I agree with this one, the axle loading on trucks is significantly more impact to the roadway surface and sub-grade then the personal vehicle. Hopefully taxing them more would move them back onto rail and not pass the increased costs onto the consumers.
Another comment that I notice is that many people assume vehicles will continue using gas into the foreseeable future. I think that we will be using gas for a while longer, but personal vehicles will only get lighter and more efficient and eventually move onto electric/battery/solar/alternative form of energy consumption.
Rail was and is great and I would argue that roads and rail (either commercial or passenger) are both needed for an overall efficient transportation system.
I don't know why but I think I laughed for a few minutes when I read "The production has struggled recently with issues with Unions, and a fire." Is that so wrong?
I do look forward to the hobbit, one of the few books I ever read..
It's true, they even did research on things like font size and how visible you want/need them to be from certain distances. They also look at how many characters and text are too much information.
There is some fairly extensive research on signage. I am part of the small handful of others that are interested in things like this.
No, the Canadian government has been following the US policies regarding this kind of thing pretty closely. They're even trying to put forward the same kind of copyright legislation as the US has through Bill C-32, which used to be similar to a bill previously proposed as Bill C-18 which ran its course because of the proroguing of parliament last year. Bill C-32 is another attempt at the same copyright http://www.zeropaid.com/news/89303/a-detailed-look-at-bill-c-32-canadas-copyright-reform-bill-part-1/ .
In my limited understanding of legal mumble jumble I believe it says in short:
* The express legalization of format shifting, or the copying of content from one device to another, such as a CD to a computer or an iPod.
* The express legalization of time shifting, or recording television programs for later viewing but not for the purposes of building up a library.
* Allowing consumers to make a back-up copy of content to protect against loss or damage.
* A YouTube clause that allows people to mash up media under certain circumstances, as long as it's not for commercial gain.
* A "notice-and-notice" system where copyright holders will inform internet providers of possible piracy from their customers. The ISP would then be required to notify the customer that he or she was violating the law. The violator's personal information could then be released to the copyright holder with a court order.
* ISPs and search engines would be immune from the copyright violations of their users.
* A differentiation of commercial copyright violation versus individual violation. Individuals found violating copyright law could be liable for penalties between $100 and $5,000, which is below the current $20,000 maximum.
* New exceptions to fair dealing that will allow copyright violations for the purposes of parody, satire and education.
Super Mario Galaxy 2 was spectacular. I played it through with my girlfriend (who isn't the most technically savvy person in the world) and we both had a great time. I don't see how you can think people are sick of Mario. I am pretty sure that if it weren't for the continued making of Mario games I would not have bought a Wii. Also, there are many organizations who raise money for charity by playing Mario Marathons, here is one for example http://www.mariomarathon.com/ raised over $82,000 last year for Child's play.
In summary, Mario kicks ass and is a timeless hero.
I spend a great deal of time trying to explain to politicians why they shouldn't put an access on a highway or that things they want don't really work well technically.. I'll say one thing for sure, it has definitely improved my ability to communicate technical standards and best practices to non technical minded people and the public in general.
Sorry. You are right. Here is another link directly relating speed to increased fatalities in crashes. http://archive.safety-council.org/info/traffic/speed.html
From the link:
"As speed increases over 100 km/h, the fatality rate of vehicle occupants goes up exponentially. For example, the chances of being killed in a vehicle traveling at 120 km/h are four times higher than at 100 km/h. When a car crashes near 200 km/h the chances of survival are minimal."
To make it seem like I'm not crazy, I am indeed a transportation engineer.
It is safety. The faster you go the higher the risk of fatality in an accident.
The U.S. Department of transportation's Federal Highway Administration review research on traffic speed in 1998.[19] The summary states:
* That the evidence shows that the risk of having a crash is increased both for vehicles traveling slower than the average speed, and for those traveling above the average speed.
* That the risk of being injured increases exponentially with speeds much faster than the median speed.
* That the severity of a crash depends on the vehicle speed change at impact.
* That there is limited evidence that suggests that lower speed limits result in lower speeds on a system wide basis.
* That most crashes related to speed involve speed too fast for the conditions.
