HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: andrew@calvin.dgbt.doc.ca (Andrew Patrick)
Subject: "AskAbout Dinosaurs" - Information and Education Software
Summary: natural language database software about dinosaurs
Organization: Communications Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 19:04:11 GMT

         "AskAbout Dinosaurs" - Information and Education Software

Unity Publishing is pleased to announce the release of the first in a
series of computerized knowledge-based products for the home and
education markets.  The software, entitled "AskAbout Dinosaurs", is
designed for children aged seven and up.  It contains a large number of
facts and illustrations about these prehistoric creatures.

AskAbout Dinosaurs uses many high quality colour graphics by the well
known Canadian illustrator of dinosaurs Jan Sovak, and by a New
Brunswick artist Linda McCarthy.  A unique aspect of this product is
its ability to respond to questions about dinosaurs typed in by the
users.  For example, the program is able to respond to questions such as
"What happened to the dinosaurs?" or "Which dinosaur could run the
fastest?".  A key feature of the AskAbout software used to build the
database is its language processing capability.

AskAbout Dinosaurs is typical of AskAbout products, which lets people
ask general questions about the subject using their own words.  It is
anticipated that the program's unique approach will differentiate it
from other dinosaur products.  Unity's marketing strategy is aimed at
parents and relatives, as well as educators.  Emphasis is placed on
the program's ease of use and its highly educational nature.

The AskAbout program is marketed by Rockwood Software.  This software
is used to construct databases on specific topics that can then be
accessed using plain English (or French).

For more information, contact:

    Unity Publishing          or          Rockwood Software
    Fredericton NB                        202-212 Queen St.
    (506) 450-9864                        Fredericton, NB
                                          Canada, E3B 1A8
                                          (506) 458-5830


-- 
Andrew Patrick, Ph.D.       Communications Research Centre, Ottawa, CANADA
                       andrew@calvin.dgbt.doc.CA
                       
  For a good time, run "telnet debra.dgbt.doc.ca" and login as "chat".
Newsgroups: can.newprod
From: andrew@calvin.dgbt.doc.ca (Andrew Patrick)
Subject: Re: "AskAbout Dinosaurs" - Information and Education Software
Organization: Communications Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 14:06:08 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.190411.9047@rick.dgbt.doc.ca> I wrote:

>         "AskAbout Dinosaurs" - Information and Education Software
>
>Unity Publishing is pleased to announce the release of the first in a
>series of computerized knowledge-based products for the home and
>education markets.  The software, entitled "AskAbout Dinosaurs", is
>designed for children aged seven and up.  It contains a large number of
>facts and illustrations about these prehistoric creatures.
...

Excuse my ignorance:  This thing runs on an IBM-PC type computer, and
requires a VGA card and monitor.

-- 
Andrew Patrick, Ph.D.       Communications Research Centre, Ottawa, CANADA
                       andrew@calvin.dgbt.doc.CA
                       
  For a good time, run "telnet debra.dgbt.doc.ca" and login as "chat".
Xref: sparky can.general:4808 can.politics:8111 ott.general:1215
From: cowan@cerianthus.pinetree.org (Darin Cowan (root))
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,ott.general
Subject: Re: October 26th Referendum
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 92 06:18:49 GMT
Organization: The Aquarium, Ottawa, Ontario

knight@mrco.carleton.ca (Alan Knight) writes:

> In <douglasc.718224891@sfu.ca> douglasc@fraser.sfu.ca (Douglas Ming Chong) wr
> 
> >cowan@aqua.ocunix.on.ca (Darin Cowan (root)) writes:
> 
> >25% floor?  Is it fair to a province like B.C. that may in the 
> >next 50 years have 25% of the population of Canada but only get 
> >20% of the representation?  Will the province's people that are
> > under represented think it is fair?
> 
>  How do you figure that BC could have 25% of the population and only
> 20% of seats? That's only 80% of what they're entitled to. As far as I
> can see, for that to happen, Quebec would have to be reduced to
> approximately 5% of the population.

