Yeah, I'm not sure if a lot of peope know this, but before 9/11 the largest terrorist attack was in Canada, the bombing of Air India flight 182 that killed 329 people in 1985, 280 of which were Canadian citizens. It remains the worst singel air disaster ever.
Some blokes were in jail for a long time without ever hearing why. It is through their court action that it got struck down.
That is a seperate issue, the five individuals of which you speak were being held on security certificates, which has nothing to do with the Anti-terrorism Act and its sunset clause. Certain aspects of those security certificates, however, were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme court of Canada last week in a 9-0 ruling, giving the government one year to come up with provisions for adequate defence for the accused and a means for the dealing of evidence that is deemed essential to national security.
Only one Liberal, Tom Wappell, broke ranks with his party and voted for the renewal of the legislation.
And yes, the bill did die for political reasons. The Conservatives failed to heed not only a parliamentary report suggesting changes to the legislation, but also a senate report. For six months they have sat on these and done nothing, suddenly waking up last week to try and show up the Liberals and other parties for being soft on terrorism. So it's politics as usual, but don't think that it's not an opposition doing its job and a minority government trying to act like it has a majority.
The Liberal Party of the day enacted the legislation largely to appease the Bush administration during a time when no one was really sure of the extent of global terrorism. They also sought provisions that would ease the minds of the Canadian public. Wisely, the inserted a sunset clause that called for renewal every five years.
Considering that the provisions have never been used, you can hardly fault the same Liberal party, five years, three prime ministers and two leaders later, for allowing the legislation to expire in a world where global terror events have actually fallen since 9/11. Also, bear in mind that the ruling Conservatives voted for the legislation, along with the other opposition parties at the time, passing it 190-47, hardly what I would call a 'divisive' piece of legislation.
The five individuals you speak of have been held on security certificates, an aspect of Canadian law that was not part of the Anti-terrorism act that will sunset tomorrow. Certain aspects of those security certificates, however, were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme court of Canada last week in a 9-0 ruling, giving the government one year to come up with provisions for adequate defence for the accused and a means for the dealing of evidence that is deemed essential to national security.
The anti-terrorism act was largely a means by which the government of the day dealt with the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, both to appease the public that something was being done about terrorism, but mostly to head off accusations from the Bush administration that Canada was soft on terrorism. They were never used because Canadian law already possessed draconian measures to detain suspects indefinitely without charge, the ability to try them without ever revealing the charges, and to use evidence that they and their lawyers are not allowed to see.
If they drop the price that low, it'll put the iPhone into direct competition with the high-end iPod (currently $350). Since the iPhone has more features, a cheap iPhone has the potential to cannibalize iPod sales. That's no good for Apple because lowering the price means lowering the iPhone's profit margin at the expense of high profit iPods.
I'm not so sure about this, for two reasons:
One is that the functionality of the high-end iPod differs significantly from the iPhone. It is targeted at users with large music collections that want to carry them around with them at all times, otherwise they would be more interested in the smaller and cheaper nano's. 80 gigs on the high end iPod dwarfs the 8 gig capacity of the iPhone. The iPhone is much more of a phone / PDA that happens to play mp3s, whereas the high-capacity iPod is really just an mp3 player.
The other is that I'm not so sure Apple would mind having their high-end iPod sales cannibalised somewhat anyway. Apple's deal with Cingular sees them receiving a cut of their cellular sales, giving Apple a larger revenue over the sale of just an iPod. Combine with the chances that those iPhone users will want an iPod in addition to their iPhone for working out, home listening, etc. The iPhone also presents a broader front to sell other content to users on over the iPod.
Oh yes, Apple, the multi-billion dollar sales wunderkind, somehow knows less about marketing than you do.
Indeed, Europe and Asia represent a larger number of mobile users-- but along with that also stiffer competition and greater market saturation. And since when did Apple become a highly successful technology leader by selling the largest numbers of units? They have always had success in selling smaller numbers of units at higher margins with their ability to attract consumers more interested in quality and ease of use.
Apple also has far greater market penetration (stores, resellers, distribution channels, existing user base) in the United States than anywhere else, and the lack of a sophisticated cell-phone market means there is room to grow, unlike elsewhere. As well, the need for a carrier partner like Cingular that they could leverage to provide a nation-wide 300 million person market is perhaps unique to the U.S. market.
