Do you have a link? I'm assuming these must be overall consumption.
I'll agree China, India, US are the overall top 3.
When you put Canada of all places in that list, my alarm bells went off. It's ridiculous to think that a country of 30 million people uses more energy than Japan or Russia.
I would also be a little surprised to find that India is now consuming more energy than Russia, but that at least is believable.
I suspect the top 5 now is still the same: China, USA, Russia, India, Japan (probably in that order, possibly switch Russia and India)
You're poor? Well you should have worked harder. You're sick? Well you should be working harder on getting better. Got paralyzed in a horrible accident? Work harder in growing those nerve cells back. Stop being a lazy whiner, assuming that you're a special little snowflake.
Actually, not at all. You're poor? Society should have educated you better and provided better social support to you and your family. We do a piss-poor job right now providing for the lowest income bracket in western society, which IMO feeds directly back into the high incarceration rates, drug issues, and a host of other issues.
You're sick / paralyzed? Go to the hospital. What sort of backwards barbaric country doesn't have socialized medicine in this day and age? (Note: I do not currently live in the USA)
Have you ever considered that part of the reason why the professional world is so inane and stupid is that we teach our kids to respect and suffer through inane stupidity?
No, the real world is inane and stupid sometimes because people are different. What some people consider inane and stupid, others consider valuable and intelligent. Do you really think your high-school teachers were some sort of horrific monsters who enjoyed inflicting boring repetitious tasks on students for no reason? I don't. As far as I can tell, most people honestly believe they are trying to do the right thing.
I have no doubt that our society would benefit from fostering children's strengths rather than punishing any bit of non-conformity.
I agree. But (a) As I mentioned, in high school these are not children, these are young adults. They should be reaching the point where they can use their own strengths towards whatever task is put in front of them. I have seen little to no evidence of high schools attempting to "punish any bit of non-conformity".
I won't hire someone who's going to be a prima donna and refuse to do necessary work, but I will hire someone who comes to me and says, "Look, I know you asked me to do this project, but this is inane and stupid. I've written up a report detailing exactly why it's inane and stupid.
I would expect someone to first come talk to me about why a project was inane and stupid before they wasted time on a report, but I am always open to feedback. The thing is, if I don't agree that the work is inane and stupid then I expect my employees to capable of doing the work, regardless of whether they agree with it or not. IMO, many "prima donnas" today only want the really intriguing projects that look interesting and they can pad their resume's with (i.e. RDD - Resume Driven Development).
Sometimes (valuable) tasks are unfortunately fairly boring to work on though.
Debian, all of the Debian-derived distros, OpenSuse and Arch have adopted systemd, and those who oppose systemd can't just create a distro of such maturity and respect overnight. Sure, Slackware and the *BSDs are left, but losing Debian too was a hard blow, and it's understandable that systemd opponents are feeling a sense of desperation.
Not being a massive Linux geek (use it, but don't develop for it), I don't understand the pushback against Poettering over systemd's adoption.
Let me get this straight: - He wrote an init system that some people didn't like - Poettering didn't agree with their objections, continued development - Distribution maintainers liked it enough to replace init with systemd - People bully/threaten the developer of systemd?!?!
It would seem a discussion with the distro maintainers over the technical merits/deficiencies of systemd would be more in order. I've found the few open source projects I've followed more closely (NHibernate, automapper, PetaPoco) to be reasonably polite. Is Linux very different? Is it just the size/complexity that makes people jerks?
One of them being, frankly, that high school really can be inane, stupid, and soul-crushing. I don't blame kids who check out and lose interest.
I do blame young adults who check out and lose interest (this idea that a 16-18 year old is a "kid" is a peculiar 20th century notion).
Guess what, work can also be inane and stupid. If someone is unable to suck it up and do some pretty straightforward (and yes, sometimes seemingly pointless) work for 3 years, then the probably won't succeed in a typical business environment, and maybe the should not be considered for college enrollment.
I can't imagine what these special snowflakes who think high-school is "soul-crushing" would do if they had to face real hardship.
TL;DR: Nobody cares if you failed because you are incapable or if you failed because you felt the work was inane and stupid. I'll hire the guy who is less capable but actually does the work over the prima donna who feels the work assigned him is beneath his precious skill set.
It's time for national units to finally be put out to pasture. Both US units and UK units.
You are welcome to try to change all the street signs in the UK using miles, and all the speed limits using miles per hour, and I'll predict you'll have utter chaos because the percentage of drivers who can figure out that 80km/h = 50mph is quite low, and the percentage of drivers who can do that calculation in their head without taking their hands off the steering wheel and their eyes off the road is tiny.
