Crypto is simply mathematics. Mathematics forms the foundations of physics. Physics describes the real world. Mathematical principles are everywhere. Fibonacci series? Real numbers? Co-ordinate axis(ie. dimension)? That IS the real world.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
Electromagnetic induction power transmission will probably interfere with radio communications (between units, from control to units and in the surrounding area).
Do radio stations intefere with one another? No. Why? Because they are modulated and different frequencies. EM waves of different frequencies(and hence different wavelengths) do not interfere with each other. Since power transmission is likely to occur at VERY low frequencies(like current AC which is 60Hz) and most communications are modulated in the 100's of MHz band, there is NO way you would have any interference.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
WRONG. That was why the HDRC was given flack about it, and why they promised to scrap it.
Listen, until you can give me some evidence of this database, you're just spouting crap. Point me to an article of this and then we'll talk.
Ad hominem attacks don't make your points any better.
Nor do they do much for your arguments. Shall we review? "Canaduh... Thanks for playing let's boost Chretien. Shmuck." Once again, perhaps you should follow your own advice before opening your mouth.
Hm, unless you're protesting Suharto showing up. Then the PMO sends in riot squads. No punishments for those people anywhere: apparently the PMO can supercede the Charter.
Please. For every example of police abuse in Canada I could probably come up with 10 in the US. And if not 10, then ones that are ten-fold worse. WTO? Riots in LA? How does this prove anything?
Notwithstanding clause, Supreme Court "adjustments" to laws... Tried posting a sign in English in Quebec lately?
There is no "clause" in Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But as to interpretation, the same is true everywhere you go. Some situations are very complex and require interpretation of the law and so set a precedent. If you bothered to read what I wrote in my previous posting, you'd see an example of just such a situation(and if it's not there, it's at the link I pointed to).
As to the sign in Quebec, I've always thought it a ridiculus situation and I'm sure that the Supreme court would strike down the law saying that the french writing must be larger than the english, or that you cannot have english on a sign. Only english signs however(especially in Quebec), is not permitted since Canada is a bilingual country and so everyone should respect that. If you don't like it, go live somewhere else. I'll admit that they took the situation with the farmer in the middle of nowhere too far though. We'll see what happens.
America is predicted to have everything paid off within 20 years. Canada? About 1000.
Sources? Sorry, but you can't spout off numbers and statistics without citing any proof or even SOME evidence. Last I heard Canada had 15 plan to eliminate the deficit. I have heard no such thing from the US, but I don't claim to know much about their plans. Since I don't shoot my mouth off without any evidence, here's some for you. Note in the first paragraph(and I quote), "Until [1995], [Canada] had been a leader in deficits and rising government debt. Since then, it's been the G7's star example of how to wipe out deficits in a hurry and begin to reap the rewards of fiscal probity."
Next please?
What about either is unconstitutional?
You're right. My apologies. Neither is unconstitutional in the literal sense, but the DMCA does contradict numerous Fair Use precedants that the US courts have settled in the past. That hasn't been settled in court yet though, so we'll see. Lobbying, while not contradicting the letter of the constitution, goes against it's ideals. Favoritism to one groupbecause of influence and money was not the intent of the founding fathers. I'm sure you'll agree. Forgive me for being an idealist.
Western Canada wants a word with you about total lack of representation.
Western Canada does get representation, just not enough for them. That's an entirely different from no representation period.
Then tomorrow, they confiscate. They've already lied about it and been proven liars.
Sorry, how is this any different from the states. Does Kevin Mitnick ring a bell? Ordered not to touch another computer for life? What about Jon Johansen, the young norwegian who was arrested and extradited to the States to face US courts? Where the hell do they get the gall? And your talking about Canada having these problems?
And please, cite references. What lying? Politicians decieve all the time. I don't see how the US is an exception to this rule.
Bill C-68. Try reading it.
I will when I have more time. I've read some commentary and see what many think it is about. Have you read it yourself, or are you just regurgitating what others have said? You do realize that if there is anything in there that contradicts the Charter of Rights that the Supreme Court will strike it down. This will only happen if the law is first abused of course. But we can't say anything until it happens can we? Just like the Revers Onus example I supplied in my previous post, interpretation of the the law is often different than the letter.
