From a reform liberal perspective... Public Transit [i]should[/i] be subsidized for the same reason that the [i]government[/i] pays for roads. Besides, some people are simply at a disadvantage and should be allowed the freedom to move about the city.
From a more capitalist perspective, subsidizing public transit keeps it affordable for low-wage workers to get to their jobs and take part in the system and, in this manner, has an economic benefit far higher than the actual cost of the subsidy.
Oh, I think most will now respond to and read e-mail. However, I still think there is a large psychological difference between a full inbox and a large crate of letters.
I would argue that the letters (or large amount of calls) seem more 'real' as they take up quantifiable amounts of time and space.
If you would really like to promote change, please take the time to write or call officials. This will almost certainly have a larger impact than any protest restricted to the net.
I mean, obviously these people do not get technology in the way most of us do, otherwise they would not be suggesting such ludicrous laws. As such, take the battle to them on terms they understand.
It may seem silly to us, but really it is just the reverse of what happens here.
I'm sure many people thought the "cool", "exotic" Japanese characters behind the names in the trailer to The Last Samurai were really something. Yet, somehow, they lose their exotic edge when you realize that, behind Tom Cruise's name, is simply "Tomu Kuruzo" in Japanese....
It could be argued that the Senate would provide a balance if the Senate was not also appointed. That is the fatal flaw...appoint, appoint, appoint. Appoint some more, then appoint your friends, and appoint their friends, you only have to look at exactly what the Liberals have been doing if you want to see
Well, yes, but the Senate is appointed for life specifically because it is supposed to provide a balance. It doesn't always work that way, but, theoretically, appointments for life should allow Senators to oppose the government without fear of reprisal.
Of course, it rarely happens, and the last time it did, Brian Mulroney was able to appoint extra senators via a loophole in order to pass the GST, but still.
The 'party' leader says...vote the way I tell you or unpleasent things will happen to your political career.
Yeah, of course. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. Again, in Canada, you are voting for the party, not the person.
but to their credit neither do they use a popular vote.
We don't use a popular vote either.
Just out of curriosity, for the "bribes and currying of favor's" bit have you been watching what has been going on in Ottawa the last bit with the sponsorship messup?
True, we do occasionally get rather large scandals like this. This is bad. Then again, I wonder if more money is wasted here, or if more money is wasted in the US when individual representatives attach riders to bills...
While I don't mean to be rude, your basic complain seems to be "Canada's political system isn't American's political system".
Congrats. You hit the nail on the head.
Our PM, domestically, is far more powerfull then a president. One example of this is the fact that he appoints judges.
Is this a good thing?
Maybe. It means judge appointments happen quickly, as opposed to the long, drawn out, highly idealogical affairs which occur in the US (though, arguably, ideaology is involved here to).
The "hand off" happened because the PM is a representitive of the *party* that the people have decided should govern the country. We do *not* vote for our PM, we vote for the party, and the winning party gets to field the PM.
Does the PM have too much power? Maybe. It is arguable that the Senate provides a modicum of balance, though the practical effect of the Senate can be debated at great length.
As to the "exploitation of power", I don't see the Canadian government system as being more prone to corruption then the American system. If anything, party discipline makes it harder to curry favour by bribing elected officials.
Every time I talk about switching my fido SIM card into a roger's phone, they're always like "you can't do that" and whatnot
Actually, all the newer Rogers phones are compatible with the Fido network -- They both use the same GSM standard.
That said, as a rule, you can't simply place a Fido SIM chip in a Rogers phone (or vice versa) as the phones are "Subsidy Locked". Place a non authorised sim in and it will ask you for an unlock code.
This is done as the phone companies usually give phones out at substantial discounts and, so, want you to use their service. However, it is possible to unlock Rogers/Fido phones and, if this is done, Fido sims will work in Rogers phonse and vice versa.
So why, exactly, does the US like to beat the free trade drum?
Because it's no tariffs on the products they export, but they can put tariffs on anything they decide deserves it.
That isn't free trade.
Personally, I don't want free trade. Most people don't want free trade. But if you are going to ram it down our throats you may as well actually let the populace see the full effect of it.
Dolby Digital has better compression than DTS, but... audiophiles insist that they can hear a difference. In fact, enough people prefer DTS to Dolby Digital that many movies are released with both DTS and Dolby Digital tracks!
