>Prediction, Toronto wins. It is the only non-US option listed, and Jeff Bezos gets to stick it to Donald Trump.
Some of the politicians involved on our side are actually saying, "Don't hold your breath, Trump will find a way to spike this".
Bezos is ultimately a businessman, and if Trump can make it sufficiently unattractive to go outside the USA, he's likely to give up the ego gratification of 'sticking it to Trump' and accept the best net-profit solution.
I'd have put Waterloo on the list, they've got a bit of a tech hub going there fed by University of Waterloo CS students, and literally down the street is Wilfred Laurier University turning out decent business grads. Cost of living for employees is significantly lower, and there's plenty of room for building as there's a lot of 'country' more or less immediately outside the already built-up areas.
It's only an hour away from Pearson Airport (which... oddly enough, is sometimes less driving time than it takes to get to downtown Toronto), and Waterloo has a regional airport that could handle smaller aircraft directly if you want American execs to fly in. There's talk of putting in a high-speed rail corridor to Toronto by 2025, too.
[And just prior to hitting 'submit', I see that the 'Toronto' proposal somehow includes Waterloo, and Waterloo doesn't expect to actually get it because of Trump]
Here in the Greater Toronto Area, you'd expect people to be able to drive in snow... but almost everyone seems to forget for at least the first snowfall of the year. You get two kinds of drivers: the ones who suddenly do half the speed limit even though you can still see bare pavement, and the ones who think their pickup truck or SUV makes them invincible, and exceed the speed limit even in a whiteout with no bare pavement at all (the latter kind you sometimes find in a ditch as you pass them further down the road).
However, even the idiots seem to be able to figure out where the road is (though individual lanes often become very 'fuzzy'). Self-driving cars are nowhere near able to do that, and until they can do it at least as well as the bad drivers can now, autonomous vehicles are NOT ready for the road.
I don't know about charts for aircraft, but I know Canadian standards for nautical charts include markings for magnetic deviation (and notation on rate of change so you can still use an older chart). Since pilots are already required to frequently check NOTAM updates, I don't see a big deal in having them remain aware of local magnetic deviation.
Mark the runways by geographical heading, put the magnetic deviation at the airport/aerodrome on the chart. That's got to be one of the simpler things a pilot has to deal with during navigation, and one of the least significant if they screw up; it's not like a geographically marked runway will be off by enough to confuse with another if you're using magnetic headings by mistake.
>Over time I know moderation will kick in to adjust such posts
So far, you have not 'called' this one and we're what, about 4 hours in? Obviously, science and evidence must be censored if they contradict what we want to be true!
Honestly, this happens with both the far left and the far right, but it ALSO happens to be the case that it's the far right that's taken up the position of willful ignorance on this one.
Reality is that thing that still exists regardless of what you think of it. If reality includes global warming due to human activity and humans refuse to do anything about it... the globe shall warm faster than it would have otherwise.
When there have been some major local climate shifts resulting in altering which areas humans consider habitable, along with the ensuing predictable migrations, conflicts, and shortages one would expect... amateur historians will look back and consider us all crazy for ignoring the obvious. The professionals will endlessly analyze the social forces that made it all inevitable.
Essentially, those who believe the climate models and evidence simply still are not sure enough exactly what will happen and how bad it will get - because if we were we'd likely be getting all angry-lynch-mob on anyone who was denying there is a serious issue or obstructing efforts to deal with it.
Insufficient knowledge for a good diagnosis, but plenty of knowledge to stoke outrage.
If there was a way to lock this down to 'users who know what they are doing', that'd be great... but the whole Apple platform is built on 'you can be dumb as a box of rocks and still look like one of the elite using this product'.
If you really want to install pretty much what you want on your phone, get an Android device. It's a hell of a lot easier to get around most of the restrictions they generally come with by default.
>Basically, when you use Uber/Lyft, you're paying for use of a car plus the time and services of a driver.
You cannot get the cost of a driving service low enough to compete, since my travel time is already lost regardless of whether I'm a driver or a passenger.
