Assistance dogs understand roads and sidewalks, traffic lights. traffic, etc. Dogs can alert the owner before the owner is aware of a bout of hypoglycemia, can detect and let us know about cancers we still can't detect with our finest machines, which side their bread is buttered on (a very human trait), how to share, what a bed, flatscreen tv, and fridge are for, that if we leave them tied up outside a store we're not abandoning them, to guard our property (without training), that human infants are to be treated very specially, and that some people are just plain stupid so they should be ignored.
Also, you're giving old Abe too much credit for being able to overcome culture shock. We have people today who still rebel against things like same-sex marriage, and who refuse to accept m2f transsexuals as women despite the science. Abe would think he had gone to some strange hell.
That someone however, cannot and will never be able to grasp the structure of our society and the laws within it.
So what? Abraham Lincoln would freak out if he were brought to our time. Stop signs and traffic lights? No chopping wood before 7 am? No hunting squirrels? Where's the outhouse? The chamberpot? Why do you change your clothes every day when they're not soiled? Sitting around all day talking to people you cannot see isn't work - it's insanity! You mean I can't just burn the trash on the trash-heap? And wood stoves and fireplaces are against the law? And your women are practically nude in public - and you allow it??? Have you no shame? Can you not control your wife?
Broadly, Canadians can be held liable by English-Canadian courts for comments on public affairs, about public figures, which are factually true, and which are broadly believed. They cannot be held liable for opinion, inference, hyperlinking without explicit agreement with the content, reportage when this is based on honest research and journalistic ethics. Plaintiffs need not prove falsity, malice or damages. Politicians can, and do,[4] sue including during elections for political advantage [5] or to silence critics or accusers. Evidence can be gathered by spies representing themselves falsely in private conversations. Defendants, once accused, are prima facie liable until they prove themselves innocent (reverse onus). Anonymous persons can be exposed for political comment, even if they are vulnerable and reside in jurisdictions where retribution is likely.[6] People may be sued from remote jurisdictions if publication can be proven in that remote jurisdiction, which can mean as few as one person seeing the words.
In general, the C.C.P. requires real damages to warrant real reparation
Sorry, but the code of civil procedure (CCP, or CPC in french) was cited ONLY for the procedure used to serve a witness. The CCP is sort of like a HOWTO, in that it covers the procedures used for various civil actions.
Damages for defamation is covered under art. 1457 of the civil code (CC in both languages):
1457. Every person has a duty to abide by the rules of conduct incumbent on him, according to the circumstances, usage or law, so as not to cause injury to another.
Where he is endowed with reason and fails in this duty, he is liable for any injury he causes to another by such fault and is bound to make reparation for the injury, whether it be bodily, moral or material in nature.
He is also bound, in certain cases, to make reparation for injury caused to another by the act or fault of another person or by the act of things in his custody.
Most humans don't value their liberty over food, water, or safety. Or even TV. That's why bread and circuses has been a staple of governance for millennia.
A UBC study of Quebec’s 32-year ban on fast food advertising found that people in that province bought less junk food and their children tend to weigh less than their North American counterparts.
“That regulation effectively reduced fast food consumption in households by as much as 13 per cent each week,” says Asst. Prof. Tirtha Dhar, a marketing expert at UBC’s Sauder School of Business.
In the first study of its kind, Dhar investigated the impact of the world’s first and oldest advertising ban on fastfood. Enacted in 1980, Quebec legislation prohibits advertising of products such as toys and fast food which target children in print and electronic media. In the past decade, other countries have followed suit with similar bans, among them Norway, Sweden, Greece and the U.K.
Dhar says the annual drop in household fast food purchases represents the equivalent of US $88 million in 2010 dollars. "In terms of meals, that reduction represents 13 and 18 billion fewer fast-food calories a year."
No more weekend cartoon shows with kids going "I-want-It-I-want-It-I-want-It-I-want-It-I-want-It-I-want-It-I-want-It-I-want-It" for the latest piece of plastic junk.
Of course, you have to deal with stupid language laws that treat English as a disease.
Fool! There's an election coming next year. Don't give Harper any ideas!!!
DISCLAMER
The above use of the word "Fool" is not intended to reflect on the parent poster, but on the sorry state of Canadian politics, and is clearly meant in jest, so it is not defamatory in Canada.
The above reference to Stephen Harper is not to imply that Mr. Harper lacks any ideas. Unfortunately...
