Exactly, and comments about it being a mere -10C average during Canadian winters misses the point. Average does not mean all that time, and that one -40C day is all it takes to freeze everything including your pipes...
Simply opening a window is obviously not an option. However some heat pump system that takes advantage of the naturally cold weather during the winter in a controlled fashion might an option.
I cannot believe this got moderated up. Perhaps the moderator and the poster are from Southern California or Florida where in the depths of January opening the window means a mere 2 - 10 Deg C difference between outside and inside.
However in Canada, where the mercury regularly drops to -30 to -40 C (-40 C = -40 F) in January you cannot just "open a window". Not unless you want everything to freeze.
These guys want to "cool" the room, not turn it into a flash freeze meat locker.
I understand though, if you have never experienced a Canadian winter then you would not know that opening a window when it is -40 C outside with a -60 C windchill is simply impossible. It will almost certainly result in burst water pipes and worse. Hell, I have had my pipes burst when the windows are closed.
That is why the guys who asked the question specifically said they cannot open the window. This is not because they are being stubborn, it is simply impossible.
If you do not believe me please feel free to visit Saskatoon, Winnipeg or Edmonton sometime around January 15th and take a deep breath, if you can. Most winter mornings around that time of year will literally take your breath away.
Let me tell you there is nothing like getting up in the morning to the man on the radio telling you that today will be much warmer than the last day since today exposed skin will take all of 60 seconds to freeze, up from 30 the day before.
You cannot directly compare Japanese Cell phones to North American or European Cell phones. Japanese cell phones are smaller because they can be, no because their technology is vastly superior.
The fact is Japanese cell phones can be smaller because their Cell grid is a lot more dense than in North America.
Think about it this way, in Japan almost all the population lives in a small belt of land near the ocean. In North America by comparison people are spread out over vast distances. Cell coverage obviously is going to be substantially different.
You just do not need the tranmitting power in Japan you need in North America. Thus you can make smaller more compact phones.
Ok, I think the courts have to step back and think about one of the main issues in law. How reasonable is this. Is it reasonable to expect that if you put your content on the web that it will be copied/duplicated/transfered and modified by any number of people who you may or may not have given specific permission to do so. I think it is. If you do not like it, do not put your content on the web in the first place.
To give an example of this. It is illegal for me to target a person on the street, run over to them and body check them into a wall with all of my 240lbs. If I did that I would correctly be charged with assault. However put some skates on me, put me on a ice rink and give me a hockey stick and (aside from some extreme examples) I can pummel my opponents into submission all I want, and they are welcome to return the favour. This is not only true in hockey, but all contact sports, Football, Boxing etc. It is reasonable to expect to be body checked in a full contact hockey game in which you are a participant with no legal liability on the body checker to the body checkie.
What we need a kind of reasonableness standard applied to copyright on the Internet.
Basically the Internet is one big computer network. Computers networks are designed for the sole purpose of sharing information easily between the hosts connected to it. Thus it is reasonable, I am sure, to everyone here to expect any information you put on a computer network like the Internet will get viewed, copied and archived, this is the nature of computer networks.
. As an aside, this argument assumes no mechanism to keep the info private has been setup. ie password authentication of a web site. I believe in that case we would have an exception in that it is reasonable to expect that if I lock my web site you will not try to break into it. Again the most important thing to focus on is what is "reasonable".
Why then, if this is how the Internet works, do we allow companies to cry bloody murder when they put their content online and then get it copied?
What we should be telling them is that if you do not like the way the web game is played, do not play it. Put your content on a CD and sell that, or sell books with your pictures printed in them or any other mechanism for getting your precious images to your customers. However do not come crying to the courts every time someone makes a copy of your stuff if you put it on the public web. There are accepted rules to this web game, and one of them is that any content that you put online and do not protect with passwords etc...will get indexed, copied and archived.
In meat space what google and ditto.com do might seem unreasonable, but on the Internet it is part of the game. I think we can agree on that. My IANAL suggestion for the defense would be to call up a long line of distinguished people to back this type of reasonableness argument up in court.
IMHO What Google and Ditto are doing is reasonable behaviour on the Web.
Also the idea that ditto.com is like Napster is disengenous at best. The record labels did not choose to put their content online, their customers did, the plaintiff in this case decided to use the web. In doing so the plaintiff, whether or not they realized it, agreed to the rules of the web. Rules that are reasonable in the context of the web. IMHO it is too late for them to start crying now, they should have though of that before they went online.
