deicer

Donating Member
  • Content Count

    7,652
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    79

deicer last won the day on September 14

deicer had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

606 Excellent

4 Followers

About deicer

  • Rank
    7

Recent Profile Visitors

6,450 profile views
  1. As the movie 'The Great Hack' highlighted, data is more valuable than oil now... https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/the-next-generation-of-aircraft-will-track-your-bathroom-visits-1.1314946 The next generation of aircraft will track your bathroom visits Technology Pursuits News Wire Company News Sep 12, 2019 The next generation of aircraft will track your bathroom visits Justin Bachman, Bloomberg News Bloomberg Americas Qantas Tests Whether Passengers Can Handle a 20-Hour Flight Aug.22 -- Qantas Airways Ltd. will run marathon ghost flights to Sydney from New York and London to see how the human body holds up during a 20-hour flight. Bloomberg's Annmarie Hordern reports on "Bloomberg Daybreak: Europe." 00:15 Rewind 10 Seconds 01:30 01:30 Show Info Share video Settings Fullscreen Qantas Tests Whether Passengers Can Handle a 20-Hour Flight Attention airline bathroom loiterers: The next generation of Airbus aircraft will track how long you’ve been in there. It’s all part of an effort to make commercial cabins a digitally aware domain. The program is Airbus’s bid to raise the Internet of Things — that buzz-phrase for connected household gadgets — to cruising altitude. The Airbus Connected Experience aims to give flight attendants a more detailed survey of the cabin, with sensors for such critical data as when bathroom soap is running low and how much toilet paper remains in each bathroom. But the rethinking of the passenger environment doesn’t just stop with the lavatory. At each seat, your belt will signal red for unbuckled and green when fastened. The goal is faster boarding and departure, dispensing with those lap-scrutinizing walk-throughs flight attendants must perform. The crew will also have access to information on what’s onboard and where, like which galley carts contain specific meals, such as preorders or vegetarian selections. “It’s not a concept, it’s not a dream: It’s reality,” Ingo Wuggetzer, Airbus’s vice president of cabin marketing, said Tuesday at an aviation trade show in Los Angeles. Airbus has begun flight testing the connected cabin on its A350 test aircraft and plans to introduce it on the A321 family in 2021, followed by the larger, two-aisle A350 series two years later. As cool as all of this may seem to you, the passenger, it’s just another way for airlines to squeeze more profit out of operations. While data from these various areas will be sent to flight attendant tablets or smart phones in real time, the crunching of that data over time is where the real value lies. The connectivity Airbus envisions for its cabins will provide an enormous trove of information airlines can use to analyze and optimize in their never-ending quest for cost efficiencies. From the time it takes a flight attendant to respond to a call button, to preferences for prosecco versus chardonnay, to which bathroom gets the most use — the information can help optimize all aspects of flight. “You can make the service more attentive,” said Ronald Sweers, an Airbus cabin-products director. While the digital doodads are expected to simplify flight attendant workloads, their true value may lie in giving airlines more insights about what happens in the cabin. That space, Wuggetzer noted, is a virtual “black box” to carriers once the plane leaves a gate. But not for much longer. Airbus also plans to offer airlines the option of cameras at each lavatory (on the outside, mind you) to count how many passengers are waiting, a feature which may help flight attendants redirect some of that traffic on larger jets. While certainly helpful to that man in 17C who had one too many sodas, the data will also show airlines the length of wait times on various flights, and on different aircraft types. More seriously, it can also alert a flight attendant that someone inside may be ill or need assistance, Wuggetzer said. Technology Pursuits News Wire Company News Sep 12, 2019 The next generation of aircraft will track your bathroom visits Justin Bachman, Bloomberg News Bloomberg Americas Qantas Tests Whether Passengers Can Handle a 20-Hour Flight Aug.22 -- Qantas Airways Ltd. will run marathon ghost flights to Sydney from New York and London to see how the human body holds up during a 20-hour flight. Bloomberg's Annmarie Hordern reports on "Bloomberg Daybreak: Europe." 