Itâ(TM)s called a Contract of Adhesion. Perfectly normal in the business world, courts accept them as written, but reportedly many apply extra scrutiny and give the benefit of doubt to the consumer.
Actually a depressingly large number of construction/carpentry/HVAC people. Theyâ(TM)re always talking about a half inch of slope (in a deck) or somewhat.
In fact, the reason we had to be sure to use âoeCelsiusâ rather than the older âoecentigradeâ is because the civil engineering crowd already used the latter for a unit of slope â" calculated as rise over run times 100, IIRC.
The kids didn't die before -- they just got the flu. I would guess that they hope they won't die this year either.
I understand their point to be that the kids who didn't get the shot (the parents can opt out) turned out to be, in general, no worse off than those who did.
Up until this year, Quebec has offered free flu shots to kids of 6-24 months and everyone over sixty.
But they've decided to cancel them this year for all but "at risk" individuals, not as a cost saving measure, but because they've concluded they don't really work. Or at least haven't for some years now.
I also disagree that it is a more fair system. Someone who is sick and unable to work has much greater need than someone who has a good job. Why would they receive the same sum?
Because it is both fairer and bureaucratically cheaper to pay them both and tax it back from the one who is doing well enough to contribute.
If you simply give everyone a basic amount, there is no niggling, maneuvering, or fraud about eligibility for fifty-three different entitlements. And if you (actually) tax everyone based on their real income -- including said basic amount -- then you eliminate much of the niggling, maneuvering and fraud about seventy-one different tax loopholes and exemptions.
It might even wind up being approximately the same result as we have now, just with 80% fewer bureaucrats and 50% less fraud.
We got that Amber Alert in Montreal too, and thatâ(TM)s another 6 hours further by car than Toronto. Admittedly, we only got it on the radio, but thatâ(TM)s because the Quebec emergency system failed totally when tested a couple of weeks ago.
The reason the per capita (not "capital") number is important is because these immigrants have to be absorbed into society. If Canada accepted as many immigrants as the US in absolute numbers, it couldn't cope with the demands of all of the newcomers all at once.
However, Canada is growing much faster from migration than the US (0.57% vs 0.39%) according to the CIA Factbook https://www.cia.gov/library/pu... .
Well, that's the problem actually. The Third Safe Country agreement between the US was supposed to deal with this problem, but it has a big loophole: it only applies to people arriving at official border crossings.
This is why there is such a hullabaloo about families deliberately stepping just across the border at Roxham Road, in full view of RCMP officers, and yards away from the official crossing at Lacolle. They are instantly arrested, but they then can claim asylum as the Third Safe Country agreement doesn't apply.
Also, it's a bit more than four: it averaged about 55 a day last year, totaling 20,593 just crossing between official border stations. This year, numbers are about the same -- 1970 in March, for example ( https://www.canada.ca/en/immig... ).
Canada has been granting asylum to about 50% of them at the moment.
..., while they complain endlessly when they see a mere fraction of the immigrants America sees annually.
Somewhere above someone posted figures showing Canada has double the annual per capita immigration rate than does the US (1% vs 0.5% respectively). However, they misstated the Canadian population as 30 million vs. the actual number of 36.3 million, so the actual immigration rates are closer.
I don't think that's quite right, but my memory is very hazy now.
5 1/4" started at 160KB (on PCs), then went to 180KB by fitting an extra sector in each track. Then they doubled to 360KB, but I don't remember if it was because of DS (double-sided) or DD (double-density). Were DSDD 720KB? When the PC/AT came out, they had 1.2MB drives that purportedly could read and write the above formats too, but they often didn't. These were called HD, I seem to recall (I know that contradicts what I said above). 3 1/2" drives did indeed come out (on PC's) at 720KB, and later almost universally went to 1.44MB. Am I right in remembering a brief period of 2.88MB support before they died completely?
Even though I believe I'm quite a good coder, when I read code from 5 years ago, I'm always surprised to realize that I can do better and simpler.
Whatever the state of your code is today, it will be a mess in a few years.
Yes. I find this to be the case too (I was a programmer in the seventies and eighties, and have been in programming management ever since).
So it begs the question "can one write code that one won't think is sub-optimal five years from now?". I've begun to suspect that one can't -- so just learn to accept it and move on.
What I try to get programmers to do is write code that is A) clear and simple and B) balanced in terms of development vs. maintenance time. I don't want programmers wasting time perfecting code that's not going even be looked at for years to come, nor do I want code that takes days to get into when attempting small fixes.
It's like building a house: if you follow the building standards, it's quick, safe, and any plumber or other trade can walk in later and quickly fix or modify things. If you do a bodge job it all has to be torn out and redone properly, or, if you create custom installations, it gets very expensive to create and especially to maintain.
"... but the fact itself that someone is making decisions for me regarding things like that makes me feel somewhat displeased. C++ doesn't restrict programmers regarding what they can or cannot use."
That's exactly what I said about C vs. 360/Assembler 25 or more years ago. And I still prefer to code in Assembler.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but the EST time zone runs from 62 degrees longitude through 90 degrees, thus 28 degrees, which is comparable to the OPâ(TM)s point about India.
In Canada, Quebec and Ontario are both in Eastern Standard Time, also nearly a 30 degree span.
Itâ(TM)s called a Contract of Adhesion. Perfectly normal in the business world, courts accept them as written, but reportedly many apply extra scrutiny and give the benefit of doubt to the consumer.
Ps: Why canâ(TM)t /. properly handle basic default double-quotes typed on an iPad keyboard?
Actually a depressingly large number of construction/carpentry/HVAC people. Theyâ(TM)re always talking about a half inch of slope (in a deck) or somewhat.