Quebec is guaranteed a minimum of 25% of the seats in the deal.  The
remainder would (presumably) be divided by population among the rest
of the country.  If there are 400 seats, Quebec gets 100 right off the
top, of the rest BC would get 75 in the example I gave even though it
would be entitled to 100 under the current system.  Therefore, BC would
be underrepresented, getting only 75/400 or 18.75% of the seats even
though it has (in the example) 25% of the population.

The ONLY way things would stay fair is if Quebec maintains higher than
25% of the population.  It doesn't have that now and I see no
indications of a mass migration to Quebec in the near future.

You can pick any numbers you like and work it out.  If there are 10,000
seats, Quebec gets 2500 off the top, BC would get .25*7500 or 1875
seats...  still only 18.75% representation for 25% of the population.
This applies to ALL provinces if Quebec falls below 25% (which it
already is at 23.7% or so).  Ontario with fully 40% of Canada's
population would only end up with 3000 seats in the last calculation -
30% representation for 40% of the people...  hardly fair.  There is no
way a floor on the number of seats can be fair unless the people getting
the floor never have to use it.  Since Quebec would get to use it
IMMEDIATELY, all other Canadians would be getting the shaft
IMMEDIATELY.

Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: An idea for Constitutional Reform
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 16:52:05 GMT

In article <XTiqsB3w165w@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca> yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee) writes:
>
>At this time, I would like to make some sort of comprimise provided that the
>NO side loses!
>
>1)  The Cbarter of Rights and Freedoms be considered as the supreme part of
>    the Constitution dropping the Notwithstanding clause.
>    And that Quebec's Distinct Society, the Aboriginal, every Canadian, male
>    or female be subject to the Charter and that noone be given a priveleged
>    status.
>

The Canada Clause in the Charlottetown Accord does the exact opposite of
(1)...it specifically says via omission that the Charter is not a
fundamental characteristic of Canada, and that priviliged status is
being given to certain groups, and although I don't have the legal
text yet (so I'm not certain), but it will require unanimity to 
change...          

So why are you approving the Charlottetown Accord which entrenches with
a unanimity provision for future amendment something you are opposed to.

>2)  We keep the Economic Union and Social Charter.

There is no economic union...all the interprovincial trade barriers are
maintained by Charlottetown...there removal remains only a goal, but
this has been a goal for 50 years.

>
>3)  The Amending formula be accommodating to a Quebec veto.
>
>4)  True Parliament Reform takes place as follows:
>
>    i) The TRUE Spirit of the EEE Senate be adopted
>
>    ii) The House of Commons reflect representation by population in a way
>        that does NOT overpower the Senate and that MPs be elected via a
>        process of a) proportional representaion  or b) preferential ballot.
>

After a YES vote, Quebec's approval would be required to remove the 25%
guarentee...so effectively a YES vote means representation by population
will never be possible in Canada.

Strange...the things you want to change after a YES vote are for all 
purposes entrenched for perpetuity by voting YES.

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,ott.general
From: knight@mrco.carleton.ca (Alan Knight)
Subject: Re: October 26th Referendum
Reply-To: knight@mrco.carleton.ca (Alan Knight)
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 21:12:05 GMT

In <douglasc.718403707@sfu.ca> douglasc@fraser.sfu.ca (Douglas Ming Chong) writes:

>knight@mrco.carleton.ca (Alan Knight) writes:

>>In <douglasc.718224891@sfu.ca> douglasc@fraser.sfu.ca (Douglas Ming Chong) writes:

>>>cowan@aqua.ocunix.on.ca (Darin Cowan (root)) writes:

>>>25% floor?  Is it fair to a province like B.C. that may in the 
>>>next 50 years have 25% of the population of Canada but only get 
>>>20% of the representation?  Will the province's people that are
>>> under represented think it is fair?

>> How do you figure that BC could have 25% of the population and only
>>20% of seats? That's only 80% of what they're entitled to. As far as I
>>can see, for that to happen, Quebec would have to be reduced to
>>approximately 5% of the population.

>According to my calculations if B.C. had 25% of the population 
>and had 20% of the seats then Quebec could have roughly 20% of the
>population and 25% of the seats of the House of Commons.

