This is a strawman argument. What I describe isn't a "further reduction of rights". What is currently occuring is a traditional compromise between the rights of the media to report the "news", and the rights of the defendant to a fair trial. Take your pick. But I, as a Canadian citizen, would prefer the courts choose the rights of the defendant over the rights of the media.
No trial is fair when any potential jurors have been biased by the media presenting an filtered view of the case. Or are you one of those wholly dellusioned people who believes that the media will report the facts of this case in a clear, unbiased manner?
The fact is, the public WILL find out what the government is doing: after the jury has been selected and the case can commence. After all, this media blackout isn't permanent. Or did you not know that either?
As for the media being controlled and censored, keep in mind that the US media does a pretty fair job of sensoring itself, ignoring what the government does or doesn't do. As a result, referring to the US media as less censored than Canadian media is incredibly naive on your part.
Wow... "news" and "disinterested third parties" in the same sentence. Are you on crack? These "third parties" you speak of are the news agencies whose sole responsibility (especially in the US) is to generate ratings. No, not report the news; generate ratings.
WRT this case, it is in the media's best interested to villify this guy to the best of their ability. Why? Because villians generate ratings. People tune in because they have a morbid curiosity about the "evil guy who killed all those women". They will do their best to present all the evidence which will present this man as guilty, especially if it can enhance the sensationalism of the case.
So, the media is representing the case in a manner which biases it's viewers. Guess who those viewers are: potential jurors! As a result, the chance Pickton will receive a fair trial with an unbiased jury is compromised, meaning he is stripped of his rights.
Actually, didn't they charge the cops with a different crime in the second case? My understanding of US law was that if you are acquitted of a criminal offense at any level, the prosecution cannot appeal to a higher court to overturn that ruling.
And it should be pointed out that many professors are going the way of generating a full set of course notes for their class which fully covers the material at hand. Then, rather than having a set text book, they sell the lecture note set to the class for $20 (or whatever your going rate is). This is especially prevalent in many of the math classes I've taken.
Oh, and as a side note, it's not all that cold. Vancouver, BC, is quite nice all year round (being coastal), and also boasts some of the best pot in the country.;)
Note that Canada is getting better, at least to some degree, WRT bowing down to US pressure. I say to some degree because it's a little tough to not bow down completely, the US being a major trading partner and source of significant profits for Canadian companies.
OTOH, the US also garners significant profit from us as well, so it's a question whether they can really afford to close their borders (unless it suites them... eg the soft-wood lumber dispute. WTF happened to NAFTA, I ask myself???)
But, with things like pot decriminalization on the horizon, and the reluctance of the feds to support US actions in Iraq (ignoring certain recent, assinine statements from certain ministers), I'm feeling at least a little better about our government. There are certainly political parties (*ahem* Canadian Alliance) that make it their political platform to bend over and let the Americans stick it to us. But, with Canadian nationalism (and, whether it's justified or not, anti-Americanism) on the rise, Canada seems to be working hard to separate itself from the US politically.
Funny how only recently has the Liberal government (and Jean Chretien) actually impressed me with some of their actions (see previous paragraph). It's a pity that Chretien is doing a lot of this just so he can go out a hero, while the new PM will likely revert to standard Canadian political posture (ie, bent over).
Ahh, bull... she may have a father involved in cryptography, but that just may be the reason why she got involved in the area. Moreover, she was likely exposed to these concepts at a younger age, because her parents probably consider her education very important. Plus, she would have had greater access to the materials necessary to learn these things. After all, an "impoverished urchin" might have a little trouble getting the resources necessary to learn concepts like abstract algebra in the first place (or even find out they exist to learn!). Like it or not, access to education and a persons financial caste are highly correlated.
As for getting advice from other researches, that's called science! Ever read a research paper? See that part at the back, usually titled "references"? The fact is, she still had to understand the math in order to a) understand and formulate her algorithm and b) discover the attack which defeats it, indicating that she's certainly no slouch. Genius? I don't know... that's a difficult thing to determine. But she's no doubt quite intelligent.
OOC, did you read her paper? Could you understand it?
