|
dethslayer666 posted:In practice I recommend stocking up on guns and ammunition. Sorry couldn't help myself
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2013 02:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 11:23 |
|
|
dethslayer666 posted:In theory if investors abandon US government debt for Canadian debt, interest rates will rise in the United States, fall in Canada, and the Canadian Dollar will appreciate relative to the US Dollar. Or, if you don't have a Firearms license, sticks and harsh language.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2013 03:03
|
|
|
I can't imagine how our largest trade partner's economy collapsing would affect the Canadian economy at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2013 03:25
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:I can't imagine how our largest trade partner's economy collapsing would affect the Canadian economy at all. This is true. No credit arrangements will survive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2013 03:45
|
|
|
I'll finally stop getting e-mail from Obama fundraisers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2013 03:54
|
|
|
Can someone recommend me some reading about how the government works (or is supposed to) in relation to the parliamentary system itself? I'm a Canadian that knows the intimate details of the American congress, but has no idea about the Canadian system.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2013 04:36
|
|
|
Tsyni posted:Can someone recommend me some reading about how the government works (or is supposed to) in relation to the parliamentary system itself? I'm a Canadian that knows the intimate details of the American congress, but has no idea about the Canadian system. Well, how about you start with the book that prospective citizens are given to study for their citizenship test? It's called Discover Canada, and it has a section on our governmental system.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2013 04:40
|
|
|
Democratizing the Constitution is pretty short and basic. It also covers relatively recent events and abuses of power. E: Anyone read this study? Mordecai fucked around with this message at 05:16 on Oct 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2013 05:11
|
|
|
Mordecai posted:
It's available free from Nature, so anyone can read it. They've been doing that more often lately with papers of public interest. Should all be public, but better than nothing, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2013 11:04
|
|
|
Happy Thanksgiving, thread!
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2013 14:24
|
|
|
HipGnosis posted:Happy Thanksgiving, thread! Gobble gobble!
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2013 18:07
|
|
|
If you're wondering how Stephen Harper is planning on winning a second majority government in 2015, here's how:quote:Later this week during his Speech to the Crown, Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper will reveal new regulations demanding cable companies allow consumers to choose their own cable channels in lieu of buying channels packaged into bundles.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 01:43
|
|
|
dethslayer666 posted:If you're wondering how Stephen Harper is planning on winning a second majority government in 2015, here's how: I heard on an interview with the finance minister on Sunday on CTV Question Period that they're also looking to crack down on people being screwed with extra hidden fees on credit cards, as well as actually trying to do something about opening up competition in the wireless market, so it looks like they're really taking the populist appeal approach for this run moreso than usual I guess.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 02:30
|
|
|
I too would like to avoid paying $35 a month just so I can get Teletoon. Call me a Conservative voter now!
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 03:03
|
|
|
Paper Jam Dipper posted:Gobble gobble! dethslayer666 posted:If you're wondering how Stephen Harper is planning on winning a second majority government in 2015, here's how: Besides, a change like that would have been great 15 years ago but with the future being On Demand programming via services like Hulu or Netflix, it would be more significant to push for lower bandwidth costs/removal of caps. unlimited shrimp fucked around with this message at 03:35 on Oct 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 03:32
|
|
|
Can I simply pay Rogers an extra $5 a month to remove the launch screen from my cable box? I have to press the guide button twice to get to the actual tv guide. Stephen Harper, why don't you care about my needs?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 03:34
|
|
|
Oh hey, the Star is finally on the case of unpaid internships in hospitality. Apparently even though the Fairmont Vancouver pulled their ad for a busboy, hotels in Toronto do regularly make their unpaid interns clean rooms.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 03:36
|
|
|
I can't believe we're going to be wasting time in the House of Commons on breaking up cable packages. If that's not a middle finger to the Canadian citizen, I don't know what is. Ah, who am I kidding. We deserve this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 03:55
|
|
|
eXXon posted:Oh hey, the Star is finally on the case of unpaid internships in hospitality. Apparently even though the Fairmont Vancouver pulled their ad for a busboy, hotels in Toronto do regularly make their unpaid interns clean rooms. Haha, that was the story I sent to the media a few weeks ago. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 04:00
|
|
|
I haven't owned a television in like 5 years so this doesn't affect me, but anything they do to stop cell phone carriers from charging 7$ a month for voice mail is a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 04:17
|
|
|
brucio posted:I can't believe we're going to be wasting time in the House of Commons on breaking up cable packages. If that's not a middle finger to the Canadian citizen, I don't know what is. I agree that this should not be presented as themost pressing issue of the day, but cable packages are seriously bullshit. This is the sort of thing the CRTC should be dealing with, and doesn't it receive its marching orders from the government?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 04:47
|
|
|
