Showing posts with label Protest. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Protest. Show all posts
Saturday, 19 November 2011
Sunday, 23 October 2011
Laws for 21st century: A guide to Canada’s proposed cyber investigation bills
Kathryn Blaze Carlson Oct 22, 2011 – 10:35 AM ET | Last Updated: Oct 23, 2011 11:01 AM ET
Canadians spend more time online than anyone else in the world — an average of 44 hours per month — and nearly a third of the population owns a smartphone, spending more than 17 hours on the device each week. So when the Conservative government reintroduces three pieces of lawful access legislation aimed at giving police greater powers and more tools to conduct investigations using new technologies, Canadians should have a clear understanding of what is on the table. However, much of the rhetoric circulating online about the legislation is patently untrue, distracting from the meat of the bills and the very real privacy implications at stake. Although it is unclear whether the bills will appear exactly as they did when they were first tabled in the spring, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews said this month his government is committed to reintroducing the lawful access legislation. Post reporter Kathryn Blaze Carlson has studied the previous legislation and spoken to experts. Here, she offers up eight things it would do — and three it would not:
1. CREATING “BACK DOORS” FOR POLICE INTERCEPTION The Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act would require telecommunications and Internet service providers to be capable of decrypting, decoding, and preserving historic and real-time online and telephone communications, essentially creating built-in “back doors” for police interception. Some providers already have this capability, but they preserve information on their servers for different lengths of time depending on company policy. Some smaller providers do not have this capability at all, particularly certain ones in northern Ontario and Quebec, said Christopher Parsons, a doctoral candidate at the University of Victoria studying digital surveillance. Tom Stamatakis, president of the Canadian Police Association, said it is “very frustrating from an investigative perspective” when police obtain a court order to intercept communications, only to learn the relevant Internet service provider is technically incapable of digging up the communications data. The act would also give the RCMP and CSIS the authority to conduct background security checks on any employees who are involved in intercepting communications. Mr. Parsons said it is unclear whether the legislation will target anything more than the “low-hanging fruit” because savvy criminals will be able to evade authorities by encrypting their messages and sending them through several network nodes.
2. OBTAINING BASIC CUSTOMER INFORMATION WITHOUT A WARRANT Police could demand that telecommunications and Internet service providers turn over a customer’s name, address, telephone number, email address, and Internet protocol address — and they could do so without a warrant under exceptional circumstances. “When Internet service providers hear ‘exceptional circumstances,’ they hear ‘whenever (police) want,’” Mr. Parsons said. Michael Geist, chair of Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, said that sort of customer information could be linked with other bits of information to build a detailed profile. It can also be used to “out” someone using a pseudonym in an online chat forum. “All of a sudden, you go from ‘HoneyBunny14’ or ‘BlackAnarchist’ to ‘John Smith’ living at a particular address with a particular phone number,” Mr. Parsons said, adding that social activists are concerned police will use the provision to monitor people organizing legal protests or expressing dissent online. Beyond that, the target is not necessarily the only person using a particular Internet protocol address, so others could be inadvertently monitored at a later stage in the investigation. Mr. Stamatakis said this sort of additional power would be exercised to investigate only the most serious crimes, including child pornography, organized crime and terrorism. “The legislation recognizes the technology criminals are using today,” he said, echoing Mr. Toews comments earlier this month that the Criminal Code contains out-of-date language such as the word “telegraph.”
3. CREATING NEW POLICE POWERS TO OBTAIN COMMUNICATIONS DATA Without a warrant, police could make a “preservation demand” requiring telecommunications and Internet service providers to single out a customer and preserve for 90 days what Dwayne Winseck, a Carleton University communications professor who has studied the Internet for two decades, called “meta data.” So-called meta data is communications information generated during the creation, transmission or reception of a communication including the type, time, duration, origin, and destination of the communication. Police would then have to ask a judge for a “production order” to actually obtain the preserved information. Once police get the court order, they could, for example, find out who a person called on their cell phone, the duration of the call, and when the call was placed. Importantly, the proposed legislation excludes the actual content of the conversation. Once police have a copy of what they want, the service providers must destroy the information. The warantless provision is a welcome one, Mr. Stamatakis said, because it acts as a stop-gap measure while police work to obtain a warrant — a lengthy, labour-intensive process at times.
4. CUSTOMERS MAY NEVER KNOW IF, OR WHY, THEY WERE TARGETED The proposed surveillance legislation says authorities could prohibit telecommunications and Internet service providers from telling a customer that he or she was the subject of information disclosures. The potential cumulative effect of all this legislation, said Mr. Geist, is self-censorship: “What we’re creating is nothing like the Chinese firewall … but I think it could have a chilling effect in terms of people’s willingness to express themselves online, even if they’re not doing anything illegal.”
5. POSSIBLY INCREASED COSTS FOR CELL PHONE AND INTERNET SERVICE If telecommunications and Internet service providers are forced to upgrade their technology and train their staff to use it, then their capital and operating costs will inevitably climb. “Customers might end up paying the added cost for something that could be used against them at any time,” Mr. Parsons said, adding the requirement could also squeeze out smaller, cash-strapped providers.
6. TRACKING DIALED NUMBERS WITHOUT A WARRANT The proposed legislation would allow police to install and use number recorders without a warrant in “exigent circumstances.” A number recorder, which records the telephone numbers associated with outgoing and incoming calls, would be installed remotely by a telecommunications provider at their call centre hub. The installation can last up to 60 days, but it could be extended to one year if a warrant is obtained and if the investigation involves organized crime or terrorism.
7. COVERTLY ACTIVATING DEVICES TO TRACK CELL PHONES AND VEHICLES The proposed legislation brings police powers into the 21st century by tacitly acknowledging that vehicles and mobile phones — and therefore the people using them — can be tracked using GPS or cell towers. The Criminal Code currently says police can, with a warrant or without one in an emergency, “install, maintain and remove a tracking device in or on any thing, including a thing carried, used or worn by any person.” The proposed bill would extend that list to include the power to “activate” a device, “including covertly.” Mr. Parsons said this allows police to “take advantage of existing technologies,” and said he would not object to the provision if it ensured there would be court oversight.
8. OPENING THE DOOR TO “FISHING EXPEDITIONS” The legislation surrounding preservation and production orders would allow police to get information from telecommunications and Internet service providers based on “reasonable grounds to suspect” the information would “assist an investigation.” The existing Criminal Code does not offer a similarly vague suspicion, but rather stipulates “reasonable grounds to believe” an offence “has been or is suspected to have been committed” or that the information will “afford evidence respecting the commission of the offence.” Mr. Winseck said this opens the door for police to go on “fishing expeditions” and potentially “turns the relationship between the cops and (Internet Service Providers) into a routine one.”
… AND THREE MISCONCEPTIONS
1. HYPERLINKING TO HATE PROPAGANDA WILL BE CRIMINALIZED When the legislative summary of one of the bills surfaced saying “the offences of public incitement of hatred and willful promotion of hatred may be committed… by creating a hyperlink that directs web surfers to a website where hate material is posted,” onlookers criticized the bill as overly far-reaching. However, the actual bill makes no explicit reference to hyperlinking, instead expanding the definition of “communicating” hate material to include “making available.” It is true the vague definition of “communicating” could capture posting a link to another website, but a recent Supreme Court libel decision will likely quiet that fear: The judges decided unanimously this week that a person cannot be held responsible for what appears on a hyperlinked site.
2. POLICE WILL GET NEW POWERS TO LISTEN IN ON PRIVATE COMMUNICATIONS
The legislation does not extend police powers to intercept the actual content of private communications, for example what was said in a telephone call or written in an email. Mr. Toews has said those claims — put forward by online privacy activists — are a “complete fabrication.” Also, the Criminal Code already allows police to intercept private communications without a warrant, so long as the situation is urgent and the interception could prevent serious harm to a person or property.
3. INTERNET PROVIDERS WILL MONITOR ALL CANADIANS, ALL THE TIME
The government has been accused of embarking on warrantless online wiretapping where Canadians will be constantly monitored, but Mr. Geist said on his blog these charges amount to “political softball.” Yes, telecommunications and Internet service providers will need the capability to preserve information on all users, regardless of whether or not they are subject to an investigation. But those providers must only preserve and produce information relating to users who are actually targeted by police.
