Prev: Looking for NetExpress 3.1 work
Next: Need immediately COBOL PROGRAMMER ANALYSTS , CA,Duration : 1-2 years,Rate : $33/hr
From: Clark F Morris on 15 Feb 2010 15:29
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 00:20:07 -0700, "James J. Gavan"
<jgavandeletethis(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
>> much snipped
>
>During my 12 years in the RAF the bane of my life was the paralleling to
>Margaret the little lassie above. Throughout the RAF the Air Ministry
>regularly used to distribute AMOs (Air Ministry Orders). Didn't matter
>what the topic was, flying safety, aircraft accidents, promotion
>procedures, disciplinary procedures, fire fighting, catering, autos,
>frame fitting, engine fitting, etc......, the next one issued got the
>next AMO number for the current year in sequence. Absolutely no
>splitting by topic. In the admin game I would be the one the officers
>would pester for, "I saw something about xxxxx I think around ...yyyyy.
>Could you please find it for me ?" OMG !
>
>Guess what system J4 use ?
>
>I know I've mentioned it to them. What notice they took I don't know,
>but at least at the end of the year they produce an index, as one of the
>last J4 documents for that year. It's 'incredibly' helpful - it lists
>documents in numerical ascending sequence by documents number. (About as
>useful as giving me an Index for the AMOs in air force days). And so far
>as I can see, there's no search engine to reference the documents by
>date, title or topic. Extremely useful.
>
>Remember the main people in this J4 racket are representing some fair
>sized corporations - would IBM stand for this clap-trap internally.

Unfortunately many of us who have dealt with IBM (and our own shops)
would answer YES. In some areas organizations can be extremely
backwards. See the periodic discussions on bit.listserv.ibm-main
about the MVS only recognizing Count Key Data formatted disks and not
recognizing Fixed Block Architecture disks for anything. Most
operating systems only recognized Fixed Block Architecture.
>
>You can betcha any J4-types lurking here, think I'm being grossly unfair
>to their dis(organisation).
>
>Jimmy, Calgary AB
>
>
>******* UK GST :
>
>Long time since I was involved with the intro for VAT in UK. Alistair is
>my formula correct ?
>
>In UK the Sale Ticket price is Price + VAT %. You only pay what you see
>on the price ticket.
>
>I wouldn't dare do an example for GST in Canada, certainly not Retail.
>The Sale Ticket price is what the Retailer wants, after mark-up
>percentage. Then depending upon where you are - and it goes without
>saying, Quebec probably is different from the rest, East Coast have-not
>provinces HST (Harmonized Sales Tax) - saves those provinces
>administrative costs - the Feds lay down the HST rate and give the
>respective provinces a percent of the tax they collect. Start heading
>West and each province adds on its rate for PST (Provincial Sales Tax)
>with the exception, of Alberta which like Texas has no Province/State
>tax - both are oil/gas BTW. Given the above, the Federal GST (currently
>5%), comes into play and that we do pay in Alberta. Of course this is
>all covered by the vendors of cash registers to automate tax
>calculations per province.
>
>******* Long time since I was involved with the intro for VAT in UK.
>Alistair is my formula correct ?
>
>In UK the Sale Ticket price is Price + VAT %. You only pay what you see
>on the price ticket.
>
>I wouldn't dare do an example for GST in Canada, certainly not Retail.
>The Sale Ticket price is what the Retailer wants, after markup
>percentage. Then depending upon where you are - and it goes without
>saying, Quebec probably is different from the rest, East Coast have-not
>provinces HST (Harmonised Sales Tax) - saves those provinces
>administrative costs - the Feds lay down the HST rate and give the
>respective provinces a percent of the tax they collect. Start heading
>West and each province adds on its rate for PST (Provincial Sales Tax)
>with the exception, of Alberta and like Texas no Province/State tax -
>both are oil/gas BTW. Given the above the Federal GST (now currently
>5%) comes into play and that we pay in Alberta. Of course this is all
>covered by the vendors of cash registers to automate tax calculations
>per province.
>
>Our system differs from the UK approach, (can't be sure, but think the
>UK method applies to other EU members). Which means a ladies coat in
>Canada is Ticketed at $250, and to keep it simple, in Alberta your cash
>slip shows an additional 5% for the Feds.
>
>But the Canadian system does have it's challenges - you buy at a Bay
>Store in Saskatchewan paying PST and you want to return and get a refund
>from a Bay store in Alberta where there is no PST.
From: James J. Gavan on 15 Feb 2010 23:06
Clark F Morris wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 00:20:07 -0700, "James J. Gavan"
>>Guess what system J4 use ?
>>
>>I know I've mentioned it to them. What notice they took I don't know,
>>but at least at the end of the year they produce an index, as one of the
>>last J4 documents for that year. It's 'incredibly' helpful - it lists
>>documents in numerical ascending sequence by documents number. (About as
>>useful as giving me an Index for the AMOs in air force days). And so far
>>as I can see, there's no search engine to reference the documents by
>>date, title or topic. Extremely useful.
>>
>>Remember the main people in this J4 racket are representing some fair
>>sized corporations - would IBM stand for this clap-trap internally.

>
> Unfortunately many of us who have dealt with IBM (and our own shops)
> would answer YES. In some areas organizations can be extremely
> backwards. See the periodic discussions on bit.listserv.ibm-main
> about the MVS only recognizing Count Key Data formatted disks and not
> recognizing Fixed Block Architecture disks for anything. Most
> operating systems only recognized Fixed Block Architecture.
>
Well Clark, I did write it as an afterthought with a little bit of
tongue in cheek. Anticipated somebody would be a little more cheery than
you in their defence. Only about a year ago searched their site and they
are excellent on COBOL examples using SQL and written in COBOL. Even if
the particular DB doesn't have all they cover, nevertheless its nice to
see each example in COBOL and not shooting off to one of the new cryptic
languages.

I just e-mailed somebody privately - Don't think I can do cryptic. Well
I damn well can. First years in RAF I was learning Pitman's shorthand.
You want cryptic, google to get a Wikipedia example of Pitman's
shorthand. And I hated it :-)

Jimmy, Calgary AB
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Looking for NetExpress 3.1 work
Next: Need immediately COBOL PROGRAMMER ANALYSTS , CA,Duration : 1-2 years,Rate : $33/hr