You can be fired in most jurisdictions for lying on a resume, if it's proven, so I'd be carefull with that.
Facebooks Terms of Use prevent you from providing your password to another. "You will not share your password, (or in the case of developers, your secret key), let anyone else access your account, or do anything else that might jeopardize the security of your account." Anyone using Facebook agrees with this the same as they do any other EULA or agreement. Any potential employer who requests your password is asking you to break the legal agreement that you have with Facebook before you can work for them. http://www.facebook.com/legal/terms?ref=pf
People at work on locked down computers used IE and kept getting "distracted" and going back to work. Sometimes they got busy enough to not finish the puzzle. I might play Sudoku at work on a break and get distracted, never coming back (on IE). I play the same game at home on Chrome and quickly finish as my focus is there.
Statistically, that makes me "stupid" at work and "smart" at home. Don't let my boss find out!
Why is a wall blocking someones ability to opt in to a service? If I opt in for any service I would not normally expect a piece of software to use a different technique to add additional walls. Since Safari is the only browser that does that it's pretty obvious were the fault lies.
That is not the only reason ads are substited, which is what you are referring to when you discuss "For those that don't understand let's try this as an example, on channel 3(cdn) you have family guy. On channel 7(US) you have family guy. Now, they pull channel 7, and put channel 3 in it's place. So, now you have channel 3, on channel 7's place as well. Enjoy."
What incentive does a Canadian company have to pay for rights to Canadians when half the market is lost to an ad on an American station that is not paying anything to advertise in the Canadian market? How does CTV then afford to pay for content when their ad space is devalued?
In your example, Channel 7 ads are mandated to be substituted to Channel 3 ads. There is an easy way to do that, as in theory, the content is the same, and that is by just subsituting the entire Channel 3 feed over. Sometimes this can't be done - as in one recent situation, where the Super Bowl Canadian ads were substituted over American ones. The entire feed was not substituted as some of the content (play by play or colour guys) where not the same on the US channels as they were on the Canadian channels.
And why the volatile title. Other than that his is Slashdot.
"Proposed Law Would Give DHS Power Over Privately Owned IT Infrastructure".
Requiring improved security is not much different than making sure that a company that makes toasters aren't making toasters that burn your house down. Or cars having seatbelts. Do we say that the government has "power" over privately owned Car companies because they must abide safety or security concerns?
I have not read the full details of any planned law yet, but as stated in the short article, I do not see why this is a bad thing.
But it's pretty hard to hold someone accountable when they cannot defend themselves because you tied up there financing so much that the evidence they had to defend themselves has been destroyed.
The only evidence the FBI supbeoned was evidence again Megaupload. I am pretty sure that Megaupload's lawyers see this as being either good (we will use this as doubt) or bad (how will we defend ourselves without this as evidence) but they will certainly have an opinion. That they aren't talking about this in legal terms implies to me that they will be attempting to use any data destruction to their benefit.
If I ship a bag of weed via purolator courier, purolator has no idea what it is and it is protected. Purolator is not expected, and should not ever, be opening my package to see what it is. When purolator reaches the border, purolator would, as a common carrier, not be able to DEMAND that the package not be opened or checked or what not.
But the grand parent suggests that if purolator allowed the border to stop the package, they would lose common carrier status and that simply is incredibly speculative.
"common carrier" status is an internal (as in inside the country) concept.
Common carrier often prevent content from reaching beyond the countries borders.
Anyone who lives in Canada sees this all the time with big US providers blocking content to Canada. And the reverse is true as well, where Canada prevents (or tries) certain content from getting in.
Twitter blocking content sent to Canada would not be much different then US superbowl ads being blocked from coming into Canada on the cable/satellite feeds. That it's done for copyright reasons over whatever reasons is not Twitter's issue. That they may choose to try to attempt to obey the laws of the countries they are blocking tweets to (at least I would gather this is why they would be blocking any tweets) has little to do with "common carrier" status.
How can someone claim to have any understanding of the CRTC and get modded insightful when they comment on the "duopoly of Rogers and Bell".
