I had already noted that I was told I would be charged with (a) assault because someone was offended (verbal assault); (b) inciting to riot because it would be reasonable to assume that my critical factual observations would anger patriotic Canadians; (c) immigration laws because, since I was unable to prove citizenship, I must be a foreigner (no Canadian would dare speak badly of Canadian health care).
...the number of Americans who read the Constitution has been dropping significantly; far fewer even understand it.
This truely saddens me. The best defense against tyrany comes from an understanding of and belief in the supreme law of the land, butresses with the will to uphold it.
You're welcome to debate the merits of private and public health care in Canada. Write a letter to the editor. Hold a peaceful protest somewhere. Talk about it in a bar.
Not unless you're willing to risk arrest, and the expense of a legal Charter-based defence. Last time I checked, that cost about CA$100,000, and it is not permitted for lawyers to accept cases on a contingency basis.
So, even if you won the case, all you'd get would be CA$100k in legal expenses, and your freedom.
In the U.S., you'd be in a much stronger position to counter-charge false arrest, and seek punative damages, thus dminishing the chance you'd be arrested in the first place.
Well, I could be charged under any number of laws: assault (because someone was offended), inciting to riot (because violence might break out).
Yes, this is rediculous, and hard to believe, however, without a First Amendment, or equivalent, Canadians effectively have no individual free speech rights. When the Meech Lake accord failed due to lack of ratification by all ten provinces prior to it's sunset clause expiring (shortly before Quebec's "independence day", Fete St. Jean holiday (June 24, a week before Canada's independence day celebration, July 1)), the province made clear that anyone daring to fly a Canadian flag on Canada Day risked getting arrested for "inciting to riot".
There was a case a few years ago that actually tested the principle that truth was a legal defence against libel (It involved a prison inmate accusing guards of torture). The principle held, but that outcome was not at all certain.
I've seen people go into a shop, order something, pay and get a receipt, and then be given something completely different. Upon complaint, and requesting either (a) the correct product as indicated on their receipt, or (b) their money back, they ended up arrested for "trespassing". Technically, this is correct, as trespassing is a criminal offence, and the police are not there to settle civil disputes (though, I would have responded with a charge of criminal fraud), but horrible, regardless.
True, this happens rarely, but that it happens at all is utterly disgusting. That there is no legal recourse when it does happen speaks volumes.
Americans might understand "how can this be?" if they compare the mantra "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Hapiness" to it's Canadian equivalent: "Peace, Order, and Good Government". the individual Canadian is reduced to a role serving the Borg.
Canada is all about mob rule - democracy unrestricted by any semblence of individual rights. And before you trot out the 1982 patriated constitution, with it's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, look up "notwithstanding clause".
I wonder, in the aftermath of the dot-com and telecom, busts in the U.S., how many Canadians like me, had to return to Canada, some of us (like me) with American children, and how many American children are thus forced to live in this socialist shit-hole. I am seriously considering giving my son up for adoption so he can return to the U.S.
Canadians fall into two camps: rats who pervert democracy via rule of the largest mob, or sheep, who are too tired or scared to fight back. It is the latter, I suspect, who have the reputation of being polite.
Lucky, becuase you have the First Amemdment, and actually strive to defend it. I have returned to Canada after spending 5-1/2 years legally working in the U.S. to see to my horror just how much our speech is abridged: i.e. discussing U.S. vs. Canadian style health care (private vs. socialized) is enough to get you arrested (yes, I was threatened with this simply because someone, in a public place, overheard a peaceful conversation I was having, weighing the pros and cons of each).
Fools, because too many of you don't know, care, or realize, just how important this right is.
Busybox is an all-in-one statically linked set of common Unix text/binary/file utilities. Basically, symlinks to a common single executable determine what program you want. It's a common way to save space in embedded systems without all the copmplexity of dynamic linking (i.e..so shared object files).
One thing to watch: the init command built into stock busybox is not compiled to understand runlevels, so if you need a clean shutdown, you have to rebuild it appropriately (and install the usual Sys-V style/etc/rc.d/... scripts).
I haven't been following XBox development much... is it capable of 720p and 1080i output? Also, does it have H/W accelerated MPEG2-decoding supported under Linux (my guess is "yes" to H/W decoding, but "no" to supported under Linux).
I've always found the XBox clunky in terms of form factor -- I want a thin client to be, well, thin.
Kind of useless for streaming my archived DVDs at 480p to my TV, or for later streaming HD content at 720P or 1080i from the same home server.
