If you want to start your own pre-paid phone network, you shouldn't steal Freedom Wireless's way of doing it.
To "steal" a point made all the time on Slashdot: Freedom Wireless was not deprived of the use of this method. And yes, I just used "steal" the way you did, but such imprecision is only okay when no one is getting sued.
Also, do you actually know that BCGI learned about this method from Freedom Wireless, and if so that they wouldn't have come up with it on their own? If not then there goes the other half of "steal".
Unfortunately, the patent system doesn't even require that half.
Given that, when restraint of action is evident, it stands to reason that some principle other than barbarism is at work, and that the place where this happens is likely to be further from a Hobbesian state of nature than other places.
Thanks. This may have clarified for me the source of many arguments I've seen. Your view is at odds with that of someone who wants to restrain (or criticize or hold to a higher standard) those with more power precisely because those with power can do more damage and hence are the highest priority. I'll be keeping both views in mind.
Quite the opposite. Which makes me think of your comment:
If it's a deliberate troll, man, I really have to hand it to the guy. Amazing work.
Perhaps that guy's work is even more amazing: he was actually trying to bring our countries closer together! So I'll close with some positive experiences:
As a very young child my family would cross the border and visit New York state, but at that age I don't think I even comprehended borders. I do remember enjoying the scenery.
As an adult I visited Madison Wisconsin, and what struck me was the following: a motorist almost hit an adult skateboarder who darted out in front of her car, and she just said "hey, watch it" without any tone of irritation.
One more thing (as if there weren't enough!). I realize now that by mentioning you at the end of the grandparent it might look like I was addressing you in the whole post. I was originally going to reply to your first post and simply ask you to reconsider your impression of Canada because I was worried about you getting bad information. But when I replied to the grandparent, which I assumed you would read, I just threw in the link in a (vain) attempt to make the thread more compact!
I'm playing catch-up here. My response to your comment about the surreality of this thread I hope brings us into general agreement.
I wasn't going to ask specifically about New York's procedures, but now you do have me curious. Your summary doesn't seem to require anything more than what happened in Manitoba: someone who works with old people noticed a problem with the man, he then had a psychiatric assessment. According to my reading of the Manitoba Mental Health Act required examination by a doctor, then specifically a psychiatrist then approval of the medical director of the facility.
Appointment of a public trustee to manage the man's affairs then requires the attending physician, the medical director and a public trustee. The patient and nearest relative must be informed that they may apply to a review board.
The original article seems to be a simplified and sensationalized account of the above. So, with the amount of information we've exchanged so far about New York and Manitoba procedures, I don't see much difference. I actually expected that New York (and most states) would require some judicial involvement (perhaps you just left it out of the summary?).
Agreed. I've been on the net before the WWW, and find most discussions on and off the net disturbingly unproductive. And yet, a couple of days after deciding to try my hand at some helpful posting I find myself a main participant in this and wondering whether I have any idea what I'm doing! Luckily, I'm enjoying it this first time but will be making some changes in the future.
You did make me review how this all developed for me, and I did notice that your first response included:
I now have no desire whatsoever to move out of the U.S.A. As crazy as we are down here, we don't have that whole "nanny state" thing going on.
At the time, the "nanny state" comment and comparison were significant to me. But I'll remember you now for your later comments and not worry about interpreting that first response.
Ok, now I'm confused.
I thought the guy who doesn't like Canada was a Canadian? But you're replying as if he's an American?
I too was confused and replied as if the original poster was American. It didn't help that the original poster referred to Americans with "we", and it was only mentioned in later posts that he is Canadian.
And yes, the story of the old man bothers me too. Maybe I should start a Manitoba versus Ontario flamewar:)
Thanks for the clarification. In my post when I said Americans I meant the Americans the other poster suggested Canadians were being mean to.
For the record, I've never been nationalistic. I just found myself drawn in (along with a Québec independentist!) because living in Canada and also paying attention to the US some of the comments about Canada seemed incorrect. I know many Americans from academia and industry in my job, I've been to the US, and never really cared who was American and who was Canadian. It would come up as casually as, say, what is was like in ones particular high school. I've never talked about Canada in generalities so much, and may never want to ever again.
I think both sides of the border may want to disown a certain Canadian who wants to be an American (or what he thinks is an American). I was responding to an extreme position. But if I was discussing this with someone who simply wanted to compare Canada and the US, or Canadians and Americans, I would have also included a lot of positive things about the US and Americans, and negatives about Canada and Canadians.
Your post is quite reasonable (and it happens that I was aware of the particular information you provided).
Canada does not have to bother... it can torture people in its own prisons.
I don't know what you're saying here: that the Canadian government says it has the right to do so, or that it actually has done so? I've never heard of either.
Google for
"Security Certificate".