Neither Rogers or Bell offer anything but cell phones in over half the country. If you live in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan or Manitoba in the west, and much of eastern Canada as well, you cannot get TV or Internet via Rogers with the exception of 3/4g at 500mb for $50 a month. It is the same with Bell. But you claim to have an idea of Canadian culture.
Additionally, the mandate of the CRTC is to ensure that Canada's providers are protecting Canada's cultural sovereignty. "the Canadian broadcasting system, operating primarily in the English and French languages and comprising public, private and community elements, makes use of radio frequencies that are public property and provides, through its programming, a public service essential to the maintenance and enhancement of national identity and cultural sovereignty;"
In other words, the CRTC was created to protect Canada's sovereignty over the airwaves quite simply because TV/Radio were deemed a threat to it. For the CRTC to note that this and new technologies continue to threaten our Cultural is already something that both the government and CRTC claim and believe based upon the CRTC's continued support.
Now, whether or not this is good or bad, I've no clear opinion.....
And if I actually downloaded moves, music or Tv shows I might agree. But I don't. I pay my cable company for that (music channels, movie channels).
What other private companies want to tax me next? I live in British Columbia where drinking and driving laws have recently changed. You can now be fined for 0.05 of alcohol in your blood (although the legal limit is still 0.08) so this has contributed to huge decline in people dining out and enjoying a drink at pubs. How about a tax paying to pay for free cabs home? Now we all know how far that tax would go. But why would be forced to prop up one entertainment industry while watching another (that employees thousands in my home town) flounder?
They are forced to provide human interaction so no. And even if they removed crook what's to stop fraud or theft or who knows what from algorithmically being pulled up after "Lyonnaise de Garantie". The only rational choice is to remove "Lyonnaise de Garantie" as they cannot anticipate searches that might offend this company in the future, and manually remove them.
Per the Magnuson - Moss Warranty Act: "The statute is remedial in nature and is intended to protect consumers from deceptive warranty practices. Consumer products are not required to have warranties, but if one is given, it must comply with the Magnuson-Moss Act."
So your arguement could be invalidated by "warranty is not given if you change the bios".
This is not much different then a warranty being voided by the sticker being removed (as when a laptop is taken apart).
As someone who provided care for a wheelchair bound gentleman "Gord" I have spent much thought on this.
Gord was greatly affected by temperature and his body was slow to warm or cool if he got cold. Parking close to a door to get him inside or outside quickly was very important for his comfort. A larger then normal size parking spot was also needed so that his life could be lowered and he could actually be helped out of the van.
How would your friend in the wheelchair be able to get back into his vehicle if someone parked too close to his door? He wouldn't. And as he would likely have hand activated driving controls it's not like he could just have someone move his car for him. So I don't believe your friend does this or is as confined to a wheelchair as you imply. There are many disabled people who can walk or move in some fashion around a large "store" but still can't carry bags or push carts long distances.
When I would head into a store or bank or shop while working for Gord I would consider whether or not it were best to use a handicapped spot. Considerations would include: 1) How much time would Gord spend alone in the van (Gord was prone to seizures and had full time attendants as he could not be alone for long periods of time 2) How many free handicapped spots were free. Not much sense in "stealing" a normal spot, forcing a healthy person to use an even further away spot while 4 handicapped spots were empty. Conversely, there was not much sense in using the last (or only) handicapped spot if there was a normal spot available within a reasonable distance.
I agree. Shaw in Canada is starting to offer wifi in a variety of western Canadian cities (see www.shaw.ca/wifi for more information).
Providing that you have shaw home service (1.8 million customers compared to 1.3 million customers for their largest competitor Telus) you will be able to log onto to their wifi with no additional charges. Shaw offer internet to 50% of the homes they pass.
With Shaw offering up 100mb/sec connections in my local malls (or what ever high population locations these exist in) why would I use my precious measured 3G bandwidth (typical offering in Canada with Bell or Rogers would get you 500mb/data per month on a $50 plan). It seems Shaw is offering this to keep market share and I suppose bring in customers from their competitors. Shaw has announced in various news articles that they expect the costs to be around $200 million. This is the same Shaw who bought cellular bandwidth for about the same $200 million and have yet to use it.