But the majority doesn't care. The other question raised is how many people who prefer DTS do so because of indoctrination and the elitism that occurs with it? Afterall, in some ways, Saying you only like DTS is like saying you only drive Porsches
And also, let's not forget SuperBit DVD's... DVD's which sacrifice the special features to give the video a higher bitrate. If these didn't sell well, the company wouldn't *still* be releasing SuberBit DVD's, but they are.
They only sell well enough to make the company a profit. Again, the elitist arguement can be raised here. Still, Superbit seems to provide *some* noticeable improvement in *some* movies. But, again, for the vast majority of movies it simply doesn't make a difference. I don't own a single movie in which I would identify artifacting due to low bitrate as a problem.
So... even if the compression *did* manage to shrink the video down to managable amounts, it still might not be enough to give VOD a "nudge", so to speak.
Barring major change though it will swill be the MPAA et all which decide what get's the *nudge*. If they throw marketing behind it and don't make DRM too intrusive, the consumers will come.
I believe the future lies in the HD-DVD.
Possibly. It would be more accurate to say that a parralel future lies with HD-DVD. VOD and HD-DVD are not mutually exclusive by any means.
There are a number of proposals for this, including one that uses MPEG2 on a Blu-Ray disc (~50gb, if dual layered) and another that uses MPEG4 on a DVD (~9gb, if dual layered).
The main issue here is the recquired hardware upgrade which may, or may not pose a problem. If backwards compatibility is preserved (via a "DVD layer") this will be a non issue, otherwise VOD may hold the advantage, with cable companies providing the necessary hardware (or, for that matter, the computer providing the necessary hardware).
I think it's safe to say we don't know what the future holds.
I realise this is getting slightly off the topic at hand, but....
No, you may not reccomend Ayn Rand. I may as well reccomend Chomsky to you. They are both fairly extreme in their views and not likely to find either of us on middle ground.
So, remove the FDIC, that's a socialist control. Remove any tax on corporations (I mean its not like any of the big one's pay taxes now anyway...). Institute a flat rate tax. The rich will continue to get richer and the poor will continue to fall. Hardly seems like an ideal world...
Get rid of those Canadian's pesky social health care idea (even though in ever poll conducted, over 50% of questioned American's have expressed a want of government funded health care. Politicians still call such a proposition 'political suicide').
Remember, with social security they never actually save any money. What use is the government putting money in a bank which could otherwise be in circulation. Actually saving notes for social security would harm the economy. Rather, the government writes itself handy little IOU's (I Owe Me 10 Billion...). In this way, present contributions are always paying past contributors out (and the system works wonderfully until you get too many people wanting money and not enough workers supplying it).
Heck, the only reason we have avoided depressions greater then "the big one" is because of socialist controls and government bail outs.
Pure capitalism would mean there wouldn't be any airlines in bussiness from America right now. Pure capitalism would be when Johnny gets sick and mom can't pay, johnny dies. Pure capitalism would not have government funded schools or utilities, and we all know how well deregulation has worked....
No, but then again, its not like we have (or want) pure capitalism. Pure capitalism would be NO government aid. No major tax cuts, no negative net taxes paid back to corporations. No corporations being handed publically funded projects (aka the phone lines, the railways etc).
Today's capitalist system thrives because of the socialist controls imposed on it...
Actually, I work at Radio Shack... we'll tell you that because its easier then explaining why They don't exist. I mean come on, if your coming to *me* for parts, thinking a flux capacitor exists is the least of your problems...
So what, exactly, gives you the right to deny them of funds like that? Now if you simply close the ad and don't click on it, thats one thing, but to never view it....
Slashdot Mirror
From a reform liberal perspective... Public Transit [i]should[/i] be subsidized for the same reason that the [i]government[/i] pays for roads. Besides, some people are simply at a disadvantage and should be allowed the freedom to move about the city.
From a more capitalist perspective, subsidizing public transit keeps it affordable for low-wage workers to get to their jobs and take part in the system and, in this manner, has an economic benefit far higher than the actual cost of the subsidy.
I don't know, I disagree. I know one local Canadian Alliance MP who was willing to buck the party line simply because of:
a) The views he held
b) His constituents responses
(Specifically, he stated he would vote for Bill C-250 which added "sexual orientation" to the protected classes of hate crime legistlation...)
Well, by either:
a) Calling the office of the Prime Minister
or
b) Writing the office of the Prime Minister.
