Yeah I get that they need to respond to those harbouring terrorists/bin Laden, but they are only attacking the Taliban militia so far. Not the terrorist camps or hiding places at all. That suggests they are removing the Taliban's defenses to clear the path of removing the government entirely. I'm worried how the other Islamic nations (who have been vaguely supporting, or at least not outwardly opposing the US) are going to react. They might view this as an attack on Islam, not terrorism, and respond with attacks of their own. I'm worried about a severe escalation of hostilities - a war between the Allied nations and all Islamic nations. It's a risky strategy the US and Britain are starting here.
That said, the Taliban deserves to be ousted from power. And I assume ground forces will be moving in to clean out the terrorists soon. I just hope this risky gamble pays off.
Actually, they seem to be attacking Taliban militia targets - not suspected terrorist cells. How are the other Islamic nations going to respond to an apparent attack on an Islamic government? This is a dangerous tactic.
The worst terrorist attack in recorded history occurred less than three weeks ago, and you are trolling on slashdot instead of doing something about it? Go donate some blood, money or some of your time instead of ragging on other people if you are so concerned about it.
But really, how many of these laid-off employees are stealing to make up for unfulfilled "promises" (stock options etc.) as opposed to UNPAID salary? All the morally superior posters screaming about "greedy" dot-com employees don't seem to be getting it. Most of these people are taking equipment in lieu of those 2-3 paycheques (let alone severance pay) that they will NEVER be paid. Why get all righteous over minor employee theft but not over the company stealing from the employees? And since when do the faceless creditor companies get more sympathy than the betrayed (remember they haven't been PAID) employees?
Just my two cents in response to this entire thread... don't assume my ire is directed at you cholokoy.:-)
I might be wrong here, but I though Li refused the project because it would take him out of the American public's eyes for too long. He's just starting to gain popular recognition with the mainstream moviegoers, and leaving to film the Matrix sequels for a year or longer might slow down his momentum. He thought it was a better career move to do several movies during the same period that would be released earlier. Time will tell if this was a good move on his part.
Civilisation is not always advancing.
How about the Middle Ages?
The Middle Ages were not a backwards era, despite the common misconception that it was "the Dark Ages". There were countless new technologies and advancements that arose during that time (the 11th and 12th centuries in particular), which advanced civilisation. Do you assume that the much touted civilisation advancements of the Renaissance just magically appeared all at once as soon as the art and philosophical arenas began to flourish? Any advancement in any field is built on the shoulders of previous innovations and inventions, and it is naive to perpetuate the myth that the Middle Ages saw a continual decline of civilisation.
In fact, on a slightly more related note, there was a period of great civilisation advancement in the 12th century due to a favourable climactic change in Europe. The weather warmed considerably, allowing unprecedented crop fertility and a subsequent rise in population. This may have been a major factor in the urban revival, growth of commerce and industry, and cultural growth (new universities and centres of learning) of the High Middle Ages. If it hadn't been for the nasty little issue of the Black Plague that killed off an enormous part of Europe, perhaps the "rebirth" of humanism and culture in the Renaissance wouldn't have been necessary. The same "advancement" of civilisation would have already been underway due to the efforts of the Middle Ages.
I'd provide references for my assertions, but I don't carry my history books around with me everywhere.:-) Carry on with the global warming discussion now.
I was just wondering what is so newsworthy about this article other than it mentions both Napster and Microsoft, topics close to the slashdotter's heart?
OK, that was an offtopic comment...:-)
So what would it mean for Napster if they use Microsoft's antipiracy technology? The article doesn't really explain how the tech works. It seems to be designed to obstruct the copying of copyrighted music, so how would Napster use it to their advantage? It's a file-sharing service: Napster doesn't copy the music, its users rip the MP3's. How would the Microsoft tech help?
Can anyone cite any other articles or explanations of the technology?
"I just wonder what will happen to Interplay if the X-Box is a flop and the game doesn't sell well."
