Interesting case. But, I think it's a weak one, and I'd like a better reference than "I guy I knew in PA".
Not that I don't believe you, but I think the reasoning behind the conviction may be subtle (or the judge was an idiot), and I'd therefore like to see the transcript of the trial.
The way I see it is like this: thew cop can't be "inside" the car without probable cause. If he is not "inside" the car, the tape recorder is inadmissible as evidence unless it is in "plain view" from the outside. If it is in "plain view" from the outside (a public place), how can the cop have a reasonable expectation of privacy?
I suppose the cop could argue that he only saw it after he started speaking, and so was not informed that the conversation was being recorded (but the question then becomes, how could he know it was running without being "in" the car and examining it closely?).
Now, AFAIK, PA is a two-party consent state, so the cop has to give consent for an audio recording. I don't know if consent has to be explicit, though: seeing the recorder and continuing to talk, or being informed of it, and continuing to talk generally implies consent.
Like I said, I'd like to see the trial transcript.
While Canadian law permits me to renounce my citizenship so long as I am non-resident in Canada (which I currently am), the laws of the country where I seek naturalized citizenship require that I have current citizenship somewhere. (Though this is odd, because the path to citizenship depends on country of birth and not present citizenship.)
I trust that Canada does not need the several tens of thousands of dollars of income taxes I used to pay every year. I certainly don't need the few hundred dollars of government services it got me.
In cases like that, you declare her as a dependent and get an extra $8k deduction
You do not get an $8k dedudtion.
What you get is a non-refundable tax-credit of $8k at the lowest marginal tax rate (was 17% last time I filed a Canadian tax return).
In the end, it's pretty much didly squat, when one is in a 40% to 45% combined federal and provincial tax bracket.
Seriously, our income tax burden in the U.S. is about 1/3 of what it would be in Canada. Mostly because we (a) file jointly, (b) deduct mortgage interest, (c) claim a $2k child tax credit (straight off tax, not a "deduction") for our two kids.
trespass is not a justification for killing someone
It bloddy well is in the great state of Texas, if one is trespassing after dark and is an adult. A child can also be killed for trespassing if they are armed with a weapon, or damaging property.
How the hell do you know the trespasser isn't up to no good on your property?
Its a sad day when people are too scared to stand up for other people in public places (the hospital might be private property, but its "open to the public" and the rent-a-cop was being an asshat.
Yes, and had the circumstances been different, I would have held my ground. But, it is not always wise to stand one's ground, even on principle, so as to be free to fight another day: there are small battles, and then there are big ones. I have also defended the rights of others with whom I've disagreed, when they were clearly being violated.
Tell me about it. I know exactly how you feel, and I've often wondered if I would have been better off going to the US myself, at least for a while. Certainly the money would have been better (which is one reason why I'm once again looking at the possibility of leaving Québec).
The money can be better if you're in an in-demand profession. However, you will likely have to pay for things you are not used to (like health insurance, typically $200 to $600 a month for family coverage, right off your paycheque), and pay far more for some utilities (electicity and water service can be expensive in places). You will have to do a lot of research, taking into account the different tax structure as well as cost of living. I know of Canadians who came to the U.S. unprepared for the cost of living, after accepting a lowball salary which seamed huge to them. (I've also met Americans who relocated from small town "no where" to a Chicago 'burb and gotten burned the same way).
Unless you live in a major urban area, you will need a car, as bus service is almost non-existent in suburbs (where we live now, about 30 miles from Seattle, WA, is an exception).
In our case, my wife did not work outside the home, so not being able to file our income tax jointly, like one can in the U.S. was causing us to get hammered, income tax wise, in Canada.
I wouldn't even mind the Canadian socialist structure so much, if it actually worked, and provided value for the tax dollars collected. But, alas, it doesn't. That, and the pressure to conform drove me crazy.
Just out of curiosity, do you still go "eh"?
Almost never. Though, I almost failed my WA driving test (with a foreign license I had to take the written, eye, and road test to get a WA drivers' license) because I said "zed" on the eye test. When I first moved to the U.S. (a suburb of Chicago, in 1997) it took a few months before I learned to start saying "convenience store" instead of "depanneur"). Conversely, when I returned to Canada (Ontario) for about a year (2003-2004), I kept asking where the "20 ounce" Cokes were, and got a lot of funny looks.
We recently hosted the 12 member "Wildfire Dance Theater" troupe out of Ontario and sponsored a show at a local hall, while they were in the Seattle area. A couple of the troupe members were curious about American supermarkets so I took them on a tour. They looked in awe at the selection of produce, seafood, meat, canned goods, lawn furniture, interior furniture, electroncis, pharamcy, optician, garden supplies, fishing gear, camping gear, toys, games, etc.. Think Loblaws on steroids. I should have taken them to see a big supermarket in Redmond, two stories high, or better yet, to Walmart where one can purchase rifles.
As for the hospital, there's a big problem with non-canadians getting health care and skipping, so the rule now is "show me the money." We've had people come for a visit, and in a matter of weeks they're into the system for $80,000 - then they leave. Collect? Ho ho ho
I effectively wrote them a blank cheque (proividing my Visa card, which they verified as good), as well as showing both our valid Canadian passports so that we could pay the "Canadians without Health Cards" rate (we got billed the foreigner rate anyway -- our insurer was nice enough to pay it, though I had hoped they'd make a stink -- it was not worth their time over a $200 difference).
But, to ask to be paid to be told what one's treatment was after already paying for said treatment was absurd.
As for the security guard telling you to shut up, you were well within your rights to tell him to go fuck himself. He has NO powers, not even the same powers a meter maid has. He's just a warm body with a blue shirt. Again, unless you're actually disturbing the peace (for example, Balmerizing the chairs) or obstructing people in their work, you're well within your rights.
