That isn't oppression that is called freedom.
On a serious note. I can't imagine dealing with 30 little sacks of shit from other people every day, at least without the "board" of education. I hear the stories from my wife and her fellow teachers and I probably would have ended up in jail.
While I agree completely with what you're saying, it can be argued that the Canadian content rule has the exact same result. The difference is, one is limited and corporate controlled. The other is much less limited and generally user controlled.
But the two are fundamentally different. With broadcast TV, there is a limited number of sources I can access. This still applies to VOD. Therefore, one can reason that requiring something that promotes Canadian culture is a benefit to us, which is what the purpose of the law is. Note that I'm not required to watch any of that Canadian content on broadcast TV or VOD by my cable provider of choice.
With internet video streaming, I'm not limited to a certain number of sources - in fact, the number of sources is quite large, almost infinite. And I choose what it is I will watch, with the origin of the content being relevant only if I choose for it to be. Note that I only have to watch what I wish to watch.
That is the key difference. In broadcast, a limited medium, the rule allows me to watch Canadian content if I choose to. With the internet, a much less limited, user-accessed medium, no rule is required to allow me to watch Canadian content if I choose to.
Now tell me, given the current paradigm of the internet, how exactly is the CRTC going to promote Canadian content without requiring me to watch it? Requiring Netflix or Google to pay 'comparable' rates for shows no one wants to watch sounds a lot like extortion to me (against both the providers and the consumers). If they want to promote Canadian content, they can start their own streaming service and provide it to Canadian IP addresses for free. They can even include ads for all I care! All they have to do is include it as a condition of the government money they give to these shows to happen here.
And if you think that's a bad idea, do you really think it's worse than requiring Netflix or Google to buy Canadian shows that people don't want? Please keep in mind, the driving force behind their service is to provide content people want to view. (Well, for Netflix. For Youtube, it's to allow any clown to upload their videos and hope someone watches. I'm sure Google will be happy to price match ad profits, like most other channels.) If they could get quality Canadian content for a reasonable price based on the expected viewership, I'm sure they would be all over it.
Keep in mind that pretty much the most expensive option for Teslas tends to be a larger battery pack or a bigger (or extra) motor. It's not merely a trim pack or more speakers.
There is a fundamental difference between reverse engineering and reverse compilation. Copying someone's work, with or without the intermediate step of making it human-readable, is different than examining the functionality of some work and producing an original work that functions the same way (which may still be considered a derived work, depending on what and how it's made).
This is not relevant to whether Mojang is using GPL'd software in a different, related, project or not.
Moreover, testing was at a less critical phase. Nuclear test bans weren't going to get rid of nuclear bombs, or even necessarily improvements in them. It would just slow them down. If they had followed them in the first place.
What has been somewhat more effective is using various means to keep more nations from joining the nuclear club. But that is because getting the details right (the first time) is kind of hard, especially when sabotage is involved. I suspect you'll see a similar trend here, with the big players getting them and then trying to stop the smaller players from getting them.
Sorry, buddy, our motto is "Peace, Order, and Good Government", not "Land of the free, home of the brave". Looks like we got two out of three. And how many of those two do the Americans have?
To be honest, even our government isn't terrible, just often teetering between inept and indifferent.
Sadly, this is also the case in Canada. It's one of the main reasons I prefer to torrent or use Netflix. I'm sure that if I put in the effort I can blame the US, but it's at least as much my nation's fault as theirs. Now, if only Canadian content was required to stand on its own merits, and not required to be played, maybe we would get something that could replace the American drivel that is so much a part of what is broadcast.
Time to watch some old and/or foreign shows on Netflix, and reminisce about my youth.
Congrats, he doesn't have autism. Check out the symptoms of Asperger's Syndrome, another condition on the Autism Spectrum. People with Asperger's tend to find mechanisms to deal with social dysfunction, and suffer social developmental delay, rather than complete retardation. Little things like "non-optional social obligation" would resonate with someone who has Asperger's. Ritual and consistency is also very important to those with Asperger's, such as having "his spot" on the couch, or having a narrow and specific time window in which to have a bowel movement, and a multitude of others. Having specific conversational topics he wants to talk about, and will use very poor techniques to direct others to his topics of choice. Obsessive behaviour about specific topics, far beyond the typical hobbyist (trains). Having a selection of canned responses to certain social situations, rather than a dynamic response to a given situation (in one episode, he talks about his process to turn Barry into his friend). He's been tested for mental health, and passed. But he didn't go to the recommended follow-up diagnosis...
