Bob

Again, I wasn't always playing close attention to the business side of Apple, but if I recall correctly, and I think that I do, the iPod was the huge jump in the past decade. The iMac preceded that and did well, but the iPod was just so huge and seemingly came at the perfect time for the portable digital audio player market. I remember reading that the iPod had a ridiculous market share of total mp3 players.... like 50% or more. And the subsequent Apple laptops began to grow greatly in popularity due to design (physical and software) that many customers (myself not included) loved.

Shady, jacee uses "democracy" in place of socialism. Jacee believes in an economic democracy, where as long as there are enough votes, certain groups can take what they want (money, wealth, resources, skills, etc) from others. You do realize that jacee is a communist, right, as she shows strong solidarity with the uneducated and unemployed trash in the streets screaming "our streets!" while impeding a major thoroughfare? I am not kidding, she is a straight up communist. The enemy within, literally.

That's exactly what Wozniak implied, and it's compatible with everything I've read about Steve Jobs and everything I've seen him say in videos I've seen of him on YouTube. I mean, who better to tell us about Jobs' gifts (business savvy) than Wozniak? I think Jobs really just had the gift of being a great amateur psychologist with respect to just knowing, intuitively, what the customer wanted.

I think that may be true, although I was too young to be paying attention to the business side of things with Apple's earlier stuff, like the Macintosh computer shown in the video you linked. I know that Apple is quite unfriendly to working with other companies, specifically with respect to keeping everything proprietary. Apple intentionally makes it very difficult to use non-Apple stuff with their hardware, from the proprietary charging cables for their mobile devices to the inability to open their desktops, etc. The thing is, I never gave a damn about apple after the first Macintosh. I never bought an iMac, iPhone, or any of that. Except for the first generation iPod nano, which really was the best of breed for its time.

AC360 did this really pathetic ass-kissing fest to memorialize Steve Jobs. Anderson Cooper, in all his idiotic glory, actually implied that there was some meaningful comparison to be made between Thomas Edison and Steve Jobs. Steve Wozniak politely corrected that dumbass assertion. Look, I respect Steve Jobs as much as the next guy, but this talk about him "greatly affecting every person in the modern world" is a bit of a stretch, especially when they pretend that Apple's greatest innovation was the iPod.

I remember that bomb symbol! It'll be interesting to see how well Apple does going forward.

Oh my God.... has it been so long? I totally remember that machine, those applications, and that voice. We had those machines in my elementary school. I remember doing word processing on them and BASIC, as well as some old games.

I wonder how that liver transplant line works. There was a funny Curb Your Enthusiasm episode where Larry had to impress the man in charge of the kidney transplant line in order to save the life of his friend while simultaneously avoiding having to be a donor. I guess money talks when it comes to jumping the liver transplant line.

How was it unbecoming? Layton never had a shred of dignity. He was disgusting partisan for every second of his waking life. He never ceased viewing himself as some sort of agent for socialist revolution. Nationalize this, tax that, go after the "greedy" corporations, help "working" (i.e. on welfare) families, etc, etc, etc. Even when on his deathbed, he had not one ounce of dignity. Even after his death, he was still burning through taxpayer money to hold an impromptu NDP campaign event masquerading as a funeral - with the blessing of his widow. It was so disgusting, so pathetic, so gross, and so so so typical.

I don't give a damn about that socialist Jack Layton. I would say that Canada is better off without him, but the disease that is ultra-leftism and the harm and injustice these ideas continue to cause Canada transcend Layton. Layton's death changes nothing, these sick leftist ideas as entrenched in our diseased Canada political culture. The only positive thing about Layton's death, I think, is that hopefully the NDP's next leader will be less effective at conning Canadians into its radical socialist agenda. Layton's death grants him no immunity. He was full of sick and disgusting politics, where even in death he couldn't be apolitical. To hell with him. He was pathetically partisan and politicized to the very last breath he could muster. Even after death he was still an entirely political agent, and of course, true to socialist tradition, he had an extravagant funeral that became a de facto campaign event for the NDP on the taxpayer's dime (great job, Harper!). Good riddance. I couldn't stand listening on the televsion, but it's not like future NDP leaders will be any better. Although hopefully they'll be less charismatic. As far as Steve Jobs, well, there was a real man who provided real value to society. You can't even mention Steve Jobs in the same sentence as a leech like Layton. It's too bad he died so young, hopefully Apple can continue to be a strong company providing good products without his leadership.

Well, of course in the context of Canadian freedom they certainly have a right to apply for and secure all the necessary permits to build wherever they want free from religious discrimination. Still, I sympathize with xul. I would absolutely hate living near a mosque, and seeing a bunch of desert nomads wearing rags and women dressed up like ghosts on Halloween on Fridays and religious holidays. We know they largely hate the very values upon which Canada and the broader Western world is built on Fridays and their religious holidays. We know they largely think they're better than we are, with the moral disrepute of the infidels being a blight that will eventually be cleansed by Islam. I know that prevalent themes among them are anti-Semitism, I know most of them have a sick and perverted historical and political narrative, I know most of them lie through their teeth about their very own cultures, and I know they love blaming their cultural inferiority on fantasies of "Western imperialism" (American invented the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, etc), while clinging to fantasies of some previous greatness that they will yet achieve again through a new caliphate. I know I certainly wouldn't like to have a mosque in my backyard, and it would certainly hurt properly values. As the Muslim population continues to grow exponentially in Canada, with the cheerleaders on the left begging for more and more of them, we'll see more and more mosques everywhere. Islam is here and it's only going to get bigger and bigger.