I believe you are wrong there. The hospital waiting area is considered private property and anyone can be asked to leave. If I didn't care about leaving my wife, I would have ignored the rent-a-cop and continued my "offending" conversation, explaining to my daughter that the rent-a-cop would next try to have us arrested, forcibly removed, or become violent toward me, teaching her a lesson.
Here in Québec...
Ah, I was in Ontario. I did find Ontario horrible compared to Quebec (and I was a Quebec anglo for 36 years before leaving for the U.S.).
I don't know where in the boonies you were (or is this a Toronto thing:-), but the emergency room at the hospitals here have tv, video games for the kids, vending machines, and a cafeteria that people waiting in emergency can access during regular hours. And its been like that for more than a decade.
Valley General Hospital, in Whitby, ON (or perhaps the town just east of Whitby). A bunch of us were pent up in the vestibule in February, ostensibly because of the "SARS" thing, to limit exposure, yet they would (a) let inpatient visitors in via the same entrance, and (b) allow all sorts of people to leave by it.
Anyway, the system's not perfect, but its not as bad as all that. Sorry your experience wasn't the same, but I've always been treated with respect and dignity at any hospital.
I don't doubt that you may like it in Canada, but I sure as heck didn't, and, after trying to make a difference politically, made a point to leave, and none of our family regret it despite the trials, tribulations, and bureacratic headaches involved going through a TN1 NAFTA visa, then H1-B, then green card labor certification, now I140 and I485 to an eventual green card, and *five years after that*, applying for U.S. citizenship.
I went shopping for groceries today, and was given a receipt without having to ask - like always
I usually did too. But, the fact that someone can refuse to provide one (in violation of the Canada Commerce Act), and can have me arrested for requsting one, is enough to sour me on Canada.
Contrast the U.S.:
In just about any state, I can be confident in standing my ground, inviting the arrival of the police, and explaining that the store refuses to receipt my purchase. A witness helps, of course, but I can subpeona the store's own security camera records, if necessary.
I have no such confidence in standing my ground and asserting my legal rights in Canada. I might be arrested still (I'd have to be careful to (a) stand aside and not impeed other customers dealing with the cachier, and (b) not leave the store without proof of payment), but stand a good chance of winning a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the store as well as the police for wrongful arrest.
But, it has never come to this in the U.S. Disputes are settled quickly, and in a friendly, cheerful manner. I once tried to purchase two six packs of beer at the advertized "12 bottles for $x price", there being no 12-packs left. While the cachier tried to charge me double the 6-pack price, I refused, citing the ad not refering to the manner of packaging, and was accomodated by the store manager who noted, "he's right" (and propmtly posted errata at the store entrances). I was quite willing to just take the bottles without the packaging if the manager would be pedantic, and he found that "clever, but not necessary, sir!"
Well, you can imagine what the reaction to my being "so difficult" would be in Canada. Hey, I didn't screw up the ad, so don't shove any "you should know..." crap on me.
A friend in Ontario was actually arrested for creating a disturbance in a Pizza joint when, upon receiving his pizza with mushrooms, having (a) insisted there be no mushrooms, (b) receiving a receipt that indicated no muushrooms, he tried to either have a new pizza made (he was allergic and mere removal would not suffice) or have his money refunded.
The issue isn't that these events might be rare. The issue is that one can't fight them in Canada. Contrast the U.S., where, aremed with a good case, one can lawyer someone to ruin. While this might be abused, I prefer the "American way" to the Canadian.
I'm renewing my license plates tomorrow - last time I was there was a month ago
What do you mean, "...I was there..."? What kind of backward organization can't renew license plates online? Another thing I hate about Canada. I can understand a personal appearance for an initial issue of plates for an out of province car (though importing cars from one province to another is problematic), but for a renewal?
At the restaurant, they print out the bill automatically - you've got your receipt before you even pay.
An invoice is not a receipt. In fact, in Quebec, one asks for "la facture" (the invoice) in order to pay in a restaurant.
I find it hard to believe that your experience (#4) is more than a one-time occurance
It's not the rarity of the event. It's the fact that, in Canada, I have no effective recourse against the abuse. I can't hire a lawyer on a contingency basis, if I have a good case.
Look at that Toronto business man who shot three armed would-be robbers, one of whom died by bleeding to death in an ally, and was convicted of murder! That's an extreme case of the typical: if someone starts to hit you, and you strike back, you are equally guilty of assault and battery! Absurd.
Like I said, I want no part of such insanity. I don't doubt that some might like it that way, but I sure as heck don't. If someone hits me with an obvious and and clear intent to do me harm, I should be free to kill them, the justification being that I have a right to not be hit. The typical Canadian will find that view appaling, prefering instead to argue, "well
Also, they can stay in the system and still do work that isn't covered by medicare, and bill for it, and plenty of them do.
That's rather useless when you need an in-service procedure.
Additionally, a lot of them are taking patients from the US, who can't afford American rates.
Funny. I see plenty of Canadians coming to the U.S. for treatment they can't get in a timely fashion in Canada.
As for American rates, they are dirt cheap when compared to the taxes one has to pay in Canada for service that is not forthcoming. Then again, I'm looking at things from the perspective of a homeowner with a stay-at-home spouse. In the U.S. I can (a) file my taxes jointly with my wife, and (b) deduct my mortgage interest. This means that my income tax burden is about 1/3 what it would be in Canada. Plenty to pay for gold-plated health insurance if my employer didn't already provide it (which has no lifetime cap in our case). That insurance costs about US$14,000 a year for the family. I paid more than the equivalent in extra tax for similar work in Canada that paid about 20% less.
The practical upshot of all this is that my standard of living is much higher than it would be in Canada, and when my son needed a tonsillectomy, he got it within three days.
So you'd rather go to a system where the #1 cause of personal bankruptcies is medical bills? And where most of those who do file for bankruptcy (74%) HAD insurance?