I wonder what would be happening to Interplay if Microsoft hadn't offered them this money. It appears the company is cash-strapped enough to accept this deal, so they obviously are in some trouble staying afloat now. At least this deal gives them cash to play with and continue development. And Microsoft is only placing a requirement on $500,000 of the $5 million loan, leaving the vast remainder entirely in Interplay's hands. The deal doesn't say they have to put all of that money into the XBox game. Yes, I know that a lot of that money will likely end up in the Matrix game, and the company's fortunes will be somewhat tied to the success or failure of that XBox game... but Interplay has at least been given a chance to stay afloat through this loan. Better to get money now and have a chance at survival, than to stop all development from a lack of funds and die sooner.
The poster meant that even though you only have to travel 40 yards distance to a safe area, that safe area might still be located on the 200th story. I highly doubt they mistakenly thought 40 yards = 200 stories.
"A lot of weight is going to be near the center of the building because these floors are the biggest."
Your grasp of physics seems to be good, but I don't see where you are getting the idea the centre will be widest. Is it from the artist's renderings? Granted, the drawings seem to be rocket-ship shaped, likely to convey a sense of futuristic possibility, but the construction details given in the article don't describe the shape of the building. Do you have another source?
If that is the case, your concerns are most definitely valid. Trees do certainly snap if the wind is strong enough. I just don't put as much stock into artistic renderings as you do. They are essentially used to sway non-engineers to accepting a proposal, and as such highlight ideals ususally unrelated to architecture: like cigar-shaped phallic symbols. The Shanghai leaders might be swayed by the idea of having the biggest, er, "building" to show off to the world.
Then again, the drawings are supposed to give people a fairly accurate idea of the actual construction. But I don't believe they are planning to build such a large tower on a narrow point. If they are, Shanghai should reject the proposal.
"I don't know how it will stay up under high winds... They [sic] is NO WAY this tower will be stable!"
You didn't read the article very closely. The developers seem to have considered stability in the face of winds, stating the building will sway up to 8 ft at the top. This is apparently the same as the Empire State Building in New York. That seems stable enough. Additionally, the foundations are designed to stabilize and strengthen the height of the building: they resemble a tree's root system, radiating outwards in a circle, anchoring the structure firmly. The article doesn't say how the building will withstand tsunamis or monsoons, but does Shanghai suffer from either? In any case, they will design the building to suit its environment, and to withstand whatever is thrown at it. The article even considers earth tremors, stating the foundations will be situated in an artificial lake that will dampen (no pun intended) the effects of an earthquake.
"How are the going to build it? Do we(the world in general) have cranes that to reach up to the top?"
Again, the article says the building will be built in stages, from the ground up (obviously). People will be able to move into the first level as soon as it's built, while the rest of the construction goes on above them. The cranes are attached to each level as it's built, and do not have to be established on the ground to work. How many skyscrapers have you seen built with a crane that has to stay on the ground?
Yes, water pressure would be a concern, but many of the earlier posts have discussed several solutions. That doesn't mean it will be perfect. In Las Vegas the hotels always seem to have water pressure problems, especially the pyramid (Luxor) and they only go up 30 stories or more.
The major problem of a building this tall would be fire. But the developers assure that each level would be sealed to slow down the spread of fire, and that occupants would only have to travel 40 yards upwards or downwards to reach a safe area. Not that I would want to experience a fire in a building when I'm stuck on the 250th floor just to see if they are correct.:-)
If you read the article, you should have noticed that the building has been proposed by Spanish engineers. The city of Shanghai still has to approve the design. The question is whether Professor Javier Pioz and the Spanish developers have the technical know-how to pull it off. Maybe I'm not entirely up on the Spanish architectural scene, but I don't know of any major Spanish architectural feats. Does this group of developers have the necessary experience? That's what the Shanghai urban planners need to decide.
It is an interesting and likely necessary approach to combatting urban sprawl however. China needs to consider building upwards instead of outwards when planning for the future of their cities.
