Great. Just what we need. The only people who could profit from this one are lawyers. In fact, If I were a divorce lawyer, I'd be giving the damn things away.
With any luck, they won't work.
Do we really want to know when we're being lied to? This means the end of dating. The end of advertising.
Politicians, however have it made. You can't lie about that which you know nothing of.
I won't even start with the entire IT industry- suffice it to say that the phrase "this software will allow you to..." will leave our lexicon. Visitors at Computer Trade Shows will be blinded from the incessant flashing of the alarms.
One can only hope it doesn't work with magazine ads, newsmagazines, and newspapers; I'll have to give up reading altogether.
I remember about a decade ago, when Canon first began to challenge Xerox in the standalone copier market with new color copiers, the documentation described security features to prevent currency copying (colors would be rendered incorrectly or the copy would be otherwise unuseable).
So, this kind of thing is hardly new; perhaps the notable thing about it is that it wasn't possible or desireable with optical/film process that digital imaging is displacing or replacing.
Although the topic indicates it's not illegal to copy currency, that must be considered only true in a given jurisdiction (ie the US as indicated).
It is most certainly a crime to depict or reproduce any valid currency in Canada, and it's not limited to same-size or color reproduction either.
I'm sure many nations have prohibitions to copying or depicting currency.
" Their mandate is to provide high quality services to their voting public, rather than to maximize profit like a true private sector business would be doing...."
I realize that in many places that's the rationale used. However, that is exactly the wrong rationale. Crowns must be self-sufficent and well managed or they should be sold off to someone who can try to do a better job.
They should provide a real need that private enterprise cannot or will not step in to provide. They are not charities, and they should never cost the taxpayer money that cannot be justified from a business perspective (ie future return on investment).
There are many examples that fail those criteria; the sooner they are wound down or sold the better.
SaskTel is self-sufficent, has paid a cash dividend for more than 50 consecutive years (lately in the $100-200 million a year range) and wouldn't even exist if private phone companies would have bothered to sell someone a phone line in western Canada for the first 50 years of the last century.
Manitoba Tel; SaskTel, Alberta Government Telephones and BCTel were all publicly owned because private sector phone companies were unwilling to set up a phone network west of the Ontario/Manitoba border.
Most were formed in the 1930's to 1940's because people had simply waited long enough. Bell Canada and US telecos were offered cash, tax incentives, free land and other incentives, but refused to build phone networks "in the middle of nowhere".
Alberta and BC were dragged into the telephone business screaming and kicking; and were managed by governments that believed they had shit the bed by starting up a Crown in the first place. Mostly under-capitalized, they were unprofitable, poorly managed, and were sold to the private sector at a loss (together they are what is now Telus).
This is as it should be; there's no room for a half-hearted enterprise in the public or private sector. Let someone who cares run it.
MBTel was well run, had adequate capital from profit, and debt free. It did not regularly provide dividends to the public treasury but was none-the-less not a financial drain either. It was sold at an excellent return to the taxpayers during the 90's.
SaskTel is still a Crown, is profitable, well run, and has adequate capital from revenue and assets vastly exceed liabilities. No crown should be operated in any other way.
There are many who believe such an enterprise should be sold (all Canadian communications companies see it as a drool-worthy asset) just as there are many who are uncomfortable with government ownership of a company that is profitable.
Having said that, the fact remains that public ownership is no excuse for poor management, and profit is absolutely essential to justify long-term investment. It is rare because of political realities, not because nobody knows how to do it right.
There are so few good examples of Crowns because there are many who would like to deliberately cripple the corporation so as to introduce losses; thereby making the selling of the asset popular with the taxpayer. With a nice surplus (but missing those dividends) they can buy the next election and doom the following government into being forced to raise taxes. It's really quite simple, and it's been played out many times.
Conservatives always get elected from time to time and view crowns much like a corporate raider views some cash or asset-rich but troubled firms. Not only that, but those who elected them are sure to support anything that might enrich the treasury or lower taxes in the short term. It's Win-Win.
Without very strong support from the electorate few Crowns can survive the long term. ("But the pension fund was just sitting there." -Duke, Doonsbury)
To properly manage any Crown asset it's also essential that all government be well run; it's inconceivable that California would not sell a public telephone
I bought my phone last month for $29.95 plus tax right from the phone company. A Canadian phone company. ($C33.84/$US 26.57).
150 anytime minutes, call display/name display/text messaging; for $29 a month ($US 22.77). 2-year contract. My cell habits are about 60 minutes a month, half of that long distance. They charged me another $2 for last month's long distance (37 minutes).
I can call to (and receive calls from) any other SaskTel wireless user for free (no airtime charges, doesn't count against my 150 minutes). SaskTel has over 90% of the market province-wide, mostly because Rogers is so inept that nobody (including myself) will stay with them. 3 years with Rogers was more than enough; I can't believe I waited so long to switch. Night and Day.
I could have bought the phone outright (replace a phone or use prepaid service) for $150 (US $ 117).
I could have bought an unlocked one for the same price online (3 vendors checked).
It's a Nokia 3586i.
For a comprehensive list of Wireless options in Canada, go to I Hate Rogers
There are a couple of wireless options I could have taken in my area and they were all quite similarly priced. SaskTel has the most towers.
I always assumed that wireless was some kind of business, with (at least the expectation of) profits as the goal.
All Canadian Wireless carriers (except Satellite); Source: Industry Canada Total net profit (loss) to date: 1997:(567.0) 1998: (743.0) 1999: (789.7) 2000: (808.6) 2001+ (no data, but I sense a trend)
So, a couple-or-three of $ Billion down the tube, and people still want a $20 phone. Call me crazy, but it seems they're pricing the phones as cheap as they can already.
