Slashdot Mirror

The way i remember it, the shutdowns were all done in the name of austerity. Couldn't afford mental health and an easy thing to cut out of the budget.

Nope. All started under the statements of patient rights, constitutional and so forth challenges and all the rest. It's probably one of the biggest abuses of the mentally ill. There is some validity about MH facilities being centers for abuse, especially up here in Canada where various provinces operated legal forced sterilization programs. Read the linked information, then go read about what actually happened, these same recommendations in Canada were used in the US including in precedent setting cases. Until '69 or so, the number of facilities to care for people were increasing. By '79 they were shuttering them because of these recommendations and court cases.

To quote:

1971

Walter Williston was asked by the Ministry of Health to undertake a review of the care provided to people with a developmental disability, and prepared a report entitled "Present Arrangements for the Care and Supervision of Mentally Retarded People in Ontario, A Report for the Minister of Health".

Williston reported that the Ontario Hospital School system (i.e. the Ontario-operated institutions for people with a developmental disability):

was isolated from mainstream health, education, social and family services, and
could not adequately establish and administer services that responded to community needs.

He recommended that:

institutions be phased out, and
residential supports be provided in the community and integrated with educational, recreational and commercial facilities.

The report advocated the newly emerging concept of normalization in which people with a developmental disability would have a better life if they were given opportunities to enhance their growth and development, and were enabled to develop relationships with other community members.

1972

Dr. Wolf Wolfensberger, who wrote "The Principle of Normalization in Human Services" (1972), introduced the concept of normalization (i.e. providing ongoing opportunities for growth and development in order to enable an increasingly positive perception of people with a developmental disability) to North America.

Wolfensberger believed that in order for people with a developmental disability to be seen more positively by society, we needed to make sure they had the same kinds of opportunities as other people.

He recommended that people with a developmental disability should:

live in environments typical of the general population
have opportunities for growth and development
be included in ordinary activities with the general population, and
develop relationships with others in their communities.

Wolfensberger suggested that these strategies would enable people with a developmental disability to improve their valued roles within society, and help to improve overall societal attitudes about individuals with disabilities.

1973

The Honourable Robert Welch, the Provincial Secretary for Social Development, published "Community Living for the Mentally Retarded in Ontario: A New Policy Focus".

The report set a new policy focus for the delivery of services based on the concept of community living.

The Welch report made four recommendations to increase community-based supports:

Guardianship and protective services should be developed in the community.
Residential care resources should be reallocated from institutions to the community.
Policies should be developed to in

According to http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/en... Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and Minnesota. Seems that it is toxic to livestock.
Does Milkweed even grow in the west? I don't think I've seen it here in BC.
Strangely, there seemed to be an unusual number of monarchs here in SW BC. Usually just see the odd one, this year they seemed to be everywhere in late spring, never saw so many. I don't know if ours migrate or not.

Carbon Dioxide In Greenhouses Generally, adding CO2 has been considered to be a great benefit to plants. Its odd that this study disagrees with countless others. Just Google: greenhouses add co2

Oh I dunno. There may be an issue with particular nutrients in particular crops in particular climates and soils. Meanwhile, greenhouses increase co2 to 1000 ppm to increase photosynthesis. Trouble is there are so many soft areas where research is not of the highest gold standard, but I am all for science being respected and well funded in general. But that doesn't mean it is all useful, and we have seen the news about how this or that science journal editor has concluded that you just can't believe at face value most of what is published.

Carbon Dioxide In Greenhouses

Um...yes. That's Canada. Not Ontario, this is Ontario.

Here's an example from Ontario, of a 427 days Remember that the ONTARIO average is 217 days, and Toronto is in Ontario. In Toronto, 270-316 days isn't outside the norm.

Numbers are a bit off, but if you're curious about Ontario check the official wait times. Each province has their own website, but living in Ontario I'm just lazy. Major cities would be London(LHSC), Toronto, Brampton, Mississauga, Burlington, Peterborough, Ottawa. Small cities/towns: Windsor, Woodstock, Ingersoll, Smith Falls, Carlton, Kitchener & Waterloo. Pops vary between 9k-250k. Generally in most of Ontario, the percentage of "target met" is between 60-70%, which means if the province says it should only take 30 days for cancer treatment to start, that percentage start then and same with other care.

Ask the washington post, cnn, nbc, or abc news. They've done a bang-up job over the last few years of making fake news all on their own. You might even remember what started it in the current era, it was Dan Rather's "fake but accurate" which offered no proof at all.

Uh no, actually, the current era began with an incident on Dateline. Of course, the fact is, those tanks did result in lots of settled lawsuits so you can be sure it wasn't entirely manufactured.

Then again, concurrent with Dan Rather, we have....real fraud that got hundreds of thousands killed, and you'll never ever bring that up.

But if you want a real conspiracy? Ask yourself why the transmovement is pushing their stuff on pre-teens, and believe that a 3yr old boy or girl "really knows they're a girl or boy." And pushing puberty blockers before they're even old enough to legally engage in sex. Think back if you can, to when you were that young and all the stupid garbage you believed. I can remember wanting to be a train. And you can bet your and my ass, that if your parents were fawning after the transmovement you'd do what they were saying just to make them happy. Why? Because your brain isn't developed enough to understand.

Man, that is a crazy conspiracy Mashiki, and you don't even have a reason to blame the reverse vampires.

