When this lawyer argues about how she needs to see the code because of "the possibility of the company going bankrupt and the software not being maintained", that's another straw man.
First, there is no indication that the company is in financial trouble, so this is totally bogus on its' face.
Second, if it were to go bankrupt, the debts would be shed in a Chapter 11 filing, and the company would be more, not less, able to continue to support the code. Alternatively, the company gets acquired (minus the debts) by another company, since it is producing a product of high value, high utility, and an inelastic market demand. It's not like we're talking about an abandonware game here.
Studies show a high percentage of people with pacemakers have brain damage. This lawyer looks to be one of them, or a con artist using this as a revenue and publicity generator.
they would have to show harm first, or at the very least, a significant chance of harm -So you are saying is that if you were the judge, you'd deny any such motion. Good thing you aren't a judge.
Of course the motion right now should be denied as a matter of law. Since they haven't even met this minimal standard, they haven't a hope in hell. This isn't like, say, the Ford Pinto case. You don't get to go fishing in other people's junk just because you have a fear of "something that might" happen, with nothing to back it up. And then there's the issue of standing - if you haven't been harmed, or can show that you were put at risk, you have no right to bring an action.
Just like you can't sue Ford over a Ford Fiesta that functions fine because you're afraid because of what happened decades ago with the Pintos.
So I'd say it's a good thing YOU aren't a judge. These are basic concepts.
If they did show everything you assert they must, then you are asserting that they would be compelled to provide it. So you agreed with me in the most disagreeable manner possible.
What you are now arguing is a hypothetical, "... if they show everything you assert they must" - otherwise known as a straw man argument. Of course I'm going to disagree with it. It's insulting to think that I'd fall for that one.
They haven't shown any harm, or even a likelihood of harm. Now, if you want to argue about a different set of circumstances, that's fine - but that would be for another article, not this one.
There's also the question of whether divulging the source would actually make it more secure. One of the more moronic chants is "security through obscurity is no security". If you believe that disclosure makes things more secure, then email me your user accounts and passwords.
There's no grounds for discovery to produce the list of ingredients of Coke, just like there's no grounds for discovery to produce the software for the pacemaker - they would have to show harm first, or at the very least, a significant chance of harm - as well as a high likelihood that their review of the code would reduce that harm, and she's obviously still alive and kicking, along with a lot of other people, and as other posters have pointed out, this stuff is so customized on a per-manufacturer basis that you'd need a disgruntled ex-employee to review it - along with all the hardware.
Under those circumstances it smacks of the same "logic" as prior restraint - a no-no.
She is not saying that all pacemakers should be open sourced btw , she just wants to be sure the device is safe.
...
That's the only way to insure that it's safe.
Short answer - NO device ever made is 100% safe. Can't be done. Even simple every-day no-tech things that we've had a thousand years experience (stairs, ladders, rocking chairs, for example) still have design and manufacturing issues, because you can't anticipate every scenario without rendering them entirely non-functional, or, in plain English, useless.
Take your dinner knife as an example - ohhh - it's sharp! Someone might get hurt! Make it dull so it can't cut anything!
Bottom line - with the right circumstances, you can kill someone with nothing more than an empty box or even bubble gum (or bubble bath), in the wrong place, at the wrong time. Nothing is 100% safe, 100% of the time.
I'm glad you're not a lawyer. That means I can't accidentally hire an idiot as my lawyer.
Your naiveté is touching. So obviously an idiot lawyer will have no problem relieving you of your money.
Lawyers don't take cases because they think they can win, but because they get paid either way - and as long as they can lose convincingly, they can milk the same case for a decade (SCO).
Posting AC from Boeing's 787 plant in Charleston, SC.
The operators who build these planes are like McDonald's rejects. Idiots everywhere.
... that these planes will be the safest in the world, because they will never get off the ground.
You don't have to be all that intelligent to follow a well-written step-by-step procedure. A procedure designed so that morons can follow it will result in consistent quality - same as the CrapBurger you get in Houston is the same as the CrapBurger you get in Newark (except for the extra toxins from the N.J. air).
Does the person have the right to ask to see the code? Sure, free world, yadda yadda yadda... Does the company have to give it to them? Absolutely not.
