Premise: In 1994, the sovereignist leader of the Bloc Quebecois stated, in connection with the Canadian mission to China, that our Prime Minister, and I quote ``has made a 180 degree turn and set a course that is guided by strictly commercial interests, thereby turning his back on protecting human rights''.

Hypothesis: In 1994 the the sovereignist leader was not also the Prime Minister.

It is correct because he did not hold both political titles.

Pada tahun 1994, pemimpin berdaulat Bloc Quebecois menyatakan, berkaitan dengan misi Kanada ke China, bahawa Perdana Menteri kita, dan saya memetik ``telah membuat pusingan 180 darjah dan menetapkan haluan yang dipandu oleh kepentingan komersial yang ketat, dengan itu membelakangkan hak asasi manusia''.

Pada tahun 1994, pemimpin yang berdaulat itu bukan juga Perdana Menteri.


Premise: Yes, I would. The only thing an executive order can accomplish is to ban it in federal law enforcement agencies, but I would also support a law in the Congress that would have the effect of doing the same thing. I just -- I think that racial profiling is a serious problem.

Hypothesis: The executive order referenced here won't apply to state and local law enforcement agencies.

It only applies on the federal level, state and local wouldn't apply. The system probably doesn't understand the hierarchy here.

Ya, saya akan. Satu-satunya perkara yang boleh dicapai oleh perintah eksekutif ialah melarangnya dalam agensi penguatkuasaan undang-undang persekutuan, tetapi saya juga akan menyokong undang-undang dalam Kongres yang akan mempunyai kesan melakukan perkara yang sama. Saya cuma -- saya rasa pemprofilan kaum adalah masalah yang serius.

Perintah eksekutif yang dirujuk di sini tidak akan digunakan untuk agensi penguatkuasaan undang-undang negeri dan tempatan.


Premise: Your Honor, as you know, we've got the question of whether or not these are admissible for effect. Our position on that we've articulated. I don't know if you want us to argue at greater length or brief, but it's hearsay to the extent it's offered for the truth of the matter asserted as effect.

Hypothesis: They are speaking to a judge.

The address of "Your Honor" suggests addressing a judge

Yang Berhormat, seperti yang anda tahu, kami mempunyai persoalan sama ada ini boleh diterima berkuat kuasa atau tidak. Pendirian kami mengenai perkara yang telah kami nyatakan. Saya tidak tahu sama ada anda mahu kami berhujah lebih panjang atau ringkas, tetapi ia adalah khabar angin sejauh mana ia ditawarkan untuk kebenaran perkara yang ditegaskan sebagai kesan.


Premise: I think that we do. It's pollution, carbon dioxide, and other chemicals that are even more potent, but in smaller quantities, that cause this. Look, the world's temperature is going up, weather patterns are changing, storms are getting more violent and unpredictable.

Hypothesis: It is reasonable to at least consider it possible that these statements were made by someone that considers global warming to be a threat to the planet.

My statement is definitely correct, because common sense implies that these statements are definitely in support of reducing climate change - but even then, I said it was only a possibility that they were, leaving room to account for an explanation that goes against common sense. I think the system had difficulty because it deals in absolutes and does not understand the current problems of our world.

Saya fikir kita lakukan. Pencemaran, karbon dioksida dan bahan kimia lain yang lebih kuat, tetapi dalam kuantiti yang lebih kecil, yang menyebabkan ini. Lihatlah, suhu dunia semakin meningkat, corak cuaca berubah, ribut semakin ganas dan tidak dapat diramalkan.

Adalah munasabah untuk sekurang-kurangnya menganggap bahawa kenyataan ini dibuat oleh seseorang yang menganggap pemanasan global sebagai ancaman kepada planet ini.


Premise: That stands in stark contrast, by the way, to a man who is going to leave 50 million -- 50 million Americans out of tax relief. We just have a different point of view. It's a totally different point of view. He believes only the right people ought to get tax relief.

Hypothesis: he is judgemental on who deserves assistance

It is stated that he thinks only certain people deserve tax relief.

Itu sangat berbeza, dengan cara, dengan seorang lelaki yang akan meninggalkan 50 juta -- 50 juta rakyat Amerika daripada pelepasan cukai. Cuma kita berbeza pandangan. Ia adalah sudut pandangan yang sama sekali berbeza. Dia percaya hanya orang yang sesuai sahaja yang patut mendapat pelepasan cukai.


Premise: For example: to have diplomatic initiatives to diffuse the tensions between ethnic groups and encourage peacekeeping initiatives between these rival groups; to introduce positive information to counter the negative information that is being spread; to have an international arms registry that deals with specific arms, which would go a long way to adding a measure of transparency and accountability where there are military organizations.

Hypothesis: Having an international arms registry will  help to  diffuse the tensions between ethnic groups.

Having an international arms registry will help to diffuse the tensions between ethnic groups because each side won't think the other has something they don't.

Sebagai contoh: mempunyai inisiatif diplomatik untuk meresap ketegangan antara kumpulan etnik dan menggalakkan inisiatif pengaman antara kumpulan saingan ini; untuk memperkenalkan maklumat positif untuk mengatasi maklumat negatif yang sedang disebarkan; Untuk mempunyai pendaftaran senjata antarabangsa yang berkaitan dengan senjata tertentu, yang akan pergi jauh untuk menambah ukuran ketelusan dan akauntabiliti di mana terdapat organisasi ketenteraan.

Mempunyai pendaftaran senjata antarabangsa akan membantu meredakan ketegangan antara kumpulan etnik.


Premise: But how can that happen when we know from the start that this agency will be made up of an extremely large number of employees-40,000 is the number we have been seeing-who will no longer come under the Public Service Employment Act and who will therefore have difficulty keeping their union?

Hypothesis: The Public Service Employment Act allows workers to keep their union much more easily than without it.

The original statement says that not coming under the Public Service Employment Act will cause employees more difficulty in keeping their union. The system was fooled because it was not considering the active benefits of the Public Service Employment Act.

Tetapi bagaimana itu boleh berlaku apabila kita tahu dari awal bahawa agensi ini akan terdiri daripada bilangan pekerja yang sangat besar-40,000 adalah jumlah yang kita lihat-yang tidak lagi akan berada di bawah Akta Pekerjaan Perkhidmatan Awam dan oleh itu siapa yang akan mengalami kesukaran untuk mengekalkan kesatuan mereka?

Akta Pekerjaan Dalam Perkhidmatan Awam membenarkan pekerja mengekalkan kesatuan sekerja mereka dengan lebih mudah berbanding tanpanya.


Premise: The judge advocate general, the chief of the defence staff and the provost marshal are all members of the military; the members of the monitoring committee are friends of the minister; finally, the chairman of the grievance board will work in close co-operation with the chief of the defence staff.

Hypothesis: The general is a judge

This statement is definitely correct because the person's title is literally "judge advocate general." The system may not have made that connetion

Hakim peguam bela jeneral, ketua kakitangan pertahanan dan marshal provost adalah semua anggota tentera; ahli jawatankuasa pemantau adalah rakan menteri; akhirnya pengerusi lembaga aduan akan bekerjasama rapat dengan ketua kakitangan pertahanan.


Premise: Who could claim, without raising an eyebrow, that this system is truly equitable, transparent and accessible, a system that allows corporations, which do not have the right to vote, to meddle in the electoral process by making contributions far beyond the capability of the ordinary voter, and thus unduly influencing the political policy of the parties and the candidates seeking votes?

Hypothesis: This system is actually not transparent.

The text suggests it is not truly transparent since you couldn't claim that "without raising an eyebrow" [skepticism]. It's a logical inference that the model misses.

Siapa yang boleh mendakwa, tanpa mengangkat kening, bahawa sistem ini benar-benar saksama, telus dan boleh diakses, sebuah sistem yang membenarkan syarikat, yang tidak mempunyai hak untuk mengundi, mencampuri proses pilihan raya dengan membuat sumbangan jauh di luar kemampuan pengundi biasa, dan dengan itu mempengaruhi dasar politik parti-parti dan calon-calon yang mencari undi?


Premise: That's not where we are today. I regret to say that the president who called himself a uniter, not a divider, is now presiding over the most divided America in the recent memory of our country. I've never seen such ideological squabbles in the Congress of the United States. I've never seen members of a party locked out of meetings the way they're locked out today.

Hypothesis: The speaker is shocked by the partisan divisions in the country

The speaker clearly states he has never seen such destructive division in congress

Itu bukan tempat kita hari ini. Saya kesal untuk mengatakan bahawa presiden yang menggelar dirinya sebagai penyatu, bukan pemecah belah, kini mengetuai Amerika yang paling berpecah-belah dalam ingatan negara kita baru-baru ini. Saya tidak pernah melihat perbalahan ideologi sebegitu dalam Kongres Amerika Syarikat. Saya tidak pernah melihat ahli parti terkurung daripada mesyuarat seperti mereka terkunci hari ini.

Penceramah terkejut dengan perpecahan partisan di negara ini


Premise: Mr. Speaker, since the Federal Court's McGillis ruling has laid the board's independence open to question, the departments, the ministers and the secretaries of state must realize that they would be jeopardizing the very independence of the Copyright Board and the principle of equity itself.

Hypothesis: the departments, the ministers and the secretaries of state will realize that they would be jeopardizing the very independence of the Copyright Board

It was quoted above that the independence will be jeopardized

Tuan Yang di-Pertua, memandangkan keputusan McGillis Mahkamah Persekutuan telah meletakkan kebebasan lembaga terbuka untuk dipersoalkan, jabatan-jabatan, menteri-menteri dan setiausaha-setiausaha negara mesti sedar bahawa mereka akan menjejaskan kebebasan Lembaga Hak Cipta dan prinsip ekuiti itu sendiri.

Negara sedang bersiap sedia untuk menghadapi Hurricane Cate.


Premise: On face value, based upon the debate thus far, we have on the record of this house an observation that perhaps the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada has said that Madam Justice Arbour has adopted a certain position or a view with reference to this legislation.

Hypothesis: The Attorney General of the United States is not being referenced in this context.

This statement is definitely correct, because the Attorney General of the CANADA is being referenced. The system may have picked neither because it nothing was explicitly mentioned about the US.

Pada nilai muka, berdasarkan perbahasan setakat ini, kami mempunyai dalam rekod dewan ini pemerhatian bahawa mungkin Menteri Kehakiman dan Peguam Negara Kanada telah mengatakan bahawa Puan Justice Arbor telah menerima pakai pendirian atau pandangan tertentu dengan merujuk kepada perundangan ini.

Peguam Negara Amerika Syarikat tidak dirujuk dalam konteks ini.


Premise: The debate on the bill is whether a proper balance is being struck between the rights of the accused and the rights of society as represented by law enforcement agencies charged with the responsibility and duty to bring criminals to justice, investigate crimes and have a sufficiently strong record in terms of success that it would be a deterrent to those who plan and commit premeditated acts against an individual.

Hypothesis: debators are unsure of whether the bill maintains fairness amongst all parties

Perbahasan mengenai rang undang-undang itu adalah sama ada keseimbangan yang sewajarnya dicapai antara hak tertuduh dan hak masyarakat seperti yang diwakili oleh agensi penguatkuasaan undang-undang yang dipertanggungjawabkan dengan tanggungjawab dan kewajipan untuk membawa penjenayah ke muka pengadilan, menyiasat jenayah dan mempunyai rekod yang cukup kukuh dari segi kejayaan ia akan menjadi penghalang kepada mereka yang merancang dan melakukan tindakan yang dirancang terhadap seseorang individu.

pembahas tidak pasti sama ada rang undang-undang itu mengekalkan keadilan di kalangan semua pihak


Premise: Finally, the last thing that I want to do -I'm answering soliloquy with soliloquy here. I'm not sure if this is a dialogue. Finally, I am acutely cognizant of the fact that this trial has abundant media coverage, and it is surely not my intent to force a constitutional confrontation with two reporters and to create a side show that we don't need to. That's why we're meeting in chambers.