As a little food for thought however, I'll leave you with this:
Although four of the five Alberta justices agreed that the law did intrude upon
provincial powers, two of these four thought that Ottawa's claims were justified... The dissenting justices argued that the dangers of firearms paled in comparison with the danger of the federal government intruding into provincial jurisdiction. Alberta and three other provinces have already appealed this decision directly to the Canadian Supreme Court.
As you can see from this commentary, it seems that Bill-68 simply grants the Federal government the same powers that the Provincial government already has, those of regulation(of firearms in this case). The article goes on to state that under the constitution, the provinces have regulatory powers over private property. The provinces are not too happy however.
The article also states that everyone must cooperate with police(which they are required to do anyway), and that illustrates some of the consequences of not cooperating with "inpectors". If such a situation arises of remaining silent, entry and confiscation, I will eagerly await the day the bill reaches the Supreme Court. That will be the litmus test. If it survives intact, then you can start bitching.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
This is the line which clearly shows you're an idiot.
I couldn't help but laugh when I read your comment.:-)
I'm not so easily satisfied with simply proving to myself he's an idiot though. If someone were to come along and see that I didn't respond to his 'witty rebuttal', they'd think he was right and yet more misinformation would spread. So I set the record quite straight. See here if you're interested. I'm quite proud of it myself.:-)
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
That's RICH, considering that Canaduh has that big Big Brother database on every Canadian. "We dismantled that!" Yeah sure, this would of course be at the same time they got rid of the GST, right?
Sorry, I think you're a little misinformed. The database you're referring to is simply social security current address. I don't know what big brother information you're referring to(I believe it's the database that was posted to slashdot about 6 months ago). *tsck, tsck* you should know better than to trust Slashdot sensationalism.
Canada has no free speech rights, no property rights, your right to self defense is being taken away as we speak, you're all sliding into eternal debt, and you are trying to tell me that America, which has always valued its Constitutional principles, is going to hell in a handbasket? Thanks for playing "let's boost Chretien". Schmuck.
Hmmm... Let's see... what pile of bullshit do I flush first? SOOO many to choose from. No free speech? Last time I checked, anyone was allowed to gather for protest and print whatever you like unless it's deliberately false or hate propaganda. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees freedom of expression(see below for a more thorough treatment). No property rights? Last I checked, people owned the lands they lived on so I really don't know where the hell you got that from. How about you check this out:
Canadian Ownership and Control Determination Act. Ignorance, ignorance everywhere. But hey, you're an American, you're always right.
Eternal debt? Last I checked there was surplus numbering in the multi tens of billions of dollars. That's SURPLUS, as in they underestimated the budget and we have more money than we know what to do with. Our debt is probably 1/100th the USA's debt. And this is the 3rd year in a row IIRC. So what the hell are you talking about?
America has always valued it's Constitutional principles? So you're saying that everything we're seeing these days is constitutional? The DMCA? The big oil companies and their lobbying. The total lack of representation or even thought given to groups of lesser influence or means. uhhuh. I'm sure that's in the consitution somewhere. Maybe if you look hard enough you'll see something. Be sure to keep smoking whatever you're on now though.
And perhaps if you reread my post, you'll notice I did not even mention Chretien. Not once. Is Chretien Canada? No. Is George W. Bush the US? No. And I'm sure you're very thankful for that last point. So don't be such a condescending ass and open your eyes.
Where you don't even have the right to own your own computer, let alone a gun to defend yourself against your government?
Oh, I guess the thing I'm typing this with is a figment of my imagination. How silly of me not to notice that. Gun? All you have to do is register. 'Register?' you may say? Ya, not that big a fucking deal is it?
Well, when Canada gets the right to free speech (kiddie porn doesn't count), a decent economy, and respects the right to remain silent, the right to not be subjected to reverse-onus prosecution, etc. let me know, OK? Learn something, THEN post. Leave the Liberal propaganda at home.
Reverse-onus prosecution? I think you are a little misinformed my friend. I'll admit that I didn't know what that was at first. After a little research I came up with this.