Meanwhile, actual reality escapes you.

You know, you wouldn't sound so crazy if you didn't make up such hysterical bullshit, but stuck to facts. Actual provable events.

Not your foaming at the mouth hyperbole.

FYI if you want affordable healthcare, you need it to be at the state level. Not the federal level, even at that I hope you're going to enjoy shortages and healthcare rationing.

Nope, I'm a citizen of the United States, and you may not understand this, but I want healthcare EVERYWHERE in my country, and more to the point, there are some practical considerations that necessitate my ability to cross state lines to get healthcare, as the boundaries of states were not set according to population or economics. A fatal flaw, but what can we do?

Whether it's in Canada, Sweden, France or the UK, we all have rationed healthcare even if it's free.

Everybody everywhere has rationed healthcare. That's because health care resources are not infinite or unlimited.

Letting you buy some healthcare at my expense because you have more money is not a gain.

Oh, and I still have medical insurance here in Canada because that "free healthcare" doesn't cover everything.

That's a choice. Not a necessary element. If you don't like it, write your Prime Minister.

And if you want to see wait times, you can look here. I hope you don't mind waiting 30-50 days for cancer treatment to start, or 150 days for bypass surgery or 11 months to get into a pain management clinic.

And what happe

Ask the washington post, cnn, nbc, or abc news. They've done a bang-up job over the last few years of making fake news all on their own. You might even remember what started it in the current era, it was Dan Rather's "fake but accurate" which offered no proof at all.

But if you want a real conspiracy? Ask yourself why the transmovement is pushing their stuff on pre-teens, and believe that a 3yr old boy or girl "really knows they're a girl or boy." And pushing puberty blockers before they're even old enough to legally engage in sex. Think back if you can, to when you were that young and all the stupid garbage you believed. I can remember wanting to be a train. And you can bet your and my ass, that if your parents were fawning after the transmovement you'd do what they were saying just to make them happy. Why? Because your brain isn't developed enough to understand.

FYI if you want affordable healthcare, you need it to be at the state level. Not the federal level, even at that I hope you're going to enjoy shortages and healthcare rationing. Whether it's in Canada, Sweden, France or the UK, we all have rationed healthcare even if it's free. Oh, and I still have medical insurance here in Canada because that "free healthcare" doesn't cover everything. And if you want to see wait times, you can look here. I hope you don't mind waiting 30-50 days for cancer treatment to start, or 150 days for bypass surgery or 11 months to get into a pain management clinic.

13hrs is standard, 14hrs happens, same with 16hrs. You can do more, if the company pays for it. This is the law here in Ontario. Something to keep in mind, that the distances that are traveled are vastly different between the EU and Canada/US. The busiest truck crossing in north america is detroit/windsor bridge(there's 2 others in the area not counting barge transit for hazardous goods) and another bridge system in Niagara Falls. The busiest highway system in the world is between Detroit, Michigan(Windsor, Ont is right across the bridge) and Hull, Quebec, right through Southwestern Ontario.

A: It doesn't. Because you just called someone who doesn't self-identify as "SJW" SJW.

Who did I call an SJW?

An anonymous poster used the term, and someone else (jareth-0205) said the term was "bullshit" and "only ever used to belittle and contain"

Meanwhile, Canada has Social Justice Tribunals. Not only did the term have a positive connotation until recently, the term was codified into law.

Until gamergate, the term SJW lionized those it was attached to.
Since gamergate, the term SJW demonized those it is attached to.

The term goes back to at least the 1990's:
Baptist minister, the Rev. James Obey Sr's, 1992 obituary in the Houston Chronicle was titled, "Social justice warrior dies."

Its not my fault that you dont know dick about anything.

In a country where you die from illness if you're not rich, Internet should not be your priority.

Canada then huh? Because that does happen here. Happens in the UK too, and in many other countries with socialized medicine because healthcare is rationed and in some cases it's rationed so badly that ambulances are turned away from hospitals because the ER shutdown due to funding shortages. If you want to see the wait times for Ontario, you can click here then search by various areas. Seeing half a year for cancer treatment to start, or 200 days for a double bypass isn't uncommon for example.

Let's be realistic. Obamacare is a complete fucking disaster, and if on a scale of 1-whatthefuck it's somewhere around ohfuckweredoomed. Most states by next year will have zero providers, healthcare plans have gone up over 100%. Friends of mine took the penalty because they can't afford the plans that were their other option. You know the $900/mo with $8k deductibles for a family of 4. Going to be interesting here in Canada too, because it appears that the failure of Obamacare and increase in health costs has driven more Americans over the border to get healthcare here at the cost of taxpayers. This was an "issue" in 1993, it's a serious problem now. Depending on who's numbers you want to look at, it's anywhere between 1/8th to 1/3 of the cost of the entire medical budget in each province.

But here's how you fix "slow internet access." You require the last mile to be nationalized. All ISP's pay into the pot for maintenance, and people can pick whatever provider they want to hook up. While we don't have nationalization of the last mile here in Canada for that, leasing the last mile is a requirement here. Many other countries have this as a requirement as well. I can get Teksavvy in Ontario, and I can get it in Alberta. But if it was like how the US is now, or how it was ~10 years ago in Canada. I'd be stuck with Bell, Rogers, or Bell and Rogers.