No, he doesn't have classical autism. He doesn't sit in a corner and rock, or scream if strangers touch him (but I suspect he wants to - he does carry sanitizer and refuses to take public transportation, except for trains). But he certainly has been tailored to give many of the signs of stereotypical Asperger's syndrome coupled with high intelligence and a career with little social interaction and a technical focus.
I don't get the controversy. I like the show. It makes me laugh. I don't care what the actors get paid. It's none of my business. I think the comparisons to "black face" are in error. Poking fun at people because of their behavior is not the same as poking fun at people because of their skin color.
So, what if they poked fun at the behaviour of people who were mentally handicapped? Would that be okay? I think the majority would say no.
Now, keep in mind that Autism Spectrum disorders would be a form of mental handicap, albeit potentially higher function than what some people think of as mental retardation. Sheldon shows classical Autism Spectrum symptoms.
That said, I enjoy the show, but I don't have a particular desire to be politically correct.
This is a great philosophy, but it relies on the assumption that everyone behaves rationally. We have thousands of years of evidence to the contrary, though. And what do you do to stop someone who is willing to commit atrocities and is unwilling to listen to reasonable arguments? I suspect that coercion of one degree or another will often be the only option.
The difference is, this isn't a mailbox on your house. It's more like a post office box from Mailboxes Etc. So going to the person who controls the mailbox is a reasonable attempt to stop the mail from being delivered, as long as the person hasn't already removed the mail from their box. It would also be akin to going to the postal service if there is a letter in the mail that hasn't yet left their care and been delivered to the recipient (the single biggest difference being that it takes email seconds vs. the days for snail mail).
He intended to sent the email to someone. He clearly didn't intend to send it to the ultimate recipient, else he wouldn't have spent thousands of dollars to undo that act. Perhaps he sent it to ndielmann@foo.bar instead of mdielmann@foo.bar. Fortunately, you obviously never make typos. And people have never accidentally called the wrong number before, either.
Clearly the recipient isn't in the wrong if he reads it - he got an email in good faith. This is why they want to get it removed before it's read.
...malicious people are able to use it to get rubes to vote for insane anti-social right-wing loonies.
And how is this different from communism, global warming, smartphone OS, etc.? What you're forgetting is, there will be rubes falling for whatever gimmick someone uses. And there will also be loonies, from a variety of socio-political groups. Getting rid of one of the irrational beliefs isn't going to change the existence of either group, just which varieties are running around.
I wish, but in fact while there's allegedly fiber in austin, just a few miles north in round rock there's not even a promise by either google or AT&T.
I think there are vastly more areas that aren't promised Google fiber (or any other version of fiber) than are. Also, more places will be adjacent to places that recently got fiber than there are places that have Google fiber. This works for any region that you create a zone in (until the majority of the zones are occupied). The lines for any given zone have to be drawn somewhere, and it will suck for people on the wrong side of the line. Or were you hoping for a single nation-wide rollout?
"I've noticed that people tend to not pay attention to the other drivers. I'm going to randomly apply the brakes, speed up, and change lanes. The drivers around me will pay a lot more attention!" While all that is true, it's still a bad idea. And while it won't cause much difficulty for the attentive drivers, it will probably exacerbate the poor driving habits of other drivers around him. Why do you think this will not have similar results, if at a lower degree.
It would be easier if we followed the same principle as captains of ships used to have. Have an administrator, who is responsible for the running of the plant and the following of the regulations that pertain to that plant have to be on site during any emergencies. If he makes sure that people who know what they're doing are in charge of the right things, and he doesn't try to cut any corners, this won't be an overly onerous requirement. If he doesn't, well, he will get his termination notice from a doctor.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder how long it was before the incident in Tienanmen Square that a Chinese person had said that?
Hmm, judging from the movies I've seen, probably a few thousand years...
Allow me to correct myself, since you're merely trying to make me say what you're saying.
With internet video streaming, I'm not technologically limited to a certain number of sources...
Yes, laws can add artificial limitations. I think whether they should is the topic under discussion...
That isn't oppression that is called freedom. On a serious note. I can't imagine dealing with 30 little sacks of shit from other people every day, at least without the "board" of education. I hear the stories from my wife and her fellow teachers and I probably would have ended up in jail.
Oh look, another pedophile!
