Slashdot Mirror

for all your hyperbole about living in trees or jumping out of buildings; your argument comes down to this?

Nonsense. A carbon tax adds sanity to the tax code by reducing sales and income tax. And it works!

"As a result, B.C. now has the lowest income tax rates in Canada for individuals earning up to $122,000. The general corporate income tax rate in B.C. is among the lowest in North America and the G7 nations, and since 2001, B.C.’s small business income tax rate has been reduced by 44 percent." - http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/tbs/t...

"Further, the resulting decreases in fuel consumption did not harm economic growth; on the contrary, the province has outperformed the rest of Canada’s since 2008" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I think any place with a tram/train system for mass transit lets you drink (or don't enforce it) on the trains, Vancouver is the same way, so is Tokyo. So long as you're not peeing on the seat or something.

I cannot speak to Tokyo, but in BC you are not allowed to drink anywhere on the tranist system. I have never encountered an enforcement officer who did not enforce BC's drinking laws. With that said, there is very little enforcement because there are few patroling officers.

From http://engage.gov.bc.ca/liquor...
"Where can you drink?

It’s quite simple. You can drink in your home, at a campsite or anywhere that has a liquor licence. You can’t drink in public, at beaches or parks, in your car, or at non-licensed establishments open to the public. Liquor is allowed in private non-licensed places, like a closed office or business."

Here's how it is working in British Columbia: http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/tbs/t...

"You'd rather just whine in complete ignorance rather then read something interesting and become more knowledgeable. Pathetic."

A complete ignorance of native species within an ecosystem is the problem sir. The use of the word "trout" is symptomatic of the ignorance of the general populace, especially in the east. The native char species of the Great Lakes have a tendency to be slow growing variants, in fact the actual age of mature Salvelinus that were the predominant top shelf predators of Superior and Huron are very poorly understood. Some have a life span that is many times longer than any Oncorhynchus. And as for ignorance well what can I say, other than it is extremely unfortunate that we tend to ignore the individuals who warned against these interventions in the first place.

No matter how well intentioned, putting an artificial construct into a robust ecosystem by completely ignoring how it works in the first place is the problem and those who advocate this policy usually have a very short term monetary interest in mind not the environment especially some idiots out west here that have actually illegally planted all sorts of eastern species.

No sir the ignorance is much deeper and problematic than my rant, the problems start by taking the easy way out by creating artificial fisheries that cannot work in the long term instead of embarking upon long term habitat stewardship and is the core of the issue here.

Not amphibious

Because of its size, the Martin Mars can only land on and scoop up water from about 113 bodies of water in B.C.

If you look closely at the Mars maintenance picture you will see a couple of things. First the tread on the wheels under the aircraft are quite aggressive. I have never seen that kind of tread on landing gear. Second the wing pontoons are supported by scaffolding and not wheels. My theory is that the Mars has the facility to attach dollies to the air frame to allow it to be pulled out of the water and those are not landing gear.

I also looked up a number of articles and the Mars is always referred to as a flying boat and not an amphibious aircraft. The final kicker is that BC is retiring it's Martin Mars aircraft and here is a quote from an article explaining the decision;

Because of its size, the Martin Mars can only land on and scoop up water from about 113 bodies of water in B.C.

The Martin Mars is not amphibious.

"nothing can ever possibly be too cheap."

I hope you remember that when you are next negotiating your salary with your employer!

Ignoring the obvious logical errors of making ridiculous absolutist statements, gasoline needs to be more expensive to get people to use less of it. Gas right now is "too cheap" for americans, and to a lesser extent, canadians as well. This is why they waste it buying hummers, SUVs and not taking environmental concerns seriously by funding alternative methods of transport.

So it is precisely too cheap to 1) encourage alternative energy sources and 2) prompt people to cut greenhouse gas emissions and save us all from a runaway climate collapse.

For some perspective, gas hit $1.55/L today in british columbia (they are blaming iraq in the media). Using a value of .92 cents per US dollar and this site: http://boating.ncf.ca/convertg... i can see that we currently pay $5.40USD per US gallon.

I don't mind the cost of gas too much, as it makes me consider more how much I use the car instead of alternatives - no matter how distasteful the public bus system is to me personally. We all have to start sucking it up, and increasing gas prices is a great way to do that. Especially, as I have pointed out before, if your carbon tax is revenue neutral like the one in BC. This means that all of that particular tax revenues go right back to the citizens of BC.

More info: http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/tbs/t...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...

We should obviously be taxing the corporations who profit from all this more as well, and using it similarly to fund the above. If we didn't want to go ahead and nationalize oil and gas companies, which would be my preferred course of action.

Companies should not profit on utilities. They should be owned by the people.