It's to be noted that defamation law is different in Canada than in the US. In Canada, the truth of a statement is not, in and of itself, sufficient to have a claim of defamation dismissed. The effect of the statement and the intent also come into play. For example, someone may be gay or lesbian or whatever, but that does not give you the right to say so with the intent for them to, for example, lose their job.
Yep. People will try one game/app/whatever after another, and spend so much time exploring the available free options that they'll never be motivated to actually shell out money for their favorite - because who knows, maybe the next free one will be even better.
And with digital downloads, it's not like you can even offer cover art, liner notes, a secret decoder ring or a t-shirt in the same box.
You couldn't just go out and buy a personal computer at your local big box store in those days.
Now, the market has matured. I don't see new pc manufacturers pop into existence every week, but I still see tons of new app makers trying to claw their way into the market because they heard that someone else made money in it. The reason is that the barriers to entry in the app market are low, so everyone and their dog is flocking to it, putting severe downward pressure on prices, while at the same time increasing the costs for marketing.
There's already 2 million apps out there. Look at how many are free. Unless you're already a "must-have" app, that's what you're competing with.
Context. When a VHS recorder originally cost $1,500, there was no way people, given a choice, would pay more than $2,000 for a Betamax.
Back in those days, a blank tape was ~$35. But as the tape prices came down, people started buying more blank tapes and squirreling them away "to watch later."
The PS3 came able to play blu-ray included, for less than a stand-alone HD-DVD player; again, price won the war there.
And todays flatscreen tvs are cheaper than equivalent tube tvs ever were. Again, price wins.
You missed my point - the gold rush was anyone with a mobile development kit and a few weeks/months could make a profit. Now, most mobile developers either make nothing or - for those who actually make money - an average of $34 a month. They'd be better off devoting that time to collecting refundable bottles.
I'm a recent grad from a master's program in a potentially worthless social science field, and I've considered getting into iOS development. Several of my friends who were in similar situations after grad school have done so and are making a healthy living getting contract work. Although they had CS and Physics degrees going into iOS, neither had worked in objective C and both essentially went through a crash courses (either self-taught or through intensive classes) in order to get their first gigs. I have two questions. First, am I an idiot for thinking I can teach myself either objective C or Swift on my own without any academic CS background (I've tinkered in HTML, CSS, and C classes online with some success)? Second, if I'm not an idiot for attempting to learn either language, which should I concentrate on?
People still see mobile as a "fall-back" option that will probably provide them with enough income to pay the bills, when stats say this is already false, and will only get worse.
We're looking at a future where you need to be able to produce quality product for free and hang in long enough to actually get some users to pay for the add-ins, bonus levels, and unlocked features. Large developers backed by lots of capital and marketing budgets will continue to eat into the mobile app space. With a couple of million apps out there, new players need to have the money to be seen in the first place.
I've been saying that the gold rush for mobile development is ended, but that's been met with derision and unbelief. Cost is always an important factor.
Beta tapes cost more than VHS: VHS, though inferior, won.
Early Apple computers cost more than early PCs. PCs won.
There are plenty more examples where people will settle for cheap over expensive. Apps are just another one - once people are in the habit of not paying for an app, you'd better be in the top 0.1% of apps to justify getting paid.
Slashdot Mirror
the method uses ultrasound
Every time you touch it all the dogs in the neighborhood go nutzo. And newborns scream.
9,000 chronic offenders (PDF), virtually all of whom have criminal records
How can you be a chronic offender and NOT have a record?
There are some chronic offenders with juvie records, as opposed to criminal records.
Assistance dogs understand roads and sidewalks, traffic lights. traffic, etc. Dogs can alert the owner before the owner is aware of a bout of hypoglycemia, can detect and let us know about cancers we still can't detect with our finest machines, which side their bread is buttered on (a very human trait), how to share, what a bed, flatscreen tv, and fridge are for, that if we leave them tied up outside a store we're not abandoning them, to guard our property (without training), that human infants are to be treated very specially, and that some people are just plain stupid so they should be ignored.
Also, you're giving old Abe too much credit for being able to overcome culture shock. We have people today who still rebel against things like same-sex marriage, and who refuse to accept m2f transsexuals as women despite the science. Abe would think he had gone to some strange hell.
That someone however, cannot and will never be able to grasp the structure of our society and the laws within it.
