Justin Trudeau Is 'Very Concerned' With FCC's Plan to Roll Back Net Neutrality (vice.com) 244
Justin Ling, reporting for Motherboard: Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says President Donald Trump's plan to roll back net neutrality protections for the internet "does not make sense" and that he'll be looking into what he can do to defend net neutrality for the whole internet. "I am very concerned about the attacks on net neutrality," Trudeau said in Toronto, in response to a question from Motherboard about Trump's plans. "Net neutrality is something that is essential for small businesses, for consumers, and it is essential to keep the freedom associated with the internet alive." Motherboard asked specifically what Trudeau planned to do in response to the plan put forward on Tuesday by the Federal Communications Commission, which could pave the way for tiered internet service and pay-for-play premium access to internet consumers. "We need to continue to defend net neutrality," Trudeau added. "And I will."
The U.S. needs a healthy government. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The U.S. needs a healthy government. (Score:4, Interesting)
Why? Canada is doing a fine job of undermining the principles of freedom and liberty.
https://globalnews.ca/news/387... [globalnews.ca]
https://globalnews.ca/news/387... [globalnews.ca]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You do know that WLU doesn't represent Canada in any way, right? Kind of hard for Canada to undermine the principles of freedom and liberty when it's the administration of a university that's being idiots. It's not like they're lawmakers.
Re: (Score:2)
WLU absolutely represents Canada, it along with UWO, UT, Waterloo, and so on train the next generation of leaders and thinkers. They're the "top tier" universities. The stuff that the parent poster listed is rife in Canadian universities, the only places where it's being pushed back are in the universities with very limited soft-science programs.
I'll remind you that it was the Liberal Party of Canada(Trudeau's) under Jean Chretien who first implemented the idea of digital spying without a warrant. The fo
Re:The U.S. needs a healthy government. (Score:5, Informative)
Neither of those have anything to do with the federal government.
What was your point again?
Re: (Score:2)
That happened because of the law passed by Canada and over zealous university policy in response to that law. As much as it is the government it is cultural to disregard fundamental principles that made our nations what they are today. The point is that Trudeau should be more concerned about Canada and their problems then be concerned about the technicalities of which US bureaucracy will regulate US businesses that have no bearing on Canadian business or citizenry.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
June 19, 2017
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
How does that law apply to the WLU situation again? Connect the dots for us...
Re: (Score:2)
How would you like me to hold your hand? What are you having difficult? Help me help you.
Re: (Score:2)
Show me exactly how any provision in C-16 applies to the situation in WLU. Actually provide evidence. Not sarcastic ducking of the issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't you quote what you think my position is in this thread so that we can be on the same page instead of continuing your obtuse trolling? Here is a hint: it's the 2nd post.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't. UWL Prof had a discussion in class about the situation with UoT Prof Jordan Peterson where special snowflakes wanted to force him to use their chosen pronouns. An equally special snowflake complained to UWL about that talk, saying it made them feel uncomfortable.
Neither of these instances is illegal as far as C16 goes, because there is no discrimination.
Re: (Score:3)
How old are you that you don't recognize it might be easier to ask someone who appears to be already familiar with a particular situation than it would be to randomly Google a variety of laws hoping you find the relevant one?
Neither of the provided links, nor another 5 stories on the Laurier situation I searched have any mention of the specific law in question. SO yes, **asking** someone for direct information on it is appropriate. When the hell did asking questions become something to belittle people ove
Slashdot managers: Please ask for less anger. (Score:2)
I wish the managers of Slashdot would do something about the people who act out their anger toward Slashdot readers. It's not good for the angry people, and it makes reading Slashdot less pleasant.
Re: (Score:2)
Since at least the early 90s and probably much earlier. "RTFM" and similar asshat comments have been around as long as there's been public forums to ask questions.
Re: (Score:2)
>When the hell did asking questions become something to belittle people over?
In Soviet America, stupid people judge YOU!
This seems to be the new /. tag line.
Re: (Score:2)
As a Canadian, I'd like to know exactly what law you're talking about.