Have they ever drunk a Coke? Can they ask Coka-Cola Corp. for the formula? Sure. Will they get it? No - but they could ask PepsiCo, who were able to replicate it during the New Coke fiasco. And Pepsico would probably also say No.
Why not just admit you were stupidly off-base with your original remark? That you completely missed the point, and that your comparison to apples was equally silly?
We ban stuff all the time. Things like mixing ethylene glycol in wine to "make it go further" because sticking antifreeze in makes people go blind. Do you have a problem with that? Do you think it's stupid?
HFCS is not a naturally-occuring product. You don't get HFCS out of a hive the same way you do honey.
And the last time I looked, we *do* regulate the sale and consumption of alcohol.
All you're proving with your dumb-ass comments is that you completely missed the original point, and now you obese (HFCS-inflated???) ego won't let you admit it. You accused me of nonsense, but it's YOU who have been spinning the nonsense. Grow up. Really.
HFCS should be banned as a sweetener. Why keep allowing an additive which negatively impacts the biochemistry?
And it's not just obese people who are affected. Even those who are either just over-weight, or normal weight but get too many of their calories from sugars because their appetite is thrown out of whack because of the effects of HFCS on their hormone levels, will benefit.
Just because something comes from a natural source doesn't make it good for you. I can get cyanide from apple seeds and peach pits.
And you are missing BOTH points, so I'll spell it out step by step. TRY to follow along this time, mkay?
1. WHEREAS fructose changes hormone levels differently than other sugars.
2. WHEREAS in the case of fructose, those hormone levels keep you from feeling full.
3. THEREFORE, eating as much fructose from apples will cause as much overeating as eating fructose from corn.
4. WHEREAS corn is hugely subsidized.
5. THEREFORE it is because corn is so subsidized that it is used instead of other sugar sources.
6. THEREFORE ending the corn subsidy would get producers to use other sugar sources.
7. THEREFORE the discussion is targeted on fructose in HFCS and not fructose in apples, because apple-sourced fructose isn't currently being used as a cheap sweetener.
You don't get HFCS from apples. What part of High Fructose Corn Syrup don't you "get"? Do you say "A corn a day keeps the doctor away?" "As American as corn pie?" "Corn dumplings". "Bobbing for corn?" "Corn Computers?" "Corn Streussel Cheesecake Bars?" "Apple on the Cob?"
Oh, right, you'd rather accuse ME of being irrational for having an opinion based on scientific research than to challenge your fact-free assumptions and your lack of reading skills. How dare I!
Instead of accusing me of being irrational and that I should remain silent, you could have googled for "hfcs hormones" - lots of relevant results (and I've linked to one study elsewhere in the thread).
The fast-food/junk-food producers aren't using fructose from apples, but from corn. Restricting fructose from apples would have no impact whatsoever on the problem.
It would have taken all of what, 15 seconds to search for "HFCS hormones" after I made it quite clear in the original post that the problem was the effect of HFCS on hormones linked to appetite. Did people try this? Nooooo... they just blithely posted some misinformation rather than doing any fact-checking. THAT is irrational behavior.
This "too lazy to look it up because I'd rather just shoot my damn fool mouth off and add to the echo chamber" makes them part of the problem, not the solution, and if you look through the thread (and many other threads), it's this "intellectually lazy don't wanna know unless you spoon-feed it to me" attitude that is a BIG part of the problem with society in general. Most people essentially stop learning by their early 20s.
And it's completely on-topic, because the people who are guzzling HFCS and claiming it doesn't make a difference because "it's all sugar" are just too damn lazy to even TRY to back up their assumptions. It's not "what you know," it's "what you know that ain't so" - and this "too lazy to challenge basic assumptions" contributes in large part to the current epidemic of obesity.
The process of metabolizing fructose has a different effect on the bodys hormones than the same number of calories of glucose. Educate yourself on the difference.
In other words, take your own advice - either be rational or STFU.
No, it's not. The process of breaking it down changes the body's hormone levels. Read the results of the study (links posted elsewhere in this particular thread) and educate yourself instead of pushing lies.
Dietary fructose reduces circulating insulin and leptin, attenuates postprandial suppression of ghrelin, and increases triglycerides in women.
