Passing a law like this for Canada will be easier. We do not have a freedom of speech law. Government CTRC/CBC controls what we see, what we hear -- that Outer Limits into is no joke in Canada.
I live in Canada, but am not Canadian (yet) and even I know that what you wrote is just plain wrong. If you're a Candian-born Canuck, then it's sad that immigrants know more about your country and the way it works than you do.
For starters there's the "Charter of Rights and Freedoms" which guarantees free speech. It's pretty crucial to freedom, so for one who decries the lack of it in Canada I am astounded that you are unaware of your rights.
There's no such thing as the "CTRC" (perhaps you mean CRTC). Also, how you think that the CBC can control other stations like CTV and Global bemuses me. You have a choice in what channel(s) you watch, so plenty of freedom there. The CRTC doesn't control what you can see/hear, it regulates what broadcasters cannot say. There's a difference between control and regulate, just as there's a difference between can and cannot. Control assumes prior consent, which does not happen in Canada. Regulation calls for fines after the event - there's no pre-screening by the CRTC. Plenty of freedom there.
I see others have commented on the "US citizens have it better" and raised points like healthcare and standards of living (The 2006 HDI report puts Canada at #6 in the world, two places higher than the US).
It has to do with the autonomous legal systems of the individual states, which are protected under the U.S. Constitution. So even if the U.S. were to sign a (perfectly reasonable) treaty restricting how its courts could operate, one could argue that the federal government lacks the authority to tell the state courts how to operate.
Cool. So which states are against ratifying the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child?
The very instant anyone attempts to put together a group of people with the aim of affecting Government policies or methods through the 'bearing arms' avenue, they'll be thrown in prison or sent to GTMO.
What happened to "give me liberty or give me death", or "live free or die"?
Sounds like either:
1) You are still free, just moaning that you don't have a pony yet 2) Not enough people in the US have the cajones to stand up for domestic freedom 3) Your government really has won and that true freedom is no longer a right for you
If you're going to tag me "+1 Witty" then at least quote the witty part, not the serious part.
My point is that money is not the problem, and your drawing a parallel with technology supports that. Try saying "the Internet is evil" round here and see how much flak you'll draw. It's not the tool that's the problem, it's the wielder.
Even outside the modern world there is money, or at least bartering - which places a value on all traded items. Unless you are going to be a hermit, you're going to need to trade something with someone.
I'll even go one step further and say that not only is money not evil, but the love of money isn't neccessarily the driving force behind the evil actions humans do. It's the love of what money can buy, like power, fame, hookers, and a red racing car that can be wrapped around a tree.
The Gregorian calendar has leap years as follows: Every year divisible by 4 is a leap year. Except when that year is also divisible by 100, in which case it is *not* a leap year. Except when that year is also divisible by 400, in which case it *is* a leap year.
Yes, we need to get to a system that deals with plagiarism. Distribution is no longer a matter worth getting an ulcer over. Plagiarism is the only legitimate issue when dealing "intellectual property". Everything else is simply a matter of greed. What the market will bear... "What the market will bear" should NOT be codified into law.
"I'm growing tired of hearing about how the democratic process will repair these evils. How? When?"
Never. No democracy ever has and no democracy ever will. Because democracies that reach this point are no longer democracies - if they ever were.
"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." - Winston Churchill, 11/11/1947.
it's only the Judicial branch that feels you are "innocent until proven guilty".
I'd rather be considered innocent unless proven guilty. Use of "until" kind of implies that I am guilty of something and it's merely a matter of time until the Judicial branch catches up with me. While my guilt of something may indeed be true, it's not the kind of mindset that you want to nurture in a government.
If they did, and it turns out that they were wrong, then there should be repercussions hopefully ending in the removal from their position of trust and power of the agent/agents responsible.
If they did not, then more fool you for handing over protected data when you were not told that it was an emergency.
It's a shame that's there's nothing in the US constitution that allows for lifelong appointments for people who are responsible for interpreting the law.
I think it a bit odd that the laws in place to "help" applicants uphold their right not be discriminated against are very difficult to enforce, if not downright impossible unless it's glaringly obvious.
Ah well:)
Thanks again.
Re:One paragraph book on managing development team
on
IT Manager's Handbook
·
· Score: 1
Sure you want the developers talking to the users? That's the designers' job and should be distinct from the developers' job.
Developers should code, not design, and especially not test. (I note you didn't say that they should do the testing, but it bears mentioning).
Serious question, and I am aware that your answer may not be applicable in all legal locales.
How do you avoid the pitfalls of employment law that state you can't not hire(*) someone based on certain personal traits. I completely agree that personality is a huge factor, and in the roles where I've had to employ people or not, it's usually the technically able that are also the best fits all round. But it's not always going to be that way - you may have a good technical applicant who's an arse, and someone who's less qualified but you are sure would increase the productivity of your group. How would you justify employing contestant number 2 and avoid a potential lawsuit from the on-paper-more-qualified applicant?
Slashdot Mirror
Passing a law like this for Canada will be easier. We do not have a freedom of speech law. Government CTRC/CBC controls what we see, what we hear -- that Outer Limits into is no joke in Canada.
I live in Canada, but am not Canadian (yet) and even I know that what you wrote is just plain wrong. If you're a Candian-born Canuck, then it's sad that immigrants know more about your country and the way it works than you do.
For starters there's the "Charter of Rights and Freedoms" which guarantees free speech. It's pretty crucial to freedom, so for one who decries the lack of it in Canada I am astounded that you are unaware of your rights.
