Now it will go to the Supreme Court ... and Netflix will lose because they came to the Canadian market and took Canadian money knowingly and willingly.

No, Netflix won't lose. The CRTC likes to think that it has control over every bit of entertainment that a Canadian eyeball sees, but regardless of their stupid industry win over the grey-market satellite boxes, this issue is a bit different.

It's different because (a) Canadians are tired of seeing the stuff Americans get that we can't have (mostly due to licensing issues, but regardless), (b) The CRTC knows that they'll just drive people to "grey-market Netflix", which they literally cannot control, and (c) Most importantly, lots of Canadians have Netflix.

With any luck this is the first nail in the coffin of the antiquated bureaucracy of the CRTC.

And the big problem is that English Canadians like the idea of Canadian TV

Other than news and sports, I don't know any English Canadians that like the idea of Canadian TV. We see it as a tax imposed on us for some vaguely defined benefit of promoting Canadian culture by producing TV shows and movies which nobody watches.

CRTC - Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission

The fuck is the internet if not Telecommunications?

Here, let me help you out:
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission

Just in case that wasn't clear enough:
CANADIAN Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission

The CRTC has no business legislating Netflix.

Other broadcaster have to chip money into the pot for, yes, our socialist approach to fostering local arts. Many Canadians *support* this idea and we're not too fond of an American company trying to wreck the system of local content production.

And many Canadians are also tired of local content producers whining and bitching that they can't compete with global markets, and need special tax dollars just to ensure our oh-so delicate culture is maintained.

I'm sorry, but if you think our cultural identity is so weak that it needs some utterly crap TV shows and movies mandated into creation in order to survive, then you really don't think much of Canada. I'm all in favor of NO public money being spent on local content production (other than news), and I hope Netflix succeeds in bypassing the CRTC.

This kind of trend is fairly common across all major phone manufacturers, across both iOS and Android, and also across Apple and Google themselves. It is why I rarely take a phone review seriously, be it for a phone that I actually am interested in or one that I'm not.

This kind of trend is fairly common across all tech manufacturers, across multiple platforms & ecosystems. Windows vs. Linux. Java vs.C++. Debian vs Ubuntu. Systemd vs "please for love of god use anything else"

It's a good thing that people here are slashdot are the epitomy of honest / unbiased opinions. I can always trust comments on slashdot objectively evaluate tech without an personal slant.

That being said, the article reads as a fantastic guide of reviewers to stay away from.

Why is causing pain to others bad? Why do you care about what other people feel? Yes, most of us agree that it's wrong to willfully hurt others, but why? If you think that we're just collections of cells, then the only thing you should care about is your own personal survival and comfort, and nothing else.

For three fairly obvious reasons:
1) If I cause pain to others, or believe that this is justifiable, then others quite likely will treat me the same

2) If everyone lived according to the ideals of "care about is your own personal survival and comfort, and nothing else.", society would collapse.

3) It causes me pain to cause pain to others or to see others suffer. That's part of what empathy is.

Notice that none of these justifications require any sort of supernatural cause. The idea that a supernatural entity must involved in order for people to behave with common decency scares me.

Winfield describes his robot as an "ethical zombie" that has no choice but to behave as it does. Though it may save others according to a programmed code of conduct, it doesn't understand the reasoning behind its actions.

More and more research is hinting that humans may also be "ethical zombies" that act according to a programmed code of conduct. The "reasoning behind our actions" may very well be stories we invent to justify our pre-programmed actions.

Baristas

We need our caffeine.

No, no I don't. I have electricity, but I get water out of the ground and have gas brought in on a truck.

Well, there's your answer...have your internet brought in by truck.

The latency might suck, but the bandwidth would be fantastic!

Fuck you AT&T.

Fuck you, too, Apple.

And while we're at it:

Fuck Slashdot Beta

I think the idea is that you pay the ISP for a "Netflix booster", and then your Netflix traffic gets un-humped into the fast lane. Meanwhile everyone else's Netflix is slow, and they're griping at Netflix about why they have to pay this extra fee, and Netflix eventually gives up and pays AT&T to un-hump all of its customers' traffic.

I also interpret it as allowing AT&T to offer their own streaming service at cheap introductory prices (perhaps free for 6 months), then shape traffic to prefer that service over Netflix as so many customers want it. Once enough people migrate from the crappy slow Netflix service, they start jacking the price on their own service.

It really seems like a scheme to charge customers extra for something they have already sold them.

Creator of a service says competitors service is inferior! Shocking!

Note: The article is written by a founder of Thinkful....which offers online learning. The whole article reads as an advertisement for thankful and an indictment of what their competition is doing wrong.

In other words, typical Slashvertisement. Nothing to see here.

What's the operating principles of a Heisenberg Compensator?

Easy: "I'm not in the meth business. I'm in the empire business."

I may be confusing Heisenberg's though.

A roundabout is simply nothing more than a right hand turn at a yield sign

Not if it's a two-lane roundabout.

Well, there's also the school board's press release

I've tried looking into this more, and I keep coming back to the fact that nobody is given any indication as to why this guy was taken for "emergency medical leave". Everyone just refers back to the WBOC article, and the only thing the original WBOC article says about his writings are:

"Those books are what caught the attention of police and school board officials in Dorchester County. "The Insurrectionist" is about two school shootings set in the future, the largest in the country's history."

From this I can't tell if a fascist police chief went off on a crazy tirade or if the police found a stash of bomb-making materials along with manuscripts of this guys books.

Why is there no interview with the police chief? The principal? The guy's family / friends? His students? The ACLU?

Once upon a time reporters used to at least attempt to get the whole story prior to publishing. Now it's grab whatever looks like it'll cause a stir and publish that regardless of the underlying truth.

Journalism doesn't exist anymore.