And, my marketing guru, let us never underestimate the need to actually understand your market, which Apple most certainly understands better in the U.S. than elsewhere, maybe even better than anyone else. Few predicted that the iPod would become the best-selling music player of all time, that the iBook would be the best-selling laptop ever, and that the iMac would become the best-selling desktop. Geez, and they pulled all that off in the stunted American market? Wow, someone should let them know how to run a business.
Let me know how your new marketing consultancy is (un)going! Enjoy your billions, I know Steve Jobs the marketing drop-out sure does.
Lemme tellya, a coffee and a handy sounds really good after the screwing over I receive on my Windows 'investment' some days. In fact, if that's all my computer ever did I'd be a pretty satisfied customer.
I don't think that anyone knows who owns the trademark and legal rights to the name iPhone until a judge decides, the matter is before the courts. There is certainly a case to be made that Cisco dropped the ball and lost their usage rights. Apple has a cracck legal and marketing team, don't everyone be too eager for them to fall flat on their face, I fully expect Apple to win the rights to the iPhone name, they've already created the brand.
dude, one of the things that makes apple such a powerful technological and marketing force is that the entertainment, hardware, and software units work on the same products. don't tell me you haven't noticed that the software on the macintosh is what drives the hardware specifications? don't tell me you haven't noticed that the itunes store drives ipod sales and thus mac sales? don't tell me that the ability to sell movies through itunes doesn't change what the capabilities of the new ipods they produce? Breaking the areas up would strip apple of all the advantages they have built in bringing those things under one roof. hardware and software integration is apple's core strength, content provision foundational to the success of their products. and forgive me, but apple could care less about their bsd pedigree-- only the geeks care about that stuff. this is the market, not some sort of boy scout honour school. apple will do what it takes to make money and establish market position, this does not include giving the nerds of the earth a big woody.
If you think that the iPhone and Apple TV have nothing to do with Macs, then you should really think hard about it. Remember that there will be incredible amounts of press surrounding the release of these two products, why waste other announcements on the media that is already saturated by CES in Vegas. Mac announcements will come, Leopard announcements will come... They will all ship at their regularly scheduled dates-- for most of us that aren't developers, *when* something is *announced* is not nearly as important as when it will *ship*. Apple has shown for five years that they are constantly able to remain ahead of timelines, much unlike the other seven-billion pound gorilla in the room. Unrelated: man, Zune sure does look sucky now, don't it? It will be two years before MS can pack that functionality (read: usability) into as small a package.
Use your imagination! My word, I'm sure people had a hard time imagining what types of games would grow out of the mouse / keyboard paradigm, but of course games evolved to fit the user interface. Don't make the mistake of thinking that because no touch interface games exist that there won't be very many! There will be more games than you can shake a stick at. I also disagree that OS X on the iPhone will be stunted or not as useful. The major benefits won't be power but extensibility. OS X on the computer will be strengthened immeasurably by OS X on portable devices, I can't get over how many different applications there will be.
My thought is that, purely from a marketing perspective, there was no need to talk about Leopard, the iPhone will dominate press coverage for the forseeable future, and Leopard would have received little attention. Better to roll out Leopard after the accolades die down, it's all about spreading out your media attention.
And, for the love of god, "bad-english" is just that, *bad english*. 'Good' and 'bad' are moral indicators, not linguistic qualitators, so please keep your *poor* use of the english language to youself, you bad bad man.
are you for real?
"Why do companies keep on locking themselves into one device when it would be much easier to support a large number of devices."
does your statement not strike you as self-contradictory? how would a "large number of devices" be easier to support than just one? i've drawn myself some explanatory pictures and i still can't figure that one out. use the brain you were given to think for a moment about why any of the compatibility manufacturers *might* be convinced to offer support for the dominant portable music and video player. i'll give you one clue-- *it has nothing at all to do with money!*
Interestingly, I worked on freeing Maher Arar with his wife Mounia Mizigh a couple years ago when I was living in Ottawa. I happened to be teaching a university course on North American Geopolitics that comprised of twenty Canadians and twenty Americans from all over the continent and we met with the American ambassador Paul Celucci for a question and answer. Among other crap that fell out of his mouth, he said that global warming was 'bad science' and that if it was true it would probably be good for America anyway. I countered that the state of Florida, barely abover sea level probably didn't share his enthusiasm to which he replied that he wasn't running for office in Florida so why should he care. We lobbied the ambassador for information that led to Arar's release.