There's no such thing as the "CTRC" (perhaps you mean CRTC). Also, how you think that the CBC can control other stations like CTV and Global bemuses me. You have a choice in what channel(s) you watch, so plenty of freedom there. The CRTC doesn't control what you can see/hear, it regulates what broadcasters cannot say. There's a difference between control and regulate, just as there's a difference between can and cannot. Control assumes prior consent, which does not happen in Canada. Regulation calls for fines after the event - there's no pre-screening by the CRTC. Plenty of freedom there.
I see others have commented on the "US citizens have it better" and raised points like healthcare and standards of living (The 2006 HDI report puts Canada at #6 in the world, two places higher than the US).
It has to do with the autonomous legal systems of the individual states, which are protected under the U.S. Constitution. So even if the U.S. were to sign a (perfectly reasonable) treaty restricting how its courts could operate, one could argue that the federal government lacks the authority to tell the state courts how to operate.
Cool. So which states are against ratifying the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child?
The very instant anyone attempts to put together a group of people with the aim of affecting Government policies or methods through the 'bearing arms' avenue, they'll be thrown in prison or sent to GTMO.
What happened to "give me liberty or give me death", or "live free or die"?
Sounds like either:
1) You are still free, just moaning that you don't have a pony yet
2) Not enough people in the US have the cajones to stand up for domestic freedom
3) Your government really has won and that true freedom is no longer a right for you
I think a little bit of each.
It is. Now pass the mindbleach.
If you're going to tag me "+1 Witty" then at least quote the witty part, not the serious part.
My point is that money is not the problem, and your drawing a parallel with technology supports that. Try saying "the Internet is evil" round here and see how much flak you'll draw. It's not the tool that's the problem, it's the wielder.
Even outside the modern world there is money, or at least bartering - which places a value on all traded items. Unless you are going to be a hermit, you're going to need to trade something with someone.
I'll even go one step further and say that not only is money not evil, but the love of money isn't neccessarily the driving force behind the evil actions humans do. It's the love of what money can buy, like power, fame, hookers, and a red racing car that can be wrapped around a tree.
Your proposed headline is redundantly redundant.
Money is the root of all of this evil, but next in line is the MAFIAA.
Sorry, but the love of money is the root of all of this evil.
If you have any evil money in your possession, please feel free to donate it to charity. Or even better, send it to me.
Like this one.
I'm wondering what you're referring to here.
He probably meant the Moops.
Censorship = bad.
Freedom = good.
Slashdot article = [x] Out of date, [x] Dupe, [ ] Slashvertisement, [x] FUD
"Anyone familiar with the Mayan Calendar? December 21, 2012 (13.0.0.0.0 in the Mayan Calendar) Coincidence?"
The Mayan calendar runs on IPv5?
The Gregorian calendar has leap years as follows:
Every year divisible by 4 is a leap year.
Except when that year is also divisible by 100, in which case it is *not* a leap year.
Except when that year is also divisible by 400, in which case it *is* a leap year.
Except after C.
And that's just weird.
American Cheeseburger Eating Surrender Monkeys
There, fixed that for you.
Catch-all quote: "Faster, better, cheaper - pick two".
I imagine future job growth will be in services and tangible goods
What other job markets are there?
Yes, we need to get to a system that deals with plagiarism. Distribution is no longer a matter worth getting an ulcer over. Plagiarism is the only legitimate issue when dealing "intellectual property". Everything else is simply a matter of greed. What the market will bear... "What the market will bear" should NOT be codified into law.
And how do you ...
Oh, never mind.
Doing the right thing usually pisses someone off, and rarely generates profit.
"I'm growing tired of hearing about how the democratic process will repair these evils. How? When?"
Never. No democracy ever has and no democracy ever will. Because democracies that reach this point are no longer democracies - if they ever were.
"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." - Winston Churchill, 11/11/1947.
it's only the Judicial branch that feels you are "innocent until proven guilty".
I'd rather be considered innocent unless proven guilty. Use of "until" kind of implies that I am guilty of something and it's merely a matter of time until the Judicial branch catches up with me. While my guilt of something may indeed be true, it's not the kind of mindset that you want to nurture in a government.
Did the FBI agents say it was an emergency?
If they did, and it turns out that they were wrong, then there should be repercussions hopefully ending in the removal from their position of trust and power of the agent/agents responsible.
If they did not, then more fool you for handing over protected data when you were not told that it was an emergency.
It's a shame that's there's nothing in the US constitution that allows for lifelong appointments for people who are responsible for interpreting the law.
...
Oh, hang on
Thanks for pretty much confirming what I thought.
:)
I think it a bit odd that the laws in place to "help" applicants uphold their right not be discriminated against are very difficult to enforce, if not downright impossible unless it's glaringly obvious.
Ah well
Thanks again.
Sure you want the developers talking to the users? That's the designers' job and should be distinct from the developers' job.
Developers should code, not design, and especially not test. (I note you didn't say that they should do the testing, but it bears mentioning).
Serious question, and I am aware that your answer may not be applicable in all legal locales.
How do you avoid the pitfalls of employment law that state you can't not hire(*) someone based on certain personal traits. I completely agree that personality is a huge factor, and in the roles where I've had to employ people or not, it's usually the technically able that are also the best fits all round. But it's not always going to be that way - you may have a good technical applicant who's an arse, and someone who's less qualified but you are sure would increase the productivity of your group. How would you justify employing contestant number 2 and avoid a potential lawsuit from the on-paper-more-qualified applicant?
(*)Sorry about the double negative.