National Post kcarlson@nationalpost.com
Canadians spend more time online than anyone else in the world — an average of 44 hours per month — and nearly a third of the population owns a smartphone, spending more than 17 hours on the device each week. So when the Conservative government reintroduces three pieces of lawful access legislation aimed at giving police greater powers and more tools to conduct investigations using new technologies, Canadians should have a clear understanding of what is on the table. However, much of the rhetoric circulating online about the legislation is patently untrue, distracting from the meat of the bills and the very real privacy implications at stake. Although it is unclear whether the bills will appear exactly as they did when they were first tabled in the spring, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews said this month his government is committed to reintroducing the lawful access legislation. Post reporter Kathryn Blaze Carlson has studied the previous legislation and spoken to experts. Here, she offers up eight things it would do — and three it would not:
1. CREATING “BACK DOORS” FOR POLICE INTERCEPTION The Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act would require telecommunications and Internet service providers to be capable of decrypting, decoding, and preserving historic and real-time online and telephone communications, essentially creating built-in “back doors” for police interception. Some providers already have this capability, but they preserve information on their servers for different lengths of time depending on company policy. Some smaller providers do not have this capability at all, particularly certain ones in northern Ontario and Quebec, said Christopher Parsons, a doctoral candidate at the University of Victoria studying digital surveillance. Tom Stamatakis, president of the Canadian Police Association, said it is “very frustrating from an investigative perspective” when police obtain a court order to intercept communications, only to learn the relevant Internet service provider is technically incapable of digging up the communications data. The act would also give the RCMP and CSIS the authority to conduct background security checks on any employees who are involved in intercepting communications. Mr. Parsons said it is unclear whether the legislation will target anything more than the “low-hanging fruit” because savvy criminals will be able to evade authorities by encrypting their messages and sending them through several network nodes.
2. OBTAINING BASIC CUSTOMER INFORMATION WITHOUT A WARRANT Police could demand that telecommunications and Internet service providers turn over a customer’s name, address, telephone number, email address, and Internet protocol address — and they could do so without a warrant under exceptional circumstances. “When Internet service providers hear ‘exceptional circumstances,’ they hear ‘whenever (police) want,’” Mr. Parsons said. Michael Geist, chair of Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, said that sort of customer information could be linked with other bits of information to build a detailed profile. It can also be used to “out” someone using a pseudonym in an online chat forum. “All of a sudden, you go from ‘HoneyBunny14’ or ‘BlackAnarchist’ to ‘John Smith’ living at a particular address with a particular phone number,” Mr. Parsons said, adding that social activists are concerned police will use the provision to monitor people organizing legal protests or expressing dissent online. Beyond that, the target is not necessarily the only person using a particular Internet protocol address, so others could be inadvertently monitored at a later stage in the investigation. Mr. Stamatakis said this sort of additional power would be exercised to investigate only the most serious crimes, including child pornography, organized crime and terrorism. “The legislation recognizes the technology criminals are using today,” he said, echoing Mr. Toews comments earlier this month that the Criminal Code contains out-of-date language such as the word “telegraph.”
3. CREATING NEW POLICE POWERS TO OBTAIN COMMUNICATIONS DATA Without a warrant, police could make a “preservation demand” requiring telecommunications and Internet service providers to single out a customer and preserve for 90 days what Dwayne Winseck, a Carleton University communications professor who has studied the Internet for two decades, called “meta data.” So-called meta data is communications information generated during the creation, transmission or reception of a communication including the type, time, duration, origin, and destination of the communication. Police would then have to ask a judge for a “production order” to actually obtain the preserved information. Once police get the court order, they could, for example, find out who a person called on their cell phone, the duration of the call, and when the call was placed. Importantly, the proposed legislation excludes the actual content of the conversation. Once police have a copy of what they want, the service providers must destroy the information. The warantless provision is a welcome one, Mr. Stamatakis said, because it acts as a stop-gap measure while police work to obtain a warrant — a lengthy, labour-intensive process at times.
4. CUSTOMERS MAY NEVER KNOW IF, OR WHY, THEY WERE TARGETED The proposed surveillance legislation says authorities could prohibit telecommunications and Internet service providers from telling a customer that he or she was the subject of information disclosures. The potential cumulative effect of all this legislation, said Mr. Geist, is self-censorship: “What we’re creating is nothing like the Chinese firewall … but I think it could have a chilling effect in terms of people’s willingness to express themselves online, even if they’re not doing anything illegal.”
5. POSSIBLY INCREASED COSTS FOR CELL PHONE AND INTERNET SERVICE If telecommunications and Internet service providers are forced to upgrade their technology and train their staff to use it, then their capital and operating costs will inevitably climb. “Customers might end up paying the added cost for something that could be used against them at any time,” Mr. Parsons said, adding the requirement could also squeeze out smaller, cash-strapped providers.
6. TRACKING DIALED NUMBERS WITHOUT A WARRANT The proposed legislation would allow police to install and use number recorders without a warrant in “exigent circumstances.” A number recorder, which records the telephone numbers associated with outgoing and incoming calls, would be installed remotely by a telecommunications provider at their call centre hub. The installation can last up to 60 days, but it could be extended to one year if a warrant is obtained and if the investigation involves organized crime or terrorism.
7. COVERTLY ACTIVATING DEVICES TO TRACK CELL PHONES AND VEHICLES The proposed legislation brings police powers into the 21st century by tacitly acknowledging that vehicles and mobile phones — and therefore the people using them — can be tracked using GPS or cell towers. The Criminal Code currently says police can, with a warrant or without one in an emergency, “install, maintain and remove a tracking device in or on any thing, including a thing carried, used or worn by any person.” The proposed bill would extend that list to include the power to “activate” a device, “including covertly.” Mr. Parsons said this allows police to “take advantage of existing technologies,” and said he would not object to the provision if it ensured there would be court oversight.
8. OPENING THE DOOR TO “FISHING EXPEDITIONS” The legislation surrounding preservation and production orders would allow police to get information from telecommunications and Internet service providers based on “reasonable grounds to suspect” the information would “assist an investigation.” The existing Criminal Code does not offer a similarly vague suspicion, but rather stipulates “reasonable grounds to believe” an offence “has been or is suspected to have been committed” or that the information will “afford evidence respecting the commission of the offence.” Mr. Winseck said this opens the door for police to go on “fishing expeditions” and potentially “turns the relationship between the cops and (Internet Service Providers) into a routine one.”
… AND THREE MISCONCEPTIONS
1. HYPERLINKING TO HATE PROPAGANDA WILL BE CRIMINALIZED When the legislative summary of one of the bills surfaced saying “the offences of public incitement of hatred and willful promotion of hatred may be committed… by creating a hyperlink that directs web surfers to a website where hate material is posted,” onlookers criticized the bill as overly far-reaching. However, the actual bill makes no explicit reference to hyperlinking, instead expanding the definition of “communicating” hate material to include “making available.” It is true the vague definition of “communicating” could capture posting a link to another website, but a recent Supreme Court libel decision will likely quiet that fear: The judges decided unanimously this week that a person cannot be held responsible for what appears on a hyperlinked site.
2. POLICE WILL GET NEW POWERS TO LISTEN IN ON PRIVATE COMMUNICATIONS
The legislation does not extend police powers to intercept the actual content of private communications, for example what was said in a telephone call or written in an email. Mr. Toews has said those claims — put forward by online privacy activists — are a “complete fabrication.” Also, the Criminal Code already allows police to intercept private communications without a warrant, so long as the situation is urgent and the interception could prevent serious harm to a person or property.
3. INTERNET PROVIDERS WILL MONITOR ALL CANADIANS, ALL THE TIME
The government has been accused of embarking on warrantless online wiretapping where Canadians will be constantly monitored, but Mr. Geist said on his blog these charges amount to “political softball.” Yes, telecommunications and Internet service providers will need the capability to preserve information on all users, regardless of whether or not they are subject to an investigation. But those providers must only preserve and produce information relating to users who are actually targeted by police.
National Post kcarlson@nationalpost.com
Wednesday, 19 October 2011
Damn Straight Skippy !!
In an interview published Monday, taken in Times Square during Saturday’s global day of protests, Pulitzer-winning writer Chris Hedges explained his view of the “Occupy Wall Street” movement and why he’s supporting it.
“I spent 20 years overseas, I’m a war correspondent,” he said. “I came back and realized that corporations have carried out a coup d’état in my country.”
Hedges wrote for The New York Times, The Dallas Morning News and The Christian Science Monitor, and was part of the team that won the 2002 Pulitzer Prize for Explanatory Reporting, for a series of articles examining the terrorist attacks on the United States and profiling the al Qaeda network.
He went on: “What happens, and it’s true in all of these movements as well, is the foot soldiers of the elite, the blue uniform police, the mechanisms of control, finally don’t want to impede the movement. At that point, the power elite is left defenseless. So, where’s it going? No one knows. Even the people most intimately involved in the organization don’t know. All of these movements take on a kind of life and color that in some ways is finally mysterious. The only thing I can say, having been in the middle of similar movements, is that this one is real … And this one could take ‘em all down.”
Hedges went on to say that large segments of the blue uniform police largely agree with the 99 Percent movement, and that many other police are frustrated because protesters aren’t breaking windows, which they “know how to handle.” He added that the protesters’ “non-hierarchical structure” for decision making is “brilliant,” and suggested that he had nothing he could possibly teach them.