00:15 Rewind 10 Seconds 01:30 01:30 Show Info Share video Settings Fullscreen Qantas Tests Whether Passengers Can Handle a 20-Hour Flight Attention airline bathroom loiterers: The next generation of Airbus aircraft will track how long you’ve been in there. It’s all part of an effort to make commercial cabins a digitally aware domain. The program is Airbus’s bid to raise the Internet of Things — that buzz-phrase for connected household gadgets — to cruising altitude. The Airbus Connected Experience aims to give flight attendants a more detailed survey of the cabin, with sensors for such critical data as when bathroom soap is running low and how much toilet paper remains in each bathroom. But the rethinking of the passenger environment doesn’t just stop with the lavatory. At each seat, your belt will signal red for unbuckled and green when fastened. The goal is faster boarding and departure, dispensing with those lap-scrutinizing walk-throughs flight attendants must perform. The crew will also have access to information on what’s onboard and where, like which galley carts contain specific meals, such as preorders or vegetarian selections. “It’s not a concept, it’s not a dream: It’s reality,” Ingo Wuggetzer, Airbus’s vice president of cabin marketing, said Tuesday at an aviation trade show in Los Angeles. Airbus has begun flight testing the connected cabin on its A350 test aircraft and plans to introduce it on the A321 family in 2021, followed by the larger, two-aisle A350 series two years later. As cool as all of this may seem to you, the passenger, it’s just another way for airlines to squeeze more profit out of operations. While data from these various areas will be sent to flight attendant tablets or smart phones in real time, the crunching of that data over time is where the real value lies. The connectivity Airbus envisions for its cabins will provide an enormous trove of information airlines can use to analyze and optimize in their never-ending quest for cost efficiencies. From the time it takes a flight attendant to respond to a call button, to preferences for prosecco versus chardonnay, to which bathroom gets the most use — the information can help optimize all aspects of flight. “You can make the service more attentive,” said Ronald Sweers, an Airbus cabin-products director. While the digital doodads are expected to simplify flight attendant workloads, their true value may lie in giving airlines more insights about what happens in the cabin. That space, Wuggetzer noted, is a virtual “black box” to carriers once the plane leaves a gate. But not for much longer. Airbus also plans to offer airlines the option of cameras at each lavatory (on the outside, mind you) to count how many passengers are waiting, a feature which may help flight attendants redirect some of that traffic on larger jets. While certainly helpful to that man in 17C who had one too many sodas, the data will also show airlines the length of wait times on various flights, and on different aircraft types. More seriously, it can also alert a flight attendant that someone inside may be ill or need assistance, Wuggetzer said. A carry-on bag space detecting overhead bin is demonstrated inside the Airbus SE Airspace connected aircraft passenger cabin during the APEX Expo in Los Angeles, California, U.S., on Wednesday, September 11, 2019. (Patrick T. Fallon/Bloomberg) The crew will also be able to control features such as window shades and public address volume from their mobile devices. The system will know which overhead bin spaces are open, with green lights along the cabin, much like the lighting schemes used in parking decks to signal drivers toward unoccupied spaces. That should, in theory, speed boarding, Airbus says. As far as Airbus is concerned, the cabin’s platform is open so customer airlines can attach their own crew applications or other software, Sweers said. Many large carriers have customized or proprietary software for such onboard tasks as catering. “The feedback we heard from airlines was, ‘OK, Airbus, we don’t believe you’re able to give us an application that will work with our systems,’” Sweers said on the trade show floor, discussing the galley equipment.
