I'm still trying to decide if I'm closer to Vancouver or Toronto. I'm in the dead centre of "The Gap". They must know that the most avid opponents of the DMCA-like law live in Saskatchewan:)
They are protected in our constitution too, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This case is pretty much shooting down an unconstitutional bylaw of a city in Quebec.
This is not precident to establish free speech in Canada, it's just reaffirming it.
Actually, the original poster said the S.A. invented apartheid. It didn't, he was wrong on that point. IIRC, Canada still has apartheid. Just slightly, though.
Canadian Indians have certain rights that non-indians don't have. Indians can hunt out of season, they don't need to get a gun licence. Until recently there were laws that applied to Indians that didn't apply to non-indians (Recently being the last 20 years) there may well still be.. but I don't recall at the moment. I seem to remember the Indian Act, 1986, being the last Act of Parliament concerning Indians.
If someone charges you 80$ for a service/product you have a CHOICE. You can either pay and use it for all thats its worth, or you can save your money and go out and get some beers instead.
While this is true, the problem is that $80 doesn't get you that much beer anymore:(
This thread is just about whining imho. We have a similar situation in Sweden right now, since our stupid former telecom monopoly is talking about raising their ADSL-charges to around 60$. And yes, nobody is going to use them if they do it since there are plenty of private alternatives now.
I also think the CRTC will have something to say about these price raises.
Was your former telecom monopoly a Crown monopoly? We in Saskatchewan have a Crown monopoly telecom monopoly, but they're not too bad, mostly because they don't need to make a profit:).
I know at least Saskatchewan and British Columbia have Crown auto insurance. I like it, I live in Alberta now with its private insurance, they pay $2500/year for car insurance! I pay $513 for the same service.
Her Majesty in Right of Saskatchewan can be a good thing....:)
If I could get an un-capped upload and download line, and the ability to use the bandwidth as I see fit, I'd be willing to pay US$100 for it. I don't think $80 canadian would be a bad price at all.
You forget that $80 Canadian is still $80. People seem to think that since our currency is low, we get more of it. We don't. You may make, say USD$2000/month for your job. I do the same job, I get paid CAD$2000. It's the same portion of our respective paycheques.
I also think that the CRTC may have something to say about this. It seems to violate their price caps. I can get uncapped bandwidth here for $35CAD/month. If it goes up to $80, I'd be some pissed off. Do a little math, that's 16/7 of the original cost.
They can in Canada, and probably the USA too. In fact, in Canada, provincial governments can sue other provincial governments. I wouldn't be surprised to find that the American states can sue other states.
In Saskatchewan, auto insurance is provided by the government. My mother was visiting my sister in Alberta (no government insurance), when her car was hit by a guy with no insurance or licence.
Mum's insurance paid to have her car fixed, and now SGI (Saskatchewan Government Insurance) has filed suit in the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench (The highest trial court in Alberta). They're suing him for ~$17000, the cost of the repairs.
If you read the transcripts they would say:
Plaintiff: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Saskatchewan
I've met very few people who like to use a Unix machine for their daily task. Yeah, they will talk about its dubious technical superiority, but they all hope they have a better user interface.
Unless you count MacOS X:)
I have to confess most of the Apple users I met love Apple. There is the Cost of Owership problem though. OK, this is debatable. I'd like to hear what you all have to say about that.
I'm a recent convert from the PC (Winders, FreeBSD). I quite like my iBook, I bought it in November. The OS (MacOS X) is great, the HW is great. The cost is a little high, at least for the hardware. $2500CAD for this machine, but it includes all the software I need, iTunes, Appleworks, QT, and developer tools. And I also use The GIMP various other X apps in XDarwin.
My pc (only hardware) was a grand total of $600CAD + $100 for Windoze, and a hour download of FreeBSD, and about 15 minutes for StarOffice. I don't play many games, so I got all I need there. In total the iBook cost about 4x as much, but not much more than a PC notebook.
What! Why on earth would you want to return to an archaric leadership concept.
We wouldn't be returning to anything, we'd just be repatriating it.