Allow me to carefully extract something for you:
Professor William Schabas,Université du Québec à Montreal:The second point that came
up in the testimony over the last few weeks dealt with the
so-called reverse onus provision, namely, clause 53 of the draft legislation. In
effect, paragraph 2 of clause 53 eliminates the notion of reasonable doubt in
prosecutions under this bill. That means that in submitting defences at any point in
these cases, an accused will not have to raise a reasonable doubt but will have to
prove innocence. That is a far-reaching provision. I am not aware of many provisions
that strong in our criminal law. To get such a provision past the Supreme Court, you
would have to demonstrate that the prosecution absolutely needs it in order to obtain
convictions and that it cannot enforce the legislation without it. What the courts
have done -- and the Supreme Court did this in a recent case -- is read down this
kind of provision by saying that maybe it was all right to impose a burden on an
accused to raise a reasonable doubt but it was going too far to impose a burden on an
accused to prove innocence. The distinction is an important one. The Supreme Court
said that if all you are doing is allowing someone to raise a reasonable doubt, you
are not violating the notion of proof of innocence beyond a reasonable doubt, and
therefore, you are in accordance with the law. The Charter provisions that are raised
by this are sections 11(d) and 7.
...
I do not know of any law in Canada that reverses the burden of proof to the extent
that people are guilty until proven innocent. To make someone guilty until proven
innocent would mean that the police could lay a charge against someone or the
prosecution would present a charge and then, in the absence of any evidence, that
person would have to prove his or her innocence. I do not know of any legislation
that does that.
We often do allow, on the proof of certain facts, other facts to be presumed. We then require the defendant to reply to those facts and to rebut them. In some cases, the
defendant rebuts them by simply raising a doubt; in other cases, the defendant must
rebut or refute these presumptions by proving the opposite. For example, the Oakes
case concerned possession for purposes of trafficking in narcotics. Upon proof that
someone was in possession of a certain quantity of narcotics, he was then presumed to
be in possession for the purpose of trafficking and had to get in the witness box to
prove the opposite. This provision states that if someone can raise valid defences to
these things -- exception, exemption, excuse or qualification then he has to
prove them instead of merely raise a reasonable doubt about them.
Normally, the general rule is that if you want to raise a reasonable doubt defence, you raise that doubt by saying you have, for example, an exemption. For example, let us say an 11-year-old child is charged with an offence under the act.
The Chair: He cannot be charged because he is a young offender.
Mr. Schabas: Exactly. Theoretically, he could be charged because the Crown may think that the young person is actually aged 19 years old. That person could then raise that argument. He would have to prove it and not just raise a reasonable doubt. He would have to raise not only a doubt about it, which is the normal principle in criminal law, but also prove it to the satisfaction of the trier of fact.
Just so you don't spread any more misinformation. There are plenty more examples backing up this interpretation if you do a quick search on google. Perhaps you should follow your own advice and do a little research yourself.
Canada doesn't respect the right to remain silent? I'm guessing by that you're referring to people who have been arrested being presumed guilty because they would not talk to the police? If you can provide me with one example of such a case, I'd love to discuss it with you. Really.
Freedom of speech? Here we go again(Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms). See section 2, aptly titled Fundamental Freedoms. I'll copy and paste for you. Just for you though:
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.
Well, big talker, let's see if you can back up your grandiose claims. I did my part for the moment. Was that enough? Are you informed now? Please let me know if I can exorcise any more of your ignorance. I'd be happy to oblige. It's my mission in life. Thank you and goodnight.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
in the USA if you have a pulse and a clue, you can make something of yourself.
And increasingly get your rights trampled on and your privacy invaded because the government has some pretty fucked up ideas of freedom. Every country has their fuck ups, but I would honestly rather live in a country that's worse off economically because of some bonehead government than in a country whose governments' mission is leaning towards Big Brother under the pretense of security and order.
A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will deserve neither and lose both.
~ B. Franklin ~
I'm not a 'yay Canada' type person, but every single time I hear some stupid Corporate or government move to further encroach on peoples' freedoms, you would not believe how glad I am that I live in Canada. I'll trade money and economic success for freedom ANY day.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
This hardly seems statistically enough to infer what she inferred so I wouldn't call it a complete science project
Three words: she's a kid. She's not at the level where she can truly understand statistics, standard deviation, mean, normalizing, etc. It's an elementary school science project, not a doctoral thesis. For elementary school projects, you can only expect elementary science.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
So I suppose the washing machine doesn't save time?
