"There was a great need for the CRTC to prevent abuse by the state monopoly"
There might not be a state monopoly anymore, but the home phone business is definatly still controlled by monopolies. Unless you live in one of the largest cities in the country, there is virtually zero competition. Anywhere that I have lived, the only local phone company has been bell canada. Its the same pretty much all over Ontario. Long distance service is a different matter.
However much I might agree with you in principal about non regulation, I think this might actually be a good thing. Hopefully it will give the upstarts a chance to get into the market before its completly taken over by the current monopolies.
The GP's not talking about giving it away for free to evreyone, he's talking about giving it away to schools. You know hook 'em while they're young and all that.
You know all it took was a copy and paste right?
U.S. Government Objects to Canadian Copyright Reform Plan
The U.S. Trade Representative has issued its annual report on global intellectual property protection, known as the Special 301 Report. Once again, Canada finds itself in good company on the list (a more interesting list would consist of countries who meet the U.S. standard for IP protection).
This year's report is most notable for its comment on Canada's copyright reform plan, announced just last month. The USTR has the following to say about Canada:
"Canada is being maintained on the Special 301 Watch List in 2005, and the United States will conduct an out-of-cycle review to monitor Canada's progress on IPR issues during the upcoming year. We urge Canada to ratify and implement the WIPO Internet Treaties as soon as possible, and to reform its copyright law so that it provides adequate and effective protection of copyrighted works in the digital environment. The Canadian court decision finding that making files available for copying on a peer-to-peer file sharing service cannot give rise to liability for infringement under existing Canadian copyright law underscores the need for Canada to join nearly all other developed countries in implementing the WIPO Internet Treaties. The U.S. copyright industry is concerned about proposed copyright legislation regarding technological protection measures and internet service provider (ISP) liability, which if passed, would appear to be a departure from the requirements of the WIPO Internet Treaties as well as the international standards adopted by most OECD countries in the world. The United States urges Canada to adopt legislation that is consistent with the WIPO Internet Treaties and is in line with the international standards of most developed countries. Specifically, we encourage Canada to join the strong international consensus by adopting copyright legislation that provides comprehensive protection to copyrighted works in the digital environment, by outlawing trafficking in devices to circumvent technological protection measures, and by establishing a "notice-and-takedown" system to encourage cooperation by ISPs in combating online infringements. It also is imperative that Canada improve its enforcement system so that it can stop the extensive trade in counterfeit and pirated products, as well as curb the amount of transshipped and transiting goods in Canada. The United States also urges Canada to enact legislation that would provide a stronger border enforcement system by giving its customs officers greater authority to seize products suspected of being pirated or counterfeit. We also encourage greater cooperation between Customs and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in enforcement matters, and encourage Canada to provide additional resources and training to its customs officers and domestic law enforcement personnel. Canada's border measures continue to be a serious concern for IP owners. With respect to data protection, we recognize that Canada has taken positive steps to improve its data protection regime. The U.S. pharmaceutical industry is concerned about certain aspects of the proposed regulations. The United States will use the out-of-cycle review to monitor Canada's progress in providing an adequate and effective IPR protection regime that is consistent with its international obligations and advanced level of economic development, including improved border enforcement and full implementation of data protection."
What to take away from this? Not surprisingly, Canada's balanced proposal for copyright reform does not leave the U.S. copyright industries particularly happy. It isn't just that they want Canada to implement the WIPO Internet treaties, they want us to implement a Canadian version of the DMCA. They interestingly question whether the Canadian plan meets WIPO standards given the exclusion of devices from our anti-circumvention provisions. I think a plain reading of the WIPO Internet treaties suggests that it does. Meetin
"You can't record anything people say or video of anything they may do, without their permission."
So what would you say about the surveliance cameras that are evreywhere nowadays? Or reporters bringing cameras on scene and recording live news? Or any other countless situation where people record events without the consent of those being recorded.
Im pretty sure this isnt illigal, otherwise there would be no such thing as the papperatzi. (Which, would actually be an incentive to passing laws that make recording oters illigal).
"Thousands of gigabytes of data would have to be downloaded before Google started to scratch."
I would think it would need to be much more than that. If this service takes off, there would be thousands of people video blogging, uploading home movies, and creating their own amatuer tv shows and movies. These things take tons of space. Assuming they let people use a decent bitrate an hour of footage would take a minimum of 300MB, multiply a popular video blog by a few hundred or thousand viewers and were talking immense bandwidth.
Last time I went to the eye doctor (a month or two ago) he told me basically, that staring at monitors should have NO ill effects, as long as you take a break evrey once in a while. He phrased it as the 20-20-20 rule. Basically evrey 20 minutes, look at somthign 20 feet away for 20 seconds to prevent your eyes from getting strained.
