The only people I've *ever* seen get actually pissed off about this sort of stuff are Christians who can't seem to stand any diminishing of their cultural privileges and dominance. I've *never* experienced or even heard of someone of another faith respond with anything other than, for example, "Actually, I'm Jewish, so we'll be celebrating Hanukah."
Y'know, I'm with you in general, but pointing at the Xbox division as the epitome of capitalism is, I think, misguided. They've lost billions upon billions of dollars and have no chance of being profitable (as a whole) this generation, and certainly weren't profitable last generation. Xbox is an example of a company trying to leverage a monopoly to fund expansion into a new market at a huge loss, with only vague plans on *ever* making a profit. That isn't exactly the ideal entrepreneurial spirit.
Well, diamonds can be quite pretty, so I don't know if I'd say that it's retarded to use them as jewelery. What's retarded (at the societal level) is to use them as a status symbol.
I was kind of scared about the coalition talks creating a backlash that could lead to a Conservative majority, but you know, I just don't see it. Harper's shameless divisiveness, regionalism, and partisan hackery has created a huge amount of disdain for him in Quebec (and probably given the Bloc a boost in the process). It'll take years to undo the damage, and it's practically impossible to get a majority without at least *some* support in Quebec.
The airwaves are a public resource. Stations don't own them. If private companies want to run a business and make a profit by exploiting a common resource, I don't see the problem with making them support local talent instead of just rebroadcasting American stuff. It really has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
Sorry to break the news to you, but we don't live in the USA. We don't elect a Prime Minister, we elect a House of Commons. The Government (ie PM + Cabinet) needs the confidence of the House to form a government; if they lose that confidence, governments (especially minority governments) fall.
If you have a problem with that, you have a problem with the most fundamental elements of our constitution and system of government.
Wait, what? Coming up with a scheme that takes money away from the disenfranchised and vulnerable and gives it to the already rich is socialist bullshit? Sounds more like a corporate oligarchy to me.
There are exceptions. In some part of the country Molson Export is much a much more popular brand than Canadian, in which case you usually ask for an Ex.
Ha ha, I'm Canadian so I'm not sure about this, but I think the joke is referring to lonely nerds in high school who claim to have a girlfriend in Canada; of course, these mythical girlfriends just happen to live far away enough to be unverifiable.
Look, I really respect your belief that the BSD license represents a better idea of freedom than the GPL. But it's unnecessarily insulting to compare the GPL to representing a "kill your wife/control freak philosophy." Really? Kill your wife?! Yeah, like you've got a monopoly on intelligence or deliberate thought, and people who disagree with you...what? Whether you agree with it or not, believing that it's worthwhile to take steps to *ensure* that what you love *stays* free is a legitimate position that deserves some respect.
The same goes for people who outright dismiss BDS stuff, but really.
Maybe it's just that I must be new here or something.
Regarding habeas corpus -- well, it's as much "thin air" as any of the common law is. Make of that what you will, but I'd suggest that the character of the "War on Terror" is quite different than that of WWII, and that more civilian oversight is certainly called for.
Sure, I'm with you. Alcohol prohibition and DMCA-type laws involve entirely different interests, both private and public. Different issues are at stake. But both, I believe, ultimately run contrary to public opinion, and for all their faults, democratic countries depend upon some level of consensus to really work. I think it's a very bad sign when the legal and political machinery are so out of touch with many people's (*especially* those under, say, 20) day-to-day lives.
Oh, absolutely. The question is, though: how sustainable is this behaviour? What is "too far"? When the legal system actively suppresses broadly acceptable social practices, I believe it contributes in bringing the whole judicial system into disrepute. At the very least, that increases tensions and distrust in government. Scary stuff, I think. And it's all for the sake of protecting a few private interests. I don't think it's worth the price.
Especially when you consider the legal implications of going "underground". This is exactly the sort of behaviour anti-circumvention laws are designed to prohibit.
You make an interesting comparison with alcohol prohibition. What are the consequences of outlawing a widespread and generally socially acceptable activity? The bizarre thing is I'd bet (but no, I haven't actually researched it) that there was more popular support for alcohol prohibition than there is today for prohibiting, say, time or device -shifting.
Re:Pop quiz, hotshot ...
on
American Nerd
·
· Score: 1
Huh? Are you saying that the homeless don't have the right to vote? And what's your source? I ask because of the langage used: How is allowing one to vote withou proof of residency a "quirk"? Other jurisdictions around the world have similar practices, under the belief that being poor doesn't disenfranchise someone.
And just as a tip: bitterness, especially when one projected onto others for completely unrelated reasons, is one of the least attractive character traits out there.
Slashdot Mirror
Your sarcasm metre is broken, and your snark level is set too high.
No no, in the USA only white, straight male Christians are persecuted. You have no right to be offended.
The only people I've *ever* seen get actually pissed off about this sort of stuff are Christians who can't seem to stand any diminishing of their cultural privileges and dominance. I've *never* experienced or even heard of someone of another faith respond with anything other than, for example, "Actually, I'm Jewish, so we'll be celebrating Hanukah."