Previous studies indicate that leptin secretion is regulated by insulin-mediated glucose metabolism. Because fructose, unlike glucose, does not stimulate insulin secretion, we hypothesized that meals high in fructose would result in lower leptin concentrations than meals containing the same amount of glucose. Blood samples were collected every 30-60 min for 24 h from 12 normal-weight women on 2 randomized days during which the subjects consumed three meals containing 55, 30, and 15% of total kilocalories as carbohydrate, fat, and protein, respectively, with 30% of kilocalories as either a fructose-sweetened [high fructose (HFr)] or glucose-sweetened [high glucose (HGl)] beverage. Meals were isocaloric in the two treatments. Postprandial glycemic excursions were reduced by 66 +/- 12%, and insulin responses were 65 +/- 5% lower (both P
Because insulin and leptin, and possibly ghrelin, function as key signals to the central nervous system in the long-term regulation of energy balance, decreases of circulating insulin and leptin and increased ghrelin concentrations, as demonstrated in this study, could lead to increased caloric intake and ultimately contribute to weight gain and obesity during chronic consumption of diets high in fructose.
HFCS makes you feel hungry, even when you have enough calories, because of the way it acts ont eh bodys hormones. Cane sugar does not. Simple as that.
So ban HFCS (High Fructose Corn Syrup). It's a vicious cycle - HFCS suppresses the hormone that tells you you're full, so you keep on eating more food with HFCS, further suppressing the "Hey Dummy, Stoppppp!" signal.
Pigs eat corn to fatten up. It has the same long-term effects on humans.
goto is not evil - it's just hidden inside modern languages. Every switch statement is really a goto, with the case: being a label (target). Anyone who's ever programmed in assembler knows that jmp is not evil.
Does goto: lead to spaghetti code? That's up to the programmer - not the language feature. You want to see REAL spaghetti code? Look at some of the horrors coming out of Java.
I figure it's better to make a decent argument, make all the points, than to make only a portion of them - a half-done job is a job not done and all that.
The *real* problem is that he doesn't see that an immigrant with a PhD who comes here and is, to use his example, "driving a taxi or cleaning toilets" is doing so only until their accreditation is accepted, and they want to stay in the urban centers so they can USE their knowledge - these are people who the country has allowed to immigrate because we hope their training will help grow the economy.
To instead try to get them to buy a business in North B*ttf**k, Ontario (pop 8,000, mostly sclerotic, and declining fast) is not going to work out well in the end. Additionally, to target immigrants for this scam (because in the end, it is a scam, even if this guy honestly believes he is "doing something good") is racist.
That he doesn't see it as racist shows one thing - he was telling the truth when he said he grew up in small-town Ontario. I've visited through a few of those small towns. You could plunk then down anywhere in the middle of One-Industry-Town, USA, and be right at home. Unless, of course, you aren't white, in which case you'd better be either running the dry cleaner or a tourist.
And it's the same as in Nowhere, USA - the people are super nice, but a bit "behind the times" socially if you catch my drift, and have a tendency to resist change. After a while (2 - 3 days), you get to feeling like you're in some time warp, and you almost expect that the TV will suddenly start receiving only black-and-white.
First off, if you're logged in, please turn signatures on.
I appreciate your concerns, and I hope I can address them here. It sounds like you may be in the US
(the poster below is right, "ageing" is correct spelling in Canada)
No, I'm Canadian.
so I will point out a few differences as well. Our group came into existence in 2009 and that is when we took our domain. I don't know what it was used for previous to that, but obviously it was some type of spam. In terms of being one letter off of another group, I admit, we probably didn't research it enough but we were a non-profit starting up on a volunteer basis. It fits our name, and we have also added oinweb.ca for URL shortening and to help alleviate confusion.
Probably didn't research it well enough? You think? All you had to do was type possible domain names into any search engine to find ones that are close enough to cause confusion. I don't know who your technical staff is / are, but they are not competent on the face of things.
Yes, there is federal regulation surrounding these activities, however we do not work directly or offer any services to any immigrants or individuals. We are not involved in the settlement process, and we are not involved in any business transactions.
That's not the entire story. Your web site states "and currently we are working to connect newcomers to rural business succession opportunities."
The bulk of what we do is research,
From what little you have on your site, you don't do much of that. Color / colour me underwhelmed.
and from there come recommendations that communities are welcome to take or not.
You are indirectly involved in consulting wrt immigrants. "if a third party provides immigration advice or representation for a fee to a client, " - note that it does not specify immigrants - "a client".
