Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
[Canada] Politics of the Democratic Friedmanite Republic of the Government of Harper
Posts
The creation of the registry was a boon doggle, but getting rid of the registry will not bring any of those tax dollars back, it is what accounts like to call a sunk cost.
The current registry runs fairly cost effectively for what its doing (from what I'm told). I see no benefit to removing it. The police also use the registry to look up people they have arrested and charged to see if they need to remove fire arms from a residence afterwards as well, not just when they are on their way. There have also been reports of using the registry to remove fire arms from the residences of the mentally ill when they have been hospitalized so that they do not have access when they first get released and their meds havent fully kicked in again yet.
Thanks for the other bits about the registry, though. Good info.
This is basically saying that there is no right to organize a mass-rebuttal. That's a counter-protest. You're saying "no dude you're wrong" right there and pushing your counter-offer in an attempt to sell you ideas instead. Information is a commodity in more ways then the obvious - people get sold ideas, restricting who can sell ideas is the worst kind of monopoly.
As for calling them the Tory faithful, well, they're a lot like the Tea Party. They sure do make a lot of noise about their independence and gosh darn it don't they just keep voting Conservative. IIRC holding anti-abortion views is one of the strongest voting predictors, and you probably will have an easy time guessing which party they vote for!
That is not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying everyone has the right to express their views in a safe and peaceful manner. And "safe and peaceful" covers both the way the expression is made and the reaction of people around them. The people have the right to express their views without fear of an aggressive confrontation erupting.
The problem is not that a counter-protest was organized. From the article, it's that it was getting confrontational, which means the next step would have probably been violent. That's how it usually goes (see The Ender's post for an example).
If the pro-choice side wants to express their views, they have the same right to do so as the anti-choice side, by scheduling and organizing a peaceful march on Parliament Hill. And if the anti-choice tries to mount a confrontational anti-protest, I expect them to be taken away by police as well.
There's a difference between expressing your views and attacking people who are expressing views different from yours. In this example, the anti-choice side was doing the former, and the pro-choice side was doing the latter.
Whoa, whoa whoa!! Maybe some people here don't want none of your FACTS to get in the way of some more Tory bashing.
gamertag: Canadianllama
Well...exactly. This is why the abortion debate can't be brought up now: it's a pro-life government. If a private member's bill pops up, Harper's options are to allow a free vote which can easily have a bad policy outcome, whip the vote against and risk alienating a lot of his base, or whip the vote in favour and risk a significant number of swing voters, which will also have a bad policy outcome. The only options I think are plausible are the ones with bad policy outcomes.
So in the sense that additional pressure would make Harper sweat and maybe even do irreparable damage to him, I'd like the issue to come up. But at the same time, any action taken by this administration is likely to make the situation even worse. Rock and a hard place.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/05/13/scoc-resignations-051311.html
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/will-metallica-strike-discordant-note-for-halifax-mayor/article2020198/
Keep being awesome, Halifax.
The promoter in question, managed to sell a grand total of 8000 tickets for the Black Eyed Peas.
Yep, a platinum band, 8000 tickets.
He's also arranged this concert such that no merch is sold. Yes, one of the most famous bands in the world is having a huge concert and there's no merch.
Is this promoter a wizard or a sorcelator? How the fuck does he keep getting to organize AAA acts when he's a demonstrated cash sinkhole? Someone in Halifax is getting loaded off this guy's antics.
It'll be interesting to see who replaces Justices Binnie and Charron.
So in the end, it may seem like this was all a ploy to drum up public support for the purchase of the F-35 fighter jets.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harpers-tough-talk-on-the-arctic-less-stern-in-private/article2020615/page2/
No, the real danger is and always has been a Conservative government using the power of the PM's office to quietly fuck over women's rights behind the scenes, with no vote at all.
You know, like exactly what's been happening.
You're proposing that the government that wants to do internet surveillance also do this? I don't think that's going to happen.
From a technical perspective, mandating SSL use wouldn't even be feasible, even if there's enough CPU to actually do it, as setting up a connection isn't cheap.
Probably won't but it's a distinct possibility. Calm down.
I think you are overplaying your hand, here.
To be fair, a lot of people in the HRM are pretty pissed off about this whole thing, and there's a good chance that the mayor will be voted out in the next election.
The ABC movement was pretty big in '08 as well. The Greens got 6.78% in '08, which is their highest percentage to date. This time around, they gained their lowest vote count and vote percentage since 2000, and yet they won a seat.
I wouldn't disagree that this is what has been happening, but I think you are missing the point of what I'm saying. The PM and cabinet enjoy substantial ability to dick around due to the absence of abortion legislation, but they will always ultimately fall short of the objective of preventing the procedure. It might be difficult to the point of impracticality in certain circumstances, but that isn't the same as the procedure being illegal.
If it was put to a free vote and passed (which I contend is more likely than some people think because there are pro-life politicians in every party), they could actually criminalize abortion, if they can craft the legislation in such a way that it doesn't contravene the Charter.
Also on PSN: twobadcats
You are compleletly missing the point though. The biggest threat to abortion rights has always been the feasibility of getting one, not the legality of it. Banning it altoghter might not even stand up legally.
But you don't need to go that far or act tha boldly. You can easily destroy the practical ability to get an abortion without ever putting it to a vote. And that is and always has been the danger to abortion and women's rights in general. It happens quietly, behind the scenes where the public isn't watching.
When you can't reasonibly get an abortion when you need one, it's legality is irrelevant. An up and down vote in the House of Commons is a red hearing.
Yes, I'm aware of the AES extensions, however that's only a noticable change when sending large files, which would normally be handled by a fast path (sendfile()), now has to be read into temp buffers first. But, that's not the big problem.
The real cost of SSL is in establishment. For fun I just reloaded this page and noticed that 17 independent connections were initiated, 9 of which were to the PA servers (the rest I suppose are sigs/avatars). That would be 17 D-H key exchanges, with the much, much slower asymmetric encryption operations that need to be done to establish a link. For even more fun, the asymmetric operations are (even more) vulnerable to the same timing attacks that were one of the driving forces behind the AES extensions so libraries generally don't speed those up beyond a point as it can leak key bits if done wrong.
Also, the backbone literally has nothing to do with SSL, the byte overhead of SSL is practically nothing, aside from a few extra bytes in headers or whatever and some control packets, fractions of a percent. The entire cost falls directly on the processors on the server.
Now, your Tor suggestion... Tor involves indirect routing and effectively acts as a load multiplier - every packet you send out follows many more links than it otherwise would as it bounces around the network to mask the source. That would need a better backbone.
Anyway, the technical stuff is beside the point; you can't realistically mandate that all websites are hosted using SSL. How would you enforce it? Where's the line? What defines a Canadian website? I don't have SSL configured on my webserver on the PC next to my desk at home, are you going to try to fine me or something?
This is not about how easy or hard it is.
This is about how you think you're going to get the government that announced plans for warrantless internet surveillance to make internet surveillance impossible.
You know the Cons won, right?
Does not read like a private movement. Forgive me for thinking that when you're mandating, banning, and creating crown corporations, you're talking about the government. Oh, and I forgot 'the government providing free Tor relays.'