Canada was well aware of who they were voting for. It's not like the conservatives are a new party gaining power. Harper has been there for a while.
I'm sorry, but no they weren't. People have very short memories and they forgot that the Conservatives really have a much more extreme right view on things. All they remember is what has been going on during these minority Conservative governments, which was a very muted version of what the Conservatives are all about/aboot. You weren't living in Canada prior to their first minority government (IIRC, you moved there sometime last year), so I don't really think you can have a true feel for what was going on back then. Reading stuff online now doesn't really give you a sense for what was up back then either. I was living there during that time, and I remember.
The Conservatives decided to tone down their platform in order to gain power. This was their strategy (and IMO, not a very honest one). They maintained that toned down platform during their minority governments because they knew full well that if they attempted to make and major policy changes, the government would fall. They were very patient, and they were waiting for this: a majority government so that they could do what they want.
All the small businesses I know in my area voted conservative because they knew the liberals and NDP were going to attempt gutting them.
All of the small businesses? Every single one? Did you go around and poll them? Did they all mark their door-frames in blood or something? Surely some (or even one) of them voted Liberal/PC/NDP/Green. Toronto isn't much of a Conservative stronghold.......
284308
Blue= Conservative
Red= Liberal
Orange= NDP
(obviously, these are the colors of the winners. It doesn't mean that every single person in each riding voted for the winning party)
====================
And this is just ridiculous:
NDP shifts to damage control over ‘Vegas’ MP Ruth Ellen Brosseau (http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/986662--ndp-shifts-to-damage-control-over-vegas-mp-ruth-ellen-brosseau?bn=1)
tigress666
Jan 12, 03:34 PM
You know, I have had good enough experiences with Garmin that this app would have tempted me to consider buying despite the fact I already have Navigon (and am on a budget so I should just stick with what I have) but the fact you don't get downloaded maps is a total deal buster.
I can get that for free with Mapquest including voice instruction to tell me when to take the next turn. Sure, Garmin may have better routing, maybe their interface is better (don't know), but that's not worth 40 dollars more.
On top of that, if I am going to pay for a navigation software (since even if Mapquest didn't offer turn by turn for free I can at least use google maps that comes on my phone for free), one of its uses better be good for travel. And while Garmin's app probably would be fine for around town for me (as is the free google maps), trying to drive out of town would be an issue cause I live in a mountainous area... there will be plenty of areas around me without cellphone coverage that I might want to take a drive through. And I don't want to pay 40 dollars for a navigation app that won't help me in those areas. Especially when I can pay less than that (Navigon is now 35 for all of the US) and get a program that isn't crippled that way.
Personally, I think it was a *huge* mistake for Garmin to rely on downloading only. Even if you don't have a need for the maps to be on your phone, you can get the same function for free from other apps. And if you are willing to give up voice instruction, you don't even have to download any apps, you got google maps that comes with the phone. And from what I understand from reviews, this isn't download a map and it caches it, this is pretty much like google maps where you have to have cellphone connection to have a map.
Not Microsoft's market... yet.
They want that peice of the pie. Give them time, they will try to take it.
I'm no expert, but I don't think this would be ideal for hosting a site on. You would have logon to access files.
I don't think such a thing would work.
gauchogolfer
Sep 26, 03:32 AM
Apple understands the marketing value of a popular term like Podcast, but there's a delicate balance between encouraging people to use it, and giving away your rights to it. I personally don't think Apple was out of line in this case.
But here you're implying that Apple has any rights at all to the word podcast, when it was clearly invented by someone else (Adam Curry, perhaps, though there is some debate; it was certainly not Apple Computer). How in the heck can they make a claim? It's not like they are called iPodcasts. That I could see being an infringement. Just how far are they intending to go with the word 'pod'?
Watch out Flowbee, if you really are a 'podophile', you might be in someone's sights :).
0 comments:
Post a Comment