|
I'm in Montreal and actually enjoying myself quite a bit. I was probably making it worse on myself by being such a sour rear end in a top hat all the time I was here. My French is coming back decently too! Some of the downtown folks still need a serious loving attitude adjustment (ETA: English and French alike) but I'm in Mile End at DDC and it's very pleasant. See, people can change! PT6A fucked around with this message at 22:05 on Jun 7, 2016 |
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 04:09 |
|
|
wow that is very interesting. thank you for sharing
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 22:25
|
|
|
Hey, if I can learn to be less of a oval office then there's hope for everyone. Correspondingly, I have decided to become even less accepting of other people's cuntiness.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
So Léger Research is doing a telephone survey campaign for the sesquicentennial. Lots of odd questions about national identity.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
I'm cis provincially but full trans federally
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Here's the thing; SMS works, and works well in aviation. Yeah, I get that. An effective health & safety program will either have an SMS or have something that looks like but has a different name. My beef isn't with SMSs but rather their misuse. Management tries to fossilize procedures, marginalize employee input, and inoculate themselves from liability so it ends up as a form without function exercise. Government likes to use them as an excuse to hamstring or gut the enforcement agencies, as you point out. In the mid 2000s Labour Canada had 70ish health and safety officers monitoring work sites for a million employees falling under the Canada Labour Code. Not sure where they're at post-Harper but it sounds like the same as what you're describing for TC. It will be interesting to find out if the railway company that blew up Lac Megantic had an SMS and how often they or any of the other railways that are running sleep deprivation experiments on their engineers have been visited by Labour Canada. I'm not sure what's happening with the Marine Safety branch of TC. Haven't spoken to anyone since our local office was closed down and what was left moved to Victoria. I suspect it's the same story though. This is why I get cranky when pipeline and tanker companies start waving their SMSs around as a justification for increasing the amount of crud they're transporting through my backyard.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
flashy_mcflash posted:I'm cis provincially but full trans federally Business in the capital region, party in the provinces.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
Hexigrammus posted:In the mid 2000s Labour Canada had 70ish health and safety officers monitoring work sites for a million employees falling under the Canada Labour Code. Not sure where they're at post-Harper but it sounds like the same as what you're describing for TC. It will be interesting to find out if the railway company that blew up Lac Megantic had an SMS and how often they or any of the other railways that are running sleep deprivation experiments on their engineers have been visited by Labour Canada. Speaking from the rail side, there is a criminally low amount of TC inspectors and always have been. After Lac Magantic happened everyone asked "How could have we prevented this?" And the obvious answer was more rigorous inspections as the rules were already in place to prevent that train from rolling down a hill. The Harper government instead decided to rewrite a bunch of the Canadian Rail Operating Rules to be even more confusing and vague. It was essentially free and allowed them to say they took action. Honestly CP and CN have done more to ensure that the regional and shortline railways they partner with are following the rules now by either changing contracts to give them 100% of the liability for the cars they move or by keeping them out of major railyards(and thereby stopping them from operating) until they get up to code. But really we need about triple the amount of well qualified TC train inspectors doing triple the amount of inspections.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 02:33
|
|
|
 https://www.thestar.com/opinion/public_editor/2016/06/07/when-a-private-tragedy-becomes-public-english.html quote:By all reports of those closest to her, the last thing this award-winning global environment reporter wanted was to be the focus of this story about her suicide and its aftermath. She left explicit instructions that this very thing should not happen (“Please don’t talk about me. Please don’t let anyone write about me,” she wrote.) Nor did she want an obituary in the Star, the Star’s common practice when one of its newsroom employees dies. Her family also made clear those explicit wishes and the Star had tried to respect that. https://twitter.com/RDiManno/status/740387097740201985 http://frankmag.ca/2016/06/suicide-at-the-star-iii/ Postess with the Mostest fucked around with this message at 13:04 on Jun 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 12:57
|
|
|