Such products frustrate me to no end, because the idea is good, but the execution is poor.
Then again, these limitations might have something to do with tyhe influence of the MPAA w.r.t. playblack resulution via analog outputs (still, that doesn't explain not having component out at at least 480p).
Heh. We may have had a DTV RF video stream generator at work (running W2K Pro) that might have gotten Own3d (gadz, who can people type like that -- it's worse than Canadian postal codes: alpha num alpha num alpha num, e.g. H4B 2K7).
Yes, but you don't need an *absolute* clock for this. I suppose PKS certificate expiry might need this.
However, while the router might not need an acurate absolute clock, it is sure handy to have one for the machines *behind* the router on the home LAN (now, if only all devices with a clock in the house were networked and could sync to *that*...). Bottom line: it's nice to know the time and have a relatively accurate source to periodically synchronize with. Telecommuters who do distributed makes also need this... BADLY.
Now, what I never understood was why my satellite receivers, which get a clock signal from the birds, can't act as a clock reference for the home.
I had gotten permission to sync my Linux boxen at home from a particular NTP server. I have since moved, and have not yet configured a closer server, sepite once again being online 24/7. The poor admin of my time source is probably wondering about the strange IP address requesting time. Gotta fix that.
I mean a real, honest-to- letter, sent via post, stating your beef?
Disclaimer: I work for ATI, though this is strictly a personal observation, and not even specific to ATI. You know the drill: I gotta shutup when it comes to what we do.
I have seen far more crap from the inside of all the companies that I have ever worked for. The consumer sees very little of this, and in a perfect world, none at all.
But, the bottom line is this: just which crap gets cleaned up and what stupid policies are corrected depends on what feedback is received. Griping in slashdot "feedback not" as Yoda might muse.
A lot more goes on "on the inside", some of which you might drool over. Your job as consumer is to push a company into the direction you would like to see it move.
If you think a company has poor quality control, say so. There are probably people inside who agree, and need "ammunition" to change things.
I'm for gun control because I think the idea that you need to own a gun is stupid.
When I can be guaranteed, that no criminal will be able to use an illegal firearm against me, I might be pursuaded to support gun control.
Alas, that Utopia does not exist, and until it does, to leave law-abiding members of society without the most convenient and basic means of self-defence, is an abhorrent crime.
Perhaps, you should replace "stupid", with "sad" in the above sentence... it is sad that we can not all simply surrender firearms that we own to reduce the likelihood of related accidents and deaths.
The freedoms the GPL provides are available only if you accept the terms of the GPL. While IANAL, it appears that SCO does not -- having redistributed code under the GPL, they MUST accept the GPL -- it is the only thing that permits such redistribution (trumping default copyright law which forbids it).
Their attempt to restrict redistribution and use of GPL code translates directly into their inability to do this, and by extention, to charge for it (unless they want to take the position, "Pay us for nothing").
Now, having received GPL code, they may have fair use rights to do with it what they will internally (i.e. use gcc, samba, etc.) but I suspect that this extends to uses on SINGLE machines, with archival backups. Thus, if they use GCC on 100 PCs, they may very well have to demonstrate how they obtained each copy of GCC separately. Good luck.
Somehow, though, I think that argument may be a non-starter: I doubt that SCO, in it's present form can afford 100 PCs, and soon may not be able to affort the power to run them if it does have them.
If 60% of my income wasn't being STOLEN in the form of taxes, I could probably afford to give a lot more to charity. How's that?
BRAVO!
Unfortunately, so many think that paying their "fair share" of taxes means that the collection of taxes is somehow legitimate, and not theft. Arguing against this on principle will prove difficult.
Therefore, to get people to wake up and see the lie, one has to attack the system by exposing it's hypocricy. Then perhaps, the moral bancruptcy can be exposed as well.
I try to stay employed and pay my taxes. Seriously. That's it. I've done the giving back bit
No, you haven't. Taxes are an obligation, not a charitable donation. You owe this money.
While I understand your point, since some portion of taxes are supposedly directed to help the less fortunate, because their payment is required, the principle is effectively, "You owe those who earn less than you simply because you earn more".
That is not charity, that is theft.
Charity comes from a desire to help others when one has the option not to.
I got sick of the waste, people working the system.
I have found that well run charities are far more effective in helping the truely needy, and weeding out freeloaders, than are governments.