However the appeals court will probably agree with the plaintiff and yet another straw will be put on the camels back of free information exchange on the Internet.
Could someone stop the world? I want to get off...
You Crazy Americans and your Unique Identifiers
on
A Number For Everything
·
· Score: 2, Informative
You do realize that not all modern democratic nations require that all of its citizens be identified by a unique number? In fact there are many that would argue that a free and democratic society must not force such a system on its citizens.
Americans seem to have grown so used to having "unique" number stamped onto your arm at birth that you assume that it is necessary. Then you wonder why all of you can have your indentities stolen by anyone with $5 and an internet account.
In Canada for instance everyone over 12 has a SIN or social insurance number issued to them. However the use of the SIN as part of an identification system is severely restricted. Further the number itself is not considered unique. In fact it is possible, even in a relatively small group(say 10,000 people) for this number to collide.
No company can require you to provide your SIN for any purpose, including credit card companies or apartment rental companies etc. Nor can they use it to uniquely identify you.
There are a few specific exceptions.
Basically the only purposes for which you must provide your SIN is where the recipient has responsibilities to Canada Customs and Revenue Agency(CCRA), Canada's IRS. For example your employer or other agent for which you will have income. For example an investment bank where interest income will be returned will require a SIN to report income to the CCRA. In this case the number must be only used for this purpose, not for indentification (ie not as a unique key) and must be destroyed upon termination of your relationship (ie you move to a new job).
Even the CCRA does not use your SIN as an standalone identifier. You see the CCRA has learned that in a database you can use multiple DB columns to create a unique id. So in fact your identity is determined by multiple values.
So in Canada you get the benefits of being able to identify someone for tax purposes without all of the danger and flaws in a single "unique" number. A number which even in the US is aparently not all that unique if you read some of the posts.
Now the US government wants to issue a unique number for phone, e-mail and fax?
Just wanted to post to this discussion regarding the impending
involvement of the Canadian government in providing guaranteed
broadband access to all Canadians. I just want to submit a post that I
hope will help address some of the comments made by some of the US
posters and hopefully provide some insight into Canada and why the
Canadian government plans to do this.
First of all, Canada is not the
US. While that might sound inflammatory it is in fact the truth. I am
not suggesting Canada is better, worse or otherwise, merely that it is
different.
In Canada we have approximately 30 million people. This is
about the same population as the state of California.
That means we have approx. 30 million people spread unevenly
across a massive amount of land area. This is an important fact as it
underscores why in Canada it is often the case that the government
needs to act in this way. To make sure the people in Iqaluit get the
same access to the wonders of the modern world as those in Toronto.
If this was left up to private companies it simply would not get
done. I am not attacking private companies or capitalism. I am
completely a free market proponent and believe in the efficiency of
the market place. However as a Canadian I know that despite my
personal leanings there is a point at which private companies can not
or will not make the right choice for Canadians, all Canadians.
In some cases the special requirements of Canada require special
intervention by the government. There is not some big ideological
purpose at work here, merely the fact that Canada, due to population
density has developed a different role for government in creating
infrastructure.
This project comes as no suprise to Canadians and is part of a
long tradition of successful government involvement in projects of
this nature.
Trans-Continental Railway: without which there would be
no Canada at all as it was a requirment for British columbia to enter
confederation.
TransCanada Highway: A 7800km(approx 4900mile)
stretch of road that goes from the tip of Newfoundland in St. John's
to Victoria on Vancouver Island in British Columbia.
Telephone System: All telephone companies in Canada are or were run by provinial
"crown" corporations. These private corporations were run by non
government employees and often chaired by government appointees. The
government was also the major, or primary stock holder. Their goal was
to provide self sustaining access for all Canadians to quality
telecommunications. In the early to mid 90's these companies for the
most part were privatized, but not before they gave Canada a
telecommunication system second to none. I remember having my cable
modem installed in Saskatoon Saskatchewan while I was going to school
in 1996, and DSL was available even earlier. Actually DSL was original
intended to provide TV and movies over Twisted Pair. That was an utter
failure by the end of 1995, but soon Sasktel caught on that they could
actually make money providing access to this new fangled Internet.:)
Countless other crown corporations and utilities were created, run and
then deregulated by the government. Some were to provide
infrastructure, others to create new industries (eg. Potash
Corporation of Saskatchewan). So when the Canadian government says we
are gonna spend $4.5 billion to provide broadband internet access to
Iqaluit Canadians for the most part say ok, regardless of political
affiliation.