Seriously, I'm just kidding.
While I agree completely with what you're saying, it can be argued that the Canadian content rule has the exact same result. The difference is, one is limited and corporate controlled. The other is much less limited and generally user controlled.
But the two are fundamentally different. With broadcast TV, there is a limited number of sources I can access. This still applies to VOD. Therefore, one can reason that requiring something that promotes Canadian culture is a benefit to us, which is what the purpose of the law is. Note that I'm not required to watch any of that Canadian content on broadcast TV or VOD by my cable provider of choice.
With internet video streaming, I'm not limited to a certain number of sources - in fact, the number of sources is quite large, almost infinite. And I choose what it is I will watch, with the origin of the content being relevant only if I choose for it to be. Note that I only have to watch what I wish to watch.
That is the key difference. In broadcast, a limited medium, the rule allows me to watch Canadian content if I choose to. With the internet, a much less limited, user-accessed medium, no rule is required to allow me to watch Canadian content if I choose to.
Now tell me, given the current paradigm of the internet, how exactly is the CRTC going to promote Canadian content without requiring me to watch it? Requiring Netflix or Google to pay 'comparable' rates for shows no one wants to watch sounds a lot like extortion to me (against both the providers and the consumers). If they want to promote Canadian content, they can start their own streaming service and provide it to Canadian IP addresses for free. They can even include ads for all I care! All they have to do is include it as a condition of the government money they give to these shows to happen here.
And if you think that's a bad idea, do you really think it's worse than requiring Netflix or Google to buy Canadian shows that people don't want? Please keep in mind, the driving force behind their service is to provide content people want to view. (Well, for Netflix. For Youtube, it's to allow any clown to upload their videos and hope someone watches. I'm sure Google will be happy to price match ad profits, like most other channels.) If they could get quality Canadian content for a reasonable price based on the expected viewership, I'm sure they would be all over it.
Keep in mind that pretty much the most expensive option for Teslas tends to be a larger battery pack or a bigger (or extra) motor. It's not merely a trim pack or more speakers.
To be fair, this could solve the donkey population problem we seem to be having...
...maybe we should substitute cheeseburgers.
There is a fundamental difference between reverse engineering and reverse compilation. Copying someone's work, with or without the intermediate step of making it human-readable, is different than examining the functionality of some work and producing an original work that functions the same way (which may still be considered a derived work, depending on what and how it's made).
This is not relevant to whether Mojang is using GPL'd software in a different, related, project or not.
Moreover, testing was at a less critical phase. Nuclear test bans weren't going to get rid of nuclear bombs, or even necessarily improvements in them. It would just slow them down. If they had followed them in the first place.
What has been somewhat more effective is using various means to keep more nations from joining the nuclear club. But that is because getting the details right (the first time) is kind of hard, especially when sabotage is involved. I suspect you'll see a similar trend here, with the big players getting them and then trying to stop the smaller players from getting them.
Sorry, buddy, our motto is "Peace, Order, and Good Government", not "Land of the free, home of the brave". Looks like we got two out of three. And how many of those two do the Americans have?
To be honest, even our government isn't terrible, just often teetering between inept and indifferent.
Sadly, this is also the case in Canada. It's one of the main reasons I prefer to torrent or use Netflix. I'm sure that if I put in the effort I can blame the US, but it's at least as much my nation's fault as theirs. Now, if only Canadian content was required to stand on its own merits, and not required to be played, maybe we would get something that could replace the American drivel that is so much a part of what is broadcast.
Time to watch some old and/or foreign shows on Netflix, and reminisce about my youth.
While much of what you say is true, being mentally handicapped and being an ass are not mutually exclusive.
Congrats, he doesn't have autism. Check out the symptoms of Asperger's Syndrome, another condition on the Autism Spectrum. People with Asperger's tend to find mechanisms to deal with social dysfunction, and suffer social developmental delay, rather than complete retardation. Little things like "non-optional social obligation" would resonate with someone who has Asperger's. Ritual and consistency is also very important to those with Asperger's, such as having "his spot" on the couch, or having a narrow and specific time window in which to have a bowel movement, and a multitude of others. Having specific conversational topics he wants to talk about, and will use very poor techniques to direct others to his topics of choice. Obsessive behaviour about specific topics, far beyond the typical hobbyist (trains). Having a selection of canned responses to certain social situations, rather than a dynamic response to a given situation (in one episode, he talks about his process to turn Barry into his friend). He's been tested for mental health, and passed. But he didn't go to the recommended follow-up diagnosis...