>Doug

Yes, if electoral redistribution were controlled by a conspiracy out
to deny British Columbia seats. However, electoral districts are
normally distributed roughly by population. Thus, if Quebec were at
20% of the population and had 25% of seats, if the remaining seats
were distributed evenly, B.C. (if it were at 25% of the population)
would have 95% of its 25%, which is 24%.

  If, on the other hand, this conspiracy exists, it seems to be
entirely possible that Quebec could have 25% of the seats, British
Columbia 1%, and Saskatchewan the remaining 74%, since seats need not
be distributed proportionally to population.

-- 
 Alan Knight  knight@mrco.carleton.ca  +1 613 788 2600x5783   Vote
 Dept. of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering                Yes/Oui
 Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1S 5B6        Oct. 26

Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
From: dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: October 26th Referendum
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 15:33:11 GMT

Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
: 
: would be a much greater fuss.  The overrepresentation of PEI only
: marginally affects the votes in BC or Alberta...the overrepresentation
: in Quebec in 30 years will cancel out over half the votes in BC or
: in Alberta.
: 

I think what you mean is that BC objects to Quebec more than PEI. The thought
that someone from PEI is represented to a far greater degree doesn't seem to
bother them at all, but mention that someday a quebecker will have 1.001
times the say, and holy whining temper tantrum.

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: can.general
From: viking@bnr.ca (Harold Henriksen)
Subject: Re: Oct.26,Switzerland,Opportunistic "No's"
Reply-To: viking@bmerh66.bnr.ca
Organization: BNR Ottawa, Fibre Systems Development
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 92 12:19:50 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.072142.1@uwovax.uwo.ca>, singer@uwovax.uwo.ca writes:
|> Much of the flyspecking of the Accord seems to be motivated by fear of
|> expanded Provincial powers, or pluralism (this is not to deny that a great deal
|> of the flyspecking by various groups is hardly anything but irresponsible
|> political and individual opportunism--for press coverage). I wonder if anybody
|> has considered the case of Switzerland--also a federal system, but one in which
|> many powers, probably more than in the Accord, devolve to the cantons? While
|> there is much paranoia, opportunism, "reaching" for arguments based upon iffy
|> events some decades away, bitter alienation, sheer destructiveness being
|> expressed, I haven't heard ONE solid or reasonable or sane argument against the
|> Accord. 
|> -- 

Define solid/reasonable/sane (preferably by example).  Kind of like Zundel or Kiegstra
denying the holocaust and rejecting all evidence as hearsay or manufactured.
--
Harold Henriksen                    Bell-Northern Research
email: viking@bmerh694.bnr.ca       Ottawa,Ontario,Canada 

Pillaging and plundering were more fun than programming!
(Opinions are not my employer's and sometimes not mine)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,ott.general
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: October 26th Referendum
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 23:35:43 GMT

In article <BvvIKz.rB@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@warp (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>
>You have previously argued with me about how the Social Charter SHOULD be
>justiciable -- what has changed your mind this time? I don't think you can
>say Bob Rae is not for democracy -- that is simply your somewhat biased
>opinion.
>

In this case, you must have me confused with someone else...in general,
I am opposed to the concept of a Social Charter altogether, and the
only thing that makes this one tolerable is that it is not justiciable.

Legislatures and Parliament and the people we elect should make and
enforce social policy...that is the whole point of democracy.  

Gerald
Xref: sparky can.general:4900 can.politics:8470
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
Subject: Japanese competition & business practice
From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 18:52:13 GMT
Followup-To: can.politics
Distribution: can
Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac, Vancouver Island, CANADA
Keywords: japan
Summary: Fascinating look at Japanese business practices

I read through an interesting article (posted by Richard Nixon,
ar12@midway.uchicago.edu) concerning Japanese trade practices and how they
impact upon the United States.

The articles (2) appeared in misc.entrepreneurs,misc.consumers,
misc.activism.progressive,alt.conspiracy and misc.jobs.misc, with followup
to an activist group. 
(See Message-ID: <1992Oct14.214521.5620@mont.cs.missouri.edu>)

The article (actually more than one, but the specific topic of Japanese
trade practices is the one I'd like to discuss here) ran about 89K in total,
and provided interesting stuff about the topic.