"Most are just variations on "lets tack on a bunch of fines and taxes to make doing certain things unpopular". Which doesn't ACTUALLY address the problem."

If the problem is rampent overconsumption, british columbia proves that increasing taxes does make people use less fuel.

"A report by Sustainable Prosperity entitled BCâ(TM)s Carbon Tax Shift After Five Years:An Environmental (and Economic) Success Story suggested that the policy had been a major success. During the time the tax had been in place, fossil fuel consumption had dropped 17.4% per capita (and fallen by 18.8% relative to the rest of Canada). These reductions occurred across all the fuel types covered by the tax (not just vehicle fuel)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...

Yes, I realize that everyone hates all taxes. I am not saying whether it is right or wrong, but the province of BC proves that it is effective at addressing the problem of too much carbon emissions being produced.

http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/tbs/t...

The agency you linked to has jurisdiction in the province of Newfoundland & Labrador, not British Columbia. Here, it's the Ministry of Children which takes care of that. No, seriously.

Not at the college level, but I've heard from similar things at the High School level where they're expected to work for experience rather than pay.

IIRC, the local ski-hill often utilized unpaid high-school students in the capacity, but at least they often get free lift passes out of it. Other businesses offered little to nothing. It may be different now, but back in the day you were expected to be unpaid.

I think this is currently a similar program.

Also see here

Not in British Columbia, Canada. Here they use the screening device to establish BAC Roadside, using our IRP (Immediate Roadside Prohibition) system. If you blow under .08 and over .05 you get a warn and a 3 day suspension. Over .08 the cop can elect to still not charge you with an impaired and impose a 30 day impoundment and a 90 day suspension, possibly followed up with a driver education program and an interlock requirement. No criminal charge, but refusing to blow has the same penalty. If they decide to charge you, you can expect a blood test to confirm the screening breathalizer. Not all the nuts & bolts in my post, but you can read it here if you want. http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/osmv/prohibitions/impaired-driving.htm

Its even worse than that in BC. Here we have what's often referred to as the "EA Exemption;" if you're a "high technology professional," then the ESA doesn't apply. I'm pretty sure the Section 39 (mentioned above) also doesn't apply as Part 3 of the Act is essentially ripped out.

"The hours of work provisions of the Act, including those governing meal breaks, split shifts, minimum daily pay and hours free from work each week, as well as the overtime and statutory holiday provisions, do not apply to “high technology professionals”.

You can find more about it on the governments fact sheet here: http://www.labour.gov.bc.ca/esb/facshts/high_tech.htm

Yeah. That would be my main reason. Socialized healthcare that works (and actually costs the government less per capita than the US privatized care does/did). It's not actually free (as a contractor you have to pay your MSP fees yourself, which employers generally pay in addition to "extended medical"), but it's affordable. Under a certain income I think it is free, I think. Most of the time if you have a significant other with family coverage, your base MSP fees are covered as well.

I was actually looking into this recently as I'm looking to hire employees (three categories of monthly rate: Single - $60.50, Family of 2 - $109, Family of 3 or more: $121). For extended medical/dental/optical it looks like around $265/month for an employee (depending on claim history). That gets you a lower deductible on prescriptions, cheap or free dental visits (most I've paid is $50 for a filling) and free eye checkups and money towards glasses every X years (varies on plan, some suck some are good). Often extended will let you double up if you have multiple plans (e.g. both wife and husband have plans). Your primary plans covers the initial amount, then the secondary often covers the rest.

I recently broke an arm which required surgery. I checked into how much it would be if you weren't covered (e.g. out of country visitor).. >$12K. I paid nothing. It was an accident, and I'd assume they'd collect from the insurance company (since it was the other driver's fault.. and his insurance should pay not government dollars), but that's all opaque to me since it's handled within the system. Even if broke it mountain biking I wouldn't have had to pay. I was out of pocket $40 for my second cast (which extended would probably cover if it wasn't a vehicle accident.. vehicle insurer is deemed primary in accidents).

The main thing is you're not going to die if you don't have extended health care and you aren't going to go bankrupt from cancer or a complicated pregnancy or a heart condition etc.

There are of course compromises. E.g. if you could use knee surgery but are "lower prioriy" (older, doesn't affect ability to work etc) you'll be at the end of a long waiting list. You can travel elsewhere and pay to have it done sooner, or wait. I've heard of people with a broken bone (that requires fixation) waiting a week in a cast before going in for surgery. Mine was bad enough that it had to be done asap. As long as you are drugged well enough and it's not dire, I guess waiting is ok, but it's definitely not fun.