eXXon posted:This is the sort of thing the CRTC should be dealing with, and doesn't it receive its marching orders from the government? Sort of. Parliament can create and express general policy objectives towards them, but the CRTC is thoroughly arms-length and can decide largely what it wants to do to accomplish those objectives (within the constraints of its mandate in the Broadcast Act). If it thinks cable packages are the best way to fulfill its mandate, there's little parliament can actually do to change its mind.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 04:56
|
|
|
Are we South Park now is this life
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 05:28
|
|
|
Kafka Esq. posted:This is true. No credit arrangements will survive. World survived the Russian 98 and German 21 defaults just fine. Canada will likely join a reserve currency basket, swaps for oil will be repriced into CZN or EUR as a temp-gap. Ontario & the rustbelt to Montreal will likely feel a short term pullback. People will lobby for gov. to improve trade relations and export deals with Asia. Large tier 1 capital cushions that were required to be priced in CAD/gold reserves will keep the big 4 banks alive and if necessary, the new budget has bail-in's like Cyprus should in some oddball way an overleveraged entity like RCI or Bell will default and suck down the pension plans.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 05:40
|
|
|
spacemost posted:I wonder how this would work in practice, though. I hate bundling in principle but in practice I assume it helps keep afloat niche channels whose audience would otherwise go unserved. I don't think that's overly likely. I don't have any cable service at all, so I could well be wrong, but I don't think there's many Canadian niche channels outside sports stuff? All the channels we love are being supported by the American market, and Canada is basically an afterthought compared to that. And the sports stuff is probably safe because that sounds to be what half the people want on the cheap in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 07:09
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PittTheElder posted:I don't think that's overly likely. I don't have any cable service at all, so I could well be wrong, but I don't think there's many Canadian niche channels outside sports stuff? All the channels we love are being supported by the American market, and Canada is basically an afterthought compared to that. And the sports stuff is probably safe because that sounds to be what half the people want on the cheap in the first place. I subscribe to a package that has Bite, which is a comedy channel, JUST so I can watch Made in Canada. There's a ton of packages with international channels from everywhere from Germany to Sri Lanka. There's hundreds of channels you can pick from with the way the packages are right now, I would definitely suspect a lot, if not most of them, would go out of business if they were picked individually.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 07:25
|
|
|
Yeah, I don't know how well this would work for the more niche stations. I also don't expect the Conservatives to create a proper bill/CRTC mandate about it (if anything) Based on everything the Big Three do business wise and the "hands off the free market" directive of the CRTC, I'd put my money on "Customers will get a new option to pick and pay, but due to a lack of a well thought out implementation with proper regulations, it will ultimately have the consumer paying more than the old bundle deals. The Harper Government spends $30 million on primetime TV ads about Creating Consumer Choice for Canada" Even without that exact outcome, I expect millions of federal dollars to be spent on The Harper Government is Creating Consumer Choice for Canada TV ads. Perhaps one after each Economic Action Plan ad, sandwiched in before the Developing Canada's Oil Sands spot. less than three fucked around with this message at 07:42 on Oct 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 07:39
|
|
|
gently caress paying for poo poo like Slice
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 13:02
|
|
|
I love my aerial. 12 channels for only a $3 antenna purchased at a Dollarama. I get CBC in 1080 HD as long as I hit the sweet spot with it. I get a movies channel showing stuff from the 50s to the 70s, the American networks and PBS. Everything else I like to watch I could never watch on Canadian cable anyway and I'm replacing Food Network with the Live Well Network. Joey Fatone is a way better host than Guy Fieri.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 14:18
|
|
|
I'm going to Ezra Levant's libel trial today. Should be interesting. edit: I forgot about that loving custom title AGH Kafka Esq. fucked around with this message at 14:34 on Oct 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 14:19
|
|
|
Vermain posted:Sort of. Parliament can create and express general policy objectives towards them, but the CRTC is thoroughly arms-length and can decide largely what it wants to do to accomplish those objectives (within the constraints of its mandate in the Broadcast Act). If it thinks cable packages are the best way to fulfill its mandate, there's little parliament can actually do to change its mind. full disclosure: as may be obvious from my posts here/in the cellular thread, I work for the CRTC, but I do not speak for it. All opinions are entirely my own, all facts are to the best of my understanding, etc. The CRTC is actually trying to push a more consumer-oriented agenda itself since Blais was appointed chair. They're launching a public consultation on the broadcasting system in a couple of weeks and it's a safe bet that bundling vs. pick and pay will be very high on the list of issues that will be raised. It's entirely possible that whatever Harper announces in the Throne Speech will be a) simply getting out in front of the parade the same way they did when they highlighted the Wireless Code of Conduct among the government's achievements, or b) contain actual changes to their mandate (in the form of Broadcasting Act changes or a new policy direction, which could both do rather a lot to change the Commission's mind. All that said, I personally share HookShot/less-than-three's concerns about the viability of niche programming (or, for that matter, Canadian programming) in an entirely a-la-carte world, but since technology and consumer behaviour is heading that way regardless of what any government or regulator does, we might as well get used to it - either paying a lot more for channels in less popular genres, or watching them flee to online video or crowdfunding.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 15:44
|
|
|
I'm totally fine with poo poo like national geographic channel wiped off the face of the earth
