Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
  • Announcements

    • Greg

      New Members Please Read   10/07/2016

      New forum members should review the Forum Rules and GuidelinesĀ before contributing to the discussion forums.

cannuck

Members
  • Content count

    611
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

cannuck last won the day on December 4 2017

cannuck had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

91 Excellent

About cannuck

  • Rank
    Full Member

Recent Profile Visitors

2,022 profile views
  1. Joshua Boyle.

    They certainly do if you are one of them.
  2. Joshua Boyle.

    Every time I think the little Tur....er....Prime Minister Trudeau has hit rock bottom for personal stupidity and embarrassment of the nation, he lowers the bar another few notches.
  3. Driverless Trucks now Used in Canada

    In fairness, it is not all about economics, it is also about highway safety. There certainly are huge economic benefits: reducing the driving labour to zero is one. Keeping the truck on the road for full tank of fuel if needed is another (drivers have to stop by law fro break and after 11 driving hours in US and 13 in Canada). What is not so obvious is the HUGE reduction in capital cost - drivers are very inconvenient things because they have to sleep and have days off - but you need to provide each one a truck, so to cover those things, you need almost 3x as many human driven trucks as you could autonomous 24 x 7 vehicles. The safety payoff may come if and when autonomous vehicles really can be autonomous. Milking impossible amounts of work for the lowest possible time results in a lot of cheating in the truck driving world. On top of that, reality is that there are definite limits on just what people can do without making mistakes, and mistakes in 40 to 60 tonne trucks are not a good thing. The question is: can the automation work better than the people? Ultimately, it can, but as we have learned from aviation, it takes time to perfect that automation, and it doesn't always work (thus why we still have pilots on board). BUT: if you are going to supervise the automation, all of the economic benefits are gone, and once more, as we learned from aviation, when you take the driver out of the constant involvement part of the equation, they don't always perform very well when they have to step in mid crisis. Sadly, regulators and legislators are not very good at understanding these things from real life, and when you build a cabinet around political correctness instead of vocational experience, things go even worse when policy is turned into leg and reg than is reasonable or acceptable.
  4. Driverless Trucks now Used in Canada

    I am afraid driverless vehicles are not to far off in the future. I don't think that politicians are anywhere near ready for the issues that will crop up as a result. There are some precedents: commercial aircraft have been very highly automated for some time now. In fact, when a Cat III or IV ILS approach to minimums is flown, it is forbidden for the pilot(s) to have ANY control - as the computers on board must execute the entire landing. Reason is: the cockpit would be still in the cloud when the wheels touch down - or no vision at all since these can be "zero-zero" landings (no visibility, no ceiling) no way to visually land the airplane at all. Landing an airplane might seem complex, but it is actually a lot easier than driving a truck. Airplanes have considerable separation from others, but trucks can be a few feet away from everything around them, including other trucks coming opposite direction. Automation on big airplanes has become so pervasive, there have been a fair number of major crashes that resulted in an automation failure (either systemic or pilot induced) that left the pilots to hand fly the airplane, and they couldn't do it. Now, these are very highly trained "experts", working to very precisely defined standards using mega-million dollar avionics to fly an airplane that is in a very well controlled environment. Now apply that to trucking with barely drivers that are barely trained, hardly tested and seldom supervised providing the backup to the automation (as at least during some long transition phase, all full automated stuff will have a "safety" driver - who will be bored to tears as there is seldom any reason to intervene. Now think of some mindless drama teacher being entrusted to regulate these activities, and you can see the train wreck coming. No question that at some point, drivers will lose their jobs, but that is still off in the future. Now, why would we WANT this to happen? Ever notice the huge number of obviously "new Canadian" drivers out there? I was visiting a fellow in the Golden Horseshoe at his truck repair company a few years back. Writing up the week's safety inspections on a fleet of gravel trucks, he said to me: "Look at this, I have 50 different trucks, 50 different drivers and only one driving license!". Truck driving here is seen as some kind of "knights of the road" occupation, but in some countries, it is one of the lowest on the totem pole. The industry is rife with all kinds of schemes to circumvent the law. The Dec 18 US reg that requires EDL (electronic data logging) is causing pure havoc because it will make cheating on hours of service impossible - and as a result, will dramatically alter the entire US industry. The cost of doing business was already based on severe abuse of drivers that forced them to fudge the logbooks in many cases to earn a decent living or pay for their truck. I would much rather share the road with a computer driven truck than a probably illegal immigrant who has fraudulently obtained a driving license (or simply forged one, as I saw at the repair shop). Now, if our government(s) can not even police something as basic as immigration and licensing, how the hell are they supposed to set and enforce a regulatory environment as complex as what we will see with automated and ultimately autonomous trucks mixed in with cars, trucks, school buses, etc.??.
  5. So the native inquiry farce begins