* That more research is needed to determine the effectiveness of traffic calming. http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/speed/speed.htm
Curses, I contacted my MP as well and got this response:
"Mr. insert my secret last name here,
Thank you for your e-mail regarding Bill C-61. This Bill was tabled in the last Parliament and when Mr. Harper prorogued the House of Commons in December, 2009, Bill C-61 died on the order paper and, to date, has not been reintroduced. Below, please find a copy of the response that we sent out to constituents concerned about Bill C-61. If another piece of legislation similar to Bill C-61 is tabled, you can be sure that my colleague, Charlie Angus, MP (Timmins-James Bay) and the NDP Critic for Digital Issues, will be working hard to ensure the legislation does not pass.
Take care,
Linda Duncan
Member of Parliament
Edmonton Strathcona
Thank you for voicing your concerns about copyright legislation in Canada. For the last few years the NDP has been warning the government not to attempt to bring forward restrictive U.S.-style DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) legislation. We urged them to consult with stakeholders and develop legislation that would protect artists, innovators and consumers in the 21st century.
This past summer’s copyright consultation process marked a dramatic reversal of the government’s approach – at least on the surface. It remains to be seen if the Ministers of Industry and Heritage will change course from the disastrous C-61 that completely ignored calls to bring forward reasonable copyright legislation. The bill was full capitulation to the U.S. corporate lobby that would have paved the way for the criminalization of perfectly reasonable behaviour (like format shifting of most legally purchased content).
Across the country, people like you are coming together to oppose an American-style approach to copyright legislation. They are voicing their concerns with the legislation by writing their elected officials, by posting comments on web-pages dedicated to the copyright discussion, and by writing letters-to-the-editor that call for a truly balanced approach. Thank you for being among them.
The NDP is strongly opposed to this kind of approach, and we are calling on MPs from other parties to listen to their constituents and join us in the growing chorus against it. We are pushing for legislation that will ensure that artists and creators are compensated for their work but that also ensures consumers are able to enjoy reasonable rights of access.
I would strongly encourage you to stay active in this fight by putting the heat on the Ministers of Industry and Heritage, the Prime Minister, and the leaders of the other opposition parties. Whether you call, write, email, or all of the above, your participation will be important to making our opposition to this bill impossible to ignore.
Thank you again for getting involved.
All the best,"
It seems my NDP will try to fight it, but that probably won't matter too much.. sad panda.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with this one, the axle loading on trucks is significantly more impact to the roadway surface and sub-grade then the personal vehicle. Hopefully taxing them more would move them back onto rail and not pass the increased costs onto the consumers.
Another comment that I notice is that many people assume vehicles will continue using gas into the foreseeable future. I think that we will be using gas for a while longer, but personal vehicles will only get lighter and more efficient and eventually move onto electric/battery/solar/alternative form of energy consumption.
Rail was and is great and I would argue that roads and rail (either commercial or passenger) are both needed for an overall efficient transportation system.
I don't know why but I think I laughed for a few minutes when I read "The production has struggled recently with issues with Unions, and a fire." Is that so wrong?
I do look forward to the hobbit, one of the few books I ever read..
It's true, they even did research on things like font size and how visible you want/need them to be from certain distances. They also look at how many characters and text are too much information.
There is some fairly extensive research on signage. I am part of the small handful of others that are interested in things like this.
Money Grab. Sigh.
No, the Canadian government has been following the US policies regarding this kind of thing pretty closely. They're even trying to put forward the same kind of copyright legislation as the US has through Bill C-32, which used to be similar to a bill previously proposed as Bill C-18 which ran its course because of the proroguing of parliament last year. Bill C-32 is another attempt at the same copyright http://www.zeropaid.com/news/89303/a-detailed-look-at-bill-c-32-canadas-copyright-reform-bill-part-1/ .
In my limited understanding of legal mumble jumble I believe it says in short:
* The express legalization of format shifting, or the copying of content from one device to another, such as a CD to a computer or an iPod.
* The express legalization of time shifting, or recording television programs for later viewing but not for the purposes of building up a library.
* Allowing consumers to make a back-up copy of content to protect against loss or damage.
* A YouTube clause that allows people to mash up media under certain circumstances, as long as it's not for commercial gain.
* A "notice-and-notice" system where copyright holders will inform internet providers of possible piracy from their customers. The ISP would then be required to notify the customer that he or she was violating the law. The violator's personal information could then be released to the copyright holder with a court order.
* ISPs and search engines would be immune from the copyright violations of their users.
* A differentiation of commercial copyright violation versus individual violation. Individuals found violating copyright law could be liable for penalties between $100 and $5,000, which is below the current $20,000 maximum.