Monarchies represent a past littered with cruelity, poverty, slavery, oppresion, injustice . . . well you get the idea. Time to let it die. The French had the right idea a few hundred years ago.
The American republic (of old, you've changed now) also represented such things. The loyalists were stripped of any rights and thrown in jail or put to death without a trial.
France did have the right idea. They were not a democracy, they were a totalitarian monarchy, which I believe are evil. England was a democracy, but the democracy of England controlled her American colonies, which had no representation. It wasn't the monarchy you threw out (well you did, but that wasn't the goal). The goal was to rid yourselves of foreign rule.
After you did that, England shit their pants, and said "Well, we'd better give out remaining colonies represntation." Canada benefitted by having colonial legislatures, and representation in the Imperial Parliament.
Her title changes with where you are. In Canada,
her name is "Elizabeth II, by Grace of God, Queen of Canada, Queen of the United Kingdom and Queen of her other realms and territories across the seas"
In the UK she's "Elizabeth II, by Grace of God Queen of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Norther Ireland, Defender of the Faith.
Ah, well you (I'll assume you're in the USA) have a constitution with checks and balances in it to prevent power grabs, right?
Same deal in Canada, but we have a PERSON to be the ultimate check and balance. For the most part, a king or queen (they lack capitals unless you're refering to a specific king or queen) is just a puppet of the people, however they can refuse to sign a bill that would give Parliament more power, for example, another example would be if the opposition party was in the middle of a leadership race, and the PM trying to call an election, which is legal, but it is undemocratic, the people would only have one choice.
The monarchy is like a fire extinguisher, it will probably never be used, but that doesn't make it useless. In Canada the monarchy's sole purpose is to prevent undemocratic power grabs and other such stuff.
A king or queen should theoretically be apolitical in nature, not associated with any party. They represent the people now, not themselves as was the case when America separated itself from the empire. The institution of the monarchy is completely different now than it was 200 years ago, pretty much the things that remained were birthright and the title. The situation that existed 200 years ago is dead, and should stay that way. The problem is that most people associate a monarchy with what existed 200 years ago.
Oh, btw, my idea was not to have a royal family a la Britain, but instead we appoint a person to be king/queen for life, then choose a new one when they die. There is a word in German for it, the word translates as "A selected King", but I can't think of it off hand.
You assume that a monarchy is automatically totalitarian. Look at Europe, I can't think of ANY totalitarian monarchies in western Europe. Belgium, The Netherlands, Denmark, the UK, Sweden, Norway, all are democracies, and all are monarchies. They have a king or queen but also an elected parliament where the real power lies. The monarch is just a figurehead, s/he doesn't have any real power like the President of the USA does.
Monarchies are not bad. Totalitarian monarchies are. Just as totalitarian Republics are bad. I'd take Canada's monarchy over China or Russia's republic any day.
Another point I'd like to make is that there is an aristocracy in the USA. It doesn't carry any titles with it, but it does include privelege and power by birth. The Old Money Rich. They are America's aristocracy. Look at your Senators and Congressmen, and see how many come from these families.
The USA is a republic, and it works. Good for you. Canada is a monarchy. It works too, we're free, have rights, and can vote for whoever we want, just like the Americans.
If you're wondering about my sig, it's the last line from the chorus of "The Maple Leaf Forever", which served as Canada's national anthem from confederation till the repatriating of the constitution in 1982.
If you've ever been inside an igloo, you'd understand. They get to about +15C (A little less than room temperature) in there. It's amazing. We built one in school in grade 5.
I am quite fimilar with the French Canadian accent. I am making fun of our Prime Minister, who speaks English that way. Even French speaking people from France have better grammar than that.
OTOH our PM doesn't speak French worth shit either.
I was educated in a Fransaskois (Fransaskois: Saskatchewan French) school. I can speak Canadian French quite well.
I guess that 'Blame Canada' thing is similiar to how us Brits blame the French for everything that goes wrong?
That about covers it. Canada also blames America for everything that goes wrong.