  2. While we get discount coupons like that in the GTA, the average price for a Big Mac combo is around $11. https://www.expatistan.com/price/big-mac/toronto
  3. Remember, when you point a finger, three point back at you... Sorry the pics didn't transver over, click the link to see the proof of Mr. Scheer's hypocrisy. https://www.narcity.com/news/ca/andrew-scheer-called-out-justin-trudeaus-india-trip-and-it-completely-back-fired Andrew Scheer Tried To Make Fun Of Justin Trudeau’s India Trip & It Completely Backfired Things definitely didn't go to plan for Scheer. Helena Hanson 1 month ago Updated on August 02 @ 04:24 PM 1.4K andrewjscheer | Instagram justinpjtrudeau | Instagram It is no secret that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Conservative opposition leader Andrew Scheer are not exactly the best of friends. Most recently, Andrew Scheer called out Justin Trudeau's India trip. That's not surprising, as the two are leaders of opposing political parties, and there's an election right around the corner. However, things don’t always work out the way you want when it comes to social media, where Scheer posted about Trudeau. In fact, things certainly backfired for Scheer this week when he tried to drag Justin Trudeau for ‘damaging Canada’s international relations’ during his 2018 trip to India. Despite Scheer's attempts to make a mockery of Trudeau, the public seemed to side with the Prime Minister, making Scheer look a little bit foolish himself. To make his point, Scheer shared a recent article from the National Post, which was criticizing Trudeau’s choice of attire during his recent trip to India. During the trip, the Prime Minister and his family were seen repeatedly wearing traditional Indian clothing, that was described by one website as “too Indian, even for an Indian.” While the tweet had more than 500 retweets and nearly 2,000 likes, the response from Canadians was probably not exactly what Scheer was hoping for. While it is common for political figures and their families to wear culturally appropriate attire during official visits, it is rarely done so often and so over-the-top as Trudeau did. Naturally, Scheer made the most of this opportunity to take aim at the Liberal leader, saying in a tweet that “he [Trudeau] has embarrassed Canada on the world stage.” However, Canadians were not having any of this from Scheer, and were quick to respond to his tweet with some pretty hilarious criticisms of their own. In fact, several users dug out some less-than-flattering photos of Scheer, and even his predecessor Stephen Harper, dressed in various cultural attires, taking the opportunity to call him out on his hypocrisy. pic.twitter.com/OjEeDyWvtR — Danked (@dankeddude) August 2, 2019 One Twitter user used Scheer's own trip to London as an example of his hypocrisy, writing, “Not nearly as embarrassing as when you went on a make-believe Canadian PM trip to the UK. Did you accomplished big things while you were out there, Agent Smart?” Another noted that Trudeau’s clothing could simply be regarded as respectful, writing, “ why is it that when you wear these same kinds of clothes, it was ok, but when the PM does it, you ridicule him? He was trying to show respect for the culture, what's wrong with that? Is this what you think a good leader does?” With the October federal election drawing nearer, it is no surprise the pressure is building between the two opposing leaders, and they are likely to continue to take aim at one another in the weeks to come. That said, after his latest attempt to call-out Trudeau back-fired a little, perhaps Scheer will be a little more careful before he hits the 'send tweet' button next time!
  4. Please don't forget the race to the bottom was created by American corporations pushing Regan, Mulroney and Thatcher to create conservative policies in the 80's to outsource labour for greater profits. (NAFTA). The seed sown is now blooming. https://www.businessinsider.com/what-happened-to-american-jobs-in-the-80s-2017-7 White House Trade Council head Peter Navarro was explaining what he sees as the biggest problem with the American economy since the 1990s that exacerbated inequality and left the American worker in the lurch. "Well, I think you start with the idea that we've had 15 years of subpar growth — 2 percent or below," he said in an interview with NPR to promote "Made in America Week." "Prior to 2001, we grew at 3 and a half percent. The big difference has been the entry of China in particular into the World Trade Organization and our markets. And we've just been hammered. What that does as a proxy, basically, is it drains essentially the lifeblood out of our manufacturing economy, out of our communities, out of our tax bases." So the narrative from the White House is that China's big push into global markets is the root cause for stagnant economic and wage growth since the turn of the millennium. But that narrative has a really basic flaw: It's only half the story. And with only half the story, you're not going to find a whole solution to the slow growth, low wage, low unemployment predicament we find ourselves in now. The problem didn't start in the 1990s, it started in the 1980s, when Ronald Reagan — a hero of the Trump administration — was president, and neoliberal economics were first making their mark on policy. Reagan and his ilk distrusted government and believed that the private sector could make the best decisions when left on its own. You've heard about this — it's called laissez faire economics. This ideology ultimately led to the financialization of the US corporation — the process of putting shareholders first, often at the expense of workers and consumers — and its emergence as an actor that takes resources from the economy rather than creating them. This, combined with a government zeal for lowering taxes rather than spending, means no one — not the government, and not the private sector — is investing enough in America to keep the economy strong across social classes. In short: Government cuts and changes in how corporations operate mean