That one is about stomping out all the world's other languages and making us all speak the same. What a loss of culture.
Esperanto has only ever been promoted as a universal second language. There has never been a push to make it the native language for anyone, anywhere. Hence, no loss of culture needed nor required.
Windows has always been like a cheaply made off road vehicle made in a former Soviet-bloc country. The controls were a little weird, and it broke down a lot, but otherwise it could drive on a lot of really sketchy roads, and you probably knew a guy who knew how to fix it for you when it broke down.
Then Windows 8 came along. To continue the analogy, it was like a new model year of that same cheaply made Eastern European off-road vehicle suddenly came with a few well-needed under-the-hood improvements so that it wouldn't break down as readily, along with a big 8" spike sticking out of the centre of the drivers seat. Aficionados who have never driven another car in their lives rave about the spike (it's painted some very nice colours), and continue to flood forums trying to convince people who have stayed away from the newer model because of the spike that if they just tried it long enough, they'd get used to having a giant spike up their asses.
Now Microsoft is coming out with Windows 10, the biggest benefit of which is that it now features a slightly shorter spike. And Windows zealots will try to convince everyone else that it's a major improvement. But you're still taking it in the ass every time you get in for a ride.
This is true, but the issue is that is dumb! You really should be able to unbox a toy on Christmas morning have it work without going out the Internet and connecting to some account.
Maybe not all the functionality can be there, but functions that don't naturally require network access should not require network access.
As it happens, my wife bought me a PS4 for Xmas -- a massive upgrade over my 15 year old original PS2. It came in the box with GTA5 (on disc), and a coupon for a free digital download of another game.
It's been a PITA that PSN has been offline. There are a lot of features and functions built into the system that rely on online functionality, including for some dumb reason accessing the built-in web browser. However, playing GTA5 hasn't been an issue -- I just popped the disc in, waited what felt like an eternity while it installed itself (it didn't give me a choice, and warned me it could take up to an hour), and I was off and playing. All without having been signed into PSN.
In essence, the system worked exactly as you described that it should. A single-player game on disc loaded and ran just fine while PSN has been offline. Not all the functionality was there, but the major function that doesn't require network access (playing GTA5 in this case) has worked flawlessly.
Uh, a dual core 1.3Ghz cpu is "marginally superior" to phones running quad and octo cores at twice the clock speed?!
Cores and clock speed is hardly the only determinant of performance. It sets a hard upper bound, but that can be readily squandered by software.
In the case of Android phones, they pushed for extra cores early on to avoid UI stutter during garbage collection cycles. iOS has never provided garbage collection; you either have to setup your own retain/release calls to keep or relinquish objects, or you use ARC (Automatic Reference Counting) to do more or less the same thing.
In effect, it's a trade-off. Google decided to simplify memory management for developers, and keep the barrier to entry low by appealing to existing Java developers, with the trade-off being that they require more parallel processing power for garbage collection. Apple avoided the need for the additional processing power and battery capacity (and in turn device size) by not implementing garbage collection in iOS, and thus can squeeze more performance out of fewer cores, with the trade off being you can't just pull Java developers off the street and have them start writing iOS apps. ARC is so slick that IMO Apple has an overall edge with their design; others are of course free to disagree.
It seems a bit foolish to worry about purely theoretical security issues when we've got so many real ones to deal with. Ken Thompons' compiler infection demonstration was an interesting experiment designed to make a particular point, but I don't think it's wise to consider tool-chain hacking a legitimate threat, as we've never seen anything remotely like this in the wild, as far as I'm aware. And frankly, I question whether it's even realistically possible beyond a very simplistic demonstration.
First off, naturally the level of security I'm talking about would probably only be reserved for national governmental agencies intended to protect ultra-sensitive data. For them, that level of security is necessary, and they will spend the money and resources to audit and verify everything if necessary (which is why we have SELinux).
