sure, the ipad is a great way to replace paper. but clearly someone's forgotten what the flight bags are for. there are a few beautiful things about paper -- it's always there, it has zero dependencies, laminated it can withstand more than the human using it, and absolutely nothing can go wrong with it. it just can't break.
so since these things are consulted when the plane breaks, two engines die, and the power is out, it's nice to have the redundancy be a completely different technology.
so when the ipad hangs, is there tech support mid-flight? remember, paper has zero tech support requirements.
it's not about being-able-to it's about the entire concept based around it.
in perl, for example, that one line would actually auto-vivify the entire structure. Think about how much code would be required in C to create that kind of structure, let alone test it for various truths.
it's all about the most efficient way to develop using the DOM. forget about processor efficiency, it's about developer speed. forget about the ability to create complex structures, they are already there. the DOM is as complicated as the above, and moreso. There is already an API to an application (the browser itself) and you've got huge structures tto play with, and they matter in real time.
the above snippet navigates from virtually no where through window placement and size through child and parent windows and embedded browsers, both into and out of embedded browsers, to a specific element then to related elements then to an unrelated element, then moves it to a location that may or may not be relative to other locations.
so in that above case, you're going through the presentation layer (the web page html), the network layer (tcp/ip), the window layer (the tab and chrome and buttons), and the content layer (your actual content between html tags). and you can set anything along any one of them, and it just changes, magically.
it's data-centric programming. you aren't calling functions and issuing commands. you're just changing data structures, that's it. something else (the browser), is monitoring those changes and acting of its own free will.
cool or not, it's wildly different than instructing a computer to do things. you're not. you're just manipulating one huge data structure -- and it's nested, and hyper linked, and looped.
c and java aren't very good at playing with unbalanced crazy data structures. perl is (see auto-vivification), and javascript is.
now, the fun stuff that you'll get to in javascript is the world of polymorphism. if you wanted to use javascript for non-web stuff, you'd go ape shit over the ways in which javascript can do really cool things with prototyping and inheritance. and the fact that it all becomes visual too is really fancy compared to the java or c equivalents. but most web programming doesn't use that sort of thing, so you won't be quite that happy most of the time.
think about linked lists without have to handle them yourself, then think about hyperlinking in data structures the way the web hyperlinks urls. it's not about programming the way you're used to. it's not the same. they call it programming, it's not. it's not even scripting, because you're doing nothing more than changing an existing data structure. everything's a utility function that you write to change the existing data structure.
it's not programming, and it's not scripting. it's scripted mark-up, which is exactly what it is. it's taking html markup, and describing the way it should change dynamically. it's dumb-fk stupid, and it's really basic simple, quite frankly, LOGO was more effortful to code, but because you have so much output and control over levels of interaction with living users, it's fun.
but it's not interesting at the programming level. it's not about that.
so how should you do it? have a browser window open at all times. change one line, hit refresh, see the change. it's not about the code. the code isn't cool. the output is cool. look at the output, not at the code. you should refresh about 100 times per hour of coding. you should make yourself small output consoles to watch variables and track output as you need it. you should be staring at the output, not at the code.
but you're saying that I'm not correct. so what you're saying makes no sense. I'm saying that you can park for less. you're telling me that you can't park for less.
my telling you that you can park for less can't possible give me anything. I can't win by you paying less.
maybe you are that stupid that you can't see someone trying to save you money. but again, I'm perfectly okay with losing this argument, just to have you spend more money. it doesn't hurt me in the least, no matter how much it hurts you.
although it would be nice if you believed that you could amount to someone important enough to afford a car, beyond an entry model. but again, someone need to hammer nails for $10 per hour, even while others hammer the same nails for $50 per hour.
read harder. the average car payment doesn't include most of the car expenses.
there are many houses available without garages, and there are condos too.
you pay property tax on the garage too.
per hour does not mean every hour. welcome to denominators.
