segnosaur

You know, I'm probably going to be sorry I asked that, but just what exactly do you think that they can do to "manage the business better"? Since you seem to have all the answers (despite ignoring that Canada post's recent "profits" have largely come from selling off buildings and one-time accouting tricks), perhaps you can tell us your big master plan.

Not sure if all super-mailboxes are like this, but on mine, there are a couple of "super-sized" mail boxes... if a large package arrives that won't fit in the regular box (you know, large pornography orders, etc.) they will put it in the big mail box, and leave a key for it in your small box. When you get your package, you just put the key back in the mailbox. However, that is just for packages from "canada post". Actually, in a way, Super mailboxes can be safer... mail delivered to you will sit in a locked box until you pick it up. On the other hand, those with household delivery (with an exterior mail box) run the risk of having their mail stolen before they pick it up.

First of all, a "single family home" requires signifcant upkeep... cutting the grass, shovelling the sidewalk. (Not to mention all of the errands the individual would have to run on a regular basis.) That means one of 2 possibilities: Either the individual is mobile enough to handle those tasks themselves, or they have others (either paid, volunteer or family) to carry out those tasks. If an individual is capable of performing those tasks (or having others perform them), then they can make similiar accomidations to pick up mail. There is no need to subject the 99.9% of us Canadians to higher taxes or increased fees just because some infintesimaly small number of Canadians somehow manages to live in (and maintain) a single family home (with all the work that involves) yet can't figure out any options to handle a trip to the mailbox. Secondly, last I heard, approximately 4 million Candians are currently served by "super mailboxes". Yet we haven't exactly been overrun by hords of elderly seniors getting lost in snowbanks, and so far I've never been woken up by the sound of breaking hips as elderly grandmothers try to make their way to the super mailbox in my community. Ok, lets look at that little "fact", shall we? First of all, a decade ago they were turning profits very regularly. But given changes in technology and demographics, what happened 10-15 years ago is far less relevant to what's happening now or what's projected to happen in the future. So pointing to "the past 15 years" is a poor starting point. The important thing is in the last few years they've had more and more losses. Secondly, as another poster pointed out, while they may have turned a profit recently, that might be due to accounting practices... It gets even worse than that... At least some of their efforts to avoid losses have been due to them selling off assets... From: http://globalnews.ca/news/1023396/seven-things-to-know-about-canada-posts-plan-to-axe-mail-service/ Canada Post has been selling off century-old offices and real estate to avoid losses but that’s not a long-term solution. Lastly, it should be noted that Canada post handles both parcel and "regular mail". Quite often, profits from their parcel delivery business subsidizes the regular mail delivery. That's not exactly a sound delivery practice. If I owned 2 stores, one that earned a profit every year, and one that lost money every year, I don't thiink it would be that unreasonable for me to take steps to fix the problems at the money-losing store, even if combined the stores earn a profit.

Ummm... you do realized that you've basically debunked your own point.... Profits and labor costs are generally inversely related... the higher the labor cost (for example, if a mill is unionized), the lower the profits. And companies have an obligation to maximize profits. If a company can cut costs by buying unfinished lumber and finishing it themselves (rather than buying finished lumber) they should. Only an idiot would pay more for a product than they had to. (Do you reguarly drive around and look for the most expansive gas station you can find before filling your car?) And despite what you might think, 'profit' is not a dirty word... it provices the incentive for resources to be allocated according to people's wishes, and it encourages investment in the economy.

You mean the lack of influence of unions. No, I'm pretty sure he meant the influence of unions. Having a union means that businesses have to pay more for labour; you may consider what the lumber workers are demanding to be a "fair wage"; however, if costs are driven up too much, a company may be forced out of business, or change its business model (which could mean exporting raw materials rather than finished product). I'm not familiar with how much of an effect unions have in the lumber business, but an increased union influence will likely drive up costs; hardly an incentive for companies shipping unmilled timber to turn around and do their processing here in Canada.

Why would it matter if there were an industry monopoly? Usually worker's skills are transferrable (or they can be easily retrained)... if someone works as a file clerk in some business with a monopoly, they can probably very easily learn to file for some other company in another industry. The exception to that might be those who's jobs require long periods of training (something like an electrical engineer working for a power utility); however, usually those workers will already be earning higher wages/benefits due to the limited supply of people with those skills.