No silver bullet. But I think it works better for the poor up to middle income people (maybe even upper middle). Straight private definitely favours the rich. I think we're trying to figure out a mixed system so that people can pay for private care and get quicker care (in Country), but doesn't pull doctors from public care and result in longer waiting lists. Basically you don't want to change the existing so that people can pay to jump the line (which is what can happen if a surgeon works in both private and public practices).

Actually within Canada, at least in BC, there are overtime pay exempt positions. Included in the category that cannot be payed overtime is High Tech professional. "The hours of work provisions of the Act, including those governing meal breaks, split shifts", minimum daily pay and hours free from work each week, as well as the overtime and statutory holiday provisions, do not apply to “high technology professionals." Labour BC

You can make the argument not to speed, but cops lower speed limits on major roads deliberately to make people speed based on their common sense rather than sense of law.

Police have no say in what speed limits are; that just enforce the laws. It is the local administration that sets those limits. I am not saying that there are a lot of speed traps in small towns everywhere but I doubt very much that these towns can afford a drone.

In Canada we have speed warning signs. Basically it is a sign with a speed limit and an arrow that means that the speed limit will change to the new value ahead. This give time to slow down. In BC (check page 2.10) when going from 100Kmh to 50Kmh requires a 70Kmh transition zone and at least 5 signs. Maybe the issue in the US isn't the police but the laws on signage.

But where I live near Victoria, they have just put in a horribly confusing system of THREE roundabouts and a bridge. They even have a simulation animated video that is somehow supposed to show how simple and congestion-free it is. Thankfully I don't have to take this every day.

But where I live near Victoria, they have just put in a horribly confusing system of THREE roundabouts and a bridge. They even have a simulation animated video that is somehow supposed to show how simple and congestion-free it is. Thankfully I don't have to take this every day.

It's not so simple though. There will surely be companies who aren't concerned with the loss of ability to defend their "product" as intellectual property, but that won't stop them from creating organisms that might be dangerous.

Here are some of the more disturbing organisms that should be closely guarded (most are not) to prevent contamination of the natural gene pool:

Goats that product spiders silk protein in their milk
GMO cows producing human milk
Transgenic Salmon
GM fruit crops producing BT toxin in Hawaii
Maize, wheat, sweet potato

To gain a different perspective on GM, look for a movie called "Light Years", an Isaac Asimov adaptation of a novel by Jean-Pierre Andrevon's - Les Hommes-machines contre Gandahar (The Machine-Men versus Gandahar). In the story, the people of Gandahar have genetically engineered the perfect utopia. Things take a turn for the worse when their existence is threatened with complete destruction by an organism which they had accidentally created during genetic experiments 1000 years earlier.

Unlike the prophecy in the story (...what can't be undone, will be), in our GMO world, what can't be undone - really can't be undone.

There are far too many references to list them all, but start with the Arizona DOT, then try here. From there, google driving speed limit safe.

The BC Ministry of Transportation has a good report in pdf form here.

Your post is balanced on a tower of incorrect unstated assumptions.

Oh probably, but this is the internet!

There is no mythical place with the cheapest labor prices and an infinite supply of labor.

Umm, well, China has pretty cheap labour, and 3+ billion people to do it, and because its so much its practically infinite.

Sub-what-standard wages? Where does the "standard" wage come from?

A standard wage is the earnings associated with the cost of living required to maintain a good quality of life. Grade 10 Social Studies, did you skip class or something?

Oh, are they? They couldn't possibly think up new, better, more enjoyable jobs could they?

You can't just "Think up" a job and make money. I'd like to think up "Pie eating" as a job, and get paid to eat pies. No, sadly, Jobs are based upon what positions are available at companies willing to pay employees. The big issue is that companies would rather NOT pay employees, or if they have to, would like to pay them very little. Since the government regulates a minimum pay, these jobs go to countries where the government regulated minimum pay is the lowest.

Apparently you are also missing the very obvious fact that consumers who buy goods actually benefit because the goods are cheaper.

Well, yes, it IS nice that my new Computer fully decked out with all the latest features ONLY costs maybe 1 or 2 thousand dollars, when really the matierals that make up the computer itself probably cost way more. However, if I make minumum wage and housing costs so much, I'll never afford it. It's a shame the way that works, choosing food over a new TV.

it seems somewhat arbitrary that you choose nations as your granularity. Why not states?

Silly Goose, because Nations operate under different dollars and dollar amounts! An American Dollar is worth an American Dollar all across America. However, An American Dollar could be worth more or less than the Canadian Dollar depending on how lucky those Canucks are getting. Now a lot of regulation goes into Canada and US trade (see Lumber) because they are so close. However, since China is really far away their trade can be a little more free.