I keep my costs for a car to ~CAD 1K/year by buying used and driving them until they're not safe. Add gas and a few more percentage points for insurance.
I live more than five miles from work, I like visiting my parents from time to time - and they live in a different city, and sometimes I go shopping.
If I was that desperate to save a bit more at the cost of convenience, I'd get an e-bike. Of course, the weather here doesn't really allow for that most days, and an e-bike's top speed is half the average speed of traffic... so I'd have to be pretty desperate.
>has it occurred to any of those people that cost may not be the only factor that was considered when the law was created?
Fossil fuels are only more profitable because we don't include all the costs... production was handled a long time ago, over a very long period of time. Pollution? We do a lot more to mitigate than we used to, but in the grand scheme of things we really don't spend much on turning the use of such fuel in to a net-zero impact on the environment.
You burn a plant, and you grow a new one... carbon cycle closed. More or less, or at least far better than burning oil extracted from the ground. The entire product lifecycle is included in the sale price.
Essentially a mobility scooter with an insulated cylindrical body of pizza-diameter, with slide-out drawers, a card reader and a cell phone. Throw on some standard lights for road safety.
The thing drives itself to your door, calls you on your phone to advise it has arrived, and when you put your payment card in the reader the drawer(s) with your pizza(s) slide open.
>Weren't we all promised cool, sleek, aerodynamic FLYING CARS?
Even just a year or two ago, it was upscaled quadracopters to move humans.
Apparently, somebody eventually did the math on energy consumption, the utility analysis on the ability to get from a->b under various common conditions, and the insurance costs of having urban skies full of flying metal just waiting to become kinetic energy weapons.
> The simple fact is that women are the gatekeepers.
Women are, on average, less aggressive about sex. That means that, more often or not, they effectively are the ones with 'veto' power over a consensual sexual encounter.
That has absolutely nothing to do with them being 'loose' or 'dirty'. Spreading disease through a heterosexual encounter requires a man to be present also. Any moral judgements on said encounter should be levied against BOTH participants.
> They have this role and this responsibility. On the upside for women, men get to die defending them and providing for them.
Could you get a little more red pill? I can't quite hear your sad, angry little ego coming through in your post.
Me, I live in a world where women can support themselves and we have police who are expected to protect people regardless of their genitalia.
I know that was the attitude at the time (and until fairly recently)... but... it takes two to tango. How 'loose' could those women be without a bunch of men seeking sex with them?
"Promiscuity increases the probability of spreading sexually transmitted diseases". No moral judgement, no strongly implied misogyny, just statistical fact that applies equally to both people involved in the individual act.
If only they'd lived in dense cesspools of cities and dealt with zoonosis for a few hundred years, maybe they'd have had better immune systems.
Or at least killed as high a percentage of Europeans as they lost of their own.
I really do wonder, though... would the Old World folks have acted any differently if they'd understood that going to the New World would pretty much obliterate the locals through disease?
No, just a stupid interpretation of what I posted. That's on you.
>You're suggesting people ought to vote on things not because of the merits of what they're voting on but out of vindictive spite.
See, that's where you let your stupidity get the better of you, and you inferred what was never implied.
No 'ought' at all. That's the way it works right now in the GOP; vote Trump, unless you have nothing to lose and are pissed that he's destroying the party.
They don't need a moderate Republican. Given the current state of the involved politics, what they need is a pissed off Republican who isn't interested in continuing in public service and who will vote to hurt Trump... OK, and who is also somewhat moderate by the standards of Trumpism.
There are a couple of those, if I've been following things as well as I think I have.
>people aren't as unique as they seem once you scale things up
There are a LOT of combinations of colour, size, relative feature positions, and shapes. Even with 7.5 billion of us, other than identical twins who make an effort to look the same there are no real duplicates if you look closely.
On the other hand, if you relax a bit there are tons and tons of fairly similar people... and to today's facial recognition systems they may as well be the same person.
You're stuck in an echo chamber. She was investigated for the emails - and found to be at fault - but she was not CRIMINALLY at fault. There's a huge difference there.