For reference the International Federation of the Phonograph Industry (IFPI) which is the umbrella organsation of all the various national industry organsiations worldwide (such as the RIAA, which is a member in good standing, along with 1500 record producers and distributors in 76 nations) defines piracy more-or-less as you do.
Not sure how polls are actually presented in the US; in Canada we have 2 major pollsters and they always state the probablility of error when they report a poll (in print; TV and radio often just make the reasonable assumption that the entire audience consists of idiots and stick to "Barbie Math" only).
It vaires a bit depending on the sample size, etc but most national polls usually say: "... accurate within 4 percentage points 19 times out of 20."
So if it's Rebublican Bob versus Democrat Dan and the results are Bob 44% Dan 40%, it could just as easily be Bob 40 and Dan 44 (or Bob 48 and Dan 36; or 42 for each).
Since that kind of honesty doesn't always support a foregone conclusion, or promote a predetermined position it's probably best to leave it out (say, on the wild outside chance your local/regional/national media outlet has a favorite; I know it's crazy but I've heard rumors).
It's an option on some vehicles (generally the base model) and is a factory-included standard feature on others. In other words, if you want a Buick LeSabre, there is no model that does not come with OnStar.
If you want a Buick and don't want OnStar you must opt for the least expensive Buick (eg Century).
There are many examples of GM vehicle models where OnStar is mandatory.
I don't know if I would agree that jury trials are rare in "the rest of the world"; certainly there are examples of both.
Japan, for example, has no provision for jury trials at all. The legal system there "enjoys" a conviction rate that exceeds 99.9% (roughly 50 aquittals per year versus about a million trials).
Although the US is a former British colony, it's also made up of colonies of two other major legal systems (France and Spain) which form part of it's legal tradition.
It's loosely based on English Common Law but comprises many features that are unique to the USA. There are some states with legal frameworks that derive from the French or Spanish legal systems rather than English Common Law.
The 51 members of the Commonwealth (former British colonies except the US) comprise 1.7 billion people or 30% of the world's population.
In those countries jury trials are common; the defendant has the right to choose either a trial by Judge Alone or Judge And Jury.
The only real limit on that right is based on the seriousness of the crime; although all Common Law is criminal (felony) law (ie there is no misdemeanor theft, for example) some lesser crimes don't have a jury option. For example in Canada if the maximum sentence is less than 2 years it will be a trial by judge alone.
All charges must go to trial; there is no means to "save the expense of a trial" with a plea bargain, nor does it matter if a Guilty plea is entered.
French Civil Code has 3 levels; Petty Offenses (traffic, etc); Misdemeanors (eg theft) and Crimes (eg murder); only felony charges ("Crimes") have a jury option.
The do own the company. They put themselves at the bottom of the list to defray some of the possible animosity towards them that most knowlegable music lovers have.
Clear Channel sues local music promoters and call the cops/fire marshalls/building inspectors/zoning regulators on them whenever they can. They control or try to control all the local live music in an area, they're not satisfied with simple local broadcast monopolies.They are EVIL.
Probably true for those who watch a few Sunday games and Monday Night NFL.
I spend a lot of time following football, though. I go to high school, college, CFL and NFL games; I watch on TV up to 4 days a week (9 hours of football on Sundays, minimum); but I still have to earn a living sometimes and can't always work around the TV schedule.
I will watch NFL-Europe in the offseason (or as it used to be called WLAF, or Why-Laugh). Interestingly, even a football nut such as myself couldn't handle the XFL; a telling indictment. At lest He-Hate-Me got a job in the NFL out of it (Rod Smith).
I probably listen to a dozen radio games a year, and that's without any NFL coverage on the radio.
For those who have to suffer local game-day NFL blackouts and for whatever reason can't get to the game (or don't want to suffer the home team's antics; not everybody has a winner in town) to be able to follow a game or a favorite who might not be the local team, it's very welcome.
Internet games are OK, when you can get them (but they suffer time delays over the live version). But, for a truly awesome football experience, try this:
Given a game live on both TV and radio; tune in the game on both.
Watch it live and listen to the radio announcers. If it's the local team, they're way more enthusiastic than the "national" broadcast and in any case give you about a hundred times better analysis of any action than the TV broadcast "personalities" can.
These "television broadcast professionals" can be caught at least 3 or 4 times a game babbling about some "interview" with someone, long after the ball is snapped. Hello? There's a FOOTBALL PLAY going on. Can we please stick to the reason you're here, guys?.
"... Anyway, it fired right up and sounded a lot better than I was expecting considering it was via FM modulator...."
That's because it uses a compression algorythm that is lower fidelity than FM, so the modulator or your FM tuner were not limiting factors.
As to why it sounds better than what we get for FM, we can blame today's over-the-air stations whom assault the signal with so much processing (to maximize coverage and overall volume) there's no evidence of sound quality left by the time it reaches us.
There's a name and a circle about 1/2" around inside a bar (like a spreadsheet). The ballot is about 5" across and as long as it needs to be. Type is large, probably around 24 point and each bar is about 3/4" tall and as wide as the ballot.
One name will be printed in black with a black circle on white background; the next name below is white with a white circle on black background, then black on white again, etc.
Names are grouped by office; there's a space between each.
Put an X in the circle beside the name. Lots of big posters all around the polling station showing you what an X in a circle looks like and warning you not to use anything except an X.
If it's not an X it's a spoiled ballot. Period.
There are no erasers on the pencils. Use an eraser anywhere on the ballot, and it's a spoiled ballot. Period.