The result of the Maher Inquiry is that the American administration acted solely outside of diplomatic channels and the State Department lied to Canadian officials throughout the entire rendition. Canada issued a formal diplomatic letter this month to protest the unilateral action that took place despite long-standing treaties on the issue, the highest form of diplomatic complaint.
You are correct in certain respects to be wary of Canada with respect to US policy of course. There aren't two economies on earth that are more integrated than ours. Over 80% of Canadian goods flow south. Our best known Prime Minister, Pierre E Trudeau, once quipped after a poor meeting with Nixon that "when you sleep beside an elephant and the elephant sneezes, you catch a cold". Nixon berated Deifenbaker, "don't you come down here and piss on my rug." American interests own the rights to many Canadian resources and companies, a phenomenon that accelerated greatly during the nineties when the Canadian dollar sat below 70 cents for a long period of time. It would be impossible for us to be completely independent of US policy. We are vulnerable on trade issues because we are the smaller partner in the largest trade alliance in the world. Many industry policies are harmonised across the border. In the post-war period Canada had its own automobile, food, and appliance manufacturers but all were bought out by huge American corporations.
But we have a staunchly independent parliament that isn't afraid of turning down US overtures on missiles defense, GMO food, drug policy, border issues, and wins NAFTA panel arguments regularly. You can't pack a handgun here. Violent crime, the murder rate, and the incarceration rate is one-tenth per capita south of the border. If you want a real contrast, go live in Quebec where views on justice, the role of the state, foreign policy, sexual orientation, and drug addiction treatment are all wildly different than in the United States, not to mention the linguistic nuances (you can exist completely in English in many parts of the province including Montréal, the second-largest french city in the world after Paris). Canadian cities rate much higher on the livability scale and have not been prone to the real estate bubble that will soon wipe out trillions of value off the US market.
Don't get me wrong, it ain't paradise up here or anything. But many of the big problems the US has run into we have learned from. I don't lock my doors of my house or my car. Government policy has placed the collective good above individual rights while protecting minorities. Toronto is the most multicultural city on the planet. Canada doesn't have a Vietnam or a Bay of Pigs or an Iraq. Mistakes have been made-- it's an egalitarian experiment that has its good and bad moments. And make no mistake, it is not America up here.
My friend, Canada is a long ways from the United States on foreign policy. Sure, we're part of NATO and NORAD but for a long time Canadian Prime Ministers have earned the ire of American administrations for not toeing the line. Anti-american sentiment has been on the rise for the past decade north of the border and Canadian officials are always cautious of courting US favour lest there be a backlash from the Canadian public that is very wary of Us adventurism abroad these days.
Canada stayed out of Iraq, believes strongly in multilateral international institutions, the International Criminal Court, the Geneva Convention, and the Kyoto Protocol, just to name a few of the items that the US has turned its back on recently. We are in Afghanistan at the moment but it is a bitterly unpopular mission in Quebec and may even cost the current government the next election as Canadians feel uncomfortable having any part in the war on terror.
We have the legalisation of marijuana that almost got brought before the House last year, the legalisation of same-sex marriage, and universal health care. This ain't the land of the free or the home of the brave. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Sounds like we fulfill all of your other criterion, why not give us a second thought? You'd be surprised at how different things are up here.
"Unlike Dell, they really haven't figured out how to sell a home computer to average folks."
har har, those teardrop imacs of old are only the best selling computer *of all time*, i guess those apple nerds need to take some lessons about marketing.
hey, doesn't the mini already come with a remote? and firewire for external storage?
duh
buh
Re:How about giving putting a DVD-R in the iBook
on
The Odds at Macworld
·
· Score: 1
my frank reply is, "then don't buy apple"
i am constantly frustrated by the notion here on/. that what is best for the consumer is what is best for apple, which could not be farther from the truth. how is apple different from any other pc manufacturer? if apple doesn't include a dvd player in the low-end model, what stops people from going to sony, dell, or hp? apple products do not exist in some alternate reality where the only choice is apple and apple is not some sort of dvd-player charity, they are first and foremost a money-making machine-- forget this and you really miss the point of business entities by a country mile. of course they want as much of your money as they can get, don't you think they would receive a little flak on the bottom line otherwise? if you want to build a custom machine, go build a custom machine, no one is stopping you, apple is not in control of your brain or your hardware choices. don't go blaming apple because their business model doesn't match your personal preference model.
