I was thinking along those lines, actually. Given they have "inertial dampeners" which stop the crew from turning into chunky salsa every time the ship goes to warp, then they could use some variant thereof to steal all the inertia from a jumper.
Uh... no. If that were true, the ship would fall too. So would all the TV satellites currently in orbit, which are stationary relative to the surface of the earth (this is why your TV satellite dish doesn't have to move to track the satellite), and have no propulsion systems to keep them up there.
If the drill were not moving relative to the Earth itself, then yes; it would fall at 1g towards the Earth (barring external gravitational sources, like the sun). But, if the drill were not moving relative to the Earth, the drill would be moving very quickly relative to the surface of the Earth, since the surface of the Earth is moving at around 1700km/h due to the Earth's spin. The drill would be cutting a big trench in the Earth instead of drilling a hole.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I very much enjoyed the movie. It was a lot of fun, and I'd recommend it to anyone (except my friend-who-suffers-from-motion-sickness). I'm hoping they make it into another series.
But, to claim it was largely free of science errors? No.
When Kirk and Pike were in the bar, on earth, there was camera shake. The Earth certainly wasn't shaking too much. My friend-who-suffers-from-motion-sickness had to leave the theater long before they made it into space.
It makes me want to write a piece of software that goes through a movie and lines up all the frames.
The new film is not without some goofs, though only a few of the ones listed by Movie Mistakes' nitpickers are sciency.
Uhh... What Star Trek movie were you watching?
Because in the one *I* watched, they traveled through the event horizon of a black hole, and came back out again (although, this is actually an interesting question over in Trek-land; warp engines let you travel FTL, so could you escape a black hole? I mean, after the tidal forces ripped your puny ship into it's component atoms, of course...)
Or, how about the "space dive", where they leaped out of a shuttlecraft and suddenly lost all their inertia? How about re-entering the atmosphere in a space-suit without any worries about friction or heat?
Or how about that giant drill? Why did it fall when they cut it off the ship? If the ship was in geosynchronous orbit, then the drill must have been traveling slightly slower than geo-synchronous orbital speed; it should have very gently drifted eastwards.
Actually, shockingly Sony is turning out to be the open one here, since they've added support for epub, an open standard based largely on XML and XHTML.
I know; it's like the sky is purple and pigs are zipping through the air.
Mobipocket can't be read on a Sony reader (without breaking the DRM).
Mobipocket can be read on your computer until your computer hard drive crashes and you have to reinstall your OS, at which point your computer gets a new Mobipocket key, and all your existing books won't read anymore.
Mobipocket is a format designed to be incompatible with the rest of the world from the word go.
This is probably to stop Lynx browsers from properly displaying content. I'm betting this move was backed by bribe money. Clearly this is aimed at reducing compatibility with Lynx. MS is just trying to steal away market share.
Absolutely. I'm not making any claims here that the Apple laptop is not a beautiful machine, because I think it is, and obviously for some people it is a very worthwhile investment.
However, the claim TFA makes is that the huge price of a 17" Apple laptop is not comparable to a cheap HP 17" laptop, because it's a bit like comparing apples (no pun intended) and oranges. But, I think the ad points out an important truth; HP sells both apples and oranges, but Apple just sells apples. "Lauren", our quintessential hip young person, probably just wants a piece of fruit. If the orange will suit her needs, then she doesn't need to spend the extra for an apple (regardless of whether it is an HP apple or an Apple apple).
Ok, I think I've tortured that metaphor enough.
If you want a laptop to write a few essays for class, send some email, watch some youtube clips, catalog pictures from your point-and-shoot camera, then the 17" HP is going to fill your needs. Is it really worth the extra money to go Apple just for the shiny lickable interface that is OS/X?
Giving the Apple a point for "construction" seems a little dubious to me. There's no doubt that the fancy aluminum shell on the Mac is much sturdier than my all plastic Dell from work, but my Dell laptop seems to stand up just fine to the rigors I put it through. If the Mac were made of aircraft grade aluminum, would it be even better? Not really.
Giving a "point" to Apple for Firewire seems equally dubious. Most consumers who are choosing between a PC laptop and a Mac likely don't know what FireWire is, and the other laptops all HAVE a FireWire port, just a slower one. FireWire 800 is a "feature" that very few people need.
The point to Apple for "sound" is perhaps most dubious of all, since the Sony has some slick specs in this department as well.