The reality is, however, that this is not the case. And there is room for disagreement and debate with respect to whether or not the SCoC should consider public opinion, to some degree, when making its decisions. I read this book called "The Nine" (or something like that) written by Jeffrey Toobin of CNN fame (he's their most commonly appearing legal analyst/pundit) where he profiled, the Chief Justices of the SCotUS. In that book, which I recommend as an interesting light read, the author touches on the varying degrees to which the different Chief Justices we cognizant of public sentiment (in his opinion, of course).

Well, it comes down to our own individual opinions with respect to what role we believe the SCoC is responsible for fulfilling. I am, generally speaking, in the same camp with capricorn - I want the SCoC to interpret the law, and not engage in social engineering and public policy formulation. In this case with Insite, the latter is exactly what the SCoC did. I ask you and others again to consider that part of the reasoning behind the SCoC's decision to uphold, indefinitely, the immunity of the Insite patrons and employees from illegal drug possession and trafficking laws, was that they believed that Insite was a public endeavour where the benefits outweighed the harm. That is not legalistic interpretation, that is public policy formulation. Moreover, the legal argumentation was spurious at best - that somehow Section 7 rights guaranteed by the CCRF would be infringed upon in the event of enforcement of illegal drug possession and trafficking laws on Insite premises involving patrons or employee. It doesn't take a legal expert to see that as quite a stretch, and is certainly a ridiculously slippery slope. The reason I mentioned the hypothetical of illegally obtained evidence being permitted into a trial was to illustrate the absurdity of the "more good than bad" argumentation, which was part of the SCoC's reasoning. Imagine if a judge permitted illegally obtained evidence into a trial, with the rationale that the benefit of convicting a dangerous criminal trumped the need to maintain ethical standards in the broader judicial system with respect to the collection of evidence. Most people would scoff at that, but those very same people (the suicidal and destructive leftists) are silent when that same argumentation is advanced in support of the SCoC's decision on this Insite case. Another perspective, and one that I somewhat sympathize with, is that indeed the SCoC should have an ear for the public's will and be in touch with the sentiment of the people. This is what you're driving at, and it's a perspective that although I understand, I disagree with in the Canadian context. In another time and place I'd share that sentiment, where I would hope that the highest court in the land would be able to see through grossly immoral laws (such as striking down forced segregation in the USA, for example). Today's Canada, however, has no such moral failures or deficits. Many people want the judicial system to engage in public policy formulation and social engineering, but those of us with a more constrained view on the abilities of such endeavours to change society in a positive way (capricorn and myself included), take a more conservative and cautious approach: we just want the judicial system to interpret the laws as have been passed by our governments. That doesn't seem to be the case here with the SCoC's decision here in the Insite case, with part of its legal reasoning (if we can call it that) resting on a "more good than bad" line of argumentation, coupled with spurious expansions of "rights" provisioned in Section 7 of the CCRF.

I think use should be illegal in order to be consistent with the law prohibiting possession. And I need to correct an error I made in my above post; I used the term "use" when I should have used the term "possession". Possession and consumption aren't. Unless someone's been convicted of a crime in Controlled Drugs and Substances Act through mere consumption, then I'm quite sure you don't have a point here. I don't see where the law in Canada prohibits "use" of these drugs. Rather, it is possession and trafficking of these drugs that are crimes, not consumption or use.

This circular argumentation regarding use versus consumption is quite silly. In my view, American Woman is wrong to suggest that they are one in the same, and this is a subtle nuance of the law that she seems to have glossed over. Is this discussion really relevant to the OP, however? I think not. Let's get back to talking about the SCoC is getting deeper into the business of forming public policy through judicial activism. Bear in mind that part of the reasoning for the decision was that, in the flawed view of the SCoC, that Insite causes more benefit than harm. Can you imagine such an absurd argumentation advanced in any other instance? Imagine evidence collected in an inappropriate/illegal manner accepted into a trial towards prosecuting a guilty defendant with such an argument: "well, it causes more good than bad".

I noticed this as soon as Charles Anthony made this post, but I didn't want to say anything. Bud was clearly the only one engaging in hysterics and personal insults, as he normally does. It's alright, it certainly doesn't bother me. I don't expect anything more from him.

Well, of course you will engage int he typical slander by labeling me as bigoted or prejudiced, when I am nothing at all like that. It would be a complete waste of time to dissect all the absurdities of Ahmadinejad's speeches at the UN and subsequent interviews with leftist media and academic rats (Columbia University, Fareed Zakaria, etc), but clearly your request for refutations is a roundabout way for you to tell the entire forum that you accept the narrative of the enemy, staying true to form as a committed communist. Your apparently sincere request for challenges from us the the rhetoric espouses from Ahmadinejad tells us all we need to know about you. You're literally the enemy within.

