Yes, I stopped reading after I realized that the signs for not hiring a bad CIO are that he doesn't have the required skills.
Things like "goes from one job to another", "doesn't work well with others", "doesn't know what he's talking about" don't help much.
I would have preferred more useful information such as don't hire Mister X who has worked at cie. Z because he's useless. At least I could have contributed to that list.
Strangely enough I got a letter from my car manufacturer today. There's been a lot of theft of personal belongings inside the model I own so they have decided - I don't know what kind of pressure they were under - to change part of the locking mechanism at no cost. I wonder how easy it is to get inside the car? I guess if I lock my keys inside, it shouldn't be too hard to get in. Now I just have to get a copy of the LL.
But in the meantime, he still can't go around disclosing the information (for money or otherwise) or using it himself, outside of the ehtical constraints of his trade. (that is of only openining locks for the owners, at their specific request.)
The Locksmith Ledger and other trade magazines will disclose such information. If I'm a locksmith, I can sell the techniques to open locks to these trade magazines.
Actually, the Locksmith Ledger will sell codes to open your locks and techniques to open your safe. They'll even sell lock picks.
They probably won't sell them to you.
Also it's much harder to recall locks then to update software so the fact that the lock manufacturers get access to the same information doesn't help that much.
The difference is that if no one knows how to open your safe when you can't remember the combination, you'll be in trouble. If nobody knows how to exploit the Adobe exploit, there's no problem. Still, they could sell the technique only to the lock manufacturer but there's probably less money in that.
Brazil gets a 300% energy efficiency for growing sugar cane to make ethanol. That's "spending 1 gallon of gas to get the equivalent of 3 gallons."
And all they're doing is destroying the rainforest to get it!
I agree that this is a huge cost but if everybody benefits from the rainforest, why should the countries were it's present be responsible to keep it intact?
I live in Canada and in the province of Alberta, we are exploiting the oil sands and this has a large impact on air and land pollution. I'm sure other countries do similar things. When a country pollutes, they actually benefit from it. In Brazil, if they exploit something that everybody benefits from then Brazil wins - short term - and we all lose. If they don't exploit it, we all benefit but Brazil loses. What would you do?
I'm sure there's a solution to this but it probably involves being good neighbors.
Do you know the actual wording of the law? The reason I'm asking is because the way I read your version of it, it could be interpreted to mean that using existing evidence would be acceptable. If that's the case, it wouldn't make it OK to go on a witch hunt. Showing pattern would require that the prosecutor find the pattern in question. In which case, Clinton should have simply refused to answer.
On a related subject, a problem I see with politicians in the US is that they so much want be seen as not gay, not pro-gay, profoundly religious, pro-choice and pro-life at the same time as well as good family oriented people and highly patriotic that they will answer any question on that topic immediately.
If I was a politician and I was asked about my religious belief (and most of the other topics listed), I would probably answer that this is irrelevant and that religious convictions have nothing to do with how I will perform my tasks. I would conclude that asking this question is a sure way of giving more political influence to religious groups and explain that journalists should try to avoid these types of questions and that politicians should no respond to them in order to avoid giving political influence to religious movements.
Your logic is really complicated but I can understand some of it therefore I think that what you just said might true but... I'll wait a little bit and see what someone that's better than me in logical deduction has to say before I buy into your argument completely.
I recall [another] situation with an auto-extracting zip file where if you just unzipped the.exe file, you didn't need to read the EULA to use the product so in theory wouldn't have been bound by it. Maybe you would have been accused of DMCA or copyright violation though. I don't recall what the product was!
We, I least I, don't hate you for believing in gods. I don't hate kids that believe in Santa Claus either.
When you start using your absurd belief to demand idiotic special conditions, to control politics, to kill others in the name of your religion, to indoctrinate otherwise normally functioning individuals, then I get pissed. When I see you wasting a portion of your kids life to "teach" them that some old man in the sky loves them so much that they should kneel and pray, it also pisses me off. Similarly, when your insane ideas are used to change what my kids are being taught I'm pissed. When your beliefs are used to condone mistreating other races, people with other sets of beliefs, women, people with different sexual orientations, I get pissed again.
Believe in whatever deities you want. Believe in reincarnation, astrology, green aliens, Morloks, Gremlins, or anything else that makes you happy. Just try not to piss me off and we might be friends. Otherwise, please don't get offended if I tell you what's wrong with your thought process and with the way you treat others.