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 16:33
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:I'm totally fine with poo poo like national geographic channel wiped off the face of the earth That seems like an odd target, though I will agree that a lot of their programming can be poo poo. Ultimately, I have no problem with bundling similar channels together. If I like one channel, I'll probably like another, similar channel too. The problem is that the packages seem carefully designed to ensure that the average person will like 1-2 channels from each package, basically forcing you to buy everything in order to have the channels you want. Honestly, it's not a hugely pressing issue, but I'm of the opinion that government should be able to do more than one thing at once, so I don't have a particular problem with them looking at this issue.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 18:28
|
|
|
It will be interesting to see how the Conservatives actually roll out their consumer protection agenda, but my initial thinking is that this is much weaker than their previous pitch on the economy. Unless Canadians are suddenly feeling a lot more confident about the economy in 2015 then it seems like getting better deals on cable channels is going to be a much lower priority than economic fundamentals like jobs or the squeeze on middle class incomes. This whole idea of focusing on consumer stuff really seems like its the product of a government that is running out of ideas and which has been hemmed in by its previous promises to reduce the deficit, plus the fact that by the time 2015 rolls around its going to be getting really hard for them to blame every single problem on a global recession that started in 2007. Harper had better hope that he can get either a pipeline or a big trade deal finalized before 2015 because on its own I'm really not convinced that a bunch of boutique consumer reforms are going to distract Canadian voters from our lacklustre economic performance or the growing list of Conservative gaffes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 21:08
|
|
|
It's a good attempt at bribing/distracting voters but there is nothing that the Cons could do at this point that would make me vote for them, minor restrictions on our absurd telecom companies is not even in the same realm as all the damage con policies have wrought, it's like giving a kid an icecream while the fire you started burns all around him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 21:13
|
|
|
Blade_of_tyshalle posted:Can I simply pay Rogers an extra $5 a month to remove the launch screen from my cable box? I have to press the guide button twice to get to the actual tv guide. Stephen Harper, why don't you care about my needs? You know you can turn that off in the settings right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 21:14
|
|
|
Harry Joe posted:It's a good attempt at bribing/distracting voters but there is nothing that the Cons could do at this point that would make me vote for them, minor restrictions on our absurd telecom companies is not even in the same realm as all the damage con policies have wrought, it's like giving a kid an icecream while the fire you started burns all around him. Its an attempt at distraction, sure, but I'm not convinced its a very good one. For instance that gimmicky "tax cut" on hockey equipment they pulled off a little while back managed to get a lot of short term media attention but I don't think it actually convinced very many people to vote Conservative. In the past the Conservatives have been pretty good at offering special tax credits or income splitting or other measures that certain subsets of voters probably find pretty attractive. Those are all "good" attempts at bribery/distraction or whatever you want to call it. I'm not so convinced that a bunch of stricter regulations on cable TV are going to have as much pull with the electorate as previous Conservative policies had.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 21:25
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Its an attempt at distraction, sure, but I'm not convinced its a very good one. For instance that gimmicky "tax cut" on hockey equipment they pulled off a little while back managed to get a lot of short term media attention but I don't think it actually convinced very many people to vote Conservative. Me either. But then I live in BC where our ruling conservative party didn't even need to offer shallow niche promises to get re-elected, so I am not sure I would put much into it coming into play at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 21:29
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Its an attempt at distraction, sure, but I'm not convinced its a very good one. For instance that gimmicky "tax cut" on hockey equipment they pulled off a little while back managed to get a lot of short term media attention but I don't think it actually convinced very many people to vote Conservative. It also preempts the opposition from running their 2015 campaign on pro-consumer issues, which I think is the CPC's main goal with this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 22:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 11:23 |
|
|
Paper Jam Dipper posted:I love my aerial. 12 channels for only a $3 antenna purchased at a Dollarama. I get CBC in 1080 HD as long as I hit the sweet spot with it. I get a movies channel showing stuff from the 50s to the 70s, the American networks and PBS. Everything else I like to watch I could never watch on Canadian cable anyway and I'm replacing Food Network with the Live Well Network. Joey Fatone is a way better host than Guy Fieri. Seriously - this. My sister freaked out over the channels we could get when I brought her a homeade over-the-air HD antennae I built using plywood and some screws and coat hanger leftovers You can grab some larger, 4 bay versions for around 50 bucks or so. We get around 15 channels where we live, we could probably get 4 more if I took the antennae out of the attic and mounted them on the roof but local bylaws forbid that. Even my parents were under the impression that you can only get a HD signal from a cable provider. Furthermore, some of our larger residential or retirement homes have switched to using antennae and save a bundle on cable fees. For shows we cannot watch over the air, well, that what we use our internet for. (granted - we are not big TV watchers and do not live in an apartment complex)
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 23:29
|
|