Yes but there a still advantages to having an oversized address space. When script kiddies start scanning for targets it'll take a lot longer to find anything
"The only thing holding me back on IPv6 was X. Well, that's solved. IPv6 here I come!!!"
Well put. I have to admit, I'm one of those who got sucked in by the notion that if it has a higher "v" it must be better. Well, that ended today when I did some research and found out how horribly botched the whole IPv6 thing has been from the start, and at this point, I really think it's a lost cause. It would be better to start over again, on a new sensible extension to IPv4.
For starters, it's essential that the old addressing scheme be a straightforward subset of the new one. You have to be able to connect to google and Aunt Mary's homepage from your spiffy new setup. It would also be awfully darn nice if the new scheme resembled the old one as much as possible. What the heck was the idea of making it 128 bits, so no human can deal with the raw numbers? Simply grafting on another 8 bit section boosts it to a trillian addresses. THAT'S PLENTY! You'd still have a hope of being able to deal with the raw number when you have to.
And we DON'T NEED TO BE ABLE TO ADDRESS EVERY THUMBTACK ON THE PLANET. Whowever dreamed up IPv6 needs to be put in a nice padded cell where they can't hurt themselves.
As far as taking over the internet goes, it's all over but assigning the blame.
Somebody with too many moderator points on their hands modded down the whole thread, regardless of the accuracy of technical comment. That's, in a word, disgusting
The only thing holding me back on IPv6 was X. Well, that's solved. IPv6 here I come!!!
Well put. I have to admit, I'm one of those who got sucked in by the notion that if it has a higher "v" it must be better. Well, that ended today when I did some research and found out how horribly botched the whole IPv6 thing has been from the start, and at this point, I really think it's a lost cause. It would be better to start over again, on a new sensible extension to IPv4.
For starters, it's essential that the old addressing scheme be a straightforward subset of the new one. You have to be able to connect to google and Aunt Mary's homepage from your spiffy new setup. It would also be awfully darn nice if the new scheme resembled the old one as much as possible. What the heck was the idea of making it 128 bits, so no human can deal with the raw numbers? Simply grafting on another 8 bit section boosts it to a trillian addresses. THAT'S PLENTY! You'd still have a hope of being able to deal with the raw number when you have to.
And we DON'T NEED TO BE ABLE TO ADDRESS EVERY THUMBTACK ON THE PLANET. Whowever dreamed up IPv6 needs to be put in a nice padded cell where they can't hurt themselves.
As far as taking over the internet goes, it's all over but assigning the blame.
"To date, I've understood a "Royalty Free" patent license to mean "Available for use for the stated purpose (i.e., to implement the standard) without need to pay royalties"."
But there can be other conditions.
Not without violating the notion of "available for use". This comes down to how "Royalty Free License" is defined, and I agree it would be stupid to define it in such a way as to permit abuse of the type you suggest.
Look at "5. W3C Royalty-Free (RF) Licensing Requirements", here.
Microsoft demonstrated this to Sun recently with an RF license that Sun simply could not sign.
You're making up bogeymen. Just be sure the definition of "Royalty Free" is correct for it's intended purpose, and even Microsoft will have to abide by them, especially as they will have a much harder time violating the spirit of a license they provide, given the PR cost, and the hordes that would surely pounce, let alone the possible legal consequences.
I would rather stick with an IP regime that actually achieves the objectives of an open and unencumbered (including royalty free) standard than have a license whose terms meets the demands of the noisiest OSS advocates but ends up with an encumbered standard.
OK, thanks for confirming you had no point in the first place.
The patents cover the LZW compression algorithm, not the GIF file spec itself. Thus, there are other [sourceforge.net] ways to make GIF files that do not use LZW.
Gad, but you are competing for some sort of most clueless prize. Yes, you can make patent-free gifs that way. No, you can't make patent-free LZW compressed gifs that way, even though the compression scheme is part of the file format.
"What about patents that are embedded in standards? Work around the patent and you're no longer interoperable."
Now you're nitpicking. What if my head turns into a block of gouda?
