HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: robert@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Robert Meunier)
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: Re: 95 % rep by pop (was Re: Joe Clark's Session ...)
Date: 3 Oct 92 17:59:36 GMT
Reply-To: robert@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
Organization: Hydro-Quebec (IREQ)

In article MHn@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca, dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>Mark Anthony Young (marky@engin.umich.edu) wrote:
>
>How can you predict the future in this way? Much of the growth industries are
>located in Quebec. High-tech companies such as NT, BNR, NRC. 
>The Canadian Space Agency. This is were the future lies.
 -------------------------


	Apres toutes les promesses et les pelletes de terre de nos bons 
gouvernements, la construction s'est arretee subitement apres l'installation
de la structure d'acier. Rien de nouveau depuis un an.



---
Robert Meunier                     Institut de Recherche d'Hydro-Quebec
Ingenieur                          1800 Montee Ste-Julie, Varennes
Internet: robert@ireq.hydro.qc.ca  Qc, Canada, J3X 1S1 
maintainer: BASIC mailing list request to basic-request@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
Newsgroups: can.general
From: mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew B Englander)
Subject: Re: Bell wants my $$$ before my monthly bill came
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 03:57:02 GMT

plau@qucis.queensu.ca (Peter S. Lau) writes:
>Well, I will definitely look into the package from Roger Communication
>next year and hell, I just use my U.S. Calling Card to make the calls
>from now on since Bell doesn't want my money anyway.

I think that when you use your U.S. calling card to make a long-
distance call from Canada, Bell Canada will eventually get the
money. Does anyone know for sure?

Mathew Englander.
From: mscott@mindlink.bc.ca (Michael Scott)
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: Internet access in T.O.
Date: 29 Sep 92 06:13:36 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: can

Can you suggest a dial-up access site in Toronto? A friend needs E-mail
capability; TCP/IP and Usenet groups would be nice too. Budget is a problem,
though, so reasonable rates would be the best bet.

Thanks,
Michael Scott
mscott@mindlink.bc.ca

Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,ott.general
From: knight@mrco.carleton.ca (Alan Knight)
Subject: Re: H of C representation (Was Re: October 26th Referendum)
Reply-To: knight@mrco.carleton.ca (Alan Knight)
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 13:58:12 GMT

In <1992Oct1.012142.24948@unixg.ubc.ca> mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew B Englander) writes:

>(Alan Knight) writes:
>>Why do you single out BC as being seriously under-represented in this
>>case?  If Quebec drops to being less than 25% of the population, due
>>to increases in B.C. or anywhere else, then the rest of the country
>>would be under-represented, but it would be evenly spread throughout
>>all the other provinces.

>Under the current system as well as the proposed one, the fastest-
>growing provinces are underrepresented. This is because electoral
>boundaries are always based on the last census. Seats in the current
>Parliament were distributed based on the population in 1981, so the
>provinces that have grown most since then, i.e. B.C. and Ontario, are
>now underrepresented.

>The solution is to base representation on the number of *voters* in
>the election. I.e. riding boundaries would be based on the census data,
>and then if it turned out that 17% of the voters were from B.C. but B.C.
>only had 12% of ridings, B.C. would get a few more seats to make up
>for this.

>However, this will never happen.

It's true that rapidly growing areas are under-represented under both
sytems. Do you know of any country anywhere in the world where this is
not true?  
  If I understand your proposed solution, you are recommending
re-arranging the electoral districts between enumeration and election,
or even after the election. This does not seem very practical. How do
candidates get chosen in these new ridings, which have little (if any)
lead time.



-- 
 Alan Knight  knight@mrco.carleton.ca  +1 613 788 2600x5783   Join
 Dept. of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering                the
 Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1S 5B6        LPF

Newsgroups: can.general,ott.general,can.politics
From: frank@unixg.ubc.ca (Murray Frank)
Subject: Re: October 26th Referendum
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 16:10:57 GMT

In article <BvEEJp.3sA@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>
>Do you really believe that the legal version will be different than the
>summary? After all, in order to make any changes of intent, everybody would
>have to agree again. I think that all the final copy will have that the
>summary does not is clarification. There will be no 'surprises'.

