Canada's Conference Board Found Plagiarizing Copyright Report 232
An anonymous reader writes "There is a storm
brewing in Canada as the prestigious Conference Board of Canada has
been caught
plagiarizing US copyright lobby group documents in a report on copyright
reform. The report was funded by the Canadian copyright lobby as
well as by the Ontario government. The Conference Board has acknowledged
some errors, but stands by the report, while the Ontario government admits
spending thousands of dollars and it now wants some answers."
What is the Conference Board of Canada? (Score:5, Informative)
As a Canadian, my first reaction to reading this story on /. was "what is the prestigious Conference Board of Canada?" I mean, I know what the "Ontario government" is and the "US copyright lobby" and "Canadian copyright lobby" are self-explanatory terms, but I'm not familiar with the Conference Board of Canada. When I read it here, I thought maybe it was an agency of the federal government.
Anyway, I little digging turns up that the Conference Board of Canada is basically a non-profit think-tank, that is funded on a per-service basis. So private groups and governments will pay it to research a topic and publish a paper on it. It also holds conferences and does research reports on its own. According to their official website, their areas of expertise are "running conferences", "conducting, publishing, and disseminating research", "economic trends", and "public policy issues". It is affiliated, but legally separate from, the U.S./international "The Conference Board, Inc. of New York".
They state: "Objective and non-partisan. We do not lobby for specific interests."
Re:Funny (Score:1, Informative)
The Canadians are always so stuck up about their way of life, but they're liars just like the American.
True, except we're not all fat from eating cheese. And we don't shoot our allies instead of our enemies. Aside from that, it's the same.
Re:Funny (Score:1, Informative)
These aren't "the Canadians" talking, it's an independent, not-for-profit organization that just happens to have "Canada" in their name.
Re:Funny (Score:4, Informative)
That's redundant. Canadian's ARE American's. They just aren't US American's
Incorrect Summary (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Correct Summary (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Funny (Score:5, Informative)
Hockey is our national sport.
Actually, it's Lacrosse.
Re:Funny (Score:5, Informative)
Contrary to popular Canadian belief....no Canadians were ever involved in the attack on Washington. The members of that attack were all from the British Isles. Stop believing this crap, and we'll stop saying you eat whale blubber and live in igloos all year round.
Semantics. Obviously since Canada didn't exist as an independent country until 1867 and the White House burned in 1814, Canada as it is now could not have been involved.
However, if you think there were no people involved that were born on what is now Canadian soil, then you are mistaken. Yes, it was British soldiers simply because Upper and Lower Canada were British colonies, and not all were sent from Britain itself.
Re:Funny (Score:1, Informative)
Contrary to popular Canadian belief....no Canadians were ever involved in the attack on Washington. The members of that attack were all from the British Isles.
Stop believing this crap, and we'll stop saying you eat whale blubber and live in igloos all year round.
Semantics. Obviously since Canada didn't exist as an independent country until 1867 and the White House burned in 1814, Canada as it is now could not have been involved.
However, if you think there were no people involved that were born on what is now Canadian soil, then you are mistaken. Yes, it was British soldiers simply because Upper and Lower Canada were British colonies, and not all were sent from Britain itself.
Actually, they were all British regulars from Britain....
Battle of Bladensburg [wikipedia.org]
Additional Information (Score:4, Informative)
Additional information has come to light since the original posting. Some interesting blog posts from:
It does have - indirect - nutritional benefits. (Score:3, Informative)
Unlike glucose, fructose is almost entirely metabolized in the liver. "When fructose reaches the liver," says Dr. William J. Whelan, a biochemist at the University of Miami School of Medicine, "the liver goes bananas and stops everything else to metabolize the fructose." Eating fructose as compared to glucose results in lower circulating insulin (pancreatic beta cell insulin release is controlled only by blood glucose levels) and leptin levels, and attenuation in the suppression of ghrelin postprandially.[53] These hormones are implicated in the control of appetite and satiety, and it is suspected that eating large amounts of fructose increases the likelihood of weight gain.[54] Excessive fructose consumption is also believed to contribute to the development of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.[55]
Also, consider this Newscientist article [newscientist.com], this one [newscientist.com], and if you want more, have a look at an article published in "The Journal of Clinical Investigation" about a link between HFCS and Diabetes in April.