"apple doesn't do this, apple doesn't do that." cry me a river, and don;t buy apple./rant over.
sure, 60 gigs is easy. i listen to stuff all day, there's lots of music out there. true, if i had some piss-poor interface i'd probably listen to the same 50 songs over and over too. but one of the wonders of the ipod is in how, through the party shuffle, smart playlists, and good ol' random play on the whole whack of tunes, the ipod introduces me to more of my own music. i have all of the cds, but the ipod plays dj for me. selecting music can be a chore, the ipod presents me with choice.
the ndp has had a stronger role in federal politics than the parent might suggest, being the junior member in a coalition government of the mid-seventies the ndp fought for and achieved many important social reforms that are pillars of contemporary canadian society such as campaign finance reform and the Canada Health Act.
i'll refute the points:
As it stands now, they are a bunch of cronies appointed for life to do absolutely nothing
anyone who derides the senate as disfunctional has no idea what they are talking about. canada's senate functions superbly, especially in comparison to other national systems. members are appointed to age seventy-five so that they can be removed from the political process and concentrate on providing good legislation, canadians have no idea how much re-working of parliamentary bills occurs in the senate, how talented so many of the senators are. there is no political in-fighting at senate, there are no axes to grind. the appointment process needs to be reformed but the senate is the smoothest operation in federal government. elected senators would be a disaster. canadians don't need more representation, they need better representation.
let's not forget that Alberta is the largest contributer to Canada's transfer payment system
alberta is not the largest contributor to transfer payments, ontario is. the economy of ontario is ten times the size of the alberta's. one in three canadians live in ontario, one of two in ontario or quebec. one in ten canadians lives in toronto, more people than all of alberta. alberta is not the centre of the universe my friend. there are more than twice as many quebecers as albertans, and more quebecers than albertans and british columbians combined.
e Canadian Alliance took almost every seat west of Ontario, and couldn't even form official opposition, but a seperatist party from Quebec could, that is what they are complaining about.
the idea that a quebec-based party could lead the opposition isn't far-fetched at all, especially when the canadian alliance didn't take every seat west of ontario in the last election, the liberals won 17 of them. compartitively, west of manitoba the alliance won just two seats. in ontario. and zero east. so how can a regional voice say 'we want in' and then complain when another voice does the same?
trust me, when you move out of mom's basement and start paying taxes, the NDP won't look so good anymore.
the tories left ontario in a shambles, it turns out all of their cost-cutting was just going into tax breaks for the rich, and now the middle-class is left with the tab and no services. smart. ndp governments have been extremely successful provincially.
rebuilding the country that you bombed into oblivion of course, i'm glad you agree with the moral imperative to give reparations for your actions. good thing you funded saddam and sold him the weapons too, just like bin laden.
but truly, the reason for the expenditure of billons isn't because it is 'the right thing to do'-- rebuiding iraq serves america's short and long term interests. who gets those reconstruction contracts? american firms. it is a tax-grab by the bush admin handed over to friendly firms and the military-industrial complex. controlling eurasia puts the u.s. in the centre of three-quarters of the world's known energy sources, the gate-keeper as it were.
interestingly you point out the legitimacy of your 'democratically' elected administration. did you happen to cast your last presidential ballot in florida? here's the newsflash: they do ignore the public and did so overwhelmingly in not only winning the white house but also in lying to you poor lot that still believe your vote counts for something about why they were sending the troops into iraq. yesterday the cia again officially admitted they knew there was no wmd in iraq. trumped up lies for an american public that isn't interested in self-examination. consider that you, an american citizen, have no recourse whatsoever over what is going on in guantanamo bay, even if you had evidence of the crimes that are occuring there. your own supreme court has copped-out and admitted they have no jurisdiction. your own government can label you a threat, hold you without charges indefinitely and there is nothing that anyone can do about it.
the u.s. is as immoral as they come my friend. not individual yanks like yourself, but the record shows that your country is the biggest bully since hitler and stalin. the scariest part is that the american people apparently have no appetite for their own history.
american unilateralism will be your undoing, i'm afraid it will be all of our undoing. too many enemies and not enough friends. all of the arguments about who would win what match-up with what equipment are pointless against the assymetrical threats that are far more likely the choice of your opponent. the enemies of american aggression are already on your own soil. good thing everyone has guns i suppose... wait.
i think, sometimes, that the key to reading slashdot is knowing when to read at +3 and when to read at -1. this, for instance, is entirely enjoyable at -1. geekdom is hanging out at -1, no-holds-barred. really, surfing at +5, as i am in the bad habit of late, can be depressing sometimes.
i think slashdot should move toward a system that tracks my changes to the threshold comment scores and display future stories based on my past prefs. and imagine the bitching over the system! more perpetuated wither slashdot hand-wringing, it would be great.
anyway, palmela handerson,/. can be funny.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I'm not sure if a lot of peope know this, but before 9/11 the largest terrorist attack was in Canada, the bombing of Air India flight 182 that killed 329 people in 1985, 280 of which were Canadian citizens. It remains the worst singel air disaster ever.