Sure. I'd rather be bankrupt than dead. But you're relying on a misleading statistic. Very few actually go bankrupt for any reason -- and it's gotten harder to file personal bankruptcy in recent years. Medical bills are one of the few available reasons left. So, that statistic isn't unusual.
Here's what else I find better in the U.S.:
1. My kid is not berrated by her teacher for bringing a former Texas elementary school yearbook in for "show and tell" because "it was showing off that she lived outside Canada."
2. If my kid is assaulted at school, the perp is arrested instead of my kid being told to "fit in".
3. When I seek to hire a kid to mow my lawn, I am not derided by my neighbors are "bourgois" for spending money on such an "extravagance".
4. I get receipts in stores instead of having to ask for them and getting threats of being arrested for doing so -- the asking being a "public nuisance". (Of course, leaving without a receipt runs the risk of being charged with shoplifting).
5. I get the healthcare I need, when I need it. Last year I was sent from a doctor's office straight to a hospital for surgery for cellulitis of the elbow the next day. A relative in Canada sent me a medical handout about "dealing with the pain of cellulitis" upon hearing of my plight. She was stunned that I was out of the hospital after my surgery (and feeling much better) before her mail arrived.
6... I could go on, but you get the idea.
and you find OUR system "evil and disgusting"?
A system which prevents people from spending their own money to save their own lives on their own schedule is, IMHO, evil and disgusting, yes.
I was once in a doughnut shop in Markham, ON, complaining a bit louder than I perhaps should to my friend about the state of welfare "freeloading". A welfare worker overheard me and interrupted us. I expected her to denounce everything I was saying. Ty my surprise, she agreed with me! She reported that at least 75% of her "clients" were freeloaders who went so far as to consider her "stupid" for actually working for a living!
I want no part of that.
My parents came to Canada with nothing after WWII after agreeing to work in designated areas (my father a farm hand, my mother a maid). There was no
Oh, I'm not Canadian (but I won't say "luckily" because I am American, and we're doing just as badly).
There is a profound difference between Canada and the U.S.A. and one just has to compare the constitutions of the two countries.
The U.S. constitution may be figuratively in tatters at the moment, but Bush too, will pass. At least it's a worthwhile document, unlike the Canadian equivalent, what with a notwithstanding clause, and stuff about the colour of butter in P.E.I.
One can believe in the founding framework of the U.S.A., at least, even if present day practice departs disappointingly from noble principles.
It is sad though, that so many Americans take their liberty for granted: they should kiss the ground they walk upon, IMHO.
if you can find a doctor who has opted out of the system
It was easier to find a doctor outside of the country.
Doctors can't "opt out" of the system, practically speaking, since 95% of their potential patients are "in it" (being taxed so heavily to pay for it and other social services that they'd have insufficient income to pay for private care, and it being illegal to sell health insurance for covered services). Furthermore, though I might be mistaken on this, I was under the impression that doctors couldn't get licensed unless the quota for doctors "in" the system was met. In any case, you know, and I know, that practicing medicine outside the medicare system in Canada is, almost certainly economically impossible: the laws are stacked against it.
I just got sick and tired of the whole Canadian socialist ethos. Political action within the Canadian Libertarian party was about as close to tilting at windmills as one could get, so I figured the best way I could help myself and simultaneously fight the system was simply to leave and not be subject to Canadian tax on my income.
What most Canadians appear to celebrate, I find downright evil and disgusting. It would not be an understatement to say that I hate Canada and typical Canadians for their attitudes. I hear that's a crime over there.
As a patient, you have the right to see a doctor in private practice.
If you are eligible for medicare coverage it is illegal to pay for a covered service.
This was challenged in the Province of Quebec before the Supreme Court of Canada, and found unconstitutional, primarily because of extreme delays in the providing of covered services resulting in protracted suffering and often death.
IIRC, the court stayed it's verdict on notice that Quebec would apply the Notwithstanding Clause to overrule it anyway.
One of the reasonable limits, in many Canadian's view, is the prohibition on trying to act both inside and outside the medicare act.
You don't even have that choice. If you are eligible for coverage, you must obtain care from the state run system. This applies to citizens and landed immigrants. You can't chose to not get a "health card" and "pay your own way". Furthermore, if you are eligible, you can't go "outside". And, if you apply for a "health card", being eligible, you might find onerous restrictions. Ontario, in 2003, for example, required agreeing to live in the province "permanently". I checked: they indeed meant "forever". I could not agree to this as I wanted to escape Canada as soon as possible.
This is wholely unacceptable in this Canadian's view, and is one of several reasons why I have left Canada and am in the process of obtaining citizenship elsewhere, at which time I shall renounce my Canadian citizenship.
There are a lot of services that aren't deemed essential, and as such, aren't covered, so you're free to spend your money however you want. Breast implants, tummy tucks, dentistry, for example.
No, I am not free to spend my money as I want. I can not spend it to get faster medical service, unless I feign not being a Canadian citizen or landed immigrant. My son, of course, being an American, and never having a CCC (Canadian citizenship certificate), was better off, and didn't have to wait for a thing.
It would be one thing to require tax-support national healthcare. However, having paid the taxes to do so, one should be free to spend the rest of one's income as one wishes. Yes, this means a two-tier healthcare system, one that is the norm in almost all socialized countries in the world.
The exceptions, which follow Canada's model, are Cuba, and North Korea.
I'll believe that Canada is changing for the better when the feds and provinces (particularly Quebec) stop using the notwithstanding clause to enact laws that forbid people from spending their own money to save their own lives, such laws determined by the Supreme Court of Canada to be a charter violation.
Yes. Parent "gets it". For someone to distribute under 3c, there has to be someone else distributing under 3b. AFAIK, most distros distribute under 3a.
Furthermore, it is my interpretation (but IANAL), that the 3c distributer had to have received the binaries from the 3b distributer, or any number of 3c intermediaries, in order to extend 3b's offer to 3c's downstreamers. IOW, you can't simply distribute binaries that you got from A, and point to B as a 3b (because, not having gotten the binaries from B, you can't extend B's offer).