Also. Maybe you personally don't hate atheists but a lot of theists do. Some of them simply choose to disregard atheists and will write things like "One nation under God" [pledge of allegiance], "In God we trust" [American currency], "God keep our land glorious and free" [Canadian anthem], "and this be our motto: 'In God is our trust'" [American anthem] on artefacts used by everyone.
Stop forcing your beliefs on others and maybe we'll get along a bit better.
Thanks for the explanation. To be honest, I didn't understand it fully. What's a recursive query? Is that the same as the CNAME chaining explained in the article? However, it explains why you can't pollute the DNS server with its own domain names but what about requests from internal clients to access external sites, how would the configurations you described stop the attack presented in the document from polluting the cache for these. If I understood the recursive query thing, I guess that would make it much more difficult indeed. Assuming I got that wrong.
Assume, I'm on the intranet for mycompany.com. I want to access mybank.com and I receive an email to visit badsite.com. I go to that site, through a proxy, and the page I get has a bunch of CNAME chaining from badsite.com to a.badsite.com to b.badsite.com etc. until the badsite server has figured out the mycompany.com external DNS server's transaction id.
At this point, badsite.com shows a page which links to somebank.com. If the external DNS server for mycompany.com doesn't have the IP address for somebank.com in its cache (or if the address has expired), it will need to fetch that address and will send a request for the IP address of somebank.com to the authoritative server for somebank.com. Now, if badsite.com sends responses for that DNS request to the mycompany.com DNS server, whose IP address because it made requests for badsite.com and whose transaction ID and port I know because of the problem with bind, bind will think that it's the response from somebank.com and put that in its cache. When mybank.com sends the real response, bind will simply ignore it.
Now next time some client wants to access mybank.com, it will get the IP address from the DNS server's cache memory.
Please note that I'm not a network administrator, I don't even play one on TV, so this is strictly for my personal knowledge and so I can look brighter than I am in from of the network administrator. That is, don't waste too much time for this if you think I'm a lost cause. Thanks.
The way I was understanding this, please correct me if I'm wrong, is that you don't need to be inside since you pollute the external DNS server. Once it's polluted, all the inside servers get their DNS information from that polluted server. In order to be able to pollute the external server, it must have no DNS entry for the site you want to pollute or its entry must be expired. You also need to trick some internal user to visit your site. This would probably make it extremely difficult to pollute entries for very popular sites since the DNS entry would be present or updated soon after it expired.
As mentioned in my previous posts, this is my understanding from reading the article. I am no expert in this domain.
Warning: I'm pretty much clueless about this whole thing but I did read the report.
From what I've read, you're not safe either even with Split-Split.
What they claim is that you only need to get the caching server to make a few consecutive CNAME requests and they achieve that through CNAME chaining. Using those requests, they get your caching server's next not-so-random sequence number and start sending it DNS responses.
Like I said, I'm pretty clueless about DNS servers but after reading the article, I felt like I could probably setup an attack myself.
Tivo doesn't remove your right to modify the software now. The source is available. You can modify it. What they don't do is give you a system that will run modified software, nor an easy way to produce one.
So you can modify it but it won't run. That doesn't take you very far.
One [way to prevent this problem] would have been to require equivalent openness of hardware: hardware that bundles GPL software would be required to have open specifications with rights that enable the recipient of the bundled hardware/software to "rebuild" their own implementation of the hardware (either a faithful one or a modified copy) and run whatever software they want on it.
So what happens if I want to write some GPLv3 code for some proprietary hardware? Using your suggestion, I can't unless I own the rights to all the patents on the hardware and I'm OK with everyone copying it. Guess that would make sure Linux never goes GPLv3 and if it did, there wouldn't be very many drivers. I'm against patents in general but if my hardware was patented, I wouldn't give away my patents unless everyone had to do the same.
I think the FSF way is way better than what you propose.
Companies like Tivo can still make proprietary hardware with GPLv3. There's even a way in there for them to ensure that the code won't be updated: put it in ROM. They won't be able to easily update the code but they would meet the requirements of the GPLv3 and of the media people.
Even considering that the entire point of those restrictions was to tell Tivo "you may not use this software for that purpose"?
As was pointed out to you already. TiVo is free to use the GPL'd software for the purpose they are using it now - PVR. What they won't be able to do anymore is to remove "our" right to modify that same software. That same software, by the way, they were given the right to modify and use.
You may disagree with that. Some feel that since the source code is distributed then it's OK to stop people from using it on some proprietary device. Just consider what will happen if personal computers become such a device.