In fact, the reason we had to be sure to use âoeCelsiusâ rather than the older âoecentigradeâ is because the civil engineering crowd already used the latter for a unit of slope â" calculated as rise over run times 100, IIRC.
The kids didn't die before -- they just got the flu. I would guess that they hope they won't die this year either.
I understand their point to be that the kids who didn't get the shot (the parents can opt out) turned out to be, in general, no worse off than those who did.
Up until this year, Quebec has offered free flu shots to kids of 6-24 months and everyone over sixty.
But they've decided to cancel them this year for all but "at risk" individuals, not as a cost saving measure, but because they've concluded they don't really work. Or at least haven't for some years now.
http://www.iheartradio.ca/cjad...
I also disagree that it is a more fair system. Someone who is sick and unable to work has much greater need than someone who has a good job. Why would they receive the same sum?
Because it is both fairer and bureaucratically cheaper to pay them both and tax it back from the one who is doing well enough to contribute.
If you simply give everyone a basic amount, there is no niggling, maneuvering, or fraud about eligibility for fifty-three different entitlements. And if you (actually) tax everyone based on their real income -- including said basic amount -- then you eliminate much of the niggling, maneuvering and fraud about seventy-one different tax loopholes and exemptions.
It might even wind up being approximately the same result as we have now, just with 80% fewer bureaucrats and 50% less fraud.
We got that Amber Alert in Montreal too, and thatâ(TM)s another 6 hours further by car than Toronto. Admittedly, we only got it on the radio, but thatâ(TM)s because the Quebec emergency system failed totally when tested a couple of weeks ago.
The reason the per capita (not "capital") number is important is because these immigrants have to be absorbed into society. If Canada accepted as many immigrants as the US in absolute numbers, it couldn't cope with the demands of all of the newcomers all at once.
However, Canada is growing much faster from migration than the US (0.57% vs 0.39%) according to the CIA Factbook https://www.cia.gov/library/pu... .
Well, that's the problem actually. The Third Safe Country agreement between the US was supposed to deal with this problem, but it has a big loophole: it only applies to people arriving at official border crossings.
This is why there is such a hullabaloo about families deliberately stepping just across the border at Roxham Road, in full view of RCMP officers, and yards away from the official crossing at Lacolle. They are instantly arrested, but they then can claim asylum as the Third Safe Country agreement doesn't apply.
Also, it's a bit more than four: it averaged about 55 a day last year, totaling 20,593 just crossing between official border stations. This year, numbers are about the same -- 1970 in March, for example ( https://www.canada.ca/en/immig... ).
Canada has been granting asylum to about 50% of them at the moment.
Well, in "non-heathy" environments, belief in God is reportedly correlated to happiness:
https://www.psychologytoday.co...
..., while they complain endlessly when they see a mere fraction of the immigrants America sees annually.
Somewhere above someone posted figures showing Canada has double the annual per capita immigration rate than does the US (1% vs 0.5% respectively). However, they misstated the Canadian population as 30 million vs. the actual number of 36.3 million, so the actual immigration rates are closer.
Actually I take that back. It would be more correct to say that no card gets fully inserted in gas pumps in stations near here.
No card here in Canada gets inserted all the way into the reader.
Surely the only thing that's really important is what IE6 does with it. Why would anyone use anything else?
PS, reading the thread again, I realize I've said you're not quite right, but then wound up just confirming what you wrote.
In my defense, I did say my memory was very hazy these days -- I clearly can't even remember what the post I'm responding to said!
I don't think that's quite right, but my memory is very hazy now.
5 1/4" started at 160KB (on PCs), then went to 180KB by fitting an extra sector in each track.
Then they doubled to 360KB, but I don't remember if it was because of DS (double-sided) or DD (double-density). Were DSDD 720KB?
When the PC/AT came out, they had 1.2MB drives that purportedly could read and write the above formats too, but they often didn't. These were called HD, I seem to recall (I know that contradicts what I said above).
3 1/2" drives did indeed come out (on PC's) at 720KB, and later almost universally went to 1.44MB. Am I right in remembering a brief period of 2.88MB support before they died completely?
Surely there's a Wikipedia table for this...
IIRC HD (high density) came out later, only on 3.5" floppies. SD and DD were available for both 5 1/4" and 8" sizes.
Maybe it means before or after birth.
Cyanide would be such a drug. Before birth, administer to adult, after birth, administer to offspring.
Yes. As they do in Canada.
Even though I believe I'm quite a good coder, when I read code from 5 years ago, I'm always surprised to realize that I can do better and simpler.
Whatever the state of your code is today, it will be a mess in a few years.
Yes. I find this to be the case too (I was a programmer in the seventies and eighties, and have been in programming management ever since).
So it begs the question "can one write code that one won't think is sub-optimal five years from now?". I've begun to suspect that one can't -- so just learn to accept it and move on.
What I try to get programmers to do is write code that is A) clear and simple and B) balanced in terms of development vs. maintenance time. I don't want programmers wasting time perfecting code that's not going even be looked at for years to come, nor do I want code that takes days to get into when attempting small fixes.
It's like building a house: if you follow the building standards, it's quick, safe, and any plumber or other trade can walk in later and quickly fix or modify things. If you do a bodge job it all has to be torn out and redone properly, or, if you create custom installations, it gets very expensive to create and especially to maintain.
Sorry, I realize it's 35 years ago. You can blame it on senility.
"... but the fact itself that someone is making decisions for me regarding things like that makes me feel somewhat displeased. C++ doesn't restrict programmers regarding what they can or cannot use."
That's exactly what I said about C vs. 360/Assembler 25 or more years ago. And I still prefer to code in Assembler.
Check out the Hands Up app
http://www.handsuptheapp.com/