Journal de bord

vendredi 28 janvier 2011

Mozilla Quebec Non Grata

Introduction: The objective of this contest is to encourage and promote innovation in the development of games for the open Web through the creation of Games which run in Firefox 4 and other modern Web browsers without plug-ins.

Sponsor: The sponsor of this Contest is Mozilla Corporation, located at 650 Castro Street, Suite 300, Mountain View, CA 94041, USA (“Sponsor”).

Eligibility: No purchase or fee is necessary to enter or claim any prize.

The Contest is open to individuals who are at least the age of majority in their country of residence. Minors 13 years or older who reside in the U.S. are also eligible to participate in the Contest but will be required to submit a signed parental consent form with their Entry. Email us at for a parental consent form.

The Contest is void in Cuba, Iran, Province of Quebec (Canada), North Korea, Sudan, Syria, Union of Myanmar, and where prohibited by law or restricted by law or regulations.

Mozilla Labs: “Game On 2010 - CONTEST OFFICIAL RULES”, via a Karl’s comment.

Cuba, Iran, Corée du Nord, Soudan, Syrie, Brimanie, voilà le Québec en bonne compagnie !

1. Le 28 janvier 2011,

Toujours la même histoire due a loto Québec et son monopole. Google fait pareil avec ses concours.

2. Le 28 janvier 2011,
Off Topic

Non non et non ce sont des dégenèrés(ées).

Lecteurs du Figaro, fidèles à eux-mêmes, à Dieu, au pape, et à leurs déviances.

3. Le 28 janvier 2011,

Luka is partially correct. The problem is not Loto-Quebec specifically, but the government regulations under which Loto-Quebec and other contests operate. Those regulations require the contest sponsor to do things like register the contest with the government, pay a fee to the government equal to 10% of the prize value, grant the government the right to change the contest rules, and file a report with the Quebec government after the contest is over.

The result is that 80% of the contests that are open to other Canadians are not open to people in Quebec. Think about it; imagine you’re a company in New York or California and you want to run a contest across North America. Everybody welcomes it EXCEPT Quebec, who insists you do all this extra work and pay extra fees. The result is most of those companys say FUCK THAT and simply print “not open to residents of Quebec” in the rules.

Another example of our government “protecting” us by building walls and keeping us locked inside.

4. Le 28 janvier 2011,

Et pour avoir déjà fait affaire avec cet organisme disons que ils ne sont pas pressés en général, sauf pour renvoyer un formulaire s’ils réussissent à y trouver le quart de la moitié d’une case mal remplie. Je soupçonne qu’on y case les fonctionnaires maladivement maniaques ;-)

5. Le 28 janvier 2011,
Off Topic

L’envoyer en l’air, so high.

6. Le 28 janvier 2011,
Karl, La Grange

Terremark’s building in Miami is the physical meeting point for more than 160 networks from around the world. They meet there because of the building’s excellent security, its redundant power systems, and its thick concrete walls, designed to survive a category 5 hurricane. But above all, they meet there because the building is “carrier-neutral.” It’s a Switzerland of the Internet, an unallied territory where competing networks can connect to each other. Terremark doesn’t have a dog in the fight. Or at least it didn’t. – Tunisia, Egypt, Miami: The Importance of Internet Choke Points

7. Le 28 janvier 2011,

@Offtopic : attention, parler de dégénérés sous un article traitant du Québec, ça peut être mal interprété.

8. Le 29 janvier 2011,
Off Topic

Israel considers the treaty a strategic asset, and it fears that a regime change in Egypt could put the peace agreement in danger.

Ils doivent bien se marrer chez Israel Corp. à inventer des conneries pareilles. Je crois que je ne connais que Dieudonné qui peut rire avec un pareil cynisme.

@maxime: les dégénérés, ce sont les pédés, pas les canadiens ;) D’ailleurs, chuis sûr que si le figaro faisait un vote “Faut-il légaliser le mariage entre canadiens ?”, les éclairés lecteurs du Figaro répondraient “oui” à 72%, sans voir dans la question qu’il manque les canadiennes.

9. Le 30 janvier 2011,
Off Topic

Blah ? Touitter !