3k for my garage covers a standard double garage, the tax on the property, the paving, the repairs, the doors, the electric doors, the door to the house within the garage. cradle to grave.
look, you're missing the point. at 4k per month, you can hire ten students to drive your car around the block until you're done your work day.
but again, I want you to pay 25 per hour, because it benefits me when you pay the city. I manage to get away paying way less for the same thing, because I know how to do so. you can blame me for anything you want. you pay, I don't. one would think you'd ask me how. I'd have thought you'd look to learn. I did.
why would you ever assume that 25/hour is 4000/month? haven't you ever compared renting to leasing to financing to owning? you're clearly not that stupid.
and 500 per month isn't more expensive than most cars. that's 6k per year, given a typical 30k car, you're at 40k after taxes. typical family buys one every 5 years. that's 8k per year. that's more than parking.
not to mention that the 8k per year is the car, not running the car. 2k gas, 2k insurrance, and 2k maintenance. so the car is really 6k more than its cost per year.
you also have a garage or driveway dedicated to the car. that's property cost, and property tax, together mine amount to about 3k per year. maybe you clean your car, I get mine cleaned occccasionally, that's another 1k per year.
I also go on long driving trips, costing another 2k in gas and 2k in maintenance each year.
I'd say that a typical car owner spends about 20k per year on the car and its ilk. so parking isn't anything to be concerned about. especially since parking usually gets rolled into another task, like a meeting, or a birthday, or a dinner, or a show.
anyone who thinks that they spend less than 20k on their car every year, either forgets about things like the garage, or doesn't actually use their car much.
You might want to drop the grade-school math, and actually look at the real-world options available to you.
So I'll answer your question your way. Don't listen to anything that I have to say. Just go out and keep paying crazy dollars for things. I'll sit here, and I'll get away parking 5 days per week, 8 hours per day, at $25 per hour, for way less than $4000 per month.
You won't understand how, because you've never tried.
You don't know how to do things that matter. And that's fine. You don't know when your actions are a benefit to others, and that's also fine. You don't know when those same others will gladly do things for you, that too is fine. What's not fine is that you don't know when those things cost those others zero dollars and zero effort.
That's not fine because you're not taking advantage of what someone else actually wants to do for you. That means that everyone loses out, because you just don't know.
So go find out. Or, you could ask me, and I could tell you, and then you'd know. But then, you'd be listening to what I have to say.
Maybe you'd prefer that I answer your question my way? Because if you'd listen to me, you'd save $4000 per month. There, that was easier.
interesting though. if you think that 18 is the avenue of the rich, you may want to try working harder. you may find that if you'd actually work the way those of us with 20's do, that maybe you'd have a few 20's too.
they've already done that here. but it's 25, not 18. changes absolutely nothing. cars cost way more than the parking. the parking is insignificant. and you're forgetting that the local businesses want the customers in those cars. you can't take a train when you intend to go places that the train doesn't. and you can't take a 20 minute drive, and turn it into a two hour trip with six buses.
you can have more parking though. that's easy. welcome to building infrastructure.
if one in three cars is looking for a spot, than one of the five cars around me is competing for my spot. So on a typical street, four lanes wide, each and every single "column" of cars has at least one car looking for a spot.
and my phone tells me that there's an open spot 100 metres away. that's about 15 "columns". Good to know that there's a spot open, with 15 competitors between me and it.
this is yet another idea that helps only temporarily -- until enough people use it. then it because worse than nothing.
exactly, so they wouldn't talk to me about the bridge. that was my point.
you'd want me to cancel my movie tickets, tell my friends to go to hell, and go see my favourite band, so much my favourite that I didn't even know they were in town in the first place?
I didn't get into the car before buying tickets to the movie, I didn't get into the car having no idea where I was going.
if your friend doesn't have a phone, he won't have a smart car either.
restaurants don't have cooks that don't show up. movies should always be crowded. that's what you want.
all of tthese features assume that the business will tell the customers that they aren't busy. those businesses won't spend money to help customers when they are at capacity, they don't need to. and no business will spend money to tell customers that they aren't busy.
yes, cabbies and tourists, absolutely. but not the businesses themselves.
