Slashdot Mirror

>Open container laws are a public safety matter. You don't want drivers to be drinking in the car and the same goes for their passengers.

Ummm, why not? As long as the driver doesn't go over the legal limit, explain how it changes anything if they consume alcohol vs. water in their car? If they go over the legal limit, explain how this is going to effect them in a worse way than having stepped in the car at the same level of intoxication without open containers.

>Highway speed limits were originally set at 55 mph as a fuel conservation measure. Later they were raised to 65, but not higher because of public safety concerns.

The vast majority of accidents are not caused by speed. You can look that up. If you don't believe me, the province I live in (which has similar maximum 100 km/h laws) has it on record. The vast majority of collisions are caused by events outside the drivers control ("driving properly). Next up is following too close, third fail to yield, fourth unknown, fifth losing control, sixth other, seventh speed to fast for conditions (not speeding, but going under the limit in bad weather), eighth improper turn, ninth disobeying traffic controls, tenth improper lane changes, eleventh improper passing, twelfth speed too fast.

How are speed limits for safety when speeding is barely a blip on the accident map? Even if you only include fatal accidents, it only shares 4th with fail to yield.

Of course many would say "well, that's because we don't let people speed". Bullshit! I have never been on a road in normal conditions where the majority of people AREN'T speeding. Especially on the highway. Heck, where I live someone was given a SPEEDING ticket (which was later upheld in court, for even further incredulity) on the busiest highway in North America (the 401) for doing the limit because he was slowing down traffic! Seriously! What the hell? I thought he was just trying to make the roads SAFER, right?

>Federal highway funds were linked with both of those issues to gaurantee that States would enact those two laws.

Something that if the founding fathers had thought of they would have made absolutely illegal without a doubt, period.

>Quoting from Ayn Rand doth not automatically make a post insightful. Especially when you follow it up with a poorly supported argument.

I didn't quote from Ayn Rand, I quoted from a government paid traffic study. Can you do better?

Academic courses develop students' knowledge and skills through the study of theory and abstract problems. These courses focus on the essential concepts of a subject and explore related concepts as well. They incorporate practical applications as appropriate.

Applied courses focus on the essential concepts of a subject, and develop students' knowledge and skills through practical applications and concrete examples. Familiar situations are used to illustrate ideas, and students are given more opportunities to experience hands-on applications of the concepts and theories they study.

-- Ontario High School Curriculum

Here in Ontario, Canada the law gets a little snaky when it comes to roadside tests. Technically, it's not legally required to provide a breath sample at the side of the road but if you refuse you get charged with refusal to provide a sample. If you're fussy about it, you can demand to provide blood/urine instead of a breath sample citing inaccuracies of same and you'll be ok.

The initial breath sample, yes, is used to determine if you're fit to drive or not. 'Round here you're taken into custody, your vehicle towed and impounded and you're brought to the station (quickly) to provide another sample if you blow higher than 0.050 which will result in a 12 hour suspension. Somebody other than you has to provide their driving license to get your vehicle out of impound in the meantime, partly because your license remains at the station, stapled to your suspension notice, until you pick it up the next day.

If you blow greater than 0.080, you're taken to the station to blow another sample at which point if the sample is confirmed you're formally charged with DUI.

Now some roadside meters are a little less conclusive indicating instead one of three conditions; green (okay), yellow (warning) or red (intoxicated). These are only designed as quick warning levels and don't stand up in court as evidence, only as reasonable cause to demand a proper sample at the station.

For the record I've given a sample at a RIDE program twice in my life. I've been stopped a couple dozen times, but only twice after drinking. The first time after having a pint of beer with dinner over about a 2 hour period I blew a 0.000. The second time I'd had about three pints and one shot of hard liquor and blew a 0.034. That's about as inebriated as I've ever been behind the wheel and I was considerably below the 12 hour limit.

Oddly enough, and to get back a bit towards the topic, my problem after a night at the bar tends not to be the alcohol in my bloodstream but moreso drowsiness. Usually I'm at the bar after a 9-10 hour shift at work, I spend another 2-4 hours at the bar and by that time I'm just ready for bed. Even if I nurse a single pint all night with wings, fries, etc. I'm still almost bad off enough to require a taxi. The systems proposed, if they work as advertised, are better off than the blow-tests imposed by the Ontario government for repeat DUI offenders. It doesn't matter if your BAL is 0.000 if you're too damn tired to keep your eyes open. A system to tell you to take a 15 minute "power nap" at the roadside would be wonderful.

The one thing about that is the good samiritan act: from http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/Englis h/01g02_e.htm

Protection from liability

2. (1) Despite the rules of common law, a person described in subsection (2) who voluntarily and without reasonable expectation of compensation or reward provides the services described in that subsection is not liable for damages that result from the person's negligence in acting or failing to act while providing the services, unless it is established that the damages were caused by the gross negligence of the person. 2001, c. 2, s. 2 (1).

Persons covered

(2) Subsection (1) applies to,

(a) a health care professional who provides emergency health care services or first aid assistance to a person who is ill, injured or unconscious as a result of an accident or other emergency, if the health care professional does not provide the services or assistance at a hospital or other place having appropriate health care facilities and equipment for that purpose; and

(b) an individual, other than a health care professional described in clause (a), who provides emergency first aid assistance to a person who is ill, injured or unconscious as a result of an accident or other emergency, if the individual provides the assistance at the immediate scene of the accident or emergency. 2001, c. 2, s. 2 (2).