Never mind that you just instantly lost all credibility by first calling an important point a "nitpick" then going on to support it with some silly analogy. Surely you do not fail to understand how patents embedded in standards can be used to impose taxes on internet users and block free software implementations?
If so, you are either very stupid or very cynical.
The terms for all the current IETF and W3C specs being worked on are RAND with Zero license fee (RAND-Z). Royalty Free is definitely NOT what you want if you have a brain that works. RF terms allow a patent holder to apply any encumberance they choose so long as there is no cash charge. Well guess what there are worse terms for companies than paying money, handing over your customer lists for example.
To date, I've understood a "Royalty Free" patent license to mean "Available for use for the stated purpose (i.e., to implement the standard) without need to pay royalties".
You're telling me I'm mistaken? Please do corrrect me, otherwise, I don't see any advantage to your RAND-Z from the standards point of view. If I'm not mistaken, I'd much prefer to stick with "RF", as the probable route of least resistance.
By the way, rhetoric like "if you have a brain that works" doesn't do much to advance your argument.
I think that like many who latch on to the Open Source world you are more interested in purity of ideology than actual objectives.
That's because you didn't bother to do a google search on me. Hint: look for "Tux2" and "evil patents".
... it does seem as though amendments that would give OSS exemption from software patents would actually give OSS an advantage vs. proprietary software. It would be like carte blanche to circumvent patent protection through OSS. Companies like IBM that earn all their money through service and support might do very well.
Does that throw a bit of a pall over the whole idea of special rules for OSS?
Not from the point of view of authors or users of the software. Sure, IBM would rather be gauranteed the inalienable right to profit, by law, but it is not in the interest of European society to grant them that right in this case.
It's much better all round if IBM earns its profits instead of being granted them. Better for IBM too, I'll venture to suggest.
Then perhaps it would be appropriate to point out to the MEPs that the proposed mechanism would not actually product Open Source developers, and to lobby for a mechanism that _would_ specifically protect the needs of European open source developers even if it granted software patent rights in general?
I would not care less if all the closed source developers get wrapped up in patents, so long as open source developers are allowed to share our work.
That even seems like quite a fair compromise: Voluntary disclosure of your secrets in exchange for not being bound by the patent system. After all, there is no need (or justification) for patents to provide an incentive for disclosure or trade secrets, among those who voluntarily disclose their trade secrets anyway.
With a patent, you supposedly disclose your secrets in return for which you get a monopoly on the use of them. So disclosing secrets isn't the problem, it's the right to use them we're worried about.
To recast your proposal in way that fits the patent situation better: free software developers would promise to forgo any profit from certain software creations, in return for authors and users of the software being free from paying royalties for, or being restricted in the use of the software.
That would satisfy me, personally. Even better would be to forgo the software patent stupidity altogether, as it is a net drag on society. But like you, I feel it's the business software interests creating their own private hell, and it is their responsibility to do something about it, not ours.
On the other hand, there must be enlightened business organizations somewhere that can see through the badness that is coming. If they want to sponsor open software representatives to help represent their interests, that's also fine.
I am afraid I don't get what the problem is, other than it sounds like "double-speak".
It doesn't just sound like double-speak, it is double-speak. The paragraph claims that monitoring "will guarantee against any adverse effect of the Directive" but does not support that claim in any way. It's just rhetoric, meant to create a pretence that software patents will somehow not harm free and open software, contrary to the experience and evidence we already have.
Politics aside, let's say that Linux became better and more usable than Windows, and somehow it became the operating system of choice for the world. Then, the majority of the 130000 people working for Microsoft would be out of a job. (with some imagination, you can envision this happening to most of the software industry) No, not all of them work on Windows, but the profit from Windows is what allows the other Microsoft sectors to operate at a loss.
"Fine," you say. "They were just taking money from other people in the world. Those people are now saving money."
Lets take that line of thinking to its logical conclusion. Those 130000 people and Microsoft itself cannot afford to purchase the products of the company that you work for. On top of that, they are now competing for the jobs of 130000 other people in the world, lowering the pay of everyone.