DariusLikewise posted:But really we need about triple the amount of well qualified TC train inspectors doing triple the amount of inspections. Oh sure mister fancy safety dance pants, but how would we justify giving the board of directors a 0.5% smaller bonus next year, huh? On the submarines note: The next 5-10 years are going to be a literal existential crisis for the Canadian Armed Forces. So much equipment is worn out it's to the point of danger now. Those subs are a lost cause. Our Hornets are going to start seeing stress failures very soon. Destroyers are gone, frigates are going to need ANOTHER end-of-life extension. The only poo poo that's in OK shape is Air Transport. Government is either going to have to dump an obscene amount of money when troops start dying from equipment failure, or shut some things down entirely. It's going to make the Bad Old Days of the '90s seem like a cakewalk in hindsight, there isn't even any European war stock to go through anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 13:00
|
|
|
I would be perfectly okay if we cut the crap and rebuilt the Forces as a competent self-defense force instead of these delusions that we can and should have stealth planes and submarines and get involved in everyone else's war like a fat nerdy little brother shouting HEY ME TOO
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 13:04
|
|
|
BattleMaster posted:I would be perfectly okay if we cut the crap and rebuilt the Forces as a competent self-defense force instead of these delusions that we can and should have stealth planes and submarines and get involved in everyone else's war like a fat nerdy little brother shouting HEY ME TOO I don't think our blood thirsty big brother would be too happy with us if we did so.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 14:03
|
|
|
BattleMaster posted:I would be perfectly okay if we cut the crap and rebuilt the Forces as a competent self-defense force instead of these delusions that we can and should have stealth planes and submarines and get involved in everyone else's war like a fat nerdy little brother shouting HEY ME TOO The most important components of a competent self-defence force would be a shitload of submarines (probably not these ones, though) and a strong airforce. Think about it, why would you allow some theoretical invader to easily overcome our geographic isolation so we could have the poo poo bombed out of us by ships/planes and then have ground battles in the rubble of our cities? Anyways, it doesn't matter because the real purpose of our military is to "pay our dues", mainly to the US. And that's why we'll always have one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
 THE PM HAS FIRED ONE OF HIS NANNYS What actual news are the Liberals trying to district us from today?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 15:09
|
|
|
Freeze posted:The most important components of a competent self-defence force would be a shitload of submarines (probably not these ones, though) and a strong airforce. Think about it, why would you allow some theoretical invader to easily overcome our geographic isolation so we could have the poo poo bombed out of us by ships/planes and then have ground battles in the rubble of our cities? I was thinking ships and planes more than anything, rather than expensive death trap submarines and crappy hangar queen stealth fighters (assuming the F-35 even makes it to production at this rate, lmbo). At the very least, any number of better, cheaper, non-F-35 planes could still be used in the US military adventures, while maybe leaving money to give our guys boots? idk Or even better, buy tons and tons of Reaper drones and blacken the skies if the Reds come knocking
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 15:14
|
|
|
Canada doesn't need planes or subs that have first strike capability. We need proper procurement of existing and tested weapon systems so that our capabilities are adequate and our costs are as low as possible. We need less dumpster fires in the CF so forget stealth planes and subs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
Guys, I get what you're saying, but subs are far better than ships specifically in the realm of defending a shoreline. Without going into a full naval tactics tirade: subs can rarely, if ever be detected by ships, and can generally destroy all but the largest ships (aircraft carriers) with a single torpedo. Even the knowledge of a single sub operating in an area can prevent a fleet from moving in due to the extremely high cost of losing just a single ship. Our government had the right idea in purchasing subs...they are the perfect self-defense naval weapon. Unfortunately, we got duds, and now subs in general have a very poor public perception in Canada (not entirely unjustified). The problem with this is that in the future people will be more likely to blow a bunch of money on less capable surface ships at the expense of submarines, which will accomplish exactly the opposite of having a competent self-defense force.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 15:44
|
|
|
Freeze posted:Guys, I get what you're saying, but subs are far better than ships specifically in the realm of defending a shoreline. Without going into a full naval tactics tirade: subs can rarely, if ever be detected by ships, and can generally destroy all but the largest ships (aircraft carriers) with a single torpedo. Even the knowledge of a single sub operating in an area can prevent a fleet from moving in due to the extremely high cost of losing just a single ship. Ships can be used for S&R, subs have no such capability to rescue people. Why is this important? The arctic corridor is being opened to commercial shipping/cruise ships with potentially 'thousands' of people on board. How many thousands of people can you stick into a sub Canada can afford?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 16:07