Okay, too bad you didn't. It requires judicial involvement, unlike what the US government did and its lawyer argued:
"foreign citizens who change planes at airports in the United States can legally be seized, detained without charges, deprived of access to a lawyer or the courts, and even denied basic necessities like food..."
I'm new to posting to slashdot, and this thread caught my attention. Then seeing Rene's posts get at least +2, and some posters inspired by him, it seemed a worthwhile start. After googling, I don't find his information credible. He has been somewhat uncivil, but not to an extent that upsets me. There's one post of mine that he hasn't responded to yet where I could be interested in his responses, especially because they don't require credibility. If that doesn't pan out, I'll move on.
It's not just Canada and the UK.
They have involuntary committment in the US. And just like it varies from state to state in the US, the process varies from province to province in Canada. Manitoba, which the original post is about, requires both a physician and the Provincial Psychiatrist, and there is a review board.
I'm more familiar with Ontario, which has an informative guide put out by the "Queen Street Outreach Society [which] is a community-based non-profit organization made up of people who've experienced the mental health system." According to them, and it seems to match what I remember from reading the Mental Health Act, involuntary patients:
are informed of their right to legal counsel, seen by a rights advisor and given a chance to appeal at the Consent and Capacity Board (if a patient appeals a Board's decision, their case goes before the courts).
So maybe crazyphilman should compare his State's laws with those of various Canadian provinces. If after that he or she is still scared of Canada then at least it won't be based on sensationalism.
Suggesting I'm asleep, when you know almost nothing about what I think, I find arrogant.
About the U.S. invasion of Iraq, we've had a misunderstanding. I quoted your paragraph
I have long learned that one should not judge a nation simply by what it's government does do, but rather what it does vs. what it can do. From that perspective, U.S. "bullying" in the world is the model of restraint.
and asked for the evidence for what you learned, meaning the principle in the first sentence. If you're still interested, I am still interested in what led you to such a principle.
Back to the issue of government intrusion, what do you think of the Canadian government repealing the anti-sodomy laws in the 1960s. The Prime Minister at the time said: "there's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation [...] what's done in private between adults doesn't concern the Criminal Code." Do Americans and their Government share this ideal? If not, when will Americans wake up?
Particularly after Canada decided not to join the U.S. in it's "Adventure of the Willing", many Canadians I met appeared to have been emboldened beyond an indifferance toward the U.S. (always masking thinly some degree of envy) to downright hatred -- some to the point of praising known terrorists for their attacks against the U.S.
I knew at the time that the American government was lying to Canadians about why they wanted to invade, and wrong about how long and how costly it would be. I saw Canadian concerns dismissed by Americans as simply Anti-American, or worse as cowardly, being bad allies, envious, etc. That's when I would get angry. Luckily, the majority of Americans now agree or at least consider the above reasons, well, reasonable.
I can of course see how you would be angry and upset with any Canadians who praised terrorists for attacking the U.S. But keep in mind that many Americans twisted Canada's not joining into praise for the terrorists ("you're either with us or against us").
Before we continue with comparisons, let me make sure I understood the meaning of your first post I responded to. After calling the U.S. the best place on earth, you concluded with:
How long Canadians will continue to put up with their guilded cage, the gilt long worn off, is anyone's guess. But, if they wake up, 't ain't gonna be perty.
The comparison isn't direct, but I think you are saying that Canadians, unlike Americans, are asleep to some situation in their country so bad that it will get ugly if they ever wake up. That's a very strong claim to make, and replying to my criticism with "Canada can do it too" does nothing to support your claim of some vast difference.
I have long learned that one should not judge a nation simply by what it's government does do, but rather what it does vs. what it can do. From that perspective, U.S. "bullying" in the world is the model of restraint.
Since you "learned" that, I assume you can give me state the evidence for it you found compelling?
And, most of all, no one goes around robbing you blind (tax-wise) to pay for those undelivered guarantees, to the extent that you can't pay for them yourself even if you otherwise could
You do have taxes in the US, don't you? Can you explain to me why they are at the magical sweet-spot compared to Canada and, say, Japan?
(nevermind that spending your own money for your own welfare is illegal in some cases in Canada, particularly when it comes to "universal" healthcare -- unfair to the poor, you see)
Can you spend your money on medicinal marijuana in the US?
For all the crap and dubious decisionmaking that goes on in American government, including the present folly in Iraq, the U.S. remains the best place on earth.
How long Canadians will continue to put up with their guilded cage, the gilt long worn off, is anyone's guess. But, if they wake up, 't ain't gonna be perty.
I hope not, since the NAFTA tribunal ruled against the US, and the amount I've been reading the US owes Canada is five billion dollars (which is over $100 per Canadian!)
If they allowed people to win too much, they'd be out of business next week.