American workers are getting screwed by their own government and their own employers. Navarro and I end up with the same dire view of the current economic landscape. We just disagree on how we got there. An unstoppable force... But I'm jumping ahead — let's go back to the Reagan era. That was also the time Japanese manufacturers had developed a superior management style to their American rivals and, frankly, started eating our lunch. Instead of keeping a wall between management and workers, Japanese manufacturers adopted "organizational integration," which put technical specialists and shop-floor workers together. The result was better products made faster in Japan, and jobs lost permanently in the United States. The Financialization of the US Corporation, William Lazonick William Lazonick, an economics professor at UMass Lowell, describes the results of that transformation in his 2012 paper, "The Financialization of the US Corporation: What Has Been Lost, and How Can It Be Regained." It's a must-read for this kind of stuff. Lazonick describes the huge negative effect competition from Japanese manufacturers had on American manufacturing jobs: "The adverse impact of Japanese competition on US employment became particularly harsh in the double-dip recession of 1980-1982 when large numbers of good blue-collar jobs disappeared from US industry, as it turned out permanently (Bednarzik 1983). "Previously, in a more stable competitive environment, US manufacturing companies would lay off workers with the least seniority in a downturn and re-employ them when economic conditions improved. Now companies were much more likely to shutter whole plants (Harris 1984; Hamermesh 1989). "From 1980 to 1985 employment in the US economy increased from 104.5 million to 107.2 million workers, or by 2.6 percent. But employment of operators, fabricators, and laborers fell from 20.0 million to 16.8 million, a decline of 15.9 percent (US Department of Commerce 1983, 416; and 1986, 386)." Industries like consumer electronics, automobiles, machine tools, steel and microelectronics were all hit especially hard by Japan's advancement. Most never recovered. Some companies disappeared from the face of the earth, like consumer electronics maker RCA. In 1981 it was a global leader, by 1986 it was bought by GE and then chopped up and sold for parts. ...meets an immovable object Lawmakers watch closely as President Reagan signs into law a landmark tax overhaul on the White House South Lawn in Washington, Wednesday, Oct. 22, 1986. Reagan called the bill a "sweeping victory for fairness." AP Photo/Bob Dougherty All of this was happening amid a wave of deregulation in the US. The head of the SEC, John Shad, was a former banker — something that hadn't happened in 50 years. He, like Reagan, believed that the private sector could channel funds better without regulation and so he wrote rules with that in mind. For example, in 1982 he made it legal for companies to repurchase their shares on the open market pretty much whenever they wanted. Previously, the SEC had considered this a form of stock price manipulation. This was also the era of the corporate raider, pushing companies to become leaner and more profitable as quickly as possible. The shareholder became the main thing for a company to worry about. Employees lost their status. Companies feared getting attacked, so they bent over backward to mollify the former at the expense of the latter. Those new stock repurchasing rules, for one thing, allowed them to shore up their defenses by buying back stock. But, of course, that meant spending money that could've gone to innovate, invest in new technology and equipment, or reward workers. That's when Lazonick says the financialization of the American corporation began in earnest, and blue-collar workers were left behind by corporate America and the government alike: "As secure middle-class jobs for high-school-educated blue-collar workers permanently disappeared, there was no commitment on the part of those who managed US industrial corporations or the Republican administrations that ruled in the 1980s to invest in the new capabilities and opportunities required to upgrade the quality and expand the quantity of well-paid employment opportunities in the United States on a scale sufficient to re-establish conditions of prosperity for these displaced members of the US labor force." Reagan's mission was to cut the budget — which meant not spending money investing in the future of these workers. In the decades after this process started, manufacturing workers would find their numbers diminishing as corporations sought ways to please shareholders, and the government sought ways to lower taxes and deregulate the private sector. No one had their backs. The rich get richer When corporations borrow money, one would think that money would go into investment in the firm. But according to the Roosevelt Institute, a left-leaning Washington think tank, since the 1980s, companies have invested less than 10 cents of each borrowed dollar. They've put far more effort into buying back stock which, thanks to the way executive compensation works, makes the C-suite richer and richer. From 2003 to 2012, S&P 500 companies used 54% ($2.4 trillion) of their earnings for stock buybacks. That has also contributed substantially to the inequality we're seeing, as the main beneficiaries of buybacks are wealthy investors. Meanwhile, the private sector has called on the government to invest in innovation. Back in 2010 the American Energy Innovation Council— which includes executives from Microsoft, Bank of America, and other massive companies — called on the government to increase its investment in alternative energy from $5 billion to $16 billion annually. Of course, as Lazonick pointed out in his paper, seven of the companies on the council had spent $228 billion from 2000-2010 on stock buybacks. To put this another way: big business is asking the government to assume the risk involved in innovation, so they can take advantage of the benefits. Navarro never mentions things