How is the sale of a Canadian company to US interests ever a net benefit for Canada?
Why exactly should it have to be a net benefit for anyone except McDonald, Dettwiler, and their associates (i.e. whoever the owners of the company may happen to be)?
Because there was a net cost to others to build that company (i.e. the government and taxpayers who subsidized the business for years).
What right exactly does the government have to stop a sale like that? The right to preserve national security interests.
Is "ownership" one of those American concepts like "free speech" that the Canadians don't care for these days? This is the Bush era, free speech and other rights are as strong as the dollar. How much is that USD worth by now? A buck-o-five, Canadian?
even a part of Canada's national identity (Tim Hortons), that have been sold off to make a penny. It was a marketing plow to make a penny in the first place that made that franchise a part of your national identity, you consumer whore.
They played on the hockey rivalry to market fatty snacks and addictive coffee. Hockey, yes that's a typically Canadian activity, but a brand is just a brand.
This sounds like some kind of serious hogwash to me. The laws applying to Internet sales should be no different than those which apply to catalog sales. They should, yet people fear the internet because pedos use it while not fearing the postal system they also use.
I'm afraid rational reactions don't apply to the internet.
This is why, e.g. oil companies collect patents on solar power [snip] Not so that they alone can make money off of solar power once the oil runs out? By then the patents will be expired. By then their lobbying will have effectively made their patents eternal. Just ask Disney when Mickey will be public domain.
There is also no scientific theory for the origin of the universe prior to the big bang. Stop arguing from ignorance!
PrincetonUniversity
April 25, 2002 New Theory Provides Alternative to Big Bang
A new theory of the universe suggests that space and time may not have begun in a big bang, but may have always existed in an endless cycle of expansion and rebirth.
Princeton physicist Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok of Cambridge University described their proposed theory in an article published April 25 in an online edition of Science.
The theory proposes that, in each cycle, the universe refills with hot, dense matter and radiation, which begins a period of expansion and cooling like the one of the standard big bang picture. After 14 billion years, the expansion of the universe accelerates, as astronomers have recently observed. After trillions of years, the matter and radiation are almost completely dissipated and the expansion stalls. An energy field that pervades the universe then creates new matter and radiation, which restarts the cycle.
The new theory provides possible answers to several longstanding problems with the big bang model, which has dominated the field of cosmology for decades. It addresses, for example, the nagging question of what might have triggered or come "before" the beginning of time.
there's certainly no way to prove that there's not a god, so aren't they also believing in something independent of scientific proof? Take the claims of the gods, and test them.
The gods claim that X will happen if Y, do Y, see if X happens. Rinse, repeat.
There is also no way to disprove that the universe was created by a tea pot orbiting Venus. Sure there is. You point your big, large telescope (maybe Hubble, if you can get some time on that precious instrument... especially when you are going to point it so near the sun) in the neighborhood of Venus, and if you don't find a tea pot orbiting Venus, then the universe was not created by a tea pot orbiting Venus. The Teapot can make itself invisible, you heathen infidel fool! Trust in the teapot or be boiled forever in an eternity of agony!
there is a universe that we live in, and so far no solid (i.e. testable) scientific theory for its origin. [...] it's certainly possible that something existing outside of our concept of space and time created the universe. Please give us your solid (i.e. testable) scientific theory for the origin of that "something".
he honestly believes that people have deluded themselves into believing in god/gods, and that their delusions are far from being harmless to the rest of the world. Whether or not you believe that theists are deluded, it's impossible to argue with the second half of that point, namely that religious belief has a negative impact on civilisation. It's not impossible, all you have to do is be deluded. They'll say that the horrors of the 20th century were worse than any horrors of the past, and they'll say they were driven by atheists.
They'll conveniently ignore that Hitler was a Catholic and that Nazis had "gott mit uns" on their belt buckles, and they'll ignore the fact that the communist totalitarian regimes, far from being free of religion, enforced a cult of personality of their great leaders, deifying them shamelessly. And they'll ignore the fact that the reason the number of deaths was greater in the 20th century wars were better weapons and more population density to cull from, but they're really good at cherry picking facts.
Nothing is impossible to argue for those who replace facts with faith.
Suppose an old guy with a beard approached you on the street and claimed to be Zeus. Would you believe him? What if he said he could call down a lightning strike, and then did it to demonstrate it. Would you then believe it was Zeus? Obviously not: He's Thor!
Now, if some kind of, I dunno, lemur came along and sexed up my girlfriend? That sounds like Zeus.
Hey if God was proven to be real one day, I think every major religion would be shattered, not just Atheists.
All those religions. Not all of them can be right. By proving that God exists you destroy hundreds of faiths overnight. Yes, but they are all silly fairy tales... except his.