Opps..didnt realize i wasnt logged in.. reposting as myself.

Ontario here as well.

Dont forget about the "victim surcharge fine" (so a charge on a charge)...

http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/engli...

I shared an office with a Dutch guy. He came from a town below sea level. Got asked "But what do you do with all the rainwater?" His answer: "Package it tomatoes and sell it to the Germans." Well, the Canadians are already packaging CO2 into tomatos...

Plants, like everything else, evolve for the environment they exist in. Increased CO2 only increases plant yields within a fairly narrow band - the same band that's existed for the past twenty million years or so. Outside that band it harms plants, too little harms them obviously but so does too much - just as living in an excessively high oxygen environment is harmful to animals.

Seriously? And you have evidence for this? I thought not, since there isn't any. Greenhouse owners routinely crank greenhouse CO2 levels up to 1000 ppm or more. Why? Because there is an increase in yield that is worth the investment in apparatus and CO2 tanks. And, since I don't want to argue, I'll just post a public document that indicates best practices:

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/en...

Oh, yes, they DO warn not to crank CO2 above 5000 ppm (0.5% CO2). So you are "right" in a way that is completely, utterly, irrelevant to the conversation, since it has been over a billion years since CO2 levels were up in that ballpark and since CO2 levels are unlikely to ever exceed 600 ppm even if we do "nothing" but utilize the most cost-effective energy technology for the rest of the century as it develops.

There is a lot of actual data on this. Trees are growing faster than they have ever grown. Grass is growing faster than it has ever grown. C3 respiring plants have become more drought tolerant as their stoma (for respiration) are smaller in the 30% increase in CO2 concentration observed over roughly the last century and the world's deserts are greening as a directly observable consequence. On average, plant life on the Earth is growing about 15% faster than it did a century ago, and that makes CO2 directly responsible for feeding roughly 1 billion people every day -- more if you think about the fact that the poorest billion eat a lot less than the wealthiest two billion.

Ice core data indicates that during the minimum associated with the Wisconsin glaciation, CO2 ppm fell to around 180 ppm (as it has in most of the last four or five glacial maxima). With some variation for photosynthesis type (C3, C4, CAM) plants become stunted and die at CO2 concentrations just under this, with 50 ppm being an absolute lower bound where the chemistry can proceed at all. Note well that plants mostly "evolved" to live in CO2 concentrations around 1000 ppm, but they also have evolved to tolerate concentration swings of close to 100% on the SHORT time scales of the glacial cycles of the current ice age. We have no reasonable chance of reaching a CO2 concentration in the atmosphere that would be bad for plants -- it is a simple matter of empirical fact that the increase in CO2 is one of the best things to ever happen to the PLANT part of the ecosystem. Quite frankly, from a plant's point of view the atmosphere has been CO2 starved for several million years if not longer, so starved that CO2 levels periodically drop to the edge of mass extinction for some plant species every glacial cycle.

Sadly, nobody actually uses the billion people kept from starvation and the billions of people whose civilization and livelihood depend on the release of energy derived from burning carbon as compensatory factors when they argue about the "damage" caused by increased CO2 so far -- which is, quite frankly, mostly illusory. In a sane Universe, if we looked at the science and AGREED that increasing CO2 to 400+ ppm would raise sea levels a couple of feet -- eventually, maybe -- we would have STILL deliberately chosen to increase it to 400 ppm at least just to help green the planet and break the cycle of periodic CO2 starvation and make the winters milder and feed a few billion more people on the same land.

At this point it doesn't matter. Solar is already cheaper than coal and is going to get cheaper still with perovskite cells and improved storage. Fusion may at last actually be "just around the corner". In twenty or thirty years, we won't be bu

Go through some of the other professions in your search and almost all of them are exempt for overtime work. that being said your employment agreement takes precedence over the Ontario law, so if in your employment agreement is says 40 hours and then overtime applies then you get overtime after 40 hours..

IT people get more coverage than engineers, who are even exempt from minimum wage public holiday pay and even vacation pay.

https://www.labour.gov.on.ca/e...

have you ever been to labour court? Most of the time the first thing they look at is the employment agreement that was made upon hiring. If people are too stupid to actually read through it before they sign then they really deserve to get shafted. Any employment agreement is a negotiation between you and the employer, if they actually want to hire you then you can use that to your advantage and bargain for things such as an extra weeks vacation or maybe better terms.

Recently i was working for a company where i negotiated pager pay into my contract. It was not required by Ontario law that they provide it but once it is on the employment agreement and both i and a company representative have signed it then it is required by Ontario law that they pay me accordingly as that is the legal agreement that the employer and i have agreed to. The company can not then hold back my pay and claim that they are not required to pay me as such in an Ontario court of law..

TLDR; Negotiate your employment agreement and make sure that you have everything in writing and signed.. If being available in the office 24/7 was a part of the employment agreement then BAE was in the right because the employee stated that he would not adhere to the contractual position he agreed upon.

Ditto.

Then they made IT workers overtime exempt in the province of Ontario, meaning you'd get *nothing*.

So I became a contractor.