In this case, Monsanto requires the farmer to enter into a contract, whereby the farmer must buy new seed every year. The seeds are obviously viable and not altered to be sterile.
What I wonder is what does the Monsanto-approved farmer do with the seeds the crops produce every year? Perhaps these farmers aren't disposing of them properly, and they escape the farm on the wind? Perhaps this seed then lands in another farmer's fields, oh like maybe Percy Schmeiser's? Maybe it's the responsibility of the seed owner (read Monsanto since they own the patent) to ensure the genetically altered seeds don't escape.
It was also suggested that Monsanto had buzzed his field repeatedly in a low flying plain and dropped the engineered seed so that they could come back and sue him later. As crazy as it sounds, the farmer believes this
Check your facts. The farmer from the article, Perry Schmeiser, claims the Monsanto seeds contaminated his crops through cross-pollination and wind. It blew in from other farmers' fields and seed trucks.
The farmer couple mentioned in the National article who claim their field was buzzed by Monsanto, said the Monsanto agents dusted herbicide to see if their crops would die or not. The exact statements made were:
The Kram family in Raymore say planes and a helicopter have buzzed their fields. The couple says agents dropped weedkiller on their canola field, to see if the crops had the Monsanto's gene.
Monsanto says they had absolutely nothing to do with it.
If you find a large sum of money on your lawn wrapped in plastic that say "federal reserve back of new york" and instead of returning it to the rightful owner you spend it, you would be quilty of theft, how is that any different?.
The difference is Monsanto canola and non-altered canola look identical to one another. The only way to tell them apart is DNA testing or spraying the plant with Monsanto's Roundup herbicide to see which one doesn't die.
That's why it's so unfair for Monsanto to sue unsuspecting farmers for patent infringement, when the seeds unknowingly contaminate the farmers crops. Farmers have a hard enough time as is these days without having to spend their retirement savings fighting a large corporation in court over the free use of their fields.
Monsanto can't even recognize their own plants by a visual inspection. The "jack-booted thugs" who audited Schmeiser's field had to take samples back to a lab to determine if he had Monsanto plants. They also took a sample of Schmeiser's seed from the local seed processing centre to see if he would be passing the DNA into next year's crops as well. The problem here is that they grabbed his seed without Schmeiser's permission or knowledge. That's extremely dodgy and heavy-handed on Monsanto's part.
This is how it works: Monsanto requires the farmers who buy "Roundup Ready" canola seeds to enter into a contract. The farmer must buy new seed every year from Monsanto. They are not allowed to reuse seeds from last year's crop. This is how Monsanto makes it's money. The articles at CBC and the National both reference the procedure.
Can you reference your source for the infertile seed modification? I haven't seen that anywhere yet. It's a dangerous idea.
all the 'militia' talk bandied about is at best a joke... or worst, dangerous fantasy if it encourages people to live in our communities with assault weapons in the closet.
I believe your second amendment refers to the maintenance of a regulated militia to protect the state for the people, not the right for every citizen to carry a handgun.
"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
It was a measure enacted to protect state militia forces against disbandment. The federal government had a professional army that had the potential of being used as "an instrument of oppression" (similar to the British oppression earlier), so the anti-federalists wanted to protect the state militias just in case.
Using the second amendment as a crutch against gun control the way you have is ignorant. It took me less than 2 minutes to find out a basic accurate history of the amendment, and I'm not even American. Don't you learn your own Constitution in school? Shouldn't you know this already?
I know for a fact that Muchmusic does a similar type of panel for music videos they will air. They review potential videos for extreme violence, violence against women, and unnecessary sexual content. The US equivalent, MTV, generally only scans for nudity and sex. An example is a Duran Duran video from about 3-4 years ago. It featured a robot woman who serviced the band's fantasies. Both music stations had complaints about the video and requested the band clean it up. But while Muchmusic was concerned about how women were portrayed in the video, and what message it was sending viewers, MTV only wanted the woman's ass covered up a bit more. It just shows the major differences in attitudes between Canada and the US when it comes to media ratings.