Yeah, let the "Palestinians" continue their campaign of war, mass murder, and terrorism without consequences. Let's give them even more autonomy, so that they have more freedom to murder Israelis. I've said it before in here, groups and collectives, just like individual persons, can forfeit any "rights" they may have had to independence or sovereignty by the commission of transgressions and unthinkable crimes. The "Palestinians", and the broader Arab/Muslim collective to which they belong, have made through their actions and statements that they cannot be trusted with full autonomy on our doorstep. If they ever civilize themselves (unlikely, as they're worse than they've ever been), then we can talk. Until then, the status quo will continue.

A state can't really make a vow, now can it? Every single Israeli government since the reestablishment of Israel in 1948 has accepted the idea of "Palestinian" statehood. And contrary to your misrepresentations from the Knesset website, the current "right-wing" coalition government also accepts the premise of "Palestinian" statehood. Of course, the devil is in the details.

Wyly's position is clear - the Jewish people have no right to independence or self-determination through statehood. The "Palestinians", however, who magically became some distinct entity in 1967, are entitled to "Palestine". Bud, on the other hand, takes a slightly more nuanced approach. He grudgingly accepts the existence of Israel (as if he has a choice), although refuses to acknowledge Jewish national rights. According to his perverted perspective, which is a watered-down version of the Muslim/Arab narrative of Israel, is that Israel was born in sin and is a mistake that must be undone. Clearly Israel cannot be defeated militarily (this is another reality that bud and his ilk grudgingly accept), so the new strategy to destroy Israel is now incremental through other methods: delegitimization, historical revisionism, and other political attacks using the usual verminous rhetoric of the left. What do wyly and bud have in common? As I've said before, they both worship weakness and lionize losers.

This was the reasoning given by the SCoC. Stop acting all dumbfounded when you haven't even glanced over the decision, or even read the second-hand journalism from Canadian news outlets. http://scc.lexum.org/en/2011/2011scc44/2011scc44.html It's right there, the SCoC heard what was a challenge to the expiration of the exemption given to Insite from Federal drug laws (possession and trafficking) on the grounds of it violating rights guaranteed via the CCRF. This is all about "rights".

I think it's an issue of aesthetics. Part of me thinks the business card looks better without the Canadian logo on the bottom. I'd like to add, however, that I think this is quite deliciously ironic, however, as it is the "conservatives" who pretend to be more patriotic than the rats on the left. Consider the nonsense "flag freedom" bill that was recently introduced. Can you think of anything more useless for the Federal government to be involved with than trying to protect the "rights" of some alleged patriot who can't fly a flag because of moronic condo-community rules? I mean really... who gives a damn[i/]?! Talk about a non-priority masquerading as some patriot-pump-fest.

The fact that you equate the adjustment of behaviour, such as not eating in a group meeting atmosphere for a month while some Muslims fast in order not to tempt them with the smell of food, with being consider, is exactly why Canada is finished. Eventually, as the number of Muslims continues to grow as they out-reproduce you, you won't have a choice in the matter.

All Insite can claim, and this is very iffy, is that they reduce the spread of disease somewhat, when addicts who are diseased and otherwise would've recycled needles between one another avail themselves of the Insite services. Beyond that, they've saved the lives of drug addicts who might have died had they overdosed somewhere else. Of course, there are major externalities and opportunity costs involved with the maintenance of Insite. The two million dollars going to Insite every year is the most obvious cost, where there are many other much more worthy recipients of that money than pathetic white trash addicts. Speed up the waiting lines for important procedures like hip replacements, but another MRI machine and hire some staff to operate it 24/7, do something more worthwhile than give a pathetic loser a nicer place to get high. What about the crime is brings about in the neighbourhood? Can you imagine if your moronic city council decided to bring this magnet for human trash into your neighbourhood? It's literally a beacon for the dregs of society. Send them to a Native reserve, don't put them in [/i]my[/i] neighbourhood, where they'll bring with them their crime, diseases, and overall disgusting presence. The new ruling also directly prevents the police from being able to enforce the law. Perhaps law enforcement can get around it, but following these people from Insite (and future "safe injection sites" that are now certainly to spread across the country) to their rat nests and doing their investigations. Anyways, it's just another example of the slow self-destruction of Canada. As "rights" keep on being manufactured which force others, who never consented to such an arrangement, to provision and protect these new "rights".

The SCoC has stated that the "rights" of drug addicts under Section 7 of the CCRF would be violated if the exemption from federal drug laws (possession and trafficking) was not extended, indefinitely, to Insite. Your two links are completely irrelevant and provide no substantial support for the ongoing maintenance of Insite. In my view, preventing the deaths of addicts via drug overdose should no be a public health priority. Everything has a cost, including human life, and spending approximately two million dollars a year on the upkeep of Insite in order to save or improve the lives of drug addicts is a complete waste of money.