Take Gasoline for example. In Canada, we have to regulate our Gas prices to match the United States (and they to ours, its a mutual agreement kind of thing) even if one of us technically has more gasoline than the other. Why? Well, if Gasoline was signifigantly cheaper in say... Alberta (with the oilsands and all) then there would be nothing from stopping some Montana based company from driving hundreds of tankers up, buying up all the oil, and driving it south to make a profit.

It's unlikely though, that anyone would go and buy a product over in China where it is cheaper, than bring it back to the states. So free trade is a little more lenient with further countries. (Don't get me wrong, thats not the only thing that plays a part).

So thats where corporations come in and fill that gap. They'll make the product where its cheaper and ship it back to you, thus, THEY make the savings.

...and to your last point more research was done 5 years later and seemed to show evidence that raising speed limits can actually reduce injury and fatalities.

doh: I fcked the link (pdf warning).

With some googling I found out that in the year 2000 15,517 people were murdered while 41,611 died in car accidents. That means that if we could prevent all car accidents the benefit in human lives would be almost three times greater.

You might only be driving 55 on a 50 mph zone, but a lot of people are driving much faster and statistics show it is fairly dangerous.

Where are these stastics that say ignoring the speed limit and driving the road for what it was built for is "fairly dangerous"? I seem to have found some statistics that claim quite the opposite(pdf warning).

Moreover, by your rationale, I shouldn't be allowed to eat butter or salt as more people die from heart attacks than from car accidents or murders combined. Or to flip it, since you'll likely try to spin this as something I'm doing to you; no one should be allowed to serve things containing cholesterol or salt.

-- ...only life can kill you

Well, in Canada, getting paid for over time is the law.

Unless you are a high tech professional in BC: High Technology Companies Fact Sheet

I think you'll find that very often speed limits are completely idiotic and don't have any connection to the real world, because whoever sets them for a given road can have several reasons not to maintain this relationship. This could be a municipality trying to cash in on speeding tickets, which has been shown to be pretty effective in many cases. Somebody could be playing the "think of the children" and safety cards by blindly lowering the speed limits everywhere - this sounds good to your average person, statistics be damned. Then there's the environmental angle, which is apparently how the retarded 55mph limits were set on US highways. This actually covers both cases, though there are other examples of course. And last but not least, the people responsible could be incompetent or just not care.

Following the limits can be stupid and dangerous if everybody else is breaking them as well for the above reasons. By driving below the average traffic speed, you're creating more of a hazard than if you just stay with the flow and keep the speed difference low. Also keep in mind that in all but a few exceptional cases, the speed limits don't reflect the actual conditions on the road. It's the middle of the night, there's a huge blizzard and you can't see shit, but the sign will still say 130km/h, just like it does when it's dry and sunny. Therefore, this leads me to conclude that statements such as "if you can't follow the speed limits and whatnot - you are a bad driver" are simply incorrect.

Same goes for the signs. There are at least real-world case studies that showed that removing all, or most, signs actually increased safety for all involved, here are the two I've been previously aware of: one in the Netherlands and one from Germany, which is actually a more recent follow up to the part that mentions that the Germans are also planning this change. In both cases, there has been no increase in accident rate, but actually a significant decrease.

I'm not going to argue completely against predictability on the roads, however blindly following whatever's written on those small metal disks isn't necessarily the best thing for the safety of those involved, as I have hopefully demonstrated clearly enough.

"Not in Canada you don't. The only way for me to have a choice is to go to another country."

That is not true. You can opt out of Canada's social medicine today if you wanted too. You've been watching too much CNN.

http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/msp/infoben/eligible.html#cancel

We already know, as there are manual snow course surveys and snow pillows all over the place. Here is a list of 400 or so (some are historic and no longer sampled) snow courses in BC. Many of those get visited every two or four weeks from Jan-Feb through June each year.

I've done the surveys, and you need to measure both snow depth, and moisture content. The process of manual measurement hasn't changed in decades - you drop a metal tube into the ground, pull it up, dig out the soil, measure the weight of the snow that the tube collected, and the depth of the snow. Of the two numbers, the overall moisture content is of greater interest. I hardly even look at snow depth when trying to decide if the water systems I run are facing a drought - the moisture content compared to historic trends is what matters most.

Even then, snow depth is only a guide. If you get high evaporation rates during spring freshet, or lots of wind and moisture loss, what appears to be a healthy snowpack in April can turn into near-record low runoff by June. This year that is exactly what happened in my region. We had a good snowpack, with normal amounts of water equivalent in April, but by June, very little runoff to the reservoirs had taken place. This mostly affected the low and mid elevation watersheds in the Okanagan. The really high elevation watersheds such as Mission Creek had normal runoff, while adjacent watersheds such as Mill and Hydraulic Creeks ended up with varying levels of drought.