Hypothesis: The media coverage in this trial is on the large side.

I replaced the word abundant with the phrase on the large side which has the same meaning in this context and i re shaped the sentence differently.

Akhirnya, perkara terakhir yang saya mahu lakukan -saya menjawab soliloquy dengan soliloquy di sini. Saya tidak pasti jika ini adalah dialog. Akhirnya, saya menyedari hakikat bahawa percubaan ini mempunyai liputan media yang banyak, dan pastinya bukan niat saya untuk memaksa konfrontasi perlembagaan dengan dua wartawan dan untuk membuat persembahan sampingan yang kita tidak perlu. Itulah sebabnya kami bertemu di bilik.

Liputan media dalam perbicaraan ini adalah dari segi besar.


Premise: Right, and we submit the Framers had something very different in mind than the rule against perpetuities. The point is, if this is permitted, then there is no limit to the ability to extend terms, and that is precisely contrary to what the Framers had in mind when they worried about this problem originally. What was the problem they were solving? It was, as this Court stated in Graham --

Hypothesis: This passage is incomplete.

Betul, dan kami mengemukakan bahawa Penggubal mempunyai sesuatu yang sangat berbeza dalam fikiran daripada peraturan menentang kekekalan. Intinya ialah, jika ini dibenarkan, maka tiada had kepada keupayaan untuk melanjutkan terma, dan itu adalah bertentangan dengan apa yang Framers fikirkan apabila mereka bimbang tentang masalah ini pada asalnya. Apakah masalah yang mereka selesaikan? Ia adalah, seperti yang dinyatakan oleh Mahkamah ini dalam Graham --


Premise: I hope that the House will come up with an amendment to clause 9 because as it stands now, if we have final offer selection on top of it, it would amount to telling the arbitrator or the arbitration panel ``Now you are going to manage this whole thing, and look at it as if it were a private company, a totally private firm, and at the same time you will be looking for the best way to settle the dispute''.

Hypothesis: The speaker is hopeful the House will come up with an amendment to clause 9

The speakers states, "I hope that the House will come up with an amendment to clause 9". This clearly implies the speaker is hopeful for a plan from the House.

Saya berharap Dewan akan membuat pindaan kepada fasal 9 kerana seperti yang ada sekarang, jika kita mempunyai pilihan tawaran akhir di atasnya, ia akan sama dengan memberitahu penimbang tara atau panel timbang tara ``Sekarang anda akan menguruskan semua perkara ini, dan lihatlah ia seolah-olah ia sebuah syarikat persendirian, firma swasta sepenuhnya, dan pada masa yang sama anda akan mencari cara terbaik untuk menyelesaikan pertikaian itu''.

Speaker berharap Dewan akan membuat pindaan kepada fasal 9


Premise: Mr. Speaker, according to last week's supplementary estimates the government is planning to spend billions on some interesting projects including $4 million for millennium art projects; $22 million for new chanceries in Colombia, Haiti, Venezuela and South Korea; $3.2 million for senators; and $1 million for international environmental organizations.

Hypothesis: It was estimated that more money will be put towards art projects than environmental organisations.

$4 million is going to be spent on millennium art projects and only $1 million for environmental organisations

Tuan Yang di-Pertua, mengikut anggaran tambahan minggu lepas kerajaan merancang untuk membelanjakan berbilion-bilion untuk beberapa projek menarik termasuk $4 juta untuk projek seni alaf; $22 juta untuk canselor baharu di Colombia, Haiti, Venezuela dan Korea Selatan; $3.2 juta untuk senator; dan $1 juta untuk organisasi alam sekitar antarabangsa.

Dianggarkan lebih banyak wang akan digunakan untuk projek seni berbanding organisasi alam sekitar.


Premise: Late in '04 my daughter came home from school, and I was discussing kind of what was going on in the district with her. And she looked at me and she said, Well, Mom, evolution is a lie, what kind of Christian are you, anyway, which I found to be very upsetting.

Hypothesis: The daughter in the story vignette was attending school 15 years ago.

The story takes place in 2004, which is 15 years ago. The AI might have been confused by the dates.

Lewat '04 anak perempuan saya pulang dari sekolah, dan saya berbincang tentang perkara yang berlaku di daerah dengannya. Dan dia memandang saya dan dia berkata, Baiklah, Ibu, evolusi adalah pembohongan, apakah jenis orang Kristian anda, bagaimanapun, yang saya dapati sangat menjengkelkan.

Anak perempuan dalam sketsa cerita itu bersekolah 15 tahun lalu.


Premise: Nuclear weapons produce lethal levels of heat and blast, produce radiation and radioactive fallout, exterminate civilian populations, produce social disintegration, contaminate and destroy the food chain, and continue for decades after their use to induce health-related problems.

Hypothesis: Even 20 years after detonation, nuclear weapons still have health effects.

The text says that decades after their use nuclear weapons continue to induce health-related problems. "Decades" [plural] includes 20 years; the model missed this.

Senjata nuklear menghasilkan tahap haba dan letupan yang mematikan, menghasilkan radiasi dan kejatuhan radioaktif, menghapuskan populasi awam, menghasilkan perpecahan sosial, mencemari dan memusnahkan rantaian makanan, dan berterusan selama beberapa dekad selepas digunakan untuk menimbulkan masalah berkaitan kesihatan.

Walaupun 20 tahun selepas letupan, senjata nuklear masih mempunyai kesan kesihatan.


Premise: As a matter of fact, such partnership should eventually apply to every NAFTA country in order to have uniform environmental standards so that all industries and businesses are equally respectful of the environment, and provide for environmental impacts in their production costs, thus enabling them to sell their products at competitive prices while respecting the environment.

Hypothesis: Not every NAFTA country had such partnership at that time.

It says "such partnership should eventually apply to every NAFTA country", if it should eventually apply, then at that time only some NAFTA countries had the partnership. It's difficult because it's dealing with detailed semantics about the text.

Pada hakikatnya, perkongsian sedemikian akhirnya harus terpakai kepada setiap negara NAFTA untuk mempunyai piawaian alam sekitar yang seragam supaya semua industri dan perniagaan sama-sama menghormati alam sekitar, dan menyediakan kesan alam sekitar dalam kos pengeluaran mereka, sekali gus membolehkan mereka menjual produk mereka pada harga yang kompetitif sambil menghormati alam sekitar.

Tidak setiap negara NAFTA mempunyai perkongsian sedemikian pada masa itu.


Premise: I want to explore your understanding of what has actually taken place in this ninth-grade biology class that your daughter Alix is presently taking. Is it your understanding that Darwin's theory of evolution will be taught in this class pursuant to the Pennsylvania academic standards?

Hypothesis: Alix is in a Pennsylvania school

the class is based on the pennsylvania standards, which only apply to schools within the state

Saya ingin meneroka pemahaman anda tentang perkara yang sebenarnya telah berlaku dalam kelas biologi gred sembilan yang diambil oleh anak perempuan anda Alix sekarang. Adakah pemahaman anda bahawa teori evolusi Darwin akan diajar dalam kelas ini menurut piawaian akademik Pennsylvania?


Premise: Mr. Speaker, will the minister admit that he should support the shipbuilding industry in Quebec and Canada by taking the same kind of measures the U.S. government has in place for its industry, so that our builders can at least compete on a level playing field with the Americans?

Hypothesis: Americans have the higher edge here

When it says that they want to be on the same playing field, it means that they are at a much lower disadvantage

Tuan Yang di-Pertua, adakah menteri akan mengakui bahawa beliau harus menyokong industri pembinaan kapal di Quebec dan Kanada dengan mengambil langkah-langkah yang sama yang kerajaan A.S. telah sediakan untuk industrinya, supaya pembina kita sekurang-kurangnya dapat bersaing di peringkat yang sama dengan orang Amerika?

Orang Amerika mempunyai kelebihan yang lebih tinggi di sini


Premise: I was hunting in Iowa last year with a sheriff from one of the counties there, and he pointed to a house in back of us, and said, "See the house over? We just did a drug bust a week earlier, and the guy we arrested had an AK-47 lying on the bed right beside him. "

Hypothesis: I have gone hunting within the last 1000 days

I went hunting last year. I think the system got it wrong because I introduced a strange number

Saya sedang memburu di Iowa tahun lepas dengan seorang sheriff dari salah satu daerah di sana, dan dia menunjuk ke arah sebuah rumah di belakang kami, dan berkata, "Lihat rumah itu selesai? Kami baru saja melakukan operasi dadah seminggu lebih awal, dan lelaki itu yang kami tangkap mempunyai AK-47 terbaring di atas katil di sebelahnya."

Saya telah pergi memburu dalam tempoh 1000 hari yang lalu


Premise: Well, that's what I'm not going to get into. And I understand and I respect that argument. But I think I've got to line-draw here someplace. And I understood that argument before. And what I don't want to do here is turn this into an oral argument on things that I've already decided. And I know you respect that.

Hypothesis: A decision has been made and they don't want to change their mind.

The statement is definitely correct because in the context the person is adamant that they have decided and they don't want to argue further with people who want to change their mind. I suspect the system misunderstood the determiner 'their mind' to mean the mind of other person, not the person speaking.

Nah, itu yang saya tidak akan masuk ke dalam. Dan saya faham dan saya hormati hujah itu. Tetapi saya rasa saya perlu membuat garisan di sini di suatu tempat. Dan saya faham hujah itu sebelum ini. Dan apa yang saya tidak mahu lakukan di sini ialah menjadikan ini sebagai hujah lisan mengenai perkara yang telah saya putuskan. Dan saya tahu awak menghormatinya.

Keputusan telah dibuat dan mereka tidak mahu mengubah fikiran mereka.


Premise: I am proud to say that in this party when Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, laid down what he thought would be five conditions that might bring the parties back to the table, this party urged the government to respect the historic position of Canada as a peacemaker, as a peace invoker and as a diplomat in the world.

Hypothesis: Canada is mentioned right in the statement

Canada is mentioned in the statement pretty clearly..

Saya berbangga untuk mengatakan bahawa dalam parti ini apabila Kofi Annan, Setiausaha Agung Pertubuhan Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu, meletakkan apa yang difikirkannya akan menjadi lima syarat yang mungkin membawa parti-parti kembali ke meja, parti ini menggesa kerajaan menghormati kedudukan bersejarah itu. Kanada sebagai pendamai, sebagai pemohon keamanan dan sebagai diplomat di dunia.

Kanada disebut betul-betul dalam kenyataan itu


Premise: But take Russia, for example. We went into Russia, we said here is some IMF money, and it ended up in Viktor Chemomyrdin's pocket, and others, and yet we played like there was reform. The only people that are going to reform Russia are Russia. They're going to have to make the decision themselves.

Hypothesis: There is some corruption in Russia.

The scenario implies that IMF money was rerouted to an individual in a corrupt manner.

Tetapi ambil Rusia, sebagai contoh. Kami pergi ke Rusia, kami berkata di sini adalah wang IMF, dan ia berakhir dalam poket Viktor Chemomyrdin, dan lain-lain, namun kami bermain seperti ada pembaharuan. Satu-satunya orang yang akan memperbaharui Rusia ialah Rusia. Mereka perlu membuat keputusan sendiri.