We managed the changeover in Canada just fine.
But then again, we're like a younger, hipper, better looking version of the UK anyways....
Did you even read the article?!? Yes, women as a whole are making more, because more are going to college
From your own damn article: "These women have gotten a leg up for several reasons. They are more likely than men to attend college, raising their earning potential. Between 2006 and 2008, 32.7% of women between 25 and 34 had a bachelor's degree or higher, compared with 25.8% of men, according to the Census."
and more importantly: "women on the whole haven't reached equal status in any particular job or education level. For instance, women with a bachelor's degree had median earnings of $39,571 between 2006 and 2008, compared with $59,079 for men at the same education level,"
No, the claimed goal of "equal pay for equal work" is still not with us.
If this was true, why don't multinational or traded companies only hire women? If a woman can preform as well or better than a man, and almost always makes less, then it would be folly for any board not to hire only women. Reducing the labor expense by 10-20%+ while maintaining the same productivity would put any large company way out in front competitively.
Because that's what discrimination is....treating someone differently not based on their qualifications (or cost effectiveness in this case), but on factors that the individual has no control over.
You really needed someone to point this out to you?!?
Except this has nothing to do with the disclosure of information.
What's really happening is Netflix want's to know is whether the CRTC can actually do anything if Netflix decides to not play by their rules. This opportunity provides a safe test-bed for that idea.
Netflix will not release the information at all. They will claim it's due to CRTC being unable to provide confidentiality (which strictly speaking is true....CRTC is subject to requests under the Information Act if the information can be shown to be of public interest). The actual reason is to see what the CRTC does about Netflix not playing ball and whether the government allows the CRTC to do anything about it.
Personally, I'm hoping the CRTC tries to do something and is slapped down hard due to public opinion.
Wow, you are really ok with the government mandating what type of information flows over the internet? That doesn't seem very Canadian at all of you.
Actually, the best arbiter of this would likely be the CRTC themselves. As they said back in 1991:
45. The Commission considers, however, that some Internet services involve a high degree of "customizable" content. This allows end-users to have an individual one-on-one experience through the creation of their own uniquely tailored content. In the Commission's view, this content, created by the end-user, would not be transmitted for reception by the public. The Commission therefore considers that content that is "customizable" to a significant degree does not properly fall within the definition of "broadcasting" set out in the Broadcasting Act.
The current conflict is pure posturing on the CRTC's part in an attempt to maintain some sort of relevancy. They should just go away now.
This is about Canadian companies (not Netflix USA, who Netflix doesn't let Canadians use)
No, it isn't. There is no company named "Netflix Canada". Netflix is an entirely USA owned company that has a "Netflix Canada" branding for content they have licensed for distribution in Canada.
CRTC should have no more mandate here than they should over Youtube. In fact, they themselves said in 1999 that they should have no mandate over internet media:
45. The Commission considers, however, that some Internet services involve a high degree of "customizable" content. This allows end-users to have an individual one-on-one experience through the creation of their own uniquely tailored content. In the Commission's view, this content, created by the end-user, would not be transmitted for reception by the public. The Commission therefore considers that content that is "customizable" to a significant degree does not properly fall within the definition of "broadcasting" set out in the Broadcasting Act.
No, it it doesn't necessarily end with "healthier content" unless you consider "dead" to be a healthy state.
It's a healthier state than the current one: "laughingstock".
I'm all in favor of free health care, free education, and social assistance for those who require it. I find the idea of a socialized entertainment industry a ludicrous and disgraceful waste of tax dollars.
My guess is that Canadians would react in horror to the loss of Canadian content regulations and the resulting return to the dark ages of complete media dominance by huge American corporations who wouldn't spend a penny in Canada.
My guess is that you are completely wrong. Most of us are completely confused as to how spending tax dollars to subsidize TV shows and movies that nobody watches actually helps Canadian culture.
If you think Canadian culture is so fragile that it cannot survive without the protection of the CRTC, they you really don't think much of Canadians.
Yes, Canadian TV broadcasters are under CRTC regulation as they are Canadian broadcasters (i.e. Canadian companies). I don't like it either, but I agree they are under the purview of the CRTC.
Netflix is not. They are also not broadcasting. And as the CRTC decided themselves in 1999, should not require a license:
From: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/arch... 45. The Commission considers, however, that some Internet services involve a high degree of "customizable" content. This allows end-users to have an individual one-on-one experience through the creation of their own uniquely tailored content. In the Commission's view, this content, created by the end-user, would not be transmitted for reception by the public. The Commission therefore considers that content that is "customizable" to a significant degree does not properly fall within the definition of "broadcasting" set out in the Broadcasting Act.
