OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# C++ Language/Std/FilesystemAccess/NewlineConvertedFiles

If you know that a file's data is to be interpreted as characters, then you could choose to have special operating-system-conversion of every newline character. To use that kind of "newline-converted-file", open it with "w+" instead of "w+b".
Additional information about newline-converted-files
# C++ Language/Std/CRuntime/Time/TimeAsString

To specify a date/time, set various data members of a std::tm object. Calling std::asctime converts that information into a string of exactly 26 characters.
The computer's current time is obtained by std::time as a std::time_t scalar value; std::localtime converts that scalar value into std::tm.
Additional information about encoding time in a string value (includes interactive examples)
# C++ Language/Std/FilesystemAccess/MovingAndDeleting

An existing directory or file can be moved by using rename to change its name.
An existing directory or file can be deleted by remove.
Additional information about moving and deleting files
# C++ Language/Std/FilesystemAccess/Pipes

A "pipe" is like a name-less file, used for interprocess communication.
Additional information about pipes
# C++ Language/Std/FilesystemAccess/BinaryFiles

A binary-standard-file is opened by FILE* poFile = fopen("pathandfile", "w+b"); and closed by fclose(pofile);. The file has a "seek-pointer", which is the position (measured from the file's beginning) where the next fwrite or fread operation will occur. That seek-pointer could be queried by ftell or moved by fseek.
Additional information about binary files
# Economic Sophisms/105

<pagequality level="3" user="Zoeannl" />style="background: #ececec; text-align: left; padding-left: 0.5em; font-weight: bold;" class="table-rh"It was, in fact, nothing else than the régime of prohibition. Just listen to M. de Saint-Cricq:—
"Labour constitutes the wealth of a nation, because labour alone creates those material objects which our wants demand; and universal ease and comfort consist in the abundance of these things." So much for the principle.
"But this abundance must be produced by national labour. If it were the result of foreign labour, national labour would be immediately brought to a stand." Here lies the error. (See the preceding sophism.)
"What course should an agricultural and manufacturing country take under such circumstances? Reserve its markets for the products of its own soil and of its own industry." Such is the end and design.
"And for that purpose, restrain by duties, and, if necessary, prohibit importation of the products of the soil and industry of other nations." Such are the means.
Let us compare this system with that which the Bordeaux petition advocates.
Commodities are there divided into three classes:—
"The first includes provisions, and raw materials upon which no human labour has been bestowed. In principle, a wise economy would demand that this class should be free of duties" Here we have no labour, no protection.
"The second consists of products which have, to some extent, been prepared. This preparation warrants such products being charged with a certain amount of duty." Here protection begins, because here, according to the petitioners, begins national labour.
"The third comprises goods and products in their finished and perfect state. These contribute nothing to national labour, and we regard this class as the most taxable." Here labour, and production along with it, reach their maximum.
We thus see that the petitioners profess their belief in the doctrine, that foreign labour is injurious to national labour; and this is the error of the prohibitive system.
They demand that the home market should be reserved for home industry. That is the design of the system of prohibition.
# Economic Sophisms/100

<pagequality level="3" user="Zoeannl" />style="background: #ececec; text-align: left; padding-left: 0.5em; font-weight: bold;" class="table-rh"Such a man is M. de Saint-Chamans. "One of the strongest arguments against free trade," he says, "is the too extensive employment of machinery, for many workmen are deprived of employment, either by foreign competition, which lowers the price of our manufactured goods, or by instruments which take the place of men in our workshops."
M. de Saint-Chamans has seen clearly the analogy, or, we should rather say, the identity, which obtains between imports and machinery. For this reason, he proscribes both; and it is really agreeable to have to do with such intrepid reasoners, who, even when wrong, carry out their argument to its logical conclusion.
But here is the mess in which they land themselves.
If it be true, a priori, that the domain of invention and that of labour cannot be simultaneously extended but at each other's expense, it must be in those countries where machinery most abounds—in Lancashire, for example—that we should expect to find the fewest workmen. And if, on the other hand, we establish the fact that mechanical power and manual labour coexist, and to a greater extent, among rich nations than among savages, the conclusion is inevitable, that these two powers do not exclude each other.
I cannot convince myself how any thinking being can enjoy a moment's repose in presence of the following dilemma:
Either the inventions of man are not injurious to manual labour, as general facts attest, since there are more of both in England and France than among the Hurons and Cherokees, and that being so, I am on a wrong road, though I know neither where nor when I missed my way; at all events, I see I am wrong, and I should commit the crime of lese-humanity were I to introduce my error into the legislation of my country.
Or else, the discoveries of the human mind limit the amount of manual labour, as special facts appear to indicate; for I see every day some machine or other superseding twenty or a hundred workmen; and then I am forced to acknowledge a flagrant, eternal, and incurable antithesis between the intellectual and physical powers of man—between his progress and
his present wellbeing; and in these circumstances I am forced
# Economic Sophisms/103

