Regarding profitability of transit, it would be interesting to take fresh look at exactly what a profitable transit system is. The truth is that it doesn't have to make a lot of money. It just has to lose less money than roads and cars.
Here's some good news. The transit system in Metro Vancouver seems to be running fairly well. We're running out of money for new projects, but we're getting more frequent service. They're starting to clue in that the frequency is the most important.
Here's some bad news. I noticed that our city seems to avoid contributing to better transit and to avoid building new roads, by rebuilding roads and widening lanes. It's so silly that they can get away with this.
I agree with you. I'm surprised that anybody said that they make great pets. I worked on a farm just last week. The chickens were stupid and annoying. They had a dopey look on their faces, and always looked surprised about everything.
Our biggest problem is selfish fat fucks that don't want to do things like ride the bus, and try to invent 500 reasons that they "won't" work when they will, and do every day for plenty of people.
I'm reminded of the people who say that they can't take transit because a bus doesn't come near their homes. When a bus finally comes with a 5 minute frequency, then they move even farther away, and repeat the argument!:^D
One of the problems with this equality thing is that we can't have, for example, a company with 1/10 men and another company with 9/10 men. Each one seeks an even distribution when it might not be the most efficient thing to do.
Yes, and no.
I agree with your overall sentiment, but remember that men aren't allowed to have men only companies. Women are allowed women only companies. Technically, we could have 75% - 100% of the workforce made up of women, and affirmative action could even know about it, but affirmative action wouldn't step in to help us.
I don't mean to sound like a troll, but men seem to dominate the janitorial field as well. I honestly can't think of a woman who definitely can clean better than a man.
In my opinion, all of the salary if MPs, MLAs, and civic representatives should be that way. If there were a way to let these representatives choose the offer that is worth the most, then they wouldn't even think about toeing the party line. The idea is to take away the representative's salary, and let each person in the community offer up a certain amount. That would turn it into a bidding system.
You have a good point. I wonder if there are any other intelligent reasons for voting against the guy that you prefer. Here are few that I like.
1) He's down to earth, and probably will be a back bencher. Voting him in gives him a source of income that won't go into the hands of somebody out of touch with the rest of us. 2) It might go to his head, if everybody votes for him. He would saying something stupid, like, "Hey! I got 100% of the votes! I must be doing everything right.". That might frustrate voters more, and encourage them to vote next time. 3) Your willingness to vote for somebody else will show politicians that you aren't blindly commited to them, and thus, they will have to work harder for you, next time. Hmm, as I type, this makes sense. Politicians won't have to listen to you, if they that you will vote a certain way every single time. They would be wasting everybody's time and energy. If you are undecided, then they are willing to make an effort. This is a very interesting idea. Think about how companies market. They are essentially trying to build loyalty from people who have a tendency to find other places to spend money. Would they really listen to you if you commited to spending all of your disposable income on their services and products, regardless of the value you receive?
The shape is an advantage and disadvantage, in that it means that there is room for more customization, and thus profits, and that there is an increased cost, and thus difficulty in competing.
Maybe they could try a hobbyist approach, where they just take a blade that just works well enough for the current needs. As the needs grow, they decide whether or not they need to upgrade. It'll give them time to pay things off, and to wait for manufacturing technology to improve.
I'm not really making suggestions. I'm just wondering if my ideas are on track.
I can understand that they would have trouble making a good living from it at this point, but can they make the technology pay for itself? I've always wondered if the initial challenges can be overcome with simple products out of a recycle bin plus a rotor.
It's also good that you're thinking about getting energy from grey water. I wondered about that as well. I also thought about rain water going down water spouts, but a civic engineer told me that it wouldn't work.
Do you know why US & Canadian toilets typically don't have the tank higher up? I figure that it would allow us to use less water.
What is going on here? I looked up at the previous comment to my comment above, and it makes no sense. I thought that I was replying to another comment.
Actually, that's not true. My friend looked up just for 1 split second, and then the next thing I knew, he smashed his car. He's dead, and I'm paralysed below the waist.
Fascinating. I have the exact opposite experience. I generally make a decision 10 days after receiving the final piece of information that I will use to make the decision. For example, the boss says, "Hey, Eugene. Here's a project for you. Get it done by the end of today.", and then 10 days later, I think to myself, "Hmm, maybe I should get started on that project...".
In fact, it doesn't even tell us that. They were only able to predict the outcome 70%-80% of the time. There's a lot of misinterpretation here. Maybe a majority of us resort to some kind of random generator. Obviously, some people didn't go with their "first decision". That needs more study.
10 seconds is a long time. I wonder what happens during that time.
;^) Come on. Let's not turn this into a flame war.:^)
Seriously, I think that these types of questions might be useful, but I think that they could also get a complex sampling. I don't know how to describe what I'm thinking here. When I read, "A Van Gough or a Gougain", I paused, because I wanted to go with Van Gough, but is that because I don't know who Gougain is? Shouldn't I try to sample his work, before deciding? If we do an experiment according to your suggestions, then hopefully the interpretation will take this type of thinking into account. Maybe I misunderstand you.
I'm mostly disappointed that they didn't test more people. I'd also like to know if the random letters were in the same order for everybody. Yes,:^) I read the article.:^)
I agree about dieing somehow. It's better to live life, than avoid death. I notice that a lot of these health fads and special diets are more about avoiding death, and avoiding unhealthy living, than they are about just living life to the fullest.
Slashdot Mirror
That's what I say about you! :^)
Regarding profitability of transit, it would be interesting to take fresh look at exactly what a profitable transit system is. The truth is that it doesn't have to make a lot of money. It just has to lose less money than roads and cars.
Here's some good news. The transit system in Metro Vancouver seems to be running fairly well. We're running out of money for new projects, but we're getting more frequent service. They're starting to clue in that the frequency is the most important.