Basically, it is so much of a challenge keeping meat from different countries separate so processing plants simply resort to only buying meat from one country where rules to maintain a "country of origin" are implemented. How can we expect there to be an "animal of origin"?
Google knows that you signed up for Google Offers because it's your own account.
They don't know the same thing about other daily offer emails because they do not have access to those other site's subscription information, and all these emails look like spam. So without that additional information available, how can Google tell the difference between spam/semi-spam and things that you sign up for? It can't, until you tell it they are important."
I understand the article just fine. And I play WoW just fine too. Did you follow the links and read "We have determined that the problem occurs only when our customers are simultaneously using peer-to-peer file sharing applications and running the game". Or are you claiming that Rogers is telling the CRTC that WoW is a "file sharing application"?
And I've been following this quite vigilantly.
Rogers claim is that using the bittorrent updated simultaneously with other bittorrent clients causes issues.
If you use peer to peer applications (bittorrent) at the same time as playing WoW you will have latency problems.
To quote: 'the problem occurs when customers are “simultaneously using peer-to-peer file sharing applications” '
The problem does not happen when people are playing WoW with not torrents happening in the background. I wouldn't venture a guess that most gamers who are worried about latency would not be file sharing while wondering wondering why their pings times are so high.
Slashdot Mirror
You can be fired in most jurisdictions for lying on a resume, if it's proven, so I'd be carefull with that.
Facebooks Terms of Use prevent you from providing your password to another. "You will not share your password, (or in the case of developers, your secret key), let anyone else access your account, or do anything else that might jeopardize the security of your account."
Anyone using Facebook agrees with this the same as they do any other EULA or agreement. Any potential employer who requests your password is asking you to break the legal agreement that you have with Facebook before you can work for them.
http://www.facebook.com/legal/terms?ref=pf
People at work on locked down computers used IE and kept getting "distracted" and going back to work. Sometimes they got busy enough to not finish the puzzle.
I might play Sudoku at work on a break and get distracted, never coming back (on IE). I play the same game at home on Chrome and quickly finish as my focus is there.
Statistically, that makes me "stupid" at work and "smart" at home. Don't let my boss find out!
No. If he was the real Paul Anthony he'd be suing the bird for performing the Rumblefish owned song in front of an audience.
Read your quote. "opted to see".
Why is a wall blocking someones ability to opt in to a service? If I opt in for any service I would not normally expect a piece of software to use a different technique to add additional walls. Since Safari is the only browser that does that it's pretty obvious were the fault lies.
That is not the only reason ads are substited, which is what you are referring to when you discuss "For those that don't understand let's try this as an example, on channel 3(cdn) you have family guy. On channel 7(US) you have family guy. Now, they pull channel 7, and put channel 3 in it's place. So, now you have channel 3, on channel 7's place as well. Enjoy."
What incentive does a Canadian company have to pay for rights to Canadians when half the market is lost to an ad on an American station that is not paying anything to advertise in the Canadian market? How does CTV then afford to pay for content when their ad space is devalued?
In your example, Channel 7 ads are mandated to be substituted to Channel 3 ads. There is an easy way to do that, as in theory, the content is the same, and that is by just subsituting the entire Channel 3 feed over. Sometimes this can't be done - as in one recent situation, where the Super Bowl Canadian ads were substituted over American ones. The entire feed was not substituted as some of the content (play by play or colour guys) where not the same on the US channels as they were on the Canadian channels.
And why the volatile title. Other than that his is Slashdot.
"Proposed Law Would Give DHS Power Over Privately Owned IT Infrastructure".
Requiring improved security is not much different than making sure that a company that makes toasters aren't making toasters that burn your house down.
Or cars having seatbelts. Do we say that the government has "power" over privately owned Car companies because they must abide safety or security concerns?
I have not read the full details of any planned law yet, but as stated in the short article, I do not see why this is a bad thing.
But it's pretty hard to hold someone accountable when they cannot defend themselves because you tied up there financing so much that the evidence they had to defend themselves has been destroyed.
The only evidence the FBI supbeoned was evidence again Megaupload.