The GPLv3 also guarantees that you can't protect only a select few down the distribution lane against patent lawsuits. You may disagree with that as well. Before you say that you do, please consider the Linspire and Novell deals.
I could to do trig in radians, degrees or grads [400 grads=2pi radians]. All I had to do was press a button with "DRG" on it and it would switch between the different units [guess in those days angles had units].
I also had this calculator [http://www.hpmuseum.org/img/28cs.jpg] and it's feature list [http://www.hpmuseum.org/features/28sf.htm] says that it supported 2 of those units.
I'm pretty sure if I bought a scientific calculator today, I'd find a similar feature.
1. Yes - you can distribute it under v2 and not take the option of later revisions 2. Yes - assuming that that version exists - you take the option 3. Yes - version 3 only is included in 'or any later version'
Writing no.2 it occurred to me that or any later version might include unreleased versions. What if I took version 2 or later code and re-licensed it under v8 or later.
For example, I take gcc, add my own code, and distribute the code I didn't write under the v2 of the GPL and the code I did write under 2 different licenses: the v8 of the GPL and some other 'exclusive use' license. The licensee gets to use the product since he has v2 of the GPL for whatever code I didn't write and he also has the 'exclusive use' license. However, since v8 of the GPL doesn't exist and since the 'exclusive use' license doesn't allow the licensee to redistribute the code, the licensee wouldn't be allowed to redistribute until the FSF comes up with v8.
You know what. I think I'm just as confused as you are so just forget my previous answers... I'm not sure anymore:-)
The reasoning behind the patent system is that by giving an incentive to inventors to publish their ideas, this makes the ideas public and allows others to build on top.
The problem with this, at least when applied to software, is that nobody ever does a patent search to find out if there's a way to do this or that. Therefore, there's no reason for patents in the software world.
The only exception I could find to this would be if a person really had a great idea that they wanted to patent (for example a method that enables filtering spam with better then x% accuracy and less than y% false negative), they would need to offer a bounty to the first person who can achieve the same result within a specific amount of time (say 12 to 18 months). If nobody manages to replicate the results, they get a patent and are allowed to license their invention in proportion to the bounty they had offered. If the results are replicated, you lose the bounty and can't patent.
when was the last time something was stopped by the senate?
I think the most notable was when Brian Mulroney was in power. The senate was controlled by the Liberals. Eventually, Mulroney (actually the queen) had to appoint 8 senators to enable the bill to pass. The bill in question was replacing the MST with the GST.
Well, if some Québecois want to separate, they're welcome to go--but they're not welcome to take part of our country. It's not like Quebec 'belongs' to the separatists, any more than Alberta 'belongs' to the idiotic western separatists.
If Québec separated, I believe that the best way to treat this would be like a divorce. You leave with what you came in with and split the accumulated wealth and debts fairly. This is a civilized way of dealing with a hard situation. There might be other civilized ways to deal with this issue but they all involve dialogue. Some people can't be civilized. Which kind are you?
As for the party, single-issue parties are inherently self-limiting. (That said, I'd be quite happy to see a requirement for all parties to provide at least a minimum statement on a set of major issues.)
If you listened to the last leader's debate, it should be clear that the Bloc Québecois has a platform. That said what you are proposing would be a waste of time and effort. Anyone could come up with some B.S. to meet that requirement.
However, people and/or parties who are philosophically opposed to the idea of a nation should not be allowed to run in national elections. "If you elect me as your federal representative, I will do my best to destroy the federation" should be illegal in a national election, if not outright.
The Bloc is not against the idea of a nation. It is *for* the nation of Québec. What you are complaining about is that a large portion of Québecois don't want to be part of your nation.
If Quebec wants to separate from Canada, then all of Canada should have a say in it.
No. I had a girlfriend who told me something similar when I broke up. It's sad, but you don't get to vote. Once the decision has been made, you will have something to say, on how to make this as painless as possible, but until then your best bet is to make the relationship work or choose to break it up yourself.
However, the native population--which covers the majority of northern Quebec--will likely vote to stay, as will Montreal. If Quebec is distinct within Canada and deserves to separate, then why isn't northern Quebec distinct within Quebec, and deserving of the right to stay with Canada if Quebec separates?
Let's talk about how we deal with the natives once the referendum is won by the "yes" side. Maybe the natives should have control over some of the land - if that's what they want after negotiations have taken place - but let's cross that bridge when we get there.
Besides which, Quebec generally DOESN'T want to separate!!...
Sure, you know what Québecois want but we don't. That's the kind of attitude that reinforces my belief that Québec SHOULD separate.