One of the prohibitions is "Advertising that they can provide immigration advice."
This is what you do - even if it's not directly to immigrants, but to communities seeking to attract immigrants. To CYA, you should first enter into an agreement with CIC. (Citizenship and Immigration Canada) - especially since you indicate further on that you want to make a living out of this.
These licensing requirements do not apply to us, and I doubt that we would even be allowed to become licensed because of the nature of our work. We simply do not have any contact with any legal or business transactions.
On the contrary, your web site IS advertising that you offer immigration advice. You need a license or an agreement, in writing, from CIC.
Second, business succession may have a different meaning in the US. In Canada, the process is meant to take place while the entrepreneur is alive.
I'm well aware of the business sense of "succession." Again, you are offering to instruct communities in how to attract immigrants to buy out a business - how is that not, either directly or indirectly, offering immigration advice?
Were we dealing with estates, then yes, you would be correct. This example may help to clarify: Imagine that you were a successful business owner for 20+ years, but because of skewed demographics the bulk of your towns population is too old or too young to buy it.
Or maybe the price is too high - lower the price, and someone will buy it if it's viable. There are some deals that just aren't viable, even at $0.
If you do have kids, they have likely left for a larger city like Toronto. This means that a profitable business, that could be a great opportunity for an immigrant could disappear, and potentially even trigger a domino effect (i.e. more businesses closing). We have seen this in some com
That's all fine and dandy, but *I* never said anything about chemicals, so "refuting the problems" that I never even alleged... what's with that?
Ah, don't sweat it:-) It's just one of those normal "misunderstandings", and it does add to the overall context - I'm surprised not more people saw the petro-frakking angle right away.
It's not like this "ask slashdot" by a guy who, as best I can tell, is trying to do an end run around Canadian legislation requiring all people who do any sort of advising to immigrants to be licensed.
There was so much abuse of the "investor immigrant" program - fraud, outright scams, fake documents and histories (including brides), people paying off others to teach them how to con a Canadian into marrying them, then divorcing them as soon as they got their magic permanent resident papers.
I know two women who got conned like that, they believed the guys, got married, the guys spend most of the next year screwing anything that moved, both womens lives messed up pretty badly. I also know one guy who paid $4,000 to a woman for a "marriage of convenience" to stay in the country - she needed the money, he wanted permanent resident status. And two couples who worked the angle VERY extensively - divorcing, coming to Canada, marrying, then divorcing, then re-marrying their spouses, eventually bringing about 50 people to the country under the Family Reunification program.
And those are only the ones I *know* about for a certainty because they admitted it. I also know of 2 people who came using fake documents, claiming to be 20 years older than they were so they could collect old age pensions after 10 years, even though they were only 45 instead of 65...
I hate to say it, but that's obviously just the tip of the iceberg. We REALLY need to not just tighten up current policies, but go over past immigrants to see who was committing fraud. Legitimate refugees are losing out to crooks and liars.
First, a quick peek at your web sites over the last 6 years:
Finally, an online networking service that connects
you with influential people who can reshape
your career, business, and personal life
Immigrant networking
Talk to your peers
Find inside jobs
Make new friends
Solve your problems
Best schools to go for
Finding a good doctor
What car to buy
How to buy a house
And much moreâ¦
It's a one-letter-off typo squat of immigrantnetworks.ca - cheesy or sleazy, take your pick. Your domain has a history of trying to find some way to intermediate into the whole immigration thing.
Now, when you say. "Our focus is to work with rural communities that have ageing (sic) demographics and help them attract immigrants to take over businesses where an ageing (sic) owner is looking to retire but may have no clear successor", that is a problem.
First, such activities have been regulated by federal order since 2011. Neither you nor anyone else can offer to help immigrants with such things as where to locate, or business opportunities, either directly or indirectly, without being licensed.
Second, if there is "no clear successor", then the property or business cannot be sold until probate, and no amount of GIS data can "fix" that problem.
Third, if the problem is that nobody wants to buy a business at a certain price, they can always lower the price. At the right price, everything sells. If it doesn't sell at any price, it's not viable. Conning an immigrant into buying a dying business only works if their real goal is to show that they are establishing roots - it does nothing to stop the "brain drain" - people leaving because they lack opportunities. In fact, it exacerbates the problem because the next generation has to compete against "false bidders" - bidders who are really buying a "ticket to permanent Canadian residency" to buy the local business. In other words - you would be, at best, part of the problem, not the solution.
