waldo
-
Posts
17,650 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by waldo
-
-
again, simsub is the "here and now"... please stop (purposely) derailing this thread from its futurist theme/intent.
.
-
Look at the section. REST OF THE WORLD! DOH. You think what happens elsewhere won't eventually have an effect on us? double DOH.
your 'double DOH' scores an own goal on your DOH
.
-
"Canada's cultural and creative industries are important drivers of innovation and a vibrant part of our economy. The intersection of culture and technology holds tremendous potential for our country's growth and prosperity.
As we adjust to the realities of rapid technological advances and changing consumer behaviour, I launched consultations to better understand the challenges and opportunities brought on by this transformation.
These consultations will provide an opportunity to listen and learn from Canadians and examine the federal government's current cultural policy toolkit.
This project is driven by our belief that the time is ripe to review the role of the federal government in helping Canada's creative sector navigate this transformation and chart a course to ensure that we are poised to position ourselves as global leaders.
The pre-consultation phase having ended, we are now analyzing your comments and suggestions. Your feedback will help guide the rest of our consultations and I thank you for your participation, interest and enthusiasm."
with the help of an Expert Advisory Group, Minister Joly will lead public, stakeholder and online consultations beginning summer 2016 on strengthening Canadian content creation, discovery and export in a digital world.
the consultations will encompass information and entertainment content as presented in television, radio, film, digital media and platforms, video games, music, books, newspapers and magazines... with an objective to begin identifying the tools and policy levers that will guide the work of Canadian Heritage over the course of the government’s mandate to foster a leading, resilient and innovative cultural sector that meets the needs of Canadians and Canadian creators.
current policy framework/toolkit:
-
other than feeding the continued derail... why bother with discussing the 'here and now' simsub? What does this add to a thread discussion on the future broadcasting/new media?
.
-
it boggles to continue to see the 'usual MLW suspects' continuing to scour the internet for their nuggests/gems in other continents/countries. Apparently, since there appear to be no avenues for these 'usual MLW suspects' to tap into and present concerns directly related to and impacting upon Canada/Canadians, they need to do... what they need to do!
.
-
I guess all the other reports about sexual assaults are wrong too.
my first clue is whether or not you're pushing the report/incident/article... you're like the 'canary in the mine-shaft' alerting to bogus/suspect/questionable sources.
.
-
While very entertaining, my main reason for pursuing this issue it to reconcile the seemingly contradictory CRTC role in "protecting and facilitating" Canadian content/values while also directly encouraging carriage of foreign (American) programming and networks, including one set of "4+1" for each N.A. time zone !
The best I have been able to figure out is that the future of Canadian TV as proscribed by the CRTC will be much like the past: leverage U.S. and other foreign programming content and networks to generate subsidies for domestic production/content, regardless of quality level. New media distribution methods are challenging this old model.
BS! Your agenda driven "reason" is quite clear - you scour the interweeb for anything that suggests Canadians are viewing an American program/broadcast... and when you find it you scurry back here with your snarc-like commentary. Of course you always have your ready go-to sources, like... Numeris ratings! Nothing is sweeter than reading you so flummoxed in some thread to the point your only recourse to to reach for one of your ready go-to sources in some type of retaliatory act that appears to allow you to manage your frustrations.
of course the obvious begging question is just why does Canada, just why do Canadians (and their media viewing practices) so enthrall you... so captivate your attention! Just why is Canada, just why are Canadians so important to you?
now, for as much time/attention you give to posturing as an expert on Canada's regulatory oversight, on Canada's CRTC, it always continues to boggle me that you truly haven't a grasp of the fundamentals. Well... it's either that or you feign ignorance to allow you a tailoring approach to better suit your agenda! This quoted post of yours is classic and showcases how little you truly understand and recognize about the existing regulatory framework. Quite obviously you shouldn't need to be schooled in the fact that it is less expensive for Canadian broadcasters to acquire American programming than to produce Canadian programming; that is to say, the purchased American programming has already covered its costs in the American domestic market. Equally, market share/drive shows that, typically, American programming can be more profitable in terms of cost recovery ala advertising given, again, cost covering aspects. It is the CRTC regulatory intervention that helps to shape a balance and prevent the market force driven Canadian private broadcasters from purchasing even greater levels of "cheap" American programming. You regularly drop links to Numeris ratings and start chirping about how Canadians are just so enthralled by American programming - all part of your simplistic agenda and want to continue to stroke your personal sensitivities and suspect confidence levels in your own-self/country.
