HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: drt@athena.mit.edu (David R Tucker)
Subject: Re: Canada's country code?
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 20:17:26 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.134729.6923@seachg.uucp>, burke@seachg.uucp (Michael Burke) writes:
|> In article <26SEP199213133566@sscvx1.ssc.gov> godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov (LAURENCE GODFREY) writes:
|> >In article <1992Sep26.163250.37054@bas-a.bcc.ac.uk>, uctlxpd@ucl.ac.uk (Peter Bartlett)        writes...
|> >>carlos@garfield.cs.mun.ca (Carlos Borges) writes:
|> >> 
|> >>>Anyone know what Canada's "Country Code" is?
|> >>>If I was in Europe, for example, and I wanted to call Canada,
|> >>>what would the code be?  Does this differ from country to country?
|> >
|> >Canada has the unique distinction of being the only country which does NOT
|> >have its own code, and uses the USA country code instead.  But then Canada
|> >is barely a country at all, being indistinguishable from the USA except
|> >in minor ways in which it is invariably inferior.
|> >
|> >Laurence
|> Sorry Laurence - the US has the unique distinction of being the only
|> country which does NOT have its own code, and uses Canada's code instead.
|> Only fair that Canada have the country code "1" since the vechicle for its
|> use - the telephone - was invented there. :^)
|> 
|> 
|> ---
|> Michael Burke

You know what is says on that inventor's tombstone, don't you?

"DIED A CITIZEN OF THE U.S.A."

Seems those from his native land refused funding for his inventions.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
|David R. Tucker		KG2S		     drt@athena.mit.edu|
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|`The State exists simply to promote and to protect the ordinary       |
|happiness of human beings in this life.  A husband and wife chatting  |
|over a fire, a couple of friends having a game of darts in a pub, a   |
|man reading a book in his own room or digging in his own garden---that|
|if what the State is there for.  And unless they are helping to       |
|increase and prolong and protect such moments, all the laws,          |
|parliaments, armies, courts, police, economics, etc., are simply a    |
|waste of time.' -C.S. Lewis					       | 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Ontario "socialism"
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 13:38:17 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.055548.26069@bmerh85.bnr.ca> myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui) writes:
>A moment ago, I, myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui), passionately wrote:
>>It's not pro-union or anti-business or whatever. These are polarized
>>attitudes that are only applicable in a boxing ring, where the purpose
>>of the game is to have one side win. Here, the intent is to help both
>>sides get along better. When one side insists on "winning" at the expense
>>of the other side, the outcome will be less productivity than if both
>>sides cooperate towards the common good of the company.
>
>See Ed Finn's article "Time To Try The Third Way" on page B1 of
>the Ottawa Citizen, Sunday, September 27th, for a more eloquent
>and of course far more substantive presentation of my views above.
>

On the contrary, try Howard Levitt's article in the Toronto Star
on page C1 of the Toronto Star, Sept. 28, 1992.
"Why Companies will leave Ontario"

Gerald
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Yes = ? No = ?
Date: 5 Oct 92 13:11:38 GMT
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada

In article <1992Oct1.164730.7076@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA> bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross) writes:
>
>Other than the Trudeau-Manning partnership, most of the NO side 
>would never be able to agree on ANY sort of solution to the 
>constitutional problem.  The NO camp is a pot pouri of antagonistic
>viewpoints.  Whether the whole NO camp is secessionist or not
>is irrelevant to the outcome of the referendum as far as the secessionist
>cause is concerned.

You're kidding (where are the smileys?).  Asymmetrical federalism is some
kind of federalism.  A-F was proposed by PQ for years.  A-F is a suitable
and more relevant renewing of the constitution than the make-up operation
of Charlottetown.  In 1980, the subject of referendum was A-F.

-- 
  \_\    Denis Beauregard  *  internet:beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
 /   \   Genealogiste des familles : Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
J   __>  Un Quebec renouvele dans une Amerique renovee
\_.-===  Non a une entente au contenu secret      Mon opinion ? Non !
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: dbowman@warp (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: I was going to vote yes, BUT NOW ....
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 14:57:40 GMT

Peter Bartlett (uctlxpd@ucl.ac.uk) wrote:
: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
: 
: >Certain Senators will be Senators because they are female.
: 
: I am having trouble locating an affirmative action clause in the
: agreement.  Indeed, in provinces where senators will be directly 
: elected, I do not see how such a provision is possible.  Perhaps
: someone can explain to me where this idea is coming from?  (Remember,
: I'm in the UK and don't get much Canadian news).

Actually, this is not in the Accord at all. This is a separate promise that
Bob Rae has made to Ontario, and Mike Harcourt made to BC. It is actually not
to do with Charlottetown, it arose during the negotiations.