Additionally, the build chain comprises not only the compiler, but the standard libraries and any third-party libraries as well. If not verified, these could easily have unexpected code inserted into them, that compromises your product once linked against them. You wouldn't expect to see such compromised libraries "in the wild", as they would probably part of a targeted attack. This is hardly unprecedented; while not done at build time, Stuxnet uses DLL replacement on Windows to add extra routines to the operating system, which are used to inject code being uploaded into a PLC.
Again, most organizations don't care to undertake the kind of expense required to protect against such attacks; they use the chain-of-trust you describe. However, national security organizations do work at this level, and if you need that level of security, pre-compiled binaries, whether they come with source or not, is insufficient.
With a verified compiler no less. We have seen ever more sophisticated malware these days, certainly a malicious compiler could easily slip vulnerabilities into the binary.
Yup -- I intended that to be considered part of the build chain. Compiler, standard libs, any 3rd party library dependencies, the build tools themselves (have to make sure they're using the libs you expect them to...), the OS kernel...right on down the chain.
I use many open source tools, but I've never inspected the code myself. Even if I did, I'm not going to be finding these hard-to-find defects that the people in the project can't find.
From a security perspective, even just having and being able to inspect the code is insufficient if you need top-notch security: you had better also be compiling that code yourself. It is nearly impossible to be able to verify that a binary blob didn't contain additional/modified code than what the sources contain without compiling it yourself. And even with being able to compile everything yourself, you're still at the mercy of the build chain and all of its dependencies (unless you audit/build them yourself too).
Open Source is still better in this regard than closed source, of course -- at least you have the ability to compile it yourself if security is that critical. I think the problem for a lot of organizations is that security isn't critical enough for them to hire people to a) audit the code and b) build, test, and verify it for their own internal use. In which case, it would (at least form outward appearances) be cheaper/easier to go with a closed-source solution, with someone behind it whom you can blame/sue if things go sideways.
Note, in the first link, everything except W3C is listed as correct, which is even more baffling for me, because somewhere the wrong information is being received, and it happened everywhere in the shop at once, across platforms.
You've got it all wrong as to where the problem lies.
First, there are two ways being used to calculate your geolocation. One of them uses online providers who have databases mapping IP addresses to locations. This is what you're seeing in the "Provider X" columns, which you state are indeed showing your correct location.
W3C doesn't provide a geolocation service. Instead, what the results of this (admittedly badly named) column indicate are what YOUR COMPUTER reports its location as being, using the W3C Geolocation API. The first link you provided above describes this succinctly in the text immediately above the map, where it states "The W3C Geolocation service determins location by the browser providing GPS location (if available) and signal strengths of visible WiFi annoucements" [sic]. Thus, the web page is asking your browser to report where it is located, and your browser is responding that you're somewhere in Ireland.
The question for you then becomes: where is my browser getting this bad data from? On Mac OS X, browsers get this from the Core Location Framework. While Core Location Framework can conceivably use a number of different factors to determine your location, typically it uses the detectable WiFi beacons in your area, mapping their SSIDs and MAC addresses, and their relative strengths to triangulate your location. On Windows it uses the Sensor and Location Platform to do much the same thing.
I don't know much in the way of details of the databases Apple and Microsoft are using on the backend to map your triangulated location based on SSIDs/MACs of visible WiFi access points, however there are a few ways the system can go wrong:
- The SSID/MAC of your access point matches that of another access point somewhere on the globe (and for some reason, all the other access points in your vicinity aren't in the database), or
- You've moved the access point in question from one location to another, and the database hasn't been updated yet. This could occur if, for example, you buy a WiFi access point used off eBay (for example), or you've moved your physical location, you've bought a refurbished access point, or your corporate IT has issued you a previously used access point from another office.
The fact that all your systems had this problem at the same time indicate it's probably one of the above. You can try to fix the situation by changing the SSID of your access point. Depending on the size of your facility, this may be more or less difficult, however it should hopefully make the incorrect results from your OSs' location services either report the correct location, or simply that your location is unknown. You may also need to change the MAC address of your access point(s), but I'd save that as a last resort. Note than making these changes should fix the issue with your systems reporting themselves as being in Ireland, but it may not result in them reporting the correct location (they might report they don't know their location at all). That's okay -- for Apple devices at least, you can fix this by simply having someone with an iPhone with Location Service enabled in the vicinity (Apple's data is crowd sourced automatically through the use of GPS co-ordinates and relative WiFi access point signal strengths (I'm not sure how Microsoft collects the information for their database, so I can't help you there -- a Google search might provide some answers).