More data is always a good thing, but the moisture content matters more than the depth. And even if the data looks promising, that can change in a matter of weeks. You never really know for sure how much water you're going to get until the reservoirs stop filling.

Kudos to the people who came up with this idea. Now if we only had a free way to search case law.

For Canadians, you can use CanLii (Canadian Legal Information Institute) to research case law for free. The courts and tribunals in most provinces post their decisions online, as well. In British Columbia, the courts have been uploading their decisions to their website since 1996.

Sorry Friend, it's laughable at best. :( The problem is that the provincial government of British Columbia has a branch, called WTS: http://www.sharedservicesbc.gov.bc.ca/Workplace_Technology_Services/supplier.htm these people handle all of the computers on the provincial level. Basically, you've got a lot of hardcore geeks bound by red tape and managers who know nothing about computers in general. (Same old story, right?) Anyway... In the old days, every ministry, say Transport, for example, would have their own admins, their own domain software packages etc. Now it's all under one roof, the problem is that they like old school technology. Ie we have to BEG AND PLEAD to use PHP, ruby etc for interfaces for our databases...prettymuch the problem is, the geeks on hand love open source, but the managers for the whole system have their heads firmly planted up their butts. Thats even the reason why they *just* ramped up to vista instead of waiting for win7 because it'd have "unproven performance". Good game, bureaucracy.

is that Canadian legislation?

Yes.

Also most provinces have similar legislation.

p.s. Google is not that hard to use.

You make a good point, I'll take back some of my vitriol.

But I still think Canadian judges are all over the map and unreliable when it comes to making progressive, clear and decisive rulings about publications on the Internet. Compare the following three judgments from this year (which were in B.C. alone, I don't know what other judges in Canada are deciding). They all send different messages.

In this one a neo-Nazi in Fort St John is found guilty of defamation. One of the factors in the judgment is that his website contained links to hate websites. Isn't this exactly the opposite of the judgment in the p2pnet case?

In this case a family wins a defamation judgment after complaining that a newspaper published an article, photo and cutline in print and on its website suggesting they may have been victims of a "grow-rip" (when people rob the individuals running a marijuana grow operation). The Internet connection here is that the judge didn't think the Internet publication, which continued for several months, was of much concern. Why not? There's just as good a chance that someone read the article online as there is someone read it in print.

Finally, How about this prize-winner: a Canadian judge awards an Australian $179,644.50 in damages over forum drama on a Usenet "alt.suicide.holiday" group. Does that mean we Slashdotters can sue each other for saying nasty things to each other? Heaven help us when this case gets cited as precedent.

I just don't think enough judges "get" the Internet yet, and the fact that their responses are all over the map proves it to me.

You make a good point, I'll take back some of my vitriol.

But I still think Canadian judges are all over the map and unreliable when it comes to making progressive, clear and decisive rulings about publications on the Internet. Compare the following three judgments from this year (which were in B.C. alone, I don't know what other judges in Canada are deciding). They all send different messages.

In this one a neo-Nazi in Fort St John is found guilty of defamation. One of the factors in the judgment is that his website contained links to hate websites. Isn't this exactly the opposite of the judgment in the p2pnet case?

In this case a family wins a defamation judgment after complaining that a newspaper published an article, photo and cutline in print and on its website suggesting they may have been victims of a "grow-rip" (when people rob the individuals running a marijuana grow operation). The Internet connection here is that the judge didn't think the Internet publication, which continued for several months, was of much concern. Why not? There's just as good a chance that someone read the article online as there is someone read it in print.

Finally, How about this prize-winner: a Canadian judge awards an Australian $179,644.50 in damages over forum drama on a Usenet "alt.suicide.holiday" group. Does that mean we Slashdotters can sue each other for saying nasty things to each other? Heaven help us when this case gets cited as precedent.

I just don't think enough judges "get" the Internet yet, and the fact that their responses are all over the map proves it to me.

You make a good point, I'll take back some of my vitriol.

But I still think Canadian judges are all over the map and unreliable when it comes to making progressive, clear and decisive rulings about publications on the Internet. Compare the following three judgments from this year (which were in B.C. alone, I don't know what other judges in Canada are deciding). They all send different messages.

In this one a neo-Nazi in Fort St John is found guilty of defamation. One of the factors in the judgment is that his website contained links to hate websites. Isn't this exactly the opposite of the judgment in the p2pnet case?

In this case a family wins a defamation judgment after complaining that a newspaper published an article, photo and cutline in print and on its website suggesting they may have been victims of a "grow-rip" (when people rob the individuals running a marijuana grow operation). The Internet connection here is that the judge didn't think the Internet publication, which continued for several months, was of much concern. Why not? There's just as good a chance that someone read the article online as there is someone read it in print.