Erm... last I checked, mplayer is perfectly capable of playing ASFs out (using the Windows DLLs)... perhaps you are referring to something over and above this? Additional DRM features that I haven't run into yet, perhaps?
Not to mention that MPlayer can play ASFs, and hence has no trouble a) transcoding them or b) outputting them so you can transcode them using other tools (like mjpegtools). I've done this myself to convert ASFs to VCD-compatible MPEG-1 streams.
But, accelerating to the speed of light requires infinite energy, and as such, it is impossible for a physical body to travel at the speed of light (since it can't *reach* the speed of light in the first place). Of course, there is the case that an object will suddenly come into existence traveling at the speed of light, but since this is reasonably unlikely, we'll ignore that.:)
Or maybe, just a thought, the female brain is sufficiently different such that, on average, they are less likely to excel at or take an interest in Physics. I know, I know, god forbid one should suggest that there might be fundamental (if subtle) differences between the genders, even though they would have evolved slightly differently to cope with their different (pre)historic roles.
Actually, I never once thought Gollum was cute... unfortunately, some of the scenes where Gollum appeared funny were probably not deliberate. For example, when he was "fighting" with himself... many people laughed in the theatre, whereas I felt pity for him. And that was the point: I started to feel for Gollum. He was taken by the ring and used. He couldn't control his destiny, and now he finds himself twisted and warped. And at the same time, Gollum serves as a mirror for Frodo; an image of what he could become if he is not strong enough. So, Gollum also provides additional insight into the struggle Frodo is enduring.
As for the way he is depicted, in the books, he fawns over Frodo, at first, because Frodo is the first person to ever take pity on him and be kind to him. Later, of course, it becomes an act when Frodo effectively betrays him (probably one of the more heartwrenching scenes in the movie and the books, as, at that point, Gollum is truly foresaken) and Gollum decides to lead him into Shelob's lair.
Now, as for Gimli... I couldn't agree more. Dwarves are depicted in the books as strong, honourable, and dignified, if a little bit stupid and greedy at times (eg, The Hobbit). But to turn him into comic relief went much too far, IMHO.
Actually, I've had this discussion with some friends of mine. The fact is, the first Matrix movie was, for all intents and purposes, incredibly hokey (I know it, you know it... but we loved it anyway:). The acting was... well... horrible, and the plot, while interesting, was not *that* innovative (although, I rather enjoyed it). BUT, the movie had two things: incredble action, and style. There was something interesting and unique about the feel of The Matrix. But now, with Hollywood copying many of the styalistic elements (eg. the fight scene choreography), The Matrix sequels may not provide the same bang that the original did.
So, we have a problem: the sequels will be just as hokey as the original. This is undeniable (after all, Keanu is still in them;). So, if they simply match the original Matrix in style and form, they will be relatively unoriginal and people will accuse them of simplying "copying" the first movie. Hence, the question $65,000 becomes: how will the Wachowski brothers one-up themselves for the sequels. I have no idea, but I'm sure looking forward to finding out.:)
No way. If you ask me, they've been pretty conservative (or, at least, standard) with The Matrix. Hell, I've seen marketing devices (posters, cardboard cutouts, etc) and previews for movies up to a year in advance of the release (Captain Corelli's Mandolin comes to mind).
Actually, the explanation I prefer is this: prior to the events of the first Terminator movie, there must have been some company other than Cyberdyne which, eventually, created the technology for Skynet to exist. This had to have occured, otherwise Terminator 1 simply couldn't happen (who would come back and leave behind a chip for Cyberdyne to find if no one created Skynet in the first place). So, destruction of Cyberdyne simply means that the original company will move forward with its plans and create Skynet anyway...
This is off topic, but I really hope that whole "wife and kid leave me" thing was just hyperbole... otherwise, you might want to think about how much your wife really values your marriage.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a strawman argument. What I describe isn't a "further reduction of rights". What is currently occuring is a traditional compromise between the rights of the media to report the "news", and the rights of the defendant to a fair trial. Take your pick. But I, as a Canadian citizen, would prefer the courts choose the rights of the defendant over the rights of the media.