Clive Wells and Alberta's Jim Horstmann seem less sure of this than
you do. Since the wording of some parts of the accord are ambiguous
(to put it mildly) it will be interesting to see which ambiguities are
left in the legal text, and which are resolved. Any that get resolved
are likely to be interpreted by some people as "surprises", and by
other people as being what the accord "obviously means". I think that
this is one of the reasons that initially they were not in any hurry
to get the legal text out. 
Newsgroups: can.general,ott.general,can.politics
From: dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker)
Subject: Re: One Canada. Invisible. 
Organization: Camosun College, Victoria B.C, Canada
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 21:20:03 GMT

In article <douglasc.718224224@sfu.ca> douglasc@fraser.sfu.ca (Douglas Ming Chong) writes:
>The leader of the B.C. Liberal Party Gordon Wilson is against the
>Charlottetown Accord for many reasons.  He recommends that a
>clause be put in the Canada Clause that says Canada is one
>country and indivisible.  This basically means that no province
>can separate from Canada.  If this clause was in the Accord
>how would Quebecers view this clause?  For Westerners it means
>no more whining about separating.  This clause would nullify
>Trudeaus's argument of blackmail.  But would Quebec voters
>agree to this clause? 

Who cares? This sounds like typical Wilson drivel. You can say what
you like, but what difference would it make if Quebec - or any other
province - actually *did* want to seperate. Zip all. I can just see
the RCMP arresting Jacques Parizeau for breaking the consitution....

Word to all non-BCer's. Gordon Wilson managed to lead the opposition
after the last provincial election because a) the Socreds were a total
disaster nobody in their right minds would reelect; b) he is *very*
glib on TV; c) he did really well in the televised electoral debate
because he could - and did promise that the Liberals would solve all
mankind's problems; this is really easy when you *know* there's
absolutely no chance of your having to deliver non the promises. *I*
could have done as well in that debate. Harcourt appears to be
screwing up as Premier, which leads to the genuinely scary prospect of
having Wilson in power. It's almost enough to make one wish for the
return of the Zalm.

Deryk Barker, Computer Science Dept., Camosun College, Victoria B.C.
Newsgroups: can.general
From: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
Subject: Re: For those who like the German example of highways ...
Originator: clewis@bcarh1d7
Organization: eh?
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 16:53:35 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.124158.21230@sq.sq.com> donald@sq.sq.com (Donald Teed) writes:
>pt@geovision.gvc.com (Paul Tomblin) writes:

>>I don't see your point.  Large pile ups occur in the fog on every major
>>highway in the world, speed limits or no.  I've seen them on Highway 400 in
>>Ontario, and I've seen them on the M40 Motorway in England.  Why should the
>>very mention of a pile up in fog on an Autobahn "make the hair stand up on
>>your neck"?

>Oh, I guess it had something to do with the number quoted of over
>220 vehicles piled up.  I have no idea how many dead.  But if you
>find news of large scale highway accidents boring, never mind.

There was an accident with about 200 vehicles involved on the 400, perhaps
15 years ago.  And there was a very bad one last year with dozens killed (I
think it was in the USA, several fuel transports ignited).

It's all a matter of weather.  Not speed particularly.  The big 400 accident
was due to an abrupt whiteout, and that MTC had been somewhat deficient in
ensuring proper windbreaks in that area.  If you have an almost instantaneous
whiteout, it don't matter how fast you're going - over 20 or 30Kmh you're
going to have *lots* of accidents.

Besides, I would well imagine that the traffic densities on the Autobahn where
fogs are likely are considerably higher than we average in places subject
to whiteouts.

At least whiteouts can be controlled to a certain extent.  We don't have
rapidly occuring major fogs like they do in Europe (or at least, not very often).
Thus major multi-vehicle accidents are preventable here to a greater degree than
they are in Europe.