So what? Abraham Lincoln would freak out if he were brought to our time. Stop signs and traffic lights? No chopping wood before 7 am? No hunting squirrels? Where's the outhouse? The chamberpot? Why do you change your clothes every day when they're not soiled? Sitting around all day talking to people you cannot see isn't work - it's insanity! You mean I can't just burn the trash on the trash-heap? And wood stoves and fireplaces are against the law? And your women are practically nude in public - and you allow it??? Have you no shame? Can you not control your wife?
Broadly, Canadians can be held liable by English-Canadian courts for comments on public affairs, about public figures, which are factually true, and which are broadly believed. They cannot be held liable for opinion, inference, hyperlinking without explicit agreement with the content, reportage when this is based on honest research and journalistic ethics. Plaintiffs need not prove falsity, malice or damages. Politicians can, and do,[4] sue including during elections for political advantage [5] or to silence critics or accusers. Evidence can be gathered by spies representing themselves falsely in private conversations. Defendants, once accused, are prima facie liable until they prove themselves innocent (reverse onus). Anonymous persons can be exposed for political comment, even if they are vulnerable and reside in jurisdictions where retribution is likely.[6] People may be sued from remote jurisdictions if publication can be proven in that remote jurisdiction, which can mean as few as one person seeing the words.
In general, the C.C.P. requires real damages to warrant real reparation
Sorry, but the code of civil procedure (CCP, or CPC in french) was cited ONLY for the procedure used to serve a witness. The CCP is sort of like a HOWTO, in that it covers the procedures used for various civil actions.
Damages for defamation is covered under art. 1457 of the civil code (CC in both languages):
1457. Every person has a duty to abide by the rules of conduct incumbent on him, according to the circumstances, usage or law, so as not to cause injury to another.
Where he is endowed with reason and fails in this duty, he is liable for any injury he causes to another by such fault and is bound to make reparation for the injury, whether it be bodily, moral or material in nature.
He is also bound, in certain cases, to make reparation for injury caused to another by the act or fault of another person or by the act of things in his custody.
Here's the entire quebec civil code, if you want to search for 1457. The only place the term "defamation" occurs is article 2929,
2929. An action for defamation is prescribed by one year from the day on which the defamed person learned of the defamation.
All this does is say that if you don't file suit within one year, you're out of luck. It does not define defamation per se.
"Eww Quebec. I'd take fast food over french personally."
So you're going to boycott french fries?
Jail would be a better fate than what some of these chimps go through.
When's the last time we "sacrificed" a prisoner for research? Do you really want to return to "those days?"
People are resistant to the idea because some of the animals we eat show signs of consciousness and suffering.
Most humans don't value their liberty over food, water, or safety. Or even TV. That's why bread and circuses has been a staple of governance for millennia.
Geez, are you lazy.
Too lazy to read the judgment, obviously, or to look up defamation on wikipedia, or scroll through the comments where someone else already did that.
There's definitely "somebody home" in the case of many animals. Ask any dog lover (and dogs are much further away from humans than chimps).
People will, of course, say no, even though we're quite willing to train dolphins and sea lions to fight our wars for us..
A bit reminiscent of the vietnam-era song "Eve of Destruction" - "you're old enough for killing, but not for voting'".
Facts aren't defamation.
In much if the world, including Canada, they can be. You can't willfully cause harm to someone else and then say "it's just the truth."
partial extract
A UBC study of Quebec’s 32-year ban on fast food advertising found that people in that province bought less junk food and their children tend to weigh less than their North American counterparts.
“That regulation effectively reduced fast food consumption in households by as much as 13 per cent each week,” says Asst. Prof. Tirtha Dhar, a marketing expert at UBC’s Sauder School of Business.
In the first study of its kind, Dhar investigated the impact of the world’s first and oldest advertising ban on fastfood. Enacted in 1980, Quebec legislation prohibits advertising of products such as toys and fast food which target children in print and electronic media. In the past decade, other countries have followed suit with similar bans, among them Norway, Sweden, Greece and the U.K.
Dhar says the annual drop in household fast food purchases represents the equivalent of US $88 million in 2010 dollars. "In terms of meals, that reduction represents 13 and 18 billion fewer fast-food calories a year."
Billions and billions of calories not served ...
the actual law (warning pdf) which is actually a consumer protection law.
non-pdf version
No more weekend cartoon shows with kids going "I-want-It-I-want-It-I-want-It-I-want-It-I-want-It-I-want-It-I-want-It-I-want-It" for the latest piece of plastic junk.