Mark more than 1 circle with an X for the same position, it's a spoiled ballot. Period.
Tear the ballot. (You know the rest).
You can ask for another ballot; the spoiled ballot's number is recorded; the ballot is torn in two (so it can't be counted again, see rule above) and you get another try.
The scrutineer will probably take you to the poster or show you a sample ballot to clear up whatever is giving you trouble.
Employers are required to insure each employee has 3 consecutive hours to vote. Normally that doesn't matter much (off at 5, polls close at 8) but if it does, they have to give you enough time off, with pay, to fit a 3 hour window.
(Eg: if you normally work 8 to 6, then come in at 11:00 am or leave at 5 pm with pay for 8 to 6).
Most people don't abuse it; go to the polls before work or take off during the day and back in an hour is pretty typical if your workday cover the whole 12 hours the poll is open.
Surely you have advance polls and mail-in ballots for those who would rather work 12 hours a day?
"... typical urban paper based polling station employed about 600 people...."
Yikes! I've been a Deputy Returning Officer in Saskatchewan; we do it with a dozen DROs and the two CROs, which is for a poll of about 2500 eligible voters. How big are the polls in Toronto anyway? Is there a shortage of school gymnasiums or something?
We get our first-count out in about 1 1/2 hours, and our audit out in about 5 hours. Turnout is usually 55~65%.
If you declare a voter ineleligible, one vote is deducted from the margin of victory. Thus there's no incentive for the winner to do so; it makes the election closer, which runs the risk of having the election declared invalid.
I don't have a problem with the US running it's elections as it sees fit; but that couldn't happen in Canada:
Currenlty active Judges and currenlty incarcerated prisoners cannot vote; everyone else over 17 can (including felons) provided they're citizens.
Judges don't vote because they oversee the election by carrying out recounts and enforcing the Election Act and it's penalties.
Prisoners don't vote because it's believed they are very likely to vote against whatever govermnent presided over the conviction, without regard to good civic responsiblilty. There are those who believe this one wouldn't stand a Supreme Court challenge, but it's stood so far.
Declaring a voter ineligible requires the margin be close enough for a recount or a complaint that the results may be changed due to irregularities. By results, we mean somebody else gets elected, so it's dependand on the margin of victory.
To delcare someone ineligible requires standard criminal rules of conduct. A database wouldn't do it unless it could meet the standard of reasonable doubt. In other words, if you can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt he's ineligible, then he is eligible.
The only grounds for ineligiblity (aside from those listed above) is you voted in the wrong poll or you're not a Canadian Citizen or not a resident of the city/province for local/provincial elections.
A re-election is the only remedy; you can't disallow a given ballot because you don't know whose ballot it is.
Don't forget the recounts, which are automatic if the vote is within a certain % of the poll (or a candiate can ask for one).
All recounts are Judicial Recounts held in a courtroom, and presided by a currently sitting Judge.
Although there is a problem with the election of Judges themselves in the US involved in the recount with that system, a public recount is still feasible.
For example in Canada a police force from another jurisdiction is always called in to investigate Police misconduct, if warranted that force will be from another province. I'm sure some reasonably objective plan could be figured out with regard to recounts in the US that doesn't involve people who have a stake in the election.
And before someone mentions it, no, you can't tell from the ballot who voted for whom.
The number of ballots and the number of tear-off voter's tallies must match; they are counted & stored separately on election night in locked containers with tamper flags.
So must the number of ballots assigned to the poll and the number of used/unused ballots match. Both are also separately audited at a recount.
Where the number of ineligible voters (note: there are always ineligible voters; mostly it's people who moved in the previous 6 months and voted at the wrong poll) matches or exceeds the magin of victory, a byelection (new vote) is mandatory.
If the number of ballots issued and the number used/unused varies by even one, a byelection is mandatory, as well as an investigation and possible criminal charges.
I've worked Civic Elections in Canada (I was a Deputy Returning Officer, or DRO) where we had "At Large" elections. Essentially every voter casts a ballot for every position on city council, school boards, mayor, etc).
I've also worked Ward elections where a ballot is cast for one coucil position, one board member, and mayor.
Whether it was 30+ positions or just the 3, I didn't see any difference in the difficulty of tallying or the time it took for results to be reported.
Polls close at 8PM (if you're inside the polling station when the doors are locked you can still vote) and we had our results out by 10:30; and our audit done and the ballots secured/removed by 2 AM. That's pretty typical.
I don't doubt there is a huge difference between importing oil and exporting software.
However, I can't help but remember the US has invaded, set up puppets, trained and financed insurgents, and who knows what else over Bananas (I dunno, twenty times?) not to mention Gambling and Sugar (ever heard of Cuba?).
What they have is common with oil is commerce, as in commercial interests between US firms and other nations. In that respect, software is certainly not less important than fruit.
Re:Banks are the worst, mechanics second
on
Stealth Inflation
·
· Score: 1
You might be interested in this story, especially if you live in Ontario.
Seems that the Ontairo Consumer Ministry made 1600 investigations into video stores last year, in regard to 8 complaints. Essentially they were about mislabled adult films (not porn, per se. Just Adult-rated Hollywood stuff that maybe a 17-year old managed to rent). They checked to make sure the Ontario Film Classification Board stickers were on the videos.
The same inspectors made 10 visits with regard to Debt Collectors, in response to 4000 complaints.
They also diligently inspected the premises of 6 Auto-Repair shops in response to "almost" 2000 consumer complaints.
The Ministry responded to criticism by saying the Video Stores were easy, because there's one on nearly every corner. The other stuff was hard, because they had to drive or otherwise find the businesses consumers complained about.