At this point, it seems that a fork of Debian is almost inevitable, though that effort appears to me to be more likely to simply dilute the overall effort than bring any resolution.
I'm pretty sure Debian is already the most-forked Linux distort out there. Wikipedia lists 117 distros (on my count) based on Debian.
You aren't supposed to be proud of things you had no control of...
Yeah, like all those people who are "Proud to be American!", just because they were born in the United States of America. What a total bunch of douchebags.
(My apologies if that broke everyones sarcasm meters. Your warranty replacements are in the mail).
I don't see why it should be a reason to be "proud".
Probably because for some 2000+ years, certain major religions have been trying everything they can to make gay people feel shame over their orientation.
I was in the same boat you were. I was a very happy TiVo customer here in Canada, until we moved to an HDTV.
The funny thing was having to try to convince the customer service woman at TiVo that no, I couldn't upgrade to TiVo HD. The concept that I couldn't get a CableCard from my local provider was so alien to her that I had to explain it several times (and even point her to TiVo's own webpage explaining why TiVo HD wasn't available in Canada). Even then I don't think she was quite convinced.
I guess that TiVo had so few Canadian customers that she really hadn't had to deal with the situation before. I still miss out old TiVo; the Motorola box we got from Shaw is great for 1080p video and Dolby Digital audio (neither of which our TiVo 2 could handle); but the user interface and software absolutely suck compared to the TiVo. It's always trying to do dumb stuff, like start a new scheduled recording on the tuner I'm using to watch something, even though nothing is being recorded (or is scheduled to record) on the other tuner at the time; menus you can't move back up from (even if you're several screens down, if you need to go up one menu you frequently (but not always!) have to exit entirely and start over again, drilling back down to where you wanted to be), not being able to filter out all the myriad of channels we don't get form the listings (I've simulated this by setting up a "favourites" list containing only those channels we get, but the way the interface is setup managing this when a few channels change often means I have to remove the favourites list and start over again), and ugly, ugly on-screen graphics (crappy fonts with no smoothing, no built-in upscaling for SD channels, so the entire UI changes to a more compressed version to fit within 480p, etc.). I could probably go on all day. I believe they have better boxes available now, but as I had to buy this one, I don't see it as worthwhile to "upgrade" to another non-TiVo box that is probably equally crappy.
See, the creationists are going about this all wrong. What they need is a meta-theme park, where you go and spend time with a Jewish carpenter wearing hippy clothes who peaches to you all day about God and love while you help him build an Ark-based theme park.
See, in this way you get lots of free labour to build your theme park from all the True Believers, and should any heathens get in, you get to have hippy carpenter guy preach the good word to them all day.
The only drawback to all this is it means Mr. Ham would have to employ someone who is Jewish, and he might feel that is against God's divine will.
No by getting the Muslim community involved and start turning in these idiots, the war on extremists is never going to be won unless the community that they belong to steps up.
Thus far, in every case that has occurred within Canada, the first alerts received by police about radicalized Muslims has been from Imams at various mosques.
The Muslim community has stepped up, and has been doing exactly what you extol. However, holding radical ideals isn't against the law in Canada; unless you can prove that a) an illegal act is being planned, or b) support is being given to an illegal organization, there isn't much the police can do except monitor the people involved.
The attacker from Monday's attack in St. Jean-sur-Richaleau was being monitored by police, and had even recently been questions by them. They had confiscated his passport, as he had booked a flight to Turkey (purportedly to cross into Syria to join ISIS/ISIL), but as he hadn't broken any Canadian laws, were unable to detain him. I have little doubt the way police were alerted to this person in the first place was via people at his local mosque.