This has EVERYTHING to do with Trump, since the primary defense of Trump's reprehensible conduct is, "LOOK AT HILLARY!" as if that would absolve him even if she was Satan incarnate.
I have to tell you, if I go murder somebody, the next murderer doesn't get a walk if I got away with it. And only one of the two people being discussed happens to be POTUS.
You're being led by the nose so well you don't even feel it.
War is about control, yes. But amazingly, no matter how great your nuclear arsenal... you can still bash peoples' heads in with a rock.
Information-based warfare does not preclude physical violence. And if a group with the capacity to wage physical conflict decides it is losing the more civilized digital conflict, it can always fall back on guns and bombs.
>So long as there isn't commercial support for all this open software that they now don't have to pay for, these transitions aren't going to work.
It's not impossible to contract support, even for Linux.
> I assume they aren't going to shift their license costs to developer costs to maintain and improve said open software.
Probably not, which is foolish. Let's hope they're not all fools and somebody points out the need at a meeting at some point.
>As soon as you need to support that shit, it is just as costly if not more so than any Windows installation.
This I do not believe. And if Barcelona can be the pilot (as Munich apparently was not), the costs come down as more and more municipalities follow suit and can share expenses.
Overall, though, I give credit to human stupidity and would bet on your assessment being fundamentally correct.
You should stop listening to Trump and Fox for a bit and do some research, because all that crap has been debunked multiple times.
If you're going to see Hillary actually in legal trouble over something, it'll have to be something other than email and uranium. All you're doing is participating in a disinformation campaign designed to help Trump survive the current investigation he's under - an investigation that would go away instantly if he was really a victim of entirely fabricated claims, the same way the Hillary stuff went away... with a completed investigation that finds nothing criminally wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
>Prediction, Toronto wins. It is the only non-US option listed, and Jeff Bezos gets to stick it to Donald Trump.
Some of the politicians involved on our side are actually saying, "Don't hold your breath, Trump will find a way to spike this".
Bezos is ultimately a businessman, and if Trump can make it sufficiently unattractive to go outside the USA, he's likely to give up the ego gratification of 'sticking it to Trump' and accept the best net-profit solution.
I'd have put Waterloo on the list, they've got a bit of a tech hub going there fed by University of Waterloo CS students, and literally down the street is Wilfred Laurier University turning out decent business grads. Cost of living for employees is significantly lower, and there's plenty of room for building as there's a lot of 'country' more or less immediately outside the already built-up areas.
It's only an hour away from Pearson Airport (which... oddly enough, is sometimes less driving time than it takes to get to downtown Toronto), and Waterloo has a regional airport that could handle smaller aircraft directly if you want American execs to fly in. There's talk of putting in a high-speed rail corridor to Toronto by 2025, too.
[And just prior to hitting 'submit', I see that the 'Toronto' proposal somehow includes Waterloo, and Waterloo doesn't expect to actually get it because of Trump]
Here in the Greater Toronto Area, you'd expect people to be able to drive in snow... but almost everyone seems to forget for at least the first snowfall of the year. You get two kinds of drivers: the ones who suddenly do half the speed limit even though you can still see bare pavement, and the ones who think their pickup truck or SUV makes them invincible, and exceed the speed limit even in a whiteout with no bare pavement at all (the latter kind you sometimes find in a ditch as you pass them further down the road).
However, even the idiots seem to be able to figure out where the road is (though individual lanes often become very 'fuzzy'). Self-driving cars are nowhere near able to do that, and until they can do it at least as well as the bad drivers can now, autonomous vehicles are NOT ready for the road.
I don't know about charts for aircraft, but I know Canadian standards for nautical charts include markings for magnetic deviation (and notation on rate of change so you can still use an older chart). Since pilots are already required to frequently check NOTAM updates, I don't see a big deal in having them remain aware of local magnetic deviation.
Mark the runways by geographical heading, put the magnetic deviation at the airport/aerodrome on the chart. That's got to be one of the simpler things a pilot has to deal with during navigation, and one of the least significant if they screw up; it's not like a geographically marked runway will be off by enough to confuse with another if you're using magnetic headings by mistake.