When I worked there, A&B Sound sold cd's online to anywhere in the world. As far as I know that is still true today, although I've never used the online store. I do know that you'll find the best prices in store, rather than online, but that the online prices will still beat many other cities/countries. A lot of tourists and eastern Canadian visitors stock up on cd's while visiting here to take advantage of the price difference, and quite a few use the online store once they get back home. It's not uncommon for visitors to buy 30+ cd's to take back home with them, and smaller music stores will even buy their product from A&B Sound instead of the music companies.
>$18 in eastern Canada
You wish! At one place considered by some to have good CD prices, Future Shop, most CDs (except the top 10 / on sale) are about $20
I estimated eastern Canada prices on the low side because I didn't want to get flamed if I quoted it too high.:-)
Future Shop began to drop their cd prices to compete with A&B Sound here in BC, so it's likely their countrywide prices are lower as well. Both stores save their best deals for the newest cd's, because they buy those in larger volumes. A&B Sound sells their top20 and the new releases for around $14-$18. "Regular" cd prices range from $14-$22, though most average around $18.
I doubt the cd's are made out here; what products are made outside of Ontario?:-). But seriously though, I think the music companies sell cd's at the same price to every music store countrywide, if not worldwide. The differences in prices are completely the store's markup and shipping costs. Most of the time people are grossly overpaying for cd's, as demonstrated by the A&B Sound price difference, which may explain why Napster is so popular. Free is always better than $20.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the Watcher software for the AirCard 555 has been set up so you must click Connect to start the data connection.
Yes. This one (as stated in his blog):
Mr. T vs. Wussley Crusher
This isn't offtopic... it's related directly to the Wheaton website, which is linked to in the story.
Yeah I get that they need to respond to those harbouring terrorists/bin Laden, but they are only attacking the Taliban militia so far. Not the terrorist camps or hiding places at all. That suggests they are removing the Taliban's defenses to clear the path of removing the government entirely. I'm worried how the other Islamic nations (who have been vaguely supporting, or at least not outwardly opposing the US) are going to react. They might view this as an attack on Islam, not terrorism, and respond with attacks of their own. I'm worried about a severe escalation of hostilities - a war between the Allied nations and all Islamic nations. It's a risky strategy the US and Britain are starting here.
That said, the Taliban deserves to be ousted from power. And I assume ground forces will be moving in to clean out the terrorists soon. I just hope this risky gamble pays off.
Actually, they seem to be attacking Taliban militia targets - not suspected terrorist cells. How are the other Islamic nations going to respond to an apparent attack on an Islamic government? This is a dangerous tactic.
The worst terrorist attack in recorded history occurred less than three weeks ago, and you are trolling on slashdot instead of doing something about it? Go donate some blood, money or some of your time instead of ragging on other people if you are so concerned about it.
But really, how many of these laid-off employees are stealing to make up for unfulfilled "promises" (stock options etc.) as opposed to UNPAID salary? All the morally superior posters screaming about "greedy" dot-com employees don't seem to be getting it. Most of these people are taking equipment in lieu of those 2-3 paycheques (let alone severance pay) that they will NEVER be paid. Why get all righteous over minor employee theft but not over the company stealing from the employees? And since when do the faceless creditor companies get more sympathy than the betrayed (remember they haven't been PAID) employees?
Just my two cents in response to this entire thread... don't assume my ire is directed at you cholokoy. :-)
Where in Canada? If it's Vancouver, I may be interested. :-)
And in complete opposition to recent trends in car manufacturing. Huge-assed gas guzzling SUVs anyone?
Feel free to moderate me off-topic :-)
I might be wrong here, but I though Li refused the project because it would take him out of the American public's eyes for too long. He's just starting to gain popular recognition with the mainstream moviegoers, and leaving to film the Matrix sequels for a year or longer might slow down his momentum. He thought it was a better career move to do several movies during the same period that would be released earlier. Time will tell if this was a good move on his part.
