Uh, it's Jack Layton, not Leighton. Svend 'It has a "d"' Robinson was a back-bencher on the NDP and isn't currently an MP, having resigned in 2004 and lost in the 2006 election after that theft scandal. Trudeau's DEAD, dude. He died about 4 years ago. Trudeau's son isn't even officially in politics. Joe Clark was about 25 years ago. He's not really anyone now.
Frankly, I don't think you know anything at all or are qualified to talk about Canadian politics. Full stop.
I call FUD. Saving is really simple. Click on the Office logo in the corner, click save. I believe there's an icon too (I'm at a computer without Word 2007 right now). Everything is laid out quite logically to my experience.
As a Canadian, I'm a bit offended by some of the comments here. I realize that we're a small (speaking of geopolitical influence) country, but you have to understand, there are some pretty major things that people aren't getting that are crucial to the discussion.
First off, we have no first amendment, or anything equivalent to that in the states. Canada has a constitutionally enshrined Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the major difference between that and the states is that there are (other than some minor stuff) no absolute rights granted to Canadians. Instead, rights are granted within reasonable limits. Let's repeat that. Reasonable limits. It's phrased as something that "guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."
So, what does this mean? As Canadians, we trust the government. We don't have the almost institutionalized (yeah, oxymoron) distrust of the government and self-reliance that Americans seems to have and the libertarianism that is prevalent at Slashdot. Assuming that this was government regulated (which it isn't), it would probably be allowed under the Charter, and even if it does violate Section 1 (above), we have a little something called the notwithstanding clause, which basically says that the government can ignore certain parts of the constitution for 5 years at a time.
No public outcry, you ask? No. Most Canadians are in favour of it, and I, for one, think that it's a very good and important clause to have. It allows the government to have more flexibility and power for dealing with matters. Quebec, for instance, has used the clause to help protect the French language for the past 15 years or so.
So, let's go back to child porn. There is no reason in Canada why banning IPs that lead to child porn is bad. It's totally legal. I would totally support it. It wouldn't lead to bad things here. We trust the government. I realize it's different in the States, and that's totally cool and fine, but we have our way of doing things and it works very well for us. It's our culture.
Wow, that was sure insightful. Let me try.
Shame that I won't be able to run brand new applications on an fairly old operating system. So much for XP. Pity really, it's a good OS. Looks like I'll be fellating Mark Shuttleworth's Ubuntu now.
Dude, jurisprudence is a fundamental part of law. No matter what a judge does, she is forced to apply an interpretation of the law. This is absolutely unavoidable. In this case, the judge decided that the law intended to cover IM as well as emails, and I think that is a perfectly reasonable decision to say that the intent of the law was to cover instant messages as well as email. Laws cannot be perfectly specific.
The difference is between living in a state where people are ruled by laws and living in one where people arbitrarily enforce their beliefs upon you. Just because you agree with the beliefs in this case does not make it any less wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right, and that is exactly what is being done here.
No. No matter what society you live in, laws are interpreted, and that does not mean "arbitrarily enforcing... beliefs on you". Hell, for all that says, laws are arbitrarily forcing beliefs on you just as much as that judge was.
Dude, it's called a 'contract'. These 'contracts' are 'legally binding'. A contract doesn't even have to be written down. Verbal contacts are legally binding. This isn't exactly rocket science. When MS and Novell enter into this contract, both parties will be legally bound by the terms of the agreements.
I'm not sure if that's entirely fair about the games. Sure, there's lots of sequels for the PS3. But remember that the Wii also has lots of sequels, and you could use the same logic about them as well. Metroid Prime 3, Super Mario Galaxies, Dragonball 2, Gundam, Final Fantasy, Zelda 5?, Tony Hawk, Rayman 4, Sonic, Madden, etc. And that's just what we know about.
Sure, the Wii has original titles like Sadness, Red Steel, and other things like that. If you want to be really fair, the PS3 will have titles like Assassin's Creed, Genji, Heavenly Sword, Lair, Afrika, etc.
I'm definately going to get the Wii over the PS3, but I think that we all should be honest about the reality of sequels. Everybody does them, not just Sony, EA, and Microsoft. Assassin's Creed looks stunning, I'm just glad that it's coming out for PC. This generation is that first time that I will get a console, and the way it looks now it seems as if it's going to be a Wii.