Reimbursement of expenses

(3) Reasonable reimbursement that a person receives for expenses that the person reasonably incurs in providing the services described in subsection (2) shall be deemed not to be compensation or reward for the purpose of subsection (1). 2001, c. 2, s. 2 (3).

Did I even mention I lived in the US because I get that impression from your snide asinine remarks. For the record, and I've mentioned this in many of my other comments so it's not hard to find out, I don't. 100% Canadian, born and bred.

Now on to your comments.

First off, if you did any analysis above the level of Moore you would realize that to compare a 2 week European heat wave in which almost 10 times the number of people died in one particular country than any other neighboring one to a 4 month heat wave that still had far fewer deaths does not help your case. If anything it makes the US look much much better.

As for me being "perverted by your hatred for anything "non-conservative" that you think all those US deaths were also caused by liberals on holiday? ", I wasn't the one who originally put forward that argument, it was the explanation put forward by the French Government, but once again that would have taken you about 15 secs on Google to find so I know it was asking too much.

Secondly, I live in a country with socialized medicine and while Moore does drop by he makes fun of the issues we are facing by showing a scene of him asking people in clinic how long they've been there. Even here (Ottawa) clinic visits can takes as little as 10 minutes but if you want to find an actual family doctor, well good luck since most have been refusing new patients for at least the last 2 years.

And if you need anything that requires something more than a simple walk-in can provide, say an MRI, well, as has been previously mentioned in other comments, it's faster to go to the vet; their wait list is non-existent, whereas for us humans it's significantly more. But to help pass the time away you can visit the Ontario government wait time lookup site and see such fun facts as it only takes 3 months to schedule a breast cancer surgery, of course that's only after the 1-4 month wait time for the MRI to help diagnose the disease (hopefully the first test is good).

I've actually had one of my neighbors have to get both knees replaced because the stress on her one good knee from having to do the work of two while she was waiting for her other knee surgery (she was given a 1 year wait time) was too much. Lucky for her they were willing to schedule them both for the same time so that was nice. My former neighbor's friend wasn't so lucky however, she was diagnosed with cancer and given only a few months to live and to add insult to injury the tests that could have given the doctor a better ability to target her specific cancer couldn't be scheduled until months after the date the doctor told her she would be dead by. But Moore didn't have a camera around to capture her Christmas shopping for her kids and husband in June or making videos for them to play as they were growing up because the earliest the tests that could have possibly given her a chance couldn't be scheduled until January, instead he has the camera follow him into a small clinic in the suburbs to make fun of a very real problem.

And despite your assumptions, I've seen every Michael Moore 'documentary' to date, including Sicko. I'm not basing my views of his movie on knee-jerk reactions but actual first hand knowledge.

For 30 minutes he actually breaks with tradition and puts together a pretty good doc, doing a good job of condemning the many shortfalls of the HMO system, but then he starts to let his bias in and from that point on he returns to his all to familiar extremely one-sided, hide all facts to the contrary style of movie making (his view on the Cuban system is especially telling in this regard). The saddest part is that people like you will see this movie and without doing the slightest bit of outside research accept everything he has to offer as fact. He's a great film maker but like all the other Hollywood fiction, his movies should be taken with a very open mind and a huge grain of salt. U571 is about as historically accurate as a Michael Moore 'documentary'.

Incidentally, I mentioned those articles -- here's my collection. Let's get them out there to help build our industry.

They range in subject matters that assist me, with the majority being security related.

http://www.nbc4.com/money/11588165/detail.html
http://www.nbc4.com/money/11588165/detail.html
http://www.wired.com/news/columns/0,71032-0.html
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pag ename=thestar/Layout/Article_PrintFriendly&c=Artic le&cid=1135552209280&call_pageid=971358637177
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM .20050704.gtkirwanjul4/BNStory/specialScienceandHe alth/
http://www.redorbit.com/news/display/?id=176198
http://www.livescience.com/scienceoffiction/060619 _hyperactive_bob.html
http://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/es/factsheets/ fs_faq.html
http://www.e.govt.nz/policy/open-source/open-sourc e-legal
http://www.computerworld.com/securitytopics/securi ty/privacy/story/0,10801,108101,00.html
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?com mand=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyName=storage&article Id=9004274&taxonomyId=19&intsrc=kc_feat
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=f6f 548f7-9dfd-49f4-9ff8-8ae8f4a2e2fd
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/apr 2006/tc20060417_996365.htm?campaign_id=bier_tca
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_37 /b4000401.htm?chan=tc&campaign_id=bier_tcst0
http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,1 781895,00.html
http://panko.cba.hawaii.edu/ssr/Mypapers/whatknow. htm

My dad was stopped at a stop light, one car six feet in front of him. Idiot driver on a cell phone (no law yet) PLOWED into him from behind at full speed, and yes, was considered at-fault. As a result, however, dad's foot slipped off the brake... ramming him into the back of the NEXT car. Should my dad be considered at fault for ramming into the next car? (He now puts his car in "park", and puts on the parking break, at all red lights.)