: 
: Presumably the issue is that some provinces who will be electing their
: senators through their legislatures have said they will elect women?
: 
: Which raises the spectre of ensuring representation for women.  Now I
: know it is highly trendy for boys to get up on their equal rights
: bandwagon and start saying people shouldn't get jobs because of their
: sex.  (It is interesting that this argument was much less frequent when 
: it was the boys that got jobs because of their sex...).  But I'm much
: more interested in how the system is actually working.

We don't know how this system will work. Nobody has come up with a reasonable
way to achieve it. Some options are

1) women elect women senators
2) everyone votes twice, once for male, once for female
3) equal women/men candidates, let public decide

I am for 3)


--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:7132 can.politics:7821 can.general:4732
From: mousseau@paun01.pa.msu.edu (Mike Thorpe)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics,can.general
Subject: Re: I was going to vote yes, BUT NOW ....
Date: 2 Oct 92 14:06:51 GMT
Reply-To: mousseau@paun01.pa.msu.edu (Mike Thorpe)
Organization: Michigan State University


In article <BvGrur.4ww@sun3.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca>, ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward) writes:

|> 
|> No, it need not be viewed as the collective making a demand on the individual.
|> It may just as easily be viewed as a contract between the individual and
|> the gov't that the individual will pay a certain amount in exchange for which
|> the individual will receive protection of his/her individual rights (after
|> all, someone has to pay the policeman).
|> 

	Non, la description est incomplete.  D'accord, une partie de l'argent
verse au gouvernement revient directement a l'individu sous forme de 
services.  Toutefois, une autre part sert a la communaute en general.  Par
exemple, on paie des taxes scolaires meme si on n'a pas d'enfant a l'ecole. 
De meme, le regime d'assurance-maladie est la mise en commun d'un certain 
montant d'argent.  Personne ne peut redemander une partie des taxes parce
qu'il n'en a pas recu pour son argent !

	Un gouvernement n'est pas qu'une machine a services.  Meme Milton
Friedman le reconnait, un gouvernement est la pour assurer la cohesion d'un 
pays et remplir un role qui n'a rien a voir avec payer les policiers. (Protection de l'environnement, par exemple)


Normand Mousseau
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
From: MICHAEL.WILLETT@OFFICE.WANG.COM ("Michael Willett")
Subject: Re: RAID 7 Systems--LANs, IBM, Workstations, VAXs, etc.--CANADA
Organization: Mail to News Gateway at Wang Labs
Date: 29 Sep 92 17:57:46 EST

Regarding John Scoggin's request for information on RAID systems for
VINES, Storage Computer of Nashua, N.H. is currently showing its new high
performance RAID 7 disk array platforms at the September Banyan Users
Meeting.  They work equally well with NetWare, IBM systems, VAXs, etc.
The company indicated they have now been released for Canada.

Standards-based, RAID 7 is designed for enterprise-wide computing and
overcomes performance limitations of earlier RAID architectures, providing
a  "real world sustained application performance improvement of 200% to
400%" and dropping the cost of storage to 16 cents/MB.  Their brochures
say they can "mix and match" up to 48 SCSI commodity (3.5 or 5.25 inch)
drives, up to 150 GB.  The RAID 7 disk array platforms come with an embedded
operating system and up to 12 SCSI-2 based host interfaces.  Besides servers,
Storage Computer's RAID 7 disk array platforms can connect to workstations
and midrange systems in addition to IBM's.  Multiple CPUs can be attached to
the same disk array platform.

The RAID 7 platforms come with up to 256 MB of cache, eliminating any
reason for using performance-damaging CPU main memory disk RAM.

The drives are "hot plugable" for uninterrupted, transparent operation,
with a hot standby drive automatically replacing a failed drive.

There was a lot of activity yesterday at the Storage Computer RAID 7 booth
at the Banyan show as I walked by.  They were demoing what happens if a
drive goes down, showing the backup drive taking over.

For further information on Storage Computer's RAID 7 for the VAX, their
key contact is indicated to be John O'Brien, Director of Technical Services,
at Tel. 603-880-3005 or FAX 603-889-7232.  He's the "guru" of RAID 7 and
a leading industry RAID figure.

Michael.Willett@OFFICE.Wang.com
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)
Subject: Re: Ontario "socialism"
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 19:22:54 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.123541.35516@bas-a.bcc.ac.uk> uctlxpd@ucl.ac.uk (Peter Bartlett) writes:
>
>Pension funds grow (and of course get scooped back into corporate profits
>by the employer, if they grow "too much"); and people have something to retire

some remedial accounting here, I'll try and explain:

Pensions funds are Defined Benefit funds. This is to prevent INFLATION from
eroding all the gains. This way, someone can retire, and know that they 
will get a decent amount: the amount they bargained for.