IT wasn't the only area. There's a lot of stuff that the current liberal government pushed through as well. An employer can pay a "tax" to the government to make you work more then 40hrs/week, this is quite common in union shops. Then there's the variable change to truckers hours as well. Used to be a mandatory 8hrs top, with 10hrs off. Not so anymore. IT was one of the last areas that got hit with this type of BS. But just remember what the pundits(and news papers like the Toronto Star) keep telling everyone, the progressive conservatives are the ones that hold an anti-worker platform. It was the previous liberals in the 1980's that allowed the importing of 3rd world labor for farming as well, which drove wages through the floor.

That's exactly what IBM did. It even ended pager-pay... since we were always on the clock.

For reference, https://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/es/tools/srt/coverage_government_it.php

Information technology professionals are not entitled to overtime pay.

And my favourite:

Information technology professionals are not covered by the daily and weekly limits on hours of work

From what I could find, these were laws meant to cover fisheries and agriculture, where the seasonal nature of the work meant that the only time you would work on a harvest or catch was when there would be work. It was understood that the nature of the work was feast-or-famine, and it was paid hourly. If they had to pay overtime, they would be paying nothing but overtime. Strangely, the rules also included accounting, some screwball argument that month-end and year end was a busy period and that people could take time in lieu or have downtime between busy periods.

Somehow this slippery slope was extended to IT. As a salaried employee, it meant they could pay you *nothing*.

Thank you Dalton McGuinty.

Canada, although with higher unemployment overall, is trending up. +8.6% in natural & applied sciences and related (category including software developers) http://www.tcu.gov.on.ca/eng/l... See codes http://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imd... Alberta and Quebec are doing better lately. There are wide variations by provinces. http://www.etalentcanada.ca/pr...

This would be a skeptical perspective, there are various other wrong arguments. As it happens it's one of the better wrong arguments available, but still insufficient. Links are likely to be first resource available rather than an authoritative source; the nice thing about empiricism is that it's consistent.

Doubling the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increases global surface temperatures by 1.16 K.

Yes, that's a reasonable figure.

we are not far off the conditions of CO2 starvation for plants where all plant life dies, since they evolved in an atmosphere of 2000 ppmV CO2

Carbon dioxide levels have not been at that level for since, what, the mid-Cretaceous? Tens of millions of years at any rate. For most crops the saturation point will be reached at about 1,000—1,300 ppm under ideal circumstances., higher levels inhibit growth. There are any number of studies which bear these figures out, but as it happens I have also personally experimented with gardening with supplemental CO2, and with my hydroponic setup anything higher than 1500 ppm produced noticeably less healthy plants.

...[plants] rapidly absorb human-emitted CO2..."

If plants were starved for CO2, we would not be seeing the global concentration rising. This also misses a much better argument. In the first decades of the 20th Century, AGW was discredited for a number of reasons, the relevant one being that it was thought that the oceans would be able to absorb and buffer any increase of CO2. There is 50 times the amount of dissolved carbon in the oceans than there is in the atmosphere, and it seemed obvious that anything happening to the atmosphere would necessarily be minor. That turned out not to be the case.

the lifetime is certainly under 10 years and possibly as short as 10 months

This is an extraordinary claim. I would ask you to provide a citation from a reputable journal, but I cannot imagine that a claim so blatantly unphysical would ever be accepted into a reputable journal. However, it's clear that the excess carbon is not being sequestered; however long it stays in the atmosphere is irrelevant to whether it is increasing.

The debate is entirely about what the effect of water vapor (clouds have) on these sensitivities.

Clouds are not water vapor, actually, they're condensed water. Water vapor is the stuff that's not visible. The Earth is actually opaque to IR. Water vapor and CO2 in the laboratory have a very strong feedback effect. Clouds do not cover 100% of the Earth's surface, but water vapor does, so we should intuitively expect that clouds should not have a greater effect than water vapor. Also, since it is undisputed that clouds also contribute to warming, the required negative feedback would need to be that much greater. Given that the positive feedbacks are as you say of alarming magnitude, this negative feedback should be fairly obvious. And yet no skeptic has been able to propose a mechanism. Sufficient evidence has not been presented to overturn the IPCC results.

Meanwhile the skeptics believe the IPCC computer models are wrong

Of course they are, "all models are wrong, some are useful". Modeling that atmosphere in two dimensions or as a column of gases is a very easy way to demonstrate the warming effect. But having an accurate or inaccurate model is irrelevant to whether the observations that it's built on are correct. You need the observat

Which part is that? The part where she moved through the system faster then normal? Or that the Ontario patient wait times for treatment agree with me? Don't worry if you look like an ass, happens to the best of us. Hey then again, when they lopped the cancer out of my hand, I only waited 7 weeks. That was a far cry of the standard 14 weeks at the time in the early 00's.

Your meme is garbage. Let me tell you what would happen.

You've got cancer, you have an appointment with a specialist in 5-7 weeks. Providing of course it's not stage 4 cancer, you're free to choose a variety of treatments at your specialists discretion. Now, if it *is* stage 4, you're easily looking at 5weeks to 15 weeks before seeing a specialist, then up wards of another 15 weeks before they start the targeted radiation therapy to reduce the cancer size so it's not so big and you can have a few months of extra life.

Oh, you're also likely going to be driving 1-4 hours for that treatment if there are no half-way houses available for you to stay at. In worst cases, for some types of cancer you many need to drive 12 hours at your expense and find a place to stay for the duration of the treatment as well. Oh and when you reach the "end of life" care required for that, you're going to spend upwards of a year with your family unless they were smart and put you down for hospice-end-of-life care at one of the specialist centers operated by the VON.