Here's some bad news. I noticed that our city seems to avoid contributing to better transit and to avoid building new roads, by rebuilding roads and widening lanes. It's so silly that they can get away with this.
How's the system in your neighbourhood?
I agree with you. I'm surprised that anybody said that they make great pets. I worked on a farm just last week. The chickens were stupid and annoying. They had a dopey look on their faces, and always looked surprised about everything.
I'm reminded of the people who say that they can't take transit because a bus doesn't come near their homes. When a bus finally comes with a 5 minute frequency, then they move even farther away, and repeat the argument! :^D
> Seriously, screw over men.
*Now*, it's fixed.
Yes, and no.
I agree with your overall sentiment, but remember that men aren't allowed to have men only companies. Women are allowed women only companies. Technically, we could have 75% - 100% of the workforce made up of women, and affirmative action could even know about it, but affirmative action wouldn't step in to help us.
I don't mean to sound like a troll, but men seem to dominate the janitorial field as well. I honestly can't think of a woman who definitely can clean better than a man.
In my opinion, all of the salary if MPs, MLAs, and civic representatives should be that way. If there were a way to let these representatives choose the offer that is worth the most, then they wouldn't even think about toeing the party line. The idea is to take away the representative's salary, and let each person in the community offer up a certain amount. That would turn it into a bidding system.
You have a good point. I wonder if there are any other intelligent reasons for voting against the guy that you prefer. Here are few that I like.
1) He's down to earth, and probably will be a back bencher. Voting him in gives him a source of income that won't go into the hands of somebody out of touch with the rest of us.
2) It might go to his head, if everybody votes for him. He would saying something stupid, like, "Hey! I got 100% of the votes! I must be doing everything right.". That might frustrate voters more, and encourage them to vote next time.
3) Your willingness to vote for somebody else will show politicians that you aren't blindly commited to them, and thus, they will have to work harder for you, next time. Hmm, as I type, this makes sense. Politicians won't have to listen to you, if they that you will vote a certain way every single time. They would be wasting everybody's time and energy. If you are undecided, then they are willing to make an effort. This is a very interesting idea. Think about how companies market. They are essentially trying to build loyalty from people who have a tendency to find other places to spend money. Would they really listen to you if you commited to spending all of your disposable income on their services and products, regardless of the value you receive?
The shape is an advantage and disadvantage, in that it means that there is room for more customization, and thus profits, and that there is an increased cost, and thus difficulty in competing.
Maybe they could try a hobbyist approach, where they just take a blade that just works well enough for the current needs. As the needs grow, they decide whether or not they need to upgrade. It'll give them time to pay things off, and to wait for manufacturing technology to improve.
I'm not really making suggestions. I'm just wondering if my ideas are on track.
I can understand that they would have trouble making a good living from it at this point, but can they make the technology pay for itself? I've always wondered if the initial challenges can be overcome with simple products out of a recycle bin plus a rotor.
That's awesome news, because the tank doesn't need to fill up very quickly. Thus, any pressure loss, due to the raising of a few feet, is no big deal.
Also, the tank uses up space, which is very wasteful.
That's awesome news.
It's also good that you're thinking about getting energy from grey water. I wondered about that as well. I also thought about rain water going down water spouts, but a civic engineer told me that it wouldn't work.
Do you know why US & Canadian toilets typically don't have the tank higher up? I figure that it would allow us to use less water.
Did you ever get those galleries or upside down umbrellas implemented?
By the way, I was joking about being paralyzed. It all makes no sense.
What is going on here? I looked up at the previous comment to my comment above, and it makes no sense. I thought that I was replying to another comment.
Actually, that's not true. My friend looked up just for 1 split second, and then the next thing I knew, he smashed his car. He's dead, and I'm paralysed below the waist.
I don't want to discourage you from being a skeptic. By all means, be a skeptic. ;^) But did you even read what he said? He said, "Canadians". ;^p
Why couldn't you SMS him? Did you at least try to ask him for a phone number? After all, he's right there.
God: That didn't seem like 5 minutes to me.
Fascinating. I have the exact opposite experience. I generally make a decision 10 days after receiving the final piece of information that I will use to make the decision. For example, the boss says, "Hey, Eugene. Here's a project for you. Get it done by the end of today.", and then 10 days later, I think to myself, "Hmm, maybe I should get started on that project...".
In fact, it doesn't even tell us that. They were only able to predict the outcome 70%-80% of the time. There's a lot of misinterpretation here. Maybe a majority of us resort to some kind of random generator. Obviously, some people didn't go with their "first decision". That needs more study.
10 seconds is a long time. I wonder what happens during that time.
KDE vs GNOME
VIM vs Emacs
*BSD vs Linux
;^) Come on. Let's not turn this into a flame war. :^)
Seriously, I think that these types of questions might be useful, but I think that they could also get a complex sampling. I don't know how to describe what I'm thinking here. When I read, "A Van Gough or a Gougain", I paused, because I wanted to go with Van Gough, but is that because I don't know who Gougain is? Shouldn't I try to sample his work, before deciding? If we do an experiment according to your suggestions, then hopefully the interpretation will take this type of thinking into account. Maybe I misunderstand you.
I'm mostly disappointed that they didn't test more people. I'd also like to know if the random letters were in the same order for everybody. Yes, :^) I read the article. :^)
You sound more generous than I. I think that they don't even bother passing the ball, yet this still expect us to catch it. :^D
Since they are in the lab, couldn't we just crush them; that is, the politicians and the lawyers?
I agree about dieing somehow. It's better to live life, than avoid death. I notice that a lot of these health fads and special diets are more about avoiding death, and avoiding unhealthy living, than they are about just living life to the fullest.