Finally, addressing an individual standing off-camera, Hedges concluded: “For me, I got kids. It’s not about me anymore. It’s about my childrens’ generation. I think my passion for what you are doing — I would even use the word love — comes from the fact that I look as you as fighting on behalf of my little three-year-old, and when I … On Friday morning, of course I was up to find out what happened … And I did what I do now, which is to start crying. God bless you all.”
This video was published to YouTube on Monday, Oct. 17, 2011.
Sunday, 9 October 2011
Occupy WallStreet - Their new champion ?
Alan Grayson, former representative from Florida just dished out a can of whoop-ass on the Bill Maher show. He got a standing ovation for explaining, in plain language just why the Occupy Wall Street movement is out there and just what they're about.
Kudos to Mr. Grayson !
Kudos to Mr. Grayson !
Thursday, 6 October 2011
Occupy Wall Street - A Primer for you
Some of you may be a bit hazy on just what all this Occupy Wall Street stuff is all about, so below are a few points to think over. There's plenty more but these should get you going.
It's ok for you & I to worry about our job prospects or job security, our dwindling bank accounts, our non-existent or destroyed retirement savings, the future prospects for our kids, losing our homes, etc..etc..etc...
As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth. The next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%. Only 15% of the wealth goes for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers).
________________________________________________________________
BUT
As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth. The next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%. Only 15% of the wealth goes for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers).
The top one percent of households has 38.3% of all privately held
stock, 60.6% of financial securities, and 62.4% of business equity.
According to the Federal Reserve, U.S. corporations held a record
$1.93 trillion in cash on their balance sheets in 2010. But they are not
investing to expand their companies, grow the real economy or create good
middle-class jobs. Corporate CEOs are literally hoarding their company's
cash-except when it comes to their own paychecks. AFL-CIO
In 2010, Standard & Poor's 500 Index company CEOs received, on
average, $11.4 million in total compensation- a 23 percent increase in one year.
Based on 299 companies' most recent pay data for 2010, their combined total CEO
pay of $3.4 billion could support 102,325 median workers' jobs. AFL-CIO
________________________________________________________________
So now that you've been armed with some arguing points, why not print off a few of the posters below, hand them out to your friends and go protest in YOUR city / country.
Occupy Wall Street - And anywhere else you can
The New York City General Assembly — the decision-making body for the
“Occupy Wall Street” protest in lower Manhattan — approved a statement
of purpose on Friday amid concerns that the movement lacked a clear
message.
As corporations enjoy near record profits and Americans face staggering unemployment, protesters have pledged to occupy Wall Street in lower Manhattan until something is done about corporate greed and the influence of the wealthy on American politics. The protesters have been camped out in New York’s old Liberty Plaza, now called Zuccotti Park, since September 17.
As we gather together in solidarity to express a feeling of mass injustice, we must not lose sight of what brought us together. We write so that all people who feel wronged by the corporate forces of the world can know that we are your allies.
As one people, united, we acknowledge the reality: that the future of the human race requires the cooperation of its members; that our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their neighbors; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people, but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power.
We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments.
We have peaceably assembled here, as is our right, to let these facts be known.
Exercise your right to peaceably assemble; occupy public space; create a process to address the problems we face, and generate solutions accessible to everyone.
To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy, we offer support, documentation, and all of the resources at our disposal.
Join us and make your voices heard!
*These grievances are not all-inclusive.
As corporations enjoy near record profits and Americans face staggering unemployment, protesters have pledged to occupy Wall Street in lower Manhattan until something is done about corporate greed and the influence of the wealthy on American politics. The protesters have been camped out in New York’s old Liberty Plaza, now called Zuccotti Park, since September 17.
As we gather together in solidarity to express a feeling of mass injustice, we must not lose sight of what brought us together. We write so that all people who feel wronged by the corporate forces of the world can know that we are your allies.
As one people, united, we acknowledge the reality: that the future of the human race requires the cooperation of its members; that our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their neighbors; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people, but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power.
We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments.
We have peaceably assembled here, as is our right, to let these facts be known.
- They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage.
- They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give Executives exorbitant bonuses.
- They have perpetuated inequality and discrimination in the workplace based on age, the color of one’s skin, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation.
- They have poisoned the food supply through negligence, and undermined the farming system through monopolization.
- They have profited off of the torture, confinement, and cruel treatment of countless animals, and actively hide these practices.
- They have continuously sought to strip employees of the right to negotiate for better pay and safer working conditions.
- They have held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right.
- They have consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut workers’ healthcare and pay.
- They have influenced the courts to achieve the same rights as people, with none of the culpability or responsibility.
- They have spent millions of dollars on legal teams that look for ways to get them out of contracts in regards to health insurance.
- They have sold our privacy as a commodity.
- They have used the military and police force to prevent freedom of the press. They have deliberately declined to recall faulty products endangering lives in pursuit of profit.
- They determine economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have produced and continue to produce.
- They have donated large sums of money to politicians, who are responsible for regulating them.
- They continue to block alternate forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil.
- They continue to block generic forms of medicine that could save people’s lives or provide relief in order to protect investments that have already turned a substantial profit.
- They have purposely covered up oil spills, accidents, faulty bookkeeping, and inactive ingredients in pursuit of profit.
- They purposefully keep people misinformed and fearful through their control of the media.
- They have accepted private contracts to murder prisoners even when presented with serious doubts about their guilt.
- They have perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad. They have participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas.
- They continue to create weapons of mass destruction in order to receive government contracts. *
Exercise your right to peaceably assemble; occupy public space; create a process to address the problems we face, and generate solutions accessible to everyone.
To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy, we offer support, documentation, and all of the resources at our disposal.
Join us and make your voices heard!
*These grievances are not all-inclusive.
Tuesday, 26 July 2011
Debt Blame Game - Donkey vs. Elephant Edition
Well, August 2nd is just around the corner and you know what that means kids. That's right......The favorite pasttime of American Politicians is in full swing. It's time to let's play
For a much saner explanation (if you need one) on what the graph above is trying to illustrate, please refer to the Atlantic that I blatantly ripped it off from.
"Your party is responsible for the current economic morass.....No, yours is.....No Yours is.....NO YOURS IS.....BOOM !!"
For a much saner explanation (if you need one) on what the graph above is trying to illustrate, please refer to the Atlantic that I blatantly ripped it off from.
Tuesday, 21 June 2011
G20: By the Numbers
 |
| What we wished we'd seen during the G20 |
- 1,100: Approximate number of people arrested during last summer’s G20 summit
- 317: Number of people charged with criminal offences related to the G20 summit
- 187: Criminal charges withdrawn since the G20 summit
- 58: Per cent of G20-related charges withdrawn, stayed or dismissed (187 cases)
- 39: Defendants who took advantage of diversion programs and had their charges dropped
- 24: Number of people who have pleaded guilty of G20-related crimes since the summit
- 11: Defendants subject to peace bonds
- 9: Number of people erroneously listed as charged
Source: Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General
 |
| What we actually saw |
Sunday, 19 June 2011
Anthony Weiner's Uncensored Penis Picture Plus 10 Other Images That Are Even More Obscene (Warning: Graphic)
Taken from AlterNet (I didn't ask but I do attribute.)
Weiner's junk isn't the only perverse image rocketing around the Internet -- here are 10 other shocking pics.
June 9, 2011 |
Editor's note: The following article contains images that may be shocking to some readers. It is not “work-safe,” and is intended only for mature audiences.
Almost two weeks have passed since the first racy picture of Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-New York, emerged on the Internet. Since then, the eyes of the world – or at least the major news media – have been riveted on the story as it has unfolded.
The photographic evidence of the congressman's perfidy has become ever more extreme. What began with a pair of boxer shorts led to pictures of Weiner's uncovered pectoral muscles, and finally, to the unvarnished image of a man's erect penis – a penis later confirmed to belong to Anthony Weiner.
That photo has since been removed from YFrog, but we've posted a copy of it here as a public service to our readers.
But Weiner's wiener wasn't the first obscene photograph to zoom around the Internet, and it won't be the last. We scoured our files for some other perverse images that may be getting less attention than the Weinergate pics, but are just as important.
Here are 10 of the most profane.
1. On Average, 48 Young Women Are Raped Every Hour In the Congo
Below is an image of Congolese women fleeing from the latest outbreak of violence in a series of civil wars that have devastated the country for the last 15 years – hot-points in a conflict that has led to more deaths than any other since World War II.
There's nothing obscene about the photograph, but according to Al Jazeera, “more than 1,100 women are raped every day in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), making sexual violence against women 26 times more common than previously thought, a study has concluded.”