Separatism in Quebec is like Rock 'n Roll. It will never die.
In 1980, René Lévesque lost the referendum with 60% against. In 1995, it was as close to 50% as can be. Between 1980 and 1995, how many times did we hear that the separatism movement was finished.
Besides, being out of power for 10 years only means that the party lost 2 elections. The Federal Liberals were in power a lot longer than that and the NDP is still alive. Change takes time.
There are several types of separatists. Some are more moderate than others in their methods but what people need to understand is that Québecois want to separate for their own good. It has very little to do with rebelling against Canada. The problem is that the terms of the Confederations don't suit us. You may think that the Confederation is great and you may be right but think of this as 10 people that are forced to live together. Nine of these people think that peanut butter is great and want to have it for breakfast all the time but the other guy is allergic to peanut butter.
I also find it sad that the rest of Canada feels that they are bending backwards to accommodate Québec. You might want to consider how Québec feels when the federal government decides to put their nose in provincial matters such as health and education. If Québec is such a pain, why doesn't the rest of Canada just let Québec leave the Confederation. It seems that this would benefit everyone.
As far as the "King of Québec" is concerned, you must be kidding. It's the rest of Canada that still insists on putting the old fart on our money. I'd honestly prefer Pierre Elliot Trudeau's face on our money.
Finally, I agree that social stability should be considered (I don't know how you figure that people would lose their pensions though). On that issue, the best solution there would be for Québec and the rest of Canada to come up with some reasonable compromises. I don't think it would be easy but I think it's possible. In the long run however, this should actually bring more social stability.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I stopped reading after I realized that the signs for not hiring a bad CIO are that he doesn't have the required skills.
Things like "goes from one job to another", "doesn't work well with others", "doesn't know what he's talking about" don't help much.
I would have preferred more useful information such as don't hire Mister X who has worked at cie. Z because he's useless. At least I could have contributed to that list.
Strangely enough I got a letter from my car manufacturer today. There's been a lot of theft of personal belongings inside the model I own so they have decided - I don't know what kind of pressure they were under - to change part of the locking mechanism at no cost. I wonder how easy it is to get inside the car? I guess if I lock my keys inside, it shouldn't be too hard to get in. Now I just have to get a copy of the LL.
Actually, the Locksmith Ledger will sell codes to open your locks and techniques to open your safe. They'll even sell lock picks. They probably won't sell them to you.
Also it's much harder to recall locks then to update software so the fact that the lock manufacturers get access to the same information doesn't help that much.
The difference is that if no one knows how to open your safe when you can't remember the combination, you'll be in trouble. If nobody knows how to exploit the Adobe exploit, there's no problem. Still, they could sell the technique only to the lock manufacturer but there's probably less money in that.
I'm sure there's a solution to this but it probably involves being good neighbors.
I had to port Perl 4 code to Perl 5 and there were some issues.
Do you know the actual wording of the law?
The reason I'm asking is because the way I read your version of it, it could be interpreted to mean that using existing evidence would be acceptable. If that's the case, it wouldn't make it OK to go on a witch hunt. Showing pattern would require that the prosecutor find the pattern in question. In which case, Clinton should have simply refused to answer.
On a related subject, a problem I see with politicians in the US is that they so much want be seen as not gay, not pro-gay, profoundly religious, pro-choice and pro-life at the same time as well as good family oriented people and highly patriotic that they will answer any question on that topic immediately.
If I was a politician and I was asked about my religious belief (and most of the other topics listed), I would probably answer that this is irrelevant and that religious convictions have nothing to do with how I will perform my tasks. I would conclude that asking this question is a sure way of giving more political influence to religious groups and explain that journalists should try to avoid these types of questions and that politicians should no respond to them in order to avoid giving political influence to religious movements.
Sadly, I don't think I'd get elected.
Your logic is really complicated but I can understand some of it therefore I think that what you just said might true but... I'll wait a little bit and see what someone that's better than me in logical deduction has to say before I buy into your argument completely.
I recall [another] situation with an auto-extracting zip file where if you just unzipped the .exe file, you didn't need to read the EULA to use the product so in theory wouldn't have been bound by it. Maybe you would have been accused of DMCA or copyright violation though. I don't recall what the product was!
We, I least I, don't hate you for believing in gods. I don't hate kids that believe in Santa Claus either.