|
|
|
Time to scrap the U-class and use the money towards getting some U-boats from the Germans.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I'm in Montreal and actually enjoying myself quite a bit. I was probably making it worse on myself by being such a sour rear end in a top hat all the time I was here. My French is coming back decently too! Some of the downtown folks still need a serious loving attitude adjustment (ETA: English and French alike) but I'm in Mile End at DDC and it's very pleasant. Probably in town for the Grand Prix, the most hated of summer festivals.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
Freeze posted:Guys, I get what you're saying, but subs are far better than ships specifically in the realm of defending a shoreline. Without going into a full naval tactics tirade: subs can rarely, if ever be detected by ships, and can generally destroy all but the largest ships (aircraft carriers) with a single torpedo. Even the knowledge of a single sub operating in an area can prevent a fleet from moving in due to the extremely high cost of losing just a single ship. There's a whole lot of evidence to the contrary, unless we're talking currently nonexistent weapons like hypersonic nuclear tipped torpedoes, which Canada is never going to have. Exercising sovereignty in the Arctic is going to have a lot more to do with S&R and enforcing environmental regulations than sinking non-existent Russian carriers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 16:57
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
jm20 posted:Ships can be used for S&R, subs have no such capability to rescue people. Why is this important? The arctic corridor is being opened to commercial shipping/cruise ships with potentially 'thousands' of people on board. How many thousands of people can you stick into a sub Canada can afford? That's fine, but we were talking about a self-defence force, not a force that prioritizes S&R. That kind of role should generally be more of a coast guard duty (or MCDVs maybe). S&R specifically in the artic would require different ships than what we have right now, especially if you're talking about saving more than 30 or 40 people at a time. PittTheElder posted:There's a whole lot of evidence to the contrary, unless we're talking currently nonexistent weapons like hypersonic nuclear tipped torpedoes, which Canada is never going to have. Exercising sovereignty in the Arctic is going to have a lot more to do with S&R and enforcing environmental regulations than sinking non-existent Russian carriers. Could you provide some of this evidence? MK 48 torpedos are in plentiful supply (so plentiful that even we have them) and they'll wreck the majority of surface ships with a single hit. If you want to do S&R in the arctic, you need ships that can handle the cold weather for long periods of time. If you want self-defence, you need subs. If you want both, you'll need a bit of both.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
I went to the university of calgary, and hated the place and the people who run it, gently caress them Well I see yesterday they just paid $20,000 in ransom for a malware encryption code, doesn't surprise me one bit, I bet they didn't even have back ups to restore from, who the gently caress pays out for this poo poo anyways, I'm sure it'll happen again now, way to lower the bar U of C
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
Do it ironically posted:who the gently caress pays out for this poo poo anyways People who don't have backups to restore from. And this kind of ransomware has been around for over two years, there have been many fairly high profile breaches in the states, generally at public sector orgs without proper IT policies. U of C is hardly the first to pay out. Mitigating these threats comes down to how much money you have to implement backups and access restrictions and how cooperative your staff are with IT policy, seeing as it's academia I'm guessing almost none and not at all. infernal machines fucked around with this message at 17:53 on Jun 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
Probably no daily/incremental backups or no buy-in from researchers who are "just far too important" to follow the sensible backup or data protection policies that were recommended to them. Either that or their IT department completely hosed the dog.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
On top of the whole not having backups thing, you can hold some idiot responsible for it happening to begin with since you have to run a very obviously-fake e-mail attachment for this poo poo to happen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:Probably no daily/incremental backups or no buy-in from researchers who are "just far too important" to follow the sensible backup or data protection policies that were recommended to them. It's usually both. BattleMaster posted:On top of the whole not having backups thing, you can hold some idiot responsible for it happening to begin with since you have to run a very obviously-fake e-mail attachment for this poo poo to happen. TBF, most of these people would probably fall for 419 scams if not for being blinded by rage over the spelling and grammatical errors.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