like this. No one in the administration ever does. The way they tell the story, the only problem in corporate America lies with foreigners taking advantage of unfair circumstances and big multinationals that cut jobs domestically to tap cheap labor abroad. The administration thinks the remedy for that is punishing China — and other trading partners — who have a competitive edge. They look outward instead of inward. Navarro hammered on this trend: "...what's interesting is that with every different country that we have a large trade deficit with, we have a different set of problems — with Mexico, for example — cheap labor," Navarro explained. "With Germany, they have a misaligned currency. So if you address these issues of unfair trade practices, if you get better trade deals, if you stop things like forced technology transfer or the theft of our intellectual property, if you ensure that the sweatshops of the world live up to international standards for minimum wage and safe working conditions, if you have reasonable environmental protection, then American manufacturers can compete with anybody in the world." If this is the way you look at that problem, you're not going to find a sustainable solution. The world didn't take America's jobs, America let the world have them without investing in a path to new ones because politicians were more interested in tax cuts, and corporate America was more interested in short term gains.
  5. Mach 8.6!!! https://jalopnik.com/you-cant-even-see-this-hypersonic-sled-hit-6-599-mph-1838027056
  6. Marshall It is the lies and misdirection that are swaying Ontario voters, and the rest of Canada should take note. Here's more of the lies that were used to sway the faithful who don't think for themselves. So the increases in the debt and deficit are more of Ford's policy now than blaming the past. https://www.thestar.com/politics/provincial/2019/09/13/ontarios-deficit-last-year-was-74b-half-what-ford-claimed.html Ontario’s deficit last year was $7.4B — half what Ford claimed Ontario’s budget deficit was half of the $15 billion the Progressive Conservative government initially claimed after defeating the Liberals last year. Treasury Board President Peter Bethlenfalvy and Finance Minister Rod Phillips on Friday announced that the final deficit figure for 2018-19 was $7.4 billion. The Tory ministers said the change — down from an interim $11.7 billion figure disclosed by former treasurer Vic Fedeli who was demoted 10 weeks after his April budget — is due to higher tax revenues and lower than anticipated spending. “Our government’s strong fiscal management and smart policies mean we are overcoming the previous government’s record of waste and mismanagement,” said Bethlenfalvy. But the actual deficit could be anywhere from $1.3 billion to $2.6 billion lower because the Tories are still in discussions with Auditor General Bonnie Lysyk over how to include billions of assets in government co-sponsored pension plans. Lysyk used to account for the holdings in the Ontario Public Service Employees’ Union Pension Plan and the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan until a dispute with the previous Liberal government in 2015. A panel of independent experts hired by the former administration and led by the chair of the Canadian Actuarial Standards Oversight Council concluded in 2017 that she was wrong. The Conservatives’ independent “financial commission of inquiry,” headed by former B.C. Liberal premier Gordon Campbell, said last year the government should only adopt Lysyk’s accounting method on a “provisional basis.” “It would seem reasonable that the government should be able to recognize a portion of an asset it jointly controls with another party,” Campbell’s report concluded. “Given the risks and uncertainties involved, they may not feel it appropriate for the government to recognize its full 50 per cent share of the surplus. By the same token, however, it seems unlikely they would conclude the value to be zero.” Bethlenfalvy said negotiations are continuing with Lysyk to determine how the pensions could be accounted for in the future. That suggests if those assets are considered to be worth $2.6 billion to the annual bottom line then the government could claim a $1.3 billion benefit. Phillips emphasized that they are “non-cash” accounting items on the books so they do not affect borrowing or program spending. The finance minister, who took over from Fedeli after Premier Doug Ford’s massive June 20 cabinet shuffle, said the Tories still plan to balance the books within five years. While the shortfall last year was $7.4 billion, the deficit remains on track to be $10.3 billion for 2019-20, though Phillips is expected to revise that figure in November’s fall economic statement. After toppling Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals in June 2018, the Ford government determined the deficit had ballooned to $15 billion. That inflated tally included $5.7 billion in new Liberal election spending announced in the March 2018 budget even though the new Tory administration was not bound by those promises and cancelled most of them. NDP MPP Sara Singh said any savings being touted by Bethlenfalvy and Phillips are coming on the backs of Ontarians. “After the Kathleen Wynne government was finishing letting people down, Doug Ford barged in to make devastating cuts to services that everyday families really count on,” said Singh (Brampton Centre). Interim Liberal leader John Fraser said “by inflating the deficit, the Ford government created the context to cut $2.3 billion to services that families depend on like public health, education, child care, mental health and addictions services, among the many.” Green Leader Mike Schreiner said Ford “has overstated the deficit over the last year in order to pursue an ideological agenda of government cuts.” “Municipalities, children with autism, school programs, the arts, and community groups are all feeling the sting of Ford’s cuts, even while the government delivered tax breaks to the wealthy last year,” said Schreiner.