Much as you would contact a regular MP.
Oh, I think most will now respond to and read e-mail. However, I still think there is a large psychological difference between a full inbox and a large crate of letters.
I would argue that the letters (or large amount of calls) seem more 'real' as they take up quantifiable amounts of time and space.
If you would really like to promote change, please take the time to write or call officials. This will almost certainly have a larger impact than any protest restricted to the net.
I mean, obviously these people do not get technology in the way most of us do, otherwise they would not be suggesting such ludicrous laws. As such, take the battle to them on terms they understand.
I'm well aware, but I find that when most people proclaim something as unconstitutional, they are usually reffering to some section of the Charter.
Just out of curiousity, what section of the Charter would it violate?
I was just recalling from memory... having looked at the trailer again it was kuruuzu... my mistake.
It may seem silly to us, but really it is just the reverse of what happens here.
I'm sure many people thought the "cool", "exotic" Japanese characters behind the names in the trailer to The Last Samurai were really something. Yet, somehow, they lose their exotic edge when you realize that, behind Tom Cruise's name, is simply "Tomu Kuruzo" in Japanese....
It could be argued that the Senate would provide a balance if the Senate was not also appointed. That is the fatal flaw...appoint, appoint, appoint. Appoint some more, then appoint your friends, and appoint their friends, you only have to look at exactly what the Liberals have been doing if you want to see
Well, yes, but the Senate is appointed for life specifically because it is supposed to provide a balance. It doesn't always work that way, but, theoretically, appointments for life should allow Senators to oppose the government without fear of reprisal.
Of course, it rarely happens, and the last time it did, Brian Mulroney was able to appoint extra senators via a loophole in order to pass the GST, but still.
The 'party' leader says...vote the way I tell you or unpleasent things will happen to your political career.
Yeah, of course. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. Again, in Canada, you are voting for the party, not the person.
but to their credit neither do they use a popular vote.
We don't use a popular vote either.
Just out of curriosity, for the "bribes and currying of favor's" bit have you been watching what has been going on in Ottawa the last bit with the sponsorship messup?
True, we do occasionally get rather large scandals like this. This is bad. Then again, I wonder if more money is wasted here, or if more money is wasted in the US when individual representatives attach riders to bills...
While I don't mean to be rude, your basic complain seems to be "Canada's political system isn't American's political system".
Congrats. You hit the nail on the head.
Our PM, domestically, is far more powerfull then a president. One example of this is the fact that he appoints judges.
Is this a good thing?
Maybe. It means judge appointments happen quickly, as opposed to the long, drawn out, highly idealogical affairs which occur in the US (though, arguably, ideaology is involved here to).
The "hand off" happened because the PM is a representitive of the *party* that the people have decided should govern the country. We do *not* vote for our PM, we vote for the party, and the winning party gets to field the PM.
Does the PM have too much power? Maybe. It is arguable that the Senate provides a modicum of balance, though the practical effect of the Senate can be debated at great length.
As to the "exploitation of power", I don't see the Canadian government system as being more prone to corruption then the American system. If anything, party discipline makes it harder to curry favour by bribing elected officials.
Every time I talk about switching my fido SIM card into a roger's phone, they're always like "you can't do that" and whatnot
Actually, all the newer Rogers phones are compatible with the Fido network -- They both use the same GSM standard.
That said, as a rule, you can't simply place a Fido SIM chip in a Rogers phone (or vice versa) as the phones are "Subsidy Locked". Place a non authorised sim in and it will ask you for an unlock code. This is done as the phone companies usually give phones out at substantial discounts and, so, want you to use their service. However, it is possible to unlock Rogers/Fido phones and, if this is done, Fido sims will work in Rogers phonse and vice versa.
So why, exactly, does the US like to beat the free trade drum?
Because it's no tariffs on the products they export, but they can put tariffs on anything they decide deserves it.
That isn't free trade.
Personally, I don't want free trade. Most people don't want free trade. But if you are going to ram it down our throats you may as well actually let the populace see the full effect of it.
Dolby Digital has better compression than DTS, but... audiophiles insist that they can hear a difference. In fact, enough people prefer DTS to Dolby Digital that many movies are released with both DTS and Dolby Digital tracks!