If the universe is deterministic, then it follows that it is predictable, but unfortunately you don't get to choose outcomes, because your choice is determined by firing of neurons in your brain, which is caused by chemical processes based on the history of your brain. In other words, your choice is predictable, and therefore isn't really a choice at all.
In theory, if these drives are being used by a US government agency for encryption, then the drives need to be FIPS 140-2 certified.
In order be certified, there is a stringent list of algorithms that may be used, for both encryption and random number generation, and these algorithms need to be tested and certified themselves.
We'll have to see if the hard drive companies want to go through the headaches involved to get FIPS certification, or whether this is meant as a gimmick for consumers.
This is exactly the sort of thinking that led Sony to try and develop UMD as a portable media format.
People buy movies, they don't buy UMDs and DVDs. If someone buys a movie on DVD, it is extremely unlikely they are going to turn around the next day and buy it on UMD, since they already own the movie.
The same, I suspect, is largely true with books. People buy a book, and whether they buy it as a paperback or a hardcover or an audiobook or an eBook, they do not then wake up the next day and decide to buy the same book again. There's no reason to, because they already own the book.
When I need to take a trip, and I'm going to drive, I'll sometimes go out and buy an audiobook to listen to in the car. I've never felt a need to buy the paper version of an audiobook I already own, or vice versa.
The Authors Guild, then, is contending that if you buy the eBook, and use TTS (even perfect awesome TTS with really good intonation and feeling), then they've lost an audio book sale, because if the eBook reader didn't have TTS, you would have bought the audio book.
What the Authors Guild is missing is that NO ONE DOES THIS; if the eBook reader DIDN'T have TTS, and I wanted the audio book, I would have bought the audio book and not the eBook. I would still only buy the book once.
Sure, the TTS is a nice feature, and of course it makes the eBook more versatile, but it hasn't lost an audiobook sale, it has replaced the audiobook sale. If the TTS wasn't there, I still wouldn't buy the book twice, so there's no sense giving them double royalties for eBooks.
Decent TTS in a widely-used device will basically kill the audiobook market, and authors should be compensated in some way...
This is only true if you assume that there are people out there who would buy both the eBook AND the audio book if there was no TTS. Otherwise eBook sales aren't causing a loss of sales in the audio book market, they are merely replacing those sales.
I own a few books as audio books (usually bought before a long drive somewhere), and even in the cases of the really good ones, I've never felt a burning desire to buy the book again in print.
Yes, but what is interesting and what is correct are two entirely different things. There have been many instances where one blog posts something false, and then it gets repeated and distributed by other blogs. (Witness Gizmodo's recent "new mac mini", "fake new mac mini" nonsense, or the "death" of Steve Jobs after Bloomberg accidentally published what was pretty obviously a false obituary).
While this can and does happen with "real" journalists, it happens a lot less often, because journalists have a code of ethics, which requires them to verify their sources. Journalists are inherently more trustworthy than the hacks who run blogs such as Gizmodo, or any of the zillions of blogs on blogspot, or Fox News, because real journalists will get fired if they don't check their sources and report the truth, whereas blogs will get linked and get more hits and more advertising revenue.
I would argue that reading something out loud does not "make a copy", no more so than displaying a text file on a screen "makes a copy". Rendering to a screen or to a speaker are simply different ways of presenting the same information.
The public performance notion is similarly broken. Is having numerous people sitting around listening to a Kindle read a book (a situation I think is extremely unlikely) any different from having numerous people sit around a Kindle and reading it at the same time? Perhaps not; perhaps neither are legal. But, the fact that the Kindle displays text is clearly not illegal, and I think similarly the fact that it reads text is equally so. There are no doubt illegal uses of the Kindle, but that doesn't make the technology illegal.
An Amazon spokesman noted the text-reading feature depends on text-to-speech technology, and that listeners won't confuse it with the audiobook experience. Amazon owns Audible, a leading audiobook provider.
How many people go out and buy a book, and then buy the audio book? I own a pile of books, and a few audio books, but there isn't any overlap. So, assuming I'm only going to buy one or the other anyways, even if the eBook could be used as an audio book and was indistinguishable from a human read audio book, why not let the book serve as an audio book as well?
Also, you can expect organizations that promote accessibility to get up in arms about this. Text-to-speech is a very nice way for people with visual disabilities to get access to content that isn't available as audio books.