"when that bridge over there was built" -- if your passenger told you that, you'd consider it the most boring fact possible, and you'd give them the finger.
"what band is playing at that nightclub on the left" -- because I'm going to drive around town for hours waiting for my car to name a band I've heard of? Not quite. I'm going to sit still, and decide which night club to go to. I'm not going to pull over on my way to a movie and instead go to a nightclub.
"whether that new café up the street has any tables available." -- when was the last time you walked into a cafe and were told that you'd need to wait more than six minutes?
"Wave your hand again, and you've made a restaurant reservation." -- great, I'd like a reservation for ten seconds from now. I'm at the red light on the corner.
they don't need to understand the law. they need to understand exactly what they are and are not allowed to do. and you'd better believe they know exactly what they can and can't get away with -- like anyone in any job with a supervisor. you're talking about a hierarchical command structure. they know what to do.
yes they can make up all sorts of stuff to charge you. but remember, it actually is illegal to j-walk. it's also dangerous to do so. and not just for the person doing it. it may feel dumb to be arrested for it, but it still makes sense.
same with rolling stops at slow speeds, stopping short, stopping on the cross walk, running a yellow light, and many other things. and you wouldn't want everyone who does it to be nabbed every time. but you also wouldn't want everyone to do it. so welcome to the middle-ground.
yeah, then you can fight it after, in either choice. and you can also refuse to go with them in the first place, and make that the order.
there's a big step when they decide to throw you out. They can ask you to leave. they can tell you to leave. that's one of the tricks. your actually leaving is your volunteering to leave. Your refusing, and making them physically throw you out is an option. You giving them the option of making it an order saves them some trouble.
your thinking that they'll jump from telling you to leave to actually throwing you out is exactly what they want you to do. but it's not what actually happens.
you get to defend yourself afterwards, to a judge. for various values of catastrophic, yeah, you get to comply first. it's not your decision when it's an official order. officers are offered official office.
that said, police don't tell you to do something, they tell you to not do something or to leave or to let them do something. it can't really be catastrophic for you to leave a place, or to let them search you, or to not cross, or to not punch.
it's a serious thing to give an order, especially for police. it's not taken lightly by anyone. that's why it's an order. if you officially don't volunteer, you'll find yourself quite satisfied by how orders tend to pan out.
just remember, there are plenty of ways for police to trick you into volunteering without actually giving an order. and there are an equal number of ways for them to penalize you for making their jobs more difficult my forcing them to make it an order. you get to decide what you want.
but really, for all of the times I've been stopped, inconvenienced, or otherwise scolded, I can't say that anything actually bad happened. and for the other things that tend to occur in society, it's really easy to avoid such scenarios entirely. I really have no interest in protesting parades.
When it comes to police in most civilized societies, you get to have a very simple dialogue. You can say: "I refuse to volunteer for any such [delay]; but if you order me to do so, I will comply with any order you give."
If you don't volunteer, and you make that an official statement, then the officer needs to decide to make it an order. They aren't allowed to give illegal orders. If they do, you still must comply with it at the time, and without hesitation, but you can fight that later in court.
Basically, it puts everyone on the their best behaviour. If you aren't happy with what winds up happening, and you later discover that they weren't permitted to do so, then you can easily fight it after the fact.
Just remember two things: a) police are allowed to trick you into volunteering, or even kind of volunteering. So make sure you hear the word "order". b) police can be nice and legal, nice and illegal, or mean and legal. Be sure you know what you're risking.
not a segregated network. a requirement that canadian business only pay canadian suppliers. so canadian suppliers are only competing with canadian suppliers.
otherwise, canadian suppliers are competing with u.s.a. suppliers, which doesn't make any sense, since u.s.a. suppliers don't provide anywhere near the benefits that canadian ones do.
as it stands now, canadian suppliers lose out in competitive manners directly because we have a better society in terms of health care, education, preperty values, and more. so we sit in an awkward situation where every societal benefit -- ultimately paid for by businesses like everything is -- hurts those businesses in the global marketplace.
think about what would happen to the existing u.s.a. commercial market if every business suddenly had to pay twice as much tax to cover the country for health insurrance. then remember that we have a few dozen other such things as well.
right. and yeah, what I'm suggesting has huge consequences if ever put to use, and would need a whole host of boundaries and cascades to avoid becoming what it is in belarus.
but that's the point. just because it's done poorly elsewhere, doesn't make it a bad option. it makes it a bad implementation. we can do better.