51. Accordingly, the Commission will issue a proposed exemption order without terms or conditions in respect of all undertakings that are providing broadcasting services over the Internet, in whole or in part, in Canada.
45. The Commission considers, however, that some Internet services involve a high degree of "customizable" content. This allows end-users to have an individual one-on-one experience through the creation of their own uniquely tailored content. In the Commission's view, this content, created by the end-user, would not be transmitted for reception by the public. The Commission therefore considers that content that is "customizable" to a significant degree does not properly fall within the definition of "broadcasting" set out in the Broadcasting Act.
51. Accordingly, the Commission will issue a proposed exemption order without terms or conditions in respect of all undertakings that are providing broadcasting services over the Internet, in whole or in part, in Canada.
Then every website in Canada would require a license because it's broadcasting.
No, the CRTC does not license broadcasting that occurs primarily in textual form. That being said, they excluded themselves from "the new media" in 1999.
45. The Commission considers, however, that some Internet services involve a high degree of "customizable" content. This allows end-users to have an individual one-on-one experience through the creation of their own uniquely tailored content. In the Commission's view, this content, created by the end-user, would not be transmitted for reception by the public. The Commission therefore considers that content that is "customizable" to a significant degree does not properly fall within the definition of "broadcasting" set out in the Broadcasting Act..... 51. Accordingly, the Commission will issue a proposed exemption order without terms or conditions in respect of all undertakings that are providing broadcasting services over the Internet, in whole or in part, in Canada.
A party that pledged to rid us of the CRTC could also declare Thursday's "burn a kitten" day, and still likely be voted in.
Canadians are pretty pissed off at a legislative body that continually bends over backwards for the telecommunications industry, fails to promote a competitive marketplace and consumer choice, and uses our tax dollars in order to tell us what our culture is.
And to make things better, the minute some foreign company comes in to offer us something Canadians actually want, they start rattling their bureaucratic saber. What a joke.
don't know the FCC but this case is exactly what the CRTC is supposed to be regulating.
The CRTC is supposed to regulate Canadian broadcasting. Netflix is not Canadian. It has no presence in Canada. Regardless of the industry-paid-for legislation over grey-market satellites, the CRTC should not be regulating this at all.
Should the CRTC also be legislating Canadian content on YouTube? Twitch? Instagram? Any random site with a podcast? If their legislative powers exist beyond Canada, then the answer would be yes. That is insanity.
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 do not.
I hope Netflix entirely wrecks the system of local content production. The idea that that society should pay to produce crap content in order to support culture is ludicrous.
Slashdot Mirror
'
Given it took 10 months to reach the 7000 or so cases in Africa, why would you think the cases in the US is going to skyrocket?
Ebola is scary because it is deadly, not because it is particularly communicable.
No...that's a personnel issue.
For future reference:
If it runs on electricity, it's technical.
If it runs on meat, it's personnel.
Yes, but at least it is better edited than most of the submissions we see on Slashdot. It makes more sense, too.
Do you have a link? I'm assuming these must be overall consumption.
I'll agree China, India, US are the overall top 3.
When you put Canada of all places in that list, my alarm bells went off. It's ridiculous to think that a country of 30 million people uses more energy than Japan or Russia.
I would also be a little surprised to find that India is now consuming more energy than Russia, but that at least is believable.
I suspect the top 5 now is still the same:
China, USA, Russia, India, Japan (probably in that order, possibly switch Russia and India)
Actually, not at all.
You're poor? Society should have educated you better and provided better social support to you and your family. We do a piss-poor job right now providing for the lowest income bracket in western society, which IMO feeds directly back into the high incarceration rates, drug issues, and a host of other issues.
You're sick / paralyzed? Go to the hospital. What sort of backwards barbaric country doesn't have socialized medicine in this day and age? (Note: I do not currently live in the USA)
No, the real world is inane and stupid sometimes because people are different. What some people consider inane and stupid, others consider valuable and intelligent. Do you really think your high-school teachers were some sort of horrific monsters who enjoyed inflicting boring repetitious tasks on students for no reason? I don't. As far as I can tell, most people honestly believe they are trying to do the right thing.
I agree. But (a) As I mentioned, in high school these are not children, these are young adults. They should be reaching the point where they can use their own strengths towards whatever task is put in front of them. I have seen little to no evidence of high schools attempting to "punish any bit of non-conformity".
I would expect someone to first come talk to me about why a project was inane and stupid before they wasted time on a report, but I am always open to feedback. The thing is, if I don't agree that the work is inane and stupid then I expect my employees to capable of doing the work, regardless of whether they agree with it or not. IMO, many "prima donnas" today only want the really intriguing projects that look interesting and they can pad their resume's with (i.e. RDD - Resume Driven Development).