For the personal story bit, my grandmother ended up with stage 4 lung cancer. She had her first doctor examination in august and started treatment in September. Everyone was surprised, doctors, nurses, radiologists, technicians. Because they know that doesn't happen very often, and when it does happen it's because someone *in* the system has bumped you up the queue. In her case that's likely what happened since at one time she had been a head nurse at a hospital. If you really want to see how long it would take for say in Ontario you can search here. Keep in mind that there's usually 3 numbers. One is the provincial target average(breast cancer is around 90 days), then the province-wide average(say 45 days), then the local hospitals average wait times(between the two, or lower).

And even if you could get treatment faster at another hospital? The provincial government can refuse to pay for it because it's in an area you don't live.

Did they place it next to the 401, or did they place the 401 next to the weather station?

They placed it next to the 401. There's a whole network of them specifically for getting road weather information. You can see some results at http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/engli...

A number of provinces in Canada have something similar. The GP is just unaware that there's actually uses for weather stations beyond climate modelling...

That's actually a good capitalistic approach. ... Of course, in my not-so-uninformed opinion, a nuclear industry wouldn't even exist if not for government-sponsored X,Y &Z.

So are you advocating a market based approach or a government sponsored approach? We can combine both, or course. It is the outcome, after all, that counts. Is your adherence to free-market purity such that you could not conscience any government sponsorship in reducing carbon emissions?

Whether or not nuclear energy requires additional government stimulus, it's an important, (some would argue necessary) source alongside other non-carbon energy sources. I do wonder though, if coal, gas and oil were priced entirely eliminated from the equation, how the cost of nuclear would look.

For those looking to proven real-world solutions, the example of Ontario, (Niedersachsen, even if its local requirements might be met by wind, still burns coal) shows that we can eliminate the burning of coal using a mix of today's technology.

A criminal prosectution cannot be initiated by an individual.

Not true in Canada. From "Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General, Private Prosecutions":

However, anyone who has reasonable grounds to believe that a person has committed an offence may lay an information in writing and under oath before a Justice of the Peace.

The court then holds a special hearing, and the court decides whether prosecution will proceed.

The Ontario Attorney General’s website was the first Google hit, but the same applies in every Canadian province and territory for which I have looked.

First, you're the one who chose the paper, not me. And the paper did not say that it wasn't happening - even after every excuse, the gap was still 7%. Are you willing to forgo 7% of your income - for life?

There are multiple sources that show women are paid less overall, as well a paid less for the same work.

While more education is an effective tool for increasing earnings, it is not an effective tool against the gender pay gap. At every level of academic achievement, women’s median earnings are less than men’s earnings, and in some cases, the gender pay gap is larger at higher levels of education. While education helps everyone, black and Hispanic women earn less than their white and Asian peers do, even when they have the same educational credentials.

The pay gap also exists among women without children. AAUW’s Graduating to a Pay Gap found that among full-time workers one year after college graduation — nearly all of whom were childless - women were paid just 82 percent of what their male counterparts were paid.

It starts right out of school.

Yearly vehicle safety inspections are required in Ontario for regular cars

So, I'll flat out say to you: bullshit. Bullshit bullshit bullshit.

As in, you're spewing bullshit. You're spewing so much bullshit it isn't even funny. Are you even aware that what you say is bullshit? You clearly do not own a motor vehicle in Ontario.

There is no such thing as annual safety inspections of private, non-commercial motor vehicles in Ontario.

I have owned a motor vehicle in Ontario for almost 20 years. You periodically have to do an emissions test. When you buy and sell it needs an inspection.

But you do not, and have not for at least the last 20 years, have to do an annual motor vehicle inspection in Ontario.

There are some classes of commercial vehicles which do get inspected annually.

So these Uber guys? They're driving in their own personal vehicles with neither a commercial license, insurance, nor mandatory vehicle inspections.

In other words, Uber as a service is pretty much ignoring the law and claiming that it doesn't apply to them.

Basically, Uber is a bootleg taxi service, and the laws being applied have applied to all commercial car services for a very long time.

This isn't some powerful taxi lobby pulling strings behind the scenes. This is cities deciding that Uber is required to follow the same laws as everybody else.

Uber aren't the victims here. They're the idiots claiming they can decide the law doesn't apply to them and their drivers, and going ahead and doing it anyway.

IT Workers in Ontario aren't entitled to overtime.

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_010285_e.htm#BK17

the list reads like a joke.

This one too: http://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/es/tools/srt/coverage_government_it.php

Information technology professionals are not covered by the daily and weekly limits on hours of work. O. Reg. 285/01, s. 4(3)(b)
Information technology professionals are not covered by the daily rest period rule. O. Reg. 285/01, s. 4(3)(b)
Information technology professionals are not covered by the time off between shifts rule. O. Reg. 285/01, s. 4(3)(b)
Information technology professionals are not covered by the weekly/bi-weekly rest period rule. O. Reg. 285/01, s. 4(3)(b)
Information technology professionals are not entitled to an eating period. O. Reg. 285/01, s. 4(3)(b)
Information technology professionals are not entitled to overtime pay. O. Reg. 285/01, s. 8(l)

I became a contractor. If you don't want to pay me, I don't work. If I don't work, you don't pay me.

IT Workers in Ontario aren't entitled to overtime.