I wouldn't be against slashdot. I'd simply be encouraging slashdot to open a business licence in Canada, and to follow canadian laws. nothing difficult. I want slashdot to be a member of my country too.
and if they chose not to, which they're welcomed to do, then I may or may not take offense. but in the end, there are plenty of alternatives to slashdot. I think they'd all be better if this law came into play, that's all.
see, it's about improving my country. yes that comes at the expense of other countries which may currently be stepping on my country's economy. how could slashcanada possibly compete with slashdot, when slashdot has way better financial benefits, and is in a country where things are much cheaper?
think about it this way. my excellent health care actually makes slashcanada more expensive than slashdot to run. how's that fair to slashcanada? the fact that another country, spends less money on health care, has more homelessness, more unemployement, a lower education, a lower life expectancy, and a poorer standard of living results in their businesses having an easier time relative to my country.
it's not about fair. it's about what we want. and what we want is to improve our country. and our country would be improved by prefering to keep our economy running internally.
Slashdot Mirror
paper has no dependencies that the ipad doesn't also have.
there, now start your reply again.
sure, the ipad is a great way to replace paper. but clearly someone's forgotten what the flight bags are for. there are a few beautiful things about paper -- it's always there, it has zero dependencies, laminated it can withstand more than the human using it, and absolutely nothing can go wrong with it. it just can't break.
so since these things are consulted when the plane breaks, two engines die, and the power is out, it's nice to have the redundancy be a completely different technology.
so when the ipad hangs, is there tech support mid-flight? remember, paper has zero tech support requirements.
it's not about being-able-to it's about the entire concept based around it.
in perl, for example, that one line would actually auto-vivify the entire structure. Think about how much code would be required in C to create that kind of structure, let alone test it for various truths.
you developed a style for those other languages. and you based that style on the strengths of the language -- I hope.
the only thing that you need to do is to see what javascript does that your other languages can't feasibly do at all. And here's the example:
window.parent.self.document.body.frames['headerFrame'].contentWindow.parent.document.body.getElementById("eNavBar-26s-t").offsetParent.children[7].style.top = "35.4cm";
it's all about the most efficient way to develop using the DOM. forget about processor efficiency, it's about developer speed. forget about the ability to create complex structures, they are already there. the DOM is as complicated as the above, and moreso. There is already an API to an application (the browser itself) and you've got huge structures tto play with, and they matter in real time.
the above snippet navigates from virtually no where through window placement and size through child and parent windows and embedded browsers, both into and out of embedded browsers, to a specific element then to related elements then to an unrelated element, then moves it to a location that may or may not be relative to other locations.
so in that above case, you're going through the presentation layer (the web page html), the network layer (tcp/ip), the window layer (the tab and chrome and buttons), and the content layer (your actual content between html tags). and you can set anything along any one of them, and it just changes, magically.
it's data-centric programming. you aren't calling functions and issuing commands. you're just changing data structures, that's it. something else (the browser), is monitoring those changes and acting of its own free will.
cool or not, it's wildly different than instructing a computer to do things. you're not. you're just manipulating one huge data structure -- and it's nested, and hyper linked, and looped.
c and java aren't very good at playing with unbalanced crazy data structures. perl is (see auto-vivification), and javascript is.
now, the fun stuff that you'll get to in javascript is the world of polymorphism. if you wanted to use javascript for non-web stuff, you'd go ape shit over the ways in which javascript can do really cool things with prototyping and inheritance. and the fact that it all becomes visual too is really fancy compared to the java or c equivalents. but most web programming doesn't use that sort of thing, so you won't be quite that happy most of the time.
