Transporting by ship is the cheapest but that's due to its speed, or rather lack there of. I was specifically referring to the wages of dock workers ($147,000 average) compared to those of truck drivers ($51,000 average)

They would probably have to, they'd may even have to include rest areas as well. One of the problems with the Confederation Bridge was driver fatigue. It's a minor problem but apparently it's more taxing on the drivers. That bridge is only 1.2km long so I imagine an 88km+ bridge would be much more difficult to cross.

I'm sure they'll do both. High speed trains are actually harder to design for so adding a road on top is trivial and not much more expensive.

Truckers are also cheaper than dock workers.

Intel WiDi maybe? https://www-ssl.intel.com/cont...

These profiles that you supposedly can't walk away from is the real danger for me. Trolls will always exist no matter what so that's a non-issue for me. The problem with not being able to walk away is not only expressing something but also simply being able to cut ties with a company. Wikipedia as an example, there is no possible way to cut ties with them, it's likely not legal but who's going to fight it? Steam, if you buy thousands of dollars worth of stuff off but need to walk away from them - you can't, you're locked in. If you delete your account somehow, you lose what you've paid for and that's a dangerous position to be in because someone else has control of your assets. Steam it doesn't matter much because it's entertainment but the more we hand over this control the fewer options we will have in life.

As to unpopular views, they need to get out. People need outlets to discuss the merits and drawbacks of unpopular ideas or they will never be anything but. Right or wrong any time minority views are suppressed, whether by self-restraint or external pressures, it's bad for society. A simple example cropped up in the news today. A couple girls were stopped by police for cycling topless. It is and was an unpopular thing but someone had the idea years ago, and took it to court. The courts agreed that it was an equality issue and women have the right to go topless in public if they so choose making the police stop illegal. Without pursuing that unpopular idea though, it would have been legal and the police state would be dictating dress codes... which is exactly what we point to as "evil" in other states and throughout history.

If I had a username and it was a real cat named fluffy I might be able to do it. Thankfully, you made my point about anonymity - it's much harder to track people down when you can have unlinked/anonymizable accounts.

It's not so much privacy as anonymity. Knowing that I can walk away from a profile which is not my "personal brand" and have no impact on my life. Being able to interact with the freedom to not worry about consequences is what the internet provides for me - otherwise I must be restrained in what I say for fear of the impact, now or in the future.

Personally I prefer having separate accounts. It's too easy to track down information with linked accounts. People don't realize how much information is publicly available and what consequences that can have. Heck, even without linked accounts it's far too easy. I once tracked down someone, at their request, starting with only a username on a single forum. On that forum they'd mentioned their cats names in a single post. From that I was able to identify their postings as anonymous users, their real name, address, social media profiles, and so on. The scary part, it took me less than an hour to compile all the information. The only reason it took that long is because there was a lady in Florida with the same cat names which had to be teased out of the data. Another individual I tracked, I was able to identify where they lived, what they drove, how long they'd lived in their home, what they paid for it, what they pay in taxes, what instrument they played in a band, etc... so many details of their life just out in the open. I got all of that starting from a single tweet on an account they'd only sent 8 tweets from and deleted; it just happened to have been cached by Google.

Didn't you know? That's a "feature".

Indeed. Now if we could only get CPU/RAM usage as well!

I've disabled my update service, firewall, and anti-virus for years without issue, so I am to be made to pay for an enterprise version for my home system to keep the status quo? That's bullshit and you know it. If users want to be stupid, let them be stupid. What business is it of Microsoft's? The only reason they need to do this is because they can't create a secure OS and are having to go to extreme measures to make it seem like their systems are secure. As the recent Hacking Team revelations make clear, even with a fully updated system you are not secure. Accept that and reject the fear of "not patching your system somehow equates imminent destruction" and you'll see that Any company, Microsoft/Google/Mozilla/etc making changes without giving you the opportunity to accept/reject them is a bad thing.

I advised mine not to install Win10. I don't want to get the calls "X has changed how do I do Y now?", "I was working on this critical thing and something (ie: patch) happened, how do I get it back?", "We're trying to watch Netflix like you showed us but it keeps shuddering in the middle of it (due to "background" updates screwing with the framerate on their slow system)"

The fact is the current regime works perfectly well, people like yourself can schedule the download/install to automatically occur in the middle of the night and people like me can turn it off until I'm ready to take action.

Don't care. I'm not going to be forced into updating my system. You'll be able to uninstall, until there's one they don't want you to uninstall. You'll be able to delay, until there's one they don't want you to delay. This type of thing is really coming to a head for me, too many times I've spent money on something only to have it changed to something I would never have purchased. Patches should always be optional and always be up to the user when to apply.

The control I have is choice. A choice if or when I want to apply updates, that is more important to me. I run vulnerable/"obsolete" systems all the time and am just fine with that, in fact I'm quite happy and would like to "downgrade" some systems.

Shocking that someone doesn't want to be a sheep, I know it's hard to understand.