<pagequality level="3" user="Zoeannl" />style="background: #ececec; text-align: left; padding-left: 0.5em; font-weight: bold;" class="table-rh"that in the course of the transformation a certain amount of labour will have been displaced; but we cannot allow that it has been destroyed or diminished.
The same thing holds of the importation of foreign commodities. Let us revert to our former hypothesis.
The country manufactures ten millions of hats, of which the cost price was 15 shillings. The foreigner sends similar hats to our market, and furnishes them at 10 shillings each. I maintain that the national labour will not be thereby diminished.
For it must produce to the extent of £5,000,000, to enable it to pay for 10 millions of hats at 10 shillings.
And then there remains to each purchaser five shillings saved on each hat, or in all, £2,500,000, which will be spent on other enjoyments—that is to say, which will go to support labour in other departments of industry.
Then the aggregate labour of the country will remain what it was, and the additional enjoyments represented by £2,500,000 saved upon hats, will form the clear profit accruing from imports under the system of free trade.
It is of no use to try to frighten us by a picture of the sufferings which, on this hypothesis, the displacement of labour will entail.
For, if the prohibition had never been imposed, the labour would have found its natural place under the ordinary law of exchange, and no displacement would have taken place.
If, on the other hand, prohibition has led to an artificial and unproductive employment of labour, it is prohibition, and not liberty, which is to blame for a displacement which is inevitable in the transition from what is detrimental to what is beneficial At all events, let no one pretend that because an abuse cannot be done away with, without inconvenience to those who profit by it, what has been suffered to exist for a time should be allowed to exist for ever.
# Economic Sophisms/102

<pagequality level="3" user="Zoeannl" />style="background: #ececec; text-align: left; padding-left: 0.5em; font-weight: bold;" class="table-rh"What misleads the adversaries of machinery and foreign importations is, that they judge of them by their immediate and transitory effects, instead of following them out to their general and definitive consequences.
The immediate effect of the invention and employment of an ingenious machine is to render superfluous, for the attainment of a given result, a certain amount of manual labour. But its action does not stop there. For the very reason that the desired result is obtained with fewer efforts, the product is handed over to the public at a lower price; and the aggregate of savings thus realized by all purchasers, enables them to procure other satisfactions; that is to say, to encourage manual labour in general to exactly the extent of the manual labour which has been saved in the special branch of industry which has been recently improved. So that the level of labour has not fallen, while that of enjoyments has risen.
Let us render this evident by an example.
Suppose there are used annually in this country ten millions of hats at 15 shillings; this makes the sum which goes to the support of this branch of industry £7,500,000 sterling. A machine is invented which allows these hats to be manufactured and sold at 10 shillings. The sum now wanted for the support of this industry is reduced to £5,000,000, provided the demand is not augmented by the change. But the remaining sum of £2,500,000 is not by this change withdrawn from the support of human labour. That sum, economized by the purchasers of hats, will enable them to satisfy other wants, and, consequently, to that extent will go to remunerate the aggregate industry of the country. With the five shillings saved, John will purchase a pair of shoes, James a book, Jerome a piece of furniture, etc. Human labour, taken in the aggregate, will continue, then, to be supported and encouraged to the extent of £7,500,000; but this sum will yield the same number of hats, plus all the satisfactions and enjoyments corresponding to £2,600,000 that the employment of the machine has enabled the consumers of hats to save. These additional enjoyments constitute the clear profit which the country will have derived from the invention. This is a free gift, a tribute which human
genius will have derived from nature. We do not at all dispute,
# Economic Sophisms/106