Furthermore, with a high tax burden, people can not afford to be as charitable as they otherwise might be: "Fuck you, I paid my taxes!" becomes the sentiment du jure. Whether those tax dollars were, in some part, used effectively to help the destitute does not matter -- you paid them.
If someone stops you on the street, and demands "Gimme your money... those people are poor!" handing over one's wallet might be prudent, but there is no guarantee the "poor" will be better off and a certainty that you are now in less of a position to help them. The proper and moral response is to educate the would-be thief with the business end of a firearm. And so it is with government, and then, perhaps, find those poor, and hand your wallet over to them, if you feel so inclined.
The only thing that government handouts to the poor does is encourage more people to be "poor".
You may, of course, object to this obviously libertarian stance: state force certainly has the potential to better guarantee wealth redistribution, and you might think that this actually happens and should happen. But if the state is truely interested in helping the poor, why is there no government that offers a 100% credit (not deduction) on some portion of taxes "owed" (i.e. that portion above which you paid for the state services you received), if it were given to a registered charity?
IOW, if I earn $75,000, and pay $25,000 in taxes (typical in Canada, for example), and consume $10,000 in state services, I should be free to pay $10,000 tax and donate $15,000 to charity and come out as if I had paid the total in taxes. Of course, this does not happen: the $15,000 is simply deducted from income, and, at a 40% marginal tax rate, my tax burden is reduced by $6,000. Lesse, $15,000-$6,000=$9,000 that I am worse off by helping the poor as much as the state says I should.
This example is a bit contrived, and the numbers are approximations (marginal tax rates on $60k and $75k are likely different), but the principle is sound, and I think the gentle reader "gets it".
In conclusion, "paying your taxes" is about the least efficient way of helping the poor, though it is probably the most convenient way to feel good, while thinking you did.
Look at Charter Broadband's EULA....it's states that Charter can take action for "excessive bandwidth usage".
IANAL, but, in grand Slashdot tradition, will weigh in with my legal non-opinion.
Vague language in a contract is generally subject to being interpreted as if in the eyes of a "reasonable person" -- usually in a court of law. It is precisely because both parties to a contract generally wish to avoid litigation (and to cover their asses if a disupute comes to that), that vague language is to be avoided.
So, what would a "reasonable person" consider excessive? Probably that which other providers of similar service define as excessive.
Also, generally when a contract has been drawn up by one of the contracting parties, it is usually interpreted in the worst possible light with regard to that party by the courts -- the reason is simple: as the party drawing the contract, they had the greatest opportunity to try and skew it in their favour.
FWIW, I've shied away from cable internet providers and stuck to DSL, even when it cost more, precisely because of the shenanigans many cable operators pull. I just got new DSL service from golden.net in the Toronto, Ontario, Canada region, with a static IP (which they will provide to anyone who can explain why they want it ("sink my own email for my domain, and occasionally ssh to my home network), for a CA$25 "setup fee" and an extra CA$5.00 a month) and so far am happy: 1728 Kbps down, 384 Kbps up, CA$45.00 a month.
Not really. I now live in the Toronto area, and find it just as bad... worse, in fact, because OHIP is denied me unless I promise to never leave Ontario.
Though, I much prefer to pay for my own health insurance rather than willingly participate in a system that saves some lives by murdering others.
"Letting someone die" is to do nothing to stop their impending death. However, in the supposed noble interest of not "letting some die", they actively take from others, so that those others no longer have the independent means to save themselves when they might otherwise be near death. That is not "letting them die"... that is killing them without justification, i.e. murder.
You can not purchase private health insurance in Canada unless it is "supplementary" insurance, over and above what the public system provides.
This is true, even if you are willing to fund the public system via your tax dollars, and not use it (not that you have a choice in not funding it), though that would make it very expensive and unaffordable for most.
Since I can not use the public system unless I agree to never leave Ontario (people born in the province do not have to make this declaration -- it applies to people who move here from another province or, as in my case, returning Canadian expatriates (ex-expatriates?)), I tried purchasing private insurance from Lloyds of London. It would have cost US$2600 for a year of decent coverage, for the whole family, but when they learned I was a Canadian citizen, and thus eligible for public health care, they pointed to the Canadian law that made it illegal for me to purchase it and for them to sell it in Canada.
It's a funny definition of "eligible", that, having to agree to be a resident until death.
I checked out your website and see that you're from quebec. My apologies for that mess you're from. ALways a problem, the french, hopefully things will get better with the new government there.