Only one Liberal, Tom Wappell, broke ranks with his party and voted for the renewal of the legislation.
And yes, the bill did die for political reasons. The Conservatives failed to heed not only a parliamentary report suggesting changes to the legislation, but also a senate report. For six months they have sat on these and done nothing, suddenly waking up last week to try and show up the Liberals and other parties for being soft on terrorism. So it's politics as usual, but don't think that it's not an opposition doing its job and a minority government trying to act like it has a majority.
The Liberal Party of the day enacted the legislation largely to appease the Bush administration during a time when no one was really sure of the extent of global terrorism. They also sought provisions that would ease the minds of the Canadian public. Wisely, the inserted a sunset clause that called for renewal every five years.
Considering that the provisions have never been used, you can hardly fault the same Liberal party, five years, three prime ministers and two leaders later, for allowing the legislation to expire in a world where global terror events have actually fallen since 9/11. Also, bear in mind that the ruling Conservatives voted for the legislation, along with the other opposition parties at the time, passing it 190-47, hardly what I would call a 'divisive' piece of legislation.
The five individuals you speak of have been held on security certificates, an aspect of Canadian law that was not part of the Anti-terrorism act that will sunset tomorrow. Certain aspects of those security certificates, however, were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme court of Canada last week in a 9-0 ruling, giving the government one year to come up with provisions for adequate defence for the accused and a means for the dealing of evidence that is deemed essential to national security.
The anti-terrorism act was largely a means by which the government of the day dealt with the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, both to appease the public that something was being done about terrorism, but mostly to head off accusations from the Bush administration that Canada was soft on terrorism. They were never used because Canadian law already possessed draconian measures to detain suspects indefinitely without charge, the ability to try them without ever revealing the charges, and to use evidence that they and their lawyers are not allowed to see.
I'm not so sure about this, for two reasons:
One is that the functionality of the high-end iPod differs significantly from the iPhone. It is targeted at users with large music collections that want to carry them around with them at all times, otherwise they would be more interested in the smaller and cheaper nano's. 80 gigs on the high end iPod dwarfs the 8 gig capacity of the iPhone. The iPhone is much more of a phone / PDA that happens to play mp3s, whereas the high-capacity iPod is really just an mp3 player.
The other is that I'm not so sure Apple would mind having their high-end iPod sales cannibalised somewhat anyway. Apple's deal with Cingular sees them receiving a cut of their cellular sales, giving Apple a larger revenue over the sale of just an iPod. Combine with the chances that those iPhone users will want an iPod in addition to their iPhone for working out, home listening, etc. The iPhone also presents a broader front to sell other content to users on over the iPod.
Oh yes, Apple, the multi-billion dollar sales wunderkind, somehow knows less about marketing than you do.
Indeed, Europe and Asia represent a larger number of mobile users-- but along with that also stiffer competition and greater market saturation. And since when did Apple become a highly successful technology leader by selling the largest numbers of units? They have always had success in selling smaller numbers of units at higher margins with their ability to attract consumers more interested in quality and ease of use.
Apple also has far greater market penetration (stores, resellers, distribution channels, existing user base) in the United States than anywhere else, and the lack of a sophisticated cell-phone market means there is room to grow, unlike elsewhere. As well, the need for a carrier partner like Cingular that they could leverage to provide a nation-wide 300 million person market is perhaps unique to the U.S. market.
And, my marketing guru, let us never underestimate the need to actually understand your market, which Apple most certainly understands better in the U.S. than elsewhere, maybe even better than anyone else. Few predicted that the iPod would become the best-selling music player of all time, that the iBook would be the best-selling laptop ever, and that the iMac would become the best-selling desktop. Geez, and they pulled all that off in the stunted American market? Wow, someone should let them know how to run a business.