As for the "three year time limit" running out, I don't know if that can happen: When someone redistributes under 3c, they have to extend the 3b distributer's offer to the recipient, "resetting the clock" to that new recipient, as it were. It's part of the 3b distributer's requirements that they permit this.
Now, that makes distribution under 3b a real pain, because one's obligation never ends. OTOH, I don't thing a contract can be made in perpetuity (and the agreement to provide sources is a contract, not a license, since it covers a future obligation, and not a present permission), so it might very well be three years after the last distribution by the 3b distributer.
But still, 3b is a real pain. 3a strikes me as much simpler. The problem arises when you want to distribute physical media, and need to go from one disk to two, as with a "disrto and mag" combo. But, 3c wouldn't even apply there since distribution is commercial. That leaves 3a or 3b. 3a is hard, for physical reasons, and 3b is hard for legal reasons.
Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code... [empasis mine]
Corresponding to what? To the binaries. 3b does not compel you to provide source to all comers, only to those who have the corresponding binaries, which only the 3b licensor or 3c "downsetreamers" can provide.
I suppose you could argue that "any third party" is independent of the party that received the binaries, directly, or indirectly via a 3c downstreamer, but I don't think a court would see it that way: 3b and 3c clearly go together.
Furthermore, the "offer" is made by the 3b distributer to the 3c redistributer, not to all parties. IOW, the 3c redistributer can say to the 3b distributer, "give source to him", but an arbitrary third party can't say "give source to me". However, the 3c redistributer can transfer the 3b offer to a downstream 3c redistributer. In fact, he must. Having done that, the offer is now extended to another party, who can say top 3b, "give it to 'him', meaning me."
Look at it another way: if I don't redistribute binaries "to you" or cause them to come "to you", I don't have to give you source, even if you ask for it, just because I gave binaries to someone else.
WTF? Criminal investigations and national security are exactly the things that are supposed to require warrants or subpoenas -- and every other reason to want the info is insufficient to begin with!
Why'd they even bother passing the thing at all, if it's completely meaningless?
Welcome to Soviet Canuckistan. May your chains rest lightly on your shoulders.
First of all, I failed to highlight the GPL excerpt above. It was the first two paragraphs that start with "3. You may copy..."
3b is a pain because you have to offer source to anyone who asks, pursuant to obtaining it under 3c from you or anyone who obtained it under a chain of 3c distributers from you. Usually, people will want to use 3c (and point to a 3b distributer) because they can't afford the bandwidth to offer source. This means that they are trying to punt the cost of source distribution onto someone else who distributes under 3b. Furthermore, they are trying to punt the cost of all downstream 3c distributers.
Clearly, someone distributing under 3b must be prepared for a lot of requests. While they can offset their costs to meet those requests, offers taken up have to be satisfied in a timely manner (otherwise the offer is not in good faith), and it might take significant infrastructure to be able to do this.
Now, the 3b distributor can require that the requestor prove that they have gotten binaries from either them, or any number of downstream 3c distributers from them before providing source. I suppose that the 3b distributer could issue a digitally signed "receipt" to the 3c distributer when providing binaries, and only provide source upon presentation of that receipt (which, if I understand 3b correctly, is their right). That receipt does not have to be transferrable. However, the only way any downstream 3c redistributer can redistribute under 3c is to transfer the 3b offer, and that offer is only good upon presentation of a valid receipt, so additional receipts have to be purchased.
That's a really grey area. Effectively one is constraining redistribution under 3c but only to the extent of additional requirements that have to be met in order to prove a right to the 3b source distributor. I think this is O.K. (but, of course, IANAL): you can still redistribute under 3c without meeting them, since you accompany it with 3b's offer to provide source to anyone who can trace binaries back to 3b my way of 3c redistribors. It's proof of that tracability that you're providing.
The 3 year commitment only applies if you (or the upstream) chose section 3b of the GPL, to accompany your binary distribution with a written offer, valid for 3 years, to provide source for no more than the reasonable cost to you of providing it, on a media commonly used for software interchange.
If you use 3a or 3c, you have no such 3 year commitment.
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
If you distribute under 3c, then you must (a) point to someone who distributes under 3b and (b) have received binaries from that 3b distributer or a 3c distributer "downstream" from the 3b distributer (the 3b offer is transferrable).
So, the three year rule applies w.r.t 3c distribution -- it just applies to someone other than you. You do have to find that someone, however (and, technically, have obtained binaries from them).
My point is that you can't redistribute under 3c and refer to an "upstream" distributer distributing under 3a, because 3a does not (a) require distribution to all who request source, and (b) does not meet the three year rule. You have to be able to point to a 3b distributer.
AFAIK, because the major distros redistribute under 3a, this makes pointing to them as "upstream" distributers under 3c impossible, which is the crux of the issue at hand.
They don't have to; they are re-distributing under section 3c of the GPL
But, that requires (a) said distribution to be non-commercial and (b) someone to distribute under 3(b). Does Debian guarantee availability to all comers for three years?
My point was that the price of a soda is completely unrelated to the cost of providing that soda
Well, not completely, but mostly. That does not mean that the "big gulpers" are not subsidized. But it does mean that the subsidy is trivial.
However, all this is moot, because the mere policing of 'no refills' would cost more than the few cents that is saved in costs
Hmm. That hasn't stopped the government from policing controlled substance abuse. And I've seen places where this is tried (usually some kid is singled out for taking a second refill).
The way you (try to) make an inefficient system effective is to make the penalties disproportionatly harsh when compared to the transgression, and make a few examples out of people. The resulting fear serves as a deterrent. YMMV, of course. And, it would be a stupid business decision.
At a show a debian guy handed me a copy of debian. He did *not* offer me source at that time. Is he in violation? Is debian breaking GPL by distributing their CD at shows without training their people to make offers of the source to everyone they meet?