Since central banks have such a poor inflation record, inlfation is impossible
to predict. A pension manager can only work out a worst case, and hope for
the best. The Employer contributes to the pension fund, and if there is ANY
shortfall in fund earnings, the EMPLOYER is repsonsible for making up the
losses. Now, suppose the fund managers were too pessimistic: the employer
actually OVER-contributed to the fund. It follows that the employer should
be able to benefit from a surplus, just as he is hurt by a shortfall.

Basically, a pension is a deferred wage, and the union/employee etc is only
entitled to what he contracted for. Any surplus doesn't belong to the worker.
If we follow YOUR reasoning, the employee would become liable for shortfalls
in a poorly performing year; I don't hear the unions crying for this though.
>
>peter.


-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
 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: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Subject: Re: Canada Clause
Date: 28 Sep 92 18:49:07 GMT
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:

>Having 3 Justices from Quebec is something quite acceptable because
>Quebec has not the same law system that CHQ.
>You need to have enough different opinions in any issue.
>
>But, having 3 Justices from Ontario is bad.  Ontario has the same law
>system as other provinces of CHQ.  So, 2 justices from Ontario (1/3 of CHQ
>roughly) and 4 from different provinces should be the rule.

Actually, the Supreme Court should be larger than it is because its
work load is so heavy.  It should probably be expanded from 9 to 12.
Thus, at least one quarter of the judges would be from Quebec,
only one half would be guaranteed for Ontario and Quebec, and the
work load for each justice would be three quarters of what it is now.

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
Montreal
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:7208 can.politics:8016
From: smith@gramian.harvard.edu (Steven Smith)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Subject: Re: Appointments to the Supreme Court
Date: 5 Oct 92 15:26:44 GMT
	<1992Oct1.014235.25431@unixg.ubc.ca>
	<SMITH.92Oct1133813@michael.harvard.edu>
	<1992Oct5.000055.27340@unixg.ubc.ca>
Organization: Harvard Robotics Lab, Harvard University

mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew B Englander) writes:
> smith@michael.harvard.edu (Steven Smith) writes:
> >Why do you wish to give the provinces this special privilege?  Aren't
> >you afraid that they might use it to promote laws to enhance their own
> >power and limit your freedoms?  (E.g., existing Canadian language and
> >speech restrictions.)
> 
> Remember, the federal government will still have the final say.
> I don't think provincial governments are any more likely to abuse
> their power of nominating judges than the federal government.

In the U.S., it is the Executive that is sworn to preserve and protect
the Constitution -- a duty that historically has been more respected
than not.  The situation in Canada appears to be similar.

I would agree with the assertion that the Provincial (State)
governments are no more or less likely to assert their interests than
the Executive; however, I see no reason why they deserve to influence
nominations while other branches of government do not.  If the
provinces get a say, I would want my representative to have one too.
Furthermore, why stop at the Supreme Court?  Why not let the Provinces
(States) influence other appointments such as ambassadors or ministers
(cabinet members)?

Presumably, we elect an Executive to make decisions in the country's
best interests, independent of popular or regional demands.  Of
course, the Executive has an interest in promoting its own power, but
in the U.S., its power is checked by numerous mechanisms.  We
collectively abrogate our power to affect these decisions with the
faith that the Executive (checked by the Senate) really will act in
our best interest.  This formula certainly is not God-given, but
usually seems to work well.  If you propose to do away with this
agreement, and make these decisions by a committee whose members do
not necessarily have the whole country's best interests in mind, then
I would want a say, too.

Furthermore, in Canada, it is the provincial governments that have
been most enthusiastic about limiting individual liberties.  For this
reason alone I would not trust their influence in the courts.

Steven Smith
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Royal Bank hypocrisy and the Telecommunications Sellout
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 17:31:21 GMT

In article <BvpHso.I3L@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@warp (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>: >
>: >1) This is breaking Canadian Law 
>: 
>: A little civil disobedience to facilitate informed debate at a crucial
>: point in my country's history is a crime for which I am more than willing 
>: to plead guilty.  I seriously doubt whether I am causing the Globe and
>: Mail and the Toronto Star grievous financial damage...and I am certainly
>: not breaking the law for personnel gain.  So be it if they hang me!
>
>Everybody on the Net gets a bad reputation if it is used for illegal
>purposes. Would you use the same argument and post copyrighted software if
>you wanted people to discuss it? (I don't think Lotus has a good user
>interface, here is my copy of it...)
>

I would think the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star would be glad
that there are still some people like me who read newspapers, and who
frequently will buy both of them on the same day when important 
events are occuring.

The intent of my civil disobedience is clear...if there are consequences
for it, so be it...