    yeah, but it's like humour: leave a good straight line on the table and someone will make a joke out of it. I just couldn't resist. You should know by now not to take me too seriously.
  6. Has Modern Music Become a Weapon of Mind Control?

    Exactly what I mean by following or leading. They really were influenced by US music - far more than just R&B and most of which came into ports in the UK from US and other sailors. But they were hardly just repeating what they heard, nor did that part of the US scene really frame the psychedelic part of the British scene. One fed the other and reciprocated to where the lead/follow thing to pop culture became very obscure. BUT: it sure as hell made for some good music. and, like all other good music, it really gets into your head....mind control.
  7. Has Modern Music Become a Weapon of Mind Control?

    Music has ALWAYS been about mind control. If it wasn't, it would not be appreciated. The real question is the proportion of how much popular music leads vs. how much follows popular culture. Pop music is, as is any other music, something that has a definite shelf life, UNLESS it is actually good music. My kids grew up with gansta-rap as well, but never, ever played it on electronic devices or obviously on any musical instruments. Both are classically trained, but when summers came along and there was no classes or competitions to deal with, they would often request sheet music from my boomer youth. Lenon-McCartney, Stones, a lot of the folk rockers, etc. seem to have withstood that test of time (at least for the first half century), but even having been there, I could not really say they lead or followed.
  8. So the native inquiry farce begins

    Standard knee jerk reaction from the left fence of the ballpark. Anyone who is not slave to political correctness, or anyone foolish enough to tell the realistic truth just gets shouted down as racist. Avoids the unpleasant need to deal with reality.
  9. So the native inquiry farce begins

    They already HAVE huge tracts of land and conduct themselves as sovereign entities - all paid for from ROC taxes. Sweet deal: get conquered by a far more advanced civilization, do diddly squat except bitch and moan, and get handed back the dirt and all of the resources beneath that no other people in Canada can get for free, and get paid a shitload of money to stay home and drink, screw, fight and shoot up while you are waiting.
  10. Additional 25% on duty tax?

    My US companies are located in WY and NY and our largest client has 12 offices scattered all over the US. I do exactly what you suggest: accumulate small purchases in my WY office and bring stuff home when I am there, or if moving equipment or myself in and out of US client offices and projects, have large purchases shipped to meet my transport and import myself. Here is a good article from a camera shop in US: http://fortune.com/2017/12/20/abbey-inn-indiana-katrina-arthur-350-fine-negative-review/ I agree that the Fedex, UPS, etc.people take advantage of consumer ignorance, and one should indeed read the fine print before using them. If we send those capitalist pigs "back to where they belong" we would lose the price advantage that the idiotic federal rules on transborder traffic that SHOULD give the public mail systems a business advantage. The real solution is to get the feds to back off on the highly restrictive and totally bungled protectionist regulations that set up the opportunity for carriers to screw over Canadian consumers.
  11. So the native inquiry farce begins

    Good point, and I will chuckle about that all day. Thanks.
  12. So the native inquiry farce begins