think about linked lists without have to handle them yourself, then think about hyperlinking in data structures the way the web hyperlinks urls. it's not about programming the way you're used to. it's not the same. they call it programming, it's not. it's not even scripting, because you're doing nothing more than changing an existing data structure. everything's a utility function that you write to change the existing data structure.
it's not programming, and it's not scripting. it's scripted mark-up, which is exactly what it is. it's taking html markup, and describing the way it should change dynamically. it's dumb-fk stupid, and it's really basic simple, quite frankly, LOGO was more effortful to code, but because you have so much output and control over levels of interaction with living users, it's fun.
but it's not interesting at the programming level. it's not about that.
so how should you do it? have a browser window open at all times. change one line, hit refresh, see the change. it's not about the code. the code isn't cool. the output is cool. look at the output, not at the code. you should refresh about 100 times per hour of coding. you should make yourself small output consoles to watch variables and track output as you need it. you should be staring at the output, not at the code.
but you're saying that I'm not correct. so what you're saying makes no sense. I'm saying that you can park for less. you're telling me that you can't park for less.
my telling you that you can park for less can't possible give me anything. I can't win by you paying less.
maybe you are that stupid that you can't see someone trying to save you money. but again, I'm perfectly okay with losing this argument, just to have you spend more money. it doesn't hurt me in the least, no matter how much it hurts you.
although it would be nice if you believed that you could amount to someone important enough to afford a car, beyond an entry model. but again, someone need to hammer nails for $10 per hour, even while others hammer the same nails for $50 per hour.
enjoy your life. I don't need to.
read harder. the average car payment doesn't include most of the car expenses.
there are many houses available without garages, and there are condos too.
you pay property tax on the garage too.
per hour does not mean every hour. welcome to denominators.
3k for my garage covers a standard double garage, the tax on the property, the paving, the repairs, the doors, the electric doors, the door to the house within the garage. cradle to grave.
look, you're missing the point. at 4k per month, you can hire ten students to drive your car around the block until you're done your work day.
but again, I want you to pay 25 per hour, because it benefits me when you pay the city. I manage to get away paying way less for the same thing, because I know how to do so. you can blame me for anything you want. you pay, I don't. one would think you'd ask me how. I'd have thought you'd look to learn. I did.
why would you ever assume that 25/hour is 4000/month? haven't you ever compared renting to leasing to financing to owning?
you're clearly not that stupid.
and 500 per month isn't more expensive than most cars. that's 6k per year, given a typical 30k car, you're at 40k after taxes. typical family buys one every 5 years. that's 8k per year. that's more than parking.
not to mention that the 8k per year is the car, not running the car. 2k gas, 2k insurrance, and 2k maintenance. so the car is really 6k more than its cost per year.
you also have a garage or driveway dedicated to the car. that's property cost, and property tax, together mine amount to about 3k per year. maybe you clean your car, I get mine cleaned occccasionally, that's another 1k per year.
I also go on long driving trips, costing another 2k in gas and 2k in maintenance each year.
I'd say that a typical car owner spends about 20k per year on the car and its ilk. so parking isn't anything to be concerned about. especially since parking usually gets rolled into another task, like a meeting, or a birthday, or a dinner, or a show.
anyone who thinks that they spend less than 20k on their car every year, either forgets about things like the garage, or doesn't actually use their car much.
Like I said, that's grade school math. $25 per hour is different than $50 per two hours and is very different than $4'000 per month.
Learn to do business math, and you'll find that $4'000 per month is really more like $500 per month, most of the time.
You might want to drop the grade-school math, and actually look at the real-world options available to you.
So I'll answer your question your way. Don't listen to anything that I have to say. Just go out and keep paying crazy dollars for things. I'll sit here, and I'll get away parking 5 days per week, 8 hours per day, at $25 per hour, for way less than $4000 per month.
You won't understand how, because you've never tried.