More than 400,000 women and girls between the ages of 15 to 49 were raped in the war-ravaged country in central Africa during a 12-month period in 2006 and 2007, according to the study published in the American Journal of Public Health on Wednesday.
That is 26 times more than the 15,000 women that the United Nations has reported were raped there during the same 12 months.
"Our results confirm that previous estimates of rape and sexual violence are severe underestimates of the true prevalence of sexual violence occurring in the DRC," Amber Peterman, lead author of the study, said.
"Even these new, much higher figures still represent a conservative estimate of the true prevalence of sexual violence because of chronic underreporting due to stigma, shame, perceived impunity, and exclusion of younger and older age groups as well as men," she said.
2. Murder-by-State
This is Troy Davis, pictured with his mother, Virginia. Davis has languished on death row since his conviction for the shooting death of Savannah, Georgia police officer Mark MacPhail in 1989.
Of the nine witnesses who identified Davis as the shooter, seven have since recanted their testimony, claiming the police threatened and coerced them into identifying Davis, who has always maintained his innocence. One of the two witnesses who are sticking to their stories is Sylvester "Redd" Coles, originally a suspect in the case. Coles was seen acting “suspiciously” near the scene, and a witness later testified that he had bragged about killing a police officer at a party.
Davis' final appeal was rejected without comment by the Supreme Court in March, setting the stage for a new execution date – his fourth. The state delayed setting a date after Davis' mother died suddenly on April 14. Davis was not allowed to attend her funeral.
3. U.S. Steps Up Airwar to Defend Brutal Dictator
This is a picture of Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh, a strong-arm dictator who has been in power since 1978. (He rose to power following the assassination of his predecessor, and then “won” the country's first direct election with a Stalinesque 96 percent of the vote.) Saleh was a close ally of Saddam Hussein, and supported the Iraqi leader's 1990 invasion of Kuwait.
According to the New York Times, “The Obama administration has intensified the American covert war in Yemen, exploiting a growing power vacuum in the country to strike at militant suspects with armed drones and fighter jets.”
The recent operations come after a nearly year-long pause in American airstrikes, which were halted amid concerns that poor intelligence had led to bungled missions and civilian deaths that were undercutting the goals of the secret campaign...
The extent of America’s war in Yemen has been among the Obama administration’s most closely guarded secrets, as officials worried that news of unilateral American operations could undermine Mr. Saleh’s tenuous grip on power.
Four civilians were reportedly killed in airstrikes targetting al Qaeda-linked militants in Yemen last Friday.
4. Murder by Health-Insurance
This is the University Medical Center in Tucson, Arizona -- the scene of a perverse crime.
Early last year, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed a budget that eliminated the Children’s Health Insurance Program, denying health care to 47,000 low-income kids in Arizona. But she wasn't finished. Last October, Arizona also eliminated funding for certain organ transplants covered under Medicaid.
According to the Arizona Daily Star, in January, the medical center confirmed that “a patient who was refused a liver transplant because of state budget cuts has died.”
The death was "most likely" due to the defunding of the organ transplant, said Jo Marie Gellerman, University of Arizona Department of Surgery spokeswoman....
The patient is the second person to reportedly die while waiting for one of the transplants that were cut. Between 95 and 100 people were taken off a waiting list for organ transplants when the defunding took effect.
5. Modern-Day Hoovervilles, In the Richest Country in the World
This is a tent city outside Sacramento, California, last summer. There are now approximately 14 million Americans who want a job and can't find one. In March, the average length of joblessness for all unemployed workers was a record 39 weeks. Many of those people relied on their unemployment insurance to get by until it ran out and they still haven't found work -- they've come to be known as "99ers," as extended unemployment benefits in many states last a maximum of 99 weeks. Researchers at the National Employment Law Project estimate there were 3.9 million 99ers out of work last year, and project a similar number for 2011.
Meanwhile, as I noted last month, it's not only Washington that has largely turned a blind eye to the catastrophic jobs situation; a study of the corporate media's economic coverage conducted by the National Journal found that “major U.S. newspapers have increasingly shifted their attention away from coverage of unemployment in recent months while greatly intensifying their focus on the deficit.” (The study was conducted before Anthony Weiner's penis started making major news.)
But the real obscenity here is that rather than make a concerted effort to help these people, communities across the country are breaking up tent cities as they pop up, and giving law enforcement new tools with which to harass the homeless.
6. Executed Boy
This is an Afghan boy named Gul Mudin. He was around 15 years of age when a U.S. army “kill team” murdered him in cold blood, according to an investigative report featured in Rolling Stone.
According to sworn statements, two soldiers – Cpl. Jeremy Morlock and Pfc. Andrew Holmes – staged the killing to make it look like they had been under attack. Ordering the boy to stand still, they crouched behind a mud wall, tossed a grenade at him and opened fire from close range. This photograph shows Mudin’s body lying by the wall where he was killed.
Mudin was one of four Afghans murdered by the rogue unit. They represented a tiny portion of the total – according to the most conservative estimates, over 8,000 civilians have been killed since the U.S.-led intervention began.
7. Millionaire Playboy Escapes Prison by Paying Blood Money
Pictured below is one Ryan LeVin, a “millionaire playboy” who killed two tourists in Florida when he lost control of his Porsche while hurtling down a street at over 100 miles an hour, fled the scene and then lied to cops about who had been behind the wheel at the time of the crash.
At the time, LeVin had been on parole in Illinois, where he had over 50 moving violations, including one for an incident in which he struck a police officer before fleeing.
LeVin faced up to 45 years in prison for the Florida killings, but his lawyer “argued that the need for LeVin to pay restitution to the men's widows and children outweighed the need for LeVin to serve prison time.”
"The wives and children of the deceased were significantly and permanently impacted by this incident, and they have indicated ... that there exists a great necessity for restitution which the defendant can, and will, make, if permitted a sentence devoid of incarceration," LeVin's defense attorney David Bogenschutz wrote in court documents.
According to the Huffington Post, LeVin was “sentenced to two years of house arrest, which he will serve at one of his parents' two luxury seaside condos. He will be able to use the gym in the building and go to church.”
He offered no apologies to the victims' families during the hearing; his lawyer asked the court to return his Porsche.
8. Unarmed Protesters Gunned Down in Occupied Territories
According to the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, this young protester was unarmed when he was shot by Israeli security forces on May 15, a day of commemoration of the Palestinians' expulsion from their homes during the formation of the state of Israel. He was lucky – a total of 15 Palestinians were reportedly killed that day.
This week, the L.A. Times reported that “Israeli security forces opened fire Sunday on throngs of pro-Palestinian protesters who were attempting to breach the border by crossing from Syria into the Golan Heights, the second such deadly incident in less than a month.” As many as 20 protesters were killed and 270 others were wounded, according to reports in the Syrian press.
9. Too Big To Jail
This is Brad Hintz, the top-ranked analyst for the Wall Street research firm Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. According to Hintz, Goldman Sachs is not only too big to fail, it's also too big to jail for rampant fraud that contributed to the worst recession since the Great Depression.
Hintz wrote that investors shouldn't worry too much about Goldman's criminal liability, despite the fact that the Justice Department is reviewing a blistering Senate report that unearthed major allegations of criminality on the part of the Wall Street giant. Noting that the Justice Department has eased prosecutions against the big Wall Street players since accounting firm Arthur Andersen LLP collapsed following a felony charge, Hintz argued that Goldman, like other major players accused of fraud, would likely be “treated not as a hardened criminal but as the equivalent of a juvenile offender that can be reformed.”
In a worst-case environment, we would expect a “too big to fail” bank such as Goldman to be offered a deferred-prosecution agreement, pay a significant fine and submit to a federal monitor in lieu of a criminal charge.
According to Bloomberg, “under a deferred-prosecution agreement, the U.S. files charges against a company and agrees to dismiss them after a certain period, typically if the company pays a fine or penalty and improves its governance or other practices.” Last October, the Justice Department dismissed a conspiracy case against UBS AG – Switzerland’s biggest bank -- after the expiration of an 18-month deferred prosecution agreement with the Zurich-based firm.
10. Haiti
Below is a photograph of dead Haitians, victims of last January's devastating earthquake, gathered in an open pit before burial in a mass grave. All of the males in the photo presumably own penises, images of which weren't sent around the world on Twitter. So there's that.
This week, heavy flooding killed at least 25 people in Haiti. It was a little-reported story. The floods have aggravated a cholera epidemic that has sickened over 330,000 Haitians, killing over 5,000, since it broke out in mid-October.
Earlier this year, the Department of Homeland Security announced that it would resume deportations for undocumented immigrants from Haiti – a move that was condemned by international human rights groups. (Last month, the government offered a temporary reprieve for some Haitians eligible to be sent back to their decimated country.)