Let me know how your new marketing consultancy is (un)going! Enjoy your billions, I know Steve Jobs the marketing drop-out sure does.
Lemme tellya, a coffee and a handy sounds really good after the screwing over I receive on my Windows 'investment' some days. In fact, if that's all my computer ever did I'd be a pretty satisfied customer.
I don't think that anyone knows who owns the trademark and legal rights to the name iPhone until a judge decides, the matter is before the courts. There is certainly a case to be made that Cisco dropped the ball and lost their usage rights. Apple has a cracck legal and marketing team, don't everyone be too eager for them to fall flat on their face, I fully expect Apple to win the rights to the iPhone name, they've already created the brand.
dude, one of the things that makes apple such a powerful technological and marketing force is that the entertainment, hardware, and software units work on the same products. don't tell me you haven't noticed that the software on the macintosh is what drives the hardware specifications? don't tell me you haven't noticed that the itunes store drives ipod sales and thus mac sales? don't tell me that the ability to sell movies through itunes doesn't change what the capabilities of the new ipods they produce? Breaking the areas up would strip apple of all the advantages they have built in bringing those things under one roof. hardware and software integration is apple's core strength, content provision foundational to the success of their products. and forgive me, but apple could care less about their bsd pedigree-- only the geeks care about that stuff. this is the market, not some sort of boy scout honour school. apple will do what it takes to make money and establish market position, this does not include giving the nerds of the earth a big woody.
If you think that the iPhone and Apple TV have nothing to do with Macs, then you should really think hard about it. Remember that there will be incredible amounts of press surrounding the release of these two products, why waste other announcements on the media that is already saturated by CES in Vegas. Mac announcements will come, Leopard announcements will come... They will all ship at their regularly scheduled dates-- for most of us that aren't developers, *when* something is *announced* is not nearly as important as when it will *ship*. Apple has shown for five years that they are constantly able to remain ahead of timelines, much unlike the other seven-billion pound gorilla in the room. Unrelated: man, Zune sure does look sucky now, don't it? It will be two years before MS can pack that functionality (read: usability) into as small a package.
Use your imagination! My word, I'm sure people had a hard time imagining what types of games would grow out of the mouse / keyboard paradigm, but of course games evolved to fit the user interface. Don't make the mistake of thinking that because no touch interface games exist that there won't be very many! There will be more games than you can shake a stick at. I also disagree that OS X on the iPhone will be stunted or not as useful. The major benefits won't be power but extensibility. OS X on the computer will be strengthened immeasurably by OS X on portable devices, I can't get over how many different applications there will be.
My thought is that, purely from a marketing perspective, there was no need to talk about Leopard, the iPhone will dominate press coverage for the forseeable future, and Leopard would have received little attention. Better to roll out Leopard after the accolades die down, it's all about spreading out your media attention.
And, for the love of god, "bad-english" is just that, *bad english*. 'Good' and 'bad' are moral indicators, not linguistic qualitators, so please keep your *poor* use of the english language to youself, you bad bad man.
are you for real? "Why do companies keep on locking themselves into one device when it would be much easier to support a large number of devices." does your statement not strike you as self-contradictory? how would a "large number of devices" be easier to support than just one? i've drawn myself some explanatory pictures and i still can't figure that one out. use the brain you were given to think for a moment about why any of the compatibility manufacturers *might* be convinced to offer support for the dominant portable music and video player. i'll give you one clue-- *it has nothing at all to do with money!*
Interestingly, I worked on freeing Maher Arar with his wife Mounia Mizigh a couple years ago when I was living in Ottawa. I happened to be teaching a university course on North American Geopolitics that comprised of twenty Canadians and twenty Americans from all over the continent and we met with the American ambassador Paul Celucci for a question and answer. Among other crap that fell out of his mouth, he said that global warming was 'bad science' and that if it was true it would probably be good for America anyway. I countered that the state of Florida, barely abover sea level probably didn't share his enthusiasm to which he replied that he wasn't running for office in Florida so why should he care. We lobbied the ambassador for information that led to Arar's release. The result of the Maher Inquiry is that the American administration acted solely outside of diplomatic channels and the State Department lied to Canadian officials throughout the entire rendition. Canada issued