Also, what's this 'about' business and why can techies in Canada legally 'steal' US satellite TV (yeah, like anyone would really pay for that junk:) Doesn't that take the fun out of it all?
It's a steriotype of Canadians that we pronounce "about" like "a boot". The satellite TV bit is that they are illegally transmitting it to Canada, ergo their IP laws do not apply in that case.
Why the hell do you still have someone answering to the Queen of England? That's got to be the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
Actually, she is the Queen of Canada, and the United Kingdom. There is no such person as the "Queen of England". That title died 300 years ago.
It boils down to tradition. The governor-general REPRESENTS the Queen, she does not answer to the Queen. There has been talk of instating a King or Queen in Canada, but that was shot down in favour of keeping the British ties... personally I'd like to see a purly Canadian (ie, non shared) monarchy in Canada.
What people don't know is that the Crown of Canada is a separate instution from the Crown of Britain. They just have the same figurehead at the top. The Crown represents all the people of their respective countries, not jus the people of Britain. That means that the Aussie Crown represents the Aussies, while the Canadian Crown represents the Canadians. Our Governors-General just happen to be the chosen Kings/Queens for five year periods of the country.
The Crown still has powers in Canada, called the Royal Perrogative. Originally (Until 1982) none of Canada's democratic institutions existed in Canada's constitution. They all existed by the Royal Perrogative. Our democracy is the result of years of democratic tradition that dates back to the original British Westminster Parliament system, where there are two houses (Commons and Lords). Lords (Senators in Canada) are appointed for life as a safeguard of power grabs by the commons. Of course this changed when they started being appointed by the Commons. Byt you must understand that it is by the existence of the Governor-General and Queen that Canada's government exists.
To get rid of them, we'd need to make a major constitutional ammendment. A major constitutional ammendment requires: The support of all ten provincial legislatures and a 70% majority in a federal referrendum, and a 2/3 majority in the Commons and Senate. It'll never happen. What we can do, though is appoint a Canadian to be King or Queen, without an ammendment. This has to be done when the Queen dies, or we could ask her to abdicate the throne of Canada (yes Canada has a throne).
The US spys on its allies, just as Canada spys on her allies. We spy on each other, it's the price of being friends.
Canada doesn't fear US spying in the lower levels of government, like I said, it's a price of being friends. What we fear is the US trying to control our Cabinet by knowing what its issues are and how dicisions are made.
Remember the level of government of Canada go (Top to bottom)
Governor-General (Effectivly Canada's president, but she represents the Queen)
Prime Minister (Real Power)
Cabinet (Federal Minsitries)
Commons/Senate (Representatives of the population/provinces respectivly)
Lieutenant Governors (Governor's of the Provinces)
Premiers (Prime Minsiter of the Province)
Provincial Cabinet
Provincial Legislature/Provincial Parliament
Oddly enough, igloos are very structuraly sound. Sounds strange, but if they aren't heated they don't melt or anything bad like that. Being the steriotypical Canadian, I just got home from playing a pickup game of hockey. I then proceeded to build a kuinzi a shelter made out of hollowed out snow. They stay quite warm.
Anyway, I agree with your PS, but reversed. We like to pick on Americans. British don't get our jokes, and when we make fun of the French, Quebec bitches about not being the butt of our jokes.
Eh? Ze anglos is makings fun of ze frensch encore. Peut-etre vee should try to separate again.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm still trying to decide if I'm closer to Vancouver or Toronto. I'm in the dead centre of "The Gap". They must know that the most avid opponents of the DMCA-like law live in Saskatchewan :)
I thought it was funny. That whole Canada experience for the Simpsons was funny.
"Don't worry, you'll get her back, eh?... and B)We close in five minutes"
"Would an American dollar change your mind?"
"Wow! American currency! What time would you like breakfast, sir?"
Priceless. That and the Mountie and hockey player leaving the bus just before the Simpsons..
beautiful.
They are protected in our constitution too, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This case is pretty much shooting down an unconstitutional bylaw of a city in Quebec.
This is not precident to establish free speech in Canada, it's just reaffirming it.