This is waaaay off-topic, but...
Civilisation is not always advancing. How about the Middle Ages?
The Middle Ages were not a backwards era, despite the common misconception that it was "the Dark Ages". There were countless new technologies and advancements that arose during that time (the 11th and 12th centuries in particular), which advanced civilisation. Do you assume that the much touted civilisation advancements of the Renaissance just magically appeared all at once as soon as the art and philosophical arenas began to flourish? Any advancement in any field is built on the shoulders of previous innovations and inventions, and it is naive to perpetuate the myth that the Middle Ages saw a continual decline of civilisation.
In fact, on a slightly more related note, there was a period of great civilisation advancement in the 12th century due to a favourable climactic change in Europe. The weather warmed considerably, allowing unprecedented crop fertility and a subsequent rise in population. This may have been a major factor in the urban revival, growth of commerce and industry, and cultural growth (new universities and centres of learning) of the High Middle Ages. If it hadn't been for the nasty little issue of the Black Plague that killed off an enormous part of Europe, perhaps the "rebirth" of humanism and culture in the Renaissance wouldn't have been necessary. The same "advancement" of civilisation would have already been underway due to the efforts of the Middle Ages.
I'd provide references for my assertions, but I don't carry my history books around with me everywhere. :-) Carry on with the global warming discussion now.
I was just wondering what is so newsworthy about this article other than it mentions both Napster and Microsoft, topics close to the slashdotter's heart?
:-)
OK, that was an offtopic comment...
So what would it mean for Napster if they use Microsoft's antipiracy technology? The article doesn't really explain how the tech works. It seems to be designed to obstruct the copying of copyrighted music, so how would Napster use it to their advantage? It's a file-sharing service: Napster doesn't copy the music, its users rip the MP3's. How would the Microsoft tech help?
Can anyone cite any other articles or explanations of the technology?
"I just wonder what will happen to Interplay if the X-Box is a flop and the game doesn't sell well."
I wonder what would be happening to Interplay if Microsoft hadn't offered them this money. It appears the company is cash-strapped enough to accept this deal, so they obviously are in some trouble staying afloat now. At least this deal gives them cash to play with and continue development. And Microsoft is only placing a requirement on $500,000 of the $5 million loan, leaving the vast remainder entirely in Interplay's hands. The deal doesn't say they have to put all of that money into the XBox game. Yes, I know that a lot of that money will likely end up in the Matrix game, and the company's fortunes will be somewhat tied to the success or failure of that XBox game... but Interplay has at least been given a chance to stay afloat through this loan. Better to get money now and have a chance at survival, than to stop all development from a lack of funds and die sooner.
40 yards is not 200 stories.
The poster meant that even though you only have to travel 40 yards distance to a safe area, that safe area might still be located on the 200th story. I highly doubt they mistakenly thought 40 yards = 200 stories.
"A lot of weight is going to be near the center of the building because these floors are the biggest."
Your grasp of physics seems to be good, but I don't see where you are getting the idea the centre will be widest. Is it from the artist's renderings? Granted, the drawings seem to be rocket-ship shaped, likely to convey a sense of futuristic possibility, but the construction details given in the article don't describe the shape of the building. Do you have another source?
If that is the case, your concerns are most definitely valid. Trees do certainly snap if the wind is strong enough. I just don't put as much stock into artistic renderings as you do. They are essentially used to sway non-engineers to accepting a proposal, and as such highlight ideals ususally unrelated to architecture: like cigar-shaped phallic symbols. The Shanghai leaders might be swayed by the idea of having the biggest, er, "building" to show off to the world.
Then again, the drawings are supposed to give people a fairly accurate idea of the actual construction. But I don't believe they are planning to build such a large tower on a narrow point. If they are, Shanghai should reject the proposal.
"I don't know how it will stay up under high winds ... They [sic] is NO WAY this tower will be stable!"