When you start using your absurd belief to demand idiotic special conditions, to control politics, to kill others in the name of your religion, to indoctrinate otherwise normally functioning individuals, then I get pissed. When I see you wasting a portion of your kids life to "teach" them that some old man in the sky loves them so much that they should kneel and pray, it also pisses me off. Similarly, when your insane ideas are used to change what my kids are being taught I'm pissed. When your beliefs are used to condone mistreating other races, people with other sets of beliefs, women, people with different sexual orientations, I get pissed again.
Believe in whatever deities you want. Believe in reincarnation, astrology, green aliens, Morloks, Gremlins, or anything else that makes you happy. Just try not to piss me off and we might be friends. Otherwise, please don't get offended if I tell you what's wrong with your thought process and with the way you treat others.
Also. Maybe you personally don't hate atheists but a lot of theists do. Some of them simply choose to disregard atheists and will write things like "One nation under God" [pledge of allegiance], "In God we trust" [American currency], "God keep our land glorious and free" [Canadian anthem], "and this be our motto: 'In God is our trust'" [American anthem] on artefacts used by everyone.
Stop forcing your beliefs on others and maybe we'll get along a bit better.
Assume, I'm on the intranet for mycompany.com. I want to access mybank.com and I receive an email to visit badsite.com. I go to that site, through a proxy, and the page I get has a bunch of CNAME chaining from badsite.com to a.badsite.com to b.badsite.com etc. until the badsite server has figured out the mycompany.com external DNS server's transaction id.
At this point, badsite.com shows a page which links to somebank.com. If the external DNS server for mycompany.com doesn't have the IP address for somebank.com in its cache (or if the address has expired), it will need to fetch that address and will send a request for the IP address of somebank.com to the authoritative server for somebank.com. Now, if badsite.com sends responses for that DNS request to the mycompany.com DNS server, whose IP address because it made requests for badsite.com and whose transaction ID and port I know because of the problem with bind, bind will think that it's the response from somebank.com and put that in its cache. When mybank.com sends the real response, bind will simply ignore it.
Now next time some client wants to access mybank.com, it will get the IP address from the DNS server's cache memory.
Please note that I'm not a network administrator, I don't even play one on TV, so this is strictly for my personal knowledge and so I can look brighter than I am in from of the network administrator. That is, don't waste too much time for this if you think I'm a lost cause. Thanks.
As mentioned in my previous posts, this is my understanding from reading the article. I am no expert in this domain.
From what I've read, you're not safe either even with Split-Split.
What they claim is that you only need to get the caching server to make a few consecutive CNAME requests and they achieve that through CNAME chaining. Using those requests, they get your caching server's next not-so-random sequence number and start sending it DNS responses.
Like I said, I'm pretty clueless about DNS servers but after reading the article, I felt like I could probably setup an attack myself.
I think the FSF way is way better than what you propose.
Companies like Tivo can still make proprietary hardware with GPLv3. There's even a way in there for them to ensure that the code won't be updated: put it in ROM. They won't be able to easily update the code but they would meet the requirements of the GPLv3 and of the media people.
You may disagree with that. Some feel that since the source code is distributed then it's OK to stop people from using it on some proprietary device. Just consider what will happen if personal computers become such a device.
The GPLv3 also guarantees that you can't protect only a select few down the distribution lane against patent lawsuits. You may disagree with that as well. Before you say that you do, please consider the Linspire and Novell deals.
So which part of the license don't you like?
I had a scientific calculator once.
I could to do trig in radians, degrees or grads [400 grads=2pi radians]. All I had to do was press a button with "DRG" on it and it would switch between the different units [guess in those days angles had units].
I also had this calculator [http://www.hpmuseum.org/img/28cs.jpg] and it's feature list [http://www.hpmuseum.org/features/28sf.htm] says that it supported 2 of those units.
I'm pretty sure if I bought a scientific calculator today, I'd find a similar feature.
I believe that there were 2 common choices:
1) 10cpi (aka Pica) and;
2) 12cpi (aka Elite).
1. Yes - you can distribute it under v2 and not take the option of later revisions
:-)
2. Yes - assuming that that version exists - you take the option
3. Yes - version 3 only is included in 'or any later version'
Writing no.2 it occurred to me that or any later version might include unreleased versions.
What if I took version 2 or later code and re-licensed it under v8 or later.
For example, I take gcc, add my own code, and distribute the code I didn't write under the v2 of the GPL and the code I did write under 2 different licenses: the v8 of the GPL and some other 'exclusive use' license. The licensee gets to use the product since he has v2 of the GPL for whatever code I didn't write and he also has the 'exclusive use' license. However, since v8 of the GPL doesn't exist and since the 'exclusive use' license doesn't allow the licensee to redistribute the code, the licensee wouldn't be allowed to redistribute until the FSF comes up with v8.