Ontario has passed some laws linked to human rights complaints, basically saying that if you're persistently being a dick by misgendering someone (for instance) that might be grounds for a complaint and sitting through a tribunal (as I recall), but there's certainly no FEDERAL law that's been passed. Is that the one you're talking about? The one that Jordan Peterson incorrectly claims can land him in jail?
Re:The U.S. needs a healthy government. (Score:4, Insightful)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
incorrectly claims can land him in jail?
I believe one of the consequences could be a fine. If you refuse to pay the fine then you could be jailed: Is the contention Peterson made. Is that true?
If that is true then it is semantics of what you are jailed for; not paying the fine as opposed to the reason for that fine and why that fine was not paid. Yes, technically you will not be jailed for that but you can be if you refuse to pay the fine over principle as Peterson has said.
Is compelled speech acceptable in a society that values free speech?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Peterson is a liar. Here is the text of the bill (PDF): www.parl.gc.ca/content/hoc/Bills/421/Government/C-16/C-16_1/C-16_1.PDF [parl.gc.ca].
Show me anything in that bill relating to compelled speech or pronoun usage.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Please show me the actual text of the bill that "outlaws racial slurs" or that "forces you to use your preferred pronoun." The actual text.
Note also that the Canadian Bar Association (you know... actual Canadian lawyers) say that C-16 does not threaten freedom of expression. See here [cba.org]
Re: (Score:2)
the actual text doesn't matter - its the effects that are problematic. If you pass a law that can be used to oppress people, its an oppressive law, regardless of the original intention.
Re: (Score:2)
You are a fucking troll.
Use this phrase
"The bill adds “gender identity or expression” to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act and the list of characteristics of identifiable groups protected from hate propaganda in the Criminal Code. "
And tell me how that would affect these laws.
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca... [justice.gc.ca]
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca... [justice.gc.ca]
Re: (Score:3)
No, sorry. The burden of proof is on those claiming compelled speech. Show me the actual text of any Canadian law that compels speech. Put up or shut up.
Re: (Score:2)
Refusing the order of a court at any time for any reason means possible jail time, and that's a matter completely separate from what gets him into the court. It's a two-step decision, see: the decision to break the law that lands him in the court, and the decision to break the law again to refuse to comply with whatever the court deems necessary. It's like saying that parking tickets can land you in jail. Perhaps that's true if you go out of your way not to pay them and then defy a court order, but there's
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. I think that is why the point of compelled speech is the important part because as far as speech is concerned it is a different animal all together. I have to say certain things to be lawful. It's a matter of how far you are willing to legislate individual interactions and force language usage in those interactions. Personally, I am glad the US has the 1st amendment and multiple court rulings to ensure that compelled speech can never be lawful.
If you break the law with intent to defy a court for protest purposes, that's your own thing, and you can't pin that on the law as written.
Civil disobedience comes in many forms.
Re:The U.S. needs a healthy government. (Score:5, Insightful)
Also as a Canadian, the problem with these "human rights" laws is that they don't get tried in a court, they get heard by a board. I have very real concerns about it, and I can see someone who hasn't taken the law seriously twisting some of these to actually land someone in jail.
The problem is this: Peterson doesn't use someones preferred pronoun, a "Human Rights Board" sides with the special snowflake and fines Peterson. Peterson refuses to pay the fine. Then what? The ultimate consequence is he goes to jail.
Re: (Score:2)
Since people made them up for non-existing genders to reinforce their mental illness.
Re: (Score:2)
However it provides the Canadian Prime Minister are very effective distraction and quite simply an easy vote catcher, see I am way better than that Orange Orangutan selling out his fellow citizens to the corporate overlords. Seriously, why would you expect any politician to pass that up, they will be doing it all over the globe, "see I am not Trump, see we are not the corrupt US government, see we protect the digital speech of people, vote for me". US politicians in turn will be able to whine and moan and d
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. A large portion of the left are aware that Hillary was corrupt too.
The difference is that Hillary didn't get elected. Her corruption means jack squat all at this point.
