Skip Navigation

User banner

ValueSubtracted

@ ValueSubtracted @startrek.website

Posts
304
Comments
172
Joined
3 yr. ago

Mastodon

Have you ever considered that the Prime Directive is not only not ethical, but also illogical, and perhaps morally indefensible?

  • U.S. resumed trade talks with Canada on Monday morning, says Carney

    Jump

  • Even if we reach a deal, it’s not like Trump is stable or trustworthy enough to honour it.

    I don't think this is entirely true - Trump is obviously not trustworthy, but the government has been able to leverage CUSMA to lessen the impact of the attempted tariffs. There seems to be some benefit to having a formal deal in place.

    But I'm definitely not comfortable with this capitulation at all.

  • U.S. resumed trade talks with Canada on Monday morning, says Carney

    Jump

  • Despite the move, Canada is still in active discussions with G7 allies to introduce an international tax, with Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne leading that work, the PMO said.

    If this ends up happening, it's important context to this decision.

    If it ends up not happening...pretty weak shit.

  • Canada rescinds digital services tax to advance trade discussions with the United States

    Jump

  • Elbows way, way down.

  • "Just Agree, It's Probably Fine" by ToyBoxComix

    Jump

  • 30 seconds later

  • Deleted

    Make a call to demand that the Senate hit pause on Bill C-5, which will bypass critical environmental protections and trample Indigenous rights.

    Jump

  • That nonsense is centuries behind us

    Jump

  • What do you mean, you've seen this? It's brand new...

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • Yeah, every analysis of the RCMP I've ever seen seems to agree that the elimination of their local policing responsibilities has got to be the first priority.

  • U of R professor found liable of defamation for calling a book ‘racist garbage’

    Jump

  • I'd like to know more about the ruling than what's presented in the article. And I guess I'd need to know more about Canadian defamation law.

    Not reading the book is unfortunate (sort of)...but it seems like a person could form a sincerely-held beliefs about a book without reading the thing cover to cover.

  • What's the difference?

    Jump

  • I know just the anomaly.

  • [PC] Bonus Dilithium Event

    Jump

  • I'm only going to speak for my own playstyle...I've really only ever played as a single-player game, following the linear storyline for the most part. Once you hit endgame, there are 5-player team-up events to participate in, and things like that.

    The bottom line for me is that it's not a difficult game to play, the PvP scene is basically non-existent, and there's not really a lot of incentive to get really grindy with it unless you're really a "make the numbers go up" kind of person. The game provides opportunities throughout the year to earn things through gameplay that would otherwise be locked behing IRL currency.

    I have spent maybe $10 on the game in the last several years, and even that was more because I was bored more than out of "necessity." That said, I bought a Lifetime Subscription in 2010 that gives me the equivalent of a $5 store credit each month, so I have the means to occasionally "buy" things without spending any money.

    Lastly...it's an old game. The gameplay is, by all accounts, pretty dated. But for the price of $0, it's a pretty enjoyable Star Trek sandbox to play in.

  • Federal government unveils Canada Strong Pass to promote domestic tourism and travel

    Jump

  • The pass, which launches on Friday, doesn't require registration or a physical card. Instead, the benefits will be available upon arrival at parks, national museums and when booking train tickets. Canadians and foreign tourists are eligible.

    It's not really a "pass" then, but cool.

  • "Strong Borders Bill" is an attack on canadian privacy, immigrants, refugees, and is unconstitutional

    Jump

  • regular folks

    I'm not even going to ask what your definition of that is.

    border authorities had the power to open any and all mail weighing over 30 grams, for at least the last 30+ years.

    And now that weight limit has been removed. It used to say, the Corporation may open any mail, other than a letter." Now it says, "the Corporation may open any mail."

    It repeals the portion of the Canada Post Corporation Act that says, "Notwithstanding any other Act or law, but subject to this Act and the regulations and to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, the Customs Act and the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, nothing in the course of post is liable to demand, seizure, detention or retention," and replaces it with, "Nothing in the course of post is subject to demand, seizure, detention or retention, except in accordance with an Act of Parliament," which is a massive expansion of the circumstances in which it can be done.

    It also rewords the section on liability to ensure that there's...no liability, for anyone, in cases where mail is seized.

    Bill C2 gives police the ability to search mail when authorized in order to carry out a criminal investigation.

    The bottom line is that these should be considered law enforcement activities, but there's no warrant required. Just an "Act of Parliament." There's no probable cause defined here. Maybe you're fine with that. I'm not.

    But let’s not sweat things right now. This was the first reading, and all points of the bill can (and will) be debated. Expect tweaks, repeals, and amendments.

    I agree with you to an extent on this one. But things are more likely to be tweaked if people make some noise.

    Even the original YT video under discussion here said that this bill contains some entirely unobjectionable things. But it also contains things that I agree need another look, and in fact are downright Trumpian in some respects.

  • "Strong Borders Bill" is an attack on canadian privacy, immigrants, refugees, and is unconstitutional

    Jump

  • 78 (1) Subsection 101(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (b):

    (b.‍1) the claimant entered Canada after June 24, 2020 and made the claim more than one year after the day of their entry;

    That's the entire passage in question.

  • "Strong Borders Bill" is an attack on canadian privacy, immigrants, refugees, and is unconstitutional

    Jump

  • There are legal ways to visit Canada for extended periods of time.

    If, during that time, a person's country is invaded or otherwise made unsafe, do you still have no problem kicking them out?

  • "Strong Borders Bill" is an attack on canadian privacy, immigrants, refugees, and is unconstitutional

    Jump

  • Okay, if you need it spelled out for you, I didn't say organized crime never involves abuse of the immigration system, postal service, or online service providers. I said the bill reaches well beyond that goal (if indeed that is the goal, which is questionable to say the least).

    Go construct your straw men some place else.

  • "Strong Borders Bill" is an attack on canadian privacy, immigrants, refugees, and is unconstitutional

    Jump

  • all of which reach way beyond organized crime.

    C'mon, don't insult us both by pretending you can't read.

  • "Strong Borders Bill" is an attack on canadian privacy, immigrants, refugees, and is unconstitutional

    Jump

  • So you started with "there's no reason to appease the US," and have now landed on, "they say they're trying to appease the US by giving them things they want, but they don't really mean it"?

    And that ignores all of the other things in this bill that are about immigration, and asylum seekers, and being able to sieze peoples' mail, and forcing online providers to give up user data, all of which reach way beyond organized crime.

  • "Strong Borders Bill" is an attack on canadian privacy, immigrants, refugees, and is unconstitutional

    Jump

  • Unless you're trying to tell me those things aren't in the bill (they are), you haven't said anything at all.

  • "Strong Borders Bill" is an attack on canadian privacy, immigrants, refugees, and is unconstitutional

    Jump

  • If you're going to reply to me, you could at least make an effort to reference a single thing that I said.