So, I’m asthmatic, mildly. I keep a salbutamol puffer around for periods of exercise. I have my entire life, and will continue to do so until gene therapy cures me of asthma entirely. Yesterday, I called my pharmacy to order a refill, and was denied. Not because I was out of refills, but because the prescription was more than a year old.

Now, I have to visit my doctor to get a new prescription, which is a waste of my time, my doctor’s time, and taxpayer dollars. I understand the notion of enforced reviews for say, oxycontin, or a drug for some kind of acute treatment, but to require a doctor to rewrite a prescription for my case seems like bad policy. Is this a Manitoba thing? Or a Shoppers Drug Mart policy? Or what? Aren’t pharmacists supposed to be able to prescribe maintenance drugs already?

Ok – so it turns out I broke the LinkThing registration system over the holidays. So if you tried to join, and got a bunch of error messages, I apologize. If that happened, your account was actually created, and you can sign in and start using it.

In the meantime, I’ve fixed the error, so you can now join LinkThing without any ridiculous hiccups. I’ve also significantly beefed up the “Introduction to LinkThing” that walks you through the basics, and explains some of the key features.

If you have no idea what I’m talking about, LinkThing.co is a place where you can bookmark websites, and then search, sort, organize, and share your bookmarks very easily. Usually, bookmarking happens in your web browser – but browser bookmarks don’t follow you from work to home and back, aren’t very searchable, are a pain to organize, and don’t make it easy to share things.

Please feel free to peruse the “Introduction to LinkThing” -  If you’re new to LinkThing.co, hopefully this gives you something to get started with, or if you’ve never heard of LinkThing – perhaps you’ll give it a try! If you have any questions, reach me on Twitter at @rodedwards, or via email at rfj.edwards@gmail.com.

WHOA. Yeah. Its a gleaming chrome-skinned hover train from the future-past, called the Aerotrain, that was designed and built in France in the 1960s and 70s as an alternative to maglev technology [Photo: Wikipedia]. I stumbled upon this gem while researching “the worlds longest bridges and things.” The Aerotrain traveled on elevated monorail tracks – one of these test tracks, at 18 km long, merits inclusion on Wikipedia’s longest bridges list. Even though the Aerotrain/Hovertrain concept was abandoned in the mid-seventies, the test track survives to this day, abandoned and overgrown:

[Photo: Wikipedia]

Here’s the prototype from the shot above in action, and below, a later version in action on what looks to be the long test track:

[Photos From Teladyne Exploration]

Now, check this out: someone, relatively recently, <i>turned it on</i>:

[Photo: aerotrain.fr - lots, and lots, and lots of pictures there]

So apparently, the prototype is still intact and functional enough to fire up the ol’ turbines and generate an ass-load of smoke.

The Aerotrain, it seems, was rather successful…

In 1976 after testing rocket engines the Aérotrain  hovercraft’s final version used a modified liner induction engine which showed exceptional performance in test runs, exceeding speeds of 245 miles per hour. The Aérotrain set a new rail speed record with each test run. With less up front cost and virtuly no track maintenance involved it was less expensive to build, operate and maintain than its contemporary alternatives.[IllianaRoad.com]

…but died on the vine nonetheless due to a lack of political will, funding, and the death of its lead engineer. Eventually, France committed to the TGV high-speed rail infrastructure that it uses today, and that was that. It got far enough along that the government of France wanted to start getting children comfortable with the concept, though:

Now – lest you think that was the end of the line for the Aerotrain – fear not! Tune in next time for the long, convoluted, equally paleofuture-cool “Aerotrain comes to America!” Teaser: you can visit the American hovertrain experiment in Pueblo, Colorado (below: holy crap, there it is!). More to come!

View Larger Map

Of course Michael Arrington can’t recreate TechCrunch at Uncrunched (which surprises some) – he must be wrapped up tight in a non-compete from AOL.

I love this idea. The post title is obnoxious, the intrusiveness of the idea so complete, the numbers so compelling. In a nutshell – left turns across oncoming traffic cause a disproportionate number of accidents (I’ve been in one, my wife wrote off her first car this way) and slow down traffic significantly, compared to established and well tested alternatives – namely streets configured to require u-turn/right-turn combinations instead of left turns.

“Sound absurd? Think again. According to Smithsonian Magazine, researchers at North Carolina State University have found that the superstreet design is more efficient and safer than allowing drivers to turn across traffic. After examining data from 13 superstreet intersections and comparing them to their traditional counterparts, researchers found that, on average, the superstreets delivered a 20-percent decrease in travel time and caused 46 percent fewer reported traffic collisions. More importantly, the superstreet design caused 63-percent fewer accidents that resulted in personal injury.” [Autoblog]

On one hand, the numbers from NC are compelling. On the other hand, it looks (from the illustration) like it would consume more space and cost more than a simple four-way intersection. Its also interesting that it goes distinctly against the somewhat popular vancouverist notions of around avoiding high-flowing, high-speed traffic arteries.

