You took a rather odd view of Canada's involvement... I know you were just throwing it in as an example, but your choices seemed rather misrepresentative. Canada declared war on Germany on September 10th 1939 and was involved all over the picture, not just in a couple of limited ways. This was a declaration as an independant country, a few days after Britain had declared war. Canadians in the Second World War fought as Canadians, not under the British flag as they had in the first and not by proxy.
I'll also point out that Canada's naval involvement went much beyond providing materials, and as far as training goes, the British Commonwealth Air Training Program that Canada led comes to mind much quicker than spies...
For a country with a small population that came out of the war with the fourth largest air force and the third largest navy in the world, Canada's role in the second world war seems to be rather misunderstood.
If I understand the feature you want, it's included in the media library. Songs are organized by artist and album. If you just double click on a song when you have an album selected, the playlist becomes the tracks from that album.
So picking an album to populate the playlist is pretty much just a matter of selecting the album in the media library.
If you'd prefer to use playlists, you can make however many you'd like in the media library, and switch back and forth between them.
Hrm... aren't there third party DSL providers in your area? I mean, they all end up going through Telus at some point, since they own the phone lines, but there are definitely third party providers.
It certainly warrant some action, though most here would argue against it. After all, it does affect every computer on the network, and you and I would hang the kid if the message was spam.
Wait... this guy quite possibly doesn't know there's anything wrong with what he's doing. Why can't a teacher just ask him not to do it? If it's a regular thing at the school and he should reasonably know better, then he should be punished. Otherwise, it's not particularly fair to punish someone before they can reasonably know there's something wrong with what they're doing.
It sounds like it was just the sort of situation where the kid was showing a friend something neat his Dad had shown him at home. If he were being malicious, I'm sure he could have come up with something better than "Hey!"
Having a teacher come up to the kid and, effectively say, "Hey, don't do that, it's disruptive," would probably fix the situation.
I don't even understand why you'd send a note home to allow the parents to discipline him. I mean, this isn't a big deal at all. Things would probably be just fine if you politely explained to the kid that he shouldn't do that on school machines because it's disruptive to others that are trying to work...
Of course, this wouldn't have been a problem to begin with if random users didn't have permission to use net send.
No... your metaphor would work if terrorist threats were currently being fixed by putting World Trade Centers all over the place for them to run into, as that's the way the previous 'elephant' was made to go away.
I'm pretty sure I didn't mention the American president at all... I'm not completely sure what you're getting at, could you clairify?
I wasn't disagreeing with the fellow's point, I was agreeing with the fact that our Prime Minister was chosen in the legal way and commenting on the people that disagree with that.
I don't believe any disclaimers are required in Canada. The fact that you went on the cite American case law is kind of funny, though, since it has no bearing on anything, either way. You probably did it more out of slashdot habit, than anything.
Either way, the layout of the site isn't playing a part in satire, as far as I can tell. Even looking at the content, only a small portion of it is satirical in any way. None of this content appears to be made stronger, or even affected, by the site layout or graphics. This copying isn't particularly protected by any satire protection in the Copyright Act, as I understand it.
I'd only look at the letter that was posted. The rest of it's hearsay from an obviously incredibly biased source, so it's probably at least distorted in some way.
The letter's complaining that the title is similar to that of the actual website in question, not that the domain contain's Paul Martin's name. The letter is claiming that it is, in fact, the same title, with such a minor change that the change is not important. It's a question of a deceptive title that misrepresents the one site as being the other. This is even more of an issue when combined with the similar or same layout and graphics.
It's neat how you started calling him indirectly elected to add a sense of legitimacy that you could then deny to Paul Martin. The best part was:
So he is really "unelected."
Of course, since, no matter how you word it, nobody is ever elected by the general population as Prime Minister, he is exactly as elected as every other Prime Minister in the past.
I don't particularly like the Liberal Party, especially as a western Canadian, but playing with words to try to take legitimacy out of Paul Martin's appointment to Prime Minister is idiotic. He was appointed in exactly the same way as all the other Prime Ministers, and has the same mandate as was given to the party in the last election.