It's nice to know they're looking out for us poor, vulnerable consumers at every opportunity.
The story is from 03Dec03 Toronto Star, but since all the links were Canoe.ca I didn't post them here (they archive them so quickly that day-old stories usually aren't there when you try to find them).
When I first heard about this, I dismissed it as meaningless. 'They're going to lose" is more or less what I said to myself.
But, it keeps rearing it's head in the media. I've managed to come up with a few things that didn't occour to me at first.
You have to realise that the Copyright Act in Canada specifically states that private copying of music (only music, by the way) is perfectly legal.
The rationale was that ever since the cassette and before, everybody does it. When everyone does it, then you are supposed to rethink the whole idea, because a Government cannot reasonably consider itself legitimate if it was elected by criminals (ie the majority of the electorate).
So, they enshrined into law the practice of copying music, and looked for ways to compensate artists for a loss in revenue.
The much hated, but in my opinion, reasonable concept of a levy on blank media was proposed and adopted. There just aren't that many ways to pull it off, and this was one (albiet imperfect) method.
Now, it's also important to understand that the levy is part of the same Copyright Act.
And it's also important to realise that the Act states that the means used to copy music is irrelevant. You can't be charged for giving your buddy a legal CD to copy; a library isn't liable for making legal CDs available to users, etc.
But there is a very specific distinction between a store-bought disk and one that has been copied, ever, in any form whatsoever.
It's not a free-for all; once you make a copy you can only use it yourself. You can't give it away, lend it, or upload it. So, downloading from Napster is fine; uploading is a crime.
ISPs are exempt as the law stands; if someone has uploaded a disk then the crime ends with them.
The Supreme Court in Canada cannot, as it can in the US, actually make law. It can only strike down an unfair one. In general, they send it back to lawmakers and say something like "this is unfair, fix it or it's toast. You have one year, whereupon it won't be the law anymore."
This has the effect of preventing further charges or action; lower courts won't convict if the SC says the law is flawed.
Here's the big deal: By challenging the Copyright Act, which pretty much states specifically that ISPs cannot be held liable for copying, they are challenging the very Act that gives them $40 million a year in levies on blank media.
There is a major regime change in Canada right now (new Prime Minister, Cabinet, political direction) and if the Copyright Act is challenged and that challenge is held up in court, then the Act itself must be changed. I don't see anything that suggests the new Prime Minister is sympathetic to SOCAN.
I am shocked at the level of risk that SOCAN and others are willing to take on this. They've never been particularly good at collecting the royalties due them in the first place. Historically they have just sat back and waited for someone to offer them money.
[If I were a songwriter that would be my major issue with SOCAN; they're lazy and that's my money they're lazy about collecting, even though I pay them to collect it].
Right now about 1/3 of their total revenue is paid by the media levy, and if they win, that money could dry up.
Are they actually trying to tell us that if the Act is changed completely, that they are going to actually do their jobs to make up the missing $40 Million? Now that would be a miracle.
The Act says ISPs are not liable; they want to throw that Act out when they are the principal benificiaries of it's provisions.
Keep in mind that if the Court rules in favor of SOCAN, all the Government has to to is address the Supreme Court's objections in a legal manner by re-writing the Act.
It most certainly does not mean the new law will grant SOCAN anything like what they're asking (remember point about SC not being able to create law). They could just as easily, legally, and within the Constitution, draft a new law t
You make a common mis-assumption. It is common because when people do the "back of the napkin test" the 10% figure seems to work.
10% of ads are skipped, so it now costs 110% of your quoted price to reach each user. So far, so good, passes the napkin test. Must be right.
But it's not. Let's use a more obvious example first:
The 100% overpayment level happens when 50% of ads are skipped.
Rate per viewer x Actual viewers = Actual Rate per viewer Assume $1 per viewer quoted; and expected audience of 100; billed $100
$1x50 = $50 $100/50 = $2 You were supposed to pay $1 per viewer, therefore $2/$1 = 100% overpayment.
At 100% of ads skipped, overpayment is infinite; you paid something and got nothing.
To see where the napkin test failed: $1x90= $90 So far, so good.
This is where people screw up: $100/90= $1.11 $1.11/100= 11% overpayment (not 10% as most people assume)
The confusion results from using the "easy math" example of 100 in our head; which is also equal to 100 in % basis.
So it sets us up to confuse a dime with 10%. It's only a dime if you start with a dollar.
The figure quoted of 9.1% loss of viewers gives us figure of almost exactly 10% overpayment. It wasn't rounded off (much; it's 1.1001100110011 ~ etc).
Re:Insurance companies should do this-Bundling hea
on
AOL's $299 PC
·
· Score: 1
Because Insurance companies are all about safety, they have all the data, and they have the deep pockets, this would be a disaster.
A lawsuit would come the minute somebody got hurt in or by that car.
Ford can sell you an unsafe car. It's simple product liabilty.
An insurance company would have to justify, in court, that their data shows that the vehicle they gave you is not just safe, but the safest. I can see phrases like "knew or should have known" figuring prominently in court claims.
If they did give you the safest car, then the next option would be to sue based on how unsafe the "safe" car was to the other (injured) motorist.
And so on. Believe me, the insurance industry knows every tort trick in the book, and they're wise enough to know which ones will be used against them.
AOL, on the other hand, has a busines model based on fleecing the gullible (just to get back on topic).
Slashdot Mirror
Great. Just what we need. The only people who could profit from this one are lawyers. In fact, If I were a divorce lawyer, I'd be giving the damn things away.