Depends. Was source already on the CD you were handed? Did he represent an organization that had a standing (b) sourece offer?
Every month a magazine has a distro on the cover. They also ship other GPL apps, compiled. They do *not* normally supply source, just a credit to the original website and author. Are they in violation?
Quite possibly.
If you take it to extremes like you are trying to do it just means it'll kill GPL use.. nobody will be able to get free distros any more.
You can't get free distros without rights to get the source, and you can't give free distros without providing source.
The GPL is not about use. It's about preserving certain freedoms.
Slashdot Mirror
Not that I don't believe you, but I think the reasoning behind the conviction may be subtle (or the judge was an idiot), and I'd therefore like to see the transcript of the trial.
The way I see it is like this: thew cop can't be "inside" the car without probable cause. If he is not "inside" the car, the tape recorder is inadmissible as evidence unless it is in "plain view" from the outside. If it is in "plain view" from the outside (a public place), how can the cop have a reasonable expectation of privacy?
I suppose the cop could argue that he only saw it after he started speaking, and so was not informed that the conversation was being recorded (but the question then becomes, how could he know it was running without being "in" the car and examining it closely?).
Now, AFAIK, PA is a two-party consent state, so the cop has to give consent for an audio recording. I don't know if consent has to be explicit, though: seeing the recorder and continuing to talk, or being informed of it, and continuing to talk generally implies consent.
Like I said, I'd like to see the trial transcript.
While Canadian law permits me to renounce my citizenship so long as I am non-resident in Canada (which I currently am), the laws of the country where I seek naturalized citizenship require that I have current citizenship somewhere. (Though this is odd, because the path to citizenship depends on country of birth and not present citizenship.)
I trust that Canada does not need the several tens of thousands of dollars of income taxes I used to pay every year. I certainly don't need the few hundred dollars of government services it got me.
You do not get an $8k dedudtion.
What you get is a non-refundable tax-credit of $8k at the lowest marginal tax rate (was 17% last time I filed a Canadian tax return).
In the end, it's pretty much didly squat, when one is in a 40% to 45% combined federal and provincial tax bracket.
Seriously, our income tax burden in the U.S. is about 1/3 of what it would be in Canada. Mostly because we (a) file jointly, (b) deduct mortgage interest, (c) claim a $2k child tax credit (straight off tax, not a "deduction") for our two kids.
It bloddy well is in the great state of Texas, if one is trespassing after dark and is an adult. A child can also be killed for trespassing if they are armed with a weapon, or damaging property.
How the hell do you know the trespasser isn't up to no good on your property?
Yes, and had the circumstances been different, I would have held my ground. But, it is not always wise to stand one's ground, even on principle, so as to be free to fight another day: there are small battles, and then there are big ones. I have also defended the rights of others with whom I've disagreed, when they were clearly being violated.
Tell me about it. I know exactly how you feel, and I've often wondered if I would have been better off going to the US myself, at least for a while. Certainly the money would have been better (which is one reason why I'm once again looking at the possibility of leaving Québec).
The money can be better if you're in an in-demand profession. However, you will likely have to pay for things you are not used to (like health insurance, typically $200 to $600 a month for family coverage, right off your paycheque), and pay far more for some utilities (electicity and water service can be expensive in places). You will have to do a lot of research, taking into account the different tax structure as well as cost of living. I know of Canadians who came to the U.S. unprepared for the cost of living, after accepting a lowball salary which seamed huge to them. (I've also met Americans who relocated from small town "no where" to a Chicago 'burb and gotten burned the same way).
Unless you live in a major urban area, you will need a car, as bus service is almost non-existent in suburbs (where we live now, about 30 miles from Seattle, WA, is an exception).
In our case, my wife did not work outside the home, so not being able to file our income tax jointly, like one can in the U.S. was causing us to get hammered, income tax wise, in Canada.
I wouldn't even mind the Canadian socialist structure so much, if it actually worked, and provided value for the tax dollars collected. But, alas, it doesn't. That, and the pressure to conform drove me crazy.
Just out of curiosity, do you still go "eh"?
Almost never. Though, I almost failed my WA driving test (with a foreign license I had to take the written, eye, and road test to get a WA drivers' license) because I said "zed" on the eye test. When I first moved to the U.S. (a suburb of Chicago, in 1997) it took a few months before I learned to start saying "convenience store" instead of "depanneur"). Conversely, when I returned to Canada (Ontario) for about a year (2003-2004), I kept asking where the "20 ounce" Cokes were, and got a lot of funny looks.
We recently hosted the 12 member "Wildfire Dance Theater" troupe out of Ontario and sponsored a show at a local hall, while they were in the Seattle area. A couple of the troupe members were curious about American supermarkets so I took them on a tour. They looked in awe at the selection of produce, seafood, meat, canned goods, lawn furniture, interior furniture, electroncis, pharamcy, optician, garden supplies, fishing gear, camping gear, toys, games, etc.. Think Loblaws on steroids. I should have taken them to see a big supermarket in Redmond, two stories high, or better yet, to Walmart where one can purchase rifles.
Cite, please?
I was thinking of installing video cameras in my cars for just this purpose, ensuring traffic stops are not bogus.
I effectively wrote them a blank cheque (proividing my Visa card, which they verified as good), as well as showing both our valid Canadian passports so that we could pay the "Canadians without Health Cards" rate (we got billed the foreigner rate anyway -- our insurer was nice enough to pay it, though I had hoped they'd make a stink -- it was not worth their time over a $200 difference).
But, to ask to be paid to be told what one's treatment was after already paying for said treatment was absurd.
As for the security guard telling you to shut up, you were well within your rights to tell him to go fuck himself. He has NO powers, not even the same powers a meter maid has. He's just a warm body with a blue shirt. Again, unless you're actually disturbing the peace (for example, Balmerizing the chairs) or obstructing people in their work, you're well within your rights.