* New exceptions to fair dealing that will allow copyright violations for the purposes of parody, satire and education.
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/06/02/copyright-bill-clement-montreal.html#ixzz0yxLUq6jO
Super Mario Galaxy 2 was spectacular. I played it through with my girlfriend (who isn't the most technically savvy person in the world) and we both had a great time. I don't see how you can think people are sick of Mario. I am pretty sure that if it weren't for the continued making of Mario games I would not have bought a Wii. Also, there are many organizations who raise money for charity by playing Mario Marathons, here is one for example http://www.mariomarathon.com/ raised over $82,000 last year for Child's play.
In summary, Mario kicks ass and is a timeless hero.
I spend a great deal of time trying to explain to politicians why they shouldn't put an access on a highway or that things they want don't really work well technically.. I'll say one thing for sure, it has definitely improved my ability to communicate technical standards and best practices to non technical minded people and the public in general.
Sorry. You are right. Here is another link directly relating speed to increased fatalities in crashes.
http://archive.safety-council.org/info/traffic/speed.html
From the link:
"As speed increases over 100 km/h, the fatality rate of vehicle occupants goes up exponentially. For example, the chances of being killed in a vehicle traveling at 120 km/h are four times higher than at 100 km/h. When a car crashes near 200 km/h the chances of survival are minimal."
To make it seem like I'm not crazy, I am indeed a transportation engineer.
It is safety. The faster you go the higher the risk of fatality in an accident.
The U.S. Department of transportation's Federal Highway Administration review research on traffic speed in 1998.[19] The summary states:
* That the evidence shows that the risk of having a crash is increased both for vehicles traveling slower than the average speed, and for those traveling above the average speed.
* That the risk of being injured increases exponentially with speeds much faster than the median speed.
* That the severity of a crash depends on the vehicle speed change at impact.
* That there is limited evidence that suggests that lower speed limits result in lower speeds on a system wide basis.
* That most crashes related to speed involve speed too fast for the conditions.
* That more research is needed to determine the effectiveness of traffic calming.
http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/speed/speed.htm
Curses, I contacted my MP as well and got this response:
"Mr. insert my secret last name here,
Thank you for your e-mail regarding Bill C-61. This Bill was tabled in the last Parliament and when Mr. Harper prorogued the House of Commons in December, 2009, Bill C-61 died on the order paper and, to date, has not been reintroduced. Below, please find a copy of the response that we sent out to constituents concerned about Bill C-61. If another piece of legislation similar to Bill C-61 is tabled, you can be sure that my colleague, Charlie Angus, MP (Timmins-James Bay) and the NDP Critic for Digital Issues, will be working hard to ensure the legislation does not pass.
Take care,
Linda Duncan
Member of Parliament Edmonton Strathcona
Thank you for voicing your concerns about copyright legislation in Canada. For the last few years the NDP has been warning the government not to attempt to bring forward restrictive U.S.-style DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) legislation. We urged them to consult with stakeholders and develop legislation that would protect artists, innovators and consumers in the 21st century.
This past summer’s copyright consultation process marked a dramatic reversal of the government’s approach – at least on the surface. It remains to be seen if the Ministers of Industry and Heritage will change course from the disastrous C-61 that completely ignored calls to bring forward reasonable copyright legislation. The bill was full capitulation to the U.S. corporate lobby that would have paved the way for the criminalization of perfectly reasonable behaviour (like format shifting of most legally purchased content).
Across the country, people like you are coming together to oppose an American-style approach to copyright legislation. They are voicing their concerns with the legislation by writing their elected officials, by posting comments on web-pages dedicated to the copyright discussion, and by writing letters-to-the-editor that call for a truly balanced approach. Thank you for being among them.
The NDP is strongly opposed to this kind of approach, and we are calling on MPs from other parties to listen to their constituents and join us in the growing chorus against it. We are pushing for legislation that will ensure that artists and creators are compensated for their work but that also ensures consumers are able to enjoy reasonable rights of access.
I would strongly encourage you to stay active in this fight by putting the heat on the Ministers of Industry and Heritage, the Prime Minister, and the leaders of the other opposition parties. Whether you call, write, email, or all of the above, your participation will be important to making our opposition to this bill impossible to ignore.
Thank you again for getting involved.
All the best,"
It seems my NDP will try to fight it, but that probably won't matter too much.. sad panda.
Don't do it! Some low level drone like me will have to respond to all those requests!
Maybe they have a stargate.