Cataclaw

10/10 Gledger!

Quelle vue parfaite! Merci!

Sometimes i wonder if we shouldn't go back to toll roads temporarily. I wouldn't mind paying tolls for a few years if I knew it was temporary and only to raise funds for much needed infrastructure improvements.

Interessant, OursNoir!

En effet, le temps vaut de l'argent, et parfois c'est notre temps qui vaut plus cher. Cependant, 97km/h versus 120km/h c'est une chose.. Si l'augmentation se fait exponentiellement, et on sais que c'est le cas, imagines à 140km/h la différence qu'il peut y avoir. J'ai un ami qui conduit 140km/h sur l'autoroute tout le temps. Il conduit une vielle boite qui consomme pas mal et c'est un étudiant avec pas d'argent. J'arrête pas d'y dire: "Fait 110km/h man, tu va sauver des centaines de dollars par année. Sans parler de l'argent sauvé sur les tickets....." mais bon il veut rien savoir.

Avec le prix de l'essence qui continue de monter (et qui ne cessera pas de monter à longterme avec le pic pétrolier) ça risque de devenir une bonne stratégie.

Correct, a hard acceleration isn't necessarily bad, it depends on "How hard is hard". Similarly, a too-slow acceleration can actually be bad for your mileage.

Nevertheless, the fact remains (and you now seem to agree) that after a certain point, the faster you go, the worse your fuel efficiency.

The difference between 100km/h and 120km/h might not be much for very particular cars/engines, but for most vehicles, the difference is quite significant. I don't know where you're getting your numbers, but a plethora of studies have pointed to measurably significant fuel efficiency losses between just 100km/h and 110km/h for your average 4-door sedan.

Finally, yeah i'm th inking of kinetic energy, not mass-energy equivalence >_< My CEGEP physics is far far back right now. Regardless, the principle i'm describing is still true -- all things equal (gears and what not) the faster you want to go = the more resistance you encounter = greater force = more energy (^2+) and the worse your fuel efficiency.

All this comes back to the argument that speeding wastes gas. And it does, you've just admitted it If you don't care to waste some gas and you can afford it, that's fine with you and that's fine with me, but the fact remains... it does waste gas. A pretty fair amount too (30km worth over 210km from my own testing)

1. Fuck the law

2. Sure it does The key is to again drive properly... often you see someone rushing like crazy in traffic, zig-zag etc and they don't get far, but when the road is empty, distance can go quick

3. E=MC^2 has nothing to do with that

1. I tend to respect the law as a matter of justice and principle, so we'll have to agree to disagree on that one

2. Speeding will take you somewhere faster only if there's no traffic and no stopping. If you drive from L.A. to Las Vegas through the desert, you'll obviously get there faster. Speeding on a wednesday afternoon on autoroute 20 - or worse yet - any local road... yeah. Not so much.

3. Actually, that's flat out wrong. Once you're on your highest gear, increases in speed result will invariably demand more energy at greater ratios. It's a bit of E=MC^2 regarding engine RPM, but it's also wind resistence.

"Air resistance goes up as the square of velocity. The power consumed to overcome that air resistance goes up as the cube of the velocity. Rolling resistance is the dominant force below about 40 mph. Above that, every mph costs you mileage. Go as slow as traffic and your schedule will allow. Drive under 60-65 since air grows exponentially denser, in the aerodynamic sense, the faster we drive. To be precise, the most efficient speed is your car's minimum speed in it's highest gear, since this provides the best "speed per RPM" ratio. This is usually about 45 to 55 miles per hour."

Try it out yourself one day, you'll see there's a huge difference between just 110km/h and 120km/h. I once did the test driving to Ottawa and back, filling up upon departure and arrival. Doing the trip at 120km/h cost me something like 30km worth of gas more than 108km/h. That's pretty significant.

Another huge gas-waster is driving style. Some guys like to accelerate hard when the light goes green but this wastes something like 3-4x more gas than just a slow gentle acceleration.

I always laugh when i see people accelerate hard on Taschereau boulevard only to get stopped at the light.. intersection after intersection. It's like, "grats bro, you arrived to the red light a full 3 seconds before me. You must feel like a champion" *lol*

Interesting. 0 tickets you say.. I'm a little surprised! Cops can hide behind buildings where you can't see them.. even if you have excellent awareness, they can always surprise you. I'm amazed you've never been caught. Lucky guy!

I've never had a ticket either, but then again i never drive faster than the speed of traffic, even when i'm in a hurry. I find there's just no point.

I guess I'll never understand the point of speeding.

1. It's breaking the law

2. It doesn't really get you to your destination any faster

3. It wastes a ton of gas (E=MC^2)

This is a little off-topic, but out of curiosity Cyrus, have you ever gotten any tickets? I'm just wondering how effective our cops are at busting guys like you that regularly do 150km/h You seemed to dodge the bullet pretty well in CEGEP, but have you ever been caught? I don't mean this in a holier-then-thou kind of way, frankly I don't care what you do, i'm just curious like what % of the time you speed you get away with it and what % you get caught. (By speeding i mean 130km/h and above.) This has more to do with my curiosity of how effective the cops are than anything else, really.