I thought so too at one time, but now I'm not so sure. Before washing machines, many households didn't do all the washing and chores by themselves, they hired help. But when machines came out that supposedly "saved time and money" people started taking on more tasks for themselves than they used to. After all, it only involved a little more work(loading and unloading the machine) and they wouldn't have to pay someone so they "saved money". But this doesn't factor in times needed for upkeep of the machine, purchasing supplies to actually use the machine, etc. everything started piling up until they had even less time than before.
I know this isn't an entirely balanced argument, but I'm just trying to get the point across.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
Your comment reminds me of an e-mail message that was being passed around once. I thought it was insightful and kept a copy. Here it is:
The paradox of our time in history is that we have taller buildings, but shorter tempers; wider freeways, but narrower viewpoints. We spend more, but have less; we buy more, but enjoy it less. We have bigger houses and smaller families; more conveniences, but less time; we have more degrees, but less sense; more knowledge, but less judgment; more experts, but more problems; more medicine, but less wellness.
We drink too much, smoke too much, spend too recklessly, laugh too little, drive too fast, get too angry too quickly, stay up too late, get up too tired, read too seldom, watch TV too much. We have multiplied our possessions, but reduced our values. We talk too much, love too seldom, and hate too often.
We've learned how to make a living, but not a life; we've added years to life, not life to years.
We've been all the way to the moon and back, but have trouble crossing the street to meet the new neighbor.
We've conquered outer space, but not inner space.
We've done larger things, but not better things.
We've cleaned up the air, but polluted the soul.
We've split the atom, but not our prejudice.
We plan more, but accomplish less.
We've learned to rush, but not to wait.
We build more computers to hold more information to produce more copies than ever, but have less communication.
These are the times of fast foods and slow digestion; tall men, and short character; steep profits, and shallow relationships.
These are the times of world peace, but domestic warfare; more leisure, but less fun; more kinds of food, but less nutrition.
These are days of two incomes, but more divorce; of fancier houses, but broken homes.
These are days of quick trips, disposable diapers, throw-away morality, one-night stands, overweight bodies, and pills that do everything from cheer to quiet, to kill.
It is a time when there is much in the show window and nothing in the stockroom; a time when technology can bring this letter to you, and a time when you can choose either to share this insight, or to just hit delete.
---
For more insightful reading material like this, visit my homepage.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
That's why it is at 0.8. Fortunately, I don't share your apparent problems with Mozilla I use it all the time(and sometimes konqueror). Did you delete your old.mozilla directory? I've heard older, left-over configurations can cause problems.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
Firstly, you should not be out "looking" for a partner, like you look for a car. Mariage, or permanent relationships are not about "ownership" or "possession". It's not a competition to see who "has" the better partner. You are not "denying" that partner to anyone else. You are forming a partnership with another individual to establish a lifelong connection of mutual aid and intimacy.
He wasn't debasing human intimacy, he's not advocating a return to slavery or the retraction of human rights or freedom of choice. It was
an analogy. Get over it. Shit, people are so touchy these days...
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
Life IS the ultimate zero-sum game! In the end, we all end up in the same position don't we?;-)
"Because there is no difference."
~ Thales: his reply when asked why he chose to carry on with living after saying there was no difference between life and death ~
"In three words I can sum up everything that I've learned in life. It goes on."
~ Robert Frost ~
"The typical Nintendo game involves controlling a little man who runs around the screen trying to stay alive while numerous powerful and nexplicably hostile forces try to kill him; in other words, it's exactly like real life."
~ Dave Barry ~
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
You must be one of the many "dumb" people to enable others to be "smart."
Your cute little socialist stuff may play well in college, but doesn't work in the real world.
Actually I think that example may in fact work very well. If everyone was smart(by our current standard), then the no one would consider that smart anymore. The bar would be raised.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
That's not the point. The point is that people have already fixed some platform specific issues but Linus is rejecting them from the main source tree. That's the issue.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe the whole thing could fit in something the size of a paperback book.
;-)
How about your shirt pocket?
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
Eros: in the process of doing just that.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
Government of course
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
Crypto is simply mathematics. Mathematics forms the foundations of physics. Physics describes the real world. Mathematical principles are everywhere. Fibonacci series? Real numbers? Co-ordinate axis(ie. dimension)? That IS the real world.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
Electromagnetic induction power transmission will probably interfere with radio communications (between units, from control to units and in the surrounding area).