Sometimes (valuable) tasks are unfortunately fairly boring to work on though.
Not being a massive Linux geek (use it, but don't develop for it), I don't understand the pushback against Poettering over systemd's adoption.
Let me get this straight:
- He wrote an init system that some people didn't like
- Poettering didn't agree with their objections, continued development
- Distribution maintainers liked it enough to replace init with systemd
- People bully/threaten the developer of systemd?!?!
It would seem a discussion with the distro maintainers over the technical merits/deficiencies of systemd would be more in order. I've found the few open source projects I've followed more closely (NHibernate, automapper, PetaPoco) to be reasonably polite. Is Linux very different? Is it just the size/complexity that makes people jerks?
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it"
- Agent K (Men In Black)
Where the heck did you get that list?
If you are talking per-capita, China and India don't belong. If you are talking overall, Canada doesn't belong.
Ok, I'll stop being lazy and look it up:
Top 5 per-capita energy consumers:
Iceland
Qatar
Trinidad and Tobago
Kuwait
Luxembourg
Top 5 overall energy consumers:
United States
China
Russia
Japan
India
And would it not be much more fair to look at per-capita numbers? i.e. stop harping on China/India, start worrying about Europe / NA
I do blame young adults who check out and lose interest (this idea that a 16-18 year old is a "kid" is a peculiar 20th century notion).
Guess what, work can also be inane and stupid. If someone is unable to suck it up and do some pretty straightforward (and yes, sometimes seemingly pointless) work for 3 years, then the probably won't succeed in a typical business environment, and maybe the should not be considered for college enrollment.
I can't imagine what these special snowflakes who think high-school is "soul-crushing" would do if they had to face real hardship.
TL;DR:
Nobody cares if you failed because you are incapable or if you failed because you felt the work was inane and stupid. I'll hire the guy who is less capable but actually does the work over the prima donna who feels the work assigned him is beneath his precious skill set.
We managed the changeover in Canada just fine.
But then again, we're like a younger, hipper, better looking version of the UK anyways....
How is this different from Microsoft and bundling IE?
Google doesn't have a monopoly on smartphone OS's. Microsoft does have a monopoly on desktop PC OS's
Correct, but you don't need calculus.
c+dc = 2*pi*(r+dr)
substitute 2*pi*r for c & expand
2*pi*r + dc = 2*pi*r + 2*pi*dr
simplify
dc/dr = 2*pi
assuming dr>0. i.e. we are not dealing with a poodle singularity.
Which by remarkable coincidence have recently been shown mathematically to not exist
Did you even read the article?!? Yes, women as a whole are making more, because more are going to college
From your own damn article:
"These women have gotten a leg up for several reasons. They are more likely than men to attend college, raising their earning potential.
Between 2006 and 2008, 32.7% of women between 25 and 34 had a bachelor's degree or higher, compared with 25.8% of men, according to the Census."
and more importantly:
"women on the whole haven't reached equal status in any particular job or education level. For instance, women with a bachelor's degree had median earnings of $39,571 between 2006 and 2008, compared with $59,079 for men at the same education level,"
No, the claimed goal of "equal pay for equal work" is still not with us.
Because that's what discrimination is....treating someone differently not based on their qualifications (or cost effectiveness in this case), but on factors that the individual has no control over.
You really needed someone to point this out to you?!?
Except this has nothing to do with the disclosure of information.
What's really happening is Netflix want's to know is whether the CRTC can actually do anything if Netflix decides to not play by their rules. This opportunity provides a safe test-bed for that idea.
Netflix will not release the information at all. They will claim it's due to CRTC being unable to provide confidentiality (which strictly speaking is true....CRTC is subject to requests under the Information Act if the information can be shown to be of public interest). The actual reason is to see what the CRTC does about Netflix not playing ball and whether the government allows the CRTC to do anything about it.
Personally, I'm hoping the CRTC tries to do something and is slapped down hard due to public opinion.
Wow, you are really ok with the government mandating what type of information flows over the internet? That doesn't seem very Canadian at all of you.
Actually, the best arbiter of this would likely be the CRTC themselves. As they said back in 1991:
45. The Commission considers, however, that some Internet services involve a high degree of "customizable" content. This allows end-users to have an individual one-on-one experience through the creation of their own uniquely tailored content. In the Commission's view, this content, created by the end-user, would not be transmitted for reception by the public. The Commission therefore considers that content that is "customizable" to a significant degree does not properly fall within the definition of "broadcasting" set out in the Broadcasting Act.