Unfortunately, the police don't announce how they find out about the radicals they are tracking (news today has it that the RCMP is tracking 90 people for radicalist activities), in part to protect their sources. This is why you don't hear about it much in the media, but people on the inside know that it's been the leaders of Canadian mosques who have been at the forefront of reporting radical Islamic activity in this country.
It's interesting that OP claims the government "owns" the "IP" related to the vaccine.
Something I left out of my previous post; generally, the Government of Canada doesn't own the patent; instead it's owned by Queen Elizabeth II, in Right of Canada, and represented by the minister of the relevant government agency.
In Canada and most other democracies the gov't is the people, and the people are allowed to own stuff.
As a generalization you're correct, however, in the case of patents, they technically aren't held by the Government of Canada, but are instead held by the Queen. This is usually written as "HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, IN RIGHT OF CANADA AS REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTER OF..." in Canadian patents.
Of course, in a practical sense, the Queen is going around acting as a patent troll. She may own the patents, but control tends to lie with the minister of the responsible government agency.
Looks like a Canadian patent, owned by the " The Government Of The United States Of America As Represented By The Sec Retary, Department Of Health & Human Services, Center For Disease Control".
It's the wrong strain, though. Also I'm not sure why the US government would own a Canadian patent.
I noticed that myself. However, as someone who has a few patents to his credit, it's not unusual for companies (and I suppose governments) in North America to file patents in both countries to improve their overall protection. The patent systems in the two countries are subtly different, and patents are still a national jurisdiction (meaning that US patents are unenforceable in Canada, and vice-versa). Things patented in the US but not here in Canada are fair game in Canada, as things currently stand. Canada also doesn't permit quite as wide a range of things that can be patented as the US does, so you can run into a situation where a Canadian company holds a US patent for an invention or process, but which doesn't have an equivalent Canadian patent.
A patent lawyer can probably provide a lot more detail, but if the US Government wants to assert its right to protect its patents in Canada, it has to file them with CIPO.
They can be classified, but not "owned" except under very rare circumstances. While the ideal has been distorted, especially since 2000, the Federal government is still an employee of The People in the States, and doesn't really "own" anything.
I have a handful of patents where I'm listed as the Inventor, and have some experience in this area.
First off, my case is somewhat different form yours in that while I'm listed as the inventor, the patents in question are owned by one of my former employers, as I came up with the inventions during my employment with them. While this does have the downside of my never being able to monetize them, the upside is if a prospective employer can't really pressure me into giving them anything for free -- they get to take that up with the cadre of lawyers retained by a certain corporation associated with the words "big" and "blue".
So here's a few (hopefully helpful) tips and ideas, based on my experiences:
- Go ahead and list the patents on your resume, but keep the details light. I only provide the patents numbers, patent office that granted the patent (CIPO, USPTO), and the title. They tend to catch the eye of anyone reading your resume, and can be a great conversation piece when talking to an interviewer. However, even when discussing face-to-face, keep the details as light as possible, particularly if you're talking to a technical interviewer. The reasons for this are two-fold: a) if the idea is applicable to their area of work, they may be tempted to try to use it unlicensed (it can really suck to have a great idea of how to do something in your head, only to know you can't use it), and b) if they're already using it unknowingly, you put them in a potentially tough legal position. Neither situation is good for you as a prospective employee, so if they ask you for details on your patents, tell them you'd rather not discuss them for their own protection, and if they insist that they can go and read the patents themselves (suggest they only do so after speaking with their own legal counsel, however). Any smart hiring manager will actually appreciate this response (it's always worked really well for me at least).
- Just because they hire you to do a job doesn't mean they have the right to everything you own as well. I presume you know how to drive. You wouldn't expect your employer to be able to borrow your car without paying you for it, right? If they hire you and come to you wanting to license your technology, that has to be a separate deal.
- Worried somewhat about being pressured into allowing a potential future employer free license to use your patents? Incorporate and reassign the patents to the corporation. You don't have to let them know that you are the corporation if you don't want to. This gives you a firewall between your patents and your professional life.