Im quoting the AC since he sums up my position perfectly.
It doesn't matter that the state is providing services to the business - the business should be taxed by the state, not the businesses employees
A business pays taxes on it's income. An employee pays taxes on the employee's income. The business gets services from the taxes it pays where it is located. The employee gets services via the taxes the employee pays where the employee is located.
E.G., they are taxing the -employee's- income, not the business income, and since the -employee- receives no services, and it is the employee's income, why should the employee have to pay the taxes?
In your 'business all in one state, employees all in another', the state where the business is would get taxes from the business incomes, the state where the employees live would get the taxes on the employee's income.
Or just add in a field requiring them to enter a word embedded in a graphic. It seems to have stopped the spam on my blog, and I dont even bother randomly generating it i use the same word evrey time.
They make more more money towing you to a gas station then they would just filling you up. With the cost of a tow truck factored in, it wouldnt be worth retrofitting them like that.
On the other hand, retrofit some regular trucks to pump gas and youve got yourslef a towtruck alernative when you run out. Of course you could always just call a cab to the cas station and back, and fill up a jug instead.
"Or, if you absolutely must have the thing inhabit some specific dungeon, make everyone (or every group) that enters it be transported to a separate dungeon - different instances of the same place, in other words."
Thats exactly how they do it in WoW. All the harder dungeons where you actually have a good chance of getting worthwhile item drops are "instanced".
"You can't, of course. But the quesiton then becomes: should they give to a TV show, or to the needy? This act is very selfish, IMO, and shows an almost willful blindness to the world around them. TV shows come and go; none are so important that they should become the target for charitable giving."
Have you ever payed money to go watch a movie, or eat out at a resturant instead of at home where tis cheaper? You heartless bastard, you couldve saved that money and given it to a charity! BURN IN HELL YOU EVIL CAPITALIST
I dont know about you, but I LIKE the fact that XP comes with less stuff on it. Less bloat makes me happier, Id rather install evreything i use on my computer myself so that I know exactly whats on it.
That said, I know you dont need to install all the default/extra packages when you pop on a linux distro, and XP does have some bloat. Im just saying in reply to "XP thats the system which comes with nothing on it.", to me this is more of an advantage than a disadvantage.
Thats kind of what Im doing right now. Ive got an email server at my domain that just forawards evreythign to gmail, and gmail just labels evreything I send out as having been sent from said email address (well the reply to anyways).
Slashdot Mirror
Not that it really matter, but its T'Pal not T'Pau. And yeah, shes definatly the best looking eye candy ive seen in the startrek franchise.
There might not be a state monopoly anymore, but the home phone business is definatly still controlled by monopolies. Unless you live in one of the largest cities in the country, there is virtually zero competition. Anywhere that I have lived, the only local phone company has been bell canada. Its the same pretty much all over Ontario. Long distance service is a different matter.
However much I might agree with you in principal about non regulation, I think this might actually be a good thing. Hopefully it will give the upstarts a chance to get into the market before its completly taken over by the current monopolies.
The GP's not talking about giving it away for free to evreyone, he's talking about giving it away to schools. You know hook 'em while they're young and all that.
The U.S. Trade Representative has issued its annual report on global intellectual property protection, known as the Special 301 Report. Once again, Canada finds itself in good company on the list (a more interesting list would consist of countries who meet the U.S. standard for IP protection).
This year's report is most notable for its comment on Canada's copyright reform plan, announced just last month. The USTR has the following to say about Canada:
"Canada is being maintained on the Special 301 Watch List in 2005, and the United States will conduct an out-of-cycle review to monitor Canada's progress on IPR issues during the upcoming year. We urge Canada to ratify and implement the WIPO Internet Treaties as soon as possible, and to reform its copyright law so that it provides adequate and effective protection of copyrighted works in the digital environment. The Canadian court decision finding that making files available for copying on a peer-to-peer file sharing service cannot give rise to liability for infringement under existing Canadian copyright law underscores the need for Canada to join nearly all other developed countries in implementing the WIPO Internet Treaties. The U.S. copyright industry is concerned about proposed copyright legislation regarding technological protection measures and internet service provider (ISP) liability, which if passed, would appear to be a departure from the requirements of the WIPO Internet Treaties as well as the international standards adopted by most OECD countries in the world. The United States urges Canada to adopt legislation that is consistent with the WIPO Internet Treaties and is in line with the international standards of most developed countries. Specifically, we encourage Canada to join the strong international consensus by adopting copyright legislation that provides comprehensive protection to copyrighted works in the digital environment, by outlawing trafficking in devices to circumvent technological protection measures, and by establishing a "notice-and-takedown" system to encourage cooperation by ISPs in combating online infringements. It also is imperative that Canada improve its enforcement system so that it can stop the extensive trade in counterfeit and pirated products, as well as curb the amount of transshipped and transiting goods in Canada. The United States also urges Canada to enact legislation that would provide a stronger border enforcement system by giving its customs officers greater authority to seize products suspected of being pirated or counterfeit. We also encourage greater cooperation between Customs and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in enforcement matters, and encourage Canada to provide additional resources and training to its customs officers and domestic law enforcement personnel. Canada's border measures continue to be a serious concern for IP owners. With respect to data protection, we recognize that Canada has taken positive steps to improve its data protection regime. The U.S. pharmaceutical industry is concerned about certain aspects of the proposed regulations. The United States will use the out-of-cycle review to monitor Canada's progress in providing an adequate and effective IPR protection regime that is consistent with its international obligations and advanced level of economic development, including improved border enforcement and full implementation of data protection."