Re:Funny (Score:2, Informative)
Canada was granted its independence by most definitions in 1867. This was when we became self-governing (when a "responsible government" was installed.")
The difference Theory and Practice ...
In Theory, the Monarch of Canada appoints the Governor General. The Governor General convenes Parliament and dissolves Parliament. A bill passed by Parliament becomes law only after the Governor General proclaims it so in the name of the Monarch. The Governor General remains in office until the Monarch of Canada appoints a new Governor General.
In Theory, we do not have "responsible government" in Canada even today.
In Practice, the Governor General is whoever the Prime Minister says should be the Governor General. The Governor General convenes Parliament when the Prime Minister says that Parliament should be convened. The Governor General dissolves Parliament when the Prime Minister says to dissolve Parliament. The Governor General proclaims an act into law when the Prime Minister says it should be proclaimed (few Canadians realize just how close our Prime Minister is to being a dictator for the (up to) five years he is in office).
In Practice, the Province of Canada got "responsible government" in 1848 (not 1867) when Lord Elgin replaced the executive council with a cabinet nominated by the party that won the majority in the legislative assembly. The Province of Nova Scotia had succeeded in getting "responsible government" slightly earlier.
1982 was when we got our own constitution.
Not exactly.
Canada, like many countries in the world, does not have a single document which is its constitution. The British North America Act of 1867 joined the provinces into the Dominion of Canada and affirmed in law the form of "responsible government" which was already in place. The Statute of Westminster in 1931 gave us Canucks full autonomy. 1982 was when the Constitution Act added the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to our "constitution" (among other things).
Re:Funny (Score:3, Informative)
> 1. No, you can't deduct the mortgage interest
> on your home.
That wouldn't have anything to do with the massive housing crisis would it? Perhaps people overextending themselves on mortgages, drunk on cheap credit and tax deductible interest.
No...no...I suppose it wouldn't.
> No, you don't have the right to free speech
This is patently untrue. It's explicitly enshrined in the charter of rights and freedoms. Section 2b.
> bare arms
You have the right to bare arms, it's just not recommended in December or January.
You also have the right to bare your breasts in public, should you choose to do so:
http://www.niagarathisweek.com/news/article/112115 [niagarathisweek.com]
If what you meant was "bear arms" you have those rights as well, but there are restrictions. There are restrictions in the United States as well, ours are just more reasonable (unless you consider private ownership of automatic weapons whose sole purpose is the killing of human beings a "right" in which case, I'm kind of glad you're there and I'm here.)
> 4. No, you don't have title to your home in
> Ontario, we maintain a record of your tenancy
> in our government database. You car either.
Also patently untrue, though there are exceptions when houses are built on public lands. You have title to your house.
I do with our constitution more firmly enshrined property rights, but our courts have upheld them well.
As for your car..you have title. Just because you have to register it (and provide proof of insurance) doesn't mean you don't have title. Vehicles are registered in states as well..or do you think those licence plates get handed out on the street at random?
> 5. No, you can't spend your money to save your
> life. Get in line for "free" health care.
People always cite this without the flipside: hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt because you were hit by an uninsured driver? Because you were born with a genetic heart defect?
Our system isn't perfect, but healthcare is a right not a privilege for those who can afford it.
I'll take our system over yours, though I'll work to improve it.
Free healthcare is a myth anyway: most provinces charge a monthly fee, waived for low incomes. In BC it's $52/month.
So no flamebait. If you like it where you are, by all means stay. It's your choice.
I've made mine.