Do radio stations intefere with one another? No. Why? Because they are modulated and different frequencies. EM waves of different frequencies(and hence different wavelengths) do not interfere with each other. Since power transmission is likely to occur at VERY low frequencies(like current AC which is 60Hz) and most communications are modulated in the 100's of MHz band, there is NO way you would have any interference.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
Listen, until you can give me some evidence of this database, you're just spouting crap. Point me to an article of this and then we'll talk.
Ad hominem attacks don't make your points any better.
Nor do they do much for your arguments. Shall we review? "Canaduh... Thanks for playing let's boost Chretien. Shmuck." Once again, perhaps you should follow your own advice before opening your mouth.
Hm, unless you're protesting Suharto showing up. Then the PMO sends in riot squads. No punishments for those people anywhere: apparently the PMO can supercede the Charter.
Please. For every example of police abuse in Canada I could probably come up with 10 in the US. And if not 10, then ones that are ten-fold worse. WTO? Riots in LA? How does this prove anything?
Notwithstanding clause, Supreme Court "adjustments" to laws... Tried posting a sign in English in Quebec lately?
There is no "clause" in Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But as to interpretation, the same is true everywhere you go. Some situations are very complex and require interpretation of the law and so set a precedent. If you bothered to read what I wrote in my previous posting, you'd see an example of just such a situation(and if it's not there, it's at the link I pointed to).
As to the sign in Quebec, I've always thought it a ridiculus situation and I'm sure that the Supreme court would strike down the law saying that the french writing must be larger than the english, or that you cannot have english on a sign. Only english signs however(especially in Quebec), is not permitted since Canada is a bilingual country and so everyone should respect that. If you don't like it, go live somewhere else. I'll admit that they took the situation with the farmer in the middle of nowhere too far though. We'll see what happens.
America is predicted to have everything paid off within 20 years. Canada? About 1000.
Sources? Sorry, but you can't spout off numbers and statistics without citing any proof or even SOME evidence. Last I heard Canada had 15 plan to eliminate the deficit. I have heard no such thing from the US, but I don't claim to know much about their plans. Since I don't shoot my mouth off without any evidence, here's some for you. Note in the first paragraph(and I quote), "Until [1995], [Canada] had been a leader in deficits and rising government debt. Since then, it's been the G7's star example of how to wipe out deficits in a hurry and begin to reap the rewards of fiscal probity."
Next please?
What about either is unconstitutional?
You're right. My apologies. Neither is unconstitutional in the literal sense, but the DMCA does contradict numerous Fair Use precedants that the US courts have settled in the past. That hasn't been settled in court yet though, so we'll see. Lobbying, while not contradicting the letter of the constitution, goes against it's ideals. Favoritism to one groupbecause of influence and money was not the intent of the founding fathers. I'm sure you'll agree. Forgive me for being an idealist.
Western Canada wants a word with you about total lack of representation.
Western Canada does get representation, just not enough for them. That's an entirely different from no representation period.
Then tomorrow, they confiscate. They've already lied about it and been proven liars.
Sorry, how is this any different from the states. Does Kevin Mitnick ring a bell? Ordered not to touch another computer for life? What about Jon Johansen, the young norwegian who was arrested and extradited to the States to face US courts? Where the hell do they get the gall? And your talking about Canada having these problems?
And please, cite references. What lying? Politicians decieve all the time. I don't see how the US is an exception to this rule.
Bill C-68. Try reading it.
I will when I have more time. I've read some commentary and see what many think it is about. Have you read it yourself, or are you just regurgitating what others have said? You do realize that if there is anything in there that contradicts the Charter of Rights that the Supreme Court will strike it down. This will only happen if the law is first abused of course. But we can't say anything until it happens can we? Just like the Revers Onus example I supplied in my previous post, interpretation of the the law is often different than the letter.
As a little food for thought however, I'll leave you with this: As you can see from this commentary, it seems that Bill-68 simply grants the Federal government the same powers that the Provincial government already has, those of regulation(of firearms in this case). The article goes on to state that under the constitution, the provinces have regulatory powers over private property. The provinces are not too happy however.