No, he doesn't have classical autism. He doesn't sit in a corner and rock, or scream if strangers touch him (but I suspect he wants to - he does carry sanitizer and refuses to take public transportation, except for trains). But he certainly has been tailored to give many of the signs of stereotypical Asperger's syndrome coupled with high intelligence and a career with little social interaction and a technical focus.
I don't get the controversy. I like the show. It makes me laugh. I don't care what the actors get paid. It's none of my business. I think the comparisons to "black face" are in error. Poking fun at people because of their behavior is not the same as poking fun at people because of their skin color.
So, what if they poked fun at the behaviour of people who were mentally handicapped? Would that be okay? I think the majority would say no.
Now, keep in mind that Autism Spectrum disorders would be a form of mental handicap, albeit potentially higher function than what some people think of as mental retardation. Sheldon shows classical Autism Spectrum symptoms.
That said, I enjoy the show, but I don't have a particular desire to be politically correct.
As is so often the case, context is quite relevant. His statement is ridiculous today, but when it was made, quite reasonable.
This is a great philosophy, but it relies on the assumption that everyone behaves rationally. We have thousands of years of evidence to the contrary, though. And what do you do to stop someone who is willing to commit atrocities and is unwilling to listen to reasonable arguments? I suspect that coercion of one degree or another will often be the only option.
The difference is, this isn't a mailbox on your house. It's more like a post office box from Mailboxes Etc. So going to the person who controls the mailbox is a reasonable attempt to stop the mail from being delivered, as long as the person hasn't already removed the mail from their box. It would also be akin to going to the postal service if there is a letter in the mail that hasn't yet left their care and been delivered to the recipient (the single biggest difference being that it takes email seconds vs. the days for snail mail).
He intended to sent the email to someone. He clearly didn't intend to send it to the ultimate recipient, else he wouldn't have spent thousands of dollars to undo that act. Perhaps he sent it to ndielmann@foo.bar instead of mdielmann@foo.bar. Fortunately, you obviously never make typos. And people have never accidentally called the wrong number before, either.
Clearly the recipient isn't in the wrong if he reads it - he got an email in good faith. This is why they want to get it removed before it's read.
...malicious people are able to use it to get rubes to vote for insane anti-social right-wing loonies.
And how is this different from communism, global warming, smartphone OS, etc.? What you're forgetting is, there will be rubes falling for whatever gimmick someone uses. And there will also be loonies, from a variety of socio-political groups. Getting rid of one of the irrational beliefs isn't going to change the existence of either group, just which varieties are running around.
"Even the Jihadists are really not likely ever to personally cause you harm."
The day before 9/11 you likely would have said the same to everyone personally harmed in 9/11 or through the loss of someone in 9/11.
The interesting thing is, 99.999% of the time, you would have been right, assuming we're only talking about Americans. Sounds "not likely" to me...
I wish, but in fact while there's allegedly fiber in austin, just a few miles north in round rock there's not even a promise by either google or AT&T.
I think there are vastly more areas that aren't promised Google fiber (or any other version of fiber) than are. Also, more places will be adjacent to places that recently got fiber than there are places that have Google fiber. This works for any region that you create a zone in (until the majority of the zones are occupied). The lines for any given zone have to be drawn somewhere, and it will suck for people on the wrong side of the line. Or were you hoping for a single nation-wide rollout?
Read up on Amazon circa 2000. Interesting times. Maybe a lack of profit isn't the only thing investors worry about.
"I've noticed that people tend to not pay attention to the other drivers. I'm going to randomly apply the brakes, speed up, and change lanes. The drivers around me will pay a lot more attention!" While all that is true, it's still a bad idea. And while it won't cause much difficulty for the attentive drivers, it will probably exacerbate the poor driving habits of other drivers around him. Why do you think this will not have similar results, if at a lower degree.
It would be easier if we followed the same principle as captains of ships used to have. Have an administrator, who is responsible for the running of the plant and the following of the regulations that pertain to that plant have to be on site during any emergencies. If he makes sure that people who know what they're doing are in charge of the right things, and he doesn't try to cut any corners, this won't be an overly onerous requirement. If he doesn't, well, he will get his termination notice from a doctor.
Ah yes, just like Newton, that idle wealthy person. Given the opportunity, he just sat under apple trees and watched the world...
Almost right.