What Future?

Posted by Carol at January 6th, 2008

You can soup up and reengineer your video recorder with the full consent and encouragement of the manufacturer. It does neat things.  Is this an industry changed or just distractioneering?

Posted by Carol at February 3rd, 2007

No longer is it sufficient to stock the shelves with slow-burning G. W. Bush mannequins alone - Chinese President Hu Jintao is proving himself able as  an internationally disliked political figure:

“President Hu cancelled one of the showpieces of his African tour yesterday after warnings of anti-Chinese protests.

Still…China’s economic needs — which have already helped its trade with Africa to increase fourfold in a decade to about $55 billion (£29 billion) — are set to triumph over any diplomatic niceties.”

Proof positive that neocolonialism needn’t require a North-South connection?

Posted by Greg at November 2nd, 2006

From Slashdot comes Privacy International’s 2006 ranking of the best and worst international defenders of privacy and perpetrators of surveillance.

What Future? usually tries to avoid this kind of Big Brother privacy/surveillance talk, but anything other than anecdotal evidence of the erosion of privacy rights around the world is pretty rare. This kind of comparative study shows us exactly where we stand in terms of rights of the individual and offers incentive for governments to improve through legislation and regulation.
The final rankings:

1. Germany
2. Canada
3. Belgium
3. Austria
5. Greece
6. Argentina
6. Hungary
8. France
8. Poland
8. Portugal
8. Cyprus
12. Finland
13. Italy
13. Luxembourg
13. Latvia
13. Estonia
13. Malta
18. Denmark
18. Czech Republic
18. Ireland
18. Lithuania
18. New Zealand
18. Slovakia
24. Australia
24. Spain
26. Slovenia
26. Netherlands
28. Israel
28. Sweden
30. United States
31. Thailand
31. Philippines
33. Britain
34. Singapore
34. Russia
36. Malaysia
36. China

Posted by Carol at October 7th, 2005

Like many of you, I fear the fallout of the softwood lumber and energy trade disputes between Canada and the US.

But I think I have a solution.

I lived in downtown Hull for four years. As a slum lord, I have broken up Sunday afternoon butcher-knife fights on the 4 X 3 patch of weeds I called my yard. I have seen neighbours dismantle wobbly sections of their patios to kindle curbside bonfires. I have been a rubber glove away from hollowed out lightbulbs, self-fashioned pipes and human faeces whilst tidying up after my crack dealer tenant left for the greener pastures of Gatineau. For a farm-fresh Alberta girl, I understand the ghetto better than anyone.

This is why I feel so concerned for 50 000 inhabitants of Hull proper. While the newly amalgamated megaburbs of Gatineau attempt to trade on Ottawa’s manicured, orderly, tourist-friendly charms, Hull still must beguile its visitors with grit, grime and overrated museums. To remedy this problem, I propose the following solution: Recall the namby-pambling David Wilkins and install 50 Cent as the new US Ambassador to Canada.

It makes good sense. With cross-border ire stoked by trade disputes, Canada is at a critical ambassadorial crossroads. We need someone on the red phone to Washington who understands that the diplomatic needs of this nation are bigger than stump fees.

This diplomatic coup can be executed by:

1.) Relocating the US Embassy to the old Eddy match factory.

Benefit: Bulletproof vests and armoured Hummers will eliminate the need for shatterproof glass or concrete barricades. Sober terrorists will have difficulties finding it.

2.) Inviting 50’s opinions in drafting legislation on marijuana laws.

Benefit: Aside from Snoop or possibly Phish, few in the music world are more qualified to engage in these discussions. Peace and goodwill shall ensue.

3.) Encouraging Mr. Cent to explain the way that trade between untrusting partners should work.

Benefit: Getting Dubya to reminisce about his coke days may help him understand the sublteties of negotiation, the redefinition of contractual obligations and, in turn, soften his views on tariffs.

Posted by Greg at September 20th, 2005

Certain right-wing reactionaries are starting to wonder if the free market is the way to go in the energy business, asking serious questions about Chinese investment in Canadian energy. They fear that the Commies are trying to take over Canadian industry and will quite obviously take over the whole of the country shortly after.

Right.

As both xenophobes and anti-globalization activists tend to forget, globalization goes both ways. Canadian investment in China is growing every year, especially in key sectors like aerospace and biotech. We can’t expect to be able to move in on Chinese industry and not expect their dollars to flow back this way. This leads to an obvious question– Why would Canada want to keep Chinese money out? We could cite the many and blatent Chinese human rights abuses as problematic, but flagrant human rights abuses have never kept investment out of Canada before. What’s the difference?

In 1996 Tom Friedman pointed out that no two nations with McDonalds restaurants had ever gone to war. His theory was based more on the economics than the fries, of course. He claimed that “when a country gets a middle class big enough to sustain a McDonald’s network, they generally want to focus on economic development.” While this rule was broken in the 1999 NATO invasion of Yugoslavia, the basic premise holds true. Economic development and, as Friedman states in his Dell Theory, interconnected supply chains and global investment will reduce the incentive to fight wars.

Maybe fearmongers like Kate McMillan are just worried that more tightly knit global economies will keep us from blowing up people who aren’t just like her.

Posted by Carol at September 5th, 2005

Much buzz is circulating over the indictment of Kazaa by an Australian court, buoying the Canadian Recording Industry Association’s hope for the criminalization of file swapping in Canada.

CRIA President Graham Henderson said, “Today’s court decision is a wake-up call to Canadians who continue to engage in illegitimate downloading and should also send an important message to Parliamentarians in Ottawa debating new copyright rules.”

What message?

That no one notices the important definitional difference between the terms ILLEGAL and ILLEGITIMATE?

That Canada should work against the wishes of artists who struggle against CANCON’s legacy of promoting Celine, Shania and Nickelback at the expense of smaller artists?

That the public shouldn’t question the false claims and misrepresentation of statistics which legitimate CRIA’s goals? [Note to CRIA: Canada’s per-capita downloading is still eclipsed by the US, according to the OECD ]

That this debate allows the escalating intellectual chill executed by the US Office of Foreign Asset Control remain out of the public eye?

Of course it seems rather inevitable that downloading will be criminalized. Telus and other smarmy ISP’s have begun to slap the wrists of their clients for illegitimate activity. But that doesn’t mean that I won’t download as much music as possible in the interim. Hell, I’ll even download music for you! Just ask!

UPDATE! Thanks to the dude at Free Culture for alerting me to the lovely KILL C60 Website!