Premise: If according to Bloc Quebecois policy only individuals are allowed to contribute to the financing of political parties, how can the Bloc Quebecois justify that, in 1994, candidates for the Bloc Quebecois accepted corporate donations amounting to several thousand dollars in spite of the fact that their internal regulations preclude it?

Hypothesis: The Bloc Quebecois has received corporate donations in multiple occasions.

The statement mentioned the corporate donationS in plural, so there are more than one instances.

Jika mengikut dasar Bloc Quebecois hanya individu dibenarkan menyumbang kepada pembiayaan parti politik, bagaimana Bloc Quebecois boleh mewajarkan bahawa, pada tahun 1994, calon untuk Bloc Quebecois menerima derma korporat berjumlah beberapa ribu dolar walaupun fakta bahawa mereka peraturan dalaman menghalangnya?

Bloc Quebecois telah menerima sumbangan korporat dalam beberapa kali.


Premise: I -- no, Justice Ginsburg, we would not, and the reason is again related to the method we have adopted to interpret "limited times." We have not said that "promote the progress of science" is a general and independent constraint on the Copyright Clause authority. We've said it must be looked to to interpret the scope of "limited times," and unless retrospective extensions are forbidden, it will eviscerate the meaning of "limited times." That does not occur in the context of the scope of exclusive right, nor in the context of the power to secure. If that's --

Hypothesis: Justice Ginsburg is arguing for limited times.

Justice Ginsburg has chosen to interrupt limited times with the retrospective extensions.

Saya -- tidak, Hakim Ginsburg, kami tidak akan, dan sebabnya sekali lagi berkaitan dengan kaedah yang kami pakai untuk mentafsir "masa terhad." Kami tidak mengatakan bahawa "menggalakkan kemajuan sains" adalah kekangan umum dan bebas pada pihak berkuasa Klausa Hak Cipta. Kami telah menyatakan bahawa ia mesti dilihat untuk mentafsir skop "masa terhad", dan melainkan sambungan retrospektif dilarang, ia akan menghilangkan maksud "masa terhad." Itu tidak berlaku dalam konteks skop hak eksklusif, mahupun dalam konteks kuasa untuk menjamin. Jika itu --

Justice Ginsburg berhujah untuk masa yang terhad.


Premise: In The Toronto Star, the story is that, before the offending letter was sent off to Swiss authorities, it went back and forth several times between Staff Sergeant Fiegenwald and the Justice Department lawyer Kimberly Prost, each time resulting in the Justice Department toughening the language.

Hypothesis: The letter became increasingly offensive.

the text states the final copy of the letter was offensive and "each time resulting in the Justice Department toughening the language." which renders my statement about the letter increasing in offensiveness definitely correct.

Dalam The Toronto Star, ceritanya ialah, sebelum surat yang menyinggung perasaan dihantar kepada pihak berkuasa Switzerland, ia berulang-alik beberapa kali antara Staf Sarjan Fiegenwald dan peguam Jabatan Kehakiman Kimberly Prost, setiap kali menyebabkan Jabatan Kehakiman memperkukuh bahasa. .

Surat itu menjadi semakin menyinggung perasaan.


Premise: Many people are coming to this country for economic reasons. They're coming here to work. If you can make 50 cents in the heart of Mexico, for example, or make $5 here in America, $5. 15, you're going to come here if you're worth your salt, if you want to put food on the table for your families. And that's what's happening.

Hypothesis: Mexico is losing people to America in search of work.

Many people are coming to this country for economic reasons. If you can make 50 cents in the heart of Mexico, for example, or make $5 here in America,

Ramai orang datang ke negara ini atas sebab ekonomi. Mereka datang ke sini untuk bekerja. Jika anda boleh membuat 50 sen di tengah-tengah Mexico, sebagai contoh, atau membuat $5 di sini di Amerika, $5. 15, anda akan datang ke sini jika anda bernilai garam anda, jika anda ingin meletakkan makanan di atas meja untuk keluarga anda. Dan itulah yang berlaku.

Mexico kehilangan orang ke Amerika untuk mencari kerja.


Premise: I thought my opinion was clear in that regard, and as you appropriately characterize, no questions as to bias or motivation or reasons to misrepresent quotes would be allowed in. There I believe we would decidedly fly in the face of established case law.

Hypothesis: No one actually has a fly in their face, the speaker just means that their is a potential for something to be contrary to legal precedent.

I basically just rephrased the original statement the way I would if I were explaining it to something who was unfamiliar with the phrase fly in the face, which was enough to confuse the system. I did somehow use the wrong form of there while I was rephrasing this, though, which is irritating and not correct.

Saya fikir pendapat saya adalah jelas dalam hal itu, dan seperti yang anda nyatakan dengan sewajarnya, tiada soalan tentang berat sebelah atau motivasi atau sebab untuk menyalahgambarkan petikan akan dibenarkan masuk. Di sana saya percaya kita akan terbang secara jelas dalam menghadapi undang-undang kes yang ditetapkan.

Tiada siapa yang benar-benar mempunyai lalat di muka mereka, penceramah hanya bermaksud bahawa mereka berpotensi untuk sesuatu yang bertentangan dengan duluan undang-undang.


Premise: Honourable senators, pursuant to rule 23(6), and on behalf of Senator Hays, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation of the Canada-Japan Interparliamentary Group to the seventh annual meeting of the Asia-Pacific Parliamentary Forum which took place in Lima, Peru from January 11 to 14, 1999.

Hypothesis: Canada, Japan, Lima, and Peru had ties with Senator Hays.

These were all connected with Hays, as it was on his behalf. This were all mentioned, but the system found it hard to be able to see them all corrected so labeled as being neither correct or incorrect with a higher chance.

Senator yang dihormati, menurut peraturan 23(6), dan bagi pihak Senator Hays, saya mempunyai penghormatan untuk membentangkan, dalam kedua-dua bahasa rasmi, laporan delegasi Kanada Kumpulan Antara Parlimen Kanada-Jepun kepada mesyuarat tahunan ketujuh Forum Parlimen Asia-Pasifik yang berlangsung di Lima, Peru dari 11 hingga 14 Januari 1999.

Kanada, Jepun, Lima dan Peru mempunyai hubungan dengan Senator Hays.


Premise: Well, of course, the original statute was replacing a bunch of State statutes or State rules, partly common law, partly statutory, that -- they had kind of a mixed up legal situation, and there was an interest in having one uniform rule for the first time around.

Hypothesis: A single statute that could encompass other statutes and common law would hopefully reduce ambiguity and increase consistency.

A bunch of 10-dollar words were thrown in that most people probably don't use so the AI might not be as familiar at working with them.

Sudah tentu, statut asal menggantikan sekumpulan statut Negeri atau peraturan Negeri, sebahagiannya undang-undang lazim, sebahagiannya berkanun, itu -- mereka mempunyai situasi undang-undang yang bercampur aduk, dan terdapat minat untuk mempunyai satu peraturan seragam untuk kali pertama sekitar.

Satu statut yang boleh merangkumi statut lain dan undang-undang biasa diharapkan dapat mengurangkan kekaburan dan meningkatkan konsistensi.


Premise: Justice Ginsburg, we have no quarrel with the objective of harmonization fitting within the "promote the progress of science" understanding subject to constitutional limitations. If France adopted a rule that said you couldn't grant copyrights to hate speech, we could not harmonize with that rule consistent with our First Amendment and similarly, as Mary Beth Peters testified before Congress, ours is the only Constitution that has an express limitation on terms.

Hypothesis: France has not adopted a rule that says you can't grant copyright to hate speech.

The text says "If France adopted a rule that said you couldn't grant copyrights to hate speech" meaning France has not adopted this rule.

Hakim Ginsburg, kami tidak mempunyai pertengkaran dengan objektif penyelarasan yang sesuai dalam pemahaman "menggalakkan kemajuan sains" tertakluk kepada batasan perlembagaan. Jika Perancis menerima pakai peraturan yang mengatakan anda tidak boleh memberikan hak cipta kepada ucapan benci, kami tidak boleh menyelaraskan dengan peraturan itu selaras dengan Pindaan Pertama kami dan begitu juga, seperti yang dinyatakan oleh Mary Beth Peters di hadapan Kongres, Perlembagaan kami adalah satu-satunya Perlembagaan yang mempunyai had nyata dengan syarat.

Perancis tidak menerima pakai peraturan yang mengatakan anda tidak boleh memberikan hak cipta kepada ucapan benci.


Premise: We reformed our school system, and now there's an achievement gap in America that's beginning to close. Over the next four years, we'll continue to insist on excellence in every classroom in America so that our children have a chance to realize the great promise of America.

Hypothesis: They want higher standards

Kami memperbaharui sistem sekolah kami, dan kini terdapat jurang pencapaian di Amerika yang mula ditutup. Dalam tempoh empat tahun akan datang, kami akan terus menegaskan kecemerlangan dalam setiap bilik darjah di Amerika supaya anak-anak kami berpeluang untuk merealisasikan janji besar Amerika.

Mereka mahukan standard yang lebih tinggi


Premise: It was sent out with no name on it, but it is under the heading "Standing Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders," which is scheduled to meet today, November 23, at 4:30 p.m. The agenda has five items on it, four of which have nothing to do with a question of privilege.

Hypothesis: The Agenda only had one item concerning privilege

The context states the agenda had 5 items, and 4 were nothing to do with privilege. So by process of elimination the remaining item must have concerned privilege. The system likely misread the statement as saying there was one item on the agenda.

Ia dihantar tanpa nama padanya, tetapi ia berada di bawah tajuk "Jawatankuasa Tetap Keistimewaan, Peraturan Tetap dan Perintah," yang dijadualkan bermesyuarat hari ini, 23 November, jam 4:30 petang. Agenda itu mempunyai lima perkara di atasnya, empat daripadanya tiada kaitan dengan soal keistimewaan.

Agenda hanya mempunyai satu perkara mengenai keistimewaan


Premise: These 109 petitioners from my riding and outside my riding ask that the money presently aimed at the creation and implementation of the gun registration system be redirected toward more cost effective methods of fighting crime in this country, including more police on the streets, crime prevention programs, suicide prevention programs, women's crisis centres, anti-smuggling campaigns and more resources for fighting organized crime and street gangs.

Hypothesis: The number of petitioners is a prime number.

109 pempetisyen dari tunggangan saya dan di luar tunggangan saya meminta wang yang kini ditujukan untuk penciptaan dan pelaksanaan sistem pendaftaran senjata api diarahkan kepada kaedah yang lebih berkesan kos untuk memerangi jenayah di negara ini, termasuk lebih banyak polis di jalanan, program pencegahan jenayah , program pencegahan bunuh diri, pusat krisis wanita, kempen antipenyeludupan dan lebih banyak sumber untuk memerangi jenayah terancang dan kumpulan jalanan.

Bilangan pempetisyen adalah nombor perdana.


Premise: However, he went on to state that the matter was very serious and if any special circumstances were brought to the attention of the House and the Chair to the effect that members were in some way intimidated in their work or prevented from discharging their duties freely and without hindrance, there would be no hesitation in recognizing the matter as a breach of privilege.

Hypothesis: Using scare tactics towards members is not tolerated.

intimidation and scare tactics are the same, the same meaning just different words which the AI did not recognize as the same.

Bagaimanapun, beliau terus menyatakan bahawa perkara itu adalah sangat serius dan jika sebarang keadaan khas dibawa kepada perhatian Dewan dan Pengerusi yang menyebabkan ahli-ahli dalam beberapa cara terancam dalam kerja mereka atau dihalang daripada melaksanakan tugas mereka dengan bebas dan tanpa halangan, tidak akan ada teragak-agak untuk mengiktiraf perkara itu sebagai pelanggaran keistimewaan.