Re: The U.S. needs a healthy government. (Score:2)
If Trudeau sees fit to comment things in US (not part of jurisdiction of Canadian goverment), he should also be able to comment things closer to home. Maybe he should even pay more attention to things in Canada.
And, as a side note, those thing are closely related to Canadaâ(TM)s goverment because they are related to C16.
Re: (Score:2)
He does. Frequently. That's his damned job. The fact that American news sources don't report on Canadian goings on doesn't imply nothing goes on in Canada.
Also, this is very related to Canada as we rely fairly heavily on US-based internet services. And its important for Canadians to know that we don't (currently) have any intention of following along in the US' foot steps on this issue, thus avoiding at least some level of uncertainty that may have cropped up should speculators start wondering about the
Re: (Score:2)
The university said showing the clip of Peterson, without denouncing it, created a toxic atmosphere for students. The meeting left Shepherd in tears."
That is not really free speech...
Re: The U.S. needs a healthy government. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are lying. Nothing in Canadian law relates to compelled speech. Show me the text of a law that does. (The actual text. Not some third-party possibly-incorrect interpretation of the text.)
Re: (Score:2)
Asking a question is lying now? You are a troll.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
There's no compelled speech. Peterson refuses to use the proper pronouns for trans people. That doesn't make him criminal. It makes him an asshole, but what he's doing isn't illegal. If it were, he'd have been charged.
I don't agree with WLU's position, for the record. I'm referring to the suggestion that the Canadian government somehow compels speech. The WLU decision was done by a bunch of hyper-scared academics afraid of blowback from touchy students.
Re: The U.S. needs a healthy government. (Score:2)
You might want to look at what the HRCs have been doing.
He might not be a criminal, but putting personal delusions about gender into the "protected" category opens the floor for the "human rights commissions" to investigate and punish anything they deem to be "hate speech" based on "gender identity". The fact that those investigations do not fall under the criminal system does not change the fact that it is a massive infringement on free speech.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
No, they're qualitatively just as bad as each other.
I suppose you could say Trump is better is this regard - at least he doesn't quite know what he's doing. Trudeau doesn't have that excuse, he knows and is quite happy to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't that apply to Trudeau as well? Why would he be concerned over something that doesn't affect Canadian business or citizenry?
It's a federal law and the actions by the university were in response to that law. Please do me a favor, and don't act like a twat just because your country is doing stupid shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Justin Trudeau should also worry about the general breakdown of the U.S. government in many other areas.
True, but the US is a very large market in the shared resource of the Internet. The fall of net neutrality will negatively affect the quality of the Internet for everyone.
Re: The U.S. needs a healthy government. (Score:2)
True, but the US is a very large market in the shared resource of the Internet. The fall of net neutrality will negatively affect the quality of the Internet for everyone.
How?
Seriously, how does an ISP, like Verizon or Comcast, throttling down certain service providers and offering higher data rates to paying service provider for their own customers impact a single Canadian internet user? Is all of Canada leeching off ISP accounts from Verizon, Comcast in the US? No, of course not, so I ask again, how do US regulations that impact US ISPs exclusively become the concern of foreign leaders?
A parallel argument would be if the President of Mexico was to declare that Canadian pro
Re: (Score:2)
Because some of "their own customers" happen to be websites that Canadians use. If those websites get throttled, it affects everyone that uses them, globally.
Most of the major websites of course have Canadian CDNs, if not full servers being hosted in Canada and certainly those sites won't suffer. But of course those sites being the "major" ones aren't going to be the ones that face the worst impact of this decision.
And that's before we start talking about the possibility of say, geolocked upselling. Want
Re: (Score:3)
Justin Trudeau's opinion isn't even relevant to most of Canada, but he still forces it on us, anyway....
Re: (Score:2)
Justin Trudeau's opinion isn't even relevant to most of Canada, but he still forces it on us, anyway....
He's defending net neutrality which I assume we all want, so maybe we should give him a break.
Re: (Score:2)
We all want it and yet it isn't clear whether the regulations that are being rolled back are truly net neutrality in practice particularly so because they do not address the companies that are actively censoring ideas and opinion online today. That is more of a concern then Netflix paying for extra server racks.