In November, the UN reported that most countries had failed to deliver on their pledges of aid to Haiti. According to the Washington Examiner,
… Only $506 million, or 18.9 per cent of the international assistance promised for 2010 has so far been provided.
International donors promised $5.3 billion to Haiti after the earthquake. Only four countries have delivered any money at all. The US and Venezuela pledged more than $1 billion each but have delivered nothing. As of 14 July 2010, less than 2 percent of the money that has been promised had been delivered, according to a CNN investigation.
That's every bit as obscene as the rest of these stories, none of which garnered even a small fraction of the coverage that Weinergate has triggered. While they may not be as salacious as a sex scandal lacking actual sex – or as vitally important to the national interest -- we thought we'd share them with you anyway.
Sunday, 5 June 2011
Saleh - Medical Care for Me....None for You !!
Yemeni President Saleh has reportedly been wounded in a recent artillery attack on a Mosque in his compound in Sanaa. Blaming the attack on an "outlaw gang" he managed to jet off to Saudi Arabia for medical treatment. Nice for him.........
See folks, if you're a dictatorial President, despite the fact that your country is one of the poorest in the world, you can jet off to a sympathetic country to get yourself patched up.
Never mind the fact that the countrymen you've left behind have little or no access to even rudimentary medical care. Never mind the fact that the citizens of your country are fighting for their freedoms, for their basic rights and ummmm....maybe a chance to one day have someone in your office who actually gives a rat's ass about how their lives are going.
But that's ok, you go off and fly to Riyadh, get yourself patched up. I'm sure while you're there you can do some house hunting. Lord knows the Saudi's will be more than gracious as hosts (as long as your money holds out). Ohh, and by the way, speaking of the money you've obviously stashed away for a "rainy day", it's not yours, it's the people's. I'm sure you were drawing a decent salary, lived in a nice palace, had servants and plenty of food to eat but didn't you notice the fact that your citizens are barely getting by ? Didn't you notice that your once proud country is now an international pariah ? Your people with centuries of history are now tearing themselves and the nation apart ?
If there was ever a time for a staph infection to set in, let this be it....
Friday, 20 May 2011
Rogers - The Demon Spawn of TelCo's (Part 2)
## If you have never dealt with Roger's, DON'T, if you are with Rogers, GET OUT while you can ##
I didn't think it possible. I mean that, literally and honestly. I didn't think they could or even would try but Rogers has gone and topped themselves earlier this evening. For a shining example of corporate gluttony, bureaucratic ineptitude, flat out greed and a complete lack of customer relations ability, look no further than Rogers.
I got a call earlier today from a Rogers manager who was looking to help me resolve my ongoing BlackBerry issues. The first words out of his mouth after introductions were
"What seems to be the problem with your phone ?"
Well, once more I have to explain it all, this time to Mohamed who I gather is a manager of some sort. He obviously had all the notes from my previous calls infront of him but he wanted me to re-hash everything. At the end of my 5 minute monologue which is basically
"The phone doesn't work, it's under warranty, 6 weeks old, I've lost time, money, data and patience and I want Rogers to make it right..."
I hear him inhale and so it begins.......
Rogers is going to offer me one of two solutions but he highly recommends the second
First off, why would I want a refurbished phone ? If I bought a brand new car that didn't work, would I really want the dealer to offer me as a replacement some other guy's that wasn't quite working and had just recently been in the shop getting repaired ? Second, why in the hell should I pay Rogers $35 for the "privelage" of having them provide me with a working handset ? It's obvious that the one they sold me isn't working and I have to pay to correct that issue ?
As for the option to hand over my handset and then get a loaner for only $100 deposit.....(inset rolling eyes and confused look here). I don't know about you but I don't have $100 to give Rogers and then have them apply a credit to my account down the road. They don't trust me to return their crappy loaner and demand $100 to make sure I don't walk off with it ? That's insulting.
What's more, their loaner is an older model. By old I don't mean last year's old, I mean OLD. Like Bush era presidency old. This handset doesn't have the memory, speed or features that I've already paid for nor will it run the software that I've already purchased for my existing handheld. To top it all off, any data that I enter on my "loaner" won't be transferable back onto my returned & hopefully repaired phone. So now I've lost my original data, plus any data on the "loaner" phone and I get charged my full monthly fees PLUS $100 for my efforts ?!?
I suggest to the man from Rogers that a simple, easy and quick alternative solution would be for them to simply put a brand new handset on a truck and ship it off to me. Easy as pie..... I get the model and the features that I paid for, Rogers gets the original handset back to use as a "loaner" for the next guy after it's been "refurbished".
But no, this is not permitted. Rogers claims the handset costs them $750 and they've only made a 3% markup on it when they sold the first one to me so they couldn't possibly do that. Honestly, if Rogers is paying $750 for a BlackBerry 9780, RIM is doing better than I thought and Rogers has no business sense when it comes to negotiating what must be a volume contract with RIM.
It's only when I asked for a day to consider my options, evaluate other carriers and also my legal standing with regards to the warranties that he came back with one counter offer after another.
Splitting of the $35 fees for a "refurbished" phone, waiving the fees, loaning me a non-internet phone for a lower deposit etc...etc..etc.. When I mentioned the fact that I paid for, needed and expected an internet ready phone as per my contract he actually claimed that I wasn't entitled to anything beyond the RIM handset warranty and should just accept what he had offered.
The fact that this whole affair has cost me time, money and a great deal of inconvenience he suggested, could be written off as a business expense by me. I should write off the $35 or I should write off the $100 etc. My jaw dropped. He was actually admitting that I had and would continue to incurr expenses and inconvenience but that I should write them off as a business expense ? But Rogers was in no way obligated to compensate me for the issues with the phone & service that I have paid them to provide ?
Once again, Rogers demonstrates that once a company gets large enough, they couldn't give a rat's ass for you as a customer. They will promise you champagne service and deliver you flat ginger-ale. If you have never dealt with Rogers, DON'T, if you, like me are stuck with them, then at your earliest convenience leave. Put plainly, Rogers sucks ass.
I didn't think it possible. I mean that, literally and honestly. I didn't think they could or even would try but Rogers has gone and topped themselves earlier this evening. For a shining example of corporate gluttony, bureaucratic ineptitude, flat out greed and a complete lack of customer relations ability, look no further than Rogers.
I got a call earlier today from a Rogers manager who was looking to help me resolve my ongoing BlackBerry issues. The first words out of his mouth after introductions were
"What seems to be the problem with your phone ?"
Well, once more I have to explain it all, this time to Mohamed who I gather is a manager of some sort. He obviously had all the notes from my previous calls infront of him but he wanted me to re-hash everything. At the end of my 5 minute monologue which is basically
"The phone doesn't work, it's under warranty, 6 weeks old, I've lost time, money, data and patience and I want Rogers to make it right..."
I hear him inhale and so it begins.......
Rogers is going to offer me one of two solutions but he highly recommends the second
I request a new phone which will be shipped out to me at a cost of $35.00 but the phone's not actually new, it's a refurbished phone. This is one that belonged to someone else, Rogers/RIM think they've got it working now and are willing to let me have it. Obviously I have to give them my current handset which then goes and get's "refurbished" to get passed off on the next lucky guy.
OR
I go to a Rogers store, give them my current, broken handset and a $100 deposit for which they will loan me an older model. Problem is, their "loaner" phone doesn't have the same functionality as my model nor can I use the loaner for 10 days and then transfer all my data back onto my original phone when it gets returned to me from RIM.
First off, why would I want a refurbished phone ? If I bought a brand new car that didn't work, would I really want the dealer to offer me as a replacement some other guy's that wasn't quite working and had just recently been in the shop getting repaired ? Second, why in the hell should I pay Rogers $35 for the "privelage" of having them provide me with a working handset ? It's obvious that the one they sold me isn't working and I have to pay to correct that issue ?
As for the option to hand over my handset and then get a loaner for only $100 deposit.....(inset rolling eyes and confused look here). I don't know about you but I don't have $100 to give Rogers and then have them apply a credit to my account down the road. They don't trust me to return their crappy loaner and demand $100 to make sure I don't walk off with it ? That's insulting.
What's more, their loaner is an older model. By old I don't mean last year's old, I mean OLD. Like Bush era presidency old. This handset doesn't have the memory, speed or features that I've already paid for nor will it run the software that I've already purchased for my existing handheld. To top it all off, any data that I enter on my "loaner" won't be transferable back onto my returned & hopefully repaired phone. So now I've lost my original data, plus any data on the "loaner" phone and I get charged my full monthly fees PLUS $100 for my efforts ?!?
I suggest to the man from Rogers that a simple, easy and quick alternative solution would be for them to simply put a brand new handset on a truck and ship it off to me. Easy as pie..... I get the model and the features that I paid for, Rogers gets the original handset back to use as a "loaner" for the next guy after it's been "refurbished".