We track bugs internally using Bugzilla. When we raise a bug against a project we depend on, we also raise a bug in our internal Bugzilla that links to the other bug, then we can use Bugzilla's depends-on and blocks to track the external bug.
The only downside is that someone needs to go and check periodically on the state of that external bug. It would be nice if Bugzilla let you mark a bug as "depends-on" a bug in someone else's Bugzilla.
Why would you want reduced playback support in your OS?
Because if no one releases programs which play broken DRMed files, then people will eventually stop releasing broken DRMed files.
Media companies will whine and complain that the lack of DRM prevents them from selling their media on windows PCs, but it only takes one company to break rank and start making money (much like EMI with MP3s) and the rest will cave.
Besides, since I never buy DRMed media, it doesn't really matter to me whether any device I own can play it or not.
The complication comes in when you have to code "connected versus unconnected" states into your app all the way up to the user-interface level, and you realize that you're doing a lot of redundant work to try to keep track of what TCP/IP thinks the connection state is. Admittedly, it's hard to explain unless you've been there.
Oh, I've been there. I'm not saying there aren't applications where using stateless/connectionless abstractions aren't a good idea. There are lots of them where this is a great idea. Web browsers, for example.
But, are you really trying to infer that, say, SSH would be better if it were connectionless? Or telnet?
Or take, for example, POP3. POP3 is a connection oriented protocol. In what way does POP3 enforce bad design? I've never seen a POP3 mailer which has connected/disconnected states propagated all the way to the GUI (beyond, of course, the "I can't connect" icon, but that would be true in a connectionless application as well).
TCP is doing this behind your back. Maybe you can do it better.
I'm not sure what you mean here. TCP has nothing to do with authentication. Unless you mean; if you have a connection oriented protocol, then you authenticate once and TCP takes care of knowing which packets are part of the connection and which ones aren't? If you're trying to run a connectionless protocol over TCP, then you need to reauthenticate on every message. If we take SOAP, for example, you'll see a WSSE header in every message, unless you're using something like WS-Secure Conversation, which effectively tries to emulate an encrypted TCP connection over SOAP (probably over TCP).
That's one of the worst examples you could pick. When, and whether, TCP will drop a connection is up to factors far beyond the application's control.
It enforces bad design -- most client/server applications should be either stateless or session-based, rather than connection-oriented.
What? Why? Why is a connection based application "bad design"?
A "session" is just a hack to give you connection-like qualities over a connectionless protocol, such as HTTP. If you want connection-like behavior, and you're free to design your own protocol, why not just use connections? Why make your life more complicated?
There are plenty of advantages to connection-based applications; no need to re-authenticate on every message, for one. Clear indications of when a client is done talking to you for another (the connection is dropped, whereas in a connectionless world you never really know if the client has died or is just about to send you another message).
Even most "connectionless" applications, such as your web browser, try to cheat and get connection based behavior. Renegotiating an SSL connection for every request would be remarkably expensive for the server, so the server and browser try to reuse the same connection as much as possible. Fire up wireshark, and you'll see your browser will only open two connections when you read Slashdot, and all the images and text all come across those two connections.
The Carleton University Students Association being stupid is pretty much par for the course.
When I was at Carleton, one of the CUSA VPs was very outspoken when CUSA banned a political magazine which ran an ad featuring a fairly tasteful photo of a woman naked from the waist down (not a terribly sexy photo, and not a photo that showed anything exciting), claiming it was exploitative to use nudity to sell a product. When the next month's issue of said VPs favorite GLBT rag came out with an extremely graphic condom ad which if I recall correctly featured two naked men (which left nothing to the imagination), he said that THIS ad was obviously not exploitative, and was just trying to sell a product.
This is also the student organization which decided last year to ban anti-abortion clubs, which regardless of your thoughts on abortion still reeks of censorship.
I like to this of CUSA as kind of like a senile grandmother. She comes out whenever you have guests, says a bunch of politically incorrect nonsense, embarrasses everyone, and you just try to pretend she isn't there.
Here in Ontario, I can get high-speed internet from:
Rogers (cable), which blocks ports, throttles BitTorrent, VPN, and any encrypted traffic. Rogers also has some stupid "web search on typo" system which breaks DNS.
Slashdot Mirror
I was thinking along those lines, actually. Given they have "inertial dampeners" which stop the crew from turning into chunky salsa every time the ship goes to warp, then they could use some variant thereof to steal all the inertia from a jumper.