I've heard this argument a number of times the past, more or less verbatum. (I suppose it has a well-known page number in Microsoft's "how to spin" playbook.) One flaw in the argument is that it is wrong to presume that mere churning of funds somehow benefits an economy, in the absense of any real work being done. Another flaw is the presumption that Microsoft and Microsoft employees can somehow make better use of the money than the homes and businesses they take it from.
Either of these is enough to expose your argument as the weak-minded apology it really is.
"They've alienated the open source crowd [ietf.org] too. (In case you don't see right away what's happening here, IETF is defending its policy of allowing RAND patent-encumbered standards, which is obviously incompatible with free software implementation of same.)"
As with W3C the issue there was purely a theoretical one.
The open source crowd is really alienated, just theoretically.
Neither the IETF or the W3C ever intended to persue a standard that was encumbered except in the case that there was a problem that could be addressed in no other way.
This is a case of "if you love me, will you put it in writing?". The point is: when you are developing free software, a RAND licence is the same as no license, so a RAND-encumbered internet standard is the same as no standard: you can't implement it. From the open source community's point of view, there is no point for the IETF to waste everybody's time by putting forth any standard that is known to be RAND-encumbered. So long as it's IETF's policy to allow this, the alienation won't go away.
DRM is a mess, there are multiple patent claims that conflict and each holder demands ridiculous royalties. So you can't deploy with any confidence.
Excellent. After spinning in circles for a while, DRM will be superceded by things that can be standarized and widely implemented. This is healthy evolution.
At this point the IETF has pretty much alienated everyone but the academics and the open software crowd.
They've alienated the open source crowd too. (In case you don't see right away what's happening here, IETF is defending its policy of allowing RAND patent-encumbered standards, which is obviously incompatible with free software implementation of same.) I can't speak for the academics, but it does invite the question, just who they haven't alienated.
Rough Consensus and running code may have been fine when the IETF bigwigs were in their 20s and 30s. These days they are in their 50s and 60s and it really shows. The place has been a talking shop for has beens for years.
Sad to say, but that's the impression I get as well: the IETF is an old hulk, dead in the water, its reputation still sterling, but undeserved save for great deeds done by past heros. Its most important iniatives - ipv2 and ipsec - were botched. Plenty of time has gone by and there is still no widespread deployment, or sign of significant improvement.
What is the story behind this failure? Could it be, the IETF has degenerated into an ineffectual beaurocracy, hardly more than an old boy's club and debating society? Could there be members who continue to cling to their key positions long after their energy and vision have run out? Whose skills would be more suited to entrenched beaurocrats than internet engineers? Who are mainly interested in suppressing new talent to protect their own tiny piece of internet turf, instead of nurturing it, and passing on their knowlege? Whose efforts have proved to be inadequate to meet the challenges of the day, but nontheless entertain no thought of stepping back?
If nothing changes, the IETF will just continue to drift towards stagnation and ultimately, irrelevance.
I can imagine not needing NEW software. If the GNU zealots have their way, that will be the situation. Lets say linux and its host of supporting applications become so good that a majority of persons decide to use it, and it just plain works... Who is going to pay you to write new software if you have a nearly perfect open-format word processor and office suite? And business apps? and operating system?
I take it, your position is that we should make Linux worse, in order to create software jobs. The trouble with your argument is, it might not work: it might just result in worse software that costs more and benefits fewer people. It might lead to job losses in other industries besides the software industry, because of the inefficient use of manpower and capital.
Anyway, in case you haven't noticed, there's a whole new Linux software industry growing up, all over the world. I can tell you that it's created jobs for me, and it will for you too, if you have the skills.
You'd probably like to claim those were British indians fighting on our side.
Canada didn't exsit as a nation at that time.
The war of 1812 was one of the defining moments of the Canadian nation, every bit as much as the British North America Act Act of 1867, "An Act for the Union of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick". As you can see, Canada already existed by that time.
Upper Canada was created by the Constitution Act of 1791. If you want to get picky, Canada remained a colony of Britain until the Constitution Act of 1982. So when exactly was the nation of Canada born, according to you?