  7. I believe this is one of the major issues that needs to be addressed. It is the biggest drag on the economy and on society. https://pressprogress.ca/statistics-canada-percentage-of-canadian-workers-earning-minimum-wage-has-doubled-since-1998/ Statistics Canada: Percentage of Canadian Workers Earning Minimum Wage Has Doubled Since 1998 New data from Statistics Canada upends right-wing stereotypes about minimum wage workers September 13, 2019 Share Tweet Welcome to the new economy. A new study quietly released by Statistics Canada finds that between 1998 and 2018, the percentage of Canadians with minimum wage has doubled, with one-in-three minimum wage workers also holding postsecondary degrees. The data stands in stark contrast to the narratives pushed by right-wing think tanks and other business groups opposed to minimum wage increases who falsely claim the majority of minimum wage workers are teens working at mom and pop shops. Statistics Canada According to Statistics Canada’s data, in 1998, 5.2% of all Canadian workers had minimum wage jobs. Twenty years later in 2018, the most recent year for which data is available, that percentage doubled to 10.4%. That rise wasn’t steady either — in 2017-2018, the share of minimum wage workers rose from 6.4% to 10.4%. Statistics Canada According to Statistics Canada, that spike came from a rapid increase in minimum wage workers in Ontario — Canada’s most populous and wealthiest province — where nearly 15% of the workforce depends on the minimum wage. The data also proves minimum wage workers in 2018 are not low-skilled teens. Nearly half (47.7%) of Canada’s minimum wage workers are over the age of 25. And a little over one-third (34.9%) had a post-secondary diploma or above. There has also been an explosion of minimum wage jobs at large companies. From 1998 to 2018, the proportion of Canada’s large firm employees earning the minimum wage more than doubled from 3.4% to 9.4%. Meanwhile, the share at medium-sized firms rose from 4.8% to 9.7%, and it rose from 9.7% to 14.2% at small firms. Statistics Canada Statistics Canada commented: “These observations point to a potential erosion of the large-firm wage premium over time.” During this erosion, however, Canada’s largest corporations continued to gobble up assets. As PressProgress reported, the most powerful 0.8% of Canada’s corporations classified as multinational enterprises controlled two-thirds of all assets in 2016, the most recent year for which data is available.
  8. Any negotiation is give and take. Donnie likes to take. If this doesn't open up movement in negotiations, I expect the backlash from China will be interesting to watch.
