The whole point is that a game company may not think it is worth localizing to French *just for Quebec* - but if they localize for French-speaking market, this forces the two versions to play on level fields.
Hi, I agree with your logic, but I have to point out something: You don't know what the word "localize" means.
To make matters worse, I don't believe the requirements are nearly as bilingual in the other direction.
No, why would they be? English wasn't the declining language in the 60's. Nobody finds it more convenient to teach their kids French rather than English.
The whole idea behind the laws are that both cultures are intrinsically valuable and worth protecting. Except English culture and language doesn't need protection, it's doing quite fine on it's own
I dunno man, there might be a need for laws dictating the correct spelling of "colour" and other such aspect of language threatened by US hegemony;-)
If the French language is so great, why does it need protection?
because English people are physically incapable of chain smoking, drinking wine, being obnoxiously rude and highly insecure of their culture, all at the same time.
Since you're conflating Parisian stereotypes with American populations, I'll assume that you have bad teeth and you love the Queen with all your heart.
If I were cynical I'd mention that keeping Quebec unilingual would be a nice way to keep the locals voting for single-issue politics and keeping the home boys down on the farm and ignorant of the rest of the world. Again, ain't gonna happen, the damn kids are too curious, good for them!
Yeah! Those damn kids, discovering their MANDATORY ENGLISH LANGUAGE CLASSES in elementary school! The clever little bastards.
That presumes that they can sublimate their urges with the piece of paper. I'm no expert but I've seen precious evidence of that(or the opposing view that seeing the piece of paper makes them more likely to act out). Humans are just too complicated to agree on a reaction to a single stimulus.
the difference between a lazy teenager ignoring what their parents told them and a toddler doing the same thing is that a lazy teenager IS choosing to ignore their parents - there is nothing different going on in their brains, they just don't want to do what they are told.
Boy is your face gonna be red when the study about teenage hormones and their inhibitory effects on the motivational parts of the brain are published...
possession of "virtual" child porn is just as objectionable as a photograph to me. The person responsible for the photograph is still a child molester, but it shouldn't matter how an image was created when defining child porn.
Which child is molested when someone draws a picture from their perverted imagination?
If they draw a picture of someone getting shot, does that make them a murderer?
If they draw a picture of nuclear war, have they committed genocide?
This doesn't negate the fact that the viewer can be harming themselves by seeing it. In the case of virtual child porn, someone is still being hurt in the sense they are satisfying their urge to see children in a sexual manner.
So you'd rather they keep that urge, let it grow and fester until they get the opportunity to act them out in real life!? You sick fuck! I'd MUCH rather have the perverts jerk it off in their dank basement with an inanimate piece of paper so they can control themselves around living, feeling beings.
I don't think *anyone* can be the go-to person for what's obscene. There's no point in trying to regulate things that exist solely in the mind of the beholder. They might as well make it illegal to draw anything except fine art
Who'll be the go-to person for what's fine art?
Re:Sorry, but I have to consider the source
on
UN Attacks Free Speech
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
your "criticism" could very well be "hate speech" in Canada, just if it was ruled to increase the chances that a Christian would be discriminated against or hurt.
In fact, there have been fundamentalist types who have been prosecuted for hate speech for simply posting anti-homosexual selections from the Bible. They'll just make a post like this: "Homosexuals should read Book of Whatever verse whatever which says [homosexuality is an abomination whatever, homosexuals will go to hell]."
Oh fuck off, it says to stone them to death with stones, not just "they will go to hell", but to SEND THEM to hell post haste. There's a huge goddamn difference between "I think they are wrong about the existence of souls" and "I urge everyone to throw rocks at them until they die"!
One of them is illegal because it incites violence, the other is not because it doesn't.
The UN Human Rights Committe is a joke. It's not taken seriously anywhere because it's just used by flagrant human rights abusers as a "bash Israel" platform.
Seriously, this isn't a troll, even if you disagree with me. But when is the last time the UN did a thing for the US? We get resolutions of "Give money to undeveloped countries" and "Sure, go to war, but we're not gonna do shiat"...when is the last time they actually did something positive for the US?
An organization that has devolved into "the rich countries should give aid to the poor countries", has stopped being useful to anyone but the leeches. Seriously, can anyone tell me what the UN has done for the US lately, and is there a real reputation hit we'd take from leaving it (as opposed to what we do now, which is to largely ignore it)?
I disagree with your ignorance. The UN does a lot of things, you could wander on over to http://www.un.org/english/ and learn about a few of them instead of complaining that the rich countries "give" to the poor countries, which if you weren't so ignorant, you'd more accurately call "loan".