We know that as a nation this is the only way that all Canadians
can get access to the same services. Yes it costs money, both private
and public, and yes it requires government intervention. No it is
perhaps not 100% capitalist in its efficiency, however the fact is as
Canadians we accept that this type of government involvement is
necessary to make life work here. If we did not do things this way we
would have 1 or 2 modern cities and the rest of the country would
still be in the 19th Century.
So please take into consideration when trying to place idealogical
motives on this latest in a long line of Canadian government sponsored
projects. We do it this way because that is how we make things work
here.
All things considered I think we do a pretty darn good job of
keeping our country always near the top in terms of technology,
standards of living and education. We cannot be doing things too
terribly wrong, even if we do things a little bit different from our
neighbors to the south.
So I think I will go play some online games
with my friend in the Yukon. She happens to have cable modem too, just
like I do in Calgary, one of our most prosperous cities. Hmm it seems
like we are not far off that universal broadband access as it stands
thanks to government regulation of the cable industry.:)
Just wanted to post to this discussion regarding the impending involvement of the Canadian government in providing guaranteed broadband access to all Canadians.
I just want to submit a post that I hope will help address some of the comments made by some of the US posters and hopefully provide some insight into Canada and why the Canadian government plans to do this.
First of all, Canada is not the US. While that might sound inflammatory it is in fact the truth. I am not suggesting Canada is better, worse or otherwise, merely that it is different.
In Canada we have approximately 30 million people. This is about the same population as the state of California.
Canada is the second largest country in the world in terms of land mass. Slightly larger than the US. Total size 9,976,140 sq km . From the CIA factbook
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ ca.html
That means we have approx. 30 million people spread unevenly across a massive amount of land area.
This is an important fact as it underscores why in Canada it is often the case that the government needs to act in this way. To make sure the people in Iqaluit get the same access to the wonders of the modern world as those in Toronto. If this was left up to private companies it simply would not get done. I am not attacking private companies or capitalism. I am completely a free market proponent and believe in the efficiency of the market place. However as a Canadian I know that despite my personal leanings there is a point at which private companies can not or will not make the right choice for Canadians, all Canadians.
In some cases special requirements of Canada require special intervention by the government. There is not some big ideological purpose at work here, merely the fact that Canada, due to population density has developed a different role for government in creating infrastructure.
This project comes as no suprise to Canadians and is part of a long tradition of successful government involvement in projects of this nature.
- Trans-Continental Railway: without which there would be no Canada at all as it was a requirment for British columbia to enter confederation.
- TransCanada Highway: A 7800km(approx 4900mile) stretch of road that goes from the tip of Newfoundland in St. John's to Victoria on Vancouver Island in British Columbia.
- Telephone System: All telephone companies in Canada are or were run by provinial "crown" corporations. These private corporations were run by non government employees and often chaired by government appointees. The government was also the major, or primary stock holder. Their goal was to provide self sustaining access for all Canadians to quality telecommunications. In the early to mid 90's these companies for the most part were privatized, but not before they gave Canada a telecommunication system second to none. I remember having my cable modem installed in Saskatoon Saskatchewan while I was going to school in 1996, and DSL was available even earlier. Actually DSL was original intended to provide TV and movies over Twisted Pair. That was an utter failure by the end of 1995, but soon Sasktel caught on that they could actually make money providing access to this new fangled Internet.:)
Countless other crown corporations and utilities were created, run and then deregulated by the government. Some were to provide infrastructure, others to create new industries (eg. Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan).
So when the Canadian government says we are gonna spend $4.5 billion to provide broadband internet access to Iqaluit Canadians for the most part say ok, regardless of political affiliation.
We know that as a nation this is the only way that all Canadians can get access to the same services. Yes it costs money, both private and public, and yes it requires government intervention. No it is perhaps not 100% capitalist in its efficiency, however the fact is as Canadians we accept that this type of government involvement is necessary to make life work here. If we did not do things this way we would have 1 or 2 modern cities and the rest of the country would still be in the 19th Century.
