Just paying my Rogers bill

So earlier in the day, the government of Canada stepped to the plate and knocked one out of the park overruling the CRTC allowing Globalive the ability to operate in Canada. Later that day they completely contradicted themselves and ruled in favor of the CRTC's decision to completely destroy any chance of competition in the DSL market. In the voice of an excited first year female during O-week yelling into her cell phone in the middle of Weldon, "Like...WTF?!?!?"

WTF indeed. Honestly, one step forward, 5 and a half steps back it seems. So let's lay it out there, cellular markets need competition, but one of the worst high-spreed internet markets in the free world doesn't? How exactly does that work Mr. Government of Canada?

We-the Canadian public-built and paid for that fancy network that you just gave free reign for Bell to do with as they please. Do you honestly think that they are going to encourage the use of "their" network for competitors? You had the chance to take the giant first step towards a better, more competitive and capable internet...and you stepped in a laxative induced cow pie falling flat on your face.

Now excuse me while I go grab some more KY so when I pay my Rogers high speed internet bill, it won't hurt as much.

Read Users' Comments ( 0 )

I've Got Beef

Well I'll be damned, the Canadian Government sacked up and grew a pair. It was just announced today by Industry Minister Tony Clement that the CRTC's horrible decision to deny Globalive ability to operate in Canada due to foreign ownership rights has been overturned. This is quite an impressive stance taken by the government who normally lets the CRTC run rampant with their prejudiced decisions. Hell, I'll go as far as saying the CRTC is nothing more than a watchdog for certain large conglomerates in Canada and not the Canadian public...there, the cat is out of the bag.

With that said, I am personally thrilled to see the government step in and give the Canadian public a fighting chance to receiving improved wireless service. Without competition, money hungry Bell and Rogers have no reason to improve services, lower prices, or do anything but fix their profits however they see fit. I am not saying Globalive is going to be the complete answer but at least it isn't part of the problem.

The next step is to get the government to move on ways to get more competition in high-speed internet...AKA don't completely give the network the Canadian public built over to Bell. That decision is pending right now in the Cabinet.

Read Users' Comments ( 0 )

I've Got NO Beef with Richard Branson's vision of a relatively affordable option for sub-orbital space flight. Obviously not everyone is going to be able to afford even this type of flight, but at $200K, it is certainly more affordable than the millions required to hitch a ride on a Russian rocket.

credit: Aljazeera

Estimating five minutes of weightlessness and the ability to see the curvature of the earth from a perch high above our atmosphere is an opportunity I did not expect in my lifetime. Again, $200K isn't going to make it a monthly trip for many and there are very few willing to spend even that much, but the point is that it is feasible. One can have a life goal of going into space without having to become an astronaut and with certain sacrifices can make it happen.

This is truly a special world we live in, too bad there is so much wrong with it that I can't help but feel a little dirty for lusting after the idea of spending a mortgage for a two and a half hour trip.

Read Users' Comments ( 0 )

Mattel Inc.

During my intense investigation into the blasphemy of the new Sesame Street deal with Hasbro Inc., I noticed something on the Mattel web site that I find kind of sad. When I looked out the window this morning and saw snow falling I thought I should check the date as it is the first snow we have seen here in London during daylight hours, and yup, it is definitely 2009.

So why is it that in the year 2009 there is a toy company-Mattel Inc.-that actually has their web site broken up into different sections; notably the segregation of boys and girls sections. The boys section predictably blue and the girls section is pink of course. Now I understand that girls are different from boys and boys are different from girls, but why is it that we have to continue to teach our kids that pink is for girls and blue is for boys? Why do we need to build restrictions into their play habits by separating the two sections, as if boys can't play with dolls and girls can't play with toy cars?

Children aren't born with stereotypes, they are taught these things. It is this type of stereotype education that sets the stage for other stereotypes they learn later in life such as racial and sexual stereotypes. Why not at least give them a fighting chance and eliminate the ridiculous segregation of boys and girls toys?