I also find it idiotic that this example could be taken as muffling of this website owner's voice. Have you even read the article? The actual letter that was sent to him complains about the fact that the domain is obviously meant to draw visitors from mistyping, and the fact that the graphics and layout were stolen from their website. These things aren't being used in any way that seems protected to me, and can quite easily be viewed as attempting to mislead the reader. Either the website owner was too lazy to make his own goddamned layout, or he stole it to mislead people. Either way, he's in the wrong. He sure as hell isn't making any sort of political point using the site layout and graphics. He's placed opposing views inside the layout, but that isn't the same thing at all. He's free to say whatever the hell he wants. He isn't free to mislead his readers, or steal graphics and page layouts unless he's using it in some sort of satirical way.
Going to the articles you cited, one of them claimed that the government would be more right wing because Martin is more authoritative, and then didn't actually provide any policy as examples of the shift to the right. The other article claimed there is a shift to the right, and then gave cited the fact that Martin is paying attention to the military, which is also mentioned to be in accordance with public opinion, and the fact that he's frozen spending on some projects and put the savings into health care. Yep, increased health care spending sure is a sign that the government's heading to the right. It then goes on to talk about how he's supporting the legalization of marijuana.
That's how it's supposed to work, but not all Canadians like it or even know about it, which is why some people are calling him "unelected".
Quite seriously, anyone who doesn't know about it is an idiot. I mean, these are things you learn repeatedly in several different grades in school, along with being basic facts that are pointed out all over the place. I, personally, have noticed a total of two people calling him unelected, including this posting. Both of these have been on the internet, and both have been from people that oppose the Liberal Party.
I'm not particularly happy with the Liberals myself, but calling him unelected is stupid. He was elected in his riding and was selected by parliament (read: his party) just like every Prime Minister. I mean, it doesn't even make sense to complain if you don't want the liberals in power, since there's absolutely nobody in a position to oppose them if they were to call an election.
I really don't understand how people could either not understand the way the government works at this basic level, or disagree with a Liberal leadership and want an election right now. If there were to be an election, the conservative parties are currently in the middle of working themselves out and wouldn't be able to put up a fight.
The only reason I can actually come up with for people to call him unelected is that they just like to complain about how they're being oppressed.
What the hell's wrong with complaining about this website? It's at a domain that's easy to end up at when you want the real site, it looks exactly like the actual site, with a tiny disclaimer in the top right and an odd banner ad. It's not making its point by making witty or sarcastic comments or observations of the actual website that they've blatantly copied. Basically, they stole the format for this site, and put in a bunch of content that opposes Paul Martin.
Just because you oppose something, doesn't mean everything you do is satire. On a quick skim of the page, the only thing that actually looks like it would be satire is the blog entries (which aren't particularly funny, but that doesn't really matter so much).
So, the liberal party is rightfully pissed off that someone stole the art and layout of a website. This layout is not being used in a satirical way and doesn't even contain satirical content. I can't see how anyone can deny the fact that they have a damned good point.
Unless, of course, you're some sort of magical being that is able to give away the original while still retaining it, allowing you to give it away multiple times without having it given back to you.
So, if Saddam didn't have WMD, why would he throw out weapons inspectors and risk being thrown out of power?
Well, the fact that there were foreign spies in the teams that were using it as an opportunity to gather intellegence unrelated to the inspections seemed to be a pretty good reason...
Slashdot Mirror
You took a rather odd view of Canada's involvement... I know you were just throwing it in as an example, but your choices seemed rather misrepresentative. Canada declared war on Germany on September 10th 1939 and was involved all over the picture, not just in a couple of limited ways. This was a declaration as an independant country, a few days after Britain had declared war. Canadians in the Second World War fought as Canadians, not under the British flag as they had in the first and not by proxy.
I'll also point out that Canada's naval involvement went much beyond providing materials, and as far as training goes, the British Commonwealth Air Training Program that Canada led comes to mind much quicker than spies...