Même si je suis contre l'idée d'un couvre-feu (je préfère mon idée que j'ai mentionné un peu plus haut) je peux quand même comprendre pourquoi on pense ainsi... attention avec l'argument "liberté" car il ne faut pas oublier que conduire, ce n'est pas un droit mais bien un privilège.

Moi j'irais avec un système comme suit:

Entre 16 et 21 ans, le jeune a un maximum de 4 points d'inaptitude.

Chaque année de bonne conduite suivant la première lui donne 2 points d'inaptitude de plus à son maximum.

À 21 ans, son maximum monte à 15 points, comme pour les adultes.

Sometimes i wonder if we shouldn't approach this problem from a different angle...

If bridges are expensive to build over the Saint-Lawrence partly because of the lengthy spans, why not shorten the spans? A massive land reclamation project could shorten the Saint-Lawrence effectively making it easier to build bridges and tunnels while simultaneously providing fantastic

development opportunities. Of course, to cross the channel bridges would still need to be high so there's still that.

AVANT

APRES

It's an absolutely crazy idea and it wouldn't happen, never in a million years, but i still think it's an interesting "what if" idea to ponder.

Then again, maybe land reclamation isn't so far fetched...

Obviously it would be expensive, but one can dream...

Même pas fini d'être construit et il y a déjà des tagues dessus?!?!

Ah-ha! Interessant.

Merci pour ces infos, OursNoir!

Yes but the worker has no idea that you have a 10x zoom or not, that you're singling him or not.

 

He sees a dude pointing a camera in his direction, and if he tells you he doesn't want his picture, then that's that.

 

You have to respect his decision, claiming your rights is way over the top for something so trivial.

Way over the top is a matter of opinion. In such an instance I would be reasonable enough to show the person the photo I took, and when they clearly see that i'm not zoomed 10x on their face, they'll probably back off. If i'm taking a wide-angle shot of a construction site and a person shows up as 10 pixels on a 4x6 printed shot, then cry me a river but that's fair use. The law protects my right to take such a photograph. If i'm not taking explicit personal photographs of someone in a non-crowd or non-general setting, then I have every right to proceed.

Il est légal de prendre une photo de n’importe quoi et de n’importe qui, à condition que la photo soit prise alors que vous êtes dans un lieu public. Aucune autorisation n’est nécessaire.

Le droit de prendre une photo à partir d’un lieu public ne donne pas le droit d’abuser de la vie privée d’autrui. Prendre une photo d’une maison est une chose. Prendre une photo d’une maison à l’aide d’un puissant téléobjectif pour aller « chercher » une personne DANS la maison, à travers la fenêtre en est une autre et ne serait pas considéré comme légal.

Bref, selon l'article que tu viens toi-même de nous montrer, il est légal de prendre une photo d'un chantier tant qu'on abuse pas pour aller cibler un gars de la construction à 10X zoom (ce qu'on ne fait pas chez mtlurb de toute façon)

My right to free speech does not end because somebody thinks that they were photographed close-up when in reality they were not. An incorrect plaintiff can't just make accusations to deny everyone their rights. If that's how it worked, nobody would ever leave the house!

Not in Quebec. Do your homework, do some research.

Yes in Quebec, you still can. Sorry bro.

Quebec is unique in requiring you to get consent if you want to publish a photograph of a person who is the primary focus of the picture. (If it's a crowd or a general scene it doesn't count.)

However, this only applies if you share the photo (a friend, a web site, a magazine article.) So I photograph a scene on Ste-Catherine street (a crowd) I don't need consent from anybody.

If i take a wide-angle shot of a construction site and there are barely discernible construction workers somewhere in that shot ---- TOO EFFIN' BAD! The Charter protects my rights to that photograph. If i do a 10x zoom of a construction workers' face and that worker is in private property that is completely enclosed by a fence (granting reasonable expectation of privacy) then no, i couldn't just publish that image according to Quebec law.

However Canadian law still applies for other cases, such as the one's i'm describing. So yes, Malek, i could photograph a construction site even if there are some workers and pedestrians in the background.

What rights? are you an accredited journalist? Since when are you allowed to photograph people without their consent?

Apparently you've never read the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

According to Canadian law, is it entirely legal to take pictures of a construction site which is in plain and public view. You're also allowed to photograph a construction worker on a construction site even if that site is private property, as long as you're taking the photograph from public property and there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Given that a skyscraper that will rise to 40 storeys in no way qualifies for "privacy from the public view", you have every right to take pictures. Even below ground level, if there aren't barriers completely encircling the property and you can get a glimpse from street level in a reasonable fashion, then you're allowed to take that picture.

In a more general context, you can also photograph a person without their consent at any time when they're in public space and there is no legal expectation of privacy. If i take a picture of Times Square and there *happen* to be people in the shot (geez, how is that possible) i don't need to go around getting consent forms filled out by every pedestrian.