Menggunakan taktik menakutkan terhadap ahli tidak boleh diterima.


Premise: Okay. And so if you don't believe everything in the newspapers, don't you think before you became a plaintiff in a lawsuit that you should have taken some personal action to verify whether things that were produced in a newspaper were really accurate?

Hypothesis: Newspapers can not always be trusted

The paragraph states that newspapers should be rechecked

Baik. Oleh itu, jika anda tidak mempercayai segala-galanya dalam akhbar, tidakkah anda fikir sebelum anda menjadi plaintif dalam tuntutan mahkamah bahawa anda sepatutnya mengambil beberapa tindakan peribadi untuk mengesahkan sama ada perkara yang dikeluarkan dalam akhbar itu benar-benar tepat?


Premise: This Court's interpretation of "limited times" could, of course, eviscerate that term of any meaning, but under the principle of enumeration as this Court has articulated it, this Court should interpret that clause in a way that gives its terms effect in a simple way.

Hypothesis: The court should interpret "limited times" directly and with clarity.

Tafsiran Mahkamah ini tentang "masa terhad" sudah tentu boleh menghapuskan apa-apa makna istilah itu, tetapi di bawah prinsip penghitungan seperti yang dinyatakan oleh Mahkamah ini, Mahkamah ini harus mentafsir klausa itu dengan cara yang memberikan kesan termanya dengan mudah. cara.

Mahkamah harus mentafsir "masa terhad" secara langsung dan jelas.


Premise: Today's announcement by the Minister of Health to commit $42.2 million a year over the next five years will ensure that our efforts to educate our youth to the dangers of AIDS and to provide treatment, care and support to those suffering will be maintained during this crucial time.

Hypothesis: the minister of health doesn't want people to die

if he's spending over 40 million dollars on health, he doesn't want people to die

Pengumuman hari ini oleh Menteri Kesihatan untuk melakukan $42.2 juta setahun dalam tempoh lima tahun akan datang akan memastikan usaha kita untuk mendidik belia kita tentang bahaya AIDS dan untuk menyediakan rawatan, penjagaan dan sokongan kepada mereka yang menderita akan dikekalkan pada masa yang genting ini. .


Premise: No. What we were saying is, if Congress wants to permit restoration of films, for example, an issue that's been well briefed here, Congress can say, if you restore the film, then the restoration gets a copyright so long as it satisfies originality as outlined in Feist, and it gets a copyright for a period of time. But this Court's opinion in Graham and in Feist made clear that it could not extend copyrights to works in the public domain. The Government doesn't concede that, but we stand on that as a way of understanding why this Court --

Hypothesis: Congress doesn't always grant copyright

If the restoration doesn't satisfy originality as outlined in Feist, then the restoration doesn't get a copyright

Tidak. Apa yang kami katakan ialah, jika Kongres mahu membenarkan pemulihan filem, sebagai contoh, isu yang telah ditaklimat dengan baik di sini, Kongres boleh berkata, jika anda memulihkan filem itu, maka pemulihan mendapat hak cipta selagi ia memenuhi keaslian seperti yang digariskan dalam Feist, dan ia mendapat hak cipta untuk satu tempoh masa. Tetapi pendapat Mahkamah ini dalam Graham dan dalam Feist menjelaskan bahawa ia tidak boleh melanjutkan hak cipta kepada karya dalam domain awam. Kerajaan tidak mengakui perkara itu, tetapi kami berpegang pada itu sebagai cara memahami mengapa Mahkamah ini --

Kongres tidak selalu memberikan hak cipta


Premise: The hon. member also knows that in the KPMG study the industries that were looked at were high tech industries, high value industries and the pharmaceutical industries; all industries which have grown and were spawned as a result of the government's research and development policies.

Hypothesis: Without the government's research and development policies, these industries would have not seen as much growth according to the KPMG study

The KPMG study said that the growth in the industries were spawned as a result of the government's research and development policies. I believe the system was confused because I changed the wording around.

Yang hon. ahli juga mengetahui bahawa dalam kajian KPMG industri yang dilihat ialah industri berteknologi tinggi, industri bernilai tinggi dan industri farmaseutikal; semua industri yang telah berkembang dan terhasil hasil daripada dasar penyelidikan dan pembangunan kerajaan.

Tanpa dasar penyelidikan dan pembangunan kerajaan, industri ini tidak akan melihat pertumbuhan yang banyak menurut kajian KPMG


Premise: I suppose we might as well blow another $49,249 on a cross cultural study of semiotic management and transformation of facial features in the makeup and masks of performers or $20,000 to examine the ecclesiastical courts of 19th century England or $35,000 for a study on craft industries in post-medieval Iran.

Hypothesis: They value the study of culture.

They are discussing investing large amounts of money in the study of different aspects of culture. It was probably too general a statement for the system.

Saya rasa kita mungkin juga meniup $49,249 lagi untuk kajian silang budaya pengurusan semiotik dan transformasi ciri-ciri wajah dalam solek dan topeng penghibur atau $20,000 untuk memeriksa mahkamah gerejawi England abad ke-19 atau $35,000 untuk kajian tentang industri kraf dalam jawatan. -Iran zaman pertengahan.


Premise: And so in order to take pressure off the borders, in order to make the borders more secure, I believe there ought to be a temporary worker card that allows a willing worker and a willing employer to mate up, so long as there's not an American willing to do that job, to join up in order to be able to fulfill the employers' needs.

Hypothesis: An employer would have to agree to let the worker card stand for proof

because it says to mate up a worker and an employer and use the worker card.

Oleh itu, untuk mengurangkan tekanan dari sempadan, untuk menjadikan sempadan lebih selamat, saya percaya perlu ada kad pekerja sementara yang membenarkan pekerja yang bersedia dan majikan yang bersedia untuk berkahwin, selagi tidak ada orang Amerika. sanggup melakukan kerja itu, untuk menyertai supaya dapat memenuhi keperluan majikan.

Majikan perlu bersetuju untuk membenarkan kad pekerja sebagai bukti


Premise: In the first one, the petitioners call upon the government to put the surplus accumulated in the employment insurance account back into the pockets of the unemployed by revoking the current eligibility rules for new entrants and using surpluses for training for the unemployed, thereby promoting direct employment.

Hypothesis: It costs money to train the unemployed.

Petitioners want the government to use surpluses to pay for the training, ergo it must have a cost. I think the system is confused because it can't draw conclusions from context.

Dalam yang pertama, pempetisyen menyeru kerajaan untuk meletakkan lebihan terkumpul dalam akaun insurans pekerjaan kembali ke dalam poket penganggur dengan membatalkan peraturan kelayakan semasa untuk pendatang baharu dan menggunakan lebihan untuk latihan bagi penganggur, sekali gus menggalakkan pekerjaan langsung. .

Ia memerlukan wang untuk melatih penganggur.


Premise: That the quorum of the Committee be twelve Members whenever a vote, resolution or other decision is taken, so long as both Houses are represented, and that the Joint Chairpersons be authorized to hold meetings, to receive evidence and authorize the printing thereof, whenever six members are present, so long as both Houses are represented;

Hypothesis: Printing will not be authorized if only one House is represented.

The system looked at individual statements in the context and did not connect them as a whole.

Bahawa kuorum Jawatankuasa ialah dua belas Ahli apabila undi, ketetapan atau keputusan lain diambil, selagi kedua-dua Dewan diwakili, dan Pengerusi Bersama diberi kuasa untuk mengadakan mesyuarat, untuk menerima bukti dan membenarkan pencetakannya, apabila enam ahli hadir, selagi kedua-dua Dewan diwakili;

Percetakan tidak akan dibenarkan jika hanya satu Dewan diwakili.


Premise: The best people to watch over the quality of our health care system are not the hon. members of the Liberal Party, but the citizens who, along with the various provinces, will put pressure on the government and their local representatives who are involved in the health care system.

Hypothesis: Politicians can't always be relied on.

Since the citizens do a better job of overseeing health care than members of the Liberal party [politicians], politicians can't ALWAYS be relied on [since some politicians are Liberals]. The model missed this logical inference.

Orang yang terbaik untuk mengawasi kualiti sistem penjagaan kesihatan kita bukanlah orang yang paling terkenal. ahli Parti Liberal, tetapi rakyat yang, bersama-sama dengan pelbagai wilayah, akan memberi tekanan kepada kerajaan dan wakil tempatan mereka yang terlibat dalam sistem penjagaan kesihatan.

Ahli politik tidak boleh selalu diharap.


Premise: This petition asks for the very prudent review of the mandate of the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC, to discourage the provocation of pornography and rather to encourage the broadcasting of ecclesiastical programming to support morality and wholesome family lifestyles.

Hypothesis: Pornography violates the morals outlined by the CRTC.

It was mentioned that pornography is part of the mandate for regulation.

Petisyen ini meminta semakan yang sangat berhemat terhadap mandat Suruhanjaya Radio-Televisyen dan Telekomunikasi Kanada, CRTC, untuk menghalang provokasi pornografi dan sebaliknya menggalakkan penyiaran pengaturcaraan gerejawi untuk menyokong moral dan gaya hidup keluarga yang sihat.

Pornografi melanggar moral yang digariskan oleh CRTC.


Premise: -- that unless there is a -- the Court is -- because the circumstances change, that we are living in an era now where piracy is a significant problem, there's question of administrative ease, of administering a system where copyrights may be different for one set of authors, or different for another set of authors, there's changes that are taking place internationally, so that what we're saying is that not only could this Court conceive of reasons why Congress thought it was accomplishing the objectives of this clause, but that there are numerous objectives that are entirely legitimate in --

Hypothesis: The discussion is not related to pirates

-- bahawa melainkan ada -- Mahkamah adalah -- kerana keadaan berubah, bahawa kita hidup dalam era sekarang di mana cetak rompak adalah masalah yang ketara, terdapat persoalan mengenai kemudahan pentadbiran, mentadbir sistem di mana hak cipta mungkin berbeza untuk satu set pengarang, atau berbeza untuk satu set pengarang yang lain, terdapat perubahan yang berlaku di peringkat antarabangsa, supaya apa yang kami katakan ialah Mahkamah ini bukan sahaja boleh memahami sebab Kongres berpendapat ia mencapai objektif klausa ini, tetapi terdapat banyak objektif yang sah sepenuhnya dalam --

Perbincangan tidak berkaitan dengan lanun


Premise: Just as we saw co-operation between the various levels of governments, the business community and the community at large to establish this park, so too will we see those types of partnerships come together to make sure that this park has both the protection of the ecosystem as well as the generation of new economic development primarily through tourism in this important area in the province of Quebec.

Hypothesis: The park will be protected.

The statement talks about prtections for the park.

Sama seperti kita melihat kerjasama antara pelbagai peringkat kerajaan, komuniti perniagaan dan masyarakat umum untuk menubuhkan taman ini, begitu juga kita akan melihat jenis perkongsian itu bersatu untuk memastikan taman ini mempunyai kedua-dua perlindungan ekosistem serta penjanaan pembangunan ekonomi baharu terutamanya melalui pelancongan di kawasan penting di wilayah Quebec ini.


Premise: Here's what I do: We take over Medicaid children from the states so that every child in America is covered. And in exchange, if the states want to -- they're not forced to, they can choose to -- they cover individuals up to 300 percent of poverty. It's their choice.

Hypothesis: His plan would take over Medicaid children from all 50 states.