I am pretty sure that Megaupload's lawyers see this as being either good (we will use this as doubt) or bad (how will we defend ourselves without this as evidence) but they will certainly have an opinion. That they aren't talking about this in legal terms implies to me that they will be attempting to use any data destruction to their benefit.
Yes. These foreign governments that cannot take critisism or understand jokes are ridiculous.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2093796/British-tourists-arrested-America-terror-charges-Twitter-jokes.html
To add to my above post:
If I ship a bag of weed via purolator courier, purolator has no idea what it is and it is protected. Purolator is not expected, and should not ever, be opening my package to see what it is. When purolator reaches the border, purolator would, as a common carrier, not be able to DEMAND that the package not be opened or checked or what not.
But the grand parent suggests that if purolator allowed the border to stop the package, they would lose common carrier status and that simply is incredibly speculative.
"common carrier" status is an internal (as in inside the country) concept.
Common carrier often prevent content from reaching beyond the countries borders.
Anyone who lives in Canada sees this all the time with big US providers blocking content to Canada. And the reverse is true as well, where Canada prevents (or tries) certain content from getting in.
Twitter blocking content sent to Canada would not be much different then US superbowl ads being blocked from coming into Canada on the cable/satellite feeds. That it's done for copyright reasons over whatever reasons is not Twitter's issue. That they may choose to try to attempt to obey the laws of the countries they are blocking tweets to (at least I would gather this is why they would be blocking any tweets) has little to do with "common carrier" status.
How can someone claim to have any understanding of the CRTC and get modded insightful when they comment on the "duopoly of Rogers and Bell".
Neither Rogers or Bell offer anything but cell phones in over half the country. If you live in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan or Manitoba in the west, and much of eastern Canada as well, you cannot get TV or Internet via Rogers with the exception of 3/4g at 500mb for $50 a month. It is the same with Bell.
But you claim to have an idea of Canadian culture.
Additionally, the mandate of the CRTC is to ensure that Canada's providers are protecting Canada's cultural sovereignty.
"the Canadian broadcasting system, operating primarily in the English and French languages and comprising public, private and community elements, makes use of radio frequencies that are public property and provides, through its programming, a public service essential to the maintenance and enhancement of national identity and cultural sovereignty;"
In other words, the CRTC was created to protect Canada's sovereignty over the airwaves quite simply because TV/Radio were deemed a threat to it. For the CRTC to note that this and new technologies continue to threaten our Cultural is already something that both the government and CRTC claim and believe based upon the CRTC's continued support.
Now, whether or not this is good or bad, I've no clear opinion.....
And if I actually downloaded moves, music or Tv shows I might agree. But I don't. I pay my cable company for that (music channels, movie channels).
What other private companies want to tax me next? I live in British Columbia where drinking and driving laws have recently changed. You can now be fined for 0.05 of alcohol in your blood (although the legal limit is still 0.08) so this has contributed to huge decline in people dining out and enjoying a drink at pubs. How about a tax paying to pay for free cabs home? Now we all know how far that tax would go. But why would be forced to prop up one entertainment industry while watching another (that employees thousands in my home town) flounder?
They are forced to provide human interaction so no. And even if they removed crook what's to stop fraud or theft or who knows what from algorithmically being pulled up after "Lyonnaise de Garantie". The only rational choice is to remove "Lyonnaise de Garantie" as they cannot anticipate searches that might offend this company in the future, and manually remove them.
Per the Magnuson - Moss Warranty Act: "The statute is remedial in nature and is intended to protect consumers from deceptive warranty practices. Consumer products are not required to have warranties, but if one is given, it must comply with the Magnuson-Moss Act."
So your arguement could be invalidated by "warranty is not given if you change the bios".
This is not much different then a warranty being voided by the sticker being removed (as when a laptop is taken apart).
I do realize that it is NOT a violation of the placard rules to park in a handicapped spot if Gord did not exit the vehicle.
http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/dandv/vehicle/app.shtml
As someone who provided care for a wheelchair bound gentleman "Gord" I have spent much thought on this.