That's a bad law. I wouldn't put the car in park though, that could break the transmission.

In Ontario, your father would be judged not at fault, because he was stationary. If he was moving, he would be judged 50% at fault.

I had never really heard of it by this name before.
I have heard it called a "Citizens Jury", or "Citizens Assembly"

but I agree, with you randomly selected people who are well informed make decent decisions.

but One of the major problems with this situation as We In Canada are finding out with
  * http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/
  * http://www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca/
is that the people who "educate" the jury have a a strong impact on the decision, many people think that the BC Assembly's outcome was determined the moment the teachers were chosen (they are pro STV).
The Ontario one is trying to fix some of these problems with more public input, but some special interest parties (http://www.fairvotecanada.org/) seem to be trying to use public input as a way of turning this back into a popularity contest.

any way, my point is its a good model, but not perfect. I think adding regular forms of deliberative, as well as direct democracy, our representative democracy would be a positive move.

http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/userfiles/HTML/nts_1_2747 7_1.html

Twice that it..

"The other driver just pulled out on me! I couldn't stop!" - You could have stopped if you were going slower.

I refute this on the basis of simple physics: If your reaction time is, say, 200 ms, and the car pulls out in front of you with less than 200 ms of distance between you and him, you will hit him no matter what your speed is (unless it is 0, in which case, well, I can attest that sofas make more comfortable seats).

"I didn't see the deer until it was too late!" - You could have stopped if you were going slower.

Some animals run towards cars. I suppose negative speed *is* technically slower, but if that were good reasoning, then doing -100 km/h on city streets would be very safe. Furthermore, again, see my argument on reaction time above.

"The tyre burst! I lost control! There was nothing I could do!" - You could have stopped if you were going slower.

If the car chooses to accelerate in a sideways direction (a possible result from a tire popping), explain to me how you would stop the car any faster than a standard skid. Assuming something is close enough that your skid lasts long enough you hit it, you will hit it. Realize I didn't mention speed. Again, unless your speed is 0 you will hit that thing. Even if it were 1 km/h, you would hit said thing.

"I fell asleep at the wheel! The multiple pileup was the other drivers fault!" - You're a twat. And if the other cars were going slower they could have stopped.

Again, reaction time. However, if you fall asleep at the wheel, it not only may be from no fault of your own (yes, if you have that condition, driving may not be for you, but it could be undiagnosed) but could easily result in you no longer having control of the vehicle no matter what speed it was going originally, even 0, assuming you have a manual out of gear, or an automatic in gear, and the brakes are not applied.

No accidents are caused by stationary cars travelling at zero mph... apart from stopping on level crossings, airport runways etc. And even then, if the plane or train was going slower could it have stopped in time?

It can take several kilometers for a train to stop going at a regular pace. At a slow pace, it can still take severl hundred meters. Again, unless the train does not move, a collision will take place on any blind intersection (and there are plenty of these).

If you expect the entire world to stop moving, literally, I suggest you re-think your priorities, as it is unlikely you will convince anyone that driving at 0 km/h or riding trains at the same speed is at all reasonable.

If you cannot stop in time then YOU'RE GOING TO FAST.

I counter: If you cannot stop in time then your reaction time is too slow. Not that this is something you are in great control of. Unfortunately, presented like that, it doesn't make a sensationalist headline.

Also, if you are in great need of "proof" of this opinion, I would point you to my local area's statistics which show that, in fact, according even to the police investigators themselves (who all too often tout that speed is the most likely cause of accidents, against what their own reporting shows), speed is simply not a factor in the vast majority of accidents. See Table 2.8 on ORSAR.

For your reference I reproduce it below, adjusted to percentages:

Driving Properly - 49%
Following Too Close - 8%
Speed Too Fast - <1%
Speed Too Fast for Conditions - 5%
Speed Too Slow - <1%
Improper Turn - 4%
Disobey Traffic Control - 3%
Fail to Yield Right of Way - 8%
Improper Passing - <1%
Lost Control - 7%
Wrong Way on One Way Road - <1%
Improper Lane Change - 3%
Other* - 6%
Unknown - 6%

Hopefully that data will help you reconsider the unlikely notion that speed actually is generally the cause of accidents. It

1. Keep all communication in the snail mail media. If possible, use verifiable mail.
2. Dispute the charge with the credit card company. If you can't separate the phone bill from the DSL, setup a new account at your parents house under YOUR name, as totally separate service. You may not be able to keep the old phone number.
3. I don't recall what jurisdiction you are in (not sure if you mentioned it), but Canada has small claims courts. Here is the website for Ontario's information regarding small claims courts. You file against Telus for the value of the disconnection fee, x2 for your wasted time, and add on any months of interrupted service. You might not get all of that, but then again, you might. Filing in small claims is general simple, and inexpensive; you don't need a lawyer, you can represent yourself. If Telus sends a lawyer, odds are that their lawyer per hour is more expensive than your disconnection fee, and they'll still probably loose. If they don't send a lawyer, you win by default. Also, whatever you want the judge to review, document in pictures. If you want to show that there isn't a contract shown to you, "install" the DSL on a clean system, and take screenshots at every step in the procedure. Small claims judges are pretty reasonable, and you'll tend to win stuff like this. Telus won't be able to show them a signed contract, or a recorded acceptance of contract terms (verbal), so you'll win if you can explain the situation to the judge.