I used to do photography avidly many years ago and I know the laws well. I'm sorry Malek but that's how it is.

When people want to deny me my rights i get angry.. it's one of the few things that really pisses me off. I'd be like: "Hey, i have every right to stand here and take photographs. If you politely ask me to leave and give me a valid reason, i'll consider it, but if you just shout at me, then you know what, maybe i'll just stick around for a few hours. Try explaining to your boss why you slacked off and got no work done this afternoon. I'm not a reporter but my camera has a video function. Maybe i should record you swearing at me and submit that to the press."

Welcome Brycedavid!

I'm going to go take pictures every day now just because of that!

Yara: en fait, oui c'est la faute des gens qui coupent à travers de l'esplanade.. mais il faut avouer que la disposition des surfaces piétonnières encourage fortement ce comportement.

The pedestrians that cut across are technically to blame, but the urban planners who envisioned this layout are bigger culprits if you ask me.

Yup there are two ways to go south from west.. hehe. This is partly the result of the unfinished local network north of the highway.

As for the first two images, it sounds like you're agreeing with me that the metro should go on Ch. Chambly. Could it be?

Pourquoi??

http://www.mtlurb.com/forums/showthread.php/13905-STM-Prolongement-du-m%C3%A9tro-Ligne-04-jaune-vers-le-sud/page13

http://www.mtlurb.com/forums/showthread.php/13905-STM-Prolongement-du-m%C3%A9tro-Ligne-04-jaune-vers-le-sud?p=67629#post67629

Métro sur Roland-Therrien = erreur catastrophique

La ligne jaune doit passer sur Chemin Chambly.

http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=45.49651,-73.575912&spn=0.002918,0.008256&z=18&layer=c&cbll=45.496311,-73.575837&panoid=zDG5n1BoUsi0eIn1zz9UxA&cbp=12,113.4,,0,-7.02

Regardez sur streetview.. moi je passe par la a tout les jours, et une tour de 30 étages serait un peu trop. Sur la tête d'ilot, oui ça serait bien, mais en face des maisons victoriennes tout au long de Bishop, ça serait peut-être un peu trop.

9 étages c'est "correct" et je le prend.

12 ça aurait été mieux et j'aurais accepté jusqu'à 18, mais pas trop plus que ça à cet endroit.

But they don't... they always make the developer do it and give it to the town for free after. In Calgary a year ago, they even made a developer build a staged freeway that runs near his community (but promised to pay him back)

If a private developer builds a neighborhood unit/gated community/residential project, for sure he's going to pay for the roads. But in many circumstances, new roads subscribe to the city's master plan and are built by the city.

But all that's beside the point. Why should someone in B.C. pay for a bridge in Quebec anyway?

Why should tax dollars from Quebec benefit a child education program up in Nunavut?

Why should tax dollars from B.C. help subsidize some senior citizen's health care in Saskatchewan?

Why should tax dollars from Alberta help build a bridge to P.E.I.?

Hell, why should government do *anything*? Fark'em, right? Let everyone fend for themselves.

Citizen, it is now your responsibility. Build your own road, install your own sewage system, generate your own electricity, inspect your own food, decontaminate your own water, etc.

The reason why the government should help finance a new bridge is the same reason why a town would finance a new road in a residential district. That new road might only service a few dozen residents, but it's still open to everyone. Likewise, the Champlain bridge is the busiest bridge in Canada and it carries A-10,A-15,A-20. It may not have a meaningless "trans-canada" sticker on it, but ultimately it services more vehicles and a greater population than the actual trans-canada crossing (the tunnel).

I could just as easily say the blood of the victims would be on the hands of those who did not build a proper bridge to begin with (Louis St-Laurent and his Liberal government). Why are the Jacques-Cartier and Victoria Bridges so strong roughly 70 and 150 years after they opened while the Liberal-built Champlain crumbles?

This comparison is asinine. The Jacques-Cartier and Victoria bridges were built before the Champlain, during a time of more limited technology and construction techniques. As a result, the J-C and Victoria were built with excessive sturdiness to overcompensate. Bridges designed by computer today are much less sturdy and only meet the minimum requirements. Back in the day, they couldn't create simulations and stress-test bridges, so they overcompensated by making the structures extremely strong "just in case". It has nothing to do with "which government built the bridge". Come. This is a ridiculous argument that tries to inject politics into an issue that is non-political.

No need to get emotionally defensive MTLskyline, i'm not attacking Harper. I'm just saying *somebody* needs to step up and do something about this situation. Provincial, municipal, federal, all 3, some combination, i honestly don't care. Just build. A new. Bridge. Now.

This project has 9 floors including the small structures on the roof.

As for the building itself... 9 floors is just right for this part of Bishop st. You know me, i'm always advocating for more height, more density, but honestly 9 floors here is just right. This lot is further back from René-Lévesque than some of the other high rises nearby. In the middle of Bishop, where this project is situated, average building heights are closer to 3 floors than anything else. So 9 floors? Here? Perfect in my opinion.