One can still sue for slander and libel in Canada. Therefore, if he wasn't to blame he could still sue you.
Seems similar to Canada's FOIP act. Maybe it has to do with Vermont's proximity to Canada that they learned from us so quickly :)
Actually, the original poster said the S.A. invented apartheid. It didn't, he was wrong on that point. IIRC, Canada still has apartheid. Just slightly, though.
Canadian Indians have certain rights that non-indians don't have. Indians can hunt out of season, they don't need to get a gun licence. Until recently there were laws that applied to Indians that didn't apply to non-indians (Recently being the last 20 years) there may well still be.. but I don't recall at the moment. I seem to remember the Indian Act, 1986, being the last Act of Parliament concerning Indians.
If someone charges you 80$ for a service/product you have a CHOICE. You can either pay and use it for all thats its worth, or you can save your money and go out and get some beers instead.
:(
:).
:)
While this is true, the problem is that $80 doesn't get you that much beer anymore
This thread is just about whining imho. We have a similar situation in Sweden right now, since our stupid former telecom monopoly is talking about raising their ADSL-charges to around 60$. And yes, nobody is going to use them if they do it since there are plenty of private alternatives now.
I also think the CRTC will have something to say about these price raises.
Was your former telecom monopoly a Crown monopoly? We in Saskatchewan have a Crown monopoly telecom monopoly, but they're not too bad, mostly because they don't need to make a profit
I know at least Saskatchewan and British Columbia have Crown auto insurance. I like it, I live in Alberta now with its private insurance, they pay $2500/year for car insurance! I pay $513 for the same service.
Her Majesty in Right of Saskatchewan can be a good thing....
Where are you living? IIRC the suburbs of Saskatoon can get DSL, as can most other cities in the province.
I'm not complaining about $35/month. I'd be complaining if Shaw raised the price to $80.
If I could get an un-capped upload and download line, and the ability to use the bandwidth as I see fit, I'd be willing to pay US$100 for it. I don't think $80 canadian would be a bad price at all.
You forget that $80 Canadian is still $80. People seem to think that since our currency is low, we get more of it. We don't. You may make, say USD$2000/month for your job. I do the same job, I get paid CAD$2000. It's the same portion of our respective paycheques.
I also think that the CRTC may have something to say about this. It seems to violate their price caps. I can get uncapped bandwidth here for $35CAD/month. If it goes up to $80, I'd be some pissed off. Do a little math, that's 16/7 of the original cost.
Nice work, all you Aussies...
Anyway, who wants to do something like this in Calgary? Not because the 'net's too expensive, but because it's cool.
Any takers? I'm willing to join.
They can in Canada, and probably the USA too. In fact, in Canada, provincial governments can sue other provincial governments. I wouldn't be surprised to find that the American states can sue other states.
Two examples:
Chaban v. Olson Provice of Alberta + Chaban v. Olson.
In Saskatchewan, auto insurance is provided by the government. My mother was visiting my sister in Alberta (no government insurance), when her car was hit by a guy with no insurance or licence.
Mum's insurance paid to have her car fixed, and now SGI (Saskatchewan Government Insurance) has filed suit in the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench (The highest trial court in Alberta). They're suing him for ~$17000, the cost of the repairs.
If you read the transcripts they would say:
Plaintiff: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Saskatchewan
Defendant: That Guy who hit dadragon's mum
Maybe his English isn't that good?
Spelling in English is not straightforward for people who's first language is German, French or various other languages.
I've met very few people who like to use a Unix machine for their daily task. Yeah, they will talk about its dubious technical superiority, but they all hope they have a better user interface.
:)
Unless you count MacOS X
I have to confess most of the Apple users I met love Apple. There is the Cost of Owership problem though. OK, this is debatable. I'd like to hear what you all have to say about that.
I'm a recent convert from the PC (Winders, FreeBSD). I quite like my iBook, I bought it in November. The OS (MacOS X) is great, the HW is great. The cost is a little high, at least for the hardware. $2500CAD for this machine, but it includes all the software I need, iTunes, Appleworks, QT, and developer tools. And I also use The GIMP various other X apps in XDarwin.