a formal diplomatic letter this month to protest the unilateral action that took place despite long-standing treaties on the issue, the highest form of diplomatic complaint. You are correct in certain respects to be wary of Canada with respect to US policy of course. There aren't two economies on earth that are more integrated than ours. Over 80% of Canadian goods flow south. Our best known Prime Minister, Pierre E Trudeau, once quipped after a poor meeting with Nixon that "when you sleep beside an elephant and the elephant sneezes, you catch a cold". Nixon berated Deifenbaker, "don't you come down here and piss on my rug." American interests own the rights to many Canadian resources and companies, a phenomenon that accelerated greatly during the nineties when the Canadian dollar sat below 70 cents for a long period of time. It would be impossible for us to be completely independent of US policy. We are vulnerable on trade issues because we are the smaller partner in the largest trade alliance in the world. Many industry policies are harmonised across the border. In the post-war period Canada had its own automobile, food, and appliance manufacturers but all were bought out by huge American corporations. But we have a staunchly independent parliament that isn't afraid of turning down US overtures on missiles defense, GMO food, drug policy, border issues, and wins NAFTA panel arguments regularly. You can't pack a handgun here. Violent crime, the murder rate, and the incarceration rate is one-tenth per capita south of the border. If you want a real contrast, go live in Quebec where views on justice, the role of the state, foreign policy, sexual orientation, and drug addiction treatment are all wildly different than in the United States, not to mention the linguistic nuances (you can exist completely in English in many parts of the province including Montréal, the second-largest french city in the world after Paris). Canadian cities rate much higher on the livability scale and have not been prone to the real estate bubble that will soon wipe out trillions of value off the US market. Don't get me wrong, it ain't paradise up here or anything. But many of the big problems the US has run into we have learned from. I don't lock my doors of my house or my car. Government policy has placed the collective good above individual rights while protecting minorities. Toronto is the most multicultural city on the planet. Canada doesn't have a Vietnam or a Bay of Pigs or an Iraq. Mistakes have been made-- it's an egalitarian experiment that has its good and bad moments. And make no mistake, it is not America up here.
My friend, Canada is a long ways from the United States on foreign policy. Sure, we're part of NATO and NORAD but for a long time Canadian Prime Ministers have earned the ire of American administrations for not toeing the line. Anti-american sentiment has been on the rise for the past decade north of the border and Canadian officials are always cautious of courting US favour lest there be a backlash from the Canadian public that is very wary of Us adventurism abroad these days. Canada stayed out of Iraq, believes strongly in multilateral international institutions, the International Criminal Court, the Geneva Convention, and the Kyoto Protocol, just to name a few of the items that the US has turned its back on recently. We are in Afghanistan at the moment but it is a bitterly unpopular mission in Quebec and may even cost the current government the next election as Canadians feel uncomfortable having any part in the war on terror. We have the legalisation of marijuana that almost got brought before the House last year, the legalisation of same-sex marriage, and universal health care. This ain't the land of the free or the home of the brave. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Sounds like we fulfill all of your other criterion, why not give us a second thought? You'd be surprised at how different things are up here.
sort of like the old adage: "you may not give a shit about politics, but don't expect politics to not give a shit about you."
"Unlike Dell, they really haven't figured out how to sell a home computer to average folks." har har, those teardrop imacs of old are only the best selling computer *of all time*, i guess those apple nerds need to take some lessons about marketing. hey, doesn't the mini already come with a remote? and firewire for external storage? duh buh
my frank reply is, "then don't buy apple" i am constantly frustrated by the notion here on /. that what is best for the consumer is what is best for apple, which could not be farther from the truth. how is apple different from any other pc manufacturer? if apple doesn't include a dvd player in the low-end model, what stops people from going to sony, dell, or hp? apple products do not exist in some alternate reality where the only choice is apple and apple is not some sort of dvd-player charity, they are first and foremost a money-making machine-- forget this and you really miss the point of business entities by a country mile. of course they want as much of your money as they can get, don't you think they would receive a little flak on the bottom line otherwise? if you want to build a custom machine, go build a custom machine, no one is stopping you, apple is not in control of your brain or your hardware choices. don't go blaming apple because their business model doesn't match your personal preference model.