<pagequality level="3" user="Zoeannl" />style="background: #ececec; text-align: left; padding-left: 0.5em; font-weight: bold;" class="table-rh"They demand that foreign labour should be subjected to restrictions and taxes. These are the means employed by the system of prohibition.
What difference, then, can we possibly discover between the Bordeaux petitioners and the Corypheus of restriction? One difference, and one only—the greater or less extension given to the word labour.
M. de Saint-Cricq extends it to everything, and so he wishes to protect all.
"Labour constitutes all the wealth of a people," he says; "to protect agricultural industry, and all agricultural industry; to protect manufacturing industry, and all manufacturing industry, is the cry which should never cease to be heard in this Chamber."
The Bordeaux petitioners take no labour into account but that of the manufacturers; and for that reason they would admit them to the benefits of protection.
"Raw materials are commodities upon which no human labour has been bestowed. In principle, we should not tax them. Manufactured products can no longer serve the cause of national industry, and we regard them as the best subjects for taxation."
It is not our business in this place to inquire whether protection to national industry is reasonable. M. de Saint-Cricq and the Bordeaux gentlemen are at one upon this point, and, as we have shown in the preceding chapters, we on this subject differ from both.
Our present business is to discover whether it is by M. de Saint-Cricq, or by the Bordeaux petitioners, that the word labour is used in a correct sense.
Now, in this view of the question, we think that M. de Saint-Cricq has very much the best of it; and to prove this, we may suppose them to hold some such dialogue as the following:—
M. DE SAINT-CRICQ: You grant that national labour should be protected. You grant that the products of no foreign labour can be introduced into our market without superseding a corresponding amount of our national labour. Only, you contend that there are a multiplicity of products possessed of value (for they sell), but upon which no human labour has been bestowed
[vierges de tout travail humain]. And you enumerate, among
# Economic Sophisms/101

<pagequality level="3" user="Zoeannl" />style="background: #ececec; text-align: left; padding-left: 0.5em; font-weight: bold;" class="table-rh"to say that the Creator of man might have endowed him with reason, or with physical strength, with moral force, or with brute force; but that He mocked him by conferring on him, at the same time, faculties which are destructive of each other.
The difficulty is pressing and puzzling; but you contrive to find your way out of it by adopting the strange apophthegm:
In political economy, there are no absolute principles.
In plain language, this means:
"I know not whether it be true or false; I am ignorant of what constitutes general good or evil. I give myself no trouble about that. The immediate effect of each measure upon my own personal interest is the only law which I can consent to recognise."
There are no principles! You might as well say there are no facts; for principles are merely formulas which classify such facts as are well established.
Machinery, and the importation of foreign commodities, certainly produce effects. These effects may be good or bad; on that there may be difference of opinion. But whatever view we take of them, it is reduced to a formula, by one of these two principles: Machinery is a good; or, machinery is an evil: Importations of foreign produce are beneficial; or, such importations are hurtful. But to assert that there are no principles, certainly exhibits the lowest degree of abasement to which the human mind can descend; and I confess that I blush for my country when I hear such a monstrous heresy proclaimed in the French Chambers, and with their assent; that is to say, in the face and with the assent of the élite of our fellow-citizens; and this in order to justify their imposing laws upon us in total ignorance of the real state of the case.
But then I am told to destroy the sophism, by proving that machinery is not hurtful to human labour, nor the importation of foreign products to national labour.
A work like the present cannot well include very full or complete demonstrations. My design is rather to state difficulties than to resolve them; to excite reflection rather than to satisfy doubts. No conviction makes so lasting an impression on the mind as that which it works out for itself. But I shall endeavour nevertheless to put the reader on the right road.
# Economic Sophisms/10

