Ha. Show up one hour before scheduled boarding time is the standard advice, but frequent travellers know to show up 90 minutes to two hours. Then add another 15-30 minutes to actually start taxing out to the runway, and thirty minutes after landing before you're at the curb looking for a taxi, bus, or rental car shuttle.
To get from SFO to San Francisco or San Jose is a long congested drive, the majority of people don't fly into there to go to Millbrae or Burlingame. Sure, fly from SFO to SAN but that takes a lot of time and expense too. Most airports in the US and elsewhere are not downtown. They usually don't connect to mass transit sites either. SFO does have BART connection but that's somewhat unusual (SAN you have to take bus to get to the light rail which seems dumb). And none of this helps someone who's commuting from Sacramento, Los Banos, Stockton, Bakersfield, etc (and people do commute from those places).
They are connecting the BART right now. The high speed rail was supposed to be for commuting not alternative to airport (though there would be less groping involved I think making it viable for those who the airport degredation). High speed rail could be viable to compete with airports too especially if you're not in one of the two cities. The high speed rail is more than just two points. I know the yuppies and hipsters hate everyone who doesn't live in the two cities, but California is bigger than those two dots on a map. We already have people commuting to the bay area cities and towns from the central valley.
Rail is very viable in Europe and Japan for instance and are commonly used. More luggage space, larger seats, don't need to arrive a couple hours before departure, stations are closer to where you want to eventually get to, and connect directly with other mass transit. America really is very far behind in mass transit overall. The cost is high to build but if we used that excuse we'd never have an interstate system, or airports.
Best way to reduce congestion or overcrowding of cities is to let people be able to live outside of the cities. You don't solve that with airports or local mass transit.
Shouldn't it be enough to prove tha tthe nation-wide telco is doing a very horrible job? Or that the nation-wide telco can't provide internet as fast or cheap as in foreign countries?
They don't have to. They got elected in the first place. Now all the pretense of being a nice person can be shed. With all the wheelbarrows of money you get from corporations telling you how to vote you can easily put out all that bad press you want about opponents in upcoming re-election campaigns. Many politicians go quickly into being widely hated in their districts and yet somehow manage to keep staying in office. Othertimes their district is loved by the voters who only care about one issue, and dont really care that the politician is hurting different districts.
And yet what if there's no choice? So many parts of the world have great inexpensive internet, but in America we're told that it's too expensive to roll out service if you're unlucky enough to live where you do, or the costs are extremely high for rather mediocre service, and in order to keep those prices down to an almost affordable level they had to fire all the customer service people who know what they were doing. Seriously, if former republics of the Soviet Union can have faster and cheaper internet doesn't that say something bad about America? Why aren't the voters embarrassed by this?
Trump has sort of given up on the Democrat vs Republican model. He's a none-of-the-above because he doesn't adopt the ideals or platforms of either party. He only seems Republican because that's the party he's currently groping. The republicans are merely holding their noses long enough to get their wish lists approved.
What they really mean is that they want a smaller government if run by their opposing party, but a larger government if their party is in charge. It's the only way to ensure that you prevent the people from doing things your party disapproves of and that you're allowed to keep doing what the other party disapproves of.
And yet citizens vote FOR municipal broadband because the professional corporations have a product that's overpriced and underserviced. These corporations know that they have the inferior product which is why they're lobbying legislatures to make competition illegal. Voters need to hate the internet providers more, since we have plenty of municipal electricity/gas providers because the voters really really hate the big power companies and the big power company bills and there's not a lot of legislative action trying to prevent that.
This won't change as long as the voters stop paying attention and instead instinctively vote only for those of the correct red vs blue teams. They don't know if the guy is a crook or not, but they'll vote for him because that's the lever they always pull. And besides these issues are extremely complicated for the average voter to think about, as compared to easily digested voter information of "my opponent is an evil liberal/conservative with his hand in your wallet".
This is a silly argument though. You may as well say that if a company doesn't have the same need to have high profits that they shouldn't compete as it's unfair to the fat cats. Generally the conservative stance for as long as I can remember was "government are inefficient, slow, wasteful, and out of touch with the citizens." But as soon as government does something efficient and desirable the message changes to "government shouldn't do that!" I think some of this is just bitter resentment that their theory that all government is evil has counter examples, which is why they often like to pick on the only government agency that can pay for itself (USPS).
Naw, the PC games are as expensive as console games or more so. PCs have flexibility. And if you've already got a PC then you can use it to play a game instead of having to buy a second games-dedicated computer. With consoles you have the same issues of exclusive games so that you may not get the games you want anyway (it's really stupid, a vendor that does this is intentionally ignoring large chunks of the market just for a tiny kickback from the console maker).
