Two water tanks, each holding 3,655 litres (810USgal) of water, are located roughly at the aircraft's centre of gravity. The tanks are located predominately below the floor in the hull, with each side having a header tank that rises into the fuselage compartment. Forward of each water header tank is a 340.5 litre (681 litre total) foam tank, enough foam for 20 drops. Typically, the foam tanks are filled with a short-term retardant that "gels" the water, allowing it to hang up in the forest canopy and delaying run-off when it reaches the ground. https://www.flightglobal.com/flight-test-bombardier-415-the-superscooper/88562.article

Suck it Boeing
https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/todayinthesky/2018/01/26/international-trade-commission-bombardier-boeing-delta-air-lines/1059286001/

I don't understand why Boeing didn't buy Bombardier...

Upvote for bombardier selfie.

I would argue that automation still isn't the job killer #1. Plain old political decisions, such as sound finance, deficit hawkery, and austerity lead by a mile in this category. Neither is being addressed properly, but I find it hard to focus on the employment effects of automation when the Eurozone, for instance, runs at >10% unemployment strictly due to policies enacted by (non-)elected officials. We don't need technology to cause mass unemployment, humans can do that all on their own.

Additionally, even the amount of work available is a matter of perspective. Within the current system, the number of jobs with a decent salary is already dwarfed by the number of people looking for one. The amount of work to be done, on the other hand, is not.

Case in point: our (read: German) national railroad company is short-staffed by about 80.000-100.000 people, last I checked; our healthcare system is short-staffed by at least 200.000 people, probably a lot more; law enforcement is short by about 50.000; education is short by at least 20.000. Let's not even talk about infrastructure or ecological maintenance/regeneration. These are not open positions though, because nobody is willing/able to pay the bill.

So while I agree that we should be discussing how to deal with technological change, a more pressing matter is either to alter the system or to at least take back control over the vast sums of dead currency floating around in the financial nirvana or on Stephen Schwarzman's bank accounts. First stop: full employment. Then, gradually, guaranteed basic income when automation does, in fact, cause mass unemployment.

Finally, I don't think automation will do as quick as sweep as some presume. The quality of software in commercial machines is quite absymal in many cases, since it was written in the normal fashion: do it now, do it quickly, here's five bucks. Efficiency improvements generally come at the price of QA, and it shows. Europe's most modern railway control center is nearby, and it never went online -- Bombardier cut corners and never had the proper railway expertise to begin with. Meanwhile, the center build in '53 is working just fine, and so are the switches put in place when Wilhelm II was running the show.

Edit: That said, I'm thrilled to see mind-numbing labour being replaced by machines. Can't happen quickly enough.

For interest's sake: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/bombardier-lays-off-1-700-workers-in-canada-u-s-1.2505013

Tags for this video have been changed from 'colby, fire, airplane, Santa Fe Dam' to 'colby, fire, airplane, water bomber, Bombardier CL415, Santa Fe Dam' - edited by calvados

My grandfather who was a bombardier in WWII, is rolling in his grave that I upvoted Hitler.

Just for interests sake, here's a very young Richard Dawkins already on the sift explaining the (apparent) bombardier beetle conundrum.

http://videosift.com/video/Dawkins-on-the-Evolution-of-the-Bombardier-Beetle

Ignore, for a moment, the factual errors (eg the bombardier beetle does not produce an explosion). The important thing to understand, in my opinion, is that many of these are good questions to ask.

How could the bombardier beetle's defense mechanism have evolved? Now I know this question has been addressed in detail already, but assume it's being asked for the first time. The answer to this question is going to be enlightening, one way or another. Either biologists will provide an answer (enlightening) or we will find a gaping hole in our understanding of evolution (enlightening). These are both positive outcomes and nobody should be criticized for asking, even today when the answer is readily available to anyone with internet access.

There are things that should be criticized, however. First and foremost: unwillingness to listen to an answer. It does you no harm to hear even a false answer as long as you apply due skepticism. This goes for people of all walks, opinions and beliefs.

Second, you should be criticized if you think disproving natural selection (or any attempts to do so) would be evidence for God. That is a non-sequitur. If natural selection was disproven tomorrow, all that proves is that we don't know how we got the diversity of life we see around us.

God is not the null hypothesis. You have to provide evidence to support the existence of God, not just shoot down any "competing" ideas.

Except QualiaSoup's argument doesn't rest on ad hominem attacks. You're pointing to the single use of a word, "pseudoscientific," which in context (about 4:23) was used as "Some anti-evolutionists repeat an argument put forward by Michael Behe - an advocate of the pseudoscientific intelligent design movement..." (and again, no mention of the word fraud, that was your own addition). That is simply not an ad hominem fallacy, since he is not attacking Behe's character. Perhaps it's just you who interprets it as such? If we're going to debate semantics here, the word "pseudoscience" has a formal definition (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pseudoscience) that, while pejorative, is still not an ad hominem attack against Behe. QualiaSoup used it as an adjective to describe intelligent design, suggesting that it does not conform to the principles of the scientific method. Which is a true statement. It doesn't. QualiaSoup is not questioning Behe's wealth or IQ or sexuality or what Behe's mother did last night or any other personal quality completely unrelated to the issue at hand. Ad hominem = "to the man" - Behe the man is not under attack. Behe's beliefs/opinions are.

Behe's scientific knowledge and work can absolutely be isolated from his pseudoscientific beliefs/advocacy. Isaac Newton sought ways to perform alchemy, does that mean his contributions to fundamental physics are invalid or that it's an ad hominem attack against him personally if I were to say that alchemy is pseudoscience?

Also, would it help put your mind at ease that QualiaSoup isn't blowing smoke out of his ass if a noted and widely published evolutionary scientist like Richard Dawkins made the exact same argument years ago?

>> ^bmacs27:

There was a reason I put pseudoscientific in quotes, and left fraud out of quotes. Calling him pseudoscientific implies he is a fraud, as he claims to be a scientist. It is ad hominem. An appeal to accomplishment is a valid response to an argument that rests on ad hominem attacks.
Further, as far as logical fallacies go, particularly within science, an appeal to expertise hardly seems inappropriate. In fact happens all the time. That's why courts employ expert witnesses, and we accept the recommendations of grants reviewed by peers not laymen. While there is of course always room for arguments from evidence, in the absence of such we generally defer to the intuitions of experts.
There are plenty of arguments that suggest the biochemical mechanisms of phototransduction could have evolved. Why not make them?

Irrefutable evidence of intelligent design.>> ^MrLips:

Where did that fucking shirt evolve from?

>> ^MrLips:

Where did that fucking shirt evolve from?

Dawkinses have evolved such shirts as a way to camouflage themselves in their natural habitat, the cushions of old ladies' couches.

Your video, Dawkins on the Evolution of the Bombardier Beetle, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^ant:

I get sprayed a lot like that.


Skit skit.