So please take into consideration when trying to place idealogical motives on this latest in a long line of Canadian government sponsored projects. We do it this way because that is how we make things work here.
All things considered I think we do a pretty darn good job of keeping our country always near the top in terms of technology, standards of living and education. We cannot be doing things too terribly wrong, even if we do things a little bit different from our neighbors to the south.
So I think I will go play some online games with my friend in the Yukon. She happens to have cable modem too, just like I do in Calgary, one of our most prosperous cities. Hmm it seems like we are not far off that universal broadband access as it stands thanks to government regulation of the cable industry.:)
Cheers.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly, and comments about it being a mere -10C average during Canadian winters misses the point. Average does not mean all that time, and that one -40C day is all it takes to freeze everything including your pipes...
Simply opening a window is obviously not an option. However some heat pump system that takes advantage of the naturally cold weather during the winter in a controlled fashion might an option.
I cannot believe this got moderated up. Perhaps the moderator and the poster are from Southern California or Florida where in the depths of January opening the window means a mere 2 - 10 Deg C difference between outside and inside.
:)
However in Canada, where the mercury regularly drops to -30 to -40 C (-40 C = -40 F) in January you cannot just "open a window". Not unless you want everything to freeze.
These guys want to "cool" the room, not turn it into a flash freeze meat locker.
I understand though, if you have never experienced a Canadian winter then you would not know that opening a window when it is -40 C outside with a -60 C windchill is simply impossible. It will almost certainly result in burst water pipes and worse. Hell, I have had my pipes burst when the windows are closed.
That is why the guys who asked the question specifically said they cannot open the window. This is not because they are being stubborn, it is simply impossible.
If you do not believe me please feel free to visit Saskatoon, Winnipeg or Edmonton sometime around January 15th and take a deep breath, if you can. Most winter mornings around that time of year will literally take your breath away.
Let me tell you there is nothing like getting up in the morning to the man on the radio telling you that today will be much warmer than the last day since today exposed skin will take all of 60 seconds to freeze, up from 30 the day before.
Woohoo, shorts weather.
Cheers,
You cannot directly compare Japanese Cell phones to North American or European Cell phones. Japanese cell phones are smaller because they can be, no because their technology is vastly superior.
The fact is Japanese cell phones can be smaller because their Cell grid is a lot more dense than in North America.
Think about it this way, in Japan almost all the population lives in a small belt of land near the ocean. In North America by comparison people are spread out over vast distances. Cell coverage obviously is going to be substantially different.
You just do not need the tranmitting power in Japan you need in North America. Thus you can make smaller more compact phones.
To give an example of this. It is illegal for me to target a person on the street, run over to them and body check them into a wall with all of my 240lbs. If I did that I would correctly be charged with assault. However put some skates on me, put me on a ice rink and give me a hockey stick and (aside from some extreme examples) I can pummel my opponents into submission all I want, and they are welcome to return the favour. This is not only true in hockey, but all contact sports, Football, Boxing etc. It is reasonable to expect to be body checked in a full contact hockey game in which you are a participant with no legal liability on the body checker to the body checkie.
What we need a kind of reasonableness standard applied to copyright on the Internet.
Basically the Internet is one big computer network. Computers networks are designed for the sole purpose of sharing information easily between the hosts connected to it. Thus it is reasonable, I am sure, to everyone here to expect any information you put on a computer network like the Internet will get viewed, copied and archived, this is the nature of computer networks. . As an aside, this argument assumes no mechanism to keep the info private has been setup. ie password authentication of a web site. I believe in that case we would have an exception in that it is reasonable to expect that if I lock my web site you will not try to break into it. Again the most important thing to focus on is what is "reasonable".
Why then, if this is how the Internet works, do we allow companies to cry bloody murder when they put their content online and then get it copied?
What we should be telling them is that if you do not like the way the web game is played, do not play it. Put your content on a CD and sell that, or sell books with your pictures printed in them or any other mechanism for getting your precious images to your customers. However do not come crying to the courts every time someone makes a copy of your stuff if you put it on the public web. There are accepted rules to this web game, and one of them is that any content that you put online and do not protect with passwords etc...will get indexed, copied and archived.