:-)
You didn't read the article very closely. The developers seem to have considered stability in the face of winds, stating the building will sway up to 8 ft at the top. This is apparently the same as the Empire State Building in New York. That seems stable enough. Additionally, the foundations are designed to stabilize and strengthen the height of the building: they resemble a tree's root system, radiating outwards in a circle, anchoring the structure firmly. The article doesn't say how the building will withstand tsunamis or monsoons, but does Shanghai suffer from either? In any case, they will design the building to suit its environment, and to withstand whatever is thrown at it. The article even considers earth tremors, stating the foundations will be situated in an artificial lake that will dampen (no pun intended) the effects of an earthquake.
"How are the going to build it? Do we(the world in general) have cranes that to reach up to the top?"
Again, the article says the building will be built in stages, from the ground up (obviously). People will be able to move into the first level as soon as it's built, while the rest of the construction goes on above them. The cranes are attached to each level as it's built, and do not have to be established on the ground to work. How many skyscrapers have you seen built with a crane that has to stay on the ground?
Yes, water pressure would be a concern, but many of the earlier posts have discussed several solutions. That doesn't mean it will be perfect. In Las Vegas the hotels always seem to have water pressure problems, especially the pyramid (Luxor) and they only go up 30 stories or more.
The major problem of a building this tall would be fire. But the developers assure that each level would be sealed to slow down the spread of fire, and that occupants would only have to travel 40 yards upwards or downwards to reach a safe area. Not that I would want to experience a fire in a building when I'm stuck on the 250th floor just to see if they are correct.
If you read the article, you should have noticed that the building has been proposed by Spanish engineers. The city of Shanghai still has to approve the design. The question is whether Professor Javier Pioz and the Spanish developers have the technical know-how to pull it off. Maybe I'm not entirely up on the Spanish architectural scene, but I don't know of any major Spanish architectural feats. Does this group of developers have the necessary experience? That's what the Shanghai urban planners need to decide.
It is an interesting and likely necessary approach to combatting urban sprawl however. China needs to consider building upwards instead of outwards when planning for the future of their cities.
In this case, Monsanto requires the farmer to enter into a contract, whereby the farmer must buy new seed every year. The seeds are obviously viable and not altered to be sterile.
What I wonder is what does the Monsanto-approved farmer do with the seeds the crops produce every year? Perhaps these farmers aren't disposing of them properly, and they escape the farm on the wind? Perhaps this seed then lands in another farmer's fields, oh like maybe Percy Schmeiser's? Maybe it's the responsibility of the seed owner (read Monsanto since they own the patent) to ensure the genetically altered seeds don't escape.
It was also suggested that Monsanto had buzzed his field repeatedly in a low flying plain and dropped the engineered seed so that they could come back and sue him later. As crazy as it sounds, the farmer believes this
Check your facts. The farmer from the article, Perry Schmeiser, claims the Monsanto seeds contaminated his crops through cross-pollination and wind. It blew in from other farmers' fields and seed trucks.
The farmer couple mentioned in the National article who claim their field was buzzed by Monsanto, said the Monsanto agents dusted herbicide to see if their crops would die or not. The exact statements made were:
The Kram family in Raymore say planes and a helicopter have buzzed their fields. The couple says agents dropped weedkiller on their canola field, to see if the crops had the Monsanto's gene.
Monsanto says they had absolutely nothing to do with it.
If you find a large sum of money on your lawn wrapped in plastic that say "federal reserve back of new york" and instead of returning it to the rightful owner you spend it, you would be quilty of theft, how is that any different?.
The difference is Monsanto canola and non-altered canola look identical to one another. The only way to tell them apart is DNA testing or spraying the plant with Monsanto's Roundup herbicide to see which one doesn't die.
That's why it's so unfair for Monsanto to sue unsuspecting farmers for patent infringement, when the seeds unknowingly contaminate the farmers crops. Farmers have a hard enough time as is these days without having to spend their retirement savings fighting a large corporation in court over the free use of their fields.