But no, this is not permitted. Rogers claims the handset costs them $750 and they've only made a 3% markup on it when they sold the first one to me so they couldn't possibly do that. Honestly, if Rogers is paying $750 for a BlackBerry 9780, RIM is doing better than I thought and Rogers has no business sense when it comes to negotiating what must be a volume contract with RIM.
It's only when I asked for a day to consider my options, evaluate other carriers and also my legal standing with regards to the warranties that he came back with one counter offer after another.
Splitting of the $35 fees for a "refurbished" phone, waiving the fees, loaning me a non-internet phone for a lower deposit etc...etc..etc.. When I mentioned the fact that I paid for, needed and expected an internet ready phone as per my contract he actually claimed that I wasn't entitled to anything beyond the RIM handset warranty and should just accept what he had offered.
The fact that this whole affair has cost me time, money and a great deal of inconvenience he suggested, could be written off as a business expense by me. I should write off the $35 or I should write off the $100 etc. My jaw dropped. He was actually admitting that I had and would continue to incurr expenses and inconvenience but that I should write them off as a business expense ? But Rogers was in no way obligated to compensate me for the issues with the phone & service that I have paid them to provide ?
Once again, Rogers demonstrates that once a company gets large enough, they couldn't give a rat's ass for you as a customer. They will promise you champagne service and deliver you flat ginger-ale. If you have never dealt with Rogers, DON'T, if you, like me are stuck with them, then at your earliest convenience leave. Put plainly, Rogers sucks ass.
Wednesday, 18 May 2011
Rogers - The demon spawn of Telcos
There was once a time when customer service could be summed up with the phrase "The Customer is ALWAYS right." Those days are long gone at Rogers, a Canadian TelCo, CableCo and general corporate badass.
I was recently forced to "upgrade" from my iPhone at Rogers because mine had stopped working (I couldn't dial out). Rogers, in it's infinite wisdom decided that they would only offer me an early "upgrade" to a BlackBerry because iPhones were out of stock, too expensive and I wasn't worth the effort. If I had been a new customer off the street they would've sold me the iPhone for $99 but they wanted to charge me $399 (after 12 years as a customer of theirs).
Long story short, Rogers gets me a new Blackberry, it's not what I wanted and not what I could afford based on their unique (lets screw the people already on contract) pricing structure but it's the best they would offer me and hey, I need a working phone so I agreed to it.
Well, the Blackberry and I had a couple of weeks of teething problems but in time I got used to using it though I did sorely miss the iPhone. The only saving grace of the BlackBerry is the size of the handset and the physical keys but I digress.
Anyways, just recently my BlackBerry stopped syncing with my online calendar and like any self respecting geek, I went to the handset's setup application to check the settings and try to diagnose the problem. Big Mistake. The BlackBerry told me I had to upgrade my "Email Setup Application" and so I started and voila, 30 minutes later, my now 6 week old Blackberry is crashed, bricked, fubar, a paperweight. The RIM/Rogers software upgrade managed to crash the handheld's operating system making the whole thing completely unusable.
"WHAT THE FUCK ?!?!?" I shouted at the handset and laptop as I scrambled to figure out what had happened.
So I call Rogers on a landline (I was visiting someone who still had an actual phone with a cord) and proceeded to deal with the tech support person. After about 90 minutes of very garbled english and an even more garbled attempt to diagnose the problem and offer a solution, I finally gave up on Rogers and went to the RIM (BlackBerry's Maker) support website to see if I could do this on my own seeing as how the Rogers tech seemed to have no idea what he was doing, let alone a basic grasp of english pronunciation.
A few hours later, I managed to get the phone limping back to life. Still not sure what happened to it and it still wasn't working properly but at least I could dial out on it and it WAS giving me email. Problem is, all the data I had entered into the phone (Bookmarks, Passwords, Calendar entries, Contacts, Memos, Notes etc.) were ALL GONE !! Those backups I'd been making every week "just in case" ? Well, they were worth shit as the phone didn't want to restore them. BAH !!
Then yesterday, like an idiot I go back to RIM's website and read up a bit more on the issue looking for some glimmer of hope in terms of getting my phone back up & running. I am delusional, I know this but I truly thought that in todays day & age, the manufacturer's site would be the best source of information and advice. Pffft...was I ever an innocent lamb in the woods.
Following the advice of other RIM customers I thought that I would try the app update one more time, the very same thing that caused this whole problem to begin with, but this time I knew the steps to recover and had read of some people who had successfully installed the upgrade and were merrily BB'ing forth. I wanted into that promised land of email, calendar AND phone in my palm so, as I said above, like an idiot I tried one more time. Can you guess where this is headed ?
Last night at precisely 6:49pm, I proved that man should not be allowed to mess with the primeval forces of BlackBerry, especially a man as obviously gullible as me. Once again I had transformed a semi-working BlackBerry into a $300 paperweight, but hey, I at least did it in record time....Yippie !! (insert laugh track here)
So 7:00pm rolls around and I'm on a landline talking with a Rogers Tech support person AGAIN. Only this time he's asking me to use a Windows computer. Funny, I don't remember seeing a label on the BB that said it didn't roll with the Mac OS-X crowd but apparently, if you wanna be a BB geek, Windows is the only way to roll. So I get Windows installed on my Mac Laptop, do as the tech suggests, try installing this and that, connecting, refreshing, pulling batteries out of the handset over and over, rebooting, installing, waiting and seething.
One hour later and I completely loose it on the tech.
I tried using a chronology to explain things to him like you would to a two year old.
1. I am trying to get a calendar and email to work on a phone that was doing this fine until last week
2. I read the manual and tried to use the Blackberry provided program that sets this whole thing up in the first place.
3. The Blackberry program demands that it be upgraded before it can proceed so........I upgrade
4. The upgrade breaks my phone, crashing it and causing data loss
5. I then get to spend 45 minutes reinstalling the system to get back to step 1 without fixing the original problem
I paid good money for the handset, I pay good money every month for the services and I now have a handset that makes calls only. Unacceptable, I demand service, a solution, a fix and I expect someone to compensate me for my wasted time, lost data and productivity...etc....
What does Rogers offer me ? A tech who wants to experiment on my phone and when I lose it on him and demand a manager, he gets me on to someone from Customer Service. Now these people are the cream of the crop, you know the ones...They can give you free texting or knock $5 off your bill. These are the real "fixers" at Rogers. The people who are endowed with that extra thick skin and the ever so slightly condescending voice that basically says "We'll throw you a little bone but never admit we screwed you over".
This woman proved to be nothing of the sort. She was from the get go a brick wall, I could have mistaken her for a voice recording, some pavlovian response was all she could muster.
"It's a technical issue and you'll have to deal with them"
"Well, I had been, for the last several hours you dim-wit !!" (I think I was a bit more polite though)
"Well what would you like me to do sir"
"Fix it, get me a new phone that works, that does what I am paying you to have it do......"
"It's a technical issue and you'll have to deal with them"
"Well, I had been, for the last several hours you dim-wit !!" (I was becoming less polite now)
LATHER, RINSE, REPEAT....45 minutes later......
"Rogers Technical Support....How can I help you......."
AARRGGHHHHHHHHHHH !!!
I was recently forced to "upgrade" from my iPhone at Rogers because mine had stopped working (I couldn't dial out). Rogers, in it's infinite wisdom decided that they would only offer me an early "upgrade" to a BlackBerry because iPhones were out of stock, too expensive and I wasn't worth the effort. If I had been a new customer off the street they would've sold me the iPhone for $99 but they wanted to charge me $399 (after 12 years as a customer of theirs).
Long story short, Rogers gets me a new Blackberry, it's not what I wanted and not what I could afford based on their unique (lets screw the people already on contract) pricing structure but it's the best they would offer me and hey, I need a working phone so I agreed to it.
Well, the Blackberry and I had a couple of weeks of teething problems but in time I got used to using it though I did sorely miss the iPhone. The only saving grace of the BlackBerry is the size of the handset and the physical keys but I digress.
Anyways, just recently my BlackBerry stopped syncing with my online calendar and like any self respecting geek, I went to the handset's setup application to check the settings and try to diagnose the problem. Big Mistake. The BlackBerry told me I had to upgrade my "Email Setup Application" and so I started and voila, 30 minutes later, my now 6 week old Blackberry is crashed, bricked, fubar, a paperweight. The RIM/Rogers software upgrade managed to crash the handheld's operating system making the whole thing completely unusable.
"WHAT THE FUCK ?!?!?" I shouted at the handset and laptop as I scrambled to figure out what had happened.