You know what. I think I'm just as confused as you are so just forget my previous answers... I'm not sure anymore
The problem with this, at least when applied to software, is that nobody ever does a patent search to find out if there's a way to do this or that. Therefore, there's no reason for patents in the software world.
The only exception I could find to this would be if a person really had a great idea that they wanted to patent (for example a method that enables filtering spam with better then x% accuracy and less than y% false negative), they would need to offer a bounty to the first person who can achieve the same result within a specific amount of time (say 12 to 18 months). If nobody manages to replicate the results, they get a patent and are allowed to license their invention in proportion to the bounty they had offered. If the results are replicated, you lose the bounty and can't patent.
I think the most notable was when Brian Mulroney was in power. The senate was controlled by the Liberals. Eventually, Mulroney (actually the queen) had to appoint 8 senators to enable the bill to pass. The bill in question was replacing the MST with the GST.
You do realize that you are only reinforcing my point?
If Québec separated, I believe that the best way to treat this would be like a divorce. You leave with what you came in with and split the accumulated wealth and debts fairly. This is a civilized way of dealing with a hard situation. There might be other civilized ways to deal with this issue but they all involve dialogue. Some people can't be civilized. Which kind are you?
As for the party, single-issue parties are inherently self-limiting. (That said, I'd be quite happy to see a requirement for all parties to provide at least a minimum statement on a set of major issues.)
If you listened to the last leader's debate, it should be clear that the Bloc Québecois has a platform. That said what you are proposing would be a waste of time and effort. Anyone could come up with some B.S. to meet that requirement.
However, people and/or parties who are philosophically opposed to the idea of a nation should not be allowed to run in national elections. "If you elect me as your federal representative, I will do my best to destroy the federation" should be illegal in a national election, if not outright.
The Bloc is not against the idea of a nation. It is *for* the nation of Québec. What you are complaining about is that a large portion of Québecois don't want to be part of your nation.
If Quebec wants to separate from Canada, then all of Canada should have a say in it.
No. I had a girlfriend who told me something similar when I broke up. It's sad, but you don't get to vote. Once the decision has been made, you will have something to say, on how to make this as painless as possible, but until then your best bet is to make the relationship work or choose to break it up yourself.
However, the native population--which covers the majority of northern Quebec--will likely vote to stay, as will Montreal. If Quebec is distinct within Canada and deserves to separate, then why isn't northern Quebec distinct within Quebec, and deserving of the right to stay with Canada if Quebec separates?
Let's talk about how we deal with the natives once the referendum is won by the "yes" side. Maybe the natives should have control over some of the land - if that's what they want after negotiations have taken place - but let's cross that bridge when we get there.
Besides which, Quebec generally DOESN'T want to separate!! ...
Sure, you know what Québecois want but we don't. That's the kind of attitude that reinforces my belief that Québec SHOULD separate.
In 1980, René Lévesque lost the referendum with 60% against. In 1995, it was as close to 50% as can be. Between 1980 and 1995, how many times did we hear that the separatism movement was finished.
Besides, being out of power for 10 years only means that the party lost 2 elections. The Federal Liberals were in power a lot longer than that and the NDP is still alive. Change takes time.
There are several types of separatists. Some are more moderate than others in their methods but what people need to understand is that Québecois want to separate for their own good. It has very little to do with rebelling against Canada. The problem is that the terms of the Confederations don't suit us. You may think that the Confederation is great and you may be right but think of this as 10 people that are forced to live together. Nine of these people think that peanut butter is great and want to have it for breakfast all the time but the other guy is allergic to peanut butter.
I also find it sad that the rest of Canada feels that they are bending backwards to accommodate Québec. You might want to consider how Québec feels when the federal government decides to put their nose in provincial matters such as health and education. If Québec is such a pain, why doesn't the rest of Canada just let Québec leave the Confederation. It seems that this would benefit everyone.
As far as the "King of Québec" is concerned, you must be kidding. It's the rest of Canada that still insists on putting the old fart on our money. I'd honestly prefer Pierre Elliot Trudeau's face on our money.
Finally, I agree that social stability should be considered (I don't know how you figure that people would lose their pensions though). On that issue, the best solution there would be for Québec and the rest of Canada to come up with some reasonable compromises. I don't think it would be easy but I think it's possible. In the long run however, this should actually bring more social stability.