Monsanto can't even recognize their own plants by a visual inspection. The "jack-booted thugs" who audited Schmeiser's field had to take samples back to a lab to determine if he had Monsanto plants. They also took a sample of Schmeiser's seed from the local seed processing centre to see if he would be passing the DNA into next year's crops as well. The problem here is that they grabbed his seed without Schmeiser's permission or knowledge. That's extremely dodgy and heavy-handed on Monsanto's part.
This is how it works: Monsanto requires the farmers who buy "Roundup Ready" canola seeds to enter into a contract. The farmer must buy new seed every year from Monsanto. They are not allowed to reuse seeds from last year's crop. This is how Monsanto makes it's money. The articles at CBC and the National both reference the procedure.
Can you reference your source for the infertile seed modification? I haven't seen that anywhere yet. It's a dangerous idea.
all the 'militia' talk bandied about is at best a joke... or worst, dangerous fantasy if it encourages people to live in our communities with assault weapons in the closet.
Thank you for stating it far better than I did.
I believe your second amendment refers to the maintenance of a regulated militia to protect the state for the people, not the right for every citizen to carry a handgun.
"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
It was a measure enacted to protect state militia forces against disbandment. The federal government had a professional army that had the potential of being used as "an instrument of oppression" (similar to the British oppression earlier), so the anti-federalists wanted to protect the state militias just in case.
Using the second amendment as a crutch against gun control the way you have is ignorant. It took me less than 2 minutes to find out a basic accurate history of the amendment, and I'm not even American. Don't you learn your own Constitution in school? Shouldn't you know this already?
The "volunteers off the street" rating system must be an American one. As far as I know in Canada, the ratings are given by a panel of selected reviewers. I'm assuming that the people on this panel were chosen/elected for their proven abilities, training, or their educational experience. There are different rating classifications here (as described in the article) than in the US, so it makes sense there is a different system for rating films, tv and video games. Any Canadians out there who have more information on this, please let me know.
I know for a fact that Muchmusic does a similar type of panel for music videos they will air. They review potential videos for extreme violence, violence against women, and unnecessary sexual content. The US equivalent, MTV, generally only scans for nudity and sex. An example is a Duran Duran video from about 3-4 years ago. It featured a robot woman who serviced the band's fantasies. Both music stations had complaints about the video and requested the band clean it up. But while Muchmusic was concerned about how women were portrayed in the video, and what message it was sending viewers, MTV only wanted the woman's ass covered up a bit more. It just shows the major differences in attitudes between Canada and the US when it comes to media ratings.
When I worked there, A&B Sound sold cd's online to anywhere in the world. As far as I know that is still true today, although I've never used the online store. I do know that you'll find the best prices in store, rather than online, but that the online prices will still beat many other cities/countries. A lot of tourists and eastern Canadian visitors stock up on cd's while visiting here to take advantage of the price difference, and quite a few use the online store once they get back home. It's not uncommon for visitors to buy 30+ cd's to take back home with them, and smaller music stores will even buy their product from A&B Sound instead of the music companies.
:-)
:-). But seriously though, I think the music companies sell cd's at the same price to every music store countrywide, if not worldwide. The differences in prices are completely the store's markup and shipping costs. Most of the time people are grossly overpaying for cd's, as demonstrated by the A&B Sound price difference, which may explain why Napster is so popular. Free is always better than $20.
>$18 in eastern Canada
You wish! At one place considered by some to have good CD prices, Future Shop, most CDs (except the top 10 / on sale) are about $20
I estimated eastern Canada prices on the low side because I didn't want to get flamed if I quoted it too high.
Future Shop began to drop their cd prices to compete with A&B Sound here in BC, so it's likely their countrywide prices are lower as well. Both stores save their best deals for the newest cd's, because they buy those in larger volumes. A&B Sound sells their top20 and the new releases for around $14-$18. "Regular" cd prices range from $14-$22, though most average around $18.
I doubt the cd's are made out here; what products are made outside of Ontario?
-Jetgirl