..." will leave our lexicon. Visitors at Computer Trade Shows will be blinded from the incessant flashing of the alarms.
With any luck, they won't work.
Do we really want to know when we're being lied to? This means the end of dating. The end of advertising.
Politicians, however have it made. You can't lie about that which you know nothing of.
I won't even start with the entire IT industry- suffice it to say that the phrase "this software will allow you to
One can only hope it doesn't work with magazine ads, newsmagazines, and newspapers; I'll have to give up reading altogether.
I remember about a decade ago, when Canon first began to challenge Xerox in the standalone copier market with new color copiers, the documentation described security features to prevent currency copying (colors would be rendered incorrectly or the copy would be otherwise unuseable).
So, this kind of thing is hardly new; perhaps the notable thing about it is that it wasn't possible or desireable with optical/film process that digital imaging is displacing or replacing.
Although the topic indicates it's not illegal to copy currency, that must be considered only true in a given jurisdiction (ie the US as indicated).
It is most certainly a crime to depict or reproduce any valid currency in Canada, and it's not limited to same-size or color reproduction either.
I'm sure many nations have prohibitions to copying or depicting currency.
I was waiting for that one ...
..."
" Their mandate is to provide high quality services to their voting public, rather than to maximize profit like a true private sector business would be doing.
I realize that in many places that's the rationale used. However, that is exactly the wrong rationale. Crowns must be self-sufficent and well managed or they should be sold off to someone who can try to do a better job.
They should provide a real need that private enterprise cannot or will not step in to provide. They are not charities, and they should never cost the taxpayer money that cannot be justified from a business perspective (ie future return on investment).
There are many examples that fail those criteria; the sooner they are wound down or sold the better.
SaskTel is self-sufficent, has paid a cash dividend for more than 50 consecutive years (lately in the $100-200 million a year range) and wouldn't even exist if private phone companies would have bothered to sell someone a phone line in western Canada for the first 50 years of the last century.
Manitoba Tel; SaskTel, Alberta Government Telephones and BCTel were all publicly owned because private sector phone companies were unwilling to set up a phone network west of the Ontario/Manitoba border.
Most were formed in the 1930's to 1940's because people had simply waited long enough. Bell Canada and US telecos were offered cash, tax incentives, free land and other incentives, but refused to build phone networks "in the middle of nowhere".
Alberta and BC were dragged into the telephone business screaming and kicking; and were managed by governments that believed they had shit the bed by starting up a Crown in the first place. Mostly under-capitalized, they were unprofitable, poorly managed, and were sold to the private sector at a loss (together they are what is now Telus).
This is as it should be; there's no room for a half-hearted enterprise in the public or private sector. Let someone who cares run it.
MBTel was well run, had adequate capital from profit, and debt free. It did not regularly provide dividends to the public treasury but was none-the-less not a financial drain either. It was sold at an excellent return to the taxpayers during the 90's.
SaskTel is still a Crown, is profitable, well run, and has adequate capital from revenue and assets vastly exceed liabilities. No crown should be operated in any other way.
There are many who believe such an enterprise should be sold (all Canadian communications companies see it as a drool-worthy asset) just as there are many who are uncomfortable with government ownership of a company that is profitable.
Having said that, the fact remains that public ownership is no excuse for poor management, and profit is absolutely essential to justify long-term investment. It is rare because of political realities, not because nobody knows how to do it right.
There are so few good examples of Crowns because there are many who would like to deliberately cripple the corporation so as to introduce losses; thereby making the selling of the asset popular with the taxpayer. With a nice surplus (but missing those dividends) they can buy the next election and doom the following government into being forced to raise taxes. It's really quite simple, and it's been played out many times.
Conservatives always get elected from time to time and view crowns much like a corporate raider views some cash or asset-rich but troubled firms. Not only that, but those who elected them are sure to support anything that might enrich the treasury or lower taxes in the short term. It's Win-Win.
Without very strong support from the electorate few Crowns can survive the long term. ("But the pension fund was just sitting there." -Duke, Doonsbury)
To properly manage any Crown asset it's also essential that all government be well run; it's inconceivable that California would not sell a public telephone
I bought my phone last month for $29.95 plus tax right from the phone company. A Canadian phone company. ($C33.84/$US 26.57).
150 anytime minutes, call display/name display/text messaging; for $29 a month ($US 22.77). 2-year contract. My cell habits are about 60 minutes a month, half of that long distance. They charged me another $2 for last month's long distance (37 minutes).
I can call to (and receive calls from) any other SaskTel wireless user for free (no airtime charges, doesn't count against my 150 minutes). SaskTel has over 90% of the market province-wide, mostly because Rogers is so inept that nobody (including myself) will stay with them. 3 years with Rogers was more than enough; I can't believe I waited so long to switch. Night and Day.
I could have bought the phone outright (replace a phone or use prepaid service) for $150 (US $ 117).
I could have bought an unlocked one for the same price online (3 vendors checked).
It's a Nokia 3586i.
For a comprehensive list of Wireless options in Canada, go to I Hate Rogers
There are a couple of wireless options I could have taken in my area and they were all quite similarly priced. SaskTel has the most towers.
Probably should have added:
Figures in $C million (currently US$ 785,176.00)
Even at a mere 800 grand $US to the million, that's a lot of beans down the drain.
I always assumed that wireless was some kind of business, with (at least the expectation of) profits as the goal.
:(567.0)
All Canadian Wireless carriers (except Satellite); Source: Industry Canada
Total net profit (loss) to date:
1997
1998: (743.0)
1999: (789.7)
2000: (808.6)
2001+ (no data, but I sense a trend)
So, a couple-or-three of $ Billion down the tube, and people still want a $20 phone. Call me crazy, but it seems they're pricing the phones as cheap as they can already.
