Now it will go to the Supreme Court... and Netflix will lose because they came to the Canadian market and took Canadian money knowingly and willingly.
No, Netflix won't lose. The CRTC likes to think that it has control over every bit of entertainment that a Canadian eyeball sees, but regardless of their stupid industry win over the grey-market satellite boxes, this issue is a bit different.
It's different because (a) Canadians are tired of seeing the stuff Americans get that we can't have (mostly due to licensing issues, but regardless), (b) The CRTC knows that they'll just drive people to "grey-market Netflix", which they literally cannot control, and (c) Most importantly, lots of Canadians have Netflix.
With any luck this is the first nail in the coffin of the antiquated bureaucracy of the CRTC.
And the big problem is that English Canadians like the idea of Canadian TV
Other than news and sports, I don't know any English Canadians that like the idea of Canadian TV. We see it as a tax imposed on us for some vaguely defined benefit of promoting Canadian culture by producing TV shows and movies which nobody watches.
Other broadcaster have to chip money into the pot for, yes, our socialist approach to fostering local arts. Many Canadians *support* this idea and we're not too fond of an American company trying to wreck the system of local content production.
And many Canadians are also tired of local content producers whining and bitching that they can't compete with global markets, and need special tax dollars just to ensure our oh-so delicate culture is maintained.
I'm sorry, but if you think our cultural identity is so weak that it needs some utterly crap TV shows and movies mandated into creation in order to survive, then you really don't think much of Canada. I'm all in favor of NO public money being spent on local content production (other than news), and I hope Netflix succeeds in bypassing the CRTC.
This kind of trend is fairly common across all major phone manufacturers, across both iOS and Android, and also across Apple and Google themselves. It is why I rarely take a phone review seriously, be it for a phone that I actually am interested in or one that I'm not.
This kind of trend is fairly common across all tech manufacturers, across multiple platforms & ecosystems. Windows vs. Linux. Java vs.C++. Debian vs Ubuntu. Systemd vs "please for love of god use anything else"
It's a good thing that people here are slashdot are the epitomy of honest / unbiased opinions. I can always trust comments on slashdot objectively evaluate tech without an personal slant.
That being said, the article reads as a fantastic guide of reviewers to stay away from.
Why is causing pain to others bad? Why do you care about what other people feel? Yes, most of us agree that it's wrong to willfully hurt others, but why? If you think that we're just collections of cells, then the only thing you should care about is your own personal survival and comfort, and nothing else.
For three fairly obvious reasons: 1) If I cause pain to others, or believe that this is justifiable, then others quite likely will treat me the same
2) If everyone lived according to the ideals of "care about is your own personal survival and comfort, and nothing else.", society would collapse.
3) It causes me pain to cause pain to others or to see others suffer. That's part of what empathy is.
Notice that none of these justifications require any sort of supernatural cause. The idea that a supernatural entity must involved in order for people to behave with common decency scares me.
Winfield describes his robot as an "ethical zombie" that has no choice but to behave as it does. Though it may save others according to a programmed code of conduct, it doesn't understand the reasoning behind its actions.
More and more research is hinting that humans may also be "ethical zombies" that act according to a programmed code of conduct. The "reasoning behind our actions" may very well be stories we invent to justify our pre-programmed actions.
I think the idea is that you pay the ISP for a "Netflix booster", and then your Netflix traffic gets un-humped into the fast lane. Meanwhile everyone else's Netflix is slow, and they're griping at Netflix about why they have to pay this extra fee, and Netflix eventually gives up and pays AT&T to un-hump all of its customers' traffic.
I also interpret it as allowing AT&T to offer their own streaming service at cheap introductory prices (perhaps free for 6 months), then shape traffic to prefer that service over Netflix as so many customers want it. Once enough people migrate from the crappy slow Netflix service, they start jacking the price on their own service.
It really seems like a scheme to charge customers extra for something they have already sold them.
Creator of a service says competitors service is inferior! Shocking!
Note: The article is written by a founder of Thinkful....which offers online learning. The whole article reads as an advertisement for thankful and an indictment of what their competition is doing wrong.
In other words, typical Slashvertisement. Nothing to see here.
Well, there's also the school board's press release
I've tried looking into this more, and I keep coming back to the fact that nobody is given any indication as to why this guy was taken for "emergency medical leave". Everyone just refers back to the WBOC article, and the only thing the original WBOC article says about his writings are:
"Those books are what caught the attention of police and school board officials in Dorchester County. "The Insurrectionist" is about two school shootings set in the future, the largest in the country's history."
From this I can't tell if a fascist police chief went off on a crazy tirade or if the police found a stash of bomb-making materials along with manuscripts of this guys books.