At least try to have a better grasp of history than us Americans.
Would you like us to aspire to your grammatical ability, as well?:)
When I send my checque to the government every year, the payment for my health insurance is in there.
The thing is, this way the distribution of health benefits ends up closer to the ideal of being based on need instead of wallet size, which results in a happier, healthier society overall.
Not that I like the inefficiencies that tend to seep into anything the government gets involved in, however, there isn't another way around this one, as far as I know. It does mean we have to keep a careful eye on the system to ensure the money goes where it's supposed to, efficiently.
Do you have evidence to support this? Do you know that a joint a day is as much of a cancer risk as a pack a day of cigarettes?
My brother is an asthmatic, whose asthma is controlled by marijuana, and who incidently is a properly authorized grower. For my brother, there's no question his life will be longer and healthier because of his marijuana use. A little bit of weed means a lot less topical steroid (yes, that's what's in those inhalers).
...our economic prosperity as a nation depends on our trade relationship and close economic ties with the U.S.
With due respect, that is pure fiction. Canada's prosperity comes from its resource wealth and home control of same. Without U.S. trade we'd likely be even better off, as Asians and Europeans need our resources more urgently than the Americans do.
Yes but the key is on the inside of the door, and the bad guys are on the outside. If they can make syscalls already, they hardly have to worry about disabling this mechanism.
You can leave out the "but". Sorry for not specifying which side of the door you would be on when you lock it.
Because we have the freedom to pursue whatever business we like, Americans have gotten very good at supplying what people want...
Unfortunately, Americans have gotten even better at buying new laws that force people to take whatever is most profitable for the seller, regardless of the quality or price of the merchandise.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes but there a still advantages to having an oversized address space. When script kiddies start scanning for targets it'll take a lot longer to find anything
So you're advocating security through obscurity?
"The only thing holding me back on IPv6 was X. Well, that's solved. IPv6 here I come!!!"
Well put. I have to admit, I'm one of those who got sucked in by the notion that if it has a higher "v" it must be better. Well, that ended today when I did some research and found out how horribly botched the whole IPv6 thing has been from the start, and at this point, I really think it's a lost cause. It would be better to start over again, on a new sensible extension to IPv4.
For starters, it's essential that the old addressing scheme be a straightforward subset of the new one. You have to be able to connect to google and Aunt Mary's homepage from your spiffy new setup. It would also be awfully darn nice if the new scheme resembled the old one as much as possible. What the heck was the idea of making it 128 bits, so no human can deal with the raw numbers? Simply grafting on another 8 bit section boosts it to a trillian addresses. THAT'S PLENTY! You'd still have a hope of being able to deal with the raw number when you have to.
And we DON'T NEED TO BE ABLE TO ADDRESS EVERY THUMBTACK ON THE PLANET. Whowever dreamed up IPv6 needs to be put in a nice padded cell where they can't hurt themselves.
As far as taking over the internet goes, it's all over but assigning the blame.
Somebody with too many moderator points on their hands modded down the whole thread, regardless of the accuracy of technical comment. That's, in a word, disgusting
Just becuase some PC technician at "The Wiz" can't see the sense in ipv6 doesn't mean Nortel networks and Lucent don't have a use for it.
That's likely where IPv6 will be relegated, and even there, 128 bits is arguably a big, fat waste.
What it will not become is an end-to-end addressing scheme as originally designed, it's just not the best solution or even close to it.
The only thing holding me back on IPv6 was X. Well, that's solved. IPv6 here I come!!!
Well put. I have to admit, I'm one of those who got sucked in by the notion that if it has a higher "v" it must be better. Well, that ended today when I did some research and found out how horribly botched the whole IPv6 thing has been from the start, and at this point, I really think it's a lost cause. It would be better to start over again, on a new sensible extension to IPv4.