What to take away from this? Not surprisingly, Canada's balanced proposal for copyright reform does not leave the U.S. copyright industries particularly happy. It isn't just that they want Canada to implement the WIPO Internet treaties, they want us to implement a Canadian version of the DMCA. They interestingly question whether the Canadian plan meets WIPO standards given the exclusion of devices from our anti-circumvention provisions. I think a plain reading of the WIPO Internet treaties suggests that it does. Meetin
Nope, that was just called Math.
2989
So what would you say about the surveliance cameras that are evreywhere nowadays? Or reporters bringing cameras on scene and recording live news? Or any other countless situation where people record events without the consent of those being recorded.
Im pretty sure this isnt illigal, otherwise there would be no such thing as the papperatzi. (Which, would actually be an incentive to passing laws that make recording oters illigal).
I would think it would need to be much more than that. If this service takes off, there would be thousands of people video blogging, uploading home movies, and creating their own amatuer tv shows and movies. These things take tons of space. Assuming they let people use a decent bitrate an hour of footage would take a minimum of 300MB, multiply a popular video blog by a few hundred or thousand viewers and were talking immense bandwidth.
I cant wait.
Last time I went to the eye doctor (a month or two ago) he told me basically, that staring at monitors should have NO ill effects, as long as you take a break evrey once in a while. He phrased it as the 20-20-20 rule. Basically evrey 20 minutes, look at somthign 20 feet away for 20 seconds to prevent your eyes from getting strained.
The fact that it ends at noon is just an april fools joke that we play on the fools gullable enough to believe it.
It doesn't matter that the state is providing services to the business - the business should be taxed by the state, not the businesses employees A business pays taxes on it's income. An employee pays taxes on the employee's income. The business gets services from the taxes it pays where it is located. The employee gets services via the taxes the employee pays where the employee is located. E.G., they are taxing the -employee's- income, not the business income, and since the -employee- receives no services, and it is the employee's income, why should the employee have to pay the taxes?
In your 'business all in one state, employees all in another', the state where the business is would get taxes from the business incomes, the state where the employees live would get the taxes on the employee's income.
And its likely that that contract would be ruled invalid if they ever took it to court.
Or just add in a field requiring them to enter a word embedded in a graphic. It seems to have stopped the spam on my blog, and I dont even bother randomly generating it i use the same word evrey time.
But then again, you can play that on 56k aswell.
$10 more per month.
But then, if your not getting cable tv service, get DSL instead.
Not that im argueing for the spammers, Id kill them all just as quick as the next man.
On the other hand, retrofit some regular trucks to pump gas and youve got yourslef a towtruck alernative when you run out. Of course you could always just call a cab to the cas station and back, and fill up a jug instead.
Or do you feel that you are your mind?
Thats assuming that the employee signed a contract or non disclosure agreemnt saying that they woudld keep information like this confidential.
Thats exactly how they do it in WoW. All the harder dungeons where you actually have a good chance of getting worthwhile item drops are "instanced".
Yeah, but Apache is successful, so it would seem to not count as open source anymore.
Have you ever payed money to go watch a movie, or eat out at a resturant instead of at home where tis cheaper? You heartless bastard, you couldve saved that money and given it to a charity! BURN IN HELL YOU EVIL CAPITALIST
(im assuming you can find the sarcasm yourself)
That said, I know you dont need to install all the default/extra packages when you pop on a linux distro, and XP does have some bloat. Im just saying in reply to "XP thats the system which comes with nothing on it.", to me this is more of an advantage than a disadvantage.
It works in Canada. What country are you in?
Thats kind of what Im doing right now. Ive got an email server at my domain that just forawards evreythign to gmail, and gmail just labels evreything I send out as having been sent from said email address (well the reply to anyways).