BattleMaster posted:On top of the whole not having backups thing, you can hold some idiot responsible for it happening to begin with since you have to run a very obviously-fake e-mail attachment for this poo poo to happen. If running a fake e-mail attachment takes down an entire email server and there's no backup, the idiot responsible is not the person who ran the attachment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:If running a fake e-mail attachment takes down an entire email server and there's no backup, the idiot responsible is not the person who ran the attachment. It's ransomware, it doesn't take down the email server, it overwrites files the user has access to with encrypted copies, holding the decryption key for ransom. The way to mitigate the threat is to ensure the user can only write to necessary data on the network and that everything everywhere is backed up regularly. Simple in theory, but not entirely straightforward in practice, especially in large organizations with limited budgets and a hodgepodge of systems.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
infernal machines posted:It's ransomware, it doesn't take down the email server, it overwrites files the user has access to with encrypted copies, holding the decryption key for ransom. The way to mitigate the threat is to ensure the user can only write to necessary data on the network and that everything everywhere is backed up regularly. Simple in theory, but not entirely straightforward in practice, especially in large organizations with limited budgets and a hodgepodge of systems. I know they generally don't take down the server but it sounds like, in this case, it may have. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/8/university-calgary-pays-hackers-20000-recover-rans/ posted:School officials discovered the infection on May 28, and soon learned that the ransomware had encrypted the email server used by the university for faculty and staff accounts, the Calgary Herald reported Tuesday.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
Welp. I hope that's just lovely tech reporting because there's no scenario where that should be possible unless you've hosed up on a massive scale. In which case I withdraw my previous statements. Edit: Between the Washington Times and CBC articles, it's reading like the IT staff probably managed to spread it to other systems themselves. GG guys. infernal machines fucked around with this message at 18:46 on Jun 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
Well apparently the person who opened it had admin rights on the email server because that's part of what they lost.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
Freeze posted:That's fine, but we were talking about a self-defence force, not a force that prioritizes S&R. That kind of role should generally be more of a coast guard duty (or MCDVs maybe). S&R specifically in the arctic would require different ships than what we have right now, especially if you're talking about saving more than 30 or 40 people at a time. You're delusional to think we will have a dedicated and operational S&R force. We will not be defending our country from China/Russia/US in any capacity so what will the point of the submarine force be exactly? Will we be torpedoing illegal fishing boats in our exclusive economic zone near Newfoundland? Help me understand
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:
IMO it's extremely cool when the newspaper closes ranks around their "own" and refuses to have an open investigation, instead an entirely "internal" investigation, when they would otherwise hound survivors and dig into their life story. It's even more cool when it's hushed up and physical threats are made against the people who are investigating. It's extra super cool when people get a pass on the physical threat for... well, reasons. Brannock fucked around with this message at 19:01 on Jun 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
Freeze posted:The most important components of a competent self-defence force would be a shitload of submarines (probably not these ones, though) and a strong airforce. Think about it, why would you allow some theoretical invader to easily overcome our geographic isolation so we could have the poo poo bombed out of us by ships/planes and then have ground battles in the rubble of our cities? When it comes to self-defence from foreign invaders, the first, last and only word is a credible, distributed nuclear deterrent. All the clancychat in the world about reaper drones and stealth submarines and torpedoes is irrelevant in the face of a threat to unleash a nuclear holocaust that would annihilate any industrialized foe and make the survivors envy the dead. Fortunately, the Americans already have one and presumably would rather use it than allow for a foreign power to invade Canada. By extension, the most efficient Canadian self-defence force is therefore the precise minimum amount required to keep Uncle Sam happy. While this is efficient, the consequence is that, at least in defence matters or relating to any area of the world that is currently experiencing conflict, the Statue of Westminster is effectively revoked and Canada loses its ability to have a foreign policy. In my view, and this is a gross oversimplification, the most efficient state of a military for us is the one necessary to meet our foreign policy objectives. Until we know what those are and can clearly elucidate them, we will be trying to design a tool to complete a job we don't fully understand.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