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_010285_e.htm#BK17

the list reads like a joke.

This one too: http://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/es/tools/srt/coverage_government_it.php

Information technology professionals are not covered by the daily and weekly limits on hours of work. O. Reg. 285/01, s. 4(3)(b)
Information technology professionals are not covered by the daily rest period rule. O. Reg. 285/01, s. 4(3)(b)
Information technology professionals are not covered by the time off between shifts rule. O. Reg. 285/01, s. 4(3)(b)
Information technology professionals are not covered by the weekly/bi-weekly rest period rule. O. Reg. 285/01, s. 4(3)(b)
Information technology professionals are not entitled to an eating period. O. Reg. 285/01, s. 4(3)(b)
Information technology professionals are not entitled to overtime pay. O. Reg. 285/01, s. 8(l)

I became a contractor. If you don't want to pay me, I don't work. If I don't work, you don't pay me.

Ironically, this incident was the result of nanny-state interference. The claim was that the boy's parents were abusive, but they don't say much about that other than some "allegations of shaking". So the state takes the kids away and sticks them with some truly evil monsters and apparently didn't do much of a job of checking up on them to see how it was all going.

Children's Aid Societies are NGOs who "receive funding from, and are under the supervision" of the government but their nannying is quite autonomous.

Also, they can operate without order or warrant.
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/ht...

Apprehension without warrant

(7) A child protection worker who believes on reasonable and probable grounds that,

(a) a child is in need of protection; and

(b) there would be a substantial risk to the childâ(TM)s health or safety during the time necessary to bring the matter on for a hearing under subsection 47 (1) or obtain a warrant under subsection (2),

may without a warrant bring the child to a place of safety. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11, s. 40 (7).

All they need is to believe.

One might say that CAS are private organizations who are given a lot of liberty and leeway with their work and in their judgement.
With obviously little control or oversight.
Sounds a bit libertarian to me.

Particularly the part where they take the money from the government but refuse ceding any control to the government even while acknowledging their own faults and that they would not have happened HAD there been more control.
While happily accepting even more money "for training" from the government.
And refusing government investigation into their work on account of it being "expensive".

"Long cat is long" is in the game, I have seen that on the MTO highway signs here in Ontario. Which are used for traffic warnings.

I can't speak to your jurisdiction, but seeing as most traffic laws are identical in North America, I'll use my own. In Ontario, the drivers handbook specifically states that passing on the right is permitted in multi-lane roads. As a side point it also states to change lanes when passing a bike.

If it is generally accepted that a car can pass a bike without changing lanes because there is enough space to do so, then that means that there is also enough space for me to pass on the right without changing lanes. If cars can't pass on the left unless they change lanes, then I can't and don't pass on the right without changing lanes.

Is this technically illegal to pass within the same lane? Sure, but seeing as the status quo allows it, it must not be that big of a deal. Is this unsafe? No. Because as I mentioned, there's clearly enough room to do so. Stop getting worked up about your need to go first through an intersection when you're going to pass the cyclist like 30 seconds later anyways. And if you're really just that upset by seeing other people break traffic laws, look at yourself first. Do you ever pass a bike in the same lane? Do you always come to a COMPLETE STOP at a stop sign ? (I don't mean a rolling stop) Do you ever go above the posted speed LIMIT?

I can't speak to your jurisdiction, but seeing as most traffic laws are identical in North America, I'll use my own. In Ontario, the drivers handbook specifically states that passing on the right is permitted in multi-lane roads. As a side point it also states to change lanes when passing a bike.

If it is generally accepted that a car can pass a bike without changing lanes because there is enough space to do so, then that means that there is also enough space for me to pass on the right without changing lanes. If cars can't pass on the left unless they change lanes, then I can't and don't pass on the right without changing lanes.

Is this technically illegal to pass within the same lane? Sure, but seeing as the status quo allows it, it must not be that big of a deal. Is this unsafe? No. Because as I mentioned, there's clearly enough room to do so. Stop getting worked up about your need to go first through an intersection when you're going to pass the cyclist like 30 seconds later anyways. And if you're really just that upset by seeing other people break traffic laws, look at yourself first. Do you ever pass a bike in the same lane? Do you always come to a COMPLETE STOP at a stop sign ? (I don't mean a rolling stop) Do you ever go above the posted speed LIMIT?

Well, you didn't describe your experiment hardly at all.

Other people have found quite different results, although it could be a matter of the plant you chose (since different plants respond differently to added CO2).

It's worth noting that this action (auto-enroll and bill) is illegal in Canada. Each province/territory has its own consumer protection act that requires explicit opt-in for any new services that are provided to existing customers, in writing. You cannot auto-enroll people and require them to opt-out to not be charged.

Source (for Ontario, at least): http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/ht...

Non-legalese summary provided by the Ministry of Consumer Services of Ontario: http://www.sse.gov.on.ca/mcs/e...

It's worth noting that this action (auto-enroll and bill) is illegal in Canada. Each province/territory has its own consumer protection act that requires explicit opt-in for any new services that are provided to existing customers, in writing. You cannot auto-enroll people and require them to opt-out to not be charged.

Source (for Ontario, at least): http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/ht...

Non-legalese summary provided by the Ministry of Consumer Services of Ontario: http://www.sse.gov.on.ca/mcs/e...