My pc (only hardware) was a grand total of $600CAD + $100 for Windoze, and a hour download of FreeBSD, and about 15 minutes for StarOffice. I don't play many games, so I got all I need there. In total the iBook cost about 4x as much, but not much more than a PC notebook.
Could this be AMD's version of the bug in the original Pentium?
It was bound to happen, everybody makes mistakes.
What! Why on earth would you want to return to an archaric leadership concept.
We wouldn't be returning to anything, we'd just be repatriating it.
Monarchies represent a past littered with cruelity, poverty, slavery, oppresion, injustice . . . well you get the idea. Time to let it die. The French had the right idea a few hundred years ago.
The American republic (of old, you've changed now) also represented such things. The loyalists were stripped of any rights and thrown in jail or put to death without a trial.
France did have the right idea. They were not a democracy, they were a totalitarian monarchy, which I believe are evil. England was a democracy, but the democracy of England controlled her American colonies, which had no representation. It wasn't the monarchy you threw out (well you did, but that wasn't the goal). The goal was to rid yourselves of foreign rule.
After you did that, England shit their pants, and said "Well, we'd better give out remaining colonies represntation." Canada benefitted by having colonial legislatures, and representation in the Imperial Parliament.
You missed Australia.
Her title changes with where you are. In Canada,
her name is "Elizabeth II, by Grace of God, Queen of Canada, Queen of the United Kingdom and Queen of her other realms and territories across the seas"
In the UK she's "Elizabeth II, by Grace of God Queen of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Norther Ireland, Defender of the Faith.
Ah, well you (I'll assume you're in the USA) have a constitution with checks and balances in it to prevent power grabs, right?
Same deal in Canada, but we have a PERSON to be the ultimate check and balance. For the most part, a king or queen (they lack capitals unless you're refering to a specific king or queen) is just a puppet of the people, however they can refuse to sign a bill that would give Parliament more power, for example, another example would be if the opposition party was in the middle of a leadership race, and the PM trying to call an election, which is legal, but it is undemocratic, the people would only have one choice.
The monarchy is like a fire extinguisher, it will probably never be used, but that doesn't make it useless. In Canada the monarchy's sole purpose is to prevent undemocratic power grabs and other such stuff.
A king or queen should theoretically be apolitical in nature, not associated with any party. They represent the people now, not themselves as was the case when America separated itself from the empire. The institution of the monarchy is completely different now than it was 200 years ago, pretty much the things that remained were birthright and the title. The situation that existed 200 years ago is dead, and should stay that way. The problem is that most people associate a monarchy with what existed 200 years ago.
Oh, btw, my idea was not to have a royal family a la Britain, but instead we appoint a person to be king/queen for life, then choose a new one when they die. There is a word in German for it, the word translates as "A selected King", but I can't think of it off hand.
You assume that a monarchy is automatically totalitarian. Look at Europe, I can't think of ANY totalitarian monarchies in western Europe. Belgium, The Netherlands, Denmark, the UK, Sweden, Norway, all are democracies, and all are monarchies. They have a king or queen but also an elected parliament where the real power lies. The monarch is just a figurehead, s/he doesn't have any real power like the President of the USA does.
Monarchies are not bad. Totalitarian monarchies are. Just as totalitarian Republics are bad. I'd take Canada's monarchy over China or Russia's republic any day.
Another point I'd like to make is that there is an aristocracy in the USA. It doesn't carry any titles with it, but it does include privelege and power by birth. The Old Money Rich. They are America's aristocracy. Look at your Senators and Congressmen, and see how many come from these families.
The USA is a republic, and it works. Good for you. Canada is a monarchy. It works too, we're free, have rights, and can vote for whoever we want, just like the Americans.
If you're wondering about my sig, it's the last line from the chorus of "The Maple Leaf Forever", which served as Canada's national anthem from confederation till the repatriating of the constitution in 1982.
Do you remember the song that served as our national anthem from confederation through two world wars up till the raising of the Maple Leaf?
Ah well, thanks for the comment on the post.