The article also states that everyone must cooperate with police(which they are required to do anyway), and that illustrates some of the consequences of not cooperating with "inpectors". If such a situation arises of remaining silent, entry and confiscation, I will eagerly await the day the bill reaches the Supreme Court. That will be the litmus test. If it survives intact, then you can start bitching.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
I think that should read:
ALL YOUR BASE PAIR ARE BELONG TO ME.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
OOPS!! lol. My bad. This was what I meant to link to. :-P
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
This is the line which clearly shows you're an idiot.
:-)
:-)
I couldn't help but laugh when I read your comment.
I'm not so easily satisfied with simply proving to myself he's an idiot though. If someone were to come along and see that I didn't respond to his 'witty rebuttal', they'd think he was right and yet more misinformation would spread. So I set the record quite straight. See here if you're interested. I'm quite proud of it myself.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
That's what the consolation ribbons are for. ;-)
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
Sorry, I think you're a little misinformed. The database you're referring to is simply social security current address. I don't know what big brother information you're referring to(I believe it's the database that was posted to slashdot about 6 months ago). *tsck, tsck* you should know better than to trust Slashdot sensationalism.
Canada has no free speech rights, no property rights, your right to self defense is being taken away as we speak, you're all sliding into eternal debt, and you are trying to tell me that America, which has always valued its Constitutional principles, is going to hell in a handbasket? Thanks for playing "let's boost Chretien". Schmuck.
Hmmm... Let's see... what pile of bullshit do I flush first? SOOO many to choose from. No free speech? Last time I checked, anyone was allowed to gather for protest and print whatever you like unless it's deliberately false or hate propaganda. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees freedom of expression(see below for a more thorough treatment). No property rights? Last I checked, people owned the lands they lived on so I really don't know where the hell you got that from. How about you check this out: Canadian Ownership and Control Determination Act. Ignorance, ignorance everywhere. But hey, you're an American, you're always right.
Eternal debt? Last I checked there was surplus numbering in the multi tens of billions of dollars. That's SURPLUS, as in they underestimated the budget and we have more money than we know what to do with. Our debt is probably 1/100th the USA's debt. And this is the 3rd year in a row IIRC. So what the hell are you talking about?
America has always valued it's Constitutional principles? So you're saying that everything we're seeing these days is constitutional? The DMCA? The big oil companies and their lobbying. The total lack of representation or even thought given to groups of lesser influence or means. uhhuh. I'm sure that's in the consitution somewhere. Maybe if you look hard enough you'll see something. Be sure to keep smoking whatever you're on now though.
And perhaps if you reread my post, you'll notice I did not even mention Chretien. Not once. Is Chretien Canada? No. Is George W. Bush the US? No. And I'm sure you're very thankful for that last point. So don't be such a condescending ass and open your eyes.
Where you don't even have the right to own your own computer, let alone a gun to defend yourself against your government?
Oh, I guess the thing I'm typing this with is a figment of my imagination. How silly of me not to notice that. Gun? All you have to do is register. 'Register?' you may say? Ya, not that big a fucking deal is it?
Well, when Canada gets the right to free speech (kiddie porn doesn't count), a decent economy, and respects the right to remain silent, the right to not be subjected to reverse-onus prosecution, etc. let me know, OK? Learn something, THEN post. Leave the Liberal propaganda at home.
Reverse-onus prosecution? I think you are a little misinformed my friend. I'll admit that I didn't know what that was at first. After a little research I came up with this.
Allow me to carefully extract something for you:
Just so you don't spread any more misinformation. There are plenty more examples backing up this interpretation if you do a quick search on google. Perhaps you should follow your own advice and do a little research yourself.
Canada doesn't respect the right to remain silent? I'm guessing by that you're referring to people who have been arrested being presumed guilty because they would not talk to the police? If you can provide me with one example of such a case, I'd love to discuss it with you. Really.
Freedom of speech? Here we go again(Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms). See section 2, aptly titled Fundamental Freedoms. I'll copy and paste for you. Just for you though:
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.
Well, big talker, let's see if you can back up your grandiose claims. I did my part for the moment. Was that enough? Are you informed now? Please let me know if I can exorcise any more of your ignorance. I'd be happy to oblige. It's my mission in life. Thank you and goodnight.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
And increasingly get your rights trampled on and your privacy invaded because the government has some pretty fucked up ideas of freedom. Every country has their fuck ups, but I would honestly rather live in a country that's worse off economically because of some bonehead government than in a country whose governments' mission is leaning towards Big Brother under the pretense of security and order.