  9. Now appears the Chinese are going to be the adult in the room. That, and I believe they are showing off that they are now far ahead of the U.S. in technological advancement. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeanbaptiste/2019/09/12/huawei-ceo-reportedly-offers-to-license-5g-technology-stack-to-american-companies-in-peace-offer-to-trump/#1f4c6c1d5324 Huawei CEO Reportedly Offers To License 5G Technology To American Companies In Peace Offer To Trump Correction: This post has been updated to clarify CEO Zhengfei Ren's comments reported in the New York Times. Zhengfei Ren, the CEO and founder of Huawei offered an olive branch to the Trump administration: License the Chinese telecommunications giant's 5G technology to American companies, with the caveat that the U.S. government "“the U.S. side has to accept us at some level for that to happen.” Currently, the use of Huawei equipment is banned from U.S. networks over concerns that it could be used by the Chinese government as a method to spy or disrupt telecom systems. The offer, which was reported earlier this week by New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, would essentially allow the U.S. to finally get in the race for 5G supremacy which is now dominated by Chinese firms Huawei and ZTE, Ericsson of Sweden and Nokia from Finland. Note: Whether "Huawei is open to sharing our 5G technologies and techniques with U.S. companies, so that they can build up their own 5G industry. That would create a balanced situation between China, the U.S. and Europe,” told Ren to the newspaper. I reached out to Huawei's communications team who confirmed Ren's offer. Moreover, Ren added that the U.S. companies would be allowed to modify as they see fit the software code used to run any of Huawei's 5G equipment or even change it and use their own. Though this does not guarantee security against back doors, the implication is that this should allay fears that the Chinese company might be able to access these licensed American made 5G telecommunications gears to spy for the Chinese government. Further, the Chinese government would have to approve the deal. Today In: Innovation Ren added that the American licensees will be able to sell their 5G equipment based on Huawei's intellectual property anywhere in the world, except in China. Atherton Research Insights PROMOTED The CEO's offer of licensing Huawei's crown jewels—5G will be the core technology used in all of the world's telecommunications infrastructure for at least the next decade—came as a shock, both outside but also inside the world's largest maker of 5G networking equipment. Our sources close to the firm confirmed to us that Ren's announcement was news to the entire company, headquartered in Shenzhen, China. On the technology side—although there are many political ramifications to this, including the fact that the Chinese government might not like to see the most valuable assets of its most valuable tech company land in U.S. hands, my goal here is to discuss the impact this olive branch will have on the technology sector— this could be the one-time opportunity to make the U.S. a telecommunications powerhouse again and get back and win the 5G race. Today, there is no American 5G equipment maker. Lucent, which used to be part of A&T, was the last U.S. manufacturer of telecommunications equipment and is now part of Nokia, after the Finnish company completed the acquisition of Alcatel-Lucent three years ago, on November 2016. And Qualcomm is only making 5G modems and antennas for smartphones and is not building any telecommunications equipment. Although a company like Cisco—which already competes with Huawei in the enterprise and service provider networking market—would be a great candidate for this deal, smaller equipment makers including Arista, Juniper or a Silicon Valley startup could grab this opportunity to build the next U.S. telecommunications giant that could compete and win against Ericsson, Nokia and Huawei! An offer definitely worth considering.
  10. Another example of why you need to use trusted sources. Deepfakes are getting really good... https://9gag.com/gag/a5R7EjN
  11. Nothing but a bag of lies, and it's gonna hurt Scheer real bad.... http://www.michaelspratt.com/law-blog/2019/8/10/newly-released-documents-show-doug-ford-lied-about-legal-aid Newly Released Documents Show Doug Ford Lied About Legal Aid August 10, 2019 / Michael Spratt Back in April, after almost "hitting three telephone poles," Doug Ford called into a Toronto radio station to defend the government’s cuts to the legal aid system. The boiling public backlash seems to have gotten under his thin skin and at the end of that impromptu call Ford said that, "if anyone needs support on legal aid, feel free to call my office. I will guarantee you that you will have legal aid." New information, released under a Freedom of Information request, shows that Ford never had any intention of following through on his legal aid guarantee. But first some recent history. In the days before Ford’s frantic radio call-in, the Ontario government had just slashed funding to Legal Aid Ontario (LAO) by 30 per cent. To make matters worse, the $133 million cut took effect immediately – there was no advanced notice – despite the fact that LAO's 2019 budget had already been finalized. And on top of it all, the province directed LAO that no provincial money at all could be used to cover immigration and refugee law, meaning that vulnerable immigrants and refugees would face deportation hearings without any legal counsel. Ultimately, the scope of Ford’s cruel cuts stretched well beyond immigration hearings. Community legal clinics, which provide assistance to some of Ontario’s most marginalized people, were