[I've been driving for almost 20 years.  I've driven in many whiteouts, but
I've fortunately never encountered one without warning.]
Xref: sparky can.general:4678 ott.general:1148 can.politics:7590
From: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
Newsgroups: can.general,ott.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: October 26th Referendum
Date: 29 Sep 92 00:44:30 GMT
Followup-To: can.general
Distribution: ott
Organization: Elegant Communications Inc., Ottawa, Canada

In article <1992Sep28.175506.6970@bmerh85.bnr.ca> ernestl@bnr.ca writes:
>I've had a quick look at the 'Consensus Report On the Constitution' (my own
>copy is still in the mail) and was surprised that it was fairly clearly 
>written. The main problem I have so far with it is that every second 
>sentence contains the word 'should' as in:
>'Subsection 36(1) should be expanded to contain the territories.' or
>'The Constitution should commit the federal government to...'.
>Why could the agreement not read:
>'Subsection 36(1) WILL be expanded to contain the territories.' and
>'The Constitution WILL commit the federal government to...'???
>The word 'should' can not possibly be legally binding and what guarantee 
>is there that any of these statements will actually be included
>in the legal text?

Legalese.  "Should" does mean "will".  As "may" means "must".  An Ontario
Supreme Court judge told me that legislation framers avoid what is considered
to be "too assertive" language.  Especially in what should best be considered
a "letter of intent" rather than law.  But letters of intent are often enforcable
too.  And, in legislation, judges consistantly choose the stronger interpretation.

What guarantee that these statements will be included?  The provinces would
back out and the whole thing would collapse if they weren't.  The constitutional
changes cannot take effect without the provinces, and it's the provinces that've
asked for most of this stuff.  That's what this is all about.

The real fear is some province deciding that the legal text doesn't match
the accord, block the text being produced, and we won't have one by the
time of the referendum.
-- 
Chris Lewis; clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca; Phone: Canada 613 832-0541
Psroff 3.0 info: psroff-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
Ferret list: ferret-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
Xref: sparky can.general:4613 can.politics:7358 soc.culture.canada:6899
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: fche@db.toronto.edu ("Frank Ch. Eigler")
Subject: Re: I was going to vote yes, BUT NOW ....
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Date: 27 Sep 92 22:57:41 GMT

yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee) writes:

>Let really protest this FARCE of a referendum.  Just simply abstain.
> 
>This campaign has become dishonourable and dispicable (sp?)

Rather than voting because of your attraction to or repulsion from
some politicians, vote on the agreement.  If you are above their
campaigning, ignore their campaigning, but vote anyway.

-- 

-- Frank Ch. Eigler -- Comp Eng -- <eigler@ecf.toronto.edu> -- (I'm Brian!)
From: yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee)
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: Re: The Queen. (of Canada?).
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 05:27:08 MDT
Organization: Edmonton Remote Systems #1, Edmonton, AB, Canada

boucley@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Boucley Charles) writes:

-
-  VOTE
-
-     Do we wish to abolish British royalty here?
-
- ******************************************************************
- * YES       *    Boucley@ere.umontreal.ca                        *
- ******************************************************************

Va-t-en Republicain.  On n'a pas besoins de votre traison ici en Canada!!

Dave Shariff Yadallee (yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca,
userLIBE@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca)
God Save the Queen, God Bless us All! Remember! Jesus Saves!!
Canadians: send a clear message to the government!  ON Oct. 26, Abstain
Xref: sparky can.general:4782 can.politics:8015 ott.general:1194
From: frankk@Canada.Sun.COM (Frank Kannemann)
Subject: Canadian Government Logos? Postscript? Framemaker?
Reply-To: sun@bcars6a2.bnrottawa
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:20:17 GMT

Hi,

Would anyone have any of the above they can email to me? or an ftp site?

This is a long shot but I thought I would try.......

---
Frank Kannemann            Sun Microsystems of Canada  Ph: (613) 723-8112
                           955 Green Valley Cres
                           Ottawa, Ontario Canada
frankk@Canada.sun.com      #include <disclaimer.h>

This posting represents neither Sun Microsystems or BNR. 