Fourth, trying to hook up immigrants to buy such businesses, which "coincidentally" help to show that they have established roots, is a regulated practice, and I already checked - you are not licensed.
Fifth, I also noted that you put your name as an image, instead of plain text, to avoid being picked up by search engines. Inquiring minds would wonder about that... but after looking at the thin gruel you have to offer, I'm not all that surprised.
Sixth, nobody needs GIS data to do this - and trying to sell such a concept, either to communities or to immigrants, is akin to "Search Engine Optimization" scams - anyone can find such properties / opportunities with 10 minutes work on Google. What next - "Oh, pretty graphs?" Oh, wait, your terrible (as in first year high school) "white paper" already does that. Yes, I read it, and it really sucks.
Seventh (yes, I'm on a roll) your original question showed that neither you nor whoever you're working with have much of a clue about databases. You don't need ANY "geometry functions" to do what you are trying to do.
I could go on... but I think I've made my point, which is that your business activities raise red flags, and the the whole precept on which you claim to operate (to "stop the brain drain") is flawed and will have the exact opposite effect. Cui bono?... or more to the point - "what's in it for you?"
Chemical additives are applied to tailor the injected material to the specific geological situation, protect the well, and improve its operation, though the injected fluid is approximately 98-99.5% percent water
So the problem of ground slippage (earthquakes) is just as big for this water injection proposal as it has already been for oil and gas frakking. And no, this is not "conjecture" any more - one company has already admitted that their frakking caused a series of small earthquakes, and more are under investigation. New Jersey banned it, as did France.
I am the Executive Director of Ontario Immigrant Network, and currently we are working to connect newcomers to rural business succession opportunities.
In other words, "buy your way into the country by buying some dead persons' business."
As of April 2004, the only immigration and citizenship consultants who will be recognized by the federal government department of Citizenship and Immigration Canada are those who are members in good standing of CSIC or lawyers who are members of a Canadian provincial or territorial law society.
So why (assuming your post is legit) are you doing this with PRIVATE posts and messages?
What part of the word "private" do you people continue to have a problem understanding?
Also, you have a serious credibility problem, given facebooks' past history of misconduct and breaking privacy laws in several countries, such as PIPEDA in Canada. Why should we believe you this time?
BTW, no, it's not similar to google zeitgeist - people searching using google never explicitly marked a search query as private or public, so stop with the bad analogies and disinformation. We're not that naive (or stupid), and treating us like technological unsophisticates is insulting.
First, it is NOT the same. Google analyzing your data in-house and sharing the trends is not the same as giving your data (including private posts) to a 3rd party for the 3rd party to analyze.
Second, as the links I provided in the submission show, there is no such thing as "anonymized data" - given enough data, you can pretty much connect anyone to a series of facebook posts.
Slashdot Mirror
First, there is no indication that the company is in financial trouble, so this is totally bogus on its' face.
Second, if it were to go bankrupt, the debts would be shed in a Chapter 11 filing, and the company would be more, not less, able to continue to support the code. Alternatively, the company gets acquired (minus the debts) by another company, since it is producing a product of high value, high utility, and an inelastic market demand. It's not like we're talking about an abandonware game here.
Studies show a high percentage of people with pacemakers have brain damage. This lawyer looks to be one of them, or a con artist using this as a revenue and publicity generator.
Of course the motion right now should be denied as a matter of law. Since they haven't even met this minimal standard, they haven't a hope in hell. This isn't like, say, the Ford Pinto case. You don't get to go fishing in other people's junk just because you have a fear of "something that might" happen, with nothing to back it up. And then there's the issue of standing - if you haven't been harmed, or can show that you were put at risk, you have no right to bring an action.
Just like you can't sue Ford over a Ford Fiesta that functions fine because you're afraid because of what happened decades ago with the Pintos.
So I'd say it's a good thing YOU aren't a judge. These are basic concepts.
What you are now arguing is a hypothetical, "... if they show everything you assert they must" - otherwise known as a straw man argument. Of course I'm going to disagree with it. It's insulting to think that I'd fall for that one.
They haven't shown any harm, or even a likelihood of harm. Now, if you want to argue about a different set of circumstances, that's fine - but that would be for another article, not this one.