.
-
There is an increase in rape as the many articles tell us and I don't recall reading the numerous articles on an almost daily basis as we do now, that is if you read the European papers.
This along with refusals to swim in a mixed class or boycotting swimming classes and camping trips, just a few incidents but increasing.
now I can't recall if you started the related status update... but I'm pretty sure you "complainedwhined about" police cover-up within that status update when I added a summary reference to this lil' nugget: Blaming the Swedish festival rapes on migrants isn't just wrong – it's dangerousExcept it turned out that there was doubt. Within a few hours the statement had been taken down.The police later admitted that only two of the seven men or boys arrested for the Putte i Parken incidents were from HVB homes – residential homes for young people, often refugees without parents. There’s even less evidence to suggest the rapes at Bravalla were carried out by immigrants – but the two were instantly lumped together. “The wording was unfortunate,” read a second statement, “and we will take that to heart.”
It was too late by then, of course. The buzzwords had already been unleashed, seized and extrapolated upon until they had become the main story. Reporting from the UK, the MailOnline’s news story cited authorities as identifying the perpetrators of the assaults as “young men, who are foreigners.”; the Telegraph’s headline warned of “reports of rapes by ‘migrants’”. And so an inaccurate, retracted police statement, and one victim’s speculation that they were “probably immigrants” turned into fact.
just a case of... yet another case of, an "enthusiastic MLW member" who just blindly accepts "bias confirming" articles without actually checking for related facts. A true "Copy & Paste" brigade we have here, hey!
.
-
It's bloody obvious its influence peddling. Companies don't waste millions on chatting with politicians if there isn't a profit to be had out of it.
I think the fact the banks which got to handle selling off Hydro One (and made millions from it) were pouring money into Liberal coffers is more than sufficient evidence.
if it's so obvious... why didn't that "investigative hit job" from the G&M present the evidence... actual evidence... not your preferred inference ala innuendo! For all the G&M's blustering over "inside industry sources" coming forward, how is it those "insiders" failed to provide any, uhhh..... you know... actual evidence of your claimed influence peddling?
.
-
Well, it's a radical curriculum!
but... per your brazillion posts emphasis throughout this thread... is it an "enthusiastically" radical curriculum?
C'mon, you can hide from my posts, but you can't run! Again, I challenge you two-fold: - put forward an actual quote that has the Ontario Premier/Minister directly stating the phrase, "enthusiastic consent". Show your source didn't just make it up; show that you didn't just blindly accept your sources made up shyte and proceed to use that phrase a brazillion times throughout this thread!
- in keeping with your emphasis on "radical" and your blatant misuse of that "enthusiastic" labeling in regards to a sexual emphasis towards "6 year old Grade One students", show within the curriculum document (or references to it), that there is a sexual connotation in regards the actual subject of "informed consent" presented in a benign (non-sexual) context emphasizing, "listening and interpreting facial expressions and body language".
.
-
It's not only in Sweden.
it's too bad you don't get more attention put to your bogus sources! That lil' nugget has been dropped around here before - the actual full link to your reference to Sweden --- something I addressed in a prior thread post; specifically:
It appears a single blogged article is the same source that has fueled a litany of blogger articles that account for the "meme" concerning rape in Sweden (at large), immigrant rape in Sweden and... ultimately... Muslim immigrant rape in Sweden. The BBC published an article that speaks to the difficulties in translating rape statistics across nations, particularly in regards to Sweden; most notably in that regard is just how Sweden categorizes and reports rape. The Swedish government does not keep stats that categorize rape/religion... which doesn't stop the originating source from claiming "Govt report... government statistics"! It appears the originating source relies upon nothing more than this actual gem/nugget: "anonymously confirmed by Swedish polish in a phone conversation" ... itself, reflecting upon 4 years of data during the 1980s... data that was then "massaged" forward with the most liberal interpretations as to "native born versus immigrant versus Muslim immigrant".