But the majority doesn't care. The other question raised is how many people who prefer DTS do so because of indoctrination and the elitism that occurs with it? Afterall, in some ways, Saying you only like DTS is like saying you only drive Porsches
And also, let's not forget SuperBit DVD's... DVD's which sacrifice the special features to give the video a higher bitrate. If these didn't sell well, the company wouldn't *still* be releasing SuberBit DVD's, but they are.
They only sell well enough to make the company a profit. Again, the elitist arguement can be raised here. Still, Superbit seems to provide *some* noticeable improvement in *some* movies. But, again, for the vast majority of movies it simply doesn't make a difference. I don't own a single movie in which I would identify artifacting due to low bitrate as a problem.
So... even if the compression *did* manage to shrink the video down to managable amounts, it still might not be enough to give VOD a "nudge", so to speak.
Barring major change though it will swill be the MPAA et all which decide what get's the *nudge*. If they throw marketing behind it and don't make DRM too intrusive, the consumers will come.
I believe the future lies in the HD-DVD.
Possibly. It would be more accurate to say that a parralel future lies with HD-DVD. VOD and HD-DVD are not mutually exclusive by any means.
There are a number of proposals for this, including one that uses MPEG2 on a Blu-Ray disc (~50gb, if dual layered) and another that uses MPEG4 on a DVD (~9gb, if dual layered).
The main issue here is the recquired hardware upgrade which may, or may not pose a problem. If backwards compatibility is preserved (via a "DVD layer") this will be a non issue, otherwise VOD may hold the advantage, with cable companies providing the necessary hardware (or, for that matter, the computer providing the necessary hardware).
I think it's safe to say we don't know what the future holds.
d. In Canada DSL is significantly faster. The lowest priced package offers 1.5/512 while a slightly higher priced package offers 2.5 /640.
The lower priced package costs about 23USD / mo and the higher priced package about 35 USD / mo
Actually, I believe the Gamecube was the only platform to offer it completely uncensored, the X-boy simply censored less then the PS2.
I realise this is getting slightly off the topic at hand, but....
No, you may not reccomend Ayn Rand. I may as well reccomend Chomsky to you. They are both fairly extreme in their views and not likely to find either of us on middle ground.
So, remove the FDIC, that's a socialist control. Remove any tax on corporations (I mean its not like any of the big one's pay taxes now anyway...). Institute a flat rate tax. The rich will continue to get richer and the poor will continue to fall. Hardly seems like an ideal world...
Get rid of those Canadian's pesky social health care idea (even though in ever poll conducted, over 50% of questioned American's have expressed a want of government funded health care. Politicians still call such a proposition 'political suicide').
Remember, with social security they never actually save any money. What use is the government putting money in a bank which could otherwise be in circulation. Actually saving notes for social security would harm the economy. Rather, the government writes itself handy little IOU's (I Owe Me 10 Billion...). In this way, present contributions are always paying past contributors out (and the system works wonderfully until you get too many people wanting money and not enough workers supplying it).
Heck, the only reason we have avoided depressions greater then "the big one" is because of socialist controls and government bail outs.
Pure capitalism would mean there wouldn't be any airlines in bussiness from America right now. Pure capitalism would be when Johnny gets sick and mom can't pay, johnny dies. Pure capitalism would not have government funded schools or utilities, and we all know how well deregulation has worked....
And capatlistic tendencies are bad?
No, but then again, its not like we have (or want) pure capitalism. Pure capitalism would be NO government aid. No major tax cuts, no negative net taxes paid back to corporations. No corporations being handed publically funded projects (aka the phone lines, the railways etc).
Today's capitalist system thrives because of the socialist controls imposed on it...
Afterall, who needs the FDIC anyway?
Actually, if you are at a Radioshack in Canada, you just never get the stock and have to lie and *say* you are just sold out. Scary, but true!
A $95 stocking fee! Are you insane! We'd go out of bussiness if we charged that. I mean my GOD, it'll cost atleast $125 to restock that!
Actually, I work at Radio Shack... we'll tell you that because its easier then explaining why They don't exist. I mean come on, if your coming to *me* for parts, thinking a flux capacitor exists is the least of your problems...
while certainly not governmental systems to model
Ummm wha? Or was that just a cheap shot?
You don't think they would post this is Red Hat shipped with a virus?
Ironic that on the day of this posting, days before release, a Telesync release is already out. May the force be with them?
NFO
So what, exactly, gives you the right to deny them of funds like that? Now if you simply close the ad and don't click on it, thats one thing, but to never view it....