That reminds me of these passages from the Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins (taken from www.anointed-one.net) Quote mining is the practice of compiling frequently misleading quotes from large volumes of literature or speech. For example, if a person being quoted disagrees with some position, a quote miner will present quotes that suggest that instead, this person is supportive of this position.
Oh the horror, the evil illuminati and the tri-lateral commission are going to take away Fair Use all over the world! This is all America's Fault!!
Oh wait... just one tiny little problem with the usual Slashdot conspiracy theory. There is exactly 1 country in the world that has fair use: The US. In the history of the world there has been exactly 1 country that has EVER recognized fair use: The US. No country except for the US has ever recognized fair use as a legal theory. In some common-law countries like the UK and Australia there is a parallel concept of "fair dealing", but it tends to be given a much narrower interpretation than the broad equitable doctrine of Fair Use that is employed in the US. When it comes to common law countries like those in the EU, there are enumerated lists of exceptions from copyright protection that are extremely strict and inflexible compared to Fair Use rights. This is how it has been for well over 100 years, but it's fun to see Slashdot promote FUD and ignorance instead of any type of rational discussion (again). In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
1. The Purpose of the Dealing Is it for research, private study, criticism, review or news reporting? It expresses that "these allowable purposes should not be given a restrictive interpretation or this could result in the undue restriction of users' rights."
2. The Character of the Dealing How were the works dealt with? Was there a single copy or were multiple copies made? Were these copies distributed widely or to a limited group of people? Was the copy destroyed after its purpose was accomplished? What are the normal practices of the industry?
3. The Amount of the Dealing How much of the work was used? What was the importance of the infringed work? Quoting trivial amounts may alone sufficiently establish fair dealing. In some cases even quoting the entire work may be fair dealing.
4. Alternatives to the Dealing Was a "non-copyrighted equivalent of the work" available to the user? Could the work have been properly criticized without being copied?
5. The Nature of the Work Copying from a work that has never been published could be more fair than from a published work "in that its reproduction with acknowledgement could lead to a wider public dissemination of the work - one of the goals of copyright law. If, however, the work in question was confidential, this may tip the scales towards finding that the dealing was unfair."
6. Effect of the Dealing on the Work Is it likely to affect the market of the original work? "Although the effect of the dealing on the market of the copyright owner is an important factor, it is neither the only factor nor the most important factor that a court must consider in deciding if the dealing is fair." A statement that a dealing infringes may not be sufficient, but evidence will often be required.
"These factors may be more or less relevant to assessing the fairness of a dealing depending on the factual context of the allegedly infringing dealing. In some contexts, there may be factors other than those listed here that may help a court decide whether the dealing was fair."
So now any post using sarcasm is flamebait? We're all in trouble. I've had some nutjob arguing with me recently that a post that gets flamed is flamebait, even if there was no intention to inflame. Apparently, anything that can be construed as controversial and hence flamed is to be modded down to that fool.
What's wrong with "borrow to"? Those verbs have never had a strong fixed meaning in Germanic languages. In German they are somewhat interchangeable in certain circumstances. Same with "bring" and "take". The only ignorance is on the part of the grammar freaks who think they actually know anything about how language works. You sure learned him! You learned him good!
Maybe laws written for the sake of the governed should be written in a language they understand. Laws are written by lawyers so that only lawyers will understand them, that way you'll have to keep giving them money, forever.
Now, know your place, and stop questioning your betters:-|
will wring a rabbit's neck or shoot a person if the situation demands.
One special forces person I knew a while ago shot up some real people, laid some landmines then later that day rolled his car swerving to miss a small animal on the road.
The internet tough guy brigade is lucky to have you. Can you benchpress a car? Or is that your special forces buddies who roll cars for bunnies with the superhuman strength?
One special forces person I knew a while ago shot up some real people, laid some landmines then later that day rolled his car swerving to miss a small animal on the road. Funny, there isn't a cow around for miles, but I smell bullshit.
One special forces person I knew a while ago shot up some real people, laid some landmines then later that day rolled his car swerving to miss a small animal on the road. Funny, there isn't a cow around for miles, but I smell bullshit.
Slashdot Mirror
Because there was a net cost to others to build that company (i.e. the government and taxpayers who subsidized the business for years). What right exactly does the government have to stop a sale like that? The right to preserve national security interests. Is "ownership" one of those American concepts like "free speech" that the Canadians don't care for these days? This is the Bush era, free speech and other rights are as strong as the dollar. How much is that USD worth by now? A buck-o-five, Canadian?Why exactly should it have to be a net benefit for anyone except McDonald, Dettwiler, and their associates (i.e. whoever the owners of the company may happen to be)?
They played on the hockey rivalry to market fatty snacks and addictive coffee. Hockey, yes that's a typically Canadian activity, but a brand is just a brand.
Damnit, why didn't you guys try this hard to keep Celine Dion, too?
Oh, wait, I know why...
She's back in Canada.Didn't you see? It was on all the channels. For weeks!