Install iTunes somewhere, sign up for an account (you can do so without providing a credit card number), and download the album. Apple has been selling music DRM free for the last several years, so it's just standard AAC. Once you have it, remove your account, delete iTunes, and add the music to whatever music program you prefer to use.
Unless, of course, you live in Canada, where copying music from a friend is still perfectly legal.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, left out the cxu. So much for mian putron Esperanton.
Don't be too hard on yourself. I prefer to blame /. for not supporting Unicode :).
Yaz
Kial Esperanto uzas malfacilan Polan prononcon?
C^ar Zamenhof estis Polan?
Yaz
That one is about stomping out all the world's other languages and making us all speak the same. What a loss of culture.
Esperanto has only ever been promoted as a universal second language. There has never been a push to make it the native language for anyone, anywhere. Hence, no loss of culture needed nor required.
Yaz
ok .. go ahead and name one language that isn't about domination and oppression. just one.
Esperanto.
Yaz
Windows has always been like a cheaply made off road vehicle made in a former Soviet-bloc country. The controls were a little weird, and it broke down a lot, but otherwise it could drive on a lot of really sketchy roads, and you probably knew a guy who knew how to fix it for you when it broke down.
Then Windows 8 came along. To continue the analogy, it was like a new model year of that same cheaply made Eastern European off-road vehicle suddenly came with a few well-needed under-the-hood improvements so that it wouldn't break down as readily, along with a big 8" spike sticking out of the centre of the drivers seat. Aficionados who have never driven another car in their lives rave about the spike (it's painted some very nice colours), and continue to flood forums trying to convince people who have stayed away from the newer model because of the spike that if they just tried it long enough, they'd get used to having a giant spike up their asses.
Now Microsoft is coming out with Windows 10, the biggest benefit of which is that it now features a slightly shorter spike. And Windows zealots will try to convince everyone else that it's a major improvement. But you're still taking it in the ass every time you get in for a ride.
Yaz
This is true, but the issue is that is dumb! You really should be able to unbox a toy on Christmas morning have it work without going out the Internet and connecting to some account.
Maybe not all the functionality can be there, but functions that don't naturally require network access should not require network access.
As it happens, my wife bought me a PS4 for Xmas -- a massive upgrade over my 15 year old original PS2. It came in the box with GTA5 (on disc), and a coupon for a free digital download of another game.
It's been a PITA that PSN has been offline. There are a lot of features and functions built into the system that rely on online functionality, including for some dumb reason accessing the built-in web browser. However, playing GTA5 hasn't been an issue -- I just popped the disc in, waited what felt like an eternity while it installed itself (it didn't give me a choice, and warned me it could take up to an hour), and I was off and playing. All without having been signed into PSN.
In essence, the system worked exactly as you described that it should. A single-player game on disc loaded and ran just fine while PSN has been offline. Not all the functionality was there, but the major function that doesn't require network access (playing GTA5 in this case) has worked flawlessly.
Yaz
Uh, a dual core 1.3Ghz cpu is "marginally superior" to phones running quad and octo cores at twice the clock speed?!
Cores and clock speed is hardly the only determinant of performance. It sets a hard upper bound, but that can be readily squandered by software.
In the case of Android phones, they pushed for extra cores early on to avoid UI stutter during garbage collection cycles. iOS has never provided garbage collection; you either have to setup your own retain/release calls to keep or relinquish objects, or you use ARC (Automatic Reference Counting) to do more or less the same thing.
In effect, it's a trade-off. Google decided to simplify memory management for developers, and keep the barrier to entry low by appealing to existing Java developers, with the trade-off being that they require more parallel processing power for garbage collection. Apple avoided the need for the additional processing power and battery capacity (and in turn device size) by not implementing garbage collection in iOS, and thus can squeeze more performance out of fewer cores, with the trade off being you can't just pull Java developers off the street and have them start writing iOS apps. ARC is so slick that IMO Apple has an overall edge with their design; others are of course free to disagree.