I'm not a 'yay Canada' type person, but every single time I hear some stupid Corporate or government move to further encroach on peoples' freedoms, you would not believe how glad I am that I live in Canada. I'll trade money and economic success for freedom ANY day.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
You must be french with all that WE stuff going on there.
My, how witty.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
This hardly seems statistically enough to infer what she inferred so I wouldn't call it a complete science project
Three words: she's a kid. She's not at the level where she can truly understand statistics, standard deviation, mean, normalizing, etc. It's an elementary school science project, not a doctoral thesis. For elementary school projects, you can only expect elementary science.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
And thousands of geeks drooling over the bare hardware... and I'm not talking about the girls). ;-)
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
So I suppose the washing machine doesn't save time?
I thought so too at one time, but now I'm not so sure. Before washing machines, many households didn't do all the washing and chores by themselves, they hired help. But when machines came out that supposedly "saved time and money" people started taking on more tasks for themselves than they used to. After all, it only involved a little more work(loading and unloading the machine) and they wouldn't have to pay someone so they "saved money". But this doesn't factor in times needed for upkeep of the machine, purchasing supplies to actually use the machine, etc. everything started piling up until they had even less time than before.
I know this isn't an entirely balanced argument, but I'm just trying to get the point across.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
The paradox of our time in history is that we have taller buildings, but shorter tempers; wider freeways, but narrower viewpoints. We spend more, but have less; we buy more, but enjoy it less. We have bigger houses and smaller families; more conveniences, but less time; we have more degrees, but less sense; more knowledge, but less judgment; more experts, but more problems; more medicine, but less wellness.
We drink too much, smoke too much, spend too recklessly, laugh too little, drive too fast, get too angry too quickly, stay up too late, get up too tired, read too seldom, watch TV too much. We have multiplied our possessions, but reduced our values. We talk too much, love too seldom, and hate too often.
We've learned how to make a living, but not a life; we've added years to life, not life to years.
We've been all the way to the moon and back, but have trouble crossing the street to meet the new neighbor.
We've conquered outer space, but not inner space.
We've done larger things, but not better things.
We've cleaned up the air, but polluted the soul.
We've split the atom, but not our prejudice.
We plan more, but accomplish less.
We've learned to rush, but not to wait.
We build more computers to hold more information to produce more copies than ever, but have less communication.
These are the times of fast foods and slow digestion; tall men, and short character; steep profits, and shallow relationships.
These are the times of world peace, but domestic warfare; more leisure, but less fun; more kinds of food, but less nutrition.
These are days of two incomes, but more divorce; of fancier houses, but broken homes.
These are days of quick trips, disposable diapers, throw-away morality, one-night stands, overweight bodies, and pills that do everything from cheer to quiet, to kill.
It is a time when there is much in the show window and nothing in the stockroom; a time when technology can bring this letter to you, and a time when you can choose either to share this insight, or to just hit delete.
---For more insightful reading material like this, visit my homepage.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
You know what? As funny as it sounds at first, you might actually be right. ;-)
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
It deserves to be called version 0.x
.mozilla directory? I've heard older, left-over configurations can cause problems.
That's why it is at 0.8. Fortunately, I don't share your apparent problems with Mozilla I use it all the time(and sometimes konqueror). Did you delete your old
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
It has a twofold meaning my friend: a) up your standards, b) and, well... up yours. ;-)
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
Could you be a little more explicit? Your description is kind of vague.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
Firstly, you should not be out "looking" for a partner, like you look for a car. Mariage, or permanent relationships are not about "ownership" or "possession". It's not a competition to see who "has" the better partner. You are not "denying" that partner to anyone else. You are forming a partnership with another individual to establish a lifelong connection of mutual aid and intimacy.
He wasn't debasing human intimacy, he's not advocating a return to slavery or the retraction of human rights or freedom of choice. It was an analogy. Get over it. Shit, people are so touchy these days...
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
You must be one of the many "dumb" people to enable others to be "smart." Your cute little socialist stuff may play well in college, but doesn't work in the real world.
Actually I think that example may in fact work very well. If everyone was smart(by our current standard), then the no one would consider that smart anymore. The bar would be raised.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
That's not the point. The point is that people have already fixed some platform specific issues but Linus is rejecting them from the main source tree. That's the issue.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"