The current conflict is pure posturing on the CRTC's part in an attempt to maintain some sort of relevancy. They should just go away now.
No, it isn't. There is no company named "Netflix Canada". Netflix is an entirely USA owned company that has a "Netflix Canada" branding for content they have licensed for distribution in Canada.
CRTC should have no more mandate here than they should over Youtube. In fact, they themselves said in 1999 that they should have no mandate over internet media:
From: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/arch...
45. The Commission considers, however, that some Internet services involve a high degree of "customizable" content. This allows end-users to have an individual one-on-one experience through the creation of their own uniquely tailored content. In the Commission's view, this content, created by the end-user, would not be transmitted for reception by the public. The Commission therefore considers that content that is "customizable" to a significant degree does not properly fall within the definition of "broadcasting" set out in the Broadcasting Act.
It's a healthier state than the current one: "laughingstock".
I'm all in favor of free health care, free education, and social assistance for those who require it. I find the idea of a socialized entertainment industry a ludicrous and disgraceful waste of tax dollars.
My guess is that you are completely wrong. Most of us are completely confused as to how spending tax dollars to subsidize TV shows and movies that nobody watches actually helps Canadian culture.
If you think Canadian culture is so fragile that it cannot survive without the protection of the CRTC, they you really don't think much of Canadians.
Yes, Canadian TV broadcasters are under CRTC regulation as they are Canadian broadcasters (i.e. Canadian companies). I don't like it either, but I agree they are under the purview of the CRTC.
Netflix is not. They are also not broadcasting. And as the CRTC decided themselves in 1999, should not require a license:
From: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/arch...
45. The Commission considers, however, that some Internet services involve a high degree of "customizable" content. This allows end-users to have an individual one-on-one experience through the creation of their own uniquely tailored content. In the Commission's view, this content, created by the end-user, would not be transmitted for reception by the public. The Commission therefore considers that content that is "customizable" to a significant degree does not properly fall within the definition of "broadcasting" set out in the Broadcasting Act.
51. Accordingly, the Commission will issue a proposed exemption order without terms or conditions in respect of all undertakings that are providing broadcasting services over the Internet, in whole or in part, in Canada.
Exactly, as the CRTC themselves decided in 1999
From: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/arch...
45. The Commission considers, however, that some Internet services involve a high degree of "customizable" content. This allows end-users to have an individual one-on-one experience through the creation of their own uniquely tailored content. In the Commission's view, this content, created by the end-user, would not be transmitted for reception by the public. The Commission therefore considers that content that is "customizable" to a significant degree does not properly fall within the definition of "broadcasting" set out in the Broadcasting Act.
51. Accordingly, the Commission will issue a proposed exemption order without terms or conditions in respect of all undertakings that are providing broadcasting services over the Internet, in whole or in part, in Canada.
The CRTC is just posturing.
No, the CRTC does not license broadcasting that occurs primarily in textual form. That being said, they excluded themselves from "the new media" in 1999.
From: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/arch...
45. The Commission considers, however, that some Internet services involve a high degree of "customizable" content. This allows end-users to have an individual one-on-one experience through the creation of their own uniquely tailored content. In the Commission's view, this content, created by the end-user, would not be transmitted for reception by the public. The Commission therefore considers that content that is "customizable" to a significant degree does not properly fall within the definition of "broadcasting" set out in the Broadcasting Act. ....
51. Accordingly, the Commission will issue a proposed exemption order without terms or conditions in respect of all undertakings that are providing broadcasting services over the Internet, in whole or in part, in Canada.
Exactly.
A party that pledged to rid us of the CRTC could also declare Thursday's "burn a kitten" day, and still likely be voted in.
Canadians are pretty pissed off at a legislative body that continually bends over backwards for the telecommunications industry, fails to promote a competitive marketplace and consumer choice, and uses our tax dollars in order to tell us what our culture is.
And to make things better, the minute some foreign company comes in to offer us something Canadians actually want, they start rattling their bureaucratic saber. What a joke.
The CRTC is supposed to regulate Canadian broadcasting. Netflix is not Canadian. It has no presence in Canada. Regardless of the industry-paid-for legislation over grey-market satellites, the CRTC should not be regulating this at all.
Should the CRTC also be legislating Canadian content on YouTube? Twitch? Instagram? Any random site with a podcast? If their legislative powers exist beyond Canada, then the answer would be yes. That is insanity.
And many Canadians do not.
I hope Netflix entirely wrecks the system of local content production. The idea that that society should pay to produce crap content in order to support culture is ludicrous.