Yaz
It seems a bit foolish to worry about purely theoretical security issues when we've got so many real ones to deal with. Ken Thompons' compiler infection demonstration was an interesting experiment designed to make a particular point, but I don't think it's wise to consider tool-chain hacking a legitimate threat, as we've never seen anything remotely like this in the wild, as far as I'm aware. And frankly, I question whether it's even realistically possible beyond a very simplistic demonstration.
First off, naturally the level of security I'm talking about would probably only be reserved for national governmental agencies intended to protect ultra-sensitive data. For them, that level of security is necessary, and they will spend the money and resources to audit and verify everything if necessary (which is why we have SELinux).
Additionally, the build chain comprises not only the compiler, but the standard libraries and any third-party libraries as well. If not verified, these could easily have unexpected code inserted into them, that compromises your product once linked against them. You wouldn't expect to see such compromised libraries "in the wild", as they would probably part of a targeted attack. This is hardly unprecedented; while not done at build time, Stuxnet uses DLL replacement on Windows to add extra routines to the operating system, which are used to inject code being uploaded into a PLC.
Again, most organizations don't care to undertake the kind of expense required to protect against such attacks; they use the chain-of-trust you describe. However, national security organizations do work at this level, and if you need that level of security, pre-compiled binaries, whether they come with source or not, is insufficient.
Yaz
With a verified compiler no less. We have seen ever more sophisticated malware these days, certainly a malicious compiler could easily slip vulnerabilities into the binary.
Yup -- I intended that to be considered part of the build chain. Compiler, standard libs, any 3rd party library dependencies, the build tools themselves (have to make sure they're using the libs you expect them to...), the OS kernel...right on down the chain.
Yaz
I use many open source tools, but I've never inspected the code myself. Even if I did, I'm not going to be finding these hard-to-find defects that the people in the project can't find.
From a security perspective, even just having and being able to inspect the code is insufficient if you need top-notch security: you had better also be compiling that code yourself. It is nearly impossible to be able to verify that a binary blob didn't contain additional/modified code than what the sources contain without compiling it yourself. And even with being able to compile everything yourself, you're still at the mercy of the build chain and all of its dependencies (unless you audit/build them yourself too).
Open Source is still better in this regard than closed source, of course -- at least you have the ability to compile it yourself if security is that critical. I think the problem for a lot of organizations is that security isn't critical enough for them to hire people to a) audit the code and b) build, test, and verify it for their own internal use. In which case, it would (at least form outward appearances) be cheaper/easier to go with a closed-source solution, with someone behind it whom you can blame/sue if things go sideways.
Yaz
Unless you can find a way to network breastfeeding or find a way to run Lunix on it, I don't see how the topic is appropriate for /.
Imagine a Beowulf cluster of...
Nevermind. :)
Yaz
Note, in the first link, everything except W3C is listed as correct, which is even more baffling for me, because somewhere the wrong information is being received, and it happened everywhere in the shop at once, across platforms.
You've got it all wrong as to where the problem lies.
First, there are two ways being used to calculate your geolocation. One of them uses online providers who have databases mapping IP addresses to locations. This is what you're seeing in the "Provider X" columns, which you state are indeed showing your correct location.
W3C doesn't provide a geolocation service. Instead, what the results of this (admittedly badly named) column indicate are what YOUR COMPUTER reports its location as being, using the W3C Geolocation API. The first link you provided above describes this succinctly in the text immediately above the map, where it states "The W3C Geolocation service determins location by the browser providing GPS location (if available) and signal strengths of visible WiFi annoucements" [sic]. Thus, the web page is asking your browser to report where it is located, and your browser is responding that you're somewhere in Ireland.
The question for you then becomes: where is my browser getting this bad data from? On Mac OS X, browsers get this from the Core Location Framework. While Core Location Framework can conceivably use a number of different factors to determine your location, typically it uses the detectable WiFi beacons in your area, mapping their SSIDs and MAC addresses, and their relative strengths to triangulate your location. On Windows it uses the Sensor and Location Platform to do much the same thing.
