Yeah, this is definitely the catch. If you can afford to do it this way, document every interaction the whole way along. Take screenshots of the prices of all the tickets going to your destination when you're making your purchase,so they can't argue they should be able to pay you less. They will definitely try to weasel out of it and will absolutely string you along so you will need to advocate for yourself.
Good thing he didn't actually say it would be the next Windows doing any of those things. He didn't even say it would be the OS:
"I think we will see computing become more ambient, more pervasive, continue to span form factors, and certainly become more multi-modal in the arc of time ... I think experience diversity is the next space where we will continue to see voice becoming more important. Fundamentally, the concept that your computer can actually look at your screen and is context aware is going to become an important modality for us going forward."
The important and scarier part is actually the last sentence, not anything from the article title.
a) Anywhere you buy that book from that isn't using DRM, isn't paying the author.
b) If they're using DRM you'll have to use some sort of proprietary software to use the book (i.e. not a straight PDF you can open with any PDF reader)
c) Owning the physical copy doesn't give you any more right to scan the book than it does downloading it DRM-free or bypassing DRM. Depends on the country, but making your own copy is a grey area. (so if you're going to scan it or crack it, just download it from the internet archive or something - otherwise you're just wasting time, money, and resources and contributing unnecessarily to the heat death of the planet/universe.)
VitalSource provides lifetime digital licenses but requires their proprietary software (Bookshelf) which is available on a lot of different devices. They work with publishers to pay royalties which should go to authors. I think they have a return policy if you try it out and it isn't working for you. (I've never used it myself)
It's also on Kindle 🤮 and Kobo and a bunch of other places. The publisher probably provides links to sites where you can get it.
You can also check your library for a digital copy and take it out whenever you want to search it, I suppose.
Hmm, it seems that it's being paid by the Liberal Party (money from donors), not the government. This would be a marketing budget, meant to push support for the party. I don't see anything in the article saying that it's government tax-payer money that could have been spent on something else.
One nice thing I've found with quitting is that it's a lot cheaper... Club soda with a lime wedge is about the cheapest thing (other than tap water) you can get at a bar/restaurant, and a lot of places give refills for free. At first I didn't love the taste, but beer was an acquired taste too! And if I do get non-alcoholic beer or cocktails, I tend to not want as many, so I naturally save money there too (on top of them usually being a buck or two cheaper.)
I wasn't the first, but slowly my friends are all starting to quit drinking and we still hangout regularly. I still go out with friends that drink and make sure I have a non-alcoholic beverage at hand at all times. Any "friends" that make a big deal about it (which isn't very many tbh) are cut out of my life now...
Conversations are definitely different than they used to be and our get togethers tend to be shorter, but we've slowly been adjusting and we do things a little differently now. More games, destinations other than a bar, etc.
I'm not belittling how you feel, it's different for everyone. Just letting you know that it can be different.
Good forest managment wouldn't protect Nova Scotia from an unprecedented drought. I agree that proper forest management is important and may decrease risk in parts of Nova Scotia, but I think it's dangerous to focus on it in a scenario like the current one - an unprecedented drought.
Bad forest management (logging patterns, over-suppression of fires) creates regional problems, not wide-scale, global, burning of our forests.
Unfortunately, even the best forest management practices of the past wouldn't save the forests from what's happening now due to climate change.
Why do I think it's dangerous to focus on? Citing "bad forest management" is often used (especially by the right-wing) to distract from the real issue causing unprecedented levels of forest burning: human-caused climate change, led primarily by the burning of fossil fuels. I'd also posit that those same right-wing capitalists were (and are) the ones lobbying for more access to forests for clear-cutting, widespread use of herbicides, and screaming bloody murder when every single fire wasn't immediately suppressed to protect their livelihood.
Our best method of forest management, controlled burns, as we've learned from the First Nations, is not enough, and isn't effective if young, recovering forests reburn at the drop of a cigarette (https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eap.3023). Prescribed burning worked when forests didn't burn for a long time and became risky and dangerous, so the ancestors (and now our modern forest managers, growing since the 1950s) would force them to burn in as safe a manner as possible, preventing a future, local disaster. But if young, fresh forests burn uncontrollably, there's not much prescribed burns can do for us. Prescribed burns may still work in targeted areas, but it isn't feasible to scale to Canada's vast, forest wilderness.
Better logging practices would definitely help reduce wildfire danger regionally, but on a whole-province (let alone whole-country) scale the impact would be partial at best. Areas where healthy forests have been clear-cut, and herbicides have been used to "shape" monoculture new growth, are definitely more at risk and will put the areas around them somewhat more at risk. However, probably over 60% of Nova Scotia is considered natural forest, and the current drought and dryness of the vegetation has led to high fire risk across the board. (It's also important to note that NS has started moving towards better practices in recent years, with clearcutting reduced from a decade ago and more focused on at-risk forests and selective cutting - though they may not be moving fast enough. Probably due to lobbying by logging companies whose product is about to burn anyway...)
To reduce wildfire risk we're going to have to start exploring drastic, interventionalist methods of forest management, and there's no telling which of them will work and what the consequences will be. Tree thinning, deadwood removal, massive fire break development, etc. are on the docket for managing our forests in the future. These are expensive, difficult to scale, intrusive, unnatural, and could drastically affect ecosystems. I foresee at least some of these being called out in the future as bad forest management due to some other ecological catastrophe they've fomented.
(Or we could work harder to stop/reverse climate change, and/or accept our forest-less sub-tropical-desert future.)
Maybe "bad forest management" is part of the problem, but the level and scale of dry forests we're experiencing now far outweighs its effects. So we should be very careful going down the path of using it to blame on our current issues.
They only use Kelvin