I am wondering if anyone else noticed it, and considered it in light of
Canadian-Japanese trade relations, and would like to discuss it here. (A
list of ftp-available stuff follows, for those wanting to bone up on the
article in question and related items).

---> The prolog:

The following article comes from FTP site monu6.cc.monash.edu.au.
 
It is a very informative and quite disturbing piece about the
problems between the United States and Japan and how they relate to
some of the problems the US is experiencing today. The article
talks about the mechanics of Japan's trade strategy and uses many
examples. It is a bit long, but is thoughtfully written and
explains with explicit detail what seems to be actually happening.
At the end of the article is a part about the US debt and how the
author thinks it may destroy America a few years from now.

---> end of same - now the reading list, from the articles:
 
-->"Trading Places, How we are giving our future to the Japanese and how
to reclaim it", Clyde Prestowitz, New York: Basic Books 1989
 
-->"The Enigma of Japanese Power"; by Karl Wolferen, 1989, Alfred A. Knopf
Press (this book used to be given away when ever your bought a
subscription to Forture Magazine. I'm not sure if it still is.)
 
-->"Unequal Equities, Power and Risk in Japan's Stock Market"; Zielinski,
Kodansha International, 1991
 
-->"The Japanese Company", Rodney Clark, Charles E. Tuttle Company 1979
(Yale University)
 
The above file is available from FTP site: monu6.cc.monash.edu.au in
directory: pub/nihongo, as JAPANYES.

I will repost the articles here if enough folks are interested in the
matter. Follow-up to can.politics...

-- 
The Old Frog's Almanac - Public Access UseNet for Central Vancouver Island
     (604) 245-3205 (v32) (604) 245-4366 (2400x4) Waffle XENIX 1.64
Ladysmith, British Columbia, CANADA. kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken McVay)
                    < October 26th: voting NO >
Newsgroups: can.general
From: cahduns@atlas.cs.upei.ca (Henry Dunsmore)
Subject: Copyright Law
Followup-To: dunsmore@upei.ca
Originator: cahduns@atlas.cs.upei.ca
Organization: University of Prince Edward Island
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 19:21:21 GMT


The University of PEI is currently reviewing the copyright laws of Canada to
determine the exact letter of the law as it applies.  I have a raft of
material on copyright to read and decipher, but I am interested in the
process of investigation of copyright infringement.

	Is there a *copyright police force*?
	What is the process of applying the law to abusers?
	What kind of penalties are involved?
	Have there been any cases come to trial (I know about the Toronto
	Police Force lawsuit)?

Sorry if this is the wrong place to place this message, but I'm starting to
scratch surface on this issue and I'm not sure who might know this stuff. 
Any assistance, direction, leads, names, reports, etc would be greatly
appreciated!

Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
From: knight@mrco.carleton.ca (Alan Knight)
Subject: Re: The negotiations behind the accord
Reply-To: knight@mrco.carleton.ca (Alan Knight)
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 14:48:03 GMT

In <rjg.719172330@pulaski> rjg@doe.carleton.ca (Richard Griffith) writes:

>Notes on the negotiations:
>   The negotiations were between the federal powers and the provincial powers.
>   As power bodies the provinces were not going to give up something for
>   nothing. Nobody said ``It will be better for Canada if XXXX is managed on
>   a federal level.'' 

>   Yes it was all compromise of position in the best political tradition.
>   However with the provinces as empowered negotiators there was no possibility
>   of anyone gaining anything significant on any level. It was trade-off,
>   the only possible solution being agreeable to all parties being a win-win
>   situation.

>The big question they were supposed to be attacking was 
>	``What is best for Canada''
>what they solved was
>	``What is best for the provinces''

>Can you see the difference?

>Why do we need provinces? Provinces are not the "lands distant from the capital"
>that they once were. We have the communications systems and organizations to
>manage resources, environment, agriculture, health, and other concerns at
>the planet wide level!! 