In meat space what google and ditto.com do might seem unreasonable, but on the Internet it is part of the game. I think we can agree on that. My IANAL suggestion for the defense would be to call up a long line of distinguished people to back this type of reasonableness argument up in court.
IMHO What Google and Ditto are doing is reasonable behaviour on the Web.
Also the idea that ditto.com is like Napster is disengenous at best. The record labels did not choose to put their content online, their customers did, the plaintiff in this case decided to use the web. In doing so the plaintiff, whether or not they realized it, agreed to the rules of the web. Rules that are reasonable in the context of the web. IMHO it is too late for them to start crying now, they should have though of that before they went online.
However the appeals court will probably agree with the plaintiff and yet another straw will be put on the camels back of free information exchange on the Internet.
Could someone stop the world? I want to get off...
You do realize that not all modern democratic nations require that all of its citizens be identified by a unique number? In fact there are many that would argue that a free and democratic society must not force such a system on its citizens.
Americans seem to have grown so used to having "unique" number stamped onto your arm at birth that you assume that it is necessary. Then you wonder why all of you can have your indentities stolen by anyone with $5 and an internet account.
In Canada for instance everyone over 12 has a SIN or social insurance number issued to them. However the use of the SIN as part of an identification system is severely restricted. Further the number itself is not considered unique. In fact it is possible, even in a relatively small group(say 10,000 people) for this number to collide.
No company can require you to provide your SIN for any purpose, including credit card companies or apartment rental companies etc. Nor can they use it to uniquely identify you.
There are a few specific exceptions.
Basically the only purposes for which you must provide your SIN is where the recipient has responsibilities to Canada Customs and Revenue Agency(CCRA), Canada's IRS. For example your employer or other agent for which you will have income. For example an investment bank where interest income will be returned will require a SIN to report income to the CCRA. In this case the number must be only used for this purpose, not for indentification (ie not as a unique key) and must be destroyed upon termination of your relationship (ie you move to a new job).
See the Privacy Comission of Canada's web site for more information.
Even the CCRA does not use your SIN as an standalone identifier. You see the CCRA has learned that in a database you can use multiple DB columns to create a unique id. So in fact your identity is determined by multiple values.
So in Canada you get the benefits of being able to identify someone for tax purposes without all of the danger and flaws in a single "unique" number. A number which even in the US is aparently not all that unique if you read some of the posts.
Now the US government wants to issue a unique number for phone, e-mail and fax?
You americans are crazy.
Just wanted to post to this discussion regarding the impending involvement of the Canadian government in providing guaranteed broadband access to all Canadians. I just want to submit a post that I hope will help address some of the comments made by some of the US posters and hopefully provide some insight into Canada and why the Canadian government plans to do this.
First of all, Canada is not the US. While that might sound inflammatory it is in fact the truth. I am not suggesting Canada is better, worse or otherwise, merely that it is different.
In Canada we have approximately 30 million people. This is about the same population as the state of California.
Canada is the second largest country in the world in terms of land mass. Slightly larger than the US. Total size 9,976,140 sq km . From the CIA factbook http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ ca.html
That means we have approx. 30 million people spread unevenly across a massive amount of land area. This is an important fact as it underscores why in Canada it is often the case that the government needs to act in this way. To make sure the people in Iqaluit get the same access to the wonders of the modern world as those in Toronto.
If this was left up to private companies it simply would not get done. I am not attacking private companies or capitalism. I am completely a free market proponent and believe in the efficiency of the market place. However as a Canadian I know that despite my personal leanings there is a point at which private companies can not or will not make the right choice for Canadians, all Canadians.
In some cases the special requirements of Canada require special intervention by the government. There is not some big ideological purpose at work here, merely the fact that Canada, due to population density has developed a different role for government in creating infrastructure.
This project comes as no suprise to Canadians and is part of a long tradition of successful government involvement in projects of this nature.
Countless other crown corporations and utilities were created, run and then deregulated by the government. Some were to provide infrastructure, others to create new industries (eg. Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan). So when the Canadian government says we are gonna spend $4.5 billion to provide broadband internet access to Iqaluit Canadians for the most part say ok, regardless of political affiliation.
We know that as a nation this is the only way that all Canadians can get access to the same services. Yes it costs money, both private and public, and yes it requires government intervention. No it is perhaps not 100% capitalist in its efficiency, however the fact is as Canadians we accept that this type of government involvement is necessary to make life work here. If we did not do things this way we would have 1 or 2 modern cities and the rest of the country would still be in the 19th Century.