Oh wait... you lucky bastich.
I'm afraid rational reactions don't apply to the internet.
Just ask Disney when Mickey will be public domain.
And you provided the facts back up there, I don't need to mention them again.
Stop arguing from ignorance!
PrincetonUniversity
April 25, 2002
New Theory Provides Alternative to Big Bang
A new theory of the universe suggests that space and time may not have begun in a big bang, but may have always existed in an endless cycle of expansion and rebirth.
Princeton physicist Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok of Cambridge University described their proposed theory in an article published April 25 in an online edition of Science.
The theory proposes that, in each cycle, the universe refills with hot, dense matter and radiation, which begins a period of expansion and cooling like the one of the standard big bang picture. After 14 billion years, the expansion of the universe accelerates, as astronomers have recently observed. After trillions of years, the matter and radiation are almost completely dissipated and the expansion stalls. An energy field that pervades the universe then creates new matter and radiation, which restarts the cycle.
The new theory provides possible answers to several longstanding problems with the big bang model, which has dominated the field of cosmology for decades. It addresses, for example, the nagging question of what might have triggered or come "before" the beginning of time.
The gods claim that X will happen if Y, do Y, see if X happens. Rinse, repeat.
They'll say that the horrors of the 20th century were worse than any horrors of the past, and they'll say they were driven by atheists.
They'll conveniently ignore that Hitler was a Catholic and that Nazis had "gott mit uns" on their belt buckles, and they'll ignore the fact that the communist totalitarian regimes, far from being free of religion, enforced a cult of personality of their great leaders, deifying them shamelessly.
And they'll ignore the fact that the reason the number of deaths was greater in the 20th century wars were better weapons and more population density to cull from, but they're really good at cherry picking facts.
Nothing is impossible to argue for those who replace facts with faith.
Now, if some kind of, I dunno, lemur came along and sexed up my girlfriend? That sounds like Zeus.
All those religions. Not all of them can be right.
By proving that God exists you destroy hundreds of faiths overnight. Yes, but they are all silly fairy tales... except his.
For example, if a person being quoted disagrees with some position, a quote miner will present quotes that suggest that instead, this person is supportive of this position.
Oh wait... just one tiny little problem with the usual Slashdot conspiracy theory. There is exactly 1 country in the world that has fair use: The US. In the history of the world there has been exactly 1 country that has EVER recognized fair use: The US. No country except for the US has ever recognized fair use as a legal theory. In some common-law countries like the UK and Australia there is a parallel concept of "fair dealing", but it tends to be given a much narrower interpretation than the broad equitable doctrine of Fair Use that is employed in the US. When it comes to common law countries like those in the EU, there are enumerated lists of exceptions from copyright protection that are extremely strict and inflexible compared to Fair Use rights. This is how it has been for well over 100 years, but it's fun to see Slashdot promote FUD and ignorance instead of any type of rational discussion (again). In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
VS
six principal criteria for evaluating fair dealing.
1. The Purpose of the Dealing Is it for research, private study, criticism, review or news reporting? It expresses that "these allowable purposes should not be given a restrictive interpretation or this could result in the undue restriction of users' rights."
2. The Character of the Dealing How were the works dealt with? Was there a single copy or were multiple copies made? Were these copies distributed widely or to a limited group of people? Was the copy destroyed after its purpose was accomplished? What are the normal practices of the industry?
3. The Amount of the Dealing How much of the work was used? What was the importance of the infringed work? Quoting trivial amounts may alone sufficiently establish fair dealing. In some cases even quoting the entire work may be fair dealing.
4. Alternatives to the Dealing Was a "non-copyrighted equivalent of the work" available to the user? Could the work have been properly criticized without being copied?
5. The Nature of the Work Copying from a work that has never been published could be more fair than from a published work "in that its reproduction with acknowledgement could lead to a wider public dissemination of the work - one of the goals of copyright law. If, however, the work in question was confidential, this may tip the scales towards finding that the dealing was unfair."
6. Effect of the Dealing on the Work Is it likely to affect the market of the original work? "Although the effect of the dealing on the market of the copyright owner is an important factor, it is neither the only factor nor the most important factor that a court must consider in deciding if the dealing is fair." A statement that a dealing infringes may not be sufficient, but evidence will often be required.
"These factors may be more or less relevant to assessing the fairness of a dealing depending on the factual context of the allegedly infringing dealing. In some contexts, there may be factors other than those listed here that may help a court decide whether the dealing was fair."
And the fools are legion.
Now, know your place, and stop questioning your betters
One special forces person I knew a while ago shot up some real people, laid some landmines then later that day rolled his car swerving to miss a small animal on the road.
The internet tough guy brigade is lucky to have you.Can you benchpress a car? Or is that your special forces buddies who roll cars for bunnies with the superhuman strength?
You are not a chess player, my friend.
?