2: They'll probably use the technology with XBox Live. I don't know if you play many online games, but stress levels are quite high when playing intense competitive games. If you're serious, eliminating the cause would require eliminating the game. When Mario Kart can violent emotions, not to mention what more 'serious' games can do (see: chocolate milk), I think the only solution would be to make that zen game multiplayer. Call it a hunch but I don't see the CPL adopting that.
Well, if you actually read the article, you might have seen that there were Illyrian , Roman, and medieval ruins on the hill. Maybe they, you know, made a mine that this guy found? And left some implements or rocks that they cut out in there. I'd say that the article is and provides grounds for dismissing the claim the guy makes.
Awesome that you can quote a magazine. I'm impressed. It truly takes eloquence and conviction to plagarize others. That said, while I certainly am not a fan of Bush, I would question the wisdom of taking judgement on his administration so quickly and suddenly.
The article talks about the triumphs of Lincoln. While, Lincoln certainly is considered one of the greatest presidents in history now, but back in the civil war, he wasn't considered good at all. He was considered to be a miserable speaker, and had almost no influence. He was widely regarded as a joke. However, with the passage of time, you get one of the greatest presidents. Other examples, you ask? Well, I'll mention James Madison, another president. He dragged America into a widely unpopular war that cost the lives of 20 000 Americans that lasted for 3 years and ended in a stalemate. There was massive public opposition to the war, and many States refused to send troops at all for the first few years, and some states even kept trading with Great Britian while the war was going on. Despite the massively unpopular war that was badly mismanaged, bungled, and ended without any benefit to the USA, he's not regarded as a failure.
I'm not really sure where I'm going with this. I guess I'm just trying to say that it's very difficult to judge how a figure will be looked upon in a hundred years. Who knows, people will probably forget the wiretapping incidents, the supoenas, the Valerie Plume leak, the WMDs in Iraq, and Guatamino Bay. They might fondly remember the president that gave the impromptu speech at the site of the WTC. Schoolteachers might tell kids about overthrowing Saddam Hussien, liberating Iraq, bringing freedom to Afghanistan, and maybe even the enviroment. Who knows?
Or I could be completely wrong. Who knows how the future will judge George W. Bush?
Really, do you think that creativity is limited to Japanese game developers? It seems to me that there are a lot very good game developers developing solid, inovative concepts- Will Wright with the Sims and now Spore. Peter Molyneax with Black and White and the Movies, to name but a few off the top of my head.
I'm absolutely certain that the top Japanese video games contain just as much innovation, or lack of it, as the North American ones do. I did a google search for japanese game charts and found http://www.the-magicbox.com/topten.htm. I looked at it and found that out of the top thirty games, no less than 17 were obvious sequels. I'm almost certain that many of the other ones were sequels too.
I'm not trying to say that Japanese developers aren't innovative, but maybe its just that we're seeing the very best games that are made there, and the mediocre sequels- the ones that make up the majority of the titles- don't make it over the atlantic. I think that I'm justified in saying that in Japan there are undoubtably people on Japanese message boards complaining about the lack of innovation in Japanese games and wondering why Japanese games aren't as innovative as North American ones.
Personally, I think that it's you that's changed, rather than the quality of the games. Is it so difficult to accept that in 20+ years people's tastes change? I don't think that it is. I missed out on the classics of the NES and the C64 that people seem to be raving about. About the earliest game that I've played would be Civilization 2. And to be honest, I don't really care. The games today are absolutely amazing from both a technical and artistic standpoint. Just because 8-bit sprites are no longer used does not mean that the gameplay can't be there as well. In 2026, the gamers of today will be complaining about the lack of originality of the games, and saying exactly what the gamers of the 1980s are saying now.
"Graphics don't matter, it's gameplay that counts."
"There's no classics now like Half Life 2 or Katamari Damacy"
What people seem to forget that the games that people fondly remember now did have incredible graphics for their time. They were amazing not only because of gameplay, but because of the graphics they had. It's only right that things should change as time goes by. Things change. Don't blame the new generation for it.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, it's Jack Layton, not Leighton. Svend 'It has a "d"' Robinson was a back-bencher on the NDP and isn't currently an MP, having resigned in 2004 and lost in the 2006 election after that theft scandal. Trudeau's DEAD, dude. He died about 4 years ago. Trudeau's son isn't even officially in politics. Joe Clark was about 25 years ago. He's not really anyone now.