Ultimately, your position is very strong, except that they can hold your phone hostage (since your phone provider is your ISP). I'm not sure if Canada requires companies to provide phone service, so you may want to investigate that; as it is, I believe that Telus can just cancel your phone service no matter what, saying they don't want to do business with you. You'll have to check Telus's franchise agreements (Here I'm bullshitting; I really don't know ANYTHING about Canada's regulatory structure for utilities, and unfortunately I don't have much time to research it).

From the Wikipedia Article: He survived an investigation by the Ontario Securities Commission

Uh, that depends how Wikipedia defines "survived". If it's defined as being reprimanded and fined (with his holding company, for only half a million dollars) for insider trading, then yes, I guess he did "survive" it. This slimebag's questionable trading right before the stock tanked caused Corel (and it's nice WordPerfect Suite) to be hampered for years. To quote the OSC:

Mr Cowpland is before the panel because of an egregious error in making a trade without disclosing knowledge of a material fact. [...] This panel however, is of the view that, had this conduct taken place after the amendments to the Ontario Securities Act in April 2003, [...] the sanctions ordered by this panel may have been much more severe.

[...]

[64] The respondents will pay $500,000 to the Investor Education Fund.

[65] Pursuant to section 127(1) (8) of the Act, Michael Cowpland is hereby prohibited from becoming or acting as a Director of a reporting issuer for two (2) years from the date hereof.

[66] M.C.J.C. Holdings Inc. [Cowpland's holding company which he sold his shares from] and Michael Cowpland are hereby reprimanded.

[67] Pursuant to Section 127(1)(2)(a) and (b) of the Act, M.C.J.C. Holdings Inc. is ordered to pay $75,000 to the Commission in respect of a portion of the Commission's costs with respect to this matter.

Time to insert another {{dubious}} into Wikipedia :(

>Since most electricity is still generated by burning fossil fuels

It's shitty your country is still so backwards, but where I live, the MINORITY of electricity is genera by fossil fuels. The majority of it (and by majority I'm talking greater than 50%) is generated with clean, efficient nuclear energy. And we plan to continue to minimize the use of fossil fuels, perhaps eventually phasing them out entirely in favour of cleaner sources, like nuclear, solar, wind, and hydroelectric generation.

Perhaps you should ask the people running your government to check how we are able to generate such clean electricity and get yourselves into the 21st century. Otherwise, well, you'll just continue to look more and more silly with comments like that.

They capitulate, especially to Canadians.

Think you mean Ontario Hydro - not Toronto Hydro. TH merely bills you.

FAQ here

You're right. I've been away too long (over 20 years)!

I found one of those fun "Which promises did they keep or break" websites and actually one of the promises they did keep was to scrap the Equity in Education Tax Credit (EETC) as it was known. Details here.

One less reason to move back to Ontario. :-(

the cost of producing and purchasing hybrids should be shared by everyone on the planet, not just by purchasers of hybrids.

In Ontario Canada there's a $1000 Retail Sales Tax Credit offered by the provinicial government for purchase of an "alternate fuel vehicle". Check your local government for information and you may find you have similar incentives.

Hey, we take our maple syrup seriously, see Table 2 in Ticketable Offences Under the Farm Products Grades and Sales Act.

Trigonometric Functions
Overall Expectations
By the end of this course, students will:
* solve problems involving the sine law and the cosine law in oblique triangles;
* demonstrate an understanding of the meaning and application of radian measure;
* determine, through investigation, the relationships between the graphs and the equations of sinusoidal functions;
* solve problems involving models of sinusoidal functions drawn from a variety of applications.

Actually, that isn't the law in every jurisdiction. For example, in Ontario it is decided on a town-by-town basis, and only applies to people driving straight through rather than those who are turning. I do, however, agree that it is a good way to drive in general.

From this we have a 16% Canadian Federal tax on the first CA$35,596, and 22% on the rest to $71,190. So, for CA$37,500, that's CA$5695.36 plus 22% of CA$1904 or CA$418.88 for a total of CA$6114.24. Now, lets take into account the non-refundable tax credits. For a single person, that would be 16% of CA$8,012 or CA$1,281.92. If you're married to a non-working spouse, you get an additional 16% of CA$6,083 or CA$973.28 for a total of CA$2,255.20. Thus, the Canadian Federal tax burden for a single person earning CA$37,500 is CA$4,832.32. For a married person, with a non-working spouse, it's CA$3,859.04.

The Ontario tax is computed similarly. From this, we see that the Ontario tax is 6.05% on the first CA$34,009 and 9.15% on CA$34,010 to CA$68,020. For someone earning CA$37,500 that's $2057.54 plus 9.15% of CA$3,491 or CA$319.43 for a total Ontario tax of CA$2376.97. There is no surtax at this level (20% additional tax on the tax over $CA$3,939, and an additional 16% tax on the tax over CA$4957). The Ontario non-refundable tax credits are 6.05% on $CA8,044 for singles, and an additional 6.05% on $CA6,830 for a credit of CA$522.86 for singles and CA$936.08 for marrieds supporting a non-working spouse. So the Ontario tax for a single earning CA$37,500 is CA$1,854.11, and for a married supporting a non-working spouse is CA$1,440.89.