How do you know that the worker with lower seniority got more hours only because he had a relative on the board of directors? Perhaps they were actually more competent or were better workers in some way? I'm sure there are plenty of workers in union shops who get preferential treatment due to their "seniority" even though there are other employees who are much more deserving. At one point in my career, I was a full time employee of the government... had a BSc and and MSc in computers; as part of my training, I spent time in the "operations" area. There were people there who's only job was to load tapes and run batch jobs. They were actually upset that I was hired on in a position "above" them, and thought they should have been promoted, despite not being able to program (or do anything else I spent the better part of a decade learning.)

Unions are legalized form of price fixing. In any other industry, it would be considered illegal for competing entitites to agree to fix prices. (Governments can and do prosecute companies for agreeing to work together to set prices artificially high.) However, unions do this regularly, as employee agree to work together to elevate wages higher than they would be if the laws of supply and demand were at work. You see, the problem is how do you define 'fair'. If I go to a store and the price tag says on a TV says $1000, the owners might think its a fair price. But is it? What if its got a 300% profit margin?. Likewise, if a business owner says "This work is worth $10/hour", and an employee says "No, its worth $20", why exactly do you think that the employee's expectations should be the measure of fairness? Nobody claimed management was "all saints". However, there are a multitude of issues that to limit what management can do: - There are laws that deal with hazardous working conditions, as well as general employee welfare. Companies can and do get sued on a regular basis for violating these laws - A manager/company who treats employees poorly will often see business decline as a result of poor service due to employee turnover and/or disgruntlement. Now, does that mean that unions never help people deal with bad situations at work? Not at all... I'm sure that there are plenty of anecdotes where some employee was treated poorly until the union stepped in. But for every anecdote where the union becomes the "brave defender of the worker", someone else can probably point to a union worker who is lazy and/or overpaid. I've worked in both the private (non-union) and public (unionized) sectors too. And you know what? The absolute worst management I've ever had to deal with was when I worked in the government... people that lacked both the technical understanding to handle the project they were on, AND an inability to recognize their limitations. But here's the problem... they too were part of the union. People that in a private business would be either demoted or fired (or at least moved to an area where they might cause less damange) were left in place.

Why, because the information there is outdated and they thrive on such bad information? From your reference: In its response, Lockheed also stated that "the report is based on data from more than 16 months ago, and most of the findings it brought up that required a solution have been corrected." Just out of curiousity, do you ever read complete articles or do you just stop when you get to the part that supports your assertions? About 2 seconds of googling will find you a wikipeda page which points out air-to-air conflicts in the Arab-Israel wars, the Iran-Iraq war, the Falklands, Gulf War 1, and the Balkans. So yes, there have been air-to-air conflicts (many involving NATO forces) as recently as 1999. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogfight http://www.nytimes.com/1999/03/27/world/conflict-balkans-air-war-nighttime-training-awacs-capitalize-mig-s-weak-spots.html Actually they are multi-role planes, meant to serve in both an air-to-air and air-to-ground capacity. Actually, we tend to ignore flaws once they've been fixed. There are currently problems with the F35. I'm sure they will uncover problems in the future. The thing is, its common with advanced aircraft for problems to appear. Even the SuperHornet that gives Waldo orgasms has had significant flaws that needed to be corrected. The risk of having to deal with such flaws must be weighed against the benefits that the plane brings with it. The F35 had/has many flaws, but it brings features that its competitors do not. The F18E/F also has flaws; perhaps fewer, but then it doesn't bring the same features.