No trial is fair when any potential jurors have been biased by the media presenting an filtered view of the case. Or are you one of those wholly dellusioned people who believes that the media will report the facts of this case in a clear, unbiased manner?
The fact is, the public WILL find out what the government is doing: after the jury has been selected and the case can commence. After all, this media blackout isn't permanent. Or did you not know that either?
As for the media being controlled and censored, keep in mind that the US media does a pretty fair job of sensoring itself, ignoring what the government does or doesn't do. As a result, referring to the US media as less censored than Canadian media is incredibly naive on your part.
Wow... "news" and "disinterested third parties" in the same sentence. Are you on crack? These "third parties" you speak of are the news agencies whose sole responsibility (especially in the US) is to generate ratings. No, not report the news; generate ratings.
WRT this case, it is in the media's best interested to villify this guy to the best of their ability. Why? Because villians generate ratings. People tune in because they have a morbid curiosity about the "evil guy who killed all those women". They will do their best to present all the evidence which will present this man as guilty, especially if it can enhance the sensationalism of the case.
So, the media is representing the case in a manner which biases it's viewers. Guess who those viewers are: potential jurors! As a result, the chance Pickton will receive a fair trial with an unbiased jury is compromised, meaning he is stripped of his rights.
Actually, didn't they charge the cops with a different crime in the second case? My understanding of US law was that if you are acquitted of a criminal offense at any level, the prosecution cannot appeal to a higher court to overturn that ruling.
No... he was previously tried in one of Norway's regional courts.
Oooh, bad example... why would *anyone* want to duplicate Budweiser? *shudder* ;)
And it should be pointed out that many professors are going the way of generating a full set of course notes for their class which fully covers the material at hand. Then, rather than having a set text book, they sell the lecture note set to the class for $20 (or whatever your going rate is). This is especially prevalent in many of the math classes I've taken.
Oh, and as a side note, it's not all that cold. Vancouver, BC, is quite nice all year round (being coastal), and also boasts some of the best pot in the country. ;)
Note that Canada is getting better, at least to some degree, WRT bowing down to US pressure. I say to some degree because it's a little tough to not bow down completely, the US being a major trading partner and source of significant profits for Canadian companies.
OTOH, the US also garners significant profit from us as well, so it's a question whether they can really afford to close their borders (unless it suites them... eg the soft-wood lumber dispute. WTF happened to NAFTA, I ask myself???)
But, with things like pot decriminalization on the horizon, and the reluctance of the feds to support US actions in Iraq (ignoring certain recent, assinine statements from certain ministers), I'm feeling at least a little better about our government. There are certainly political parties (*ahem* Canadian Alliance) that make it their political platform to bend over and let the Americans stick it to us. But, with Canadian nationalism (and, whether it's justified or not, anti-Americanism) on the rise, Canada seems to be working hard to separate itself from the US politically.
Funny how only recently has the Liberal government (and Jean Chretien) actually impressed me with some of their actions (see previous paragraph). It's a pity that Chretien is doing a lot of this just so he can go out a hero, while the new PM will likely revert to standard Canadian political posture (ie, bent over).
Ahh, bull... she may have a father involved in cryptography, but that just may be the reason why she got involved in the area. Moreover, she was likely exposed to these concepts at a younger age, because her parents probably consider her education very important. Plus, she would have had greater access to the materials necessary to learn these things. After all, an "impoverished urchin" might have a little trouble getting the resources necessary to learn concepts like abstract algebra in the first place (or even find out they exist to learn!). Like it or not, access to education and a persons financial caste are highly correlated.
As for getting advice from other researches, that's called science! Ever read a research paper? See that part at the back, usually titled "references"? The fact is, she still had to understand the math in order to a) understand and formulate her algorithm and b) discover the attack which defeats it, indicating that she's certainly no slouch. Genius? I don't know... that's a difficult thing to determine. But she's no doubt quite intelligent.
OOC, did you read her paper? Could you understand it?
This is totally OT, but I'm wondering, why do you believe "DivX ... has done more to harm desktop video than help it"? Just curious...