You explanation of "piracy" is pretty decent.
For reference the International Federation of the Phonograph Industry (IFPI) which is the umbrella organsation of all the various national industry organsiations worldwide (such as the RIAA, which is a member in good standing, along with 1500 record producers and distributors in 76 nations) defines piracy more-or-less as you do.
Check out the music industry's own definitons here:
IFPI: What is Piracy?
If there's no commercial gain, there's no piracy.
Not sure how polls are actually presented in the US; in Canada we have 2 major pollsters and they always state the probablility of error when they report a poll (in print; TV and radio often just make the reasonable assumption that the entire audience consists of idiots and stick to "Barbie Math" only).
... accurate within 4 percentage points 19 times out of 20."
It vaires a bit depending on the sample size, etc but most national polls usually say:
"
So if it's Rebublican Bob versus Democrat Dan and the results are Bob 44% Dan 40%, it could just as easily be Bob 40 and Dan 44 (or Bob 48 and Dan 36; or 42 for each).
Since that kind of honesty doesn't always support a foregone conclusion, or promote a predetermined position it's probably best to leave it out (say, on the wild outside chance your local/regional/national media outlet has a favorite; I know it's crazy but I've heard rumors).
It's an option on some vehicles (generally the base model) and is a factory-included standard feature on others. In other words, if you want a Buick LeSabre, there is no model that does not come with OnStar.
If you want a Buick and don't want OnStar you must opt for the least expensive Buick (eg Century).
There are many examples of GM vehicle models where OnStar is mandatory.
I don't know if I would agree that jury trials are rare in "the rest of the world"; certainly there are examples of both.
Japan, for example, has no provision for jury trials at all. The legal system there "enjoys" a conviction rate that exceeds 99.9% (roughly 50 aquittals per year versus about a million trials).
Although the US is a former British colony, it's also made up of colonies of two other major legal systems (France and Spain) which form part of it's legal tradition.
It's loosely based on English Common Law but comprises many features that are unique to the USA. There are some states with legal frameworks that derive from the French or Spanish legal systems rather than English Common Law.
The 51 members of the Commonwealth (former British colonies except the US) comprise 1.7 billion people or 30% of the world's population.
In those countries jury trials are common; the defendant has the right to choose either a trial by Judge Alone or Judge And Jury.
The only real limit on that right is based on the seriousness of the crime; although all Common Law is criminal (felony) law (ie there is no misdemeanor theft, for example) some lesser crimes don't have a jury option. For example in Canada if the maximum sentence is less than 2 years it will be a trial by judge alone.
All charges must go to trial; there is no means to "save the expense of a trial" with a plea bargain, nor does it matter if a Guilty plea is entered.
French Civil Code has 3 levels; Petty Offenses (traffic, etc); Misdemeanors (eg theft) and Crimes (eg murder); only felony charges ("Crimes") have a jury option.
The do own the company. They put themselves at the bottom of the list to defray some of the possible animosity towards them that most knowlegable music lovers have.
Clear Channel sues local music promoters and call the cops/fire marshalls/building inspectors/zoning regulators on them whenever they can. They control or try to control all the local live music in an area, they're not satisfied with simple local broadcast monopolies.They are EVIL.
Probably true for those who watch a few Sunday games and Monday Night NFL.
I spend a lot of time following football, though. I go to high school, college, CFL and NFL games; I watch on TV up to 4 days a week (9 hours of football on Sundays, minimum); but I still have to earn a living sometimes and can't always work around the TV schedule.
I will watch NFL-Europe in the offseason (or as it used to be called WLAF, or Why-Laugh). Interestingly, even a football nut such as myself couldn't handle the XFL; a telling indictment. At lest He-Hate-Me got a job in the NFL out of it (Rod Smith).
I probably listen to a dozen radio games a year, and that's without any NFL coverage on the radio.
For those who have to suffer local game-day NFL blackouts and for whatever reason can't get to the game (or don't want to suffer the home team's antics; not everybody has a winner in town) to be able to follow a game or a favorite who might not be the local team, it's very welcome.
Internet games are OK, when you can get them (but they suffer time delays over the live version). But, for a truly awesome football experience, try this:
Given a game live on both TV and radio; tune in the game on both.
Watch it live and listen to the radio announcers. If it's the local team, they're way more enthusiastic than the "national" broadcast and in any case give you about a hundred times better analysis of any action than the TV broadcast "personalities" can.
These "television broadcast professionals" can be caught at least 3 or 4 times a game babbling about some "interview" with someone, long after the ball is snapped. Hello? There's a FOOTBALL PLAY going on. Can we please stick to the reason you're here, guys?.
" ... Anyway, it fired right up and sounded a lot better than I was expecting considering it was via FM modulator. ..."
That's because it uses a compression algorythm that is lower fidelity than FM, so the modulator or your FM tuner were not limiting factors.
As to why it sounds better than what we get for FM, we can blame today's over-the-air stations whom assault the signal with so much processing (to maximize coverage and overall volume) there's no evidence of sound quality left by the time it reaches us.
There's a name and a circle about 1/2" around inside a bar (like a spreadsheet). The ballot is about 5" across and as long as it needs to be. Type is large, probably around 24 point and each bar is about 3/4" tall and as wide as the ballot.
One name will be printed in black with a black circle on white background; the next name below is white with a white circle on black background, then black on white again, etc.
Names are grouped by office; there's a space between each.