Finally, How about this prize-winner: a Canadian judge awards an Australian $179,644.50 in damages over forum drama on a Usenet "alt.suicide.holiday" group. Does that mean we Slashdotters can sue each other for saying nasty things to each other? Heaven help us when this case gets cited as precedent.

I just don't think enough judges "get" the Internet yet, and the fact that their responses are all over the map proves it to me.

oh and did I mention that we keep crazy people off the street by giving them money (and possibly preventing them from harming others)....

Bullshit, Canada has thousands of crazy homeless people on its streets. Toronto alone has 5,052 (3,649 in shelters) homeless. The rest of Canada has started just giving free bus tickets out to British Columbia. I live in downtown Victoria where the homeless population is growing by 400 people a year. That in a city with a population of 80k and only 141 shelter beds. Do to the lack of shelters the homeless here just won a supreme court decision that now allows them set up camp in any city owned property. There are now homeless campsites up in three of the city parks including one in one the cities biggest tourist attractions and one across the street from an elementary school. If they are crazy or just high on drugs I cannot say, but most of them are not stable, and some are just scary.

Actually, there was coal mining into the 50s and 60s: http://minfile.gov.bc.ca/Summary.aspx?minfilno=092GSW048

In a funny turn of luck, the mall developers ignored little old downtown Nanaimo and it's now full of hip-ish bookstores, cafes, comic shops, etc. Now that the planners have discovered that they still have a downtown, Let's hope they don't wreck it, too. Rueger is right on: Coal Mining? Here's a link that took, oh, 38secs. to find: http://www.nanaimo-info.com/gpage.html7.html/

Nanaimo will be the host to the 2010 Olympic games.

It's just outside of Vancouver, and will host many of the events. It's snowboarder mecca, etc.

That has a lot to do with where all the funding for this kind of stuff came from.

More than that. Per http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/police_services/forces/ the various policing agencies in BC are: * Abbotsford Police Department * Central Saanich Police * Delta Police Department * Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Police Service * Nelson Police Department * New Westminster Police Service * Oak Bay Police Department * Organized Crime Agency of BC * Port Moody Police Department * RCMP E Division * Saanich Police Department * Stl' Atl' Imx Tribal Police * Vancouver Police Department * Victoria Police Department * West Vancouver Police Department

Hey, I agree with the GP, global warming aint all bad. Check this picture out for example: link
Mountain pine beetles baby. Of course, I am a huge pyro so YMMV.

There may be no tax in Alberta, but that doesn't effect you one iota if you're from BC. Even if you buy something PST free in Alberta, if you don't charge yourself 7% PST for BC and send in a form to remit it, you're breaking the law. http://www.rev.gov.bc.ca/ctb/forms/0428PFILL.pdf.

Hope you don't get an audit...

IBM, EA, ATI, AMD (just to name a few) all have huge labs in major cities in Canada. It's completely unsurprising for MS to finally follow suit and open a lab in Canada, where tech / engineering talents are aplenty. It's a bit surprising that they didn't open it near Waterloo, where a huge percentage of MS engineers are from... But Vancouver just makes more sense because of its proximity to Redmond.

ATI have labs in Canada because: DUH, they're were a Canadian company to start with.

However, back on subject, I'm sure that BC gets a big advantage over other provinces as "high technology professionals" are explicity exempted from a number of BC Labour Regulations;

( http://www.labour.gov.bc.ca/esb/facshts/high_tech. htm )

Some of the requirements of the Employment Standards Act which do not apply to 'high technology professionals' include:
* Employees are not to work more than five consecutive hours without a 30-minute meal break.
* Split shifts must be completed within 12 hours.
* Minimum daily pay.
* Employees must have 32 consecutive hours free from work each week.
* Overtime pay.
* Employees are entitled to either a paid holiday or extra pay when they work on a statutory holiday.

it goes on to point out that if you work at a high technology campus there are even more rules that don't apply.

• Employees are not to work more than five consecutive hours without a 30-minute meal break.
• Split shifts must be completed within 12 hours.
• Minimum daily pay.
• Employees must have 32 consecutive hours free from work each week.
• Overtime pay.
• Employees are entitled to either a paid holiday or extra pay when they work on a statutory holiday.

The B.C. Residential Tenancy Act allows for three sorts of discrimination: age, when it's a property specifically for older folks. Disability, when it's a property specifically for disabled folks. And just about anything else (particularly gender and sexual orientation) when there are shared kitchens and bathrooms involved.