So please take into consideration when trying to place idealogical motives on this latest in a long line of Canadian government sponsored projects. We do it this way because that is how we make things work here.
All things considered I think we do a pretty darn good job of keeping our country always near the top in terms of technology, standards of living and education. We cannot be doing things too terribly wrong, even if we do things a little bit different from our neighbors to the south. So I think I will go play some online games with my friend in the Yukon. She happens to have cable modem too, just like I do in Calgary, one of our most prosperous cities. Hmm it seems like we are not far off that universal broadband access as it stands thanks to government regulation of the cable industry. :)
Cheers. :)
Just wanted to post to this discussion regarding the impending involvement of the Canadian government in providing guaranteed broadband access to all Canadians. I just want to submit a post that I hope will help address some of the comments made by some of the US posters and hopefully provide some insight into Canada and why the Canadian government plans to do this. First of all, Canada is not the US. While that might sound inflammatory it is in fact the truth. I am not suggesting Canada is better, worse or otherwise, merely that it is different. In Canada we have approximately 30 million people. This is about the same population as the state of California. Canada is the second largest country in the world in terms of land mass. Slightly larger than the US. Total size 9,976,140 sq km . From the CIA factbook http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ ca.html
That means we have approx. 30 million people spread unevenly across a massive amount of land area.
This is an important fact as it underscores why in Canada it is often the case that the government needs to act in this way. To make sure the people in Iqaluit get the same access to the wonders of the modern world as those in Toronto. If this was left up to private companies it simply would not get done. I am not attacking private companies or capitalism. I am completely a free market proponent and believe in the efficiency of the market place. However as a Canadian I know that despite my personal leanings there is a point at which private companies can not or will not make the right choice for Canadians, all Canadians.
In some cases special requirements of Canada require special intervention by the government. There is not some big ideological purpose at work here, merely the fact that Canada, due to population density has developed a different role for government in creating infrastructure.
This project comes as no suprise to Canadians and is part of a long tradition of successful government involvement in projects of this nature.
- Trans-Continental Railway: without which there would be no Canada at all as it was a requirment for British columbia to enter confederation.
- TransCanada Highway: A 7800km(approx 4900mile) stretch of road that goes from the tip of Newfoundland in St. John's to Victoria on Vancouver Island in British Columbia.
- Telephone System: All telephone companies in Canada are or were run by provinial "crown" corporations. These private corporations were run by non government employees and often chaired by government appointees. The government was also the major, or primary stock holder. Their goal was to provide self sustaining access for all Canadians to quality telecommunications. In the early to mid 90's these companies for the most part were privatized, but not before they gave Canada a telecommunication system second to none. I remember having my cable modem installed in Saskatoon Saskatchewan while I was going to school in 1996, and DSL was available even earlier. Actually DSL was original intended to provide TV and movies over Twisted Pair. That was an utter failure by the end of 1995, but soon Sasktel caught on that they could actually make money providing access to this new fangled Internet. :)
Countless other crown corporations and utilities were created, run and then deregulated by the government. Some were to provide infrastructure, others to create new industries (eg. Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan).
So when the Canadian government says we are gonna spend $4.5 billion to provide broadband internet access to Iqaluit Canadians for the most part say ok, regardless of political affiliation.
We know that as a nation this is the only way that all Canadians can get access to the same services. Yes it costs money, both private and public, and yes it requires government intervention. No it is perhaps not 100% capitalist in its efficiency, however the fact is as Canadians we accept that this type of government involvement is necessary to make life work here. If we did not do things this way we would have 1 or 2 modern cities and the rest of the country would still be in the 19th Century.
So please take into consideration when trying to place idealogical motives on this latest in a long line of Canadian government sponsored projects. We do it this way because that is how we make things work here.
All things considered I think we do a pretty darn good job of keeping our country always near the top in terms of technology, standards of living and education. We cannot be doing things too terribly wrong, even if we do things a little bit different from our neighbors to the south.
So I think I will go play some online games with my friend in the Yukon. She happens to have cable modem too, just like I do in Calgary, one of our most prosperous cities. Hmm it seems like we are not far off that universal broadband access as it stands thanks to government regulation of the cable industry. :)
Cheers. :)