This is so obvious that I hope it wasn't part of what the moderator felt was underrated. Either that or you and the moderator think that people reading slashdot are incredibly stupid (may the "you're new around here" jokes commence!).
they are well within your rights to refuse to offer you a particular game or bar you completely from the premises
I haven't seen anyone (including the grandparent) claim that Casino's are violating peoples' rights by refusing service. I guess it's my turn to state the obvious: people are well within their rights to complain about the service they get from a business. The grandparent even put in an IMO.
Just before I submitted this, I checked on whether there was any change in moderation. The grandparent now stands at 5. Wow, Slashdot works?!
in the original paper it's listed as a lemma (math talk for "Oh, by the way, everything we've just shown can also be used to show that...")
That's somewhat backwards. In math, someone usually calls a result a lemma to indicate it is a preliminary result being used to prove a more important result. What you are describing would usually be called a corollary.
99% of the general public is content wallow in ignorance
And a portion of the remaining 1% prefer to adopt the trivial attitude that "caring is uncool" and feel superior because of it. Of course many of them seem to lose their cool long enough to criticize those who work to change things.
Slashdot Mirror
To "steal" a point made all the time on Slashdot: Freedom Wireless was not deprived of the use of this method. And yes, I just used "steal" the way you did, but such imprecision is only okay when no one is getting sued.
Also, do you actually know that BCGI learned about this method from Freedom Wireless, and if so that they wouldn't have come up with it on their own? If not then there goes the other half of "steal".
Unfortunately, the patent system doesn't even require that half.
Thanks. This may have clarified for me the source of many arguments I've seen. Your view is at odds with that of someone who wants to restrain (or criticize or hold to a higher standard) those with more power precisely because those with power can do more damage and hence are the highest priority. I'll be keeping both views in mind.
Quite the opposite. Which makes me think of your comment:
Perhaps that guy's work is even more amazing: he was actually trying to bring our countries closer together! So I'll close with some positive experiences:
As a very young child my family would cross the border and visit New York state, but at that age I don't think I even comprehended borders. I do remember enjoying the scenery.
As an adult I visited Madison Wisconsin, and what struck me was the following: a motorist almost hit an adult skateboarder who darted out in front of her car, and she just said "hey, watch it" without any tone of irritation.
One more thing (as if there weren't enough!). I realize now that by mentioning you at the end of the grandparent it might look like I was addressing you in the whole post. I was originally going to reply to your first post and simply ask you to reconsider your impression of Canada because I was worried about you getting bad information. But when I replied to the grandparent, which I assumed you would read, I just threw in the link in a (vain) attempt to make the thread more compact!
I'm playing catch-up here. My response to your comment about the surreality of this thread I hope brings us into general agreement.
I wasn't going to ask specifically about New York's procedures, but now you do have me curious. Your summary doesn't seem to require anything more than what happened in Manitoba: someone who works with old people noticed a problem with the man, he then had a psychiatric assessment. According to my reading of the Manitoba Mental Health Act required examination by a doctor, then specifically a psychiatrist then approval of the medical director of the facility. Appointment of a public trustee to manage the man's affairs then requires the attending physician, the medical director and a public trustee. The patient and nearest relative must be informed that they may apply to a review board.
The original article seems to be a simplified and sensationalized account of the above. So, with the amount of information we've exchanged so far about New York and Manitoba procedures, I don't see much difference. I actually expected that New York (and most states) would require some judicial involvement (perhaps you just left it out of the summary?).
Agreed. I've been on the net before the WWW, and find most discussions on and off the net disturbingly unproductive. And yet, a couple of days after deciding to try my hand at some helpful posting I find myself a main participant in this and wondering whether I have any idea what I'm doing! Luckily, I'm enjoying it this first time but will be making some changes in the future.
You did make me review how this all developed for me, and I did notice that your first response included:
At the time, the "nanny state" comment and comparison were significant to me. But I'll remember you now for your later comments and not worry about interpreting that first response.
I too was confused and replied as if the original poster was American. It didn't help that the original poster referred to Americans with "we", and it was only mentioned in later posts that he is Canadian.
And yes, the story of the old man bothers me too. Maybe I should start a Manitoba versus Ontario flamewar :)
Thanks for the clarification. In my post when I said Americans I meant the Americans the other poster suggested Canadians were being mean to.
For the record, I've never been nationalistic. I just found myself drawn in (along with a Québec independentist!) because living in Canada and also paying attention to the US some of the comments about Canada seemed incorrect. I know many Americans from academia and industry in my job, I've been to the US, and never really cared who was American and who was Canadian. It would come up as casually as, say, what is was like in ones particular high school. I've never talked about Canada in generalities so much, and may never want to ever again.