It could be that they have 41 patents in Canada. The USPTO is not the only patent office in the world.
If you've ever been inside an igloo, you'd understand. They get to about +15C (A little less than room temperature) in there. It's amazing. We built one in school in grade 5.
I am quite fimilar with the French Canadian accent. I am making fun of our Prime Minister, who speaks English that way. Even French speaking people from France have better grammar than that.
OTOH our PM doesn't speak French worth shit either.
I was educated in a Fransaskois (Fransaskois: Saskatchewan French) school. I can speak Canadian French quite well.
I guess that 'Blame Canada' thing is similiar to how us Brits blame the French for everything that goes wrong?
:) Doesn't that take the fun out of it all?
That about covers it. Canada also blames America for everything that goes wrong.
Also, what's this 'about' business and why can techies in Canada legally 'steal' US satellite TV (yeah, like anyone would really pay for that junk
It's a steriotype of Canadians that we pronounce "about" like "a boot". The satellite TV bit is that they are illegally transmitting it to Canada, ergo their IP laws do not apply in that case.
Perfect Teeth? That's also a steriotype of Brits.
Actually, she is the Queen of Canada, and the United Kingdom. There is no such person as the "Queen of England". That title died 300 years ago.
It boils down to tradition. The governor-general REPRESENTS the Queen, she does not answer to the Queen. There has been talk of instating a King or Queen in Canada, but that was shot down in favour of keeping the British ties... personally I'd like to see a purly Canadian (ie, non shared) monarchy in Canada.
What people don't know is that the Crown of Canada is a separate instution from the Crown of Britain. They just have the same figurehead at the top. The Crown represents all the people of their respective countries, not jus the people of Britain. That means that the Aussie Crown represents the Aussies, while the Canadian Crown represents the Canadians. Our Governors-General just happen to be the chosen Kings/Queens for five year periods of the country.
The Crown still has powers in Canada, called the Royal Perrogative. Originally (Until 1982) none of Canada's democratic institutions existed in Canada's constitution. They all existed by the Royal Perrogative. Our democracy is the result of years of democratic tradition that dates back to the original British Westminster Parliament system, where there are two houses (Commons and Lords). Lords (Senators in Canada) are appointed for life as a safeguard of power grabs by the commons. Of course this changed when they started being appointed by the Commons. Byt you must understand that it is by the existence of the Governor-General and Queen that Canada's government exists.
To get rid of them, we'd need to make a major constitutional ammendment. A major constitutional ammendment requires: The support of all ten provincial legislatures and a 70% majority in a federal referrendum, and a 2/3 majority in the Commons and Senate. It'll never happen. What we can do, though is appoint a Canadian to be King or Queen, without an ammendment. This has to be done when the Queen dies, or we could ask her to abdicate the throne of Canada (yes Canada has a throne).
The US spys on its allies, just as Canada spys on her allies. We spy on each other, it's the price of being friends.
Canada doesn't fear US spying in the lower levels of government, like I said, it's a price of being friends. What we fear is the US trying to control our Cabinet by knowing what its issues are and how dicisions are made.
Remember the level of government of Canada go (Top to bottom)
Governor-General (Effectivly Canada's president, but she represents the Queen)
Prime Minister (Real Power)
Cabinet (Federal Minsitries)
Commons/Senate (Representatives of the population/provinces respectivly)
Lieutenant Governors (Governor's of the Provinces)
Premiers (Prime Minsiter of the Province)
Provincial Cabinet
Provincial Legislature/Provincial Parliament
Oddly enough, igloos are very structuraly sound. Sounds strange, but if they aren't heated they don't melt or anything bad like that. Being the steriotypical Canadian, I just got home from playing a pickup game of hockey. I then proceeded to build a kuinzi a shelter made out of hollowed out snow. They stay quite warm.
Anyway, I agree with your PS, but reversed. We like to pick on Americans. British don't get our jokes, and when we make fun of the French, Quebec bitches about not being the butt of our jokes.
Eh? Ze anglos is makings fun of ze frensch encore. Peut-etre vee should try to separate again.