I don't know much in the way of details of the databases Apple and Microsoft are using on the backend to map your triangulated location based on SSIDs/MACs of visible WiFi access points, however there are a few ways the system can go wrong:
The fact that all your systems had this problem at the same time indicate it's probably one of the above. You can try to fix the situation by changing the SSID of your access point. Depending on the size of your facility, this may be more or less difficult, however it should hopefully make the incorrect results from your OSs' location services either report the correct location, or simply that your location is unknown. You may also need to change the MAC address of your access point(s), but I'd save that as a last resort. Note than making these changes should fix the issue with your systems reporting themselves as being in Ireland, but it may not result in them reporting the correct location (they might report they don't know their location at all). That's okay -- for Apple devices at least, you can fix this by simply having someone with an iPhone with Location Service enabled in the vicinity (Apple's data is crowd sourced automatically through the use of GPS co-ordinates and relative WiFi access point signal strengths (I'm not sure how Microsoft collects the information for their database, so I can't help you there -- a Google search might provide some answers).
HTH!
Yaz
At this point, it seems that a fork of Debian is almost inevitable, though that effort appears to me to be more likely to simply dilute the overall effort than bring any resolution.
I'm pretty sure Debian is already the most-forked Linux distort out there. Wikipedia lists 117 distros (on my count) based on Debian.
Yaz
You aren't supposed to be proud of things you had no control of...
Yeah, like all those people who are "Proud to be American!", just because they were born in the United States of America. What a total bunch of douchebags.
(My apologies if that broke everyones sarcasm meters. Your warranty replacements are in the mail).
Yaz
I don't see why it should be a reason to be "proud".
Probably because for some 2000+ years, certain major religions have been trying everything they can to make gay people feel shame over their orientation.
Yaz
I was in the same boat you were. I was a very happy TiVo customer here in Canada, until we moved to an HDTV.
The funny thing was having to try to convince the customer service woman at TiVo that no, I couldn't upgrade to TiVo HD. The concept that I couldn't get a CableCard from my local provider was so alien to her that I had to explain it several times (and even point her to TiVo's own webpage explaining why TiVo HD wasn't available in Canada). Even then I don't think she was quite convinced.
I guess that TiVo had so few Canadian customers that she really hadn't had to deal with the situation before. I still miss out old TiVo; the Motorola box we got from Shaw is great for 1080p video and Dolby Digital audio (neither of which our TiVo 2 could handle); but the user interface and software absolutely suck compared to the TiVo. It's always trying to do dumb stuff, like start a new scheduled recording on the tuner I'm using to watch something, even though nothing is being recorded (or is scheduled to record) on the other tuner at the time; menus you can't move back up from (even if you're several screens down, if you need to go up one menu you frequently (but not always!) have to exit entirely and start over again, drilling back down to where you wanted to be), not being able to filter out all the myriad of channels we don't get form the listings (I've simulated this by setting up a "favourites" list containing only those channels we get, but the way the interface is setup managing this when a few channels change often means I have to remove the favourites list and start over again), and ugly, ugly on-screen graphics (crappy fonts with no smoothing, no built-in upscaling for SD channels, so the entire UI changes to a more compressed version to fit within 480p, etc.). I could probably go on all day. I believe they have better boxes available now, but as I had to buy this one, I don't see it as worthwhile to "upgrade" to another non-TiVo box that is probably equally crappy.
Yaz
See, the creationists are going about this all wrong. What they need is a meta-theme park, where you go and spend time with a Jewish carpenter wearing hippy clothes who peaches to you all day about God and love while you help him build an Ark-based theme park.
See, in this way you get lots of free labour to build your theme park from all the True Believers, and should any heathens get in, you get to have hippy carpenter guy preach the good word to them all day.
The only drawback to all this is it means Mr. Ham would have to employ someone who is Jewish, and he might feel that is against God's divine will.
Yaz
No by getting the Muslim community involved and start turning in these idiots, the war on extremists is never going to be won unless the community that they belong to steps up.
Thus far, in every case that has occurred within Canada, the first alerts received by police about radicalized Muslims has been from Imams at various mosques.
The Muslim community has stepped up, and has been doing exactly what you extol. However, holding radical ideals isn't against the law in Canada; unless you can prove that a) an illegal act is being planned, or b) support is being given to an illegal organization, there isn't much the police can do except monitor the people involved.