Re:Sorry, but I have to consider the source
on
UN Attacks Free Speech
·
· Score: 4, Informative
What part of the UN proposal does Ottawa object to?
Ottawa's representative told the body. "Canada believes that to extend (the notion of) defamation beyond its proper scope would jeopardize the fundamental right to freedom of expression, which includes freedom of expression on religious subjects."
In Canada, advocating genocide or inciting hatred against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offense under the Criminal Code of Canada with maximum terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.' It makes exceptions for cases of statements of truth, and subjects of public debate and religious doctrine.
Non-experts who disagree with experts are a dime a dozen in any field, but for some reason, global warming seems to be the only field where they make headlines.
There's biology, disagreeing laymen get a LOT of press on that. And epidemiology.
Come on, what next Vermont only allowing black cars so the climate systems don't have to work as hard in winter?
If they do it will be for the same conditions as in California, because "colored" cars are just as cold in the DARK of winter's bitter cold. Even during the few meager hours of possible sunlight (clouds are so much grayer in the winter), you can't even feel the sun's heat on your face on the days where you'd have to burn extra gas to heat the car (and BTW, the heat going in the car is the heat normally vented out as waste, not extra energy expended, but people do leave the car running to get it to warm up when it's extremely cold).
When a political idea goes from a narrow focus to providing mandatory advice with regards to every single political decision an individual or society makes it becomes an ideology.
I think we are now at that point with Global Warming.
Next up - should you walk on the cracks in the sidewalk? What would a believer in Global Warming advise?
Reducing car emissions in California has been an older and more pressing issue than climate change for a long time.
"Global Warming" is now obsolete terminology, btw.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to mention the inevitable seepage of Anglicisms/memes into Quebec French culture
In quebec, people say "magasiner", in France they say "shopping".
Review your assumptions. Anglicism seepage is not limited to one continent.
I've been told that the France French consider the Quebec French dialect to be "crude" and "yokel-like".
Do you speak the Queen's English, or do you sound "crude" and "yokel-like" to natives of the old country?
The whole point is that a game company may not think it is worth localizing to French *just for Quebec* - but if they localize for French-speaking market, this forces the two versions to play on level fields.
Hi, I agree with your logic, but I have to point out something: You don't know what the word "localize" means.
To make matters worse, I don't believe the requirements are nearly as bilingual in the other direction.
No, why would they be? English wasn't the declining language in the 60's. Nobody finds it more convenient to teach their kids French rather than English.
The whole idea behind the laws are that both cultures are intrinsically valuable and worth protecting. Except English culture and language doesn't need protection, it's doing quite fine on it's own
I dunno man, there might be a need for laws dictating the correct spelling of "colour" and other such aspect of language threatened by US hegemony ;-)
If the French language is so great, why does it need protection?
because English people are physically incapable of chain smoking, drinking wine, being obnoxiously rude and highly insecure of their culture, all at the same time.
Since you're conflating Parisian stereotypes with American populations, I'll assume that you have bad teeth and you love the Queen with all your heart.
If I were cynical I'd mention that keeping Quebec unilingual would be a nice way to keep the locals voting for single-issue politics and keeping the home boys down on the farm and ignorant of the rest of the world. Again, ain't gonna happen, the damn kids are too curious, good for them!
Yeah! Those damn kids, discovering their MANDATORY ENGLISH LANGUAGE CLASSES in elementary school! The clever little bastards.
I wouldn't put this past the Quebecois.
You wouldn't put it past them to make a law stating that products sold in their province be in the language of the province?
No, neither would I.
As a Canadian, I would like to make it very, very clear that
You are a bigot. That was made very clear. You may now resume your hatred of "the other".
The fact that I can't do simply things like watch a video in a VIDEO PLAYER is prof that VLC needs a GUI re-write.
The fact that you can't do simple things is actually proof that you suck at using a computer.
That presumes that they can sublimate their urges with the piece of paper. I'm no expert but I've seen precious evidence of that(or the opposing view that seeing the piece of paper makes them more likely to act out). Humans are just too complicated to agree on a reaction to a single stimulus.
http://www.impactlab.com/2008/01/06/internet-porn-shown-to-decrease-incidence-of-rape/
the difference between a lazy teenager ignoring what their parents told them and a toddler doing the same thing is that a lazy teenager IS choosing to ignore their parents - there is nothing different going on in their brains, they just don't want to do what they are told.
Boy is your face gonna be red when the study about teenage hormones and their inhibitory effects on the motivational parts of the brain are published...
possession of "virtual" child porn is just as objectionable as a photograph to me. The person responsible for the photograph is still a child molester, but it shouldn't matter how an image was created when defining child porn.