Frankly, I don't think you know anything at all or are qualified to talk about Canadian politics. Full stop.
The 'genuine' quality Microsoft is talking about, the "claimed or attributed character", is being legally acquired.
I call FUD. Saving is really simple. Click on the Office logo in the corner, click save. I believe there's an icon too (I'm at a computer without Word 2007 right now). Everything is laid out quite logically to my experience.
As a Canadian, I'm a bit offended by some of the comments here. I realize that we're a small (speaking of geopolitical influence) country, but you have to understand, there are some pretty major things that people aren't getting that are crucial to the discussion.
First off, we have no first amendment, or anything equivalent to that in the states. Canada has a constitutionally enshrined Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the major difference between that and the states is that there are (other than some minor stuff) no absolute rights granted to Canadians. Instead, rights are granted within reasonable limits. Let's repeat that. Reasonable limits. It's phrased as something that "guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."
So, what does this mean? As Canadians, we trust the government. We don't have the almost institutionalized (yeah, oxymoron) distrust of the government and self-reliance that Americans seems to have and the libertarianism that is prevalent at Slashdot. Assuming that this was government regulated (which it isn't), it would probably be allowed under the Charter, and even if it does violate Section 1 (above), we have a little something called the notwithstanding clause, which basically says that the government can ignore certain parts of the constitution for 5 years at a time.
No public outcry, you ask? No. Most Canadians are in favour of it, and I, for one, think that it's a very good and important clause to have. It allows the government to have more flexibility and power for dealing with matters. Quebec, for instance, has used the clause to help protect the French language for the past 15 years or so.
So, let's go back to child porn. There is no reason in Canada why banning IPs that lead to child porn is bad. It's totally legal. I would totally support it. It wouldn't lead to bad things here. We trust the government. I realize it's different in the States, and that's totally cool and fine, but we have our way of doing things and it works very well for us. It's our culture.
Yeah, 'cause Stephen Harper's pure laine. Right. You're the new one here.
Wow, that was sure insightful. Let me try. Shame that I won't be able to run brand new applications on an fairly old operating system. So much for XP. Pity really, it's a good OS. Looks like I'll be fellating Mark Shuttleworth's Ubuntu now.
Dude, jurisprudence is a fundamental part of law. No matter what a judge does, she is forced to apply an interpretation of the law. This is absolutely unavoidable. In this case, the judge decided that the law intended to cover IM as well as emails, and I think that is a perfectly reasonable decision to say that the intent of the law was to cover instant messages as well as email. Laws cannot be perfectly specific.
... beliefs on you". Hell, for all that says, laws are arbitrarily forcing beliefs on you just as much as that judge was.
The difference is between living in a state where people are ruled by laws and living in one where people arbitrarily enforce their beliefs upon you. Just because you agree with the beliefs in this case does not make it any less wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right, and that is exactly what is being done here.
No. No matter what society you live in, laws are interpreted, and that does not mean "arbitrarily enforcing
Dude, it's called a 'contract'. These 'contracts' are 'legally binding'. A contract doesn't even have to be written down. Verbal contacts are legally binding. This isn't exactly rocket science. When MS and Novell enter into this contract, both parties will be legally bound by the terms of the agreements.
I'm not sure if that's entirely fair about the games. Sure, there's lots of sequels for the PS3. But remember that the Wii also has lots of sequels, and you could use the same logic about them as well. Metroid Prime 3, Super Mario Galaxies, Dragonball 2, Gundam, Final Fantasy, Zelda 5?, Tony Hawk, Rayman 4, Sonic, Madden, etc. And that's just what we know about.
Sure, the Wii has original titles like Sadness, Red Steel, and other things like that. If you want to be really fair, the PS3 will have titles like Assassin's Creed, Genji, Heavenly Sword, Lair, Afrika, etc.
I'm definately going to get the Wii over the PS3, but I think that we all should be honest about the reality of sequels. Everybody does them, not just Sony, EA, and Microsoft. Assassin's Creed looks stunning, I'm just glad that it's coming out for PC. This generation is that first time that I will get a console, and the way it looks now it seems as if it's going to be a Wii.