>Where can my neighborhood association go to signup for one of these?
Toshiba: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
>Over time I know moderation will kick in to adjust such posts
So far, you have not 'called' this one and we're what, about 4 hours in? Obviously, science and evidence must be censored if they contradict what we want to be true!
Honestly, this happens with both the far left and the far right, but it ALSO happens to be the case that it's the far right that's taken up the position of willful ignorance on this one.
Reality is that thing that still exists regardless of what you think of it. If reality includes global warming due to human activity and humans refuse to do anything about it... the globe shall warm faster than it would have otherwise.
When there have been some major local climate shifts resulting in altering which areas humans consider habitable, along with the ensuing predictable migrations, conflicts, and shortages one would expect... amateur historians will look back and consider us all crazy for ignoring the obvious. The professionals will endlessly analyze the social forces that made it all inevitable.
Essentially, those who believe the climate models and evidence simply still are not sure enough exactly what will happen and how bad it will get - because if we were we'd likely be getting all angry-lynch-mob on anyone who was denying there is a serious issue or obstructing efforts to deal with it.
>Except knowledge, and we wouldn't want that.
Insufficient knowledge for a good diagnosis, but plenty of knowledge to stoke outrage.
If there was a way to lock this down to 'users who know what they are doing', that'd be great... but the whole Apple platform is built on 'you can be dumb as a box of rocks and still look like one of the elite using this product'.
If you really want to install pretty much what you want on your phone, get an Android device. It's a hell of a lot easier to get around most of the restrictions they generally come with by default.
Minecraft is one of those big disappointments in life - so much potential, squandered until you just don't care anymore.
>Basically, when you use Uber/Lyft, you're paying for use of a car plus the time and services of a driver.
You cannot get the cost of a driving service low enough to compete, since my travel time is already lost regardless of whether I'm a driver or a passenger.
I keep my costs for a car to ~CAD 1K/year by buying used and driving them until they're not safe. Add gas and a few more percentage points for insurance.
I live more than five miles from work, I like visiting my parents from time to time - and they live in a different city, and sometimes I go shopping.
If I was that desperate to save a bit more at the cost of convenience, I'd get an e-bike. Of course, the weather here doesn't really allow for that most days, and an e-bike's top speed is half the average speed of traffic... so I'd have to be pretty desperate.
>has it occurred to any of those people that cost may not be the only factor that was considered when the law was created?
Fossil fuels are only more profitable because we don't include all the costs... production was handled a long time ago, over a very long period of time. Pollution? We do a lot more to mitigate than we used to, but in the grand scheme of things we really don't spend much on turning the use of such fuel in to a net-zero impact on the environment.
You burn a plant, and you grow a new one... carbon cycle closed. More or less, or at least far better than burning oil extracted from the ground. The entire product lifecycle is included in the sale price.
Essentially a mobility scooter with an insulated cylindrical body of pizza-diameter, with slide-out drawers, a card reader and a cell phone. Throw on some standard lights for road safety.
The thing drives itself to your door, calls you on your phone to advise it has arrived, and when you put your payment card in the reader the drawer(s) with your pizza(s) slide open.
Easy-peasy.
>Weren't we all promised cool, sleek, aerodynamic FLYING CARS?
Even just a year or two ago, it was upscaled quadracopters to move humans.
Apparently, somebody eventually did the math on energy consumption, the utility analysis on the ability to get from a->b under various common conditions, and the insurance costs of having urban skies full of flying metal just waiting to become kinetic energy weapons.
> The simple fact is that women are the gatekeepers.
Women are, on average, less aggressive about sex. That means that, more often or not, they effectively are the ones with 'veto' power over a consensual sexual encounter.
That has absolutely nothing to do with them being 'loose' or 'dirty'. Spreading disease through a heterosexual encounter requires a man to be present also. Any moral judgements on said encounter should be levied against BOTH participants.
> They have this role and this responsibility. On the upside for women, men get to die defending them and providing for them.