Re:The U.S. needs a healthy government. (Score:4, Informative)
He's defending net neutrality which I assume we all want, so maybe we should give him a break.
Sure, we all want Net Neutrality. However, I don't think Mr. Trudeau, a drama teacher, understands exactly what the FCC is rolling back.
Even the FCC Commissioner, Micheal Orielly, an Obama appointee, doesn't like the 2015 FCC regulations, as they are not the Net Neutrality we want. From his dissent :
(page 399)
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_pub... [fcc.gov]
The FCC âoefactâ sheet promised bright line rules, but the reality is that the bulk of this rulemaking
will be conducted through case-by-case adjudication, mostly at the Bureau level and in the courts. To be
sure, there are three bright line rules: no blocking, no throttling, and no paid prioritization. But those are
mere needles in a Title II haystack.
So basically, what we want, ie, no blocking, no throttling, no paid prioritization, are not the things the regulations really cover. Feel free to go through the PDF I linked, it contains both the Legislation and Micheal's dissent to it. This is a much more complicated matter than simply Net Neutrality vs Not Net Neutrality. The Media is simply not doing a proper job of reporting what is actually going on, and instead simply trying to paint a binary black and white picture of the situation to foster emotional backlash against the administration.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: The U.S. needs a healthy government. (Score:2)
Canada as a nation can't deal with a fraction of the border-crossing immigrants we see here in Texas every day - they have no plan.
They have hidden behind their inaccessibility (you have to enter the US to enter Canada unless you swim there) and the existing agreement between the US and Canada is that immigrants that cross I to Canada from the US are returned to the US as their point of first contact, and are then subject to US immigration/asylum/refugee policies.
Canada talks tough regarding US immigration
Well, let's see (Score:2)
Less than a week ago, the overwhelming sentiment was that media mogul Barry Diller's opinion [slashdot.org] carried no weight because he couldn't possibly understand the real issues at play and had a vested interest to boot.
It'll be interesting to see how far the pendulum swings the other way for the opinion of Justin Trudeau, a politician and champion of centralized governmental control.
I'll go out on a limb and predict overwhelming support for Trudeau, regardless of his qualifications to speak on the subject and regardl
Re: (Score:2)
10 an ounce plus a bit of tax ain't bad compared to down south. The real issue is I have a very sneaking suspicion the LPs will not be able to keep up with demand.
PS. don't stereotype millenials they will probably not be the most users of the new system, it will be 20-30 year older demographic
Re: (Score:2)
The fact is that the majority of Canadians would punish any party that actually shrank the government that much. As it is, cuts to Service Canada front desk levels, among other things, actually pissed a good many people. And that's rather the point, I suppose. Lots of people are all about "shrinking government", but what most really mean is "shrink those parts of governments I don't use."
But the Tories problems were numerous in their last term. They had a majority, and did virtually nothing with it. They we
Re: (Score:2)
SSC is actually the brain child of the Chretien govt, it finally got implemented under Harper (that doesn't excuse them just clarifies). The issues with SSC is the fact the union didn't want so many contractors (except that there is majority of their brain trust). That plus they are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Merging service for all departments is not something that can be done quickly as they are learning with Phoenix (don't get me started on that..)
The ideal solution would have been to have S
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I fully support Trump's election. He won it by the rules set down in the Constitution. Why would you assume otherwise?
Effect on Canada (Score:5, Interesting)
What happens when a Canadian citizen, using a Canadian ISP streams a video from a service that is shaped by a US network because the infrastructure is in a data center connected to a US telco? Or if the network connection goes through a network that has not been paid off by the service? I'm assuming that if you don't pay (some indie service doesn't pay AT&T or Verizon or whatever) then that service gets throttled no matter the endpoint.
This overall move will probably tend to benefit Canada as more startups will probably locate in Canada (where the corporate tax rate is already at ~12.5%) and where there is at least a hope in hell of delivering their content to users without shaping.