While my experience in Quebec shaped my hatred of fascism (rampant there), and libertarian attitude, an examination of federal Canadian policy reveals much of the same. I now live in Ontario, and, except for separatist angst, find it far worse than when I left Quebec in 2003, as far as federal policies are concerned.
With regard to the Quebec separatist movement, there is a rather significant peaceful francophone population who would happily cut Quebec into two: an English and French part (and demographics would make this simple). I'd support this. The ideals of this aging fallout from the quiet revolution have been usurped by modern day fascists who would see to the separation of Quebec from Canada, but with the effective enslavement of the English minority as "payback" for some perceived prior injustices -- Jacques Parizzeau's plans for separation, public before the last referrendum would have divided Quebec into some ten tax zones, with the predominantly english-speaking part taxed the heaviest, and made it illegal to move between tax-zones for the sole purpose of reducing the tax burden.
Slashdot Mirror
I had already noted that I was told I would be charged with (a) assault because someone was offended (verbal assault); (b) inciting to riot because it would be reasonable to assume that my critical factual observations would anger patriotic Canadians; (c) immigration laws because, since I was unable to prove citizenship, I must be a foreigner (no Canadian would dare speak badly of Canadian health care).
This truely saddens me. The best defense against tyrany comes from an understanding of and belief in the supreme law of the land, butresses with the will to uphold it.
Not unless you're willing to risk arrest, and the expense of a legal Charter-based defence. Last time I checked, that cost about CA$100,000, and it is not permitted for lawyers to accept cases on a contingency basis.
So, even if you won the case, all you'd get would be CA$100k in legal expenses, and your freedom.
In the U.S., you'd be in a much stronger position to counter-charge false arrest, and seek punative damages, thus dminishing the chance you'd be arrested in the first place.
<ObWarning: anti-Canadian flamage>
Well, I could be charged under any number of laws: assault (because someone was offended), inciting to riot (because violence might break out).
Yes, this is rediculous, and hard to believe, however, without a First Amendment, or equivalent, Canadians effectively have no individual free speech rights. When the Meech Lake accord failed due to lack of ratification by all ten provinces prior to it's sunset clause expiring (shortly before Quebec's "independence day", Fete St. Jean holiday (June 24, a week before Canada's independence day celebration, July 1)), the province made clear that anyone daring to fly a Canadian flag on Canada Day risked getting arrested for "inciting to riot".
There was a case a few years ago that actually tested the principle that truth was a legal defence against libel (It involved a prison inmate accusing guards of torture). The principle held, but that outcome was not at all certain.
I've seen people go into a shop, order something, pay and get a receipt, and then be given something completely different. Upon complaint, and requesting either (a) the correct product as indicated on their receipt, or (b) their money back, they ended up arrested for "trespassing". Technically, this is correct, as trespassing is a criminal offence, and the police are not there to settle civil disputes (though, I would have responded with a charge of criminal fraud), but horrible, regardless.
True, this happens rarely, but that it happens at all is utterly disgusting. That there is no legal recourse when it does happen speaks volumes.
Americans might understand "how can this be?" if they compare the mantra "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Hapiness" to it's Canadian equivalent: "Peace, Order, and Good Government". the individual Canadian is reduced to a role serving the Borg.
Canada is all about mob rule - democracy unrestricted by any semblence of individual rights. And before you trot out the 1982 patriated constitution, with it's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, look up "notwithstanding clause".
I wonder, in the aftermath of the dot-com and telecom, busts in the U.S., how many Canadians like me, had to return to Canada, some of us (like me) with American children, and how many American children are thus forced to live in this socialist shit-hole. I am seriously considering giving my son up for adoption so he can return to the U.S.
Canadians fall into two camps: rats who pervert democracy via rule of the largest mob, or sheep, who are too tired or scared to fight back. It is the latter, I suspect, who have the reputation of being polite.
Fools, because too many of you don't know, care, or realize, just how important this right is.
One thing to watch: the init command built into stock busybox is not compiled to understand runlevels, so if you need a clean shutdown, you have to rebuild it appropriately (and install the usual Sys-V style /etc/rc.d/... scripts).
Now, is it silent? Fanless would be best (even if this means a wallwart or brick power supply.
I've always found the XBox clunky in terms of form factor -- I want a thin client to be, well, thin.
Such products frustrate me to no end, because the idea is good, but the execution is poor.
Then again, these limitations might have something to do with tyhe influence of the MPAA w.r.t. playblack resulution via analog outputs (still, that doesn't explain not having component out at at least 480p).