I believe you are wrong there. The hospital waiting area is considered private property and anyone can be asked to leave. If I didn't care about leaving my wife, I would have ignored the rent-a-cop and continued my "offending" conversation, explaining to my daughter that the rent-a-cop would next try to have us arrested, forcibly removed, or become violent toward me, teaching her a lesson.
Here in Québec...
Ah, I was in Ontario. I did find Ontario horrible compared to Quebec (and I was a Quebec anglo for 36 years before leaving for the U.S.).
I don't know where in the boonies you were (or is this a Toronto thing :-), but the emergency room at the hospitals here have tv, video games for the kids, vending machines, and a cafeteria that people waiting in emergency can access during regular hours. And its been like that for more than a decade.
Valley General Hospital, in Whitby, ON (or perhaps the town just east of Whitby). A bunch of us were pent up in the vestibule in February, ostensibly because of the "SARS" thing, to limit exposure, yet they would (a) let inpatient visitors in via the same entrance, and (b) allow all sorts of people to leave by it.
Anyway, the system's not perfect, but its not as bad as all that. Sorry your experience wasn't the same, but I've always been treated with respect and dignity at any hospital.
I don't doubt that you may like it in Canada, but I sure as heck didn't, and, after trying to make a difference politically, made a point to leave, and none of our family regret it despite the trials, tribulations, and bureacratic headaches involved going through a TN1 NAFTA visa, then H1-B, then green card labor certification, now I140 and I485 to an eventual green card, and *five years after that*, applying for U.S. citizenship.
No, I got the joke, but the self-ritousness of it was spoiled by the factual error in what was not clearly satirical.
You fuckwad!
Even the likes of an ignorant foreigner like me knows that the President does not declare war. Congress does.
Presidents may, of course, enact "police actions" and issue executive orders.
Geez, if you're gonna dis dem commies^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hdemocrats, at least get your facts straight.
I usually did too. But, the fact that someone can refuse to provide one (in violation of the Canada Commerce Act), and can have me arrested for requsting one, is enough to sour me on Canada.
Contrast the U.S.:
In just about any state, I can be confident in standing my ground, inviting the arrival of the police, and explaining that the store refuses to receipt my purchase. A witness helps, of course, but I can subpeona the store's own security camera records, if necessary.
I have no such confidence in standing my ground and asserting my legal rights in Canada. I might be arrested still (I'd have to be careful to (a) stand aside and not impeed other customers dealing with the cachier, and (b) not leave the store without proof of payment), but stand a good chance of winning a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the store as well as the police for wrongful arrest.
But, it has never come to this in the U.S. Disputes are settled quickly, and in a friendly, cheerful manner. I once tried to purchase two six packs of beer at the advertized "12 bottles for $x price", there being no 12-packs left. While the cachier tried to charge me double the 6-pack price, I refused, citing the ad not refering to the manner of packaging, and was accomodated by the store manager who noted, "he's right" (and propmtly posted errata at the store entrances). I was quite willing to just take the bottles without the packaging if the manager would be pedantic, and he found that "clever, but not necessary, sir!"
Well, you can imagine what the reaction to my being "so difficult" would be in Canada. Hey, I didn't screw up the ad, so don't shove any "you should know..." crap on me.
A friend in Ontario was actually arrested for creating a disturbance in a Pizza joint when, upon receiving his pizza with mushrooms, having (a) insisted there be no mushrooms, (b) receiving a receipt that indicated no muushrooms, he tried to either have a new pizza made (he was allergic and mere removal would not suffice) or have his money refunded.
The issue isn't that these events might be rare. The issue is that one can't fight them in Canada. Contrast the U.S., where, aremed with a good case, one can lawyer someone to ruin. While this might be abused, I prefer the "American way" to the Canadian.
I'm renewing my license plates tomorrow - last time I was there was a month ago
What do you mean, "...I was there..."? What kind of backward organization can't renew license plates online? Another thing I hate about Canada. I can understand a personal appearance for an initial issue of plates for an out of province car (though importing cars from one province to another is problematic), but for a renewal?
At the restaurant, they print out the bill automatically - you've got your receipt before you even pay.
An invoice is not a receipt. In fact, in Quebec, one asks for "la facture" (the invoice) in order to pay in a restaurant.
I find it hard to believe that your experience (#4) is more than a one-time occurance
It's not the rarity of the event. It's the fact that, in Canada, I have no effective recourse against the abuse. I can't hire a lawyer on a contingency basis, if I have a good case.
Look at that Toronto business man who shot three armed would-be robbers, one of whom died by bleeding to death in an ally, and was convicted of murder! That's an extreme case of the typical: if someone starts to hit you, and you strike back, you are equally guilty of assault and battery! Absurd.
Like I said, I want no part of such insanity. I don't doubt that some might like it that way, but I sure as heck don't. If someone hits me with an obvious and and clear intent to do me harm, I should be free to kill them, the justification being that I have a right to not be hit. The typical Canadian will find that view appaling, prefering instead to argue, "well
That's rather useless when you need an in-service procedure.
Additionally, a lot of them are taking patients from the US, who can't afford American rates.
Funny. I see plenty of Canadians coming to the U.S. for treatment they can't get in a timely fashion in Canada.
As for American rates, they are dirt cheap when compared to the taxes one has to pay in Canada for service that is not forthcoming. Then again, I'm looking at things from the perspective of a homeowner with a stay-at-home spouse. In the U.S. I can (a) file my taxes jointly with my wife, and (b) deduct my mortgage interest. This means that my income tax burden is about 1/3 what it would be in Canada. Plenty to pay for gold-plated health insurance if my employer didn't already provide it (which has no lifetime cap in our case). That insurance costs about US$14,000 a year for the family. I paid more than the equivalent in extra tax for similar work in Canada that paid about 20% less.
The practical upshot of all this is that my standard of living is much higher than it would be in Canada, and when my son needed a tonsillectomy, he got it within three days.