Now, Ontario has a health insurance premium. For someone earning CA$37,500, it's CA$390.

There is a Federal Canada Pension Plan, requiring contributions of 4.7% of income to CA$37,400, with the first CA$3,500 exempted. So 4.7% of CA$33,900 is CA$1593.30.

There is a Federal Employment Insurance premium requiring 1.95% of income to a maximum of premium of CA$760.50 Someone earning CA$37,500 would pay EI of CA$731.25.

So, total Federal tax, Ontario tax, Ontario health premium, Federal Canada Pension Plan, and Federal Employment Insurance for a single total CA$9,400.98. If you're married, supporting a non-working spouse, it's CA$8,014.48.

If you had no other bona-fide deductions and only paid CA$4,000 in Federal and Ontario taxes including CPP, EI, and Ontario HPP, you underpaid by some CA$5,400.

I suspect your CA$4k figure comes from only considering Federal tax.

Whooops, wrong link.

http://www.trd.fin.gov.on.ca/userfiles/page_attach ments/331162_Rsie_f0298.pdf

When I was a student the government used to give me a grant to live off. Didn't Labour change the rules and abolish all that? Where do these people get the money from? A good night out (down south at least) costs at least £40/night, and that's if you just stick to the pub and pints of normal beer. I can't afford that on a regular basis and I have a well paid job. Something's not adding up here - there's obviously money floating around which means things aren't that bad.

Changing the subject, minimum wage of £5/hr sounds pretty goood! It's about £3/hr here in Canada (http://www.gov.on.ca/LAB/english/es/factsheets/fs _wage.html). Of course bar staff do make tips here.

Malc

Sex Offenders are also tracked in Canada. Info about the National Sex Offender Registry Why the Ontario Sex Offender Registry was created

Sex Offenders are dispicable people. In my opinion, they should be castrated.

Percy Schmeiser, a Saskatchwan farmer, was sued by agribusiness Monsanto...when the "roundup-ready" canola was found on Schmeiser's farm - blown there by the wind. Although Schmeiser didn't want the plants, and tried to get rid of the plants, he lost the lawsuit.

Without a renewed license, Iraqi farmers cannot replant each year's seeds, like 97 percent of them currently do. Also, they cannot sell or trade the seeds - because the genetic materials of the crops are patented.

Canada is not a British colony. It was one and uses British common-law as its base. I am not a lawyer and I can't say which year Canada ceased to be a colony 1982, 1931, 1867, 1848-1849. I would assume a combinaton of the middle two. Anyow, you pick. Each of those years marked some sort of devolution of power to Canada to manage its own affairs. Nevertheless common-law is just that, common. Canadian courts do rely on foreign precedents and so do US courts. Use a search engine and enter the search criteria of: use of foreign precedents.

In any event, all federal laws pertaining to libel and this provincial law have been written or amended since 1982, so the issue of UK law applying to Canada is moot.

I am still shocked that an Ontario court would hear this case. If the Post had contracted banner ads to direct people with IPs known to be in Canada to their site and that article, then I could see how the plaintiff has could have standing in an Ontario court, but the action was performed in DC, for the DC/MA/North VA market, maybe the US market. I dunno, what are the US newspapers of record? Regardless, the libel occurred in the US. I agree with the mob; the case should be tried there.

Whatever stuff you and Ann Coulter are smoking... you should really share.

Your "points", where not incomplete are completly incorrect.

Read the application forms carefully: you have to agree to live in Ontario permanently.

Do you mean this form?

Um, no shit you have to live in Ontario permanently. As opposed to say, living in Quebec and renting an apartment in Ottawa for the weekend, then claiming both OHIP and Quebec Health Benefits? That form seems simple enough to me if you keep your idology in check. Permanent as in primary residence, not forever. There's a huge section of "returning to Ontario". Duh.

Canada does not prevent emigration, but, in many cases it makes it illegal.

In light of your misreading of the simple OHIP form, I think you need to elaborate on this statement.

For example, RRSP HBPs become repayable in full within 60 days of becoming non-resident, or subject to being included in income

You're correct, I would consider this "fair". You can't possibly suggest that it isn't because you feel overtaxed. Again, you fail to support your argument. RRSP have that second "R" in them for a reason. The gov't is trying to get you to save for retirement, not issuing a tax break. How you interpret the plan is not their fault.

there is no joint tax filing as there is in the U.S

I'm not familiar with US tax law, but if your spouse was a stay-at-home type, then he/she would pay no tax at all in Canada, and you could claim the spousal amount. If you put all your savings into both RRSP's and RESP's for your kids, you'd be paying some pretty low taxes I'm sure. If you were smarter and opened of a small business, you could write off your spouse as an employee if she did your books, then write off the car you leased, etc etc.

When you get down to it,US citizens pay less tax than Canadian however you look at it, so it's kind of silly to compare individual structures.

How many hundreds of thousands of dollars do I have to repay to make up for a CA$10k government scholarship I foolishly accepted in the 1980s

I have no idea what the heck you're on about here...Are you suggesting the only benefit you received from the gov't was a scholarship? Are you suggesting you shouldn't repay a student loan?

I'm not sure what you're talking about really.