There's also the question of whether divulging the source would actually make it more secure. One of the more moronic chants is "security through obscurity is no security". If you believe that disclosure makes things more secure, then email me your user accounts and passwords.
Under those circumstances it smacks of the same "logic" as prior restraint - a no-no.
Short answer - NO device ever made is 100% safe. Can't be done. Even simple every-day no-tech things that we've had a thousand years experience (stairs, ladders, rocking chairs, for example) still have design and manufacturing issues, because you can't anticipate every scenario without rendering them entirely non-functional, or, in plain English, useless.
Take your dinner knife as an example - ohhh - it's sharp! Someone might get hurt! Make it dull so it can't cut anything!
Bottom line - with the right circumstances, you can kill someone with nothing more than an empty box or even bubble gum (or bubble bath), in the wrong place, at the wrong time. Nothing is 100% safe, 100% of the time.
Your naiveté is touching. So obviously an idiot lawyer will have no problem relieving you of your money.
Lawyers don't take cases because they think they can win, but because they get paid either way - and as long as they can lose convincingly, they can milk the same case for a decade (SCO).
You don't have to be all that intelligent to follow a well-written step-by-step procedure. A procedure designed so that morons can follow it will result in consistent quality - same as the CrapBurger you get in Houston is the same as the CrapBurger you get in Newark (except for the extra toxins from the N.J. air).
Does the person have the right to ask to see the code? Sure, free world, yadda yadda yadda ... Does the company have to give it to them? Absolutely not.
Have they ever drunk a Coke? Can they ask Coka-Cola Corp. for the formula? Sure. Will they get it? No - but they could ask PepsiCo, who were able to replicate it during the New Coke fiasco. And Pepsico would probably also say No.
We ban stuff all the time. Things like mixing ethylene glycol in wine to "make it go further" because sticking antifreeze in makes people go blind. Do you have a problem with that? Do you think it's stupid?
HFCS is not a naturally-occuring product. You don't get HFCS out of a hive the same way you do honey.
And the last time I looked, we *do* regulate the sale and consumption of alcohol.
All you're proving with your dumb-ass comments is that you completely missed the original point, and now you obese (HFCS-inflated???) ego won't let you admit it. You accused me of nonsense, but it's YOU who have been spinning the nonsense. Grow up. Really.
And it's not just obese people who are affected. Even those who are either just over-weight, or normal weight but get too many of their calories from sugars because their appetite is thrown out of whack because of the effects of HFCS on their hormone levels, will benefit.
Just because something comes from a natural source doesn't make it good for you. I can get cyanide from apple seeds and peach pits.
1. WHEREAS fructose changes hormone levels differently than other sugars.
2. WHEREAS in the case of fructose, those hormone levels keep you from feeling full.
3. THEREFORE, eating as much fructose from apples will cause as much overeating as eating fructose from corn.
4. WHEREAS corn is hugely subsidized.
5. THEREFORE it is because corn is so subsidized that it is used instead of other sugar sources.
6. THEREFORE ending the corn subsidy would get producers to use other sugar sources.
7. THEREFORE the discussion is targeted on fructose in HFCS and not fructose in apples, because apple-sourced fructose isn't currently being used as a cheap sweetener.
Oh, right, you'd rather accuse ME of being irrational for having an opinion based on scientific research than to challenge your fact-free assumptions and your lack of reading skills. How dare I!
Instead of accusing me of being irrational and that I should remain silent, you could have googled for "hfcs hormones" - lots of relevant results (and I've linked to one study elsewhere in the thread).
The fast-food/junk-food producers aren't using fructose from apples, but from corn. Restricting fructose from apples would have no impact whatsoever on the problem.
This "too lazy to look it up because I'd rather just shoot my damn fool mouth off and add to the echo chamber" makes them part of the problem, not the solution, and if you look through the thread (and many other threads), it's this "intellectually lazy don't wanna know unless you spoon-feed it to me" attitude that is a BIG part of the problem with society in general. Most people essentially stop learning by their early 20s.
And it's completely on-topic, because the people who are guzzling HFCS and claiming it doesn't make a difference because "it's all sugar" are just too damn lazy to even TRY to back up their assumptions. It's not "what you know," it's "what you know that ain't so" - and this "too lazy to challenge basic assumptions" contributes in large part to the current epidemic of obesity.