For starters, it's essential that the old addressing scheme be a straightforward subset of the new one. You have to be able to connect to google and Aunt Mary's homepage from your spiffy new setup. It would also be awfully darn nice if the new scheme resembled the old one as much as possible. What the heck was the idea of making it 128 bits, so no human can deal with the raw numbers? Simply grafting on another 8 bit section boosts it to a trillian addresses. THAT'S PLENTY! You'd still have a hope of being able to deal with the raw number when you have to.
And we DON'T NEED TO BE ABLE TO ADDRESS EVERY THUMBTACK ON THE PLANET. Whowever dreamed up IPv6 needs to be put in a nice padded cell where they can't hurt themselves.
As far as taking over the internet goes, it's all over but assigning the blame.
"To date, I've understood a "Royalty Free" patent license to mean "Available for use for the stated purpose (i.e., to implement the standard) without need to pay royalties"."
But there can be other conditions.
Not without violating the notion of "available for use". This comes down to how "Royalty Free License" is defined, and I agree it would be stupid to define it in such a way as to permit abuse of the type you suggest.
Look at "5. W3C Royalty-Free (RF) Licensing Requirements", here.
Microsoft demonstrated this to Sun recently with an RF license that Sun simply could not sign.
You're making up bogeymen. Just be sure the definition of "Royalty Free" is correct for it's intended purpose, and even Microsoft will have to abide by them, especially as they will have a much harder time violating the spirit of a license they provide, given the PR cost, and the hordes that would surely pounce, let alone the possible legal consequences.
I would rather stick with an IP regime that actually achieves the objectives of an open and unencumbered (including royalty free) standard than have a license whose terms meets the demands of the noisiest OSS advocates but ends up with an encumbered standard.
OK, thanks for confirming you had no point in the first place.
The patents cover the LZW compression algorithm, not the GIF file spec itself. Thus, there are other [sourceforge.net] ways to make GIF files that do not use LZW.
Gad, but you are competing for some sort of most clueless prize. Yes, you can make patent-free gifs that way. No, you can't make patent-free LZW compressed gifs that way, even though the compression scheme is part of the file format.
My contention (which has yet to be disproven) is that coders can work and do work around crappy patents already.
You can work around some and not others. Please get a clue.
"What about patents that are embedded in standards? Work around the patent and you're no longer interoperable."
Now you're nitpicking. What if my head turns into a block of gouda?
Never mind that you just instantly lost all credibility by first calling an important point a "nitpick" then going on to support it with some silly analogy. Surely you do not fail to understand how patents embedded in standards can be used to impose taxes on internet users and block free software implementations?
If so, you are either very stupid or very cynical.
The terms for all the current IETF and W3C specs being worked on are RAND with Zero license fee (RAND-Z). Royalty Free is definitely NOT what you want if you have a brain that works. RF terms allow a patent holder to apply any encumberance they choose so long as there is no cash charge. Well guess what there are worse terms for companies than paying money, handing over your customer lists for example.
To date, I've understood a "Royalty Free" patent license to mean "Available for use for the stated purpose (i.e., to implement the standard) without need to pay royalties".
You're telling me I'm mistaken? Please do corrrect me, otherwise, I don't see any advantage to your RAND-Z from the standards point of view. If I'm not mistaken, I'd much prefer to stick with "RF", as the probable route of least resistance.
By the way, rhetoric like "if you have a brain that works" doesn't do much to advance your argument.
I think that like many who latch on to the Open Source world you are more interested in purity of ideology than actual objectives.
That's because you didn't bother to do a google search on me. Hint: look for "Tux2" and "evil patents".
Does that throw a bit of a pall over the whole idea of special rules for OSS?
Not from the point of view of authors or users of the software. Sure, IBM would rather be gauranteed the inalienable right to profit, by law, but it is not in the interest of European society to grant them that right in this case.
It's much better all round if IBM earns its profits instead of being granted them. Better for IBM too, I'll venture to suggest.
Hi Jamie,
Then perhaps it would be appropriate to point out to the MEPs that the proposed mechanism would not actually product Open Source developers, and to lobby for a mechanism that _would_ specifically protect the needs of European open source developers even if it granted software patent rights in general?
I would not care less if all the closed source developers get wrapped up in patents, so long as open source developers are allowed to share our work.