But, it's fun to complain. :)
Uh... no. If that were true, the ship would fall too. So would all the TV satellites currently in orbit, which are stationary relative to the surface of the earth (this is why your TV satellite dish doesn't have to move to track the satellite), and have no propulsion systems to keep them up there.
If the drill were not moving relative to the Earth itself, then yes; it would fall at 1g towards the Earth (barring external gravitational sources, like the sun). But, if the drill were not moving relative to the Earth, the drill would be moving very quickly relative to the surface of the Earth, since the surface of the Earth is moving at around 1700km/h due to the Earth's spin. The drill would be cutting a big trench in the Earth instead of drilling a hole.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I very much enjoyed the movie. It was a lot of fun, and I'd recommend it to anyone (except my friend-who-suffers-from-motion-sickness). I'm hoping they make it into another series.
But, to claim it was largely free of science errors? No.
I'm with you on that one.
When Kirk and Pike were in the bar, on earth, there was camera shake. The Earth certainly wasn't shaking too much. My friend-who-suffers-from-motion-sickness had to leave the theater long before they made it into space.
It makes me want to write a piece of software that goes through a movie and lines up all the frames.
The new film is not without some goofs, though only a few of the ones listed by Movie Mistakes' nitpickers are sciency.
Uhh... What Star Trek movie were you watching?
Because in the one *I* watched, they traveled through the event horizon of a black hole, and came back out again (although, this is actually an interesting question over in Trek-land; warp engines let you travel FTL, so could you escape a black hole? I mean, after the tidal forces ripped your puny ship into it's component atoms, of course...)
Or, how about the "space dive", where they leaped out of a shuttlecraft and suddenly lost all their inertia? How about re-entering the atmosphere in a space-suit without any worries about friction or heat?
Or how about that giant drill? Why did it fall when they cut it off the ship? If the ship was in geosynchronous orbit, then the drill must have been traveling slightly slower than geo-synchronous orbital speed; it should have very gently drifted eastwards.
Actually, shockingly Sony is turning out to be the open one here, since they've added support for epub, an open standard based largely on XML and XHTML.
I know; it's like the sky is purple and pigs are zipping through the air.
Mobipocket can't be read on a Sony reader (without breaking the DRM).
Mobipocket can be read on your computer until your computer hard drive crashes and you have to reinstall your OS, at which point your computer gets a new Mobipocket key, and all your existing books won't read anymore.
Mobipocket is a format designed to be incompatible with the rest of the world from the word go.
Meanwhile, here in Canada, Bell is effectively forcing all their competitors to use the same usage-based-billing scheme they are.
This is probably to stop Lynx browsers from properly displaying content. I'm betting this move was backed by bribe money. Clearly this is aimed at reducing compatibility with Lynx. MS is just trying to steal away market share.
Absolutely. I'm not making any claims here that the Apple laptop is not a beautiful machine, because I think it is, and obviously for some people it is a very worthwhile investment.
However, the claim TFA makes is that the huge price of a 17" Apple laptop is not comparable to a cheap HP 17" laptop, because it's a bit like comparing apples (no pun intended) and oranges. But, I think the ad points out an important truth; HP sells both apples and oranges, but Apple just sells apples. "Lauren", our quintessential hip young person, probably just wants a piece of fruit. If the orange will suit her needs, then she doesn't need to spend the extra for an apple (regardless of whether it is an HP apple or an Apple apple).
Ok, I think I've tortured that metaphor enough.
If you want a laptop to write a few essays for class, send some email, watch some youtube clips, catalog pictures from your point-and-shoot camera, then the 17" HP is going to fill your needs. Is it really worth the extra money to go Apple just for the shiny lickable interface that is OS/X?
Giving the Apple a point for "construction" seems a little dubious to me. There's no doubt that the fancy aluminum shell on the Mac is much sturdier than my all plastic Dell from work, but my Dell laptop seems to stand up just fine to the rigors I put it through. If the Mac were made of aircraft grade aluminum, would it be even better? Not really.
Giving a "point" to Apple for Firewire seems equally dubious. Most consumers who are choosing between a PC laptop and a Mac likely don't know what FireWire is, and the other laptops all HAVE a FireWire port, just a slower one. FireWire 800 is a "feature" that very few people need.