You don't know how to do things that matter. And that's fine. You don't know when your actions are a benefit to others, and that's also fine. You don't know when those same others will gladly do things for you, that too is fine. What's not fine is that you don't know when those things cost those others zero dollars and zero effort.
That's not fine because you're not taking advantage of what someone else actually wants to do for you. That means that everyone loses out, because you just don't know.
So go find out. Or, you could ask me, and I could tell you, and then you'd know. But then, you'd be listening to what I have to say.
Maybe you'd prefer that I answer your question my way? Because if you'd listen to me, you'd save $4000 per month. There, that was easier.
interesting though. if you think that 18 is the avenue of the rich, you may want to try working harder. you may find that if you'd actually work the way those of us with 20's do, that maybe you'd have a few 20's too.
they've already done that here. but it's 25, not 18. changes absolutely nothing. cars cost way more than the parking. the parking is insignificant. and you're forgetting that the local businesses want the customers in those cars.
you can't take a train when you intend to go places that the train doesn't.
and you can't take a 20 minute drive, and turn it into a two hour trip with six buses.
you can have more parking though. that's easy. welcome to building infrastructure.
if one in three cars is looking for a spot, than one of the five cars around me is competing for my spot. So on a typical street, four lanes wide, each and every single "column" of cars has at least one car looking for a spot.
and my phone tells me that there's an open spot 100 metres away. that's about 15 "columns". Good to know that there's a spot open, with 15 competitors between me and it.
this is yet another idea that helps only temporarily -- until enough people use it. then it because worse than nothing.
exactly, so they wouldn't talk to me about the bridge. that was my point.
you'd want me to cancel my movie tickets, tell my friends to go to hell, and go see my favourite band, so much my favourite that I didn't even know they were in town in the first place?
I didn't get into the car before buying tickets to the movie, I didn't get into the car having no idea where I was going.
if your friend doesn't have a phone, he won't have a smart car either.
restaurants don't have cooks that don't show up. movies should always be crowded. that's what you want.
all of tthese features assume that the business will tell the customers that they aren't busy. those businesses won't spend money to help customers when they are at capacity, they don't need to. and no business will spend money to tell customers that they aren't busy.
yes, cabbies and tourists, absolutely. but not the businesses themselves.
"when that bridge over there was built" -- if your passenger told you that, you'd consider it the most boring fact possible, and you'd give them the finger.
"what band is playing at that nightclub on the left" -- because I'm going to drive around town for hours waiting for my car to name a band I've heard of? Not quite. I'm going to sit still, and decide which night club to go to. I'm not going to pull over on my way to a movie and instead go to a nightclub.
"whether that new café up the street has any tables available." -- when was the last time you walked into a cafe and were told that you'd need to wait more than six minutes?
"Wave your hand again, and you've made a restaurant reservation." -- great, I'd like a reservation for ten seconds from now. I'm at the red light on the corner.
two hands on the wheel.
technically, no.
they don't need to understand the law. they need to understand exactly what they are and are not allowed to do. and you'd better believe they know exactly what they can and can't get away with -- like anyone in any job with a supervisor. you're talking about a hierarchical command structure. they know what to do.
yes they can make up all sorts of stuff to charge you. but remember, it actually is illegal to j-walk. it's also dangerous to do so. and not just for the person doing it. it may feel dumb to be arrested for it, but it still makes sense.
same with rolling stops at slow speeds, stopping short, stopping on the cross walk, running a yellow light, and many other things. and you wouldn't want everyone who does it to be nabbed every time. but you also wouldn't want everyone to do it. so welcome to the middle-ground.
you needn't worry about those. they aren't frequent enough to worry, and they are easily fought.
you needn't worry about those. they aren't frequent enough to worry, and they are easily fought.
yeah, then you can fight it after, in either choice. and you can also refuse to go with them in the first place, and make that the order.
there's a big step when they decide to throw you out. They can ask you to leave. they can tell you to leave. that's one of the tricks. your actually leaving is your volunteering to leave. Your refusing, and making them physically throw you out is an option. You giving them the option of making it an order saves them some trouble.