Why is there no interview with the police chief? The principal? The guy's family / friends? His students? The ACLU?
Once upon a time reporters used to at least attempt to get the whole story prior to publishing. Now it's grab whatever looks like it'll cause a stir and publish that regardless of the underlying truth.
But amid all the despair and hopelessness, people were working indefatigably to stabilise the nation and alleviate the prevalent tumult; and on 28 August 2298, the sedulousness of these committed inidividual was recompensed.
Ouch...that makes my brain bleed.
If this guy wrote poetry he could challenge a Vogon.
Yep, good ol' Steve Jobs just wasn't strong-willed enough.
What a great scam though....convince people that this is the secret to long life, then you can dismiss any contradicting evidence by simply claiming those people weren't "strong-willed" enough.
Your post makes as much sense as Homeopathy, which is to say: none at all.
you can't necessarily blame the police or the school
Yes I certainly can; people who uphold bad laws are almost as bad as those who enact them.
And more importantly, unless there was evidence that this teacher was posing an immediate threat to children, they had no authority to arrest / detain him, regardless of any potential future litigation.
To put it simply, based on the current description of the situation, it appears the police did something both illegal and immoral and the school board did something immoral and possibly illegal.
Note: Every news story I find on this is pretty vague on the details. I suspect there is more going on here than initially reported. The news agencies have quite possibly left out important and pertinent information as it makes a great click-bait story.
You pick some category (music, books, movies, etc) and then ask a question along the lines of "Which is better?". You can even do it with entire categories (e.g. "What are the best songs to have in my music collection?" "What are the best books to read?")
It's hilarious watching the infighting and attempts to justify responses to a subjective question.
The game has gotten a bit out of hand though. I've even seen it being played on popular tech forums like "Slashdot".
that last sentence *is* pretty clear about forbidding intelligent design, or young earth, or anything like that being taught.
Really? I read that last line as: "prohibit political or religious interpretation of scientific facts in favor of another political or religious interpretation".
I just wonder who decides what a "political interpretation" is?
Could a teacher teach the "political" interpretation that the fossil record implies evolution in favor of the "religious" interpretation that God created the fossil record to test man's faith?
It's just stupid legislation, likely crafted to show that originators stood up to Washington and their "common core" standards.
Explain again how a "focus on scientific knowledge " somehow magically prohibits teaching knowledge of microorganisms? About that Bible thing - I guess you missed "prohibit religious " in the law.
Simple: "focus on academic and scientific knowledge rather than scientific processes;" If microbiology isn't a process, I don't know what is.
That entire section of the bill is terribly worded, incredibly vague and leaves it open to a great deal of misinterpretation. It is an blank cheque to allow legislators to bring in what they feel is "correct science" and get rid of whatever they think is "bad science".
Take the following line": "prohibit political or religious interpretation of scientific facts in favor of another."
It looks like this means a teacher cannot favor a political or religious interpretation of scientific fact in favor of a different political or religious interpretation. Who exactly get's to decide what a political or religious interpretation is?
Is the idea that homosexuality is a genetic trait a political interpretation of science? Does this go against (some) religious interpretations that it is a punishment for sin?
Is the interpretation of the fossil record as evidence of evolution political?
How about the interpretation of the temperature of white dwarfs putting a limit on the minimum age of the universe? This goes against the 6000-year old creationist interpretation that "God did it that way"
And if this is such a grand idea for science, why not the same for mathematics? Why not have mathematics "focus on academic and mathematical knowledge rather than mathematical processes".
Because that would be insane. Just like this bill is.
So basically you want to limit what we teach to simple observation, with no grasp of what to do with those observations or how to advance knowledge based on it.
Teacher: Ok, class today in biology we're going to learn that penicillin kills bacteria
Little Johnny: How does it do that?
Teacher: Sorry Johnny, that's a process question. We've talked about this, I can't answer process questions.
Little Johnny: Well, how did we find out that penicillin kills bacteria?
Teacher: Well, there was this very smart man named Alexander Fleming who discovered it. I can't tell you how he discovered it, but just trust this big book of Science on my desk. That book says penicillin kills bacteria, and Alexander Fleming discovered it, so you can be sure that it's true.
Teacher: On another note, there's another big book on my desk you should all recognize from Sunday school. You can trust what it says too! After all, we all know that no one interpretation of facts should be favored over another!
If you skip past the BS/. headline and read the bill, TFS, or even the subtitle of TFS, the bill basically requires teaching science
Really? Because that's not what one of the bills sponsors said. If you even bothered to RTFA: "he told The Columbus Dispatch that the bill would open the door to instruction on intelligent design"
And "he said it's all about the political interpretation of science. And his example of politicized science, naturally, was climate change"
So basically he wants the bill passed to get intelligent design in the classroom and climate change out. Wow, that really helps out in teaching science!