The point to Apple for "sound" is perhaps most dubious of all, since the Sony has some slick specs in this department as well.
Methinks the TFA is slightly biased.
If the universe is deterministic, then it follows that it is predictable, but unfortunately you don't get to choose outcomes, because your choice is determined by firing of neurons in your brain, which is caused by chemical processes based on the history of your brain. In other words, your choice is predictable, and therefore isn't really a choice at all.
In theory, if these drives are being used by a US government agency for encryption, then the drives need to be FIPS 140-2 certified.
In order be certified, there is a stringent list of algorithms that may be used, for both encryption and random number generation, and these algorithms need to be tested and certified themselves.
We'll have to see if the hard drive companies want to go through the headaches involved to get FIPS certification, or whether this is meant as a gimmick for consumers.
This is exactly the sort of thinking that led Sony to try and develop UMD as a portable media format.
People buy movies, they don't buy UMDs and DVDs. If someone buys a movie on DVD, it is extremely unlikely they are going to turn around the next day and buy it on UMD, since they already own the movie.
The same, I suspect, is largely true with books. People buy a book, and whether they buy it as a paperback or a hardcover or an audiobook or an eBook, they do not then wake up the next day and decide to buy the same book again. There's no reason to, because they already own the book.
When I need to take a trip, and I'm going to drive, I'll sometimes go out and buy an audiobook to listen to in the car. I've never felt a need to buy the paper version of an audiobook I already own, or vice versa.
The Authors Guild, then, is contending that if you buy the eBook, and use TTS (even perfect awesome TTS with really good intonation and feeling), then they've lost an audio book sale, because if the eBook reader didn't have TTS, you would have bought the audio book.
What the Authors Guild is missing is that NO ONE DOES THIS; if the eBook reader DIDN'T have TTS, and I wanted the audio book, I would have bought the audio book and not the eBook. I would still only buy the book once.
Sure, the TTS is a nice feature, and of course it makes the eBook more versatile, but it hasn't lost an audiobook sale, it has replaced the audiobook sale. If the TTS wasn't there, I still wouldn't buy the book twice, so there's no sense giving them double royalties for eBooks.
Decent TTS in a widely-used device will basically kill the audiobook market, and authors should be compensated in some way...
This is only true if you assume that there are people out there who would buy both the eBook AND the audio book if there was no TTS. Otherwise eBook sales aren't causing a loss of sales in the audio book market, they are merely replacing those sales.
I own a few books as audio books (usually bought before a long drive somewhere), and even in the cases of the really good ones, I've never felt a burning desire to buy the book again in print.
Yes, but what is interesting and what is correct are two entirely different things. There have been many instances where one blog posts something false, and then it gets repeated and distributed by other blogs. (Witness Gizmodo's recent "new mac mini", "fake new mac mini" nonsense, or the "death" of Steve Jobs after Bloomberg accidentally published what was pretty obviously a false obituary).
While this can and does happen with "real" journalists, it happens a lot less often, because journalists have a code of ethics, which requires them to verify their sources. Journalists are inherently more trustworthy than the hacks who run blogs such as Gizmodo, or any of the zillions of blogs on blogspot, or Fox News, because real journalists will get fired if they don't check their sources and report the truth, whereas blogs will get linked and get more hits and more advertising revenue.
Almost exactly the same with CBC news here in Canada. The party of the day always accuses the CBC of much the same.
I would argue that reading something out loud does not "make a copy", no more so than displaying a text file on a screen "makes a copy". Rendering to a screen or to a speaker are simply different ways of presenting the same information.
The public performance notion is similarly broken. Is having numerous people sitting around listening to a Kindle read a book (a situation I think is extremely unlikely) any different from having numerous people sit around a Kindle and reading it at the same time? Perhaps not; perhaps neither are legal. But, the fact that the Kindle displays text is clearly not illegal, and I think similarly the fact that it reads text is equally so. There are no doubt illegal uses of the Kindle, but that doesn't make the technology illegal.
An Amazon spokesman noted the text-reading feature depends on text-to-speech technology, and that listeners won't confuse it with the audiobook experience. Amazon owns Audible, a leading audiobook provider.
How many people go out and buy a book, and then buy the audio book? I own a pile of books, and a few audio books, but there isn't any overlap. So, assuming I'm only going to buy one or the other anyways, even if the eBook could be used as an audio book and was indistinguishable from a human read audio book, why not let the book serve as an audio book as well?