One of the major points in these negotations for the west,
particularly Alberta, was to prevent anything like Trudeau's National
Energy Program from ever happening again. That was an incident in
which their economy, having finally reached a boom due to oil
production was sacrificed for the benefit of oil-consuming central
Canada. Getting rid of provincial governments would not get rid of
regional alienation.
 In a country with diverse regions, especially with widely varying
population densities, giving significant control the regions is one
way of avoiding the tyranny of the majority. In Canada, the tyranny of
the majority generally means the tyranny of central Canada, which is
one reason Ontario and Quebec are so non-revered in other parts of the
country.

-- 
 Alan Knight  knight@mrco.carleton.ca  +1 613 788 2600x5783   Vote
 Dept. of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering                Yes/Oui
 Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1S 5B6        Oct. 26
From: anderson@mala.bc.ca
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: Where are laws in ASCII?
Date: 15 Oct 92 12:06:20 -0700
Organization: Malaspina College

I'm interested in finding out where I can get
the Criminal Code, Young Offenders Act and
various other federal statutes in ascii. If you
know, please send me a message.
From: hugh@imax.com (Hugh Murray)
Subject: Re: Distinct Societies
Followup-To: can.politics,can.general
Organization: Imax Corporation
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 16:10:14 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.200622.23234@bmerh85.bnr.ca>, robinc@bnr.ca (Robin
Collins) wrote:
> 

> 
> I don't think anybody is arguing that Quebecers don't have unique cultures.
> What we do object to is the claim that all Quebecers have the same culture,
> and that that culture is defined legally and legally restricted as francophone. 
> In other words we are INCLUSIVE and object to EXCLUSIONARY legislation.
> Not the other way around.

I still don't think you get it.  Culture in the sense we are discussing is
not something that any individual has - unfortunately the word has more
than one meaning which confuses things.  The culture that belongs to a
society is a continuity of custom, language and practice.  Think of it is a
pipeline from the past to the future, the pipeline does not always go in
the same direction - it twists and warps as the external world imposes
forces (new arrivals, new necessities) but the piepline, the continuity, is
still a distinct "thing".

As an aside I'd like to say that I find in these arguments that there are a
lot of people who seem to have difficulty in seeing processes as distinct
entities.  A society (in common with all living things) is as much a
construct in time as it is in space.  If you try to freeze it and say lets
talk about NOW, which a lot of people like to do, then you are not talking
about anything real.


> 
> Similarly, I object to the term "english-Canadian". What the hell is an
> english-canadian? The assumption seems to be that not only are all
> Quebecers the same (so-called "disinctly" the same), but all those outside
> Quebec are also the same (and "english", whether they come from England or not
> and whether or not english is their first language.) A very wierd, although
> commonly held false mythology.
> 
> Frank.

An "english-Canadian" is anyone who belongs to that continuity which
brought English Canada to where it is now - no matter where they came from
or what language they call their "first".  The fact is that there are two
major historical threads which got this country to where it is now, and
they are distinct, and only one is under any threat at all of being cut. 
That there are many sub-threads within each is irrelevant to this argument.

Hugh Murray   hugh@imax.com
Imax Corporation																					| These are personal opinions  |
Xref: sparky can.general:4861 can.politics:8317
From: CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: October 26th Referendum
Date: 8 Oct 92 13:38:15 GMT
Organization: McGill University

In article <1992Oct7.162136.14744@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>
   Text on possible future representation of Quebec and BC in House
   of Commons deleted

>This is NOT the worst case scenario...the representation of BC, Alberta,
>and Ontario will be further reduced because the other small provinces
>are at 100% of rep. by pop. or significantly above 100% also.

True.  Why is the overrepresentation of the small provinces not
being more vigorously deplored?
>
>The ratio of 125%/94% gives about a 30% difference in voting power
>between a person in BC (or Alberta and Ontario) and Quebec...which
>is not insignificant...it means it will take 4 BC'er to equal 3
>Quebeckers.
>
It already takes 3 BC'ers to equal 1 PEIslander. Shouldn't something
be done about this?

Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,ott.general