Could you get a little more red pill? I can't quite hear your sad, angry little ego coming through in your post.
Me, I live in a world where women can support themselves and we have police who are expected to protect people regardless of their genitalia.
>or not sleeping with loose women
I know that was the attitude at the time (and until fairly recently)... but... it takes two to tango. How 'loose' could those women be without a bunch of men seeking sex with them?
"Promiscuity increases the probability of spreading sexually transmitted diseases". No moral judgement, no strongly implied misogyny, just statistical fact that applies equally to both people involved in the individual act.
If only they'd lived in dense cesspools of cities and dealt with zoonosis for a few hundred years, maybe they'd have had better immune systems.
Or at least killed as high a percentage of Europeans as they lost of their own.
I really do wonder, though... would the Old World folks have acted any differently if they'd understood that going to the New World would pretty much obliterate the locals through disease?
>only have one road going from coast to coast
We DO have only one road going from coast to coast... the aptly titled 'trans-Canada highway'.
Most of our roads don't even cross municipal boundaries!
>This is the stupidest thing I've ever read.
No, just a stupid interpretation of what I posted. That's on you.
>You're suggesting people ought to vote on things not because of the merits of what they're voting on but out of vindictive spite.
See, that's where you let your stupidity get the better of you, and you inferred what was never implied.
No 'ought' at all. That's the way it works right now in the GOP; vote Trump, unless you have nothing to lose and are pissed that he's destroying the party.
They don't need a moderate Republican. Given the current state of the involved politics, what they need is a pissed off Republican who isn't interested in continuing in public service and who will vote to hurt Trump... OK, and who is also somewhat moderate by the standards of Trumpism.
There are a couple of those, if I've been following things as well as I think I have.
>people aren't as unique as they seem once you scale things up
There are a LOT of combinations of colour, size, relative feature positions, and shapes. Even with 7.5 billion of us, other than identical twins who make an effort to look the same there are no real duplicates if you look closely.
On the other hand, if you relax a bit there are tons and tons of fairly similar people... and to today's facial recognition systems they may as well be the same person.
You're stuck in an echo chamber. She was investigated for the emails - and found to be at fault - but she was not CRIMINALLY at fault. There's a huge difference there.
This has EVERYTHING to do with Trump, since the primary defense of Trump's reprehensible conduct is, "LOOK AT HILLARY!" as if that would absolve him even if she was Satan incarnate.
I have to tell you, if I go murder somebody, the next murderer doesn't get a walk if I got away with it. And only one of the two people being discussed happens to be POTUS.
You're being led by the nose so well you don't even feel it.
The people who are emotionally and financially invested don't want to know that.
War is about control, yes. But amazingly, no matter how great your nuclear arsenal... you can still bash peoples' heads in with a rock.
Information-based warfare does not preclude physical violence. And if a group with the capacity to wage physical conflict decides it is losing the more civilized digital conflict, it can always fall back on guns and bombs.
>So long as there isn't commercial support for all this open software that they now don't have to pay for, these transitions aren't going to work.
It's not impossible to contract support, even for Linux.
> I assume they aren't going to shift their license costs to developer costs to maintain and improve said open software.
Probably not, which is foolish. Let's hope they're not all fools and somebody points out the need at a meeting at some point.
>As soon as you need to support that shit, it is just as costly if not more so than any Windows installation.
This I do not believe. And if Barcelona can be the pilot (as Munich apparently was not), the costs come down as more and more municipalities follow suit and can share expenses.
Overall, though, I give credit to human stupidity and would bet on your assessment being fundamentally correct.
> She's special and gets a pass
You should stop listening to Trump and Fox for a bit and do some research, because all that crap has been debunked multiple times.
If you're going to see Hillary actually in legal trouble over something, it'll have to be something other than email and uranium. All you're doing is participating in a disinformation campaign designed to help Trump survive the current investigation he's under - an investigation that would go away instantly if he was really a victim of entirely fabricated claims, the same way the Hillary stuff went away... with a completed investigation that finds nothing criminally wrong.