I refer you to s. 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
IANAL either, but I'm fairly confident that law is about contract law, which is a totally different beast than summons, notices, &c.
Y'know, I'm with you in general, but pointing at the Xbox division as the epitome of capitalism is, I think, misguided. They've lost billions upon billions of dollars and have no chance of being profitable (as a whole) this generation, and certainly weren't profitable last generation. Xbox is an example of a company trying to leverage a monopoly to fund expansion into a new market at a huge loss, with only vague plans on *ever* making a profit. That isn't exactly the ideal entrepreneurial spirit.
Well, diamonds can be quite pretty, so I don't know if I'd say that it's retarded to use them as jewelery. What's retarded (at the societal level) is to use them as a status symbol.
GNU doesn't have a kernel
I herd they had one, it just wasn't quite ready yet...
I'll be here all week, try the veal!
You...don't understand the differences between the federal and provincial governments, do you?
I was kind of scared about the coalition talks creating a backlash that could lead to a Conservative majority, but you know, I just don't see it. Harper's shameless divisiveness, regionalism, and partisan hackery has created a huge amount of disdain for him in Quebec (and probably given the Bloc a boost in the process). It'll take years to undo the damage, and it's practically impossible to get a majority without at least *some* support in Quebec.
The airwaves are a public resource. Stations don't own them. If private companies want to run a business and make a profit by exploiting a common resource, I don't see the problem with making them support local talent instead of just rebroadcasting American stuff. It really has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
Sorry to break the news to you, but we don't live in the USA. We don't elect a Prime Minister, we elect a House of Commons. The Government (ie PM + Cabinet) needs the confidence of the House to form a government; if they lose that confidence, governments (especially minority governments) fall.
If you have a problem with that, you have a problem with the most fundamental elements of our constitution and system of government.
Wait, what? Coming up with a scheme that takes money away from the disenfranchised and vulnerable and gives it to the already rich is socialist bullshit? Sounds more like a corporate oligarchy to me.
There are exceptions. In some part of the country Molson Export is much a much more popular brand than Canadian, in which case you usually ask for an Ex.
Even accepting your argument (which is definitely debatable), how does this justify the *ISPs* charging Google a fee?
Ha ha, I'm Canadian so I'm not sure about this, but I think the joke is referring to lonely nerds in high school who claim to have a girlfriend in Canada; of course, these mythical girlfriends just happen to live far away enough to be unverifiable.
Look, I really respect your belief that the BSD license represents a better idea of freedom than the GPL. But it's unnecessarily insulting to compare the GPL to representing a "kill your wife/control freak philosophy." Really? Kill your wife?! Yeah, like you've got a monopoly on intelligence or deliberate thought, and people who disagree with you...what? Whether you agree with it or not, believing that it's worthwhile to take steps to *ensure* that what you love *stays* free is a legitimate position that deserves some respect.
The same goes for people who outright dismiss BDS stuff, but really.
Maybe it's just that I must be new here or something.
There's very little chance that there is enough room in his head for both his ego and a single decent intellectual idea.
Pot, meet kettle. Why didn't you end up doing research, btw?
Regarding habeas corpus -- well, it's as much "thin air" as any of the common law is. Make of that what you will, but I'd suggest that the character of the "War on Terror" is quite different than that of WWII, and that more civilian oversight is certainly called for.
Sure, I'm with you. Alcohol prohibition and DMCA-type laws involve entirely different interests, both private and public. Different issues are at stake. But both, I believe, ultimately run contrary to public opinion, and for all their faults, democratic countries depend upon some level of consensus to really work. I think it's a very bad sign when the legal and political machinery are so out of touch with many people's (*especially* those under, say, 20) day-to-day lives.
Oh, absolutely. The question is, though: how sustainable is this behaviour? What is "too far"? When the legal system actively suppresses broadly acceptable social practices, I believe it contributes in bringing the whole judicial system into disrepute. At the very least, that increases tensions and distrust in government. Scary stuff, I think. And it's all for the sake of protecting a few private interests. I don't think it's worth the price.
Especially when you consider the legal implications of going "underground". This is exactly the sort of behaviour anti-circumvention laws are designed to prohibit.
You make an interesting comparison with alcohol prohibition. What are the consequences of outlawing a widespread and generally socially acceptable activity? The bizarre thing is I'd bet (but no, I haven't actually researched it) that there was more popular support for alcohol prohibition than there is today for prohibiting, say, time or device -shifting.
Haha, you reminded me of the historic Wad Accord.
Huh? Are you saying that the homeless don't have the right to vote? And what's your source? I ask because of the langage used: How is allowing one to vote withou proof of residency a "quirk"? Other jurisdictions around the world have similar practices, under the belief that being poor doesn't disenfranchise someone.
NON SEQUITOR ALERT
And just as a tip: bitterness, especially when one projected onto others for completely unrelated reasons, is one of the least attractive character traits out there.