as for what data the Swedish government does officially gather... does officially publish in regards to rape/sexual offenses (re: most current 2014):
your is a typical approach ala "Gish Gallop"... within a post you often throw down numerous statements/claims and generic links that require MLW members, even if inclined, to spend copious amounts of time attempting to verify your sources. Even if one were to choose to attempt to review and confirm your sources within one post, you readily move on and drop several others into the mix. "Gish Gallop"... it is very apropos that the term was coined to associate to the tactics deployed by "Duane Gish" - you know, one of your past ready-go-to sources, one of the more profiled creationists out there!
.
-
The phrase "Enthusiastic Sexual Consent" is idiotic! Cheesh....this is an example of changing how we say things really mess up what could've been so simple!
and per my previous post it's a phrase I contend your OP source, "Campaign Life Coalition" made up and falsely attributed to the Premier/Minister. Something that you then exploited a brazillion times throughout this thread. Of course, you could prove me wrong by providing an actual sourced quote when the Premier/Minister use that exact phrase... you could do that, yes?
more pointedly, you kept harping on "6 year old Grade One" students being faced with sexual connotative reference to this very "Enthusiastic Sexual Consent" facet. Care to actually cite from the curriculum document (or references to it) that speak directly and explicitly to this facet. As I stated in my prior post I contend that level of "informed consent" is totally benign (not sexually related) and associates with dialogue/listening and interpretations of facial expressions and body language. Care to prove me wrong? Sure you can!
.
-
Ahh, prove otherwise, like the cited examples of the F-35 (with a combat suite) in mock aerial combat against F-16s and F-15s?
talk about "mock"... that's me continuing to mock you with your simulator references. Why wouldn't LockMart/JPO put forward actual flight engagements to counter the big-time media buzz that ensued as a result of that actual (not mock, not simulator) F-16/F-35 exchange? You would think this would have been paramount in the, as the Janes article highlights, "proving otherwise" - wouldn't you?
.
But I assumed that it was.......as far as I know, no one has suggested the F-35 as a more superior air superiority fighter then the F-22......yet this is your go to talking point.........
when you already have stated this and I reply back that I never claimed any such thing... why do you immediately come back with it again? You're right, "as far as I know... no one has suggested the F-35 as a more superior 'air superiority' fighter than the F-22" - INCLUDING ME!
.
I don't suppose you could repeat/cite the passage where its stated that the F-35 requires F-22 support against other 4/4.5 gen aircraft?
Hostage does speak to 5th generation Russian and Chinese aircraft and compares them to the F-35:
So Hostage doesn't appear concerned with Russian/Chinese air superiority aircraft, aircraft meant to contend against the F-22, and their impact on the F-35......so what specific aircraft are you suggesting he is concerned with?
oh my! You've just scored an own goal. You'll need to provide your own answer here... when you simply choose to exclude 4/4.5 gen aircraft and then follow that up with this latest suggestion of yours to also exclude Russian/Chinese 5th gen aircraft, you tell me what the former head of the USAF air-combat command was referring to when he stated, “The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22.” You tell me what that statement means - you tell me what the F-35 needs the F-22 for/against? You tell me.
.
-
Ahh.......reread my post you quoted:
I cited the actual report that your media sources are quoting from...........of note, per the report, a pilot ejecting from an F-35 well wearing NVG/HMDs, from the known data, is at as much risk as a pilot ejecting from a F-15, F-16, F/A-18, Eurofighter etc etc etc.........in other words, ejecting from an aircraft is dangerous, ejecting from an aircraft with added weight on your head is even more dangerous.......
please sir, I call BS! That report you've provided is absolutely not the, as you say, "quote source". How could it be when it explicitly states the following:
We did not evaluate the F-35 ejection seat because it is currently still in development, the aircraft has not finished testing, and there is limited ejection data
would you like a do-over?