Er, perhaps, but the real kicker was that they were recording mudulated MPEG2 transport streams, i.e. compressed content.
Heh. We may have had a DTV RF video stream generator at work (running W2K Pro) that might have gotten Own3d (gadz, who can people type like that -- it's worse than Canadian postal codes: alpha num alpha num alpha num, e.g. H4B 2K7).
However, while the router might not need an acurate absolute clock, it is sure handy to have one for the machines *behind* the router on the home LAN (now, if only all devices with a clock in the house were networked and could sync to *that*...). Bottom line: it's nice to know the time and have a relatively accurate source to periodically synchronize with. Telecommuters who do distributed makes also need this... BADLY.
Now, what I never understood was why my satellite receivers, which get a clock signal from the birds, can't act as a clock reference for the home.
I had gotten permission to sync my Linux boxen at home from a particular NTP server. I have since moved, and have not yet configured a closer server, sepite once again being online 24/7. The poor admin of my time source is probably wondering about the strange IP address requesting time. Gotta fix that.
Disclaimer: I work for ATI, though this is strictly a personal observation, and not even specific to ATI. You know the drill: I gotta shutup when it comes to what we do.
I have seen far more crap from the inside of all the companies that I have ever worked for. The consumer sees very little of this, and in a perfect world, none at all.
But, the bottom line is this: just which crap gets cleaned up and what stupid policies are corrected depends on what feedback is received. Griping in slashdot "feedback not" as Yoda might muse.
A lot more goes on "on the inside", some of which you might drool over. Your job as consumer is to push a company into the direction you would like to see it move.
If you think a company has poor quality control, say so. There are probably people inside who agree, and need "ammunition" to change things.
When I can be guaranteed, that no criminal will be able to use an illegal firearm against me, I might be pursuaded to support gun control.
Alas, that Utopia does not exist, and until it does, to leave law-abiding members of society without the most convenient and basic means of self-defence, is an abhorrent crime.
Perhaps, you should replace "stupid", with "sad" in the above sentence... it is sad that we can not all simply surrender firearms that we own to reduce the likelihood of related accidents and deaths.
The freedoms the GPL provides are available only if you accept the terms of the GPL. While IANAL, it appears that SCO does not -- having redistributed code under the GPL, they MUST accept the GPL -- it is the only thing that permits such redistribution (trumping default copyright law which forbids it).
Their attempt to restrict redistribution and use of GPL code translates directly into their inability to do this, and by extention, to charge for it (unless they want to take the position, "Pay us for nothing").
Now, having received GPL code, they may have fair use rights to do with it what they will internally (i.e. use gcc, samba, etc.) but I suspect that this extends to uses on SINGLE machines, with archival backups. Thus, if they use GCC on 100 PCs, they may very well have to demonstrate how they obtained each copy of GCC separately. Good luck.
Somehow, though, I think that argument may be a non-starter: I doubt that SCO, in it's present form can afford 100 PCs, and soon may not be able to affort the power to run them if it does have them.
BRAVO!
Unfortunately, so many think that paying their "fair share" of taxes means that the collection of taxes is somehow legitimate, and not theft. Arguing against this on principle will prove difficult.
Therefore, to get people to wake up and see the lie, one has to attack the system by exposing it's hypocricy. Then perhaps, the moral bancruptcy can be exposed as well.
But, again, a big Bravo! to you for "getting it".
No, you haven't. Taxes are an obligation, not a charitable donation. You owe this money.
While I understand your point, since some portion of taxes are supposedly directed to help the less fortunate, because their payment is required, the principle is effectively, "You owe those who earn less than you simply because you earn more".
That is not charity, that is theft.
Charity comes from a desire to help others when one has the option not to.
I got sick of the waste, people working the system.
I have found that well run charities are far more effective in helping the truely needy, and weeding out freeloaders, than are governments.
Furthermore, with a high tax burden, people can not afford to be as charitable as they otherwise might be: "Fuck you, I paid my taxes!" becomes the sentiment du jure. Whether those tax dollars were, in some part, used effectively to help the destitute does not matter -- you paid them.
If someone stops you on the street, and demands "Gimme your money... those people are poor!" handing over one's wallet might be prudent, but there is no guarantee the "poor" will be better off and a certainty that you are now in less of a position to help them. The proper and moral response is to educate the would-be thief with the business end of a firearm. And so it is with government, and then, perhaps, find those poor, and hand your wallet over to them, if you feel so inclined.