Put an X in the circle beside the name. Lots of big posters all around the polling station showing you what an X in a circle looks like and warning you not to use anything except an X.
If it's not an X it's a spoiled ballot. Period.
There are no erasers on the pencils. Use an eraser anywhere on the ballot, and it's a spoiled ballot. Period.
Mark more than 1 circle with an X for the same position, it's a spoiled ballot. Period.
Tear the ballot. (You know the rest).
You can ask for another ballot; the spoiled ballot's number is recorded; the ballot is torn in two (so it can't be counted again, see rule above) and you get another try.
The scrutineer will probably take you to the poster or show you a sample ballot to clear up whatever is giving you trouble.
Could it be simpler? Not much.
More Canada stuff, I know, but ...
Employers are required to insure each employee has 3 consecutive hours to vote. Normally that doesn't matter much (off at 5, polls close at 8) but if it does, they have to give you enough time off, with pay, to fit a 3 hour window.
(Eg: if you normally work 8 to 6, then come in at 11:00 am or leave at 5 pm with pay for 8 to 6).
Most people don't abuse it; go to the polls before work or take off during the day and back in an hour is pretty typical if your workday cover the whole 12 hours the poll is open.
Surely you have advance polls and mail-in ballots for those who would rather work 12 hours a day?
" ... typical urban paper based polling station employed about 600 people. ..."
Yikes! I've been a Deputy Returning Officer in Saskatchewan; we do it with a dozen DROs and the two CROs, which is for a poll of about 2500 eligible voters. How big are the polls in Toronto anyway? Is there a shortage of school gymnasiums or something?
We get our first-count out in about 1 1/2 hours, and our audit out in about 5 hours. Turnout is usually 55~65%.
I probably should have added:
If you declare a voter ineleligible, one vote is deducted from the margin of victory. Thus there's no incentive for the winner to do so; it makes the election closer, which runs the risk of having the election declared invalid.
I don't have a problem with the US running it's elections as it sees fit; but that couldn't happen in Canada:
Currenlty active Judges and currenlty incarcerated prisoners cannot vote; everyone else over 17 can (including felons) provided they're citizens.
Judges don't vote because they oversee the election by carrying out recounts and enforcing the Election Act and it's penalties.
Prisoners don't vote because it's believed they are very likely to vote against whatever govermnent presided over the conviction, without regard to good civic responsiblilty. There are those who believe this one wouldn't stand a Supreme Court challenge, but it's stood so far.
Declaring a voter ineligible requires the margin be close enough for a recount or a complaint that the results may be changed due to irregularities. By results, we mean somebody else gets elected, so it's dependand on the margin of victory.
To delcare someone ineligible requires standard criminal rules of conduct. A database wouldn't do it unless it could meet the standard of reasonable doubt. In other words, if you can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt he's ineligible, then he is eligible.
The only grounds for ineligiblity (aside from those listed above) is you voted in the wrong poll or you're not a Canadian Citizen or not a resident of the city/province for local/provincial elections.
A re-election is the only remedy; you can't disallow a given ballot because you don't know whose ballot it is.
Don't forget the recounts, which are automatic if the vote is within a certain % of the poll (or a candiate can ask for one).
All recounts are Judicial Recounts held in a courtroom, and presided by a currently sitting Judge.
Although there is a problem with the election of Judges themselves in the US involved in the recount with that system, a public recount is still feasible.
For example in Canada a police force from another jurisdiction is always called in to investigate Police misconduct, if warranted that force will be from another province. I'm sure some reasonably objective plan could be figured out with regard to recounts in the US that doesn't involve people who have a stake in the election.
And before someone mentions it, no, you can't tell from the ballot who voted for whom.
The number of ballots and the number of tear-off voter's tallies must match; they are counted & stored separately on election night in locked containers with tamper flags.
So must the number of ballots assigned to the poll and the number of used/unused ballots match. Both are also separately audited at a recount.
Where the number of ineligible voters (note: there are always ineligible voters; mostly it's people who moved in the previous 6 months and voted at the wrong poll) matches or exceeds the magin of victory, a byelection (new vote) is mandatory.
If the number of ballots issued and the number used/unused varies by even one, a byelection is mandatory, as well as an investigation and possible criminal charges.
I've worked Civic Elections in Canada (I was a Deputy Returning Officer, or DRO) where we had "At Large" elections. Essentially every voter casts a ballot for every position on city council, school boards, mayor, etc).
I've also worked Ward elections where a ballot is cast for one coucil position, one board member, and mayor.
Whether it was 30+ positions or just the 3, I didn't see any difference in the difficulty of tallying or the time it took for results to be reported.
Polls close at 8PM (if you're inside the polling station when the doors are locked you can still vote) and we had our results out by 10:30; and our audit done and the ballots secured/removed by 2 AM. That's pretty typical.
I don't doubt there is a huge difference between importing oil and exporting software.
However, I can't help but remember the US has invaded, set up puppets, trained and financed insurgents, and who knows what else over Bananas (I dunno, twenty times?) not to mention Gambling and Sugar (ever heard of Cuba?).
What they have is common with oil is commerce, as in commercial interests between US firms and other nations. In that respect, software is certainly not less important than fruit.
You might be interested in this story, especially if you live in Ontario.
Seems that the Ontairo Consumer Ministry made 1600 investigations into video stores last year, in regard to 8 complaints. Essentially they were about mislabled adult films (not porn, per se. Just Adult-rated Hollywood stuff that maybe a 17-year old managed to rent). They checked to make sure the Ontario Film Classification Board stickers were on the videos.
The same inspectors made 10 visits with regard to Debt Collectors, in response to 4000 complaints.