.
-
"Non-real world circumstances"...........would that include an F-16 with no under wing weapons or fuel tanks versus a developmental F-35 with no combat suite?
already addressed here in this prior post: you know, that Janes article that you simply ignored! Per summation:
"The point the War is Boring article was trying to make, and the point the JPO has failed to refute in its rebuttal, is that aircraft do not always get to fight on their terms, and that it is no good saying that just because the F-35 is not designed to dogfight it will never have to do so..... This concern will persist until the F-35 is able to prove otherwise, regardless of whether the aircraft was designed to dogfight or not."
.
Forgetting the F-35, how do other 4th/4.5 generation aircraft compare to the F-22.........since the F-22 now appears to be your suggested benchmark?
my suggested benchmark? That's doesn't follow from anything I've stated. Again, it was your reference to the former USAF air-combat command head that prompted me to remind you just what he said about the F-35 not being an air-superiority jet... in regards to "close-in, high maneuverability" combat - that the F-35 needed the F-22 to support it. Your guy - the guy you brought forward and quoted - that guy! And again, he never compared the F-35 to the F-22 directly... but clearly, by implication, his was a most damning testament of the F-35s deficiency relative to the F-22 needing to support it against "other comers... other 4th/4.5 gen aircraft".
.
-
The ~140 pound reference is the current bottom limit on all USAF fighter aircraft (starting page 5 of the pdf), likewise the restrictions on the NACES ejection seats used in USN aircraft (like the Hornet) on page 6, all restrictions born out of the use of helmets made heavier with the use of night vision and helmet mounted displays.
which, surprisingly, doesn't address what I stated in regards the 200 pound limit/threshold. You're ignoring the source I provided and refusing to actually address the 200 pound reference. Here, try this one:
Exclusive: F-35 Tester At Odds With Program Manager. The director of Pentagon weapons testing is questioning claims by the general in charge of the F-35 fighter jet program that potentially deadly flaws in the plane’s ejection seats have been largely fixed.
The testing official, Michael Gilmore, also confirmed the accuracy of CQ reports last fall disclosing that the F-35’s flawed ejection seat poses a serious risk not just to the lightest weight F-35 pilots, as some Defense Department officials have suggested, but also to pilots weighing up to 200 pounds
or this one: F-35’s Latest Hurdle Could Send It Back To Contracting Purgatory
The timeline for a new American stealth fighter jet, the most expensive weapons system in the world, is getting longer. A top Air Force official said the Department of Defense is considering what it would take to redesign a potentially-fatal safety system in the F-35.Reports of fatal technology deficiencies, engine failures and budget squabbles continue to slow down development of Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Lightning II.
The Air Force has not announced that the ejection seat needs to be replaced, but Lt. Gen. Arnold Bunch told DefenseNews Friday that they may seek new sub-contractors to redesign the F-35’s ejection seat system, which causes potentially fatal whiplash when deployed.
“We believe it is prudent to look at what it would take to qualify the ACES 5 seat as a potential risk mitigation step if additional things happen as we go through the testing of the Martin-Baker seat,” Bunch said Friday. “We believe it’s prudent to determine what it would cost, how much [impact on] the schedule, what the timeline would be, if something else happened and we wanted to go a different way.”
In Oct. 2015, an internal safety investigation revealed that pilots weighing less than 136 pounds could have their necks snapped they ejected during takeoff or landing, and pilots who weighed less than 200 pounds would also be “at serious risk.”
.
-
So it's your position that corporate executives are paying your Liberal party millions of dollars for... the food?
