Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Parliment Hill != The White House (Score 1) 445

by gstoddart (#48209369) Attached to: Shooting At Canadian Parliament

I agree that there is pretty much no modern precedent for either withholding assent, or declaring war and ordering us to follow. I think it's far from cut and dry if it was ever tried, and might involve a tremendous amount of legal wrangling.

I find it sad that there is still any ambiguity about if Canadian soldiers would take orders from the Queen. We've been essentially sovereign for almost 30 years.

If we're not, then it's bloody well time we were.

To hell with the old broad, we're not still some fucking colony. The monarchy can go piss up a rope.

Comment: Re:Parliment Hill != The White House (Score 1) 445

by gstoddart (#48206059) Attached to: Shooting At Canadian Parliament

Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. She most definitely does have legal authority. Check your facts.

OK, I think you're full of shit, but if you have anything to add, go ahead.

Let's start with Wikipedia:

Per the Canadian constitution, the responsibilities of the sovereign and/or governor general include summoning and dismissing parliament, calling elections, and appointing governments. Further, Royal Assent and the royal sign-manual are required to enact laws, letters patent, and orders in council. But the authority for these acts stems from the Canadian populace and,[8][9][10] within the conventional stipulations of constitutional monarchy, the sovereign's direct participation in any of these areas of governance is limited , with most related powers entrusted for exercise by the elected and appointed parliamentarians, the ministers of the Crown generally drawn from amongst them, and the judges and justices of the peace.

Or, how about this?

Why The Royal Prerogative of Veto (Withholding Royal Assent) No Longer Exists

Modern Justification

The website of the British monarchy explains on the page âoeQueen-in-Parliamentâ:

        The role of the Sovereign in the enactment of legislation is today purely formal, although The Queen has the right to be consulted, to encourage and to warn through regular audiences with her ministers. As a constitutional monarch, the Sovereign is required to assent to all Bills passed by Parliament, on the advice of Government ministers. The Royal Assent (consenting to a measure becoming law) has not been refused since 1707. [...][4]

That phrase that the Queen gives Royal Assent âoeon the advice of her Ministersâ means that the government organizes the scheduling of the ceremony of Royal Assent (just as the Canadian sources show) and advises the Queen when to grant Royal Assent â" not whether to grant Royal Assent.

In other words, if our government passes it, she doesn't have the legal authority to withhold assent. She doesn't retain veto power over our elected parliament.

It would be an exceedingly unprecedented scenario in which the actual monarch refused or vetoed our laws. If if she did, she would probably find herself overruled, because she really has no basis to override parliament.

The monarchy does not retain the legal ability to actually interfere in these things.

Name me one instance in the last 100 years in which the monarch actually refused assent on anything. I'm pretty sure you can't. Because her role is pro-forma and ceremonial, the things are done "in her name", but she really has no legal authority, and hasn't in a long time. And in no way can she do anything which violates our constitution -- her job here is to act as guarantor for it.

Even the governor general would need a pretty exceptional scenario to refuse assent ... because the GG isn't an elected entity, and doesn't have a lot of leeway to overrule parliament.

So, unless you can cite specific legal stuff which assigns her this authority, or can cite specific examples of her actually using this alleged authority ... I'm afraid you're talking out of your ass. Because when she is "the Queen of Canada", her role is such that she doesn't have the authority to overrule parliament.

Comment: Re:Parliment Hill != The White House (Score 1) 445

by gstoddart (#48205645) Attached to: Shooting At Canadian Parliament

but the Monarch can override that should he or she wish

As far as I'm aware, she hasn't had the legal authority to override anything in 20+ years. It's a pro-forma step, but if she ever actually tried to overrule anything she'd get told to PFO. It's the formality, but there is no legal basis for them to withhold anything.

When you pay taxes, you pay them to the Canadian State. The Monarch is the head of the state. So you are paying taxes to the Monarch.

Except, she doesn't get a dime of it ... she's the ceremonial entity, but she doesn't receive any of it. None of my taxes goes to anything controlled by the Queen.

I, [name], do swear (or solemnly affirm) that I will well and truly serve Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her heirs and successors according to law

Pathetic. Really and truly pathetic. We also make people doing the citizenship oath swear to her ... which you couldn't compel me as someone born here to do -- not legally or without the threat of violence anyway.

I wouldn't swear allegiance to her, and I don't give a fuck what she or any of the rest of the British monarchy think. They can lick donkey balls off silver spoons for all I care.

The reality is, she's a ceremonial entity, and has been for some time. And if her Queen-ness ever felt the need to command me as one of her subjects ... she'd get told in no uncertain terms to fuck off. Because, I'm not one of her subjects.

Comment: Hmmm ... (Score 3, Informative) 143

by gstoddart (#48205455) Attached to: Google Announces Inbox, a New Take On Email Organization

So this is the Google Wave thing that nobody knew WTF it was for, but which everyone kept saying was super awesome and the way of the future ... but for email?