So I call Rogers on a landline (I was visiting someone who still had an actual phone with a cord) and proceeded to deal with the tech support person. After about 90 minutes of very garbled english and an even more garbled attempt to diagnose the problem and offer a solution, I finally gave up on Rogers and went to the RIM (BlackBerry's Maker) support website to see if I could do this on my own seeing as how the Rogers tech seemed to have no idea what he was doing, let alone a basic grasp of english pronunciation.
A few hours later, I managed to get the phone limping back to life. Still not sure what happened to it and it still wasn't working properly but at least I could dial out on it and it WAS giving me email. Problem is, all the data I had entered into the phone (Bookmarks, Passwords, Calendar entries, Contacts, Memos, Notes etc.) were ALL GONE !! Those backups I'd been making every week "just in case" ? Well, they were worth shit as the phone didn't want to restore them. BAH !!
Then yesterday, like an idiot I go back to RIM's website and read up a bit more on the issue looking for some glimmer of hope in terms of getting my phone back up & running. I am delusional, I know this but I truly thought that in todays day & age, the manufacturer's site would be the best source of information and advice. Pffft...was I ever an innocent lamb in the woods.
Following the advice of other RIM customers I thought that I would try the app update one more time, the very same thing that caused this whole problem to begin with, but this time I knew the steps to recover and had read of some people who had successfully installed the upgrade and were merrily BB'ing forth. I wanted into that promised land of email, calendar AND phone in my palm so, as I said above, like an idiot I tried one more time. Can you guess where this is headed ?
Last night at precisely 6:49pm, I proved that man should not be allowed to mess with the primeval forces of BlackBerry, especially a man as obviously gullible as me. Once again I had transformed a semi-working BlackBerry into a $300 paperweight, but hey, I at least did it in record time....Yippie !! (insert laugh track here)
So 7:00pm rolls around and I'm on a landline talking with a Rogers Tech support person AGAIN. Only this time he's asking me to use a Windows computer. Funny, I don't remember seeing a label on the BB that said it didn't roll with the Mac OS-X crowd but apparently, if you wanna be a BB geek, Windows is the only way to roll. So I get Windows installed on my Mac Laptop, do as the tech suggests, try installing this and that, connecting, refreshing, pulling batteries out of the handset over and over, rebooting, installing, waiting and seething.
One hour later and I completely loose it on the tech.
I tried using a chronology to explain things to him like you would to a two year old.
1. I am trying to get a calendar and email to work on a phone that was doing this fine until last week
2. I read the manual and tried to use the Blackberry provided program that sets this whole thing up in the first place.
3. The Blackberry program demands that it be upgraded before it can proceed so........I upgrade
4. The upgrade breaks my phone, crashing it and causing data loss
5. I then get to spend 45 minutes reinstalling the system to get back to step 1 without fixing the original problem
I paid good money for the handset, I pay good money every month for the services and I now have a handset that makes calls only. Unacceptable, I demand service, a solution, a fix and I expect someone to compensate me for my wasted time, lost data and productivity...etc....
What does Rogers offer me ? A tech who wants to experiment on my phone and when I lose it on him and demand a manager, he gets me on to someone from Customer Service. Now these people are the cream of the crop, you know the ones...They can give you free texting or knock $5 off your bill. These are the real "fixers" at Rogers. The people who are endowed with that extra thick skin and the ever so slightly condescending voice that basically says "We'll throw you a little bone but never admit we screwed you over".
This woman proved to be nothing of the sort. She was from the get go a brick wall, I could have mistaken her for a voice recording, some pavlovian response was all she could muster.
"It's a technical issue and you'll have to deal with them"
"Well, I had been, for the last several hours you dim-wit !!" (I think I was a bit more polite though)
"Well what would you like me to do sir"
"Fix it, get me a new phone that works, that does what I am paying you to have it do......"
"It's a technical issue and you'll have to deal with them"
"Well, I had been, for the last several hours you dim-wit !!" (I was becoming less polite now)
LATHER, RINSE, REPEAT....45 minutes later......
"Rogers Technical Support....How can I help you......."
AARRGGHHHHHHHHHHH !!!
Tuesday, 3 May 2011
How 61.4% of Canadians Voted
Election Day in Canada is over. The Conservatives have won their vaunted majority with just over 40% of the vote and I'm left wondering. If they only won 40% (+/-) then how can they be the government ? I know it has to do with the number of voted, ridings, some voodoo math and other esoteric crap but man....4 more years of that $%^#&$@%^#%^@%$^@@...I dunno.
There, I've vented. Regardless of my personal opinions I have to stand behind Mr. Harper as our Prime Minister. I respect the office if not necessarily the person who currently holds it and so I will grudgingly bite my tongue. That being said though, I am furious at roughly 40% of Canadians who for whatever reason (repeats of CSI or DWTS ?) opted to not exercise their right, their obligation as a citizen to vote for their own future ?
I know that apparently 60.1% turnout is regarded as decent but when it's something this important ? I really do think that voting should be an obligation. If you wanna collect welfare, social medicine, a pension or hell, live in the friggin country, you should be REQUIRED to vote. My Grandfather used to say that if you were too lazy to vote then you have no right to complain about the government. Casting a ballot, even if it doesn't swing your way gives you the right to complain. At least then you are part of the process, you've invested at least some of your thought, consideration and a tiny bit of effort in improving not only your lot in life but that of your fellow citizens.
Anyways, without further delay, here's Canada's wall of shame or triumph, depending on your political leanings.
SRW
There, I've vented. Regardless of my personal opinions I have to stand behind Mr. Harper as our Prime Minister. I respect the office if not necessarily the person who currently holds it and so I will grudgingly bite my tongue. That being said though, I am furious at roughly 40% of Canadians who for whatever reason (repeats of CSI or DWTS ?) opted to not exercise their right, their obligation as a citizen to vote for their own future ?
I know that apparently 60.1% turnout is regarded as decent but when it's something this important ? I really do think that voting should be an obligation. If you wanna collect welfare, social medicine, a pension or hell, live in the friggin country, you should be REQUIRED to vote. My Grandfather used to say that if you were too lazy to vote then you have no right to complain about the government. Casting a ballot, even if it doesn't swing your way gives you the right to complain. At least then you are part of the process, you've invested at least some of your thought, consideration and a tiny bit of effort in improving not only your lot in life but that of your fellow citizens.
Anyways, without further delay, here's Canada's wall of shame or triumph, depending on your political leanings.
SRW
 |
| Click to enlarge or just download it (right click) |
Saturday, 30 April 2011
We're voting for what ? A reader's digest version of political double-talk and babble.
Canadians go to the polls on Monday to elect a new government. Based on what I've read and heard over the last 5 weeks of campaigning it would seem that the Conservative Party is on track to once again be the majority party but this time with an NDP (New Democrat Party) led opposition. So sorry Steven, no majority for you and sorry Iggy, not PM title for you. Instead, it'll be smilin' Jack Layton of the NDP who gets to scream & yell on our collective behalf at the Conservatives.
Now a few things pop into my mind as the date approaches. Specifically, if 1 in 3 Canadians is anti-Harper, how in the hell can he still be our PM. I understand the electoral logic "blah blah blah" but come on. He was our minority PM for the last 5 years and he's IMHO dragged Canada downhill yet somehow he's going to get his old job back ? I understand that there's a lot of people who would argue that he's in fact done great things for our country but hey, this is my blog and they're all friggin' idiots.
Harper seems to have absolutely no respect for the urbanites of our country, has no respect for anyone east of Alberta, has no respect for the rule of our Supreme Court, has no respect for our democratic institutions like ohhh....Parliment and he obviously has no respect for the opposition's right to oppose, ask questions and expect answers. Yet somehow Stephen Harper, the dark overlord of the Sith is likely to get to keep his job. His corrupt and secretive cabal of insiders (I'm looking at you Senate and Cabinet) are going to get to keep their jobs and the tax breaks for the wealthy & corporations will continue while the rest of Canada adjusts their diets to water, gruel and cans of tuna.
Not to mention Harper's insistence that he's done absolutely nothing wrong by our country. Alienating our colleagues in the UN where we've NEVER been denied a rotating seat on the Security Council until HE came along. This pompous, arrogant, rich mamma's boy gladly spent $1 Billion dollars on a weekend party with his global cronies, had arrested anyone who complained about it, denied that the money was mis-spent on things like $2 Million dollar ponds and $250k gazebos and then when asked to account for where the money was spent and what benefits we Canadians would reap, told us all to basically suck it.
I think it's clear that I'm not a fan of our esteemed Conservative Leader. The sad thing is that I could spout some venom about his opponents as well.
Ignatief is a whiny academic who has the charisma of a turd and is behaving like the proverbial whiny little brat who's being denied the toy he really, really wants but he promises he'll be good from now on and if only we could all see the fact that he really is meant to be PM because, well.....just cause. I mean don't we know by now that the Liberal Party did great things back when moses was a babe and Ignatief is the ONLY one who can make it all better ? To hear him talk, every other party is crap, he's the only one who speaks for Canada and we should all just give him the job cause he's...well...he's not the other guy ?