You could, you know, RTFA and find that one sponsor for the bill:
"told The Columbus Dispatch that the bill would open the door to instruction on intelligent design: “I think it would be good for them to consider the perspectives of people of faith. That’s legitimate."
And "he said it's all about the political interpretation of science. And his example of politicized science, naturally, was climate change....as evidence of climate change's political nature, he cites past estimates of agricultural productivity and the availability of fossil fuels."
So basically he wants intelligent design on the table and climate change off the table. Hmmm...I wonder if he has some sort of agenda?
Slashdot Mirror
No, Netflix won't lose. The CRTC likes to think that it has control over every bit of entertainment that a Canadian eyeball sees, but regardless of their stupid industry win over the grey-market satellite boxes, this issue is a bit different.
It's different because (a) Canadians are tired of seeing the stuff Americans get that we can't have (mostly due to licensing issues, but regardless), (b) The CRTC knows that they'll just drive people to "grey-market Netflix", which they literally cannot control, and (c) Most importantly, lots of Canadians have Netflix.
With any luck this is the first nail in the coffin of the antiquated bureaucracy of the CRTC.
Other than news and sports, I don't know any English Canadians that like the idea of Canadian TV. We see it as a tax imposed on us for some vaguely defined benefit of promoting Canadian culture by producing TV shows and movies which nobody watches.
Here, let me help you out:
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
Just in case that wasn't clear enough:
CANADIAN Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
The CRTC has no business legislating Netflix.
And many Canadians are also tired of local content producers whining and bitching that they can't compete with global markets, and need special tax dollars just to ensure our oh-so delicate culture is maintained.
I'm sorry, but if you think our cultural identity is so weak that it needs some utterly crap TV shows and movies mandated into creation in order to survive, then you really don't think much of Canada. I'm all in favor of NO public money being spent on local content production (other than news), and I hope Netflix succeeds in bypassing the CRTC.
This kind of trend is fairly common across all tech manufacturers, across multiple platforms & ecosystems. Windows vs. Linux. Java vs.C++. Debian vs Ubuntu. Systemd vs "please for love of god use anything else"
It's a good thing that people here are slashdot are the epitomy of honest / unbiased opinions. I can always trust comments on slashdot objectively evaluate tech without an personal slant.
That being said, the article reads as a fantastic guide of reviewers to stay away from.
For three fairly obvious reasons:
1) If I cause pain to others, or believe that this is justifiable, then others quite likely will treat me the same
2) If everyone lived according to the ideals of "care about is your own personal survival and comfort, and nothing else.", society would collapse.
3) It causes me pain to cause pain to others or to see others suffer. That's part of what empathy is.
Notice that none of these justifications require any sort of supernatural cause. The idea that a supernatural entity must involved in order for people to behave with common decency scares me.
More and more research is hinting that humans may also be "ethical zombies" that act according to a programmed code of conduct. The "reasoning behind our actions" may very well be stories we invent to justify our pre-programmed actions.
Baristas
We need our caffeine.
Well, there's your answer...have your internet brought in by truck.
The latency might suck, but the bandwidth would be fantastic!
And while we're at it:
Fuck Slashdot Beta
I also interpret it as allowing AT&T to offer their own streaming service at cheap introductory prices (perhaps free for 6 months), then shape traffic to prefer that service over Netflix as so many customers want it. Once enough people migrate from the crappy slow Netflix service, they start jacking the price on their own service.
It really seems like a scheme to charge customers extra for something they have already sold them.
Creator of a service says competitors service is inferior! Shocking!
Note: The article is written by a founder of Thinkful....which offers online learning. The whole article reads as an advertisement for thankful and an indictment of what their competition is doing wrong.
In other words, typical Slashvertisement. Nothing to see here.
Easy: "I'm not in the meth business. I'm in the empire business."
I may be confusing Heisenberg's though.
Not if it's a two-lane roundabout.
I've tried looking into this more, and I keep coming back to the fact that nobody is given any indication as to why this guy was taken for "emergency medical leave". Everyone just refers back to the WBOC article, and the only thing the original WBOC article says about his writings are:
"Those books are what caught the attention of police and school board officials in Dorchester County. "The Insurrectionist" is about two school shootings set in the future, the largest in the country's history."
From this I can't tell if a fascist police chief went off on a crazy tirade or if the police found a stash of bomb-making materials along with manuscripts of this guys books.
Why is there no interview with the police chief? The principal? The guy's family / friends? His students? The ACLU?
Once upon a time reporters used to at least attempt to get the whole story prior to publishing. Now it's grab whatever looks like it'll cause a stir and publish that regardless of the underlying truth.