I'm not sure how this will play out exactly, but it won't be good for US innovation.
i agree (Score:5, Insightful)
Trudeau's Media Image (Score:2)
Trudeau may simply be saying this because he likes to project an image of being technically savvy, such as when he staged [jjmccullough.com] an "explanation" of quantum computing a while back.
He is also not averse to completely reversing promises [theglobeandmail.com] that he later finds to be inconvenient.
Take whatever our pretty-boy Prime Minister says with a grain of salt.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't doubt that he means it, and he probably even understands it, I'm just unclear as to what he proposes to DO about it. The CRTC has it in hand, and they've been viciously quashing anything that even remotely resembles zero-rating, as they mention in the article.
Though I suppose knowing the PM has this position somewhat bolsters the CRTC's actions, so they don't have to worry about any sort of governmental backlash.
Now all they have to do is find some way to break the oligopoly that Canadian telcos hav
Re: (Score:2)
We may have Net Neutrality, but that doesn't mean providers aren't completely screwing us. :P
I couldn't agree more.
Re: (Score:2)
Boon for Canadian Hosting? (Score:2)
Cute (Score:2)
The leader of Canada, a nation with a population approaching that of California (36m Canadians vs 39m Californians) thinks that:
US domestic policy regarding internet neutrality impacts the rest of the world
As leader of a smallish nation believes he can somehow prevent 'the horror' of Trump administration rolling back net neutrality regulations.
How does the ability of an ISP to charge a service provider a fee for premium data rates to their US customers/users/visitors impact on a Canadian consumer?
Who cares what he thinks? (Score:2)
Allow me to paraphrase Ferris Bueller. "I'm not Canadian. I don't plan on being Canadian. So, who cares if they're socialists or not? They could be fascist anarchists for all I care. It still wouldn't change the fact that I don't own a car."
This is the same feeling that pro-gun people have when anti-gun types bloviate about Canadian or Australian gun laws. They don't care what goes on in other countries. They really don't. Point being, that the supremely unqualified Trudeau can have net neutrality a
Re:orly (Score:4, Insightful)
No, the ideas that Google and Facebook censor are those nasty, independent though, backed up by disgusting facts right wing ideas, so Trudeau doesn't care about them.
Nothing magical about the obvious (Score:3)
> For instance, we have the idea that magically if we cut the corps taxes and the rich peoples that it will make life better for everyone
Nothing magical about it if you think about it for a minute. Suppose there are four countries:
Adanac: 12% tax rate, located in North America
Ocixem: 30% tax rate, located in North America
Asu: 40% tax rate, located in North America
Tarcomed: 100% tax rate (you don't keep any money you make, the government takes it all), located in North America
Which country would YOU most
Re: Nothing magical about the obvious (Score:2)
Selective memory.
All this crap mattered when we had a Democrat in power, but it seems republicans continue to practice situational ethics, in that it only matters if it is a democrat in power.
The last time the federal gov't shutdown, before the Democrats agreed to fund the government they had one stipulation - the elimination of 'debt ceiling limit' for a period of 18 months or so.
Why would democrats insist on a blank check for an extended period if they are the ones concerned about fiscal responsibility?
Democrats repeatedly argue for the elimination of the debt ceiling.
Mostly agree. Facts are unfair on one point (Score:2)
I mostly agree with everything you said. One major impediment to Trump's proposal was / is that some leading Republicans like Bob Corker said they will not support any plan that increases the deficit, and I agree with you that he's right to take a stand. Senators Jeff Flake and Todd Young also come to mind for opposing deficits this year. Of course there is also much disagreement about how much the deficit will be affected - lower *percentage* tax rates and simpler tax laws tend to stimulate the economy, i
Re: Nothing magical about the obvious (Score:2)
The bottom 40% of tax filers pay no net taxes, instead they get refunds in excess of monies withheld.
The top 40% pay 95% of all collected federal income taxes.
The middle 20% collectively pay the remaining 5% of collected federal income taxes.
Cutting taxes in any meaningful way will disproportionately benefit those that actually pay taxes, the top 40% of filers - it's unavoidable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
By contemporary American standards, I think being masculine means being a redpilled incel videogame journalism ethics advocate with a tiki torch and at least 6 guns.