For a country with a small population that came out of the war with the fourth largest air force and the third largest navy in the world, Canada's role in the second world war seems to be rather misunderstood.
Yes... And then Germany attacked them in June of 1941 and they played a huge role in the remaining war...
Silly mods... modding this as interesting, instead of funny...
I found it entertaining.
If I understand the feature you want, it's included in the media library. Songs are organized by artist and album. If you just double click on a song when you have an album selected, the playlist becomes the tracks from that album.
So picking an album to populate the playlist is pretty much just a matter of selecting the album in the media library.
If you'd prefer to use playlists, you can make however many you'd like in the media library, and switch back and forth between them.
It's harder to use advanced robot technology to fling ICBMs at countries you want to "show".
And we all know that NASA has a wonderful sending things to mars record...
Hrm... I actually wouldn't mind having a minidisc player in my car.
Hrm... aren't there third party DSL providers in your area? I mean, they all end up going through Telus at some point, since they own the phone lines, but there are definitely third party providers.
It certainly warrant some action, though most here would argue against it. After all, it does affect every computer on the network, and you and I would hang the kid if the message was spam.
Wait... this guy quite possibly doesn't know there's anything wrong with what he's doing. Why can't a teacher just ask him not to do it? If it's a regular thing at the school and he should reasonably know better, then he should be punished. Otherwise, it's not particularly fair to punish someone before they can reasonably know there's something wrong with what they're doing.
It sounds like it was just the sort of situation where the kid was showing a friend something neat his Dad had shown him at home. If he were being malicious, I'm sure he could have come up with something better than "Hey!"
Having a teacher come up to the kid and, effectively say, "Hey, don't do that, it's disruptive," would probably fix the situation.
I don't even understand why you'd send a note home to allow the parents to discipline him. I mean, this isn't a big deal at all. Things would probably be just fine if you politely explained to the kid that he shouldn't do that on school machines because it's disruptive to others that are trying to work...
Of course, this wouldn't have been a problem to begin with if random users didn't have permission to use net send.
No... your metaphor would work if terrorist threats were currently being fixed by putting World Trade Centers all over the place for them to run into, as that's the way the previous 'elephant' was made to go away.
Hrm... did you mean to say divide, or did you just use the wrong operator? 251M divided by 20 is 12.5M.
Of course, it may be possible that I just misunderstood what you said...
I don't understand how people can not like Dirty Work. There aren't anywhere near enough movies out there with that style of humour.
I agree... people like him who have no control over the idiotic network they use shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a network!!!
I'm pretty sure I didn't mention the American president at all... I'm not completely sure what you're getting at, could you clairify?
I wasn't disagreeing with the fellow's point, I was agreeing with the fact that our Prime Minister was chosen in the legal way and commenting on the people that disagree with that.
I don't believe any disclaimers are required in Canada. The fact that you went on the cite American case law is kind of funny, though, since it has no bearing on anything, either way. You probably did it more out of slashdot habit, than anything.
Either way, the layout of the site isn't playing a part in satire, as far as I can tell. Even looking at the content, only a small portion of it is satirical in any way. None of this content appears to be made stronger, or even affected, by the site layout or graphics. This copying isn't particularly protected by any satire protection in the Copyright Act, as I understand it.
I'd only look at the letter that was posted. The rest of it's hearsay from an obviously incredibly biased source, so it's probably at least distorted in some way.
The letter's complaining that the title is similar to that of the actual website in question, not that the domain contain's Paul Martin's name. The letter is claiming that it is, in fact, the same title, with such a minor change that the change is not important. It's a question of a deceptive title that misrepresents the one site as being the other. This is even more of an issue when combined with the similar or same layout and graphics.
It's neat how you started calling him indirectly elected to add a sense of legitimacy that you could then deny to Paul Martin. The best part was:
So he is really "unelected."