Journalism doesn't exist anymore.
Ouch...that makes my brain bleed.
If this guy wrote poetry he could challenge a Vogon.
Yep, good ol' Steve Jobs just wasn't strong-willed enough.
What a great scam though....convince people that this is the secret to long life, then you can dismiss any contradicting evidence by simply claiming those people weren't "strong-willed" enough.
Your post makes as much sense as Homeopathy, which is to say: none at all.
Yes I certainly can; people who uphold bad laws are almost as bad as those who enact them.
And more importantly, unless there was evidence that this teacher was posing an immediate threat to children, they had no authority to arrest / detain him, regardless of any potential future litigation.
To put it simply, based on the current description of the situation, it appears the police did something both illegal and immoral and the school board did something immoral and possibly illegal.
Note: Every news story I find on this is pretty vague on the details. I suspect there is more going on here than initially reported. The news agencies have quite possibly left out important and pertinent information as it makes a great click-bait story.
I'm lactose intolerant, you insensitive clod!
In any case, everyone knows sorbet is far better than ice cream.
Your move.
I like to play a game called "Troll the Internet"
You pick some category (music, books, movies, etc) and then ask a question along the lines of "Which is better?". You can even do it with entire categories (e.g. "What are the best songs to have in my music collection?" "What are the best books to read?")
It's hilarious watching the infighting and attempts to justify responses to a subjective question.
The game has gotten a bit out of hand though. I've even seen it being played on popular tech forums like "Slashdot".
Really? I read that last line as:
"prohibit political or religious interpretation of scientific facts in favor of another political or religious interpretation".
I just wonder who decides what a "political interpretation" is?
Could a teacher teach the "political" interpretation that the fossil record implies evolution in favor of the "religious" interpretation that God created the fossil record to test man's faith?
It's just stupid legislation, likely crafted to show that originators stood up to Washington and their "common core" standards.
Simple: "focus on academic and scientific knowledge rather than scientific processes;"
If microbiology isn't a process, I don't know what is.
That entire section of the bill is terribly worded, incredibly vague and leaves it open to a great deal of misinterpretation. It is an blank cheque to allow legislators to bring in what they feel is "correct science" and get rid of whatever they think is "bad science".
Take the following line":
"prohibit political or religious interpretation of scientific facts in favor of another."
It looks like this means a teacher cannot favor a political or religious interpretation of scientific fact in favor of a different political or religious interpretation. Who exactly get's to decide what a political or religious interpretation is?
Is the idea that homosexuality is a genetic trait a political interpretation of science? Does this go against (some) religious interpretations that it is a punishment for sin?
Is the interpretation of the fossil record as evidence of evolution political?
How about the interpretation of the temperature of white dwarfs putting a limit on the minimum age of the universe? This goes against the 6000-year old creationist interpretation that "God did it that way"
And if this is such a grand idea for science, why not the same for mathematics? Why not have mathematics "focus on academic and mathematical knowledge rather than mathematical processes".
Because that would be insane. Just like this bill is.
So basically you want to limit what we teach to simple observation, with no grasp of what to do with those observations or how to advance knowledge based on it.
Teacher: Ok, class today in biology we're going to learn that penicillin kills bacteria
Little Johnny: How does it do that?
Teacher: Sorry Johnny, that's a process question. We've talked about this, I can't answer process questions.
Little Johnny: Well, how did we find out that penicillin kills bacteria?
Teacher: Well, there was this very smart man named Alexander Fleming who discovered it. I can't tell you how he discovered it, but just trust this big book of Science on my desk. That book says penicillin kills bacteria, and Alexander Fleming discovered it, so you can be sure that it's true.
Teacher: On another note, there's another big book on my desk you should all recognize from Sunday school. You can trust what it says too! After all, we all know that no one interpretation of facts should be favored over another!
Really? Because that's not what one of the bills sponsors said. If you even bothered to RTFA:
"he told The Columbus Dispatch that the bill would open the door to instruction on intelligent design"
And
"he said it's all about the political interpretation of science. And his example of politicized science, naturally, was climate change"
So basically he wants the bill passed to get intelligent design in the classroom and climate change out. Wow, that really helps out in teaching science!
You could, you know, RTFA and find that one sponsor for the bill:
"told The Columbus Dispatch that the bill would open the door to instruction on intelligent design: “I think it would be good for them to consider the perspectives of people of faith. That’s legitimate."
And ...as evidence of climate change's political nature, he cites past estimates of agricultural productivity and the availability of fossil fuels."
"he said it's all about the political interpretation of science. And his example of politicized science, naturally, was climate change.
So basically he wants intelligent design on the table and climate change off the table. Hmmm...I wonder if he has some sort of agenda?