"so that every child in America is covered" would mean all 50 states would be included.

Inilah yang saya lakukan: Kami mengambil alih kanak-kanak Medicaid dari negeri supaya setiap kanak-kanak di Amerika dilindungi. Dan sebagai pertukaran, jika negeri-negeri mahu -- mereka tidak dipaksa, mereka boleh memilih untuk -- mereka melindungi individu sehingga 300 peratus daripada kemiskinan. Itu pilihan mereka.

Rancangannya akan mengambil alih kanak-kanak Medicaid dari semua 50 negeri.


Premise: I am sure it could be agreed that it takes a particular form of genius to predict accurately the provinces most at risk for an upcoming year and then design an assistance program which actually extends more help to the farmers in neighbouring provinces than the farmers that actually need it.

Hypothesis: Being a farmer means you are in a job with risk.

The passage says, "provinces most at risk for an upcoming year", which means that if you are a farmer, everything about your job is not guaranteed good.

Saya pasti boleh dipersetujui bahawa ia memerlukan satu bentuk genius tertentu untuk meramalkan dengan tepat wilayah yang paling berisiko untuk tahun yang akan datang dan kemudian mereka bentuk program bantuan yang sebenarnya menghulurkan lebih banyak bantuan kepada petani di wilayah jiran daripada petani yang sebenarnya memerlukan. ia.

Menjadi seorang petani bermakna anda berada dalam pekerjaan yang berisiko.


Premise: A Globe and Mail editorial today suggests that those who want liberal arts education get to work and establish private liberal arts universities, even if some of us oppose that idea on principle and even if that community is not nearly as well placed to do so financially as the high-tech community.

Hypothesis: An education can be had.

If one can have a liberal arts education, then it is definitely correct to say "An education can be had."

Editorial Globe dan Mail hari ini mencadangkan bahawa mereka yang mahukan pendidikan seni liberal mula bekerja dan menubuhkan universiti seni liberal swasta, walaupun sesetengah daripada kita menentang idea itu pada prinsipnya dan walaupun komuniti itu tidak berada dalam kedudukan yang baik untuk melakukannya dari segi kewangan. masyarakat berteknologi tinggi.


Premise: The art of government will be to adjust that economic straitjacket in order to perfect the circumstances and requirements of Canada and Canadians and to protect those things that are special to Canadians and that are part of "the Canadian way" such as, for example, our national health care system.

Hypothesis: National health care is not the only thing that should be protected.

The text says to protect those things [plural]... such as, for example, our national health care system. The model missed the plural.

Seni kerajaan adalah untuk menyesuaikan jaket ekonomi itu untuk menyempurnakan keadaan dan keperluan Kanada dan Kanada dan untuk melindungi perkara-perkara yang istimewa kepada orang Kanada dan yang merupakan sebahagian daripada "cara Kanada" seperti, sebagai contoh, kami sistem penjagaan kesihatan negara.

Penjagaan kesihatan negara bukan satu-satunya perkara yang harus dilindungi.


Premise: The petitioners call on Parliament to immediately withdraw from all arrangements concerning financial and technical assistance to China for nuclear reactor technology, and to ensure that the Government of Canada does not finance or subsidize the sale of Candu reactors to China or any other country.

Hypothesis: There are 2 countries explicitly named in this text.

Canada and China are explicitly mentioned, so that's 2. It's difficult because it also says "any other country", so the system probably assumes that more than 2 are explicitly mentioned.

Pempetisyen menyeru Parlimen untuk segera menarik diri daripada semua pengaturan mengenai bantuan kewangan dan teknikal kepada China untuk teknologi reaktor nuklear, dan untuk memastikan bahawa Kerajaan Kanada tidak membiayai atau mensubsidi penjualan reaktor Candu ke China atau mana-mana negara lain.

Terdapat 2 negara yang dinamakan secara eksplisit dalam teks ini.


Premise: That motion, like this one, arose out of parliamentary debate during the Thirty-fifth Parliament on Bill C-41, to amend the Divorce Act, the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act, the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act and the Canada Shipping Act.

Hypothesis: There have been dozens of sessions of Parliament.

The text references the Thirty-fifth Parliament, so there have been nearly 3 dozen sessions of Parliament, which qualifies as 'dozens' - a quantity that fooled the model.

Usul itu, seperti ini, timbul daripada perbahasan parlimen semasa Parlimen Ketiga puluh lima mengenai Rang Undang-undang C-41, untuk meminda Akta Perceraian, Akta Bantuan Penguatkuasaan Perintah Keluarga dan Perjanjian, Akta Garnishment, Attachment dan Pengalihan Pencen dan Kanada. Akta Perkapalan.


Premise: As for us, we are more and more convinced that we need to have our own country by the year 2000, to get out of the mess that the Prime Minister is creating once again, because setting up new programs will generate new deficits, unless the Prime Minister simply intends to once again force taxpayers to make huge efforts to promote his party's visibility and his own.

Hypothesis: the prime minister wrecked the country so the author wishes to have their own to run

Bagi kita, kita semakin yakin bahawa kita perlu mempunyai negara sendiri menjelang tahun 2000, untuk keluar dari kekacauan yang diwujudkan oleh Perdana Menteri sekali lagi, kerana menubuhkan program baru akan menjana defisit baru, melainkan jika Perdana Menteri hanya berhasrat untuk sekali lagi memaksa pembayar cukai melakukan usaha besar untuk mempromosikan keterlihatan partinya dan partinya.

perdana menteri memusnahkan negara jadi penulis ingin mempunyai sendiri untuk dijalankan


Premise: There's been too much finger pointing and too much name calling in Washington, D.C. I would like to unite this country to get an agenda done that will speak to the hopes and aspirations of the future. I want to have an education system that sets high standards, local control of schools and strong accountability.

Hypothesis: The people in thegovernment are blaming each other and being hateful.

Finger pointing means blaming each other and name calling is not a nice thing to do.

Terlalu banyak menuding jari dan terlalu banyak menyebut nama di Washington, D.C. Saya ingin menyatukan negara ini untuk menyelesaikan agenda yang akan bercakap dengan harapan dan aspirasi masa depan. Saya mahu mempunyai sistem pendidikan yang menetapkan standard yang tinggi, kawalan tempatan terhadap sekolah dan akauntabiliti yang kukuh.

Rakyat dalam kerajaan saling menyalahkan dan membenci.


Premise: While these concerns were there and expressed in great detail, there was also great anticipation by people looking for the new opportunities that were to be gained from this piece of legislation, basically for their freedom from the red tape from Ottawa which they have been wrapped up in for so long.

Hypothesis: Ottawa laws were to restraining.

I summarized the information. This is what also made it difficult.

Walaupun kebimbangan ini ada dan dinyatakan secara terperinci, terdapat juga penantian besar oleh orang yang mencari peluang baru yang akan diperolehi daripada sekeping perundangan ini, pada asasnya untuk kebebasan mereka daripada birokrasi Ottawa yang telah mereka selesaikan. dalam sekian lama.

Undang-undang Ottawa adalah untuk menghalang.


Premise: I want to -- obviously in the egregious cases we need to enforce civil rights law, but we need to make sure that internal affairs decisions at the local level do their job and be given a chance to do their job. I believe in local control of governments, and obviously if they don't there needs to be a consequence at the federal level.

Hypothesis: internal affairs should be watched closely

"but we need to make sure that internal affairs decisions at the local level do their job" meaning they need to be watched closely

Saya mahu -- jelas sekali dalam kes yang teruk kita perlu menguatkuasakan undang-undang hak sivil, tetapi kita perlu memastikan bahawa keputusan hal ehwal dalaman di peringkat tempatan menjalankan tugas mereka dan diberi peluang untuk menjalankan tugas mereka. Saya percaya kepada kawalan tempatan ke atas kerajaan, dan jelas sekali jika mereka tidak melakukannya perlu ada akibat di peringkat persekutuan.

hal ehwal dalaman perlu diawasi dengan teliti


Premise: I believe that if intelligent design could be proved to be scientific, then I would believe it would belong in a science classroom. Would I believe it? I don't know that scientifically I'm qualified to say, you know, that I believe many scientific concepts because I'm -- I'm not a scientist. But I suppose that if intelligent design could follow scientific methods, then -- and it were proven to be scientific by scientists, it was accepted by scientific communities, then I would have no reason not to accept that.

Hypothesis: They are considering the possibility that intelligent design could be taught in classrooms.

It is correct, as they are considering the possibility that intelligent design could be taught in classrooms, and listing the scientific steps and justifications it would have to go through to be included, so the statement is definitely correct.

Saya percaya bahawa jika reka bentuk pintar boleh dibuktikan sebagai saintifik, maka saya akan percaya ia akan tergolong dalam bilik darjah sains. Adakah saya akan percaya? Saya tidak tahu secara saintifik saya layak untuk mengatakan, anda tahu, bahawa saya percaya banyak konsep saintifik kerana saya -- saya bukan seorang saintis. Tetapi saya rasa jika reka bentuk pintar boleh mengikut kaedah saintifik, maka -- dan ia terbukti saintifik oleh saintis, ia diterima oleh komuniti saintifik, maka saya tidak mempunyai alasan untuk tidak menerimanya.

Mereka sedang mempertimbangkan kemungkinan reka bentuk pintar boleh diajar di dalam bilik darjah.


Premise: Yes. Barrie -- I'm sorry, Alan Bonsell said very clearly that -- Dr. Nilsen had said something, as well, about the tapes, that it's not policy or something like that, that this is not past practice, this is not policy, this is not standard policy to release tapes to the public. And additionally, Alan Bonsell made the comment that they couldn't release the tapes because after speaking with their solicitor, there would possibly be legal issues, ramifications if they released the tapes.

Hypothesis: The solicitor helped Bonsell understand the consequences of releasing the tapes to the public.

Bonsell spoke the solicitor and learned the ramifications of releasing the tapes, so it would be correct to say the solicitor helped Bonsell understand the consequences of releasing the tapes.

ya. Barrie -- Saya minta maaf, Alan Bonsell berkata dengan jelas bahawa -- Dr. Nilsen telah mengatakan sesuatu, juga, tentang pita, bahawa ia bukan dasar atau sesuatu seperti itu, bahawa ini bukan amalan lepas, ini bukan dasar , ini bukan dasar standard untuk mengeluarkan pita kepada orang ramai. Selain itu, Alan Bonsell membuat komen bahawa mereka tidak boleh mengeluarkan pita kerana selepas bercakap dengan peguam cara mereka, mungkin akan ada isu undang-undang, kesan jika mereka mengeluarkan pita itu.

Peguam cara membantu Bonsell memahami akibat melepaskan pita itu kepada orang ramai.


Premise: Surely the Chair cannot be placed in a position of determining whether a document or a piece of paper, or whatever it is-it is certainly not a document of the House-can or cannot be circulated, or that the Speaker in some way should regulate the persons to whom such a document could be circulated.

Hypothesis: The Chair is not a literal chair that you sit on.

The Chair is a person. The system was confused by the context.

Sudah tentu Pengerusi tidak boleh diletakkan dalam kedudukan untuk menentukan sama ada dokumen atau sekeping kertas, atau apa sahaja itu-tentunya ia bukan dokumen Dewan-boleh atau tidak boleh diedarkan, atau Speaker dalam beberapa cara harus mengawal selia. orang yang kepadanya dokumen sedemikian boleh diedarkan.

Kerusi itu bukan kerusi literal yang anda duduki.


Premise: This is a shameful process that allows those among us who are more fortunate to literally laugh at low wage earners, at the people who dutifully pay their taxes, because of all sorts of manoeuvres that the auditor general has condemned here in Canada, even if attempts were made to prevent him from speaking out in the finance committee, as I saw with my own eyes.

