I dropped my Rogers subscription just last week and moved to TekSavvy. Speeds are good (the same as Rogers), I'm basically paying 50% less, and I'm getting a consistent 15Mbits down. For anybody out there with Rogers.. please do all of Canada a favor and switch, even though Rogers is the one leasing the lines.
TekSavvy leases from both Rogers (cable) and Bell (DSL). AFAIK, their DSL is subject to Bell's throttling.
I'm one of the very large group -- one might say the majority, by the way -- who refuses to vote
Which is a mistake on your part.
If you simply refuse to vote you are not sending a loud and clear message as to why you are doing it. Maybe you're just lazy.
Now, what you should do, IMHO, is vote for a candidate with no affiliation to the 4 parties currently in parliament. That way, you're saying: "I don't trust any of you assholes, my vote is not in anyone's pocket, work for it." Enough people do that and things will change.
Personally, I suggest you vote Green, almost 7% did in 2008 and more are expected to this time, but if you prefer an independent or are particular to Pirate, Marijuana, Libertarian, Rhino, etc. be my guest.
Note: I find it a travesty that the Greens had almost 7% of the popular vote and zero seats while the Bloc got a bit less than 10% of the popular vote giving them 49 seats (16%).
But then list iterators will have to reference their corresponding list objects, which will affect iterator invalidation... There are lots of issues involved, it isn't as trivial as you think.
I recently started contemplating laptops and the new "sandy bridge" Thinkpads look nice. Both the X220 and the T420 have excellent battery lives but the X220 can be had with an IPS panel while the T420 has a larger screen and optional discreet graphics. I hate compromising...
These sites support the rapid free sharing of information, thus reducing the ability of authors to profit from the books they write, of singers to profit from the songs they sing, of directors to profit from the films they create. In turn, this reduces their motivation to create such works, and this reduced motivation might lead them to reduce the amount of works they create for our enjoyment.
I understand that this is the "common wisdom" that is being heavily promoted to be accepted as an indisputable fact. However, the truth is that the assertion has never been put to a test. I would expect slashdotters, being scientifically minded (on the aggregate), not to be content with parroting the rights holders' line but to challenge it and demand rigorous proof.
Now, I agree that it will reduce the total amount of works (since some people only create "works" for material gain) but will it reduce the amount of worthwhile works? And if so, how much?
I propose to put a moratorium on copyrights for at least50 years (guesstimate: the approximate length of a creator's productive period), preferably a 100, and see how society copes with that.
Note that this isn't a silly argument -- we really need to make a tradeoff between our desire to freely deal with information (especially to do new things with old ideas, but also to profit from the creations of others), and the need for a regime where creators have a way to get paid. This tradeoff is called "copyright laws".
And more and more people begin to realize that this is a bad tradeoff or, at the least, bad implementation of it. If the duration of the copyright was 14 years I would be inclined to agree with you, but as it stands now, the public is being deprived of free access to its culture.
As I said in my original post, a copyright holder has every right to try and make money off their creation - they don't have the right to make money, but they have the right to try. You, The Pirate Bay, ISOHunt or anyone else does not have the right to deny them that attempt to make money OFF OF THEIR PROPERTY.
Every single religion on the planet has the same basic tenets; be nice, be honest, be good.
You don't need religion for those. However, it is required for other commonly occurring tenets like: submit to authority, do not question your betters, preserve the status quo, support the establishment, etc.
I pretty much gave up on reading what you link to after the fallacy of the Amnesty international and UN links.
Really convenient, isn't it? Cocoons are so comfy.
But seriously, do that say it's torture or do they say it's not proper, constructive or against some rules somewhere instead?
Sorry, bud, you can either dismiss everything I say out of hand or you can ask me to summarize things for you, but you can't have it both ways.
As I already said, do your own research. Read articles by expert psychologists and psychiatrists from peer-reviewed publications -- the Web (and, in particular, Google Scholar) makes them easily accessible accessible nowadays, at the very least you get the summaries.
Or continue ignoring the evidence. I don't really care, it is not my job to educate you. I posted those links for those slashdotters that may be interested.
Sorry, troll feeding time is over. Have a nice life.
You were "isolated from the rest of the prisoners" for a weekend. Manning has been in "maximum custody" solitary confinement for about seven months. If you are trying to draw a parallel between these two events then you, sir, are truly an idiot.
But, hey, why don't you do some reading on the subject yourself? For example, here's a statement by a psychiatrist and expert witness. Or, since we are all so big on peer review an citations, try asking Google Scholar.
Oh, just so you won't be under the impression that Manning is an isolated case, there are some 100,000 more like him.
Getting the mission done with as few deaths as possible is the morally right thing for a commander to do. If there is a choice to be made between manipulating senators, and getting your people killed, I'd choose manipulating congressmen any time.
What about lying to senators? Blackmailing senators? Brainwashing senators? Kidnapping senators? Torturing senators?
After all, if it saves lives...
Let's try another angle: Is manipulating senators OK if it only has a 90% chance of saving lives? What about 75%? 50%? 25%? 5%?
Or a different perspective: Is manipulating senators OK if the consensus in your unit is that it will saving lives? What if it is the opinion of yourself and your commanding officer? What if it is solely your opinion?
So the question are: (1) Where do you draw the line? and (2) Who should be tasked with drawing that line.
I believe that your 2nd president, John Adams, addressed that issue by defining a republic as "an empire of laws, and not of men".