Image Credit: North Carolina DOT

DSC_0398, originally uploaded by Rod Edwards.

This past October, a ludicrous storm (caused by a record-setting low pressure cell to the south of Lake Winnipeg) did a stupendous amount of damage to the south basin of Lake Winnipeg. Here’s some shots from our area; click the picture (or follow this link) to jump to the photoset and browse more shots of the damage.

Here comes the politics: Cottagers who knowingly bought erosion-prone lots from the province four years ago (at $8,000 a pop for lakefront), are getting provincial assistance to rebuild their shoreline. Cottagers who were there previously (i.e.: who bought lots from the province decades ago, and who pay higher taxes and receive less services) are being left high and dry.

“Voters in Iowa chose to remove three high court justices who helped make Iowa the first Midwestern state to permit same-sex marriage.” [CNN]

Another example of the Tea Party/Republican/??? conflicted agenda at work. Yes to small government! But also, yes to government meddling in bedrooms!

I think when a Tea Partier says “freedom” they mean something different than what they think they’re saying. To me, “freedom” means freedom from prejudice and equal opportunity. To a Tea Partier, it seems to mean “Freedom to live within what we judge to be the right way to live.”

The latest chapter in Manitoba’s painful process of building a new football stadium has come to a close, with private investment (the Aspers) being squeezed out to make way for more city and provincial involvement. So – the players are the province, the city, the university, and the bombers: too many chefs in the kitchen and not enough dollars in the pot.

That means a compromise stadium, in a compromise location, paid for with tax dollars, helmed by politicians and a “community-owned” team – looking forward to seeing how this goes (grimace). Winnipeg’s business community is capable of great things – witness mayor Katz’s downtown baseball stadium or the new airport – why football is such a boondoggle (given the bomber’s sell-out seasons) is a headscratcher.

For crying out loud: make it private, make the bombers private, put the whole thing downtown, and quit institutionalizing mediocrity.

From the Free Press:

WINNIPEG — The deal to complete Winnipeg’s new stadium must be signed by Wednesday to ensure the cost is locked in at $190 million, says Winnipeg Mayor Sam Katz.
The University of Manitoba and Winnipeg Football Club boards have two days to agree to a stadium-building plan that will see the province front most of the construction costs on the 33,000-seat stadium at the university’s Fort Garry campus.
This afternoon, city councillors were briefed on the deal at a closed-door council seminar. Following the meeting, Katz told reporters what the proposed deal will involve.
As previously announced, the province will provide a $15 million grant and front the majority of the construction costs. The City of Winnipeg will contribute $7.5 million from the proceeds of the sale of the existing stadium at Polo Park toward the project and also contribute another $2.5 million on services in kind – mainly development fees – as well as traffic improvements in Fort Richmond and University Heights to satisfy residents who live near the proposed stadium, the mayor said.
Future property taxes from new residential and commercial developments at the Canad Inns Stadium site will be used to pay back $75 million of the provincial loan. The Winnipeg Blue Bombers will be responsible for $85 million of the loan payback over four decades, Katz said.
Creswin Properties will no longer be part of the deal and will be compensated to the tune of $4 million for engineering, design and other work on the project, Katz said. That figure is part of the $190 million tab, Katz said. Creswin wanted $6 million, Katz said.
The deal must be completed by Wednesday, which is the day when the guaranteed construction prices expire, Katz said.
Council is expected to vote on the deal on Wednesday. So far, only Daniel McIntyre Coun. Harvey Smith said he may vote against the plan.
Couns. Dan Vandal (St. Boniface) and Jenny Gerbasi (Fort Rouge) said the deal is good for the city, even though it’s unfortunate there is no private-sector involvement.
Bomber board chairman Bill Watchorn said he is optimistic the deal will be completed.
Colin Craig of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation denounced the deal.

Crafty Europeans are re-branding incandescent light bulbs as 100 W “heat balls” in an attempt to skirt the ban and protest what many see as excessive government meddling in personal choice.

“Heatballs are opposition to regulations being passed that bluntly ignore the most basic democratic principles and bypassing parliamentary procedures, effectively muzzling the common man,” the site reads, adding that it is also a protest of “unreasonable measures supposedly protecting our natural environment.”

via Authorities reject ‘Heatballs’ attempt to skirt EU light bulb ban – The Local.

One of the justifications for government is to address “externalities” – costs that would otherwise go unpaid and unrecognized in a free market system. One example would be dumping toxic PCB’s into rivers – regulation provides a mandate for proper handling and a means for companies to pass the cost onto those who receive the benefit of their products. IMHO, that’s a good thing. The line gets a bit blurrier, however, when the externality is less egregious than toxic sludge.

In terms of light bulbs: I can’t help but think that market mechanics could achieve the same end without the erosion of choice.