Of course, you have to deal with stupid language laws that treat English as a disease.
It's not the same as bundling, which is far more effective. Ask your local cable or satellite TV provider, or their p***ed-off customers.
Still not going to click on a shortened url hosted in Antigua and Barbuda.
Well, at least in Canada, that is.
Fool! There's an election coming next year. Don't give Harper any ideas!!!
DISCLAMER ...
The above use of the word "Fool" is not intended to reflect on the parent poster, but on the sorry state of Canadian politics, and is clearly meant in jest, so it is not defamatory in Canada.
The above reference to Stephen Harper is not to imply that Mr. Harper lacks any ideas. Unfortunately
It's to be noted that defamation law is different in Canada than in the US. In Canada, the truth of a statement is not, in and of itself, sufficient to have a claim of defamation dismissed. The effect of the statement and the intent also come into play. For example, someone may be gay or lesbian or whatever, but that does not give you the right to say so with the intent for them to, for example, lose their job.
And in the end, Streisand Effect! strikes again.
Yep. People will try one game/app/whatever after another, and spend so much time exploring the available free options that they'll never be motivated to actually shell out money for their favorite - because who knows, maybe the next free one will be even better.
And with digital downloads, it's not like you can even offer cover art, liner notes, a secret decoder ring or a t-shirt in the same box.
You couldn't just go out and buy a personal computer at your local big box store in those days.
Now, the market has matured. I don't see new pc manufacturers pop into existence every week, but I still see tons of new app makers trying to claw their way into the market because they heard that someone else made money in it. The reason is that the barriers to entry in the app market are low, so everyone and their dog is flocking to it, putting severe downward pressure on prices, while at the same time increasing the costs for marketing.
There's already 2 million apps out there. Look at how many are free. Unless you're already a "must-have" app, that's what you're competing with.
Context. When a VHS recorder originally cost $1,500, there was no way people, given a choice, would pay more than $2,000 for a Betamax.
Back in those days, a blank tape was ~$35. But as the tape prices came down, people started buying more blank tapes and squirreling them away "to watch later."
The PS3 came able to play blu-ray included, for less than a stand-alone HD-DVD player; again, price won the war there.
And todays flatscreen tvs are cheaper than equivalent tube tvs ever were. Again, price wins.
You missed my point - the gold rush was anyone with a mobile development kit and a few weeks/months could make a profit. Now, most mobile developers either make nothing or - for those who actually make money - an average of $34 a month. They'd be better off devoting that time to collecting refundable bottles.
Look at this ask slashdot
I'm a recent grad from a master's program in a potentially worthless social science field, and I've considered getting into iOS development. Several of my friends who were in similar situations after grad school have done so and are making a healthy living getting contract work. Although they had CS and Physics degrees going into iOS, neither had worked in objective C and both essentially went through a crash courses (either self-taught or through intensive classes) in order to get their first gigs. I have two questions. First, am I an idiot for thinking I can teach myself either objective C or Swift on my own without any academic CS background (I've tinkered in HTML, CSS, and C classes online with some success)? Second, if I'm not an idiot for attempting to learn either language, which should I concentrate on?
People still see mobile as a "fall-back" option that will probably provide them with enough income to pay the bills, when stats say this is already false, and will only get worse.
We're looking at a future where you need to be able to produce quality product for free and hang in long enough to actually get some users to pay for the add-ins, bonus levels, and unlocked features. Large developers backed by lots of capital and marketing budgets will continue to eat into the mobile app space. With a couple of million apps out there, new players need to have the money to be seen in the first place.
besides the obvious filtering of content, will Google also be limiting advertisements and tracking of kids searches?
I would imagine it will be targeting adverts at kids, and tracking just as much.
That's going to be a serious problem. I don't know about other jurisdictions, but here it's illegal to target advertising to young kids.
The same as today - free apps with paid down-loadable add-ins, paid bonus levels, paid advanced features, etc.
I've been saying that the gold rush for mobile development is ended, but that's been met with derision and unbelief. Cost is always an important factor.
Beta tapes cost more than VHS: VHS, though inferior, won.
Early Apple computers cost more than early PCs. PCs won.
There are plenty more examples where people will settle for cheap over expensive. Apps are just another one - once people are in the habit of not paying for an app, you'd better be in the top 0.1% of apps to justify getting paid.