If the government services were on a par with the taxes paid, it would not be so bad,

I suppose it's a matter of perspective... clearly, certain events in my family's history would have left us broke had we been without publicly provided health care. (Which in the US, a the son of a single mother of 3 we would have, certainly.)

As someone who made use of that helping hand and now sits quite confortably on the other side of the fence I have no problems contributing to our services. Did you factor in lower crime and higher quality of life into your "pragmatic" calculations?

Back in 1992, IBM and the Ontario Govt. prototyped ServiceOntario kiosks to provide DMV services (license plate sticker renewal and dispensation, address changes, vehicle abstracts, fine payments).

Included digital audio and 30fps video. Special hardware was engineered to dispense license plate stickers. Not sure what the kiosks are running today, but in 1992 Windows couldn't cut it. The kiosks (advanced ATMS really) have won awards and have since been deployed into malls around the province.

Read more about government and self-service kiosks here, including US initiatives. If you think about the nature of transactions being performed, such kiosks must be connected to multiple government networks, yet be located in public spaces. Legal, technical and process innovations were required to make this hybrid device possible.

Since there's nothing else either of us can say, I'll just point out that I'm here, so I do what they say.

Yellow light
A yellow -- or amber -- light means the red light is about to appear. You must stop if you can do so safely; otherwise, go with caution.

Yes, Dexter was a bit off-base. Lakeshore and Nanticoke are environmental horrors. Toronto had a smog warning in February this year. The city has a brownish-purple haze over it in the summer from all the traffic. It can be a mess, but I still call it home.

Someone want to explain to me how a camera reduces traffic? Considering they have no dynamic ways to alter traffic patterns, seems like a royal fucking waste of money and something bound to be abused.

Obviously cameras don't reduce the gross flow of traffic, but they might help ensure that the traffic keeps flowing as smoothly as possible - for instance dispatching police, tow trucks, or other emergency crews where necessary. It can also be used for road condition analysis for display on information boards that might lead some to take alternate routes (just as the local media usually monitors them as well to gauge traffic patterns in real time).

http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/traveller/compass /camera/camhome.htm

(Look under information technology professionals)

Yes, I live in Ontario. Yes our laws are seemly less like the slave labour you are describing: Minitry of Labour

Baloney! Can you provide a reference?

Check out the application forms.

Section D clearly has one sign under, among other things, "I confirm that: ()I make and intend to continue making my permanent and principle home in Ontario."

I inquired what "permanent" means in this context, because there is a subsequent "() I will be physically present in Ontario for at least 5 months (153 days) in the 12-month period immediately after this application." I was told, in no uncertain terms, that having any plans to ever possibly leave (as a software engineer, I work all over North America, for extend periods outside Canada), would be construed as non-permanent intent, and fraud on my part, if I signed the form.

I can understand a reasonable waiting period to obtain coverage, and even a reasonable residency requirement. But, I cannot accept a permanent residency requirement, or non-disclosure of the amounts to be repaid if residency is cut short. That smacks of tactics of the former Soviet Union and desparation on the part of the Ontario government.

There is also a section, where one is asked, "How long do you intend to live in Ontario? ()permanently ()temporarily"" reinforcing the requirement for permanent residency to obtain coverage.

You don't pay back your money for services if you leave, in fact, OHIP pays for up to 3 months of your coverage if you move to another province, just like most other provinces do.

OHIP provides for up to three months of coverage (at OHIP rates, rather useless in the U.S.), if you leave the province, yes, but this is intended for temporary leaves.

What's worse is that many employers (and certainly mine, for the year or so I was in Ontario), won't provide ANY benefits unless you subscribe to the government system (This is the law for suplemental health benefits: they must be suplemental and not replacements for covered services -- it is illegal for those eligible for healthcare coverage to pay for it. So-called "private" clinics have been tolerated, but a crack-down on them started recently, citing that they violate the Health Act."

In the end, I signed a version of the form, replacing "permanently" where appropriate, with "not less than 153 days", submitted it, and was granted an OHIP card. I made clear the modification I made, and that I would not make a false declaration. The clerk responded that "that's impossible -- the form is secure" so I did not press the matter. This enabled me to get employment benefits. My wife and son were not so lucky (though only I needed coverage to keep my job): my wife was refused on the grounds that she could not prove she lived with me -- she was asked for a bank account statement listing an Ontario address, but when she provided one issued by her U.S. bank, this was suddenly not acceptable. I was told my son would have to renounce his American citizenship (or I do so in his stead), to obtain coverage. My wife is Canadian by birth, and our son American by birth, and Canadian by blood. It was not worth the legal fees to file suit against the Ontario government.

Despite having OHIP coverage, I never used it, and chose to pay for services rendered to my wife and son in Canada.

We now live in the Seattle, WA area, and have excellent health insurance (my employer pays the US$1160 or so monthly premiums -- this is a non-taxable benefit, and typical in the U.S. (though the coverage is far better than most, with no copays)).

A side effect of the low taxes I pay here, is that I can contribute several hundred dollars a month to various charities that provide care to the destitute. I could never afford to do that in Canada.

Boy, I tell ya, I feel safe now, since Ontario considered allowing Sharia Law for settling some civil disputes between muslims. I have not followed the story closely, so I don't know if it turned out to be anything more than a proposal, but I am sure there will be a conflict between Sharia and the Charter of Rights & Freedoms

That's all it is, a "rule" made up by the motion picture industry. It is NOT a law!