So you'd rather go to a system where the #1 cause of personal bankruptcies is medical bills? And where most of those who do file for bankruptcy (74%) HAD insurance?
Sure. I'd rather be bankrupt than dead. But you're relying on a misleading statistic. Very few actually go bankrupt for any reason -- and it's gotten harder to file personal bankruptcy in recent years. Medical bills are one of the few available reasons left. So, that statistic isn't unusual.
Here's what else I find better in the U.S.:
1. My kid is not berrated by her teacher for bringing a former Texas elementary school yearbook in for "show and tell" because "it was showing off that she lived outside Canada."
2. If my kid is assaulted at school, the perp is arrested instead of my kid being told to "fit in".
3. When I seek to hire a kid to mow my lawn, I am not derided by my neighbors are "bourgois" for spending money on such an "extravagance".
4. I get receipts in stores instead of having to ask for them and getting threats of being arrested for doing so -- the asking being a "public nuisance". (Of course, leaving without a receipt runs the risk of being charged with shoplifting).
5. I get the healthcare I need, when I need it. Last year I was sent from a doctor's office straight to a hospital for surgery for cellulitis of the elbow the next day. A relative in Canada sent me a medical handout about "dealing with the pain of cellulitis" upon hearing of my plight. She was stunned that I was out of the hospital after my surgery (and feeling much better) before her mail arrived.
6... I could go on, but you get the idea.
and you find OUR system "evil and disgusting"?
A system which prevents people from spending their own money to save their own lives on their own schedule is, IMHO, evil and disgusting, yes.
I was once in a doughnut shop in Markham, ON, complaining a bit louder than I perhaps should to my friend about the state of welfare "freeloading". A welfare worker overheard me and interrupted us. I expected her to denounce everything I was saying. Ty my surprise, she agreed with me! She reported that at least 75% of her "clients" were freeloaders who went so far as to consider her "stupid" for actually working for a living!
I want no part of that.
My parents came to Canada with nothing after WWII after agreeing to work in designated areas (my father a farm hand, my mother a maid). There was no
There is a profound difference between Canada and the U.S.A. and one just has to compare the constitutions of the two countries.
The U.S. constitution may be figuratively in tatters at the moment, but Bush too, will pass. At least it's a worthwhile document, unlike the Canadian equivalent, what with a notwithstanding clause, and stuff about the colour of butter in P.E.I.
One can believe in the founding framework of the U.S.A., at least, even if present day practice departs disappointingly from noble principles.
It is sad though, that so many Americans take their liberty for granted: they should kiss the ground they walk upon, IMHO.
It was easier to find a doctor outside of the country.
Doctors can't "opt out" of the system, practically speaking, since 95% of their potential patients are "in it" (being taxed so heavily to pay for it and other social services that they'd have insufficient income to pay for private care, and it being illegal to sell health insurance for covered services). Furthermore, though I might be mistaken on this, I was under the impression that doctors couldn't get licensed unless the quota for doctors "in" the system was met. In any case, you know, and I know, that practicing medicine outside the medicare system in Canada is, almost certainly economically impossible: the laws are stacked against it.
I just got sick and tired of the whole Canadian socialist ethos. Political action within the Canadian Libertarian party was about as close to tilting at windmills as one could get, so I figured the best way I could help myself and simultaneously fight the system was simply to leave and not be subject to Canadian tax on my income.
What most Canadians appear to celebrate, I find downright evil and disgusting. It would not be an understatement to say that I hate Canada and typical Canadians for their attitudes. I hear that's a crime over there.
If you are eligible for medicare coverage it is illegal to pay for a covered service.
This was challenged in the Province of Quebec before the Supreme Court of Canada, and found unconstitutional, primarily because of extreme delays in the providing of covered services resulting in protracted suffering and often death.
IIRC, the court stayed it's verdict on notice that Quebec would apply the Notwithstanding Clause to overrule it anyway.
One of the reasonable limits, in many Canadian's view, is the prohibition on trying to act both inside and outside the medicare act.
You don't even have that choice. If you are eligible for coverage, you must obtain care from the state run system. This applies to citizens and landed immigrants. You can't chose to not get a "health card" and "pay your own way". Furthermore, if you are eligible, you can't go "outside". And, if you apply for a "health card", being eligible, you might find onerous restrictions. Ontario, in 2003, for example, required agreeing to live in the province "permanently". I checked: they indeed meant "forever". I could not agree to this as I wanted to escape Canada as soon as possible.
This is wholely unacceptable in this Canadian's view, and is one of several reasons why I have left Canada and am in the process of obtaining citizenship elsewhere, at which time I shall renounce my Canadian citizenship.
There are a lot of services that aren't deemed essential, and as such, aren't covered, so you're free to spend your money however you want. Breast implants, tummy tucks, dentistry, for example.
No, I am not free to spend my money as I want. I can not spend it to get faster medical service, unless I feign not being a Canadian citizen or landed immigrant. My son, of course, being an American, and never having a CCC (Canadian citizenship certificate), was better off, and didn't have to wait for a thing.
It would be one thing to require tax-support national healthcare. However, having paid the taxes to do so, one should be free to spend the rest of one's income as one wishes. Yes, this means a two-tier healthcare system, one that is the norm in almost all socialized countries in the world.
The exceptions, which follow Canada's model, are Cuba, and North Korea.
Damn fine company you commies are in, eh?
I'll believe that Canada is changing for the better when the feds and provinces (particularly Quebec) stop using the notwithstanding clause to enact laws that forbid people from spending their own money to save their own lives, such laws determined by the Supreme Court of Canada to be a charter violation.
Furthermore, it is my interpretation (but IANAL), that the 3c distributer had to have received the binaries from the 3b distributer, or any number of 3c intermediaries, in order to extend 3b's offer to 3c's downstreamers. IOW, you can't simply distribute binaries that you got from A, and point to B as a 3b (because, not having gotten the binaries from B, you can't extend B's offer).