In other words, take your own advice - either be rational or STFU.
No, it's not. The process of breaking it down changes the body's hormone levels. Read the results of the study (links posted elsewhere in this particular thread) and educate yourself instead of pushing lies.
HFCS makes you feel hungry, even when you have enough calories, because of the way it acts ont eh bodys hormones. Cane sugar does not. Simple as that.
So ban HFCS (High Fructose Corn Syrup). It's a vicious cycle - HFCS suppresses the hormone that tells you you're full, so you keep on eating more food with HFCS, further suppressing the "Hey Dummy, Stoppppp!" signal.
Pigs eat corn to fatten up. It has the same long-term effects on humans.
Does goto: lead to spaghetti code? That's up to the programmer - not the language feature. You want to see REAL spaghetti code? Look at some of the horrors coming out of Java.
The *real* problem is that he doesn't see that an immigrant with a PhD who comes here and is, to use his example, "driving a taxi or cleaning toilets" is doing so only until their accreditation is accepted, and they want to stay in the urban centers so they can USE their knowledge - these are people who the country has allowed to immigrate because we hope their training will help grow the economy.
To instead try to get them to buy a business in North B*ttf**k, Ontario (pop 8,000, mostly sclerotic, and declining fast) is not going to work out well in the end. Additionally, to target immigrants for this scam (because in the end, it is a scam, even if this guy honestly believes he is "doing something good") is racist.
That he doesn't see it as racist shows one thing - he was telling the truth when he said he grew up in small-town Ontario. I've visited through a few of those small towns. You could plunk then down anywhere in the middle of One-Industry-Town, USA, and be right at home. Unless, of course, you aren't white, in which case you'd better be either running the dry cleaner or a tourist.
And it's the same as in Nowhere, USA - the people are super nice, but a bit "behind the times" socially if you catch my drift, and have a tendency to resist change. After a while (2 - 3 days), you get to feeling like you're in some time warp, and you almost expect that the TV will suddenly start receiving only black-and-white.
First off, if you're logged in, please turn signatures on.
No, I'm Canadian.
Probably didn't research it well enough? You think? All you had to do was type possible domain names into any search engine to find ones that are close enough to cause confusion. I don't know who your technical staff is / are, but they are not competent on the face of things.
That's not the entire story. Your web site states "and currently we are working to connect newcomers to rural business succession opportunities."
From what little you have on your site, you don't do much of that. Color / colour me underwhelmed.
You are indirectly involved in consulting wrt immigrants. "if a third party provides immigration advice or representation for a fee to a client, " - note that it does not specify immigrants - "a client".
One of the prohibitions is "Advertising that they can provide immigration advice."
This is what you do - even if it's not directly to immigrants, but to communities seeking to attract immigrants. To CYA, you should first enter into an agreement with CIC. (Citizenship and Immigration Canada) - especially since you indicate further on that you want to make a living out of this.
On the contrary, your web site IS advertising that you offer immigration advice. You need a license or an agreement, in writing, from CIC.
I'm well aware of the business sense of "succession." Again, you are offering to instruct communities in how to attract immigrants to buy out a business - how is that not, either directly or indirectly, offering immigration advice?
Or maybe the price is too high - lower the price, and someone will buy it if it's viable. There are some deals that just aren't viable, even at $0.
Ah, don't sweat it :-) It's just one of those normal "misunderstandings", and it does add to the overall context - I'm surprised not more people saw the petro-frakking angle right away.
It's not like this "ask slashdot" by a guy who, as best I can tell, is trying to do an end run around Canadian legislation requiring all people who do any sort of advising to immigrants to be licensed.
There was so much abuse of the "investor immigrant" program - fraud, outright scams, fake documents and histories (including brides), people paying off others to teach them how to con a Canadian into marrying them, then divorcing them as soon as they got their magic permanent resident papers.
I know two women who got conned like that, they believed the guys, got married, the guys spend most of the next year screwing anything that moved, both womens lives messed up pretty badly. I also know one guy who paid $4,000 to a woman for a "marriage of convenience" to stay in the country - she needed the money, he wanted permanent resident status. And two couples who worked the angle VERY extensively - divorcing, coming to Canada, marrying, then divorcing, then re-marrying their spouses, eventually bringing about 50 people to the country under the Family Reunification program.