Technically it IS the law in Canada.

You see, each province has a Film Review Board which classifies (or refuses to classify) films according to age brackets. Movie theatres are legally obligated to follow the ratings.

>It has tonnes of cars, tonnes of bad drivers (not as many as the US though, our driving test is a bit more advanced) and lots of accidents.

That's true. A BBC World News reporter took a test in Montana and reported how laughably easy the test was. He passed with flying colours.

Funny, though, that he later took an Ontario, Canada driving test and failed miserably. I'm not certain which test he was given, as there are two separate driving tests in Ontario that need to be passed to have a full license.

Some interesting stats:

7.3 per 100,000 Ontarians die in accidents (2002).
14.93 per 100,000 Americans die in accidents (2002).
5.78 per 100,000 Britons die in accidents (2002).

Compiled by combining info from this and this. I'd just get the per 100,000 population count from the UK website but it's particularly pathetically designed, requiring over 6 links just to get to a single stat that's pointlessly in PDF.

It's just interesting that the increasing the difficulty level of a test not only follows the laws of diminishing returns, but also, apparently, can cause an increase in accidents as the difficulty level increases past a certain point.

There's a huge section of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act called "Rules of the Road" which is seriously under-enforced these days. Traffic flow and safety would improve a whole lot if it was. But you can't do it with a radar gun or a camera, so we probably won't see any improvements there.

Now, if something can be done about bicyclists which pass on the right of right-turning vehicles... I've never really understood what those people are thinking. "Let me ride into this truck's blind spot, he'll somehow just know I'm there and stop again"?

It's called parental leave, it's provincial, in Ontario it's not a year, it is not full paid time off and fathers can take it too.

http://www.gov.on.ca/LAB/english/es/factsheets/fs_ preg.html

Manitoba does. Reasoning behind this is that it was paid for by taxpayers, and there's not reason why we shouldn't have access to it.
Ontario began something called GeoSmart, but it has apparently been cancelled. Municipal projects would receive funding for 50% of a GIS project, and would in turn share their data with other GeoSmart members.
The GeoGratis site has quite a bit of free GIS data.. Especially LandSat imagery. They also have landcover data for all of Ontario... and small scale base data for all of Canada.
I'd like to see more provinces follow MB's lead.

Well, having done a lot of teaching at the university level, I will attest that a typical professor's teaching load is SIGNIFICANTLY less than that of an elementary or high school teacher. Two or three univeristy classes combined take up at MOST 12 contact hours per week. The Ontario university schedule is typically about 13 weeks per term, 26 for the year. An elementary school class meets for at least 5 contact hours per day, with a minimum of 195 school days according to the ministry. That gives 312 hours of contact versus 975 hours.

I also note that locally at least (Peterborough region), there seemed to me many more proffs listed in the paper as earning more that $100,000 than school teachers last year (puplic employees earning above $100,000 are disclosed on a yearly basis in Ontario under some legal requirement).

Anyone entering the teaching profession without a true enjoyment of the work and working conditions is doomed for early burn-out. If it was such a "cushy" job we probably would not have as big of a problem as we have with teacher retention.

Gee, why do they need to buy or license star office when Open office is FREE - yep, they can download it for _FREE_ as in no cash, no mula, nada.

Well golly gee. You've solved everyone's problem. Now if only you had:

1) taken into account the fact that, in the StarOffice license agreement, it specifically says that it's free for educational use

2) taken into account that there would actually be a need for support, documents, CDs, etc. in order to actually outfit (and support/maintain) the ~5000 schools in Ontario

(Surprise, surprise, but not every school's computer is networked, and not every one has their own in-house IT worker. In fact, there's usually only a couple of IT workers per school *board*, with some boards covering regions that are larger than some U.S. states. Deployment for an installation as diverse [geographically, worker-wise, and in terms of computer setups] requires more of a support contract than what simple open source can offer, IMO.)

http://www.oeb.gov.on.ca/html/en/abouttheoeb/stats andmaps.htm

Oops! A space got put into the URL, I don't know how it happened. I Blame Microsoft. =)

You're all slightly right and mostly wrong. The laws in Canada differ from province to province. In Ontario there are over time exemptions for professional and IT workers. That is, salaried employees that fall into these categories are not eligible for overtime pay.

You can find out more information here. There's a chart that lists the professions and their specific exemptions. There's also a helpful FAQ on work hours and overtime eligibility in Ontario here. The specific table information pretaining to most /. readers makes this job category definition:

Information technology professionals who use specialized knowledge and professional judgment to work with information systems based on computers and related technologies.

Professionals Employees who are:
--qualified and practise as architects, lawyers, professional engineers, public accountants, surveyors, veterinarians;
--registered practitioners of chiropody (including podiatry), chiropractic, dentistry, massage therapy, medicine, optometry, pharmacy, physiotherapy or psychology;
--registered drugless practitioners under the Drugless Practitioners' Act (e.g., naturopaths, osteopaths)
--teachers, as defined in the Teaching Profession Act; and
--students training for these professions.
Emergency Leave may not be taken where it would constitute an act of professional misconduct or a dereliction of professional duty.