That's a weak rebuttal, even from you, desperate times.
guys, guys... it's not "my Liberal party"... I don't live in Ontario! C'mon poochy - there's really little/nothing to rebut. Rules are being followed and absolutely no (none, nada, zilch) claims of influence peddling have been made... no examples have been provided showing the Ontario government favouring the paying attendees with contracts or favourable policy decisions. Talk about a fizzled nothing of a so-called investigative "scoop" by the G&M! When the best the G&M can throw down is a suggestion that "the perception of a conflict of interest exists"... and here Argus you so trumpeted that "scoop"! But hey, no worries... new rules are being written for pending fall legislative review - you know, to deal with "optics and perceptions".
Argus, your own article (and a prior G&M lead-in article) actually quote industry reps and lobbyists speaking to why they attend... what they believe they can learn/recognize... and factor - and, surprisingly, it's more than your "food reference"!
.
-
Just a reminder, this thread has gone from the initial claim that Ontario's health curriculum is a conspiracy by pedophiles intended to groom children to have sex, to arguing the semantics of "no means no" vs "enthusiastic consent". The goalposts have moved so far that they're not even on the same field anymore.
to argue semantics concerning "enthusiastic consent" requires, per this thread OP, to just blindly accept the phrase as written/assigned (to Ontario Premier Wynne/Minister Sandals), by one of the OP sources referenced - Campaign Life Coalition. Of course that phrase is quite literally used a hundred+ times throughout this thread... often in mind-numbing, large font, bold, red-colour! "Enthusiastic" is just a word after all! Isn't it... no biggee, right?
I read several direct references from legitimate mainstream sources that attach the word "informed" to yield the phrase "informed consent"... and attribute that word, that phrase, to Ontario Premier Wynne/Minister Sandals. So just where did that "enthusiastic" word enter? Well, unless the OP is prepared to actually yield a direct quote that attributes it to Ontario Premier Wynne/Minister Sandals... I will "enthusiastically" state Campaign Life Coalition made shyte up and the OP simply ran with it. I "enthusiastically" suggest the word/phrase originates from a petition by two Grade 8 girls from Toronto who lobbied for “consent culture” to be reflected in the new curriculum document:
Informed consent is another area that is missing, but will be included in the new version, due to a recent request by Premier Kathleen Wynne.
She made the announcement Jan. 26, after meeting with two Grade 8 girls from Toronto who have lobbied for “consent culture” to be reflected in the new document.
“The curriculum needs to teach what clear, enthusiastic, and affirmative consent is and what it looks and sounds like,” reads an excerpt from the petition by Lia Valente and Tessa Hill. “We want health education that teaches our peers ‘Yes means Yes.’ That shares with our peers that affirmative consent is an enthusiastic ‘Yes Please! between two people. We want education that shows us that there are many ways to say no. That educates young people that silence is not consent and that ‘No means No.’”
Ms. Wynne said the new curriculum is expected to address issues of consent as early as Grade 1, by teaching students how to listen to each other and read facial expressions and body language.
and what's this! Addressing issues of consent with 6-year old Grade 1 students... has no sexual connotation whatsoever... just listening and interpreting facial expressions and body language! What a concept.
Enthusiastic Sexual Consent? From 6 year olds?
Doesn't that ring a bell? Raise dozens of red flags? Doesn't that call for an enthusiastic protests???
just another par-for-the-course example where this MLW member takes extreme liberty with sources/quotes! Clearly... this could have been "nipped in the bud" from the onset... but when the OP is literally a massive, disjointed, rambling verbose mess, the liberties taken get disguised quite well - indeed!
.
-
Again, that is not the case, as demonstrated, the F-35 is "better" then the aircraft that it replaces, likewise, is "stealthier" then the F-22, so much so, the decades long dominant F-15 (with its massive, powerful radar) is unable to even track the F-35.....as recently demonstrated.......An opponent can't kill the F-35 if it can't see it.
sorry... simulation only counts in non-real world circumstances. Hey, did ya know... you can make those simulators do just about anything... and show just about anything! Who knew.
wait a minute here... why you just shifted the focused emphasis away from "close-range, high maneuverability". Well done!