I'm afraid I'm not really overly interested.

I guess it's cool that someone is still trying to design new things and think about things differently. But from reading TFA, this sounds like something which I'm not sure why I'd want it.

Comment: Re:Parliment Hill != The White House (Score 1) 445

by gstoddart (#48205395) Attached to: Shooting At Canadian Parliament

Except for the Queen?

Our relationship with the Queen is complicated.

Many of us think the old cow should be removed from our money and institutions for good. Our current government seems to want to escalate the ties to the monarchy.

But she has no legal authority, and we don't pay taxes to her -- her role is purely historical and symbolic. But for many people, they really still adore the royals.

So, in many ways she's completely irrelevant, and in other ways you can't be unaware of her.

Would I bow to her? Unless I was pointing my ass at her, not on your life. And nobody could legally compel me to acknowledge her as anything but an anachronism and a symbol of colonialism.

I suspect the Aussies and Kiwis have a similar relationship, but I've never asked.

Comment: Re:Parliment Hill != The White House (Score 1) 445

by gstoddart (#48204641) Attached to: Shooting At Canadian Parliament

Well, she is our titular head of state ... but she has no actual power and gets no money from us, and the old bat can go eat her dogs if she thinks she'll get any acknowledgement from most of us that she's either relevant of wanted.

See, I'm legally allowed to say "fuck the queen" just as much as you can say "fuck the president", and I'm under no obligation to think she's superior to a pile of shit. Which is good, because I don't.

She's on my money, that's about it.

She's a Queen. She's not my Queen. There is nothing in Canadian law which says I have to pretend to give a shit about her or her brood.

And the government would have no legal authority to compel me to ever swear loyalty to the old broad.

So, fuck the queen of England ... she's not the queen of Canada.

Comment: Re:Well ... duh! (Score 3, Interesting) 76

by gstoddart (#48203317) Attached to: DHS Investigates 24 Potentially Lethal IoT Medical Devices

You don't have to harden your internet connected refrigerator against malicious attacks. Why? Because when you ask "what could possibly go wrong?" the answer is your food will spoil, and you will have to throw it out. It's not like spoiled food is not instantly recognizable.

See, anything which would allow a remote attacker to destroy your property and cause you to spend money is an indication than in internet enabled fridge is either a really stupid idea, or that it needs to be hardened.

So, other than some moronic social experiment of "information wants to be free so if you see what's in my fridge what's the harm" ... what the hell would I want one for? What benefit does it give me? It's just another stupid, insecure application which wants to tie into a smart phone so I can feel all hip and cool.

If some asshole hacking my fridge and spoiling my food (or, possibly my medication) is the price of having an internet connected fridge ... then why would I even consider owning one? What is the upside here for me?

You sound like you're willing to give manufacturers of fridges some kind of free pass to be incompetent/indifferent to security. I'm saying any manufacturer which is either of those two things doesn't deserve to get my money.

The same goes for my thermostat. And my lights. And my stove. And my freezer. If you're not taking security seriously, I'm not taking your fscking product seriously.

So, if the internet of things is predicated on terrible security, or being indifferent to it altogether ... then the internet of things is a bad joke doomed to failure. And, of course, things which are that bad at security make additional risks for other things.

If I have to firewall my fridge to make it useful, I won't connect it to the internet at all. If it pokes holes in my security and provides an access point to attack other things ... then I really don't want it.

To me there is no scenario in which I'm willing to accept companies being too damned lazy to care about security. Because that pretty much makes the devices not trustworthy from the start.

Comment: Well ... duh! (Score 3, Insightful) 76

by gstoddart (#48203153) Attached to: DHS Investigates 24 Potentially Lethal IoT Medical Devices

If you are going to connect things to the internet, you pretty much need to harden them against malicious attacks.

So many of these things are done with the very naive "what could possibly go wrong?" kind of attitude where there's pretty much no attempt at security.

So many companies (especially some of the medical companies) treat security as something they don't need to worry about. The problem is if something is accessible, and people can muck about with it, they will simply because it's there.

It may sound like a movie plot, but if I know you have a particular kind of internet-enabled implant ... it's far easier to go after you from a distance than up close.

Sadly, while they're looking at the medical stuff, I'm betting there will still be a huge list of other "IoT' devices for which security is a complete joke, if not outright non-existent.

Which is why I have no interest at all in the Internet of Things. At present, it's marketing hype, which hasn't even begun to address basic security and privacy issues.

Comment: The holy trinity ... (Score 1) 148

by gstoddart (#48196201) Attached to: 'Microsoft Lumia' Will Replace the Nokia Brand

Embrace, extend, and then extinguish.

Nokia used to write good software, it just didn't happen to be Microsoft.

Resistance is futile, especially when the CEO gets parachuted in to make decisions which aren't good for Nokia.

It's hard not to think that the Nokia shareholders didn't essentially get robbed in order to benefit Microsoft.

It is better to give than to lend, and it costs about the same.

Working...