<pagequality level="4" user="Theornamentalist" />style="background: #ececec; text-align: left; padding-left: 0.5em; font-weight: bold;" class="table-rh"The system of Bastiat having thus a destructive as well as a constructive object, a negative as well as a positive design, it is perhaps only doing justice to his great reputation as an economist to put the English reader in a position to judge of that system as a whole. Hence the present translation of the Sophismes is intended as a companion volume to the translation of the Harmonies.
It is unnecessary for me to say more here by way of preface, the gifted author having himself explained the design of the work in a short but lucid introduction.
# Economic Sophisms

| Economic Sophisms Title | Contents→ |
BY
FRÉDÉRIC BASTIAT.
TRANSLATED FROM THE FIFTH EDITION OF THE FRENCH,
BY
PATRICK JAMES STIRLING, LL.D., F.R.S.E.,
AUTHOR OF "THE PHILOSOPHY OF TRADE," ETC.
EDINBURGH:
OLIVER AND BOYD, TWEEDDALE COURT.
LONDON: SIMPKIN. MARSHALL, AND CO.
PRINTED BY OLIVER AND BOYD,
BASTIAT'S two great works on Political Economy—the Sophismes Économiques, and the Harmonies Économiques—may be regarded as counterparts of each other. He himself so regarded them: "the one," he says, "pulls down, the other builds up." His object in the Sophismes was to refute the fallacies of the Protectionist school, then predominant in France, and so to clear the way for the establishment of what he maintained to be the true system of economic science, which he desired to found on a new and peculiar theory of value, afterwards fully developed by him in the Harmonies. Whatever difference of opinion may exist among economists as to the soundness of this theory, all must admire the irresistible logic of the Sophismes, and "the sallies of wit and humour," which, as Mr. Cobden has said, make that work as "amusing as a novel."
The system of Bastiat having thus a destructive as well as a constructive object, a negative as well as a positive design, it is perhaps only doing justice to his great reputation as an economist to put the English reader in a position to judge of that system as a whole. Hence the present translation of the Sophismes is intended as a companion volume to the translation of the Harmonies.
It is unnecessary for me to say more here by way of preface, the gifted author having himself explained the design of the work in a short but lucid introduction.
# Economic Sophisms/104

<pagequality level="3" user="Zoeannl" />style="background: #ececec; text-align: left; padding-left: 0.5em; font-weight: bold;" class="table-rh"
IT is said that the most advantageous of all branches of trade is that which supplies manufactured commodities in exchange for raw materials. For these raw materials are the aliment and support of national labour.
Hence the conclusion is drawn:
That the best law of customs is that which gives the greatest possible facility to the importation of raw materials, and which throws most obstacles in the way of importing finished goods.
There is no sophism in political economy more widely disseminated than this. It is cherished not only by the protectionist school, but also, and above all, by the school which dubs itself liberal; and it is unfortunate that it should be so, for what can be more injurious to a good cause than that it should be at the same time vigorously attacked and feebly defended?
Commercial liberty is likely to have the fate of liberty in general; it will only find a place in the statute-book after it has taken possession of men's minds and convictions. But if it be true that a reform, in order to be solidly established, should be generally understood, it follows that nothing can so much retard reform as that which misleads public opinion; and what is more calculated to mislead public opinion than works which, in advocating freedom, invoke aid from the doctrines of monopoly?
Some years ago three of the great towns of France—Lyons, Bordeaux, and Havre—united in a movement against the restrictive régime. All Europe was stirred on seeing raised what they took for the banner of liberty. Alas! it proved to be also the banner of monopoly—of a monopoly a little more niggardly and much more absurd than that of which they seemed to desire the overthrow. By the aid of the sophism which I have just endeavoured to expose, the petitioners did nothing more than reproduce the doctrine of protection to national industry, tacking to it an additional inconsistency.
# General Chemistry/Reactions of Acids and Bases/Answers
## Answers to Reactions of Acids and Bases