Also, you can expect organizations that promote accessibility to get up in arms about this. Text-to-speech is a very nice way for people with visual disabilities to get access to content that isn't available as audio books.
We track bugs internally using Bugzilla. When we raise a bug against a project we depend on, we also raise a bug in our internal Bugzilla that links to the other bug, then we can use Bugzilla's depends-on and blocks to track the external bug.
The only downside is that someone needs to go and check periodically on the state of that external bug. It would be nice if Bugzilla let you mark a bug as "depends-on" a bug in someone else's Bugzilla.
Why would you want reduced playback support in your OS?
Because if no one releases programs which play broken DRMed files, then people will eventually stop releasing broken DRMed files.
Media companies will whine and complain that the lack of DRM prevents them from selling their media on windows PCs, but it only takes one company to break rank and start making money (much like EMI with MP3s) and the rest will cave.
Besides, since I never buy DRMed media, it doesn't really matter to me whether any device I own can play it or not.
The complication comes in when you have to code "connected versus unconnected" states into your app all the way up to the user-interface level, and you realize that you're doing a lot of redundant work to try to keep track of what TCP/IP thinks the connection state is. Admittedly, it's hard to explain unless you've been there.
Oh, I've been there. I'm not saying there aren't applications where using stateless/connectionless abstractions aren't a good idea. There are lots of them where this is a great idea. Web browsers, for example.
But, are you really trying to infer that, say, SSH would be better if it were connectionless? Or telnet?
Or take, for example, POP3. POP3 is a connection oriented protocol. In what way does POP3 enforce bad design? I've never seen a POP3 mailer which has connected/disconnected states propagated all the way to the GUI (beyond, of course, the "I can't connect" icon, but that would be true in a connectionless application as well).
TCP is doing this behind your back. Maybe you can do it better.
I'm not sure what you mean here. TCP has nothing to do with authentication. Unless you mean; if you have a connection oriented protocol, then you authenticate once and TCP takes care of knowing which packets are part of the connection and which ones aren't? If you're trying to run a connectionless protocol over TCP, then you need to reauthenticate on every message. If we take SOAP, for example, you'll see a WSSE header in every message, unless you're using something like WS-Secure Conversation, which effectively tries to emulate an encrypted TCP connection over SOAP (probably over TCP).
That's one of the worst examples you could pick. When, and whether, TCP will drop a connection is up to factors far beyond the application's control.
Umm... close()?
It enforces bad design -- most client/server applications should be either stateless or session-based, rather than connection-oriented.
What? Why? Why is a connection based application "bad design"?
A "session" is just a hack to give you connection-like qualities over a connectionless protocol, such as HTTP. If you want connection-like behavior, and you're free to design your own protocol, why not just use connections? Why make your life more complicated?
There are plenty of advantages to connection-based applications; no need to re-authenticate on every message, for one. Clear indications of when a client is done talking to you for another (the connection is dropped, whereas in a connectionless world you never really know if the client has died or is just about to send you another message).
Even most "connectionless" applications, such as your web browser, try to cheat and get connection based behavior. Renegotiating an SSL connection for every request would be remarkably expensive for the server, so the server and browser try to reuse the same connection as much as possible. Fire up wireshark, and you'll see your browser will only open two connections when you read Slashdot, and all the images and text all come across those two connections.
The Carleton University Students Association being stupid is pretty much par for the course.
When I was at Carleton, one of the CUSA VPs was very outspoken when CUSA banned a political magazine which ran an ad featuring a fairly tasteful photo of a woman naked from the waist down (not a terribly sexy photo, and not a photo that showed anything exciting), claiming it was exploitative to use nudity to sell a product. When the next month's issue of said VPs favorite GLBT rag came out with an extremely graphic condom ad which if I recall correctly featured two naked men (which left nothing to the imagination), he said that THIS ad was obviously not exploitative, and was just trying to sell a product.
This is also the student organization which decided last year to ban anti-abortion clubs, which regardless of your thoughts on abortion still reeks of censorship.
I like to this of CUSA as kind of like a senile grandmother. She comes out whenever you have guests, says a bunch of politically incorrect nonsense, embarrasses everyone, and you just try to pretend she isn't there.
So, it's a nice theory, but Ontario (and most of eastern Canada) disproves it nicely.