They also diligently inspected the premises of 6 Auto-Repair shops in response to "almost" 2000 consumer complaints.
The Ministry responded to criticism by saying the Video Stores were easy, because there's one on nearly every corner. The other stuff was hard, because they had to drive or otherwise find the businesses consumers complained about.
It's nice to know they're looking out for us poor, vulnerable consumers at every opportunity.
The story is from 03Dec03 Toronto Star, but since all the links were Canoe.ca I didn't post them here (they archive them so quickly that day-old stories usually aren't there when you try to find them).
You could do a Google search, though.
When I first heard about this, I dismissed it as meaningless. 'They're going to lose" is more or less what I said to myself.
But, it keeps rearing it's head in the media. I've managed to come up with a few things that didn't occour to me at first.
You have to realise that the Copyright Act in Canada specifically states that private copying of music (only music, by the way) is perfectly legal.
The rationale was that ever since the cassette and before, everybody does it. When everyone does it, then you are supposed to rethink the whole idea, because a Government cannot reasonably consider itself legitimate if it was elected by criminals (ie the majority of the electorate).
So, they enshrined into law the practice of copying music, and looked for ways to compensate artists for a loss in revenue.
The much hated, but in my opinion, reasonable concept of a levy on blank media was proposed and adopted. There just aren't that many ways to pull it off, and this was one (albiet imperfect) method.
Now, it's also important to understand that the levy is part of the same Copyright Act.
And it's also important to realise that the Act states that the means used to copy music is irrelevant. You can't be charged for giving your buddy a legal CD to copy; a library isn't liable for making legal CDs available to users, etc.
But there is a very specific distinction between a store-bought disk and one that has been copied, ever, in any form whatsoever.
It's not a free-for all; once you make a copy you can only use it yourself. You can't give it away, lend it, or upload it. So, downloading from Napster is fine; uploading is a crime.
ISPs are exempt as the law stands; if someone has uploaded a disk then the crime ends with them.
The Supreme Court in Canada cannot, as it can in the US, actually make law. It can only strike down an unfair one. In general, they send it back to lawmakers and say something like "this is unfair, fix it or it's toast. You have one year, whereupon it won't be the law anymore."
This has the effect of preventing further charges or action; lower courts won't convict if the SC says the law is flawed.
Here's the big deal:
By challenging the Copyright Act, which pretty much states specifically that ISPs cannot be held liable for copying, they are challenging the very Act that gives them $40 million a year in levies on blank media.
There is a major regime change in Canada right now (new Prime Minister, Cabinet, political direction) and if the Copyright Act is challenged and that challenge is held up in court, then the Act itself must be changed. I don't see anything that suggests the new Prime Minister is sympathetic to SOCAN.
I am shocked at the level of risk that SOCAN and others are willing to take on this. They've never been particularly good at collecting the royalties due them in the first place. Historically they have just sat back and waited for someone to offer them money.
[If I were a songwriter that would be my major issue with SOCAN; they're lazy and that's my money they're lazy about collecting, even though I pay them to collect it].
Right now about 1/3 of their total revenue is paid by the media levy, and if they win, that money could dry up.
Are they actually trying to tell us that if the Act is changed completely, that they are going to actually do their jobs to make up the missing $40 Million? Now that would be a miracle.
The Act says ISPs are not liable; they want to throw that Act out when they are the principal benificiaries of it's provisions.
Keep in mind that if the Court rules in favor of SOCAN, all the Government has to to is address the Supreme Court's objections in a legal manner by re-writing the Act.
It most certainly does not mean the new law will grant SOCAN anything like what they're asking (remember point about SC not being able to create law). They could just as easily, legally, and within the Constitution, draft a new law t
You make a common mis-assumption. It is common because when people do the "back of the napkin test" the 10% figure seems to work.
10% of ads are skipped, so it now costs 110% of your quoted price to reach each user. So far, so good, passes the napkin test. Must be right.
But it's not. Let's use a more obvious example first:
The 100% overpayment level happens when 50% of ads are skipped.
Rate per viewer x Actual viewers = Actual Rate per viewer
Assume $1 per viewer quoted; and expected audience of 100; billed $100
$1x50 = $50
$100/50 = $2
You were supposed to pay $1 per viewer, therefore $2/$1 = 100% overpayment.
At 100% of ads skipped, overpayment is infinite; you paid something and got nothing.
To see where the napkin test failed:
$1x90= $90 So far, so good.
This is where people screw up:
$100/90= $1.11
$1.11/100= 11% overpayment (not 10% as most people assume)
The confusion results from using the "easy math" example of 100 in our head; which is also equal to 100 in % basis.
So it sets us up to confuse a dime with 10%. It's only a dime if you start with a dollar.
The figure quoted of 9.1% loss of viewers gives us figure of almost exactly 10% overpayment. It wasn't rounded off (much; it's 1.1001100110011 ~ etc).
Because Insurance companies are all about safety, they have all the data, and they have the deep pockets, this would be a disaster.
A lawsuit would come the minute somebody got hurt in or by that car.
Ford can sell you an unsafe car. It's simple product liabilty.
An insurance company would have to justify, in court, that their data shows that the vehicle they gave you is not just safe, but the safest. I can see phrases like "knew or should have known" figuring prominently in court claims.
If they did give you the safest car, then the next option would be to sue based on how unsafe the "safe" car was to the other (injured) motorist.
And so on. Believe me, the insurance industry knows every tort trick in the book, and they're wise enough to know which ones will be used against them.
AOL, on the other hand, has a busines model based on fleecing the gullible (just to get back on topic).