That even seems like quite a fair compromise: Voluntary disclosure of your secrets in exchange for not being bound by the patent system. After all, there is no need (or justification) for patents to provide an incentive for disclosure or trade secrets, among those who voluntarily disclose their trade secrets anyway.
With a patent, you supposedly disclose your secrets in return for which you get a monopoly on the use of them. So disclosing secrets isn't the problem, it's the right to use them we're worried about.
To recast your proposal in way that fits the patent situation better: free software developers would promise to forgo any profit from certain software creations, in return for authors and users of the software being free from paying royalties for, or being restricted in the use of the software.
That would satisfy me, personally. Even better would be to forgo the software patent stupidity altogether, as it is a net drag on society. But like you, I feel it's the business software interests creating their own private hell, and it is their responsibility to do something about it, not ours.
On the other hand, there must be enlightened business organizations somewhere that can see through the badness that is coming. If they want to sponsor open software representatives to help represent their interests, that's also fine.
I am afraid I don't get what the problem is, other than it sounds like "double-speak".
It doesn't just sound like double-speak, it is double-speak. The paragraph claims that monitoring "will guarantee against any adverse effect of the Directive" but does not support that claim in any way. It's just rhetoric, meant to create a pretence that software patents will somehow not harm free and open software, contrary to the experience and evidence we already have.
Politics aside, let's say that Linux became better and more usable than Windows, and somehow it became the operating system of choice for the world. Then, the majority of the 130000 people working for Microsoft would be out of a job. (with some imagination, you can envision this happening to most of the software industry) No, not all of them work on Windows, but the profit from Windows is what allows the other Microsoft sectors to operate at a loss.
"Fine," you say. "They were just taking money from other people in the world. Those people are now saving money."
Lets take that line of thinking to its logical conclusion. Those 130000 people and Microsoft itself cannot afford to purchase the products of the company that you work for. On top of that, they are now competing for the jobs of 130000 other people in the world, lowering the pay of everyone.
I've heard this argument a number of times the past, more or less verbatum. (I suppose it has a well-known page number in Microsoft's "how to spin" playbook.) One flaw in the argument is that it is wrong to presume that mere churning of funds somehow benefits an economy, in the absense of any real work being done. Another flaw is the presumption that Microsoft and Microsoft employees can somehow make better use of the money than the homes and businesses they take it from.
Either of these is enough to expose your argument as the weak-minded apology it really is.
"They've alienated the open source crowd [ietf.org] too. (In case you don't see right away what's happening here, IETF is defending its policy of allowing RAND patent-encumbered standards, which is obviously incompatible with free software implementation of same.)"
As with W3C the issue there was purely a theoretical one.
The open source crowd is really alienated, just theoretically.
Neither the IETF or the W3C ever intended to persue a standard that was encumbered except in the case that there was a problem that could be addressed in no other way.
This is a case of "if you love me, will you put it in writing?". The point is: when you are developing free software, a RAND licence is the same as no license, so a RAND-encumbered internet standard is the same as no standard: you can't implement it. From the open source community's point of view, there is no point for the IETF to waste everybody's time by putting forth any standard that is known to be RAND-encumbered. So long as it's IETF's policy to allow this, the alienation won't go away.
DRM is a mess, there are multiple patent claims that conflict and each holder demands ridiculous royalties. So you can't deploy with any confidence.
Excellent. After spinning in circles for a while, DRM will be superceded by things that can be standarized and widely implemented. This is healthy evolution.
At this point the IETF has pretty much alienated everyone but the academics and the open software crowd.
They've alienated the open source crowd too. (In case you don't see right away what's happening here, IETF is defending its policy of allowing RAND patent-encumbered standards, which is obviously incompatible with free software implementation of same.) I can't speak for the academics, but it does invite the question, just who they haven't alienated.
Rough Consensus and running code may have been fine when the IETF bigwigs were in their 20s and 30s. These days they are in their 50s and 60s and it really shows. The place has been a talking shop for has beens for years.