Basically a PC for me lets me play new and old games. Old meaning 10-20 years old. Consoles don't do this. A PC lets me use a keyboard and mouse that I use every day and am very efficient at using, whereas consoles have a relatively clumsy controller that cramps my hands, they're ergonomic nightmares. Though more and more games are becoming consolized you still find many games that allow more freedom than a typical console game - save anywhere, allow mods, raise or lower resolution, make backups of saves anywhere you want, flip over to the web browser to read mail in the middle, and so forth. PCs let me sit at my desk, whereas most consoles seem oriented to sitting on your couch, which may or may not be an advantage based upon the type of game or the type of player. PCs have many many independent game developers and you can make your own without begging permissions from anyone, whereas console games are in the walled garden all the time and a portion of the game's price goes directly to the console maker.
On my home computer I can not imagine any background task needing any CPU time at all. I don't care if they suffer, I'd be happy if they died off. Instead I find that things are running slow, I open up task manager and I can often see stuff running that I don't care about. Other times I will see the hard disk light going full speed but the moment I open up task manager everything goes quiet, like the offending process is trying to hide (not good enough though, I can tell it's yet another svchost.exe). Even after turning on the obvious culprints, like indexing files (useless) this continue happening now and then. Windows causes more disruption than viruses.
Actually, I got a replacement mac with newer OS on it, and I did not restore all the settings I had over the years and wanted to start out fresh. First thing I noticed is that it doesn't lock me out instantly when the laptop is closed. Instead I can now walk from cubicle to meeting room and not have to unlock the screen, but if closed for a minute then it locks. This may seem minor but I was quite happy with it. No more people watching while I type in the password (or accidentally typing the first few chars of password into the username box, or trying 10 times in a row because I forgot that I changed it the day before, etc).
Slashdot Mirror
Ha. Show up one hour before scheduled boarding time is the standard advice, but frequent travellers know to show up 90 minutes to two hours. Then add another 15-30 minutes to actually start taxing out to the runway, and thirty minutes after landing before you're at the curb looking for a taxi, bus, or rental car shuttle.
To get from SFO to San Francisco or San Jose is a long congested drive, the majority of people don't fly into there to go to Millbrae or Burlingame. Sure, fly from SFO to SAN but that takes a lot of time and expense too. Most airports in the US and elsewhere are not downtown. They usually don't connect to mass transit sites either. SFO does have BART connection but that's somewhat unusual (SAN you have to take bus to get to the light rail which seems dumb). And none of this helps someone who's commuting from Sacramento, Los Banos, Stockton, Bakersfield, etc (and people do commute from those places).
They are connecting the BART right now. The high speed rail was supposed to be for commuting not alternative to airport (though there would be less groping involved I think making it viable for those who the airport degredation). High speed rail could be viable to compete with airports too especially if you're not in one of the two cities. The high speed rail is more than just two points. I know the yuppies and hipsters hate everyone who doesn't live in the two cities, but California is bigger than those two dots on a map. We already have people commuting to the bay area cities and towns from the central valley.
Rail is very viable in Europe and Japan for instance and are commonly used. More luggage space, larger seats, don't need to arrive a couple hours before departure, stations are closer to where you want to eventually get to, and connect directly with other mass transit. America really is very far behind in mass transit overall. The cost is high to build but if we used that excuse we'd never have an interstate system, or airports.
Best way to reduce congestion or overcrowding of cities is to let people be able to live outside of the cities. You don't solve that with airports or local mass transit.
There's always money in the banana stand.
Or a bad common lisp in Haskell clothing?
"Dialup is Broadband".
Shouldn't it be enough to prove tha tthe nation-wide telco is doing a very horrible job? Or that the nation-wide telco can't provide internet as fast or cheap as in foreign countries?
They don't have to. They got elected in the first place. Now all the pretense of being a nice person can be shed. With all the wheelbarrows of money you get from corporations telling you how to vote you can easily put out all that bad press you want about opponents in upcoming re-election campaigns. Many politicians go quickly into being widely hated in their districts and yet somehow manage to keep staying in office. Othertimes their district is loved by the voters who only care about one issue, and dont really care that the politician is hurting different districts.