Hypothesis: Canada has less than eighteen letters.

To say Canada has less than eighteen letters is definitely correct, as Canada has only six letters which is less than 18.

Ini adalah proses yang memalukan yang membolehkan mereka yang lebih bernasib baik di kalangan kita untuk benar-benar mentertawakan mereka yang berpendapatan rendah, kepada orang yang patuh membayar cukai mereka, kerana pelbagai cara yang telah dikecam oleh ketua juruaudit di Kanada, walaupun cubaan telah dibuat untuk menghalangnya daripada bersuara dalam jawatankuasa kewangan, seperti yang saya lihat dengan mata kepala saya sendiri.

Kanada mempunyai kurang daripada lapan belas huruf.


Premise: If the hon. member wants to talk about costs, let us talk about the real costs of the referendum, as reported in Le Soleil on December 2: ``Government advertising aimed at Quebec's welfare recipients, $273,000; unveiling of the preamble at the Grand Thtre de Qubec, $175,000; hiring-''.

Hypothesis: The costs are what the hon would rather hear about

This person is answering If the hon. member wants to talk about costs, let us talk about the real costs of the referendum which means the hon wants to hear about the costs which make it correct.

Jika hon. ahli ingin bercakap tentang kos, mari kita bercakap tentang kos sebenar referendum, seperti yang dilaporkan dalam Le Soleil pada 2 Disember: ``Pengiklanan kerajaan yang bertujuan untuk penerima kebajikan Quebec, $273,000; pembukaan mukadimah di Grand Thtre de Qubec, $175,000; mengupah-''.

Kos adalah apa yang hon lebih suka mendengar tentang


Premise: Yeah, I asked her why she said that, and she said in school what they had been talking about or amongst her friends and what's going on. She seemed to be under the impression that as a Christian, she could not believe that evolution was a science that, you know, was true.

Hypothesis: Christians don't believe in evolution.

The basis of Christianity is that God created the heavens and the earth.  Evolution teaches that everything was created through random happenings.

Ya, saya bertanya kepadanya mengapa dia berkata demikian, dan dia berkata di sekolah apa yang mereka bualkan atau di kalangan rakannya dan apa yang berlaku. Dia seolah-olah berada di bawah tanggapan bahawa sebagai seorang Kristian, dia tidak percaya bahawa evolusi adalah sains yang, anda tahu, adalah benar.

Orang Kristian tidak percaya kepada evolusi.


Premise: Towards Pollution Prevention'', the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development recommended that the federal government take action under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to regulate lead sinkers and jigs by prohibiting the import, sale, manufacture and use of lead sinkers and jigs by May 31, 1997.

Hypothesis: Lead causes environmental pollution.

Lead was prohibited in fishing sinkers and jigs to prevent pollution.

Ke Arah Pencegahan Pencemaran'', Jawatankuasa Tetap Alam Sekitar dan Pembangunan Mampan mengesyorkan agar kerajaan persekutuan mengambil tindakan di bawah Akta Perlindungan Alam Sekitar Kanada untuk mengawal selia penenggelam dan jig plumbum dengan melarang pengimportan, penjualan, pembuatan dan penggunaan penyerap dan jig plumbum oleh 31 Mei 1997.

Plumbum menyebabkan pencemaran alam sekitar.


Premise: "As a parent in the Dover Area School District, I must convey my shock and utter dismay at William Buckingham's comments regarding the search for new biology texts for the high school. I am especially upset with Mr. Buckingham's comments as quoted in Wednesday's York Daily Record: 'This country wasn't founded on Muslim beliefs or evolution.

Hypothesis: The York Daily Record is published on Wednesdays

The text says that it was published on a wednesday.

"Sebagai ibu bapa di Daerah Sekolah Dover Area, saya mesti menyampaikan rasa terkejut dan kecewa saya terhadap komen William Buckingham mengenai pencarian teks biologi baharu untuk sekolah menengah itu. Saya amat terkilan dengan komen Encik Buckingham seperti yang dipetik dalam hari Rabu York Daily Rekod: 'Negara ini tidak diasaskan atas kepercayaan atau evolusi orang Islam.

The York Daily Record diterbitkan pada hari Rabu


Premise: I think we ought to restore the three-day waiting period under the Brady Law. I think we should toughen the enforcement of gun laws so that the ones that are already on the books can be enforced much more effectively. Some of the restrictions that have been placed by the Congress in the last couple of years.

Hypothesis: The previous waiting period was less than half a week.

The previous waiting period was 3 days. The system was confused by the context.

Saya rasa kita patut memulihkan tempoh menunggu selama tiga hari di bawah Undang-undang Brady. Saya fikir kita harus memperketatkan penguatkuasaan undang-undang senjata supaya undang-undang yang sudah ada dalam buku boleh dikuatkuasakan dengan lebih berkesan. Beberapa sekatan yang telah diletakkan oleh Kongres dalam beberapa tahun kebelakangan ini.

Tempoh menunggu sebelum ini tidak sampai setengah minggu.


Premise: In 1990, there was a vast coalition put together to run Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. The international community, the international world said this is the right thing to do, but when it came time to authorize the use of force on the Senate floor, my opponent voted against the use of force.

Hypothesis: Saddam Hussein went to Kuwait.

The world wanted saddam out of kuwait, so he must be in it.

Pada tahun 1990, terdapat satu pakatan yang besar disatukan untuk menyingkirkan Saddam Hussein dari Kuwait. Masyarakat antarabangsa, dunia antarabangsa berkata ini adalah perkara yang betul untuk dilakukan, tetapi apabila tiba masanya untuk membenarkan penggunaan kekerasan di tingkat Senat, lawan saya mengundi menentang penggunaan kekerasan.


Premise: Now, this delicate balance that the Government invokes, Justice Breyer, let me give you the numbers. The delicate balance is that, under the most reasonable assumptions of copyright royalty income and under our interest rate of 7 percent, as the amicus economists note at page 6, note 6 of their brief, the current term gives authors 99.8 percent of the value of a perpetual term.

Hypothesis: This is a case being heard by SCOTUS.

Justice Breyer is a Supreme Court Justice and this case is being heard by that court.

Sekarang, keseimbangan yang halus ini yang dipanggil kerajaan, Hakim Breyer, izinkan saya memberi anda nombor. Keseimbangan yang halus ialah, di bawah andaian yang paling munasabah mengenai pendapatan royalti hak cipta dan di bawah kadar faedah kami sebanyak 7 peratus, seperti yang dicatat oleh ahli ekonomi amicus pada halaman 6, nota 6 dari ringkasnya, istilah semasa memberikan pengarang 99.8 peratus daripada nilai nilai istilah kekal.

Ini adalah kes yang sedang dibicarakan oleh SCOTUS.


Premise: Why does it exist in Bill C-20? The proposal in Bill C-20 will amend section 183 of the Criminal Code to allow wiretapping without consent of private communications in connection with investigations under the conspiracy, bid rigging and deceptive telemarketing offences of the act.

Hypothesis: wire tap had been allowed by the proposal mentioned in the article

Mengapakah ia wujud dalam Rang Undang-Undang C-20? Cadangan dalam Rang Undang-Undang C-20 akan meminda seksyen 183 Kanun Jenayah untuk membenarkan penyadapan tanpa persetujuan komunikasi persendirian berkaitan dengan penyiasatan di bawah konspirasi, penipuan bidaan dan kesalahan telemarketing memperdayakan akta itu.

paip wayar telah dibenarkan oleh cadangan yang disebutkan dalam artikel itu


Premise: First let me just say one comment about what the vice president said. I think one of the lessons in between World War I and World War II is we let our military atrophy. And we can't do that. We've got to rebuild our military. But one of the problems we have in the military is we're in a lot of places around the world.

Hypothesis: The military has multiple problems.

The system may only see one and not realize the phrasing implies multiple problems.

Mula-mula izinkan saya hanya mengatakan satu komen tentang apa yang dikatakan oleh naib presiden. Saya rasa salah satu pengajaran di antara Perang Dunia I dan Perang Dunia II ialah kita membiarkan atrofi ketenteraan kita. Dan kita tidak boleh berbuat demikian. Kita perlu membina semula tentera kita. Tetapi salah satu masalah yang kita ada dalam tentera ialah kita berada di banyak tempat di seluruh dunia.


Premise: I believe the best way to help our small businesses is not only through small-business loans, which we have increased since I've been the president of the United States, but to unbundle government contracts so people have a chance to be able to bid and receive a contract to help get their business going.

Hypothesis: Government contracts restrict the options of small businesses.

The article mentions that government contracts need to be un-bundled so that small business owners have more options. I think the language might have confused the system.

Saya percaya cara terbaik untuk membantu perniagaan kecil kami bukan sahaja melalui pinjaman perniagaan kecil, yang telah kami tingkatkan sejak saya menjadi presiden Amerika Syarikat, tetapi untuk menyahhimpunkan kontrak kerajaan supaya orang ramai berpeluang untuk membida dan menerima kontrak untuk membantu perniagaan mereka berjalan.

Kontrak kerajaan menyekat pilihan perniagaan kecil.


Premise: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should implement a ``Regulatory Budget'', parallel to the traditional spending budget, which would detail estimates of the total cost of each individual regulation including the government enforcement costs as well as the cost of compliance to individual citizens and businesses; and include a risk/benefit analysis of each regulation, to enable cost/benefit analysis of regulation by parliamentarians.

Hypothesis: The number of parliamentarians is not stated in the statement.

From the context, we do not know the number of parliamentarians - it is not stated.  Therefore the statement is definitely correct.

Bahawa, pada pendapat Dewan ini, kerajaan harus melaksanakan ``Bajet Kawal Selia', selari dengan belanjawan perbelanjaan tradisional, yang akan memperincikan anggaran jumlah kos setiap peraturan individu termasuk kos penguatkuasaan kerajaan serta kos. pematuhan kepada warganegara dan perniagaan individu; dan termasuk analisis risiko/faedah bagi setiap peraturan, untuk membolehkan analisis kos/faedah peraturan oleh ahli parlimen.

Jumlah ahli parlimen tidak dinyatakan dalam kenyataan itu.


Premise: Having 11 directors on the board of management nominated from the private sector by the provinces and territories will ensure that the agency continues to operate in a cost effective and responsive manner as would the other accountability mechanisms built into the legislation before this House.

Hypothesis: There are several directors to maintain order

It states that having 11 directors will ensure operation

Mempunyai 11 pengarah dalam lembaga pengurusan yang dicalonkan daripada sektor swasta oleh wilayah dan wilayah akan memastikan agensi itu terus beroperasi dengan cara yang kos efektif dan responsif seperti mekanisme akauntabiliti lain yang terbina dalam perundangan di hadapan Dewan ini.

Terdapat beberapa pengarah untuk menjaga ketenteraman


Premise: We return in session, and I want to apologize to the assembled spectators and, of course, to the media. We handled a matter in chambers that you'll become aware of in an effort to resolve a problem, and I think we did. These things arise during trials from time to time. That is the first time that we've had that type of matter in this trial. We may have others as the trial unfolds. But it was a necessary exercise. And we try to keep them at a minimum and we will keep them at a minimum during the trial.

Hypothesis: The media was left waiting.

This is definitely correct because the media and spectators were left waiting while the trial was suspended.