The prosecutor, the arresting officer, the officers that entered the home, and the lawyers in the courtroom (excepting the lawyer defending the victim) would automatically be sentenced to 1 month in prison for violating Amendments 1, 4, 9, and 14 of the Supreme Law of the land, as well as violating the Michigan Constitution, and their oaths.
It is my opinion that violating "the Supreme Law of the land" should result in a supreme punishment. However, I am yet to see anybody jailed for violating the constitution. It is always the "laws for plebs" that carry stiff punishments.
I would have to agree that the copyright and patent systems could be better. But abolishing them altogether could be disastrous.
could be disastrous or it could be marvellous, we would never know until we try. I'd like all patents and copyrights on new works suspended between, say, 2015 and 2065. My guess is that once the dust settles we will not become culturally (or scientifically) poorer.
If those were the terms the mason and the group hiring agreed to, then yes. If not, then not. Is this really that hard to understand?
"Agreed to" is the operative phrase. The terms may be freely negotiated and are not mandated by law (contrary to copyright). Is this really that hard to understand?
Slashdot Mirror
TekSavvy leases from both Rogers (cable) and Bell (DSL). AFAIK, their DSL is subject to Bell's throttling.
Which is a mistake on your part.
If you simply refuse to vote you are not sending a loud and clear message as to why you are doing it. Maybe you're just lazy.
Now, what you should do, IMHO, is vote for a candidate with no affiliation to the 4 parties currently in parliament. That way, you're saying: "I don't trust any of you assholes, my vote is not in anyone's pocket, work for it." Enough people do that and things will change.
Personally, I suggest you vote Green, almost 7% did in 2008 and more are expected to this time, but if you prefer an independent or are particular to Pirate, Marijuana, Libertarian, Rhino, etc. be my guest.
Note: I find it a travesty that the Greens had almost 7% of the popular vote and zero seats while the Bloc got a bit less than 10% of the popular vote giving them 49 seats (16%).
But then list iterators will have to reference their corresponding list objects, which will affect iterator invalidation... There are lots of issues involved, it isn't as trivial as you think.
Mea culpa.
I recently started contemplating laptops and the new "sandy bridge" Thinkpads look nice.
Both the X220 and the T420 have excellent battery lives but the X220 can be had with an IPS panel while the T420 has a larger screen and optional discreet graphics. I hate compromising...
I understand that this is the "common wisdom" that is being heavily promoted to be accepted as an indisputable fact. However, the truth is that the assertion has never been put to a test. I would expect slashdotters, being scientifically minded (on the aggregate), not to be content with parroting the rights holders' line but to challenge it and demand rigorous proof.
Now, I agree that it will reduce the total amount of works (since some people only create "works" for material gain) but will it reduce the amount of worthwhile works? And if so, how much?
I propose to put a moratorium on copyrights for at least50 years (guesstimate: the approximate length of a creator's productive period), preferably a 100, and see how society copes with that.
And more and more people begin to realize that this is a bad tradeoff or, at the least, bad implementation of it. If the duration of the copyright was 14 years I would be inclined to agree with you, but as it stands now, the public is being deprived of free access to its culture.
Except that it is NOT THEIR PROPERTY.
I have to restart FF every couple of days with memory usage above 1GB (on WinXP) since when it reaches 1.5GB it locks completely.
But do you really need to mix it with mythology?
You don't need religion for those. However, it is required for other commonly occurring tenets like: submit to authority, do not question your betters, preserve the status quo, support the establishment, etc.
s/believes/tentatively accepts/
Interesting article. In particular, I liked the following assertion:
I got curious and searched for priapism and marijuana on Google Scholar. The first link contains quotes such as:
Cute.
Being bipolar has both negative and positive aspects.
http://www.prisoncommission.org/statements/grassian_stuart_long.pdf
Really convenient, isn't it? Cocoons are so comfy.
Sorry, bud, you can either dismiss everything I say out of hand or you can ask me to summarize things for you, but you can't have it both ways.
As I already said, do your own research. Read articles by expert psychologists and psychiatrists from peer-reviewed publications -- the Web (and, in particular, Google Scholar) makes them easily accessible accessible nowadays, at the very least you get the summaries.
Or continue ignoring the evidence. I don't really care, it is not my job to educate you. I posted those links for those slashdotters that may be interested.
Sorry, troll feeding time is over. Have a nice life.
You were "isolated from the rest of the prisoners" for a weekend . Manning has been in "maximum custody" solitary confinement for about seven months . If you are trying to draw a parallel between these two events then you, sir, are truly an idiot.
The accusations come not only from Manning's lawyer but from Amnesty international and by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture.
But, hey, why don't you do some reading on the subject yourself?
For example, here's a statement by a psychiatrist and expert witness.
Or, since we are all so big on peer review an citations, try asking Google Scholar.
Oh, just so you won't be under the impression that Manning is an isolated case, there are some 100,000 more like him.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/02/14/3137816.htm?section=world
Good enough?
I respectfully disagree.
But what do you do when the fuck (a.k.a the prosecutor) refuses to calm down?
could be disastrous or it could be marvellous, we would never know until we try. I'd like all patents and copyrights on new works suspended between, say, 2015 and 2065. My guess is that once the dust settles we will not become culturally (or scientifically) poorer.
"Agreed to" is the operative phrase. The terms may be freely negotiated and are not mandated by law (contrary to copyright). Is this really that hard to understand?
In other words, the main (and possibly only) purpose of copyright is to protect the profits of publishers .
The incumbent Igor Smirnov won the presidential elections in the breakaway republic of Transnistria.