The only thing that government handouts to the poor does is encourage more people to be "poor".
You may, of course, object to this obviously libertarian stance: state force certainly has the potential to better guarantee wealth redistribution, and you might think that this actually happens and should happen. But if the state is truely interested in helping the poor, why is there no government that offers a 100% credit (not deduction) on some portion of taxes "owed" (i.e. that portion above which you paid for the state services you received), if it were given to a registered charity?
IOW, if I earn $75,000, and pay $25,000 in taxes (typical in Canada, for example), and consume $10,000 in state services, I should be free to pay $10,000 tax and donate $15,000 to charity and come out as if I had paid the total in taxes. Of course, this does not happen: the $15,000 is simply deducted from income, and, at a 40% marginal tax rate, my tax burden is reduced by $6,000. Lesse, $15,000-$6,000=$9,000 that I am worse off by helping the poor as much as the state says I should.
This example is a bit contrived, and the numbers are approximations (marginal tax rates on $60k and $75k are likely different), but the principle is sound, and I think the gentle reader "gets it".
In conclusion, "paying your taxes" is about the least efficient way of helping the poor, though it is probably the most convenient way to feel good, while thinking you did.
Timing ... is ... everything
...not to mention SPAXX and SISPG
IANAL, but, in grand Slashdot tradition, will weigh in with my legal non-opinion.
Vague language in a contract is generally subject to being interpreted as if in the eyes of a "reasonable person" -- usually in a court of law. It is precisely because both parties to a contract generally wish to avoid litigation (and to cover their asses if a disupute comes to that), that vague language is to be avoided.
So, what would a "reasonable person" consider excessive? Probably that which other providers of similar service define as excessive.
Also, generally when a contract has been drawn up by one of the contracting parties, it is usually interpreted in the worst possible light with regard to that party by the courts -- the reason is simple: as the party drawing the contract, they had the greatest opportunity to try and skew it in their favour.
FWIW, I've shied away from cable internet providers and stuck to DSL, even when it cost more, precisely because of the shenanigans many cable operators pull. I just got new DSL service from golden.net in the Toronto, Ontario, Canada region, with a static IP (which they will provide to anyone who can explain why they want it ("sink my own email for my domain, and occasionally ssh to my home network), for a CA$25 "setup fee" and an extra CA$5.00 a month) and so far am happy: 1728 Kbps down, 384 Kbps up, CA$45.00 a month.
Not really. I now live in the Toronto area, and find it just as bad... worse, in fact, because OHIP is denied me unless I promise to never leave Ontario.
Though, I much prefer to pay for my own health insurance rather than willingly participate in a system that saves some lives by murdering others.
"Letting someone die" is to do nothing to stop their impending death. However, in the supposed noble interest of not "letting some die", they actively take from others, so that those others no longer have the independent means to save themselves when they might otherwise be near death. That is not "letting them die"... that is killing them without justification, i.e. murder.
This is true, even if you are willing to fund the public system via your tax dollars, and not use it (not that you have a choice in not funding it), though that would make it very expensive and unaffordable for most.
Since I can not use the public system unless I agree to never leave Ontario (people born in the province do not have to make this declaration -- it applies to people who move here from another province or, as in my case, returning Canadian expatriates (ex-expatriates?)), I tried purchasing private insurance from Lloyds of London. It would have cost US$2600 for a year of decent coverage, for the whole family, but when they learned I was a Canadian citizen, and thus eligible for public health care, they pointed to the Canadian law that made it illegal for me to purchase it and for them to sell it in Canada.
It's a funny definition of "eligible", that, having to agree to be a resident until death.
While my experience in Quebec shaped my hatred of fascism (rampant there), and libertarian attitude, an examination of federal Canadian policy reveals much of the same. I now live in Ontario, and, except for separatist angst, find it far worse than when I left Quebec in 2003, as far as federal policies are concerned.
With regard to the Quebec separatist movement, there is a rather significant peaceful francophone population who would happily cut Quebec into two: an English and French part (and demographics would make this simple). I'd support this. The ideals of this aging fallout from the quiet revolution have been usurped by modern day fascists who would see to the separation of Quebec from Canada, but with the effective enslavement of the English minority as "payback" for some perceived prior injustices -- Jacques Parizzeau's plans for separation, public before the last referrendum would have divided Quebec into some ten tax zones, with the predominantly english-speaking part taxed the heaviest, and made it illegal to move between tax-zones for the sole purpose of reducing the tax burden.