Little else matters. If you can pay the rent (and come by the money lawfully), they can't turn you down.

...laura

No, both sides are well within the North American plate (the plate boundary is offshore of the west side of Vancouver Island). More significant issues are two fold: 1) there is significant lateral compression happening in that area due to the nearby convergent plate boundary, and plenty of large earthquakes occur in the subducting plate beneath (the ocean crust in the Pacific is sliding under the edges of the continent), and 2) the channel is quite deep in places (over 300m).

There's actually a really good writeup from the British Columbia government.

Your conclusion and reasons for it are mostly correct, however.

Take a look at this document from the government of British Columbia. It is a fairly extensive article discussing the various considerations for building fixed links (tunnels, bridges, etc.) across large bodies of water. In this case it talks specifically about a link between the British Columbia mainland (at Vancouver) and Vancouver Island, but the considerations it mentions are quite valid most places people want to create these kinds of links. A good read considering the OP.

In addition to the possibility of earthquakes, there are other engineering challenges to any fixed link across Georgia Strait. These include:

• length of a crossing could be up to 26 kilometres;
• water depths are up to 365 metres (1,197.5 feet);
• deep, soft sediments of up to 450 metres (1,476.4) on the ocean bed;
• potential marine slope instabilities along the eastern side of the Strait could result in future underwater landslides;
• extreme wave conditions (4to 7 metre waves, with 6 metre tides and 2 knot current);
• wind conditions (115 kilometres per hour on average with gusts to 180 kilometres per hour)
• passage of major ships through the area; and
• the need to protect a crossing structure against ship impact (a floating bridge could not withstand the impact of a tanker vessel).

I think someone who wrote that article did get the wind conditions wrong. I think it is fair to say that they can get wind speeds up to 115 kph or higher during a storm, as we saw this last winter. However, that is not an average wind speed, as I can attest to from trips I have made across the straight myself. :-) Wind speeds are no more different normally than say the English Channel.

For a tunnel, they would need to go down more than 815 metres (2,675 feet) to stay in stable rock (that is when it didn't shake from an earthquake or tremor). There is some speculation that if a major earthquake happened that huge underwater landslides from the sand banks on the south side of Vancouver (around where the south arm of the Frazer River exits into the straight) could cause a tsunami.

I work in IT and have for nigh on 20 years. At this point in time I would not recommend that anyone consider a career in the field.

There are two main reasons: crappy pay and sweatshop conditions. I do not believe there is any other industry in North America where you are expected to have a degree, work in excess of 40 hours a week on a regular basis and do it all as a regular employee making $40K.

Consider the following exerpt from the BC Employment Standards Act.
The following provisions do not apply to high technology professionals:
Part 4 [Hours of Work and Overtime] , other than section 39 of the Act;
Part 5 [Statutory Holidays] of the Act.
( http://www.labour.gov.bc.ca/esb/hightech/regulat.h tm )

Section 39 is a single sentence:
Despite any provision of this Part, an employer must not require or directly or indirectly allow an employee to work excessive hours or hours detrimental to the employee's health or safety

( http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/statreg/stat/E/96113_01.ht m#section39 )

In summary, high tech employers can demand as many hours as they want, do not have to pay overtime, and do not have to pay stats. They are, however, prevented from (knowingly) working their employees to death. Thanks Liberals!

I'll say that I have encountered few potential employers that try to exploit these rules to the fullest (EA does have a very large presence here) but I think the fact that these are what the government considers to be the Standard clearly illustrates the sweatshop nature of the industry.

As for pay. Consider an average high tech worker (Nigel) and an average government employee (Elmer):

Both graduate from high school:
Nigel goes to college (-30K/yr)
Elmer goes to work for the govt (+40K/yr)
For the sake of comparing apples to apples, they are both reasonably frugal and banking 25% of their income (obviously kids or lifestyle will impact this but it is a wash if you assume they can somehow afford to have the same lifestyle)

After 4 years, Nigel graduates.
Now Nigel and Elmer are both 23.
If Elmer has 46K in his RRSP. He's gotten a few raises (COL + seniority) so his income up to about 45K.
Nigel on the other hand is 120K in debt and, if he is lucky, finds a 40K job.

Another 5 years:

Elmer and Nigel meet up for their 29th birthdays

Elmer is sticking with the plan: he now has about 140K for retirement and he's making 50K.
Nigel is also making 50K and he's paid down about 40K of his student debt so he is only 80K in the hole.

Another 9 years:

By age 38, Nigel has paid off his student debt and is making slightly more than Elmer (if he is lucky). Elmer, on the other hand, could retire tomorrow but he might as well max up that government pension. Besides, at this point, Elmer has so much vacation and seniority that he never has to be there when things are busy so why quit?