your thinking that they'll jump from telling you to leave to actually throwing you out is exactly what they want you to do. but it's not what actually happens.
you get to defend yourself afterwards, to a judge. for various values of catastrophic, yeah, you get to comply first. it's not your decision when it's an official order. officers are offered official office.
that said, police don't tell you to do something, they tell you to not do something or to leave or to let them do something. it can't really be catastrophic for you to leave a place, or to let them search you, or to not cross, or to not punch.
it's a serious thing to give an order, especially for police. it's not taken lightly by anyone. that's why it's an order. if you officially don't volunteer, you'll find yourself quite satisfied by how orders tend to pan out.
just remember, there are plenty of ways for police to trick you into volunteering without actually giving an order. and there are an equal number of ways for them to penalize you for making their jobs more difficult my forcing them to make it an order. you get to decide what you want.
but really, for all of the times I've been stopped, inconvenienced, or otherwise scolded, I can't say that anything actually bad happened. and for the other things that tend to occur in society, it's really easy to avoid such scenarios entirely. I really have no interest in protesting parades.
When it comes to police in most civilized societies, you get to have a very simple dialogue. You can say: "I refuse to volunteer for any such [delay]; but if you order me to do so, I will comply with any order you give."
If you don't volunteer, and you make that an official statement, then the officer needs to decide to make it an order. They aren't allowed to give illegal orders. If they do, you still must comply with it at the time, and without hesitation, but you can fight that later in court.
Basically, it puts everyone on the their best behaviour. If you aren't happy with what winds up happening, and you later discover that they weren't permitted to do so, then you can easily fight it after the fact.
Just remember two things: a) police are allowed to trick you into volunteering, or even kind of volunteering. So make sure you hear the word "order". b) police can be nice and legal, nice and illegal, or mean and legal. Be sure you know what you're risking.
not a segregated network. a requirement that canadian business only pay canadian suppliers. so canadian suppliers are only competing with canadian suppliers.
otherwise, canadian suppliers are competing with u.s.a. suppliers, which doesn't make any sense, since u.s.a. suppliers don't provide anywhere near the benefits that canadian ones do.
as it stands now, canadian suppliers lose out in competitive manners directly because we have a better society in terms of health care, education, preperty values, and more. so we sit in an awkward situation where every societal benefit -- ultimately paid for by businesses like everything is -- hurts those businesses in the global marketplace.
think about what would happen to the existing u.s.a. commercial market if every business suddenly had to pay twice as much tax to cover the country for health insurrance. then remember that we have a few dozen other such things as well.
right. and yeah, what I'm suggesting has huge consequences if ever put to use, and would need a whole host of boundaries and cascades to avoid becoming what it is in belarus.
but that's the point. just because it's done poorly elsewhere, doesn't make it a bad option. it makes it a bad implementation. we can do better.
I wouldn't be against slashdot. I'd simply be encouraging slashdot to open a business licence in Canada, and to follow canadian laws. nothing difficult. I want slashdot to be a member of my country too.
and if they chose not to, which they're welcomed to do, then I may or may not take offense. but in the end, there are plenty of alternatives to slashdot. I think they'd all be better if this law came into play, that's all.
see, it's about improving my country. yes that comes at the expense of other countries which may currently be stepping on my country's economy. how could slashcanada possibly compete with slashdot, when slashdot has way better financial benefits, and is in a country where things are much cheaper?
think about it this way. my excellent health care actually makes slashcanada more expensive than slashdot to run. how's that fair to slashcanada? the fact that another country, spends less money on health care, has more homelessness, more unemployement, a lower education, a lower life expectancy, and a poorer standard of living results in their businesses having an easier time relative to my country.
it's not about fair. it's about what we want. and what we want is to improve our country. and our country would be improved by prefering to keep our economy running internally.
I like canada. and this type of thing would improve canada. that's the idea of being a citizen -- to help improve your country.