Okay, that was friggin' hilarious. :)
Erm... last I checked, mplayer is perfectly capable of playing ASFs out (using the Windows DLLs)... perhaps you are referring to something over and above this? Additional DRM features that I haven't run into yet, perhaps?
Not to mention that MPlayer can play ASFs, and hence has no trouble a) transcoding them or b) outputting them so you can transcode them using other tools (like mjpegtools). I've done this myself to convert ASFs to VCD-compatible MPEG-1 streams.
But, accelerating to the speed of light requires infinite energy, and as such, it is impossible for a physical body to travel at the speed of light (since it can't *reach* the speed of light in the first place). Of course, there is the case that an object will suddenly come into existence traveling at the speed of light, but since this is reasonably unlikely, we'll ignore that. :)
Or maybe, just a thought, the female brain is sufficiently different such that, on average, they are less likely to excel at or take an interest in Physics. I know, I know, god forbid one should suggest that there might be fundamental (if subtle) differences between the genders, even though they would have evolved slightly differently to cope with their different (pre)historic roles.
Well, at least RMS has a vision, and truly believes in his cause. ESR is just plain annoying.
Actually, they've started making Bonkers again. It's not nearly as good as I remember, though. ;)
Err... I suppose you've never heard of psh?
Actually, I never once thought Gollum was cute... unfortunately, some of the scenes where Gollum appeared funny were probably not deliberate. For example, when he was "fighting" with himself... many people laughed in the theatre, whereas I felt pity for him. And that was the point: I started to feel for Gollum. He was taken by the ring and used. He couldn't control his destiny, and now he finds himself twisted and warped. And at the same time, Gollum serves as a mirror for Frodo; an image of what he could become if he is not strong enough. So, Gollum also provides additional insight into the struggle Frodo is enduring.
As for the way he is depicted, in the books, he fawns over Frodo, at first, because Frodo is the first person to ever take pity on him and be kind to him. Later, of course, it becomes an act when Frodo effectively betrays him (probably one of the more heartwrenching scenes in the movie and the books, as, at that point, Gollum is truly foresaken) and Gollum decides to lead him into Shelob's lair.
Now, as for Gimli... I couldn't agree more. Dwarves are depicted in the books as strong, honourable, and dignified, if a little bit stupid and greedy at times (eg, The Hobbit). But to turn him into comic relief went much too far, IMHO.
Actually, I've had this discussion with some friends of mine. The fact is, the first Matrix movie was, for all intents and purposes, incredibly hokey (I know it, you know it... but we loved it anyway :). The acting was... well... horrible, and the plot, while interesting, was not *that* innovative (although, I rather enjoyed it). BUT, the movie had two things: incredble action, and style. There was something interesting and unique about the feel of The Matrix. But now, with Hollywood copying many of the styalistic elements (eg. the fight scene choreography), The Matrix sequels may not provide the same bang that the original did.
;). So, if they simply match the original Matrix in style and form, they will be relatively unoriginal and people will accuse them of simplying "copying" the first movie. Hence, the question $65,000 becomes: how will the Wachowski brothers one-up themselves for the sequels. I have no idea, but I'm sure looking forward to finding out. :)
So, we have a problem: the sequels will be just as hokey as the original. This is undeniable (after all, Keanu is still in them
No way. If you ask me, they've been pretty conservative (or, at least, standard) with The Matrix. Hell, I've seen marketing devices (posters, cardboard cutouts, etc) and previews for movies up to a year in advance of the release (Captain Corelli's Mandolin comes to mind).
Actually, the explanation I prefer is this: prior to the events of the first Terminator movie, there must have been some company other than Cyberdyne which, eventually, created the technology for Skynet to exist. This had to have occured, otherwise Terminator 1 simply couldn't happen (who would come back and leave behind a chip for Cyberdyne to find if no one created Skynet in the first place). So, destruction of Cyberdyne simply means that the original company will move forward with its plans and create Skynet anyway...
Oh good! ;)
This is off topic, but I really hope that whole "wife and kid leave me" thing was just hyperbole... otherwise, you might want to think about how much your wife really values your marriage.