Readit NewsSaying anything positive about MV3 or the lite extension seems to get you downvoted without explanation though, which is a nice example of how absurd this site is when it comes to anything related to Google.
Sometimes I think downvoting should require leaving a comment and reason, because I can't see any reason to downvote this other than "google bad".
I thought it was people born after the turn of the millenium.
What happended to "gen Y"?
This is why there is a Generation X/Millennial "transition" group of people that is sometimes referred to a Xennials[1].
... because the cops would stop him, insinuate that the money probably had something to do with crime, and then seize it to line their own pockets cough cough I mean "bolster their budgets."
Disclosure : based on my understanding of EM radiation as an EE and person who deploys microwave gear around my own house, I'm fine with anything non-ionizing. I'd like to see the general public more educated on this subject. Obfuscation is not in anyone's interest.
Marie Curie was also fine with working with Radium... until we found out that it wasn't good for you. The thing about stuff like cancers is that it's really difficult to say "this person's cancer was caused by X." The best we can do are wide spectrum studies about cancer rates, and try to use statistics to limit the variables.
He is almost everything that's bad on "tech journalism" concentrated in one.
Specially regarding his brand of hate, Apple.
He mentioned that the "mouse" of the Macintosh was bad ("There is no evidence that people want to use these things."), he claimed that Apple was going to discontinue OS X and switch to Windows (according to his "sources"), he argued that Apple should cancel the iPhone even before the thing came out, etc. etc. etc. the thing only repeats after each Apple new product, and even claimed that the $1T company was dead because the iPhone 5 was going to flop (the iPhone 5 was Apple's biggest success until the date).
There is only one reason why companies hire him or fire him, he drives clicks and magazine purchases. He is the Alex Jones of tech.
Thing is that today, people can go to many other places to get their Apple hate validated, on top of that, he wrote a negative article about 5G, and the PC Magazine sponsors are waiting for that to sell more phones, so he had to go.
That said, column seems more than a bit sensationalistic and one-sided --but not really all that different from many things that Dvorak has written over the years.
Dvorak's writing has always been about being contrarian and kicking up controversy.
I guess I only see 3 scenarios for such a trade agreement.
1) Both parties try to predict future economic growth. So maybe US believes IP protection for drugs would have a huge impact on their economy. But Canada thinks they're wrong, and that they'll make more gains from tax free dairy exports to the US that it will trump the loses from drug IPs. This is what I hope is happening. In which case, whoever can predict best wins.
2) This whole thing is driven by corruption. And the deals are not beneficial to Canada at large, but to special interests within it to which the deal is beneficial, even though it won't be for the average tax payer.
3) The US is using military threat or similar kind of forceful threat in order for Canada to just adopt laws that benefit the US only.
Is there something else at play here I can't see?
The way that Trump likes to negotiate that's not necessarily the case. He may think that he can get huge concessions without giving anything in return by just "playing hardball" and issuing threats to terminate negotiations if they don't go his way.
And how is any of this measurable? Like "less" could be a little less or a lot.
Also, I don't see anything lowering art/music/film protection. In fact it seems the opposite, copyrights will last longer, and ISP will police content.
In the end, an agreement of that sort has to be win/win for both countries no? Otherwise why would Canada agree to it?