So why don't more government employees retire at 45? The answer is pretty obvious if you consider the difference between the lifestyle of a student and a 20 year old with a $40K salary and a month vacation.

If I had it to do over, I would go the civil service route for sure. As for Mr. Gates, if he wants to find more IT workers, he should start by looking inside his wallet: I suspect that's where most of those "qualified professionals" are hiding.

I work in IT and have for nigh on 20 years. At this point in time I would not recommend that anyone consider a career in the field.

There are two main reasons: crappy pay and sweatshop conditions. I do not believe there is any other industry in North America where you are expected to have a degree, work in excess of 40 hours a week on a regular basis and do it all as a regular employee making $40K.

Consider the following exerpt from the BC Employment Standards Act.
The following provisions do not apply to high technology professionals:
Part 4 [Hours of Work and Overtime] , other than section 39 of the Act;
Part 5 [Statutory Holidays] of the Act.
( http://www.labour.gov.bc.ca/esb/hightech/regulat.h tm )

Section 39 is a single sentence:
Despite any provision of this Part, an employer must not require or directly or indirectly allow an employee to work excessive hours or hours detrimental to the employee's health or safety

( http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/statreg/stat/E/96113_01.ht m#section39 )

In summary, high tech employers can demand as many hours as they want, do not have to pay overtime, and do not have to pay stats. They are, however, prevented from (knowingly) working their employees to death. Thanks Liberals!

I'll say that I have encountered few potential employers that try to exploit these rules to the fullest (EA does have a very large presence here) but I think the fact that these are what the government considers to be the Standard clearly illustrates the sweatshop nature of the industry.

As for pay. Consider an average high tech worker (Nigel) and an average government employee (Elmer):

Both graduate from high school:
Nigel goes to college (-30K/yr)
Elmer goes to work for the govt (+40K/yr)
For the sake of comparing apples to apples, they are both reasonably frugal and banking 25% of their income (obviously kids or lifestyle will impact this but it is a wash if you assume they can somehow afford to have the same lifestyle)

After 4 years, Nigel graduates.
Now Nigel and Elmer are both 23.
If Elmer has 46K in his RRSP. He's gotten a few raises (COL + seniority) so his income up to about 45K.
Nigel on the other hand is 120K in debt and, if he is lucky, finds a 40K job.

Another 5 years:

Elmer and Nigel meet up for their 29th birthdays

Elmer is sticking with the plan: he now has about 140K for retirement and he's making 50K.
Nigel is also making 50K and he's paid down about 40K of his student debt so he is only 80K in the hole.

Another 9 years:

By age 38, Nigel has paid off his student debt and is making slightly more than Elmer (if he is lucky). Elmer, on the other hand, could retire tomorrow but he might as well max up that government pension. Besides, at this point, Elmer has so much vacation and seniority that he never has to be there when things are busy so why quit?

So why don't more government employees retire at 45? The answer is pretty obvious if you consider the difference between the lifestyle of a student and a 20 year old with a $40K salary and a month vacation.

If I had it to do over, I would go the civil service route for sure. As for Mr. Gates, if he wants to find more IT workers, he should start by looking inside his wallet: I suspect that's where most of those "qualified professionals" are hiding.

Lowest Cost Alternative

Also, consider this from JAMA: "None of the first-line treatment strategies-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, calcium channel blockers (CCBs), -blockers, and angiotensin receptor blockerswas significantly better than low-dose diuretics for any outcome."

The diuretics they refer to cost about a penny per pill. Some of the other treatments cost more than a dollar per pill.

Every time I read a story like this it makes my alch^H^H^H^Hblood stream boil..... Here in Beautiful British Columbia, the provincial government in 2003 changed the labour laws so that "High Technology" companies DO NOT have to pay overtime (to an insane point). This was done so as to appease to the Asian investors (a lot out here !).....the ones whose work ethic is something like "you live with your wife but you marry the company" (an actual quote from someone I tried to get a job from a couple of years ago !!). I'd love to move to "greener" pastures, but there ain't none this time of year....they're all white (snow) !! Fsckin' asshole government.

Because the "Bugaboos" are either a park in British Columbia or a trendy pram.

On the other hand I have used pdf for years, creating maps, fish distribution documents and many other data base documents for the government of B.C. In short the greatest road block to the internet has been microsoft and their useless office app formats! The software that built the map engine for the web site I mentioned came from Alaska and is based upon mapster a unix app, even though the Inet server app is made with an MS app. All the documents are from a 20 year old pdf data base and have tremendous depth. To do all this effectively with MS office would have been down right impossible without PDF and unix. Your statements about the PDF format are very uninformed!