It depends on where you live and what bank you have. Where I live in Ontario, the same rights are afforded to me on my debit card that my credit card has. Including a lock limit on the RFID of no more than $50.

Wrong.

In Ontario, the relevant legislation is the Consumer Protection Act: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_02c30_e.htm and associated regulations: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/source/regs/english/2005/elaws_src_regs_r05017_e.htm

It does cover unauthorized credit card charges, but not debit cards.

I like protections in law, not in bank marketing materials with a lot of fine print and weasel clauses.

Go read the card agreement for your interac purchases, then come back & talk.

It depends on where you live and what bank you have. Where I live in Ontario, the same rights are afforded to me on my debit card that my credit card has. Including a lock limit on the RFID of no more than $50.

Wrong.

In Ontario, the relevant legislation is the Consumer Protection Act: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_02c30_e.htm and associated regulations: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/source/regs/english/2005/elaws_src_regs_r05017_e.htm

It does cover unauthorized credit card charges, but not debit cards.

I like protections in law, not in bank marketing materials with a lot of fine print and weasel clauses.

Go read the card agreement for your interac purchases, then come back & talk.

Now that Obamacare is bringing socialism to US healthcare, Mashiki knows from miserable experience the poor quality and excessive expense that his southern neighbors can expect in the years to come.

You bet. Enjoy that "upto 84 and more days" for cancer surgery k? How about 196 days to get an MRI done for neck surgery. A 3.5hr wait for "critical care" emergency room visit.

Versus the infinite wait in the US if your insurer doesn't want to pay?

Now that Obamacare is bringing socialism to US healthcare, Mashiki knows from miserable experience the poor quality and excessive expense that his southern neighbors can expect in the years to come.

You bet. Enjoy that "upto 84 and more days" for cancer surgery k? How about 196 days to get an MRI done for neck surgery. A 3.5hr wait for "critical care" emergency room visit.

1) If privatization is so great, why does no one anywhere think Defense should be privatized. Should we have thousands of competing mercenary militias?

I'm not anti-goverment. Defense should be one of the only things that government does. Government's role should be to protect us from each other and from foreign invaders but not from ourselves. However, here are some good arguments that show that armies couldn't exist without government. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edtWe759KIw

2) I get that competition has its good side (as well as its bad side), but who really believes that capitalism unchecked would end up with any competition?

The government is a powerful weapon in a large corporation's arsenal. It's an expensive weapon but with a tremendous return on investment. Much too expensive for small business however. A large corporation will lobby for laws that eliminate competition, like patents. Large corporations are the greatest benefactors of such laws and they don't even need to enforce them. They let the government do the dirty work for them. All of this at the expense of tax payers. A free market allows everyone to compete equally without government help. It is extremely difficult for a monopoly to form and keep it's position in a free market without government.

The USPS was centrally run and had no competition and performed superbly for some 200 years.

How do you know? Maybe they were terribly inefficient or perhaps very efficient but no one knows because there was no competition and therefore nothing to compare them to. I doubt they were as efficient as they could be though because without without the incentive, innovation is rare. I would go as far as saying that laziness often ensues without competition.

Planned economies are subject to corruption, and so are capitalist enterprises. In a democracy, at least

Corruption is everywhere regardless of the system that we are in.

Here, checkout the salaries of public 'servants' in Canada.
http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/publications/salarydisclosure/pssd/orgs.php?organization=ministries

The problem with these salaries is that no one really knows what they should be because government employees don't normally compete with other governments and so they just come up with their own arbitrary numbers. Any other business that would attempt such a thing would go bankrupt in short time.

You are right, mostly. Canada actually has "insurance" as well, it's just that the health insurance is done provincially. For example, here is OHIP, which anyone who lives in Ontario will tell you, is our Ontario Health Insurance Plan: OHIP. And, I do pay for this every month as well, but it's indirect. It's through my income tax fees, which is much higher than in the US, and through our 13% HST tax.

Our gov't health insurance also doesn't cover everything. For example optometrist visits and dental is not covered, nor are drugs. Typically these are augmented by company insurance plans. But you are right in that all required surgery/doctor appts/tests (i.e. non-elective), are covered, and there's no deductible. I wish ACA had of gone all the way, for the sake of the US citizens.

Drivers kill humans.

http://www.mcscs.jus.gov.on.ca/stellent/groups/public/@mcscs/@www/@com/documents/webasset/ec161058.pdf

And what kind of argument is that? "Around here everyone is a cannibal. We can figure out how we want to run things among ourselves".

I personally was hit by a car more than once - always hit and run. Is this the kind of people you are?

feel free to hunt away.
Ontario MNR:
"Hunting is an effective way to manage goose populations and prevent conflicts. Regulations, seasons and municipal bylaws must be followed. You may hunt geese in the open season with a valid hunting licence for migratory birds. You can also encourage hunting on your property. "

Wrong! (I hate when I do that)
Should have said taiga My Dad got a rather amusing video of a walk on our B.C. land, there's a very audible whining hum throughout which is actually coming from the thick clouds of mosquitoes. At a rather comical spot, when he's not spoken for just the right period of time where you notice the sound, he points out that they're actually "darkening the sky" above him. -hoboroadie

Almost nobody lives there

Many agree with me.
I believe folks should leave the tundra and such for the birds and their cohort. If you choose to defy nature and live there that's your mistake to make, but don't destroy my planet with your drainage and poisonings.
Probably bringing back the bird population of 200 years ago would not reduce the insect population in Northern Ontario by a noticeable amount (thats why the birds bother to visit in the first place), but I think in places that are actually suitable for humans you can observe the patterns. I believe that I have observed an apparent correlation of the cycles in my location, I could be mistaken. We happen to own a pretty uninhabitable bit of forest in British Columbia, but over the ridge and a half kilometer away it is an entirely different story, airflow matters. I will not be doing anything to upset my local Salamanders or Salmon, It's their home. If we harvest a stem or two of the Thuja plicata straight up by helicopter, I believe we can pay our taxes without killing a significant number of the locals.
Ambitions contained to avoid evil.