Yes, the biker is dead. Yes, he paid the 'ultimate price'. Ultimately what is discussed here will probably have no effect. Its an interesting intellectual exercise. As another poster stated, the accident might have taken place in the day. She may also have had her hazards on. (The article I referred to mentions that, although I'm not sure if that issue was challenged.) Even if it was dark and she had no lights on, they have this thing on a vehicle... its called a "headlight". Ideally the driver shouldn't be driving so fast that he can't stop within the distance the headlights illuminate. Yes, you probably can. But that doesn't necessarily mean you have to do 120. I see plenty of cars going around 100 or even less in the right hand lanes. Beware of absolutes. Is speeding common? Yeah probably. As I said before, most people I know say 10 over is reasonable. But the motorcyclist was not going 10 over. He wasn't going 20 over. It was estimated that he may have been going as much as 40 over. And even if speeding is common, most people are smart about it... don't speed if conditions are bad, don't speed if your vehicle has problems, etc. The cyclist was driving a vehicle which, according to some here could not stop quickly. And he was carrying a passanger. Conditions that would suggest a driver be more cautious. So, once again, your argument comes down to "Drivers suck so they shouldn't be blamed for sucking". I'd prefer if drivers sucked less. Here's a question for you... at least 1 driver managed to miss hitting the parked car. Supposedly the guy's wife was also driving a motorcycle and managed to stop in time. Why exactly do you think they were able to avoid hitting the car, yet the Cyclist wasn't? Was it because: - They had psychic abilities to detect obsticles in the distance, or: - They were driving in a method that was safer (leaving more space in front to avoid obsticles, perhaps not going as fast)

And it's obvious how well that worked out for them. First of all, my point was in response to you calling the defense lawyer an "idiot" for not bringing up the cyclist's driving if it was actually a factor. I was just pointing out that yes, it was brought up as a factor. Secondly, the fact that it "didn't work" doesn't necessarily mean the jury was right. Juries do make mistakes. So do police and lawyers.

Never claimed that stopping in the left-hand lane of a divided highway was a good idea. The issue is whether the motorcycle driver deserves a significant amount of blame over the accident. And what makes you think I haven't? I live in Ottawa (population ~1 million). I've also driven in Toronto, Montreal, Boston, etc. I've covered this before. First of all, the motorcycist was in the fast lane. You know, the lane you are in when you think the other cars are not going fast enough. So he was not likely "keeping up with traffic". He was trying to exceed traffic flow. Secondly, you do realize that in a multi-lane highway, not all lanes are to travel at the same speed. Ones on the left travel faster than ones on the right. You might get angry drivers if you go 100km/h in the left-lane on the 401, but even the most agressive drivers probably won't complane if you stick to the speed limit (or close to it) in the right-hand lane. Basically your argument is "Its ok if drivers suck if everyone does it together". I'd prefer if drivers didn't suck, and I'm not going to excuse a driver's contribution to an accident just because "its common to drive like a moron". The Autobahn has no speed limit in many areas (outside of urban areas, when the weather is not bad, etc.) However, keep in mind that training in Germany is a bit more stringent than here in Canada... driving school is mandatory, and their tests seem to be a bit more comprehensive. I also suspect that their roads may be a little better maintained (given the fact that they have less worries about damage due to frost heaves.) If you truly want "no speed limits", be prepared to spend a lot more, both in time (for the additional training) and money (higher taxes for better road maintenance.) Then of course there is the issue of gas consumption... Cars tend to get their best fuel efficiency at 100km/h... driving faster waste gas, AND releases more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Other than the fact that, well, a person with their eyes open, and who's not tailgating, might actually be able to see it. Was the motor cycle driver blind?

And, its also possible to be in a situation where speeding is reckless... such as when visibility is limited (e.g. behind a truck, or when driving into the sun), when driving a vehicle with a limited ability to stop quickly (e.g. a motorcycle), when driving a motorcycle with a passanger.... So? First of all, the fact that the majority "speed" doesn't necessarily mean that its actually safe to do so. If the majority do a foolish thing, its still a foolish thing. Secondly, a bit of context is important... Yeah, most people probaby say "10km/h over the limit is fine". This driver wasn't driving 10km over... he was driving probably 25km/h over. If your argument is "its ok to drive fast because others do it too" then what are your limits? if you accept 25km over the limit, where exactly do you draw the line to say "OK that's too fast"? Or are you in favor of eliminating any and all speed limits? 150 km/h through a school zone? 200km/h on the highway?

The fact that he (meaning the motorcycle driver) didn't imagine the possibility of obstructions in the road doesn't mean that other drivers aren't so blind. One of the things I remember from my driver's ed class many years ago... If the vehicle in front is blocking your view, there is a solution.... drop back/slow down. It improves your visibility, and at the same time gives you more leeway in stopping. Actually the defence did point out that the driver was going too fast. From: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Stopping+ducks+criminal+defence+lawyer+says/9928372/story.html Other elements beyond Czornobaj's control, Labelle said, included the position of the setting sun that Sunday evening as drivers were heading westbound and the speed at which Roy was travelling on his Harley-Davidson when it crashed into the back of the Civic. So yes, the speed of the cyclist was brought up by the defense as a factor in the crash.