Kami kembali dalam sesi, dan saya ingin memohon maaf kepada penonton yang berkumpul dan, sudah tentu, kepada media. Kami mengendalikan satu perkara di dalam bilik yang anda akan ketahui dalam usaha menyelesaikan masalah, dan saya fikir kami melakukannya. Perkara-perkara ini timbul semasa ujian dari semasa ke semasa. Itulah kali pertama kami mengalami perkara seperti itu dalam percubaan ini. Kita mungkin mempunyai orang lain semasa perbicaraan berlangsung. Tetapi ia adalah latihan yang diperlukan. Dan kami cuba mengekalkannya pada tahap minimum dan kami akan mengekalkannya pada tahap minimum semasa percubaan.


Premise: Since the 1996 flood-and I make no apologies for bringing this up again-everyone has become aware of the necessity to preserve the valuable heritage of the few remaining houses surrounding the little white house in the old section of Chicoutimi, known as ``le bassin'', which everyone wants to preserve.

Hypothesis: The 1996 flood caused major damage to the area known as "le bassin," leaving behind only a small white house surrounded by a few other houses.

The context states that there are only a few houses remaining around the little white house after the 1996 flood, meaning that the flood caused damage to the area leaving only these few places behind. The area is stated to be the old section of Chicoutimi which is known as "le bassin." I think the system had trouble with my answer because I only used the name "le bassin" to discuss the area the houses were in and because I used the context clues in the context statements to come to the conclusion that the flood was the cause of the damage to the area in the first place.

Sejak banjir 1996-dan saya tidak memohon maaf kerana mengungkit perkara ini sekali lagi-semua orang telah menyedari keperluan untuk mengekalkan warisan berharga dari beberapa rumah yang tinggal di sekeliling rumah putih kecil di bahagian lama Chicoutimi, yang dikenali sebagai ``le bassin'', yang semua orang mahu memelihara.

Banjir 1996 menyebabkan kerosakan besar pada kawasan yang dikenali sebagai "le bassin," meninggalkan hanya sebuah rumah putih kecil yang dikelilingi oleh beberapa rumah lain.


Premise: Pursuant to order made earlier this day, the House will now proceed to the consideration of a motion to adjourn the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely the effect of a labour dispute on the movement of grain in the port of Vancouver.

Hypothesis: The matter is important.

I'm not sure why it was difficult, it was definitely a correct statement because the paragraph states "discussing a specific and important matter "

Menurut perintah yang dibuat awal hari ini, Dewan kini akan meneruskan pertimbangan usul untuk menangguhkan Dewan bagi tujuan membincangkan perkara khusus dan penting yang memerlukan pertimbangan segera, iaitu kesan pertikaian buruh terhadap pergerakan bijirin di pelabuhan Vancouver.


Premise: Well, I'm aware that that statement was modified several times. In fact, there were different drafts of that statement that I had seen. The exact modification, are you telling me that from the time that they had approved it in October, it was modified before it was read in January? Because it was again read in, I believe, like May, and there was a change from that point in time, unless I'm incorrect and that is the change that I'm thinking of.

Hypothesis: There are at least 3 versions of the statement

The context says there was a version of the statement in October, January, and May, so it is correct to say there are at least 3 version of the statement. The system problem found it hard to make the connection between the months and the versions

Nah, saya sedar bahawa kenyataan itu telah diubah suai beberapa kali. Sebenarnya, terdapat pelbagai draf kenyataan itu yang saya lihat. Pengubahsuaian yang tepat, adakah anda memberitahu saya bahawa sejak mereka meluluskannya pada bulan Oktober, ia telah diubah suai sebelum ia dibaca pada bulan Januari? Kerana ia dibaca sekali lagi, saya percaya, seperti Mei, dan terdapat perubahan dari masa itu, melainkan saya tidak betul dan itulah perubahan yang saya fikirkan.

Terdapat sekurang-kurangnya 3 versi pernyataan


Premise: The fact is that he did not choose to go to war as a last result. And America now is paying, already $120 billion, up to $200 billion before we're finished and much more probably. And that is the result of this president taking his eye off of Osama bin Laden.

Hypothesis: America may be paying 120 billion or 67% more than that.

That's true, 200 billion is 67% more than the 120 billion

Hakikatnya dia tidak memilih untuk berperang sebagai keputusan terakhir. Dan Amerika kini membayar, sudah $120 bilion, sehingga $200 bilion sebelum kita selesai dan banyak lagi mungkin. Dan itulah akibat presiden ini mengalihkan pandangannya dari Osama bin Laden.

Amerika mungkin membayar 120 bilion atau 67% lebih daripada itu.


Premise: It's one of my top priorities, Jim, to give every single child in the United States affordable health care within the next four years. I would like to see eventually in this country some form of universal health care, but I'm not for a government-run system.

Hypothesis: The speaker is making campaign promises

This is a statement from a candidate making campaign promises

Ia adalah salah satu keutamaan saya, Jim, untuk memberikan setiap kanak-kanak di Amerika Syarikat penjagaan kesihatan yang mampu dimiliki dalam tempoh empat tahun akan datang. Saya ingin melihat akhirnya di negara ini beberapa bentuk penjagaan kesihatan sejagat, tetapi saya bukan untuk sistem yang dikendalikan oleh kerajaan.


Premise: I thank the hon. member from the Conservative Party for bringing forward this motion so that at least there is some discussion in the House of Commons about what really is a most fundamental and important aspect of people's daily lives, the right to adequate, safe, affordable shelter and housing in Canada.

Hypothesis: The speaker does not think the House of Commons is paying enough attention to the issue of housing in Canada

He clearly thinks it’s not being addressed at all

Saya berterima kasih kepada Yang Berhormat. ahli dari Parti Konservatif untuk mengemukakan usul ini supaya sekurang-kurangnya terdapat beberapa perbincangan di Dewan Rakyat tentang apakah yang sebenarnya merupakan aspek yang paling asas dan penting dalam kehidupan seharian rakyat, hak untuk mendapatkan tempat tinggal dan perumahan yang mencukupi, selamat, mampu milik di Kanada.

Speaker tidak fikir Dewan Rakyat memberi perhatian yang cukup kepada isu perumahan di Kanada


Premise: Now, it's very important for our citizens to also know that I don't believe we ought to have amnesty. I don't think we ought to reward illegal behavior. There are plenty of people standing in line to become a citizen. And we ought not to crowd these people ahead of them in line.

Hypothesis: The topic at hand is immigration

Sekarang, adalah sangat penting bagi rakyat kita untuk mengetahui bahawa saya tidak percaya kita sepatutnya mempunyai pengampunan. Saya rasa kita tidak patut memberi ganjaran kepada tingkah laku yang menyalahi undang-undang. Terdapat ramai orang berdiri dalam barisan untuk menjadi warganegara. Dan kita tidak sepatutnya menyesakkan orang-orang ini mendahului mereka dalam barisan.


Premise: The petitioners state that at some point during the production of child pornography either a child or children have been victimized, that child pornography hurts children, that it can never be justified and that the possession of child pornography perpetuates the production of children pornography.

Hypothesis: Child pornography is the cause of children being victims when they are in it.

It clearly states that children involved in it, are victimized. I think the system didn't connect that a child 'being in it' connected with the 'production'.

Pempetisyen menyatakan bahawa pada satu ketika semasa penghasilan pornografi kanak-kanak sama ada kanak-kanak atau kanak-kanak telah menjadi mangsa, bahawa pornografi kanak-kanak menyakiti kanak-kanak, bahawa ia tidak boleh dibenarkan dan pemilikan pornografi kanak-kanak mengekalkan pengeluaran pornografi kanak-kanak.

Pornografi kanak-kanak adalah punca kanak-kanak menjadi mangsa apabila mereka berada di dalamnya.


Premise: Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to speak to Bill C-54, the personal information protection and electronic documents act the purpose of which is to promote electronic commerce by providing Canadians with a right to privacy of personal information that is collected, used or disclosed in an increasingly information based economy and world.

Hypothesis: The Speaker is male.

If the Speaker were a female, it would have been Madam Speaker instead of Mr. Speaker.

Tuan Yang di-Pertua, saya bangun hari ini untuk bercakap dengan Rang Undang-Undang C-54, perlindungan maklumat peribadi dan dokumen elektronik bertindak yang tujuannya adalah untuk mempromosikan perdagangan elektronik dengan memberikan hak kepada warga Kanada untuk privasi maklumat peribadi yang dikumpul, digunakan atau didedahkan dalam ekonomi dan dunia yang semakin berasaskan maklumat.


Premise: I mean, it's a penny on 1,000, or probably a lot less than that, frankly. So I can not only not imagine a person whose decision to write would be governed by such a thing, I cannot imagine a European who would come to America to copyright his work for such a reason.

Hypothesis: Europe is not the same place as America.

If a European can come to America then it can't be the same location.

Maksud saya, ia adalah satu sen pada 1,000, atau mungkin jauh lebih rendah daripada itu, terus terang. Jadi saya bukan sahaja tidak dapat membayangkan seseorang yang keputusannya untuk menulis akan ditadbir oleh perkara sedemikian, saya tidak dapat membayangkan orang Eropah yang akan datang ke Amerika untuk hak cipta karyanya atas sebab sedemikian.

Eropah bukan tempat yang sama dengan Amerika.


Premise: The objective and the thrust of this bill is to prohibit certain financial institutions, including broadcasting and telecommunications undertakings and companies to which the Insurance Companies Act applies, from charging money to their regular clients for the provision or sale of a new service without the expressed consent of the client.

Hypothesis: Customers wouldn't have to worry as much about unexpected charges after the bill has passed.

They wouldn't have to worry as much as the bill requires companies to inform them of new services and gain consent to charge customers. The system likely has trouble gauging words or amounts like "as much".

Objektif dan teras rang undang-undang ini adalah untuk melarang institusi kewangan tertentu, termasuk syarikat penyiaran dan telekomunikasi dan syarikat yang dikenakan Akta Syarikat Insurans, daripada mengenakan bayaran kepada pelanggan tetap mereka untuk penyediaan atau penjualan perkhidmatan baharu tanpa kebenaran nyata. daripada pelanggan.

Pelanggan tidak perlu terlalu risau tentang caj yang tidak dijangka selepas bil telah diluluskan.


Premise: Honourable senators, may I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate whether he will take the occasion of a debate, which is now adjourned in the name of Senator Bryden, on the report of the Special Senate Committee on the Cape Breton Development Corporation to make a full statement to the Senate within the next few days?

Hypothesis: the senators are honorable

it says "honourable senators" implying they are honourable, I think the system didn't know the american spelling for is also a correct spelling for honorable/ honourable.

Yang dihormati senator, boleh saya bertanya kepada Pemimpin Kerajaan di Dewan Negara sama ada beliau akan mengambil kesempatan perbahasan, yang kini ditangguhkan atas nama Senator Bryden, mengenai laporan Jawatankuasa Senat Khas mengenai Perbadanan Pembangunan Cape Breton kepada membuat kenyataan penuh kepada Dewan Negara dalam beberapa hari akan datang?


Premise: The memorial stands as a symbol of healing for the Armenian community and will be a lasting tribute to all victims of ethnic hatred, including the Armenian genocide of 1915 at the hands of the Turkish government, the first genocide of the century but not the last as tragically ethnic massacres continue to take place every day.

Hypothesis: The Armenian genocide occurred in the year after 1914.

The Armenian genocide occurred in 1915. The system was confused by the year.

Memorial itu berdiri sebagai simbol penyembuhan bagi masyarakat Armenia dan akan menjadi penghormatan yang berkekalan kepada semua mangsa kebencian etnik, termasuk pembunuhan beramai-ramai Armenia pada 1915 di tangan kerajaan Turki, pembunuhan beramai-ramai pertama abad ini tetapi bukan yang terakhir sebagai tragisnya pembunuhan beramai-ramai etnik terus berlaku setiap hari.