Layton, well, Jack's an ok kinda guy but....He want's to be everybody's pal. Got an itch ? Jack'll scratch it for ya. Got a social cause that needs funding ? Jack'll fund it. Lofty aspirations and if we had the money, I'd be all for Jack's giving us all what we wanted but problem is, Jack can't seem to add. If we were to try actually paying for half the shit that Jack's promising then we'd make the current Greek economic crisis look like lollapalooza. Jack, I'd love to live in your socialist, everything's for free, open arms and kumbaya singing utopia but where's the money coming from ? Cap & Trade isn't even in place and yet Jack seems to think that it'll fund everything he's promising including getting grandma's dentures plated in gold, but c'mon Jack, you're moving up to the big league, time to stop playing with crayons & look at the numbers a bit more realistically.
So in the end, as a Canadian I'm left with 3 choices on May 2.
1. Darth Vader and the corporate oligarchy he wants to put in place. The man who would sell your sould to the corporations cause hey, they promise to create jobs (and fund his retirement)
2. The whiny "it's mine, it's mine, it's mine....waaaaa" sniveling academic who's only argument is that he's not the other guy
3. The smiling used car salesman who means well and is only asking to borrow your credit card to pay for it all
Some choice. I wonder if it's too late to throw my hat in the ring ?
Now a few things pop into my mind as the date approaches. Specifically, if 1 in 3 Canadians is anti-Harper, how in the hell can he still be our PM. I understand the electoral logic "blah blah blah" but come on. He was our minority PM for the last 5 years and he's IMHO dragged Canada downhill yet somehow he's going to get his old job back ? I understand that there's a lot of people who would argue that he's in fact done great things for our country but hey, this is my blog and they're all friggin' idiots.
Harper seems to have absolutely no respect for the urbanites of our country, has no respect for anyone east of Alberta, has no respect for the rule of our Supreme Court, has no respect for our democratic institutions like ohhh....Parliment and he obviously has no respect for the opposition's right to oppose, ask questions and expect answers. Yet somehow Stephen Harper, the dark overlord of the Sith is likely to get to keep his job. His corrupt and secretive cabal of insiders (I'm looking at you Senate and Cabinet) are going to get to keep their jobs and the tax breaks for the wealthy & corporations will continue while the rest of Canada adjusts their diets to water, gruel and cans of tuna.
Not to mention Harper's insistence that he's done absolutely nothing wrong by our country. Alienating our colleagues in the UN where we've NEVER been denied a rotating seat on the Security Council until HE came along. This pompous, arrogant, rich mamma's boy gladly spent $1 Billion dollars on a weekend party with his global cronies, had arrested anyone who complained about it, denied that the money was mis-spent on things like $2 Million dollar ponds and $250k gazebos and then when asked to account for where the money was spent and what benefits we Canadians would reap, told us all to basically suck it.
I think it's clear that I'm not a fan of our esteemed Conservative Leader. The sad thing is that I could spout some venom about his opponents as well.
Ignatief is a whiny academic who has the charisma of a turd and is behaving like the proverbial whiny little brat who's being denied the toy he really, really wants but he promises he'll be good from now on and if only we could all see the fact that he really is meant to be PM because, well.....just cause. I mean don't we know by now that the Liberal Party did great things back when moses was a babe and Ignatief is the ONLY one who can make it all better ? To hear him talk, every other party is crap, he's the only one who speaks for Canada and we should all just give him the job cause he's...well...he's not the other guy ?
Layton, well, Jack's an ok kinda guy but....He want's to be everybody's pal. Got an itch ? Jack'll scratch it for ya. Got a social cause that needs funding ? Jack'll fund it. Lofty aspirations and if we had the money, I'd be all for Jack's giving us all what we wanted but problem is, Jack can't seem to add. If we were to try actually paying for half the shit that Jack's promising then we'd make the current Greek economic crisis look like lollapalooza. Jack, I'd love to live in your socialist, everything's for free, open arms and kumbaya singing utopia but where's the money coming from ? Cap & Trade isn't even in place and yet Jack seems to think that it'll fund everything he's promising including getting grandma's dentures plated in gold, but c'mon Jack, you're moving up to the big league, time to stop playing with crayons & look at the numbers a bit more realistically.
So in the end, as a Canadian I'm left with 3 choices on May 2.
1. Darth Vader and the corporate oligarchy he wants to put in place. The man who would sell your sould to the corporations cause hey, they promise to create jobs (and fund his retirement)
2. The whiny "it's mine, it's mine, it's mine....waaaaa" sniveling academic who's only argument is that he's not the other guy
3. The smiling used car salesman who means well and is only asking to borrow your credit card to pay for it all
Some choice. I wonder if it's too late to throw my hat in the ring ?
Sunday, 24 April 2011
According to the RIAA, we should blame Napster & the Web for everything.
Seems the enlightened folks over at the RIAA (the dark overlord of idiot self interested industry groups) has found a direct correlation between everything in the world that's going to hell and the internet, Napster and well, you....the lazy, net connected social miscreant.
Taken without permission from TechDirt but all credit and material is their's I'm just doing what us net-ziens do, blatantly ripping off someone else and giving them credit
__________________________________________________________________________________
Taken without permission from TechDirt but all credit and material is their's I'm just doing what us net-ziens do, blatantly ripping off someone else
__________________________________________________________________________________
The RIAA has stepped up its game in the final stages of its lawsuit against Limewire, where the focus is on determining damages. As part of this, it has cranked out an illuminating chart showing that the decline of the music business rests entirely on file sharing. Nowhere among the multi-colored lines will you find any references to an aging record-buying demographic, the proliferation of thousands of independent labels or even the ultimate game-changer itself, the internet.
As you well know, the internet was invented in 1991 by billionaire tycoon, Al Gore. In its infancy, the internet was nothing more than a forum for conspiracy theorists to exchange anti-government writings and ASCII porn. However, everything changed in 1998 with the simultaneous debut of Napster and the mp3, both invented by Shawn Fanning. With this new "distribution system," the music industry could no longer afford to ignore the looming force of the internet, at least not for more than the next half-decade. Now, with billions at stake, the RIAA has unleashed its ultimate weapon: the line chart. Below is their devastating
Exhibit A: filed in the lawsuit against Limewire:
Broken down bizarrely into "Albums per Capita," the RIAA's chart takes care to point out two things:
1. Napster.
2. All else being equal, record sales will grow indefinitely.
But that's not all. The number crunchers over at the RIAA have also entered the following charts as eye-catching evidence of the havoc wreaked by file sharing.
Exhibit B: Napster vs. Kerosene Sales
Kerosene usage dropped off considerably before the 1990's, but was still growing slowly for most of the decade. As this previously unpublished RIAA chart clearly shows, 1999 (1 P.N.*) was kerosene's peak, which was then followed by a decade-long slide. Consulting economists from George Mason University have stated that Napster's arrival "didn't have a goddamn thing to do with kerosene's decline." This testimony has been stricken from the record as "irrelevant," as no economist consulted was a former employee of the major labels. Conclusion: the world would be a better (if slightly more odorous) place if Napster had never existed.
*Post-Napster
Exhibit C: The Internet vs. Vehicle Theft
With this chart, obviously the RIAA intends to show a clear correlation between the internet's introduction and the decline of vehicular theft, an unfortunate situation that has put many honest car thieves out of work. It is also hoping to prove the old adage that "illegal downloading is exactly like stealing a car -- which is why car theft declined as file sharing increased."
As the data shows, vehicle theft followed the music industry's decade-long climb from 1986-1996. Or tried to, anyway. Vehicle theft peaked in 1991 at an unsustainable level of .0066 vehicles stolen per capita. Unfortunately, the web turned these hard-working car thieves into lazy music thieves, thwarting a vehicular theft pattern that should have risen to epidemic levels over the next decade. The data points to one damning fact: you can do more financial damage with a single internet connection than has been done in the entirety of human history up to 1998.
Exhibit D: The RIAA and the Honest American Farmer
As everyone knows, Real Americans Don't Share™. And nothing is more American than farming, one of the first victims of the internet's cruel efficiency. The American farm has been on a decline since well before records were kept (ca. 1992, apparently), and the arrival of file sharing decimated both of the U.S.A.'s prime cash crops: compact discs and popcorn.
The fate of these declining industries are apparently forever intertwined, much like the essentially meaningless overlaid chart above. Both lines run downhill in an indictment of, well, everything un-American. In fact, if you look closely enough, you can see the two graph points bravely embracing each other as they weather the onslaught of progress.
And there you have it: incontrovertible proof that copyright infringement is killing American institutions one download at a time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)