"apple doesn't do this, apple doesn't do that." cry me a river, and don;t buy apple. /rant over.
sure, 60 gigs is easy. i listen to stuff all day, there's lots of music out there. true, if i had some piss-poor interface i'd probably listen to the same 50 songs over and over too. but one of the wonders of the ipod is in how, through the party shuffle, smart playlists, and good ol' random play on the whole whack of tunes, the ipod introduces me to more of my own music. i have all of the cds, but the ipod plays dj for me. selecting music can be a chore, the ipod presents me with choice.
the ndp has had a stronger role in federal politics than the parent might suggest, being the junior member in a coalition government of the mid-seventies the ndp fought for and achieved many important social reforms that are pillars of contemporary canadian society such as campaign finance reform and the Canada Health Act. i'll refute the points: As it stands now, they are a bunch of cronies appointed for life to do absolutely nothing anyone who derides the senate as disfunctional has no idea what they are talking about. canada's senate functions superbly, especially in comparison to other national systems. members are appointed to age seventy-five so that they can be removed from the political process and concentrate on providing good legislation, canadians have no idea how much re-working of parliamentary bills occurs in the senate, how talented so many of the senators are. there is no political in-fighting at senate, there are no axes to grind. the appointment process needs to be reformed but the senate is the smoothest operation in federal government. elected senators would be a disaster. canadians don't need more representation, they need better representation. let's not forget that Alberta is the largest contributer to Canada's transfer payment system alberta is not the largest contributor to transfer payments, ontario is. the economy of ontario is ten times the size of the alberta's. one in three canadians live in ontario, one of two in ontario or quebec. one in ten canadians lives in toronto, more people than all of alberta. alberta is not the centre of the universe my friend. there are more than twice as many quebecers as albertans, and more quebecers than albertans and british columbians combined. e Canadian Alliance took almost every seat west of Ontario, and couldn't even form official opposition, but a seperatist party from Quebec could, that is what they are complaining about. the idea that a quebec-based party could lead the opposition isn't far-fetched at all, especially when the canadian alliance didn't take every seat west of ontario in the last election, the liberals won 17 of them. compartitively, west of manitoba the alliance won just two seats. in ontario. and zero east. so how can a regional voice say 'we want in' and then complain when another voice does the same? trust me, when you move out of mom's basement and start paying taxes, the NDP won't look so good anymore. the tories left ontario in a shambles, it turns out all of their cost-cutting was just going into tax breaks for the rich, and now the middle-class is left with the tab and no services. smart. ndp governments have been extremely successful provincially.
rebuilding the country that you bombed into oblivion of course, i'm glad you agree with the moral imperative to give reparations for your actions. good thing you funded saddam and sold him the weapons too, just like bin laden. but truly, the reason for the expenditure of billons isn't because it is 'the right thing to do'-- rebuiding iraq serves america's short and long term interests. who gets those reconstruction contracts? american firms. it is a tax-grab by the bush admin handed over to friendly firms and the military-industrial complex. controlling eurasia puts the u.s. in the centre of three-quarters of the world's known energy sources, the gate-keeper as it were. interestingly you point out the legitimacy of your 'democratically' elected administration. did you happen to cast your last presidential ballot in florida? here's the newsflash: they do ignore the public and did so overwhelmingly in not only winning the white house but also in lying to you poor lot that still believe your vote counts for something about why they were sending the troops into iraq. yesterday the cia again officially admitted they knew there was no wmd in iraq. trumped up lies for an american public that isn't interested in self-examination. consider that you, an american citizen, have no recourse whatsoever over what is going on in guantanamo bay, even if you had evidence of the crimes that are occuring there. your own supreme court has copped-out and admitted they have no jurisdiction. your own government can label you a threat, hold you without charges indefinitely and there is nothing that anyone can do about it. the u.s. is as immoral as they come my friend. not individual yanks like yourself, but the record shows that your country is the biggest bully since hitler and stalin. the scariest part is that the american people apparently have no appetite for their own history. american unilateralism will be your undoing, i'm afraid it will be all of our undoing. too many enemies and not enough friends. all of the arguments about who would win what match-up with what equipment are pointless against the assymetrical threats that are far more likely the choice of your opponent. the enemies of american aggression are already on your own soil. good thing everyone has guns i suppose... wait.
more details can be had here: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM .20031123.wglid1123/BNStory/International/
i think, sometimes, that the key to reading slashdot is knowing when to read at +3 and when to read at -1. this, for instance, is entirely enjoyable at -1. geekdom is hanging out at -1, no-holds-barred. really, surfing at +5, as i am in the bad habit of late, can be depressing sometimes. i think slashdot should move toward a system that tracks my changes to the threshold comment scores and display future stories based on my past prefs. and imagine the bitching over the system! more perpetuated wither slashdot hand-wringing, it would be great. anyway, palmela handerson, /. can be funny.