Correction: TFA says they can apply for REIMBURSEMENT. I don't know about you, but I don't want to pay $5000 now and then wait several months to get my money back.

As opposed to TFA, the actual law says:

Where registrar investigates (4) If the registrar is of the opinion that an investigation under subsection (1) would impose an undue financial burden on the land owner, the registrar shall undertake the investigation. 2002, c. 33, s. 96 (4).

Nowhere in the law does it say they have to apply for reimbursement. They can challenge the order to hire the archaeologist by stating they don't have the funds to hire him.

You are definitely impaired at .08

This. This is what most people don't understand. People think 0.08 means unimpaired. It doesn't. It is just a compromise.

http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/safety/impaired/fact-sheet.shtml

With a BAC of 0.05, an individual’s vision may already be affected in terms of sensitivity to brightness, the ability to determine colours, and depth and motion perception. The brain’s ability to perform simple motor functions is diminished. This means that a driver’s reaction time will be slower and responses will be less accurate. The result is degraded driving performance and a significant increase in collision risk. The increased collision risk of drivers with a BAC from 0.05 to 0.08 (also known as the "warn range") is well documented:

        Drivers with a BAC above 0.05 but below the legal limit are 7.2 times more likely to be in a fatal collision
        than drivers with a zero BAC. In 2005, 16.7% of drinking drivers killed in Ontario had a BAC less than 0.08.

(emphasis mine)

This is what people need to understand so /. isn't embarrassed by +5 insightful statements like, "but I'm impaired by the kids yelling in the back seat anyway, so what the fuck, I'll have a beer."

kids in the car yelling, passengers talking, sign spinners [...]

You're spouting a common and nonsensical argument: "I'm impaired anyway, so what's wrong with a bit of alcohol?"

The answer is - nothing. Nothing is wrong with being a little impaired by alcohol. This is because the 0.08 and even 0.05 limits do not mean that you are unimpaired. Just the opposite - you are already impaired at 0.05 to the point where you're 7 times more likely to die in a car accident: http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/safety/impaired/fact-sheet.shtml

So your argument that you're maybe twice or three times more likely to die with the kids yelling in the back seat - well, that's better than 0.05 impairment. Not worse or even equivalent!

Do some research before making ridiculous statements, America. People are laughing at you.

P.S.: do you ever stay up an extra 10 minutes at night, to finish reading that book chapter / checking your favorite news site? If you do, do you avoid driving the next day, because you've *knowingly decreased your driving ability* by sleep deprivation?

A common argument, but totally nonsensical. You're assuming 0.08 and even 0.05 means unaffected by alcohol. It doesn't.

http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/safety/impaired/fact-sheet.shtml

With a BAC of 0.05, an individual’s vision may already be affected in terms of sensitivity to brightness, the ability to determine colours, and depth and motion perception. The brain’s ability to perform simple motor functions is diminished. This means that a driver’s reaction time will be slower and responses will be less accurate. The result is degraded driving performance and a significant increase in collision risk. The increased collision risk of drivers with a BAC from 0.05 to 0.08 (also known as the "warn range") is well documented:

        Drivers with a BAC above 0.05 but below the legal limit are 7.2 times more likely to be in a fatal collision than
        drivers with a zero BAC. In 2005, 16.7% of drinking drivers killed in Ontario had a BAC less than 0.08.

So if you're above 0.05, and below 0.08, you're still 7 times more likely to die. So, if you're also 7 times more likely to die by driving the next day after staying up late (completely unsupported as that assertion is anyway) then it's fine, because you're acting within the law, even if they do bring it down to 0.05.

Jesus, do some googling and grow some logic nodes.

Because insight requires a little more thought than "50,000 frenchmen can't be wrong". Try doing an actual risk benefit analysis.

LOL. Try doing an actual fact check.

http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/safety/impaired/fact-sheet.shtml

With a BAC of 0.05, an individual’s vision may already be affected in terms of sensitivity to brightness, the ability to determine colours, and depth and motion perception. The brain’s ability to perform simple motor functions is diminished. This means that a driver’s reaction time will be slower and responses will be less accurate. The result is degraded driving performance and a significant increase in collision risk.

The increased collision risk of drivers with a BAC from 0.05 to 0.08 (also known as the "warn range") is well documented:

        Drivers with a BAC above 0.05 but below the legal limit are 7.2 times more likely to be in a fatal collision than drivers with a zero BAC.
        In 2005, 16.7% of drinking drivers killed in Ontario had a BAC less than 0.08.

7 Times more likely to DIE. How's that for a risk analysis? Just took 10 seconds of googling. Where did your "analysis" come from?