As for the "three year time limit" running out, I don't know if that can happen: When someone redistributes under 3c, they have to extend the 3b distributer's offer to the recipient, "resetting the clock" to that new recipient, as it were. It's part of the 3b distributer's requirements that they permit this.
Now, that makes distribution under 3b a real pain, because one's obligation never ends. OTOH, I don't thing a contract can be made in perpetuity (and the agreement to provide sources is a contract, not a license, since it covers a future obligation, and not a present permission), so it might very well be three years after the last distribution by the 3b distributer.
But still, 3b is a real pain. 3a strikes me as much simpler. The problem arises when you want to distribute physical media, and need to go from one disk to two, as with a "disrto and mag" combo. But, 3c wouldn't even apply there since distribution is commercial. That leaves 3a or 3b. 3a is hard, for physical reasons, and 3b is hard for legal reasons.
Corresponding to what? To the binaries. 3b does not compel you to provide source to all comers, only to those who have the corresponding binaries, which only the 3b licensor or 3c "downsetreamers" can provide.
I suppose you could argue that "any third party" is independent of the party that received the binaries, directly, or indirectly via a 3c downstreamer, but I don't think a court would see it that way: 3b and 3c clearly go together.
Furthermore, the "offer" is made by the 3b distributer to the 3c redistributer, not to all parties. IOW, the 3c redistributer can say to the 3b distributer, "give source to him", but an arbitrary third party can't say "give source to me". However, the 3c redistributer can transfer the 3b offer to a downstream 3c redistributer. In fact, he must. Having done that, the offer is now extended to another party, who can say top 3b, "give it to 'him', meaning me."
Look at it another way: if I don't redistribute binaries "to you" or cause them to come "to you", I don't have to give you source, even if you ask for it, just because I gave binaries to someone else.
Bull. A security certificate will suffice and does not require a judge's approval.
Why'd they even bother passing the thing at all, if it's completely meaningless?
Welcome to Soviet Canuckistan. May your chains rest lightly on your shoulders.
3b is a pain because you have to offer source to anyone who asks, pursuant to obtaining it under 3c from you or anyone who obtained it under a chain of 3c distributers from you. Usually, people will want to use 3c (and point to a 3b distributer) because they can't afford the bandwidth to offer source. This means that they are trying to punt the cost of source distribution onto someone else who distributes under 3b. Furthermore, they are trying to punt the cost of all downstream 3c distributers.
Clearly, someone distributing under 3b must be prepared for a lot of requests. While they can offset their costs to meet those requests, offers taken up have to be satisfied in a timely manner (otherwise the offer is not in good faith), and it might take significant infrastructure to be able to do this.
Now, the 3b distributor can require that the requestor prove that they have gotten binaries from either them, or any number of downstream 3c distributers from them before providing source. I suppose that the 3b distributer could issue a digitally signed "receipt" to the 3c distributer when providing binaries, and only provide source upon presentation of that receipt (which, if I understand 3b correctly, is their right). That receipt does not have to be transferrable. However, the only way any downstream 3c redistributer can redistribute under 3c is to transfer the 3b offer, and that offer is only good upon presentation of a valid receipt, so additional receipts have to be purchased.
That's a really grey area. Effectively one is constraining redistribution under 3c but only to the extent of additional requirements that have to be met in order to prove a right to the 3b source distributor. I think this is O.K. (but, of course, IANAL): you can still redistribute under 3c without meeting them, since you accompany it with 3b's offer to provide source to anyone who can trace binaries back to 3b my way of 3c redistribors. It's proof of that tracability that you're providing.
The 3 year commitment only applies if you (or the upstream) chose section 3b of the GPL, to accompany your binary distribution with a written offer, valid for 3 years, to provide source for no more than the reasonable cost to you of providing it, on a media commonly used for software interchange.
If you use 3a or 3c, you have no such 3 year commitment.
From the GPL:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
If you distribute under 3c, then you must (a) point to someone who distributes under 3b and (b) have received binaries from that 3b distributer or a 3c distributer "downstream" from the 3b distributer (the 3b offer is transferrable).
So, the three year rule applies w.r.t 3c distribution -- it just applies to someone other than you. You do have to find that someone, however (and, technically, have obtained binaries from them).
My point is that you can't redistribute under 3c and refer to an "upstream" distributer distributing under 3a, because 3a does not (a) require distribution to all who request source, and (b) does not meet the three year rule. You have to be able to point to a 3b distributer.
AFAIK, because the major distros redistribute under 3a, this makes pointing to them as "upstream" distributers under 3c impossible, which is the crux of the issue at hand.
But, that requires (a) said distribution to be non-commercial and (b) someone to distribute under 3(b). Does Debian guarantee availability to all comers for three years?
What bullshit? You just made my point. Apparently I was not clear.
Well, not completely, but mostly. That does not mean that the "big gulpers" are not subsidized. But it does mean that the subsidy is trivial.
However, all this is moot, because the mere policing of 'no refills' would cost more than the few cents that is saved in costs
Hmm. That hasn't stopped the government from policing controlled substance abuse. And I've seen places where this is tried (usually some kid is singled out for taking a second refill).
The way you (try to) make an inefficient system effective is to make the penalties disproportionatly harsh when compared to the transgression, and make a few examples out of people. The resulting fear serves as a deterrent. YMMV, of course. And, it would be a stupid business decision.
Depends. Was source already on the CD you were handed? Did he represent an organization that had a standing (b) sourece offer?
Every month a magazine has a distro on the cover. They also ship other GPL apps, compiled. They do *not* normally supply source, just a credit to the original website and author. Are they in violation?
Quite possibly.
If you take it to extremes like you are trying to do it just means it'll kill GPL use.. nobody will be able to get free distros any more.
You can't get free distros without rights to get the source, and you can't give free distros without providing source.
The GPL is not about use. It's about preserving certain freedoms.