To further drive my point home, the first thing I saw in the girls section was a flash animation saying that Barbie can be "A Vet", "A Race Car Driver", and "A Ballerina"; then explaining that you can be all those things too. So Barbie can drive a race car, insinuating that girls can in fact play with cars...but just in the girls section of the web site with pink cars? Got it, I'll be sure to pass that information on to my seven year old niece.

Read Users' Comments ( 0 )

AP Photo/Mark Lennihan

The world as we know it has ended. Up is down, down is up, left is right, the sun rises in the west and sets in the south. Sesame Street has officially sold out granting rights to Hasbro Inc. to produce Sesame Street Workshop toys on a ten year deal.

Gone are the days of Mattel's (Fisher Price) exclusive deal with Sesame Street as we are thrust into a world where we will have to make some very important decisions on which Sesame Street toys we are going to purchase. Perhaps this is a good thing? Maybe, just maybe we will finally have some variety in our selection of Sesame Street toys. I might have been looking at this all wrong.

Diversity is never a bad thing, is it? But what if Hasbro produces Big Bird in a different shade of yellow, and Oscars green isn't quite the same as Fisher Price has been putting out for years. My whole collection will look like it was invaded by cheap Chinese gray market knockoffs. Nope, this is not good, not good at all. There are too many questions surrounding this deal and it would have been nice if Sesame Street would have consulted some kids first. This is a complete outrage!

Read Users' Comments ( 0 )

Alright, now most football fans won't know about this tactic that has been employed by the FSU Seminoles all year but even if you aren't a football fan, don't know or don't care about football, this video is still a good laugh as it is one of the weirdest things you will see on the football field-biting the crotch of a teammate withstanding.

Again, I understand the ploy, it has worked all year for them...but when the play isn't whistled dead and your quarterback is running for his life; you have got to break out the statue pose and help him out. At some level though, I commend Sanders for his commitment to the tactic. As Keyshawn says, "c'mon man!".

Read Users' Comments ( 0 )

One of the few people I follow on Twitter just posted a nice link to a Gawker article - thanks Stuart - titled, Gawker Doesn't Know the First Thing About Democracy. Wait, that is wrong, sorry...Why Newspapers Shouldn't Allow Comments. Now I've Got Beef with this thing top to bottom.

1/ "a false sense of democracy through publication of comments and user-generated content—just like a common blog"

Wow, so discussion about public affairs in a public sphere with everyone that has internet access and an opinion on the subject at hand is free to participate in, isn't democratic? I guess I need to re-think a few things because I could have swore that was more of a democratic process than having a talking head disseminate what is and isn't news with no option for the general public to potentially voice an opinion on the matter or discuss with other individuals.

2/ "The only problem is, there is no interesting discussion. Almost never. Not even from the mythical supersmart New York Times readers."

Well thank-you for deciding for me what is and isn't interesting discussion. I myself have complained about comments on a newspaper story, but I wasn't saying they shouldn't be allowed. Just because you don't agree with the comments or they aren't up to your personal educational standards doesn't mean they aren't valuable to the public discussion. Please, let us know what are appropriate comments so we know how to discuss a topic...that will make for a much better democratic process. If we all comment appropriately - instead of our actual opinion - we will then all have the same views and the world will be a perfect utopia. And by the way, "supersmart" isn't a word Mr/Mrs 'I am more edumacated than everyone else'.

3/ "We're a blog; comments are in our blood."

So because you are a blog, comments are okay, but for a newspaper it isn't? Oh riiiight, you edit your comments, censor opinions, and limit what people can and cannot say unlike the newspaper comments; how very democratizing of you. Got it, what other rules do I need to brush up on? Perhaps Gawker should put out a book letting everyone know what is and isn't acceptable. It might help solve some of that "pesky debate" that happens so often on the internet.

I could go all day about this article but frankly I am bored and need to go make some lewd one word comments on newspaper articles.

Read Users' Comments ( 1 )