Sad to say, but that's the impression I get as well: the IETF is an old hulk, dead in the water, its reputation still sterling, but undeserved save for great deeds done by past heros. Its most important iniatives - ipv2 and ipsec - were botched. Plenty of time has gone by and there is still no widespread deployment, or sign of significant improvement.
What is the story behind this failure? Could it be, the IETF has degenerated into an ineffectual beaurocracy, hardly more than an old boy's club and debating society? Could there be members who continue to cling to their key positions long after their energy and vision have run out? Whose skills would be more suited to entrenched beaurocrats than internet engineers? Who are mainly interested in suppressing new talent to protect their own tiny piece of internet turf, instead of nurturing it, and passing on their knowlege? Whose efforts have proved to be inadequate to meet the challenges of the day, but nontheless entertain no thought of stepping back?
If nothing changes, the IETF will just continue to drift towards stagnation and ultimately, irrelevance.
Sad.
I can imagine not needing NEW software. If the GNU zealots have their way, that will be the situation. Lets say linux and its host of supporting applications become so good that a majority of persons decide to use it, and it just plain works... Who is going to pay you to write new software if you have a nearly perfect open-format word processor and office suite? And business apps? and operating system?
I take it, your position is that we should make Linux worse, in order to create software jobs. The trouble with your argument is, it might not work: it might just result in worse software that costs more and benefits fewer people. It might lead to job losses in other industries besides the software industry, because of the inefficient use of manpower and capital.
Anyway, in case you haven't noticed, there's a whole new Linux software industry growing up, all over the world. I can tell you that it's created jobs for me, and it will for you too, if you have the skills.
That was the British Army, not the Canadian Army.
:)
You'd probably like to claim those were British indians fighting on our side.
Canada didn't exsit as a nation at that time.
The war of 1812 was one of the defining moments of the Canadian nation, every bit as much as the British North America Act Act of 1867, "An Act for the Union of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick". As you can see, Canada already existed by that time.
Upper Canada was created by the Constitution Act of 1791. If you want to get picky, Canada remained a colony of Britain until the Constitution Act of 1982. So when exactly was the nation of Canada born, according to you?
At least try to have a better grasp of history than us Americans.
Would you like us to aspire to your grammatical ability, as well?
Canada's health care system is by no means FREE.
When I send my checque to the government every year, the payment for my health insurance is in there.
The thing is, this way the distribution of health benefits ends up closer to the ideal of being based on need instead of wallet size, which results in a happier, healthier society overall.
Not that I like the inefficiencies that tend to seep into anything the government gets involved in, however, there isn't another way around this one, as far as I know. It does mean we have to keep a careful eye on the system to ensure the money goes where it's supposed to, efficiently.
Take Michael Moore with you. Please!
I, for one, would be honored.
1. Both are carcinogens.
Do you have evidence to support this? Do you know that a joint a day is as much of a cancer risk as a pack a day of cigarettes?
My brother is an asthmatic, whose asthma is controlled by marijuana, and who incidently is a properly authorized grower. For my brother, there's no question his life will be longer and healthier because of his marijuana use. A little bit of weed means a lot less topical steroid (yes, that's what's in those inhalers).
...our economic prosperity as a nation depends on our trade relationship and close economic ties with the U.S.
With due respect, that is pure fiction. Canada's prosperity comes from its resource wealth and home control of same. Without U.S. trade we'd likely be even better off, as Asians and Europeans need our resources more urgently than the Americans do.
The average drug dealer does more jail time than the average murderer.
Not that I doubt you, but can you back that up with statistics?
Note that, the way things are going, breakers of computer laws will soon be doing more jail time than the other two categories combined.
Yes but the key is on the inside of the door, and the bad guys are on the outside. If they can make syscalls already, they hardly have to worry about disabling this mechanism.
You can leave out the "but". Sorry for not specifying which side of the door you would be on when you lock it.
Because we have the freedom to pursue whatever business we like, Americans have gotten very good at supplying what people want...
Unfortunately, Americans have gotten even better at buying new laws that force people to take whatever is most profitable for the seller, regardless of the quality or price of the merchandise.