This law was implemented by the Mike Harris government as a way to help high tech companies in Ontario keep salaries under control but force their employees into insane working hours. The law was inacted thanks to lobbying pressure from the ITAC group (who also lobbied for the nicer 50% capital gains reduction income tax law, so they're not all bad I guess). Their reasoning was that salaries in the IT industry were already very, very high compared to the national average (note, they considered stock options and employee share programs as part of their "salary" calculations) so they should be able to force their employees to work as many hours as their are in the day.

Our current premier, Dalton McGuinty, had promised "sweeping" labour reforms in Ontario. Haven't seen any of that happen yet. Not holding my breath here waiting for it to happen...

You're all slightly right and mostly wrong. The laws in Canada differ from province to province. In Ontario there are over time exemptions for professional and IT workers. That is, salaried employees that fall into these categories are not eligible for overtime pay.

You can find out more information here. There's a chart that lists the professions and their specific exemptions. There's also a helpful FAQ on work hours and overtime eligibility in Ontario here. The specific table information pretaining to most /. readers makes this job category definition:

Information technology professionals who use specialized knowledge and professional judgment to work with information systems based on computers and related technologies.

Professionals Employees who are:
--qualified and practise as architects, lawyers, professional engineers, public accountants, surveyors, veterinarians;
--registered practitioners of chiropody (including podiatry), chiropractic, dentistry, massage therapy, medicine, optometry, pharmacy, physiotherapy or psychology;
--registered drugless practitioners under the Drugless Practitioners' Act (e.g., naturopaths, osteopaths)
--teachers, as defined in the Teaching Profession Act; and
--students training for these professions.
Emergency Leave may not be taken where it would constitute an act of professional misconduct or a dereliction of professional duty.

This law was implemented by the Mike Harris government as a way to help high tech companies in Ontario keep salaries under control but force their employees into insane working hours. The law was inacted thanks to lobbying pressure from the ITAC group (who also lobbied for the nicer 50% capital gains reduction income tax law, so they're not all bad I guess). Their reasoning was that salaries in the IT industry were already very, very high compared to the national average (note, they considered stock options and employee share programs as part of their "salary" calculations) so they should be able to force their employees to work as many hours as their are in the day.

Our current premier, Dalton McGuinty, had promised "sweeping" labour reforms in Ontario. Haven't seen any of that happen yet. Not holding my breath here waiting for it to happen...

According to several US Supreme Court decisions (see U.S. v Guest, Shapiro v Thomson, et. al.), the right to travel freely is enjoyed by all citizens. As the primary purpose of driving is to travel from one point to another, it must therefore be a right. As far as I have been able to determine, there have been no USSC cases that, by abridging the right to drive, relegate it to "priviledge" status.

Does the fact that this took place in a Canadian province which may (haven't verfied this) treat driving as a privilege, do anything to frame this discussion properly?

I'm a resident of an adjacent province where driving is indeed privilege irrespective of any right to free passage. While this decision, which happened in a Quebec Provincial Court, will undoubtably affect rulings in Ontario, it's not going to automatically cascade into the U.S. Court systems.

Stand easy, good and faithful Defender of Freedom[TM]!

According to several US Supreme Court decisions (see U.S. v Guest, Shapiro v Thomson, et. al.), the right to travel freely is enjoyed by all citizens. As the primary purpose of driving is to travel from one point to another, it must therefore be a right. As far as I have been able to determine, there have been no USSC cases that, by abridging the right to drive, relegate it to "priviledge" status.

Does the fact that this took place in a Canadian province which may (haven't verfied this) treat driving as a privilege, do anything to frame this discussion properly?

I'm a resident of an adjacent province where driving is indeed privilege irrespective of any right to free passage. While this decision, which happened in a Quebec Provincial Court, will undoubtably affect rulings in Ontario, it's not going to automatically cascade into the U.S. Court systems.

Stand easy, good and faithful Defender of Freedom[TM]!

IT workers are exempt from section VII - Exemptions re Hours of Work and Eating Periods and section VIII - Exemptions re Overtime Pay of the Employment Standards Act, 2000 - O. Reg. 285/01.

An IT worker is defined "information technology professional" means an employee who is primarily engaged in the investigation, analysis, design, development, implementation, operation or management of information systems based on computer and related technologies through the objective application of specialized knowledge and professional judgment

I concur, although why the Ontario Film Review board? Im not sure having videogame ratings being assigned by the film review board is a good precedent....

...This group probably doesn't have experience with games and dealing with their level of interactivity....

Simply put, they are reviewing the video content and accompanying soundtrack of the game, as they are authorized to do under Ontario's Theatres Act. That's what the film board does. The ESRB rates the game's general content, including gameplay.

You may have noticed that the ESRB rating has not been "overridden" or "sidestepped", it is displayed side-by-side with the Film Board rating. It's just that the Film Board's R-rating has a lot more punch ($25,000 fines for selling vs. a suggestion not to sell), which is probably why Rockstar wants to appeal the rating. I wonder what grounds they will try to use? That the game provides education or instruction?

"I seem to remember that a few years ago there was some artsy type film that involved some females talking to each other about their sex lives. No actualy sex, just talking about it, and the MPAA wanted to rate it NC-17."
Except the group that rated the game wasn't the MPAA, it was The Ontario Film Review Board. ;)