forced to roll-back services and close offices. Funding for indigenous specific sentencing submissions was slashed by more than 50-percent. And rollbacks to criminal court services sparked a crisis in the justice system. More and more people who can’t afford a lawyer are being denied legal aid. This is the context in which Doug Ford guaranteed that those people who need legal aid “will have legal aid.” And this week, in response to continued questions by the Huffington Post’s Emma Paling, Ford doubled down on his guarantee saying the he would “continue to help anyone who calls.” But internal government emails reveal that, despite his promises, Ford has not actually helped anyone. On April 23, the day after Ford first made his legal aid promise, I wrote to the premier to inquire how my clients, who are in desperate circumstances but have been denied legal aid, could take advantage of his personal guarantee. I received no response. So, over the following 100-days I wrote more than 40 letters to the premier and Attorneys General Caroline Mulroney and Doug Downey. It was a one-way pen pal relationship. I never heard back from Doug Ford. Ford may not have responded to any of my letters but the Ministry of the Attorney General (MAG), then lead by Caroline Mulroney, immediately took notice. On April 23, the day I wrote the first letter, senior team lead at MAG, Philip Klassen wrote to Caroline Mulroney’s director of communications, Jesse Robichaud, her press secretary, Alexandra Adamo, her issues management advisor, Jean-Philippe Chartré, her legal counsel, Genvieve Chiu, and a team of media relations personal alerting them that a “prominent Ottawa lawyer” had written to the premier about his “promise that anyone who needed legal aid will receive it.” Seven days later, issues and media relations officer Maher Abdurahamsn sent a follow up email alerting the team that it “seemed like Mr. Spratt is still going strong.” You can bet your ass I was. It appears that Ford was not expecting anyone to actually take him up on his legal aid promise. Over a week after his call to the radio station, the premier’s correspondence unit was still “waiting for input” on how to reply to my letters. But my request was not, as the Attorney Generals’ team noted, a “one-off.” It turns out Ford received at least half-a-dozen letters about his promise. Ford Passing The Buck on his guarantee On April 29, the premier received a letter from a constituent seeking help because they were denied legal aid and could not afford a lawyer. Despite his personal guarantee, Ford responded that the issue was not in his “area of responsibility” and shuffled the inquiry to Mulroney. The next day Ford received another email from someone “in desperate need of legal aid.” Ford again responded that this request fell outside his area of responsibility and forwarded the request to the Attorney General. Another emailer implored Ford for help saying, “You said no person would ever be without help and I am hoping that you will be able to help me.” Ford did not provide any help and again passed the request to Mulroney. NO government interference With Legal Aid And what was the Attorney General’s response to these pleas for help? Mulroney wrote that she could not provide any assistance, including “speaking with LAO staff on your behalf to secure a certificate” because LAO operates “independently and without government interference.” The heavily redacted government emails also show that in one case an immigrant or refugee wrote to Ford because they were denied legal aid. This time Ford, after expressing sympathy about the situation, suggested that any immigration related issues should be addressed to the Federal Minister of Immigration and Refugees and Citizenship, Ahmed Hussen. Promises Made, Promises Broken Ford promised that anyone who needed legal aid would get it but government documents show that no one who contacted Ford received legal aid or assistance of any kind. Those same documents show that no one in the Ford government even had the power to intervene with LAO’s decisions. Pick your poison, either Ford was so utterly incompetent that he made a promise he was incapable of keeping and then made it again or he is purposefully misleading the public to distract from his deeply unpopular legal aid cuts. Ford promised that anyone one who needed legal aid would get it. All they had to do was call him. And then, when people contacted him, he said it was not his problem and passed the buck. And when the Attorney General received that buck she said that LAO was independent so they could not provide any help either. And despite all of this, Ford doubled down on his disingenuous promise. A promise he was powerless to fulfil. A promise that he never had any intention of keeping. A promise that has now proven to be pure political hucksterism. A promise that proves Ford to be liar.
  12. As written by a guy who wants to get his hands on your money. DB plans per se aren't the problem. The greed of corporations is the problem. First they wanted to raid the pensions to get the money, now they want to divest themselves of the responsibility. But only for the workers. DB pensions would have been sustainable if all stake holders contributed through good and bad. But when times were good, companies took 'pension holidays' and in my opinion that took money away that could have shored them up when times were bad. One has to be grateful that in Canada the laws are different otherwise a lot of us would have ended up like United Airlines pensioners. And if DB pensions are so bad, why do executives and politicians have them?
  13. Will definitely be interesting to see if the narrative in the U.S. changes now that one of the Koch brothers has passed away.