>You unjustly tar the media by calling them pro-YES. Pro-ELITE.
>Pro-Establishment. I can rarely remember when I have seen the media
>interested in helping the establishment. The media informs us. They are quite
>unfettered.
>
>Pro-Elite. How do you figure this? What Elite? The Rich? Journalists don't
>earn that much, and don't really favour the rich. The powerful? The media
>loves to hate the powerful, the Conrad Black's, the Irvings, the Reichmanns.
>

Have you ever read any Chomsky?

>
>If the YES side wins, you'll be one of the people bitching for months
>about how biased the media was, how you were really right, how unfair the
>world is, how stupid the rest of Canada is. You'll be one of those pathetic
>has-been losers saying "it wasn't my fault. They were all against me". This
>is paranoia.
>

I see that since you don't have anything good to say about the
Charlottetown Accord, that you have to imagine a future that isn't
going to happen to find things to criticize.

I am one of many advocating that people make an informed choice on
Charlottetown.

I am the one advocating an elected constituent assembly or
constitutional convention to prepare a variety of options, even
ones I am personally opposed to, to be considered by the people
in Canada and Quebec in referenda, and to then be ratified by
legislatures. 

If I were afraid of the results of democracy, I wouldn't be 
advocating more of it.

Gerald
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll)
Subject: Re: Ontario "socialism"
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 03:30:31 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.195602.1121@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>In article <BvEEy8.r1@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca> jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
>>
>>	A possible problem with the voucher system is that if the number
>>students  wanting to go to university greatly outnumber the supply of 
>>'slots' available at universities accepting the vouchers, the mediocre
>>universities will still get those students who  want  or need to university,
>>but who couldn't get  accepted at the 'desirable' schools.  
>>
>>	Who  decides how many vouchers get issued?
>>
>Seems like an good business opportunity for our oversupply of
>Ph.D's, and expatriate Ph.D's, who might take the entrepreneurial
>jump and create new universities dedicated to quality teaching.

	Where does the money represented by  the vouchers  come from?
Does everyone  who wants a voucher get one, and if not, who decides
who does get one?

	Does  universities still get veto power over accepting a given
student?

>These small private universities would take the enrollment burden
>of the "big" schools and allow them to pursue their main interest
>which is research anyway.

	Where  does the money  for  this come  from, and  why will these
new universities  not go for  the more lucratic  research contracts?

	Under  the voucher scheme, is supply  of post-secondary education 
envisioned  to increase to  the point everyone who wants  to will  get  into
some  university?

							James Nicoll

Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Appointments to the Supreme Court
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 18:06:28 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.163051.42870@bas-a.bcc.ac.uk> uctlxpd@ucl.ac.uk (Peter Bartlett) writes:
>golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>
>
>>So what if Premier Jacques Parizeau keeps nominating ultra-nationalists...
>>or Premier Rae keeps nominating Canadian Catherine MacKinnon clones. [to the
>Supreme Court of Canada].
>
>Presumably what would happen is that the bench would start to contain a 
>breadth of opinion more in keeping with the Canadian population (which does
>last time I checked contain some significant number of nationalists and
>feminists).
>
>You would presumably prefer that the court was restricted to those of a
>more right-wing political persuasion, thus ensuring that those of us who do
>not share those views can be assured of a rather frosty welcome if we go
>to court.  This is democracy?
>

No...I would prefer the person nominating the Justices was responsible to
all the people in Canada...Bob Rae and Jacques Parizeau can name whoever
they want to the court when they become PM, and thus have political
support from across the country.  (Again, I am fully in favor of 3
justices being from Quebec...and only am opposed to the appointment
procedure).

Not all women are Catherine MacKinnon clones...Justice (I'm not certain
of her name...I think it is) Beverly McLaughlin from BC on the current
court is my favorite justice.   

Gerald
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:7069 can.politics:7658
From: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen)
Subject: Re: I was going to vote yes, BUT NOW ....
Followup-To: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Originator: clamen@BYRON.SP.CS.CMU.EDU
Reply-To: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<1992Sep29.222204.11961@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>
	<1992Sep30.140652.13440@sco.COM> <BvG31M.11s@sun3.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 20:29:51 GMT

In article <BvG31M.11s@sun3.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca> ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward) writes:

   Collective rights (such as bill 178 in Quebec) is what opposes freedom of
   action (try putting up a sign is Quebec in a language other than French).

We should remember that the sign/advertising provisions are
restrictions on language in the commercial domain only.  There is no
law that forbids you from putting a BEWARE OF DOG sign in your window.


--
Stewart M. Clamen			Internet:    clamen@cs.cmu.edu
School of Computer Science		UUCP: 	     uunet!"clamen@cs.cmu.edu"
Carnegie Mellon University		Phone: 	     +1 412 268 2145
5000 Forbes Avenue			Fax:	     +1 412 268 5739
Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3891, USA
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:6876 can.politics:7333