Two responses, one funny, one serious:
1: Anger Management's got prior art.
2: They'll probably use the technology with XBox Live. I don't know if you play many online games, but stress levels are quite high when playing intense competitive games. If you're serious, eliminating the cause would require eliminating the game. When Mario Kart can violent emotions, not to mention what more 'serious' games can do (see: chocolate milk), I think the only solution would be to make that zen game multiplayer. Call it a hunch but I don't see the CPL adopting that.
Well, if you actually read the article, you might have seen that there were Illyrian , Roman, and medieval ruins on the hill. Maybe they, you know, made a mine that this guy found? And left some implements or rocks that they cut out in there. I'd say that the article is and provides grounds for dismissing the claim the guy makes.
I think it has more to do with the fact that newspapers aren't published on Sundays.
Awesome that you can quote a magazine. I'm impressed. It truly takes eloquence and conviction to plagarize others. That said, while I certainly am not a fan of Bush, I would question the wisdom of taking judgement on his administration so quickly and suddenly.
The article talks about the triumphs of Lincoln. While, Lincoln certainly is considered one of the greatest presidents in history now, but back in the civil war, he wasn't considered good at all. He was considered to be a miserable speaker, and had almost no influence. He was widely regarded as a joke. However, with the passage of time, you get one of the greatest presidents. Other examples, you ask? Well, I'll mention James Madison, another president. He dragged America into a widely unpopular war that cost the lives of 20 000 Americans that lasted for 3 years and ended in a stalemate. There was massive public opposition to the war, and many States refused to send troops at all for the first few years, and some states even kept trading with Great Britian while the war was going on. Despite the massively unpopular war that was badly mismanaged, bungled, and ended without any benefit to the USA, he's not regarded as a failure.
I'm not really sure where I'm going with this. I guess I'm just trying to say that it's very difficult to judge how a figure will be looked upon in a hundred years. Who knows, people will probably forget the wiretapping incidents, the supoenas, the Valerie Plume leak, the WMDs in Iraq, and Guatamino Bay. They might fondly remember the president that gave the impromptu speech at the site of the WTC. Schoolteachers might tell kids about overthrowing Saddam Hussien, liberating Iraq, bringing freedom to Afghanistan, and maybe even the enviroment. Who knows?
Or I could be completely wrong. Who knows how the future will judge George W. Bush?
Really, do you think that creativity is limited to Japanese game developers? It seems to me that there are a lot very good game developers developing solid, inovative concepts- Will Wright with the Sims and now Spore. Peter Molyneax with Black and White and the Movies, to name but a few off the top of my head.
I'm absolutely certain that the top Japanese video games contain just as much innovation, or lack of it, as the North American ones do. I did a google search for japanese game charts and found http://www.the-magicbox.com/topten.htm. I looked at it and found that out of the top thirty games, no less than 17 were obvious sequels. I'm almost certain that many of the other ones were sequels too.
I'm not trying to say that Japanese developers aren't innovative, but maybe its just that we're seeing the very best games that are made there, and the mediocre sequels- the ones that make up the majority of the titles- don't make it over the atlantic. I think that I'm justified in saying that in Japan there are undoubtably people on Japanese message boards complaining about the lack of innovation in Japanese games and wondering why Japanese games aren't as innovative as North American ones.
You do realize that there is a massive difference between a game designer and a software engineer, right?
Personally, I think that it's you that's changed, rather than the quality of the games. Is it so difficult to accept that in 20+ years people's tastes change? I don't think that it is. I missed out on the classics of the NES and the C64 that people seem to be raving about. About the earliest game that I've played would be Civilization 2. And to be honest, I don't really care. The games today are absolutely amazing from both a technical and artistic standpoint. Just because 8-bit sprites are no longer used does not mean that the gameplay can't be there as well. In 2026, the gamers of today will be complaining about the lack of originality of the games, and saying exactly what the gamers of the 1980s are saying now.
"Graphics don't matter, it's gameplay that counts."
"There's no classics now like Half Life 2 or Katamari Damacy"
What people seem to forget that the games that people fondly remember now did have incredible graphics for their time. They were amazing not only because of gameplay, but because of the graphics they had. It's only right that things should change as time goes by. Things change. Don't blame the new generation for it.