This is true. What is needed is more investment in solar capacity in the south, and investment in the power grid in the north (and nationally). There is no reason the North should not be buying a majority of it's power cheaper from the south, where it is plentiful.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
WAC are actually not required anymore, although it is still avalable.
CRA My Account is accessible now via a system called "Secure Key Concierge", where the CRA redirects your login to your bank. As long as you have an account with one of the "Big 6", you can log into your online banking, after which the CRA federates with the bank and checks that your SIN and DOB at the bank is the same as the SIN and DOB you entered at the site, and if so they let you in.
IMO it is a much more convenient way to authenticate in a way that covers likely 90%+ of the Canadian population.
Forget the auto-complete nonsense. The question that should be being asked is why an un-encrypted email containing " Passport numbers, dates of birth, and other personal information of the heads of state attending a G-20 summit in Brisbane, Australia" would be being sent to ANYONE. I can't even send an unencrypted email at work containing MY OWN social security number.
If you are such a whiny idiot that you think it should be OK to say "we don't serve your kind here", then you should have no legal or moral basis to claim that someone shouldn't be able to do the same to you.
Yes, I agree. People should be able to refuse to do business with someone for any reason whatsoever, and vice versa. Religious conviction shouldn't have any special status in law above any other type of preference or desire.
So either shut up, and accept that you have no other ways you're legally allowed to discriminate against someone
I agree and accept this.
Thank you, but I would rather be a self-responsible citizen than one of millions of ant-like creatures to be ruled by a self-declared elite
Isn't that what I was saying?
In an era where I can purchase trans-atlantic wifi for $15, it seems archaic to me that we still rely on hardened "black boxes" for data retrieval. Why is audio from the flight deck not REQUIRED to be streamed real-time to satellites in orbit for commercial airliners? Yes yes, it won't be 100% reliable blah blah. So what? No one is advocating REMOVING the black box.. there is no reason you can't have both.
Secondly, it's an important biomedical advancement made by citizen scientists. (The important part of that sentence is "by citizen scientists".)
I was a little confused when I saw that wording in the story, and now that I'm hearing this wording is the important part, I'm getting a little concerned. Are we not all citizens? Have we been divided into citizens and ruling class, now?
I'm all for popularizing science among all citizens, but I'd rather we word that as "science for the masses" or something.
You really think Amazon wants to take the PR hit by suing a contractor who worked in their warehouse for 10 dollars an hour?
Great, then they should have no problem removing the portion of the agreement that would give them the right to do so.
Oh I didn't realize wages were cut. Absolutely employers would much rather cut wages and have a shorter workweek.
That's even better. That means employees get an extra day for their family and hobbies with no impact on productivity.
Net neutrality wasn't the entirety of GPs claim. GP's claim was about "laws that essentially make private investments subject to public control"
Net neutrality originally was a local claim, about the last mile regarding non discrimination. It was part of the regulatory framework for last mile. Some aspects of that regulatory framework, have decreased profits and thus decreased infrastructure investment. On first and middle mile it is harder to see the negative impact of net neutrality but it is also much harder to see any impact.
OK if that's what you meant then bad choice of verbs. To break something is to, "separate or cause to separate into pieces as a result of a blow, shock, or strain". You want to use break then something like "break the power of the cable companies... either through ___ or through ___".
That's not technically a T1 it is bonded DSL at 1536kbs. What makes DSL cheap is that it isn't going direct back to the CO but is shared. If it isn't shared, then why not bond it and deliver it as an actual T1. I'd assume they don't intend to meet the SLAs. Certainly though bonding up lots of inexpensive connections can make for a so-so to good but not great internet at terrific price point.
Then roll your own OpenID provider. This is what standards are for.
Don't bash federated login just because you don't trust Google.. you don't HAVE to trust them, that is the whole point.
The problem is not Google/Facebook/Yahoo/Twitter, the problem is The Guardian/Techcrunch/JoeBLow.com and every other website out there that forces you to make YET ANOTHER account with YET ANOTHER password because they do not support any federated login standards at all.
If more sites allowed federated login instead of rolling their own half-assed authentication regiemes then this wouldn't be a problem in the first place.
The idea that I am more secure cooking up a "safe password" for JoeBlowsRandomWordpressInstance.com instead of logging in securely using Google or Facebook is farcical.