Newsgroups: can.general
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: New Constitution text??
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 14:57:18 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.131731.12929@sco.COM> rossw@sco.COM (Ross Wetmore) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.151906.19161@pandora.matrox.com> thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
>>golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>>
>>>1) A Canadian Politburo, an entrenched first ministers conference with
>>>unlimited power to make agreements in any area, which can bind future 
>>>legislatures and governments, regardless of election outcomes. [...]
>>
>>This clause does strike me as dangerous.
>>--
>
>  Can anyone (anyone but Gerald who is rapidly losing credibility) explain 
>how the current Accord grants any new executive powers that the current
>executive branches do not collectively already have?
>
>  Simply arranging a yearly meeting to discuss and coordinate policy, does
>not strike me as dangerous.
>
>  Putting a 7/50 requirement on what policies can already be implemented
>under existing arrangements seems to be the only novel feature in my mind,
>and this is sort of a practical matter anyway, as you are not likely to get
>major initiatives without broad support. It could counter the NEP scenarios
>to some extent, because it gives any targetted province a way to gain a
>binding restriction on the federal government provided it can drum up
>enough support.

There is no 7/50 requirement...under Charlottetown, the federal
government and one or more provinces can sign an agreement on anything,
and have it constitutionally protected for 5 years.  It is the unlimited
and the binding nature of such agreements on future governments that
is disturbing.  If this interdelegation power of the Politiburo were
intergovernment agreements on the federal spending power...I could live
with it...but under Charlottetown, a federal government nearing the
end of its mandate could cause severe mischief for a successor
government.

Examples:  The current Tory government could grant veto rights on
the abrogation of the FTA to a pro-free-trade province.  An NDP
federal government might agree to irresponsible federal transfers
of money or taxing powers to the provinces which could hamstring
the successor government on fiscal matters.  The federal government
could delegate certain environmental powers to a province to 
avoid the responsibility in a matter that might be politically
sensitive...i.e. a province might want a certain project badly,
and a federal government may need votes badly from that province,
and to avoid having to be the "bad" guy and take responsibility,
delegates the necessary environmental powers in a constitutionally
protected 5-year agreement so the province can do as it likes.
Any thing is possible because there is no limit whatsoever on
what the interdelegation power of the Politburo may involve.

This is executive federalism run wild, and comes to darn close
to government by edict and decree.               

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.general
From: amdunn@mongrel.UUCP (Andrew M. Dunn)
Subject: Re: For those who like the German example of highways ...
Organization: A. Dunn Systems Corporation, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 92 03:13:08 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.143927.7740@sq.sq.com> donald@sq.sq.com (Donald Teed) writes:
>>If my memory is correct, ban airplanes from landing, since most
>>crashes happen in takeoff or landing, and the worst-ever crash was
>>between two jumbo jets taxiing on the ground in the Canary Islands?
>
>Yes, with aircraft you can have an accident traveling at 0 km/h.

Huh?


Even in the Tenerife accident (the Canary Islands one) the planes were
moving.  On the ground, taxiing, but definitely _moving_!

At 0 km/h, nothing moves relative to anything else.  Cars, airplanes,
motor-scooters, chairs, and golf clubs.  So they can't cause a
collision accident.

>Speed has little to do with it, but rather the fact that you are up in
>the air.  Most motorists avoid becoming airborne since steering has no effect
>under these conditions.  But if it did, they would!

Damn right I would.  It would get me out of the way of the idiot
motorists who couldn't figure out how to fly.  There's much less
traffic at 100 feet above street level!


:-)


Andy


-- 
:-------------------------------------------------------------------------:
:  Andy Dunn (amdunn@mongrel.uucp)  ({uunet...}!xenitec!mongrel!amdunn)   :
:  "AT&T thinks Usenet is an Underground organization" - are we really?   :
:-------------------------------------------------------------------------:
Newsgroups: can.general,ott.general,can.politics
From: jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)
Subject: Re: One Canada. Invisible. 
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 02:03:45 GMT

In article <douglasc.718224224@sfu.ca> douglasc@fraser.sfu.ca (Douglas Ming Chong) writes:
>The leader of the B.C. Liberal Party Gordon Wilson is against the
>Charlottetown Accord for many reasons.  He recommends that a
>clause be put in the Canada Clause that says Canada is one
>country and indivisible.  This basically means that no province
>can separate from Canada.  If this clause was in the Accord
>how would Quebecers view this clause?  For Westerners it means
>no more whining about separating.  This clause would nullify
>Trudeaus's argument of blackmail.  But would Quebec voters
>agree to this clause? 