Which child is molested when someone draws a picture from their perverted imagination?
If they draw a picture of someone getting shot, does that make them a murderer?
If they draw a picture of nuclear war, have they committed genocide?
This doesn't negate the fact that the viewer can be harming themselves by seeing it. In the case of virtual child porn, someone is still being hurt in the sense they are satisfying their urge to see children in a sexual manner.
So you'd rather they keep that urge, let it grow and fester until they get the opportunity to act them out in real life!? You sick fuck! I'd MUCH rather have the perverts jerk it off in their dank basement with an inanimate piece of paper so they can control themselves around living, feeling beings.
I don't think *anyone* can be the go-to person for what's obscene. There's no point in trying to regulate things that exist solely in the mind of the beholder. They might as well make it illegal to draw anything except fine art
Who'll be the go-to person for what's fine art?
your "criticism" could very well be "hate speech" in Canada, just if it was ruled to increase the chances that a Christian would be discriminated against or hurt.
In fact, there have been fundamentalist types who have been prosecuted for hate speech for simply posting anti-homosexual selections from the Bible. They'll just make a post like this: "Homosexuals should read Book of Whatever verse whatever which says [homosexuality is an abomination whatever, homosexuals will go to hell]."
Oh fuck off, it says to stone them to death with stones, not just "they will go to hell", but to SEND THEM to hell post haste.
There's a huge goddamn difference between "I think they are wrong about the existence of souls" and "I urge everyone to throw rocks at them until they die"!
One of them is illegal because it incites violence, the other is not because it doesn't.
Quick ! We must create a counter resolution that outlaws theocracies! - It is the only solution i can think off.
Oh, the Vatican is not gonna like this!
A law outlawing free speech would crash and burn in the US.
Good troll though. =D
Really? Have you ever tried moving communist literature through the southern states?
The UN Human Rights Committe is a joke. It's not taken seriously anywhere because it's just used by flagrant human rights abusers as a "bash Israel" platform.
What does the situation in the Congo have to do with bashing Israel?
What do reports on the situation in Uruguay have to do with bashing Israel?
Why is it that stupid comments are guaranteed to get moderated "insightful" if they bash the UN?
Seriously, this isn't a troll, even if you disagree with me. But when is the last time the UN did a thing for the US? We get resolutions of "Give money to undeveloped countries" and "Sure, go to war, but we're not gonna do shiat"...when is the last time they actually did something positive for the US?
An organization that has devolved into "the rich countries should give aid to the poor countries", has stopped being useful to anyone but the leeches. Seriously, can anyone tell me what the UN has done for the US lately, and is there a real reputation hit we'd take from leaving it (as opposed to what we do now, which is to largely ignore it)?
I disagree with your ignorance. The UN does a lot of things, you could wander on over to http://www.un.org/english/ and learn about a few of them instead of complaining that the rich countries "give" to the poor countries, which if you weren't so ignorant, you'd more accurately call "loan".
What part of the UN proposal does Ottawa object to?
Ottawa's representative told the body. "Canada believes that to extend (the notion of) defamation beyond its proper scope would jeopardize the fundamental right to freedom of expression, which includes freedom of expression on religious subjects."
In Canada, advocating genocide or inciting hatred against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offense under the Criminal Code of Canada with maximum terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.' It makes exceptions for cases of statements of truth, and subjects of public debate and religious doctrine.
A rigid wing would be lethal in a harbor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbosail
The Cousteau folks seem to have survived it.
Non-experts who disagree with experts are a dime a dozen in any field, but for some reason, global warming seems to be the only field where they make headlines.
There's biology, disagreeing laymen get a LOT of press on that. And epidemiology.
The term has a specific meaning. You're not using it correctly.
I am, you are the one mistaken.
Come on, what next Vermont only allowing black cars so the climate systems don't have to work as hard in winter?
If they do it will be for the same conditions as in California, because "colored" cars are just as cold in the DARK of winter's bitter cold.
Even during the few meager hours of possible sunlight (clouds are so much grayer in the winter), you can't even feel the sun's heat on your face on the days where you'd have to burn extra gas to heat the car (and BTW, the heat going in the car is the heat normally vented out as waste, not extra energy expended, but people do leave the car running to get it to warm up when it's extremely cold).
When a political idea goes from a narrow focus to providing mandatory advice with regards to every single political decision an individual or society makes it becomes an ideology.
I think we are now at that point with Global Warming.
Next up - should you walk on the cracks in the sidewalk? What would a believer in Global Warming advise?
Reducing car emissions in California has been an older and more pressing issue than climate change for a long time.
"Global Warming" is now obsolete terminology, btw.
Racism? LOL! :D Thank you /.