Guys I'm posting from the bottom of The Ottawa Sinkhole On Rideau™ I live in here now This is my home
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
#pmselfiechat Trudeau was spotting shaking hands and taking
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
JohnnyCanuck posted:Guys I'm posting from the bottom of The Ottawa Sinkhole On Rideau™ Ugh take the property chat to the debt bubble mega thread.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
Jordan7hm posted:What should people who would have voted, donated or campaigned for the NDP do then? Support the Liberals? I plan to retain my party membership and will probably remain nominally involved I just don't see any realistic prospects for the NDP meaningfully changing itself during or after this leadership contest. The problem seems to be as much about the culture of the NDP's staffers and MPs as it is anything else. The choice is between either "pragmatic" Third Way staffers who have no real desire except for the NDP to form government, and then you have people like Avi Lewis and Naomi Klein who have good intentions but seemingly zero strategic sense or insight into the actual political conditions or attitudes of the country at large. I just cannot foresee the party fixing itself any time soon when the choice is between clueless and cloistered Deep Annex Academics vs. "Pragmatic" Third Way Centrists. If we look at the recent examples of left wing insurgencies in English speaking countries, both Sanders and Corbyn had to rely on organizations and political infrastructure from outside the political party's they tried to take over. I think at this point working and forming networks within left-wing organizations that might one day be part of such a coalition is a better investment of time. But for the most part there's simply no short term prospects for the left whatsoever. I'd say the left should mostly be organizing and preparing itself for the future. Most of the rest of North America and Europe is facing political uprisings from both the far left and the far right. I think it's inevitable that Canada will face similar pressures in the future and the key question is how to face those challenges and opportunities as they arise. It's clear now that at the current political moment the left has nothing to offer and besides that has no political constituency capable of adopting and implementing any of its ideas. Why deny reality? Subjunctive posted:What, Jack's ghost was holding Mulcair's family at gunpoint? Mulcair could have chosen to change course. He's responsible for his decision to move the party farther down that path. The party elected Mulcair. Nobody offered a credible and inspiring challenge to his tepid Liberal centrism. Brian Topp, the closest thing he had to a real challenger and the guy who in some theoretical way was advocating for a more left wing position (his signature policy being higher taxes) was still ultimately another Third Way scumbag coming from one of the NDP's conservative western provincial governments. And Topp went on to form a consulting group with one of Steven Harper / Christy Clark's top aids. In fact a lot of former NDP leaders and top staffers end up taking jobs as consultants in Ottawa working for major corporate clients and taking on positions alongside their Liberal and Conservative colleagues. If Jack Layton was still alive and was Prime Minister today it's unlikely he'd be that different from Trudeau. The real problem with the NDP or with Canada can't just be reduced to the strategic blunders of a single man or the compromises of a single lovely centre-left party. The ultimate question has to be: what conditions produce this party? What conditions produce this leader? Why focus on Mulcair when he's very clearly a symptom? I guess you can blame Mulcair for running a particularly incompetent campaign but I think Mulcair's incompetence was the least offensive thing about him. His actual political positions were terrible, even if he would have made for a slightly better PM than the other terrible options. I might summarize all this with an old military adage: amateurs worry about tactics, experts worry about logistics. My point here being the tactical blunders of the NDP are way less concerning to me than the general lack of any kind of sustained logistical support for the left. There needs to be some kind of organizational capacity or institutional density on the left for it to have a sustained impact on the political process.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 04:09 |
|
|
apatheticman posted:Ugh take the property chat to the debt bubble mega thread. This sinkhole is clearly God's punishment for voting liberal
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 20:19
|
|