Pembunuhan beramai-ramai Armenia berlaku pada tahun selepas 1914.


Premise: It is timely to remember, with respect to genocide, that this year, in 1998, we will be celebrating not only the anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but also the 50th anniversary of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide that was breached by individuals in Bosnia-Hercegovina, as the International Crime tribunal will show, if it can bring to justice the individuals charged with such crimes.

Hypothesis: the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was first published in 1948

The context states that in 1998 the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide celebrated its 50th anniversary, so it must have been created 50 years prior - aka 1948. The system could likely not apply the logic needed to understand a 50th anniversary meant 50 years ago, and then to take 50 years off the year 1998.

Sudah tiba masanya untuk diingati, berkenaan dengan pembunuhan beramai-ramai, bahawa pada tahun ini, pada tahun 1998, kita akan meraikan bukan sahaja ulang tahun Deklarasi Hak Asasi Manusia Sejagat, tetapi juga ulang tahun ke-50 Konvensyen Mengenai Pencegahan dan Hukuman Jenayah. Genocide yang dilanggar oleh individu di Bosnia-Hercegovina, seperti yang ditunjukkan oleh tribunal Jenayah Antarabangsa, jika ia boleh membawa ke muka pengadilan individu yang didakwa melakukan jenayah sedemikian.

Konvensyen mengenai Pencegahan dan Hukuman Jenayah Genosid pertama kali diterbitkan pada tahun 1948


Premise: I said I was upset about it because I didn't find a problem with it with my religion. It does not -- I'm getting confused. I have a problem with it because my daughter came home from school and she says to me, What kind of Christian are you, anyway? So that's why I have a problem with it.

Hypothesis: The speaker is a parent.

It's definitely correct because the text contains the phrase "my daughter". It's difficult because this fact is not stated explicitly and requires high level understanding in order to verify.

Saya berkata saya kecewa kerana saya tidak menemui masalah dengan agama saya. Ia tidak -- saya semakin keliru. Saya mempunyai masalah dengannya kerana anak perempuan saya pulang dari sekolah dan dia berkata kepada saya, Apakah jenis orang Kristian anda, pula? Jadi itulah sebabnya saya mempunyai masalah dengannya.


Premise: But does he know that, for example, Quebec's Unibroue, the micro-brewery Quebeckers are so proud of because it produces a quality beer that is sold all over the world, is unable to sell a single bottle of beer in Ontario because of the tariffs and structures the Ontario government has put in place to keep out producers from Quebec and, I suppose, from other provinces also?

Hypothesis: Quebec's Unibroue will not be served in any Ontario bars or restaurants.

"unable to sell a single bottle of beer in Ontario because of the tariffs and structures the Ontario government has put in place to keep out producers from Quebec" which is why you will not find this beer in bars or restaurants.

Tetapi adakah dia tahu bahawa, sebagai contoh, unibroue Quebec, Quebeckers mikro-brewery sangat bangga kerana ia menghasilkan bir berkualiti yang dijual di seluruh dunia, tidak dapat menjual sebotol bir di Ontario kerana tarif Dan struktur kerajaan Ontario telah meletakkan tempat untuk menghalang pengeluar dari Quebec dan, saya rasa, dari wilayah lain juga?

Unibroue Quebec tidak akan dihidangkan di mana-mana bar atau restoran Ontario.


Premise: I'm for working with the groups, not just with industry but also with the citizen groups and local communities to control sprawl in ways that the local communities themselves come up with. But I disagree that we don't know the cause of global warming.

Hypothesis: They are working with industry

It states they are working not just with industry.

Saya bekerja dengan kumpulan itu, bukan sahaja dengan industri tetapi juga dengan kumpulan rakyat dan komuniti tempatan untuk mengawal penyebaran dengan cara yang dibuat oleh masyarakat tempatan sendiri. Tetapi saya tidak bersetuju bahawa kita tidak tahu punca pemanasan global.


Premise: Okay. What I've seen of actually Darwin in the textbook, in my opinion, is actually quite slim. It follows state standards, of course. And, actually, to me, it gives more of a historical context of Darwin than anything as far as what I have read. And I did look at that section, and I looked basically through the book. And it appears to be historical mainly in context of Darwin's time frame and what he did for science.

Hypothesis: The textbook focuses more on the historical side of Darwin and less on the scientific side.

The speaker said they saw very slim amount of evidence of information about the scientific side of Darwin. I think the system had trouble deciphering between that and historical.

Baik. Apa yang saya lihat sebenarnya Darwin dalam buku teks, pada pendapat saya, sebenarnya agak tipis. Ia mengikut piawaian negeri, sudah tentu. Dan, sebenarnya, kepada saya, ia memberikan lebih banyak konteks sejarah Darwin daripada apa-apa setakat apa yang saya baca. Dan saya melihat bahagian itu, dan saya melihat pada dasarnya melalui buku itu. Dan ia nampaknya bersejarah terutamanya dalam konteks jangka masa Darwin dan apa yang dia lakukan untuk sains.

Buku teks lebih menumpukan pada sisi sejarah Darwin dan kurang pada sisi saintifik.


Premise: Now, we offer a simple way to make this clear, express limit make sense, and that is precisely the understanding we suggest that existed in 1790. The only precedents that existed in 1790 were precedents of setting a term, and then when parliament was asked in 1735, '37, and '39 to extend it, they rejected it, and as amicus historians said, they rejected it because, as a pamphleteer described it, that would be effectively a perpetual term.

Hypothesis: The early forefathers were in favor of term limits.

The paragraph indicates that the statement is true. This was too complex for the system to understand.

Sekarang, kami menawarkan cara mudah untuk membuat had yang jelas dan nyata ini masuk akal, dan itulah pemahaman yang kami cadangkan yang wujud pada tahun 1790. Satu-satunya preseden yang wujud pada tahun 1790 ialah preseden menetapkan penggal, dan kemudian apabila parlimen ditanya pada tahun 1735, '37, dan '39 untuk memanjangkannya, mereka menolaknya, dan seperti yang dikatakan oleh ahli sejarah amicus, mereka menolaknya kerana, seperti yang diterangkan oleh seorang penulis risalah, itu akan menjadi istilah yang kekal.

Nenek moyang awal memihak kepada had penggal.


Premise: The Government of Canada, through the Department of Justice, should institute a study of the accountability of corporate executives and directors for the wrongful or negligent acts of the corporation and should introduce in the Parliament of Canada such amendments to legislation as are necessary to ensure that corporate executives and directors are held properly accountable for workplace safety.

Hypothesis: If there was no legislation in place then senior employees could not be trusted to ensure workplace safety

The context states that legislation is needed, so it must be needed because corporate executives and directors (aka senior employees) can't be trusted to safeguard safety. The system could likely not understand the use of 'senior employees' in place of corporate executives and directors.

Kerajaan Kanada, melalui Jabatan Kehakiman, harus memulakan kajian tentang akauntabiliti eksekutif dan pengarah korporat untuk perbuatan salah atau cuai perbadanan dan harus memperkenalkan di Parlimen Kanada pindaan undang-undang yang perlu untuk memastikan bahawa eksekutif dan pengarah korporat dipertanggungjawabkan dengan sewajarnya untuk keselamatan tempat kerja.

Sekiranya tidak ada undang-undang, pekerja kanan tidak boleh dipercayai untuk memastikan keselamatan tempat kerja


Premise: My colleague from the Bloc Quebecois, the hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm, repeatedly questioned the Minister of Justice, asking her whether she thinks it is right for a major drug dealer like Joseph Lagana, who laundered nearly $47 million, to get paroled after serving only one sixth of his sentence.

Hypothesis: The minister got questioned on early release of a criminal so the crime must have been pretty severe.

The crime was severe so hence the fact that the criminal is being released early is suspect, and the minister was questioned.

Rakan sekerja saya dari Bloc Quebecois, hon. ahli untuk Berthier-Montcalm, berulang kali menyoal Menteri Kehakiman, bertanya kepadanya sama ada dia fikir betul untuk pengedar dadah utama seperti Joseph Lagana, yang mencuci hampir $47 juta, dibebaskan selepas menjalani hanya satu perenam daripada hukumannya.

Menteri itu disoal siasat mengenai pembebasan awal seorang penjenayah jadi jenayah itu pastinya agak teruk.


Premise: Our country has been very active with regular conversations with the leaders there. And we just have to take it day-to-day right now. But one thing I would say where diplomacy is concerned, Israel should feel absolutely secure about one thing. Our bonds with Israel are larger than agreements or disagreements on some details of diplomatic initiatives.

Hypothesis: Our country is in cahoots with Israel

They have bonds with israel, so this is correct

Negara kita sangat aktif dengan perbualan biasa dengan pemimpin di sana. Dan kita hanya perlu mengambilnya dari hari ke hari sekarang. Tetapi satu perkara yang saya akan katakan mengenai diplomasi, Israel sepatutnya berasa benar-benar selamat tentang satu perkara. Ikatan kami dengan Israel lebih besar daripada perjanjian atau perselisihan mengenai beberapa butiran inisiatif diplomatik.


Premise: With the exception of a limitation which illustrates the distinction between forever on the one hand and a definite number on the other, is there any limitation in the clause? Does the promotion, does the preambular recitation of promotion as such place a limit on it?

Hypothesis: promotion has a r

Dengan pengecualian had yang menggambarkan perbezaan antara selama-lamanya di satu pihak dan nombor pasti di pihak yang lain, adakah terdapat sebarang had dalam klausa itu? Adakah kenaikan pangkat itu, adakah bacaan mukadimah kenaikan pangkat meletakkan had ke atasnya?


Premise: And I think that's where maybe the vice president and I begin to have some differences. I'm worried about overcommitting our military around the world. I want to be judicious in its use. You mentioned Haiti. I wouldn't have sent troops to Haiti. I didn't think it was a mission worthwhile.

Hypothesis: They though the mission to Haiti was a waste of time and if it were up to them they would have done things differently

same meaning different wording but the AI didn't translate it as such.

Dan saya fikir di situlah mungkin naib presiden dan saya mula mempunyai beberapa perbezaan. Saya bimbang untuk melebih-lebihkan tentera kita di seluruh dunia. Saya mahu menjadi bijak dalam penggunaannya. Anda menyebut Haiti. Saya tidak akan menghantar tentera ke Haiti. Saya tidak fikir ia adalah misi yang berbaloi.

Mereka walaupun misi ke Haiti membuang masa dan jika terpulang kepada mereka, mereka akan melakukan perkara yang berbeza


Premise: As to who mandates, I do not think I can do any better in answering that question succinctly than to quote the Secretary-General of the United Nations who has appealed to the international community to restore the UN Security Council to what he has called its "pre-eminent position as the sole source of legitimacy on the use of force."

Hypothesis: Thanks to the efforts of the general they wish to bring back the security council as that is thought to be best by him

Mengenai siapa yang memberi mandat, saya tidak fikir saya boleh melakukan apa-apa yang lebih baik dalam menjawab soalan itu secara ringkas daripada memetik Setiausaha Agung Pertubuhan Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu yang telah merayu kepada masyarakat antarabangsa untuk memulihkan Majlis Keselamatan PBB kepada apa yang disebutnya " kedudukan terunggul sebagai satu-satunya sumber legitimasi penggunaan kekerasan."

Berkat usaha jeneral itu, mereka berhasrat untuk membawa balik majlis keselamatan kerana ia dianggap terbaik olehnya