| ${\hbox{HPO}}_{4}^{2-}+{\hbox{OH}}^{-}\to {\hbox{PO}}_{4}^{3-}+{\hbox{H}}_{2}{\hbox{O}}$ | 1. Equimolar solutions of sodium biphosphate and potassium hydroxide are mixed. |
| ${\hbox{HPO}}_{4}^{2-}+{\hbox{H}}^{+}\to {\hbox{H}}_{2}{\hbox{PO}}_{4}^{-}$ | 2. Equimolar solutions of sodium biphosphate and hydrochloric acid are mixed. |
| ${\hbox{SO}}_{2}+{\hbox{OH}}^{-}\to {\hbox{HSO}}_{3}^{-}$ ${\hbox{HSO}}_{3}^{-}+{\hbox{H}}^{+}\to {\hbox{H}}_{2}{\hbox{SO}}_{3}$ | 3. Excess sulfur dioxide gas is bubbled into a dilute solution of sodium hydroxide. Acid is then added. |
| ${\hbox{Al}}^{3+}+3{\hbox{H}}_{2}{\hbox{O}}\to {\hbox{Al}}({\hbox{OH}})_{3}+3{\hbox{H}}^{+}$ | 4. Aluminum chloride is dissolved into water. |
| ${\hbox{NaF}}+{\hbox{H}}_{2}{\hbox{O}}\to {\hbox{Na}}^{+}+{\hbox{OH}}^{-}+{\hbox{HF}}$ ${\hbox{H}}^{+}+{\hbox{OH}}^{-}\to {\hbox{H}}_{2}{\hbox{O}}$ | 5. Sodium fluoride is dissolved into water. Strong acid is then added. |
| ${\hbox{SO}}_{3}+{\hbox{CaO}}\to {\hbox{CaSO}}_{4}$ Neutral. Ca$^{2+}$ is the conjugate of a strong base and SO$_4$$^{2-}$ is the conjugate of a strong acid. | 6. Solid calcium oxide is exposed to a stream of sulfur trioxide gas. If the resulting compound is dissolved, will the solution be acidic, basic, or neutral? |
| ${\hbox{HCl}}+{\hbox{Ag}}^{+}\to {\hbox{H}}^{+}+{\hbox{AgCl}}$ A cloudy precipitate forms, as silver chloride is not soluble. | 7. Gaseous hydrogen chloride is bubbled into a solution of silver nitrate. |
| ${\hbox{NH}}_{4}^{+}+{\hbox{OH}}^{-}\to {\hbox{NH}}_{3}+{\hbox{H}}_{2}{\hbox{O}}$ Gas bubbles form. | 8. Ammonium chloride crystals are dissolved in water. Sodium hydroxide is then added. |
| ${\hbox{HCO}}_{3}^{-}+{\hbox{Ca}}^{2+}+{\hbox{OH}}^{-}\to {\hbox{H}}_{2}{\hbox{O}}+{\hbox{CaCO}}_{3}$ A cloudy precipitate forms, as calcium carbonate is not soluble. Hint: The hydroxide reacts with the bicarbonate to form water, then the resulting carbonate reacts with calcium. | 9. Calcium hydroxide crystals are dissolved into a solution of sodium bicarbonate. |
| ${\ddot {\hbox{P}}}{\hbox{H}}_{3}+{\hbox{AlCl}}_{3}\to {\hbox{H}}_{3}{\hbox{P}}-{\hbox{AlCl}}_{3}$ They have formed a Lewis adduct. Aluminum chloride is a very strong Lewis acid. Phosphine is a Lewis base because there is a non-bonding pair of electrons on the P that can be donated. | 10. Phosphine gas is sprayed onto pebbles of aluminum trichloride. |
# General Chemistry/Solubility/Answers

1.
    a) Octane is the solute, for it is present in a smaller amount.
    b) Yes, benzene and octane will form a solution. They both are nonpolar compounds.
2. Use physical properties such as boiling point, melting point, solubility in water, etc. See Methods for Separating Mixtures for some ideas.
3. Liquids A & C are solutions. Liquid B is a pure substance.
4.
    a) Bottle B. It has the lowest temperature, and gases (including the "fizz" of soda) dissolve best in cold liquids.
    b) Cool Bottle C to 10°C.
# Canadian Criminal Sentencing/Cases/Unlawfully in a Dwelling

* R. v. Fraser, 2012 NSCA 118 -- 3 years
* R. v. House, 2012 NLCA 41 -- discharge
* R. v. Wells, 2006 NSSC 313 -- 3 years
* R. v. Monteiro and Ford, 2005 BCSC 1201 -- 3.5 years
* R. v. Savard, 2005 ABCA 432 -- 4 months
* R. v. Mattice, 2003 BCCA 370 -- 18 months
* R. v. Taylor (C.) (1993), 135 N.B.R.(2d) 213 (TD) -- fine and probation
* R. v. Barnes 2004 NSSC 257 -- 2 years