    I will have to disagree with the general tone of this thread - that this is an aboriginal problem to solve and that Whitey is not to blame. Well, not at all the case. The reason that people can sit around on reserves all day and drink, screw, fight and buy lots of drugs is because some frigging idiots (mostly WHITE idiots) give them an endless supply of money - totally unaccountable money, It perpetuates because we also allow BILLIONS a year to be poured into the "Indian Industry", the bureaucrats and consultants who live very high off of this hog, and kick a fair bit of their booty and efforts back to the benefit of politics in general. If you have to get off of your ass and work for a living for yourself and your family to survive, it really cuts into the time for endless drinking, screwing, fighting and getting stoned. Handouts to aboriginal populations seemingly "in distress" ANYWHERE is a huge mistake - it fosters what every bureaucrat and consultant has for a wet dream: dependency that taken to the extreme results in a culture of entitlement. This inquiry is yet another $100mm of the same thing. The Libs could care less about the cost, since it is OUR grandchildren who will have to pay this bill. If you want to jump up and down and scream "racism" at me, as that is what is politically correct, you should know that my wife and children are eligible for status, and some of my nieces, nephews and one grand daughter are full treaty.
  13. I somewhat agree with the crazy lady on this topic. While I don't believe racism is innate in the human animal, the propensity to BE racist certainly is. The need to survive requires that tribal groups be able to distinguish between those who are allies and those who are a threat, just as other animals need to learn what species are a threat and which can be safely ignored...and of course what species can be eaten. These may well be learned behaviour, but the innate property is the social/familial group is employed to define what those risks and benefits to interaction with other identifiably different animals might be. Of course, there can be threats from within a species, breed, tribe or family, thus to reach that level of specificity to discriminate, the simple task of different colour skin, shape of body, etc. is a very basic subset of those REQUIRED skills. BTW: Painting Japan as some kind of victim is foolish. While it is very true that Western countries had vast colonial presence in Asia, it was japan that invaded Mancuria in 1931 and China proper in 1937 that set the stage for the American blockades, not some wild conspiracy for Yanks to own the suchi market. About THE most racist people on this planet are the japanese. You need to speak with Chinese who were subject to the pure BS of "Asia for Asians" that the Japs spewed as propoganda for the sole purpose of wanting to immitate the success of Western countries in colonizing and exploiting their Asian neighbours. I have one major criteria for judging what a nation and its race demonstrates to earn my respect - or hatred. That is how did they treat prisoners of war and citizens of occupied territories. On that count, it puts Japan at the top of the heap of the biggest assholes in history. THEY make their distinction solely upon race of their counterparts, so what kind of stupid person would then not reciprocate in defense?
  14. Canada has a large per capita environmental footprint for several reasons: First, it is incredibly cold here. Now, if we all lived in igloos, that would not be a big issue, but being a very wealthy place, we almost all live in very large, detached dwellings. Being incredibly resource rich, we piss away a LOT of energy supplying those resources to the rest of the world (as we add so little value within our economy). Then, there is the BIG one: we are a very large country. Think of the energy we waste flying supplies into hundreds of remote Northern communities. Then think of the energy we waste moving piles of raw materials from somewhere in the middle of the country to tidewater (best example, heavy crude oil). And, on it goes. Instead of measuring out environmental footprint per CAPITA, maybe take a look at it per dollar of economic activity. I suspect it would be a very different ranking vis-a-vis developing nations.
  15. 1.2.3.4. I think you caught my drift. Yes, we DO fall to the easy charactarizations of "left" and "right", but those tend to get framed in what is expedient for the agenda of the writer. I find that counterproductive, as it eliminates the ability to discuss rationally the benefits of policy of any kind since it came from "the other side". 5. I can see your point, but I never considered the Harper governments to have shifted Canada very far from where things were when he started. What the Libs HAVE done is expanded political correctness to an extreme, added the bogus "refugee" nonsense into the mix and racked up a shit load of debt - for no good reason except to try to buy votes from identifiable minorities. I was dissappointed by Harper. I am disgusted with Trudeau (and his handlers, as I don't think he really has the intellectual power or maturity to be much of anything other than a high school teacher).
×