Gord was greatly affected by temperature and his body was slow to warm or cool if he got cold. Parking close to a door to get him inside or outside quickly was very important for his comfort. A larger then normal size parking spot was also needed so that his life could be lowered and he could actually be helped out of the van.
How would your friend in the wheelchair be able to get back into his vehicle if someone parked too close to his door? He wouldn't. And as he would likely have hand activated driving controls it's not like he could just have someone move his car for him. So I don't believe your friend does this or is as confined to a wheelchair as you imply.
There are many disabled people who can walk or move in some fashion around a large "store" but still can't carry bags or push carts long distances.
When I would head into a store or bank or shop while working for Gord I would consider whether or not it were best to use a handicapped spot. Considerations would include:
1) How much time would Gord spend alone in the van (Gord was prone to seizures and had full time attendants as he could not be alone for long periods of time
2) How many free handicapped spots were free. Not much sense in "stealing" a normal spot, forcing a healthy person to use an even further away spot while 4 handicapped spots were empty. Conversely, there was not much sense in using the last (or only) handicapped spot if there was a normal spot available within a reasonable distance.
I agree. Shaw in Canada is starting to offer wifi in a variety of western Canadian cities (see www.shaw.ca/wifi for more information).
Providing that you have shaw home service (1.8 million customers compared to 1.3 million customers for their largest competitor Telus) you will be able to log onto to their wifi with no additional charges. Shaw offer internet to 50% of the homes they pass.
With Shaw offering up 100mb/sec connections in my local malls (or what ever high population locations these exist in) why would I use my precious measured 3G bandwidth (typical offering in Canada with Bell or Rogers would get you 500mb/data per month on a $50 plan). It seems Shaw is offering this to keep market share and I suppose bring in customers from their competitors. Shaw has announced in various news articles that they expect the costs to be around $200 million. This is the same Shaw who bought cellular bandwidth for about the same $200 million and have yet to use it.
Time will tell how this pans out.
"Unless God himself gave the schedule for those glaciers to melt, the notion of having them melting "earlier than expected" is a joke."
God trumps science?
and +5?
It will happen to humans before it happens to livestock.
In North America we can't even track which country the meat comes from, let alone which animal.
http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Regulation/WTO-sides-with-Canada-on-US-meat-country-of-origin-labeling
Basically, it is so much of a challenge keeping meat from different countries separate so processing plants simply resort to only buying meat from one country where rules to maintain a "country of origin" are implemented. How can we expect there to be an "animal of origin"?
Definitly.
A reply on the original article is
"Isaac said...
Google knows that you signed up for Google Offers because it's your own account.
They don't know the same thing about other daily offer emails because they do not have access to those other site's subscription information, and all these emails look like spam. So without that additional information available, how can Google tell the difference between spam/semi-spam and things that you sign up for? It can't, until you tell it they are important."
Isn't this legal for the government to do in the US as well? Not much they do surprises me either though....
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2011/05/06/the-actuals-plan-for-bin-ladens-pucca-house/
The Floor Plans
I understand the article just fine. And I play WoW just fine too. Did you follow the links and read "We have determined that the problem occurs only when our customers are simultaneously using peer-to-peer file sharing applications and running the game". Or are you claiming that Rogers is telling the CRTC that WoW is a "file sharing application"?
And I've been following this quite vigilantly.
Rogers claim is that using the bittorrent updated simultaneously with other bittorrent clients causes issues.
http://aegir.openmedia.ca/sites/openmedia.ca/files/Complaint%20-%20Roger%27s%20Internet%20Traffic%20Management%20-%20K.%20Thompson.pdf
http://aegir.openmedia.ca/sites/openmedia.ca/files/Rogers%20letter%20to%20CRTC%20re%20ITMPs%20Mar22-11.pdf
Reading the article will show that:
If you use peer to peer applications (bittorrent) at the same time as playing WoW you will have latency problems.
To quote: 'the problem occurs when customers are “simultaneously using peer-to-peer file sharing applications” '
The problem does not happen when people are playing WoW with not torrents happening in the background. I wouldn't venture a guess that most gamers who are worried about latency would not be file sharing while wondering wondering why their pings times are so high.
Can I have his old one?