I think both sides of the border may want to disown a certain Canadian who wants to be an American (or what he thinks is an American). I was responding to an extreme position. But if I was discussing this with someone who simply wanted to compare Canada and the US, or Canadians and Americans, I would have also included a lot of positive things about the US and Americans, and negatives about Canada and Canadians.
Your post is quite reasonable (and it happens that I was aware of the particular information you provided).
I don't know what you're saying here: that the Canadian government says it has the right to do so, or that it actually has done so? I've never heard of either.
Okay, too bad you didn't. It requires judicial involvement, unlike what the US government did and its lawyer argued:
Thanks for the heads-up.
I'm new to posting to slashdot, and this thread caught my attention. Then seeing Rene's posts get at least +2, and some posters inspired by him, it seemed a worthwhile start. After googling, I don't find his information credible. He has been somewhat uncivil, but not to an extent that upsets me. There's one post of mine that he hasn't responded to yet where I could be interested in his responses, especially because they don't require credibility. If that doesn't pan out, I'll move on.
It's not just Canada and the UK. They have involuntary committment in the US. And just like it varies from state to state in the US, the process varies from province to province in Canada. Manitoba, which the original post is about, requires both a physician and the Provincial Psychiatrist, and there is a review board.
I'm more familiar with Ontario, which has an informative guide put out by the "Queen Street Outreach Society [which] is a community-based non-profit organization made up of people who've experienced the mental health system." According to them, and it seems to match what I remember from reading the Mental Health Act, involuntary patients:
So maybe crazyphilman should compare his State's laws with those of various Canadian provinces. If after that he or she is still scared of Canada then at least it won't be based on sensationalism.
Suggesting I'm asleep, when you know almost nothing about what I think, I find arrogant.
About the U.S. invasion of Iraq, we've had a misunderstanding. I quoted your paragraph
and asked for the evidence for what you learned, meaning the principle in the first sentence. If you're still interested, I am still interested in what led you to such a principle.
Back to the issue of government intrusion, what do you think of the Canadian government repealing the anti-sodomy laws in the 1960s. The Prime Minister at the time said: "there's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation [...] what's done in private between adults doesn't concern the Criminal Code." Do Americans and their Government share this ideal? If not, when will Americans wake up?
I knew at the time that the American government was lying to Canadians about why they wanted to invade, and wrong about how long and how costly it would be. I saw Canadian concerns dismissed by Americans as simply Anti-American, or worse as cowardly, being bad allies, envious, etc. That's when I would get angry. Luckily, the majority of Americans now agree or at least consider the above reasons, well, reasonable.
I can of course see how you would be angry and upset with any Canadians who praised terrorists for attacking the U.S. But keep in mind that many Americans twisted Canada's not joining into praise for the terrorists ("you're either with us or against us").
Before we continue with comparisons, let me make sure I understood the meaning of your first post I responded to. After calling the U.S. the best place on earth, you concluded with:
The comparison isn't direct, but I think you are saying that Canadians, unlike Americans, are asleep to some situation in their country so bad that it will get ugly if they ever wake up. That's a very strong claim to make, and replying to my criticism with "Canada can do it too" does nothing to support your claim of some vast difference.
Since you "learned" that, I assume you can give me state the evidence for it you found compelling?
You do have taxes in the US, don't you? Can you explain to me why they are at the magical sweet-spot compared to Canada and, say, Japan?
Can you spend your money on medicinal marijuana in the US?
Gee, I'd love to visit, or even just change planes there, but I'd rather not be sent to Syria to be tortured.
I hope not, since the NAFTA tribunal ruled against the US, and the amount I've been reading the US owes Canada is five billion dollars (which is over $100 per Canadian!)
This is so obvious that I hope it wasn't part of what the moderator felt was underrated. Either that or you and the moderator think that people reading slashdot are incredibly stupid (may the "you're new around here" jokes commence!).
I haven't seen anyone (including the grandparent) claim that Casino's are violating peoples' rights by refusing service. I guess it's my turn to state the obvious: people are well within their rights to complain about the service they get from a business. The grandparent even put in an IMO.
Just before I submitted this, I checked on whether there was any change in moderation. The grandparent now stands at 5. Wow, Slashdot works?!
That's somewhat backwards. In math, someone usually calls a result a lemma to indicate it is a preliminary result being used to prove a more important result. What you are describing would usually be called a corollary.
And a portion of the remaining 1% prefer to adopt the trivial attitude that "caring is uncool" and feel superior because of it. Of course many of them seem to lose their cool long enough to criticize those who work to change things.
I agree with most of your comment, but I'm bothered by the pairing of the title and conclusion:
Are you suggesting we just give up? And that anyone who doesn't is naive? Do you apply the "get over it" wisdom to yourself?.
In the context of the (slashdot) article, what you wrote becomes:
Isn't that a main part of the job of the military?