-
per the threads intent: recent commentary from Dr. Michael Geist in regards the FUTURE of set-top boxes, vis-a-vis a recent Federal Court ruling that issued an injunction banning several companies from distributing any set-top boxes with pre-loaded software:
Set-top box crackdown will chill Canada's tech innovation: A recent federal court ruling targets a disruptive technology that everyone agrees has both legitimate and infringing uses.
Since recent data indicates that cord cutting is still a small part of the Canadian market and the competition from authorized services such as Netflix is widely viewed as a far greater competitive threat, the ruling is difficult to square with marketplace realities.
The set-top box distribution companies have unsurprisingly appealed the ruling on those grounds, but the bigger issue revolves around the court’s willingness to block technologies with substantial non-infringing uses.
Indeed, the court acknowledges that the set-top boxes “display numerous legal applications and generally have the effect of turning a standard television into a ‘smart TV.’”
If the decision stands, the case has the potential to create a Canadian chill over new disruptive technologies, leaving courts to decide what can and cannot be preloaded onto computers and other electronic devices.
.
-
Simsub has long been a feature of the Canadian television landscape because it depends so much on purchased rights to foreign content, and it will indeed be part of the future for Canadian TV as promised by the CRTC.
are you done now? Are you done derailing this thread from its futurist theme? As for foreign content, I personally sure likee some of that British flavoured mystery/drama/documentaries - and you?
don't worry about those occasional "errors" when simultaneous substitution isn't done properly. You see, if you actually acknowledged content in my replies to your continued derailing you would recognize the CRTC, is addressing improper "simsub" through... regulation!
.
-
Amazingly, CRTC simsub hearings...
please sir, you continue to derail this thread! Simultaneous substitution has no bearing on the "future" per this thread OP... simultaneous substitution is "the here and now"! Per the CRTC:
Reasons for simultaneous substitution
There are a few reasons for allowing simultaneous substitution:
-
To protect the rights of broadcasters:
When broadcasters buy programs from American and Canadian producers or networks, they pay to have broadcast rights for their markets. Simultaneous substitution protects these rights.
-
To promote local broadcasting and local creation:
By helping local stations keep their local audiences and the advertising dollars that go with those audiences, simultaneous substitution enables them to continue to operate and offers their viewers local as well as international programming.
-
To keep advertising dollars in the Canadian market:
A lot of the time, an American signal is replaced with a Canadian one. Watching Canadian advertising instead of American ensures that advertising money is generated for the Canadian market.
now, if you think you can get some mileage for your agenda through the CRTC's response to some degree of Canadian public request for live Super Bowl commercials... hey, fill yer boots! I will simply continue to highlight and reinforce you are derailing this thread from its futurist theme. Surely given the importance Canada/Canadians have to you, surely you can help to speak to real futurism for the Canadian dissemination of multi-media options/sources - surely!
.
-
To protect the rights of broadcasters:
-
Never mind the source. Deal with the message!
is there a summary version of that OP? Talk about disjointed verbosity! Carry on.
.
-
I'm not ignoring it, as it would clearly impact (typically) smaller female pilots and those serving in the various Asian forces............addressing this issue is no different then what the USAF did in the 90s to increase the top and bottom weight/height limits of aircrew with the ACES II ejection seat.
so you ignoring the move towards an alternate manufacturer (and what that resulting impact means to design/retro-fit requirements... with accompanying delays)... that's you, "not ignoring it"? I'm reading 200 lbs as the problem threshold limit - in several places. Although just now in a cursory look I can't seem to find anything to align with your ~145 pound reference... can ya help out here with current/timely info to that end? That is, while you're ignoring all the rest!
.
Future of Canadian TV
in Media and Broadcasting
Posted
I'm so confused here! In recent weeks I read others (and now you) stating the guy is a she... and black! You're messin with all my formed/forged impressions of the guy. In any case, again... simsub is the "here and now" and the CRTC has not (as I'm aware) given any indication to, through regulation, preventing simsub. More pointedly, it has actually moved towards regulation to hold broadcasters to account for errors related to simsub. Again... not the future!
.