And those are only the ones I *know* about for a certainty because they admitted it. I also know of 2 people who came using fake documents, claiming to be 20 years older than they were so they could collect old age pensions after 10 years, even though they were only 45 instead of 65 ...
I hate to say it, but that's obviously just the tip of the iceberg. We REALLY need to not just tighten up current policies, but go over past immigrants to see who was committing fraud. Legitimate refugees are losing out to crooks and liars.
First, a quick peek at your web sites over the last 6 years:
It's a one-letter-off typo squat of immigrantnetworks.ca - cheesy or sleazy, take your pick. Your domain has a history of trying to find some way to intermediate into the whole immigration thing.
Now, when you say. "Our focus is to work with rural communities that have ageing (sic) demographics and help them attract immigrants to take over businesses where an ageing (sic) owner is looking to retire but may have no clear successor", that is a problem.
First, such activities have been regulated by federal order since 2011. Neither you nor anyone else can offer to help immigrants with such things as where to locate, or business opportunities, either directly or indirectly, without being licensed.
Second, if there is "no clear successor", then the property or business cannot be sold until probate, and no amount of GIS data can "fix" that problem.
Third, if the problem is that nobody wants to buy a business at a certain price, they can always lower the price. At the right price, everything sells. If it doesn't sell at any price, it's not viable. Conning an immigrant into buying a dying business only works if their real goal is to show that they are establishing roots - it does nothing to stop the "brain drain" - people leaving because they lack opportunities. In fact, it exacerbates the problem because the next generation has to compete against "false bidders" - bidders who are really buying a "ticket to permanent Canadian residency" to buy the local business. In other words - you would be, at best, part of the problem, not the solution.
Fourth, trying to hook up immigrants to buy such businesses, which "coincidentally" help to show that they have established roots, is a regulated practice, and I already checked - you are not licensed.
Fifth, I also noted that you put your name as an image, instead of plain text, to avoid being picked up by search engines. Inquiring minds would wonder about that ... but after looking at the thin gruel you have to offer, I'm not all that surprised.
Sixth, nobody needs GIS data to do this - and trying to sell such a concept, either to communities or to immigrants, is akin to "Search Engine Optimization" scams - anyone can find such properties / opportunities with 10 minutes work on Google. What next - "Oh, pretty graphs?" Oh, wait, your terrible (as in first year high school) "white paper" already does that. Yes, I read it, and it really sucks.
Seventh (yes, I'm on a roll) your original question showed that neither you nor whoever you're working with have much of a clue about databases. You don't need ANY "geometry functions" to do what you are trying to do.
I could go on ... but I think I've made my point, which is that your business activities raise red flags, and the the whole precept on which you claim to operate (to "stop the brain drain") is flawed and will have the exact opposite effect. Cui bono? ... or more to the point - "what's in it for you?"
So the problem of ground slippage (earthquakes) is just as big for this water injection proposal as it has already been for oil and gas frakking. And no, this is not "conjecture" any more - one company has already admitted that their frakking caused a series of small earthquakes, and more are under investigation. New Jersey banned it, as did France.
Canada is finally cracking down on fake immigrants. One of the biggest problems is the abuse of the immigrant investor program which this business apparently is trying to exploit, if you actually look at their web site:
In other words, "buy your way into the country by buying some dead persons' business."
Nice scam - too bad Mr. Martinez isn't licensed. The Canadian government has required licensing of anyone doing immigration consulting since 2004 because of the number of scams and abuses.
So why (assuming your post is legit) are you doing this with PRIVATE posts and messages?
What part of the word "private" do you people continue to have a problem understanding?
Also, you have a serious credibility problem, given facebooks' past history of misconduct and breaking privacy laws in several countries, such as PIPEDA in Canada. Why should we believe you this time?
BTW, no, it's not similar to google zeitgeist - people searching using google never explicitly marked a search query as private or public, so stop with the bad analogies and disinformation. We're not that naive (or stupid), and treating us like technological unsophisticates is insulting.
First, it is NOT the same. Google analyzing your data in-house and sharing the trends is not the same as giving your data (including private posts) to a 3rd party for the 3rd party to analyze.
Second, as the links I provided in the submission show, there is no such thing as "anonymized data" - given enough data, you can pretty much connect anyone to a series of facebook posts.