Ah, so they're like...every government in our history? Every government heads into an election hoping for a majority (though some are more delusional regarding their odds than others). The grandparent complains that:

but in fact this is what happens prior to every single election, and what will continue to happen for the foreseeable future. The grandparent is also points out that the election was held 'early', however given that the current Prime Minister introduced the law which demands fixed election dates, and included in it a provision in which the PM can call an election at will, the law differs rather significantly from the American system. There's also a provision whereby a minority government (as is the case with the three most recent governments) can be toppled by the opposition parties.

In other words, the law is silly.

I think it's interesting that you assume a birth in the public system will cost triple what it does in your already ludicrously expensive private system; in fact, the cost of a birth in Ontario is ~CDN$5000, and that's if you're Jane Texan and you just show up. I don't have numbers, but I suspect the actual cost to the healthcare system (i.e. the taxpayers) is lower (as I can't believe we give a better deal to non-Canadians than we do ourselves). I just don't understand where the fiction about the public system costing so much comes from. I suppose the private insurance companies are doing a great job with the negative campaigning.

Right, because the RIAA is *totally* interested in the system being fair, and really has *no* interest in seeing 'their' side win...they aren't trying to create loopholes or engaging in anything underhanded... nope, not THIS gang...

Um, am I the only one who read that and thought, "They're aboard the shuttle...in space...and they're going to watch a movie? Really? That's the first choice for how to spend a day in a circumstance that basically nobody else on the goddamn planet is going to have a shot at for a really, really long time?

But perhaps more importantly: what were they going to watch?

Actually, I just got an idea for a poll.

I don't think that's quite what he meant, but I accept your point. That being said: what happens when they decide they want to throttle a particular protocol that doesn't directly compete with anything they offer, but the throttling of which would still have a benefit to them? I.e. throttling my Hardy Heron torrent because I *might* be pulling down last night's episode of Dollhouse, which they would prefer to sell me via their VOD service? I say again: open pipe.

Um...I would disagree. Net Neutrality should (and, I believe, is generally accepted to) mean that my provider cannot screw with my traffic because it suits their interests to do so. What happens if they decide to throttle voip traffic due to 'network congestion', but the start of such throttling just happens to coincide with the launch of their own voip service? It has to be an open pipe, period.

Yeah, that's a pretty bullshit-y thing to say--an HTTP download of a driver package or a POP3 download of some attached JPGS will naturally run at the fastest possible speed--that's what TCP was designed to do. So by that logic, anything I use my connection for is 'designed to cause network congestion'...whichever asshole came up with that statement needs to be smacked upside the head.

Uhh, Ontario also features no-fault insurance, and there is nothing cheap about it. Perhaps you mean 'public' auto insurance, which *is* much cheaper and, based on my understanding, available under much fairer terms--for example, the ability to insure a motorcycle for three months at a time; in Ontario, if I want even one day of insurance, I have to buy the whole year.