You see, here's the problem... In this case, what an "average person" thinks might actually be incorrect. (Notice that I didn't say "reasonable person"... because in this case the 2 of them may be different.) A "reasonable person" might think "driving too fast and following to close are risky... shouldn't do it". On the other hand, the "average" driver might be completely ignorant of the dangers. They may think "Hey, I go 30 over the speed limit all the time. And tailgating is fun!", oblivious to the risks that those involve. We should all be better drivers, without excusing people's bad habits by saying "well bad habits are common". Reminds me of drunk drivers. Decades ago, it seemed to be a lot more common. The "average" person thought it was no big deal to drive home from the bar drunk... now, people are more aware of the dangers. Hopefully people will likewise recognize that driving faster than conditions warrant and/or following too close are likewise habits that are no longer socially acceptable. As has been pointed out before, if this accident was in the "fast lane" then he was likely exceeding the flow of traffic. And has been pointed out before, a motorcycle has different restrictions than a car... less protection for the driver, riskier to "slam" on the brakes, etc.... as such, going at a slower speed than larger vehicles is warranted, even if it involves driving in the right hand lane.

The thing is most look at it as an invitation to squeeze in. You are doing the right thing by keeping the proper distance at speed, but in my experience, if there is room, people will butt in. They do it even when there is not enough room. So you keep your distance, and every asshat behind you looks at it as an opportunity to jockey ahead. I'll say the same thing I said before... So? Let them in. Is there something sacred about the car in front that requires that you be behind them? Let someone pull in in front. Yeah, you might have to drop back by a few feet to maintain the buffer, but the guy who cuts in isn't going to benefit very much (since eventually he'll meet the car that had been in front of you.) Of course, if the transport truck had been maintaing a larger space in front, then a driver that cuts in front wouldn't have had to break as hard, since whey they cut in front, they'd have more open road to slow down in. Its amazing how many people have attempted to minimize the contribution to the event by the cyclist by justifying bad driver behavior. Speeding? Acceptible because "everyone does it". Following too close? You NEED to because otherwise someone might cut in, and you need to be able to read the bumper sticker of the car in front.

Why do you think that? I believe that the speed limit was 90 km/h. So this driver was likely going ~25km/h over the limit (at minimum) and perhaps as much as ~35 km/h over the limit. I know people often say "well, most people go 10 over the limit". This guy was going double that. All the while, driving a vehicle which has very little personal protection, and (as others here have said) cannot stop easily in a short distance. While carrying a passanger. You can't even claim that he was "following the flow of traffic", since he'd be in the "fast lane", indicating he was trying to exceed the flow of traffic, or pass vehicles that were travelling at what would be considered "normal" traffic flow. (And if he was travelling 25km/h over the limit, I think its reasonable to assume he wasn't just trying to get around some little old lady driving at half the limit.) I'm sure there is an uncertainty. That's why a range of possible speeds was given, rather than an exact speed.

Actually, an earlier post had the following link: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/emma-czornobaj-guilty-in-2-highway-deaths-after-stopping-for-ducks-1.2682200 A provincial police officer testified at the trial that Roy, whose speed was estimated to be from 113 km/h to 129 km/h when he applied his brakes, collided with Czornobaj's car at between 105 km/h and 121 km/h. I am assuming an officer that was called to testify would probably have the experience to determine approximate speed (skid marks, damage to the car, distance the rider would have flown after impact, etc.)

Yes you can. The fact that people don't doesn't mean that its impossible. So? Let them pull in. At the speed that vehicles travel, backing off to maintain a larger gap (keeping the same approximate speed) will only add a second or 2 to your overall travel time. So a few dozen cars cut in front of you? You've added probably less than half a minute to your daily commute. the average commute time is around half an hour, you're not going to be in traffic that much longer. And here's something else to consider... shockwave Jams. These are traffic jams caused when one car's slowdown causes a cascading effect, leaving an entire highway travelling at a snail's pace. Want to stop it? All that is needed is an occasional car leaving a larger gap in front of them... this buffer 'absorbs' these little slowdowns, and as a result the entire traffic system travels much better. The person tailgating is not helping traffic along by keeping cars tightly packed together.... they are part of the problem. http://www.cracked.com/article_19004_6-things-that-annoy-you-every-day-explained-by-science_p2.html