And yet what if there's no choice? So many parts of the world have great inexpensive internet, but in America we're told that it's too expensive to roll out service if you're unlucky enough to live where you do, or the costs are extremely high for rather mediocre service, and in order to keep those prices down to an almost affordable level they had to fire all the customer service people who know what they were doing. Seriously, if former republics of the Soviet Union can have faster and cheaper internet doesn't that say something bad about America? Why aren't the voters embarrassed by this?
The $X Party is the party of the Devil, not the party of God.
Trump has sort of given up on the Democrat vs Republican model. He's a none-of-the-above because he doesn't adopt the ideals or platforms of either party. He only seems Republican because that's the party he's currently groping. The republicans are merely holding their noses long enough to get their wish lists approved.
What they really mean is that they want a smaller government if run by their opposing party, but a larger government if their party is in charge. It's the only way to ensure that you prevent the people from doing things your party disapproves of and that you're allowed to keep doing what the other party disapproves of.
And yet citizens vote FOR municipal broadband because the professional corporations have a product that's overpriced and underserviced. These corporations know that they have the inferior product which is why they're lobbying legislatures to make competition illegal. Voters need to hate the internet providers more, since we have plenty of municipal electricity/gas providers because the voters really really hate the big power companies and the big power company bills and there's not a lot of legislative action trying to prevent that.
This won't change as long as the voters stop paying attention and instead instinctively vote only for those of the correct red vs blue teams. They don't know if the guy is a crook or not, but they'll vote for him because that's the lever they always pull. And besides these issues are extremely complicated for the average voter to think about, as compared to easily digested voter information of "my opponent is an evil liberal/conservative with his hand in your wallet".
Hypocrisy is the cornerstone of government.
This is a silly argument though. You may as well say that if a company doesn't have the same need to have high profits that they shouldn't compete as it's unfair to the fat cats. Generally the conservative stance for as long as I can remember was "government are inefficient, slow, wasteful, and out of touch with the citizens." But as soon as government does something efficient and desirable the message changes to "government shouldn't do that!" I think some of this is just bitter resentment that their theory that all government is evil has counter examples, which is why they often like to pick on the only government agency that can pay for itself (USPS).
Naw, the PC games are as expensive as console games or more so. PCs have flexibility. And if you've already got a PC then you can use it to play a game instead of having to buy a second games-dedicated computer. With consoles you have the same issues of exclusive games so that you may not get the games you want anyway (it's really stupid, a vendor that does this is intentionally ignoring large chunks of the market just for a tiny kickback from the console maker).
Basically a PC for me lets me play new and old games. Old meaning 10-20 years old. Consoles don't do this. A PC lets me use a keyboard and mouse that I use every day and am very efficient at using, whereas consoles have a relatively clumsy controller that cramps my hands, they're ergonomic nightmares. Though more and more games are becoming consolized you still find many games that allow more freedom than a typical console game - save anywhere, allow mods, raise or lower resolution, make backups of saves anywhere you want, flip over to the web browser to read mail in the middle, and so forth. PCs let me sit at my desk, whereas most consoles seem oriented to sitting on your couch, which may or may not be an advantage based upon the type of game or the type of player. PCs have many many independent game developers and you can make your own without begging permissions from anyone, whereas console games are in the walled garden all the time and a portion of the game's price goes directly to the console maker.
Games that may actually run better if you buy them separately from the store so that they're not encumbered with store features.
On my home computer I can not imagine any background task needing any CPU time at all. I don't care if they suffer, I'd be happy if they died off. Instead I find that things are running slow, I open up task manager and I can often see stuff running that I don't care about. Other times I will see the hard disk light going full speed but the moment I open up task manager everything goes quiet, like the offending process is trying to hide (not good enough though, I can tell it's yet another svchost.exe). Even after turning on the obvious culprints, like indexing files (useless) this continue happening now and then. Windows causes more disruption than viruses.
Only Microsoft Approved games. Just any old game wont' work unless they use the necessary API to inform Windows to play nice.
There are no hedgehogs indigenous in America.
Actually, I got a replacement mac with newer OS on it, and I did not restore all the settings I had over the years and wanted to start out fresh. First thing I noticed is that it doesn't lock me out instantly when the laptop is closed. Instead I can now walk from cubicle to meeting room and not have to unlock the screen, but if closed for a minute then it locks. This may seem minor but I was quite happy with it. No more people watching while I type in the password (or accidentally typing the first few chars of password into the username box, or trying 10 times in a row because I forgot that I changed it the day before, etc).
If your computer has a camera focused on your at work and you haven't put tape over it, then it's time to do so.
Well, there's always politics...
Depends if they go seeking them out, or if they're responding to reports from users of social sites, forums, etc.