Of course, since, no matter how you word it, nobody is ever elected by the general population as Prime Minister, he is exactly as elected as every other Prime Minister in the past.
I don't particularly like the Liberal Party, especially as a western Canadian, but playing with words to try to take legitimacy out of Paul Martin's appointment to Prime Minister is idiotic. He was appointed in exactly the same way as all the other Prime Ministers, and has the same mandate as was given to the party in the last election.
I also find it idiotic that this example could be taken as muffling of this website owner's voice. Have you even read the article? The actual letter that was sent to him complains about the fact that the domain is obviously meant to draw visitors from mistyping, and the fact that the graphics and layout were stolen from their website. These things aren't being used in any way that seems protected to me, and can quite easily be viewed as attempting to mislead the reader. Either the website owner was too lazy to make his own goddamned layout, or he stole it to mislead people. Either way, he's in the wrong. He sure as hell isn't making any sort of political point using the site layout and graphics. He's placed opposing views inside the layout, but that isn't the same thing at all. He's free to say whatever the hell he wants. He isn't free to mislead his readers, or steal graphics and page layouts unless he's using it in some sort of satirical way.
Going to the articles you cited, one of them claimed that the government would be more right wing because Martin is more authoritative, and then didn't actually provide any policy as examples of the shift to the right. The other article claimed there is a shift to the right, and then gave cited the fact that Martin is paying attention to the military, which is also mentioned to be in accordance with public opinion, and the fact that he's frozen spending on some projects and put the savings into health care. Yep, increased health care spending sure is a sign that the government's heading to the right. It then goes on to talk about how he's supporting the legalization of marijuana.
so he could loose in his rideing and still manage to be Prime Minister
To be the Prime Minister, you first need to be an elected Minister. You have to win your riding and have a seat.
That's how it's supposed to work, but not all Canadians like it or even know about it, which is why some people are calling him "unelected".
Quite seriously, anyone who doesn't know about it is an idiot. I mean, these are things you learn repeatedly in several different grades in school, along with being basic facts that are pointed out all over the place. I, personally, have noticed a total of two people calling him unelected, including this posting. Both of these have been on the internet, and both have been from people that oppose the Liberal Party.
I'm not particularly happy with the Liberals myself, but calling him unelected is stupid. He was elected in his riding and was selected by parliament (read: his party) just like every Prime Minister. I mean, it doesn't even make sense to complain if you don't want the liberals in power, since there's absolutely nobody in a position to oppose them if they were to call an election.
I really don't understand how people could either not understand the way the government works at this basic level, or disagree with a Liberal leadership and want an election right now. If there were to be an election, the conservative parties are currently in the middle of working themselves out and wouldn't be able to put up a fight.
The only reason I can actually come up with for people to call him unelected is that they just like to complain about how they're being oppressed.
What the hell's wrong with complaining about this website? It's at a domain that's easy to end up at when you want the real site, it looks exactly like the actual site, with a tiny disclaimer in the top right and an odd banner ad. It's not making its point by making witty or sarcastic comments or observations of the actual website that they've blatantly copied. Basically, they stole the format for this site, and put in a bunch of content that opposes Paul Martin.
Just because you oppose something, doesn't mean everything you do is satire. On a quick skim of the page, the only thing that actually looks like it would be satire is the blog entries (which aren't particularly funny, but that doesn't really matter so much).
So, the liberal party is rightfully pissed off that someone stole the art and layout of a website. This layout is not being used in a satirical way and doesn't even contain satirical content. I can't see how anyone can deny the fact that they have a damned good point.
You don't understand the basic concepts behind money, do you?
Unless, of course, you're some sort of magical being that is able to give away the original while still retaining it, allowing you to give it away multiple times without having it given back to you.
So, if Saddam didn't have WMD, why would he throw out weapons inspectors and risk being thrown out of power?
Well, the fact that there were foreign spies in the teams that were using it as an opportunity to gather intellegence unrelated to the inspections seemed to be a pretty good reason...
Patrick Roy's a great goalie. We should all worship him.