For westerners, it also means we would be bound to Canada, (not good, if
the good ship Eastern Canada starts to sink).

Wilson has a weird fascination with Trudeau style centralised federalism.

The constitution terms of Canada should be flexible enough for all provinces,
and ruling out the option of seperation wouldn't solve anything, and 
wouldn't be enforceable anyway (without military action). 

The provinces should be doing what's best for their residents, and Quebec
is no exception. But provinces shouldn't be bending over backwards to 
accommadate another province. Seperation should be an option, clearly defined
in the constituion (after all, we put Canada together, we can break it,
if that's what the citizens *really* desire; a ban on seperation would
be ridiculous). The current federalist system just perpetuates the 
bickering. Change the system into a voluntary, federation of provinces,
and we won't see the bickering about process. Mutual self interest
is what's needed to keep Canada together, not un-enforceable anti-seperatism
clauses.
>


-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
 John Paul Morrison                     |  Just another "Enemy of Canada"
 University of British Columbia, Canada |  Say NO/NON to Constitutional
 Electrical Engineering                 |  hegemony and fear-mongering
 jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca              VE7JPM |  by politicians/scum.
________________________________________|_________________________________
Newsgroups: can.general
From: migod@turing.toronto.edu (Mike Godfrey)
Subject: Re: C solution to Magic Square
Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto
Distribution: can
Date: 28 Sep 92 12:36:10 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.160934.3008@newshub.ccs.yorku.ca> landolt@nexus.yorku.ca (Paul Landolt) writes:
>
>One of my associates is being highly productive and trying to solve a magic
>square. For those of you not in the know, a magic square is, given a matrix
>of NxN, and the numbers 1..(N*N), place each number in the matrix such that
>the values of each row, column, and diagnal will total a certain number
>(in my case, 5x5, 1..25, total to 65)
>
>He is attempting a brute force method of solving the puzzle: Random guessing
>with the computer (ugh!)
>
>My question is: Is there a simple(r) mathematical method of solving the
>magic square for any size? Anyone? Any ideas? Has anyone seen C source that
>will do this?
>
>Thanks in advance


This probably isn't the right newsgroup, but you asked ...

There is an algorithm for odd N.  It can't be too hard as I was taught it
by a grade 2 substitute teacher.

Start in the middle column of the top row with a 1.  Now the rule of thumb 
for subsequent numbers is:
	(a) if the next number to be placed is divisible by N (the magic
	    number), drop down one row but stay in the same column.
	(b) otherwise, go up and right.  If you can't go up because you're
	    in the top row, then drop down to the last row (but go right
	    one column).  If you can't go right because you're in the last
	    column, then go to the first column (but go up one row).
You'll never have a collision if you do this correctly.  If you think
you're about to have a collision, you've probably forgotten about rule (a).

Here's N=3:
		8	1	6
		3	5	7
		4	9	2

I don't know if there's an algorithm for even N.

-- 
Mike Godfrey	          "I will not expose the ignorance of the faculty.
Dept of Comp Sci, UofT     I will not expose the ignorance of the faculty."
migod@turing.toronto.edu			   	-- The Simpsons

Newsgroups: can.general
From: msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader)
Subject: Re: For those who like the German example of highways ...
Followup-To: poster
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 20:02:30 GMT

> if my memory is correct ...  the worst-ever [airplane] crash was
> between two jumbo jets taxiing on the ground in the Canary Islands?

Just as a point of factual correction, one of the jets was taxiing, but
the other was attempting to take off.
-- 
Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com
	We can design a system that's proof against accident and stupidity;
	but we CAN'T design one that's proof against deliberate malice.
	-- a spaceship designer in Arthur C. Clarke's "2001: A Space Odyssey"

This article is in the public domain.
Xref: sparky can.general:4796 can.politics:8065