You are of course assuming that any sort of mechanical failure would have provided the opportunity for a person to get off the road. Although it may be far fetched, its possible that some mechanical failures might have a more immediate effect to disable the car (e.g. blown tire), or that traffic in the right hand lanes might have made it impossible for a driver to safely navagate off the road. Although the woman didn't have such a failure, any other driver on the road must operate their vehicle with the knowledge that such an event could happen. Probably because that's the speed traffic was going on the highway. Minor point... The collision happened in the left hand lane. In general, that's the "fast lane". Even if the average speed on the highway is over 100, it would have been safer/more advisable for the individual to drive in the right-hand lane. There he could have reduced his speed to something that would have been safer. Technically, abuse of a minor is something which is illegal... even if the plan wasn't to kill the kid. Here's another difference... In the case of the slapping, there was a clear intent to injure. Even if the goal wasn't to produce serious harm, the father had the goal to inflict pain and distress. In the case of the collision, a driver might have an expectation that other drivers on the road were following standards (i.e. not exceeding the speed limit by more than 30 km/h, not tailgating, etc.) Obviously the driver of the SUV was able to safely negotiate a path around the stopped car.

Because it was a minority government, and the opposition parties wanted to pull a political stunt by bringing in a fairly meaningless (in a legal/procedural sense) contempt charge and dance around like schoolgirl ninnies saying "nah nah! you have a contempt charge!"

While infrastructure spending can be useful, there are 2 major problems with that argument: First of all, we cannot go without any jet plane. Even if we decided to never ever deploy our forces overseas (unlikely to happen, since all 3 major national parties have, at one time or another, voted to send our planes overseas to blow stuff up), we would still need to have some sort of jet response to handle even minor incidents (such as planes going off course... See Mathias Rust or Payne Stewart). We're a modern western country, which substantial air space. We have commercial air traffic both internally and from other countries in our territory. We need to be able to respond to any issues that might happen. So, even if we weren't sending our planes overseas to blow stuff up, we still wouldn't save the '100 billion'. (we might save some money, but not all.) Secondly, you are ignoring any sort of side benefits we get from the purchase of military hardware. As a result of our signing on to the F35 project earlier, we received dozens of contracts. We may potentially get more if we decide to purchase the plane. These are often high-technology projects, which are high paying and would give our industry valuable experience. Plus, it should be noted that contracts often involve work than just for the planes built for Canada.... we may only get a contracts to build only a few parts, but those parts might be used throughout the entire fleet (from all countries). In fact, that is one of the reasons why the F35 may be a more viable candidate than (for example) the F18 or Eurofighter... as a relatively new plane (and one that yes, is currently being developed), we have more opportunties for such side benefits. The F18? They likely won't be building too many more; whatever involvement we have in buidlng them, the benefits likely won't be long term.

It tells me that the F18 consisted largly of just tinkering with existing design concepts, providing minor upgrades, whereas the F35 is an attempt to build a plane that is more than just 'tinkering'... it does things that few (or no) other planes in the world do.... not only with stealth, but with the use of internal weapons bays, sensor integration, and having a STOVL variant with at least some compatibility with non-STOVL versions. Things that either the 'original' F18 hornet, nor the F18E/F 'Super Hornet' don't have, or have only now started to address, years after their "first flight".

Not sure what you mean here....F-35 or F-18 E/F ? I assume sarcasm unless corrected. Me? I'm never ever sarcastic in a million billion years. Its obvious that since the F18 is a perfect plane, gods gift to aviation and never has problems, and the F35 is a failure, then my referenced article couldn't be referring to the F18. How could it have flaws? Only the F35 has flaws.

Well, it looks like some additional major problems have been found with the F35: Engineers have uncovered a flaw ... that could reduce by half the aircraft's advertised service life... "There is a fatigue issue on part of the inside of one of the wings. The article also points out other issues, such as problems with wing flaps that might make the plane unsafe to fly http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat=20070517&id=n68jAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ByAEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6957,733944 I'm not sure how anyone can consider flying a plane with such issues.