bags, rather than being suckered into paying $0.05 for a throw away bag and no other option. That basically works out to be between $0.25 to $0.50 rough estimate $0.375 a week or $19.50 a year for my house hold, just for groceries. I bought six reusable bags for $2 a piece and have had them for at least four years. So I would have spent around $78.00 over the last four years on plastic bags instead I can average the cost of the reusables over four years ($3/year for 12 bags). Total savings so far $75 over four years.
Also FYI, Sobey's isn't a small store, it's as large a chain in Canada as Superstore and their stores are of comparably equal size, which is why it was shocking to not be able to get into the store after Superstore started charging for their bags.
Now I have bought reusable bags but there built very poorly and cheap, forcing you to either watch how much weight you put into the bags, or buy new ones because there going to wear out fairly quickly anyway, depending on how often you use them
No, the bags are very well constructed and significantly more durable than cheap plastic bags. I've only had to have three replaced over the last four years because my cat ate a hole in two of them and I accidentally banged one into into a draw handle while carrying two 4L (~1 gallon) jugs of milk, also punching a hole through a jug of milk. Definitely not a defect in the bag.
If they made them out of hemp fiber there's no doubt they would last probably for the rest of your life (the others maybe as well if they're put together the right way). I have clothing made from hemp that has yet to even wear out, 20 years later.
I fully support, and agree, that hemp would be a superior material.
What should be passed in this country is allowing reusable bags in superstores or any store (I'm living in the US), I not sure which "commercial" stores will and will not allow you to use them but I have heard of some refusing to allow you to use them, and I do know some stores have a policy that charge you for using plastic bags. ALDI's I think has such a policy here in Pennsylvania, but they also sell reusable bags, or will allow you to use any bags you bring into the store.
I honestly can't wrap my mind around why a store wouldn't want you to bring your own reusable bags. Their options are to offer plastics at the stores expense, charge a consumer for the plastics, which doesn't normally go over well when customers are use to free bags, or allow reusable bags. If I walked into a store with my own bag, backpack or otherwise, and was told upon checking out I couldn't put the products I purchased into my personally supplied bags I'd demand a refund, if I'd already paid, or just walk out and leave the products on there for someone else to put away.
They tried that here in Nova Scotia, at one point. Home Depot, Superstore and Walmart were charging 5 cents for each plastic bag. Sobey's, a competing grocery store with Superstore, opted not to charge for bags. Superstore lost BIG because people saw charging for bags as a cash grab, passing the buck, and making a profit, for something that's been free for a long time off to the consumer. People started going to Sobey's in droves, I remember not even being able to get in a store at one point. It wasn't long before Superstore stopped charging for bags. Not long after that so did Home Depot. I speculate because Kent, Home Depot's competition, didn't charge. Warlmart gave up shortly there after when Costco moved into town.
What Sobey's did do right was start selling cheap reusable nylon and canvas bags, which they would replace if ever the bag was damaged. I paid around $12 for six bags and some how ended up with ten somewhere along the way. I've had three replaced over the last four years with no issues. People still use plastic bags, I get them every now and then to clean the cat box and for kitchen catchers, but I see a lot more people using the reusable bags instead.
It's funny it's ok to assume people using anonymous handles that aren't worried or have a negative comment must be male.
It's not possible Some of these comments could be women trying to troll or reinforce a sterotype for their benifit?
Oh, but it's ok to be sexist against men. Sorry I forgot.
I think it might be partly due to all the Albertans who lost their computers in last years big flood. Don't worry once they dry out they'll be back on.
For anyone that can't see I'm being facetious, one flood isn't proof of global warming, but this was an extreme event, which we seem to be getting more and more of lately.
Science at work, let's observer the new price to see if my hypothesis is correct. I'll gladly admit in 20 years I was wrong if it turns out he's a pretty stand up guy.
How exactly could you revoke the Queen decision ...
Simple, you'd just ignore her. It might not be polite and I'm sure you'd get a stern talking to, but I highly doubt anyone's going to start a war over it. Like I said we allow her to be Queen as long as she doesn't actually force us to do anything. If she told our government to bomb our own the country on fire, do you really think anyone's actually going to listen to her?
Some of us think it's a romantic idea to belong to a kingdom, I totally feel like a knight when I say I belong to the Dominion of Canada.
Others just like the feeling of being dominated, but with out the whips and chains.
For God(s) sake play some D&D. No contest. Undead Zombie/Vampire/Lich King with an army is worse. I'd say it's much worse, one women throwing a sword vs. hordes of undead zombies, skeleton or vampires trying to eat/kill you to turning you into an undying eternal servant of evil? And how is waiting for someone to pull a sword out of a block of stone dangerous? Well other than the inevitable anarchy, or worse "democracy", there'd be while you waited for the one true king to show up. You could just refuse to follow the guy that succeed in pulling the sword out you know. I highly doubt the person that wrote that original prophesy thought about what would happen if the guy that succeed was a douche from the Jersey Shore and he'd probably forgive you for not blindly following him.
Yeah, we respect the heritage, Canada was a British colony at one point and we made a reasonable agreement to voluntarily respect the crowns authority in exchange for not having to take our independence forcefully. Only *once* in the last 150+ years has the GG *not* done what a Prime Minister asked. See the The 1926 King-Byng Affair
So sure the Queen, or Crown, could interfere in Canadian politics, but *we* allow them that ability and could revoke it at anytime, especially if it was abused. What do you think the crown would do if we decided we weren't going to let them "rule" us anymore? As if we're so incredibly oppressed...
She's our Queen in title only. No one here is going to do what she says unless they want to.