The attacker from Monday's attack in St. Jean-sur-Richaleau was being monitored by police, and had even recently been questions by them. They had confiscated his passport, as he had booked a flight to Turkey (purportedly to cross into Syria to join ISIS/ISIL), but as he hadn't broken any Canadian laws, were unable to detain him. I have little doubt the way police were alerted to this person in the first place was via people at his local mosque.
Unfortunately, the police don't announce how they find out about the radicals they are tracking (news today has it that the RCMP is tracking 90 people for radicalist activities), in part to protect their sources. This is why you don't hear about it much in the media, but people on the inside know that it's been the leaders of Canadian mosques who have been at the forefront of reporting radical Islamic activity in this country.
Yaz
Sigh...that was, naturally, a typo. It was intended to read that the Queen is not a patent troll.
That said, you can take your nomination and stick it where the sun doesn't shine.
Yaz
It's interesting that OP claims the government "owns" the "IP" related to the vaccine.
Something I left out of my previous post; generally, the Government of Canada doesn't own the patent; instead it's owned by Queen Elizabeth II, in Right of Canada, and represented by the minister of the relevant government agency.
Here's an example I picked purely because of it's humorous title, particular when you relate it to the Queen as owner: APPARATUS FOR PERFORMING SCROTAL CIRCUMFERENCE MEASUREMENT ON BULLS.
Yaz
In Canada and most other democracies the gov't is the people, and the people are allowed to own stuff.
As a generalization you're correct, however, in the case of patents, they technically aren't held by the Government of Canada, but are instead held by the Queen. This is usually written as "HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, IN RIGHT OF CANADA AS REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTER OF..." in Canadian patents.
Of course, in a practical sense, the Queen is going around acting as a patent troll. She may own the patents, but control tends to lie with the minister of the responsible government agency.
Yaz
The US has a patent on an Ebola virus.. Human ebola virus species and compositions and methods thereof
Looks like a Canadian patent, owned by the " The Government Of The United States Of America As Represented By The Sec Retary, Department Of Health & Human Services, Center For Disease Control".
It's the wrong strain, though. Also I'm not sure why the US government would own a Canadian patent.
I noticed that myself. However, as someone who has a few patents to his credit, it's not unusual for companies (and I suppose governments) in North America to file patents in both countries to improve their overall protection. The patent systems in the two countries are subtly different, and patents are still a national jurisdiction (meaning that US patents are unenforceable in Canada, and vice-versa). Things patented in the US but not here in Canada are fair game in Canada, as things currently stand. Canada also doesn't permit quite as wide a range of things that can be patented as the US does, so you can run into a situation where a Canadian company holds a US patent for an invention or process, but which doesn't have an equivalent Canadian patent.
A patent lawyer can probably provide a lot more detail, but if the US Government wants to assert its right to protect its patents in Canada, it has to file them with CIPO.
Yaz
They can be classified, but not "owned" except under very rare circumstances. While the ideal has been distorted, especially since 2000, the Federal government is still an employee of The People in the States, and doesn't really "own" anything.
Uh...I'll just leave this here...
Yaz
I have a handful of patents where I'm listed as the Inventor, and have some experience in this area.
First off, my case is somewhat different form yours in that while I'm listed as the inventor, the patents in question are owned by one of my former employers, as I came up with the inventions during my employment with them. While this does have the downside of my never being able to monetize them, the upside is if a prospective employer can't really pressure me into giving them anything for free -- they get to take that up with the cadre of lawyers retained by a certain corporation associated with the words "big" and "blue".
So here's a few (hopefully helpful) tips and ideas, based on my experiences:
Yaz
Install iTunes somewhere, sign up for an account (you can do so without providing a credit card number), and download the album. Apple has been selling music DRM free for the last several years, so it's just standard AAC. Once you have it, remove your account, delete iTunes, and add the music to whatever music program you prefer to use.
Unless, of course, you live in Canada, where copying music from a friend is still perfectly legal.
Yaz