Re: (Score:2)
The guy ran a 22:37.4 for 5K while shaking hands and leaving a trail of women in near orgasm.
You talking about Bruce Jenner?
Re: (Score:2)
What you describe make it more "gay" than "masculine"...
Slashdot is the last place I expected to see gay used as an antonym for masculine.
wrong audience (Score:5, Insightful)
The US administration or even the US general public is not the intended audience here. Trudeau is trying to reassure Canadian consumers (and warn Canadian ISPs) that Canada's CRTC will not follow in the FCC's footsteps.
Re: wrong audience (Score:2)
Then why not simply say that?
He's not stupid, he choose to talk about us domestic policy as if it had world-wide implications, he could have simply said 'Canada will not follow the US's lead in this area'...
Re: (Score:2)
He means well, but this is a US problem and he's the Canadian Prime Minister ... no jurisdiction.
"Means well but mostly ineffective" could be the title of his autobiography.
Re: (Score:3)
You do realize that Canada has already won a war against the US, right? Oh, no...you probably don't, US education system and all...
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Canada did nothing to try and occupy the US after the war...
After we burned down the White House there seemed no need to stick around. The point was made.
No real winner (Score:5, Insightful)
It's my understanding that many people believe that the USA won that war
Try looking at the facts. The US declared war on Britain after multiple provocations by the UK who were trying to stop the US providing Napoleon with supplies. The US's aim in the war was to try and conquer British North America (as it was then) and the British aim in the war was to stop the US supplying Napoleon. At the end of the war the border remained unchanged and there was no need to worry about Napoleon because he had been defeated. So the US did not achieve anything and the UK got what it wanted by default after completely blockading the US during the war. So it's hard to say whether anyone really won but if someone did it was definitely not the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they won the Battle of New Orleans. 2459 to 333. Pretty lopsided. Too bad they all got there late.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The American goal was to annex Canada, the Canadian goal was to stay free. Suggesting the Americans won the war of 1812 is like saying Japan won WW2 because we all drive Toyota's.
Re: No jurisdiction (Score:3)
Pretty much like you wouldn't have won the War of Independence without the French
Re: (Score:3)
Well, the Brits that won that war "for Canada" were actually *FROM* Canada. Canada didn't become sovereign until 1864, and was still part of the UK at the time, so saying that the "Brits won that war for Canada" is kind of like saying that non-Americans actually won the war for America in 1776.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
We're talking Canada here. What are they gonna do, slap us to death with their hankies?
Isn't that what you said about Vietnam?
Re: No jurisdiction (Score:2)
Step one in any actual war between Canada and the US would likely involve the US removing all previously provided defense systems the US used to provide joint US & Canadian defense.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if Net Neutrality disappears, then the tiny forum website that allows people who are gay men for 6 days a week, but identify as lesbiantranspostandrogynousmiscellanouswhydoihaveapenis on Tuedays to chat with others like them might not be reachable, so the 2 people who qualify for this in the entirety of Canada would be horribly oppressed.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Well, if Net Neutrality disappears
It would have had to existed as more than some words on paper first (it was never enacted/enforced) in order to 'disappear'.
Want to see what the 'net would look like without NN? Look around. That's how it's always been and is now.
NN as written reclassifies ISPs as common-carriers. This means that ISPs and device-makers would have to comply with CALEA which means mandated backdoors and LEA/TLA ability to intercept/decrypt everything codified into law.
Be very, very careful what you wish for.
You just may get i
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your dad's cancer was never "free", it was paid for either by debt (ie. taxes on future generation) or theft from others hard earned wages.
Or perhaps from a pool of money that Canadians happily pay into so that they don't have to worry about bankruptcy from health problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Go back in your hole, your "Freeman on the Land" schtick is tired and stupid. Every civilization since the dawn of time has exacted taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
So far the only thing I have found that works is buy an unlocked cell phone outright and don't change planes. If a good deal comes along then maybe change.
Re: (Score:2)
His daddy? Fidel Castro?